TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Greg Burnham]

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.

No, he wasn't exposed a long time ago. There is more to our counter-strike operation than meets the eye, Vasilios. Patience, my friend.

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert, take a look at this official letter from the FBI to the Warren Commission stating that Lovelady claimed to have worn the red and white striped shirt. The exact wording is: "He stated he was wearing a vertical red and white striped shirt and blue jeans," which has been underlined at the end of the second paragraph. This is an official FBI report that was sent back to FBI Headquarters. Now if you were the person involved, would you go to the FBI and present yourself in a shirt that was not the shirt you had worn at the time of the assassination of the President of the United States? And would you have stayed inside when the motorcade passed by or stepped out to watch it?



And notice that in the pictures taken on 29 February 1964 (below), they had him pose with his shirt unbuttoned--like Doorman. But, why would they do that if he was wearing a different shirt? What would be the point of it? Obviously, they thought at the time that he was wearing the shirt from 22 November 1963. And notice how differently his unbuttoned shirt sprawls open compared to Doorman's. It's a totally different look, and that's because every shirt is different and behaves differently. It is obviously not the same presentation that we saw on Doorman. Notice also that the shirt is short-sleeved, whereas Doorman's shirt was long-sleeved. So they had to do something to get him out of that shirt.



I sense that you seem to be confused. There is no "aspect ratio" problem, and the fact that someone has made a claim does not make it true. You seem to believe anything those who are on the other side as though it were true, when you have no idea. Aspect ratio only affects the size of things. It's not going to create the kind of contrasts that we see between the FBI Lovelady and Gorilla Man. That's impossible. It's speculation that aspect ratio was a factor at all, but it cannot account for the differences that are seen.

Plus Shelley and Lovelady walked down to the railroad tracks after the shooting and were not even there when Oswald came out. He cannot have been talking about later, which we have explained in our articles. I am sorry, but you are really not cut out for this. The reason they had to resort to the man in the checkered shirt is that Billy Lovelady WAS wearing the red-and-white vertically striped shirt that day, which was such an obvious refutation of the government's position that they had to do all they could to undermine it.

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.

[Greg Burnham]

I submit that the questions asked in post #495 -- https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post62113: -- as poorly constructed as they are, can not possibly have been authored by my formerly brilliant friend, James Fetzer, Ph.D. because he is much too bright to make such elementary errors in reasoning.

I think I get it now: Jim is being held hostage in some fashion and he has finally found a way to communicate that to us. What can we do to help free you from your captors, Jim?

DEFCON 1

[Dawn Meredith]

That this is the longest threat at DPF is tragic.

I find I am coming here less and less. I see that is the case with others too.

Please for the love of our joint causes stop all the name calling and unfunny Christmas card jokes.

Beyond disgusted.

Sadly,

Dawn

[Greg Burnham]

That this is the longest threat (sp) at DPF is tragic.

I find I am coming here less and less. I see that is the case with others too.

Please for the love of our joint causes stop all the name calling and unfunny Christmas card jokes.

Beyond disgusted.

Sadly,

Dawn

Fetzer has the longest thread record both here and at the EF. Fetzer's threads both here and at the EF have spawned the highest
level of ad hominem attacks, as well. Fetzer was reigned in on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum on several occasions by
Rich and me due to overly argumentative rhetorical style.

Of course, the shit he's done here would NOT have been allowed. Not on my watch. And Rich would have enforced it.

[Your typo "threat" instead of "thread" is subconsciously apropos]

[James H. Fetzer]

[quote=James H. Fetzer]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.



"Unknown"! Surely you jest. The face I am talking about is circled above in
orange. Is it missing or not? I am asking a simple question: Is it missing?

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

NO


[URL="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/oswald-full-size/"]
[/URL]Well then, WHERE IS HIS SHOULDER?

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

NO

But the anomalous shoulder is at once missing and overlapped by the man with the black tie, who is ostensibly standing behind him. I once thought that he had a towel draped over his shoulder. But it is the Black Tie Man who is behind him BUT ALSO IN FRONT OF HIM AT THE SAME TIME. Just for the record, you can't see that?




Apparently, Gregory Burnham is ignorant of human anatomy, because there can be no serious doubt that, for anyone with a clavicle, this position is anatomically impossible, where, in my opinion, none of those who have disputed our discoveries has ever actually succeeded in showing we have anything wrong--certainly not Burnham:



What could be a more stunning proof of the alteration of Altgens6 than that the most important figure is standing in a position that would be anatomically impossible unless he were missing one of his skeleton's most important bones? Yet Gregory Burnham is here with a straight face telling us that he cannot tell if the shoulder is missing.

(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.

So you think it is reasonable for a black man to be looking straight across the doorway when the motorcade is passing by than to be looking at Jack and Jackie like the others who are in that vicinity with him? That's really quite implausible. I will check with Ralph as to whether your conjecture about a lower step was even possible.

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.

Why do you say that? If this is not in response to the question, "Where were you during the shooting?", Will Fritz must have not asked the most important question he could ask. Given your experience with law enforcement, is that a reasonable assumption? Why are you being so very evasive about such an obvious question and answer?

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.

Why are you playing games? We have the photographs the FBI took at the time and the formal report that they submitted to FBI Headquarters. It clearly states that he said the shirt he was wearing--which the photographed--was the same shirt he had been wearing on 22 November 1963. Is that something that you do not understand?




(7) Billy showed the FBI the shirt he had been wearing: 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.

Well, he told the FBI on 29 February 1964 that he had been wearing a red-and-white vertically striped shirt and blue jeans on the day of the assassination. He may well have been pressured to change his testimony later on, but at the time--on this occasion--he told the FBI he was wearing a red-and-white vertically striped shirt as reported.

(8) It was a red-and-white, vertically striped shirt: 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.



Since these are the photographs taken by the FBI--where the one on the left appears to have been Oswaldified (by imposing features of Oswald), just as Doorman appears to have been Loveladyfied (by imposing features of Lovelady), there really can't be any doubt about the shirt, can there? I don't understand all of these evasions.

(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.

I am asking whether the shirt shown in these FBI photographs of Billy Lovelady taken on 2 March 1964 is the same shirt on Doorman in the photographs above. This is not a trick question, but you are being very evasive when I am asking a very simple question. Is this shirt the same as the shirt seen on Doorman in the Altgens6?

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.

That's silly. They would be on my side. You are the embarrassment, not I. Your evasions about even these simple questions demonstrates (conclusively, in my mind) that you are not an honest researcher and that you will go to any lengths (including lying) to evade acknowledging you are wrong and that we are right even about basics.

[James H. Fetzer]

Among the most common practices of those who cannot cope with arguments on the basis of logic and evidence is that they resort to ad hominems and attack the person rather than his position, which you can find this Gregory Burnham guy doing repeatedly in this thread. He has threatened me before (about his lurking in the long grass) and now he is boasting about "our counter-strike operation", which certainly has the aura of violence or of threats of violence about it. I cannot believe that the members of this forum tolerate this kind of rubbish from him or from Charles. And Don Jeffries is one of the most reasonable and decent human beings I have encountered in JFK research. It is a disgrace and further confirmation of their corrupt character that mediocrities like Burnham and Drago belittle him, which is quite disgusting.

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.

No, he wasn't exposed a long time ago. There is more to our counter-strike operation than meets the eye, Vasilios. Patience, my friend.

[Greg Burnham]

Say goodbye, Jim. Enough is enough.

[David Josephs]

{deleted}

[David Josephs]

Among the most common practices of those who cannot cope with arguments on the basis of logic and evidence is that they resort to ad hominems and attack the person rather than his position

pot meet kettle....