Jump to content
The Education Forum

Posts Moved Out of (On Topic Only!) Ralph Cinque on Lovelady and Oswald in the Doorway - Thread


Recommended Posts

Josiah, how could you be so dense? Have you been joining Lenny drinking that Amazon water?

They most certainly did not make the fabricated photo of DeNiro Lovelady on 11/22/63. Are you nuts? Is that what you think I thought? What, do you think that it was just a lazy day with nothing but time to spare to sit around playing with the camera at the police station on 11/22/63? Of course, they didn't make it on that day They made it after that and perhaps quite a bit after that. But, I tell you what I told Robert, start to THINK!

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, Len, I am not demonstrating my ignorance. You are demonstrating your blindness. In the movie, Lovelady glows. He is lite-up. He is extra-illuminated. I don't know what other adjectives to use. If you can't see it, you're freakin' blind.

And I don't appreciate someone messing with the frame from the movie. You see, I happen to think that there is significance to Lovelady's weird spooky glow. But alas, you can't even see it.

No you are demonstrating your rank ignorance again; back in the day movie films needed good illumination for proper exposure. Thus indoor shots required strong artificial lighting. Sometimes the lights got too close to whatever was in the foreground and it got ‘burnt out’, you can see this with many people and things in the video including LHO, some of the cops and that weird clock. On the other hand there were parts where Lovelady is more or less properly exposed. Analog converting and copying of images normally increases contrast (and decreases resolution) the YT clip is Tupan only knows how many gens down from the original. Groden knowing infinitely more about the subject than you do and with good access to materials presumably got a high quality copy and scanned the best frame which he then corrected for the best image quality possible. Only a ignorant kook would see anything sinister in that.

There is also the possibility suggested by DVP that Groden’s image came from another film.

And speaking of your rank ignorance in one of you posts you show images of Lovelady taken from opposite angles as if this somehow proves something.

Do you play dodge ball much “Dr.” Ralph? I doubt many people failed to notice you failed to reply to the part of my post about your failure to consult relevant experts or produce any objective evidence in support of your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you're smart enough to realize that I am not the least bit intimidated. So Hogan glibly calls me "confused." And you think that reflects badly on me? An intelligent person would have said what I was confused about; he would have explained the basis for saying it. He would know that just declaring it doesn't count. That's just being pompous. Who do you think you are, Moses?

But. the mail keeps arriving in response to my article on Lew Rockwell, and it's overwhelmingly positive. Here's an interesting comment:

"My wife and I noticed something else about the two "Lovelady's". If you look at the visible left arm of the two men, you'll note that one is considerably more buffed than the other. Much bigger arm, much bigger muscles."

Well, of course that's true. It's one of those things that normal people notice, and as I've been saying, not only are they not the same guy, they don't even look enough alike to be related.

x3fses.jpg34oy1jm.jpg

Then just tonight there was this interesting letter:

Dear Dr. Cinque,

I have just read your excellent piece of research on the two Billy Loveladys.

As a student of the JFK assassination since it happened (I was 23), I never get tired of seeing new facts and people exposed. Well familiar with the FBI's placement of Lovelady in the front door in attempt to cover up the fact that it was actually Oswald, I now have to wonder (as do you) just what was Lovelady doing at DPD at the early hour of 2:00pm? Considering that the shooting occurred 12:30, and he professed to do a great deal afterwards, how did he get seated at desk deep within the Dallas Police Department by 2:00 PM? He certainly could not have been nearly as pertinent a witness as, say, the Newmans or Mary Moorman or a hundred others who were much closer to the crime's final shot. So, how did he get so entrenched by 2 PM? Was he an informant who had been placed at TSBD in recent weeks to watch over LHO? (It would be interesting to discover how long Lovelady worked there and where he was previously. Do you know?

I would like to talk to you. Can you give me a phone number and a time that I might call? Or are you on Skype? Thanks for stimulating my thinking.

I will have to be sure tell him, in case he doesn't know, that the Texas School Book Depository only started operating from that location that very summer.

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

You're a funny guy, Burnham. Of all the things I said in my last post,that's what you wanted to comment on, my not being intimidated? You copied that over and responded to it and ignored all the rest? Especially the letters from my readers? There was some content there concerning things of substance to the case. But no, you're not interested in that. You prefer playing this game of oneupsmanship.

You're not that interested in this, Burnham. Why don't you just admit it? You're not interested in talking about the facts of the case. So why are you here?

Ralpy,

You are not allowed to question the motivations of other members.

--

Greg Burnham - well isn't that rich... How many times have YOU crossed the line on that? Just because you have not figured out Lyndon Johnson is not a key player in the JFK assassination does not mean that others who have are some sort of intelligence operatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a funny guy, Burnham. Of all the things I said in my last post,that's what you wanted to comment on, my not being intimidated? You copied that over and responded to it and ignored all the rest? Especially the letters from my readers? There was some content there concerning things of substance to the case. But no, you're not interested in that. You prefer playing this game of oneupsmanship.

You're not that interested in this, Burnham. Why don't you just admit it? You're not interested in talking about the facts of the case. So why are you here?

Ralpy,

You are not allowed to question the motivations of other members.

--

Greg Burnham - well isn't that rich... How many times have YOU crossed the line on that? Just because you have not figured out Lyndon Johnson is not a key player in the JFK assassination does not mean that others who have are some sort of intelligence operatives.

What the hell are you talking about? Who said that any of you have worked with any intelligence agency? I wouldn't be surprised, except that YOU are not "intelligence agency" material for OBVIOUS reasons, no?

No, I would never give you that much credit, Bobby boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I was contacted privately and warned that I am not supposed to speak badly of other members, and I believe it was in reference to what I said about Tink Thompson. Well, I was responding to the way Tink Thompson summarily trashed another member, Robert Morrow. Thompson didn't even state what his beef was with Robert; he just trashed him generally. I have had contact with Robert, mainly on Amazon forum, and I am also on his mailing list. I know that his main focus has been LBJ's involvement in the assassination, and it is a perfectly valid focus to have. Robert also sponsored me to become a member of EF. So, I didn't like it that Tink tanked Robert, and I went to his defense. That's what it was about.

But, if we're going to call people out for mistreating other members, what about Parker? He's mining the Internet looking for dirt on me. He's accusing me of being involved in cult churches. I guess he figures I'm the reincarnation of David Koresh. After all, I only live down the road from Waco.

The fact is that others here have attacked and degraded me, and I have responded. I have been on the defensive. I have not initiated any attacks on anyone. My interest is in discussing the facts of the case.

I think Don Jeffries was right on the mark concerning Oswald. Lee was an intelligence agent, and he was being tight-lipped. 13 hours of interrogation of Oswald was never released. And the fact that it was never released makes you think he said some things that were exonerating, perhaps including the doorway. Look: if he was clamoring for a lawyer in public, what do you think he was saying privately? How many times during those 13 hours do you think he requested a lawyer? They didn't give him one! It was a violation of his constitutional rights!

But, for David Lifton to call what I am doing "balderwash, a total crock, a waste of everyone's time" just because Oswald didn't tell reporters he was outside is totally irrational. Will Fritz wrote down that Oswald told him that he was "out in front with Bill Shelley." But, that isn't the main thing. The main thing is that we can clearly see Oswald standing outside. We can see his distinctive outer shirt with the loose fit and the missing buttons and the distinctive collar. We can see the worn t-shirt which was stretched into a vee. We can see his slender frame. It's a ringer for Oswald. And that trumps anything that anybody said- including Oswald.

And what Duncan MacRae is saying is, well, I can't say it without fear of being kicked out. But this is not a towel. It does not have the shape of a towel- or any other known object. What does it look like? It looks like noise!

WHO STANDS AROUND OUTSIDE WITH A TOWEL OVER HIS SHOULDER? WHO WAVES TOWELS AT MOTORCADES?

xoo9kj.jpg

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitcham, you don't know what you are talking about.

Oswald's shoulders are most certainly not leaning at a 45 degree angle. He is simply rotated a little to his right.

Why would he have to lean? What good would it do him? He's turned a little; rotatedl that's all. And he's turned in the direction of Kennedy's limo which had already passed.

And Hogan, why do you assume Oswald's handlers had complete control of him. You asked why they would permit him to step outside. How could they stop him? Tackle him? Tie him to a chair? Hit him over the head with a lead pipe?

And speaking to Dunne, I have to say that I wish to God you could be a little smarter. It would be pointless to take a poll among members here. The whole idea is to canvas people who are UNAWARE OF THE CONTROVERSIES, who have no biases whatsoever, who would not look at the image with preconceived thoughts in their head, such as, "it couldn't be this because Oswald would have said something" or "it couldn't be that because of what's seen in another photo" or "this couldn't have been altered because of the timeline."

All of that is BIAS, Dunne. Are you smart enough to realize that or not? What's needed is to assemble people who have no such biases, who will simply look at the picture and see what it contains. It requres people who have no attitude. Just eyes and brains. And that's it!

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I was contacted privately and warned that I am not supposed to speak badly of other members, and I believe it was in reference to what I said about Tink Thompson. Well, I was responding to the way Tink Thompson summarily trashed another member, Robert Morrow. Thompson didn't even state what his beef was with Robert; he just trashed him generally. I have had contact with Robert, mainly on Amazon forum, and I am also on his mailing list. I know that his main focus has been LBJ's involvement in the assassination, and it is a perfectly valid focus to have. Robert also sponsored me to become a member of EF. So, I didn't like it that Tink tanked Robert, and I went to his defense. That's what it was about.

Cinque remains confused.

http://educationforu...240#entry252268

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Mitchum, you are dead-wrong. There is no way Doorman's left shoulder could be dropped that low. You don't understand that shoulders work together. They are coordinated. He could not possibly drop his left shoulder that low in contrast to what he is doing, and not doing, with his right shoulder. You are living in a cartoon world where bodies can be deformed in any manner. This is the real world. It is not a cartoon. You are not seeing the line of his shoulder. He would have to be some kind of friggin' freak to be contorted like that. Just forget about it. What you are proposing is anatomically and functionally impossible.

Hey, I had a woman visitor recently who happens to be a nurse, an RN, and I showed her the picture, and her immediate response was, "What happened to his shoulder?"

If you insist on being rude and just using surnames, at least get them right. The name is Mitcham.

My dad once told me "If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots." So I'm not arguing any more with an idiot.

Thanks Duncan, I think that shows that he's Cinque without trace.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MacRae, we are not seeing the point of his shoulder. Just because, like a child, you are capable of coloring, doesn't mean a thing. That is not the ine of his shoulder. You go back and put an X where you think the point of his shoulder is.

In fact, go in and see if you can take Black Tie Man out completely. Let's just look at Doorman by himself. Let's see how that line looks then. You can't see the point of his shoulder, and you can't even see the upper part of his arm.

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go again, Lee, clamoring to silence me. Just like on Lancer, lock the thread, lock the thread, lock the thread.

That's not how to beat me, Lee. You can only beat me directly by disproving what I say.

And by the way- to all of you- I keep getting responses to my article on Lew Rockwell. I told you: Lew is very well read. That site is widely followed, and not just by like-minded people, but by enemies as well. I guarantee you that people in high places keep their eye on it.

Anyway, I just heard from a guy, and I quote:

"On 11/23/63, I took the Altgens photo off the AP wire in an altered state while working in the composition department at the Dayton Daily News."

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...