TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[David Josephs]

"EVEN THE WARREN COMMISSION CONCLUDED....."

WTF???

Now Mr. James Fetzer is looking to the WCR for his facts and conclusions?

Jim... your math and reasoning is WRONG, period. Furthermore, your self proclaimed conclusions are meaningless... as meaningless as "the WCR concluded..."

We've tried Analogy, metaphor and direct example and you still don't understand.

[IF THERE ARE ANY POINTS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOORMAN'S SHIRT AND OSWALD'S, THEN IT CAN'T BE OSWALD'S! How dumb is that?

That's not what I posted Jim... what I said was you can look at two PHOTOS of two shirts and find 10,000 MATCHES... if one shirt is green and the other blue... your 10,000 MATCHES are WORTHLESS
Like your conclusions and supporting evidence.

I can CLAIM anything I want if you are going to believe you have correctly identified MATCHES in these two IMAGES with anything more than a 50% accuracy.

You RUN from assigning %'s to each of the 50 items
You RUN from discussing the OTHER EVIDENCE FRITZ wrote down that contradicts your conclusion.... Cherry pick much Jim? IGNORING IT is your way of dealing with contradictory evidence?

On this item alone your track record is pathetic.... Fritz wrote/Oswald said... "out front with Shelley" yet he also wrote and said he changed his clothes
why again is one correct while the other is not?

RUN Jim, RUN...

and then you play incredible naive and stupid when you finally do reply... as if you're on a completely different WORLD than the rest of us.

Jim, when and if you ever pull your head out... maybe you'll be taken seriously again.

You've become an embarassment to yourself and the entire community...
=============

Here's another thing the WCR concluded.... cause like Fritz's notes which destroy your case before it even gets started, they don't get anything wrong:

12. The Commission recognizes that thevaried responsibilities of
the President require that he makefrequent trips to all parts of the.
United States and abroad. Consistentwith their high responsibilities
Presidents can never be protected fromevery potential threat,. The
Secret Service's difficulty in meetingits protective responsibility varies
with the activities and the nature ofthe occupant of the Office of President
and his willingness to conform toplans for his safety. In appraising
the performance of the Secret Serviceit should be understood
that it has to do its work within suchlimitations. Nevertheless, the
Commission believes that recommendationsfor improvements in
Presidential protection are compelledby the facts disclosed in this
investigation.
(a)The complexities of the Presidency have increased so
rapidlyin recent years that the Secret Service has not been able to
developor to secure adequate resources of personnel and facilities
tofulfill its important assignment. This situation should be
promptlyremedied.
(b)The Commission has concluded that the criteria and procedures
ofthe Secret Service designed to identify and protect
againstpersons considered threats to the president, were not
adequateprior to the assassination.
(1)The Protective Research Section of the Secret Service,
whichis responsible for, its preventive work, lacked suficient
trainedpersonnel and the mechanical and technical
assistanceneeded to fulfill its responsibility.
(2)Prior to the assassination the Secret Service's criteria
dealtwith direct threats against the President. Although the
SecretService treated the direct threats against the President
adequately,it failed to recognize the necessity of identifying
otherpotential sources of danger to his security. The Secret
Servicedid not develop adequate and specific criteria defining
thosepersons or groups who might present a danger to the
President.In effect, the Secret Service largely relied upon
otherFederal or Stab agencies to supply the information
necessaryfor it to fulfill its preventive responsibilities, although
itdid ask for information about direct threats to the
President.
©The Commission has concluded that there was insufficient
liaisonand coordination of information between the Secret Service
andother Federal agencies necessarily concerned with Presidential
protection.Although the FBI, in the normal exercise of
itsresponsibility, had secured considerable information about Lee
HarveyOswald, it had no official responsibility, under the Secret
Servicecriteria existing at the time of the President's trip to
Dallas,to refer to the Secret Service the information it had about
Oswald.The Commission has concluded, however, that the FBI
tookan unduly restrictive view of its role in preventive intelligence
workprior to the assassination. A more carefully coordinated
treatmentof the Oswald case by the FBI might well have
resultedin bringing Oswald's activities to the attention of the
SecretService. .
(d)The Commission has concluded that some of the advance
preparationsin Dallas made by the Secret Service, such as the
detailedsecurity measures taken at Love Field and the Trade
Mart,were thorough and well executed. In other respects, however,
theCommission has concluded that the advance preparations
forthe President's trip were deficient.
(1)Although the Secret Service is compelled to rely to a
greatextent on local law enforcement officials, its procedure3
atthe time of the Dallas trip did not call for well-defined
instructionsas to the respective responsibilities of the police
officialsand others assisting in the protection of the President.
(2)The procedures relied upon by the Secret Service for
detectingthe presence of an assassin located in a building
alonga motorcade route were inadequate. At the time of
thetrip to Dallas, the Secret Service as a matter of practice
didnot investigate, or cause to be checked, any building
locatedalong the motorcade route to be taken by the President.
Theresponsibility for observing windows in these
buildingsduring the motorcade was divided between local
policepersonnel stationed on the streets to regulate crowds
andSecret Service agents riding in the motorcade. Based
onits investigation the Commission has concluded that these
arrangementsduring the trip to Dallas were clearly not
sufficient.
(e)The configuration of the Presidential car and the seating
arrangementsof the Secret Service agents in the car did not afford
theSecret Service agents the opportunity they should have had to
beof immediate assistance to the President at the first sign of
danger.
(f)Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds
thatthe agents most immediately responsible for the President's
safety reactedpromptly at the time the shotswere fired from the TSBD

take a look at the image below Jim.... this is the 12th WCR conclusion in all it's glory....

The MEN IN THE LIMO were MOST RESPONSIBLE for the President's safety, ESPECIALLY the DRIVER....
MOST RESPONSIBLE for his death... Greer just sits there and STARES at JFK until his head blows off....

and you want us to get behind you with a statement like, "the WCR concluded".... ???? :what:


When next you start a sentence with, "Bugliosi and McAdams concluded...." we'll know your transformation is complete

btw - don't like KNEELING BOY? to much for you to deal with?
Can't figure out why he's there and how to prove he wasn't?

RUN Jim, RUN....

:rofl:

Even the Warren Commission concluded that Lee had not changed his shirt. There are so many points of similarity (in a photograph that has OBVIOUSLY been altered (the obfuscated face, the missing shoulder, BTM in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, the black man's profile) that I am INCREDULOUS that you are pursuing this line of malarky in defense of Doorman being Lovelady! EVEN HE DENIED IT! In addition, you commit THE GROSS BLUNDER of identifying the man in the checkered shirt in the DPD as Lovelady, when they don't look even remotely alike: Billy has a relatively ordinary face, while that guy looks like a gorilla; Billy has a medium to slender build, that guy has a heavy build and is bursting out of his shirt. We have done so much detailed research on this that you cannot be defending the position you are defending and understand the evidence! You even appear to conflate verification and falsification, assuming that, IF THERE ARE ANY POINTS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOORMAN'S SHIRT AND OSWALD'S, THEN IT CAN'T BE OSWALD'S! How dumb is that? They made many efforts to confound their identity. You even claim that having a shirt higher-up on the sleeve--when that is a transitory state--is supposed to be decisive, when its actually meaningless. You have given a pseudo-sophisticated argument to make a relatively simple situation look as if it were incredibly complex. Until you come to grips with the obvious signs of fakery, you are obviously faking it yourself. This is ridiculous.

Cmon buddy....

Answer this one question...

Why is what Fritz writes on one page any less or more reliable than on another page - especially since the SHELLEY comment is on this first page ?

On the same page as the SHELLEY comment... we have him changing his britches

On the NEXT PAGE, recounting the questioning from 11/23 at 10:30 in the morning...

it gets even more specific about his changing his shirt.

I give a sh!t what YOU think others are saying Jim... your powers of analysis and reasoning appears to be gone.

Why is one set of information on the same page as YOUR HOLY GRAIL any less a meaningful insight into the events of the day? Especially since it was corroborated by a number of witnesses?



As a TEACHER - you should know what a tautological argument is....
When you ASSUME the photo is altered and then make your arguments based onthat conclusion... your argument is rendered moot and meaningless. TAUTOLOGY

We do NOT know, nor have you proven with any reliability that ANYTHING was changed in Altgens...
You've put forth a theory... you've tried your hand at probability with a dismal failure and dont even realize how misleading your presentation REMAINS.

And I placed my MATCH at 99% unlike you believing you are 100% correct on 50 out of 50 MATCHES from a PHOTO to another PHOTO.
You disregard CONTEXT and corroborating evidence to the contrary...

AND can't even deal with the SOURCE OF YOUR IDEA also telling us that your conclusion is NOT POSSIBLE given the SAME EVIDENCE from which you began this journey....

Be the same thing as someone reading Specter's BS SBT question, "is an exit wound an exit wound", the Drs agreeing with that tautological question and then concluding the SBT a sound theory.
You've done no better Jim... so it's Posner, Myers, VB and Specter now you pattern your debating style around? If someone disagrees it is NOT worth looking at one's work again but rather attack the messenger...

Is this Jim Fetzer or David Von Pein?


Finally Jim... my last is an image of KNEELING BOY who is hiding in front of the retaining wall in plain sight... I can find a number of MATCHING POINTS to a REAL PERSON IN ANOTHER PHOTO to prove this is really a photo of a person....

Prove he was NOT there.... it's plain as day he is... so Moorman and all other images was altered to remove him... obviously.

:lol: