Discussion:
Cinque journeys to Sweden to do battle
(too old to reply)
Ralph Cinque
2015-10-13 00:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/and-now-we-move-on-to-glenn-viklund.html
Mark Florio
2015-10-13 19:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/and-now-we-move-on-to-glenn-viklund.html
John must have the patience of 10 people. Mark
Mark OBLAZNEY
2015-10-14 17:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/and-now-we-move-on-to-glenn-viklund.html
John must have the patience of 10 people. Mark
Cinque journeys to Oz to do Lovelady
Anthony Marsh
2015-10-15 03:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/and-now-we-move-on-to-glenn-viklund.html
John must have the patience of 10 people. Mark
John who? Oh, you mean .John?
Maybe he has 10 minions.
Glenn V.
2015-10-14 01:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/and-now-we-move-on-to-glenn-viklund.html
To Sweden?

I seems you should clean up on your own backyard first, Cinque. Today
Professor Norwood posted this on my blog (In response to my OIC article):

Dear Mr. Viklund,

After I resigned my position as Chairman of the Oswald Innocence Campaign,
Ralph Cinque has instructed me never to contact him again via e-mail. At
the same time, he continues to post slanderous remarks about me on his
blog. Specifically, he has stated that as a university professor, I am
unfit to be teaching young people because I do not believe that the
Altgens photo has been altered. Additionally, he has threatened to take
legal action against me because I disagree with him about his photo
interpretations.

In his response to your post above, Cinque seems incredulous that there
were seven witnesses who testified to the Warren Commission that it was
Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway. These witnesses were either
standing in the doorway themselves at the time of the shooting or observed
Lovelady in that vicinity minutes before the arrival of the motorcade. One
of the witnesses identified Lovelady from the Altgens photo. All of the
seven witnesses worked alongside Oswald at the Texas School Book
Depository. Consequently, they are better judges than Ralph Cinque of
identifying the man in the photo.

It is readily apparent that Ralph Cinque has not taken the time to study
the published testimony of these eyewitnesses, who include the following:

Buell Wesley Frazier
Sarah Stanton
Billy Lovelady
Danny Arce
Harold Norman
James Jarman, Jr.
Mrs. Donald Baker

It is highly unlikely that all seven witnesses who identified Lovelady
were lying or mistaken in their Warren Commission testimony. Not a single
one of them ever recanted his/her testimony. Nor has any other eyewitness
ever come forward to identify Oswald as the man in the doorway.

The eyewitness testimony is only one of numerous pieces of evidence that
validates the reality of Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway. The
evidence is so overwhelming that Ralph Cinque must resort to arguing that
the Altgens photo was altered. But we know that the Altgens photo was one
of the very first to be sent out on the newswires shortly after 1:00pm. In
my research, I interviewed the staff at one newspaper who had completed
the front page layout by 1:45pm on November 22. I spoke at length on the
phone with the editor who handled the Altgens photo when it arrived
shortly after 1:00pm. Quite simply, there was no time possible for the
subtle alterations suggested by Cinque.

If Ralph Cinque is genuinely interested in lobbying for the innocence of
Lee Harvey Oswald, then he needs to take a different approach than the
untenable positon of the alteration of the Altgens photo. His constant
verbal jousting on the internet has only served in sowing discord among
those who are truly devoted to studies of the JFK assassination. Ralph
Cinque is an internet charlatan, and his conduct is deeply troubling to
anyone seeking civilized discourse.
Mark Florio
2015-10-14 18:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/and-now-we-move-on-to-glenn-viklund.html
To Sweden?
I seems you should clean up on your own backyard first, Cinque. Today
Dear Mr. Viklund,
After I resigned my position as Chairman of the Oswald Innocence Campaign,
Ralph Cinque has instructed me never to contact him again via e-mail. At
the same time, he continues to post slanderous remarks about me on his
blog. Specifically, he has stated that as a university professor, I am
unfit to be teaching young people because I do not believe that the
Altgens photo has been altered. Additionally, he has threatened to take
legal action against me because I disagree with him about his photo
interpretations.
In his response to your post above, Cinque seems incredulous that there
were seven witnesses who testified to the Warren Commission that it was
Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway. These witnesses were either
standing in the doorway themselves at the time of the shooting or observed
Lovelady in that vicinity minutes before the arrival of the motorcade. One
of the witnesses identified Lovelady from the Altgens photo. All of the
seven witnesses worked alongside Oswald at the Texas School Book
Depository. Consequently, they are better judges than Ralph Cinque of
identifying the man in the photo.
It is readily apparent that Ralph Cinque has not taken the time to study
Buell Wesley Frazier
Sarah Stanton
Billy Lovelady
Danny Arce
Harold Norman
James Jarman, Jr.
Mrs. Donald Baker
It is highly unlikely that all seven witnesses who identified Lovelady
were lying or mistaken in their Warren Commission testimony. Not a single
one of them ever recanted his/her testimony. Nor has any other eyewitness
ever come forward to identify Oswald as the man in the doorway.
The eyewitness testimony is only one of numerous pieces of evidence that
validates the reality of Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway. The
evidence is so overwhelming that Ralph Cinque must resort to arguing that
the Altgens photo was altered. But we know that the Altgens photo was one
of the very first to be sent out on the newswires shortly after 1:00pm. In
my research, I interviewed the staff at one newspaper who had completed
the front page layout by 1:45pm on November 22. I spoke at length on the
phone with the editor who handled the Altgens photo when it arrived
shortly after 1:00pm. Quite simply, there was no time possible for the
subtle alterations suggested by Cinque.
If Ralph Cinque is genuinely interested in lobbying for the innocence of
Lee Harvey Oswald, then he needs to take a different approach than the
untenable positon of the alteration of the Altgens photo. His constant
verbal jousting on the internet has only served in sowing discord among
those who are truly devoted to studies of the JFK assassination. Ralph
Cinque is an internet charlatan, and his conduct is deeply troubling to
anyone seeking civilized discourse.
Thanks for posting that. Mark
Alex Foyle
2015-10-16 00:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Glenn V.
I seems you should clean up on your own backyard first, Cinque. Today
Thanks for posting that. Mark
Indeed thanks, Glenn, good stuff. Was a hoot to see how Cinque managed to
get himself banned from the Fair Play for JFK FB group within 35 hours of
joining, even though admin Jim Hess was very friendly with him. Apparently
the incorrigible Ralph then sent Jim another of his abusive personal
messages and that got him the boot, good riddance.
Glenn V.
2015-10-16 20:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Glenn V.
I seems you should clean up on your own backyard first, Cinque. Today
Thanks for posting that. Mark
Indeed thanks, Glenn, good stuff. Was a hoot to see how Cinque managed to
get himself banned from the Fair Play for JFK FB group within 35 hours of
joining, even though admin Jim Hess was very friendly with him. Apparently
the incorrigible Ralph then sent Jim another of his abusive personal
messages and that got him the boot, good riddance.
I noticed that, Alex.

Cinque's behavior over these past few years in a nutshell. It's laughable,
really.
Ralph Cinque
2015-10-14 19:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Exactly 3 out of 7 of those were valid. The rest? Well, they were what I
call:

Little
Itsy-bitsy
Elective
Subterfuges

But, read down vertically, if you would. It's all laid out here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/what-is-wrong-with-you-james-norwood.html
Glenn V.
2015-10-15 18:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Exactly 3 out of 7 of those were valid. The rest? Well, they were what I
Little
Itsy-bitsy
Elective
Subterfuges
Doesn't matter if there was to be 3, 5, 7 or 9 of those witnesses.

Doesn't matter that the Altgens6 was handled and wired within minutes, not
allowing for ANY Cinque'esque fantasies.

Doesn't matter that Oswald himself said he was inside - and not during
that entire weekend to the world press SAID NOTHING ABOUT BEING OUTSIDE -
his obvious defence if your fantasies were to be true.

You simply neglect ALL OF IT. And comes up with no evidence to support
your fantasies. None.

That's exactly why you should be collecting stamps, Cinque. Instead of
repeatedly making a fool of yourself publicly.
BT George
2015-10-16 00:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Exactly 3 out of 7 of those were valid. The rest? Well, they were what I
Little
Itsy-bitsy
Elective
Subterfuges
Doesn't matter if there was to be 3, 5, 7 or 9 of those witnesses.
Doesn't matter that the Altgens6 was handled and wired within minutes, not
allowing for ANY Cinque'esque fantasies.
Doesn't matter that Oswald himself said he was inside - and not during
that entire weekend to the world press SAID NOTHING ABOUT BEING OUTSIDE -
his obvious defence if your fantasies were to be true.
You simply neglect ALL OF IT. And comes up with no evidence to support
your fantasies. None.
That's exactly why you should be collecting stamps, Cinque. Instead of
repeatedly making a fool of yourself publicly.
Glenn,

Alas, we would all be better off to just let him alone so he can rave that
men may know him mad. I usually do...but sometimes I lose control of
myself and find myself responding. I suppose that's the secret to Ralph's
self-perpetuation. :-(
Glenn V.
2015-10-16 20:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Foyle
Glenn,
Alas, we would all be better off to just let him alone so he can rave that
men may know him mad. I usually do...but sometimes I lose control of
myself and find myself responding. I suppose that's the secret to Ralph's
self-perpetuation. :-(
Agreed, Brock, sure. I can sign on to all of that myself, of course.

I wrote an article back in June about the OIC and suddenly things simply
took off. Cinque is merely a distraction of the same caliber as JVB but
sometimes it is indeed difficult to stay away from his ridiculous
shenanigans.
Ralph Cinque
2015-10-16 17:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Viklund!!! How many times do I have to tell you:

Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front

That's what Oswald told police, and that's what you are neglecting.

And you're saying it doesn't matter if 7 witnesses were claimed and then
named, but it turns out only 3 were valid? Facts don't matter to you?
Truth doesn't matter to you?

And the Altgens6 photo was NOT wired within minutes, and you saying that
it was doesn't make it so. The Altgens6 photo was delayed. It was first
shown on television by Walter Cronkite at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30
Central. If they had it since 1:00, why didn't they show it earlier that
afternoon? CBS had programming going all afternoon, with Cronkite part of
the time, and others in-between. Why didn't they show the Altgens photo
before 6:30 Eastern if they had it since 2:00 Eastern? They were showing
other images.
Jason Burke
2015-10-16 23:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
That's what Oswald told police, and that's what you are neglecting.
And you're saying it doesn't matter if 7 witnesses were claimed and then
named, but it turns out only 3 were valid? Facts don't matter to you?
Truth doesn't matter to you?
And the Altgens6 photo was NOT wired within minutes, and you saying that
it was doesn't make it so. The Altgens6 photo was delayed. It was first
shown on television by Walter Cronkite at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30
Central. If they had it since 1:00, why didn't they show it earlier that
afternoon? CBS had programming going all afternoon, with Cronkite part of
the time, and others in-between. Why didn't they show the Altgens photo
before 6:30 Eastern if they had it since 2:00 Eastern? They were showing
other images.
Just 'cause it's your favorite image, Ralph, doesn't mean it's everyone
else's. Ever think that maybe the TV folks though other pictures were
more useful *at the time*.

Here's an idea! Why don't you ask someone in charge why they didn't show
it at 1:07:30? Assuming you can find someone. And that they won't brush
you off like so many others have.
Anthony Marsh
2015-10-17 20:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Out with Bill Shelley in front
That's what Oswald told police, and that's what you are neglecting.
No, he didn't. Fritz lied.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And you're saying it doesn't matter if 7 witnesses were claimed and then
named, but it turns out only 3 were valid? Facts don't matter to you?
Truth doesn't matter to you?
And the Altgens6 photo was NOT wired within minutes, and you saying that
it was doesn't make it so. The Altgens6 photo was delayed. It was first
shown on television by Walter Cronkite at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30
Central. If they had it since 1:00, why didn't they show it earlier that
afternoon? CBS had programming going all afternoon, with Cronkite part of
the time, and others in-between. Why didn't they show the Altgens photo
before 6:30 Eastern if they had it since 2:00 Eastern? They were showing
other images.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2015-10-16 17:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Exactly 3 out of 7 of those were valid. The rest? Well, they were what I
Little
Itsy-bitsy
Elective
Subterfuges
Doesn't matter if there was to be 3, 5, 7 or 9 of those witnesses.
Doesn't matter that the Altgens6 was handled and wired within minutes, not
allowing for ANY Cinque'esque fantasies.
Doesn't matter that Oswald himself said he was inside - and not during
that entire weekend to the world press SAID NOTHING ABOUT BEING OUTSIDE -
his obvious defence if your fantasies were to be true.
You simply neglect ALL OF IT. And comes up with no evidence to support
your fantasies. None.
That's exactly why you should be collecting stamps, Cinque. Instead of
repeatedly making a fool of yourself publicly.
Have you ever been in 'Plato's Cave', Ralph ? I'm sure he'd like you.
He likes getting to the bottom of things, too, uh........
bigdog
2015-10-15 03:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/and-now-we-move-on-to-glenn-viklund.html
I'll bet there are as many people in Sweden as there are in the US who
give a shit about the OIC.
Ralph Cinque
2015-10-15 18:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The OIC has 2 members from Sweden.
Jason Burke
2015-10-16 00:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
The OIC has 2 members from Sweden.
Golly, Ralph. Do they have email addresses?

I hope your tomatoes are safe while you're gone.
Bud
2015-10-16 20:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
The OIC has 2 members from Sweden.
An international conspiracy to subvert the truth about Oswald`s guilt.
bigdog
2015-10-16 20:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
The OIC has 2 members from Sweden.
I stand corrected. There are more people in Sweden than in the US who give
a shit about the OIC.
Glenn V.
2015-10-17 01:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ralph Cinque
The OIC has 2 members from Sweden.
I stand corrected. There are more people in Sweden than in the US who give
a shit about the OIC.
That's why I wrote the OIC article.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2015-10-16 00:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/and-now-we-move-on-to-glenn-viklund.html
I'll bet there are as many people in Sweden as there are in the US who
give a shit about the OIC.
A Wilderness of Asshats. Let us proceed with institutionalizing this
creature. Mother may I ?
Glenn V.
2015-10-16 00:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Den tisdag 13 oktober 2015 kl. 02:57:30 UTC+2 skrev Ralph Cinque:


This is Ralph Cinque's real answer to Professor Norwood about the posting
he did in my blog:

"Dear Mr. Viklund,

Dear Mr. Viklund?

That's how you addressed your letter to him, James?

You do realize that he is a rabid lone-nutter. You realize that for a long
time, he has been working the JFK cover-up.

So, let me get this straight: I know you have abandoned Oswald in the
doorway- and don't pretend for one second that you didn't formerly endorse
it because we both know that you did. You wrote the article about Weisberg
and Mrs. Lovelady. Remember? You also wrote a FAQ article. Remember?

But, the question is: have you also abandoned Oswald innocence? Because if
you still believe in Oswald innocence, you have no business whatsoever
addressing a guy like Viklund as "dear" or as "Mister".

Am I saying that, as an Oswald defender, you should be inherently
antagonistic to all Oswald accusers? YOU GOD-DAMN RIGHT THAT'S WHAT I AM
SAYING!!!! This is a fucking war, Man! You need to decide which side
you're on, and you don't make nice with the fucking enemy.

But, as far as I'm concerned, James: you have completely changed sides.
Your only motivation now is opposing me. You'd fucking call the devil
himself a "dear", so long as he was fighting me. What a disgrace. What a
sellout. What a complete abandonment of principle."

You seriousy and urgently need to get some professional help, Cinque.
Ralph Cinque
2015-10-16 20:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well, this is a first. Now John McAdams is allowing the "f" word on the
forum?

Tell me, why do you moderate, John? What are you trying to filter out?

But, I have published another letter to Jim Norwood. There are no curse
words in it, but the attitude is the same.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/its-weird.html
Glenn V.
2015-10-17 01:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Well, this is a first. Now John McAdams is allowing the "f" word on the
forum?
Tell me, why do you moderate, John? What are you trying to filter out?
Ah, you'd rather copy cat Marsh? A few things you do learn, apparently.

Cinque, I'm going to disregard what you say about me elsewhere, which is
the usual juvenile BS you always resort to. Believe me, I've seen a lot
about this in these last few days.

Please answer a serious question, Cinque:

"When President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the front steps of the
TSBD with William Shelley, Otis Williams, Mrs Sanders AND BILLY
LOVELADY....I did not see Lee Oswald AT THAT TIME or any other time that
day".

Since you didn't understand what I wrote yesterday about your neglect of
facts, I will make this one crystal clear:

Present the evidence that this witness statement is incorrect. Present
evidence that she lied, was wrong or otherwise didn't give a correct
description of this situation. Present anything that contradicts her
statement - and provide the evidence to back this up. I'm not intrested in
your opinions, mind you.

You talk about me having nothing, you scream about your arguments. Let's
see, then, if you are able to put up here, Cinque? This one witness. Once
we're done, if you have anything of value, anything worthwhile, we'll move
on to the next one, OK?

I'll be waiting.
Ralph Cinque
2015-10-17 20:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is wrong with you, Viklund?

How dare you present that to me without even saying who it was?

I know who it was. It was Sarah Stanton. But, why didn't you say so? And
surely there are others here who don't know who it was, so why didn't you
tell them? How dare you not? What the pluck is wrong with you?

And not only did you not say who said it, but you didn't say when she said
it. She didn't make that statement on November 22, 1963 or close thereto.
She made it on March 18, 1964, when the FBI came a'callin' again,
demanding new statements from all the TSBD employees.

Now, don't you think by that time, the word was out that nobody saw Oswald
in the doorway? And don't you think they put the FEAR OF GOD in these
people that they didn't see Oswald in the doorway?

Let's consider the testimony of Carolyn Arnold and how it changed over
time between November and March.

On November 26, she said that she saw Oswald between the double-doors,
which means: at the doorway. Unfortunately, they didn't let her make a
statement in her own words. Instead, an FBI agent wrote down what he told
her. And he said that she said that it was at 12:15.

Well, even if it was 12:15, would it really have left enough time for
Oswald to go upstairs, retrieve the rifle, assemble it, build the Sniper's
Nest? But wait. Bonnie Ray Williams was up there on the 6th floor eating
his fried chicken and drinking his Dr. Pepper until close to the
assassination, so Oswald was out of luck anyway.

But, I have good reason to think that it was the FBI agent who pushed the
time back to 12:15 because in March 1964, Carolyn Arnold said that she
didn't see Oswald at all and that she didn't get outside until 12:25.

And they let the 12:25 ride since she didn't mention seeing Oswald, but
why didn't they realize that someone like me would go back and read her
first statement and then her second statement, and then realize that she
saw Oswald between the double doors at 12:25?

Why, in March 1964 didn't Carolyn Arnold repeat what she had said about
seeing Oswald between the double doors? It's because: word spread very
quickly that nobody saw Oswald outside at or near the time of the
assassination, and you had better not say it if you value your life.

What exactly Sarah Stanton saw and was aware of at the time of the
shooting, I don't claim to know. Oswald was probably the last to get out
there, and I know damn well that he was the very first to leave the
doorway. He left early. He had to be because how else could he beat Baker
to the lunch room without being out of breath? Baker reached the steps
just 10 seconds after the last shot- and he was running. That means that
Oswald had to have a hefty head-start.

So, either Sarah Stanton didn't see Oswald because all the action was to
the front and she had no reason to turn around during the short time that
he was there in the doorway

OR

Sarah Stanton did what Carolyn Arnold did and told them what they wanted
to hear.

But either way, it doesn't matter one bit because we have photographic
proof that Oswald was in the doorway, and nobody's lip-flapping can
possibly change it. It's childish to think otherwise. WE HAVE A PHOTO OF
HIM IN THE DOORWAY.


Viklund, if you want to deny plain, stark reality, go ahead. But, what you
can't do is get away with it- not on my watch.
Glenn V.
2015-10-18 00:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
What is wrong with you, Viklund?
How dare you present that to me without even saying who it was?
I know who it was. It was Sarah Stanton. But, why didn't you say so? And
surely there are others here who don't know who it was, so why didn't you
tell them? How dare you not? What the pluck is wrong with you?
And not only did you not say who said it, but you didn't say when she said
it. She didn't make that statement on November 22, 1963 or close thereto.
She made it on March 18, 1964, when the FBI came a'callin' again,
demanding new statements from all the TSBD employees.
Now, don't you think by that time, the word was out that nobody saw Oswald
in the doorway? And don't you think they put the FEAR OF GOD in these
people that they didn't see Oswald in the doorway?
Let's consider the testimony of Carolyn Arnold and how it changed over
time between November and March.
On November 26, she said that she saw Oswald between the double-doors,
which means: at the doorway. Unfortunately, they didn't let her make a
statement in her own words. Instead, an FBI agent wrote down what he told
her. And he said that she said that it was at 12:15.
Well, even if it was 12:15, would it really have left enough time for
Oswald to go upstairs, retrieve the rifle, assemble it, build the Sniper's
Nest? But wait. Bonnie Ray Williams was up there on the 6th floor eating
his fried chicken and drinking his Dr. Pepper until close to the
assassination, so Oswald was out of luck anyway.
But, I have good reason to think that it was the FBI agent who pushed the
time back to 12:15 because in March 1964, Carolyn Arnold said that she
didn't see Oswald at all and that she didn't get outside until 12:25.
And they let the 12:25 ride since she didn't mention seeing Oswald, but
why didn't they realize that someone like me would go back and read her
first statement and then her second statement, and then realize that she
saw Oswald between the double doors at 12:25?
Why, in March 1964 didn't Carolyn Arnold repeat what she had said about
seeing Oswald between the double doors? It's because: word spread very
quickly that nobody saw Oswald outside at or near the time of the
assassination, and you had better not say it if you value your life.
What exactly Sarah Stanton saw and was aware of at the time of the
shooting, I don't claim to know. Oswald was probably the last to get out
there, and I know damn well that he was the very first to leave the
doorway. He left early. He had to be because how else could he beat Baker
to the lunch room without being out of breath? Baker reached the steps
just 10 seconds after the last shot- and he was running. That means that
Oswald had to have a hefty head-start.
So, either Sarah Stanton didn't see Oswald because all the action was to
the front and she had no reason to turn around during the short time that
he was there in the doorway
OR
Sarah Stanton did what Carolyn Arnold did and told them what they wanted
to hear.
But either way, it doesn't matter one bit because we have photographic
proof that Oswald was in the doorway, and nobody's lip-flapping can
possibly change it. It's childish to think otherwise. WE HAVE A PHOTO OF
HIM IN THE DOORWAY.
Viklund, if you want to deny plain, stark reality, go ahead. But, what you
can't do is get away with it- not on my watch.
Cinque, do you not understand plain English?

I'm said I'm not interested in your opinions. After which your provide
just that. But not only that, opinions so incompetent, biased and with no
connection to reality, that it is laughable.

What Carolyn Arnold did or did not say or do has got zero to do with the
sworn witness statement of Sarah Stanton. Your futile and ridiculous
attempts to smear and slander Stanton as a liar are so outlandish and
simply crazy that they really deserve no comment. Moreover, her statement
and her credibilty is also reinforced by witness statements from several
others, which is precisely what makes your fantasies - just that,
fantasies.

Your hobbyist interpretations of the Altgens 6 are just as bad, the photo
was handled and wired within minutes of the assassination - but what do
you care? This doesn't fit with your fantasies - so "let's simply ignore
all these basic facts".

No one, not a single witness, civilians with absolutely no reason to
involve themselves in a web of lies when their President has been
murdered, claimed to have seen Oswald in the Doorway. Period.

These are simple facts no matter how much you deny this, Cinque. Do
yourself a favor and attend that stamp collection of yours now.

Don't bother about more opinions, quit posting until you have the evidence
necessary.
Ralph Cinque
2015-10-18 22:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"No one, not a single witness, civilians with absolutely no reason to
involve themselves in a web of lies when their President has been
murdered, claimed to have seen Oswald in the Doorway. Period."

How do we know? That was something that if someone said it, they were
quickly slapped down. It wasn't OK to say it. And if someone did say it,
it wasn't going to be recorded. We are lucky as hell that the statement of
Carolyn Arnold made it into the record, and I am referring to her saying
that she saw Oswald between the double doors after she had gone outside to
watch the motorcade. And I have no doubt that they strongly regret ever
allowing that statement into the record.

So, with word spreading fast that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting,
therefore nobody saw him in the doorway, and nobody had better say he was
in the doorway, and if that wasn't enough, if somebody did say it, they
weren't going to write it down and add it to the record anyway.


So, to you what is a crucial point is really nothing but the citing of how
things are at a show trial.
Jason Burke
2015-10-18 23:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
"No one, not a single witness, civilians with absolutely no reason to
involve themselves in a web of lies when their President has been
murdered, claimed to have seen Oswald in the Doorway. Period."
How do we know? That was something that if someone said it, they were
You're really good at fantasy, Ralph!
Post by Ralph Cinque
quickly slapped down. It wasn't OK to say it. And if someone did say it,
it wasn't going to be recorded. We are lucky as hell that the statement of
Carolyn Arnold made it into the record, and I am referring to her saying
that she saw Oswald between the double doors after she had gone outside to
watch the motorcade. And I have no doubt that they strongly regret ever
allowing that statement into the record.
So, with word spreading fast that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting,
therefore nobody saw him in the doorway, and nobody had better say he was
in the doorway, and if that wasn't enough, if somebody did say it, they
weren't going to write it down and add it to the record anyway.
So, to you what is a crucial point is really nothing but the citing of how
things are at a show trial.
Glenn V.
2015-10-19 00:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
"No one, not a single witness, civilians with absolutely no reason to
involve themselves in a web of lies when their President has been
murdered, claimed to have seen Oswald in the Doorway. Period."
How do we know?
We know because these are their sworn witness statements.

Do your homework and learn what means - before you continue to cluelessly
slander these people.
Ralph Cinque
2015-10-19 18:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Buell Frazier, a witness, has been going through official channels trying
to establish that he never said Oswald carried a bag that was big enough
to contain a rifle, and he wants it clearly established in the record.

He's willing to make a sworn statement, Viklund. But, they're not
interested. They are not helping him. You might even say they are
slandering him.

And one of these days, Frazier is going to wake up and admit to himself
and the world that that wasn't Lovelady standing in the doorway but
Oswald.

Then, what are you going to do, Viklund?
Jason Burke
2015-10-20 03:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Buell Frazier, a witness, has been going through official channels trying
to establish that he never said Oswald carried a bag that was big enough
to contain a rifle, and he wants it clearly established in the record.
He's willing to make a sworn statement, Viklund. But, they're not
interested. They are not helping him. You might even say they are
slandering him.
And one of these days, Frazier is going to wake up and admit to himself
and the world that that wasn't Lovelady standing in the doorway but
Oswald.
Then, what are you going to do, Viklund?
What post are you responding to, Ralph?
Anthony Marsh
2015-10-21 00:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
Buell Frazier, a witness, has been going through official channels trying
to establish that he never said Oswald carried a bag that was big enough
to contain a rifle, and he wants it clearly established in the record.
He's willing to make a sworn statement, Viklund. But, they're not
interested. They are not helping him. You might even say they are
slandering him.
And one of these days, Frazier is going to wake up and admit to himself
and the world that that wasn't Lovelady standing in the doorway but
Oswald.
Then, what are you going to do, Viklund?
What post are you responding to, Ralph?
What are you babbling about? Does anyone see why quoting is important?
BTW, some morons learned about propagation recently, but most still do not
understand retention. Some newsgroup providers brag about their retention
rates.

Ever hear about Deja News?
Anthony Marsh
2015-10-21 16:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Buell Frazier, a witness, has been going through official channels trying
to establish that he never said Oswald carried a bag that was big enough
to contain a rifle, and he wants it clearly established in the record.
He's willing to make a sworn statement, Viklund. But, they're not
interested. They are not helping him. You might even say they are
slandering him.
And one of these days, Frazier is going to wake up and admit to himself
and the world that that wasn't Lovelady standing in the doorway but
Oswald.
Then, what are you going to do, Viklund?
Well, it could be a very small rifle.
You know, one of those curtain rod rifles the CIA made.
Did you ever see the Mossad bicycle pump gun in the movie Munich?
I used to carry around my AR-7 in a sub sandwich bag and if anyone asked
me what it was I just said curtain rods.
The plastic stock is 16 inches long. It barely qualified as a rifle
rather than a carbine. Similar to the one James Bond had in From Russia
With Love.
Glenn V.
2017-06-15 17:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Buell Frazier, a witness, has been going through official channels trying
to establish that he never said Oswald carried a bag that was big enough
to contain a rifle, and he wants it clearly established in the record.
He's willing to make a sworn statement, Viklund. But, they're not
interested. They are not helping him. You might even say they are
slandering him.
And one of these days, Frazier is going to wake up and admit to himself
and the world that that wasn't Lovelady standing in the doorway but
Oswald.
Then, what are you going to do, Viklund?
Well, Ralph, let's start with this, from you former Chairman, I apologize
for the delay, it is all on my blog:

"James Norwood13 oktober 2015 20:28
Dear Mr. Viklund,

After I resigned my position as Chairman of the Oswald Innocence Campaign,
Ralph Cinque has instructed me never to contact him again via e-mail. At
the same time, he continues to post slanderous remarks about me on his
blog. Specifically, he has stated that as a university professor, I am
unfit to be teaching young people because I do not believe that the
Altgens photo has been altered. Additionally, he has threatened to take
legal action against me because I disagree with him about his photo
interpretations.

In his response to your post above, Cinque seems incredulous that there
were seven witnesses who testified to the Warren Commission that it was
Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway. These witnesses were either
standing in the doorway themselves at the time of the shooting or observed
Lovelady in that vicinity minutes before the arrival of the motorcade. One
of the witnesses identified Lovelady from the Altgens photo. All of the
seven witnesses worked alongside Oswald at the Texas School Book
Depository. Consequently, they are better judges than Ralph Cinque of
identifying the man in the photo.

It is readily apparent that Ralph Cinque has not taken the time to study
the published testimony of these eyewitnesses, who include the following:

Buell Wesley Frazier
Sarah Stanton
Billy Lovelady
Danny Arce
Harold Norman
James Jarman, Jr.
Mrs. Donald Baker

It is highly unlikely that all seven witnesses who identified Lovelady
were lying or mistaken in their Warren Commission testimony. Not a single
one of them ever recanted his/her testimony. Nor has any other eyewitness
ever come forward to identify Oswald as the man in the doorway.

The eyewitness testimony is only one of numerous pieces of evidence that
validates the reality of Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway. The
evidence is so overwhelming that Ralph Cinque must resort to arguing that
the Altgens photo was altered. But we know that the Altgens photo was one
of the very first to be sent out on the newswires shortly after 1:00pm. In
my research, I interviewed the staff at one newspaper who had completed
the front page layout by 1:45pm on November 22. I spoke at length on the
phone with the editor who handled the Altgens photo when it arrived
shortly after 1:00pm. Quite simply, there was no time possible for the
subtle alterations suggested by Cinque.

If Ralph Cinque is genuinely interested in lobbying for the innocence of
Lee Harvey Oswald, then he needs to take a different approach than the
untenable positon of the alteration of the Altgens photo. His constant
verbal jousting on the internet has only served in sowing discord among
those who are truly devoted to studies of the JFK assassination. Ralph
Cinque is an internet charlatan, and his conduct is deeply troubling to
anyone seeking civilized discourse.

If you would like any more detailed information about Ralph Cinque and the
Oswald Innocence Campaign, please do not hesitate from contacting me at:
***@comcast.net"
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-16 01:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That only proves that James Norwood is a professor of the same caliber as
John McAdams. There is no NO DOUBT that it is Oswald in the doorway. The
man is wearing Oswald's clothes: The unbuttoned, sprawled-open
long-sleeved shirt with the jacket-like look and the sunken t-shirt with
the v-like margin. Only Oswald was dressed like that, not Lovelady. And
the specific features such as eyes, ear, and nose all match to Oswald.
From the eyes down, Doorman is 100% Oswald. The top of his head was
altered using an image of Billy Lovelady from the 1950s. The claim of
swift wiring of the Altgens6 photo to newspapers is a lie. It was first
seen publicly at 6:30 PM Eastern, 5:30 PM Central, when Walter Cronkite
showed it on the Evening News. So, that was 5 hours after the
assassination- plenty of time to alter it.

And, you don't have to be too smart to realize that the Warren Commission
was a show trial, and they were only going to allow witnesses who said
that Doorman was Lovelady. They were questioned in advance by the FBI.
They knew what they were going to say. And if anyone had tried to say
Oswald, they would have gotten fire and brimstone. Anthony Botelho
identified Oswald as the Man in the Doorway, and he was with him in the
Marines.

And how pathetic of you, Viklund, that you have to pull up a letter from
2015. You don't have anything more recent? Look: it's over. It's Oswald in
the doorway, and that is now the leading belief among Oswald defenders as
to where he was during the shooting. We have progressed greatly since
2015.

Here is OIC CHairman Larry Rivera's overlay of Doorman's face and
Oswald's.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/09/this-overlay-by-oic-chairman-larry.html

It's Oswald, Viklund. You can't stop it. Norwood can't. McAdams can't. It
is over.
Jason Burke
2017-06-16 23:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
That only proves that James Norwood is a professor of the same caliber as
John McAdams. There is no NO DOUBT that it is Oswald in the doorway. The
man is wearing Oswald's clothes: The unbuttoned, sprawled-open
long-sleeved shirt with the jacket-like look and the sunken t-shirt with
the v-like margin. Only Oswald was dressed like that, not Lovelady. And
the specific features such as eyes, ear, and nose all match to Oswald.
From the eyes down, Doorman is 100% Oswald. The top of his head was
altered using an image of Billy Lovelady from the 1950s. The claim of
swift wiring of the Altgens6 photo to newspapers is a lie. It was first
seen publicly at 6:30 PM Eastern, 5:30 PM Central, when Walter Cronkite
showed it on the Evening News. So, that was 5 hours after the
assassination- plenty of time to alter it.
Well, you're o-fer-the first paragraph, Ralph.
Let's see if things improve any, shall we, Ralph?
Post by Ralph Cinque
And, you don't have to be too smart to realize that the Warren Commission
was a show trial, and they were only going to allow witnesses who said
that Doorman was Lovelady. They were questioned in advance by the FBI.
They knew what they were going to say. And if anyone had tried to say
Oswald, they would have gotten fire and brimstone. Anthony Botelho
identified Oswald as the Man in the Doorway, and he was with him in the
Marines.
Nope.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And how pathetic of you, Viklund, that you have to pull up a letter from
2015. You don't have anything more recent? Look: it's over. It's Oswald in
the doorway, and that is now the leading belief among Oswald defenders as
to where he was during the shooting. We have progressed greatly since
2015.
Here is OIC CHairman Larry Rivera's overlay of Doorman's face and
Oswald's.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/09/this-overlay-by-oic-chairman-larry.html
It's Oswald, Viklund. You can't stop it. Norwood can't. McAdams can't. It
is over.
Okay. A total fail. Good job, Ralph!
Glenn V.
2017-06-17 03:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
That only proves that James Norwood is a professor of the same caliber as
John McAdams. There is no NO DOUBT that it is Oswald in the doorway. The
man is wearing Oswald's clothes: The unbuttoned, sprawled-open
long-sleeved shirt with the jacket-like look and the sunken t-shirt with
the v-like margin. Only Oswald was dressed like that, not Lovelady. And
the specific features such as eyes, ear, and nose all match to Oswald.
From the eyes down, Doorman is 100% Oswald. The top of his head was
altered using an image of Billy Lovelady from the 1950s. The claim of
swift wiring of the Altgens6 photo to newspapers is a lie. It was first
seen publicly at 6:30 PM Eastern, 5:30 PM Central, when Walter Cronkite
showed it on the Evening News. So, that was 5 hours after the
assassination- plenty of time to alter it.
And, you don't have to be too smart to realize that the Warren Commission
was a show trial, and they were only going to allow witnesses who said
that Doorman was Lovelady. They were questioned in advance by the FBI.
They knew what they were going to say. And if anyone had tried to say
Oswald, they would have gotten fire and brimstone. Anthony Botelho
identified Oswald as the Man in the Doorway, and he was with him in the
Marines.
And how pathetic of you, Viklund, that you have to pull up a letter from
2015. You don't have anything more recent? Look: it's over. It's Oswald in
the doorway, and that is now the leading belief among Oswald defenders as
to where he was during the shooting. We have progressed greatly since
2015.
Here is OIC CHairman Larry Rivera's overlay of Doorman's face and
Oswald's.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/09/this-overlay-by-oic-chairman-larry.html
It's Oswald, Viklund. You can't stop it. Norwood can't. McAdams can't. It
is over.
Hehe, you really sound a bit desperate, Ralph. No bobody needs to stop
anything that isn't moving anywhere. Personally, I think it may be a good
thing for you, this doorman fantasy. Whatever that keeps you going...

I had a discussion with Greg Parker the other day. He agrees with you, no
doubt Oswald was in the doorway.

But since he was referring to another guy, prayer man, maybe the two of
you can find some common ground if you give it a try? I'm sure you'll all
be able to find a third guy that you all can agree on?
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-17 23:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Huh. You people have nothing to say. No retorts. Just the usual put-downs
and bad-mouthing, which don't count for anything. Hey, I'm very
thick-skinned. That stuff rolls off me like water off a duck's back.

The Doorway Man has Oswald's features, and he is wearing Oswald's clothes.
And the idea that the likeness between Oswald and Lovelady, in the man and
the clothes, accounts for it is preposterous because there was no such
likeness. The Man in the Doorway looks like Oswald (which is something
that people the world over thought) because he was Oswald.
Jason Burke
2017-06-18 21:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Huh. You people have nothing to say. No retorts. Just the usual put-downs
and bad-mouthing, which don't count for anything. Hey, I'm very
thick-skinned. That stuff rolls off me like water off a duck's back.
The Doorway Man has Oswald's features, and he is wearing Oswald's clothes.
And the idea that the likeness between Oswald and Lovelady, in the man and
the clothes, accounts for it is preposterous because there was no such
likeness. The Man in the Doorway looks like Oswald (which is something
that people the world over thought) because he was Oswald.
What the hell are you talking about, Ralph?

As Anthony Anthony is fond of saying: "learn to quote".
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-18 21:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Huh. You people have nothing to say. No retorts. Just the usual put-downs
and bad-mouthing, which don't count for anything. Hey, I'm very
thick-skinned. That stuff rolls off me like water off a duck's back.
The Doorway Man has Oswald's features, and he is wearing Oswald's clothes.
And the idea that the likeness between Oswald and Lovelady, in the man and
the clothes, accounts for it is preposterous because there was no such
likeness. The Man in the Doorway looks like Oswald (which is something
that people the world over thought) because he was Oswald.
No, Ralph. It's Billy. It's Billy. It's Billy. Keep saying that.
You're good at repeating yourself.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-19 12:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Huh. You people have nothing to say. No retorts. Just the usual put-downs
and bad-mouthing, which don't count for anything. Hey, I'm very
thick-skinned.
Which is why you're here complaining about it.

That stuff rolls off me like water off a duck's back.
Post by Ralph Cinque
The Doorway Man has Oswald's features, and he is wearing Oswald's clothes.
And the idea that the likeness between Oswald and Lovelady, in the man and
the clothes, accounts for it is preposterous because there was no such
likeness. The Man in the Doorway looks like Oswald (which is something
that people the world over thought) because he was Oswald.
Glenn V.
2017-06-19 17:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Den söndag 18 juni 2017 kl. 01:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Ralph Cinque:
The Man in the Doorway looks like Oswald (which is something
Post by Ralph Cinque
that people the world over thought) because he was Oswald.
No, wrong. People who had seen pictures of Oswald, but never Lovelady, may
have been confused by the resemblance between the two. That's all, and
that's a monumental difference that you simply ignore. Which you do also
with the rest of the witness statements. No Oswald, only confirmations of
Lovelady.

Now then, Ralph, you can scream, tweak and twiddle for years to come and
you will still be on square one. Your fantasy is going nowhere.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-19 23:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's already gone far. And there is more happening than you know about.
And even after the Atlgens photo was published, they never provided any
images of Lovelady. And they harassed photographers who sought to get one.
And, a 40 pound weight difference, where the shorter man is the heavier
one, is pretty monumental. And the "show trial" that the WC means nothing.
It's not as though a witness vouching for Oswald in the doorway would have
been included. So, your "Oswald only confirmations" mean nothing. Now
then, Viklund, you can scream, tweak, and twiddle for years to come, as
you have for years past, but it won't stop what's coming.
Glenn V.
2017-06-20 01:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's already gone far. And there is more happening than you know about.
And even after the Atlgens photo was published, they never provided any
images of Lovelady. And they harassed photographers who sought to get one.
And, a 40 pound weight difference, where the shorter man is the heavier
one, is pretty monumental. And the "show trial" that the WC means nothing.
It's not as though a witness vouching for Oswald in the doorway would have
been included. So, your "Oswald only confirmations" mean nothing. Now
then, Viklund, you can scream, tweak, and twiddle for years to come, as
you have for years past, but it won't stop what's coming.
Haha, got to give you credit for that last sentence, Ralph.

But the reality is that you have nothing coming.

First, way before you should even argue with me, you would be good adviced
to sort your shortcomings out with fellow CT's. Once you've managed to do
that, I think you may have a chance to climb a step up at the CT-ladder
(it's really got to be darn cold down there?).

But that will never happen, will it, Ralph?

The only reason for you being here at McAdams forum (Oh, the irony..)is
that everyone else - and that's surely not LN oriented forums..-have
thrown you out, long ago, isn't it? Even most CT's can't stand the
incompentence you repeatedly display when trying to sell your never ending
flow of "new findings"?

And, I do have to give you a bit of credit. John's no doubt many
rejections of your shenanigans of a few years back have certainly fostered
you to behave, literally. Not bad!

Excuse me, but someone's got to spell it out for you..

:-)
Glenn V.
2017-06-20 01:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's already gone far. And there is more happening than you know about.
And even after the Atlgens photo was published, they never provided any
images of Lovelady. And they harassed photographers who sought to get one.
And, a 40 pound weight difference, where the shorter man is the heavier
one, is pretty monumental. And the "show trial" that the WC means nothing.
It's not as though a witness vouching for Oswald in the doorway would have
been included. So, your "Oswald only confirmations" mean nothing. Now
then, Viklund, you can scream, tweak, and twiddle for years to come, as
you have for years past, but it won't stop what's coming.
What's this nonsense about "Altgens6 published five hours after it
happened - plenty of time"?

Who, and how, would anyone have known what, and how, to alter? Who, and
how would anyone have known have many other photo-shots such a thing would
have to have been aligned with?

You know, your ridiculous ignorance of important questions is monumental.
Time and time again, no matter what the evidence bears, you have nothing
but ignorance to reply with?
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-21 02:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Viklund, don't expect me to explain the arrogance of the people who did
this. But from the start- that they were going to kill Kennedy in a
military-style triangulated ambush and then try to blame it on one guy
shooting from the rear-it was audacious to the extreme.

And they were altering photos even BEFORE the assassination, and I am
referring to the Backyard photos. Oswald lived long enough to deny that
that was him. He stated that they moved his face into the picture and
placed it over the body of another man. And he said that, having worked at
Jaggars/ Chiles/Stovall, a photo lab, he could do it himself and could
show them.

Since they were embarking on something that was a far cry from the story
they were going to be telling, they realized ahead of time that the
photographic record in Dealey Plaza would likely need some doctoring- and
they had the team ready. Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall may be where the dirty
work was done, and there is a basis for saying that. The wife of Roscoe
White said that he told her that Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall was the Command
Central for the assassination.

And you can just stop with the theatrics right now. Altering photos is not
comparable to putting men on the moon. And as we all know: the fascist
state did that, didn't they?

Viklund: whether you like or not, Oswald was standing in the doorway
during the shooting; Mary Moorman did NOT take the photo which bears her
name; practically every piece of photo and film evidence in the JFK
assassination was criminally altered; and the shooting of Oswald was a
spectacle in which FBI Agent James Bookhout played the role of Jack Ruby,
who was already sequestered up on the 5th floor. And there is nothing
hypothetical about any of it. All of it is demonstrably true and has been
thus demonstrated.

And of course, it's more than just me. A professor of physics with a
specialty in optics vouches for the fact that Mary Moorman could NOT have
taken the Moorman photo- and he has got more intelligence and education in
his pinkie-toe than you've got in your whole brain.

And regarding the forums, what do I need them for when I have a very
well-read blog? And if you don't believe me, do an online search about the
issues in which I am involved, and you'll see that "Oswald in the doorway:
the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign" pops up again and again on
Google and other search engines, and I mean first and second pages.

Viklund, this, my latest post, will be read by more people than your last
10 combined. Make it 50.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/some-fool-on-mcadams-forum-and-he-uses.html
bpete1969
2017-06-21 18:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Viklund, don't expect me to explain the arrogance of the people who did
this. But from the start- that they were going to kill Kennedy in a
military-style triangulated ambush and then try to blame it on one guy
shooting from the rear-it was audacious to the extreme.
And they were altering photos even BEFORE the assassination, and I am
referring to the Backyard photos. Oswald lived long enough to deny that
that was him. He stated that they moved his face into the picture and
placed it over the body of another man. And he said that, having worked at
Jaggars/ Chiles/Stovall, a photo lab, he could do it himself and could
show them.
Since they were embarking on something that was a far cry from the story
they were going to be telling, they realized ahead of time that the
photographic record in Dealey Plaza would likely need some doctoring- and
they had the team ready. Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall may be where the dirty
work was done, and there is a basis for saying that. The wife of Roscoe
White said that he told her that Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall was the Command
Central for the assassination.
And you can just stop with the theatrics right now. Altering photos is not
comparable to putting men on the moon. And as we all know: the fascist
state did that, didn't they?
Viklund: whether you like or not, Oswald was standing in the doorway
during the shooting; Mary Moorman did NOT take the photo which bears her
name; practically every piece of photo and film evidence in the JFK
assassination was criminally altered; and the shooting of Oswald was a
spectacle in which FBI Agent James Bookhout played the role of Jack Ruby,
who was already sequestered up on the 5th floor. And there is nothing
hypothetical about any of it. All of it is demonstrably true and has been
thus demonstrated.
And of course, it's more than just me. A professor of physics with a
specialty in optics vouches for the fact that Mary Moorman could NOT have
taken the Moorman photo- and he has got more intelligence and education in
his pinkie-toe than you've got in your whole brain.
And regarding the forums, what do I need them for when I have a very
well-read blog? And if you don't believe me, do an online search about the
the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign" pops up again and again on
Google and other search engines, and I mean first and second pages.
Viklund, this, my latest post, will be read by more people than your last
10 combined. Make it 50.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/some-fool-on-mcadams-forum-and-he-uses.html
Your optics expert has been debunked 6 ways from Sunday.

The reason your site comes up on Google is because you pay them. Not to
mention that you've created 669 posts in only 171 days this year.

It's all you do, sit and pound the keyboard.
Glenn V.
2017-06-21 21:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Viklund, don't expect me to explain the arrogance of the people who did
this. But from the start- that they were going to kill Kennedy in a
military-style triangulated ambush and then try to blame it on one guy
shooting from the rear-it was audacious to the extreme.
And they were altering photos even BEFORE the assassination, and I am
referring to the Backyard photos. Oswald lived long enough to deny that
that was him. He stated that they moved his face into the picture and
placed it over the body of another man. And he said that, having worked at
Jaggars/ Chiles/Stovall, a photo lab, he could do it himself and could
show them.
Since they were embarking on something that was a far cry from the story
they were going to be telling, they realized ahead of time that the
photographic record in Dealey Plaza would likely need some doctoring- and
they had the team ready. Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall may be where the dirty
work was done, and there is a basis for saying that. The wife of Roscoe
White said that he told her that Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall was the Command
Central for the assassination.
And you can just stop with the theatrics right now. Altering photos is not
comparable to putting men on the moon. And as we all know: the fascist
state did that, didn't they?
Viklund: whether you like or not, Oswald was standing in the doorway
during the shooting; Mary Moorman did NOT take the photo which bears her
name; practically every piece of photo and film evidence in the JFK
assassination was criminally altered; and the shooting of Oswald was a
spectacle in which FBI Agent James Bookhout played the role of Jack Ruby,
who was already sequestered up on the 5th floor. And there is nothing
hypothetical about any of it. All of it is demonstrably true and has been
thus demonstrated.
And of course, it's more than just me. A professor of physics with a
specialty in optics vouches for the fact that Mary Moorman could NOT have
taken the Moorman photo- and he has got more intelligence and education in
his pinkie-toe than you've got in your whole brain.
And regarding the forums, what do I need them for when I have a very
well-read blog? And if you don't believe me, do an online search about the
the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign" pops up again and again on
Google and other search engines, and I mean first and second pages.
Viklund, this, my latest post, will be read by more people than your last
10 combined. Make it 50.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/some-fool-on-mcadams-forum-and-he-uses.html
See, Ralph, that's precisely why you never gets beyond the
"repeating-until-insanity" -level. You disregard what doesn't fit, and
then you create stuff out of thin air - and on top of this you believe
others will accept your silliness?

Not during this millenium, Ralph.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-22 19:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Viklund, I don't disregard anything that is material and true. And plenty
of people respect my claims. Not here on this forum but elsewhere. Did you
see how many Likes my VT article got on Facebook? Well over 200.

The one who is not living in reality is YOU. And all you are capable of is
blather. What did you say? Nothing. What evidence did you cite? None.
You're in the Burke/O'Blazney category of blogger. You just spew. And I am
invulnerable to spewing.

Jason Burke
2017-06-21 02:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's already gone far. And there is more happening than you know about.
And even after the Atlgens photo was published, they never provided any
images of Lovelady. And they harassed photographers who sought to get one.
And, a 40 pound weight difference, where the shorter man is the heavier
one, is pretty monumental. And the "show trial" that the WC means nothing.
It's not as though a witness vouching for Oswald in the doorway would have
been included. So, your "Oswald only confirmations" mean nothing. Now
then, Viklund, you can scream, tweak, and twiddle for years to come, as
you have for years past, but it won't stop what's coming.
Yeah, yeah, Ralph. You've said shit's been coming for damn near five
years now.

Here's a hint, Ralph. Nothing's coming from your piehole (or keyboard,)
Ralph.
BT George
2017-06-17 13:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well there's no arguing with willful ignorance. ...If "ignorance" be an
adequate word to describe Ralph's stubborn contentions.
Anthony Marsh
2015-10-20 03:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by Ralph Cinque
"No one, not a single witness, civilians with absolutely no reason to
involve themselves in a web of lies when their President has been
murdered, claimed to have seen Oswald in the Doorway. Period."
How do we know?
We know because these are their sworn witness statements.
Do your homework and learn what means - before you continue to cluelessly
slander these people.
Which people? Name them.
Is this the old Patriotism defense?
"How dare you accuse our heroes of massacring citizens at My Lai?
Only a Communist would dare to question our military!"
Mark OBLAZNEY
2015-10-17 20:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Well, this is a first. Now John McAdams is allowing the "f" word on the
forum?
Tell me, why do you moderate, John? What are you trying to filter out?
Ah, you'd rather copy cat Marsh? A few things you do learn, apparently.
Cinque, I'm going to disregard what you say about me elsewhere, which is
the usual juvenile BS you always resort to. Believe me, I've seen a lot
about this in these last few days.
"When President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the front steps of the
TSBD with William Shelley, Otis Williams, Mrs Sanders AND BILLY
LOVELADY....I did not see Lee Oswald AT THAT TIME or any other time that
day".
Since you didn't understand what I wrote yesterday about your neglect of
Present the evidence that this witness statement is incorrect. Present
evidence that she lied, was wrong or otherwise didn't give a correct
description of this situation. Present anything that contradicts her
statement - and provide the evidence to back this up. I'm not intrested in
your opinions, mind you.
You talk about me having nothing, you scream about your arguments. Let's
see, then, if you are able to put up here, Cinque? This one witness. Once
we're done, if you have anything of value, anything worthwhile, we'll move
on to the next one, OK?
I'll be waiting.
"that men may know him mad"___________BT George, on Ralph Cinque

well said, sir
Anthony Marsh
2015-10-18 18:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Well, this is a first. Now John McAdams is allowing the "f" word on the
forum?
Tell me, why do you moderate, John? What are you trying to filter out?
Ah, you'd rather copy cat Marsh? A few things you do learn, apparently.
He's not one of my acolytes. As I've taught them you can use foreign words
instead of the American swear words to bypass the censoring filter. As a
fan of Sci-Fi I like to use the Battlestar Galactica slang word Fracking.
Post by Glenn V.
Cinque, I'm going to disregard what you say about me elsewhere, which is
the usual juvenile BS you always resort to. Believe me, I've seen a lot
about this in these last few days.
"When President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the front steps of the
TSBD with William Shelley, Otis Williams, Mrs Sanders AND BILLY
LOVELADY....I did not see Lee Oswald AT THAT TIME or any other time that
day".
Since you didn't understand what I wrote yesterday about your neglect of
Present the evidence that this witness statement is incorrect. Present
evidence that she lied, was wrong or otherwise didn't give a correct
description of this situation. Present anything that contradicts her
statement - and provide the evidence to back this up. I'm not intrested in
your opinions, mind you.
You talk about me having nothing, you scream about your arguments. Let's
Scream? How? Do you me by writing in ALL CAPS as a certain lamo always
does here? As YOU just did?
Post by Glenn V.
see, then, if you are able to put up here, Cinque? This one witness. Once
we're done, if you have anything of value, anything worthwhile, we'll move
on to the next one, OK?
You're going to base the truth on just one witness?
Post by Glenn V.
I'll be waiting.
Anthony Marsh
2015-10-17 15:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Well, this is a first. Now John McAdams is allowing the "f" word on the
forum?
Tell me, why do you moderate, John? What are you trying to filter out?
Who says he moderates? He censors.
He can think that he's censoring to keep the discussion clear or fair.
Neither is true.
Post by Ralph Cinque
But, I have published another letter to Jim Norwood. There are no curse
words in it, but the attitude is the same.
But maybe you can curse without McAdams realizing it. His software said
I cursed just because I used Latin and it was not smart enough to know
Latin.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/10/its-weird.html
Anthony Marsh
2015-10-16 23:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
This is Ralph Cinque's real answer to Professor Norwood about the posting
"Dear Mr. Viklund,
Dear Mr. Viklund?
That's how you addressed your letter to him, James?
Is that your objection? The salutation? You didn't like the fact that he
started it with the word "Dear"? Or are you pointing out that it's bad
form to address a troll by his alias?
Post by Glenn V.
You do realize that he is a rabid lone-nutter. You realize that for a long
time, he has been working the JFK cover-up.
So, let me get this straight: I know you have abandoned Oswald in the
doorway- and don't pretend for one second that you didn't formerly endorse
it because we both know that you did. You wrote the article about Weisberg
and Mrs. Lovelady. Remember? You also wrote a FAQ article. Remember?
But, the question is: have you also abandoned Oswald innocence? Because if
you still believe in Oswald innocence, you have no business whatsoever
addressing a guy like Viklund as "dear" or as "Mister".
Am I saying that, as an Oswald defender, you should be inherently
antagonistic to all Oswald accusers? YOU GOD-DAMN RIGHT THAT'S WHAT I AM
SAYING!!!! This is a fucking war, Man! You need to decide which side
you're on, and you don't make nice with the fucking enemy.
But, as far as I'm concerned, James: you have completely changed sides.
Your only motivation now is opposing me. You'd fucking call the devil
himself a "dear", so long as he was fighting me. What a disgrace. What a
sellout. What a complete abandonment of principle."
You seriousy and urgently need to get some professional help, Cinque.
Loading...