Monday, September 30, 2013

So, bpete likes to do "updates" of published posts, and so does Mr. 19. I wonder if they're the same guy.

Look, there is simply no way any intelligent person is going to think that Doorman's shirt pattern is the same as Lovelady's.

Go ahead and match up any part of them you want. But don't mark within the area being examined, dip shit.

And while you're at it, explain why the the t-shirts don't match because that round t-shirt is the only kind that Lovelady ever wore, and no one has ever disputed that or claimed otherwise.

And although Lovelady's right collar is in shadow, his left is visible. So, compare it to Oswald's right. It won't hurt because collars tend to be symmetrical. Glance your eyes back and forth rapidly between those two collars. Doorman's collar looks totally consistent and just mildly grainy, like Oswald's.

That's what I call a match- between Oswald and Doorman.

Who's betting  that Mr. 19 does yet another update? Ah, that bpete; he's a creature of habit. Loves his updates.
Here's something interesting: bpete admits that the cuff patterns don't match. And he thinks the reason is that I compared a right cuff to a left cuff.

But, aren't cuff-patterns identical left and right? So, what's the big deal?

But OK, let's make it two left cuffs:

I put an arrow where the cuff begins. There is no white line there. We don't see the vertical line on Doorman either. We don't see the horizontal line in the middle. It just ain't the same.

Nope. The cuffs of Doorman and DeNiro Lovelady from the Dallas PD footage don't match either. DeNiro has got a horizontal line right in the center. Let's try CBS Lovelady from 1967.

Haydon, you are truly just b-beaten.  Those cuffs don't match Doorman, and they don't even match each other. Why don't you give up? You're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

I had interesting question asked of me by Robert Harris on McAdams' JFK forum:

Robert Harris is a very devoted JFK researcher; there is no doubt about that. But, he's got some whacky ideas. He thinks Oswald was a shooter but that he missed, and that he may have missed deliberately.

But, Robert knows about the OIC and our contention about Oswald in the doorway.

And, at least now, he is asking questions about it. So that's a good sign.

*   *    *     *     *    *     *     *     *     *      *      *      *     *      *      *      *      *       *     *

Robert Harris: Please excuse me if this has been asked before. Frankly, I don't follow 
threads which I don't believe are worth my time. 

But if Oswald had been outside during the shooting, why didn't he say so? 
He had a perfect opportunity when asked, "Did you shoot the President?". 

All he had to say was, 

"Hell no, I wasn't even in the building then. Other employees saw me 

and if one argues that he just didn't think of that, then how is it that 
the perps permitted Oswald to have a public press conference in which he 
would be expected to mention such a perfect alibi? 

*   *    *    *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *    *     *    *     *    *      *     *

Robert, I don't mind answering the question, and I will. But first an announcement: Today, two more professors joined the Oswald Innocence Campaign: Dr. Jerry Kroth of Santa Clara University in California, and Dr. James Norwood of the University of Minnesota.

Another thing, before we proceed, is that we need to have the wisdom and maturity to realize that the images stand on their own merit, and they trump any and all considerations regarding behavior, psychology, and what you might expect Oswald to do or not do. All of that is trumped by the information the images provide.

And in this case, it is especially provident because there is only one other person on planet Earth that Doorman could have been: Lovelady. So, it's like a toggle switch. It's an either/or situation. And the content of those images are screaming that it's Oswald: his shirt, his t-shirt, his build, and little things like his ear, his chin, and more.

There are only two physical elements that have ever been linked to Lovelady: the shirt pattern and the hairline. The shirt pattern claim was entirely bogus from the beginning.

The splotchy pattern that we see on Doorman's shirt is mostly haze and distortion, but even if it was real, splotchy is not plaid. Plaid means horizontal and vertical lines crossing and forming boxes. There isn't one box on Doorman's shirt. Those patterns aren't remotely close to matching. That particular claim was just a lie from the beginning until now.

But, as for the other claim- the hairlines- it's true that Doorman's hairline matches that of Young Lovelady from the 1950s. But, Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man, and he'd lost a lot of hair by 1963.

If "they" were going to claim that Doorman was Lovelady, then surely they would have done something to Lovelady-ify him. That hairline is what they did to Lovelady-ify hm.

Are you aware that it's not Oswald's chin in the backyard photos? They moved his face over, but they left the other guy's chin, and that's because they knew it looks much more realistic if you don't try to interface the face and neck. It's better to do it at the level of the chin.

So, in that case, it was Oswald's face except for the chin, and in the Altgens photo, it's Oswald's face except for the forehead and hairline.

Now, finally, to answer your question:

If Oswald was outside, why didn’t he say so?

He did. He told Will Fritz that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.”

How did he know Shelley was out there unless he was there with him? You can’t assume that he just figured Shelley was outside. Either he knew it or he didn’t. And Shelley didn’t have to be in that doorway. Shelley could have been on Elm; he could have been at the corner of Houston. He could have been down by the Grassy Knoll. Anything was possible.

There were 75 employees of the TSBD and most of them were outside; however, only a small handful were in the doorway. Oswald knowing that Shelley was in the doorway is huge; it is powerful. It shows that Oswald had direct knowledge of the circumstances in that doorway- who was there.

And he must have meant "during" the assassination and not after because Shelley wasn’t out there "after." Shelley left immediately with Lovelady for the tracks and re-entered through the back door. Shelley was not milling around out in front when Oswald left for home.

Now, as for the rest, you are making a lot of assumptions, Robert: unwarranted assumptions.

Oswald denied guilt many times. I don’t know the exact number, but it had to be at least 7 or 8. At times, he was adamant, but he was never as adamant as Ralph Cinque would be under the circumstances. And as to why, who knows? It may be that I am more adamant by nature and more easily enraged.

Oswald never really reacted all that angry. I would have reacted very angry, and my denials would have been fierce.

You ask why he didn’t scream to the reporters, “I was in the doorway!” Well, why didn’t he scream, “I work for the US government! I have connections to the FBI and the CIA. I am on their payroll. There are people who will vouch for me, that I am a US intelligence agent and have been for many years. I did not kill the President!”

Don’t you think if he had said that that it would at least have given pause to the idea that he was a lone-nut assassin? I should think that that would have been at least as effective as saying he was in the doorway.

You realize that he was only a few feet outside the building, and he was surrounded by building on 4 sides: left, right, above, and behind. And you could even say below.  And he was quite a ways from the sidewalk in front.  It was like he was in a cave.

If you were deep in a cave, but you could see the light at the opening, would you consider yourself inside or outside?

Remember that Oswald had no idea that his photograph was taken in that doorway. So, how really does it advance his innocence if he was a few feet out the door as opposed to being a few feet inside the door? Both are equally far from the 6th floor.

The question was framed by the reporter. “Were you inside the building at the time?” What if the reporter had asked, “Were you outside with the others watching the motorcade at the time?”

What would Oswald have said? I don’t know. But, neither do you, and neither does anyone else.

It’s possible that Oswald did not want to announce publicly that he was outside. To everyone who believes that Oswald was framed, please consider: There is no doubt that Oswald was allowed to wander around freely in the 45 minutes leading up to the shooting.

Why did they let him do that? Do you think it was good for the conspirators that Oswald ate lunch in the domino room in sight of Junior Jarmon and Harold Norman? Vince Bugliosi says that happened at 12:15, but some have criticized him for making it earlier than it was just to afford Oswald more time to get up to the 6th floor. They think the encounter was more like 12:20.

Well, either way- 12:15 or 12:20- it certainly wasn’t good for the official story.

And then he was seen by Carolyn Arnold after that, reportedly as late as 12:25. Obviously, if that sighting is true, it completely destroys the official story. He could not possibly have gotten up to the 6th floor in time.

So, why didn’t they just tell Oswald to stay out of sight those 45 minutes, or at least for the last 20.

But, what reason could they give him? The conspirators did not tell Oswald that they were killing Kennedy that day. Oswald asked Junior Jarmon why people were gathering on the sidewalk that morning. He didn’t know. You, Robert, aren’t assuming that he was putting on an act for Junior Jarmon, are you?

The conspirators couldn’t tell him anything, and that’s because they couldn’t be sure he would be killed summarily. As it is, it took them 2 days to get him properly killed, and in that time, he underwent 13 hours of interrogation.  It might as well have been 13 years for all he could have told them.

So, the conspirators had to make sure that after being apprehended Oswald could report nothing that would incriminate them.

So, they let him wander around freely. They took a chance. I guess they figured they could always deny any crucial claims of him being seen. It was better than empowering him with their complicity in the murder.

However, we don’t know what his handlers told him, and maybe someone did tell him to remain inside. Perhaps that explains why he only barely went outside. And perhaps that’s why he didn’t mention it publicly in response to the reporter.

But later, at his police interrogation, he did tell Fritz that he was out with Bill Shelley in front.

Robert, this kind of inquiry is interesting, and I don’t mind probing it. But, it really doesn’t matter because the images establish beyond any doubt that Oswald WAS outside.  And in that respect, all of this is just noise. It’s just distraction. Focus on the images.  The images are the real evidence, the decisive evidence.  Doorman, Robert, is wearing Oswald’s clothes. There is no way Lovelady was dressed like that. We have to snap out of it. This is mate. It’s over. It’s Oswald in the doorway, and noise doesn't make it go away.

Mr. 19, after imaging 19 countries, is now imagining more stuff. He's imagining that I deliberately cropped the shirts of Doorman and Lovelady so that the "good parts" don't show.

Look, you plucking moron: here is the whole kit and kaboodle. The entirety of both shirts. Now, without drawing or marking anything within the area of examination, you can point to anything you think matches.

 I didn't leave anything out this time. You're seeing the entire shirt of both of them. Everything is accessible to you. So point to any areas that you think match. But don't be drawing in any lines. You can't do that.  You can point to something without marring it. I did it above as an example, where it says "line" and then an arrow. Of course, there is no line there; I'm just showing you what your options are.

If you do something like that- without making any markings within the area of examination- then I'll put it up, but not before.

Haydon, you are dumb as dirt.
Mr. 19 says there are no rules except imaginary ones.

No, it isn't that. It's that there are no lines except real ones,and the imaginary ones don't count.

Mr. 19 says the pattern is easy to spot when you know what to look for. Then tell them what to look for. I don't mind that. But, don't mark within the area of examination.

Did you hear what I said? I said: Do not mark within the area of examination.

And while you're at it, explain why the cuff patterns don't match either. 

No, Mr. 19. I am referencing all of what you offered. I'm showing all of it.

I've already told you that you are not allowed to draw in the area under examination. You can point to it. You can describe it. You can write alongside of it. But, you can't do anything in the area of examination..

That's all you get from me, buster. Visual matches are just that: visual. They have to be visible with the unaided eye, without any artistic enhancements. Otherwise, it is outrageously dishonest.

And no, you didn't get readers from 19 countries.

Let me tell you how Mr. 19 came up with the number 19. He started with 20. That's what he was shooting for. But, it's too round a number. It sounds like something one would conjure up. So, he lowered it to 19 because it's a very odd number. Think about all the numbers that divide into 20. But nothing divides into 19 (except 1 and 19). So, it sounds more random. It's just about as good as 20. 19 countries is about as impressive. But, it sounds more random. And that's how Mr. 19 arrived at 19.

It is just the kind of lie that bpete would tell. And I say that because it's CHILDISH, as bpete is childish.

So now, I am more convinced than ever that Mr 19 is bpete who is Steve Haydon.
Now, Mr. 19 thinks he can draw lines between Groden Lovelady and Groden Doorman and make a plaid pattern magically appear on the lattter.

No, Mr. 19. There are still no vertical lines and no boxes on Doorman's shirt. Those shirts are about as different in pattern as any two shirts can be. And here's a bit of irony for you:

The one horizontal line we see on Doorman is on his cuff, at the top of his cuff. So, let's see if we can at least find that on Lovelady.

Nope, not even that worked out. There is no horizontal line on the top of the cuff on Lovelady. He, instead, has a cross pattern, with a vertical line going down the middle and across the middle.

By the way, I call Lance Uppercut Mr. 19 because he claimed that people from 19 countries were viewing his blog just a few days ago, which is amazing when you consider he's using an alias that nobody even heard of until recently. 19 is a lot, Lance. I told you to do a Screen Save and put up the report. I want to see those 19 countries. Let's see: France? England? Germany? Canada? Italy? Man, it takes a lot to get to 19.

Put it up, Mr. 19. Because I wouldn't want to think you lied about that. None of us would want to think that you lied about that. Because it would be an awful thing for you to start your career as a JFK commentator by telling such an outrageous lie.

And while you're at it, do explain why the shirt continued to fit Lovelady so snugly after he lost so much weight.

You see, I've been supervising people in losing weight most of my adult life, and my experience is that when people shrink in size, their clothes don't shrink with them. That shirt looks just as snug on Groden Lovelady as it does on Gorilla Lovelady. And the other weird thing is that the length of the shirt seems a lot longer on the left. On the right, the shirt looks short like it's his kid brother's shirt.

So, what do you figure? It shrank in the wash? Nope, because Mrs. Lovelady said he didn't wear it after the assassination, that she kept it in a safe.

And another thing: what happened to the pocket flap?:It didn't show up in '67 or '76.

Here's another take on it:

Man, Lovelady looks thin in 1976. He should be swimming in that shirt. Don't you think?

Send that report about the 19 countries, Mr. 19. Have I mentioned that I don't like liars?

More good news. Yet another professor has joined our ranks: Professor Jerry Kroth of Santa Clara University. Here is his bio from the OIC home page:

Jerry Kroth Ph.D. is an Associate Professor Emeritus in Psychology at Santa Clara University in California. He has written many books, including two on the JFK assassination: Conspiracy in Camelot, and Coup d’Etat. He also lectures extensively on JFK, and his online videos about JFK are widely viewed. Jerry is a strong advocate for Oswald innocence, Oswald in the doorway, and a massive conspiracy that involved LBJ, the CIA, and the Mafia.

Take a look at our home page to see the impressive rugby team we have assembled. 
Nobody is going to break through that line.
I have updated the OIC home page with the image and bio of our newest senior member, Professor James Norwood. And because he is a professor, I didn't just put him on the bottom. I found a place for him on the second row.

So, take a look. If you click on his name above his image, it will jump to his bio. I spoke to Jim, and he said he is currently teaching a class at the University of Minnesota on the JFK assassination in which he champions Oswald in the doorway.

We welcome Jim Norwood, and we are stronger because of him.

Here is some big news, and it's good news. Judyth Baker has done her own analysis in which she determined that it's Oswald in the doorway. It appears on the Lee Harvey Oswald Is Innocent page on Facebook. But, it's in the Comments section. The particular post is one of Richard Hooke's which features his 50 points of light between Oswald and Doorman. Start reading in the Comments section, and you'll see a succession of posts from Judyth, which includes her images.

At the bottom, this is what I added:

Ralph Cinque: Indeed, that is good work, Judyth. There can't be any doubt that Doorman's shirt was Lee's shirt. And the truth is that there was never anything "plaid" about Doorman's shirt anyway.

Backes; Blah, blah, blah about Lovelady's trek to the tracks being concocted. 

Cinque: Then they had some great scriptwriters because, as dialogue goes, this is amazing. 

Mr. BALL - After you ran to the railroad tracks you came back and went in the back door of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you go in through the docks, the wide open door or did you go in the ordinary Small door?
Mr. LOVELADY - You know where we park our trucks--that door; we have a little door.
Mr. BALL - That is where you went in, that little door?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - That would be the north end of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - That would be the west end, wouldn't it?
Mr. BALL - Is it the one right off Houston Street?
Mr. LOVELADY - No; you are thinking about another dock.
Mr. BALL - I am?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes; we have two.
Mr. BALL - Do you have a dock on the west side and one on the north side of the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - East, and well, it would be east and west but you enter it from the south side.
Mr. BALL - Now, the south side---
Mr. LOVELADY - Elm Street is that little dead-end street.
Mr. BALL - That's south.
Mr. LOVELADY - I drive my truck here (indicating) but we came in from this direction; that would have to be west.
Mr. BALL - You came into the building from the west side?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go into the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that, those raised-up doors.
Mr. BALL - Through the raised-up doors?
Mr. LOVELADY - Through that double door that we in the morning when we get there we raised. There's a fire door and they have two wooden doors between it.
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.

Backes: The WC wasn't a show trial because it wasn't done in public.

Cinque: Wrong. They just waited until they were done to show it to the public. And what they did was even worse than a regular show trial because at a regular show trial, you're stuck with whatever testimony the witness gives. Everybody hears it. But, they didn't want that. They wanted to be able to revise the testimonies before they were made public- which you claim they did wholesale. You see, they couldn't have done that if Lovelady had been sitting in front of reporters and the public. So, it was actually worse than a show trial. So, that makes you the jackass, Backass.

And I didn't say that every word in the Warren Report is wrong. I didn't say that every line of testimony is false. What I said is that if they concocted testimony out of thin air, assigning it to witnesses at will, then all the testimonies are SUSPECT. That's the proper word, Backes: suspect.

But, let me assure you that the last person on Earth who should be entrusted to separate the true from the false in the Warren Report is you, Joseph Backes. That's because you're the idiot who thinks they concocted a bus ride, a cab ride, and a trek to the tracks.

Backes: No, you look it up.  You brought it up, you look it up.

Cinque: Well, with that thought in mind, would you mind producing the images of the "other African-American" that you say exist and which Richard E. Sprague referenced? Because I have looked for them, and I can't find them. And, I don't think they exist. So, you brought them up, therefore, you put them up. 

And finally, you did refer to the Doorman issue as a "narrow issue". Period. It was on September 24 or 25. But, you deleted the post because you realized, afterwards, how moronic it is. 

And if I'm wrong about that, just give us the link to that post.    

It looks like Joseph Backes is faking it about having been relieved. That other guy who has taken over his attack site is just him.

He says that "Mr. Backes is busy" but you'd think that Mr. Backes would say something about it on his Justice for Kennedy site. As of yesterday, he was still talking about me, but he didn't mention anything about being replaced on his other site.

Here it is large:

I actually didn't do anything of the kind. I didn't contact Google. I haven't asked anyone else to contact Google. So, this story is complete bull shit.

But, you would think that Backes would announce something about a change at the helm on the other site. But as you see, there's nothing.

So, I'm thinking that this new guy is really just Backes, that he is following the lead of bpete and Lance by using an alias, except that he just goes by "Cinque slayer." Maybe he thiinks that if he sounds like he's someone else that Google will leave him alone.

That is very probably it: Cinque slayer is really just Backes behind a veil.

That's what I am going to assume at this point because this new guy writes like and thinks exactly like Backes.

So. you are just Backes, Cinque slayer, and I shall call you Backes. Your jig is up, already.

Lance, put up the report about people from 19 countries viewing your blog. Do a Screen Save and show it exactly as it appears. If you don't do it, it means you're a liar.
Joseph Backes is an Op. He's got somebody else writing his attack blog against me.

If he were just a regular guy with a keen interest in the JFK assassination, a self-styled "researcher," would he have somebody else writing his blog?

The fact that he tagged someone else to fill in for him tells you that he is part of a network: a network of Ops.

The replacement refers to Backes as "Mr. Backes" and to himself as "Cinque slayer".

Hey, Asshole! You couldn't slay a fish if it came out of a can of tuna.

First, he accused me of trying to take down all of Mr. Backes' blogs, and that has something to do with why Backes was silent for a week. No, I didn't do that. Maybe it's a vast conspiracy.

Then, he repeated Backes' claim that the WC concocted all that testimony about Lovelady walking down to the tracks with Shelley and returning and re-entering through the back door. And Shelley also said it, and even Frazier referred to them doing it. So, it's a lot of testimony. But, he was OK with the word I used: "concocted". He used it himself.

But, when you concoct testimony, it means that it's not an honest inquiry, not an honest investigation, and therefore like a show trial, which is what I originally said. You're agreeing with me, you dumb pluck.

And if they concocted, out of thin air, long, tedious testimony for Lovelady, it means that every single word of testimony in the WC is suspect.

Then, he demands to know the details about the threats that were made against Buell Frazier and his family. But, the important thing is that Buell Frazier revealed that his life and that of his family were threatened. It doesn't really matter who threatened them or what their exact threats were. What matters is that Buell Frazier felt threatened. And another word that he, Buell Frazier, used besides "threatened" was "pressured". He was pressured to say some things. And he named someone who pressured him to say some things: Will Fritz. Look it up, Asshole.

And no, Asshole, Backes very specifically referred to Oswald in the doorway as a "narrow" issue. Whether the alleged lone-nut assassin was standing outside during the slaughter was just a narrow issue, according to him. That's what he said; so don't try to rewrite it.

Then, he tries to say that there was no "they". But, Joseph Backes claims to be a CT, and that means, automatically, that there was a "they" who killed Kennedy. And after "they" killed Kennedy, "they" got busy covering up the fact that "they" killed Kennedy. So yes, there had to be a "they", you plucking moron.

Then, in response to my saying that they weren't going to put anything in writing about Oswald being outside, he cites the Fritz notes as something in writing. But, the Fritz notes were just notes to himself. He wrote them for his own benefit, not for publication. He did eventually turn over his notes to the Warren Commission, but they were formal notes, not those scratchy notes. Those scratchy notes came out decades later, after Fritz was long dead. It was just a piece of luck that they came out. If someone had noticed what they contained about Oswald being out with Bill Shelley in front, they probably would have had them destroyed or at least retained. I'm sure that "they" rue the day that those notes were released.

About Will Fritz, I don't assume he was a conspirator in the JFK assassination. That is, I don't assume he had any foreknowledge of it. But, like many others, he was severely pressured after the assassination. If you read LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by OIC senior member Phillip Nelson, who will be speaking in Santa Barbara, you lean that Clif Carter, who was LBJ's right-hand man, called Will Fritz multiple times, numerous times, on the afternoon of November 22nd, pressuring him to shut down the investigation because he "had his man," that no one else was involved, just Oswald. So, Fritz became aware of what was expected of him and how high up it went. But, what his perspective was during his first interview of Oswald when he took those notes is anyone's guess. And no, he didn't sit down days later to write this:

Nobody would write such cryptic, shorthand notes days later. Here they are typed:

And to those who claim that Oswald changed his shirt, notice that it says that he changed his "britches" that is, his pants. It doesn't say anything about changing his shirt, which Oswald did not do.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Professor James Norwood, who teaches a course on the JFK assassination at a university in Minnesota has joined the the OIC as a senior member. Of course, he is an advocate of Oswald in the doorway.

Op-percut, you are stuck. You are never going to convince anyone that these two shirts were the same.

Hey friends, I'm getting to this SOB because he's getting nastier. And as of now, but hunch that he's just bpete trying to get a fresh start. If my opinion about that changes, I'll let you know. 

But, those two shirts can't possibly be the same. The large plaid pattern on the right is totally and completley missing on the left. The pocket flap is missing on Doorman's shirt. Look how different the collars are! Look how different the collars are! We can only compare Doorman's right to Lovelady's left, but so what? They are totally different. Look how snug the shirt fits Lovelady and how loose-goosey it is on Doorman. And what about the sprawl? Doorman's is sprawled open, parted like the Red Sea, and Lovelady's is buttoned up all except the top button. It was only minutes part, and there's no evidence of Lovelady ever having been so unbuttoned or of having buttoned up in the interim. 

Splotchy isn't plaid. Splotchy isn't plaid. Splotchy isn't plaid. 

To my supporters:

I am not going to provide the links to Lance Op-percut's blog, and I ask that you not go there by other means. It's not because I wish for you not to read what he writes. I couldn't care less about that. It's because I don't want you to give him the clicks. I don't want you to give him the page-visits. It might help him.

You realize that he's just an Op. He may even be one of the same ones I'm already dealing with. But, he is definitely an Op.

If not, why would he need to use an alias?

If not, why wouldn't he reveal who he is and what is background is in JFK assassination research?

And most important, why wouldn't he start by revealing what his take is on the most important and central issue of the JFK assassination, namely, who killed Kennedy?

But, for Lance, that is a "narrow" issue. His agenda, his assignment, is only to oppose Oswald in the doorway, and he really doesn't care what you believe about the rest.

And I have to laugh: The idiot just announced that his clicks are going wild, that he's getting hits from 19 countries and counting.

That's supposed to rattle me???? A guy starts a page denouncing Ralph Cinque, and right away people from 19 countries are interested??????? And I'm supposed to be upset about that????????

Wow. It sounds like my world influence is greater than I thought.

Since I am a real person and Lance Op-percut is not, and had no existence at all until his blog began, the interest can only stem from ME, not him.

So, this is fabulous news- if it's true- and I hope it is.

But, for those who support me, who know that I am doing battle against a very organized campaign of disinformation- who know that this is a fucking war- then don't go to his site. You'll get the gist of what he says from me, don't worry. Just come here, and please ask others to come here.

I want you to notice that there are other CTs advocating other things, such as the driver Will Greer having shot Kennedy. They don't set up attack sites against that. I'm sure they smile when they see stuff like that. They know that that isn't a threat. This is a treat. Oswald in the doorway is the biggest threat there is to JFK officialdom in the world today. I know it; they know it; and that's what we are fighting about it.

If you want to help me, visit this blog often and boycott the blogs of my enemies. It's that simple. And, tell your friends about it and ask them to follow this blog as well.

We have a 50 year old state lie to destroy. We can destroy it. We will destroy it.
No, Unger. I didn't say Doorman was Lovelady. I said he had Lovelady's hairline.

They weren't going to claim that Oswald was Lovelady without imparting some of Lovelady to him. So, they went with the hairline.

That's didn't make Doorman Lovelady. It made Doorman Oswald but with Lovelady's hairline.

But, it wasn't even Lovelady's hairline from the time of the assassination.

On the left you see Young Lovelady from the 1950s. Notice that he still looks like a boy. He doesn't even look like a grown man. His hairline matches Doorman's even though Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man and had a lost a lot of hair by 1963. On the right is hairline in the winter of 1964. It was just a few months after the assassination.

So, Unger, it only means that you lie like Op-bastard that you are. Doorman was Oswald dressed up with Young Lovelady's hairline.
I did some posing in Dealey Plaza in a shirt that had a very small, tight plaid pattern and not large boxes like on Lovelady's shirt.

Lance seems to think that these two match, and therefore, Doorman's pattern could represent plaid.

But remember the rule for plaid: it has to have horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes. Mine does that, but it's on a very small scale- unlike Lovelady's. But even in this case you can see the lines and the boxes on me. Let's look at it up closer

Do you see what I mean that there are lines and boxes that you can see? There is nothing comparable on Doorman.

And there certainly is nothing whatsoever comparable to Lovelady.

And to insult to injury, he wasn't even Lovelady.

Lance Op-percut responded. First, he's not going to meet me in Dallas to put a camera to his theory. No
surprise there.

I'm going to ignore the bravado. Hey Lance! Save it until the day we meet in person.

So the first thing he said is that the upper left quadrant showed a perfect match to Lovelady's collar.

 I don't think so, Lance.

Then he says the "visible area" of the shirt isn't big enough to show boxes.

That is ridiculous. We should see the boxes everywhere, and in the smaller areas we should see parts of the boxes, corners of the boxes, etc. Plus, the visible area of the shirt is at least half the whole shirt. So, don't tell me it isn't big enough to show boxes.

We don't see a series of boxes. We don't see a single box. We don't see any piece of a box.There is not a hint of box formation on Doorman's shirt pattern.

Then, he tries to claim that he found a single white vertical line. He drew one in, but I am not going to show you that. With me, you just have to look at the raw image and see if you can see any vertical lines. He doesn't get to help your eyes with suggestion.'

There are no vertical lines on that shirt. And there are no horizontal lines either of the delicate kind that we see on Lovelady's shirt.

Lance, I told you: you can't draw any lines in. You can point to an area which you think contains a line, and say "look there,"  but you can't draw it in.

There is nothing remotely plaid about Doorman's shirt and in no way does it match the shirt that is claimed for Lovelady.

To claim that what we see on the right came out as what we see in the middle is PREPOSTEROUS.

And get this: the slimey SOB refuses to confirm it with a camera!

Well, guess what, you slimey mudder-rucker: I'm going back to Dallas without you, and this time I'll get a plaid shirt exactly like Lovelady's. You see one of us is not afraid to put his theories to the test. You are going to rue the day you brought this subject up again. I only live 3 hours from Dallas.

But, in the meantime, don't you draw in any more lines that you are claiming. You can point to anything. You can't describe it. You can make comparisons. BUT, DO NOT DEFILE THE AREA THAT IS BEING EXAMINED. That is dastardly. That is despicable. That is not allowed.

Backes gets tired. He takes a few days off.  He must be low on stamina. But, the rest does him no good. He's just as stupid afterwards as he was before.
Backes: There is no evidence supporting the claim that "Doorman," was Oswald. None. 

Cinque: The photographs are the evidence, Backes. The photographs show us that Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothing, both his distinctive outer shirt and his distinctive t-shirt. He has Oswald's build. He has Oswald's stance. He has Oswald's expression. The photographic evidence is overwhelming that Doorman is Oswald.

Backes: No one on those steps said to anyone in 50 years that Oswald was there.

Cinque: Oswald said he was there, and he named someone who was there: Bill Shelley.

Backes: The WC was not a show trial.

Cinque: And yet you think they concocted lengthy testimony for Lovelady in which they said he described a trek down to the tracks and re-entry through the back door all, supposedly, to nullify the testimony of Victoria Adams. Yet, you imply that if someone had wanted to say that Oswald was in the doorway, they would have put it into the Warren Report. 

Backes:  Did Buell Wesley Frazier say the WC threatened his life, as you're implying here? No.  No, he didn't say that. 

Cinque: No, but that doesn't matter. Obviously, it was not going to be the distinguished statesmen of the Warren Commission who threatened him. Are you saying that the fact that his life and the lives of his family members were threatened isn't enough? That if the threat wasn't made directly by Allen Dulles or Richard Russell that it doesn't count?

Backes: Why is there no evidence from other sources that Oswald was in the doorway?

Cinque: You see, Backes, other people, with more brains than you have, realized immediately that this was not a "narrow" issue, that it was a very big issue, and there was no way they were going to put anything in writing about Oswald being outside. So, it shouldn't surprise you that nothing was found. These were people who had just murdered the President of the United States, and they weren't going to put something in writing about the guy whom they set up as patsy being outside. How stupid a moron are you? 

There is no longer the slightest doubt that Oswald was standing outside; we can see him plain as day. The evidence is boldly and blatantly visible. You want evidence, Backes? Here it is:

I just remembered another guy from EF who argued that Doorman was grabbing the handrail with his left hand: Pat Speer.

It was 100% unanimous there that the sleeve was Doorman's and not anyone else's. No one broached the idea that it was another man's arm going up. Robin Unger was there, and he suggested no such thing.

You can see the cuff plain as day. It's not a rolled-up sleeve. Don't be ridiculous.

So, let's not reduce this debate to a Backesism. It's bad enough Backes does it. If you guys are going to start ape-ing that idiot, you're even worse off than I thought.
If you have ever doubted that Gorilla Lovelady's shirt had a pocket-flap, lookie here:

You can even see the white dot which was the snap or button that secured the flap. Later, when the real Lovelady posed in his plaid shirt, there was no pocket flap.

It's really unbelievable what this Lance Op-percut did. He drew lines in to represent the lines that were missing to suggest that if you just look at it long enough with your mind's eye, you'll see them.

On the right is what he has to make out to be "plaid". So on the left, he drew some lines in. 

Of course, he only got half-way there because it takes not just lines going across but lines going up and down. 

Here, I'll help you, Lance.

There now; isn't that special? You can have anything you want on the Street of Dreams. I can just hear Frank Sinatra singing it now:

Love laughs at a king
Kings don't mean a thing
On the street of dreams
Dreams broken in two
Can be made like new
On the street of dreams
Gold, silver and gold
All you can hold
Right there in a moonbeam
Poor, nobody's poor
Long as love is sure
On the street of dreams

This may be the most outrageous lie these Ops have tried to sell.

Listen up, Lance. You tell your superiors at Langley that their desperation is showing. Yes, the whole fucking lie is going down, and truth is rising as more people find out about Oswald in the doorway. There is nothing they can do to stop it. For Goodness sake, the man is wearing Oswald's shirt and t-shirt! So, why embarrass yourselves? What you did is childish. What you did is stupid. You made yourself look bad, and you made the agency look bad. 

In a word: it's HOPELESS. So give up.   

Saturday, September 28, 2013

So-called Lance Uppercut has just made an outrageous attempt to rationalize a major deficiency of the Lovelady scenario- the lack of plaidness in Doorman's shirt.

His pathetic and diabolical effort does not deserve or warrant a point by point response, so I am just going to stick to the salient facts.

There are only two physical features of Doorman that have EVER been linked to Lovelady, and they are the hairline and the plaid shirt. There is indeed some truth to the hairline- but only to the hairline Lovelady had in the 1950s and not in 1963, and we have Mark Lane to thank for shining a light on that.

But, our focus now is only on the so-called plaid shirt.

Doorman's shirt pattern NEVER looks plaid. It never shows horizontal and vertical lines crossing. And I have an offer to make to Lance Uppercut: Let's meet in Dealey Plaza. Someone in a plaid shirt can stand in the doorway, and we shall take a picture of him from Altgens position and as close as we can to Altgens shooting criteria, and I'll bet that squares will appear on the shirt pattern in the picture. I mean actual horizontal and vertical lines that cross forming boxes. If such a pattern is represented photographically, I win, if not, I lose.

Now, you have no reason not to accept this bet. You stand to win money, first of all. But, imagine the pride of announcing to the world that you beat Ralph Cinque and stripped him of his money as well. As for the amount of the wager, you decide. And just to make it fair, we'll get an independent photographer to do the work, and you and I will be observers. While you are thinking about that, I'll continue.

Lance argues that the plaid shirt that you see on Lovelady on the right came out splotchy as you see on Doorman in the middle. But again, why are we arguing about this? I will meet you in Dealey Plaza. We will have our showdown, Buddy. And we'll make it interesting. Are you man enough for it, or not?

Lance suggested that we just look at a portion of the shirt, and he didn't want to look at the sleeve because he said we're not sure whose it is. Oh, I'm sure, Lance. It's Doorman's sleeve.

But, if we're only going to look at part of the shirt, let's make it the upper left quadrant, and that's left to us.

This is one of the first collages I ever made, and it's still useful- after all these years. You see, even in the notorious Groden scan, there is no plaid, and there isn't even any splotch whatsoever in the upper left corner. Yet, Lovelady had vivid, bold, geometric pattern all the way up to and including the collar.

So, shift your focus, Lancey Boy, from the body to the upper left quadrant of the shirt.

Actually, Clark Rob did a better job than you did, Lance. He showed us that Doorman's shirt pattern didn't match Lovelady's at all.

Can you see that Loveolady's shirt had white lines, both horizontal and vertical? These lines crossed forming boxes. There are no boxes on Doorman's shirt. There are no vertical lines on Doorman's shirt. And there are scant few horizontal lines.

And, notice look how fine the lines are on Lovelady's shirt. And remember that it wasn't supposed to be just a shirt like Doorman's. Supposedly, it WAS Doorman's actual shirt. Therefore, a much wider SPLOTCH that is kind-of horizontal does not correspond to a delicate white line. It is an utter disconnect.

Clark Rob had the stupidity to put them together and say they were a match. Lance Uppercut, not being quite that stupid, cleverly decided that the sleeve was out.

Well, let's get something straight, Lance: Only two people who have ever lived have ever claimed that was anything but Doorman's sleeve, and they are the Idiot Joe Backes and a dead guy named Richard E. Sprague. Through all those long debates on EF and other forums, for which bpete was there, nobody argued that that wasn't Doorman's arm and sleeve. In fact, bpete knows well that they were arguing that that was Doorman's arm alright, and he was grabbing the handrail with it. You know who said that? Steve Haydon said that. You know who else said it? Craig Lamson said it. And there were others who said it. Albert Doyle said it on Lancer. Nobody suggested it was the arm of a black man. And since the pattern and the tone are entirely consistent with the rest of Doorman's shirt, and since we can see the cuff at the bottom, and nobody until Joseph Backes doubted it was a cuff, I think it's altogether certain that it's Doorman's sleeve. So, you can take what you did and shove it the same place that Backes shoves his proscenium arches.

Now, they don't actually make shirts with splotchy patterns because it's not considered attractive. What we are seeing with the Groden scan is haze and distortion. The best scans, with the least distortion, show a much more subtle and consistent pattern on Doorman's shirt.

Now again, we have no reason to argue about this when we have the means of resolving it through experimentation. Meet me in Dealey Plaza.

Now listen up, Lancey Boy. I've got a rule for you: NEVER draw on an area in which the visual examination is taking place. You can draw outside of it. You can write things outside of it. You can point arrows to it. But NEVER draw in it. You hear me? That is cheating. That is deception. That is bull shit. So, don't do it again because you've been adequately warned about what it means and how corrupt it is.

Now, we have very good reason to think that the splotchiness of Doorman's shirt is haze and distortion and not the shirt pattern. Notice below that there is a polka-dot effect not just on the shirt but on the faces and in the black areas. Notice that Doorman's face looks like he has some kind of pox, and the same is true of the small portion of Black Tie Man's face that we see. There was haze there too. Remember what this is: a gross enlargement of a very tiny spot in the photograph. You blow things up that much and you get haze and distortion.

But notice again that the upper left quadrant (boxed) has nothing that can remotely be associated with a plaid pattern. There are no lines at all. Lovelady had rich pattern and rectangularity all the way up to and including the collar. It simply can't be Lovelady's plaid shirt.

But, it's great to have Lance Uppercut in the fight. What does that make it now? Let's see: Idiot Joe Backes, b-beaten, Sutler, and Unger. That's 5, but I hope 5 more will come along because I can handle all comers. Yes, I have the ability to prevail over all of them, but it's only partly because I'm smarter than they are. What makes me invincible is that it is Oswald in the doorway, and the evidence for it is irrefutable. You can't win an argument when you're wrong. You may temporarily fool a few people, but in the long run, you are going to lose. That's because truth always wins out in the end.

So, the more attack sites against me the better. It's just going to help spread the message of JFK truth.

I'm not going to post this on the new OIC Facebook page, but I will announce it and post a link to it. Let the showdown begin.