Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Utter Proof of Warren Commission corruption
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
May 22, 2013, 11:44:41 AM5/22/13
to
Question: I would like to know why no one before the Oswald Innocence
Campaign ever discussed the fact that Frazier and Lovelady were given the
exact same photo to mark on for the Warren Commission. What, were they
trying to save on paper and ink? This is an outrage.
Obviously, if you're given a photo to draw an arrow on, and there is
already an arrow there, it's going to bias you. But apparently, that was
the whole idea. Atty Ball was essentially giving Lovelady a hint as to
where to draw his arrow.
Frazier went first- about a month before. So, they actually dug out his
photo with his arrow so that Lovelady would be affected by it.
But fortunately, Lovelady did not take the bait. He drew his arrow to the
figure that was him: Black Hole Man.
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9769/xxxxxxxxxxx3694larger.jpg
That black mark on BH Man's forearm is the tail of the arrow that Lovelady
drew. On what basis could I be wrong about that? There is only one basis:
if someone could find another mark representing his arrow. I'll show you
where to look:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2618/xxxxxxxxxxx3695greysmal.jpg
That grey arrow I drew, but that is where it would have to be. Where else
could Lovelady have drawn an arrow in the black to Doorway Man? There's no
place else. Had he drawn it, that's where it would have been.
Some have suggested that I should go to Washington to examine the actual
CE 369 in the archives- if that's possible. That would be true if I
weren't dealing with liars and fakers. Do you think the government
wouldn't stoop to altering that photo and cleverly adding such an arrow?
Of course they would. Nope, it has to be demonstrated to me on the digital
CE 369, and I mean the one that's already on my hard drive- not some new
one.
Find that alternate arrow. If you can't, it's game over.
Campaign ever discussed the fact that Frazier and Lovelady were given the
exact same photo to mark on for the Warren Commission. What, were they
trying to save on paper and ink? This is an outrage.
Obviously, if you're given a photo to draw an arrow on, and there is
already an arrow there, it's going to bias you. But apparently, that was
the whole idea. Atty Ball was essentially giving Lovelady a hint as to
where to draw his arrow.
Frazier went first- about a month before. So, they actually dug out his
photo with his arrow so that Lovelady would be affected by it.
But fortunately, Lovelady did not take the bait. He drew his arrow to the
figure that was him: Black Hole Man.
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9769/xxxxxxxxxxx3694larger.jpg
That black mark on BH Man's forearm is the tail of the arrow that Lovelady
drew. On what basis could I be wrong about that? There is only one basis:
if someone could find another mark representing his arrow. I'll show you
where to look:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2618/xxxxxxxxxxx3695greysmal.jpg
That grey arrow I drew, but that is where it would have to be. Where else
could Lovelady have drawn an arrow in the black to Doorway Man? There's no
place else. Had he drawn it, that's where it would have been.
Some have suggested that I should go to Washington to examine the actual
CE 369 in the archives- if that's possible. That would be true if I
weren't dealing with liars and fakers. Do you think the government
wouldn't stoop to altering that photo and cleverly adding such an arrow?
Of course they would. Nope, it has to be demonstrated to me on the digital
CE 369, and I mean the one that's already on my hard drive- not some new
one.
Find that alternate arrow. If you can't, it's game over.
claviger
May 22, 2013, 4:03:31 PM5/22/13
to
You lost this argument a long time ago. Stop beating this dead horse
or we'll be forced to call PETA.
Anthony Marsh
May 22, 2013, 5:17:45 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 11:44 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Question: I would like to know why no one before the Oswald Innocence
> Campaign ever discussed the fact that Frazier and Lovelady were given the
> exact same photo to mark on for the Warren Commission. What, were they
> trying to save on paper and ink? This is an outrage.
>
I would like to know why many researchers before the Oswald Innocence
> Question: I would like to know why no one before the Oswald Innocence
> Campaign ever discussed the fact that Frazier and Lovelady were given the
> exact same photo to mark on for the Warren Commission. What, were they
> trying to save on paper and ink? This is an outrage.
>
Project (Registered Trademark) complained about the fact that often
multiple witnesses marked the same evidence photo.
I would also like to know why you or your buddies have never bothered to
get a copy negative of the WC exhibit.
Too lazy? Lack of funding? Maybe you should have a bake sale.
> Obviously, if you're given a photo to draw an arrow on, and there is
> already an arrow there, it's going to bias you. But apparently, that was
> the whole idea. Atty Ball was essentially giving Lovelady a hint as to
> where to draw his arrow.
>
> Frazier went first- about a month before. So, they actually dug out his
> photo with his arrow so that Lovelady would be affected by it.
>
and over. But I like your theory that it was used to bias the witness.
Maybe the witness was not smart enough to figure out what the photo was
and where he was.
> But fortunately, Lovelady did not take the bait. He drew his arrow to the
> figure that was him: Black Hole Man.
>
> http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9769/xxxxxxxxxxx3694larger.jpg
>
> That black mark on BH Man's forearm is the tail of the arrow that Lovelady
> drew. On what basis could I be wrong about that? There is only one basis:
> if someone could find another mark representing his arrow. I'll show you
> where to look:
>
> http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2618/xxxxxxxxxxx3695greysmal.jpg
>
> That grey arrow I drew, but that is where it would have to be. Where else
> could Lovelady have drawn an arrow in the black to Doorway Man? There's no
> place else. Had he drawn it, that's where it would have been.
>
> Some have suggested that I should go to Washington to examine the actual
> CE 369 in the archives- if that's possible. That would be true if I
> weren't dealing with liars and fakers. Do you think the government
of that print.
Ralph Cinque
May 22, 2013, 5:19:41 PM5/22/13
to
Another thing that grinds my gears is: If you wanted to know who Doorman was in the photo, wouldn't you just point to him directly and ask: "Who is he?"
Instead, Joseph Ball ignored Doorman and instead asked Lovelady and Frazier to draw an arrow to Lovelady.
That is gamesmanship, and in the normal course of life, no one would do that. That was coy, shrewd lawyering, and nothing more.
The question was whether Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady. So, why not ask directly? The focus was on the Man in the Doorway. So, you start with him. You point to him. That doesn't give anything away. That doesn't ruin anything. That just identifies him as the question mark, the unknown. Then you ask them to put a name to him, to solve for x.
Simple. Direct. Staightforward. Honest. But, that was too much to ask of that mealey-mouthed Joseph Ball, who deserves to be posthumously disbarred.
But, if you think about it, you realize why he did it the way he did- with the arrows. You see, drawing an arrow is a silent act that the court reporter can't pick up. At least, the court reporter doesn't pick up the location of the arrow. And that enabled Joseph Ball to talk around it- to control the conversation- if necessary. It gave Ball some breathing room- in case things went south- which they did. If he had asked Lovelady to state out-loud the name of the Man in the Doorway, Lovelady may have said "Oswald" and that would have ruined everything. It would have been like the genie escaping from the bottle- impossible to put back inside. The plain truth is that Joseph Ball didn't know what Lovelady was going to say in response to a direct question about Doorway Man, so he knew better than to ask it. What do they alway say about lawyers? That a lawyer, in court, never asks a question for which he doesn't know the answer. And this was like court. And I have a sneaking suspicion that Ball knew very well that Lovelady just might have answered "Oswald."
Where is Joseph Ball buried? I'm not saying that I'd like to go spit on his grave, but I'm not saying I wouldn't.
Instead, Joseph Ball ignored Doorman and instead asked Lovelady and Frazier to draw an arrow to Lovelady.
That is gamesmanship, and in the normal course of life, no one would do that. That was coy, shrewd lawyering, and nothing more.
The question was whether Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady. So, why not ask directly? The focus was on the Man in the Doorway. So, you start with him. You point to him. That doesn't give anything away. That doesn't ruin anything. That just identifies him as the question mark, the unknown. Then you ask them to put a name to him, to solve for x.
Simple. Direct. Staightforward. Honest. But, that was too much to ask of that mealey-mouthed Joseph Ball, who deserves to be posthumously disbarred.
But, if you think about it, you realize why he did it the way he did- with the arrows. You see, drawing an arrow is a silent act that the court reporter can't pick up. At least, the court reporter doesn't pick up the location of the arrow. And that enabled Joseph Ball to talk around it- to control the conversation- if necessary. It gave Ball some breathing room- in case things went south- which they did. If he had asked Lovelady to state out-loud the name of the Man in the Doorway, Lovelady may have said "Oswald" and that would have ruined everything. It would have been like the genie escaping from the bottle- impossible to put back inside. The plain truth is that Joseph Ball didn't know what Lovelady was going to say in response to a direct question about Doorway Man, so he knew better than to ask it. What do they alway say about lawyers? That a lawyer, in court, never asks a question for which he doesn't know the answer. And this was like court. And I have a sneaking suspicion that Ball knew very well that Lovelady just might have answered "Oswald."
Where is Joseph Ball buried? I'm not saying that I'd like to go spit on his grave, but I'm not saying I wouldn't.
timstter
May 22, 2013, 5:24:23 PM5/22/13
to
exhibits and make an identification from them or mark them..
That's why they're called Exhibits, Ralph.
As usual you simply have NO idea of what you are talking about.
Corrective 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!
That's why
John Fiorentino
May 22, 2013, 10:24:43 PM5/22/13
to
Cinque says...........
"Where is Joseph Ball buried? I'm not saying that I'd like to go spit on
his grave, but I'm not saying I wouldn't."
I say..............
How about a meat cleaver and a machete?
JF
"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f15ac87-44c7-4882...@googlegroups.com...
"Where is Joseph Ball buried? I'm not saying that I'd like to go spit on
his grave, but I'm not saying I wouldn't."
How about a meat cleaver and a machete?
JF
"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f15ac87-44c7-4882...@googlegroups.com...
Ralph Cinque
May 23, 2013, 6:54:34 PM5/23/13
to
Name one other time that a witness was asked to mark a photograph that was
previously marked by another witness. Even on game shows- when nothing is
at stake but a prize- they realize that contestants have to make their
choices without seeing what other contestants have done. This was a
blatant attempt to bait Lovelady, and fortunately, he didn't take the
bait.
And to Fiorentino, the blood and gore I leave to the Kennedy-killers
because they might as well have used a meat cleaver and a machete to
murder President Kennedy.
previously marked by another witness. Even on game shows- when nothing is
at stake but a prize- they realize that contestants have to make their
choices without seeing what other contestants have done. This was a
blatant attempt to bait Lovelady, and fortunately, he didn't take the
bait.
And to Fiorentino, the blood and gore I leave to the Kennedy-killers
because they might as well have used a meat cleaver and a machete to
murder President Kennedy.
0 new messages