Alistair Briggs

Oh goodness no, from what I can ascertain the time between Vickie Adams hearing the last shots and reaching the back at the first floor was somewhere between 90 seconds and 2 minutes. Wow, I hadn't come across that 'ten minutes' yet. That Lovelady is a weird one eh! Either he is a total fantasist, a moron, of is involved in a 'conspiracy'. lol

Yes noisy wooden stairs. I recall reading somewhere in somebody's testimony that they were described as 'old, wooden and very creaky'. One thing I've not quite got my head round at the moment - I've read that the seeing 'Shelley/Lovelady' part of Adams (allegedly) was a 'WC alteration' for the purpose of discrediting Adams timeline so as to back up their movement of Oswald, but does the addition of that not actually discredit Shelley and Lovelady, who, according to the WC were witnesses to Baker, as per the 'official' account, running in to the building quickly enough to have reached the 2nd floor to encounter Oswald (who in his state was 'calm' enough to not be deemed a witness) but could only have got there in that time frame by passing Adams... of course, the testimony of Shelley and Lovelady contradict the official timing of Baker running in to the building (say 30 seconds) as they both claim to have seen him run in after they left the steps but they didn't leave the steps for 3 minutes. Impossible to think that a person could confuse 30 seconds for 3 minutes imo. Robert, I've read a number of your posts in other threads about the timing of Shelley and Lovelady etc, so I have some idea of what your thinking on the matter is. I don't disagree with you by the way. Just noticed you have posted another response as I type this, I will address that in my next response. Regards

The thing is, at this moment there is something formulating in my head about something to do with all the timings, but I don't want to get too ahead of myself with my own thinking else I confuse myself. I feel I have to point out that I don't really have any pre-concieved ideas about all this, I'm just trying to work through a few things. As something of a heads up, my thinking hasn't got to the 'Baker and Truly' on the stairs, as I'm kind of looking at things from 'the other way round'. Hopefully that won't come across as too defensive (or too cryptic) on my part. Clearly a simple error misspoken by Mr Belin. In the entire testimony the name Shelley can be found 5 times and always alongside Lovelady, whose name can be found 6 times, the only difference being the above which is clearly just a simple error. To be honest Robert, I'm not really getting the point of your response as you have made no reference to the 2 'important' parts of my previous post. 1) Whether my contention in the first paragraph was correct. 2) Whether the notion of the 2 minutes (based on the quoted testimony) was so ridiculous or if I was missing something. Regards

The contention (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) is that the testimony of Adams created problems for the official WC thinking that Oswald did it because their timing of Oswalds movements from the last shot to the encounter with Baker on the 2nd floor meant that he had to have passed Adams on the way down and she saw no one and heard no one on her way down? Setting Oswald aside for the meantime, and merely looking at the timeline of Adams. "Mr. BELIN - How long do you think it was between the time the shots were fired and the time you left the window to start toward the stairway? Miss ADAMS - Between 15 and 30 seconds, estimated, approximately. " "Mr. BELIN - So you think that from the time you left the window on the fourth floor until the time you got to the stairs at the bottom of the first floor, was approximately 1 minute? Miss ADAMS - Yes, approximately. " "Mr. BELIN - When you got to the first floor did you immediately proceed to this point where you say you encountered Mr. Shelley and Mr. Lovelady? Well, you showed me on a diagram of the first floor that there was a place which was south and somewhat east of the front part of the east elevator that you encountered Truly and Lovelady? Miss ADAMS - I saw them there. Mr. BELIN - I mean; you saw them? Miss ADAMS - Yes. Mr. BELIN - Would that have been a matter of seconds after you got to the bottom of the first floor? Miss ADAMS - Definitely. Mr. BELIN - Less than 30 seconds? Miss ADAMS - Yes. " *Oh just noticed there that backs up my thinking in my earlier post about the word 'encountered' meaning 'saw', I had overlooked the clarification later on in the testimony. Obviously times have to be approx. so there has to be some lee way. From looking at that though is 2 minutes really that ridiculous a notion or am I missing something really obvious? Taking the highest of those times, 30 secs + 1 minute + (less than) 30 seconds + the some time from that point to the leaving the back door = approx. 2 minutes.

Cheers Sandy. *At the moment personally I would like to somewhat err on the side of caution and say that it is an 'alleged' WC alteration. I'm not fully convinced on that point at the moment. However, would it be fair to say that at that (approx.) 02:00 time Adams would be about to leave the back entrance?

Got the link open and reading it just now.

Sandy, Thomas, I have been trying to work out something of a timeline for Adams, Shelley and Lovelady based on their testimonies http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm Adams 00.00 Heard last shot 00:15 or 00:30 left position at window 01:30 reached bottom of stairs at 1st floor 02:00 Saw Shelley & Lovelady 05:00 Returned to front of the building. * I can't get my head round the Shelley and Lovelady testimony, the questioning seems somewhat disjointed whereas the questioning of Adams seems a lot better. Could that just be because of the different styles of Ball And Belin? I get the feeling that had Belin been the one asking Lovelady and Shelley things may be a lot more understandable... Thoughts?

Quite possibly. If he did, would they have had a chance to speak to each other? Or perhaps just the sight of Vicki, knowing that she was there for the same reason as himself, put her in his head? Imo, the likliehood is that yes he would have known before that day that she was going to give testimony. In the 4 and a bit months since the assassination, they may have spoken to each other at some time, or at least spoken to other people about what they saw on the day, and no doubt there was a bit of 'gossip' about it too. There is a fair chance, imo, that both would have known (to some extent at least) what the other was claiming to have seen or did. And there is a good chance that either directly or indirectly they would both have known the other was giving testimony on the same day. It's a possibility! Taking in to account the next bit of Lovelady's testimony... Mr. BALL - Where was the girl? Mr. LOVELADY - I don't remember what place she was but I remember seeing a girl as she was talking to Bill or saw Bill or something, then I went over and asked one of the guys what time it was and to see if we should continue working or what. ... it seems that he is just not sure what actually happened. He is not sure about whether the girl was talking to or had just seen Bill (or something). The implication, to me at least, is that the information he presented there is at best second hand, and could well be 3rd/4th/5th... hand - it reads kind of 'fluffy', where as the latter part of what he said (then I went... ) reads more 'confident' as if it was definitely something he knew for certain. Shelley gave his testimony at 4:10pm (20 minutes after Lovelady) (straight after?) and the interviewer was also Ball. Could the fact that Lovelady had just mentioned Vickie Adams in relation to Shelley (Lovelady unclear whether she had been talking to him, or just seen him, or something) have led to Ball asking directly whether Shelley had seen Vickie Adams. Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Vickie Adams? Mr. SHELLEY - I saw her that day but I don't remember where I saw her. Mr. BALL - You don't remember whether you saw her when you came back? Mr. SHELLEY - It was after we entered the building. Mr. BALL - You think you did see her after you entered the building? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; I thought it was on the fourth floor awhile after that. The inference there is that Shelley not only didn't talk to Adams but also didn't even see her. We know from the testimony of Adams that she saw Shelley and Lovelady... Miss ADAMS - ... I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock. *Encountered is one of those words that can be somewhat ambigious. It could mean that she 'met' them or merely 'saw' them. Considering what both Shelley and Lovelady said the implication is that when Adams said encountered she meant saw them. Considering the testimony of all three then it would appear that while both Shelley and Lovelady entered the back at around the same time, a similar time that Adams was on her way out the back, all three must have been in the same vicinity but not all that close to each other... Anyroads, on the subject of 'coaching' - considering that it seems that both Lovelady and Shelley had something of a shared experience from the front of the TSBD until re-entering the building at the back, if Lovelady was 'coached' to say that he'd seen Adams at that time, then surely Shelley would have been 'coached' to say the same thing too. If that was the case, and if Lovelady 'spilled the beans' about being 'coached' to avoid perjuring himself, then either Shelley would have said that he did see Adams when they re-entered the building or he would have been as 'fluffy' as Lovelady had been about the incident. Another thing that may be of interest on this subject is what Shelley said before being asked about Vickie Adams; Mr. BALL - What did you and Billy Lovelady do? Mr. SHELLEY - We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end. Mr. BALL - At the west end? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; and then in the side door into the shipping room. Mr. BALL - When you came into the shipping room did you see anybody? Mr. SHELLEY - I saw Eddie Piper. Mr. BALL - What was he doing? Mr. SHELLEY - He was coming back from where he was watching the motorcade in the southwest corner of the shipping room. Mr. BALL - Of the first floor of the building? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Who else did you see? Mr. SHELLEY - That's all we saw immediately. Lovelady made no mention of seeing Eddie Piper. That doesn't have to be 'suspicious' though. It's quite possible he never saw him, or even he did not think it worth mentioning, or even didn't mention it as he wasn't asked directly, or through the natural flow of the questioning it was simply not mentioned. *Phew, that will do for now. I'm relatively new to the subject at hand of comparing the relevant testimonies herein, so I feel it prudent for me to say that I offer up the above with no real contentions on my part as I haven't 'been on this case' long enough to have come to a real conlusion about what it all means yet.. Regards

Personally, I disagree that there is simply no other explanation. After the event, but before giving testimony, I'm sure that Lovelady and Shelley would have conversed with each other about the event - not neccesarily in a 'let's get our stories straight' kind of way, but more just a general discussion of what they each saw and did etc. Couple that with the reasonable assumption that each (individually or together) would have spoken with other people too... Also, one of them may have had a 'stronger personality' than the other and in conversation, perhaps with other people, mentioned that a couple of minutes after such and such happened, this happened, and the other who maybe thought that it had only been a minute or so, accepted that it may have been longer... etc etc I mean anything could have been said/happened between them and others after the event and before giving testimony that may have led to them both coming to the 'conclusion', individually(ish) that it was 3 minutes without the 3 minutes being an accurate time or something they were coached to do. Don't get me wrong, Im not offering that up as THE explanation, merely that it could be AN explanation. Kindest regards (P.S. there is something really strange about it all. I mean if the difference in timing between what Shelley and Lovelady said (3 minutes) and the time Baker is said to have ran in (30secs) was a lot less, say 1 minute and 45 seconds, then that could be believed as a simple timing error somewhere. But very hard to reconcile the gap between 30 seconds and 3 minutes indeed. And that's not even taking in to account the timings that others have 'testified' to...) It's no wonder this is such a hot topic.

To add to my above post. On reflection, in the other examples on pg 9 and pg 11 there is a distinct gap between the 'rd' and 'th' before the 'int' and such a gap is a natural thing to do when writing something for the first time. Yet the one on pg 10 there is no gap before the 'int' (and indeed the 'downstroke' of the 'd' goes over the 'top loop' of the 'I') and that seems unnatural - that does tend to validate the thinking that the 3rd was written over the original 4th. Regards.

You could well be correct there Steve. It does look to me that the 3 is on top of the 4... I base that observation mostly on the (oh dear how to describe it. lol) top of the lower 'loop' of the 3 looks to be a much bolder line stroke than the 'upstroke' of the 4 (which looks thicker beaneath it and slightly narrower atop it... *Have circled the are I mean below.... My intial observation was that the 'th' appears to be above the 'rd' but that was really just a gut reaction to seeing it. With some thinking about it, if the 3 is above the 4 it surely must follow that the 'rd' is written over the 'th', which goes a long to validating your thinking about trying to hide the 12:35 interview. *To play 'devil's advocate' a bit, I feel I have to say that it is, of course, difficult to say for sure which one was written on top of the other because we are looking at a 'scan' of something that was handwritten. Regards

I agree with David, it looks like 3rd interview. Both that and the '4th' interview on page 11 looks like the number has been written on top of something else. The scribbled out bit underneath 3rd int (on page 9) looks to me like it original said 4th interview and has been scored out! Perhaps on looking over the notes he wrote 4th int. there and then realising it was wrong scored it out and put 3rd int. above it and perhaps the scoring out of the time (12.35) and writing the 6pm above it was his way of saying that was when the 4th one actually was. On page 10 at the time 6pm he seems to have at first written 3rd int then scored that out and written over it 4th interview (although when I view that it looks to me like the 3 is on top of the 4, but the 'th' is on top of the 'rd') and then on page 11 at the end of that interview has also placed 4th int to mark the end point... Regards Oh, just noticed Steve responded as I typed this.

Just spitballing here... Clearly there are ways to 'fake' images! John, you have already stated many ways that it could be done. The fact that it can be done is not in doubt. How many images recently of celebrities have been 'outed' as being 'airbrushed' to hide 'blemishes' etc. In such cases the fact that the image has been changed by your definition it has been done to "disguise, distort, and otherwise create an illusion of reality". Is it thus misleading? Yes. Is it suspicious, or hiding something sinister? No... Extending that thought further... there are many instances where the media has altered images for reasons that are not sinister! The famous photo of the Kent State Shootings for example, where a pole was edited out before publication - the thought being that, because the pole looked like it was coming straight out of a person in the foreground's head - it made the photo aesthetically better. There's a case of a photo being (by definition) faked, but not with sinister motives. (* As an aside, perhaps in such examples the word fake isn't the best to use because it does carry certain connotations imho). In reference to the famous Backyard Photos of LHO - when printed on the front cover of Life magazine the scope is shown on the rifle, but when the same was printed simultaneously on the front cover of the Detroit Free Press the scope had gone. (No contentions on my part on why that was). When it comes to the assassination of JFK and any photos/videos/images etc associated directly with the case, one thing to keep in mind is that a lot of it is not 'first generation' copies and that can be an issue. Another thing to keep in mind is that the scrutiny of said photos/videos/images etc is higher because of (imo) two things. 1) There was no trial of Oswald, and thus no 'legal' resolution either way in that regard and 2) Oswald saying the BY photo was faked... (So much more could be said here but thought it best to keep it overly simple). So with Oswald saying those photos were faked and also saying that he didn't shoot anyone that day - and throw in to the mix that witness statements about everything that went on that day don't all match... what are we left with? More scrutiny is needed of the visual record of the day. As we know, people can view the same thing and see different things. Sure, some people can lie about what they have seen, but more than likely people can just be plain mistaken - the visual record then takes on more of an important role. It is impossible to reconcile everything that every witness has said. Also it has to be said that even the most credible of witnesses can still be mistaken on something and a less credible witness might be correct. In theory the visual record should go some way to clearing up problems with differences in witnesses. That's not the case though! As I said, just spitballing there. I read that a few times and I think you might have meant something different to how I read it. Can you clarify that what is should say is. "Assume that what you are looking at is a fraid and try to find evidence to say it is. Otherwise, if you can't find evidence to prove it authentic..." Slight difference but makes a difference? Regards P.S. on the subject of Jack White. Yesterday I managed to pick up the book Muder In Dealy Plaza What WeKnow Now That We Didn't Know Then... inside is a 16 page 'Insert' about some of the work Jack White did on some of the photos. Haven't had a chance to delve too much in to it yet but I am interested in it (even though I am very sceptical about such alterations really).

David & Steve, I must admit I am 'out my depth' a bit on everything that is being discussed here (I need to spend more time getting up to speed) but am really interested in the topic. Not sure how relevant this may be really, but in Bugliosi's book Four Days In November, what is mentioned for the time of 12:35 is... (Sorry for my awful camera skills) The note references are; 1121 Kelley Exhibit A,20 H 442 1122 Kelley Exhibit A, 20H 442; 7 H 230-231, WCT Guy F.Rose; CE 2003, 24 H 268-249 1123 CE 2003, 24 H 394; Oswald with Land and Land, Lee, p.139 As I said, I do feel a bit out of my depth on this discussion, but hopefully the above may be of some interest(?) Regards

When it comes to looking at any photos of Oswald I always take a keen interest in what people posit about them. It's fascinating sometimes to see different points of views and different perspectives from different people on differing sides of the 'debate' as to whether they are or aren't faked/altered/changed etc. I do sometimes wonder though if there is a tendency to 'over-think' the issue - almost like because there is a 'suspicion' that one may be faked it leaves other photos in a position that they are more open to scrutiny, and the more they are scrutinesed the more 'unusual' things are found in the photos and those things may be unusual things but they may be normal unusual things that may appear in photos anyway but because they happen to be found on photos of Oswald, and because there is a thought that photos of Oswald may be faked then unusual things are 'highlighted' more and are held up as being evidence of the photo being faked because that is what they may look like... (*that might make more sense in my head, than it reads!) My thinking at this moment is that there are only two things that have raised any speculation about any image of Oswald, and both are in relation to the Backyard Photos. The first is that Oswald, on being shown one of them by Captain Fritz, claimed it was a faked photo. The second is the fact that the same Backyard Photo published simultaneously on the front cover of Life magazine and the Detroit Free Press had one major difference; the former had the 'scope' on the rifle, the latter didn't! Both of those things, I think, were the underlying reason why there was any doubt in the first place about the Backyard Photos, and by extension, every photo of Oswald... ... on the subject of Oswald's claim that the photo he was shown was faked, here is what is written in Vincent Bugliosi's Four Days In November... Captain Fritz has asked Oswald again about whether or not he has ever owned a gun, Oswald says he has never owned a gun, then Fritz shows Oswald an 8 by 10 inch black and white photograph (the BYP) and asks Oswald to explain it... Setting aside the way Bugliosi has written it almost as if it was a 'novel', and the how each thing was said ('smugly', 'sneers', 'squirms', arrogantly' etc) is open to debate... it does to me, perhaps, shine a different light on the subject of whether or not the BYP were faked. What we have in that exchange isn't just Oswald claiming simply that the photo is a fake! At first he claims it isn't his face in the photo, then contradicts that by saying that it is his face on a different body, then seems to even contradict that by saying that someone has superimposed the rifle in my hand and the gun in my pocket. Also of some interest is that there is no mention of the newspapers in the hand either way! Something doesn't quite add up there in my opinion... I offer all of that up just for consideration. Regards.

Michael, I protest! There is no way whatsoever those two woman are the same (if indeed they are in fact woman at all) the one on the left does not have her ears pierced whilst the one on the right is wearing earrings. I call shenanigans on this photo and state unequivicoally that they have been faked. (of course I'm kidding entirely ) Back to the topic of the thread, I think there is much to be said about the 'quality' of the image too. I would say that the image in the first post looks like a bad copy (or a copy of a copy, or a copy of a copy of a copy) of the same image I posted which negates any 'correct' analysis of it in the first place. The lines that are in the photo in the first poto that led to John believing it was a face mask could just as easily be an 'artifact' of something from the 'copying' of the photo. Oh yes people do and can look different in different photo settings; I was going to use a couple of old photos of me to show that, but your example was much more pleasing on the eye. Regards.

Never a truer word spoke. Hopefully this won't sound like I'm being too obtuse here but I don't feel I can really answer directly your question about the face mask having been applied. I just don't know and don't have enough direct expertise to agree or refute it... ... Just from looking at the photo you posted compared to the one I posted, to me, it looks like the first one is a 'bad' copy with lots of 'artifacts' on it that may make any photo analysis that much harder to definitively answer (one way or another). Setting that aside, going on the assumption that it is a composite, I presume that you are of the opinion that it is a 'real' photo of an 'Oswald double' that has been altered with a 'face mask' to make it look more like the 'real Oswald? Regards

Hi John (from one new member to another, welcome ) A very interesting thought process you have made there. Just had a look at the list of Warren Commission Exhibits at number 2788 listed as ' Photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald taken after his return from Russia in late September 1963 (FBI item 451-4). ' Same photo, different condition. I took that image and drew a line from top of ear to top of ear and it lines up very well with both the 'inside' and 'outside' corners of both eyes... Seems quite normal to me to be honest. Regards.

Cheers for the response David (hope you weren't too shocked to see the resurrection of a thread from 5 years ago. lol) *When I was at college many years ago part of the journalism course was to learn Teeline Shorthand (which is pretty much the standard one used by journalisms in the UK) - I haven't used it pretty much since learning it so extremely rusty with it. I did try and decode the above shorthand but didn't get anywhere with it. I now realise that is probably because it is a different shorthand from what I know, and it is more likely to be either the 'Pitman shorthand' method or the 'Gregg shorthand' method (both more popular in the US) Regards

I have read about this 'anomaly' before and I find it very intriguing indeed. At first I thought that it might have just been a case of adding information at the later time as way of explanation/answer for what was being asked at the time, but there seems to be some ambiguity that could be attributed to it. If it was a case of adding in information that was later found out it should have been stated clearly... for example, on page 6 it reads "He said he had a brother, Robert, who lived in Fort Worth. We found later that this brother lived in Denton"... that makes that very clear. Looking at the end of page 8 and start of page 9... "I talked to Oswald about the different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find where he was living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle which looked to be the same rifle we had recovered" On reading that it seems clear that the picture had already been found by that time, yet that doesn't fit in with the 'official' story... (hope it's ok if I 'skip' over the who, what and when and how of the 'official' story so as not to overly elongate this post more than it needs be. (Happy to delve more in to it at some point) Suffice to say it isn't until after this point that the 'backyard photos' are found, returned and then blown up to be shown to Oswald at the first time at approx. 6:30pm. Quite a big anomaly there then. How to explain the apparent knowledge of the photos before the photos were found! I agree those would be the standard reply (and not just for this tidbit of info. lol). Personally though I don't think it would be a case of not remembering correctly, the Fitz would mix up the time line of it so badly. As for after the fact - as I have noted earlier it would seem that if it had been an 'after the fact' thought/explanation etc then it would be more clear. So what could the explanation (or at least 'an' explanation)... perhaps it's just bad wordage! One thing that stands out to me is that on the top of page 9 the w of 'when' looks like it is meant to be changed to either be 'When' or changed to 'Then' or even perhaps it could be that the W has been put there and then crossed out. (hope that makes sense). Still seems bothersome though. The more I think about it as I type this the more confused I am by it all... I created an image showing the bottom of page 8 and start of page 9 together that shows all the 'relevant' bits... It does seema bit 'jumpy' the way it is worded, I really don't know if I can make sense of it or reconcile it either way... certainly a topic that would seem to merit more discussion. Just to ask, what kind of shorthand is it in use? Regards

I have spent many hours reading through threads here about the assassination of JFK and thought it would be a great idea to get involved more with it as I find it all fascinating. Over the years I have read much online from different sits and from all different angles, and have also started to collect books on the subject - it is somewhat difficult to find that many books in the 'real world' on the subject where I am from (unless I'm not looking hard enough ) - will have to start purchasing some from online then... .., the amount of times I have been reading about other cases/crimes, or even whilst watching TV programmes or films, that my mind has made something of a 'trivial' connection of a thought process to the case of JFK's assassination never fails to amaze me. I am very much an 'amateur researcher' on the subject but always eager to learn and posit thoughts and opinions.