James R Gordon

Chris, You say that through 218 frames the car travelled 196.5 ft. I thought that the distance between 133 and 351 was around 233ft. Where do you get the figure of 196.5ft? I understood that between 133 and 486 is around 451 feet. Can you give me your understanding of the distance between these two points. James.

Chris, before you completely loose me, can we go back a bit. I am spending some time studying this thread. I follow your point that between 133 and 351 the elapsed time is 9.1 sec. I can verify that on my computer. The difference in frames is 218. I agree that if 218 is divided by 18.3 - the acknowledged speed Zapruder was supposed to filming - results in 11.9 seconds. Which is longer than the time counter suggests the frames should last. That suggests there are frames missing. 11.9 - 9.1 = 2.8 seconds. 2.8 seconds accounts for 52 frames. I agree that if 218 is divided by 24 - the argued speed Zapruder may have been filming at - results in 9.08 seconds. Which the time monitor states is the exact time for those frames. So basically you are saying if the camera speed was 24 fps then the frame count matches the time count. Whereas if the camera was filming at 18,3 fps then the frame count and the time count do not match. I agree that appears to be the case. But how is that possible? We are talking about the loss of around 52 frames. The maths may be right, but logically it seems impossible. James Addition:- Can I ask what version of the film you are working with. I checked some of my copies and realised I am working with the enhanced versions. For example the close up version is a slowed down version. Therefore there are added frames. Zapruder's original film had 486 frames. If we subtract the Home movie and motorcycles before JFK then the actual film is 486 - 132 = 354 frames of the assassination. The total length of that in time is 19.34 seconds. The strip you are discussing is 133 - 351. That is 218 frames. The time for that ought to be 218/18.3 = 11.9 seconds Above I was wondering whether there was something suspicious in these two timing values. Now I am not so sure. If a film is captured at 18.3 frames per second and that film has 218 frames then it would be expected to be 11.9 seconds long. Now I suspect you are going to argue that the real Zapruder film was captured at 24 fps - which the camera had the ability to do - but where is the evidence that Zapruder actually filmed at that speed. If that could be established then I agree there is a serious question to be asked about the Zapruder film. But I do not see the evidence his film was captured at that speed. The present length of the Zapruder film is 486 frames. That is what we would expect for a film captured at 18.3 fps. had the same subject matter been captured at 24fps surely the frame count would be nearer 640 frames. One further point:- I see on post 23 that you comment that you can't have 2 films travel the same distance, in the same amount of frames, unless the camera frame rate is the same in both. I agree. However Zapruder was - we are told - filming at 18.3 fps. Therefore for him that ought to consume 218 frames. You state that the SS were filming at 24fps. The same amount of information on that film ought to be somewhere in the region of 285 frames. Is the problem not there?

Paul, You mentioned that you'd like to go back to officer Baker's sworn affidavit. As I remember Sean Murphy's work - which was mainly carried out in JFKLancer - Officer Baker was one of the key elements. Sean was able to document exactly where he was clearly wrong in his statements and what implications that has for Oswald. He traced minute by minute Baker's entrance into the TSBD and his progress through the TSBD. Unfortunately I do not remember all the details. But Sean's documentation of those few minutes and their implication was very impressive. James

Sorry to confuse everyone. I did not realise I was in David Butler's account when I unfroze the thread. And yes, David is now a member of the administration. James.

This thread will be frozen for 72 hours. It will re-open on Friday morning. When the present administration took over we mulled over many issues, but this issue never occurred to us. It has forced the administration to make a choice between members freedom of speech and the integrity of this web site. The administration consider that the Education Forum has a longstanding reputation as forum for quality discussions. It is imperative that we uphold that reputation. It is not helped that on a number of forums considerable humour is being expended at our expense. And much of the the focus of this humour is on this particular thread. The administration realises that this is a razor-thin edge we're walking here. The administration do not want to be guilty of censorship, but we also don't want to run the risk of becoming "the Crackpot Forum" rather than The Education Forum. Therefore there will be a 72-hour "chill-out" period. Robert Mady, through this thread, has challenged excepted understanding Billy Lovelady’s role. During this 72-hour period, Robert is invited to gather evidence to support his case. At the end of the 72-hour period, he is invited to present the evidence in support of his claims. If Robert cannot [or will not] gather and present this evidence, then it will be made clear that this theory of evidence will not be given credence or space on the Education forum. It has not gone unnoticed that there is an open thread of similar content. It would be unwise for members to transfer this threads content over to that thread. James Gordon

Thomas, I deliberately omitted comment. If the video you are referring to is the one on page 29 then as far as I can see all you have are two very fuzzy images that could be anyone. There is no visible evidence these two are who you say they are. If that is not the video you are referring to I apologise. I am also troubled by the direction this thread is going. I will say no more than that - at the present time. When this forum was established it was titled the "Education Forum" which placed an obligation on all partaking members. That was a deliberate choice, intent and ideal of the originating administrators and it is one the present administrators take very seriously. James

Thomas, You are quite right. When I referred to Elm Lane it was the Elm Street extension I was referring to. I should have used its correct title. James

Robert, There is no way of telling. The images are of appalling quality. There is no reason why they are there. If they are going towards the railroad yard why, when they left the front of the TSBD did they not turn west and walk down Elm Lane. Basically my instinct is that it is not Lovelady.

Here is a better image of the Lovelady shirt. The reference to the stitching is the stitching for the pocket. On the day of the assassination the pocket is very visible and indeed it is clear something was placed there. The shirt here - we are informed - had been pressed and put away for a number of years. When it was worn for this photo, the pocket was difficult to see because it was still in a pressed state.

Robert, The correct shirt is the checkered shirt.

Robert, If it is the Oswald shirt you are talking about. He is good copy of it. James.

Robert, Please do some homework. It is clear you do not know about all the subjects that Robert Hughes filmed that day. If you want a quick reference read "Pictures of the Pain." James.

Robert and Robert, What happened to research these days. The Hughes frame you are talking about is around 165-169. During the frames 140 onwards Hughes is showing the people hurrying towards railroad yard. Before the 165-9 sequence Hughes has had to change his position. Basic point:- Significant time has passed between the moment of the assassination and the moment the frame showing Lovelady outside the TSBD. I seem to remember someone saying the Lovelady frame outside the TSBD was somewhere around One O'Clock. James.

Robert, I am not aware Robert has said that Lovelady can be seen on the steps in the Couch film. His point, as I understand it, is that Couch shows him returning to the TSBD. In post 367 he states that while JFK was passing the TSBD Lovelady can be seen on the steps. As regards the Hughes film I remember Sean ( I forget his second name ) clearly establishing that the figure in the checkered shirt was Lovelady. I remember either Sean or Robin Unger time stamping when that portion of the film was taken. It was certainly after the assassination and before he is seen in the sherif's office. And no I would not say the photo is impossible. I am not aware doubt has been placed on the Hughes film. James.

Well spotted Chris. That means within two minutes - or maybe less - Lovelady has left the TSBD gone wherever but to be seen ( according to Robert ) returning in the Couch film with William Shelley? Just is not possible. James

Robert, What you say is not rational. Your evidence is founded on the Malcolm Couch film. In that film - according to you - Billy Lovelady can be seen returning to the TSBD in the company of William Shelley. Malcolm Couch was in Press car 3. He was seven cars behind JFK. We are probably talking about - at maximum 2 minutes and possibly less - after JFK's car passes the TSBD. Yet you claim as JFK's car passes the TSBD Billy Lovelady is seen on the TSBD steps. No later - and quite possibly in less time - he has left the steps. He has gone somewhere but we do not know where. However around 2 minutes he is now seen returning - not going - with William Shelley. What Malcolm Couch describes is - according to you - Billy Lovelady's return. Where he has been before we see him returning is not described. So his journey is greater than what we see in the Malcolm Couch film. The only factual point we have from this description is that knowing where Malcolm Couch was means that he film was taken no more than 2 minutes after JFK's car passed the TSBD. There is not the time for Billy Lovelady to be where you say Malcolm Couch places. It is absolutely impossible. James.

Robert, It is very difficult to discuss with you because you appear to have tunnel vision: you are convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong. In the clip you use on post 365 - one provided by Chris Davidson - you claim if I understood you that Billy Lovelady was on his way back to the TSBD with William Shelley. First, though a blured frame from Chris Davidson's gif, we can clearly see a figure in a checkered shirt. The shirt that i is similar to the one that Billy Lovelady wore that day and he also preserved. What I would like to know is the following:- a) When was Billy Lovelady on the steps of the TSBD? When had he left - with I assume William Shelley _ and both are seen returning in the Couch film? I may have misinterpreted your position, but it appears to me that your position is that Billy Lovelady was never on the front steps. I cannot see how - at one point BIlly Lovelady was on the front steps of the TSBD - then leaves for destination unknown only to be seen returning - in the Couch film - in the company of William Shelley. If the Zapruder film of the assassination is 26 seconds long, how has Billy Lovelady time to do all that? James

Robert, For many researchers Robert Unger is one of the principal authorities on the JFK images. If you want a record of time stamping of the JFK images then I suggest you contact him. He has time stamped many of the JFK images. James.

Robert, I agree entirely with what Larry Hancock has said. There is some absolutely unimpeachable evidence what he was wearing at the time of the assassination. It was a red checkered long sleeve shirt. He can be seen in the image below in facing towards the front doors of the TSBD. The question of whether Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady was based - in part - whether the shirt worn by the person reflected Oswald's shirt or Lovelady's shirt. The consensus was that the shirt being worn was a checkered shirt like Lovelady's. Aside from a few exceptions - some of whom have ruined their reputations - the research community are in agreement that doorman is Lovelady. If I have understood you correctly, you believe that Lovelady is the person shielding his eyes. That is nonsense. That person is wearing a white shirt. The image below makes clear that on that day he was not wearing a white shirt. Lovelady just after the assassination:- James

Robert, How on earth can you claim the Lovelady figure is Lovelady? That figure is even more blurred than the figure you claim is William Shelley. William Shelley wore a dark suit. That figure is clearly wearing a top that appears to be checkered. The image you are using is far too poor to be able to make any judgement. James.

Robert, The DPD cyclist that I know Malcolm Couch shows is Marion Baker. If that is the one you are talking about that is too early for the image to be Lovelady. If that is not the DPD cyclist you are talking about please show an image of the one you are referring to. I agree that the person you refer to as Lovelady does indeed appear to be wearing a checkered shirt. However the hair style is very different. The facial features appear wrong. The Lovelady/Oswald argument has been done to death on this forum. I am not sure the membership want to see the Ralph Cinque arguments re-hashed again on this forum. James.

Robert, Look at Page 14 Post 199 Oswald leaving the building There is a clear description of who is standing on the steps of the TSBD. Though I have not been able to find the page I believe there is a labeled and annotated Altgens image. James

Robert, There have been a number of very energetic threads on Billy Lovelady and Oswald. Who was standing on the steps and where was discussed in detail. Look up those threads as well as the Prayer Man thread. I am sure you will find what you are looking for. James

Robert, Gary asked to me upload these three images from 2013. He points out that he believed they were taken at the Texas State Archives in Austin, though he is not positive about that. As far as he knew there unfortunately was no photograph taken of the entire shirt on the mannequin as viewed from behind First Image:- Second Image:- Third Image:- James.

Robert, Here is an image of the back of the shirt. I believe it is also one of Gary Murr’s images. There is a B&W one where Robert Shaw has circled this same area and signed it. You should find that easily on the Internet. As Gary has commented a number of time the jacket damage may be horizontal in nature, however this damage is on an incline. If memory serves me correctly the angle of the damage to the back of the shirt is very similar to the angle to the damage to the front of the shirt. I do not believe there an image of the back of the shirt on the mannequin. Also note in mind that those images are from 2013. There is significant changes to the damage on the shirt by that time. Gary's images from 1999 are excellent quality. However even there, there are quite significant wear and tear on the clothes compared to 1963. Back of Shirt:- james.