Photographic Fakery in the JFK Assassination

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently by Ralph Cinque: Did Obama Really Kill Osama?

Look at these two pictures. Similar, aren't they? They depict the same scene: Billy Lovelady sitting at a desk in the Dallas PD as a string of officers goes by who are taking Lee Harvey Oswald to be processed. The date is November 22, 1963; the time is 2 PM; and both images are official evidence in the JFK assassination.

In some respects, the two images match very well. Notice that the two pieces of paper on the desk are positioned the same way. Notice the unusual coat rack on the right with the clock on the top. It's more visible in the lower picture, but you can still see it in the upper one. How often do you see a clock on a pole? You can read the time in the second picture, and it says 2 PM, exactly. The angle is too acute to read the time in the first picture, but it's from film footage, and in other frames within seconds of it, you can read the time. Guess what? It said 2 PM, exactly. Note that both men are leaning an elbow on the desk. Notice the filing cabinets against the rear wall with books stacked above them in both pictures.

Wait! Here it is. Somebody just sent it to me. It's a frame from the footage of Oswald being processed, and you can see that the clock says 2 PM. The image below was taken within a second or two of the top image, and it is the exact same time showing in the other image. Scroll back up and confirm. I want you to be crystal clear about this.

But, there are also some stark differences. Lovelady looks different in the two pictures. If you have any doubt about that, look at them alone side to side:

     

Different guys, yes? What's the weight difference? I figure at least 30 pounds. Notice that Lovelady on the right has his hair swept straight back. He reminds me of Robert De Niro in The Deer Hunter, so I call him De Niro Lovelady. I also call him De Niro Lovelady because Robert De Niro is an actor, and so is this guy. He's playing the role of Billy Lovelady.

The other Lovelady I refer to as DallasPD Lovelady; and his hair is combed differently; swept over from left to right. I'll have more to say about his identity in a moment.

Also note that De Niro Lovelady has his shirt spread open more than DallasPD Lovelady. Some have tried to argue that the difference is due only to the angle of the camera, but I doubt that. I think it's far more likely that he is simply not as unbuttoned. Furthermore, as stated above, the image of DallasPD Lovelady came from film footage in which the camera is rolling and the angle is changing, and at no time does he look as unbuttoned as De Niro Lovelady.

Where did these similar but also disparate images come from? The one of DallasPD Lovelady in the very top frame is from the film footage of Oswald being led through the Dallas PD after he was arrested. In that footage, you can only see Lovelady for four seconds. Here is the link.

The 4 seconds with Lovelady occur from 1 minute, 4 seconds to 1 minute, 8 seconds.

Where did the other image come from? I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone else does. But, it is one of the standard pictures you see of Billy Lovelady from the day of the assassination.

But, to finish our comparison of the images, there are some other differences. In the top frame, which is from the movie, there is a big, tall policeman in uniform who is handling Oswald. However, in the unsourced photo with De Niro Lovelady, you don't see that cop. Some have tried to argue that he's there, but you can't see him because he is in line with the other men, who are concealing him. But, that is not true. If you watch the movie, you'll see that he is always veered to the right; he is never in line with the other men. Besides, he's so tall that even if he were in line with the other men, you'd at least see his hat, since he towers over the others. But you don't see it because he isn't there.

And for the sake of brevity, I'll just point out one more subtle difference: If you look at the second man in the procession, you'll see that in the top frame his hair is short, well groomed, and lying neatly. But in the other image, the second man's hair is longer and curlier, and it has a distinctive, wavy, scruffy look to it. Just compare. It's a small difference, but everything counts.

So, what does it mean? It means that we are looking at two takes of the same event, of the same moment in time and space. And it means that at least one of them was staged, and therefore, false. And if anyone suspects that the second image also occurs within the movie and looks different only because of camera angles, lighting, etc., forget about it. That is not the case. There are only 4 seconds of Lovelady in that movie, and for every nanosecond of that 4 seconds, he is DallasPD Lovelady. De Niro Lovelady is nowhere to be seen in that movie. But don't take my word for it. You have the link above, so watch the movie.

And, the movie is definitely not fake. It really happened. It's real footage; nobody denies it. You can see Oswald, and you know that it's him. But how real is DallasPD Lovelady?

To answer that, let's consider who he might be. And to do that, let's look at him alongside the real Billy Lovelady:

   

The man on the left is Billy Lovelady as taken by the FBI in March 1964, and that is definitely him. Nobody disputes it. And I am thoroughly convinced that the man on the right is also him. That's Billy. Look at the shape of their heads and the slopes of their foreheads. They're the same guy. It's an excellent match.

But notice that if you had to say, you'd probably say that Billy on the left looks younger- even though he is, theoretically, 4 months older. I think it's due mainly to his hair- he's got more of it. Plus, his hair is shorter- practically a crew cut- which prevents hiding any of the baldness with a comb-over. So, we would definitely expect him to look balder; instead, he looks less bald. And note also that a man can lose a lot of hair in 4 months. Hair doesn't fall out evenly over the course of a man's life. He goes through stable periods, which can be long, and also periods of rapid hair loss. So, it really is strange that FBI Lovelady should have more hair than DallasPD Lovelady.

But, what if the image of DallasPD Lovelady was taken later after he had lost more hair? And what if it was inserted into the pre-existing footage of Oswald at the Dallas Police Department?

That may sound outlandish, but it is certainly not outlandish for this day and age, not with Pixar technology which we have all seen and enjoyed. But, I strongly suspect that they found a way to do it back then. You can call it a speculation, and I won't mind. But, please hear me out about this. But first, if you haven't done so, go watch the movie. I want you to see what I'm talking about. And naturally, you should watch the four seconds with Lovelady very carefully. But watch the minute that precedes it as well. You don't have to watch anything beyond that. But, I want you to see the maze that they had to lead Oswald through to get to where Lovelady was. So, if you haven't done it, please go watch the movie now. The link is above. Then return to this point.

OK, now let's discuss it. First, you saw that they had to trek deep into the bowels of that building to reach the point where Lovelady was seated. So, what was Lovelady doing there, and why was he seated at a police work-table? He wasn't a policeman, and he didn't work for the police department. If you've ever been inside a police station, you know that it's tightly controlled. There are limited places where civilians can go.

Lovelady was there, presumably, to make a statement. He was not under arrest. And there were other people from the Book Depository who were there on the same basis, including Bill Shelley, who was Oswald's supervisor. I don't know where they would have had such people wait, but I doubt it was deep in the bowels of the building. And I doubt they would have had such a person wait at a work station in the midst of police activity. So, just his being there in that particular spot strikes me as strange.

Secondly, the cops were transferring the highest-value suspect in the world at that time. They suspected him of killing the President of the United States. And they had no idea, at that time, whether he had accomplices or not. So, security in transferring him would have been a concern.

So when they reached an area where there was a strange, unfamiliar, unexpected man just sitting there who did not look like he was of police personnel, wouldn't at least one of them have said something? "Who are you? What are you doing here? Who are you waiting for?" That kind of thing. But, nobody said anything to Lovelady. Did you notice that nobody even seemed to notice him? Nobody gave him any eye contact or paid him the least bit of mind. It was like he wasn't there. Well, maybe he wasn't.

And what about Lovelady's behavior? It was a very tight, cramped, crowded place. He was sitting there, and why there we don't know, but then suddenly, a procession of policemen enter this small cramped space with an extremely important suspect, and they are going past him. They are going around him. Wouldn't he get up and move out of the way? People tend to move out of the way of the police. It's a common reaction. But, he just sits there and does nothing. There is barely enough room for everyone to breathe never mind move around. But, he just sits there, like a lump on a log. It doesn't even occur to him that it might be helpful if he got up and got out of the way. Is he paralyzed? Is he too tired to move? Of course not. It just doesn't make sense.

A reader pointed out to me that DallasPD Lovelady has a bit of a glow to him, and he seems rather ghost-like. If you compare his glow to other figures in the frame, you'll see what I mean. You can even see it in the still image at the top. But De Niro Lovelady has the same tone and coloring as the others in his picture.

I admit I am doing some speculating here, but this is what we know for certain: there are two, disparate, photographic records of the same event, of the exact same moment in time and space. Therefore, at least one of them had to have been staged. And to stage events relating to the assassination in order to produce false evidence is subterfuge of the most wicked kind.

What was the purpose? The purpose was to show Lovelady in that long-sleeved, plaid shirt. You see, after the assassination, he told people, including the FBI, that he wore a short-sleeved shirt with red and white vertical stripes- the very shirt you see FBI Lovelady wearing. They even photographed him wearing it unbuttoned in order to duplicate the look of the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo. Here it is:

The FBI even sent a letter to the Warren Commission informing them that Lovelady had told them that he wore the shirt you see above on the day of the assassination. Here is the letter. The relevant text is underlined.

But, the problem was that they realized soon afterwards that Doorman's shirt was long-sleeved. So, the story had to be changed, putting Lovelady into a long-sleeved plaid shirt like the ones you see on DallasPD Lovelady and De Niro Lovelady.

But, lip-flapping and even the written word only go so far. A picture is worth a thousand words. And they realized that if they could come up with a picture of Lovelady wearing that fabled plaid shirt, all would be well. And, it might have worked if they had quit at one. But two disparate images with two disparate Loveladys? That's worse than having no image at all.

The existence of these two disparate photographic images of Lovelady crossing paths with Oswald at the Dallas PD on 11/22/63 is proof-positive of subterfuge and the fabrication of evidence in the JFK case. Who does such a thing? Only someone who is lying. Only someone who is trying to distort reality, misrepresent the facts, and deceive people on a massive scale.

The recognition of the parallels between these two images, which I don't believe was seen until quite recently, delivers a powerful and fatal blow to the official theory of the assassination. Oswald did not shoot Kennedy; he was standing outside watching at the time. Lee was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo. And everything they have been telling us to the contrary has been a lie and a cover-up.

The boat of officialdom has hit an iceberg. The music is still playing, and they're still dancing the foxtrot, but that ship is going down, and there is nothing they can do about it. This new evidence is very compelling, and it is unassailable. They staged the photo! They enacted the scene! They fabricated the evidence! That means they lied. It means that it has all been a big, monstrous, despicable lie.

Ralph Cinque [send him mail] has worked as a chiropractor, nutritionist, and health spa operator. Visit his blog.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts