Ralph Cinque on Lovelady and Oswald in the doorway

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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.

Edited May 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Oh, my. That's really embarrassing.

Is it Doorway Man, or Doorman?

Who's Teague?

Where does he get that "Teague" led them to propose the single-bullet theory, when they started pushing the SBT in May, after studying the Z-film and re-enacting the shooting and concluding that Connally was hit too soon after Kennedy was hit for them to have been hit by separate shots from Oswald's rifle? And where "Teague" was ignored until June?

And where does he get that his doctor friends are "experts" on facial recognition and photo-analysis? These doctors are undoubtedly LAYMEN when it comes to this particular field of expertise. Their opinions have no more value than that of a man on the street.

And how much background were these men provided? Were they told that there is news footage of LOVELADY in the police department, with Oswald in the same shot, and that Lovelady was wearing the shirt in those frames as well? Were they told that EVERY co-worker ever questioned about the identity of "Doorway Man" IDed Lovelady, and not Oswald?

Sad.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph has now received yet another response from an expert:

This is from Dr. Ben Thurman MD from Ft. Worth in regard to the two Loveladys:

"I agree. It isn't the same guy. Would you, if you haven't already, consider speaking on this topic at the JFK Lancer symposium held every November in Dallas? The website isjfklancer.com. Your information is sure to resonate with them."

What I don't understand is why Pat Speer is making feeble arguments and faulting the misspelling of "Tague", which I ought to have caught, and the use of "Doorman" vs. "Doorway Man" as though that were significant; and Lee Farley is faulting him for misidentifying the location where one of these photos was taken. So what?

There can be no doubt on two key points: (1) the man in both photos--whether in the DPD or in front of the SBTD--is clearly and definitively the same man; and (2) that that man is clearly and definitively not Billy Lovelady. Why is Dr. Thurman's response so much more appropriate than your trivial replies? What's going on here?

Edited May 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph responds to Lee:

Lee, your response is unfair, dishonest, and mean-spirited. Did you not notice that throughout the article I referred to him as "TSBD Lovelady". There are over a dozen such references. But what did you do? You honed in on one reference to him being at the Dallas PD, and now you're making a federal case out of it. And as you know, there IS another image from him at the Dallas PD, and here it is. So, he was, in fact, there a short while later.

And yes, I do have a problem with this picture. You, Lee, are the one who said that it was taken from footage of Oswald at the PD, but I looked through all the footage of that available online and could not find it. Are you sure about that? Because I think you're wrong.

And you say he's sitting on a chair, but he sure doesn't look like he is sitting on a chair. That's because people don't usually sit on a chair like that. They don't sit so erect on a chair. They tend to collapse into the chair. He is sitting as straight as an arrow. Compare it to this other guy. See the difference?

So, if you don't mind, I need a little more evidence that he's sitting before I believe it.

But, the bottom line is that you're attacking me on this small point and ignoring the whole thrust of what I said in the article. No matter where the hell he was, he was not the real Lovelady. THAT'S THE POINT! That's what matters. That's what you should be addressing.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lee,

Ralph has been doing brilliant work on a question long thought to be

settled. It was never really adequately studied, where his background

as a chiropractor has been making a difference: fresh eyes can see

what others have long missed. You are being petty and irrational by

not admiring what he has done. Everyone, including us both, makes

mistakes; but few there are who can do such remarkable new work

on what we--most of us--thought was a question that had been settled.

Give him a break. The one who is embarrassing is not Ralph but you.

Jim

Ralph has now received yet another response from an expert:

This is from Dr. Ben Thurman MD from Ft. Worth in regard to the two Loveladys:

"I agree. It isn't the same guy. Would you, if you haven't already, consider speaking on this topic at the JFK Lancer symposium held every November in Dallas? The website isjfklancer.com. Your information is sure to resonate with them."

What I don't understand is why Pat Speer is making feeble arguments and faulting the misspelling of "Tague", which I ought to have caught, and the use of "Doorman" vs. "Doorway Man" as though that were significant; and Lee Farley is faulting him for misidentifying the location where one of these photos was taken. So what?

There can be no doubt on two key points: (1) the man in both photos--whether in the DPD or in front of the SBTD--is clearly and definitively the same man; and (2) that that man is clearly and definitively not Billy Lovelady. Why is Dr. Thurman's response so much more appropriate than your trivial replies? What's going on here?

Lee Farley (me) is faulting the way Cinque comes to his conclusions. Grasping in the dark, shadow boxing with the evidence and generally making it up as he goes along.

You obviously missed it when I said he was claiming Lovelady had been cut and pasted in to the City Hall photograph. Not only did he not know that the frame he was using came from film footage but the idea that Lovelady may have been sitting down (hence his smaller size compared to Oswald and the officers) did not occur to him.

He was basically saying a cut-and-paste conclusion was the only one he could come up with because he couldn't see the chair.

You cannot reason with this level of ignorance and incompetence. I have no problem with mistakes but I have yet to hear Cinque admit to any. Personally, I've lost count.

What he is presenting is embarrassing.

Edited May 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph responds to Pat:

What’s sad, Pat, is the weakness of your response. If that’s the best you can do, then obviously Jim and I have hit paydirt.

Yes, for expediency, I sometimes simply refer to him as Doorman. It's short and easy. Is that so terrible?

And although I misspelled “Tague” the fact is that you often see it spelled the way I spelled it. But, Jim can fix that, if he wants to. [Done!]

And I stand by what I said, that the discovery of the missed shot which glanced Tague did lead to the Single Bullet Theory, but I am not going to get into it now but it is not the subject of the article. The subject is whether Lovelady in the plaid shirt from 11/22 was really him. So, don’t try to change the subject.

And you’re right that anyone is entitled to an opinion about whether the two Loveladys were the same man. But, I decided to ask doctors, and here's why: Doctors know anatomy. They are likely to notice details in anatomical distinctions that lay people will not readily observe. And that includes the alignment of the neck, which jumps out at a chiropractor. Notice how many of the doctors observed the difference between the two men in cervical anatomy. And that is a big anatomical difference.

So no, you are wrong; they are not laymen in this particular field of expertise. They know the human body, and they are used to looking closely at it and with a critical eye.

But hey, let’s put it to the man on the street. I’m all for it! Just today, a version of the article dealing only with Osama bin laden was published on lewrockwell.com, the most widely read libertarian website in the world. And there the issue was comparing the two images of Osama bin laden, and I have been hearing from a multitude of people, regular people, from all over the world, that there is no way that that staged, phony picture of Osama bin laden from 2011 is legit. Here’s the link:

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/cinque9.1.1.html

And, I have to wonder what is wrong with you, Pat. Of course, I didn’t try to bias those doctors with any extraneous information. Of course, I didn’t try to plant any ideas in their minds before they looked at the pictures. I didn’t even tell them that it had anything to do with JFK. Do you have any understanding of what objective, unbiased research involves? Apparently not.

Pat, the way your mind works troubles me. Come on! There have to me more thoughtful souls here to respond to this! I’m not here to shoot ducks at the carnival.

Oh, my. That's really embarrassing.

Is it Doorway Man, or Doorman?

Who's Teague?

Where does he get that "Teague" led them to propose the single-bullet theory, when they started pushing the SBT in May, after studying the Z-film and re-enacting the shooting and concluding that Connally was hit too soon after Kennedy was hit for them to have been hit by separate shots from Oswald's rifle? And where "Teague" was ignored until June?

And where does he get that his doctor friends are "experts" on facial recognition and photo-analysis? These doctors are undoubtedly LAYMAN when it comes to this particular field of expertise. Their opinions have no more value than that of a man on the street.

And how much background were these men provided? Were they told that there is news footage of LOVELADY in the police department, with Oswald in the same shot, and that Lovelady was wearing the shirt in those frames as well? Were they told that EVERY co-worker ever questioned about the identity of "Doorway Man" IDed Lovelady, and not Oswald?

Sad.

[Len Colby]

By what wild stretch of the imagination are dentists, pediatricians and chiropraters "experts" regarding comparing photos of people's faces?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You ignore both (a) that the persons in the two photos (DPD and TSBD) are the same person and ( that that person is not Billy Lovelady. Why are you not even acknowledging the key point of this question? Why are you "bobbing and weaving"?

Ralph responds to Lee:

Lee, your response is unfair, dishonest, and mean-spirited. Did you not notice that throughout the article I referred to him as "TSBD Lovelady". There are over a dozen such references. But what did you do? You honed in on one reference to him being at the Dallas PD, and now you're making a federal case out of it. And as you know, there IS another image from him at the Dallas PD, and here it is. So, he was, in fact, there a short while later.

And yes, I do have a problem with this picture. You, Lee, are the one who said that it was taken from footage of Oswald at the PD, but I looked through all the footage of that available online and could not find it. Are you sure about that? Because I think you're wrong.

And you say he's sitting on a chair, but he sure doesn't look like he is sitting on a chair. That's because people don't usually sit on a chair like that. They don't sit so erect on a chair. They tend to collapse into the chair. He is sitting as straight as an arrow. Compare it to this other guy. See the difference?

So, if you don't mind, I need a little more evidence that he's sitting before I believe it.

But, the bottom line is that you're attacking me on this small point and ignoring the whole thrust of what I said in the article. No matter where the hell he was, he was not the real Lovelady. THAT'S THE POINT! That's what matters. That's what you should be addressing.

I've already told Cinque that he has a head full of cartoons.

Just because he can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe in Ralph's world, but not mine.

I told him I wasn't helping him find it because I think both he and his rambling nonsense is not worth the effort. He should do his own homework before writing such utter baloney.

If his (and your) motive is to once again make us all look foolish then you've succeeded. Well done.

[Glenn Viklund]

Oh, my. That's really embarrassing.

Is it Doorway Man, or Doorman?

Who's Teague?

Where does he get that "Teague" led them to propose the single-bullet theory, when they started pushing the SBT in May, after studying the Z-film and re-enacting the shooting and concluding that Connally was hit too soon after Kennedy was hit for them to have been hit by separate shots from Oswald's rifle? And where "Teague" was ignored until June?

And where does he get that his doctor friends are "experts" on facial recognition and photo-analysis? These doctors are undoubtedly LAYMAN when it comes to this particular field of expertise. Their opinions have no more value than that of a man on the street.

And how much background were these men provided? Were they told that there is news footage of LOVELADY in the police department, with Oswald in the same shot, and that Lovelady was wearing the shirt in those frames as well? Were they told that EVERY co-worker ever questioned about the identity of "Doorway Man" IDed Lovelady, and not Oswald?

Sad.

Indeed it is.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Glenn,

It's really great to have you here. I was sure it was only a matter of time.

So you really think that dentists and chiropractors, whose professions are

devoted to physical aspects of their patients. Ralph already explained this:

And you’re right that anyone is entitled to an opinion about whether the two Loveladys were the same man. But, I decided to ask doctors, and here's why: Doctors know anatomy. They are likely to notice details in anatomical distinctions that lay people will not readily observe. And that includes the alignment of the neck, which jumps out at a chiropractor. Notice how many of the doctors observed the difference between the two men in cervical anatomy. And that is a big anatomical difference.

And we all know that it was the injury to Tague that forced the commission

to revise its "three shots/three hits" theory of the case to "three shots/two

hits" and to introduce the "magic bullet". So why be so petty and childish?

Oh, my. That's really embarrassing.

Is it Doorway Man, or Doorman?

Who's Teague?

Where does he get that "Teague" led them to propose the single-bullet theory, when they started pushing the SBT in May, after studying the Z-film and re-enacting the shooting and concluding that Connally was hit too soon after Kennedy was hit for them to have been hit by separate shots from Oswald's rifle? And where "Teague" was ignored until June?

And where does he get that his doctor friends are "experts" on facial recognition and photo-analysis? These doctors are undoubtedly LAYMAN when it comes to this particular field of expertise. Their opinions have no more value than that of a man on the street.

And how much background were these men provided? Were they told that there is news footage of LOVELADY in the police department, with Oswald in the same shot, and that Lovelady was wearing the shirt in those frames as well? Were they told that EVERY co-worker ever questioned about the identity of "Doorway Man" IDed Lovelady, and not Oswald?

Sad.

Indeed it is.

Edited May 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Look, Lee, I don't want to distract from this discussion about Lovelady,

but if you have bones to pick with me, then explain what I have claimed

and why I have claimed it, show what I have wrong and how you know.

We were right about the alteration of the JFK X-rays;

We were right about the substitution of another brain;

We were right about Officer Chaney motoring forward;

We were right about Clint Hill's falsification of the film;

We were right about the film's broken chain of custody;

We were right about the fabrication of the home movies;

and about the Umbrella Man and The New York Times.

We are certainly right about the alteration of the Altgens.

We are also correct about Lee having been the Doorman.

There is scant room for doubt LBJ was the pivotal player.

I can provide articles and books that substantiate our side.

Of course, I believe in Judyth and you may not; so what?

None of us agree about every aspect of the assassination.

Try "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today" for

an overview: vimeo.com/34444597 Check it out; get back.

Listen, anyone can go over to your recent threads on Lancer to see how adamant and argumentitive you were that the footage from in front of the TSBD was actually outside the Dallas Police Department. Then people can see if I'm unfair and dishonest.

Ask your mentor to go find you the footage of Lovealdy sat in a chair with his elbows resting backward on a desk. Everyone here has seen it. In fact I'm certain it's embedded in some posts here from Duncan MacRae. Go find it. Just in case you begin to get pedantic concerning my use of the word "chair" if you eventually find the clip, I simply mean he is sitting down on something; a chair, a bench, a stool, a crate, a small stack of books, or a tiny elephant. My point is he is not cut and pasted into the picture (or series of pictures because it's from film), he is simply sat down with his elbows on the desk behind him.

The issue here is not whether the footage exists (although it does and telling me you think I'm wrong doesn't make me it so), the issue is how you were suddenly declaring, from your own weird ability to create a conclusion from a place of complete ignorance, that Lovelady had been pasted in. Bonkers.

That's the issue and it's why everything you have yourself "pasted" together doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Because it's a jumbled mess of poor research and a set of faulty conclusions based upon your own personal opinions.

You ignore both (a) that the persons in the two photos (DPD and TSBD) are the same person and ( that that person is not Billy Lovelady. Why are you not even acknowledging the key point of this question? Why are you "bobbing and weaving"?

Ralph responds to Lee:

Lee, your response is unfair, dishonest, and mean-spirited. Did you not notice that throughout the article I referred to him as "TSBD Lovelady". There are over a dozen such references. But what did you do? You honed in on one reference to him being at the Dallas PD, and now you're making a federal case out of it. And as you know, there IS another image from him at the Dallas PD, and here it is. So, he was, in fact, there a short while later.

And yes, I do have a problem with this picture. You, Lee, are the one who said that it was taken from footage of Oswald at the PD, but I looked through all the footage of that available online and could not find it. Are you sure about that? Because I think you're wrong.

And you say he's sitting on a chair, but he sure doesn't look like he is sitting on a chair. That's because people don't usually sit on a chair like that. They don't sit so erect on a chair. They tend to collapse into the chair. He is sitting as straight as an arrow. Compare it to this other guy. See the difference?

So, if you don't mind, I need a little more evidence that he's sitting before I believe it.

But, the bottom line is that you're attacking me on this small point and ignoring the whole thrust of what I said in the article. No matter where the hell he was, he was not the real Lovelady. THAT'S THE POINT! That's what matters. That's what you should be addressing.

I've already told Cinque that he has a head full of cartoons.

Just because he can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe in Ralph's world, but not mine.

I told him I wasn't helping him find it because I think both he and his rambling nonsense is not worth the effort. He should do his own homework before writing such utter baloney.

If his (and your) motive is to once again make us all look foolish then you've succeeded. Well done.

[Glenn Viklund]

Jim,

I'm honored to be directed like this. Thank you.

However, once you explain why Judyth Baker does not qualify for your "top 20 list" of discoveries of late, I will be happy discuss any issue with you. No one around here or anywhere else could reasonably be expected to spend three months on a dead end, right?

OK, Jim?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph replies to Lee:

Lee! What is wrong with you? In this image, he is not sitting with "his elbows on the desk behind him." He looks like he is standing erect.

I have been studying human kinesiology for just about my entire adult life, and I dare he is not leaning back on anything. When someone perches their elbows on a desk, they transfer their weight to that surface. Why do you think they do it? That is the whole purpose, to take support from it. But, he is not doing that, and I can tell from his postural tone that he is not doing that. He is supporting his weight through the length of his spine as a person does when standing.

Yes, it is possible to sit that way, but less than 1 out of 100 people do. But, the point is that even if you can provide a picture of him propping his elbows on a desk behind them, he is obviously not doing that in this picture. So what would it prove? Absolutely nothing.

By the way, here is a picture of him sitting at the Dallas PD. Different picture! Not even close to being the same!

But, let's not mince words because you're right about something: I do suspect that he is standing, and if he is standing, then his dimuntive height does not make sense in the context of the picture. So, if you have got a picture of him sitting, it's time for you to post it. Cough it up, Lee. But it better be exactly the same because otherwise he could have been standing here and sitting later or vice versa.

Listen, anyone can go over to your recent threads on Lancer to see how adamant and argumentitive you were that the footage from in front of the TSBD was actually outside the Dallas Police Department. Then people can see if I'm unfair and dishonest.

Ask your mentor to go find you the footage of Lovealdy sat in a chair with his elbows resting backward on a desk. Everyone here has seen it. In fact I'm certain it's embedded in some posts here from Duncan MacRae. Go find it. Just in case you begin to get pedantic concerning my use of the word "chair" if you eventually find the clip, I simply mean he is sitting down on something; a chair, a bench, a stool, a crate, a small stack of books, or a tiny elephant. My point is he is not cut and pasted into the picture (or series of pictures because it's from film), he is simply sat down with his elbows on the desk behind him.

The issue here is not whether the footage exists (although it does and telling me you think I'm wrong doesn't make me it so), the issue is how you were suddenly declaring, from your own weird ability to create a conclusion from a place of complete ignorance, that Lovelady had been pasted in. Bonkers.

That's the issue and it's why everything you have yourself "pasted" together doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Because it's a jumbled mess of poor research and a set of faulty conclusions based upon your own personal opinions.

You ignore both (a) that the persons in the two photos (DPD and TSBD) are the same person and ( that that person is not Billy Lovelady. Why are you not even acknowledging the key point of this question? Why are you "bobbing and weaving"?

Ralph responds to Lee:

Lee, your response is unfair, dishonest, and mean-spirited. Did you not notice that throughout the article I referred to him as "TSBD Lovelady". There are over a dozen such references. But what did you do? You honed in on one reference to him being at the Dallas PD, and now you're making a federal case out of it. And as you know, there IS another image from him at the Dallas PD, and here it is. So, he was, in fact, there a short while later.

And yes, I do have a problem with this picture. You, Lee, are the one who said that it was taken from footage of Oswald at the PD, but I looked through all the footage of that available online and could not find it. Are you sure about that? Because I think you're wrong.

And you say he's sitting on a chair, but he sure doesn't look like he is sitting on a chair. That's because people don't usually sit on a chair like that. They don't sit so erect on a chair. They tend to collapse into the chair. He is sitting as straight as an arrow. Compare it to this other guy. See the difference?

So, if you don't mind, I need a little more evidence that he's sitting before I believe it.

But, the bottom line is that you're attacking me on this small point and ignoring the whole thrust of what I said in the article. No matter where the hell he was, he was not the real Lovelady. THAT'S THE POINT! That's what matters. That's what you should be addressing.

I've already told Cinque that he has a head full of cartoons.

Just because he can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe in Ralph's world, but not mine.

I told him I wasn't helping him find it because I think both he and his rambling nonsense is not worth the effort. He should do his own homework before writing such utter baloney.

If his (and your) motive is to once again make us all look foolish then you've succeeded. Well done.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What inhibits you from simply acknowledging that Ralph is onto something,

that those two photos are of the same man, but they are not of Lovelady?

I just don't understand why some of you cannot acknowledge the obvious.

Jim,

I'm honored to be directed like this. Thank you.

However, once you explain why Judyth Baker does not qualify for your "top 20 list" of discoveries of late, I will be happy discuss any issue with you. No one around here or anywhere else could reasonably be expected to spend three months on a dead end, right?

OK, Jim?

[Glenn Viklund]

What inhibits you from simply acknowledging that Ralph is onto something,

that those two photos are of the same man, but they are not of Lovelady?

I just don't understand why some of you cannot acknowledge the obvious.

Jim,

I'm honored to be directed like this. Thank you.

However, once you explain why Judyth Baker does not qualify for your "top 20 list" of discoveries of late, I will be happy discuss any issue with you. No one around here or anywhere else could reasonably be expected to spend three months on a dead end, right?

OK, Jim?

I followed the debate on DP that ended with Cinques ban. Another dead end, Jim. You seem to stumble in to lots of those?