JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is a cheap stunt by Pat Speer! I asked before that he should issue a warning that something is wrong

BEFORE making a post invisible! How am I supposed to remember everything in one of a dozen or more posts

that I am making each day? I asked Ralph about it and he told me he had referred to Von Pein as a "pinhead".

I told him you were looking for ANYTHING that could be used to justify dumping our posts (some would call

this "plausible deniability"). I SAY YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING THIS. SO MAKE THE POST VISIBLE!

Cinque replies to Von Pein (and I am stunned that this response was "made invisible" by Pat Speer, who has again demonstrated his incredible bias, including my addendum that anyone with military experience would know that a Mannlicher-Carcano could not possibly have been disguised as "curtain rods" that could be carried between his palm and his arm pit--not to mention that such a weapon, which is made of rigid metal and wooden parts, would have torn a paper bag to shreds.)

It's true that in that television mock trial, Buell Frazier identified the Doorway Man as Lovelady, but let's analyze it.

Jim Fetzer and I have been saying all along that they did things to convert Oswald into Lovelady. They added plaid to his shirt; they doctored his hairline; and they either altered his facial features directly OR they dmoved the entire face of Lovelady onto Oswald. And those are the reasons why Buell Frazier thought the Doorway Man was Lovelady.

But, recall that when asked about the idea that Lovelady and Oswald looked alike, Buell rejected that. He said that Lovelady was "short and stocky" whereas Oswald had a "thin frame." That was his first reaction when that very important issue was raised. It's also what I have been saying for a long time. But unfortunately, Buell did not apply that data to his analysis of who was in the picture. He just looked at the face and said it was Lovelady based on that. Why?

It's because people do not tend to contemplate the magnitude of the fraud that was committed with the JFK assassination. Buell's mind just didn't go there. Few people's minds do. It took a Jim Fetzer to realize that they actually moved the face over.

And let me ask you, Von Pein: did you notice that Buell Frazier said that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll? But of course, you think he was wrong about that, don't you? And did you notice that he also said that the package that Oswald brought with him was not long enough to be a rifle? Not even long enough to be a broken down rifle. I guess you figure that he was wrong about that too, correct? But, you figure he was right about Lovelady. Aren't you being arbitrarily selective about what you believe from him?

Well, the fact is that Buell was RIGHT about the source of the shots and the non-gun Oswald brought to work, but he was wrong about the identity of the Doorway Man. He was looking at the face of Lovelady on Oswald's body, and he didn't figure it out because he was too decent of a person to think that ANYBODY would resort to such dasdardly evil.

Jim, you know full well this is not the post I made invisible. The one I made invisible included a number of insults directed at the Forum membership, including one particularly crude reference. Your pretending it is, and that I would tolerate this same type of post from others, says more about you than it does about me, I'm afraid.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK, Pat. Do you also agree (1) that Lovelady's shirt at the DPD obviously had a pocket and (2) that the shirt he later posed in did not? Do you appreciate that Lamson's arguments are made using shirts that are LYING FLAT and NOT BEING WORN? And this does not even get us to the VERTICALLY STRIPED SHIRT he wore when he went to the FBI, which even bothered Weisberg? Do you also admit that WE HAVE MADE OUR POINTS? Just how ridiculous does all of this have to get?

You can suppress the pocket on a shirt when it's lying flat, as in this case:

But it's far more difficult to conceal the pocket on a xxxx when it's being worn:

As Ralph might put it, "In order to match '63 Lovelady, that pocket on '71 Lovelady would have to be located way up high where you see a black stripe over a white stripe. Because that's how it is on '63 Lovelady. So it's black strip/white stripe, black stripe/white stripe, black stripe/white stripe, black stripe/white stripe. Are you feeling the rhythm, Lamson? You see any pocket opening there? At that very spot? Right there? OH, and by the way, there's no flap either."

This is bad, Pat. The post explains my source and my reasoning. This is one more indication of your utter incapacity to think things through. Is that how you normally read something? Stop at the first sentence and challenge it WITHOUT READING THE REST? And for you to say that Lamson "has proved his point" is about as ridiculous a piece of rubbish as I have read on this thread. Surely you cannot have missed the refutations I have repeatedly made in earlier posts? Go back to posts #203, #204, and #205. I can't believe you would take such an absurd and unjustified stance. We have proven he is wrong, repeatedly! That demonstrates my point about you again!

To be clear, Jim, the point I believe was proved was not that the Groden photo shows a pocket, but that pockets are sometimes difficult to make out in photos.

Edited February 3, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

Thanks for posting this exhibit, where each square on the shirt is numbered.

Whether that was your intention or not, I think this proves very clearly that the shirt worn by Lovelady on 11/22/63 has a nice size pocket, which appears nowhere on the shirt worn when he posed for Groden in 1976.

The pocket flap is encompassed by squares 6, 7, and 8.

I do not agree with the idea that the pocket (in the 1976 photos) can not be seen because it is "ironed flat." It is not visible because it is not there.

Furthermore, just look at the shape of the pocket, as shown in the 1963 photo--it has clearly defined slanting edges (as Fetzer has noted in an earlier post).

I have always been reluctant to rely on photographic evidence because another person can say (or claim) that they do not "see" something that is obviously there. When I spotted the pocket/no-pocket conflict, I thought that the difference was plain as day. I am truly surprised that there is any difference of opinion on this.

Its obvious to me that in the 11/22 newsreel footage at the DPD, Lovelady was wearing a shirt with a large pocket (which contained a pack of cigarettes); in posing for Groden, in 1976, he wore a similar plaid shirt, but it had no such pocket.

Not only that, the vertical stripes are different (just compare squares 4, 7, and 10--which comprise the vertical stripe) in both photos).

Because of the way Lamson has carried on on this thread, I'm forced to take his so called photo-expertise much less seriously. His excuse that he has a closet full of shirts where a pocket of that size is not visible, is just plain silly. Then, with regard to Lovelady's repeated statements (which are false) that he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes, Lamson has (I noticed) now proclaimed that Lovelady confused vertical with horizontal. (Oh pleez . . . )

My differences with Fetzer on this matter are not about the pocket. Apparently, we both see the shirt no pocket/pocket" conflict the same way. We differ on what it means.

I believe it is Lovelady in the doorway; Fetzer believes otherwise.

I have no doubt about the sincerity of Fetzer's views--even though I think he is incorrect. But Lamson is a whole other story. . . I'm starting to think that if I maintained that 2 + 3 equaled 5, Lamson would come up with some excuse to maintain otherwise. And, and, of course, there's his constant sneering attitude. .

I am reminded of the manner in which (in his ongoing debate with Cliff Varnell) he maintained the absurdity that JFK's shirt rode up some 5 inches, which only he seemed to "see" in various photos. Oh well. . .

DSL

2/2/12; 7:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Craig Lamson]

OK, Pat. Do you also agree (1) that Lovelady's shirt at the DPD obviously had a pocket and (2) that the shirt he later posed in did not? Do you appreciate that Lamson's arguments are made using shirts that are LYING FLAT and NOT BEING WORN? And this does not even get us to the VERTICALLY STRIPED SHIRT he wore when he went to the FBI, which even bothered Weisberg? Do you also admit that WE HAVE MADE OUR POINTS? Just how ridiculous does all of this have to get?

You can suppress the pocket on a shirt when it's lying flat, as in this case

THE SHIRTS ARE HANGING.

But it's far more difficult to conceal the pocket on a xxxx when it's being worn

Waving your hands WILDLY again I see Fetzer. PROOF ...provide PROOF...not more of your empty claims.... SHOW US YOUR EMPIRICAL PROOFS! Dang I do love seeing you in full panic mode!

As Ralph might put it, "In order to match '63 Lovelady, that pocket on '71 Lovelady would have to be located way up high where you see a black stripe over a white stripe. Because that's how it is on '63 Lovelady. So it's black strip/white stripe, black stripe/white stripe, black stripe/white stripe, black stripe/white stripe. Are you feeling the rhythm, Lamson? You see any pocket opening there? At that very spot? Right there? OH, and by the way, there's no flap either."

Ralph has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he visually handicapped...

All the photos, 1963 and after show the top of the pocket in the exact same place, 2/3 down squares 7 and 8. The top edge of the pocket is RED...NO FLAP...

The green horizontal line shows the top of the pocket....

The green square shows the white VERTICAL LINE broken by the pocket being slightly spaced from the shirt...JUST LIKE IN THE GRODEN...

Edited February 3, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks for posting this exhibit, where each square on the shirt is numbered.

Whether that was your intention or not, I think this proves very clearly that the shirt worn by Lovelady on 11/22/63 has a nice size pocket, which appears nowhere on the shirt worn when he posed for Groden in 1976.

The pocket flap is encompassed by squares 6, 7, and 8.

That's not a flap, just the top of the pocket..OPEN

I do not agree with the idea that the pocket (in the 1976 photos) can not be seen because it is "ironed flat." It is not visible because it is not there.

No, its just empty and flat, I could make a wonder quip about your here, but i'll refrain.

Its not hard to show how a flat pocket seems to disappear on a shirt, but I fear you don't have the stuff to understand.

Furthermore, just look at the shape of the pocket, as shown in the 1963 photo--it has clearly defined slanting edges (as Fetzer has noted in an earlier post).

No, it just shows the top of the pocket...OPEN, just like this one....

I have always been reluctant to rely on photographic evidence because another person can say (or claim) that they do not "see" something that is obviously there. When I spotted the pocket/no-pocket conflict, I thought that the difference was plain as day. I am truly surprised that there is any difference of opinion on this.

Well Lifton, as we have seen in the full flush left and ghost frame fiasco, you don't have the first clue or understanding of WHAT it is you think you see.

Its obvious to me that in the 11/22 newsreel footage at the DPD, Lovelady was wearing a shirt with a large pocket (which contained a pack of cigarettes); in posing for Groden, in 1976, he wore a similar plaid shirt, but it had no such pocket.

No, the pocket is exactly the same on all of the shirt images, you are just at a loss understanding WHY. Which is a common problem for you.

Not only that, the vertical stripes are different (just compare squares 4, 7, and 10--which comprise the vertical stripe) in both photos).

You are kidding...right? that takes the cake.

Because of the way Lamson has carried on on this thread, I'm forced to take his so called photo-expertise much less seriously. His excuse that he has a closet full of shirts where a pocket of that size is not visible, is just plain silly. Then, with regard to Lovelady's repeated statements (which are false) that he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes, Lamson has (I noticed) now proclaimed that Lovelady confused vertical with horizontal. (Oh pleez . . . )

Take me and the work as you please. It is over your head which makes your opinion quite useless. The facts remain, regardless of your continued ignorance. Shirt pockets are easily made to disappear. That's the PLAN when they carefully match the pattern of the pocket fabric to the shirt fabric...

As to Lovelady, I don't know if he confused horizontal or vertical just like you DON'T KNOW he willfully did not tell the truth. One thing is certain, he wore the same shirt both in 1963 and for Groden.

SILLY Lifton wants everyone to believe this whopper...only from a "brain" like Lifton's...

Lovelady, for reasons unknown, remembers exactly what his 1963 shirt looked like and then set out to find a DIFFERENT SHIRT that was an exact match DOWN TO THE PATTERN MISMATCH AT THE SLEEVE/SHOULDER join as the original. However he FAILS to find a shirt that has a pocket!

My differences with Fetzer on this matter are not about the pocket. Apparently, we both see the shirt no pocket/pocket" conflict the same way. We differ on what it means.

I believe it is Lovelady in the doorway; Fetzer believes otherwise.

You guys are peas in a pod...silly peas.

I have no doubt about the sincerity of Fetzer's views--even though I think he is incorrect. But Lamson is a whole other story. . . I'm starting to think that if I maintained that 2 + 3 equaled 5, Lamson would come up with some excuse to maintain otherwise. And, and, of course, there's his constant sneering attitude. .

Correct your gross ignorance of these issues and perhaps you would not be such a target rich environment. However given your history I don't see any additional educational growth in your future. The truth hurts, and I am quite happy to administer the pain...

I am reminded of the manner in which (in his ongoing debate with Cliff Varnell) he maintained the absurdity that JFK's shirt rode up some 5 inches, which only he seemed to "see" in various photos. Oh well. . .

Once again you display your abject ignorance. I don't make claims about how far the shirt may or may not have ridden up, and I, like everyone else, can't SEE the shirt inside of JFK's jacket. Oh well is right. Once again LIFTON GETS IT WRONG. Full Flush Left and Ghost Panels ring a bell? Its becoming quite the pattern for you.

DSL

2/2/12; 7:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited February 3, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David Lifton]

The flap has an extension from sections 7 and 8 downward into sections 10 and 11, which is

clearly present in the DPD photograph on the right and clearly absent from the others. QED

Jim,

I agree that although the shirt worn by Lovelady in either the Groden or Jackson images, clearly has a pocket, it does not have a flap.

I suspect that David Lifton is correct when he stated that, for whatever reason, Lovelady did not wear the exact shirt he wore that day but a similar looking one.

How that discrepancy helps to prove Oswald was standing in the doorway eludes me.

James

I hope it is clear, from my posts, that I believe that it was Lovelady (and not Oswald) in the TSBD doorway.

DSL

[David Lifton]

Thanks for posting this exhibit, where each square on the shirt is numbered.

Whether that was your intention or not, I think this proves very clearly that the shirt worn by Lovelady on 11/22/63 has a nice size pocket, which appears nowhere on the shirt worn when he posed for Groden in 1976.

The pocket flap is encompassed by squares 6, 7, and 8.

That's not a flap, just the top of the pocket..OPEN

I do not agree with the idea that the pocket (in the 1976 photos) can not be seen because it is "ironed flat." It is not visible because it is not there.

No, its just empty and flat, I could make a wonder quip about your here, but i'll refrain.

Its not hard to show how a flat pocket seems to disappear on a shirt, but I fear you don't have the stuff to understand.

Furthermore, just look at the shape of the pocket, as shown in the 1963 photo--it has clearly defined slanting edges (as Fetzer has noted in an earlier post).

No, it just shows the top of the pocket...OPEN, just like this one....

I have always been reluctant to rely on photographic evidence because another person can say (or claim) that they do not "see" something that is obviously there. When I spotted the pocket/no-pocket conflict, I thought that the difference was plain as day. I am truly surprised that there is any difference of opinion on this.

Well Lifton, as we have seen in the full flush left and ghost frame fiasco, you don't have the first clue or understanding of WHAT it is you think you see.

Its obvious to me that in the 11/22 newsreel footage at the DPD, Lovelady was wearing a shirt with a large pocket (which contained a pack of cigarettes); in posing for Groden, in 1976, he wore a similar plaid shirt, but it had no such pocket.

No, the pocket is exactly the same on all of the shirt images, you are just at a loss understanding WHY. Which is a common problem for you.

Not only that, the vertical stripes are different (just compare squares 4, 7, and 10--which comprise the vertical stripe) in both photos).

You are kidding...right? that takes the cake.

Because of the way Lamson has carried on on this thread, I'm forced to take his so called photo-expertise much less seriously. His excuse that he has a closet full of shirts where a pocket of that size is not visible, is just plain silly. Then, with regard to Lovelady's repeated statements (which are false) that he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes, Lamson has (I noticed) now proclaimed that Lovelady confused vertical with horizontal. (Oh pleez . . . )

Take me and the work as you please. It is over your head which makes your opinion quite useless. The facts remain, regardless of your continued ignorance. Shirt pockets are easily made to disappear. That's the PLAN when they carefully match the pattern of the pocket fabric to the shirt fabric...

As to Lovelady, I don't know if he confused horizontal or vertical just like you DON'T KNOW he willfully did not tell the truth. One thing is certain, he wore the same shirt both in 1963 and for Groden.

SILLY Lifton wants everyone to believe this whopper...only from a "brain" like Lifton's...

Lovelady, for reasons unknown, remembers exactly what his 1963 shirt looked like and then set out to find a DIFFERENT SHIRT that was an exact match DOWN TO THE PATTERN MISMATCH AT THE SLEEVE/SHOULDER join as the original. However he FAILS to find a shirt that has a pocket!

My differences with Fetzer on this matter are not about the pocket. Apparently, we both see the shirt no pocket/pocket" conflict the same way. We differ on what it means.

I believe it is Lovelady in the doorway; Fetzer believes otherwise.

You guys are peas in apod...silly peas.

I have no doubt about the sincerity of Fetzer's views--even though I think he is incorrect. But Lamson is a whole other story. . . I'm starting to think that if I maintained that 2 + 3 equaled 5, Lamson would come up with some excuse to maintain otherwise. And, and, of course, there's his constant sneering attitude. .

Correct your gross ignorance of these issues and perhaps you would not be such a target rich environment. However given your history I don't see any additional educational growth in your future. The truth hurts, and I am quite happy to administer the pain...

I am reminded of the manner in which (in his ongoing debate with Cliff Varnell) he maintained the absurdity that JFK's shirt rode up some 5 inches, which only he seemed to "see" in various photos. Oh well. . .

Once again you display your abject ignorance. I don't make claims about how far the shirt may or may not have ridden up, and I, like everyone else, can't SEE the shirt inside of JFK's jacket. Oh well is right. Once again LIFTON GETS IT WRONG. Full Flush Left and Ghost Panels ring a bell? Its becoming quite the pattern for you.

DSL

2/2/12; 7:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

What Rand Corp historian Al Goldberg said about some of the conspiracy theorists applies to you (and your theories about what you "see" when it comes to shirt pockets) in spades:

"Conspiracies are like the elves. . . you have to believe in them to know that they are there."

DSL

[Craig Lamson]

What Rand Corp historian Al Goldberg said about some of the conspiracy theorists applies to you (and your theories about what you "see" when it comes to shirt pockets) in spades:

"Conspiracies are like the elves. . . you have to believe in them to know that they are there."

DSL

I don't "see" anything Lifton, I TEST IT.

You should try it sometime, then maybe you would not look so silly.

[David Andrews]

I'm only stepping in to ask a question based on circumstances:

If Billy Lovelady was hurriedly substituted for Oswald in the doorway by the time Altgens 6 was printed in the newspaper, and Oswald had been mistaken for Lovelady by TSBD visitors, then what might Lovelady's connection to the assassination plotting be?

Why an on-site Oswald look-alike, whose image explains away so much? What is Lovelady's background and what are his associations?

From Spartacus biography: "Billy Nolan Lovelady was born in Myrtle Springs, Texas, on 19th February, 1937. He worked as a farm labourer until finding employment in the Texas School Book Depository in December, 1961."

Was Lovelady "babysitting" Oswald, sticking close to him during the time Kennedy was on Elm Street, so that he might later nominate himself as the "Oswald" that any witness may have seen below the upper parts of the TSBD during the shooting?

New thread here?

Edited February 3, 2012 by David Andrews

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

Excellent post! Yes, such differences as we have here do not revolve around this absurd (Lamson) controversy, which I am quite convinced are intended to create a completely unjustifiable distraction. Notice he talks about "testing", ignoring that science depends upon observation, measurement, and experimentation. This is a case that can be resolved on the basis of observation, as you have lucidly explained. Now we can return to the real issues that some (Lamson?) would prefer not be the focus of discussion. Many thanks!

Jim

Thanks for posting this exhibit, where each square on the shirt is numbered.

Whether that was your intention or not, I think this proves very clearly that the shirt worn by Lovelady on 11/22/63 has a nice size pocket, which appears nowhere on the shirt worn when he posed for Groden in 1976.

The pocket flap is encompassed by squares 6, 7, and 8.

I do not agree with the idea that the pocket (in the 1976 photos) can not be seen because it is "ironed flat." It is not visible because it is not there.

Furthermore, just look at the shape of the pocket, as shown in the 1963 photo--it has clearly defined slanting edges (as Fetzer has noted in an earlier post).

I have always been reluctant to rely on photographic evidence because another person can say (or claim) that they do not "see" something that is obviously there. When I spotted the pocket/no-pocket conflict, I thought that the difference was plain as day. I am truly surprised that there is any difference of opinion on this.

Its obvious to me that in the 11/22 newsreel footage at the DPD, Lovelady was wearing a shirt with a large pocket (which contained a pack of cigarettes); in posing for Groden, in 1976, he wore a similar plaid shirt, but it had no such pocket.

Not only that, the vertical stripes are different (just compare squares 4, 7, and 10--which comprise the vertical stripe) in both photos).

Because of the way Lamson has carried on on this thread, I'm forced to take his so called photo-expertise much less seriously. His excuse that he has a closet full of shirts where a pocket of that size is not visible, is just plain silly. Then, with regard to Lovelady's repeated statements (which are false) that he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes, Lamson has (I noticed) now proclaimed that Lovelady confused vertical with horizontal. (Oh pleez . . . )

My differences with Fetzer on this matter are not about the pocket. Apparently, we both see the shirt no pocket/pocket" conflict the same way. We differ on what it means.

I believe it is Lovelady in the doorway; Fetzer believes otherwise.

I have no doubt about the sincerity of Fetzer's views--even though I think he is incorrect. But Lamson is a whole other story. . . I'm starting to think that if I maintained that 2 + 3 equaled 5, Lamson would come up with some excuse to maintain otherwise. And, and, of course, there's his constant sneering attitude. .

I am reminded of the manner in which (in his ongoing debate with Cliff Varnell) he maintained the absurdity that JFK's shirt rode up some 5 inches, which only he seemed to "see" in various photos. Oh well. . .

DSL

2/2/12; 7:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Pat Speer]

Thanks for posting this exhibit, where each square on the shirt is numbered.

Whether that was your intention or not, I think this proves very clearly that the shirt worn by Lovelady on 11/22/63 has a nice size pocket, which appears nowhere on the shirt worn when he posed for Groden in 1976.

The pocket flap is encompassed by squares 6, 7, and 8.

I do not agree with the idea that the pocket (in the 1976 photos) can not be seen because it is "ironed flat." It is not visible because it is not there.

Furthermore, just look at the shape of the pocket, as shown in the 1963 photo--it has clearly defined slanting edges (as Fetzer has noted in an earlier post).

I have always been reluctant to rely on photographic evidence because another person can say (or claim) that they do not "see" something that is obviously there. When I spotted the pocket/no-pocket conflict, I thought that the difference was plain as day. I am truly surprised that there is any difference of opinion on this.

Its obvious to me that in the 11/22 newsreel footage at the DPD, Lovelady was wearing a shirt with a large pocket (which contained a pack of cigarettes); in posing for Groden, in 1976, he wore a similar plaid shirt, but it had no such pocket.

Not only that, the vertical stripes are different (just compare squares 4, 7, and 10--which comprise the vertical stripe) in both photos).

Because of the way Lamson has carried on on this thread, I'm forced to take his so called photo-expertise much less seriously. His excuse that he has a closet full of shirts where a pocket of that size is not visible, is just plain silly. Then, with regard to Lovelady's repeated statements (which are false) that he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes, Lamson has (I noticed) now proclaimed that Lovelady confused vertical with horizontal. (Oh pleez . . . )

My differences with Fetzer on this matter are not about the pocket. Apparently, we both see the shirt no pocket/pocket" conflict the same way. We differ on what it means.

I believe it is Lovelady in the doorway; Fetzer believes otherwise.

I have no doubt about the sincerity of Fetzer's views--even though I think he is incorrect. But Lamson is a whole other story. . . I'm starting to think that if I maintained that 2 + 3 equaled 5, Lamson would come up with some excuse to maintain otherwise. And, and, of course, there's his constant sneering attitude. .

I am reminded of the manner in which (in his ongoing debate with Cliff Varnell) he maintained the absurdity that JFK's shirt rode up some 5 inches, which only he seemed to "see" in various photos. Oh well. . .

DSL

2/2/12; 7:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

When I look at square 10 in the Groden photo, and look halfway between the number 10 and the white line to the left, I see a vertical line. I think this could be the edge of the pocket. Do you see it? What do you think it is?

[Robin Unger]

The top of the pocket apears where the "white lines" are brocken.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Not to make the obvious point, but there is NO FLAP, so I can't possibly be the same shirt. Case closed!

The top of the pocket apears where the "white lines" are brocken.

[Ray Mitcham]

Not to make the obvious point, but there is NO FLAP, so I can't possibly be the same shirt. Case closed!

The top of the pocket apears where the "white lines" are brocken.

Re the v shaped t shirt, if you enlarge the Altgens photo sufficiently you can see the start of the round neck just before it goes into the v shaped shadow.(To the left of Lovelady's chin as we look at it. )

Unfortunately because of restrictions on this machine, I can't submit an enlargement to show what I mean.

Just my 2 cents

[Craig Lamson]

Not to make the obvious point, but there is NO FLAP, so I can't possibly be the same shirt. Case closed!

That requires you to prove there IS A FLAP in at least one image, and you have failed to do that.

On the other hand it has been shown that your so called and unproven FLAP can easily be the open pocket filled with cigs, which supported by EXPERIMENTAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and the same visible appearance of the top the open pocket in other images.i

so yes, it is case closed, and you lose.