Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

It's ironic that the foes who lambaste me for not producing "photo experts" to vouch for Altgens photo alteration and Oswald in the doorway don't produce photo experts themselves to vouch for Altgens photo authenticity and Lovelady as Doorman. 

So, why the double standard? Because they are fools and hypocrites. 

The fact is that forensic photo experts won't weigh in on this. It would be ruinous to their careers. They mostly work for the government. It's prosecutors who mostly hire them. If they endorsed anything as "conspiratorial" as this, it would be the kiss of death. 

Look what happened to Mort Sahl when he publicly denounced the official story of the JFK assassination. He was blacklisted. His entertainment career took a nosedive. It took him decades to recover. And he was a comedian. Imagine if a forensic photo expert did it.

So, that's why they don't do it, and they won't do it. And, they steer clear of it completely. It's not as though they are backing the other side. It's not as though they defend the Altgens photo and the official story. They just don't go near it.

Then, there is another irony: When my adversaries respond to charges of alteration they don't respond directly, rather, they make excuses, claiming that it couldn't have been altered because there was no time to alter it, that it was wired to the world at 1:03.

But, the fact is that the only confirmed time for when the Altgens photo was first shown to the public is when Walter Cronkite showed it on tv at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30 PM Central or 5 hours after it was taken. If it was available at 1:00, why would CBS have waited? Isn't television news a highly competitive industry? Didn't Robert Jackson tell us that it was all about getting ahead of your competition? They might have waited until 6:30 if they only got it shortly before that, but if they had it at 2:00 Eastern, they surely would not have put off showing it for 4 1/2 hours. Why would they do that? Walter Cronkite could have still showed it again at 6:30, and it wouldn't have hurt anything. 

Furthermore, there was a very conspicuous difference between newspaper handling of Altgens7 and Altgens6. Altgens7 appeared very soon; it showed up all over the place. And it was mainly just a guy riding on the back of a limousine. 

I realize that Jackie is also in the picture, but we don't see her face, and the way the picture is centered on Clint Hill makes him the main object in the photo. So again, it's mainly just a guy riding on the back of a car. But, the Altgens6 photo shows Kennedy reacting to being shot, and it also shows the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car peering back at the source of the shots, as the caption read.

Obviously, Altgens6 was much more valuable, journalistically and otherwise. So, why would newspapers show Altgens7 in lieu of Altgens6 if they had both? And why didn't the Dallas Times Herald, which was an evening paper and an AP paper, not show the Altgens6 photo on 11/22 when it, like the photo, was in Dallas? 

Another way to put it is to ask why newspapers didn't simply publish both if they had both at the same time?

But ultimately, the whole argument is one of distraction. The ones who make it really just want you to refrain from critically studying the photo.

I, for instance, questioned whether a man could be photographed and have his entire face blackened out simply because he was shading his eyes with his hands. 

You don't have to be a "photo expert" to know that that is not consistent with our life experience. So, I went to Dealey Plaza, and I proved that it's bogus, that a guy doing that would definitely have his face captured by the camera. I paid this guy $10 to stand there like that. 

And then there was this:

And once again, the guy has a face. It proves that the facelessness of the guy in the Altgens photo is bogus; that his face was blackened out- on purpose. And the reason they blackened it out is because he was Billy Lovelady. 

And anyone who wants to dispute that shouldn't waste time making claims about the timeline, rather, they should get their camera out and prove that it can be done. But, no such proof is possible because it can't be done. It is bogus. They altered it. The Altgens6 photo is probably the most altered news photo of all time.