Jump to content
The Education Forum
William Kelly

Oswald Leaving TSBD?

Recommended Posts

I've just been listening to the May 1978 HSCA interview of Billy Lovelady, as archived by Greg Parker over at Reopen Kennedy Case http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/audio.html

There are two electrifying exchanges.

**

#1.

THE F.B.I. CONTACTED LOVELADY ABOUT THE ALTGENS DOORWAY FIGURE THE VERY EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION

The wording in the May 64 Dom Bonafede article is misleading: the "night following the assassination" means the night of 11/22 itself.

11VLUOh.jpg

One hears Lovelady sharing with the HSCA interviewer his clear recollection, corroborated by his wife who is present during the interview and who was with him at the time of the visit on 11/22:

At around 6pm on 11/22, Lovelady arrived home to his 22 Hume Drive apartment house to find two officials waiting for him on the porch.

They showed him a blowup of the doorway area in Altgens and asked for an identification:

"...I immediately pointed to myself and there was a sigh of relief when I pointed to myself."

A sigh of relief.

Somehow, within a very few hours of the shooting, the F.B.I. have been given cause to

a ) notice

and

b ) get so worried about a tiny figure in the background of a photo that has already gone out on the wires as to make a beeline for Lovelady's home.

We really need to reflect on this circumstance, for it's telltale.

If Oswald had been telling Fritz, in the presence of F.B.I. agents, that he was (for instance) in the first-floor domino room or (for instance) in the second-floor office area at the time of the assassination, why in heaven's name would the F.B.I. be obsessing over and 'actioning' an assassination-time doorway image?

The Altgens doorway figure is of truly explosive significance not because he's Lee Oswald (he isn't) but because the F.B.I., within hours of the assassination and with full access to Oswald's claims in custody, were thrown into a panic by the possibility that he might be.

This panic, and the subsequent "relief", does not make sense unless Oswald himself were claiming to have been at the front entrance.

If Lovelady had failed to identify himself in Altgens that evening, it is doubtful that the phoney lunchroom story would have gone on the record that night--or any time after that.

The neutralisation of the Altgens problem by the visit to Lovelady is what made the audacious switch of the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter from front entrance to lunchroom a viable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2.

LOVELADY IS ASKED EXPLICITLY ABOUT A PRAYER MAN-STYLE SCENARIO.

First the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady to identify himself in Altgens. Lovelady immediately does so.

Next Lovelady is shown an image he has never seen before: a frame from the John Martin film showing him (Lovelady) standing over by the east side of the entrance some 8-15 minutes post-assassination (a time estimate given by photographic consultant Robert Groden, who is present in the room). Lovelady identifies himself immediately.

Then the interviewer, out of nowhere, adopts a very curious line of questioning:

HSCA: If a movie camera showed you farther in the centre of the doorway than that person there [i.e. Lovelady in Altgens, who appears, due to the deceptive angle, to be well over to the left/west of the entrance] would you still identify that person as being yourself?

LOVELADY: Sure would. I would say the other picture was not taken at the split second as the one to the left is.

HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure?

LOVELADY: No, that’s still me at the left [of the] doorway.

Whether knowingly (i.e. with knowledge of the Prayer Man figure in Wiegman) or unknowingly (i.e. by pure speculation), the HSCA interviewer has preempted the very discussion we have been having in this thread:

Two Lovelady-resembling men caught on film at the time of the assassination, one over on the west ("left") side of the entrance and the other more towards the centre.

Quite, quite extraordinary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my opinion that when Wesley and Linnie are brought in to DPD they are TOLD what they need to say.... just like Bledsoe, Whaley and many others.

With Wesley possible in ALOT of trouble for his rifle and involvement, I BELIEVE they did what they were told to to stay out of trouble.

This particular morning they are going thru a process they NEVER went thru... Wesley always went over to pick Oswald up... yet THIS TIME he walks with a rifle in a bag over to Wesley's ???

Please.

Your reference to the rifle in the paper bag made me do some thinking. I have a Model 70 Winchester bolt action rifle, with a telescopic sight, which is similar in length and weight to the Model 91/38 Carcano found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

I disassembled my Winchester and put the pieces into a paper bag I made from heavy wrapping paper and tape, just to see how it would work. I held the bag by the top end, as LHO allegedly did, and tried walking with it.

The first thing I noticed is just how much noise the disassembled pieces made clattering against each other. Then, and not really much to my surprise, the bottom of the bag let go from the tape and the parts fell out the bottom.

I would like to see someone disassemble a Carcano with a side mounted scope and try carrying it any distance in a paper bag made to the specs of the one LHO was supposed to have made.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

Have you ever seen any usable frames from the Tina Towner film of the TSBD entrance? She was standing just across Elm street at the intersection when her camera pans by the TSBD. The copies I have reviewed are too poor resolution to show details. The original might show figures in the entrance 15-30 seconds before Couch, Weigman, and Darnell take their shots.

This is the best copy I've seen, Richard.

Some funny movement in the Lovelady area.

Click to enlarge:

s3cxurd.gif

Far better than the copies I have been viewing. Lovelady appears to be turning. Do you think it is possible someone is taking pictures with a flash?

Trying to figure out what the "flashing" is inside the entrance. The rest of the crowd looks static by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see Lovelady shielding his eyes from the sunlight.

But is he also reacting to something just behind him and to his right (the Prayer Man position)?*

Just after these frames, Lovelady will move across noticeably to his left (ie east).

hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif

Here, for context, is the longer loop from Hughes:

HughesAnimation2.gif

*(Credit for Hughes film gifs: Gerda Dunckel)

Richard,

These gifs from the Hughes film may explain some of the movements on the steps which are not evident in the Towner film.

Bjørn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2.

LOVELADY IS ASKED EXPLICITLY ABOUT A PRAYER MAN-STYLE SCENARIO.

First the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady to identify himself in Altgens. Lovelady immediately does so.

Next Lovelady is shown an image he has never seen before: a frame from the John Martin film showing him (Lovelady) standing over by the east side of the entrance some 8-15 minutes post-assassination (a time estimate given by photographic consultant Robert Groden, who is present in the room). Lovelady identifies himself immediately.

Then the interviewer, out of nowhere, adopts a very curious line of questioning:

HSCA: If a movie camera showed you farther in the centre of the doorway than that person there [i.e. Lovelady in Altgens, who appears, due to the deceptive angle, to be well over to the left/west of the entrance] would you still identify that person as being yourself?

LOVELADY: Sure would. I would say the other picture was not taken at the split second as the one to the left is.

HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure?

LOVELADY: No, that’s still me at the left [of the] doorway.

Whether knowingly (i.e. with knowledge of the Prayer Man figure in Wiegman) or unknowingly (i.e. by pure speculation), the HSCA interviewer has preempted the very discussion we have been having in this thread:

Two Lovelady-resembling men caught on film at the time of the assassination, one over on the west ("left") side of the entrance and the other more towards the centre.

Quite, quite extraordinary.

A startling discovery. Well done, Sean.

Bearing in mind that one of the tasks assigned to the HSCA photo panel was to examine the Altgen's photo and develop convincing evidence to identify the man in the doorway who bore a strong resemblance to Lee Oswald, it seems likely they would have studied all available film and photos of the entrance for the time frame just before and just after Altgens snapped his shot.

That means the panel should have looked at the Couch film, Weigman, Darnell, Towner, in addition to Martin. And they would have been looking at originals, or very good copies. (Perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area could pitch in).

The questions posed to Lovelady hint strongly that, at the very least, one or more of the panel members were aware of the figure in the upper NW corner of the entrance. It had to be more than idle speculation.

Going back to the question posed to Billy Lovelady:

HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure?

LOVELADY: No, that’s still me at the left [of the] doorway.

Unfortunately, Billy did not answer the question posed concerning the implications of identifying "that other figure". And puzzling that the logical followup question was not asked. I can only guess the mission was carefully defined to ID Lovelady (and not open up any larger issues).

Listening to the recordings, there was another exchange on the first tape that also caught my attention. After establishing Lovelady's position on the entrance steps, some key elements of the following exchange are shown below:

HSCA: Did you see Lee Oswald on the steps?

Lovelady: No

HSCA: "Would it have been possible from where you were sitting .. that he could have been there ...?

Lovelady: "He Could have ..."

Lovelady had the chance, but declined to rule out the possibility that Oswald could have been there at the entrance.

This exchange is around 25:25 in the first tape. There are a few indistinct words designated by the ... if someone has better ears than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see Lovelady shielding his eyes from the sunlight.

But is he also reacting to something just behind him and to his right (the Prayer Man position)?*

Just after these frames, Lovelady will move across noticeably to his left (ie east).

hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif

Here, for context, is the longer loop from Hughes:

HughesAnimation2.gif

*(Credit for Hughes film gifs: Gerda Dunckel)

Richard,

These gifs from the Hughes film may explain some of the movements on the steps which are not evident in the Towner film.

Bjørn

Thanks, Bjørn.

Is it just me, or does the Towner film have a "jump" in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see Lovelady shielding his eyes from the sunlight.

But is he also reacting to something just behind him and to his right (the Prayer Man position)?*

Just after these frames, Lovelady will move across noticeably to his left (ie east).

hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif

Here, for context, is the longer loop from Hughes:

HughesAnimation2.gif

*(Credit for Hughes film gifs: Gerda Dunckel)

Richard,

These gifs from the Hughes film may explain some of the movements on the steps which are not evident in the Towner film.

Bjørn

Thanks, Bjørn.

Is it just me, or does the Towner film have a "jump" in it?

There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film.

Coincidentally, the oddity in the Hughes film, which appears to be one or two melted frames, seems to occur with JFK's limo in almost the same location turning onto Elm St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone ever notice, in the beginning of the Hughes film, that the rear door of the 4th car in the lineup (the white car) is already opened? I thought it was a long held belief that the SS agent never opened this door until the white car had turned onto Elm St. and the SS agent had heard the rifle shots.

Why would the SS agent have opened the door halfway down Houston St.? Are there pictures of this door being opened anywhere else along the motorcade route?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2.

LOVELADY IS ASKED EXPLICITLY ABOUT A PRAYER MAN-STYLE SCENARIO.

First the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady to identify himself in Altgens. Lovelady immediately does so.

Next Lovelady is shown an image he has never seen before: a frame from the John Martin film showing him (Lovelady) standing over by the east side of the entrance some 8-15 minutes post-assassination (a time estimate given by photographic consultant Robert Groden, who is present in the room). Lovelady identifies himself immediately.

Then the interviewer, out of nowhere, adopts a very curious line of questioning:

HSCA: If a movie camera showed you farther in the centre of the doorway than that person there [i.e. Lovelady in Altgens, who appears, due to the deceptive angle, to be well over to the left/west of the entrance] would you still identify that person as being yourself?

LOVELADY: Sure would. I would say the other picture was not taken at the split second as the one to the left is.

HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure?

LOVELADY: No, that’s still me at the left [of the] doorway.

Whether knowingly (i.e. with knowledge of the Prayer Man figure in Wiegman) or unknowingly (i.e. by pure speculation), the HSCA interviewer has preempted the very discussion we have been having in this thread:

Two Lovelady-resembling men caught on film at the time of the assassination, one over on the west ("left") side of the entrance and the other more towards the centre.

Quite, quite extraordinary.

A startling discovery. Well done, Sean.

Bearing in mind that one of the tasks assigned to the HSCA photo panel was to examine the Altgen's photo and develop convincing evidence to identify the man in the doorway who bore a strong resemblance to Lee Oswald, it seems likely they would have studied all available film and photos of the entrance for the time frame just before and just after Altgens snapped his shot.

That means the panel should have looked at the Couch film, Weigman, Darnell, Towner, in addition to Martin. And they would have been looking at originals, or very good copies. (Perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area could pitch in).

The questions posed to Lovelady hint strongly that, at the very least, one or more of the panel members were aware of the figure in the upper NW corner of the entrance. It had to be more than idle speculation.

Going back to the question posed to Billy Lovelady:

HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure?

LOVELADY: No, that’s still me at the left [of the] doorway.

Unfortunately, Billy did not answer the question posed concerning the implications of identifying "that other figure". And puzzling that the logical followup question was not asked. I can only guess the mission was carefully defined to ID Lovelady (and not open up any larger issues).

Listening to the recordings, there was another exchange on the first tape that also caught my attention. After establishing Lovelady's position on the entrance steps, some key elements of the following exchange are shown below:

HSCA: Did you see Lee Oswald on the steps?

Lovelady: No

HSCA: "Would it have been possible from where you were sitting .. that he could have been there ...?

Lovelady: "He Could have ..."

Lovelady had the chance, but declined to rule out the possibility that Oswald could have been there at the entrance.

This exchange is around 25:25 in the first tape. There are a few indistinct words designated by the ... if someone has better ears than mine.

Thanks, Richard.

Yes, it is interesting that Lovelady is categorical that he didn't see Oswald "at any time" on the front steps but refuses to rule out the possibility that he may have been there at some point.

I've listened over and over to his indistinct words following "Could have" but just can't make them out. Frustrating.

Interesting also that the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady if he was holding his lunch bag at the actual time of the shooting.

Again, one has to wonder is the question prompted by the interviewer's being aware of the Prayer Man figure who is clearly holding something in his hand or hands.

What really makes the interviewer's hypothetical about "two figures in that doorway at the same time" remarkable is that he locates these two figures precisely as per the configuration seen in Wiegman:

1. Lovelady-resembling male standing way over on the left/west side of the entrance area

2. Lovealdy-resembling male standing more towards the centre of the entrance area.

What are the odds against this being a lucky guess?

Robert Groden was in the room but was he in the loop on the Prayer Man question?

**

Worth noting that Lovelady himself evidently believes--mistakenly--that Altgens is showing him right over on the left/west side of the entrance area.

It's an understandable mistake, given not just

  • the tricky perspective of Altgens

but also

  • the fact that, just seconds before Altgens took his photo, Hughes's film caught Lovelady significantly more to the left/west. Lovelady moved a little east to keep the President's car in view as it passed west down Elm Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disassembled my Winchester and put the pieces into a paper bag I made from heavy wrapping paper and tape, just to see how it would work. I held the bag by the top end, as LHO allegedly did, and tried walking with it.

The first thing I noticed is just how much noise the disassembled pieces made clattering against each other. Then, and not really much to my surprise, the bottom of the bag let go from the tape and the parts fell out the bottom.

I would like to see someone disassemble a Carcano with a side mounted scope and try carrying it any distance in a paper bag made to the specs of the one LHO was supposed to have made.

Robert,

I have a Springfield '03, (my grandfather's from WW1), that I tried a similar experiment on a long time ago, (less the scope), with the same results. One of the reasons that I thought this was fantasy is because these weapons are heavy. Really heavy. I haven't looked at the schematic for a Carcano but having knocked down quite a few weapons... what did he do with the small parts? Was he supposed to have them in his pocket all day? Suppose Oswald lost one little screw or a nut?

...and there's no way you'll make me believe he removed the custom side-mounted scope, reassembled it in the TSBD and it was miraculously still pointed even close to zero.

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean wrote:

“ … Yes, it is interesting that Lovelady is categorical that he didn't see Oswald "at any time" on the front steps but refuses to rule out the possibility that he may have been there at some point.

I've listened over and over to his indistinct words following "Could have" but just can't make them out. Frustrating.

Interesting also that the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady if he was holding his lunch bag at the actual time of the shooting.

Again, one has to wonder is the question prompted by the interviewer's being aware of the Prayer Man figure who is clearly holding something in his hand or hands.

What really makes the interviewer's hypothetical about "two figures in that doorway at the same time" remarkable is that he locates these two figures precisely as per the configuration seen in Wiegman:

1. Lovelady-resembling male standing way over on the left/west side of the entrance area

2. Lovealdy-resembling male standing more towards the centre of the entrance area.

What are the odds against this being a lucky guess?

Robert Groden was in the room but was he in the loop on the Prayer Man question?”

Having spent far too much time using software to tweak the bass, treble, pitch, and playback speed settings, I finally stumbled into a combination that rendered the indistinct portions of the conversation intelligible.

Below is my latest, and hopefully final, transcription of the exchange discussed above:

HSCA: Did you see- see Lee Oswald around the steps?

Lovelady: NO, at any time.

HSCA: Could he - Would it have been possible from where you were sitting eating your lunch, that he could have been there and you didn't see him?

Lovelady: Could have -

HSCA (interrupting): OK

Lovelady (continuing): inside or out.

Billy Lovelady has confirmed the observation made previously in this thread, that Prayer Man could have joined the group on the Entrance steps unnoticed by most, as their attention was focused on the Limo with the President and Jackie approaching. Saying he did not see him does not exclude the reality of PM standing behind the group in the NW upper corner.

While most of the group on the lower steps and in front may not have noticed PM, I believe that Frazier, Shelley and possibly one or two others near the top steps did.

Regarding Robert Groden, the same thought passed through my mind. He may have noticed PM, but his attention would have been focused primarily on the question of establishing Oswald or Lovelady as Doorman in the Altgen’s photo.

Last night, I scanned through Groden’s “Case for Conspiracy” DVD. (1988 version). There is no mention of the figure in the NW corner of the entrance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Hello Richard

Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work.

From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film.

BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Hello Richard

Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work.

From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film.

BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6?

I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, but if the "jump" or "squiggle" in Towner correlates time-wise with the "melted frames" in Hughes, an obvious inference that could be made is that there was a shot taken at that time. I suppose the argument would be that that was why Towner "flinched" right then and that's also why the Hughes film got "melted" right there from repeated slow motion / stop action viewings of those frames, or, perhaps, even intentionally.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...