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.

 Billy Lovelady has prominent ears, which is the medical terms for protruding ears. His ears stuck out. You can see it in the photo that Mark Lane pirated, on the right. And it's a good thing we have it because they took steps to hide it in his other photos. Oswald's ears did not stick out, and his right ear is a perfect match to Doorman's, as you can see left and center.

The single most important question about the JFK assassination is whether Oswald did it because if he didn't do it, it means that people who said he did it are the ones that really did it. It was the U.S. government who said that he killed Kennedy, and it was the U.S. government who really killed Kennedy.

 

DOVEY'S PROMISE was officially released on April 15 on Fandango and AppleTV. Here is the link on Fandango. It is a very explosive film because of what it says about the JFK assassination.

Everything about the case looked like a professional hit. The attacker began by attacking Mary Pinchot Meyer by hand, even though he was armed with a gun. Then after shooting her, he dragged her body 24 feet, apparently, because he wanted to leave it in a different spot. But, why would Raymond Crump care about that?

And what was his supposed motive? She was in work-out clothes: pedal pushers and sneakers, with no jewelry. So, how much cash could she have had on her?

And rape? She was 2 1/2 inches taller than Crump, and they were about the same weight. So, how was he big enough and strong enough to rape her? It was a popular walking trail, and the site was just 128 feet from busy Canal Rd in Georgetown, with a wide open view.

As Dovey said, the case against Crump never made sense.

But, if Crump didn't do it, and he was acquitted, who did? No one ever suggested it was some other derelict who managed to escape.

The government was skating on thin ice because if Crump didn't do it, it had to be a professional hit. James Angleton, the head of counterintelligence at the CIA, broke into Mary's home the night of her murder to steal her diary.

But, it wasn't the CIA prosecuting Crump. It was the DOJ- the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ is the prosecutorial arm of the President of the United States, who was Lyndon Johnson.

So, this case went to the top, and the stakes were extremely high. It was a disaster for the government when Crump got off, and the government went into damage control immediately and thereafter.

This case has been a minefield all along. And now, for the first time, there is a feature film about it that goes right for the jugular.

So, if you haven't done it yet, you should watch DOVEY'S PROMISE because it can change recorded history. It can have an impact like Oliver Stone's JFK. The murders of John F. Kennedy and Mary Pinchot Meyer were unspeakable evils, and this film sheds light on both. Watch it because it is a great courtroom drama, but also watch it because you want justice for them.

This has been suppressed history for 60 years. But, now there is a film about it. So, for the sake of fighting evil and backing good, please watch this film.

https://athome.fandango.com/content/browse/details/Dovey-s-Promise/4111720

 This collage shows images of Oswald and Lovelady and Doorman on 11/22/63. So, we are seeing the men and the clothes they wore that day. The image of Lovelady on the left was found by the renowned JFK researcher Gerda Dunckel. It's from the Malcolm Couch film, and you can see that Lovelady wore a short-sleeved shirt. So, he couldn't possibly be Doorman.

There isn't a speck of doubt that Doorman is Oswald wearing Oswald's clothes.

 These are two images of Billy Lovelady. The one on the left is from 11/22/63. It was taken on the 6th floor, where he had escorted the cops. It was Shelley and Lovelady who escorted the cops up there. They were the only two warehouse employees who were up there at the time. And Shelley was very skinny. So, this on left has to be Lovelady. And it's Lovelady on the right too, photographed in 1976 for the HSCA.

Notice how stocky Lovelady was in 1963. He lost weight afterwards. I figure he was at least 20 pounts lighter on the right. Maybe 25 pounds lighter. I don't know if he lost it spontaneously, or if he was ordered to do it, since Doorman looks so slender. And the reason Doorman looks so slender is because Oswald was very slender. He was 5'9" and just 131 pounds.

But, what I notice, as a former chiropractor, is the same postural habit, where in both images, he is sidebending his head to the right while also rotating it slightly to the left. It was a very deepseated postural habit, and I'm sure he wasn't aware of it. But, that is what felt neutral to him. And we've all got habits like that; not necessarily that exact one, but something.

So, this is definitely Billy Lovelady twice, and you can see that he was way too stocky and burly to be that gaunt, skinny Doorman, who was Oswald.

There are people claiming that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shooting, and Oliver Stone even put it in his movie JFK, but they are all wrong.  

You should read the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker because he was legit. And he said that Oswald was JUST ARRIVING at the 2nd floor lunch room when he first saw him. Oswald was passing through the vestibule of the lunch room when Baker first saw him through the glass. 

So, if Oswald was just getting to the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31 and 20 seconds,  how could he have been there at 12:30? Are you going to assume that he was there, and then left, and then came back? There are no grounds to assume that. The only rational assumption is that he was just getting there when Baker saw him.  

But, how did Oswald get there, and from where did he come? Did he use the same staircase that Baker was on in the northwest corner of the building? No, that is impossible because if Oswald had come down those stairs, he would have been heard by Baker and Truly. And remember that Truly was ahead of Baker, which means that Truly and Oswald would likely have encountered each other.  

Then, there was Victoria Adams who came down those stairs shortly after the shots, and she would have encountered Oswald too.

But, the most important thing to realize is that the vestibule to the lunch room had 3 doors: an access door from the office side, an access door from the stairwell side, and a door into the lunch room. So, Oswald had to have entered the vestibule through the office access door or the stairwell access door. But, Baker was looking through the glass of the stairwell access door, and the door wasn't moving. It was stationary. So, Oswald could not have used it because it never could have returned to being still and closed that fast. It would have still been in motion. So, since that door was stationary, it means that Oswald must have used the other door: the office access door.

So, if he came from the office side (and he did) it means that he must have come up the one flight of stairs that went from the 1st floor to the 2nd floor in the southeast corner of the building. And that was very close to the doorway. 

So, Oswald went from the doorway, where he was captured in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film, to the southeast stairs. He climbed them to the 2nd floor. Then he crossed the great expanse of the second floor to get to the northwest corner where the lunch room was. Here is a picture of the stairs that he used.

 Oswald was NOT in the 2nd floor lunch room eating when JFK was being shot. Oswald ate in the 1st floor lunch room, and it was early in the lunch break. Three interrogators wrote that down: Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout. And Oswald always ate in the 1st floor lunch room, which was also called the Domino room because there were dominos there for men to pass the time when they were on breaks. There was also a newspaper there that Oswald liked to browse through as he ate. And there was also a shelf  there to store your lunch, which Oswald used. There is no reason to think that Oswald ever ate in the 2nd floor lunch room, which was for the office workers, not the warehouse men, which Oswald was.  It was a huge mistake for Oliver Stone to put that in his movie. After eating in the 1st floor lunch room, Oswald went outside to watch the Presidential Parade, and that is exactly what FBI Agent James Hosty wrote down in his notes. 

   

 What about the difference in size between Oswald and Lovelady? The Dallas Police weighed and measured Oswald and found him to be 5'9" 131 pounds. That is thin. I am 5'6" 142 pounds, and people think I look thin. If you look at his earlier photos, you can see that Oswald lost a lot of weight.

Lovelady wasn't weighed and measured by the FBI until February 29, 1964, so over 3 months later, and they said he was 5'8" 170 pounds. But he, for sure, lost weight after the assassination because he was under so much stress. And you can see in his FBI photos that his pants look baggy on him.

But, going by those numbers, Lovelady was an inch shorter and 39 pounds heavier than Oswald. Shouldn't that show in the images? But, can't you see that Doorman and Oswald look to be the exact same size and weight? They look identical. How could this be an image of two men who had a weight difference of almost 40 pounds?

So, no weight or size difference, the exact same set of clothes, plus the clothes are worn the same way, with the shirt unbuttoned and sprawled open, the same gaunt face, the same facial features...how could it not be the same guy? And no Doorman's shirt is not plaid. Look at the upper right side of Doorman's shirt, which is on our left, including his collar. I superimposed an image of Lovelady's posing shirt to show you what plaid looks like. Doorman's shirt is not plaid. The weird contrast it has is due to haze, distortion, and light reflection.

No rational person can deny that Doorman was Oswald because he looks like him; he's dressed like him; and he is sized right to be him. It is insane to deny it.

 I have been saying for years that they altered the Altgens photo. They weren't going to just say that Oswald was Lovelady. They were arrogant, but they weren't that arrogant.

So, they replaced the top of Oswald's head with that of Young Lovelady from 1957. The alterers may not have known that the image of Young Lovelady was that old. But, that's what they used to change the top of Oswald's head.

So, as an experiment, I changed the top of Doorman's head to what it must have looked like before they did that. Now, we can compare that to an image of Oswald. And before you look at it, be aware that Lovelady was shorter than Oswald but 40 pounds heavier. That was probably about the weight difference between Laurel and Hardy. But, this is the same man, of the same weight, wearing the same clothes. And anyone who can't see it is suffering either from a cognitive defect, a moral defect, or both. It is the same guy.

This one line by Joseph Ball in Lovelady's testimony reveals exactly what Ball was up to.

"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?"

That tells us that there are two arrows on the photo. As soon as I realized that, I started combing it for the second arrow. And he told him beforehand that "I have a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369." So, he identified it as the photo that Frazier already marked.

So, CE 369 has to have two arrows, and I knew the second one is in the black. But, why did he tell him to draw it in the black when the marker was black? It was to obscure it, since Ball didn't know what Lovelady was going to do.

And then, he asked him the ridiculous question 'Where were you when the picture was taken?" It was just an attempt to change the subject; to move on. Joseph Ball was rattled, and he was trying to recover.

So, I could see the obvious arrow pointing to Oswald, which had to be Frazier's arrow. There was no other arrow like that. The only other mark on the photo is the mark on the arm of the headless man. So, that has to be the tail of Lovelady's arrow. Most of the arrow must have been drawn in the black of the enclosure of his arms.

Take a good look at this image because there is not another one like it in all the world. It is the freakiest image on Earth.

It is the only one with a headless man. It is the only one with the bizarre configuration of Doorman mangled with the freaky man next to him. Who was that man? He was nobody. He was put there to hide the unusual form of Oswald's Russian shirt.

The man in the Fedora hat on the left has his back to the camera. So, instead of looking at the President, he is turned and looking at Oswald. And how can that little boy be so elevated? And don't tell me his mother is holding him because she would have to be Superwoman to do that. And why are the Croft ladies there, when they were down the street below the obelisk? And who is that tiny little woman who is visoring her eyes with one hand? She looks like a Munchkin. And why is the Secret Service agent peering down at the doorway? The caption said that he was looking "at the source of the shots", but if the shots came from the 6th floor, shouldn't he have been looking up at the window, rather than down at that cave? The shots didn't come from the doorway, did they?

Take a good look at this image because it is the freakiest image on Earth. It is also the bloodiest image on Earth. We are looking at the blood of John F. Kennedy who was killed by the national security state, as Vincent Salandria put it. And we are looking at Oswald in the doorway. For 62 years, the U.S. government has been denying it, but that is definitely Oswald, telling us that he didn't shoot JFK.

The testimonies show that CE 369 has two arrows on it. Buell Frazier's came first. Joseph Ball, apparently, pointed to Doorman and asked Fraziier who the guy was. And that direct approach was sensible.

Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL - Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 369 for identification.)
Mr. BALL - That is written in. The arrow marks Billy Lovelady on Commission's Exhibit No. 369.

But, there was no direct approach with Lovelady. Ball did not point to Doorman and ask him who he was. Why didn't he? The answer is that someone must have warned Ball that Lovelady was balking. So, not wanting to take a chance, he instructed Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself without stating who Doorman was. Note that Lovelady testified in April 1964 and Frazier testified a month before in March 1964. So, Ball gave Lovelady the very same photo on which Frazier had drawn an arrow. 

Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level.

So, let's consider that Ball whipped out CE 369, the same photo that Frazier had drawn an arrow on a month before. Why didn't he give Lovelady a fresh photo with no arrow so as not to bias him? It's because he wanted to bias him. And it was after Ball saw where Lovelady drew his arrow that he got crafty. I admit that the IMPLICATION of "You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you" is that the two arrows pointed to the same figure. It's what most people would think. But, that was not the case. And since the marker was black, why would Ball tell Lovelady to draw his arrow in the dark? IT'S BECAUSE WHEN YOU DRAW BLACK ON BLACK, IT DOESN'T SHOW. It was a test, and Lovelady failed it. And I'm sure that afterwards, big men in dark suits and gruff voices paid Lovelady a visit. But fortunately, the "tail" of Lovelady's arrow overlaps the arm of the headless man. So, most of the arrow Lovelady drew was in the black enclosure made by his arms, but a little bit got on the arm, and that's what we can see. And that headless guy is Lovelady. He wasn't really headless, but they had to get rid of his face because they were going to claim that Doorman was him, and they couldn't have two Loveladys. So, Lovelady was standing next to Oswald. This is CE 369 with Frazier's arrow and Lovelady's arrow marked.  

 There was no Prayer Man. He is completely made up. He wasn't Oswald. He wasn't Lovelady. And he wasn't anybody. If you look at the footage, which didn't surface until 30 years later, it is not photographic. It is animation. It is a cartoon. It's also very curde. And everything about it is wrong. It was just 10 seconds after the last shot. So, who are those people? And why are they filing into the TSBD? And where are the peoiple who should be there? And look at how distorted and bizarre they are. Can't you see that it's a freak show?

This Prayer Man ruse was created as a distraction, as a heat sink to draw attention away from Doorman in the Altgens photo, who is Oswald. It was an attempt to create noise, and it's a reflection of the rank evil of the JFK community, which is teeming with Ops.

What we know is that the beginning of the Darnell film captured the doorway, but it was cut out because of what it showed. And I can only guess because it was removed. But then, decades later, after the Darnell film had been circulating without it all that time, the beginning of the film was found as a separate clip, just in time for Oliver Stone's JFK movie.

So, that was 1991, and at the time, nobody claimed that Prayer Man was Oswald. Nobody claimed anything about him. But then, somewhere around 2012, the Prayer Man as Oswald craze started, and it came out of England, which is a hotbed of JFK dis-information. Why? It's because they speak English, and yet, they're far away. There is a similar contingent in Australia, and for the same reason: they speak English but they're far away.

Oswald was the Altgens Doorman, and it is beyond doubt. We can recognize him, his clothing, and his habitual stance, (clasping his hands in front of his body). Don't let yourself be manipulated by JFK-Ops who are working for the other side.

Do you realize that these two men are supposed to be the same man, Billy Lovelady? How dissimilar do two men have to be for you recognize that they are different men?  The man on the right looks like a Neanderthal, or even a gorilla, which is why we call him Gorilla Man. Notice that he has very prominent brow, a short stubby nose, and a long sloping forehead and and a short, forward neck. The man on the left, who looks human, has a longer nose, a less sloping forehead, and a longer and more vertical neck. THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THE SAME MAN BECAUSE THEY DON'T LOOK REMOTELY ALIKE. Yet, they are both claimed to be Billy Lovelady. Why? Because there is no limit to the lies of the desperate killers who killed John F. Kennedy and the people today who protect them and lie for them. Lee Harvey Oswald really was the Man in the Doorway, and the 62 years of lies about it are coming to an end. I know what I'm talking about. Things are happening.  And anyone who tries to tell you that these two are the same man is as corrupt as corruption ever gets.