TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[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.

[Charles Drago]

See post # 20.

[James H. Fetzer]

Good. I no longer trust you with any aspect of this forum,
where you have proven to be willing to distort arguments,
suppress evidence, and trash those who disagree with you.

See post # 20.

[James H. Fetzer]

Good. I no longer trust you with any aspect of this forum,
where you have proven to be willing to distort arguments,
suppress evidence and attack those who disagree with you.

See post # 20.

[Dawn Meredith]

Good. I no longer trust you with any aspect of this forum,
where you have proven to be willing to distrort arguments,
suppress evidence, and trash those who disagree with you.

See post # 20.

Could it be that people are genuinely concerned for you? I mean the post is right there, no-one removed it. Yet you said it was gone.
CD can be abrasive, but you can be as well. And you are aligning with people we do not trust here. Is this new post just to annoy?
I mean seriously, what is your game? Because it is certainly beginning to appear to BE a game. Will you be teaming up with "Colby" next?
This is becoming very sad and quite beneath you.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Good. I no longer trust you with any aspect of this forum,
where you have proven to be willing to distort arguments,
suppress evidence and attack those who disagree with you.

See post # 20.

The "end," indeed.

Jim, you are destroying your good name within the community of those who seek truth and justice for JFK. The process is accelerating. Which is, of course, your business.

But as you loom ever larger as a major vulnerability in our war against the killers of John and, by extension, Robert, Martin, Malcolm, and the countless millions of souls who might have lived full lives had the assassins been prevented from striking, your de facto hostile actions will not go unredressed. Not on my watch.

By the same token, I will not permit your exemplary work of years gone by to be tainted by the horrendous errors of judgment that characterize your dotage. The great good you have done will live after you. Despite what you do today.

You no longer trust me, Jim ...

Oh dear.

I'll have my good days and my better days.

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

I am unconvinced of the assertions regarding Doorman. Unfortunately, I also observe that Jack White's expertise in this (and other) area(s) is sorely missed due to an extended convalescence. When one or two researchers believe that they have made a break through discovery, especially one that flies in the face of decades of research conducted by over a dozen fellow researchers (all of whom have repeatedly demonstrated their bona fides and integrity, including Jack), I would think that a peer review of sorts is precisely the reason that this potential discovery should be shared in its infancy.

It is not advised, IMHO, to share a new discovery of this nature that is still in its untested stage in a manner that pontificates to fellow respected researchers. If peer review is unimportant to you, then why even share the information now? Seems like the information could instead be placed in a new book if one is that convinced of its validity, rather than on a forum whose purpose is to vet such claims as these--particularly when they run contrary to previously validated studies. Is it possible that the new information will eventually supersede what we already know? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But, as of now--it has yet to be proved.

Bottom line: One should EXPECT harsh criticisms when posting work of this nature on a public forum. One should roll with the punches and prove their case, if possible. One should remain properly dispassionate, but not aloof.

On a final note...these recommendations are much easier for me to say since I am not the one sharing my work. I am not intending to preach either. My apologies if it came out that way.

[Albert Doyle]

I think those who give the undeserved possibility that this Doorway Man theory might have some validity do so because they haven't done the basic homework to show why it is garbage. If you'll notice there's a direct relationship between those who give this crap theory the theoretical benefit of the doubt and those who didn't participate in the discussion of why it's apocryphal. It's useless to referee methodology when what is being refereed is obvious crap to begin with, in my opinion. Once Lovelady was shown standing off to the side in the exact same shirt opened in the front and exposing the white t-shirt underneath the exact same way, that should be enough for most people. Most people with common sense should see all "Dr Cinque" offers is stubbornly-defiant ignorant rubbish.


By the way, Dr Fetzer, during your self-proclaimed persecution did you take the time to view the photo of the Vincennes being scrapped? Or was that forged too?

[Charles Drago]

Is there no depth to which Jim Fetzer will not sink?

Is there no trap into which Jim Fetzer will not sashay?

With each successive embrace of a fool, charlatan, and/or agent provocateur, the once-beloved and respected Jim Fetzer distances himself from and diminishes the noble quests for truth and justice for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Elsewhere in our cyber world, Jim currently is spatting with a former ally -- yet another in the long list of ignorati he champions and then abandons. I speak of the sex-obsessed Texan who long ago was exposed -- he'd like my use of that word -- on these pages as a perverted intellectual lightweight. "You call yourself a historian," Jim recently wrote to him in full derision mode.

Oh well ... Better late than never.

So is it only a matter of time before Jim dumps the savage disinformation agent who promotes the LBJ/"Mastermind" ruse and the snake oil salesman (literally!) Cinque?

The extremely significant issues relating to the identity of the controversial figure in Altgens 6 have been dragged through the mud of Cinque's mind here and elsewhere to the extent that they have been taken off the serious discussion table. In other words, provocation accomplished.

When we at DPF sent Cinque packing, that was the cue for the vengeful egomaniac Jim Fetzer to jump into Cinque's cesspool. "I'll fix those DPF bastards!" Jim likely told himself -- over and over again.

We are left to wonder which of the Boobsie Twins initiated contact. Oh, to have been a bug on the electronic wall when that call was made ...

The decline and fall of Jim Fetzer is heartbreaking to all of us who still love and who, once upon a time, respected the man.

Jim, where once you stood with Mantik and Aguilar and Evica, you now choose to stand with Cinque and Nelson and Morrow.

If you are still in command of your faculties, shame on you.

If your are not, may you find and accept the loving help you so desperately need.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

P.S. -- Jim, you are destroying your good name within the community of those who seek truth and justice for JFK. The process is accelerating. Which is, of course, your business.

But as you loom ever larger as a major vulnerability in our war against the killers of John and, by extension, Robert, Martin, Malcolm, and the countless millions of souls who might have lived full lives had the assassins been prevented from striking, your de facto hostile actions will not go unredressed. Not on my watch.

By the same token, I will not permit your exemplary work of years gone by to be tainted by the horrendous errors of judgment that characterize your dotage. The great good you have done will live after you. Despite what you do today.

Please get help while you still can.

Please.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The White Queen only believed six impossible things before breakfast...

For the avoidance of doubt, this is directed at the Emeritus Professor and his snake oil salesman sidekick.