Robert Prudhomme Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Well, that is possible but, I believe Frazier was well coached prior to his giving testimony to the WC, as were Shelley and Lovelady. Could Frazier not have testified to seeing Baker enter the TSBD, and left out the part about the chit chat Baker had with Oswald? Testifying that he did not see Baker puts him at odds with the official story, and at this point in time, the perpetrators of the cover up were looking for all of the corroboration they could get. I know everyone is going to tell me it is a minor point, and not something we should concern ourselves with. It still nags at me though, the same way as Shelley and Lovelady claiming to be 25 steps down Elm St. and looking back and seeing Baker and Truly entering the TSBD nags at me. How could they possibly have gotten that far, when Baker claimed he raced his motorcycle to the TSBD at the sound of the first shot? No, my senses tell me we have been had here, and had in a way that few of us possess the ability to imagine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Lee: Nice to see you posting again and I look forward to your overview on Sean's work in this area. It is a subject matter that never ceases to intrigue and one that I have been interested in for a long time. Gary Thanks, Gary. Good to see you again. This topic is game changer. We really need to promote this work and try to obtain a high quality scan of the relevant films. The question of Prayerman, IMO, can be settled with today's technology. The copy contained on the special edition of JFK by Robin Unger is from a standard definition scan of 576i or 480i. I wonder what a 2k or 4k scan of the negatives could do to the detail in these films? It's a pity that Tom Wilson is no longer with us, as his computer program would probably have helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Whether Shelley and Lovelady left the building to go down the extension is quite debatable. The possibility exists that they both went straight back in the building if we focus on the deletions from Billy Lovelady's original handwritten affidavit. It states, "After it [the parade] was over we went back into the building and went to work. took some police officers up to the search the building." Lee, maybe your not aware of visual proof of their testimonies: The fact is LOVELADY and SHELLEY walked down Elm extension immediatly following the assassination, it need not be debated. From memory, LOVELADY and or SHELLEY describe the timing, where they were on the extension, BAKER running into the building behind them and TRULY following the officer as well as the DP officer in front of them who pulled his weapon while running to the rail yards that upon seeing the desperate officer persuaded them it was dangerous and decided to return to the TSBD which they did thru the garage entrance seen in front to their right, where they crossed paths with ADAMS and STYLES who had just run down from the fourth floor to get to the rail yards, but were prohibited from entering the rail yards by a unifomed police officer ordering them AWAY from the rail yards and back into the TSBD where it was presumably safe. What more proof could you possibly require? Edited March 17, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Earlier frame of SHELLEY and LOVELADY. The other frame was offered because it contained BAKER running into the TSBD just as described. We don't need to continue to debate every issue forever. By the way notice LOVELADY appears to be wearing a short sleeved shirt just as he claimed to the FBI. This is Not a coincidence. Edited March 17, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Earlier frame of SHELLEY and LOVELADY. The other frame was offered because it contained BAKER running into the TSBD just as described. We don't need to continue to debate every issue forever. My Devil's Advocate Question For Today: How do you know for a certainty that the two men labeled "Shelly" and "Lovelady" are indeed Shelley and Lovelady? Can you explain why you have come to that conclusion, based on the photographic image alone? The clothing? The hairlines? Their respective heights? Etc? --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thomas the conclusion can be reached based on putting their location at that location at that time which was essential to have been able to observe all the things they both claimed to experience. Their stories are corroborative with each others and supported in full with film evidence from COUCH. We can deduce which person is which by hair style and by shirt, I will again emphatically claim that LOVELADY wore a short sleeved shirt on 11/22/1963 as he claimed to the FBI in an Official Report and it is evidenced by his presence on the steps and again in the Couch film as well as FBI photographs. This is not a side bar intended to derail current discussion, it is meant to establish foundation for answering you question in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Yes, Bob.. That could be them. I'm well aware of the photo and the debates that ensued when Gerda Dunkel first produced the film frames. I offered the original handwritten affidavit to demonstrate that Lovelady originally wrote that he went back to work before crossing it out and replacing it with "took some officers inside to search the building." That's a big change. Therefore the question of what they did after the assassination is debatable and continues to be debated across several forums and websites. I myself do not want to debate it. I responded to Bob Prudhomme who is interested in this part of the story and thought he would be interested in seeing the handwritten affidavit. Especially given in the same handwritten affidavit Lovelady states that the second two shots were "right together" before crossing it out and writing "right close together." Again, a big difference. Lee, sorry I got involved, it is always a quagmire discussing these issues and it never ends and no solutions are ever agreed upon. Good luck, sorry to intervine. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Thomas the conclusion can be reached based on putting their location at that location at that time which was essential to have been able to observe all the things they both claimed to experience. Their stories are corroborative with each others and supported in full with film evidence from COUCH. We can deduce which person is which by hair style and by shirt, I will again emphatically claim that LOVELADY wore a short sleeved shirt on 11/22/1963 as he claimed to the FBI in an Official Report and it is evidenced by his presence on the steps and again in the Couch film as well as FBI photographs. This is not a side bar intended to derail current discussion, it is meant to establish foundation for answering you question in full. Why do you feel compelled to insist that Lovelady was wearing his short sleeved, vertically-striped shirt that day? How would it hurt your theory to admit that he was, instead, wearing his long sleeved, mostly red (and grey and black and white) "plaid" shirt? After all, all the photographic evidence from 11/22/63 indicates that he was wearing the latter. Couldn't he be wearing that mostly red, "plaid" shirt in the photograph you posted above? Couldn't the sunlight's being reflected off that wall they're walking next to (or something like that) have made his shirt to appear lighter in the film/photograph that it actually was? Isn't it possible that Lovelady's "plaid" shirt only appeared relatively light-colored compared to Shelley's dark suit, right next to it in the film/photo? Don't get all defensive on me now. --Tommy Edited March 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Thomas, I don't feel this is the thread to rehash LOVELADY attire, if you want to post on DTL thread I would be happy to discuss the evidence with you, but I doubt there is unsown ground we have not already hashed over that might change opinions. Thomas, also as long as you post honest opinions supported by valid evidence I am happy to converse with you. Edited March 17, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Thomas, I don't feel this is the thread to rehash LOVELADY attire, if you want to post on DTL thread I would be happy to discuss the evidence with you, but I doubt there is unsown ground we have not already hashed over that might change opinions. Thomas, also as long as you post honest opinions supported by valid evidence I am happy to converse with you. I hope that everyone who disagrees with you is not guilty of holding / posting dishonest opinions and / or invalid evidence. This thread is the perfect place to discuss Lovelady's attire on 11/22/63 because such a discussion just might open your mind a bit and force you to reconsider / modify parts of your grand theory. Or is it all "set in concrete" now? --Tommy Edited March 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thomas, I don't feel this is the thread to rehash LOVELADY attire, if you want to post on DTL thread I would be happy to discuss the evidence with you, but I doubt there is unsown ground we have not already hashed over that might change opinions. Thomas, also as long as you post honest opinions supported by valid evidence I am happy to converse with you. I hope that everyone who disagrees with you is not guilty of holding / posting dishonest opinions and / or invalid evidence. This thread is the perfect place to discuss Lovelady's attire on 11/22/63 because such a discussion just might open your mind a bit and force you to reconsider / modify parts of your grand theory. Or is it all "set in concrete" now? --Tommy Hint: I personally believe that that is Shelley and Lovelady walking down the Elm Street Extension while Baker is running towards the front door of the TSBD. But I also believe that it is possible that Lovelady is wearing his long-sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt while walking down the Elm Street Extension with Shelley, and that it just appears light colored in the photograph / film clip because of the lighting conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Earlier frame of SHELLEY and LOVELADY. The other frame was offered because it contained BAKER running into the TSBD just as described. We don't need to continue to debate every issue forever. By the way notice LOVELADY appears to be wearing a short sleeved shirt just as he claimed to the FBI. This is Not a coincidence. [emphasis added by T. Graves] Please bear in mind that appearances can be deceiving, especially when looking at someone in the fuzzy background of a photograph / film. Lovelady (on the right) could very well be wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt. Regarding how appearances can be deceiving, notice how Shelley's dark suit jacket appears mottled (due to the lighting conditions; light's being reflected in an irregular pattern by the irregular masonry (with "holes") wall, etc. --Tommy Edited March 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Thomas, we may be dealing with grain of the film or print, a photo expert can chime in anytime to clarify this. Also they are walking under the shade of a tree, we could be seeing some print from the shadows of leaves and branches - just a thought. Also being shaded LOVELADYS shirt will appear darker than in full light, it appeared almost white on the steps. This is the comparison that must be made. Also who was on the steps shielding his eyes in ALtgens #6 if it is not LOVELADY? Also would it be just a coincidence that man shielding eyes on the steps wore a short sleeved shirt, that LOVALADY was photographed by FBI in a short sleeved shirt and LOVELADY in Couch film appears to be wearing a short sleeved shirt? How many coincidences are necessary before we can establish that it is a trend not chance or that the evidence all points to the fact that it is LOVELADY in all three photographs wearing a short sleeved shirt (just as he claimed to the FBI to have done). Even the WC failed to definitively identify LOVELADY on the steps when they had two opportunities to do so. What is the argument against this reality? Someone named Groden claimed otherwise??? Edited March 17, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Thomas, we may be dealing with grain of the film or print, a photo expert can chime in anytime to clarify this. Also they are walking under the shade of a tree, we could be seeing some print from the shadows of leaves and branches - just a thought. Also being shaded LOVELADYS shirt will appear darker than in full light, it appeared almost white on the steps. This is the comparison that must be made. Also who was on the steps shielding his eyes in ALtgens #6 if it is not LOVELADY? A co-worker? Or are you going to say "No, the guy shading his eyes in Altgens 6 had to be Lovelady because he (the co-worker? ; Lovelady?) was wearing a light-colored short sleeved shirt? LOL --Tommy If you are correct in saying that Lovelady wore his short sleeved, vertically-striped shirt on 11/22/63, that would mean that the Martin and Hughes films, which show someone who looks a lot like Lovelady, bald spot and all, wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt and smoking a cigarette at the base of the TSBD steps some 8 - 15 minutes after the assassination, not far from Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce and a bunch of other people (some of whom might even be identifiable to experts), was "staged" and filmed at an earlier or a later date. It that what you are saying? If so, how was this kept so secret over the years? Why haven't any of the "actors" come out and "spilled the beans"? Why would the bad guys have gone to all that trouble, anyway? Oh yeah, and that other film clip that was filmed a couple of hours later which shows Oswald being taken past somebody who looks just like Lovelady wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt inside the police station. Was that staged, too? Wouldn't you be better off if you modified your theory and accepted the possibility that Lovelady was "captured" in Altgens 6 while wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt? And that Prayer Man, captured in either Darnell or Couch (going from memory here) but unfortunately not "captured" in Altgens 6, was Oswald? Edited March 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I don't remember if this info has already been discussed, but I think it's pertinent. When shown the Altgens photo by the FBI, Shelley said he was on the steps but wasn't in the picture. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10786&relPageId=14 Someone asked Frazier about Shelley in Dallas at the Lancer Conference, for that matter, and he said Shelley was a small man with red hair. Could Prayer Man be Shelley? If Prayer Man was Shelley, it might put the "out front with Bill Shelley" notes in a different context. Perhaps, even, Oswald was on the first floor just before the shooting, and saw Shelley out beyond the doors, but never went outside. Perhaps he then doubled-back after missing the motorcade, walked across the second floor to the lunch room, and arrived there about the same time as Baker and Truly arrived there after running up the back stairs. If I recall, the only obstacle to this possibility is Geneva Hine. And I believe Groden claims she said something about seeing Oswald around the time of the shooting. Maybe there's something to that, after all. P.S. I spoke to Buell Frazier's son in Dallas and asked him to show his dad photos of prayer man to see if he could figure out who it is, whether Stanton, Shelley, Oswald, or someone so far unnamed. I hope he responds. Good stuff Pat - thanks. Seems to me that if I was "tieman" behind Lovelady in Atlgens I too would say I wasn't in the picture. Requires quite an enlargement to see there is a person back there. Shelley is wearing a suit and tie - right? We see him escorted to a police car and then later without his coat serving coffee... Doesn't appear to me that PM is wearing a white shirt and tie so I don't see how PM is Shelley. By the way - from what I've learned MOLINA is the man in front of the guy with both his arms up (Otis Williams - Yellow)... Molina (peach) is shielding his eyes with his right hand. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/17/jfk-who-was-in-the-book-depository-doorway/ (I use this link only for Molina and William's position - the rest of the speculation is just that imo) With very few other options, Tieman appears to be Shelley... and PM being Oswald is getting more and more likely. If the Lunchroom scene never occurs and Oswald lingers on the 1st floor long enough to get his name listed first on the roll sheet - AND Ms Arnold claiming he was just inside the front doors near the time of the assassination (12:25 or so) - someone's gonna need to come up with some other alternatives Edited March 17, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts