Thomas Graves

If you look very closely you will see that the shirt of this particular "Lovelady Imposter" (according to Fetzer and Cinque) was unbuttoned. See that very white, vertical "stripe" which is broader at the bottom than at the top and is closer to his belly than his neck? (It's visible just before he starts turning his head back to the right.) That's his T-shirt! Hmmm... Maybe it's really Lovelady after all! See also Chris Davidson's great Hughes' film "thumbnail" in post #63 of Dr. Fetzer's rather nauseous "Newseum Display" thread... --Tommy

Nice work, Robin. Could "Elbow Man" have been William Shelley? Lovelady testified to the Warren Commission that he was standing on the steps with Shelley and Sarah Stanton. Have Stanton and/or Shelley ever been identified on the steps? We know what William Shelley was wearing that day. What about Sarah Stanton? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From John Simkin's Spartacus Educational website article about Billy Lovelady: " [THERE ARE TWO] PRIMARY SOURCES [FOR THE ARTICLE]: (1) WARREN COMMISSION (1964) Joseph Ball: You ate your lunch on the steps? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir. Joseph Ball: Who was with you? Billy Lovelady: Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton.... Joseph Ball: Were you there when the President's motorcade went by? Billy Lovelady: Right. Joseph Ball: Did you hear anything? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir: sure did. Joseph Ball: What did you hear? Billy Lovelady: I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot. Joseph Ball: Who was this girl? Billy Lovelady: Gloria Calvary... Joseph Ball: Where was the direction of the sound? Billy Lovelady: Right there around that concrete little deal on that knoll. Joseph Ball: That's where it sounded to you? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir; to my right. I was standing as you are going down the steps, I was standing on the right, sounded like it was in that area. Joseph Ball: From the underpass area? Billy Lovelady: Between the underpass and the building right on the knoll. (2) HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS (1979) A widely publicized photograph taken by Associated Press photographer James W. Altgens within a few seconds after President Kennedy was first shot shows a spectator who bears a strong physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the west end of the Texas School Book Depository entrance way. Altgens has stated that he took the picture of the presidential limousine, with the Texas School Book Depository entrance way in the background, just after he heard a noise "which sounded like the popping of a firecracker." In evaluating the evidence that Oswald was in the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting, the Warren Commission considered the allegation that the man shown in the doorway in the Altgens photograph was Oswald. The Commission concluded that the spectator was not Oswald, but rather another Texas School Book Depository employee, Billy Nolan Lovelady. This conclusion was based upon Lovelady's identification of himself in the Altgens photograph and upon statements of other persons who were present in the Texas School Book Depository entranceway at the same time. Warren Commission critics have charged that there was insufficient basis for this conclusion, and have faulted the Commission for presenting " no supporting visual evidence by which one can appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald, although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification of the doorway man than Oswald's possible total innocence of the assassination". This issue has also persisted because of reported discrepancies in connection with the clothing worn by the Altgens figure and Billy Lovelady on November 22, 1963. In media prints of the Altgens photograph, the man appears to be wearing a long-sleeved shirt similar to the one in which Oswald was arrested. According to a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission after Lovelady had been interviewed and photographed in 1964 by FBI agents, Lovelady was reported [by the mistaken FBI agents who assumed that Lovelady had worn the same shirt on 11/22/63 that he was wearing when they interviewed and photographed him. --T.Graves] to have been wearing a short-sleeved red and white, vertically striped shirt. Lovelady later explained that when he was interviewed and photographed by the FBI, he had not been told to wear the same shirt he had worn on the day of the assassination and that, in fact, he had been wearing a long-sleeved, plaid shirt when he was standing in the Texas School Book Depository doorway. This contradiction was partially resolved by photo-optical work performed by Robert Groden, a Warren Commission critic and photographic consultant to the committee. During his work with the committee Groden made photographically enhanced enlargements of the original 35 millimeter black and white Altgens negative and frames of the Bell, Martin, and Hughes color motion picture films, which also showed the spectator in the doorway, and detected a pattern of lines that correspond in pattern and color more closely to Lovelady's plaid shirt than to Oswald's tweed-patterned shirt. Even so, in an effort to resolve the issue even more definitively, the photographic evidence panel's board of forensic anthropologists were requested to study the photograph of the spectator shown standing in the doorway. Is it possible to identify positively as either Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady, the man, shown in the Altgens photograph standing by the doorway entrance to the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the President's assassination? In order to produce the clearest possible photographic images of the spectator in question, the Photographic Evidence Panel had black and white prints made from the original Altgens 35 millimeter negative at various contrasts, density levels and enlargements. They included various enlargements of the spectator's face such as that shown in the photograph. The anthropologists were furnished with a number of these prints. A series of photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, ranging from the time of his ILS. Marine Corps enlistment in 1956 to his arrest in Dallas in 1963, were provided to the anthropologists. While all were examined, those taken on the day of Oswald's arrest in Dallas received the closest scrutiny. Photographs of Lovelady were furnished which varied in date from 1959 to 1977. Of most interest were those taken near the time of the assassination. Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator's image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady, or Oswald. Based on a subjective assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the man in the doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady. In comparing the photographs of Oswald and Lovelady, the general similarities in facial configuration between the two men were initially noted. Closer examination of the photographs revealed significant differences in the two men's facial proportions: (a) Facial length.- Relative to facial breadth across the cheekbones, Lovelady's face is longer than Oswald's. ( b ) Lower jaw breadth.- Relative to facial breadth, measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's lower jaw is narrower than Oswald's. ( c ) Chin length.- Relative to facial length, Lovelady has a somewhat longer chin than Oswald. (d) Forehead breadth - Relative to the breadth of the face measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's is broader than Oswald's. (e) Nasal breadth.- Relative to nose length, Lovelady's nose is broader than Oswald's. (f) Nasal tip - Oswald's nasal tip is somewhat, small and sharply contoured, whereas that of Lovelady is rounder and more bulbous. (g) Forehead height - Due to hairline recession, Lovelady has relatively higher forehead than Oswald. (h) Hairline contour - Photographs of Lovelady and Oswald taken at a time close to the assassination indicate that, overall Lovelady's central hairline had receded more than Oswald's, resulting in Lovelady's higher forehead, as noted above; in addition, the recession on both sides of Lovelady's temple is more sharply advanced than Oswald's. Lovelady's recession was not uniform, and he has a downward projection in the hairline about one inch to the right of the center of his forehead. This eccentrically placed "widow's peak" was not observed in any of Oswald's photographs. In summary, Lovelady's face is relatively longer than Oswald's its length accentuated, in part, by more advanced balding and also by his narrower lower jaw and deeper chin. The asymmetry in his hairline is also a distinctive trait. The enlargements of the spectator's face are not of sufficient quality to permit accurate measurements. However, several features corresponding to Lovelady's traits can be discerned and subjectively assessed: (a) A relatively broad, high forehead; ( b ) Advanced recession of the hairline on each side of his head; (e) Interruption of the central hairline by a downward extension located slightly to the right of the center of the forehead; (d) A relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin: and (e) A rather bulbous nasal tip." http://www.spartacus...JFKlovelady.htm --Tommy (emphasis added) [moved to new thread]

The title of this thread should be changed to: AD NAUSEAM DISPLAYS OF (SO-CALLED) PROOF... --Tommy

Nice work, Robin. Could "Elbow Man" have been William Shelley? Lovelady testified to the Warren Commission that he was standing on the steps with Shelley and Sarah Stanton. Have Stanton and/or Shelley ever been identified on the steps? We know what William Shelley was wearing that day. What about Sarah Stanton? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From John Simkin's Spartacus Educational website article about Billy Lovelady: " [THERE ARE TWO] PRIMARY SOURCES [FOR THE ARTICLE]: (1) WARREN COMMISSION (1964) Joseph Ball: You ate your lunch on the steps? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir. Joseph Ball: Who was with you? Billy Lovelady: Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton.... Joseph Ball: Were you there when the President's motorcade went by? Billy Lovelady: Right. Joseph Ball: Did you hear anything? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir: sure did. Joseph Ball: What did you hear? Billy Lovelady: I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot. Joseph Ball: Who was this girl? Billy Lovelady: Gloria Calvary... Joseph Ball: Where was the direction of the sound? Billy Lovelady: Right there around that concrete little deal on that knoll. Joseph Ball: That's where it sounded to you? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir; to my right. I was standing as you are going down the steps, I was standing on the right, sounded like it was in that area. Joseph Ball: From the underpass area? Billy Lovelady: Between the underpass and the building right on the knoll. (2) HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS (1979) A widely publicized photograph taken by Associated Press photographer James W. Altgens within a few seconds after President Kennedy was first shot shows a spectator who bears a strong physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the west end of the Texas School Book Depository entrance way. Altgens has stated that he took the picture of the presidential limousine, with the Texas School Book Depository entrance way in the background, just after he heard a noise "which sounded like the popping of a firecracker." In evaluating the evidence that Oswald was in the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting, the Warren Commission considered the allegation that the man shown in the doorway in the Altgens photograph was Oswald. The Commission concluded that the spectator was not Oswald, but rather another Texas School Book Depository employee, Billy Nolan Lovelady. This conclusion was based upon Lovelady's identification of himself in the Altgens photograph and upon statements of other persons who were present in the Texas School Book Depository entranceway at the same time. Warren Commission critics have charged that there was insufficient basis for this conclusion, and have faulted the Commission for presenting " no supporting visual evidence by which one can appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald, although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification of the doorway man than Oswald's possible total innocence of the assassination". This issue has also persisted because of reported discrepancies in connection with the clothing worn by the Altgens figure and Billy Lovelady on November 22, 1963. In media prints of the Altgens photograph, the man appears to be wearing a long-sleeved shirt similar to the one in which Oswald was arrested. According to a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission after Lovelady had been interviewed and photographed in 1964 by FBI agents, Lovelady was reported [by the mistaken FBI agents who assumed that Lovelady had worn the same shirt on 11/22/63 that he was wearing when they interviewed and photographed him. --T.Graves] to have been wearing a short-sleeved red and white, vertically striped shirt. Lovelady later explained that when he was interviewed and photographed by the FBI, he had not been told to wear the same shirt he had worn on the day of the assassination and that, in fact, he had been wearing a long-sleeved, plaid shirt when he was standing in the Texas School Book Depository doorway. This contradiction was partially resolved by photo-optical work performed by Robert Groden, a Warren Commission critic and photographic consultant to the committee. During his work with the committee Groden made photographically enhanced enlargements of the original 35 millimeter black and white Altgens negative and frames of the Bell, Martin, and Hughes color motion picture films, which also showed the spectator in the doorway, and detected a pattern of lines that correspond in pattern and color more closely to Lovelady's plaid shirt than to Oswald's tweed-patterned shirt. Even so, in an effort to resolve the issue even more definitively, the photographic evidence panel's board of forensic anthropologists were requested to study the photograph of the spectator shown standing in the doorway. Is it possible to identify positively as either Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady, the man, shown in the Altgens photograph standing by the doorway entrance to the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the President's assassination? In order to produce the clearest possible photographic images of the spectator in question, the Photographic Evidence Panel had black and white prints made from the original Altgens 35 millimeter negative at various contrasts, density levels and enlargements. They included various enlargements of the spectator's face such as that shown in the photograph. The anthropologists were furnished with a number of these prints. A series of photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, ranging from the time of his ILS. Marine Corps enlistment in 1956 to his arrest in Dallas in 1963, were provided to the anthropologists. While all were examined, those taken on the day of Oswald's arrest in Dallas received the closest scrutiny. Photographs of Lovelady were furnished which varied in date from 1959 to 1977. Of most interest were those taken near the time of the assassination. Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator's image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady, or Oswald. Based on a subjective assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the man in the doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady. In comparing the photographs of Oswald and Lovelady, the general similarities in facial configuration between the two men were initially noted. Closer examination of the photographs revealed significant differences in the two men's facial proportions: (a) Facial length.- Relative to facial breadth across the cheekbones, Lovelady's face is longer than Oswald's. ( b ) Lower jaw breadth.- Relative to facial breadth, measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's lower jaw is narrower than Oswald's. ( c ) Chin length.- Relative to facial length, Lovelady has a somewhat longer chin than Oswald. (d) Forehead breadth - Relative to the breadth of the face measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's is broader than Oswald's. (e) Nasal breadth.- Relative to nose length, Lovelady's nose is broader than Oswald's. (f) Nasal tip - Oswald's nasal tip is somewhat, small and sharply contoured, whereas that of Lovelady is rounder and more bulbous. (g) Forehead height - Due to hairline recession, Lovelady has relatively higher forehead than Oswald. (h) Hairline contour - Photographs of Lovelady and Oswald taken at a time close to the assassination indicate that, overall Lovelady's central hairline had receded more than Oswald's, resulting in Lovelady's higher forehead, as noted above; in addition, the recession on both sides of Lovelady's temple is more sharply advanced than Oswald's. Lovelady's recession was not uniform, and he has a downward projection in the hairline about one inch to the right of the center of his forehead. This eccentrically placed "widow's peak" was not observed in any of Oswald's photographs. In summary, Lovelady's face is relatively longer than Oswald's its length accentuated, in part, by more advanced balding and also by his narrower lower jaw and deeper chin. The asymmetry in his hairline is also a distinctive trait. The enlargements of the spectator's face are not of sufficient quality to permit accurate measurements. However, several features corresponding to Lovelady's traits can be discerned and subjectively assessed: (a) A relatively broad, high forehead; ( b ) Advanced recession of the hairline on each side of his head; (e) Interruption of the central hairline by a downward extension located slightly to the right of the center of the forehead; (d) A relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin: and (e) A rather bulbous nasal tip." http://www.spartacus...JFKlovelady.htm --Tommy (emphasis added) PS: If anyone looks very closely at end of this clip they will see that Lovelady's shirt was unbuttoned. See that very white, vertical "stripe" closer to his belly than his neck? That's his T-shirt! --Tommy

Nice work, Robin. Could "Elbow Man" have been William Shelley? Lovelady testified to the Warren Commission that he was standing on the steps with Shelley and Sarah Stanton. Have Stanton and/or Shelley ever been identified on the steps? We know what William Shelley was wearing that day. What about Sarah Stanton? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From the Spartacus website article about Billy Lovelady: " [THERE ARE TWO] PRIMARY SOURCES: (1) WARREN COMMISSION (1964) Joseph Ball: You ate your lunch on the steps? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir. Joseph Ball: Who was with you? Billy Lovelady: Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton.... Joseph Ball: Were you there when the President's motorcade went by? Billy Lovelady: Right. Joseph Ball: Did you hear anything? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir: sure did. Joseph Ball: What did you hear? Billy Lovelady: I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot. Joseph Ball: Who was this girl? Billy Lovelady: Gloria Calvary... Joseph Ball: Where was the direction of the sound? Billy Lovelady: Right there around that concrete little deal on that knoll. Joseph Ball: That's where it sounded to you? Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir; to my right. I was standing as you are going down the steps, I was standing on the right, sounded like it was in that area. Joseph Ball: From the underpass area? Billy Lovelady: Between the underpass and the building right on the knoll. (2) HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS (1979) A widely publicized photograph taken by Associated Press photographer James W. Altgens within a few seconds after President Kennedy was first shot shows a spectator who bears a strong physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the west end of the Texas School Book Depository entrance way. Altgens has stated that he took the picture of the presidential limousine, with the Texas School Book Depository entrance way in the background, just after he heard a noise "which sounded like the popping of a firecracker." In evaluating the evidence that Oswald was in the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting, the Warren Commission considered the allegation that the man shown in the doorway in the Altgens photograph was Oswald. The Commission concluded that the spectator was not Oswald, but rather another Texas School Book Depository employee, Billy Nolan Lovelady. This conclusion was based upon Lovelady's identification of himself in the Altgens photograph and upon statements of other persons who were present in the Texas School Book Depository entranceway at the same time. Warren Commission critics have charged that there was insufficient basis for this conclusion, and have faulted the Commission for presenting " no supporting visual evidence by which one can appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald, although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification of the doorway man than Oswald's possible total innocence of the assassination". This issue has also persisted because of reported discrepancies in connection with the clothing worn by the Altgens figure and Billy Lovelady on November 22, 1963. In media prints of the Altgens photograph, the man appears to be wearing a long-sleeved shirt similar to the one in which Oswald was arrested. According to a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission after Lovelady had been interviewed and photographed in 1964 by FBI agents, Lovelady was reported [by the mistaken FBI agents who assumed that Lovelady had worn the same shirt on 11/22/63 that he was wearing when they interviewed and photographed him. --T.Graves] to have been wearing a short-sleeved red and white, vertically striped shirt. Lovelady later explained that when he was interviewed and photographed by the FBI, he had not been told to wear the same shirt he had worn on the day of the assassination and that, in fact, he had been wearing a long-sleeved, plaid shirt when he was standing in the Texas School Book Depository doorway. This contradiction was partially resolved by photo-optical work performed by Robert Groden, a Warren Commission critic and photographic consultant to the committee. During his work with the committee Groden made photographically enhanced enlargements of the original 35 millimeter black and white Altgens negative and frames of the Bell, Martin, and Hughes color motion picture films, which also showed the spectator in the doorway, and detected a pattern of lines that correspond in pattern and color more closely to Lovelady's plaid shirt than to Oswald's tweed-patterned shirt. Even so, in an effort to resolve the issue even more definitively, the photographic evidence panel's board of forensic anthropologists were requested to study the photograph of the spectator shown standing in the doorway. Is it possible to identify positively as either Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady, the man, shown in the Altgens photograph standing by the doorway entrance to the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the President's assassination? In order to produce the clearest possible photographic images of the spectator in question, the Photographic Evidence Panel had black and white prints made from the original Altgens 35 millimeter negative at various contrasts, density levels and enlargements. They included various enlargements of the spectator's face such as that shown in the photograph. The anthropologists were furnished with a number of these prints. A series of photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, ranging from the time of his ILS. Marine Corps enlistment in 1956 to his arrest in Dallas in 1963, were provided to the anthropologists. While all were examined, those taken on the day of Oswald's arrest in Dallas received the closest scrutiny. Photographs of Lovelady were furnished which varied in date from 1959 to 1977. Of most interest were those taken near the time of the assassination. Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator's image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady, or Oswald. Based on a subjective assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the man in the doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady. In comparing the photographs of Oswald and Lovelady, the general similarities in facial configuration between the two men were initially noted. Closer examination of the photographs revealed significant differences in the two men's facial proportions: (a) Facial length.- Relative to facial breadth across the cheekbones, Lovelady's face is longer than Oswald's. ( b ) Lower jaw breadth.- Relative to facial breadth, measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's lower jaw is narrower than Oswald's. ( c ) Chin length.- Relative to facial length, Lovelady has a somewhat longer chin than Oswald. (d) Forehead breadth - Relative to the breadth of the face measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's is broader than Oswald's. (e) Nasal breadth.- Relative to nose length, Lovelady's nose is broader than Oswald's. (f) Nasal tip - Oswald's nasal tip is somewhat, small and sharply contoured, whereas that of Lovelady is rounder and more bulbous. (g) Forehead height - Due to hairline recession, Lovelady has relatively higher forehead than Oswald. (h) Hairline contour - Photographs of Lovelady and Oswald taken at a time close to the assassination indicate that, overall Lovelady's central hairline had receded more than Oswald's, resulting in Lovelady's higher forehead, as noted above; in addition, the recession on both sides of Lovelady's temple is more sharply advanced than Oswald's. Lovelady's recession was not uniform, and he has a downward projection in the hairline about one inch to the right of the center of his forehead. This eccentrically placed "widow's peak" was not observed in any of Oswald's photographs. In summary, Lovelady's face is relatively longer than Oswald's its length accentuated, in part, by more advanced balding and also by his narrower lower jaw and deeper chin. The asymmetry in his hairline is also a distinctive trait. The enlargements of the spectator's face are not of sufficient quality to permit accurate measurements. However, several features corresponding to Lovelady's traits can be discerned and subjectively assessed: (a) A relatively broad, high forehead; ( b ) Advanced recession of the hairline on each side of his head; (e) Interruption of the central hairline by a downward extension located slightly to the right of the center of the forehead; (d) A relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin: and (e) A rather bulbous nasal tip." --Tommy (emphasis added)

Dear Dr. Fetzer, It seems to me that you're calling Robin Unger a xxxx here. I thought it was against Forum rules for one member to call another member a xxxx. Sincerely, --Tommy

Robin, You know I'm on your side in the Z-film alteration "debate" but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. How could the Secret Service agents get into the Queen Mary when it reached the top of the on ramp if they hadn't been out of it? Thanks, --Tommy

Thanks for posting that, Greg. I see the man you're pointing out. As regards "Doorman," in this blowup I see three distinct white stripes and two distinct black stripes on his sleeve. These stripes are just like the ones that were on the broad plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing that day. It's interesting to note that Oswald's shirt didn't have stripes like that... --Tommy P.S. In case anyone is wondering, although I am convinced that "Doorman" was Billy Lovelady, I do believe that JFK was assassinated as the result of conspiracy which involved at least one U.S. intelligence agency or elements thereof. Don't ask me for details because I don't have it figured out. Yet.

Wrong, Dr. Fetzer. The article in post # 86 doesn't say that. . In the article Lovelady is quoted as saying, "They said they had a big discussion down at the FBI and one guy said it just had to be Oswald." --Tommy (emphasis added)

Is Doorman wearing a red-and-white short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO Is the shirt Doorman is wearing buttoned up to the top? YES or NO Why are you running away from the obvious? What's the problem? You asked me where Billy was standing. We have shown you where. The woman shielding her eyes from the sun is JUST BELOW BILLY. You are displaying a degree of irrationality that is simply STUNNING. The small woman isn't in the doorway area, or standing on the steps she is of no consequence. ARE YOU SURE YOUR BLACK HOLE PERSON WITH BOTH ARMS SHIELDING THE EYES ISN'T A WOMAN ??? SINCE THE ENTITY HAS NO FACE YOU CAN'T REALLY BE SURE CAN YOU JIM. ??? Robin, In the article you posted in post #86, Lovelady is quoted as saying that he was standing on the first step. He probably should have said that he was standing on the first step down from the top. --Tommy

Tommy was being tongue in cheek, he's one of us [...] That's right, Len, it was my spoof of a particular member of this forum whom Robin has (correctly, imho) alleged is a "blowhard." FWIW, I, too, am an "alterationist" since I do believe that the (exit) wound in the lower right rear of JFK's head was photographically touched up/obscured in the Z-film and in the autopsy photos and x-rays. But do I believe that the Z-film was massively altered? No. AND THE FACT THAT ROBIN DIDN'T PICK UP ON MY POST'S BEING WAS A SPOOF ON "BLOWHARD" IS ABSOLUTELY MIND-BOGGLING ! (Laughing Out Loud) --Tommy

Jim, here's my attempt to make your same points without your trademark style, which seems to turn the majority of readers off, so that they ignore the strength of your arguments: I can't understand theresistance to an issue that would settle the matter decisively. I have asked Robin Unger whether, if Lovelady was wearing the red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt he wore for the FBI, then could Lovelady possibly have been Doorman? Robin has posted film footage showing a man wearing the red-and-black-with-white lines shirt often claimed to have been the shirt Lovelady was really wearing. I point out that that shirt is buttoned to the neck, while doorman's shirt is obvioulsy not. This would mean he cannot have been doorman. This is a simple but decisive point based upon evidence he himself has presented. The man in the checkered shirt cannot be doorman. J. Edgar Hoover asked for proof that Doorman was Lovelady. But Billy arrived wearing a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt, which they photographed and sent to FBI Headquarters. They were not about to disappoint the director, so they sent him their report and stated that it proved Doorman was Lovelady--and hoped he wouldn't notice and they would not be sacked or sent to Siberia! Robin suggests that Lovelady "innocently" wore the wrong shirt. How could anyone go to the FBI to show them the shirt he was wearing during the assassination of the President of the United States and innocently wear the wrong shirt? And he confirmed it was the shirt he had been wearing with Jones Harris, when he interviewed Lovelady. Robin asks, "Where was Billy?" But we have figured out where he was.You can see how he has responded. So many have attacked me and Richard and Ralph for research that has the consequence of blowing the case wide open because it is such a simple proof that the whole government's position was fabricated from the start. Everyone knew that Lee was in the doorway and cannot have been a shooter. But that could not be admitted without implicating key officials in a massive and detailed cover-up. For what it's worth.... Don, With, of course, some minor editing, like, for example-- "I can't understand the resistance to an issue that would, I feel, settle the matter decisively." and, "The man in the checkered shirt cannot have been the doorman, unless he (for some inexplicablye reason) buttoned up his shirt shortly after the assassination." (etc.) Thank you, --Tommy

A little help from Hughes. chris Chris and Robin, It's absolutely BLOWS MY MIND that after all these years you don't realize that all of the photos and films taken that day in Dealey Plaza were faked, and that the conspirators even went so far as to arrange for a Fake Lovelady to stand in front of the TSBD after the assassination just in case he happened to get caught on film by photographers like John Martin and Robert Hughes! And how do we know that it was a fake Lovelady that they got on film? Because the dude had his shirt buttoned all the way up! That fact, given the fact that "Oswald's shirt" in Altgens-6 was unbuttoned at least halfway, absolutely proves that this professional actor who was caught on film after the assassination was a Fake Lovelady! Only a moron or a shill (or a latter-day co-conspirator?) would deny it or have the gall to suggest that the real Lovelady had, after the assassination, simply decided to button his shirt up. And, "Why in the world," any self-respecting RESEARCHER must ask, "would the so-called "Real Lovelady" have done such a silly, silly thing?" The moron would probably reply that the real Lovelady may have intuited that there were several very busy photographers in front of the TSBD right after the assassination and, being a little self-conscious about having his shirt unbuttoned so dang far, decided to make himself a bit more "socially-presentable" to the at-that-time-emerging "hot media" Marshall McLuhan world by BUTTONING THE SUCKER UP. But such a simple explanation would be unbelievably simple and therefore SILLY, wouldn't it? So, Chris and Robin, please don't waste your time trying to spot bad guys doing bad things in the photos, and don't even think about trying to thwart our efforts to photographically prove that Oswald was edited out of any exonerating photos and films. Yes, I know that it hard to "prove a negative of a positive of a negative of a positive...." But hey, where there's a will there's a way! Chris and Robin, don't even try to analyze the photos and films except, of course, to look for indications of alteration or fabrication, because all of your so-called "normal" efforts are doomed to failure and that means, of course, that it's virtually impossible that you'll ever get any positive clues, photographically-speaking, about who killed JFK. And don't think about analyzing all them documents neither 'cause they all been faked, too... Oh, and as regards the clip from the Hughes film that Chris posted above on this thread and which purports to show Lovelady wearing his shirt unbuttoned after the assassination, all I can say is, "NICE TRY, CHRIS!" Anyone with a bare minimum of two (2) functioning brain cells and one (1) working eye can SEE that it's faked! PS-- Anyone who disagrees with me on any of the above is, at best just being childish, childish, childish, childish, childish, childish, childish... ( Tommy )

Kathy, I don't think so. That young guy looks more like a well-groomed high school student to me. To me his hairstyle/hairline looks different, and I can see that he was wearing a traditional, collared white shirt with his unbuttoned sweater or jacket. (Is there any evidence that Oswald wore a white, button up, collared shirt to work that day?) As for the "Jack Ruby?" dude, unfortunately he looks too portly. And, not that it matters, but the Parkland photo Joseph posted shows "Jack Ruby" wearing a light-colored fedora whereas in the TSBD clip he's wearing a dark one... But the "detached" head of a man (in the shadows, way back in the far left hand corner on top of the steps) during the latter part of the clip sure looks interesting... Tommy edited and bumped

Kathy, I don't think so. That young guy looks more like a well-groomed high school student to me. His face looks different to me and It looks like he had a different hairstyle/hairline than Oswald and was wearing a traditional, collared white shirt with his unbuttonedsweater or jacket. Is there any evidence that Oswald wore a white, button up, collared shirt to work that day? But the "detached" head of a man (in the shadows, way back in the far left hand corner on top of the steps) sure looks interesting... Tommy

Yep. And in this frame he's probably just starting to "gun" his Harley up to road towards the camera. --Tommy

Dear Dr. Fetzer, Regarding your teaching colleagues and your students in the classroom, DO YOU YELL AT THEM, TOO, when they have the temerity disagree with you? Sincerely, --Tommy P.S. I'm nobody's shill but you, sir, are quite shrill.

I agree, Lee. This thread is full of (IMHO bogus) shirt analysis.. --Tommy

Yes, John. I think he'd be an excellent trial lawyer. --Tommy

Well, Jim, I mean if it really was LHO who was in Mexico City, how would the world have found out later about his activities there unless he had been arrested for the killing of Tippit (and charged with assassinating JFK)? I mean, if LHO hadn't been arrested in Dallas, then the FPCC wouldn't have been discredited by LHO's actions in Mexico City, would it? Unless, of course, the Cubans or The Soviets or the Mexican government or Silvia Duran had volunteered the information about "LHO"'s being, supposedly, a card-carrying commie/member of the FPCC who had spoken with Kostikov and wanted to get back to the Soviet Union via Cuba. I mean, do you think they would have done that? EDIT: Come to think of it, I suppose the Mexican Government would eventually have told the FBI, CIA, etc, and they in turn would have told given it to the press so that the FPCC would be discredited... I wonder what LHO thought his mission was in Mexico City. He wasn't stupid, so I don't think he thought he was there to discredit the FPCC. Unless, of course, he thought it depended on his getting to Cuba (and Russia?) and getting lots of anti-FPCC publicity in the U.S. for doing so. Maybe that's why he told Kostikov and Nechiporenko "This is all going to end in tragedy for me." Maybe it dawned on him that he was being set up as a patsy when he realized he wasn't going to be allowed to go to Cuba as "promised" by his controller/controllers... --Tommy

I understand that LHO may have thought that he was sent to Mexico City in late September of 1963 to discredit the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. So I'm wondering, how could what LHO (and/or a LHO "double") had said on the telephone or done in the Cuban and Soviet consulates have hurt the FPCC if the assassination of JFK had never even been attempted? I've read that being a member of the Communist Party was illegal in Mexico in 1963. I've also read that LHO (or his "double") showed Silvia Duran his Communist Party membership card (and his FPCC card, etc). Was LHO hoping to be arrested in Mexico and thereby generate negative publicity for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? Or did LHO think he was in MC for some other non FPCC - related reason, like trying to get to Cuba to assassinate Castro? Regardless, I guess the CIA's memo to FBI which said it was thinking about doing some anti-FPCC work abroad served the purpose of making FBI agent Marvin Gheesling believe that LHO was involved with such a project, and that's why Gheesling took LHO off of the FBI's "watch list." --Thomas

Dear Dr. Fetzer, In case you haven't noticed in our posts over the years, Dolva and I (and I think Unger, too) believe that JFK's assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Yes! A conspiracy! (Not sure about Lamson and Colby. LOL) And just because I don't think that all of the non-Zapruder films (and photos!) taken in Dealey Plaza during the assassination were altered to conform with a (possibly somewhat) altered Z-film does not obviate the fact that I believe that the CIA (or FBI, etc) was/were involved in the assassination and/or its coverup. For your edification, Dr. Fetzer, I personally think that the Z-frames most likely to have been altered are the frames that show JFK's head wounds. But you know something? After doing a personal cost-benefit analysis regarding the feasibility or non feasibility of my doing my own (paranoic?) micro analysis of every frame of the Zapruder film, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. Why? Because I already believe that there was an intelligence agency-based conspiracy and now I'm just trying to find out who, exactly, was involved. Sincerely, --Tommy edited and bumped

Dear Dr. Fetzer, In case you haven't noticed in our posts over the years, Dolva and I (and I think Unger, too) believe that JFK's assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Yes! A conspiracy! (Not sure about Lamson and Colby. LOL) And just because I don't think that all of the non-Zapruder films (and photos!) taken in Dealey Plaza during the assassination were altered to conform with a (possibly somewhat) altered Z-film does not obviate the fact that I believe that the CIA (or FBI, etc) was/were involved in the assassination and/or its coverup. For your edification, Dr. Fetzer, I personally think that the Z-frames most likely to have been altered are the frames that show JFK's head wounds. But you know something? After doing a personal cost-benefit analysis regarding the feasibility or non feasibility of my doing my own (paranoic?) hyper-analysis of every frame of the Zapruder film, etc, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter to me. Why? Because I already believe that there was an intelligence agency-based conspiracy and now I'm just trying to find out who, exactly, was involved. Sincerely, --Tommy

Yes, Ray. Unfortunately it's Festering, like a dead, stinking horse that's been lying in the sun for a long, long time and is still being beaten. Personally, I'm convinced that there must have been a conspiracy. I've somehow arrived at that conclusion without wasting my time pondering silly questions like "How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?" or by entertaining paranoid pronouncements like "All of the films and photos were faked, I tell you, faked, and if you have the gall to speak out against me, then you must be a conspirator!" --Tommy bump

On page 201 of JFK and the Unspeakable James Douglas writes, "[special Agent in Charge of the Chicago Secret Service office Maurice] Martineau set up a twenty-four-hour surveillance of the men's [the four snipers'] boarding house. He passed out to his agents four photos of the men allegedly involved in the plot [to kill JFK on 11/02/63]. (137) emphasis added In the back of the book, all footnote (137) says is: "Sherman Skolnick's Suit against the National Archives and Records Service, filed on April 6, 1970, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, p. 2." Has anyone besides James Douglas read this legal document? Douglas' citing of it suggests that it somehow proves that Martineau passed out the four photos to his agents, but I've got the sinking feeling that maybe Skolnick just alleged it, without proof, in his filing brief. I, for one, would like to know more about those four photos. Thanks, --Tommy