They already knew that.
You take kookiness to a whole new level. I hate to burst your bubble, [not really] but you haven't discovered anything of importance. Nothing you post here will ever see the light of day outside this forum. It's only make believe.

The problem with that is the Lobby, at the time of Lovelady's alleged sighting of Oswald leaving through the front door, was full of people 4 or 5 minutes after the shots...Including a cop...So your weak dismissal fails to account for the pressingly obvious and also fails to answer why that cop was never identified and never bore any witnessing of Oswald's alleged leaving through the front door...Your flimsy dismissal strains under the weight of the fact Oswald's alleged leaving through the front door was one of the most important events in the entire FBI and Warren Commission investigation...The Commission would have loved to have a confirmed witnessing of Oswald leaving through the front door from either Lovelady or the un-named cop...Additionally, the cop told Oswald to step aside and wait...So Oswald's disobeying that order and leaving anyway is something the Commission would love to show as matching a fleeing presidential assassin...But, no, that's not what happened and the HSCA and Warren Commission sheepishly avoided those witnesses and did ZERO investigation of Oswald's leaving the Depository...What is left out of your flimsy dismissal is the fact a cop told Oswald to step aside and wait and your version has Oswald defying a police order right under his nose and walking out anyway...Whether you realize it or not I'm cracking the conspiracy here...The reason the FBI and Warren Commission totally avoided Oswald's departure from the Depository is because they didn't want to step on any land mines involving this business in the Lobby and trigger anyone to talk...There was an explosive situation in the Lobby that was one step away from exposing CIA Shelley's leading CIA Oswald around the police cordon and out the back door...Knowing that any look in to the details of this might expose the entire plot they simply avoided it and committed a conspicuous lack of necessary investigation...Even if they assumed Oswald left through the front door it was still against the law for Lovelady to with-hold that kind of witnessing from the FBI in the original investigation...Overlooking that fact is less than honest...

Your flimsy excuse is stressed even further by the fact Buell Frazier, in his CSPAN interview with Gary Mack, told Mack that he saw Oswald exit the rear Loading Dock, walk down Houston Street, and cross over to Elm in the direction of the bus...So not only Lovelady allegedly held back but Frazier too...Gary Mack was one of the best knowledge-able people in assassination research and he was fully aware of the implications of what Frazier was telling him...Did Mack pounce on that admission by Frazier and probe him why he held back...Or review with Frazier the serious significance of what he had just told him?...NO...Mack changed the subject immediately and avoided any necessary follow-through on the consequences of the explosive information Frazier had just told him...Just like the HSCA did with Lovelady and their non-concern...

I've cracked the case here and put the puzzle pieces together in the Lobby...The Education Forum sells itself as THE going thing in academic research and assassination scholarship...It has no interest in this monumental break-through...It does its best to keep it off the board and keep the venue open to kooks and hacks...The new owner, Andrew Iler, locks threads as soon as he makes them so there is no member input...So what is that forum?...Who are its members?...And what is its true purpose?...

Why would a Secret Service agent who was in the motorcade and who wanted to keep his job admit that there was an early loud "bang" that might have been a missing-everything shot?

They would have a much greater chance of losing their job by lying about what happened. Besides, it wasn’t just secret service agents who said that JFK reacted to the first shot. Powers, O’Donnell reported it as well, along with many others. Here is the list:
1. Nellie Connally
2. David Powers
3. Ken O’Donnell
4. Pierce Allman
5. Clint Hill
6. George Hickey
7. Sam Kinney
8. Emory Roberts
9. Paul Landis
10. Gayle Newman
11. William Newman
12. John Chism
13. Faye Chism
14. James Altgens
15. Abraham Zapruder
16. T.E. Moore
17. Linda Willis
18. Cecil Ault
19. Harold Norman
20. Malcolm Summers
21. Mary Moorman
22. Jean Newman
23. Charles Brehm
24. James Templin
25. Ernest Brandt

The HSCA should have disregarded the so-called "acoustical evidence" and the so-called "camera blur" evidence and concluded that JFK (and JBC) were both hit by the same bullet around Z-222.

Oh yeah, and that JFK reacted to being shot more quickly than JBC did.

Not true. JFK und JBC both flipped their arms upward at the same instant. Z226, less than 1/4 second after they were both struck.

Hi folks. Long time. I just presented an academic paper about witness testimony. I'm going to paste it in here.

I Said What?

There are (at least) five ways witnesses’ stories can change unintentionally.
1.   We want to have an answer for you. And we want to have an answer that will support your premise. It isn’t easy to say, “I don’t know.” We feel like we failed you, and you’ll hear, “I’m so sorry.” It’s possible to feel so much pressure you “think” of something new.

2.   When you tell the same story 1,000 times, it can/will ‘organically’ change one word at a time. The 25th time I tell something I might add an adjective. The 50th time that adjective has become three words.
From my interviews:
“I ran over to Baker’s police motorcycle to see if I could hear any information.”
“I ran over to Baker’s two wheeled police motorcycle to see if I could hear any    information.”
“I ran over to Baker’s two wheeled police motorcycle that was parked next to some three wheelers, to see if I could hear anything.”
This is all still true, but I’m adding words and that’s where a new, often false, detail crops up.
3.   We live in a world where logic reigns supreme, but logic can overtake and change “memory.”
The first time I ever saw a picture of myself on that pedestal, I fell to my knees and cried. I had told the historians that I thought I had on the blue jacket but didn’t know what else. I also said I stayed home from school to go to the “parade.”
Gary Mack asked if I had on a black skirt. I saw the picture and it looked like a skirt.
Big Problem! Logic took over. Well, if I had on a skirt, I must have gone to school. That’s the only way I’d have one on in Dealey Plaza.
Then one of you eagle-eyed researchers figured out it was culottes. Shorts with a skirt. I could not have worn those to school. I must have stayed home like I thought I did.

4.   There are 40,000 books and dozens of movies about the Kennedy and the assassination. It would be impossible for us to be sentient beings in the world and not hear about various versions of what happened. Sticking to our original memory takes effort. We do the best we can. We really do.

5.   It was a very, very long time ago. I can’t remember what I had for dinner last week.
Try 62 years.

In my very first interview (forgive my extreme obesity at the time) I said I was too far away to see red blood. I saw grey material blast out of his head, but it sparkled. Later, having spoken with the physicists at my University, I learned it would be impossible to see 'sparkle' from that distance. In my next interview I said, "I was too far away to see blood. It didn't sparkle.
I received more than one email saying, "If your testimony changes over time, how can we trust anything you say?"
Welcome to my world.

I have completed my book and Pegasus Books is publishing it. "The Girl in Blue."
The first edition is in pre-order. Physical release in April.

If you are looking for new info on the assassination, you will be disappointed. The book is not about the assassination. It is about an emotionally disturbed little girl who goes to Dealey Plaza, and what the assassination does to her. I had to choose which theory of the assassination to use, and I chose Oswald as the single shooter.
That does not mean I know who killed Kennedy. I don't. The Oswald story was the easiest to research. The book is CREATIVE non-fiction. It is not a historical document. Hopefully, there are places that will make you will laugh and other places that might make you cry. Regardless of your theory, I think you'll enjoy it.

And FYI, no, I didn't see sparkles:))
Toni



I send this on this forum because people are genuinely trying to investigate details, images, testimony.

To me, the most interesting part of your 11/22/63 story is your Not recalling Amos Euins being crouched down behind that pedestal that you and your Mom were standing atop. And your also detailing that your Mom and yourself actually moved down along that cement cap that surrounds the water pool, in order to get down on the ground. Euins claimed on, "The Lost Bullet" National Geographic Special, that after he witnessed shots being fired from the TSBD 6th Floor Window, he immediately crouched down behind that same pedestal that you and your Mom were standing on top of.  Euins Not being down behind that pedestal, also taints his detailed description of seeing shots being fired from the TSBD 6th floor window.

We're still waiting for WC apologists to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, not to mention where the FMJ bullet also deposited a sizable fragment and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and deposited two fragments at the opposite end of the skull at least 1 inch away from any other fragment and at least 1 inch below the nearest fragment trail.

Why don't you hold your breath while you wait.

WC defenders are smart enough to know that every shooting is a unique event which cannot be duplicated. We are also smart enough to know that cases of human skulls being shot with FMJ bullets, most of which occurred during wartime, aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that the JFK assassination was, so there is a very small sample size to compare to. It is stating the obvious to point out that for something to be possible, it only has to happen once.