Ray Mitcham

Again -- the Walker bullet has nothing to do with the case against Lee Harvey Oswald in the Walker shooting. To keep raising it up again is to live in denial.

Marina Oswald could only tell what she was told by LHO, namely: (1) that he shot at Walker: (2) that he had no accomplices: (3) that he was on foot; and (4) that he buried his rifle.

Marina Oswald honestly reported those four claims -- but she had no idea that the last three claims were deliberate falsehoods by LHO himself.

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.

Why even bring LHO into this mess? Because LHO confessed to Marina -- because LHO wrote the Walker note (in Russian) and because LHO created the BYP forgeries at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall -- because LHO was a CIA wannabe.

CIA Agents don't get made into Patsies. CIA wannabes do.

Regards

--Paul Trejo

"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.

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.

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.

Not to mention the 'magic loogie' on Seinfeld.

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.

I'm no "expert witness," but the HIDELL part of the signatures look enough alike to have been done by the same hand...IMHO.

Or a good forger, Mark.

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

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

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.

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

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..

Ray,

Earlier today I looked at the Groden photo of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt. I could see the stitching for the pocket, which confirmed what you'd said in the other thread.

Now, because of this new topic created by Tommy, I again found that photo. Because I wanted to confirm what you said about the black stripes, which contradicts what Lifton said. I found what you said to be correct.

Now, here's the interesting thing... in that same photo I looked again for the pocket stitching and..... wait for it..... they are not there!

Can you see the stitching? (BTW, the Groden photo is on the right.)

(Click the photo to enlarge, then hold Ctrl down and push + several times to enlarge.)

The top of the pocket is supposed to be right above the white line that is just above the button.

I distinctly remember that the top of the pocket was about 1/4" above the white line.

I don't know what to make of this, other than I looked at two different copies of the photo. It's like somebody did a little altering to make a (factually incorrect) point.

Ray,

Earlier today I looked at the Groden photo of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt. I could see the stitching for the pocket, which confirmed what you'd said in the other thread.

Now, because of this new topic created by Tommy, I again found that photo. Because I wanted to confirm what you said about the black stripes, which contradicts what Lifton said. I found what you said to be correct.

Now, here's the interesting thing... in that same photo I looked again for the pocket stitching and..... wait for it..... they are not there!

Can you see the stitching? (BTW, the Groden photo is on the right.)

(Click the photo to enlarge, then hold Ctrl down and push + several times to enlarge.)

The top of the pocket is supposed to be right above the white line that is just above the button.

I distinctly remember that the top of the pocket was about 1/4" above the white line.

I don't know what to make of this, other than I looked at two different copies of the photo. It's like somebody did a little altering to make a (factually incorrect) point.

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)

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)

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)

Disregard Cinque's words here, but please note the just-visible "dot" (hair?, mole?) at the left edge of Lovelady's eyebrow in the "1957" photo. I'm talking about his left eyebrow on "our" right. -- Tommy

We can see the same "dot" in both of these images:

-- Tommy

So now all we've got to do is figure out what Shelley did after he walked over to the "island" about 20 seconds after the assassination, and what Lovelady did after he ran down Elm Street Extension to the the railway yard / parking lot (if he made it that far).

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..

Disregard Cinque's words here, but please note the just-visible "dot" (hair?, mole?) at the left edge of Lovelady's eyebrow in the "1957" photo. I'm talking about his left eyebrow on "our" right. -- Tommy

We can see the same "dot" in both of these images:

-- Tommy

So now all we've got to do is figure out what Shelley did after he walked over to the "island" about 20 seconds after the assassination, and what Lovelady did after he ran down Elm Street Extension to the the railway yard / parking lot (if he made it that far).

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.

[...]

The guy on the right [in John Martin's film of the people standing on the TSBD steps, apparently waiting to get back into the building] is not Lovelady.

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).

Ray, this one, on the right:

The guy on the right is not Lovelady.

You forgot to add "IMO"

IMO, it is.

Is this one (the one on the right) from another video? Or is it a still?

Ray,

Will you tell which post number has the video you're referring to? I don't see this particular frame in the video that I saw posted above.

Apologies, Sandy. I thought it was from that video. I've had it so long in my records that I can't remember which video it is from. Does it matter as it is obviously from the same place at the same time?

Yes, it does matter, Ray.

Why?

Because not all of us accept that these different plaid-shirt wearing guys are Lovelady. And in fact, one of them is clearly, without a doubt, not Lovelady.

The more evidence there is, the more likely it is that important clues can be discovered.

Do you dispute that the photo I posted was taken at the same time as the video shown above? If not, why not?

Which one do you think is not Lovelady?

Is this one (the one on the right) from another video? Or is it a still?

A still from the above video, Sandy.

Ray,

Will you tell which post number has the video you're referring to? I don't see this particular frame in the video that I saw posted above.

Apologies, Sandy. I thought it was from that video. I've had it so long in my records that I can't remember which video it is from. Does it matter as it is obviously from the same place at the same time?

Yes, it does matter, Ray.

Why?

Is this one (the one on the right) from another video? Or is it a still?

A still from the above video, Sandy.

Ray,

Will you tell which post number has the video you're referring to? I don't see this particular frame in the video that I saw posted above.

Apologies, Sandy. I thought it was from that video. I've had it so long in my records that I can't remember which video it is from. Does it matter as it is obviously from the same place at the same time?

Oswald had an apple in his lunch pack. In the Doorway photo, could the bright "cup"/camera" be him eating his apple after his sandwich?

Is this one (the one on the right) from another video? Or is it a still?

A still from the above video, Sandy.