TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Don Jeffries]

Albert,

I assure you I'm not dealing with this issue superficially. As I said, nothing concrete has been produced over the past 25 years or so to justify the certainty, on the part of people like you, that the figure IS Lovelady. Yes, the shirt he can be seen in other photos wearing that day does resemble the shirt on the figure in the doorway, but so does the one we know Oswald was wearing. There is a lot of room for doubt here.

Seamus,

I never suggested that you and Jim D. should work with Alex Jones, and I don't believe I've talked about David Icke on this or any other forum. Jones and Icke are both extremely popular- Jones has more listeners and viewers than network t.v. talk show hosts do now, so I think you'd probably have to beg him to join you. You continue to display a confrontational, in your face attitude online, which detracts from your credibility. I'm a bit mystified why someone as astute and knowledgable as Jim DiEugenio is so willing to associate himself with you. Honestly, anything that can said critically about Jim Fetzer's cyber personality can said about you in spades. I don't believe Jim Fetzer has ever challenged someone he disagrees with to a physical fight, for instance.

Ask yourselves how convenient it was for the government to have an employee working with Oswald who bore enough of a resemblance from a distance, right down to wearing a similarly distinctive shirt. Once the controversy about the figure in the doorway was raised, it was inevitable that the authorities would find someone to be that figure. They would not, under any circumstances, admit it was Oswald. He was their lone assassin, and a picture of him standing with other spectators, at the very instant JFK was reacting to gunfire, would have represented the smoking gun we've all been told we need, in order to truly "prove" conspiracy.

I've never found it credible that Oswald, whatever his true role was, would not have been watching the motorcade with all the other employees. Is there evidence that anyone else wasn't watching the motorcade in the TSBD? Talk about drawing attention to yourself- the president is riding directly past the building where you work, and you choose to eat lunch instead of catching a glimpse of him? I don't trust anything Oswald is alleged to have said during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. He might have been on the first floor, the second floor or standing in the entrance doorway.

Adele,

I don't necessarily believe Baker and Truly encountered Oswald 90 seconds after the shooting. There are problems with the encounter, which have been discussed on forums in the past. At first glance, it seems exculpatory for Oswald, but Baker was apparently the only Dallas officer to immediately look towards the TSBD as the source of shots. He had no reason to suspect someone who was calmly drinking a coke of anything. Why was his attention drawn to Oswald? Surely, he must have passed by other employees along the way. I think we need to question everything about this case, including the alleged Baker and Truly encounter with Oswald.

Again, I am not saying the figure in the doorway definitely IS Oswald. I'm saying there is no logical reason to adamantly declare it isn't. Read all the original analysis on this issue by Weisberg and others, and then cite the evidence that disproves them. There has been no definitive evidence brought forth to "prove" Lovelady was the figure in Altgens, and it baffles me that so many CTers seem to be so unwilling to even admit there is any reasonable doubt about it.

Few things are certain in this case. The single bullet theory IS impossible. Oswald didn't fire any shots. There WAS a conspiracy and a massive coverup, which continues to this day. The identity of the figure in the doorway surely isn't in this category.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert,

I assure you I'm not dealing with this issue superficially. As I said, nothing concrete has been produced over the past 25 years or so to justify the certainty, on the part of people like you, that the figure IS Lovelady. Yes, the shirt he can be seen in other photos wearing that day does resemble the shirt on the figure in the doorway, but so does the one we know Oswald was wearing. There is a lot of room for doubt here.

No offense, but your answer is deficient. If you participated in the 'debate' about this with Dr Cinque on Lancer you would see there was extensive evidence against it being Oswald. I totally disagree with your contention that Oswald's shirt resembled Doorway Man's. It doesn't look anything like it. In fact it looks exactly like Lovelady's plaid shirt. Where I come from a photo of a person who states that's him is something that doesn't require "concrete" proof. You seem to be making an inverse argument against what is plainly there. As I said, if you followed the debate over on Lancer you would see there's little room for doubt. None in fact. Cinque/Fetzer universally failed to establish any of their claims. It's common sense that CIA could not produce those alleged forgeries in the established 20-30 minute chain of possession.

I've never found it credible that Oswald, whatever his true role was, would not have been watching the motorcade with all the other employees. Is there evidence that anyone else wasn't watching the motorcade in the TSBD? Talk about drawing attention to yourself- the president is riding directly past the building where you work, and you choose to eat lunch instead of catching a glimpse of him? I don't trust anything Oswald is alleged to have said during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. He might have been on the first floor, the second floor or standing in the entrance doorway.

It would make sense that Oswald was ordered to the lunchroom by his handlers in order to prevent him from interfering with the actual shooting. Don't forget Oswald was an active deep CIA operative (whether that came in the form of useful patsy who thought he was doing infiltrator work or whatever). He was the focus of some deep segment of intel which was executing its deepest most important operation according to their full capabilities. Your logic puzzles me because Oswald would have a very obvious excuse as an open Castro supporter to not view the president.

I don't necessarily believe Baker and Truly encountered Oswald 90 seconds after the shooting. There are problems with the encounter, which have been discussed on forums in the past. At first glance, it seems exculpatory for Oswald, but Baker was apparently the only Dallas officer to immediately look towards the TSBD as the source of shots. He had no reason to suspect someone who was calmly drinking a coke of anything. Why was his attention drawn to Oswald? Surely, he must have passed by other employees along the way. I think we need to question everything about this case, including the alleged Baker and Truly encounter with Oswald.

If Oswald was following orders and heard gunshots he would be aware. Police officers are in the business of reading body language and signs of guilt. I'm sure Baker saw something that set off his senses like Oswald pulling away from the automatic door window in a way that gave Baker a vibe. Cops pick-up on these kind of vibes and I'm sure Oswald was radiating them considering. Oswald was able to remain calm because he knew he didn't do anything. Why, where else in the Depository do you think Oswald was without being seen?

I can't see how anyone could ignore the obvious hurdle of the 20-30 minute chain of possession for Altgens-6. To suggest it isn't proven that it is Lovelady is to suggest the forgery is real. But it's pretty much impossible for CIA to get all those complicated forgeries done within the known time period and availabilty.

I'd like to get on The Education Forum and straighten some things out.

I think Duncan has discovered an absolutely Holmesian brilliant match between West Window Man and T-Shirt Man in the Depository.

[Seamus Coogan]

Albert,

I assure you I'm not dealing with this issue superficially. As I said, nothing concrete has been produced over the past 25 years or so to justify the certainty, on the part of people like you, that the figure IS Lovelady. Yes, the shirt he can be seen in other photos wearing that day does resemble the shirt on the figure in the doorway, but so does the one we know Oswald was wearing. There is a lot of room for doubt here.

No offense, but your answer is deficient. If you participated in the 'debate' about this with Dr Cinque on Lancer you would see there was extensive evidence against it being Oswald. I totally disagree with your contention that Oswald's shirt resembled Doorway Man's. It doesn't look anything like it. In fact it looks exactly like Lovelady's plaid shirt. Where I come from a photo of a person who states that's him is something that doesn't require "concrete" proof. You seem to be making an inverse argument against what is plainly there. As I said, if you followed the debate over on Lancer you would see there's little room for doubt. None in fact. Cinque/Fetzer universally failed to establish any of their claims. It's common sense that CIA could not produce those alleged forgeries in the established 20-30 minute chain of possession.

I've never found it credible that Oswald, whatever his true role was, would not have been watching the motorcade with all the other employees. Is there evidence that anyone else wasn't watching the motorcade in the TSBD? Talk about drawing attention to yourself- the president is riding directly past the building where you work, and you choose to eat lunch instead of catching a glimpse of him? I don't trust anything Oswald is alleged to have said during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. He might have been on the first floor, the second floor or standing in the entrance doorway.

It would make sense that Oswald was ordered to the lunchroom by his handlers in order to prevent him from interfering with the actual shooting. Don't forget Oswald was an active deep CIA operative (whether that came in the form of useful patsy who thought he was doing infiltrator work or whatever). He was the focus of some deep segment of intel which was executing its deepest most important operation according to their full capabilities. Your logic puzzles me because Oswald would have a very obvious excuse as an open Castro supporter to not view the president.

I don't necessarily believe Baker and Truly encountered Oswald 90 seconds after the shooting. There are problems with the encounter, which have been discussed on forums in the past. At first glance, it seems exculpatory for Oswald, but Baker was apparently the only Dallas officer to immediately look towards the TSBD as the source of shots. He had no reason to suspect someone who was calmly drinking a coke of anything. Why was his attention drawn to Oswald? Surely, he must have passed by other employees along the way. I think we need to question everything about this case, including the alleged Baker and Truly encounter with Oswald.

If Oswald was following orders and heard gunshots he would be aware. Police officers are in the business of reading body language and signs of guilt. I'm sure Baker saw something that set off his senses like Oswald pulling away from the automatic door window in a way that gave Baker a vibe. Cops pick-up on these kind of vibes and I'm sure Oswald was radiating them considering. Oswald was able to remain calm because he knew he didn't do anything. Why, where else in the Depository do you think Oswald was without being seen?

I can't see how anyone could ignore the obvious hurdle of the 20-30 minute chain of possession for Altgens-6. To suggest it isn't proven that it is Lovelady is to suggest the forgery is real. But it's pretty much impossible for CIA to get all those complicated forgeries done within the known time period and availabilty.

I'd like to get on The Education Forum and straighten some things out.

I think Duncan has discovered an absolutely Holmesian brilliant match between West Window Man and T-Shirt Man in the Depository.

Good points all Al. Don could/should have told you that old Greg Parker has done a lot of work with that Truly/Baker stuff. It's very interesting.
While I agree the whole story of the TSBD and the statements are suspicious it's quite clear that Don doesn't grasp the idea (as you have stated) that Oswald was under orders. Further that the person standing there in that photo is clearly not Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Phil Dragoo]

To save bandwidth, please see the photocollage at https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post50058

Billy Lovelady in the doorway with the plaid shirt.

Lee Oswald in the lunchroom, then--one and a half minutes after the fusilamiento--calmly drinking a Coke from a second-floor vending machine per M.L. Baker and Roy Truly.

The face and shirt clearly Lovelady. The Coke drinker, Oswald, wearing a shirt in no way patterned as that of Lovelady.

[Seamus Coogan]

My Replies to Don are in Bold. Love the Bullshirt line by the way PD.

Seamus,

I never suggested that you and Jim D. should work with Alex Jones, and I don't believe I've talked about David Icke on this or any other forum.
Jones and Icke are both extremely popular- Jones has more listeners and viewers than network t.v. talk show hosts do now, so I think you'd probably have to beg him to join you.

First off are you or are not something of a fan of David Icke Don? Because it says so on your profile here. It seems your a member of a fan group.
http://profileengine.com/people/donald.j...d.jeffries

That for myself is an instant credibility fail. And your worried about mine? We'll get to that a little later my reptilian Lizardman friend.
Oh and Don please don't say "I don't agree with the lizardman stuff but Ickes really on our side". Thats a likely comeback and sorry pal it won't work. Once tainted with Icke in my opinion it's strictly a no comeback zone as far as I am concerned. Like Jim Fetzer is there nothing base you won't tolerate? I didn't need to go too any forum to ask you about Icke did I Don? Sometime ago when I saw your comments concerning Ventura on the Ed Forum and Lancer. I detected a little twinge of hurt. Thus I suspected you were an Icke fan and I did a Google name association and the above profile came up. Turns out I was right.

Now please don't go and quickly delete it (check out the Groups people). Proudly 'stand by your man' or so the song goes. Your pal Fetzer blatantly lied about his continued contact with fruit loop Nicco Haupt! Yes he was that ashamed of it. Indeed Don you and a whole bunch of people are gonna love my series on Icke I have written at Top Secret Writers! It's now in 8 parts. You'll probably decry it as being nasty, vicious, harsh, rude and so on. But hey them's the breaks he's a garbage researcher. It's also a cruel world. As I always say "With conspiracy you are what you eat!". Your eating Icke, Jones, Fetzer, Cinque with other good researchers. Indeed you have often made calls I agree with. But as I said in my Jones piece which distressed you greatly. It's this sort of mixture which induces food poisoning.

I don't think that all researchers carry the same weight or have the same abilities. I think there a number of similar/better and more experienced researchers than myself. They're the ones I get my advice from/Share information with. They are the ones that give me confidence. It just so happens I don't think Icke, Jones, Fetzer, Hankey, Cinque and others are worthy mentors for anyone in any capacity.

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk as for us asking Jones to join us. Don either that was a very lame attempt at sarcasm or humour, I don't know which. But please don't try and turn this into an ego thing. This has nothing to do with a pissing contest. The reality is (like I said earlier) you got pipped way, way, way back about my detailing of Alex Jones failings with regard to JFK. And possibly earlier with my CTKA debut on John Hankey. Indeed you commented on here once, that you found my critique on Hankey Harsh but fair. Yet after you agreed about the amount of lies in Hankeys piece, you then bizarrely said Hankey had done well with JFK Jr. Sorry Don, but how could anyone of a right mind trust or congratulate anybody after JFK II. My god there's Manchurian candidate flight instructors and hidden gunmen concealed in the plane (that's what some of the other crazies you endorsed were guessing at). What ever happened Don to the days of good old fashioned C4 and a missile?

You later took a little yap at me on Lancer and I politely rebuffed you about the positives of the Ventura show. Thus judging by your comments it's readily apparent that you've never liked my research nor my views. Fair enough. Fetzer and Icke fans or rabid conspiracy integrationists generally don't.

That's something I can live with! Your not my target audience.

Being somewhat more militant than yourself. What I can't condone is you obviously want CTKA and others to leave these types of people alone. Which to my mind and Jim Di's indeed to any CTKA contributor is much the same as holding their hands. And your very lucky that Martin Hay and Frank Cassano two dudes you wouldn't wanna mess with in a debate are not on this forum. Was it not you who wrote the below sentence on the Education Forum.

"Shorn of all the quibbling over minute details, Alex Jones represents one of the most popular pro-conspiracy voices in all of media. I think he's on our side, and he has my support."

Don, you think my research on Jones was quibbling over minute details? I supposed you think the MJ-12 stuff I did was also quibbling?
Okay cool. You see I wasn't actually taking apart any JFK researchers. It was the kooks and spooks in the UFO community who had spread the MJ-12 disinfo gibberish. You were obviously offended by that as well. Not to worry JF will avenge you with his rendition of MJ-12 I am wholly sure of it.

Why on Earth Don can't someone be entertaining and flag waving while 'surprise, surprise' using good sources of information! With all of the accumulated wealth Ventura, Icke and Jones have their research is incredibly poor. Imagine what CD, JK, Jim Di, Jim Douglas (no I wouldn't trust you with the cash sorry Don) would do with resources like that? Ventura who could have made a fantastic and entertaining show with Dick Russell instead utterly embarrassed the entire research community with his Ron gag.

A gag which incidentally Don, many people believe your good pal Jim Fetzer was part of! However right or wrong that is, why don't you go and clear JF's name from that slur. Or work with me to find out who that person really was? Now that's something constructive we could do together. But hey since you don't like me, well then go ask Jim Di. I'm sure he'd be keen to work with you in finding out who Ron is. Hey if Jim tells you he's got to much on try Kathy Beckett and or Duncan McRae. Duncan and I don't much like one anothers views, but we have worked through our differences with regard's to Ron. I'm sure he'd be pleased to see you sign up!!!!!

Don everybody knows it's a conspiracy.[B] Why do we not consolidate the best information we have and go from here? I believe people have been induced by conspiracy crap everywhere. Its all over TV in fact or fiction. That's the problem. Don you seem to exist in an ideal world where the CIA don't plant BS conspiracy garbage to people who believe anything like Jim Fetzer. In your world we should all get along with these very disinformation merchant's. Who in turn play right into the hands of the McAdam's and Macks with their BS. you may well enjoy encouraging younger researchers to become straw candidates and cannabilised by the likes of those guys. Sorry buddy I don't.[/B]

You continue to display a confrontational, in your face attitude online, which detracts from your credibility. I'm a bit mystified why someone as astute and knowledgable as Jim DiEugenio is so willing to associate himself with you. Honestly, anything that can said critically about Jim Fetzer's cyber personality can said about you in spades. I don't believe Jim Fetzer has ever challenged someone he disagrees with to a physical fight, for instance.

Jim and I hang out a lot. Further if Jim thought my comment was rough as far as my offer for a sparring session is concerned. I'd have have known about it. Jan and Dawn who are far less rough and ready than say CD and I. They would have certainly been on my case also. If you cannot see that or are unwilling to acknowldge that fact alone Mr Jeffries well that's your problem not mine. Don't be selective like JF has been and single me out lol! Blame Jim Di, the mods and everyone else here!

What's highly ironic is that I became involved on DPF because of the insults Jim Fetzer had hurled at Jim DiEugenio. Yes, the very man you greatly admire but whom when JF was slinging hideous barbs at on the Education Forum (and here) it seems you never bothered defending. Unless I am very much mistaken. So please spare the readers your deep concern for CTKA.

How I started out was that people all over the show were not posting CTKA articles. Had Jim DiEugenio ever deemed you worthy of an article I would likely have posted your's. Ask Jim yourself, I never wanted too be an ambassador for CTKA. If somebody want's to take over my role. I'd gladly step aside as Jim's Pitbull. I agree maybe he is better served by someone less feisty Lol! I still do help talent spot. Vasillios, PD and Frank Cassano and after this performance I have to say Al Doyle are three of the gems I've unearthed. Indeed I am hatching plans to get GB to do some Prouty stuff with me there. If he ever has the time and inclination.

look if I I was in this thing for fame Don, I'd be emulating your Pals Alex Jones, David Icke and Jim Fetzer. Thus, your comments made earlier about myself making a name by going after Jim Fetzer are patently ridiculous. I made a teeny tiny ripple by going after some noted conspirahypocrites. People as I have said you seem to support. In fact it was the reaction of their fan boys like you which has given me what little notoriety I crave apparently.

Steven Jones is about the only person I know who made a name for himself when he and his organisation ejected Mr Fetzer from his. Thus this call about my credibility as a researcher being damaged by a 'take no shit' attitude may or may not affect that. Further Mr Jeffries as I said earlier, you have troubles with my research because I challenge your beliefs in certain frauds. I also take no prisoners. You have no real concern for my credibility nor that of CTKA's. Let's make that clear. Nor have I seen anything in your research that indicates any great influence from Jim DiEugenio.

You cannot really debate me properly, so you get personal and say how offensive I am. Look Don lad, I've been there done that and got the T-Shirt!!! So how about it. Let's have a debate over the merits of say David Icke and don't hide behind the defence of "He's popular and thats a good thing FOR the young uns!!" I want a real nuts and bolts facts for facts, evidence to evidence blow out. I want to discuss his BS calls about all manner of BS issues he raises. All this will be moderated of course. Help we could even have a live timed debate with set topics and a moderator. Until you really can front up Don, I seriously suggest you (and I can guarantee that Jim DiEugenio and my friends on here and elsewhere) suggest you quit playing victim. This is a position you should have realised you would be in, when you jumped in on behalf of two men who have offended a good deal of people on this forum. Many of whom you would consider friends. In fact Don, I feel your showing a great deal of disrespect to many people here for effectively siding with them both.

Ask yourselves how convenient it was for the government to have an employee working with Oswald who bore enough of a resemblance from a distance, right down to wearing a similarly distinctive shirt.

Let me get this straight. You believe that this could have been an Oswald double? Wouldn't it complicate matters for the authorities if there were numerous Oswald's walking around and being photographed?

Once the controversy about the figure in the doorway was raised, it was inevitable that the authorities would find someone to be that figure. They would not, under any circumstances, admit it was Oswald. He was their lone assassin, and a picture of him standing with other spectators, at the very instant JFK was reacting to gunfire, would have represented the smoking gun we've all been told we need, in order to truly "prove" conspiracy.

I've never found it credible that Oswald, whatever his true role was, would not have been watching the motorcade with all the other employees.

What part of orders from higher ups don't you get Don?

Is there evidence that anyone else wasn't watching the motorcade in the TSBD? Talk about drawing attention to yourself- the president is riding directly past the building where you work, and you choose to eat lunch instead of catching a glimpse of him? I don't trust anything Oswald is alleged to have said during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions.

This is silliness on a scale only a member of an Icke group could conjure up.

If you don't believe it well tell me what's the alternative Don...Making stuff up? That's what David Icke, John Hankey and JF do really well when there's nothing else to do. If he was watching the motorcade why didn't Oswald say he was out in the street as part of the Mardi Gras parade? He could have at anytime to the press. But Don I guess all that films been doctored now as well huh? Are you now saying that there was somehow a cover up of testimony to suggest he actually said he was out there watching? If so Don please show me Al, Adele and the entire forum at large the evidence for this mate. Because it's scant. Further can't you see Don that Oswald's statements (which you disbelieve entirely) are themselves suspicious? That he was in the building full while JFK came through is very suspicious of something going on!!!!! Hell, he may have taken a peak? We don't rightly know do we. Why because there is no footage of him doing so. And of course all images of Oswald partaking in the parade have been doctored. Hey that's what all of your buddies are saying isn't it?

He might have been on the first floor, the second floor or standing in the entrance doorway.

This all sounds like a classic case of having your cake and eating it Don. Or what I have coined conspirahypocrisy. If your so non-chalant so indecisive why partake in the debate and why back up Mr Cinque? Not to mention Fetzer a person who has insulted a number of your friends on this thread. Underneath your calm demeanour there's a conspiracy zealot ever lurking! I have to ask does Mr Cinque like David Icke as well?

[/QUOTE]

[LR Trotter]

Hopefully I am not "piling on" here, but the questions in post #89 are very important, as are the answers in post #90 in an effort to establish certain facts during, before, and shortly after the time of the Altgens 6 photograph. My opinion is based on reading a few books over the years, watching "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" television series and various other shows, studying a few internet sites, and especially monitoring the Deep Politics Forum. Just my opinion, but I do appreciate the thoughtful posting by Ms Edisen and Mr Burnham.
Regarding "studying a few internet sites", and of course DPF, I have to wonder if maybe, just maybe a few things might have been "arranged" differently in 1963 had the "computer age" been anticipated fully. For a lot of us, in '63 and later years, a computer was nothing more than a calculator. Certainly for me, after the books and TV, my understanding of the events of the JFK assassination went up several levels after gaining access to the World Wide Web. Thankfully, a family member understands these machines.
pcguru

[Adele Edisen]

Hopefully I am not "piling on" here, but the questions in post #89 are very important, as are the answers in post #90 in an effort to establish certain facts during, before, and shortly after the time of the Altgens 6 photograph. My opinion is based on reading a few books over the years, watching "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" television series and various other shows, studying a few internet sites, and especially monitoring the Deep Politics Forum. Just my opinion, but I do appreciate the thoughtful posting by Ms Edisen and Mr Burnham.
Regarding "studying a few internet sites", and of course DPF, I have to wonder if maybe, just maybe a few things might have been "arranged" differently in 1963 had the "computer age" been anticipated fully. For a lot of us, in '63 and later years, a computer was nothing more than a calculator. Certainly for me, after the books and TV, my understanding of the events of the JFK assassination went up several levels after gaining access to the World Wide Web. Thankfully, a family member understands these machines.
pcguru

Thank you for your kind words which are much appreciated. Even though some may disagree with some factual statements, at least more progress can be made toward learning the truth by discussing the factual basis of hyotheses than by ad hominem arguments and attacks (which are unrelated to the topic at hand).

Adele

[Seamus Coogan]

Hopefully I am not "piling on" here, but the questions in post #89 are very important, as are the answers in post #90 in an effort to establish certain facts during, before, and shortly after the time of the Altgens 6 photograph. My opinion is based on reading a few books over the years, watching "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" television series and various other shows, studying a few internet sites, and especially monitoring the Deep Politics Forum. Just my opinion, but I do appreciate the thoughtful posting by Ms Edisen and Mr Burnham.
Regarding "studying a few internet sites", and of course DPF, I have to wonder if maybe, just maybe a few things might have been "arranged" differently in 1963 had the "computer age" been anticipated fully. For a lot of us, in '63 and later years, a computer was nothing more than a calculator. Certainly for me, after the books and TV, my understanding of the events of the JFK assassination went up several levels after gaining access to the World Wide Web. Thankfully, a family member understands these machines.
pcguru

Thank you for your kind words which are much appreciated. Even though some may disagree with some factual statements, at least more progress can be made toward learning the truth by discussing the factual basis of hyotheses than by ad hominem arguments and attacks (which are unrelated to the topic at hand).

Adele

Adele I do plead guilty as charged. But I agree LR I think GB and Adele have made some really good contributions. But I really think Al has done his fair share here too he's the dude that's been facing this stuff down. Considering the barbs hurled his way, I think he's keeping pretty calm. He's also waging a pitched battle with Cinque over at Lancer. Which makes for some interesting reading. The same results going for Cinque there like it has here.

[Greg Burnham]

Hopefully I am not "piling on" here, but the questions in post #89 are very important, as are the answers in post #90 in an effort to establish certain facts during, before, and shortly after the time of the Altgens 6 photograph. My opinion is based on reading a few books over the years, watching "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" television series and various other shows, studying a few internet sites, and especially monitoring the Deep Politics Forum. Just my opinion, but I do appreciate the thoughtful posting by Ms Edisen and Mr Burnham.
Regarding "studying a few internet sites", and of course DPF, I have to wonder if maybe, just maybe a few things might have been "arranged" differently in 1963 had the "computer age" been anticipated fully. For a lot of us, in '63 and later years, a computer was nothing more than a calculator. Certainly for me, after the books and TV, my understanding of the events of the JFK assassination went up several levels after gaining access to the World Wide Web. Thankfully, a family member understands these machines.
pcguru

Thank you for your kind words which are much appreciated. Even though some may disagree with some factual statements, at least more progress can be made toward learning the truth by discussing the factual basis of hyotheses than by ad hominem arguments and attacks (which are unrelated to the topic at hand).

Adele

Thanks, LR.

Just as another point of reference:

The Z-film was running at approximately 18.3 frames per second (give or take). Z-255 (timestamp for Altgens 6) is exactly 58 frames before the headshot at Z-313. Do the math: 58 frames divided by 18.3 frames per second = slightly over 3 seconds. According to Marion Baker, he and Roy Truly encountered Oswald in the lunchroom on the second floor approximately 90 seconds after the last shot was fired. So, if Z-255 (and Altgens 6) occurred 3.17 seconds before the headshot @Z-313 and the encounter with LHO and Baker occurred 90 seconds later, then Oswald was seen in the lunchroom at about 93.17 seconds after Altgens 6 was snapped. *

It is infinitely more plausible that Oswald could "make it in time" from the front steps of the TSBD to the lunchroom than it is to imagine him making it there from the 6th floor, where the 6th floor is out of range from the front steps within 90 seconds. However, except for the ability to "make it in time" it is equally implausible that he would re-enter the building. There would be absolutely no reason for him to re-enter the building at this point. Indeed, his subsequent actions--as far as we know them--are consistent with someone deciding that there would be no reason to remain at work that day.

If we believe that he was eating his lunch in the lunchroom at the time the shots were fired and when he was finished eating he decided to buy a coke--the encounter with Baker is consistent with the evidence. His departure from the building and his taking public transportation to his place of residence is also consistent.

But, if he was out front on the steps...it all falls apart. He'd just witnessed the president's murder and figured, "I guess I'll have a Coke before I go home..."???

[size=12]* Any attempt to time anything based on the Z-film must be done with caution.[/SIZE]

[Seamus Coogan]

"I guess I'll have a Coke before I go home..."???

Funny analogy. I'm going with your more conservative estimate but it made me giggle with that last line all the same.
I just heard the interview with Anita Langley bloody interesting that one!!!!
.

[size=12][/SIZE]