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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A sure sign of trolls and shills is that they will NEVER CHANGE THEIR MINDS, NO MATTER WHAT,

BECAUSE THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT EVIDENCE. Billy cannot have been in two places at

the same time. He was walking toward the railroad and the grassy knoll when these photos were

taken of Gorilla Man. They cannot be of the same person, as I have proven--AGAIN AND AGAIN.

The questions becomes whether the images of Gorilla Man were even authentic in the first place,

since we have seen there are multiple indications of the third "Lovelady" in the DPD having been

fabricated or faked themselves. None of these persons look alike: Billy Lovelady is OBVIOUSLY

not Gorilla Man and neither Gorilla Man nor the man in the DPD look like Billy Lovelady. Consider:

The power of social cohesion can numb the brain and induce a form of unconscious concession to the

views that predominate within a group, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

For those who are opposing one of the most important discoveries of the last 20 years, if not the most--

that the man in the doorway was the alleged assassin--there will NEVER BE ENOUGH PROOF. Never!

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Quote

Is Lovelady's head in front or behind the curly haired Lady ?

That is so pathetic it doesn't even deserve a response

Quote:

Why is there a spot light on Lovelady

I guess it would have nothing to do with the Large fluorescent light fitting hanging directly above his head

Edited March 7, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What doesn't deserve a response is your continued affirmation that Checkered Shirt Man

(aka Gorilla Man) was Billy Lovelady, when the differences between them are apparent to

all: they are different in the physiques, the one has a much larger cranium, he is bursting

out of his shirt, which is buttoned up. On all these counts, he can't possibly be Doorman:

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

What doesn't deserve a response is your continued affirmation that Checkered Shirt Man

(aka Gorilla Man) was Billy Lovelady, when the differences between them are apparent to

all: they are different in the physiques, the one has a much larger cranium, he is bursting

out of his shirt, which is buttoned up. On all these counts, he can't possibly be Doorman:

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

As I've already pointed out to you, different camera angles and/or different lenses (i.e., different focal lengths) make the same person appear different. And, as I've also pointed out to you, Lovelady was smoking when Martin caught him on film. If you look closely at the clip, you'll see that Lovelady exhales through his mouth and/or coughs after taking a puff on his cigarette, both of which actions would contort his face somewhat, thereby making him look even more "different."

Sincerely and respectfully,

--Tommy

Edited March 6, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[David Von Pein]

Has it ever occurred to Jim Fetzer that Billy Lovelady could have lost some weight between 11/22/63 and March of 1964?

I guess such a "weight loss" possibility is just impossible in Dr. Fetzer's world.

And apparently the notion that a shirt can be buttoned and then unbuttoned in very short order is another impossible-to-conceive concept in the daffy "Everything And Everybody Is Fake" world that James H. Fetzer resides in. (Although others in this discussion have proven via films and photos, besides just the Altgens picture, that Lovelady's shirt was unbuttoned at the exact time of the assassination. Heck, I even provided some proof of that in one of my posts, where I showed a frame from the Wiegman film.)

BTW/FYI -- In 1986, Lovelady's co-worker, Wesley Frazier, described Lovelady as being "stocky". Go to approximately the 9-minute mark in this video to hear him say that word:

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

Edited March 6, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is Doorman. Why would anyone in their right mind contend that Gorilla Man and Doorman are one

and the same? Look at their build. Look at their shirts. Look at their skulls. The had to introduce yet

a third "Lovelady" because the other two wouldn't do--and they need to open the shirt! Unbelievable!

But of course Robin Unger and his chums can't even bring themselves to admit that Doorman

is missing his left shoulder, that Black Tie Man is both IN FRONT OF AND BEHIND HIM AT THE

SAME TIME, and one individual has had his face obscured. That's Robin Under and his chums!

What doesn't deserve a response is your continued affirmation that Checkered Shirt Man

(aka Gorilla Man) was Billy Lovelady, when the differences between them are apparent to

all: they are different in the physiques, the one has a much larger cranium, he is bursting

out of his shirt, which is buttoned up. On all these counts, he can't possibly be Doorman:

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

As I've already pointed out to you, different camera angles and/or different lenses (i.e., different focal lengths) make the same person appear different. And, as I've also pointed out to you, Lovelady was smoking when Martin caught him on film. If you look closely at the clip, you'll see that Lovelady exhales through his mouth and/or coughs after taking a puff on his cigarette, both of which actions would contort his face somewhat, thereby making him look even more "different."

Sincerely and respectfully,

--Tommy

[Greg Burnham]

A sure sign of trolls and shills is that they will NEVER CHANGE THEIR MINDS, NO MATTER WHAT,

BECAUSE THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT EVIDENCE.

If the shoe fits...

...

Edited March 6, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Suppose Lovelady WAS "stocky". Dooman was NOT "stocky". These guys--Doorman and Gorilla Man--

were at the same place at the same time. What's the point of suggesting "Billy Lovelady could have lost

some weight between 11/11/63 and March of 1964"? That is not the question, even though I doubt it.

Gorilla Man looks nothing like Doorman--and if Billy HAD BEEN "stocky", which he was not, then that's

yet another good reason to exclude him, over and beyond that he in fact was wearing a red-and-white,

vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. (And I withdraw my suggestion that your arguments were making

you look like Einstein compared with the others. This is a REALLY TERRIBLE argument, since we are

talking about photographs and films taken minutes part.) They are clearly NOT the same individuals.

Has it ever occurred to Jim Fetzer that Billy Lovelady could have lost some weight between 11/22/63 and March of 1964?

I guess such a "weight loss" possibility is just impossible in Dr. Fetzer's world. (And apparently the notion that a shirt can be buttoned and then unbuttoned in very short order is always an impossible-to-conceive concept in the daffy "Everything And Everybody Is Fake" world that James H. Fetzer resides in.

BTW/FYI -- In 1986, Lovelady's co-worker, Wesley Frazier, described Lovelady as being "stocky". Go to the 9-minute mark in this video to hear him day that word:

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

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It gives me no pleasure to observe that you have proven to be the "class dunce"

when it comes to reasoning. You can't distinguish between scientific and non-

scientific reasoning and are becoming accomplished at posting meaningless

drivel. When have you come to grips with even the most elementary points?

Scientific reasoning is based upon (1) hypothesis formation, (2) observation and

experimentation, (3) inductive and deductive reasoning, and (4) the evaluation

of alternative explanations. You have never gotten to first base with any of the

most basic arguments. If you want to try again, here they are for your review:

(1) Doorman's was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Oswald was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Therefore, Oswald's shirt makes him a strong candidate for Doorman.

The second is based upon observation, the FBI photographs and report,

and the principle of identity (the same person cannot be wearing a short-

sleeved shirt and a long-sleeved shirt at one and the same time), namely:

(2) Doorman was not wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Therefore, Lovelady was not Doorman.

The third argument is based upon observation and the same principle of

identity, where the differences between them are rather easy to observe:

(3) Doorman had a shirt that was splayed open.

Checkered Shirt Man was not splayed open.

Therefore, Checkered Shirt Man is not Doorman.

The fourth argument is a simple deductive argument by elimination as follows:

(4) Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

But Doorman was not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

Therefore, Doorman was Oswald.

There is abundant evidence to support the premises of these arguments and

their reasoning is impeccable. There is nothing about any of them that ought

to challenge a reasonable mind. Moreover, we have further proof that Lovelady

and Checkered Shirt Man were not even at the same places at the same times,

but this is enough to test you metal. I won't be surprised when you do not reply.

A sure sign of trolls and shills is that they will NEVER CHANGE THEIR MINDS, NO MATTER WHAT,

BECAUSE THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT EVIDENCE.

If the shoe fits...

...

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

A sure sign of trolls and shills is that they will NEVER CHANGE THEIR MINDS, NO MATTER WHAT,

BECAUSE THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT EVIDENCE. Billy cannot have been in two places at

the same time. He was walking toward the railroad and the grassy knoll when these photos were

taken of Gorilla Man. They cannot be of the same person, as I have proven--AGAIN AND AGAIN.

The questions becomes whether the images of Gorilla Man were even authentic in the first place,

since we have seen there are multiple indications of the third "Lovelady" in the DPD having been

fabricated or faked themselves. None of these persons look alike: Billy Lovelady is OBVIOUSLY

not Gorilla Man and neither Gorilla Man nor the man in the DPD look like Billy Lovelady. Consider:

The power of social cohesion can numb the brain and induce a form of unconscious concession to the

views that predominate within a group, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

For those who are opposing one of the most important discoveries of the last 20 years, if not the most--

that the man in the doorway was the alleged assassin--there will NEVER BE ENOUGH PROOF. Never!

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

Don't you agree that it's absolutely, mind-bogglingly amazing-beyond-absurdity, incredible that "central casting" was able to come up with a Lovelady Imposter who looked so much like the real deal?

Amazing, absolutely amazing!

--Tommy

[David Von Pein]

...and if Billy HAD BEEN "stocky", which he was not...

So you think Buell Frazier is a xxxx now, too, eh Jim? Did somebody put the word "stocky" into Buell's mouth at the 1986 mock trial?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAFbJ5fTEG8

This is a REALLY TERRIBLE argument, since we are talking about photographs and films taken minutes apart. They are clearly NOT the same individuals.

Yes, they are the same. Billy Lovelady HIMSELF confirmed he was Doorway Man. I still don't really know why that verification by the person in the doorway himself isn't enough to convince you it is Lovelady.

The explanation for any perceived visual differences in the Lovelady footage has simply got to be accounted for via the angles of the photos and films. A different camera angle can sometimes make a lot of difference. Wouldn't you agree, Jim?

You, Jim, have got a bunch of people lying and running around creating fake films and fake Loveladys. Don't tell me THAT type of scenario of yours is MORE reasonable than to just accept Lovelady's OWN WORD that it was he (Billy L.) in that doorway.

Edited March 6, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Suppose Lovelady WAS "stocky". Dooman was NOT "stocky". These guys--Doorman and Gorilla Man--

were at the same place at the same time. What's the point of suggesting "Billy Lovelady could have lost

some weight between 11/11/63 and March of 1964"? That is not the question, even though I doubt it.

Gorilla Man looks nothing like Doorman--and if Billy HAD BEEN "stocky", which he was not, then that's

yet another good reason to exclude him, over and beyond that he in fact was wearing a red-and-white,

vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. (And I withdraw my suggestion that your arguments were making

you look like Einstein compared with the others. This is a REALLY TERRIBLE argument, since we are

talking about photographs and films taken minutes part.) They are clearly NOT the same individuals.

Here's another study of the faking of Gorilla Man. There seems to be no end to the fakery involved:

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

This testimony identifies two of the female TSBD workers who were standing on the steps. as (McCully and Davis)

I am proposing that in the Altgen's 6 photo it is very likely that what has been identified by Fetzer & his O.I.P flunkies as the " Black Hole" is in fact one of these women standing behind Elbow man with her two hands above her head shielding her eyes from the sun.

[Lindsay Anderson]

Apologies for re-posting this from the other thread - but as this one has gone back to the same arguments, it seems appropriate here.

These may be basic, beginners questions and far below the usual level of debate here but, until I can reach some sort of 'clarity' on these points (something that makes at least some sense to me), much of what is being discussed here (and in the other thread) seems irrelevant.

Rather than add text in a third colour, I have expanded on my original thoughts in bold (not for emphasis but to differentiate) to further illustrate why I feel these are relevant observations / questions to ask.

1. The figure in the doorway resembles Oswald to any casual observer –

I just don’t get why anyone would edit the photo extensively and leave that in. They did not need to make this figure look like Lovelady (or did they?).

I am increasingly of the opinion that there is too much evidence of cover-up and so much of it badly done and easy to disprove – what I think we have are deliberate measures to disinform by any means, it didnt matter whether it would stand up to close scrutiny. When combined with (our natural tendency to see) pictures in the clouds (or poor quality film or photos) it means the truth gets buried further every day. Despite this, (extensively altering the photo but) leaving an image that resembles Oswald intentionally would have been, in my opinion, just too much of a risk and one hell of a double-bluff.

Why, if they altered the pic extensively, did they need to place Lovelady or anyone else resembling Oswald in the picture? Why not just obscure any identifying features on doorman including the shirt, as some claim was done elsewhere in the picture or, insert a composite random man in random shirt.

Until I get an answer for this one I cannot accept extensive alteration to be the explanation of the anomalies we see in the photo.

Visual Anomalies = Evidence of Extensive Alteration = (reason for Alteration?) Oswald in Doorway. Really???

2. People we believe should be in the doorway may well be there, we just can’t see them.

From the zoomed in image (altgens6) it looks like we see the entire doorway, but zoomed out it seems at least half the doorway is obscured from the shot by the tree and the 2 Secret Service Agents - Oswald could very well be standing there (obscured by the SSAgents) and we wouldn't know it.

Could Lovelady or Oswald or both be in the picture but not visible as half the doorway is hidden (or so it seems in Altgens6).

OK, I don't know enough about the angles & other photos that give another perspective at roughly the same time - so this observation may not be worth much. But it's still a question and it leads to something I haven't asked before that IS important:

Who, other than Lovelady and Oswald themselves, places Lovelady and Oswald in the doorway? For instance, what did Bill Shelley have to say about being there with Oswald. This takes us back to (if they altered the image) why did they have to have an Oswald like figure in doorway at all.

3. The insistence that Doorman has to be one of 3 people, Oswald, Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man –

........... (is this) considered to be accepted fact? James Fetzer's conclusion is based on exclusion of Lovelady and Checkered Shirt Man - Oswald is the only remaining candidate - therefore Doorman = Oswald

I've had 2 replies on this on the other thread, one from James and the other from Robin Ungar - both are helpful but present opposite views.

James first replied to Len Colby, who asked this question before me

“no one has proposed any alternative candidates, as you know (or should know).

Lee told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", which was an important answer

to the most important question Fritz had to ask him. The shirt on Doorman is VERY

DISTINCTIVE and looks like Oswald's shirt, as the article above has explained. The

shirt Lovelady was wearing does not look like Doorman's shirt--even remotely. And

Checkered Shirt Man's shirt was buttoned up to the top, while Doorman's shirt was

splayed open. Plus Checkered Shirt Man does not look remotely like Lovelady. We

have no other candidates for Doorman, which means that the argument covers the

bases that need to be covered. Random fantasizing does make an argument, where

you, as usual, have no evidence to support the notion it was someone else entirely."

and added, responding to me

'We only have three choices: that it was Oswald (who told Will Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front"), Billy Lovelady and Checkered Shirt Man, where neither of the latter two are viable candidates for the reasons that I have been hammering home in this thread and elsewhere. There really is no place else to go'

'With all the resources of the federal government at its disposal and knowledge of the personnel who worked at the Book Depository, surely the government could have established the identity of everyone who was in that doorway area, HAD IT BEEN SO DISPOSED.'

I can see a problem with this part of Jim's explanation.

Robin -

'I believe there is only one Doorman (and that is Lovelady), I don't believe it was Oswald.'

And here is the problem, why would the FBI (or anyone else) look for other candidates for doorman, when Lovelady himself confirmed it was him.

Lovelady not only said he was there, he pointed himself out in the photo as being Doorman. It was good enough for the FBI, especially as they believed they had identified the location of the shooter and that Oswald was that shooter, so (to them) it couldn't have been Oswald in the doorway.

Was Lovelady just an opportunist, placing himself right there in the photo to secure a place in history? James has said that Lovelady wouldnt lie or play games about the shirt. So, why would he do so about his position in the photo? If he was playing games, then the real doorman could be any random, Oswald-like male, in a random Oswald-like shirt.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Lindsay Anderson

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

Why, if they altered the pic extensively, did they need to place Lovelady or anyone else resembling Oswald in the picture? Why not just obscure any identifying features on doorman including the shirt, as some claim was done elsewhere in the picture or, insert a composite random man in random shirt?

[...]

Lindsay,

Excellent point.

It would have been counter productive for the bad guys to replace Oswald's image in Altgens 6 with someone who strongly resembled Oswald because by doing so they would have risked inadvertently convincing everyone that Oswald was innocent.

Therefore, the fact that Lovelady did strongly resemble Oswald argues against the bad guys' having substituted him for Oswald in Altgens 6.

On those grounds alone, it is very probable that it was Lovelady in Altgens 6 all along.

--Tommy

PS: Unless, of course, Lovelady shot JFK while Oswald was watching the motorcade from the TSBD steps.... (OMG, I wish I hadn't said that...)

Edited March 11, 2013 by Thomas Graves