James R Gordon

Josiah,

I feel that your point that some of the weak positions adopted by Doug Horne does indeed colour the reliability of what he has to say.

I have the complete set and I have skimmed through the set. Although I like some chapters like, for example, Chapter 8 on Sibbert and O’Neil in Volume 3 or a good portion of chapter 16 in volume 5 on inconvenient truths or chapter 2 on the medical evidence in volume 1, I have come away from this quick reading quite troubled.

First. This five volume set is around 2,000 pages. Yet, and this I still find difficult to believe, there is no index to this set. Who, on earth, would write a 2,000 page set with very detailed cross referencing and provide no index? It would not be so bad if the table of contents was detailed, but for each of the chapters it simply has a single line sentence. And some chapters are around 300 to 400 pages long.

Second. As this and other threads demonstrate an important aspect of this work is the Zapruder film. In Volume 1 the images, which are all annotated, are all in black and white. And the Zapruder images are so blurred as to be incomprehensible. It is really difficult to see what he is referring to. In Figure 87 + 88, which is a copy of Z317, we are pointed to a solid black patch on the back of JFK’s head. In the colour version of this same frame such a black blob is not to be seen in that frame. I suspect it is a consequence having the frame printed in B & W, but the annotation suggests that what we are seeing is an example of tampering with the Zapruder film. If these frames are so fundamental to his view of the manipulation of the Zapruder film then I would have expected better images.

Third. In Volume 4 P. 1150 we are told that between Z 312 and Z 313 four shots struck JFK in the head. One of those shots was fired by the driver Bill Greer. I don’t know what the odds are for four shots to simultaneously hit an object and at same time. In volume 5 p. 1416 Horne comments that because we cannot see the gun in Greer’s hand that is evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. On the same page we are informed that in Moorman #5 Bill Greer has been washed out of the picture. In volume 1, figure 76, he provides a poor copy of the image which is very washed. In some of the copies of Moorman #5 that I have I believe you can see a small portion of the back of Greer’s head in the bottom left hand corner. The reason why Greer is not in the picture is because he is not in the frame.

Fourth. In Volume 5 pages 1429-1431 Horne describes the Murchison party as a statement of fact. He comments that J Edgar Hoover was present at the party. I believe there is clear evidence that Hoover had appointments that Thursday evening and was very early into his office. Thus making it impossible to attend, even if the party ever existed.

Fifth. One of the main bad guys in Horne’s account of the assassination and its coverup is Roy Kellerman. Maybe I am not as informed as others, but I was not aware that Kellerman was involved in preparation of the assassination and its subsequent coverup. However in this set of books he plays a very significant part in covering up the assassination.

Sixth. The basis for much of the theory of what medically happened is based on David Lifton’s “Best Evidence”, especially the moving of the body into the shipping casket. (At the moment I can’t find the page reference for this. This is one of the problems of a book this size not being indexed) He is no more clear than David Lifton is as to how this happened. I recollect that his understanding is that as soon as the ceremonial casket was taken on board the body was quickly moved and, I think, stored in the forward loading bay. I am sure that immediately the coffin was loaded on the plane that Jackie boarded the plane So I don’t know how there would be time to change the body.

In addition, Horne states that the damage to the ceremonial casket was not done in Dallas loading it onto the plane. It was actually done in Bethesda when the body was moved back into the ceremonial casket after the pre-autopsy.

In another thread we were introduced to Horne’s metaphor of the jigsaw. That is appropriate for this set of books, because it appears to me, the reader, that everything is part of the conspiracy. And so Josiah I agree, in your initial post in this thread, although there is much I found interesting in the set, these above points (and I could have listed many more) make me uneasy of the reliability of other areas in the books.

James.

I am wondering if others have yet had time to read “Inside the ARRB Vol 4.”and what their views are? I admit that I have fairly quickly read through chapter 13, in volume 4 of Inside the ARRB. I will return to it later for a more detailed read. I have found this work to be both a fascinating work as well as a disturbing one. William Kelly mentioned, in another thread that the book is “an easy read though it does get testy at times.” In a way Doug is very easy to read and, at the same time, very difficult to follow. To signal that he is moving onto a new sub-topic he uses subtitles in bold. The problem I found was that there was not always linkage between one sub-topic and another. I would have found it much easier to read had there been linkage to indicate he is moving onto a further aspect of the topic. The most glaring example is on page 1102. Chapter 13 is entitled “What happened in at the Bethesda Morgue (and in Dealey Plaza)?” So this chapter moves from what happened in Bethesda, then onto the Single Bullet theory, then onto the Vanishing Mauser, then onto Roger Craig witnesses the discovery of a .45 Caliber slug, then onto photos of Missed shots in Dealey Plaza and so on. I went back to the title of the chapter, because I though this one was about Bethesda and realized I had not appreciated that the chapter dealt with both. If there had been better linkage between the subsections I would have found it easier to read.

For me the most impressive aspect of Doug’s work is his ability to criss-cross references to support a point he wishes to make. This aspect of his work makes it very clear we are following a person who is utterly in command with the intricate details of his subject matter. I bought the full set, though the other volumes have yet to arrive. And I am glad I did because this criss-crossing applies to the chapters in other volumes. On a number of occasions Doug said that this point he had already introduced in chapter X and Y and would not complete the point. So I am awaiting the other volumes because there is a lot of reference to other chapters.

I preface what I have to say with the comment that this work demands a closer read than I have so far given it. But even though I have given this chapter a cursory read, there are aspects of what Doug has to say that I have some difficulty with.

First the central role of Commander Humes to carry out the pre-autopsy in Bethesda from around 6:30 and then the main autopsy from around 8:00. This is similar to the point that Lifton made, though in his case the pre-autopsy was at Walter Reid. Throughout the chapter Doug details where Humes either lied or deliberately misled. I have no trouble with that I have always mistrusted Humes veracity. To be fair, I need to give this a much closer read as well as study the documents he refers to which are not in volume 4. It does give reason for Humes statement about surgery of the head area, in this case he is covering his own back. I always found Lifton’s two coffin’s theory a difficult one to follow. And the idea that it was Humes who went digging for the bullets is something I am having difficulty with.

Second in this description Roy Kellerman plays a very significant part in the deliberate coverup of what happened. I always saw Kellerman as someone who was not involved with the assassination or its coverup. In this version it is he who ensures that the pre-autopsy is not witnessed or discovered. That puts a colour on Kellerman that I had not considered.

Third in this version the damage to the Dallas coffin happened in Bethesda and not on Air Force 1. I always thought that it had been demonstrated and proved that the coffin was damaged getting it onto the plane.

Fourth. One observation that Doug makes through a witness [and I think it was O’Connor] is that the damage to the to the head was so extensive that it seemed impossible that one bullet could cause that damage. That is something I felt had merit. I have always been curious how one bullet could cause that amount of damage. Doug’s answer is that three bullets caused the head wound. One from the back followed by two from the front. He even suggests that there could have been a fourth fired by Bill Greer. My jaw dropped when I read that. Anyone who reads this work will soon acknowledge they are following a master who is totally in control of their subject matter, and yet he introduces an idea that has been rubbished by the JFK research community for years.

I acknowledge that he has raised a serious point when he questions how on earth a single bullet could cause the kind of damage seen at the top of the head. Part of the damage is explained by Humes and the pre-autopsy but the rest is the result of 3 to 4 bullets hitting JFK. I have questions that more than one bullet hit Kennedy in the head, even though I have no idea how it could cause all that damage.

I accept that I have not given this work a detailed study. I acknowledge that if this was written by a lesser writer I would quickly dismiss this work.

I have difficulty in believing all this, but the quality and quantity of referencing is such that I leave this chapter not knowing what to think.

If others have read this chapter, what are their views?

James Gordon

Jack,

I may have mis-interpreted what you said, in which case I am sorry. But there were actually two Dallas policemen called Smith in Dealey Plaza that day.

Joe Smith was up by by the TSBD. I believe he was in charge of controlling traffic from Elm Street into the Plaza.

There was also an E.L. Smith who was positioned nearer the Main Street corner. In the discussion on "Lambchop", it may be E.L. Smith we are seeing.

James

In my opinion, two different policemen are shown. One is at the SE corner, the other at the NE corner.

Only one can be Officer Smith.

Jack

Muchmore.

chris

Chris,

Good image. That clears everything up.

I was wrong in my interpretation. It is clear that what we are seeing is Jackie pushing her her hair back.

Your image makes it clear that there is no dog here.

Thanks.

James

JFK's last smile.

Thanks, Robin!

Jack

Jack,

I do not think you are right.

1. The object that has some resemblance to the face of a dog is outside the car. It appears to be something or someone that is next to whom I assume is a policeman. There is a hand to be seen, but that is also outside the car.

2. You say that JFK is smiling and laughing with Jackie. Actually it appears he is smiling and communicating with John Connally. John Connally is turned towards JFK and appears to be communicating with him. Either way, at this point, JFK is not looking directly at Jackie.

3. You are right in saying Jackie is holding something. I can't find anyway to see how that object resembles a dog. I believe it is the white flowers that she was given.

I am sympathetic to Jean Hill being proved right, but I do not see it in that image.

James

John,

This was an issue that he raised in an earlier book called "A Woman Named Jackie" P. 465. However in his book he commented that he did not believe the rumor. Sarah Bradford in "America's Queen" did comment that there was a very close spiritual and emotional tie between the two, especially after the assassination. However there is no suggestion in her book about such a relationship. I recall reading that Bobby did stay often with Jackie, but it was not because of an affair but because the impact of the death of John Kennedy was something they had in common.

As I recall, there were serious criticisms of his earlier book and I suspect his research is no better in this one.

James.

So are the nicks in the tie, shirt and neck made by a bullet or a scaple by someone in the emergency room removing the tie and shirt?

BK

William,

My belief is that they were made by a scaple at parkland hospital. My reasons are as follows.

1. P. 332 of Weisberg's post Mortem he describes the situation and the need to remove the shirt and tie. He suggests there was not time to undo the shirt and tie. He does comment that it was too dangerous to cut the collar button and that, that one was undone. It is not evidence but rational logical explanation

2. On P. 598 of Post Mortem [ where I found the quote I had been searching for ] Weisberg comments that Dr. Carrico confirmed his speculation.

3. On the same page he refers to Carrico's response to a question by Dulles. It is in volume 3. Basically it goes like this:-

Dulles asks where the wound was on on the throat. Carrico says near the tie. Then Carrico points on his neck to where the wound was. Dulles then says so you are pointing to a place above the shirt. Carrico says yes.

4. The importance of this point is exactly who Dr. Carrico is with regard to the parkland treatment of JFK: he was the first doctor to see him. And he was the first to see this wound and he saw it was above the shirt. Perry came in shortly afterwards and did the tracheotomy.

I don't think it is either possible or logical to consider that this bullet could cause the nick. Although the entry wound was near the shirt and tie I believe it was sufficiently above the shirt for it to be impossible to touch the tie. I believe Weisberg is right, it was done by the doctors as they were desperately removing Kennedy's clothes.

James.

The nick in the tie and the nick in the shirt were done by doctors removing Kennedy's clothes, but what about the nick in the neck, a pre-existing wound where the trec was made? That too?

BK

William,

I don't understand. What "nick in the neck" are you referring to?

James

The surgeons at Parkland cut a hole in JFK's throat to allow him to breath - although totally unnecessary seeing the hole in the head and the brains in their hands, yet they did a tracheotomy on an already existing hole they thought was an entrance wound of a bullet.

My question is, if the holes in the necktine and shirt were created by a doctor or nurse with a scaple while removing the tie and shirt, did they also cause the hole in the neck that was enlarged for the tracheotomy?

BK

William,

My answer to that ides is no.

The first doctor to see Kennedy was Charles Carrico. I believe that all that Carrico had time to do was unbutton and and begin to remove his jacket. As I understand it no surgery was done on the body until the other doctors and nurses arrived seconds later. And so the wound that Carrico referred to seeing was not created in Parkland hospital. When the shirt and tie were being removed, there is evidence in FOX 1 that they did indeed nick the body. But the wound that Carrico first saw was before any of that had happened. And before anyone at Parkland hospital had started to deal with the body.

Carrico and Perry are in agreement as to the nature of this wound. I not sure what instrument could have created such a wound. I doubt it would be a scaple.

Your point about the need to do the tracheotomy, at all, is a valid one. I have heard the doctors commenting on this impossible situation into which they were placed. They acknowledged that there was no way they were going to be able to save him. However I don't believe they even thought about that. When Kennedy arrived they simply made all possible attempt to save him even though, I suspect, they knew that was impossible.

James.

So are the nicks in the tie, shirt and neck made by a bullet or a scaple by someone in the emergency room removing the tie and shirt?

BK

William,

My belief is that they were made by a scaple at parkland hospital. My reasons are as follows.

1. P. 332 of Weisberg's post Mortem he describes the situation and the need to remove the shirt and tie. He suggests there was not time to undo the shirt and tie. He does comment that it was too dangerous to cut the collar button and that, that one was undone. It is not evidence but rational logical explanation

2. On P. 598 of Post Mortem [ where I found the quote I had been searching for ] Weisberg comments that Dr. Carrico confirmed his speculation.

3. On the same page he refers to Carrico's response to a question by Dulles. It is in volume 3. Basically it goes like this:-

Dulles asks where the wound was on on the throat. Carrico says near the tie. Then Carrico points on his neck to where the wound was. Dulles then says so you are pointing to a place above the shirt. Carrico says yes.

4. The importance of this point is exactly who Dr. Carrico is with regard to the parkland treatment of JFK: he was the first doctor to see him. And he was the first to see this wound and he saw it was above the shirt. Perry came in shortly afterwards and did the tracheotomy.

I don't think it is either possible or logical to consider that this bullet could cause the nick. Although the entry wound was near the shirt and tie I believe it was sufficiently above the shirt for it to be impossible to touch the tie. I believe Weisberg is right, it was done by the doctors as they were desperately removing Kennedy's clothes.

James.

The nick in the tie and the nick in the shirt were done by doctors removing Kennedy's clothes, but what about the nick in the neck, a pre-existing wound where the trec was made? That too?

BK

William,

I don't understand. What “nick in the neck” are you referring to?

James

So are the nicks in the tie, shirt and neck made by a bullet or a scaple by someone in the emergency room removing the tie and shirt?

BK

William,

My belief is that they were made by a scaple at parkland hospital. My reasons are as follows.

1. P. 332 of Weisberg's post Mortem he describes the situation and the need to remove the shirt and tie. He suggests there was not time to undo the shirt and tie. He does comment that it was too dangerous to cut the collar button and that, that one was undone. It is not evidence but rational logical explanation

2. On P. 598 of Post Mortem [ where I found the quote I had been searching for ] Weisberg comments that Dr. Carrico confirmed his speculation.

3. On the same page he refers to Carrico's response to a question by Dulles. It is in volume 3. Basically it goes like this:-

Dulles asks where the wound was on on the throat. Carrico says near the tie. Then Carrico points on his neck to where the wound was. Dulles then says so you are pointing to a place above the shirt. Carrico says yes.

4. The importance of this point is exactly who Dr. Carrico is with regard to the parkland treatment of JFK: he was the first doctor to see him. And he was the first to see this wound and he saw it was above the shirt. Perry came in shortly afterwards and did the tracheotomy.

I don't think it is either possible or logical to consider that this bullet could cause the nick. Although the entry wound was near the shirt and tie I believe it was sufficiently above the shirt for it to be impossible to touch the tie. I believe Weisberg is right, it was done by the doctors as they were desperately removing Kennedy's clothes.

James.

Robert Sam Anson's 1975 book "They've killed the President" had the first photos I ever saw of the shirt and of the necktie with a nick in the knot - both, I think, in color. Not all editions may have the same qualty photo, though (I have, packed away, the first paperback printing). Try a public library - it was a popular and very worthwhile book in its day.

Now that I look at the photo I attached, the hole looks close to the collar center, meaning closer to the spine than recorded, unless his shirt shifted and his coat rode up and his back brace snagged the fabric...you know the drill.

I believe photos of the shirt, tie, and jacket are popular items of research at NARA, so their site may lead you to links. I'd like to see the necktie knot again - could you post it if you find it?

David this is the best image of the tie that I have.

It is not mine, it was posted by someone on this forum for me.

Hope this is what you want.

James.

I know that Harold Weisberg stated that these tears were made by the surgeons at Parkland. Is anyone able to point me where in his work is the reference to this point? I am having a hard job finding it.

Also does anyone have a quality copy of the shirt in colour? If possible I would like both sides of the shirt.

Thanks.

James.

Mr. Gordon,

Post Mortem, pages 331 and following may be what you are looking for.

Dave

Thanks Dave. It is not quite what I am looking for, but it is an excellent point.

Now that I have had time to think about it, I am not sure the point is in Weisberg.

I think it was another researcher who commented that someone at Parkland had informed Weisberg that the cuts were made at Parkland.

I just can't remember where that reference was.

James.

James:

A few more.....

B...

Thanks Bernice for these images. They are very helpful

James.

I know that Harold Weisberg stated that these tears were made by the surgeons at Parkland. Is anyone able to point me where in his work is the reference to this point? I am having a hard job finding it.

Also does anyone have a quality copy of the shirt in colour? If possible I would like both sides of the shirt.

Thanks.

James.

I'm not sure about the quality, but --

Thanks David. I assume the black dot is the area of the bullet's entrance. It certainly is around the right position.

I am still trying to track down the Weisberg reference. Hopefully if I don't find it some will be able to point me to it.

Again thanks for the image.

James.

I know that Harold Weisberg stated that these tears were made by the surgeons at Parkland. Is anyone able to point me where in his work is the reference to this point? I am having a hard job finding it.

Also does anyone have a quality copy of the shirt in colour? If possible I would like both sides of the shirt.

Thanks.

James.

I apologize if this has already been discussed. I did try to search for the information but could not find it.

Does anyone know the difference in height between the base of the seat that JFK was sitting on and the base of the jump seat that Connally was sitting on.

It looks to me, from one of the garage photos, that the difference is close to one foot.

Also, does anyone have a good resolution copy of the diagram of the car. I have copies of the diagram, but they are all low resolution copies.

Thanks.

James.

From the WC testimony of Thomas Kelley:

Mr. SPECTER. And what is the relative height of the jump seat and the rear seat?

Mr. KELLEY. The jump seat is 3 inches lower than the back seat in its bottom position. That is, the back seat of the President's car had a mechanism which would raise it 10 1/2 inches. But at the time of the assassination, the seat was in its lowest position.

Here's the schematic used by the HSCA: Exhibit II-19

Thanks Pat,

That was the information I wanted. Thanks for the diagram, it is much better than the one I have.

Looking at the image of the seats from a garage photo the difference seemed much larger. It must be an optical illusion.

Thanks.

James.

I apologize if this has already been discussed. I did try to search for the information but could not find it.

Does anyone know the difference in height between the base of the seat that JFK was sitting on and the base of the jump seat that Connally was sitting on.

It looks to me, from one of the garage photos, that the difference is close to one foot.

Also, does anyone have a good resolution copy of the diagram of the car. I have copies of the diagram, but they are all low resolution copies.

Thanks.

James.

The four books I would recommend are:-

1. Breach of Trust by Gerald D. McKnight

It is by far the best book on the Warren Commission that I have ever read.

2. Cover up by Stewart Galanor

Although probably the smallest book on JFK I have, it is invaluable as a basic exploration of what happened

3. Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson

Although written in 1967, and although Josiah has since changed his mind on some of the points he makes, I feel he explores what are still essential features of the case.

4. The Whitewash series by Harold Weisberg

Although he is a difficult read he is one of the first generation researchers that it is of benefit to read.

Hope this is of help

Jack,

Your concern may be answered by comparing the films you have identified.

From what I can see when the Towner's are seen in the Dorman film the lead motorcycles have yet to complete their turn onto Elm Street even though they may have begun it.

Second, and my perspective may be wrong, it appears to me that the Towners are more towards the Houston side of the corner than that Elm side.

Since there are a few people standing below where the Towners are seen in Dorman it may well be that Zapruder would not be able to see them.

The frame from Zapruder that you have presented appears to be around Z100. That would be around 6 seconds later.

I suggest that the only frame that you could use to compare with the Doorman frame would be Z1.

From what I can see, if you look at Z1, you will see feet on the road at around the spot Dorman places the Towners.

Therefore, you may well be wrong. Zapruder may well be showing them.

James.

Bill,

I believe you are in error here. If this is the frame you have been talking about then I believe you will see that the figure you are talking about has never been Lovelady. What you are seeing is a composit image which shows Lovelady next to someone in a white top.

I believe this image is taken at 1:27:14 in the Hughes film. Below is a frame taken at 1:28:17. LOvelady has moved forward and now we see the back of his shirt and the the person in the white alone. Allowing us to see the complete white top that you felt was the white vest underneath the checked shirt.

Having given you, and other forum members the references, you are able to check that I have interpreted the images correctly.

James.

See the capture in response 31 and 32.

Bill,

I have not checked post 31, I will do so today. Post 32 is the Hughes frame at 1:27:14. As I pointed out that figure is a composite of two people standing together: Lovelady and the person in the white shirt. As I posted out in my responsne, if you look at the frame I posted of Hughes 1:28:17 you ought to see that what you think you see as one person in the image in post 32 is actually two people. The area you believe is the the open shirt is actually part of the white shirt worn by the person next to Lovelady. I believe your interpretation of the image in post 32 is in error. I will look at post 31 reply on that later.

James.

Bill,

I believe you are in error here. If this is the frame you have been talking about then I believe you will see that the figure you are talking about has never been Lovelady. What you are seeing is a composit image which shows Lovelady next to someone in a white top.

I believe this image is taken at 1:27:14 in the Hughes film. Below is a frame taken at 1:28:17. LOvelady has moved forward and now we see the back of his shirt and the the person in the white alone. Allowing us to see the complete white top that you felt was the white vest underneath the checked shirt.

Having given you, and other forum members the references, you are able to check that I have interpreted the images correctly.

James.

The Altgens image appears to be edited. The unnatural slant, from the shoulder down past the elbow, looks like a very bad editing job, IMO. I have to ask...where is his shoulder?

Unless the man who appears to be standing behind him was in front of him...it makes no sense to me.

His shoulder does look odd. Or his lack of shoulder I should say.

I suppose it would not be difficult to determine if there had been a window of opportunitiy to alter the image before it came into the public domain. When was the film developed? When was it first viewed, and by whom?

If an opportunity did exist for alteration -- and to be frank, I doubt this is the case -- those wishing to mire investigators in ambiguity and confusion would have been well-served by superimposing LHO's body under Lovelady's face (and NOT vice-versa).

Here we are, after all, 44 years on and still wondering ...

Charles

The more I look into this, the more curious it becomes. I cannot agree that the shirt worn by Lovelady is anything like that worn by the figure. It is just too different as I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread. I am going to hold back on this for a little while I do some more work on the figures and their clothes.

I have heard people suggest that Oswald states that he was in the lunch room and this is reported in Fitz’s notes. This is both right and he is wrong here. Oswald did indeed say he was in the lunch, but went on to say that also went outside to watch the procession in the company of William Shelley. And that is also in Fitz’s notes. See slide 1 below.

Billy Lovelady says that he was outside in the company of Sarah Stanton and William Shelley. Sarah Stanton says that she was outside in the company of Billy Lovelady and William Shelley. And now we have Oswald saying he was also outside in the company of William Shelley. As a consequence I began to look more closely at this image of the doorway. I think I have identified William Shelley and Sarah Stanton. To the right of Sarah and below William is our figure. Below Sarah is a figure whose face has been removed!! See slide 2 below.

Does anyone know about this part of the Altgen’s picture. It is an extremely curious part of the image. Because if you go back to the fourth image I initially posted this person is standing in exactly the position Billy Lovelady chooses to stand to demonstrate to Bob Jackson in 1971 where he stood that day. Looking at the remaining image of the person there is the suggestion that they are indeed wearing a striped garment. It would help it someone could detail the story of this image and why this part is damaged.

James

JFK Vs. CIA: The Central Intelligence Agency's Assassination of the President by Michael Calder.

This above book argues that it is Oswald in the Doorway. In a review of this book, Michael B. Green, wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Vs-CIA-Intellige...n/dp/0966074904

"Calder dismisses the possibility that Oswald might have been a shooter because, he proclaims, the famous photo by James Altgens taken just when JFK clutched his throat, shows Oswald standing in front of the Texas State Book Depository, not in its sixth floor "sniper's nest." That Oswald is the man in Altgens' photo is a major point to which Calder devotes four pages of detailed argument (pp.23-26). The Warren Commission concluded that the man in the photo was Oswald look-alike co-worker Billy Lovelady. [What else would they conclude?] Calder cites the testimony of four co-workers of Lovelady and Oswald who were standing outside the Depository in the shadows behind the disputed "Oswald" figure to the effect that Lovelady was with them, hence in the shadows, hence not the man in the photo. Calder ignores that one eyewitness has Lovelady standing, another sitting, and Calder completely ignores the fact that eyewitness testimony is inexact and often is in error. Calder ignores that this testimony collectively locates Lovelady in the general area of the "Oswald" figure, so that a reasonable question is whether or not Lovelady was a little in front of them in the light while they remained unseen in the shadows. But Calder argues that such points need not even be considered since Lovelady was wearing a red striped shirt that day, whereas the man in the photo has on a plaid shirt over a white t-shirt."

I say it was Lovelady in the Doorway photo.

Kathy

Myra, Kathy, Kathleen, Myra, Thomas, Jack

Until I went to look at the pictures I also believed it was Lovelady.

The problem for me, and it is why I feel it was Lovelady and not Oswald is the shirt. This was the point that Wrone made. I felt it to be very logical and persuasive. His point was, it the shirt matches then so does the man. If the shirt does not match, then it is not the man.

Now on the Oswald batch of images is picture D which is so like the figure, except for the width of the opening. The main matches are:-

1. The length of the opening. Four buttons are undone.

2. The left hand side of the shirt is flipped over.

3. The collar is off the neck in the same way it is with the figure.

4. The fabric and pattern of the shirt, as ahown in image 3 is much more like the shirt of the figure.

Now, for me the problem is this.

There is not one picture of Lovelady where all of these points also included. Yes there are pictures with his shirt open. Indeed there are picturues where Lovelady wears the shirt he says he wore that day, but NOT ONE of them has four buttons open. In those pictures when Lovelady is demonstrating how he wore the shirt, he only has two buttons open.

There is no picture of Lovelady, where he is shown wearing the shirt, with the left side is flipped over, as we see in the figure.

There is no picture of Lovelady, where his shirt lies so far off his neck, like it does with the figure.

The fabric and pattern of his shirt is very different from the faric of the shirt worn by the figure.

These are trhe reasons why I becomming convinced it is Lovelady and not Oswald, even though I am bucking 40+ years of established JFK research and thinking. I agree it is an extremely, and maybe even an over simplyfiied point, but I think Wrone has a point: match the shirt and you match the man. And for the Lovelady shirt does not match which is, for me, the sole reason I am convinced it is not Lovelady.

Now the point raised by Kathy is also troubling me. If the image is not Lovelady, as I belive it is not, then why is he saying he was there. If he was not there and he knows he was never there why is he saying he was there? I accept the point Kathy makes which is that before the Commission Lovelady accepts that it was him. However, if I am right and Lovelady was never standing there, who got to him and how did they get him to admit that he was there.

These are the questions that are bothering me and they are why I posted on this issue.

James.

Introduction:-

Recently I have been reading David Wrone's book "The Zapruder Film" and came to page 167 where he begins to deal with the man in the doorway and where he concludes that, that person is Oswald. I recollect on JFK forums, when this book came out, this was a hot issue where members basically concluded that this was an extremely weak and unnecessary part of this book. Like most others I was also of the opinion that it was not Oswald, but Billy Lovelady. However, just as an exercise in curiosity I went searching for the images and did a study of this concern. Having underdone some study I am now of the opinion that man in the doorway is not Billy Lovelady, and never has been so, and that the man probably is Oswald. The reasons, which will be outlined below, are because of the considerable discrepancies between Billy Lovelady and the image in the doorway and the major similarities between Oswald and the image. Below I outline my reasons for going against 40+ years of JFK research and established opinion.

Issue 1:- Comparing Oswald with the figure in the doorway.

The main evidence for Oswald are those images taken while he was in custody. However, not all images of Oswald have him wearing the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested. In the middle of this image is a close-up of the man in the doorway surrounded by the images I was able to find of Oswald wearing this shirt.

Point 1. The man in the doorway has his shirt significantly unbuttoned. You cannot see the bottom of that aspect of the shirt because there is a face in front of that part of the shirt. If you count up the shirt it appears that there are 3 buttons undone as well as the collar button: making four buttons undone. All pictures of Oswald, while in custody, show a similar gap in his shirt. Image G in this set appears to show the bottom two buttons with the upper two concealed. It appears that at no point while he was in custody did Oswald attempt to button up his shirt. Sometimes, like in image F, the gap in the shirt closes up a bit, and sometimes, like in image D, it widens a bit. However throughout all this images of Oswald in jail the length of the opening appears the same as that of the man in doorway.

Point 2. The shape of the shirt on the man in the doorway and on Oswald is astonishingly similar. For example, the man in the doorway, the left hand side of the shirt is flipped over. That is exactly what you see in image D. Wrone points out on P. 179 that this shirt was an old one. He makes the point Oswald's button holes were stretched and that was why he was not able to button up his shirt. Although Wrone does not mention it, it appears that the material is quite thin and when the support of the buttons are not there it is difficult to close the shirt up.

The second similarity is the manner the shirt surrounds the neck. In the man in the doorway it is nearly off the neck, except for the back of the neck. The shape of the neck is very easy to see. That is very similar to image G and D, particularly image D. The amount of the neck seen in image D and the man in the doorway is extraordinarily similar. Infact these two images are striking in just how similar they are. The outline of the neck is the same, the left hand side of the shirt is the same and the opening of the shirt is the same. Wrone makes the point that judging which man is the more likely to be the figure in the doorway, has little to do with facial resemblance but the shirt worn. If the shirt is wrong then so is the man and if the shirt is the same then, surely so is the man.

Issue 2: Comparing Lovelady with the figure in the doorway

Considering how important Billy Lovelady is to the guilt of Oswald, it is surprising just few pictures there are of him. David Wrone suggests that in the over exposed part of the John Martin film is a frame that shows Lovelady's shirt is buttoned up. Apparently in July 1976 Robert Groden sent Harold Weisberg a blow-up of this frame. P. 178 Whether there is such a frame is not really the issue, it would help but it is not essential. What is important is how much of Lovelady's shirt was open and how the shirt hung on the man.

Point 1. In image G is a picture of Lovelady taken by Robert Groden in 1976. In that image Lovelady only has two buttons undone. However in image E, taken in the sheriff's office on the 22nd it appears Lovelady may have three buttons undone. That said, in none of the images of him has he four buttons undone. In that respect, Lovelady is different from the man in the doorway. Image E is a very interesting image. Image A is an enlargement of it. Like Oswald he has a breast pocket to his shirt. However he has something in it that is white. Could be a hankie. Image C is an enlargement of image B And again we can see the pocket although this time the white object is not there. But the pocket does have something in it. Now if you look at the image of the man in the doorway, he does not have a bulging pocket. Therefore in that respect, again Lovelady is very different from the man in the doorway. A final point on this issue refers to images D and G. Image G, Robert Groden informs us on P. 187 TKOAP, Lovelady is wearing the shirt he wore that day, yet it does not have a breast pocket, and therefore this shirt Lovelady is wearing although similar to the one he wore on the 22nd, is not the same one.

Point 2. How the shirt hangs on Lovelady is very different to how the shirt hangs on the man in the doorway. The collar of the shirt surround his neck whereas the shirt worn by the man in the doorway does not. Even with three buttons undone, like in image E and A, the collar of the shirt hangs next to his neck whereas in the image of the man in the doorway much of the collar is off the neck. In images B and F, which are taken outside the TSBD on the 22nd, the collar still hugs the neck.

In none of the pictures of Lovelady, taken that day or later, is his shirt open as much as the figure in the doorway or does Lovelady's shirt hand as loosely as that image.

Issue 3:- Comparing the shirts with the figure in the doorway

Omitting for the moment that this shirt is not exactly the one Lovelady wore on the 22nd, one thing that is striking about this shirt is its stark pattern. Although it may not be the exactly the same shirt, images A and E in Image 2 demonstrate that its pattern is similar enough to considered the same pattern as Lovelady wore on the 22nd.

Point 1. Granted that the image in the doorway is an extremely small part of Altgen's picture, and granted that this picture was taken some distance away from the subject, what is striking is that this very strong pattern cannot be detected. We should be seeing very strong vertical and horizontal stripes and blocks of colour. Now I have read on forums people argue that if you look at the image you can see patterns. And I have read people argue that what we are seeing is this pattern as shown in the Groden picture of Lovelady.

But!!

If you look at the Oswald shirt there are blocks of orange and brown in both horizontal and vertical shapes. Also the orange colours are generally horizontal in nature and the shapes that are seen on the man in the doorway are more horizontal in nature and are the lighter shades on the shirt. And that is what we see on the Oswald shirt.

I would say there is much more in common in Oswald's shirt to the man in the doorway than there is in Lovelady's shirt. Indeed I would go further. Lovelady's shirt simply is not the same kind of pattern that we see on this shirt.

Issue 4:- Comparing where Lovelady stood with the figure in the doorway

In 1971 Bob Jackson persuaded Billy Lovelady to wear the shirt he wore on the 22nd and stand where he stood that day. Again note that how he wears his shirt is nothing like the man in the doorway.

Point 1. We need to examine picture 3 to see how the man was standing. He is bent forward by quite a bit. And to stop himself from falling he grips the side of the building. This is highlighted by the letter A. In image 2 + 3 you cannot see the hand because there is a person in front who is blocking our line of sight.

Now in image 1 Lovelady suggests that he is standing on the step labelled B. If that was the step, then he should be at position B2 leaning forward and griping point A to stabilise himself. However looking at the B1 position and the proximity of the A point to that step it is possible the figure might have been on the C step at position C2. What is certain is that the figure could not have been standing on the step labelled D. It would be too far to lean.

Maybe Lovelady was just positioning himself on the step rather than giving a true account of how he was standing. Because certainly how his is standing is nothing like the figure in the doorway.

One thing about the Bob Jackson picture is that we get an idea of the height of Billy Lovelady and to my eye he appears to be taller than Oswald. Although I can't do it, it should be possible to pin point where the head comes to on the building. With better copies of the Altgen's picture, it should be possible to determine what step the figure is standing on. And in doing that it should be possible to determine the height of the figure. If that can be done, then when measured I predict you will find the height to be 5'9": the height of Oswald as stated in his autopsy. If it can be determined what Lovelady's height is indeed taller than Oswald, I also predict that you will not be able to fit that measurement into that of the figure in the doorway.

As pointed out in the beginning, I am certain it is not Billy Lovelady in that doorway, even though 40+ years of research have informed us it is. I believe it may well be Lee Harvey Oswald and that makes sense of a number of issues. For example, it explains why Sandra Styles and Victoria Adams did not see Oswald going down the stairs to the lunchroom, because he did not go down the stairs: he went up the stairs.

James Gordon.

OK, Miles I got it by email. The problem with hosting it is its size.

1.45mb compuserve gif.

If anyone can host it for people to download please email/pm for a copy.

Hi John.

Email me a copy and i will upload it to my site.

That's great, Robin. Again, your site comes up aces!

This map is remarkable. Somewhat startled that you & John have not got it. Hence my not bookmarking where I found it some weeks ago. If you have any trouble uploading it let me know.

**********

Hi Miles :

Great looking map, may I throw a but in here...

One point jumped out at me, there is far too much distance shown between the Presidents 100X, and the SS Queen Mary..........it was approx 5 feet, not approx 25 ft, behind...and from what I see on that map, it appears in error...

I do not know if these would come in handy but here are a couple....for now, if interested....

B.....

Bernice,

That map you are talking about is mine. I was done a number of years ago and I can't remember what it was for. If I remember correctly the position of the Queen Mary was a gestimate and as you point out it is not at all acurate. It is best to disregard those positions.

James.

A great puzzle is why the Z film shows Marilyn in a

short sleeved beige dress and the Bronson slide

shows her in a dark dress with long white sleeves.

Jack

Jack,

You appear to be contradicting yourself. In the thread on Willis #5 you show Marilyn ON the pedestal and THIS time she is in the light clothing that you are trying to suggest, in this thread, she is not wearing.

The problem must be with the slide you are showing in this thread.

Edit:-

I understand that it breaks protocol to simply refer to images in a particiular thread rather than including the image. Below I include the image for all to now see.

In my initial post I had not included that this Wilis #5 topic was actually initiated by you Jack. Nor had I noticed that on your image you actually mention the light coloured dress she was wearing. Yet in this topic, also iniated by you, you are suggesting that the image does not show this colour. Well, we know from Wilis that she was wearing a biege dress, so the problem has to be your image her and not the dress.

James.