02-02-2012, 11:20 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2012, 12:46 AM by Greg Burnham.)
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Here is my response to Pein-head over on the Education Forum concerning Buell's testimony in the mock trial. But just so you know, photographic evidence does count as physical evidence, when it's definitive, and what I discovered about the shirt is definitive.
It is definitive according to YOU. It is not definitive to anyone else besides Jim. Your having proclaimed it to be definitive does not make it so. Your lack of expert status makes your claim equal to that of any other non-expert's claim. Where you have a multitude of JFK assassination experts challenging your claim, where they themselves are (like you) not photographic experts, but are clearly on the RIGHT SIDE of the big picture (not Warren Commission apologist/Lone Nut advocates), their challenges should be greeted with an open mind. Their objections should be charitably interpreted due to their having proved themselves in the past. Von Pein (in the ass) is not a good example.
Quote:It's true that in that television mock trial, Buell Frazier identified the Doorway Man as Lovelady, but let's analyze it.
Frazier was standing BEHIND Doorway Man. He was not fooled by any photographic manipulation of Altgens 6 even if it occurred. He testified that he witnessed Lovelady standing in front of him. Therefore, he was not subjected to making an ID based solely on the photograph.
Quote:Jim Fetzer and I have been saying all along that they did things to convert Oswald into Lovelady.
That is speculation. Unless an expert demonstrates this, I am unconvinced.
Quote:They added plaid to his shirt; they doctored his hairline; and they either altered his facial features OR they directly moved the entire face of Lovelady onto Oswald. And those are the reasons why Buell Frazier thought the Doorway Man was Lovelady.
Occam's Razor again: Or Frazier was simply correct and it was LOVELADY, wearing an un-doctored shirt, with his own face, and hairline intact--all of which comport with the eyewitness testimony!
Or alternately, even if there was photographic manipulation, that is not what Frazier relied upon to make the ID. He was THERE! He knew the man standing in front of him.
Quote:But, recall that when asked about the idea that Lovelady and Oswald looked alike, Buell rejected it. He said that Lovelady was "short and stocky" whereas Oswald had a "thin frame." That was the first thing that came to his mind. It's also what I have been saying all along. But unfortunately, Buell did not apply that data to his analysis of who was in the picture. He just looked at the face and said it was Lovelady. Why?
I can no more determine if the figure in the doorway is thin or stocky than I can determine if Zapruder was on the pedestal. Therefore, judging from the photographic record, I cannot say with certainty that Zapruder was even there. So, too--I cannot say for certain who is in the doorway...and neither can you! Maybe Oswald, maybe Lovelady? Perhaps. But, you have gone WAY TOO FAR in claiming ABSOLUTELY that it is Oswald.
Quote:It's because we don't tend to contemplate the magnitude of the fraud that was committed here. His mind just didn't go there. Few people's minds do. It took a Jim Fetzer to realize that they actually moved the face over. And before any of you make any insulting remarks about him, I know very well that he has got enemies here. Well, if you don't like him, you can kiss my ass! He is 10x the man you are, you're not fit to wipe his boots.
Excuse me? Here's a photo taken less than a year ago when my friend, Jim Fetzer, stayed with me and my wife in our San Diego condo. We go back...way back. You can go now.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3566[/ATTACH]
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Wow, Greg. You have made the biggest concession to me of anybody on this site. You said: maybe Lovelady, maybe Oswald. Perhaps. But, you have gone WAY TOO FAR in claiming ABSOLUTELY that it is Oswald.
For this room, that was about as much endorsement as I could ever hope to get- except from Jim, of course. So thanks for being open-minded enough to say that. It is greatly appreciated.
But for me, I really do have no doubt, none whatsoever, that it is Oswald standing by the column, and it cannot possibly be Lovelady. The Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothes. And they were very distinctive clothes: the loose-fitting outer shirt, unbuttoned, over the v-necked t-shirt, with the distinctive right collar, which matches perfectly on both of them, while Lovelady's right collar is very different. His collar lies and folds over differently from Oswald's and Doorman's. Lovelady's right collar has a lot of pattern and contrast, whereas on Doorman and Oswald, the collars are plain and uniform. And what about the shirts are a match between Lovelady and Doorman? Just the pattern, supposedly, but the problem is that it doesn't match well. It doesn't match at all really. All you can say about both is that they are both "varied". They both do have contrast but it is not the same contrast.
And regarding their builds, look at this picture and compare their arms. Lovelady was a beefy, brawny guy with a thick arm, whereas you can easily see that Doorman's arm was much thinner. Doorman was a thin, scrawny guy- like Oswald.
You'll also notice that Lovelady is wearing a round t-shirt, in contrast to the v-neck on Doorman. In every picture we have of Lovelady, he wears a round-neck t-shirt. Even the times he dressed up as Doorman to play the role for the camera, he wore round-neck t-shirts. It didn't even occur to him to get a v-neck. He was just a round-neck kind of guy.
But, that v-notch in Doorman's t-shirt is real; it was not caused by shade; and it matched Oswald.
Greg, if Doorman were Lovelady, these contradictions would not exist. However, I realize that there are also contradictions relating to Oswald. I realize that there are "talking points" that lean towards Lovelady. There had to be for this to endure for 48 years.
But, one thing we know for sure is that Doorman was not an amalgam of Oswald and Lovelady. The things that pertain to one or the other had to have been faked. I maintain that there is no chance on God's green Earth that the likenesses to Oswald were put in to exonerate him. That means that the likenesses to Lovelady had to have been faked.
And the actual fact is that the likenesses to Oswald could NOT have been faked. The form and lay of that shirt over the v-neck t-shirt are elements that are too big for them to have altered. But adding some lines and pattern to a shirt? Yeah, they could have done that. Doctored up the hairline? Yes, they could have done that. And even the face they could have changed. But, that outer shirt over the t-shirt is the biggest element of the picture, and it matches Oswald.
Some have tried to claim that Oswald changed his shirt. But he did not, and even the Warren Commission admitted it. Based on the testimony of Mrs. Bledsoe, his landlady, and the fact that the bus transfer was found in Oswald's pocket, the Warren Commission concluded that "the evidence indicates that Oswald continued wearing the same shirt he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested." That is from the Warren Report.
I guarantee you that he was wearing that shirt when he stood outside the building during the shooting and got captured on celluloid by Ike Altgens.
The only "concession" I made, if you really want to label it as such, is that IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED who is on the steps based SOLELY on Altgens 6! But, it also underscores the fatally flawed logic that you are employing.
That is not a concession in your favor. It is an honest assessment stated rather kindly due to my relationship with Jim Fetzer. On your own...make no mistake, you would be toast.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Jim Fetzer and I have been saying all along that they did things to convert Oswald into Lovelady. They added plaid to his shirt; they doctored his hairline; and they either altered his facial features OR they directly moved the entire face of Lovelady onto Oswald. And those are the reasons why Buell Frazier thought the Doorway Man was Lovelady.
In one of his classic offerings above Dr Cinque makes the fatally stupid gaffe of not realizing Frazier was referring to real time when recounting seeing Lovelady right in front of him on the steps. As you can see, in yet another case of publicly not knowing what he is talking about, Dr Cinque speaks as if Frazier was referring to the Altgens shot. Dr Cinque is our first major assassination dyslexic. In almost every case he counters with some cross-eyed mumbo jumbo that veers off into mixed-up crazy land.
Yes, Frazier said that Lovelady was right in front of him on the steps. And he was. I don't doubt it. That's what Jim and I have been saying. Lovelady was down on the steps below the landing. Oswald was on the landing, on the very top. He wasn't "in front" of anybody. He was the farthest back.
OK, now that you've got that off your chest, Greg, would you take a look at my previous post to you and examine that picture showing the beefy, manly arm of Lovelady versus the scrawny arm of Doorman. For goodness sake, he's looks practically like the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz compared to Lovelady.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Yes, Frazier said that Lovelady was right in front of him on the steps. And he was. I don't doubt it. That's what Jim and I have been saying. Lovelady was down on the steps below the landing. Oswald was on the landing, on the very top. He wasn't "in front" of anybody. He was the farthest back.
And you criticized me for speculating?
Listen. You are new to this case, so I'm going to cut you some slack here.
Frazier was himself farther back than Doorway man was. Frazier was IN THE SHADOWS, so much so that he is not even visible in ALTGENS 6. Now, with that undisputed evidence, to whom was Frazier referring when he said that Lovelady was right in front of him? Was it a guy that you claim was somewhere down below the landing?
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Ralph Cinque Wrote:OK, now that you've got that off your chest, Greg, would you take a look at my previous post to you and examine that picture showing the beefy, manly arm of Lovelady versus the scrawny arm of Doorman. For goodness sake, he's looks practically like the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz compared to Lovelady.
I am not capable of determining the physical attributes of stockiness vs scrawniness in the Doorway man figure.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Frazier said that he saw Lovelady in front of him. He never said anything about seeing Lovelady standing partially behind that white column on the landing. And Doorman was standing partially behind that column. You can't see his right shoulder at all. It is completely obscured by the column.
Yes, Jim and I concede fully that Lovelady was there. He just wasn't the Doorman.
