TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[David Josephs]

This is completely disgusting. You have no idea how open and receptive the public can be to TRUTH.
But how the hell would you know? You don't bother with research and betray the memory of JFK. I
am out there in the trenches and I can assure you that the people are a lot smarter than the DPF! I
am stunned but not surprised by your commitment to ignorance--a new breed of JFK know-nothings.

and you obviously have a PERFECT IDEA how easily the PUBLIC can be mislead by a supposed "expert" when this "expert" decides to promote undefensible theories
while refusing to hear conterpoint... refuses to look at it academically, and goes off half'cocked with BAD info, BAD data, BAD analogy, BAD observation abilities
and just plain BAD SCIENCE.


As I posted before Jim.... you are using the EXACT TACTICS employed by those you are trying to expose - to defend that which YOU represent to be true regardless of the actual evidence and analysis.

You might as well just state that, "We have seen no evidence that Altgens 6 was NOT altered...." while you stand there with your EYES WIDE SHUT...

Here's hoping the NEW BREED stays as far away from the proveably deceptive tactics of one James Fetzer as possible and builds on the real heroes of the community...
to someday become heroes themselves.

You wear your ad homs on your chest like medals Jim.... and have become the naked emperor taken in by the lies that surround you.
Ralph should be ashamed of himself as much as Myers or Posner need to be... that you BOUGHT IT is most sad of all.

Bye Jim... Good luck with your book/movie/special deal that MUST come with this garbage... maybe Tom Hanks will help fund the project?

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, doofus, it was what is known as "an admission contrary to interest". They presumably WANTED TO DENY that Oswald was in the doorway. Therefore, it would have been in their interest to claim he had changed his shirt. BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT, which makes their assertion of special evidential value within this context. Typically, your ignorance of principles of reasoning and evidential standards makes your work worthless--especially when you cannot even account for ("explain away") the four major proofs that the Altgens6 was faked. I'm sure you impress other members of this forum with your sophomoric arguments, but you could not have passed a course in critical thinking.

"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:

[James H. Fetzer]

Look. Unlike you and others here, I am interacting with the public all the time. I have presented evidence substantiating that Oswald was in the doorway--and the public does not freak out! the public is not in denial! the public is receptive to new evidence! Egad! You here on the DPF don't even know what Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966), had to say about this. Or Jones Harris, for that matter. It is really no surprise that nitwits like you and Jan and Albert don't know the score. But at least you make an effort, even though you fail repeatedly.

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1lCYzGD7Lk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1lCYzGD7Lk
[/URL]
You don't know the difference between Lovelady and the man in the checkered shirt. You think that a sleeve up means that it is always that way. You don't have the integrity to admit that the photo is faked (the obfuscated man, the missing shoulder, BTM in front of and behind him at the same time, the black man's profile), that Oswald told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", the 27 points of identification, the matching right ears, the matching left eyes, the matching craniums and hair lines--you really are something special, David Josephs! Special!

You think you can match shirts like Doorman's and Oswald's virtually ARBITRARILY? I knew you were dumb, I just didn't know you were this stupid. If you have the integrity to acknowledge that the photo was fixed--and any rational, honest student would surely admit that--then the question becomes, "Why would the Altgens6 have been altered?" That is the question I first raised in "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then". The obvious answer is, "Only if someone had been there who should not have been." And that would have been Lee.

Have you bothered to read Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966), since I pointed out that he discusses this extensively and explains the moves the made to cover up that Oswald was in the doorway? What we have done is independently discover and confirm what he already knew. Or is Harold Weisberg ANOTHER NUT WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKNG ABOUT? Jan has affirmed that she is a happy ignoramus, but you are hanging out there by the slenderest of threads and are making a fool of yourself. You need to catch up with the evidence.

This is completely disgusting. You have no idea how open and receptive the public can be to TRUTH.
But how the hell would you know? You don't bother with research and betray the memory of JFK. I
am out there in the trenches and I can assure you that the people are a lot smarter than the DPF! I
am stunned but not surprised by your commitment to ignorance--a new breed of JFK know-nothings.

and you obviously have a PERFECT IDEA how easily the PUBLIC can be mislead by a supposed "expert" when this "expert" decides to promote undefensible theories
while refusing to hear conterpoint... refuses to look at it academically, and goes off half'cocked with BAD info, BAD data, BAD analogy, BAD observation abilities
and just plain BAD SCIENCE.


As I posted before Jim.... you are using the EXACT TACTICS employed by those you are trying to expose - to defend that which YOU represent to be true regardless of the actual evidence and analysis.

You might as well just state that, "We have seen no evidence that Altgens 6 was NOT altered...." while you stand there with your EYES WIDE SHUT...

Here's hoping the NEW BREED stays as far away from the proveably deceptive tactics of one James Fetzer as possible and builds on the real heroes of the community...
to someday become heroes themselves.

You wear your ad homs on your chest like medals Jim.... and have become the naked emperor taken in by the lies that surround you.
Ralph should be ashamed of himself as much as Myers or Posner need to be... that you BOUGHT IT is most sad of all.

Bye Jim... Good luck with your book/movie/special deal that MUST come with this garbage... maybe Tom Hanks will help fund the project?

[David Josephs]

Taking posting lessons from Craig Lamson now?

Doofus?

Now we KNOW you've lost it Jim....
Sad state of affairs when you can't even address the post, only insult the poster....


Why does what Fritz & Bookout write about Oswald's clothes, on the same page as the SHELLEY comment, have any more or less credible than the SHELLEY COMMENT?
and if what he said is as true as the SHELLEY statement...

how do you reconcile that with Altgens 6?

You think you can match shirts like Doorman's and Oswald's virtually ARBITRARILY? I knew you were dumb, I just didn't know you were this stupid.

No Jim... but I see that you can ARBITRARILY decide what is and isn't a MATCH based on very flawed abilities to do so.
I can also see that you STILL have no clue how probability works or how it applies here... with a comparison of PHOTOS of shirts... not even the shirts themselves.

You've become a sad, pathetic, bitter, old man.... no WONDER you sound like Lamson.

:dancingman:

[Lauren Johnson]

Question and suggestion? Is there a way to have an automated response to any post by Fetzer which cautions readers to against taking anything he says seriously while honoring his past contributions? Continuing these endless responses are what usually is called "feeding the trolls." I just call it just another Groundhog Day.

[David Josephs]

Namaste....

If JF wants to burn those bridges so be it.


another line from a song.... "You aint gonna learn, what you dont wanna know" - Black Throated Wind.

and

"Cant talk to you without talking to me
We're GUILTY of the SAME OLD THING
Thinking alot about less and less
and forgetting the LOVE we bring...."

DJ

[Greg Burnham]

That Jim Fetzer has repeatedly refused to even acknowledge the Special Pleading inherent to his introduction of select items from the Fritz notes
that may support his theory and his arbitrary rejection of items from that same source because they do not support his theory has been noted by
some of his closest friends with whom I am in contact--and they are concerned. That he becomes agitated when this most basic of critical thinking
faux pas is kindly pointed out to him is another cause of grave concern. And, yes, these were originally pointed out kindly on EF. That he refuses not
only to acknowledge the possibility that the images in Altgens 6 are too obscure to make such definitive conclusions, but that he also seeks to deprive
others of having their own opinion about the matter, is further cause for concern. That he refuses to allow other interpretations to even be considered,
irrespective of their merits, simply because they differ from his own opinion, is further cause for concern. And finally, that he fails to be capable of
detecting these aberrations in his own reasoning and behavior is also cause for concern.

Upon emailing his diagram: 50 Points of Identification and his accompanying explanation to a colleague (with NO COMMENT added by me), I received
this single word reply: "Yikes!"

Indeed.

[Charles Drago]

Question and suggestion? Is there a way to have an automated response to any post by Fetzer which cautions readers to against taking anything he says seriously while honoring his past contributions? Continuing these endless responses are what usually is called "feeding the trolls." I just call it just another Groundhog Day.

I know the perfect way to deal with "Fetzer."

Stay tuned over the weekend.

[Phil Dragoo]

Harold Weisberg on p 250 of Whitewash II (1966) is accepting the short-sleeve vertical stripe as the shirt Lovelady wore that day.

Per numerous accounts including HSCA Vol. VI p. 287, it is not.*(see below)

In Jim Marrs Crossfire (1989) "[HSCA concludes] it is highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady."

Jim Marrs concludes the section at page 46:

Most researchers today are ready to concede that the man may have been Lovelady.

We can see that there is an exception.

*HSCA:

A widely publicized photograph taken by Associated Press photographer James W. Altgens within a few seconds after President Kennedy was first shot shows a spectator who bears a strong physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the west end of the Texas School Book Depository entranceway. Altgens has stated that he took the picture of the presidential limousine, with the Texas School Book Depository entranceway in the background, just after he heard a noise "which sounded like the popping of a firecracker."
In evaluating the evidence that Oswald was in the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting, the Warren Commission considered the allegation that the man shown in the doorway in the Altgens photograph was Oswald. The Commission concluded that the spectator was not Oswald, but rather another Texas School Book Depository employee, Billy Nolan Lovelady. This conclusion was based upon Lovelady's identification of himself in the Altgens photograph and upon statements of other persons who were present in the Texas School Book Depository entranceway at the same time.
Warren Commission critics have charged that there was insufficient basis for this conclusion, and have faulted the Commission for presenting " no supporting visual evidence by which one can appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald, although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification of the doorway man than Oswald's possible total innocence of the assassination".
This issue has also persisted because of reported discrepancies in connection with the clothing worn by the Altgens figure and Billy Lovelady on November 22, 1963. In media prints of the Altgens photograph, the man appears to be wearing a long-sleeved shirt similar to the one in which Oswald was arrested. According to a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission after Lovelady had been interviewed and photographed in 1964 by FBI agents, Lovelady was reported to have been wearing a short-sleeved red and white, vertically striped shirt. Lovelady later explained that when he was interviewed and photographed by the FBI, he had not been told to wear the same shirt he had worn on the day of the assassination and that, in fact, he had been wearing a long-sleeved, plaid shirt when he was standing in the Texas School Book Depository doorway.
This contradiction was partially resolved by photo-optical work performed by Robert Groden, a Warren Commission critic and photographic consultant to the committee. During his work with the committee Groden made photographically enhanced enlargements of the original 35 millimeter black and white Altgens negative and frames of the Bell, Martin, and Hughes color motion picture films, which also showed the spectator in the doorway, and detected a pattern of lines that correspond in pattern and color more closely to Lovelady's plaid shirt than to Oswald's tweed-patterned shirt.
Even so, in an effort to resolve the issue even more definitively, the photographic evidence panel's board of forensic anthropologists were requested to study the photograph of the spectator shown standing in the doorway.
Is it possible to identify positively as either Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady, the man, shown in the Altgens photograph standing by the doorway entrance to the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the President's assassination.
In order to produce the clearest possible photographic images of the spectator in question, the Photographic Evidence Panel had black and white prints made from the original Altgens 35 millimeter negative at various contrasts, density levels and enlargements. They included various enlargements of the spectator's face such as that shown in the photograph. The anthropologists were furnished with a number of these prints.
A series of photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, ranging from the time of his ILS. Marine Corps enlistment in 1956 to his arrest in Dallas in 1963, were provided to the anthropologists. While all were examined, those taken on the day of Oswald's arrest in Dallas received the closest scrutiny.
Photographs of Lovelady were furnished which varied in date from 1959 to 1977. Of most interest were those taken near the time of the assassination.
Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator's image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady, or Oswald. Based on a subjective assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the man in the doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady.
In comparing the photographs of Oswald and Lovelady, the general similarities in facial configuration between the two men were initially noted. Closer examination of the photographs revealed significant differences in the two men's facial proportions:
(a) Facial length.- Relative to facial breadth across the cheekbones, Lovelady's face is longer than Oswald's.
(b) Lower jaw breadth.- Relative to facial breadth, measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's lower jaw is narrower than Oswald's.
© Chin length.- Relative to facial length, Lovelady has a somewhat longer chin than Oswald.
(d) Forehead breadth - Relative to the breadth of the face measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's is broader than Oswald's.
(e) Nasal breadth.- Relative to nose length, Lovelady's nose is broader than Oswald's.
(f) Nasal tip - Oswald's nasal tip is somewhat, small and sharply contoured, whereas that of Lovelady is rounder and more bulbous.
(g) Forehead height - Due to hairline recession, Lovelady has relatively higher forehead than Oswald.
(h) Hairline contour - Photographs of Lovelady and Oswald taken at a time close to the assassination indicate that, overall Lovelady's central hairline had receded more than Oswald's, resulting in Lovelady's higher forehead, as noted above; in addition, the recession on both sides of Lovelady's temple is more sharply advanced than Oswald's. Lovelady's recession was not uniform, and he has a downward projection in the hairline about one inch to the right of the center of his forehead. This eccentrically placed "widow's peak" was not observed in any of Oswald's photographs.
In summary, Lovelady's face is relatively longer than Oswald's its length accentuated, in part, by more advanced balding and also by his narrower lower jaw and deeper chin. The asymmetry in his hairline is also a distinctive trait.
The enlargements of the spectator's face are not of sufficient quality to permit accurate measurements. However, several features corresponding to Lovelady's traits can be discerned and subjectively assessed:
(a) A relatively broad, high forehead;
(b) Advanced recession of the hairline on each side of his head;
(e) Interruption of the central hairline by a downward extension located slightly to the right of the center of the forehead;
(d) A relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin: and
(e) A rather bulbous nasal tip.

[David Josephs]

and the crowd goes wild....



sadly, changes not the fraudulent manner inwhich JF presents the probability two shirts in different photos exhibit similiar characteristics
or the probability they are either the same or different.

so that by default, only an idiot, by HIS definition, chooses the stated impossibility of them being so vastly similiar yet be in reality different shirts...
ergo, says JF... the shirts are the same.


Excuse me, this is Professor Fetzer, who must not have the resources at the University to first find out if his statements
about such probabilities will be correct. No math Professors where JF teaches... and Google must be too advanced a tool.

Thanks for the memories JF