Thomas Graves

No problem, Ray. Post #1, this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19115 -- Tommy

Dear Sandy, It's pretty obvious (to me at least) that this un-cropped frame (look familiar?) ..... ..... is from about four seconds before Chris Davidson's gif begins. The progress of the "parade" to the interrogation room on the right, and Oswald's being practically jerked from the far left to right. are the the keys to figuring it out. (In the "still," above, the back of Oswald's head is visible on the far left of the frame.) Also note how Lovelady, at the very very very very split-second beginning of the gif, is just finishing turning his head from left to right. And then, of course (to make my explaining mission as difficult as possible), he pauses, and ... turns it a little more!

CE 811 is the Oswald's Selective Service Classification. It's grouped with CE 812, the USMC Certificate of Service - these are in vol. XVII of the Hearings. Eyes: Blue Height 5'11” Hidell CE 796 SS Notice of Classification: Eyes: Grey Height 5'9” USMC Certificate of Service Oswald: CE 812 Period of Active Duty: 24 October 1956 to 11 September 1959 Hidell: CE 810 Certificate of Service Period of Active Duty: Oct 15 1958 to Oct 12 1959? (only one year in the service?) Who would use a form of ID that only showed one year of service in the military? The Hidell ID was used for something, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what. Steve Thomas Steve and Larry, When I look at these, I think "Robert Webster - Lee Harvey Oswald Marked Cards." Circa early 1960. -- Tommy

My point to Robert was that the still he was asking about isn't to be found in the video posted in this thread. It is found in an alleged prequel to that video. It would be nice if someone would post the whole video. Dear Sandy, If you were to take the time to read the now-locked JFK Assassination Debate thread I provided the link to you for, you would realize that "the whole enchilada," from elevator to interrogation room, is on a DVD which can be purchased on Amazon, or at least could have been done when the pertinent post was posted on that thread a couple of years ago. That's the only way to view the whole darn thing, AFAIK. -- Tommy

bump Robert, The still on the right is supposedly from the same video that was posted earlier (a few pages ago), which is where Dallas police are taking Oswald into Fritz's office. But you won't see the above still there. According to Ralph Cinque, that video was "done" in the 1970s. And according to Cinque, an earlier segment of the same video, from which the above still was taken, was "done" much later, possibly in the 21st century. That is, the segment was a later add-on to the video. A lot of people ridicule Ralph Cinque for his theories and ideas. I've read his stuff and I can see that he often reads a lot into something simple. But he's made some observations that are legitimate and should be up for discussion. Unfortunately some people try to shut the discussion down by labeling it as being Cinquesque or Fetzeresque. I consider that to be is a lazy man's tactic. Dear Sandy, Have you seen this small segment of the "elevator-to-interrogation room" footage shot by Charles Buck of (ABC) WFAA-TV on 11/22/63? Look closely at the end and you'll see Lovelady turning his head towards the camera, but since the video / film has been cropped, we only see the very top of his head. [Credit; Chris Davidson] You can read about this footage here: (Backes mistakenly calls Charles Buck "Charles Butt." lol) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19115&page=2 -- Tommy Yes Tommy, I've seen that. That is the video I was referring to in my post to Robert that you are replying to. Thanks for re-posting it. The still Robert was asking about supposedly comes from this same video, but occurs before what see here. You say the video has been cropped and therefore we don't see Lovelady's face at the end. But even if it weren't cropped we still might not be able to see Lovelady's face. Because at the very end he bends over, as if to tie a shoelace. Dear Sandy, It's pretty obvious (to me at least) that this un-cropped frame ..... ..... is from about two seconds before Chris Davidson's gif begins. Oswald's being practically jerked from the far left to right is the key. Also note how Lovelady, at the very very very very split-second beginning of the gif, is just finishing turning his head from left to right. And then, of course (to make my explaining as difficult as possible), he turns it a little more!

Why do you ask? -- Sandy Larsen Dear Sandy, Oh! Never mind. I was afraid Cinque had convinced you that the "Mystery Still With The Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair" was from some bad-guys' production which wasn't shot at two-minutes-past-two on 11/22/63. but "sometime in the 1970's," instead. LOL My bad. -- Tommy

bump Robert, The still on the right is supposedly from the same video that was posted earlier (a few pages ago), which is where Dallas police are taking Oswald into Fritz's office. But you won't see the above still there. According to Ralph Cinque, that video was "done" in the 1970s. And according to Cinque, an earlier segment of the same video, from which the above still was taken, was "done" much later, possibly in the 21st century. That is, the segment was a later add-on to the video. A lot of people ridicule Ralph Cinque for his theories and ideas. I've read his stuff and I can see that he often reads a lot into something simple. But he's made some observations that are legitimate and should be up for discussion. Unfortunately some people try to shut the discussion down by labeling it as being Cinquesque or Fetzeresque. I consider that to be is a lazy man's tactic. Dear Sandy, Have you seen this small segment of the "elevator-to-interrogation room" footage shot by Charles Buck of (ABC-affiliate) WFAA-TV on 11/22/63? Look closely at the end and you'll see Lovelady turning his head towards the camera, but since the video / film has been cropped, we only see the very top of his head. [Credit; Chris Davidson] You can read about this footage here: (Backes mistakenly calls Charles Buck "Charles Butt." lol) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19115&page=2 -- Tommy Hey Sandy! Does the scene below look familiar? (FWIW, that's the back of Oswald's head to the far left of the frame.) Sandy Larsen said: "The still on the right is supposedly from the same [Charles Buck] video that was posted earlier (a few pages ago), which is where Dallas police are taking Oswald into Fritz's office. But you won't see the above still there." Bumped. Because I think Larsen replied to it before I'd finished editing it and augmenting it. -- Tommy

bump Robert, The still on the right is supposedly from the same video that was posted earlier (a few pages ago), which is where Dallas police are taking Oswald into Fritz's office. But you won't see the above still there. According to Ralph Cinque, that video was "done" in the 1970s. And according to Cinque, an earlier segment of the same video, from which the above still was taken, was "done" much later, possibly in the 21st century. That is, the segment was a later add-on to the video. A lot of people ridicule Ralph Cinque for his theories and ideas. I've read his stuff and I can see that he often reads a lot into something simple. But he's made some observations that are legitimate and should be up for discussion. Unfortunately some people try to shut the discussion down by labeling it as being Cinquesque or Fetzeresque. I consider that to be is a lazy man's tactic. Dear Sandy, Have you seen this small segment of the "elevator-to-interrogation room" footage shot by Charles Buck of (ABC) WFAA-TV on 11/22/63? Look closely at the end and you'll see Lovelady turning his head towards the camera, but since the video / film has been cropped, we only see the very top of his head. [Credit; Chris Davidson] You can read about this footage here: (Backes mistakenly calls Charles Buck "Charles Butt." lol) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19115&page=2 -- Tommy Hey Sandy! Does the scene below look familiar? (FWIW, that's the back of Oswald's head to the far left of the frame.) Sandy Larsen said: "The still on the right is supposedly from the same [Charles Buck] video that was posted earlier (a few pages ago), which is where Dallas police are taking Oswald into Fritz's office. But you won't see the above still there."

Explain the differences in ear sizes, Ray. Dear Sandy, Lighting. Lighting. Lighting. (The "studio" lighting makes his ear practically glow in the Groden photo, and his ear is 90% "surrounded" by the very dark shadow behind him. The stark contrast between that virtual white and virtual black makes his ear look "large" compared to the way it looks in the "Dwarf Man" photo. Ear-wise, there's much less such contrast in that photo because his ear isn't lit up nearly as much, and also because there's no dark shadow behind him to contrast it with, just his own dark hair behind about half of it.) Oh yeah, and maybe a little bit of Perspective. BTW, did you notice Lovelady's "dot" (hair? mole?) I pointed out in the photos, Sandy? -- Tommy PS Here's an interesting blowup from the Robert Hughes film showing Lovelady, wearing his open-to-the-chest long-sleeved reddish shirt over a white t-shirt and standing next to the wall on the TSBD steps (before moving to the center hand rail and leaning forward as was "captured" in Altgens 6 a few seconds later). Note that Lovelady turns his head all the way around to his right for a second, and apparently interacts with someone standing behind him (Prayer Man?). -- Tommy

bumped Howdy Bob, See post #142 by David Lifton. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697?&page=10 Turns out devious ol' Lovelady was wearing a very similar, but different, shirt for Groden in 1976. So Sandy was right, It's a different shirt. Big deal. Hmmm. Twelve or thirteen years between the assassination and when Groden took the photographs. Lovelady may very well have thrown out the original shirt by that time. Lovelady should have "fessed" up to Harris and Groden instead of trying to replicate the shirt, himself, without their realizing it. -- Tommy Lifton "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." Litton is wrong in saying the vertical stripes in both photos don't match. They do. In neither photo are the black stripes vertical on the body of the shirt, but they are on the sleeves. Litton was also incorrect in saying that the shirt in the Groden photo (the left of the two"Loveladys" shown above) did not have a breast pocket. I showed this to be the case several years ago. (Look at the photo and you can see the outline of the pocket to the right of the first stripe to the (our )right). If they are the only reasons, then Lifton is wrong. Unfortunately, at the moment I am unable to upload a photo showing this, as I can't access Photobucket where the photo is. I will post it as soon as I can. Ray, In a nutshell, do you think the two shirts ("Grodon's" and "Neanderthal Man's") are the same, or just very similar? -- Tommy

bumped Howdy Bob, See post #142 by David Lifton. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697?&page=10 Turns out devious ol' Lovelady was wearing a very similar, but different, shirt for Groden in 1976. So Sandy was right, It's a different shirt. Big deal. Hmmm. Twelve or thirteen years between the assassination and when Groden took the photographs. Lovelady may very well have thrown out the original shirt by that time. Lovelady should have "fessed" up to Harris and Groden instead of trying to replicate the shirt, himself, without their realizing it. -- Tommy

Post #142 by David Lifton on a now "locked" thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697?&page=10 " 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. 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. 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 (and his shirt) - - The 1976 Groden photo versus the (11/22/63) 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. (See attached graphic. Make sure to click on it, to see the enlarged version.) 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 graphic. Make sure to click on it, to see it when enlarged. The differences are obvious.). 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. ( c) What did Lovelady do? He misled Jones Harris—telling Harris he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. (In effect: No, the man in the doorway was not me.) (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 Lovelady—who I now realize was, from the outset, being deceptive. And the reason for all the deception now has become obvious: Lovelady 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 of 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 reportorial “first,” 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. 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 [in Altgens 6] 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 P.S.: In viewing the photo exhibit below, make sure to click on the image, so you can see the enlarged version (and read the caption that I wrote). That is important to see how clear it is that these are two entirely different (albeit similar) shirts. The vertical stripes in the Martin photo are black; in the 1976 "Groden photo," they are white. Furthermore, the "similarity" cannot be accidental. Clearly, Lovelady was trying to "put one over" on Groden--and (unfortunately) he succeeded. DSL " [Note: the photos he refers to are no longer visible on the original thread] -- Tommy

bumped

Disregard Cinque's words here, but please note the just-visible "dot" (hair?, mole?) at the left edge of Lovelady's eyebrow in the "1957" photo. I'm talking about his left eyebrow on "our" right. -- Tommy We can see the same "dot" in both of these images: -- Tommy So now all we've got to do is figure out what Shelley did after he walked over to the "island" about 20 seconds after the assassination, and what Lovelady did after he ran down Elm Street Extension to the the railway yard / parking lot (if he made it that far).

[...] Same face + Same shirt + Same bald spot (viewable in other frames of the same 11/22/63 film) = Same Person. -- Tommy But Tommy, Neanderthal man doesn't have the same face as the other Loveladys. He doesn't look at all like Lovelady, even if I ignore the part of the face that can be distorted by smoking a cigarette.. I'll grant that lighting, haircut, etc., etc. can make a person look different. But the dead giveaway is the width of the ear. The ears don't match and there is no way to explain it away. As for the shirt, the one that the real Lovelady owns appears to be slightly different than the others. It's like somebody spent a great deal of time and expense trying to make a plaid shirt that looks exactly like Neanderthal's shirt, but failed to realize that different fabric types lay differently. The shirt that Neanderthal Man and Dwarf Man are wearing looks like a quality, thick flannel. It is sturdy and doesn't fold over on itself. On the other hand, the shirt the real Lovelady (Groden's) is wearing looks like it's made of a thin fabric. Maybe it's not even flannel. Just look at the folding-over of fabric we see on Lovelady's sleeves. We don't see that on Neanderthal Man's and Dwarf Man's sleeves. Their shirt's fabric lays like flannel. Look at the arms... no folding over on itself. Either that or Neanderthal and Dwarf have massively built arms that fills out the fabric. But I don't think that's it. I think that their shirt is made of a thick flannel and Lovelady's shirt isn't. But I wouldn't even be comparing shirts if it weren't for the fact that Neanderthal Man's ear is so different than Lovelady's. There is something fishy going on here. And I find it interesting that the shirt -- the one thing about Neanderthal Man has that so convincingly makes people believe he is Lovelady -- was disavowed (originally) by Lovelady. Dear Sandy, As far as I know, a person's face isn't changed much by "smoking a cigarette." That person's face is, however, significantly distorted when he or she intentionally juts his or her chin way out while slowly exhaling smoke from said cigarette through the mouth. (Notice how "Neanderthal Man's mouth is open, Sandy?) Your belief that someone tried to replicate "Neanderthal Man's" shirt for Lovelady to be photographed in by Groden smacks of "over-the-top conspiratorial thinking" and / or paranoia, IMHO. I'm really getting tired of arguing with you, Sandy. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, and that I will never, ever change your mind on any of this. Perhaps another member would like to chime in here, either "pro" or "con"? -- Tommy PS Another clue that "Dwarf Man" is the same person as "Groden's Lovelady" is the angle of the (their) left eyebrow, and, something I just now noticed -- the separate black dot (hair?, mole?) at the far left end of it. Look again, folks.

Same face + Same shirt + Same bald spot (viewable in other frames of the same 11/22/63 film) = Same Person. -- Tommy But Tommy, Neanderthal man doesn't have the same face as the other Loveladys. He doesn't look at all like Lovelady, even if I ignore the part of the face that can be distorted by smoking a cigarette.. I'll grant that lighting, haircut, etc., etc. can make a person look different. But the dead giveaway is the width of the ear. The ears don't match and there is no way to explain it away. As for the shirt, the one that the real Lovelady owns appears to be slightly different than the others. It's like somebody spent a great deal of time and expense trying to make a plaid shirt that looks exactly like Neanderthal's shirt, but failed to realize that different fabric types lay differently. The shirt that Neanderthal Man and Dwarf Man are wearing looks like a quality, thick flannel. It is sturdy and doesn't fold over on itself. On the other hand, the shirt the real Lovelady (Groden's) is wearing looks like it's made of a thin fabric. Maybe it's not even flannel. Just look at the folding-over of fabric we see on Lovelady's sleeves. We don't see that on Neanderthal Man's and Dwarf Man's sleeves. Their shirt's fabric lays like flannel. Look at the arms... no folding over on itself. Either that or Neanderthal and Dwarf have massively built arms that fills out the fabric. But I don't think that's it. I think that their shirt is made of a thick flannel and Lovelady's shirt isn't. But I wouldn't even be comparing shirts if it weren't for the fact that Neanderthal Man's ear is so different than Lovelady's. There is something fishy going on here. And I find it interesting that the shirt -- the one thing about Neanderthal Man has that so convincingly makes people believe he is Lovelady -- was disavowed (originally) by Lovelady. Dear Sandy, As far as I know, a person's face isn't changed much by "smoking a cigarette." That person's face is, however, significantly distorted when he or she intentionally juts his or her chin way out while slowly exhaling smoke from said cigarette through the mouth. (Notice how "Neanderthal Man's mouth is open, Sandy?) Your belief that someone tried to replicate "Neanderthal Man's" shirt for Lovelady to be photographed in by Groden smacks of "over-the-top conspiratorial thinking" and / or paranoia, IMHO. I'm really getting tired of arguing with you, Sandy. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, and that I will never, ever change your mind on any of this. Perhaps another member would like to chime in here, either "pro" or "con"? -- Tommy

You forgot to add "IMO" IMO, it is. Ray, Unfortunately, Sandy doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that Lovelady was smoking while waiting to get back into the TSBD, and that amateur photographer John Martin filmed him slowly exhaling smoke through his mouth, and that this action caused Lovelady to jut his jaw out and grossly distort his face. LOL as if smoking could produce all the differences an impartial person (like myself) can see. (I count myself impartial because I'd rather the guy be Oswald, but am willing to accept the opposite when the evidence dictates so.) You and Ray crack me up. You so much want that guy to be Lovelady that you don't believe your own two eyes and will make all kinds of excuses for the differences in looks. If Sandy were to look at the two sets of horizontal white over black / black over white stripes near Lovelady's left armpit, and compare them with the same stripes in these two photos, he would realize that it's the same shirt, and that Cinque - Fetzer's "Neanderthal Man" and "Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair" are indeed Billy Lovelady. I never said the shirts are different. -- Tommy And the bald spot. Let's not forget the bald spot! Which you can just barely see the edge of in the FBI photo on the left, but which is plainly visible in the Martin / Hughes "Neanderthal Man" footage, as well as the Charles Buck "Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair" WFAA-TV footage (only snippets of which are viewable on this Forum). LOL, as if classic male pattern baldness is a unique trait. Speaking of which, even their hairlines are different. Regarding the Charles Buck film, please see: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19115 Dear Sandy, It's not "Neanderthal Man's" smoking per se, but his slow exhaling of the smoke through his mouth, and the exaggerated jutting forward of his chin while doing so, that "does the trick," i.e., distorts his face. Your saying, "I never said the shirts are different" suggests that you agree they are the same. You also seem to agree that "vertically-striped" Lovelady had a bald spot at the top-rear of his head. Good, I'm glad you can see that. As regards his hairline: Different camera angle + recent haircut + different lighting = "different hairline." Have you looked at Cinque - Fetzer's "Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair" (see below) recently? Please note that "Dwarf Man" has the same face and the same shirt as "Groden's Lovelady," the same bald spot as the FBI's "Vertically-Striped Lovelady" (gotta watch the whole short Charles Buck clip of "Dwarf Man" for that one), and, guess what? A pack of Neanderthal Man cigarettes in his shirt pocket! Taking all those things into consideration, any open-minded student of the assassination, even a relative "newbie" like you, would agree that Cinque - Fetzer's "Dwarf Man" is ..... Billy Lovelady. That's why I said in an earlier post that you should take a closer look at "Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair." Your eventual noticing the similarities between he, "Neanderthal Man," and your "Real Deal" Lovelady (wearing either his vertically-striped shirt for the FBI or his plaid shirt for Groden) should convince you that all three are really just one person -- Lovelady. Same face + Same shirt + Same bald spot (viewable in other frames of the same 11/22/63 film) = Same Person. -- Tommy

You forgot to add "IMO" IMO, it is. Ray, Unfortunately, Sandy doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that Lovelady was smoking while waiting to get back into the TSBD, and that amateur photographer John Martin filmed him slowly exhaling smoke through his mouth, and that this action caused Lovelady to jut his jaw out and grossly distort his face. If Sandy were to look at the two sets of horizontal white over black / black over white stripes near Lovelady's left armpit, and compare them with the same stripes in these two photos, he would realize that it's the same shirt, and that Cinque - Fetzer's "Neanderthal Man" and "Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair" are indeed Billy Lovelady. -- Tommy And the bald spot. Let's not forget the bald spot! Which you can just barely see the edge of in the FBI photo on the left, but which is plainly visible in the Martin / Hughes "Neanderthal Man" footage, as well as the Charles Buck "Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair" WFAA-TV footage (only snippets of which are viewable on this Forum). Regarding the Charles Buck film, please see: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19115

Dear Sandy, Fwiw, I believe Prudhomme mistakenly wrote "170" when he should have written "160". The FBI report I looked at on Mary Ferrell's website says "160". -- Tommy

Howdy Bob! Mistakes will happen, be they by the FBI or Buell Wesley Frazier. What does it matter what Shelley's and Lovelady's respective heights were as long as they were within a couple inches of each other? They look about the same height to me in Couch / Darnell, so given Lovelady's distinctive plaid shirt along with the bald spot on the top-rear of his head, and given Shelley's distinctive hairstyle and the dark suit he was wearing on his slender frame, and given their first-day statements, those two guys walking down Elm Street Extension (with the slender suit-wearing one cutting over towards the "island") must be .... well ... Shelley and Lovelady! -- Tommy PS You mean to tell me you think the FBI was telling the truth for a change? Tsk. tsk, tsk. What's getting into you, Bob? PPS Please remind me where you want Shelley and Lovelady to be, you know, like ... one, two, three, four, and five minutes after the assassination I mean, you know, for your "theory" to work. Thanks!

Howdy Bob, It's interesting that you seemingly cherry-pick from FBI documents, depending on the situation and the person involved. Why are you calling Gary Mack's interview of Buell Wesley Frazier "hearsay evidence"? Do you automatically distrust anyone whose statements apparently contradict your theory? -- Tommy PS Frazier told Mack that Lovelady was " 5' 2", 5' 3", maybe even 5' 4"." I think Buell had a hard time judging the height of people who were significantly shorter than he. I believe Frazier was 6' 1" or 6' 2". I, at 6' 5", have the same problem in judging the height of "mere mortals," and a really hard time with people as short as Lovelady apparently was.

They were not Shelley's arrest records, when we found the doc at the archives we thought he did have one, but whoever did the research put a William Sheley in Shelley's file. And how do you know height differences of the two when these two are perhaps (!) not even walking on the same surface, be it just for a moment. You don't know his height and therefore doubt it is Shelley, yet the photos and above all the statements point to it that they are and that they lied to the WC about them staying there even when Wiegman shows that Lovelady and Shelley are moving to make their way down and cannot be seen in Darnell on the stairs but walking and even clearer in Couch. I could continue talking about this till the cows come home but we would descend into Doyle/Cinque/Fetzer territory and unless I see evidence to the contrary I stand by what I posted. All the best! Bart, It looks like they were walking on the same surface -- the street. Note the parked car behind them. Scroll down to the big photo. http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location?page=4 Prudhomme says Shelly was just a little bit taller than Lovelady. Buell Wesley Frazier said Lovelady was only about 5' 4". That would make Shelley about 5' 6". -- Tommy

Howdy Bob, I guess you didn't notice the bald spot on the top-rear of Lovelady's head. Pity, that. -- Tommy

Should we hold our collective breath? Mark, Would you mind holding mine for me? -- Tommy

[it's an enlargement of] a still from the above video, Sandy. "The film sequence we’re interested in starts after [Charles] Buck [of WFAA-TV] says, “he was being brought in from the Texas theatre.” This is about 38 minutes and 28 seconds into this show. Then we fade to film of Oswald and his police escort coming around the initial booking area down a small short hallway and onto the elevator. There is a man with some type of maintenace uniform on already in the elevator and he stays in the corner of the elevator as Oswald and company get in. Oswald is escorted by five men, one of whom is a Dallas cop, in uniform, with a white cap on his head. At 38:39 there is an edit, or fade out, because the camera man filming this did not get in the elevator with Oswald. Then at 38:40 there is another camera man that is on the third floor and captures them getting out. We see the hallway they are going to. There is an office door open on both sides with a woman standing guard next to each open door. And there are three men further down the hallway. At 38:46 the door to office 317, the Homicide and Robbery Bureau headed by Captain Fritz is opened by a man with a suit on with a thin tie and Oswald and company go in. There are already at least 4 men in this office area. One was near the door as Oswald and company came in. We follow them going in and kind of rounding the corner going somewhat parallel but now in the opposite direction of the hallway they just came from. Then there is an edit or fade out. Now at about 38:49 the camera has been moved a bit so that we see Oswald and company almost in a straight column walking away from the cameraman’s position. The position of some of the men as they walk away from the camera man's viewpoint, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th man block the camera’s view of the cop with the white cap and Oswald temporarily as this cop and Oswald move a little to the left of your screen because of where Billy Nolan Lovelady is sitting. In fact, the last man in this column temporarily blocks the camera’s view of everyone except the man directly in front of him at 38:51. Then two men move a little bit to the right, the cop with the white cap and Oswald. The cop stops and holds onto Oswald for a second or two. There is a little delay before they put Oswald into an interior office room and close the door. This door does not have a glass plane, it's solid, wood or metal." -- from a 2012 post by Joseph Backes http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19115 Note the pack of cigarettes in Lovelady's shirt pocket and recall that Cinque's "Neanderthal Man" was smoking on the front steps of the TSBD, in close proximity to two other male TSBD workers -- Bonny Ray Williams and Danny Arce -- as they all three were waiting (apparently) to get back inside the building. Click on this and scroll down about halfway. The bald spot kinda ties it all together. http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/ -- Tommy