Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lovelady Was Wearing His Unbuttoned Shirt In Front Of The TSBD After The Assassination


Recommended Posts

VTS_02_3.gif

If you look very closely you will see that the shirt of this particular "Lovelady Imposter" (according to Fetzer and Cinque) was unbuttoned. See that very white, vertical "stripe" which is broader at the bottom than at the top and is closer to his belly than his neck? (It's visible just before he starts turning his head back to the right.) That's his T-shirt!

Hmmm... Maybe it's really Lovelady after all!

See also Chris Davidson's great Hughes' film "thumbnail" in post #63 of Dr. Fetzer's rather nauseous "Newseum Display" thread...

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well spotted and illustrated, Tommy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what?

You should be happy, David. It lends support to the position that it wasn't Oswald but Lovelady who was standing on the TSBD steps in the Altgens #6 photo.

I'm a conspiracy theorist, David. For a second there I was worried that you were going to agree with me.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer says that the person in martin has his shirt buttoned up at the top.

and therefore can't be Lovelady as seen in Altgen's 6 because he has his shirt wide open.

Fetzner is wrong as usual.

The man in Martin is the same seen man seen in Hughes, and the man in Hughes has his shirt open showing his white t-shirt.

the man in Martin and Hughes is Lovelady.

Martin / Hughes film sync ( same moment in time ) TSBD doorway Credit: Gerda Dunckel

martinhughessynch100prkc9v.gif

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer says that the person in martin has his shirt buttoned up at the top.

and therefore can't be Lovelady as seen in Altgen's 6 because he has his shirt wide open.

Fetzner is wrong as usual.

The man in Martin is the same seen man seen in Hughes, and the man in Hughes has his shirt open showing his white t-shirt.

the man in Martin and Hughes is Lovelady.

Martin / Hughes film sync ( same moment in time ) TSBD doorway Credit: Gerda Dunckel

martinhughessynch100prkc9v.gif

Robin,

Yep! Good one! (Your post with the yellow arrow pointing to Lovelady's Opened Shirt)

--Tommy :sun

PS: Thanks for the compliment, JD!

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure isn't Oswald [in the TSBD doorway].

You're so right. It isn't Oswald. (Not that we can really verify that fact by looking at a frame taken from a blurry movie.)

But there are so many OTHER reasons to know that Doorway Man is Billy Lovelady and not Oswald. The #1 reason, of course, is because Billy Lovelady HIMSELF told the world it was him (Lovelady) in the doorway. But according to people like Fetzer and Cinque, evidently Lovelady was telling a big whopper of a lie to BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA when he said he was Doorway Man.

And there's Buell Frazier's testimony too. He took a pencil and drew an arrow to a person he said was Billy Lovelady in CE369. (And Lovelady himself drew a second arrow pointing to the same person in the same exhibit.)

And Frazier repeated his "Lovelady Was In The Doorway" testimony in 1986 too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=604Fr5t198A

So, per Fetzer & Co., Frazier must be a xxxx too.

And then we have Oswald himself (i.e., Oswald's own actions on 11/22). Per Fetzer & Co., Oswald's in the dooway at 12:30 .... he sees the President get shot .... he then (apparently) has an uncontrollable desire to dash into the TSBD Building and trot on up to the second floor to buy a Coca-Cola.

And these would be the actions of a man who was "involved" in the plot to kill JFK to at least some limited extent, according to most CTers. And I think even Dr. Fetzer thinks that Oswald was "involved" in the murder plot to at least some partial degree.

Given the fact that almost everyone agrees that Lee Oswald was involved in the assassination in at least some peripheral way, does it seem even remotely logical that Oswald would have wanted to go back INSIDE the building within seconds of the assassination taking place?

In fact, if a little more common sense is applied to this "involved" topic, it really makes absolutely no sense WHATSOEVER to have Lee Harvey Oswald even being anywhere near the scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza if he wasn't there to physically shoot at the President.

What help or aid was Lee supposedly providing the "real assassins" that day? According to Oliver Stone's paper-thin theory, Oswald was supposed to wait by a telephone on the lower floors of the Depository. He was "waiting for a call that never came", per Stone's 1991 fantasy film. But nothing else is ever said about it in the film.

It couldn't be more obvious that Stone's theory about the physical movements and whereabouts of Oswald at the time of the assassination is merely the product of the imagination of a filmmaker who was desperately attempting to manipulate the evidence of Oswald's guilt into something it was not. And that's why Stone's theory about Oswald looks so disjointed and flat-out silly on the movie screen. Or, to quote the great Jean Davison:

"The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."

-- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game"

----------

And wasn't it nice of Oliver Stone to totally ignore the paper bag that Oswald brought into the TSBD on November 22nd? And wasn't it also nice and fair and BALANCED of Mr. Stone to also totally ignore Oswald's unusual Thursday-night visit to Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21st and to completely ignore Oswald's "curtain rods" story as well?

A person watching Stone's film who is uninformed about the facts in the JFK case would think that Oswald's Thursday trip to Irving had never even occurred. And that viewer would also be completely in the dark about any curtain rod tale. And the unsuspecting movie-goer would be totally unaware of ANY brown paper bag that was being hauled into work by Oswald on the day of Kennedy's murder (regardless of the shape and size of that bag).

You want to talk about a biased look at the JFK assassination? Talk to Oliver Stone.

(Sorry, I digressed. But once a train of conspiracy-bashing thought pops into my cranium, it's hard to derail her.) :)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure isn't Oswald [in the TSBD doorway].

You're so right. It isn't Oswald. (Not that we can really verify that fact by looking at a frame taken from a blurry movie.)

But there are so many OTHER reasons to know that Doorway Man is Billy Lovelady and not Oswald. The #1 reason, of course, is because Billy Lovelady HIMSELF told the world it was him (Lovelady) in the doorway. But according to people like Fetzer and Cinque, evidently Lovelady was telling a big whopper of a lie to BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA when he said he was Doorway Man.

And there's Buell Frazier's testimony too. He took a pencil and drew an arrow to a person he said was Billy Lovelady in CE369. (And Lovelady himself drew a second arrow pointing to the same person in the same exhibit.)

And Frazier repeated his "Lovelady Was In The Doorway" testimony in 1986 too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=604Fr5t198A

So, per Fetzer & Co., Frazier must be a xxxx too.

And then we have Oswald himself (i.e., Oswald's own actions on 11/22). Per Fetzer & Co., Oswald's in the dooway at 12:30 .... he sees the President get shot .... he then (apparently) has an uncontrollable desire to dash into the TSBD Building and trot on up to the second floor to buy a Coca-Cola.

I agree with you, David.

And these would be the actions of a man who was "involved" in the plot to kill JFK to at least some limited extent, according to most CTers. And I think even Dr. Fetzer thinks that Oswald was "involved" in the murder plot to at least some partial degree.

It depends on how one defines the word "involved."

Given the fact that almost everyone agrees that Lee Oswald was involved in the assassination in at least some peripheral way, does it seem even remotely logical that Oswald would have wanted to go back INSIDE the building within seconds of the assassination taking place?

In fact, if a little more common sense is applied to this "involved" topic, it really makes absolutely no sense WHATSOEVER to have Lee Harvey Oswald even being anywhere near the scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza if he wasn't there to physically shoot at the President.

Unless, of course, Oswald was "involved" by being manipulated into being the patsy by 1) being told that he was monitoring drug smuggling/gun running activity inside the TSBD, 2) told that he was to try to help stop the assassination, or 3) told that he was to participate in a fake "assassination attempt."

What help or aid was Lee supposedly providing the "real assassins" that day? According to Oliver Stone's paper-thin theory, Oswald was supposed to wait by a telephone on the lower floors of the Depository. He was "waiting for a call that never came", per Stone's 1991 fantasy film. But nothing else is ever said about it in the film.

See above.

It couldn't be more obvious that Stone's theory about the physical movements and whereabouts of Oswald at the time of the assassination is merely the product of the imagination of a filmmaker who was desperately attempting to manipulate the evidence of Oswald's guilt into something it was not. And that's why Stone's theory about Oswald looks so disjointed and flat-out silly on the movie screen. Or, to quote the great Jean Davison:

"The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."

-- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game"

Whatever.

----------

And wasn't it nice of Oliver Stone to totally ignore the paper bag that Oswald brought into the TSBD on November 22nd? And wasn't it also nice and fair and BALANCED of Mr. Stone to also totally ignore Oswald's unusual Thursday-night visit to Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21st and to completely ignore Oswald's "curtain rods" story as well?

A person watching Stone's film who is uninformed about the facts in the JFK case would think that Oswald's Thursday trip to Irving had never even occurred. And that viewer would also be completely in the dark about any curtain rod tale. And the unsuspecting movie-goer would be totally unaware of ANY brown paper bag that was being hauled into work by Oswald on the day of Kennedy's murder (regardless of the shape and size of that bag).

You want to talk about a biased look at the JFK assassination? Talk to Oliver Stone.

Whatever.

(Sorry, I digressed. But once a train of conspiracy-bashing thought pops into my cranium, it's hard to derail her.) :)

OK, David. Appology accepted.

http://jfk-archives....man-part-2.html

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually a .flv file.

If you have troubles playing it, try changing the extension from .mov to .flv

Stabilized to show Lovelady's reaction to the camera. Speculation by me.

Watch the detective notice the camera first, before Lovelady reacts. Speculation by me.

Lovelady's head turns toward Oswald then back toward the camera (look at the direction of his forehead) then downward quickly. imo

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...