Oswald Innocence Project founded

[buda...@gmail.com]

A network has been formed to advance the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald
based upon his presence in the Altgens photo. The Oswald Innocence Project
was conceived by Ralph Cinque, and it is mentored by Dr. David Wrone. The
OIP website features many images and collages which demonstrate that the
"Man in the Doorway" was Oswald. It had to be him, and it could not have
been Billy Lovelady. Multiple confirmations exist based upon very his
distinctive clothing and his specific bodily manifestations. It is also
shown how the Altgens photo was crudely altered and how multiple attempts
were made to fraudulently show Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt. The
magnitude and extent of the fraud are staggering to consider.

Oswald in the doorway is no longer a speculation; it is a fact. And, it is
rapidly becoming Ground Zero in the whole JFK debate, and it will only
intensify as the 50th anniversary draws near.

Please visit the OIP website at: www.oswald-innocent.com.

It is also available at these sister sites:

www.jfk-assassination.info
www.jfk-assassination.biz
www.jfk-assassination.us

[Jason Burke]

My goodness! Too bad that's Lovelady in the dorrway.

Or, wait a minute! Hold the phone! Maybe Lovelady did it!

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, Euins did say the shooter had a bald spot on his head.

[claviger]

This is hilarious! I love it. CTs are so much fun. Bring it on.
As Forrest Gump always said: "Stupid is as stupid does."
The Lovelady in the doorway question was settled a long time ago.

[claviger]

On Jul 26, 9:57 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes, if that's LHO in the doorway then Lovelady must be upstairs on the
6th floor shooting at the motorcade. Then the guilty guy tried to make a
run for it. Oh wait, that was LHO.

So why did the innocent guy run away and the guilty guy hang around? Why
did innocent-guy shoot a cop and guilty-guy go the police and make a
statement? Why did innocent-guy own the murder weapons and guilty- guy
was unarmed? Why did innocent-guy have his picture made as a "Hunter of
Fascists! Ha Ha" and guilty-guy has no connection to those weapons and no
"Ha Ha" pictures? Why did innocent-guy lie about having his picture made
with the murder weapons when his wife admitted she took those photos and
he gave a copy to a friend? Does guilty-guy have no close friends to give
incriminating photos to? How sad.

[Canuck]

On Jul 26, 7:57 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Or, wait a minute! Hold the phone! Maybe Lovelady did it!- Hide quoted text -
>

It's possibly a typo, but your mean "doorway". - prw

[deke]

If it was Oswald in the doorway, it seems strange that after witnessing
the assassination, he would run up to the second floor lunchroom to have a
coke, and do so apparently without being noticed. Also, where was Billy
Lovelady supposed to be during this time. I may have missed it, but the
website doesn't seem to address this.

[claviger]

He must have a Scottish accent. You know how the Scots like to roll
those rrr's.

[claviger]

deke,

The WC asked him that very question:
_____________________________________________________________

Mr. BALL - What did you do after you went down and washed up; what did
you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs
and got a coke and come on back down.
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the
domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody
was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was
standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I
said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my
lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL - What did you hear?
Mr. LOVELADY - I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating
the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had
happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the
President had been shot.
_____________________________________________________________
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

Notice all the witnesses who can verify he was where he said. This
OIP is a nonstarter.
_____________________________________________________________

Mr. BALL - Then what happened?
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran
back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy
Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old
island and we stopped there for a minute.
Mr. BALL - Across the street, you mean directly south?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, slightly to the right, you know where the light is
there?
_____________________________________________________________
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm

[claviger]

On Jul 26, 7:34 pm, budab...@gmail.com wrote:

budab,

Don't give them any money. It's a scam.

JFK Lancer : Billy Lovelady
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/index.html - 16k - similar
pagesThe Myth of Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository
Doorway. ... They claimed that the man in the photograph was Billy
Lovelady and not Oswald. figure 2.

Was Lee Oswald Standing in the Depository Doorway?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald_doorway.htm - 13k - similar
pagesThey quickly identified Billy Nolan Lovelady as the man in the
doorway, and questioned several people about the whereabouts of
themselves and Lovelady as ...

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

Oh for God's sake. At least get up to date.

Start a James Holmes Innocence Project.

[Jason Burke]

Just for giggily-poos, I took a look. I've read about some fantastically
out-there conspiracy theories, but this one MIGHT just take the cake!

At least it'll get Best of Show for 2012.

[Anthony Marsh]

What's your point? He was noticed. So what?

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

We caught a little bit of a break here. Oswald's lie about being in a
lunchroom on a lower floor could possibly have been the lie--I was out
front of the building--which I doubt he would have used that particular
lie because just quick consideration on his part under questioning would
probably prevent a lie where you know that the false place you claimed to
be there was for sure a bunch of folks none of whom could vouch for him
being there. (Not to mention if it WAS true why didn't he answer that to
Fritz. The motorcade was passing by and he was on the steps with other
people around? And that's not his answer?)

Anyhow, he could have conceivably answered that way out of the blue.
Then we have that picture and him saying that. God all-mighty can you
imagine?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/28/2012 12:17 AM, Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser wrote:
> We caught a little bit of a break here. Oswald's lie about being in a
> lunchroom on a lower floor could possibly have been the lie--I was out

Where is your proof that Oswald said he was in the lunchroom?
The interrogations were not recorded. Cite your hearsay.

> front of the building--which I doubt he would have used that particular
> lie because just quick consideration on his part under questioning would
> probably prevent a lie where you know that the false place you claimed to
> be there was for sure a bunch of folks none of whom could vouch for him
> being there. (Not to mention if it WAS true why didn't he answer that to
> Fritz. The motorcade was passing by and he was on the steps with other
> people around? And that's not his answer?)
>

A lot of people could not have proved where they were during the shots and
a lot of people lied about where they were during the shots. Some people
claim that were witnesses when they were not even in Dealey Plaza. There
are false sightings of favorite suspects. We see someone in a photograph
and moment later he disappears.

[ThePuttKing]

oswald did the shooting

[bigdog]

Could it be that the CTs have finally exhausted all the crazy new
conspiracy theories and are being forced to start recycling the old ones?

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

Anthony,

Sorry. Maybe Fritz was a liar doesn't cut it.


It's juvenile.

[Jason Burke]

Thankfully, I think that is the answer. But Cinque does talk in an
authoritative voice <snicker>.

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

I like it when Anthony says "Habeas corpus". He sounds so cool.

[seansmil...@gmail.com]

Myself, I don't believe the conspirators would be so inept as to leave their patsy out front for the world to see.... But not to give comfort to LNers--if someone had got a shot (seconds later) of Baker & Truly just after they entered the building, they would have also, I believe, gotten a shot of Oswald, on his apparent mission to delay any coppers....
dcs

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

And from reading his responses it seems that he may be under the impression thet if a suspects words are not recorded they are hearsay.

I hope his river of errors does not run that deep.

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

Anthony is also confused about what hearsay is. Anytime a non-conspiracist reports on what the cops said he dismisses it as hearsay. WE would not have been the witness. Fritz would have been, and he would be directly testifying to what Oswald said to him, not what someone else told him Oswald said.

[Anthony Marsh]

Fritz was a klutz. Lots of the cops were liars. Why do you have a
knee-jerk reaction to always defend cops?

[buda...@gmail.com]

All right, so I have finally entered the lair of the lone-nutters, the
progeny of John McAdams. It's about a time. Your easy days are over.

First, none of you have addressed a single piece of my evidence. Instead,
you just resort to the "what about this, what about that" tactic.

Well, we've got pictures and collages of Oswald standing in front of that
building, and that trumps, it cancels anything you have to say along the
line of what about this and what about that.

Do not evade. Do not dissemble. And do not distract. Account for those
many likenesses, so many identical data points between Doorman and Oswald.
If you can't dispute them, and I mean directly, in a focused, detailed
way, then they stand unchallenged.

Now, somebody posted some WC testimony of Lovelady. Do you know how many
people the WC showed the Altgens photo to? Two. Lovelady and Frazier. No
one else. Why didn't they show it to everybody from the TSBD? Here are the
testmonies of both Lovelady and Frazier:

In his Warren Commission testimony, Billy claimed to be at the top of the
steps, and presumably, he drew an arrow pointing to Doorman to identify
himself in the picture.

The problem is that the exact same exhibit- Exhibit 369 - was declared to
be the one in which Buell Frazier drew an arrow to indicate Lovelady. The
WC showed the Altgens photo to only two people: Billy Lovelady and Buell
Frazier, and it resulted in there being one exhibit, one marked
photograph, that was attributed to both of them. More WC flim-flam. Here
are their two testimonies, first Lovelady's and then Frazier's.

Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on
th at 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.

Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows
the President's car going by.

Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less
black area here.

Mr. BALL - I see.

Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in
front of me.

Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow?

Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.

Mr. BALL - Billy?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right

Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark
is Billy Lovelady?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 369 for
identification.)

Mr. BALL - That is written in. The arrow marks Billy Lovelady on
Commission's Exhibit No. 369.

Read the above testimonies again. How could Billy be "two or three steps
down in front" of Frazier, according to Frazier, and also be, according to
Lovelady, "on your top level"? They were referring to the same picture,
the s ame moment in time.

[Ralph Cinque]

This is Ralph Cinque. Nobody has contested a single picture collage that I
have posted on the Oswald Innocence Project website which shows the
startling likeness between Oswald and Doorman. Get something straight: you
have to defeat that because it trumps everything else. It cancels out
everything else. If that's Oswald standing there (and it is) the rest is
blather. So deal with it directly; don't talk around it.

Regarding the WC testimonies concernning the Altgens, it's interesting
because they only showed it to two witnesses: Lovelady and Frazier. No one
else. You'd think they would have showed the Altgens to everybody from the
TSBD. But here's how the testimonies of Lovelady and Frazier went down.

In his Warren Commission testimony, Billy claimed to be at the top of the
steps, and presumably, he drew an arrow pointing to Doorman to identify
himself in the picture.

The problem is that the exact same exhibit- Exhibit 369 - was declared to
be the one in which Buell Frazier drew an arrow to indicate Lovelady. The
WC showed the Altgens photo to only two people: Billy Lovelady and Buell
Frazier, and it resulted in there being one exhibit, one marked
photograph, that was attributed to both of them. More WC flim-flam. Here

are their two testimonies, first Frazier's from March 11, and then
Lovelady's from April 7.

Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by.
Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL - I see.
Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL - Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 369 for identification.)
Mr. BALL - That is written in. The arrow marks Billy Lovelady on Commission's Exhibit No. 369.

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.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/29/2012 1:09 PM, Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser wrote:
> Anthony is also confused about what hearsay is. Anytime a non-conspiracist reports on what the cops said he dismisses it as hearsay. WE would not have been the witness. Fritz would have been, and he would be directly testifying to what Oswald said to him, not what someone else told him Oswald said.
>

When Fritz actually testified he lied and said he took no notes. You
cite known perjurers.

[Anthony Marsh]

Likewise you don't believe that in the Watergate burglary the master
conspirators would be so inept as to leave the tape on the outside edge of
the door so that the security guard would see it and realize there were
burglars inside the Watergate Complex.

[buda...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:59:35 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/28/2012 10:29 PM, Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser wrote: > Anthony, > > Sorry. Maybe Fritz was a liar doesn't cut it. > > > It's juvenile. > Fritz was a klutz. Lots of the cops were liars. Why do you have a knee-jerk reaction to always defend cops?

[Ralph Cinque]

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

And yes i do defend Fritz. You defend Oswald. I want that made clear.

Here is who you are defending. Here's what Oswald said to Fritz about
the Neely street address, where the photo of him and the guns was taken. I
give you just one of Oswald's desperate lies to deny anything having to do
with the rifle. No matter how ridiculous. Which to any rational person
consititutes a conscious level of guilt.

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the Neely Street address and he denied that
address. He denied having a picture made over there and he even denied
living there. I told him he had people who visited him over there and he
said they were just wrong about visiting.

[seansmil...@gmail.com]

Yes, like Fritz noting that Oswald said he ran into a cop on the 2nd
floor. But according to the FBI's Hosty, Oswald said nothing about a cop
on the 2nd floor.

dcw

[Ralph Cinque]

Let's consider the possibilities concerning the WC having the same exhibit
for Frazier and Lovelady. Why would they do that? You don't have to be a
professor at Marquette University to realize that if you're going to give
someone a test, you don't put any answers on it.

Did they really do that? Since Frazier went first, it would mean that they
showed Lovelady an Altgens photo with an arrow already pointing to Doorman
that Frazier drew. If they did that, it means that they were totally
corrupt and were blatantly guiding the investigation to a pre-determined
result.

But what remains as a possibility? Is it possible they really did use
fresh, unmarked photos for each of them, but they just got the exhibit
number wrong on one of them? No, that is not possible, because if that had
happened, the other exhibit would still exist. It might have a different
number or no number at all, but it would exist, and it would be
distinguishable from the Exhibit 369. Even in drawing an arrow to the same
figure, two people would not do it identically. They would either be
distinguishable at first glance- by anybody- or at worst, a forensic
handwriting expert would be required to tell them apart. But they would
definitely be distinguishable because no two nervous systems are the same-
even when it comes to drawing an arro w on a photo.

So, that's out. What else is there? Well, maybe they made it up. Maybe
there was some confusion as to how to go about doing it. Maybe the left
hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.

That's the only other thing I can think of.

So, either they lead Lovelady by the hand by showing him a picture which
already had an arrow on it OR they just made the whole thing up.

Anybody have any other ideas?

[Ralph Cinque]

Anthony, do you understand that you can't deny what your eyes can see?
Your consideration of what the conspirators would allow or not allow is
totally irrelevant. Forget about it. Just look at the pictures. It's
Oswald's tweed shirt, with the little furl under the right collar, and the
long lapel on the left side running down, and the v-shaped t-shirt. There
is a perfect match to Oswald's right ear. There is an excellent match to
Oswald's square chin. The open sprawl of the shirt is also a perfect
match. There are too many of these things to deny that it's him. So, why
are you bringing up irrelevant stuff? Why are you bringing up Watergate?
Just study the pictures. It's Oswald!

[Jason Burke]

On 7/29/2012 6:12 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> This is Ralph Cinque. Nobody has contested a single picture collage

Not recently. But your nonsense was dealt with decades ago. You're
wrong, "Doctor".

that I
> have posted on the Oswald Innocence Project website which shows the
> startling likeness between Oswald and Doorman. Get something straight: you
> have to defeat that because it trumps everything else. It cancels out
> everything else. If that's Oswald standing there (and it is)

No it isn't. You're dreaming.

the rest is
> blather.

Oh, like everything you've posted on this nonsense?

[Jason Burke]

No, it's not. That's been established decades ago.

>

[Ralph Cinque]

Well, you didn't say anything. You didn't address anything. There is a ton
of information and numerous images on this site:

www.oswald-innocent.com.

Actually go there and find one thing on it that is wrong, and post it
here. I dare you.

[John McAdams]

On 26 Jul 2012 20:34:28 -0400, buda...@gmail.com wrote:

>A network has been formed to advance the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald
>based upon his presence in the Altgens photo. The Oswald Innocence Project
>was conceived by Ralph Cinque, and it is mentored by Dr. David Wrone. The
>OIP website features many images and collages which demonstrate that the
>"Man in the Doorway" was Oswald. It had to be him, and it could not have
>been Billy Lovelady. Multiple confirmations exist based upon very his
>distinctive clothing and his specific bodily manifestations. It is also
>shown how the Altgens photo was crudely altered and how multiple attempts
>were made to fraudulently show Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt. The
>magnitude and extent of the fraud are staggering to consider.
>
>Oswald in the doorway is no longer a speculation; it is a fact. And, it is
>rapidly becoming Ground Zero in the whole JFK debate, and it will only
>intensify as the 50th anniversary draws near.
>
>Please visit the OIP website at: www.oswald-innocent.com.
>
>It is also available at these sister sites:
>
>www.jfk-assassination.info
>www.jfk-assassination.biz
>www.jfk-assassination.us

Oswald was asked by newsmen whether he was in the building at the time
of the assassination.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: I work in that building.

Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.

So you need to explain why, if Oswald had this splendid alibi, he did
not use it.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jason Burke]

Uh, Cinque. Your nonsense was refuted decades ago. Now, go find
something else to play with.

[clams...@gmail.com]

Actually all of your photo "work" has been contested and refuted at the JFK research Forum and at the Education forum. Craig Lamson has destroyed your work and has shown convincingly that you don't know anything about photography.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah now, wait a minute. Couldn't he modify his theory into Billy
Lovelady being Lee Harvey Oswald's twin brother separated at birth? So
we couldn't really be sure which twin was on the steps and which twin
was in the sniper's nest? Think about it! It could be fun.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because Dallas was so corrupt that no alibi would be good enough. One of
the cops said that Givens would change his story for money.

[dwro...@gmail.com]

On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, deke wrote:
>> If it was Oswald in the doorway, it seems strange that after witnessing
>> the assassination, he would run up to the second floor lunchroom to have a
>> coke, and do so apparently without being noticed. Also, where was Billy
>> Lovelady supposed to be during this time. I may have missed it, but the
>> website doesn't seem to address this.
>>

>What's your point? He was noticed. So what?

You lost me Anthony. My point is simply that if it was Oswald in the doorway, he would have had to very quickly move from that location to the coffee room on the second floor on the other end of the building for his encounter with Baker and Truly. It seems that someone should have seen him along the way. Are you saying that someone did? My other point is what was he thinking? "Well, looks like they just shot the president. Time to run upstairs for a soft drink."

[Anthony Marsh]

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/29/2012 10:03 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Let's consider the possibilities concerning the WC having the same exhibit
> for Frazier and Lovelady. Why would they do that? You don't have to be a
> professor at Marquette University to realize that if you're going to give
> someone a test, you don't put any answers on it.
>
> Did they really do that? Since Frazier went first, it would mean that they
> showed Lovelady an Altgens photo with an arrow already pointing to Doorman
> that Frazier drew. If they did that, it means that they were totally
> corrupt and were blatantly guiding the investigation to a pre-determined
> result.
>
> But what remains as a possibility? Is it possible they really did use
> fresh, unmarked photos for each of them, but they just got the exhibit
> number wrong on one of them? No, that is not possible, because if that had
> happened, the other exhibit would still exist. It might have a different
> number or no number at all, but it would exist, and it would be
> distinguishable from the Exhibit 369. Even in drawing an arrow to the same
> figure, two people would not do it identically. They would either be
> distinguishable at first glance- by anybody- or at worst, a forensic
> handwriting expert would be required to tell them apart. But they would
> definitely be distinguishable because no two nervous systems are the same-

> even when it comes to drawing an arro= on a photo.
>

FYI, the WC did sometimes use the same photograph for more than one
witness. The expert might be asked to mark something and then a witness
might be asked if it is correct or to correct it.

[Anthony Marsh]

So what?

[Ralph Cinque]

John, Oswald did tell Detective Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley
in front" and he must have meant during the assassination because that was
the only time Bill Shelley was out there. Shelley left immediately after
the assassination with Lovelady to walk down to the railroad tracks (from
a distance they saw Truly and Baker enter the building), and when they
returned, they re-entered through the back door and were in there for a
long time. Shelley was definitely not out in front at the time Oswald
departed, and Lee had no reason to make that up. So, he must have meant
that he was out with Bill Shelley in front during the shooting.

The other statement, to which you referred, was framed by the reporter,
not by Oswald. And why take it so literally? Isn't being on the landing,
in that foyer by the front door within the realm of the building?

But, you're missing something far more important: if we can see Oswald in
the picture (and we can, with numerous data point confirmations) it
doesn't matter what Lee or anyone else said. Do you understand that there
is a hierarchy to all this? That some things matter more than others? That
nothing matters more than seeing the man in a picture? That puts him
there- no matter what he or anyone else said.

John, I presume you are aware that there were testimonies that never made
it into the Warren Report, such as that of Carolyn Arnold. And I presume
you know there were witnesses who were never called to testify. The
question is: if there were someone who claimed to have seen Oswald on the
landing, would they have included that in the Warren Report?

I'll tell you what would have happened, John. Big men in suits and
sunglasses who spoke in gruff monotones would have visited that witness
and told him or her in no uncertain terms that he or she did not see
Oswald on the landing, that they were mistaken about it, and that they
mustn't say it again-to anyone-or else. You know- the kind of treatment
that other witnesses received.

So, whether anyone saw Oswald or not, I don't claim to know, but I know
very well it would never have been allowed into the Warren Report- under
any circumstances.

[Jason Burke]

Don't give him any ideas.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

All this was answered by me on the Amazon discussion forum, Ralph.

None of the known witnesses on the steps (I provided quotes there, I'm not
going to bother to look them up so you can ignore it here as well)
described being on the steps as being *inside* the building. They all said
they were *outside* on the steps. Oswald knew the difference, too.
Everyone here but you appears to know the difference between being inside
the building and outside on the steps.

Shelley and Lovelady had an encounter with another witness (Gloria
Calvary) so neither he nor Shelley left immediately. In any case, Shelley
denied seeing Oswald or having any conversation with him anytime after
noon. So Oswald was lying about the encounter with Shelley, which he was
using as an excuse to explain why he was the only employee to leave work
almost immediately after the shooting and go back to his roominghouse. He
claimed in custody Shelley told him there'd be no more work that day. So
Oswald did have a reason to make that up -- something you deny as a
possibility on no grounds whatsoever. But that conversation, if it
happened at all, would have been some time after the assassination, not
during the assassination itself (when you claim Oswald was out front with
Shelley).

Of course, over on the Amazon discussion boards, you claimed Shelley was a
liar and was lying about not talking to Oswald, so I expect you to take
that same approach here.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/29/2012 9:52 PM, Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser wrote:
> And yes i do defend Fritz. You defend Oswald. I want that made clear.
>

You want to make it clear that you refuse to debate honestly.

> Here is who you are defending. Here's what Oswald said to Fritz about
> the Neely street address, where the photo of him and the guns was taken. I
> give you just one of Oswald's desperate lies to deny anything having to do
> with the rifle. No matter how ridiculous. Which to any rational person
> consititutes a conscious level of guilt.
>

You don't know for sure what Oswald said during the interrogations.

> Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the Neely Street address and he denied that
> address. He denied having a picture made over there and he even denied
> living there. I told him he had people who visited him over there and he
> said they were just wrong about visiting.
>

Hearsay. Please list the people who visited him there and prove it,
which Fritz could not do.

[Anthony Marsh]

Plenty of time. Once he sees Baker running up to the TSBD he turns and
runs the other way to hide in the lunch room. Remember, Baker said he was
Oswald as Oswald was going into the lunch room. That's what caught his eye
as he was headed to the top floor.

[Anthony Marsh]

Strange to see you posting here and almost using your real name, but at
least posting with a GMail account so that no one knows who you are. You
also need to remind the kook that the HSCA settled the matter in 1978 and
even Groden admitted it was Lovelady.


BTW, it is considered illeism to refer to yourself in the third person on
the InterNet.

[seansmil...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 30, 2012 5:59:55 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, deke wrote:
>
> >> If it was Oswald in the doorway, it seems strange that after witnessing
>
> >> the assassination, he would run up to the second floor lunchroom to have a
>
> >> coke, and do so apparently without being noticed. Also, where was Billy
>
> >> Lovelady supposed to be during this time. I may have missed it, but the
>
> >> website doesn't seem to address this.
>
> >>
>
>
>
> >What's your point? He was noticed. So what?
>
>
>

> You lost me Anthony. My point is simply that if it was Oswald in the
doorway, he would have had to very quickly move from that location to the
coffee room on the second floor on the other end of the building for his
encounter with Baker and Truly. It seems that someone should have seen him
along the way.

Baker & Truly saw him, near the entrance, as they entered. Check the
testi mony of the postal inspector....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2012 2:38 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> John, Oswald did tell Detective Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley
> in front" and he must have meant during the assassination because that was
> the only time Bill Shelley was out there. Shelley left immediately after
> the assassination with Lovelady to walk down to the railroad tracks (from
> a distance they saw Truly and Baker enter the building), and when they
> returned, they re-entered through the back door and were in there for a
> long time. Shelley was definitely not out in front at the time Oswald
> departed, and Lee had no reason to make that up. So, he must have meant
> that he was out with Bill Shelley in front during the shooting.
>
> The other statement, to which you referred, was framed by the reporter,
> not by Oswald. And why take it so literally? Isn't being on the landing,
> in that foyer by the front door within the realm of the building?
>
> But, you're missing something far more important: if we can see Oswald in
> the picture (and we can, with numerous data point confirmations) it
> doesn't matter what Lee or anyone else said. Do you understand that there
> is a hierarchy to all this? That some things matter more than others? That
> nothing matters more than seeing the man in a picture? That puts him
> there- no matter what he or anyone else said.
>

There is not hierarchy to this. You are basing your theory on a false
premise, a common mistake in logic.
And your photographic interpretation is garbage.

> John, I presume you are aware that there were testimonies that never made
> it into the Warren Report, such as that of Carolyn Arnold. And I presume
> you know there were witnesses who were never called to testify. The
> question is: if there were someone who claimed to have seen Oswald on the
> landing, would they have included that in the Warren Report?
>

Of course not. But then how would you know about it? You may have to
make it up from your imagination.

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

Small technical point here----Lovelady said it was Lovelady.

[Jason Burke]

On 7/30/2012 11:38 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> John, Oswald did tell Detective Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley
> in front" and he must have meant during the assassination because that was
> the only time Bill Shelley was out there. Shelley left immediately after
> the assassination with Lovelady to walk down to the railroad tracks (from
> a distance they saw Truly and Baker enter the building), and when they
> returned, they re-entered through the back door and were in there for a
> long time. Shelley was definitely not out in front at the time Oswald
> departed, and Lee had no reason to make that up. So, he must have meant
> that he was out with Bill Shelley in front during the shooting.
>
> The other statement, to which you referred, was framed by the reporter,
> not by Oswald. And why take it so literally? Isn't being on the landing,
> in that foyer by the front door within the realm of the building?
>
> But, you're missing something far more important: if we can see Oswald in
> the picture (and we can, with numerous data point confirmations)

From fantasy. Cinque, Your nonsense has STILL been discarded decades ago.

it
> doesn't matter what Lee or anyone else said. Do you understand that there
> is a hierarchy to all this? That some things matter more than others? That
> nothing matters more than seeing the man in a picture?

Oh, you mean Lovelady.

That puts him
> there- no matter what he or anyone else said.
>
> John, I presume you are aware that there were testimonies that never made
> it into the Warren Report, such as that of Carolyn Arnold. And I presume
> you know there were witnesses who were never called to testify. The
> question is: if there were someone who claimed to have seen Oswald on the
> landing, would they have included that in the Warren Report?
>

Well, was there? What have you found that no one in the past 49 years
hasn't?

> I'll tell you what would have happened, John. Big men in suits and
> sunglasses who spoke in gruff monotones would have visited that witness
> and told him or her in no uncertain terms that he or she did not see
> Oswald on the landing, that they were mistaken about it, and that they
> mustn't say it again-to anyone-or else. You know- the kind of treatment
> that other witnesses received.
>

Phhhtttt..

> So, whether anyone saw Oswald or not, I don't claim to know,

Well, thank goodness for that. But here's a hint. No one saw Ozzie
there, because he wasn't there.

No matter how much you whine and moan.

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

"Plenty of time. Once he sees Baker running up to the TSBD he turns and
runs the other way to hide in the lunch room. Remember, Baker said he was
Oswald as Oswald was going into the lunch room. That's what caught his eye
as he was headed to the top floor."

Hearsay

[Ralph Cinque]

Now to Burke:

As I told Marsh, general disparagements don't cut it. It only shows
weakness. Either you address the specifics, the concretes, or you are just
blowing smoke.

The only likenesses between Doorman and Lovelady are the ones that they
had the means to impose. The large structural elements which couldn't be
modified- including the loose-fitting, unbuttoned, sprawled open, outer
shirt, with the collar and furled pseudo-lapel on the right, and the long
lapel on the left, over the v-shaped t-shirt are all a perfect match to
Oswald and non-match to Lovelady- regardless of which shirt you want to
claim he wore.

And are you aware that physical evidence trumps eye-witness testimony?
It's true in a court of law. And seeing Oswald in that picture constitutes
physical evidence. And again, it's not only because he looks like Oswald
in a general way but because of specific data points of confirmation:
including perfectly mached right ears and perfectly matched chins, and
both in contrast to Lovelady.

You see, you are simply stating an untruth when you say that Doorman
looked like Lovelady. He didn't. And even to begin to claim it, you need
to list specifically what features you consider bingo. You see, this
involves work. You can't just flap your lips. You're not the King of Siam:
"So let it be written, so let it be done."

And why doesn't anyone want to talk about the strange realization that the
same exhibit was used for Lovelady drawing on the picture as Frazier? And
I'll tell you honestly that your collective silence about that has made me
realize how powerful that finding is, and it's caused me to go back and
embellish what I have written about it on the OIP site. Here is how it
appears:

Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you in 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.

Read the above testimonies again. How could Billy be "two or three steps
down in front" of Frazier, according to Frazier, and also be, according to
Lovelady, "on your top level"? They were referring to the same picture,

the same moment in time. But, the whole exchange is bizarre. If they asked
Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself in a picture, and if he saw that
there was already an arrow drawn there by someone else, wouldn't he say
something?

"Well, there is already an arrow there, and it is pointing to me. Do you
want me to draw another arrow, or do you want me to draw over that one?"

And even before that, wouldn't Mr. Ball have said:

"You'll notice there is already an arrow there, which was drawn by another
witness. But, we want to know what you think. So, just ignore that arrow
and draw another one of your own."

Is there any chance there were two separate photos, one for each of them,
and they just confused the exhibit numbers? No, because if that were true,
then the second photo would still exist. It might have a different
number-or no number- but it would still be intact. Right?

And if both Lovelady and Frazier marked the same photo, why didn't they
indicate whose arrow was whose? Maybe have them initial it? But really, it
is just weird and inexplicable that they would have had them both mark the
same copy. That's why we should consider the possibility that the
testimony was faked. The whole behavior seems very strange.

[Ralph Cinque]

Marsh, you said nothing. Either address concrete issues or I shall ignore
you.

Seinzant, the last I heard from you, you were claiming a woman's white
blouse in Altgens showed up black in Weigman.

http://tinypic.com/r/261okgl/6

And I'll tell you, as I've told the others, that it doesn't matter what
Oswald or anyone else said- not when we can see Oswald in the picture- and
we can.

But, you're making a mountain out of molehill in regard to that comment,
which was framed by the reporter. What if the reporter had asked, "Were
you standing outside with the others at the time?"

What he told Fritz was far more important. "Out with Bill Shelley in
front" And he had to be talking about DURING the assassination:

My opponents have tried to say that when he said that, Lee was not talking
about his location during the assassination, but rather, some time
afterwards. But, that makes no sense. Carolyn Arnold reported seeing
Oswald inside as late as 12:25 pm, which was just 5 minutes before the
shooting. So, he could not have been referring to being outside with Bill
Shelley before the assassination. And within 90 seconds after the
assassination, he was encountered in the lunchroom by Truly and Baker.
And he could not have meant being “out with Bill Shelley in front”
after that because Bill Shelley was not out in front after that. Bill
Shelley said that, after the shooting, he left immediately with Billy
Lovelady to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around, and when they
returned, they re-entered the building through the back door and were
inside for a good long while. So, Shelley was definitely not “out in
front” after the assassination when Oswald was leaving.

Should we assume that Oswald was lying? Why would he have lied about that?
He wasn’t committing a crime in leaving. He may have broken a rule of
the company, that is the Book Depository, but it definitely wasn’t a
criminal act. He did not need an alibi for it. He had no reason to make up
a story about whom he saw in front of the building after the assassination
as he left the building. So, we have no reason to think that he lied about
that or was even talking about that.

And likewise, why would he have lied about that in reference to his
whereabouts during the assassination? He had to know that Fritz would
check with Shelley about it, which he did. And, as most know, Shelley did
not corroborate what Oswald said. Still, there is no reason to think that
Oswald knew that he wouldn’t, and there is every reason to think that
Oswald expected that he would. Perhaps we should ask the question of
whether Shelley lied. The Glaze Letters, by William Westin, which covered
interviews that Shelley did with journalist Elize Glaze in the 1970s,
state that, after the assassination, Shelley admitted to having been
briefly arrested. Did you know that? Not many do. There are good reasons
to be suspicious of Bill Shelley.

But, getting back to the Fritz notes, it would have been remiss of Fritz
not to have asked Oswald about his whereabouts during the assassination.
Was that not the most important question? How could he have left that out?
How could he have not written something down about it?

So, beyond any reasonable doubt, Oswald must have been referring to his
whereabouts during and not before or after the assassination when he said
that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.” That is not only the
best and most rational inference to make- it is the only rational
inference to make.

[Jason Burke]

On 7/30/2012 6:41 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Now to Burke:
>
> As I told Marsh, general disparagements don't cut it.

No, Cinque. Your nonsense has been adequately refuted multiple times, by
multiple commissions, decades ago.

I DO like how your chiropractic "knowledge" seems to beat all of the
actually qualified folks who blasted your nonsense out of the water.

It only shows
> weakness. Either you address the specifics, the concretes, or you are just
> blowing smoke.

No, Cinque. You're just blowing f*rt. Sad thing is, deep down, I think
you know it.

>
> The only likenesses between Doorman and Lovelady are the ones that they
> had the means to impose.

Let's see. Multiple commissions have determined that "Doorman" is
Lovelady. Now, almost 40 years after that, you come up with nonsense like
(not one, but) "two fake Lovelady's". Come on, get real.

> The large structural elements which couldn't be
> modified- including the loose-fitting, unbuttoned, sprawled open, outer
> shirt, with the collar and furled pseudo-lapel on the right, and the long
> lapel on the left, over the v-shaped t-shirt are all a perfect match to
> Oswald and non-match to Lovelady-

Utter nonsense that you garnered from a photo whose negative was 1" by 1".
And whose relevant part was tenths of millimeters on each side. And which
has been thoroughly refuted multiple times decades ago. Or has the truth
changed lately? Let me see if 2 plus 2 now equals 5... Nope. Sorry.

> regardless of which shirt you want to
> claim he wore.
>
> And are you aware that physical evidence trumps eye-witness testimony?

Yes, yes I am. And the "physical evidence" you spout is utter nonsense.

> It's true in a court of law. And seeing Oswald in that picture constitutes
> physical evidence.

Ah, if only we DID see Ozzie there, you might have something. But it's
not Ozzie.

And again, it's not only because he looks like Oswald
> in a general way but because of specific data points of confirmation:
> including perfectly mached right ears and perfectly matched chins, and
> both in contrast to Lovelady.
>

Nonsense. And you know it.

> You see, you are simply stating an untruth when you say that Doorman
> looked like Lovelady.He didn't.

I can't believe you typed that with a straight face.

And even to begin to claim it, you need
> to list specifically what features you consider bingo. You see, this
> involves work. You can't just flap your lips. You're not the King of Siam:
> "So let it be written, so let it be done."

I can't say what you are the King of in a moderated forum.

>
> And why doesn't anyone want to talk about the strange realization that the
> same exhibit was used for Lovelady drawing on the picture as Frazier? And
> I'll tell you honestly that your collective silence about that has made me
> realize how powerful that finding is,

Like Harris's 285 shot, the reason no one is refuting your nonsense is
because it's, well, nonsense.

> and it's caused me to go back and
> embellish what I have written about it on the OIP site. Here is how it
> appears:

And I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of this cr*p. But I
would suggest you yell a bit louder in your videos. Seems you think max
volume=max truth. I am actually ashamed that you are associated with my
home state...

[Ralph Cinque]

What if I told you that the boy in this picture is standing on a car bumper.

http://tinypic.com/r/2rwrm6v/6

It's a simple question. Are you able to see it or not?

[Ralph Cinque]

To Burke:

Commissions? You mean like the Warren Commission, the HSCA? I've got news
for you: CTs don't respect any of the commissions. I sure don't. So you
can take your Warren Report and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Comprende?

And deep down inside, I know that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in that
do orway, and I would bet my life on it.

Let's say God came down from Heaven or Mt. Sinai- or wherever he is- and
he is going to tell us who the Man in the Doorway was. Say it's you versus
me, and whichever of us is wrong gets struck dead immediately while the
other gets to see the truth of his position spread to every corner of the
globe.

I would take the bet. I'm not speaking rhetorically. Seriously, I would
take the bet.

So, don't tell me what you think I know "deep down" because you don't know
sh_t.

And you can't refute what I say by disputing the veracity and usefulness
of the images. The other side uses the images too- for their purposes. So,
you are just playing the universal skeptic card, and that won't safe
you.

That's Oswald, and it isn't even close. I've cited particulars, data
points, while you have cited absolutely nothing. You merely say that the
commissions said so, therefore do not question. What's it like to be a
vassal for the fascist state?

I've got David Wrone on my side. He is, you know, a professor.

And you're a coward and fraud if you won't address the fact that the
Warren Commission, whom you pay homage to, had both Lovelady and Frazier
mark the same copy of the Altgens. That meant that, supposedly, Lovelady
was shown a photo in which there was ALREADY an arrow pointing to Doorman,
and he was asked to draw one. Why didn't they at least give him a fresh
copy? Even a political science professor knows that you don't give a test
with the answers on it. This sucks, and if you were a real Texan like me,
you'd know it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2012 10:25 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 6:41 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Now to Burke:
>>
>> As I told Marsh, general disparagements don't cut it.
>
> No, Cinque. Your nonsense has been adequately refuted multiple times, by
> multiple commissions, decades ago.
>

Oh, you mean like your WC defender buddy Chad Zimmermnan who proved that
the SBT is possible by LYING about where the back wound was? How about the
piss doctor who said it was possible because JFK was born a hunchback so
the back wound was higher than the throat wound?

> I DO like how your chiropractic "knowledge" seems to beat all of the
> actually qualified folks who blasted your nonsense out of the water.
>
> It only shows
>> weakness. Either you address the specifics, the concretes, or you are
>> just
>> blowing smoke.
>
> No, Cinque. You're just blowing f*rt. Sad thing is, deep down, I think
> you know it.
>
>>
>> The only likenesses between Doorman and Lovelady are the ones that they
>> had the means to impose.
>
> Let's see. Multiple commissions have determined that "Doorman" is
> Lovelady. Now, almost 40 years after that, you come up with nonsense
> like (not one, but) "two fake Lovelady's". Come on, get real.
>
>> The large structural elements which couldn't be
>> modified- including the loose-fitting, unbuttoned, sprawled open, outer
>> shirt, with the collar and furled pseudo-lapel on the right, and the long
>> lapel on the left, over the v-shaped t-shirt are all a perfect match to
>> Oswald and non-match to Lovelady-
>
> Utter nonsense that you garnered from a photo whose negative was 1" by
> 1". And whose relevant part was tenths of millimeters on each side. And
> which has been thoroughly refuted multiple times decades ago. Or has the
> truth changed lately? Let me see if 2 plus 2 now equals 5... Nope. Sorry.
>

How do you know the negative was 1" by 1"? You just pulled that out of
your ass? You call making up numbers from your imagination research?
You've never even seen the Altgens 1-6 negative. Here ya go:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Altgens6.tif

It's a 35mm Kodak Tri-X. The image area of the 35 mm SLR camera film
is 24 x 36 mm. Not 1" x 1".
Stop guessing your way through life.

[Anthony Marsh]

Again, you are simply out of your depth. I did not say that I heard
that. That's what hearsay means. It means I heard someone say it.

I have quoted Baker's testimony and statements hundreds of times. You can
find them on the Internet.

Mr. BAKER. As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of
me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I
caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him
through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I
had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES. Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER. No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go
away from me.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER. I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS. You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it
seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is
another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over
there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I
could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in
the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do?
Mr. BAKER. I hollered at him at that time and said, "Come
here."He turned and walked right straight back to me.
Mr. BELIN. Where were you at the time you hollered?
Mr. BAKER. I was standing in the hallway between this door and
the second door, right at the edge of the second door.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2012 8:08 PM, seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2012 5:59:55 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
>> On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, deke wrote:
>>
>>>> If it was Oswald in the doorway, it seems strange that after witnessing
>>
>>>> the assassination, he would run up to the second floor lunchroom to have a
>>
>>>> coke, and do so apparently without being noticed. Also, where was Billy
>>
>>>> Lovelady supposed to be during this time. I may have missed it, but the
>>
>>>> website doesn't seem to address this.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What's your point? He was noticed. So what?
>>
>>
>>
>
>> You lost me Anthony. My point is simply that if it was Oswald in the
> doorway, he would have had to very quickly move from that location to the
> coffee room on the second floor on the other end of the building for his
> encounter with Baker and Truly. It seems that someone should have seen him
> along the way.
>
> Baker & Truly saw him, near the entrance, as they entered. Check the

> testi=ony of the postal inspector....
>

No, they didn't.

> dcw
>
> Are you saying that someone did? My other point is what was he thinking?
> "Well, looks like they just shot the president. Time to run upstairs for a
> soft drink."
>
>

Things go better with Coke.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

All your points were rebutted a month ago on the Amazon Discussion board.

As is typical with you, you simply continue to post the same nonsense,
going from assassination site to assassination site, until you wear out
your welcome. How many have you been banned from now, Ralph?

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgNo=465&cdPage=19&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx228E67LUQ5IKV&cdMsgID=Mx236TYHGTTI9UL#Mx236TYHGTTI9UL

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Then you'd be changing your argument after a month of telling me he
couldn't be on a car bumper. Are you playing games or just trying to find
someone to agree with you that he *can't* be standing on a car bumper?

Oh, wait, those two are not mutually exclusive.

See the car circled in red? See the car bumper?

http://simfootball.net/JFK/ShelleyArceWilliamsLabelled.jpg

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Hi Ralph,

Looks like you moved on to greener pastures because Amazon's discussion
board either banned you (and your alias, Linda Hadley) or you couldn't
rebut any of the points made there by myself and others.

Excuse me if this was already covered here and you explained it (somehow I
doubt you did though) -

Have you considered that Frazier's marking was made in the black portion
of the photo (pointing to himself, where he said he was) and thus doesn't
reproduce well in the COPY of the exhibit, but could be seen just fine on
the ORIGINAL exhibit?

Have you examined the original exhibit and eliminated this as a
possibility, or are you just -- ah, to coin a phrase -- 'blowing smoke?'

If Frazier's marking is there, but doesn't reproduce well, no lying is
necessary, no confusion by Lovelady is necessary, no changing of the
testimony is necessary. It appears as always you are making claims for
extreme explanations that have much simpler explanations.

If you want us to believe your extreme explanation, you need to eliminate
the simple ones.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, July 30, 2012 9:45:10 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Marsh, you said nothing. Either address concrete issues or I shall ignore
>
> you.
>
>
>
> Seinzant, the last I heard from you, you were claiming a woman's white
>
> blouse in Altgens showed up black in Weigman.
>
>
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/261okgl/6
>
>
>

No, that's a falsehood by you. I noticed you cited the picture I posted,
but none of the verbiage that went along with it. The photo was posted to
show you that most of the people on the steps appear in both photos - you
were claiming they didn't, and claiming the 'doorway man' in the Altgens
was a different fellow than the 'doorway man' in the Weigman frame.

I labelled the woman with the dark dress as you were claiming the Black
Woman in the photo in front of the man shading his eyes had weird altered
hair extended into a big Afro. I merely pointed out that what you could be
seeing (if not part of the man's arm who is seen shading his eyes as seen
in this colorized image here):

http://simfootball.net/JFK/colorized.jpg

could have been the dark hair of the white woman on the steps above and
(as far as I can tell) behind the black woman in the Altgens photo. Of
course, you claim that's not a man shading his eyes either, calling it an
"abomination" and a lot of other stuff, but it's clearly just a man
shading his eyes (his shirt is colorized in blue in the above to aid in
people seeing it). I know you will claim he's not really there, and I know
you showed an indistinct copy of the photo to some friends to solicit
their opinions of what the image was. Did you ever show them my image
above and ask if they see a man? Just curious.

I notice you cannot rebut my points, so you must resort to mis-stating
them, and attacking those straw arguments instead. Not very good form,
Ralph. I would advise you to cut it out, as every time I point out you're
doing this, you lose a little more credibility. But if that's all you got,
I understand.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, July 30, 2012 9:45:10 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> Marsh, you said nothing. Either address concrete issues or I shall ignore
>
> you.
>
>
>
> Seinzant, the last I heard from you, you were claiming a woman's white
>
> blouse in Altgens showed up black in Weigman.
>
>
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/261okgl/6
>
>
>
> And I'll tell you, as I've told the others, that it doesn't matter what
>
> Oswald or anyone else said- not when we can see Oswald in the picture- and
>
> we can.
>
>
>
> But, you're making a mountain out of molehill in regard to that comment,
>
> which was framed by the reporter. What if the reporter had asked, "Were
>
> you standing outside with the others at the time?"

lol. You are desperate. Your own client can't shut up, and is screwing up
your case. You should have advised him to keep his mouth shut, Ralph. I
can't speak to what he would have said if he was asked a different
question, Ralph. This is precisely the same answer I gave you on Amazon,
and you ignored. I do know he was asked where he was, and he brought up
the building, and he put himself inside it.

Not outside on the steps (he understood the difference at least as well as
everyone else on the steps, all of whom put themselves OUTSIDE on the
steps, not INSIDE on the steps.

As I pointed out on Amazon and you continue to ignore,

The other witnesses on the steps knew the difference. They all said they

were *outside* on the steps.

Wes Frazier knew the difference:

Mr. FRAZIER - ... you don't get very many chances to see the President of
the United States and being an old Texas boy, and [he] never having been
down to Texas very much I went ** OUT ** there to see him and just like
everybody else was, I was standing on the steps there and watched for the
parade ...

Billy Lovelady knew the difference:

Mr. LOVELADY - ... I happened to look on the **OUTside** and Mr. Shelley
was standing **OUTside** with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is,
and I said, "Well, I'll go **OUT** there and talk with them, sit down and
eat my lunch **OUT** there, set on the steps," so I went **OUT** there.

Bill Shelley knew the difference:

Mr. SHELLEY - ... I went **OUTside** then to the front ... several people
were **OUT** there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went **OUT** to
join them. ... Just **OUTside** the glass doors there.


http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgNo=919&cdPage=37&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx228E67LUQ5IKV&cdMsgID=MxINLUN9Z44M1U#MxINLUN9Z44M1U

Ignore all this some more.

>
>
>
> What he told Fritz was far more important. "Out with Bill Shelley in
>
> front" And he had to be talking about DURING the assassination:
>
>

Rebutted on Amazon here. Continue to ignore it. It won't go away. I won't
either.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_search_res_ti?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=19&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx228E67LUQ5IKV#Mx236TYHGTTI9UL

You are just forum shopping for someplace that will accept your
nonsensical claims of photo alteration in 10 minutes or less. The photo
went out at 1:03pm -- 33 minutes after the assassination (and Altgens
spent at least five or ten of those minutes in Dealey Plaza with his
camera and film taking other photos, before hustling back to the Dallas AP
office -- so there wasn't any time to make the elaborate alterations you
imagine you see in the Altgens photo.

>
> My opponents have tried to say that when he said that, Lee was not talking
>
> about his location during the assassination, but rather, some time
>
> afterwards. But, that makes no sense.

See above.

> Carolyn Arnold reported seeing
>
> Oswald inside as late as 12:25 pm, which was just 5 minutes before the
>
> shooting. So, he could not have been referring to being outside with Bill
>
> Shelley before the assassination. And within 90 seconds after the
>
> assassination, he was encountered in the lunchroom by Truly and Baker.
>
> And he could not have meant being “out with Bill Shelley in front”
>
> after that because Bill Shelley was not out in front after that.

Have you considered Oswald was lying in custody to give himself a reason
to have left the Depository and its environs so quickly after the
assassination? He doesn't have a good reason to leave so quickly (nobody
else did) unless he's got an agenda that doesn't include punching a clock
at 5pm (yes, Tony, I know the TSBD employees didn't punch a clock, it's a
figure of speech).

Of course, you believe everyone was lying about nearly everything except
the guy who left his rifle behind on the sixth floor. Curious, that.

> Bill
>
> Shelley said that, after the shooting, he left immediately with Billy
>
> Lovelady to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around, and when they
>
> returned, they re-entered the building through the back door and were
>
> inside for a good long while. So, Shelley was definitely not “out in
>
> front” after the assassination when Oswald was leaving.
>
>

And therefore there's a strong possibility Oswald was lying about that
encounter. You know this is wrong because ... (fill in the blank)

>
> Should we assume that Oswald was lying? Why would he have lied about that?
>
> He wasn’t committing a crime in leaving. He may have broken a rule of
>
> the company, that is the Book Depository, but it definitely wasn’t a
>
> criminal act. He did not need an alibi for it. He had no reason to make up
>
> a story about whom he saw in front of the building after the assassination
>
> as he left the building.

Asked and answered. Oswald needed to explain why the urgency in leaving --
after all, unless he knew JFK was dead AND the shots came from the TSBD,
he had no reason within three minutes of the assassination to suspect the
building would be closed off and no more work would be done that day.
Nobody else left for home that quickly -- most hung around until dismissed
a few hours later. Oswald was the exception. Now, since you admit he
didn't see Shelley AFTER the assassination, and Oswald puts himself in the
building DURING the assassination, why did Oswald leave work three minutes
after the shooting and go catch a bus to get to his roominghouse? Shelley
didn't dismiss him, and Oswald, according to you, didn't know the shots
came from the sixth floor sniper's nest, so why did he leave so
quickly?

Hint: your theory is wrong. The only way Oswald's actions and statements
in custody make sense is he knew JFK was dead, he knew the shots came from
the sniper's nest, and he knew all that because he was the one who put the
bullet in JFK's head and he saw it the whole thing from the TSBD sixth
floor sniper's nest window.



> So we have no reason to think that he lied about

>
> that or was even talking about that.
>
>
>
> And likewise, why would he have lied about that in reference to his
>
> whereabouts during the assassination?

hmmm. Good point. I can't think of any reason Oswald would lie about his
whereabouts during the assassination. That's a real stumper. ROFLMAO...
yeah, what *possible* reason would he have to lie about where he was

during the assassination?


> He had to know that Fritz would
>
> check with Shelley about it, which he did. And, as most know, Shelley did
>
> not corroborate what Oswald said. Still, there is no reason to think that
>
> Oswald knew that he wouldn’t, and there is every reason to think that
>
> Oswald expected that he would.

Or Oswald was just lying through his teeth because Fritz asked why you
left so soon after the shooting.

> Perhaps we should ask the question of
>
> whether Shelley lied.

Yep, there ya go. Everyone lied but the accused. I knew it wouldn't take
long for you to reach that point.

> The Glaze Letters, by William Westin, which covered
>
> interviews that Shelley did with journalist Elize Glaze in the 1970s,
>
> state that, after the assassination, Shelley admitted to having been
>
> briefly arrested. Did you know that? Not many do. There are good reasons
>
> to be suspicious of Bill Shelley.
>
>
>

He wasn't arrested. I asked you to provide the citation on Amazon. You
never did. He was taken in to give a statement (along with others from the
Depository like Danny Arce).

> But, getting back to the Fritz notes, it would have been remiss of Fritz
>
> not to have asked Oswald about his whereabouts during the assassination.
>
> Was that not the most important question? How could he have left that out?
>
> How could he have not written something down about it?

What part of "inside the building at the time of the shooting" from the
hallway interview didn't you understand?

>
>
>
> So, beyond any reasonable doubt, Oswald must have been referring to his
>
> whereabouts during and not before or after the assassination when he said
>
> that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.” That is not only the
>
> best and most rational inference to make- it is the only rational
>
> inference to make.

If you ignore all the evidence and twist your logic into a pretzel, sure.
But otherwise? No.

Hank

[Jason Burke]

Well, Tony, you got me. Yes, I was going by memory, forgetting the aspect
ratio. I'm sorry, the image was slightly smaller than 1" on the short
side, and almost 1.5" on the long side. Happy now? (Will you at least
admit that 24mm ~ 1".)

As far as guessing, well I guess that the fact that I failed to accurately
represent the long side due to the aspect ratio pretty much proves
Cinque's case, eh?

[Ralph Cinque]

Anythony Marsh makes a good point:

If Oswald had just observed the assassination of President Kennedy, why
would he just meander upstairs and buy a Coke? Who thinks about consuming
anything at a moment like that?

Of course, the argument, I suppose, is that if Oswald had been up on the
6th floor shooting at Kennedy, that afterwards, he dashed downstairs to
the lunchroom and bought a Coke just so as to create an alibi for himself.
But, if he hadn't done anything wrong, then he didn't need an albi, and
therefore, he wouldn't go through the motions of buying a Coke.

But remember that no spectator in the vast Altgens photo seems to be aware
of anything amiss. Most look beaming and happy and are smiling. What if
Oswald turned around and left immediately after the picture was taken? And
why not? Kennedy had already passed. Maybe Oswald wasn't interested in the
other dignitaries.

Maybe at the time the reporter asked the question, Oswald thought that the
assassination occurred after he left the steps, and that is why he
responded the way he did.

This is all very interesting to speculate about, but it doesn't change
anything: We know it was Oswald outside because we can see him outside:
his shirt, his manner of wear, his t-shirt, his build, his stance, his
ear, his chin, etc. It's him; period. But still, it's interesting to
speculate about this.

[Ralph Cinque]

Doesn't wash, Seinzant. And that's because JUST THE ACT OF SHOWING
LOVELADY A PHOTO WITH AN ARROW ALREADY ON IT, POINTING TO DOORMAN, WAS
CORRUPT.

What was there a shortage of materials to make a fresh copy? Were they
trying to save the taxpayers money? What reason could there possibly be
for using a tainted copy? Why not use a new one?

And as I say on the OIP site:

But, the whole exchange is very bizarre. If they asked Lovelady to draw

an arrow to himself in a picture, and if he saw that there was already an

arrow there drawn by someone else, wouldn't he have said something about
it?

"Well, there is already an arrow there, and it is pointing at me. Do you

want me to draw another arrow, or do you want me to draw over that one?"

And even before that, wouldn't Mr. Ball have said:

"You'll notice there is already an arrow there, which was drawn by another
witness. But, we want to know what you think. So, just ignore that arrow

and draw another one to the image of yourself."

Is there any chance there were two separate photos, one for each of them,
and they just confused the exhibit numbers? No, because if that were true,
then the second photo would still exist. It might have a different

number-or no number at all- but it would still be be here. Right?

And if both Lovelady and Frazier marked the same photo, why didn't they
indicate whose arrow was whose? Maybe have them initial it? But really, it
is just weird and inexplicable that they would have had them both mark the

same copy. Were they economizing? Trying to save money for the taxpayers?

That's why we should consider the possibility that the testimony was

altered. The whole behavior is very strange.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:59:09 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> To Burke:
>
>
>
> Commissions? You mean like the Warren Commission, the HSCA? I've got news
>
> for you: CTs don't respect any of the commissions. I sure don't. So you
>
> can take your Warren Report and shove it where the sun don't shine.
>
> Comprende?
>
>
>
> And deep down inside, I know that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in that
>
> do orway, and I would bet my life on it.
>

I would bet my life he wasn't. One of us will lose big time.

>
>
> Let's say God came down from Heaven or Mt. Sinai- or wherever he is- and
>
> he is going to tell us who the Man in the Doorway was. Say it's you versus
>
> me, and whichever of us is wrong gets struck dead immediately while the
>
> other gets to see the truth of his position spread to every corner of the
>
> globe.
>

You get God to show up and I will be there.

>
>
> I would take the bet. I'm not speaking rhetorically. Seriously, I would
>
> take the bet.
>

So would I. I've never seen God smite somebody before.

>
>
> So, don't tell me what you think I know "deep down" because you don't know
>
> sh_t.
>

You do.

>
>
> And you can't refute what I say by disputing the veracity and usefulness
>
> of the images. The other side uses the images too- for their purposes. So,
>
> you are just playing the universal skeptic card, and that won't safe
>
> you.
>

I can't refute what you have in your mind. That's a world unto itself.

>
>
> That's Oswald, and it isn't even close. I've cited particulars, data
>
> points, while you have cited absolutely nothing. You merely say that the
>
> commissions said so, therefore do not question. What's it like to be a
>
> vassal for the fascist state?
>

It's amazing what you guys have convinced yourself of.

>
>
> I've got David Wrone on my side. He is, you know, a professor.
>

Was he the one on Gilligan's Island?

>
>
> And you're a coward and fraud if you won't address the fact that the
>
> Warren Commission, whom you pay homage to, had both Lovelady and Frazier
>
> mark the same copy of the Altgens. That meant that, supposedly, Lovelady
>
> was shown a photo in which there was ALREADY an arrow pointing to Doorman,
>
> and he was asked to draw one. Why didn't they at least give him a fresh
>
> copy? Even a political science professor knows that you don't give a test
>
> with the answers on it. This sucks, and if you were a real Texan like me,
>
> you'd know it.

Oh, there's the smoking gun.

[Ralph Cinque]

Hey Seinzant! Still think that woman's blouse changed from white to black?


http://tinypic.com/r/1on4ud/6

[Bud]

On Monday, July 30, 2012 9:45:10 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Marsh, you said nothing. Either address concrete issues or I shall ignore
>
> you.

<snicker> Your absolute assertions about blurry film is "concrete"? what
would mush look like?

> Seinzant, the last I heard from you, you were claiming a woman's white
>
> blouse in Altgens showed up black in Weigman.
>
>
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/261okgl/6
>
>
>
> And I'll tell you, as I've told the others, that it doesn't matter what
>
> Oswald or anyone else said- not when we can see Oswald in the picture- and
>
> we can.

You claim to. Amazing that even though he was out front nobody mentioned
seeing him though.

> But, you're making a mountain out of molehill in regard to that comment,
>
> which was framed by the reporter. What if the reporter had asked, "Were
>
> you standing outside with the others at the time?"

He would probably stick to the lie that he was in the lunchroom.

> What he told Fritz was far more important. "Out with Bill Shelley in
>
> front" And he had to be talking about DURING the assassination:
>
>
>
> My opponents have tried to say that when he said that, Lee was not talking
>
> about his location during the assassination, but rather, some time
>
> afterwards. But, that makes no sense. Carolyn Arnold reported seeing
>
> Oswald inside as late as 12:25 pm,

Mush.

> which was just 5 minutes before the
>
> shooting. So, he could not have been referring to being outside with Bill
>
> Shelley before the assassination. And within 90 seconds after the
>
> assassination, he was encountered in the lunchroom by Truly and Baker.

Mush.

>
> And he could not have meant being “out with Bill Shelley in front”
>
> after that because Bill Shelley was not out in front after that.

Bill Shelley didn`t say he saw him out front. Oswald lied.

> Bill
>
> Shelley said that, after the shooting, he left immediately with Billy
>
> Lovelady to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around, and when they
>
> returned, they re-entered the building through the back door and were
>
> inside for a good long while. So, Shelley was definitely not “out in
>
> front” after the assassination when Oswald was leaving.

An assassin, murderer, wife beater, traitor to his country *AND* a liar.
And he snuck into a movie without paying. Yet some naive folks still waste
their time trying rehabilitate this slimeball.

> Should we assume that Oswald was lying? Why would he have lied about that?
>
> He wasn’t committing a crime in leaving. He may have broken a rule of
>
> the company, that is the Book Depository, but it definitely wasn’t a
>
> criminal act. He did not need an alibi for it. He had no reason to make up
>
> a story about whom he saw in front of the building after the assassination
>
> as he left the building. So, we have no reason to think that he lied about
>
> that or was even talking about that.

Because the information doesn`t work well with your ideas you are
willing to scrap it. But Oswald trying to portray his actions after the
assassination as normal might claim he got permission to leave since "Oh
well, President is shot, I guess I`ll go catch a movie" seems a bit
strange.

> And likewise, why would he have lied about that in reference to his
>
> whereabouts during the assassination? He had to know that Fritz would
>
> check with Shelley about it, which he did. And, as most know, Shelley did
>
> not corroborate what Oswald said. Still, there is no reason to think that
>
> Oswald knew that he wouldn’t, and there is every reason to think that
>
> Oswald expected that he would. Perhaps we should ask the question of
>
> whether Shelley lied. The Glaze Letters, by William Westin, which covered
>
> interviews that Shelley did with journalist Elize Glaze in the 1970s,
>
> state that, after the assassination, Shelley admitted to having been
>
> briefly arrested. Did you know that? Not many do. There are good reasons
>
> to be suspicious of Bill Shelley.

The ever popular "everybody was out to get poor Oswald" defense.

> But, getting back to the Fritz notes, it would have been remiss of Fritz
>
> not to have asked Oswald about his whereabouts during the assassination.
>
> Was that not the most important question? How could he have left that out?
>
> How could he have not written something down about it?

Notes are to remind of things you might forget. Perhaps Fritz was
confident he would retain that information.

> So, beyond any reasonable doubt, Oswald must have been referring to his
>
> whereabouts during and not before or after the assassination when he said
>
> that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.” That is not only the
>
> best and most rational inference to make- it is the only rational
>
> inference to make.

TA-DA! A CTer gets to where he was desperate to get to, never allowing
anything to get in the way of his destination of "Oswald was innocent". It
never gets old...

[Ralph Cinque]

Bigdog, it's too bad we can't do that bad. I seriously wish we could. And
deep down inside, I think you know I mean it. McAdams knows it too.

And you haven't challenged a single claim of mine. You haen't even
articulated a single claim of mine. You're just a bad-mouther. Here's a
secret: I don't give a s_it.

Oh, you've never heard of Dr. Wrone? Perhaps this will help:

David R. Wrone, retired Professor of History at the University of
Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP), is the honored mentor of the Oswald
Innocence Project. Professor Wrone offered courses on The Great Books of
Western Civilization, Native American history, and the JFK assassination.
He is the author of The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive
Historical and Legal Bibliography, The HSCA, the Zapruder Film, and the
Single-Bullet Theory, and The Zapruder Film: Reframing the JFK
Assassination. In the latter book, Chapter 11 promotes Oswald as the "Man
in the Doorway." A synopsis can be found on the Wrap page.

And yes, the idea that they had both Lovelady and Frazier mark the same
photo, stinks out loud. It stinks bad. You see, there is really no excuse
for it. And an honest pursuit of the truth would surely rule out doing
such a thing.

What's amazing is that nobody caught this before. I just did a Google
search for "WC Exhibit 369 Lovelady Frazier" and guess what came up # 1 on
page #1? The Oswald Innocence Project.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, I'm happy to see that you found the tilde key. That can be hard to
find on some keyboards. But of course what you wanted to type in the
approximately equal to sign ??? . But that might not be on YOUR keyboard
so you have to hold down ALT and then type 247 and let go of the ALT key.

> As far as guessing, well I guess that the fact that I failed to
> accurately represent the long side due to the aspect ratio pretty much
> proves Cinque's case, eh?
>

I have no problem with you attacking Cinque except that you are being
too polite. Are you trying to make do all the heavy lifting here,
slacker? ;]>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/31/2012 5:52 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2012 9:45:10 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Marsh, you said nothing. Either address concrete issues or I shall ignore
>>
>> you.
>
> <snicker> Your absolute assertions about blurry film is "concrete"? what
> would mush look like?
>
>> Seinzant, the last I heard from you, you were claiming a woman's white
>>
>> blouse in Altgens showed up black in Weigman.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/r/261okgl/6
>>
>>
>>
>> And I'll tell you, as I've told the others, that it doesn't matter what
>>
>> Oswald or anyone else said- not when we can see Oswald in the picture- and
>>
>> we can.
>
> You claim to. Amazing that even though he was out front nobody mentioned
> seeing him though.
>

Amazing that no one mentioned seeing Black Dog Man.

>
>> But, you're making a mountain out of molehill in regard to that comment,
>>
>> which was framed by the reporter. What if the reporter had asked, "Were
>>
>> you standing outside with the others at the time?"
>
> He would probably stick to the lie that he was in the lunchroom.
>
>> What he told Fritz was far more important. "Out with Bill Shelley in
>>
>> front" And he had to be talking about DURING the assassination:
>>
>>
>>
>> My opponents have tried to say that when he said that, Lee was not talking
>>
>> about his location during the assassination, but rather, some time
>>
>> afterwards. But, that makes no sense. Carolyn Arnold reported seeing
>>
>> Oswald inside as late as 12:25 pm,
>
> Mush.
>
>> which was just 5 minutes before the
>>
>> shooting. So, he could not have been referring to being outside with Bill
>>
>> Shelley before the assassination. And within 90 seconds after the
>>
>> assassination, he was encountered in the lunchroom by Truly and Baker.
>
> Mush.
>
>>

>> And he could not have meant being �out with Bill Shelley in front�

>>
>> after that because Bill Shelley was not out in front after that.
>
> Bill Shelley didn`t say he saw him out front. Oswald lied.
>
>> Bill
>>
>> Shelley said that, after the shooting, he left immediately with Billy
>>
>> Lovelady to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around, and when they
>>
>> returned, they re-entered the building through the back door and were
>>

>> inside for a good long while. So, Shelley was definitely not �out in
>>
>> front� after the assassination when Oswald was leaving.

>
> An assassin, murderer, wife beater, traitor to his country *AND* a liar.
> And he snuck into a movie without paying. Yet some naive folks still waste
> their time trying rehabilitate this slimeball.
>
>> Should we assume that Oswald was lying? Why would he have lied about that?
>>

>> He wasn�t committing a crime in leaving. He may have broken a rule of
>>
>> the company, that is the Book Depository, but it definitely wasn�t a

>>
>> criminal act. He did not need an alibi for it. He had no reason to make up
>>
>> a story about whom he saw in front of the building after the assassination
>>
>> as he left the building. So, we have no reason to think that he lied about
>>
>> that or was even talking about that.
>
> Because the information doesn`t work well with your ideas you are
> willing to scrap it. But Oswald trying to portray his actions after the
> assassination as normal might claim he got permission to leave since "Oh
> well, President is shot, I guess I`ll go catch a movie" seems a bit
> strange.
>
>
>> And likewise, why would he have lied about that in reference to his
>>
>> whereabouts during the assassination? He had to know that Fritz would
>>
>> check with Shelley about it, which he did. And, as most know, Shelley did
>>
>> not corroborate what Oswald said. Still, there is no reason to think that
>>

>> Oswald knew that he wouldn�t, and there is every reason to think that

>>
>> Oswald expected that he would. Perhaps we should ask the question of
>>
>> whether Shelley lied. The Glaze Letters, by William Westin, which covered
>>
>> interviews that Shelley did with journalist Elize Glaze in the 1970s,
>>
>> state that, after the assassination, Shelley admitted to having been
>>
>> briefly arrested. Did you know that? Not many do. There are good reasons
>>
>> to be suspicious of Bill Shelley.
>
> The ever popular "everybody was out to get poor Oswald" defense.
>
>> But, getting back to the Fritz notes, it would have been remiss of Fritz
>>
>> not to have asked Oswald about his whereabouts during the assassination.
>>
>> Was that not the most important question? How could he have left that out?
>>
>> How could he have not written something down about it?
>
> Notes are to remind of things you might forget. Perhaps Fritz was
> confident he would retain that information.
>
>> So, beyond any reasonable doubt, Oswald must have been referring to his
>>
>> whereabouts during and not before or after the assassination when he said
>>

>> that he was �out with Bill Shelley in front.� That is not only the

[Jason Burke]

Damn, BD. I really gotta read this stuff in the other order. You nailed
everything and more.

But just one additional point. Cinque would be pretty french fried on
his bet. No doubt there.

[Jason Burke]

When you're making stuff up, you can believe whatever you want. Oh! I
get it. You're writing JFK Fanfiction! Now it all makes sense.

[Jason Burke]

Maybe.
What if.
Speculation.

Fantasy...

[seansmil...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 6:12:51 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> This is Ralph Cinque. Nobody has contested a single picture collage that I
>
> have posted on the Oswald Innocence Project website which shows the
>
> startling likeness between Oswald and Doorman. Get something straight: you
>
> have to defeat that because it trumps everything else. It cancels out
>
> everything else. If that's Oswald standing there (and it is) the rest is
>
> blather. So deal with it directly; don't talk around it.
>
>
>
> Regarding the WC testimonies concernning the Altgens, it's interesting
>
> because they only showed it to two witnesses: Lovelady and Frazier. No one
>
> else.

Not true, if CE 369 is the Altgens.

Ball: Now, there is only one face (in CE 369) that is clearly shown within the entrance way of the TSBD, isn't there?
Danny Arce: Yes, sir.
Ball: And that one man you see there--
Arce: Yes, that's BIlly Lovelady.
(V6P367)
dcw
You'd think they would have showed the Altgens to everybody from the
>
> TSBD. But here's how the testimonies of Lovelady and Frazier went down.

> Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture?

[seansmil...@gmail.com]

Possibly not the only one. A list of TSBD employees (CE 2003 p127) made that day includes almost everyone. Certainly everyone from the 6th floor. Oops! No, one sixth-floor name is missing--William Shelley! Was he not around to be counted? He may not have been. The DPD reports of Dets. Senkel & Brown (CE 2003 pp190,244) say that they left the TSBD with SHelley, Williams & Arce. But Williams testified (v6p366) that he & Arce left with one or two officers.
Ball: Anybody else?
Williams: That's all.

So it seems that Oswald was not the only exception....
dcw

[Ralph Cinque]

This is not directed at the lone-nutters, whom I know predominate here. But, if there are any other CTs around, I want to point out that we don't know what Oswald knew. We don't know what his handlers told him. I'm sure that whatever they told him, it was far from the truth. Oswald was the patsy, and you keep the patsy in the dark as much as possible. I'm it's taught in Framing a Patsy 101. They had to know that Oswald was going to be arrested, and it might not be possible to get him killed that quickly. As it turned out, it took them 2 days. A person can do a lot of talking to the police within two days, so they had to manage that risk.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Oswald's actions were triggered by what they told him, and we have no idea what that is. So, why he went to the lunchroom to get a Coke, I don't know. But that he was standing outside before that and was photographed by Ike Altgens, I do know.

[John McAdams]

On 1 Aug 2012 08:35:33 -0400, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:

>This is not directed at the lone-nutters, whom I know predominate here. But=
>, if there are any other CTs around, I want to point out that we don't know=
> what Oswald knew. We don't know what his handlers told him. I'm sure that =
>whatever they told him, it was far from the truth. Oswald was the patsy, an=
>d you keep the patsy in the dark as much as possible. I'm it's taught in Fr=
>aming a Patsy 101. They had to know that Oswald was going to be arrested, a=
>nd it might not be possible to get him killed that quickly. As it turned ou=
>t, it took them 2 days. A person can do a lot of talking to the police with=

>in two days, so they had to manage that risk.
>

If Oswald actually knew anything, and had been set up, he had every
incentive to "rat out" anybody who had talked to him and set him up.

But in fact he did not such thing.

Which strongly suggest there were no such conspirators setting him up.

.John


The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

Between you and the other guy who wants to "arbitrate" the JFK case, I
have a feeling this is quickly turning into another "nuthouse."

I'm not one for censorship, but if .John chose to ban these boobs from
posting, I don't think he'd get much flak from the forum.

John F.




<buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:763029e2-23b7-40dc...@googlegroups.com...
A network has been formed to advance the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald
based upon his presence in the Altgens photo. The Oswald Innocence Project
was conceived by Ralph Cinque, and it is mentored by Dr. David Wrone. The
OIP website features many images and collages which demonstrate that the
"Man in the Doorway" was Oswald. It had to be him, and it could not have
been Billy Lovelady. Multiple confirmations exist based upon very his
distinctive clothing and his specific bodily manifestations. It is also
shown how the Altgens photo was crudely altered and how multiple attempts
were made to fraudulently show Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt. The
magnitude and extent of the fraud are staggering to consider.

Oswald in the doorway is no longer a speculation; it is a fact. And, it is
rapidly becoming Ground Zero in the whole JFK debate, and it will only
intensify as the 50th anniversary draws near.

Please visit the OIP website at: www.oswald-innocent.com.

It is also available at these sister sites:

www.jfk-assassination.info
www.jfk-assassination.biz
www.jfk-assassination.us

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:37:29 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 5:52 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 30, 2012 9:45:10 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
> >> Marsh, you said nothing. Either address concrete issues or I shall ignore
>
> >>
>
> >> you.
>
> >
>
> > <snicker> Your absolute assertions about blurry film is "concrete"? what
>
> > would mush look like?
>
> >
>
> >> Seinzant, the last I heard from you, you were claiming a woman's white
>
> >>
>
> >> blouse in Altgens showed up black in Weigman.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://tinypic.com/r/261okgl/6
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And I'll tell you, as I've told the others, that it doesn't matter what
>
> >>
>
> >> Oswald or anyone else said- not when we can see Oswald in the picture- and
>
> >>
>
> >> we can.
>
> >
>
> > You claim to. Amazing that even though he was out front nobody mentioned
>
> > seeing him though.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Amazing that no one mentioned seeing Black Dog Man.

Was he out on the front steps also? No wonder Dougherty couldn`t get out.

>
>
> >
>
> >> But, you're making a mountain out of molehill in regard to that comment,
>
> >>
>
> >> which was framed by the reporter. What if the reporter had asked, "Were
>
> >>
>
> >> you standing outside with the others at the time?"
>
> >
>
> > He would probably stick to the lie that he was in the lunchroom.
>
> >
>
> >> What he told Fritz was far more important. "Out with Bill Shelley in
>
> >>
>
> >> front" And he had to be talking about DURING the assassination:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> My opponents have tried to say that when he said that, Lee was not talking
>
> >>
>
> >> about his location during the assassination, but rather, some time
>
> >>
>
> >> afterwards. But, that makes no sense. Carolyn Arnold reported seeing
>
> >>
>
> >> Oswald inside as late as 12:25 pm,
>
> >
>
> > Mush.
>
> >
>
> >> which was just 5 minutes before the
>
> >>
>
> >> shooting. So, he could not have been referring to being outside with Bill
>
> >>
>
> >> Shelley before the assassination. And within 90 seconds after the
>
> >>
>
> >> assassination, he was encountered in the lunchroom by Truly and Baker.
>
> >
>
> > Mush.
>
> >
>
> >>
>

> >> And he could not have meant being “out with Bill Shelley in front”

>
> >>
>
> >> after that because Bill Shelley was not out in front after that.
>
> >
>
> > Bill Shelley didn`t say he saw him out front. Oswald lied.
>
> >
>
> >> Bill
>
> >>
>
> >> Shelley said that, after the shooting, he left immediately with Billy
>
> >>
>
> >> Lovelady to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around, and when they
>
> >>
>
> >> returned, they re-entered the building through the back door and were
>
> >>
>

> >> inside for a good long while. So, Shelley was definitely not “out in
>
> >>
>
> >> front” after the assassination when Oswald was leaving.

>
> >
>
> > An assassin, murderer, wife beater, traitor to his country *AND* a liar.
>
> > And he snuck into a movie without paying. Yet some naive folks still waste
>
> > their time trying rehabilitate this slimeball.
>
> >
>
> >> Should we assume that Oswald was lying? Why would he have lied about that?
>
> >>
>

> >> He wasn’t committing a crime in leaving. He may have broken a rule of
>
> >>
>
> >> the company, that is the Book Depository, but it definitely wasn’t a

>
> >>
>
> >> criminal act. He did not need an alibi for it. He had no reason to make up
>
> >>
>
> >> a story about whom he saw in front of the building after the assassination
>
> >>
>
> >> as he left the building. So, we have no reason to think that he lied about
>
> >>
>
> >> that or was even talking about that.
>
> >
>
> > Because the information doesn`t work well with your ideas you are
>
> > willing to scrap it. But Oswald trying to portray his actions after the
>
> > assassination as normal might claim he got permission to leave since "Oh
>
> > well, President is shot, I guess I`ll go catch a movie" seems a bit
>
> > strange.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> And likewise, why would he have lied about that in reference to his
>
> >>
>
> >> whereabouts during the assassination? He had to know that Fritz would
>
> >>
>
> >> check with Shelley about it, which he did. And, as most know, Shelley did
>
> >>
>
> >> not corroborate what Oswald said. Still, there is no reason to think that
>
> >>
>

> >> Oswald knew that he wouldn’t, and there is every reason to think that

>
> >>
>
> >> Oswald expected that he would. Perhaps we should ask the question of
>
> >>
>
> >> whether Shelley lied. The Glaze Letters, by William Westin, which covered
>
> >>
>
> >> interviews that Shelley did with journalist Elize Glaze in the 1970s,
>
> >>
>
> >> state that, after the assassination, Shelley admitted to having been
>
> >>
>
> >> briefly arrested. Did you know that? Not many do. There are good reasons
>
> >>
>
> >> to be suspicious of Bill Shelley.
>
> >
>
> > The ever popular "everybody was out to get poor Oswald" defense.
>
> >
>
> >> But, getting back to the Fritz notes, it would have been remiss of Fritz
>
> >>
>
> >> not to have asked Oswald about his whereabouts during the assassination.
>
> >>
>
> >> Was that not the most important question? How could he have left that out?
>
> >>
>
> >> How could he have not written something down about it?
>
> >
>
> > Notes are to remind of things you might forget. Perhaps Fritz was
>
> > confident he would retain that information.
>
> >
>
> >> So, beyond any reasonable doubt, Oswald must have been referring to his
>
> >>
>
> >> whereabouts during and not before or after the assassination when he said
>
> >>
>

> >> that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.” That is not only the

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:35:21 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Bigdog, it's too bad we can't do that bad. I seriously wish we could. And
>
> deep down inside, I think you know I mean it. McAdams knows it too.
>

The scary part is that you do mean it.

>
>
> And you haven't challenged a single claim of mine. You haen't even
>
> articulated a single claim of mine. You're just a bad-mouther. Here's a
>
> secret: I don't give a s_it.
>

You look at a picture of Billy Lovelady and think you see Oswald even
though Oswald was seen minutes after the assassination on the bus wearing
a different shirt, the same shirt he was arrested in a little over an hour
later.

>
>
> Oh, you've never heard of Dr. Wrone? Perhaps this will help:
>
>
>
> David R. Wrone, retired Professor of History at the University of
>
> Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP), is the honored mentor of the Oswald
>
> Innocence Project.

Is that supposed to be an endorsement?

> Professor Wrone offered courses on The Great Books of
>
> Western Civilization, Native American history, and the JFK assassination.
>
> He is the author of The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive
>
> Historical and Legal Bibliography, The HSCA, the Zapruder Film, and the
>
> Single-Bullet Theory, and The Zapruder Film: Reframing the JFK
>
> Assassination. In the latter book, Chapter 11 promotes Oswald as the "Man
>
> in the Doorway." A synopsis can be found on the Wrap page.
>
>
>
> And yes, the idea that they had both Lovelady and Frazier mark the same
>
> photo, stinks out loud. It stinks bad. You see, there is really no excuse
>
> for it. And an honest pursuit of the truth would surely rule out doing
>
> such a thing.
>

Any bozo can write a book and many have.

>
>
> What's amazing is that nobody caught this before. I just did a Google
>
> search for "WC Exhibit 369 Lovelady Frazier" and guess what came up # 1 on
>
> page #1? The Oswald Innocence Project.

The claim that Oswald was in the Altgens photo cropped up in the mid 1960s
and most people have since dismissed it as ludicrous including most CTs.
You guys who cling to it are something of a cult. You might want to pass
on the Kool-Aid.

[Ralph Cinque]

"If Oswald actually knew anything, and had been set up, he had every
incentive to "rat out" anybody who had talked to him and set him up. But
in fact he did not such thing. Which strongly suggest there were no such

conspirators setting him up. John

John, I agree that Oswald had good reason to start ratting-out, but who's
to say he didn't? He underwent 13 hours of interrogation for which there
are no written or recorded records. That may not bother you, but it
bothers me.

But, with all due respect, your ability to see the potential for Oswald
ratting-out would not have gone over the heads of the conspirators. They
had to know there was a good possibility that Oswald would spend some time
in police custody before he could be properly killed. They had to be
prepared for that. They had to have addressed the potential damage he
could do with his mouth.

So, whatever they told him, whatever he thought he knew, it had to have
been away from the truth. And whatever details they provided had to not
incriminate anyone of importance.

And it may also have involved military-style psychological training of
Oswald about what to do, what to say, when in custody. He was, after all,
a Marine. They taught him Russian, so they could have taught him that.

Anyway, the point is that your sylllogism involves unstated assumptions,
and the logic of it is not as obligatory as you imply.

[Jason Burke]

On 8/1/2012 9:30 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> "If Oswald actually knew anything, and had been set up, he had every
> incentive to "rat out" anybody who had talked to him and set him up. But
> in fact he did not such thing. Which strongly suggest there were no such
> conspirators setting him up. John
>
> John, I agree that Oswald had good reason to start ratting-out, but who's
> to say he didn't? He underwent 13 hours of interrogation for which there
> are no written or recorded records. That may not bother you, but it
> bothers me.

Wait a second. One of the CT crowd's main mantras is that the cops lied
about everything. But now you're saying that they clammed up when Ozzie
told them the truth?!? Oh, I guess it was those big dudes in black
trenchcoats that came to their homes and told them to keep quiet, huh?

[Ralph Cinque]

I'm just saying they interrogated him for 13 hours, and not only did they
not release any transcripts, but they claimed to have not written anything
down- nothing. They recorded nothing. So what did Oswald say? Who knows.

But to Bigdog, I appreciate that you acknowledged that Oswald was wearing
the same shirt on the bus in which he was later arrested. He did not
change his shirt. A lot of LNs try to evade the likeness between the
shirts by claiming Oswald changed his, but he definitely did not, and for
two reasons: 1) his bus transfer ticket was found in his shirt pocket, and
the idea that he would have transferred it is ludicrous. He wasn't even
riding the bus again. And 2) if he had changed his shirt, they would have
found the soiled shirt, and paraded it around. They didn't, and that's
'cause he didn't. Even the WC said he did not change his shirt.

And the thing is, you just can't talk your way around the fact that
Oswald's very distinctive and unusual shirt matched Doorman's to a tee in
many particulars:

1) both long-sleeved
2) both loose-fitting
3) both not just unbuttoned, but sprawled open
4) both with a v-shaped t-shirt- deformed that way by Oswald.
5) both had right collar and below a small pseudo-lapel (furl of the material)
6) both had long, thick lapel on the left side
7) both had large prominent cuffs
8) both had a grainy pattern, evident on the upper right side on Doorman

That's a lot to have in common. If you do the Math on it, in terms of
probability, the chance that Lovelady would be dressed the same was one in
a million- or less.

And it doesn't factor in the matching right ears, the matching chins, the
matching stance clasping their hands in front, the matching facial
grimace. And just the overall slenderness of Doorman is a match to Oswald
and not Lovelady.

That was Oswald, buddy-boys! Mathematics says so.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/1/2012 1:36 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 9:30 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> "If Oswald actually knew anything, and had been set up, he had every
>> incentive to "rat out" anybody who had talked to him and set him up. But
>> in fact he did not such thing. Which strongly suggest there were no such
>> conspirators setting him up. John
>>
>> John, I agree that Oswald had good reason to start ratting-out, but who's
>> to say he didn't? He underwent 13 hours of interrogation for which there
>> are no written or recorded records. That may not bother you, but it
>> bothers me.
>
> Wait a second. One of the CT crowd's main mantras is that the cops lied

Which CT'ers? You mean Fetzer? You call the exception the rule.

> about everything. But now you're saying that they clammed up when Ozzie
> told them the truth?!? Oh, I guess it was those big dudes in black
> trenchcoats that came to their homes and told them to keep quiet, huh?
>

Who clammed up?
Are you claiming that the Men in Black threatened the police? Silly boy.
It wasn't the Men in Black. It was Hoover.

[Jason Burke]

Oh, geez. Now Cinque's a mathematician also!

Here's a hint, Ralphie boy. Your floundering with 'mathematics' is
laughable to real mathematicians. (But not quite as bad as that fellow who
was here about six weeks ago who mathematically PROVED that there was a
conspiracy because all of those strange, odd, and unexpected deaths.
Wonder what happened to him?)

Stick to spine adjustment.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/1/2012 12:26 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:35:21 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Bigdog, it's too bad we can't do that bad. I seriously wish we could. And
>>
>> deep down inside, I think you know I mean it. McAdams knows it too.
>>
>
> The scary part is that you do mean it.
>
>>
>>
>> And you haven't challenged a single claim of mine. You haen't even
>>
>> articulated a single claim of mine. You're just a bad-mouther. Here's a
>>
>> secret: I don't give a s_it.
>>
>
> You look at a picture of Billy Lovelady and think you see Oswald even
> though Oswald was seen minutes after the assassination on the bus wearing
> a different shirt, the same shirt he was arrested in a little over an hour
> later.
>

You're not being very generous. He could have a theory that Oswald
changed shirts with Lovelady.

>>
>>
>> Oh, you've never heard of Dr. Wrone? Perhaps this will help:
>>
>>
>>
>> David R. Wrone, retired Professor of History at the University of
>>
>> Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP), is the honored mentor of the Oswald
>>
>> Innocence Project.
>
> Is that supposed to be an endorsement?
>

Wrone's probably never heard of him.

>> Professor Wrone offered courses on The Great Books of
>>
>> Western Civilization, Native American history, and the JFK assassination.
>>
>> He is the author of The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive
>>
>> Historical and Legal Bibliography, The HSCA, the Zapruder Film, and the
>>
>> Single-Bullet Theory, and The Zapruder Film: Reframing the JFK
>>
>> Assassination. In the latter book, Chapter 11 promotes Oswald as the "Man
>>
>> in the Doorway." A synopsis can be found on the Wrap page.
>>
>>
>>
>> And yes, the idea that they had both Lovelady and Frazier mark the same
>>
>> photo, stinks out loud. It stinks bad. You see, there is really no excuse
>>
>> for it. And an honest pursuit of the truth would surely rule out doing
>>
>> such a thing.
>>
>
> Any bozo can write a book and many have.
>
>>
>>
>> What's amazing is that nobody caught this before. I just did a Google
>>
>> search for "WC Exhibit 369 Lovelady Frazier" and guess what came up # 1 on
>>
>> page #1? The Oswald Innocence Project.
>
> The claim that Oswald was in the Altgens photo cropped up in the mid 1960s
> and most people have since dismissed it as ludicrous including most CTs.
> You guys who cling to it are something of a cult. You might want to pass
> on the Kool-Aid.
>

How about the first day, for Christ's Sake? It wasn't invented by Fetzer.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/1/2012 12:05 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Between you and the other guy who wants to "arbitrate" the JFK case, I
> have a feeling this is quickly turning into another "nuthouse."
>
> I'm not one for censorship, but if .John chose to ban these boobs from
> posting, I don't think he'd get much flak from the forum.
>
> John F.
>
>

Of course you are in favor of censorship. How about if we censor you and
your nutty ideas?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/1/2012 10:48 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2012 08:35:33 -0400, Ralph Cinque <buda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is not directed at the lone-nutters, whom I know predominate here. But=
>> , if there are any other CTs around, I want to point out that we don't know=
>> what Oswald knew. We don't know what his handlers told him. I'm sure that =
>> whatever they told him, it was far from the truth. Oswald was the patsy, an=
>> d you keep the patsy in the dark as much as possible. I'm it's taught in Fr=
>> aming a Patsy 101. They had to know that Oswald was going to be arrested, a=
>> nd it might not be possible to get him killed that quickly. As it turned ou=
>> t, it took them 2 days. A person can do a lot of talking to the police with=
>> in two days, so they had to manage that risk.
>>
>
> If Oswald actually knew anything, and had been set up, he had every
> incentive to "rat out" anybody who had talked to him and set him up.
>

That's a good way to get yourself shot by a Mafia punk.
Just ask Sam Giancana.
Giancana was killed shortly before he was scheduled to appear before a
U. S. Senate committee investigating supposed CIA and Cosa Nostra
collusion in plots to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.

> But in fact he did not such thing.
>

You don't know what he did.

> Which strongly suggest there were no such conspirators setting him up.
>

Then why was he gunned down while under police protection?

[Ralph Cinque]

Here is Lovelady with his right collar marked off (it was done by a woman
named Gerda from the JFK forum), plus you can see the right sides of
Doorman and Oswald.

http://tinypic.com/r/1g3rj9/6

Lovelady's is just a standard collar, right? It's just a typical flannel
shirt. Below the collar, the shirt is lying flat in the normal way.

But, on Oswald on the far right, you can see the long lapel. It's folded
over, and it has the look and the lay of a jacket.

Obviously, there is a lot of contrast between Lovelady's shirt and
Oswald's. Right? You're not going to dispute that, are you? And once you
admit that, it gives us something to focus us when we study Doorman.

So, what do we see on Doorman? Whose does his shirt resemble more, Oswald's
or Lovelady's?

Well, for one thing, you can see the open sprawl on both Oswald and
Doorman that you don't see on Lovelady. Right? Anyone want to dispute
it?

And you do see the vee-descent on Oswald's t-shirt. Right? It's actually
greater than the vee we see on Doorman, but his too looks vee.

And then you can see the long left lapel on Doorman because the shirt
looks so much thicker on that side. Compare it to the other side, which
looks thinner, flimsier, and where the margin looks sharper. You can see
that there is a heavier lay of material on Doorman's left side, and it's
because of the fold-over which is a doubling of the fabric.

Honestly, if you had to say at first glance which two look the most alike,
and which one is the odd man out, what would you say? Be honest.

[Ralph Cinque]

This is another very telling collage. It shows the upper right side of
three shirts: Doorman's, Oswald's, and Lovelady's.

http://tinypic.com/r/2jfdmw6/6

The only thing about Lovelady's clothes that was ever cited as a match to
Doorman was the shirt pattern. But, it isn't so. You can see above that
the fine, grainy pattern of Doorman's shirt is a match to Oswald's- not
Lovelady's. Lovelady's s shirt- in comparison- had a high contrast,
complex pattern with checks and lines. And, the rich pattern went all the
way up to and including the collar.

If Lovelady was Doorman, why don't we see that same rich pattern on
Doorman's collar?

On Doorman and Oswald, we see the same collar, and the same furl beneath
the collar. And on both of them, the margin of the shirt rises vertically.
And on both, there is the low-cut, v-shaped t-shirt.

That is a lot to have in common, and you certainly can't deny it. But
what about Lovelady?

Well, besides the flashy pattern that is absent from both Oswald and
Doorman, it is also apparent that the folding over of the top of
Lovelady's shirt is a contrived, arranged thing. It is not the natural,
normal lay of the shirt.

You see that white button? That button is supposed to be buttoned. And
when it is buttoned, the whole spread of the shirt that you see would go
away. Lovelady had to have taken an iron out to make the shirt do that.
That crease, that fold, is not naturally-occurring. He did that in order
to pose for the picture- as Doorman. He was trying to expose the t-shirt,
to give it that sprawled open look- like Doorman.

But, what do you think he did on the morning of 11/22/63? He was a
warehouse worker, and he was going to work- not too a square dance. He
wasn't going to the polka jamboree or a hootenaney. And that morning they
were laying flooring on the 6th floor. Do you think he pressed his shirt
over so neatly like that on 11/22 to lay flooring? Of course he didn't.
So, why did he do it above? He did it because it was the only way to make
the shirt look kinda/sorta like Doorman's.

But, for Doorman and Oswald, their look looks spontaneous. There was no
primping or ironing involved. They look like each other because they were
each other. They were the same guy.

Again, I ask: at first glance, which two look the same, and which one looks
like the odd man out?

This isn't difficult. It jumps right out at you.

What reason have you got to fight this? What reasons do you have to
defend the lies? Isn't 49 years enough? Isn't it time for the truth?

[Jason Burke]

You're joking, right? Golly, I wonder why the picture on the left is so
pixelated? Maybe because it was blown up from the out-of-focus
background of a small picture? Nah, that can't be it.