Thomas Graves

Why do you believe Lovelady? He was a convicted criminal -- purveyor of a stolen military weapon and former fugitive. --Tommy

Have you missed anything? Have you missed anything??? LOL Do you want them in alphabetical order, or is random order okay? OK, random order it is: (When you say that you don't know if the Martin and Hughes "Lovelady" clips I've posted are "camera-original," you are implying that you think the original negatives might have been manipulated in such a way as to produce images of "Lovelady" standing and smoking in front of the TSBD shortly after the assassination. My following observations are based on this premise, so please correct me if I'm wrong on that.) The first thing you missed: It would have been next to impossible for the bad guys to alter both clips in such a way as to synchronize "Lovelady's" movements as perfectly as they appear to be in the Martin and Hughes clips. The second thing you missed: Why would the bad guys create all that next-to-impossible extra work for themselves (the synchronizing bit, mentioned above)? I mean, if one of the clips to serve as a backup of sorts, why then didn't the bad guys simply destroy whichever clip was not needed, later? So, Jon, let's deal with these two things first, shall we. If you can't answer these two questions, please just say, "I can't answer those two questions, Tommy." --Tommy PS I for one do care about what you think and express here on the forum. After all, you are a highly-intelligent former Army Intelligence officer and, as such, you have a lot of cache around here, especially with the newer, less-experienced members and guests and the more gullible "established" members. LOL

Robert P., I can't imagine that Lovelady, a convicted purveyor of stolen military guns and former fugitive, would lie about anything. LOL --Tommy

No, Robert. We're not "calling it a day." I'm going to continue to criticize the illogical assumptions inherent in your ridiculous assertion that the Martin and Hughes "Lovelady" clips were either magically staged at a later date or somehow altered to make it appear that Lovelady, wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red "plaid" shirt, was standing in front of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination. Sorry dude. You can't run away on this forum. I didn't think you could answer my earlier questions (months ago) in a declarative manner, and I was right. Instead, you tried to avoid them by asking me weaselly, rhetorical, off-subject questions. When I ignored them, you accused me of refusing to answer your questions, and you continue to do so! What a weaselly hypocrite! No, I'm not "calling it a day" with you. The sun never sets on this forum and charlatans are exposed. It's obvious that you should throw in the towel regarding the Martin and Hughes "Lovelady" clips, but you're too embarrassed to admit your illogic (noun; look it up), and you've got way too much to lose by doing so.. --Tommy

Dear Robert, If you had first answered my questions in a declarative manner rather than trying to avoid them by asking me a weaselly, rhetorical question or two, then I would have answered your questions. I don't answer weaselly, rhetorical questions that are thrown at me in a desperate attempt to avoid answering my questions, As to "Exactly when was [sic] the Martin and Hughes films created?", the ball is in your court, dude. You're the one who is claiming that they weren't filmed eight to fifteen minutes after the assassination, like Groden said. So you tell me. When exactly were the Martin and Hughes clips which show "Lovelady" in front of the TSBD, ostensibly a few minutes after the assassination, staged altered filmed "created"? Your buddy, --Tommy

Bumped for David Andrews and Jon G. Tidd Carry on. Jon G. Tidd couldn't answer my questions about the Martin and Hughes clips, anyway... bumped

Dear Robert, In which thread or threads did you ask me these questions? Do you remember the post's numbers? Now for an Important question: Had you already answered my question or questions in a declarative sort of way, or had you kinda avoided doing that and instead "countered" by asking me a rhetorical question or two? Your buddy, --Tommy

edited and bumped in an attempt to get back on track

Ray, Do you have an opinion as to who that is with the rolled up sleeve, arrowed? Your co-conspirator buddy, --Tommy Nope, sorry, Tommy. Just know it ain't Lovelady. No problem, Ray. I betcha "Maddening" Mady knows who was there before it was ....... altered. LOL --Tommy

Ray, Do you have an opinion as to who is wearing the shirt with the "rolled up sleeve, arrowed" in the photograph? Thanks! Your co-conspirator buddy, --Tommy

In the FBI report you display. ...LOVELADY stated his picture has appeared in several publications which picture depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway to the TSBD. LOVELADY was exhibited a picture appearing on pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled “Four Dark Days in History” copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc. 6527 Hollywood Boulevard., Los Angerles 25, California. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph..... Ray, Which shirt do you believe Lovelady was wearing on 11/22/63 -- the short sleeved, red and white vertically-striped shirt that Mady says he was wearing, or the long sleeved, mostly-red "plaid" shirt that Groden photographed him in in 1978 (and Bob Jackson photographed him in in 1971) ? Thanks, --Tommy From the McAdams website: The FBI photos show Lovelady in a red and white vertical striped, short sleeved shirt, but the man in the doorway is clearly wearing a long-sleeved, checkered shirt. The Commission never checked the two photographs but simply believed Lovelady when he told the FBI he was in the doorway. This FBI report, along with the photographs of Lovelady, only fed the controversy. Jerry Organ The controversy shouldn't have lasted for long. In 1967 Josiah Thompson published the best-selling bookSix Seconds in Dallas. He discussed the controversy over the man in the doorway, and took note of the Warren Commission testimony and the FBI report. On the issue of why Lovelady was photographed by the FBI on February 29, 1964 wearing a red-and-white vertical-striped shirt with short sleeves while the man in the doorway was wearing a long-sleeved shirt, Thompson noted that Lovelady told CBS News "Well, when the FBI took me in the shirt, I told them it wasn't the same shirt [worn on the day of the assassination]." Thompson added that "The shirt Lovelady now claims to have worn on November 22 is long-sleeved and patterned in large squares" (pp. 225-227). At that point, the issue should have been solved, but in typical fashion, conspiracy authors simply ignored inconvenient evidence. Gary Shaw, in his 1976 book, Cover-Up, claimed that the question of who was in the doorway had not been adequately answered. He wrote, "we believe the identity of the man in the doorway is still open to question. There is as much, if not more, evidence to indicate that the accused assassin was exactly where he said he was — on the first floor of the Depository"(p. 42). Shaw also claimed that no one on the Commission ever saw Lovelady and there is no published photo of Lovelady in the Commission's exhibits or documents. Also in the 1970s, the LA Free Press and Argosy published the claim, using blown up photos to show the resemblance. Jerry Organ The House Select Committee on Assassinations felt that this issue needed more investigation. They took a two-pronged approach. The HSCA first had its photographic evidence panel examine CE 203 and 369, photos of Oswald, and of Lovelady. They used the tools of forensic anthropology, by which the metric and morphological characteristics of the human face can be analyzed. Going far beyond the causal and subjective "looks like" kind of analysis, they used the Penrose distance statistic to show that the man in the doorway had features very different from Oswald's. Based on the analysis of the photographic evidence panel, "the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady" (The Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations, pp. 58). The other approach was that of Robert Groden, who had a good knowledge of all the photographic evidence in the case. Groden analyzed three films — the John Martin film, the Robert Hughes film, and the Mark Bell film. These films showed a man in the doorway, wearing a shirt identical in appearance to the shirt on the man in the Altgens photo. But these films showed that the man wasn't Oswald, but rather was Lovelady. Indeed, Groden contacted Lovelady, asked him to don the shirt he had worn on November 22, 1963, and photographed him in it. The shirt, of course, was entirely consistent with all the photos from the day of the assassination (Robert Groden, The Killing of a President, pp. 186-187). [emphasis added by T. Graves] The above post was edited and bumped for Ray Mitcham or any other rational member. PS The problem with "Maddening" Mady is not only that he thinks that Altgens 6 somehow implicates Oswald in the assassination of JFK, but, more importantly, that Oswald's not being visible in Altgens 6 proves that the bad guys altered or faked Altgens 6, and, by extension, the Martin and Hughes clips, as well. Mady and his ilk really "get off on" that stuff because the very idea of wholesale photographic alteration and forgery fits in so perfectly with, and reinforces (in my humble opinion) their Paranoiac World View (PVW). In my humble opinion they're addicted to their Paranoiac World Views like a drug addict is addicted like a dangerous drug who has to "push" the drug in order to "maintain". The only difference being -- a drug addict eventually realizes that he or she is addicted and either seeks help or fades away. --Tommy Edited and bumped. Ray, please remember that "Maddening" Mady and former Army Intelligence office Jon G. Tidd and Jo Jo, among others, prefer to "answer" our more difficult questions by asking us questions...

Gee thanks, Tom! Maybe he was looking for a secret code so he could decrypt it. LOL --Tommy

Lee, Wasn't there a red-colored "notice icon" telling you you had a PM waiting for you to read? Or are you so popular that you just ignore them? LOL --Tommy

I'm trying to identify people in the Martin and Hughes "Lovelady" clips. I've already nailed down Billy Lovelady (to my own satisfaction) , Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce. Anybody recognize anyone else? I think that's fedora-and-glasses-wearing Forrest Sorrels in the upper left corner of both clips. If so, has he already spoken with Howard Brennan? Any help would be appreciated. Martin / Hughes film sync TSBD doorway Credit: Gerda Dunckel Give the Gif time to load Thanks, --Tommy

Dear Mr. Jon G. Tidd, Please do try to get it straight. The Lovelady character in the Martin clip doesn't have a jutting head. He juts his chin out while expelling smoke through his mouth. Both of which actions distort his face. Question: Why in the world would the most important actor in the staged film clip intentionally distort his face like that? To make himself look less like Billy Lovelady? If so, why then even go to the trouble of staging the scene at all? If you can't answer that question, please just say, "I can't answer that question, Tommy." Martin / Hughes film sync TSBD doorway Credit: Gerda Dunckel Give the Gif time to load --Tommy Mr. Jon G. Tidd's predicted answer: "The actor intentionally distorted his face (by jutting his chin out and exhaling cigarette smoke through his mouth) so that we would have an even harder time realizing that he wasn't Lovelady." LOL [moved to another thread by T. Graves]

In the FBI report you display. ...LOVELADY stated his picture has appeared in several publications which picture depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway to the TSBD. LOVELADY was exhibited a picture appearing on pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled “Four Dark Days in History” copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc. 6527 Hollywood Boulevard., Los Angerles 25, California. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph..... Ray, Which shirt do you believe Lovelady was wearing on 11/22/63 -- the short sleeved, red and white vertically-striped shirt that Mady says he was wearing, or the long sleeved, mostly-red "plaid" shirt that Groden photographed him in in 1978 (and Bob Jackson photographed him in in 1971) ? Thanks, --Tommy From the McAdams website: The FBI photos show Lovelady in a red and white vertical striped, short sleeved shirt, but the man in the doorway is clearly wearing a long-sleeved, checkered shirt. The Commission never checked the two photographs but simply believed Lovelady when he told the FBI he was in the doorway. This FBI report, along with the photographs of Lovelady, only fed the controversy. Jerry Organ The controversy shouldn't have lasted for long. In 1967 Josiah Thompson published the best-selling bookSix Seconds in Dallas. He discussed the controversy over the man in the doorway, and took note of the Warren Commission testimony and the FBI report. On the issue of why Lovelady was photographed by the FBI on February 29, 1964 wearing a red-and-white vertical-striped shirt with short sleeves while the man in the doorway was wearing a long-sleeved shirt, Thompson noted that Lovelady told CBS News "Well, when the FBI took me in the shirt, I told them it wasn't the same shirt [worn on the day of the assassination]." Thompson added that "The shirt Lovelady now claims to have worn on November 22 is long-sleeved and patterned in large squares" (pp. 225-227). At that point, the issue should have been solved, but in typical fashion, conspiracy authors simply ignored inconvenient evidence. Gary Shaw, in his 1976 book, Cover-Up, claimed that the question of who was in the doorway had not been adequately answered. He wrote, "we believe the identity of the man in the doorway is still open to question. There is as much, if not more, evidence to indicate that the accused assassin was exactly where he said he was — on the first floor of the Depository"(p. 42). Shaw also claimed that no one on the Commission ever saw Lovelady and there is no published photo of Lovelady in the Commission's exhibits or documents. Also in the 1970s, the LA Free Press and Argosy published the claim, using blown up photos to show the resemblance. Jerry Organ The House Select Committee on Assassinations felt that this issue needed more investigation. They took a two-pronged approach. The HSCA first had its photographic evidence panel examine CE 203 and 369, photos of Oswald, and of Lovelady. They used the tools of forensic anthropology, by which the metric and morphological characteristics of the human face can be analyzed. Going far beyond the causal and subjective "looks like" kind of analysis, they used the Penrose distance statistic to show that the man in the doorway had features very different from Oswald's. Based on the analysis of the photographic evidence panel, "the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady" (The Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations, pp. 58). The other approach was that of Robert Groden, who had a good knowledge of all the photographic evidence in the case. Groden analyzed three films — the John Martin film, the Robert Hughes film, and the Mark Bell film. These films showed a man in the doorway, wearing a shirt identical in appearance to the shirt on the man in the Altgens photo. But these films showed that the man wasn't Oswald, but rather was Lovelady. Indeed, Groden contacted Lovelady, asked him to don the shirt he had worn on November 22, 1963, and photographed him in it. The shirt, of course, was entirely consistent with all the photos from the day of the assassination (Robert Groden, The Killing of a President, pp. 186-187). [emphasis added by T. Graves] Edited and bumped for Ray Mitcham or any other rational member. PS The problem with "Maddening" Mady is not only that he thinks that Altgens 6 somehow implicates Oswald in the assassination of JFK, but, more importantly, that Oswald's not being visible in Altgens 6 proves that the bad guys altered or faked Altgens 6, and, by extension, the Martin and Hughes clips, as well. Mady and his ilk really get off on that stuff because the very idea of wholesale photographic alteration and forgery fits in so perfectly with, and reinforces (in my humble opinion) their Paranoiac World View (PVW). In my humble opinion they're addicted to their Paranoiac World Views like a drug addict is addicted like a dangerous drug who has to "push" the drug in order to "maintain". The only difference being -- a drug addict eventually realizes that he or she is addicted! --Tommy

Bumped for David Andrews and Jon G. Tidd Carry on. Jon G. Tidd couldn't answer my questions about the Martin and Hughes clips, anyway...

The answer to that question is too obvious. It's already been revealed. Like a revelation. By the attorney, former Army Intelligence officer, and former employee of NYU (in a non-academic role), Mr. Jon G. Tidd. Your buddy, "Big Mac" did it. He was the most intelligent man in the world, he knew everyone and everything, and he was all-powerful. --Tommy

I guess you are. --Tommy PS So why don't you start your own thread? Oh yeah, that's right. You're too lazy.

Gee thanks David. But how exactly does this fit in with the question(s) I'm trying to get Mr. Jon G. Tidd to answer on this thread? --Tommy

In the FBI report you display. ...LOVELADY stated his picture has appeared in several publications which picture depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway to the TSBD. LOVELADY was exhibited a picture appearing on pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled “Four Dark Days in History” copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc. 6527 Hollywood Boulevard., Los Angerles 25, California. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph..... Ray, Which shirt do you believe Lovelady was wearing on 11/22/63 -- the short sleeved, red and white vertically-striped shirt that Mady says he was wearing, or the long sleeved, mostly-red "plaid" shirt that Groden photographed him in in 1978 (and Bob Jackson photographed him in in 1971) ? Thanks, --Tommy From the McAdams website: The FBI photos show Lovelady in a red and white vertical striped, short sleeved shirt, but the man in the doorway is clearly wearing a long-sleeved, checkered shirt. The Commission never checked the two photographs but simply believed Lovelady when he told the FBI he was in the doorway. This FBI report, along with the photographs of Lovelady, only fed the controversy. Jerry Organ The controversy shouldn't have lasted for long. In 1967 Josiah Thompson published the best-selling bookSix Seconds in Dallas. He discussed the controversy over the man in the doorway, and took note of the Warren Commission testimony and the FBI report. On the issue of why Lovelady was photographed by the FBI on February 29, 1964 wearing a red-and-white vertical-striped shirt with short sleeves while the man in the doorway was wearing a long-sleeved shirt, Thompson noted that Lovelady told CBS News "Well, when the FBI took me in the shirt, I told them it wasn't the same shirt [worn on the day of the assassination]." Thompson added that "The shirt Lovelady now claims to have worn on November 22 is long-sleeved and patterned in large squares" (pp. 225-227). At that point, the issue should have been solved, but in typical fashion, conspiracy authors simply ignored inconvenient evidence. Gary Shaw, in his 1976 book, Cover-Up, claimed that the question of who was in the doorway had not been adequately answered. He wrote, "we believe the identity of the man in the doorway is still open to question. There is as much, if not more, evidence to indicate that the accused assassin was exactly where he said he was — on the first floor of the Depository"(p. 42). Shaw also claimed that no one on the Commission ever saw Lovelady and there is no published photo of Lovelady in the Commission's exhibits or documents. Also in the 1970s, the LA Free Press and Argosy published the claim, using blown up photos to show the resemblance. Jerry Organ The House Select Committee on Assassinations felt that this issue needed more investigation. They took a two-pronged approach. The HSCA first had its photographic evidence panel examine CE 203 and 369, photos of Oswald, and of Lovelady. They used the tools of forensic anthropology, by which the metric and morphological characteristics of the human face can be analyzed. Going far beyond the causal and subjective "looks like" kind of analysis, they used the Penrose distance statistic to show that the man in the doorway hadfeatures very different from Oswald's. Based on the analysis of the photographic evidence panel, "the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady" (The Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations, pp. 58). The other approach was that of Robert Groden, who had a good knowledge of all the photographic evidence in the case. Groden analyzed three films — the John Martin film, the Robert Hughes film, and the Mark Bell film. These films showed a man in the doorway, wearing a shirt identical in appearance to the shirt on the man in the Altgens photo. But these films showed that the man wasn't Oswald, but rather was Lovelady. Indeed, Groden contacted Lovelady, asked him to don the shirt he had worn on November 22, 1963, and photographed him in it. The shirt, of course, was entirely consistent with all the photos from the day of the assassination (Robert Groden, The Killing of a President, pp. 186-187). [emphasis added by T. Graves]

Paul, He doesn't want to commit himself. All he's willing to say is that he doesn't think it's Lovelady. I believe it is Lovelady and Tidd probably realizes that I can shoot him down whether he says it was 1 ) actual, 2 ) staged or, heaven forbid, 3 ) altered. --Tommy There are several possible ways to argue the "Lovelady or not Lovelady" issue. Some are more rational than the others: Possibility number 1 ) It is Lovelady in the Martin and Hughes clips. 1 a) It is Lovelady and it was filmed on 11/22/63, up to one hour after the assassination. 1 b ) It is Lovelady and the clip was staged at an earlier date. 1 c) It is Lovelady and the clip was staged at a later date. Possibility number 2 ) It is not Lovelady but an innocent bystander. 2 a) It is not Lovelady but an innocent bystander who just happened to be in front of the TSBD shortly after the assassination and who happened to resemble Lovelady (especially the bald spot) and happened to be wearing a shirt identical to the one Lovelady said he had worn on 11/22/63 and in which he was later photographed (by Bob Jackson in 1971 and by Groden in 1978). Possibility number 3 ) It is not Lovelady but a paid actor. 3 a) It is not Lovelady but a paid actor in the Martin and Hughes clips, filmed shortly after the assassination on 11/22/63. 3 b ) It is not Lovelady but a paid actor in the Martin and Hughes clips, filmed not on 11/22/63, but at an earlier date. 3 c) It is not Lovelady but a paid actor in the Martin and Hughes clips, filmed not on 11/22/63, but at a later date. Possibility number 4 ) Well, it kinda is and it kinda ain't Lovelady in the the Martin and Hughes clips. 4 a) The Martin and Hughes clips were somehow photographically "altered" at a later date to make it appear that Lovelady had been wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red "plaid" shirt on 11/22/63. 4 b ) The martin and Hughes clips were somehow photographically "altered" at a later date to make it appear that a paid actor who "kinda resembled" Lovelady was filmed ... Wow, I gotta take a break.... --Tommy Edited and bumped for Paul B. and other intelligent, reasonable, interested members because Tidd won't answer my questions

Yes. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are? Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture. Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating). Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken? Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating). Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step? Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level. Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there? Mr. LOVELADY - Right Kathy Beckett bumped for giggles I agreed with Myra (wherever she is) for a change. Going from memory here, but at which point did the "abnormals" finally concede that we are, indeed, looking at Lovelady's face in Altgen's 6, and start pushing the idea that Lovelady's head had been photographically superimposed on Oswald's "Doorman" body in that photograph? Thank god Gerda Dunkel and Sean Murphy finally came along and introduced us to "Prayer Man" (most likely Oswald), who was, most likely, in the shadows above and behind and to the left of Altgen 6's "Doorman" (who was definitely Lovelady) and therefore not visible in Altgens 6.

Sorry about that, Ray I mean Ken. --Tommy

Thanks, Ray Ken, Your vote makes it -- Twelve "normals" to two "abnormals". --Tommy