Sandy Larsen Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Lest anyone think I'm totally off my rocker.... ....because of a few seemingly crazy things I've written in this and a related thread. I want to expand a little on the theory I'm trying to develop. The theme of my theory is the following: The FBI sometimes had to fabricate whole stories for the purpose of the cover up. It is my belief that what they did, or sometimes did, was to look at the physical evidence they had, and construct from that a story that would accomplish their goal. So, for example, when they wanted to discredit Victoria Adams, they figured they needed a TSBD employee to witness her coming down the stairs late. Even two employees would be better. In one of the videos they notice a couple guys walking in the direction of the railway yard (and back of the building), and decide that they needed these two to enter the rear of the TSBD and witness Victoria Adams coming down the stairs late. They wonder, who are these guys? One is wearing plaid shirt. They go through all their photos and see a guy in a plaid shirt in Altgens 6. They ask around and discover the guy is Lovelady. So they fabricate their narrative with Lovelady as one of their two actors. They choose Shelley for the other actor. (Maybe because his pompadour hairstyle matches the guy walking with Lovelady. and maybe it really is Shelley) Later they discover that they goofed. Lovelady wasn't really wearing a plaid shirt after all. Tthe graininess in Altgens 6 just made it look that way. However the story is too developed by this time and they decide to go with it. They go shopping and buy a plaid shirt for Lovelady to show off. As the story progresses and time passes, mistakes happen and adjustments are made. In the short run they are minor nuisances, but decades later, when it becomes easy to compile facts, strange inconsistencies are noticed by JFK researchers. Things like a missing pocket. A balding built-like-a-brick-xxxxhouse fellow who isn't supposed to be so thick. A Bill Shelley who turns around and returns to the front entrance. You catch my drift. That's all I wanted to say. (As I was writing this I remembered that I had mentioned this earlier on another thread. I apologize to anybody who wasted time reading it again.) (Ha! Yeah, like anybody reads my drivel. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 For the very last time, Sandy. The pocket is there in the Groden photo. You just can't see it. We can. Look at the photo at Bob's post 31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 28, 2016 Author Share Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) For the very last time, Sandy. The pocket is there in the Groden photo. You just can't see it. We can. Look at the photo at Bob's post 31. Ray, I can see the top edge of the pocket in the huge enlargement. The particular horizontal black line I'm looking at is a little wider / thicker, and has a slightly different "tone" or "shade" of blackness about it on the left half or so of said line. Which suggests to me that I'm seeing a narrow shadow caused by the pocket's being a little bit out from the shirt proper. -- Tommy Edited October 28, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) What we have here are two members, Ray Mitcham and Tommy Graves, who want to see a pocket in Lovelady's shirt. And so they do. Which I wouldn't have a problem with except that they don't bother checking their own observations for potential flaws. Leaving that task for others to do. I think they don't bother checking because they are satisfied with their immediate observations. (They see what they wanted to see.) At least one of them has accused me of not seeing the pocket because I don't want to see it. But as you will discover in this post, I am the one among the three of us who is being the most honest. The fact that I'm willing to consider seriously and study their observations proves that. In contrast they summarily ignore the flaws in their observations that I've point out. At least so far. (If I'm being too hard on one of these two member, because he never accused me of seeing only what I want to see, I apologize to that member. I'm being harsh in this post because of that unfounded and inaccurate accusation.) Ray Mitcham's Pocket Re the pocket line - by changing the photo to B&W, you may be able better to see the side seam of the pocket (arrowed). If you zoom in on the photo you will see what seems to be the top of the pocket, just below the dots I have drawn, which is above the white stripes as you say. (note the slight break in the vertical line where the top of the pocket crosses the shirt front) [Here is a close-up of the pocket. To zoom in, click on my image below, hold down Ctrl key, and press ++++] Ray apparently see's the top of the pocket to be about 3/8" above one of the shirt's horizontal white lines. Right between the white line and the +++++++ signs above it in the above photo. He says that you can see the top of the pocket. And guess what, I DO see it. Problem is, somebody has shaded the two plaid-pattern squares where the +++++ signs are with gray. And in the right gray square they have drawn in a segment of a horizontal black line. THIS IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL PHOTO. And this is very obvious given that the two square have been shaded in gray. The original image has a graininess that is gone in those gray areas. Just compare those grayed-in squares with the other surrounding squares. (NOTE: The gray squares may be a little translucent, allowing a bit of graininess to show through.) Ray says that the pocket's side seem can be seen, and is pointed out with the white arrow (above). But what he believes is a vertical seam is really part of the plaid pattern. There is also a so-called vertical seam running right down the middle of the pocket (actually a little left of the middle) where no seam should be, and also in other parts of the shirt. It's not a seam at all, bat rather a subtle shade difference that is part of the plaid pattern. You can see the "break" in the line of the pocket in this photo. Ray posted the close-up photo above so that it is easier to see a shift in the vertical white line where the top of his supposed pocket is. If you imagine strongly, you will believe you see the top of the pocket there. However, notice how there is an even larger shift in the vertical white line just to the right of the white line we are talking about.When I saw that I realized that there is a horizontally running crease/ripple in the shirt that is creating both of the shifts we see in white lines. Look around in the close-up and you will see several of these shifts. They are not top-of-pocket shadows... none of them. They are wishful thinking for people who want to see a pocket. By the way, remember the horizontal black line segment that can be seen in the black and white photo above? The one that is supposed to be the top of the pocket? (A shadow, actually, of it where the pocket hangs out.) That's right, it is not in this close up image, even though this is a high-resolution copy of the original photo. This confirms that the black line segment was drawn in by somebody. Thomas Graves's Pocket Ray, I can see the top edge of the pocket in the huge enlargement. The particular horizontal black line I'm looking at is a little wider / thicker, and has a slightly different "tone" or "shade" of blackness about it on the left half or so of said line. Which suggests to me that I'm seeing a narrow shadow caused by the pocket's being a little bit out from the shirt proper. -- Tommy Tommy says that he can see a pocket too. First problem is, the top of Tommy's pocket is in a different place than the top of Ray's pocket. But let's assume the Ray is wrong (which he is IMO) and that Tommy is right. I've studied carefully Tommy's post, And I'm having a bit of a hard time determining which black horizontal line he is referring to when he says it is the shadow of the pocket top hanging out a bit. There is a narrow black line just below the white line. But that is clearly a part of the plaid pattern. So I believe Tommy is referring to the narrow black line just above the white horizontal line. I agree with Tommy, that the black line could be the shadow of a pocket top. However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, that narrow black line can be seen elsewhere on the shirt where there should be no pocket. Looking at the photo below, pay attention to the second white horizontal white line of above the one that is supposedly the top of the pocket. As you can see, there is narrow black line right above the horizontal white line there too. And elsewhere as well. I don't know if it is a part of the plaid pattern or a digitizing artifact, but it is there. I therefore conclude that narrow black line is NOT evidence that there is a pocket on Lovelady's shirt. Edited October 29, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) Dear Sandy, I haven't read what Ray has written about "his" pocket, and, to be blunt, why should I? The way I look at it, either I can see a pocket, or I can't. So, long story short, I don't know (or even care, really) whether or not Ray and I are talking about the same "thing." All I did was look at this enlargement of Groden's photo -- -- and I concentrated on the large grey square in the left half of the photo, which, as you can see, is basically just to the right of the white button that's visible in the photo, below right -- I believe that the pocket is mostly in that large grey square. The black stripe I was talking about, which I contend kinda hides the top edge of the pocket, is the black stripe with the narrower white stripe directly above it, not below it. In other words, white over black. Now, if you will look at the photo of "Neanderthal Man" on the left, you can make out a little bit of the "black" in the same "white stripe over black stripe combination." The reason, IMHO, that the white stripe that is visible there curves so much is because that's where "Neanderthal Man's" pocket is bulging out at the top due to the (invisible-to-us in this photo) pack of cigarettes inside it. (We do know that "Neanderthal Man" was smoking at the time.) So, without having read everything that you and Ray have written on this page, I'm guessing the confusion you're experiencing in trying to see "my" pocket is due to the fact that maybe it's considerably lower (???) than Ray's, and until now you didn't realize that. I hope this helps clear up your confusion on the matter, but I know darn well we'll probably continue to disagree on it and everything else, and that at a certain point I'll get fed up with "banging my head against the wall" and I'll simply refuse to "explain myself" any more. I'll probably just let you, relative "newbie" that you still are, slide deeper and deeper into those side-by-side bogs known as "Harvey and Lee" and "Cinque / Fetzer." LOL -- Tommy Edit: Wait! In the photo of "Neanderthal Man," maybe just maybe the white end of a cigarette is visible, right behind that curving (i.e., bulging out) white-over-black horizontal stripe. Edited October 29, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 Tommy, As I said in my post, I wasn't sure which black line you were referring to. And I was surprised, IIRC, that you mentioned a "wide" or "wider" black stripe.Because at the moment I thought you were talking about a shadow that might be seen above a pocket that's gapped open a little. But thanks for spending the time to explain better your idea of where the top of the pocket is. I'm trying to see it myself in Ray's close-up photo. I now know (if I am understanding you correctly) that the top of the pocket is a black band, about 3/16" wide by my estimation. Maybe 1/4". The white stripe is NOT part of the pocket... that's above the pocket top. What is it in the Groden close-up that make you think this black stripe is the top of a pocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 For the very last time, Sandy. The pocket is there in the Groden photo. You just can't see it. We can. Look at the photo at Bob's post 31. Ray, When you say "we can" see the pocket, who are you referring to? You and who else? It can't be Tommy because he is seeing a different pocket than what you're seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) [...] [...] deleted Edited October 29, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) [deleted] Edited October 29, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) Tommy, As I said in my post, I wasn't sure which black line you were referring to. And I was surprised, IIRC, that you mentioned a "wide" or "wider" black stripe.Because at the moment I thought you were talking about a shadow that might be seen above a pocket that's gapped open a little. But thanks for spending the time to explain better your idea of where the top of the pocket is. I'm trying to see it myself in Ray's close-up photo. I now know (if I am understanding you correctly) that the top of the pocket is a black band, about 3/16" wide by my estimation. Maybe 1/4". The white stripe is NOT part of the pocket... that's above the pocket top. Correct. What is it in the Groden close-up that make you think this black stripe is the top of a pocket? OK, this is going to be difficult, but I'll try. First of all, we're I'm looking only at the area "framed" by the four white lines or stripes (two horizontal and two vertical) that tightly surround that big grey square on the left that I've been talking about. Now, look at the upper left corner of that big white rectangle. Look at where those two white lines come together to form the upper left hand corner of the white rectangle, and look now at the horizontal one just before it runs into the vertical one. Look at the black color immediately adjacent to and under that horizontal white line, and if you look very closely, I think you'll notice that the "blackness area" under that white line is a little thicker or wider right there than it is four or five inches over to the right, and that the length of this extra "blackness" starts at that upper left hand corner and continues over to the right about 2/3 of the width of the big grey square. I contend that that extra width of the "blackness" of that " 2/3 " length, as compared to how thin the "blackness" looks on the right 1/3 of that black "band" while it over the big grey square (and as it is over on the adjacent pocket, as well) is the result of a shadow that is formed by the pocket's top edge falling away a bit from the shirt proper in the " 2/3 " length that I'm talking about. PS Remember to try to correlate what I've explained, above, with what I said is visible in this exact same part of the shirt in the "Neanderthal Man" photo in my previous post, above. -- Tommy Edited October 29, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) Dear Sandy, I haven't read what Ray has written about "his" pocket, and, to be blunt, why should I? The way I look at it, either I can see a pocket, or I can't. So, long story short, I don't know (or even care, really) whether or not Ray and I are talking about the same "thing." All I did was look at this enlargement of Groden's photo -- -- and I concentrated on the large grey square in the left half of the photo, which, as you can see, is basically just to the right of the white button that's visible in the photo, below right -- I believe that the pocket is in that large grey square. The black stripe I was talking about in an earlier post, which I contend kinda conceals the top edge of the pocket, is the black stripe with the narrower white stripe directly above it, not below it. In other words, white over black. Now, if you will look at the photo of "Neanderthal Man" on the left, you can make out a little bit of the "black" in the same "white stripe over black stripe combination" in that strangely curved area. The reason, IMHO, that the white stripe that is visible there curves so much is because that's where "Neanderthal Man's" pocket is bulging out at the top due to the (invisible-to-us in this photo) pack of cigarettes inside it. (We do know that "Neanderthal Man" was smoking at the time.) So, without having read everything that you and Ray have written on this page, I'm guessing the confusion you're experiencing in trying to see "my" pocket is due to the fact that maybe it's considerably lower (???) than Ray's, and until now you didn't realize that. I hope this helps clear up your confusion on the matter, but I know darn well we'll probably continue to disagree on it and everything else, and that at a certain point I'll get fed up with "banging my head against the wall" and I'll simply refuse to "explain myself" any more. I'll probably just let you, relative "newbie" that you still are, slide deeper and deeper into those side-by-side bogs known as "Harvey and Lee" and "Cinque / Fetzer." LOL -- Tommy Edit: Wait! In the photo of "Neanderthal Man," maybe just maybe the white end of a cigarette is visible, right behind that curving (i.e., bulging out) white-over-black horizontal stripe. Bumped for context. Edited October 29, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 Tommy, Thanks for that well written description. Very detailed and easy to follow. I can't see the pocket at the moment, but I'm tired and need some rest. I'll look at it again after I've slept. Now I know exactly what to look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 What I can't seem to understand here and elsewhere is - why is this even being debated? I'll be the first to admit that in my zeal, for years I thought the man in the doorway was Oswald. I even made a video of it - look up Six Seconds that Changed America on YTV. But after joining this forum and discovering the footage of PM, and seeing with my own eyes Lovelady leaning over the railing looking at the car go by during the actual shooting, I ate humble pie and admitted - yep, it's Lovelady. Even though for years prior, when I'd look at the Altgens photo, it was like I had two little men on my shoulders, one whispering in one deaf ear "It's Oswald" while the other whispered in the other deaf ear "It's Lovelady." So as I read this thread, I'm like - so what? Does it really matter what kind of shirt Lovelady had on that day? There's some color footage of him standing on the steps and the shirt looks plaid. Fine. Big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 Non-inquiring minds miss a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) In a TV news film, while Oswald was being taken into the Robbery & Homicide Bureau at the DPD at 2:00 PM on 11/22/63, Billy Lovelady can be seen sitting at a desk or table. And it looks like something is sticking up out of a pocket in Lovelady's shirt (perhaps a pack of cigarettes).... Edited October 29, 2016 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now