06-03-2012, 05:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2012, 02:15 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
BACKGROUND:
During a thread that originated over the new contributions of K.D. Ruckman to the "Oswald in the doorway" debate, where his interview on "The Real Deal" of 20 February has now been published:
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2012
K. D. Ruckman
JFK: More on Oswald in the Doorway
Ralph Cinque engaged in an exchange with David Lifton, Gary Mark, David Healy, Jerry Dealey, Bernice Moore, John Costella, Jack White, David Mantik, and me:
Dr. Ralph Cinque
Mar 2 (4 days ago)
to dlifton, gmack, shake_aeffects, jerry, me, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
KD Ruckman added the observation that besides the right collars matching, the notched t-shirts matching, and the left lapels matching, you'll also notice that with the foldover on the left side of both that you see Oswald's bulging about half-way down, whereas the bulge on Doorman's seems to occur lower, close to the bottom. Keep in mind that in all of the images of Oswald in that shirt, it hangs a little differently each time. Every time Oswald shifted, the shirt shifted and hung a little different, and that's just the way it was. So, this is still an excellent match, and it is perfectly consistent with the comparison of other images.
But notice also that the bottom vee, and I mean the vee formed by the exposed white t-shirt at the bottom of the shirt at the point where the outer shirt is finally buttoned, that the point of that vee looks the same on both. Not only is the look of it the same, but the location of it is exactly the same on both.
Not only is it highly unlikely that Lovelady would have left his shirt unbuttoned IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME POINT AS OSWALD, but in none of the pictures we have of Lovelady was his shirt that unbuttoned. Just compare the unbuttonings of Doorman, Oswald, and then Lovelady. In no image is Lovelady's shirt as unbuttoned.
DAVID LIFTON ENTERS ON THE SIDE OF GARY MACK:
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:02:39 -0800
Subject: Re: Robert Groden Altgen's photo
From: dlifton@earthlink.net
To: GMack; shake_aeffects; jerry; jfetzer
CC: bmoore1242; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; doctorcinque
To all:
I fully agree with Gary Mack on this issue. Also: I appreciate how much time it takes (and that he has taken) to engage in this sort of debate, and write these long and detailed emails, especially when the "evidence" is often what this or that person claims "to see" in a photo.
In these emails, Gary has laid out the evidence, and I think its rock solid.
FWIW: I concluded decades agocirca 1973, when (while working as "researcher" on Executive Action) I first found the footage of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, at the Homicide and Robbery Bureauthat it was Oswald in the doorway. I shared that information, and the imagery, with Groden, who obviously pursued it further. Good for him!
So, FWIW: I do not agree at all with the arguments made by Cinque and Fetzer. I would characterize them as obscure, weak, and far-fetchedand very subjective.
So that's my position: I'm positive it was Lovelady in the doorway.
Moreover: If Oswald was in the doorway (which, I must emphasize, I don't believe at all, but if it were true. . ). . .others would have said he was there (and not weeks or months later, but immediately). Moreover, he certainly would have told his brother and his wife. But there's no such evidence in the record. He said no such thing to his brother or his wie; and, as to the others in the stairway area, FBI agents were questioning all these people, within a very short while. If Oswald was actually standing on the stairs, word of that would have spread like wildfire.
Think about it: What better evidence for Oswald to possessevidence easier to enunciate and promulgatethan the simple statement: "Of course I didn't shoot Kennedy! I was standing outside watching the parade!" etc
But Oswald never made any such statement, and besidesfor all the reasons enumerated by Gary, and so evident in the imageryit was (in fact) not Oswald on the stairs of the TSBD. It was Billy Lovelady.
FWIW (and taking a broader view): I think this is a good example of the role coincidence plays in this event, because, if I was a plotter (and I do believe there was a serious plot that day) who would ever expect that someone would be standing in the doorway area who looked so similar, in a photograph, to the patsy who was being framed? That is really one helluva coincidence, and carries with it an important lesson as to the role coincidence can (and sometimes does) play.
So that's my take on the situation.
DSL
GARY MACK, DAVID HEALY, AND JERRY DEALEY CHIP IN:
Gary Mack:
David,
I suggested to both Cinque and Fetzer, in a 1/30/2012 email, that they contact AP Images to obtain a copy of the photo from the camera original negative. An alternate source, I suggested, would be Robert Groden who had access to the original negative while employed by the HSCA as a consultant. Robert succeeded, where others on the committee photo panel failed, in making sufficiently clear blowups from the negative that made it obvious the man in the doorway was wearing the same shirt as the man in the other Dealey Plaza home movies and in the Homicide & Robbery Bureau office as filmed by WFAA-TV. Robert kept first generation copies of some of his work on the Altgens photo and he showed them to me some 30 years ago. There is no doubt whatsoever the man in the doorway is Billy Lovelady. I interviewed the man (and his wife) in 1979 and their coworker, Buell Frazier, says to this day that it was Billy Lovelady on the steps, not Oswald. The theory offered by Cinque and Fetzer was pounded into oblivion a long, long time ago.
Gary Mack
From: David Healy [mailto
hake_aeffects]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:14 PM
To: Jerry Dealey; 'James Fetzer'; Gary Mack
Cc: bmoore1242; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; dlifton; 'Dr. Ralph Cinque'
Subject: Re: Robert Groden Altgen's photo
for a reasonable review of this image, what is needed, is this: a 1200dpi digital scan of the photos original negative, PERIOD! Then pass that around... Come on....wake Gorden up!
DavidH.
From: Jerry Dealey
To: 'James Fetzer'; 'Gary Mack' <GaryM@jfk.org>
Cc: bmoore1242@rogers.com; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; shake_aeffects; dlifton; 'Dr. Ralph Cinque'
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:28 AM
Subject: Robert Groden Altgen's photo
Guys,
Robert Groden loaned me his enlargement of the Altgens Doorway, for 3 weeks. It is a photographic blow-up, on Kodak paper, and he says it has not been modified by computer in any way.
I scanned it at 1200, and added a Watermark (per Robert's request). Not sure it is any clearer than the Anthony Marsh scan, which was probably professionally scanned, instead of using my poor scanner.
But I said if I got him to give me one, I would provide it. He was hesitant, because his book is at press, and he spends a lot of time on the Oswald/Lovelady discussion. He originally also thought it was Oswald, but after studying the original negative and prints from it (which this is supposed to be), he agree it was Lovelady. He never believed in alteration, however.
Not that it will change anyone's mind, if they have a bias to "alteration" theories. But I said I would forward it.
Jerry Dealey
I EXPLAIN WHY IT IS EMBARRASSING TO HAVE GRODEN/LIFTON/MACK ON THE SAME SIDE:
James Fetzer
Mar 2 (4 days ago)
to Ralph, dlifton, gmack, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
Ralph,
It is profoundly embarrassing that eminences such as Robert Groden and David Lifton would ignore the relevant evidence and side with Gary Mack in a case of this magnitude. Groden has not even been able to bring himself to acknowledge that the Zapruder film has been faked, which in my opinion undermines his standing as an expert on any issue of photography and film. Lifton has done great work on so many aspects of the case that his incompetence in this instance is inexcusable.
Gary Mack, of course, is the keeper of the flame when it comes to the official account of the assassination of JFK and, in my opinion, cannot be taken at face value on any issue of importance. I am adding this post only because you have heard from Gary and now from Lifton and Groden, at least indirectly. I commend you and DK for your brilliant contributions to this issue, which provides a stunning indictment of the government for its complicity in the assassination and cover-up.
Are these people completely aware of the discoveries of DK in relation to altering images of Billy Lovelady in order to create false impressions that he looked more like the man in the doorway, even to the extent of shortening his left arm in some of these photos? It seems to me that, if Groden, Lifton and Mack persevere in their denial of photographic fakery--which extends to the use of a Lovelady imposter in the doorway area--then their de facto complicity in this matter is beyond any doubt.
Keep up your excellent work! I look forward to future publications on this together.
Warm regards,
Jim
GARY MACK REPLIES CLAIMING THAT HE KNOWS MORE THAN I AND I REBUT HIM:
Gary Mack
Mar 2 (4 days ago)
to me, Ralph, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
Yes, Jim, you should be embarrassed. I am not.
Groden, Lifton and I are in agreement on some issues, probably more than we realize, and this is one of them.
I work with history, not theory, and neither you nor Ralph have offered any evidence that has or will change history. Nor do you have knowledge of what you don't know…..and that is precisely why I will always be way, way ahead of you on your Lovelady theory.
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
Mar 2 (3 days ago)
to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Gary,
Your attempts to bamboozle the public are well-known and copiously documented. Consider, for example, the appendix to "Mary in the Street Revisited", http://jfkresearch.com/Moorman/, where David Lifton called you out for stage-managing Mary Moorman's attempts to show what she had done on 22 November 1963.
To suggest you and David are on the same team is as disingenuous as your efforts to undermine stunning new research that establishes--beyond a reasonable doubt, in my view, since no alternative explanation is reasonable--that Lee was in the doorway at the time of the assassination. But what else should we expect?
Jim
MACK RESPONDS WITH A GRATUITOUS ASSAULT ON MADELEINE DUNCAN BROWN:
Gary Mack
2:33 PM (17 hours ago)
to me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Au contraire, Jim, my personal research efforts since the infamous Roscoe White nonsense in 1990 have included helping keep the public from being bamboozled by bogus conspiracy tales.
Oswald in the doorway is one such theory that makes return visits now and then when newbies latch onto them without having done any real research, then ignoring the evidence that shows the story to be false. I watch for what they do with the information I pass along and note whether they follow it or not. That's what tells me if they are seriously interested in learning something new.
And you know what, Jim? It's a foolproof method that rarely fails. I used the same approach with known frauds like Madeleine Brown and others.
As for Mary Moorman, as I explained to David a long time ago, she and I have been good personal friends since 1981 when I explained how to get her pictures back from the Clerk of the House after the HSCA closed up shop. I've heard her tell her story many, many times. Sometimes she says it one way and other times she leaves out the part about stepping back onto the grass before taking her famous picture. We even joked about it on the phone the night before we filmed her in the Plaza!!
So I stood where the producer wanted me for the camera and she stood where all the untouched, non-faked, films and photos show her at the moment of the head shot. The recreation for the 2003 Discovery Channel program, Death in Dealey Plaza, is historically accurate. Why? Because no one, and that includes Sydney, haven't proven otherwise. You may have convinced yourselves, but so what? I know why you folks are wrong and why the pictures are correct.
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
2:45 PM (17 hours ago)
to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Gary,
I know that, as a matter of formality, you have to have the last word. So you have it! But everyone on this list knows how things stand and your role in preserving the Oswald myth.
Jim
Gary Mack
2:50 PM (17 hours ago)
to me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Just show me evidence, Jim, not opinion - evidence. I DO know the difference.
Gary Mack
RALPH TRIES TO STEER THE DISCUSSION BACK TO OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY:
Dr. Ralph Cinque
3:05 PM (16 hours ago)
to gmack, me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
Talking about pictures being correct, the Altgens photo correctly shows Oswald's shirt and t-shirt: the collars, the lapels, the loose fit, and the notched t-shirt. And it's highly significant that neither you, nor any other state shill, even tries to deny it. Instead, you just change the subject.
Clothing is very specific and personal. It comes in all forms, and it gets worn in different ways. The likenesses in clothing between Oswald and Doorman are too great to dismiss. Besides the structural features of the clothing being the same, the fact that both shirts are unbuttoned to the exact same point is highly significant. Oswald's shirt was very unbuttoned, and by necessity because the buttons were missing. But, Lovelady's buttons were not missing, and in no image of him from that day is his shirt as unbuttoned as we see on Oswald or Doorman. Take a look at my latest collage which shows the bottom part of the shirts of Oswald and Doorman. Notice how the level is exactly the same. Do you really think that by coincidence Lovelady was comported the exact same way that day?
And regarding past investigations, when did the Warren Commission or the HSCA ever address the issue of Doorman's clothing? His t-shirt being notched like Oswald's was ignored. His outer shirt being loose and disheveled like Oswald's was ignored. Where is the issue of the unbuttoning of the shirt addressed? When are the collars and lapels examined? They weren't. Those investigations were a joke. Heck, the HSCA didn't even react when Billy Lovelady suddenly and unexpectedly died right before he was to testify before them. You'd think they would have looked into it. But, they were probably relieved.
Look at the picture, Gary. You're seeing the same guy wearing the same shirt. And don't bother to deny it. It can't be denied. Ralph Cinque
James Fetzer
3:16 PM (16 hours ago)
to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
When our next article is out, I will let both you and the rest of the link know. Thanks.
MACK IMPLIES COWORKERS WHO DID NOT ID LEE THEN MUST BE LYING, WHICH I REBUT:
Gary Mack
3:27 PM (16 hours ago)
to Ralph, me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
It is true that investigators spent very little time on this issue. Why is that? Because they all found out very, very quickly that Oswald was not the man on the steps. So they worked on areas that could yield far more useful information rather than waste time on a disproven theory.
You see, Ralph, they came up with the same problem you face and still haven't answered: If Lovelady was that man, why did all those coworkers who knew Oswald or Lovelady or both lie to investigators about who was really there?
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
4:09 PM (15 hours ago)
to Ralph, gmack, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
All,
And it is just begging the question to assume that these witnesses "lied". They may have not notice him at the back of the crowd; they might have had their testimony changed; they may have been intimidated into not telling what they knew. I think most rational agents, possessing information that would disprove the government's account of the assassination of the President of the United States, might pause before stepping forward. Craig Roberts and John Armstrong have a book about those who did not.
Jim
I REPLY TO HIS ATTACK ON MADELEINE, WHICH HE DISMISSES CLAIMING SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE:
James Fetzer
7:42 PM (12 hours ago)
to David, Gary, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
To besmirch a courageous woman like Madeleine Duncan Brown is completely despicable. What she has to say in TEXAS IN THE MORNING has been corroborated by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, Barr McClelland, BLOOD, MONEY & POWER, E. Howard Hunt's "Last Confessions", and the final 9th segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". When you start calling people phonys and frauds, you had better understand that the case against you is overwhelmingly stronger than any case against them. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine and interviewed her at Lancer. She was the real deal.
Gary Mack
8:22 PM (11 hours ago)
to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Real deal? Hardly. Real fraud....beginning in 1982 when she claimed JFK's friend, Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, was involved with LBJ in the assassination. I have her on video tape saying just that. You do know Rayburn died two years before the Kennedy assassination, don't you? Madeleine didn't, at least she didn't when she made that claim THIRTY years ago.....so she changed her story to make it more believable to the rubes.
And there is more, Jim, much more. And it's all just as bad if not worse. When I used the word fraud, I was being kind. As you'll learn in my future project. Remember this, Jim, you don't know as much about the subject as I do.
Gary Mack
I CHALLENGE GARY MACK TO A DEBATE ON THE ASSASSINATION, WHICH HE EVADES:
James Fetzer
8:54 PM (11 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Let's put that proposition to the test. Let's have a two-hour, public debate, divided into 15 minute segments. I will take the first, you the second, and so forth, where if either of us is unable to fill up our allotted time, it shifts to the other debater as bonus. We could do it at COPA or at Lancer. I will bring my laptop and you can bring whatever you like. I will present my case and you can attempt to rebut it, where I have the first and you the last word. OK? All we need is a screen and an LCD projector. And if an audience shows up, so much the better. Deal?
Dr. Ralph Cinque 8:56 PM (11 hours ago)
Regardless of what the truth is about Madeline, and I don't claim to know, it...
Gary Mack
9:16 PM (10 hours ago)
to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Why would I waste my time on someone who doesn't know the subject? No thanks.
Did you know the Murchison party started about 8pm? No wait, 11pm, no wait, it was about 1 in the morning, that's i!. Madeleine told me all three versions over time some twenty + years ago. Made me laugh and laugh and laugh. Didn't know about that, did you? That's why a debate is so pointless. There is so much you don't know. Same with Ralph. I'll put it out there when I'm good and ready, Jim.
Gary Mack
I OBSERVE THAT HE IS OFF-BASE AND SUBSTANTIATE MY POSITION:
James Fetzer
10:04 PM (9 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Let's see. How many books have you edited on JFK? How many national conferences have you chaired or co-chaired? How many research articles have you published? How many interviews (not puff pieces)? We all knew that you would not dare to accept my challenge, Gary Mack. We all knew. No one had any doubt. There was no way you would accept. None.
James Fetzer
10:52 PM (9 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Let me make it very simple for you, Gary. If what you claim about yourself were true, even remotely, you would be EAGER to demonstrate your superior knowledge. You are NOT, for the obvious reason that, as usual, you are faking it. Isn't your background in marketing and advertising? I taught courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. Why are you such a phony? I would wipe the floor with you.
It is ironic I was doing an interview with a witness who was corroborating Madeleine's report about the social event at the home of Clint Murchison, Sr., when your post came up. And just now, in poking around about you, I came across this at Wim's web site, which I think pretty much sums up how most of us feel about you, just for the record:
Email received 28 june 2007:
I also happen to believe that Gary Mack is an apologist for the Lone Gunman Theory/Warren Commission Report. Here is the latest example I've discovered. Madeleine Duncan Brown has appeared in several interviews describing a party which occurred the night before the JFK assassination at which several powerful people were in attendance. The list includes LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, and many of Johnson's rich, Texas oil buddies.
Gary Mack is on record for doing his utmost to pick her story apart. For example, he claims that Hoover never had a black chauffeur - thereby proving that Brown's testimony was wrong. In fact, what Brown said was - and anybody can view it on Youtube in the latest "Men Who Killed Kennedy (The Guilty Men, segment 3) - was that "a" black chauffeur was present. Well, the above-mentioned TV show interviews one May Newman who corroborates that it was in fact oil tycoon Clint Murchison who had the black chauffeur and that it was he, the black chauffeur, who drove Hoover around that evening. Mack could have learned this in a second had he simply watched the program and not been drawn to distraction by picking at straws.
Here's what I think about Gary Mack. I remember him being featured extensively in the original Men Who Killed Kennedy back in 1988, and he appeared to be a JFK researcher who seemed to be sincerely interested in uncovering the obvious conspiracy of JFK's murder. Since then, however, he has done a complete about-face, and become a shill for the Warren Commission Report and all of its proponents. I wonder if his position as Curator of the 6th Floor Museum has only served to corrupt his honesty and objectivity. After all, he does spend most of his days rubbing shoulders with the very same power base which was responsible for JFK's death in the first place. He wouldn't want to lose that cushy, well-paying job by rocking the boat, now would he?
Frank
SITUATION SUMMARY:
As it happened, I was having a serendipitous conversation with Connie Kritzberg, who was a reporter for The Dallas Times Herald and interviewed Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Malcolm Perry, M.D., and Kemp Clark, M.D., the afternoon of the assassination. She and I were discussing her friend, Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom she co-authored a book on the assassination, DALLAS DID IT!, and the social event at the home of Clint Murchison, Sr., at the very time Gary Mack was attacking Madeleine's credibility. Our hour-long conversation will be broadcast on "The Real Deal", revereradio.net, this Friday from 5-7 PM/CT, the second hour.
Gary Mack has asserted several times now that he possesses knowledge that is superior to mine about the JFK assassination. I have therefore challenged him to a two-hour, public debate, divided into 15 minute segments. I will take the first, he the second, and so forth, where if either of us is unable to fill up our allotted time, it shifts to the other debater as bonus. We could do it at COPA or at Lancer. I will bring my laptop and he can bring whatever he likes. I will present my case and he can attempt to rebut it, where I have the first and he the last word. All we need is a screen and an LCD projector. If an audience shows up, so much the better.
As I have made very clear during the course of this exchange, I regard Gary Mack as an apologist for the "official account" of the assassination. He is a very "big cheese" as the curator for The 6th Floor Museum, but I view him as a phony and a fraud who spends his time bamboozling the public about the who, the how, and the why of the death of our 35th president. He claims to possess superior knowledge. Let him therefore demonstrate it. Why should he duck and run from a public debate, especially on the occasion of the 50th observance of the death of JFK? Let's duke it out and see which of us is right. It's time for him to put up or shut up!
During a thread that originated over the new contributions of K.D. Ruckman to the "Oswald in the doorway" debate, where his interview on "The Real Deal" of 20 February has now been published:
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2012
K. D. Ruckman
JFK: More on Oswald in the Doorway
Ralph Cinque engaged in an exchange with David Lifton, Gary Mark, David Healy, Jerry Dealey, Bernice Moore, John Costella, Jack White, David Mantik, and me:
Dr. Ralph Cinque
Mar 2 (4 days ago)
to dlifton, gmack, shake_aeffects, jerry, me, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
KD Ruckman added the observation that besides the right collars matching, the notched t-shirts matching, and the left lapels matching, you'll also notice that with the foldover on the left side of both that you see Oswald's bulging about half-way down, whereas the bulge on Doorman's seems to occur lower, close to the bottom. Keep in mind that in all of the images of Oswald in that shirt, it hangs a little differently each time. Every time Oswald shifted, the shirt shifted and hung a little different, and that's just the way it was. So, this is still an excellent match, and it is perfectly consistent with the comparison of other images.
But notice also that the bottom vee, and I mean the vee formed by the exposed white t-shirt at the bottom of the shirt at the point where the outer shirt is finally buttoned, that the point of that vee looks the same on both. Not only is the look of it the same, but the location of it is exactly the same on both.
Not only is it highly unlikely that Lovelady would have left his shirt unbuttoned IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME POINT AS OSWALD, but in none of the pictures we have of Lovelady was his shirt that unbuttoned. Just compare the unbuttonings of Doorman, Oswald, and then Lovelady. In no image is Lovelady's shirt as unbuttoned.
DAVID LIFTON ENTERS ON THE SIDE OF GARY MACK:
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:02:39 -0800
Subject: Re: Robert Groden Altgen's photo
From: dlifton@earthlink.net
To: GMack; shake_aeffects; jerry; jfetzer
CC: bmoore1242; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; doctorcinque
To all:
I fully agree with Gary Mack on this issue. Also: I appreciate how much time it takes (and that he has taken) to engage in this sort of debate, and write these long and detailed emails, especially when the "evidence" is often what this or that person claims "to see" in a photo.
In these emails, Gary has laid out the evidence, and I think its rock solid.
FWIW: I concluded decades agocirca 1973, when (while working as "researcher" on Executive Action) I first found the footage of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, at the Homicide and Robbery Bureauthat it was Oswald in the doorway. I shared that information, and the imagery, with Groden, who obviously pursued it further. Good for him!
So, FWIW: I do not agree at all with the arguments made by Cinque and Fetzer. I would characterize them as obscure, weak, and far-fetchedand very subjective.
So that's my position: I'm positive it was Lovelady in the doorway.
Moreover: If Oswald was in the doorway (which, I must emphasize, I don't believe at all, but if it were true. . ). . .others would have said he was there (and not weeks or months later, but immediately). Moreover, he certainly would have told his brother and his wife. But there's no such evidence in the record. He said no such thing to his brother or his wie; and, as to the others in the stairway area, FBI agents were questioning all these people, within a very short while. If Oswald was actually standing on the stairs, word of that would have spread like wildfire.
Think about it: What better evidence for Oswald to possessevidence easier to enunciate and promulgatethan the simple statement: "Of course I didn't shoot Kennedy! I was standing outside watching the parade!" etc
But Oswald never made any such statement, and besidesfor all the reasons enumerated by Gary, and so evident in the imageryit was (in fact) not Oswald on the stairs of the TSBD. It was Billy Lovelady.
FWIW (and taking a broader view): I think this is a good example of the role coincidence plays in this event, because, if I was a plotter (and I do believe there was a serious plot that day) who would ever expect that someone would be standing in the doorway area who looked so similar, in a photograph, to the patsy who was being framed? That is really one helluva coincidence, and carries with it an important lesson as to the role coincidence can (and sometimes does) play.
So that's my take on the situation.
DSL
GARY MACK, DAVID HEALY, AND JERRY DEALEY CHIP IN:
Gary Mack:
David,
I suggested to both Cinque and Fetzer, in a 1/30/2012 email, that they contact AP Images to obtain a copy of the photo from the camera original negative. An alternate source, I suggested, would be Robert Groden who had access to the original negative while employed by the HSCA as a consultant. Robert succeeded, where others on the committee photo panel failed, in making sufficiently clear blowups from the negative that made it obvious the man in the doorway was wearing the same shirt as the man in the other Dealey Plaza home movies and in the Homicide & Robbery Bureau office as filmed by WFAA-TV. Robert kept first generation copies of some of his work on the Altgens photo and he showed them to me some 30 years ago. There is no doubt whatsoever the man in the doorway is Billy Lovelady. I interviewed the man (and his wife) in 1979 and their coworker, Buell Frazier, says to this day that it was Billy Lovelady on the steps, not Oswald. The theory offered by Cinque and Fetzer was pounded into oblivion a long, long time ago.
Gary Mack
From: David Healy [mailto
hake_aeffects] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:14 PM
To: Jerry Dealey; 'James Fetzer'; Gary Mack
Cc: bmoore1242; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; dlifton; 'Dr. Ralph Cinque'
Subject: Re: Robert Groden Altgen's photo
for a reasonable review of this image, what is needed, is this: a 1200dpi digital scan of the photos original negative, PERIOD! Then pass that around... Come on....wake Gorden up!
DavidH.
From: Jerry Dealey
To: 'James Fetzer'; 'Gary Mack' <GaryM@jfk.org>
Cc: bmoore1242@rogers.com; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; shake_aeffects; dlifton; 'Dr. Ralph Cinque'
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:28 AM
Subject: Robert Groden Altgen's photo
Guys,
Robert Groden loaned me his enlargement of the Altgens Doorway, for 3 weeks. It is a photographic blow-up, on Kodak paper, and he says it has not been modified by computer in any way.
I scanned it at 1200, and added a Watermark (per Robert's request). Not sure it is any clearer than the Anthony Marsh scan, which was probably professionally scanned, instead of using my poor scanner.
But I said if I got him to give me one, I would provide it. He was hesitant, because his book is at press, and he spends a lot of time on the Oswald/Lovelady discussion. He originally also thought it was Oswald, but after studying the original negative and prints from it (which this is supposed to be), he agree it was Lovelady. He never believed in alteration, however.
Not that it will change anyone's mind, if they have a bias to "alteration" theories. But I said I would forward it.
Jerry Dealey
I EXPLAIN WHY IT IS EMBARRASSING TO HAVE GRODEN/LIFTON/MACK ON THE SAME SIDE:
James Fetzer
Mar 2 (4 days ago)
to Ralph, dlifton, gmack, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
Ralph,
It is profoundly embarrassing that eminences such as Robert Groden and David Lifton would ignore the relevant evidence and side with Gary Mack in a case of this magnitude. Groden has not even been able to bring himself to acknowledge that the Zapruder film has been faked, which in my opinion undermines his standing as an expert on any issue of photography and film. Lifton has done great work on so many aspects of the case that his incompetence in this instance is inexcusable.
Gary Mack, of course, is the keeper of the flame when it comes to the official account of the assassination of JFK and, in my opinion, cannot be taken at face value on any issue of importance. I am adding this post only because you have heard from Gary and now from Lifton and Groden, at least indirectly. I commend you and DK for your brilliant contributions to this issue, which provides a stunning indictment of the government for its complicity in the assassination and cover-up.
Are these people completely aware of the discoveries of DK in relation to altering images of Billy Lovelady in order to create false impressions that he looked more like the man in the doorway, even to the extent of shortening his left arm in some of these photos? It seems to me that, if Groden, Lifton and Mack persevere in their denial of photographic fakery--which extends to the use of a Lovelady imposter in the doorway area--then their de facto complicity in this matter is beyond any doubt.
Keep up your excellent work! I look forward to future publications on this together.
Warm regards,
Jim
GARY MACK REPLIES CLAIMING THAT HE KNOWS MORE THAN I AND I REBUT HIM:
Gary Mack
Mar 2 (4 days ago)
to me, Ralph, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
Yes, Jim, you should be embarrassed. I am not.
Groden, Lifton and I are in agreement on some issues, probably more than we realize, and this is one of them.
I work with history, not theory, and neither you nor Ralph have offered any evidence that has or will change history. Nor do you have knowledge of what you don't know…..and that is precisely why I will always be way, way ahead of you on your Lovelady theory.
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
Mar 2 (3 days ago)
to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Gary,
Your attempts to bamboozle the public are well-known and copiously documented. Consider, for example, the appendix to "Mary in the Street Revisited", http://jfkresearch.com/Moorman/, where David Lifton called you out for stage-managing Mary Moorman's attempts to show what she had done on 22 November 1963.
To suggest you and David are on the same team is as disingenuous as your efforts to undermine stunning new research that establishes--beyond a reasonable doubt, in my view, since no alternative explanation is reasonable--that Lee was in the doorway at the time of the assassination. But what else should we expect?
Jim
MACK RESPONDS WITH A GRATUITOUS ASSAULT ON MADELEINE DUNCAN BROWN:
Gary Mack
2:33 PM (17 hours ago)
to me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Au contraire, Jim, my personal research efforts since the infamous Roscoe White nonsense in 1990 have included helping keep the public from being bamboozled by bogus conspiracy tales.
Oswald in the doorway is one such theory that makes return visits now and then when newbies latch onto them without having done any real research, then ignoring the evidence that shows the story to be false. I watch for what they do with the information I pass along and note whether they follow it or not. That's what tells me if they are seriously interested in learning something new.
And you know what, Jim? It's a foolproof method that rarely fails. I used the same approach with known frauds like Madeleine Brown and others.
As for Mary Moorman, as I explained to David a long time ago, she and I have been good personal friends since 1981 when I explained how to get her pictures back from the Clerk of the House after the HSCA closed up shop. I've heard her tell her story many, many times. Sometimes she says it one way and other times she leaves out the part about stepping back onto the grass before taking her famous picture. We even joked about it on the phone the night before we filmed her in the Plaza!!
So I stood where the producer wanted me for the camera and she stood where all the untouched, non-faked, films and photos show her at the moment of the head shot. The recreation for the 2003 Discovery Channel program, Death in Dealey Plaza, is historically accurate. Why? Because no one, and that includes Sydney, haven't proven otherwise. You may have convinced yourselves, but so what? I know why you folks are wrong and why the pictures are correct.
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
2:45 PM (17 hours ago)
to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Gary,
I know that, as a matter of formality, you have to have the last word. So you have it! But everyone on this list knows how things stand and your role in preserving the Oswald myth.
Jim
Gary Mack
2:50 PM (17 hours ago)
to me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Just show me evidence, Jim, not opinion - evidence. I DO know the difference.
Gary Mack
RALPH TRIES TO STEER THE DISCUSSION BACK TO OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY:
Dr. Ralph Cinque
3:05 PM (16 hours ago)
to gmack, me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
Talking about pictures being correct, the Altgens photo correctly shows Oswald's shirt and t-shirt: the collars, the lapels, the loose fit, and the notched t-shirt. And it's highly significant that neither you, nor any other state shill, even tries to deny it. Instead, you just change the subject.
Clothing is very specific and personal. It comes in all forms, and it gets worn in different ways. The likenesses in clothing between Oswald and Doorman are too great to dismiss. Besides the structural features of the clothing being the same, the fact that both shirts are unbuttoned to the exact same point is highly significant. Oswald's shirt was very unbuttoned, and by necessity because the buttons were missing. But, Lovelady's buttons were not missing, and in no image of him from that day is his shirt as unbuttoned as we see on Oswald or Doorman. Take a look at my latest collage which shows the bottom part of the shirts of Oswald and Doorman. Notice how the level is exactly the same. Do you really think that by coincidence Lovelady was comported the exact same way that day?
And regarding past investigations, when did the Warren Commission or the HSCA ever address the issue of Doorman's clothing? His t-shirt being notched like Oswald's was ignored. His outer shirt being loose and disheveled like Oswald's was ignored. Where is the issue of the unbuttoning of the shirt addressed? When are the collars and lapels examined? They weren't. Those investigations were a joke. Heck, the HSCA didn't even react when Billy Lovelady suddenly and unexpectedly died right before he was to testify before them. You'd think they would have looked into it. But, they were probably relieved.
Look at the picture, Gary. You're seeing the same guy wearing the same shirt. And don't bother to deny it. It can't be denied. Ralph Cinque
James Fetzer
3:16 PM (16 hours ago)
to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
When our next article is out, I will let both you and the rest of the link know. Thanks.
MACK IMPLIES COWORKERS WHO DID NOT ID LEE THEN MUST BE LYING, WHICH I REBUT:
Gary Mack
3:27 PM (16 hours ago)
to Ralph, me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
It is true that investigators spent very little time on this issue. Why is that? Because they all found out very, very quickly that Oswald was not the man on the steps. So they worked on areas that could yield far more useful information rather than waste time on a disproven theory.
You see, Ralph, they came up with the same problem you face and still haven't answered: If Lovelady was that man, why did all those coworkers who knew Oswald or Lovelady or both lie to investigators about who was really there?
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
4:09 PM (15 hours ago)
to Ralph, gmack, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik
All,
And it is just begging the question to assume that these witnesses "lied". They may have not notice him at the back of the crowd; they might have had their testimony changed; they may have been intimidated into not telling what they knew. I think most rational agents, possessing information that would disprove the government's account of the assassination of the President of the United States, might pause before stepping forward. Craig Roberts and John Armstrong have a book about those who did not.
Jim
I REPLY TO HIS ATTACK ON MADELEINE, WHICH HE DISMISSES CLAIMING SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE:
James Fetzer
7:42 PM (12 hours ago)
to David, Gary, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
To besmirch a courageous woman like Madeleine Duncan Brown is completely despicable. What she has to say in TEXAS IN THE MORNING has been corroborated by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, Barr McClelland, BLOOD, MONEY & POWER, E. Howard Hunt's "Last Confessions", and the final 9th segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". When you start calling people phonys and frauds, you had better understand that the case against you is overwhelmingly stronger than any case against them. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine and interviewed her at Lancer. She was the real deal.
Gary Mack
8:22 PM (11 hours ago)
to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Real deal? Hardly. Real fraud....beginning in 1982 when she claimed JFK's friend, Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, was involved with LBJ in the assassination. I have her on video tape saying just that. You do know Rayburn died two years before the Kennedy assassination, don't you? Madeleine didn't, at least she didn't when she made that claim THIRTY years ago.....so she changed her story to make it more believable to the rubes.
And there is more, Jim, much more. And it's all just as bad if not worse. When I used the word fraud, I was being kind. As you'll learn in my future project. Remember this, Jim, you don't know as much about the subject as I do.
Gary Mack
I CHALLENGE GARY MACK TO A DEBATE ON THE ASSASSINATION, WHICH HE EVADES:
James Fetzer
8:54 PM (11 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Let's put that proposition to the test. Let's have a two-hour, public debate, divided into 15 minute segments. I will take the first, you the second, and so forth, where if either of us is unable to fill up our allotted time, it shifts to the other debater as bonus. We could do it at COPA or at Lancer. I will bring my laptop and you can bring whatever you like. I will present my case and you can attempt to rebut it, where I have the first and you the last word. OK? All we need is a screen and an LCD projector. And if an audience shows up, so much the better. Deal?
Dr. Ralph Cinque 8:56 PM (11 hours ago)
Regardless of what the truth is about Madeline, and I don't claim to know, it...
Gary Mack
9:16 PM (10 hours ago)
to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Why would I waste my time on someone who doesn't know the subject? No thanks.
Did you know the Murchison party started about 8pm? No wait, 11pm, no wait, it was about 1 in the morning, that's i!. Madeleine told me all three versions over time some twenty + years ago. Made me laugh and laugh and laugh. Didn't know about that, did you? That's why a debate is so pointless. There is so much you don't know. Same with Ralph. I'll put it out there when I'm good and ready, Jim.
Gary Mack
I OBSERVE THAT HE IS OFF-BASE AND SUBSTANTIATE MY POSITION:
James Fetzer
10:04 PM (9 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Let's see. How many books have you edited on JFK? How many national conferences have you chaired or co-chaired? How many research articles have you published? How many interviews (not puff pieces)? We all knew that you would not dare to accept my challenge, Gary Mack. We all knew. No one had any doubt. There was no way you would accept. None.
James Fetzer
10:52 PM (9 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Let me make it very simple for you, Gary. If what you claim about yourself were true, even remotely, you would be EAGER to demonstrate your superior knowledge. You are NOT, for the obvious reason that, as usual, you are faking it. Isn't your background in marketing and advertising? I taught courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. Why are you such a phony? I would wipe the floor with you.
It is ironic I was doing an interview with a witness who was corroborating Madeleine's report about the social event at the home of Clint Murchison, Sr., when your post came up. And just now, in poking around about you, I came across this at Wim's web site, which I think pretty much sums up how most of us feel about you, just for the record:
Email received 28 june 2007:
I also happen to believe that Gary Mack is an apologist for the Lone Gunman Theory/Warren Commission Report. Here is the latest example I've discovered. Madeleine Duncan Brown has appeared in several interviews describing a party which occurred the night before the JFK assassination at which several powerful people were in attendance. The list includes LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, and many of Johnson's rich, Texas oil buddies.
Gary Mack is on record for doing his utmost to pick her story apart. For example, he claims that Hoover never had a black chauffeur - thereby proving that Brown's testimony was wrong. In fact, what Brown said was - and anybody can view it on Youtube in the latest "Men Who Killed Kennedy (The Guilty Men, segment 3) - was that "a" black chauffeur was present. Well, the above-mentioned TV show interviews one May Newman who corroborates that it was in fact oil tycoon Clint Murchison who had the black chauffeur and that it was he, the black chauffeur, who drove Hoover around that evening. Mack could have learned this in a second had he simply watched the program and not been drawn to distraction by picking at straws.
Here's what I think about Gary Mack. I remember him being featured extensively in the original Men Who Killed Kennedy back in 1988, and he appeared to be a JFK researcher who seemed to be sincerely interested in uncovering the obvious conspiracy of JFK's murder. Since then, however, he has done a complete about-face, and become a shill for the Warren Commission Report and all of its proponents. I wonder if his position as Curator of the 6th Floor Museum has only served to corrupt his honesty and objectivity. After all, he does spend most of his days rubbing shoulders with the very same power base which was responsible for JFK's death in the first place. He wouldn't want to lose that cushy, well-paying job by rocking the boat, now would he?
Frank
SITUATION SUMMARY:
As it happened, I was having a serendipitous conversation with Connie Kritzberg, who was a reporter for The Dallas Times Herald and interviewed Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Malcolm Perry, M.D., and Kemp Clark, M.D., the afternoon of the assassination. She and I were discussing her friend, Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom she co-authored a book on the assassination, DALLAS DID IT!, and the social event at the home of Clint Murchison, Sr., at the very time Gary Mack was attacking Madeleine's credibility. Our hour-long conversation will be broadcast on "The Real Deal", revereradio.net, this Friday from 5-7 PM/CT, the second hour.
Gary Mack has asserted several times now that he possesses knowledge that is superior to mine about the JFK assassination. I have therefore challenged him to a two-hour, public debate, divided into 15 minute segments. I will take the first, he the second, and so forth, where if either of us is unable to fill up our allotted time, it shifts to the other debater as bonus. We could do it at COPA or at Lancer. I will bring my laptop and he can bring whatever he likes. I will present my case and he can attempt to rebut it, where I have the first and he the last word. All we need is a screen and an LCD projector. If an audience shows up, so much the better.
As I have made very clear during the course of this exchange, I regard Gary Mack as an apologist for the "official account" of the assassination. He is a very "big cheese" as the curator for The 6th Floor Museum, but I view him as a phony and a fraud who spends his time bamboozling the public about the who, the how, and the why of the death of our 35th president. He claims to possess superior knowledge. Let him therefore demonstrate it. Why should he duck and run from a public debate, especially on the occasion of the 50th observance of the death of JFK? Let's duke it out and see which of us is right. It's time for him to put up or shut up!
:mistress:
