Thomas Graves

Mr Tidd So you don't accept that is BW Frazier standing there despite all the evidence confirming that it is him including Buell himself? Dear Jon, Let's take "Doorman" / Billy Lovelady as an example. The only possible (although not plausible) reason anyone could deny that so-called "Doorman" in Altgens 6 is the same person as the balding, white t-shirt-wearing-under-his-outer-shirt Lovelady near the center handrail in Wiegman (leaning forward after the big-finned car has gone by in the foreground and is no longer in the frame) is to claim that those photographs and films were altered. But if you can accept the possibility that they were not altered, then, upon realizing that Altgens and Wiegman were shooting from wildly different angles to the front of the TSBD, you can come to the reasonable conclusion that "Doorman" and Billy-Lovelady-on-the-steps are one and the the same person -- Billy Lovelady -- (whose red shirt was captured on the front steps during the motorcade in the Hughes film, BTW). Do you realize that Altgens was standing at a sharp angle to the front of the TSBD, way down on Elm Street, and that Wiegman's car was at a slightly less-sharp angle in the opposite direction? The difference between them combines to form something like a 70 degree angle, if memory serves. "Doorman" wasn't standing near the left wall and peering around the corner of the TSBD in Altgens 6. It only appears that way because of the sharp angle and the fact that "Doorman" (Lovelady) was leaning forward when Altgens happened to take his famous "Altgens 6" photograph. "Doorman" (Lovelady) was actually standing near the center handrail and leaned forward about the same time as the first shot. "Doorman" was ... Billy Lovelady and "neither of them" (LOL) are to be confused with "Prayer Man." --Tommy Weigman GIF Hughes clip / Credit: Gerda Dunckel (Click to enlarge.) It's interesting to note that red-shirted Lovelady appears to turn his head around to his right and look at somebody (Prayer Man?) behind him. Bumped for Mr. Tidd PS I believe Lovelady moved closer to the center handrail a few seconds after this clip.

Thank you, Jon! --Tommy

Mr Tidd So you don't accept that is BW Frazier standing there despite all the evidence confirming that it is him including Buell himself? Dear Jon, Let's take "Doorman" / Billy Lovelady as an example. The only possible (although not plausible) reason anyone could deny that so-called "Doorman" in Altgens 6 is the same person as the balding, white t-shirt-wearing-under-his-outer-shirt Lovelady near the center handrail in Wiegman (leaning forward after the big-finned car has gone by in the foreground and is no longer in the frame) is to claim that those photographs and films were altered. But if you can accept the possibility that they were not altered, then, upon realizing that Altgens and Wiegman were shooting from wildly different angles to the front of the TSBD, you can come to the reasonable conclusion that "Doorman" and Billy-Lovelady-on-the-steps are one and the the same person -- Billy Lovelady -- (whose red shirt was captured on the front steps during the motorcade in the Hughes film, BTW). Do you realize that Altgens was standing at a sharp angle to the front of the TSBD, way down on Elm Street, and that Wiegman's car was at a slightly less-sharp angle in the opposite direction? The difference between them combines to form something like a 70 degree angle, if memory serves. "Doorman" wasn't standing near the left wall and peering around the corner of the TSBD in Altgens 6. It only appears that way because of the sharp angle and the fact that "Doorman" (Lovelady) was leaning forward when Altgens happened to take his famous "Altgens 6" photograph. "Doorman" (Lovelady) was actually standing near the center handrail and leaned forward about the same time as the first shot. "Doorman" was ... Billy Lovelady and "neither of them" (LOL) are to be confused with "Prayer Man." That's a completely different kettle of fish, can of worms, however you want to put it, Jon. "You can lead a horse to water ... " --Tommy Weigman GIF Hughes clip / Credit: Gerda Dunckel (Click to enlarge.) It's interesting to note that red-shirted Lovelady appears to turn his head around to his right and look at somebody (Prayer Man?) behind him.

Dear Robert, Of course I haven't seen the (one and only one; signed, corrected and initialed) Dallas FBI original. It's probably "tucked away" somewhere in the National Archives, the Dallas FBI office, the National FBI office, or the Dallas Municipal Archives, etc, As are Barnum's, Arnold's, Reed's, and Stanbery's corrected and initialed original statements. Not to mention all of the 68 other signed (but uncorrected and therefore not later initialed) original FBI statements taken from TSBD employees in March, 1964. Maybe they've even been routinely destroyed by now... --Tommy Considering how rigid the FBI was about most things, why do you think some corrected "statements" were signed, and some were not? Robert, You don't seem to understand. Evidently all of the 73 originals were signed. In Dallas. During the month of March, 1964, when the TSBD employees made their statements to the Dallas FBI. Evidently only the originals were signed, not the copies. But whoever typed up the copies did put "/s/" next to the person's typed name (and the date, and the location) at the bottom of the statement (all 73 of the statements), indicating that the original (from which the copies were made) had been signed by the person making the statement, and "witnessed" by the two FBI agents whom the person had made the statement to. I'm guessing that the copies were probably made after the person making the statement had gone home for the day. Why? Because those copies probably had to be typed up. D'oh. Only five of those 73 original statements had to be corrected, for relatively minor mistakes. Those (5) corrections were made in Dallas, by the Dallas office of the FBI, and were initialed by the persons who had made those original, signed statements. Only the originals were initialed, not the copies. Once again, the copies were probably made after the person had gone home for the day. Why make them wait around to sign some copies when you already have their signature on the original? I don't know where those original (signed, corrected, and intialed) statements are now. I'm sorry. My bad. On the Internet (Mary Ferrell Foundation), all we are able to view are copies of the 73 statements, not the originals. We must assume that they are copies, not originals, because none of them show the initials of Carolyn Arnold, Mrs. R. E. Reid, Pauline Sanders, or the other two TSBD employees whose statements had to be corrected for relatively minor mistakes. I don't know how to put it more simply, Robert. You either "get it" or you don't. For whatever reason. --Tommy

Dear Robert, Let me know the next time you need my help in spotting Gloria Calvery or Roy Truly. --Tommy

Dear Robert, Of course I haven't seen the Dallas FBI original. It's probably "tucked away" somewhere in the National Archives, the Dallas FBI office, the National FBI office, or the Dallas Municipal Archives, etc, As are Barnum's, Arnold's, Reed's, and Stanbery's corrected and initialed original statements. Not to mention all of the 68 other signed (but uncorrected and therefore not later initialed) original FBI statements taken from TSBD employees in March, 1964. Maybe they've even been routinely destroyed by now... --Tommy

Howdy Bob! I just now stumbled upon this FBI document regarding Pauline Sanders: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62319&relPageId=115&search=statement This document from the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas FBI office points out to J. Edgar Hoover that Pauline Sanders had said (or someone had mistakenly written) "November 22, 1964" instead of "November 22, 1963" -- an obvious mistake -- in her original FBI statement. The important thing for us is that this 4/01/64 document, a letter / memo from Dallas FBI to Hoover, says, "Mrs. Sanders has initialed such correction" and that the "Bureau [is] requested to correct its copies..." My question to you, Robert, is: Why don't we see Pauline Sanders' initials (see above) on the 11/22/63 document that is available for us to view on the Internet? Answer: Because what we are looking at on the Internet is a copy, not the original. Which would explain why it (the copy) wasn't signed or initialed by Sanders. She signed, and later initialed (see above), only the Dallas FBI original. --Tommy

Dear Robert, Why in the world wouldn't you "dare" call Saunders a witness? She has been spotted in photographs standing where she said she was standing during the assassination -- on the front steps. She witnessed the assassination and its aftermath. As to her "testimony," I think her statement to the FBI qualifies as such. You know, in the broad meaning of the word "testimony" ? Maybe I should have said "statement to the FBI" instead? Would you have been happy with that? --Tommy

Dear Robert, You're saying that "only one" (Pauline Sanders) is the same as "none"? Did Pauline ever say, "No, that's not what I told the FBI at all!" ??? Would you really expect everyone who saw Baker enter the building to mention that fact? BTW, Robert -- Why didn't anyone say they saw Baker sprinting all the way to the street corner (wearing his highly-noticeable uniform, motorcycle boots, and white helmet)? Sprinting motorcycle officers always catch my attention. --Tommy

Ba Ba, What evidence is there that Baker sprinted down to the corner to talk with one or two policemen, instead? Did anyone say they saw him do that? --Tommy Tommy that amount of evidence would be zero, What evidence is there Baker ran up the steps? Pauline Sanders. "She advised she could not recall the exact time but immediately after the presidential parade passed she heard three loud blasts and she immediately realized that the shots or whatever it was came from the building above her. She said within a matter of ten seconds a uniform police officer in a white helmet ran into the building but she did not observe him any further and could not state where he went in the building." http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm Ed, Bingo. I'd forgotten about her. She must have been one of the conspirators. Or maybe her testimony was altered. LOL --Tommy

Ba Ba, What you don't realize is that "poor" and "questionable" don't mean the same thing. I'd much rather be "questionable" than "poor." Wouldn't you? In this case, however, I am neither. FWIW, It seems that both your vocabulary and your eyes are ... rather weak. --Tommy

Ba Ba, What evidence is there that Baker sprinted down to the corner to talk with one or two policemen, instead? Did anyone say they saw him do that? --Tommy Basically, Baker became the Invisible Man, once he reached the steps of the TSBD. Anyways, you and the others are the ones claiming Baker was inside the TSBD in 15-22 seconds. I'd just like to see what proof you have to offer of this occurring. Ba Ba, So in other words there are no eyewitness statements to the effect that Baker sprinted down to the corner? With all those people standing around??? A motorcycle officer sprinting in his uniform, boots, and white helmet??? Why should we believe that he did, then? Because it fits in with your theory? --Tommy

Ba Ba, Well, it is true that one must be able to see. --Tommy PS "Poor and questionable"? How can something be both "poor" and "questionable"? Almost everything in this case is "questionable." LOL

Richard, I believe I read in Inside Job last night that you believe Baker and Truly were inside the lunchroom, confronting Oswald, while Adams and Styles were walking across the second floor towards the stairwell. Logistically speaking, how does that fit in with your answer, above? In other words, if Baker and Truly were on the second floor landing while Adams and Styles were somewhere on the third floor landing, was there enough time for Truly to get inside the lunchroom before he could be seen by Adams and Styles, given the fact that Truly had (apparently) continued straight ahead and started walking up the stairs to the third floor, and then, realizing that Baker was no longer behind him, gone back down and entered the lunchroom himself? Thanks, --Tommy

Ba Ba, What evidence is there that Baker sprinted down to the corner to talk with one or two policemen, instead? Did anyone say they saw him do that? --Tommy

Vanessa Loney, Thanks for replying. I don't think Prayer Person is holding a twin lens reflex "viewfinder" camera (which Linda favors) or a Coke bottle because PP has both hands raised near his face, and lowers both of them at the same time in Wiegman, which leads me to believe that the glowing object in his hands is either a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars. When I drink a bottle of Coke or Dr Pepper, I use only one hand. --Tommy edited and bumped in a roundabout way

Richard, I'm reading your Inside Job essay right now. Haven't finished yet, but I'm favorably impressed. I'm glad that you and I agree that Shelley and Lovelady were "captured" in Couch / Darnell while walking down (and then across?) Elm Street Extension just a few seconds after the assassination. I would like to point out that you have mistaken Detective William L. Senkel for Jack Dougherty in a photograph, The photograph (frame actually) shows Shelley, Arce, and Bonnie Ray Williams being escorted by a policeman to a police car. Here is Detective Senkel's statement which pertains to that image: http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339517/m1/3/ . Also, I have noticed that you misspelled Gloria Calvery's name as Caverly a couple of times. Keep up the good work, --Tommy

Shelley and Lovelady could have fibbed a little in their affidavits and also gotten the sequence of events mixed up. The Couch / Darnell gif that Clive posted a few days ago shows "Shelley" and "Lovelady" apparently crossing over to "the park" (the extension of the 'island') after Running Woman has passed them. If so, then maybe that's when they had their conference with Gloria Calvery. Over there on the "island." Regarding the timing, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out given the fact that Couch panned down towards the triple overpass and "caught" several cars, motorcycles, and known people in the general area of Elm Street and the Grassy Knoll. Let us know what you come up with, Robert. --Tommy PS What makes you think that Shelley spoke with Calvery on the concrete island and then walked partway down Elm Street Extension? Maybe it was the other way around. Or maybe they never spoke at all. Except at her wedding, of course. edited and bumped for Prudhomme

Dear Mr Tidd "Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all? Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'. Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film. So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM. If that the only point you can criticise in the film? Vanessa, It's my personal opinion that Mr. Tidd doesn't like to look at JFK assassination films and photographs very closely because he thinks that they were all altered. I explained to him on another thread that the reason Lovelady's posture and positioning appear so different in the Altgens 6 still photograph and the Wiegman film clip is due to the wildly different angles of the photographers involved, plus the fact that Lovelady (who was by the center hand rail the whole time) leaned forward at a certain point. But to no avail. My only problem with Prayer Person's being Oswald is that in the Wiegman clip you can see Prayer Person lower a 35 mm camera (or a pair of binoculars) from his / her face. Was Oswald known to have taken a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars to work with him that day, or were either of those things found inside the TSBD after the assassination? --Tommy Oh. Thanks Tommy. I didn't realise that was Mr Tidd's view. I agree with you that it is the angle of the photographers and Lovelady's movement that makes those images look different. But it is still the same man. I thought the jury was still out on the issue of what Oswald is holding or not holding. I thought we were all still divided between coke bottle, camera or binoculars. Linda has made a great case for it being a camera though. I don't think there has ever been any mention of Oswald taking anything to or from work except for the lunch bag and curtain rods. So we're at a standstill on this issue, as far as I'm aware. But I'm not up on that aspect of the debate, Linda and Greg could probably fill you in better than me. Barto has done a great, previously unseen, photo enhancement that shows something very bright in PM's hands but I think Barto is holding that photo back for his book. Personally I go back and forward between it being a camera and the reflection off the bottom of Oswald's coke bottle. I think a good case can be made for both at this stage. However, with a better, high resolution scan.........well, you know the rest. Vanessa, Thanks for replying. I don't think Prayer Person is holding a twin lens reflex "viewfinder" camera (which Linda favors) or a Coke bottle because PP has both hands raised near his face, and lowers both of them at the same time in Wiegman, which leads me to believe that the glowing object in his hands is either a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars. When I drink a bottle of Coke or Dr Pepper, I use only one hand. --Tommy

Maybe the assassination was an Inside Job, like Richard Gilbride says. Lots of people in Dallas hated JFK. And some of those people had intelligence connections. http://jfkinsidejob.com/ --Tommy

Dear Mr Tidd "Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all? Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'. Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film. So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM. If that the only point you can criticise in the film? Vanessa, It's my personal opinion that Mr. Tidd doesn't like to look at JFK assassination films and photographs very closely because he thinks that they were all altered. I explained to him on another thread that the reason Lovelady's posture and positioning appear so different in the Altgens 6 still photograph and the Wiegman film clip is due to the wildly different angles of the photographers involved, plus the fact that Lovelady (who was by the center hand rail the whole time) leaned forward at a certain point. But to no avail. My only problem with Prayer Person's being Oswald is that in the Wiegman clip you can see Prayer Person lower a 35 mm camera (or a pair of binoculars) from his / her face. Was Oswald known to have taken a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars to work with him that day, or were either of those things found inside the TSBD after the assassination? --Tommy

Ba Ba, So I guess Lovelady didn't know Adams very well (and / or he had a poor memory) because he said he saw a girl there but couldn't swear that it was Adams... OK. --Tommy Edit: (From a "Barry E." post on the jfkmurdersolved website) -- What if I told you that Vicki Adams said she NEVER told the Commission she saw and spoke with Shelley and Lovelady, and that she actually had spoken to someone else on the first floor? Or Sandra Styles, who said she remembers that other person being on the first floor too, but DEFINITELY did not see Shelley and Lovelady there, even though she knew both men well? http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?p=30987

Richard, Your writing has got me a bit confused. Question: Where exactly do you think Vicki Adams was when Baker reached the second floor landing? Thank you, --Tommy edited and bumped

I just now came across the above. It's interesting to me because I believe I've located David Sanchez Morales, in the 8/09/63 Jim Doyle film, monitoring Oswald in New Orleans. Could Garrison have confused Gonzalez's nickname "El Toro" for Morales' moniker "El Indio"? At one point in his WC testimony, Dean Andrews said "The Mexican" was about the same height as Oswald. I've read somewhere that Oswald was 5' 9.5" Morales was 5' 10" ... Andrews also said that "The Mexican" weighed 160 - 165 pounds and was "stocky." The problem is, 5' 10" and 160 - 165 pounds is not "stocky." But 220 pounds on that frame would be very "stocky." Morales was 5' 10" tall and weighed 220 pounds in 1961, when he was 36 years old ... https://www.maryferr...geId=2&tab=page We know that Andrew's gave varying descriptions of "Clay Bertrand." So we know that Andrews was not averse to lying under oath. In order to protect his own life, I think Andrews lied about "The Mexican's" age and weight, but was telling the truth about his height. I seriously doubt that Mellen made up the story about Nitschke's looking at a photo of Morales (which Garrison apparently was showing him.

Richard, I'm a bit confused, so, to "cut to the chase" (so-to-speak), where do you think Vicki Adams and Sandra Styles were when Baker reached the second floor landing? Thank you, --Tommy