Search the Community

Mr. BALL - You heard the shots. And how long after that was it before Gloria Calvary came up? Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, approximately 3 minutes, I would say. Mr. BALL - Three minutes is a long time. [hint, hint]Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, it's---I say approximately; I can't say because I don't have a watch; it could. Mr. BALL - Had people started to run? Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I couldn't say because she came up to us and we was talking to her, wasn't looking that direction at that time, but when we came off the steps--see, that entrance, you have a blind side when you go down the steps. Mr. BALL - Right after you talked to Gloria, did you [meaning Lovelady and Shelley] leave the steps and go toward the tracks? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.

Here are a couple of templates I have set up to help myself try to get a handle on the extreme difference in perspective from two of the most debated photos. I was wanting comment from some of the more experienced photo analysts/researchers as to whether this is accurate. Hopefully some of your comments will help others like me to understand how someone we think should be in a photo, may not be, not because of editing/fakery, but because of the difference in the photographers position (POV).

It has always intrigued me that Lovelady volunteered something to Ball that he didn't need to say until asked about it. Mr. BALL - You came into the building from the west side? Mr. LOVELADY - Right. Mr. BALL - Where did you go into the building? Mr. LOVELADY - Through that, those raised-up doors. Mr. BALL - Through the raised-up doors? Mr. LOVELADY - Through that double door that we in the morning when we get there we raised. There's a fire door and they have two wooden doors between it. Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor? Mr. LOVELADY - Right. Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor? Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie. Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie? Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman. Mr. BALL - What is her full name? Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know. Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams? Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so. Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw? Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear. Some random observations and thoughts: Vicki Adams and Billy Lovelady were questioned by a Warren Commission attorney on the same day and in the same room of the same building (the Post Office Building on Ervay). Vicki's questioning (by Belin) was at 2:15 pm, and Lovelady's (by Ball) was at 3:50 pm. Did Lovelady see Vicki in the hallway when Vicki came out of her session? Or did he somehow already know that Vicki was going to give testimony? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," could that help to explain why Lovelady, while giving his testimony, volunteered to Ball that he wasn't sure that he had seen Vicki on the first floor when he (and Shelley?) reentered the TSBD after the assassination? Or was he "coached" in advance to say that he had seen Vicki there (but in reality hadn't), and didn't want to perjure himself, so kinda spilled the beans to the effect of having been "coached"? If he was he not "coached" to say he'd seen Vicki there, but in reality thought that he might have, why did he volunteer that unnecessary information instead of waiting for Ball to ask if who he thought "the girl" was? Thoughts? -- Tommy

To whichever moderator sees this: it is a new discovery of great importance, and EF members are entitled to know about it. I have not been banned; I have been put on moderation. So please, in that spirit, please get this up. Thank you. Ralph Cinque The Oswald Innocence Campaign has just discoverd something of great importance in CE 369.. We have discovered the arrow that Billy Lovelady drew on the Altgens photo to indicate himself. And it does not point to the Doorway Man, as most have assumed. Rather, it points to Black Hole Man. But first a little history: The Warren Commission asked two individuals to locate and identify Billy Lovelady in the Altgens photo, and they were Billy Lovelady and Buell Frazier. Both were asked to draw an arrow to Billy Lovelady. But, for some strange reason, on different occasions, they gave them each the exact same copy of the Altgens photo to draw on, which became known as CE 369. To avoid bias, wouldn't they have provided each a fresh, unmarked copy of the Altgens photo to draw on? You would think so, but that's not what they did. Perhaps they were trying to send a message to Lovelady as to where that arrow had to go. Buell Frazier went first, and he drew an arrow in the white pointing to Doorway Man, and that is the arrow we are all familiar with seeing. http://tinypic.com/r/mv0z1t/6 People talk about that exhibit as if it was the handiwork of Billy Lovelady, but the arrow that is plainly visible was drawn by Buell Frazier. Lovelady drew an arrow in the black, but since he used a black pen, which made it black on black, we are unable to see his arrow. Or so we thought.... I have examined the black space above and around Doorman's head looking for Lovelady's arrow but never could find a hint of it. But then it occurred to me: What if Billy drew his arrow elsewhere in the photograph far away from Doorman? So, I decided to look in proximity to Black Hole Man since he is the figure whom we assume to be Lovelady. And lo and behold.... http://tinypic.com/r/14wxa3n/6 Do you see that black line extending over his forearm? It's about the middle of his forearm but closer to his wrist than his elbow on the inside. What could that possibly be other than an arrow? Look at it up closer: http://tinypic.com/r/1620fgi/6 Now here it is compared to the unmarked Altgens: http://tinypic.com/r/14u7uaa/6 As you can see, in the unmarked Altgens, his forearm is undefiled. It is uninterrupted. It is unlined. What could cause that line? Certainly not a shadow. From what? There is no object that could cast such a shadow. There is nothing else it could be except the arrow that Lovelady drew. Now consider the testimony: WC Attorney Joseph Bell took out CE 369 with the arrow in the white pointing to Doorman that Buell Frazier had drawn: Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are? Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture. Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating). Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken? Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the top step, would be here (indicating). Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step? Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level. Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there? Mr. LOVELADY - Right. What is Ball talking about? We know now that the arrow Lovelady drew pointed to a different figure than to what Frazier pointed to. So how could Ball say, "You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you" when the "you" was different figures? Are you wondering if there was also an arrow in the dark above Doorman that might have been the one that Lovelady drew? Well, see for yourself. http://tinypic.com/r/2lxgvi9/6 There is no arrow in the dark above Doorman's head. There are only two arrows: the prominent diagonal arrow in the white pointing to Doorman drawn by Buell Frazier and the smaller fainter arrow pointing to Black Hole Man drawn mostly in the black by Billy Lovelady. That is it. And again, if that line across the forearm of Black Hole Man is not part of Lovelady's arrow, what can it possibly be? It is not shadow. There is no object that could cast such a shadow. The irony is that for decades, lone-nutters have used CE 369 as evidence of Lovelady pointing to himself as Doorman in the Altgens photo. But that was never the case. The arrow to which they were referring was Frazier's arrow. Lovelady's arrow was never visualized -until now. Now we know that Lovelady, at the time, was being truthful; he was being noble. He was saying he was Black Hole Man and not Doorman. And think about what it means. Black Hole is not wearing a plaid shirt. He is not even wearing a long-sleeved shirt. That means that ALL of the images of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt on 11/22/63, including the famous Martin frames and the various frames from the PD footage, with the famous walk-by of Lovelady, are all false. None of those figures were Lovelady. Every single one of them was somehow faked. Lovelady told the truth when he told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved striped shirt on 11/22. Obviously, there are no stripes on the shirt of Black Hole Man, but that's because they took them out. They blackened out his face and they whitened his shirt. To our adversaries, I request to know what that black line is over Black Hole Man's forearm if it is not Lovelady's arrow. Please answer the question. And if it can't be answered- convincingly- it is over. The game is over. And it is Oswald in the doorway. Unfortunately, I am getting mistreated again, and I know very well that some moderators simply refuse to post my submissions. To everyone who responded below: If that black line overlapping Black Hole Man's forearm is not the tail of an arrow, then what is it? It has to be somerthing. It cannot be nothing. It cannot be a shadow because a shadow would appear in EVERY copy of the Altgens photo, not just CE 369. I would ask that you cease the diversionary tactics. Instead, if you don't like my conclusion that that was Lovelady's drawn arrow, then provide an alternative explanation. One thing is for sure: Lovelady drew an arrow. It is in the testimony. So, where is it? If this isn't it, then find it. As of now, it appears that this is the long-lost arrow of Lovelady. And no one has provided any alternative explanation.

If you look very closely you will see that the shirt of this particular "Lovelady Imposter" (according to Fetzer and Cinque) was unbuttoned. See that very white, vertical "stripe" which is broader at the bottom than at the top and is closer to his belly than his neck? (It's visible just before he starts turning his head back to the right.) That's his T-shirt! Hmmm... Maybe it's really Lovelady after all! See also Chris Davidson's great Hughes' film "thumbnail" in post #63 of Dr. Fetzer's rather nauseous "Newseum Display" thread... --Tommy

Reasoning about Doorman “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. – Sherlock Holmes (A. Conan Doyle) Jim Fetzer Since there appears to be considerable confusion about reasoning scientifically in a case of this kind, the most valuable contribution I can make to the discussion of Doormån and Oswald concerns the pattern of reasoning that applies here. Having offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning to college students for 35 years, I am well positioned to explain the principles that apply in cases of this kind, which are part and parcel of the application of the scientific method. Scientific method is a process involving four steps or stages of investigation or inquiry, beginning with PUZZLEMENT, where some phenomenon or event does not fit into your background knowledge and understanding; SPECULATION, where the full range of appropriate alternative explanations are advanced; ADAPTATION, where those alternatives are tested relative to the available relevant evidence; and finally, EXPLANATION, where the alternative that is best supported is acceptable as true but in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. Scientific Reasoning The key stage is ADAPTATION, which involves the application of inference to the best explanation to the available evidence. This requires comparing the relative degrees of evidential support for alternative hypotheses by calculating the probability of the data on the assumption that the hypothesis is true. Do that for each of them and see which of them confers the highest probability on the evidence, if it were true. It sounds like a process of reasoning backwards and, in a way, it is: you are treating the evidence as the effect of a cause and comparing the probability with which various causes could have brought about an effect. If you found a tree that had been cut in half and felled, what is the probability that that had been done with a pen-knife, a Swiss Army knife or a chain saw? Consider the effects and figure out which among its possible causes is most likely. An hypothesis with a higher likelihood is preferable to one with lower, where the one with the highest likelihood is acceptable as true when the evidence has “settled down”. It is always possible to return to make a recalculation when new evidence or new alternatives become available. Here I want to highlight a few of the key considerations that have led me to conclude that Doorman and Oswald are indeed one and the same, where, in this case, we are essentially dealing with only two alternatives, namely: that Doorman was Billy Lovelady, as the government contends, or that Doorman was Lee Oswald, as David Wrone, Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke, Orlando Martin and I – among others – contend. Because there are only two serious candidates, evidence that favors one of them disfavors the other, and evidence that disfavors one of the favors the other. Doorman is one or the other. If Doorman was Oswald, he wasn’t Lovelady; if he was Lovelady, he wasn’t Lee. “Out with Billy Shelley in front” It was astonishing to me to learn – only last year, 2011 – that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the DPD Homicide Detective who had interrogated Lee Oswald, notes that had been released way back in 2007, that said Oswald told Will Fritz that he had been “out with Bill Shelley in front” during the assassination. This discovery led me to take a second look at Altgens6 and to revist the question of whether Doorman could have been Oswald. Some have claimed Lee was not talking about his location during the shooting but some time thereafter. That makes no sense at all, however, since we know he was observed in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM by Carolyn Arnold, the executive secretary to the Vice President of the TSBD. So, Oswald could not have been referring to being outside with Bill Shelly before the shooting. Within 90 seconds, after the shooting, Oswald had been accosted in the lunchroom by Roy Truly and motorcycle officer Marion Baker. Oswald could not have meant he was “out with Bill Shelly in front” after the shooting because Bill Shelly was not there then. Shelly said he left immediately, with Billy Lovelady, to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around. When Lovelady and Shelly returned, they re-entered the building through the backdoor, of the TSBD, and went to the base of the back stairwell (in the northwest corner (rear) of the building). So, Bill Shelly was definitely not out in front when Oswald was leaving. The Altgens6 was Altered It would have been unbelievably remiss of Detective Fritz not to have asked Lee Oswald where he was at the time of the shooting; that is the most pertinent question Will Fritz would have needed to ask. Three questions therefore arise about what Lee told Fritz: (1) Why would Lee have said he was “out in front” if it were not true? (2) Why mention Shelley unless Lee believed that he would confirm it? (3) How could Lee have known Shelley was there if Lee had not been? These questions appeared to me to create a prima facie presumption that Lee was telling the truth during his interrogation. I therefore began to take a closer look at Altgent6 and was astonished to discover—and on a John McAdams site!—that Altgens6 was altered: Notice I am NOT talking about Doorman but the figure to his left / front (our right / front viewing the images). I original inferred that the face that was obfuscated must have been that of Lee Oswald, but I now believe—based on new research by Richard Hooke-- that it was instead that of Bill Shelley. For Shelley to have been in the immediate vicinity of the enigmatic Doorman would have made Lee’s remark to Will Fritz just a bit too intriguing, which would have invited taking a closer look and risk exposing the entire charade. As we have taken a closer and closer look, it is remarkable how many of the features used to pull off this charade are present in this composite image, including not only Billy and Lee but the man in a checkered shirt, who was a Lovelady imposter, and frames from a faked film. Taking a Closer Look That the Altgens6 was altered at all creates the presumption that something was wrong. Surely it would only have been altered if someone had been there who should not have been there. The only candidate for that role would have been Lee Oswald. While I now believe that the face that was obfuscated was that of Bill Shelley, his importance there would only become apparent when Oswald’s remarks to Fritz would eventually become available. And, to the best of my knowledge, that did not occur until 1997. I published my first article accenting this discovery, “JFK: What we know now that we didn’t know then” (21 November 2011), mistakenly asserting that the obfuscated face was that of Lee, which led Ralph Cinque to contact me to explain why he thought that I was right about my conclusion—that Oswald HAD been in the doorway—but that I was wrong about my reasons for thinking so, where the clothing that Doorman was wearing was the key! It did not take long for Ralph to convince me that he was right, which led to our joint article, “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (25 January 2012). The uniqueness of Oswald’s clothing had never really been addressed before. Well, perhaps it had, but not in a long time, and not with any widespread recognition. When you compare the clothing of Oswald and Doorman in detail, you realize it had to be the same clothing, which means it had to be the same man. Unless Billy was wearing Lee’s clothing, the probability that Doorman was Lovelady approaches zero and the probability Doorman was Lee approaches one. Not only is there no serious chance that Billy Lovelady just happened to dress himself exactly the same way as Lee Oswald, that particular day, but Billy himself would go to the FBI and show them the shirt he had been wearing that day —an incredibly implausible thing to do unless it was true—and it was not the same shirt! Inference to the Best Explanation As you will find on the pages of The Oswald Innocence Project, Ralph Cinque and Richard Hooke have done brilliant work in displaying the full range of alterations to which this photo has been subjected, where the more they have done, the stronger the case has become. Any one familiar with the principles of scientific reasoning--most importantly, of inference to the best explanation--will have no difficulty appreciating that the case for alteration has been made, again and again. The complexity of what was done is rather astonishing, but the price of failure would have been to blow apart the greatest hoax in American history, namely: that JFK had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone, demented gunman. We know that cannot be true on multiple grounds, but this proof is as powerful as they come. An hypothesis has been proven beyond reasonable doubt when no alternative hypothesis is reasonable. There would have been no reason to alter Altgens6 unless someone had been there who should not have been. Altgens6 was altered. Therefore, someone was there who should not have been. The only person that could have been was Lee Oswald, the designated “patsy”. Questions have long revolved over the identity of Doorman, but they have been pursued in the past in ignorance of what Lee told Fritz and that Altgens6 had been altered in at least one respect—and now turns out to have been altered in many others. We have found that the man in the checkered shirt appears to have been used as a “target of opportunity” to explain away the differences between the shirt Doorman was wearing and the shirt that Billy was not. As you will discover here, there is no reasonable alternative to the hypothesis that Lee was Doorman, which has been further confirmed in detail by more recent studies. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the charade has been exposed. Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and journalist with Veterans Today, has joined The Oswald Innocence Project (now aka The Oswald Innocence Campaign) which he highly recommends. Fifty years of deceit and deception are enough.

Tom Scully has LOCKED the Cinque/Lovelady thread and alleged that I have committed some dire offense by posting on his behalf when we all know that new admissions to the forum are virtually non-existent. I have not been spending a lot of time on this thread other than posting on behalf of Ralph, which I had not realized was supposed to be some kind of gross breach of forum policy. Until just now, I had not seen Scully's post #38 admonishing me for posting on his behalf. Egad! How serious an offense is that supposed to be, when Ralph is advancing our understanding of how the fakery was pulled off? I am all for the forum having rules, but I submit that my posting is a nice test of the question, "Which is more important: exposing the cover-up or following the rules?" I would prefer that Ralph post for himself and so would he. So why didn't Scully suggest he would look into it? I have in the past found John Simkin to be difficult to reach. But for Scully, I assume, it would be a "piece of cake". Here is another example of why I believe he has been doing brilliant work, where everyone who cares about exposing falsehoods and revealing truths is in his debt. This is what he has now written to me, which I believe ought to be shared with every EF member: Both of these are purported to be images of Billy Lovelady sitting at the Dallas police station on 11/22/63. The one on the left is from the film of Oswald being led through the Dallas PD. The second is unsourced. To capture the first image, I stopped the film, printed the image, then scanned the image, and that's how it came to be. The one on the right is just a widely circulated image of Lovelady at the Dallas PD, and I don't know where it came from. But, the scenes are the same! Exactly the same! It's the exact same set up! Lovelady sitting at a desk with his back to the desk on some kind of stool, and a column of men walking by. File cabinets at the top of the scene, topped with files and books. And look at that clock! It's on a pole, and it says 2:00. You can see it much better on the right, but you can also see it on the left. It's in both pictures! That unusual clock! How often do you see a clock on a pole? Look at the objects on the desk, including two sheets of paper neatly lying there, caddy-corner to each other. Move your eyes back and forth. It's the exact same scene. They staged it .. . twice! Using two different men. Those two men, both purported to be Lovelady, are definitely not the same individual. The man on the right is at least 30 pounds heavier. He's got his hair combed differently, straight back, whereas the other guy has it combed over. Also, his outer shirt seems to be more open, more unbuttoned. It's the exact same scene, except for a few minor details, such as the lineup of men being different. And the most important difference, of course, is that there are different Loveladys. Please, we need to put our differences aside and reckon with this. This can be no accident and no coincidence. This was staged, twice, using two different men. I believe the man on the left was the real Lovelady, and I don't know who the man on the right is. These are obviously the same situation, the same location, the same circumstance, but they are definitely different shoots, different versions. I shouldn't have to tell you what this means. They staged it, twice! Ralph Here is a closer comparison, which, in my opinion, supports Ralph's belief that the man on the left (above) was the real Billy Lovelady and on the right (above) the imposter. How many discoveries of this caliber could we expect to have after nearly fifty years of JFK research? And it is coming from a man who has a different background, which gives him a distinctive point of view and a fresh approach: Now it seems to me that discoveries of this magnitude should be published and discussed on this forum. I still do not quite grasp what offense I am supposed to have committed in posting on behalf of Ralph, when gaining membership has been so difficult and time-consuming in the past. I believe that moderators ought to be assisting in research on JFK, not thwarting it. I am very disappointed. Ralph has also been participating in threads on the Lancer forum, where Jerry Dealey has been about as welcoming of him there as Scully and others are being receptive to him here. If Scully can assist in making Ralph a member, it would be sensational. I willing apologize for any transgressions of forum rules, but I really think locking a thread over formalities in this case is simply inexcusable.

For an extended version with many more photographs, which lays the context for this article, see "JFK Special 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" http://www.veteranst...rway-after-all/ The Two "Lovelady"s Ralph Cinque Look at these two images, and tell me if it is the same man. If they are not the same man, then the entire official story of the JFK assassination falls completely apart. Everything hinges on those two individuals being the same person. If they are different human beings, then it’s all over for the Warren Report. The man on the left is Billy Lovelady, who worked at the Texas School Book Depository alongside Lee Harvey Oswald. When the Altgens photo came out, many people, from all over the world, thought that the man standing in the doorway was Lee. But, it was quickly announced that, no, it was Billy. But, it was a hard sell. As much as they raved about how much Lee and Billy looked alike, Lee was 5’9” and weighed 135 pounds whereas Billy was 5’8” and weighed 170 pounds. That’s a big weight difference, and it hardly makes them twins. And most agree that Doorway Man had a slender build, much like Lee. And with Doorman wearing a loose-fitting, unbuttoned outer shirt over a notched t-shirt, it was a perfect match to Lee’s garb. But what was Billy wearing? That’s where it gets dicey. At first, Billy said that he wore a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans. He told that to the FBI, and they wrote it down and sent it to the Warren Commission. And the shirt, which you can see above, was short-sleeved. That immediately ruled him out as Doorway Man. And keep in mind: this is a default situation: If it wasn’t Billy, then it had to be Lee. There were no other candidates, no other possibilities. It had to be one or the other. And so, the story had to be changed. Are you aware that other aspects of the assassination also got changed? For instance, they didn’t go with the “Magic Bullet” theory in the beginning. At first, they said that JFK and Connally were struck by different bullets, which is also what Connally claimed. But then when they discovered that there had been a missed shot that nicked bystander James Tague, they had to account for all the wounds with just two bullets. And since the last and fatal head shot was considered a solo event, they had to attribute all of the remaining seven wounds in two men to just one bullet, the so-called magic bullet. But, they definitely would not have gone that route if the fragment that hit Tague had not been found. They weren’t going that route. It’s like they hit a wall, and they had to go around it. So, flexibility, it seems, is the key to effective story-telling when it comes to political assassinations. And since they had to get Lovelady out of that short-sleeved shirt and into a long-sleeved one- for there to be any chance of him being Doorman- the story became that he actually wore a long-sleeved plaid, checkered shirt that day. As for what he told the FBI earlier, that was just a misunderstanding. And to prove it, they came up with the image that you see above on the right. That is, supposedly, an image of Billy Lovelady taken outside the Dallas Police Department just hours after the assassination, and you can see that he is wearing a long-sleeved, plaid, checkered shirt. Ain’t detective work grand? If you’re smart and cunning like Lieutenant Columbo, all the pieces come together, they fit like a glove, and there are no loose ends. Except in this case, Lieutenant Columbo would have been the first to point out that FBI Lovelady and DallasPD Lovelady were not the same man. The Two "Osama"s What exactly do they have in common? The only thing I can see is a similar pattern of hair loss, but even that isn’t identical. Nothing else about them is even a good match, let alone a perfect one. So, how is it that people came to accept that they were one and the same person? The answer is simple: the psychological power of officialdom. When something comes from high above, that is, from government and media, it flies on the wings of authority, and the critical faculties of the mind shut down. The very same thing is happening right now, this day, in perfect parallel with the events of 1963. Here’s what I mean: It is now the one-year anniversary of the (alleged) assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But, did he really live until 2011? Ten years earlier, in 2001, his kidneys were failing, and he was on dialysis. Do you know how long the average dialysis patient lives in the United States? About 5 years, and that’s with the best medical care. For a while, Osama was living in a cave. And he had a myriad of other health problems, including: diabetes, hepatitis, osteoporosis, and Marfan’s syndrome. The left picture below is Osama bin Laden from 2001 and to its right is an image from 2011 which was released by the Pentagon. Which man looks older and which man looks younger? They say that he dyed his hair, but forget about that. Compare their eyes, and hone in on the tired, old eyes of the “younger” Osama. Compare the fullness of their faces, or I should say that lack of it in the older-looking, more decrepit Osama from 2001. Look at the firmness and solidness of the musculature around the shoulders of the latter-day bin laden compared to how he looked 10 years earlier. Those are some solid trapezoid muscles. What, was he lifting weights at his compound in Abbottabad? With all his health problems and with the stress of living in a cave, living on the run, remaining in hiding as the most wanted man in the world, do you really think there is any chance that bin laden could emerge in 2011 in the obvious good, robust condition that you see above? We’re talking about 10 years on dialysis! I happened to watch the movie "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" in which a man aged in reverse, where he got younger with each passing year. But, I needn’t have to tell you that that never happens in real life. People only age in one direction – from younger to older. Osama, above, seems to have defied the laws of biology. Apparently, he spent the whole time on a spaceship travelling at the speed of light so that he didn’t age, as per Einstein. But hey, he not only didn’t age, he actually got younger- a lot younger. And all while on dialysis! Heck, maybe we should all start doing it. But the question is, why does any American believe that that second picture was really Osama bin laden? And the answer again is: the psychological power of officialdom. The Lovelady Imposter But getting back to the two images of Billy Lovelady, there are people today, supposedly intelligent people, who are still arguing that they are the same person. Allow me to re-present the basic points of comparison, most of which were laid out by Canadian researcher, Kelly Ruckman. What follows is an excerpt from the last article in this series: First, DallasPD Lovelady's head (right) is wider from front to back than is FBI Lovelady's (left). Second, the slope of FBI Lovelady's head is more vertical, and the angle of his forehead with the top of his head is more rectangular. On DallasPD Lovelady, there is no angle at all, rather there is just a long, gentle, slope, like a ski slope, and it reminds me of the images we have seen of Cro-Magnon Man or Neanderthal. Third, FBI Lovelady seems to have a longer nose, and DallasPD Lovelady seems to have a shorter, stubbier nose. Fourth, the hairlines are different. FBI Lovelady's hairline at the temple seems to go straight up whereas DallasPd Lovelady's hairline angles back more. Fifth, the ears look different, with the real Lovelady's on the left being longer and narrower. Remember that ears are very distinctive, like fingerprints. Thank you Kelly Ruckman for pointing out the above. But there is a difference between the two of them which jumps out even more at me: their necks. DallasPD Lovelady (on the right) has got a condition known as FORWARD NECK SYNDROME. Any orthopedist or chiropractor can see it- at a glance. Instead of going up, his neck is going forward. FBI Lovelady (on the left) has a much more vertical neck. The basic, fundamental direction that it is going is UP. But on DallasPD Lovelady (on the right), his neck isn't going up so much. His neck is going more FORWARD, and that has the effect of shortening his neck. And that is something we can measure. Take a ruler and measure the length of the visible neck on each of them, going from the bottom of the ear to wherever the vertical line reaches the shirt. As I measure it, I get a full inch of neck length on FBI Lovelady, but only 2/3 inch on DallasPD Lovelady. So, from the perspective of DallasPD Lovelady, FBI Lovelady has 50% more length in his neck. Next, I want you to drop a plumb line on each of them. And the way you can do it is to take a ruler and place it right behind the ear, and holding it vertical, track it down and see where it goes. With good posture, the ear should not be too much in front of the sagittal plane of the shoulder, and FBI Lovelady is doing quite well in that respect. His isn't bad alignment. I like what I'm seeing. But DallasPD Lovelady's ear is much farther forward than that; his plumb line is well forward of his shoulder. He is really quite contorted, and he's the kind of guy who is destined to have osteoarthritis of the neck. In holding his neck forward like that, he has to do something to maintain his eyes level, that is, parallel with the ground, and what he's doing is cocking his head back sharply at the very top of his neck. You may not be able to see it as well as I can, but if you were to see it on an x-ray, it would jump out at you. So, his neck is going forward, and at the very top of his neck, his head is rocking back on his neck. And that is like putting a heavy weight on a spring, compressing it. And that puts pressure on all the cervical joints, and over time, they wear out from it. The compressed cervical discs thin out until they are practically non-existent. Cervical disc herniations are also possible with this kind of posture. Here's another way you can tell the difference: look at the axis of FBI Lovelady's ear. It's pretty much vertical: straight up and down. Not perfectly so, but close. But, on DallasPD Lovelady, the ear is rocked back more. It's got more pitch to it. The line of greatest length through the ear is more diagonal, with the upper part back and the lower part forward. Again, it's rocked back, and the reason it's rocked back is because the whole head is rocked back. This is a very rigid, locked, dysfunctional posture that compromises mobility, flexibility, and coordination. As a chiropractor, it's a pleasure for me to look at FBI Lovelady because he has such nice lengthening in his neck and that translates into freedom of motion, lightness of being, and a generally expansive state of the body, which is what you want. But, it's very distressful for me to look at DallasPD Lovelady because he looks solid, rigid, steeped in stiffness, and destined for pain. Is there any chance that Lovelady was just standing and comporting himself differently on the two days? No. There is absolutely no chance of that. Postural habits are deeply ingrained. They are the MOST deeply ingrained of all the habits you've got. It's extremely hard to break them- even if you try, and there is no reason to think Lovelady was trying. And the reason that it's so hard to change them is because your habitual way of carrying yourself is the only thing you know; it's the only thing that feels right to you; anything else would feel way out of balance, terribly wrong, like you were going to fall. It's like your own little world that you're living in- your way of responding to gravity and other forces- and it's the only one you can even conceive of. Having been a chiropractor for 36 years, I can tell you that this one factor of the FORWARD NECK SYNDROME on DallasPD Lovelady and its absence on FBI Lovelady completely eliminates any possibility that the two of them were the same man. It clinches it like different dental x-rays. It is not just a different position that DallasPD Lovelady is holding his neck; he is anatomically fixed that way. He could not make his neck look like FBI Lovelady's no matter what he did. It would be anatomically impossible. The Experts Speak That concludes the excerpt, and I hope you are convinced now that the case for them being different individuals is solid and compelling. However, our opponents, including all lone-nutters and even some conspiracy theorists, say things like: “you can’t tell anything from old photographs,” “it’s too blurry to make precise comparisons,” “posture fluctuates from day to day,” (actually, it doesn’t) and more. They have actually been fighting tooth and nail to defend the idea that those two disparate men are both Billy Lovelady. For lone-nutters, it may be that they are wise enough to realize that they have to cling to that claim or else they lose everything. As for the CTs who are fighting me, I haven’t a clue as to what motivates them. But, to ratchet it up a notch, I decided to seek the opinions of some other doctors whom I know. And in order not to bias them, I made no mention of the JFK assassination, and I made no mention of what my opinion is. I certainly did not include the excerpt above. Here is all I said: Doctors, I have a favor to ask of each of you. Please look at this composite picture of two men. I wish for you to tell me, based on anatomical comparisons, whether you think there is any chance they are the same individual. It's important concerning some research I'm doing. Thank you. Dr. Ralph Cinque Now, let’s take a look at the results, and I am going to post them verbatim. And I am going to provide the names and locations of the doctors, just so that you know, without a doubt, that I am talking about real people. There is no bull-xxxxting going on here. This is from Dr. David Peters, who is an eye doctor in Lockhart, Texas. Hello Raffie! Based on the bone structure, they do not appear to be the same person. Pal David * * * * * * * * * * * * Dr. James Panzetta is a dentist from Virginia. Hi Ralph: I'll give you my opinion. I do not believe they are the same person. My reasons are as follows: 1. The bridge of the nose on one man appears convex and the other appears concave. 2. The lips appear different to me. Bottom lip seems more retruded on the right than on the other. 3. Eyes and eye brows appear different to me. 4. Head and neck articulation appear different to me. 5. Man on right has more robust chest. * * * * * * * * * * * * This is a response from Dr. Glenn Skene, a chiropractor, from Anaheim CA. Ralph, I see them as two distinct individuals. True, they are both working on a good "reverse yamaka' with their hairlines, but the ears are wrong, the cervical curves are way different, and so are the slopes of their shoulders. There is also the overall size difference- the guy on the left is slighter of build. So, my analysis is: 2 different dudes, both bad dressers! Glenn * * * * * * * * * * * * This is from Dr. Gary Skene, who is the brother of Glenn Skene, and also a chiropractor. He practices in Boca del Toro, Panama. Ralph, they're not the same guy. Their faces are different, and the guy on the right is a lot stockier. But, he also has that short, anterior bulldog neck, and the other guy doesn't. Is someone really saying that they are the same guy? Who? I can't believe it. I mean, I can't believe that anyone would say that. They're definitely not the same guy, and it's not a matter of belief. Hey, when are you coming down here? You gotta see this place. Gary * * * * * * * * * * * * * This is from Dr. Alan Goldhamer, a chiropractor from Santa Rosa, CA. These appear to be two different individuals. I suppose picture quality and angle could alter perceptions, but many features appear to be different, including the noses, the ears, and especially the cervical anatomy. * * * * * * * * * * * * * This is from Dr. Erwin Linzer, who is also a chiropractor from Santa Rosa, CA. Hi Dr. Cinque It looks to me like two different people. The ear size is different, and the jaw size seems different. Dr. Erwin Linzner * * * * * * * * * * * * This is from Dr. John Wilbur who happens to be my dentist here in Austin TX. They are not the same man. With enough surgery, you might be able to change the left man into the right one, but I can’t see it going the other way. * * * * * * * * * * * * * This is Dr. Theresa Longo M.D., who is a pediatric intensive care specialist from southern Illinois. Dear Ralph, I would have great difficulty saying that those two men are the same man. The man on the right has a very different slant of his forehead and brow, and his eye socket configuration is different too. And his whole face seems to plane farther back, that is, to be wider. They are two individuals. Theresa * * * * * * * * * * * Finally, here is Dr. Ward Dean, a brilliant medical doctor, the author of several textbooks, two of which I have read: The NeuroEndocrine Theory of Aging and Biological Aging Measurement, which has to do with fine observations and measurements of the human body, which therefore applies directly to what we are talking about. Dr. Dean said: Ralph, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. They look like different men to me. Their cranio-facial features look distinct, and the man on the right looks heavier and older. And what a difference in physiognomy! The man on the left looks relaxed, but I wouldn't want to tangle with that guy on the right. He looks mean! Just an impression. Ward * * * * * * * * * * * * I could continue posing the question it to other doctors, but since I’m getting a unanimous verdict- that they were different men- there is hardly any point. But feel free to send the pictures around yourself to doctors or non-doctors. I asked doctors simply because they know anatomy and they are used to studying the human body. But, Jim Fetzer put it as well as anyone when he said that one of them looks like a man and the other like a gorilla. In lay terms, that’s as good a way as any to express the magnitude of the differences between them. Concluding Reflections What does all this mean? It means that the totality of the single gunman theory collapses to nothingness. Lovelady was not the one wearing the plaid checkered shirt on 11/22/63, yet, he posed in that shirt, or one like it, several times over the years, and as late as 1978, as photographed by Robert Grodin. Lovelady knew very well that he was not the one wearing that shirt that fateful day in 1963. Rather, it was his imposter who wore it. So, Billy Lovelady was part of, or at least became part of, the conspiracy. He was not the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo, which means that Lee Harvey Oswald had to be. And if Lee was standing in the doorway during the shooting, he could not have been up on the 6th floor doing the shooting. This is open and shut. There is no longer any doubt about it. The image of Doorway Man in the Altgens photo is visual proof that Oswald was innocent. And all the pining of Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, SV Anderson, Max Holland, and others cannot change it or contradict it. The only thing left to do now is to spread the word, one mind at a time. Unfortunately, the power and dominance of government and media are utterly on their side. Even the talking heads mentioned above have got the hobnail boot of the state backing them up. Ironically, there can’t be more than a few individuals still living who were involved in any way with the assassination, and none of them are in power. No one in power now can be considered the least bit culpable for the murder. Obama had nothing to do with it. Neither did Attorney General Eric Holder. So, why won’t they re-open the case? The answer is that it’s not just the perpetrators who would be on trial if the case were reopened. It’s the integrity and the moral authority of the whole US federal government and also the whole corporate media that would be on trial because they have been feeding us the lies for 48 years. So, they are not going to cooperate; they are never going to cooperate. They correctly recognize that, ultimately, it is their own hides that are on the line, if not for the murder, then for the cover-up. They have already crossed the Rubicon concerning JFK, and there is no turning back for them. They are going to stick to their story to the bitter end- despite how preposterous it is and always was. They control the television and radio broadcasts; they determine the content of the school books; and they know full-well about the psychological power of officialdom, and so they use it. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t win. You have to think of this as a guerrilla war. We have the power of the internet. We have sister truth movements, such as the 9/11 truth movement and the Ron Paul movement, with whom to network. And once the light goes on in someone’s head, there will be no turning back for that person. We’ll have them on our side for life. We can win this war of attrition. So, please start now by urging every person you know and love to read this article. Help spread the truth about the murder of JFK. Doing so will help galvanize the revival and restoration of our country. It really will.