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.

Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.

McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. Notices

Posted by on March 16, 2013, With 0 Reads, Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

12 Responses to "JFK: Lovelady’s “arrow” points to conspiracy and cover-up"

  1. Mike Kay  March 19, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Well, well.
    Earnest seems to like to split hairs, while missing the bullseye.
    Thankyou, Dr. Fetzer, the Government claim has been destroyed. We know they lied big time, and now it is up to them to come clean, or face the implication of complicity.
    Thank you for never forgetting, never surrendering, and never giving in. Great work by true patriots.

    • Ernest  March 20, 2013 at 1:06 pm

      Split this.

      “I can’t think of any group–with the exception of Israeli intelligence–that would have been able to keep the JFK assassination conspiracy under wraps for so long.”

      Walter Cronkite

  2. Ernest  March 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    The photo was obviously fake. That does not prove that the CIA assassinated their boss. A rather absurd notion which would have ended the CIA a long time ago if it were true.

    The fact is that JFK was using the CIA to try to assassinate Castro as Gore Vidal the half brother of his wife Jackie said in his autobiography Palimpset.

    The fact is that LBJ put out an executive order which forbade the CIA from assassinating foreign leaders because he believed that the assassination of JFK was a retaliation for the attempts on Castro’s life.

    The fact is that Castro was a Jew by Jewish law since his mother was Jewish. The fact is that that nasty old Batista that we are suppose to hate because he was a fascist became the president of Cuba with the support of Cuban communists and Jews and helped Castro seize power.

    The fact is that Myer Lansky who was a big supporter of Israel was the head of the mafia at the time that the CIA was using the mafia to try to knock off Castro. This is undoubtedly why the CIA’s assassination attempts were unsuccessful and why Castro did not even bother to wear a bullet proof vest.

    The fact is that both JFK and his brother were opposed to nuclear proliferation and that Israel and Red China had a joint nuclear weapons program which was being threatened by JFK.

    Cui bono?

    The fact is that the mafia got the dope provided by the People’s Republic of China and the People’s Republic got 500,000 hostages – US troops in Vietnam to insure that the Pentagon would not bomb their breeder reactors as the result of the JFK assassination.

    The fact is Israel got to keep Dimona which JFK wanted to shut down and went on to use it to build about 400 nukes as the result of the JFK assassination.

    The fact is that the vast majority of the American people do not know these facts because the mainstream media which is controlled by Jews want you to think that the CIA did Kennedy if you do not buy the Warren Commission’s lies.

    • Jim Fetzer  March 19, 2013 at 8:55 am

      Ernest seems to be massively uninformed about the CIA and its role in the assassination. For an overview, see “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”, which was presented at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (22 November 2011): http://noliesradio.org/archives/40500 Even E. Howard Hunt, who was a high level operative, told his son, St. John, that the chain of command had run from LBJ to Cord Meyer, who was then in charge of covert ops for the agency, David Atlee Phillips, who was in charge of Western Hemisphere ops for the agency, and William Harvey and David Sanchez Morales, who were notorious assassins for the agency.

      As William Colby, its former head, observed, the agency owns everyone of significance in the major media. His predecessor, Bill Casey, who had been Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager and negotiated with Iran to be sure they did not release the hostages prior to the election, which would have insured Jimmy Carter’s reelection, told his staff that the CIA’s disinfo ops would be a success when everything Americans believe is false! Ernest seems to illustrate the extent to which the agency has been successful! LBJ was deeply involved and knew that there had been no foreign involvement.

      See JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE by James Douglass and LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK’S ASSASSINATION by Phil Nelson. LBJ did not sign an executive order prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders, moreover, which fell to Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. While there was a conflict between JFK and David Ben-Gurion over Israeli’s plans to develop nuclear weapons, this was a classic case of over-determination. As Lyndon told Madeleine, the CIA and the oil boys had decided that JFK had to be taken out. Ernest advances a mishmash of claims, some true, others false. LBJ, the CIA and the Secret Service were key players.

    • Ernest  March 19, 2013 at 12:34 pm

      I was in error about who issued the executive order prohibiting assassination. It was Reagan not LBJ. I should have checked before I posted it.

      Executive Order 12333

      2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

      You are in error about the “October Surprise.” I voted for Carter the first time he ran. I liked Carter. I also liked Reagan. But I voted for Reagan because I believed that the Democrats were responsible for the wage price spiral that was going on at the time which led to double digit inflation on top of the Volcker Recession.

      Carter invented something called the “misery index” which is the inflation rate and the rate of unemployment combined. The “misery index” was higher under Carter than any other president since Truman – 22% – (and higher than every president after Carter – including Obama). Reagan made a point of this during the election. That is why Carter lost. The hostages had nothing to do with it. And I resented the media for making a deal the hostages. I did not blame Carter for not being able to free them and it would have made absolutely no difference in my vote at the time.

      I could no understand why the media was pushing the hostage thing and I resented it. I voted for Reagan because

    • Ernest  March 19, 2013 at 12:38 pm

      I resented the media for making a deal about the hostages. I did not blame Carter for not being able to free them and it would have made absolutely no difference in my vote at the time if he did manage to free them.

    • Ernest  March 19, 2013 at 1:32 pm

      Hunt was wrong. The chain of command was Israel to Permindex (See Opium Lords by Salvaor Astucia) to Myer Lansky to J. Edgar Hoover to LBJ to Cord Meyer.

      Hoover collected dirt on everyone so he could control them. He had the White House wiretapped. JFK knew it but could do nothing about it. Lansky had Hoover in his pocket.

      “Lansky had more than information on Hoover. He had page, chapter and verse. One night, when we were sitting around in his apartment at the Rosita de Hornedo, we were talking about Hoover, and Meyer laughed and said, ‘I fixed that son of a bitch, didn’t I?” … “The Private Life of J. Edgar Hoover by Anthony Summers.”

      Lansky’s business partner Luis Rosenstiel and mob attorney Roy Cohn provided Hoover with his little boys. We know tis from his wife Susan Rosenstiel.

      Susan caught her husband in bed with Roy Cohn. Luis told her that he just wanted to have a private talk with his attorney. Susan did not buy it so they decided to freak her out. This is a description of what they showed her:

      “Then Rosenstiel got into the act with the boys. … Hoover and Cohn were watching, enjoying it…. Then Cohn runs to get himself satisfied-full sex-with the two boys. Those poor boys. He couldn’t get enough. But Hoover only had them, you know, playing with him. I didn’t see him take part in any anal sex.
      Rosenstiel wanted me to get involved, but I wouldn’t do it….

      After about half an hour some boys came, like before. This time they’re dressed in leather. And Hoover had a Bible. He wanted one of the boys to read from the Bible. And he read, I forget which passage,
      and the other boy played with him, wearing the rubber gloves. And then Hoover grabbed the Bible, threw it down and told the second boy to join in the sex.”

      … “The Private Life of J. Edgar Hoover by Anthony Summers.”

      And this is the guy who invented the “lone nut” theory!

      When LBJ was the Senate Majority Leader he took a $500,000 bribe from Rosenstiel to kill a bill which would have cost Rosenstiel millions of dollars in liquor taxes.

      “According to Mrs. Rosenstiel, prominent politicians accepted money from Rosenstiel. Lyndon Johnson, then Senate Majority Leader, allegedly received half a million dollars. She was present, at her husband’s Connecticut estate, when Rosenstiel personally handed a large sum of money to Emanuel Celler, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And, says Mrs. Rosenstiel, the whole corrupt
      operation was conducted with Edgar’s knowledge and approval.

      FBI records released in 1991 establish that Rosenstiel twice visited Edgar in his office in 1958, at the time the Forand Bill was going through its most crucial stages. ”

      “The Private Life of J. Edgar Hoover by Anthony Summers.”

      “Johnson referred to Edgar privately as “that queer bastard.” He fawned over him, however, in a steady stream of complimentary letters. “I think you and all your men are tops,” he scrawled on one.
      “I see them under all circumstances and when I do I’m proud that I am a public servant.”

      “The Private Life of J. Edgar Hoover by Anthony Summers.”

    • Ernest  March 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      If the CIA controls the media then why did it turn on the Grand Pooh Bah of the CIA George Herbert Walker Bush? I remember that Daddy Bush was complaining about all of those “filters” out there. They were censuring what he had to say during his bid for re-election.

      The answer is simple. Bush lost his bid for re-election for the same reason that Carter lost his bid. They both were following the “peace process” based on the mistaken belief that Israel actually wanted peace with the Arabs. That’s why the FED pulled a recession on both of them and why the media turned against both of them.

      As to who controls the media, I think I will let the Los Angeles Jewish Times answer that one for me. I will only add that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish by Jewish law because his mother is Jewish.

      “In 1999, the Los Angeles Jewish Times ran an article entitled “Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media.”
      Four of the largest five entertainment giants,” it announced, “are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch’s News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout — however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.” [LOS ANGELES JEWISH TIMES, p. 14] (And who is the Executive Vice President
      at the News Corporation? Gary Ginsberg.) [WEINTRAUB, B., 3-4-01] “Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom-CBS, News Corporation and Universal rule the entertainment world in a way that the old Hollywood studio chiefs only dreamed of,” noted the Jewish Week in 1999, “And, after all the deals and buyouts, four of the ”
      five are run by Jews. We’re back to where we started, bigger than ever.” [GOLDBERG, J.J., 9-17-99, 12]

      Jewish Influence in the Mass Media

      G.W. learned from Daddy’s mistakes. That is why he packed his administration with dual Israeli American citizens and why we now have the “war on terror” (I.e. the wars for a greater Israel).

    • Ernest  March 19, 2013 at 4:49 pm

      My mistake was about who wrote the executive order is understandable because I recall that Johnson had stated that JFK’s assassination was tied to the attempts on Castro’s life. I was correct in this.In October of 1968, right before leaving office, Johnson told ABC’s Howard K. Smith:

      “Kennedy was trying to get to Castro, but Castro got to him first”

      Some call LBJ’s statement “blarney” and claim the CIA was trying to Kill Castro without JFK’s approval. Well, a certain member of the Kennedy family would dispute that opinion.

      “As I was now beating Jack at backgammon, the war that had been designed to be permanently chilly was heating up. In addition to the current games over Berlin, Jack was busying himself in Southeast Asia while Bobby’s Operation Mongoose was in place to murder Castro.

      Gore Vidal, Palimpset page 369.

      “I have a sharp memory of Lisa, Keating, and me standing in the back of the empty store that we were using for headquarters while the press
      was gathering in the front of the store. Lisa was hectoring Keating on some political point; he was getting flustered. Finally, I said, “Lisa, for
      Christ’s sake, leave him alone. He is a Republican. But at least he’s not Bobby, who’s been trying to kill your friend Castro all these years.”

      Gore Vidal, Palimpset Page 412

    • Ernest  March 20, 2013 at 12:49 pm

      Far from there not being any foreign involvement, Jim Garrison’s research led to the identification of the assassins who were involved in the JFK assassinations.

      “Contrabandista corroborates much of Christian David’s story, and it reveals the identities of two other hit men who worked with Lucien Sarti that I believe were his accomplices—assassins—in murdering President Kennedy. Their names were Jean-Paul Angeletti and Francisco “Francois” Chiappe.”

      Chapter 5: The French-Corsican-Latin Connection in Opium Lords by Salvador Astucia

      Astucia’s belief that it was Israel that placed the hit is strengthened by by Christopher Bollyn’s research into 9/11.

      “Eitan’s statement about the Pollard operation being an operation “beyond enemy lines” reveals how Israeli intelligence veterans view the Israeli-U.S. relationship…Eitan said he has close relations with senior Cuban leaders, including Fidel Castro, and has helped develop Cuba’s agricultural infrastructure with Israeli irrigation equipment, chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers, along with agricultural advisers. According to Eitan, the ten Israelis actively doing business in Cuba for the past five years [1992-97] “have more influence than Russia had in the last thirty years.” The business has developed Cuba’s corn, citrus fruit and tomato farming for export, and Eitan represented “a long list of Israeli companies in Cuba.”

      “The Architecture of Terror Mapping The Network Behind 9-11″
      Chapter VII – The Architecture of Terror:Mapping the Network Behind 9/11
      by Christopher Bollyn

  3. stephanaugust  March 17, 2013 at 7:37 am

    Great job.

    Is there any internet address where one can find a collection of all the old photos?

    • Jim Fetzer  March 19, 2013 at 9:11 am

      Well, there are a lot of them in my articles on JFK here at Veterans Today. Another source you might find useful is “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What happened to JFK?”, which is a Powerpoint converted for publication: http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf Let me know what you are interested in specifically and I’ll see if I can do better.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login