Now, I have done a detailed comparison of Doorman's shirt "pattern" and Lovelady's shirt pattern. You'll understand shortly why I put "pattern" in quotes.

So, let's look at my text notes. Notice that the upper right quadrant of his shirt (left to us) looks grainy but consistent. So, it has no pattern. Lovelady's posing shirt had flashy pattern all the way up to and including the collars. What about the other side of his shirt? We don't see a single box, but we do see some lines. There are two sets of double lines, white over black. But, if you look at Lovelady's shirt, the lines alternated between white/black and black/white. They didn't repeat; they alternated.

Then, on Doorman's sleeve, the lines are larger and more prominent. But, why would that be? We know where Altgens was, which was far away, and it's not as though Doorman's arm was any closer to Altgens’ camera and would therefore be captured larger. And notice it has diagonal lines. How did that happen? And then at the cuff, it has a very prominent black line and then a white line, but we don't see that on Lovelady's shirt. And again, Doorman was such a tiny object in a photo that was vast but small. The whole photo was only 3 inches by 2 inches. And Altgens focused his camera on the limo. He wasn't focused on the doorway. So, from that distance, would he have captured those two lines so sharply? I doubt it. I think they were added.

But, to be sure, I went back to the 10/2/64 LIFE magazine, which I have, because it is my proxy for the original Altgens photo. When I say the "original" I don't mean the photo that was taken because that got altered drastically. I just mean the photo that was originally published. This LIFE magazine image is the only one I can trust because I know no one has tampered with it since October 2, 1964. Nothing I could find online is trustworthy. That LIFE magazine image is now the alpha and the omega.  

And when we look at the 10/2/63 LIFE magazine, we see that it has no lines at all and no contrast at all. It is just a plain grainy grey. Those horizontal lines are completely absent.

The last mark I made is a question mark at the top left of Doorman's shirt; which is top right to us. There is nothing discernible there, but I put the question mark because I don't know if that is Doorman's shirt or the shirt of the other man wearing the tie. If you just look at Doorman, and ignore the other guy, it looks like Doorman's shirt. But, if you just look at the other guy and ignore Doorman, it looks like the his shirt. The two of them are merged together in such a way that they share content; where they both need the same part of the image to have context.  They look like conjoined twins.

Now, I realize that my adversaries won't be affected by this. They will brush it off and make snide remarks, as they always do. But, if you are an honest person with a clear, untainted and unbiased mind, then alarm bells should be going off in your head. The plaid shirt claim is and always was totally bogus. It was conjured up. The "pattern" of Doorman's shirt is not plaid. It was just Oswald's grainy Russian shirt. And we know from other evidence that Lovelady didn’t even wear a plaid shirt. He wore a short-sleeved striped one.

 

The image of Doorman from LIFE magazine is now the ONLY one I can trust. And that's because it doesn't require me to trust anyone else. You can buy your own 10/2/64 LIFE magazine on E-bay.
There are plenty of them, and they aren't expensive. I think I paid $!5, and that's for one in good condition.

The bottom line is that it really was Oswald in the doorway, and all the talk about a plaid shirt, and Gorilla Man Lovelady outside the TSBD, and another Lovelady at the desk in the squad room are like the loud, wailing cries of the bobcat, which we have in Texas and I have heard. The truth is what Oswald said and that his interrogators wrote down: that he ate lunch in the 1st floor lunch room during the lunch break, and then he went "out with Bill Shelley in front" to watch the Presidential parade.

 

 These are three images of Billy Lovelady in his short-sleeved, striped shirt. Start with the middle one, which was when he posed forthe FBI wearing the clothes he wore on 11/22. Then, look at the image on the right, where you can detect the light and dark stripes on the sleeve. I put RWR for red-white-red. And really the red was more like pink because it was a very old, faded shirt. And then on the right is him wearing that same shirt in the doorway, where they whited out the red stripes. So, they blackened out his face, and they whitened out the red stripes on his shirt. They did all that because he was Billy Lovelady. They were turning Oswald into Lovelady, and they couldn't have two Loveladys in the photo.

 The gauntness of Oswald's face really shows up in this image from the Midnight Press Conference, and you can see that gauntness on his face in the doorway too. Lovelady didn't have that gauntness. We know that the FBI weighed and measured Lovelady on February 29, 1964 and found him to be 5'8" 170 pounds. And he probably lost weight after the assassination because of all the stress. The gaunt face of the Man in the Doorway is the face of Lee Harvey Oswald.

 There is a very significant discrepancy between Vaughn's testimony and Ruby's. Vaughn said that when Pierce was coming up the ramp that he went to check on traffic, and upon seeing it was clear, he waved him through, and Pierce left without stopping. Vaughn was asked if he and Pierce exchanged words, and he said no. Ruby, on the other hand, said that when he got to the ramp, that Pierce was "parked"there, and that an officer on foot was talking to him. Ruby's exact words were:

"There was an officer talking--I don't know what rank he had--talking to a Sam Pierce in a car parked up on the curb."

Ruby knew Roy Vaughn. Vaughn went to the Carousel Club once, on duty. And another time he pulled Ruby over for a traffic violation but let me go with just a warning since he was a "friend of the department."

So, why didn't Ruby recognize Vaughn at the ramp? And why the discrepancy. It wasnt just Vaughn who said that Pierce didn't stop. Pierce also testified that he didn't stop and that Vaughn waved him through without saying anything.

Then, in his testimony, Ruby went on to say that he sent the money wire at 10:17. He was corrected right away by a Secret Service agent, and Ruby didn't argue. But, he was right; he did send it at 10:17.

The reason why Vaughn and Ruby told different stories is because they weren't there at the same time. Ruby was there first, and after he was nabbed and taken up to the 5th floor, where he was told that he shot Oswald, Vaughn was placed at the Main Street ramp.

Ruby never set eyes on Vaughn. There was a different officer there when Ruby got there. And it was the first of two exits for Pierce.

Ruby was being held on the 5th floor when the Garage Spectacle went down. And here's the NBC version of it. How could they cut it so close? How was it that the newscaster in Washington said "To Dallas, Texas and Tom Petit." and then instantly, Leavelle is entering the garage with Oswald through the corner door. How could they cut it so close? And notice the ridiculous curve in Leavelle's forearm. The forearm has long bones, and the only place it bends is at the elbow. So, how could it curve?

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

And how is it that no one was aware of the Shooter until after he fired the gun? Prior to that, no one looked at him or registered any awareness of him at all, even though he was a moving object. You can see in the KRLD footage that Graves shoved the Shooter, but he kept his head down so as not to look at him. And why wouldn't they cuff the Shooter immediately, right there in the garage? And what exactly were they doing when they guided him to the corner door? Were they pulling on him? Dragging him? And what was he doing? Was he resisting? And how did the cops know to do that? No one said anything. How did they all get the idea to do what they did without any direction?

Doesn't it seem choreographed? Doesn't it seem staged? It's nice that there are people here who admit that Dulles, Johnson, and Hoover were the prime movers in the killing of Kennedy. But, what about the killing of Oswald? Doesn't it appear that the Dallas Police were doing it? Wasn't this a dog and pony show that the Dallas Police were putting on? Yes it was.

 My adversaries keep glibly saying that, no, it's Lovelady. But, here is the top right collar and margin of Doorman's shirt, Oswald's shirt, and Lovelady's plaid shirt. I don't believe for a second that Lovelady wore that shirt that day. I am certain that he wore the short-sleeved red and white vertically striped shirt that he posed in for the FBI.

But, we are comparing stories and claims here, so let's compare the shirt that they claim he wore, the plaid one.

Can you see how well Doorman's and Oswald's match? And can you see that Lovelady's plaid shirt had pattern all the way to the collar? Who is the odd man out here? Are these people going to claim that the match is between Doorman and Lovelady, and that Oswald is the odd man out? It would be insane, but I don't put anything past them. And I think they will because they are more than willing to claim the absurd. That's how defiant they are.

 Look: it is IMPOSSIBLE for two men to look and dress this much alike. It wasn't an Elvis contest where everyone was trying to look and dress alike. It was just a random day at work. And Lovelady was shorter than Oswald but 40 pounds heavier. So, how could they look to be the same size?

This insanity of denying that it's Oswald in the doorway has gone on long enough, so stop it. These are images of the same man wearing the same clothes. The reason they look so much alike is because they are the same man.

For the sake of the soundness of your mind, stop denying that these are both Oswald.

And don't be spewing your crap, "But oh, he's wearing a plaid shirt." He is not. And it's past that. Don't you get it? It's over the threshold. It is the same man wearing the same clothes. Any lucid adult can see it, and I'm sure a lot of children could see it too.

 I vetted the Altgens photo by recreating it. On the left is my recreation. It was shot in late November at 12:30 PM with a professional photographer shooting from Altgens' location. 

So, lower left, it's supposed to be the black man, Carl Jones. I had the man face east only because that's what we see in the Altgens photo. But, in reality. Carl was facing west since the limo had already passed. Carl was leaning against the wall, but the actor couldn't do that because they installed a handrail there, several inches from the wall. What I'm doing there is reaching for him, and I am stretching and straining, because I want to show that he was nowhere near me. Then, notice that Black Hole Man has a head; his entire head is not in inky black shadow, as in the Altgens photo. The man below him is mimicking what his counterpart in the Altgens photo is doing, but that was more flim-flam. In reality, that man was standing there with both arms folded across his chest.

Black Tie Man, who is next to me, is not cutting off my shoulder, and he and are touching, so we could not be closer.  The sheared, slashed interface between Doorman and Black Tie Man in the Altgens photo is an abberation. 

I did not include the tiny little woman who was visoring her eyes with one hand because I'm not sure she was even there. And the same goes for the black ladies beause they are the same black ladies that are in Croft who were on Elm St. below the Obelisk. So what are they doing way up where they are in this photo? If you placed women where the Croft Ladies were on Elm and then shot the Altgens photo. you would not capture them. 

What I have proven here with this recreation is that Black Tie Man is fake; he was not there at all. The geometry between him and Doorman in the Altgens photo is a grotesque abomination. And Black Hole Man was there, but he had a face, which was the face of Billy Lovelady. But, since they were turning Oswald into Lovelady, they had to blacken out Lovelady's real face because they couldn't have two of him. 

There is absolutely no doubt that the Altgens doorway was massively altered, and this proves it. The scan of the Altgens Doorway was by Dennis Cimino, and it is the best we have.  

 The black man in the Altgens photo can't possibly be real because how could what is circled in red be a body? What is the talking point for that? It is something they stuck in, and they thought they could get away with it because it was so small in the photo. But, what we're left with is a man's head in profile and a shamrock beneath it. A shamrock is not a body.

This was from my good friend, Dr. Thomas Halle: 

Good work, Ralph. In "Altgens-6," the head of "Door-Man" is certainly a composite...and MOSTLY is on the body of LHO. It's laughable the way that some folks will STILL insist that this photo has not been manipulated. There is SO much "crazy stuff" in this photograph, that it could HARDLY be ANYTHING ELSE but something which came out of a photo lab. Including the RIDICULOUS fact of the head of a Black male...who basically appears in Oswald's lap area.

Thomas is right, of course; that black man wasn't there. He was at the doorway, but he wasn't in that spot. His name was Carl Jones, and he was standing at the bottom at the western edge of the doorway. Doorman (Oswald) was standing in the center of the doroway at the top level. On the left is the real, and on the right is the fake. Notice the distance between Oswald and Jones. Carl was cut off from Altgens' camera from his position. In the Altgens photo, they dropped in ANOTHER image of Carl that was taken by Phil Willis, and they did it hide the fact that Oswald was clasping his hands in front of his body. 

To everyone who listens to me, I want you to realize that anyone who claims to be an Oswald defender has to endorse Oswald in the doorway. You can't be an Oswald defender without doing it, and I'll explain why. 

The first thing is that you can't be an Oswald defender and also call him a liar. Oswald told his interrogators that he went outside. Captain Will Fritz wrote down that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." And Shelley was out in front, so how could Oswald know that unless he was there himself?

And FBI Agent James Hosty wrote down that Oswald said that he ate lunch in the 1st floor lunch room and then went outside to watch the Presidential Parade. 

We have both the written notes of Fritz and Hosty, and I am attaching them here. They prove that Oswald told his captors that he went outside. And remember: he had done nothing wrong. He had committed no violence nor any other crime. So, he had no reason to lie to the Police and every reason to tell them the truth. 

Plus, there is no place else he could have been but the doorway. He was not in 2nd floor lunch room because he said he ate in the 1st floor lunchroom, and three lawmen wrote it down: Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty. Why would he lie about which lunch room he ate in?

Furthermore, if you read the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker, he said that Oswald had just reached the 2nd floor lunch room at the same time he did. Oswald got there a few seconds before Baker did. But, if Oswald was just getting there at 12:31, it means he wasn't there at 12:30. You can't assume he was there, that he left, and then he turned around and came back. There is no evidence for that, and you can't pull it from out your ass. And that leaves the doorway as the only place he could have been. 

The ridiculous and preposterous claim of Robert Groden that Oswald was getting change from Geraldine Reid during the shooting is undone by the testimony of Geraldine Reid. What she claimed in her WC testimony is that she saw Oswald 2 minutes after the shooting when she had returned to her office. She said she saw him walking through the office area on the 2nd floor, and she interacted with him brlefly. He did not ask her for change to get a Coke because he had already gotten one. She said that he had in his hand a full Coke. You can read it yourself. She referred to herself as Mrs. Robert A. Reid. 

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Reid.pdf

So, that takes care of that film-flammery, and all it leaves is that Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting of JFK, and it's him in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film. And Oswald defenders cannot deny it. Anyone can say anything, but if they try to deny it, they are just exposing the fact that they are fakes and frauds, that they just pretend to be Oswald defenders in order to influence real Oswald defenders. They are bogus Oswald defenders.  

 

 

 

I redid this collage from yesterday, and I removed Black Tie Man completely from the image because the fact is: he wasn't there.

But, besides removing Black Tie Man, I also repaired Oswald. His left shoulder was missing, so I drew it back in. And the left side of his face (right to us) was gouged out, so I restored it too.

The top of his head needed to lose the oval, simian cap that they gave him from the image of Young Lovelady, and I replaced it with the top of Oswald's head. They also put the Black Man in there, but it would be a mess to remove him, so I won't.

So, what you see in the center is how Doorman originally looked. On the right it shows the unique construction of Oswald's Russian shirt that they had to cover up with Black Tie Man.

Now, I realize it was an awful lot to do. But, they had a crack team there from the National Photographic Interpretation Center who had honed their skills. I'm sure they were the best in the world at this. And they worked at a frantic pace. Walter Cronkite showed the Altgens photo to the nation at 5:30 PM Central Time, which was 5 hours after the shooting. If they had it before that, they would have showed it before that. It was very rapid surgery they did, and we know where they did it: Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, the CIA/DOD photo lab in Dallas, where, ironically, Oswald worked from October 1962 to April 1963.

 Stephen Smith asked why Doorman has a guy in a white shirt and tie growing out of him. It's a good question. The answer is that that guy was placed into the photo, and the reason was to cover up the unique construction of Oswald's Russian shirt.

So, in this collage, I am showing what Doorman must have looked like when he was intact, that is, when he had a left shoulder. And on the right you can see the unique construction of his shirt, with the flat collar, the button loop, and the lapel going down the margin of the shirt, like a jacket. Officer Marionn Baker actually described it as "a light brown jacket." They had to cover that up.

 Here I am with the actors who portrayed John F. Kennedy and Mary Pinchot Meyer in DOVEY'S PROMISE. They are Chris Phipps and Elisabeth Joy. And here is the link to watch DOVEY'S PROMISE on Amazon.   https://www.amazon.com/Doveys-Promise-Ralph-Cinque/dp/B0DZJ6R4N9/

 Why is Doorman's hand in the center of his body? Why isn't it dangling at his side? It's because Oswald was clasping his hands in front, as he often did. It was his habit. It wasn't Lovelady's habit. It was Oswald's.

And they had to cover it up because they knew that that hand-clasping would identify him as Oswald. So, they stuck the head of the black man Carl Jones in there, which they got from the Phil Willis slide.

Carl was there, but he was far from Oswald. He was not right beneath him. Carl was way over in the west corner and out of view to Altgens. So, they plopped another image of him in there to cover up Oswald's hand-clasping. However, you can still see his cuff in the center of his body, which is the tell-tale sign that he was clasping his hands.

 Let's be crystal: this is not a real image. It is physically, optically, and photographically iimpossible. The interface between these two men standing so close together could NEVER look like this. The man on the right was pasted into the photo to hide the unique construction of Oswald's Russian shirt.

Now, if you disagree, don't write a thing. Instead, get a camera out, and a couple of subjects, and try to duplicate the photo. Create something that looks exacstly like it. It's impossible, but if you want to try, go ahead. But, if you're just going to dispute it, don't bother, because I'm not interested. I only want to see you duplicate it.

Lovelady wore a short-sleeved, vertically striped shirt, just as he told the FBI. Oswald wore his long-sleeved, grainy shirt from Russia, and that is what we see in the Altgens photo. Now, the weird light/dark contrast is not a plaid pattern. Plaid means checkered, and there is nothing checkered about it. What accounts for the light/dark contrast is light reflection and distortion from the gross enlargement. And some of it is probably monkey business- stuff they added. 

You see, they were very worried that people would recognize Oswald's shirt. So, they came up with the idea to make it that instead of being Doorman's arm coming down, it was the black man's arm going up. I circled it on Doorman. It's supposed to be a hand there.  

Do you see on the right how Oswald's shirt was tattered? I circled it.  They covered that up with the black man. The black man was Carl Jones, and he was there, but he wasn't in that spot. He was at the bottom of the steps on the west side, and he was out of view to Altgens and his camera due to parallax. Due to the angular view, the west side of the doorway was cut off to Altgens. 

If you look at the Wiegman film, you'll see how it really was. Doorman (Oswald) was standing in the center at the top, and Carl Jones was standing at the bottom on the west side. Oswald and Jones were not close to each other. 

So, that was the reality; Altgens could not see Jones. The image of Jones that we see in the Altgens photo was taken by Congressman Phil Willis. He was directly across from the TSBD, so he had a square view of the entrance. 

So, on the left above is Carl from Willis, and on the right is Carl from Altgens. You can see that it's the same image. Willis took his slide about 3 PM. It was when the employees were coming out to go home. They had just been released. 

But, another reason why they stuck Carl Jones in there was to hide Oswald's hand-clasping. 

On the right, Oswald was waiting for the first lineup, and he stood clasping his hands in front, which was his habit. He did the same thing in the doorway, and it showed in the Altgens photo. They had to cover it up because Billy Lovelady didn't stand like that. And that's why they put the face of Carl Jones in there. If you look below Oswald's cuff, you see a shamrock-shaped form. That is supposed to be Jones' body. Of course, it doesn't look like a body, but they never expected anyone to view it so close and so large. From a distance, and without thinking about it, the mind accepts it as a body. 

So, both Black Man and Black Tie Man were installed in the Altgens photo. It was a frenzy of photographic alteration by a team from the National Photographic Interpretation Center. It was headed by Arthur Lundahl, but the real operational head of it, who led the team, was Dino Brugioni. 

I do not know if Brugioni was in Dallas. He denied being there, but he may have lied. We know that E. Howard Hunt lied about being in Dallas. So, Brugioni may have lied too. 

 

 Lovelady was never seated at a table in the squad room of the Homicide detectives. It is fake. The guy, whoever he was, and he wasn't Lovelady, was pasted into the video.

I'll explain. It wasn't a desk for anyone to sit at. It was a supply table. It had forms and such. And where Lovelady was supposedly sitting was right in the lane of traffic. They could not have gotten past him. It was a narrow lane.

And if you watch the footage, you'll see that no one reacts to "Lovelady". No one looks at him. No one acknwledges him. Not even Oswald, who knew him. It's like he wasn't there. He wasn't! It was fake thing that was done in the 1970s at the time of the HSCA.

Lovelady testified under oath that the last time he saw Oswald was at the TSBD. Do you think he forgot about being in the center of a media extravaganza? It never happened.

I will post more about this. If Robert Ugarte wants a battle, he's got one. Wake up, people! This was faked!

They altered many of Oswald's photos, and some massively. The middle photo here, they gave a complete makeover to. They lengthened and thickened his hair. They changed his aspect ratio to make him look 40 pounds heavier, and I mean really stocky. Look at that burly neck on him. They also repaired his t-shirt, making it look brand-new. And they also altered his outer shirt, as I'll explain.

Why did they do all that? They did it to distinguish Oswald from the Man in the Doorway; to make them look miles apart.

So, the Doorway Man had short, neat hair, so they gave Oswald long, unruly hair. His hair definitely wasn't as long as we see there. The Doorway Man looks slender, so they changed his aspect ratio to add about 40 pounds to him in the middle photo. And they were also worried that his distinctive outer shirt would identify him as the Doorway Man. So, they folded his collar under on his right side. However, they left his left collar alone because its distinctiveness, with the button hook, got covered up in the Altgens photo with the phony guy in the black tie, who wasn't there. But look closely at that construction in the center photo and imagine if they had let it show in the Altgens photo. That's why they put that black tie man in there.

So, the reality is that in some images, Oswald's t-shirt looks stretched and tattered and torn, also paper-thin like it's ready for the rag box. But, in other photos, his t-shirt looks quite normal. It's the tattered and deformed ones that are real; the others they fixed. But, they didn't fix all of them. Some of them got through, exposing their evil handiwork. It was all about distancing Oswald from the Man in the Doorway. If Doorman was X, they tried to make Oswald Y.

 

                     The Vast Significance of Oswald not owning a Rifle

It was John Armstrong who wrote this brilliant analysis proving that Oswald did not own a rifle. He never mail-ordered one from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. What’s on the link below is some of the best work that has ever been done in JFK assassination research. 

https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

Oswald probably didn't even have a P.O. Box, and I know that John Armstrong agrees with that too. What did he need one for? The evil Harry Holmes (the postal inspector) told the WC that all Oswald had delivered to his P.O. Box (besides the rifle) was Russian and Socialist newspapers. There is no evidence that Oswald subscribed to any Russian or Socialist newspapers. Did they find a stack of them in his boarding room? No, they didn't find a one. Did Marina ever say that Oswald read Russian and Socialist newspapers? No, she did not. 

But, now that you know that Oswald didn't own a rifle and that the whole story about the mail-order from Chicago was an FBI concoction, you need to consider the implications of it. The fact that the FBI did that in advance tells us that they had every expectation that he was going to die that weekend. Because: even though they were confident they could bamboozle the media and the public with the ruse, they knew it would never hold up in court. They knew that Oswald was going to have a lawyer, and maybe a team of lawyers. And maybe the team would have included Mark Lane and Vincent Salandria; two very smart lawyers. And when Oswald told them that he never ordered a rifle from Chicago, they would have believed him, and they would have gotten busy demolishing the claim that he did.

So, what about that order invoice, supposedly of Oswald's? Fake. And if Oswald had lived, it means that Marina never would have been seized. She would have remained free and never subjected to the MK-ULTRA that they certainly did to her. And she would have been Oswald's witness at the trial. And she would have told the jury that he never owned a rifle except for the shotgun that he owned in Russia to hunt rabbits with.  

What else? Oswald would have testified that he was the Man in the Doorway of the Altgens photo; but they altered his image; they changed the top of his head, which they did. The AP would have been in the hot-seat for that because it was their photo. But, they didn't alter it. A CIA team of photo-alterers were there in Dallas, and they worked it over at the CIA photo lab in downtown Dallas: Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, where Oswald worked in the Fall of 1962 until the Spring of 1963. I don’t know what the AP would have said in response to Mark Lane's grilling, but they would have been in the hot-seat. 

What else? Oswald would have gotten to say how he got from his boarding room to the Texas Theater, that somebody drove him, and it was probably a Dallas cop. Are you aware that the police never told us what Oswald said about that? And he must have said something. Apparently, what he said was so damaging to the official story that they just hushed it. 

And, Oswald would have gotten to explain how he went from the doorway to the 2nd floor lunch room, that he used the stairs in the southeast corner and went up the one flight to the 2nd floor, and then he walked across the great expanse of the 2nd floor to the northwest corner where the lunch room was. It was when he was in the vestibule of the lunch room that Officer Marionn Baker saw him through the glass and followed him in there. But, Oswald went up from the first floor, not down from the 6th floor.      

Not only was putting Oswald on trial out of the question; they couldn't even give him a lawyer. It would have been fatal for them to let him talk to a lawyer even once. They would have had to kill the lawyer. 

So, killing Oswald was the top priority. They hoped to get it done in the theater. The problem was that the cops involved weren't explicitly told to kill Oswald. The plotters wanted it to happen spontaneously, and pinning him with a cop-killing was supposed to help. But, it just didn't happen. And it makes me wonder if Oswald put up any resistance at all in the theater. Because: if he had, it seems like one of those itchy trigger fingers would have put him down. Apparently, none of those cops saw enough resistance from him to justify shooting him. 

So, when that didn't work, next up was the Midnight Press Conference. If this is the first time you are hearing that the purpose of the MPC was to kill Oswald, I realize that it's a shock. But, it is not a stretch. You name me one other criminal who was ever given a press conference to talk to the world. It is the first and only time it ever happened in the history of jurisprudence. And note that Jack Ruby was at the MPC, and I don't mean to shoot Oswald. He just went there to deliver sandwiches, but they were not going to let the opportunity slip away to frame him. But, apparently, he wasn't in the right position to pin it on him. And even though Oswald had only spoken for one minute, he was doing so much damage, saying over and over that Police were denying him a lawyer. He did so much damage that the next evening, they felt compelled to pull off the ruse with H Louis Nichols, fooling him into thinking that he met with the real Oswald, who denied his offer of a lawyer. Tell me: do you really think Oswald would have turned down the offer of a lawyer after having implored the world for one at least 13x on camera? 

In fact, I suspect they planned to try to kill Oswald again on Saturday, and the reason I say that is because Jim Leavelle wore his Easter suit on Saturday as well. That’s right; he wore it two days in a row, Saturday and Sunday.

So, the very day after President Kennedy and Leavelle’s good friend Officer JD Tippit got gunned down, Leavelle felt like wearing a sunny Easter suit? He wore that sunny Easter suit to create contrast between himself and Oswald, who would be in black, to aid the shooter.

But, it was evening before they were done with Nichols doing the damage control from the MPC, and that pushed the next shooting attempt to Sunday morning. 

And so it went, with Ruby getting there an hour early, being nabbed and taken up to the 5th floor. SS Agent Forest Sorrels sat with him as the Dallas Police pulled off the Garage Spectacle. Ruby wasn't even in the garage. FBI Agent James W. Bookhout masqueraded as him. But, Oswald was not shot in the garage; he was shot in the Jail Office afterwards. And they made sure they didn't get him to the hospital before it was too late, so that doctors would not be able to save him. They turned left on Commerce and went all the way down to the Pearl Expressway and then doubled back on Main to Hardin (making a loop) when they could have turned right on Commerce and been at Hardin in a jiffy, and it would have been a straight shot to Parkland Hospital. 

The magnitude of the evil, the monstrous evil, that happened that weekend is mindboggling. It's unfathomable. How could otherwise normal men do it? My answer is that it was like in war, where wanton killing is done by otherwise normal men. They are under orders to kill, and these men were under orders to kill by the Commander in Chief, President Lyndon Johnson. 

And that is how monstrous the weekend of 11-22 to 11-24 really was; so much worse than a lone nut acting alone to kill Kennedy.

But, the point is that they HAD to kill Oswald before he talked to a lawyer, and they did.

 Let's be crystal-clear about something: you can't claim that these two are the same t-shirt. You can't claim that something happened to cause Oswald's ragged, tattered, and all streched out of shape t-shirt on the right to appear as it does on the left. Nothing happened to it in-between. There is no talking point you can make up to rationalize the difference. They restored Oswald's t-shirt to perfect condition in the MacCammon photo, and there is no other image in which it looks like it. In fact, it is beyond perfect. The perfect tight round collar is too high. It's halfway up his neck, about the level of his Adam's apple. On the right, the stretched collar is down on his chest, and that was real. The image on the left is fake; it is art; the art of photographic alteration.

 All you have to do is compare the top of the t-shirt to the bottom to see that it's fake because the bottom looks thin and flimsey, while the top looks so thick, it doesn't even look like a t-shirt. It looks more like a polo shirt, like it was meant to be worn as an outer shirt and not an undershirt. It is a night and day difference, and it was done to distinguish it from Oswald's tattered, torn, deformed t-shirt in the Altgens photo. It is more propaganda to hide the fact that Oswald was the Man in the Doorway.

 So, why did they fix Oswald's t-shirt in the MacCammon photo, making it high and round and even new? They did it to contrast his look in the Altgens photo, where his t-shirt looked notched and descended. The opening looked rather v-shaped, just as it did on Oswald in other photos.

So, by showing his t-shirt looking fresh and new, they were sending a subliminal message that Oswald wasn't the Doorman. I bet that was their main objective with the McCammon photo. All the rest is fluff.

 

The famous MacCammon photo at the theater, on the right, is supposed to be the only color image of Oswald from the JFK assassination. But, is it? For years, it only existed black and white, but then, supposedly, a color print of it was found at a Dallas photo lab. So, maybe it was colorized.

For instance, Oswald did not have red hair. But, he does in this photo. And, it's obvious that they doctored his hair by obscuring his hairline recession, which involved adding a tuft of hair that he didn't have. So, why did they do that? What purpose did it serve to lie about his hair?

But, the most glaring deception is his t-shirt. Oswald's t-shirt was torn and tattered, and the collar was stretched out of shape, as you can see on the left. It was nothing like what we see on the right. Not only did they give him a tight, round collar with no scruffiness, but they made it too high. A t-shirt collar doesn't go up to your Adam's apple like Oswald's does on the right.

What does all that photographic alteration tell us? It tells us that the U.S. government killed Kennedy. Altering a photo is a way of lying- a powerful way of lying. And in this case, what they were lying about was Oswald's guilt.

But, to this day, the media talks about this photo like it contains the secret to the Holy Grail. For instance, in 2013, TIME magazine got Gary Mack, the shill for the Sixth Floor Museum. to write an article about the photo entitled: An End to Conspiracy? Rare Photo of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Arrest Suggests Why He’s Guilty.

Mack recounted the official story of what happened in the theater, none of which can be trusted. Did Oswald really try to shoot Officer Nick McDonald? Oswald denied it, so whom should we believe? Did McDonald really jam his hand in the trigger space? That I don't believe for a second, and McDonald later retracted it. I presume that Oswald did have the pistol, but where did he get it? John Armstrong did a good job of showing that the mail-order from Seagate for the pistol was just as fraudulent as the mail-order from Klein's for the rifle. Someone must have given Oswald the pistol, and it was probably the same person who drove him to the theater. Yes, Oswald had to be driven to the theater because Butch Burroughs placed him there at 1:07, and Oswald could not have walked there from his boarding room in that amount of time. We can only speculate about who his driver was, but was it the cop who showed up there as reported by Earlene Roberts, his landlady? Do you realize that interrogators told us nothing about what Oswald said about how he got from his room to the theater? Why the omission? I have to think that what Oswald told them was fatal to the official story.

https://time.com/3804560/an-end-to-conspiracy-rare-photo-of-lee-harvey-oswalds-arrest-suggests-why-hes-guilty/

The Spinning of the Mary Pinchot Meyer murder – Revisited

By Ralph Cinque, maker of DOVEY’S PROMISE

 

This is in response to the editorial in the DAILY BEAST by author Nina Burleigh, whose book A VERY PRIVATE WOMAN is considered required reading about the case. The standard spin, of both government and media, has been that, despite being acquitted, Raymond Crump did murder Mary Pinchot Meyer. And it is also Nina’s spin. Based on what? Based on nothing derived from the case, as I will explain. But, there is the fact that Crump went on to have a relentless life of crime after his acquittal. I’ll admit that that is daunting, but it is not directly relevant to what happened in 1964. Prior to his arrest for killing Mary, Raymond had a minor criminal record, but it was for shoplifting, petty larceny, and public intoxication, but no violent crimes.  

The problem is we don’t have any formal records about this. In her DB article, Nina claimed that Crump went to prison for multiple arsons and also for the rape of a 13 year old girl.  I can’t find any proof of that. I’m not claiming to know that it’s a lie, but I need proof of it. Nina Burleigh saying it doesn’t suffice.  And she does have falsehoods in her article. She said it was an all-black jury at the Towpath Trial. It was not. It was 7 blacks and 5 whites. Now, in DOVEY’S PROMISE, we made it 6 whites and 6 blacks, and that was for dramatic effect.

Nina said that Cord Meyer was #3 at the CIA. That is not true. He was a high-level operative but certainly not #3.

Nina questioned whether Dovey Roundtree really believed in Crump’s innocence. Would she have offered to defend him for $1 if she wasn’t sure?  Would she have visited him every day in jail, for months on end, if she didn’t believe in his innocence?

I don’t doubt that Raymond Crump had a criminal life after his acquittal, but let’s just say that the specifics of it are unverified.

And again, it has no direct bearing on what happened in 1964. But now, I will lay out why it is inconceivable that Raymond Crump killed Mary Meyer.

Two possible motives were proffered, robbery and rape, but neither works.

Robbery doesn’t work because the killer started by attacking Mary by hand. An armed robber would surely use his gun to solicit the cooperation of the victim. Nobody wants to die over pocket money. And we’re not talking about much. Mary had $10 on her and no jewelry. She was on a fitness walk, so why would she be plied with cash? Why would Raymond Crump or anyone else expect her to be?  A robber wants to get money and valuables, but he doesn’t want to reach into his victim’s pockets to get it. So, he’s going to use his gun to solicit theircooperation. Therefore, the actions of the killer prove that robbery was not his motive.   

What about rape? It was a popular walking trail, and other walkers could have come by at any time. There was no expectation of privacy and seclusion. It was also just 128 feet from busy Canal Rd in Georgetown, with a wide-open view. A rape needs time, privacy, and no chance of interruption, which didn’t exist. But, it also requires a “disparity of force” where the rapist is much stronger than the victim.  Raymond was small. It is controversial because his driver’s license said 5’3 ½ “ and 130 pounds. The DC Police said he was 5’5 ½”  and 145 pounds. So, did they measure him in his 2 inch platform shoes?  At the trial, the prosecutor, Alfred Hantman, presumed that they removed his shoes, but we don’t know if that’s true.  But, even if Ray Crump was 5’5  ½ “ in his stocking feet, he was still shorter than Mary.

Think about what rape entails. The rapist has to restrain and control the victim. He also has to undo the victim’s clothes, in this case, get her pants down. He also has to undo his pants, get his penis out, and even though he is fighting with her, he’s got to get erect, and then as they struggle, and he is pinning her down, he has to penetrate her. I apologize for that graphic description, but the point is that it requires an overwhelming amount of dominance, force, and physical superiority, and Raymond Crump didn’t have that over Mary Meyer.

In fact, it never came close to that, as there is no evidence the killer ever went for Mary’s clothes.  So the rape claim was entirely speculative, based on nothing concrete.

But, the irony is that Crump told Dovey that he went there to have a consensual sexual rendezvous with a black woman named Vivien. And Dovey did talk to her on the phone. In DOVEY’S PROMISE, we made it that Dovey met Vivien in person at a park, and again, it was just for dramatic effect. And, I would like to think that Nina Burleigh respects Dovey Roundtree enough to know that she wouldn’t make up such a story. So, Vivien confirmed what Raymond said, but she refused to testify in court because she feared her husband would kill her. However, she did provide an affidavit about it. THERE IS AN AFFADAVIT ABOUT IT, FOR GOODNESS SAKE! We did not include it in the movie because it wasn’t introduced at the trial. The jury never found out about it. However, you can be certain that the prosecution found out about it. And they could have gone to Vivien and questioned her themselves. But, they didn’t.

So, neither robbery nor rape work as motives for Raymond Crump to attack Mary.  Is there anything left? No. Not for him.

But, there is another compelling reason why Crump could not have done it:  Between shots, the killer dragged Mary’s body 24 feet, and there is no plausible reason why Raymond Crump would have done that. If he was going to shoot her a second time, he would have done it wherever she collapsed, and then fled.  There was no reason for him to drag her. However, a CIA assassin, concerned about her visibility to a witness on the other side of the canal, might have dragged her to position her optimally for that. It makes sense for him but not for Raymond Crump.

And there’s more. The presumption was that even though there was no evidence that Raymond ever owned or obtained a gun, that somehow, he got one. But if so, what put him at the Towpath that day armed with a gun? You can’t claim that he woke up that morning with the thought, “I’m going to the Towpath because there might be an attractive woman on it that I might want to rape.” Nobody would think that. So, why did he go to the Towpath armed? Was his intention to rob someone? It doesn't seem like very rich pickings. But if so, why didn’t he use his gun to rob her?  If he brought the gun to rob someone, why attack the victim by hand?

So, you see, nothing works when you try to land on Raymond Crump’s guilt. You can’t get to it. It wasn’t plausible in 1965, and it isn't plausible today. In fact, it is SO implausible, that anyone, whether Lance Morrow or Nina Burleigh or anyone else, who maintains that Crump was guilty is either being incredibly stupid, OR, they are an accessory-after-the-fact in the CIA murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, if only in effect, if not intent.   

I’m hoping that this article stirs up thought and debate about this very important case, and I’m very willing to debate Nina Burleigh, if she is.

 The story of Billy Lovelady’s life following the JFK assassination was a mixture of huge financial success and utter misery.

Even though he was an uneducated ex-con who made only $1.11/hr at the TSBD, he went on to own a freight company in Colorado and vast tracts of land across the state, before his untimely and suspicious death at the age of 41.

It was just days after the assassination that the FBI claimed that Lovelady told them that he was Doorman. But wait. Since this was so important, and since Lovelady’s likeness to Oswald was part of the story, why didn’t they let him tell the world himself? They gave Oswald a press conference (although I think the purpose of it was to kill him, but it just didn’t work out) so why didn’t they give Lovelady a press conference? They claimed that he looked so much like Oswald (and apparently dressed just like him too) that his step-kids, upon seeing Oswald on tv, thought he was their dad. Another story they told was that Lovelady’s wife Patricia saw Oswald from behind at the TSBD and thought he was Billy. That’s strange, considering that Billy was shorter than Oswald and 40 pounds heavier.

But, not only did they not put Lovelady on tv, they didn’t publish any images of him either. They just lip-flapped it.

Eventually, the FBI did send staged, doctored images of Lovelady to the Warren Commission. But, the WC didn’t publish them or refer to them. They just left them in the “document pile.” The only reason we got to see them is because Harold Weisberg went through the document file and found them and published them.

In 1967, CBS was making its 4 hour Special on the JFK assassination, and they brought Lovelady back to Dallas from Colorado, and they photographed him in the doorway. They also interviewed him at length. They were going to have a whole segment on the Doorman controversy. But then, they yanked it. The photo, the interview, the discussion- all of it trashed. Why? I think it was because somebody high-up realized that including the segment would just create more doubts about the official story.

In 1976, the HSCA was underway, and HSCA Attorney Ken Brooten went to Lovelady’s house in Colorado with Robert Groden. Then, a most bizarre thing happened: Brooten resigned as HSCA attorney to become Lovelady’s lawyer. And as Lovelady’s lawyer, he got the HSCA not to subpoena Lovelady. They subpoenaed hundreds of people, and they were investigating the Doorman question. So, why didn’t they subpoena Lovelady? How did Brooten get a pass for him? I think Brooten must have told them that Lovelady was a basket case mentally, that he would fall apart under questioning, and it would be a disaster for them.

And then in January 1979, right before the HSCA Final Report was released Lovelady died suddenly of a first heart attack at the age of 41. His dear devoted wife Patricia had this to say: “I’ve been harassed for 15 years, and I’m not going to be harassed anymore.” That chokes me up every time.

Now, I realize it is possible to die of a heart attack that young, or even younger, but statistically, it is very uncommon.

So, when did we ever hear Lovelady claim that he was Doorman? The answer is: never. And he never claimed it in his Warren Commission testimony either, for which we have the transcripts.

That poor man was tortured by being forced to lie about something, and he just wasn’t any good at it. CBS realized it. Kenneth Brooten realized it. And the FBI realized it too because they could have put him in front of a sea of cameras and mics, but they didn’t. They knew better. They knew it would only hurt the story, not help it. There are natural born liars in the world, but Billy Lovelady wasn’t one of them.