It’s been a while since I last paid these guys any attention…and having heard another recent interview with Barry Ernest ( ], I realized that he holds the proverbial hammer to shut these guys up for good. Say hello to Victoria Adams…


She, along with three coworkers and friends observed the motorcade as it passed down Elm St. as it passed by the Texas School Book Depository. They were watching and filming out of the only open window on the 4th floor. Sandra Styles, Elsie Dorman, and Mrs. Gardener stood together and watched in horror as shots rang out in Dealy Plaza and their beloved President slumped as shots ripped his head apart. Vicky and Sandra almost immediately headed for the back stairway and proceeded down the four flights of stairs to finally get to the front entrance of the TSBD. The problem is, if Oswald or anybody was on the 6th floor shooting, and they made an immediate escape down the back stairs, they likely would have encountered or ran over Vicky and Sandra making their escape. But this didn’t happen…The girls heard and saw no one else on the stairs coming up or down. Now this is the crucial part….The Oswald Innocence Campaign maintains through conjecture and manipulated photos that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, was out on the front steps as the motorcade passed by and was captured in the famous Altgens 6 photograph.


What’s that? You can’t see anything? Let’s enlarge it 5 billion times then…


They claim the man that looks to be Billy Lovelady is actually a “photoshopped” Lee Harvey Oswald…despite the fact that NO ONE (coworkers) testified to the fact that Oswald was on the front stairs at the time of the shooting. Of course back then, photo manipulation was more of a cut and paste type operation and as you can see the actual area of the photo is quite tiny without a super magnified version.


You can clearly see the cut line above the chin and also a long the right side of Oswald head (looking straight at it) This was about the extent of the photo manipulation skills 50 years ago, crude and easily discernable. Put Oswald’s face on a different body…And that there were agents waiting at the other end of the telefax at the New York AP headquarters just to intercept any photos containing LHO so they could hustle them off to be “fixed”. As I have explained in earlier posts, their version of events has Oswald on the stairs, yet NO ONE sees him there, and immediately after the shots, runs inside to get a soda…so fast, he beats DPD Officer Marion Baker and building supervisor Roy Truly to the 2nd floor lunchroom…he also was so fast, he beat Vicky and Sandra as they descended the stairs. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Instead of hanging around, talking to his coworkers and seeing what was going on, as any normal person would, he immediately turns tail and hauls ass inside for a soda after the President of the United States was gunned down right in front of him? There is so much flawed logic in that theory its almost laughable…ok it IS laughable! The descent of the ladies proves beyond a doubt that Oswald wasn’t on the 6th floor shooting at the President,  their friend Mrs. Gardener followed them out the 4th floor landing where she stayed as the pair descended, she stood there so long, she was there as Baker and Truly passed by her. Mrs. Gardener, Ms. Styles, and Ms. Dorman were never called to testify before the Warren Commission. Vicky Adams was, but her testimony was changed to discredit what she saw and the timing of her descent. She went 40 years unaware until Barry Ernest showed her her “wrttien testimony” and the lies contained therein. As she entered the 1st floor landing she passed no one coming up and there was a lone black warehouse worker standing in the lobby. Baker and Truly also only passed this man on their ascent and Truly told Baker he worked there and was mildly retarded. When Oswald was confronted in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor with a gun pointed at him, he was calmly drinking a Coke and not winded nor seemed nervous at all. A witness has also been vetted by JFK researcher and Dealy Plaza fixture Robert Gooden to only release an eyewitness account after they had passed away as she feared for her life…This woman claims to have been changing a dollar for Lee Oswald as the shots were being fired thus definitively excluding him as being the “6th floor” assassin. So there you have it, Oswald did not pass Vicky and Sandra on the stairs or the main floor, Vicky and Sandra exited the building out the front entrance…They did not see Lee out there either. They also beat Marion Baker to the entrance, so if Lee had really been on the steps, they would have encountered him, and if he was on the 6th floor and came down, they or Mrs. Gardener would have encountered him. Once and for all proving Oswald was not on the front steps nor was he on the 6th floor shooting…he was where he was seen by multiple people, eating lunch in the “domino room” or the black lunch area, after lunch he went up and got change, proceeded to the 2nd floor lunchroom and got a soda to wash it all down with.


          [A view from the lobby]

Jim Fetzer, JFK research collaborater, and prominent and noted member of the OIC, IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO DISTANCE YOURSELF FROM THESE KOOKS AND CONMEN! They are desperate to make a name for themselves, but they are misconstruing history and you sir have been sucked into their tangled web. I urge you and others to get out now before your entire reputations have been tarnished by the likes of Ralph Cinque the swarthy, foul mouthed little prick, snake oil salesman that he is.
Barry Ernest is one of the first generation of highly respected researchers the likes of Harold Weisberg and has spent close to 50 years researching this case and spending endless hours in the National Archives digging and interviewing those that were lost to history and ignored by others. His book is a great read of his journey to find Vicky Adams and has since found Sandra Styles and Mrs. Gardener who have all corroborated the original time line of the descent and what they saw and encountered.  Also Len’s interview on Black Op radio (the link at the beginning) is a great intro to the story and deserves a listen too. Earnest’s wonderful book finally assembles the missing pieces of the assassination puzzle and blows the case wide open. For more great commentary and irrefutable evidence that contradicts the OIC lies using logic and evidence and testimony, of which they have none, please visit my new friends’ sites…





  1. Aha! So, if it’s distorted stills from shitty videos, then you can tell it’s Billy Lovelady any more than we can tell it isn’t. You just admitted that you didn’t come to that conclusion by any photographic comparison. You just came to it- out of blind acceptance.

  2. Approaching the HSCA investigation of 1977-78, film clips began to surface providing additional evidence Lovelady was wearing a long sleeve red-and-black check (with a white fleck) shirt on the day of the assassination. Images of Lovelady appear to have been superimposed into the Martin, Hughs, Dallas PD and Dave Wiegman films to provide bogus, after-the-fact, evidence that Billy Lovelady had been in the TSBD doorway wearing a long sleeve, red-black-and-white check shirt. A frame of the Martin film shows a phony Lovelady (in this bogus check shirt) in the doorway with his shirt buttoned clear up to his neck, yet a frame of the Hugh’s film (supposedly depicting Lovelady at the same moment in time) shows Lovelady with his shirt sprawled wide–clearly a blunder in attempting to imitate the man in the doorway. The difference are virtually those of a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde, where Jekyll looked normal but Hyde looked like a gorilla. Go to this link:

    • That’s complete crap. Who altered the films? Where were they altered? How was it done?

      You now claim more people were involved in altering films and portraying Lovelady than there were involved in the assassination itself.

      Complete and utter bullshit.


      imagination doesn’t constitute proof…hell you don’t even have any evidence let alone proof.

      try again Fetzer….

  3. This is part of Marrion Baker’s original hand-written statement on 11/22/63. So, you can’t say that the Warren Commission was pressuring him since it wasn’t even conceived yet.

    But, Baker provides an apt description of Oswald, and being a cop, and therefore trained to be observant, he would have mentioned the Coke if Oswald had one.

    Do you really think that if Oswald had turned around and walked towards Baker with a Coke in his hand that Baker wouldn’t have said so? And on 11/22/63, before there could be any considerations about timelines etc.”?

    There is NO basis to surmise that Baker EVER said that Oswald had a Coke, and there is no basis whatsoever to assume that he was lying.

      • Although it is easy to that the statements were written by the FBI, both Baker’s and Truly’s, the question remains whether or not these “statements” were creations of the FBI or what…If they were dictated… then it was a recantment of something Baker originally said and later removed as “too much information” who knows…regardless of if he ran up to get a soda or stand there like a statue…it still makes no sense in Ralphie’s timeline…Oswald wasn’t out front…

  4. Again, there is the inability to think. We don’t have to say WHO altered the films. We don’t have to say WHERE they were altered. And we don’t even have to say specifically HOW they were altered, although there was plenty of film wizardry going on by 1963. The Wizard of Oz came out in 1939. Anchors Away, with Gene Kelly dancing with Jerry the Mouse, came out in 1945. And Mary Poppins came out in 1964. So, don’t be doubting the existence of the technology unless you want to look foolish.

    Instead, we provide evidence THAT they were altered. Just focus on the That, and don’t worry about Who or Where or How. The Lovelady page of the OIC sites details some of the film alterations that were made:

    • No you’re wrong Ralph and I will address yours and Fetzer comments in this one instance.

      You do have to say who, how and when. Just saying something was done is insufficient.

      To begin with, you can’t prove any anomaly in Altgens 6. None. Saying this was done and that was done doesn’t cut it. You don’t have anything to prove your claim.

      Researchers have studied the negative and prints and can find NO ANOMALY…NONE.

      Next you bring irrelevant information about movies that have no bearing on Altgens 6 NONE.

      That’s fetzering. The Wizard of Oz came out the same year as Gone With the Wind so Altgens was altered.

      That’s your proof.

      Next you go into spam mode referring me to a webpage that makes a claim with no evidence to back up the claim. Again…fetzering.

      Now for you Jim….
      OB man shows no signs of being obfuscated. His arm partially blocking the view of his face. That’s it…nothing more. You can’t show any evidence of anyone that has looked at the Altgens 6 negative or prints that show alterations…NONE.

      When it comes to soap washing you should start with your cohort Ralph who has one of the foulest mouths on the net.

      You have presented NO PROOF. All you have done is said something is so when it clearly isn’t.

      You have an empty spoon Fetzer. There is nothing in it except your words and they are as hollow as Ralph’s head.

      You are not advancing the boundaries of truth. You are stating opinions based on nothing.


      fetzering…that is all you are capable of

      • This is pathetic. We can know a man is dead without knowing who killed him. We can know a photo is altered without knowing who altered it. This is called attacking a straw man by creating an exaggerated version of an argument. If this guy cannot understand something as simple as this, then it is no wonder he has to resort to ad hominems and other elementary fallacies. How would he explain two versions of the Beacon Hill I have yet to see an decent argument come from him in any context or forum. The proof is on its face. The photo includes a man with a missing shoulder, which is anatomically impossible other than for physically abnormal person. Black Tie Man is both in front of him and behind him at the same time, which is an optical and photographic impossibility. This guy loves to make stuff up and shovel it into this exchange.

      • You can’t know a man is dead without evidence of the man to begin with.

        We have a photograph. That’s fact.

        The OIC claims it was altered. They can’t say how it was altered, when it was altered or who altered it but it was altered.

        And they base that on the inability to see a man’s elbow in front of his face,
        That’s it. Because you can’t see an elbow in the picture you claim it has opaquing applied to it.

        That is what is pathetic…

        35 mother fucking years of you spouting bullshit to tax paying students allows you to claim the intellectual superiority when you can’t even admit that you are wrong about a man’s elbow in front of his face in a photograph.

        You are the one making things up when you say the man doesn’t have a shoulder. He does, it’s right there connected to his arm.

        You are the one making things up when you say someone is in front yet behind someone at the same time because he isn’t, he is behind Lovelady.

        That’s the entire problem here Fetzer…you make things up.

    • quote:

      We don’t have to say WHO altered the films. We don’t have to say WHERE they were altered. And we don’t even have to say specifically HOW they were altered.

      I may use Cinque’s quote above as a tag line at the bottom of my forum posts.

      Ralph Cinque the Forrest Gump of Facebook. ( Stupid is as stupid does )

      So what you are really saying is, that you can just make up any crap you wan’t, without actually having to explain how to anyone how you came to that conclusion.

      Everything is altered, but don’t ask me HOW IT WAS ALTERED i haven’t got a clue;

      I’m too busy making shit up, to stop and explain what the hell i’m on about.

  5. Anyone like this bpete who cannot concede that Obfuscated Man had his face obfuscated–that Doorman is missing his left shoulder, that Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, and that Black Hole Man has had his face blackened out–really has no business posting about the issues, which apparently exceed their cognitive abilities. We are not responsible for his mental impairment, which he attempts to conceal by endless strings of profanities. bpete should have his mouth washed out with soap. He ignores proof when proof is presented and denies the existence of evidence when it is fed to him on a spoon. His only role is to attack those of us who are advancing the boundaries of truth about the assassination of JFK. Unbelievable!

      • Are you freaking asleep, Sutler? Are you drunk? I have been saying forever that the guy is standing with BOTH ARMS CROSSING HIS CHEST. Where the pluck have you been? You give me another apology right now. You owe it to me. And wakt the pluck up!

      • I only did it that way so that Unger et al would not be able to say that if only I faced his elbow to the camera, it would have looked like Altgens. But, the fact is it did NOT look like Altgens. It came out looking like an elbow, a normal elbow, a real elbow, not a white splotch, so their theory is wrong. And you know very well that I maintain Ob Man had both arms crossing his chest. You think you are going to beat me by lying and misrepresenting me? Not a prayer.

      • Ralph of course likes to say that he posed it that way to refute the claims against him when the truth is of course that he still quite deliberately avoided having the elbow point directly at the camera, as seen in Altgens.

    • It’s plainly an elbow. And it’s plain to see in Wiegman too. I don’t recall Ralph ever accounting for the fact that “Obfuscated Man” as seen in Wiegman is doing exactly what everybody has pointed out that he’s doing in Altgens. I can pretty much guess what he’s going to say though…
      There is no missing shoulder, just Ralph’s misrepresentation of Lovelady’s true posture, combined with his basic dishonesty in refusing to admit that the split second of time captured in a photo can picture people in any number of unlikely positions.You maybe didn’t see the “woman holding a towel” fiasco a couple of days ago. You should check it out because it reveals a great deal about Ralph’s ability to analyse photographs.
      Nobody is ” both in front of and behind Doorman at the same time”. The so called ” Black Tie Man” is visible in Wiegman some distance from Lovelady.
      There is no blackened out face. Look at the best available copies of the photo. And then ponder why Ralph likes to flit between different versions depending on which point he’s trying to push.

      Nobody has bought into these ideas wherever they have been presented.

      Far from ” advancing the boundaries of truth about the assassination of JFK”, you appear to be involved in the promotion of an obvious scam. We can only speculate as to the reasons why…

    • quote:

      Anyone like this bpete who cannot concede that Obfuscated Man had his face obfuscated–that Doorman is missing his left shoulder, that Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, and that Black Hole Man has had his face blackened out–really has no business posting about the issues

      Get it through your thick skull old man, that nobody gives a shit what you have to say.

      Your a dinosaur, nobody apart from your little click at the O.I.C is buying your line of bullshit.

      Even friends like MONK have now turned there back on you.

      All you can do is regurgitate the same tedious rambling line of BULLSHIT over and over again
      like a broken record,

  6. Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

    You got opinion, you got commentary, you got imagination, you got convoluted reasoning but you got no proof.

    Answer this Jim….

    In reference to your one of 5 Loveladys…

    Is it your position that Lovelady should look like identical twins in every photo medium regardless of camera, lens, film or lighting used to produce the photo?

    • Only someone who has no idea what he is talking about would utter rubbish like this. What we are talking about are gross differences in the structure and composition of the face and skull and gross differences in the clothing, the shirt, the weight and the build of the individuals involved. It is not a question of subtle differences that are affected by perspective. Go to the link that I have provided and look at Richard Hook’s “Dr. Jekyll vs. Mr. Hyde”. You are committing the blunder of IGNORING THE EVIDENCE, which is the best you can do, since the evidence refutes you.

      • Ignoring the evidence?

        You ignore everything that shows your claim to be nothing but imagination.

        You ignore the FACT that no puts Oswald outside at the time of the shooting…INCLUDING OSWALD.

        You ignore the FACT that people have studied Altgens 6 and found no anomalies…NONE.

        So you fetzer…gotten you this far in life why not continue huh

      • Typical Fetzer response…insult our intelligence…if we were truly as stupid as you think we are we wouldn’t be researching the assassination nor would we have balls enough to throw evidence and facts in your face to refute your irresponsible claims

      • You’re quick to claim people are committing blunders but slow to answer the question I asked. It has to do with more than just perspective.
        It has to do with images and compression ratio and other aspects that would cause someone to appear heavier or shorter etc.
        It also has to do with your claim of alterations and “stand ins” and why no one has ever been identified as being used as a stand in for Lovelady.

        But as usual you take a superior position based on your ego and not on any evidence.

        Provide the evidence for someone other than Lovelady being in Lovelady’s position other than your opinion that they don’t look the same. You can’t even see a clear cut elbow in a photograph. Richard Hooke’s 5th grade collages are not evidence nor are they proof.

        Instead of spamming the thread with off topic articles on Da Joooos did it magazine offer some evidence.

        But I guess that’s asking too much of someone of your stature….

  7. It’s true that a person doesn’t look exactly the same in every picture, but there should be no overwhelming, deal-breaking, over-the-top inconsistencies. In other words, there should be NO CONTRADICTIONS, and there are.

    And if you think that white splotch is just his elbow facing the camera, then you need to prove it. The fact is that it is unlike any elbow we have ever seen in any photograph. That much distortion doesn’t happen in ANY photo. If you think it’s possible, you need to prove it by posting untouched photos that look as incongruous as that one does. There is a lot of distance between these two:

    Basically, you are saying that the image on the right is of the same character as the image on the left.

    But, that’s bull. You can’t away with that. We won’t let you.

    • Where the fuck do you get off saying what someone else can say?

      You are the biggest fucking asshat to walk this earth. I always thought Fetzer was and then comes along Chuck Boldwyn but you take the fucking cake.

      You decide what can be said or what picture can be used.

      You a fucking idiot Cinque..a complete fucking idiot.

  8. It sounds like you didn’t like that collage. Well, look at it again because that’s what you’re claiming:

    That is bill. It doesn’t happen in photographs, not even in 1963. It’s an alteration, an obfuscation, and you can’t make it go away by cursing.

    • There is no distortion ralph.

      Altgens 6 shows the man’s elbow in front of his face.

      You say it doesn’t. The burden of proof is on you.

      People have looked at the negative and prints and have found no anomalies.

      You ignore that Fact..

      You say what happened in Altgens 6 doesn’t happen in photographs…but it does…it happened in Altgens 6 and wishing it didn’t doesn’t change the fact that it did.

      You can fetzer all you want but it doesn’t change facts.

  9. Are you a complete idiot using this image, don’t you know the difference between, front on, and
    right side profile.

    We are looking at the elbow man in Altgens 6 standing SIDE ON not front on.

    still no cigar

    I will make this my last post,, as i will not waste my time talking to a simpleton, who can’t even grasp the most basic of photographic analysis skills.

    • I think Ralph has a thing for shirtless black haired guys….the last two photo examples he’s used has them in them….

      That explains why last year he told S.V. Anderson he wanted to pound his ass….

      maybe that’s why “Linda” left…..

  10. For those who have a serious interest in these questions, which is untrue of those posting here apart from Ralph and me: see There is no point in continuing this bizarre exercise where one phony supports another phony, which they orchestrate with a cascade of lies and fraud. If anyone wants to discuss these issues with me, they are welcome to write

    The proof that the Altgens6 was altered may be even more obvious and compelling than the proof that the Zapruder film was fabricated, where each frame had to be reshot in the laboratory to create a new sequence of “ghost panels”, in the absence of which the fakery would have been conspicuous. We have another time-line argument about this photo, which also has no merit. When there is proof that a photo or film has been faked, there must have been time to fake. You don’t have to be a philosopher to appreciate that whatever is actual must be something that is possible. In this case, however, the CIA took extraordinary measures to conceal that Oswald had been in the doorway at the time of the shooting, which has to be the most direct and obvious proof that The Warren Report (1964) is a sham.

    My research on the Altgens6 began when I belatedly discovered that the ARRB had released notes that Will Fritz, the homicide detective who had interrogated them, had taken, during which Lee Oswald had told him he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”, which led me to take a closer look to see if he had been caught in this famous photo (above). I discovered a collage on a John McAdams web site, in which it was apparent that a face had been obfuscated. It was my initial inference that this had to have been Lee’s face, since there was no obvious reason to have removed anyone else’s. But I was soon contacted by Ralph Cinque, who explained I had the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, an area in which he possessed considerable relevant expertise, given his background as a professional chiropractor.

    Ralph convinced me that the key to unraveling the ambiguity is their clothing, not their faces, where the shirt that Doorman is wearing is strikingly similar to the shirt that Lee was wearing when he was arrested. We would publish a series of sequels: we explained that Lovelady visited the FBI and showed them the shirt that he had been wearing, which was a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt; that a man near the doorway in a checkered shirt, who has been claimed to have been Lovelady, has very different cranial and facial features and does not resemble him; that Doorman is missing his left shoulder and that “Black Tie Man” is both in front of him and behind him at the same time and that several videos were doctored to place “Checkered Shirt Man” in the Dallas Police Department.

    Just as we know the actual must be possible, we also know that the impossible cannot be actual. Since anyone can see that Doorman is missing his left shoulder and that Black Tie Man is both in front of him and behind him at the same time, I have become incredulous that any serious student of the assassination could deny the Altgens6 has been altered. Indeed, Richard Hooke has done a series of studies that place the identity of Doorman as Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt, since no alternative explanation is reasonable. This study of the right eyes of Billy and Lee lends further support to that conclusion, but also exposes the duplicity of the HSCA in reversing Oswald’s image to make it less obvious that he had been the man in the doorway. Many other measures would be taken to obfuscate that fact.

    How it was done

    Even Billy Lovelady explained to a reporter that it was a mistake to confuse him with Lee Oswald, because he was 3″ shorter and 15-20 lbs. heavier. And, indeed, that appears to be true of the figure we call “Black Hole Man” because his face has been turn into a black hole. He not only appears to be about 3″ shorter and 15-20 lbs. heavier than the man in the doorway, but he also appears to be wearing a short-sleeved shirt! Richard has also suggested that the man whose face was obfuscated–whom I originally mistook for Oswald–was Bill Shelley, no doubt because, had Shelley actually been there, it might have raised too many questions about whether what Lee had told Fritz was true. The series of moves that were involved here thus appear to have involved several moves using figures in the photo:

    A recent study by Larry Rivera has revealed why Buell Wesley Frazier’s image was removed from a location right in the midst of the crowd in front of the doorway, because once they turned Billy into Doorman, they needed someone to replace Billy–even if only in a vaguely defined fashion. And Ralph Cinque has done a reenactment of the Altgens6, which has proven to be revealing in several respects, including that the visual image of a man in a checkered shirt would have been very different than what we find in the Altgens6. One of the most remarkable ramifications of the study of these questions has been that Robert Groden, The Killing of a President (1993), pages 186-187, has taken several photos of Billy and has promoted the impression that he was Doorman and was wearing a checkered shirt.

    One of Larry Rivera’s most remarkable discoveries was that the entry way to the Dallas School Book Depository was remodeled, apparently to create space for Buell Wesley Frazier to have stood and leave it vague as to whether or not the “official account” requires him to have been Black Hole Man, where there wasn’t originally space for any other inference to be drawn. Most stunning of all, after some of those opposed to the alteration thesis found newspapers that seemed to showing the Alrgens6 had been published on 22 November 1963, Ralph discovered two “EXTRA” issues of the Beacon Hill News-Paladium (22 November 1963), which is a small community of around 10,000 in Michigan. So not only has the agency altered photographs and films, but it has spared no expense in concealing the truth from the American people, even to the extent of fabricating fake issues of obscure newspapers at taxpayer expense!

    • You have zero proof…you have no one to compare Lovelady’s size to in regard to anyone on the stairs…because we really don’t know who is where…its all speculation…your “proof” is fabricated from the hard work of others…its been proven you all flip and blur pictures to suit your agenda and its all provable… Other than your fabricated “evidence” you have jack shit…

    • Why oh why do you continue this charade? Are you kidding me? All this alteration, movies created, and building remodeled all to create an image of Lovelady in the doorway when nobody was making a huge stink about? It resembles Oswald at a glance, they could have easily left it for conspiracy fodder as they did for 50 years than to go through all the rigmarole you suggest…it was a tiny portion of a picture no one could make out with a magnifying glass…looks like Oswald? Looks more like Lovelady…end of discussion….

    • There ya go again, James Henry! Proving a point whilst un-proovin’ your own. You and Ralph belong in the same ward. Did you know Tim Leary and “The King” were inhabiting the same cell block???

    • The usual mixture of half truths, outright lies and unfounded speculation presented as fact are proof of nothing….

  11. Yeah, Unger, it’s not the exact same angle. But you know, it’s not easy to find. It took a while to find that one, so I settled for it. But, you know very well that it would have been no different if he were angled correctly. He would have been just as clear, just as defined, just as in focus, just as distinct as he is in the picture that we have. So, you are making a moot point, Unger, an empty point. The complete idiot is you.

    • That is the most asinine thing you’ve posted on here.

      A different camera, subject, location, position, film, would have turned out the same….if everything was the same…but it wasn’t….but that doesn’t matter….

      you’re fetzer jr.

  12. Well, this the end. I have wasted enough time with you Kennedy-killers. But, I’ll leave with this. This is reality staring you in the face. You think Lovelady looked that much like Oswald? Not in this universe or any other is such a thing possible. It’s the same guy on both sides. You’re not just fighting me; you’re fighting stark abrasive reality, and you can’t beat either one of us.

  13. At least Dr. Cinque reminds us of how he thinks…… NOT!!!! Here is a terribly disturbed man, realizing that his every thought emanating will be posted for all to see. Let him continue, he only adds dirt to his grave. Can you say ZOMBIE ????

      • No Problem.

        I received a visit on my Blog from Cinque today, he left another friendly greeting card

        He’s such a gentleman.

        6940cc9e-eb5c-11e2-8cc8-000f2098044012 July 2013 18:40
        You are a no-nothing Kennedy Killer who decided he needed to gain Backass and bpeterhead’s approval by making his own hate blogsite on me.

        You should count yourself lucky im unable to bet my hands on your ass for a pounding. i bet you wouldnt be so cocky to me inperson after all the vile slander you have spewed out at me.

        If this were thr Marx brothers as you have posted below you will be Harpo , unable to speak and playing the harp after im done with you.

      • I think there’s a greater psychopathy involved than a Napoleon complex.

        And I think it both him and Fetzer. It’s like sociopathic magnets they attract each other.
        Like I have said before, I don’t understand why, with all of the things that point to the possibility of Oswald being innocent, they grab on to the one thing that has more evidence disproving their theory, that being Oswald outside.
        Every statement by everyone put’s Oswald on the first floor when it happened including Oswald’s multiple statements.

        Fetzer is so quick to accuse me of committing the blunder of ignoring the evidence when he’s ignoring every bit of evidence that contradicts his claim. For example…he states Lovelady looked nothing like oswald and there is plenty of documentation of people that stated specifically that the two looked so much alike that even family members mistook them for each other. And Fetzer has done it with anyone that stands up to his faux intellect.

        There’s something pathologically wrong with those two….

      • I think Fetzer is so desperate to leave his mark on JFK research…not just as an “editor”…he wants a quick ticket to infamy…sadly he’s just committing career suicide in the end…putting his last couple chips on black, only to have it land on red…

  14. quote:

    Are you freaking asleep, Sutler? Are you drunk? I have been saying forever that the guy is standing with BOTH ARMS CROSSING HIS CHEST. Where the pluck have you been? You give me another apology right now. You owe it to me. And wakt the pluck up!

    And you owe the whole JFK Assassination Community an apology,.for bringing disrepute to
    all of us.

    we wan’t your apology now.!

    We wan’t your apology now, for every half assed bullshit theory that you ever concocted out of that twisted sick brain of yours.

  15. In my opinion Fetzer has only one agenda

    Make up as much alteration bullshit as possible, so that he can then print all that crap into books and make a lot of money.

    Then he goes on the airways and to conferences and big notes himself as the alteration Messiah, and tries to convince people that all the bullshit he puts in his book is factual..

    Now that Jack White is no longer with us, Fetzer has surrounded himself with two incompetent lap dogs Hooke and Cinque.

    Hooke, who can’t even create a convincing photo collage that doesn’t look like it was just thrown together by a 6-year old

    And then theres Ralph Cinque who will lie and twist the truth at every given opportunity
    He tells us he has hidden files on people locked in safes.
    He tells us there have been mysterious threatening phone calls, and death threats made against him.

    For my part, i take everything that these clowns say with a grain of salt.

    As for the long rambling posts made by Fetzer, i would not even be bothered reading his garbage,
    i just jump straight over his posts and go on to the next one.

  16. There should be some kind of “Kennedy algorithm” proof/lie system on a computer program that all can agree/disagree with. It would save a lot of time and unwanted anger. This has been proposed before, and should be in place now. All the lies are in order. What of the truth? If not now, when?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s