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

[Chris Davidson]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What? Sandy is saying that it is Lovelady in Altgens, but that it is someone else in the other other films, including the film in the police station. Well, who is this, if not Lovelady?

Yes. The same person in Martin and the police station video.

But that's not what I was indicating with the Bell frame.

The Bell frame supports what I quoted you on.

[Andrej Stancak]

I have addressed the details of Lovelady's figure in my video analysis. This includes Lovelady's forward head posture, shape of his head/face, positions of his arms and a few other details. All those apparently strange phenomena surrounding Lovelady in Altgens6 have natural explanations. 

https://youtu.be/C0Hwt-cIGq4?t=376

The relevant section starts at 6:15.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Yes. The same person in Martin and the police station video.

But that's not what I was indicating with the Bell frame.

The Bell frame supports what I quoted you on.

So are you agreeing with Sandy, or not? Ad if so, who is this Lovelady look-alike? 

[Sandy Larsen]

56 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I have addressed the details of Lovelady's figure in my video analysis. This includes Lovelady's forward head posture, shape of his head/face, positions of his arms and a few other details. All those apparently strange phenomena surrounding Lovelady in Altgens6 have natural explanations. 

https://youtu.be/C0Hwt-cIGq4?t=376

The relevant section starts at 6:15.

 

Andrej,

Why doesn't Lovelady's sleeve have a plaid pattern printed on it in this high-quality copy of Altgens 6 that DVP posted earlier?

Zoom way in. No Plaid.

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So are you agreeing with Sandy, or not? Ad if so, who is this Lovelady look-alike? 

My Martin/police station gif shows the same person.

If Sandy believes differently, I disagree with him.

That's as much as you should read into that statement.

btw, both those videos show the pocket too.

[Mark Ulrik]

Sandy, please be aware that there are better versions (e.g. with less contrast) than the one posted previously. I dunno whether it will help you find the shirt pocket, though ...

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Andrej,

Why doesn't Lovelady's sleeve have a plaid pattern printed on it in this high-quality copy of Altgens 6 that DVP posted earlier?

Zoom way in. No Plaid.

Sandy:

the explanation lies in degradation of the plaid pattern in a photograph which cannot offer enough resolution for details such as this. A rectangular shape of palid turns to an irregular shape and since there were dark- and light-coloured strips in Lovelady's shirt, the shirt appears to be a mesh of dark and light spots.

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sandy:

the explanation lies in degradation of the plaid pattern in a photograph which cannot offer enough resolution for details such as this. A rectangular shape of palid turns to an irregular shape and since there were dark- and light-coloured strips in Lovelady's shirt, the shirt appears to be a mesh of dark and light spots.

 

I don't think so Andrej. Those aren't exactly subtle shades in the plaid shirt. (The plaid shirt worn by the guy in the Martin film.)

BTW, are you aware that Lovelady told the FBI in 1964 that he was wearing this shirt on 11/22/63?

 

 

The stripes are red, BTW.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Sandy, please be aware that there are better versions (e.g. with less contrast) than the one posted previously. I dunno whether it will help you find the shirt pocket, though ...

 

Thanks Mark.

Everybody look at Lovelady's sleeve. No plaid there. Click to zoom in.

 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't think so Andrej. Those aren't exactly subtle shades in the plaid shirt. (The plaid shirt worn by the guy in the Martin film.)

BTW, are you aware that Lovelady told the FBI in 1964 that he was wearing this shirt on 11/22/63?

 

 

The stripes are red, BTW.

 

Actually, no. This was one of the things we got into with he who should not be named a decade ago, that was debunked by Groden four decades ago. Lovelady insisted nobody told him to wear the shirt he'd been wearing that day. The FBI--to no one's surprise--screwed up. That they screwed-up is demonstrated by the fact they failed to note that it was the wrong shirt in their report. But who knows? Maybe they had some help. Maybe they told Lovelady's wife, and she forgot to tell him. Or maybe--it's possible--Lovelady simply forgot what shirt he'd been wearing months before. In any event. when it was pointed out to him by Groden that this was not the shirt shown in the Altgens' photo and films, he said he knew that and whipped out the shirt shown in photos on this thread. 

Now, that's a reasonable explanation. Is there a reasonable explanation for having a Lovelady look-alike on the front steps? Or for having a special seamstress create a look-alike shirt for Lovelady to show Groden decades later? Unless this fits into a larger pattern whereby Lovelady was a part of a conspiracy--to assassinate the President--I can not fathom how you think this all makes sense. 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I hadn't read this thread until I was alerted by an amusing comment over at ROKC. Wow. What a car crash!

We have been presented with three images of Billy Lovelady: the Altgens 6 photograph in black and white, a news film from the police station in black and white, and the Martin film in colour. There's also Groden's colour photograph from years later, which may or may not show the shirt that's in the images from the day of the assassination.

In each image, Lovelady is wearing a long-sleeved shirt with a pattern of light and dark rectangles. So far, so uncontroversial.

But in some copies of the least detailed image, Altgens 6, the pattern of light and dark rectangles on Lovelady's left sleeve is slightly less clear than elsewhere. The sleeve shows only a mottled pattern of alternating light and dark patches that aren't clearly defined as rectangles.

From this, we should deduce that:

• Lovelady's arm in Altgens 6 was actually Carl Jones's arm,
• and that the light-and-dark pattern on Jones's arm was painted in on some copies of Altgens 6 but not on others,
• and that Lovelady in the Martin film isn't actually Lovelady but someone with a spinal condition such as kyphosis,
• and that Lovelady in the police station news film isn't actually Lovelady either (medical history unknown),
• and that a shirt with light and dark rectangles was specially made for Lovelady some time later in order to bolster the made-up story that Lovelady was wearing such a shirt in the Altgens 6 photo,
• and possibly some other stuff involving alien space ships and black helicopters.

This is what happens when people who are inclined to believe in convoluted conspiracies don't appreciate that when images get copied, the quality is liable to deteriorate and anomalous features can be generated (and that one person can stand upright most of the time and be hunched over at other times). We've seen the same thing numerous times in discussions of the Zapruder film, when someone looks at a copy of a copy of a copy and sees something like a car in the motorcade that's facing the wrong way, or a spectator who's eight feet tall.

There's no good reason to doubt that the man in Altgens 6, the news film, and the Martin film is Billy Lovelady, and that he's wearing the same long-sleeved shirt in each image.

[Greg Doudna]

That supposed early-stage hunchback or forward neck of Lovelady, I think may be an optical illusion caused by looking at a still frame of the Martin film clip. It looks to me like Lovelady was leaning forward to look at something, not standing naturally with his neck that far forward. In his police profile photo Lovelady does not show a forward neck posture that I can see, and in the clip of the Martin film it is clear he is bending forward intentionally, not standing still with his neck in that posture. The optical illusion would be from viewing his posture in a still frame as part of an intentional movement, as if that was his normal posture.  

Edited October 19, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/18/2023 at 8:50 AM, Pat Speer said:

Actually, no. This was one of the things we got into with he who should not be named a decade ago, that was debunked by Groden four decades ago. Lovelady insisted nobody told him to wear the shirt he'd been wearing that day. The FBI--to no one's surprise--screwed up. That they screwed-up is demonstrated by the fact they failed to note that it was the wrong shirt in their report. But who knows? Maybe they had some help. Maybe they told Lovelady's wife, and she forgot to tell him. Or maybe--it's possible--Lovelady simply forgot what shirt he'd been wearing months before. In any event. when it was pointed out to him by Groden that this was not the shirt shown in the Altgens' photo and films, he said he knew that and whipped out the shirt shown in photos on this thread. 

Now, that's a reasonable explanation. Is there a reasonable explanation for having a Lovelady look-alike on the front steps? Or for having a special seamstress create a look-alike shirt for Lovelady to show Groden decades later? Unless this fits into a larger pattern whereby Lovelady was a part of a conspiracy--to assassinate the President--I can not fathom how you think this all makes sense.

 

When the controversy erupted over whether the man seen in the Altgens 6 photo might be Oswald circa 2/64, the FBI called Lovelady in to ask him if he was that man. And to get his photo taken in the clothes he'd worn on 11/22/63 for comparison purposes.. He wore this red and white striped shirt to the visit and specifically told the FBI that he'd worn that shirt on 11/22/63.

He said the same to others, including researcher Jones Harris, which was reported in the New York Herald Tribune, May 24, 1964 (Commission Exhibit 1408, Volume 22).

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I hadn't read this thread until I was alerted by an amusing comment over at ROKC. Wow. What a car crash!

We have been presented with three images of Billy Lovelady: the Altgens 6 photograph in black and white, a news film from the police station in black and white, and the Martin film in colour. There's also Groden's colour photograph from years later, which may or may not show the shirt that's in the images from the day of the assassination.

In each image, Lovelady is wearing a long-sleeved shirt with a pattern of light and dark rectangles. So far, so uncontroversial.

But in some copies of the least detailed image, Altgens 6, the pattern of light and dark rectangles on Lovelady's left sleeve is slightly less clear than elsewhere. The sleeve shows only a mottled pattern of alternating light and dark patches that aren't clearly defined as rectangles.

From this, we should deduce that:

• Lovelady's arm in Altgens 6 was actually Carl Jones's arm,
• and that the light-and-dark pattern on Jones's arm was painted in on some copies of Altgens 6 but not on others,
• and that Lovelady in the Martin film isn't actually Lovelady but someone with a spinal condition such as kyphosis,
• and that Lovelady in the police station news film isn't actually Lovelady either (medical history unknown),
• and that a shirt with light and dark rectangles was specially made for Lovelady some time later in order to bolster the made-up story that Lovelady was wearing such a shirt in the Altgens 6 photo,
• and possibly some other stuff involving alien space ships and black helicopters.

This is what happens when people who are inclined to believe in convoluted conspiracies don't appreciate that when images get copied, the quality is liable to deteriorate and anomalous features can be generated (and that one person can stand upright most of the time and be hunched over at other times). We've seen the same thing numerous times in discussions of the Zapruder film, when someone looks at a copy of a copy of a copy and sees something like a car in the motorcade that's facing the wrong way, or a spectator who's eight feet tall.

There's no good reason to doubt that the man in Altgens 6, the news film, and the Martin film is Billy Lovelady, and that he's wearing the same long-sleeved shirt in each image.

 

Your theory ignores a number of anomalies. Like:

• A profile comparison of the so-called Lovelady in the Hughes and Martin film looks nothing like the real Lovelady.... different shaped heads and ears, for example.
• The so-called Lovelady has a spinal condition, whereas the real Lovelady doesn't.
• Lovelady had already gone back inside the TSBD and was blocked from going back outside by the the time the so-called Lovelady appears in the Hughes and Martin films.
• The plaid shirt showed of by the real Lovelady doesn't have a pocket, whereas the plaid shirt worn by the so-called Lovelady in Hughes/Martin does have a pocket. (Some people claim they see a pocket in real Lovelady's shirt. Problem is, it'd never in the same location as the one on so-called Lovelady's pocket.

 

I know that you you, like Pat Speer, have a tendency to sweep inconvenient evidence under the rug rather than deal with it. So I'm not surprised by your comment here.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

When the controversy erupted over whether the man seen in the Altgens 6 photo might be Oswald circa 2/64, the FBI called Lovelady in to ask him if he was that man. And to get his photo taken in the clothes he'd worn on 11/22/63 for comparison purposes.. He wore this red and white striped shirt to the visit and specifically told the FBI that he'd worn that shirt on 11/22/63.

He said the same to others, including researcher Jones Harris, which was reported in the New York Herald Tribune, May 24, 1964 (Commission Exhibit 1408, Volume 22).

 

 

Ok. So you're doubling down. But to what end? Those pushing this stuff in the past thought it was all part of an effort to conceal that it was Oswald on the steps, not Lovelady. But you don't believe that. 

So please explain why you think this makes sense. Apparently, you take your failure to recognize photos of what most everyone agrees is Lovelady as Lovelady as an important breakthrough. You don't know who it is. You don't know why Lovelady's being impersonated. But you feel certain it isn't him. Help us make sense of this. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Pat Speer