TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Charles Drago]

[Altgens 6] was immediately blasted around the world and was seen in newspapers the world over.

This is a fatally vague statement made absent evidence of academic rigor.

Do you know the chain of custody of Altgens's original film roll, from shooting to development to first public appearance, on which the photo in question was captured?

Do you know the precise date, time, and venue of the first public appearance of Altgens 6?

Do you have access to the original iteration of that appearance?

Has the original iteration of the first publicly published version of Altgens 6 been carefully, thoroughly, and scientifically compared to later iterations? If so, when, where and by whom?

The shirt proves that Doorman was Oswald. The shirts match too well- in their form, in how they were worn, and in how they lied- to be anything but the same shirt. Any mathematicians among you?

Any deep political analysis experience on your c.v.?

Your "proof" is anything but. At least until you provide independently verifiable answers to the questions posed above, you have not eliminated alternative explanations for the anomalies and the mysteries of Altgens 6.

[Ralph Cinque]

I am under no such obligation to definitively answer such questions- certainly no more so than those who argue that Doorman is Lovelady. Altgens' film was in the hands of the AP, and they released it to the news wires. You are obfuscating.

"Deep political analysis" has nothing to do with it and has zero value. The likenesses between Doorman's and Oswald's shirts, that I point to, stand on their own merit. YOU are the one who has to provide alternative explanations for those likenesses- not me.

[Charles Drago]

I am under no such obligation to definitively answer such questions- certainly no more so than those who argue that Doorman is Lovelady.

So your position is that you can submit work as shoddy as the "Doorman is Lovelady" argument you attack and yet be taken seriously.

Got it.

Altgens' film was in the hands of the AP, and they released it to the news wires. You are obfuscating.

Vague, unresponsive, utterly without value, suspiciously defensive. All topped off with the ad hominem.

Got it.

Don't look now, but your kimono is opening ...

"Deep political analysis" has nothing to do with it and has zero value.

Then help us to understand why you come to the Deep Politics Forum -- other than to undermine it?

The likenesses between Doorman's and Oswald's shirts, that I point to, stand on their own merit. YOU are the one who has to provide alternative explanations for those likenesses- not me.

Your vague, undocumented arguments, wholly uninformed by a deep political perspective, are devoid of merit.


Looks we got another one, friends. General Field Marshal Cinque Mtume lives!

[Ralph Cinque]

My position is that when I point to likenesses between Doorman's shirt and Oswald's that cannot be accounted for by chance alone, it is obfuscating to raise other questions, such as the ones you raise.

When I said the deep political analysis has nothing to do with it I meant that politcal analysis, deep or otherwise, has nothing to do with it. Politics has nothing to do with it. We are talking about physical evidence here -not political analysis. I am not asking people to look at it with a deep political perspective. I am asking people to look at it with two open eyes.

Altgens photo was in the hands of the AP. They owned it. Altgens worked for them. And they made it available to newspapers. What is vague about that?

And as far as ad hominem attacks, you are the one who is making them. You haven't talked about the shirts. You haven't responded to the likenesses that I pointed to- and whether those likenesses occurred by chance or otherwise. And if you are going to cling to the Lovelady hypothesis, then you have to wrestle with the odds that Oswald and Lovelady both dressed so similarly that day.

In other words, instead of wasting time calling me Field Marshall and alluding to my kimono, you dive into the meat of matter and address the issue of the likenesses of the shirts (Oswald's and Doorman's) and how those likenesses came about. Is that too much to ask? Hey, I enjoy sarcasm and clever wit as much as the next guy, but we are talking about a crucial thing here because if Doorman was wearing Oswald's shirt, he was Oswald. And if Oswald was standing outside, then he wasn't 6 floors up shooting at the President, and we have been lied to for 48 years. Wrap your deep political analysis around that.

[Charles Drago]

My position is that when I point to likenesses between Doorman's shirt and Oswald's that cannot be accounted for by chance alone, it is obfuscating to raise other questions, such as the ones you raise.

Nonsense. The questions I raise are relevant to and have a direct bearing on the ultimate value of your position -- which does not exist in some sort of isolation zone. Your deep political analysis skills are seemingly non-existent. And no matter how hard you try to direct responses to your posts along the lines you favor, you have no authority -- intellectual or otherwise -- to do so.

When I said the deep political analysis has nothing to do with it I meant that politcal analysis, deep or otherwise, has nothing to do with it. Politics has nothing to do with it. We are talking about physical evidence here -not political analysis. I am not asking people to look at it with a deep political perspective. I am asking people to look at it with two open eyes.

Nonsense. You are asking people to look at your "argument" with one myopic eye.

You cannot even define "deep politics," so how can you have even the foggiest idea as to the merits of deep political analysis to the Altgens 6 question?

How the hell can we analyze successfully ANY aspect of the JFK case except from a deep political perspective?

Altgens photo was in the hands of the AP. They owned it. Altgens worked for them. And they made it available to newspapers. What is vague about that?

EVERYTHING! And if you honestly believe otherwise, then you're over your head on this forum.

You haven't responded to the likenesses that I pointed to- and whether those likenesses occurred by chance or otherwise. And if you are going to cling to the Lovelady hypothesis, then you have to wrestle with the odds that Oswald and Lovelady both dressed so similarly that day.

I have responded DIRECTLY and REPEATEDLY to your "argument." As for my position on the Lovelady/Oswald/Altgens 6 issue -- you haven't the foggiest idea, have you? And yet the vast majority of the readers of this exchange have a very clear idea of where I stand.

Best to the girl in the closet.

[Ralph Cinque]

Physical, visible evidence DOES exist "in isolation." I am not so much asking people to look at my argument as to look at my pictures. The deep politcal perspective is useful to explain the WHO and WHY of the assassination, and I recommend JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass for that. But when it comes to the WHAT as in what happened, it's about physics, not politics. And fortunately, it is now about examining physical evidence that you can see with your own two eyes.

[Charles Drago]

Physical, visible evidence DOES exist "in isolation." I am not so much asking people to look at my argument as to look at my pictures. The deep politcal perspective is useful to explain the WHO and WHY of the assassination, and I recommend JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass for that. But when it comes to the WHAT as in what happened, it's about physics, not politics. And fortunately, it is now about examining physical evidence that you can see with your own two eyes.

Nonsense.

Absent a deep political analysis of the legitimacy of JFK assassination evidence, acceptance of evidence as being genuine is fatally nonsensical.

You are over your head, and you're making my hair hurt.

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Blago, have you watched my videos? And if you haven't, why are you arguing with me?

[Charles Drago]

Because based on your posts, I disrespect your mind and mistrust your intentions.

[James H. Fetzer]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/...after-all/

JFK Special: Oswald was in the Doorway, after all!

by Dr. Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer



The release of the notes taken by Dallas Police Department Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspected assassin of President John F. Kennedy, in which Lee told Fritz that he was "out front with Bill Shelly" has resurrected a debate of long-standing over whether Oswald was the "Doorway Man" in the famous photograph taken during the assassination by Associated Press photographer James "Ike" Altgens.

In this study, we examine that question. Dr. Fetzer had previously concluded that Oswald was another figure in the Altgens photo, namely, the man who is standing to the right/front of Doorway Man as viewed in the photograph (to Doorway Man's left/front from his perspective) but whose face and shirt have been obliterated. New observations, first advanced by Ralph Cinque, have convinced Fetzer that Cinque is right: the man in the doorway was Lee Harvey Oswald, after all.

In addition to Cinque's arguments that the man in the doorway was wearing Oswald's shirt, Fetzer adds the complementary argument that the shirt of the other figure had to be obscured for the obvious reason that it would have given the game away, which explains why his shirt as well as his face had to be removed. Doorway Man's face, hairline and the pattern of his shirt were "tweaked" to more closely resemble Lovelady or his face may have been transferred to him, but the form, the fit, and the lay of his man's outer-shirt and under-shirt are those of Oswald. So, unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing, the evidence that we present leaves no room for reasonable doubt.