albert doyle Wrote:dr fetzer is re-entering old claims as if weeks hadn't already been spent on it showing how uncredible they are.


I believe the altgens photo has been proven within reasonability to be billy lovelady standing in the depository portal. Only sophist digression supports the contention that it is oswald on the thinnest of theoretical grounds. Meanwhile there is good proof oswald was in the lunch room at the time of the shooting.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Don't any of you "get it"? Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966) had already figured this out. Billy even went to the FBI to show them the shirt he was wearing. It was a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. We are confirming what Weisberg had already figured out in 1966 by studies of the photograph that could not have been done then! It was Lee in the doorway, not Lovelady. Lovelady also told Jones Harris that he was wearing the red-and-white shirt. He was emphatic about it. This must be the most incompetent research forum in history. The evidence is blatant. There is no doubt about it. Yet we have one denial after another! Denials are not proof. This forum has turned into a nut house. Even Phil Dragoo endorses obscure arguments when he cannot cope with the basic, obvious evidence. It is appalling.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Don't any of you "get it"? Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966) had already figured this out. Billy even went to the FBI to show them the shirt he was wearing. It was a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. We are confirming what Weisberg had already figured out in 1966 by studies of the photograph that could not have been done then! It was Lee in the doorway, not Lovelady. Lovelady also told Jones Harris that he was wearing the red-and-white shirt. He was emphatic about it. This must be the most incompetent research forum in history. The evidence is blatant. There is no doubt about it. Yet we have one denial after another! Denials are not proof. This forum has turned into a nut house. Even Phil Dragoo endorses obscure arguments when he cannot cope with the basic, obvious evidence. It is appalling.

Nope. You're just taking advantage of the fact Lovelady showed-up in that striped shirt for the the FBI pictures.


Dr Fetzer, you can't be relying on Cinque-esque claims that the subtle features of the shirt prove it was Oswald's shirt and then turn around and insist it was the striped shirt.


Do you see the mistake you've made there?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:David,

You really need to read WHITEWASH II (1966) by Harold Weisberg, in particular, "The Lovelady Diversion" and "The Lovelady Caper". Billy was not simply THINKING he had worn that red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt but WAS ALSO TELLING OTHERS ALL ABOUT IT. I find your work embarrassing, but I am trying to do you a favor. Read Weisberg.

And I can't believe the elementary blunders involved in your arguments, when we know that they overlaid features of Billy's face over Oswald's face. We have compared the right ear, the left eye, the cranium, the hairline, the shirt and the tee shirt, on and on and on. If you can't understand it, perhaps you need some kind of tutorial. OF COURSE there are features of them both.

When they are messing with evidence, as in this case, the very idea of a 100% match is simply preposterous. We are going to have to go with the weight of the evidence. You have never even rebutted the obfuscated man, the missing shoulder, the man both in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, or the profile of the black man. You are not even remotely in the ball park.

The further we have gone, the more confirmation we have found. It's like looking at the moon with your naked eye and seeing that it appears to be irregular and pockmarked. Then when you look again with a telescope, you find further confirmation. In this case, we are finding more and more anomalies in this small section of the larger photograph. Here's the latest on Bill Shelley:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4168[/ATTACH]

Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:I cannot believe that you are still talking about the Doorway man. You have now reached page 41 of this
irrelevant, unimportant and disinformation thread. I wish you could spend 41 pages in more important threads. For example Vince Salandria's lunch with Specter is a very thought provoking subject that we
should have been discussing the moment that it appeared.
http://www.ctka.net/2012/salandria_Specter_meet.html
I don't blame Fetzer. Fetzer believes what he believes, i blame the rest of you who know better and yet you keep alive his dead subject in ER. In other words you have made what he says important, even if it is not. If there was a chance that you could make him realize his errors, i would say it is worthwhile. But he will not listen so you are wasting your words, time and effort. Fetzer's role has been exposed so he'll soon fade into the background since he has ceased to be useful.