Billy Lovelady is NOT leaning over (much) in Altgens 6.

[Alan Ford]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

To me the oranged thing looks like Carl Jones's arm and hand. It's light-colored for the same reason much of the black faces are white. (Reflection of the sun?) But his pushed back cuffs are the correct shade of gray.

I have no idea what the pea-greened thing is.

 

Bottle?

[Alan Ford]

On 11/2/2023 at 1:01 PM, Paul Rigby said:

It took nearly four and half hours for an image transmitted from Dallas at 1pm CST to appear on CBS at circa 1830hrs EST.

Working Hypothesis!

The Cronkite version of Altgens shows us not the original version but the first 'improved' version-------------i.e. it is the product of a first hasty cleanup of what was very quickly understood to be an unacceptable image

?  ->           ->

[Sandy Larsen]

51 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Bottle?

 

Bingo!

It's beginning to come together now.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Working Hypothesis!

The Cronkite version of Altgens shows us not the original version but the first 'improved' version-------------i.e. it is the product of a first hasty cleanup of what was very quickly understood to be an unacceptable image

?  ->           ->

 

I'm thinking more along the lines that the original showed only Carl's coke and his hand holding it, just like what we see in Cronkite. And maybe also the tips of his face, like his nose.

They wanted to use Carl's arm for Lovelady (for whatever reason). So they brought Carl's face out from behind the column in order to cover up the bottle, and made Carl's arm darker so it could be Lovelady's arm instead.

Something like that.

 

[Alan Ford]

26 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Working Hypothesis!

The Cronkite version of Altgens shows us not the original version but the first 'improved' version-------------i.e. it is the product of a first hasty cleanup of what was very quickly understood to be an unacceptable image

[Sandy Larsen]

I'll throw something out and see if any of it sticks.

Suppose for a moment that Doorway Man really was Oswald, like what poor Ralph Cinque said. The coverup artists wanted to turn him into Lovelady for obvious reasons. They asked Lovelady what shirt he wore and he said a red & white striped one.

So they looked at the original photo, which looked like the Cronkite one. They said, ah-ha, Carl's arm is light enough and in the right place to be Lovelady's arm! And it has no sleeve, just like the shirt Lovelady wore. Erase a little hair and voila! Now Oswald is Lovelady. Oh wait... why is Lovelady's arm holding onto that bottle of coke? Simple solution: paste Carl's face over that and it's gone!

It was only later that they realized that they had goofed. Lovelady was really supposed to be wearing a plaid shirt, not striped! And long sleeved, not short. So they fixed that the best they could by making Lovelady's faux arm darker.

Eventually they added the plaid, when it became easier. (Or when they had the time or budget for it.)

But copies of these three versions are all extant today, causing the smarter researchers among us to theorize on how the different version came into existence.

 

[Alan Ford]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Here's an idea I'll throw at the wall and see if it sticks.

Suppose for a moment that Doorway Man really was Oswald, like what poor Ralph Cinque said. The coverup artists wanted to turn him into Lovelady for obvious reasons. They asked Lovelady what shirt he wore and he said a red & white striped one.

So they looked at the original photo, which looked like the Cronkite one. They said, ah-ha, Carl's arm is light enough and in the right place to be Lovelady's arm! And it has no sleeve, just like the shirt Lovelady wore. Erase a little hair and voila! Now Oswald is Lovelady. Oh wait... why is Lovelady's arm holding onto that bottle of coke? Simple solution: paste Carl's face over that and it's gone!

It was only later that they realized that they had goofed. Lovelady was really supposed to be wearing a plaid shirt, not striped! And long sleeved, not short. So they fixed that the best they could by making Lovelady's faux arm darker.

Eventually they added the plaid, when it became easier. (Or when they had the time or budget for it.)

But copies of these three versions are all extant today, causing the smarter researchers among us to theorize on how the different version came into existence.

 

The problem is that if they turned Mr. Oswald into Mr. Lovelady, they did it within hours of the assassination.

And Mr. Lovelady had been taken to DPD HQ in his plaid shirt:

Perhaps the Cronkite version is showing us the hastily improvised stopgap solution, with no fix yet for the hand/bottle problem?

[Jonathan Cohen]

4 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

And Mr. Lovelady had been taken to DPD HQ in his plaid shirt:

But Sandy Larsen insists that this ISN'T Billy Lovelady.

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

And Mr. Lovelady had been taken to DPD HQ in his plaid shirt:

 

 

I don't believe that to be Lovelady. I believe that Lovelady told the truth when he said he wore a red and white (mostly red) striped shirt on 11/22.

 

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

I don't believe that to be Lovelady. I believe that Lovelady told the truth when he said he wore a red and white (mostly red) striped shirt on 11/22.

 

Here's what I'm thinking, Mr. Larsen......................

Mr. Lovelady had his photograph taken at City Hall on the afternoon of the assassination. He wasn't told the real reason why.

When, afterwards, he was shown 'the' Altgens photograph, with his face on it, he knew immediately how the fix had been put in: Mr. Oswald had been disappeared.

He also immediately noticed what we are calling the 'Jones arm', but erroneously took it to be the LOWERED unsleeved arm of the man-in-the-white-tshirt whom he had replaced----------------------Mr. Oswald.

And so, in late-Jan '64, when summoned by FBI to a photograph session, he helpfully wears what he thinks will best 'assist' the 'investigation' in putting the Altgens controversy to rest:

 

I've never bought the idea that this was an innocent mix-up.

From Mr. Dom Bonafede's May '64 article on the Altgens controversy. The last bit of paragraph 1 tells us that this really was Mr. Lovelady's line----------------------until 1967, actually!

Edited November 4, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Maybe Groden was on your side, that the shirt is (or should be) plaid. And so he added the plaid.

Or maybe not. Maybe there was something nefarious going on. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 Well, if Sandy is claiming that the sleeve has been painted in, the question of whether or not it was done to deliberately mislead is quite important, I would think.

Quote

Why is Carl Jones's head missing in the Altgens 6 photo shown by Walter Cronkite early (on the day of the assassination?)? But is present in all other extant copies, including Groden's?

Jones's head is there. At least, there's a blob where Jones's head should be. The reason it isn't as clear as in the Groden version is the same reason everything else isn't as clear as in the Groden version: the TV screen-shot version is heavily degraded.

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

it is highly unlikely Groden has first gen prints of anything--that kind of access just isn't provided.

It's true that not all of Groden's claims are reliable. If I recall correctly, he once published what he claimed to be a previously unknown photo of JFK's body taken during the autopsy, which turned out to be a frame from the film, JFK, featuring a prosthetic dummy.

Perhaps Groden didn't have access to the original negative, as he claimed. Nevertheless, his version of Lovelady in Altgens 6 in The Killing of a President is consistent with its having been made from a good-quality negative.

Quote

The contention is that Lovelady was partially obstructed by an arm, and that this arm was re-touched to match its background. Lovelady. This gives us reason to believe the earliest version shown on CBS, and printed in some papers, was accurate.

I appreciate that if Carl Jones's arm was raised in front of Lovelady (not Oswald), it would produce the light-toned area that we see in the Cronkite version, and that news organisations might well retouch that area to make it match the front of Lovelady's (not Oswald's) shirt, if they thought that doing so would help their friends in high places. Exactly why they might have thought that, isn't entirely obvious.

But there's no need to jump to that conclusion here. Differences in copying processes are sufficient to explain trivial discrepancies in different versions of an image. That's especially true in the case of the Cronkite version, which is probably the least clear and most degraded version of Altgens 6 that's in circulation.

Why should we trust the Cronkite version when it is obviously degraded and many better-quality versions exist? So far, all we've had is the suggestion that because version A predates version B, version A must contain a more accurate depiction than version B. This doesn't follow at all, since it ignores the uncontroversial fact that copying and transmission processes affect the amount and quality of detail in an image.

If anyone wants to demonstrate, rather than merely suggest, that Lovelady's sleeve was painted in, they could start by collating as many securely dated versions of Altgens 6 as possible from TV broadcasts, newspapers, magazines and books, and see if a pattern emerges which isn't consistent with the obvious, non-conspiratorial explanation for trivial discrepancies between versions of an image.

Then they could try to trace anyone who has seen and handled the original negative of Altgens 6, and find out whether it contains any evidence of tampering (yes, I know: if there's no evidence of tampering, it just shows how good those photo-fakers were!). After that, they could try to come up with an explanation of how the painting-in might have been done, and more importantly when it was done, given that Altgens' film was developed and printed, and the image transmitted all over the world, within half an hour or so of the assassination.

The claim seems to be that Lovelady's sleeve was painted in to assist in discrediting Oswald's alibi. On the question of when any alterations could have been made, it's worth noting that Oswald didn't give his alibi until his first interview, which (I think) began at around 2:15. The Altgens-alteration timeline thus needs to take into account the fact that the image was floating around, and no doubt being copied, for more than an hour before the alibi was even known about, let alone any decisions made (by whom?) about why and how the alibi should be discredited.

Furthermore!

It now looks as though today's theory is that the Lovelady figure in Altgens 6 is actually Oswald, not Lovelady, and that the person waving the Confederate flag was Lovelady, not Oswald. As to where the shape-shifting lizard people enter into this fantastical tale, we'll have to wait for tomorrow's instalment!

[Pat Speer]

27 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

 Well, if Sandy is claiming that the sleeve has been painted in, the question of whether or not it was done to deliberately mislead is quite important, I would think.

Jones's head is there. At least, there's a blob where Jones's head should be. The reason it isn't as clear as in the Groden version is the same reason everything else isn't as clear as in the Groden version: the TV screen-shot version is heavily degraded.

Pat Speer writes:

It's true that not all of Groden's claims are reliable. If I recall correctly, he once published what he claimed to be a previously unknown photo of JFK's body taken during the autopsy, which turned out to be a frame from the film, JFK, featuring a prosthetic dummy.

Perhaps Groden didn't have access to the original negative, as he claimed. Nevertheless, his version of Lovelady in Altgens 6 in The Killing of a President is consistent with its having been made from a good-quality negative.

I appreciate that if Carl Jones's arm was raised in front of Lovelady (not Oswald), it would produce the light-toned area that we see in the Cronkite version, and that news organisations might well retouch that area to make it match the front of Lovelady's (not Oswald's) shirt, if they thought that doing so would help their friends in high places. Exactly why they might have thought that, isn't entirely obvious.

But there's no need to jump to that conclusion here. Differences in copying processes are sufficient to explain trivial discrepancies in different versions of an image. That's especially true in the case of the Cronkite version, which is probably the least clear and most degraded version of Altgens 6 that's in circulation.

Why should we trust the Cronkite version when it is obviously degraded and many better-quality versions exist? So far, all we've had is the suggestion that because version A predates version B, version A must contain a more accurate depiction than version B. This doesn't follow at all, since it ignores the uncontroversial fact that copying and transmission processes affect the amount and quality of detail in an image.

If anyone wants to demonstrate, rather than merely suggest, that Lovelady's sleeve was painted in, they could start by collating as many securely dated versions of Altgens 6 as possible from TV broadcasts, newspapers, magazines and books, and see if a pattern emerges which isn't consistent with the obvious, non-conspiratorial explanation for trivial discrepancies between versions of an image.

Then they could try to trace anyone who has seen and handled the original negative of Altgens 6, and find out whether it contains any evidence of tampering (yes, I know: if there's no evidence of tampering, it just shows how good those photo-fakers were!). After that, they could try to come up with an explanation of how the painting-in might have been done, and more importantly when it was done, given that Altgens' film was developed and printed, and the image transmitted all over the world, within half an hour or so of the assassination.

The claim seems to be that Lovelady's sleeve was painted in to assist in discrediting Oswald's alibi. On the question of when any alterations could have been made, it's worth noting that Oswald didn't give his alibi until his first interview, which (I think) began at around 2:15. The Altgens-alteration timeline thus needs to take into account the fact that the image was floating around, and no doubt being copied, for more than an hour before the alibi was even known about, let alone any decisions made (by whom?) about why and how the alibi should be discredited.

Furthermore!

It now looks as though today's theory is that the Lovelady figure in Altgens 6 is actually Oswald, not Lovelady, and that the person waving the Confederate flag was Lovelady, not Oswald. As to where the shape-shifting lizard people enter into this fantastical tale, we'll have to wait for tomorrow's instalment!

I agree that any theory holding it really was Oswald in Altgens, and not Lovelady, is ludicrous, as is the notion that other images of someone resembling Lovelady are not Lovelady. The guy was outside. Period. His co-workers said he was there and identified him in the photos. Period. It's obviously him. Period. While the possibility exists that minor features of some of the assassination photos were re-touched for a variety of reasons, the possibility Oswald was erased from photos and films along with the collective memory of his co-workers BEFORE he'd even been arrested for killing JFK, and that Lovelsdy played along with this, is not supported by anything beyond fantasy. As stated, I've been down the alteration road in the past, and all off-ramps lead to top secret photo alteration labs in the parking lot, which is to say, fantasyland. 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Here's what I'm thinking, Mr. Larsen......................

Mr. Lovelady had his photograph taken at City Hall on the afternoon of the assassination. He wasn't told the real reason why.

When, afterwards, he was shown 'the' Altgens photograph, with his face on it, he knew immediately how the fix had been put in: Mr. Oswald had been disappeared.

He also immediately noticed what we are calling the 'Jones arm', but erroneously took it to be the LOWERED unsleeved arm of the man-in-the-white-tshirt whom he had replaced----------------------Mr. Oswald.

And so, in late-Jan '64, when summoned by FBI to a photograph session, he helpfully wears what he thinks will best 'assist' the 'investigation' in putting the Altgens controversy to rest:

 

I've never bought the idea that this was an innocent mix-up.

From Mr. Dom Bonafede's May '64 article on the Altgens controversy. The last bit of paragraph 1 tells us that this really was Mr. Lovelady's line----------------------until 1967, actually!

 

Alan,

Either your or my theory is possible. Your theory has Lovelady wearing the red plaid shirt on 11/22/63 and my theory has him wearing the red striped shirt.

There is evidence that Lovelady's plaid shirt that he began showing off in 1967 is not the one we see in the 11/22/63 videos. And that is that the shirt in the videos has a pocket, whereas the shirt that Lovelady showed off in 1967 and later doesn't. This fact supports my theory.

On the other hand, you have evidence to support your theory. And that is the films of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt on 11/22. Problem is, there are several flaws in that evidence, as I will explain here:

1.  When comparing a profile view of the alleged Lovelady in the films (Hughes?) with the real Lovelady in the FBI mugshot, they look nothing alike other than the balding. For example, look at the ear sizes:

 

2.  The alleged Lovelady in the films has a hunched back. It's hard to tell for sure, but the FBI mugshot of the real Lovelady looks like he doesn't. Furthermore, the Jack Beers photo (or a frame?) reveals what looks like the same plaid-shirted hunchback we see in the films, and he is standing on the south side of Elm Street during the shooting, and therefore cannot be Lovelady.

 

Even the conservative (and fair) forum member Tom Gram said that he sees the hunchbackedness in this guy.

3.  The Darnell film supposedly shows Shelley and Lovelady walking toward the railroad yard ~30 seconds after the shots. I once did a study that showed the stripe-spacing in that guy's shirt is precisely the same as the plaid shirt worn by the hunchbacked "Lovelady" in the other films. So I agreed at first that the guy walking to the railroad yard is very likely Lovelady.

Problem is, it was later shown that it probably isn't Lovelady after all, because the guy's height relative to alleged Shelley's is wrong, and because the two split up and take different paths further down the road.

Later I and Tommy Graves did a study that led to the identification of Gloria Calvery ~30 seconds after the shooting in Darnell. (We identified her in Zapruder too, BTW.). And this led to the discovery that Lovelady was still on the TSBD stairway when he was supposedly walking to the railroad yard in Darnell. This discovery has been accepted by many researchers since then.

 

4.  The films showing the hunchbacked "Lovelady" at the TSBD steps were taken well after the police had arrived and stopped all those trying to exit or enter the TSBD. Did Lovelady really go back outside very quickly after going inside, so as not to be stopped by police.

 

As for the hunchbacked guy we see in the 11/22 films, it is evident to me that he was standing on the south side of Elm Street during the parade (Beers photo/frame), and immediately after the shooting went across the street and walked down that little road toward the railroad yard (Darnell film). (For a while he was walking near a guy that many thought was Shelley (and some still do).) After the police arrived and blocked the entrances of the building, he went to the entrance of the TSBD and was filmed there. At some point he was taken in by the DPD for questioning.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jones's head is there. At least, there's a blob where Jones's head should be. The reason it isn't as clear as in the Groden version is the same reason everything else isn't as clear as in the Groden version: the TV screen-shot version is heavily degraded.

 

If Carl's head is there but merely degraded, then his coke bottle is jammed to the back of his throat.

Oh wait, I looked again. The coke bottle is jammed through his eye and into his brain. It's rather painful.

(When the coverup artist pasted Carl's head on, he put it a little too low.)

 

[Paul Bacon]

Just plain remarkable Alan and Sandy!