Sunday, June 14, 2015

Ralph Takes His Idiocy On The Road

Ralph has been working devilishly behind the scenes to try to prove that I am now, another person in addition to seven or eight people I was supposed to be before the "Hondo" era.

Let's first clear up another Ralph Cinque misinfo blurb...

The picture Ralph claims was changed has been the profile photo on my Facecrook page since September, 2013.


After input by OIC Senior Member

The Hays County Sheriff's Department rounds up

Who The Fuck Is Hondo?

Don't worry Raff, a Public Records Request will have it published here soon....

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Friday, June 12, 2015

Fetzer's Bucking For Skid Mark Of The Year

Ralph the weasel will post Fetzer's crap in it's entirety  (I sure as hell won't)  yet Ralph feels the need to obfuscate the post of James Norwood.

Just keep in mind what Fetzer said not long ago...

For a more accurate description of Fetzer's latest fetzering, we'll turn to Lance Uppercut:

Hat Tip To Robin Unger & James Norwood

A big thank you to Robin Unger for forwarding James Norwood's Open Letter to the JFK Community.

James Norwood did exactly as Ralph Cnque requested and submitted his answers to two questions Ralph posed.

Ralph found the entire response to be a threat to his position, so he decided to cut it up into pieces and mix parts of it in his own diatribe. Jim Fetzer finally saw the light and said to the entire JFK community that Ralph wasn't an honest broker......understatement of the year.

The next time Ralph uses his "man behind the curtain" analogy, think back to this week and all of the obfuscation coming from Ralph over the simple issue of his former Chairman simply telling his side of the situation.

Now to hear from James Norwood....

June 12, 2015


As a condition for posting a reply on his blog to one of his screeds in which he was misrepresenting me and others, Ralph Cinque demanded that I answer two questions about the Altgens6 photo.

Today, I challenged Mr. Cinque to invite responses to his two questions from members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign (OIC) and the JFK research community at large. This could have been a learning opportunity for everyone about the topics of Oswald and the Altgens6 photo. But instead of moving forward with a broader debate, Mr. Cinque rejected my proposal. He had so little confidence in the replies he would receive from his skeletal OIC membership that their postings would only be, in his words, “tripe and nonsense.”

It turns out that the two questions raised by Mr. Cinque get at the heart of the shortcomings of the OIC’s fringe theories about the Altgens6 photo. Mr. Cinque was well aware that a serious debate of these issues with non-OIC members would deflate his flimsy thesis of photo alteration and his ridiculous, amateur photo analyses, wherein Mr. Cinque’s automaton-like response is that seemingly everything has to be “fake”!

I have provided my responses to his questions below, which he has promised to post on his blog at this site:

I would urge JFK researchers across the internet to post their own responses to the two questions on their own blogs and wesbsites in a united effort to expose a charlatan and a cyber bully.

Respectfully submitted,

James Norwood


Response of James Norwood to Two Questions From Ralph Cinque

Mr. Cinque's Questions

(1) Do you believe Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting of JFK?

(2) Do you think that Oswald can be seen in the Altgens photo?


The controversy about the possible presence of Oswald in the doorway, as apparent in the Altgens6 photo, began during the weekend of the assassination. ABC News did not present to the public the Altgens6 photo either on the afternoon of November 22 or throughout the weekend. ABC actually took the time to study the Altgens6 and concluded that the figure in the doorway resembled Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who was at this time in custody as the prime suspect. Out of immediate concern for the dramatic implications of this finding, ABC withheld the Altgens6 from its broadcasts. Suspecting that Oswald may have an airtight alibi due to the Altgens6 photo, ABC contacted the FBI about the tiny figure in the doorway because the news staff genuinely believed it might be Oswald. If the Altgens6 had been altered on Friday afternoon in order to obscure Doorway Man, as claimed by the Oswald Innocence Campaign (OIC), then the alterationists did not succeed in fooling ABC News!

For over fifty years, there have been debate, controversy, and shifting positions about this topic. In his 2008 publication of JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass wrote a short section suggesting that Oswald may have been standing in the doorway. [1] But Douglass later rethought his views on this topic. The example of James Douglass should alert us to the inherent subjectivity of photo analysis in the complex Doorman topic. It is not only likely, but inevitable, that there will never be a consensus on the topic of the man in the doorway.

Question #1: Do you believe Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting of JFK?


(1) WILL FRITZ: In Will Fritz’s interrogation notes, there is the scribbled notation that Oswald was “out with Bill Shelly in front.” At first glance, this appears to be a powerful piece of evidence suggesting that Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the assassination. But Fritz provided a much more expansive summary of the interrogation for the Warren Commission in which he wrote the following: “I asked him [Oswald] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor” [2] To suit his purposes, Mr. Cinque chooses as the truth the Fritz document that Mr. Cinque prefers (“out with Billy Shelly”) while rejecting as a lie Fritz’s other statement (“on the first floor”) which contradicts Mr. Cinque's preconceived conclusion of Oswald in the doorway. But for the impartial student of the JFK assassination, these two reports from Will Fritz cancel each other out. There is nothing conclusive about Oswald standing in doorway to be drawn from the writings of Will Fritz.

(2) EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: In the Warren Commission hearings, seven witnesses identified Billy Lovelady as the man in the doorway. (I am not including William Shelley’s ambivalent testimony.) Were all seven witnesses who identified Lovelady guilty of perjury? Were they all mistaken in their recall? Were they all coerced into giving false testimony? After fifty years, not a single one of these eyewitnesses ever recanted his/her testimony. The weight of the evidence here is on the side of the eyewitnesses who identified Lovelady in the doorway.

(3) OSWALD’S OWN WORDS: Oswald himself had ample opportunities from Friday evening through Sunday morning to proclaim his innocence by simply stating that he was standing in front of the building observing the passing of the motorcade. Oswald was captured on camera in an agitated state, crying out, “I’m just a patsy” or “I emphatically deny these charges.” But he never proclaimed, “I was standing in front of the building at the time of the shooting.” One reporter pointedly asked Oswald the question, “Were you in the building at the time?” It was at that moment, more than any other, that Oswald should have answered loudly and clearly that he was standing out front, if that is where he was at 12:30pm on November 22. Instead, Oswald clearly informed the reporter that he was inside the building. The weight of the evidence here is on the word of Oswald himself, who stated publicly that he was in the building and not standing on the steps outside.

Conclusion to Question #1

There is is not a shred of credible documentary or eyewitness evidence placing Oswald in the doorway at the time of the assassination. With the passage of over fifty years, not a single eyewitness has ever come forward to identify Oswald as the man in the doorway, despite the large crowd gathered around the alcove and waiting a substantial amount of time for the arrival of the motorcade. In my prioritizing of the evidence above, the most important is the testimony of the seven eyewitnesses who identified Lovelady in the doorway in their Warren Commission testimony. None of these eyewitnesses, their children, or their grandchildren have ever come forward with the revelation that Oswald was in the doorway. Perhaps the most important of these eyewitnesses is Buell Wesley Frazier, who is still alive and still maintains that it was Lovelady standing in the doorway. Until Frazier offers a deathbed confession to the contrary, there is not a sliver of eyewitness or documentary evidence placing Oswald in the doorway. Consequently, the weight of the evidence points to Billy Nolan Lovelady as the man in the doorway.

Question #2: Do you think that Oswald can be seen in the Altgens photo?


Whenever we rely exclusively on a photograph in attempting to draw conclusions about the JFK assassination, the process is highly subjective. For this reason, the Oswald Innocence Campaign has placed itself on a slippery slope by using the Altgens6 photo as its Rosetta Stone. In the words of Mr. Cinque, “the photo itself trumps everything.” But does it? Let’s have a look at the details of Doorway man as apparent in the Altgens6 photo.

Details of Doorway Man

(1) THE PHYSIQUE: From the angle in which Altgens shot this photo and where Doorman was standing, it appears to me that the man is fairly slender. At first glance, the physique resembles that of Oswald more than Lovelady. But it is difficult to get a true sense of the man’s physique because we only see a portion of his body in the photo. We know that Lovelady was stockier than Oswald. But in my analysis of the photo, it is too difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the physique. Due to the angle in which Doorman is standing, this figure in body proportion could be either Lovelady or Oswald.

(2) THE FACE: In my analysis of this photo, the face of Doorman does not appear to be even close to that of Lee Harvey Oswald. My conclusion is based on decades of examining the photographic record of Oswald. It is apparent to me that the face of the man in the photo is not that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(3) THE SHIRT: The OIC is deeply invested in the shirt of Doorway Man as the one worn by Oswald on November 22. I have personally gone back and forth on this issue because, once again, we are in the area of purely subjective responses to a photographic image. To my eye, the shirt looks like it could be Lovelady’s when compared with the first-day films taken in Dealey Plaza. The white strips on Oswald’s shirt apparent in the black-and-white Altgens6 photo seem nearly identical to the stripes on the Lovelady shirt as seen in the Martin color film footage taken shortly after the shooting had occurred. But the shirt also resembles Oswald’s when compared with the arrest photos taken on November 22. In the OIC home page article entitled “The Likeness of Oswald and Doorman,” much time is spent in the comparative analysis of Doorman’s shirt in Altgens6 and the shirt of Oswald worn while he was in police custody. But the OIC has an evidentiary problem because Oswald made an important stop between the TSBD and the Texas Theatre when he visited his rooming house. There is no definitive proof that Oswald did not change his shirt prior to leaving the rooming house and proceeding to the Texas Theatre. We do not know for certain that the shirt photographed at the time of arrest was the same shirt worn to work by Oswald on the morning of November 22. In the publication of JFK and the Unspeakable in 2008, the topic of the shirt was the concluding point raised by James Douglass to suggest that it may have been Oswald standing in the doorway. But after the publication of his book, Douglass reconsidered his view. Once again, we have an example of the ambiguous nature of photo analysis. Because of such confusion in this enormously complicated story of the shirts, the only reasonable conclusion is that the shirt of the doorway man in the Altgens6 photo could just as easily have been Lovelady’s as Oswald’s.

Conclusion to Question #2

An analysis of the man in the doorway in the Altgens6 photo reveals the inherent ambiguity that is at the heart of photographic studies. The work is so subjective that there will never be a consensus or a definitive conclusion about the identity of the man in the doorway. A central reference point for this essay is how the distinguished scholar James Douglass rethought his position on Oswald in the Doorway even after the publication of his book: "I don’t stop researching, and after that book was published, I have continued to research, and I am questioning my conclusion on that matter. And I’m still researching the matter of whether that is Lee Oswald or Billy Lovelady.” [3] Mr. Cinque would have us believe that it is a simple matter of looking at the Altgens6 photo. For an intellect like James Douglass, however, the matter is far from simple. It would be an equally convoluted exercise to attempt to identify with certainty almost any of the tiny bystanders apparent in the Altgens6 photo. In fact, the OIC has recently reversed its original identification of the man directly beneath Doorway Man. For years, the OIC claimed that the figure facing left was Roy Lewis. Then, one day, Roy Lewis suddenly became Carl Jones! The OIC lost credibility with this sudden reversal. If the OIC’s research is so fallible that for years, it misrepresented the identity of Carl Jones as Roy Lewis, then why should this organization be trusted in its attempt to accurately identify Doorman? The exclusive reliance on photo images for any definitive conclusions is doomed to failure because it is a textbook illustration of the adage that “appearances can be deceiving.” The limitations in photo analysis as the sole criterion for understanding the whereabouts of Oswald at 12:30pm demonstrate why it is a shaky proposition indeed to build an entire organization around the Altgens6 photo.


[1] James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable—Why He Died and Why It Matters (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2008; reprinted in paperback by Touchstone, 2010), pp. 283-87.

[2] Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 600

[3] The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer Podcast (James Douglass, “JFK and the Unspeakable”), April 15, 2009.

Ralph Cinque describes himself as a cancer...we all knew that

Ralph Cinque: Chickenshit
Ralph Cinque, in his usual lying ways, goes back on his word to former OIC Chairman James Norwood.

Ralph said he would print Norwood's response to two questions asked by Ralph, but chickened out and decided to bury Norwood's response in Ralph's own tripe.

Norwood's words are only dangerous to you Ralph and no Ralph, no one would confuse Norwood's lucid remarks to your insane ranting.

Ralph goes from JFK researcher to anal-cell Casanova...(not to be confused with a basil-cell carcinoma).

You're an asshole Ralph...admit it.


Ralph in his little temper tantrum made these remarks...

This was all explained to Ralph way back on October 20, 2013...

He gets more stupid with every breath

No Ralph, you're wrong.

My name is not Hondo and I don't post a regular column on the This Ain't Hell Blog.

But then we all know that when it comes to columns you're usually wrong. Like these...

Remember your "Laser Columns of Light? Of course you do.

Ralph Cinque is the dumbest asshat on Earth.

Try Again Fetzer

Custom tailored jackets don't bunch or ride up...

Nope...they are custom tailored so bunching up is impossible....

Maybe Fetzer needs to call a tailor the next time his panties get in a wad.

Hey Fetzer...can you say Judy Wood?

Thursday, June 11, 2015

If Ralph Was A Handgun He'd Be A Dolt .45

The great JFK researcher ponders....

SHOCKER!....just kidding Raff, we know that you don't know the source of that image. Unless it's an image you ripped off of Unger, Backes or here, you don't know the source of any image you use.

Raff continues to ponder....

Ralph Googles Himself Deeper

Ralph Cinque....self professed super-duper JFK researcher....

And then it all came crashing down around him....sux to be Raff.

Today, Ralph is posting one sided responses to the former Chairman of the OIC, James Norwood.

We can only assume what is said by Professor Norwood but we know Raff Cinque well enough to know that his response to any offer of proof by someone that disagrees with Raff, will be met with an onslaught of Google garbage.

And as seen in the past, Ralph will pull an out of context quote from something and never say where he got his info.

Case in point:

James Norwood actually spoke to newspaper people that were involved with putting out the newspaper they worked for on November 22, 1963. I assume James described in detail what he was told.


Here is where Ralph got his information....

The link to the above:

Earlier, I covered the entire process involved in pumping out AP Wirephotos in 20 minutes or less. While looking for information for that blog post I ran across the info contained in Raff's reply to James Norwood and knew the moment I read it where it came from. I had saved the link in case I needed it.


and here:

Ralph Cinque is the most ingenuous individual I have run across in a long time.

Fetzering has become Cinqueing .....(rhymes with Titanic)