Richard Price

For many of you on the forum, this may be old news, but I just stumbled upon some old videos posted on YouTube and discovered what I think is a great resource of information on the JFK assassination, the military industrial complex and everything that has transpired in the US since WWII. I will give, for reference the particular episode I just watched, but I think there are many more to be found (simply due to the title of this episode). YouTube JFK #13: The Torbitt Document-Johnson, Hoover and the FBI Romero Institute posted 10 years ago The Harvard professor making the presentation is Daniel Sheehan, though his name is nowhere to be found except through searching "The Romero Institute", of which he is a/the founder He has also appeared on some podcasts (again with no references to his name.

The only thing I have to add to this conversation is that, as an American, you are presumed innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Regardless of all the bantering back and forth about whether LHO was in some way working/affiliated with any of the intelligence agencies, it is completely irrelevant. I do not believe he could have been proven guilty immediately after the act and with the revelations since that time, I am absolutely sure he could not be proven guilty now. Just my honest opinion, you may feel otherwise, but I think it would be far more satisfying to see hard evidence to the contrary. Thanks to all who study this obfuscation of truth.

I don't know what everyone else sees and can't do the fairly complex math to account for the angular differences, but the thing that catches my attention is this: Jackie (I think is quoted/attributed at some point) with saying she retrieved a portion of her husband's head. In the Nix film, her right hand can be seen (I believe) to reach the raised portion of very rear of the center of the trunk where she appears to grab the piece of brain/scalp matter which has been sliding rearward. This seems to me to mean that her right hand at least, reached the absolute rear edge of the trunk before she began moving back towards the rear seat. She seems to reach the most rearward position, grasp the fragment, then begin to reverse direction before Clint Hill begins to push her the same direction.

For a good look at how he leaned out the window, do a search for "Gerald Hill leaning out TSBD window".

The one thing I notice has nothing to do with this discussion. If Lovelady is standing straight and his head is straight (both appear to be true), in his face forward photo his left ear appears somewhat smaller and the top seems elevated above the level of the right ear. A straight line from the top (and bottom) across his face is slanted upwards to the left.

Jonathan, on the surface your reasoning seems (and is sound). My question would be, How many of these photos/films have been "passed through" various agencies (CIA ["Time-Life"]/FBI/HSCA), examined,studied or in other ways and out of the hands of the owners. I think all or virtually all were. If the CIA was involved (I think they were), those at the top of the conspiracy to kill would be the same ones who could oversee the gathering and censorship of the visual evidence. Those not involved would/could be manipulated by use of the "state secrecy" and internal classification. After all, you wouldn't want to start WWIII by revealing something told to you by the top members of the intelligence agencies (especially in the 1960's/cold war era). Once changes/edits/splices, etc. are in place you can't go back to the originals and no one has anything more than a memory that the photo/film somehow looks different than it did originally. I have seen, heard or read many accounts of the people having made the photos or films saying their memory of what they sent in is slightly different from what was returned. Also, many were simply returned "damaged" by those darn professionals that handled the materials while in "official hands". I feel this accounts for possible alteration in the (Keep It Simple Stupid/Ocams Razor) method. Just my opinion though.

No, Alan that is not it. In the slowed down clips, the figures appear in the most rightward panned frame. The Lovelady left profile is all the way against the edge of the frame 3/4 of the way up and the character who appears to me to be Oswald is the one who has been altered in other films to appear to be the "leaning Lovelady". The unknown individual being debated (about being a woman/Oswald) is to the left and behind in the shadows. I had never noticed the individual to the extreme right having the appearance of Lovelady and had assumed the figure in the center was B F Frazier. Your photo used to ask Andrej to explain the body orientation showed me that this figure was NOT Frazier, but Oswald, due to the Lovelady figure showing up only a few frames away in the extreme right had portion of the frame.

Alan and anyone else interested: The last clip in the above message shows Billy Lovelady in left profile on the extreme right (as viewing) near the top of the landing looking directly west from a position on the right side of the steps with what to me appears to be Lee Oswald towards the center (being represented as Lovelady) in the open top shirt with t-shirt showing.

Just a comment on Andrej's depiction: The Lovelady figure has the coloration for the shirt extending over the raised and outstretched arm and body of Carl Jones and even cuts under his (CJ's) chin. In my studies of this picture, I have found quality copies which show CJ's arm extends all the way up to the folded collar on "Lovelady's" left side and CJ's chin is almost touching his arm. This coloration causes undue distortion and confusion of the figure's posture/position. Andrej has done much to assist in understanding this photo, but this coloration of the shirt needs to be addressed.

Here is a link to a much better copy. Licensed image, however. https://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/uutiskuva/lee-harvey-oswald-passport-uutiskuva/576878118

This picture has always intrigued me. I have no idea who the woman is and have never really noticed her. The man, however looks to me to be the umbrella man. He appears to have a grip on an umbrella in his left hand which extends in a downward angle to the left and also towards his back at an upward angle.

Thanks, Denny. I made the comment out of respect for DSL. Since I always looked forward to reading his responses (or even better, his posts), I always chuckled to myself when I saw him doing the same to others and even coming back to check/correct his own posts. I think it was in his genes also. While I do not normally point out such errors to others posting/responding on the forum, (except to under my breath to myself), I thought it might be OK to do so in respect to a post about him when he doesn't have the ability to do so any longer. You took the comment the way I intended it, there was no malice intended.

Roger, nice post. I do have to say though, you need to go back and make a number of corrections of DSL's name. His name is given as Lipton quite a few times. Sorry, it's in my genes, I proofread/spellcheck constantly (a little OCD, I think).

Vince (and all), I will not debate Hill's foot as I do not have a position on what is going on at this point. You and others have, I hope realized that in the first two pictures of Hill splayed out over the limo his left leg/foot is across the trunk area. In the third picture it is now his right leg hanging across the trunk. Picture number four - where are his legs - either of them? It doesn't appear to be enough room for them between the seat and his visible torso, so how is he twisted into this position?