Jump to content

JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!

Ralph Cinque

Recommended Posts


Wasn't that the whole reason why Cinque talked about the DeNiro Lovelady at the DPD HQ?

If not, then what was the purpose of saying those film were falsified?

That's what I was asking Ralph to explain.

I'll try again. IF the shirt in the Altgens photo is Oswald's, why did "they" insert footage of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt into the footage at the police station? What point did it serve?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apparently, some members are upset by Ralph's return. Let's be clear: Ralph was never banned. He was placed on moderation because of his behavior, not his ideas. As a result, his posts have to be approved by a moderator before being made visible to the forum as a whole. It was his own choice to take a long break between posts, not ours.

I have been approving his most recent posts. They have focused mainly on his interpretation of some photos. Should his posts sink into attacks on his fellow members,, collectively or individually, I will stop approving them.

I will also, btw, make invisible posts in which Ralph is attacked, as a person. A good person can make a bad argument just as a bad person can make a good argument. We're not here to judge each other, but to judge the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few simple questions Ralph, did your photographer do darkroom ..wet..prints of the tri-x shots or did you get scans directly from the negatives.

And if you got prints what size?

Now the Altgens you compare your images with, are they direct scans from first generation darkroom prints or are they scans from a print of unknown origin? Or even scans of a print of unknown origin that has been reproduced as a halftone in a book?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Let review what Cinques is saying here. He is telling us that some time later in the day, after a fight in a theater with police while being arrested and after being draged out to a squad car,...Oswalds shirt collar is in the EXACT same position as it was at 12:30 while he was allegedly standing in the steps of the TSBD....

Yea, right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswalds shirt was almost torn off his back....


I do not think Oswald was innocent. Why did he leave the scene of the crime? Why did he go and get a gun? I do believe he was exactly what he said he was, a patsy.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

JFK Believe it or Not: Oswald Wasn’t Even a Shooter!

“The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices – to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to . . . The Twilight Zone.” — Rod Serling, 1960

by Richard Hooke (with Jim Fetzer)

As we approach the 49th observance of the assassination of JFK, I have been invited to speak at The Roxie Theatre in San Francisco on 22 November 2012 and explain what Oliver Stone got right and got wrong in his monumental film, “JFK”. Most of the film is right, where Oliver Stone has given us the most accurate, complete and comprehensive presentation of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 that has ever been provided to the American public though the mass media.

But Oliver Stone had three rather important points wrong, which were that he believed (1) the home movies of the assassination, especially the Zapruder film, were authentic, when they were actually revisions of original films; (2) that there were only three teams of shooters, when there were actually six, surrounding the “kill zone”; and, perhaps most importantly, (3) he did not know that the alleged assassin was “out with Bill Shelley in front”, as Lee explained to Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation, which means there is direct proof of his innocence beyond the circumstantial. The third may be the most important, since it demonstrates the utter corruption of the official account of the death of our 35th president.

That the film is a fabrication has been proven on multiple grounds. Those who study the eyewitness reports will find that more than 60 of them reported observing the limousine either slow dramatically or come to a complete halt, where it had to slow dramatically as it came to a complete halt. The limo stop was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be removed, which left no time for Clint Hill to rush forward, climb over the trunk, push Jackie down and lie across their bodies, while peering down into the fist-sized hole in the back of JFK’s head, which led him to give a “thumbs down” to his colleagues–all before the limo reached the Triple Underpass! We know from John P. Costella’s brilliant studies of the extant version that it was recreated using original film, but where mistakes were made in the process. And we know from Douglas Horne where it was done and how the substitution of the fabrication was made for the original.

About these matters there can be no doubt. But even serious students of the assassination still balk at the suggestion that Lee Oswald was out in front of the Book Depository with Bill Shelly and others, straining to catch a glimpse of JFK and Jackie–just like almost everyone else who worked there. We know from testimony by co-workers that he was in and around the lunchroom on the 2nd floor at 11:50, Noon, 12:15 and as late as 12:25, where the assassination took place at 12:30. He was then confronted by a motorcycle patrolman named “Marrion Baker” within 90 seconds of the shooting, where Baker held him in his sights until Roy Truly, his supervisor, came over to assure him that the man was an employee who belonged there. This should by now be well-known to every serious student of the death of JFK. Yet some persist in denial that Lee cannot have been a shooter, no matter how strong the evidence. And the evidence, once it has been noticed, is extraordinarily strong. Consider this close-up of the crucial area of the most famous photos taken in Dealey Plaza at the time:

Taken by James “Ike” Altgens and technically known as “Altgens6″ as the sixth of a series of seven photographs purportedly taken by him on that occasion, this close-up shows the man in the doorway at the center left, where his left shoulder is anomalously missing. The man beside him, wearing a black tie, is simultaneously both in front of him and behind him, which is physically impossible. His torso and shirt are partially obscured by the extremely strange image of the right profile of a black man’s head. And the face of a man to his left/front (right/front as we view the image) has been crudely obscured. There would have been no reason to have altered the photograph unless someone had been there who should not have been there, where the only candidate is Lee Oswald. These oddities are so blatant that, once they have been remarked, it is rather difficult to imagine why anyone would persist in denying that Altgens6 was altered. But one could still deny that Lee Oswald was in the doorway by insisting it was someone else. This article demonstrates how one of the most ingenious forgeries in history was pulled off by experts who knew what they were doing. Read it and weep at the massiveness of the lies our government has told us!

“JFK Special 6: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”

by Richard Hooke (with Jim Fetzer)

Earlier this summer Dr. Ralph Cinque, Professor Fetzer, Professor David Wrone, and I, Richard Hooke, founded the Oswald Innocence Campaign that is a gathering of researchers, and concerned individuals, committed to spreading the truth that Lee Harvey Oswald was the “Man in the Doorway” in the famous photo, by Ike Altgens, which thereby exonerates Oswald of having shot at President Kennedy. In this case, a picture really is worth a million words, since it trumps the massive media effort to the contrary. We are taking a stand for what, upon close examination, the photo clearly reveals and cannot be denied by rational thinking people. The founding of the OIC marks a sea change in JFK research. A new breed of JFK researcher has emerged. Nevertheless, there are those on the internet, such S.V. Anderson and other “lone gunman” shills, who comb internet forums and cannot quite figure out why I, and others, of this new breed of conspiracy theorist, are so persistent and will not be silenced. The moment for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth has come.

The explanation is that enough time has passed that ‘The Power of Officialdom” has long since worn off and we are now sensing the warm rays of truth beginning to break through–and at an ever increasing rate. We are no longer content to shuffle around the same familiar arguments. The assassination of JFK happened a long time ago and nearly a world away, yet for many of us, born in the 1940s and 50s, it seems just like yesterday. We have lived nearly our entire lives being told conflicting and crazy explanations of the of deaths JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald and we are tired of it. We are not going to be content passing our lives without knowing what really happened to our President and to the enigmatic Lee Harvey Oswald on that fateful November day. We realize that if we can get more Americans to face what really happened, no matter how painful that may be, we will be leaving the world a better place for our children. In the course of human events, it was inevitable that the argument would swing back toward truth. Our very existence demands it, and “the vector of truth”, as it might be called, is now pointing at the “Man in the Doorway” in the Altgens6.

The light has finally dawned that the question of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was the man in the Texas School Book Depository doorway can be answered. At 12:30 PM, on 22 November 1963, the famous Altgens6 photo by Dallas Associated Press photographer James “Ike” Altgens, shows JFK as the Presidential limousine passes the TSBD, with his arms crossed and hands near his throat, as he reacts to being shot by a bullet that passed through the windshield. You can see the bullet hole itself, which is the dark spot at the center of a while, spiral nebula, where his left ear would be were it visible. Altgens ran east to west, across the grass, toward the south curb of Elm, stopped across from the Plaza’s north colonnade, and snapped his photo approximately 295 feet south of the depository’s doorway with his 35mm Nikkorex-F single-lens-reflex camera, with 105mm telephoto lens. The Altgens6 has been assumed to corresponds to frame 255 of the Zapruder film, where the film, like the photo, has been revised. Altgens’ picture was allegedly “on the wire” within minutes (12:57 PM) of the assassination and forwarded to the AP in New York. It was among the first assassination photos widely printed in newspapers across the nation. The negative remained at the Dallas AP office but was subsequently “lost”, one of many reasons that controversy has dogged the Altgens6 photo from the beginning.



The Secret Service would later substitute another windshield with a spider-web-like configuration for the original, which had a dark hole in the center of the white, spiral nebula, in another blatant example of the alteration of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that you can prove that Oswald did not go back to his apartment even though he did go back to his apartment. I have read enough of your analysis to know that you can prove he did not go back to his apartment.(even though he did go back to his apartment)

Edited by Mike Rago
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

  • Create New...