Looking again at the figure in the doorway

[Kathleen Collins]

Kathy, The grassy knoll in the Nix film copy is a result of a procedure done by Robert Groden called "blocking" if I remember correctly. The idea was to bring the color out in the Nix film or bring it to a more realistic state. This is what caused the knoll to be so dark and nothing more. The original film has since been lost.

Bill [/b]

In other words Groden altered the picture. And then, if he was last to have it, he loses the original film. So we see Jackie's pink pillbox hat but nothing of the Grassy Knoll. Real smart.

Kathy

[Bill Miller]

Kathy, The grassy knoll in the Nix film copy is a result of a procedure done by Robert Groden called "blocking" if I remember correctly. The idea was to bring the color out in the Nix film or bring it to a more realistic state. This is what caused the knoll to be so dark and nothing more. The original film has since been lost.

Bill [/b]

In other words Groden altered the picture. And then, if he was last to have it, he loses the original film. So we see Jackie's pink pillbox hat but nothing of the Grassy Knoll. Real smart.

Kathy

Kathy,

Without knowing more of the facts - I can see you feeling that way. I believe that it was UPI who had the original Nix film at the time and they had Groden come and work with making a color copy that would make the colors more pleasing to those who would see the film from that point on. Robert did what he was supposed to do. But Robert also wanted to use the original Nix film to make a lightened copy print so to see into the deep shadows on the walkway and it was UPI who refused to allow him to do it. Their position was that he was to do a particular job and nothing more. There was simply nothing Robert could do for he has told me that UPI watched over him the entire time which prevented him from being able to secretly make the lightened copy print.

The losing of the camera Nix original falls on UPI - not Groden.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Thanks, Robin. This is what I wanted James to see so he wouldn't think that Lovelady had his shirt buttoned all the way up because of a misleading side view. It only takes one false assumption to lead one on a trail that goes nowhere.

Bill

[Kathleen Collins]

Kathy, The grassy knoll in the Nix film copy is a result of a procedure done by Robert Groden called "blocking" if I remember correctly. The idea was to bring the color out in the Nix film or bring it to a more realistic state. This is what caused the knoll to be so dark and nothing more. The original film has since been lost.

Bill [/b]

In other words Groden altered the picture. And then, if he was last to have it, he loses the original film. So we see Jackie's pink pillbox hat but nothing of the Grassy Knoll. Real smart.

Kathy

Kathy,

Without knowing more of the facts - I can see you feeling that way. I believe that it was UPI who had the original Nix film at the time and they had Groden come and work with making a color copy that would make the colors more pleasing to those who would see the film from that point on. Robert did what he was supposed to do. But Robert also wanted to use the original Nix film to make a lightened copy print so to see into the deep shadows on the walkway and it was UPI who refused to allow him to do it. Their position was that he was to do a particular job and nothing more. There was simply nothing Robert could do for he has told me that UPI watched over him the entire time which prevented him from being able to secretly make the lightened copy print.

The losing of the camera Nix original falls on UPI - not Groden.

Bill

Thanks for straightening that out about the colorized Nix film. Too bad he didn't see the knoll well enough or long enough to report anyone suspicious. UPI must be another CIA media asset, if they never left him alone while he was processing it. I saw a movie 30 years ago called "The Two Kennedys." I think it was made in Italy. In that film, if I recall correctly, they show the Nix film in B/W. Might be nice to get a hold of it.

Thanks again.

Kathy

[Bill Miller]

I saw a movie 30 years ago called "The Two Kennedys." I think it was made in Italy. In that film, if I recall correctly, they show the Nix film in B/W. Might be nice to get a hold of it.

Thanks again.

Kathy

I had a B&W copy of the Nix film given to me on the actual film spool and Robert and I took it to a Lab, along with his best color copy of the Nix film said to be made from the original, and the Lab was unable to pull much details out of either film. However, they did get it lightened enough to see that someone was standing where Gordon Arnold was said to be standing and he did move to his left immediately after the President was fatally shot. It was my hopes to see if the figure dove to the ground as Arnold said he did and as supported by Ralph Yarborough. The figure definetly was in motion, but that is all we could see.

Bill

[Duke Lane]

Wiegman frame.

Well, thanks for these two, Robin. It is interesting to see that, while it appears that "Oswald/Lovelady" is standing with his right shoulder to the wall in Altgens, a change of perspective in Weigman shows that he was actually standing a few feet from that wall, more toward the center of the doorway.

What Billy Lovelady had to say about where he was standing is that he was "standing as you are going down the steps, I was standing on the right," just as it shows in Altgens. "Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step ... It would be your top level," he said, and Joe Ball asked him to clarify: "The top step you were standing there?" "Right," said Billy.

So Billy said he was on the top step "on the right," yet we can see in Weigman that he - if he is the man in the photo - was not standing "on the right," but more in the center. He was only "on the right" when viewed from Altgens' perspective farther down the street.

We also know that he said that he was wearing a red-and-white striped shirt "buttoned near the neck," and this the FBI took photos of him wearing in late February 1964. Yet it was not the shirt that he was wearing that Friday afternoon, as evidenced not only by the other photos we've seen in this thread, but also by his wife's attempt(s) to sell it.

Years after the event, he knew he was wearing a "striped" shirt that was almost plaid, yet just three months after the shooting - probably the most significant single day of his relatively short life - he didn't know he was wearing that shirt, but thought that it was a completely different shirt? What's up with that? Did he have a cased of belated recall - did he think "wow, now that I'm looking at this here shirt, this is the one I was wearing that day, not that red-and-white deal! Wow! Boy, I'm sure glad I recalled, now I can go tell the FBI," maybe?

I don't care if he thought he had no buttons undone, or two, or forgot that he'd actually had four undone, what's even more amazing is that he didn't even know what shirt he had on early in the investigation, in February, but did know what he was wearing then so many years later! Just something doesn't ring true.

... And Robin, since you've probably got as clear and large a copy of the Weigman frame as anyone, tell me: does it appear that there is someone farther back in the corner, behind the black fella and to Lovelady's right? For curiosity, do you also know if The Sixth Floor has either the original Altgens, or at least an early copy?

[James R Gordon]

Bill,

I believe you are in error here. If this is the frame you have been talking about then I believe you will see that the figure you are talking about has never been Lovelady. What you are seeing is a composit image which shows Lovelady next to someone in a white top.

I believe this image is taken at 1:27:14 in the Hughes film. Below is a frame taken at 1:28:17. LOvelady has moved forward and now we see the back of his shirt and the the person in the white alone. Allowing us to see the complete white top that you felt was the white vest underneath the checked shirt.

Having given you, and other forum members the references, you are able to check that I have interpreted the images correctly.

James.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I believe you are in error here. If this is the frame you have been talking about then I believe you will see that the figure you are talking about has never been Lovelady. What you are seeing is a composit image which shows Lovelady next to someone in a white top.

I believe this image is taken at 1:27:14 in the Hughes film. Below is a frame taken at 1:28:17. LOvelady has moved forward and now we see the back of his shirt and the the person in the white alone. Allowing us to see the complete white top that you felt was the white vest underneath the checked shirt.

Having given you, and other forum members the references, you are able to check that I have interpreted the images correctly.

James.

See the capture in response 31 and 32.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[James R Gordon]

Bill,

I believe you are in error here. If this is the frame you have been talking about then I believe you will see that the figure you are talking about has never been Lovelady. What you are seeing is a composit image which shows Lovelady next to someone in a white top.

I believe this image is taken at 1:27:14 in the Hughes film. Below is a frame taken at 1:28:17. LOvelady has moved forward and now we see the back of his shirt and the the person in the white alone. Allowing us to see the complete white top that you felt was the white vest underneath the checked shirt.

Having given you, and other forum members the references, you are able to check that I have interpreted the images correctly.

James.

See the capture in response 31 and 32.

Bill,

I have not checked post 31, I will do so today. Post 32 is the Hughes frame at 1:27:14. As I pointed out that figure is a composite of two people standing together: Lovelady and the person in the white shirt. As I posted out in my responsne, if you look at the frame I posted of Hughes 1:28:17 you ought to see that what you think you see as one person in the image in post 32 is actually two people. The area you believe is the the open shirt is actually part of the white shirt worn by the person next to Lovelady. I believe your interpretation of the image in post 32 is in error. I will look at post 31 reply on that later.

James.

[Lee Forman]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=lovelady

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=lovelady

[Bill Miller]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=lovelady

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=lovelady

Lee, that facial overlay showing the two different hairline patterns over the forehead of Lee and Billy was well done and most effective IMO.

Bill

[William Kelly]

James Douglas, in his book JFK and the Unspeakable - Why He Died and Why It Matters, interviewed Oswald's former USMC room mate James Bothello, who said that one habbit of Oswald's was to pull down on his white T-shirt colar, making it loose.

Thus, he reasons, because the white T-shirt of the man in the doorway appears to be either a V-neck T-shirt or one that has been pulled down like Oswald was known to have done.

Is this a new aspect of this issue?

BK

[Mark Haley]

Hi, it's my first post here and I've been waiting patiently hoping to add something to the conversations.

I'm intrigued by this particular thread as I've never been aware that the Lovelady/Oswald figure ('F') was much further back than it appears in the Altgens picture.

My observation is that 'F', whoever it is, has an extremely long left arm.

In the Altgens picture the left arm of 'F' seems to reach right around in front of the neck of figure 'G' who, in the Wiegman frame, appears to be approximately 4 feet away..?

[Thomas Graves]

I find myself agreeing with Myra again. In the Lovelady batch of photos, the man in the DPD office looks identical to the man in the doorway. By looking at the DPD photo of Lovelady, and comparing it to the shirt Lovelady claimed, years later, he was wearing that day, I believe they are the same. Look at the stripes down the sleeve. The vertical white stripes are accompanied by vertical black stripes. I believe this was the same shirt Lovelady was wearing on Nov. 22, 1963.

My question is, did Lovelady ever identify himself in that doorway picture?

Kathy

Yes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture?

Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.

Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?

Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.

Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).

Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?

Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating).

Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step?

Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level.

Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there?

Mr. LOVELADY - Right

Kathy Beckett

bumped for giggles

I agreed with Myra (wherever she is) for a change.

Going from memory here, but at which point did the "abnormals" finally concede that we are, indeed, looking at Lovelady's face in Altgen's 6, and start pushing the idea that Lovelady's head had been photographically superimposed on Oswald's "Doorman" body in that photograph?

Thank god Gerda Dunkel and Sean Murphy finally came along and introduced us to "Prayer Man" (most likely Oswald), who was, most likely, in the shadows above and behind and to the left of Altgen 6's "Doorman" (who was definitely Lovelady) and therefore not visible in Altgens 6.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves