TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Don Jeffries]

Look, this has not really been an important issue with me until recently. I'm simply stunned at the way so many good people are figuratively shrieking "it IS Lovelady" in the doorway. It has certainly not been proven to be Lovelady. There is still a great deal of doubt, and I, for one, still strongly suspect the figure is Oswald.

Harold Weisberg analyzed this thoroughly over 40 years ago. His arguments still make sense to me. When people first noticed a figure in the Altgens photo that looked quite a bit like Oswald, wearing a shirt similarly distinctive in nature, the government knew it had a problem. Enter Billy Lovelady, looking reasonably like LHO from a distance. They weren't going to admit it was Oswald in the doorway, because the photo, IF the figure was Oswald, obviously proved he was not the shooter. No more arguments about the SBT or anything else. So...it was crucial for the figure to be someone else.

Why did Lovelady tell the FBI he wore a short sleeved shirt with broad stripes on it the day of the assassination? Weisberg thought that kind of thing was important, and so do I. CTers have given ground on way too many of these tangential issues, and it makes no sense. Steven Witt wasn't the Umbrella Man. There were many mysterious deaths of witnesses. There was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. The backyard photos are obvious fakes. There is more than reasonable doubt about what kind of rifle was found on the sixth floor, or whether there was a hole in the windshield. It is senseless to continue giving ground on these kinds of issues.

Jim Fetzer is ofen his own worst enemy, and certainly can turn others off with his demanding, rigid certainty in his own beliefs. However, from what I've seen on this thread, he has been personally attacked more than any counter evidence has been produced by his critics. Seamus Coogan again displays his courteous attitude by speaking of Fetzer in diapers, and then demands he be banned from this forum. What kind of debating tactic is that? If you ignore Jim Fetzer's bluster and impatience, he posts a great deal of solid data. Whatever you think if Ralph Cinque's work, the identity of the figure in the doorway remains an open question, imho. And to those of you who are lambasting Fetzer, please read some of your own posts.

[Greg Burnham]

Look, this has not really been an important issue with me until recently. I'm simply stunned at the way so many good people are figuratively shrieking "it IS Lovelady" in the doorway. It has certainly not been proven to be Lovelady. There is still a great deal of doubt, and I, for one, still strongly suspect the figure is Oswald.

Harold Weisberg analyzed this thoroughly over 40 years ago. His arguments still make sense to me. When people first noticed a figure in the Altgens photo that looked quite a bit like Oswald, wearing a shirt similarly distinctive in nature, the government knew it had a problem. Enter Billy Lovelady, looking reasonably like LHO from a distance. They weren't going to admit it was Oswald in the doorway, because the photo, IF the figure was Oswald, obviously proved he was not the shooter. No more arguments about the SBT or anything else. So...it was crucial for the figure to be someone else.

Why did Lovelady tell the FBI he wore a short sleeved shirt with broad stripes on it the day of the assassination? Weisberg thought that kind of thing was important, and so do I. CTers have given ground on way too many of these tangential issues, and it makes no sense. Steven Witt wasn't the Umbrella Man. There were many mysterious deaths of witnesses. There was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. The backyard photos are obvious fakes. There is more than reasonable doubt about what kind of rifle was found on the sixth floor, or whether there was a hole in the windshield. It is senseless to continue giving ground on these kinds of issues.

Jim Fetzer is ofen his own worst enemy, and certainly can turn others off with his demanding, rigid certainty in his own beliefs. However, from what I've seen on this thread, he has been personally attacked more than any counter evidence has been produced by his critics. Seamus Coogan again displays his courteous attitude by speaking of Fetzer in diapers, and then demands he be banned from this forum. What kind of debating tactic is that? If you ignore Jim Fetzer's bluster and impatience, he posts a great deal of solid data. Whatever you think if Ralph Cinque's work, the identity of the figure in the doorway remains an open question, imho. And to those of you who are lambasting Fetzer, please read some of your own posts.

As you know Don, Jim remains one of my closest friends in this community. We privately communicate on a daily or near daily basis. However, you are also correct that Jim has a tendency to become extremely certain about some of his work prior to it having been vetted by the critical community, here and elsewhere. This type of strategy is counter-intuitive to his own cause. He has admitted as much. Jim once told me after I had reminded him that he sometimes can't get out of his own way due to having little tact...he said: "Monk, I know that. If I had any tact at all I'd be the president of Harvard by now! As it is...no way." And then we both had a great belly laugh.

But as one who knows him well, even I will draw the line at some point. I did. We worked it out. No problem.

I think Seamus is completely off base at times in his attempt to make a name for himself. Jim has been a great living resource in the past and I'm sure he will continue to make great contributions in the future despite some stumbling about social niceties now and again.

I also agree that the case is not closed on this Doorway Man issue. I did some deep looking at high resolution copies of Altgens 6 and I am unconvinced that it is either Lovelady or Oswald for sure. I would not claim CERTAINTY either way at this point. Jim is, of course, free to claim what he believes to be true, but he has no "right to expect" others to accept his conclusion and no "right to expect" anyone to either "accept it as true or prove it's wrong" if they are disinterested in that aspect.

In my opinion, claiming certainty about this type of issue is akin to painting a bull's eye on one's chest and then wearing a sign that says, "Please don't shoot me" which makes it almost irresistible to pull that trigger.

[Albert Doyle]

Look, this has not really been an important issue with me until recently. I'm simply stunned at the way so many good people are figuratively shrieking "it IS Lovelady" in the doorway. It has certainly not been proven to be Lovelady. There is still a great deal of doubt, and I, for one, still strongly suspect the figure is Oswald.

Sorry, but to have such an opinion I feel one has to participate in the actual vetting of the evidence, as was done on Lancer. There's too many people who voice generalities like the above who then give credibility to Fetzer when that evidence has been more than reasonably disproven.

The color film frame of Lovelady standing off to the side shows him in the identical plaid shirt. This is the same shirt seen on Lovelady at the police station. Therefore the vertical striped shirt is irrelevant and doesn't have anything to do with anything. It was simply misremembered by Lovelady who wore the wrong shirt. I have no doubt Lovelady wore the right shirt in the posed shot because he saw pictures of himself wearing it and was reminded. More importantly the color film frame shows Lovelady with his shirt wide open exposing a white undershirt in an identical fashion to that seen on Doorway Man. What people who deal with this in a superficial manner don't realize is that technology could prove the blended color signature emitting from Lovelady's shirt in the color film frame could be identified by its individual color frequency. If Lovelady's shirt was analyzed in a similar manner from the posed shot it would also register the exact same color signature which is proof beyond a doubt that it was Lovelady. There's much more sophisticated arguments like these that would prove it's Loveday, yet some CTer's prefer to regress into lesser arguments. In my opinion, these people are worse than Lone Nutters.

It's Lovelady, there's no doubt about it and Dr Fetzer has zero credibility. I'd like Fetzer supporter's opinion on his claim about the USS Vincennes. It has to be pointed-out that Dr Fetzer conspicuously refuses to return to account for himself when totally disproven. How anyone could back him after this is bizarre to me.

[Charles Drago]

Therefore the vertical striped shirt is irrelevant and doesn't have anything to do with anything. It was simply misremembered by Lovelady who wore the wrong shirt. I have no doubt Lovelady wore the right shirt in the posed shot because he saw pictures of himself wearing it and was reminded.

You could not be more off-target.

The multiple shirt provocation -- and that's precisely what we're dealing with here: a provocation -- is served mightily by what you term Lovelady's innocent "misremembering" and what I and others see as a significant component in a larger, hostile operation to confuse and misdirect.

Again, the failure to learn the lessons of deep politics is dramatically illustrated here by the absence of doubt.

[Albert Doyle]

You could not be more off-target.

The multiple shirt provocation -- and that's precisely what we're dealing with here: a provocation -- is served mightily by what you term Lovelady's innocent "misremembering" and what I and others see as a significant component in a larger, hostile operation to confuse and misdirect.

Again, the failure to learn the lessons of deep politics is dramatically illustrated here by the absence of doubt.

OK, sure. But don't you see it makes no difference either way. If Lovelady was somehow induced into bringing the wrong shirt for purposes of deliberate confusion it still doesn't have anything to do with the abstract proof of Doorway Man being Lovelady. I believe that can be proven by intelligent argument and analysis.


In the end the Lovelady issue is minor and secondary to the evidence behind the conspiracy. JFK was assassinated with the conscious cooperation of main government offices and agencies. I personally believe Lane's Mexico City arguments are good enough for an indictment to show Phillip's CIA office was consciously setting-up Lee Harvey Oswald as an Operation Northwoods-type patsy in a Seven Days In May coup. I think we have enough to act against the government at this point.

[Seamus Coogan]

You could not be more off-target.

The multiple shirt provocation -- and that's precisely what we're dealing with here: a provocation -- is served mightily by what you term Lovelady's innocent "misremembering" and what I and others see as a significant component in a larger, hostile operation to confuse and misdirect.

Again, the failure to learn the lessons of deep politics is dramatically illustrated here by the absence of doubt.

OK, sure. But don't you see it makes no difference either way. If Lovelady was somehow induced into bringing the wrong shirt for purposes of deliberate confusion it still doesn't have anything to do with the abstract proof of Doorway Man being Lovelady. I believe that can be proven by intelligent argument and analysis.


In the end the Lovelady issue is minor and secondary to the evidence behind the conspiracy. JFK was assassinated with the conscious cooperation of main government offices and agencies. I personally believe Lane's Mexico City arguments are good enough for an indictment to show Phillip's CIA office was consciously setting-up Lee Harvey Oswald as an Operation Northwoods-type patsy in a Seven Days In May coup. I think we have enough to act against the government at this point.

Dear CD.

For years I have seen nothing and I mean nothing that suggests that person is Oswald. I never have it is clearly Lovelady. So what about shirt similarities? All of those shirts sit and hang the same way. Lovelayd is a man altogether suspicious depending on whom you read or discuss the issue with. I choose not to go that wat. But CD quite clearly brother. Al Doyle by a country has fought the good fight here. As for Don Jeffries well he wants CTKA to work with David Icke and Alex Jones...or he believes Jim DiEugenio should. Now were Jim and I seeking fame they would be the guys we would be hanging out with or being like. Mr Fetzer as he likes to tell me is more famous than both of us lol.

[Charles Drago]

Elsewhere Jim Fetzer has written, "And what other reason
could they have had for [altering Altgens 6] than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't
supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious."

Yet ANOTHER example of a conclusion fatally uninformed by deep political insight.

Might multiple JFK assassination photographs and other pieces of evidence which, in their respective first states, tell us nothing about the "who" and "how" of the conspiracy been altered simply to misdirect critical focus and engender senseless, self-consuming debate and rancor?

[Albert Doyle]

I've learned that Altgen's photo was rushed to the news wire within 20 minutes. That destroys any possible claim of forgery right there alone because by any reasonable means there simply wasn't enough time to produce the complicated forgeries being suggested by Dr Fetzer and his clown partner. In a classic example of the danger of the Fetzer assassination school, Dr Cinque suggested that, because of this time limitation, perhaps an unaltered version of Altgen's was released originally but was altered later. I pointed-out that since he's claiming Black Tie Man was an invention and was superimposed onto the photo that, according to his theory, therefore he would be missing from those unaltered newspaper versions and would therefore be noticed. Of the hundreds of thousands of copies of those allegedly unaltered versions seen in newspapers you would think somebody would have noticed Oswald in his shirt along with the missing Black Tie Man. Cinque could not answer this. And so we see an example of what Dr Fetzer labeled a superior intellect to my own.


Dr Fetzer?

[Adele Edisen]

Sorry to intrude, but I have a few questions and some thoughts.

1. Ar what time relative to the volley of shots fired was the Altgens 6 photo taken? Could we at least guess by judging from the position of the car carrying Secret Service agents? Was it after or before the last shot was heard?

2. Don't we already know where Oswald was located by the police officer who hurried into the SBDB and saw him getting or drinking a soft drink from the drink machine on the second floor some 90 seconds after the last shot? And apparently after eating his lunch on the first floor.

3. If that was Oswald at the doorway and if it was after the last shot, or almost so, would he have run upstairs to get a soft drink after standing at the doorway, and then be seen by the police officer there in time?

4. According to John Armstrong, the second Oswald had left the SBDB from the back side (as I recall, but check this out)?

5. Roger Craig saw the Oswald figure run from the front of the SBDB to the station wagon on Elm Street much later after the shooting events, with traffic flowing on Elm Street that blocked Craig's passage toward the station wagon picking up the Oswald figure, possibly Oswald #2?

6. Could the timing be reconciled, or not, with frames from the Zapruder film?

Adele

[Greg Burnham]

Sorry to intrude, but I have a few questions and some thoughts.

1. Around what time relative to the volley of shots fired was the Altgens 6 photo taken? Could we at least guess by judging from the position of the car carrying Secret Service agents? Was it after or before the last shot was heard?

It was approximately Z-frame 255. JFK was reacting to the frontal throat shot. His left wrist, as seen through the windshield, is up to his throat with Jackie's gloved-hand gripping his forearm.

2. Don't we already know where Oswald was located by the police officer who hurried into the SBDB and saw him getting or drinking a soft drink from the drink machine on the second floor some 90 seconds after the last shot? And apparently after eating his lunch on the first floor.

Correct.

3. If that was Oswald at the doorway and if it was after the last shot, or almost so, would he have run upstairs to get a soft drink after standing at the doorway, and then be seen by the police officer there in time?

Very unlikely.

4. According to John Armstrong, the second Oswald had left the SBDB from the back side (as I recall, but check this out)?

5. Roger Craig saw the Oswald figure run from the front of the SBDB to the station wagon on Elm Street much later after the shooting events, with traffic flowing on Elm Street that blocked Craig's passage toward the station wagon picking up the Oswald figure, possibly Oswald #2?

6. Could the timing be reconciled, or not, with frames from the Zapruder film?

Adele

Some things can be coordinated with the Z-film (Z-255 equals ALTGENS 6 for example), however that is a slippery slope. Because of the dubious nature of the Z-film--the film that both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations used to SUBSTANTIATE THE TIME SIGNATURE, among other things, in support of the single bullet/lone gunman theory--it is mostly unreliable for the purpose to which you want to put it.