Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

What I find curious is that conspiracy buffs are positive that OSWALD was not on the sixth floor and know OSWALD was seen in the second floor lunchroom just prior to the assassination and again in the second floor lunchroom just following the assassination. Why would OSWALD have stayed in the second floor lunchroom when the President might be seen just by walking out the front door. What is it that would have prohibited OSWALD from going to the steps to see the motorcade. Was he so great a recluse that he would not want to see the President of the United States, was he that odd of a person? At one time the United States Government deemed him trustworthy with information on some of Americas most top secret projects. What changed OSWALD from a trustworthy patriotic gung ho Marine to an odd duck who wouldn't walk a few feet to see the President of the country he may have swore his life to defend.

Common people get real about the assassination and stop the OSWALD madness.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 520
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Robert,I think you will find a lot of Forum Members believed Oswald was on the steps of the TSBD.The Prayer man or Oswald leaving TSBD thread makes a good case for Oswald being their,IMHO.Sean Murphy put a lot into this,eliminating people,narrowing it down to Oswald.I think this is one of the best threads I have read that sets out to do this.

See here,its a long thread but well worth reading.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Malcolm, I have posted a significant amount of evidence as proofs that LOVELADY is man shielding his eyes, the inevitable conclusion that must be drawn from this accumulated evidence precludes LOVELADY from having been DOORMAN.

If you are having problems with the evidence posted please respond directly to specific evidence presented.

It is inconsequential if something had been posted previously unless this current evidence, analysis and conjecture is exactly duplicating previous posted work. Which I seriously doubt.

One does not need to eliminate anyone but LOVELADY from being DOORMAN to reveal that DOORMAN had to be OSWALD.

LOVELADY has been eliminated 12 ways from being DOORMAN, how many more ways would you require before it becomes real to you?

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me preface my comments by saying that I'm 99.9999% convinced that Oswald was on the steps of the TSBD when the presidential motorcade went by.

Having said this, your "proof" that Oswald was on the steps is MUCH less convincing than the information in the "Prayer Man" thread. A lot of your "proof" depends on shaky comparisons with blurry images, such as post #334 above. To say that we can determine ANYTHING concrete about the color of the eyes of the man in the center photo, a really grainy black-and-white shot, is stretching the limits of credibility. And your "anyone can see this" logic isn't proof of anything. That's the kind of logic that lone nutters like David Von Pein fall back upon when they really can't prove their case conclusively.

It's not that I don't agree with your conclusion; I simply don't agree with the way you got to that conclusion.

Now, as far as your use of testimony to show that the shot at Z-312 is the FIRST shot that most witnesses heard, and not the last, THAT is actually some great detective work...and something that the Warren Commission should've come up, if they hadn't been so busy trying to cover up the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, the FBI and the WC had to comprehend the first rifle shot heard was at Z-313.

Collectively the questions that were avoided were:

1) The limo location at the moment of each shot or any shot.

2) Defining when a witness saw KENNEDY slump (what does slump mean to a witness - interesting the usage of term 'slumped' shows the power of propaganda that the majority of witnesses used such an odd word to describe KENNEDYS actions after being wounded), with certainty it was not at Z-189 in that there is not a witness that claims to have known KENNEDY was wounded before Z-313, we can misconstrue testimony to believe they meant before Z-313 but when scrutinized more closely, there was not anyone in DP that realized KENNEDY was wounded before Z-313 and that included MRS KENNEDY and 10 SSA as well as witnesses closest to the limo during the assassination including JEAN NEWMAN, GALYE NEWMAN, WILLIAM NEWMAN, JEAN HILL and CHARLES BREHM who continued to applaud the limo as it passed his location. I know some will say the SSA agent knew he was hit, look at their testimony and my response is then you believe 10 SSA stood down and that somehow the SSA knew but MRS KENNEDY remained ignorant that her husband was being assassinated while she held onto his elbow unknowingly holding the President in place for the next shot.

Did you know CBS, NBC and ABC immediately, within minutes of starting their propaganda broadcast all used the word 'slumped' to describe KENNEDYS action after being fatally wounded?

3) Defining how far the limo traveled during the rifle shots. Do you know there were witnesses who claimed the limo moved only about 10-12 feet during the assassination, that would be during the three rifle shots they heard?

Mark, I thank you for your comments concerning evidence posted.

My proof starts with LOVELADYS claim to wear the short sleeved shirt.

The government acceptance of LOVELADYS claims to be an unquestioned fact.

The media complicity to promote a falsehood that the attires between what LOVELADY was photographed in and DOORMAN matched.

This is all the evidence that should be required in order to comprehend that LOVELADY could not possibly have been DOORMAN.

As I have said, collectively the 23 pieces of evidence is overwhelming, what more would you require to satisfy your demands?

What evidence is anchoring your mind to believe LOVELADY can only be DOORMAN that apparently is so compelling that it seems unreasonable to you that LOVELADY might not be DOORMAN?

I am really curious as to how someone can be so stuck on a notion when there is abundant evidence that is contrary and certainly conflicting to LOVELADY being DOORMAN. What could it possible be?

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, the photograph of DOORMAN is blurry, this does not matter, the eyes can still be clearly discerned, the pupils of the eyes are clearly discernable and the iris of the eyes are clearly discernable.

The iris of the eye if it were LOVELADYS would be dark similar to the pupils, they are not they are light, comparable to the light grey irises of OSWALDS eyes.

The blurry nature of the image is inconsequential, the eyes can clearly be discerned and analyzed with only one conceivable conclusion; that the iris were light colored not dark.

This evidence is like a finger print, and the finger print is NOT LOVELADYS.

This is the best evidence there is to prove LOVELADY could not have possibly been DOORMAN, it is also the best possible direct evidence that OSWALD was on the steps and that he in fact was DOORMAN.

The iris of the eyes is absolute proof that OSWALD was on the steps of the TSBD during the assassination, absolute proof.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaky proof of blurry images is absurd.

The images presented are not intended to discern stripes or plaids, they direct attention to the light colored nature of the attire and the short sleeves apparent in the images.

All of which are in accord with LOVELADYS officially accepted evidence.

The disconnect seems to be with your denial that LOVELADY wore the light colored short sleeved shirt exactly as he had claimed to the US government, some how you have been convinced that this was somehow just a misunderstanding and the government unquestionably accepted it as fact but it really wasn't true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, you are in danger of becoming a laughing stock like Cinque. Doorman is Lovelady, no matter what you try to infer that in the black and white photo his eyes are the wrong color.

You say

"The iris of the eyes is absolute proof that OSWALD was on the steps of the TSBD during the assassination, absolute proof."

when you can't even see the pupils in the photo.

Me thinks you are seeing what you want to see.

How you can state that Doorman is Oswald, when Doorman has the same shirt on as Lovlady in later photos, and has the same face shape and hair style. You re barking up the wrong tree.

Don't let yourself get the nickname Mad Bobby, rather than Bob Mady.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point did I say that I thought that Lovelady was the man in the corner, and NOT Oswald? PLEASE show me where I said that...because I'm pretty sure I never said that.

And I'm pretty sure I never, EVER made ANY statement about what color or style of shirt Lovelady was wearing. If you can prove otherwise, PLEASE cite a direct quotation from my posts that shows your allegations to be true.

I think you're falsely accusing me of saying, and believing, things I never said, and things I don't believe. Please cite some EVIDENCE that I said what you think I said...because I'm 100% sure you can't.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray, the pupil and the iris of DOORMANs eyes are clearly discernable.

Photos can be and are staged.

LOVELADY made it perfectly clear that he wore the short sleeved shirt during the assassination, what part of his statement and accompanying photographs are you finding incomprehensible?

Please stop your insults, you don't agree with evidence presented, post counter-arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I don't understand, do you think I implied you thought PM was LOVELADY?

I responded to blurry images, in that the light color of the shirt can still be discerned in blurry images specifically LOVELADY and SHELLY walking down the street, whereas stripes and plaids may not be.

Other than that I don't comprehend what you are talking about me misrepresenting what you said, if you would be more specific I would be happy to set it straight.

Would you mind please explaining to me what evidence you have that is anchoring your belief that LOVELADY was DOORMAN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence is anchoring your mind to believe LOVELADY can only be DOORMAN that apparently is so compelling that it seems unreasonable to you that LOVELADY might not be DOORMAN?

THIS is what I'm talking about. NOW...time to put up or shut up. Show me where I EVER said that Lovelady was the ONLY choice for Doorman, or "that it seems unreasonable to [me] that LOVELADY might not be DOORMAN."

Show me where I said that. I BEG you to show me where I said that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray, the pupil and the iris of DOORMANs eyes are clearly discernable.

Photos can be and are staged.

LOVELADY made it perfectly clear that he wore the short sleeved shirt during the assassination, what part of his statement and accompanying photographs are you finding incomprehensible?

Please stop your insults, you don't agree with evidence presented, post counter-arguments.

Bob, I have no intention of insulting you. I was just warning you about what would happen if you continue with this stupid theory. Cinque was a guy who had the same theory and he has been laughed off every forum he has put the theory forward. He even said that the photo of Lovelady (The one which you say you can even tell the difference in the color of the irises- sheesh!) had been altered to show that Oswald had been given Lovelady's hair style.

I would hate to see the same fate befall you.

Perhaps you would answer the following asked of you on another site by another poster.

2ebssbd.jpg

"So, what you're saying is, the conspirators realised that the man IN THE CHECKED SHIRT was in fact Oswald. So they had to force Lovelady to say he was wearing a checked shirt in order to place Oswald in the snipers nest. They also faked films and photos of Lovelady in the checked shirt to further enforce this argument. They even forced Lovelady to pose in the checked shirt in 1971.

All this because Oswald wore a loud checked shirt on 22 November 1963?

So Bob, was Oswald wearing a loud checked shirt that day?"

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...