From Oswald's Nut...
From legacy.com...
From Dale Myers' book quoting Fritz.....
From SS Inspector Kelley's report...
Nope, "he is never referred to as Jim".......
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Idiocy 101 epilogue:
From legacy.com...
From Dale Myers' book quoting Fritz.....
From SS Inspector Kelley's report...
Nope, "he is never referred to as Jim".......
Saturday, May 5, 2018
Idiocy 101
This is truly the mark of an idiot. Imbecile Feier!
Most people do. You see, Raff* Sink (aka Oswald's Nut) really screwed the pooch when he went all in on FBI Agent Jim Bookhout being the person that shot Lee Harvey Oswald....shot him, but didn't. You see, "they" wanted to silence Oswald, so "they" decided to make Jack Ruby a patsy, like "they" did Oswald, so "they" drugged Ruby, arranged for a fake perp walk, while "they" got every news reporter, law enforcement officer and Federal Agent to play along, and had FBI Agent Bookhout shoot, but not really shoot Oswald, so "they" could drag Oswald off and shoot him again.
Seriously.......
Unruly? The mysterious "they" must have forgot to do a makeup and hair touch-up between takes.
Here is the photo as shown on the Prayer Man site...
Here is Raff*'s spin on it last year and a couple of my notes to Raff*...
Why would he do that? Are you serious Raff*? Why don't you ask all these guys why they held their cameras over their heads.....
Or ask these guys....
See Raff*..........what am I saying? It's obvious you don't see this guy's head in the way....
Raff* has been able to bring out the sinister in bringing food up and down an open shirt, holding a camera up over people to get a shot, leaning certain ways, looking down while walking, having thin hair, standing closest to an exhibit and now...pipe smoking.
Raff* Sink is an idiot.
And as we always see, Raff* has to find a problem with the source of every photo that has proved him wrong over the years (there's been hundreds)...
This is what happens when Oswald's Nut has atrophied into a bitter, old malcontent on the edge of psychosis. Hate should prevail in the JFK sandbox over collaboration. Raff* Sink is batshit crazy and the scarier part of the equation is that people agree with him, Google lets him buy placement and people see his images and do the same thing as Raff* and just accept what he says instead actually doing some research.
Raff* calls out Denis Morrisette in particular by criticizing the fact that he corrected his own work...
Raff* followed a link to a video, that showed someone talking to Oswald. And, Raff* takes it as gospel that the guy talking to Oswald is FBI Agent Bookhout because the person that posted the link said it was Bookhout.
That's all the research Raff* needs. He's exactly like Fetzer in that regard. He relies entirely on the "work" of others. A long time ago, Oswald's Nut would make a mistake or make a wrong identification and say "Hey, my bad" and correct their mistake. Raff* has slipped past the realm of integrity and demands that you accept any misinformation simply because Raff* Sink claims it to be true.
But Raff* just lied through his teeth.
"And then some guy, and I forget who, put the link up to the above video clip....Well, this short guy is the only guy Oswald talks to in the hall. I wish I could remember the man who referred me to this"
Hmmmm...that doesn't square with this.....
You think Raff* forgot?
This is the world of Oswald's Nut...
This is your brain on jock itch.......
Seriously.......
Here is the photo as shown on the Prayer Man site...
His hair doesn't look unruly. Raff* just likes to enlarge every picture to the point that all detail is lost and then make claims about how "they" altered something.
Jim Bookhout is not built like Texas Ranger, Bob Crowder. The man on the right is FBI Agent Bookhout. You don't have to find Bob Crowder in the picture from which the image of Bookhout was cropped because the picture tells you who is who in the picture.
Raff* Sink is so full of shit I can't decide if he'd float or sink straight to the bottom of the bowl.
Here is the photo at the Prayer Man site:
 | |
| 1968 Newspaper Clipping from Steve Roe |
Raff* is claiming that Bob Crowder is actually FBI Agent Bookhout and shot Oswald, but he didn't and Bookhout is Bob Crowder.
Here is Raff*'s spin on it last year and a couple of my notes to Raff*...
It's been over 7 months. We're still waiting for that confirmation. We also can see that Bookhout owned more than one suit. A dark one ! ooooooooo..I bet "they" rushed out and bought him once "they" realized that he had on a light colored suit in Fritz's office. Raff* continues.....
I don't know where Raff* comes up with this crap. Bookhout didn't follow Oswald around, anywhere. He came down to the DPD for Oswald's interviews. And then Raff* slips into declaratory mode and makes another one of his asinine claims......It is unusual for an FBI Agent to wear a light suit. Apparently not, considering the fact that you're looking at one. And the gentleman standing behind Bookhout has on a suit not much darker than Bookhouts. That's another funny thing about many of Raff*'s pictures...they show the very thing he says doesn't exist.
Why would he do that? Are you serious Raff*? Why don't you ask all these guys why they held their cameras over their heads.....
Or ask these guys....
Raff* Sink is an idiot.
And as we always see, Raff* has to find a problem with the source of every photo that has proved him wrong over the years (there's been hundreds)...
This is what happens when Oswald's Nut has atrophied into a bitter, old malcontent on the edge of psychosis. Hate should prevail in the JFK sandbox over collaboration. Raff* Sink is batshit crazy and the scarier part of the equation is that people agree with him, Google lets him buy placement and people see his images and do the same thing as Raff* and just accept what he says instead actually doing some research.
Raff* calls out Denis Morrisette in particular by criticizing the fact that he corrected his own work...
Raff* followed a link to a video, that showed someone talking to Oswald. And, Raff* takes it as gospel that the guy talking to Oswald is FBI Agent Bookhout because the person that posted the link said it was Bookhout.
That's all the research Raff* needs. He's exactly like Fetzer in that regard. He relies entirely on the "work" of others. A long time ago, Oswald's Nut would make a mistake or make a wrong identification and say "Hey, my bad" and correct their mistake. Raff* has slipped past the realm of integrity and demands that you accept any misinformation simply because Raff* Sink claims it to be true.
But Raff* just lied through his teeth.
"And then some guy, and I forget who, put the link up to the above video clip....Well, this short guy is the only guy Oswald talks to in the hall. I wish I could remember the man who referred me to this"
Hmmmm...that doesn't square with this.....
 |
| November 4, 2016 The OIC Blog |
This is the world of Oswald's Nut...
This is your brain on jock itch.......
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
The Ring Judges Say Raff*'s An Idiot
Google is failing Raff* big time....
Better than going through life as a dumbass like you Raff*.
There's 3 examples you asshat, found in a matter of seconds.
Now why don't you stick to your starvation clinic and leave the things you have to think about to those that have that ability.
Try Again Raff* you insufferable moron
Raff* is not only a dumbass when it comes to research, but he reading comprehension skills are severely lacking as well...
This morning he posted this....
No where on this blog or any blog, will you see me endorsing any statement of Judyth Baker's save when she calls you an idiot. Because you are.
This post ....
was in direct response to your half-assed attempt to prove you knew something about film emulsions. You don't know squat. You know nothing about film, photography, parallax, lighting, shade, the effects of lens length, focal point or anything related to JFK, Oswald, Ruby or Oswald's mamma.
You're a complete and utter dolt.
Let me remind you again of your half-assed attempt to sound smart....
Brownian motion affects how particles move in the development of the film which is why some photographers claim that additional agitation is needed when stand developing because the Brownian motion is insufficient on it's own. Developing solutions are time sensitive in their effect on the film you nimrod.
But you wouldn't know a damn thing about that because you read an 11 page article on the chemistry of photography from the University of Houston.
For once why don't you just shut the fuck up.
This morning he posted this....
This post ....
was in direct response to your half-assed attempt to prove you knew something about film emulsions. You don't know squat. You know nothing about film, photography, parallax, lighting, shade, the effects of lens length, focal point or anything related to JFK, Oswald, Ruby or Oswald's mamma.
You're a complete and utter dolt.
Let me remind you again of your half-assed attempt to sound smart....
Brownian motion affects how particles move in the development of the film which is why some photographers claim that additional agitation is needed when stand developing because the Brownian motion is insufficient on it's own. Developing solutions are time sensitive in their effect on the film you nimrod.
But you wouldn't know a damn thing about that because you read an 11 page article on the chemistry of photography from the University of Houston.
For once why don't you just shut the fuck up.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Raff* and his amazing research skills
Raff* has become an expert in research of every possible topic in the world....
Not in dealing with grain patterns in black and white film and subsequent enlargements of portions of the photo.
Raff* could do the 300 but we'll suffice with just one in an effort to show that even after researching the subject, Raff* is still a dumbass.....
Raff* doesn't understand that some things are inherent to the discussion of certain topics. It is understood that Brownian movement is a part of the process, but occasionally, authors will point it out to assholes like Raff* Sink, that do a search of a general topic like film processing, and think they're an expert on the subject.
This time Raff*, Google was not your friend.....
Not in dealing with grain patterns in black and white film and subsequent enlargements of portions of the photo.
This time Raff*, Google was not your friend.....
The Professor Has The Floor
Today, I am posting a response to Raff* Sink by Professor James Norwood, Former Chairman of the OIC.
Raff* decided to attack Professor Norwood for simply responding to my post. In the past I have allowed Professor Norwood to submit information and post it for him here, where multitudes can read his remarks.
Here is an open letter that I previously published and it is followed by Professor Norwood's most current comments...
On May 26, I sent a proposal to Mr. Cinque for a new direction of the OIC away from Altgens6 photo alteration and into the more general area of studies of the JFK assassination and Oswald. My proposal, which included the draft of a revised Mission Statement, was categorically rejected by Mr. Cinque, who invited me to step down as Chair and to exit the organization. Due to (a) the narrow focus and unpersuasive content of the present OIC homepage, (b) Mr. Cinque’s misrepresentation of his personal postings on the blog/facebook pages, (c) the inability to contact a third of the Senior Members, and (d) a host of other issues, I am unable to recommend the Oswald Innocence Campaign to any serious researcher of the JFK assassination.
Respectfully submitted,
James Norwood
Raff* decided to attack Professor Norwood for simply responding to my post. In the past I have allowed Professor Norwood to submit information and post it for him here, where multitudes can read his remarks.
Here is an open letter that I previously published and it is followed by Professor Norwood's most current comments...
June 6, 2015
An Open Letter to Fellow JFK
Researchers Concerning the Oswald Innocence Campaign:
My name is James Norwood, and
I was a member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign (OIC) for several years. On
March 11, 2015, I assumed the position of Chair of the group. At that
time, I attempted to get to know the members on a personal basis and to
understand the workings of the OIC organization. Recently, I have stepped down from my
position due to differences in philosophy with the founder, Ralph Cinque. I am no longer a member of this group. At this time, I wish to share my views on the
Oswald Innocence Campaign.
During my tenure as Chair, the OIC’s webpage listed 51 Senior Members along with their photos and biographical profiles. But Mr. Cinque could only locate e-mail addresses for 34 out of 51 members. This means that 17 members (33 1/3%) are not only non-active, but impossible to contact. Additionally, in the group’s e-mail forum, only a handful of the Senior Members ever participated in the discussions. Without a critical mass of active members, the OIC is comprised primarily of a gallery of names and photos. I understand that several of the members are in failing health and are physically unable to participate. And, to be fair, I have experienced several stimulating e-mail conversations, but, in each instance, there were only three or four members sharing their views. If it is impossible even to contact by e-mail up to one-third of the membership and only several members regularly engage in discussions, then this organization is functionally non-existent.
Mr. Cinque has dictated the content of the OIC home page with his single-minded purpose of presenting amateur photo analyses. The seemingly endless diagrams of photo and film frame images are based on the premise that the photos are fake. But there is no evidence presented that even remotely suggests where the films and photos were altered, who altered them, and at what time the alterations occurred. Based on my scrutiny of the OIC’s home page, the theory of Altgens6 photo alteration is not persuasive, and, after years of debate on the internet, it has never been taken seriously by even a fraction of the JFK research community.
Mr. Cinque also maintains a personal blog and a facebook page. He posts daily internet commentaries that have recently expanded well beyond the purview of the JFK assassination into such conspiracy theories as the death of Osama bin Laden. As apparent in the two website titles, Mr. Cinque gives the impression that his personal opinions reflect the OIC organization as a whole. The OIC blog site is entitled "Oswald in the Doorway: The Blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign." The OIC facebook page is entitled, "Oswald Innocence Campaign: Community." I am troubled that the subjective views of Mr. Cinque are being presented in the guise of the OIC community, when in fact, the opinions belong to Mr. Cinque alone with no group consensus whatsoever. Many of the postings of Mr. Cinque are part of his ongoing personal quarrels on the internet. There is no disclaimer indicating that his views do not represent those of the organization as a whole. I have ethical concerns about a solitary writer engaging in nonstop, profanity-laced verbal jousting that gives the impression that Mr. Cinque's views are representative of the OIC members in general.
During my tenure as Chair, the OIC’s webpage listed 51 Senior Members along with their photos and biographical profiles. But Mr. Cinque could only locate e-mail addresses for 34 out of 51 members. This means that 17 members (33 1/3%) are not only non-active, but impossible to contact. Additionally, in the group’s e-mail forum, only a handful of the Senior Members ever participated in the discussions. Without a critical mass of active members, the OIC is comprised primarily of a gallery of names and photos. I understand that several of the members are in failing health and are physically unable to participate. And, to be fair, I have experienced several stimulating e-mail conversations, but, in each instance, there were only three or four members sharing their views. If it is impossible even to contact by e-mail up to one-third of the membership and only several members regularly engage in discussions, then this organization is functionally non-existent.
Mr. Cinque has dictated the content of the OIC home page with his single-minded purpose of presenting amateur photo analyses. The seemingly endless diagrams of photo and film frame images are based on the premise that the photos are fake. But there is no evidence presented that even remotely suggests where the films and photos were altered, who altered them, and at what time the alterations occurred. Based on my scrutiny of the OIC’s home page, the theory of Altgens6 photo alteration is not persuasive, and, after years of debate on the internet, it has never been taken seriously by even a fraction of the JFK research community.
Mr. Cinque also maintains a personal blog and a facebook page. He posts daily internet commentaries that have recently expanded well beyond the purview of the JFK assassination into such conspiracy theories as the death of Osama bin Laden. As apparent in the two website titles, Mr. Cinque gives the impression that his personal opinions reflect the OIC organization as a whole. The OIC blog site is entitled "Oswald in the Doorway: The Blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign." The OIC facebook page is entitled, "Oswald Innocence Campaign: Community." I am troubled that the subjective views of Mr. Cinque are being presented in the guise of the OIC community, when in fact, the opinions belong to Mr. Cinque alone with no group consensus whatsoever. Many of the postings of Mr. Cinque are part of his ongoing personal quarrels on the internet. There is no disclaimer indicating that his views do not represent those of the organization as a whole. I have ethical concerns about a solitary writer engaging in nonstop, profanity-laced verbal jousting that gives the impression that Mr. Cinque's views are representative of the OIC members in general.
On May 26, I sent a proposal to Mr. Cinque for a new direction of the OIC away from Altgens6 photo alteration and into the more general area of studies of the JFK assassination and Oswald. My proposal, which included the draft of a revised Mission Statement, was categorically rejected by Mr. Cinque, who invited me to step down as Chair and to exit the organization. Due to (a) the narrow focus and unpersuasive content of the present OIC homepage, (b) Mr. Cinque’s misrepresentation of his personal postings on the blog/facebook pages, (c) the inability to contact a third of the Senior Members, and (d) a host of other issues, I am unable to recommend the Oswald Innocence Campaign to any serious researcher of the JFK assassination.
Respectfully submitted,
James Norwood
I have really appreciated these exposés
by bpete and the opportunity to write comments. They are well presented and
well-reasoned analyses.
The point that Ralph Cinque is unable to grasp is the inherent subjectivity involved in studying photographs. I find no anomaly and nothing sinister about the photo with Dallas police officer whose head is bowed. We could take a poll and probably find a few people who believe that the hat looks strange. But that discussion will not advance our knowledge of the JFK assassination. It is merely another time-waster like all of Ralph's endeavors (Oswald in the Doorway, Mary Moorman as Babuska Lady, Bookhout as Ruby).
I recently came across yet another internet site dedicated to exposing the wild and unsubstantiated photo conclusions of Ralph Cinque. The latest pictorial blog was prepared by "Jack Jackson" and may be accessed at the following site under the title of "Ralph Cinque Outed":
https://ralph-cinque-outed.blogspot.com/
In Jackson's numerous discussions of the photographs, it becomes immediately apparent that (1) he has photo analytical skills that are vastly superior to those of Ralph Cinque and (2) he has prepared meticulous presentations to debunk Ralph's conclusions about such far-fetched issues as the tiny image of the woman and child in Altgens6. Ralph believes the images of the woman and the toddler have been “faked.” But this is just another example of a non-starter as a line of inquiry.
It is obvious that ANYONE can look at a photograph and draw fanciful conclusions. It is a far more challenging discipline to support and corroborate photo interpretations from hard evidence, including records, documents, affidavits, eyewitness testimony.
The point that Ralph Cinque is unable to grasp is the inherent subjectivity involved in studying photographs. I find no anomaly and nothing sinister about the photo with Dallas police officer whose head is bowed. We could take a poll and probably find a few people who believe that the hat looks strange. But that discussion will not advance our knowledge of the JFK assassination. It is merely another time-waster like all of Ralph's endeavors (Oswald in the Doorway, Mary Moorman as Babuska Lady, Bookhout as Ruby).
I recently came across yet another internet site dedicated to exposing the wild and unsubstantiated photo conclusions of Ralph Cinque. The latest pictorial blog was prepared by "Jack Jackson" and may be accessed at the following site under the title of "Ralph Cinque Outed":
https://ralph-cinque-outed.blogspot.com/
In Jackson's numerous discussions of the photographs, it becomes immediately apparent that (1) he has photo analytical skills that are vastly superior to those of Ralph Cinque and (2) he has prepared meticulous presentations to debunk Ralph's conclusions about such far-fetched issues as the tiny image of the woman and child in Altgens6. Ralph believes the images of the woman and the toddler have been “faked.” But this is just another example of a non-starter as a line of inquiry.
It is obvious that ANYONE can look at a photograph and draw fanciful conclusions. It is a far more challenging discipline to support and corroborate photo interpretations from hard evidence, including records, documents, affidavits, eyewitness testimony.
For example, in making their case for Oswald as Doorman,
Fetzer and Cinque rely on Will Fritz's scribbled notation "out with Bill
Shelley in front." But they fail to read the full narrative version of
Fritz's interrogation notes, which places his earlier scribbled notes in
context. On p. 2 of Fritz's transcribed
notes, he writes the following: "I asked him [Oswald] what part of the
building he was in when the President was shot, and he said he was having lunch
about that time on the first floor."
In other words, Oswald informed Fritz that he was INSIDE the building at
the time of the shooting. If he had been OUTSIDE the building with an
eyewitness (Shelley) to vouch for his presence, Oswald surely would have loudly
proclaimed such an airtight alibi to Fritz and to the reporters in the hall who
had asked him the same question.
The source for the Fritz citation above may be found at:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=2&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=2&tab=page
********
Ralph whiles away his life looking at photos, drawing subjective conclusions, and never taking the time to persuasively build an argument based upon multiple strands of evidence. He is only relying on the photos for opinion-driven discourse. It is for this reason that Ralph's theory about Oswald in the Doorway has never gained traction among serious JFK researchers.
The main topics that bpete has been covering in his recent posts are:
(1) Ralph's proclivity for revising and plagiarizing the work of others in the articles that appear on the OIC home page;
(2) The blatant use of circular reasoning used by Ralph and Jim Fetzer to advance their claims (i.e., "We have proven that Altgens6 is fake, thus we need no other evidence to demonstrate that it is Oswald standing in the doorway."); and
(3) the absence of a scientific foundation or even a crude knowledge of photographic art in the 1960s, in order to demonstrate their hypotheses;
Another point that I have added in one my comments is Ralph's lack of civility in his internet discourse.
In raising the topic of the "hat trick,” Ralph is overtly transparent in his attempt to deflect attention away from the valid criticisms of his work, as enumerated in bpete’s thoughtful presentations.
Ralph whiles away his life looking at photos, drawing subjective conclusions, and never taking the time to persuasively build an argument based upon multiple strands of evidence. He is only relying on the photos for opinion-driven discourse. It is for this reason that Ralph's theory about Oswald in the Doorway has never gained traction among serious JFK researchers.
The main topics that bpete has been covering in his recent posts are:
(1) Ralph's proclivity for revising and plagiarizing the work of others in the articles that appear on the OIC home page;
(2) The blatant use of circular reasoning used by Ralph and Jim Fetzer to advance their claims (i.e., "We have proven that Altgens6 is fake, thus we need no other evidence to demonstrate that it is Oswald standing in the doorway."); and
(3) the absence of a scientific foundation or even a crude knowledge of photographic art in the 1960s, in order to demonstrate their hypotheses;
Another point that I have added in one my comments is Ralph's lack of civility in his internet discourse.
In raising the topic of the "hat trick,” Ralph is overtly transparent in his attempt to deflect attention away from the valid criticisms of his work, as enumerated in bpete’s thoughtful presentations.
Thank you Professor Norwood. I will be posting this on both of my blogs...B
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Raff* Likes His Shit
Raff* seems to be pissed a little more than usual today....
Um no Raff*, it means that I think you're wrong for like the bazillionth time. A guy walks out of the office wearing a hat and looks down when the photo was taken and suddenly the world is supposed to stop according to you.
I changed the subject? You really are a nimrod. You just admitted that you tried to change the subject and get me to stop posting about your asinine rantings on the Oswald's Incompetent Clowns website and worry about your inability to look at a photo and see what it contains. When your posts about a man with his head down didn't do the trick you decided to do a little ethnic stereotyping. You're so predictable Raff*.
That guy doesn't give a shit about your racist rants either. It's a fictional character created by Kirby Sattler who does Native American art. You ripped it off and decided to use it while making racist remarks directed at me. I really don't give a damn because it confirms everything I've said about you. You're a disgruntled low life that thinks he's made an impact in the JFK sandbox when in reality, you've become a joke to rival that of Fetzer and Judyth Vary Baker.
Now as for your hat and your unwarranted attack on Prof. James Norwood....
Let me take the opportunity to explain the photo to you Raff*. The officer in the hat has looked down. Do you know how you can tell? You can see the free end of the ribbon on the hat band. It's located on the officer's left side. The Resistol hat has the ribbon crossed on the wearer's left side.
See......?
You can also tell the front of the hat by the way the crown is formed. If you knew anything at all about Resistol hats, you'd know that.
You can see it on Oswald's hat as well (sarc).....
Must be a youth model.....
Now as for this......
*Brian Pete is a name Raff* thinks is my name. If it were mine, he would have already tried to contact me and my employers and harass them and me, like he has done with others. Unfortunately for Raff* it's not, therefore I can go about my business and continue to point out how big an idiot Raff* is, in relative peace and quiet.
I never claimed that James H. Fetzer was using circular reasoning when he claimed that a guys elbow was an alteration. I just implied that James H. Fetzer, PhD, was a dumb ass. Where I claimed that Fetzer was using circular reasoning was when he said the only reason Altgens 6 would have been altered was because Oswald was in it and since he's not in it, it had to be altered.
But let's get back to the photo above. Raff* hasn't been paying attention. His own fellow Clowns have shown that the photo is legit when they made this comparison.....
Number 2 is the guy shielding his eyes.
You can read about it here: http://www.oswaldinnocencecampaign.com/2018/04/series-note-2.html
I will now invite Prof. James Norwood to either submit a reply to Raff* and post it here(as I have done in the past) or he can respond in the comments below. Something that Raff*, James H. Fetzer and Judyth Baker refuse to do.
Um no Raff*, it means that I think you're wrong for like the bazillionth time. A guy walks out of the office wearing a hat and looks down when the photo was taken and suddenly the world is supposed to stop according to you.
 | |
| Image by Kirby Sattler, screen shot from Raff* Sink's blog |
I changed the subject? You really are a nimrod. You just admitted that you tried to change the subject and get me to stop posting about your asinine rantings on the Oswald's Incompetent Clowns website and worry about your inability to look at a photo and see what it contains. When your posts about a man with his head down didn't do the trick you decided to do a little ethnic stereotyping. You're so predictable Raff*.
 |
| Image by Kerby Sattler, screen shot from Raff* Sinl website |
That guy doesn't give a shit about your racist rants either. It's a fictional character created by Kirby Sattler who does Native American art. You ripped it off and decided to use it while making racist remarks directed at me. I really don't give a damn because it confirms everything I've said about you. You're a disgruntled low life that thinks he's made an impact in the JFK sandbox when in reality, you've become a joke to rival that of Fetzer and Judyth Vary Baker.
Now as for your hat and your unwarranted attack on Prof. James Norwood....
See......?
You can also tell the front of the hat by the way the crown is formed. If you knew anything at all about Resistol hats, you'd know that.
You can see it on Oswald's hat as well (sarc).....
 |
| Yippee Ki Yay Mudder Ruckers |
Now as for this......
*Brian Pete is a name Raff* thinks is my name. If it were mine, he would have already tried to contact me and my employers and harass them and me, like he has done with others. Unfortunately for Raff* it's not, therefore I can go about my business and continue to point out how big an idiot Raff* is, in relative peace and quiet.
I never claimed that James H. Fetzer was using circular reasoning when he claimed that a guys elbow was an alteration. I just implied that James H. Fetzer, PhD, was a dumb ass. Where I claimed that Fetzer was using circular reasoning was when he said the only reason Altgens 6 would have been altered was because Oswald was in it and since he's not in it, it had to be altered.
But let's get back to the photo above. Raff* hasn't been paying attention. His own fellow Clowns have shown that the photo is legit when they made this comparison.....
You can read about it here: http://www.oswaldinnocencecampaign.com/2018/04/series-note-2.html
I will now invite Prof. James Norwood to either submit a reply to Raff* and post it here(as I have done in the past) or he can respond in the comments below. Something that Raff*, James H. Fetzer and Judyth Baker refuse to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)