Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Question to John McAdams
225 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
May 25, 2013, 12:45:30 PM5/25/13
to
John, I am asking you a question, personally. How can Lovelady have
different facial hair at the same 2 minute photo-shoot? How can it be the
same guy, John? How can it be the same time, John? How can they both be
legit, John?
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6826/beards3.jpg
different facial hair at the same 2 minute photo-shoot? How can it be the
same guy, John? How can it be the same time, John? How can they both be
legit, John?
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6826/beards3.jpg
claviger
May 25, 2013, 4:11:47 PM5/25/13
to
done by the Warren Commission and Lovelady confirmed it was him. He
also described in detail his position and movements during and after
the shooting. This is a non issue from start to finish.
Anthony Marsh
May 25, 2013, 4:43:19 PM5/25/13
to
How can you make up such crap with utter disregard for logic?
John McAdams
May 25, 2013, 10:39:08 PM5/25/13
to
On 25 May 2013 12:45:30 -0400, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You're going to have to explain what you mean by "same two minute
photo shoot."
And where did those photos come from, anyway?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
photo shoot."
And where did those photos come from, anyway?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robin Unger
May 26, 2013, 9:14:29 AM5/26/13
to
http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/Jackson1971.jpg
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/0014.jpg
Ralph Cinque
May 26, 2013, 2:15:24 PM5/26/13
to
Gee whiz, John. I'm a little disappointed here. I thought you were up on
things.
You see, there was this guy named Bob Jackson who was a photographer for
the Dallas Times Herald, and in 1971, he took some photos of Lovelady
standing in the doorway of the TSBD. It was a one-time thing, just a few
straight-on pictures, and that was it. There are different versions of
them floating around, some in color and some in black and white. I can
tell you where the clean-shaved one came from: it was a book by Richard
Trask. The bearded one is the one more commonly seen. Here it is in color.
And amazingly, Jackson brought another photographer along to take a
picture of him taking a picture of Lovelady.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5269/jackson1971.jpg
There you can see he needs a shave. So, what about the smooth-shaven one
that Trask published? Something's fishy.
things.
You see, there was this guy named Bob Jackson who was a photographer for
the Dallas Times Herald, and in 1971, he took some photos of Lovelady
standing in the doorway of the TSBD. It was a one-time thing, just a few
straight-on pictures, and that was it. There are different versions of
them floating around, some in color and some in black and white. I can
tell you where the clean-shaved one came from: it was a book by Richard
Trask. The bearded one is the one more commonly seen. Here it is in color.
And amazingly, Jackson brought another photographer along to take a
picture of him taking a picture of Lovelady.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5269/jackson1971.jpg
There you can see he needs a shave. So, what about the smooth-shaven one
that Trask published? Something's fishy.
Ralph Cinque
May 26, 2013, 2:36:37 PM5/26/13
to
OK, Unger, have it your way. Here are the two images you posted. I didn't do anything to them except put them together.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6711/ungerbeardcollage.jpg
The guy on the left has got scruffy beard, at least a day's growth of facial hair, if his beard was heavy and fast-growing, but for me it would be 2 or 3. But, the guy on the right is clean-shaven.
These are your pictures, Unger, so I presume you consider them legit. But, it's supposed to be the same guy at the same brief photo-shoot.
Now, do some explaining.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6711/ungerbeardcollage.jpg
The guy on the left has got scruffy beard, at least a day's growth of facial hair, if his beard was heavy and fast-growing, but for me it would be 2 or 3. But, the guy on the right is clean-shaven.
These are your pictures, Unger, so I presume you consider them legit. But, it's supposed to be the same guy at the same brief photo-shoot.
Now, do some explaining.
Lanny
May 26, 2013, 11:09:29 PM5/26/13
to
That fact was long ago proven by other evidence and testimony. Neither photo which you're excited about has any bearing on the issue of where Lovelady was or wasn't at the time of the assassination.
timstter
May 27, 2013, 11:57:23 AM5/27/13
to
as being the guy in the Altgens photo, using the same exhibit, CE 369,
earlier on the same day that Lovelady did so?
He's quite unequivocal in saying that your *Oswald in the doorway* figure
is Lovelady.
I think your Lovelady *second mark* theory is shot all to Hell as it would
have been ASTOUNDING for Lovelady to have identified a different person as
himself later the same day and Joseph Ball not to have noticed it.
In fact, a CLOSE reading of the testimonies of Frazier, Arce and Lovelady
reveals that they ALL identified the SAME figure in the Altgens photo as
being Lovelady, Ralph.
And that's your *Oswald in the doorway* figure, Ralph.
Game over, as you might say.
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!
Ralph Cinque
May 27, 2013, 6:21:57 PM5/27/13
to
Look at how differently Joseph Ball handled Danny Arce than Billy Lovelady. With Arce, Ball went straight for the jugular. He pointed at Doorman. He said look at that guy behind the colored people, who is he, what's his name. He was straight-forward and direct.
But with Lovelady, he was coy; he danced around it. He didn't finger Doorman at all; he just told Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself.
It was just an hour later, so why didn't he handle Lovelady the same way? Why didn't he pose the question exactly as he posed it to Arce? Why the hell not?
I'll tell you why not: Ball must have known ahead of time that Arce was OK, that he was on-board for the scam. They had an understanding; they had it all worked out.
But, Ball did NOT have it worked out ahead of time with Lovelady, so Lovelady was an unknown; Ball didn't know what Lovelady was going to say. So, he had to broach it tepidly, cautiously, and cunningly. He slyly told Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself in black- black on black- precisely so that it couldn't be seen. Who has someone draw an arrow in the black in black? But, had Lovelady drawn it to Doorman, I'm sure Ball would have done something to give visibility to that arrow.
Now read through these two polar-opposite handlings. This is some slick lawyering:
Mr. BALL. Just 1 minute, I want to show you a picture. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 369. I show you this picture. See this man in this picture?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. Recognize him?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Just to identify it clearly, the man on the steps---well, you see the man on the steps, do you not?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He is a white man, isn't he?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you see his picture just above the picture of two colored people, is that correct; would you describe it like that?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. I am not going to mark this purposely because other witnesses have to see it.
Mr. ARCE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you say that is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Now, there is only one face that is clearly shown within the entrance-way of the Texas School Book Depository Building, isn't there?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And only one face of a person who is standing on the steps of the Depository Building entrance?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. And that one man you see there---
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady.
Then, an hour later:
Mr. BALL. I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY. Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL. No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY. Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL. Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY. Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating).
Mr. BALL. You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY. It would be your top level.
Mr. BALL. The top step you were standing there?
Mr. LOVELADY. Right.
Why the difference, Joseph Ball? It was the exact same issue, so why didn't you handle the two of them exactly the same? Why didn't you just point to Doorman and ask Lovelady to name hiim? That's what you did with Arce, so why not with Lovelady?
And if anybody doubts that the mark on Black Hole Man's forearm is Lovelady's arrow, then find the arrow Lovelady drew elsewhere.
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9769/xxxxxxxxxxx3694larger.jpg
Surely, there has got to be a hint of it there. Right? Find it.
But with Lovelady, he was coy; he danced around it. He didn't finger Doorman at all; he just told Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself.
It was just an hour later, so why didn't he handle Lovelady the same way? Why didn't he pose the question exactly as he posed it to Arce? Why the hell not?
I'll tell you why not: Ball must have known ahead of time that Arce was OK, that he was on-board for the scam. They had an understanding; they had it all worked out.
But, Ball did NOT have it worked out ahead of time with Lovelady, so Lovelady was an unknown; Ball didn't know what Lovelady was going to say. So, he had to broach it tepidly, cautiously, and cunningly. He slyly told Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself in black- black on black- precisely so that it couldn't be seen. Who has someone draw an arrow in the black in black? But, had Lovelady drawn it to Doorman, I'm sure Ball would have done something to give visibility to that arrow.
Now read through these two polar-opposite handlings. This is some slick lawyering:
Mr. BALL. Just 1 minute, I want to show you a picture. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 369. I show you this picture. See this man in this picture?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. Recognize him?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Just to identify it clearly, the man on the steps---well, you see the man on the steps, do you not?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He is a white man, isn't he?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you see his picture just above the picture of two colored people, is that correct; would you describe it like that?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. I am not going to mark this purposely because other witnesses have to see it.
Mr. ARCE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you say that is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Now, there is only one face that is clearly shown within the entrance-way of the Texas School Book Depository Building, isn't there?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And only one face of a person who is standing on the steps of the Depository Building entrance?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. And that one man you see there---
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady.
Then, an hour later:
Mr. BALL. I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY. Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL. No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY. Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL. Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY. Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating).
Mr. BALL. You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY. It would be your top level.
Mr. BALL. The top step you were standing there?
Mr. LOVELADY. Right.
Why the difference, Joseph Ball? It was the exact same issue, so why didn't you handle the two of them exactly the same? Why didn't you just point to Doorman and ask Lovelady to name hiim? That's what you did with Arce, so why not with Lovelady?
And if anybody doubts that the mark on Black Hole Man's forearm is Lovelady's arrow, then find the arrow Lovelady drew elsewhere.
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9769/xxxxxxxxxxx3694larger.jpg
Surely, there has got to be a hint of it there. Right? Find it.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 2, 2013, 5:58:38 PM6/2/13
to
he asks Arce not to mark the picture that had already been marked by
Frazier. However, there is no ambiguity in the identification Arce made.
I think your theory falls over, Ralph, because the FBI had ALREADY
questioned Lovelady (who identified himself to them as Doorman) and passed
the results on to the WC BEFORE Ball ever questioned him.
So the idea that Ball didn't have a fair idea of what Lovelady was going
to say is far-fetched. In fact, that is probably WHY Ball questioned him
the way he did, because by then it is a slam dunk. Doorman is Lovelady.
Frazier has told Ball it is Lovelady. Arce has told Ball it is Lovelady.
Lovelady isn't going to recognise Lovelady?!! LOL!
QUOTE ON:
You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you.
There's nothing too ambiguous about THAT, Ralph.
Where is another *arrow in the white* apart from the one that Frazier
drew?
And notice that Ball only asks Lovelady to draw the one arrow. Frazier's
is already there.
BTW, you never answered my question. If Lovelady HAD identified himself to
Ball as Black Hole Man, as you claim, don't you think Ball would have
noticed this and made some comment, so shortly after questioning Arce?
The figure people were obsessing about was Doorman because he looked like
Lee Harvey Oswald. No one was too worried about Black Hole Man, who could
be anyone.
Your theory doesn't hold up on any grounds, logic or otherwise, Ralph.
Sorry.
elpdr...@gmail.com
Jun 3, 2013, 7:57:50 PM6/3/13
to
other were not taken within the same year!
The photograph on the left is from an out-take of the June 1967 CBS
special on the assassination. The man with his back to the camera is not
Bob Jackson, it is Eddie Barker.
The black and white photo on the right was taken years later. Note that
the metal banister in the middle of the staircase in the entrance to the
TSBD is no longer there as it was removed.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2013, 10:03:06 AM6/4/13
to
TB
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2013, 11:28:52 PM6/4/13
to
Looks like it is *egg-on-face* time for Cinque.
Again...
BTW, Ralph hasn't done a runner, has he?
Concerned Regards,
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 5, 2013, 12:31:59 AM6/5/13
to
Once again.
Ralph Cinque
Jun 5, 2013, 12:37:53 PM6/5/13
to
If we assume that Steve is right, it means that the image on the right below was taken just 3 years after the image on the left. Doesn't it seem like an awful lot of balding in just 3 years?
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7161/collage624.jpg
And, according to the story, his hair remained stable from 1957 to 1964, with no loss at all:
http://tinypic.com/r/rc32b6/5
But, the mystery is easily solved. He really didn't have that much hair in 1964. It was faked by the FBI. Here is the real Billy Lovelady in 1964 as per Mark Lane:
http://tinypic.com/r/2q1c5yq/5
Makes sense now, doesn't it?
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7161/collage624.jpg
And, according to the story, his hair remained stable from 1957 to 1964, with no loss at all:
http://tinypic.com/r/rc32b6/5
But, the mystery is easily solved. He really didn't have that much hair in 1964. It was faked by the FBI. Here is the real Billy Lovelady in 1964 as per Mark Lane:
http://tinypic.com/r/2q1c5yq/5
Makes sense now, doesn't it?
Jason Burke
Jun 5, 2013, 6:13:27 PM6/5/13
to
On 6/5/2013 9:37 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> If we assume that Steve is right, it means that the image on the right below was taken just 3 years after the image on the left. Doesn't it seem like an awful lot of balding in just 3 years?
>
> http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7161/collage624.jpg
>
Oh, great. Now you're an expert in MPB as well!
> If we assume that Steve is right, it means that the image on the right below was taken just 3 years after the image on the left. Doesn't it seem like an awful lot of balding in just 3 years?
>
> http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7161/collage624.jpg
>
> And, according to the story, his hair remained stable from 1957 to 1964, with no loss at all:
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/rc32b6/5
>
> But, the mystery is easily solved. He really didn't have that much hair in 1964. It was faked by the FBI. Here is the real Billy Lovelady in 1964 as per Mark Lane:
>
probably sipping some sort of run concoction. I wonder if he reads this
newsgroup?
Nope. But then I never expected it to.
>
lone gunman
Jun 5, 2013, 6:19:09 PM6/5/13
to
John Fiorentino
Jun 5, 2013, 10:14:58 PM6/5/13
to
I think the Pres. is sipping on a Mohito, or is that a Mojito?
Anyway, it's got rum in it.
John F.
"Jason Burke" <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:konrrj$dtr$1...@dont-email.me...
Anyway, it's got rum in it.
John F.
"Jason Burke" <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:konrrj$dtr$1...@dont-email.me...
elpdr...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2013, 10:30:22 PM6/5/13
to
proof is there for everyone to see! Go ahead on living in your fantasy
world where everything in the JFK assassination case is "fake" except for
that which you hold onto so dearly. Just like everything else you have
tried to pass off as "confirmation" that "Doorman" is Oswald, not
Lovelady, it's all D.O.A.and you haven't a leg to stand on!
Ralph Cinque
Jun 6, 2013, 12:21:06 AM6/6/13
to
Let's consider another issue I dealt with at the Altgens reenactment:
Lovelady's plaid shirt. It's long been claimed that the splotchy pattern
on Doorman's shirt is Lovelady's plaid pattern. First, the splotch is
mostly just haze, distortion, and light reflection. But second, why should
a plaid pattern look splotchy?
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/3813/collage118.jpg
Think about what plaid consists of: horizontal and vertical lines that
cross at right angles forming boxes. Would that somehow get converted to a
splotchy look just because of Altgens' conditions?
I was determined to find out. So, I bought a plaid shirt. It wasn't
exactly the same as Lovelady's, but hey, I did the best I could.
So, I stood in the doorway at 12:30 in late November, and the photographer
stood in Altgens' spot using essentially the same camera, the same film,
and the same settings. Here is the result:
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1660/dblackmancollage1.jpg
As you can see, even with Altgens' exact shooting conditions, my plaid
shirt looked plaid. You see horizontal and vertical lines crossing and not
just a vague splotchyness like on Doorman.
So, the idea that Doorman's shirt pattern is a match to Lovelady's is a
lie, and it's a lie they've been telling for a very long time. Doorman's
splotchy look was never a match to Lovelady. It isn't even real, but even
if it were real, it would not have been a match to Lovelady. It's just
another bull sh_t claim that the liars and fakers make because nobody
calls them on it. Well, those days are over. We're calling them on it.See
More
Lovelady's plaid shirt. It's long been claimed that the splotchy pattern
on Doorman's shirt is Lovelady's plaid pattern. First, the splotch is
mostly just haze, distortion, and light reflection. But second, why should
a plaid pattern look splotchy?
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/3813/collage118.jpg
Think about what plaid consists of: horizontal and vertical lines that
cross at right angles forming boxes. Would that somehow get converted to a
splotchy look just because of Altgens' conditions?
I was determined to find out. So, I bought a plaid shirt. It wasn't
exactly the same as Lovelady's, but hey, I did the best I could.
So, I stood in the doorway at 12:30 in late November, and the photographer
stood in Altgens' spot using essentially the same camera, the same film,
and the same settings. Here is the result:
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1660/dblackmancollage1.jpg
As you can see, even with Altgens' exact shooting conditions, my plaid
shirt looked plaid. You see horizontal and vertical lines crossing and not
just a vague splotchyness like on Doorman.
So, the idea that Doorman's shirt pattern is a match to Lovelady's is a
lie, and it's a lie they've been telling for a very long time. Doorman's
splotchy look was never a match to Lovelady. It isn't even real, but even
if it were real, it would not have been a match to Lovelady. It's just
another bull sh_t claim that the liars and fakers make because nobody
calls them on it. Well, those days are over. We're calling them on it.See
More
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2013, 1:15:03 PM6/6/13
to
The majority of the part of the photo where the plaid shows up in YOUR
photo is just white T-shirt in the Altgens photo.
Why didn't you unbutton the shirt to the same extent as Lovelady did,
exposing the white T-shirt to get a valid comparison?
Jason Burke
Jun 6, 2013, 4:39:04 PM6/6/13
to
While he's performing all of this hooey, Ralph is protecting everyone from
him. When he's a'postin', he ain't a'drivin' around thinking stuff up.
'Cause that'd be dangerous. You know, distracted driving and all that.
Ralph Cinque
Jun 6, 2013, 4:48:57 PM6/6/13
to
In what we now know to be the CBS photo from 1967, Lovelady is posing next
to the white column, but why? Doorman wasn't standing there. Doorman was
standing in the center of the doorway, as you can readily see in the
Wiegman film:
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
Anyone want to argue with that?
In the Altgens photo, it looks like Doorman is next to the white column
due to the parallax effect of Altgens' angle. But that wasn't the case at
the 1967 photo shoot where the photographer was directly in front of
Lovelady. So, if Lovelady was Doorman, why didn't he remember where he was
standing?
The FBI reported that Lovelady stated that he stood on the "far left" of
the doorway. I take that to mean that when he stepped outside the door, he
went to his left, that is, east. But, our opponents have taken the
opposite position- that he meant to the left side of the picture. But,
that is ridiculous because we use right and left in reference to one
thing: ourselves. My right hand is always going to be the same regardless
of any picture.
But if you look at the Wiegman frame above again, you'll realize that
Lovelady must have meant the east side. That's because there is nobody on
the west side. Doorman is smack dab in the middle, and the only person on
the far west is the Black Man who is way down in front.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
But, do you see the guy on the far east side with one arm up shading his
eyes? He had both arms up, although we can't see the other one in Wiegman.
But, we can see it in Altgens:
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7388/collage629.jpg
That was Lovelady. He was Black Hole Man. He drew an arrow to Black Hole
Man on CE 369 to indicate himself. And he correctly described his position
as the "far left" of the doorway, meaning his far left.
There is no one standing in the corresponding position on the far left of
the picture. So, he could not have meant that. The only "far" place he
could have been was far east.
to the white column, but why? Doorman wasn't standing there. Doorman was
standing in the center of the doorway, as you can readily see in the
Wiegman film:
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
Anyone want to argue with that?
In the Altgens photo, it looks like Doorman is next to the white column
due to the parallax effect of Altgens' angle. But that wasn't the case at
the 1967 photo shoot where the photographer was directly in front of
Lovelady. So, if Lovelady was Doorman, why didn't he remember where he was
standing?
The FBI reported that Lovelady stated that he stood on the "far left" of
the doorway. I take that to mean that when he stepped outside the door, he
went to his left, that is, east. But, our opponents have taken the
opposite position- that he meant to the left side of the picture. But,
that is ridiculous because we use right and left in reference to one
thing: ourselves. My right hand is always going to be the same regardless
of any picture.
But if you look at the Wiegman frame above again, you'll realize that
Lovelady must have meant the east side. That's because there is nobody on
the west side. Doorman is smack dab in the middle, and the only person on
the far west is the Black Man who is way down in front.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
But, do you see the guy on the far east side with one arm up shading his
eyes? He had both arms up, although we can't see the other one in Wiegman.
But, we can see it in Altgens:
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7388/collage629.jpg
That was Lovelady. He was Black Hole Man. He drew an arrow to Black Hole
Man on CE 369 to indicate himself. And he correctly described his position
as the "far left" of the doorway, meaning his far left.
There is no one standing in the corresponding position on the far left of
the picture. So, he could not have meant that. The only "far" place he
could have been was far east.
Ralph Cinque
Jun 6, 2013, 4:50:36 PM6/6/13
to
It was unbuttoned; it just didn't flare open as much as Doorman's. It's
not like every shirt does that. And it's not like Lovelady's did it.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7060/collage627.jpg
Unwittingly, you are making my argument: Oswald's shirt was very unique
the way it hung, and we see it clearly on Doorman.
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9108/collage420.jpg
You tell me how that could not be the same guy.
not like every shirt does that. And it's not like Lovelady's did it.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7060/collage627.jpg
Unwittingly, you are making my argument: Oswald's shirt was very unique
the way it hung, and we see it clearly on Doorman.
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9108/collage420.jpg
You tell me how that could not be the same guy.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 8, 2013, 10:44:35 PM6/8/13
to
On Friday, 7 June 2013 06:48:57 UTC+10, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> In what we now know to be the CBS photo from 1967, Lovelady is posing next
>
> to the white column, but why? Doorman wasn't standing there. Doorman was
>
> standing in the center of the doorway, as you can readily see in the
>
> Wiegman film:
>
>
>
> http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
>
>
>
> Anyone want to argue with that?
>
>
>
> In the Altgens photo, it looks like Doorman is next to the white column
>
> due to the parallax effect of Altgens' angle. But that wasn't the case at
>
> the 1967 photo shoot where the photographer was directly in front of
>
> Lovelady. So, if Lovelady was Doorman, why didn't he remember where he was
>
> standing?
>
>
>
> The FBI reported that Lovelady stated that he stood on the "far left" of
>
> the doorway. I take that to mean that when he stepped outside the door, he
>
> went to his left, that is, east. But, our opponents have taken the
>
LOL! Lovelady told the FBI he was standing to the *far left* when he was
> In what we now know to be the CBS photo from 1967, Lovelady is posing next
>
> to the white column, but why? Doorman wasn't standing there. Doorman was
>
> standing in the center of the doorway, as you can readily see in the
>
> Wiegman film:
>
>
>
> http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
>
>
>
> Anyone want to argue with that?
>
>
>
> In the Altgens photo, it looks like Doorman is next to the white column
>
> due to the parallax effect of Altgens' angle. But that wasn't the case at
>
> the 1967 photo shoot where the photographer was directly in front of
>
> Lovelady. So, if Lovelady was Doorman, why didn't he remember where he was
>
> standing?
>
>
>
> The FBI reported that Lovelady stated that he stood on the "far left" of
>
> the doorway. I take that to mean that when he stepped outside the door, he
>
> went to his left, that is, east. But, our opponents have taken the
>
referencing the ALTGENS photo, not the WEIGMAN image you are trying to
use, Ralph. Here is his statement:
http://mffprodos5.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11133&relPageId=33
And here is the ALTGENS photograph (not WEIGMAN) that he was referring to:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
> opposite position- that he meant to the left side of the picture. But,
>
> that is ridiculous because we use right and left in reference to one
>
> thing: ourselves. My right hand is always going to be the same regardless
>
> of any picture.
>
side of the ALTGENS photo.
>
>
> But if you look at the Wiegman frame above again, you'll realize that
>
> Lovelady must have meant the east side. That's because there is nobody on
>
> the west side. Doorman is smack dab in the middle, and the only person on
>
> the far west is the Black Man who is way down in front.
>
ALTGENS in his FBI statement?
>
>
> http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
>
>
>
> But, do you see the guy on the far east side with one arm up shading his
>
> eyes? He had both arms up, although we can't see the other one in Wiegman.
>
> But, we can see it in Altgens:
>
>
>
> http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7388/collage629.jpg
>
>
>
> That was Lovelady. He was Black Hole Man. He drew an arrow to Black Hole
>
doorway in the ALTGENS photo as you face it. There was an arrow *in the
white* already pointing to him:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
When he drew his arrow the testimony indicates NO CONFLICT with the arrow
*in the white* drawn before by Frazier:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0174b.htm
> Man on CE 369 to indicate himself. And he correctly described his position
>
> as the "far left" of the doorway, meaning his far left.
>
photo, Ralph. Right here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
>
>
> There is no one standing in the corresponding position on the far left of
>
> the picture. So, he could not have meant that. The only "far" place he
>
> could have been was far east.
If your theory is swinging on NONSENSE like this and some black-on-black
arrow that only you and Fetzer can see, your theory is in BIG trouble.
Informative Regards,
Ralph Cinque
Jun 9, 2013, 10:24:52 PM6/9/13
to
The issue of where Doorman was on the landing is very important because
the FBI put it in writing that Lovelady said he was on the "far left" of
the doorway.
I'm sure, at the time, they thought that was good for their cause because
they considered Doorman to be on the far left. But, he wasn't! It only
looks that way. It's an optical illusion caused by the parallax effect of
Altgens angle.
One of my purposes in going to Dealey Plaza was to locate Doorman's exact
position on the landing. It's very easy to find the exact center of the
doorway because they removed the median handrail, but there's a scar in
the cement left from where the post used to be. So, that's dead center.
In the image below, it's easy to tell that I'm too far east on that
landing, and that's because my right shoulder shows completely; it is not
being obscured by the west column as we see on Doorman.
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1379/ralphdoormencollage.jpg
So, I realized, after seeing the above photo, that I needed to move
westward, which was to my right, and I did. But, it was only a very little
bit, and I mean 2, maybe 3 inches at the most. It was just a little shift
to the right because there is a lot of leverage involved. At first I went
too far which cut off my right shoulder completely, where my head was
right next to the column.
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/8448/ralphtooclose2.jpg
So, I went back the other way, and eventually I got to where I needed to
be.
In the image below, which was with Tri-X film, I was located 2 or 3 inches
west of dead center.
http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/69/ralphinperfectpositiond.jpg
So that's it; that's where Doorman was. He was very close to the center,
which was confirmed by me and by the Wiegman film. He was not on the far
left side of the doorway- no matter which side you want to say that was.
But, Lovelady was on the far left, and since there is no one on the west
side, he must have meant the east side:
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
So, unwittingly, Billy Lovelady got the better of the FBI. He was just
being honest- describing his location as Black Hole Man- but they took it
the wrong way. They had the false notion that Doorman was on the far west
side of the doorway. He wasn't. And Lovelady was referring to HIS left. He
came out the door, and he went left- to his left. He was the Black Hole
Man in the Altgens photo, and the Doorway Man, who was Lee Harvey Oswald,
was in the center- very close to dead center.
the FBI put it in writing that Lovelady said he was on the "far left" of
the doorway.
I'm sure, at the time, they thought that was good for their cause because
they considered Doorman to be on the far left. But, he wasn't! It only
looks that way. It's an optical illusion caused by the parallax effect of
Altgens angle.
One of my purposes in going to Dealey Plaza was to locate Doorman's exact
position on the landing. It's very easy to find the exact center of the
doorway because they removed the median handrail, but there's a scar in
the cement left from where the post used to be. So, that's dead center.
In the image below, it's easy to tell that I'm too far east on that
landing, and that's because my right shoulder shows completely; it is not
being obscured by the west column as we see on Doorman.
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1379/ralphdoormencollage.jpg
So, I realized, after seeing the above photo, that I needed to move
westward, which was to my right, and I did. But, it was only a very little
bit, and I mean 2, maybe 3 inches at the most. It was just a little shift
to the right because there is a lot of leverage involved. At first I went
too far which cut off my right shoulder completely, where my head was
right next to the column.
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/8448/ralphtooclose2.jpg
So, I went back the other way, and eventually I got to where I needed to
be.
In the image below, which was with Tri-X film, I was located 2 or 3 inches
west of dead center.
http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/69/ralphinperfectpositiond.jpg
So that's it; that's where Doorman was. He was very close to the center,
which was confirmed by me and by the Wiegman film. He was not on the far
left side of the doorway- no matter which side you want to say that was.
But, Lovelady was on the far left, and since there is no one on the west
side, he must have meant the east side:
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1277/wiegmandoormancropped.jpg
So, unwittingly, Billy Lovelady got the better of the FBI. He was just
being honest- describing his location as Black Hole Man- but they took it
the wrong way. They had the false notion that Doorman was on the far west
side of the doorway. He wasn't. And Lovelady was referring to HIS left. He
came out the door, and he went left- to his left. He was the Black Hole
Man in the Altgens photo, and the Doorway Man, who was Lee Harvey Oswald,
was in the center- very close to dead center.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 9, 2013, 11:23:09 PM6/9/13
to
MUCH better job of the shirt opening, Ralph.
You were going in with some silly, completely DEBUNKED theory from forty
years back in the first place.
You should have got things right.
It's simply yet ANOTHER problem with your bizarre research.
Informative Regards,
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 16, 2013, 8:59:29 AM6/16/13
to
Lovelady told the FBI that he was DEPICTED on the far left of the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photo. Here is a blow-up:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Unger_Altgens6.png
It's quite clear that the person he is talking about as himself is DEPICTED on the far LEFT of the TSBD doorway, Ralph.
That is Doorman.
Your idea (and Fetzer's) that Lovelady somehow went on to mark himself as the Black Hole Man figure in the SAME photograph when he was quizzed by Joseph Ball is very thin gruel, Ralph. Very thin indeed.
In fact, it simply shows just how LIGHTWEIGHT your silly OIC nonsense is.
Ralph Cinque
Jun 17, 2013, 3:44:25 PM6/17/13
to
No, no, no! Lovelady never used the word "depicts". That word was used by
the FBI. And even for them, the context is that that is where he stood.
Every picture depicts a person in a certain spot. They did not state or
imply that he was actually standing in the center of the doorway. You have
no right to assume that they were aware of the parallax effect of Altgens'
angle. They didn't mention it. They didn't say: "although he appears to be
on the far left, he was actually in the center". In the WC testimony,
Joseph Ball also referred to Doorman being "next to the white column." Are
you going to claim that he too was aware of the parallax effect?
Lovelady drew an arrow to himself in CE 369 that overlapped his forearm
which we can plainly see. Now, if you don't think that was his arrow, you
need to get busy finding his arrow. And unless you find another arrow,
this WAS his arrow:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6176/t0w7.jpg
Your attempt to use word parsing to beat this is pathetic.
the FBI. And even for them, the context is that that is where he stood.
Every picture depicts a person in a certain spot. They did not state or
imply that he was actually standing in the center of the doorway. You have
no right to assume that they were aware of the parallax effect of Altgens'
angle. They didn't mention it. They didn't say: "although he appears to be
on the far left, he was actually in the center". In the WC testimony,
Joseph Ball also referred to Doorman being "next to the white column." Are
you going to claim that he too was aware of the parallax effect?
Lovelady drew an arrow to himself in CE 369 that overlapped his forearm
which we can plainly see. Now, if you don't think that was his arrow, you
need to get busy finding his arrow. And unless you find another arrow,
this WAS his arrow:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6176/t0w7.jpg
Your attempt to use word parsing to beat this is pathetic.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 18, 2013, 7:31:55 PM6/18/13
to
http://mffprodos5.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11133&relPageId=33
He says the picture in question depicts him on the far LEFT side of the
TSBD doorway.
Here is the photo he was referring to and that he is depicted in:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Unger_Altgens6.png
it's GAME OVER for your Doorway man nonsense, Ralph.
Doorway man is Billy Nolan Lovelady.
What is PATHETIC is your DENIAL of this obvious FACT.
Corrective Regards,
0 new messages