RALPH CINQUE SAID:
New large photographic alteration discovered ----> CLICK HERE.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Unbelievable.
Ralph Cinque is the biggest "LN" asset to come along since the invention
of the Internet.
Thank you, Dr. Cinque.
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
Now I know why they did it. It was for the cover of TIME
magazine ----> CLICK HERE.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The picture below was taken just a few seconds before the other photo that Ralph Cinque thinks has been faked. I wonder if Ralph will now say that Jackie's left arm is really her right arm in this picture too....
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
Don't you already know the alterationist game? No matter what you cite, they will claim it is a fake.
Maybe they'll even claim she had two right arms. Don't underestimate their kookiness.
[...]
Nice photo. Can you tell us when and where it was taken? And what's up with that black fez the woman is wearing? Is that some type of super secret Masonic symbol? (for Pamela [Brown])
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Turtle Creek.
More here.
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
That's actually useful, DVP, because that is a valid image, and everything is accounted for: her shoulder, her upper arm, and her forearm. But not so with the disputed photo. I have done a detailed comparison. And once again, I'm making you famous. But this time you did good. You helped me.
OswaldInTheDoorway.blogspot.com/David-Von-Pein-Offers-This-Image
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're something else, Ralph. I don't think we in these parts have ever encountered an "EVERYTHING WAS FAKE" conspiracy theorist quite like you. You're in a league of your own. So much so, you are playing ball with yourself (and your extraordinary imagination).
Helpful Hint ---- The reason we can't see the upper part of Mrs. Kennedy's left arm in the picture you think is a fake is simply due to the angle of the photograph. And this fact is blatantly obvious to everybody else on the planet--except Dr. Ralph Cinque.
We're looking at Jackie almost directly from the SIDE in the picture below. So why would you expect to see Jackie's upper arm from that angle?
As I have said in the past, Mr. McAdams and Mr. Fokes have the patience of two saints to put up with some of the outlandish theories and garbage that pass in front of them every day at this aaj forum. But Ralph can also be thankful that those men also firmly believe in freedom of speech.
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
Oh, David. You are going to rue the day that you put up those photos from TIME magazine, because it is all over for them now. They have been caught red-handed, and I can't imagine what you, McAdams, or anyone else is going to say to deny this. Maybe Anthony Marsh will think of something, but you know how that goes.
Anyway, read it and weep:
OswaldInTheDoorway.blogspot.com/Lots-Of-Distortion-In-That-Hand
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm weeping alright, Ralph. But not for the reason you think. My cheeks, as usual, are soaked with tears of hilarity after reading your "Fakery" posts. And I know I'm not the only person here with moist cheeks.
And now I see Ralph has "found" additional fakery in the Time Magazine photos. (Gee, what a surprise, huh?)
And just to help Ralph out, I'm going to give him one more thing to chew on. Let's see if he runs into the CT Endzone and spikes his ball after seeing this one----
Why does this woman in the yellow circle seemingly have no thumb on her right hand? Another hunk of needless and useless "fakery" by Time Magazine, Ralph?....
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
She's got one. I circled it for you.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But I'd be willing to bet the ranch that if it had been you, Ralph Cinque, to "discover" the thumbless lady first, you'd be racing to your computer to type more posts about more fakery in the photo.
Does anyone here have any doubt about that? I sure don't.
But since I found the lady without the thumb, naturally Ralph sees the thumb. But I sure don't. (And the reason is, of course, the blurriness of the person in the image, which can distort all kinds of things in photographs.)
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
Ralph,
What I'd like to know is.....
Even if Time Magazine did "add an arm" to Jackie for a photo --- so what?
Where does Ralph go with his argument even if it is true (which it isn't, of course, but I'm just pretending it could be true for the sake of this argument)?
It's a picture taken before the shooting of JFK. So why does it matter at all what was done to any photo of Jackie taken prior to the assassination? There can't be any "assassins" to airbrush out of that picture.
Does Ralph think Time Magazine murdered JFK and then went around altering all the films and photos---even a picture of Jackie taken miles away from Dealey Plaza?
~shrug~
RALPH CINQUE'S HILARIOUS RESPONSE
TO MY POST ABOVE IS HERE.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Actually, the best thing we can use this photo for is to once again demonstrate the "bunched up" nature of JFK's jacket....
David Von Pein
February 2015
More fun with conspiracy nut
Ralph Cinque can be located HERE.
===========================
