(PART 2)


It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt about it. And now we'll let the new pictures do the talking. We'll see about the vee-shaped shadow that people have been claiming and relying on to avoid admitting that Doorman is wearing Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt. Do you think it was just a v-shaped shadow? Well,
we are putting it to the test, and when the results come in, [we'll] all know the truth.



Here's a question for Ralph Cinque that I don't think has surfaced in the past
(has it?).....

Why couldn't Lovelady have been wearing a V-neck T-shirt on 11/22/63?

Was Lovelady ever asked precisely what type of T-shirt he was wearing that day? Isn't it possible that he could have owned some V-neck T-shirts as well as some that had a "round" neck?

Granted, I suppose most men would buy and wear just one type of T-shirt (whatever their preference might be), but isn't it possible that Lovelady wore a "V" type once in a while? And can Ralph prove that Lovelady never wore (or owned) such a "V"-neck T-shirt?

I'll admit, I have no answers to those T-shirt questions, but, then too, I don't think it matters at all -- because Billy N. Lovelady is Doorway Man. That fact was proven for all time by Lovelady HIMSELF in 1964.



I'm not convinced it's even a V-neck t-shirt [being worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63; see photo below]. It looks like a wide round neck that has been stretched in the TT [Texas Theater] struggle. No doubt a grabbing point by one of the officers.



It took me about 30 seconds of searching through my photo website to pretty much prove that Colin Crow is 100% correct. Oswald wasn't wearing a "V"-neck T-shirt at all on November 22, 1963, as the two pictures below verify.

These pictures were taken during Oswald's midnight press conference, just 12 hours after the assassination. Does Ralph Cinque think Oswald changed from a V-neck T-shirt to a round-neck one between 12:30 PM and approximately midnight? ....



The midnight press conference t-shirt might have been a new one even though the [outer] shirt appears the same. Certainly doesn't appear as stretched then. That's why I used the earlier photo, just after the arrest, in my post.



Is there anything in the records to indicate Oswald was brought a fresh T-shirt by midnight on the 22nd? I'll admit, I haven't cared enough to ever look into this sort of thing (and, of course, WHY would I have ever wanted to?), so I guess that somebody could have brought him a fresh T-shirt to put on from his Beckley residence (or the Paine residence). But he certainly hasn't changed his rust-brown outer shirt by the time of the midnight conference. I can't really see why he would have changed his T-shirt either. But, yes, I guess that COULD have happened. ~shrug~

Either way, it's fairly clear that there's no "V" in the neck of that T-Shirt that Lee Oswald is wearing during the midnight press conference.



I really resent you people wasting my time with this. [LOL. Pot/Kettle Alert!!] Oswald's t-shirt sometimes manifested as a vee, and sometimes it didn't. But Lovelady's t-shirt NEVER manifested as a vee. Why should it have? There was nothing wrong with it. Its fibers hadn't been stretched and disrupted. There were no v-neck t-shirts by design at the time. Oswald's was unique- homemade. Doorman's t-shirt looks vee, and the only one who at any time manifested such a vee- ever- was Oswald. Never Lovelady.



How on Earth do you KNOW these things for a fact, Ralph?

You're just making this crap up as you go along, it would seem.

You're now an expert on the subject of whether or not Billy Lovelady ever stretched his T-shirts into a "V" shape, is that it? You must be delusional.

In point of fact, your argument about how OSWALD'S T-shirts behaved and looked in photos could just as easily also apply to LOVELADY too. How do you know that Lovelady too didn't tug or pull on his T-shirts occasionally to make them form the same kind of "V" shape that we see in some of Oswald's November 22 photos?

Answer: You don't know this for a fact. You're GUESSING. Pure and simple.

Therefore, the "V" trait we see in the Altgens photo could just as easily be forming on a T-shirt being worn by Billy Nolan Lovelady, versus a shirt that Lee Harvey Oswald HAD to be wearing.

In short, I think you've debunked your own "T-shirt theory", because nobody can possibly know for sure (here in 2012, with Mr. Lovelady having been dead for several decades now) whether or not Billy Lovelady ever "tugged" or "distorted" the T-shirts he wore back in 1963.



Are you getting the idea now that sometimes the vee manifested on Oswald, and he is the only person who ever manifested a vee? And Lovelady never did?



Why in the world would I (or any sensible person) ever make such an outlandish claim?

You have no idea what Billy Lovelady's personal habits were in 1963. None whatsoever. But you talk as if you had a conversation with Lovelady on the day of the assassination and asked him this: Hey, Billy, do you ever tug on your T-shirts, so that they become a bit distorted and out of shape? Have you ever done that before?

Did you ever have that conversation with Mr. Lovelady, Ralph?

Didn't think so.

Therefore, when you made the following foolish statement, you were merely MAKING IT UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH:

"The only one who at any time manifested such a vee- ever- was Oswald. Never Lovelady." -- R. Cinque

Can anyone imagine somebody making such a stupid blanket statement like the one I just quoted above? Incredible.

And don't miss my next post, Ralphie. It's gonna "rock your world".*

* My "rock your world" comment above was meant as a sarcastic jab aimed at Ralph Cinque, since Ralph used those exact words in this October 22, 2012, post at The Education Forum.

[NOTE -- That post is no longer there. It's been deleted. And it appears that John Simkin and/or his moderators at The Education Forum have totally removed just about every thread started at that forum by the kook named Cinque. Therefore, I can't link to that 10/22/12 post any longer, which was a post that had Cinque telling me that his bombshell discoveries during a 2012 re-enactment of the Altgens photo in Dealey Plaza were going to "rock your world". As usual, Cinque's promises turned out to be nothing but hot air -- and a big belly laugh.]



There were no v-neck t-shirts by design at the time [1963]. .... They didn't make them commercially at the time. .... That would have been pretty funny if Little Boy Lee was wearing v-neck t-shirts. .... There were no v-neck t-shirts back then. Nobody had them.



The following photo is a screen capture from a 1963 episode of the TV sitcom "Leave It To Beaver" (which aired on network television from 1957 to 1963, finishing its run just a few months before JFK's assassination).

The person wearing the V-neck undershirt in this screen capture is Tony Dow (who played "Wally Cleaver" in the TV series). This episode aired, by the way, on May 23, 1963. The episode is entitled "Wally's Practical Joke", in case Ralph wants to now accuse me of "faking" the image of Wally Cleaver below. The episode has been available on DVD since June of 2010.

Would you still care to claim that V-neck T-shirts were not around and were not available in 1963, Ralph? .....

I never thought that one of my favorite TV shows would ever be able to help me debunk the foolishness of a JFK conspiracy clown. But Wally and The Beav have been able to do just that. Go figure.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if I could come up with more pictures showing people wearing V-neck type undershirts and T-shirts during the 1940s and 1950s too. Why Ralph thinks that those type shirts didn't exist at all prior to November 1963 is yet another mystery.

But, as proven above via Wally Cleaver's photo, once again we can see that Ralph Cinque has decided to just make up a bunch of crap out of thin air, like when he uttered these bladder-busters earlier today [October 26, 2012]:

"There were no v-neck t-shirts by design at the time." -- R. Cinque

"There were no v-neck t-shirts back then. Nobody had them." -- R. Cinque

10/18/2013 EDIT --- Just for the heck of it, here's a second still frame from another "Leave It To Beaver" episode, which again shows "Wally" (Tony Dow) wearing a V-neck T-shirt. This is from the episode "Wally's License", which first aired on October 11, 1962:



You know, research isn't about hoping for things because you want them so bad.



Look out--- It's another Pot/Kettle Alert!!



You going to keep going with this, Peinhead? Are you determined to cling to the idea that Lovelady wore a vee-neck t-shirt and that's the reason why we see it on Altgens Doorman? Then why don't we see it on Wiegman Doorman?



Another Pot/Kettle Alert is upon us!

Cinque has argued in this very Internet discussion--just hours ago!--that the SAME T-shirt on Oswald's back could sometimes be pulled down into a "V" configuration, while at other times, the SAME shirt would look perfectly round and tight at the neck.

But when it comes to LOVELADY'S T-shirt, a whole new set of rules apparently applies, with Lovelady "never" (per Cinque) tugging on his shirt so that it could look anything like Oswald's.

If we look up "Pot/Kettle" in Merriam's Dictionary, I'm nearly certain we'll see Ralphie's photo amid the definition.


Ralph's theory is that the SHIRT was NOT FAKED in the Altgens photo. And Ralph is surely not going to now start suggesting that the WIEGMAN film has been faked in some manner to eliminate the "V" shape of Doorway Man's T-shirt. Are you, Ralph?

Therefore, Cinque seems to be arguing in favor of a "V" in the T-shirt in the Altgens picture, but he is also arguing AGAINST such a "V" in Wiegman's film -- which makes NO SENSE whatsoever, since he has claimed in the past that the T-SHIRT should be identical in all of the photos and films, because only the HEAD/FACE of Lovelady was added to the Altgens photo.

So, Ralph, why are you now saying that the T-shirts look different when comparing Altgens with Wiegman? You don't even seem to know WHAT your conspiracy theory really is. Because, according to your previous arguments, if the shirt is in a "V" shape in Altgens, then it should also be in a "V" shape in Wiegman because you don't think the shirt was manipulated at all by your forever-unseen and unidentified band of photo fakers.

But you claim the T-shirt is not in a "V" in Wiegman, even though we know that the images we see in both Dave Wiegman's motion picture film and James Altgens' still photograph were being exposed through those two cameras at almost the exact same time (i.e., within seconds of each other).

Do you know which way is "up", Cinque? I'm doubting it at this point in the proceedings.

Additional hilarity relating to Cinque's last remarks:

Cinque thinks that this film taken by NBC-TV cameraman Dave Wiegman evidently provides enough information within its few blurry frames when "Doorway Man" is visible to determine exactly what type of T-shirt is being worn by the man standing in the Depository entrance. Ralph Cinque, of course, is nuts.

Relating to what I just said above about the blurriness of the Wiegman film, I will also say, however, that when freezing certain frames in Wiegman's film, the blurriness of the image can be reduced quite a bit, such as the still frame below, which shows "Doorway Man" and the front entrance of the Book Depository at just about the same time when the first shot was being fired at President Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald from Oswald's Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of this same Depository building:

But even with the sharpness and clarity increased in a Wiegman still frame (such as above), it is still very difficult to determine the precise configuration or type of T-shirt being worn by Doorway Man. I certainly wouldn't want to go out on a limb and declare with any degree of certainty anything relating to that T-shirt. And, of course, if the above still image is blown up to isolate and enlarge just "Doorway Man", the image quality only naturally gets much worse. But Ralph Cinque has no problem performing such photo analysis. Remarkable.



But go ahead, Peinhead, make your move. Are you sticking to the claim that Lovelady wore a v-neck t-shirt? Is that your position?



I don't know. And, more importantly, I couldn't care less.


Because it doesn't make a lick of difference. Oswald was not Doorway Man. Lovelady was Doorway Man. Period. Lovelady said so himself. Frazier said so in this 1986 video. The Warren Commission said it was Lovelady. And the HSCA said it was Lovelady.

And a fact you still will not logically assess if your life hung in the balance is the fact that Oswald HIMSELF essentially TOLD THE WORLD that he was not Doorway Man:

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."
REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

I wonder why you think Oswald HIMSELF was trying to set himself up as a patsy. God only knows why you'd think that.

In other words, when Oswald COULD have said this to the world:

"No, I was not inside the building at the time of the shooting. I was standing out front with Wesley Frazier and some of the other guys. Just ask them!"

Oswald instead tells the world this:

"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

Go figure.




I don't give a damn about the "Vee"-shaped shadows or the "V"-neck T-shirts. It doesn't matter. Lovelady pointed HIMSELF out as being Doorway Man. And only a total loony bird from the Jim Garrison or James H. Fetzer School Of Loony-Toons would think that Billy Lovelady lied when he drew an arrow to himself (Doorway Man) in the Altgens photo.

My whole purpose in getting into this fray today was so that I could watch you (Ralph Cinque) squirm and flop around like the conspiracy-happy kook you are with respect to my T-shirt inquiries and, subsequently, the screen capture I provided that proves you didn't know what the hell you were talking about when you said this:

"There were no v-neck t-shirts back then. Nobody had them."

But now, of course, you want to move the goal posts [which Cinque did in a later post] and claim that only people who wanted to look "sexy" would buy a V-neck in '63 or that a person needed to be on the "cutting edge of fashion" to have a V-neck undergarment or that such shirts were "not popular" in '63.

But I'm afraid you're still left with this crow to chew on for all time. You said it and you can't take it back (IOW--you didn't have a clue what the hell you were talking about):

"There were no v-neck t-shirts back then. Nobody had them." -- Ralph Cinque; Resident Conspiracy Kook At All JFK Forums



My God! What a long, long thread. With dozens of messages added in just one day. After reading everything, I realize I have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the Kennedy assassination.



Yes, I agree, Francois.

But, then too, it's kind of hard to learn anything from someone like Ralph Cinque who actually believes that various films (the Martin Film and the WFAA-TV news film taken at the DPD) were "faked" in order to "plant" the image of Billy Lovelady in them.

The unbelievably farfetched theory regarding those "fake" films with Lovelady, as I understand it (unless Cinque and Fetzer, et al, have moved these goal posts too since I last battled with them over this issue a few months ago [in early 2012]), is this:

The authorities who wanted desperately to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for JFK's murder knew, of course, that Oswald was really in the doorway of the TSBD at 12:30, and therefore they needed to replace OSWALD in the Altgens photo with LOVELADY (who, of course, looked somewhat like Oswald).

So the authorities (via magic it would seem, and with the help of Superman's speed to aid them in this) somehow faked the Altgens photo within minutes of Altgens snapping the shutter of his camera, and they pasted LOVELADY'S head over OSWALD'S head in the picture.

But, per the latest round of hokum from Dr. Cinque, they used a really old photo of LOVELADY to paste over OSWALD'S head (the hairline, per Cinque, is the telltale sign that the head of LOVELADY is really a much younger LOVELADY than he was in November 1963, even though, as anyone can easily see when comparing the 1963 LOVELADY with the 1964 picture of LOVELADY (shown below), the hairlines match almost perfectly; but, for some reason, Cinque thinks otherwise).

Also: The authorities didn't bother to REPLACE the shirt OSWALD was wearing in the Altgens picture. They left OSWALD'S brown shirt in the photo, even though they could, of course, have replaced the shirt too. Go figure.

And then (get this for moronic behavior) -- Per Cinque, the authorities faked the Martin and WFAA films because they needed to have some films on hand that showed LOVELADY wearing the patterned shirt that he wore on 11/22/63. This film fakery, per Cinque, was supposed to make it MORE likely that the public would believe it was LOVELADY in the doorway. But the kicker is: They apparently forgot that they ONLY faked the HEAD of Doorway Man in the Altgens picture, while leaving OSWALD'S brown shirt in the "faked" photo, thereby making their fakery of the films useless.

In fact, such fakery of those films made it almost a certainty that they would EXPOSE the conspiracy, because people would then be able to see for themselves that LOVELADY'S shirt in the fake films doesn't match OSWALD'S shirt in the halfway-faked Altgens photograph, because it's still the real OSWALD shirt in the halfway-faked Altgens picture.

Whew. How's that for cloak-and-dagger skullduggery being orchestrated by people who can only be categorized as: Complete and utter idiots of the first order?

Of course, the reality is that the patterned shirt of Lovelady is a closer match to the shirt worn by Doorway Man than Oswald's brown shirt is. Cinque and company will forever ignore this passage that appears on Page 58 of the HSCA's Final Report:

"The photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady."

And apparently Cinque doesn't even realize that his "faked films" theory, when coupled with his theory that has OSWALD'S shirt still present in the Altgens picture, makes no sense whatsoever, and is, in fact, a theory that contradicts itself and contradicts the whole motive for anyone wanting to fake the Martin and WFAA films in the first place.

(Let's watch Cinque try and dig himself out of the hole I just dug for him regarding the "fake" films. Maybe he'll weasel out of it by now saying the films weren't faked after all, or by saying that I totally misunderstood his theory on the whole. Let's watch the weasel wiggle.)



Regarding that other version of the WFAA film [referred to by DVP in
THIS POST], why is it so different from the other? You mentioned yourself
that you have to hit the pause button if you are to catch him at all. The
walk-by clip in A YEAR AGO TODAY was 13 seconds long! So, you mean to
say that on the very day of the assassination, they had the time and the wherewithal to be editing that clip of Lovelady? Why would they do that?

And just because they are claiming NOW that that's what was shown on 11/22/63, there is no reason to believe it. I've already shown you that the film was EDITED, and you certainly can't deny it. So, if they were editing on 11/22/63, they certainly could have edited since then, including yesterday. It proves nothing, Von Pein. It adds just another version to a lot that already consists of 5 or 6 others. All of that effort, and for what? To show a plaid shirt. Too bad the real Lovelady didn't know anything about it.

Ball: Did you EVER see him [Oswald] again that day?
Lovelady: No.



Cinque thinks that just because WFAA stopped short of showing ALL of the DPD film on 11/22, this means the film that was briefly shown on the afternoon of 11/22/63 on WFAA is yet another "version" of the film and has been "edited" yet again. This is the way a crackpot thinks.

It's funny, too, because Cinque now seems to be implying that WFAA was deliberately "editing that clip of Lovelady" on 11/22 (although Billy is still quite visible in the clip for a couple of seconds).

In other words -- WFAA wanted to REMOVE some of the footage of Lovelady on November 22nd, even though Cinque's whole theory on this "DPD film" subject is that the plotters wanted to ADD IN the fake image of Lovelady sitting at a desk while wearing a particular shirt.

So which is it, Cinque -- did WFAA edit the film to REMOVE Lovelady? Or to ADD IN Lovelady?

Let's watch Ralphie fly by the seat of his pants yet again, as he tries to think up a reason for anyone wanting to do BOTH of those things--remove Billy Lovelady AND add him into the film at the same time.


Cinque is evidently not capable of properly evaluating (via common sense) Billy Lovelady's Warren Commission testimony when Billy was asked "Did you ever see him [Oswald] again that day?" -- with Lovelady then answering "No".

The context of the question was fairly clear (especially given Ball's previous question to Lovelady) -- Joseph Ball wanted to know if Lovelady had seen Lee Oswald at any time again IN OR NEAR THE DEPOSITORY BUILDING (i.e., the scene of the assassination).

Cinque, of course, can't figure this easy stuff out. A third-grader could figure out what Joe Ball meant by his question to Billy Lovelady, but Dr. Cinque can't.

In addition, Cinque is also apparently not capable of figuring out that Lovelady's arrow in Commission Exhibit No. 369 has to be pointing to the same person in the Altgens picture that Wes Frazier's arrow is pointing to. We know this to be a fact because of these words spoken by Joe Ball -- "And one in the white pointing toward you."

Cinque, however, needs to be talked through this stuff like a kindergartner. But since the arrow drawn by Frazier (the one "in the white") is "pointing toward you [Billy Lovelady]", then it obviously means that the figure commonly known as "Doorway Man" IS Billy Nolan Lovelady. The word "YOU" being the key word that Cinque tries to ignore.

So, Ralph, do you think that Lovelady was acknowledging in his Warren Commission session that he was in TWO different places at the same time in the CE369 photo? I guess you must think that Lovelady was saying that very thing, because you seem to think that Billy drew an arrow to someone OTHER than Doorway Man, even though Lovelady HEARS Ball say "pointing toward you" when referring to the arrow that is "in the white".

Hint for Ralph -- there can be only ONE "you" [i.e., Lovelady] in CE369. And it couldn't be more obvious who the "you" is in the Altgens photograph.



Do any of you know why this guy Ralph Cinque is claiming that a woman and her baby were a "cartoon" added to the Tina Towner film, and that the same woman and baby were inserted into the Altgens photograph?

This guy [Cinque] is making all sorts of outrageous claims pertaining to the Altgens photo, the Towner film, and such.



I doubt that he really believes half of what he claims.



hahahaha!! Really? I keep hearing about this "Cinque" guy and am happy to say I know nothing of him or his "theories". I don't understand, truly, why some people in this case find the most far-out people in the world to believe.



If you Google Cinque, you'll find he's into all kinds of wacky stuff. With any luck he'll burn himself out on this subject and move on.



I've never heard such an in-depth discussion about a V-neck before.



LOL. And Cinque can rattle on for days about Lovelady's forehead, and various sinister activities by his always-unnamed plotters related to the half-assed patchwork job Cinque thinks they did on Doorway Man's face.

I guess it never occurred to the bumbling plotters to just TOTALLY ELIMINATE the "Doorway Man" figure in the Altgens picture entirely. Noooo. Instead, they replaced only PARTS of Oswald's face in the picture (and eliminated his shoulder, per Jim Fetzer).

Apparently they wanted to leave SOME elements of the real Oswald in the photo, so they left parts of his face and his SHIRT too, even though that shirt is something they should have certainly "Lovelady-ized". But nooooo. They were leaving Cinque bread crumbs evidently.

Ralph Cinque is a comedy team of eight---all inside one chiropractor.

David Von Pein
October 2012
May 2013
October 2013
March 2014




It's remarkable how Ralph Cinque can so easily convince (and delude) himself into thinking he has actually "proved" something with respect to his "photographic research" (please note the deliberate use of sarcastic quotation marks there).

Ralph hasn't moved or displaced the conclusions of the Warren Commission one inch, and yet we get fantastic declarations like the ones below from his keyboard on almost a daily basis:

"It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt about it."

"New large photographic alteration discovered."

"The likenesses to Lovelady were faked."

"Bookhout shot Oswald. It wasn't Ruby. It was Bookhout."


Some questions for us to ponder....

1.) I wonder what Ralph's "secret" is to unlocking all of the sinister "fakery" that he insists exists in virtually every picture and film taken on 11/22/63, 11/23/63, and 11/24/63?

2.) What special "talent" does Dr. Ralph Cinque possess that nobody else in the history of JFK assassination research has ever possessed when it comes to evaluating and assessing the photos and films associated with the JFK murder case?

3.) How has Ralph been able uncover so much fakery in such a relatively short period of time on the Internet, which is alleged fakery that nobody else on the planet has ever seen or uncovered, even though every one of those pictures and films has been available to everybody for decades?

I know the answers to the three questions I just asked. Do you, Ralph?

David Von Pein
March 21, 2017


(PART 1)