TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert,

I don't think anyone has IGNORED your points. They have been REFUTED by Ralph several times. That
you refuse to treat them as REFUTATIONS does not mean that they are NOT refutations. I have laid all
this out rather explicitly. You major complaint seems to be that Lee's shirt is supposed to have become
stretched during his altercation, which seems most unlikely to me. Go back to the photo of Lee when he
was in handcuffs. (I'll see if I can find the post, which was merged into this thread.) But it does not look
at all to me as though it were a rounded shirt collar that had only been stretched during a brief struggle.

Yet I have a rather larger question for you, which is this. As I have explained, Robin Unger--who is not on
my side, so far as I can tell--obtained an expensive copy of the Altgens, which was unclear in the area of
the doorway. As I have explained, that creates the presumption that it was altered. We have discovered
that at least two images were obfuscated--of A and B--which raises the question of why an obscure figure
in the crowd was removed from this photograph of the assassination. As Bernice has shown, moreover,
those images are not in the photographs as they appeared in newspapers, so the photo was altered first.

Now my question for you, Albert, is this: They had to have had a powerful motive for messing with some
obscure figure in the crowd in a photo that was taken during the assassination of JFK. It is a peripheral
figure, far removed from the limousine and JFK's reaction to the shot to his throat. The only reason I can
imagine for having done that is because SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE--
where the only person that could have been was Lee Oswald. I have explained what Ralph and I believe
took place. My question is, CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY OTHER REASON FOR MESSING WITH THE ALTGENS?

That seems to me to be the preliminary burden of proof you have to bear before getting into the details.
For reasons I do not completely understand, I seem to infuriate you and some of your associates here
for even posting! When I read the post to which you refer, I was astonished at the venom and vitriol
you express. Fascinating! Now if there are good reasons to support that nasty stuff, maybe I deserve
it. But either I deserve it or you simply haven't understood the logic of our argument. Which is why I
have come to respond to Monk's post in an effort to clarify it and defuse some of that extreme hostility.

Jim

Dr Fetzer, you can't ignore the points I made in my previous post and still pretend credibility.

Please answer the abstract arguments I made in post #127 honestly and directly, point for point, or concede.