TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[James H. Fetzer]

You are almost certainly right--that my expectations of others are

"way too high". My impression from your previous post was that

you thought it was pointless to post here, when I thought it was

--or ought to be--an appropriate place for considered criticism.


We are willing to be proven wrong, but none of the posts that

have yet appeared come to grips with the logic or the evidence

that we have presented here. Lots of assertions, denials, and

ad hominems, but no one has come to grips with the argument.


Researchers in the past focused on their faces. What we have

done is focus on their shirts, which transforms the situation.

There is nothing to "get away with". I am looking for some

rational response to the argument, which is the following:


Ignore their (ambiguous) faces and just focus on the shirts:

(1) We PROVE that Doorway Man was wearing Oswald's shirt;

(2) We PROVE that Doorway Man was not wearing Lovelady's,

which was either checkered or vertically striped, where

( a ) He was not wearing Lovelady's checkered shirt;

( b ) He was not wearing Lovelady's striped shirt;

Therefore,

(3) Unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing,

the man in the doorway was Oswald. It's that simple.


What we seem to have here is alternative discussions

that do not defeat the force of the physical evidence. If

you want to defeat our argument, then you have to defeat

either (1) or (2), ( a ) or ( b ), which together jointly imply

(3) Unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing, the

man in the doorway was Oswald. And no one contends,

(4) Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing. Q.E.D.


There is nothing personal about this. But an argument

can only be defeated by defeating its premises or its

reasoning. That's all I am looking for, my friend. It's

a matter of logic and evidence, which is being ignored.


And no one is obligated to pursue any specific line of

argument. Because this is a novel line of approach,

I thought there would be a rational response. But I

have seen no signs of intelligent life here at the DPF.

Monk,

The evidence and proof are laid out so painstakingly and so thoroughly that I am dumbfounded by these remarks. If you want to challenge our work, then explain what premises we have wrong or where our reasoning is faulty. Do that or pass by in silence. This work is "rock solid" or I would not have put my name on it. Ralph noticed that what mattered was not the faces but the shirts! He was absolutely determined to work this out and we have been dealing with it for months. If you can show where we have gone wrong, do that. Persumably, there is no better place to subject research on the assassination of JFK than on a JFK assassination research forum. You remarks here, I regret to say, are absurd.

Jim

Good Lord!!!

I agree that this is the place to submit new work for REVIEW. It is not the place to EXPECT a genuflection at the foot of the altar! I said as much in a KIND way. I have no interest in pursuing yet another angle of conspiracy proof. That is my prerogative. I have enough proof. If you want to pursue any subject of your choosing that is your prerogative and I have no objection to that--nor should it matter to you even if I did so object...unless you know me to be a man who will tell you the truth as I see it even if you don't like it. However, you are grossly out of line if you are unwilling to accept the criticism of other qualified students of the assassination without biting their head's off.

They are not buying it. Let it go. I don't mean "let the project go" I mean let it go that they are not buying it! Who cares? Obviously you and Cinque are absolutely convinced that you have it all figured out. So, why do you need anyone else's blessing? Moreover, I'm not invested in conducting ANY further research into this particular aspect of the assassination. That is my prerogative. My only intent in commenting at all was to suggest that your mastery of the art of persuasion is sorely lacking. Your expectations regarding the reception you believed you would enjoy from others is unrealistic. Are you guys right about your belief? I don't know, but I read all 20 pages and looked at hundreds of photographs (that I have already studied ad nauseum over a decade ago) placed in collages that FAILED to persuade. Are you guys right? I do not know. I don't even care. However, I do know that your expectations of others is way too high.

The absurdity of this thread does not reside in my earlier post, Jim. Your interpretation of that post, however, is an extension of it.

I will not challenge your premises for lack of interest, but, I will not be told to pass by silently if I don't. How little you know me, Jim, after all these years. That you fancy yourself capable of dictating what I respond to and what I pass silently by is the absurdity of absurdities.

Do you really think you can get away with speaking to me like that?

I will not say this twice.