Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
More Photographic Fraud in the JFK case
111 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
May 23, 2013, 6:58:10 PM5/23/13
to
As for many things JFK, there are multiple and contradictory versions of
the Bob Jackson photo-shoot of Billy Lovelady. Compare these two:
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8240/collage3589.jpg
First, how about the fact that they are different men? Isn't it obvious
that they are are not the same person?
But, notice that their neck shadows are going in opposite directions in
what was supposed to be the same photo-shoot of Lovelady on the steps in
1971, and that is a 5 alarm fraud. It screams bloody murder. And there's
more that we can see besides that.
Notice that Fat Lovelady on the right has got long sideburns while Slender
Lovelady on the left doesn't. It was supposed to be the same guy at the
same time on the same day!
Note that Joseph Backes tried to deny the existence of those sideburns
until I pointed out to him that Richard Sprague also saw them, at which
point Backes had to shut the efff up about it. But, in case Backes is
still having trouble seeing them, I have them enclosed in a box.
Also notice that chubby Lovelady on our right has got a furl running all
the way down the length of his shirt whereas the slender Lovelady on our
left has got a much smaller, more compact and limited furl. The long furl
on fat Lovelady is also boxed.
Finally, notice the difference in the buttons. Fat Lovelady on our right
has got an extra button which I have circled, and it is unsecured. There
is nothing but fabric on the corresponding spot on Slender Lovelady- no
button. However, the button below that one is closed on Fat Lovelady but
open on Slender Lovelady, and I circled the open button on Slender
Lovelady so that you can compare.
Also, and I hope you don't think I'm being petty, but look at the location
of the unsecured button on Fat Lovelady which is circled and then compare
it to the secured button below it. I am wondering about the location of
the second button, the secured one. Where is that button located?
Shouldn't it be directly below the button above? Aren't the buttons
supposed to line up? That button is so far over to the edge, it seems to
be practically on the other side of the shirt. And if it's not on the
other side of the shirt, it's so far over, so close to the edge, that it
is impossibly hung. Why is it so far over, and why is it out of line with
the other button?
People, this is blatant fraud! Why would Bob Jackson get involved with
this? And if he wasn't involved, why didn't he scream bloody murder about
it? Why didn't Altgens? The power that the Almighty State has over the
minds of its minions is mind-boggling. Again, this screams fraud,
criminality, and murder.
the Bob Jackson photo-shoot of Billy Lovelady. Compare these two:
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8240/collage3589.jpg
First, how about the fact that they are different men? Isn't it obvious
that they are are not the same person?
But, notice that their neck shadows are going in opposite directions in
what was supposed to be the same photo-shoot of Lovelady on the steps in
1971, and that is a 5 alarm fraud. It screams bloody murder. And there's
more that we can see besides that.
Notice that Fat Lovelady on the right has got long sideburns while Slender
Lovelady on the left doesn't. It was supposed to be the same guy at the
same time on the same day!
Note that Joseph Backes tried to deny the existence of those sideburns
until I pointed out to him that Richard Sprague also saw them, at which
point Backes had to shut the efff up about it. But, in case Backes is
still having trouble seeing them, I have them enclosed in a box.
Also notice that chubby Lovelady on our right has got a furl running all
the way down the length of his shirt whereas the slender Lovelady on our
left has got a much smaller, more compact and limited furl. The long furl
on fat Lovelady is also boxed.
Finally, notice the difference in the buttons. Fat Lovelady on our right
has got an extra button which I have circled, and it is unsecured. There
is nothing but fabric on the corresponding spot on Slender Lovelady- no
button. However, the button below that one is closed on Fat Lovelady but
open on Slender Lovelady, and I circled the open button on Slender
Lovelady so that you can compare.
Also, and I hope you don't think I'm being petty, but look at the location
of the unsecured button on Fat Lovelady which is circled and then compare
it to the secured button below it. I am wondering about the location of
the second button, the secured one. Where is that button located?
Shouldn't it be directly below the button above? Aren't the buttons
supposed to line up? That button is so far over to the edge, it seems to
be practically on the other side of the shirt. And if it's not on the
other side of the shirt, it's so far over, so close to the edge, that it
is impossibly hung. Why is it so far over, and why is it out of line with
the other button?
People, this is blatant fraud! Why would Bob Jackson get involved with
this? And if he wasn't involved, why didn't he scream bloody murder about
it? Why didn't Altgens? The power that the Almighty State has over the
minds of its minions is mind-boggling. Again, this screams fraud,
criminality, and murder.
Jason Burke
May 23, 2013, 9:29:17 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 3:58 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> As for many things JFK, there are multiple and contradictory versions of
> the Bob Jackson photo-shoot of Billy Lovelady. Compare these two:
>
> http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8240/collage3589.jpg
>
Beyond ludicrous. You're throwing away your 32 years of chiropractic
> As for many things JFK, there are multiple and contradictory versions of
> the Bob Jackson photo-shoot of Billy Lovelady. Compare these two:
>
> http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8240/collage3589.jpg
>
"work" with this nonsense, Ralph.
I don't think I have to say how badly you've destroyed your thesis with
this, Ralph.
Ralph Cinque
May 23, 2013, 10:23:52 PM5/23/13
to
This speaks for itself, Burke.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1628/furls2.jpg
Different furls; different shirts. Notice the difference in the bottom
buttons: one closed, the other not.
McAdams is smarter than you are. He knows when to keep his mouth shut.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1628/furls2.jpg
Different furls; different shirts. Notice the difference in the bottom
buttons: one closed, the other not.
McAdams is smarter than you are. He knows when to keep his mouth shut.
John McAdams
May 23, 2013, 10:25:49 PM5/23/13
to
On 23 May 2013 22:23:52 -0400, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I know when something does not even deserve a response.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
kimt...@gmail.com
May 23, 2013, 10:31:09 PM5/23/13
to
I've come here from the facebook page that Ralph and Richard use to put
forward their theory.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8240/collage3589.jpg
When overlayed, there is nothing to export/show because... THEY MATCH.
When there's a match it requires toggling the top image on and off in
order to see any difference caused by lighting/quality, etc. This side by
side image above is more distinctly the same man than Oswald's match is to
Doorway Man, yet you could see the latter.They could also have placed the
image on the right to the same size and baseline and done a features map
line test when comparing the photos. They didnt do this.
I really think Richard and Ralph just like playing games and posting
nonsense. At first I gave them the benefit of the doubt but it seems they
just post rubbish analysis that intelligent people like the ones in this
forum bite on because it's SO frustrating to let go unchecked.
The more times you post the same thing, the more you yourselves tout more
and more "irrefutable proof". Repetition makes it more true to you. It's
like when you quoted your own article as proof that someone besides you
thought GW Bush was in Dealey. Thank you, I've learned my lesson. You
can't reason with someone who doesn't observe the rules of logic and fact.
I now know why people speak ill of you Ralph. I thought Joseph Backes was
a bully at first but his blog seems justifiable to me now
forward their theory.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8240/collage3589.jpg
When overlayed, there is nothing to export/show because... THEY MATCH.
When there's a match it requires toggling the top image on and off in
order to see any difference caused by lighting/quality, etc. This side by
side image above is more distinctly the same man than Oswald's match is to
Doorway Man, yet you could see the latter.They could also have placed the
image on the right to the same size and baseline and done a features map
line test when comparing the photos. They didnt do this.
I really think Richard and Ralph just like playing games and posting
nonsense. At first I gave them the benefit of the doubt but it seems they
just post rubbish analysis that intelligent people like the ones in this
forum bite on because it's SO frustrating to let go unchecked.
The more times you post the same thing, the more you yourselves tout more
and more "irrefutable proof". Repetition makes it more true to you. It's
like when you quoted your own article as proof that someone besides you
thought GW Bush was in Dealey. Thank you, I've learned my lesson. You
can't reason with someone who doesn't observe the rules of logic and fact.
I now know why people speak ill of you Ralph. I thought Joseph Backes was
a bully at first but his blog seems justifiable to me now
Anthony Marsh
May 23, 2013, 11:38:19 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 9:29 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 3:58 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> As for many things JFK, there are multiple and contradictory versions of
>> the Bob Jackson photo-shoot of Billy Lovelady. Compare these two:
>>
>> http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8240/collage3589.jpg
>>
>
> Beyond ludicrous. You're throwing away your 32 years of chiropractic
> "work" with this nonsense, Ralph.
>
Sounds like Chad Zimmerman. Expert in nothing.
> On 5/23/2013 3:58 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> As for many things JFK, there are multiple and contradictory versions of
>> the Bob Jackson photo-shoot of Billy Lovelady. Compare these two:
>>
>> http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8240/collage3589.jpg
>>
>
> Beyond ludicrous. You're throwing away your 32 years of chiropractic
> "work" with this nonsense, Ralph.
>
Jason Burke
May 24, 2013, 1:23:34 PM5/24/13
to
Just in case you forgot, Ralph:
Jason Burke
May 24, 2013, 1:25:53 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/23/2013 7:23 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
Everyone with more than a cursory examination of the case is smarter
than you are, Ralph. See, they know when they've been beaten repeatedly,
Ralph. And then they keep their mouths shut, Ralph.
timstter
May 24, 2013, 10:42:11 PM5/24/13
to
Of course, the idea that your OIC *Oswald In The Doorway* theory would
survive for a New York minute outside of the cosy inner cicle of
Fetzer/Cinque/Hooke etc and in the paws of the dreaded MSM is quite
LAUGHABLE!
It would last about as long as that guy who recently claimed he was an
MIA still in Vietnam.
Informative 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!
Robin Unger
May 28, 2013, 1:04:38 AM5/28/13
to
Oswald Innocence Campaign
John McAdams, Robin Unger, and Joseph Backes have each been presented with
the evidence of a clean-shaven and an unshaven Lovelady at the '71
photo-shoot. Not one of them has responded. So, what does it mean?
It means that not one of them is an honest broker or a real truth-seeker
about the JFK assassination. It means that each of them is a bonafide
Kennedy-killer, because in light of everything that is now known, anyone
who defends the official story has to be a Kennedy-killer. Such a person
is aiding and abetting the killers of President Kennedy, and that makes
him a Kennedy-killer.
And ironically, each of them espouses a different position. McAdams is an
avowed lone-nutter. Unger is an agnostic; after studying the assassination
for decades and pouring over all the photos and films, he doesn't know
whether JFK was killed by a lone-nut or a vast conspiracy; he has no
opinion. And Backes claims to be a CT while he defends everything the
official story says about Billy Lovelady.
There isn't a dime's worth of difference between these three blind mice.
Ralph Cinque
May 28, 2013, 11:12:08 AM5/28/13
to
Over on McAdam's forum, Robin Unger has posted my piece from here about
the "three blind mice"- but only the first part of it.
I don't know what happened. Did he just submit the first part? Or did
McAdams decide to edit out the remainder?
Either way, it caused me to look at the remainder, and that is where I
talked about the other disconnect: where Martin Lovelady had a big
pocket-flap but Jackson Lovelady and Groden Lovelady did not.
But, that disconnect pertains not just to Jackson Lovelady and Groden
Lovelady, but also to the Dallas PD Loveladys. And I say "Loveladys"
(plural) because there were two. Here they are alongside Martin Lovelady:
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/8890/collage615.jpg
First, I want you to notice that on Martin Lovelady on the left and the
Lovelady in the middle, they forgot to prop open their shirts like on
Doorman. I tell you the boneheadedness of these people is unbelievable.
Plus, the sprawl we're seeing on DeNiro Lovelady on the right looks very
artificial to me. How do you wind up with a rectangular spread? Isn't it
supposed to be triangular?
But now notice on the left Martin Lovelady's big pocket-flap and its
absence on the other two.
There's not much you can say about the guy in the middle, but some have
tried to say that the guy on the right has the pocket flap but it's
sticking straight up, flush against the shirt. Oh really? Has that ever
happened to you? It's never happened to me. I'm not buying it.
And while you're at it, notice the pack of cigarettes in the pockets of
the two Loveladys in the middle and on the right. Why doesn't Martin
Lovelady have a pack of cigarettes there? We saw him smoking in the film.
Here's the frame:
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/1979/loveladysmoking.jpg
So, where did he get that cigarette? There's no pack in his pocket. Was
that his last one from a previous pack? Then what happened to the empty
pack? Did he throw it away? But, where? There was no trash can there on
the street. There isn't now, and we don't see one in any of the footage.
Would he have just littered? Right in front of the police, just thrown it
on the ground?
Or did he bum a cigarette off someone else? That seems very unlikely to
me. For one, Lovelady was a confirmed smoker, and he would have had his
own cigarettes. He wasn't one of those people who only smoked when people
offered him one.
For two, who would he have bummed it off? We don't see anyone else in the
6 second footage smoking. So, there are really no grounds to go there.
If you look closely, you can easily the button or snap that secured Martin
Lovelady's pocket flap:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3443/loveladyflap2.jpg
You see that small white dot? That's what it is. So, he had a pocket flap;
the other two did not. So, how could they possibly have been the same man?
Of course, they don't look anything like him anyway- or like each other.
People: this is a joke. Did they really expect to get away with this?
the "three blind mice"- but only the first part of it.
I don't know what happened. Did he just submit the first part? Or did
McAdams decide to edit out the remainder?
Either way, it caused me to look at the remainder, and that is where I
talked about the other disconnect: where Martin Lovelady had a big
pocket-flap but Jackson Lovelady and Groden Lovelady did not.
But, that disconnect pertains not just to Jackson Lovelady and Groden
Lovelady, but also to the Dallas PD Loveladys. And I say "Loveladys"
(plural) because there were two. Here they are alongside Martin Lovelady:
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/8890/collage615.jpg
First, I want you to notice that on Martin Lovelady on the left and the
Lovelady in the middle, they forgot to prop open their shirts like on
Doorman. I tell you the boneheadedness of these people is unbelievable.
Plus, the sprawl we're seeing on DeNiro Lovelady on the right looks very
artificial to me. How do you wind up with a rectangular spread? Isn't it
supposed to be triangular?
But now notice on the left Martin Lovelady's big pocket-flap and its
absence on the other two.
There's not much you can say about the guy in the middle, but some have
tried to say that the guy on the right has the pocket flap but it's
sticking straight up, flush against the shirt. Oh really? Has that ever
happened to you? It's never happened to me. I'm not buying it.
And while you're at it, notice the pack of cigarettes in the pockets of
the two Loveladys in the middle and on the right. Why doesn't Martin
Lovelady have a pack of cigarettes there? We saw him smoking in the film.
Here's the frame:
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/1979/loveladysmoking.jpg
So, where did he get that cigarette? There's no pack in his pocket. Was
that his last one from a previous pack? Then what happened to the empty
pack? Did he throw it away? But, where? There was no trash can there on
the street. There isn't now, and we don't see one in any of the footage.
Would he have just littered? Right in front of the police, just thrown it
on the ground?
Or did he bum a cigarette off someone else? That seems very unlikely to
me. For one, Lovelady was a confirmed smoker, and he would have had his
own cigarettes. He wasn't one of those people who only smoked when people
offered him one.
For two, who would he have bummed it off? We don't see anyone else in the
6 second footage smoking. So, there are really no grounds to go there.
If you look closely, you can easily the button or snap that secured Martin
Lovelady's pocket flap:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3443/loveladyflap2.jpg
You see that small white dot? That's what it is. So, he had a pocket flap;
the other two did not. So, how could they possibly have been the same man?
Of course, they don't look anything like him anyway- or like each other.
People: this is a joke. Did they really expect to get away with this?
Anthony Marsh
May 28, 2013, 11:12:29 AM5/28/13
to
thoughts. At least use a semi-colon, such as Cinque says:
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 3, 2013, 10:23:42 AM6/3/13
to
What the HELL are you talking about now?!!
Concerned Regards,
0 new messages