David Von Pein

Thanks for your latest reply, Pat.

Well, actually Pat, I would guess that it's very likely that the theory about Captain Fritz being involved in a plot to kill Oswald was so outlandish and preposterous in Gary Mack's mind that he didn't give it a second thought when he didn't include Fritz in the re-creation, due to the fact that Fritz had nothing to do with Oswald's murder. Plus, how does DiEugenio know that Gary Mack HIMSELF was wholly responsible for the re-creation that was done for that documentary? (BTW, that's a program I never have seen.) But why couldn't OTHER people have arranged the re-creation, with Gary possibly only playing a minimal role in it (if any at all)? I'll readily admit, I have no idea. I'm just asking. Also, Pat, since you think the "Ruby Connection" program should have had Will Fritz included in the re-enactment because many people suspect Fritz of being "involved" in Oswald's killing in some way -- does that mean that you think Dale Myers' computer re-creation should have included driver William Greer too? After all, many CTers think Greer shot Kennedy. Should Myers have placed an animated Greer in his computer model so that viewers could "decide for themselves if there was anything suspicious"? In other words, how outrageous and preposterous does a theory need to be before it can be summarily dismissed by reasonable JFK assassination researchers? I think that's a fair question after nearly 50 years of "outrageous" nonsense surrounding President Kennedy's death. Don't you?

Maybe you didn't thoroughly absorb these DiEugenio Howlers that are included on my list, Paul. Let's review them again: 1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK. 2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit. 3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker. 6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. 7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc. 9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake. 10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake. 12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy". 13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963. 14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD. 15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot. 18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.) 19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!) 20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey. 22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination. I think you're being way too kind to Mr. DiEugenio, Paul. He's already told us it was just a mistake. You think he's lying about that?

At Duncan MacRae's forum, Robert Harris said: Why would I do that? Just because it's UNSIGNED means I automatically should assume it's "fake"? Nonsense. Bob, do you REALLY believe that this note pictured below is a FAKE note, with somebody OTHER than Richard E. Johnsen of the Secret Service typing that note and then pretending that it was written by Johnsen? Also: What do you think the above note just MIGHT have been stapled to, Bob? (Hint -- There are staple holes in the CE399 envelope too.) Are those holes PROOF that Johnsen's note was stapled to that envelope? No. Of course not. But when we READ the contents of the note (in conjunction with the staple hole at the top of it, with the word "attached" being the key word here), isn't it pretty obvious that Johnsen DID staple his note to the envelope that held the stretcher bullet? Please tell me, Bob, WHY my above brief analysis regarding that note and the envelope is NOT a reasonable analysis? What makes it so UNreasonable in your view?

So what? Who cares? It wasn't FRITZ who got shot, was it? And it wasn't FRITZ who shot Oswald either. Eliminating Fritz from a re-creation of Oswald's murder is the same as eliminating Nellie Connally or Roy Kellerman from a reconstruction of JFK's murder. IOW--It makes no difference whatsoever if Captain Fritz is included in a re-creation or not. Let's now wait for Jimbo to dish out his hogwash about how J. Will Fritz was "in" on a plot to have his prisoner murdered by Jack Ruby in the DPD basement, with Jimbo pretending that the physical "gap" that existed between Captain Fritz and Oswald was placed there by Fritz intentionally in order to allow Ruby easier access to Oswald. What was Jimmy saying about "howlers" a little while ago? Talk about Pot/Kettle. Looks like we've got another DiEugenio Howler regarding Fritz' "suspicious behavior".

He would be treated with respect and would be looked upon as one of the world's leading experts on the JFK assassination (which he most certainly is). I'll repeat the following quote from Mr. Mack (which DiEugenio undoubtedly thinks is yet another lie being uttered by Gary, even though Jimmy knows that the online version of the Dallas Morning News article in question has been corrected, and why would Gary want it corrected if he was trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?).... "Folks who think I would make up something wrong to mislead people just make me laugh. I sat for an interview with a News reporter and spoke off the top of my head for well over an hour and got one thing wrong out of many, many topics we discussed. I sent word to him quickly and the story was corrected. What's online is the archive version people will read forever. There may even be a formal correction notice." -- Gary Mack; March 10, 2013 And I just love this ironic remark coming from Jimmy D.: "I don't commit howlers like that." -- J. DiEugenio Now, with the above quote from Jimbo fresh in their minds, I'll now remind everyone to take another look at this lengthy list of DiEugenio's delusional beliefs. Are you sure you've never committed any "howlers", Jim? None at all? I beg to differ. Because that list I just linked to certainly suggests otherwise. To reciprocate, if anybody from a "storied institution" would ever want James DiEugenio to visit them and (gasp!) actually give a talk about the facts of the JFK assassination, I would pity the poor people at the "storied institution" who invited him in the first place. Because those folks are going to hear some "howlers" to be sure. DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 85)

FYI--- For anybody who wants to read the whole story about this matter, including the common-sense inferences I draw from it, instead of just Robert Harris' conspiratorial slant on it, go here: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Secret Service And Commission Exhibit 399

Time for a reprise: "Gosh, you're a strange person." -- DVP; Mar. 10, 2013

No. I think the difference between "kook/delusional" and "xxxx" is substantial. A person can be very truthful and honest and still be a kook. That type of person, when it comes to the JFK case specifically, just simply has no capacity for properly evaluating the evidence in front of him. And it has been apparent to me for quite some time now that James DiEugenio is one of those persons. I mean, when a guy can suggest that Lee Oswald didn't carry any large bag at all into the Book Depository on Nov. 22--well, I think you get my point and I can safely rest my case. I'm saying that the conclusions you draw from your research cannot be trusted. Take that "paper bag" example yet again. Almost everyone alive--even hard-boiled conspiracy theorists--agree that Lee Harvey Oswald carried some type of large brown paper package to Buell Wesley Frazier's house in Irving on the morning of November 22, with Oswald placing that package into the back seat of Frazier's car. And almost all conspiracists love the idea that that package was too small to hold Oswald's Carcano rifle. But you, Jim, can now never again utilize that very popular "too small" theory about the paper bag -- because you don't think Oswald had any bag at all. Therefore, if you ever try to argue the "too short" or "too small" argument, you're going to look mighty foolish, because according to you, Linnie Randle and Buell Frazier didn't see ANY bag at all. (Which should make you wonder, Jim, why on Earth those two liars known as Randle and Frazier didn't at least say that their make-believe paper bag was big enough to hold the item that they both knew had to go inside of it. That's hilarious.) And speaking of Jim's conclusions that "cannot be trusted" -- let's have a look at another one (and this one is a real lulu): "I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. I mean, they might have been. But what's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010 In light of the massive amount of evidence that PROVES that an assassin was firing shots at JFK from the east end of the sixth floor of the TSBD (including the eyewitness accounts of people like Mal Couch, Bob Jackson, Amos Euins, and Howard Brennan), the above statement made by DiEugenio is so outrageous and ridiculous it deserves only a hearty laugh or two. And in case some people think I might have just made up the above DiEugenio quote just to ridicule him, you can listen to Jimbo say those words HERE (at 34:17). Oh, it's quite possible I have. I'm not 100% sure. And I left open that possibility by using the verbiage I did in my previous post, when I said: "And I think you might even have a difficult time digging up a post of mine where I have called you a xxxx. Because I don't think I have used that word when referring to you. "Kook", "delusional", "conspiracy-thirsty clown"--yes--I've utilized those most-appropriate terms to describe your absurd anybody-but-Oswald beliefs...but "xxxx", not very likely." -- DVP While it's "not very likely", it's still possible that I've let the L word slip through the cracks a time or two when talking about the hundreds of silly things that James DiEugenio believes concerning the Kennedy assassination. But I've certainly never accused Jim of doing the despicable, vile, and illegal things that he has no problem at all accusing many people of doing (sans any proof whatsoever) -- such as: planting evidence in a Presidential murder case in order to incriminate an innocent "patsy" named Oswald....covering up tons of stuff relating to the assassination....falsifying official documents....coercing witnesses and forcing them to tell one lie after another about the murder of JFK....and on and on. Those are the kinds of serious allegations that I would love to see a conspiracy theorist have to defend in a court of law someday, after somebody who has been slandered by one of those conspiracy mongers takes them to court on a defamation charge. The CTer wouldn't stand a chance.

Bull. I've never accused you of being part of a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination (as you have done on many occasions when you accuse a whole host of people of being involved in a cover-up after Kennedy's death, including your silly little "Troika" comments when referring to Dulles, Ford, and McCloy). And I've never accused you of planting and/or altering the evidence in the JFK case (as you do almost every day of your life when talking about the evidence that you think was ALL fabricated, planted, or manufactured in order to frame a man named Oswald). And I think you might even have a difficult time digging up a post of mine where I have called you a xxxx. Because I don't think I have used that word when referring to you. "Kook", "delusional", "conspiracy-thirsty clown"--yes--I've utilized those most-appropriate terms to describe your absurd anybody-but-Oswald beliefs...but "xxxx", not very likely. I'm very careful about how I use that word. I use it rarely, and only to describe a person who I know has told at least one big fat whopper of a lie regarding the JFK case (not a MISTAKE, but a provable LIE) -- with Roger Craig and Jean Hill being the top two examples. But your list of "liars", Jimbo, goes on for miles, it seems. You surely don't deny that...do you Jim?

One of these days, it'd sure be nice if someone would sue the pants off of a few of the conspiracy-happy clowns (like DiEugenio, for example) for defamation of character, as a result of the clowns constantly calling various people liars, Presidential murderers, "accessories after the fact to murder", and various other specious and vile charges that the clowns couldn't prove if their lives hung in the balance.

And J. Raymond Carroll suffers from the very odd disorder known as Anybody But Oswald Syndrome. Perhaps Raymond should review Commission Exhibit No. 1820 again: "MARINA states that in reflection, now she believes this to be strange, because OSWALD had always been most frugal and did not allow her to spend hardly any money." -- Via CE1820; An FBI interview with Marina Oswald, in the Russian language, on January 15, 1964 After reviewing the list of things I mentioned in an earlier post above (and when adding in all of the many, many things which show Oswald to be a double-murderer that I didn't mention in that post), only a person who has totally taken leave of every ounce of common sense he may have possessed could possibly believe that I have attempted to "DEMONIZE an innocent man" named Lee Harvey Oswald. In other words, to the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy crackpots, the MORE evidence there is of Oswald's (double) guilt, the more INNOCENT Oswald becomes. Now THAT'S bizarre.

My latest e-mail conversation with Gary Mack: Subject: Gary Mack Explains Date: 3/10/2013 7:08:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein Hi Dave, Exactly right, folks who think I would make up something wrong to mislead people just make me laugh. I sat for an interview with a News reporter and spoke off the top of my head for well over an hour and got one thing wrong out of many, many topics we discussed. I sent word to him quickly and the story was corrected. What's online is the archive version people will read forever. There may even be a formal correction notice. As for the property invoice, that was the standard form used for items retrieved with a prisoner. Unfortunately, it was misidentified twenty-five years later when the DPD's Kennedy papers were inventoried by city archivists. Such forms were kept by the property clerk and the listed items would be released to the prisoner later. Prisoners were allowed to keep their wallets but Oswald's bullets were likely withheld along with the revolver police found him trying to fire at them. There's a separate listing for the items found in Oswald's room, though I haven't seen it in years. Gary ================================================= Date: 3/10/2013 7:17:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Gary Mack Thanks, Gary. Did the reporter just get mixed up and confused about the "note left for Marina" topic? I mean, when you talked about a "note" in your lengthy interview with the Dallas Morning News, were you really referring to the Walker incident from April 1963 and the reporter got mixed up and thought you were referring to 11/22/63 instead? Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to write. Regards, David Von Pein ================================================= Date: 3/10/2013 9:09:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein As for the mistake, it was probably mine, but I'm not sure. We did talk about the Walker shooting and I could have mentioned the note then. BTW, the DPD records probably have a similar property receipt for Ruby, too. Gary ================================================= Date: 3/10/2013 9:14:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Gary Mack Gary, Thanks for your latest reply. It just goes to prove that even someone who knows the JFK case backward and forward (like yourself) can sometimes make an inexplicable error about a fact relating to the assassination. I said that exact same thing to conspiracy theorist Ben Holmes when discussing Vincent Bugliosi's "brain cramp" regarding the "ragged" nature of the wound in JFK's throat (which is a topic that Ben is absolutely positive Bugliosi "lied" about in his book). Vincent's memory is not exactly what it was many years ago (and Vince even admits that fact himself), and I think a little bit of that failing memory did, on rare occasions, sneak into the pages of his JFK book. Bottom line -- People are HUMAN. Not machines. They make mistakes and always will as long as we humans roam the Earth. Best regards, David Von Pein

David "ZAPRUDER WASN'T ON THE PEDESTAL AT ALL" Healy said: Gosh, you're a strange person.

I'm glad you brought this up, Raymond. Because I was not entirely correct or clear when I said this in an earlier forum post: What I should have said is this (with the emphasis on the "and" being the crucial point that I didn't stress previously): Has there ever been another occasion which had Lee Oswald leaving behind most of his money AND his wedding ring prior to him leaving for work? It's the COMBINATION of "money + wedding ring" that is important, IMO. Because, Ray, you are correct to point out that Lee could very well have left money in that wallet at the Paine house on previous occasions (in addition to November 22). In fact, the Warren Commission testimony of Marina Oswald actually verifies that Lee did, in fact, leave money in that wallet on prior occasions (and Marina also testified that Lee left extra money in a wallet while they were living in New Orleans as well): J. LEE RANKIN -- "Did you usually keep a wallet with money in it at the Paines?" MARINA OSWALD -- "Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine's there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it." MR. RANKIN -- "On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was in the wallet?" MRS. OSWALD -- "No. One detail that I remember was that he had asked me whether I had bought some shoes for myself, and I said no, that I hadn't had any time. He asked me whether June needed anything and told me to buy everything that I needed for myself and for June and for the children. This was rather unusual for him, that he would mention that first." MR. RANKIN -- "Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?" MRS. OSWALD -- "No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet. I know that the money that was found there, that you think this was not Lee's money. But I know for sure that this was money that he had earned. He had some money left after his trip to Mexico. Then we received an unemployment compensation check for $33. And then Lee paid only $7 or $8 for his room. And I know how he eats, very little." -------------------- There is also this from Vince Bugliosi's book: "Friday morning, before leaving Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170, believed to be virtually all of his money, for Marina, demonstrating that he realized he might never see her again--that is, he might not survive the assassination he was contemplating. Moreover, as he left Marina that morning, Oswald told her to use the money to buy..."anything" else that she felt was necessary for the children. Marina thought this to be strange since Oswald had always been "most frugal" and hardly allowed her to spend any money at all." -- Pages 955-956 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi [sourced from CE1820, at 23 H 479] http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0256a.htm -------------------- In summary -- Lee Oswald leaving behind the money and his ring doesn't PROVE he shot the President, of course. But the TOTALITY of unusual things he did on November 21 and 22 certainly indicate that Friday, November 22, 1963, was not just an ordinary regular work day for Lee Harvey Oswald. E.G.: 1.) Visiting his wife at Ruth Paine's house on a THURSDAY instead of his normal FRIDAY. 2.) Leaving Marina $170 and his wedding ring (in tandem) -- which left only approximately $15.10 in Lee's pockets when he left the Paine house on November 22 (and, remember, per Buell Wesley Frazier, Lee was not planning on returning to Irving on Friday night). 3.) Telling Marina to buy "anything" that was needed for the children, which was highly unusual for the penny-pinching Mr. Oswald, according to his wife. 4.) Telling Wesley Frazier he was going to Irving to get some curtain rods at the Paine house, which we know was a lie (based on the preponderance of evidence and testimony that proves it was a lie). 5.) Taking a large paper package into work with him on Nov. 22. 6.) Taking no lunch to work on Nov. 22, which was very unusual (per Buell Frazier's testimony). And when we add in the evidence of Oswald's guilt that was discovered AFTER the assassination, then what do all of these things suggest--in combination with one another? Do they suggest the actions of an innocent patsy? Or do they suggest the actions of a person who had a one-man plan to murder the President? Mr. Spence, your witness.

Well then Jim, you should be asking yourself this question: Did Gary Mack REALLY think he could get away with such a blatant and obvious inaccurate statement about Lee Oswald leaving a "What To Do If I'm Arrested" note for Marina on the morning of 11/22/63 -- when Gary has surely got to know that many sharp-eyed people on Internet forums like this one will surely point out the obvious mistake/lie and call him on it? Now, Jim, when Gary's quote about the note is put into the above context and framework, do you truly believe that Gary Mack would have deliberately lied about such a note being left by Oswald? Or could it possibly--just possibly--have merely been an honest mistake (which, btw, has since been corrected at the DMN site)? I know what Jimbo's answer will likely be. But I thought I'd ask it as kind of a rhetorical question nonetheless.

Like what, Pat? Any ideas? Maybe a Mauser? Or perhaps the $6500 that he obtained from co-plotters in Mexico? Is there anything that isn't suspicious to JFK conspiracy theorists?

Well, for Pete sake, Pat, that same inventory sheet also shows the bus transfer and Oswald's bracelet -- which are things that were ON OSWALD when he was arrested. Don't tell me you think the bus transfer was found in Oswald's room too?

Why are you misrepresenting the evidence, Pat? There was no money found in Oswald's room on Beckley. The $13.87 was found IN OSWALD'S POCKETS when he was arrested. [see WR, Page 745, below.] I think it's ironic that certain conspiracy theorists are raking Gary Mack over the coals for making a mistake about the note, and here we have Pat Speer making a similar mistake--claiming some money was found somewhere where it definitely was not. Nice hunk of irony there indeed. And you and Raymond are totally missing the boat regarding Oswald leaving behind his wedding ring and nearly all his cash ($170.00) in Irving on November 22. How many times had Lee EVER done such a thing prior to 11/22? Answer: Never. Doesn't that suggest something to you, Pat/J. Raymond?

A very good film (IMO): http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2011/04/suddenly.html http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/suddenly-1954-movie.html

True. But it couldn't be any clearer from Joseph Ball's words during Lovelady's Warren Commission testimony that the arrows drawn on Commission Exhibit No. 369 by both Buell Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady are both pointing to "Doorway Man" in the Altgens photo: "You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you." -- Joseph A. Ball Jim, don't you think that Mr. Ball was fairly clear as to WHO Frazier's arrow "in the white" was pointing to when Ball said these words -- "IN THE WHITE POINTING TOWARD YOU"? The "you" in the above quote is, of course, Billy Lovelady. Plus, Ball's quote is certainly not implying that the two arrows were each pointing toward a different person in the photo. Just the opposite, in fact. Since we know, via Ball's words, that Frazier's arrow "in the white" is definitely pointing to a person deemed to be "you" (Lovelady), it HAS to mean that any arrow drawn in by Lovelady MUST also be pointing to the same person Frazier's arrow is pointing to. Because why in the world would Lovelady draw an arrow pointing to someone OTHER than himself in the Altgens photo? Ralph found no such thing. We can KNOW that Ralph found no arrow pointing to someone OTHER than "Doorway Man" because of what I just said about Ball's "in the white pointing toward you" quote. More: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/03c46aba3b5d4ce0

"Warren Commission Exhibit No. 369 (which is a picture of James Altgens' photograph showing Doorway Man) was actually marked with TWO different arrows pointing toward Lovelady (aka Doorway Man). CE369 was first marked with an arrow by Buell Wesley Frazier on March 11, 1964, at 2 H 242: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0125b.htm And that same exhibit was then marked with another arrow by Billy Lovelady himself on April 7, 1964 (at 6 H 338): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0174b.htm When looking at the picture of CE369, I cannot see the second arrow that was drawn in. I see only one dark arrow to the left (west) of Lovelady. But the testimony is very clear -- TWO arrows were drawn on CE369, the first one by Wesley Frazier when the exhibit was first introduced into evidence by the Warren Commission on March 11th; and a second arrow marked on the same picture by Billy Lovelady on April 7th. Now, from the testimony, it's a bit unclear as to which witness (Frazier or Lovelady) drew in the dark arrow that is easily visible in CE369. But that visible arrow might very well have been drawn by Frazier and not Lovelady. But I'm not entirely sure of that. But Joseph Ball's instructions to Lovelady might give a clue. Ball said this to Lovelady: "Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. .... 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." So, via the above testimony, it's possible that Lovelady's arrow is "in the dark" and cannot be easily seen. I suppose this confusion about who drew the dark arrow pointing to Doorway Man in CE369 will spark some additional controversy concerning the true identity of the man in the TSBD doorway, with some conspiracy theorists possibly wanting to now claim that Billy Lovelady didn't really mark CE369 at all with an arrow in 1964. But it's quite clear to me from the Warren Commission records that BOTH Wesley Frazier AND Billy Lovelady drew separate arrows pointing to the SAME PERSON (Doorway Man) in Commission Exhibit No. 369. And, of course, as I've pointed out in previous posts, there's also Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 mock trial in London, where Frazier identified Doorway Man as Lovelady." David Von Pein June 4, 2012

My, my. How convenient for you, Ralph. Just pretend everything's fake AND everybody's lying. That's pretty much the motto you live by, isn't it Ralph?

I'd like to ask Ralph this: Since the face of "Black Hole Man" is obscured, then how on Earth could Lovelady know for certain if that was him in the picture or not? Who can tell? The face of that person is not discernible at all in CE369. I suppose you can always say that even though the person's face can't be identified, Lovelady knew he was shielding his eyes from the sun when the President drove by the building, and that's how he knew "Black Hole" was really him.

Ralph Cinque's nonsense never stops, does it? I guess Ralph thinks the HSCA or Lovelady (or both) lied through their teeth when the HSCA said this in their final report: "The committee's belief that the man in the doorway was Lovelady was also supported by an interview with Lovelady in which he affirmed to committee investigators that he was the man in the photograph."