Vanessa Loney

"Buell, wanna go to the movies after?" "Yeah, Lee. I'll drive". (with thanks to BK). Mick Purdy on ROKC has been doing some interesting research into BWF's movements after the shooting. Turns out not is all as it seems.

I have seen a lot of masterful practitioners of this art in my time but you really are taking it to another level.

Thanks Robin. I have to say I can see a shadowy head behind Lovelady and someone standing to the left of that shadowy figure. Do you see anything or do I need glasses?

You are quite right Robin, There was not enough time to fake up the film. The problem for Prof. Fetzer is one the dogs most in academia. He has his head buried in books and figures and formulas all day and forgets how to just set down a spell, relax, empty the mind and see what enters those hallowed halls between the ears. I tried it with the Altgens conundrum to see what I could come up with.. now bear with me here,,,, the answer is... LATEX! It was Lovelady on the steps wearing a latex mask - taken - not from the real LHO - well, how could they (until he died!)? but from one of the Oswald doubles! You are quite right Robin, There was not enough time to fake up the film. The problem for Prof. Fetzer is one the dogs most in academia. He has his head buried in books and figures and formulas all day and forgets how to just set down a spell, relax, empty the mind and see what enters those hallowed halls between the ears. I tried it with the Altgens conundrum to see what I could come up with.. now bear with me here,,,, the answer is... LATEX! It was Lovelady on the steps wearing a latex mask - taken - not from the real LHO - well, how could they (until he died!)? but from one of the Oswald doubles! I have to say Greg, I don't know where you come up with these ground breaking ideas from. Astonishing. Where did you pull this one from?

Hi Robin Just to clarify ‘’Doorway Man” or “Door Man” is the name given by the research community to Billy Lovelady in the Altgens 6 photo. The name given by the research community to the figure behind Lovelady in Weigman is Prayer Man. Unless, of course, that is you are actually contending that Doorman (Lovelady) is also an Oswald imposter. In which case, that would make two Oswald imposters standing next to each other on the TSBD steps. That would appear to be overcompensation and not really the most strategic use of Oswald imposters by the plotters that day. But perhaps I'm confused.

Interesting observations Robin. I'll be interested to see how Mr Parker addresses them.

Thanks for posting that Mr Sorensen. It’s good to know we can count on your sensible approach to get us back on track when we wander off it. Apologies for the levity on here and that poor taste joke btw I hope it didn’t offend you. These floating heads of Oswald are remarkable. I think the one on the left is the most similar except that PM has his head turned more sharply to his left. In fact it looks to me like PM and BWF are looking at each other and maybe, even talking to each other.

:) But doesn't "Coke add life"? Apologies to all, that is a terrible, distasteful joke - which I completely disown.

The main reason I don't think it's Oswald. If anyone were standing there when the president were shot directly in front of him, he would stay there and look until he knew what had happened. He would not just say " what the hell, I need a Coke". The main reason I don't think it's Oswald. If anyone were standing there when the president were shot directly in front of him, he would stay there and look until he knew what had happened. He would not just say " what the hell, I need a Coke". Hi Kenneth Welcome to the EF. There are two responses to the point you make. The first is if you haven't already read this entire thread then I'd recommend you take the time to do that. The case that PM is Oswald is not made just on the basis of the films. Sean Murphy has put up first day newspaper reports, affidavits and other evidence that substantiates the entire argument and these really stand alone without the films of PM. Sean Murphy has also made a very good case that the 2nd Floor encounter with Oswald and Baker (when Oswald was supposedly holding the coke he was so keen for) never occurred. That this meeting between Oswald and Baker happened on the TSBD steps where Oswald was standing and that Oswald had obtained his coke, while on the way downstairs to the first floor, to have with his lunch out on the TSBD steps. To me it is just common sense he would travel downwards from the 6th floor to the 2nd to get the coke and then to the 1st and then the steps outside. Instead of going back inside and upstairs after he'd eaten, to get his drink. The second point is that by his own testimony Buell Wesley Frazier said that after the shots he went down to the basement of the TSBD and had his lunch alone - appetite unimpaired apparently. Does that make him the shooter instead of Oswald?

Thanks for clarifying that Barto. Unfortunately my hopeless browser won't let me view these but I take your word for what is on them.

Thanks Mark According to Robert Harris, Hughes sustained this damage while in the custody of the FBI. I would have thought that with a primary piece of evidence such as this that it should have been standard practice for whoever is viewing the film to make a few copies first and perhaps use them to slow the film down to have a look (and perhaps run the risk of burning it). That way the original would not have been completely damaged for all time so that no-one can see what is on it. And if there had been something on it (such as an unidentified individual in the TSBD doorway) the original film would have been preserved as evidence for a trial.

Thanks for that explanation Bart. And you’re right the shadows don’t match up or make sense. Connally’s hair really sticks out as being in different shadow to JFK’s. One would expect it to be the same as they are sitting on the same side of the car within inches/feet of each other. And at roughly the same height given JFK’s seat was slightly elevated compared to the jump seat. But we can clearly see a lot more of Connally’s hair in differentiated amounts of shade and sunlight. We don’t get the same pattern for JFK. In fact, as you say, given it was 12.30 and JFK is falling to his left one would expect the back of his head to be in full sunlight (with the sun being almost directly overhead at that time). But it’s not, it’s in almost full shade.

Thanks Clive Someone or something does seem to move behind Lovelady. Or is it Lovelady’s head ducking? So hard to tell. I’d also argue that damaged frame is about where we would expect to see PM in Hughes. The splodge seems to blot out JFK and then travel to the doorway to blot out PM. Just sayin’. I don’t really expect to see PM in a HQ Towner because as you say the back of the doorway seems to be completely black with no-one there. But we know there were people there. So what I would like is the opportunity for someone like Bart with photographic experience (J) to take that HQ Towner and show us the areas that have been blacked-out and perhaps even the brush strokes. The way he has just done with the back of JFK’s head in Zapruder in the “Oswald Leaving the TSBD” thread. Without having the HQ Towner available on the 6FM website it’s probably a lot harder for someone like Bart to do that. I guess that also brings me back to Bart’s posting on this thread of the Bernabei letter where Bernabei describes seeing a reddish shirt worn by PM in Hughes (and talks about Lovelady in the same frame). With the best will in the world I cannot see a reddish shirt on PM in Hughes. I can barely even see PM. So I’m wondering again what version of Hughes Bernabei was looking at that he could see a reddish shirt on PM. And more importantly what happened to that film?

Hi Barto These look great. Thanks for linking them here. One thing that is particularly interesting to me is that we can see that some strands of Jackie's hair are over her face from her right to her left in 4/5/6. If I'm not mistaken this is the part of Zapruder where the four passengers in the front of the limousine are flung forward whereas the Kennedys don't seem to move much at all. In fact it looks as though they are sitting in a different car to the rest of the passengers. But this hair over Jackie's face seems to indicate that she was flung forward at this time too and perhaps was holding onto the back seat and didn't move like the front 4 passengers did. This flung forward movement always seemed to me to be evidence of the brakes being slammed on at that time. Anyway I digress. You're not talking about the ear flap blob are you? The most I can see is a bit of purplish colouration in between JFK's hair on the left and the back seat of the limo. Is that what you are referring to? Can you be a bit more specific about where you are seeing the blowout 'cause I am still just seeing a black patch on the back of his head. Thanks for your views.

Thanks for posting this Clive. Do we also get a bit of PM sticking his head forward here or am I seeing things? Also is there a flash at the end of this gif? Something seems to flash. In regards to Lovelady and his shirt perhaps it's just the angle that the film was taken. Towner seems to be facing straight on to Lovelady while Weigman was turning past him to the left. Clearly it is still Lovelady - same shirt, same t-shirt, same hair and same Lovelady-look about him.

Just to clarify the news on the Towner film. The Museum will be getting a high resolution scan made of Towner. But they do not have enough server capacity nor budget to release all of their film collection items online in high resolution, this includes Towner. The high res scan will be available to be viewed in the Museum's reading room for free.

Thanks Bob And, lo and behold, Towner is going to be released to the public. Bob and Bart, do you have connections we don't know about? Anyway great work, keep it up. Can you ask for Weigman and Darnell next?

Hi Bart. It really does look like that doesn’t it. If Oswald was putting something in his pocket it can’t have been very large though because the pocket on his shirt is not that sturdy. Maybe a piece of paper? His bus transfer? J But I have to say I can’t get past the curled hands. He maintains the curled hands in both Weigman and Darnell – looking a bit like a boxer – so surely he was holding something that required 2 hands to hold it (or operate it) and couldn’t be put down easily. Or else we’d expect some change in the curled position of his hands, wouldn’t we? I’m also thinking that maybe the mark on his right wrist (that looks a bit like a watch) could possibly be a camera strap or a binocular strap? The picture of Oswald’s binoculars shows that they are all black (as are most binoculars I think). So wouldn’t we expect to see them show up as a black spot in the film rather than the bright light we see? How could it be reflecting light if it was black? Given the bright light issue I’m still sticking with a silver-ish camera that maybe has a strap on it?? Thanks for your thoughts.

So what's your final, bottom line take on all this, Robert? Was it Baker or Barnett running towards the TSBD in Darnell/Couch? Or neither? Hmmmm? OK then. What's your most current tentative conclusion? --Tommy So what's your final, bottom line take on all this, Robert? Was it Baker or Barnett running towards the TSBD in Darnell/Couch? Or neither? Hmmmm? OK then. What's your most current tentative conclusion? --Tommy Welcome back Tommy. How was your sabbatical?

Okay Bob, but I guess the key point out of all this is that none of them saw Baker and Truly either going in the back door or around the side of the building. You’ve still got to get those two into the building somehow. How are you going to do it my Canadian friend?

Actually that's 5 people who had sight of the back door (not 2). Officer Barnett, Sam Pate, George Rackley plus Romack and Worrel. Apologies for that.

Hi Bob A colleague who doesn't have time to post at the moment has suggested the following. I don't claim any credit for it. James Romack and James Worrel jr both had sight of the back door of the TSBD at the time of the shooting. Neither of them mentioned Baker running down Houston Street or entering the back door. William Weston wrote about them both in a piece called The Man in the Dark Sports Coat. "...James Romack, a truck driver for Coordinated Transportation3 had been watching the back door from the very moment the shots were fired. He did not cease watching it until after the police had arrived to seal off the building. He was angry that some fool could get away with putting forth such nonsense. To set the record straight, Romack contacted the authorities and told them exactly what happened. On the morning of Nov. 22, Romack had been working at the railroad yard. He had been conversing with co- worker George Rackley at a spot 100-125 yards from the rear side of the TSBD.4 The sirens of approaching motorcycles drew their attention to the crowds gathered at Houston and Elm. Shortly thereafter, Romack heard three rifle shots. Rackley, curiously enough, did not hear the shooting, as he was 60 at the time and it is possible that his hearing might have been somewhat impaired. He did, how-ever, notice a large flock of pigeons that rose up from the roof of the TSBD. The pedestrians near the TSBD were either falling to the ground or scattering. Conspicuous among them was the distinctive blue uniform of a policeman running along the sidewalk. He was headed towards the back area of the building. Romack told the FBI that he saw the policeman "within a minute" after the shooting.6 When he testified before the WC, he used the words "just immediately after."7 Since the meaning of the word "immediately" has some elasticity, we can thus conclude that the policeman was seen during a time period of not more than 60 seconds after the shooting. This time estimate was confirmed by the officer, W.E.Barnett.8 As he stood near the front of the Depository, he heard what sounded like three shots that came from up high. Barnett looked up and scanned the roof line for a gunman. If he was up there, he might try to make a getaway down a fire escape, of which there was one on the building's east side. Was there another one on the rear side? To find out, he made a dash for the back end of the building.9 No fire escape was on that side, but there was a back door that no one was guarding. He decided to position himself at a spot where he could keep an eye on both the fire escape and the back door. While he stood there, two young women opened the door and came out. Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles had been on the fourth floor, watching the parade from one of the windows.10 They heard gunfire as JFK's car disappeared behind a tree. To learn what happened, they ran down the back stairs and went out the back door. Adams estimated that she and her friend were going outside about a minute after the shooting. They were stopped by a policeman. "Get back into the building," he said. "But I work here," Adams pleaded. "That is tough, get back." ... When Romack saw the back door being guarded by an officer, he assumed a suspect might be coming out. (Neither he nor Barnett mentioned the exit of the two women, apparently attaching little significance to them.) After the officer left the rear door, Romack decided to take up the task of guarding the rear door himself. He continued the approach to the TSBD he began at the time of the shots, reaching a sawhorse barrier that crossed Houston St., located approximately 25 yards from the TSBD to block northbound traffic into a road construction zone.12 This barrier, as we shall see, is crucial to this study, for it is the means by which a reconciliation can be made between Romack's testimony and Worrell's. According to his statement to the FBI, Romack heard from somewhere behind him the sound of a car bouncing erratically over large chunks of asphalt. He turned and watched in amazement and disbelief as a shiny red 1963 Pontiac Catalina station wagon bumped and banged laboriously over the broken-up street. It followed the curve that joined Ross to Houston and stopped at the barrier on the other side of the railroad tracks.13 Painted on the side of the car was "KBOX Radio News." Two occupants were in the front seat. To give the news- men a helping hand, Romack walked in front of the barrier, and helped remove it to aid the car's access. In performing this task, Romack had tuned his back to the Depository.14 The car passed the barrier and parked about 15 yards from the n.e. corner of the building. (See map showing positions at 12:34 pm.) Romack said that the news vehicle arrived on the scene about 3 minutes after the shooting.15 His time estimate was confirmed by Sam Pate, one of the car's occupants. He said that the car came to a stop near the Depository about 4 minutes after the shooting.16 We can thus pinpoint its arrival between 12:33 and 12:34. The importance of this cannot be overstated, for this was also the same moment when Worrell saw the man in the dark sportcoat coming out the back door. The time span when Romack had turned his back to the building could not have been more than a couple of minutes, yet it only takes a few seconds for someone to dash out of a building and run down the street. What about other witnesses in the area, who had the door within their field of view? One man who said that no one came out was George Rackley.17 He did not close in as Romack had, but remained in his original location, over 100 yards from the TSBD. Although he would indicate he saw no one emerge, that does not necessarily prove that he had the rear door in focus the entire time. An indication of his distractibility is that fact that he missed the arrival, at a distance of 25 yards, of the KBOX news vehicle, accord-ing to his WC testimony. If his awareness of his surroundings was so limited that he failed to notice a wild feat of rugged-terrain driving only 25 yards away, how could his testimony be used to settle a controversy involving a relatively inconspicuous event over 100 yards away? No doubt the awesome panorama of crowds surging into the railroad yards was an overwhelming spectacle to Rackley, and it would be understandable if he did not notice such peripheral circumstances as the arrival of a news vehicle or the brief appearance of a solitary figure coming out of a building. Another witness who had the back door within his view was news reporter Sam Pate.18 From his vantage point inside the station wagon, he would have had an unobstructed view of the TSBD during that crucial moment when Romack had dropped his guard. Yet Pate did not have the same awareness of the TSBD as the source of the shots that Romack had. Pate's main concern then was finding out where the action was, and at 12:33 his attention would have been riveted on the onslaught of humanity into the parking lot and the railroad yards. Any latecomer to the scene would naturally assume that whoever fired the shots was not inside the building. (This consideration would also apply to the other occupant in the car, Josh Dowdell, who apparently made no statement about his observations.) The sum total of these considerations leads to the conclusion that there is no testimony strong enough which could effectively refute Worrell's contention that a suspect ran out the back door. The Man in the Dark Sports Coat by William Weston ... writing about James Worrel Jr. At 12:30 he could see the presidential limousine as it made its successive slow turns onto Houston and Elm Streets. He could not see the President well, how-ever, as the press of the crowd again defeated his purpose. When the limousine had gone 50 to 75 feet past him, he heard a shot that sounded like it came from above. He looked up and saw about six inches of a rifle projecting from either the fifth or sixth floor window--four inches of barrel extending from two inches of stock. [The Mannlicher-Carcano barrel extends five and one half inches from the stock.] Worrell looked down the street to see where the rifle was aiming. A second shot was fired and the President slumped down into his seat. Worrell again looked up and saw a small discharge of flash and smoke as the rifle fired again. At that instant he heard people screaming and others were yelling, "Duck." He sought cover by going around the corner of the TSBD. Just as he was rounding the corner, he heard a fourth shot.2 Continuing on towards the rear corner of the building, he turned right and crossed the street. Stopping to catch his breath at the s.e. corner of Houston and Pacific, he waited for perhaps two to three minutes, and then saw the man in the dark sportcoat come bustling out the back door, and run toward Houston and Elm, where he disappeared among other bystanders. Worrell watched him as long as he could, but after losing sight of him, he turned eastward and walked along Pacific St. Reaching his mother's office at Ross and Ervay, he took a bus from there to school, and then hitchhiked home." http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/sports~1.htm

Thanks for that update, good citizen Parker.

Tell me where you see Truly in the Wiegman film. Tell me where you see Truly in the Wiegman film. Apologies Bob, I meant Couch. Re-Canadian English. I'm surprised I thought all of us Commonwealth countries used the same spelling as the Brits. Although the truth is in Australia we commonly drop the 'u' these days and our spell checkers will kindly add in the 'z' for us instead of the 's'.

I have to say Bart, I think you've done a stellar job finding this gem. There is a lot in here that's astounding. Any chance you could give us some context about how and when it was written and who the correspondents are etc ? Just so we have it as part of the record? Please, Barto.