TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Albert Doyle]

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.

I think most sane people can see a dishonest person trying to weasel around what he knows he can't answer. Anyone can see you are just making an excuse because you know you can't answer them. Ralph has been destroyed with his credulous attempts to serve his scatterbrained "refutations". 12 year olds could do better than your grand "doctor". You're simply dishonest Dr Fetzer, and anyone could see that the shortest route for you to take would be to answer my points directly since you claim they were so easily refuted. You get way too much latitude because cheap input like yours is usually rejected with ridicule. The reality here is neither you nor Ralph could directly answer the points in post #127. The reason you're so flagrantly dodging is because we both know you can't answer them.

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.

In post 94148 on page 15 of the "New Observations Prove Oswald Was Doorway Man" thread on Lancer there's a blurry film frame of Oswald taken from behind in the police station. In this frame Oswald's T-Shirt appears to be badly ripped in the back. Since I assume Lee Harvey Oswald did not wear this damaged T-Shirt to work that morning, that the tear happened during the struggle. You are just being childishly defiant Dr Fetzer and denying the obvious in order to make your bogus theories work. As the film frame shows, the T-Shirt damage obviously occurred during the scuffle with the cops in the Texas Theater. The "shirt-tugging" foolishness you enter is obviously just you and your crazy "Dr" friend making it up on the spot. You practice the investigative standard and methodology of silly children. As anyone with a speck of common sense can see you need to deny the obvious damage incurred during the violent struggle with 4 police officers at the theater because you know the damage that happened there destroys your quack Jerry-built theory.

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.

No. Many have proven that the mysterious "obfuscation" is just a product of your imaginations. The important thing Robin noted was that the photo is over-contrasted. This was shown to be equally distributed in other places in Altgens. You are simply offering arguments that are way behind the credible established level of fact here and are trying to get away with regressive, deficient offerings in order to evade answering to it.

I haven't seen what you allege Bernice showed, but if it's anything like your other vaporous fantasies I think we already know the answer. I've seen Ralph's claims of "obfuscation" in the doorway. They are laughable and are simply explained by the over-contrast and shade coming off the lintel. Your claims are ridiculous and easily refuted.

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?

As everyone else has pointed-out, you are jumping ahead with the public assumption there was alteration and blacking-out concealment in the doorway. You haven't come anywhere near proving that and are just offering your fantasy analysis as fact. What you are doing is ignoring every other cogent answer which explains this in more believable terms in order to resubmit your same unproven assertions with the grinding admonishment that "this has already been refuted". I think Gregg and Charles' special word is appropriate here. Your problem is you refuse to admit that Altgens hasn't been altered and the shot simply is Lovelady standing in the doorway as every other witness and piece of coherent evidence indicates. You seem to be irrationally ignoring that all your alleged forgeries have been adequately explained by simple other things innocently occurring in the picture.

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.

Here's where the Fetzer balls are whipped-out in pure Fetzerian fashion. Having entered a full offering of grossly-unproven and visibly-uncredible claims that have been shot to swiss cheese by credible opponents Dr Fetzer then asks us to answer to his absurd demands that we live up to his imposed "burden of proof". Once again enforcing a backwards standard of evidentiary scrutiny with the forgery claims taken as fact first and us bearing the burden of disproving them. If I didn't know you were serious I would think that this was a joke. Your clownish pseudo-analysis of my response is just the added taunting you specialize in to distract serious participants from the fact you haven't answered the necessary basic points. Your submission that I haven't understood your logic is something that shouldn't be tolerated in any gentlemanly forum because it violates not the rules of manners, but the fundamental rules of truth, honor, and, yes, even sanity you seem to have no self-protecting regard over. Your input is the plain path of any charlatan who can't reasonably defend the information he offers. If you can't see that then it only adds to your flaws. Flaws that no forum that seeks to maintain a credible standard should be asked to endure for too long.


As the Lancer image shows Oswald had his T-Shirt ripped in the back by the scuffle. Since this establishes that the damage to both the shirt and T-Shirt occurred at the theater this means it is unlikely the open shirt you claim in Altgens was opened at the time of the photo. It also means your bogus "shirt-tugging" claim doesn't account for the "V-neck" you allege. The "V-Neck" you opportunistically claim from photos at the police station is simply Oswald's T-Shirt drooping down because it is ripped in the back as shown in the Lancer photo you ignore at your expense. Since we know Oswald was wearing a round-neck T-Shirt any "shirt-tugging" would not be able to produce the pronounced V-Neck you claim in Altgens. This is simply because the back portion of the round neck on the back of Oswald's neck would prevent the T-Shirt from being tugged forward to the point where it hung there as a V-Neck. Again, your pointing to the police station to confirm this takes dishonest advantage of rear T-Shirt damage that you refuse to recognize.


I'm sorry, but Lamson owns the day and I'm shocked that no one comes in to defend him against the mistaken researchers who doubt him. There is no "flap" on Lovelady's shirt pocket. It is simply a simple flat pocket made of fabric that is open at the top. As Lamson says, it is located about 1/3rd of the way up into sections 7 and 8 in Duncan's illustration. Anyone of basic intelligence should realize the identical offset of the plaid pattern from body to sleeve is irrefutable proof that the shirts are the same. Both you and Cinque get away with dodging this by repeating the claim of the non-existent "flap" and then backing it with typical forgery rhetoric that is used to avoid answering the point. Anyone can see the only reason we are even talking about any alleged flap is because Cinque has been backed into it as his only remaining claim.


This is all solved by a cogent, credible analysis of the Marsh scan that shows a skin patch in the area just outside the chin shadow. The simple proof here is that for there to be a separate area of skin seen outside the chin shadow means the dark area has to be shadow and not the profile of a V-neck T-shirt. Cinque even half-recognizes it by calling it a "sliver" (???). When he is forced to recognize that the round-neck is clearly visible in the Marsh scan transecting this chin shadow he resorts to his evasive mumbo jumbo Cramden analysis that never really answers the point. This proves that the V-neck seen in Altgens is an over-contrasted shadow dropping down from Lovelady's chin and blocking-out his round-neck T-shirt. If it wasn't, the patch of skin would be seen in the "V-neck" area just like it is right next to it.


Lamson is totally correct and the others are dead wrong. Lock stock and pocket. Fools.


.