Friday, June 30, 2017

This is Part II of Lovelady had protruding ears. Of course, you can see it yourself. It's plain as day. 






Let's recruit ol' Jeb Bush. Hey, he's my favorite of the Bushes. I don't know that he ever murdered anybody. 



OK, I think the point has been made that there are protruding ears, and there are non-protruding ears, and Billy Lovelady's were protruding. Doorman's ears are not protruding. 


Now, I want you to think about the fact that Billy Lovelady NEVER appeared publicly. In 1967 he almost did. They planned a full segment on the Doorway Man controversy for the 4 hour CBS JFK Special, but then, at the last minute, somebody higher-up with brains pulled it, which was a very smart thing to do. That was only going to make more people aware of the controversy than were aware of it before. This is an image that was taken for that CBS Special.


To me, his right ear looks weird, like it's too low, like maybe they reattached it. But what about his left ear on our right? It might be protruding. But it's not the picture they showed us. 


That's close to being a straight-on shot, so how could so much of the left side of the head be captured? Why would it be bulging out like that? It wouldn't. It couldn't. It didn't. Look at the contrast between the capture of the left side of his head and the right. The camera would really have to be over to our right for that to happen, but that was not the case. Why does his lobule look so thick and bulging. It wasn't.


The above picture taken by Robert Groden in 1976 effectively hides the bulging ear by shooting it from this angle. At least, it reduces it. It takes advantage of the two-dimensionality of the photo.

Another major difference was the size of the lobule, the soft, fleshy part at the bottom of the ear. Lovelady's was large; Doorman's was small, like Oswald's. 


What about the FBI photos?

The ear on the right looks totally flush with the face, so that has got to be fake. In the middle, the right ear looks too low, and the left ear is sticking out some, but less than what we see in the Mark Lane photo. Simply put: they doctored his ears. 

Again: Billy Lovelady never appeared publicly. There is a photo of him taken by Robert Jackson in 1971, but I don't even know if this is even him, and regardless, it is a freaky image.


The left ear isn't visible; the right ear is cluttered with hair. His arms are of different length, and his left arm on our right looks like a manikin. I just don't know that that is even him. In several of his images, he appears to have more space between his eyes and eye brows than that. This is such an ugly piece of American history, the making of the fraud of Billy Lovelady being the Doorway Man. The wretched evil of it all. He was NOT the Doorway Man. 


Billy Lovelady had clinically protruding ears. It was a developmental anomaly of his. In Medicine, if your ears protrude more than 2 centimeters from the side of your head, it's considered an abnormality- outside the range of normal. And I do believe that in looking at the one true image of him that we have, that it shows that. 

The one and only reliable, trustworthy, dependable image of him that we have is the one obtained by Mark Lane. That's it. No other.


It is impossible to overestimate the value to historical truth that this image has. And the obtaining of it was very bold and courageous because at the time (the winter of 1964) the Dallas Police and the FBI in Dallas had declared him off-limits for picture-taking. Anyone caught trying to snap a picture of him was subject to arrest. This is an unauthorized photo , and not just unauthorized, but taken in defiance of authority.  Two things stand out: his ears, and the extent of his baldness, which was severe for a 26 year old. He was no match for Doorman.


Look at the contrast in those ears. How could anybody claim that those ears are a match? It would take some pretty bold-faced lying to that. And he's obviously a lot balder. Meanwhile, the match to Oswald is perfect-except for the phony "crown" that was installed on the head of Doorman. 


So yes, the tops of the heads, including the hairlines, are different; they do not match; but it's only because of photographic alteration. Now, if you are going to deny that, then what you are telling us is that Lee Oswald and Billy Lovelady were twins from the eyes down, and all they had to do to look like twins was both wear baseball caps. If they covered their crowns, they would be indistinguishable.  But, you know that such a thing is impossible. The correct explanation for this is: photographic alteration. Transferring Lovelady's crown from another image to this one is the one thing they did to convert the Doorway Man into Billy Lovelady.  I shall continue. 

Thursday, June 29, 2017


Four hundred and twenty five people reached so far on Facebook, and all comments supportive. I haven't spent a dime either. And here Backes and Pete were both giddy about the post about this coming down, like it was a great victory for them. I'll repeat the reality of the situation: either that was Dan Rather, or an absolutely amazing coincidence occurred in which a man who looked strikingly like him happened to be in the same small garage on which he was intensely focused. And I'll remind you that this concerns the JFK assassination, and I think I've made my position on JFK coincidences crystal clear. 
Staffan H Westerberg Awfully similar...
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyMessage12 hrs
Oswald Innocence Campaign And the thing is this Staffan: To see someone that similar to him anywhere, say the grocery store, would be uncanny. But to see the lookalike at the very place that Dan Rather was focused at the time? It takes the coincidence to a whole new level.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
3 hrs

Ralph Cinque: And then for Dan Rather to remember it as he and Nelson Benton pleading with New York to come to them, come to them, come to them. But why? It was just supposed to be a walk to a car. 
So what, was there just an electricity in the air? Just the feeling that something momentous was about to happen? Oh look! Another lost image of Dan Rather has surfaced! He was even singing about it.


Staffan H Westerberg Awfully similar...
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyMessage8 hrs
Oswald Innocence Campaign And the thing is this Staffan: To see someone that similar to him anywhere, say the grocery store, would be uncanny. But to see the lookalike at the very place that Dan Rather was focused at the time? It takes the coincidence to a whole new level.


Wednesday, June 28, 2017

This Bob Huffaker in the KRLD video, and it's right at this point that he says that "Everyone down here thought that he (the shooter) was a Secret Service agent." 

Well, if everyone thought he was a Secret Service agent, it means that nobody thought he was Jack Ruby. 

Liars on McAdams forum keep saying that there were reporters who recognized the shooter as Jack Ruby. But none did. Not even Hugh Aynesworth who knew Jack Ruby well. 

Only cops claimed to recognize the shooter as Jack Ruby, for instance, James Leavelle. But, Leavelle is a known liar. He lied about his own actions, forgetting about the fact that we could confirm them by watching the tapes. He is bold-faced liar. He claimed to "see" Ruby when he wasn't even looking in the shooter's direction, when he was looking the other way.

Leavelle claimed to see Ruby in advance, that he saw him coming. He claimed to jerk on Oswald, twisting him. But, Graves looks like he's got a pretty good hold on him, so how could Leavelle twist him? He couldn't. He didn't. It's all a lie. Leavelle did not react in any way until AFTER the shot. So, why has the world tolerated this God-awful liar for 53 years? Because the whole story is a lie, and sometimes, a liar is what you need. 

And now we know that there was a detective who claimed to "recognize" Ruby from watching the blurry NBC live footage in which you never see the shooter's face, and he appears to be shorter than Jack Ruby, and he displays not one feature that can be associated with Jack Ruby, and yet, he, Detective Boyd, claimed to recognize "ol' Jack Ruby". 

He did NOT recognize Jack Ruby because he could not have. So, we have yet another liar among the Dallas detectives. 
"It's a Barnum and Bailey world.....

     ....Just as phony as it can be."

So, they couldn't end the struggle right there in the garage? It had to drag on into the jail office, did it? And there's Dhority, sitting in his car with his foot on the break, even though it's been stopped for 3 seconds already. Why doesn't he get out? He heard the shot, and he said he heard the shot. So, how could he not get out to find out of who, if anyone, particularly Oswald, was shot, and what his condition was? Was he dead? Was he alive? It was of no interest to Charles Dhority. He just stayed in the car. At some point, he had to pull the car out of the way for the ambulance. But, we don't see him, his person, until Oswald was being loaded into the ambulance. 



Betty Drew 
Jun 27 (20 hours ago)
Team Sparta!!! 


Ralph Cinque: Betty, the big question now is how Steve Haydon is going to reinvent his alias. My personal favorite is: OutsideMalta

It's catchy, don't you think? 

Try it, Steve. You'll like it.



Jason Burke 

Re: Evidence that Ruby reached the garage substantially earlier than
On 6/27/17 12:19 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I told you, Haydon, I mean Sparta, the cops were all in on it. Just today,
In your little fairy tale is there anyone that was in Dallas in late
November 1963 that *wasn't* in on it, Ralph? 

Ralph Cinque: 

Marrion Baker wasn't in on it. And notice that he was in no way involved with the Oswald shooting. You only have to watch the footage to recognize that there is nothing real about any of it. Police don't actually do that, struggle with a guy and keep struggling with him, even though it's plain as day that they already have him completely dominated and controlled. And yet, it goes on and on until they are filing into the jail office with him. It is nonsense. Such a thing has never happened before; it has never happened since; and it is unlikely to ever happen again. You really have to be childish and obtuse not to see that the whole thing is fake, fake, fake.  
Exactly how did this situation not lead to "Ruby's" containment, his hands being brought behind his back and handcuffs applied? The resolution of a struggle, the establishment of control over a violent person is not a function of taking him anywhere. It is a function of disabling his ability to resist, to act out, to be aggressive. And that disablement is accomplished, invariably, by the application of restraints: handcuffs. You can see that Blackie Harrison has got the shooter securely around the torso. How did any movement from there take place? How did that situation change from there to anything except getting restraints on him on the spot? Why didn't Blackie just stay planted where he was and not let the shooter go anywhere? How did it move from here, and who moved it from here? Was it the indomitable power of little Hercules that moved it, rather like a running back moving through a line and dragging defenders with him? Or was it the cop themselves who moved it from here because they all somehow knew that getting him into the jail office uncuffed was the plan? But, how could they possibly know such a thing? Nobody yelled, "Let's get him into the jail office!" So, how did they all know that they were doing that? Don't you get it? It was all an act, all a show. What you're seeing is not a fight with "Ruby." It's not a struggle. It isn't turmoil. It isn't pandemonium. They're all on the same side. They're all working together. They're all cooperating. The big guys are trying to cover up the little guy, as they move him to safety, safety being out of camera view.  If he was really Jack Ruby, they would have finished it right there in the garage, and it would have been a situation like this one, and we would have seen it right before our very eyes, right there in the garage. 


Anyone who actually believes this laughable "fight" scene was anything but an act is just a blithering fool who sucks from the teet of the fascist state. You really have to be an idiot to believe this absurd and ridiculous demonstration. It isn't real. It is just theater. It is just a show. It is just pap for the masses. 

Richard Mchugh Staged down to the last detail..
Reply29 mins
Remove
Ralph Cinque Well put, Richard.
ReplyJust now
I am puzzled that since we are supposedly seeing "Ruby's" naked head here, why don't we see his hat on the ground somewhere?


Tuesday, June 27, 2017

I am wondering about Oswald's hair on 11/24/63.  Here he is in the Johnston photo, looking very coiffed. 



There is no other image like that showing his hair looking GQ-ish. 
But, here he is in the WFAA film when he just came off the elevator:


Holey Moley. He seems to have much more recession there, doesn't he? Yikes. 

Here was his hair at 6:00 the evening before:




By the way, Oswald was talking to Bookhout there. That was also when Oswald complained about the lack of a shower. So, did he ever get one? There is no report of it that I know of. But, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Let's turn to the timeline:

On John McAdam's timeline of the life of LHO, which was done W. Tracy Parnell, one of his lieutenants, it says only this about Saturday evening:


7:15 PM: LHO is returned to his cell.

8:00 PM: LHO phones Ruth Paine and asks to speak to Marina. Ruth tells him she is no
longer there.


And that's it? Until the next day?  What about his attempt to call Intelligence Agent John Hurt in North Carolina? The time was reportedly after 11 and close to midnight. 


Not even worth mentioning, eh? I tell you, the chutzpah of these people is amazing. 

Back to the timeline: 


Sunday, November 24, 1963

9:30 AM: LHO is signed out of jail in anticipation of a transfer to the county facility.

11:15 AM: The transfer party leaves Fritz' office after a final round of questions.

11:21 AM: LHO is shot by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas city jail.

1:07 PM: LHO is pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital.

OK, so when did the hair-coifing come in? And who did it? I doubt that Oswald even had a comb on him. Let's look at his hair in the Jackson photo:

Yet again, it's different. On his right side, he doesn't seem to have any recession showing. His hair looks neatly parted and combed over. His hair looks full there. 

 In the Beers photo, he has got a big ol' cowlick hanging out in back:

Did he have that there the whole time? And it wasn't apparent in any other image? What else could that be besides a cowlick?




What about Davidson? He caught him from behind.


There seems to be no cowlick whatsoever there.


How do you account for these differences? You don't. This was a man who walked from an elevator, down a hallway, then 20 feet into a garage, and his hair changed with every step. The reality is that the photos, Beers, Jackson, and Johnston, are all highly doctored, highly polished images; in a word; they are photoshopped. Now, I know they didn't have Photoshop in 1963, but, I am using the word generically. They had other methods of doctoring photos back then. And each was given a different look. The thought that somebody might compare the images simply didn't occur to them. 
As much as Jack Ruby adored the Dallas Police, the idea that he would have fought with them or put up any resistance to them, let alone try to shoot one of them, as Jim Leavelle alleged from the start, is preposterous. 

And, Jim Leavelle was apparently a stupid man even when he was a young man because he told his fanciful story on television of the Shooter trying to shoot him after shooting Oswald, forgetting about the fact that we have the films, and we can see perfectly well with our own eyes that no such thing happened, that the shooter dove into the waiting arms of police and never raised a hand against them; he never fought with them; he was passive; he was totally non-aggressive.

That was true of the Garage Shooter, but in the case of Jack Ruby, here is the reality: HE LOVED THE DALLAS POLICE. He really did. And, the idea that he would have raised a hand against any of them is absolutely and totally preposterous. He would have given his life for them. He did give his life for them. 


I have to give Detective Elmer Boyd credit for one thing, and he laughed when he said it. He said: All this talk about Jack Ruby being a gangster is nonsense; he was no gangster.

And it got me thinking that there's probably a lot more that is nonsense about Jack Ruby, besides the fact that he wasn't a gangster, and he didn't shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. I am referring to the whole bit about Jack Ruby being this tough guy, this brawler, this guy who served as bouncer at his own club, roughing up guys, and manhandling them out of his club when the mood struck him; and also a guy who manhandled women too, rather like Woody Allen's line for his Humphrey Bogart character, "I never met a dame yet who didn't understand a slap in the face or a slug from a .45." Rumor has it that Ruby threw a woman down a flight of stairs just two weeks before the assassination, hurting her badly. Do you believe that? But, how could it be true? How could the police not have found out about that? Do you realize that medical professionals are legally required to call the police when someone like that comes in?  

So, what do you think about those stories? I'll tell you what I think: I think it is all part of the lore. It's all part of the myth-building. It's all the carving of his persona. And of course the same was done with Oswald. Didn't he beat his wife Marina? Routinely? And when he caught her smoking, didn't he grab the cigarette and put it out by rubbing it into her shoulder? There are no police reports of domestic violence concerning the Oswalds. And there is no record at all of any kind of physical abuse of her prior to the assassination. There were people who claimed that they heard about it before the assassination, but they didn't make the claim until after the assassination. Why at the time didn't they report it to the police? They didn't need Marina's permission to do that. If they informed the police that a woman was being abused, the police would have investigated. And if you read Marina's testimony about it, she sounded very reticent, very uncomfortable, very uneasy about saying those things about Oswald. 

My friend John Armstrong spent 3 weeks as a house guest of Marina Oswald and her husband some years ago in which he really got to know them. And I can tell you John's opinion about this: Oswald never beat his wife. 

Look at the images of Ruby post-assassination. Look how sheepish he is. Does he look like a tough guy? Does he look like a guy who would be saying, "I hope the son of a bitch dies."? 

Is this the same guy who fended off a dozen big cops in the garage, where they couldn't contain him until they got inside the jail office?