Lovelady Wore A Very Similar, But Different, Shirt For Groden

[Sandy Larsen]

You can see the "break" in the line of the pocket in this photo.

Looks to me like a small wrinkle going across the shirt. The wrinkle becomes more pronounced further to the right.

Several of these tiny wrinkles can be seen.

[Ray Mitcham]

No way was that my intention. (Bit below the belt there, Sandy.) I was replying to your comment that "nobody" picked up Lifton's mistakes at the time. Lawson did. I have no love or truck with Lamson, but most times he is right when he discusses photography.

[Ray Mitcham]

Looks like your determined not to see what's there, Sandy.

I'm finished with the argument.

[Sandy Larsen]

No way was that my intention. (Bit below the belt there, Sandy.) I was replying to your comment that "nobody" picked up Lifton's mistakes at the time. Lawson did. I have no love or truck with Lamson, but most times he is right when he discusses photography.

Your seeking out to prove me wrong was below the belt, Ray. Why didn't you just stop after I said Lamson doesn't count? Had you done so I wouldn't have called you out on this.

[Sandy Larsen]

Looks like your determined not to see what's there, Sandy.

I'm finished with the argument.

Does anybody see the pocket?

I'm not determined not to see it Ray. I just don't see it.

Remember earlier, I said that I saw it? On another copy of the photo? I think that proves that I have no bias.

I have since checked every copy of the photo I could find and haven't been able to find the one I saw earlier with the pocket stitching. It was easy to see the stitching on that one. Now I think it was someone's idea of a trick or joke.

[Ray Mitcham]

No way was that my intention. (Bit below the belt there, Sandy.) I was replying to your comment that "nobody" picked up Lifton's mistakes at the time. Lawson did. I have no love or truck with Lamson, but most times he is right when he discusses photography.

Your seeking out to prove me wrong was below the belt, Ray. Why didn't you just stop after I said Lamson doesn't count? Had you done so I wouldn't have called you out on this.

I had no intention of proving you wrong. I was correcting your statement.

But Lamson does count. Just because he is obnoxious, doesn't mean he is wrong.

[Sandy Larsen]

No way was that my intention. (Bit below the belt there, Sandy.) I was replying to your comment that "nobody" picked up Lifton's mistakes at the time. Lawson did. I have no love or truck with Lamson, but most times he is right when he discusses photography.

Your seeking out to prove me wrong was below the belt, Ray. Why didn't you just stop after I said Lamson doesn't count? Had you done so I wouldn't have called you out on this.

I had no intention of proving you wrong. I was correcting your statement.

But Lamson does count. Just because he is obnoxious, doesn't mean he is wrong.

Ray, the spirit of my comment was that all those guys posting on the thread were letting Lifton's mistake -- in his momentous statement -- slide. Given that Lamson is an LNer who disagrees with EVERYTHING that contradicts the official story, I think it was fair for me to ignore him.

When you pointed out that my statement was incorrect, why didn't you say something like, well yeah almost everybody let Lifton get away with his mistake. But Craig Lamson pointed it out.

Instead your reply was like, sorry Sandy you are wrong.

But I'm glad that that wasn't your intention.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Ray Mitcham]

No way was that my intention. (Bit below the belt there, Sandy.) I was replying to your comment that "nobody" picked up Lifton's mistakes at the time. Lawson did. I have no love or truck with Lamson, but most times he is right when he discusses photography.

Your seeking out to prove me wrong was below the belt, Ray. Why didn't you just stop after I said Lamson doesn't count? Had you done so I wouldn't have called you out on this.

I had no intention of proving you wrong. I was correcting your statement.

But Lamson does count. Just because he is obnoxious, doesn't mean he is wrong.

Ray, the spirit of my comment was that all those guys posting on the thread were letting Lifton's mistake -- in his momentous statement -- slide. Given that Lamson is an LNer who disagrees with EVERYTHING that contradicts the official story, I think it was fair for me to ignore him.

When you pointed out that my statement was incorrect, why didn't you say something like, well yeah almost everybody let Lifton get away with his mistake. But Craig Lamson pointed it out.

Instead your reply was like, sorry Sandy you are wrong.

But you were wrong, Sandy. If you had travelled further into the topic you would have seen that several people agree with Lamson. Robin Unger, Pat Speer, James R Gordon and Dean Hagerman to name just a couple I have just found.

For example, Hagerman says this

"Well first of all Craig is not my "pal" we disagree on almost everything, however I respect Craig and his photographic skills

So when I see something that Craig does that jumps out at me and says thats a great point and I agree with him then I will say it and back him up

In this thread what he posted was a great example, for you to ignore that means you are just lying to yourself

Did Jim happen to tell you that I am an alterationist and have backed Jim and his studies that I agree with up for years?

It just so happens that on the subject of Lovelady Craig is correct and you and Jim are wrong

It has nothing to do with whos team who is on or who believes in what, when it comes to the man in the doorway it is without question Lovelady

"

[Robert Prudhomme]

If Lovelady wore the plaid shirt for the last time on the day of the assassination, and then put it into storage until he wore it for demonstration purposes in the 1970's, why would the pocket be missing?

And why does it look like it shrunk while in storage?

P.S.

Please ignore the text accompanying the second photo. It was the only full photo of the 1963 shirt I could find.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

And if he continued to wear this shirt to work, why did it not get worn out in the next decade? My work shirts are lucky to last a year.

[Sandy Larsen]

No way was that my intention. (Bit below the belt there, Sandy.) I was replying to your comment that "nobody" picked up Lifton's mistakes at the time. Lawson did. I have no love or truck with Lamson, but most times he is right when he discusses photography.

Your seeking out to prove me wrong was below the belt, Ray. Why didn't you just stop after I said Lamson doesn't count? Had you done so I wouldn't have called you out on this.

I had no intention of proving you wrong. I was correcting your statement.

But Lamson does count. Just because he is obnoxious, doesn't mean he is wrong.

Ray, the spirit of my comment was that all those guys posting on the thread were letting Lifton's mistake -- in his momentous statement -- slide. Given that Lamson is an LNer who disagrees with EVERYTHING that contradicts the official story, I think it was fair for me to ignore him.

When you pointed out that my statement was incorrect, why didn't you say something like, well yeah almost everybody let Lifton get away with his mistake. But Craig Lamson pointed it out.

Instead your reply was like, sorry Sandy you are wrong.

But you were wrong, Sandy. If you had travelled further into the topic you would have seen that several people agree with Lamson. Robin Unger, Pat Speer, James R Gordon and Dean Hagerman to name just a couple I have just found.

For example, Hagerman says this

"Well first of all Craig is not my "pal" we disagree on almost everything, however I respect Craig and his photographic skills

So when I see something that Craig does that jumps out at me and says thats a great point and I agree with him then I will say it and back him up

In this thread what he posted was a great example, for you to ignore that means you are just lying to yourself

Did Jim happen to tell you that I am an alterationist and have backed Jim and his studies that I agree with up for years?

It just so happens that on the subject of Lovelady Craig is correct and you and Jim are wrong

It has nothing to do with whos team who is on or who believes in what, when it comes to the man in the doorway it is without question Lovelady

"

Ray,

What I posted had NOTHING to do with this stuff you're talking about. You're talking as though I was agreeing with Lifton. I wasn't, and I don't know why you would think otherwise.

I went through several posts and didn't see a single one from a CTer pointing out that Lifton was wrong. And I found that to be really odd. Which is why I posted:

"The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet nobody disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos!"

For the purposes of my post, it doesn't matter what Lamson said. But here, I will make my post 100% factually correct just to please you:

"The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet not a single reasonable person disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos! (Note: I checked only the posts immediately following Lifton's announcement. Several of them. I did not read the entire thread.)"

Sheesh.

[Sandy Larsen]

If Lovelady wore the plaid shirt for the last time on the day of the assassination, and then put it into storage until he wore it for demonstration purposes in the 1970's, why would the pocket be missing?

And why does it look like it shrunk while in storage?

P.S.

Please ignore the text accompanying the second photo. It was the only full photo of the 1963 shirt I could find.

Robert,

I agree with you regarding the missing pocket. But as for the shirt being snug, it could be that Lovelady put on some weight.

You make an interesting point about the shirt being in storage for a long time. Why would Lovelady have kept that shirt? To commemorate the JFK assassination? Wasn't there anything more reasonable to keep than a shirt?

Was the shirt controversial way back then? If not, I don't know why Lovelady would have singled it out to save.

[Thomas Graves]

You can see the "break" in the line of the pocket in this photo.

Looks to me like a small wrinkle going across the shirt. The wrinkle becomes more pronounced further to the right.

Several of these tiny wrinkles can be seen.

Ray,

I see the top edge of the pocket. It's hanging out and away from the shirt proper by just a smidgen, but it is noticeable to those who are willing to see it.

As regards the possibility that Lovelady may have put on a few pounds, it's also possible that the reason the shirt seems to have shrunk is because it has -- maybe somebody (probably "careless" Lovelady, himself) washed it in water that was way too hot. How's that for a mundane explanation?

So to reiterate, I do see the pocket. (But then again what would you expect from a notorious "lone nutter" / "disinfo agent" such as me?)

LOL

-- Tommy

Edited October 27, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

You can see the "break" in the line of the pocket in this photo.

Looks to me like a small wrinkle going across the shirt. The wrinkle becomes more pronounced further to the right.

Several of these tiny wrinkles can be seen.

Ray,

I see the top edge of the pocket. It's hanging out and away from the shirt proper by just a smidgen, but it is noticeable to those who are willing to see it.

As regards the possibility that Lovelady may have put on a few pounds, it's also possible that the reason the shirt seems to have shrunk is because it has -- maybe somebody (probably "careless" Lovelady, himself) washed it in water that was way too hot. How's that for a mundane explanation?

So to reiterate, I do see the pocket. (But then again what would you expect from a notorious "lone nutter" / "disinfo agent" such as me?)

LOL

-- Tommy

Tommy,

If you're talking about the darkish line just above the white line, then just so you know, the same thing is visible where the pattern repeats above that. (Two white lines up.)

Edited October 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

If Lovelady wore the plaid shirt for the last time on the day of the assassination, and then put it into storage until he wore it for demonstration purposes in the 1970's, why would the pocket be missing?

And why does it look like it shrunk while in storage?

P.S.

Please ignore the text accompanying the second photo. It was the only full photo of the 1963 shirt I could find.

Robert,

I agree with you regarding the missing pocket. But as for the shirt being snug, it could be that Lovelady put on some weight.

You make an interesting point about the shirt being in storage for a long time. Why would Lovelady have kept that shirt? To commemorate the JFK assassination? Wasn't there anything more reasonable to keep than a shirt?

Was the shirt controversial way back then? If not, I don't know why Lovelady would have singled it out to save.

He might have put on weight but that still doesn't explain the shirt on the right being so much shorter than the 1963 shirt.

Did he cut the tails AND the pocket off the shirt?

I don't believe they are the same shirt.