David Lifton

Don: I find your position completely unreasonable. Apparently you have a set of cherished beliefs about Kennedy that are impervious to the credible evidence offered by this woman (and others, too). So suddenly this completely legitimate journalism is characterized as a "con job". Please do watch her interview by Meredith Viera, as broadcast yesterday on NBC-TV's 30 Rock. I thought it was excellent. John Kennedy was a complex individual. If one can't deal with the complexities of his psychology, how can anyone expect to get to the bottom of the complexities of Dealey Plaza? DSL

Well, I see that the sour and dour Mr. DiEugenio is back. . . now advising us on the credibility of Mimi Alford. For what its worth: I saw the NBC program 30 Rock, and the interview with Alford by Meredith Viera, and thought it was first rate. I thought Mimi Alford was completely credible. I thought the interviewing by Meredith Viera was excellent. And I thought the commentary by Bryan Williams was first rate. For anyone following this controversy, there is no substitue for actuall watching the show. It was one of the most intelligent and sensitive pieces of broadcast journalism I have seen in a long while. For anyone tempted to rely on DiEugenio, keep in mind what his scorecard looks like: DiEugenio today, in 2012, is still glorifying Garrison, apparently unaware of, or insensitive to, the miscarriages of justice perpetrated by his screwball investigation, which practically destroyed the JFK research movement; DiEugenino promotes such nonsense as the involvement of Kerry Thornley in the JFK conspiracy--which is absurd DiEugenio seems to ignore the fact that Garrison charged Edgar Eugene Bradley with murder, and then had to apologize to him for doing so; DiEugenio has a completely rose-colored view of JFK and doesn't understand that he and RFK were not just privy to the plots to kill Castro, but that RFK essentially acted as his brother's cut-out in effort to get rid of Castro DiEugenio doesn't understand that the Zapruder film (and other films) were altered; and actually wrote a post that this is something he "deliberately" avoided researching DiEugenio doesn't understand that the President's body was altered, prior to autopsy, and that this was the basis for the false autopsy at Bethesda; DiEugenio doesn't understand that the alias Hidell was actually used by Oswald in the months prior to JFK's assassination, but instead tries to sell the idea that that is all "after the fact." It was not. DiEugenio doesn't understand the importance of Doug Horne's work--ignoring the fact that this was the first time someone employed by the Government, and who actually was present at the depositions of all three autopsy doctors, actually came out with a major work supporting Best Evidence; DiEugenio has made all kinds of absurd charges against Seymour Hersh With regard to C David Heymann: DiEugenio derides the notion that RFK had the conversation with Garrison that Heymann reports, simply because it is misreported as having taken place in 1964--which was obviously an error. But years ago, I checked with the State University archive, and obtained the handwritten copy of the notes made by the author--they are what he published in the book. And spare us your theories that this book was published because Random House has some vested interest in destroying the Kennedy image. That's doesn't wash. The woman got the publisher she did because of her unique experiences. (Have you bothered to read "Jack and Lem"? Do you realize how important that book was, also? Here was a good friend of JFK, who was gay, and who had a room at the White House and visited on many weekends. Do you dismiss his account, too?) At the end of the NBC-TV show were interviews with Doris Goodwin, Dallek, and Richard Reeves, the author who wrote one of the best books I have ever read on JFK--and of course you disparage him too. All three basically said that the Alford revelations would not affect JFK's place in history, because the importance of what he did cannot be overturned by his extramarital affairs. Thanks for pointing me to the book Ordeal in Africa, but in just about every other area, you're advice can hardly be relied upon, and is usually contrary to the best evidence. DSL

Chris, Who is the fellow in the cowboy hat--and has someone identified any (or perhaps all) of these people? Thanks. DSL

This was not a con job. It is real. s I don't understand why anyone find it difficult to hold in one's mind these two (apparently) contradictory ideas at the same time: #1: That JFK fought off crazy proposals for preventive nuclear war (and other nutty advice, including knocking down the Berlin Wall, which could have led to a nuclear encounter in Europe), and. . . #2: That JFK saw the world around him (and the White House) as some kind of sexual playpen. Do you seriously believe that this woman made this up? Or that Random House published it because they are anti-JFK?? I find neither of these propositions particularly reasonable or credible. If anything, this woman was a complete innocent, compared to the other females we've heard about. DSL

I'm glad you articulated what I, with some discomfort, felt. It was a different time back then, with a different moral compass. I suspect that his friends and family probably felt somewhat proud and even envious of his ability to seduce women, and to get away with it. It would be later, toward the end of the 60s, that American men first started to catch on to the concept that promiscuity and cheating were immoral and demeaning. One could argue that his marriage may not have been mutually satisfactory, that it was maintained only for "show," but it appears that he was still having some marital relations and children even while cheating. It almost seems to have been something of a game. As I admire President Kennedy, I was willing to overlook an incident or two of infidelity, but the the slow trickle of names and stories, some of which are probably true, makes it a lot harder to excuse or ignore. What was he thinking? If you read David Heymann ("A Woman Named Jackie", published years ago) it becomes clear that JFK wasn't just a bit promiscuous; he was a sex-a-holic. It was one after another after another. With regard to this particular lady, I think the most difficult incident for me is the one where, while in the pool with this her (and Dave Powers), he says something to the effect that "Dave looks tense" and urges her to address that problem. Then he watches as she has oral sex with Powers--in the White House pool. This kind of behavior probably made it easy (or at least "easier") to recruit Secret Service agents into a plot. I do believe, along with Sorensen, that JFK prevented us from getting into nuclear war; yet the incident with Powers make them both appear pretty cheesy. DSL 2/8/12

Hi Frankie, JFK was taken to Bethesda at the request of Jackie, who said that she wanted him to go there because he was Navy, not Army. And Jim is right, we should use this issue to get the MSM to look into the facts as to why the original tapes and transcripts are missing. BK JFKcountercoup: Tale of the Tapes - By Vincent Salandria FWIW: I had an approximately 2 hr interview with General Chester Clifton in his office in Washington, D.C. on July 15, 1980. It was by then known that Best Evidence was going to be published, and I requested an in-person on the record interview to clear up a whole bunch of things. As I recall, I brought two recorders--one to record our interview, another to listen to the AF-1 tapes--the version which had by then been released via the LBJ Library. I know I had transcripts with me, and we went over the material in detail. We had an in-depth detailed conversation, and I will be addressing what he said in a future writing. FYI: the destination was in fact changed from Walter Reed to Bethesda, which was a substantial surprise to Clifton (or so he told me). I am uncomfortable with the idea that the destination was changed "because Jackie wanted Bethesda" etc. --although that's the way Burkley wrote his 11/27/63 report; and as I recall that's the way it was portrayed in Manchester. But I think you'll find if you check O'Donnell's testimony, he claims it was Bethesda from the outset. I interviewed quite a few people at Bethesda; they were told, from the gitgo, that the autopsy would be done there. One thing I do recall: Clifton said that when he heard the shots, he thought they were giving the President "a 21 gun salute". This had been told me by Godfrey McHugh, who was in the same vehicle as Clifton; and Clifton admitted that to me, in our tape recorded interview, in fact elaborating on the matter a bit. DSL 2/6/12 2:10 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

I don't understand why people are surprised. Of course he felt threatened. His brother was blown away in broad daylight in front of thousands while the SS stood down. The entire family "got it". After RFK was killed Jackie did say something: " They are killing Kennedys and my kids are next" or words to that effect. And she was right: they killed her son. So let's just all blame the victims for not "solving this case" . Dawn Dawn, I think you've got the quote (and/or the sequence) incorrect. The "killing Kennedys" quote occurred AFTER RFK's assassination. From the Wikipedia writeup: "In June 1968 when her brother-in-law Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, she came to fear for her life and that of her children, saying "If they're killing Kennedys, then my children are targets...I want to get out of this country."[59] On October 20, 1968, she married Aristotle Onassis, a wealthy, Greek shipping magnate, who was able to provide the privacy and security she needed for herself and her children.[60] The two cited footnotes are as follows: 59: a b Seely, Katherine (July 19, 1999). "John F. Kennedy Jr., Heir to a Formidable Dynasty". The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. 60. Cheslow, Jerry (August 7, 1994). "If You're Thinking of Living In/Peapack and Gladstone; Fox-Hunting and High-Priced Homes". The New York Times. Retrieved March 21, 2011. "She does have a story about Aristotle Onassis, who rented a home in neighboring Bernardsville with his wife, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis." As for Edward Kennedy, it was sometime after RFK's assassination that he appeared--as I recall--on the Johnny Carson show, and said ". . and we still don't know who killed Jack." OR. . have I got that wrong, and was it former NBC correspondent Sander Vanocur who appeared and quoted EMK as having said that? Not sure. But one of them did, and I'm pretty sure it was on Carson. I agree with you that both RFK (and Jackie) "got it" very soon, within days, of the JFK murder. Don't forget the message they imparted to Khruschev by close friend Walton (who was going to Moscow) that--regardless of what they might be hearing about Oswald, it was a domestic conspiracy that felled JFK. (First revealed in "Helluva Gamble" by Naftali, and his co-author). DSL 2/2/2012

1964? Is that date correct? Garrison's investigation didn't begin until '66. It seems odd to think he would be discussing his theories with RFK as early as '64. John, The date is almost certainly 1967--but that is a typo (on the part of the author, or his publisher). Another problem with the quote: that when this (RFK/Garrison) conversation took place, RFK was Senator from New York, and not "the top law man in the country". He had been that--in 1963--but not in 1967. FYI: I went to the trouble of actually obtaining the (handwritten) source document (written by Heyman) from the archive that the book cites. Unfortunately, I did not have a scanner back then, made no easily retrievable scan, and could not today locate my hard copy. Its a brief one-page handwritten document. DSL 2/3/12; 4:05 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

What Rand Corp historian Al Goldberg said about some of the conspiracy theorists applies to you (and your theories about what you "see" when it comes to shirt pockets) in spades: "Conspiracies are like the elves. . . you have to believe in them to know that they are there." DSL

Jim, I agree that although the shirt worn by Lovelady in either the Groden or Jackson images, clearly has a pocket, it does not have a flap. I suspect that David Lifton is correct when he stated that, for whatever reason, Lovelady did not wear the exact shirt he wore that day but a similar looking one. How that discrepancy helps to prove Oswald was standing in the doorway eludes me. James I hope it is clear, from my posts, that I believe that it was Lovelady (and not Oswald) in the TSBD doorway. DSL

Thanks for posting this exhibit, where each square on the shirt is numbered. Whether that was your intention or not, I think this proves very clearly that the shirt worn by Lovelady on 11/22/63 has a nice size pocket, which appears nowhere on the shirt worn when he posed for Groden in 1976. The pocket flap is encompassed by squares 6, 7, and 8. I do not agree with the idea that the pocket (in the 1976 photos) can not be seen because it is "ironed flat." It is not visible because it is not there. Furthermore, just look at the shape of the pocket, as shown in the 1963 photo--it has clearly defined slanting edges (as Fetzer has noted in an earlier post). I have always been reluctant to rely on photographic evidence because another person can say (or claim) that they do not "see" something that is obviously there. When I spotted the pocket/no-pocket conflict, I thought that the difference was plain as day. I am truly surprised that there is any difference of opinion on this. Its obvious to me that in the 11/22 newsreel footage at the DPD, Lovelady was wearing a shirt with a large pocket (which contained a pack of cigarettes); in posing for Groden, in 1976, he wore a similar plaid shirt, but it had no such pocket. Not only that, the vertical stripes are different (just compare squares 4, 7, and 10--which comprise the vertical stripe) in both photos). Because of the way Lamson has carried on on this thread, I'm forced to take his so called photo-expertise much less seriously. His excuse that he has a closet full of shirts where a pocket of that size is not visible, is just plain silly. Then, with regard to Lovelady's repeated statements (which are false) that he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes, Lamson has (I noticed) now proclaimed that Lovelady confused vertical with horizontal. (Oh pleez . . . ) My differences with Fetzer on this matter are not about the pocket. Apparently, we both see the shirt no pocket/pocket" conflict the same way. We differ on what it means. I believe it is Lovelady in the doorway; Fetzer believes otherwise. I have no doubt about the sincerity of Fetzer's views--even though I think he is incorrect. But Lamson is a whole other story. . . I'm starting to think that if I maintained that 2 + 3 equaled 5, Lamson would come up with some excuse to maintain otherwise. And, and, of course, there's his constant sneering attitude. . I am reminded of the manner in which (in his ongoing debate with Cliff Varnell) he maintained the absurdity that JFK's shirt rode up some 5 inches, which only he seemed to "see" in various photos. Oh well. . . DSL 2/2/12; 7:20 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Well, I think you have mis-stated the situation. I have concluded it is Lovelady in the doorway not "in spite of" my research, but in fact because of it. Yes, it is true: Lovelady said he wore a shirt with vertical red and white stripes. He said that several times--to the FBI, and then to newspaper reporter Dom Bonafede, who published his account in the 5/24/64 New York Herald Tribune feature article about the Altgens photo. But then, in addition, each and every time the FBI showed up with the photo, in this or that magazine, he immediately identified himself as the person in the doorway. Thus, for me, the puzzle comes down to why he has behaved this way, not whether he was in the doorway. I have offered my own theory as to why he lied about the shirt he wore--when interviewed by the FBI (in the 1963/64 time frame); and then wore an entirely different shirt when interviewed by Groden in 1976. As I have said: I think that the problem comes down to why he behaved tat way, not whether he was in the doorway. The DPD newsreel footage, showing Lovelady wearing the "doorway man shirt" when Oswald was marched in, at about 2:02 PM, settles the matter for me. What remains for me is why Lovelady lied so many times about the shirt he wore, and why the FBI didn't confront him on it. DSL 2/2/12; 1:50 AM PST Los Angeles, CA

No, Pat, that is incorrect. Please see my Post # 143 (and the re-summary of it in post # 150). The bottom line: the shirt Lovelady wore for Groden, in 1976, was not--I repeat not--the same shirt he was wearing when photographed on 11/22/63, either in the Martin film (in front of the TSBD); but, even more important (because it is so much clearer) in the frame from the newsreel footage posted by Duncan Macrae, taken at the DPD (see Post #26 on this thread). Specifically: by the "newsreel footage," I'm referring to the footage taken when Oswald was being marched by that clock, which showed the time as about 2:02 PM, CST, and Lovelady was sitting right there in the foreground. That shows the shirt Lovelady was wearing quite clearly. Although the shirt pocket--so clearly evident in this DPD newsreel footage--clearly does NOT appear on the 1976 (Groden) photo, a close examination of the thumbnail I attached to post #143 will show that the striped pattern on the two shirts, while similar, is decidedly different. Specifically, and most easily perceived, the vertical stripes on the shirt Lovelady was wearing on 11/22/63 (as shown in the DPD newsreel footage) are black; whereas the vertical stripes in the shirt he wore in 1976, when he posed for Groden, are white. So the two shirts are really distinctly different, and its not just a matter of one having a pocket (the shirt he wore on 11/22/63) and the other (1976) not having a pocket--so a hypothesis that "the pocket has been removed or sewn shut" does not explain the contradiction. OTOH: the two shirts are sufficiently similar --and this is what I found most striking--that it is difficult to avoid the inference that Lovelady (I'm sorry to say) was deliberately involved in pawning one shirt off as the other, i.e., in deceiving Groden. Candidly, this is what surprised me the most--that after all the analysis, and comparing images, and looking at the shirts, etc.--the realization that Lovelady himself had been dishonest. I was quite unprepared for that. But, finally, it answered a question that always had bothered me. From the beginning of my involvement in this "Lovelady area" decades ago, the one thing I never could understand was why Lovelady wore a striped shirt, instead of the one he was actually wearing, when photographed by the FBI. THE IMPORTANCE OF CHRONOLOGY You may know that James Angleton, former CIA Counter-Intelligence Chief, said that to understand something, you had to make a "good chron" - - meaning, assembling a good chronology. It was only recently, when I sat down and actually made up "a good chron," did it become rather self-evident what was going on here: that (apparently) from the beginning, Lovelady did not want to have anything to do with him being identified as "the man in the doorway," and so he said he was wearing a decidedly different shirt than he actually was wearing that day. So that resulted in false statements Lovelady made to Jones Harris, the original JFK researcher who was all over this issue (back in 1963 and early 1964); and it also resulted in his being photographed in the same "false" shirt he had lied about wearing, in order to avoid being "involved" in this controversy. In other words, one lie led to another, led to another, etc. " But then, under oath before the Warren Commission, he told the truth, properly identifying himself as the man in the doorway," in the Altgens photograph, and marking the Altgens photograph, which then became WCE 369. All very well; but then he further complicated matters 12 years later, when he was interviewed by Groden, by failing to own up to the fact that his original plaid shirt wasn't available (perhaps because he had thrown it away), and instead tried to come up with a "replacement plaid shirt" which, perhaps, he thought he could sell at some flea market. (The Lord only knows why he behaved this way. I'm just speculating.) Whatever the reason, Lovelady produced a shirt for Groden which was obviously NOT the same plaid shirt he was wearing when photographed on 11/22/63--in the DPD newsreel footage. The whole episode is really tawdry, and has led to much unnecessary confusion. ABOUT HAROLD WEISBERG AND THE "LOVELADY" MATTER: I have no doubt that the key reason that Harold Weisberg (and many others) believed that Oswald just might be the man in the doorway, was that in his original FBI statements (via Jones Harris), he said he was wearing a vertically striped shirt, and then had the gall to appear in such a shirt, when photographed by the FBI. Now put yourself in Weisberg's shoes--circa 1964-65: the original FBI documentation says that Lovelady was in a striped shirt; but there he was, testifying in his WC deposition that its him, in the Altgens picture. So: Who do you believe? If you believed (as Harold usually did) that the Warren Commission was up to no good, you naturally then believe what you perceive was Lovelady's "original story"-- as told to the FBI--as "the truth"; and you then think the WC deposition was (somehow) trumped up. And that (I believe) is what's going on here. Weisberg is just one example. Lovelady's goofy behavior has led a whole generation of researchers to a serious misunderstanding, and sent them on a wild goose chase. As to the untangling of this mess--I can only speak for myself: it wasn't until I discovered what I call the "DPD newsreel footage" (circa 1972/73) that I became totally convinced it was Lovelady in the doorway. Shortly thereafter, Groden--with whom I had shared this discovery--also became persuaded, and then the HSCA did their study, adding the opinions of anthropologists, etc. and writing about this in Vol 6 of their report. But now, in 2012, along comes Fetzer, and an attempt to revive this long-ago settled issue--and I am referring here to Fetzer/Cinque article in Veterans Today, and this Internet thread, with his numerous (and, imho, largely irrelevant) arguments. As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead horse, and Fetzer is involved in an attempted resuscitation, rather than a serious re-investigation. The newsreel footage taken at the DPD, and the Martin film, establish that the man in the doorway was Lovelady. DSL 2/1/2012; 4:20 AM Los Angeles, CA P.S. Despite his nastiness in private emails towards me, I want to give credit to Ralph Cinque for noticing that the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the DPD newsreel footage had a large lumberjack-size pocket, in the left breast area, whereas the one worn when he posed for Groden (in 1976) had no such pocket. In these communications, Cinque seemed to imply that the newsreel footage represented photographs which must have been altered, and berated me for not paying proper attention to "contradictions" in the evidence. But, in fact (and as demonstrated by my work in Best Evidence, re the President's wounds) I am very "contradiction sensitive". As I have pointed out, there is indeed a "contradiction" in this matter of the shirt pocket, but the answer is not that any newsreel footage has been altered, but rather that Lovelady was not wearing the same shirt , in 1976 (when he posed for Groden) as he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he was photographed at the DPD. End of story. Case closed. And, IMHO: End of any real doubt that it was anyone but Lovelady in the Altgens photo. (DSL)

Reading what you have written, this may be something you had already discovered. But that he was not wearing the same shirt does not mean that he was the Doorway Man. Doorway Man's shirt is like Oswald's and not like Lovelady's, whether it was checkered or even vertically striped. David, we have a lot of new evidence that something is wrong with the photograph, which, so far I can tell, you have never noticed. Even Robin has noticed. For some reason, however, you don't even appear to care. There's something wrong with this picture--something that I don't get. Re #148 . . Oops. Sorry, # 148 is a dupe. Deleted. DSL Jim Fetzer, My post #143 (which Josiah Thompson compliments me on, in post # 144) says it all. Most important, it explains why the plaid shirt Lovelady wore when he posed for Groden, in 1976, is similar to (but not identical with) the plaid shirt he was wearing on 11/22/63, and which appears when he was photographed on the Martin film, within a minute of the motorcade passing the TSBD, and then at 2:02pm ish, when he was photographed on newsreel film when Oswald was marched right passed him at the DPD. What else is there to say, Prof. Fetzer--that readers of this forum should ignore the validity of what I have posted, because they don't agree with Josiah Thompson, on some other issue? If so, then perhaps we should all ignore the arguments you are making, because you don't believe we went to the moon. Multiple times. In fact, I'd bet there are more astronauts who have been to the moon (12, in fact), than their are shooters on the grassy knoll. (How's that for a comparison?!) Now you don't hear me saying we should ignore everything you say, simply because you don't believe man ever went to the moon--which is one of the major accomplishments of the entire 20th century--so I'd suggest you not extrapolate from Josiah Thompson's endorsement of my analysis (re Lovelady's "photo scam") to the notion that my analysis is in error. Clearly, it is not. As I have demonstrated: Billy Lovelady engaged in a pattern of deceptive behavior starting in December, 1963, when it was first noticed that the man in the doorway appeared to be Oswald. Instead of saying, "Yeah, that's me," he instead went off on a deceptive tangent, telling the first JFK researcher who contacted him (Jones Harris) that he was wearing a red and white striped shirt; and then posing in just such a shirt for the FBI. That's not a very nice thing to do--lying, in general, and lying to the FBI in particular. Its illegal; in fact, its a felony. Martha Stewart found that out--and ended up serving a prison term for such behavior. But Lovelady apparently did just that--and misled a bunch of first generation JFK researchers into believing that it "had to be Oswald" in the doorway; because, after all, Lovelady was wearing a striped shirt, so it couldn't be him. Then he owned up to the reality--and spoke truthfully--when formally deposed by the Warren Commission, identifying himself in the Altgens photograph, a properly marked and annotated exhibit which appears as Warren Commission Exhibit 369, in Volume 16 (of the WC's 26 volumes). Then I found the newsreel footage of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt in 1972/73, showed slides of those frames to Groden, and also shared all that with the HSCA. Groden went to interview Lovelady, and Lovelady put on a plaid shirt--but (as I have shown) a different one. Perhaps he wanted to sell it as a collectible. Who knows. All I know for sure is that Lovelady has left behind a trail of deceptive behavior. Now you and your co-author come along, in 2012, and attempt to resurrect this dead horse--and you accuse me of not being well informed. I have news for you, professor Fetzer- - - I was "present at the creation" re this particular issue. Perhaps I was not "first generation" on this particular matter; but I was no later than second. And when did you enter this debate on this matter: lets see. . the year was 2012. . that's 40 years after I found the news reel footage that shows Lovelady in a plaid shirt, and which definitively placed him in the doorway. 1972. . remember that date. That's three years after we went to the moon for the first time. . .an event that you believe never happened. Of course, that's the first time we went to the moon. But how about the other five times. . you know, we returned, came back, and then returned again, and again. . (See "P.S." to this post) But of course, you don't believe any of that happened. . But now you're here to tell us that not only didn't we go to the moon, but we should also believe (you) that Lovelady was not the man in the doorway. . but that it was Oswald. Oh pleez. . . do you really believe you have unlimited credibility, when it comes to such preposterous propositions? DSL 2/1/2012; 12:45 AM PST Los Angeles, CA P.S. Re the number of times we have gone to the moon. . .(from Yahoo q and a) : How many times did man go to the moon? Six times. i.e. six missions that each landed two men on the moon (whilst a third remained orbiting the Moon). 12 men have therefore landed on the moon. A jury-room-full of astronauts, if you like! . . . That's 2 each on each of the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions. Apollo 11 and 12 were both in 1969. After Apollo 13 had to be aborted and the crew were lucky to get back to earth alive, there was a lull in missions till investigations as to what went wrong took place. There was no further mission attempted in 1970 therefore. Apollo 14 and 15 were both in 1971 and Apollo 16 and 17 were both in 1972. We have not been back since. Nor has any other country visited the Moon (yet). Prof. Fetzer, please note: The twelve who landed on the Moon were: Apollo 11 July 20, 1969: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin Apollo 12 November 19-20, 1969: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean Apollo 14 February 5-6, 1971: Alan Shepard & Edgar Mitchell Apollo 15 July 31–August 2, 1971: David Scott & James Irwin Apollo 16 April 21-23, 1972: John W. Young & Charles Duke Apollo 17 December 11-14, 1972: Eugene Cernan & Harrison Schmitt

Re #148 . . Oops. Sorry, # 148 is a dupe. Deleted. DSL

Ooops.Dupe post deleted. Sorry. See next post, # 148. DSL

Re #146- - ooops. Sorry. #146 is a dupe. Deleted.

# 145- - Ooops. .Sorry. This is a dupe. Deleted.

I want to share with those on this forum a new development re my own analysis regarding Billy Lovelady –specifically, this post concerns the plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing when (in 1976) he posed for Robert Groden, who then published that picture in his book. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.” I no longer believe that Lovelady, in posing for Groden, wore the same plaid shirt he wore on the day of JFK’s assassination. Let’s back up a moment: At issue (for me, anyway) was whether the shirt Lovelady wore (on 11/22/63) was a proper criterion for establishing whether he (Lovelady) was the man in the TSBD doorway. I believe it is, and believe that to this day. Nonetheless, I now believe that, in 1976, Lovelady was deceptive with Groden, and that the plaid shirt he wore for Groden, was not the same plaid shirt he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he stood in the TSBD doorway; and that’s what this post is all about. Before proceeding further, I should note that Lovelady, while deceptive some of the time, was not deceptive all of the time. Specifically: when Lovelady testified in his Warren Commission deposition, he told the truth. He said he was standing on the top step of the TSBD entrance, and identified himself in the Altgens photograph, drawing in an arrow, pointing to the image. This exhibit—of the Altgens photograph, with the arrow pointing to Lovelady—became Warren Commission Exhibit 369 (and is published in Volume 16, of the 26 Volumes). So: I believe that, when under oath, he told the truth. But Billy Lovelady did not always tell the truth, and that is the problem. So let me recap, and focus on the issue at hand: whether Lovelady was honest when he was interviewed by Groden in 1976, or –for whatever reason—was deceptive. And just how far back this pattern of deception goes. In short, the issue at hand is whether Lovelady was “playing with a full deck” (as the saying goes), and if not, why not. THE LOVELADY ISSUE—A BRIEF RECAP For years, I have believed Lovelady was the man in the dooway—ever since (back around 1972/73, when I was working as the researcher on the film Executive Action)—I came across newsreel footage showing Oswald being marched into the DPD at 2:02ish, and there was Lovelady, seated right there. I made 35mm slides of that footage, showed it to Groden, brought it to the attention of the HSCA (in 1976) , etc. Duncan posted a frame from that (or similar) footage, and (as far as I was concerned) that always resolved the matter. The HSCA did further studies of this, and that study appears in Vol 6 of the HSCA’s appendix volumes. A side story of this whole affair has been the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and just why it was, when the matter was first investigated by the FBI, back in December, 1963, Lovelady appeared in an entirely different shirt, one with vertical red and white stripes. Just how did that happen? After all, didn’t the FBI know the shirt was an issue? (Or, for some reason, was Lovelady attempting to call attention away from himself, by leading people to believe he was not standing in the doorway?) When Robert Groden published his first book, he interviewed Lovelady, and implored him to wear the shirt he had worn back in 1963. Lovelady then retrieved that shirt, and posed for Groden, wearing it. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.” At first glance, the shirts do look identical. But they are not. Lovelady, to put it mildly, was not being straight with Groden. What I am about to write does not affect my own conclusion about who was in the doorway, but it does shed light on the psychology and integrity of the late Billy Lovelady (and just why there is such a confusing record on this issue of just what shirt he was wearing). LOVELADY (and his shirt) - - The 1976 Groden photo versus the (11/22/63) Martin Film Putting the two pictures side by side—a frame from the Martin film, showing Lovelady, in front of the TSBD, just seconds (or minutes) after the shooting of JFK, and Lovelady posing for Groden, in 1976—its obvious that the two shirts are different. The shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film has a large pocket, over the left breast area. (In the frames from the film footage taken at the TSBD, it would appear that Lovelady had a pack of cigarettes in that pocket). But. .. : the plaid shirt that Lovelady supposed “packed . . away for safekeeping” and wore for Groden (in 1976) has no pocket. (See attached graphic. Make sure to click on it, to see the enlarged version.) Furthermore, if you compare the striped pattern, they are obviously different. Yes, both are plaid shirts, so they are certainly similar. But the vertical stripes in the shirt worn in the Martin film are distinctly different from the vertical stripes in the 1976 photo. Also, the shirt Lovelady was wearing has a distinctly visible pocket in the left breast area—whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden in 1976 has no such pocket. (See attached graphic. Make sure to click on it, to see it when enlarged. The differences are obvious.). Well then, what does this all mean? WHAT IT ALL MEANS Here are my own observations and beliefs, and I’m sure others will have theirs: (1) Billy Lovelady was deceptive when he was interviewed by Groden, in 1976. He produced a shirt which, while similar, was not the same shirt as he was wearing on November 22, 1963. (2) If you go back to some of the other posts on this thread, you will find the following information: (a) The issue goes back to December, 1963, when someone (in the FBI) noticed the similarity of Lovelady to Oswald (b ) At that time, New York resident (and one of the earliest JFK researchers, Jones Harris) also noticed it. Harris had the time and the money to make flights to Dallas, and met with Lovelady. ( c) What did Lovelady do? He misled Jones Harris—telling Harris he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. (In effect: No, the man in the doorway was not me.) (d) Then, Lovelady, when asked to pose for the FBI (with whom Jones Harris was in touch), posed in the wrong shirt—i.e., a shirt with vertical stripes. (e) –footnoe to “d” above: Gary Mack informs me that, when he –Gary—interviewed Lovelady many years ago, Lovelady said that the reason he wore that shirt was that the FBI told him it didn’t matter. They just wanted to photograph him, as a person.) Needless to say, in view of what Lovelady told Jones Harris, and the manner in which he behaved with Groden (in 1976) I don’t believe Lovelady—who I now realize was, from the outset, being deceptive. And the reason for all the deception now has become obvious: Lovelady wanted to distance himself from the image of the man in the doorway. (f ) A small insight to the psychology of Lovelady (and his wife): Lovelady’s wife, interviewed by the media, claimed that their house was broken into on any number of occasions, no matter where they moved, by people looking for the shirt. For what its worth (“FWIW”, in internet lingo), I don’t believe her. That’s just an absurd story—and, as far as I know, there are no police reports of any break-ins of the Lovelady home, because of unknown robbers seeking the shirt. But what I do believe this shows is that the Loveladys—as a couple—were spooked by the attention Billy Lovelady was getting, and apparently tried to escape from it, by either getting rid of the shirt, and/or misleading Jones Harris, and/or not posing in the proper shirt for the FBI, back in 1963/64. (g) So. . what happened next? Well, back to the saying: “Oh what a web we weave. . when we set out to deceive.” What has happened, as a consequence of all this foolishness, probably the result of needless paranoia and deception, is that the record has been needlessly distorted and complicated. First of all, there are today numerous folks who, today, honestly believe (because of the initial false reports) that there is truth to what they believe is Lovelady’s “original” story—i.e., that, when he was standing in the TSBD doorway on 11/22, he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes. That’s just rubbish. But I can assure you that I am probably not the only one who (decades ago) spent good money chasing this piece of wild goose, ordering high quality prints of the Altgeos photo from the AP, peering at it under a magnifying glass, etc etc. –and why? All because Lovelady initially said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt, and then posed for the FBI in just such garb. Second: there are numerous folks who, analyzing the picture of Lovelady’s shirt as shown in the newsreel frames taken on 11/22/63) when Oswald was marched into the DPD, at 2:02ish PM) now notice discrepancies between that shirt, and the shirt he was wearing in the Martin film, and posit theories of alteration, all of which are (imho) totally irrelevant. Anyway, here are my own tentative conclusions: (a) From early December, 1963, at the very least, Billy Lovelady was spooked by the resemblance between himself and Oswald, and the attention it brought. (b ) Lovelady lied to Jones Harris about the shirt he was wearing—saying it had vertical stripes. It did not. (c ) Lovelady then wore the same shirt, with the vertical stripes, when he was interviewed by the FBI –thus leading a generation of JFK researchers on a wild goose chase. (d ) When (in 1972/73) I found the newsreel footage showing Lovelady in the plaid shirt, and showed slides of it to Groden, he then pursued the matter. (e) When the HSCA was created in 1976, and Groden contacted Lovelady, who now had to come up with a plaid shirt to wear, even though (a) he had probably gotten rid of that original plaid shirt years before and (b ) even though he had—some 12-13 years earlier—posed for the FBI in a striped shirt. Probably he (and/or his wife, the one who talked of their home constantly being broken into by people looking for “the shirt”, and who said the shirt he was wearing that day had been purchased at a flea market) found a similar plaid shirt. (f) Lovelady—who probably dearly wanted nothing more but for the issue to “go away”—then posed for Groden in his “replacement” plaid shirt. Indeed, he not only posed for Groden in the shirt, he told him—and Groden believed him—that, with regard to the shirt, “he had packed it away from safekeeping. . . and put it on (for me) for the first time in years.” Yeah, sure. (I have to wonder whether or not Groden paid money to Lovelady, for the favor of him posing, or whether Lovelady did it for free, hoping that Groden publishing such a photograph would increase the value of the “replacement” shirt, which he thought he might pawn off on some soul as “the original.” Who knows.) Grand Conclusion: Billy Lovelady repeatedly (but not always) lied about the shirt he wore that day. Let’s recap: First, back in 1963, he lied to Jones Harris, one of history’s “first responders” to this critical issue. He lied to Harris, telling him he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. This encouraged Harris to believe that Lovelady was not in the doorway; ergo, it had to be Oswald. Harris was in touch with the FBI, and with reporter Dom Bonaede of the New York Herald Tribune. I have no doubt that Lovelady’s evasions and falsehoods clouded the record. Second: back in 1963/64, when interviewed by the FBI, he posed in the “wrong shirt”, but one which matched the lie he told to Jones Harris. If memory serves, he also lied to the FBI about the shirt he wore. (And who knows if, at higher levels of the FBI, this led to confusion as to just who was standing in the doorway. After all [so the reasoning would be] if Lovelady was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, then who else could the man in the doorway be, other than Oswald?) Third: in his Warren Commission deposition, Lovelady told the truth. He stopped playing games, and identified himself as the person in the doorway (circling himself as the man in the doorway, in cropped enlargement of the Altgens photo—Commission Exhibit 369). Fourth: Now returning to the game playing mode. . . :Lovelady, in 1976, lied to Robert Groden, retrieving a shirt similar to—but not identical with – the shirt he had worn on 11/22/63. He then posed wearing that shirt (with the plaid pattern, but no pocket) for Groden, who then published the picture in his book, apparently not noting that the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film had a large pocket, whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden did not. Groden—and everyone else, including me—failed to notice that the plaid pattern of the two shirts, while similar, were clearly not the same. What I shall call here the “Groden shirt” and the “Martin film shirt” are clearly different. As noted above, Groden –believing he had a reportorial “first,” captioned the picture: ““I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.” WHERE WE STAND NOW: Billy Lovelady died years ago, and I don’t wish to demean the dead—but he the fact is that he has left behind a trail of deceptive behavior which has confused the record as to the identity of the man in the doorway. Because obviously, once you start entertaining the notion that Lovelady was telling the truth (when he told his “striped shirt” story) the odds go way up that the man in the doorway was Oswald. But Lovelady only complicated matters by attempting to distance himself from the issue by lying about the shirt he was wearing; and then by posing for Groden in a plaid shirt that was similar to (but certainly not identical with) the one he was wearing on November 22, 1963. I go back to my original position: both the Martin film (of Lovelady standing outside the TSBD, minutes later) and the newsreel footage taken on 11/22/63 (showing Oswald being marched into the DPD a few minutes after 2 p.m., and which also shows Lovelady) makes one thing very clear: Lovelady, wearing the plaid shirt shown in the Martin film, was the man in the doorway. All JFK researchers would be advised to toss aside the picture published in Groden’s book, showing Lovelady in a plaid shirt. That picture, and the way he behaved with Groden, says a lot about Lovelady’s psychology. But it only confuses the record and tells us little about the identity of the man in the doorway. The man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady. The Martin film and the DPD newsreel footage, showing him that same shirt, is the best evidence for that. DSL 1/31/12; 9:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA P.S.: In viewing the photo exhibit below, make sure to click on the image, so you can see the enlarged version (and read the caption that I wrote). That is important to see how clear it is that these are two entirely different (albeit similar) shirts. The vertical stripes in the Martin photo are black; in the 1976 "Groden photo," they are white. Furthermore, the "similarity" cannot be accidental. Clearly, Lovelady was trying to "put one over" on Groden--and (unfortunately) he succeeded. DSL

Dupe post deleted.

Like anyone else who has gotten involved in the Kennedy case, I, too, went through a period, many years ago, in which I believed that Oswald might be standing in the TSBD doorway, when the motorcade passed. Specifically, I went througha period of intense examination of the Altgens "doorway" photo (enlargements of which I ordered off the AP original negative). For awhile--and this is perhaps over 40 years ago--I was open to the belief that the "man in the doorway" was not Lovelady, but Oswald. . . . And now, to the matter at hand: FWIW: I do not believe the hypothesis being advanced here. Specifically, and for the record, I do not believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway--with Bill Shelley, or anyone else--at the time the motorcade passed. I wish it were true--i.e., I wish the "solution" to this case were that simple. Unfortunately, its not. DSL 1/26/12; 9:50 PM PST Los Angeles, CA Jim: A few days ago, I wanted to post something to the effect that, with regard to your ongoing debate with Pat Speer on another thread on The London Forum (re the medical evidence, and specifically, the head wounds) it was my opinion that you handled yourself very well, and that you won that debate—hands down. It occupied many web pages, and went back and forth, with all kinds of graphics posted by the two of you, and was in fact truly informative. If anyone has any questions about the head wound data in the future, I will simply refer them to that thread, and have them plow through all those pages of debate, and the detailed back and forth. As I say, I think your position was superior, and you have identified all the flaws in Speer’s analysis. But here, in this instance, my position is completely reversed. Given my positive reaction to your position in that debate, I was truly disappointed to see the hypothesis you have recently advanced in this matter of Oswald in the doorway. Regarding your criticism of my post—that I was dismissing your analysis based on my "autobiographical experience", etc.: In fact (and as I hope you now realize), I studied this matter of “Oswald in the doorway” extensively decades ago. I went the whole nine yards, as the saying goes: blowups of Altgens, studying of FBI reports, DPD reports, Sheriff’s documents, drawing timelines, etc. etc. Could it be (I used to wonder) that Oswald was really just standing outside? In the doorway? That it was all that terribly simple? And that this was the greatest mistake that any plot could have possibly made? That the patsy was simply standing there in public view? Or was the opposite the case: that Oswald was elsewhere, and that Lovelady really did look similar to Oswald, and that the image (and apparent similarity) on Altgens was “just one of those things”—a true coincidence? Then came my discovery—when working on Executive Acton (circa 1972/73)—of that film clip of Lovelady at the Dallas Police Department, a frame of which Robin Unger has just posted (plus the info on the Martin film); and at that point, as far as I was concerned, the debate was over. There was Lovelady, with the same shirt he was wearing when photographed at the Dallas Police Department, standing in the TSBD doorway. There was no question but that it was Lovelady standing in the TSBD doorway (and, as has been pointed out, that’s what the collective testimony says, too. But I never relied on that, as the final determinant.) As to your article, and the posts on YouTube by your associate: Yes, I took the time to listen to the first, second and seventh-and I find them highly subjective and, ultimately, non-credible. These YouTube items are filled with “I see it. . therefore it’s a fact” kind of reasoning. In the seventh of the series, your associate goes on to state that he “sees” Ruby in the Altgens photograph, that Ruby was Oswald’s handler, and that this “Ruby” image (which he admits is the back of someone’s head, who he interprets to be Ruby) is signaling to Oswald that he should not be standing in the doorway, for all to see, like that. At that point, I said to myself: “Forget it. . I don’t have time to waste on this.” Years ago, someone with a good idea had to fight their way through a mess of editors and business people to get their book published. Today, anyone with any idea can (if they choose to) “self publish” and similarly, go on the Internet, or on YouTube and broadcast their various ideas and conceptions worldwide. So the “editorial” function devolves to each one of us as individuals to make judgments about what is credible, and what is not; because now, and because of the Internet, everything is “out there.” So yes, I have listened, I have read, and I don’t think there’s anything to the proposition the two of you are advancing. I do not believe that this particular Altgens photograph—which was distributed by wire rather early on, as I recall—was faked in any way. The “other” photographic evidence—the news clip frames posted here by Robin Unger, and the Martin Film frames--establishes that the man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady. The FBI needlessly complicated matters by posing him in a striped shirt, rather than the shirt which the news camera photographs unequivocally establish he was wearing that day. Had they done their job properly, this particular controversy would have been defused--if not resolved--a long time ago. DSL 1/27/12; 5:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Physical evidence, indeed. One postscript to the matter of this film clip: what I never understood--and do not to this day--was how the FBI, pursuing the matter of "Oswald in the doorway" (which had become a national news item, because of the work of JFK researcher Jones Harris, and the follow-up news story by New York Herald Tribune writer Don Bonafide) could possibly pose Lovelady in the wrong shirt. The picture showing Lovelady in the striped shirt (rather than the shirt he was actually wearing) fueled the fires of suspicion--for years. Once I discovered this film clip, I believed it settled the matter once and for all. But there is that one loose end. So. . .: Should any researcher come across any FBI memos or telexes that addresses this issue of why Lovelady was posed in the striped shirt, instead of the shirt these films obviously show he was wearing, I'd be interested in that issue. DSL 1/27/12; 2:45 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

((DSL Note: edited and supplemented at 2:40 PM, PST)). Thanks for posting this, Duncan. This is from the brief film cli I "discovered" when I was working on Executive Action in either late 1972 or 1973, held the position of "researcher" and was working with Ivan Dryer, who was the editor. We ordered film materials that were available from different film archives in New York City, and received this item (among many others). It was this particular clip that persuaded me that it was Lovelady in the TSBD "doorway" photo taken by Altgens. In this clip, the clock reads just a minute or two past 2 PM., and these detectives are accompanying Oswald as he is marched directly past Lovelady. I made individual 35 mm slides from frames from this film, showed them to Groden, and shared them with the HSCA. (There's an HSCA document that documents my meeting with one of the staff). Moreover, the Martin film, taken at Dealey Plaza, and showing Lovelady at or near the TSBD doorway, shows Lovelady wearing this same shirt--and that film is in full color. I believe that it was Groden who made that discovery. In my opinion, this film clip, taken just minutes after 2 P.M. (along with the Martin film) settled the matter once and for all. There was Lovelady, sitting right there, and it was plain as day what shirt he was wearing (and it certainly wasn't the striped shirt he had posed in for those FBI photos). I'm curious: what is the archival source for this photo, today? Again, thanks for posting it. DSL 1/27/12;6:20 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Like anyone else who has gotten involved in the Kennedy case, I, too, went through a period, many years ago, in which I believed that Oswald might be standing in the TSBD doorway, when the motorcade passed. Specifically, I went througha period of intense examination of the Altgens "doorway" photo (enlargements of which I ordered off the AP original negative). For awhile--and this is perhaps over 40 years ago--I was open to the belief that the "man in the doorway" was not Lovelady, but Oswald. However, during the period that I was employed by the film production company that made Executive Action (circa 1972-1973) I ordered every piece of film I could lay my hands on that was available in New York film libraries. One such strip showed Oswald being led into the Dallas Police Station, with a clock on the wall that said (from memory) 2:03, or 2:05, something like that.. In that same sequence, Billy Lovelady was sitting right there, in a sequence of frames. So there the two of them were--in the same film frame, and in similar (but certainly not identical) shirts. I immediately made still slides of that material, and furnished them to Robert Groden; I'm sure they have been published, and are available somewhere on the net. I believe I also made copies available to the HSCA, when I met with one of the staff around January, 1977. Ever since, there has been no doubt in my mind that the "doorway image" was, in fact, of Lovelady. (And of course, the Martin film later became available, which shows in vivid color the shirt that Lovelady was wearing.) (Now,I realize that I'm talking about the "Lovelady" image. . and not about any other. Still, I thought I'd relate the above experience). As to Oswald's statements to Fritz, I would not give them very much credence. Whateer Oswald was involved in--and many have different theories about that, and I'll have more to say about that in the future--he certainly did not expect to be arrested and charged in JFK's murder. So, from the time of his arrest onward, he made a series of statements designed to distance himself from the crime, and provide an alibi. Among Oswald's many statements, which function so as to distance himself from the crimem (again, from memory): --he was outside, with Shelly --he was eating lunch with a black man named "Junior" --he never ordered a rifle --he never owned or possessed a rifle --he didn't know anything about any "Hidell" --he didn't go to Mexico City --he brought curtain rods to work, or his lunch (depending on which version one uses) --he left work and went to the movies because,well, he thought there would be no further work that day --he brought a gun to the theater, but so what --all he did wrong was pop a police officer in the nose etc etc, , , , . In what I have called the "1967 view" of the JFK case (in which everything happens "after the fact") much of the above is believed; and Oswald is an innocent man (even an innocent dummie), who happens to be a Marxist, subscribes to the CP Daily Worker, tried to become a member of the Socialist Workers Party, and is, in short, what I have referred to as a "Perry Mason" defendant. In this "1967" (after the fact) view, all of this is right out of Kafka, and "Oswald knows nothing." And, oh yes, he asks for Attorney John Abt, who was a card carrying member of the Communist Party, and defends communists--simply because. . well, simply because. . . In short, he doesn't know anything, is really not in a position to defend himself, was there at the TSBD by accident and was just minding his own business, filling book orders, when the President happened to pass by; was then murdered in front of the building where he was employed, and then this terrible series of incriminating circumstances simply descended upon him. There's plenty of reason to have entertained all, or at least "some of the above," as a starting point--back in 1967. Again, and as I say, as a "starting point." But today its 2012. There's little excuse for taking everything that Oswald says as the truth, simply because he said it. There's little reason to think (for example), "Well, he denied going to Mexico; therefore, there must have been an imposter in Mexico." Or: "He denied owning a rifle, therefore, all of that is faked up, after the fact." Let me add, however, that I'm not arguing the "other extreme", either; i.e., that everything Oswald says is a lie. Far from it. For example: I take his denials that he shot the President seriously. But the art of solving this puzzle is to learn to distinguish truth, falsehood,and deliberate dissembling. And now, to the matter at hand: FWIW: I do not believe the hypothesis being advanced here. Specifically, and for the record, I do not believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway--with Bill Shelley, or anyone else--at the time the motorcade passed. I wish it were true--i.e., I wish the "solution" to this case were that simple. Unfortunately, its not. DSL 1/26/12; 9:50 PM PST Los Angeles, CA