Deconstructing The Lies

[Robert Mady]

Ray here is an unaltered FBI photograph.

Can you readily descern stripes?

How about now?

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray here is an unaltered FBI photograph.

Can you readily descern stripes?

How about now?

Strange that the shirt of doorman isn't bleached out in the same photo, isn't it?

Now answer the question I put. Which one of the people on the steps do you consider to be Lovelady?

[Robert Mady]

Sorry Ray, I wasn't being evasive, I just assumed everyone knew who the Man shielding Eyes was, it is the man that has both hands to his head shielding his eyes, he is at the end of the line that I drew, the line is touching his elbow. The one in the short sleeved shirt.

No, it is not strange that DOORMANS shirt is not washed out in the sunlight, DOORMAN was wearing a dark reddish colored shirt, how could it be washed out by the sunlight?

Sunlight will wash out lighter colors. You can see in the FBI photo that the dark pants stay dark, retain contrast, the light colored vertically striped shirt blends into one color.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Ray Mitcham]

Sorry Ray, I wasn't being evasive, I just assumed everyone knew who the Man shielding Eyes was, it is the man that has both hands to his head shielding his eyes, he is at the end of the line that I drew, the line is touching his elbow. The one in the short sleeved shirt.

No, it is not strange that DOORMANS shirt is not washed out in the sunlight, DOORMAN was wearing a dark reddish colored shirt, how could it be washed out by the sunlight?

Sunlight will wash out lighter colors. You can see in the FBI photo that the dark pants stay dark, retain contrast, the light colored vertically striped shirt blends into one color.

Lovelady' shirt was not light coloured stripes. It was red and white stripes. If the sun bleached out the red stripes of Lovelady then it should have bleached out the red shirt of doorman.

The man you say is Lovelady, is wearing a white shirt with rolled up sleeves. Not a short sleeve shirt.

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

In the FBI report you display.

...LOVELADY stated his picture has appeared in several publications which picture depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway to the TSBD. LOVELADY was exhibited a picture appearing on pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled “Four Dark Days in History” copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc. 6527 Hollywood Boulevard., Los Angerles 25, California. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph.....

Ray,

Which shirt do you believe Lovelady was wearing on 11/22/63 -- the short sleeved, red and white vertically-striped shirt that Mady says he was wearing, or the long sleeved, mostly-red "plaid" shirt that Groden photographed him in in 1978 (and Bob Jackson photographed him in in 1971) ?

Thanks,

--Tommy

From the McAdams website:

The FBI photos show Lovelady in a red and white vertical striped, short sleeved shirt, but the man in the doorway is clearly wearing a long-sleeved, checkered shirt. The Commission never checked the two photographs but simply believed Lovelady when he told the FBI he was in the doorway. This FBI report, along with the photographs of Lovelady, only fed the controversy.

Jerry Organ

The controversy shouldn't have lasted for long. In 1967 Josiah Thompson published the best-selling bookSix Seconds in Dallas. He discussed the controversy over the man in the doorway, and took note of the Warren Commission testimony and the FBI report. On the issue of why Lovelady was photographed by the FBI on February 29, 1964 wearing a red-and-white vertical-striped shirt with short sleeves while the man in the doorway was wearing a long-sleeved shirt, Thompson noted that Lovelady told CBS News "Well, when the FBI took me in the shirt, I told them it wasn't the same shirt [worn on the day of the assassination]." Thompson added that "The shirt Lovelady now claims to have worn on November 22 is long-sleeved and patterned in large squares" (pp. 225-227).

At that point, the issue should have been solved, but in typical fashion, conspiracy authors simply ignored inconvenient evidence. Gary Shaw, in his 1976 book, Cover-Up, claimed that the question of who was in the doorway had not been adequately answered. He wrote, "we believe the identity of the man in the doorway is still open to question. There is as much, if not more, evidence to indicate that the accused assassin was exactly where he said he was — on the first floor of the Depository"(p. 42). Shaw also claimed that no one on the Commission ever saw Lovelady and there is no published photo of Lovelady in the Commission's exhibits or documents.

Also in the 1970s, the LA Free Press and Argosy published the claim, using blown up photos to show the resemblance.

Jerry Organ

The House Select Committee on Assassinations felt that this issue needed more investigation. They took a two-pronged approach. The HSCA first had its photographic evidence panel examine CE 203 and 369, photos of Oswald, and of Lovelady. They used the tools of forensic anthropology, by which the metric and morphological characteristics of the human face can be analyzed. Going far beyond the causal and subjective "looks like" kind of analysis, they used the Penrose distance statistic to show that the man in the doorway had features very different from Oswald's. Based on the analysis of the photographic evidence panel, "the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady" (The Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations, pp. 58).

The other approach was that of Robert Groden, who had a good knowledge of all the photographic evidence in the case. Groden analyzed three films — the John Martin film, the Robert Hughes film, and the Mark Bell film. These films showed a man in the doorway, wearing a shirt identical in appearance to the shirt on the man in the Altgens photo. But these films showed that the man wasn't Oswald, but rather was Lovelady.

Indeed, Groden contacted Lovelady, asked him to don the shirt he had worn on November 22, 1963, and photographed him in it. The shirt, of course, was entirely consistent with all the photos from the day of the assassination (Robert Groden, The Killing of a President, pp. 186-187).

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

The above post was edited and bumped for Ray Mitcham or any other rational member.

PS The problem with "Maddening" Mady is not only that he thinks that Altgens 6 somehow implicates Oswald in the assassination of JFK, but, more importantly, that Oswald's not being visible in Altgens 6 proves that the bad guys altered or faked Altgens 6, and, by extension, the Martin and Hughes clips, as well.

Mady and his ilk really "get off on" that stuff because the very idea of wholesale photographic alteration and forgery fits in so perfectly with, and reinforces (in my humble opinion) their Paranoiac World View (PVW).

In my humble opinion they're addicted to their Paranoiac World Views like a drug addict is addicted like a dangerous drug who has to "push" the drug in order to "maintain".

The only difference being -- a drug addict eventually realizes that he or she is addicted and either seeks help or fades away.

--Tommy

Edited and bumped.

Ray, please remember that "Maddening" Mady and former Army Intelligence office Jon G. Tidd and Jo Jo, among others, prefer to "answer" our more difficult questions by asking us questions...

Edited March 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Mady]

Sorry Ray, I wasn't being evasive, I just assumed everyone knew who the Man shielding Eyes was, it is the man that has both hands to his head shielding his eyes, he is at the end of the line that I drew, the line is touching his elbow. The one in the short sleeved shirt.

No, it is not strange that DOORMANS shirt is not washed out in the sunlight, DOORMAN was wearing a dark reddish colored shirt, how could it be washed out by the sunlight?

Sunlight will wash out lighter colors. You can see in the FBI photo that the dark pants stay dark, retain contrast, the light colored vertically striped shirt blends into one color.

Lovelady' shirt was not light coloured stripes. It was red and white stripes. If the sun bleached out the red stripes of Lovelady then it should have bleached out the red shirt of doorman.

The man you say is Lovelady, is wearing a white shirt with rolled up sleeves. Not a short sleeve shirt.

Ray here is FBI photograph, untouched by me.

The two photographs on the right could have been taken with filters which intensifies the red and also deepens shadows in the face in a manner that best suited the look of DOORMAN, the photo on the left may not have used filters so the red is subdued. The filters would also promote red in the shirt which would make it much darker and closer to the appearance of DOORMANS shirt. The shirt may have been more properly termed pink and white striped shirt when viewed without filters.

You are getting hung up on the description of the shirt, not the fact that the shirt can appear to be lightly striped and does appear washed out even in the FBI photograph on the left. The photograph on the left is likely the best representation we have of the true contrast of the stripes on the shirt.

Ray if you look at black and white films, red appears black. The photograph on the left could not have been taken if the stripes were truly red, the shirt would have appeared to have black stripes, possibly as dark as the pants.

I can see why you suggest the man has his sleeves rolled up and not short sleeved. I disagree.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Ray Mitcham]

Rolled up sleeve arrowed.

That's my lot. Carry on with your delusions, Bobby.

[Thomas Graves]

Rolled up sleeve arrowed.

That's my lot. Carry on with your delusions, Bobby.

Ray,

Do you have an opinion as to who is wearing the shirt with the "rolled up sleeve, arrowed" in the photograph?

Thanks!

Your co-conspirator buddy,

--Tommy

Edited March 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Ray Mitcham]

Rolled up sleeve arrowed.

That's my lot. Carry on with your delusions, Bobby.

Ray,

Do you have an opinion as to who that is with the rolled up sleeve, arrowed?

Your co-conspirator buddy,

--Tommy

Nope, sorry, Tommy. Just know it ain't Lovelady.

[Thomas Graves]

Rolled up sleeve arrowed.

That's my lot. Carry on with your delusions, Bobby.

Ray,

Do you have an opinion as to who that is with the rolled up sleeve, arrowed?

Your co-conspirator buddy,

--Tommy

Nope, sorry, Tommy. Just know it ain't Lovelady.

No problem, Ray.

I betcha "Maddening" Mady knows who was there before it was ....... altered.

LOL

--Tommy

Edited March 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Mady]

Ray

Thank you for posting.

Bob

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Thomas, I tried to message you this, but your box is full or your not taking messages, so I will make this public.

Thomas, I don't mind you posting, but I would really appreciate if you kept the derogatory comments to yourself.

You don't need to agree with anything I post, but know that what I post I believe to be true. If this upsets you, you might be better off not to read my posts. Go to some other threads which merely repeat the same non-sense that has been regurgitated for 51 years and discover nothing new.

Also note you were quick to form a poll against the possibility the Martin and Hughes may be created films, I countered with a page of supporting evidence including some crucial questions that need to be addressed but you have not answered one question I posed about LOVELADY in Martin and Hughes films. Why not get serious and address this and lets have a good discussion.

I am not your enemy

Best Wishes

Bob Mady

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, I tried to message you this, but your box is full or your not taking messages, so I will make this public.

Thomas, I don't mind you posting, but I would really appreciate if you kept the derogatory comments to yourself.

You don't need to agree with anything I post, but know that what I post I believe to be true. If this upsets you, you might be better off not to read my posts. Go to some other threads which merely repeat the same non-sense that has been regurgitated for 51 years and discover nothing new.

Also note you were quick to form a poll against the possibility the Martin and Hughes may be created films, I countered with a page of supporting evidence including some crucial questions that need to be addressed but you have not answered one question I posed about LOVELADY in Martin and Hughes films. Why not get serious and address this and lets have a good discussion.

I am not your enemy

Best Wishes

Bob Mady

Dear Robert,

In which thread or threads did you ask me these questions?

Do you remember the post's numbers?

Now for an Important question:

Had you already answered my question or questions in a declarative sort of way, or had you kinda avoided doing that and instead "countered" by asking me a rhetorical question or two?

Your buddy,

--Tommy

[Robert Mady]

Thomas, starting in post #168 I began to lay out evidence showing that BARNETT and SMITH set up guarding the entrance of the TSBD and that once they were in place, they did not allow anyone to enter or leave without expressed consent from a superior.

I provided adequate number of witnesses that were prohibited from entering the TSBD within minutes of the assassination as proof that BARNETT prohibited employees from entering. I could have posted many witnesses that claimed they were not allowed to leave until after 3:00.

I asked the questions that must be addressed

1) Exactly when was the Martin and Hughes films created?

2) How could LOVELADY leave the TSBD to go on a smoke break or was he prohibited from entering?

3) Why are the Martin and Hughes films not corroborated by testimony provided by SHELLEY or LOVELADY in any fashion?

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, starting in post #168 I began to lay out evidence showing that BARNETT and SMITH set up guarding the entrance of the TSBD and that once they were in place, they did not allow anyone to enter or leave without expressed consent from a superior.

I provided adequate number of witnesses that were prohibited from entering the TSBD within minutes of the assassination as proof that BARNETT prohibited employees from entering.

I asked the questions that must be addressed

1) Exactly when was the Martin and Hughes films created?

2) How could LOVELADY leave the TSBD to go on a smoke break or was he prohibited from entering?

3) Why are the Martin and Hughes films not corroborated by testimony provided by SHELLEY or LOVELADY in any fashion?

Dear Robert,

If you had first answered my questions in a declarative manner rather than trying to avoid them by asking me a weaselly, rhetorical question or two, then I would have answered your questions.

I don't answer weaselly, rhetorical questions that are thrown at me in a desperate attempt to avoid answering my questions,

As to "Exactly when was [sic] the Martin and Hughes films created?", the ball is in your court, dude.

You're the one who is claiming that they weren't filmed eight to fifteen minutes after the assassination, like Groden said.

So you tell me.

When exactly were the Martin and Hughes clips which show "Lovelady" in front of the TSBD, ostensibly a few minutes after the assassination, staged altered filmed "created"?

Your buddy,

--Tommy

Edited March 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves