Ralph Cinque

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Great news, Paul! Pete Mellor, who is a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, and who likes you is from England, found a reference in Harold Weisberg's Photographic Whitewash: "Mr. Mike Shapiro, of WFAA Television, advised that immediately after this (Altgens) photograph was taken it was forwarded by wire to the Associated Press at New York, New York, and subsequently distributed to other AP offices throughout the country." So, you were right, Paul. It did go to the AP in New York before it was sent out widely.

Paul, this is the write-up that I did about hearing from you for the OIC Facebook page: I am very happy to announce that I have heard from British researcher Paul Rigby, and he going to lay out the evidentiary basis for his claims about the handling of the Altgens photo. It's perfect timing too considering Backes' latest rant which attacked Paul and as much as it did me. Here is Paul's note to me: Hi Ralph, Yes, I'm happy to, but you'll have to give me time to pull all the diverse bits and pieces I collected - and which led me to the conclusions summarised above - into coherent form. I should be finished, "redecoration issues" with my teenage daughter permitting, within ten days or so. Paul PS Fascinating find with respect to the Benton Harbor News-Palladium's final edition of November 22, 1963: Well done! And let's use Paul's thumbs-up for my finding the News-Palladium Extra Edition as a segue to discuss it further: There is still one very big question looming about that extra edition: Where else did it appear? Most of the articles were written by the AP. Two of the articles were credited to another news service: the NEA, which stands for Newspaper Enterprise Association. And, there were also a few very short articles pertaining to local stuff. So, very little of the crowded 10 pages was written by the Benton Harbor News-Palladium, while most of it was written by the AP. The AP could not possibly have written it all just for the Benton Harbor News-Palladium. So, I want to know which other newspapers around the country published essentially the same thing, the same extra edition, only substituting their own few short articles pertaining to the local coverage. This is very important because if we don't find other "extra editions" that mirror this one, something is terribly wrong. It can't possibly be that all of this was channeled down just to appear in the Benton Harbor News-Palladium and nowhere else. You'd have to be fresh-fallen off the turnip truck to believe that. So, I am going to provide you with the titles to the articles in this Extra Edition, and I am hoping that others will get involved in finding out if these articles appeared elsehwere. We'll start with the two articles from the NEA. New First Lady: Dynamic, Charming, Wise Push Again for (German) Unity; Reds firm Now, here are the many AP articles: Sniper's Gun Kills JFK in Dallas TX Shame, Tragedy Hit US in Dallas (mostly a picture album) Romney Speaks State's Grief President's Life is a Moving Story Success Studs JFK's Career Will Take Body to White House; Expect Funeral in Boston; Children not told Governor Connally in no danger/Condition called "very serious" (an odd match of title and subtitle; someone call Jay Leno) Red Sympathizer Arrestged (all about Oswald, obviously) Photog Sees Rifle/Sniper at 45 degree angle by Bob Jackson (Yes, that is the same Bob Jackson who 8 years later took his famous pictures of Billy Lovelady in the doorway. In the article, he cites the official story to a tee even before it became the official story. Note that this was the only article that listed an author.) Dallas Cop Killed Says US official (about Tippit, obviously) Wall Street Prices Fall; Reacts sharply to assassination President killed by Sniper's gun (continuation of cover story) London is shocked by assassination US closes border to Mexico Administration Highlights Stilled is the Loving Heart/ President was part of a close-knit family (all Kennedy family pictures) As you can see, it's a colossal output. The Benton Harbor News-Palladium could not possibly have churned it out, and it is just as preposterous to think that the AP churned it out just for them. So, we really need to find out where else these articles appeared, either organized into other "extra editions" or even separately. But as of tonight, January 21, 2012, the Benton Harbor News-Palladium is the only home for these articles. And that is none too bueno. Personal note to Joseph Backes: You are confused. We NEVER said the Altgens photo in the Sheboygan Press is unaltered. And we NEVER would say such a thing. And that's because you can see the same alterations in it that you can see on all the other published versions of the Altgens photo.

Paul, I can't tell you how happy I am to hear from you .This is great news. And, I need to update you. Besides Hank Sienzant, there is Joseph Backes who is bashing you now. In fact, just tonight he did so. Here's the link to his page, and I apologize for his profane language. They wouldn't let him talk like that here on Education Forum, so he took his rants elsewhere. http://www.ralphcinqueisastupidbitch.blogspot.com/ When you have the time, please do lay out the basis for your contentions about the handling of the Altgens photo. I know you are aware of how important this is to the whole case. And there are others who have been waiting with bated breath to hear from you too about this, and I'll reassure them that you are indeed going to come through for us. Thank you so much, Paul. Ralph

Paul, I have this statement from you regarding the handling of the Altgens photo, but Hank Sienzant is disputing it. Would you please provide the evidentiary basis for it? Thank you. Ralph Cinque British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6. There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice." Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it. His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed." "On the basis of the available evidence, we can, provisionally at least, conclude the following: 1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; 2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM CST; 3) the negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; 4) the dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least 2 hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; 5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; 6) AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; 7) the version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of November 22 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; 8) point 7 may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff." Paul, they are not letting me post here. The moderators are supposed to approve my posts and get them up, but they're not doing it. But, what I want you to know is that Pete Mellor, who is a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, and who likes you is from England, found a reference in Harold Weisberg's Photographic Whitewash: "Mr. Mike Shapiro, of WFAA Television, advised that immediately after this (Altgens) photograph was taken it was forwarded by wire to the Associated Press at New York, New York, and subsequently distributed to other AP offices throughout the country. So, you were right, Paul. It did go to the AP in New York before it was sent out widely. Paul, this is an update as of January 23. Backes is now claiming that Harold Weisberg didn't mean it when he talked about Mike Shapiro saying that the Altgens photo was wired first to AP New York and subsequently to other AP offices around the country. Backes claims that Weisberg only said it to dispute the idea that the FBI didn't find out about the Altgens photo until November 25. Weisberg was definitely calling Hoover a xxxx, but I have no reason to think that he was calling Mike Shapiro of WFAA, which was an AP affiliate, a xxxx.

Paul, On Amazon forumm, Hank Sienzant is disputing what you said about the handling of the Altgens photo, calling it conjecture. He denies what you say and insists that the Altgens photo was released- to the world- at 1 PM. He backs up this claim by pointing out there are 5 newspapers in the US that are purported to have published the Altgens photo on 11/22- although no big metropolitan newspapers. At the time, there were well over 1000 evening newspapers in the United States, and there may have been close to 1500 evening newspapers. Here is what you have stated, Paul. If you would please provide the evidentiary basis for it, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Ralph Cinque British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6. There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice." Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it. His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed." "On the basis of the available evidence, we can, provisionally at least, conclude the following: 1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; 2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM CST; 3) the negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; 4) the dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least 2 hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; 5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; 6) AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; 7) the version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of November 22 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; 8) point 7 may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff."

David Josephs, you are being ridiculous. The lay of a sleeve is going to fluctuate. Sometimes it pulls up and other times not. You can't make a definitive conclusion based on that. And there was never found in Oswald's room a soiled shirt that was supposedly the one he changed out of. That is nonsense. He never changed his shirt, and even the Warren Commission admits that he didn't change it. Mary Bledsoe described Oswald's shirt on the bus, and it was the same shirt in which he was arrested. She even described it as being, not just unbuttoned, but with multiple buttons missing. It was the same shirt! Richard Hooke has developed a chart which presents 50 matching points between Oswald and Doorman. If even half of them were wrong, 25 is more than enough matching points to clinch it for Oswald. And Doorman most certainly was not anywhere close to bald. He happens to have the exact same hairline as Young Lovelady from 6 years before. Look at them! Do they, or do they not match? Those hairlines are spot-on identical. What is your explanation for that? Lamson, you said I stood in the doorway with my white t-shirt obscured by shadow. I deny it, and you post that picture if you've got it. But, in the meantime, here is one in which I was definitely wearing a v-shaped t-shirt. That vee on me was not due to shadow. It was the shape of the shirt. I bought it for the occasion. It was the first time in my life that I wore a v-neck t-shirt. Doorman and I have matching vees, and both show the same thing: the junction of white t-shirt and brown skin. That Tri-X film was very polarizing. That is what you are seeing in the Altgens photo. The high-contrast made his skin look dark, the same way it made my skin look dark. Are you going to claim that there was a round t-shirt buried in my darkness as well? Because if you are going to do that, I can produce at least 6 witnesses who will confirm that it was the actual shape of my t-shirt. Doorman's t-shirt looks vee because it was vee. It was the shape of his t-shirt. Why is this so hard to accept? All I'm saying is that it is exactly what it appears to be, what it looks like. What you see is what it was. There was no optical illusion. To claim such a thing is fanciful and desperate to the extreme. Now, if I may, I would like to respond further to a longstanding charge of Craig Lamson concerning Doorman's so-called vee neck shadow. This is important because if Doorman's t-shirt was vee-shaped, he had to be Oswald. After all, who else could be wearing Oswald's distinctive t-shirt but Oswald? The dark vee that you see on Doorman is the shape of his t-shirt. The vee is formed by the junction of his white t-shirt and his brown skin. Craig Lamson is going around saying that a v-shaped shadow occurred at the top of my chest in Dallas, and that is a lie. First, here is me wearing a round-neck t-shirt. This was my Lovelady outfit, with the plaid shirt and the round t-shirt.... Go back up and look at me wearing my Oswald outfit with the v-cut t-shirt. My dark vee matches Doorman's quite well. The vee that you see on me was the shape of my t-shirt. I ought to know- I was wearing it. And I bought it for the occasion. It was the first time in my life that I wore a v-shaped t-shirt. Notice how similar Doorman and I are. You're seeing the same thing: a guy standing there wearing a v-shaped t-shirt. My vee was not caused by shadow, and neither was his. But, in the other collage, my t-shirt looked round because it was round. There was no neck shadow obscuring it to make it look vee. And that was at 12:30 from Altgens position using Tri-X film. Doorman's t-shirt looked vee because it was vee. And, it was Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt. He wore such a t-shirt, and Lovelady did not. That is a fact. And by the way, which two shirt patterns match? It isn't hard to tell, is it? And the big question is: Who is that guy on the right from the so-called Martin film? He sure as heck isn't Billy Lovelady. Look at the Lovelady on the right below. And what I want you to notice about him is not his Herculean arm, not his hair going straight back, not his bull neck, but rather: the nature of his shirt-sprawl. If a shirt is buttoned at the bottom, and unbuttoned at the top, we expect it to separate and come apart in a gradual way and produce a triangular-shaped opening. You could even call it vee-shaped. That's because where it's buttoned, the margins are overlapped, and then they start coming apart, and it's a gradual process. It involves a "point" where the separation begins. But, it's gradual, and that's why it's vee-shaped. But, his opening is not vee-shaped. It is squared off at the bottom, making it rectangular. What is going on there? There is a bridge of material going across with nothing above it, and it shouldn't be there. There should be overlapped margins that gradually spread apart. There shouldn't be a strip of material at the bottom of the splurge, squaring it off. But, that is what we're seeing there. And what is that black horizontal stripe going across? The shirt is supposed to be buttoned at that point, which means that one margin is overlapping the other. How could that result in such a smooth, perfect black line going across with the look of a solid piece of material? And, look at his open left margin, which is curled. It isn't folded. It's isn't creased. It's curled. And, it's going all the way down to a squared-off bottom? What shirt behaves like that? Not the shirts of the other two guys. The guy on the left was supposed to be him at the same moment in time and space. But, the shirt is behaving drastically different on him. You can't account for that by spouting "aspect ratio." His shirt margins are lying together neatly all the way up, and it doesn't look like there is any shirt-sprawl at all going on. One certainly has to admit that it's vastly different. But, it's supposed to be him at the exact same time. What about the guy in the middle? That's him about an hour and a quarter before. Look how neat and tightly cinched his shirt is. Do you see any curling going on? Do you see any parting of the Red Sea, as there is on the right? How could his shirt change so much in an hour? And look at that huge pocket-flap on the guy in the middle. That is one big mama of a pocket-flap. They don't come any bigger than that. But where is it on the right and on the left? We're not seeing it. On the right, there is this little discoloration, a darkening above the pocket, but it doesn't look anything like that big flap we see in the middle. And, do you figure that he picked up the pack of cigarettes within that hour? Because obviously, there are no cigarettes stuffed in the pocket with the big flap. In fact, that looks so neat and tidy, it looks unused, like it's never had cigarettes stuffed in it. You don't think Lovelady started smoking that very day, do you? Don't you think he was a habitual smoker? Don't you think he had the habit of stuffing packs of cigarettes into that pocket, over and over and over? Doesn't it look a little bit too pristine for a pocket that was used that way? And compare it to the guy on the left. Where is his pocket flap? How could that possibly be the same shirt across the board? I've got to tell you people something honestly: I am getting sick of this- that so many people on both sides of the debate - meaning both lone-nutters and CTs - defend this crap. And that's what it is: CRAP! It is obviously three different men wearing three different shirts. Why won't they admit it? I understand why the lone-nutters won't admit it. It's because of what it means, and what it means, and what it proves, is that an evil cabal murdered President Kennedy in a coup d-etat on November 22, 1963. That's what it means, and they obviously don't want to admit that. But, why won't CTs admit it? I'll tell you what I think. I think that half or more of the CTs who blog are fake. I think they are agents for the other side pretending to be CTs. I think it was decided long ago that the only way to control the debate was to take both sides of it. And that's what they're doing. It's all an act. A big act. So, I want you to look at the collage again. It's supposed to be the same man. On the right and left, it's supposed to be him at the exact same moment in time and space. And in the middle, it was only about an hour before. Now, either admit that they are different men or expose yourself for the phony that you are. Did you hear me, Backes? I said: either acknowledge that they are different men or expose yourself as the phony CT that you are.

No, Craig, I set the test up correctly. If you look at the distance between my head and the white column and compare it to Doorman's position relative to the column, you'll see that it's the same. And that was difficult to accomplish. From Altgens angle, there is a lot of leverage involved. Move an inch or two the wrong way, and it throws it off a lot. It took a lot of trial and error to arrive at that. And then with the Black Man, it was easier because we found out right away that he was indeed adjacent to the column, but very low on the steps. We have him perched on the second step, and even going one step higher began to obscure him from Altgens angle. And what the test showed is that there was a lot of distance between Doorman and Black Man, and I mean from front to back. Surely, you'll grant that it looks like Doorman's arm is coming around in front of the Black Man in Altgens, and I say surely because no one has disputed this on any of the forums. But, it was impossible for us to reproduce that- as I expected. In the collage below, I was wearing the Lovelady shirt, rather than the Oswald shirt. And another difference is that I was standing closer to the white column. I'm a little too close to it, actually, and it put me closer to the black man, in the east/west plane. And, in this instance, I am standing as Doorman did, clasping my left hand over my right. But, you'll notice that I am still completely behind him. There is no part of me that is obscuring any part of him. And that's because a person behind cannot obscure a person in front. And I am way behind him. Not just a little bit, but a lot. And that's why what we see in the Altgens photo doesn' t make sense. It didn't make sense before I went to Dallas, and it makes even less sense now.

I made this new collage because someone asked me whether I think they did anything to Doorman's arm. I don't think they did anything to his forearm. It's coming down to overlap his right wrist, as Oswald liked to do. But, they mangled his upper arm when they squeezed Black Tie Man in there next to him. If you look at me on the right, I have a left shoulder. It comes across from my neck, and it reaches what we call the "point" of the shoulder. And at the point, there is an acute angle from which my upper arm goes down. Note that women, as a rule, have a softer angle. They are not as squared off at the shoulder as men are; they have rounder shoulders. But, we can put that aside since Oswald, Lovelady, and I were all men. On Doorman, what you see is that he has no point to his shoulder- none; it's missing- and his upper arm has a weird trajectory where it is rising vertically, adjacent to and parallel with his breast bone, and way too far to the inside. If Doorman had a point to his shoulder, it would have extended way out into the white of the shirt of Black Tie Man. Look how far the point of my shoulder extends into Black Tie Man. And keep in mind that it's not like I am broadshouldered. I wear a size 15 shirt, which is between small and medium. So, from the elbow, the upper arm should rise to the point of the shoulder- on everybody. But they took away the point of Doorman's shoulder, which meant that they had to redirect the line of his arm. It was like during the Civil War when the Union engineers rerouted the Mississippi River to deprive the city of Vicksburg of water, and to this day, the river follows the altered course. So, they re-routed Doorman's arm up vertically and mangled it in the process. You can't do stuff like this without mangling. It's only the tiny stuff you can do without mangling. The whole junction between Doorman and Black Tie Man looks butchered, and it was butchered, and the only ones who can't see it are those who don't want to see it.

Getting back to the reenactment, which is the subject of this thread, here we have a collage which demonstrates a problem in the Altgens photo. I presume no one is going to argue about the fact that Doorman's cuff appears to be in front of the Black Man's neck. We don't see his neck because Doorman's cuff comes in front of it. But, that was impossible. There was a lot of distance between them. And as I demonstrated, I couldn't get anywhere near his neck. You can see my hand floundering. The Black Man was on a very low step, and as you went down, you went forward. The steps are both steep and deep. The black man that I placed there was tall: 6' 4", as was the black man in Altgens. He is way lower and way forward of me. My position on the landing was correct, and that is something that we figured out through trial and error. Look at the distance between his head and the column and my head and the white column. It's the same, right? I was standing at the edge of the landing, and it had to be the edge because if I stepped back much at all and I would have been in shade. And I was placed correctly from east to west. And as you can see, in actuality and in appearance, I could not get my arm anywhere near his neck. And this was using Tri-X film. There is no logical explanation for why Doorman's cuff is wrapped around the Black Man's chin in the Altgens photo. It is an anomaly, and it should be triggering alarms in your head- especially since there are so many other anomalies in this photograph, which is strewn with them.

Look at this collage. What Dale Myers did was totally corrupt. He distorted Kennedy's posture- and grotesquely. Kennedy did not thrust his neck forward and pinch his head back. He actually had good head/neck alignment. Myers did that in order to get the Single Bullet Theory to work. This is really awful