Thomas Graves

Howdy Bob! (When I sent you that PM saying "Bye for now" a few hours ago, I didn't know if I'd get all my last-minute errands accomplished this evening before leaving on my prospecting adventure early tomorrow morning, but I did, so here I am!) To answer your question, I'd say Shelley was about 5' 8" - 5' 9", and that Lovelady was about 5' 6". If I remember correctly, Bonnie Ray Williams was pretty tall, So, assuming that neither Arce nor Williams nor Shelley are "slouching down" in this photo, do you still think Shelley was as short as you've said he was? -- Tommy PS It looks like Shelley was wearing a hat in Couch, after all. (lol)

Howdy Bob! (When i sent you that PM saying "Bye for now" a few hours ago, I didn't know if I'd get all my last-minute errands accomplished this evening before leaving on my prospecting adventure early tomorrow morning, but I did, so here I am!) To answer your question, I'd say Shelley was about 5' 8" - 5' 9", and that Lovelady was about 5' 6". If I remember correctly, Bonnie Ray Williams was pretty tall, So, assuming that neither Arce nor Williams nor Shelley are "slouching down" in this photo, do you still think Shelley was as short as you've said he was? -- Tommy

Howdy Bob! Non-agenda driven logic and the ability to physically see what you don't believe in seem to be foreign concepts to you, Bob. But, IMHO, you're quite good at being contrary and stubborn, and excellent at avoiding answering those questions which make you feel uncomfortable by replying, "But what about ...?" -- Tommy

Howdy Bob! Plain. Weird. BTW, Do you actually consider yourself "normal"? You know, your not bein' able to sleep at night and all, and sending a member (me) who regularly disagrees with you a PM at some ungodly hour in the morning which says, "You are a disinfo agent and I'm going to out you," or words to that effect? Talk about weird. (lol) By the way, did you ever find Gloria Calvery in the photos or films, Bob? I mean, isn't what this thread / your thread is supposed to be about? -- Tommy Bumped because I guess Bob missed it. PS I think it's interesting that Shelley was the best man at Calvery's wedding, and I think it's plausible that Shelley didn't speak with her right after the assassination, but had her advance promise to "cover" for any suspicious movements he may have made by letting him say in his (or sidekick Lovelady's?) various reports they he (or they) had run into her on the "island" a few seconds after the assassination, or, if you prefer, three minutes after it, on the steps, or someplace. http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/bill-shelley/

Howdy Bob! I guess you never did get your eyes checked, did you, Bob? I hear it's not too expensive at Walmart if you buy some glasses. Maybe if you try squinting? -- Tommy

Howdy Bob! Well, if that's what you really think, then why do you keep participating in it? -- Tommy Question: Are those (spider-webbery) "patterns" which you refer to in Couch kinda random in nature, or are they very geometrically-arranged , as is the distinctive and easy-to-see pattern on Lovelady's shirt as he's walking down Elm St Ext.? No, they aren't are they. Nice try, Bob. Really.

Howdy Bob! Not just any "another shirt," though (as you so skillfully put it). If Lovelady (or his wife, or an adult relative, or a friend, or Groden, or whomever) bought (or maybe even gave him an old one which they already happened to have) a shirt which was, at his request, as similar as possible to the reddish, long-sleeved, boldly-striped, red-and-black-and-grey-and-white plaid one he knew he had worn on 11/22/63 (which, of course, he would have had to describe to them, wouldn't he, or perhaps show them an old family snapshot in which he was wearing it?). Unless, of course, he either bought it himself or perhaps even already had an old one similar to it), then yes, Bob, I think that that does actually prove something. I would actually prove that, based on the photographic evidence, "Neanderthal Man," "Dwarf Man," Lovelady, and "the guy walking down Elm St. Ext.," all had absolutely amazingly similar "tastes" in long-sleeved plaid shirts. Which would be very interesting, indeed, wouldn't it, given the fact that the first three were very similar-looking, facially and bald-spot speaking. And in the case of "Dwarf Man" and Lovelady, as depicted in Groden's 1976 photo and in the 1957 wedding photograph, identical as regards the very distinctive tiny "dot" (hair?, mole?, scar?) at the edge of the left eyebrow, which, you know, just happens to be visible in their respective photographs? That's all, Bob. Thanks for asking! -- Tommy

Well then, believe it or not you and I finally agree on something, Michael! Thanks. -- Tommy Anybody else care to agree or disagree? This is a "poll," after all.

Dear Michael, Thanks for responding. I think I have kinda already addressed your question. In my most recent post on the "other" thread, i.e., the "Lovelady Wore A Very Similar, But Different, Shirt For Groden" one. -- Tommy PS Should I assume from your post, above, that you don't think they look alike?

Dear Jim and Chris, As I tried to point out to Robert Prudhomme in a Gloria Jean Calvery-related thread about a year ago, we should consider the possibility that the internet-viewable FBI reports (the Dallas "Archives" ones, at least) were just separately typed-up, same-day copies of the originals (typed up after the person who had been interviewed or who had given the report had signed the original, and then gone home). Sorry to be so mundane. -- Tommy

Thanks, Michael. What's interesting to me is that, earlier on this thread, Bob "Ballistic" Prudhomme sarcastically chipped in that he believes my creating of it was nothing but an intentional "distraction." The ironic thing is that "Ballistic" Bob has already shown on other threads that he is very much against the idea that Lovelady was photographically captured walking down Elm St. Ext. a few seconds after the final shot, because if he was, it would destroy "Ballistic" Bob's overly-complicated (and not photographically-supported) "grand theory" involving Truly's and Baker's and Lovelady's and Shelley's participation in the assassination and /or its cover up. (I believe some or all of these characters were culpable, but not necessarily in the way Prudhomme thinks they were. And no, I don't have a grand theory -- yet.) So, Prudhomme's (but not yours, because you evidently don't have "a dog in this fight") sarcastic protestation about the potential merits of this thread sounds to me like a hypocritical, self-serving contradiction, and, irony of ironies, a "distraction" of Archetypal magnitude that Carl Gustav Jung, himself, would be proud of. (LOL) Seems to me that Prudhomme should be (and probably is) very worried, indeed, that "Dwarf Man's" (not to mention "Neanderthal Man's") shirt will turn out to be very, very similar to the one Lovelady was photographed in by Groden in 1976 (in which case it would support the idea that Lovelady threw away his 11/22/63 shirt sometime after the assassination, and bought, or was given, a new one in 1976, and that this new shirt was as similar to the original as he could find on such short notice from Groden), or (gasp) ... that it is identical to it. -- Tommy Please note the character wearing the long-sleeved plaid shirt (and with the bald spot on the top-rear of his head), below. [Credit: Bart Kamp] Finally edited to my satisfaction, and therefore "bumped."

Thanks, Michael. What's interesting to me is that, earlier on this thread, Bob "Ballistics" Prudhomme sarcastically chipped in that he thinks my creating it was nothing but an intentional "distraction" on my part. The ironic thing is that "Ballistics" Bob has already shown on other threads that he is very much against the idea that Lovelady was photographically captured walking down Elm St. Ext. a few seconds after the final shot, because if he was, it would destroy "Ballistic" Bob's overly-complicated (and not photographically-supported) "grand theory" involving Truly's and Baker's and Lovelady's and Shelley's participation in the assassination and /or its cover up. (I believe some or all of those guys were culpable, but not necessarily in the way Prudhomme thinks they were.) So, Prudhomme's (but not yours, because you evidently don't have "a dog in this fight") sarcastic protestation about the potential merits of this thread sounds to me like a hypocritical, self-serving contradiction, and, irony of ironies, almost a distraction of Archetypal magnitude that Carl Gustav Jung, himself, would be proud of. (LOL) Seems to me that Prudhomme should be (and probably is) very worried, indeed, that "Dwarf Man's" shirt will turn out to be very, very similar to the one Lovelady was photographed in by Groden in 1976 (in which case it would support the idea that Lovelady threw away his 11/22/63 shirt sometime after the assassination, and bought, or was given, a new one in 1976, and that this new shirt was as similar to the original as he could find on such short notice from Groden), or (gasp) identical to it. -- Tommy

Michael, Just one question: Do you think Lovelady was photographically captured, by Couch, walking down the Elm Street Extension a few seconds after the assassination? 1 ) Yes 2 ) No 3 ) Maybe 4 ) No opinion 5 ) I couldn't care less -- Tommy OKAY, anyone else care to express their opinions on the above question? (lol)

I agree with you and Jim Di, Michael. It is too trivial for further discussion. So, y'all don't care about whether or not "Neanderthal Man" and / or "Dwarf Man" were Lovelady, or even whether or not Lovelady was wearing a long-sleeved, bold- plaid shirt on 11/22/63, as indicated by the Couch film (on the Elm Street Extension) and the Hughes Film (on the TSBD steps as the limo's passing by)? Everybody's already made up their minds on these things? Really? Wow, and I really do mean ... Wow. -- Tommy

Here's "an unknown dwarf" (lol) who just happened to be captured on film while sitting in a chair in the DPD's Homicide and Robbery Department at 2:02 pm on 11/22/63: Here's a less blown-up version of the same photo: (Please ignore the man on the left.) ******* AND ******* Billy Nolan Lovelady in 1964: -- Tommy

Ray, It looks to me as thought the tops of the cigarettes are in front of the white stripe (which is adjacent to and above the black stripe). What I don't understand, though, is what that relatively short and slightly diagonal black stripe on the pocket itself is all about. It doesn't seem to be visible in Groden's photo. -- Tommy sun Edited and bumped for Ray Mitchum.

Harry, Trump knows who killed JFK??? (lol) -- Tommy

Ray, It looks to me as thought the tops of the cigarettes are in front of the white stripe. What I don't understand, though, is what that relatively short and slightly diagonal black stripe on the pocket itself is all about. That doesn't seem to be visible in Groden's 1976 photo. -- Tommy sun

Bumped for context.

-- Tommy

[...] deleted

Dear Sandy, I haven't read what Ray has written about "his" pocket, and, to be blunt, why should I? The way I look at it, either I can see a pocket, or I can't. So, long story short, I don't know (or even care, really) whether or not Ray and I are talking about the same "thing." All I did was look at this enlargement of Groden's photo -- -- and I concentrated on the large grey square in the left half of the photo, which, as you can see, is basically just to the right of the white button that's visible in the photo, below right -- I believe that the pocket is mostly in that large grey square. The black stripe I was talking about, which I contend kinda hides the top edge of the pocket, is the black stripe with the narrower white stripe directly above it, not below it. In other words, white over black. Now, if you will look at the photo of "Neanderthal Man" on the left, you can make out a little bit of the "black" in the same "white stripe over black stripe combination." The reason, IMHO, that the white stripe that is visible there curves so much is because that's where "Neanderthal Man's" pocket is bulging out at the top due to the (invisible-to-us in this photo) pack of cigarettes inside it. (We do know that "Neanderthal Man" was smoking at the time.) So, without having read everything that you and Ray have written on this page, I'm guessing the confusion you're experiencing in trying to see "my" pocket is due to the fact that maybe it's considerably lower (???) than Ray's, and until now you didn't realize that. I hope this helps clear up your confusion on the matter, but I know darn well we'll probably continue to disagree on it and everything else, and that at a certain point I'll get fed up with "banging my head against the wall" and I'll simply refuse to "explain myself" any more. I'll probably just let you, relative "newbie" that you still are, slide deeper and deeper into those side-by-side bogs known as "Harvey and Lee" and "Cinque / Fetzer." LOL -- Tommy Edit: Wait! In the photo of "Neanderthal Man," maybe just maybe the white end of a cigarette is visible, right behind that curving (i.e., bulging out) white-over-black horizontal stripe.

Howdy Bob! Plain. Weird. Sounds like a contradiction, Bob. BTW, Do you actually consider yourself "normal"? You know, your not bein' able to sleep at night and all, and sending a member who regularly disagrees with you a PM at some ungodly hour in the morning which says, "You are a disinfo agent and I'm going to out you," or words to that effect? Talk about weird. (lol) By the way, did you ever find Gloria Calvery in the photos or films, Bob? I mean, isn't what this thread / your thread is supposed to be about? -- Tommy

"According to so many witnesses." But not all of them, right Jim? I guess those others were just hallucinating, huh. -- Tommy

Bumped. See?