28-01-2012, 10:50 AM
Look, this has not really been an important issue with me until recently. I'm simply stunned at the way so many good people are figuratively shrieking "it IS Lovelady" in the doorway. It has certainly not been proven to be Lovelady. There is still a great deal of doubt, and I, for one, still strongly suspect the figure is Oswald.
Harold Weisberg analyzed this thoroughly over 40 years ago. His arguments still make sense to me. When people first noticed a figure in the Altgens photo that looked quite a bit like Oswald, wearing a shirt similarly distinctive in nature, the government knew it had a problem. Enter Billy Lovelady, looking reasonably like LHO from a distance. They weren't going to admit it was Oswald in the doorway, because the photo, IF the figure was Oswald, obviously proved he was not the shooter. No more arguments about the SBT or anything else. So...it was crucial for the figure to be someone else.
Why did Lovelady tell the FBI he wore a short sleeved shirt with broad stripes on it the day of the assassination? Weisberg thought that kind of thing was important, and so do I. CTers have given ground on way too many of these tangential issues, and it makes no sense. Steven Witt wasn't the Umbrella Man. There were many mysterious deaths of witnesses. There was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. The backyard photos are obvious fakes. There is more than reasonable doubt about what kind of rifle was found on the sixth floor, or whether there was a hole in the windshield. It is senseless to continue giving ground on these kinds of issues.
Jim Fetzer is ofen his own worst enemy, and certainly can turn others off with his demanding, rigid certainty in his own beliefs. However, from what I've seen on this thread, he has been personally attacked more than any counter evidence has been produced by his critics. Seamus Coogan again displays his courteous attitude by speaking of Fetzer in diapers, and then demands he be banned from this forum. What kind of debating tactic is that? If you ignore Jim Fetzer's bluster and impatience, he posts a great deal of solid data. Whatever you think if Ralph Cinque's work, the identity of the figure in the doorway remains an open question, imho. And to those of you who are lambasting Fetzer, please read some of your own posts.
Harold Weisberg analyzed this thoroughly over 40 years ago. His arguments still make sense to me. When people first noticed a figure in the Altgens photo that looked quite a bit like Oswald, wearing a shirt similarly distinctive in nature, the government knew it had a problem. Enter Billy Lovelady, looking reasonably like LHO from a distance. They weren't going to admit it was Oswald in the doorway, because the photo, IF the figure was Oswald, obviously proved he was not the shooter. No more arguments about the SBT or anything else. So...it was crucial for the figure to be someone else.
Why did Lovelady tell the FBI he wore a short sleeved shirt with broad stripes on it the day of the assassination? Weisberg thought that kind of thing was important, and so do I. CTers have given ground on way too many of these tangential issues, and it makes no sense. Steven Witt wasn't the Umbrella Man. There were many mysterious deaths of witnesses. There was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. The backyard photos are obvious fakes. There is more than reasonable doubt about what kind of rifle was found on the sixth floor, or whether there was a hole in the windshield. It is senseless to continue giving ground on these kinds of issues.
Jim Fetzer is ofen his own worst enemy, and certainly can turn others off with his demanding, rigid certainty in his own beliefs. However, from what I've seen on this thread, he has been personally attacked more than any counter evidence has been produced by his critics. Seamus Coogan again displays his courteous attitude by speaking of Fetzer in diapers, and then demands he be banned from this forum. What kind of debating tactic is that? If you ignore Jim Fetzer's bluster and impatience, he posts a great deal of solid data. Whatever you think if Ralph Cinque's work, the identity of the figure in the doorway remains an open question, imho. And to those of you who are lambasting Fetzer, please read some of your own posts.