By Ralph Cinque and Clare Kuehn (with Jim Fetzer)
This is a sequel to “JFK Special: Oswald was the Man in the Doorway, after all!” (25 January 2012), which was co-authored by two of us. We are going to look further at the Altgens photo and the reasons why the evidence shows that Doorman has to have been Lee Harvey Oswald and could not have been Billy Lovelady. But, we are also going to look further at the images of Billy Lovelady that were taken after the assassination, and it will show clearly that manipulation, alteration, and fakery were involved. Billy Lovelady even masqueraded as Doorway Man, and it was a concerted effort, for which he had help.
To a great extent, this analysis is based on the new observations of K.D. Ruckman, a Canadian researcher, who was interviewed by Dr. Fetzer recently on his internet radio program, “The Real Deal, on 20 February 2012. That program is archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. We will begin with the work of Ralph Cinque and add discussion of the contributions of K.D. Ruckman as appropriate, especially in the final three sections of this study.
So, let’s begin by going back to the doorway of the Book Depository as seen in the Altgens photo. This image, by Robert Groden, may be the clearest one we have. Some say that the face of Doorman is that of Billy Lovelady, but even the House Subcommittee on Assassinations wasn’t sure. They said:
“Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator’s image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady or Oswald.”
They also went on to say that there was a greater probability that It was Lovelady than Oswald, and that was based on very small “anthropometric “ measurements such as facial length, lower jaw breadth, nasal breadth, forehead breadth, and such, which were based on feature of the face, which we believe to have been superimposed on Oswald’s body. If Lovelady’s face was superimposed, those features would be Lovelady’s.
It’s the shirt, stupid! (with Ralph Cinque)
But, that was ridiculous because they looked at those tiny elements while ignoring the big, looming elements in the picture, such as the vee-neck t-shirt which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, the form and fit of the outer shirt which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, and the manner of dress (unbuttoned) which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, and the slender build of the man which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady. If tiny facial measurements were a match to Lovelady while the big, visible, physical elements of the picture were a match to Oswald, isn’t that suspicious? So, how did they deal with it? Simple; they didn’t. They just ignored the large, physical elements.
- The JFK Factor (lewrockwell.com)
- The Weird Fight Over Oswald’s Tombstone (newser.com)
- New Memoir Unveils Secrets About JFK Assassination (prweb.com)
- Did Castro Know JFK Would Be Assasinated? Book Says He Knew Exact Date (inquisitr.com)
- Moran: In Cory Booker’s heroic fire rescue, no room for spin (nj.com)
- JFK assassination: Did Castro know before it happened? (csmonitor.com)
- Connecting the dots on the JFK assassination (thehill.com)
- Explosive Jackie O tapes ‘reveal how she believed LBJ killed JFK & had affair w/ movie star’ (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Castro Knew JFK Would Be Killed on 11/23/63 (newser.com)
- Cancer-Causing Viruses Link to Oswald, JFK (disclose.tv)