I will never understand why so many people look at eye and ear witness accounts as if they are empirical evidence. Witness accounts, by themselves, do not establish anything as factual. Witnesses can be, and often are, wrong. Yet when somebody comes across a witness that fits their preferred narrative, they latch onto it as "proof" of what they choose to believe. They act as if "So and so said........" establishes a fact without ever offering any supporting evidence that indicates what so-and-so said is correct. It might be correct and it might very well be wrong. All eye and ear witness accounts should be looked at as a big MAYBE unless and until it can be corroborated. While multiple witnesses saying the same thing is a bit more compelling than a single witness, it still doesn't establish what they said is correct. Multiple people can make the same mistake. Case in point. A large group of witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the GK and another large group of witnesses said the shots all came from the direction of the TSBD. Obviously, both groups cannot be right. There is a large group of witnesses who all said the same wrong thing. They all made the same mistake. So while multiple witnesses saying the same thing is a bit more compelling than a single witness, it still does not establish a fact. The only time I will point to an eye or ear witness as evidence is if that witness can be corroborated by forensic evidence.

What evidence do you have for this.
I have plenty to demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that these two men are not Shelley and Lovelady.
If it's a case of "well, it looks like that to me", that's fair enough.

So, what makes you think the image you rely on for your identification hasn't been tampered with AS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS SUGGESTING?

I agree Lovelady and Shelley lied in their WC testimonies. I started a thread called "The 3 Minute Lie".
Adams was on the first floor within 60 seconds of the shooting where she saw Shelley and Lovelady. This is why they lied in their WC testimonies. I started a thread about this too - "Lovelady In Darnell And It's Ramifications".

Yes, this is a serious problem for the case against Oswald.

Two people saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning, Jack Dougherty and Buell Wesley Frazier. Dougherty said Oswald's hands were empty when he saw Oswald enter the building. Frazier said Oswald came into the TSBD carrying a brown bag with one end cupped in his palm and the other end tucked under his armpit.

The alleged murder rifle was 35 inches long when disassembled. If the package contained the rifle, Oswald could not have carried the package in the manner described by Frazier. The package would have extended well above his armpit, making it impossible to carry it with one end in his hand the other end under his armpit.

Even more problematic for the case against Oswald is the length of the package/bag that Frazier saw Oswald bring to work that morning. Frazier told the Warren Commission (WC) that the bag he saw Oswald carrying was about 2 feet long, and that it was the kind "you get out of the grocery store." On December 1, 1963, FBI agents asked Frazier to mark the spot on the back seat of his car where the bag reached when it was placed there with one end up against the door. The agents measured the distance between that spot and the door and found it was 27 inches. Frazier's sister, Linnie Randle, who also saw the bag, also said it was 27 inches long.

Thus, according to both Frazier and his sister, the bag was at least 8 inches shorter than the disassembled Carcano rifle. In addition, in order for Oswald to have carried the package in the manner Frazier described, Oswald's height and arm length indicate the bag would have needed to be no more than 24 inches long.

In response to this dilemma, the WC reflexively said that both Frazier and his sister were "mistaken" about the length of the bag. Posner pounces on Frazier's admission that he was not absolutely certain about the length of the bag, but he ignores the fact that Frazier had no doubt about how Oswald carried the bag, and he dismisses the fact that Frazier's sister said the bag was right around 27 inches long.

The WC claimed that Oswald made the brown paper bag from wrapping paper available to him at the Book Depository. However, an FBI lab report written shortly after the assassination said that the paper from the Depository "was examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case. . . ." (emphasis added).

But this report was later "corrected," and the "corrected version" said, "This paper was examined and found to have the same observable characteristics" as Oswald's paper bag. When asked to explain the contradiction, the FBI said the initial report was "inaccurate" and was "mistakenly passed along to the Warren Commission." Yeah, uh-huh. You bet.

The brown paper bag did not have a drop of oil on it, yet the alleged murder weapon was described as well oiled. Anyone who has handled a rifle after it's been lubricated/oiled knows you have to be careful not to let the lubed part of the rifle touch your clothes or else you'll get oil on your clothes.

Yes, the jacket evidence is a ball of confusion for the case against Oswald.

Oswald's shirt is equally problematic for the WC's case. Four of the five witnesses who saw a man in the sixth-floor window said the man was wearing a "light-colored" regular shirt or jacket; the remaining witness said it was either a T-shirt or a regular shirt. This does not even come close to matching the description of the brown, rust-colored shirt that Oswald wore to work that day, and Oswald was seen in that rust-colored shirt less than 90 seconds after the shooting.

And then there are the shirt fibers that were "found" on the Carcano. The fibers were reportedly found in the crevice between the rifle's butt plate and its wooden stock. The WC noted that these fibers were found to match the shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.

However, Oswald was not wearing that shirt at the Book Depository. The DPD or the FBI must have rubbed the butt of the Carcano against the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater, not realizing it was not the same shirt he had worn to work that day. Not a single fiber from the shirt that Oswald wore to work was found on the Italian rifle, nor were any fibers from his T-shirt found on the rifle.

The WC erroneously claimed that Oswald did not change shirts after the shooting.

However, the facts indicate otherwise. Officer Marrion Baker noted that Oswald was wearing a different shirt at the police station than the shirt he was wearing when Baker saw him on the second floor 75-90 seconds after the shooting. Oswald stated during his interrogation that he wore a long-sleeved shirt and gray pants to work, and that he changed clothes after he arrived home. The interviewing agent said Oswald described the shirt as "reddish." A rust-colored brown, long-sleeved shirt and gray pants were found in Oswald's apartment by the Dallas police after the shooting.