Friday, May 25, 2012

Update on "Obfuscated Man"

The irony is not lost on me that James Fetzer and Ralph Cinque have created a character they call "Obfuscated Man." Over 300 posts into this ridiculous thread and Craig Lamson, did the world a service and produced this:


So, what is this? This is Fetzer's and Cinque's "Obfuscated Man."  It's merely a man on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository who is shielding his face from the glare of the sun with his right hand over his face.  The elbow of the right arm is directly in line with the camera.  It's a white shirt and it's reflecting a little bit of sunshine.  I think the man has a receding hairline, and he's wearing eyeglasses. I think it's possible to just barely make out his chin, mouth and nose.  That's all this is.  He is near the figure I call "Doorway Man," who people thought was Oswald, but others think was Lovelady.

Fetzer and Cinque for some unknown reason decided to resurrect this controversy.  In doing so, they thought they'd push some other "discoveries" in the photographic evidence in this case.  What Fetzer and Cinque have done is to use this man and the glare off his elbow to build an impossible theory, namely that "Doorway Man," is Oswald with Lovelady's face superimposed onto his body.  You know, just like "they" put Oswald's head on someone in the infamous Backyard photos.  They then deliberately blurred out the face of "Obfuscated Man," because he's really Lovelady.  They offer absolutely no proof of this. Despite the fact that he's wearing a white shirt, tie, and eyeglasses he's supposed to be Lovelady.  "They" did this because you can't have two Loveladys in the same photo.

Whenever they are asked for any proof to substantiate this stupid story they do one of three things, they claim, "It's Obvious!" Or they ask you to provide the proof that they're wrong, or, lastly, and this is the thing that is truly insidious, they bring up the fact that in other areas of this case documents have been altered, testimony has been altered, photographs have been altered, and merely by referring to those examples, examples, however, where there is ample evidence to support the contentions of alteration, they use such references as a substitute for proof of the claims they're making.   Making references to other similar incidents is the foundation and glue for their proof free conclusions.

They also don't bother to use the best available source for the photograph or film they want to show you as they claim new discoveries.  In fact, they make no effort to explain the provenance of the photographic material they want to show you. They say nothing of what they got or where they got it from. Often they deliberately degrade the material, turning color film into black and white, putting material out of focus, increasing contrast levels, all in order to help you see THE OBVIOUS.

They are the most despicable, outrageous, ignorant con-men in the history of JFK assassination research, especially Ralph Cinque who doesn't know one god damn thing about the JFK assassination. He has the unmitigated gall to lecture people on how to behave.  He actually tells people that if you are a conspiracy theorist you should just shut up and act like one and believe his proof free conclusions.

He has been on other forums besides the Education Forum.  He was on the Deep Politics forum, and on the JFK Lancer forum.  He got booted out of the Lancer forum.

If anyone criticizes his methodology and conclusions he thinks that means such a person must be a lone nutter, a person who believes there was no conspiracy and that Oswald, the lone nut, acted alone.

This mindset drove Cinque to claim that Josiah Thompson is a lone nutter.  This idiot Cinque cannot be bothered to read anything on the JFK assassination case.  He cannot even be bothered to do a simple Google search on Josiah Thompson and learn who Josiah is and the work he has done in the JFK assassination.

What an asshole!

Another bogus "discovery," is that Cinque thinks there is this Billy Lovelady impostor.  He comes to this conclusion by being an asshole about two different photographic sources that show different segments of the same film.  The film in question is a short film taken by a reporter for WFAA-TV in Dallas, or by the camera crew assigned to work with the reporter.  The reporter's name is Charles Buck.  I gave a source for where you can see this film. The entire uncut version of the Charles Buck film is in the 2 DVD set "The Story Behind the Story." On side two of the DVD with no artwork, is where you will find it.  



In the Special Features section,  they have a locally produced program "One Year Later."  Parts of this Charles Buck film also appear in the David Wolper documentary "Four Days in November." In addition, David Von Pein has this Charles Buck film on his website.  It's about one minute, ten seconds long.  I don't have the skills to embed it here but it's on this page of DVP's website.  Scroll down the page until you see this - Related Video (Showing Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Lovelady in the same room at Dallas City Hall Shortly After Oswald's Arrest)  It's the second video.  Look for a thin man wearing glasses.  That's Charles Buck.

This film shows Oswald being led into the basement of City Hall.  He's just come from being arrested in the Texas Theatre.  He goes right past the very area where Ruby will kill him on Sunday, the 24th.  Oswald and a five man escort go past a somewhat rounded island-like office area, which is the initial booking area.  Oswald is brought past that and into an elevator.  Charles Buck and his film crew find out they are going to the 3rd floor and race up the stairs to get ahead of them to film them coming out of the elevator. They pick up the action on the 3rd floor where Oswald is being taken into the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, room 317, run by Captain Fritz.  Never once does Cinque refer to the room's proper name, office number, or who's in charge of this office.  Five men bring Oswald into room 317.  One of these five men is a Dallas police officer with a white cap on his head.  Four other men in suits are right behind him.  They go into an interior room called the squad room where some secretaries work and where other people wait for a policeman to take their statements, or possibly question them.  The camera then fades to black and fades back in because the camera has moved to get a better viewing angle.  The camera is behind and slightly to the right of this column of five men with Oswald.  The cop with the white cap is in front and he's got a hold of Oswald.  They walk in a straight line for a short distance and then they move slightly to the left to get around Billy Noonan Lovelady who is seated at a chair with it's back to the desk it's in front of.  This bears repeating.  The column of five men have to move around Lovelady.  The first men to move to their left are the cop with the white cap and Oswald.  When they do this the next four men who are still walking in a straight line block the camera's view of the cop with the white cap and Oswald for a brief moment.  Then the next man in turn will turn to the left to go around Lovelady, they each do this, one at a time, and while doing so they block the camera's view of the men in front until the very last man has blocked the view of the other four men and Oswald who are in front of him.  This is all only temporary.  Then the cop with the white cap and Oswald who had to move left now move to their right and come back into view because they are headed towards an inner interrogation room.  The camera pans back and shows that there are other people with cameras for still photographs and movie film who are also watching and recording all of this.  While that very shot  was filmed, showing there are other camera men there, Oswald was put into the interrogation room, he sits in a chair, apparently alone, and the door is closed.

Now Cinque finds this Segment of the Charles Buck film in a movie clip in a Youtube.com video called "Did Oswald Get Picked Up or Not?" Now from that title alone astute JFK researchers can tell this is about Roger Craig's story of seeing Oswald getting into a car, or station wagon and leaving Dealey Plaza.  This Youtube clip has a montage of films, at one point showing three screens at once while Roger Craig tells his story.  The Charles Buck film is in here. But it's not here in it's entirety. 

Cinque uses the Charles Buck film sequence in this Youtube.com clip and compares it to a single still frame from the Charles Buck film.  He claims the still frame he has which shows that four men walking in a column one behind the other who have temporarily blocked the camera's view of the cop with the white cap and Oswald is not in the film in the Youtube.com film, and therefore, it's a fake!  Yes, according to Cinque, the still frame is not a still frame it's a single photograph that was faked.  And the Lovelady seen sitting in the chair is an imposter Lovelady who for some reason Cinque refers to as DeNiro Lovelady.  His single still frame from the Charles Buck film may not appear in the movie from Youtube.com based on a simple editorial choice made by the producers of that film, which is about Roger Craig's story after all.  They may have started the action in the Charles Buck film after the still shot he wants to find.  It is there in the whole, intact, uncut, Charles Buck film which can be seen on the DVD I mentioned and on DVP's website.  But no, Cinque, who knows nothing about the JFK assassination case, and even less than nothing about photography builds this into a huge stupid story.  He demands someone show him where the still frame he got from the Charles Buck film is in the Youtube.com video, and if people can't do that he thinks he's proven his case that there is a Lovelady impostor.  He's even so stupid as to make it into a bet that people can't do this.  He offers thousands of dollars.  It's a fool's bet because Cinque is an asshole who cannot understand that he's not using the best available photographic resources, nor can he understand that the producers of a documentary on Roger Craig's story are free to make whatever editorial use they want to of the various films available on the assassination of JFK.

Cinque cannot understand why this column of five men with Oswald ignore Lovelady, almost as if he wasn't there.  Then Cinque, I want to say the word "thinks" but he OBVIOUSLY  doesn't have any cognitive skills so I can't say "thinks," claims that they're not paying attention to him because he really isn't there.  He was PIXARed into the film.  Yes, he actually said that on the EF forum.

Now, remember how I said the column of men moved a little bit to the left to go around Lovelady, and then moved a little bit to the right? If he's not really there, they why do they move around him?

Asshole.

In the discussion about Lovelady people show and refer Cinque to the Martin film, a color film, showing Lovelady in front of the TSBD some time after the assassination.  Cinque is even shown a scan from page 571 of Richard Trask's book, "Pictures of the Pain," which gives a good deal of information about Martin and his film. All that information means nothing to him.  He cannot understand why that clip of Lovelady in front of the TSBD is after the motorcade went past the TSBD, he cannot understand why it "got separated," from Martin's earlier clip. For Cinque this "separation" which is caused when you stop filming, and then film something else later "makes it suspect."

It's called an off button, asshole.  Martin filmed what he wanted to.  He stopped when the motorcade went past him.  He had no idea that the assassination of JFK was about to start.  He had a limited amount of film and used it sparingly perhaps in anticipation of seeing the police capture the shooter.  

Cinque is shown a still frame from the Charles Buck film from page 92 of Robert Groden's "The Killing of a President" it has a greenish tint to it.  Cinque thinks that means Robert Groden "tampered" with this film evidence.

No, the still frame is reproduced onto a slightly yellow paper in Groden's book and when that was scanned ( and we don't know what kind of computer, scanner, or scanning software was used. By the way, I am not making any allegation of tampering by the poster of this photo. I just want to show that there are several variables in play here.) from Groden's book it turned that manilla yellow color slightly green.  Another possibility is that certain adjustments were not made for this photo when publishing the book while other photos on the page retained their true black and white color tones. There are many variables for why it appears to have a green-ish tint. None are considered by Cinque.  He accuses Groden of tampering with the evidence.

Asshole.

More of Cinque's stupidity is shown when he claims that the Charles Buck clip in the Roger Craig Youtube.com video shows a clock that says it is 2:00 p.m and the still frame he has, which he thinks is faked, also shows 2:00 p.m., which to him is an impossibility.  He doesn't even know that movie film is actually a series of still photographs which when shown at a rate of 24 frames per second reproduces normal movement.  So, one minute's worth of film would be 24 x 60 would give you 1,440 still frames, all of which would show a clock at 2:00 p.m. 

What an asshole.  

3 comments:

  1. Love the post!! I am cracking up. You have nailed these two charlatans with their own mumbo jumbo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. OK agree that this is all one big joke
    BUT...your flippant remark about the 'backyard photos" seems strange..are you suggesting that they are 100% genuine?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I do believe the Backyard photos were faked by putting Oswald's face onto the body of someone. I think the Dallas Police Department did that, especially after we all saw the backyard scene with the white silhouette in it that all but said insert Oswald here

      What I meant was to highlight the fact that by referencing the issue of the Backyard photos, that mere referencing something similar is NOT proof that this happened with "Doorway Man," in the Altgens photo.

      Fetzer is saying they did it there and they did it here. But, he doesn't offer any proof. He doesn't stay in the "here," which is the issue of alteration in the Altgens photo. Just saying "they did it there and they did it here," is the only thing Fetzer says, as if that was proof.

      You can say "they," never referencing exactly who, how or where, and state that X happened over there, but it doesn't present any evidence addressing the issue of alteration in this particular Altgens photo. Fetzer and friends do this over and over again. They give references to other incidents in lieu of presenting ANY evidence that supports the specific claims they want to make.

      He just gets carried away with the undefined "they," giving them more and more mysterious powers, never proving anything, pretty soon just saying "they," will be the only proof Fetzer will give.

      Delete