Here's Lovelady's shirt from two photo sessions. Same shirt, same guy, same pocket. Some researcher drew in the yellow boxes. On the left, he just wanted to highlight the stitching of the pocket- to prove that it's there. And on the right, you see the whole pocket outlined. But obviously, the patterns are different. So, it makes you wonder how they could be the same shirt.
Now, the only way to argue against this is to claim that the location of the boxes is wrong.
Well again, I didn't draw them. I'll post the original so that if somebody would like to demonstrate the correct locations of the boxes, they can do so. But remember, the underling color patterns of the boxes you finish with has to match on all three shirts.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: dclite"][/TD]
[TD="class: dclite"]David Lifton has come around to admitting that the shirts don't matched and that Lovelady lied. It's on the Education Forum.
He said that the shirts don't match because the pocket "so clearly evident from the Dallas Police Department clearly does not appear on the 1976 Groden photo." He also said that the patterns do not match.
And he used the word "lie" to describe Lovelady's behavior concerning the shirt, that is, shirts.
"Lovelady himself had been dishonest" Lifton said. Also,
"Lovelady produced a shirt for Groden which was obviously NOT the same plaid shirt he was wearing when photographed on 11/22/63."
"Lovelady was not wearing the same shirt , in 1976 (when he posed for Groden) as he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he was photographed at the DPD."
To be honest, Lifton continues to believe that Lovelady was the Doorway Man despite the fact that he lied about the shirts, which I find bizarre. But at least, Lifton admits that my analysis about the shirts is correct: Lovelady lied.
"Although the shirt pocket--so clearly evident in this DPD newsreel footage--clearly does NOT appear on the 1976 (Groden) photo, a close examination of the thumbnail I attached to post #143 will show that the striped pattern on the two shirts, while similar, is decidedly different."
That's what I have been saying for a long time. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. They have to match EXACTLY or else they are different shirts.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
OK, so Fetzer yields to the true evidence he can't answer. He concedes.
He will return with his overload of rubbish information tactic, but he'll do so with the plaque of intellectual cowardice hanging around his neck.
People like Cinque and Fetzer suggest Lovelady was killed just prior to HSCA because he knew Oswald was Doorway Man. They don't think deeper and consider Lovelady was given a CIA heart attack because he knew the open secret of the Depository. That Oswald was in the lunchroom and other employees knew certain things about the happenings upstairs that never made it to the public.
Carolyn Arnold's first statement about witnessing Oswald in the lunchroom indicated it was around 12:25. She was made to push this time back to 12:15 by FBI.
No matter the significance (which is quite considerable) of the 2:25pm vs 2:15pm time frame...THAT it yet remains their contention that Oswald, standing out front, witnessed the fatal shot and then proceeded into the building and went to the lunch room to buy a coke where Baker and Truly encountered him before his leaving to go home, is counter-intuitive in the extreme.
If he had just then finished his lunch and was thirsty and bought the coke and was seen by Baker and Truly, it makes sense.
But, after what he had just supposedly witnessed, it makes no sense. Indeed, there are many indications that Oswald was being run by at least one intelligence service. We know the FBI referred to him as GP/FLOOR (Government Program) while JFK was GP/IDEAL. Bobby Kennedy also had a GP identifier. There were only 3 such GP diagraphicals (to my knowledge) in the entire government, LHO's, JFK's, and RFK's. Moreover, there is wide agreement that Oswald was aware of the plot. Although I am not arguing for this, Jim also believes that this is true. Judyth Baker says that Oswald was attempting to foil the plot. I don't know if that is true or not, but Jim believes it is true. Based on that belief, it follows that at the moment bullets were flying in Dealey Plaza Oswald was aware that he had failed in his attempt to stop it from happening and he was at least somewhat aware that he could be used as the patsy as he later claimed. If he had simply sat down on the steps or just stood where he was there would have been no doubt as to where he was during the deed. Re-entering the building would not have served a purpose except to weaken his alibi.
This coupled with the rather imprecise photographic evidence does not persuade.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Jim.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Greg, you are being way too speculative about why Oswald would have gone to the lunchroom after the shooting. This is an area in which we cannot possibly know. There is a tremendous amount that we cannot possibly know about Oswald's state of mind. I admit that it's interesting to speculate about it, but you can't use those speculations as grounds for ANYTHING. We simply do not know what Oswald knew. We have no idea what his handlers told him. So, for you to reject the idea that Oswald was standing outside because you can't think of a reason why he should go back inside at that point does not make sense.
And what everybody needs to realize is that the physical evidence trumps everything. We can speculate all day about what Oswald was thinking, but the fact is, we can see him standing out there. Those are Oswald's clothes over Oswald's frame, and just because they tweaked the face, doctored the hairline, and added some pattern to the shirt doesn't matter. It's still him. Those likenesses to him could not possibly have happened otherwise. It had to be him.
02-02-2012, 09:26 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2012, 09:43 PM by Greg Burnham.)
I am not speculating. He was an Intelligence Officer with a 201 file. As such, he would not have re-entered the building after witnessing a crime for which he was being framed. It is SOP... i.e., trade-craft.
Ralph,
You have NO ROOM whatsoever to criticize speculation! Your entire thesis is based on unwarranted speculation that you are presenting as fact.
Since we KNOW--not only THAT, but--WHEN Oswald was in the lunchroom to encounter Baker and Truly it is not speculation.
What is speculative is determining where he was immediately prior to that encounter.
If we go by eyewitness testimony, he was seen there as late as 12:25pm and seen IN THE SAME PLACE again at 12:31pm. That is not speculation either. It is 6 minutes apart.
So, we have about 6 minutes or so that are unaccounted. There was nobody baby sitting him for 6 minutes.
Occam's razor anyone? The simple explanation is preferable to the more complex so long as it is adequate to the evidence.
You can argue that his remaining in the lunchroom is inadequate to the evidence based on your photographic analysis, but I disagree with your analysis. Neither you nor I nor Jim are photographic experts. I do not believe that you or anyone is capable of making the types of determinations you are attempting from the source (Altgens 6) you are employing. There are myriad factors with which to contend, each of which dramatically effect the initial conditions from which you are drawing your conclusions. Unless these conditions are precisely factored in the premises that are being accepted are more likely to be flawed than not. The effect of imprecision is cumulative. But, what you are doing is taking your best guess and then building on it. This leads to another "conclusion" and based on it you reach another premise. And, based on this premise you draw even more conclusions. But, what if the first one is wrong?
One more thing: You keep insisting that nothing trumps the physical evidence. Photographic interpretation of physical evidence does not equate to physical evidence. The first question is: WHO IS THE EXPERT interpreting the photographic evidence?
If I had an MRI or CAT scan done, I would want my friend, David Mantik, MD, PhD to interpret it because he is board certified, i.e., an EXPERT. I think Jim would agree that David is an expert in such matters. So, what qualifications make you or Jim or me experts in interpreting this photographic (not physical) evidence?
To be clear: If you could prove that Oswald was on the front steps at that time I would surely embrace it with both arms. I was hoping that all this work would have been persuasive. It is far from it.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Cinque claims everybody was looking forward and had their attention focused on the President preventing them from noticing Oswald standing right smack out there in broad daylight. However he forgets the testimony of Buell Frazier at the mock trial where he said he was standing behind Lovelady in the (shadow) area of the front steps looking right at him. So, why didn't Frazier see Oswald right in front of him along with the others in the shadows? Why didn't Frazier see Oswald turn around and scoot back in to the Depository right in front of Baker and Truly? Oswald is a pretty damned-good spook since he manages to run in in front of Baker after seeing the President assassinated and remain calm and not out of breath. I assume Baker was comparing Oswald's breathless state to his own puffing after running-in?
Here is my response to Pein-head over on the Education Forum concerning Buell's testimony in the mock trial. But just so you know, photographic evidence does count as physical evidence, when it's definitive, and what I discovered about the shirt is definitive.
It's true that in that television mock trial, Buell Frazier identified the Doorway Man as Lovelady, but let's analyze it.
Jim Fetzer and I have been saying all along that they did things to convert Oswald into Lovelady. They added plaid to his shirt; they doctored his hairline; and they either altered his facial features OR they directly moved the entire face of Lovelady onto Oswald. And those are the reasons why Buell Frazier thought the Doorway Man was Lovelady.
But, recall that when asked about the idea that Lovelady and Oswald looked alike, Buell rejected it. He said that Lovelady was "short and stocky" whereas Oswald had a "thin frame." That was the first thing that came to his mind. It's also what I have been saying all along. But unfortunately, Buell did not apply that data to his analysis of who was in the picture. He just looked at the face and said it was Lovelady. Why?
It's because we don't tend to contemplate the magnitude of the fraud that was committed here. His mind just didn't go there. Few people's minds do. It took a Jim Fetzer to realize that they actually moved the face over. And before any of you make any insulting remarks about him, I know very well that he has got enemies here. Well, if you don't like him, you can kiss my ass! He is 10x the man you are, you're not fit to wipe his boots.
And to Peinhead, did you notice that Buell Frazier said that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll? But of course, you think he was wrong about that, don't you? And did you notice that he also said that the package that he brought with him was not long enough to be a rifle? Even a broken down rife? I guess you figure he was wrong about that too. But, you figure he was right about Lovelady. Aren't you being arbitrarily selective about what you believe from him? Well, the fact is that Buell was RIGHT about the source of the shots and the non-gun Oswald brought to work, but he was wrong about the identity of the Doorway Man. He was looking at the face of Lovelady on Oswald's body, and he didn't figure that out because he was too decent of a person to think that ANYBODY would resort to such evil.
