TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Ralph Cinque]

Magda, what is wrong? You asked where Lovelady was during the shooting. The Altgens photo was taken during the shooting, and we know that because we can see Kennedy reacting to being shot. I told you that I believe that it is Lovelady who can be seen during the shooting standing outside the building, and that his image in the picture is the figure that I have come to call Obfuscated Man.

So, I believe I gave you a direct answer to your question, and your reply was that you were not interested in Obfuscated Man, but only in the whereabouts of Lovelady.

Huh? Please explain.

[James H. Fetzer]

Don,

Your posts are like an oasis in the desert by displaying rationality in the midst of denials without refutations. I want to make just a few points of clarification, however, about the evidence and why some it is appears to be reliable. If the government had wanted to censor Will Fritz' notes, presumably it could have done so. That they include the notes about Lee being "out with Bill Shelley in front" is of enormous importance. That report is in the record, even though it works against the official story. For that reason, it has enormous credibility and appears to be consistent with other remarks attributed to Lee, including that a backyard photo had his face pasted on someone else's body.

We also have the blatant obfuscation of the Altgens photograph, which involved the obfuscation of the face and the shirt of an obscure figure in the crowd. What conceivable reason would there have been to take such an action if there had not been someone there who was not supposed to be there? and who else could that person possibly be if not Lee Oswald? We know the photo has been altered, where the only reasonable explanation is that it had to be done to conceal the presence of the patsy. In this case, they appear to have pasted Lovelady's face over Lee's body, which was the reverse of the backyard photo technique. No other explanation can account for all of the evidence.

One more point. Yes, there is no way to know DEFINITIVELY where these people were. Empirical studies are invariably open to revision based upon new evidence. But we have photographic and testimonial evidence to work with, which has been the foundation for our analysis. We are dealing with probabilities and likelihoods, where our analysis has demonstrated that it is far more likely that the man in the doorway was Lee Oswald than that it was Lovelady. The shirt, the vee, the body, the build, the obfuscation, the timeline, more, all not only establish that Oswald COULD HAVE BEEN DOORWAY MAN but the weight of the evidence supports the inference that LEE WAS THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY.

Jim

Let's follow Thoreau's advice to "simplify, simplify" here.

We know that those tasked to investigate the assassination of JFK did not have any intention of doing so, and as a result left countless questions unanswered. We have no real way of knowing what Oswald said to Fritz or anyone else. Judging by his few public pronouncements, he was primarily concerned with obtaining a lawyer and appeared to be surprised he was accusing of being the assassin.

On the Ed Forum, David Lifton did a great job of demonstrating how Billy Lovelady lied, although he then inexplicably still concluded he was the figure in the doorway. Why would Lovelady lie about anything to the authorities? It was quite convenient for the authorities to have an employee in the TSBD who looked so much like LHO, wasn't it? Whatever else you think about the Altgens photo, you can't deny that those who were busy covering up the truth and manipulating the "evidence" against Oswald, had a vested interest in that figure in the doorway not being Oswald.

There is no reason to trust anything that Oswald is officially claimed to have said in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Given the nature of the non-investigation being conducted, and the sense of self-preservation someone like Lovelady would have felt in such a situation, there is no reason to trust anything he, or the other witnesses in the doorway, said regarding just who was there at the time. There is no way of definitively knowing where he or Oswald actually was at the time of the shooting.

Imho, Fetzer and Cinque's certainty that the figure IS Oswald is just as valid as the prevailing view here that the figure definitely IS Lovelady. Lies from Lovelady, disappearing pockets, the coincidence of such a convenient LHO "double" working with him- so many reasons exist to question the entire official story about the Altgens photo.

I think we all need to remain skeptical about every aspect of this case.

[Ralph Cinque]

There has been an interesting new development. On the Education Forum, a guy named James Gordon just submitted a picture of 63 Lovelady in which the presence of the pocket with the flap over it on his shirt is unassailable. I will attach the picture here. He said:

"I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt. The argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view, unimpeachable."

Thank you James R. Gordon! I tell you, it's been like the Twilight Zone for me and Jim Fetzer, with so many people fighting us and refusing to acknowledge even the most simple and obvious and basic facts.

Here is the pic. Look at it yourself.

All right, so now we know that Lovelady lied about the shirt. Leastways, when he did his famous posings as Doorway Man years later, he was wearing a different shirt and he did not make that known. And to this day, there are people like John McAdams and Megen Knuth who defend those pictures as bonafide evidence.

But, the fact that Lovelady mislead about the shirt, what does it mean? It means that his entire credibility is shot. He wore a phony shirt, and he had to go out looking for it, or someone else had to do it on his behalf. And I doubt that it was easy either. Imagine if you had to match and locate a specific shirt with a very specific pattern. Imagine how much time and effort it would likely take. This was a complicated ruse.

It is axiomatic that anytime anybody lies, they are trying to distort the truth. And, in this case, the issue concerned was the identity of Doorway Man. That's what it was about. That is the thing that Lovelady engaged in a ruse over. Ipso facto, he was trying to distort the truth about who the Doorway Man was. And it wasn't him. Billy Lovelad was put up to it. They either bribed him or threatened him or both. And as we know, they eventually "heart attacked" him out, right before he was to testify to the HSCA in 1979. Dead men tell no tales.

The presence of that flap on the original shirt and its absence on the subsequent, posing shirt is BIG. It's HUGE! It proves that Lovelady was a liar and a fake. And when you combine that with my observations of how Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothes and has Oswald's build, you have to start contemplating that Jim Fetzer and I just may be right about this whole thing.

[Greg Burnham]

I cannot believe people are still arguing about this. It is a side issue and not very important. Whether LHO was in the doorway or on the 2nd floor he was not on the sixth floor shooting at JFK. People who go on for days and weeks on these tangents are doing the conspirators' bidding, inho. Does not advance the case one bit. The time wasted on this argument could be put to better use. If people keep responding to Cinque he will continue to post. Same stuff, over and over, It's the nature of the beast. He's here to waste your time.

Dawn

Thanks Dawn. I needed that intervention. It was like being stuck between the Scylla and Charybdis.

[Ralph Cinque]

Are you people out of your minds? If Lovelady was not the Doorway Man, and Oswald was, then it disproves the lone-gunman theory like nothing else can. You say that you know that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor? OK, fine, but we are trying to reach the millions of people who do not know it. And obviously, there is no better alibi than proof that you were physically somewhere else when the crime was being committed. This is BIG! This is HUGE! There has never been anything bigger in the entire 48 year span of time since the day of the assassination. And, it's only going to get bigger. Jim Fetzer and I are going to keep pushing it and pushing it and pushing it and pushing it. Get used to it! We are now living in a post-Altgens universe!

[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.


.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Are you people out of your minds? If Lovelady was not the Doorway Man, and Oswald was, then it disproves the lone-gunman theory like nothing else can. You say that you know that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor? OK, fine, but we are trying to reach the millions of people who do not know it. And obviously, there is no better alibi than proof that you were physically somewhere else when the crime was being committed. This is BIG! This is HUGE! There has never been anything bigger in the entire 48 year span of time since the day of the assassination. And, it's only going to get bigger. Jim Fetzer and I are going to keep pushing it and pushing it and pushing it and pushing it. Get used to it! We are now living in a post-Altgens universe!

Roll Up! Roll Up! Coney Island has been reborn!

Behind this curtain I have the Eighth Wonder of the World, a Cure for the World's Ills, the Irrefutable Proof of Treachery!!!!

Prof Fetzer - you need to leave those marbled halls filled with ontological musings and take a trip down to the carnival, the circus, the realm of hustlers and their marks.

A world where people are played....

[Ralph Cinque]

Concerning the image proving that Lovelady lied, this just came in from Orlando Martin, Army sharpshooter and ballistic expert and author of JFK: Analysis of a Shooting

"James Gordon's input is infallibly valuable, as he presents an undeniable fact regarding the shirt that Lovelady wore in 63, and it also exposes the fact that the man lied. I am quite sure that he was bribed, and handsomely so as so many others were, for his contribution to concealing the truth."

"As you clearly stated, it is over for them, but in reality we should know better. Those that are intent on burying the truth are utterly and wholeheartedly "committed" to burying the truth, and are paid well for it. As such, they will argue, rationalize and endeavor to undermine even the most basic, blatant and obvious facts that could be instrumental in exposing the truth of the assassination. It is their job to do so. They will "never" submit, and neither shall we, until one bit at a time we expose the whole thing for the humungous farce that it really is."

Regards, Orlando.

[Charles Drago]

And if my beloved Aunt Carmella had testes, she would be my uncle.

This idiot non-savant has disrupted this forum since "he" first appeared.

My co-owners of DPF and I know who and what "Cinque" is and represents. "He" is indeed precisely what "he" describes "himself" as being: a pusher.

And like all pushers of harmful, debilitating substances, "Cinque" has no place in civilized discourse other than to illustrate the nature and goals of those who would destroy that society.

Ayahuasca is one thing. Snake oil of the sort that chiropractor "Cinque" sells on his website is quite another.

And it is precisely that -- snake oil, albeit in another form in another form -- the "Cinque" is peddling here.

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is established fact.

The war continues.

We need "Cinque" and his snake oil the way Stephen Hawking needs another pair of track shoes.

[Ralph Cinque]

Hey Doyle, look at this. Your pal Duncan MacKrae posted it on Education Forum. It's some pic. Must admit that it shows Doorway Man more clear than ever.

But notice that sliver of shadow over his t-shirt on his right side, so our left. I believe that you have maintained that that is skin. But look on the other side, his left, so our right. There is another wedge of shadow. It's even smaller, but it is there, and it's unmistakable. And it's in line with the sliver on the other side. Put a ruler to it and see.

So THAT represents the shade line going across the shirt. On both sides, it is one continuous shadow. And on neither side does it obliterate the fabric of the t-shirt underneath. It darkens it but does not obliterate it. The opening of the t-shirt is vee-shaped.