Ralph Cinque

Doorman was not leaning forward. No one would lean forward to watch a parade. When you lean forward, It shifts your center of gravity, and it becomes difficult to maintain your balance. And it's uncomfortable. Stand up right now and lean forward. Hold it for 20 seconds. Are you going to watch a parade like that? And Doorman didn't drop his shoulder. Nobody drops his shoulder. It's ridiculous. You can raise your shoulder, but you can't drop it. Doorman was standing upright. He was slightly rotated to the right, and he was indeed facing Altgens. And he was clasping his hands in front, left over right, just as I did during the reenactment. And there was no vee neck shadow, not on me, and not on Doorman. And that means that his vee was just the cut of his t-shirt, and that alone means that he had to be Oswald. And that's checkmate.

<removed by moderator> [/url] Keep in mind that we don't actually need any of this because the identification of Oswald as Doorman is made by examining their two figures, and it is conclusive. Richard found 50 matching points, which is way over the top in terms of certainty. <removed by moderator> It was Oswald in the doorway, and that photograph was "crudely altered" (to use Dr. David Wrone's term) multiple times.

There was no vee-shaped shadow on me during the reenactment. Certainly, there was nothing comparable to the vee we see on Doorman, which was the shape of his t-shirt. Here is a view in which my collar was spread out of the way. Here is another in which I was wearing my Oswald shirt. For Lamson to say, or imply, that there was a perfectly centered vee on me with linear arms as we see on Doorman is a lie. Let's focus for a second on exactly what Lamson is claiming is going on in the Altgens photo. He's claiming that a perfect vee shadow is hiding a crescent of round t-shirt, such that what you see on the left below is actually what you see on the right. That is a big claim. That is a huge claim. And, no one has the right to make it without demonstrating it, and I don't mean by lip-wagging, but by doing it. And even if you did it, it wouldn't actually prove anything because it would still be a far cry different than for it to have spontaneously happened on 11/22/63. But, at least it would be something, a start at substantiating it. But to just glibly assume it, as Lamson and Doyle and Haydon and others have done, is preposterous. And to Von Pein, yes, we have theories as to why other figures in the photo, besides Doorman, were altered. Did you really think we didn't? Did you think that we thought that they altered images just for the heck of it? There is a saying in law that a lawyer never asks a question in court that he doesn't know the answer to. You need to start thnking like a lawyer. They altered Black Hole Man, we believe because he was the real Billy Lovelady. And it makes good sense; it computes. Notice that Black Hole Man is a little shorter than Doorman, maybe an inch. Oswald was 5'9" and Lovelady was 5'8". So that computes. Notice that Black Hole Man looks stockier than Doorman. Lovelady as 175 while Doorman was not an ounce over 135. He reported his weight to reporters as 140 pounds, and I'm sure he weighed that- back in New Orleans when he was arrested. But, he lost weight between New Orleans and Dallas, and he could not have weighed more than 135 on 11/22. So, that's a 40 pound difference. Then notice the short-sleeved shirt which conforms with the shirt that Lovelady said he wore- for months. He also posed in the shirt unbuttoned, that is, configured like Doorman. Of course, that shirt he posed in had vertical stripes and this one doesn't, but it would have been easy to get rid of the stripes with a little opaquing. We are drawn to the idea that Black Hole Man was Lovelady, and of course, they had to get rid of him. They were claiming that Doorman was Lovelady, and they couldn't have two Loveladys. Obfuscated Man we suspect was Bill Shelley. Notice the match of white shirt and skinny tie, both circled in red in the collage below. Fedora Hat Man we suspect was Jack Ruby, who, of course, wore a Fedora hat. And we have the testimony of Victoria Adams, who when she got outside said that she saw Jack Ruby "barking orders and acting like a cop." How about removing my restriction? We're trying to have a discussion here. What are you afraid of? That I might behave like Joseph Backes, who started a whole thread just to bludgeon me with nasty words? I am not like him. And I'm surpised at David Von Pein for asking why the non-Doorman figures would have been altered.

There is no image of me from the photo-shoot in which I have a perfect vee shadow. Lamson is basing that claim on this picture below. Perhaps you could say that it is "veeish", but it is also meandering like a river. Doorman has two straight, unwavering arms to his vee. Just compare. And it's obvious that my roundneck t-shirt is not being obscured by the shadow. It is preposterous what Lamson is claiming: that there is a crescent of white t-shirt that is being completely obliterated, rendered invisble, on Doorman. How does the image of me corroborate that? It doesn't. It refutes it.

Yeah, Tommy. You got me. I left out the word "not". I meant that I am not trying to become famous other than as a screenwriter, which is true. But, you'll be pleased to know that I caught that mistake before I posted it on my Facebook page. And you might want to keep track of my Facebook page because there, I'm the boss, and I can post whatever whenever I want. And lately I have been doing a lot of posting about your friend, Mr. Backes. So, here's the link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oswald-Innocence-Campaign/322459544515376?ref=ts&fref=ts But, the big question, Tommy, is why, after everything I said, the only thing you could harp on was a typographical error. Was that the best you could do? It seems rather petty to me, especially since the intended meaing was still rather clear. Here are the facts, Tom: It was Oswald in the Doorway, and the only authentic picture we have of Billy Lovelady from the time was taken- without approval- by Mark Lane. And what that picture showed us is that Lovelady was already mostly bald by the time of the assassination, which means that he could not have been Doorman. Doorman's shirt and t-shirt are the spitting image of those worn by Oswald, and recently one of our senior members, Richard Hooke, has put together a graphic chart showing 50 matching points between Doorman and Oswald. How appropriate considering that this is the 50th year. And really, what reason is there to think that it wasn't Oswald? The whole world first thought it was Oswald- until the US government announced otherwise. But, why believe them? Is it paranoid of me to suggest that we need to be suspicious of announcements that the government makes? And why believe Lovelady? The man was a convicted felon. After months, he changed his story about which shirt he wore, and that was after posing in the first shirt in a manner like Doorman (unbuttoned) and letting the FBI photograph him. The FBI had put it in writing that Lovelady stated that he had worn a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans, which referred to a short-sleeved shirt. And it was only after that that the movies of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt started showing up- not that it was Lovelady in the movies. The magnitude of the fabrication that took place is breathtaking. I don't know why you want to defend it. I don't know why Backes does. But, if that makes us enemies, so be it, because we are going forward with this. It was Oswald in the doorway, and there isn't the slightest doubt about it. You are shovelling sand to stop the tide.

I have repeatedly informed Mr. Backes that he mis-states my positions. One would think that before trashing my positions - and especially to the extent that he has and in the manner than he does- that he would have decency- and the good sense- to get them straight. Backes faults me for finding so much photographic alteration in the immediate vicinity of Doorman in the Altgens photo. Yet, I provide the basis for suspicion for each of the anomalies I cite, and it's only in the area around Doorman that we find such anomalies. That area can't represent more than 3 or 4 percent of the vast photo, yet, all of the puzzling, inexplicable observations are found there. That is suspicious in itself if you think about it mathematically. Backes cites me saying that regarding "Super-Woman" -who is holding a 40 pound boy perfectly vertical with one hand- that the boy is "clearly taller than her." Those weren't my exact words, and if I had put it that way, I would have said "taller than she is." But I meant taller in the sense of being more elevated, being higher up in the picture. I did not mean that the young boy was biologically taller than his mother. And the fact is, he is higher up in the picture. If you can't see it, put a ruler to it. Backes trashes me for claiming that aspects of Lovelady's face were superimposed on Oswald's in the Altgens photo. But, didn't they have to do that? I mean: would they have seen Oswald in the photo and decided to just declare him to be Lovelady without doing anything to "Lovelady-ify" him? Would they have relied entirely on the "power of officialdom" to make the case? Well, I dare say that not even officials put that much stock in the power of officialdom. They had to transfer some of Lovelady's features to Doorman- particularly facial features because that's what people go by. Backes acts like it's impossible- even theoretically- but that's absurd. Photographic aleration has been a tool of propaganda and misinformation for a long time- since before 1963. There are several good books on the subject, and one is Faking It: Manipulated Photography before Photoshop by Mia Fineman. Backes trashes me for claiming that they used Lovelady's wedding picture to fashion part of Doorman's face, but my claim was actually that they used it to fashion his hairline. And the fact is that Doorman's hairline does match the hairline of Young Lovelady perfectly, while it does not match the hairline of Lovelady of the time. Below you can see, from left to right, Young Lovelady, Doorman, and Lovelady as of the winter of 1964 as taken by Mark Lane. Do the hairlines match between Young Lovelady and Doorman or not? And before we go any further with Backes critiques of my photographic analysis, let's look at one of his. He insists that Doorman's arm coming down was actually the Black Man's arm going up. Even though Robin Unger, Steve Haydon, Craig Lamson, Albert Doyle, and numerous other adversaries of mine have willingly granted the obvious- that it's Doorman's arm- Backes can't see it. Here is Robin Unger's colorization alongside Backes raving-mad interpretation. And he calls me "bat-sh_t crazy." Backes repeats the fallacy that Altgens6 "was always in the custody of Altgens and then put onto the AP wires within 30 minutes of the assassination" but this is what highly respected British researcher Paul Rigby says about it, and this is from the OIC site: 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." Paul Rigby is a well-respected JFK researcher, so we are going to let him expound: "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." And yes, I do maintain that Lovelady from the so-called Martin post-assassination footage was an imposter, and I've got a gang of doctors who agree with me that he was anatomically a different man than Billy Lovelady. Then, Backes expands it, wondering whether I think all of the TSBD was fake and all of Dealey Plaza was fake. Backes, you're not clever, and you're not funny. Then he gets to the Dallas police footage. He claims that I claimed that the Lovelady in it was a "midget." I never claimed such a thing. That was a piece of ridicule that originated with Lee Farley that Backes has oft repeated. Then he said I referred to that figure as "DeNiro Lovelady." I did not. It was another figure to whom I gave that moniker. Then, he said that I claimed that "actors" were "pixilated" into the film. In reality, I claimed that the figure of Lovelady in one version of the police footage was "embedded." I never used the word "pixilated". And, I compared it to the movie Mary Poppins which came out in 1964 in which embedding occurred. Then he claimed that I claimed it was a single frame that was embedded, and that is not true. In the embedded version, the entire sequence involving Lovelady is phony. Lovelady wasn't there. It was the squad room of the Dallas police detectives, deep within their inner sanctum. Lovelady was part of a group that was brought there to make statements. Why would they have singled him out and perched him at a desk there? He was a warehouse worker! Look at this picture closely. Look at his hair- the swept-back, ducktail effect. Look at the black-bleed going on. Why can't we question this? Nobody else in the footage -only Lovelady- disintegrates like this. Why can't we ask why? Backes called me an "agent provocateur" which he got from Charles Drago. Well, I am not an agent of anyone but myself. And I have no ulterior motive for doing this other than JFK truth. I am not selling anything. I am not writing a book. I am trying to become famous, other than as a screenwriter, which has nothing to do with this. So, why am doing all this? There is only one reason. It's because it’s not Billy Lovelady. It really was Oswald in the doorway. This post is already visible on my Faceboook page.

Backes, It was Oswald in the doorway, and the day will come when that fact registers in your brain like a hot poker, and may you live long enough to feel it. And to Pat and the other moderators who restrict me while allowing this foul-mouthed rage-aholic cretin to have free reign, you only expose your own corruption. And by the way, Backes: my Facebook page was asleep until you came along. I wasn't doing a thing with it. But now, thanks to you, it's come alive. So, bring it on, Backes. Yes, my eyes were shaded in the photo that you posted. But, it's presumably the chin that makes the chin shadow. Right? And my chin was in the light. You complained about my height. I'm only 5' 6 1/2" and Lovelady was 5'8". But, I was standing on my toes, and that brought me to exactly 5'8". I checked at home before I left. And yes, whether Doorman was wearing a crewneck or v-neck t-shirt is important to us. That's because Oswald was wearing a v-neck, and Lovelady was wearing a crewneck. And it would be important to you too if you really cared about the truth. Regarding my stance, it was accurate: hands clasped in front with left over right. That's what Doorman was doing, so that's what I did. And by the way, this is going up on my site. I want the world to know what Education Forum stands for and what they support. You wanna fight? Bring it on.

Every country has got its state lies. The Soviet Union began with a monstrous act. They huddled the Tsar's family (the Romanov family, Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children) together in a basement and then opened fire, slaughtering them all together in a bloodbath at close range. Then, they tried to vanish the bodies, even dissolving the bones in acid to destroy the evidence. For 75 years, they tried to keep it a secret, and since it was a totalitarian state, you could be arrested for discussing it. The government of the USA has its state lies too, and there is none more heinous than the fact the apparatus of state killed President Kennedy and tried to pin the blame on Lee Harvey Oswald. And thankfully, this isn't the USSR, and we do have freedom of speech. So, they can't arrest me for talking about this. I don't know what else they might be plotting against me, and I assure you, I am concerned about it. Might they try to kill me? I take the risk seriously. But, what they cannot do is arrest me for it, and that's because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. But, even though there is freedom of speech, there is still suppression of speech. I was just informed that I have been banned from the JFK Lancer forum. I don't think I broke any rules. And the administrator, Jerry Dealey, even admitted that there is more traffic on the forum when I'm around. Nevertheless, I am out. And on the Education Forum, which is another major forum for JFK debate, I am not officially banned, but they restrict me. Every time I make a post, it has to go through inspection and approval by a "moderator" before it can appear. That is bad enough, but in actuality, they just ignore my submissions. Presently, they have a thread going to discuss my Altgens photo reenactment, and my enemies are there, disparaging me, ridiculing me, and trashing the work, and I cannot respond. Officially, they say I have to be restricted because I am insulting to the other members. Yet, they allowed Joseph Backes to start a whole thread entitled, "Ralph Cinque is a twat". Mr. Backes has taken the concept of incivility to the most extreme level I have ever seen. I have also been banned from the JFK Assassination Forum by Duncan McKrae. He not only expelled me and my colleague Richard Hooke; he removed the posts of others who tried to talk about the Altgens reenactment. Well, consider this an open letter to all of them. What you are doing is practicing intellectual suppression, and I could also call it intellectual dishonesty. It was Oswald in the doorway, and it has reached the point that it's insane to deny it. It's his outer shirt. It's his v-shaped t-shirt. It's his open sprawl, and let me tell you from experience that it's very difficult to find a shirt that will sprawl open as much as his did. His was a very unusual shirt, and most shirts won't behave that way, even when unbuttoned. It's his stance, with him clasping his hands in front, left over right. It's his square chin. It's his right ear. And there is more- much more. Every single piece of evidence relating to Billy Lovelady was bogus. The only authentic photo of Lovelady that we have from that time of the assassination was taken- without approval- by Mark Lane, and thank God he did. We know from it that Billy Lovelady was mostly bald at the time of the assassination. And that, by itself, rules him out as Doorman, who was not bald. It's no wonder the Dallas Police and the FBI tried so hard to prevent anyone from photographing Lovelady. They waited until 1971- 8 years- for an officially sanctioned photoshoot of Lovelady to take place, with Bob Jackson behind the lens- and I am sure they figured that that was enough time for the passage of time to account for his baldness. And, every one of the movies of Lovelady on 11/22/63 is fake. There are no legitimate images of him from that day at all, although we strongly believe he was in the Altgens photo- until he was taken out. The official story of the assassination is a lie, but to deny Oswald's presence in the doorway is also a lie. The current situation in this country is that it's OK to be a CT, but you should be a respectable one, and don't be shining any lights on the doorway. Don't be talking about photographic alterations. Just speak vaguely about a conspiracy, or better yet, say that Oswald did it but that he had an accomplice on the Grassy Knoll. That is what the HSCA concluded. But, I ask you: if that were true, how long would it have taken law enforcement to apprehend that guy? Did they even look for such a guy? Of course not. To all you Doorman-deniers, you can't practice your insanity around me. It was Oswald in the doorway, just as sure as it is Stevie Ray Vaughan overlooking the Colorado River in Austin, Texas. And I've got a strong hunch about whose side Stevie Ray would be on.

Considering that this thread is to discuss my work, it is morally and intellectually unfair for the moderators to refuse to post my posts, which apparently is happening. And it is a mockery to the whole idea of open debate. You are practicing intellectual suppression, and I shall broadcast it.

Mike, that is the undecipherable union between Doorman and Black Tie Man. Which one of them is it? Who knows? It could be either, or both. The whole thing is wrong. They pieced Black Tie Man in there. He wasn't there. What you are seeing there is a physical and anatomical impossibility, and I am a doctor. And I have polled doctors who have agreed that Doorman's left shoulder is cut off; it's missing. They covered it up when they squeezed Black Tie Man in there. Above, I am in the exact same position as him. I have a point to my shoulder; he does not. I have the point of my shoulder marked with a white arrow. There is no comparable point on Doorman. His shoulder was cut off.

This isn't that hard to understand. They saw Oswald in the photo, and they did things to "Lovelady-ify" him. And the most ostensible thing that they did, in my view, is alter his hairline and the shape of his forehead. That's the thing that really stands out as being Lovelady. Look at this collage: On the left is Young Lovelady from about 1957, in the middle is Doorman, and on the right is Lovelady from the winter of 1964 as taken by Mark Lane. Obviously, there is a perfect match between the hairlines of Young Lovelady and Doorman. But, Lovelady lost a lot of hair in the ensuing years, and apparently, the alterers did not know that. Nobody told them. That's the thing about government work: the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Now do you understand why the FBI and the Dallas Police tried so far to keep photographers away from Lovelady? They didn't want anyone to find out that he was already mostly bald at the time of the assassination. So, they waited until 1971 to let him be photographed (by Bob Jackson) and by then, enough years had passed that the baldness could be accounted for by the passage of time. And by the way, after they used Lovealdy's "wedding picture" to forge Doorman's hairline, they flipped the wedding picture, right to left, to cover up their tracks. The only version I have ever fround circulating online is the flipped version, which is on the left. How do I know which was which? I compared it to the Jackson image, where there are scant remants of hair left where you can see how it used to be. The one on the right is definitely correct, and that's the one that matches Doorman. Where did I find the unflipped one? I didn't. I unflipped it myself. So, it' s mainly the hairline and forehead of Doorman that match Lovelady. What about the shirt pattern? As I look it at large, Doorman's doesn't match Oswald's or Lovelady's. As I look at it, Oswald's looks plain and uniform but slightly grainy, Doorman's looks splotchy, and Lovelady's looks lines and checked. No two match very well. But look at the upper right quadrant of Oswald's and Doorman's shirts. I have them circled. They match perfectly. And when I say perfectly I mean perfectly. The pattern matches, the collars match, the little furls match, and the notched t-shirt matches. 'Dems the same. Methinks they added the splotching to Doorman's shirt, but the upper right part was too small to tamper with. And they were probably figured that nobody would notice. They were wrong.

Mike, we moved the reenactment report to Jim Fetzer's column on the Veterans Today website, and I'll post the link. We couldn't keep post because of Hubpages policy against duplicate postings, and we decided that VT was a better home for it. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/21/jfk-49-years-in-the-offing-the-altgens-reenactment/ And Craig, once again, you are being ..... never mind. What you need to understand is that Oswald's shirt was well-worn, and over time, clothing gets molded to the person who wears it, where it lies and folds a certain way. In fact, the ironic thing is that when you look at those white circles on each of them, the contents really do look the same, including the vertical margin, the collar, and the little furl beneath the collar. I always called it a pseudo-lapel, but I noticed that Dr. David Wrone calls a furl, so that's what I'm going with. Look at it again. Can you see how identical they are? It's reaching the point where it is really becoming INSANE to deny the reality of this. It's obviously the same guy wearing the same shirt and the same t-shirt. They're even both clasping their hands, although Oswald is going right over left, and as Doorman he's going left over right. You can see the waviness and lumpiness of the loose-fitting shirt as it bunches up on Oswald and Doorman. And take a good look at Oswald's left shoulder (towards our right) and then shift to Doorman and notice how he was robbed of it in order for them to squeeze in that phony Black Tie Man. As I said, it is INSANE to deny it.

Pat, I will be happy to answer your question, but first I want to thank you for filtering out the hate-mongering. It really doesn't bother me because I'm very thick-skinned. But, it is distracting; it's off-topic. So, thanks for getting rid of it. You asked why they would have created phony movies of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt, and I'll tell you. The biggest reason had nothing to do with the pattern. It had to do with the length of the sleeves. In the shirt that Lovelady originally said that he wore, and which he maintained repeatedly and for months, and where he posed in the shirt and had it configured like Doorman's, which was unbuttoned, and where the FBI put in writing to the WC that he said he wore that shirt, it happened to be short-sleeved. And Doorman's shirt was obviously long-sleeved. So, that was a big problem, much bigger than the shirt pattern. THEY HAD TO GET LOVELADY INTO LONG SLEEVES. That was the main thing. Then, because Doorman's shirt, through the body of it and the left sleeve, looks rather splotchy, where splotchy is the opposite of uniform, they went with a highly varied long-sleeve shirt for Lovelady. Doorman's splotchy pattern is not the same as Lovelady's plaid/checkered pattern, however, they were both varied, and variedness was all they were going for in the match. After all, where you going to find a splotchy shirt? So, they settled for the plaid one. Sometimes you just have to make do, Pat. .

To get a clear idea about the pattern of Oswald's shirt, you should watch this video. Keep in mind that it was taken indoors. But, it was a woven tweed shirt, that was well worn, and in the sunlight, it had a tendency to sparkle. But as far as the actual pigment that it had, it was all one color. But, let's compare it to Doorman's and Lovelady's shirts. So, whose does Doorman's match? Neither really. And listen up: you can't just go with what you think is closer. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. Close doesn't cut it. I happen to think that Oswald's is closer. But, it remains a question mark. Except for the upper right side of Doorman's shirt, which is an excellent match to the upper right side of Oswald's shirt. Here it is again circled. So, that's what I go by when comparing all three shirts. I request to be allowed to post freely like the others.

I don't know what Lamson is talking about. There is this image in which the woman had a vee, but the vee was on her neck, not on her chest. Compare her to Doorman. Lamson, I know you have never made a formal study of the process of rational analysis, but conclusion-jumping is one of the worst mistakes people make. I have marked the spot in black where the vee would have to reach on the woman to correspond to Doorman. I've pointed this out to you repeately already, Lamson, and yet, you keep going back to it. Alright, let's try blowing it up. Can you see it now?

Pat, I haven't retreated from anything. And you are misstating my position. I never said that the pattern of Doorman's shirt was that of Lovelady's. I said that the pattern of Doorman's shirt looks exactly like Oswald's- but only in the upper right quarter of it. The rest of Doorman's shirt has a weird pattern that does not match Oswald and does not match Lovelady. An undiscriminating person might think it matches Lovelady, but they're not looking closely. It doesn't match either of the shirts that Lovelady claimed to wear on 11/22 at different times. I believe they did doctor the shirt-pattern, but that narrow section on the upper right was too small for them to tamper with. So, they had to leave it. Maybe they thought no one would notice. They were wrong. And Pat, don't put "they" in quotes because YOU are supposed to be a CT, and in being a CT, you automatically admit that there was a "they" who killed the President and tried to cover it up. So, word to the wise: don't put "they" in quotes because it makes you come across as a complete phony and charlatan. Lone-nutters can do it- but you can't. Again, you are supposed to be a CT, so act like one. The footage of Lovelady at the Dallas PD was totally faked, and in two ways. In one version, they embedded a Lovelady figure into the footage. But, it's pretty fake; he bleeds, he runs; and he looks like a ghost. So, they came up with another one which was a complete reenactment of the few seconds, which they spliced in. That's the one you see in the 2009 History Channel program "Three Shots That Changed America". And there is a version in which they strung the two together, but to do that, they had to speed it up and blur it up in order to accomplish the bait and switch. They also had to slim DeNiro Lovelady down, so they applied some kind of narrowing filter to the whole thing. Here, take a look: So: Doorman's shirt is all Oswald: the form, the fit, the lay, the wear, all except for a weird pattern over the body of the shirt and left sleeve which cannot be associated with Oswald or Lovelady. The only part of the shirt that we can count on as being accurate is the upper right. So, that is what I used. Comprende? And, Lovelady did not wear a plaid shirt on 11/22. He wore a short-sleeved, red and white shirt with vertical stripes, which he maintained for months. Regarding your complaint, we had to shoot right at 12:30 on each day, and on each of them, the sun was going in and out. We had no control over that. And it happened to be shining brightly at the moment to which you refer. And you might think it was a help to me, but it was also a hindrance. I'm sure it was too my advantage at all. The point is that if Lovelady had been wearing a plaid, checkered shirt, the plaid and checks would have shown up- even with Tri-X film. That's Oswald's shirt, not Lovelady's. Before you leave, Ralph, I have a question. When you were here before, you were pushing that the pattern of the shirt in the Altgens' photo was Lovelady's, but that that was because some mysterious "they" had nabbed the negative of the photo and inserted Lovelady's shirt pattern over Oswald's. You're now claiming the shirt pattern in the photo is in fact Oswald's. SO...does that mean you no longer believe there was mass conspiracy to make the shirt look like Lovelady's? Have you retreated from your claim the footage of Lovelady wearing his shirt at the police station was faked? Or are you now claiming there was a mass conspiracy to pretend Lovelady was wearing a plaid shirt on 11-22-63, and that nothing from this shirt--not the pattern, not the cut--can be seen in the Altgens photo? Because...well..what would be the point? I mean, it seems like you've made a sharp turn. You used to claim they nabbed the photo in part to fake the shirt. And now it seems like you're claiming they nabbed the photo to wipe some faces out of the photo, and left the shirt. Is this in fact what you're claiming? Did they insert Lovelady into that footage to show him wearing a shirt he didn't wear that day, even though that shirt was not in the Altgens photo? P.S. I spotted a mistake in your article. When you compare the shoulders in the Altgens photo and your re-enactment wearing a shirt close to Lovelady's, the shirts are very close in appearance. A little further down, however, you compare your re-enactments in which you wear a brown shirt, and a plaid shirt, to the shirt seen in Altgens. And your image of the plaid shirt here is much lighter, giving the appearance it doesn't remotely match the shirt in Altgens. Even though your earlier comparison proves it does. You may want to fix that.

I want to thank Jerry Dealey at JFK Lancer for lifting the ban on me. Fortunately, Jerry has a sense of fair play and open debate, which I respect. Over here, the situation is that Craig Lamson gets to post repeatedly at will while I'm left at bay- at the mercy of moderators. Is Craig a better person than I am? Is he more polite? Is he more respectful? It's hard to type all that with a straight face. Anyway, if anyone would like to continue the discussion in a fair, balanced, unobstructed format, here is the link to the Lancer discussion. And Craig, you might want to venture over there- unless you enjoy fighting a guy who's got one hand tied behind his back. http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=96883&mesg_id=96883&page=

Here's another one, Lamson. I'm leaning forward. I'm turning. I'm twisting. I'm reaching. But, there's no vee shadow. All I'm saying is that Doorman's t-shirt was exactly as it appears to be. There was no optical illusion going on. There was no shadow covering up and obliterating white t-shirt. It is a preposterous claim. It is so preposterous that you can't demonstrate it. You can't perform an experiment in which you produce such a thing. All you can do is wag your lips and conjure up your fanciful explanations and excuses. It's Oswald in the doorway wearing the t-shirt that only he could have worn. And that clinches it rock-solid. It's over for you, Lamson. You've been checkmated.

I've got tons of pictures, Lamson. Mighty Mouse Mytton would draw thick black angle brackets around that and call it a vee. How many times do I have to tell you that perfect, balanced, centered, even vees like we see on Doorman are extremely rare- as far as the shape of shadows goes. It wasn't the shape of the shadow. It was the shape of the t-shirt. I don't say that shadow wasn't involved. I'm saying that the shape, the actual controu, the margin of the shadow was determined by the shape of the t-shirt. There was a junction there between white t-shirt and brown skin, and that is what you are seeing. And the contrast got exaggerated by the high-contrast Tri-X film. It's true on Doorman as it is on me. You're looking at the same thing, the same phenomenon. You have got no right- intellectualy speaking- to assert that round t-shirt got rendered invisible- on Doorman or on me. This isn't Imagination Day at Kindergarden. It's a plain photo in which we see a man wearing a v-cut t-shirt- and that's on both sides. To dispute that is insane. Nothing is being hidden. There is no white t-shirt underneath the black. That is what you are trying to claim. Stop it already! It's Oswald in the doorway!

Another thing we proved is that, with Tri-X film, shade over a white t-shirt does not turn it black. It turns it grey. Do you see how my shaded white t-shirt looked grey? It's skin that gets turned black, not white t-shirt. And that's just the way it goes. Tonight, Facebook shut down the evil Joe Backes. His page against me was filthy, rageful, venomous, and truly hate-spewing. The amazing thing is that I no sooner reported him that they took one look at it and shut him down. And yet, the irony is that he is still a member in good standing here. And there was a guy who was supporting him vigorously, cheering him on with the hatemongering named Charles Drago who is the monitor of another site like this called Deep Politics. Even Dawn Meredith- a woman no less- was not the least bit deterred by all the f-words- as long as they were directed at me. Well, hate all you want, people. I'm pretty thick-skinned. It's Oswald in the doorway. And as we head towards the 50th, that's the lead story. Like it or not.

Lamson, I spent a total of 4 days there. I had a lot of pictures taken, and only a small number went into the report. Here's one I did in your honor. It shows me right in the middle of the doorway at 12:30- right in the spot where you said he was: behind the median handrail. And I'm bending forward, like you said, and I'm imaginatively grabbing the median handrail in the manner you described. And there's no vee shadow. I've got dozens of pictures like this. You want we go through them one by one? It is preposterous to claim that Doorman's t-shirt was anything but what it appeared to be, which is v-shaped. That perfect vee was the cut of his shirt- just like on me. And you're not going to tell me that it wasn't the cut of my t-shirt, are you? Because I think I know very well what the cut of my t-shirt was. I bought it for the occasion. Prior to this, I never owned a v-shaped t-shirt in my life. But that one on me was v-shaped.

Mitcham, that's a woman, and here she is blown-up. Yes, the shadow is veeish, but it gets nowhere near her chest. It's restricted to her neck, and rather high on her neck. There's no way it could compromise the look of her blouse. It's nowhere near it. And that's what we are talking about: the idea that Doorman's t-shirt only looks vee because his chin shadow is cutting a vee through his t-shirt. This is not an example of that, far from it. Look, it was a preposerous claim all along. Doorman's t-shirt looks vee because it is vee. And it's Oswald's t-shirt.

Hey, Karl! Notice the vee on that devil. It looks the same as Doorman's. It is the same as Doorman's. In both cases, it is just exposed skin. Both of us are wearing v-shaped t-shirts. I surely know that I was, and I ought to know.

Craig, this was the first time this was ever done, and it wasn't easy. So naturally, it wasn't going to come out perfect. We did have some of the angles wrong, granted. But regardless, we proved that with Tri-X film that there was no black hole on Black Hole Man. We could still see his face. And the fact that he was turned a little the wrong way doesn't matter. He wasn't going to have a black hole regardless. And in light of all your arguments, the fact is that we proved that there was no v-shaped neck shadow. That was the shape of his t-shirt. It was Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt. This is my favorite image in the whole collection. It thrills me because I know very well that that dark vee that you see on me is my skin. I was wearing a v-neck t-shirt. I bought it for the occasion. I had two outfits: my Lovelady clothes and my Oswald clothes. And in this one, I was wearing my Oswald clothes with the v-neck t-shirt. And that darkness that you see is just my skin. It is not a shadow line. It's the cut of the t-shirt against my skin, and that is absolutely indisputable. I have got a half a dozen witnesses I can call in to confirm it. And my dark vee is the same as Doorman's dark vee. I tried to tell you that it was just the high contrast of the Tri-X film. And it worked the same on me as it did on Lee. Here's both of us, both with vees, both showing our skin, in the same place, the same time, and practically the same day, except 49 years apart.

The Oswald Innocence Campaign has completed the first-ever reenactment of the Altgens photo, using posers in the doorway. An award-winning professional photographer was hired to do the photo-shoot, and his analysis of the results is included in the report. To view it, go here: http://firsk.hubpages.com/hub/49-Years-in-the-Offing-The-Altgens-Reenacted?done