Ray Mitcham

Note that the red (Black in this B&W photo) material bulging out above the black stripe on the pocket, with the cigarette packet behind it, showing that the top line of the pocket is above the black line not on it.

David, the polka dot dress worn by the woman running away from the scene was described as white with Black or Blue dots. not white dots. FWIW.

For the very last time, Sandy. The pocket is there in the Groden photo. You just can't see it. We can. Look at the photo at Bob's post 31.

Just watched it, Paul. Hilarious. Never seen it before. "Magic Loogie" Thanks for the laugh.

Your seeking out to prove me wrong was below the belt, Ray. Why didn't you just stop after I said Lamson doesn't count? Had you done so I wouldn't have called you out on this. I had no intention of proving you wrong. I was correcting your statement. But Lamson does count. Just because he is obnoxious, doesn't mean he is wrong. Ray, the spirit of my comment was that all those guys posting on the thread were letting Lifton's mistake -- in his momentous statement -- slide. Given that Lamson is an LNer who disagrees with EVERYTHING that contradicts the official story, I think it was fair for me to ignore him. When you pointed out that my statement was incorrect, why didn't you say something like, well yeah almost everybody let Lifton get away with his mistake. But Craig Lamson pointed it out. Instead your reply was like, sorry Sandy you are wrong. But you were wrong, Sandy. If you had travelled further into the topic you would have seen that several people agree with Lamson. Robin Unger, Pat Speer, James R Gordon and Dean Hagerman to name just a couple I have just found. For example, Hagerman says this "Well first of all Craig is not my "pal" we disagree on almost everything, however I respect Craig and his photographic skills So when I see something that Craig does that jumps out at me and says thats a great point and I agree with him then I will say it and back him up In this thread what he posted was a great example, for you to ignore that means you are just lying to yourself Did Jim happen to tell you that I am an alterationist and have backed Jim and his studies that I agree with up for years? It just so happens that on the subject of Lovelady Craig is correct and you and Jim are wrong It has nothing to do with whos team who is on or who believes in what, when it comes to the man in the doorway it is without question Lovelady "

"As Ray correctly posted, young Walter Kirk Coleman was an eye-witness and saw two men fleeing by car. This proves that LHO lied when he said he had no accomplices. This also proves that LHO lied when he said he was on foot. This also proves that LHO had no need to bury his rifle -- and actually LHO had no need to even use his rifle. There remains the strong likelihood that LHO used somebody else's rifle -- somebody who drove a car. " They prove nothing of the sort. That is your interpretation of the the facts.

Your seeking out to prove me wrong was below the belt, Ray. Why didn't you just stop after I said Lamson doesn't count? Had you done so I wouldn't have called you out on this. I had no intention of proving you wrong. I was correcting your statement. But Lamson does count. Just because he is obnoxious, doesn't mean he is wrong.

What's a "magic loogie", Paul?

Re the Walker shooting. Walter Kirk Coleman, a teen–age neighbor of General Walker, who saw two men flee the scene by car after the shot was heard. Oswald could not drive, and the Report said he was alone. Detective Ira Van Cleave, who participated in the original investigation of the Walker shooting and who told the press at that time that the bullet had been “identified as a 30.06,” which rules out Oswald’s Carcano rifle.

Looks like your determined not to see what's there, Sandy. I'm finished with the argument.

No way was that my intention. (Bit below the belt there, Sandy.) I was replying to your comment that "nobody" picked up Lifton's mistakes at the time. Lawson did. I have no love or truck with Lamson, but most times he is right when he discusses photography.

Or a good forger, Mark.

You can see the "break" in the line of the pocket in this photo.

The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet nobody disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos! Unfortunately the photos are now gone. Sorry, Sandy but in post 157 in the same topic, Lamson disagreed with him.. I don't count Lamson... he's an LNer who disagrees with every CTer. Find a CTer in the thread who disagrees with what Lifton said. You won't be able to. (Unless it's waaaayyyy later in the thread. I didn't go through the whole thing.) Lamson normally knows what he is talking about with photography. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

Sandy, can you see the vertical seam directly below the arrow? ps.the slight break in the line of the top pocket can also be seen in the colour photo.

The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet nobody disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos! Unfortunately the photos are now gone. Sorry, Sandy but in post 157 in the same topic, Lamson disagreed with him..

Thank you for agreeing with my comments. Re the pocket line - by changing the photo to B&W, you may be able better to see the side seam of the pocket(arrowed). If you zoom in on the photo you will see what seems to be the top of the pocket, just below the dots I have drawn, which is above the white stripes as you say. (note the slight break in the vertical line where the top of the pocket crosses the shirt front)

No problem, Ray. Post #1, this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19115 -- Tommy Thanks, Tommy. (You've just confirmed what I was worried about.)

Tommy, do you have the link for the DVD you mention? I've tried finding it in the original post but can't find the link. (Must be getting old)

bumped Howdy Bob, See post #142 by David Lifton. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697?&page=10 Turns out devious ol' Lovelady was wearing a very similar, but different, shirt for Groden in 1976. So Sandy was right, It's a different shirt. Big deal. Hmmm. Twelve or thirteen years between the assassination and when Groden took the photographs. Lovelady may very well have thrown out the original shirt by that time. Lovelady should have "fessed" up to Harris and Groden instead of trying to replicate the shirt, himself, without their realizing it. -- Tommy Lifton "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." Litton is wrong in saying the vertical stripes in both photos don't match. They do. In neither photo are the black stripes vertical on the body of the shirt, but they are on the sleeves. Litton was also incorrect in saying that the shirt in the Groden photo (the left of the two"Loveladys" shown above) did not have a breast pocket. I showed this to be the case several years ago. (Look at the photo and you can see the outline of the pocket to the right of the first stripe to the (our )right). If they are the only reasons, then Lifton is wrong. Unfortunately, at the moment I am unable to upload a photo showing this, as I can't access Photobucket where the photo is. I will post it as soon as I can. Ray, In a nutshell, do you think the two shirts ("Grodon's" and "Neanderthal Man's") are the same, or just very similar? -- Tommy In a nutshell, Tommy, IMO they are the same. To Sandy. Cinque is just barmy.

Lifton. " 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" Lifton is talking rubbish. The black stripes on the body of the shirt are horizontal, on both shirts. and the black stripes on the shirt sleeves are vertical on both. There are no vertical black stripes on either shirt body. He was also wrong about there being no pocket on the Groden shirt. You can see the outline of it in the Groden photo..

bumped Howdy Bob, See post #142 by David Lifton. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697?&page=10 Turns out devious ol' Lovelady was wearing a very similar, but different, shirt for Groden in 1976. So Sandy was right, It's a different shirt. Big deal. Hmmm. Twelve or thirteen years between the assassination and when Groden took the photographs. Lovelady may very well have thrown out the original shirt by that time. Lovelady should have "fessed" up to Harris and Groden instead of trying to replicate the shirt, himself, without their realizing it. -- Tommy Lifton "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." Litton is wrong in saying the vertical stripes in both photos don't match. They do. In neither photo are the black stripes vertical on the body of the shirt, but they on the sleeves. Litton was also incorrect in saying that the shirt in the Groden photo (the left of the two"Loveladys shown above) did not have a breast pocket. I showed this to be the case several years ago. (Look at the photo and you can see the outline of the pocket to the right of the first stripe to the(our )right). If they are the only reasons, then Lifton is wrong. Unfortunately, at the moment I am unable to upload a photo showing this, as I can't access Photobucket where the photo is. I will post it as soon as I can.

Quote by Sandy "You and Ray crack me up. You so much want that guy to be Lovelady that you don't believe your own two eyes and will make all kinds of excuses for the differences in looks." Why on Earth would I want the guy to look like Lovelady? I have no pet theory I am trying to prove. In the past, I have corrected fellow Conspiracy Truthers (e.g.Cinque) when they have said daft things which were obviously wrong. Looks like I still have to.

You forgot to add "IMO" IMO, it is. Ray, Unfortunately, Sandy doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that Lovelady was smoking while waiting to get back into the TSBD, and that amateur photographer John Martin filmed him slowly exhaling smoke through his mouth, and that this action caused Lovelady to jut his jaw out and grossly distort his face. If Sandy were to look at the two sets of horizontal white over black / black over white stripes near Lovelady's left armpit, and compare them with the same stripes in these two photos, he would realize that it's the same shirt, and that Cinque - Fetzer's "Neanderthal Man" and "Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair" are indeed Billy Lovelady. -- Tommy And the bald spot. Let's not forget the bald spot! Which you can just barely see the edge of in the FBI photo on the left, but which is plainly visible in the Martin / Hughes "Neanderthal Man" footage, as well as the Charles Buck "Dwarf Man Sitting In A Chair" footage (only snippets of which are viewable on this Forum, unfortunately).

You forgot to add "IMO" IMO, it is.