30-05-2012, 02:46 PM
The weight of what you say only originates from present day hindsight. As Dunne showed, once Lovelady was shown himself in the plaid shirt he corrected his mistake and admitted he was wearing it.
The reason I reject your reasons for allowing the possibility it was Oswald is because they are completely speculative and based on suspicions after the fact. You are inferring that because Lovelady could be mistaken for Oswald at a distance that therefore there's something sinister in that that suggests deliberateness.
But none of this cancels or changes the fact all other evidence points towards it being Lovelady and none points towards it being Oswald. If you are going to suggest it is Oswald you have to walk your suggestion through all the other evidence. For it to be Oswald would mean that CIA forgers had to painstakingly locate and control all other photographic evidence and insert plaid shirts on Lovelady in each and every photo. At that point you are in the same looney wagon as Cinque and Fetzer.
I think what dismisses it being Oswald the most is Oswald's lack of breath when Baker confronted him. If Oswald was out on the front steps being caught by Altgens then he would have had to move quickly back upstairs to get back to the lunchroom. He would have had to climb the steps and therefore would have been visibly active. The actions of somebody as deep as Oswald was in the conspiracy is not to calmly buy a Coke and hang-out in the lunchroom after seeing the president shot in person. This is something that the same character who reacted to police confrontation by drawing a gun would not have reacted to by having a calm expression and no reaction.
Common sense tells you that the reason it looks like Lovelady is because it is. And it isn't because Fetzerian mobile forgery lab CIA spooks intercepted Altgens and quickly figured-out all the necessary changes before sending it on to the AP wire. The problem with what you write, Don, is that it tolerates and accepts the insanity I just listed without accounting or taking logical responsibility for it.
The reason I reject your reasons for allowing the possibility it was Oswald is because they are completely speculative and based on suspicions after the fact. You are inferring that because Lovelady could be mistaken for Oswald at a distance that therefore there's something sinister in that that suggests deliberateness.
But none of this cancels or changes the fact all other evidence points towards it being Lovelady and none points towards it being Oswald. If you are going to suggest it is Oswald you have to walk your suggestion through all the other evidence. For it to be Oswald would mean that CIA forgers had to painstakingly locate and control all other photographic evidence and insert plaid shirts on Lovelady in each and every photo. At that point you are in the same looney wagon as Cinque and Fetzer.
I think what dismisses it being Oswald the most is Oswald's lack of breath when Baker confronted him. If Oswald was out on the front steps being caught by Altgens then he would have had to move quickly back upstairs to get back to the lunchroom. He would have had to climb the steps and therefore would have been visibly active. The actions of somebody as deep as Oswald was in the conspiracy is not to calmly buy a Coke and hang-out in the lunchroom after seeing the president shot in person. This is something that the same character who reacted to police confrontation by drawing a gun would not have reacted to by having a calm expression and no reaction.
Common sense tells you that the reason it looks like Lovelady is because it is. And it isn't because Fetzerian mobile forgery lab CIA spooks intercepted Altgens and quickly figured-out all the necessary changes before sending it on to the AP wire. The problem with what you write, Don, is that it tolerates and accepts the insanity I just listed without accounting or taking logical responsibility for it.