Barb Junkkarinens disproved the Altgens 6 windshield crack years ago. Can Michael T. Griffith be man enough to admit he’s very wrong and that the whole purpose of starting this thread is moot?

The two men fast-walking up the Elm Street extension are Lovelady & Shelley...

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.

The man in front of Calvery can be further examined by obtaining the 6th Floor Museum 1st generation copy of Darnell and applying high tech digital enhancement...

Why can't you examine the image I posted.

The Couch/Darnell clip is a 4 second long series of frames...Your image here denies us the best frame of Molina and his bald pate...Frankly I don't trust your image and I'm not sure photo shop games haven't been played with it in order to merge Lovelady in with it...The JFK research community is dysfunctional and corrupted...It operates in a way that prevents evidence being examined instead of honestly pursued...I need that 1st generation copy in order to look at the highest resolution examples of this man...I assure you he is Molina...

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?

Frazier said it in one of his interviews or statements...He said that Lovelady & Shelley spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps...Calvery had told the pair what she had seen at the Knoll and that inspired them to head up to the Knoll to see for themselves...They then went back inside the Depository through the west side doors to the 1st Floor...Adams & Styles had gotten out the rear before they came back in...I think you are well aware the timing for that little talk at the base of the stairs is shown perfectly in Couch/Darnell where Calvery is climbing the stairs at just the right distance from that talk as are Lovelady & Shelley going up the extension at just the right distance from that talk...

Obviously, Brian, you are not one for debate.
You have a very LN vibe in that you believe your pronouncements are enough on the matter and that everyone else should fall into line.
You offer no evidence or arguments that emanate from that evidence.
You are wrong regarding almost every single pronouncement you have made on this matter.
I think we'll just agree to disagree.

Barry Ernest explains it best...The authorities got Lovelady & Shelley to lie and change their departure from the front steps to 3 minutes after the shots in order to scuttle Victoria Adams' witnessing...Adams & Styles clattered by on the 2nd Floor staircase landing on their way down and out...Oswald heard that noise and got up from his seat in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room and went to the Vestibule door window for that Lunch Room...Oswald was standing there stationary watching the stairs when he saw a police officer emerge on to the staircase landing...He was startled by this and flinched back from the Vestibule window and retreated in to the Lunch Room...This triggered Baker's cop instincts and he pursued Oswald in to the Lunch Room...Both Baker & Truly saw Oswald's lunch on the table and knew he was in there the whole time - which is why Baker broke off without saying anything and started up the stairs...Baker hems and haws in his Commission testimony on how exactly he saw Oswald because he knows he can't tell this true version because it exonerates Oswald...Proof this is correct is the fact the Warren Commission never asked either Truly or Baker "Do you think Oswald was in the Lunch Room the whole time during the assassination?"...This cracking of the conspiracy is desperately kept off The Education Forum...I'm not sure that forum isn't a den of spooks trying to look like researchers...

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".

I don't know why I overlooked this before but Oswald was not firing downward at 60 to 70 degrees at the time the single bullet struck. At Z225, the closest exhibit to the time the single bullet struck, the angle to the rifle was 20 degrees. That would mean the slope on JFK's back would only have to be greater than 20 degrees to create an upward angle of entry. Since the area above the shoulder blades already has a natural slope to it even whan a person is sitting or standing perfectly upright. Due to JFK's bad back, he would tend to hunch his back slightly to relieve pressure on his spine. He would not have to be leaning or hunching over much to create a greater than 20 degree slope in his back.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pdf/WH18_CE_895.pdf

It is even less than 20 degrees because of the 3 degree downward slope of Elm St.  According to CE884 the downward angle from the horizontal of the line from rifle to JFK at z222 was 20.38 degrees (20° 23’) so the angle was effectively less than 18°.

All of your beliefs strain credulity.

I am not suggesting that Bugliosi was right in concluding that JFK was struck around z210. I was just suggesting that his comments about Lattimer’s theory are persuasive.  So it is Bugliosi’s reasoning that JFK was hit around z210 which appears to strain credulity for you. 

Couldn't live with the shame.