Ralph Cinque

Is this the Twilight Zone? Are you people out of your minds? A photographic image exists which duplicates a scene from the aftermath of the JFK assassination. I'll say it again . . . A photographic image exists which duplicates a scene from the aftermath of the JFK assassination. THERE IS NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THAT IMAGE. Somebody tried to create false evidence. Mr Hogan, you wrote that long treatise, and you addressed a great many people and things. But, you didn't address this thing, this picture. And it is what we are talking about. This is getting to be like the Wizard of Oz . . "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Then, Burnham, you pipe-in singing the praises of Hogan, and saying how our "methodology is flawed." But, you didn't address the picture! Not a peep about the picture! Zippo! Zilch! Nada! Nunca! Then, Howard, you join in experssing your outrage, how incensed you are, but not a word about the picture! Address the issue! Look at the picture. Talk about the picture. It's important. It's damning to the whole official story of the assassination. It's bizarre that it exists, but it does exist. And it's even more bizarre that none of you people want to talk about it. What are you afraid of? Talk about the picture!

Lee, you think Tom should act like Jerry Dealey over on Lancer? But you know that Jerry Dealey is in league with Gary Mack. You know that Jerry Dealey defends the official theory of the assassination. And you do not. So why would you applaud anything that Jerry Dealey does? Why would you cite him as an example of reasonableness when he reasons that Oswald shot Kennedy? How can you give any credibility whatsoever to someone who believes that? And no, Lee. How many times do I have to tell you? The footage of Oswald being processed at the Dallas PD is real. It's the other image, of DeNiro Lovelady, that is not real. I don't know if it came from film footage, or if it was always and only a photograph. But, I do know that it is a renactment of the scene from the footage. It is obviously not from the footage. It does not occur in the footage. The man playing Lovelady is different. The men in the procession of cops are different. But the location is the same. And I mean the exact same spot. And of course the day is the same. And the time is the same. To the minute! The clocks say so! It's the exact same scene! It's Oswald being processed! It's just different players. The very existence of that picture is damning evidence that somebody tried to manipulate. For what purpose? You have to ask? Where have you been? It was to show Lovelady wearing that long-sleeved plaid shirt. They had to get him out of the short-sleeved, striped shirt that he first said he wore on the day of the assassination. That was crucial to keeping alive the claim that he was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo. Here it is again. The existence of this photograph proves wickedness in the production of false evidence in the JFK case. Where did this come from? Does anyone know? http://i46.tinypic.com/n70acy.jpg[/i

Lee, I never disputed that that footage you posted was real. I am disputing that the image that I posted above, which is a tandem version of it with a different guy playing Lovelady, is real. How can you have two disparate images of the exact same scene? We're talking about real life, not a movie. There can only be one "take" of every moment in real life, and there are too many contradictions between those pictures. And why do you guys keep pining for the thread to be locked? It's so cowardly! If you don't like being here, no one's holding a gun to your head. You can leave. You do not have to participate. You don't have to do battle with me. If you're not up for it, fine, go. Let those who want to do so. What gives you the right to censor other people's conversations?

Craig, you are not contributing. Did you read what Tom Scully wrote above? You should not be submitting posts just to degrade me. Try it again, and I will complain to him about it. Offer substance. It's all that matters.

So, Greg, you think it's inconclusive that they are different individuals. I take it that means you think they may be different individuals, that you are open to the idea. But please let me point out that the size difference is quite substantial. It does jump out at you. One man does look quite a bit bigger than the other. Not necessarily taller, but beefier, stockier. And his shirt seems to be open more too; the other man seems more buttoned up. And let me point out that on the other man, we are not limited to the one image. We have 4 seconds of footage of him in which the camera is moving and the angle is changing. And at no time during that 4 seconds, do we see a glimpse of an open shirt and exposed t-shirt. And the lay of the hair definitely seems different. I call the one guy DeNiro because of the way his hair is swept back like Robert DeNiro in The Deer Hunter.The other guy just seems to have a comb-over. So, you say inconclusive, but would you say it leans more towards same guy or different guys? If you had to bet, and God was going to judge, how would you bet?

Thank you, Tom, and I will certainly abide by what you said. I have a question for Lee Farley. Lee, you have repeatedly said that Martin shot his film of the motorcade and then later on, he did some more filming of the post-assassination in Dealey Plaza. How do you know this? I have to ask because it doesn't add up to me. HIs filming of the motorcade took 25 seconds. So, if he turned his camera off and then turned it on later, it presumably would have been the same film. I don't know how much capacity the film had but surely it was a lot longer than 25 seconds. He would have had no reason to change the film. So, it should have been continuous with his earlier filming, and it should be part of that same film. But none of the extant versions of the Martin film show anything but the motorcade. So, how and why did his post-assassination footage get separated from it? And why isn't it available? Nobody seems to have it. I asked Gary Mack, and he doesn't have it. And he said that it's not contained in the archives of the 6th floor museum. And as far as I know, the 6 second clip of Lovelady outside the TSBD is the only post-assassination footage that has been attributed to Martin. But, if that's true, then why did he turn his camera back on for only 6 seconds? And why those particular 6 seconds? As you know, it shows a man being led into the TSBD by police, and the bystanders outside, including Billy Lovelady, seem very interested in this, where they are peering through the glass, trying to see what's going on. But, the man obviously wasn't Oswald since we know what happened to him. So, what importance did this have, and why did Martin film this particular 6 seconds? And why did he stop? Was there nothing else worth shooting in Dealey Plaza? Who turns on their camera for just 6 seconds? And the other big problem, and dare I say insurmountable one, is that, qualitatively, the film is so much better than the Martin film that it's impossible to think that he used the same camera to shoot both. How practical is it to assume that he had two cameras with him? As a result of the above, your friend Robin Unger has decided to refrain from claiming that the images of Lovelady outside the TSBD were from Martin- at least until it can be proven. So, that's why I am asking you because you have repeatedly said that Martin shot post-assassination footage and that it was separate from his motorcade footage. I want to know how you know that. What is the evidence for it? Do you have this footage? Have you seen it? I hope you don't think it's too much to ask.

Well then, Lee, point out where I'm wrong because I am not so bonkers as to be unpersuadable by reason and logic. I say those two images, which of the same brief moment in time and space, don't match. Consider these observations: In the first image on the left, the middle man has got neat, straight, tapered hair. In the second image on the right, his hair is longer and somewhat curly. Now, is there some angular or lighting or equipment issue that would cause that effect? I dare say it's a different man. I might add that there are 3 men in the first lineup and 4 men in the second.

Here are the just the faces and hair patterns of the two Loveladys. Would anyone care to say whether they think it is the same man?

OK, now with all personal bickerings put aside, can we get back to the business at hand and analyze these photos? Here is the footage of Oswald being led through the Dallas PD. The relevant segment is only 4 seconds long: from 1 minute 4 seconds to 1 minute 8 seconds. The first of the two images below occurs right about the middle of the 4 second span. I don't know where the image below that, at the bottom, came from, but I can guarantee you that it is not a frame from the movie. At no split-second does that bottom image occur within the movie. So, where did it come from?

Greg, that link you posted does not work. So alas, you gave us nothing. I mean putting aside the bad blood between you and Jim, which I don't consider to be of value. You have his email, so if you are determined to rile at him, write to him personally. Here on the forum, can we stick to discussing the facts of the case?

Glenn, you are going to have to be more specific than that. I was never buried by anybody on any forum. This analysis is rock-solid, evinced by the fact that nobody wants to challenge it. And I mean challenge it specifically, on a technical, factual basis. Harking back to DP? Is that all you can do, Glenn? Sad, sad. Pathetic actually. And what did Pat Speer say that was so brilliant? He had the audacity to say that these two individvuals are the same person at the same moment in time.

Lee, you should know that Jerry reopened my thread on Lancer. I have nothing to say about your put-down except that I wish you would point to the error of my ways, specifically. To say that I have no idea about this and that, and then to walk away without providing an explanation, makes you look bad, not me. You can banter terms like "aspect ratios" and "levels of compression": but that's just lip-flapping. And please reread your post and then tell me who is stomping his feet. It's you, not me. And your suggestion to reread another post that tore into me and Dr. Fetzer fell on deaf ears. I'm not interested! I only want to discuss the case. Does anyone here want to do that?

I want to thank Robert Morrow for facilitating my membership in EF. And of course I thank John SImkin for approving it. And I thank my comrade-in-arms, Jim Fetzer. To those who are challenging me, I wish that you would. What I mean is that I wish you would address the specific issues that I am raising instead of wasting time disparaging me personally. The following made general disparagments of me or Jim Fetzer but said absolutely nothing about the case: John Dolva, Lee Farley,Greg Burnham, and Robin Unger. Pat Speer addressed one point of contention when he said: "The two images are obviously of the same man, Billy Lovelady." But, look at them up close. Would someone explain to me how these two could be the same person when there seems to be about 30 pounds difference in weight? And even if you think that camera angles or lighting differences could, erroneously, produce such an impression, who is the burden on? Is it on me? Do I have to accept that by default? Or is the burden on the one making the claim? Dawn made an interesting point that we don't really need this to know that Oswald was innocent. I couldn't agree more. Still, it's nice to have it. A picture is worth a thousand words. Isn't that what they say? Nearly 49 years have passed, and so far, the other side has retained control of the major organs of information and education concerning JFK. This new piece of evidence (and that's what it is) shakes things up. It rattles the boat, and that boat is going to sink. So, it is immensely important. And to Greg Burnham, for you to hurl ridicule at me because I alternate between "Doorway Man" and "Doorman" is extremely petty. The latter is short, concise, and efficient, and that's why I sometimes use it. I presume that people are intelligent enough to realize that I am referring to the same person. But, there is something you should all realize: it's futile and pointless to attack me over petty stuff like that or to issue general disparagements of me. If you want to beat me, you have to fight me- over the issues. Go mano-a-mano with me over the points that are in dispute. Delve into the concrete facts of the case with me. But, don't do as Lee Farley does and copy over the whole length of a long discussion just to add the meager comment, "Wow, I really am speechless." Hey! If you're going to be speechless, withhold speech! But, don't waste bandwidth just to stick your nose in the air. When you do that, you're just admitting that you can't refute me. And if you can refute me, then do it! So, where do we stand now? What we have now are two "takes" on a specific moment in space and time: the moment that Lee Oswald and a line of policemen pass Billy Lovelady in the hall at the Dallas Police Department at 2 PM on 11/22/63. The two images are, at the same time, strikingly similar but also strikingly different. And the most glaring and significant difference involves Lovelady himself- he is a different guy in each picture, which you can readily see in the attached collage. So, can we talk about that and how it came about? If there's a plausible explanation, I'd like to hear it. If you can reconcile the two images, please do so. But please, don't waste time with general disparagements and ridicule. That rolls off me like water off a duck's back. I don't care what you think of me. I only want to examine the nuts and bolts of the case. Tackle it with me. Let's get under the hood and take this thing apart. And if you don't want to do that, then just stay out of it. OK?

Dr. Cinque is a graduate of UCLA and Western States Chiropractic College. His interest in health, anti-aging, and longevity began in college in the early 1970s. He completed his internship at the clinic of the esteemed Dr. Herbert Shelton, in 1976; and he did a second residency with the renowned Osteopathic physician, Dr. Alec Burton, in Sydney, Australia in 1989. For 15 years, he was the director of the Hygeia Health Retreat in Yorktown, TX. He is currently the director of Dr. Cinque's Health Retreat in Buda, TX, where people come to lose weight, restore their energy, and optimize their health. Dr. Cinque is a founding member and past president of the International Association of Hygienic Physicians. Throughout the year, he is a frequent speaker at major health and anti-aging conferences and seminars. He is the author of numerous published articles on health and other subjects. In his personal life, Dr. Cinque is a father, a grandfather, an avid bicyclist, an aspiring pianist, and a diligent fruit and vegetable gardener. I am an occasional columnist for lewrockwell.com, the most widely read libertarian website in the world. My most recent article with Lew was several days ago, and you can read it here: http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/cinque9.1.1.html