JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1231)


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

All in all, I am even more convinced that Lovelady was NOT Doorman [the man seen in the TSBD doorway in James Altgens' photo] and Oswald was.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph,

Doesn't it matter at all to you that Billy Lovelady HIMSELF said that he was the man in the doorway? Lovelady even drew an arrow to himself on Warren Commission Exhibit No. 369, with that arrow pointing to the man you say is Lee Oswald.

Is Lovelady himself a liar?

And is Wesley Frazier a liar too when he said that Doorway Man was Lovelady and not Oswald? (See the video below to hear Frazier say it himself [at 9:05].)




RALPH CINQUE SAID:

No, it doesn't matter to me at all what Lovelady said. We know for certain that Lovelady either replaced his shirt OR he altered it, so that makes him a conspirator.

And regarding Frazier, you notice in that video that when asked if Lovelady and Oswald looked alike, he [Buell Wesley Frazier] indicated no, that Lovelady was a much more stocky fellow, and of course he was at the time.

But as for his mistaking Lovelady for Doorman, I attribute it to their having moved Lovelady's face over. Frazier was looking at the face and not at the body and the clothes. And when he saw Lovelady's facial features, it never occurred to him that anyone could be so evil as to move the face over in order to cover up the conspiracy and deceive the entire world.

The bottom line is that Doorman has Oswald's build, and he is wearing Oswald's clothes. And THAT MAKES HIM OSWALD REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYBODY SAID.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother.


ROBERT MORROW SAID:

Ralph, I am going to give you a tip. You are conversing with multiple personalties [sic] of David von Pein [sic] -- S.V. Anderson being the primary one. Shaboo is another. Dale Hayes is definitely another.

I will not respond to any thread that David von Pein [sic] or any of his numerous sock puppets start. He (and his multiple fake profiles) are not looking for truth.

Occassionally [sic], I do make exceptions to my rule, but it is just not productive to engage a disinformation artist. I personally don't agree with your "Owald [sic] in the TSBD door theory", but at least you believe what you say.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh goodie! I've now got at least three other "personalities" on the Internet (per an insane person named Morrow).

Lovely. I wish my Langley bosses would pay me four times the Disinfo salary then. Looks like I've earned it.

BTW, care to lose another $100, Morrow? I guess losing that first hundred didn't faze the kook in the least. Even after I proved that I'm not S.V. Anderson (to the point where Morrow actually had to cough up a hundred bucks, which he did), Morrow is still sticking to his lie about me having "multiple personalities" online.

But that's typical CT-Kook behavior, of course -- i.e., they'll stick to the worn-out and proven-false theories until the day they join their hero Oswald in the world beyond.

A great example of that strange mindset is being exhibited by Ralph Cinque right now (regarding the Doorway Man issue). Regardless of how many different ways he is shown to be 100% wrong--he'll still insist on dragging out the old "Oswald Was In The Doorway" myth. And that's a myth that essentially died in the 1960s even. But it's still not a dead enough equine for Mr. Cinque. Go figure.


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Robert, an honest researcher wouldn't need all those aliases. I know he's all over the place. I just heard from an Australian researcher who told me the same thing: that SV Anderson is David von Pein [sic]. Personally, I like to go with the pet name Pein-head, but that's just me.


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

Hey Cinque, you big dummy, I thought you were 100% convinced I was John McAdams?

You can't seem to keep straight which conspiracy you believe from day to day. Which is it? Am I John McAdams or am I David Von Pein? This fact alone reveals volumes about the inability of the conspiracy cultists to resolve a relatively easy issue.


S.V. ANDERSON ALSO SAID:

David,

Does it get any better than this? I'm you and you're Shaboo2 and you are also Dale Hayes and I am Vincent Bugliosi and I am John McAdams and you are me.

Maybe Jim Garrison was right when he said getting involved in this world means black is white and up is down. Maybe we really are through the looking glass. Between Robert Morrow and Ralph Cinque, I have been accused of being five different personalities. See what you [are] missing [by] not hanging around this [Amazon.com] nut house?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed, Steve. It looks like the acj nuthouse isn't the only place to go to find the outer-fringe conspiracy crazies, huh?

According to Dave Healy (another CT loon of the first order), I am also supposed to be Dave Reitzes, Vince Bugliosi, and someone named Steve Keating (plus many other people who serve as my "aliases").

Truth is, I've never used an alias at all on the Internet....except for the username "LAX" at an aviation forum that I used to post at several years ago. And even on that forum, my full name is visible in my profile for all to see:

http://www.airliners.net/user/LAX/profile

I have always used my real name on Internet forums, or in the case of IMDB, my initials ("DVP-1"). I have no reason to hide behind any aliases or "multiple personalities" (to use Morrow's description).

That's silly, IMO, mainly because I want my own credit for my own common-sense posts on the subjects I write about. Why should I want my remarks attributed to some "alias" who doesn't even exist? And I truly think that "common sense" resides in my posts, and on the "lone assassin" side of the JFK debate. I've always felt that way.

But if Mr. Morrow wants to get rid of another hundred bucks or so, I'll gladly give him the chance. Because that's a bet I can't possibly lose.

Addendum:

BTW, Steve (S.V.) -- I was re-introduced to this Amazon JFK forum by way of a post you made recently that was attached to your review of John McAdams' book.


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

David,

Robert Morrow and Ralph Cinque are hilarious to deal with, but they are like talking to a photograph of a horse.

Even over at the MisEducation forum, Morrow's claims draw criticism and rolled eyes. He doesn't come around here much anymore, but when he does he continues to play the same tune: someone said that someone said that someone said that they heard Johnson tell someone else that he was going to have Kennedy assassinated--therefore based on this information, Johnson was behind it.

I don't know if you've had to deal with Ralph Cinque much. He is even more impossible to deal with than Morrow. Cinque is a chiropracter, turned health-fasting counselor, turned health food guru, turned photographic expert (ala Jack White's school of self-credentialing.) He and Jimmy Fetzer are trying without much success to sell the conspiracy cultists on the long-disproven claim that Oswald was in the doorway and that Billy Lovelady was in on the assassination plot and he was "heart-attacked" (Cinque's term) in 1977 to prevent him from revealing the truth to the HSCA.

Cinque and Fetzer are claiming that the Altgens photograph was stolen from the AP offices, altered by placing Lovelady's face on Oswald's body and then returned to the AP offices prior to the photograph's release to the public at 1:03 [PM on 11/22/63]. All of their imagined conspiratorial shenanigans took place in about fifteen minutes time.

I seriously don't have the time or energy to respond to Cinque and Fetzer's claims because they are simply too dumb to warrant serious rebuttal. But it goes to show that there is NO THEORY too nutty for the conspiracy cultists to embrace, believe, and then defend.

There is nothing that could surprise me anymore.

By the way...is Morrow still claiming that you are sending him mysterious letters from around the country? Remember last year when he was trying to convince people that you worked for the CIA and you were traveling the country sending him mysterious letters of an undisclosed content? I swear, he is a laugh a minute. I would love to have another voice of sanity to contribute here once in a while. Don't be a stranger.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Steve [S.V.],

I haven't conversed with Morrow very much. I don't feel the need to engage his weirdness in a debate. (But I'm more than willing to take some more of his money off his hands--if he wants me to.)

And I haven't heard him making the "mysterious CIA letters" claim anywhere other than here [at Amazon.com] last year.

That was, though, one of the top highlights from the 2011 CT Kook Season, I must say.

[To see more of Robert Morrow's lies and hilariously insane rantings, click here and here and here.]

Hey, speaking of crazy theories -- have you seen the one from Gil Jesus about Governor Connally possibly whipping out a pistol and killing JFK? (More below.)

"Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet or less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312, together with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car. Let's also not forget that Johnson's man Connally was less than 3 feet from the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known to have carried a gun strapped to his ankle. Think about it." -- Gil Jesus; July 15, 2007


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

I will have to read Gil's latest. I don't see him on this site, but I used to get my fill of him over at the Alt.com website. He divided his time between proposing nutty theories and trying to find out the personal details of the private lives of all the posters. I remember him trying to expose the whereabouts of all of the various posters that didn't buy his theories. That HAS to be the lowest point a researcher can stoop to. But what are we to expect.

Hey, I was going to ask you about something someone brought up about the Zapruder film on the night of the assassination. I assumed that if ANYONE would know about this, you would. Someone wrote a post about a copy of the Zapruder film being sent to a CIA photography lab on the night of 11/22/63. I have Richard Trask's great book on the Z-film, "National Nightmare", but I don't recall him addressing this claim (or maybe I read it and forgot it). I believe the reference was volume IV of Doug Horne's ARRB book. I only have volume I, so I couldn't check the reference myself. Anything to this claim and what (if anything) is the significance?

Thanks.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Steve,

I've heard the claim that the Z-Film was supposedly altered at Hawkeyeworks in Rochester, New York. Is that the "CIA" place you meant? Or was it just a "copy" of the film that the CIA supposedly tampered with?

But if it's only a COPY of the original film, then how would the film-fakers deal with the fact that Zapruder's camera-original and two other copies were left unaltered?

I do know that the Z-Film could not possibly have undergone the kind of alterations and crazy manipulation that kooks like Fetzer, et al, believe was done, for the simple fact that Abe Zapruder HIMSELF was present during the processing of the film AND during the making of the three copies of the film.

So, unless Zapruder himself was a conspirator, the film could not have been altered.

Zapruder also testified at the 1969 Clay Shaw trial, and said that the film that was shown at the trial was the same film he shot in Dallas.

Also see:




RALPH CINQUE SAID:

So, your name is Steve? The S in SV Anderson is Steve? But wait, it's an alias, remember? Why would you use your real first name in your alias? There are 25 other letters, so why not use a different one? You're a history professor, and your first name is Steve? Isn't that an awfully big clue to give away for a guy who is trying to remain completely anonymous? And why would your friend, David Von Pein, who surely must know that you use an alias, give away your first name?

Well, guess what, Steve? I don't believe you are Steve. Everyone knows that SV Anderson makes up identities and has conversations with himself on this forum. You also make up identities to double-team your targets.

So, I think you are either David Von Pein having a conversation with yourself OR you are John McAdams. One or the other. That's what I think. Nice try, Steve.


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

Wait a minute Cinque, you forgot one other option, perhaps I'm David Von Pein having a conversation with John McAdams. I think your deductive skills have almost broken this heart-stopping mystery.


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

No, I don't think David Von Pein IS John McAdams. How many aliases does one guy need, even you?

But honestly, I am going to stick with my first guess that you are John McAdams. That is my strong hunch.


RALPH CINQUE LATER SAID:

There aren't any claims of any witnesses that can possibly remove Lee Harvey Oswald from his perch in the Altgens photo. .... When I see things, I see them. And I see Lee Oswald standing right there on the doorstep. It is definitely him. So, he could not possibly have been up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you think it's only Oswald's BODY that we see, right? And Lovelady's face has been pasted over Oswald's face in the Altgens picture, right?

Please inform the world WHO pasted Lovelady's face over Lee Oswald's body? And please tell us how that person accomplished that feat within just a very short time of the assassination? (Seeing as how Altgens' picture ran on at least one of the wire services very shortly after the shooting. Did some plotter steal the photo from Altgens before it was developed?)


JOHN I. BOSSY SAID:

He doesn't know the answers to these questions, David. He only sees what he sees and that's all the proof he needs. It's like these people who see images of Jesus Christ in their coffee grounds or Satan in their soiled baby's diaper, they see what they see.

What beguiles me is something you have probably dealt with for years: Why this zeal to exonerate a cold blooded murderer?


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

It's perfectly logical. The presence of alterations in the photo prove that there was time to make them--and they were made.

Look: OSWALD IS IN THE PHOTO! It's his outer shirt! It's his t-shirt! It's his manner of wear! It's his build! All of that is primary. Stop acting stupid. It's him!

You can't close your eyes to all that just because of speculations about the timeline.

Hey, they altered the Backyard photo, so why couldn't they alter the Altgens? They altered the Zapruder film (removing frames to hide the slowing and stopping of the vehicle), so why couldn't they alter the Altgens photo?

Oswald is there! He is as present in the Altgens photo as Jesus Christ is in DaVinci's Last Supper. So stop fighting it.


D. AXELSON SAID:

Mr. Cinque -

Your whole argument comes down to this: you THINK you see Oswald's shirt in the picture, and therefore everything that would go into that ACTUALLY being Oswald's shirt must be true. You have absolutely no supporting evidence for your conclusion that Doorman is Oswald, other than that you think Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothing. And since that requires that "forgers" altered the picture (and succeeded in doing so despite some rather tight time frames, in an undetectable manner, under extremely unlikely circumstances), you simply say, "Well, it must have been possible, since they did it."

The rest of us look at the same evidence, and say, "Well, they couldn't have done it in an undetectable manner, or under the time constraints they would have been working under, so therefore, even if I THINK it looks like Oswald's shirt, I must be mistaken."

Now, without simply repeating what you have already said, can you tell me why I should accept YOUR analysis as correct (since it relies solely on your interpretation of what you THINK you see), and reject the analyses of Mr. Anderson, Mr. Von Pein, Mr. Bossy, and Mr. Shaboo, which rely on multiple OTHER pieces of evidence?

Regards,
D. Axelson


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

No, I don't THINK I see Oswald's shirt in the picture. I see it. I am not "interpreting." I am simply looking and seeing. And when I see things, I see them. This is beyond doubt. We're talking about multiple likenesses--and I mean perfect, identical likenesses--to Oswald's outfit, and utter dislikenesses to Lovelady's outfit. And that takes precedence over anybody's claims about the timeline.

You, obviously, don't know how to think. You don't understand that there is a hierarchy involved here. And clearly recognizing unmistakable signs of Oswald in the picture takes precedence over everything else, including your claims about the timeline. Maybe they anticipated the possibility of errant photos appearing and had a photo alteration lab all set up and raring to go. That's worth investigating. But, the fact is, it doesn't matter. We don't need it. The photo stands by itself; it does not require the support of an explanation about the timeline. Oswald is in the Altgens photo. That means he was there and could not have been on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. It also means that the likenesses to Lovelady were faked.

And by the way, our next article is going to deal with the chicanery on the part of Lovelady as he masqueraded as Doorman over the remainder of his short life until he died unexpectedly of a heart attack at age 41. .... Stay tuned for that, you Boys of Langley.


DALE H. HAYES JR. SAID:

Ralph is not a rational person - you are all wasting your time with him.


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

I second Dale's sentiments. Ralph should be catching on that no one buys his child-like claims and evidence-less assertions. There is no point responding to his posts:

1. He doesn't know much of the evidence in this case.
2. What minimal evidence he DOES know...he ignores.

He just keeps repeating the same lies over and over and over hoping that repetition can take the place of evidence and logic.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Amen, Dale and S.V.




David Von Pein
February 15—March 8, 2012
February 21, 2017