Wade Rhodes Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Is this LHO - http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0304b.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Is this LHO - http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0304b.htm Or a cut and paste job? For me the question will always be 'whose face or faces did they remove from the area of the doorway of the TSBD, seen in the Altgens photo, by deliberately defacing it?' The precedent for manipulation of the photographic record was set with the phony backyard photos. No reason it wouldn't extend to cutting Billy Lovelady's face and pasting it over Oswalds and then blanking out Lovelady in the original. That would explain why Billy's shirt isn't as unbuttoned as it appears in Altgens when compared with other photos. Just a theory, but it works for me. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Wade this thread may be of interest. Related thread: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Incredible animation. I have always been impressed by the absolute zeal to create the impression that it was not Oswald. In fact, somebody like John McAdams never fails to "debunk" the truth about the Kennedy Assassination. I am surprised they haven't found this thread yet, what is taking them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 McAdams may lurk here, but [like Gary Mack] he never posts here. McAdams evidently prefers to let his "apostles" post his thoughts, if history is any indicator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 McAdams may lurk here, but [like Gary Mack] he never posts here.McAdams evidently prefers to let his "apostles" post his thoughts, if history is any indicator. Interesting. The man who dominates the Internet regarding the Kennedy Assassinaton does not post here. I guess if he lurks and talks with his apostles, his ability to influence is nonetheless significant. No doubt, he thinks over the years, he has done enough work to "debunk" this interesting thread, that he or they can ignore it. Sometimes, I wonder whether he himself believes all the "debunking" or is it just an intellectual exercise? I am not very intelligent when it comes to expressing myself, but I am a good researcher/analyst, and people like McAdams just love to exploit any weakness to promote some agenda that is rather mysterious, unless we clearly understand their motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Is this LHO - http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0304b.htm It was unquestionably Billy Lovelady. Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are? Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture. Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating). Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken? Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating). Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step? Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level. Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there? Mr. LOVELADY - Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 (edited) You trust the Warren Commission Report? What strikes me is that when John McAdams, "a base propagandist in scholars robes", tries to prove that it was not Oswald, he goes into this strange, "debunk" mode. I really do not think that it is very credible to rely on the Warren Commission report, to "debunk" the very real possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was photographed witnessing the Kennedy assassination. As you can see from the above link, John McAdams calls the claim that lee Harvey Oswald was at the doorway a "factoid" that needs to be debunked. But if you study the facts very carefully, a factoid appears to be the truth that needs to be aggressively opposed. That is what this link evidently proves in very convinving terms. Edited November 3, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) That's absolutely incredible, Lee, I missed your point when I initially viewed your animation. Lovelady was in fact right beside Oswald, in the doorway, his head was cut and pasted onto Oswald's body in the doorway. No wonder the doorway is not full of heads, as one would expect. That is a genius animation as far as I am concerned, because you have captured Oswald and the clothes he wore in the doorway as was initially pictured. KUDOS ! The Oswald version looks more authentic than the publicized, Lovelady photo, how did you get it so perfect? Edited November 4, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) That's absolutely incredible, Lee, I missed your point when I initially viewed your animation. Lovelady was in fact right beside Oswald, in the doorway, his head was cut and pasted onto Oswald's body in the doorway.No wonder the doorway is not full of heads, as one would expect. That is a genius animation as far as I am concerned, because you have captured Oswald and the clothes he wore in the doorway as was initially pictured. KUDOS ! The Oswald version looks more authentic than the publicized, Lovelady photo, how did you get it so perfect? Thanks Lynne. Just luck. Credit to Robin for the Weigman frame. The left view is a crop from Altgens, the right, a frame from Weigman. - lee Edited November 4, 2005 by Lee Forman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Just to illustrate the area in Altgens. Just another coincidence that this particular part of the negative was damaged. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Mr. BALL - Who was with you? Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me [........] Mr. BALL - What was that last name? Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton. Mr. BALL - What is the first name? Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley. Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name? Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton. Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps Mr. LOVELADY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by Mr. LOVELADY - Right. Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did. Attachment, credit and thanks to Robin Unger. Notes taken by Fritz. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) Thanks Lee. Credit to Bernice for supplying that Clear Wiegman frame from which i did the doorway enhancement. Great Oswald GIF lee. Very nice work. Edited November 4, 2005 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Just a thought... ...if Oswald was firing a rifle from the 6th floor , how did he know that Bill Shelley was standing in front of the building? He obviously couldn't see him from the 6th floor...so if Oswald couldn't see him, how did he know Shelley was there, to claim to have been standing with him? And it's not as if Oswald got to look at any of the photographic evidence before he was questioned by Fritz. So how did he know who to claim he was standing with, and where...if he was the 6th-floor shooter? Sometimes it's those damn trees that hide the forest, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Mark, a very, very interesting thought!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now