Deconstructing The Lies

[Robert Prudhomme]

Interesting. It seems Barnett and Baker might have passed each other on the Elm St. extension.

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray, thank you for making the post more complete.

Every word can be of significance.

FRAZIER arrow pointing directly toward Man Shielding Eyes, over DOORMANs head.

This is deception. Smoke and mirrors, more than sufficient to have fooled the children.

LOVELADYS arrow indicating his location cannot be discerned in any manner. Blatant deception.

Looks like the deception is yours, Bob. The arrow Lovelady drew was as shown here in yellow. (You can see the lower arrow line in black and the upper part of the shaft of the arrow on the white background but the top arrow line, and the lower part of the shaft are lost in the black background, in your photo.)

Nice try, but no cigar.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Ray Mitcham]

For those of you who are unfamiliar with LOVELADYS claims of what he wore on 11/22/1963 here is the FBI report that accompanied the photographs already posted

The revisionist insist that LOVELADY was confused and the FBI was incompetent. They insist LOVELADY wore plaid the day of the assassination dispite what LOVELADY claimed officially to the FBI agents on 02/29/1964, what the FBI and the WC accepted as true and the media proclaimed as fact, that the shirt seen in the FBI photographs matched the attire of DOORMAN.

Despite LOVELADYS flat refusal to describe his shirt to the HSCA investigator in 1977, NO! is what LOVELADY replied.

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.....

Edited March 25, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Thomas Graves]

For those of you who are unfamiliar with LOVELADYS claims of what he wore on 11/22/1963 here is the FBI report that accompanied the photographs already posted

The revisionist insist that LOVELADY was confused and the FBI was incompetent. They insist LOVELADY wore plaid the day of the assassination dispite what LOVELADY claimed officially to the FBI agents on 02/29/1964, what the FBI and the WC accepted as true and the media proclaimed as fact, that the shirt seen in the FBI photographs matched the attire of DOORMAN.

Despite LOVELADYS flat refusal to describe his shirt to the HSCA investigator in 1977, NO! is what LOVELADY replied.

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 hadfeatures 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]

Edited March 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Mady]

Ray, I am not sure what you are saying about the arrow in CE-369

The arrow on the left side of the photograph was placed there by FRAZIER, when he was requested to make an arrow toward LOVELADY.

My point is this is exactly what he did, he also accomplished this by placing the arrow as close to doorman as possible so that we might believe that the arrow was indicating DOORMAN was LOVELADY when in reality the arrow is toward Man Shielding Eyes. I tried to illustrate in the photo by drawing a line down the shaft of the arrow in the direction the arrow was pointed, you can see it points to the heart of Men Shielding Eyes, while it merely skims the top of DOORMANS head. This is deception.

LOVELADY placed his arrow in the dark area, we do not know where it was placed, based on all of the evidence it must be obvious it is not pointing toward DOORMAN otherwise the WC would have made this clear for all to see.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Ray, what is there that casts doubts on the fact that LOVELADY claimed to the FBI during an official interview that he wore the red and white vertical striped shirt and was by intention documented wearing the shirt?

The FBI accepted this evidence as fact, the WC accepted this evidence unquestioned, the news media proclaimed this evidence was authentic.

The WC failed to definitively identify LOVELADYS location on the steps in Altgens #6. If the WC could not positively identify LOVELADY the question would have to be why not, why could they not identify him? Is it not a little bit obvious, that LOVELADY can not be DOORMAN, all of the government evidence precludes this as a possibility. The government is the entity that made this case, it could not prove otherwise. And why are the WC/R believers and the conspiracy believers so intent on ignoring substantial evidence in favor of hearsay to maintain an untenable position that LOVELADY is DOORMAN, because it ends the debate. It needs to end now, it has gone on far too long.

It does not matter at all what LOVELADY was willing to say off the record or that a newspaper can print anything it wants, truth or lies.

HSCA 'can you describe the shirt you wore?'

LOVELADY "NO!"

Don't you get it?

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Thomas Graves]

For those of you who are unfamiliar with LOVELADYS claims of what he wore on 11/22/1963 here is the FBI report that accompanied the photographs already posted

The revisionist insist that LOVELADY was confused and the FBI was incompetent. They insist LOVELADY wore plaid the day of the assassination dispite what LOVELADY claimed officially to the FBI agents on 02/29/1964, what the FBI and the WC accepted as true and the media proclaimed as fact, that the shirt seen in the FBI photographs matched the attire of DOORMAN.

Despite LOVELADYS flat refusal to describe his shirt to the HSCA investigator in 1977, NO! is what LOVELADY replied.

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]

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!

--Tommy

Edited March 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Ray Mitcham]

I agree entirely, Tommy. (I call it suffering from "Cinqueitis.")

Regarding the shirt, simple, he wasn't wearing the red and white striped shirt.

[Robert Mady]

The government did not provide conclusive evidence or proofs that LOVELADY was DOORMAN when it was absolutely essential to do so. As posted the evidence the government collected told a different story and that was LOVELADY could not possibly have been DOORMAN. Based on evidence collected by government it is utterly impossible that LOVELADY was DOORMAN.

The news media ignored this elephant in the room since the FBI evidence on the shirt release in 1964, but a "conspiracy advocate" in 1967 set out to prove the case the government was unable to do and ever since conspiracy advocates have been in lock-step arguing in favor of the governments case, ignoring government evidence to sustain their positions. And what Josiah has offered you is nothing but hearsay and unsworn testimony. You can hear LOVELADY telling the HSCA investigator that he would not describe the shirt he wore that day, why would he have described it to Thompson or Jackson or Groden?

The fact is the shirt is a key issue, the news media had to immediately comprehend the shirts did not match, that LOVELADY could not have been DOORMAN, what was the reaction, they printed LOVELADY FBI photos and proclaimed the shirts matched, end of story. This shows the amount of control the conspirators had over the news, any agent of the media could have clarified this issue, they didn't and they couldn't.

Josiah Thompson, proclaimed LOVELADY was just misunderstood, the FBI agents that wrote the report that accompanied the shirt photographs must have been insane to write a report that destroyed the governments theory of LOVELADY was DOORMAN, they should have been fired on the spot or exiled or re-interviewed LOVELADY, HOOVER must have been more than surprised that the shirts didn't match, the WC apparently couldn't resolve the discrepancy so they never addressed LOVELADY concerning the conflict and the media said hey look sheeple it is the same shirt, really.

But Josiah set the record straight where the government was unable to do so. You got to be kidding believing Josiah non-sense.

You can bow down at the feet of Pundit Thompson, I choose to ignore his proclamations and go where the evidence dictates. LOVELADY is not DOORMAN, he wore a red and white vertical striped short sleeved shirt during the assassination, he can be seen on the steps shielding his eyes, he can be seen walking down the street with SHELLEY, significant evidence dictates that this is the most true.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Ray, the conclusion I posted are mine alone, although I am aware that Cinque has done a lot of work on the similarities of the shirts, it is apparent by looking at the shirt on DOORMAN and the proposed plaid shirt on LOVELADY, they do not match in the way the shirt is cut or hangs, they are not the same. I don't need someone to tell me that.

Also of significance, the FBI photographs of LOVELADY they arranged the shirt to hang open to best simulate the shirt on DOORMAN, why would they have done this Ray?

Do you also notice the angle of the camera and LOVELADY face best simulate DOORMAN, also the lighting is such that it brings shadows to LOVELADYS face to best simulate the face of DOORMAN. A signature trim of the hairline and you have DOORMAN.

The shirt seen on DOORMAN, the cut and hang matches OSWALDs shirt.

Although I appreciate what Cinque has advanced for truth and prefer to call him my friend I think it is slanderous that you would use his name like it represents a cult.

Although I agree with Cinque concerning the shirt, the evidence on the shirts is not what convinced me DOORMAN was not LOVELADY, it was LOVELADY FBI report and photographs, the acceptance of the report by the FBI and HOOVER, unquestioned acceptance by the WC and the news media combined with the utter failure of the WC to have FRAZIER and LOVELADY definitively identify LOVELADY in Altgens #6.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

The government found 'experts' that provided a high probability that DOORMAN was LOVELADY, they also found 'experts' to proclaim the SBT was plausible and 'experts' that proclaimed the 'pristine bullet' was plausible and 'experts' that proclaimed an incorrectly mounted and uncorrectable misaligned scope on the MC was advantageous to use, another 'expert' proclaiming the jet effect propelled KENNEDY to the rear and yet another 'expert' proclaiming it was a muscle spasm. The right 'experts' seems to be a key.

It was the government that tried to prove a lone nut murdered our President, it was the government that produced false evidence, it was the government that lied, exactly when did the government decide to stop lying about the assassination of President KENNEDY and begin to reveal the truth?

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Ray Mitcham]

The government did not provide conclusive evidence or proofs that LOVELADY was DOORMAN when it was absolutely essential to do so. As posted the evidence the government collected told a different story and that was LOVELADY could not possibly have been DOORMAN. Based on evidence collected by government it is utterly impossible that LOVELADY was DOORMAN.

The news media ignored this elephant in the room since the FBI evidence on the shirt release in 1964, but a "conspiracy advocate" in 1967 set out to prove the case the government was unable to do and ever since conspiracy advocates have been in lock-step arguing in favor of the governments case, ignoring government evidence to sustain their positions. And what Josiah has offered you is nothing but hearsay and unsworn testimony. You can hear LOVELADY telling the HSCA investigator that he would not describe the shirt he wore that day, why would he have described it to Thompson or Jackson or Groden?

The fact is the shirt is a key issue, the news media had to immediately comprehend the shirts did not match, that LOVELADY could not have been DOORMAN, what was the reaction, they printed LOVELADY FBI photos and proclaimed the shirts matched, end of story. This shows the amount of control the conspirators had over the news, any agent of the media could have clarified this issue, they didn't and they couldn't.

Josiah Thompson, proclaimed LOVELADY was just misunderstood, the FBI agents that wrote the report that accompanied the shirt photographs must have been insane to write a report that destroyed the governments theory of LOVELADY was DOORMAN, they should have been fired on the spot or exiled or re-interviewed LOVELADY, HOOVER must have been more than surprised that the shirts didn't match, the WC apparently couldn't resolve the discrepancy so they never addressed LOVELADY concerning the conflict and the media said hey look sheeple it is the same shirt, really.

But Josiah set the record straight where the government was unable to do so. You got to be kidding believing Josiah non-sense.

You can bow down at the feet of Pundit Thompson, I choose to ignore his proclamations and go where the evidence dictates. LOVELADY is not DOORMAN, he wore a red and white vertical striped short sleeved shirt during the assassination, he can be seen on the steps shielding his eyes, he can be seen walking down the street with SHELLEY, significant evidence dictates that this is the most true.

Please show me a photo which shows Lovelady in a red and white striped shirt outside the TSBD.

[Robert Mady]

Ray, I agree, it is evident the stripes cannot be readily discerned in Altgens #6 or Couch film. Although there is no problem in discerning the short sleeved shirt worn by LOVELADY in Altgens #6 or Couch film.

The fact that SHELLEY and LOVELADY are filmed walking down the Elm Street extension and LOVELADY can be discerned in a short sleeved shirt is substantial evidence that links LOVELADY to have been on the steps, shielding eyes. Plus the fact that Man Shielding Eyes is absent from the steps when SHELLEY and LOVELADY are walking down the extension. The fact is short sleeved shirts are an anomaly, long sleeved shirts or coats and jackets are predominant dress.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray, I agree, it is evident the stripes cannot be readily discerned in Altgens #6 or Couch film.

No Bob, not "cannot be readily discerned". They can't be discerned period.

Perhaps you could indicate on the photo which person you consider to be Lovelady if it isn't "Doorman"

Edited March 25, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Robert Mady]

Ray, here is FBI photo of LOVELADY, exposure slightly altered.

It appears that it might explain why the stripes are not visible, we are told the stripes are red and white, but the red stripe appears that it may have been very light colored or not an intense red.

The color faded in sunlight.