An Open Letter to WFAA Television

[Ralph Cinque]

An Open Letter to WFAA Television in Dallas (actually sent). I submitted it through their website here:

http://www.wfaa.com/

I am writing to you concerning the online showing of the WFAA program, A Year Ago Today, which was first broadcast on November 22, 1964. You recently revamped the entire film, and among the things you did was remove the whole clip in which Oswald was led past Billy Lovelady deep within the Dallas PD. It is a very controversial piece of footage, but it used to be there, comprising 13 seconds of the film. And now it is gone. Completely gone. This is what I am talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI

There is also a WFAA program that was supposedly broacast on the day of the assassination, so November 22, 1963, in which the Lovelady clip is present in very abbreviated form. That can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32gReucRRE&t=448s


Now, there is no question that, until recently, A Year Ago Today contained 13 seconds of the Lovelady walk-by footage. I must have viewed it 100X to study it. And I am not the only one who said so. Joseph Backes also acknowledged the length of the clip as 13 seconds. And now it is totally gone. I want to know what happened. Why did you remove it? Whose decision was it? Who authorized it?

This is being discussed on JFK assassination forums, and we would like an explanation. Thank you. Ralph Cinque

[Bud]

On May 29, 2:42 pm, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An Open Letter to WFAA Television in Dallas (actually sent). I submitted it through their website here:
>
> http://www.wfaa.com/
>
> I am writing to you concerning the online showing of the WFAA program, A Year Ago Today, which was first broadcast on November 22, 1964. You recently revamped the entire film, and among the things you did was remove the whole clip in which Oswald was led past Billy Lovelady deep within the Dallas PD. It is a very controversial piece of footage, but it used to be there, comprising 13 seconds of the film. And now it is gone. Completely gone. This is what I am talking about:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI
>
> There is also a WFAA program that was supposedly broacast on the day of the assassination, so November 22, 1963, in which the Lovelady clip is present in very abbreviated form. That can be found here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32gReucRRE&t=448s
>
> Now, there is no question that, until recently, A Year Ago Today contained 13 seconds of the Lovelady walk-by footage. I must have viewed it 100X to study it.

Good of you to be upfront about this, at least they`ll know what
they are dealing with.

[David Von Pein]

Just when you thought Ralph Cinque couldn't make a bigger fool out of
himself, he goes and does it anyway.

Ralph thinks the whole "Lovelady/Oswald" DPD clip is "completely gone"
from my video that he linked above of the "Year Ago Today" program. But,
of course, Ralph is delusional--because the whole thing is there. From the
moment Oswald walks into the outer door of the Homicide & Robbery office,
until the time the clip ends, is about 11 seconds long. Every bit of the
Lovelady footage is there. And yet Cinque wants WFAA to think it's
"completely gone" from that linked video. What a clown.

Here's the whole clip, starting at the beginning of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI&#t=2341s

[Ralph Cinque]

Then explain this, Von Pein, because they both came from you.

Below are two versions of the walk-by footage and both by WFAA. The first
is from A Year Ago Today, and the second is from television coverage on
11/22/63.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=njY87fStTjA#t=357s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32gReucRRE&t=448s

Obviously, they are very different, with the second one being much shorter.

Now, I understand the concept of "editing" but what I don't understand is
how anyone would have had time for such editing on 11/22/63.

Don't you think things were pretty frantic on that day? Don't you think
they were hastily getting the programming, the coverage put together?
Would they really have had time then on that day to ponder over that
footage, pour over the frames, remove many of them, cinch it up to just 5
seconds, etc? On 11/22/63?

It's one thing to do that in the making of an hour-long program- with a
luxurious amount of time at hand. But, this was coverage that happened
ongoing- on the day of the assassination.

And since both were WFAA, why the contradiction in editing? The top one,
from A Year Ago Today, goes from 5:57 to 6:08, so 11 seconds to show what
happened in that squad room. The bottom one, from 11/22/63, goes for less
than half that amount of time, 5 seconds, from 7:28 to 7:33. So, why the
difference?

The top one includes what I consider to be the most important element of
the clip: the delivery of Oswald to Fritz' door. After all, that was the
whole purpose of leading Oswald on the trek through the building: to take
him to Fritz. We don't see Fritz, but we see the big cop in the white hat
open the door to Fritz' office, and we see him talking to someone about
what to do with Oswald, and that someone must have been Fritz.

So, why on 11/22 would they have cut that out of the television coverage?

You posted these two things, Von Pein, but, they are from the same news
source, and they are vastly different from each other and from the many
other versions of that walk-by footage.

I maintain that never has a short news clip been "edited" as many times
and in as many ways as this one has.

[Jason Burke]

Say, Ralph, how'd that 'open letter' to WFAA go for ya?!?

I'm thinking they now know what pile to toss *all* of your
correspondence in, huh?

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

I maintain that never has a short news clip been "edited" as many
times and in as many ways as this one has.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Ralph -- it's ALL THE SAME FILM. And Lovelady is clearly visible
each time the film is shown (regardless of how many seconds of the
film are being shown).

So -- what's your point anyway?

You're claiming that Lovelady was "added" into the WFAA/DPD film, but
since we can clearly SEE Lovelady in ALL of the different "edited
down" versions of the same film--where are you going with this silly
idea that there are 5 or 6 different "versions" of that DPD film?

Time to give this one up, Ralph. Because all sensible people know that
that DPD film was not faked in order to introduce a phony image of
Billy Lovelady. That notion is just plain screwy and you know it.
Particularly since it's also your theory that the whole reason for
adding Lovelady to the DPD film was to show him in the patterned
shirt....which is a shirt that YOU say Doorway Man IS NOT EVEN WEARING
in the Altgens photo!

So the net result of this preposterous hunk of "film fakery" is to
actually EXPOSE the conspiracy that you claim the authorities were
desperately attempting to conceal, because they've put a shirt on
Lovelady's back that YOU say Doorway Man is not even wearing on
11/22!

Can this farce of Cinque's get any sillier than that?

[Ralph Cinque]

DAVID VON PEIN:

But Ralph -- it's ALL THE SAME FILM. And Lovelady is clearly visible each
time the film is shown (regardless of how many seconds of the film are
being shown).

So -- what's your point anyway?

RALPH CINQUE:

I know he's visible in every version, but he looks different; he's dressed
different (with the shirt either propped open or cinched) his hair is
combed different (combed straight back or parted and combed over) and he
acts differently (either turned left and frozen that way or spinning
around in a wide turn to the right). So just because who is supposed to be
Lovelady is "clearly visible" doesn't rectify anything.

DAVID VON PEIN:

You're claiming that Lovelady was "added" into the WFAA/DPD film, but
since we can clearly SEE Lovelady in ALL of the different "edited down"
versions of the same film--where are you going with this silly idea that
there are 5 or 6 different "versions" of that DPD film?

RALPH CINQUE:

In the first version, Lovelady was added to the original footage, and I
mean the actual footage of Oswald being led through that room on 11/22/63.
But in the remake, which they did much later, I believe it was a
reenactment. They restaged the whole thing. It was a different actor
playing Lovelady, and he looked nothing like the first guy. Honestly, can
these two guys be taken for the same man?

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/925/collage150.jpg

So, they weren't the same, and neither were the others. They didn't have
Oswald, and they didn't have the big cop. And in the first version, when
they move right to Fritz' door, we can see their faces, at least
partially. And that's why they had to leave that part out of the reenacted
version. Notice in this long sequence that the move to Fritz' door is
omited.

http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o502/Firsk/51ef590f.gif

How come Oswald and the big cop never turn right in the above clip? It's
like they are walking straight into the wall. It's because they couldn't
turn right. They were different men. They couldn't show the part where
they turn right to reach Fritz' door, like here.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4279/strainingoswald4.jpg

They had to omit it. They could only show those guys heads from the back.
They couldn't have them turning right and revealing their faces. They were
different faces.

DAVID VON PEIN:

Time to give this one up, Ralph. Because all sensible people know that
that DPD film was not faked in order to introduce a phony image of Billy
Lovelady. That notion is just plain screwy and you know it. Particularly
since it's also your theory that the whole reason for adding Lovelady to
the DPD film was to show him in the patterned shirt....which is a shirt
that YOU say Doorway Man IS NOT EVEN WEARING in the Altgens photo!

So the net result of this preposterous hunk of "film fakery" is to
actually EXPOSE the conspiracy that you claim the authorities were
desperately attempting to conceal, because they've put a shirt on
Lovelady's back that YOU say Doorway Man is not even wearing on 11/22!

Can this farce of Cinque's get any sillier than that?

RALPH CINQUE:

You're partially right, David. It's true that Lovelady did not wear that
plaid shirt on 11/22/63. And it's also true that Doorway Man was not
wearing a plaid shirt. And you know who agreed with that? Harold Weisberg.
I know Harold Weisberg is not someone that you respect, but he's someone
that I respect: a lot. Doorman's shirt was NOT checked. That's what Harold
Weisberg said. He even said it to Lovelady's wife.

So, there is that contradiction, but you are missing the point. What that
plaid shirt provided that was so valuable was not the plaidness but the
LONGSLEEVEDNESS. That was the roadblock. That was the dealbreaker. They
could always make an excuse about the discordant shirt patterns, but you
can't make excuses for having the wrong sleeve length. That's what they
were trying to fix wtih this phony movie.

And frankly, there was some stupidity involved. They probably blew up
Doorman's image and saw a varied, contrasting pattern that I call
splotchy. They didn't realize that it was just haze and distortion and
light reflection and nothing else. But, they couldn't come up with a
splotchy pattern because they don't make shirts like that. So, they
settled on plaid. They figured that was close enough. Well, it wasn't.
This isn't horse shoes or hand grenades. Close doesn't cut it. Either it's
an exact match or it isn't. But, this wasn't even close.

But again, the sleeve length was the top priority, and that's what they
were striving to get.

David, it has reached the point that denying Oswald's presence in the
doorway is preposterous. It is starkly evident that it is him and can't be
anyone else. You're shovelling sand to stop the tide. This can't be
stopped. You need to give up. JFK truth is going to win out. It is
inevitable!

[Jason Burke]

You're definitely shoveling something, Ralph. Get an expert to look at
*all* these versions of these "films," will ya? You know, a REAL expert.

But I gotta admit, your trying to make ANYTHING out of sort of almost
kinda sequential screen captures is hilarious!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Ralph, is the idea that if you pad out each post with a load of
superficial bumpf that nobody will actually realise the complete nonsense
you are talking?

I don't think it's really working, Ralph.

Concerned 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!

[Jason Burke]

How's that WFAA stuff doin' for ya, Raplh?