Jump to content
The Education Forum
Thomas Graves

Lovelady Wore A Very Similar, But Different, Shirt For Groden

Recommended Posts

Billy-Lovelady-In-Police-Station_zpsiumt

Note that the red (Black in this B&W photo) material bulging out above the black stripe on the pocket, with the cigarette packet behind it, showing that the top line of the pocket is above the black line not on it.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy-Lovelady-In-Police-Station_zpsiumt

Note that the red (Black in this B&W photo) material bulging out above the black stripe on the pocket, with the cigarette packet behind it, showing that the top line of the pocket is above the black line not on it.

Ray,

It looks to me as thought the tops of the cigarettes are in front of the white stripe.

What I don't understand, though, is what that relatively short and slightly diagonal black stripe on the pocket itself is all about. That doesn't seem to be visible in Groden's 1976 photo.

-- Tommy sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I mean, just, wow.

Well, you see, Michael, it's this way. The more time spent talking about trivial things such as Lovelady's shirt pocket, the less attention is paid to topics that might actually unravel this murder case.

The operative word here is "distraction".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy-Lovelady-In-Police-Station_zpsiumt

Note that the red (Black in this B&W photo) material bulging out above the black stripe on the pocket, with the cigarette packet behind it, showing that the top line of the pocket is above the black line not on it.

Ray,

It looks to me as thought the tops of the cigarettes are in front of the white stripe (which is adjacent to and above the black stripe).

What I don't understand, though, is what that relatively short and slightly diagonal black stripe on the pocket itself is all about. It doesn't seem to be visible in Groden's photo.

-- Tommy sun

Edited and bumped for Ray Mitchum.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I mean, just, wow.

I agree with you and Jim Di, Michael. It is too trivial for further discussion.

So, y'all don't care about whether or not "Neanderthal Man" and / or "Dwarf Man" were Lovelady, or even whether or not Lovelady was wearing a long-sleeved, bold- plaid shirt on 11/22/63, as indicated by the Couch film (on the Elm Street Extension) and the Hughes Film (on the TSBD steps as the limo's passing by)?

Everybody's already made up their minds on these things?

Really?

Wow, and I really do mean ... Wow.

-- Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Michael,

Just one question: Do you think Lovelady was photographically captured, by Couch, walking down the Elm Street Extension a few seconds after the assassination?

1 ) Yes

2 ) No

3 ) Maybe

4 ) No opinion

5 ) I couldn't care less

-- Tommy :sun

OKAY, anyone else care to express their opinions on the above question? (lol)

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just one question: Do you think Lovelady was photographically captured, by Couch, walking down the Elm Street Extension a few seconds after the assassination?


As I mentioned above, when I saw Lovelady in the PM film, I was convinced and ate pie that yep, it's Lovelady alright. This is after thinking for years that the Altgens photo showed Oswald as the man in the doorway. I am very intrigued and hope that someday that film is pried from the TV station's hands and a high-res analysis is performed to see who the person standing there in the shadows is. It could be a real deal-maker for the case.


Oswald himself said he was out front and directed someone to a telephone so that, combined with the man in the shadows, is very intriguing.


So the Altgens photo and the footage, combined, shows it's Lovelady. What viable and - more importantly *plausible* - role could he have had in the assassination? So what if he walked down that other street? He's seen elsewhere in the color footage and later at the police station when Oswald walks by.


The people who put this 7-second assassination together were pros and had it all planned out. They were depending on the innocence of the times - people standing around watching the president go by with not a care in the world. And with security that would have gotten the head of the Secret Service fired and jailed if it had happened the way it did in today's world - windows wide up; the limo driving by a busload of people on Main Street; crowds surging up to the limo on the street; etc.


My hunch is the "epileptic and ambulance" episode moments before the shooting was the distraction for the shooters to move into place. They came out of the shadows, fired their guns, and retreated. Then the massive cover-up begins, with the very first one being someone flashing a SS badge up in the knoll area.


And then it begins in earnest, with a faceless person whispering "It's a white man, 5-10, 165 pounds, slender" within 15 minutes of the shooting. Never mind that it'd be next to impossible for *anyone * to identify a man's height and weight when he's crouched by a window sill 80 feet up in the air.


So where does this leave Billy? It doesn't. Not everything about this case is part of the conspiracy.


No. 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just one question: Do you think Lovelady was photographically captured, by Couch, walking down the Elm Street Extension a few seconds after the assassination?
As I mentioned above, when I saw Lovelady in the PM film, I was convinced and ate pie that yep, it's Lovelady alright. This is after thinking for years that the Altgens photo showed Oswald as the man in the doorway. I am very intrigued and hope that someday that film is pried from the TV station's hands and a high-res analysis is performed to see who the person standing there in the shadows is. It could be a real deal-maker for the case.
Oswald himself said he was out front and directed someone to a telephone so that, combined with the man in the shadows, is very intriguing.
So the Altgens photo and the footage, combined, shows it's Lovelady. What viable and - more importantly *plausible* - role could he have had in the assassination? So what if he walked down that other street? He's seen elsewhere in the color footage and later at the police station when Oswald walks by.
The people who put this 7-second assassination together were pros and had it all planned out. They were depending on the innocence of the times - people standing around watching the president go by with not a care in the world. And with security that would have gotten the head of the Secret Service fired and jailed if it had happened the way it did in today's world - windows wide up; the limo driving by a busload of people on Main Street; crowds surging up to the limo on the street; etc.
My hunch is the "epileptic and ambulance" episode moments before the shooting was the distraction for the shooters to move into place. They came out of the shadows, fired their guns, and retreated. Then the massive cover-up begins, with the very first one being someone flashing a SS badge up in the knoll area.
And then it begins in earnest, with a faceless person whispering "It's a white man, 5-10, 165 pounds, slender" within 15 minutes of the shooting. Never mind that it'd be next to impossible for *anyone * to identify a man's height and weight when he's crouched by a window sill 80 feet up in the air.
So where does this leave Billy? It doesn't. Not everything about this case is part of the conspiracy.
No. 5.

Thanks, Michael.

What's interesting to me is that, earlier on this thread, Bob "Ballistics" Prudhomme sarcastically chipped in that he thinks my creating it was nothing but an intentional "distraction" on my part.

The ironic thing is that "Ballistics" Bob has already shown on other threads that he is very much against the idea that Lovelady was photographically captured walking down Elm St. Ext. a few seconds after the final shot, because if he was, it would destroy "Ballistic" Bob's overly-complicated (and not photographically-supported) "grand theory" involving Truly's and Baker's and Lovelady's and Shelley's participation in the assassination and /or its cover up. (I believe some or all of those guys were culpable, but not necessarily in the way Prudhomme thinks they were.)

So, Prudhomme's (but not yours, because you evidently don't have "a dog in this fight") sarcastic protestation about the potential merits of this thread sounds to me like a hypocritical, self-serving contradiction, and, irony of ironies, almost a distraction of Archetypal magnitude that Carl Gustav Jung, himself, would be proud of. (LOL)

Seems to me that Prudhomme should be (and probably is) very worried, indeed, that "Dwarf Man's" shirt will turn out to be very, very similar to the one Lovelady was photographed in by Groden in 1976 (in which case it would support the idea that Lovelady threw away his 11/22/63 shirt sometime after the assassination, and bought, or was given, a new one in 1976, and that this new shirt was as similar to the original as he could find on such short notice from Groden), or (gasp) identical to it.

Lovelady-and-shelley-in-couch-okt-2016-B

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just one question: Do you think Lovelady was photographically captured, by Couch, walking down the Elm Street Extension a few seconds after the assassination?
As I mentioned above, when I saw Lovelady in the PM film, I was convinced and ate pie that yep, it's Lovelady alright. This is after thinking for years that the Altgens photo showed Oswald as the man in the doorway. I am very intrigued and hope that someday that film is pried from the TV station's hands and a high-res analysis is performed to see who the person standing there in the shadows is. It could be a real deal-maker for the case.
Oswald himself said he was out front and directed someone to a telephone so that, combined with the man in the shadows, is very intriguing.
So the Altgens photo and the footage, combined, shows it's Lovelady. What viable and - more importantly *plausible* - role could he have had in the assassination? So what if he walked down that other street? He's seen elsewhere in the color footage and later at the police station when Oswald walks by.
The people who put this 7-second assassination together were pros and had it all planned out. They were depending on the innocence of the times - people standing around watching the president go by with not a care in the world. And with security that would have gotten the head of the Secret Service fired and jailed if it had happened the way it did in today's world - windows wide up; the limo driving by a busload of people on Main Street; crowds surging up to the limo on the street; etc.
My hunch is the "epileptic and ambulance" episode moments before the shooting was the distraction for the shooters to move into place. They came out of the shadows, fired their guns, and retreated. Then the massive cover-up begins, with the very first one being someone flashing a SS badge up in the knoll area.
And then it begins in earnest, with a faceless person whispering "It's a white man, 5-10, 165 pounds, slender" within 15 minutes of the shooting. Never mind that it'd be next to impossible for *anyone * to identify a man's height and weight when he's crouched by a window sill 80 feet up in the air.
So where does this leave Billy? It doesn't. Not everything about this case is part of the conspiracy.
No. 5.

Thanks, Michael.

What's interesting to me is that, earlier on this thread, Bob "Ballistic" Prudhomme sarcastically chipped in that he believes my creating of it was nothing but an intentional "distraction."

The ironic thing is that "Ballistic" Bob has already shown on other threads that he is very much against the idea that Lovelady was photographically captured walking down Elm St. Ext. a few seconds after the final shot, because if he was, it would destroy "Ballistic" Bob's overly-complicated (and not photographically-supported) "grand theory" involving Truly's and Baker's and Lovelady's and Shelley's participation in the assassination and /or its cover up. (I believe some or all of these characters were culpable, but not necessarily in the way Prudhomme thinks they were. And no, I don't have a grand theory -- yet.)

So, Prudhomme's (but not yours, because you evidently don't have "a dog in this fight") sarcastic protestation about the potential merits of this thread sounds to me like a hypocritical, self-serving contradiction, and, irony of ironies, a "distraction" of Archetypal magnitude that Carl Gustav Jung, himself, would be proud of. (LOL)

Seems to me that Prudhomme should be (and probably is) very worried, indeed, that "Dwarf Man's" (not to mention "Neanderthal Man's") shirt will turn out to be very, very similar to the one Lovelady was photographed in by Groden in 1976 (in which case it would support the idea that Lovelady threw away his 11/22/63 shirt sometime after the assassination, and bought, or was given, a new one in 1976, and that this new shirt was as similar to the original as he could find on such short notice from Groden), or (gasp) ... that it is identical to it.

-- Tommy :sun

Please note the character wearing the long-sleeved plaid shirt (and with the bald spot on the top-rear of his head), below. [Credit: Bart Kamp]

Lovelady-and-shelley-in-couch-okt-2016-B

Finally edited to my satisfaction, and therefore "bumped."

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone bought Lovelady another shirt in 1976. Do you think that actually proves anything, Graves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real thing we should be discussing is not Lovelady's shirt but, rather, how tall Bill Shelley was in 1963. From everything I have uncovered, he was quite a bit shorter than Bill Lovelady; the exact opposite of the two fellows seen walking down the Elm St. extension.

Would that not fit into your theory, Graves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone bought Lovelady another shirt in 1976. Do you think that actually proves anything, Graves?

Howdy Bob!

Not just any "another shirt," though (as you so skillfully put it).

If Lovelady (or his wife, or an adult relative, or a friend, or Groden, or whomever) bought (or maybe even gave him an old one which they already happened to have) a shirt which was, at his request, as similar as possible to the reddish, long-sleeved, boldly-striped, red-and-black-and-grey-and-white plaid one he knew he had worn on 11/22/63 (which, of course, he would have had to describe to them, wouldn't he, or perhaps show them an old family snapshot in which he was wearing it?). Unless, of course, he either bought it himself or perhaps even already had an old one similar to it), then yes, Bob, I think that that does actually prove something.

I would actually prove that, based on the photographic evidence, "Neanderthal Man," "Dwarf Man," Lovelady, and "the guy walking down Elm St. Ext.," all had absolutely amazingly similar "tastes" in long-sleeved plaid shirts.

Which would be very interesting, indeed, wouldn't it, given the fact that the first three were very similar-looking, facially and bald-spot speaking. And in the case of "Dwarf Man" and Lovelady, as depicted in Groden's 1976 photo and in the 1957 wedding photograph, identical as regards the very distinctive tiny "dot" (hair?, mole?, scar?) at the edge of the left eyebrow, which, you know, just happens to be visible in their respective photographs?

That's all, Bob.

Thanks for asking!

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...