http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6bf5f22d19b480a8/4b4e0aa4a2415be0?#4b4e0aa4a2415be0
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.