Customer Discussions > History forum

Doorway Man in the famous Altgens photo WAS Oswald

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 5:30:19 PM PDT
In poker, you have to calculate the odds of a guy drawing a certain card. For instance, the odds of drawing an inside straight are 1 in 13. So, let's size up the odds in this case.

The fact that both Oswald and Doorman look generally alike and are both wearing a loose-fitting outer shirt, that is unbuttoned, over a white t-shirt with a v-neck, creates, in itself, a strong likelihood that they are the same person.

Take the one issue of both shirts being unbuttoned. What percentage of men at work in the city go around with their shirt largely unbuttoned? Percentage-wise, it has got to be small. I don't know what it is exactly, but you'd have to agree that it could be no greater than 1 in 10. Right? If you don't agree, then walk down the street in downtown Dallas, Texas or any other big city and start observing men, and keep track of how many are buttoned vs unbuttoned, and come up with your own number. Take a representative sample. I think 1 in 10 is actually too big, but we'll go with it. The simple fact is that: MOST MEN BUTTON UP.

Now, there's no doubt that Oswald was unbuttoned- he was unbuttoned when he was arrested. Plus, we know that his buttons were missing, so he had to be unbuttoned. But nobody reported Lovelady being unbuttoned, and in the one picture we have of him from that day, he was NOT unbuttoned.

Mathematically speaking, that one variable, by itself, creates strong odds that Doorman was Oswald and not Lovelady.

But then, you keep going. Both Oswald's and Doorman's shirts were loose-fitting, somewhat over-sized. The simple fact is that Oswald was thin and scrawny, and he didn't fill out his shirts too well, and you see the same thing in Doorman, whose shirt was billowing. Lovelady was a burly guy, in comparison, weighing 40 pounds more than Oswald. And that's why Lovelady's shirts fit snugly.

I put the odds of Oswald and Doorman both wearing loose-fitting shirts at 1 in 3. Again, it probably should be lower, but we'll go with that. But, when you are talking about two variables, they have to be multiplied together. So, we are now talking about a 1 in 30 chance that both Doorman and Oswald would be wearing shirts that were both unbuttoned and loose-fitting. (10 x 3 = 30)

Then there is the v-neck t-shirt. Round-neck t-shirts, also called crew-neck, have always been more popular and still are, but v-neck users are gaining. Recent industry reports show that 67% of t-shirt sales have been crew-neck. Then came sleeveless tanks at 17%, and then v-necks at 16%. That last figure was probably much lower in 1963, but let's go with it. So, we'll say 1 in 6 odds of both wearing v-neck t-shirts. Multiplying that out, we are now at 1 in 180 (30 x 6).

Note that some have argued that Oswald's t-shirt was really a regular t-shirt that got deformed because he pulled on it. But if so, it doesn't matter because it's still a likeness between the two of them. And, how likely is it that Oswald and Lovelady had the same quirk? Note also that in every picture we have of Lovelady, he is wearing a perfect, undeformed, crew-neck t-shirt.

So, we are left with odds of 180 to 1 against the likelihood that both Oswald and Doorway Man wore unbuttoned, loose-fitting, long-sleeved outer shirts over v-neck t-shirts. But then, when we factor in the matching collars and lapels, it takes it off the chart. The odds of that are too small to calculate. They are infinitesmal. The right collars of Oswald and Doorman match PERFECTLY, as I demonstrate in my videos. And although we cannot see the left collar of Doorman, (because they covered it up with that phony, ridiculous Black Tie Man) we can see the long left lapel on Doorman, which matches the one on Oswald. Again, that puts it off the chart. How many shirts even have lapels?

Note that all this would be true even if Doorman could be ANYBODY. It would be true even Doorman could be a random guy who just happened to be walking by and stopped. But, in this case, it's not that Doorman could be just anybody. If he's not Oswald, then he can only be one other person on the face of the Earth: Billy Lovelady. We would have to assume that one particular individual just happened to dress himself and arrange himself that day in the exact same manner as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mathematically speaking, the odds that Oswald and Doorman are the same person are extremely great. And if you don't think so, I sure wish you would sit down and play some poker with me. And let's make it high stakes.

The Doorman was Oswald, and the likenesses to Lovelady, such as the hairline and the shirt pattern, were FAKED. I'd go all-in on that bet.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 5:32:20 PM PDT
There is not much that makes grown men look more dumb than all the holes in the lone gunman idea.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 5:36:23 PM PDT
If the brains are on the back of the car, he is hit from the front, otherwise they would be all over the frontpassengers. True or not?
Let's put Burke in a car and find out.

JFK - The Bush Connection

I know what I will be watching tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsMKMMlleOE&feature=related

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 7:29:15 PM PDT
And then you have Oswald admitting he was inside the building at the time of the shooting, which blows your mathematical model out of the water.

Just to give you an example of how you are overestimating the odds, take the supposed V-neck T-Shirt. You're calling it a V-neck T-shirt, but you're looking at the shadow of the head on the chest and mistakenly thinking that shadow is actually the outline of a V-neck T-shirt, but it's just a shadow.

Another example is the open shirt. You're looking at pictures of Oswald AFTER his struggle and arrest in the theatre, and simply assuming the condition of his shirt after the struggle was the condition of the shirt at the time of the assassination.

But look at the picture of Oswald being led past Lovelady in the Dallas Police Station - it is hanging off the back of Oswald as if torn. I doubt highly Oswald went to work wearing a shirt in that condition.

Another example: You argue that this photo is altered, but you don't bother to explain how or why or when. It was on the AP wire within, according to Josiah Thompson, less than 35 minutes after the assassination. Did the conspirators have a large van in Dealey Plaza with the necessary alteration equipment lined up and ready to go?

How did they determine this photo needed altering, how did they get access to the photo, and how did they find the time to alter it in the short time after the assassination?

Furthermore, none of the eyewitnesses outside the building said they saw Oswald outside the building before, during, or after the shooting. Numerous witnesses said they saw Billy Lovelady. If the conspirators were going to alter this photo, why not just black out the offending image of the doorway man, instead of moving heads around as you claim happened?

Your theory lacks any substance whatsoever and is based merely upon assumptions and assertions without any evidence in support.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 7:39:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 24, 2012 7:54:30 PM PDT
"There is not much that makes grown men look more dumb than all the holes in the lone gunman idea."

Unless it's one of the 14,000 mutually exclusive conspiracy theories that have been advanced in the past 49 years, all of which remain conjectures, none of which have been supported with any evidence.

Meanwhile, we still have Oswald's rifle found in the Depository, with three shells, a nearly whole bullet found at Parkland, and two large bullet fragments found in the limo that point to Oswald being the shooter.

But like everything else that points to Oswald, conspiracy theorists are quick to dismiss it as being faked / planted / swapped for the real evidence.

It's the old ABO theory -- Anybody But Oswald. If the evidence pointed to Lovelady, and it was Lovelady's rifle found in the building, I guarantee conspiracy theorists would be arguing it's definitely Lovelady in the picture, and ergo, Lovelady couldn't be the shooter.

But in this day and age, with lone nut shooters killing people left and right, which makes more sense, a massive conspiracy so big that it can alter every shred of evidence -- and do it in record time, like what is alleged with this photo -- or a lone nut taking his rifle to work and sticking it out the window and shooting the President because he had a grudge against the world?

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 8:21:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 24, 2012 8:25:47 PM PDT
"If the brains are on the back of the car, he is hit from the front, otherwise they would be all over the frontpassengers. True or not?"

Absolutely true. Unfortunately for you, the Zapruder film shows the massive explosion of brains and cranial material being ejected forward of the President, and the other occupants of the car spoke of being spattered with blood and brains. The Z-film shows no ejecta over the trunk of the car.

And the passengers in the car forward of JFK all spoke of being spattered with blood and brain matter:

Governor Connally: ... and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear. Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail...

Nellie Connally: ... The third shot I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue or whatever, all over the car and both of us...

Agent Roy Kellerman: ... Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over. ... Body matter; flesh.

So you are right in your statement, but not in your conclusion, as the photographic evidence as well as the testimony of the three passengers forward of JFK indicates the bulk of the brain matter went forward (cue up the Z-film is altered and the witnesses are all lying scum argument, Bob).

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2012 5:25:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 25, 2012 5:27:52 AM PDT
Smallchief says:
Priestess: There is not much that makes grown men look more dumb than all the holes in the lone gunman idea.

Smallchief replies: You got it right there, P-tress. I've spent almost 50 years studying the Kennedy assassination, integrating all the theories, and I am certain that the KGB, CIA, FBI, LBJ, Mafia, Teamsters, Castro, and Big Oil conspired together to kill Kennedy and stationed a battalion of sharpshooters on the grassy knoll to shoot him down.

And, as rational people, we don't believe the wild-eyed conspiracy theories about the assassination. For example, there's no evidence whatsoever that aliens from outer space were involved. Rather, the aliens were busy at the time evacuating their base on the moon so they would not be discovered when the first moon mission got there.

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2012 11:04:43 AM PDT
I should start writing a book tomorrow. Maybe call it
Stemmons Freeway ~ Keep Right

Posted on May 25, 2012 11:16:29 AM PDT
Here's an update: Ralph Cinque and Dr. Fetzer have identified the fraudulence in the WFAA fillm about the assassination. This pertains directly to the subject of this thread: Doorman in the Altgens photo.

Recently, David Von Pein, one of the Internet's leading JFK disinformationists, posted a clip from the documentary film "A Year Ago Today" which was issued by WFAA-TV exactly one year after the assassination.
This film contains yet a 4th version of the Lovelady walk-by. We are going to discuss it and how it impugns, not only itself, but also the other versions.
But first, let us note that the fact that there are 4 versions of a 3 second footage is damning in itself. What possible reason could there be for 4 versions to exist? How much "editing" (read: altering) did they have to do? The mere fact that they devoted so much editorial effort to one 3-second piece of footage suggests that controlling the content was foremost on their minds. Just the fact that this much editing was needed is evidence of tampering- severe tampering.
But, let's not kid ourselves: there is no reason to think that it stops at 4. There may be 5, 6, or greater number of versions of this 3 second clip out there. Jim and I have given up thinking that we know how many there are.
But, this latest WFAA version is longer, about twice as long. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akG4_8RPT1A&feature=relmfu
It starts with the "mother frame" as all of them do. The mother frame is the one showing the back of Oswald's head as he's revolving to enter the room in which Lovelady is sitting. In this version, the mother frame occurs at 5: 43.
It is followed by the same dark, drab sequence that is seen in 3 Shots. And here is the link to 3 Shots because you may want to compare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZC_D0UZzkM
So, after the mother frame, WFAA gets suddenly dark and shows the backs of the men plodding along. This darkness constitutes a sudden change in lighting, and it's also blurry. It continues for 2 full seconds before it regains normal lighting, and when it does, you're seeing the back of the rear cop.
This early dark section goes from 5: 43 to 5:45. That is a long time in which very little ground is covered. It's almost like they are walking in place. It represents a tremendous slow-down in velocity. It's like suddenly, the men are going in slow-motion. They were moving at a good clip up to the mother frame, but after the mother frame, it slows down to a crawl, and I mean a dark, drab, blurry crawl.
When it comes back into light at 5:45, we're seeing DeNiro. But note that he's very blurry. The lighting is back to normal, but not the focus. The quality is much better in the clip from 3 Shots that Robin Unger posted recently, which can be found at the bottom of the following page:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083&st=915
You should go there and watch that again. It's from 3 Shots, and it's much clearer. In fact, there are some very sharp, crystal-clear images of DeNiro.
But, there are no such clear shots of him in the WFAA film. It's all a blur. He remains totally out of focus- and it's no accident.
When it reaches the end of the clip in 3 Shots, the rear cop has taken over the screen, blocking out DeNiro, and then it quickly reverts to a newscaster. And that's it. Lovelady is gone from that point on.
But in the WFAA version, the rear cop takes over the screen, he lingers for a while, then he moves out of the way again, and when he does, presto!, we're looking at the other Lovelady, the one from Wolper and Craig. It's not DeNiro any longer. It's the embedded Lovelady, the right-turning Lovelady, the Lovelady from Wolper.
What they did in WFAA is combine the phony DeNiro footage with the original footage that has Lovelady embedded.
Another way to put it is that WFAA = 3 Shots + 4 Days.
And they had to keep DeNiro blurry throughout because he doesn't look much like the other Lovelady, and it would have been easy to tell. So, they kept him way out of focus.
Ask yourself this: why should he be so out of focus in WFAA when he is in perfect focus in 3 Shots? It's the same footage!
They deliberately kept him out of focus so that they could merge him with the other Lovelady and sell it.
Is there any chance that WFAA simply has the complete Lovelady sequence while the others do not? No, there is no chance of that, as I will explain. But, think about what it would mean if that were true: It would mean that the other versions were severely cut, all of them. And it would mean that in the 3 Shots film, the most important part was cut while the least important part was kept.
Here's what I mean. That dark, drab, blurry opening with the men plodding along is surely the least important part because it doesn't show Oswald, and it doesn't show Lovelady, and it doesn't show anything of importance. And that was kept in 3 Shots. However, the part in which the uniformed cop is leading Oswald around to the right to engage with Fritz at the door to his office must surely be the most important part because that was the destination. That was where they were going. That was their arrival. But that was cut from 3 Shots. They kept the slow, dark, plodding march of the cops but cut out the arrival of Oswald at Fritz' office! What does that say about the integrity of 3 Shots?
But why would they have cut that out? THEY CUT OUT OSWALD BEING DELIVERED TO FRITZ but kept the part with the men darkly plodding along. That makes no sense! Why didn't they cut out the plodding but keep the part with Oswald being delivered to Fritz?
The answer is that they didn't care about Oswald., and they didn't care about Fritz. They just wanted to show Lovelady. They wanted to show him wearing that plaid shirt.
We have proof that the WFAA film is a fraudulent tacking- together of the phony DeNiro sequence with the real footage (although even that footage is phony because Lovelady was embedded).
But the proof lies in the time that it took. Remember, it's the same small room. It can't take so much longer for the men to go through it. This was the tiny little room that preceded Fritz's office. It could not have been any bigger than the room that they passed through before it.
In WFAA, it takes Oswald and the uniformed cop 2 seconds to get through the preceding room, that is, from 5 minutes 41 seconds to 5 minutes 43 seconds.
But, when the dark, drab, blurry sequence begins, there's a jump to it, and you can see that the cop and Oswald are already more than halfway through the room. It starts at 5:43, but you can see the white hat of the uniformed cop, and he's already well advanced in the room. And it's a very small room. But then comes the part where they phase in DeNiro, and then they phase out DeNiro, and then they phase in the embedded Lovelady. And by the time, the big cop reaches Fritz office and stops, the time is 5 minutes 47 seconds.
But, that's 4 seconds for the lead cop to get through that tiny room, from 5:43 to 5:47, and it started with him being half-way through it. So, that' 4 seconds for the uniformed cop to travel a distance of about 8 feet!
This is bull. It only took so long because they had to do a bait and switch, starting with DeNiro and then concealing him with the rear cop, and then when the rear cop moves aside, replacing DeNiro with the other Lovelady.
It's a classic bait and switch.
So, thank you, David Von Pein for exposing us to this. We now have even more proof of chicanery in the processing of the film footage from the police station.
This is really infantile. Did they really expect to get away with this? Did they really think we weren't going to notice the bait and switch? This is a shabby and botched merger of two films. It is transparently false. This is DeNiro plus the other Lovelady crudely sewn together, stitched together. But, you could say that the plot has suddenly thickened. And it keeps getting more devious, more Machiavellian.
And of course the purpose was to sell the idea that Lovelady wore the long-sleeved plaid shirt on 11/22/63 and not the short-sleeved striped shirt that he first said he wore.
And the bottom line is that Lee Harvey Oswald was, without a doubt, the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo. And that means that everything in the Warren Report is a lie.
The chicanery involved in the making of these movies only proves how dastardly and evil the cover-up was in President Kennedy's murder. And it continues to this day.

Posted on May 25, 2012 11:43:35 AM PDT
Some people here are acting like it is still a big secret being covered up for 40 years that no one is telling. It is not. There has been a laundry list of people involved in the crime. People have said that so and so did it and so and so was involved. People have even admitted doing it. Knowing which one of them is right is the only secret. And Oswald is not the answer.

The government in power at the time knew full well what the secret was. They put all the important paperwork on ice, not to be opened until everyone involved is long gone.

I wonder what the refusers here think is in that paperwork?

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2012 11:49:04 AM PDT
Even without the doorway photo, it was obv the Warren Report was a cover up.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 9:51:56 AM PDT
and the illuminati

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 9:53:11 AM PDT
reply to Ralph Cinque's post:

i have a textbook on editing photos (old style with film) includin gexamples

they showed one teh cia did putting oswalds head on anohter body
plus some kgb examples where people disappeared seamlessly when looking at the before and after versions

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 8:39:08 AM PDT
Sorry, Linda. I'm not buying what you're selling.

First off, look at how you label anyone who disagrees with you. David Von Pein is a "disinformationalist". No, he simply doesn't agree with your accessment of the films and photographs. Neither do I.

Look at how you jump to conclusions - instead of understanding there might be multiple films of Oswald being led through the hallway at the police station, there were of course, dozens of newsmen at the station, and if more than one captured that moment on film, it would be entirely understandable -- but instead you assume there is only one film and it is altered multiple ways. And then you label it "bait and switch", "chicanery", "devious", and "Machiavellian".

You also claim it's an infantile alteration that could not be expected to withstand scrutiny. But you fail to offer any reasonable explanation for why conspirators would do it anyway, nor what they hoped to gain from it. Quite simply, one film of Oswald being led past Lovelady would be sufficient for their purposes (whatever those purposes were), would it not? Yet you claim they created multiple versions and allowed them all to see the light of day! To what end? You don't explain. That's because you have no explanation.

Quite simply, your arguments on the supposed alterations of this film, like on the Altgens photo alterations you previous alleged, go nowhere. They make no sense and accomplish nothing in terms of a coverup. Again, you are simply assuming what you need to prove (one film was altered multiple ways instead of multiple films from different angles were taken); and failing to explain the logic behind the supposed alterations, which accomplish nothing in terms of framing Oswald.

Don't let that stop you. You're on a roll now. I assume you will next label me a disinformationist, merely for disagreeing with you, which again (without any proof) assumes your assessment is correct and anyone who disagrees is someone who knows the truth but is merely disagreeing to spread disinformation. Instead of assuming there is honest disagreement how to view these events, you simply assume people who disagree are aware they are spreading disinformation. That claim, like all your others, is simply an assumption on your part.

But as can be seen on numerous websites, like the Education Forum, even many of the most avid and long-time conspiracy believers also disagree with your (and Ralph Cinque's) assessment. Are they also disinformationists?

PS: You never explained how the conspirators knew the Altgens photo needed to be altered, why they altered it in the manner they did (swapping heads, etc., instead of just blacking out the offending image of Oswald entirely, and how they found time to alter the image in the [only] 30-35 minutes between the assassination and the Altgens photo going out on the AP wire to newspapers around the country. You also need to overcome the admission to newsmen by Oswald in police custody that he was in the building at the time of the shooting. That alone is strong evidence your assessment of the Altgens photo is incorrect - Oswald tells you it cannot be him on the steps in the photo as you assert.

You do realize it's not enough to merely set yourself up (or have Ralph set himself up) as an expert who can glean things in the photo previously unnoticed by anyone else and merely assert these things are true, I trust. You must also prove them, and offer reasonable explanations for why anyone would do what you assert was done, which, as always when it comes to conspiracy theories, makes no sense and avoids a simple solution and replaces it with a Rube-Goldberg contraption with multiple failure points.

Let's start someplace simple: Why would the conspirators swap the heads of Oswald and Lovelady in the Altgens photo, instead of simply blacking out the supposed offending image of Oswald in the doorway in the short time they had to alter the photo?

Oh yeah, did you ever find two different versions of the Altgens photo that were published after the assassination. You claimed you had a witness to that event previously. What, he's just telling a story with no evidence to support it, and you believe it?

As you've done in the past, feel free to ignore all the points that establish your claims are nonsense.

Hank

Posted on May 28, 2012 8:48:41 AM PDT
Altgens6 did not reach papers until much later. We know that from a photo journalist who worked for the Dayton Daily News. He says that Altgens6 did not arrive until 7 AM the next day.

A smarter person would have asked a different question about the Altgens photo: Why didn't they just destroy the whole thing? What did they need it for? They saw Oswald standing there; why didn't they toss it.

But in regard to those goofy movies, you should read this. I wish I could post the images, but you'll get the idea:

Newly Discovered Cinematic Flim-Flam of the JFK Assassination

By Ralph C. Cinque

Believe it or not, there has been a new and startling development in JFK assassination research since my last article on lewrockwell.com. It concerns yet another version of the footage of Oswald walking past Lovelady at the Dallas PD. It is the 4th version that I now know of, and each one is distinctly different.
But, how can there be so many versions of one short piece of footage which lasts only a few seconds? And I have given up saying how many there are. If there are 4, then perhaps there are 5 or 6 or more.
But this latest one to surface, from WFAA Television, is truly unique and truly worthy of an Academy Award- or at least a nomination. And the category would be Special Effects. I am going to show you the amazing thing they attempted to do and get away with, but, it will be helpful to your understanding to consider first two other versions of the film.
First, note that all versions of the film start with what I call the "mother frame." This is an image of Oswald from behind as he is being led into the room in which Lovelady is sitting. Here it is:


Every movie has got the above frame. Oswald is the one on the very far right whom you can barely see. In the upper right in the distance is Lead Detective Will Frtiz, and he's the destination. They are about to deliver Oswald to him. But, they will have to pass Lovelady first.
But, after the "mother frame" the movies each take very different turns. Here's the next frame in Four Days in November which was made by award-winning filmmaker David Wolper.
And below is the next frame that follows the mother frame in a History channel program entitled Three Shots That Changed America.
Notice any difference? Not exactly the same, are they? But how could they be so different when they are supposed to be the same exact scene and moment?
Four Days goes on to show us Lovelady, and here is how he looks:


Three Shots also goes on to show us Lovelady, as you can see below.

I pointed out last time that these two Loveladys look like different men. The consensus has been that there is 20 to 30 pounds weight difference between them. Usually, that means they were different men. But, there are other differences besides them. Notice that in the first picture, the second police officer has shorter, straight hair, while in the picture right above, the second man has longer, curlier hair. Notice also that in the second picture, DeNiro Lovelady has got his shirt sprawled open whereas the other Lovelady in the other picture has got his shirt cinched up. They're different men.
I hope it's clear that these two movies involved different takes of the same event. I'll now provide the links to these two movies:
Four Days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIlbvI5x5rU (Lovelady segment starts at 5:35)
Three Shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZC_D0UZzkM (Lovelady segment starts at 39.35)
Now, you probably wouldn't expect anyone to attempt to put these two disparately different Loveladies into the same movie, but you would be wrong.
The latest version (to me) of the movie was put out by WFAA television, and it was meant to commemorate the 1 year anniversary in 1964.
They actually spliced together the footage of DeNiro Lovelady with the Embedded Lovelady and called it one. It's simply in sequence: first DeNiro, then this linebacker-cop gets in the way, taking over the whole screen like a human curtain, and when he moves aside, wahlah! - you're looking at Embedded Lovelady.
But, those two Loveladies don't look at all alike, plus there are other differences between the two sets. So how did they expect to get away with it? The answer is: Easy; they blurred the hell out of it.
Here is DeNiro Lovelady from the WFAA film, called A Year Ago Today:

I apologize for how blurry it is. I realize that you can barely make him out. That was the whole idea.
But here now is the transitional frame. Think of this linebacker-cop as the curtain coming down for the scene change at live theater.

Again, I apologize for the blurriness, but again, it was the whole idea. Now get ready because the bait and switch is about to happen before your very eyes.

The sleight-of-hand fix is in. Above, you are looking at the Embedded Lovelady. He wasn't really there. It's real footage, but he wasn't in it. They embedded him afterwards. And notice how he glows.
The DeNiro sequence was a re-enactment. I don't know when it was made, but definitely after 11/22/63. And the other one is real footage from 11/22/63 except that Lovelady was embedded some time later, and I don't know when. In Year Ago, they actually had the audacity to use both in the same film.
Here is the link to A Year Ago Today by WFAA film:
WFAA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akG4_8RPT1A&feature=relmfu (Lovelady starts at 5:43)
It is supposed to be the same film shown in 1964, but I'm sure it isn't. They altered it. I'm sure the original didn't have both Loveladies. Which one did it have? I don't know, but it was either DeNiro as in Three Shots or Embedded Lovelady as in Four Days, but definitely not both. And I'm sure that the original was not so blurry. It was an hour-long program, and there's no way that they would have shown an hour of blurry television, not even in 1964. If that was all they had, they would have just shown snippets of it and talked around it. They deliberately made it blurry once they combined the two Loveladies. They had to. It was the only way to sell it. They had to blur the hell out of it in order to make those two guys seem like one.
So, they deliberately blurred it- and that is something we know beyond any shadow of a doubt. How do we know it? Well, that's a trick question. You should know it. I've told you enough that you should know by yourself that that movie was deliberately blurred. Do you want to think about it a second?
Ok, here's the answer to the conundrum: We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the WFAA movie was deliberately blurred because the same DeNiro Lovelady footage appears in the Three Shots movie without being blurred, and the Embedded Lovelady footage appears in the Four Days movie without being blurred, and if those segments could appear in those movies without being blurred, then there is no reason why they had to be shown blurred in the WFAA movie. It's the same footage!
But, when you tried to combine them together, you had a problem. And the solution was: blur.
In closing, here's an interesting observation about the Three Shots movie. It features DeNIro Lovelady, and after we get a good look at him, the linebacker -cop takes over the screen, and then the scene ends. The whole segment is over. It switches to some newscaster who is talking to somebody, and it never comes back to the scene at Detective Fritz' office. However, that meant that they skipped the most important part because the whole idea was to deliver Oswald to Detective Frtiz. However, they edited that out. You see, they didn't care about that. They just wanted to show Lovelady in that plaid shirt so that they could claim that he was the Doorman in the Altgens photo.
So, where we stand now is that the Establishment has known all along that the Altgens6 photo was the weakest link in the chain of JFK evidence. And they set to work right away trying to fix it. But now, almost 49 years later, Altgens6 has become Ground Zero in the whole JFK debate. And it's only going to get worse for them from here. Mark my words.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:03:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:37:30 AM PDT
Quoting Spiritual Architect - "Even without the doorway photo, it was obv the Warren Report was a cover up. "

Unfortunately for you, you appear to have swallowed the conspiracy theorist's version of events hook, line, and sinker. You offer no details to rebut, but perhaps that is because you don't know enough about the event to offer any details. Your post is a simple assertion, devoid of any evidence in support.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:19:39 AM PDT
Spiritual Architect says: "The government in power at the time knew full well what the secret was. They put all the important paperwork on ice, not to be opened until everyone involved is long gone."

lol. As a long-time JFK assassination researcher, I've been hearing that refrain since almost the minute the Warren Commission rendered a conclusion and closed up shop. Although the Warren Commission released 26 volumes of testimony and documents (all of it available for free online), critics argued the good stuff was still hidden.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations took another look at the JFK assassination in 1978-1979, and they agreed with the Warren Commission that all the shots that struck the President were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the Depository. They released their testimony and numerous volumes of evidence by their separate medical, forensic, and photographic panels. Nonetheless, critics argued the good stuff was still hidden.

And apparently you never heard of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). This group was formed after the release of Oliver Stone's movie JFK and most all the records relating to the JFK assassination - including the Clay Shaw trial testimony - were released to the National Archives and are available for review. None of it contradicts the conclusions rendered in 1964 by the Warren Commission, yet critics still complain the good stuff is still hidden.

Not sure what you intend to prove with your above post, but all you really established is that you're assuming what you need to prove - that there was a conspiracy, and the records still unreleased will establish that. But of course, you have no evidence of that. Just your assumptions that:
(a) there was a conspiracy and
(b) the records that prove it haven't been released yet.

My understanding is there are some records that haven't been released yet, but those pertain to sources that should not be revealed at this time without jeopardizing the source. For example, imagine Castro's driver or butler was recruited as a CIA source during the cold war. If he is still alive, revealing his identity even at this late date could jeopardize his life. Ergo, it makes sense to keep those records hidden for the time being.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:24:33 AM PDT
But the HSCA never considered the clothes! They never considered the clothes.

Look: 80% of Doorman's image is his clothes. And his clothes were a spitting-image, a dead ringer for Oswald's clothes: the loose-fitting outer shirt, UNBUTTONED almost to the bottom, with very distinctive collar-lapels, over a notched, vee-shaped t-shirt. That is a very distinctive ensemble and it is exactly what we see on Doorman. Unless you think Lovelady attacked Oswald in the bathroom and stole his clothes, you have to say it's Oswald.

We just found out that one of Ralph's articles was translated into Arabic and published in Palestine. That's exciting.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:26:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:38:25 AM PDT
whomper says: "i have a textbook on editing photos (old style with film) includin gexamples"

Name of that textbook? I'd love to see a copy.

You are apparently referring to the 'backyard' photos of Oswald taken by his wife Marina about 8 months before the assassination and found among his possessions after the assassination. But those photos were examined by the FBI in 1964 and the HSCA's photographic panel of experts in 1978, and they could find no evidence of any fakery in those backyard photos.

The reasonable conclusion is the one that Marina still insists to this day is true: Lee came up to her while she was hanging the wash in the backyard one day in March and asked her to take some photos of him posing with his rifle, his revolver, and some issues of commie literature he subscribed to (The Militant or the Worker, or both).

She did. If you ask her, she will tell you that today.

So I'd love to see that textbook that says otherwise, and determine what their source is for making that claim. Because any expert who's ever examined the first generation materials have rendered the same conclusion - the backyard photos are legitimate.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:35:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:51:30 AM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says:

"Altgens6 did not reach papers until much later. We know that from a photo journalist who worked for the Dayton Daily News. He says that Altgens6 did not arrive until 7 AM the next day. A smarter person would have asked a different question about the Altgens photo: Why didn't they just destroy the whole thing? What did they need it for? They saw Oswald standing there; why didn't they toss it."

Your source is now telling two different stories. You previously claimed both versions (altered and unaltered) were sent on the AP wire and received by this supposed source on the same day of 11/22/63. Now you are down to claiming it was released only once, in an altered state, and early the NEXT day. I don't know much, but I do know both versions you've told now here in this forum cannot both be true.

So what happened to the unaltered version? Why can't you produce publications showing both versions?

And I do believe I did ask previously why the photo wasn't simply destroyed if it contained information that was necessary to conceal. You never did answer that question here, either. You simply ask it, then move on to something else. You haven't attempted to answer any of the questions concerning the Altgens photo I raised in any form at any time.

The rest of your post is a simple re-iteration of the nonsense posted previously, none of it having any evidence in support. What it reduces to is "Ralph says this is what he thinks happened..." But Ralph is no expert on photographic analysis, so his opinion that the films are altered versions of one film is quite simply meaningless.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:49:07 AM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says: "But the HSCA never considered the clothes! They never considered the clothes.

Look: 80% of Doorman's image is his clothes. And his clothes were a spitting-image, a dead ringer for Oswald's clothes: the loose-fitting outer shirt, UNBUTTONED almost to the bottom, with very distinctive collar-lapels, over a notched, vee-shaped t-shirt. That is a very distinctive ensemble and it is exactly what we see on Doorman. Unless you think Lovelady attacked Oswald in the bathroom and stole his clothes, you have to say it's Oswald. We just found out that one of Ralph's articles was translated into Arabic and published in Palestine. That's exciting. "

Yeah, just what we need. More anti-American rhetoric for Palestinians to read. I remind you Sirhan Sirhan shot Bobby Kennedy and Sirhan was a Palestinian. Sirhan was the first terrorist to attack America. Keep up the good work on that front.

I disagree entirely with your assertion that the clothes are a dead-ringer for Oswald's. The shirt contains a plaid pattern that apparently matches Lovelady's, as you previously admitted, but argued that was falsified. The face is Lovelady's, as you previously admitted and argued was falsified. The apparent V-neck is simply the shadow of Oswald's head being cast on his chest. The open shirt is being compared to Oswald's shirt after his arrest in the theatre, when there was a struggle to subdue Oswald. You have no idea what Oswald's shirt looked like before the struggle, but I doubt it was falling off him as the photos after his arrest show. Oswald himself denied being on the steps, saying he was *IN THE BUILDING* at the time of the shooting. You argue that Oswald mis-spoke, but present no evidence he did.
Quite simply, you have your opinion of what that photo shows, and it includes showing Lovelady's shirt pattern and Lovelady's face. You conclude this means it shows Oswald. I believe it shows what you claim it shows, Billy Lovelady.

Hank

Posted on May 28, 2012 9:54:55 AM PDT
The plaid pattern definitely was falsified. And they didn't do a very good job of it. They forgot to add pattern to the upper right side of the Doorman's shirt. Maybe it was too small an area to cover in the context of the original Altgens6 photo. But take a look at these three samples. Which two match? Which one is the odd man out?

http://tinypic.com/r/16jguw/6

And by the way, Sirhan Sirhan did not shoot Bobby Kennedy, but we are not changing the subject.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:56:17 AM PDT
Smallchief says:
I forgot the illuminati! A coven of them was standing by with swords and spears in case the 300 sharpshooters missed.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 12:10:27 PM PDT
Smallchief is right. Basic common sense tells you that if there had indeed been a conspiracy, someone would have sold the story. Or revealed it shortly before dying, as Deep Throat did re: Watergate. Read the book Case Closed, and every crazy theory is shot down. Why is it so difficult to believe that one man killed the President? Are conspiracy theorists claiming that every murder of a power figure was the result of a conspiracy? Or only this one?

Posted on May 28, 2012 12:43:26 PM PDT
keith stone says:
It was Bigfoot disguised as Oswald. Oswald was around back, waiting with Elvis in the get away car.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  81
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 9, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions