TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Ralph Cinque]

Doyle, if what you say is true, why are there no other visible examples of it? Don't you understand that you can't just pontificate?

I know that it really doesn't matter what I think- or what you think. It matters only what the objective evidence proves. You have got to materially, physically prove this effect- of chin-shade causing vees in t-shirts- that you claim takes place.

We've heard your explanation. So don't bother repeating it. It's not helping you. It's just making you look nervous and desperate.

And there is a lot riding on this. You have already admitted that Lovelady wore round-neck tee-shirts. In every single picture we have of him, he is wearing a round-neck tee-shirt. Even when he dressed up and posed as Doorway Man, he wore a round-neck t-shirt. That's how commited he was to round-neck t-shirts. He was just a round-neck kind of guy.

So, if that really is a vee-neck t-shirt on Doorman, it's game over for Lovelady. Terminado. El final.

And I suggest you take a look at my post 82 on Lancer, under Help, What Happened to Doorman's Arm, because now there's a new problem concerning those pockets. It turns out that Lovelady was indeed lying about that shirt of his.

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert likes to fantasize. Like Doyle, Lamson makes many pointless posts. My not having gotten around to posting a response on a matter that Ralph has answered many times is NOT a "refusal to answer". That is a gross misrepresentation--but I certainly understand that, when the evidence is against you, FAKE IT! You are doing a great job of that. We have no good reason to believe that the shadow is being caused by Doorway Man's chin. But the shadow is not the crucial consideration. Oswald tugged at this tee shirt; Lovelady did not. It is far more probable that this is Oswald's shirt than Lovelady's. The shadow could reinforce the vee of the shirt, but not obfuscate a round one. As Ralph Cinque has explained here again and again, ITS THE SHIRTS, NOT THE SHADOW. To focus on the shadow and not upon the shirts is a classic distraction.

As I've already posted Robin Unger brought a Marsh scan blow-up of Doorway Man that shows a clearly visible patch of skin next to the chin shadow in the image. This proves the dark area Fetzer and Cinque are calling a "V-neck" undershirt is the over-contrasted shadow from Lovelady's chin. A competent analysis of this scan would show beyond a doubt that the skin patch can be isolated from the dark shadow. What this tells you is the area of shadow that failed to fall on this spot left a patch of skin that registered a different look in the photo. This is really simple business that should be easy to understand. It proves that Lovelady is wearing the round-neck T-shirt he is seen wearing in the police station photo. The over-contrasted shadow from his chin is making this round-neck appear to look like the notch of a V-neck undershirt. On another forum someone asked Fetzer to describe what specifically is causing the dark area beneath Lovelady's chin? Fetzer refused to answer. That should tell you all you need to know. It's so simple it's silly. If this wasn't a shadow then the area beneath the chin would appear like the other flesh tones seen in Altgens. If it was the remaining unaltered neck area of Lee Harvey Oswald with the V-neck notch showing then it would contain the skin tones seen on people in the shot. It doesn't because it is the chin shadow dropping down in perfect conformity with the sun angle seen throughout the picture.

I know I am wasting my time on this because Dr Cinque is a gross incompetent who is woefully unqualified for this subject. He sees a sound technical argument and answers it with his tedious mickey mouse insanity. Hopefully there will be a good side to this and Cinque will drag Fetzer down with him and clean-up the credibility of the research community. Only a fool would offer the stupid ignorance Dr Cinque proffers and not realize how absurd it was in its own form. Yes, Dr Cinque is that stupid as to offer random shots of people and call it a credible test sample.

Yesterday I discovered the color film frame of Lovelady standing off to the side displays a chin shadow that comes down and partly distorts his round-neck T-shirt just like Doorway Man. Since we know this is Lovelady this proves that the chin shadow created the V-neck. Dr Cinque responded by refusing to even admit it was Lovelady in this color shot. That's dishonest and I refuse to debate with dishonest people. Dr Cinque is simply an unqualified ass who isn't all there and is wasting everybody's time. It's like arguing sober science with Ralph Cramden.

I pains me to see people like Lifton make a lengthy argument that Lovelady wore a different shirt in his posed shots. Lifton made a lengthy detailed argument that Lovelady's original plaid shirt was stolen by souvenir hunters and he replaced it with a similar shirt. Lifton tries to prove his claim by saying the shirt Lovelady posed in had no pocket. However, researchers were able to zoom-in on the shirt pocket area in the photo and proved there was a thin, poorly-visible shirt pocket on that shirt. Lifton simply doesn't see it. This kind of business pains me because such persons of high notoriety in the JFK research world shouldn't be seen making such amateurish mistakes in public. Lifton makes the same mistake as Fetzer, he gets all excited about his alleged discovery and fails to remember the plaid pattern seen at the police station is identical to that seen in the posed shot. Again, this is the danger of the Fetzer Assassination School. And now we see a grotesque mutation in the form of our miscreant sensation Dr Cinque.

Gary Mack cc'ed me saying Groden had clear copies of Altgens taken from the original negative that might be worth accessing.

[Albert Doyle]

Doyle, if what you say is true, why are their no other visible examples of it? Don't you understand that you can't just pontificate?

I know that it really doesn't matter what I think- or what you think. It matters only what the objective evidence proves. You have got to materially, physically prove this effect- of chin-shade causing vees in t-shirts- that you claim takes place.

We've heard your explanation. So don't bother repeating it. It's not helping you. It's just making you look nervous and desperate.

And there is a lot riding on this. You have already admitted that Lovelady wore round-neck tee-shirts. In every single picture we have of him, he is wearing a round-neck tee-shirt. Even when he dressed up and posed as Doorway Man, he wore a round-neck t-shirt. That's how commited he was to round-neck t-shirts. He was just a round-neck kind of guy.

And I suggest you take a look at my post 82 on Lancer, under Help, What Happened to Doorman's Arm, because now there's a new problem concerning those pockets. It turns out that Lovelady was indeed lying about that shirt of his.

The more you publicly show you are unable to answer the basic point about the skin patch in the Marsh scan the more you skewer your own credibility. The more bluster you produce in response to a point you obviously can't answer and, I fear, probably don't possess the intellectual equipment to even understand, the more you explode your own credibility. Your Fetzerian attempts to sieze control of the argument and force it into your feeble strawmen in order to avoid answering the point about the skin patch only reinforces its merit. Like Fetzer, what you are doing is fooling yourself that your side-track contrivance answers the shadow point. It doesn't. The points stand by their own merit on their own and you simply haven't answered them. Your pseudo-scientific Fetzerian boiler-room logic suggests that I have to be able to produce other examples to prove my point. That isn't correct. My points stand as validated on their own. As a matter of fact your obvious inability to answer them and need to detour into your strawmen only proves that you can't answer directly exactly because of their merit. What you are doing is trying to obviously force this into a side argument because you can't answer the main argument. In light of this your little comments that I'm looking nervous and desperate only enhance your failure. But what is even more pathetic is the fact you don't realize the missing face on Danny Arce is another firm example of this shadow phenomenon right next to Lovelady. You are so incompetent you don't even register that this phenomenon is caused by the "over-contrast" pointed-out and understood by Unger. I wish you would refrain from further subjecting people to your ignorance. The "objective evidence" you have the nerve to cite is obviously that which you are conspicuously unable to answer above.


Answer to the skin patch Ralph. Make a coherent direct response to it that lives-up to the scientific level it demands.

[Ralph Cinque]

Doyle, I don't have to answer to the skin patch because it's just somebody's theory. The fact is:

Doorman's t-shirt looks v-shaped. For our entire lives, whenever we have seen a t-shirt on a person in a photograph, we have always thought that we were visualizing the actual shape of the garment. Have you ever had the experience of looking at a picture and saying,

"Hey! Look! The way that shadow is falling on his t-shirt is making his round-neck opening look vee-shaped."

That has never happened to me, Doyle. Has it happened to you? Has it happened to anybody?

But, I'll tell you what: here's the Marsh photo. What I see is a little bit of shade from his face darkening the t-shirt on his right side, so our left. It's just a little sliver. But, it only darkens it; it does not obliterate the fabric underneath. We can still see the natural margin of the t-shirt. And it is not in the area of the vee.

This is the Marsh photo. Are you happy now, Doyle? I've addressed it. Do you really think this is going to save you? You really think this photo "proves" that shade is causing that very pronounced vee?

[James H. Fetzer]

Let's see if we can sort out a few elementary points about the Altgens. Windshield A
from the Altgens shows a through-and-through bullet hole approximately where JFK's
left ear would be if his left ear were visible. POINT 1. Ferguson's report about Wind-
shield B locates it "at a point directly beneath the mirror". POINT 2. The Windshield
C that the Secret Service later produced has a star-like configuration that is not the
same as the small, white spiral nebula which is visible in Windshield A. POINT 3. In
fact, neither the star-like configuration of Windshield C nor the sprial nebua of WIND-
SHIED A is "at a point directly beneath the mirror". POINT 4. Ferguson's report thus
appears to have been an ad hoc measure for which there is no support and qualifies as
an obvious fabrication. POINT 5. Jim Lewis has been traveling around junkyards in the
south and firing high-velocity bullets through abandoned vehicles, which produce a hole
configuration like that of WINDSHIELD A and unlike that of WINDSHIELD C. POINT 6.
There is much more evidence in support of the existence of the through-and-through
hole in the windshield, but let's see if we can agree on at least these obvious points.
If someone disagrees, let them explain what it is that they reject and why. Thanks.

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert, you love to run away from the obvious. The shirt resembles Oswald's shirt, not Lovelady's. And, as I have emphasized and as Ralph has explained--over and over and over again!--it is the SHIRTS, not the SHADOW. I've already posted that Lee tugged at his tee shirts to create the impression of a vee. Lovelady wore rounded collar tee shirts and did not tug at them. When you compare the many photos Ralph has presented that show shadows do not tend to alter the image of an undershirt with the multiple proofs that this shirt is like Lee's and not like Lovelady's, the appropriate inference to draw is that, while the shadow might ACCENT the vee of Doorway Man's shirt, it would almost certainly have not changed the appearance of a circular tee shirt (like Lovelady's) to look like a vee (like Oswald's). So you really have the flimsiest of arguments. Look at the shirts. There is such a striking similarity between Doorway Man's shirt and Oswalds, that, unless Lovelady was wearing Lee's shirt, the Doorway Man was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Doyle, if what you say is true, why are their no other visible examples of it? Don't you understand that you can't just pontificate?

I know that it really doesn't matter what I think- or what you think. It matters only what the objective evidence proves. You have got to materially, physically prove this effect- of chin-shade causing vees in t-shirts- that you claim takes place.

We've heard your explanation. So don't bother repeating it. It's not helping you. It's just making you look nervous and desperate.

And there is a lot riding on this. You have already admitted that Lovelady wore round-neck tee-shirts. In every single picture we have of him, he is wearing a round-neck tee-shirt. Even when he dressed up and posed as Doorway Man, he wore a round-neck t-shirt. That's how commited he was to round-neck t-shirts. He was just a round-neck kind of guy.

And I suggest you take a look at my post 82 on Lancer, under Help, What Happened to Doorman's Arm, because now there's a new problem concerning those pockets. It turns out that Lovelady was indeed lying about that shirt of his.

The more you publicly show you are unable to answer the basic point about the skin patch in the Marsh scan the more you skewer your own credibility. The more bluster you produce in response to a point you obviously can't answer and, I fear, probably don't possess the intellectual equipment to even understand, the more you explode your own credibility. Your Fetzerian attempts to sieze control of the argument and force it into your feeble strawmen in order to avoid answering the point about the skin patch only reinforces its merit. Like Fetzer, what you are doing is fooling yourself that your side-track contrivance answers the shadow point. It doesn't. The points stand by their own merit on their own and you simply haven't answered them. Your pseudo-scientific Fetzerian boiler-room logic suggests that I have to be able to produce other examples to prove my point. That isn't correct. My points stand as validated on their own. As a matter of fact your obvious inability to answer them and need to detour into your strawmen only proves that you can't answer directly exactly because of their merit. What you are doing is trying to obviously force this into a side argument because you can't answer the main argument. In light of this your little comments that I'm looking nervous and desperate only enhance your failure. But what is even more pathetic is the fact you don't realize the missing face on Danny Arce is another firm example of this shadow phenomenon right next to Lovelady. You are so incompetent you don't even register that this phenomenon is caused by the "over-contrast" pointed-out and understood by Unger. I wish you would refrain from further subjecting people to your ignorance. The "objective evidence" you have the nerve to cite is obviously that which you are conspicuously unable to answer above.


Answer to the skin patch Ralph. Make a coherent direct response to it that lives-up to the scientific level it demands.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert likes to fantasize. Like Doyle, Lamson makes many pointless posts. My not having gotten around to posting a response on a matter that Ralph has answered many times is NOT a "refusal to answer". That is a gross misrepresentation--but I certainly understand that, when the evidence is against you, FAKE IT!

I'm glad I got you out in the open Dr Fetzer. You are a charlatan who needs to be discredited once and for all. The evasive, unnecessarily combative, and petty nature of your replies is indicative. We've seen Ralph's "answers", they're rubbish. For you to endorse them as a whole destroys your credibility. Your response above is meaningless vs what I wrote and only proves what you were attempting to refute. Only a charlatan would attempt to get away with that answer.

You are doing a great job of that. We have no good reason to believe that the shadow is being caused by Doorway Man's chin. But the shadow is not the crucial consideration.

Yes we do and, yes, it is.

The reasons are clearly stated and you have forfeited your credibility by being so publicly unable to answer them in any honest or intelligent way. The patch of skin you are ignoring that is clearly visible in the Marsh scan scientifically proves the V-neck is being caused by the chin shadow (as does you patent inability to either recognize or answer it). You can't answer the basic argument that if this wasn't shadow then why isn't the flesh color, seen on all other unshadowed areas in Altgens, visible on Oswald's neck? As Lamson asked and you conspicuously couldn't answer, why is it black? Lamson asked this and you categorically evaded it. The answer, for those with competent abilities, is that the over-contrast in Altgens pointed-out by Unger created an exaggeration of dark areas. This exaggeration caused the alleged "V-neck". Another example can be seen in the color film frame shot of Lovelady on the side of the doorstep. His chin shadow is making a partial similar black shadow into his round T-shirt neck in that photo as well. The person shading their face with raised arms behind Doorway Man is also displaying this sharp over-contrast by the fact his face is completely obscured.


You sir are notorious.

Oswald tugged at this tee shirt; Lovelady did not.

I'm not familiar with the witnessing for Oswald's supposed shirt-tugging. Frankly it wouldn't shock me if it was another one of your pure fabrications. However, in any case, over on Lancer someone posted a film frame from the Dallas Police Station showing Oswald's T-shirt neck ripped in the back portion. This was obviously done during the scuffle at the Texas Theater. So what you attribute to Oswald's "shirt tugging" was most likely caused by the damage to Oswald's T-shirt causing it to droop down in front. Both you and Cinque expose your overt dishonesty by knowing this yet continuing with your bogus claims. That is the sign of dishonest character. To claim the "V-neck" is the product of Oswald's tugging habit, despite having evidence that it is most certainly caused by proven damage to his T-shirt, is despicable and the sign of dishonest intent. In the end both Lovelady and Oswald were proven to have round-necked T-shirts. In both cases you have terribly failed to show any convincing evidence to disprove the obvious explanations for what is seen.

It is far more probable that this is Oswald's shirt than Lovelady's.

Just plain WRONG. And all you have is Dr Cinque's crazy explanations for things he imagines he sees in photos that are too blurry to view what he is trying to display. Even worse, I proved yesterday that Groden's posed shot of Lovelady shows flappy loose sleeves on Lovelady's plaid shirt. You two keep insisting there's some irrefutable looseness to Doorway Man's shirt that distinguishes it from Lovelady's, but that's nonsense and Lovelady's open shirt while leaning over perfectly explains what is seen. This business all originated from Dr Cinque's fevered imagination trying to force Oswald's shirt on to Lovelady. It's apocryphal.

The shadow could reinforce the vee of the shirt, but not obfuscate a round one.

This is disproven by the fact the skin patch Dr Fetzer flagrantly dodges shows a transect of the round T-shirt neck through the black shadow area he suggests represents a perfect outline of the V-notch. The chin shadow is very much obfuscating and overlapping the round neck opening in Altgens. Fetzer is just plain dead wrong on this and incompetently unable to see what is plainly there.

I hope people notice Fetzer is now recognizing the chin shadow. Before he was endorsing Cinque's lunatic claim that the shadow over Raised Arms Man's face was forged onto the photo. Since he now recognizes the Doorway Man chin shadow he has no excuse to not recognize it on Raised Arms Man's face.

As Ralph Cinque has explained here again and again, ITS THE SHIRTS, NOT THE SHADOW. To focus on the shadow and not upon the shirts is a classic distraction.

You've quoted Dr Cinque in public. Good, you're doing all my work for me by destroying your own credibility.


Smart people with common sense would realize that a round-neck T-shirt could not be tugged-down to the degree of this alleged Altgens V-neck seen on Doorway Man. It would be mechanically restrained and pulled back in to round by the rear section behind the neck that prevented it from traveling down that far in front and, especially, laying there while Lovelady made the obvious craned contortion of leaning forward and to the left with his left arm across his body as seen in Altgens. You very simply can't get past this required mechanical necessity. The reason you see Oswald's T-shirt tugged into a pseudo-notch at the police station is because it was damaged by the police in the scuffle. Since this, and the buttons being ripped-off, obviously happened at the theater this means these features appeared AFTER the Altgens photo was taken. All we are seeing here is two quack forgery theorists trying to conflate the wide-open damaged appearance of Oswald's shirt at the police station with Lovelady's open shirt on the doorstep. Furthermore this ridiculous nonsense by Cinque of Oswald having some kind of special unique shirt "lapel" is just Oswald's reversed button strip that has been bent that way by the violence of his shirt being ripped-open at the theater - which occurred long after the Altgen's photo was taken. Anyone with even the most basic of detective smarts would realize this. They would also realize that this was when the buttons that caused Oswald's shirt to appear so loose were ripped-off as well.



.

[James H. Fetzer]

Figures A and B are the crucial images, because they have been obfuscated. My initial suspicion has been
that B was Oswald, but because his shirt A has also been obliterated and because the shirt on F has many
features that are more like those of Oswald's shirt than Lovelady's, I am now convinced that they took the
face from B, who was actually Lovelady, and imposed it on F, who was actually Oswald, just as in the case
of the backyard photographs, they imposed Oswald's face on someone else's body, which Jim Marrs and I
have proven--building on the work of others, including Jack White, especially--in "Framing the Patsy: The
Case of Lee Harvey Oswald", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/...ey-oswald/ This is the kind of
fabrication in which the CIA specializes. It had a problem. Because B's shirt was distinctive--whether it was a
checkered or a striped shirt--they had to remove it, too. Why should anyone be surprised it happened here?

[James H. Fetzer]

Here is a summary of the evidence, beginning with points from Ralph:

1. Lovelady is MUCH stockier than both Oswald and Doorway Man.
Oswald was 5'9. Some reports have had him at 5'9 1/2". He weighed 128
to 130 pounds. So, he was quite slim.

2. Lovelady was 5'8" and weighed170 pounds. So, he was much stockier.
And we can see that difference in this collage. Lovelady looks like the
Incredible Hulk compared to Doorman. His arm is thick and beefy, while
Doorman's is scrawny.

3. Doorman's t-shirt is notched, v-shaped, whereas in every, single
picture of Lovelady that we have, including this one, he is wearing a
round-neck t-shirt. While the shadow may reinforce the v-shape,
Ralph has shown shadows do not change a round into a v-shape.

4. The shirt patterns don't match. Doorman has two white lines on
the cuff, one at the top margin and the other at the bottom margin.
Lovelady has one white line running down the middle of the cuff,
with no white lines at the margins.

And here are questions first raised by Richard Hocking, namely:

5. If Oswald was not on the steps, how did he know where Shelley
was? Oswald may have seen him there at 12:25, but that was no
guarantee that he would have stayed there.

6. Oswald is giving Fritz information that can be cross-checked
with another witness. He is now relying on Shelley to provide
verification for his alibi for the shooting.

7. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he had
thought Shelley would back him up? Shelly was a manager of the
book depository, not simply a friend of his.

8. If Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind
everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? It would have
eliminated being contradicted by anyone else.

9. Why would the Algents have been altered and the face and
shirt of a figure to Doorway Man's right front (left front from his
perspective) if Lee Oswald had not been in the photograph?

10. Ralph's points about the shirt all favor its being Oswald.
The face was tweaked or even replaced, but unless Lovelady
was wearing Oswald's shirt, Lee was in the doorway.

Those more serious than Albert Doyle may want to consider where they stand on this. My most serious question
is this. dkruckman has observed that, as we all know, in the backyard photographs, there is a matte line running
horizontally below the lower lip across the chin. And on Doorway Man there appears to be a matte line running
horizontally below the nose above where the lips should be. If you place your thumb over the top of Doorway
Man's face, what you see below does not resemble a human mandible. There is no discernible lips, chin or jaw
line. To me it looks like smeared lines running in mostly 45 degree angles. Oswald may not have been looking
directly at the limo, making a "cut & paste job" not easy. Lovelady's top of his face appears to be pasted over
Oswald's and the bottom part manipulated to fit. Mostly by having black tie man's white shirt jut over Oswald's
shoulder (obscuring his collar) and protruding into doorman's face, creating a crude jaw line. I am asking some
experts to confirm these observations. Can we all agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed?

[Albert Doyle]

Dr Fetzer, you can't ignore the points I made in my last post and still pretend credibility.



Please answer the abstract arguments I made in post #127 honestly and directly, point for point, or concede.