“Truth at last cannot be hidden. Dissimulation is to no purpose before so great a judge.
Falsehood puts on a mask. Nothing is hidden under the sun.”–Leonardo da Vinci
While it may be difficult to believe, the Arrest Report on Lee Harvey Oswald on 22 November 1963 states that “This man shot and killed President John F. Kennedy and Police Officer J. D. Tippit. He also shot and wounded Governor John Connally”. The shooting took place at 12:30 PM/CT and the Arrest Report is time 1:40 PM/CT. I was anchored out about the LPH Iwo Jima in Kaohsiung Harbor, Formosa (now Taiwan) when the Officer of the Deck awakened me at 3:30 AM to tell me that the President had been shot and, an hour later, awakened me again to tell me that they had caught the guy who did it and that he was a communist.
I had thought then “That was pretty fast work!” But considering that no investigation to speak of had as yet taken place, it was not only “pretty fast work” but, upon reflection, would only have been possible if they had already known who had done it:
Indeed, the evidence exonerating the alleged assassin is extensive and compelling, including that Lee was observed in and around the 2nd floor lunch room at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM by Carolyn Arnold, where would be confronted by Motorcycle Officer Marrion Baker within 90 seconds of the shooting. Baker held him in his sights until Roy Truly, Lee’s supervisor in the TSBD, came over to assure him that this man was an employee who belonged there. Both stated in their hand-written reports, which appear in The Warren Report (1964), that he was not winded, not out of breath, not perspiring or agitated–although, Truly added, he did appear to be a bit startled as anyone would be who suddenly found themselves confronting a police officer with a drawn revolver pointed at this chest. Think about what we were supposed to swallow, hook, line, and sinker:
Plus we have multiple reports of women who were on the staircase at the time that Lee was ostensibly rushing down to the lunchroom–and for what purpose? to drink a coke?–that they did not see him, no doubt for the obvious reason that he was not there. What more reasonable action could he have taken than, having finished his lunch, when everyone else was out watching the President of the United States pass by with his glamorous wife, than to step out to watch as they passed by, just as he told Will Fritz during his interrogation, that he was “out with Billy Shelley in front”.
As though that were not enough, he would subsequently pass his nitrate test, which found traces of nitrates on his hands but not on his face or cheeks, which was doubly-exculpatory: had he fired a rifle or a carbine, there would have been nitrates on his face or cheeks, which could have been washed off, except that he still had traced on his hands, which was innocuous, because he worked in a school book depository, where books are printed in ink, which contains nitrates. So he had not even fired a rifle or a carbine.
The problem confronting the perps, however, was that Lee had stepped out into the doorway to watch the motorcade pass by, which had to be eradicated from the photographic record at all costs, lest the entire charade of painting him as the assassin be blown out of the water from the beginning. So the photo team applied all of its talents to reorganizing the figures in the Altgens6 in order to make sure that no one would be able to ascertain that Lee Oswald had been in the doorway, after all, by creating an ambiguity between him and his co-worker, Billy Lovelady, to whom he bore a certain resemblance, and then by employing a second man, a Lovelady impostor, to reinforce the false belief that Doorman had been wearing a checkered long sleeved shirt, even though Billy himself would explain to the FBI that he had actually been wearing a short-sleeved, red-and- white vertically stripped shirt that bore no resemblance at all to the shirt worn by Doorman:
It now appears that the deception was created by taking features of Billy Lovelady’s face and imposing them over the face of Doorman, who was, as we have previously explained, wearing the shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing when he was arrested and later photographed at the Dallas Police Department. It was Ralph Cinque’s astute observation that, since Doorman’s face was somewhat obscure and blurring, the shirt and the body type were what mattered more in sorting this out, where, unless Billy Lovelady was wearing Lee’s clothing, the figure in the doorway has to have been Lee and not Billy Lovelady. And Richard Hooke has now provided an analysis of how certain features of Lovelady were imposed over Oswald’s face:
This was a kind of mask intended to make the question of the facial identification of Doorman virtually impossible, but they never considered that someone like Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor by profession, would become interested in this question and be in the position by virtue of his background and training to focus on the clothing and the body instead, which, we now know, reflect extensive efforts to revise the image, including creating Black-Tie-Man by moving features of Fedora Man–whom we believe to have been Jack Ruby–in an attempt to conceal the shirt that Doorman was wearing, but where it was executed in a clumsy manner and actually turned Doorman’s image into an anatomically impossible caricature–which has to be as definite proof that Altgens6 was altered as anyone could possibly imagine. Indeed, I am now convinced they also took the FBI photos of Lovelady and did the reverse by imposing features of Oswald over his face in the photo on the left:
The only part that remains to explain is the images of Lovelady and of “Lovelady” in the DPD footage, which has attracted Ralph keen interest. He argues–and I find his reasoning persuasive–that once you assume that the Lovelady impostor, whom we may refer to as “Gorilla Man”, was not the real Lovelady, it rules out 22 November 1963 for the creating the video footage for two reasons: (1) the problem with Billy’s claiming he had worn the red-and-white vertically stripped shirt had not yet surfaced; and (2) a ruse such as the the faking of a video takes time and planning–it has to be set up; you have to find a suitable guy, the right shirt, a cameraman, etc., which suggests that it could not have been done until later. But how much later? I think that footage was shot at least a few months after the assassination–and it may have been years later.
So, why didn’t they use the real Lovelady? Ralph has offered several reasons: (a) Lovelady had the idea instilled in him that he had to claim to be Doorman, but don’t assume from that that the fraudulence of it all was discussed openly with him. That’s not the way things were done. He was told–in so many words–what was expected of him, but almost certainly it was always couched in innocent verbage, as though it was on the up-and-up. It would have been one thing to get him to say he was Doorman, but it was another thing to recruit him to participate in a fraudulent movie. (b) If years had passed, perhaps Lovelady himself no longer looked the part. We know his hair fall-out continued rapidly, and he lost quite a lot of weight.
And (c) logistically, it may have been harder to do it with the real Lovelady because he did work there or used to work there. People knew him, so they might have wondered what the heck he was doing there and approached him. But Gorilla Man really didn’t look like Lovelady at all, so no one would pay him any attention. The footage was definitely choreographed, but it may have involved a combination of actors and real people. So here is a further elaboration on how the PDP footage was composed, including, along the way, a rebuttal to criticisms that have been advanced by a fellow named Joe Backes, which are notable for their intensity. I believe Ralph has clearly defeated him and that we have here the final pieces of the puzzle.
The Empire Strikes Back!
by Ralph Cinque
Jim Fetzer and I came under attack recently by JFK blogger Joseph Backes who followed our participation on the Education Forum and issued some scathing and vicious commentary about it. Note that he is a member of the EF and he could have confronted us directly in the forum where either of us could have responded. But, he chose instead to make his caustic comments in a venue in which he had an exclusive voice. On his forum profile, it says that Backes works in the industry of “government” and his specific occupation is “civil servant.” Backes attacked me over several issues, including the “white blotch” in the Altgens photo, and the so-called “Martin” post-assassination footage (which involved a Lovelady imposter), and the various versions of the film footage of Oswald passing Lovelady at the Dallas PD. So, let’s take them one at a time.
Here is the image of the “white blotch”. which Jim Fetzer and I believe is the obfuscation of a man’s face in the Altgens6 photo. We’ll use the Groden scan, which many people believe is the best.
Do you see that weird cloud-like blotch or splotch, center-right? That’s what we are talking about. But before we go further, let’s look at it in the context of the whole Altgens photo.
Do you notice how in the whole Altgens photo that that guy disappears completely, and the white blotch just blends in with the t-shirt of the man standing behind him with both hands raised? I believe that is what they were going for. Joe Backes insists that the white blotch is an elbow that “the man’s elbow is directly in line with the camera.” Backes says that he is “shielding his face from the glare of the sun.” And to prove the point, he posts the following, which somebody “enhanced.”
Here is what Backes said about the photo on the left: “It’s merely a man standing on the steps of the TSBD shielding his face from the glare of the sun with his right hand. The elbow of the right arm is directly in line with the camera. It’s a white shirt, and it’s reflecting a little bit of sunshine. I think the man has a receding hairline, and he’s wearing glasses. I can just barely make out his chin, mouth, and nose. That’s all this is.” Here is another explanatory picture of the photo on the right: “If this is a man, his face is obscured by something, something that seems to be reflecting sunlight. His arm is across his chest. He has a long-sleeved white or light-colored shirt on. It looks to me like he’s got a thin tie on too.” So, to the extent to which Joe Backes is being creative in his interpretations, look at the white blotch in isolation:
That is a blotch. It is an amorphous, unintelligible, unrecognizable form that resembles no physical object, living or non-living, whose presence makes no sense in the photograph. And I challenge Joseph Backes or anyone else to produce any other photograph from the entire history of photography in which a human being, his elbow or any other part of him, appears in this manner.If he were to make a case, he would need to provide external proof from another source that such a thing is photographically possible, for a man’s elbow to appear like this. Give me one other example from the entire history of photography.
Next, let’s consider the films. Backes made something of my discomfort with the differences between them. He said there is this thing called “editing.” I know about editing, Backes, but there is no legitimate reason why a 4 second clip needs to be edited. It does not need to be edited for time, and it does not need to be edited for content. So, don’t make excuses for it. There are 4 versions I know of (and there may be more) and each one is distinctly different.
But here’s the setup: Billy Lovelady, a TSBD worker, was brought to the Dallas PD along with others, including Bill Shelley, to make a statement. Supposedly, he was told to sit at a work-desk deep within the inner sanctum of the Dallas PD, and while there, he was passed by Lee Oswald who was being taken to Detective Fritz. Where were the other witnesses waiting? Who knows, but it was an odd place to seat anyone because it was right in the lane of traffic. Why would Lovelady be seated at a police work-desk? Why would he be singled out and perched there alone? Here are links to the four versions of the film:
Three Shots That Changed America: starts at 39 minutes, 35 seconds
Four Days in November: starts at 5 minutes, 35 second.
Roger Craig version: starts at 1 minute and 4 seconds
WFAA version entitled “A Year Ago Today”: starts at 5 minutes, 43 seconds
Obviously, all the movies should show the same thing. There shouldn’t be much variation, if any. Perhaps a slight angular variation would be expected, but not much because they were all crowded together in a tight spot. But that is not what we have here. The first version I saw was the one with the Roger Craig inset. And from watching it, I quickly realized that Lovelady wasn’t really there. He was embedded into the footage afterwards. Here are the reasons why I believe this:
(1) In the movie, Lovelady has a glow, where his lighting is distinctly different from the others in the film. He seems illuminated. And it reminds me of what I’ve seen in various Pixar movies in which a character is embedded. Lovelady almost looks like an animated character who was embedded into a real movie. The year was 1964, but “Mary Poppins” had already been released, so the technology obviously did exist.
(2) Lovelady generates no reaction from anyone in the film. All these cops are passing right by him, and none of them look at him or acknowledge him in any way. They were transferring the most high-value prisoner in the world at that time, and suddenly within their midst was another man, a stranger to them, a warehouse worker who was sitting at a police desk. But, not one of the cops reacted to Lovelady. Not one glanced at him. Not one showed him the least bit of recognition. Not one of them was the least bit interested in him. And, they were not just disinterested, but totally unaware of him. They acted like he wasn’t there. He wasn’t.
I need to expound on this so that you understand the importance of it. The way our vision works is that we have a “visual field” and we have “objects” within the field. We focus on objects within the field. We discriminate about what we lock on. Guess which objects stand out and attract our attention the most? Human objects: other people. It’s very unlikely that you would pass somebody in a room without giving him or her at least a quick glance, even if it’s only for a split-second. After all, who knows? It could be a pretty girl, right? And especially when someone is in your personal space, you would want to sync on them for a second.
Who knows, it could be a guy with a knife waiting to stab you, right? So by reflex alone, these cops would have glanced at Lovelady when passing by him so closely. But wait! Remember, these were cops, police officers. Cops are trained to be observant. Cops are trained to pay attention to their surroundings. Cops are also trained to ask questions, such as, “Who are you? What are you doing here?” Isn’t it incredible that not one of these trained professional officers paid Lovelady any mind at all? It’s incredible to me, and I think I know cops. My father was a policeman for 45 years.
(3) The physical logistics of getting by Lovelady would have been very awkward and difficult in the small, cramped space. It was a narrow lane. Lovelady was sitting there, and his feet and his legs were definitely extended out into the lane, that is, the lane of traffic. It would have been cumbersome for one person to get by him under the circumstances. But, Oswald and the lead cop who was in uniform were walking double-file. How did they manage it? Counting Lovelady, that would have been three people in a very tight space. They definitely could not have passed him without making some adjustment: stepping over him or stepping around him or waiting for him to get up and move out of the way. So how did it go down?
We don’t know. The movie doesn’t show it. In the Craig version, just as they are entering the room where Lovelady is, the film scrambles. I’ve been told it’s called a “fade-out/fade-in,” but I call it a scramble. And when the scramble finally clears and focus is regained, Oswald and the cop are already well past Lovelady. Isn’t that convenient? In the Four Days film, the problem is handled differently. There, they didn’t use the scramble technique to obfuscate the sticky part. There they just cut it out. They just removed the frames. Simple, but effective.
But, the Three Shots film is completely different from Four Days and Roger Craig. It starts with very dark, drab footage of the cops trudging along- a segment that is completely absent from the others. Then, we see Lovelady, and he is a different man from the Lovelady in Four Days and Roger Craig. I call this version the DeNiro versionbecause the guy playing Lovelady reminds me of Robert DeNiro in the “The Deer Hunter”. He is definitely a different man, and you can see for yourself. Can you guess which one is DeNiro?
Do you notice that DeNiro on the right is stockier? How much more do you think he weighs? I figure a good 25 pounds. Notice that his hair is combed straight back, whereas the other’s is not. Notice that DeNiro has his outer shirt spread open and the other man does not. And compare the arms of the two. DeNiro looks like he’s been lifting weights. DeNiro was an imposter. So, who was the other Lovelady? I suspect he may have been the real Lovelady. But, he definitely wasn’t there when the film was shot. He looks older and balder than the Lovelady who was photographed in March 1964 by the FBI, so I figure his part was filmed after that.
All versions of the movie start with the same “mother frame.”
Do you see how similar they are? Are there any differences at all? Well, you can see Roger Craig in the inset in the upper right, so you know that’s the Roger Craig version. But, just dismiss that. Any difference besides that? Here’s a small one: there is a slight right shift in the bottom picture. Notice that the man in the derby hat is little bit rightward of the left margin compared to the two above, in which he abuts the margin. So, I consider the two above to be identical (since Roger Craig was superimposed). Upper right is Craig, bottom is Four Days, and top left is 3 Shots. So, my hunch is that Three Shots used the frame by the photographer who shot the Craig version, and the other photographer was next to him shooting the Four Days version. But now let’s look at the very next frame in all three movies.
Wow! Look at those variations! The very next frame is different in all three movies! InThree Shots (upper left), it gets very dark and gloomy, and you see the lineup of men trudging along. In Craig (upper right), it scrambles due to the fade-out/fade-in. And, inFour Days (bottom) , it’s a clear shot inside the room, and you are seeing the back of one of the detectives. Is it a problem that the subsequent frame after the mother frame is different in all three movies? You bet it is! This was supposed to be the same event, in a very small room, with the same lighting, the same conditions. How could it possibly come out so differently three times? Four Days next exposes Lovelady for the first time, but Oswald and the lead cop are already well past him so that problem was solved. They just cut frames out to do it. Here it is.
Do you see how that big cop is ahead of Lovelady and is starting to turn right? And, in the Craig version, the next frame after the scramble looks like this:
Here too, the lead cop is well past Lovelady. They did it by scrambling it, but they may also have removed some frames. But, in the DeNiro version, it takes a whole different turn.
When I said a different “turn,” I meant it literally. DeNiro Lovelady is turned left, towards us, while the other Lovelady never turns that way; he only turns right. So now we have not only different physical characteristics, but different actions. This DeNiro version fromThree Shots is totally different footage. It was a re-enactment, and I don’t know when it was made. And I don’t know which came first, the DeNiro footage or the embedded footage as seen in Four Days and Roger Craig. But wait! We must now look at the fourth version, the WFAA version. In it, they actually combined the DeNiro sequence with the Embedded Lovelady sequence, splicing them together, and to make it palatable, they speeded it up and blurred the hell out of it so that those two could pass for the same man.
WFAA starts with the “mother frame” as they all do. That is followed by the same dark, drab procession of cops trudging along as seen in Three Shots. Then, normal lighting returns and we see the leftward-turned DeNiro Lovelady, but he is extremely blurred. Then this large linebacker-cop gets in the way and takes up the whole screen. That’s the veil that hides the stage while the scene is being changed. And when the big cop steps out of the way, there is Embedded Lovelady, just as in Four Days and Roger Craig, except that he too is very blurred. It’s a classic bait and switch. Another way to put it is that
WFAA = Three Shots + Four Days.
There is no question that they deliberately blurred the two Loveladys in WFAA. How do we know? It’s because no such blurring occurs in Three Shots or Four Days, and they were the same footages. And they had to blur it because the two men looked very different, and it was the only way to sell it. But let’s see exactly how they did it. And note that Joseph Backes trashed me for this. He ridiculed me for saying that there were two different Loveladys. First, look at DeNiro in WFAA:
No, your computer is not out of focus. This is how they showed DeNiro Lovelady, all blurred up so that you wouldn’t recognize him.
Then, they moved the linebacker cop into position to block the view for the scene change. Get ready for some magic:
Presto! When the linebacker-cop moves aside we see Embedded Lovelady, a different man. This may be one of the most daring bait-and-switches of all time. 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 thickened, and it keeps getting more devious, more Machiavellian. This harkens back to the Nazi propaganda movies.
Finally, Backes ridiculed me for suggesting that there was anything suspicious about attributing the 6 second clip of Lovelady outside the TSBD to Jack Martin. Kelly Ruckman was the first student to recognize that the “Lovelady” in that 6 second clip was not the real Lovelady, and we have an image of him side by side with the real Lovelady, which I and a group of other professionals have discerned are not the same man–although anyone should be able to see if for themselves.
As Jim has previously observed, the Lovelady impostor looks like a gorilla, while Lovelady has a very normal, even passive, appearance. As for TSBD Lovelady being from the Martin film, that does not make sense either. Here is a frame from the 6 second clip and below it a frame from the Martin film. Do they look like they were taken with the same camera?
And if you watch the Martin film online, which you can find here:
you don’t see the Lovelady frames. I guess they got separated somehow, to put it kindly. The whole cover-up started with altering the Altgens photo, with doctoring Oswald who was standing in the doorway. It started with Doorman, and it is going to end with Doorman. Doorman is now Ground Zero in the whole JFK debate, and he will never relinquish that position. We are tearing down that whole stinking edifice, the whole 50 years of lies, and Doorman is leading the way. The 50th observance was no doubt the occasion on which the government had hoped to place the controversies over the death of our 35th president to rest at last. The emergence of such a simple and obvious proof that the alleged assassin could not have been shooting at JFK because he was in the doorway of the TSBD watching him and Jackie as they drove by has taken that prospect away–forever! The American people are entitled to know the truth about the assassination of JFK. That is long, long overdue.
Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor, health spa operator, and entrenpreneur, has published a series of articles on JFK at lewrockwell.com. His video series, “Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent”, is archived on YouTube.
James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a columnist for Veterans Today, where his most recent studies of the assassination of JFK can be found. [NOTE: This is one in a series of articles being republished since veterans today.com deleted them in a dispute with its Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, about which I have since written several articles.]