New JFK evidence proves Oswald innocent, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 25 times

reply posted on 3-2-2012 @ 10:57 AM by Firsk

reply to post by Firsk

There's been a new development concerning Billy Lovelady. On the Education Forum, a guy named James Gordon just submitted a picture of 63 Lovelady in which the presence of the pocket with the flap over it on his shirt is unassailable. I will attach the picture here. He said:

"I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt. The argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view, unimpeachable."

Thank you James R. Gordon! I tell you, it's been like the Twilight Zone for me and Jim Fetzer, with so many people fighting us and refusing to acknowledge even the most simple and obvious and basic facts.

Here is the pic. Look at it yourself.

All right, so now we know that Lovelady lied about the shirt. Leastways, when he did his famous posings as Doorway Man years later, he was wearing a different shirt and he did not make that known. And to this day, there are people like John McAdams and Megen Knuth who defend those pictures as bonafide evidence.

But, the fact that Lovelady mislead about the shirt, what does it mean? It means that his entire credibility is shot. He wore a phony shirt, and he had to go out looking for it, or someone else had to do it on his behalf. And I doubt that it was easy either. Imagine if you had to match and locate a specific shirt with a very specific pattern. Imagine how much time and effort it would likely take. This was a complicated ruse.

It is axiomatic that anytime anybody lies, they are trying to distort the truth. And, in this case, the issue concerned was the identity of Doorway Man. That's what it was about. That is the thing that Lovelady engaged in a ruse over. Ipso facto, he was trying to distort the truth about who the Doorway Man was. And it wasn't him. Billy Lovelad was put up to it. They either bribed him or threatened him or both. And as we know, they eventually "heart attacked" him out, right before he was to testify to the HSCA in 1979. Dead men tell no tales.

The presence of that flap on the original shirt and its absence on the subsequent, posing shirt is BIG. It's HUGE! It proves that Lovelady was a liar and a fake. And when you combine that with my observations of how Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothes and has Oswald's build, you have to start contemplating that Jim Fetzer and I just may be right about this whole thing.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Firsk because: typo

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 12:52 PM by Firsk

Below is a letter that Dr. Fetzer received from a prominent JFK researcher, lending his support to us. Jim posted it on the Education Forum website.

Dear Jim: I have carefully--very carefully--looked into the matter of the shirt and the "Lovelady" figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

In the photos as observable,the shirt was retouched, and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady's shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee's face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes, for everything blotched there--would have done a better job.

Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch--and I'm convinced.

Plus, of course, another student, dkruckman, has observed that, as we all know, in the backyard photographs, there is a matte line running horizontally below the lower lip across the chin. And on Doorway Man there appears to be a matte line running horizontally below the nose above where the lips should be. If you place your thumb over the top of Doorway Man's face, what you see below does not resemble a human mandible. There is no discernible lips, chin or jaw line. To me it looks like smeared lines running in mostly 45 degree angles. Oswald may not have been looking directly at the limo, making a "cut & paste job" not easy. Lovelady's top of his face appears to be pasted over Oswald's and the bottom part manipulated to fit. Mostly by having black tie man's white shirt jut over Oswald's shoulder (obscuring his collar) and protruding into doorman's face, creating a crude jaw line. I am asking some experts to confirm these observations.

Surely we can all agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed. And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 01:20 PM by Rising Against

reply to post by Firsk

There's been a new development concerning Billy Lovelady. On the Education Forum, a guy named James Gordon just submitted a picture of 63 Lovelady in which the presence of the pocket with the flap over it on his shirt is unassailable. I will attach the picture here.

"I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt. The argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view, unimpeachable."

Thank you James R. Gordon! I tell you, it's been like the Twilight Zone for me and Jim Fetzer, with so many people fighting us and refusing to acknowledge even the most simple and obvious and basic facts.

You forgot to mention what he went onto say. I shall post it here for everyone to read:

"Pat,

I agree, it is an illusion. The half moon curve fooled me into believing I was seeing the flap of the pocket. Looking at some of the Hughes frames as well as the images in the Dallas Police station I can see that actually the pocket fabric is stretched and is gaping.

It looked like the flap of a pocket, and looking at it I can still it as that, but it is not. I was wrong. I accept that the pocket does not have a flap.

James. "
Everyone can find this post by him here

Wonder why you forgot to mention that here though? Oh wait, never mind.. I'm sure I already know as do other members of this forum.

I think It's also worth pointing out that I've been reading through that debate as I'm a member of that forum and It's even more convincing for me that you're wrong with what you are trying to claim here. This theory has been utterly destroyed, particularly by Duncan MacRae and Craig Lamson for example, yet the way in which you're posting here, you're trying to give the impression endless well known people are subscribing to your theory. Sorry, but that is just sad and I urge other members here to go and take a look instead of buying into your nonsense.

Anyway, that just had to be said. I'm sure you'll continue to reply with yet more nonsense like in the past though.

edit on 4-2-2012 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 08:45 PM by Firsk

reply to post by Rising Against

I didn't know about his retraction at the time. But read it very carefully. What he says is that based on other pictures he retracts his statement. But, he goes on to say that in that picture, it does look like a flap. And it is a flap. I've had shirts like that. It's a flannel shirt that we used to call a logger's shirt or a Paul Bunyan shirt. And most of the time, the flaps have a snap or button, as in the examples I shall post. And with that in mind, look again at the flap on Lovelady's shirt. What do you see right above the apex of the cuve in the midline? You see a mark, what we would call in the trade, " a solitary, circumscribed lesion with clear margins."

I have showed this to a lot of people, and most all say: "that's a button."

reply posted on 5-2-2012 @ 10:40 AM by Firsk

reply to post by Firsk

This was a post by Don Jeffries on the Education Forum. Hey, Rising Against! You let me know if he retracts it.

by Don Jeffries
The debate on this has not been closed, in my view at least, no matter how many of you claim it has. The questions about the shirt alone ought to raise doubts in thinking minds. How can any shirt look newer eight years down the road? I don't see a pocket in the '71shirt. We know that Lovelady lied. We also know that the authorities had a very strong motive to force that person in the doorway to be someone else besides Oswald. This issue IS important, because it's practically the only piece of evidence I know of that would singlehandedly prove Oswald didn't do it. How many of you have ever worked with someone who was such a deadringer for you that he could even fool your wife and kids? We know that there was an orchestrated campaign to impersonate Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination (whether or not one buys into the Harvey and Lee theory). Isn't it just too much of a coincidence that LHO happens to find employment, during the same time period, at a place where one of his co-workers appears to be eminently qualified to impersonate Oswald himself? Not only does McKnight still believe Oswald was the figure in the doorway, so does well- respected critic David Wrone. I'd be surprisedif Mark Lane still doesn't believe it. I don't think Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones, etc. ever came to the belief that it was Lovelady. Every aspect of the official story is dubious, and every CTer should be skeptical when the chorus becomes "THAT was solved. Move on!" Imho,the matter of the identity of the figure in the doorway hasn't been solved.

edit on 5-2-2012 by Firsk because: typo

reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 01:55 PM by Firsk

Mr. Unger,

Black Hole Man has got his hands up on his forehead. He is creating a visor with his hands. Why do you think he's doing that? He is doing it because the sun is shining in his eyes. He's got his elbows out so that it won't block any more sun than necessary- so that he can see. It's just his eyes that he is trying to shelter from the bright, glaring, blinding sun. Now do you get it?

You notice that in the guy you sent, that guy doesn't have his arms up like that. He doesn't need to because the sun is NOT getting into his eyes.

So, the presence of Black Hole Man's arms in the position that they are in is proof-positive that sun is reaching his face, reaching his eyes. Notice also that we can see part of Black Tie Man's face, even though he is standing farther back than Black Hole Man.

And by the way, why is Black Tie Man turned the way he is? Why is he standing sideways to the President's limo? In fact, the President has already driven by. The President is heading down the street in the other direction. Therefore, Black Tie man is facing exactly opposite to the President's limo, as though he is trying hard to avoid looking at it. He is, in effect, doing a 180 to the President.

Take a look at this picture. Study it. It is one freaky picture. If it doesn't bother you, something is wrong with you.

reply posted on 15-2-2012 @ 07:33 AM by Firsk

We now have a video of Billy Lovelady. It was sent to me by a supporter of mine from Australia. If you watch this video, you can see Lovelady very clearly. He appears from 3:03 to 3:11 in the video. Note that he is not in the center of the screen. He is towards the lower right.

www.youtube.com...

It's definitely him because for one split-second you can see the exact same pose from the Dallas PD which is so familiar. And, it turns out that he was definitely wearing the plaid shirt and NOT the striped one. So, that controversy about which shirt he wore is now resolved. However, there is a great deal more that is now confirmed:

1. At the time, Lovelady was a STOCKY dude. He was much heavier than Oswald, and he looks a lot thicker and wider and heavier than Doorman too. And that includes in the face. Doorman's face looks rather gaunt, whereas Lovelady's looks much rounder and fuller. There is NO WAY a guy as heavy as Lovelady could have such a narrow, sucked in face like Doorman. When people put on weight, they put it on in their face as well as their body. The face, like the body, gets fatter. Doorman's face is too thin to go with Lovelady's stout, chubby body.

2. Apropo of that, we now know that Lovelady was NOT wearing the same shirt that he wore years later when he posed as Doorman. You can tell, first, because you can see the pocket-flap which is missing from the Grodon and Jackson shirts. However, we also know it because he lost so much weight afterwards that there is no way the same shirt would have fit him so snugly. And it does look snug in both the Grodon and Jackson pictures despite him being MUCH thinner. Really, he went from fat to thin. I shouldn't have to point out that a shirt doesn't lose weight along with the person.

But, there's one other possibility that I think should be considered: he may have had extensive alterations done to that shirt so that it would continue to fit snugly after his having lost all that weight. And that would explain the lack of a pocket flap and what really appears to be the complete lack of a pocket. Reducing the size of the shirt would have necessitated relocating the pocket, and that was way too much trouble. So, they may have decided to just get rid of it. The faint lines that some people are construing for a pocket may just be the impression of a pocket that was once there.

So, either it was a different shirt OR it was the same shirt essentially remanufactured. And if it was the latter, it would have been a colossal undertaking. It's not something that anybody would do casually. It is not something that anybody would do, period. To have done it at all implies just as much deception and subterfuge as replacing the shirt.

Why would Lovelady have done such a thing? Why should it have mattered to him whether people believed he was Doorman or not? Why should he have cared? Why should he have undertaken the tiniest, smallest step to sell the idea? - never mind redesign the whole shirt in a massive undertaking. It shows way too much effort and determination.

3. And along the same line, the starched, pressed, preened, folded-over look of the shirt in the Grodon pictures was definitely missing on 11/22, which you can clearly see in the video. As I have been saying all along: who wakes up in the morning of an ordinary work-day and decides to primp themselves that way? It is not something that a warehouse worker does, and it is not something that Lovelady did on Nov 22.

4. The whole open and gaping look of Doorman's shirt is missing on Lovelady. Lovelady may have had a couple buttons unbuttoned, but it wasn't as unbuttoned as Doorman's, and the shirt wasn't hanging open and off of him and billowing, as it was on Doorman. Lovelady's t-shirt was NOT exposed as much as Doorman's or Oswald's.

5. Lovelady was already quite bald, a lot balder than Oswald, and bald enough to raise questions about whose hairline we're seeing on Doorman.

6. You can clearly see that Lovelady's flannel shirt had a regular collar and no lapel. But, Oswald's shirt had a lapel on the left side, and you can see that lapel on Doorman as the material looks much thicker on his left side than his right. It looks thicker because it's folded over- into a lapel.

7. The complex, highly checkered pattern of Lovelady's shirt is NOT a perfect match to Doorman's, far from it.

All in all, I am even more convinced that Lovelady was NOT Doorman and Oswald was.

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 >> ^^TOP^^