“Out with Bill Shelley in front”: Oswald’s alibi

by Ralph C. Cinque

On November 20, 1997, the Assassination Record Review Board (ARRB) announced that the person left in charge of the papers of the late Captain Will Fritz had donated his handwritten interrogation notes to them. It was 13 years after Fritz’ death in 1984.

Officially, Fritz denied taking any notes during the 12 hours of interrogations he did with Oswald. But, there was a clue that he did, for in Holmes’ report, he stated that when Fritz asked Oswald, for the second time, about the Hidell identity, Oswald said, sarcastically, to Fritz:

“I am not saying any more about that. You’ve been taking notes, so why don’t you read them and refresh your memory?”

I maintain that it is untenable that Fritz didn’t take the notes during the interrogations for the following reasons:  

  1. There was reportedly no stenographer or tape recorder in use, and the idea that Fritz would think that he could to keep every detail in his head is preposterous. The notes contain details such as street addresses, dates, times, names, places, a cab fare, etc. It would have taken an encyclopedic memory to retain it all.
  2. What’s worse is that Fritz did not say that he transferred his mental contents onto paper at the end of each day. He actually maintained that he wrote nothing down- at all- until days after Oswald was dead; then he got started. That is NOT tenable.
  3. The Fritz Notes look like they were written hurriedly in cryptic shorthand, and that defies the idea that he wrote them at his leisure days later.

  4. We know that Fritz lied to the Warren Commission. He told them that Oswald told him that he was "eating lunch with other employees" at the time of the assassination. It’s amazing that he didn’t name those employees, since he was citing them as Oswald’s alibi. And, it’s even more amazing that Warren Commission lawyer Joseph Ball didn’t ask him to name them. Did I mention that Joseph Ball was a lawyer who knew the importance and significance of a defendant’s alibi? We know from the Fritz Notes that Oswald said he ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room at a time that James Jarman and Harold Norman were milling around- which was well before the assassination since they wound up watching the motorcade from the 5th floor window, where they were photographed. Bonnie Ray Williams joined them.

  5. Oswald’s reference to Fritz taking notes, as reported by Postal Inspector Harry Holmes, has tremendous credibility.

So, we can safely dismiss Will Fritz’ claim of not taking interrogation notes during the interrogations. Chalk it up as one more lie.

But, (and this is probably the most important point) since the notes were taken during the interrogations- which is a very hurried situation for writing- and since Fritz was taking them only for himself, with no intention of sharing them or revealing them to anyone or even admitting their existence to anyone, there is no reason to think that he lied. First, one doesn’t lie to oneself, at least not in that manner; not on paper. And second, there was no time to lie. Oswald was talking; he was writing; and they quickly went on to something else. There was barely enough time to write down what Oswald said- never mind recraft it into something else. That’s what makes the Fritz Notes so valuable, the fact that they were spontaneous, extemporaneous, quick, and honest.

This article concerns only the first page which contains "out with Bill Shelley in front." That line was Oswald’s alibi for the shooting, and it is the single most important piece of evidence to be discovered in the JFK assassination since November 22, 1963.

The Fritz Notes from the first interrogation contains the following lines in this order:

Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off(icer) came in
To 1st floor had lunch
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Left work opinion nothing be done that day

Those lines are, obviously, not chronologically correct because Oswald certainly did not eat his lunch after the assassination. That is impossible. As Oswald later explained, he ate his lunch before the assassination in the domino room when Jarman and Norman were there. That was definitely before the motorcade arrived. But, in addition, there was no time for him to eat lunch afterwards. How could he possibly eat lunch after the assassination and do all that he needed to do before reaching home by 1:00? So, we know, with absolute certainty, that the notes are not chronological.

And that is more proof that the notes were made during the interrogation because an interrogation can easily jump around. It‘s a conversation between two or more people, and shifts in conversation can happen easily and suddenly. But, if it was just Fritz jotting down notes by himself from memory, it would be much more organized and direct and continuous, as presumably his thinking was.

To this day, there are people who try to claim that the notes are chronological- despite the rock-solid argument why they aren’t. But, desperate people will claim desperate things- out of desperation.

Moreover, the first line: Claims 2nd floor Coke when Officer came in; that isn’t quite right either. We know for sure that Oswald did NOT have a Coke when Officer Baker saw him. He wasn’t even in the lunch room when Baker first saw him. He was heading for the lunch room. He hadn’t gotten to it yet. So, how could he have a Coke?

Both, Officer Marrion Baker and Superintendent Roy Truly said that Oswald didn’t have a Coke or anything else in his hands. And remember: they didn’t know each other, so it’s foolish to think that they conspired to lie about it. In fact, it was physically impossible for Oswald to have had a Coke in his hand because he hadn’t set foot in the lunch room yet when Baker first saw him. Oswald hadn’t made it there yet. So, how could he possibly have bought a Coke? Oswald went through the vestibule door from the office hallway to get to the lunch room, and Baker followed him by going through the opposite door from the stairwell. And then they had their encounter in the lunch room. After that, Baker and Truly went on their merry way, and that is when Oswald must have gotten his Coke.

The next line: To 1st floor had lunch; that is what Oswald did after he got off work for lunch at 11:45, and it was definitely before the assassination. As explained, there is NO CHANCE that he did that after the assassination.

Then comes "out with Bill Shelley in front" which was a reference to the doorway, which was Oswald’s alibi for where he was during the shooting. And, we have two images of him in the doorway during the shooting, one from the Altgens photo, and the other from the Wiegman film.

It’s crucial to realize that "out with Bill Shelley in front" must have referred to Oswald’s alibi. Oswald was being accused of killing the President of the United States, which he denied doing. As soon as he denied it, the very next question must have been: "Then, where were you at the time of the shots?" Fritz would have asked that, and if he hadn’t (though he must have, if the interrogation took place in this universe) Oswald would have volunteered it. An innocent suspect always does.

"What?? You think I killed him? I couldn’t have killed him if I wanted to. I was at xxx doing yyy at the time. Just ask zzz."

An innocent defendant will always volunteer his alibi even if he isn’t asked. So, for that reason alone, "out with Bill Shelley in front" must refer to Oswald’s alibi for the shooting."

But, in addition to that, the fact is that it must have referred to that because Shelley wasn’t out in front after the assassination. He left immediately with Billy Lovelady. They went to the railroad tracks to look around; they were part of the throng of people who did that. Shelley testified to it. Lovelady testified to it. And even Frazier said they left right away, although he did not join them. And, from a distance, they saw Baker climbing the steps. Lovelady put it that he walked 20 to 25 steps and then turned around and saw Baker and Truly climbing the steps. And when they were finished looking around the railway area, they returned to the building by going around to the back. They reentered through the back door. Therefore, there is NO CHANCE that Shelley was still out in front when Oswald left the building to depart for home at 12:34.

Shelley, himself, said that the last time he saw Oswald before the assassination was downstairs at 11:50, and the first time he saw him after the assassination was at the Dallas PD when Oswald was led in. Shelley denied seeing Oswald out in front after the assassination.

It’s also fair to point out that Shelley also denied seeing Oswald during the assassination, which undoubtedly was a lie. However, it doesn’t change the fact that Oswald cited Shelley because he expected Shelley to confirm that he, Oswald, was there in the doorway at the time. By citing Shelley, Oswald was saying, in effect, "Just ask Shelley; he’ll vouch for me."

Of course, Shelley did not vouch for him, but there is ample evidence that Bill Shelley was part of the conspiracy- the part that involved framing Oswald.

I am not going to go into the whole case against Bill Shelley at this time, but journalist Elsie Glaze did a protracted series of interviews with Shelley in the 1970s in which Shelley admitted to Glaze that he was briefly arrested after the assassination. His situation looks pretty ominous here:

But, the point of this discussion is that, by his own testimony, Shelley was not milling around out in front after the assassination; he left immediately, never to return. So, he could not possibly have been out front when Oswald left for home. Therefore, "out with Bill Shelley in front" must refer to Oswald’s whereabouts DURING the assassination, rather than after.

It is extremely exonerating that Oswald named Shelley because Shelley was one of the few people who were in the doorway. Oswald wouldn’t have guessed at that. Even if he assumed that Shelley had to be outside watching the motorcade, Shelley could have been anywhere outside as far as Oswald knew, if Oswald knew nothing. That is, Shelley could have been anywhere in Dealey Plaza. The accuracy of Oswald naming someone who was actually in that small space of the doorway proves that Oswald had to be there himself. How else could he know?

FBI agents James Hosty and James Bookhout were both present when Oswald said "out with Bill Shelley in front". Hosty didn’t say a word about it: ever. Bookhout mentioned it in the context of it happening after the assassination, which, as I explained, is impossible.

These are Hosty’s handwritten notes, which do not mention the Shelley alibi, although you’ll notice that he did write down that Oswald denied going to Mexico City.

Hosty mentioned nothing about Shelley in his Warren Commission testimony either.

Bookhout also confirmed that Oswald denied going to Mexico City:

Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; I recall Hosty asking him if He had ever been in Mexico.
Mr. STERN - What did he say?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He said he had not. I believe he mentioned he had been in Tijuana, Mexico, I believe, but I believe the question was whether he had ever been in Mexico City.

And, Bookhout didn’t say anything about the Shelley remark in his Warren Commission testimony either.

However, it was in Bookhout’s revised account of the first interrogation, which he did not write until after Oswald’s death, that he wrote the following:
"OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home."

That is preposterous! Oswald did not eat his lunch in the employee’s lunch room after the assassination, and he never said he did. Furthermore, if he had, and then he went outside and stood around for 5 or 10 more minutes chewing the fat with Bill Shelley, how could he possibly board a bus at 11:44 that was 7 blocks away? It was impossible timewise, even if Shelley had been outside at that time, but Shelley most certainly was not. Shelley walked to the railroad tracks with Lovelady, then he went around to the back door, then he came back inside, then he was guarding the freight elevators by order of Roy Truly. Shelley was nowhere near the front of the building when Oswald left for home.

It is not the least bit surprising that the dis-info Ops try to spin "out with Bill Shelley in front" away from what it is: Oswald’s alibi for the shooting. But, that is what it is, and it can’t be anything else, especially since Shelley wasn’t out there after the shooting. SHELLEY LEFT RIGHT AWAY. He was gone! And that is an undisputed fact. Shelley was not out front when Oswald left for home at 12:34. So, Oswald must have been referring to during the motorcade that he was with Shelley out front.

This would be powerful evidence if it existed all by itself because, again: Oswald cited someone who was in the doorway which he could only have known from being there himself.

But, the fact is, that it does NOT exist by itself. It exists in conjunction with the double photographic evidence of Oswald being captured in the doorway in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film.

But, there is even more than that. There is also the evidence of Officer Marrion Baker, who said that he saw Oswald entering the vestibule of the lunch room from the office side. It means that Oswald did not use the stairs that Baker and Truly used, which were the rear stairs. It means Oswald used the front stairs, which only went up one flight, from 1st floor to 2nd. Here is a picture of them:

And those stairs were right next to the doorway.

That he chose to use those front stairs proves that Oswald was in the vicinity of the front of the building when he accessed them. Well, there was only one place there for him to have been: the doorway.

And I’ll point out that that the fact that he used those stairs proves that there was NO WAY he could have come down from the 6th floor. If he had wings like a birdie he couldn’t have done it.

So, when you put it all together: the images of Oswald in the doorway, the statement of Oswald that he was in the doorway, and the statement of Baker proving that Oswald used the front stairs which were next to the doorway, it means powerfully, irrefutably, and absolutely that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway when President Kennedy got shot.

"Out with Bill Shelley in front." It’s Oswald’s alibi. It is the most famous and powerful thing he ever said. And it, along with the images of him standing there, cements Oswald in the doorway for all time- like Samson.

Chapter 11: The Man In The Doorway

by David Wrone, synopsis by Ralph Cinque

28 July 2012

With Dr. Wrone's permission, I am providing this synopsis of Chapter 11 of his outstanding book, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination. The chapter is entitled "The Man In The Doorway" which was the original name of the Altgens figure whom we refer to on this site as Doorman. The later designation arose simply out of the need for brevity. Dr. Wrone solved that problem a different way by referring to Doorman as MITD.

Dr. Wrone begins Chapter 11 by laying out the Doorman controversy as it arose after the assassination, which you are familiar with by now. But, here is an interesting tidbit provided by Dr. Wrone that I was unaware: it was found that the Altgens photo was taken simultaneously with frame 255 of the Zapruder film, which you can see at this link:


It was very interesting to read Dr. Wrone's treatment of the timeline for Oswald's encounter with Truly and Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom after the assassination. I must admit that the good professor has an impressive way with words. Consider:

"The bogus reconstruction using a stand-in and timed by a stopwatch was unblushingly corrupt."

Unblushingly corrupt. Now that's an apt description. Oswald had to beat Baker to the lunchroom and get there after presumably hiding his rifle a long distance from the Sniper's Nest. Two attempts were made by an Oswald stand-in, and I have a hunch he was carefully chosen for speed. The first attempt took 1 minute, 14 seconds, while the second took 1 minute, 18 seconds. Dr. Wrone said that either was too long to enable Oswald to beat Baker to the lunchroom. However, what made it worse was that they skipped the part about Oswald hiding the rifle. Instead, they just had the stand-in conveniently hand it off to a police officer before rocketing down the stairs. But in fact, the rifle was well hidden within a stack of boxes that was high and deep. It would have taken some time to stash it away back there. Oswald would have had to climb over the wall of boxes- twice. In addition, Dr. Wrone says that there is evidence that the shooter spent time lingering at the window, wiping down the rifle to clean it of fingerprints, squeezing out of the tight Sniper's nest, and more. All of these considerations were ignored by the Warren Commission.

Furthermore, if Oswald had done all that, don't you think he would have been a little bit breathless? He wasn't.

Dr. Wrone: "To have the stand-in just pass off the rifle to simulate the hiding of it is a studied insult to the evidence but also the only method that would allow the re-enactors to get Oswald's stand-in to the second floor before Baker--which they still could not do."

Dr. Wrone wisely points out that if Oswald had done all that, then he surely would have left fingerprints all over the boxes. But, they never checked for that. Why? You know- the fear of not finding any.

The Warren Commission completely dismissed the testimony of Jack Dougherty who was working on the 5th floor near the stairs. Jack heard no one coming down those stairs. They also ignored the testimony of two 4th floor secretaries: Sylvia Styles and Vickie Adams, who were also close to the stairs. In fact, they both ran down the stairs themselves after the last shot. Guess who they never encountered there?

Looking at it from the other direction, Dr. Wrone determined that, based on the work of Harold Roffman, Baker could not have taken longer than 1 minute and 10 seconds after the last shot to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom. It may have been less, but it could not have been more. And that means that there is simply no way that Oswald- as the 6th floor gunman- could have beat him to it. Even the "artificial reconstruction" (as Dr. Wrone described the WC testing) was inadequate to get him there in time.

Now, here is something that is cute. We all know that Oswald passed the paraffin test- he had no nitrates on his cheek. The WC dismissed the results saying that "a positive reaction is valueless and unreliable". But, Dr. Wrone points out that this was not a positive reaction; it was a negative one. And as the good professor put it: "The absence of traces is exculpatory. Oswald's cheek had none. He had not fired a rifle."

And note that the testing revealed that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle tended to "deposit heavy residues" on the cheeks.

Dr. Wrone named 6 witnesses who saw Oswald on the first floor close to the time of the shooting: Junior Jarman, Harold Norman, Carolyn Arnold, Robert MacNeil, Pierce Allman, and Terry Ford. The last sighting was that of Carolyn Arnold at 12:25. But, her testimony was corrupted by the FBI (they tried to change it to 12:15), and in the end, the Warren Report did not mention Carolyn Arnold- at all. The Commision's 26 volumes never mention her testimony, even though she did testify. 

Next, Dr. Wrone dives into the Altgens photo. He starts by charging the WC with three derelictions of duty:

1) they should have obtained large close-up photos of Oswald and Lovelady to compare to Doorman- but they didn't.
2) they should have asked everybody at the TSBD about Doorman's identity, but they didn't. They only asked three people: Bill Shelley, Billy Lovelady, and Buell Frazier, all of whose testimony was "delayed, confused, and tainted" according to Dr. Wrone.
3) they should have utilized Oswald's shirt to prove identification.

Dr. Wrone addresses the controversy about Lovelady's various shirt claims. He provides a quote from Lovelady in which Billy said that he wore a "red and white striped sport shirt buttoned near the neck." Buttoned? Did he say buttoned? Excuse me, but Doorman was majorly unbuttoned. Of course, we know about that striped shirt, and we have posted pictures of that striped shirt. And in addition to everything else, it was short-sleeved.

Next, Dr. Wrone addresses the so-called "Martin post-assassination footage" of Lovelady milling around outside the TSBD after the assassination. Dr. Wrone reveals that the Martin film left Martin's hands almost immediately. He sold it to Life magazine. And then on December 17, the FBI "borrowed" it from Life magazine. Eventually, a local Dallas group was allowed to include part of the Martin film in a documentary that was a hodge-podge of 18 films. That part was the 6 second clip of Lovelady milling around outside the TSBD after the assassination, and as you know, we believe that he was an imposter. However, this information from Dr. Wrone about the handling of the Martin film tells us that there was indeed time and opportunity to corrupt that film. Note also that Billy Lovelady's own testimony of his actions after the assassination rule out any possibility that he was milling around out in front of the TSBD after the shooting, as he left for the railroad tracks immediately with Bill Shelley, and upon returning, they re-entered the building through the back door. Both Lovelady and Shelley said that. And, as we demonstrated on the Lovelady page, anatomically, Gorilla Man could not have been Lovelady.

But, I especially appreciate this line by Dr. Wrone: "Notably, neither the striped shirt nor the check shirt resembled the shirt on the Man in the Doorway." So, it turns out they had a phony guy wearing a phony shirt making a phony movie. The most you can say is that the shirt they used was closer to Doorman's than the short-sleeved striped shirt that Lovelady actually wore. But, it wasn't close enough- not by a longshot. It was not the same shirt.

Dr. Wrone weighs in that even the notorious shirt pattern was a better match to Oswald's than to Lovelady's- even granting the check one as the one he wore. Dr. Wrone said that Oswald's shirt had a "grass leaf pattern, essentially brown, with gold flecks through it." Lovelady's check shirt had "two-inch dark blue (almost black) and red squares or checks, separated by thin white lines." We have pointed out that if you focus on the upper right side of Doorman's shirt, you can see that it was a perfect match to Oswald's.

Then, Dr. Wrone pointed out that in comparing Doorman's shirt to Lovelady's, "the collars of the two shirts "furl" differently. Furl. I never thought of using that word, but it's a good one. What Dr. Wrone calls a furl, I called a pseudo-lapel. "Finally, Oswald's shirt is loose and baggy (like that of the Man in the Doorway), whereas Lovelady's has a more tailored fit." That's well put too.

Here is the last paragraph of Chapter 11:

"Such persuasive evidence supports Oswald's location in the doorway of the TSBD viewing the motorcade at the moment the President was shot. Conceivably, Oswald, himself, tried to explain this and urged his captors to confirm his story by locating witnesses who would verify his location in the doorway and lunchroom, before and after. Just as likely, amid the chaos of his capture and incarceration, and in the face of official pressure to pin the assassin's badge on him, such protests of provable innocence were brushed aside as the rush to judgment gained momentum."

That applies to the Fritz notes in which Detective Will Fritz wrote down that Oswald told him that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." And we know beyond all doubt that he was referring to DURING the assassination and not AFTER. Oswald could not have meant being "out with Bill Shelley in front" AFTER because Shelley wasn't out there after. There is no way that Oswald, as he was leaving, encountered Shelley outside because Shelley wasn't outside at that time. And there was no reason for Oswald to lie about that. He wasn't committing a crime in leaving, and he did not need an alibi for it.

And why would Fritz be more concerned about where Oswald was AFTER the assassination than DURING? If he was going to write something down, wouldn't it be DURING?

I want to thank Dr. Wrone for his advice and support, and I highly recommend his book: The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination

The Doorman Cometh

by Ralph C. Cinque

10 July 2012

As the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy draws near, there is clearly going to be a war.  I don’t mean a shooting war, but rather, a war of ideas about who killed our 35th President. Surely, the Establishment is going to pull all the stops to sell the lone gunman theory- yet again.  And likewise, the community of conspiracy advocates is likely to take to the streets- figuratively speaking at least, and perhaps even literally. 

Will there be demonstrations in Dallas?  There must be some concern about that because already authorities have announced that no public gathering will be allowed in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 2013.

Now why would they order such a thing in this free country of ours? Surely, they are not worried about a mob of lone gunman devotees- their Warren Report bibles in hand- getting rambunctious. No, I’m sure it’s the people who reject the Warren Report – and consider it to be the equivalent of Nazi propaganda- who are the focus of concern.

So, are they concerned about violence from JFK truthers? A flash mob at the Sixth Floor Museum, perhaps?  Of course not. It’s ridiculous. Based on what? No, what they are worried about is that it would be too big a news story, a swarm of Americans gathered together in the cause of JFK truth. 

According to polls, about three-fourths of Americans believe that there was a conspiracy and a cover-up in the murder of President Kennedy. And in foreign countries, disbelief in the official story of the assassination tends to run much higher. Foreigners tend to laugh out loud at the very mention of the Warren Report.

So, there is plenty of skepticism, the world over, about the official account of the assassination. And it is in spite of major and repeated efforts by the media to crush the JFK truth movement. These have included the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner (1993) and the massive tome Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi (2007).    

Both of those authors were treated like darlings by the media: raved about, invited on all the talk shows, and given awards or nominated for awards.  But when peace activist James Douglass came out with his brilliant treatise, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died, and Why It Matters in 2008, do you think he was invited on Good Morning America and the Today Show? I’m afraid not.  Unspeakable didn’t even garner a review by the New York Times- not even a critical one.  The mainstream media knew very well what to do about this important book: ignore it.  

However, I expect it is going to be harder for them to suppress the truth about the JFK assassination as the 50th anniversary approaches.  And I think it is simply because people are fed up with the propaganda and the lies.  And as it comes to a boil, I expect the issue of the Doorman in the Altgens photo to be at the center of the cauldron.

The Man in the Doorway, the Doorway Man, or simply the Doorman, as we refer to him on this site for the sake of brevity, is going to dominate the discussion. The Doorman is now Ground Zero in the whole JFK debate.

And, it is unfortunate that Doorman ever relinquished that position. Giving up Doorman to the other side was the biggest mistake ever made by the JFK research community. But, we are taking him back and just in time for the 50th. 

The Doorman was Oswald, and there is no doubt about it. He is wearing Oswald’s clothes- to a tee. He has got Oswald’s build and even Oswald's mannerisms. And the whole case for Lovelady never made a lick of sense, relying, as it does, on phony pictures, phony movies, and, in a word: lies. 

So, why did the JFK research community forsake Doorman and throw him to the wolves? I think it was because of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).  What they did is claim to investigate the question of Oswald vs. Lovelady scientifically.  They brought in a team of anthropologists to make anthropometric measurements of the facial features.  Here is what they said:

“The committee asked its photographic evidence panel to determine whether the man in the doorway was Oswald, Lovelady or someone else. Forensic anthropologists working with the panel compared the photograph with pictures of Oswald and Lovelady, and a photoanalyst studied the pattern of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway and compared it to the shirts worn by the two men that day. (119) Based on an assessment of the facial features, the anthropologists determined that the man in the doorway bore a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. In addition, the photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady. Based on these analyses, the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady.”

This is outrageous! Notice that they said the “pattern” of the shirt, and not the form, the fit, the lay, the hang, or the unbuttoning, all of which favored Oswald. And there wasn’t one word about the v-shaped t-shirt, which was also a dead ringer for Oswald. The declarative statement that "the photographic analysis of the shirt established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady" was a cold, calculated, brutal lie, as we have visibly proven on the pages of this site.

Note that the shirt pattern would have been the easiest thing to fake, as it was just a matter of alternating darkness and light.  And, it is a bold-faced lie to say that Doorman’s shirt pattern matched Lovelady’s. Both are “varied” but that’s all you can say that they have in common. And, as pointed out on the Oswald page of this site, there was no “pattern” at all on the upper right side of Doorman’s shirt. In contrast, Lovelady’s shirt had rich pattern all the way up to and including the collars. 

This was fraud! This was just another decision to settle on Lovelady and then adjust the evidence accordingly, as the Warren Commission had done 15 years before.

Then, they followed it up with their “anthropometric” measurements of such things as: facial length, lower jaw breadth, chin length, forehead breadth, nasal breadth, etc. And from that high-brow analysis, they concluded that “the man in the doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald.”

But what about the possibility that facial features were transferred from Lovelady to Oswald?  Was it too much to expect them to consider that? How is it that "photographic alteration" never entered the collective consciousness of the HSCA? I guess, to them, it was unspeakable.

The bottom line is that the HSCA was just as much a whitewash as the Warren Commission.

The obvious truth is that the very distinctive features of Doorman’s clothing are a perfect match to Oswald, and not a match to Lovelady.  And that settles it. It settles it because the only one who could have been wearing Oswald’s clothing was Oswald.  And once you realize that, you realize that the one and only thing about the clothing that was ever matched to Lovelady- the shirt pattern- must have been faked.

You can’t get Oswald’s clothing on Lovelady’s back.  Unless you are going to argue that Billy attacked Lee in the Men’s room and stole his clothes, you are split out of luck. Oswald’s distinctive outer shirt and t-shirt, which are seen on Doorman’s back, are checkmate.  There is no evading that. The man in a Ronald McDonald suit would be Ronald McDonald, and the man in the Lee Harvey Oswald outfit was Lee Harvey Oswald. 

It wasn’t even close. Those investigations were each a travesty, a farce, and a disgrace. How could well-meaning people participate in such shams?

The answer is: the power of officialdom. In the case of the Warren Commission, there was a blatant order to find Oswald guilty. And with the HSCA, it was a little more subtle, but essentially the same thing. And at the end, they threw the CT community a bone. They said that, yes, Oswald was guilty, that he shot and killed President Kennedy and Officer Tippit, but another missed shot was taken by someone else from the Grassy Knoll. 

* Did they ever look for that person? No.

* Did President Jimmy Carter order his Attorney General to start a federal criminal investigation? No.

* Did the governor of Texas do it? Nunca.

* What about the Dallas D.A.? Nope.

* Did anybody do anything? Nobody did a thing.

What was the outcome? Absolutely nothing, zilch, zippo. It was all for show.

Well. I dare say, I think it’s going to be different this time around with the 50th approaching. The old lies are not going to work any more.  And we are heading for a showdown over the Doorman.  The lies and the cover-up all started over him. It started with him, and it’s going to end with him.

Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository when President Kennedy got shot. The evidence for it is overwhelming. There is plenty of other evidence proving him innocent, but we don’t need another thing.  This says it all, and we shall not let them distract, dissemble, or change the subject. 

We know he was in the lunchroom before and after the shooting.  We know he passed his nitrate test.  We know they faked the Backyard photographs.  What could be a simpler proof of his innocence than that he was standing in the doorway when the shots rang out? They did their best to obfuscate his presence there, but their best wasn't good enough- we can still see him.  And no man can be in two places at the same time.
  Not only was Oswald not the "lone assassin," he was not an assassin at all- he never fired a shot. 

Lee Oswald was courted, framed, and summarily executed, and his utterly wanton extermination is as staggering to behold as the slaughter of John Kennedy. We are mad as hell- about both. And then they have been lying to us about it for almost 50 years. Do we want to fight about it? Intellectually speaking, yes, we do.  

The New Breed Of Conspiracy Theorist

by Richard Hooke

12 July 2012

As the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy approaches, I am honored to join with Professor James Fetzer, Professor David Wrone, Ralph Cinque, Larry Rivera, and other JFK researchers and activists who proclaim loudly that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "Man in the Doorway" in the Altgens photo.

S.V. Anderson and the other Warren Report shills who comb the internet forums cannot understand why the new breed of CTs are so persistent about this issue. The answer is that the debate is swinging back to the truth, and there is nothing like seeing Oswald standing in the doorway to give people the jolt of reality that they need. It's Oswald in the doorway! And that simple fact crushes all the lies: 49 years worth of persistent, repeated lying.

Americans- who take the time to examine it- can see that there is no question that it was Lee standing in the doorway. It's his over-shirt, his under-shirt, his right ear, his left eye and brow, his mouth, his chin, his posture, his facial bone structure, his points of light and shadow- all of that can be clearly identified. There are multiple points of identification on Oswald's shirt lapels alone.

The Altgens6 photo also bears evidence of blatant obfuscation and tampering, supplying us indirect evidence of Oswald's presence in the TSBD doorway. It is not a question of whether Oswald was there, or not; LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS THERE, IN THE DOORWAY, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, AND THUS DID NOT SHOOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

The official line, for nearly 50 years, has been that Billy Lovelady was the Man in the Doorway. The problem is that Billy Lovelady told the FBI that he wore a red and white, vertically striped, short-sleeved shirt, buttoned near his neck, while Lee Oswald wore a long-sleeve, plain brown shirt, unbuttoned more than halfway down his torso- just like Doorman. Careful scrutiny of Altgens6 reveals that it was photographically altered, where features of Billy Lovelady's face were edited onto Lee Oswald's face. These included Lovelady's receding hairline with the widow's peak, his oval forehead (in contrast to Lee's rectangular one), his bulbous nasal tip; these and more were imposed upon Oswald.

Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. He was standing in the doorway, so he could not have shot Kennedy, and he did not shoot anyone. We fight for Lee because it's a matter of basic rights for the individual, and it comes down to the rights of all of us. We are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and Lee was never proven guilty. Lee said, adamantly, and multiple times, that he did not kill the President or anyone. It has never been proven that he did. His name should be cleared, his relatives and loved ones apologized to, our history books corrected, and the real killers pursued, prosecuted, and, if possible, punished. Lee Oswald was just a patsy, and he said so himself. He was set up, framed, and ultimately gunned down, less than 48 hours after he was arrested. The magnitude of his mis-treatment and abuse cannot be overstated. The inhumanity of it is staggering.

American history has become polluted with an awful stench. The slaughter of President Kennedy was a sickening sight to behold, but the lies and cover-up that followed have been just as sickening- perhaps even more so because it has involved so many more people. The number who were directly involved in killing Kennedy was probably quite small. Surely, dozens were directly involved, but not hundreds. But, over the years, many thousands of people have been directly involved in the ongoing coverup. Are they less guilty? I suppose, but in my view, not by much.

Some say that we will never really know what happened in the assassination of JFK, but that is nothing but a weak-willed cop-out. We already know what happened: a group of rich, powerful movers and shakers, from government, the military, and the corporate world contracted professional assassins to shoot to death John Kennedy. It was a military-style, triangulated ambush- although it took more shots than they expected to kill him. Then they dumped the blame on Lee Harvey Oswald, the patsy, and as fast as possible, they got him killed as well. That's it! That's what happened! And there is no doubt about it. But, what is recorded in our history books is garbage- make that offal- written by the criminals. We need to uproot it now! Without a truthful history, without a public recognition of what really happened, we are nothing but slaves. And we shall be doomed to face more atrocities of a similar nature in the future. If we do not recognize what happened to John Kennedy on that God-awful day in November 1963, we are putting ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren at risk to be slaughtered just like he was. 

So, we need to correct our history, to rewrite the textbooks that our children are required to read; and we need to do this as soon as possible. We Americans need to, collectively and individually, face our own demons. Lyndon Johnson, J.Edgar Hoover, and other power-wielders had John Kennedy killed. That's the reality. That's the real history. We have evaded it for 49 years, and that's long enough.

The "Greatest Generation" defeated the Nazis who tried to take over Europe. We, the generation that followed, need to defeat the American Nazis who took over the United States on November 22, 1963. What they did to John Kennedy and Lee Oswald was truly "unspeakable" in the sense that no words can adequately describe the magnitude of the evil that was involved. However we need to steel ourselves, force ourselves, to confront what happened on that terrible day. We must find the courage to acknowledge what happened, no matter how painful it is. We must analyze the what, the why, and the how of it, to understand it completely, so as to make sure that such a grotesque abomination never happens again. The world will be a better place after we go through the carthartic process. It may even lead to a renewal, a rebirth of the American spirit. We need JFK Truth, and we need it now.

Billy Lovelady: A Troubled Past

By Larry Rivera

28 September 2012

The recent release of FBI documents pertaining to Billy Nolan Lovelady (BNL) make this individual a person of extreme interest in ways that had never been considered before.(1) The controversy surrounding his presence in the Altgens6 photograph must now be viewed in an entirely different light. The Dean of early researchers, Harold Weisberg, wrote entire chapters devoted to this issue, where he protested the manner in which the Lovelady affair had been conducted from day one by the FBI and later the Warren Commission.(2) If only Weisberg had known then what we know now!

Lovelady was photographed in his red and white vertically-stripped shirt on February 29, 1964 by the FBI in Dallas. And, according to the FBI, Lovelady told them that on 11/22/63 during the assassination..."he was wearing a red and white vertical-striped shirt and blue jeans." At the photo-shoot,the FBI tried to make that very shirt look like that of Doorman by having him leave the top 3 buttons unbuttoned. Unfortunately for them, the shirt did not hang open and spread apart the way Doorman's did.  But, why would they have him do it unless they thought it was the same shirt?

A little more than a month later on 4/7/64, his sworn deposition was taken by Attorney Joseph Ball in Dallas, a vague exchange that never specified which side of the doorway he placed himself and where Ball changed the subject at will and did not seem interested in pursuing any new information. For example, though it was for the record and under oath, Lovelady was never asked which shirt he wore that day. Shouldn't that have been asked? Later, in May of that year, the New York Herald Tribune also weighed in on this issue reporting BNL was wearing a red-and-white striped sport shirt buttoned near the neck." Two years later, because of Weisberg's Photographic Whitwash II (1966), questions kept arising regarding BNL's shirt versus the one worn by Doorman. Josiah Thompson's Six seconds in Dallas tried to reconcile this as well. The first mention of BNL wearing a plaid, checkered, red and black shirt in official circles did not occur until the 1970s when the HSCA re-opened the investigation.

The mystery of Billy Lovelady's (BNL) change of direction regarding the shirt he wore on November 22, 1963 is compounded by the fact that he had been in serious trouble when he was an Airman 2nd class at Andrews Air Force Base in 1960-61, because of the illegal sale of stolen guns.(3) This case was investigated by the OSI, Office of Special Investigations,(4) and culminated in penalties ranging from a suspended sentence and 2 year probation for Charles Williams to $200.00 fines each for BNL and Paul Crouse.(5) It appears that BNL had actually been on the lam for more than a year after skipping town on his $200.00 fine - he had only paid $125.00 of the $200.00. He was finally tracked down in Dallas as a fugitive in early January of 1963 where he was immediately arrested and incarcerated by the FBI. The balance of $75.00 of his fine was paid by O.V. Campbell (VP of the TSBD) who advanced him the money.(6) On 1/29/63, the FBI closed the case.(7) As the father of young children, how pliable would BNL have been with this Sword of Damocles hanging over his head? When Harold Weisberg appeared before a Grand Jury during the Garrison Investigation before the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans in 1967, he was asked point-blank if he thought BNL had been lying about his identification as doorwayman in Altgens, and he answered with an emphatic "YES!"(8) Billy Nolan Lovelady, who refused to be photographed by anyone after the assassination,(9) who was caught in a vortex of unknown proportions, was hounded throughout his life and moved to Colorado to avoid investigators and others who wanted to talk to him.(10) He died of an "apparent" heart attack on January 14, 1979, and was never interviewed by the HSCA. There was no autopsy performed.(11) His wife refused to discuss his sudden, unexpected death from a heart attack at the age of 41, and she refused to address it to the media except to say, "I have been harassed for 15 years, and I am not going to be harassed any more."

There still remains much to be investigated about Billy Nolan Lovelady: What exactly were his activities and assignments at Andrews Air Force Base as a member of the Base Supply Squadron, and was he proficient in the handling of guns and rifles, and was he ever considered to be AWOL on 12/7/62?(12) How was he discharged from the service after his troubles with the law between 4/11/61 and 12/7/62? Why did he literally run from Maryland the way he did? How did he end up working in the TSBD as a running felon? How did he manage to convince O.V.Campbell (VP of the TSBD) to advance him $75.00 so he could pay off his fine in MD? If he could not pay the $75.00, how did he secure the $1,000 personal recognizance bond in Dallas? Why was he not fired for being arrested at his place of employment? Did Campbell ever find out about the details of his felony? Was there a prior relationship there? And, how was he able to start his trucking business in Denver after the assassination given the background and notoriety he then possessed? And where did this former warehouse worker get the money to do start a business and hire employees? Could Lee Harvey Oswald, Billy Nolan Lovelady, and perhaps even Thomas Arthur Valle (the designated patsy in Chicago who lucked out when the Chicago plot to kill Kennedy dissolved)(13) been steered and influenced because of the threats of dishonorable discharge? Was this some kind of a patsy club from which the conspirators could draw from at will? Billy was not an assassin, so how did he wind up on the list of three-named assassins, which includes John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Mark David Chapman, Thomas Arthur Valle, and Arthur Herman Bremer? Was Billy Nolan Lovelady an alternate patsy in case something went wrong with framing Oswald? These questions obviously need to be scrutinized by researchers.

In a strange twist of fate, Special Agent Francis X. O'Neill Jr., of Sibert and O'Neill fame(14) was one of the FBI agents who investigated this case and took at least one statement on 9/15/60.(15)

Notes and references:
1. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1828
2. Weisberg, Harold: Whitewash II pg 241 “The Lovelady Diversion”, and pg.295 “The Lovelady Caper”
3. aarc-fbi587-04_0016_0006 FBI Report dated 10/6/1960
4. ibid
5. aarc-fbi587-04_0002_0006 and aarc-fbi587-04_0002_0007 dated 1/11/63
6. aarc-fbi587-04_0002_0008
7. aarc-fbi587-04_0002_0003 and aarc-fbi587-04_0002_0004
8. Harold Weisberg: Grand Jury Proceedings New Orleans 4/28/67 pg 24 BY A JUROR: Q. You think
Lovelady was lying? A. Yes. I think there was no question about it. I think everybody who was handling
this knew he was lying. May I suggest this also to you, on February 29 they had this after Lovelady was
on the stand, there were those pictures in their file and there were no questions asked as to whether
Lovelady told the truth. From “The Weisberg Collection, Hood College, Frederick, MD,USA”
9. Weisberg, Whitewash II pgs 299 and 303
10. Dallas Times Herald 1/18/79 Article says he died “Sunday” which would establish the date of1/14/79.
11. Ibid
12. See BNL case timeline in appendix (i)
13. Douglass, James: JFK and the Unspeakable pg 202
14. Lifton, David: Best Evidence pg 101-108
15. aarc-fbi587-04_0016_0049 Statement of John Reid Barnes 9/15/60

i Lovelady Time line according to FBI Documents dated 9/1960-1/1963 at maryferrell.org
1. In 1960, BNL was a member of military personnel attached to the 1001th Base Supply
Squadron, Andrews Air Force Base (aarc-fbi587-04_0002_0006) BNL's rank was
Airman 2nd class. (aarc-fbi587-04_0016_0007)
2. On 9/3 or 9/4/60 AAFB reported 3 Smith & Wesson stolen revolvers. On 9/9/60 all
suspects were identified by witnesses in a lineup conducted by the OSI (aarc-fbi587-
3. 9/26/1960 Complaint was filed that on or about early September 1960, regarding the
stolen revolvers, along with his two friends Airmen Williams and Crouse. Williams
admitted theft of guns, Crouse admitted manipulating records pertaining to the guns,
and BNL admitted sale of the guns. These were very serious charges. (aarc-fbi587-
4. 1/10/61 BNL Charged with 2 counts of violations of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 641
which pertains to the theft of public money, property or records (see below).(aarcfbi587-
5. 2/10/61 BNL appeared in U.S. District Court Baltimore MD for arraignment (aarcfbi587-
6. 3/17/61 BNL Arraigned and entered plea of not guilty (ibid)
7. 4/11/61 Entered plea of guilty and fined $200.00 payable in installments of $25.00
indictments were dismissed. (aarc-fbi587-04_0008_0003)
8. 12/16/61 BNL Started working at the TSBD at 411 Elm Street. (CD1381)
9. 12/7/62 U.S. Attorney Robert J. Carson reported BNL only paid $125.00 of his fine. His
last payment had been made over a year ago, and his office started looking for him.
BNL was nowhere to be found and all letters were returned undeliverable. Judge
Tomsen issued a bench warrant for his arrest and $1,000.00 bail.(aarc-fbi587-
10. 12/26/62 BNL was considered a fugitive by the FBI (aarc-fbi587-04_0002_0005)
11. 1/7/63 BNL was arrested at the TSBD by FBI agents and incarcerated in the Dallas
County Jail. O.V. Campbell (VP) offered to pay remaining balance of MD fine if charges
were to be dropped, BNL was released on $1,000 personal recognizance bond and
ordered to appear 1/9/63. (aarc-fbi587-04_0002_0008)
12. 1/9/63 BNL appeared before U.S. Commissioner Hill and after several communications
between MD and Dallas, U.S. District Court of MD agreed to dismiss the warrant once
the $75.00 was received. He was released on own recognizance. (ibid)

F.A.Q. -- Response to the Critics

by Ralph Cinque

15 August 2012

Question #1:  What is the significance of the Oswald Innocence Campaign?

ANSWER:  If the original Altgens photo was altered to take out the image of Lee Harvey Oswald as the Man in the Doorway, then Oswald must be judged innocent of assassinating John F. Kennedy.  Instead of firing a rifle from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository building, Oswald was simply observing the motorcade pass through Dealey Plaza, as were most of the employees of the TSBD on that day. The Altgens photo thereby may buttress a wealth of other evidence exonerating Oswald.  As he said himself, “I’m just a patsy.”

Question #2:  Are There Other Examples of Photographic Tampering Related to Oswald?

ANSWER:  Yes.  The notorious “backyard photos” included the same technique of the manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald in photography in order to develop the false persona of Oswald as a gun-wielding assassin with a political motive.  In the backyard photos, Oswald’s head was pasted onto the body of another man holding a rifle and a pistol.  One of these photos was actually shown to Oswald by the Dallas police during his long interrogation, and he immediately identified the photo as fake, confidently asserting that he could later prove how the image was altered from his knowledge of photography.  The difference between the backyard photos and the Altgens photo is that Oswald’s face was added to someone else’s body in the former, while someone else’s face was added to Oswald’s body in the latter.  And most importantly, the backyard photographs were incriminating pieces of evidence, while the latter was exculpatory.  If Oswald had been viewing the motorcade from outside the building, his face should have been apparent in the Altgens photo.  For a study of the backyard photographs, see Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs, “Framing the Patsy:  The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald”.

Question #3:  In the early afternoon of November 22, how would those who performed the photo alteration have known in advance that Oswald was going to be the alleged assassin at a time when he had not even been taken into custody as a suspect?

ANSWER:  The cover story of the JFK assassination with Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman had been established long before President Kennedy arrived in Dallas.  There was a second and eerily similar scapegoat assassin in Chicago named Thomas Arthur Vallee, who had been groomed as a patsy in a failed attempt to kill the president in Chicago earlier in November.  The Chicago plot was foiled, and Vallee escaped the eventual fate of Oswald.  On the evening of November 22, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade made it clear that Oswald’s guilt was a foregone conclusion when he said on NBC television that
"I figure we have sufficient evidence to convict him" [Oswald] . . . there's no one else but him.”  Captain Will Fritz, who interrogated Oswald, similarly told reporters that "We're convinced beyond any doubt that he [Oswald] killed the President. . . . I think the case is cinched."  Two days after the assassination, The New York Times provided this caption to an Oswald story:  "Evidence Against Oswald Described as Conclusive."  Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty even read an article in The New Zealand Christchurch Star with a full biographical profile on Oswald, complete with a studio photograph, on Saturday, November 23.  However, in the United States, because of the time difference, Oswald had not yet even been charged with the crime!  There is simply overwhelming evidence to suggest that the “story” of Oswald as presidential assassin was being crafted months in advance of the president’s trip to Texas.

Question #4:  What degree of technical expertise would have been required to make alterations to the Altgens photograph?  Wouldn’t the process have been extremely time-consuming for some of the detailed special effects?

ANSWER:  The process would have involved enlarging the original photo, doctoring the figures in and near the doorway, and, above all, moving the top of Billy Lovelady's head to Oswald, including his hairline, to effectively "lovelady-ify" him -- trying hard to subtly reconfigure the Man in the Doorway.  If you are seeking technical terms, Tom Wilson, in A Deeper, Darker Truth, identified two methods of photographic alteration that existed in the early 1960s: the "halftone process" and the "insert matte method".  But the application was rushed, resulting in telltale errors, especially in the shirt worn by Doorman.  The falsifiers of the image would never have imagined the future use of computers and the internet to identify the anomalies in the photograph nearly 50 years later, which we have documented in articles published here and elsewhere.

Question #5:  Are there other examples of falsifying evidence over the weekend of the assassination, in order to frame Oswald?

ANSWER:  Definitely. 
Some of the most blatant examples of altered evidence were the x-rays taken during the autopsy of President Kennedy.  We now know for certain that the x-rays were altered in order to conceal gunshot wounds from the front and to suggest instead that the shots were fired from the rear of the president. (Google search: Dr. David Mantik JFK) We also know for a fact that the home movie taken by Abraham Zapruder was in the hands of the CIA over the assassination weekend:  photo enlargements of individual Zapruder frames were being made at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC)  in Washington, D.C., for both CIA Director John McCone and for the top secret “Hawkeyeworks” photographic center in Rochester, New York.  By the end of the assassination weekend, the Zapruder film was in the vaults of Time-Life and would not be shown to the public until 1975.  If the government could perform such feats as altering x-rays and keeping a home movie away from the American public for twelve years, then it could easily have been capable of manipulating a still photograph.

Question #6:  If Oswald had been standing outside during the passing of the motorcade, wouldn’t there be at least one witness who would have remembered him?

ANSWER: Don't be so sure there wasn't any such witness. And if there was such a witness, he or she must surely have been silenced.  Do you think there is any chance they would have included in the Warren Report that someone claimed to see Oswald on the steps? Witnesses were intimidated. They were threatened. Many of them were coerced into providing the exact testimony the FBI wanted to hear. Others were too afraid to come forward at all-- they feared for their lives.

While there may have been as many as a dozen or more witnesses in the recessed area of the Depository entrance portal, only three were questioned by the Warren Commission. Buell Wesley Frazier and William Shelley were the only two witnesses who were asked about the identity of the man in the doorway, and both claimed it was Lovelady.  Oswald had told Fritz that he had been “out with Bill Shelley in front”.  It is difficult to imagine him saying that if he had not expected Shelley to corroborate it.  If Oswald had not been there, how could he have known Shelley was there?  As it turned out, Frazier and Shelley provided testimony about their whereabouts after the shooting, which was later contradicted by Victoria Adams.  Lovelady himself was the third witness who initially claimed that he was the man in the doorway and told the FBI:  “Right away I pointed to me and they seemed relieved.  One had a big smile on his face because it wasn’t Oswald.  They said they had a big discussion down at the FBI and one guy said it just had to be Oswald.”  Billy Nolan Lovelady seemed all too willing to assume the identity of the man in the doorway, as he ingratiated himself with the G-Men.  However, he was apparently uneasy about his testimony for the remainder of his brief life.  He went to the FBI a few months after the assassination to show them the shirt he had been wearing that day, which was a short-sleeved, red-and-white vertically striped shirt, completely unlike the shirt on Doorman.  And, instead of basking in the limelight of his modest celebrity status, Lovelady adamantly refused to be photographed, except under duress from the FBI and by Congress during the investigation of the HSCA in the late 1970s.  At one point, Lovelady even complained to the Dallas police and the FBI when a persistent photographer began to follow him, attempting to snap his photo.  Eventually, Lovelady moved away from Dallas, dying in Colorado at the age of 41, not long before the publication of the HSCA’s Final Report (1979).

Question #7:  Do we have any evidence that the government was involved in the tampering of the Altgens photo?

ANSWER:  Yes.  By Monday, November 25, an enormous enlargement of the photo was in the hands of the FBI.  The photo was shown to Mr. and Mrs. Billy Lovelady that evening.  Mrs. Lovelady stated that the photograph was “as big as a desk.”  In this conversation, it was clear that the FBI was both knowledgeable and deeply concerned about the details of the two shirts worn to work by Oswald and Lovelady on November 22.  If the case against Oswald was airtight, why should there have been this much interest in the Altgens photo?  It is difficult to resist the inference that they were worried that their photographic cover-up could have been exposed by persons who were there, especially by Billy Lovelady himself.  James W. Douglass offers this capsule summary in the first edition of his extraordinary study of the assassination, JFK and the Unspeakable:  “The Warren Commission not only avoided examining the evidence of the clothing worn by the doorway man.  It also tried to obscure his image in its records and in the photograph it presented to the public.  Would an innocent government in search of the truth have taken such steps?” (p. 287).  In the final analysis, the strongest evidence indicating government tampering is apparent in a close study of the photograph itself and its seemingly endless anomalies.

Question #8:  In the notes from Will Fritz’s interrogation of Oswald, the phrase “out with Bill Shelley in front” follows a notation about Oswald having “lunch.”  If Oswald was describing the chronological sequence of his activities on November 22, the implication is that he first ate his lunch, then met Bill Shelley “out front” after completing his meal.  But did he meet Shelley before, during, or after the presidential limousine had passed the Depository building?  FBI Special Agent James W. Bookhout was present for the interrogation and recorded much more detailed notes than Will Fritz.  In The Warren Report (1964), Bookhout’s published summary follows the same basic outline noted by Fritz.  Oswald first mentioned lunch, then talked about going outside:  “Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room.  He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley” (p. 619).  If Oswald were the man in the doorway, should he not have told Fritz and Bookhout that, in addition to talking with Bill Shelley, he actually viewed the presidential motorcade? 
How would you respond to the reading of the phrase “out with Bill Shelley in front” as meaning that Oswald was not with Shelley during the shooting, but went outside at a later time after he finished his lunch and after the motorcade had passed?

ANSWER:   Oswald could not have been referring to seeing Bill Shelley outside after the assassination because Shelley wasn’t outside afterwards. Shelley left immediately with Billy Lovelady for the railroad tracks, and that was before Truly and Baker even entered the building.  Billy reported seeing them climb the stairs from a distance, from down the block.  And since Truly and Baker were ascending the stairs less than a minute after the final shot, it meant that Shelley and Lovelady departed for the railroad tracks less than a minute after the final shot.  And when they returned, they re-entered the Depository through the back door, not the front.  And then they were in there for a long time, well beyond the time that Oswald went out front to leave.

So, there is no chance that Oswald saw Bill Shelley out front following the assassination. He must have meant during.  And why would he say it unless he knew Shelley was out there?  And how could he know that Shelley was out there unless he saw him out there? And why would he cite Shelley unless he thought Shelley would confirm it?  We know that Shelley did not confirm it, but he may well have been lying.  We know that Shelley had a long history with the CIA going back to 1947.  
It is more likely that he was one of those who was keeping Oswald under surveillance for the agency than that he was an innocent employee.

Question #9:  When questioned by reporters in the Dallas police headquarters, Oswald was asked, “Were you in the building at the time?”  His response was, “Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.”  If Oswald were the man in the doorway, why didn’t he protest his innocence at this moment by saying publicly that he was outside the building among the bystanders, as opposed to implying that he was inside the building during the shooting?

ANSWER:  This is a fair question, but we must begin by pointing out that the determination of Doorman’s identity does not hinge on anyone’s testimony- not even Oswald’s. If we can see Lee in the photograph, and if we can confirm conclusively that it was him (and we can), then it really doesn’t matter what he or anyone said. Physical evidence trumps anybody’s lip-wagging.

However, we don’t mind addressing the question. First, what would Oswald have said if the reporter had phrased the question differently? What if he had asked, “Were you standing out in front with the others?” We don’t know what Oswald would have said, but neither does anyone else. The point is that the question was framed by the reporter, not by Oswald.

We also have to think that Oswald’s handlers must have tried to get him to remain inside. They had to know how dangerous it was to their plan if he were to go outside and be spotted or photographed. But, what could they do? It was a place of business with people all around. So, they couldn’t hit him over the head or tie him up. They must have told him something, but the fact is: he went outside anyway. But, perhaps he had some reservation about announcing his breach on television. We know that he later told Detective Fritz that he was outside. Remember that Oswald did not know about the Altgens photo or that he had been photographed at all.

Also, it is important to underscore that the questions were being hurled at him a mile a minute, and he didn’t have much time to think. He was working as an informant for the FBI, and when he was brought to police headquarters, he probably thought he would be extricated from this mess soon enough, just by dropping a few names. And, in responding to the reporter, the distinction between being in the building and being on the landing in front of the building, where he was next to the front door and still surrounded by building on three sides, probably did not register with him as important at the time. Recall that, early-on, he told the reporters, "They're taking me in because I lived in the Soviet Union." There is no reason to doubt that that was an honest thought. Later in the evening, when he truly realized his dire situation, he loudly and repeatedly proclaimed to the same reporters, “I emphatically deny these charges.”

Question #10: The Altgens photo was apparently sent out immediately over the news wires as soon as photographer James “Ike” Altgens arrived at the Dallas News Building, which was close to Dealey Plaza.  According to author Richard Trask, the Altgens photo was sent out from Dallas as an official AP Wirephoto at 1:03pm on November 22.   Researcher John J. Johnson provides an even earlier time of the release of the photo:  “By 12:57, the photograph was moving on the news wires…to Africa and London, all over the world, at the same time that people got it in the U.S. and the photo was on page one of many of the world’s newspapers within hours.”  How would it be possible for the forgers of the photo to intercept it if it were sent out instantly on the news wires and, above all, was there enough time to “doctor” the photo in literally a matter of minutes?

ANSWER: The above timeline is part of official assassination lore, but like much of official assassination lore, it is highly suspect. British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6.  There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice."  Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it.  His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed."

Paul Rigby is a well-respected JFK researcher, so we are going to let him expound:

"On the basis of the available evidence, we can, provisionally at least, conclude the following: 1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; 2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM CST; 3) the negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; 4) the dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least 2 hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; 5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; 6) AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; 7) the version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of November 22 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; 8) point 7 may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff."

We have also heard from Roy Schaeffer who at the time of the assassination was a professional photo processor for The Dayton Daily News.  He reported that there was a long delay in the Altgens6 reaching his newspaper. The photo-fax did not arrive until 7 AM the next morning, Saturday, November 23, and Roy is the one who received it. Immediately, he could see unmistakable signs of photographic alteration, including masking.  Because of his background and expertise, Roy was absolutely certain of this, and it started him on a lifelong quest for JFK truth.  It is important to recognize the degree to which information (both pictorial and printed matter) was being controlled by the government. 

Dallas journalist Connie Kritzberg filed a story about the assassination on November 22, but discovered that the content of her article had radically changed by the morning of November 23. On the afternoon of the assassination, she learned from an interview with Parkland physicians that one of the wounds to the president was “an entrance wound in the midline in the front of the neck below the Adam’s apple,” which she duly reported in her submission.  But in her printed article the next day, the story never mentioned an entrance wound to the president’s throat.  Rather, the article noted only the following vague reference to the physicians:  “A doctor admitted there was possibly one wound.”  The sentence was not only ambiguous, but it completely misrepresented Kritzberg’s main point about the entrance wound.  Extremely upset, Kritzberg asked her editor, “Who changed my story?”  She was told that it was the FBI.  Kritzberg recognized that her article “had to be altered, no matter how crudely, to conform to the official story that there were three shots from one place from one man.”  Connie’s phrase “crudely altered” is appropriate to describe much of the fabricated evidence of the assassination weekend.
  If the government could instantly control and “crudely alter” a local newspaper story, it could do the same with a photograph.

Oswald: Innocent Or Just Not Guilty Of Shooting?

by Ralph C. Cinque

1 September 2012

Some have tried to claim that Oswald did not shoot the President, but he knew about it; he was in on it; and he had some ancillary role in the assassination. I am going to make the case as to why that is not a reasonable assumption.

First, Oswald was the patsy. That was his only role, and the rule is: you keep the patsy in the dark. The less the patsy knows the better. The conspirators must have known that Oswald would likely have spent some time in custody before he could be properly killed. They may have hoped that he would die in a fire-fight at the Texas Theater, but they could not count on it. As it was, he spent 2 days in custody, and it might as well have been 2 years for all the talking he could do. Although they flagrantly violated his constiutional rights by denying him a lawyer, they would have had to provide him one eventually, and it is possible that a good one may have volunteered to assist him. Surely, any good lawyer would have started by telling him that he was in a heap of trouble and that he needed to tell his lawyer everything. The truth would have come out, and the conspirators had to make sure that Oswald had nothing with which to incriminate his CIA/FBI handlers.

Remember, Oswald knew their names; he knew their whereabouts; he knew their positions in the agencies. It has been reported that his contacts went as high as James Jesus Angleton at the CIA. Obviously, his having knowledge of a CIA plot to kill the President would have been, not just damaging, but devastating.

So, they had to keep Oswald in the dark in order to protect themselves. And the proof of the pudding is: they let him wander around freely in the hour before the assassination. It was very risky of them to do that. He could be seen; he could be heard, and he could step outside right when he was supposed to be up on the 6th floor. All of the above happened. So, why did they take such a chance? It is because they did not want to tell him. They probably figured that they could always lie about eyewitness testimonies to the contrary. Besides, they controlled the press. Was the Washington Post going to print that Junior Jarmon reported having lunch with Oswald in the Domino Room at 12:15, just 15 minutes before the shooting? Was the New York Times going to report that Carolyn Arnold reported seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom after that? Were they going to report that she saw him on the 1st floor as late as 12:25, which was only 5 minutes before the shooting? Of course not. The FBI interviewed Carolyn Arnold, but the Warren Commission refused to let her testify. And the FBI, in their final report, changed her testimony of having last seen Oswald at 12:25 to 12:15. See how easy it was?

Furthermore, there was no need for the conspirators to tell Oswald what they were doing because they did not need him for anything. Some have suggested that Oswald may have set up the Sniper's Nest, but that is ridiculous. Why would they use him for that? Why would they risk telling him just for the sake of getting some boxes moved? There were plenty of others who could do that, as the TSBD was a den of "ops." You only have to read The Spider's Web- The Texas School Book Depository and the Dallas Conspirary by William Weston to know how infiltrated it was with agents.

And if they had told him, if they had cut him in on it, surely they would have followed it up with: "And what we want you to do is: lay low and stay out of sight." It would have cost them no more. But, they did not want to empower Oswald with knowledge that he could use against them, so they took the chance of letting him wander around freely. It was a tremendous gamble, and they lost. He stepped outside and got photographed. Tough luck, conspirators. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

So, they definitely did not tell Oswald what they were doing, and the proof of it is that they allowed him to wander around freely. However, could he have surmised it? That seems doubtful. The morning of the assassination Oswald asked Junior Jarmon what the people were gathering outside for. He did not know that the Presidential motorcade was driving by the TSBD building that day. Was that all an act? Was he feigning ignorance to Junior Jarmon to set up an alibi? But, wait! What alibi? Oswald was not going to shoot anyone, so he had no expectation of being retained by police and interrogated. He had no need for an alibi. There is no reason to think that the ignorance he displayed to Junior Jarmon was not real.

We have in this country the right to the presumption of innocence, and I dare say that Lee Harvey Oswald is as entitled to it as the next person. I can't say for sure what was going on in his head- and neither can anyone else. But, I can say that he had no explicit knowledge of the assassination plot, and therefore he was not only not guilty of shooting the President, but he was, indeed, innocent of the crime.


The significance of Harold Weisberg's talk with Mrs. Lovelady

by Ralph Cinque

10 August 2012

Researcher Harold Weisberg had a telephone conversation with Mrs. Billy Lovelady, which is reproduced in David Wrone's book. Weisberg recorded these notes about the talk:

"She [Mrs. Lovelady] insists it is 'my Billy' in the doorway, that the FBI never asked him what shirt he had worn that day, and that he had worn a red-and-black check with a white fleck. The checks, she says, are about two inches. When I said the Altgens picture shows no check, she replied that it is not as clear as the enlargement 'as big as a desk,' about 30 X 40 inches, the FBI showed them the night of Nov. 25, 1963." (David Wrone, The Zapruder Film--Reframing JFK's Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, p. 177).

Here is my commentary on this passage:

(1) The Altgens photo was obviously of special importance to the government, based on this conversation with Mrs. Lovelady and an FBI agent. By Monday, November 25, 1963, there was already evidence that the FBI was extremely interested in the very Doorman topic at the heart of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. Even as early as November 25, the central concern was the different shirts worn to work by Oswald and Lovelady on November 22.

(2) The Altgens photo was obviously important to the governent if a photo enlargement "as big as a desk" had already been prepared for the FBI by November 25, 1963. By the day of the president's funeral and the day after the public execution of Oswald, there was already concern about developing a plausible pictoral representation of the Man in the Doorway as Lovelady.

(3) The clandestine processing of photo enlargements of other crucial photographic evidence in the JFK assassination was being conducted concurrent with the enlargement of the Altgens photo for the FBI. On the evenings of Saturday, November 23 and Sunday, November 24, there were similar photo enlargements being made of individual frames of the Zapruder film at the CIA's Natonal Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) facility in Washington, D.C. These photo enlargements were made for CIA Director McCone on Saturday and for the top secret Kodak "Hawkeyeworks" photo center in Rochester, New York on Sunday.

It was obvious that as early as November 25, the FBI was working hard to convince both Mrs. Lovelady and the American people that it was "her Billy" in the doorway. But, when Mrs. Lovelady spoke to Harold Weisberg, why didn't she point out to him that there was a movie in which Oswald was led by her husband at the Dallas PD, where Billy can be seen wearing the plaid shirt? Why did she not tell him to watch that film? And what about the so-called Martin post-assassination footage in which her husband can supposedly be seen milling around outside after the assassination wearing a plaid shirt? Didn't she know about that one? What about the Hughes film? What about the Wiegman film? Was she unaware of all these films featuring her husband? If so, it is probably because they weren't made yet, that is, the parts that featured her husband weren't made yet.The fact is that neither Lovelady's striped shirt nor his alleged plaid shirt are a match to Doorman's shirt. Doorman's shirt shows just the fine, grainy pattern of Oswald's shirt along with some light reflection and distortion from the gross enlargement. It does not contain a single check or box. It can't possibly be the same shirt as plaided Lovelady, even though there is no chance that plaided Lovelady was really Lovelady.

In response to the 1st attack

by Ralph C. Cinque

17 July 2012

Joseph Backes, a JFK blogger  and opponent of ours, has attacked the Oswald Innocence Campaign on our citing the Woman and Boy in the Altgens photo as a possible anomaly.  He attacked us generally and vehemently, but the only image he posted from this site is the one of the Woman and Boy.  Let’s analyze that.

First, that particular issue happens to be a small one. If it turned out that there was nothing irregular about the Woman and Boy, it would not weaken our case for Oswald being Doorman one bit. We don’t need it; we included it for the sake of thoroughness.

And, if Backes was going to attack us, why didn’t he attack us over the many collages of Oswald and Doorman?  Why did he pan through the site and settle on a picture that is relatively unimportant and inconsequential? It seems that he knew better than to post any of those striking matches of Doorman and Oswald.

In his ridicule, Backes said: “The woman is simply holding her small son up in her arms.” We have already explained why that assumption is doubtful, and it’s interesting that another opponent of ours from the Education Forum, Joe Zircon, admits that the boy is too big for her to be holding the way she appears to be doing.  So, Zircon argues that the boy is actually standing next to her on the bumper of a car. The fact that there is no car in sight, and the fact that there is nothing about the boy’s posture or demeanor that reflects the inherent awkwardness and instability of trying to stand on a car bumper doesn’t phase Zircon. It is an example of the lengths to which lone-nutters will go to defend their hapless theory. 

But, getting back to Backes, what he needs to realize is that it would be different if this was a case in which the woman was just holding the boy up for a few fleeting seconds, perhaps, to take a picture. But, they were settled in there to watch the motorcade. Backes took the boy’s age for 4. Well, the average 4 year old boy in America weighs over 40 pounds. Such a kid starts getting heavy mighty quick. So, what does a woman do to withstand holding a 40 pound weight?  She adjusts. She leans backward or to the side. Or she has him straddle her hip. She does something to lessen the load. She doesn’t just stand there holding him straight up. That’s too difficult- even with a mere 4 year old. As already stated, for her to be holding him up as easily and as vertically as she appears to be doing, she would have to be Superwoman.

So, the Woman and Boy shall remain on our list of anomalies, even though they are very peripheral to the main thesis.   

But, Backes, if you want to debate something, let us debate the main thesis, which is that the Doorman was Oswald.  And he was. He's wearing Oswald’s clothes. He's got Oswald’s build. He’s even got Oswald’s mannerisms.  That’s Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the doorway, and you can’t get him out of there.

The Margin of Error

by Ralph C. Cinque

20 July 2012

In this case, the margin I am referring to is the margin of a t-shirt: that of Doorman's. I am sure you realize by now that it appears to be v-shaped: like Oswald's and unlike Lovelady's. And that is something that was never addressed in any official investigation.

It's not clear they even made v-necked t-shirts in 1963. Oswald's came about from deformation- he tugged on it, as a nervous habit. So obviously, Lovelady's t-shirt was going to be round- since he didn't have that habit. So, if Doorman was wearing Oswald's unique t-shirt, as it appears, it means he had to be Oswald.

So, what recourse is there for the lone nut community? They have only one recourse: to deny that the t-shirt was v-shaped.

And one adamant lone-nutter has taken up the gauntlet to do that: Craig Lamson. Lamson is a rogue, nasty JFK blogger, with more bluster than brains. He maintains that the t-shirt only looks v-shaped, that it is actually round, that neck shadow is masking the top of the t-shirt, creating the perfect illusion that it is v-shaped. 

Indeed, Doorman's neck looks very dark- there is no doubt about that. It was very high-contrast film that Altgens used, and human skin -- that was not directly in the sunlight -- tended to manifest very darkly. And that was true not only for African-Americans but for Caucasians. 

But would shadow cause any part of a white t-shirt to look black? That's what Lamson is maintaining. 

But, we know it's not true. In this image of Doorman, you can see the effect of shadow on the t-shirt. It turns it grey, not black.

The shadow does not obliterate the margin of the t-shirt; it just darkens the t-shirt somewhat, turning it from white to grey in the area that is out of the light. We still know where the t-shirt is and where Doorman's skin is. There is no confusion about that. 

However, Lamson submitted this picture:

Notice that he drew a red box around a little crescent that he found in this enlarged and distorted version of Doorman. I don't say it was distorted on purpose, but when you enlarge a small image, as was done here, it does create some distortion.  The previous image, above it, which is the Groden scan of Doorman, is considered the best, and in it, you don't see the crescent.

Lamson claims that that crescent is actually the top margin of Doorman's round t-shirt, and all the black coloring below the crescent is actually white fabric. But, if it was the margin of the t-shirt, it would go all the way across. It wouldn't be just a localized crecent; it would continue to the edge of the t-shirt. But, if you look closely, you can see that there is still a black gap. The crescent is an island in a black sea.    

The whole idea is ridiculous. The crescent can't be seen at all without blowing the picture up, and quite severely. So, is it real or is it an artifact?  I don't claim to know, but another blogger tried to disprove the v-shape of the t-shirt by blowing the margin up so much that it became jagged and toothlike, and I know that wasn't real. But, if the crescent is something real, it is probably just a prominence of the neck cartilage. It is certainly not the margin of the t-shirt because there is no way that shadow could darken the t-shirt that much- from white to black.

Furthermore, if the crescent were the margin of the t-shirt, it would go all the way across; it would connect with the edge of the t-shirt that we can see. But, do you notice that there is a black gap between the crescent and the t-shirt? So why is it black to the side of the crescent and below the crescent? The crescent exists in a sea of blackness that is supposed to be white t-shirt.   

Neck shade is not strong enough of a darkening influence to obliterate the margin of the t-shirt. It is laughable and ridiculous to say that all that blackness below and to the side of the crescent is really white t-shirt. Shadow would darken the t-shirt some, but it would not obliterate it.

Look at the image again. He is claiming that within the neck blackness is an indistinguishable merger of human skin and white fabric. However, the blackness we see below the crescent is identical to the blackness we see above the crescent, and it is all the same thing: Oswald's skin. With that high-contrast film, that is the way it appeared when it was out of the direct sunlight.

My demand to Lamson is simple: REPRODUCE IT. Act like a scientist and test your hypothesis. Take out your camera and duplicate it. Prove that a round t-shirt can be made to look v-shaped from shadow- and not just a little, but to the extent that the naked eye sees it as a perfect transformation, a perfect illusion, a perfect deception. 

After all, he is claiming that something in the picture got rendered invisible. That's a big claim. He needs to prove it.

But, Lamson is not going to do it. This is just an example of the ridiculous lengths to which lone-nutters will go to deny the obvious: that Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. But he was, and his t-shirt looks v-shaped because it was v-shaped.

Joe Backes is at it again!

by Ralph C. Cinque

30 July 2012

JFK blogger Joseph Backes, who lists his occupation as "civil servant", is back to bashing yours truly, Ralph Cinque. In his latest blog, he says that I am the "stupidest man alive."

Now, what is interesting about that is that Joseph Backes claims to be a conspiracy advocate. Therefore, the main difference between him and me is that I think Oswald stepped outside during the motorcade, whereas he thinks he spent the time in the lunchroom or elsewhere. But what about the people who think that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy? Wouldn't they have to be more stupid? What about the people who think that a single bullet traversed the bodies of two men causing 7 wounds and bursting two bones before being found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital in pristine condition? Wouldn't they have to be more stupid?

But, Backes does list a number of things I claim as being representative of stupid. And the fact is that he got most of them right. I do make most of the claims he attributes to me. 

For instance, he accused me of claiming that the footage of Oswald passing Lovelady at the Dallas PD was faked. I do claim that, and the details can be found on the Lovelady page.

He accused me of claiming that the Martin post-assassination footage of Lovelady outside the TSBD was faked. That also is true, but note that I am not alone in claiming it. There is a gang of doctors who agree with me that the Lovelady in that footage was not the real Billy Lovelady. Anatomically, he was a different man. Again, details can be found on the Lovelady page here.

Backes accused me of using "degraded images" but I used the best images I could find. He said that "the actual original photographic medium is what should ALWAYS be used...especially in a murder of the President of the United States." That's fine and dandy, but how am I supposed to do that? Go to Washington? Storm the Library of Congress? the Smithonian? The fact is that the images that I use are sufficient to register the distinctions- the data points- that I make. And I invite Joe Backes - or anyone else- to go through this site and point to a specific image or collage that fails to do that. And then let me know. You can reach me at oswaldinnocent@yahoo.com.

Next, Backes makes a complementary remark about the National Geographic program JFK: The Lost Bullet. It was a horrible reselling of the Warren Report with all the lies intact. Here is published review of it which I wrote:

Ralph Cinque's review of The Lost Bullet

Please read the above review, and afterwards, ask yourself: how could a real JFK conspiracy advocate make any kind of complementary remark about that horrible program?

Backes accused me of claiming that there were "multiple Loveladys." Of course, there was only one real Lovelady, but there were several Lovelady imposters who were put into the films. I'm not saying they had Lovelady impostors there on 11/22/63 but only that they were put into the films afterwards. They did it because of the ruckus about the shirt that he wore. They had to show him in a plaid shirt, which he didn't actually wear on 11/22/63.

Remember that it is widely accepted that there were Oswald imposters. Read Flight from Dallas by Robert Vinson in which he narrates how he wound up on an Air Force cargo plane that stopped in Dallas on 11/22/63 and picked up a near-perfect Lee Harvey Oswald double. And the Air Force hounded Robert Vinson for decades after that. He waited until 1993, after he retired from the Air Force, to go public with his story. 

So, if there were Oswald doubles, why couldn't there have been Lovelady doubles? Why is it so outlandish? Why dismiss it so furiously and summarily as Backes does?  

But, that brings us to the one thing Backes said that was utterly false. He accused me of claiming that one of the Lovelady doubles was a midget. I never said that. And since Lovelady was not a midget (he was 5' 8") it would hardly be effective to try to pass a midget off as Lovelady. So that was wrong, but everything else he attributed to me is true, and they are all explained on the pages of this site.

I would be more than willing to debate Joseph Backes on the issue of Doorman's identity.  I would be more than willing to debate anyone.

I want to be very honest with you about something: I am very confident about everything I claim on this site. And there were things that others asked me to claim that I refused to claim because I did not think that they were solid enough. I feel that I have been very cautious and conservative. However, even if it turned out that I was wrong about one or more things, it would have no effect on the central premise, which is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway in the Altgens photo. He really was. It was definitely his outer shirt, his t-shirt, his build, his ear, his chin, his stance, etc. There is simply no way it could have been anyone else but him. And in the end, that is the only thing that really matters. It's checkmate.

You can't stop me, Joe Backes. You can't even slow me down. But any time you want to go mano-o-mano against me on the debate floor, let me know. 

More Stupidity From Joe Backes

by Ralph C. Cinque

30 October 2012

JFK blogger Joseph Backes, who I suspect is a government agent pretending to be a CT, is attacking me yet again. But, this time I have to wonder how much alcohol he had in his system. That is because he got every single thing wrong, and bizarrely so.

First, he claimed that I maintain that Doorman was holding onto the handrail. I do not claim that, as it is impossible. What Doorman is holding onto is his other hand. He is standing with his hands clasped in front, left over right, as Oswald often did.

Please observe that Oswald is not wearing handcuffs in the image above. You can see where his forearm looks blanched from having worn cuffs, but they were removed for the police lineup.

Then, Backes claimed that Doorman has no arm showing, that it is not his arm coming down and across but the black man's arm going up and over.

Do you see a slight problem with that? There is a cuff at the end of Doorman's sleeve. Don't cuffs occur at the bottom of sleeves? Look closely. It is definitely Doorman's arm coming down and not the black man's arm going up. Again, I have to wonder: was Backes intoxicated?

Then, Backes questions whether the disputed arm was bent at the elbow. It was definitely bent, and here's how you can tell: Look how his cuff is directly below his chin. His cuff is centered. If his arm were hanging straight, the cuff would not be centered. Of course, it is a moot point to Backes since he thinks it is the black guy's arm going up. But, this may be the most insane and bizarre attack on me yet- from Backes or from anyone. His errors are so obvious, and so egregious, I have to wonder if he was drunk. The only person he succeeded in ridiculing was himself. One has to wonder why he doesn't remove that embarrassing post since he got everything completely wrong.

I expect the attacks to continue- from Backes and from others. That's because Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway, and they don't like it. And, it is the most exonerating piece of evidence in the case for Oswald, and hence the most damaging piece of evidence for the other side. That's tough, Backes. This is war, and I'm ready to fight.