TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Ralph Cinque]

Jan said "this is a serious research site." And I am raising a serious research question. The question is whether Lovelady lied about wearing the same shirt from 1963 when he posed as the Doorman years later.

I understand that you have nothing but disdain for me. So be it. The feeling's mutual. But, what about other CTs? What about Don Jeffries? Here is what he posted on Education Forum:

"I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald."

And here is Michael Hogan, also from Education Forum, quoting Gerald McKnight:

"My own research on Oswald's whereabouts convinces me that at the time of the JFK shooting he was standing on the front steps of the Texas Depository.
He is the man at the extreme left at the top of the front steps that we see in Altgen's famous photo. Oswald in the man in the doorway, not Billy Lovelady."

So, Mr. Drago, do you have contempt for all these people? Or is it just me and Jim Fetzer? Why won't you look at the photos I posted? What are you afraid of? What are you all afraid of?

[Keith Millea]

I don't think it's a very good idea to bring quotes over from the EF.I know I have been tempted at times myself.There's an intregal problem with this though.The reason I posted that Mr Gordon had reversed his opinion,was because if I didn't,his original opinion would still be posted here as his final thoughts.They are not.

Just sayin'

[Albert Doyle]

You're the one who brought up the lintel, not me. I don't think it's lintel shade. But, it's definitely shade that is causing the slivers of darkness that you see on both sides of his t-shirt.

You are simply not dealing in reality my troll friend Dr Cinque. You live in a crazy world where you can say things like "it's definitely shade" but then not have to account for where exactly that undefined shade came from? Anyone with any intelligence or analytical ability would see that Lovelady is out in direct sunlight with nothing capable of making any shade. Dr Cinque in his demented wisdom once again offers retarded information as a deliberate form of obfuscation and avoiding the evidence. If we put it directly once again and ask our sick troll Dr Cinque to respectfully and intelligently answer for this next fatal gaffe we will be responded to with another offering of crazy run-arounds that don't make any sense. I'm wondering why the board allows Dr Cinque to continue doing this because I have seen people banned for much weaker violations.


If we forced Dr Cinque to answer for his failures we would find that the sliver he has now weaseled into a "shaded area" is the sunlit skin patch that it is and proves what I'm saying. Dr Cinque is simply playing a sick child's game by working this feature that he knows he can't recognize into a "shaded area" (in other words, the opposite of what it really is) because of his obvious awareness of this.


If you ask this sick troll Cinque to account for how this could possibly be a shaded area, as he claims, when the Altgens photo clearly shows Lovelady standing in open sunlight with nothing between him and the sun, he'll dodge this obvious proof and return with some more of his retarded renderings. Since basic logic, that Cinque refuses to recognize, dictates that the dark area seen as the "V" notch on Doorway Man must be the shade because the "sliver" area is lighter, that means the sliver area cannot be shade. But it can't be shade anyway because there's nothing to cause it. Nor can Cinque describe what would be shading it. Cinque is allowed to troll around this inescapable fact by speculating that it is shade, but he can't make any serious explanation for why it is shade or what is causing it. Thus Cinque is allowed to get away with offering a childish level of analysis that he isn't held responsible for according to the mainstream Kennedy Assassination claim he aspires to.



Cinque can't credibly explain what is causing the "shade" he claims for the skin patch in the Marsh scan.


Like Fetzer, Cinque simply refuses to answer the question about the difference in color between the V-shaped shade area under Lovelady's chin and this skin patch. It's obvious the reason he refuses to honestly answer this is because he's very well aware it destroys his theory. He can't account for why, if this skin patch shows sunlit skin, is the "V" area under Lovelady's chin black? If it isn't shade from Lovelady's chin then why isn't it light-colored like the skin patch area?


I don't think this board should allow Dr Cinque to continue this dishonest and deliberately-untruthful type of site conduct. He's being allowed to back up and unload his garbage truck into the thread in response to credible analysis. He's not held accountable for the deliberate-lie wrenches he's allowed to throw in to the machinery of truth with impunity.

[Charles Drago]

Fuck off with "your" arguments from authority, "Cinque."

Do not attempt to conflate "your" own third-rate intellect, fatally shoddy methods, deep politics naivete, and intended-to-disrupt ad hominems with the work of distinguished and important scholars and researchers. Who do "you" think "you're" talking to? Nelson? Morrow?

"You" are a charlatan, "Cinque" -- a pseudo-medical poseur who makes a living selling 21st century snake oil to the uneducated and unwary. And now "you're" trying to do it here.

Fuck off!

"Your" product here is the perfect analog to that foul brew you concoct and sell on "your" website. "You" are fooling no one but the likes of the once-great, now vulnerable Jim Fetzer, and "you" have no place among serious students of this case and warriors for truth and justice for JFK.

Further, "Cinque," "you" repeatedly act in the classic manner of the agent provocateurs who routinely attempt to raid forums such as DPF by stirring animosities and miring us in alleged controversies that in fact are nothing more or less than targeted distractions.

The majority of DPF owners have spoken. "You" are about to be banned from this site for reasons that are patently obvious to one and all.

"Cinque" has zero intellectual authority among serious JFK researchers, historians, and warriors for truth and justice for JFK.

Let us learn about the enemy's methods by studying "Cinque" and "his" cyber-excretions.

Go peddle "your" snake oil to the rubes, "Cinque."

We cast you out.

[Ralph Cinque]

A sunlite skin patch? Are you crazy? It is shade. And you can see it on both sides of his t-shirt, and they form a line with each other. And if both of those slivers were his skin, then where would that leave the shape of the t-shirt? It would no longer be vee OR round. It would be practically straight across, horizontal. That's all you'd have left. Take a look at it again.

And as far as trying to get me banned, listen good, Doyle: Dr. Fetzer will raise holy hell about it, and he's got rights here too. This is a forum, which means that it's about the expression of ideas, and for you to try to silence ideas by banning someone turns this into Nazi Germany. Is that what you want? So, try as hard as you can to win, but you can't win that way. By doing that, you would only be admitting defeat.

And by the way, what about that button on Lovelady's flap?

[James H. Fetzer]

How can anyone doubt that whether or not Oswald was in the doorway is a questions of extraordinary importance?

(1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

(2) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(3) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(4) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(5) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(6) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photos is not clear in the doorway;

(7) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(8) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(9) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

How any serious student could deny that this is an important question completely eludes me. Yet many here do.

I have asked several experts on the case to address the evidence, where I heard back from one of them today:

Dear Jim: I have carefully--very carefully--looked into the matter of the shirt and the "Lovelady" figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

In the photos as observable, the shirt was retouched and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady's shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee's face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes--for everything blotched there--would have done a better job.

Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch--and I'm convinced.

Plus, of course, another student, dkruckman, has observed that, as we all know, in the backyard photographs, there is a matte line running horizontally below the lower lip across the chin. And on Doorway Man there appears to be a matte line running horizontally below the nose above where the lips should be. If you place your thumb over the top of Doorway Man's face, what you see below does not resemble a human mandible. There is no discernible lips, chin or jaw line. To me it looks like smeared lines running in mostly 45 degree angles. Oswald may not have been looking directly at the limo, making a "cut & paste job" not easy. Lovelady's top of his face appears to be pasted over Oswald's and the bottom part manipulated to fit. Mostly by having black tie man's white shirt jut over Oswald's shoulder (obscuring his collar) and protruding into doorman's face, creating a crude jaw line. I am asking some experts to confirm these observations. Would you agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed?

The exchanges from members of this forum, including even Charles Drago, have descended into a seemingly endless string of ad hominems, where Charles is even now resorting to barnyard language to denounce him. What is the justification for discounting the evidence that tends to prove LEE CANNOT HAVE BEEN A SHOOTER, MUCH LESS A LONE GUNMAN?

And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? How could a JFK research forum be unwilling to countenance the discussion and debate this serious question?

I have noticed a strong tendency to group conformity on The Deep Politics Forum. It even strikes me that some here are wary of crossing Charles Drago, which should be unsurprising, given the treatment he doles out to those, as he has me on LBJ and Ralph on Doorway Man. I am very concerned that the DPF is losing track of its JFK research mission.

There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

Jan said "this is a serious research site." And I am raising a serious research question. The question is whether Lovelady lied about wearing the same shirt from 1963 when he posed as the Doorman years later.

I understand that you have nothing but disdain for me. So be it. The feeling's mutual. But, what about other CTs? What about Don Jeffries? Here is what he posted on Education Forum:

"I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald."

And here is Michael Hogan, also from Education Forum, quoting Gerald McKnight:

"My own research on Oswald's whereabouts convinces me that at the time of the JFK shooting he was standing on the front steps of the Texas Depository.

He is the man at the extreme left at the top of the front steps that we see in Altgen's famous photo. Oswald in the man in the doorway, not Billy Lovelady."

So, Mr. Drago, do you have contempt for all these people? Or is it just me and Jim Fetzer? Why won't you look at the photos I posted? What are you afraid of? What are you all afraid of?

[Albert Doyle]

A sunlite skin patch? Are you crazy? It is shade. And you can see it on both sides of his t-shirt, and they form a line with each other. And if both of those slivers were his skin, then where would that leave the shape of the t-shirt? It would no longer be vee OR round. It would be practically straight across, horizontal. That's all you'd have left. Take a look at it again.

Your input is, once again, incoherent and not only doesn't answer the point but shows that you have no understanding at all of what is being discussed. The reason there are two lighter-small patches on either side of the "V" is because it is bare skin outside of the chin shadow. Your responses show a crazy inability to recognize or coherently articulate what is plainly there and has been cited by other credible researchers like Lamson. Your "It would be practically straight across" doesn't correspond to any rational meaning and is, yet again, more senseless mumbo jumbo. The two slivers of sunlit skin are the areas not covered by the chin shadow. They are entities separate and identifiable from both the chin shadow and the round-neck T-shirt clearly observed in Marsh. They destroy your V-notch theory because they prove the chin shadow is separate from the exposed patches of sunlit skin, and is, therefore, shadow and not any V-necked T-shirt. If it wasn't shadow then the whole front neck area would be light-colored like the skin patches.


"If both of those slivers were his skin, then where would that leave the shape of the t-shirt?"


Round. As it is in Altgens and reality. Oswald's T-shirt was damaged at the theater. Both you and Fetzer show a cowardly inability to answer for this.

And as far as trying to get me banned, listen good, Doyle: Dr. Fetzer will raise holy hell about it, and he's got rights here too.

You obviously have a complete lack of sense of where you and your bogus arguments exist in the scheme of things. Dr Fetzer's 'rights', just like anyone's, only exist to the extent he, like anyone, is able to live up to the proven, vetted standard. Since he scoots every time he is asked to live-up to this standard in credible arguments he has to suffer the same fate as anyone. Dr Fetzer's 'rights' exist at the far end of my last post to him that he failed to answer. Just like you. If Dr Fetzer had any credible rights to the extent you suggest he'd be here answering these conclusive points. It's obvious why he isn't.

This is a forum, which means that it's about the expression of ideas, and for you to try to silence ideas by banning someone turns this into Nazi Germany. Is that what you want? So, try as hard as you can to win, but you can't win that way. By doing that, you would only be admitting defeat.

And by the way, what about that button on Lovelady's flap?

You're simply an ignorant ass who has been allowed to yell "FIRE!" over and over again in a crowded theater without any credible accountability. The button is yet another cross-eyed illusion coming from an unwell crank. You have failed to identify what exactly is causing the 'shade' (Because you can't).

[Ralph Cinque]

[quote=Ralph Cinque]You're the one who brought up the lintel, not me. I don't think it's lintel shade. But, it's definitely shade that is causing the slivers of darkness that you see on both sides of his t-shirt.

"Where exactly did that undefined shade come from?"

It came from the same place that the shade over the t-shirt of this other guy came from. And, there is no way we are talking about "sunlite skin" on Doorman. You are forgetting something, Doyle: that Marsh photo isn't the only one around. There are others, and they have to be reckoned with as well.

Here is one of the most widely circulated and visible versions of Doorman. Look at it! Are you going to tell me that that's sunlite skin? That's t-shirt, Buster, and you know it! That t-shirt is climbing right up his shoulder where it belongs.

And, to answer your question, the dark vee under his neck is shade, and it's darker precisely because it's skin that's being shaded. The shade over the t-shirt is lighter, that is, less dark, because it started as white t-shirt, and so it had farther to go to get dark. Think of it like mixing paints. If I mix brown with black (analogy to shaded skin) it's going to be darker than if I mix white with black (analogy to shaded t-shirt). It's the difference between tan skin and white cotton. Both are shade of different intensity because of the underlying medium. Shade is never going to obliterate, to blackness, a white t-shirt.

So, look at this picture of Doorman and point out the "sunlite skin" on this one, Doyle. And by the way, what about that button on Lovelady's flap?

[Albert Doyle]

"Where exactly did that undefined shade come from?"

It came from the same place that the shade over the t-shirt of this other guy came from. And, there is no way we are talking about "sunlite skin" on Doorman. You are forgetting something, Doyle: that Marsh photo isn't the only one around. There are others, and they have to be reckoned with as well.

Your answer is, once again, uselessly incoherent. Most people understand it is because of your rank incompetence and inability either fathom or articulate educated points. You have entered an unacceptable answer once again that comes nowhere close to credibly answering the question that was asked.

If we simply look at Altgens you can see there is no shade on Lovelady or his T-shirt. The critical areas under discussion are inarguably under direct sunlight with no shade. Dr Cinque, being a person of ill-nature, cannot bring himself to admit this so he tries to divert to an irrelevant "other guy". The things we are talking about were clearly stated. They exist solely on Lovelady and need to be discussed that way. Dr Cinque has deliberately failed to do that so he forfeits the debate. He concedes by deliberate deceit and omission like his crackpot mentor Dr Fetzer. There is no shade as Dr Cinque well knows and obviously can't answer for. Ask Dr Cinque to simply explain the source for this undefined shade and he literally cannot name it. Again, Dr Cinque expects us to endure his demented crazyland arguments with full authoritative expectation.

Here is one of the most widely circulated and visible versions of Doorman. Look at it! Are you going to tell me that that's sunlite skin? That's t-shirt, Buster, and you know it! That t-shirt is climbing right up his shoulder where it belongs.

The area I'm talking about, that you identified as a "sliver," is the oblong lighter-colored area that is just visibly detectable between the "V" area and the T-shirt in Marsh. Dr Cinque is an ass because any person possessing even the most basic level of common sense would realize that if it was the T-shirt, as he so clownishly protests above, that he wouldn't have identified it as a "sliver". But outside of having to answer Dr Cinque's insanity, several JFK researchers have credibly detected and recognized this light-colored patch as being sunlit skin. The only problem we are having with it is a recalcitrant forgery theory lunatic who refuses to admit what is plainly there.

And, to answer your question, the dark vee under his neck is shade, and it's darker precisely because it's skin that's being shaded. The shade over the t-shirt is lighter, that is, less dark, because it started as white t-shirt, and so it had farther to go to get dark. Think of it like mixing paints. If I mix brown with black (analogy to shaded skin) it's going to be darker than if I mix white with black (analogy to shaded t-shirt). It's the difference between tan skin and white cotton. Both are shade of different intensity because of the underlying medium. Shade is never going to obliterate, to blackness, a white t-shirt.

So, look at this picture of Doorman and point out the "sunlite skin" on this one, Doyle. And by the way, what about that button on Lovelady's flap?

OK, good. I agree it is shade - which now reduces the probability of it being a V-notch as you claim. Now if we apply credible analysis to what you wrote you are claiming that the dark area is shade but the lighter-colored "sliver" area outside of it is lesser shade. There's only one problem with that. There can only be one variety of shade. Now if you are finally admitting the V area is indeed shade you have now used your one shade claim for the area in question. You then claim the lighter-colored area is also under shade, but of a different indeterminate type. However, reality won't let you get away with that. Shade can only be caused by a source. Since you identified one source for the V (that is, the chin) you now need to identify the source for the "sliver". Furthermore, your argument is fatally, inherently flawed because for you to argue the "sliver" is shaded undershirt, as you do, you would have to account for why some of the undershirt is shaded and some is obviously white. To do that you would have to identify a shading source - which you clearly cannot. So not only do you now have to account for the difference between V and sliver, but you also have to account for that between unshaded T-shirt and shaded. But let's get this clear, the sliver is not shaded T-shirt, it is sunlit skin. It can't be shaded because there's no source for any shade. In the end, whether you realize it or not, all you are saying is the V-notch is caused by the chin shadow, just as I said.

In an over-contrasted photo shade absolutely will obliterate a white T-shirt. It's doing it right there in front of you as any credible photo analyst will attest. It's even provable by interpreting the continuing round-neck T-shirt line divided by the chin shadow. Maybe in another 40 pages we'll get you to finally admit that as well.

The Marsh scan shows a sunlit patch of skin represented as a lighter-colored area next to the chin shadow that the above shows you still haven't credibly accounted for. What you moronically fail to comprehend is by admitting the V area is indeed chin shadow (which it is) you still have to account for why it is different in color than the sliver area whether that sliver area was under shade or not (which it is not). What you cretinously fail to realize is once that V shape is admitted to be chin shadow that you have therefore established a shadow boundary with the rest of the neck front area. And once you've done that you've admitted it is chin shadow and not a V-neck undershirt. (DUH!)

Fetzer attempted to get away with the murder of claiming it was indeed a chin shadow but somehow miraculously fell perfectly within the profile of the V-Neck T-shirt. However, if you were smart (which you're not), you'd realize you yourself just argued why that couldn't be possible with your perfect V shadow and T-shirt obliteration arguments. (Touche! Dumb-asses)

[Ralph Cinque]

[quote=Albert Doyle][quote=Ralph Cinque]

"If we simply look at Altgens you can see there is no shade on Lovelady or his T-shirt."


Wrong, and stupidly wrong. In this picture, you can see shade falling on this man's face and his shirt from his hat. When you blow it up you can actually see the effect of the point of his hat as a wedge of shade on his shirt. It's on his right side, so our left. Notice the extensive shade over his shirt, greater than Doorman's. And the reason it is more extensive is that Doorman is not wearing a hat. But still, his bare head casts some shade. And no, nothing exists "solely" on Doorman." That's your problem: you think Doorman exists in his own little Doylenian universe with its own laws.

There is no sliver between the vee and the t-shirt, that is, if you are talking about the point of the vee. It goes from solid dark to solid white at the point of the vee, that is, from shaded skin to the material of the shirt. It is an abrupt, clean transition. And it makes a darn nice and sharp vee too. Here's the Marsh photo again for all to see. Look at that V! That's some vee. I feel so proud because my favorite movie is V for Vendetta. Go V! Remember, remember! The fifth of November, Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason, Why the Gunpowder treason, Should ever be forgot!

Here's the photo again with the slivers circled. You are looking at shaded t-shirt.