Secret Service Agents Response

[James R Gordon]

Thomas,

You are quite right. When I referred to Elm Lane it was the Elm Street extension I was referring to.

I should have used its correct title.

James

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas,

You are quite right. When I referred to Elm Lane it was the Elm Street extension I was referring to.

I should have used its correct title.

James

James,

Thanks, but that's not the most important part of my post.

This is:

The Couch clip shows Shelley and Lovelady walking down the Elm Street Extension (or its sidewalk) towards the parking lot / railway yard. While Shelley and Lovelady are visible walking (and then Lovelady starts running) down the Elm Street Extension, Dallas motorcycle police officer Marion Baker (wearing his white helmet) can be seen behind them, running towards the TSBD front door from a different angle.

--Tommy

Edited December 2, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

James, which one is LOVELADY?

All three images are of Lovelady. Bear in mind that he was smoking a cigarette in the first and third images, and these two images (actually it's just one image that's been reversed to make "bookends")` show his distorted face while (or immediately after) exhaling smoke through his visibly open mouth.

Note: You can even see the bald spot on the top of his head in the middle photo.

Also note that the middle photo was taken from a different vertical angle than the "bookend" images. That and the fact that he's exhaling smoke in the "bookend" images makes him look very different from the way he appears in the middle photo.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

Edited December 2, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[James R Gordon]

Thomas,

I deliberately omitted comment. If the video you are referring to is the one on page 29 then as far as I can see all you have are two very fuzzy images that could be anyone. There is no visible evidence these two are who you say they are. If that is not the video you are referring to I apologise.

I am also troubled by the direction this thread is going. I will say no more than that - at the present time.

When this forum was established it was titled the "Education Forum" which placed an obligation on all partaking members. That was a deliberate choice, intent and ideal of the originating administrators and it is one the present administrators take very seriously.

James

[Robert Mady]

James, the Couch clip could be anyone, but all the evidence points to it being SELLLEY and LOVELADY.

From the appearance of the two to the likeness of what we know about SHELLEY and LOVELADY

The shape of heads and hair.

Their testimony explicitly describing actions, locations and what was happening as they are walking down the street absolutely places them where we see them.

The clip is corroborative with absolute visual proof of their testimony with the actions of BAKER, TRULY and other DPO running before them.

[Robert Mady]

Pat, FRAZIER had an opportunity to clearly identify LOVELADY when he marked A6, he utterly failed to do so.

LOVELADY had the same opportunity to clearly identify himself and was ordered not to do so.

The WC had the opportunity to clearly establish the identity of DOORMAN as LOVELADY, on this one crucial issue really demanded by the American Citizen the WC utterly failed.

Logically and reasonably they failed for only one reason, no one was willing to lie on record that LOVELADY was DOORMAN, this should be clearly understandable.

The FBI was not confused, this argument is not in the realm of possibilities. If anything if they could have they would have produced evidence that was more similar to DOORMAN, they could not do so because LOVELADY would not lie officially, he wore the shirt he wore on 11/22/1963 and was recorded in it, it was accepted as truth by the FBI and WC and news media, the revisionist have worked ever since to destroy this evidence because as long as it stands the plaid LOVELADY is preposterous.

It does not matter what these people have said since, it can not overturn LOVELADYS statement and photographs taken by the US government.

You can say but LOVELADY later said or FRAZIER said, it does not carry any weight, and as a researcher why don't your know that?

Also do you know if any witnesses were pressured to alter their testimony or made to sign secrecy agreements or were murdered?

This was a coup and a cover-up.

your position is frankly, preposterous.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

am also troubled by the direction this thread is going. I will say no more than that - at the present time.

When this forum was established it was titled the "Education Forum" which placed an obligation on all partaking members. That was a deliberate choice, intent and ideal of the originating administrators and it is one the present administrators take very seriously.

You want me to stop posting, just say so publically.

I won't back down from my positions unless there is evidence proving that I am incorrect in my conjecture or analysis.

You may feel very strongly that LOVELADY is DOORMAN, to me it is self-evident that LOVELADY having been DOORMAN is an utter impossibility.

I think I have honored an intention of education in that my posts contain actual evidence, reasoned and logical analysis and summation of the evidence. Proofs that lead to inevitable conclusions.

[Ray Mitcham]

Not evidence, Bob. Supposition.

[Robert Prudhomme]

From about 1:34 to the end of the Hughes film, I believe it is possible to see Billy Lovelady standing at the foot of the front steps of the TSBD. Does anyone know if it has ever been established at what time this segment of the Hughes film was shot?

[James R Gordon]

This thread will be frozen for 72 hours. It will re-open on Friday morning.

When the present administration took over we mulled over many issues, but this issue never occurred to us. It has forced the administration to make a choice between members freedom of speech and the integrity of this web site.

The administration consider that the Education Forum has a longstanding reputation as forum for quality discussions. It is imperative that we uphold that reputation. It is not helped that on a number of forums considerable humour is being expended at our expense. And much of the the focus of this humour is on this particular thread.

The administration realises that this is a razor-thin edge we're walking here. The administration do not want to be guilty of censorship, but we also don't want to run the risk of becoming "the Crackpot Forum" rather than The Education Forum.

Therefore there will be a 72-hour "chill-out" period. Robert Mady, through this thread, has challenged excepted understanding Billy Lovelady’s role. During this 72-hour period, Robert is invited to gather evidence to support his case. At the end of the 72-hour period, he is invited to present the evidence in support of his claims. If Robert cannot [or will not] gather and present this evidence, then it will be made clear that this theory of evidence will not be given credence or space on the Education forum.

It has not gone unnoticed that there is an open thread of similar content. It would be unwise for members to transfer this threads content over to that thread.

James Gordon

[David Butler]

I have decided to re-open this thread early.

I have read the Oswald left the Building thread and am gratified with the tone and co-operation there. It is my hope this spirit will be the norm.

Robert Mady, if you wish to take the opportunity to restate your views you are welcome to do so. If you do not wish to do so, that will not be seen as a reflection.

Closing this thread, for the reasons I did, was a very difficult decision.

James.

[James R Gordon]

Sorry to confuse everyone.

I did not realise I was in David Butler's account when I unfroze the thread.

And yes, David is now a member of the administration.

James.

[Jon G. Tidd]

James, which one is LOVELADY?

All three images are of Lovelady. Bear in mind that he was smoking a cigarette in the first and third images, and these two images (actually it's just one image that's been reversed to make "bookends")` show his distorted face while (or immediately after) exhaling smoke through his visibly open mouth.

Note: You can even see the bald spot on the top of his head in the middle photo.

--Tommy

I'm not convinced the bookend images are of Lovelady. The hairlines are different. The angle of the neck relative to the top of the shoulders is different. The facial hair appears to be different. The real Lovelady's chin is more bony. The eyebrows are different. The way the shirt collar lies relative to the head is much different. The ears are different.

If one had the skill to draw the head and shoulder area of the two persons depicted one would draw two distinctly different persons.

[Pat Speer]

If I recall, it has been argued in this thread that Lovelady was somehow less than clear about his being the man who looks like Oswald in the Altgens photo. I don't believe anyone pointed out that Lovelady was shown the photo by the FBI on the day of the funerals, and immediately identified himself in the photo. Here's the FBI report:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10786&relPageId=13

[Robert Mady]

James, I am thankful for your decision to reopen the thread.

Giving the subject a rest was probably a good thing after all.