JFK: Lovelady’s “arrow” points to conspiracy and cover-up
“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”–Sir Karl Popper
By Ralph C. Cinque (with Jim Fetzer)
The great British philosopher of science, Karl R. Popper, to whom my first book, Scientific Knowledge
(1981) was in fact dedicated, championed the importance of
falsification (or of attempts to show hypotheses and theories are false)
as the key to understanding scientific knowledge. It was his position
that the content of an hypothesis or theory is directly related to the
extent to which they are amenable to being tested on the basis of
observation, measurement and experiment–and that only evidence that results from unsuccessful attempts to falsify an hypothesis should count in its favor.
Popper’s profound insight has application to research on JFK, where
some students are unable to appreciate why the search for evidence that
refutes the official account is more important than evidence that
confirms it.
Popper drew (what he called) a
criterion of demarcation
between propositions that are scientific and those that are not. Claims
such as “God created the universe and every living thing”, for example,
or that “There is an all-pervasive Force that controls the outcome of
events” are classic examples, since there are no observations,
measurements or experiments that could possibly disprove them. They are
consistent with the world’s history, no matter what its course.
Likewise, the claim advanced by those who support Intelligent Design
Theory on the ground that there are “irreducibly complex” organisms,
which appear to be inexplicable on the principles of evolution, does not
qualify as scientific unless it is accompanied by an explanation of how
God created them, which in turn could be subjected to test.
That does not make these claims meaningless,
as the logical positivists maintained,
but it does make them “unscientific”. Popper’s position becomes
especially important relative to hypotheses and theories about the laws
of nature, because, unlike laws of society, they cannot be violated,
cannot be changed and require no enforcement. An interesting example
might be the claim that
all pennies are copper. If we assume
that the definition of “penny” is a coin having 1/100 the value of a
dollar, which does not imply the metal of which it is made, then we can
find millions of confirming instances, which would–at least, upon
initial consideration–strongly support the hypothesis. But by
subjecting it to a more thorough and painstaking study, that claim is
falsified by the discovery that, in 1943, because of the shortage of
copper for WWII, pennies instead were made of lead. The claim turns out
to be false in spite of having an enormous number of confirming
instances. The situation is similar with JFK.
The Assassination as a Theory
The use of the phrase, “conspiracy theory”, has been widely adopted as a
form of denigration for any who question the “official account” of the
death of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11 or a host of other events in which
there are reasons to believe that the government itself may have been
complicit. The term, “theory”, has stronger and weaker senses, perhaps
most commonly as an interpretation of events that is based upon the
available evidence. Detectives investigating crime scenes, which are
well portrayed in programs such as “Law and Order”, form a theory of the
case, entailing the consideration of those who may have committed it.
Each suspect might be regarded as an alternative hypothesis that would
explain the crime, were it to turn out to be true. When they discover a
suspect has an alibi that makes it impossible for him to have committed
it, that falsifies the hypothesis and attention turns to others.
It might be the case, of course, that an alibi is fictitious, just as
photographs can be faked. In cases in which an alibi turns out to have
been fabricated, instead of reducing interest in a suspect, that has the
effect of increasing it.
Why, after all, would anyone fake an alibi unless they had been complicit in the crime?
On the other hand, those who might want to implicate someone in a crime
they did not actually commit might undertake the fabrication of
evidence incriminating them, which happened in the case of the
assassination of JFK. We know that the Mannlicher-Carcano was planted,
that his palm print on the weapon was faked, and that the backyard
photographs were created by imposing his face on someone else’s body, as
Jim Marrs and I explained in our study,
“Framing the Patsy”.
In this case, something like the opposite appears to have taken place,
where features of Billy Lovelady’s face were imposed on Oswald’s body, a
fascinating variation on the forms of fakery we have already
encountered in this case.
The government would have us believe that this photo is authentic and
unaltered. One argument has been is that it was published in some
(rather obscure) newspapers already on 22 November 1963, which would
drastically curtail the time that would have been available to alter it.
But claims about “impossible timelines” have arisen before in relation
to the Zapruder film, where we have many
witness reports,
official testimony, and
Secret Service evidence
that the film was massively revised to conceal a limo stop during which
JFK was hit twice in the head. Most importantly, frame 374 shows a
blow-out to the back of the head that was painted over in earlier
frames. The authenticity hypothesis has been falsified.
The
original was taken to the National Photographic Information Center on
Saturday, 23 November 1963, as an 8mm, already split film that was
developed in Dallas, while its replacement, a 16mm unsplit film
developed in Rochester, was brought there on Sunday, 24 November 1963.
Since we knew independently that the film had been altered, we knew
that there had to have been time to do it, since nothing actual can be
impossible. Similar considerations obtain in the case of the Altgens6.
Frame 374 falsifies the authenticity of the Zapruder film, because it is
inconsistent with earlier frames in which it has been blacked out. By
showing a blow-out at the back of the head, which was caused by a shot
fired from the right/front, it also falsifies the hypothesis that Oswald
was “the lone assassin”. The most famous photo of the assassination,
which was taken by AP photographer James “Ike” Altgens and is
technically known as the “Altgens6″, likewise seems to have been altered
in the area of the doorway, where the identity of a man who appears to
be extending his head to observe what is going on has long been in
dispute. The hypothesis that this photo is authentic has been falsified
by the realization that the face of one figure (to Doorman’s
left/front) has been obfuscated, that the figure beside him wearing a
narrow black tie is both in front of him and behind him at the same
time, and that, as a consequence, Doorman is missing his left shoulder.
Each of these features establish that the photo has been altered,
since no authentic photo would include an obfuscated face or present
impossible anatomical features like these.
It’s the clothing, not the face!
The “official account” has it that the person in question was Billy
Lovelady, who worked in the Texas School Book Depository along with Lee
Oswald. Early research by Harold Weisberg,
Whitewash II (1966),
however, suggested that this was actually Lee Oswald, which, if it were
true, would have given him an alibi, since he cannot have been at the
doorway watching the motorcade pass by and at the same time have been on
the 6th floor shooting at JFK! Even Oliver Stone, the director of
“JFK”, thought it had been Billy Lovelady, which seemed to resolve the
issue. More recently, however, the issue has been revived by new
research inspired by Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor who is used to dealing
with bodies and clothing. Ralph noticed that the distinctive shirt
that the figure, “Doorman”, was wearing bore a striking resemblance to
what Oswald was wearing when he was apprehended at The Texas Theater.
But confirmation that their shirts bear strong resemblance is only one
part of the evidence.
I was drawn to the study of this photograph by the release by the
Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) of notes from the
interrogation of Lee Oswald by Homicide Detective Will Fritz, during
which Oswald told him he had been
“out with Bill Shelley in front”.
This has to have been during the shooting, since otherwise Fritz would
not have asked the only “official suspect” in the assassination as to
his whereabouts at the time. Taking a closer look, it was apparent that
the face of a man to Doorman’s immediate left/front (right/front,
viewing the photograph) had been obfuscated, which led me to conjecture
that that must have been the face of Lee Oswald. After all, surely
altering this photograph would not have been done unless someone had
been there who should not have been, where the obvious candidate would
have been the alleged assassin. I was shortly thereafter contacted by
Ralph Cinque, who advised me that it was their clothing that was really
the key rather than their faces.
And, indeed, not only does Doorman’s shirt closely resemble Oswald’s
shirt–where Richard Hooke has found no less than 27 features that are
the same from one to the other–but Billy Lovelady himself went to the
FBI in Dallas on 29 February 1964 and showed them the shirt he had been
wearing that day. It was a red-and-white, vertically striped
short-sleeved shirt that looks nothing like the shirt that Doorman was
wearing. The fall-back has been to claim that Billy was mistaken–
but how could anyone make a mistake like this in relation to the assassination of the President of the United States?–and
that he had actually been wearing a red-and-black checkered shirt,
which was being worn by someone in film taken of the doorway area
immediately after the assassination. But it is easy to see that that
person does not look at all like Billy Lovelady and has a profile more
like that of a gorilla, where yet a third “Lovelady” was introduced into
other footage to overcome the obvious objection that his checkered
shirt was buttoned.
Not only did Billy go to the FBI had show them the shirt he was wearing,
but the FBI reported it back to J. Edgar Hoover, who had asked them for
proof that the man in the doorway was Lovelady. Since the shirt he had
displayed falsified that hypothesis, they attempted to avoid Edgar’s
wrath and potential banishment to Siberia
by asserting both that
Billy had been wearing “a red-and-white vertically striped shirt and
blue jeans” and implying that this confirmed his identity as Doorman,
when it actually refuted it. But that was the best they could do.
Billy would also confirm that this was the shirt he had been wearing to
Jones Harris, whom I recently interviewed on “The Real Deal”. So we
not only have confirmation that Oswald was Doorman but evidence that
falsifies the alternative hypothesis that Doorman was Billy Lovelady
instead. Rational minds, I believe, would find this evidence
compelling–and even decisive.
Additional Considerations
But we have more. Billy himself told Dom Bonafede of
The New York Herald-Tribune
that he was about 3″ shorter than Oswald and weighed 15-20 lbs. more.
He said, “It was me in the doorway”, which appears to be true–except
that he was not Doorman but was standing beside him. Consider what
Bonafede wrote and consider the hypothesis that he was standing to
Doorman’s left, with his arms upraised to protect his eyes from the Sun
to watch the motorcade. Notice that that man not only seems to be
wearing a short-sleeved shirt but appears about 3″ shorter and 15-20
lbs. heavier than Doorman:
Mr. Lovelady said the F.B.I. had taken pictures of him from
various angles and that he had been shown a three-by-four foot blowup of
the doorway picture and asked if he was in it. ‘I immediately pointed
to myself in the doorway,’ Mr. Lovelady said. He said he was about 15 to
20 pounds heavier than Oswald and about three inches shorter. Asked
whether there was any resemblance to Oswald, he replied, ‘I’m fatter in
the face.”’It was me in the doorway,’ he said. ‘If anyone doesn’t
believe it, they will just have to take my word.’ (5-24-64 article by Dom Bonafede in
The New York Herald-Tribune)
The argument has also been made that Doorman has facial features that
resemble those of Lovelady, which is also true; but he also has features
that resemble those of Oswald. Richard Hooke has done a study that
suggests how the image was rearranged to create the impression that
Billy was Doorman, which also appears to have been advanced by
“Oswaldifying” the appearance of Lovelady in the third (or left-most) of
the three FBI photographs, just as Oswald appears to have been
“Loveladyfied” in the Altgens6. What we are unraveling is the
performance of artistic photo fakery by the most sophisticated
intelligence agency in the world, which was also responsible for
recreating the Zapruder home movie:
Another interesting report comes from Bill Shelley, whom Oswald had
cited as part of his alibi. Our best guess is that Shelley was involved
in framing Oswald and that
it
was his face that was obfuscated, no doubt because, had he actually
been there, it lent credibility to Lee’s statement to Fritz that he had
been “out with Billy Shelley in front”. What is interesting about
Shelley’s testimony to the Warren Commission is that he not only claims
to have not seen Oswald–contradicting Lee’s alibi–but also says that he
was in the vicinity of Billy Lovelady, who “was seated on the entrance
steps just in front of me”. We not only believe his denial of seeing
Lee was false but that, if his observations of Lovelady were true, then
Lovelady could not had been Doorman, who was standing as he extended his
head:
“[A]s the Presidential motorcade passed I was standing just
outside the glass doors of the entrance. At the time President Kennedy
was shot, I was standing at this same place. Billy N. Lovelady who works
under my supervision at the Texas School Book Depository, was seated on
the entrance steps just in front of me. I recall that Wesley Frazier,
Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mrs, Carolyn Arnold, all employees of the Texas
School Book Depository, were also standing in this entrance way near me
at the time Pres. Kennedy was shot. I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at
the time Pres. Kennedy was shot.” (4-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H327-334)
Shelley made other observations that are important in relation to
attempts to deflect the significance of Oswald’s statement to Fritz that
he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”, especially by maintaining that
he was reporting about having seen Shelley AFTER THE SHOOTING. But we
know that Lee was confronted in the lunch room within 90 seconds of the
shooting by Officer Marrion Baker and that, by his own account, Shelley
and Lovelady took off toward the railroad yard “immediately following
the shooting” and “returned through the west side door of the building
about ten minutes later”. While we believe that Shelley was complicit
in framing Oswald, his testimony to the Warren Commission falsifies the
allegation that Lee was talking about seeing him AFTER THE SHOOTING
rather than DURING:
“Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Lovelady and I
accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just
west of the building and returned through the west side door of the
building about ten minutes later. I remained in the building until about
1:30 PM when I was asked to go to the Dallas Police Dept. to furnish an
affidavit. I returned to the Texas School Book Depository about 5 PM. I
did not leave the building until about 7 PM that day.” (4-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H327-334)
Even the defense that the Altgens6 was published already on Friday, 22
November 1963, cannot be sustained. While copy after copy of “EXTRAS” of
obscure newspapers that allegedly published the Altgens6 have been
produced, that is not the case for any of the major newspapers, such as
The New York Times,
The Washington Post or
The Chicago Tribune. If
it had been available, it most certainly would have appeared there. We
know that Roy Schaeffer, working for a newspaper in Dayton, OH, took it
off the photo-fax the following morning and, because of his background
in photography, had noticed it had been altered in the doorway area. And
Ralph has now exposed the CIA’s charade by discovering both original
(without) and faked (with) versions of the “EXTRA” for the Beacon Hill
News-Paladiumn for 22 November 1963, which is a small town with a population of around 10,000.
Rational arguments have confirmed that Oswald was Doorman and have
falsified the contentions that Billy Lovelady or the Checkered Shirt Man
could have played that role.
And the government took extraordinary
steps to conceal the revelation, because even Lee Oswald could not be
in two places at the same time. The most recent
research by Larry Rivera, who is also a member of the
Oswald Innocence Campaign,
has revealed that the man who drove Lee to work that day and
subsequently identified Lovelady as Doorman for the Warren Commission,
Buell Wesley Frazier, had his image removed from the Altgens6 in order
for him to claim he had been “back in this more or less black area
here”, where Billy was standing with his upraised arms. If they were
moving Lovelady to be Doorman, they needed someone–by insinuation–to be
the man with his arms raised, for whom they used Buell Wesley Frazier,
who did his best to confirm Billy as Doorman but, as Ralph Cinque
explains, was unsuccessful in his effort, one more proof that Oswald was
Doorman and could not possibly have been on the 6th floor shooting at
JFK.
Lovelady’s “arrow” points to a JFK government conspiracy
By Ralph Cinque
There is a new and important discovery about Warren Commission Exhibit
369 which is the arrow that Billy Lovelady drew to point to himself.
Obviously, I am not talking about the arrow you can see below. That arrow was drawn by someone else: Buell Wesley Frazier.
The arrow that I am referring to is a different one, and it is
invisible without magnification. And it does not point to Doorway Man,
but rather to the figure next to him who has become known as Black Hole
Man.
First a little history
The Warren Commission asked two individuals to locate and identify Billy
Lovelady in the Altgens photo, and they were Billy Lovelady and Buell
Frazier. Both were asked to draw an arrow to Billy Lovelady. But, for
some reason, on different occasions, they gave them each the exact same
copy of the Altgens photo to draw on, which is known as CE 369.
To avoid bias, wouldn’t they provide each a fresh, unmarked copy of
the Altgens photo to draw on? You would think so, but that’s not what
they did.
Buell Frazier went first, and he drew the arrow in the white pointing
to Doorway Man which we all have been looking at for 50 years.
People commonly talk about that exhibit as if it was the handiwork of
Billy Lovelady, but the arrow we see was definitely drawn by Buell
Frazier. No one disputes that. You just have to read the testimony.
Attorney Joseph Ball acknowledged the presence of an arrow “in the
white” and asked Lovelady to draw another arrow “in the black” using a
black pen.
Why would someone ask someone to draw an arrow in the black with a
black pen? Isn’t that like painting a picture of a black cat in a coal
mine at midnight?
Regardless, that is what Ball asked Lovelady to do, and the
presumption has been that Lovelady did it, although we can’t see it.
But, that presumption was wrong….
Searching for the arrow
I have repeatedly examined the black space above and to the right of
Doorman’s head looking for a hint of Lovelady’s arrow but never could
find it. But then it occurred to me: What if Billy drew his arrow
elsewhere in the photograph away from Doorman?
So, I decided to look around Black Hole Man since he is the figure
whom we assume to be Lovelady, which was first suggested by Richard
Hooke. And lo and behold….
Do you see that black line extending over Black Hole Man’s forearm? It’s
about the middle, on the inside, but closer to his wrist than his
elbow. Doesn’t that look like it could be the tail of an arrow? Look at
it in comparison to the unmarked Altgens:
As you can see, in the unmarked Altgens photo on the left, the forearm
is unmarked, while in CE 369 on the right, the forearm is distinctly
marked. What could cause that line? Certainly not a shadow. From what?
There is no object that could cast such a shadow. There is nothing else
it could be except the tail of Lovelady’s arrow.
The Warren Commission Testimony
Now consider the testimony. WC Attorney Joseph Bell took out CE 369 with
Frazier’s arrow in the white already in place and pointing to Doorman:
Mr. BALL – I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY – Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL – No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY – Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL – Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one
in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY – Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the top step, would be
here (indicating).
Mr. BALL – You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY – It would be your top level.
What is Ball talking about? We know now that the arrow Lovelady drew
pointed to a different figure than to what Frazier pointed to. So how
could Ball say, “You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white
pointing toward you” when the “you” was a different figure?
An arrow in the dark
Are you wondering if there was also an arrow in the dark above Doorman
that might have been the one that Lovelady drew? Well, let’s start by
considering where exactly it would have been drawn.
Say that you are the artist. You are shown that photo with Frazier’s
arrow in place, and you are asked to draw another arrow, and it is your
intention to also point it to Doorman. Where would you draw it?
I can tell you where at least 95% of people would draw it. They would
draw it at the same angle that Frazier did, but coming down from the
other side. Like this:
I took the liberty of drawing it in grey instead of black just to make
it easy. But, you get the idea. That’s where most people would draw it.
Where else? You’re not going to crowd it over next to Frazier’s? Why do
that? And, you are not going to draw it horizontally from right to left.
It’s not even comfortable to do that. Try it yourself. It strains the
wrist, whether you are right-handed or left-handed. You are going to
draw it diagonally down from right to left, just as I did.
Alright, so now you know where Lovelady would have drawn his arrow if
he wanted to point it to Doorman. So now look in that area and see if
you see the slightest hint of an arrow.
Get a magnifying glass
Get a magnifying glass. And periodically glance at the tip of Frazier’s arrow to remind yourself what you are looking for.
But, there is NO ARROW there. There isn’t the slightest hint of an arrow there.
Now, the absence of an arrow there does, in fact, increase the
probability that the element we are seeing on Black Hole Man is
Lovelady’s arrow. Realize that logical deduction does include ”process
of elimination” as a valid method.
If you know that a pretty woman is waiting for you in 1 of 10 rooms,
and you check 9 of them and do not find her, then you can be certain
that when you open that 10th door that she is going to be there.
You can’t be wrong about that
You can’t be wrong about that mathematically. The only way she couldn’t
be there is if you were misinformed. But, is that an issue here? Does
anybody doubt the testimony? Are there any grounds to think that the
account of Joseph Ball telling Lovelady to draw an arrow in the
black where there already was one in the white did not happen?
I don’t think we have any grounds to go there. It’s very
straight-forward. And, I don’t think my adversaries want to question
the truthfulness of Joseph Ball and the accuracy of the Warren Report.
So, they have no grounds to go there either.
Therefore, the absence of Lovelady’s arrow elsewhere makes what we
see on Black Hole Man’s forearm the winner by “process of elimination”
or you could say, default.
Now consider that the angle of the short line on BH Man’s forearm is
coming in at the same angle as the arrow that Frazier drew. Think of it
like a plane landing. Those two planes are coming in at the same angle.
Matching Frazier’s angle is something that Lovelady probably did
subconsciously. He didn’t think about it, but he took his cue from
Frazier. It is natural to do that. In fact, even without Frazier’s
example, the most natural way to draw an arrow is diagonally, just as
Frazier did without any help.
The arrow’s head
Now it’s time to look inside the black space in search of Lovelady’s arrow head.
Admittedly, this is the hardest part. We are looking for two diagonal
arms, one upper and one lower. It seems to me that the upper one may be
piercing the white area ever so slightly.
Moreover, it looks like someone may have traced along the inside
margin of his forearm with a felt pen. Do you notice that it is
distinctly darker black below the curve of his wrist and his right hand?
Compare it to the arms of the arrow that Frazier drew. You get that
same impression of a darker, shinier black. Now compare it to the black
along the margin on the inside of Doorman’s t-shirt. There, you don’t
see what I’m talking about; there is no darker, shiner black. It’s just a
dull black.
Also, I notice that BH Man’s forearm suddenly narrows. I realize that
it’s normal for a man’s forearm to be thick towards the elbow and
narrow towards the wrist, but it does seem like there is a sudden break
there. I am very open to the possibility that they did some doctoring
with a felt pen in the black space to hide the head of Lovelady’s arrow.
The tiny blip
Look at one more thing: What is that little blip there circled in red?
Is that from the irregularity of the felt pen as they swung it around
that curve? If not, what is it? It can’t be a shadow. What would have
cast it?
But regardless, even if that last bit turned out to be innocent, we
are definitely looking at the arrow that Lovelady drew. It has to be it.
Process of elimination alone makes it a certainty. And think about what
it means. It means that at the time, Lovelady was being honest.
Lovelady was being noble. Lovelady was trying to tell the truth.
Eventually, he got with the program and started claiming to be Doorman.
But on that particular day, which was April 7, 1964, he did not want to
lie.
But, he eventually changed his mind and started lying. Why? Only two
possibilities come to mind: threats and/or bribes. They could have
threatened him, and they could have threatened his family. And regarding
bribes, Lovelady went from being a lowly warehouse worker to being
the owner of his own trucking company in Denver. Imagine that. Was that
because the American Dream was alive and well in those days?
Lovelady’s shirt
But, think about the implications: Lovelady was telling us that he was
Black Hole who is not wearing a plaid shirt. He is not even wearing a
long-sleeved shirt. That means that ALL of the images of Lovelady
purportedly wearing a plaid shirt on 22 November 1963, including the
famous Martin frames and the various frames from the Dallas PD footage,
with the famous walk of Lovelady past Oswald, are all false. None of
those figures were Lovelady. Every single one of them was faked. And
remember that Lovelady told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved
striped shirt on 22 November 1963–and they even archived it in writing
to the Warren Commission.
I realize there are no stripes on the shirt of Black Hole Man, but
notice that he is also lacking a head, which is why we call him Black
Hole Man. They blackened out his face, and they whitened out his shirt.
Lovelady’s long-lost arrow has been found. The 50-year-old
presumption that it was buried in the blackness and pointing to
Doorman–if only we could see it–has turned out to be false. And this
changes everything.
Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor, health spa
operator, and entrenpreneur, has published a series of articles on JFK
at lewrockwell.com. His video series, “Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent”, is archived on YouTube.
James H. Fetzer, a former Marine
Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of
Minnesota Duluth and a columnist for Veterans Today.
Posts
