TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Charles Drago]

A furor -- and perhaps a fuhrer -- in the primate house.

Now you monkeys quiet down and stop touching yourselves.

This gets better and better. Now some poor sap who happened to have been wearing a shirt that resembled the one worn by Lovelady was shanghaied in Dealey Plaza ...

"They" used him to impersonate Lovelady, even though "he looked nothing like him."

Make room on the short bus for "Fetzer."

[James H. Fetzer]

Just for the record, Charles, it is your contention that these are one and the same person?

A furor -- and perhaps a fuhrer -- in the primate house.

Now you monkeys quiet down and stop touching yourselves.

This gets better and better. Now some poor sap who happened to have been wearing a shirt that resembled the one worn by Lovelady was shanghaied in Dealey Plaza ...

"They" used him to impersonate Lovelady, even though "he looked nothing like him."

Make room on the short bus for "Fetzer."

[Charles Drago]

Again, Fetzer is not chasing windmills, indeed he is attempting to slay them! That he is dueling with a contrived adversary, in the form of "Albert(s) Doyle" is either pathological or operational.

I can't decide which one I prefer. Either way it is disruptive.

Get the B-52's in the air, scramble the fighters, and advise the White House...

Most likely operational -- and I take no joy in approaching that conclusion.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

was i wrong after all when i said that treating with ignorance and contempt a disinfo agent is preferable than countless answers
that have reach page 50?

[Greg Burnham]

So I guess you think no one will notice that you have not responded to my questions from post #472? What's wrong with you? They are simple questions:

Ok, I'll play along.

Given this Groden copy, please affirm or deny the following questions:

(1) the face of a man in the Altgens6 has been obfuscated: YES or NO

Unknown. I cannot tell. Perhaps? Yes. But, perhaps no, just as well. It is entirely inconclusive in my view. Therefore, I will not commit to a Yes or No answer. Jim, if I answered "yes or no" either one
would be dishonest! Unless what you are calling "the obfuscated face" is what I already identified as the ELBOW pointing directly at the camera? If that is the case, then I change
my answer to NO.

(2) the shoulder of Doorman is missing, completely gone: YES or NO

NO

(3) the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him: YES or NO

NO

(4) the profile of a black man appears around mid-torso: YES or NO

YES. The man appears to be on a lower step than Doorman.

Based upon your knowledge of the Fritz notes from his interrogation:

(5) Lee told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front": YES or NO

YES. However, the notes are not well taken--the timeline is not established. He could mean he "was" out or he "went" out.

Based upon your knowledge of the FBI document and photographs:

(6) Billy told the FBI he was wearing a different shirt: YES or NO

Not prior to his showing up at their request. However, the shirt he wore when he met them was, according to him, different than what he wore 11/22/1963.
He said that he didn't know they wanted him to wear the same shirt--or something to that effect. I have no way of knowing if that is true or false.

(7) Billy showed the FBI the shirt he had been wearing: YES or NO

I don't know. If we believe him, he apparently wore a different shirt for the FBI than what he wore 11/22/1963.

(8) It was a red-and-white, vertically striped shirt: YES or NO

Nice trick question counselor. I've been an expert witness so that won't work with me. I do not know if the shirt he showed the FBI was or was not the same
shirt he wore on 11/22/1963. He claims that it was NOT. Therefore, if we believe him, the red-and-white, vertically striped shirt that he showed the FBI was
NOT the shirt he wore on 11/22/1963.

(9) It is not the shirt that Doorman is wearing: YES or NO

I do not know. The image is too obscure for me to be sure. However, I do not think that striped shirt is the same shirt. But, then again, neither did Billy Lovelady
think it was the same shirt.

You aren't leaving a lot of latitude for choice about your conduct here. Either you are unwilling to admit you are wrong or you are completely incompetent.

I am glad that Jack and Rich are not alive to see what's happening to you.

Again, Fetzer is not chasing windmills, indeed he is attempting to slay them! That he is dueling with a contrived adversary, in the form of "Albert(s) Doyle" is either pathological or operational.

I can't decide which one I prefer. Either way it is disruptive.

Get the B-52's in the air, scramble the fighters, and advise the White House...

[Charles Drago]

I am glad that Jack and Rich are not alive to see what's happening to you.

Very moving, Greg.

If "Fetzer" had a heart, it now would be broken.

[Charles Drago]

was i wrong after all when i said that treating with ignorance and contempt a disinfo agent is preferable than countless answers
that have reach page 50?

I really don't know, Vasilios.

If we are fighting and exposing a deep sleeper agent who has been activated over the past year or so, then these 50-plus ugly pages can be said to be warranted.

If we are dealing with a poor soul suffering from mental illness, then perhaps we are doing more harm to him than good; to date no one close to the historic Fetzer has stepped forward to help him.

But whether we're dealing with "Fetzer" or Fetzer ultimately is beside the point; the entity using that name is putting our work at grave risk, and he/they must be exposed.

The process ain't pretty. But it's necessary.

[Greg Burnham]

was i wrong after all when i said that treating with ignorance and contempt a disinfo agent is preferable than countless answers
that have reach page 50?

I really don't know, Vasilios.

If we are fighting and exposing a deep sleeper agent who has been activated over the past year or so, then these 50-plus ugly pages can be said to be warranted.

If we are dealing with a poor soul suffering from mental illness, then perhaps we are doing more harm to him than good; to date no one close to the historic Fetzer has stepped forward to help him.

Charles, I have tried to help him. Repeatedly, for many, many months before I finally realized he is unreachable by design or by virtue of infirmity. However, the part of his mind that still works
is sufficient to do harm to us all. That is when I abandoned the search and rescue mission. It's like monitoring a rogue nuclear sub commander...there comes a point.

But whether we're dealing with "Fetzer" or Fetzer ultimately is beside the point; the entity using that name is putting our work at grave risk, and he/they must be exposed.

The process ain't pretty. But it's necessary.

[Albert Doyle]

Dr Fetzer you have already been told the gorilla Lovelady is due to aspect ratio. You have also been told that Fritz's shorthand contracted his recording to "Out" (meaning Oswald went out of the building) "With Bill Shelley in front" (meaning Bill Shelley was out front when Oswald went there). You also ignore your previous claim that Oswald's missing buttons were evident in the doorway shot. Credible research showed that Oswald's buttons were almost certainly torn-off during his fight with the police in the Texas Theater. Lovelady also had a round-neck T-shirt as the skin patches show. You categorically ignore all these fatal gaffes and return with yet another bombastic load of overload of information rubbish making the same already-refuted arguments.


What this comes down to is what you ignore. Like I said, have your test photographer come in here and discuss the skin patches with me.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

But Charles we have exposed him, long time ago. If someone is wrong but screams loudly enough he 'll get something out of nothing
even if he is wrong. It is better if everybody is talking negative about someone than never talking about him, because then he does not exist.
He becomes oblivious. They prefer negative critism than being oblivious. I think by continuing this exchange only gives the excuse to people like Don Jeffries to smear the forum. By the way who he is
and waht is his claim to fame. I have never heard anyone by that name having contributed anything of value to the JFK research.