bpete said that Oswald "locked and loaded" from the 6th floor. He said that it was a term from his old army days with his M16 rifle. I knew he had said something like that- locked and loaded- and then it hit me. 

But now, bpete has regrets. He wishes he hadn't said that. And that's because he'd like to be wishy-washy about his status about whether Oswald was innocent or guilty. And that's because he has nothing to win with LNs that he hasn't already won. It's only CTs that are fertile ground to him. So he, like a lot of other Ops, and particular the ones from the UK where he is, like to either pretend to be Oswald defenders or at least be vague and non-committal about it. 

Well, it's too late bpete. You've had two years. You should have started by laying out your whole theory of the crime in minute detail. But no, you didn't do that. And that's because you're an attack dog. That's what you are paid for. That's what enables you to buy your $1500 suits. 

So, get this, and get it straight, you limey bastard. You ARE Mr. Lock and Load. I carved that into your forehead, and the scars are deep and permanent. You can't undo it. You have Oswald locking and loading on the 6th floor. You said it. Now go drown your sorrows in some Grey Goose. 

P.S. I got your buddy Neal banned too. 

Was the pole pink? Or was it grey? 

According to Robin Unger, the image on the right from The Lost Bullet is the real thing, the undoctored, unaltered original from the Robert Hughes film. But according to David Von Pein, the image on the left is the real HQ image, and it's case closed. 

Hmmm. They both can't be right. And look at the difference in the color of the building too. Who can you trust? Who can you believe? Not either one of these guys, that's for sure. 

Big question tonight: Could the guy in the Fedora hat standing in the west corner of the TSBD doorway be Jack Ruby?

On the right below, is Jack Ruby's Fedora hat. 

Vickie Adams said that when she got outside, she saw Jack Ruby "barking orders and acting like a cop." You know he had to be in Dealey Plaza. I've always thought that this was him in the Altgens photo.

It was the perfect spot for him to be, where he could watch the action on Elm St. and also keep his eye on the TSBD where the patsy lingered. I believe he was looking at Oswald in the above picture. The Woman and Boy were put into the picture to cover him up. The boy is too elevated. She can't be holding him (unless she's Superwoman) and there is nothing there for him to be standing on. So, Ruby would have had a very short walk to the doorway. And, it would be in keeping with Jack Ruby's character for him to intrude over there as the police were monitoring the doorway. 

I'm asking if you think it COULD be him. I am not saying that I know that it is. 

This image came from Robin Unger. He says it comes from the Towner film, but I don't see it in any version I have seen online. 
Furthermore, the image does not make sense. 

Do you see that halo on top of the woman's head? It's not a halo; it's her left hand. That hand is supposedly waving at the President. 
But, how could her hand be on top of her head? Don't arms go out to the side when you wave them? They don't go right above your head, do they? And if her hand is up there, how come we can't see her arm taking it up there? Hands are always attached to arms, aren't they? They don't grow out of heads, do they? And doesn't it look like her left arm is going across to support the baby? It looks that way to me. But, it's not. As I said, her left arm is being raised, and she is waving at the President. That is a "story" in the movie. And if her left arm is NOT supporting the baby, then what IS supporting the baby? Because, we can't see her right arm doing it. So, if she's not holding the baby with her left arm, and she is not holding the baby with her right arm, then who or what is holding up that baby? 

This is all we get to see when we check for this woman and baby in the Towner film online:

Unger says she manifests properly in the DVD of the Towner film that he has, but I say she was never there, that the Woman and Baby were techno-art that were added to the film, and they just don't transfer very well to the digital environment. But, whether you believe me about that or not, if you look at the image, you KNOW it isn't real. You KNOW that is not a woman who has her left arm raised and waving at the President. It is an impossible image, and therefore, it is a false and fraudulent image. 

I don't say Unger did it, but he posts it, and he vouches for it, and I hold him responsible for that. EVERYONE should denounce this as a fraudulent image. 

Backass, The Lost Bullet was made by Max Holland, who is one of the leading lone-nutters in the world. You can't claim to be an Oswald defender and cite the work of Max Holland as if it's beyond reproach. 

This is a frame from The Lost Bullet, and it was falsely ratioed, and it was color-enhanced.

Do the world a favor, Backass, and just admit that you are a lone-nutter pretending to be a CT. 

This is Part 4 of my demolition of the Lovelady films. Last time, I pointed out that this gif below is very misleading, one reason being that it is incomplete. The Martin side is complete, but the Hughes side is not. Hughes showed a lot more of the Lovelady figure. In Hughes, the Lovelady figure starts over at the east wall and he walks to the center. That's what was left out.

  
And, it's a very big deal that it was left out because it's that early portion in which the highly distorted frames of him occur. How bad are they? Pretty damn bad. 

This was made by stopping the Hughes film on Youtube and doing a PrintScrn. What it shows is that his image was contorting and distorting for the first four seconds or so. Then when he reaches the center of the doorway, his image stabilizes, and that's the part Unger shows. It's also the part that correlates to the Martin film. I included several frames in which he looks OK, but then, at the very end, it distorts again with a white flash atop his head. None of the distorted frames were included in Unger's gif.  

I'm sure that a better quality gif than this could be made, but it would still show essentially the same thing. In other words, it would be clearer and sharper, but the same distortions would be evident. 

Here is the link so that you can see for yourself.  It starts at 1:33. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo6ik2Zti6k

For the first 4 or 5 seconds, he is oscillating in and out of distortion, and sometimes, it is severe. 

Remember that someone took one of those distorted images and did this with it:

It wasn't done by me or anyone working with me. It was done by the other side. But, why would they do it that way? They had to because that is the way he was. 

Of course, it's noise. He wasn't dressed like that. He is supposed to be wearing a plaid shirt, like this.

So, the question is: how did he get so distorted? Look at him at the 1 minute 36 second mark:

That is freaky distortion! And there are lots of frames like that. But, there is no innocent explanation for it. And, you can't blame Youtube either. It is integral to the film. 

And it's not as though everyone in the film displays such distortion. It is unique to him So, why him? 

The reason, I believe, is because he wasn't really there. It is a video merger. His video was added to the real video. And of course, it wasn't the first time that was done. A Lovelady figure was put at the desk in the squad room of the Homicide detectives at the Dallas PD. 

That guy wasn't there either. Lovelady, himself, said that he never saw Oswald again that day after they broke for lunch. And look at the distortion in this image where his hair looks swept back beyond the margin of his head. He looks like the Fonz. He wasn't like that. The color is bleeding. He also has black bleed at his elbow and along his forearm down to his wrist. This is distortion due to the video merging. And, he is the only one who undergoes it. You can't blame Youtube when it only affects him. And, it's the same thing in Hughes film.

I've got more to say about this, but for now, just dwell on the fact that in Martin, Lovelady seems to have a big head compared to others in the frame with him, whereas in Hughes, Lovelady seems to have a small head compared to others in the frame with him. So, how can they be the same guy? 

Here is the narrowed frame as shown in The Lost Bullet. This is severely doctored and color-enhanced, and you can't blame Youtube. Notice that it says JFK: The Lost Bullet- Hughes Film. 

Here is a frame of the Lovelady figure from 1:36, and as you can see, he is exhibiting no pink.

Show us the good version of this one, Robin, where his shirt looks nice and pink. The fact is: this guy undergoes very weird transitions which Unger has only tried to cover up, as if all's well with this guy. All is NOT well with this guy.  

Neil Harrison says it's Youtube's fault that the striking pink color didn't come through on Lovelady's shirt as it did for Robin Unger. But, that's not true because the striking red color of this lady's scarf came through just fine on Youtube.

Why didn't you show us this frame, Robin? Show us the good version of it.

This is the very first frame of the Lovelady clip from the Hughes movie. At least, it's the closest I can get to the very first frame. It occurs at 1 minute and 33 seconds. 

Compare it to the one Unger put up, which occurred a split-second later but still within the 1:33 second. 

So, what he did was carefully select a very stable frame, one that doesn't have weird shit in it (and there are a lot that do) and then I believe color enhancement was done since such striking color does not occur in the raw film.  

The fact is that this Lovelady figure along the east wall in the Hughes film undergoes a transformation in which he manifests very weird and changing distortions which Unger completely omits. He only lets you see the good stuff. 

You can't trust anything that Robin Unger shows you because either he, or somebody with whom he is associated, photoshops color into images. There are phony enhancements and upgrades going on. The bottom one is from him; the top one is how it really was. 

You see that nice pink color to Lovelady's shirt? That isn't real. It isn't in the film. Not any version of the film. That was photoshopped in. It was done with software. Unger posts doctored frames, and that is how he lies. And the nice thing for him is that most people are not prepared for it. They are used to being lied to with words, and so they're on-guard for that. But, they're not used to being lied to with pictures, and certainly not with frames from movies. And so, they assume that what he shows them is real- that the movie really is that way. It's not. And this little cheat is particularly crucial, and I'll explain why in Part 4 of my series.   

Very interesting communication tonight from Professor James Norwood:

Ralph,

On your April 7 blog, you posted the "split face," or composite image of Oswald in the so-called Minsk photograph with half of the face belonging to Lee and the other half to Harvey:

The reason why this deception was necessary was that this photo was being splashed in America newspapers at the time when "Harvey" Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union.  The American intelligence network could not take a chance on blowing Harvey's cover with a photograph of Lee that might be identified by those who could recognize someone different than Harvey.  Thus, the "half-and-half" photo was concocted.

I thought you might enjoy this short video presentation that matches the half-faces of celebrities with other famous people.  It is a fascinating montage:

https://screen.yahoo.com/buzzfeed/11-celebrities-might-immortal-200101630.html?vp=1

I watched that video, and you should too. Some of the composites were amazingly perfect. But, in the case of the Oswald composite, if you are wondering who is on the right, and who is on the left, it's Harvey on our right, and Lee on our left. An easy way to tell is to examine the lips. Harvey had a very thin upper lip and thick lower lip, so the imbalance between his upper and lower was great. Lee had more balanced lips.

Notice that on the right, his lower lip looks swollen. I mean on our right. And as I look at it, it's as though he had a canker sore festering inside which swelled the lip up. But, it was just the way Oswald's lips were, and I think it was partly related to his deep-seated habit of pursing his lips.

James also commented about the hair. 

One point becomes clear:  the similarities in hair styles is critically important in the photographic deception of the surviving images of Harvey and Lee.  One advantage that the forgers had in the 1950s and early 1960s was that men's hairstyles were uniform with the three major types of styling in (a) crew cut; (b) butch; and (c) the occasional flattop.  

For this reason, there has been so much confusion with the two Oswalds, Larry Crafard (Jack Ruby's friend); Michael Paine; and Billy Lovelady.  At first glance, they all resemble the same man in part due to the similarity of their hair.

There is not the slightest doubt that that is a composite photo, and there is not the slightest doubt that there were two Oswalds.  John Armstrong is right, and he will go down as one of the greatest JFK researchers ever. He is a giant. 

A guy named Gary Horn put up a very clear rendition of the Altgens photo on one of the Facebook forums tonight, and I noticed something. I noticed that there is no pattern at all on Doorman's shirt.

Here it is up close:

It's pretty clean, isn't it? There is certainly no plaid there. And it makes a mockery of Upperpunk's ridiculous claims about his shirt pattern matching Lovelady's.

The idea that he had lines corresponding to Lovelady's is ridiculous, and it's even more ridiculous to say that the lines would be diagonal. He wasn't leaning over. He was just standing there like a normal person. This is Oswald:

 And notice that in Wiegman, he didn't have any plaid either. 

I contacted Richard Miodownick, who runs the Oswald is Innocent Facebook page, and I asked him to ban Lance Upperpunk, which he promptly did.  Thank you, Rich.

And, there is something I told Rich that I think is an important point for everyone to consider. I told him that the way to distinguish a fake Oswald defender, like Upperpunk, from a real one is that the fake one never actually defends Oswald. 

How many times has Lance Upperpunk written a blog attacking the case against Oswald, demonstrating how phony and shoddy the evidence is, and pointing to the chicanery of not only the conspirators at the time but their modern mouthpieces? The answer is: never! He devotes all his time to attacking real Oswald defenders, such as myself. 

So, why does he even call himself an Oswald defender? It's because he's trying to win favor with CTs.  He's got nothing to accomplish with LNs. That would be like singing to the choir. So instead, he calls himself a CT, and occasionally, he makes a general statement that there are better ways to defend Oswald than to say he was in the doorway. But, he never actually gets to any of those ways. When has he ever written a blog attacking the case against Oswald and showing what a sham it is? He never has. 

Lance Upperpunk, like bpete, is one of the many Ops who are working the JFK coverup from the UK. They get people from over there because it's English-speaking, but it's also far away. 

Mensa question: Would a real Oswald defender provide a link to a guy who claims that Oswald locked and loaded from the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy?

Wouldn't that be like me providing a link to John McAdams?

They lied about that, just like they lied about this. It's what you do when you need to get something skinny- mess with the aspect ratio. 

I hate it when people lie with pictures. Robin Unger submitted the top image in the collage below. Notice how narrow the signs look compared to how they look in the film, which you can see below it. He- or somebody- made them narrow by adjusting the aspect ratio of the whole picture where everything got slimmed down, including the signs. Then they colorized it to make the steel grey metallic post stand out, which you don't see in the movie. In other words, they went to a lot of trouble to sell an idea that there's nothing fishy about those signs, but the very fact that they did that proves that there IS something fishy about those signs.

Look at this height comparison. Doorman was slightly taller than Black Hole Man, just as Oswald was slightly taller than Lovelady. Oswald was 5'9 and Lovelady was 5'8", so it works out perfectly. And, Lovelady was stouter than Oswald at the time (170 pounds vs. 131) and that checks out too. Black Hole Man was Lovelady. It is a very important discovery. Thank you Richard Hooke.

Part 3: So, why did they do this goofy rendering of the Lovelady figure from Hughes? Sure, they got to claim an open shirt and exposed t-shirt- something they desperately needed. But, what good is it when the corollary from Martin doesn't match it? 

How can those two be the same guy when one is vastly propped open and the other not at all? And look at the difference in the shirt patterns. How can they possibly be the same? They can't!  One is plaid and the other is just plain wacky. And you can't excuse it by citing camera angle or camera settings or some other bull shit. That's just the bloodied talking. 

It would have been much better for them to have two consistent, matching human beings wearing the same clothes. This is a laughing stock. 

So, why did they go with it? Again, it was because of what they started with. And what they started with was this:

I took that directly from the film, as it appears on Youtube.  It may be clearer somewhere else, but this is the best there is online. And it would be essentially the same elsewhere, regardless. They were stuck with that, and they developed it from there.

You see how they were stuck with the black ring around his neck and the white in the middle and on his shoulder? That's what it was, and they just had to work with it as best they could.

Eventually, he recovers, and his clothes start looking comparable to the guy in Martin.

So, it is a hell of a transition. Why does Lovelady go from this to this in the Hughes film? 

On the left is how he looks at first against the east wall, and on the right is how he looks 3 seconds later when he reaches the middle of the entrance. What is that black thing?

Well, it's nothing real. I can assure you he didn't change his clothes. What we are seeing on the left is distortion. And when they photoshopped that picture, they had to work around the distortion and convert it into something sellable, and we know what they wound up- that flashy, weird, cartoon-like figure with the Mohawk. 

It doesn't look photographic. It's pure bull shit. They actually colorized distortion. But, why was it distorted? 

He wasn't dressed like that. And, if you want to say there is a cleaner, clearer image somewhere, so what? It is going to be a cleaner, clearer image of the same thing. It's not going to look plaid. And, the only alternative to the above that anybody has ever offered is this: 

So, he didn't change his clothes. It is distortion; the Lovelady figure got distorted. And in Part 4, I'll explain how he got distorted. 

This is Part 2 of the Lovelady film expose'. I am going to expose it for what it is, a colossal fraud. As we return to the dual gifs, let's take note of the differences between them.

Obviously, the angles aren't the same, but that's because there were two cameramen, and they weren't filming from the same spot. Hughes was farther away. Also, the colors aren't the same; note the bright purple coat on the woman on right which is nothing like what we see on the left. And, the overall lighting isn't the same, where it is much brighter on the right. Notice that the cop who enters the building just disappears into blackness on the left, while on the right, you can see that he turns around and remains in view. You never lose sight of him. He never disappears into the inky blackness. 

So, why such a severe contrast in lighting? Obviously, the conditions were the same. So, was there that much of a difference between the cameras? What's weird is that the camera on the left produced a much more clear, sharp, and focused image, but the colors are dull, whereas the image on the right is much more blurry and less detailed, but the colors are vivid, and the overall lighting is much greater. They must have really cranked up the fill-light.

But, who are these people? 

  
Who is the man in the Fedora hat? I wonder if he's Jack Ruby. Who is the old woman on right? Who are the guys in the hard hats? Who is the woman with the curly blond hair who is practically invisible on the right? Who is the woman in the white scarf next to her? Who are all these people? 

We know that during the motorcade, the doorway was populated by TSBD employees: Frazier and Shelley and Sarah Stanton and Joe Molina, etc. etc. We know it's supposed to be Lovelady on the right, but that can't be him because Lovelady left for the railroad tracks right away with Shelley, never to return. So, when they made this phony thing, they forgot to check Lovelady's testimony to see if he could have been there at the time. He couldn't.  

The only person I recognize is Bonnie Ray Williams, but he was up on the 5th floor during the motorcade. We have a picture of him. 

The footage was taken shortly after the assassination, so Williams came down, and went outside to mill around? I wonder how he came down because the elevators weren't working for a while. Baker had to take the stairs to go up. So, did Williams and them wait for the elevator or take the stairs? And what was Williams doing milling around in front? 

But, we have other images of the people who populated the doorway after the assassination. This is from the Darnell film, and it's just seconds after.

 What a change from the Altgens doorway and the Wiegman doorway. So, at this point, the cops hadn't arrived yet. We've got Prayer Man in the corner. There is a big brawny guy in white in the center who was definitely not skinny Buell Frazier, even though fools claim it. Let's go in a little closer.

We're getting pretty blurry there, but I don't see anyone else I recognize. There is no one who correlates to the footage we are studying. 

I find it strange that those people would be there. Who are they? Unless you were connected to the TSBD, why would you be there? You think the guy in the Fedora hat worked at the TSBD? Who is he? It's only been 50 years. And who is the old woman with the handbag on the right? Did she work there too? Who is she? Who's the woman in the scarf? Who's the woman with the curly hair? What are they waiting for? What are they looking for? Why are they parked there? 

Here's the Jim Murray photo from shortly after the assassination, and the crowd looks different.

There isn't anyone I can match to the gifs. But, let's move on to the William Allen images of the doorway because these were taken between 12:30 and 1:00 PM.

That may be the same guy from the Jim Murray image. Let's try another that is also designated between 12:30 and 1:00.

Nope, nobody matches there. We don't see any of the same people from the gifs. This next one is also designated by Robin Unger as being between 12:30 and 1. 

The police took over the scene very quickly, and it wasn't long before the regular bystanders were gone. But, the point is that William Allen never captured any of the people who were captured in the Hughes film and the so-called Martin film. 

Some might say that these two gifs confirm each other, but I say they are both under a cloud of suspicion. So, something else is needed. Are there any other images, either still or moving, that confirm the presence of these particular individuals in that spot?  

Here's a Phil Willis shot:

Aha! I think that may be the same guy from Allen and Murray. 

Could it be the same guy? It just might be. That's what I am trying to do with the people in the gifs. But so far, I haven't found any other images to confirm any of them.

I am telling you that it is altered footage because Lovelady was not there at the time. He told us so himself. So, they can't be Lovelady, and they're not even the same impostor.

The man on the right was a much smaller man with a much smaller head, and he was also balder. And how does it mesh with this?

That is supposed to be the same guy on the right in each of the collages above. But, how could that be?

So, where did the wild image on the right come from? It didn't come from us. It came from Robin Unger. So, it's the other side that is claiming it, not us. They put it forward to demonstrate that Lovelady's shirt was propped open like Doorman's. But, what about the weird shirt pattern? That isn't a match to anybody. So, where did it come from? 

Here is what happened:  The gifs that Unger made don't tell the whole story. The Hughes footage of this guy started earlier. It starts with him over by the east wall. Then, he walks over to the center of the doorway. Then it continues as per the other film. The image on the right is taken from that early part which has no correlation to Martin, and that's why you don't see it in the gif. And I'm sure it's had a lot of work done to it. The colors we're seeing were all photoshopped in, and it's the same for the tufts of hair which look like a Mohawk. 

That hair sticking straight up was painted on there. How do they expect to get away with this shit? There is a lot of fakery in this image. He doesn't even look photographic. He looks more like a cartoon, doesn't he? And again, they really went to town on photoshopping the colors. But, why did they do it that way? Why didn't they give him a plaid shirt? That isn't plaid. Wasn't plaid the whole idea? The idea that Lovelady wore plaid? And is there any chance his shirt actually looked like that? No, of course not. What shirt manufacturer would put out a shirt of that design and expect to sell it? Look at it! What do you call that? It's noise. It's crap. It isn't real. So, why did they do it that way? 

There is a reason, and I'll explain. It had to do with what they started with in the Hughes film, that is, the part that has no correlation to Martin- the part that came before.  We'll start with that next time.