Friday, 7 August 2015

Ralph Cinque - crucified on the Moorman "Cross"..UPDATED! Plus FURTHER UPDATE!

These days I can rarely be bothered to spend too much time following the comical antics of Ralph Cinque and the Oswald Innocence Campaign. To all intents and purposes the word is out and they are recognised in JFK circles as clowns and disinfo junkies. Since the resignation of former chairman Professor James Norwood, we now know that only a very small group of the "senior" members listed on the OIC's website play any active part - and that founder Ralph Cinque doesn't even have contact details for around a third of the senior members listed. To put it bluntly the Oswald Innocence Campaign is considered irrelevant by the vast majority of researchers - and, well...there are much more interesting things to do.

The ramblings of Ralph Cinque of course continue unabated. The normal pattern of things is that Ralph will cycle through every one of his long debunked fantasies as if they are in some way new or important, forcing people to debunk them all over again. This has been going on for years now - same tired old nonsense, wash, rinse, repeat. I refer to it as the circle of bullshit.

Just occasionally though, Ralph will come up with a new way to demonstrate his ignorance of the photographic record in the JFK assassination. Case in point, the Moorman photo...

Mary Moorman was a witness to the assassination who is best known for the famous polaroid photograph that she took very close to the moment of the fatal head shot.

Mary's photo was damaged by the FBI during the course of the investigation and as a consequence many of the versions we see now are partly obscured by an ugly thumbprint.

Mary Moorman's famous polaroid
LARGE Moorman Drumscan ( Credit: Josiah Thompson ) Craig Lamson Version
(Image from

Information on the various versions of the Moorman photo that we see today can be found here -

Now, enter the idiot...

Ralph Cinque, in his latest attempt to appear important, has taken to claiming that Moorman's photo was not in fact taken by her but by the "Babushka Lady" ( ), who at the time the photo was taken was situated further up Elm Street somewhere between 15-20 feet to Moorman's right and a little further away from the curb. To support his claim he produced a photo of some impressive looking equations scribbled on a piece of paper by a physics professor, no less, who was apparently staying at Ralph's starvation camp for a while. 

I'm not saying I bothered to look though them because the thing is, they're wrong. And there's zero possibility that they are even worth consideration. Why? Well, let's see.

It's never been seriously suggested before that the Moorman photo was taken by anybody but Mary Moorman - and as it turns out there's a very good reason for this. By chance, the photo contains a reference point that makes it possible to determine with certainty where it was taken from. It's a feature which the late Jack White referred to as "the cross". And it's formed by the apparent intersection of two angles - the corner of the pedestal on which Abraham Zapruder stood to take his famous film and the corner of a window in the pergola behind him. I've marked them on a crop of the photo in red and blue respectively -

Zoomed in portion of the famous Moorman photo showing the "cross" alignment

Two things here - firstly, it's been argued that the alignment doesn't form a true "cross" as defined by White. The exact alignment has been the subject of intense study mainly due to a proposition put forward by White and Jim Fetzer that Mary Moorman stepped into the street to take her photo. Because of this it has been tested - on more than one occasion. Links to information on the various studies are here -

A very detailed paper from Ralph's former mentor Jim Fetzer concerning the argument about the alignment and the so-called "gap" between the cross points can be found here -

It's well worth taking the time to read all the information in these links, but in the final analysis the argument over the "gap" comes down to this -

Image -

For the scope of this piece it really doesn't matter if Fetzer and White were correct in their proposal. What IS important to notice is that the adjustments required to reconcile the difference between the White "cross" and the "gap" alignment  are measured in inches. That is the full extent of any argument there has been over Moorman's position. Ralph's suggestion of the Babushka Lady position requires a lateral shift of approximately 17ft, which would utterly destroy the perceived alignment of the features in the photo and consequently rules out any chance that he's correct, as we'll see in a while.

When the percentage proportion taken up by two horizontal distances in the various photographs is compared, ALL of the results, including White's, fall within a percentage spread of 1%. In other words, there's very little room for error - and every study done on the subject has used this reference point within the photo. ( Refer to this link to see the table of results and an explanation of what was measured in the various photos - ). One example here showing the measurements taken in all the tests -

Image -

Notice how the "cross" alignment puts you in a position directly across the street from the Zapruder pedestal. It HAS to - it can't put you anywhere else. If you have visited the link above you'll have seen how this is true for all of the different tests conducted. On November 22nd 1963 that was Mary Moorman's position.

So,what we can say with absolute certainty is that any attempt to recreate the Moorman photo MUST show the "cross" alignment - or something VERY close to it. From the Babushka position this is impossible, as we'll see.

Secondly, it's important to realise that the "cross" is not an actual thing but an illusion created by the alignment of  objects in three dimensional space. That's the cool thing though - because if you're not in the correct position the "cross" doesn't exist. Therefore if you attempt to recreate the Moorman photo and you can't produce that alignment, you're in the wrong place. It can only be seen from one spot. Here's a little 3d video which demonstrates the concept ( not to scale ). As you watch it, remember that the objects themselves are not moving and that the spatial relationship between them does not change. All that changes is the point from which they are viewed -

It makes no difference if you go left or right, up or down - there's only one possible viewpoint from which the "cross" is visible.

And when you start looking, these types of alignment between objects can be found everywhere. I stepped outside when typing this piece and found a perfect one immediately -

demonstration of the "cross" alignment concept seen in the Moorman photo

You'll notice if you look for a few examples yourself how much the alignment of the objects is altered with very small changes in the viewing angle. In the next photo a substantial move to the   right of approximately 6ft completely destroyed the perceived arrangement -

So, to summarise ( and sorry to labour the point, but it's important ), the Moorman photo contains a built  - in alignment which allows us to show with certainty where it was taken from. EVERYBODY who has looked at the Moorman line of sight issue is in agreement on this. The only serious argument has been whether or not she stood in the street to take it.

Now, let's look at this on a map of Dealey Plaza. I've used the Don Roberdeau map and removed annotations which aren't relevant to the discussion - so the positions of the people we're talking about are exactly as shown on that map.

Graphic demonstrating that only Moorman's position gives the necessary line to produce the "cross" alignment seen in the Moorman photo

We can see that the blue line drawn from Moorman's position does exactly what we know is required to produce the "cross" seen in the photo - it hits the corner of the Zapruder pedestal and passes through the front and side entrances of the cupola shelter to intersect with the window beyond.

The red line drawn from the Babushka position however, just doesn't work. It hits the corner of the pedestal ok but finishes in the corner of the shelter and therefore cannot possibly produce the necessary alignment with the window.

It's case closed at this point - but there's more. When we add in the field of view from Mary's camera as seen in the photo, we can see that everything is exactly where it appears in the image. JFK is to the left of the frame, as required. Motorcycle officers Chaney and Hargis are in their correct positions. Officer Martin is mostly just outside of the frame, but this allows for his right arm to appear in the bottom of the photo exactly as we see. Zapruder and Sitzman are correctly placed on the pedestal. The people on the steps are visible in the location we see in the photo. In short - everything is correct.

graphic showing the Field of View in the Moorman photo

Since 1970 Beverly Oliver has claimed to be the Babushka Lady. Her claim is disputed, and that's not an argument I want to address here, but Beverley claims that she was filming with an 8mm movie camera. Of course this presents an obvious problem - we know that the Moorman photo is a polaroid image and Mary Moorman was one of only two people in Dealey Plaza with a polaroid camera that day ( the other was Jack Weaver ).

But, whoever she was and whatever camera she used, we have never seen any images captured by the Babushka Lady. If however we assume that she was attempting to centre the limo in the frame using a camera with a comparable field of view to Moorman's....the pergola and Zapruder's pedestal would not even have appeared in the shot.

Moreover, her picture would have contained Charles Brehm, Jean Hill, Officer Martin...and maybe a glimpse of Mary Moorman.

I can feel a small tinge of sympathy here for Ralph's physics professor, who wasn't given anywhere near the amount of information required to make a meaningful judgement on the issue. As it's obvious that Cinque was blissfully unaware of any of the prior work done on this subject I suppose that's hardly surprising. When I tried to press him on the issue in a recent Facebook exchange I got this response -

Ralph demonstrates that his knowledge of the case is zero...

This is a stunning display of stupidity even by Ralph's standards. A photo of a man pointing a camera into the distance doesn't of course establish a thing about the line of sight in the Moorman photograph, but it does confirm what many people have been saying for years - Ralph Cinque doesn't know a goddamned thing about the JFK case.

The Moorman photo - taken by Mary Moorman.

Ralph Cinque - still eternally clueless.

All is well...


Ralph has responded in a rambling and incoherent piece which shows that he either hasn't properly read my post or fails to understand the issues involved. Only a few points are worth addressing.

Proving he has no idea about the concepts under discussion, he rambles for a while about Mary Moorman not trying to capture Zapruder. Duh..really Ralph? Nobody suggested that she was and Zapruder himself isn't relevant to the argument. It's about the pedestal he stood on. You have a reading comprehension issue.

Further proof is provided by Ralph's feeble reference to the fact the the exact alignment of the cross has been disputed, as if it in some way helps him. You need to read what I wrote again Ralph, because I covered the dispute to make the point that in dismissing YOU it's irrelevant. 


Did I not spend a LONG time making the point that the arguments were about very small differences?

Ralph, as usual hoping that nobody bothers to check up on the links I provided and verify the information for themselves decides that his best course of action is to 
a) lie about the previous studies of the photo, and
b) put his head in the sand and refuse to confront the facts proving him wrong -

Once again, EVERY study recognises that this alignment is a crucial part of the Moorman photo. It doesn't complicate anything, IT IS CRUCIAL TO PINPOINTING MOORMAN'S POSITION. There is absolutely NO controversy about that. Read the links and try for once to understand the concepts involved Ralph. Or go ask Jim Fetzer to explain it to you...

I swear to God you couldn't make this stuff up.

Finally, this -

There is no battle Ralph. You just lost, but you're too stupid to understand why. If at any point you want to confront the irrefutable evidence proving you wrong, maybe we'll talk...

The "cross" alignment or something that is very close to it is an undeniable feature of the Moorman photo and crucial to pinpointing Moorman's position because it's an easily identifiable visual reference.  It cannot possibly exist in a photo taken from Babushka Lady's position.


Ralph admits he has no rebuttal

It's neither new or my thesis Ralph. But thanks for your admission that you are incapable of either understanding or arguing the point.

Game over - Thanks for Playing...


  1. Nice job referencing the difference between the Moorman and Babushka's LOS when looking at the corner of the pedestal

  2. One small error. There was another man who took a photo with a Polaroid camera. Jack A. Weaver captured the presidential limousine turning the corner from Main to Houston. He captures the TSBD in the background. He was positioned on the southeast corner of Main and Houston. He captured nearly the whole front side of the TSBD including the recessed entrance way and the 6th floor southeast window. Otherwise, great job.

    1. Thanks Joe, I was forgetting Weaver. Now corrected!

  3. Thank you Lance. Nice use of the 3D geometry.

  4. Lance,

    This was a detailed, well-researched, and well-written analysis of the Moorman photo. The piece read like a published article, as opposed to a blog post. The visual selections were impressive and helpful, especially the moving 3D image of the "cross." Any debate about who took the Moorman photo ends right there.

    Ralph Cinque should read with care and learn from your work, which is a nearly complete synthesis of the literature on the Moorman photo, with helpful links. Unfortunately, that would require an open mind and the strength of character of an individual who could admit that he was mistaken. Ralph Cinque has neither of those capabilities.

    Instead, Cinque's focus is on a pitiful attempt to grab the spotlight and get some "attention." But the attention he is receiving is the equivalent of the little boy sitting in the corner of the classroom and wearing a dunce cap.

    Well done!

    P.S. As an update: Ralph is attempting to recruit Russian professors into the Oswald Innocence Campaign. I recently sent out an open letter, including a draft of Ralph's cover letter to the professors. The letter of invitation makes no mention of the centrality of the phony proposition of Altgens6 photo alteration. This is yet another deceptive and untruthful attempt on the part of Cinque to compile a gallery of photos, in lieu of active participants in the OIC. At the moment, there have been no new recruits and no Russian professors who have taken the bait.

    1. I'd like to see the draft cover letter Ralph wanted sent out to Russian professors. There's something fishy about him trying to recruit Russians.
      Thanks for all your efforts James.

    2. The following is the verbatim text of the draft of the letter of invitation to Russian professors, as written by Ralph Cinque on 7/13/15. I received this because my e-mail address was included in one of the OIC group mailings:


      We are seeking one or more Russian professors who would like to become a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
      We are an international organization of JFK assassination researchers who assert that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, that he was framed for the murder, which was committed by the national security network of the United States government, which has been lying about it for 51 years.

      There is no cost or obligation to become a member. We just need a short bio of the professor and his or her image for our home page. And again, it could be more than one.

      We already have 4 professors, all Americans, but we would like to see a Russian professor join us because it happened at the height of the Cold War and because Lee Harvey Oswald lived in the Soviet Union.

      Would you kindly circulate this among appropriate professors at your university? You can respond to me at this email. I am Ralph Cinque, the administrator of the OIC. Thank you for your help.

      Here is our website: Oswald Innocence Campaign: Home”

  5. James, I appreciate your very kind comments. Many thanks!

  6. Thank you Lance. Nice use of the 3D geometry.

  7. In no less that four websites (Joseph Backes, Robin Unger, bpete, and Lance Uppercut), the case has been made persuasively for the Moorman photo's authenticity.

    The four sites clearly demonstrate a superior grasp of primary sources and the ability to analyze a photograph when compared with the substandard abilities of Ralph Cinque in those areas.

    In his latest response, Cinque talks about the concept of the "cross" as a thesis. In fact, it is much more than a thesis, as persuasively presented in Lance's superb article. The image of cross is derived from expertise in mathematics, physics, and photography--disciplines in which Ralph Cinque has no demonstrable acumen.

    Every new post that Cinque writes reveals his incompetence and lack of credibility when it comes to discussing the photographic evidence of the assassination of JFK.

  8. .... the "moorman-in-the-street" theory was logically + credibly totally debunked long ago.... WHY keep feeding any net-TROLL?!!?.... imho, the smartest + one + only way to deal with net-trolls is to, **IF a person has any SELF-DISCIPLINE**, totally ignore the troll = never respond + never mention = it makes zero sense to waste anyone's personal time by pouring gasoline on their fire.

    1. Don, thanks for dropping by! I have a certain amount of sympathy with this viewpoint, which is largely why I'm a very infrequent blogger.
      However, sometimes I think the disinfo is too big to ignore...

  9. Don,

    In principle, I agree with you that it is best to ignore the typical ravings of the disturbing subculture on the internet.

    But the case of Ralph Cinque far exceeds that of a generic internet troll. In my opinion, it is important to take a stand against a cyber bully.

    Cinque is not debating whether or not Moorman was standing on the grass or the pavement. Rather, he is claiming that Mary Moorman did not even take her Polaroid photo. Additionally, he has engaged in harassment of this 82-year-old eyewitness with intimidating exchanges, seeking to exact an admission from her that she did not take the photo.

    This is wrong.

    I support all those who have taken the time to rebut Cinque's absurd theory and have taken a stand against Ralph Cinque in the objectives of decency and truth on the internet. The article published above accomplishes those goals.

  10. A great post, Lance !! Now why is Joe's blog "off the air" ?

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Because Raff went crying to Blogger that someone was harassing him whenever anyone stands up to him and gives him a dose of his own medicine. So, all the anti-Cinque blogs are now free of the word "blogspot" in their URL. We shouldn't have to worry about these new blogs being taken down. See -

  11. Lance,

    As you know, I wrote a positive appraisal of your findings, which you expressed eloquently in your article above. As a result of my endorsement, Ralph Cinque issued the following personal threat against me on August 10, 2015. I know of no other way of interpreting Ralph's words other than as an open-ended personal threat, simply for the act of disagreeing with his views about a photograph:

    "Professor Norwood, I know you are a professor of Humanities and not Physics. But, I would expect any kind of professor to have enough intelligence to grasp the fundamental principles of optics. It is optically impossible for a photographer who is standing to the left of a passing motorcyclist whose hands are evenly placed on the symmetrical handlebar grips of the motorcycle to capture only his right arm and not his left when his arms are lined up. You are a professor, James, and you should know better. And now you are giving me no choice but to take action because this is behavior, on your part, that is unbecoming of a professor."

    1. James, I had seen this - along with Cinque's pathetic attempt to justify it. There should be no further doubt in anyone's mind that Ralph Cinque is an out-of- control egomaniac...

  12. Un-friggin'-believeable. No, wait…… it's Ralph, i do believe. Sigh.

  13. Nice updates, Lance. Ralph's response? He's going to re-create the Moorman Polaroid Shot ! Yeeeeehah !!! Raff's on his high horse again, spreading manure everywhere !!

  14. Nice layout Lance

    It's all shiny and new

  15. Nice, huh, Robin ? Well done, Lance !

  16. In his blog post of August 18, Ralph Cinque draws the analogy between Oswald in the Doorway and "Christ on the Cross."

    Apparently, Lance's article has had a deep, religious impact on Ralph.

    Unfortunately, Ralph has missed the main point of what Lance refers to as "the alignment of objects in three dimensional space." This sense of the "cross," as applied to the architecture of Dealey Plaza, is obviously beyond the comprehension of Ralph Cinque.

    1. We know only too well that many things are beyond the comprehension of Ralph Cinque, but I'm sure that the simple concepts outlined in this piece are well understood by his "physics professor - who should at this point just correct his error and withdraw, instead of browbeating others with legal threats.

  17. Ralph is planning his trip to Dallas to recreate the Moorman photo. In his blog post of August 26, he describes the method he will use to locate the spot where Mary Ann Moorman was standing when she snapped her photo:

    "I am going to have a copy of the Moorman photo with me so that I can look at it and try to match the landmarks and parameters- as best I can. And as long as they're close, I'll be in the money. And I'll put them side by side afterwards, so that we can see how close I got."

    As an exact approach to recreating the Moorman photo, Ralph's approach is not only unscientific, but it is laughable.

  18. In an e-mail sent to me recently by Ralph Cinque, he described his forthcoming trip to Dallas to replicate the Moorman photo:

    "There will be a motorcycle rider there to fill in for BJ Martin. I already know how it's going to come out; it's going to show the impossibility of what we see of BJ Martin in the Moorman photo. Larry has been working feverishly on his Brunson paper, which has grown to a small book. Time marches on, James, and so do we."

    It is contrary to the scientific method to have formulated conclusions before conducting an experiment. But that is precisely how Ralph Cinque is approaching his project, when he states, "I already know how it's going to come out."