Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Danny Arce ALSO Said It Was Lovelady In CE 369
175 views
Skip to first unread message
timstter
May 27, 2013, 10:49:51 AM5/27/13
to
Hi All,
One problem with Ralph Cinque's *amazing discovery* of where Billy
Lovelady supposedly marked himself in CE 369 is that Danny Arce was also
shown the same photo earlier that day and he CLEARLY indicated the same
figure that Buell Frazier had done as being Lovelady, ie the guy with the
black arrow pointing at him:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
It's quite obvious that Frazier, Arce and Lovelady are ALL talking
about the SAME figure in CE 369.
Game OVER for Ralph and his AMAZING discovery.
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!
One problem with Ralph Cinque's *amazing discovery* of where Billy
Lovelady supposedly marked himself in CE 369 is that Danny Arce was also
shown the same photo earlier that day and he CLEARLY indicated the same
figure that Buell Frazier had done as being Lovelady, ie the guy with the
black arrow pointing at him:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
It's quite obvious that Frazier, Arce and Lovelady are ALL talking
about the SAME figure in CE 369.
Game OVER for Ralph and his AMAZING discovery.
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, 6:32:56 PM5/27/13
to
Let's look at Danny Arce's testimony explicitly:
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.
So, that was CE 369 yet again. That was in April 1964, and Frazier did his
testifying, in which he drew an arrow, in March 1964. Ipso facto, there
had to be an arrow on that photograph which Ball didn't mention. Yet, Ball
said:
"I am not going to mark it purposely because other witnesses have to see
it."
But wait: it was already marked, so what was he talking about?
Danny Arce and Billy Lovelady both testified on the same day, April 7.
Arce went first at 2:15 and Lovelady followed at 3:50. So, obviously they
were looking at the same photograph with the arrow that Frazier drew. So,
why no mention of the arrow when Arce was questioned?
But, the most important thing to realize is that Danny Arce was a
conspirator. We have an image of him holding a walkie-talkie in Dealey
Plaza during the shooting.
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/8832/collage515.jpg
That's him. It was Danny Arce in front of the Dal-Tex building
communicating with the other operatives. Danny Arce was a direct
participant in the JFK assassination, so of course he was going to lie
about Lovelady being Doorman.
You only have to read William Westin's The Spider's Web to learn that the
TSBD was a den of Ops. It was a CIA front company under the guise of a
school book distributor.
So, of course Danny Arce flapped his lips according to plan. You think
that proves anything? It only proves that he lied. Look: you can't impeach
the tidal wave of visual photographic evidence that the Doorman was Oswald
which we have assembled just by citing liars like Arce.
This reminds me of the trial in the Mary Pinchot Meyer case, as described
by Peter Janney, in which the government put the actual murderer of Mary
Pinchot Meyer on the witness stand to incriminate the patsy. This amounts
to the same thing because Danny Arce might as well have had a rifle in his
hands rather than a walkie-talkier.
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.
So, that was CE 369 yet again. That was in April 1964, and Frazier did his
testifying, in which he drew an arrow, in March 1964. Ipso facto, there
had to be an arrow on that photograph which Ball didn't mention. Yet, Ball
said:
"I am not going to mark it purposely because other witnesses have to see
it."
But wait: it was already marked, so what was he talking about?
Danny Arce and Billy Lovelady both testified on the same day, April 7.
Arce went first at 2:15 and Lovelady followed at 3:50. So, obviously they
were looking at the same photograph with the arrow that Frazier drew. So,
why no mention of the arrow when Arce was questioned?
But, the most important thing to realize is that Danny Arce was a
conspirator. We have an image of him holding a walkie-talkie in Dealey
Plaza during the shooting.
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/8832/collage515.jpg
That's him. It was Danny Arce in front of the Dal-Tex building
communicating with the other operatives. Danny Arce was a direct
participant in the JFK assassination, so of course he was going to lie
about Lovelady being Doorman.
You only have to read William Westin's The Spider's Web to learn that the
TSBD was a den of Ops. It was a CIA front company under the guise of a
school book distributor.
So, of course Danny Arce flapped his lips according to plan. You think
that proves anything? It only proves that he lied. Look: you can't impeach
the tidal wave of visual photographic evidence that the Doorman was Oswald
which we have assembled just by citing liars like Arce.
This reminds me of the trial in the Mary Pinchot Meyer case, as described
by Peter Janney, in which the government put the actual murderer of Mary
Pinchot Meyer on the witness stand to incriminate the patsy. This amounts
to the same thing because Danny Arce might as well have had a rifle in his
hands rather than a walkie-talkier.
Ralph Cinque
May 27, 2013, 6:38:19 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:
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. Surely,
there has got to be a hint of it there. Right? Find it.
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9769/xxxxxxxxxxx3694larger.jpg
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. 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. Surely,
there has got to be a hint of it there. Right? Find it.
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9769/xxxxxxxxxxx3694larger.jpg
David Von Pein
May 27, 2013, 6:54:30 PM5/27/13
to
You're right, Tim. Very good catch.
Ralph Cinque
May 27, 2013, 11:19:11 PM5/27/13
to
Would a black arrow be visible at all in a black space? Well, fortunately,
we have an example that we can study, and it is the head of the arrow that
Frazier drew. Although Ball spoke of Frazier's arrow as being "in the
white", it's just the center line and part of the right arm that are in
the white. The rest of it is the black. So, the entire left arm and part
of the right arm are in the black.
So, here is Frazier's arrow, and we're out to study the visibility of the
parts that were drawn black on black. Come on, this ought to be fun.
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9928/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest.jpg
What's great about this is that we are discussing an indisputable thing.
No one who has read the testimony can doubt that that's Frazier's arrow.
It's certainly not Lovelady's arrow because his was drawn in the black.
So, since only two drew arrows, by process of elimination, that must be
Frazier's arrow.
Besides, Ball referred to the above arrow while Lovelady was drawing, so
it must have been there. And we know that Frazier testified a month before
Lovelady, so it all adds up to that being Frazier's arrow.
And does anyone have a reason to think that they messed with Frazier's
arrow? Did something to it? Altered it? I certainly don't. I take it as is
and without question.
So, the first thing I want you to notice is that, in contrast to the right
arm, the left arm never broke the surface of the white area. Here it is
again, and please make that observation:
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9928/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest.jpg
So, the left arm never violates the white space, right? And sure enough,
when we look at it closely, we can see a thick black line that is running
parallel to the white margin. I'll enclose it for you:
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1494/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest2.jpg
So, why did Frazier cross into the white for the right arm, but not for
the left. I DON'T KNOW! And I'm not sure that he knows. It's just one of
those things that came out the way that it did. I doubt that he thought
about it.
Now, what about the rest of the right arm? The right arm makes a 90 degree
angle. Look:
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6742/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest3.jpg
Now, with some extra lighting, you can see Frazier's arrow plain in its
entirety:
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/7088/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest4.jpg
Isn't that grand? I feel like Sherlock Holmes.
So, now we have visualized Frazier's entire arrow, and therefore, we know
that black on black, although it's faint as hell, does leave a little
telltale visibility which can be detected.
Therefore, if anyone doubts that the mark on Black Hole Man's arm is the
tail of Lovelady's arrow, they need to get busy studying the black area to
the right of Doorman to find an alternate arrow for Lovelady. Here's where
he would have drawn it:
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2618/xxxxxxxxxxx3695greysmal.jpg
Of course, that grey arrow I drew just to show you where it would have to
be. Where else would he have drawn it?
So, here's an unmarked one. If you want to dispute me, find that other
arrow pointing to Doorman. Surely, a hint of it has got to be there if
Lovelady drew it.
This is do or die. You either find that other arrow, or that's it on Black
Hole Man's forearm.
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9928/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest.jpg
we have an example that we can study, and it is the head of the arrow that
Frazier drew. Although Ball spoke of Frazier's arrow as being "in the
white", it's just the center line and part of the right arm that are in
the white. The rest of it is the black. So, the entire left arm and part
of the right arm are in the black.
So, here is Frazier's arrow, and we're out to study the visibility of the
parts that were drawn black on black. Come on, this ought to be fun.
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9928/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest.jpg
What's great about this is that we are discussing an indisputable thing.
No one who has read the testimony can doubt that that's Frazier's arrow.
It's certainly not Lovelady's arrow because his was drawn in the black.
So, since only two drew arrows, by process of elimination, that must be
Frazier's arrow.
Besides, Ball referred to the above arrow while Lovelady was drawing, so
it must have been there. And we know that Frazier testified a month before
Lovelady, so it all adds up to that being Frazier's arrow.
And does anyone have a reason to think that they messed with Frazier's
arrow? Did something to it? Altered it? I certainly don't. I take it as is
and without question.
So, the first thing I want you to notice is that, in contrast to the right
arm, the left arm never broke the surface of the white area. Here it is
again, and please make that observation:
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9928/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest.jpg
So, the left arm never violates the white space, right? And sure enough,
when we look at it closely, we can see a thick black line that is running
parallel to the white margin. I'll enclose it for you:
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1494/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest2.jpg
So, why did Frazier cross into the white for the right arm, but not for
the left. I DON'T KNOW! And I'm not sure that he knows. It's just one of
those things that came out the way that it did. I doubt that he thought
about it.
Now, what about the rest of the right arm? The right arm makes a 90 degree
angle. Look:
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6742/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest3.jpg
Now, with some extra lighting, you can see Frazier's arrow plain in its
entirety:
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/7088/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest4.jpg
Isn't that grand? I feel like Sherlock Holmes.
So, now we have visualized Frazier's entire arrow, and therefore, we know
that black on black, although it's faint as hell, does leave a little
telltale visibility which can be detected.
Therefore, if anyone doubts that the mark on Black Hole Man's arm is the
tail of Lovelady's arrow, they need to get busy studying the black area to
the right of Doorman to find an alternate arrow for Lovelady. Here's where
he would have drawn it:
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2618/xxxxxxxxxxx3695greysmal.jpg
Of course, that grey arrow I drew just to show you where it would have to
be. Where else would he have drawn it?
So, here's an unmarked one. If you want to dispute me, find that other
arrow pointing to Doorman. Surely, a hint of it has got to be there if
Lovelady drew it.
This is do or die. You either find that other arrow, or that's it on Black
Hole Man's forearm.
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9928/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest.jpg
Ralph Cinque
May 27, 2013, 11:33:36 PM5/27/13
to
Von Pein, did you read what I wrote about the contrast between how Ball
questioned Arce and how he questioned Lovelady? Exactly how delusional are
you?
questioned Arce and how he questioned Lovelady? Exactly how delusional are
you?
David Von Pein
May 28, 2013, 10:31:40 AM5/28/13
to
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
Von Pein, did you read what I wrote about the contrast between how
Ball questioned Arce and how he questioned Lovelady?
No, Cinque, I sure didn't. I couldn't care less what you have to say
(about anything). I rarely glance at anything you write anymore since
I demolished your Doorway Man idiocy in October of 2012.
But there is no question that Arce, Frazier, and Lovelady were all
IDing the EXACT SAME PERSON ("Doorway Man") as Lovelady when they
looked at CE369 during their individual WC sessions. Only an outright
crackpot could possibly believe otherwise.
Anyway, no further discussion is really necessary, because the post
below will always be around for me to link to whenever I feel like
embarrassing your pathetic and sorry-ass attempts to exonerate a
Presidential assassin named Oswald:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html
And btw, Cinque, there's yet another place where the film showing
Oswald passing by Lovelady in the DPD pops up (besides just the "Four
Days In November" movie and the 1964 WFAA-TV documentary "A Year Ago
Today").
That third location is in the WFAA-TV live television coverage of
11/22/63 itself. So now you can claim a THIRD "version" of this very
same footage has somehow been "faked" to add the image of Lovelady
into it.
Poor Ralphie. Just when he thought he could rest easier, now he's got
to put on his "It Was Faked" hat yet again and try to get everybody to
believe that WFAA-TV faked this DPD footage ON THE DAY OF THE
ASSASSINATION ITSELF. You'll have to be fast with the pause button to
see Lovelady in this video below, but Lovelady is clearly visible if
you pause fast enough. Good luck in trying to prove this piece of
film, aired within hours of the assassination, is also fake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32gReucRRE&t=448s
Ralph Cinque
May 28, 2013, 10:33:49 AM5/28/13
to
Robin, prove me wrong by explaining the shaven/unshaven discrepancy. These
are your images. On the left, he's scruffy, on the right, he's
clean-shaven. It was the same photo-shoot. Explain that.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6711/ungerbeardcollage.jpg
are your images. On the left, he's scruffy, on the right, he's
clean-shaven. It was the same photo-shoot. Explain that.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6711/ungerbeardcollage.jpg
Ralph Cinque
May 28, 2013, 10:37:26 AM5/28/13
to
With the momentum of finding Frazier's entire arrow, I decided to look
again to discern the head of Lovelady's arrow within the enclosure of
Black Hole Man's arms, and I can report that I have had partial success. I
have found the left arm of his arrow within the blackness.
First, look at the area with some fill light added.
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9928/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest.jpg
Now I am going to enclose what I think is the left arm of the arrow in
pink:
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/1494/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest2.jpg
My grounds for ascribing this to be the left arm of the arrow is that it
does crack the margin of his flesh-colored forearm ever so slightly. It's
not much, but there is a tiny little overlap there.
That leaves the right arm, but it's very difficult, and I think that
someone may have obscured it with a black felt pen. I have the dark area
boxed that I think may have been drawn over.
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6742/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest3.jpg
We don't see anything as dark as that in the shadow area under Doorman's
face. So, that may be an artifact. Look at it again without the pink box
drawn in. Notice how that deep black bar stands out.
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7088/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest4.jpg
And now (crescendo please) I am going to indicate where I think the right
arm is. First, I'll admit that I'm running on fumes here. But still, I'm
so close to the finish line, I've just got to go for it. So, what I have
done is placed a + sign in pink next to where I think the right arm is
ever so barely cracking the margin of the forearm.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7088/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest4.jpg
Now take in the whole thing at once: the center line, the left arm, and
the right arm, as designated. Can you see it?
Admittedly, there is some straining involved here. But, at least I tried.
And I say that let those who think there is another black arrow pointing
to Doorman, which Lovelady drew, find it.
And again I want to say that going to the Archives and looking at the
original is no longer an option at this juncture. And that's because we
couldn't trust anything they showed us. They might have altered it, and
that possibility stands out like a sore thumb.
And, I have already shown the visibility of the head of Frazier's arrow
even in the black. So, if Lovelady drew another arrow to Doorman, at least
part of it has got to be detectable. And if it's not detected, that small
arrow pointing to Black Hole Man prevails as Lovelady's arrow. He was
telling us that he was Black Hole Man.
again to discern the head of Lovelady's arrow within the enclosure of
Black Hole Man's arms, and I can report that I have had partial success. I
have found the left arm of his arrow within the blackness.
First, look at the area with some fill light added.
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9928/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest.jpg
Now I am going to enclose what I think is the left arm of the arrow in
pink:
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/1494/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest2.jpg
My grounds for ascribing this to be the left arm of the arrow is that it
does crack the margin of his flesh-colored forearm ever so slightly. It's
not much, but there is a tiny little overlap there.
That leaves the right arm, but it's very difficult, and I think that
someone may have obscured it with a black felt pen. I have the dark area
boxed that I think may have been drawn over.
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6742/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest3.jpg
We don't see anything as dark as that in the shadow area under Doorman's
face. So, that may be an artifact. Look at it again without the pink box
drawn in. Notice how that deep black bar stands out.
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7088/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest4.jpg
And now (crescendo please) I am going to indicate where I think the right
arm is. First, I'll admit that I'm running on fumes here. But still, I'm
so close to the finish line, I've just got to go for it. So, what I have
done is placed a + sign in pink next to where I think the right arm is
ever so barely cracking the margin of the forearm.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7088/xxxxxxxxxxx3694largest4.jpg
Now take in the whole thing at once: the center line, the left arm, and
the right arm, as designated. Can you see it?
Admittedly, there is some straining involved here. But, at least I tried.
And I say that let those who think there is another black arrow pointing
to Doorman, which Lovelady drew, find it.
And again I want to say that going to the Archives and looking at the
original is no longer an option at this juncture. And that's because we
couldn't trust anything they showed us. They might have altered it, and
that possibility stands out like a sore thumb.
And, I have already shown the visibility of the head of Frazier's arrow
even in the black. So, if Lovelady drew another arrow to Doorman, at least
part of it has got to be detectable. And if it's not detected, that small
arrow pointing to Black Hole Man prevails as Lovelady's arrow. He was
telling us that he was Black Hole Man.
Ralph Cinque
May 28, 2013, 11:17:11 AM5/28/13
to
Von Pein, you tell me how this testimony reveals who Lovelady drew his
arrow to. On what basis can you claim that he drew it to Doorman? And
never mind what Ball said. I don't give a chit about what that conniving
lawyer said. What matters is what Lovelady said.
BALL. Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
And regarding that other version of the WFAA film, why is it so different
from the other? You mentioned yourself that you have to hit the pause
button if you are to catch him at all. The walk-by clip in A YEAR AGO
TODAY was 13 seconds long! So, you mean to say that on the very day of the
assassination, they had the time and the wherewithal to be editing that
clip of Lovelady? Why would they do that?
And just because they are claiming NOW that that's what was shown on
11/22/63, there is no reason to believe it. I've already shown you that
the film was EDITED, and you certainly can't deny it. So, if they were
editing on 11/22/63, they certainly could have edited since then,
including yesterday. It proves nothing, Von Pein. It adds just another
version to a lot that already consists of 5 or 6 others. All of that
effort, and for what? To show a plaid shirt. Too bad the real Lovelady
didn't know anything about it.
Ball: Did you EVER see Lovelady again that day?
Lovelady: No.
arrow to. On what basis can you claim that he drew it to Doorman? And
never mind what Ball said. I don't give a chit about what that conniving
lawyer said. What matters is what Lovelady said.
BALL. Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
LOVELADY. Where I thought the shots are?
BALL. No; you in the picture.
LOVELADY. Oh, here (indicating).
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?
the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the
picture was taken?
LOVELADY. Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the
step, would be here (indicating).
step, would be here (indicating).
BALL. You were standing on which step?
LOVELADY. It would be your top level.
BALL. The top step you were standing there?
LOVELADY. Right.
And regarding that other version of the WFAA film, why is it so different
from the other? You mentioned yourself that you have to hit the pause
button if you are to catch him at all. The walk-by clip in A YEAR AGO
TODAY was 13 seconds long! So, you mean to say that on the very day of the
assassination, they had the time and the wherewithal to be editing that
clip of Lovelady? Why would they do that?
And just because they are claiming NOW that that's what was shown on
11/22/63, there is no reason to believe it. I've already shown you that
the film was EDITED, and you certainly can't deny it. So, if they were
editing on 11/22/63, they certainly could have edited since then,
including yesterday. It proves nothing, Von Pein. It adds just another
version to a lot that already consists of 5 or 6 others. All of that
effort, and for what? To show a plaid shirt. Too bad the real Lovelady
didn't know anything about it.
Ball: Did you EVER see Lovelady again that day?
Lovelady: No.
Jason Burke
May 28, 2013, 7:59:30 PM5/28/13
to
Jason Burke
May 28, 2013, 7:59:40 PM5/28/13
to
> Ball: Did you EVER see Lovelady again that day?
> Lovelady: No.
>
Nice copy and past, Ralph.
Ralph Cinque
May 28, 2013, 8:09:34 PM5/28/13
to
Richard Hooke just called me, and he showed me that that new film of David
Von Pein's is total bull. There is exactly one split-second frame of
Lovelady, and here it is:
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/2204/conant.jpg
Now, I know the quality is extremely poor, but don't blame me; that's just
the way it is. But notice how thin the guy looks. He didn't used to be
that way.
The very first time that guy appeared was in the History Channel film,
Three Shots That Changed America, which came out in 2009. Here's how he
looked there, and notice how clear it was.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7162/denirolovelady.jpg
Now, that's the same guy, for sure, but look how stocky and muscular he is
in 3 Shots. As I have been saying, these people were boneheads. Twice,
they forgot to sprawl open Lovelady's shirt so that he would look like
Doorman. Here, he's got the sprawl alright, but it's very different from
Doorman's- or any other shirt sprawl we've ever seen, being rectangular in
shape. But then again, he is also too stocky and well-built to possibly be
Doorman or anyone who could be mistaken for Oswald. So, they had to slim
him down. Here he is compared to the Lovelady that Von Pein just gave us:
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9775/collage616.jpg
On the left, they slimmed him down to Dormanize him and Oswaldify him. And
they certainly didn't do that on 11/22/63. The problem didn't even exist
on 11/22/63. They must have shown it as is on 11/22/63 which means without
Lovelady because he wasn't there.
This is just more blatantly obvious deception. Why the discrepancy, David?
Why does he look so different from one film to the next?
Von Pein's is total bull. There is exactly one split-second frame of
Lovelady, and here it is:
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/2204/conant.jpg
Now, I know the quality is extremely poor, but don't blame me; that's just
the way it is. But notice how thin the guy looks. He didn't used to be
that way.
The very first time that guy appeared was in the History Channel film,
Three Shots That Changed America, which came out in 2009. Here's how he
looked there, and notice how clear it was.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7162/denirolovelady.jpg
Now, that's the same guy, for sure, but look how stocky and muscular he is
in 3 Shots. As I have been saying, these people were boneheads. Twice,
they forgot to sprawl open Lovelady's shirt so that he would look like
Doorman. Here, he's got the sprawl alright, but it's very different from
Doorman's- or any other shirt sprawl we've ever seen, being rectangular in
shape. But then again, he is also too stocky and well-built to possibly be
Doorman or anyone who could be mistaken for Oswald. So, they had to slim
him down. Here he is compared to the Lovelady that Von Pein just gave us:
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9775/collage616.jpg
On the left, they slimmed him down to Dormanize him and Oswaldify him. And
they certainly didn't do that on 11/22/63. The problem didn't even exist
on 11/22/63. They must have shown it as is on 11/22/63 which means without
Lovelady because he wasn't there.
This is just more blatantly obvious deception. Why the discrepancy, David?
Why does he look so different from one film to the next?
timstter
May 28, 2013, 8:22:13 PM5/28/13
to
QUOTE ON:
*You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward
you.*
QUOTE OFF
Lovelady drew the arrow in the dark; Frazier drew the one in the
white. From the testimony we can discern that BOTH are pointing at
Lovelady in the doorway:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
Ball tells Lovelady to *Draw an arrow down to that, do it in the
dark;* so the REASONABLE conclusion is that Lovelady's arrow is
somewhere, perhaps vertically, ABOVE Lovelady.
Either way, the arrow that he drew and the arrow that Frazier BOTH
point to the same person.
Also, another point is that Frazier drew his arrow with a MARKER, as
his testimony shows. It's quite obvious that the arrow *in the white*
is drawn with a marker and is Frazier's arrow. Even you seem to
conclude it is Frazier's arrow.
It's quite clear that Frazier, Arce and Lovelady are all describing
the SAME figure in the Altgens photo.
And Ball's questioning of Lovelady would have been FAR different if
Lovelady had identified a figure different to the one Frazier and Arce
had.
It's Billy Nolan Lovelady, identified by all three.
It's as simple as that.
Ralph Cinque
May 28, 2013, 8:27:21 PM5/28/13
to
When I spoke on the phone with Richard Hooke earlier, he pointed out
another thing: that the whole issue about Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt-
for which they made those phony movies-is really a moot point because he
did NOT wear a plaid shirt on 11/22/63.
He wore a short-sleeved striped shirt and blue jeans. He told that to the
FBI, and they reported it, in writing, to the Warren Commission. He also
showed up to his FBI interview wearing those very clothes. Are we supposed
to believe that that was just a coincidence? That, by chance, his wash
cycle rotated that outfit to the fore on 2/29/64? And why did the FBI have
him pose in that outfit with the shirt unbuttoned like Doorman if it
wasn't the same clothes? What would have been the point? It's obvious that
they did think, at the time, that it was the same clothes.
Yes, they should have realized right away that it could not have been
Doorman's shirt because of the short sleeves. What can I tell you? It was
another bonehead mistake.
But, after posing him and photographing him in those clothes, and putting
it in writing that that's what he said he wore, they realized that just
retracting it all wasn't going to cut it. They simply HAD to come up with
some images of him in a suitable shirt.
So, they settled on a plaid. Why plaid? It must have been because they
looked at Doorman's shirt, and at first glance, it looks varied; it has
some contrast. It isn't plaid; it's more splotchy. That was just haze and
distortion and light reflecting off of it, but they didn't realize that.
They should have because the fact is: they don't make splotchy shirts.
But, they hastily settled on plaid- another bonehead mistake. But, at
least it was long-sleeved. So, they got that part right.
But, Lovelady really did wear a short-sleeved striped shirt. But, the
stripes were faint; they were like pink and white.
We've been saying for a long time that Lovelady was Black Hole Man in the
Altgens photo- which conforms completely with Lovelady having stated that
he was on the "far left" of the doorway. That's exactly where BH Man is.
Here is BH Man and Lovelady from the Couch film, who, by the way, is the
only authentic Lovelady we have from 11/22/63.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/798/collage505.jpg
Above, in both sides, it is Billy Nolan Lovelady. And I want to point out
that Richard Hooke figured that out long before we even knew about the
Couch film, and before we even knew about the arrow Lovelady drew to
himself on CE 369.
But, notice how both have their shirts partially un-tucked. Coincidence? I
don't think so.
Notice that both have prominent shirt-cuffs. Coincidence? I don't think
so.
And notice that in size and frame, there is an excellent match between
them.
Now, I realize that BH Man's shirt does not look at all striped or even
varied. But, they got rid of that and made it white, and it would have
been very easy to do. My father was a semi-professional photographer in
the 1950s, and he developed his own images, and I know he easily could
have done it then.
The irony is that the very fact that the multiple varied Loveladys from
the phony footages are wearing plaid shirts is proof-positive that they
were NOT Lovelady.
another thing: that the whole issue about Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt-
for which they made those phony movies-is really a moot point because he
did NOT wear a plaid shirt on 11/22/63.
He wore a short-sleeved striped shirt and blue jeans. He told that to the
FBI, and they reported it, in writing, to the Warren Commission. He also
showed up to his FBI interview wearing those very clothes. Are we supposed
to believe that that was just a coincidence? That, by chance, his wash
cycle rotated that outfit to the fore on 2/29/64? And why did the FBI have
him pose in that outfit with the shirt unbuttoned like Doorman if it
wasn't the same clothes? What would have been the point? It's obvious that
they did think, at the time, that it was the same clothes.
Yes, they should have realized right away that it could not have been
Doorman's shirt because of the short sleeves. What can I tell you? It was
another bonehead mistake.
But, after posing him and photographing him in those clothes, and putting
it in writing that that's what he said he wore, they realized that just
retracting it all wasn't going to cut it. They simply HAD to come up with
some images of him in a suitable shirt.
So, they settled on a plaid. Why plaid? It must have been because they
looked at Doorman's shirt, and at first glance, it looks varied; it has
some contrast. It isn't plaid; it's more splotchy. That was just haze and
distortion and light reflecting off of it, but they didn't realize that.
They should have because the fact is: they don't make splotchy shirts.
But, they hastily settled on plaid- another bonehead mistake. But, at
least it was long-sleeved. So, they got that part right.
But, Lovelady really did wear a short-sleeved striped shirt. But, the
stripes were faint; they were like pink and white.
We've been saying for a long time that Lovelady was Black Hole Man in the
Altgens photo- which conforms completely with Lovelady having stated that
he was on the "far left" of the doorway. That's exactly where BH Man is.
Here is BH Man and Lovelady from the Couch film, who, by the way, is the
only authentic Lovelady we have from 11/22/63.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/798/collage505.jpg
Above, in both sides, it is Billy Nolan Lovelady. And I want to point out
that Richard Hooke figured that out long before we even knew about the
Couch film, and before we even knew about the arrow Lovelady drew to
himself on CE 369.
But, notice how both have their shirts partially un-tucked. Coincidence? I
don't think so.
Notice that both have prominent shirt-cuffs. Coincidence? I don't think
so.
And notice that in size and frame, there is an excellent match between
them.
Now, I realize that BH Man's shirt does not look at all striped or even
varied. But, they got rid of that and made it white, and it would have
been very easy to do. My father was a semi-professional photographer in
the 1950s, and he developed his own images, and I know he easily could
have done it then.
The irony is that the very fact that the multiple varied Loveladys from
the phony footages are wearing plaid shirts is proof-positive that they
were NOT Lovelady.
David Von Pein
May 28, 2013, 8:28:28 PM5/28/13
to
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
And regarding that other version of the WFAA film, why is it so
different from the other? You mentioned yourself that you have to hit
the pause button if you are to catch him at all. The walk-by clip in A
YEAR AGO TODAY was 13 seconds long! So, you mean to say that on the
very day of the assassination, they had the time and the wherewithal
to be editing that clip of Lovelady? Why would they do that?
And just because they are claiming NOW that that's what was shown on
11/22/63, there is no reason to believe it. I've already shown you
that the film was EDITED, and you certainly can't deny it. So, if they
were editing on 11/22/63, they certainly could have edited since then,
including yesterday. It proves nothing, Von Pein. It adds just another
version to a lot that already consists of 5 or 6 others. All of that
effort, and for what? To show a plaid shirt. Too bad the real Lovelady
didn't know anything about it.
Ball: Did you EVER see Lovelady again that day?
Lovelady: No.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Cinque thinks that just because WFAA stopped short of showing ALL of
the DPD film on 11/22, this means the film that was briefly shown on
the afternoon of 11/22/63 on WFAA is yet another "version" of the film
and has been "edited" yet again. This is the way a crackpot thinks.
It's funny, too, because Cinque now seems to be implying that WFAA was
deliberately "editing that clip of Lovelady" on 11/22 (although Billy
IS still quite visible in the clip for a couple of seconds).
IOW -- WFAA wanted to REMOVE some of the footage of Lovelady on 11/22,
even though Cinque's whole theory on this "DPD film" subject is that
the plotters wanted to ADD IN the fake image of Lovelady sitting at a
desk while wearing a particular shirt.
So which is it, Cinque -- did WFAA edit the film to REMOVE Lovelady?
Or to ADD IN Lovelady?
Let's watch Ralphie fly by the seat of his pants yet again, as he
tries to think up a reason for anyone wanting to do BOTH of those
things--remove Billy Lovelady AND add him into the film at the same
time.
Also:
Cinque is evidently not capable of properly evaluating (via common
sense) Billy Lovelady's WC testimony when Billy was asked "Did you
ever see him [Oswald] again that day?" -- with Lovelady then answering
"No".
The context of the question was fairly clear (especially given Ball's
previous question to Lovelady) -- Joseph Ball wanted to know if
Lovelady had seen Lee Oswald at any time again IN OR NEAR THE
DEPOSITORY BUILDING (i.e., the scene of the assassination).
Cinque, of course, can't figure this easy stuff out. A third-grader
could figure out what Joe Ball meant by his question to Billy
Lovelady, but Dr. Cinque can't.
In addition, Cinque is also apparently not capable of figuring out
that Lovelady's arrow in CE369 has to be pointing to the same person
in the Altgens picture that Wes Frazier's arrow is pointing to. We
know this to be a fact because of these words spoken by Joe Ball --
"And one in the white pointing toward you."
Cinque, however, needs to be talked through this stuff like a
kindergartner. But since the arrow drawn by Frazier (the one "in the
white") is "pointing toward you [Billy Lovelady]", then it obviously
means that the figure commonly known as "Doorway Man" IS Billy Nolan
Lovelady. The word "YOU" being the key word that Cinque tries to
ignore.
So, Ralph, do you think that Lovelady was acknowledging in his WC
session that he was in TWO different places at the same time in the
CE369 photo? I guess you must think that Lovelady was saying that very
thing, because you seem to think that Billy drew an arrow to someone
OTHER than Doorway Man, even though Lovelady HEARS Ball say "pointing
toward you" when referring to the arrow that is "in the white".
Hint for Ralph -- there can be only ONE "you" [i.e., Lovelady] in
CE369. And it couldn't be more obvious who the "you" is in the Altgens
photograph.
Anthony Marsh
May 28, 2013, 10:03:09 PM5/28/13
to
because the Uber Conspiracy altered the photo to make Oswald look like
Lovelady. All within a half hour before it was sent out on the AP wire.
David Von Pein
May 28, 2013, 10:07:03 PM5/28/13
to
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
This is just more blatantly obvious deception. Why the discrepancy,
David? Why does he look so different from one film to the next?
Good God! Is it possible for Cinque to be this dense (and silly)?
The film only looks different because of the quality of the
presentation. The "3 Shots That Changed America" (2009) version of the
Butt/WFAA DPD news film is of better quality simply because The
History Channel had the film enhanced and restored to near-perfect
condition before airing it in '09.
The WFAA version on my YouTube channel is of lower quality because it
was taken from WFAA tapes that were not restored and cleaned-up.
Isn't this obvious to everyone (except Cinque)?
Geesh. And Double-Geesh!!
Just how far down "Crazy Street" is Ralph Cinque willing to travel? Or
does that street ever end?
Ralph Cinque
May 29, 2013, 10:07:16 AM5/29/13
to
It's pathetic what's going on at McAdam's forum. I would feel much better
if I thought they were putting on aires rather than brainwashing
themselves. Lone-nutters are truly nuts. It's like these people would
sooner die than admit that Oswald didn't do it. And if they have to
embrace the ridiculous and the absurd in order to keep going with their
delusions, they'll gladly do it and without an afterthought.
David Von Pein said that the clip from Three Shots from the History
Channel looks different because they had the film "enhanced" and
"restored", that they "cleaned it up", but that WFAA, apparently, didn't
have time to do so, lo these 50 years.
But, it's not just the qualitative difference- although that is one thing
that stands out. The stories they tell are different. The characters they
show, particularly Lovelady, are different. There is simply no way that
they could be the same footage.
Then, Tim Brennan piped in that, although Lovelady denied seeing Oswald
again that day, that if we pay attention to what Attorney Ball said- that
there was an arrow in the dark and an arrow in the white pointing to
Lovelady-that we can assume from that that they were pointing to the same
figure.
Well, I agree that that was what Ball intended for us to assume, but I'm
also telling you that he was plucking with our heads. I agree that that
was his implication, but by so implying, he was frankly lying, and that
makes Ball a major Kennedy-killer in my book.
Timmy, you need to start giving less importance to lip-flapping and more
importance to the physical evidence. Since I consider Joseph Ball among
the scum of the Earth, why should I give a rat's behind what he intended
to imply? Doesn't the integrity of the speaker matter? It matters to
me.
Look, we have the photograph; we can plainly see the arrow in the white
drawn by Frazier. We also know that somewhere there is an arrow in the
black drawn by Lovelady. So, at this point, we should forget about parsing
Ball's words. Who cares? That isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to
get out a magnifying glass and find Lovelady's frickin' arrow. I have done
that and found it to be pointing unmistakably to Black Hole Man. Now, if
you don't think that's right, you need to find one that is better. Make a
case. Go for it. But, this is way beyond lip-flapping. Harping on the
implications of Ball's parsings, as though they are Gospel, is petty and
childish. He was gaming us, and so are you. Find the freaking arrow! It's
your only hope.
50 years have gone by, and all anybody has done, up to now, is assign
Frazier's arrow to Lovelady. David Von Pein has that on his website as we
speak. He shows CE 369 and implies that Frazier's arrow was Lovelady's. He
has no qualms about deceiving about that. Where did you learn it from, Von
Pein? Joseph Ball?
This whole thing about the walk-by at the PD has reached the point of
circus. The disparities between these different versions of the film are
so great, it's disgusting. And it's revolting that they actually expect
them to pass without criticism.
Here is the version from Four Days in November, the Dave Wolper film, and
the clip starts at 5:35. It goes for 7 seconds. It is totally different
from the one that David Von Pein submitted yesterday. As soon as you get
into the room, the big cop and Oswald are already past Lovelady. How did
they get by him? We don't know. Then, right away, we see the big cop
leading Oswald to the right to Fritz' door, and Lovelady swings around to
the right in his seat- through a wide arc- in order to keep his eyes on
Oswald.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIlbvI5x5rU
But, here is the version Von Pein posted yesterday. In this one, the clip
starts with a close-up of the big cop in the hallway between the two
rooms-which is completely missing from the Wolper film. Then we see the
suits trudging along where we mostly see the backs of their heads- again,
completely missing from the Wolper film. Then we get a quick glimpse of
Lovelady. Von Pein described it as 2 seconds. LIAR! It isn't even 1
second. It isn't even half a second. It's more like a tenth of a second.
Then this big linebacker cop gets in the way, blocking the screen. Then it
breaks to newscasters. And that's it. The whole section where the big cop
in the white hat and Oswald are milling around outside Fritz' door is
totally missing. It starts at 7:27.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32gReucRRE&t=448s
There isn't one frame that matches between these two versions of the
footage. Not one. They are completely dissimilar. And yet, we are supposed
to believe they are the same footage?
This is an insult to our intelligence. This is pure statist propaganda. It
is like Nazi propaganda. It is a disgusting, revolting spectacle of lying
and fabrication. And it cannot endure. I promise you it shall not endure.
if I thought they were putting on aires rather than brainwashing
themselves. Lone-nutters are truly nuts. It's like these people would
sooner die than admit that Oswald didn't do it. And if they have to
embrace the ridiculous and the absurd in order to keep going with their
delusions, they'll gladly do it and without an afterthought.
David Von Pein said that the clip from Three Shots from the History
Channel looks different because they had the film "enhanced" and
"restored", that they "cleaned it up", but that WFAA, apparently, didn't
have time to do so, lo these 50 years.
But, it's not just the qualitative difference- although that is one thing
that stands out. The stories they tell are different. The characters they
show, particularly Lovelady, are different. There is simply no way that
they could be the same footage.
Then, Tim Brennan piped in that, although Lovelady denied seeing Oswald
again that day, that if we pay attention to what Attorney Ball said- that
there was an arrow in the dark and an arrow in the white pointing to
Lovelady-that we can assume from that that they were pointing to the same
figure.
Well, I agree that that was what Ball intended for us to assume, but I'm
also telling you that he was plucking with our heads. I agree that that
was his implication, but by so implying, he was frankly lying, and that
makes Ball a major Kennedy-killer in my book.
Timmy, you need to start giving less importance to lip-flapping and more
importance to the physical evidence. Since I consider Joseph Ball among
the scum of the Earth, why should I give a rat's behind what he intended
to imply? Doesn't the integrity of the speaker matter? It matters to
me.
Look, we have the photograph; we can plainly see the arrow in the white
drawn by Frazier. We also know that somewhere there is an arrow in the
black drawn by Lovelady. So, at this point, we should forget about parsing
Ball's words. Who cares? That isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to
get out a magnifying glass and find Lovelady's frickin' arrow. I have done
that and found it to be pointing unmistakably to Black Hole Man. Now, if
you don't think that's right, you need to find one that is better. Make a
case. Go for it. But, this is way beyond lip-flapping. Harping on the
implications of Ball's parsings, as though they are Gospel, is petty and
childish. He was gaming us, and so are you. Find the freaking arrow! It's
your only hope.
50 years have gone by, and all anybody has done, up to now, is assign
Frazier's arrow to Lovelady. David Von Pein has that on his website as we
speak. He shows CE 369 and implies that Frazier's arrow was Lovelady's. He
has no qualms about deceiving about that. Where did you learn it from, Von
Pein? Joseph Ball?
This whole thing about the walk-by at the PD has reached the point of
circus. The disparities between these different versions of the film are
so great, it's disgusting. And it's revolting that they actually expect
them to pass without criticism.
Here is the version from Four Days in November, the Dave Wolper film, and
the clip starts at 5:35. It goes for 7 seconds. It is totally different
from the one that David Von Pein submitted yesterday. As soon as you get
into the room, the big cop and Oswald are already past Lovelady. How did
they get by him? We don't know. Then, right away, we see the big cop
leading Oswald to the right to Fritz' door, and Lovelady swings around to
the right in his seat- through a wide arc- in order to keep his eyes on
Oswald.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIlbvI5x5rU
But, here is the version Von Pein posted yesterday. In this one, the clip
starts with a close-up of the big cop in the hallway between the two
rooms-which is completely missing from the Wolper film. Then we see the
suits trudging along where we mostly see the backs of their heads- again,
completely missing from the Wolper film. Then we get a quick glimpse of
Lovelady. Von Pein described it as 2 seconds. LIAR! It isn't even 1
second. It isn't even half a second. It's more like a tenth of a second.
Then this big linebacker cop gets in the way, blocking the screen. Then it
breaks to newscasters. And that's it. The whole section where the big cop
in the white hat and Oswald are milling around outside Fritz' door is
totally missing. It starts at 7:27.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32gReucRRE&t=448s
There isn't one frame that matches between these two versions of the
footage. Not one. They are completely dissimilar. And yet, we are supposed
to believe they are the same footage?
This is an insult to our intelligence. This is pure statist propaganda. It
is like Nazi propaganda. It is a disgusting, revolting spectacle of lying
and fabrication. And it cannot endure. I promise you it shall not endure.
Ralph Cinque
May 29, 2013, 2:40:59 PM5/29/13
to
Holy Cow! This is unbelievable! They completely removed the Lovelady clip from the WFAA film! And I mean recently! It wasn't that long ago that we were talking about it. Even Joseph Backes acknowledged the length of the Lovelady clip in it- it was 13 seconds long. You know how long it is now? 0 seconds. It's gone! Vanished! They took it out!
Here's the link to the movie. It was an hour-long tv program entitled A Year Ago Today, broadcast November 22, 1964.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI
Of course, I was beating the hell out of them for what they were showing, which was a goofy splicing together of the two disparate Lovelady footages. That's how it got stretched into 13 seconds. Putting those two Loveladys together in one film was very brazen, but they tried to get away with it by speeding it up and blurring it up. And they also slimmed down DeNiro Lovelady by technical means. But, this is what they started with:
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/925/collage150.jpg
So, they tried to include both of them starting with DeNiro, then putting the linebacker cop in the way, and then reverting to the other guy. Here are the 3 transitional frames where the splice occurred. Notice that I have them labelled as "DeNiro Lovelady" (upper left) "Curtain frame" (middle) and "Embedded Lovelady" (bottom right).
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/4166/collage74.jpg
All of it is gone now. The 13 second walk-by clip used to start at 5:43 in the film. But, there is nothing there now. In fact, they got rid of a heck of a lot more. The whole trek through building is now gone. And they replaced it with all this talking head stuff. In other words, instead of showing footage, they've just got commentary. There is no way that it consisted of that in 1964. They revamped the entire film. Just drag the bubble at the bottom across the screen in short intervals. They got rid of the motorcade footage. They got rid of the Dallas PD footage. They kept some footage of JFK milling with the crowd at the beginning. They also kept Oswald's murder by Ruby at the end. But in-between, it's mostly talking head stuff. I'm not kidding. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI
So, in the name of "editing" they have completely edited out Lovelady. And there is very little Oswald left in it either. And this was done recently.
They have the nerve to say at the end that it was "pre-recorded on Video Tape". How about vastly edited and grossly disemboweled?
Again: this was done recently.
Von Pein? Backes? What happened to the Lovelady footage in this film? It is gone! Totally and completely gone! You explain how it could go missing. More innocent editing? Is that it? Is that your story?
Here it is 2013, and they are still actively conducting the JFK assassination cover-up- even modifying films.
Well, it will do them no good. They are just digging themselves in deeper.
I am going to Jim Fetzer about this. We need to write this up big- that they removed the Lovelady walk-by clip completely- and recently.
Here's the link to the movie. It was an hour-long tv program entitled A Year Ago Today, broadcast November 22, 1964.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI
Of course, I was beating the hell out of them for what they were showing, which was a goofy splicing together of the two disparate Lovelady footages. That's how it got stretched into 13 seconds. Putting those two Loveladys together in one film was very brazen, but they tried to get away with it by speeding it up and blurring it up. And they also slimmed down DeNiro Lovelady by technical means. But, this is what they started with:
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/925/collage150.jpg
So, they tried to include both of them starting with DeNiro, then putting the linebacker cop in the way, and then reverting to the other guy. Here are the 3 transitional frames where the splice occurred. Notice that I have them labelled as "DeNiro Lovelady" (upper left) "Curtain frame" (middle) and "Embedded Lovelady" (bottom right).
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/4166/collage74.jpg
All of it is gone now. The 13 second walk-by clip used to start at 5:43 in the film. But, there is nothing there now. In fact, they got rid of a heck of a lot more. The whole trek through building is now gone. And they replaced it with all this talking head stuff. In other words, instead of showing footage, they've just got commentary. There is no way that it consisted of that in 1964. They revamped the entire film. Just drag the bubble at the bottom across the screen in short intervals. They got rid of the motorcade footage. They got rid of the Dallas PD footage. They kept some footage of JFK milling with the crowd at the beginning. They also kept Oswald's murder by Ruby at the end. But in-between, it's mostly talking head stuff. I'm not kidding. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI
So, in the name of "editing" they have completely edited out Lovelady. And there is very little Oswald left in it either. And this was done recently.
They have the nerve to say at the end that it was "pre-recorded on Video Tape". How about vastly edited and grossly disemboweled?
Again: this was done recently.
Von Pein? Backes? What happened to the Lovelady footage in this film? It is gone! Totally and completely gone! You explain how it could go missing. More innocent editing? Is that it? Is that your story?
Here it is 2013, and they are still actively conducting the JFK assassination cover-up- even modifying films.
Well, it will do them no good. They are just digging themselves in deeper.
I am going to Jim Fetzer about this. We need to write this up big- that they removed the Lovelady walk-by clip completely- and recently.
Anthony Marsh
May 29, 2013, 2:48:59 PM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/2013 10:07 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> It's pathetic what's going on at McAdam's forum. I would feel much better
> if I thought they were putting on aires rather than brainwashing
> themselves. Lone-nutters are truly nuts. It's like these people would
> sooner die than admit that Oswald didn't do it. And if they have to
> embrace the ridiculous and the absurd in order to keep going with their
> delusions, they'll gladly do it and without an afterthought.
>
> David Von Pein said that the clip from Three Shots from the History
> Channel looks different because they had the film "enhanced" and
> "restored", that they "cleaned it up", but that WFAA, apparently, didn't
> have time to do so, lo these 50 years.
>
Why should WFAA go the the expense of enhancing their old films? That's
> It's pathetic what's going on at McAdam's forum. I would feel much better
> if I thought they were putting on aires rather than brainwashing
> themselves. Lone-nutters are truly nuts. It's like these people would
> sooner die than admit that Oswald didn't do it. And if they have to
> embrace the ridiculous and the absurd in order to keep going with their
> delusions, they'll gladly do it and without an afterthought.
>
> David Von Pein said that the clip from Three Shots from the History
> Channel looks different because they had the film "enhanced" and
> "restored", that they "cleaned it up", but that WFAA, apparently, didn't
> have time to do so, lo these 50 years.
>
something for networks and cable companies to do, funded by the CIA.
Jason Burke
May 29, 2013, 5:14:21 PM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/2013 11:40 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Holy Cow! This is unbelievable! They completely removed the Lovelady clip from the WFAA film! And I mean recently! It wasn't that long ago that we were talking about it. Even Joseph Backes acknowledged the length of the Lovelady clip in it- it was 13 seconds long. You know how long it is now? 0 seconds. It's gone! Vanished! They took it out!
Not to make you look foolish, Ralph, but did you ever think of moving your
> Holy Cow! This is unbelievable! They completely removed the Lovelady clip from the WFAA film! And I mean recently! It wasn't that long ago that we were talking about it. Even Joseph Backes acknowledged the length of the Lovelady clip in it- it was 13 seconds long. You know how long it is now? 0 seconds. It's gone! Vanished! They took it out!
little bubble to, oh, I dunno, maybe 38:50? Jinkies! There's ol' Billy
Bob!
I guess you didn't Ralph.
Nice "research". They ought to give you at *least* a SM for this latest
diatribe.
This whole thing has gone beyond ridiculous.
Ralph Cinque
May 29, 2013, 6:15:46 PM5/29/13
to
What happened to it, Von Pein? I can even tell you exactly where the
Lovelady clip used to be in the WFAA program. It occurred at 5:43. The
reason I know is because above my desk, on a paper taped to the wall, I
have listed all the Dallas PD films and the point in each one at which the
Lovelady walk- by occurs. And for "WFAA" it says "5:43".
How could they remove that entire the clip? It was definitely there as
recently as last month. So, this change is of very recent vintage. I want
to know why. And I want to know how anyone could justify it, how anyone
could consider it innocent. It is not innocent. That entire incident was
fabricated; it never happened. And all I can surmise is that WFAA must
have realized that it was laughably inept, and it was time for it to go.
And they're right, it is a joke. But to remove it and revamp the film at
this late date only shows how corrupt the whole thing is. From the
beginning and all along, it was like a Nazi propaganda film. And their
removing the ridiculous Lovelady footage is a tacit admission of having
concocted a fraud. It's over, Von Pein. You don't have a leg left to stand
on.
Lovelady clip used to be in the WFAA program. It occurred at 5:43. The
reason I know is because above my desk, on a paper taped to the wall, I
have listed all the Dallas PD films and the point in each one at which the
Lovelady walk- by occurs. And for "WFAA" it says "5:43".
How could they remove that entire the clip? It was definitely there as
recently as last month. So, this change is of very recent vintage. I want
to know why. And I want to know how anyone could justify it, how anyone
could consider it innocent. It is not innocent. That entire incident was
fabricated; it never happened. And all I can surmise is that WFAA must
have realized that it was laughably inept, and it was time for it to go.
And they're right, it is a joke. But to remove it and revamp the film at
this late date only shows how corrupt the whole thing is. From the
beginning and all along, it was like a Nazi propaganda film. And their
removing the ridiculous Lovelady footage is a tacit admission of having
concocted a fraud. It's over, Von Pein. You don't have a leg left to stand
on.
David Von Pein
May 29, 2013, 10:11:00 PM5/29/13
to
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
Here [below] is the version from Four Days in November, the Dave
Wolper film, and the clip starts at 5:35. It goes for 7 seconds. It is
totally different from the one that David Von Pein submitted
yesterday. As soon as you get into the room, the big cop and Oswald
are already past Lovelady. How did they get by him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GIlbvI5x5rU#t=334s
totally different from the one that David Von Pein submitted
yesterday. As soon as you get into the room, the big cop and Oswald
are already past Lovelady. How did they get by him?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The comedy of Cinque just keeps getting better. Cinque thinks that the
Wolper film shows a different version of the DPD/WFAA film simply
because Wolper's editors didn't show the ENTIRE clip of Oswald/
Lovelady. There's a break right after Oswald enters the Homicide
office. Wolper has cut out a second or two and then resumes the clip
again. It's merely a brief cut/edit in the same film....and yet Cinque
screams that it's a totally different "version".
Somebody pinch me...because I find it hard to believe that ANYONE
(even an avowed Anybody But Oswald conspiracy nut) could possibly be
this silly (and ignorant).
And for some incredible reason, Cinque now also thinks the whole
Lovelady DPD clip is "gone" from the '64 WFAA documentary that *I*
myself posted online. But it's not "gone"; it's still there--just as
it's always been.
I'm surprised Ralph didn't accuse me of editing the film. After all,
it's in *my* YouTube material.
As Ike Pappas said -- Holy Mackerel!
What will Cinque's next embarrassment be? Will he pretend that
Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" statement has been "edited" too? I
wouldn't be at all surprised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9F-szqv_RI
Jason Burke
May 29, 2013, 10:17:51 PM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/2013 3:15 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> What happened to it, Von Pein? I can even tell you exactly where the
> Lovelady clip used to be in the WFAA program. It occurred at 5:43. The
> reason I know is because above my desk, on a paper taped to the wall, I
> have listed all the Dallas PD films and the point in each one at which the
> Lovelady walk- by occurs. And for "WFAA" it says "5:43".
Oh, come on.
> What happened to it, Von Pein? I can even tell you exactly where the
> Lovelady clip used to be in the WFAA program. It occurred at 5:43. The
> reason I know is because above my desk, on a paper taped to the wall, I
> have listed all the Dallas PD films and the point in each one at which the
> Lovelady walk- by occurs. And for "WFAA" it says "5:43".
Maybe you wrote the time down wrong.
Maybe you confused clips.
Maybe 8 million other reasons.
But claiming all sorts of forgery because of a transcription error -
*BY YOU* - is pretty pathetic.
>
> How could they remove that entire the clip? It was definitely there as
> recently as last month. So, this change is of very recent vintage. I want
> to know why. And I want to know how anyone could justify it, how anyone
> could consider it innocent. It is not innocent. That entire incident was
> fabricated; it never happened. And all I can surmise is that WFAA must
> have realized that it was laughably inept, and it was time for it to go.
> And they're right, it is a joke. But to remove it and revamp the film at
> this late date only shows how corrupt the whole thing is. From the
down the time or the film incorrectly.
Ralph, you had zero credibility before this nonsense. Ya ain't helping
yourself regain any here, Ralph.
> beginning and all along, it was like a Nazi propaganda film. And their
that's been around for almost 49 years is compared to a Nazi propaganda
film!?!?
Are you even listening to yourself, Ralph?
> removing the ridiculous Lovelady footage is a tacit admission of having
> concocted a fraud. It's over, Von Pein. You don't have a leg left to stand
> on.
>
based on the above is sickening. You REALLY need to get help, Ralph. I
do know a couple of brain docs down San Antonio way if you'd like their
numbers.
David Von Pein
May 29, 2013, 10:23:58 PM5/29/13
to
You're a very confused person, Ralph. The Lovelady footage is all
still there. You're mixing up the ONE-part version of "A Year Ago
Today" that I posted at YouTube with a previous SIX-part version that
I posted in 2010.
Back in 2010, YouTube only permitted people to upload videos that were
a maximum of 10 to 11 minutes in length. So, in order to get the whole
hour-long program uploaded, I had to break it up into smaller 10-
minute segments. Hence, it was a six-part series in 2010.
But in more recent years, YouTube has allowed uploads of longer than
10 minutes, so I re-uploaded the "Year Ago Today" program as a single
hour-long video.
But my six-part version is still on YouTube (as of this writing). I
haven't deleted or edited that six-part version. So that's your error,
Ralph. You thought my hour-long video should have had the Lovelady
footage at the 5:43 mark. But since it's the whole show in one video,
of course the Lovelady footage isn't at the 5-minute mark in the 59-
minute video.
Here's the "5:43" part you were talking about within Part 4 of my
older 6-part series (it's actually closer to 5:57):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=njY87fStTjA#t=357s
You should have just e-mailed me privately, Ralph. I could have
immediately explained to you the difference between my 1-part version
and the 6-parter. You could have saved yourself quite a bit of
embarrassment if you had just contacted me privately.
Ralph Cinque
May 30, 2013, 10:58:07 AM5/30/13
to
More from the sophist, David Von Pein:
"In addition, Cinque is also apparently not capable of figuring out that
Lovelady's arrow in CE369 has to be pointing to the same person in the
Altgens picture that Wes Frazier's arrow is pointing to. We know this to
be a fact because of these words spoken by Joe Ball -- "And one in the
white pointing toward you."
Von Pein continues to treat Joseph Ball as though he is unimpeachable. He
acts as though I am obliged to treat him like Solomon. Joseph Ball was an
active participant in the cover-up, and the idea that his verbal parsings
bind us is ridiculous.
Lovelady told us in two ways that he was Black Hole Man. #1: He drew the
arrow to Black Hole Man to indicate himself, and keep in mind that David
Von Pein is not offering an alternative arrow. He does not claim to have
found Lovelady's arrow. He just assumes that it must be there somewhere
pointing to Doorway Man even though there isn't a hint of it. #2: Lovelady
described his position as the "far left" of the doorway, which was BH
Man's position, not Doorway Man's position.
I suppose that one could point out that when Joseph Ball said, "And one in
the white pointing toward you" Billy Lovelady didn't interrupt him and
say, "What are you talking about? That arrow in the white is NOT pointing
to me."
So, why didn't he? I'd say it was because he was intimidated. After all,
they gave him a photo to draw an arrow on which already had an arrow on
it. He must have known what the "right" answer was- to them. And we know
very well that he went on to adopt the very role that they expected of
him.
So, the fact is, that Billy Lovelady was weak-willed. He didn't have much
backbone. And he ultimately gave in to them- completely. But at that
point, he was still trying to tell the truth- but without making a scene.
He wasn't looking for confrontation with Joseph Ball or anyone else. He
just wanted to get out of there and go home.
But, the most glaring lunacy in Von Pein's attitude is that we should
determine the location of an arrow on a photo by parsing someone's words-
and not even the person who drew the arrow but someone else.
But, we have the photograph. We don't have to rely on anyone's words. I
demonstrated quite solidly that the head of Frazier's arrow is visible
even though it was black and black.
There is only one ratoinal recourse for Von Pein, and that is to provide
visual evidence of Lovelady's arrow somewhere else. But, his retort to my
viosual evidence is just to parse Ball's words. And that shows you that he
is bluffing. He has got nothing.
DVP: "Cinque, however, needs to be talked through this stuff like a
Ball was describing what he desperately wanted, not what was there. Why
did Ball instruct Lovelady to draw an invisible arrow, black on black?
Aren't arrows supposed to be seen? The very act of having them draw on the
same photo was incongruous, but why wouldn't he at least make sure that
both arrows were visible and distinguishable? The fact that Ball did it
the way that he did proves that he was corrupt; it wasn't open and honest;
it was devious. It was Machiavellian.
DVP: "So, Ralph, do you think that Lovelady was acknowledging in his WC
to directly contradict Ball to his face. You can think of Lovelady like
Dorothy when she first visited the great and powerful Wizard of Oz. But,
what Lovelady did do was draw a tiny arrow to BH Man to indicate himself.
And he described his position as being "far left." Either one alone was
sufficient to establish that he wasn't Doorway Man, but we have both.
DVP: "Lovelady HEARS Ball say "pointing toward you" when referring to the
arrow that is "in the white". There can be only ONE "you" [i.e., Lovelady]
kind of personality to stand up to Joseph Ball and defy him. Joseph Ball
represented the government, the US government. That's the govt that had
arrested and prosecuted Billy Lovelady and incarcerated him for a while.
Lovelady was walking a fine line that day. He wanted to be truthful, and
he also wanted not to make waves, not to make a scene, not to invite
turmoil into his life. He wasn't looking to grapple with that kind of
power and authority. But, he also didn't want to draw an arrow to someone
else other than himself. It would be hard to do that, don't you think?
Imagine if you were asked to draw an arrow to youself. Wouldn't it be hard
to draw it to another person? Even if you were fearful, every instinct you
had would make you want to draw it to yourself. Few people are able to
deny their own selves, their own identity. This, indeed, is the arrow that
Billy drew; there is no other arrow to attribute to him.
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/6224/xxxxxxxxxxx36942.jpg
"In addition, Cinque is also apparently not capable of figuring out that
Lovelady's arrow in CE369 has to be pointing to the same person in the
Altgens picture that Wes Frazier's arrow is pointing to. We know this to
be a fact because of these words spoken by Joe Ball -- "And one in the
white pointing toward you."
acts as though I am obliged to treat him like Solomon. Joseph Ball was an
active participant in the cover-up, and the idea that his verbal parsings
bind us is ridiculous.
Lovelady told us in two ways that he was Black Hole Man. #1: He drew the
arrow to Black Hole Man to indicate himself, and keep in mind that David
Von Pein is not offering an alternative arrow. He does not claim to have
found Lovelady's arrow. He just assumes that it must be there somewhere
pointing to Doorway Man even though there isn't a hint of it. #2: Lovelady
described his position as the "far left" of the doorway, which was BH
Man's position, not Doorway Man's position.
I suppose that one could point out that when Joseph Ball said, "And one in
the white pointing toward you" Billy Lovelady didn't interrupt him and
say, "What are you talking about? That arrow in the white is NOT pointing
to me."
So, why didn't he? I'd say it was because he was intimidated. After all,
they gave him a photo to draw an arrow on which already had an arrow on
it. He must have known what the "right" answer was- to them. And we know
very well that he went on to adopt the very role that they expected of
him.
So, the fact is, that Billy Lovelady was weak-willed. He didn't have much
backbone. And he ultimately gave in to them- completely. But at that
point, he was still trying to tell the truth- but without making a scene.
He wasn't looking for confrontation with Joseph Ball or anyone else. He
just wanted to get out of there and go home.
But, the most glaring lunacy in Von Pein's attitude is that we should
determine the location of an arrow on a photo by parsing someone's words-
and not even the person who drew the arrow but someone else.
But, we have the photograph. We don't have to rely on anyone's words. I
demonstrated quite solidly that the head of Frazier's arrow is visible
even though it was black and black.
There is only one ratoinal recourse for Von Pein, and that is to provide
visual evidence of Lovelady's arrow somewhere else. But, his retort to my
viosual evidence is just to parse Ball's words. And that shows you that he
is bluffing. He has got nothing.
DVP: "Cinque, however, needs to be talked through this stuff like a
kindergartner. But since the arrow drawn by Frazier (the one "in the
white") is "pointing toward you [Billy Lovelady]", then it obviously means
that the figure commonly known as "Doorway Man" IS Billy Nolan Lovelady.
The word "YOU" being the key word that Cinque tries to ignore."
Cinque: I'm not ignoring it, but those are Ball's words, not Lovelady's.
white") is "pointing toward you [Billy Lovelady]", then it obviously means
that the figure commonly known as "Doorway Man" IS Billy Nolan Lovelady.
The word "YOU" being the key word that Cinque tries to ignore."
Ball was describing what he desperately wanted, not what was there. Why
did Ball instruct Lovelady to draw an invisible arrow, black on black?
Aren't arrows supposed to be seen? The very act of having them draw on the
same photo was incongruous, but why wouldn't he at least make sure that
both arrows were visible and distinguishable? The fact that Ball did it
the way that he did proves that he was corrupt; it wasn't open and honest;
it was devious. It was Machiavellian.
DVP: "So, Ralph, do you think that Lovelady was acknowledging in his WC
session that he was in TWO different places at the same time in the CE369
photo?"
Cinque: Lovelady was AFRAID to come right out and tell the truth, that is,
photo?"
to directly contradict Ball to his face. You can think of Lovelady like
Dorothy when she first visited the great and powerful Wizard of Oz. But,
what Lovelady did do was draw a tiny arrow to BH Man to indicate himself.
And he described his position as being "far left." Either one alone was
sufficient to establish that he wasn't Doorway Man, but we have both.
DVP: "Lovelady HEARS Ball say "pointing toward you" when referring to the
arrow that is "in the white". There can be only ONE "you" [i.e., Lovelady]
in CE369. And it couldn't be more obvious who the "you" is in the Altgens
photograph."
Cinque: What it really comes down to is that Billy Lovelady was not the
photograph."
kind of personality to stand up to Joseph Ball and defy him. Joseph Ball
represented the government, the US government. That's the govt that had
arrested and prosecuted Billy Lovelady and incarcerated him for a while.
Lovelady was walking a fine line that day. He wanted to be truthful, and
he also wanted not to make waves, not to make a scene, not to invite
turmoil into his life. He wasn't looking to grapple with that kind of
power and authority. But, he also didn't want to draw an arrow to someone
else other than himself. It would be hard to do that, don't you think?
Imagine if you were asked to draw an arrow to youself. Wouldn't it be hard
to draw it to another person? Even if you were fearful, every instinct you
had would make you want to draw it to yourself. Few people are able to
deny their own selves, their own identity. This, indeed, is the arrow that
Billy drew; there is no other arrow to attribute to him.
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/6224/xxxxxxxxxxx36942.jpg
Ralph Cinque
May 30, 2013, 10:59:19 AM5/30/13
to
Here's an interesting collage from David Von Pein's website. It's purpose
is to show that Doorman had the same hairline as BL.
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/5570/hardcollagewithdoorman.jpg
On the right is the FBI photo of Lovelady, taken Feb 29 1964. However,
that is not the only version of that photo. There is also this version:
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9032/fbiloveladylarge.jpg
It's quite a difference, don't you think? Here are the two versions side
by side:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/404/fbiloveladytwice.jpg
Obviously, shadow and light were used to create very different effects.
But which one is the real one? I mean: which one was sent to the Warren
Commission by the FBI in 1964?
I strongly suspect that the "soft" Lovelady on the right is the one that
was sent. And that's because at the time, they were trying to show how
much Lovelady looked like Oswald and could easily be mistaken for Oswald.
And Oswald looks soft.
Where did the hard one come from? I don't know for sure, but I do know
that it is featured on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website as the photo
attached to J.Edgar Hoover's letter to the WC.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=348615
So, Mary Ferrell Foundatoin has played a major part in pushing the Hard
Lovelady. But, most organizations and individuals show the soft Lovelady.
But, why do these two versions exist? And what does it imply? It implies
that a specific, fabricated effect was sought with BL, and we should not
trust either one of those pictures as being authentic.
David Von Pein spoke of BL's hairline matching Doorman's, but did it? It
doesn't when you compare it to Mark Lane's photo of BL:
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7166/collage242.jpg
Does anyone wish to accuse Mark Lane of fabricating a false image of Billy
Lovelady? Who are you going to trust, the FBI or Mark Lane?
is to show that Doorman had the same hairline as BL.
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/5570/hardcollagewithdoorman.jpg
On the right is the FBI photo of Lovelady, taken Feb 29 1964. However,
that is not the only version of that photo. There is also this version:
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9032/fbiloveladylarge.jpg
It's quite a difference, don't you think? Here are the two versions side
by side:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/404/fbiloveladytwice.jpg
Obviously, shadow and light were used to create very different effects.
But which one is the real one? I mean: which one was sent to the Warren
Commission by the FBI in 1964?
I strongly suspect that the "soft" Lovelady on the right is the one that
was sent. And that's because at the time, they were trying to show how
much Lovelady looked like Oswald and could easily be mistaken for Oswald.
And Oswald looks soft.
Where did the hard one come from? I don't know for sure, but I do know
that it is featured on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website as the photo
attached to J.Edgar Hoover's letter to the WC.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=348615
So, Mary Ferrell Foundatoin has played a major part in pushing the Hard
Lovelady. But, most organizations and individuals show the soft Lovelady.
But, why do these two versions exist? And what does it imply? It implies
that a specific, fabricated effect was sought with BL, and we should not
trust either one of those pictures as being authentic.
David Von Pein spoke of BL's hairline matching Doorman's, but did it? It
doesn't when you compare it to Mark Lane's photo of BL:
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7166/collage242.jpg
Does anyone wish to accuse Mark Lane of fabricating a false image of Billy
Lovelady? Who are you going to trust, the FBI or Mark Lane?
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 1, 2013, 11:32:46 PM6/1/13
to
is PROVE that it is Lovelady in the doorway!
Roy Truly looked at the photo and said that it was Lovelady!
Bill Shelley looked at the photo and said it was Lovelady!
Billy Lovelady looked at the photo and said it was Lovelady!
You also DESTROYED your silly theory that Lovelady could have been
referring to the Black Hole Man figure as himself in his WC testimony.
It's quite obvious which figure all three are referring to; it's the
person who resembles Lee Harvey Oswald who is standing in the doorway of
the TSBD.
It's game over for your OIC nonsense, Ralph.
Corrective Regards,
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 1, 2013, 11:34:28 PM6/1/13
to
wore that day back in the sixties in Six Seconds In Dallas, Ralph.
Don't you think it's time that you and Richard Hooke accepted the obvious?
That the figure in the doorway that looks like Lee Harvey Oswald is the
one Lovelady HIMSELF identified as being Billy Nolan Lovelady?
And so did Roy Truly, Bill Shelley, Buell Frazier and Danny Arce.
It is TRULY game over for you silly nonsense, Ralph.
Informative Regards,
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 1, 2013, 11:36:23 PM6/1/13
to
Thanks. Sorry for the late reply. Still trying to get used to this
HORRIBLE new Google Groups. Of course, now that Ralph has posted that
Commission Document, we now have the following people UNEQUIVOCALLY saying
that the figure that looks like Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD door way is
ACTUALLY Billy Lovelady:
Roy Truly
Bill Shelley
Buell Frazier
Danny Arce
Billy Lovelady
No doubt Ralph will cling to his fantasy that Black Hole Man is Lovelady
but even Lovelady disputes that fact.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 1, 2013, 11:47:32 PM6/1/13
to
padding every reply with SILLY bumpf in a futile attempt to disguise the
weakness of your Oswald is Doorman nonsense.
A) In the comparison you offered it is EXACTLY the same piece of film. Von
Pein is right. It was simply cleaned up and enhanced before it was
included in the 3 Shots program.
B) You simply don't appear to understand how the WC worked. When people
testified, exhibits were produced and MARKED as the testimony was given.
When CE 369 was numbered on March 11, 1964 it was MARKED by Buell Frazier
with the arrow *in the white* Ralph.
When CE 369 was shown to Lovelady on April 7, 1964 it ALREADY had the
arrow *in the white* drawn on it because it was PART of the exhibit, CE
369, Ralph.
It's quite clear from the testimony that the further arrow Lovelady drew
and the arrow *in the white* are both pointing to the SAME person, Ralph.
That would be Doorman, Ralph.
Evidentially, you don't have a leg left to stand on, Ralph. All you have
is bluster and invective.
You really should think about giving this nonsense away before you dig
yourself a bigger hole than you are already in.
Informative Regards,
David Von Pein
Jun 1, 2013, 11:59:51 PM6/1/13
to
TIM B. SAID:
Still trying to get used to this HORRIBLE new Google Groups.
It's horrible alright. But all you need to do is keep the following
link handy and you'll never have to deal with the "New Google Groups"
again (well, at least as long as this link still works anyway). This
link reverts all Usenet posts back to the much better "old" design:
https://groups.google.com/grphp?hl=en
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 2, 2013, 1:00:51 PM6/2/13
to
Don't forget that he ALSO told the New York Herald Tribune that he was Doorman as well.
Case CLOSED on your OIC nonsense!
Corrective Regards,
Ralph Cinque
Jun 2, 2013, 1:03:37 PM6/2/13
to
Tim, you only prove that I could find kangaroos in Australia with more brains than you have. Billy Lovelady never identified himself as Doorway Man. In fact, in so many words he denied it. He said was standing on the "far left" of the doorway. Doorway Man was in the center. And why did Joseph Ball play the games that he did with the arrows? Why didn't Joseph Ball interrogate Lovelady and Frazier the same way he did Arce? Why didn't he just point to Doorway Man and ask, "Who is he?" as he did with Arce?
But, you don't pick up that difference, do you? It sails right over your kangaroo-size brain, doesn't it? Is this the Empire's plan, to bog me down, waste my time with mental defectives?
BL drew an arrow to BH Man to indicate himself, and we can see it on CE 369. It is a big find. I should get the Congressional Medal of Honor for discovering it- not that I want it. I'm just saying that if there were a shred of honesty involved, things would be very different. But, I've only been at this for a year and a half, and I've already done terminal damage to the official story. So, I'm feeling pretty good. Dealing with you is nothing but pest control.
But, you don't pick up that difference, do you? It sails right over your kangaroo-size brain, doesn't it? Is this the Empire's plan, to bog me down, waste my time with mental defectives?
BL drew an arrow to BH Man to indicate himself, and we can see it on CE 369. It is a big find. I should get the Congressional Medal of Honor for discovering it- not that I want it. I'm just saying that if there were a shred of honesty involved, things would be very different. But, I've only been at this for a year and a half, and I've already done terminal damage to the official story. So, I'm feeling pretty good. Dealing with you is nothing but pest control.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 8, 2013, 9:27:22 PM6/8/13
to
MULTIPLE times as being the figure who resembled Lee Harvey Oswald in the
ALTGENS photo, Ralph.
Here IS the ALTGENS photo:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
And HERE is Lovelady's statement identifying himself on the *FAR LEFT* of
the doorway in the ALTGENS photo, Ralph:
http://mffprodos5.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11133&relPageId=33
Your bogus claims of heroism and silly jokes about kangaroos can't cover
up the fact that your silly theory has a roo loose in the top paddock.
About the only VALID claim you made was that you'd only been at this a
year and a half, Ralph.
It shows, Ralph, it SHOWS.
You simply have NO IDEA idea what you are talking about.
Antti Talsta
Jun 15, 2013, 6:44:33 PM6/15/13
to
On 2013-05-30, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<Lots of total BS snipped>
Man you really are one of a kind.
--
Antti Talsta
>
<Lots of total BS snipped>
Man you really are one of a kind.
--
Antti Talsta
Anthony Marsh
Jun 15, 2013, 11:28:22 PM6/15/13
to
On 6/15/2013 6:44 PM, Antti Talsta wrote:
> On 2013-05-30, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> <Lots of total BS snipped>
>
> Man you really are one of a kind.
>
You are such a brilliant debater.
> On 2013-05-30, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> <Lots of total BS snipped>
>
> Man you really are one of a kind.
>
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 18, 2013, 10:00:43 AM6/18/13
to
Couldn't get it to work. Thanks anyway. SLOWLY getting used to this new
Google groups format but still find it HORRIBLE to work with. The overview
funtion works OK, though. Maybe it all kicked over on June 1? Do the links
that Jean Davison put up awhile back still work?
BTW, rather amusing that Cinque thinks that Danny Arce is part of the
conspiracy. Over @ the Ed Forum someone posted a link to one of the films
showing Arce standing outside the TSBD waving just like everyone else as
the limo went by. You could even see Lovelady's red shirt, glinting
through the foliage but in EXACTLY the right spot to refute Ralph's
Doorman nonsense.
0 new messages