TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[James H. Fetzer]

The arguments that I have presented in this short piece are logical, obvious, and straightforward:

(1) The Altgens6 has been altered (not Doorman but the image to his left/front, which is conspicuous);

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3918[/ATTACH]

(2) There would have been no reason to do that unless someone had been there who should not have been;

(3) The only candidate for that role is Lee Oswald, where many changes have been made to obscure his presence;

(4) Lee told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", which raises at least the following three questions:

(a) Why would Lee have said he was "out in front" if it were not true?

(b) Why mention Shelley unless Lee believed he would confirm it?

© How could Lee have known Shelley was there if Lee was not?

(4) The more we have studied this question, the more evidence of an intricate plan of obfuscation has emerged:

"JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" (with Ralph Cinque)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/...after-all/
"JFK SPECIAL 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" (with Ralph Cinque and Clare Kuehn)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13/...after-all/
"JFK SPECIAL 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" (with Ralph Cinque)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/05/...after-all/
"JFK SPECIAL 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" (with Richard Hooke)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/11/...after-all/
"JFK SPECIAL 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" (with Ralph Cinque)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/12/...after-all/

(5) My background is in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. The arguments presented are sound.

(6) What could possibly justify the hysterical, irrational and unwarranted response to my post by Mr. Drago?

(7) How can anyone believe that his response to my straightforward post qualifies as an acceptable reply?

The DPF was created to avoid the petty tyranny of other fora, but now has become a mirror image thereof.