Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ralph Cinque

Members
  • Posts

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,101 profile views

Ralph Cinque's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. What a horrible rationalization that is. You are just playing games and parsing words. It says in plain English that "he stated he was wearing a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans". Would they lie about that? You make it sound like they lied about it just for convenience. There is only one way to take that, which is that he said it. And why would they have him unbutton the shirt if it wasn't the same shirt? It's one thing to just take his picture anyway even if he's not dressed as Doorman. But when you have him model like Doorman with the shirt unbuttoned, it can only be because he's dressed the same. Otherwise, what would be the point? And notice that his striped shirt did not sprawl open like Doorman's. That's because it was a different kind of shirt, and it behaved differently. So, you're all just playing mental games trying to deny a very clearcut thing, that he stated he was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans.
  2. Robin, here is what Joseph Ball said after Lovelady drew his arrow: "You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you." So, most of Lovelady's arrow was in the black. We just got lucky that he overlapped the flesh-colored forearm a little bit which provided contrast.
  3. Unger, how many times do I have to tell you: THE HEAD OF THE ARROW IS IN THE BLACK. We are seeing just the tail of the arrow on his forearm. What is so hard to understand about that?
  4. It's not a dot. It's a line. It's a short line, but it's still a line. It's the tail of the arrow that Lovelady drew. The head of the arrow is in the black, so we can't see it because It was black on black. And now, Robin Unger, you have just submitted the second proposed alternative: a "slip of the black marker pen as the image was being handed around". It's going up, with your image.
  5. Lindsay, I agree that examining the actual CE 369 would be a good idea. However, I wouldn't put it past them to alter it at this late date or even replace it. Even as we speak, I'm sure there are people scrambling and scurrying, trying to decide what to do about this latest crisis. Therefore, no matter what it might show, the published CE 369 still counts; it still matters. And the plain truth is that there are no other plausible possibillities other than it was Lovelady's arrow. You see, I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence. The idea that some "dirt" or a hair or a thread would just happen to lay down in that tiny spot- the very spot where Lovelady would draw it to himself were he Black Hole Man- is preposterous. And keep in mind that we have been saying for months in advance that Lovelady was Black Hole Man. And to Robin Unger, the Jackson image you posted of Lovelady is fake. That was not Lovelady and that was not by Jackson. Here is the real one alongside that one. Explain to me how a man could have a shadow going one way in one picture yet go the opposite way in another picture? How could he have an extra button in one picture? How could he have sideburns in one picture but not the other? How could his shirt furl differently from one to the other? That guy on the right was not Lovelady, and that was not taken as part of the Jackson photo shoot. So, your point about him standing on a lower step is meaningless.
  6. Lindsay, I appreciate your proffering something as an alternative to it being Lovelady's arrow. In fact, I appreciated it so much, I wrote you up on the OIC Facebook page, and I'll post it below. Hey, I'm making you famous. Congratulations to Lindsay Anderson! Lindsay is the first contestant to come forward and proffer an alternative explanation for the black line on BH Man's forearm. Say hello to Lindsay. http://tinypic.com/r/35i3907/6 Lindsay's idea is that the black line may be some dirt or a contaminant. Alas Lindsay, I can't give that idea serious consideration, sorry. To expect an idea to be taken seriously, there has to be a factual, practical, empirical basis for it. I ask the reader: How many times in your life have you seen a black line on a photograph that turned out to be dirt or a contaminant? I have been living for 62 years and have been looking at photographs for most of that time, and I have never once had that experience. Nobody I have known has ever had that experience. And I have never read or heard of any such thing happening in anybody's experience. Furthermore, we are talking about a distinct line. How could a contaminant or a speck of dirt or dust occur in a line? Frankly, I think you could have done better, Lindsay. I think it would have been better to suggest a hair or a piece of thread. I don't really consider those plausible either but at least they sound more plausible. At least they come in forms that can be construed as lines. Are you aware that you don't have an unlimited right to proffer "what-ifs?" This isn't Imagination Day at Kindergarten. The plausibility of your suggestion is so low that it really deserves no consideration at all. And I do mean none. And that is especially true considering that we already have an idea that is so much better and is, in fact, highly plausible. It makes no sense to replace a highly plausible idea with one that is entirely fanciful and implausible. Only an idea that has greater plausibility should replace the one that we have. And that highly plausible idea, of course, is that Lovelady drew the line in making his arrow. You have to remember that he did draw it somewhere on that copy. That is not in doubt. Yet, it does not exist anywhere else on CE 369. And yes, I have checked and thoroughly. I have explored that doorway area of CE 369 under bright light and magnification, and more than once, looking for a hint of Lovelady's arrow. But, it was only when I gave up on looking around Doorman and ventured over to Black Hole Man that I finally found what I was looking for. Notice that angle of Lovelady's line is a pretty good match to Frazier's. I bet that's because Lovelady was influenced by the angle of the arrow he saw. And he may have conformed to it subconsciously. It's very natural to do that. http://tinypic.com/r/15887r8/6 But thank you for proffering something, Lindsay. Maybe this will get the ball rolling. Now that you have broken the ice, perhaps others will come forward with their ideas. Let's plumb this thing together. All are welcome to try. But right now, we have only one plausible idea, and that is that it is part of Lovelady's arrow which he drew upon being requested to do so by Joseph Ball. Frankly, it is going to be very hard to unseat that from the top spot, but you are welcome to try.
  7. Robin Unger, I just made it larger. I can reduce the pixellation by keeping it small. I want you to notice that the arrows are at the exact same angle, the exact same diagnonal. Why? It's because Lovelady saw the first one on the left, which is so prominent, and it influenced his mind. But, he drew it very small. Why? I'd say it's because he wanted to keep it personal- between him and Joseph Ball. He knew he was delivering something other than what Ball wanted. So, it was his way of saying: "You don't want me drawing any big arrow on this photo because I can't draw it the way you want it; no way, no how." You see, Lovelady was still being noble at the time. He was sticking with the truth. Later, he got with the program- their program. And it's probably because they threatened him. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was probably more the threats than the money that pulled him in, although I presume he got both. After all, how does one go from being a lowly warehouse worker to the owner of a shipping company in a jiffy? And to Mr. Anderson, would you take a look at that FBI letter again? It says: "He stated that he was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans." And of course, we know they photographed him wearing those very clothes, and they even had him unbutton the shirt- to look like Doorman. It is VERY obvious that they were trying to re-create the Doorman look, supposedly, with the same man and the same clothes. So, there is no doubt that that is what he claimed. And there is no doubt that that is what he wore because we can see it on Black Hole Man to whom he drew an arrow indicating himself.
  8. Lindsay, I believe the streak of white that momentarilyi appears which people are taking as evidence of unbuttoning is fraudulent. It's trickery. It was added because they actually forgot about the Doorman's open sprawl when they made that phony movie. They were only interested in showcasing the plaid shirt (which Lovelady did not wear). I have a bevy of doctors who say that that guy, whom we call Gorilla Man, was not Billy Lovelady; his anatomy was different. But, could we get back on point, please? People: there's a black line that intersects Black Hole Man's forearm (and this talk about him being a woman is making me sick) and that black line has got to be something. Now, if you don't think it's part of the arrow that Lovelady drew, then tell me what you think it is. It can't be a shadow because it only occurs on CE 369 and not on any other copy of the Altgens photo. So what is it?
  9. TO DVP: There can't be any doubt that the big prominent arrow that we see and have been seeing for decades was drawn by Buell Fraizer. As you pointed out, his arrow was drawn in the white, and that arrow is mostly in the white. My assumption is that, up to now, people thought that Lovelady's arrow was invisible because it was drawn in the blackness with a black felt pen, so it was like drawing a picture of a black cat in a coal mine with his eyes closed at midnight- nothing but black. But, that was just an assumption, and added to the assumption was the foregone conclusion that Lovelady must have drawn the arrow to Doorway Man. And I fell for it too because I had previously examined the dark space above Doorman's head looking for traces of Lovelady's arrow. But, I never found a glimmer of anything. But then, last night, it struck me: what if I've been looking at the wrong spot? What if Lovelady drew his arrow elsewhere, far away from Doorman? So, I started looking at Black Hole Man precisely because we think he was the real Lovelady. And lo and behold, I found that subtle little arrow. Here is the version of CE 369 posted on the history-matters website. On this one, when I blow it up, I can actually see the whole arrow, which consists of three lines: a tail and two arms. I can see the whole arrow. So, that is definitely an arrow, and the only one who could have drawn it is Lovelady since Frazier drew the other one. That's clear from the testimony that you posted, David. Ball told Lovelady to draw his arrow in the dark because there was already one in the white. But what does this say about Joseph Ball? Billy Lovelady drew an arrow to a different figure than Frazier did, and Ball had to see it. Why didn't he say, "Stop everything! This changes everything! You're saying that you were one guy, after Frazie said you were another guy. We have got to get to the bottom of it." But Ball didn't say anything like that, did he. He just pretended for the court reporter that both arrows were directed at the same figure. That is so wrong. It makes Joseph Ball a conspirator in the assassination of President Kennedy.
  10. I admit that Lovelady changed course. He got with the program. I'm sure they pressured him tremendously. They may have threatened his life and the lives of his family members. But listen: that tail of the arrow is plainly on the forearm of Black Hole Man. If it's not Lovelady's arrow, then whose is it? And if you don't think it's an arrow at all, then what is it? It can't be a shadow because it would occur in all copies of the Altgens photo if it was a shadow. So, what is it? Save the rest, just tell me what it is.
  11. Robin, never mind that. Just look at the black line that is overlapping his forearm. What is it? It has to be something. It can't be nothing. If it isn't Lovelady's handiwork, what is it? It can't be a shadow because a shadow would appear on every copy of the Altgens. Give me an alternative. Address it directly? If it's not Lovelady's arrow, what is it? To my dismay, the moderators are boycotting me; they are ignoring my posts. So, I am going to respond here to later posts. Pat Speers and Robin Unger are now claiming that Black Hole Man in the Altgens photo is a woman. http://tinypic.com/r/wits9v/6 It was first suggested by Pat Speers, and then Robin Unger chimed in: "No, Pat, you are not alone in thinking it may be a woman. We know from the testimonies that at least three TSBD women employees stated that they were standing on the steps: Judith McCully, Avery Davis, Sarah Stanton ( Confirmed )" "The more I looked at the folded hands of the black hole figure, the more the hands seem to be effeminate hands like those of a woman." "The fact is, that according to the testimonies there were at least three women who claimed to have actually been standing on the steps during the assassination, and we need to be realistic, and start making room for them in the doorway area in Altgens6." "I also agree with Pat that to me it looks more like a woman’s loose fitting summer blouse than a man's shirt." Friends, we have just entered The Twilight Zone. This isn't just misguided. It isn't just mistaken. It is insane. That guy is obviously a man. There isn't anything effeminate about him, including his hands. And I am not going to say another word about it because this is just insanity to even talk about it. Robin Unger also insists that these two are one and the same: http://tinypic.com/r/23wpfmd/6 I hope no one will be offended by what I am about to say, but in the above collage, the masculinity of the figure on the left, and the femininity of the figure on the right, are so great for each of them, that we might as well be seeing his penis and her vagina. That's the only thing that could take it to a higher level of gender certainty. Then, there is David Von Pein, one of the most prolific ops to ever operate the operation in op-land. I don't know how much they pay him, but it can't be enough because he is truly a marvel. First, he asks how Lovelady could even know he was Black Hole Man since Black Hole Man doesn't have a face. Yeah, but he has a body, and he has clothes. He has a certain size. He's engaged in a certain gesture. He's in a certain location, a certain spot, at a certain time that would have been drilled in his memory. A clever man could figure it out, don't you think? Then he hones on Josephs Ball's directions 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." Von Pein takes that as proof that Lovelady must have drawn the arrow to Doorman. But, we have CE 369. It's insane to rely on lip-flapping. We can look at it and see where the arrow is. And the arrow is located amidst Black Hole Man, and it is pointing to him. It is actually there, undeniably there, and it is insane to ignore it. But DVP goes on: "It couldn't be any clearer from Joseph Ball's words during Lovelady's testimony that the arrows drawn on CE 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 Yes, I know Ball said that but just because he flapped his lips that way doesn't mean it really was that way. We have a distinct black line on the right forearm of Black Hole Man. Now, if you don't think it's part of Lovelady's arrrow, tell us what you think it is. I'm waiting. You can't ignore it. You can't deny it. You can't just change the subject. What the heck is it? You must answer. If you don't, you lose. And here's an idea, David, and it may blow your mind: Joseph Ball lied. How do we know? Because we can see two distinct arrows in CE 369, and they are pointing to two different men. So now, the question is: who are you going to believe: your own eyes or Joseph Ball's lips? "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." It's beyond doubt that Frazier's arrow in the white points to Doorway Man. But, in inferring that Lovelady's arrow also pointed to Doorman, Mr. Ball was simply stating what he wanted to believe. He was stating the reality he had decided upon in advance. He was stating the result he was ordered to find. "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?" Can you see how circular Von Pein's reasoning is above? He is completely out of touch with reality. He actually wants to decipher the contents of the photo by parsing the words of Joseph Ball rather than by looking at the photo. We might as well throw the photo away. Who needs it when we have the words of Joseph Ball? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And pay no attention the actual evidence. Don't bother looking at it. Instead, soak up the words and wisdom of a Warren Commission lawyer who was brought in to craft the case against Lee Harvey Oswald because surely even a CT like me would not and could not cast doubt on the integrity of Joseph Ball. David, you are apparently unaware of what I would say to Joseph if I had the opportunity to speak to him. And he better hope that I don't wind up in the same place as he is in the next life because it won't be pleasant for him. I am not going to mince words with the guy. I'm going to tell him what I really think of him. Get this in your head, David Von Pein: I rate Joseph Ball as a killer. He was an accessory after the fact in the murder of John F. Kennedy. Joseph Ball was a criminal, and I would like to see him tried posthumously. Are you beginning to understand? Joseph Ball was covering and scrambling in what he said back to Lovelady. He was trying to get out of a jam. Only Warren Report defenders like you treat him with respect. What he deserves is contempt. Von Pein finishes this way: "Ralph found no arrow. 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." Then what did I find, David? It's there. It's something. You can't ignore it. Leastways, ignoring it doesn't make it go away. What is that line overlapping Black Hole Man's forearm? It is the arrow that BIlly Lovelady drew, about which you are in denial, because you, like Joseph Ball, are acting to protect killers.
  12. Thanks, Lee. I realize that the thing I am pointing to is very subtle. But, subtlety does not automatically warrant rejection. The question: if that line which overlaps the forearm of the man with no head is NOT the tail of Lovelady's arrow, then what is it? It has to be something. We don't see it in unmarked copies of the Altgens photo. So, how can it be a shadow? If it were a shadow, it would appear in EVERY copy. The record shows that Billy Lovelady did draw an arrow on the picture. But up until now, it has never been identified. The big prominent arrow is definitely Frazier's. We know that from the testimony because Ball referred to it and instructed Lovelady to draw his in the black. Here's another telling point: Lovelady drew that line awfully timid. It could not have been more subtle. He must have realized that they weren't looking for what he was offering. He didn't want to lie, but he did not want to upset them either. So, he did them the favor of making his arrow very small and almost imperceptible. http://tinypic.com/r/28l9uew/6 if you were going to draw an arrow, why would you draw it so timidly? Why wouldn't he draw it as boldly as Frazier drew his? I think that it was because, either consciously or subconsciously, he realized that he wasn't giving them what they wanted; he was letting them down; and maybe it would lessen the disappointment if he made it small and barely noticeable. It was like he was winking at Mr. Ball and telling him non-verbally: "Look, Mr. Ball, you really don't want me drawing any visible arrow on this photo because I know what you're looking for, but I can't deliver it. It would best for you to just drop it and move on" And after Ball saw what Lovelady did, I'm sure he got the message, and then he went into theatrics: 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? What? What a con artist, and you and I were the ones being conned. Lovelady drew his arrow to a different figure than Frazier had done and Ball just ignored it. He put on an act, but I bet his heart was racing. He had to know at that moment that it was Oswald in the doorway. After all, between Frazier and Lovelady, who knew better who Lovelady was?
  13. 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.
  14. Paul, my latest interest is pursuing Oswald's study of Russian. There is nothing concrete until he gets to El Toro Air Base after Japan. And at El Toro, all he had going for him was Russian newspapers and Russian songs on record. He never took any instruction or undertook any formal course work in Russian. Yet somehow, in two months, he was reasy to take a proficiency exam in Russian, which he passed, though just barely. I am increasingly drawn to the work of John Armstrong about the Two Oswalds. Apparently, it was between Japan and El Toro that the switch took place.
  15. Here is our latest pursuit at the Oswald Innocence Campaign. I want to look further at this issue of Hard vs. Soft Lovelady. http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/606/collage433.jpg Which was the original released by the FBI in 1964? Which came later? Why are there two versions? ... First, I have no found no evidence that either was actually released in 1964. It was tucked into the back of the Warren Report as an attachment to a document. It’s not as though most Americans bought the 26 volume Warren Report. Did the newspapers publish Lovelady’s pictures so that all Americans could see them? No, they did not. Nor did they discuss them. Nor did the Warren Report discuss them. Nor did the Warren Report use them as a basis for ascertaining Doorman’s identity. Even the HSCA admitted that the Warren Commission reached its conclusion based entirely on two things: “Lovelady’s identification of himself as the man in the Altgens photograph, and the statements of others who were present in the entranceway of the TSBD at the same time.” In other words: they relied on LIP-FLAPPING, and that’s all. No photographic analysis. Did they even ponder Lovelady’s trustworthiness to tell the truth? They did not. They were apparently unaware that he was a convicted felon. Or, if they knew, they certainly didn’t mention it. It took Larry Rivera of the Oswald Innocence Campaign to unearth the documents pertaining to Lovelady’s 1961 arrest, incarceration, and conviction in the Air Force for being part of a gun-stealing, gun-running ring. It is very hard to find Document 457 which has the pictures of Lovelady. Here is the US National Archives presentation of the Warren Report. See if you can get to Document 457. http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/ There is also a page called “Inventory” that refers to documents and photographs, but it says: "For access to these records, contact the Special Access and FOIA Staff, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740, (301) 837-3190, E-mail: specialaccess_foia@nara.gov." So far, the only source I have found online for Document 457 is the Mary Ferrell Foundation: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_WCD_Photos_-_Billy_Lovelady_-_p1 That’s all I could find in all of cyberspace, but is it legit? One thing is for sure: in 1964, the only objective the FBI had was to sell the idea of Lovelady looking like Doorman. They weren’t worried about any other pictures. So, which of these two images looks more like Doorman? http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/606/collage433.jpg Soft Lovelady on the right definitely looks more like Doorman than Hard Lovelady on the left. His hair coverage is a better match, as is the contour of his face. Plus, that shadow on the right side of his face matches Doorman's most compellingly. It’s like it casts a spell over you to make you think they’re the same. Furthermore, that weird, wavy disfigurement of Hard Lovelady’s face on his right side was no part of him. He looks like a boxer who got banged up too many times. It is DISTORTION. And I have to think that it was deliberate distortion. But eventually, the image of Lovelady from outside the TSBD became widely circulated. It became THE image of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt. http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/7084/collage434.jpg Above, Hard Lovelady makes the better match to Gorilla Man. And it’s not that they look alike; they don’t. Their hair is nothing alike; their noses are nothing alike; their ears are nothing alike. But, they both look hard. It’s not much, but it’s something. The bottom line for me is that, in all probability, Soft Lovelady was put forward to sell the idea of Lovelady as Doorman from the Altgens photo, and then later, Hard Lovelady was put forward to sell the idea of Lovelady as Gorilla Man from the Martin film. And that’s why we have two versions. At this point, even if I did write to the government asking for a digital copy of Document 457, I don’t know if I could trust them. I’m just going to have to get my hands on the physical Warren Report and see which version of Lovelady is there.
×
×
  • Create New...