TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Greg Burnham]

What a marvelous, efficient application of our resources is this ... oh I pray that I will find the right word ...

Thanks to Cinque, I now am convinced that truth and justice for John Fitzgerald Kennedy are right around the corner.

That word ... that word ...

Wait a minute! I've got it!

BULLSHIT!

Charles,

In all due respect, sometimes bandwidth expenditure is justified in the outing of agents provocateur and/or the revelation of same's intentions to compromise one of our own...as the case may be.

[Charles Drago]

Indeed, Greg.

I've made the very same point in more than one situation here and, a few years ago, on the EF, where I outed the entity calling itself "Colby."

What I lament is not the expenditure of bandwidth, but rather the failure of many of our most gifted and dedicated and experienced comrades to recognize the enemy when it is at our gates.

If I may, and for what it's worth to you, I want to express how buoyed I am by the knowledge that you are in the expose-the-bastards foxhole with Jan, Magda, Dawn, our mutual friend and DPF co-founder David Guyatt, Jack White, and notable others (my late friend George Michael Evica among them). I never had the pleasure of meeting Rich, but my sense is that he would have been with us. So too Harold Weisberg and Penn Jones. Perhaps they're still around.

If this were an Academy Awards ceremony, I'd now apologize to all those I've failed to mention.

[Greg Burnham]

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.

I agree with Charles: BULLSHIT
[size=12]
Frazier was behind Lovelady. He could not have appreciated that the column was obscuring Doorway Man's shoulder from there because he didn't know that Ike Altgens was taking a photo where such a column would have made a difference.

There is no reason for him to have mentioned the column. He had no idea Doorway Man would be in a photo.

He personally knew Lovelady. He knew what he looked like. He knew who was standing in front of him and he testified to that effect, unequivocally: It was Billy Lovelady.

END OF STORY.

Now, could he have been wrong? Yes...BUT that is exponentially unlikely.

You sir, are a charlatan, at best. I will do everything in my power to defeat you.[/SIZE]

[Ralph Cinque]

You are the one who is being irrational, Greg. Frazier said Lovelady was in front of him. That is a specific direction and Doorman was most certainly NOT in front of him.

But, here is where you are being most irrational: WE CAN SEE OSWALD IN THE PICTURE. DOORMAN IS WEARING HIS CLOTHES! THAT TRUMPS EVERYTHING!

And I do mean everything.

[Greg Burnham]

You are the one who is being irrational, Greg. Frazier said Lovelady was in front of him. That is a specific direction and Doorman was most certainly NOT in front of him.

But, here is where you are being most irrational: WE CAN SEE OSWALD IN THE PICTURE. DOORMAN IS WEARING HIS CLOTHES! THAT TRUMPS EVERYTHING!

And I do mean everything.

And you are BEGGING THE QUESTION!

We cannot see "Oswald" in the picture. You are the one who originally objected to "Doorway Man" being referred to as "Lovelady" because it was yet to be determined. I even agreed with that objection. So, he is not "Oswald" nor is he "Lovelady" until the debate has resolved.

Now you employ a double standard and commit the exact same illogical fallacious offense with which you took exception, IN SPADES!

Knock it the fuck off. I grow weary of your idiocy.

[Ralph Cinque]

Now you are just being ridiculous, Greg, because in the context of what I was saying, it was appropriate, and there was really no other way to put it. I'll spell it out for you, since apparently that is necessary.

It's true that in the past I have objected when someone like Doyle said something like, "Notice that Lovelady is reaching over with arm. etc." That I felt was uncalled for when we were, in fact, debating the issue. He should have made his point in reference to the Doorman without feeling the need to remind everyone that he vouched for Lovelady. I also made the point that if I had done the same thing- at similar times saying Oswald did this, and Oswald did that- it would have added unnecessary confusion to the discussion. And so, I refrained from doing that, and I asked him not to do it.

But, in my last post to you, I was not discussing a fine point about the Doorman, rather, I was making a general, conclusive, finishing statement that encompassed my thesis as concisely and succinctly as possible. That's what I was trying to do. And therefore, it was appropriate- in that context.

Now Greg: you drop the attitude. Drop it now. Ralph

[Greg Burnham]

Indeed, Greg.

I've made the very same point in more than one situation here and, a few years ago, on the EF, where I outed the entity calling itself "Colby."

What I lament is not the expenditure of bandwidth, but rather the failure of many of our most gifted and dedicated and experienced comrades to recognize the enemy when it is at our gates.

If I may, and for what it's worth to you, I want to express how buoyed I am by the knowledge that you are in the expose-the-bastards foxhole with Jan, Magda, Dawn, our mutual friend and DPF co-founder David Guyatt, Jack White, and notable others (my late friend George Michael Evica among them). I never had the pleasure of meeting Rich, but my sense is that he would have been with us. So too Harold Weisberg and Penn Jones. Perhaps they're still around.

If this were an Academy Awards ceremony, I'd now apologize to all those I've failed to mention.

As my late comrade-in-arms, Don Riccardo, would have said: "Tu ed io siamo di un genere. Siamo legati da intenti sangue, dunque, siamo fratelli."

[Greg Burnham]

Now you are just being ridiculous, Greg, because in the context of what I was saying, it was appropriate, and there was really no other way to put it. I'll spell it out for you, since apparently that is necessary.

It's true that in the past I have objected when someone like Doyle said something like, "Notice that Lovelady is reaching over with arm. etc." That I felt was uncalled for when we were, in fact, debating the issue. He should have made his point in reference to the Doorman without feeling the need to remind everyone that he vouched for Lovelady. I also made the point that if I had done the same thing- at similar times saying Oswald did this, and Oswald did that- it would have added unnecessary confusion to the discussion. And so, I refrained from doing that, and I asked him not to do it.

But, in my last post to you, I was not discussing a fine point about the Doorman, rather, I was making a general, conclusive, finishing statement that encompassed my thesis as concisely and succinctly as possible. That's what I was trying to do. And therefore, it was appropriate- because of the context.

Now Greg: you drop the attitude. Drop it now. Ralph

I think you're done. Say goodbye.

[LR Trotter]

hi adele, greg; according to the photo research the altgens was taken after the first shot, a second or two before the weigman photo...they are that close together...take care b..

Regarding post #115, I realize the possibilty of some movement in the time, if any, between the Altgens and Weigman photos, but the figures appear in slightly different locations in and/or near the doorway. To me, Doorway Man is on the landing/porch closer to the center and farther back than it appears in Altgens, when looking at the Weigman picture. I don't believe there was any substantial movement, but of course I can not be sure. Maybe this was compared and discussed before, as it relates to this thread, and I missed it.

[Bernice Moore]

l.r the groups of film, frames, photos studies re the doorway man, have been done many times down through the years, that is where many had their initiations ,ifthey were interested in photos, or at least a beginning, if you have the book, Trask's Pictures of the Pain i am sure you will find, many answrs in there as well as the timng between the wiegman frame and the Altgen's photo. ps now gary says a second difference while i say a few seconds.....see we can't even agree on seconds take care b:cheer:

in reference to the differences seen, i would equate that to the first shot taking place and movements of those in that are in response to such..which you are correct do not appear to be signifigant..to any degree...