TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[James H. Fetzer]

How can anyone doubt that whether or not Oswald was in the doorway is a questions of extraordinary importance?

(1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

(2) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(3) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(4) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(5) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(6) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photos is not clear in the doorway;

(7) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(8) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(9) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

How any serious student could deny that this is an important question completely eludes me. Yet many here do.

I have asked several experts on the case to address the evidence, where I heard back from one of them today:

Dear Jim: I have carefully--very carefully--looked into the matter of the shirt and the "Lovelady" figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

In the photos as observable, the shirt was retouched and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady's shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee's face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes--for everything blotched there--would have done a better job.

Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch--and I'm convinced.

Plus, of course, another student, dkruckman, has observed that, as we all know, in the backyard photographs, there is a matte line running horizontally below the lower lip across the chin. And on Doorway Man there appears to be a matte line running horizontally below the nose above where the lips should be. If you place your thumb over the top of Doorway Man's face, what you see below does not resemble a human mandible. There is no discernible lips, chin or jaw line. To me it looks like smeared lines running in mostly 45 degree angles. Oswald may not have been looking directly at the limo, making a "cut & paste job" not easy. Lovelady's top of his face appears to be pasted over Oswald's and the bottom part manipulated to fit. Mostly by having black tie man's white shirt jut over Oswald's shoulder (obscuring his collar) and protruding into doorman's face, creating a crude jaw line. I am asking some experts to confirm these observations. Would you agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed?

The exchanges from members of this forum, including even Charles Drago, have descended into a seemingly endless string of ad hominems, where Charles is even now resorting to barnyard language to denounce him. What is the justification for discounting the evidence that tends to prove LEE CANNOT HAVE BEEN A SHOOTER, MUCH LESS A LONE GUNMAN?

And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? How could a JFK research forum be unwilling to countenance the discussion and debate this serious question?

I have noticed a strong tendency to group conformity on The Deep Politics Forum. It even strikes me that some here are wary of crossing Charles Drago, which should be unsurprising, given the treatment he doles out to those, as he has me on LBJ and Ralph on Doorway Man. I am very concerned that the DPF is losing track of its JFK research mission.

There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

Jan said "this is a serious research site." And I am raising a serious research question. The question is whether Lovelady lied about wearing the same shirt from 1963 when he posed as the Doorman years later.

I understand that you have nothing but disdain for me. So be it. The feeling's mutual. But, what about other CTs? What about Don Jeffries? Here is what he posted on Education Forum:

"I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald."

And here is Michael Hogan, also from Education Forum, quoting Gerald McKnight:

"My own research on Oswald's whereabouts convinces me that at the time of the JFK shooting he was standing on the front steps of the Texas Depository.

He is the man at the extreme left at the top of the front steps that we see in Altgen's famous photo. Oswald in the man in the doorway, not Billy Lovelady."

So, Mr. Drago, do you have contempt for all these people? Or is it just me and Jim Fetzer? Why won't you look at the photos I posted? What are you afraid of? What are you all afraid of?