Josiah Thompson

I'll try to explain. In the spring of 1967, I was done with my LIFE assignment and was putting together all the details that went into Six Seconds. Mary Moorman's photograph was extremely important since it showed the knoll at Z 315. I had done some research with AP and Wide World in New York concerning the negatives and prints of the photo that they had. But the original Polaroid was sitting in Dallas. I paid Mary Moorman for the use of her photo in Six Second. Part of the deal was that she would let a professional photographer come to her house and copy the Polaroid. I hired a professional photographer to do this. He went to her home and copied the Polaroid using a medium format camera where the negative itself is about the size of Moorman's Polaroid. It was that negative from forty-five years ago that I had scanned in San Francisco. The drum scan resulting may turn out to be the highest resolution copy of the Moorman photo extant since the Polaroid itself has deteriorated further with each passing decade. Robin just posted the drum scan. I was delighted to be able to do this, Robin. You are most welcome. I noticed on the drum scan you posted that it is quite easy to see that the two points Jack White said lined up perfectly (the claim that started the whole "Moorman in the Street" kerfuffle) clearly don't line up. JT

Hello Greg, I hope that awful picture of you doesn't continue to describe your predicament. It sounds awful. I hope the progress you have made continues and soon you can tell us that you've discarded that apparatus. I followed Craig's link (www.craiglamson.com/MOORMAN8000.png) and looked again at the drumscan image of the Moorman photo. As you know that image came from the scan of a negative as large as the original Moorman photo done in 1967 by a professional photographer in Dallas. I paid both Moorman and the photogragher to bring this about. I then took the negative to a commercial scanning outfit in San Francisco and paid a couple of hundred bucks to have it drumscanned by their sophisticated scanner. The result is the scan Craig published the link to. I haven't looked at this drum scan in ages. You recall that the whole kerfuffle began with Jack White's claim that two points in the Moorman photo established a particular line-of-sight. That line-of-sight was established by the line-up of the left front top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the Pergola window behind it. White's point was that when you line up these two points they establish a point for the lens of Moorman's camera that is only about 40 inches above the ground. Since the Zapruder and Muchmore films show her calmly standing on the grass with the camera raised to eye-level, claimed White, Fetzer, Mantik, et al., this meant the photos must have been faked up. When I look at the drumscan image after all these years, it seems flamingly obvious that Jack White's two points don't line up. The solution to the kerfuffle is that Jack White simply misread what was in the Moorman photo. I just wondered after all these years what you think now. JT

Way to go, Bill!

Thanks Michael. Extremely interesting. JT

Just for fun, I thought I'd take a look at what you posted on Veterans Today. I put up the address, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/. Guess what happened? It came back indicating there was no such page. I take it this means that either I clumsily put in the wrong address or that your posting has been taken down by Veterans Today. If it really is the latter, this means that Veterans Today has decided to agree with this Forum and disagree with you. Which is it? JT

Yawn!! Jabber,jabber, jabber. Yawn!! JT

Glad to help, Pat. But I don't think I have anything significant. I was employed as a consultant to LIFE from about November 1, 1966 to March 1, 1967. I think the last interview I did for LIFE was of Dr. Boswell in Maryland in January 1967. It was done with Ed Kern and could have been December 1966 but I don't think so. I never heard from Dick Billings of anyone "shutting down" the investigation. The impression I had was that it simply ran out of gas. I was not displeased by this because I was teaching fulltime and had to get this book done. I should also point out that I was closer to Ed Kern because we worked together. Had someone "shut down" Billings' investigation, I think it is doubtful he would have told me that, or complained about it. I never did come to understand who Billings reported to besides George Hunt, the editor, and never had an understanding of how decisions got made there. I do know that I was told that some ten or twelve editors had to sign off on the November 25, 1966 article we put together before it could be published. This style of "Committee journalism" meant that things got reduced to a common denominator. JT I think Tink has responded to this before, but I couldn't find it. Sorry, Tink. Tink, do you know anything about the shutdown of Billings' investigation, and who ordered it?

Rush Limbaugh causes a stir and calls attention to himself by calling a young law student a "slut" and a "prostitute." Likewise, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., causes a stir and calls attention to himself by starting a thread about himself where he throws various insults at Gary Mack and publishes emails without permission. Yawn! A tempest in a teapot. We've seen this movie before. It's kind of boring. If we just ignore Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, efforts at self promotion, maybe he will go away or find something else to make outlandish claims about. Yawn a second time! JT

I don't quite get your point here, Tom. Let's say all these coworkers were standing on the steps and noticed Oswald standing with them just as later they noticed Billy Lovelady standing with them, you mean they wouldn't have called up some reporter right away and said, "Something really screwy is going on here because while the shots were being fired Oswald was standing with me and a bunch of other people on the steps!!" The person giving the report could have suggested that the reporter talk to any of the other people. The story would have grown and been corroborated all around. Hence, it wouuld have been profoundly stupid to fake up the Altgens film (as Fetzer proposed); the fakery would have been exposed immediately. I don't get the connection to Mary Bledsoe. Would you straighten me out? JT

Yeah, could be, Pat. Clever idea. It just struck me that through all the argument over Lovelady being the man in the doorway, nobody thought of this: Let's assume that it was really Oswald in the doorway and the silly speculation is true.. unknown conspiritors switched Lovelady's face for Oswald's face in the Altgems.. what do you think all the other people there would have said? Had it really been Oswald standing there, then wouldn't one of the crowd of people who later mentioned seeing Lovelady, wouldn't some or all of thees people been beating there way to a reporter with the obvious story: "Oswald couldn't have shot the President! He was standing right next to me on the steps!" And wouldn't this have happened within hours of Oswald's arrest. What do you think, Pat? JT

“.. a brilliant chronology..”, “.. stunning studies of the medical evidence..”, “.. impressive studies of the limo stop witnesses..”, “.. the definitive study of the Lincoln limousine..” The only thing missing here is a reference to “.. the incredible, breakthrough opinion piece ‘Smoking Guns in the Death of JFK’ by James Fetzer, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of the University of Minnesota (Duluth) and close associate of David Mantik, Ph.D., M.D...” “Brilliant.... stunning.... impressive... definitive...” These adjectives are drawn from the world of public relations. Flacks everywhere use these words to promote their products. Usually in the book world, they have to cherry-pick the adjective from a review of the book no matter how negative. Here, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., makes up the words himself to promote his product. That’s what this thread is about and what the good professor is about. Undoubtedly, soon the lessons of this thread will swept under the rug and we will be told somewhere of the “.. novel, game-changing discoveries of Dr. Ralph Cinque..” JT

I think this is a really nice little job of research, Pat. Nice going! JT

"..in endorsing Louis Witt as that person, he turned out to be vouching for a limo stop witness.." Some witnesses thought the limousine stopped; some witnesses thought it slowed down; some witnesses had no opinion. If you think a witness was there, that does not mean that you are "vouching for" or "endorsing" anything a witness may or may not think he saw. You keep repeating this as a kind of mantra and all it shows is your inability to get anything straight. ..in endorsing Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), he was endorsing the blow out to the black of JFK's head, which is also, like the limo stop, not present in the Zapruder film.. Similar mantra, similar answer. In a book filled with opinions but little valid research, Gary Aguilar did a nice job of researching who saw what at Bethesda and Parkland. There is no necessity that the wound to Kennedy's head in the milliseconds after Z 313 looks the same as it looked later in Parkland and Bethesda. In the interval between Z 313ff and Parkland, for example, JFK was hit a second time in the head and his body manhandled in getting it out of the limousine. As usual, instead of dealing with the facts in argument... that apparently nobody in this Forum agrees with you and Cinque... you make your usual try at distracing attention to irrelevant points. So, as the handbook of demagoguery would advise, you move to tribal politics. "Thompson is no longer a member of our tribe since he said that what looks sinister may not be sinister." What you completely miss is the plain fact that what I said is true. Not just in the Kennedy assassination but in any of the hundreds of murder cases that I've worked on, just because something looks sinister does not mean it is sinister. Why is that? It's because the the human situation is so variegated, that people do things for the weirdest reasons, you can't believe something is sinister just because at first glance it "looks" sinister. And for the people on this Forum, I don't think tribal politics works. I don't belong to any tribe and I don't think most people on this site belong to any tribe. So once again, you just dig yourself a deeper hole. Does anyone agree with you after this thread has ground on for thirty-some pages? Who? JT Holler at me for coming in here late, I don't care. We have had a small family crisis, and I really didn't want to get involved, but I can't let this pass. Didn't you agree that it was Witt, even though it was AFTER you found out he could be used to pad the Limo stop argument? And have you noticed that there are several conspiracy theorists say it is Lovelady on the steps,, but still they remain conspiracy theorists? You don't have to believe that Oswald was on the steps to believe in conspiracy, do you? C'mon-- you know better than this.

Kathy, you know it's Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, usual procedure when he can't ansnwer something to call the other person either an "intelligence disinformation specialist" (an "op") or a lone-nutter. So there is nothing new here. I only look into this thread from time to time so I don't know the answer. Has anyone at all spoken up to say they find what Fetzer (or Fetzer channeling Cinque)is saying is persuasive? I don't know. Whenever I glance in, I find people fed up with his condescension and dumping on him. But I may be wrong. Someone, somewhere may find what he's saying either interesting or persuasive. The odd thing is that Fetzer has succeeded in making a lot of the business of this Forum to be just about him? In itself, that is kind of an amazing achievement. JT Holler at me for coming in here late, I don't care. We have had a small family crisis, and I really didn't want to get involved, but I can't let this pass. Didn't you agree that it was Witt, even though it was AFTER you found out he could be used to pad the Limo stop argument? And have you noticed that there are several conspiracy theorists say it is Lovelady on the steps,, but still they remain conspiracy theorists? You don't have to believe that Oswald was on the steps to believe in conspiracy, do you? C'mon-- you know better than this.

You make an excellent point, Greg. A new approach can lead to the successful interpretation of evidence that could not be understood before. The approach works when we are able to see a set of facts in a completely different light. But that is not what we've been getting here. I don't know how to describe any better what we've been getting. It just ain't pretty. JT

"Well, let's see. The Frtiz notes. The altered Altgens. The new studies by Ralph and me. The new observations by dkruckerman and other experts." "The Fritz notes.." You assume their meaning while other have pointed out they are perfectly consistent with Oswald going outside after the shooting. "The Altered Altgens.." You assume it's altered but haven't been able to show this. It was on the AP wire, for God's sake, within 33 minutes of the shooting. "The new studies by Ralph and me.." Give me break. What's new that isn't wrong? "The new observations by dkruckerman and other experts.." Yeah, you and your "experts." Except for the very astute criticism of you from Greg Burnham in the last day, this thread has become a curious psychodrama for you and Dr. Cinque. For the rest of us, it has the curious fascination of a slow-developing train wreck. As for important new knowledge of the the Altgens 6 photo and November 22nd... very little and what there is shows you and the good doctor to be not just wrong, but silly. JT

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now? JT

Pat Speer pointed out: "Which brings me back to Fritz's notes. How is it remotely reasonable for you to keep claiming they say Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting, when they are entirely consistent with the claims of the men who attended the interview, i.e., that Oswald was inside the building at the time of the shooting, and went outside and spoke with Shelley afterward?" This is a perfectly reasonable point. You duck it. Instead of dealing with it, you throw a few insults around and then offer a few opinions as if they were facts. Classic "Fetzering" (as Craig Lamson would describe it). Since this thread had crossed into the Twilight Zone, why don't you bring us something truly crazy... how about the belief that both you and Dr.Cinque have that "the Birthers" are right, that President Obama was born in Kenya not the United States? I'd really like to see you argue that belief. It would put everything in its proper place. JT Take note of this one, Jim, because you do this all the time. When someone points out an inconsistency in your claim "x", you attack them for some unrelated reason, or, even worse, claim the issue is not even in dispute due to YOUR "knowing" "y." This flawed methodology is, in fact, the foundation for this thread. "Well, yeah, the shirt looks sort of like Lovelady's, but it FITS the man in the doorway more like Oswald's" etc... You then claim this observation as a proof, even when few here (one of the most conspiracy-minded websites in existence) remotely agree with your observation. You never address the probabilities of a shirt appearing to fit doorway man like Oswald's shirt fits Oswald, and compare them to the probabilities the photo was altered in the manner you describe. I mean, have you even looked at the provenance of the photo? When was it developed? When was it first published? WHO saw it and changed it before publication? Was Altgens in on it? Which brings me back to Fritz's notes. How is it remotely reasonable for you to keep claiming they say Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting, when they are entirely consistent with the claims of the men who attended the interview, i.e., that Oswald was inside the building at the time of the shooting, and went outside and spoke with Shelley afterward? I mean, please explain... Doesn't the "PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY (in giving preference to interpretations that make what they say come out true rather than false)" dictate that you should trust the reports of those present during Fritz's interview of Oswald? And are you not also disregarding the "PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY (in assuming that they are motivated to lie and distort rather than simply speak the truth as they experienced it in relation to the assassination of our president)"?

You wrote: "I had four brothers and attended an all-men's college. Four years in the Marine Corps, to boot, and I can effortlessly tell the difference between a stretched tee-shirt and one that has been repeatedly tugged." Everyone agrees that the photo in question was taken after Oswald had his tussle with the Dallas police. With respect to the above quote, are you seriously claiming that you can discern the difference between a T-shirt that has been wrenched in a tussle and a T-shirt that "has been repeatedly tugged?" Are you also claiming that only because of experiences you had fifty years ago that you are especially qualified to make this slippery judgment? If so, this whole thread has now become totally loony! Priceless! JT Evidence, Jim, evidence. What evidence do you have that the shirt was stretched-out before Oswald scuffled with the police? Did Marina claim Oswald tugged on his t-shirts to stretch out the collars? It's possible she said such a thing. I don't know. But it appears you are basing your claim he stretched out his collars on this photo, which shows the condition of the shirt after Oswald tussled with the DPD. And that is just incredibly wrong-headed, and deceptive. As far as my "bizarre theory of a side wound (which) is inconsistent with the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen," nothing could be further from the truth. YOU have cherry-picked a few witnesses whom you choose to believe, and ignore the rest. YOU similarly pretend these witnesses describe a wound LOW on the back of the head, when they do not, and that this wound is consistent with a wound in the location proposed by Mantik, when they do not. And then you claim this is all supported by your eccentric interpretation of frame 374, which shows a shape in location INCHES away from both the white patch described by Mantik, and the hole created by the loss of the Harper fragment, as interpreted by Mantik. In short, you have tossed together a bunch of inconsistent claims and theories into a "Fetzer Salad," and attack anyone who fails to put it on their plate.

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., completes the usual cycle. It goes like this. Fetzer leads a critique of a particular film or photo until such time as solid photo interpretation shows Fetzer is mistaken. Once this has been made clear, instead of simply admitting he was wrong, Fetzer makes his usual move: the photo has been altered! The whole Moorman-in-the-Street debacle was based on Jack White’s sloppy observation that two points in the photo lined up when they didn’t. After John Costella pointed out that the observation was a mistake, Fetzer began claiming that Moorman photo had been altered. Exactly the same cycle has been reenacted here. Based upon an abundance of evidence compiled over forty years, it is has become flamingly, defiantly clear that Lovelady is the man in the doorway. When Fetzer’s claim implodes, he once again makes his move... the Altgens photo has been messed with! Well, let’s see. Over the years, just what Altgens did that day has become well-known. After taking his famous photo at Z 255, Altgens prepared himself for a second photo closer in by setting his focus for 15 feet. When the limousine neared him, Kennedy was shot in the head and Altgens missed his photo form 15 feet. The limousine passed him and he shot it from behind showing Clint Hill climbing on the back and damage to the windshield that wasn’t present in his earlier Z 255 shot. He lingered for a couple of minutes in the Plaza and then took off for the AP office. (Altgens, of course, was an AP photographer.) The AP office was in the Dallas Morning News building a couple of blocks away. Altgens gave his film to a lab guy and sat down with the AP rewrite man who did up a caption for it. That picture and caption went to AP customers everywhere at 1:03 PM. Occasionally, that time stamp appears on the internet. AP kept the original negative in their files. In 1967, I was interested in it for various reasons and obtained a really clear print from them at that time. When a claim by Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., dies, it expires with film alteration as its last gasp. JT

Hello, Jim, it's been a long time since we cooperated on the Moorman-in-the-street nonsense. For you to admit you were wrong on this, is like a breath of fresh air. Kudos from all of us who like to see discussions get somewhere instead getting captured in a gyre of "I see it and you're an idiot if you don't!". Nice going, Jim. JT Pat, I agree, it is an illusion. The half moon curve fooled me into believing I was seeing the flap of the pocket. Looking at some of the Hughes frames as well as the images in the Dallas Police station I can see that actually the pocket fabric is stretched and is gaping. It looked like the flap of a pocket, and looking at it I can still it as that, but it is not. I was wrong. I accept that the pocket does not have a flap. James.

"The greatest embarrassment in the history of JFK research is a guy named "Pat Speer". Good Lord, have I been demoted? For years, I thought I was at the very top of Fetzer's pantheon of "embarrassments in the history of JFK research." And Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., demotes me and moves up Pat Speer without giving me even a chance to plead my case. To be at the top of Professor's Fetzer, Ph.D's, list and the target of his unending bile is a great honor. Pat, my congratulations! JT Strong doubts remain for those who started off with those doubts. I don't know anyone who's started studying this case in recent years who finds this issue anything more than an embarrassment. It's Lovelady's face. It's Lovelady's shirt. All the witnesses said it was Lovelady. And the shirt some seem to think is the shirt on the man in the doorway--Oswald's shirt--was, according to Oswald, not worn by him at the time of the shooting. If any aspect of the shooting ought to be closed, it's this one. And yet, some prefer to have keep every door open, no matter how silly, no matter how much it wastes our time. Why? How does it benefit the community as a whole to waste time on issues such as this? When those with only a marginal interest in the case, such as members of the mainstream media, take a closer look at the case next year, wouldn't it bolster the credibility of the research community to be able to say "No, we aren't just suspicioners, adding more and more reasons to be suspicious to our collection; in fact, we have abandoned many old theories that haven't stood the test of time?" I believe so. I believe we should unite and make a list of conspiracy factoids we ourselves have debunked. And present this to responsible members of the mainstream media along with a list of theories we still consider viable. Among those on the kill list, IMO. 1. Greer shot Kennedy. 2. Kennedy was shot by someone hiding in the storm drain. 3. Oswald is in the doorway in the Altgens photo.

Welcome to the Forum, Dr. Cinque. I find your style of argument very similar to that of Professor Fetzer, Ph.D. Is that because you too are a Ph.D. and Professor of Philosophy somewhere? Or are you a medical doctor? Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., puts great stress on qualifications and that is why I ask. I look forward to your contributions via Professer Fetzer, Ph.D., in the future. JT Ralph and his silly pronouncements make me want to ...well...ralph. Sheesh Jim you sure can "find them". This guy is really something else. Ralph really is amazing, why he can resolve the fine details of the doorway mans clothing from a poor halftone scan yet he can't tell us WHY the skin of Doorway man is NEAR BLACK in the so called vee! Nor HOW he has proven in fact the VEE is actual created by the shirt! Then this "analyst" tells us the can tell the build of doorway man, WHO IS LARGELY OBSCURED BY THE DOORWAY! This guy is as silly as they come, a PERFECT FIT for Jim Fetzer. urp...ralph.... Fetzer...Lifton...urp...Ralph...three pees in a pod!

Multiple kudos, David. This is a wonderfully complete piece of research that I hope will be kept as pretty much the last word on Billy Lovelady and his shirt. Really well done!! JT I want to share with those on this forum a new development re my own analysis regarding Billy Lovelady –specifically, this post concerns the plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing when (in 1976) he posed for Robert Groden, who then published that picture in his book. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.” I no longer believe that Lovelady, in posing for Groden, wore the same plaid shirt he wore on the day of JFK’s assassination, and that's what this post is all about--not whether Lovelady was the man in the doorway (I still believe he was) but whether he has been honest in posing for pictures with the shirt he was wearing; or whether, on occasion, he had engaged in deception--and just why. Let’s back up a moment: At issue (for me, anyway) was whether the shirt Lovelady wore (on 11/22/63) was a proper criterion for establishing whether he (Lovelady) was the man in the TSBD doorway. I believe it is, and believe that to this day. Nonetheless, I now believe that, in 1976, Lovelady was deceptive with Groden, and that the plaid shirt he wore for Groden, was not the same plaid shirt he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he stood in the TSBD doorway; and that’s what this post is all about. Before proceeding further, I should note that Lovelady, while deceptive some of the time, was not deceptive all of the time. Specifically: when Lovelady testified in his Warren Commission deposition, he told the truth. He said he was standing on the top step of the TSBD entrance, and identified himself in the Altgens photograph, drawing in an arrow, pointing to the image. This exhibit—of the Altgens photograph, with the arrow pointing to Lovelady—became Warren Commission Exhibit 369 (and is published in Volume 16, of the 26 Volumes). So: I believe that, when under oath, he told the truth. But Billy Lovelady did not always tell the truth, and that is the problem. So let me recap, and focus on the issue at hand: whether Lovelady was honest when he was interviewed by Groden in 1976, or –for whatever reason—was deceptive. And just how far back this pattern of deception goes. In short, the issue at hand is whether Lovelady was “playing with a full deck” (as the saying goes), and if not, why not. IMHO: Lovelady has lied on occasion (as to the shirt he was wearing), this pattern began back in December, 1963, and, as a consequence, he has needlessly confused the record. THE LOVELADY ISSUE—A BRIEF RECAP For years, I have believed Lovelady was the man in the dooway—ever since (back around 1972/73, when I was working as the researcher on the film Executive Action)—I came across newsreel footage showing Oswald being marched into the DPD at 2:02ish, and there was Lovelady, seated right there. I made 35mm slides of that footage, showed it to Groden, brought it to the attention of the HSCA (in 1976) , etc. Duncan posted a frame from that (or similar) footage, and (as far as I was concerned) that always resolved the matter. The HSCA did further studies of this, and that study appears in Vol 6 of the HSCA’s appendix volumes. A side story of this whole affair has been the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and just why it was, when the matter was first investigated by the FBI, back in December, 1963, Lovelady appeared in an entirely different shirt, one with vertical red and white stripes. Just how did that happen? After all, didn’t the FBI know the shirt was an issue? (Or, for some reason, was Lovelady attempting to call attention away from himself, by leading people to believe he was not standing in the doorway?) When Robert Groden published his first book, he interviewed Lovelady, and implored him to wear the shirt he had worn back in 1963. Lovelady then retrieved that shirt, and posed for Groden, wearing it. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.” At first glance, the shirts do look identical. But they are not. Lovelady, to put it mildly, was not being straight with Groden. What I am about to write does not affect my own conclusion about who was in the doorway, but it does shed light on the psychology and integrity of the late Billy Lovelady (and just why there is such a confusing record on this issue of just what shirt he was wearing). LOVELADY - - The 1976 Groden photo versus the Martin Film Putting the two pictures side by side—a frame from the Martin film, showing Lovelady, in front of the TSBD, just seconds (or minutes) after the shooting of JFK, and Lovelady posing for Groden, in 1976—its obvious that the two shirts are different. The shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film has a large pocket, over the left breast area. (In the frames from the film footage taken at the TSBD, it would appear that Lovelady had a pack of cigarettes in that pocket). But. .. : the plaid shirt that Lovelady supposed “packed . . away for safekeeping” and wore for Groden (in 1976) has no pocket. Furthermore, if you compare the striped pattern, they are obviously different. Yes, both are plaid shirts, so they are certainly similar. But the vertical stripes in the shirt worn in the Martin film are distinctly different from the vertical stripes in the 1976 photo. Also, the shirt Lovelady was wearing has a distinctly visible pocket in the left breast area—whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden in 1976 has no such pocket. (See attached Well then, what does this all mean? WHAT IT ALL MEANS Here are my own observations and beliefs, and I’m sure others will have theirs: (1) Billy Lovelady was deceptive when he was interviewed by Groden, in 1976. He produced a shirt which, while similar, was not the same shirt as he was wearing on November 22, 1963. (2) If you go back to some of the other posts on this thread, you will find the following information: (a) The issue goes back to December, 1963, when someone (in the FBI) noticed the similarity of Lovelady to Oswald (b ) At that time, New York resident (and one of the earliest JFK researchers, Jones Harris) also noticed it. Harris had the time (and the money) to make flights to Dallas, and met with Lovelady. He also was in touch with reporter Dom Bonafede of the New York Herald Tribune. ( c) What did Lovelady do? He misled Jones Harris—telling Harris he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. (In effect: "Hell no, the man in the doorway was not me. You see, I was wearing an entirely different shirt.") (d) Then, Lovelady, when asked to pose for the FBI (with whom Jones Harris was in touch), posed in the wrong shirt—i.e., a shirt with vertical stripes. (e) –footnoe to “d” above: Gary Mack informs me that, when he –Gary—interviewed Lovelady many years ago, Lovelady said that the reason he wore that shirt was that the FBI told him it didn’t matter. They just wanted to photograph him, as a person.) Needless to say, in view of what Lovelady told Jones Harris, and the manner in which he behaved with Groden (in 1976) I don’t believe that anymore; I now realize what this pattern of evidence really means: that Lovelady was, from the outset, being deceptive. And the reason for all the deception now has become clear: Lovelady, from the outset, wanted to distance himself from the image of the man in the doorway. (f ) A small insight to the psychology of Lovelady (and his wife): Lovelady’s wife, interviewed by the media, claimed that their house was broken into on any number of occasions, no matter where they moved, by people looking for the shirt. For what its worth (“FWIW”, in internet lingo), I don’t believe her. That’s just an absurd story—and, as far as I know, there are no police reports of any break-ins of the Lovelady home, because of unknown robbers seeking the shirt. But what I do believe this shows is that the Loveladys—as a couple—were spooked by the attention Billy Lovelady was getting, and apparently tried to escape from it, by either getting rid of the shirt, and/or misleading Jones Harris, and/or not posing in the proper shirt for the FBI, back in 1963/64. (g) So. . what happened next? Well, back to the saying: “Oh what a web we weave. . when we set out to deceive.” What has happened, as a consequence of all this foolishness, probably the result of needless paranoia and deception, is that the record has been needlessly distorted and complicated. First of all, there are today numerous folks who, today, honestly believe (because of the initial false reports) that there is truth to what they believe is Lovelady’s “original” story—i.e., that, when he was standing in the TSBD doorway on 11/22, he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes. That’s just rubbish. But I can assure you that I am probably not the only one who (decades ago) spent good money chasing this piece of wild goose, ordering high quality prints of the Altgeos photo from the AP, peering at it under a magnifying glass, etc etc. –and why? All because Lovelady initially said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt, and then posed for the FBI in just such garb. Second: there are numerous folks who, analyzing the picture of Lovelady’s shirt as shown in the newsreel frames taken on 11/22/63) when Oswald was marched into the DPD, at 2:02ish PM) now notice discrepancies between that shirt, and the shirt he was wearing in the Martin film, and posit theories of alteration, all of which are (imho) totally irrelevant. Anyway, here are my own tentative conclusions: (a) From early December, 1963, at the very least, Billy Lovelady was spooked by the resemblance between himself and Oswald, and the attention it brought. (b ) Lovelady lied to Jones Harris about the shirt he was wearing—saying it had vertical stripes. It did not. (c ) Lovelady then wore the same shirt, with the vertical stripes, when he was interviewed by the FBI –thus leading a generation of JFK researchers on a wild goose chase. (d ) When (in 1972/73) I found the newsreel footage showing Lovelady in the plaid shirt, and showed slides of it to Groden, he then pursued the matter. (e) When the HSCA was created in 1976, and Groden contacted Lovelady, who now had to come up with a plaid shirt to wear, even though (a) he had probably gotten rid of that original plaid shirt years before and (b ) even though he had—some 12-13 years earlier—posed for the FBI in a striped shirt. Probably he (and/or his wife, the one who talked of their home constantly being broken into by people looking for “the shirt”, and who said the shirt he was wearing that day had been purchased at a flea market) found a similar plaid shirt. (f) Lovelady—who probably dearly wanted nothing more but for the issue to “go away”—then posed for Groden in his “replacement” plaid shirt. Indeed, he not only posed for Groden in the shirt, he told him—and Groden believed him—that, with regard to the shirt, “he had packed it away from safekeeping. . . and put it on (for me) for the first time in years.” Yeah, sure. (I have to wonder whether or not Groden paid money to Lovelady, for the favor of him posing, or whether Lovelady did it for free, hoping that Groden publishing such a photograph would increase the value of the “replacement” shirt, which he thought he might pawn off on some soul as “the original.” Who knows.) Grand Conclusion: Billy Lovelady repeatedly (but not always) lied about the shirt he wore that day. Let’s recap: First, back in 1963, he lied to Jones Harris, one history’s “first responders” to this critical issue. He lied to Harris, telling him he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. This encouraged Harris to believe that Lovelady was not in the doorway; ergo, it had to be Oswald. Harris was in touch with the FBI, and with reporter Dom Bonaede of the New York Herald Tribune. I have no doubt that Lovelady’s evasions and falsehoods clouded the record. Second: back in 1963/64, when interviewed by the FBI, he posed in the “wrong shirt”, but one which matched the lie he told to Jones Harris. If memory serves, he also lied to the FBI about the shirt he wore. (And who knows if, at higher levels of the FBI, this led to confusion as to just who was standing in the doorway. After all [so the reasoning would be] if Lovelady was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, then who else could the man in the doorway be, other than Oswald?) Third: in his Warren Commission deposition, Lovelady told the truth. He stopped playing games, and identified himself as the person in the doorway (circling himself as the man in the doorway, in cropped enlargement of the Altgens photo—Commission Exhibit 369). Fourth: Now returning to the game playing mode. . . :Lovelady, in 1976, lied to Robert Groden, retrieving a shirt similar to—but not identical with – the shirt he had worn on 11/22/63. He then posed wearing that shirt (with the plaid pattern, but no pocket) for Groden, who then published the picture in his book, apparently not noting that the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film had a large pocket, whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden did not. Groden—and everyone else, including me—failed to notice that the plaid pattern of the two shirts, while similar, were clearly not the same. What I shall call here the “Groden shirt” and the “Martin film shirt” are clearly different. As noted above, Groden –believing he had a journalistic scoop of sorts--captioned the picture: ““I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.” WHERE WE STAND NOW: Billy Lovelady died years ago, and I don’t wish to demean the dead—but he the fact is that he has left behind a trail of deceptive behavior which has confused the record as to the identity of the man in the doorway. Because obviously, once you start entertaining the notion that Lovelady was telling the truth (when he told his “striped shirt” story) the odds go way up that the man in the doorway was Oswald. But Lovelady only complicated matters by attempting to distance himself from the issue by lying about the shirt he was wearing; and then by posing for Groden in a plaid shirt that was similar to (but certainly not identical with) the one he was wearing on November 22, 1963 (as clearly shown in the Martin film, or the DPD newsreel footage). I go back to my original position: both the Martin film (of Lovelady standing outside the TSBD, minutes later) and the newsreel footage taken on 11/22/63 (showing Oswald being marched into the DPD a few minutes after 2 p.m., and which also shows Lovelady) makes one thing very clear: Lovelady, wearing the plaid shirt shown in the Martin film, was the man in the doorway. All JFK researchers would be advised to toss aside the picture published in Groden’s book, showing Lovelady in a plaid shirt. That picture, and the way he behaved with Groden, says a lot about Lovelady’s psychology. But it only confuses the record and tells us little about the identity of the man in the doorway. The man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady. The Martin film and the DPD newsreel footage, showing him that same shirt, is the best evidence for that. DSL 1/31/12; 9:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

If you go to <http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5803&fullsize=1> you will find 310, 311, 312, 313. The reason I cited 312 and 313 was because the shadow on the back of JFK's head looks the same in all these photos. Hence, your claim that it shows a "black patch" is just false. You say, "David Josephs is doing quite a good job of defeating you, in case you haven't noticed." No, I didn't notice. I thought David and I were just discussing several points. Unlike you, I don't see every discussion... every conversation... as a threat to my manhood. What on earth are you so afraid of that makes the world appear filled with people conspiring against you and every discussion a combat to the death. Once again, I ask the questions you've left unanswered in this discussion: And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!! JT