Tuesday, September 29, 2015

JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!


By Ralph Cinque and Clare Kuehn (with Jim Fetzer)

This is a sequel to “JFK Special: Oswald was the Man in the Doorway, after all!” (25 January 2012), which was co-authored by two of us.  We are going to look further at the Altgens photo and the reasons why the evidence shows that Doorman has to have been  Lee Harvey Oswald and could not have been Billy Lovelady.  But, we are also going to look further at the images of Billy Lovelady that were taken after the assassination, and it will show clearly that manipulation, alteration, and fakery were involved.  Billy Lovelady even masqueraded as Doorway Man, and it was a concerted effort, for which he had help.
To a great extent, this analysis is based on the new observations of K.D. Ruckman, a Canadian researcher, who was interviewed for two hours by Dr. Fetzer recently on his internet radio program, “The Real Deal, 20 February 2012. That program has been archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com.  We will begin with the work of Ralph Cinque and add discussion of the contributions of K.D. Ruckman as appropriate, especially in the final three sections of this study.  Clare Kuehn, who is another Canadian student of JFK, authored several sections beginning with “Multiple Versions of the Altgens”.  Those who have not read the earlier article may not appreciate the evidence that has already been presenting that establishes proof that the man in the doorway was Lee Oswald and not Billy Lovelady, especially based on analysis of the shirts they were wearing.
So, let’s begin by going back to the doorway of the Book Depository as seen in the Altgens photo.  This image, by Robert Groden, may be the clearest one we have.  Some say that the face of Doorman is that of Billy Lovelady, but even the House Subcommittee on Assassinations wasn’t sure. They said:
“Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator’s image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady or Oswald.”
They also went on to say that there was a greater probability that It was Lovelady than Oswald, and that was based on very small “anthropometric “ measurements such as facial length, lower jaw breadth, nasal breadth, forehead breadth, and such, which were based on feature of the face, which we believe to have been superimposed on Oswald’s body.  If Lovelady’s face was superimposed, those features would be Lovelady’s.
It’s the shirt, stupid! (with Ralph Cinque)
But, that was ridiculous because they looked at those tiny elements while ignoring the big, looming elements in the picture, such as the vee-neck t-shirt which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, the form and fit of the outer shirt which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, and the manner of dress (unbuttoned) which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, and the slender build of the man which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady.  If tiny facial measurements were a match to Lovelady while the big, visible, physical elements of the picture were a match to Oswald, isn’t that suspicious? So, how did they deal with it? Simple; they didn’t. They just ignored the large, physical elements.
But, notice that the face is surrounded by murky darkness, almost completely, while the junction of Doorway Man and Black Tie Man is also murky. That face has an island quality to it, and it looks like it could have been super-imposed- pasted in there.  It was the reverse of the backyard photos, which Jim Fetzer has explored with Jim Marrs,“Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald”, in which Oswald’s face was imposed over that of another man. This time, it was another man’s face imposed above Oswald’s body.
Doorman’s clothing are a perfect match to Oswald’s, and that includes the right collars, the v-shaped t-shirts, the left lapels, the loose fit, and the major unbuttoning, all of which powerfully confirm that it’s Oswald standing there. The only aspect of the clothing that has ever been linked to Lovelady is the shirt pattern, but that’s not true.  Doorman’s shirt pattern is not identical to Lovelady’s–far from it. For instance, Lovelady’s shirt only had white lines, whereas Doorman’s has white blotches.Lovelady’s shirt had pattern and contrast all the way up to the collar, whereas Doorman’s right collar–and the whole upper right side of his shirt- is completely devoid of pattern.  It simply looks GRAINY–like Oswald’s shirt.  Here, take a look:
Which one is the odd man out? It’s obvious that someone tried to impose some pattern and contrast to other parts of Doorman’s shirt, but they did a crude, sloppy, inadequate job of it. Again, look: are these the same shirts?  This isn’t horseshoes or hand-grenades.  Close doesn’t count. The weak, shoddy imitation of Lovelady’s shirt pattern should sound an alarm that it is just another fakery in a long list of fakeries.
No Match to Lovelady
So again, there is absolutely nothing about the clothing that is a match to Lovelady–not even the shirt pattern. The entire clothing ensemble is a match to Oswald, and so is the slender build of Doorway Man, and that means that- geographically speaking–at least 80% of Doorway Man matches Oswald, and only 20% or less of him  (the face–that extracted face in a sea of murkiness) is a match to Lovelady.  So, considering that imbalance in proportionality, was it ever reasonable to say that Doorman leaned more towards looking like Lovelady? I hardly think so.
Where did the face of Lovelady come from to superimpose on Doorway Man? We suspect it came from  “Obfuscated Man”–so named by Dr. Fetzer.  Look to Doorman’s left, which is our right.  Do you see that big white splotch which looks like a cloud? Surrounding it, you can see the outline of a man’s head. And below it you can see, in black, the outline of his torso as it merges with the afro hairdo of the woman with the radiant smile who is in front of and below him.  That whole man was obfuscated- his face in white and his body in black–and that is why Dr. Fetzer refers to him as “Obfuscated Man”. He may have been the real Lovelady.
 Obfuscated Man
In this image, K.D. Ruckman has highlighted the features of the Altgens that have been obfuscated.  He agrees with me about the other anomalous figures, including “Black Tie Man”, who seems to be fused to Doorman, and although he is standing behind him, he is also overlapping him. The word “overlap” is Kelly’s choice of word, and it’s a good one.
Black Tie Man definitely looks like he was inserted there in a forged placement.  There is also the faceless Black Hole Man with his arms up shading his eyes from the sun–except that his face is in complete, utter darkness. So, why is he doing that? And concealing the right arm of Doorway Man is the face of a black man, to whom we may refer as “the Black Profile Guy” as follows.
The Black Profile Guy
So let’s discuss someone whom I have not mentioned previously but whom Kelly Ruckman noticed: the African-American man who is right in front of and below Doorman.   Is he supposed to be sitting or standing? I presume he is sitting. But, how can he be comfortable with Doorman wrapping his arm under his chin and breathing down his neck like that?
That’s what you call encroaching on someone’s “personal space.”  It’s odd for Doorman to be doing it, and it’s odd for the black guy to be OK with it.  It goes against everything we know about normal human boundaries. And where is the black guy looking?  Not at Kennedy- that’s for sure.  He is looking off in the opposite direction. But why?
So, is the black guy another super-imposed figure in the photograph? We suspect he is.  And we believe the purpose of putting him there was to hide the tattered condition of Oswald’s shirt, particularly on his left side, which you can see in the picture below.  I thank Kelly Ruckman for pointing this out.
Doorman’s position encircling the black guy’s head is, of course, way too close for comfort. Nobody would be content to have their personal space so infringed upon. But, let’s remember that Doorman’s position with his arm swung over like it is to the inside of his body is very unnatural, abnormal, and uncomfortable- for him, even without the black guy being there. If you try to duplicate his position yourself, you’ll see how uncomfortable it is to hold your arm swung-over like that to the inside. All your instincts will tell you to let it go, to just drop your arm and let it dangle.
Is Doorman leaning on something, such as a railing? There was no railing there in 1963. Could he have been leaning on the molding of the pillar? That’s theoretically possible, but it’s a strange thing to do. Who does such a thing? I have never done it or seen anybody do it. Why would anyone do it? What is practical about it? What is comfortable about it? Nothing.
Fedora Hat Man
Before we leave this picture of the doorway, I want to mention my uneasiness with the Fedora Hat Man, the fact that he is turned and looking directly at Doorman instead of at Kennedy. Why is he more interested in Doorman? And what about that woman and child who are in front of him? How is she supporting the weight of that child? The boy seems perfectly vertical, and he’s not that small, and she’s not that big. So, how is she able to hold him up so seemingly effortlessly? And how exactly is she holding him? How is she keeping him from falling? We can’t see her arm around him nor his arm around her. And how is he perched so perfectly straight? To me, it looks like he is standing on something, and she is standing next to him. But, there is nothing there that he could be standing on. And why is the boy wearing a winter wool cap pulled down over his ears when other people nearby are in short-sleeves or t-shirts? It was reportedly an unseasonably warm day for November.
I want to elaborate about this because I think it is important. Recall when you have seen a mother holding a child; not a baby, but a child. Recall that often the mother does things to lessen the load. Sometimes, she will have the child straddle her hip bone, sitting on her, which transfers the load from her relatively weak arms to her relatively strong legs. Or, she may lean back so that the child is lying on her chest, and by leaning back it causes passive structures, such as the ligaments and spinal facet joints, to bear some of the load, taking the strain off her arms. And, there are other shifts she could make to ease the burden. But, this woman isn’t reacting to the weight at all, even though he is a rather big kid for such a tiny woman to support. Yet, she looks totally unfazed. Take a look:
So, the question is: was the image of the boy and his mother put there to cover up Jack Ruby’s face? We know from reading Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008), that Jack Ruby was in Dealey Plaza that day. So, was that Jack Ruby in the Fedora hat? If so, it’s understandable that he’d be looking at Oswald. After all, the patsy was not supposed to be standing outside in plain view. I’m sure that was not part of the plan.  Note that even if he were facing the right direction–towards Kennedy–he would hardly be able to see anything. His orientation is very peculiar. It makes no sense for him to be standing behind that woman and child.
Another TSBD employee, Vicki Adams, was on the 4th floor when the shots rang out. She ran down the stairs- the same stairs that Oswald was supposedly bolting down at the same time, but of course, she didn’t see him- and when she reached the ground floor, she saw Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady standing together by the elevator, and when she went outside, she saw Jack Ruby. She said he was asking questions and ordering people around “like a cop.” So, that places Ruby outside the TSBD, and it makes it even more likely that Fedora Hat Man was Jack Ruby. Barry Ernest has just published book about Vicki Adams, which is titled, The Girl on the Stairs (2010).
Billy and the FBI
Now, let us move on to Billy Lovelady, and we are going to compare his FBI image from March 1964 (which definitely was him) to his alleged image from the day of the assassination at the Dallas PD. But first, let me remind you that there is controversy about which shirt he wore on 11/22/63. He first claimed to have worn a red and white striped short-sleeve shirt. He told that to the FBI he wore that shirt, and he told the same to at least one reporter: Jones Harris. But, the Dallas PD Lovelady was wearing a plaid checkered shirt, and that is the one that became part of the official story.
But first take a look at this official letter from the FBI to the Warren Commission stating that Lovelady claimed to have worn the red and white striped shirt.  The exact wording is: “He stated he was wearing a vertical red and white striped shirt and blue jeans,” which has been underlined at the end of the second paragraph:
And notice that in the pictures taken in March 1964 (below), they had him pose with his shirt unbuttoned- like Doorman. But, why would they do that if he was wearing a different shirt? What would be the point of it? Obviously, they thought at the time that he was wearing the shirt from 11/22. And notice how differently his unbuttoned shirt sprawls open compared to Doorman’s.  It’s a totally different look, and that’s because every shirt is different and behaves differently.  It is obviously not the same presentation that we saw on Doorman.  Notice also that the shirt is short-sleeved, whereas Doorman’s shirt was long-sleeved. So they had to do something pronto to get him out of that shirt.
Comparing the “Lovelady”s

But before we go on, let’s observe how well the layout of the unbuttoned shirts matches between Doorman and Oswald. And you can compare them to what you see on Lovelady above, especially in the above left.  I consider what you see below to be very comparable spreads. Would anyone care to differ?
Kelly makes the interesting observation that both shirts bulge a little where the lapel folds over, except that it’s higher on Oswald than on Doorman. On Oswald, you see the bulge right at the middle of the lapel whereas on Doorman, the bulge is at the bottom above where the shirt is finally buttoned.  Remember that it was a rough fold and not really following a crease, so at times, it bulged. But, that’s still the same behavior of the same material, and it doesn’t matter that it bulged in different places at different times. So, you are looking at the same guy wearing the same shirt.
But now, let’s compare the images of FBI Lovelady from March 1964 to that of DallasPD Lovelady from 11/22/63, which they crucially needed in order to place Lovelady in a long-sleeved shirt, supposedly like Doorman.  Here they are side by side.
Kelly Ruckman noticed the following comparative differences:
First, DallasPD Lovelady’s head (right) is wider from front to back than is FBI Lovelady’s (left). Second, the slope of FBI Lovelady’s head is more vertical, and the angle of his forehead with the top of his head is more rectangular. On DallasPD Lovelady, there is no angle at all, rather there is just a long, gentle, slope, like a ski slope, and it reminds me of the images we have seen of Cro-Magnon Man or Neanderthal. Third, FBI Lovelady seems to have a longer nose, and DallasPD Lovelady seems to have a shorter, stubbier nose. Fourth, the hairlines are different. FBI Lovelady’s hairline at the temple seems to go straight up whereas DallasPd Lovelady’s hairline angles back more. Fifth, the ears look different, with the real Lovelady’s on the left being longer and narrower. Remember that ears are very distinctive, like fingerprints.
Thank you Kelly Ruckman for pointing out the above. But there is a difference between the two of them which jumps out even more at me: their necks. DallasPD Lovelady (on the right) has a condition known as FORWARD NECK SYNDROME. Any orthopedist or chiropractor can see it- at a glance. Instead of going up, his neck is going forward.
FBI Lovelady (on the left) has a much more vertical neck. The basic, fundamental direction that it is going is UP. But on DallasPd Lovelady (on the right), his neck isn’t going up so much. His neck is going more FORWARD, and that has the effect of shortening his neck. And that is something we can measure. Take a ruler and measure the length of the visible neck on each of them, going from the bottom of the ear to wherever the vertical line reaches the shirt. As I measure it, I get a full inch of neck length on FBI Lovelady, but only 2/3 inch on DallasPd Lovelady. So, from the perspective of DallasPd Lovelady, FBI Lovelady has 50% more length in his neck.
Next, I want you to drop a plumb line on each of them. And the way you can do it is to take a ruler and place it right behind the ear, and holding it vertical, track it down and see where it goes. With good posture, the ear should not be too much in front of the sagittal plane of the shoulder, and FBI Lovelady is doing quite well in that respect. His isn’t bad alignment. I like what I’m seeing. But DallasPd Lovelady’s ear is much farther forward than that; his plumb line is well forward of his shoulder. He is really quite contorted, and he’s the kind of guy who is destined to have osteoarthritis of the neck.
In holding his neck forward like that, he has to do something to maintain his eyes level, that is, parallel with the ground, and what he’s doing is cocking his head back sharply at the very top of his neck. You may not be able to see it as well as I can, but if you were to see it on an x-ray, it would jump out at you. So, his neck is going forward, and at the very top of his neck, his head is rocking back on his neck. And that is like putting a heavy weight on a spring, compressing it. And that puts pressure on all the cervical joints, and over time, they wear out from it. The compressed cervical discs thin out until they are practically non-existent. Cervical disc herniations are also possible with this kind of posture.
Another Proof of their Differences
Here’s another way you can tell the difference: look at the axis of FBI Lovelady’s ear. It’s pretty much vertical: straight up and down. Not perfectly so, but close. But, on DallasPd Lovelady, the ear is rocked back more. It’s got more pitch to it. The line of greatest length through the ear is more diagonal, with the upper part back and the lower part forward. Again, it’s rocked back, and the reason it’s rocked back is because the whole head is rocked back. This is a very rigid, locked, dysfunctional posture that compromises mobility, flexibility, and coordination.
As a chiropractor, it’s a pleasure for me to look at FBI Lovelady because he has such nice lengthening in his neck and that translates into freedom of motion, lightness of being, and a generally expansive state of the body, which is what you want. But, it’s very distressful for me to look at DallasPd Lovelady because he looks solid, rigid, steeped in stiffness, and destined for pain.
Is there any chance that Lovelady was just standing and comporting himself differently on the two days? No. There is absolutely no chance of that. Postural habits are deeply ingrained. They are the MOST deeply ingrained of all the habits you’ve got. It’s extremely hard to break them- even if you try, and there is no reason to think Lovelady was trying. And the reason that it’s so hard to change them is because your habitual way of carrying yourself is the only thing you know; it’s the only thing that feels right to you; anything else would feel way out of balance, terribly wrong, like you were going to fall. It’s like your own little world that you’re living in- your way of responding to gravity and other forces- and it’s the only one you can even conceive of.
Having been a chiropractor for 36 years, I can tell you that this one factor of the FORWARD NECK SYNDROME on DallasPD Lovelady and its absence on FBI Lovelady completely eliminates any possibility that the two of them were the same man. It clinches it like different dental x-rays. It is not just a different position that DallasPD Lovelady is holding his neck; he is anatomically fixed that way. He could not make his neck look like FBI Lovelady’s no matter what he did. It would be anatomically impossible.
Now, let us compare DallasPD Lovelady with later known pictures of Lovelady from 1971 and 1978. ’71 Lovelady, in the middle, looks thinner, and he definitely does not have Forward Neck Syndrome, and there is no chance that it went away in the man on the left.  ’78 Lovelady, on the right, looks a lot older, but he doesn’t have Forward Neck Syndrome either.  Apparently,  Lovelady shed a lot of weight after the assassination.  But notice that the shirt still fits him. Shouldn’t that shirt be hanging on him after having lost all that weight? And notice that the pocket with the big flap that you see on DallasPD Lovelady (on the left) was not present when he was photographed in 1971 and 1978.
So, what is with that? How can a shirt continue to fit snugly after a man drops a lot of weight? Did he have the shirt altered, taken in? But, that’s a major job to reconstruct the shoulders and the core dimensions of a shirt. It is rarely ever done.  Shortening the sleeves is one thing, but taking in the shoulders and the core width of the shirt is too much work. Who does such a thing? Nobody.
But, if he did have the shirt altered, maybe it was necessary to remove the pocket because it no longer took up the right place. And rather than relocate the pocket, they just got rid of it completely. Of course, the other option is that it’s a totally different shirt- one that did not come with a pocket.
The Dallas PD Lovelady
Now let’s look at Dallas PD Lovelady as a still taken from some newsreel footage.  As Kelly puts it:
“Since the impostor got caught on camera, they got stuck with the plaid shirt. Lovelady tells the truth at the start, but later recants and begins his role of playing Doorman in plaid shirts similar to the one the impostor wore, until his mysterious death in 1979.”
But, I would add that they really had no choice but to go with the plaid shirt because Lovelady’s real shirt- the one he actually wore- was short-sleeved, whereas Doorman’s was long-sleeved, being Oswald’s shirt.  So, they needed to come up with a long-sleeved shirt, and that’s why they were forced to go with this guy in plaid.
But, it’s Kelly Ruckman who deserves credit for first recognizing that DallasPD Lovelady was a fake. And think about what it means:  It means that just as there was an Oswald double floating around Dallas on November 22, there was also a Lovelady double.  To learn about the Oswald double, you only have to read JFK and the Unspeakable(2008) by James Douglass. Douglass covers the Oswald double in detail, including his being smuggled out of the state on an Air Force cargo plane hours after the assassination, as reported by Air Force Officer Robert Vinson who rode with him on the plane.  It took decades for Vinson to muster the courage to come forward and reveal what happened, but he did so in his 1993 book, Flight from Dallas.
Kelly makes another interesting point about the Altgens photo–that the area around Doorman comprises about 2.5% of the total photo, yet all of the anomalies and strange, beguiling figures happen right there and nowhere else in the picture. The rest of the vast picture is completely straight-forward, photographically speaking, with no weird, inscrutable stuff. Why should everything that is puzzling and questionable be happening to and around Doorman?  It is a rhetorical question directed at those who proffer “photographic compression”, “emulsion bleeding” or other such pseudo-technical excuses for the strange occurrences that are concentrated in that one small area.
But, the bottom line about Billy Lovelady is that he was engaged in an enormous and elaborate fraud.  Not only did he pose in a different shirt from the one he wore on November 22, 1963- but he knew very well that he was not the Doorway Man.  No doubt, he was in the Altgens photo, but he was not the man standing next to the pillar in the loose-fitting, unbuttoned, long-sleeved shirt over a vee-neck t-shirt.  Why did he do it? Money may have been a factor. Billy Lovelady was a warehouse worker who suddenly had the financial means to start his own trucking company in Denver, Colorado shortly after the assassination. And fear may have been a factor- fear for his life. He did, after all, die suddenly of a first and fatal “heart attack” in 1979 at the tender age of 41. Billy never even testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).
Multiple Versions of the Altgens (with Clare Kuehn)
Dr. Ralph Cinque has done much, with Dr. Fetzer, to elaborate on the simpler observations of Penn Jones, Jr. from the 1980s, about how Oswald’s shirt matches Doorway Man’s.  Cinque has also remarked that the male figure wearing a hat and standing behind the woman and a child in front of the TSBD and to the right side of the doorway (to our left, viewing the photograph), might have a Fedor and could be Jack Ruby. His face and most of his body, after all, are covered by a child whose comfortable spinal posture would be erect, yet the child is otherwise positioned as if it belonged with the woman, implicitly being held by her.  It is not straining to get straight up and is not tipping in any way from being held in an arm.  It could more reasonably be standing on a platform, based upon its posture, but there was no platform of that height. Could he have been Jack Ruby?
As Ralph Cinque has observed, there were two men in Fedoras can be observed in the Altgens, one of whom is dark-complected, the other of whom has his face sufficient obscured to be indeterminate, but where you can see some part of his forehead, which also seems to be dark in complexion.  It is very odd to seem to have two men in Fedoras, both of whom are black:
Ralph observes that the person in question is the man in the Fedora to the far left. But K.D. and Clare have another candidate in mind:  Black Tie Man, who is standing just behind Doorway Man and to his immediate left. Vicki Adams’ testimony makes it likely that Jack Ruby was there, but he could still have been either of these candidates.
Mr. Kelly Ruckman has noticed that there is a significant early close-up of the region of the Altgens showing Doorway man in a documentary based upon Mark Lane’s famous early work on the assassination, Rush to Judgement (1966). In this version, the high contrast area of Black Tie Man’s suit is clearly evident. With little definition in the blacks and in the whites, whatever was light and survived the contrasting could not have been medium toned originally.  On Black Tie Man’s left breast is a significant white line, fairly thick, enough for a kerchief in a breast pocket. In this version, and this version only, of the Altgens there is this feature which could not be taken away by mere changes in contrast of one print or another. It would not simply disappear unless taken out. This means that more than one VERSION of the Altgens appeared in print somewhere, for Lane to have included it.
Not only this, but Ruby was known to be a natty dresser, who often wore a kerchief in his pocket. At the Friday night press conference, he is dressed just as Black Tie Man was, in Mark Lane’s 1967 documentary,  where the Altgens (shown here) is complete with white handkerchief. Was Black Tie Man Ruby? Even if not, the Altgens we have from the extant newspapers was provably touched up in one area: the area of the breast pocket of a figure in the doorway: Black Tie Man. Perhaps  some newspapers got an early version of the image, and Lane included it. Will Mark please come forward with that version now, if he has it? Or anyone else who has early Altgens images?

The impossible posture of head, hips and shoulder
Mr. Kelly Ruckman noticed some other odd things in later photographs of Lovelady. Before covering them directly, we will have to describe an optical illusion which occurs when we look at Doorway man in different blow-up levels. Once we see how the optical illusion happens, we can be careful to notice the elements in its occurrence, even at lower magnification. Then we can move on to Ruckman’s discovery and why what he discovered was done. The following is also the first discussion on record of exactly how the wrong posture of Doorway man comes to set itself in our mind, as if accurate and inaccurate at the same time, and is thus important in its own right.
An optical illusion can occur in different ways. Sometimes, as in many playful perspective images by the artist M.C. Escher, we cannot have the image resolve properly into one perspective rationally.
Our minds can see the box or column set, or stairway as, in or out, up or down, alternately, but the whole image cannot resolve both interpretations. A simpler problem, using a cube only, is presented here, and it’s called the “Impossible Cube”, with good reason:
We understand this rationally but cannot see the total at one time in our mind. We can redraw it or re-image it in our mind linearly, but it will always remain one or the other impression as a total object picture. This is what we have with Doorway man’s left arm width, left hip and side, versus the width of his shoulder and upper arm and his shoulder line.
In the most general sense, many have noticed that in the Altgens photo, Doorway man has an awkward posture. This is, in fact, due to an optical illusion which, we will see, is in turn due to a botched paint job.
We may choose the line of the arm which extends not far beyond the lighter grey portion. This matches the width of the shoulder area. The arm is too long and forces us to the conclusion, as well, that the man is lunging. His hip area then recedes to the darker grey shadowy area around the Black Profile Guy’s face. The rest of the grey area becomes basically one tone in our mind, then, and even can seem to be the suit jacket and pants of Black Tie Man. Black Tie Man’s true black suit jacket then looks like a shadow from a lapel. It is not his true suit line, which does extend a bit beyond, but for the moment, our mental impression ignores that.
This interpretation is reinforced by the line of the back of the head of the African American person below and in front of Black Tie Man. If, alternately, we try to incorporate this generalized grey area as Doorway man’s left side, the lunge of the shoulders and the matching beginning, anyway, of the light grey arm area, we are left with a very awkward posture overall, where the arm is crossed almost violently (and too long) and the rest of the body is erect. We could call it “a Goiter Hip”: he lunges from the lighter arm area and shoulder, but his hip still looks straight. But the conclusion that this is not a natural body is further deepened with a different impression, one from the fuller facts of the arm. The actual, true lower arm extends in a wide arc, below the lighter grey elbow area. In fact, though it is harder to see in lower resolution, it is possible to see that there is more definition below the light grey arm … far below it. This true arm line is due to blotchy striped-check blobs in dark-middle and middle grey. Once we take this line for the arm, and it is the true arm line, we see that the lower arm is a Flat Fat shape, and thus way too thick for the body. As well, the arm would have to be broken to sit like that. The lunge is missing then, the arm even longer by implication, and the true middle grey area begins lower. Now it really is not Black Tie Man’s suit, but a kind of straighter posture for this now completely wrong arm. Goiter Hip is back.
We cannot reconcile the new information, the fuller arm line, with our wishful thinking from the lighter arm line. This is like Escher’s games with perspective. We must ignore – in the sense of allide, conjoin and eliminate or not notice – certain features of some of his “objects” in order to see an object in each and when we include new information we would have to drop or conjoin aspects of the image we saw before and know also to be there, in order to hold the new object image information in mind.
Reconciling the Shoulders and the Hips
Many have attempted to reconcile the posture by using the shoulders and hips, saying the man is somehow twisted to look lunging yet straight up. They have not realized that the reason for the “awkward” arm is that an impression of lunge comes only from the light grey arm and shoulder – matching in width with each other, where the rest of the body below might be Black Tie Man’s body, or be only glossed over in our mind (the way the irreconcilable aspects of one view of Escher’s images forces us to ignore or partly generalize what’s going on in the rest, while we  – but the impression of straight posture comes only from a too-fat lower arm (Flat Fat arm) and distinct grey area for hip (Goiter Hip). The full image information cannot be reconciled in the visual mind, because it derives from seeing one aspect of the arm (the light grey) and then finding out the full arm width extends to the man’s lower belly, and remains that thick. It hangs there, way beyond the normal thickness of the arm from the shoulder.
In fact, it even extends out in a blob beyond the “left side” (our right) of Doorway man’s goiter hip, as if it were an elbow or fold, but is actually bad paint. This blob clearly goes beyond the arm, to match with the line of Black Tie Man’s black suit line. An elbow would be up higher, more where the light grey arm implies. It was likely from a paintbrush painting too far. It thus looks like a broken lower extremity from the general width of that lower arm and looks flattened for the same reason, but also has an incongruous botched paint job beyond the arm. This paint job fools you: it goes as far as Black Tie Man’s waist. The lighter, slenderer arm of Doorman in the light grey area plus some of the dark grey, puts the elbow much higher. The grey outcropping, putatively a lighter striped-check part of the sleeve again, no longer matches the shoulder and upper arm direction to where the inner elbow and width are reasonable.
Notice how Black Tie Man relates to Doorway Man’s left shoulder.  Many have thought Black Time Man’s image overlaps his left shoulder, which would be blatant proof of fakery by itself, but the situation appears to be just a bit more subtle than that. Doorway Man’s wider lower arm implies a wider shoulder; we then see the shoulder as too narrow, when it is the lower arm which drags too wide and too low. The shoulder matches the thinner lighter arm, and the rest is a widening below it, a paint job of extra-stripey checks. If you put your finger over the mid-grey stripes of the lower side and bottom of the arm, you will see that the lighter arm area width matches the real shoulder roundness. The illusion is optical, and due to a botched paint job.  Compared to the shoulder width and its matching light grey arm
impression, the lower arm’s far greater thickness, and very low, almost broken angle for the shoulder, making a gentle sweep too low, be due to a huge, hanging shirtsleeve? No. Of course, a person might wear or fashion such a shirtsleeve. Remember, our comparison size here is the light grey arm and shoulder area, perhaps adding a bit for shadowed curvature, not the Goiter Hip dimensions of an erect posture which does not fit the shoulder size and lighter arm.
How do we know it wasn’t just a very very wide sleeve? We have the later images of Lovelady in a putatively identical shirt, and it does not fit his shoulders and then swell off his lower arm, nearly double the size. Do we have situations where a shirt could look similar to this without being a lower balloon? Well, if one places any used shirt flat on a surface, it can look roughly rounded and wide in its outer curve, around the elbow area and on down. But these impressions come from different real-world physical processes than a) a man wearing a relatively tight regular shirt, as was claimed for this check-striped shirt, and b) a shirt with no person in it, where the material flattens out and looks wider in two dimensions than when curved, even a bit loosely, around an arm.  And the light grey or medium grey arm itself is always too long (along with the addition of Black Profile Guy). This was clearly partly to cover the bottom of Oswald’s nearly open shirt, which was in tatters at the bottom. The medium extent of the true grey lower arm is also kind of broken looking, once one notices its relation to the shoulder and narrower light grey arm. Hence my allusion to the impossible cube. We now return to Ruckman’s own work.
Three wrongs don’t make a right left arm!
After looking at the “generally awkward” left arm in the Altgens – an arm whose true medium-grey outline is too low and “broken”-looking, but which looks awkward even as a light grey arm, when compared to hips and shoulder and head position – Ruckman noticed that when the House-Senate Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) received images of Lovelady in the 1970s, his left arm was altered in the recent images! The arm of the Altgens is too long and broken, whereas the new alterations were mostly shatter-broken (cut in multiple places) or outrightly shortened; this would seem to contrast with the Altgens literally, but it achieves a similar impression, that is, that something is wrong with the arm.
“Keep on moving! Nothing to see here!” might be the motto of these doctorers, but by fearing the Altgens botch job so much that they did more weird edits to new images and actually left MORE evidence of their handiwork for those willing to notice. We see him in the check-striped shirt he supposedly wore (but claimed to the FBI he did not), posing for a CBS interview and in photos by Robert Groden. In some of these, his left arm check-stripes are actually compressed without a rounded fold. They have been cut and shortened in the Jackson ’71 and Groden ’76 copies. (What does this imply about Groden? Did he realize this was done to his images?) Here is the full set of Groden photos, as submitted to the HSCA (House Select Committe on Assassinations):
Here is the Jackson ’71 photo, available only in a collage by what Ruckman calls the “notorious disinfo-agent John MacAdams”. This is a different doctoring than the others, which were simple cuts in multiple places. This image relies on the impression that a shoulder muscle on the uppermost arm leaves a strong shadow on a naked, buff man, when appropriately lit and high contrast is wanted in the image. Instead, we have really a cut-paste job in the uppermost arm of this image, for the lighting source is front-top and no bend occurs in a human arm at that point, fabric drapes with gravity and flattens out vertically – a spurious fold can only occur under such conditions in that part of an arm and leave other evidence of itself. The putative wrap-around fold disappears into the front upper arm impossibly, cut off by the dark gash. There is no fold at the point of the dark gash. And the arm’s general position is more of a flat-on view, as if it was from a side image, or as if the arm were twisted around to the front face. In the case of such a twist, however, the shoulder would be even flatter, for the side of the arm would become the front. But in this image the arm is also shorter, and in that respect it fits with the Groden fakes.
The thing to remember here is not that these images shorten the arm, but rather that they make the arm wrong. In the latter, not in the former sense, they are like the Altgens.  Now we noticed that the light grey arm on Doorway man is too long, and the full real arm image is way too long and wide, so why shorten the arm of Lovelady? The impression of SOMETHING wrong with the arm and the broken look of the full lower arm image including the non-light portions, must have led the cover-up to continue. But it’s such an obvious break in the image that one might conclude it isn’t a break, but a fold, or something else. Would they risk our seeing how broken the arm image is in these later stills?
Indeed. For if the left arm always looks a bit “funny”, as the English say, it seems as if there’s less wrong with the Altgens arm. This is subconscious: hide a man in a mask among others with masks. Mr. Ruckman noticed the cropped-and-pasted arms for the first time. He had not analyzed exactly what was wrong with the Altgens arm illusion, but he noticed the simpler job done on the later images and they are obvious once one notices them. Folds will not do there. So why? The Altgens is not cut in such a way, but the true arm width extends past the elbow, lowers widely and Fat Flat. In low resolution and interpretation from the light grey arm’s general impression, however, we don’t see that lower arm shape properly. When we do, the arm is even more broken for the body. No, it is not a simple cut-paste there, but it is awkward, and moreso even would have to be broken and flattened on a real body. The general impression of “something”’s being wrong with the arm was maintained in a cover-up into the 1970s.
One of the mistakes that happened that day is their man, the Man in Plaid  was caught on film , not once but twice. Since he was doubling Lovelady, they were stuck with the plaid shirt. In the same sense that Oswald’s face had to be covered up with the superimposed face of Lovelady, Oswald’s shirt had to be painted over with white splotchy lines to mimic the plaid shirts checkered pattern.  For more of K.D. Ruckman’s work, visit his blog about Billy and Lee.
Lovelady stuck to the truth at the start, shying away from the media and refusing to have his picture taken. Later he must have been “gotten to”. By 1967 he recants and begins his role as Doorway man in Plaid shirts similar to the one the Man in plaid wore, again in 1971 and lastly for Groden in 1976. He suffered a fatal heart attack in 1979–or else in 1984 by some accounts. Just another mysterious death at the bottom of a long list of dead JFK assassination witnesses.
What about Bill Shelly? (with Ralph Cinque)
Let’s close by looking at Bill Shelley.  Oswald told Detective Fritz that he was “out in front with Bill Shelley.” Yet, Bill Shelley denied it. In fact, he made an emphatic statement that:  “At no time during the shooting did I see Lee Harvey Oswald.” It seems odd that he would use three names to refer to someone he knew and worked with.  But, it turns out that Shelley knew Oswald well and long before Lee came to work at the TSBD, insofar as they were both involved in the Texas/Louisiana Civil Air Patrol. That was an organization that was founded by the owner of the TSBD building, David Byrd. So, why didn’t Shelley mention to the Warren Commission that he knew Oswald from the CAP? Didn’t he think it was relevant? The truth is that Bill Shelley was a career CIA man. He worked for Army Intelligence during WWII, and when the CIA was launched in 1947, he immediately got immersed in it.  On the morning of the assassination, Bill Shelley spent hours on the 6th floor directing a crew of men who were laying flooring. So, how did he miss seeing the arrangement of the boxes of books that were organized into the “sniper’s nest”?  Alarm bells should be going off about Bill Shelley.
It is very clear now that, from the beginning, the Altgens photo was the weakest link in the official JFK story.  And one can even imagine that the conspirators breathed a sigh of relief when all people wanted to talk about was the “magic bullet”, the timeline, the Zapruder film, and other things–because all of that paled in comparison to the photograph of Oswald standing in front of the building while the shooting was going on. It may be that it was always their worst nightmare that the focus would someday return to the Altgens photo.
Well, that someday has arrived, because the focus has returned to the Altgens photo.   The Doorman is back! And now we can point to visible evidence that the Doorman was definitely wearing Oswald’s clothes. And that means that he WAS definitely Oswald. There is no longer any doubt about it. Oswald was outside watching while President Kennedy was being gunned down.  It can’t be reasonably denied, where this simple fact makes a complete mockery of all the official lies concerning the murder of JFK and its cover-up.  These lies can no longer endure.

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.
Clare Kuehn, an astute student of the complex issues that confront the world  today and classically educated in Medieval Studies from the University of Toronto, she has been featured multiple times on “The Real Deal”
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.]

No comments:

Post a Comment