Pat Speer

They didn't. It appears to me that someone just filled in the blank space of Jones' arm to make it fit the shirt behind it. And that this re-touching was just business as usual. As demonstrated on the Miller photo thread this kind of re-touching, once done at the national level, had a life of its own. The news service acquires a negative. It sends out a wire of this negative to subscribers for use in their original articles. But the subscribers are free to add to and crop these images as they see fit. Then, sometimes, a national news story is put out including a higher res version of the photo--that may or may not include alterations. This then becomes the file copy that papers and mags use for every article till the end of time. As stated, the Miller photo thread drove Gary Mack crazy because I was able to prove that at least one (and presumably a number) of the photos widely disseminated by the news services and sixth flor were altered by their first publication, and that no unaltered version outside a single instance had been published in the years since. This drove Mack crazy, to the extent he came to insist that the obviously drawn in foot outline on the photo was the original image, at that the clearly original image as published in the SEP was drawn in.

My two cents. JFK was a bit of a playboy, but no more so than many other men of his era. (Think Don Draper.) He was good looking charismatic and famous, and women THREW themselves at him. Beyond kicks, he had an extra incentive in such dalliances, moreover. He knew his days were numbered. Get it while you can. As far as RFK, all facts point to his being a devoted family man, with a sexually energetic soul mate with whom he popped out a tribe. People HATED Bobby for his self-righteousness and thought his and Ethel's productivity vulgar. This hatred carried on way past his death, moreover, and led to "rumors" of his "affairs" with Jackie and Marilyn, etc. It's 100% bs. When you look at the source of most of this stuff, moreover, it's quite quite often late night phone calls with the likes of Truman Capote, which no one seemed to remember until after Capote's death. Garbage. Hateful garbage.

I was skeptical at first but eventually saw what I thought was was the outline of his hand near Shelley. When Alan posted the CBS copy it all fell into place. To be clear I don't think this was part of a conspiracy beyond selling newspapers and magazines. While I thought Jack White was wrong about an awful lot, his research had a solid grounding in the historical record in that many of the first images published by the media--from the Moorman photo to the Altgens photos to the backyard photos on down--had been altered for public consumption. I find it annoying as heck.

I think that's jumping the gun. Trask (and Jack White for that matter) demonstrated that many of the photos as first published had been retouched, painted over, and that this was mostly done at the individual newspaper level. At one point one of the longest and most tendentious threads on this forum was one in which I (believe it or not) demonstrated that JFK's foot on the famous David Miller photo was added onto the photo to sell papers. At one point Jack White said it was originally a hand, and Gary Mack among others went insane. While I ultimately came to agree it was most likely Clint Hill's foot, it really didn't change the fact that the image was re-drawn to make it look like it was JFK's foot. As far as Altgens 6, I think we can suspect that once word got out that there was a figure on the steps who looked like Oswald, that some tool at the AP thought they could sell more photos if the Lovelady image was unobstructed, and turned Jones' arm into Lovelady's shirt. What surprises me however is that it looks like that in all the decades since, no one has republished this photo from the original negative. I mean, Robin Unger bought a massive scan from Corbis I believe but even that was second or third gen.

Greetings. It does appear that the photo was retouched for future publication. Are you aware of any other published images from the 22nd showing this? I think the earliest version I have is an already retouched photo from the 11-22 Montana Standard. JFK was retouched but the Jones Arm was still there.

DON'T REPEAT THE HYPE! The limo stop witnesses have been gone through one by one on this forum and others numerous times. And their statements were cherry-picked to give a false impression. Many of the witnesses actually said the limo slowed--and were thus NOT limo stop witnesses--and many of them said the motorcade stopped--and were not making a reference to the limo at all. If you go back and read the original statements and subsequent discussions and still believe the limo stopped, well, then, we have nothing to talk about...ever...again. This is the kind of crap Fetzer brought to the table that guys like Anthony Marsh, Tink Thompson and myself spent years debunking. It is three tramp assassins, midgets in the storm drain, James Files, Roscoe White stuff. Be afraid.

You're wrong about this stuff, including DeSalles. If you move away from the likes of Fetzer Horne and Chesser you will find that very few top researchers put much stock in Mantik's findings. Some are intrigued by his OD readings. And maybe even intrigued by the white patch. But none buy into his Harper fragment nonsense. Or his Z-filmlimo-stop/Moorman in the street nonsense. Or his three head shots nonsense. They find them embarrassing.

You are correct. Dirty implies that he was bribed. My recollection is that he used a number of unethical tactics when trying to coerce a confession from Adams--that he, essentially, fell in love with the idea Adams was the killer, despite the bulk of the evidence pointing to Harris. I remember thinking that someone so in love with his theories, and so manipulative, would have little problem cooking up fake evidence against the likes of Oswald.

Ok. So you're doubling down. But to what end? Those pushing this stuff in the past thought it was all part of an effort to conceal that it was Oswald on the steps, not Lovelady. But you don't believe that. So please explain why you think this makes sense. Apparently, you take your failure to recognize photos of what most everyone agrees is Lovelady as Lovelady as an important breakthrough. You don't know who it is. You don't know why Lovelady's being impersonated. But you feel certain it isn't him. Help us make sense of this.

In recent years, Frazier has been forthcoming on this point. He knew he looked and sounded like a rube, and that city folks would have trouble believing him. This fueled his desire to keep a low profile. When he did start speaking at conferences and such, he was relieved that so many seemed to accept him.

And yet, amazingly, when asked by the FBI to approximate the length of the bag on the back seat of his car, his approximate was measured at 26 inches, the precise length of his initial estimate. This was barely a week after the shooting. That is far more relevant than his incorrectly estimating the length of something he hadn't ever measured out, and hadn't seen in years.

It was based on a book, Badge of Evil, written by two San Diego residents. It would seem they based the setting on a real city. But was Hank Quinlan based upon a real person? I remember reading something stating Quinlan was based on Fritz. But, unfortunately, I have never been able to find it after realizing its possible importance.

Okay, it appears you can't follow what's been placed before you... So let's go back to the beginning. In 1968, the Clark Panel was formed, primarily to refute the "junk" in Tink Thompson's book, including that the bullet trajectory for the head wound proposed by the autopsy doctors made no sense. And VOILA! Dr.s Fisher and Morgan "discovered" a small bullet hole in the cowlick (where no one viewing the body had noted such a bullet hole) and a large bullet fragment on the back of the head? Were they correct?

Actually, no. This was one of the things we got into with he who should not be named a decade ago, that was debunked by Groden four decades ago. Lovelady insisted nobody told him to wear the shirt he'd been wearing that day. The FBI--to no one's surprise--screwed up. That they screwed-up is demonstrated by the fact they failed to note that it was the wrong shirt in their report. But who knows? Maybe they had some help. Maybe they told Lovelady's wife, and she forgot to tell him. Or maybe--it's possible--Lovelady simply forgot what shirt he'd been wearing months before. In any event. when it was pointed out to him by Groden that this was not the shirt shown in the Altgens' photo and films, he said he knew that and whipped out the shirt shown in photos on this thread. Now, that's a reasonable explanation. Is there a reasonable explanation for having a Lovelady look-alike on the front steps? Or for having a special seamstress create a look-alike shirt for Lovelady to show Groden decades later? Unless this fits into a larger pattern whereby Lovelady was a part of a conspiracy--to assassinate the President--I can not fathom how you think this all makes sense.

So are you agreeing with Sandy, or not? Ad if so, who is this Lovelady look-alike?

What? Sandy is saying that it is Lovelady in Altgens, but that it is someone else in the other films, including the film in the police station. Well, who is this, if not Lovelady?

OK. Let's see if I got this straight. You're claiming Lovelady IS in Altgens but that his shirt was not the shirt he ultimately claimed he'd been wearing. Correct? You're also claiming the other films and photos of a man appearing to be Lovelady are not of Lovelady, but of some other unidentified man wearing a shirt similar to the one Lovelady claimed he'd been wearing. Correct? And you're proposing that Lovelady was part of some plot to make it look like he was this man, but the plot went haywire and they forgot to put a pocket on the shirt Lovelady later showed Groden. Correct? Well, to what end? The only thing that makes any sense would be that Lovelady had a doppelgänger, who was somehow involved in the assassination. But if that's your theory, there should be other photos of Lovelady after the shooting, right? In which he is NOT wearing the plaid shirt. Correct?

OK, so you think it's Lovelady. Well, then, why would "they" create a fake shirt, and entwine Lovelady into their master plot by pressuring him into claiming he'd worn a shirt he had not been wearing? Oh, wait, are you saying the man wearing a plaid shirt in other films and photos was NOT Lovelady? I don't get it.

OMG. Please show us some clear images of a shirt with no pocket and contrast it with the shirt Lovelady later showed Groden, which had a pocket. P.S. IF you are able to demonstrate that the shirt later shown Groden was a different shirt than the one in the 11-22 photos, what would it demonstrate other than that Lovelady showed him the wrong shirt? I mean is it gonna fuel your suspicion that Oswald really was the guy in Altgens? Because you can't have it both ways. You can't say Oswald was both on the middle of the steps in the supposed Lovelady position in Altgens, and at the top of the steps in the Prayer Man position. Or can you? And if you can, is there any telling how many Oswalds are out there on those steps?

Once again, NONE of your proclaimed experts were both radiologists and well-versed in the issues at hand. None of them studied the witness statements and noted that a fragment was found in that location. I have spent A Lot of time in hospitals over the past few years--and there is essentially no such thing as a "medical" expert. They are specialists, and even then only as good as the information provided. As far as the EOP entrance...your persistence on this point can only be viewed as trolling. You acknowledge you believe there was an entrance at this location, and that its pathway through the body is unknown. You acknowledge as well that some who have viewed the photos have noted damage to the cerebellum. I have shown you as well that the original reports noted damage in this area that they believed had been caused by a bullet, and that a number of the experts you pretend to believe in have noted a passage in the tissues down the neck ending at the throat wound. So what's the problem? A number of those inspecting the photos have claimed they proved no bullet had traversed UPWARDS from he EOP, and then used this to push the bullet really entered 4 inches higher where no one saw a wound. The possibility it went downwards was never addressed. Although there is some language suggesting they thought the lack of damage meant no entry of any kind was by the EOP, they were clearly just blubbering, as they elsewhere acknowledged there was some damage and that there was a passageway down the neck. So let's be clear... If you believe there was an EOP entrance that led upwards, but that the photos were faked and don't show this, then your claims he bullet could not have gone down the neck has no basis outside your pretending to trust in the expertise of men you believe conjured up a fake entrance in the cowlick, while studying photos and x-rays you assume to be fake. In other words you are arguing just to argue...and your arguments are without merit.

It's al over the WC's volumes and report. The FBI had initially claimed 399 was found on JFK's stretcher in the hall but the WC's investigation established that he'd never been lifted from his stretcher. So Specter and the WC tried to prove it was found on Connally's stretcher. Thompson, of course, made a compelling case for its actually being found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher.

My response in bold.

Big problem. JFK was never lifted onto an operating table. He remained on the same stretcher he was wheeled in on the entire time he was at Parkland.

I wonder if this was written by Dawna Kaufman. She interviewed me once about RFK and it ended up in The Enquirer. She then went on to co-write a bunch of books with Cyril Wecht.

You ignore the fact that even Dr. Sturdivan said that the 6.5 mm object should be even brighter in the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays than it appears on the AP x-ray: The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP [i.e., the small back-of-head fragment] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths, p. 193) Oh my. You just love to wrap yourself around "experts", particularly when they are testifying outside their area of expertise. I am fairly certain Sturdivan was not a doctor, and he was most certainly not an expert on radiology. If he'd read textbooks on radiology and books on the history of radiology he would know that the relative brightness of an object on an x-ray is not a reflection of the object's actual appearance, but is a reflection of the cumulative amount of resistance to the x-ray at that particular 2-d location, which is magnified or lessened by the settings on the machine. Simply put, one can not look at an A-P x-ray and say that the brightest object on that x-ray should be the brightest object on a lateral x-ray. The item on the A-P x-ray might overlap a piece of metal elsewhere on the x-ray. And overlap a sinus on the lateral x-ray. And that's not even to mention the settings, which can have a huge impact on the appearance of an x-ray.