Thomas Graves

Using your own standard, I ask you: 6) So, according to James Fetzer and Ralph Cinque, when these eyewitnesses--who, unlike Fetzer and Cinque, WERE ACTUALLY THERE-- reported that Lovelady was Doorman, they (according to Fetzer and Cinque) must have been lying their eyes off. How absurd can this get? ... Greg, I predict that Dr. Fetzer will say that Lovelady was out on the steps when Altgens 6 was taken, and that the reason he wasn't "captured" in that photo is RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS... he was sitting down!!! I predict that he will also say that one of the Lovelady imposters was wearing Lovelady's shirt with it unbuttoned in the chest area but buttoned at the neck.. And why would he wear his shirt like that, we might ask? "Well, it's RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS that that particular imposter was trying to start a new fashion style!" --Tommy PS: Check that! The "new fashion style" excuse is gonna have to be a backup explanation for now. Why? Well, because on another thread Dr. Fetzer has just said that the very white, broad-at-the-bottom, narrow-at-the-top "white stripe" (actually Lovelady's t-shirt) visible in Lovelady's chest area for a split second in the Martin film is the result of a sloppy painting job by the people who, evidently, painted Lovelady's shirt onto that particular imposter!

What about Arrogant Professor Ale? --Tommy

Starting to work at the TSBD was the biggest single event in Frazier's life? --Tommy

bumped for those members and guests who may have "missed" it bump

[...] In my view, this is the danger with The School of Random Claims of Alteration: It breeds red herrings and dopplegangers. It also tends to damage honest research into the film alteration that DID occur, encouraging the general public and the main stream media to confuse it with irresponsible supposition. I agree, Greg. --Tommy

bumped for those members and guests who may have "missed" it

Dear Professor Fetzer, Mental cases are known to yell a lot. You yell a lot here. Why do you yell so much here? Sincerely, --Tommy

John, This really is funny! Dr. Fetzer accused me of "grasping at straws" when I showed that Lovelady was wearing his unbuttoned shirt in front of the TSBD. But It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. "Three Loveladys." LOL!!! Hilarious!!! --Tommy It took 3 weeks to convince your chiropractor that the footage you are discussing (above) was shot outside of the TSBD. He thought it was outside the Dallas Police Department HQ. Once he could no longer deny its location - he dropped to the Fetzarian position that the footage was faked. It took a week to convince your chiropractor that the footage inside the Robbery and Homicide Office depicted Billy Lovelady sat down in a chair. He was convinced the footage contained a midget. He even lied about what he said and went back and edited his posts. He then dropped to the Fetzarian position that the footage was faked. (emphasis added by T. Graves) Now we have fake arms added into photographs. If we don't have fake people then we've got fake limbs. We have mobile CIA photographic processing labs faking footage that was still warm and we have an army of imposters posing as Billy Lovelady. We have fake Altgens pictures. Fake Zapruder film. Fake Moorman. Fake Hughes. Fake Bronson. Do we now have a fake Bonnie Ray Williams and a fake James Jarman? If so, how many will we wind up with? Two, three, twenty seven? If by a million to one chance you are not creating this crazy nonsense up to deliberately create division, then my judgement is that there are saner people locked up. Lee, So, Cinque said that Lovelady was impersonated at one point by a midget? That's hilarious! The guy who thought that up must be a mental midget. --Tommy PS: Please note that Lovelady is smoking in the Martin clip, and that he exhaled the smoke through his mouth (and/or coughed), distorting his face somewhat. Also, I guess Dr. Fetzer is going to start claiming now that this Lovelady had his shirt buttoned at the neck but unbuttoned in the chest and upper belly area. LOL

Thanks, Jimbo! --Tommy

Boy, what a horrible comparison that is, Tommy. You shouldn't have weaseled your way onto this thread, then, David. Go start your own thread. Hey, maybe you can even convince a whole bunch of people that LHO killed JFK all by him widdle self! It is interesting how you and Dr. Fetzer both try to force your beliefs on other people... Are you shilling for each other? Sincerely and respectfully, --Tommy

David, You sound as sure of yourself as Dr. Fetzer used to be that a Lovelady impersonator was wearing Lovelady's buttoned-up shirt in front of the TSBD after the assassination. But it wasn't a Lovelady impersonator, it was Lovelady. And his shirt wasn't buttoned up, it was unbuttoned. (And that's the topic of this thread.) Sincerely and respectfully, --Tommy

Gosh, I don't know, William. Because the limo's metal cross piece would have blocked or obscured the shot? Just a wild guess. --Tommy

You're so right. It isn't Oswald. (Not that we can really verify that fact by looking at a frame taken from a blurry movie.) But there are so many OTHER reasons to know that Doorway Man is Billy Lovelady and not Oswald. The #1 reason, of course, is because Billy Lovelady HIMSELF told the world it was him (Lovelady) in the doorway. But according to people like Fetzer and Cinque, evidently Lovelady was telling a big whopper of a lie to BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA when he said he was Doorway Man. And there's Buell Frazier's testimony too. He took a pencil and drew an arrow to a person he said was Billy Lovelady in CE369. (And Lovelady himself drew a second arrow pointing to the same person in the same exhibit.) And Frazier repeated his "Lovelady Was In The Doorway" testimony in 1986 too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=604Fr5t198A So, per Fetzer & Co., Frazier must be a xxxx too. And then we have Oswald himself (i.e., Oswald's own actions on 11/22). Per Fetzer & Co., Oswald's in the dooway at 12:30 .... he sees the President get shot .... he then (apparently) has an uncontrollable desire to dash into the TSBD Building and trot on up to the second floor to buy a Coca-Cola. I agree with you, David. And these would be the actions of a man who was "involved" in the plot to kill JFK to at least some limited extent, according to most CTers. And I think even Dr. Fetzer thinks that Oswald was "involved" in the murder plot to at least some partial degree. It depends on how one defines the word "involved." Given the fact that almost everyone agrees that Lee Oswald was involved in the assassination in at least some peripheral way, does it seem even remotely logical that Oswald would have wanted to go back INSIDE the building within seconds of the assassination taking place? In fact, if a little more common sense is applied to this "involved" topic, it really makes absolutely no sense WHATSOEVER to have Lee Harvey Oswald even being anywhere near the scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza if he wasn't there to physically shoot at the President. Unless, of course, Oswald was "involved" by being manipulated into being the patsy by 1) being told that he was monitoring drug smuggling/gun running activity inside the TSBD, 2) told that he was to try to help stop the assassination, or 3) told that he was to participate in a fake "assassination attempt." What help or aid was Lee supposedly providing the "real assassins" that day? According to Oliver Stone's paper-thin theory, Oswald was supposed to wait by a telephone on the lower floors of the Depository. He was "waiting for a call that never came", per Stone's 1991 fantasy film. But nothing else is ever said about it in the film. See above. It couldn't be more obvious that Stone's theory about the physical movements and whereabouts of Oswald at the time of the assassination is merely the product of the imagination of a filmmaker who was desperately attempting to manipulate the evidence of Oswald's guilt into something it was not. And that's why Stone's theory about Oswald looks so disjointed and flat-out silly on the movie screen. Or, to quote the great Jean Davison: "The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt." -- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game" Whatever. ---------- And wasn't it nice of Oliver Stone to totally ignore the paper bag that Oswald brought into the TSBD on November 22nd? And wasn't it also nice and fair and BALANCED of Mr. Stone to also totally ignore Oswald's unusual Thursday-night visit to Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21st and to completely ignore Oswald's "curtain rods" story as well? A person watching Stone's film who is uninformed about the facts in the JFK case would think that Oswald's Thursday trip to Irving had never even occurred. And that viewer would also be completely in the dark about any curtain rod tale. And the unsuspecting movie-goer would be totally unaware of ANY brown paper bag that was being hauled into work by Oswald on the day of Kennedy's murder (regardless of the shape and size of that bag). You want to talk about a biased look at the JFK assassination? Talk to Oliver Stone. Whatever. (Sorry, I digressed. But once a train of conspiracy-bashing thought pops into my cranium, it's hard to derail her.) OK, David. Appology accepted. http://jfk-archives....man-part-2.html

David, Yep. And it sure isn't Oswald. --Tommy

John, This really is funny! Dr. Fetzer accused me of "grasping at straws" when I showed that Lovelady was wearing his unbuttoned shirt in front of the TSBD. But It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. "Three Loveladys." LOL!!! Hilarious!!! --Tommy Dear Dr. Fetzer, Different camera angles and/or different camera lenses make anyone look different. If you look closely at the enlarged clip from the Martin film which you so kindly posted, you will see that Lovelady was smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD and had just taken a "puff" right before the still "capture" of him was taken (which you posted in an attempt to portray him as "Mr. Hyde"). In your still "capture," Lovelady was exhaling smoke through his mouth or actually coughing! Respectfully, --Tommy expanded and bumped

Thanks for the feedback, Robin. FWIW, do you know if Bill Shelley has ever been spotted on the steps in Altgens 6 or Wiegman, etc? --Tommy

David, On this we agree. Sincerely and respectfully, --Tommy

Robin, Good point. Also, it looks like Lovelady is holding his left arm a little bit farther out towards the camera than his right one, thereby making his left arm look even shorter. --Tommy

Don, I think you're trying to do a good job and I commend you for that. However, I gotta ask: Do you think Dr. Fetzer's calling me a "shill" is an example of his being respectful? How about his calling Robin Unger, in so many words, a xxxx? Or suggesting that those of us who have the gall to verbalize our disagreements with him are somehow trying to further the conspiracy? (Etc, etc.) I personally find it impossible to debate such a, IMHO, temperamental, defensive, and arrogant person. Thank you, --Tommy Tommy, Don isn't doing his job. So I fail to see how the standard can be defined as "good". Don is performing half a job. Now, I'll repeat myself so there's no confusion; I agree with him censoring my post. It deserved it within the confines of the rules. I mentioned nothing about the changes he made to it until he'd referred to it for the FIFTH time. The problem is this; Fetzer's posts are littered with ad-hominems. Littered. If you disagree with this garbage that he has somehow convinced himself is "research" then your own research skills are mediocre. If you disagree you are an idiot. If you disagree you are a shill. If you disagree you are somehow morally corrupt. If you disagree you are mentally challenged. His "expert" is a man who who could not work out that in the footage from City Hall Billy Lovelady was sat down. Cinque instead thought it was a Lovelady midget. Which must be Billy Lovelady number 4 of the more vertically challenged breed. They must have had a lorry load of Lovelady's of all different heights, weights and facial features all waiting for their cue to enter proceedings. These searchers of truth are slowly turning research of the assassination into a complete laughing stock. The longer this goes on the more crazy and bizarre it all becomes. But Don says we should just "ignore it." As far as Fetzer's comments are concerned on this and another thread - he can shove them where the sun don't shine; if he can fit them up there alongside his head. Mannequin's arm? My arse! I agree with you, Lee, although I think that Don might be trying to do a good job. Regardless, what bothered me the most was Dr. Fetzer's calling Robin Unger a xxxx. I reported it by pressing clicking on the special "report this post" button and writing him up. But, apparently, to no avail... Sincerely, --Tommy

John, This really is funny! Dr. Fetzer accused me of "grasping at straws" when I showed that Lovelady was wearing his unbuttoned shirt in front of the TSBD. But It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. "Three Loveladys." LOL!!! Hilarious!!! --Tommy Dear Dr. Fetzer, Different camera angles and/or different camera lenses make anyone look different. If you look closely at the enlarged clip from the Martin film which you so kindly posted, Lovelady was smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD and had just taken a "puff" right before the still "capture" of him was taken which you posted in an attempt to portray him as "Mr. Hyde." In the still "capture," Lovelady was exhaling smoke through his mouth or actually coughing! Respectfully, --Tommy

Don, I think you're trying to do a good job and I commend you for that. However, I gotta ask: Do you think Dr. Fetzer's calling me a "shill" is an example of his being respectful? How about his calling Robin Unger, in so many words, a xxxx? Or suggesting that those of us who have the gall to verbalize our disagreements with him are somehow trying to further the conspiracy? (Etc, etc.) I personally find it impossible to debate such a, IMHO, temperamental, defensive, and arrogant person. Thank you, --Tommy

Robin, Yep! Good one! (Your post with the yellow arrow pointing to Lovelady's Opened Shirt) --Tommy PS: Thanks for the compliment, JD!

Sorry, Robin. I don't know the answer to your question. I did notice the same woman you noticed in the photo. It looks like she's looking up somewhat. --Tommy

John, This really is funny! Dr. Fetzer accused me of "grasping at straws" when I showed that Lovelady was wearing his unbuttoned shirt in front of the TSBD. But It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. "Three Loveladys." LOL!!! Hilarious!!! --Tommy

You should be happy, David. It lends support to the position that it wasn't Oswald but Lovelady who was standing on the TSBD steps in the Altgens #6 photo. I'm a conspiracy theorist, David. For a second there I was worried that you were going to agree with me. --Tommy