TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[James H. Fetzer]

They opportunistically sized on the presence of a man in a checkered shirt in the vicinity of the doorway and pretended that he was Lovelady, even though he looks nothing like him. They used him in footage taken in the DPD when Oswald was taken through to be booked, but anyone who compares them will see that, while Lovelady had a normal (even slightly flat) facial profile, this guy--who is much heavier than Billy and who was busting out of his shirt--looked like a gorilla. We have done a great deal of research on this matter, Albert, but you appear to be familiar with none of it. Try "JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!", which you can find in this very thread on page 31, which includes comparisons such as the following, which I would like to believe will convince you they are not the same man:




You have misunderstood the logic of the situation, which I will explain again. We have two options: Doorman was Oswald or Doorman was Lovelady. We have advanced multiple proofs that the features of Doorman, including of his shirt, are overwhelmingly the same as those of Oswald and his shirt. Call this the "direct argument". We have also shown that the features of Doorman, including of his shirt, are overwhelmingly different from those of Lovelady. Call this the "indirect argument". If Doorman was not Lovelady, then Doorman was Oswald. And if Lovelady was wearing the red-and-white vertically striped shirt he told the FBI he was wearing then OF COURSE he was not Doorman, since Doorman is not wearing a red-and-white vertically striped shirt.

It is only because the government has claimed that this man in the checkered shirt was Lovelady that there is anything to talk about. But as you can see, their profiles (Lovelady's and the checkered shirt man's) are completely different, as I have already explained. It is rather fascinating (and more than a little revealing) that the collage that appears on McAdams' web site includes both the fake Lovelady and the real Lovelady, because the attempt is being made to convey the impression that they are the same person, when they clearly are not. Here is the image from, "Was Oswald in the Doorway of the Depository at the time of the JFK Assassination?", of John McAdams, perhaps the world's leading proponent of the long-discredited Warren Report:



This appeared to be striking confirmation that Oswald's reply to Fritz had been true. After all, surely the only reason to have altered this photo would have been because someone was there who should not have been there. While I initially believed that the obfuscated face was that of Lee Oswald, our research has supported the alternative hypothesis that it was instead Bill Shelley, no doubt because, if Shelley was in the doorway, that lends credence to Oswald's statement that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966), who was not a part of our research on the Altgens photo, of course, has confirmed that the commission was very ginger about handling this question, which it did in an oblique way, where, as he explains, they were concerned that it would come out that Billy was wearing the red-and-white vertically striped shirt--which was also short sleeved!

I believe you are sincere, Albert, so if you have more questions, please let me know. I recommend that you obtain WHITEWASH II to read Chapters 13 and 16 at your first opportunity.

Albert,

Why would Lovelady go to the FBI and show them a red-and-white, vertically striped, short-sleeved shirt and tell them that it was the shirt he was wearing on 22 November 1963 IF THAT WAS NOT TRUE? You don't seem to have noticed that the man in the checkered shirt DOES NOT LOOK LIKE BILLY LOVELADY AT ALL. I am sorry, Albert, I have been trying to be kind. You have no understanding of this case at all--not even remotely! Give yourself an break and get out of the kitchen. It's too hot! You are persisting in making yourself look incredibly stupid. I'm trying to spare you.

Jim

That's an awfully thin thread to hang your theory on and also violates some of the logical precepts you often tout. The logical flaw in what you write is the invalid premise that since Lovelady wore the striped shirt to the FBI photo session that therefore it must have been the shirt he wore that day. But if you look at what you wrote you never really made any attempt to answer the main question. That question was why, if Lovelady had worn that shirt that day, would CIA forge-in another plaid shirt in all the other photographs of him that day at the Depository? Dr Fetzer, you don't hesitate to offer an unlimited Pandora's Box of other claims of bizarre coordination of alteration and reasons for it yet when it comes to why Lovelady wore the striped shirt to the FBI session you simply state that it must have been the shirt and that we are to accept this simple explanation despite all that counters it. In the end your answer is woefully inadequate and stands in stark contrast to the complex level of explanations you give in virtually every other instance of evidence regarding the doorway. In effect, what we have here is you offering one of the most bizarrely contrived theories in Assassination history on one hand yet then turning around and trying to ask us to believe Lovelady wore that shirt because it was the shirt he wore that day - despite the myriad of evidence showing otherwise. You then offhandedly refer to a lengthy Cinque-based theory as justification of this without realizing Dr Cinque is one of the most uncredible, blindly ignorant jesters to ever cross the Assassination threshold. And his logic is some of the most childish, idiotic, and laughable material to ever be offered seriously at the Assassination docket. No, you and your carnival-style contempt and reckless defensiveness are well across the line of credible Assassination material and need to be publicly disowned by the Assassination community. You are a very dangerous person because your insane insistence on wack theories is now a serious threat to the entire research community and will be used to dismiss the entire field by those with an evil interest to do so. Congratulations Dr Fetzer, you have now succeeded, whether by insanity or ill-intent, in lowering yourself to the level of other infamous Judases and scoundrels who brought shame upon both themselves and those who they pretend to represent.


After reviewing your classic overload of rubbish information I've concluded you've failed to answer why CIA would have forged a different shirt over Lovelady if he had indeed worn the striped shirt that day on the steps of the Depository. There's no logical reason for them to do that, therefore you forfeit both your theory and credibility. Assassination research is serious business Dr Fetzer. Violate it in contempt at your own risk, but don't shrug-off the consequences.