Dan Ryan

The Altgens photograph has been done to death in terms of is it Oswald or is it Lovelady, was it Oswald's shirt or was it Lovelady's shirt? The earliest that I dicussed this issue was in 1984 when the photograph was released in the UK magazine "Unsolved". I have quite a good black and white photograph from that magazine and the discussion was put to bed by two things;- the photograph of Lovelady and the acceptance by Groden that the shirt Lovelady wore was one and the same as the one in the Altgens photograph (Lovelady's too striped for me but OK). However subsequently I came accross a website that had a new angle. That the head of Lovelady, was switched with the head of Oswald and Lovelady's presence was obliterated. Witnesses had stated that Lovelady was sitting on the steps and therefore his head may have been in front of the headless man with his arms above his head. This was discussed to some extent in April 2006 and Scott G Edwards pointed out that there was a man to the left, wearing a trilby hat (fedora in USA?)who had his face obliterated. Subsequent responses made out it was a baby in the arms of another man that covered his face. However if you see the colour version on http://www.blingcheese.com/video-148/david+morse.htm it is quite clear that something is amiss. The scratched out facial area of the man in the trilby is bright red. Was that by chance Ruby or an important conspirator who should not have been there? Clearly from this website something is untoward when the picture goes from black and white to colour. Perhaps the photographic experts can explain. Regards, Dan Ryan

Your theory is an interesting topic for discussion John. However there are two key questions though that need consideration. FIRST How can you believe that LBJ knew little of the assassination when there is clear evidence that he knew before the assassination that things were afoot? Why did he meet DeMohrenschildt? Why visit Texas in a private plane instead of Airforce2? Why the fourteen minute gap on his tapes, if LBJ was clean and Hoover wasn't, wouldn't LBJ keep the evidence? LBJ was involved in close kin cover-up after the assassination. Why did his cousin and reputed double, Jay Bert Peck (die?July '64 in Garland) so quickly after the assassination? Why did his sister (die)? LBJ was one of J Edgar's closest friends, do you seriously believe that they didn't get together on this one? SECOND the Watergate Conspiracy is still a mystery. To this day no-one knows what Nixon was seeking. So how can you state that the JFK conspiracy was covered up but the Watergate affair wasn't. Sure Nixon was ousted but that had more to do with his mental health at the time, than his being exposed. They feared him being in charge. Hence Schlessinger taking control. Had Nixon not cracked up he would not necessarilly have been threatened with impeachment and ultimately been told to stand down by Haig. The liberal press baited Nixon and adored the ridicule certainly as much as your suggested CIA machinations to eliminate Nixon.

I currently work in Liverpool John Moores University. I have a commercial background in international marketing in Europe and USA. I have been interested in the assassination of President John F Kennedy since witnessing as a youth, the lack of official alarm triggered by Ruby's killing of Oswald and, later learning that Oswald got his job in theTexas Book Depository only weeks before the assassination and after it was known that JFK would be visiting Dallas. I always thought, even as an adolescant, that the route to the assassination would come via the person(s) who got Oswald his job. To subsequently find that De Mohrenshildt and Paine were connected to the intelligence community confimed to me that we were dealing with an enormous government conspiracy. Be aware that if you lived in the 1960s and you read, you heard that Hunt and Texas Oil was involved, Cuba was in the mix and by the 1970s you also knew that George Bush Sr. had been poking around the CIA long before he became a heavyweight politician. Hence I knew something was not right and, I also learned in the 80s and 90s that my doubts were well founded. Thanks to serious research today, I feel comfortable knowing that the conspiracy goes on, because throughout this period the people in power have maintained control. Don't ever believe that all the conspirators must be dead, so there still can't be a cover-up. As proof, watch out in November 2005 for the future Government based work to discredit D.B. Thomas's findings in his peer reviewed article published in "Science and Justice", which confirmed two shooters in Dallas. If you read Reader's Digest, you will understand.