Newseum displays "Oswald's shirt": Proof that he was Doorman!

[Robin Unger]

Thomas

It's possible your TSBD woman could be the lady in black on the steps in Wiegman ( hard to say without knowing what she looks like )

Do you know off hand, how many of the tsbd womens testimony's have them STANDING ON THE DOORWAY STEPS

i HAD AN IDEA IT WAS THREE ?

Edited March 4, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas

It's possible your TSBD woman could be the lady in black on the steps in Wiegman ( hard to say without knowing what she looks like )

Do you know off hand, how many of the tsbd womens testimony's have them STANDING ON THE DOORWAY STEPS

i HAD AN IDEA IT WAS THREE ?

Sorry, Robin. I don't know the answer to your question.

I did notice the same woman you noticed in the photo. It looks like she's looking up somewhat.

--Tommy

Edited March 4, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Robin Unger]

Weigman woman in black

There is a strong possibility that this woman seen in a number of Murray photo's

may be the woman seen on the steps in Wiegman.

Right location,( in front of the TSBD steps ) same style black dress, dark hair in the same hairstyle

[Don Jeffries]

Lee, why do you state that I am a "moderator," as if there is some doubt that I am? Clearly, you don't approve of my performance as a moderator, but are you suggesting that I am not one?

And I would note that Jim Fetzer's thread certainly has attracted your interest, and even appears to have brought Greg Parker back. Isn't that exactly what I was saying?

[Karl Kinaski]

SCNR

Murray Gell-Mann said: If there is to much info, the result is chaos...

Edited March 4, 2013 by Karl Kinaski

[Don Jeffries]

Lee, you're not "suggesting" anything. You're issuing a threat. And yet you don't appear to recognize the difference.

If you don't want to "debate" multiple Loveladys, or feel that a chiropractor is beneath you, then what are you doing posting several times in those threads? If the arguments are ridiculous and hold no water, why don't you ignore them?

You can't expect to say the things you do, in the manner you do, without people responding. I am not a "stirrer," I'm merely someone who has a keen interest in the JFK assassination, and is growing more disillusioned by the day in terms of how much discord and petty squabbling go on in our little community. I realize now why a great researcher like Gary Shaw just turned his back on this case.

People should be able to disagree passionately about various aspects of this case, while agreeing on the larger question at hand. At this point, I'm not sure if the primary goal of most researchers is convincing the public that they've been lied to, and that there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy.

[Craig Lamson]

"hey had to bring in a THIRD LOVELADY for the sake of faking an open shirt in new footage from the DPD"

thanks I really needed that.

It just keeps getting deeper and deeper for them

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lee Farley has claimed that someone else is writing my posts! How absurd is that? I have written every post I have ever put up on the forum, as anyone ought to know. I am puzzled by the concern for posts I have made here and on other threads. I have thought my responses to everyone, including Unger, Lamson, and Graves, are as straightforward and objective as they could possibly be. If there is something about my style that even Don finds objectionable, that bothers me. I no doubt come across as "professorial", but then, I am a (now retired) professor. The problem, as I see it, is that persons like those three are in denial about what the evidence shows, regardless of its strength. Lee Farley, for example, hasn't a clue when it comes to serious research, where he takes bits and pieces out of context to create a new slam against me. Let me illustrate using reenacment photos of Lovelady, which are obviously faked, which he and the others want to deny:

Lee Farley seems to me to be a good example of someone who is not very good at research but thinks he is. Consider this case. The left arm (on the right as we view the photo) is OBVIOUSLY too short to be real. The sleeve has been altered, which is even more conspicuous in the left-hand (colored) image than in the right. Just look toward the bottom of the sleeve, a few squares up: it is out of alignment--and the same is true in the right-hand image, where the whole arm appears to be fake. Notice where it connects with the shoulder! It is very clear that the hand on the left arm is like that of a mannequin, where Billy was unavailable to make the "correction" so they just faked it. When someone like Farley blows a fuse, which happens rather often, it appears to be because he doesn't understand the evidence or the argument and, in frustration, vents his wrath on me. But it is actually a reflection of the fact that, with regard to JFK, he's a mediocrity.

Edited March 4, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thomas Graves is at least as bad as Lee Farley at serious research. He belittles the point I have made about using yet a "third Lovelady", but that is meant to distract any serious student from the evidence. We know that there were at least TWO "Lovelady"s, since the Billy who posed for the FBI and the Checkered Shirt Man look nothing alike. Look at the "Lovelady" in the upper-right hand image from footage that purportedly was taken at the Dallas Police Department:

It's an interesting case, because he looks like a composite of the real Billy and Checkered Shirt Man. When you realize that this issue of the splayed shirt has been on their minds for a long time and they have been doing what they can to create fabricated images to make the real Billy look more like Doorman (as we see above, where they even faked his left-arm and altered the sleeve), it should come as no surprise. But Lamson, Unger and Graves would never admit it.

"They had to bring in a THIRD LOVELADY for the sake of faking an open shirt in new footage from the DPD"

thanks I really needed that.

John,

This really is funny!

Dr. Fetzer accused me of "grasping at straws" when I showed that Lovelady was wearing his unbuttoned shirt in front of the TSBD. But It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. "Three Loveladys." LOL!!! Hilarious!!!

--Tommy

Edited March 4, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Like Lee Farley, Thomas Graves is another example of a mediocrity who has repeatedly attempted to undermine and belittle serious research on JFK. The photographs of Billy again provide an acid test. Compare the images I have already posted above. Look at the left arms on each. One is short, the other is long. Yet Thomas Graves and others will never admit that they have faked photos of Lovelady, not matter how strong the evidence. I am at a loss as to what word best describes those who are willing to make blatantly false claims in the face of overwhelming evidence. "Shill" has seemed to fit:

shill [shil] Show IPA Slang.

noun

1.

a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2.

a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

verb (used without object)

3.

to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.

verb (used with object)

4.

to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.

K.D. Ruckman was the student who observed the anomalies in these Lovelady photographs. He has noted where splices have occurred, two on the right sleeve, one on the left. From this photograph alone, it is obvious that fakery has been taking place, but Unger, Lamson and Graves will never admit it. The face on the figure on the right does not look right, either: more fakery here.

Edited March 4, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas Graves is at least as bad as Lee Farley at serious research. He belittles the point I have made about using yet a "third Lovelady", but that is meant to distract any serious student from the evidence. We know that there were at least TWO "Lovelady"s, since the Billy who posed for the FBI and the Checkered Shirt Man look nothing alike. Look at the "Lovelady" in the upper-right hand image from footage that purportedly was taken at the Dallas Police Department:

It's an interesting case, because he looks like a composite of the real Billy and Checkered Shirt Man. When you realize that this issue of the splayed shirt has been on their minds for a long time and they have been doing what they can to create fabricated images to make the real Billy look more like Doorman (as we see above, where they even faked his left-arm and altered the sleeve), it should come as no surprise. But Lamson, Unger and Graves would never admit it.

"They had to bring in a THIRD LOVELADY for the sake of faking an open shirt in new footage from the DPD"

thanks I really needed that.

John,

This really is funny!

Dr. Fetzer accused me of "grasping at straws" when I showed that Lovelady was wearing his unbuttoned shirt in front of the TSBD. But It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. "Three Loveladys." LOL!!! Hilarious!!!

--Tommy

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

Different camera angles and/or different camera lenses make anyone look different.

If you look closely at the enlarged clip from the Martin film which you so kindly posted, Lovelady was smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD and had just taken a "puff" right before the still "capture" of him was taken which you posted in an attempt to portray him as "Mr. Hyde." In the still "capture," Lovelady was exhaling smoke through his mouth or actually coughing!

Respectfully,

--Tommy

Edited March 4, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Craig Lamson]

Like Lee Farley, Thomas Graves is another example of a mediocrity who has repeatedly attempted to undermine and belittle serious research on JFK. The photographs of Billy again provide an acid test. Compare the images I have already posted above. Look at the left arms on each. One is short, the other is long. Yet Thomas Graves and others will never admit that they have faked photos of Lovelady, not matter how strong the evidence. I am at a loss as to what word best describes those who are willing to make blatantly false claims in the face of overwhelming evidence. "Shill" has seemed to fit:

shill [shil] Show IPA Slang.

noun

1.

a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2.

a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

verb (used without object)

3.

to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.

verb (used with object)

4.

to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.

K.D. Ruckman was the student who observed the anomalies in these Lovelady photographs. He has noted where splices have occurred, two on the right sleeve, one on the left. From this photograph alone, it is obvious that fakery has been taking place, but Unger, Lamson and Graves will never admit it. The face on the figure on the right does not look right, either: more fakery here.

The so called "photo analysis" posted here is simply beyond silly. Of course Fetrzer could never know, since he knows nothing about the subjects he is pimping. He really fits this:

2.

a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

or even better, this:

4.

to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.

Fetzer is shameless. He has no real skills in this regard, never has, All he can do is regurgitate the work of others, not knowing if it is correct or not. Only that it fits his warped sense of reality.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Let me make it clear that individuals like Lee Farley and Thomas Graves, who really haven't a clue, and brazen deceivers and manipulators, such as Lamson and Unger, fall into different moral categories, rather like the distinction between manslaughter or reckless endangerment and first or second degree murder. As in the case of bringing about someone's death is amenable to degrees of moral responsibility, not everyone who makes false and irresponsible claims is guilty to the same degree. Anyone who reviews this thread, including these most recent posts, will see that, while Farley and Graves REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, the Ungers and Lamsons KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASSERTING IS FALSE, BUT THEY ASSERT IT ANYWAY WITH THE INTENT OF MISLEADING THE MORE GULLIBLE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM. Consider the proofs of Lovelady fakery I have posted above: in one, his left arm is short and artificial; in another, it is normal and natural. There are multiple splices in the left arm and another in the right. This is dispositive proof of fakery. Yet you are not going to read Lamson or Unger admitting it, NO MATTER HOW STRONG THE PROOF. And, frankly, the proof presented could hardly be any stronger. Others here should wake up and smell the very bad stench.

Like Lee Farley, Thomas Graves is another example of a mediocrity who has repeatedly attempted to undermine and belittle serious research on JFK. The photographs of Billy again provide an acid test. Compare the images I have already posted above. Look at the left arms on each. One is short, the other is long. Yet Thomas Graves and others will never admit that they have faked photos of Lovelady, not matter how strong the evidence. I am at a loss as to what word best describes those who are willing to make blatantly false claims in the face of overwhelming evidence. "Shill" has seemed to fit:

shill [shil] Show IPA Slang.

noun

1.

a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2.

a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

verb (used without object)

3.

to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.

verb (used with object)

4.

to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.

K.D. Ruckman was the student who observed the anomalies in these Lovelady photographs. He has noted where splices have occurred, two on the right sleeve, one on the left. From this photograph alone, it is obvious that fakery has been taking place, but Unger, Lamson and Graves will never admit it. The face on the figure on the right does not look right, either: more fakery here.

The so called "photo analysis" posted here is simply beyond silly. Of course Fetrzer could never know, since he knows nothing about the subjects he is pimping. He really fits this:

2.

a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

or even better, this:

4.

to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.

Fetzer is shameless. He has no real skills in this regard, never has, All he can do is regurgitate the work of others, not knowing if it is correct or not. Only that it fits his warped sense of reality.

Edited March 4, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Lovelady showing left arm bent and shoulder high

Lovelady showing right arm straight shoulder low

result Loveladys right arm appears longer,

If he dropped his left shoulder, so that both shoulders were even, and straightened his left arm.

then naturally both arms would then appear the same length.

[Thomas Graves]

Lovelady showing left arm bent and shoulder high

Lovelady showing right arm straight shoulder low

result Loveladys right arm appears longer,

If he dropped his left shoulder, so that both shoulders were even, and straightened his left arm.

then naturally both arms would then appear the same length.

Robin,

Good point.

Also, it looks like Lovelady is holding his left arm a little bit farther out towards the camera than his right one, thereby making his left arm look even shorter.

--Tommy