Donald Fallon proves Lovelady images were faked

[Ralph Cinque]

Donald Fallon has done it again! He found gold! Look at this image of Lovelady
by the FBI. Most of the time, you see it cropped above the pocket. But
here, you can see the pocket, and you can see the kind of cigarettes
Lovelady carried around with him: it was a HARD BOX of cigarettes, not a
pack.

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/3377/4rle.jpg

Now look at it in comparison to the image of Lovelady at the Dallas PD:

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/361/hv36.jpg

People are rigorous in their smoking habits. They smoke what they smoke,
and that's what Lovelady smoked. That image of Lovelady at the Dallas PD
is fake. And what about this?

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5049/hzf3.jpg

That's supposed to be Lovelady from the so-called Martin film where he is
smoking a cigarettes, but where's his box of cigarettes? All you see is
that big pocket flap over the empty pocket. What, did he smoke his last
one then throw the empty box on the ground? And when you compare these
two:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3104/z5g7.jpg

You see Lovelady smoking with no pack of cigarettes at all, and then he's
got cigarettes in his pocket in a soft pack, but both are false because we
now know that Lovelady went with a hard pack. And you can also see the box
of cigarettes in the straight-on shot too from the way it's stuffing the
pocket:

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2909/e5dk.jpg

So, that's it. Lovelady went with a hard box of cigarettes, not a soft
pack, and that means that the Martin image of him with an empty pocket
(and a big pocket flap) is false, and the Dallas PD image of him with a
soft pack is also false.

And note that the profile image of FBI Lovelady is usually cropped above
the pocket so that we can't see the cigarettes. That is the only way I
have ever seen it until now. I don't know how Don came up with this other,
but it's gold, and it proves that the son of vitches tried to pull another
fast one, but Don caught them red-handed.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8551/hqqb.jpg

Lovelady carried a BOX of cigarettes, not a pack, and it renders false all
the other images of him from 11/22/63. They made phony films of him just
to show him in a plaid shirt. But, he wore the short-sleeved striped one,
which is why he posed in it for the FBI.

Don, you annihilated them! Thank you, brother.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1346/34xk.jpg

[Robert Harris]

Is this some kind of joke??





Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

On 7/5/2013 8:51 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> Is this some kind of joke??
>

Sadly, no.

[bpete1969]

The FBI photo was taken 3 months after the day of the assassination.

Why did they make phony films of him in a plaid shirt?

Is it because Lovelady was wearing a plaid shirt on the landing of the TSBD?

Ya think? no wait...you don't that's the issue.....

[Ralph Cinque]

It's not a joke, and it's not sad. I suppose it is for the other side, but not us.

And answer this: Why do they typically crop the BOX of cigarettes out of that photo of FBI Lovelady? This is the first time I have ever seen it.

Perhaps you have never smoked, Mr. Harris, but I have, and smokers are very habitual about their smokes.

ALL of the images of BNL from November 22 were faked, and the purpose was to show him in a long-sleeved plaid shirt. He actually wore a short-sleeved striped one. And do you know who said so? Harold Weisberg. Now, there was a great JFK researcher.

[Ralph Cinque]

[bpete1969]

On Friday, July 5, 2013 10:49:21 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

Fetzerian logic on display.

Because an image on the day of the assassination shows Lovelady didn't
have a pack of cigarettes in his shirt pocket and one taken in a different
location, 3 months later does show a pack of cigarettes in Lovelady's
pocket. the first image has to be a fabrication.

You freebasing your Geritol again Ralph?

[Ralph Cinque]

That's right, they waited 3 months to take any pictures of Lovelady. Just
think: people the world over upon seeing the Altgens photo thought it was
Oswald from the loose-fitting, unbuttoned, sprawled-open outer shirt over
the white t-shirt. And they quickly announced that it was another TSBD
employee Billy Lovelady. So why didn't they release pictures of him right
away so that people could see for themselves? Were they supposed to take
the government's word for it? The government? The most lying organization
in the history of organizations?

And then when they finally got around to taking his picture, did they send
it to the newspapers so that they could publish it? No, they quietly sent
it to the Warren Commission. And what did the WC do with it? They stuffed
into the the back, the appendix of the Warren Report, as an attachment to
a letter, without comment, analysis, mention, or review. They certainly
didn't use it in their determination. And you want to defend these people?
You like being a serf do you?

[Anthony Marsh]

Pure nonsense. No one said that at the time. You are trying to use time
travel to put words into the mouths of the people in the past. That is a
Class III violation and sanctions will be taken.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Boy, would I love to see '60 Minutes' do a piece on you, pal. You are
toast.

[Ralph Cinque]

That makes two of us, but I won't be toast- I'll be toasting. But alas,
the 60 Minutes people are much smarter than Joseph Backes and bpete, whose
calumnies have only drawn more attention to my work. They would have been
much wiser to ignore me.

[David Von Pein]

It wouldn't faze Ralph, Mark. He'd just say that the "60 Minutes" news
team was part of the continuing cover-up to silence Ralph Cinque from
exposing the truth.

You know, the "truth" about a gang of film-fakers running around creating
phony films of Billy Lovelady in order to show Lovelady in a shirt that
WASN'T EVEN BEING WORN BY "DOORWAY MAN" IN THE ALTGENS PHOTO.

That's the kind of "truth" that Ralph Cinque thinks every Government
organization and media outlet in the world is trying desperately to avoid
and sweep away.

[tims...@gmail.com]

When I smoked fifty Marlboros a day I would buy a box of twenty five, but
if I saw a soft pack of twenties I might buy them.

Sometimes I would have two packs on the go at once.

Your theory is SHAMEFULLY weak, Ralph.

Just like your PRETENCE that Lovelady identified himself to the WC as
Black Hole Man.

That is rubbish also.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/8/2013 5:51 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 July 2013 01:39:42 UTC+10, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> It's not a joke, and it's not sad. I suppose it is for the other side, but not us.
>>
>>
>>
>> And answer this: Why do they typically crop the BOX of cigarettes out of that photo of FBI Lovelady? This is the first time I have ever seen it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you have never smoked, Mr. Harris, but I have, and smokers are very habitual about their smokes.
>>
>>
>>
>> ALL of the images of BNL from November 22 were faked, and the purpose was to show him in a long-sleeved plaid shirt. He actually wore a short-sleeved striped one. And do you know who said so? Harold Weisberg. Now, there was a great JFK researcher.
>
> When I smoked fifty Marlboros a day I would buy a box of twenty five, but
> if I saw a soft pack of twenties I might buy them.
>
> Sometimes I would have two packs on the go at once.
>
> Your theory is SHAMEFULLY weak, Ralph.
>

Why are you being so polite? Did McAdams clip your wings?

[Anthony Marsh]

Ask Judyth Baker about 60 minutes.

[Ralph Cinque]

On McAdams' forum, Tim Brennan is trying to discredit the discovery of
Lovelady's hard pack of cigarettes, which is in contrast to what's seen on
the phony Loveladys from the phony 11/22 films.

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5783/v2nc.jpg

There is a triple-whammy there of disparity because Martin Lovelady in the
middle is smoking a cigarette with no pack at all- just that big pocket
flap staring at you. So, where did he get that cigarette? If it was his
last cigarette, what did he do with the empty container? Meanwhile, Dallas
PD Lovelady has got a soft pack of cigarettes, but where's his pocket
flap? Nothing matches.

Tim says that when he smoked, he smoked hard packs of Marlboros, but "if I
saw a soft pack of twenties, I might buy them."

And because of that, we are supposed to dismiss what we see in the
collage? It doesn't work that way, Tim. It made sense for Lovelady to go
wtih hard packs because he worked in a warehouse where he was lifting
things, moving things, and doing other physical work, and carrying them in
his shirt pocket, they would easily have gotten crushed if not protected
by hard packaging.

Here's a smokers' site that addresses the whole issue, and these guys
sound adamant that a box is the way to go for shirt-pocket carry:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=428566

But, it raises a larger and more important question: Should any disparity
or oddity be allowed to be glibly rationalized away just because of a
pundit's strong bias to find no fault with the official story? Just
because Tim Brennan has the ability to shrug his shoulders, do I have to
concede?

And the answer is: no, I do not. Tim Brennan is nothing to me. I don't owe
him anything, and I am not obliged to him in any way. The fact is that on
a MATHEMATICAL basis, we would expect Lovelady to be consistent in his
smoking habit. Period. That is reasonable. Therefore, the disparity to the
other images constitutes a major problem. And, the default doesn't go to
"it's nothing"; the default goes to: "it's something". They say you should
"err on the side of caution." Well, caution in this case means that you
retain all oddities and peculiarities as significant until there are very
solid grounds to dismiss them. And we have no such grounds here.

[bpete1969]

A man smokes a cigarette and because you don't see a pack in his shirt
pocket, that makes him fake?

He threw the empty pack away. Or he bummed a smoke from someone else.

Case closed. But no not for Ralph...

Go back to all of the threads you've infected across the net Ralph...there
is no pocket flap.

Case closed. But no not for Ralph....

He has a soft pack in November (you think) but a hard pack in February
(you think).

In November he ran out, smoked his last or bummed one. Bought more. They
only had soft packs. He switched brands between Nov. and Feb. When to buy
some in Feb. and the only had hard packs....

It doesn't matter Ralph..to anybody but you. You have to make a grand
scheme out of every insignificant thing because your original claim is so
weak.

You have proven that you will concede nothing. You falsely claim a guy in
a picture is grasping a blue towel and has lipstick only to be proven
wrong.

You claim a person will not raise their elbow above a certain height when
shading their eyes only to be proven wrong by your own photograph.

Show us the mathematical basis for Lovelady to be consistent in his
smoking Ralph. You say we should expect it so show us the math. Period.

The only major problem Ralph is with your non-stop beating of a dead
horse. You beat the damn issue dead. Then you beat it continuously until
it becomes a skeleton. And now you beat the bones until they are dust....

Lovelady not having a pack of cigarettes in his pocket in one instance and
then having one some time later, and possbily having a different brand
three months later has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "official story"
of the assassination.

Except to you Ralph....it's just another addition to your Doorman saga..

It's gotten pathetic Ralph...

Question...after the grand hulabaloo over the 50th is done...do you revert
to holocaust revisionism like your fellow OIC'ers Fetzer and Cimino?

I can just see the posts now....Himmler was actually Audie Murphy....

[Jason Burke]

You the man on MATHEMATICAL basis, Raplh!
This smoking tangent (oooh, a MATHEMATICAL term,) you've gone off on is
perhaps your silliest yet.

[Ralph Cinque]

That's right; it smacks of fakery. When you know the man keeps his
cigarettes in his shirt-pocket and that the box contains 25 cigarettes,
then there was a 96% chance that he was not down to his last cigarette.
Therefore, the likelihood was that there was at least one more cigarette
left in that box to give him reason to retain the box.

But, if we grant your 4% mathematical chance of it being his last
cigarette, you say he threw the empty pack away? But where? There was no
trash can. Would he just drop it on the sidewalk amidst all those people
for someone to trip over? I know that poeple litter, but they don't tend
to litter in a crowded circumstance like that.

Or, you say he bummed a cigarette from someone else? But, we see no one
else in the movie who is smoking, and there is no one else with cigarettes
in view. So, why go there? Why don't you say a little birdie dropped a
cigarette in his hand?

And you are denying that there is a pocket flap? I'll point it out for you:

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/1941/9c1s.jpg

This was a man's flannel shirt, which typically comes with pocket flaps.
Look:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0PDoVxKod5RmRoA.e2JzbkF?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-508&p=men%27s+flannel+shirts&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top&norw=1

Then you say he had a soft pack in November and a hard pack in February, I
think? No, I know. I've got eyes, and I use them.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3576/uyry.jpg

Then you play the convenience card. You argue from convenience, helping
yourself to what-ifs with complete abandon. You suggest that Lovelady
switched brands between November and February. But, why wouldn't he buy
the new brand in a box? His reason to prefer a box (to prevent the
cigarettes from getting crushed as he worked) would still have been
operative.

And, it is well known that cigarette brands enjoy the highest brand
loyalty of any consumer product, with annual brand changing in the single
digits. I am seeing that figure of LESS THAN 10% SWITCHING reported all
over the internet, such as here:

http://www.designboom.com/history/cigarettes.html

And you're right about one thing, bpete: I will concede nothing; I will
never give an inch. But, you're wrong about the image you posted. It is
not an image of someone holding their arm across their torso for no
reason.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/2373/vmjb.jpg

That person is doing something with that fabric, whatever it is, and that
disqualifies the image. You need to find another one. Is that a problem?
From the whole history of photography, starting in 1820 until the present,
can't you come up with an image of someone holding a single arm across
their torso for no reason. I say again: FOR NO REASON! They can't be
fiddling with any fabric. They can't be doing anything with it. If they're
doing something at all, it doesn't count.

Now, if you're going to tell me that your entire case hinges on that one
particular photograph, that there is no other, then that's your pathetic
problem.

I provided you with links to hundreds- make that thousands- of images of
people crossing their torsos with TWO arms. And you know very well that
there is NO LIMIT to how many such pictures lI could provide. It is an
extremely common practice for people to cross BOTH arms across their
chest. But, no one is going to hold just ONE ARM there- unless they are
doing something with it, as in the picture you provided.

And you know something else? Even if you did come up with one such
picture, it would mean very little. It wouldn't change the overwhelming
preponderance of people doing it with two arms, not one. And, we know the
reason for it, which is that with two arms, it's relaxing, where each arm
suspends the other, like two kids on a see-saw. Balance and suspension-
that's what it's all about. But, with one arm, it's just plain work:
useless, senseless, pointless work. You are arguing the ridiculous.

Yes, it has gotten pathetic, bpete- but on your side. After making the
colossal mistake of photographing Lovelady in the actual clothes he wore
on 11/22 and reporting it as such in writing, the FBI had to concoct phony
movies of him wearing a plaid shirt in order to undo the damage they did.
But, the ruse failed. And yes, it is very much a part of the official
story. Those phony images from phony movies of Lovelady have everthing to
do with the official story of the assassination. Their whole case hinges
on it, and that's a disaster- for them, and for you. You'll have to find a
new occupation, other than grovelling state worshiper. You like being a
pawn of the fascist state, don't you? It suits you well.

[bpete1969]

When the dust clears....

Try something that's not so ridiculous.

As it stands....you're theory has been disproved by everyone that has
attempted it.

You're boring now Ralph...just boring...