03-02-2012, 05:21 PM
Don,
Your posts are like an oasis in the desert by displaying rationality in the midst of denials without refutations. I want to make just a few points of clarification, however, about the evidence and why some it is appears to be reliable. If the government had wanted to censor Will Fritz' notes, presumably it could have done so. That they include the notes about Lee being "out with Bill Shelley in front" is of enormous importance. That report is in the record, even though it works against the official story. For that reason, it has enormous credibility and appears to be consistent with other remarks attributed to Lee, including that a backyard photo had his face pasted on someone else's body.
We also have the blatant obfuscation of the Altgens photograph, which involved the obfuscation of the face and the shirt of an obscure figure in the crowd. What conceivable reason would there have been to take such an action if there had not been someone there who was not supposed to be there? and who else could that person possibly be if not Lee Oswald? We know the photo has been altered, where the only reasonable explanation is that it had to be done to conceal the presence of the patsy. In this case, they appear to have pasted Lovelady's face over Lee's body, which was the reverse of the backyard photo technique. No other explanation can account for all of the evidence.
One more point. Yes, there is no way to know DEFINITIVELY where these people were. Empirical studies are invariably open to revision based upon new evidence. But we have photographic and testimonial evidence to work with, which has been the foundation for our analysis. We are dealing with probabilities and likelihoods, where our analysis has demonstrated that it is far more likely that the man in the doorway was Lee Oswald than that it was Lovelady. The shirt, the vee, the body, the build, the obfuscation, the timeline, more, all not only establish that Oswald COULD HAVE BEEN DOORWAY MAN but the weight of the evidence supports the inference that LEE WAS THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY.
Jim
Your posts are like an oasis in the desert by displaying rationality in the midst of denials without refutations. I want to make just a few points of clarification, however, about the evidence and why some it is appears to be reliable. If the government had wanted to censor Will Fritz' notes, presumably it could have done so. That they include the notes about Lee being "out with Bill Shelley in front" is of enormous importance. That report is in the record, even though it works against the official story. For that reason, it has enormous credibility and appears to be consistent with other remarks attributed to Lee, including that a backyard photo had his face pasted on someone else's body.
We also have the blatant obfuscation of the Altgens photograph, which involved the obfuscation of the face and the shirt of an obscure figure in the crowd. What conceivable reason would there have been to take such an action if there had not been someone there who was not supposed to be there? and who else could that person possibly be if not Lee Oswald? We know the photo has been altered, where the only reasonable explanation is that it had to be done to conceal the presence of the patsy. In this case, they appear to have pasted Lovelady's face over Lee's body, which was the reverse of the backyard photo technique. No other explanation can account for all of the evidence.
One more point. Yes, there is no way to know DEFINITIVELY where these people were. Empirical studies are invariably open to revision based upon new evidence. But we have photographic and testimonial evidence to work with, which has been the foundation for our analysis. We are dealing with probabilities and likelihoods, where our analysis has demonstrated that it is far more likely that the man in the doorway was Lee Oswald than that it was Lovelady. The shirt, the vee, the body, the build, the obfuscation, the timeline, more, all not only establish that Oswald COULD HAVE BEEN DOORWAY MAN but the weight of the evidence supports the inference that LEE WAS THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY.
Jim
Don Jeffries Wrote:Let's follow Thoreau's advice to "simplify, simplify" here.
We know that those tasked to investigate the assassination of JFK did not have any intention of doing so, and as a result left countless questions unanswered. We have no real way of knowing what Oswald said to Fritz or anyone else. Judging by his few public pronouncements, he was primarily concerned with obtaining a lawyer and appeared to be surprised he was accusing of being the assassin.
On the Ed Forum, David Lifton did a great job of demonstrating how Billy Lovelady lied, although he then inexplicably still concluded he was the figure in the doorway. Why would Lovelady lie about anything to the authorities? It was quite convenient for the authorities to have an employee in the TSBD who looked so much like LHO, wasn't it? Whatever else you think about the Altgens photo, you can't deny that those who were busy covering up the truth and manipulating the "evidence" against Oswald, had a vested interest in that figure in the doorway not being Oswald.
There is no reason to trust anything that Oswald is officially claimed to have said in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Given the nature of the non-investigation being conducted, and the sense of self-preservation someone like Lovelady would have felt in such a situation, there is no reason to trust anything he, or the other witnesses in the doorway, said regarding just who was there at the time. There is no way of definitively knowing where he or Oswald actually was at the time of the shooting.
Imho, Fetzer and Cinque's certainty that the figure IS Oswald is just as valid as the prevailing view here that the figure definitely IS Lovelady. Lies from Lovelady, disappearing pockets, the coincidence of such a convenient LHO "double" working with him- so many reasons exist to question the entire official story about the Altgens photo.
I think we all need to remain skeptical about every aspect of this case.