Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Mr. BALL. You were on the west elevator?

Mr. LOVELADY. Right.

Mr. BALL Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?

Mr. LOVELADY. East, on back, the elevator back.

Mr. BALL. Did you see him?

Mr. LOVELADY. No; I didn't; I just heard his voice because---where those slats are in back of the elevator.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again that day? 

Mr. LOVELADY. No.

Now, I think it's fair to infer that Ball meant did you ever see him again in or near the TSBD later that day.  I think it's fair to infer that given the context of the questions before and after "Did you ever see him again that day."  The IDIOT takes the question literally.

You're God-damn right I take it literally. When Shelley was asked the exact same question, he referred to seeing Oswald later that day at the PD. So, why wouldn't Lovelady have done likewise? He would have. This was the JFK assassination. You err on the side of more information, not less. If Ball wasn't interested, it still didn't hurt to say it. There is no way Lovelady would have withheld such information. He was asked if he EVER saw Oswald again THAT DAY. That's ever that day, you lying bastard. 

And why did they feel the need to put Lovelady into the film?  It was to showcase the plaid shirt. They had to undo the damage from the FBI fiasco in which they admitted that Lovelady said he wore a short-sleeved striped shirt. And they even photographed him in it- unbuttoned- which they would only do if he wore it on 11/22. Why else would you pose him like Doorman and photograph him unless he was wearing the same clothes?

So, to correct that public relations disaster, they figured that lip-flapping wasn't enough. They had to come up with something visual of him in a plaid shirt. And that's why they put him into that movie. It was a very clever, devious, and Machiavellian trick. 

Don't ever ask me again why they put him in the film because I have told you repeatedly.

And they didn't make it on 11/22, and they had nothing to show of him on 11/22. It was all done afterwards, and I mean years later.

And how would Mrs. Lovelady have known? Lovelady would have told her. "Honey, you're not going to believe what happened. I was taken to the PD and placed in this squad room, then all of a sudden Oswald was led by with a procession of cops and reporters. It was a media circus with cameras flashing, and I was in the center of it. I couldn't believe it."

Something like that would have happened, you dumb fuck.

And this statement by the FBI agent supports me, not you.

Lovelady presumably made his statement right after the walk-by. If he had made it before the walk-by, he'd have been gone already, right? If he was asked anything about seeing Oswald, and he had just seen him, surely he would have said so. "I saw him right here a moment ago." There is no way Lovelady would have held back from saying that.

AT ANY TIME is all-inclusive. It means that Lovelady did not see Oswald again any time, any where, any place, any how. 

And my point was that it was not a direct quote of Lovelady. The wording was that of the FBI agent. There is a difference between that and the WC testimony which consisted of Lovelady's own words. 

AT ANY TIME trumps his return to the building. AT ANY TIME is the larger concept that supercedes the other. ANY means any. 

And the only thing you have is A YEAR AGO TODAY as shown today. You don't have it from when it was shown on 11/22/64. 

Why are you so fucking stupid as to not realize that unless you can travel back in time, you have no way of knowing what was shown on 11/22/64? Just because it looks the way it does now does not mean that it was what was shown then. 

You can't accept anything that WFAA shows you now. If someone else has a copy of the broadcast from 1964, one that was independently made and without authorization and without anyone's knowledge, that would be different. But, no such copy exists. 

And what I said is that 2 cameramen standing side by side would produce the same thing with only slight, very negligible differences. But, because there are gargantuan differences, we know that that excuse doesn't fly. It doesn't hold water. And neither do your pretenses at techno-spouting. Fuck you, Backes! These are two different men with different hair, different builds, different muscles, different ears, different weights, and with their shirts arranged very differently.

No excuse relating to different cameramen or your techno-babbling 

can possibly explain this much divergence between two men. They are different men. Different men! Different men! They are just as different as these men.