Friends, let us contemplate the calamity that has, in the preceding few pages of this thread, hit the Warren Gullibles' central article of faith: that Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Pres. Kennedy from the sixth floor.
Thanks in no small part to the brilliant work of Mr. Chris Davidson, I have been able to prove beyond any doubt that these two figures
simply cannot be the same man:
Now both the Hughes film and the Bell film are in COLOR. Unlike Wiegman & Darnell.
So what? Big what!
This crucial fact means that we KNOW that we have TWO men wearing a red shirt over a white tshirt standing in different places in the western half of the Depository doorway at the time of the motorcade.
Only one of these men can be Mr. Billy Lovelady. Logically, he can only be EITHER Redshirt Man in Hughes or Redshirt Man in Bell.
But Redshirt Man in Bell is ALREADY standing in the area we are about to see
Mr. Lovelady in just a few seconds later (Altgens/Wiegman): behind and up a few steps from Ms. Maddie Reese. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever NOT to identify Redshirt Man in Bell as Mr. Lovelady:
Even if, however, he is NOT Mr. Lovelady, then he can only be
some other man in a red shirt over a white tshirt.But we run with the much more realistic option: Redshirt Man in Bell is Mr. Lovelady.
OK. This leaves us with one 'unidentified' male in a red shirt over a white tshirt, standing just over Mr. Roy Edward Lewis in Hughes:
But who could he be?
The answer couldn't be more obvious: he's a slender white male employee who wore a reddish shirt to work that day, which he wore over a white tshirt.
Now, if we had no SPARE employee fitting that description, we would be stumped by this Reddish Shirt Man in Hughes. Thankfully, however, we DO have a SPARE employee fitting that description.
Perfectly. And what is more, he is an employee who
claimed to have gone outside to watch the P. Parade!
Now this man could have told his interrogators he was just wearing a tshirt, or a blue or green or gray or black shirt, or a jacket, or any manner of upper garment. But no: he was quite specific:
a reddish shirt. He even told his interrogators where they could find this shirt.
If he was lying, then he has just scored the most amazing fluke in history: because, lo and behold,
an unidentified man perfectly matching his own description is standing there in the doorway--------------IN GLORIOUS COLOR!By way of
bonus, the man in Hughes appears to be drinking from a bottle-----------and the employee who already ticks all the boxes just so happened to have said he purchased a Coke in the second-floor lunchroom shortly before the P. Parade.
But maybe a doubt lingers in the Warren Critic's mind...... 'Okay,' s/he argues, 'but it's still
possible, at least theoretically, that this Redshirt Man in Hughes is Mr. Lovelady, and the Redshirt Man in Bell is the employee who told his interrogators he went outside to watch the P. Parade.'
What might resolve this final doubt of this thoughtful Warren Critic? This:
Mr. Lovelady, on an upper step, is identifiably visible in the Wiegman film, whereas the face (indeed the entire PRESENCE) of our white man standing on a lower step has been eliminated by the application of a
provably artificial 'shadow' down the right side of Mr. Lovelady:
Those who added this ridiculous impossible shadow have told us two things:
a)
where Red Shirt Man in Hughes must be at this moment
b)
who Red Shirt Man in Hughes is: the red-shirt-and-white-tshirt-wearing, white employee who is NOT Mr. Lovelady.
The other man. The employee the 'investigators' don't want you to know was there. The one who was wearing THIS shirt:
(This part of the) Case Closed! 
