Friday, January 31, 2014

Was Kennedy shot in the back with an ice bullet? 

He may have been. It's very possible, and it's a compelling idea. 

But, let start with what we know. Kennedy was struck in the back at a downward angle at the level of T3. Several medical people, including his own doctor, Dr. George Burkley, said it was at T3. 

Plus, we can see it ourselves. 

There is something that I want you to do right now, this second. Reach your hand around to the top of your back and feel around for the biggest bump you can find at the top of your back, right in the center. It will help if you flex your neck and lower your head. So, bring your head down to your chest. 

Did you find the biggest bump at the junction of your neck and back? That bump is the Vertebral Prominens. On most people, it is the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebra, but on some it is T1. Now keep your fingers on that bump because your proprioception is working, giving you a very clear idea of where it is. At the same time, look at that bullet wound in the image above. You know that is the back and not the neck. To me that looks exactly like what Burkley and the others said: T3. Look at it again from a different angle:

That is not his neck. That is definitely adjacent to T3. So, let's stop the nonsense about T1. And there is no way a bullet that entered his back at a sharply downward angle at T3 could exit through his throat. 

So, what happened to that bullet? Humes probed the hole and said he hit a wall and could go no further. At that point, he should have sliced Kennedy open like a tuna to find out what happened. But, the FBI agents wouldn't let him. 

But, let's be realistic: there is no way that bullet came out his throat, and it did not come out anywhere else either because he didn't have an exit wound anywhere else. They could not have hit that. So, we are left saddled with the presumption that the bullet stopped inside of him. 

But, what happened to it? It certainly didn't fall out. If it fell out, it would have gotten tangled up in several layers of clothing. It certainly could not have worked its way out through the holes in the clothes. 

As I see it, there are only two possibilities: the first is that they dug it out of him at the pre-autopsy, and the second is that JFK was struck with an ice bullet that melted inside him, perhaps delivering a drug, such as a tranquilizer.  

I think both ideas are plausible, but I am more drawn to the ice bullet idea. And I'm not the only one. As with Oswald in the doorway, plenty of people before me have championed it. For some reason, Joseph Backes and the others waited until I championed Oswald in the doorway before they started having conniptions over it, but plenty of people advanced it before I did. 

Here is a discussion about the ice bullet idea from the Education Forum. The thread was started by Steve Kober.

Notice Jack White's Response:

"Excellent work, Steve! Jack"

It's interesting that none of the rabid lonenutters on Education Forum were inclined to pounce on this. Obviously, it challenged the Single Bullet Theory, so you'd think that would have spurred them to attack. But, they didn't; they just let it pass. 

I consider the ice bullet a very intriguing idea and certainly worthy of more thought and discussion. But, one thing is absolutely sure: Kennedy got hit at the level of T3 to the right of his spine, and the bullet that entered, however far it went, went downward from there at a sharp angle, and there is no chance that it came out his throat. The Single Bullet Theory is complete bull shit, and the number of people who have said that before me is too vast to even count.  


My point is that the term "Thorburn position" is NOT a well- recognized medical term; it is mostly just a JFK term. 

So, I googled it, and this is what I got:

Notice that the top listing is a debunking of Lattimer's contention, referring to it as the Thorburn Hoax, so that's JFK-related. Second is John McAdams, who, as you would expect, supports Lattimer, but it is also JFK-related.  The third is an argument about Lattimer's claim on McAdams' forum. The fourth is from the most prominent online dictionary, The Free Dictionary.  

Two definitions were provided, and both were referenced to JFK. It appears that this is what John Fiorentino found, and he quoted just the first sentence of the first definition. 

All of the remaining listings on the Google search results were references to the JFK debate about it. It means that 100% of the first page listings for "Thorburn position" were references to JFK.

On the second page of listings, all of them were JFK-related except one. That one exception was a bio message board in which a guy asked for information about the Thorburn position. 

Nobody responded to Jim Rathman, and I found out from surfing the net that Jim Rathman is an avid JFK buff. He's a professor, and he has even participated on McAdams' forum. 

There have been some naysayers on McAdams' forum about our debunking of the "Thorburn position" bull shit.  

First, John Fiorentino:

"Cinque, along with his Oswald in the doorway fantasy, doesn't have any medical knowledge either. 

How *odd* for someone who was licensed as a Chiropractor..........right 

The Thorburn position is well known in medicine. 

Thorburn position: A reflex position assumed by the elbows immediately after injury to the spinal cord in the lower cervical region." 

John F. 

My response: 

Hey, John: Here's what I found for definitions of "Thorburn position":

Thorburn position A reflex position assumed by the elbows immediately after injury to the spinal cord in the lower cervical region.
The Thorburn position is of broad popular interest as it was assumed by John F Kennedy at the time of his assassination in Dallas in 1963, and is regarded as evidence against the popular “JFK assassination conspiracy” theory.

Notice that the first sentence is identical to the definition you found, but the second sentence linked it to JFK. That was my point, but you left out the second sentence. Here's the other definition:

Thorburn position
Forensic pathology A reflex position assumed by the elbows immediately after injury to the spinal cord in the lower cervical region. See 'Magic bullet' theory.

So, both reference the JFK assassination, which, again, is my point. You, apparently, found the first one but only included the first sentence and left out the second.  

Here's the link if anyone wants to see it:

On Wikipedia, there is a bio of Dr. William Thorburn which doesn't even mention the "Thorburn position":

And most important, on PubMed, the largest medical database in the world, there are no references to "Thorburn position":

And John: you're the one who is living in fantasy when you deny that it was Oswald in the doorway. 

Then, there is this guy I call Ollie:


"Whatever you call the phenomenon, the Z-film clearly shows that JFK's  elbows went up above the level of his hands, his hands in front of his throat but not touching it. That is an awkward and unusual position for someone to suddenly exhibit. It was obviously the result of spinal trauma, whether or not you invoke Dr. Thorburn's name." 

How do you explain JFK's reaction, Ralph? Did "they" superimpose Billy Lovelady's arms and hands on the president's body? 

My response: 

Suddenly exhibit it? Are you nuts? What happened suddenly is that JFK was suddenly shot in the neck.  How do I explain his reaction? How about that he just did it. In other words, it was a muscular action on his part, not a neurological reflex. 

Kennedy had been shot in the neck from the front, and he brought his hands up to the site of injury. 

When people are choking on food, don't they bring their hand or hands up to their neck? Well, JFK was choking on a bullet. 

And it is very reasonable to assume that he was choking on a bullet because the bullet, shot from the front, obviously did not exit out the back of his head. And yet, it wasn't found on autopsy. Dr. Humes did not examine the throat wound because he was falsely told that it was just a tracheotomy incision. It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry on the phone that he learned that there had been a bullet hole there- what Perry believed to be an entry wound. 

Well, Humes should have demanded to go back in and re-examine JFK to track that bullet, with the threat of screaming bloody murder if they didn't let him do it. But, Humes didn't do that; instead he burned his autopsy notes. 

But, we know there was no bullet there because they thoroughly x-rayed JFK's body, including that area, and they reported seeing no such bullet. Therefore, either they falsified the x-ray OR that bullet was extracted from JFK at the "pre-autopsy" as per David Lifton and others.  

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Steve Andis has spurred me to look closely at JFK's reaction after being shot, and I am referring to his raising his arms and bringing his hands to his neck, as seen in Z-230.

A urologist by the name of John Lattimer introduced the idea that it was a Thorburn position. Thorburn was a doctor in Manchester, England who in 1886 wrote about a case - a single case- in which a man who had suffered damage to the spinal cord at the level of C5 experienced a contraction of his biceps and deltoid muscles as seen below. The drawing below accompanied Thorburn's article.

As you can see, there was no movement of the hands to the neck in Thorburn's patient. And note that he suffered "complete transverse destruction of the spinal cord immediately below the 5th cervical vertebra" and we know Kennedy didn't experience that. And be aware of something else: THE MAN WAS RENDERED IMMEDIATELY UNCONSCIOUS FROM THE TRAUMA. And we know that didn't happen to Kennedy either. Also, it was only 4 days after the trauma, while the man was in a coma, that he went into that Thorburn position. Again, it has no bearing whatsoever on Kennedy. 

The idea that JFK is exhibiting a Thorburn reaction is pure, utter nonsense with no grounding whatsoever. 

In researching this, I found a video about it by Gil Jesus, and let's just say that Gil Jesus, though he is not a doctor, beats the living bejesus out of John Lattimer.

I am so impressed with the above video that I sought out and found Gil Jesus' email address, and I have written to him, inviting him to become the next senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. 

And I also found an interesting exchange about this on the forum, which I'll share. I love it when I find people who think the way I do, and I am referring to someone who goes by the name Uttercontempt. Gotta love that name. I know how he feels. 

Uttercontempt: The first shot that hit Kennedy went through his neck/shoulder region. After this shot he is seen lifting his right arm to 90 degrees and grabbing his neck. My issue would be that a high velocity bullet traveling through this region would do enormous damage to the neck region, including damaging the muscles and nerves. I really doubt a person shot in this region would be able to immediately lift their right arm.

Balaclava: Kennedy appears to be clenching his fists and his elbows are sticking out which is very like the neuro-muscular spasm known as Thorburn's position.

Uttercontempt: Yes I am aware of that but it would have passed through an area containing the right brachial plexus, a large bundle of nerves that supply the upper limb.

Balaclava: And likely would have produced a neuro-muscular spasm such as clenched fists shooting up to the neck and elbows raised and sticking out.

Uttercontempt: Interesting the Thorburn position, I had never heard of it, nor seen it, and I have seen plenty of high spinal injuries. And why was it both arms if the bullet missed the spine? (good point- Cinque)

Balaclava: The theory was put forward by Dr. John Lattimer who wrote a detailed book on the medical aspects of the assassination in the 1980 book Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical & Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations.

Uttercontempt: Yes, but the "Thorburn position" was described only once in 1886 and referred to a C5 spinal injury. It has, as far as I know, never been demonstrated/described since. Anyway Kennedy did not have a spinal cord injury; you said so yourself.

Balaclava: But that fact remains that Kennedy did have a wound through the back of his neck and his hands DID rise to his throat. Whether it was a possible Thorburn position or not changes nothing. He was wounded through the neck by a projectile which create the wounds as described in photos, x-rays and the autopsy.

Cinque: Note that last response from Balaclava said NOTHING. Argumentatively, it advanced nothing. And, Kennedy had a wound at the level of T3, NOT through the back of his neck. Would anyone in his right mind call this a neck wound?

Uttercontempt: The wound in the neck should have created far more damage (the neck wound in front was enlarged by the tracheostomy). The fact remains that the path of a high velocity bullet through the right side of the neck should have destroyed the brachial plexus and the external rotators of the scapula.

Balaclava gave up after that and went on to something else. 

The bottom line is that JFK was NOT exhibiting a Thorburn reaction, which occurred in someone who suffered destruction of the spinal cord at the level of C5 and was rendered immediately unconscious from it.  

Had Kennedy suffered a bullet channel clear through his neck from back to front, he very likely would have lost consciousness immediately, and he surely would have lost his ability to sit upright. The nerves to the brachial plexus would have been blown away on his right side, and the ensuing inflammatory reaction would have been massive and devastating. It is obvious from watching the Zapruder film that KENNEDY WAS NOT HURT THAT BAD, that is, not until the fatal head shot. And if you watch the Z-film, you can see that he had begun to lower his arms; they were not stuck in spasm. It was not a Thorburn reaction. Kennedy raised his arms because he was choking on that bullet, which was stuck in his neck and was probably dug out of his neck at the "pre-autopsy" where they grossly enlarged the tracheotomy incision made by Malcolm Perry in order to do it. Gil Jesus is right that JFK was trying to cough out that bullet. It was not a Thorburn reflex reaction; it was a voluntary muscular response by JFK to being shot in the neck from the front. 

I should have pointed out that at the time of the JFK assassination, Ben Bagdikin, author of that article in the Saturday Evening Post which used a photograph taken from the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex building and represented it as having been taken from the Sniper's Nest, was the national editor of the Washington Post.

But alas, I'm disappointed. I was hoping that Joseph Backes- or one of my other enemies- would dispute that the image wasn't taken from the Sniper's Nest.   

In case anyone missed it, Steve Creighton pointed out the waffled decorative veneer at the bottom of the TSBD on the right. 

What the killer saw at the moment of tragedy my ass. 

There is an excellent article on Before It's News about media complicity in the JFK assassination written by DC Dave:

DC Dave wrote highly but also critically of Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason. Twyman listed 7 key conditions that the conspirators had to have in order to proceed with the execution of John Kennedy:
  1. Control of the FBI.
  2. Control of Lyndon Johnson.
  3. A means to divert attention away from the conspirators.
  4. Control, or partial control, of the Dallas police force.
  5. The need for an experienced professional assassin with a back-up.
  6. Control of the Secret Service.
  7. Control of the CIA and Military Intelligence. 
DC Dave: 

"To be fair, we must note that the very next sentence after Twyman concludes his list is the following:
 In addition, I surmised it would have been very desirable, probably absolutely necessary, for the conspirators to know that they would have support from the industrial-media establishment in 1963.

Probably?  Desirable?  How the total support of the news media could have missed Twyman’s “indispensable” list is beyond me. And, as we have seen, that support has extended—as it had to—well past 1963.  Twyman, for all industriousness and perspicacity, shows in the end that he just doesn’t get it..."

I provided the link to this article by DC Dave because it is very good, and you should read it:

He points out that the mainstream media rolling over has not only continued to this day but gotten worse- they've become like Pravda in the former Soviet Union.  

Of course, media complicity in the JFK assassination continues to this day, but how deep is it? How far does it reach? 

It reaches all the way. It reaches to the outer limits. It certainly reaches to WFAA television. How naive to think that they would not alter the content of a program that was broadcast in November 1964. 

But, keep defending them, Backes. It shows your true colors. Make that your true color, which is red. 


Wednesday, January 29, 2014

This is a VERY important image. This image is a SMOKING GUN. It first appeared in an article by Ben Bagdikin called THE ASSASSIN which was published in the Saturday Evening Post on December 14, 1964, so just 3 weeks after the assassination.

What it says at the bottom is:

"From the same building that Oswald lay in ambush, a telescopic lens reconstructs an approximation of what the killer saw at the moment of tragedy."

That's a lie! You know very well it is a lie. That picture was not taken from the 6th floor of the Book Depository or the 6th floor of any building. That picture was taken from a low elevation, perhaps a 2nd floor, which had to be the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex building, which was one of the open windows you see in the Altgens photo.

Why would they lie about that? Why didn't they just go up to the 6th floor and take a picture? Here's why: It's because they were claiming that a single bullet hit Kennedy and Connally. But, any bullet that was shot from such a steep angle as the 6th floor could not possibly have gone from Oswald to Kennedy to Connally. It would have had to change direction. They had to reduce that angle, and that is why they went with that other picture from a lower elevation. 

This is what Scott Creighton wrote about it on Before It's News:

"If you go back and look at the Altgens photo you notice two things I pointed out:
  1. The street sign and the dark sign above it with the tapered corners
  2. The open window in the Dal-Tex building at the exact same height

It would appear that they took this photo from the Dal-Tex window that is actually open in the Altgens photo showing the moment Kennedy was shot, and  then they lied about it, claiming to a mourning nation that it was from the 6th floor of the TSBD."

"If you want one final bit of proof, here is a current Google Street View image of Dealy Plaza as it is today. I took this from their Street View app from a relatively similar position as the window would have been back in 1963. Notice something?"
dealy today
"That’s right, the monument and steps are in almost the exact same location in both photos adding still more proof the picture published in the POST in 1963 was a lie."

"They had to take that photo from a lower angle because it was very important at the time (and still is if you listen to idiots like Tom Hanks) to bolster the Magic Bullet theory (one bullet created 7 wounds)."

"From that low trajectory, it appears possible that one shot could have hit both the president and the governor whereas if you look out the 6th floor of the depository, it’s obvious that one bullet traveling at that downward angle, could not have done that.
They also had to get the image underneath the foliage of the tree that you can clearly see is in the way. The one seen in the Altgen pic."

"Ironically, the Google Street View image is almost at the exact same height as the bullshit image they used as the cover image of the JFK story back in 1963. If you’ve seen one of those cars they use to film the roads, you will understand that the camera sits on top of the vehicle. It would be close to the level of a second story window."

Cinque: Thank you, Steve Creighton. So, just 3 weeks after the JFK assassination, they were again lying to us with images, trying to sell the idea that the shots came from the TSBD 6th floor but substituting an image from the Dal-Tex 2nd floor and representing it as the former. I would like to think that everybody has a problem with this.   

Paul Stevens made a very good observation in response to my previous post, which I also posted on Facebook. 

Paul pointed out that Jackie's initial reaction was not like anything as catastrophic as a fat bullet coursing all the way through JFK's neck from back to front had happened. It was more like he got something caught in his throat. Watch the Zapruder film again with that in mind; just focus on Jackie's reaction. What I notice is that, prior to the fatal head shot, she spends much of the time with her eyes glued on Connally, like she was more concerned about him. 
Like the American networks, the BBC has done several programs backing the official story of the JFK assassination, including this one:

It includes Dale Myers who maintains, of course, that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, and therefore we can see Connally reacting between Z223 and Z224. He says the movement of Conally's collar shows the effect of his being shot.

Do you see how his right collar lies different in 224? According to Myers:

"Something happened between Z223 and Z224. We can really pinpoint the moment that the bullet struck. The jacket changes shape. It bulges out; it pops out." 

Hmmm. Didn't he state that backwards? To me, it looks like it was popped out and went back to lying flush. But regardless, would that be the only effect of a bullet coursing all the way through his torso? 

But, let's advance 10 frames ahead to the spot where not only Conally claimed he was first struck but also his surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw said it. Notice that in Z-233, Connally is still grasping his hat with his right hand. Would he be doing that if he was struck in the chest on his right side? 

Connally definitely looks to be reacting to being shot in Z-236. That doesn't look like any kind of normal response. There is no reason to think that he was shot prior to that. 

Dale Myers goes on to talk about Kennedy's reaction to being shot, which obviously happened when the limo was behind the Stemmons freeway sign since he is already reacting as he emerges from behind the sign. 

 Yeah, we all know about his reaction, Dale, but have you ever thought about what is necessary in order to have that reaction? How about intact nerves? The nerves to the arms arise from the lower cervical intervertebral foramen forming the brachial plexus. But, if JFK had a bullet course through his neck from back to front, wouldn't it have blown through those nerves on one side? Here is a cross section of the path of the proposed bullet:

Even if it missed the spinal cord, I don't see how it could have avoided the spinal nerves on his right side. Shouldn't that have prevented his right arm muscles from working? Yes, it would have prevented his right arm muscles from working. 

Kennedy's own actions, his ability to raise both arms, tells us that he was NOT inflicted with so devastating a trauma by that point. This is not a man whose neck was turned into a donut, with a tunnel going from back to front, adjacent to the spinal cord.

And in the frames that follow, you can easily see that Kennedy was neuromuscularly and posturally intact, having suffered no such devastating injury. Do you understand that a channel all the way through your neck from back to front is life-threatening? That you wouldn't go on sitting there with all your muscles and postural reflexes working? This is Dr. Cinque telling you that John Kennedy was not hurt that bad. Here he is at Z-253. He doesn't have a hole through his neck. The whole neuromuscular integration of his body would have been lost. He'd have been a mixture of paralyzed muscles and muscles in clonic spasm. He isn't hurt that bad.

Robin Unger posted this concerning the 3 Shots DVD, and it's the original one, which I also have:

But, if you watch the current version of the movie, you'll see that it's all been slimmed down. 

Just compare the two versions of Lovelady:

And here's the link where you can see it yourself. It occurs at 39 minutes and 35 seconds:

They deliberately slimmed him down, realizing that the original was too stocky and too muscular to be Lovelady or anyone who could easily be mistaken for Oswald. There is no other explanation for what we see. 
Here's a little exchange from McAdams' forum. This guy Shipman is no heavyweight:

Stan Shipman:

I think it's obvious that the two shirts (Oswald's and Doorman's) are not the same. The criminal's shirt is pretty solid with darker colors, yet there are significant pixel 
areas of either white or a much lighter color in Ll's shirt. Don't forget, Ll was photographed later in that same shirt- which IMHO is a much closer match to the Altgen's image than LHO's shirt. And with so much grain in the Altgens' photo when blown-up like that, you could make a case 
that the Statue of Liberty placed on those steps resembled LHO. 

I liked your little blues band a whole lot more than your arguments, Ralph. But you're entertaining- I'll sure give you that! 

Ralph Cinque:

The criminal's shirt is pretty solid with darker colors? I presume you are talking about Oswald although I deny your depiction of him. Meanwhile, the Newseum denies your depiction of his shirt:

They're saying that's Oswald's shirt, Stan, and it's not very dark. And they showcased it over and over during the buildup to the 50th. Are you calling the Newseum a liar?

And yet there are significant pixel areas of either white or a much lighter color in Ll's shirt? I presume that "Ll" stands for Lovelady but you are, in fact, referring to Doorman, who was, in fact, Oswald. But, even though I know that to be a fact, I always refer to Doorman as Doorman when discussing this for the sake of clarity in communication. But apparently, that is not a courtesy I can expect from you.   

Nevertheless, I'll extend you courtesy of providing a lesson in rational analysis. There are indeed vague indications of contrast on Doorman's shirt, but the question is: what do they represent? Is it an actual shirt pattern? That isn't likely, and it isn't reasonable, since it has no resemblance to any shirt pattern we have ever seen. What is likely is that it represents a combination of light reflections, worn threadbare shiny areas on an old shirt, and a certain amount of haze and distortion from the immense enlargement that was involved in blowing up the Altgens photo. But what is crystal clear is that Doorman's pattern is not remotely like the plaid pattern we see on Lovelady's shirt. Doorman's shirt has no vertical and horizontal lines crossing and forming boxes, which is the hallmark of plaid. Not one box can be seen on Doorman's shirt. 

Let's put this in mathematical terms: The "distance" between Doorman's pattern and Oswald's pattern is like a few yards, while the distance between Doorman's pattern and Lovelady's pattern is many miles. 

But, putting aside the issue of the shirt pattern, which is not at all in your favor, you have a much larger problem, and that is, the overall form, fit, and lay of the shirt. And on that issue, Doorman and Oswald are a spot-on match whereas Lovelady might as well be a hundred million light-years away. Of the three, only Osawld and Doorman are wearing a loose-fitting, unbuttoned, sprawled open outer shirt over an exposed white t-shirt. And the image of Lovelady above (on the right) was allegedly the first image taken of him after the assassination. That image was closest in time to the Altgens photo, so it is most appropriate to use.  

Take a look at it again, Stan. I am willing to bet that a majority of impartial observers would choose Oswald and Doorman as being the same individual wearing the same clothes, leaving Lovelady as the odd man out. It's a serious offer, Stan. 

And, you've got some nerve to claim that the pixel colors in Doorman's shirt resemble Lovelady's (which they do not) and then claim -in the same paragraph-that the graininess from the blowing up of the Altgens doorway makes it impossible to distinguish Doorman from even the Statue of Liberty (which is also not true). But, the point is that you contradicted yourself in a single breath.   

Stan, the Lovelady claim is never going to endure, and you're not even good at defending it. With your help, it's only going to sink faster. As I see it, the official story is left with only two hopes: 
no hope and Bob Hope. 

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

No, you're the one who doesn't get, Backass, that the Warren Commission should have let the public see the photos of Lovelady to compare to Doorman. And they should have shown images of Oswald, in his arrest clothes, side by side with Doorman so that they would make that comparison too. 

But, they didn't, and the reason they didn't because the Oswald/Doorman comparison would only have heightened public awareness that he was standing in the doorway during the shooting.

You don't get it, Backes, that the images meant EVERYTHING and the lip-flapping meant NOTHING. What the Hell difference does it make what people said when the ground-rules were that they didn't see Oswald? 

What, do you think they subtle about that? "Say anything you want; we're just searching for the truth." Is that what they said? Is that what they told them? 

They buried the images, all of the images, because they knew that in a comparison like that, Oswald was going to win, not Lovelady. And they were right. 

They could have done this, Backes, but they didn't:

I get it, Backes. Everybody gets it. You're the only moron here. The WC left the Lovelady pictures and the letters about him in the "Documents" and did not publish them in the 26 volumes. And it meant that they were completely out of reach to just about everybody.

This only darkens the case for you, Backes. It means that the WC was totally derelict and corrupt to bury that crucially important evidence. The Doorway Man occurred in a photograph, and it only made sense to compare him to photographs of Oswald and Lovelady. Anyone with half a brain could figure out that it was the right thing to do. 

But, the Warren Commission did not do it at all, and Robert Groden working for the HSCA 13 years later only did it for Lovelady. That's right: Robert Groden never once put an image of Oswald and the image of Doorman side by side to see how they compared. And we are certain that he never made reference to such a comparison. That was so utterly corrupt that he rivals you in being one of the phoniest and most traitorous CTs of all time.

So, yes, the Warren Commission never published the images they had of Billy Lovelady posing as Doorman, where he even unbuttoned his shirt like Doorman. And by the way, the FBI stated twice in writing that Lovelady said he wore the short-sleeved red and white striped shirt and blue jeans. 

And on the day that they were to take pictures of him posing as Doorman and arranging his shirt like Doorman, he showed up wearing those exact clothes. Just a coincidence? Well, you know the standing order: you can shove your JFK coincidences the same place you shove your proscenium arches.   

And yet, you think somehow all this vindicates you and what you're saying that Lovelady was Doorman even though he's wearing Oswald's clothes? You are one dumb mudder-rucker.        
Backes, that was Sylvia Meagher talking, not me:

"Neither the Report nor the Hearings and Exhibits
provides any visual means of judgment since no
photograph of Lovelady is found in any of the
volumes. Merely asserting that it is Lovelady and
not Oswald in the doorway, the Commission presents
no supporting evidence by which one can
appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and
the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald,
although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification
of the doorwayman than Oswald's possible
total innocence of the assassination." Sylvia Meagher

The point is that, like Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher was questioning the validity of the whole Lovelady claim. And it is a total bull shit claim. For God's sake, Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothes! He's got Oswald's build. You can recognize Oswald's facial features. Look at the ears:

Doorman's right ear is a perfect match to Oswald's, while Lovelady's is different. And Doorman's left ear is grotesquely deformed. For Christ's sake, the Altgens photo was altered, just like the Zapruder film was altered, the x-rays were altered, the limo was altered, and many other things were altered. It was an evidence-altering fest after the assassination. 

Idiot Backes thinks they immediately went and fabricated a bus transfer ticket for Oswald after the assassination, but that was the end of their evidence-tampering. Every image they presented was real and authentic, as pure as the driven snow, according to the proscenium-stuffing fool. Look how much time Backes spends defending them. 

Here's a great collage which compares the Wolper film with the original Three Shots which features the muscular, stocky Lovelady before they slimmed him down. Look at the difference in the width of the shoulder on the cop in back, closest to us: 

  That is a big difference. Those two were different men. 

Below, I want you to notice the perfect correlation between Oswald's left ear and Doorman's right ear. Obviously, they are mirror images of each other, but that's OK because ears tend to be very symmetrical. And look how absolutely perfectly the shirts match.

On Doorman, we are seeing the same right collar and furl, the same v-shaped t-shirt, the same thickness of the lapel on the left from the doubling over of the material, the same cuff... God damn it! That is the same fucking clothing! Do you think Lovelady was dressed like that? Are you out of your fucking mind??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's another good one comparing two Lovelady impostors, and they are definitely not the same impostor. Do one thing: look at the shape of the forehead on each of them. We can do that because we are seeing each of their faces in profile. 

Gorilla Man on the right has got a forehead shaped like a ski slope. It is just one long continuous curve from the top of his head to his brows, which is very unusual. But, the other guy has got a very normal shaped forehead; they are totally different. Just glance back and forth; they are not the same guy. They are two strikingly different men. 

Look at the identical shirt sprawl on these two below. It is the same man. 

What, do you think, that an amazing coincidence took place that day that Oswald and Lovelady were decked out exactly the same? What universe are you living in?  

Look at how cinched up the shirt is on the guy they're claiming to be Lovelady:

Fuck you, Backes! It's over! It is Oswald in the doorway by leaps and bound. It isn't even close. It's obviously him. And you are just being a deranged God-damn fool to deny it. 

Neither the Report nor the Hearings and Exhibits
provides any visual means of judgment since no
photograph of Lovelady is found in any of the
volumes. Merely asserting that it is Lovelady and
not Oswald in the doorway, the Commission presents
no supporting evidence by which one can
appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and
the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald,
although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification
of the doorwayman than Oswald's possible
total innocence of the assassination. 

Guess who wrote that? It was Sylvia Meagher in Accessories After The Fact. 

I saw it in this article by John L Johnson: 
Man in the Doorway: Unbelievable Coincidence

Then there is this famous letter to the Secret Service by Helen Shirah, which was published in Harold Weisberg's book, Photographic Whitewash:

Mrs. Helen Shirah states in her letter of January 17, 1964: the motorcade of our late President passes
the Dallas School Soak Depository, there, on the
left, emerging in a hurry from the building, is a
man who bears a striking resemblance to Lee
Harvey Oswald. As a matter of fact, even the
clothes he has on seem to be like the ones Oswald
had on when arrested. I realize that you have concrete
evidence against him but if you find that the
picture is of Oswald, it would mean he had an
accomplice, who is still at large. (Photographic

Whitewash, p. 190)

John Johnson's article is very good, and I'm glad it exists. But, being written in 1998, it doesn't have the advantage of all the research we have done. And as with many others, his mind did not go to photographic alteration even though it was and is compelling. And it's for the same reason that others have resisted going there mentally: because this is America, and we don't do that in this country. 

But wait: I've already cited that many JFK researchers, including many prominent ones, affirm that the Z-film was altered. And many researchers affirm that the medical photos and x-rays were altered, and that includes Dr. David Mantik. And David Lifton was the first to advocate that even JFK's body was altered. 

So, with that much altering of evidence going on, is there any reason to doubt that photographic and film images were altered? 

Please read this by John L. Johnson. I consider it of historic importance. He even offers a $500 reward at the end to anyone who can shed light on Doorman's identity. 

"The Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations both officially identified him as Billy Nolan Lovelady, a look-alike co-worker of Lee Harvey Oswald. But doubt remains: He looks too much like Lee Harvey Oswald and is dressed in a long sleeve shirt open to the waist, similar to the outfit Oswald was wearing when captured."  

Go shove another proscenium arch, Backes. You're the one who is claiming that these two are not only the same man but the same man at the same moment in time and space, and it is insane:

Different hair, different builds, different weights, different ears, different shirt arrangements, and more. Different men!

So I said Lovelady got walked by. So what? What's so terrible about it? It was a walk-by in which Lovelady was the one who was walked by, and Oswald was the one who did the walking as he was led by.  

"Writing is not his strongest skill, being an IDIOT is," except that you should have used a semicolon between the clauses instead of a comma. 

"No, Ralphie-boy, these things are variables.  There are many factors involved in converting film to videotape to DVD to the web.  None of them are documented.  So, your failure to even acknowledge them, let alone your inability to comprehend any part of them, and your failure to analyze the original film, or any of the technologies involved and to concentrate only on the version of anything only confirms to the world the fact that you are a stupid bitch."

Well, here is Jack White talking about Zapruder film alteration, and the things he talks about are all visible and apparent in the youtube versions of the film:

You be sure to watch it, Backass, because Jack White is asked by John Costella what accounts for the progress in recognizing Z-film alteration in recent years, and Jack attributed it to computers, digitalization, and the internet.

And the Z-film was most definitely altered. You hear me, Asshole? The real JFK researchers of integrity say it was altered. And many other films and images of the JFK assassination, including the Altgens photo and the PD footage, were altered. They didn't stop with the Z-film. 

"And you've failed again.  There are no clear differences indicative of a splice.  This is all bullshit.  What IDIOTPANTS is calling differences can easily be accounted for from the fact that the cameramen were MOVING and filming people who were MOVING.  So, of course, the focal point will change, and, of course, images will blur and distort.  It's 1963 16mm black and white film, for fuck sake!  They didn't have image stabilizers back then."

But, none of that has anything to do with what we see:

The camerman was moving? So what? That can't change the dimension and slope of a man's shoulders. They are different fucking men! Look at them!

Get out your fucking ruler and your God-damn protractor because those shoulders have a different shape and a different width. It is higher and narrower on the right. Is that English you can grasp? 

Lovelady was NEVER in that room. He denied ever seeing Oswald again that day after they broke for lunch. At no time in their lives did Lovelady or his wife ever mention such a thing. 

And when it comes to splicing this footage, YOU CAN'T DENY IT. That's because no two versions of it are the same. Many frames that appear in some versions are missing from other versions. And it always changes. The original version of 3 Shots was vastly different from what they show today; they shortened the Lovelady part tremendously.  MORE SURGERY HAS BEEN DONE ON THESE FEW SECONDS OF FOOTAGE THAN ANY OTHER CLIP IN THE HISTORY OF FILM. They keep messing with it- over and over again.  

Lovelady wasn't there, Backes. He was never placed in the squad room of the homicide detectives, and your stupidity can't put him there. It is fake, and you are disgusting. The nerve of you to pretend to be a CT! Don't you ever dare compare yourself to Harold Weisberg or Jack White or Mark Lane or any of the greats. And I'll add John Armstrong to that list. You're on the wrong side of everything, Backes. You are a God-damned, blood-soaked Kennedy-killer. Justice for Kennedy is emerging from your downfall. Go to Hell!

Monday, January 27, 2014

Just think about it logically. There were two different Loveladys. 

Those were two different men. We are not living in the Twilight Zone. We are not living in the Bizarro World. We live in the real world, and in the real world, those two are different men. They don't look the same. They don't weigh the same. They don't have the same thickness and muscularity. And their shirts aren't anywhere near the same. One is splayed open in an unusual sprawl and the other is cinched up to the top, flush against his chest. But, it's supposed to be the same moment in time, so they can't possibly be the same. 

And since they're not the same, it means there had to be two separate films. And since they both occur sequentially in A Year Ago Today (as shown today) it means that the two films must have been spliced together. So, there is no question about IF they did it; it's only a question of exactly WHERE and HOW and WHEN they did it.  Two different men means two different films.  

What could possibly have changed within that tiny fraction of a second to cause that rear cop's shoulder to look narrower on the right? 

The width of the shoulder is different and so is the angle of it; it's more slanted, more sloped on the left. It's the same cameraman, the same settings, the same position, the same focal point, the same everything. And it's quite a big difference too. That guy on the left was a different man. 
God-damn, shit-for-brains Backes can’t even state my positions correctly. He keeps getting them wrong, moron that he is. He says:

“One being the Charles Buck film of where they parade Oswald past the seated Lovelady, and the other being the same event filmed by another cameraman who was basically, standing right next to Buck, were spliced together.”

No, Backes. It’s the splicing of the original film with a reenacted version which was made much later. The Lovelady figure is a different man in each, so how could it be the same film? 

These Loveladys are different men, so obviously, it did not involve two cameramen filming the same event. Look at their fucking shirts, for Christ's sake. Can't you see they are not opened the same? They are different men, different men, different men. 

Backes: And that this was done recently on 

Cinque: I don't know how recently it was done but definitely since 2009. But, it wasn't done on youtube. It was put on youtube, but it was done elsewhere.  

Backes: "Lovelady doesn't walk by anyone, Lovelady is seated!"

Cinque: Everybody knows that, Backes. I call it the Lovelady walk-by because Lovelady gets walked by. I'm not going to call it the Oswald walk-by because he is not the person of interest in it; Lovelady is.

And I know about the number of frames that occur in a second, and I know the frames I posted aren't sequential. But, the frames I posted are representative of the segue from one film to the other. 

You are such a fucking idiot. It's 39:04 on the left and 39:05 on the right. I know there are many frames between these two, and I even posted one of them, the Curtain frame. 

And fuck you about the changing technologies. Whatever they are, and whatever conversion process was involved in putting the film on youtube, was a constant. It affected the quality of the film evenly throughout; therefore changes and contrasts within the film are still significant. 

Yes, there was a point where the exact splice was made, but rather than trying to pinpoint that, it is far more valuable to get clear, unmistakable frames of pre and post and show the differences. The exact splice took place somewhere within the 39:04 second in the film below:

The only one who is confused, Backes, is you. It's crystal-clear to everyone else. 

Backes: Then he undercuts his own argument that there were not TWO films spliced together.

And remember that in this case, we are, supposedly, not comparing two different films. We are, supposedly, looking at one continuous piece of footage by one cameraman. So, here they can't blame any differences on two camermen- that's out.  

Cinque: Did you miss the word "supposedly"? I only used it twice. My point was that YOU can't claim that a slightly different angle between two different cameramen accounts for the differences.    

Backes: The cameramen were moving you IDIOT.  They were walking right behind the police, that's why the focal point of the film changes, asshole.  

Cinque: By why did it change at that particular point? It didn't change before that, and they were moving all along. The perspective was consistent before the Curtain frame, and it was consistent after the Curtain frame, but it changed at that point. 

Backes: 39:04 and 39:05 are not film frames. They are measurements in time, and are not, ARE NOT, numbers given to individual film frames. 

Cinque: I know that, and everybody and his fucking brother knows that. It's 39 minutes and 4 seconds or 39 minutes and 5 seconds. And everybody knows that there were a lot of frames in-between, including the Curtain frame. If you want a showing of the exact splice, I don't know if it's even possible to nail it down exactly, but this tightens it up a lot: 

On the left is the DeNiro version from 3 Shots with that extra guy on the left, whom you don't see in the Wolper film. And on the right is the Wolper film with the big cop wearing the white hat starting to veer right, which you don't see in 3 Shots. So, we are looking at two different films above.  

Notice that it says 39:04 for both.  And we are talking about an extremely small fraction of a second difference there. Notice that on the right, the rear cop's shoulder is narrower and less sloped than on the left. Those are two different films spliced together right about at that point. Happy now?