Did Lee Harvey Oswald Kill Officer J D Tippit?

[Tel]

Except that Bill Lovelady has been proven (and admitted) to have been wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, fully buttoned, on the day. That pig won't fly either.

This is a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald taken shortly after his arrest. Note the clear similarity in both appearance and dress to the man in the schoolbook depository doorway in the Altgen's photo.

The Warren Commission "identified" the individual as Billy Lovelady, a fellow Book Depository employee. But while Lovelady identifed the person in the Altgens' photo as himself, he also stated that he'd worn a red and white vertically striped shirt on the day of the assassination The man in the doorway's shirt in not striped and is open in front, exposing the tee shirt underneath.

In color films taken from another angle, the color of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway was revealed to be orange-brown. When Oswald was arrested, he was wearing the identical shirt- an orange-brown tweed with missing buttons and tee-shirt underneath.

Other films taken on November 22, 1963 revealed that Lovelady was in fact wearing a red and blue plaid shirt.

Hence, the figure in the doorway is NOT Lovelady.

[Bridewell]

The man in the doorway is Bill Lovelady. He id'd himself and others on the stairs id'd him also. This horse is beyond beaten. It is not LHO.
Hi Bridewell, The behaviour of the secret service in Kennedy's detail is extremely questionable, from the night (or early morning) before through the trip back to Washington. On Elm street itself, from the actions of Greer and Kellerman to the calling back to the Queen Mary of any agent ready to jump off and run towards the limo. Jackies agent, Clint Hill did run forward and his original testimony is interesting.....Robert

Hi Robert,

Do you have a link to Clint Hill's original testimony or can you point me to a good source? I'm not familiar with his name. Is he the guy who jumped onto the back of Kennedy's car?

Regards, Bridewell.

[robert newell]

Hi Bridewell...You may not find his testimony as interesting as me, but with your backround I think you will enjoy all the testimony from early on. There is a web site www.historymatters.com They have all the testimony from the Warren comm. house invest. etc... Everything is on there...photo's and all. The seach engine works nice. I have many good sites saved-pro and con- so to speak. Please enjoy and let me know if you have a problem-I'm not to good at sending things over the comp. I will send you some photo sites, films , and things. There are a few good forums out there also. My favorite is a site run by John Simkin in England. It is part of his Spartacus educational site. They even have a little known and little used jtr forum. You may be surprised at some of the members

[Jonathan H]

Did the CIA try to kill Reagan?

... And on it goes, unto the end of the age ...

To answer a previous poster, in Irving on Nov 22nd Oswald arrived at the home of his lift to work, Mr. Wesley Buell Frazier, a co-worker at the warehouse, and the latter saw that he had a package: something solid in a paper bag. Oswald claimed to Frazier that it contained curtain rods. No such objects were found at his flat, or anywhere else.

Oswald had already shown up, unnannounced, the previous night at Mrs. Paine's where his estranged wife and two babies were staying -- he usually came Fridays -- in order to grab his rifle from her garage, and perhaps to see if Marina would take him back (why?) but how much bearing his marital issues-future had on his decision to kill Kennedy the next day we will never know.

Frazier also testified that the package was carried by Oswald into the warehouse from his armpit to cupped under one hand. His disassembled rifle was too long to do that. An empty paper bag was found on the Sixth Floor.

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Jonathan H;225152]

Arthur Bremmer shot Wallace but did not kill him. A right-wing figure was the target, and Bremmer had no politics.

Sue enough there are no grand conspiracy theories, even though taking out Wallace secured Nixon's handsome re-election in 1972.[QUOTE]

Probably because Artie Bremer's original target was Nixon. I mean, it's hard to argue that he shot Wallace for Nixon's benefit when Wallace was the consolation prize after he couldn't get close enough to the president.

Basically, nobody attaches conspiracies to crazy people. They tend to have their own conspiracies in their heads without any outside help. Artie Bremer was psychotic. John Hinkley was psychotic. And the fact that their targets survived has nothing to do with it. Not all of Hinkley's victims survived. In fact, every presidential assassin (successful or otherwise) with five exceptions (leaving 15) was mentally ill. John Wilkes Booth, Collazo and Torresola, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Osama Bin Laden were not. And of the 15 who were mentally ill, only three were not psychotic. Czolgosz was paranoid, Pavlick had antisocial personality disorder compounded by senility. And Squeaky Fromme, well, that's a tough one to nail down, but she was in the Manson follower (and is to this day), which is kinda the benchmark of crazy.

Which means, very few people who have taken a shot at a president were not doing so under orders from their toaster or some such. Which begs the question, if you aren't barking mad, why on earth would you shoot at a President, which has a very low probability of success, and no possibility of getting away with it? Well, of the 5 who weren't crazy, 4 were part of a conspiracy. Which leaves Lee Harvey Oswald. Odds are he was not the world's first sane lone gunman. So I'm sure there was a conspiracy. Just not an Oliver Stone kind of conspiracy, although if you ever watch The Day Reagan Was Shot you might regain some respect for him as a filmmaker.

[Jonathan H]

What about the Kingfish?

To Errata

You've missed my point.

I was writing not about the assassins and their victims, but rather about the kind of people, eg. leftist buffs, who obsess over the 'evidence' trying to get a fellow leftist off the hook.

Whereas when it is a right-wing figure shot by a right-winger (or a non-political) that leaves the same people with nothing to say about conspiracy, because they regard the latter as the conspirators, or whom, on behalf of, dark conspiracies are hatched.

It has happened at times on this very thread.

Plus you are not categorizing these figures politically.

Oswald was a kind of terrorist, I think 'ecouraged' in that direction by a couple of anti-Catroites posing as fellow Fidelistas.

You have also not mentioned Dr. Carl Austin Weiss who shot Senator Huey P. Long on Sept 8th 1935 in the Baton Rouge Capitol building? Long's bodygards instantly turned him into Swiss Cheese, so no interrogation or trial or psychiatric assessment to learn the doctor's specific motivation.

There is no hard evidence that this young family man, accomplished physician, and committed Catholic acted as part of a conspiracy, or that he was mad -- just highly-strung.

Yet Weiss decided, kamikazi-style, to rid the world of this incubus, this home-grown Hitler or removed the only successful left-wing figure in modern American history who could have saved the United States from omnipotent corporate power -- depending on your point of view.

[Errata]

To Errata

You've missed my point.

I was writing not about the assassins and their victims, but rather about the kind of people, eg. leftist buffs, who obsess over the 'evidence' trying to get a fellow leftist off the hook.

Whereas when it is a right-wing figure shot by a right-winger (or a non-political) that leaves the same people with nothing to say about conspiracy, because they regard the latter as the conspirators, or whom, on behalf of, dark conspiracies are hatched.

It has happened at times on this very thread.

Plus you are not categorizing these figures politically.

Oswald was a kind of terrorist, I think 'ecouraged' in that direction by a couple of anti-Catroites posing as fellow Fidelistas.

You have also not mentioned Dr. Carl Austin Weiss who shot Senator Huey P. Long on Sept 8th 1935 in the Baton Rouge Capitol building? Long's bodygards instantly turned him into Swiss Cheese, so no interrogation or trial or psychiatric assessment to learn the doctor's specific motivation.

There is no hard evidence that this young family man, accomplished physician, and committed Catholic acted as part of a conspiracy, or that he was mad -- just highly-strung.

Yet Weiss decided, kamikazi-style, to rid the world of this incubus, this home-grown Hitler or removed the only successful left-wing figure in modern American history who could have saved the United States from omnipotent corporate power -- depending on your point of view.

I didn't include Weiss because he never shot at a president. Which really is a whole other ball of wax. Weiss could have had a legitimate argument with Long personally. For all we know Long hit on Weiss's wife. That's a tough sell for a president, especially since no presidential assassin has ever had anything more than a couple of seconds contact with his or her target. And to be honest, if his target had been any state Legislator other than Huey Long, he had a fair chance of succeeding, and even getting away with it. Which requires less crazy to attempt than someone shooting at a president.

As far as the rest, first of all you have to define left and right. It is a concept a lot of people get wrong, confusing it with liberalism and conservatism. And the definition is broad enough to require a certain amount of interpretation in cases. Lincoln was incredibly divided, which turned him into a devoted centrist. And despite the fact that we all agree that the slaves needed to be freed, he established a four year dictatorship which people had a right to resent and fear. Kennedy was left wing, but he was also a conservative which is what made him useless as a president. Collazo and Torresola were leftists, Truman was a leftist. That was an actual conspiracy, and no one made any arguments for the assassins innocence.

Basically, it comes down to Kennedy. And I think an American desire to view that as a conspiracy has less to do with politics and more to do with psychology. Kennedy was a theoretically hale and hearty young man. He presided over Camelot. He was more a movie star than a politician, and he was the first president to really have a zealous fan base. Lee Harvey Oswald was a small, creepy little guy. I think people have a hard time believing that a nobody could defeat their golden boy without help. They don't want to think that their Great President could fall at the hands of some communist ferret. They need to believe that only some monolithic power like the CIA could topple Camelot. Otherwise their fanaticism would be misplaced. And it was.

Does that mean that people don't tend to cleave towards people who share their worldview? Of course not. Leftist cleave to leftists, rightists cling to rightists. But if someone has to choose between believing some for political reasons, or for emotional reasons, politics is going to lose every time.

[jason_c]

Hi Observer...Thanks for the question. After all my years of study I wish I could tell you that I think this group or that pulled off the assassination. I do know that there are people who have the energy and smarts to dive through that morass and they have done some excellent research. I sort of-have regulated my self to being a 'foot soldier' in the study. I concentrate on the three murders that weekend.
So I do not feel that I'm copping out, I think that funding may have been oil, and the ever popular cia-cuban operations on the ground. There were a lot of fingers on that trigger that day. And a lot of fingers reaching for a chance. Don't forget the thwarted attempt in Chicago, just weeks before.
As far as Tippit..There are enough turns to his story as any in this subject. I do not believe that Oswald shot him. One thing I do know. Once Tippit's killing was broadcast over the police radio Dealey Plaza emptied of most of it's law enforcement personal. Investigator's ..run away, run away!
Thanks again Observer...Robert

Im not sure what your getting at with this highlighted comment. I rather doubt most of Dealey Plaza emptied of law enforcement. However, its quite natural that some would transfer their investigation to catching a cop killer. Some may have even suspected a link between the two events.

[Cogidubnus]

Basically, it comes down to Kennedy. And I think an American desire to view that as a conspiracy has less to do with politics and more to do with psychology. Kennedy was a theoretically hale and hearty young man. He presided over Camelot. He was more a movie star than a politician, and he was the first president to really have a zealous fan base. Lee Harvey Oswald was a small, creepy little guy. I think people have a hard time believing that a nobody could defeat their golden boy without help. They don't want to think that their Great President could fall at the hands of some communist ferret. They need to believe that only some monolithic power like the CIA could topple Camelot. Otherwise their fanaticism would be misplaced. And it was.

Hi Errata

Purely as a matter of interest, have you read the Seymour Hersh book?

It certainly challenged all the lifelong impressions I'd had...but thereagain I was only ten in 1963 and one tends to look back on childhood as a golden age...

Dave

[Errata]

Hi Errata

Purely as a matter of interest, have you read the Seymour Hersh book?

It certainly challenged all the lifelong impressions I'd had...but thereagain I was only ten in 1963 and one tends to look back on childhood as a golden age...

Dave

I haven't read it. I understand that there are a few problems with the research. My parents were both Kennedy supporters. I came around later. And I have had any number of arguments with them about the man. My issues are not with the affairs, though I believe that he did have affairs. Lots of people did. That wouldn't make him a bad President. Though it might put his wife at the top of the list of people who wanted him dead.

One of my problems is his paranoid concealment of his Addison's disease. The Irony is, if he hadn't been shot in the head, and say took a bullet in the lung instead, he still would have died. Because only one person on that trip knew his condition, and that was his wife. And she was not familiar enough with medical procedure to know that a standard surgical treatment would have killed him. Not that other people didn't know, they did. But they weren't there. But because he was concealing the illness, the doctors he was seeing were of less than a stellar nature, and got him hooked on narcotics and amphetamines. Neither of which have ever been treatments for Addisons, and if he had been treated by a real doctor on a regular basis, that wouldn't have happened.

My real problem is his absolute inabililty to follow through on an ideal. He went through with the Bay of Pigs, when he didn't have to. But he did, and then he pulled out, and a lot of people died. And his excuse was that it wasn't his plan. Which while true is a crap excuse. If he couldn't make the hard decisions he never should have authorized it. The quarantine of Cuba during the missile crisis is also a masterpiece of putting off a decision. Then when he finally made the decision to invade, he got shouted down by Adlai Stevenson, and two former ambassadors to the USSR. Neither of whom were political heavy hitters. Which implies that he didn't have any faith that an invasion would work, but then why decide to do it? He went into Vietnam because he was told to. He didn't support it, but he didn't withdraw either. He proposed an end to racial discrimination, but practiced it in his personal life. That also wasn't his idea (it was Bobby's) and his proposals were so screwed up in terms of strategy and finances that they were unpassable until after he died, when nostalgia was trumping practicality.

He didn't create the Space program, just gave them an impossible goal. He created the Peace Corps, for his brother in law. So what exactly did this guy do with three years in office, that was his and not someone else's? He himself decided to co-opt the Seneca Nation's lands for a public project. He authorized research for a way to compensate them, but not actual compensation. His opinions on racial equality and women's rights were Bobby's. His views on immigration reform were Teddy's. His policy in Vietnam and Nasa were Eisenhower's. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was Stevenson's. And evidently he had no ideas when it came to Cuba, certainly I've never seen any written anywhere.

He was a talking head. And that's fine, but it does rule him out as being some sort of political messiah.

[Cogidubnus]

E's not the messiah....e's a very naughty boy...

In my opinion he was somewhat (quite a lot really) better than you portray him...but certainly not the noble and gallant Lancelot of Camelot some would have us believe...but isn't that true of ALL successful political figures if one scratches beneath the surface? Nice guys really don't make it...

Yes, there are indeed alleged to be problems with the research behind the Hersh book...I frankly think there's quite a lot of bullshit in there...but it's value, I believe, lies in it's shake-up qualities...one is forced to re-appraise all that one has formerly taken for granted...and that's no bad thing in itself...

As for it's long-term value...well I generally hang on to books, but I have to thin the collection down every now and again (My poor wife keeps me in order and I'm down to between two and three thousand books right now)...if I can't keep it, it (usually regretfully) goes to a good home...the Hersh book went straight back to the charity shop I bought it from - with no regrets...say no more...

Dave

[Bridewell]

Thanks

Hi Bridewell...You may not find his testimony as interesting as me, but with your backround I think you will enjoy all the testimony from early on. There is a web site www.historymatters.com They have all the testimony from the Warren comm. house invest. etc... Everything is on there...photo's and all. The seach engine works nice. I have many good sites saved-pro and con- so to speak. Please enjoy and let me know if you have a problem-I'm not to good at sending things over the comp. I will send you some photo sites, films , and things. There are a few good forums out there also. My favorite is a site run by John Simkin in England. It is part of his Spartacus educational site. They even have a little known and little used jtr forum. You may be surprised at some of the members

Hi Robert,

Thanks for that. I'll have a look at it over the next week or so.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

The Shirt

Except that Bill Lovelady has been proven (and admitted) to have been wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, fully buttoned, on the day. That pig won't fly either.

Hi Tel,

On the subject of Lovelady: The JFK Assassination was probably the biggest event in his life. Which is he more likely to have misremembered - the clothes he was wearing or where he was standing when JFK was shot?

Oswald's T-shirt has a round neck. The man in the doorway is wearing a T-shirt with a V-neck. The figure may not be Lovelady, but it may not be Oswald either. I don't think it is - because it doesn't look like him.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

In my opinion he was somewhat (quite a lot really) better than you portray him...but certainly not the noble and gallant Lancelot of Camelot some would have us believe...but isn't that true of ALL successful political figures if one scratches beneath the surface? Nice guys really don't make it...

Ironically, I can respect real bastards. I even respect Nixon, and I'm pretty sure Nixon was the devil. In fact, I think that's what is on the 18 minute gap on the Watergate tapes. Him admitting he's the devil. Remember, he DIDN'T erase his plans to have the Hell's Angels kill war protesters. So it's hard to fathom what could be so terrible in comparison that warranted being erased. He shows Halderman that he's in fact Satan. Chanting, howling, chittering demons. Case closed.

I have a real pet peeve about people taking credit for other people's ideas. And all politicians do it, it's understood. And if you work on policy or legislation that a politician takes credit for, you can still put it on your resume and the guys who hire politicos know the system and know that it is in fact your work. But Kennedy crossed the line in a few ways, one totally not being his fault, and that's okay.

Kennedy took from family. And he took from family who were expected to run for office later in life, and they could not campaign on those ideas without betraying family.

He also took from people who were in the twilight of their careers, Adlai Stevenson for example. His appointment as UN ambassador meant that he couldn't challenge the president on it, and his waning career meant that he wouldn't win. And he wasn't happy about it.

Lastly, he died. And that's not his fault, but it meant that there were no letters of recommendation, no interviews about the policy teams, nothing that usually happens after a career as President that distributes credit where it was deserved. Because he died, anyone who needed their work attributed to them was out of luck. And what could they do? Call the "sainted President who was cut down in his prime" a liar? Or a plagiarist? My grandfather wrote the original test ban treaty language for Stevenson. They worked side by side, and the only reason Stevenson didn't credit him is because my grandfather was on the wrong side of HUAC and begged to remain anonymous. But Stevenson deserved that credit. That little proposal cost him his political career.

It's not that he was a bad guy. I can make peace with a terrible person. It's that he had no ideas of his own, but a raging sense of entitlement to other peoples ideas. Sort of makes him the worst boss ever.

[Jonathan H]

No to Escalation

President Kennedy was a great statesman at saying 'no', at being cautious, to not get things done (eg. invade Cuba to make the Bay of Pigs 'work' as Nixon, LBJ and Goldwater wanted).

When the issue was civil rights his caution comes over as weak and timid (though he was the head of the party that had been for segregation, while another wing now wanted to end it).

When the same cautious attitude is applied to launching an American invasion of Cuba -- which would have destoyed the world -- during the 1962 missile crisis, he is comparable to Bismarck in his cold and calculating statesmanship (an anguished Khruschev too).

Only two members of an almost hysterical Cabinet (it's captured on tape) backed the missiles swap deal.

Only two!

One was Kennedy and the other was not Bobby, but Under Secretary of State, George Ball. The others were so ashamed of how the crisis resolved itself that they lied for a generation that it was not a missile-swap: Cuba for Turkey.

Kennedy knew that his 'best and the brightest' advisors and generals could be stupid, useless, and obsessed with anti-Communism -- with being like Joe MCCarthy clones (whereas JFK was good friends with fellow Irish-Catholic 'Tail-gunner Joe', the latter nearly marrying one of his sisters).

If JFK had lived he would have to have cut some sort of deal with Ho Chi Minh, one he knew would not last -- but he would not have faced re-election either. Maybe neutralism?

Kennedy would have been pilloried over the fall of Saion in 1965. As he said o his chief aide Dave Powers, I will be the most unpopular president ever.

Or, he might have thought that they could do it in a year, with just enough troops and just enough Rolling Thunder.

But he would stll have got out in a year, as that is when McNamara reassessed -- and was frozen out by LBJ who could not revisit big decisions, and had to face re-election in '68.

Kennedy was the complete cynic, a charmer but a cynic, who spent most of his life in incredible pain from illness, and yet we would have been better off if he had lived -- because he was a cynical careerist.

For he had no intention of sacrificing his career, or his popularity, for African-Americans or for the South Vietnamese.