Sandy Larsen

Thanks Ian. FWIW, I think we can see his white t-shirt under his outer shirt. --Tommy the xxxxx Right. And here is his outer shirt:

LOL Actually Tommy, the thought did occur to me that the guy in the Alyea film hiding behind the boxes is indeed Oswald! I plan on forming an organization called the OSWALD ON THE SIXTH FLOOR CAMPAIGN. Or maybe OSWALD IN THE SNIPER'S NEST. The premise will be, could an assassin be so stupid as to hide out in the very spot from which he took the shot?

Well that's interesting. You were Undecided before, but now you're No. Robert's compelling argument, huh? Don't trust your eyes ... Nope... I don't trust yours! ... if you're sure Lovelady wore that plaid shirt. ...enough to say that it could be Shelley? How about Lovelady? Admittedly it could be Shelley and Lovelady, if only it weren't for the other evidence that conflicts. I don't either, if you can't see that Lovelady's wearing a plaid shirt. Do you think that's a Lovelady impostor smoking a cigarette outside the TSBD several minutes after the assassination in the Martin and Hughes films, or in the film where he's sitting in a chair, watching them bring Oswald into the the office? The guy out front, smoking, in the plaid shirt, looks nothing like Lovelady... other than similar male pattern baldness. In addition, when I studied this closely some time ago, I noticed that the pocket on the shirt magically changed. I can't remember how, exactly. The pocket disappeared. Or maybe it was the flap on it. Inexplicable. And that makes me question any others wearing that shirt. Even Lovelady said, in the beginning, that he didn't wear that shirt. I have no explanation for it. --Tommy

[deleted] (Sorry for taking the thread back off topic Tommy.)

Robert, If you get a chance, please take a look at my response to your post over on Duncan's Prayer Woman thread. Page 14, post 196. If you haven't already. I fear it may have gotten lost in the argument going on over there. Here's a link: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22524&page=14

Wow, that really does look like Lovelady. But damn... I wish he had his shirt on. Plaid or striped... plaid or striped ... plaid or striped ... Sandy, The deceased Gary Mack claimed that this is Lovelady and that you can make out some of the plaid pattern in his shirt. I don't know if Gary had seen a better copy of the film, or if he had seen it in just a split second of this one, but I think Gary was an honest man, and I believe what he said about this. I don't think he was "disinfo" like I am. LOL --Tommy PS I think the direct sunshine coming through the window behind "Lovelady" caused photographic over exposure of the guy's shirt, which made it look a lot lighter in color than it really was, and also "washed out" any plaid pattern it might have had. Oh my goodness... I'm sorry Thomas, but I just can't buy that the guy is wearing that bright plaid shirt. If that shirt were washed out, surely the guy's face would be too. I think Gary Mack's eyes must have been going bad.

Wow, that really does look like Lovelady. But damn... I wish he had his shirt on. Plaid or striped... plaid or striped ... plaid or striped ...

I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.) A quick comment about Lovelady's handwritten same-day affidavit. http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's interesting to note that he went to the trouble to write in his affidavit that his lunch period was from 12 noon to 12:45. Even though it was probably true (I haven't taken the time to verify it), I don't understand why he felt it necessary to include that information in his affidavit. Did Lovelady expect the investigators to believe that he and Shelley had strictly observed their 45-minute lunch period on that exceptional day, i.e., that the moment "when it was over" just happened to coincide with the official end of their lunch period? What exactly was "all over" when they "returned to work"? Since we all know that the assassination occurred around 12:31, if Lovelady and Shelley really did go back to work at 12:45, what had they been doing during the previous 14 minutes or so? Of Truly's other employees, who else actually went back to work at 12:45 besides Lovelady and Shelley? Anyone at all? Lovelady originally wrote, "After it was over we went back into the building and went back to work." Edit: Sandy, if you read the sentence above you will realize that your recent interpretation of what Lovelady meant by the phrase "went back into the building" is incorrect. For the simple reason that if he had meant what you think he did by that phrase, then he wouldn't have written as long of a sentence as he actually did write, i.e., he would simply have written "After it was over we went back into the building." In the sentence he did write, he is telling us two things: 1 ) They went back to work, 2 ) after they went back into the building (as opposed, I suppose, to their immediately going back to work on some (admittedly silly) project outside the building.) Yes, you're right. I actually realized I'd made that mistake earlier today when I was studying (again) Lovelady's statement. I thought that all he'd said was "After it was over we went back to work." Which I interpretted as their going back inside, where he works. I don't have any idea why he scratched off the "back to work" part. Then for some strange reason he put a hard-to-see, elevated but not inserted "I" above the word "and", crossed out "went back to work" and inserted in its place, "took some police officers up to search the building." I firmly believe that his final, edited sentence was meant to read, "After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers up to search the building." This is what I think happened: He wrote that they went inside and went to work. Because... who knows... maybe they did do a little work, or tried to, or knew they should be working. He then decided not to say that at all, so he crossed it off and instead said he helped some policemen. Which I assume is true. After the statement was finished, he proof-read it and realized he had forgotten to write the word "I." So he inserted it by writing it above where he meant it to be. He didn't know how to use an insertion mark. There's a huge difference between the two sentences. I thought I'd mention it because I honestly don't "get it." And I think it smells a bit fishy. Oh... I know what you're getting at! By "went to work" Lovelady meant that they went to work on the plan to frame Oswald, etc., etc. LOL, yeah it does sound fishy. But I think Lovelady would have to be a Maxwell Smart to make a mistake like that! It raises some important questions. For example, what exactly was Shelly doing while Lovelady "took some police officers up to search the building"? Working? Honestly I'd be surprised if anybody did any work following the assassination. But who knows what guys like Shelly were doing. Anybody's guess. Guarding one of the rear elevators (as he was allegedly ordered to do by his boss, Truly) before he, in turn, assigned that job to Jack Dougherty and went upstairs, himself? --Tommy bumped because Sandy obviously hadn't read this edited version when he responded to the pre-edited original

The 1960 FRB circular stated, "and with respect to matters not coveredby such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders." This seems like rather odd language to use if the Agreement were "published in operating circulars" as you suggest. I don't feel a burden to "prove you wrong" because you are simply making an assumption that is, on its face, inconsistent with the FRB circular. The Agreement is virtually irrelevant to the topic at hand. What is relevant is what commercial banks were instructed to do in 1963. And through FRB operating circulars, banks were instructed to endorse cash items. Postal money orders were in 1963, and still are, considered to be cash items in FRB operating circulars. Your logic here is badly flawed: "The operating circular and the documents it referenced stated that cash items must be endorsed, and PMOs were included within the definition of cash items; ergo, PMOs had to be endorsed." But the same operating circular stated that it and the documents it referenced applied to PMOs unless the Agreement was to the contrary. The Agreement thus was the controlling document and can scarcely be dismissed as irrelevant. If there was something in The Agreement that indicated PMO's did not require bank endorsements, and yet this wasn't stated in the operating circular, how would presenting banks know that that was the case? Regardless, it makes no sense that something in The Agreement pertaining to commercial bank requirements would not be published in the operating circular. And that is the reason I conclude that such things were (and still are) indeed published in operating circulars. Your reasoning is hypothetical at the expense of being practical. Or logical. I happen to doubt that the Agreement did say anything explicitly about the endorsement of PMOs. My belief is that it didn't need to, because the concept of a bank "endorsing" a PMO would have been understood by all concerned to be as goofy as bank endorsing a $5 bill. If that were so, then how do you explain the fact that bank endorsements have most definitely been required on PMOs at certain times where I was able to find the requirement? For example, in the United States Official Postal Guide of 1925 the requirement is found on page 95: "27. Payments to Banks - When an [postal money] order purporting to have been properly receipted by the payee, or indorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterwards appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank." And if it is so goofy, why is there an area on the back of PMOs for bank stamps along with a statement to the effect that bank endorsements don't count toward the one endorsement rule? I now do not believe that the bulk submittal of PMOs with a single "endorsement" of some sort is the answer. Yesterday I discovered an FRB circular (from 1966, I believe) stating that the FRB reserved the right to require PMOs to be segregated in a separate envelope if they became too voluminous. This suggests that the typical procedure was for PMOs to be placed in a transmittal envelope together with other cash items. See how reasonable and flexible I am? Food stamp coupons have likewise been processed as cash items since 1961. Interestingly, the way banks were to process them was specified by the Department of Agriculture, which could suggest that the Postal Service rather than the Federal Reserve did indeed specify how PMOs were to be processed. As described in FRB of New York circular 5760 (January 18, 1966), the procedure for food stamp coupons was as follows: a. Coupons accepted for redemption must be cancelled by the first bank receiving the coupons by indelibly marking "paid" or "cancelled" together with the name of the bank or its ABA routing symbol-transit number on the face of the coupons by means of an appropriate stamp. The coupons should not be endorsed by any bank. Good thing the requirement was printed in an FRB operating circular, and not just in some agreement between the Department of Agriculture and the FRBs. Otherwise banks wouldn't know to do this. Food stamp coupons may not be directly analogous to PMOs, but there are similarities. Both are issued by a federal agency and are complete when issued. All the issuing federal agency needs to know is that they have been properly used and are now out of circulation. The concept of "endorsement" (other than by the payee in the case of a PMO or the user in the case of a food stamp coupon) really makes no sense in this context. I am with Hank in believing that the Klein's deposit stamp stating "Pay to the order of" FNB is all that we should expect to see. The regulations provide that the "presenting bank" (FNB) guarantees the genuineness of all endorsements, so FNB would have been on the hook if it did nothing but present the PMO to the regional FRB. If the payee had not been an FNB customer and had simply shown up at a teller's window to cash the PMO, then presumably we would have seen both an endorsement by the payee and a "Paid" stamp by FNB to confirm that the PMO had been paid and not merely endorsed; the "for deposit only" restrictive endorsement by Klein's was sufficient to show that the PMO had been paid. Regarding the court case I had found (300 posts ago) to the effect that a PMO had been "endorsed" by a bank, UNITED STATES v. CAMBRIDGE TRUST COMPANY, 300 F.2d 76 (First Circuit 1962), I now realize that I was wrong in my understanding (gasp!). In that case, the original payee of a PMO had endorsed it to a second payee, who had in turn deposited it in his bank. The second payee's bank, which was not a member of the FR, had stamped the PMO with its "clearing house stamp" and sent it to an FR-member bank, which then transmitted it to the regional FRB. In this situation, one can hopefully see why a stamp by the intermediary bank was necessary - and why no such stamp would be needed if the PMO were deposited directly with an FR-member bank such as FNB, which then presented the PMO directly to the regional FRB. Huh? I thought that the idea of a bank endorsing a PMO was as goofy as endorsing a $5 bill. That sucking sound you hear is the wind leaving the sails of those who persist with the "missing endorsement" nonsense. Where are all those folks who were so confident of their positions (and John Armstrong's impending neutron bomb of clarification) 300 posts ago? I admire Sandy's efforts to explore every nook and cranny of this issue, but surely it is time to give up the "missing endorsement" fight? Lance, what I believe is supported by official documents. What you believe is speculative. Show me some convincing evidence and I'll change my position. EDIT: Changed the phrase "my mind" to "my position."

Robert, Please see my post #144 on this page: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22524&page=10#entry320924 I have a question for you that's related to this topic. Thanks

Hank, Endorsements have more than one purpose. One is the guaranty that you point out is considered to be in place regardless of whether or not an express guaranty is included in the endorsement. Another purpose is to indicate the ABA and address of the sending bank. It is apparently for non-guaranty purposes that the bank endorsement is required. BTW, keep in mind that whatever you interpret from that paragraph in the FRB operating circular, it will be applicable not only to postal money orders but to checks as well. Don't you remember way back when, when we were all young, that virtually every check had bank endorsements stamped on them? According to the operating circular cited, the same should have been true of PMOs as well. (Though, beginning with the PMOs of 1963, an FRB stamp appeared on the front side of the PMO in the form of a file locator number. This may well have been the only FRB stamp to appear on those PMOs. We don't know for certain.) Are you saying checks don't require bank endorsements any more, Sandy? If that's true, perhaps you might want to consider why they don't. It looks like we might finally be beginning to head in that direction, now that people can deposit checks by sending a photo of it over the Internet. Think about it... how does a bank stamp a photograph? But we may NOT be heading in that direction. I say that because I saw some of my checks that appeared to have been sent from a local bank to a national one via photo, and they actually had bank endorsements photographically applied to their backs. I could tell that the stamping was done photographically because the background of the "photo-stamp" covered up text that is printed on the back side of the checks. In fact, as I understand it, you don't even have to stand in line and deposit a check anymore. You can just submit a photo of your check to the bank, and that will work as well. Imagine that. Now, in the early 1960's, what changed in regards to postal money orders, and why? The US government was (slightly) ahead of the technological curve. They chose hole-punching as a way of making computer automation possible. This began around 1958. Meanwhile, around the same time, the ABA introduced the magnetic ink standard that banks still use today. (Maybe you've noticed the futuristic-looking numbers printed at the bottom of checks. They are printed with magnetic ink that can be read by machines.) I think it was in the 1970s that the US government switched PMOs over to the magnetic ink standard. Wasn't the whole point of the changes to be able to bulk-process money orders, rather than manually handle each one, to speed up transaction times? Wasn't it to get people out of the loop and let the computers do it? Hence the IBM punch-card format, so that the information on the money order was machine-readable? What's the point of putting in all these changes to make them machine-readable and speed up processing time .... I don't know. But bank endorsement is still being done, even on photographically sent items. if you're still going to process them manually, and hand-stamp them every step of the way? They aren't processed and stamped manually. It is done by machine. Hank

But how can we (or anybody) possibly KNOW for certain it was never done that way in circa 1963? For one, we have the actual FRB requirements as spelled out in their operational circulars. There is no mention of allowing banks to do what you are suggesting. Not for PMOS, not for checks. The ONLY example of a photograph showing a U.S. Postal Money Order that has been (allegedly) cashed, deposited, and fully processed in circa 1963 is the CE788 "Hidell" money order. Lance found an example from the 1960s where money orders were bank-stamped. A court case. No photographs, but the bank stamps were clearly noted in the text.

I saw that. Is it a strong indication of "not original card stock", as Armstrong suggests, given what you know now? Hank Nope. Now, the bleed-thru we see is strong indication that the PMO was processed to reveal fingerprints. Allow me to give a demonstration that shows how it is I can believe what Armstrong said was originally correct, but no longer is: SCENARIO ONE I give my five-year old daughter an 8 1/2 x 11 inch piece of card stock for a poster project she's been assigned in school. Later, I see the back side of her project on the floor, and all her writing has bled through. That is a strong indication that she ended up making her poster with regular printer paper rather than the card stock. SCENARIO TWO My daughter was kidnapped. I see, for the first time, her poster at the police station. I see only the back side, and that all her writing has bled through. That is a strong indication that the police have processed the poster in search of fingerprints. My point here is that context matters.

But it's a solution to the "problem" that makes the most sense, IMO. It makes a lot of sense. But there is no indication (that I have seen) that it was ever done that way.

I find Robert's argument compelling enough that I'm changing my vote to... NO, SHELLEY AND LOVELADY ARE NOT WALKING DOWN ELM ST. EXTENSION I'm not certain Lovelady even wore a plaid shirt that day, as the guy in the Couch/Darnell enlargement appears to be wearing. P.S. I'm not convinced that Altgens 6 shows Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt. (What others think is Lovelady's plaid left sleeve is, IMO, Carl Jones' raised right forearm and hand.) And I'm not sure the guy wearing the red plaid shirt in some films is Lovelady. I think he might be, as of now, unidentified.

The paragraph I am looking at says all that's necessary is an endorsement TO the bank. And we have that in the Kleins stamp. It goes on to say that "The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement." In other words, the FRB will accept money orders without any additional endorsements, and it's understood that the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guarantee that the prior endorsements are valid on the part of the submitting bank (in this case, The First National Bank of Chicago. Endorsements 13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides. ​You are correct that the money order doesn't have any additional endorsements. But per the language above, I'm not seeing where it needs any, as the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guaranty that the sending bank (in this case, First National of Chicago) guarantees the item is valid. Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name? It appears the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO no longer exists. http://www.nndb.com/company/096/000124721/ Hank ​ Hank, Endorsements have more than one purpose. One is the guaranty that you point out is considered to be in place regardless of whether or not an express guaranty is included in the endorsement. Another purpose is to indicate the ABA and address of the sending bank. It is apparently for non-guaranty purposes that the bank endorsement is required. BTW, keep in mind that whatever you interpret from that paragraph in the FRB operating circular, it will be applicable not only to postal money orders but to checks as well. Don't you remember way back when, when we were all young, that virtually every check had bank endorsements stamped on them? According to the operating circular cited, the same should have been true of PMOs as well. (Though, beginning with the PMOs of 1963, an FRB stamp appeared on the front side of the PMO in the form of a file locator number. This may well have been the only FRB stamp to appear on those PMOs. We don't know for certain.)

David, Bulk deposits like that have been made for at least the last fifty years. (Much longer than that, but I mean with the technology of the 1960s in place.) And checks are still being individually endorsed. So you're not making a good argument. Plus you haven't shown anything that indicates that bulk deposits didn't require individual bank stamps. You're just speculating it to be the case... and that is in spite of the evidence showing otherwise.

The 1960 FRB circular stated, "and with respect to matters not coveredby such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders." This seems like rather odd language to use if the Agreement were "published in operating circulars" as you suggest. I don't feel a burden to "prove you wrong" because you are simply making an assumption that is, on its face, inconsistent with the FRB circular. The Agreement is virtually irrelevant to the topic at hand. What is relevant is what commercial banks were instructed to do in 1963. And through FRB operating circulars, banks were instructed to endorse cash items. Postal money orders were in 1963, and still are, considered to be cash items in FRB operating circulars.

In neither case did the person say anything had been proven. Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru: "NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation." Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it. No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time. Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he? There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is. Doesn't it? Hank The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so. The quote I saw was: "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong That is wrong. Right? Hank It is incorrect to state that the bleed-thru was due to the postal money order being printed on paper thinner than the original card stock that PMOs at the time were printed on. The bleed-thru was instead caused by a chemical bath that was used for detecting fingerprints. That was testified to by a witness before the WC. I forget the man's name. Here is video that shows the process: http://science.wonderhowto.com/how-to/reveal-latent-fingerprints-paper-other-surfaces-302464/

In neither case did the person say anything had been proven. Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru: "NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation." Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it. No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time. Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he? There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is. Doesn't it? Hank The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so. The quote I saw was: "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong That is wrong. Right? Hank Hank, DVP and I already had a mini-debate over the use of the words like "appears" and "indicates." If you care to read the debate, it begins at post 295 on this page: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&page=20

I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.) A quick comment about Lovelady's handwritten same-day affidavit. http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's interesting to note that he went to the trouble to write in his affidavit that his lunch period was from 12 noon to 12:45. The impression I got when I read that was that he was saying why it was that the employees were given the time off to watch the procession. Read the sentence that follows, about all the employees leaving the 6th floor to watch, My question is, why were there (apparently) so many employees on the 6th floor? Even though it was probably true (I haven't taken the time to verify it), I don't understand why he felt it necessary to include that information in his affidavit. Did Lovelady expect the investigators to believe that he had strictly observed his 45-minute lunch period on that exceptional day, i.e., that the moment "when it was all over" just happened to coincide with the official end of his lunch period? What exactly was "all over" when he "returned to work"? I took that as meaning when the commotion outside was all over. Since we all know that the assassination occurred around 12:31, if Lovelady really did go back to work at 12:45, what had he been doing during the previous 14 minutes or so? Of Truly's other employees, who else actually went back to work at 12:45? Anyone at all? Was Lovelady's saying he "went back to work" just an innocent, unconscious, habit-based, colloquial expression of his for "reentered the building"? When he aid "went back to work," I think he meant went back inside the building. That is where he works. I thought I'd mention it because I honestly don't "get it." And I think it smells a bit fishy. I think it sounds like a young person talking. Seems very innocent to me. --Tommy

I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.)

Kirk & Jon, To me there isn't a smoking gun either. However, there is another way of looking at this if you believe the CIA were the plotters of the asassination. I do believe the CIA were the plotters... elements of it, that is. So this "other way of looking at it" works for me. Take all the POWERFUL people who hated Kennedy and conceivably wishes he were dead. Which of those people would have the influence over the CIA necessary to get them to plot something like this? Dulles immediately comes to mind. In other words, the "other way of looking at it" is that it narrows the field down. Considerably. That Dulles sought to be on board the WC; yet had been fired from the position he cherished most by the very man he's supposed to be looking after; AND never misses a single meeting... well that tells me a lot!

Sandy, Oh, you mean "Not Marina's Husband" aka The Guy Ruby Didn't Shoot" -- Harvey Lee Henry Oswald. --Tommy Yeah, I guess so. I just don't think the guy in the inset photo looks like Oswald. But he does look like the guy at Ruby's club in the photo.