Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Alan Ford]

Dear Alan, (~snip snip~)

Thank you for this error-riddled essay, Mr O'Meara, which amounts to little more than an extended exercise in missing the point! 

We agree that Mr Lovelady can be seen in Darnell, talking to (probably) Ms Calvery--------------




Now for the problems!

1. Sorry, but this large man is not Mr Shelley--------------



-------------try as you might to convince yourself that it is by restricting yourself to a frame showing him profile... (nice try though!)

2. Mr Shelley's own same-day affidavit says he ran into Ms Calvery (whom he knew well BTW!) at the "corner" of the "park". This would put him away from the steps by the time of Darnell, and would (if he's telling the truth in that affidavit) explain why he's nowhere to be found there. (And no, "Multiple witnesses" do NOT "have him at the steps around this time.") What's certain is that he's lying in his WC testimony.

Conclusion? Both Mr Lovelady and Mr Shelley are lying in their WC testimonies with respect to their sighting of Officer Baker and Mr Truly's dash into the building. Which leaves you with a grand total of zero credible witnesses to both men's dash into the building.

Does that mean they didn't dash into the building? No! It just means your argument that the much more inconspicuous Mr Oswald's going unnoticed by most folk on the steps for the v. short time he was out there means he can't have been out there is pitifully weak------------as have all the arguments we've heard to date from Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Entrance!

But now to the question--------------Why would Messrs Lovelady and Shelley lie about their immediate post-assassination movements?

Mr Lovelady's reason is easy to establish, Mr Shelley's not so easy.

Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.

That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony).

Mr Oswald told the truth about his movements in these minutes. What has come to light about what he said in custody offers a compelling counter-narrative to the official story. He really did visit the second-floor lunchroom for a coke before the assassination; he really did return to the first floor, where he saw Messrs Jarman and Norman re-enter the building by the back; he really did go outside to watch the P. parade; and he really did have an encounter involving an officer and Mr Truly at the front entrance. The 'investigating' authorities knew all this within hours of the assassination, and they got to work quickly to bury their suspect's alibi.

The reasons you have thus far put forward for disallowing Mr Oswald's own claims and siding with the cover-up are predicated on making him Mr Conspicuous when you need him to be Mr Conspicuous, and Mr Invisible when you need him to be Mr Invisible. Not gonna wash!

 

[Dan O'meara]

Thank you for this error-riddled essay, Mr O'Meara, which amounts to little more than an extended exercise in missing the point! 

We agree that Mr Lovelady can be seen in Darnell, talking to (probably) Ms Calvery--------------




Now for the problems!

1. Sorry, but this large man is not Mr Shelley--------------



-------------try as you might to convince yourself that it is by restricting yourself to a frame showing him profile... (nice try though!)

2. Mr Shelley's own same-day affidavit says he ran into Ms Calvery (whom he knew well BTW!) at the "corner" of the "park". This would put him away from the steps by the time of Darnell, and would (if he's telling the truth in that affidavit) explain why he's nowhere to be found there. (And no, "Multiple witnesses" do NOT "have him at the steps around this time.") What's certain is that he's lying in his WC testimony.

Conclusion? Both Mr Lovelady and Mr Shelley are lying in their WC testimonies with respect to their sighting of Officer Baker and Mr Truly's dash into the building. Which leaves you with a grand total of zero credible witnesses to both men's dash into the building.

Does that mean they didn't dash into the building? No! It just means your argument that the much more inconspicuous Mr Oswald's going unnoticed by most folk on the steps for the v. short time he was out there means he can't have been out there is pitifully weak------------as have all the arguments we've heard to date from Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Entrance!

But now to the question--------------Why would Messrs Lovelady and Shelley lie about their immediate post-assassination movements?

Mr Lovelady's reason is easy to establish, Mr Shelley's not so easy.

Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.

That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony).

Mr Oswald told the truth about his movements in these minutes. What has come to light about what he said in custody offers a compelling counter-narrative to the official story. He really did visit the second-floor lunchroom for a coke before the assassination; he really did return to the first floor, where he saw Messrs Jarman and Norman re-enter the building by the back; he really did go outside to watch the P. parade; and he really did have an encounter involving an officer and Mr Truly at the front entrance. The 'investigating' authorities knew all this within hours of the assassination, and they got to work quickly to bury their suspect's alibi.

The reasons you have thus far put forward for disallowing Mr Oswald's own claims and siding with the cover-up are predicated on making him Mr Conspicuous when you need him to be Mr Conspicuous, and Mr Invisible when you need him to be Mr Invisible. Not gonna wash!

 

Oh Alan, you really are the gift that keeps on giving.

Your dissection of my "error riddled essay" deals with one point - that Shelley can't be in Darnell because he's bumping into Gloria Calvery at the "corner" of the "park, even though you agree Calvery is on the steps talking to Lovelady!!!
Absolutely priceless  What a devastating critique.
I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll make the concession that Shelley goes out to meet Calvery as per his affidavit then comes back to the steps with her (even though there's no specific mention of this). This places him in Darnell but you don't agree with my candidate for Shelley because he's too "large", by which I assume you mean he's too fat. But the side view of him shows he's quite skinny. Fat from the back and skinny from the side!! Brilliant 
The notion that a skinny chap with broad shoulders and a baggy suit could achieve this fat/skinny effect is way beyond you.

"Which leaves you with a grand total of zero credible witnesses to both men's dash into the building."

Now you've introduced the word credible I agree Shelley and Lovelady are most certainly not that but Sanders and Truly are but you don't include Truly as a witness because he's involved in the dash with Baker!!!  : What impeccable logic!


"Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.

That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony)."


  I won't even ask you to provide one scrap of evidence to support this psychedelically wild pile of tripe. Which reminds me, where's the self-anointed fact-checker in residence? How come you get away with this nonsense without feeling his wrath. It's almost like you're on the same team!

"The reasons you have thus far put forward for disallowing Mr Oswald's own claims and siding with the cover-up are predicated on making him Mr Conspicuous when you need him to be Mr Conspicuous, and Mr Invisible when you need him to be Mr Invisible. Not gonna wash!"

I have consistently maintained Oswald's behaviour made him conspicuous. Show me one post I've made that refers to the antisocial wife-beating creep as "invisible". (You can't include me pointing out that not one witness places him on the steps at the time of the assassination and in your case, unlike mine, 'not one witness' means not one witness, credible or otherwise).

Please keep up the good work 

[John Iacoletti]

I won't even ask you to provide one scrap of evidence to support this psychedelically wild pile of tripe. Which reminds me, where's the self-anointed fact-checker in residence?

Says the whiner who can't stand having his mistakes corrected.

Maybe because the "psychedelically wild pile of tripe" is your identifications of Shelley, Lovelady, and Calvery.

[Dan O'meara]

Says the whiner who can't stand having his mistakes corrected.

Maybe because the "psychedelically wild pile of tripe" is your identifications of Shelley, Lovelady, and Calvery.

The Identification of Shelley, Lovelady and Calvery is sound. Not once have you tried to take it on, just your usual nit-picking and empty observations. Why don't you put up your identification of Calvery and we'll argue it out (something I know for a fact won't be happening.) You talk about "mistakes corrected" and let this garbage sail on through -

"Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.

That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony)."

Oh, the hypocrisy, and you have the audacity to refer to the opinions of others as 'biased'. I see what you are now John, a defender of your own faith, constantly sniping at those who have a different opinion and never actually adding anything to the conversation (unless, of course, you are renowned for some big advance in the JFK case that I'm unaware of).
Having all the details at your fingertips is useless if you only use them as ammunition.

[Alan Ford]

Oh Alan, (~snip snip~)

The denial is strong with this one, folks! 

Mr O'Meara, we appreciate that you're pretty new to this case so we so make allowances for newbie errors and rookie overexcitement. But you really need to stop making a fool of yourself.

When you repeatedly misidentify the author of these notes as Captain Fritz-----------



--------------you make a fool of yourself.

When you loudly proclaim that this hulk is Mr Bill Shelley------------



------------you make a fool of yourself.

When you put forward Mr Roy Truly as a witness to the actions of Mr Roy Truly, you make a fool of yourself.

When you misrepresent the timeframe of Mr Molina's interaction with Ms Calvery in the vestibule, you make a fool of yourself.

Etc. etc. etc.

This is what's known amongst specialists as a pattern of Doylesque behavior. Do you really want to be the forum's new Mr Doyle? If not-------------raise your game, man!

So! Now that we have established that Mr Lovelady lied to the WC that he was away from the steps when Officer Baker & Mr Truly went up them, and that he told Mr Jarman all about what he really saw from his vantage point on those steps, let's explore the question of Mr Oswald's in/visibility together, shall we?

Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz a man with a crewcut came in the front door, waved his credentials and asked him for the nearest telephone. Do you believe Mr Oswald made this incident up?

 

[Thomas Graves]

When you misrepresent the timeframe of Mr Molina's interaction with Ms Calvery in the vestibule, you oh-so-smugly make a fool of yourself.

Dear Mister Ford,

When you suggest that Joe Molina and Gloria Calvery "interacted" in the smallish enclosed space just outside the second-floor lunchroom, you really make a fool of yourself.

--  MWT 

[Royell Storing]

The Identification of Shelley, Lovelady and Calvery is sound. Not once have you tried to take it on, just your usual nit-picking and empty observations. Why don't you put up your identification of Calvery and we'll argue it out (something I know for a fact won't be happening.) You talk about "mistakes corrected" and let this garbage sail on through -

"Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.

That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony)."

Oh, the hypocrisy, and you have the audacity to refer to the opinions of others as 'biased'. I see what you are now John, a defender of your own faith, constantly sniping at those who have a different opinion and never actually adding anything to the conversation (unless, of course, you are renowned for some big advance in the JFK case that I'm unaware of).
Having all the details at your fingertips is useless if you only use them as ammunition.

   I'm surprised in order to bolster your, "Oswald at the Front Door of the TSBD Theory", you have Not referenced the story of the reporter that was looking for a telephone immediately after the Kill Shot. The reporter claimed  to have asked a stranger out in front of the TSBD, (afterward the reporter said he looked just like Oswald), as to where the nearest phone was. The stranger/Oswald? gestured him toward the TSBD.   

[John Iacoletti]

The Identification of Shelley, Lovelady and Calvery is sound. Not once have you tried to take it on, just your usual nit-picking and empty observations.

Bull.  I told you in great detail what was wrong with this "sound" argument.  It is based entirely upon Graves imagining that he sees "stripes" on black-blob on the steps in the Darnell frame and a whole bunch of handwaving.

"Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.

That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony)."

Oh, the hypocrisy, and you have the audacity to refer to the opinions of others as 'biased'. I see what you are now John, a defender of your own faith

Uh....Dan.....I didn't write those things, Alan did.