TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Ralph Cinque]

They can't be that close together in time. Here's both. Look how much the scene changed. All that shuffling in one second?

[Bernice Moore]

no argument Ralph, you go and do your own research and check the books and past research information dug out, and get back to us , thank you...

[Charles Drago]

Greg,

Fratelli di sangue versato, purtroppo.

Cinque,

You have failed. You have been exposed. Your time here is nearly at an end.

Thank you for the lesson.

Ora vai a farti fottere.

[Magda Hassan]

Question for Ralph Cinque: Where was Lovelady before, during and after the shooting?

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Fratelli di sangue versato, purtroppo.

Cinque,

You have failed. You have been exposed. Your time here is nearly at an end.

Thank you for the lesson.

Ora vai a farti fottere.

Cinque,

E fanculo il cavallo che ha guidato in su. E non lasciare che la porta a zanzariera cazzo ti ha colpito nel culo sulla via d'uscita.

[Albert Doyle]

There's a basic matter of competency here, since the Depository front portal is a squared opening, that all points inside must be able to see all points in front. Therefore Frazier's statement that Lovelady was visible in front of him is quite possible by all known reality. With Cinque you are arguing with a person who doesn't have the sense to realize when he's saying something preposterous and against sensible fact registered by most intelligent people. He argues a perspective from the front when the perspective from the rear is being discussed and doesn't register the difference. This is cross-eyed confusion that doesn't meet the level of acceptable assassination research. Doorway Man was quite visible from behind and all Cinque offers is incoherent confusion.

Unfortunately Dr Fetzer has now introduced this variety of research to the academic level.

[Ralph Cinque]

Vaffanculo! Vai in culo! Lo sono italiano. Raffaelo Cinque

[Greg Burnham]

Vaffanculo! Vai in culo! Lo sono italiano. Raffaelo Cinque

You wouldn't like it. I just lay there.

BTW: You must not be Sicilian. You talk weird.

[Ralph Cinque]

Magda, I don't think we have any reason to doubt Lovelady's testimony to the Warren Commission about that. They were working on one of the upper floors, and they quit to eat lunch and to go down to watch the motorcade. I mean, a bunch of them, which included Lovelady. And they got in the elevator, and according to Lovelady, Oswald asked that they hold the elevator for him. But, for some reason, they didn't. And they got downstairs, and without any major delay, they went outside, and Lovelady sat down on the steps to eat his lunch. Now, at some point, he had to get up- obviously. But when that was exactly, I don't claim to know. Some have expressed the view that because he only said that he "heard" shots and didn't see anything that it meant that he was seated at the time of the shooting. I don't claim to know about that. And then after the shooting, I believe he said that he walked down toward the Grassy Knoll with Bill Shelley because that's where they thought the shots came from.

[James H. Fetzer]

Let me explain the key issues involved in determining what's going on here from the point of view of the theory of knowledge. Ralph is being pilloried because he is expressing his degree of personal conviction, not claiming that he has established an empirical proposition with epistemic certainty, which is impossible for any empirical knowledge.

There are several steps or stages involved here, beginning with the Altgens. Robin Unger obtained (what is supposed to be) the best available copy known as "the Corbus copy": "I paid $250.00 Aus for the Corbis copy, and to be honest , i'm not completely happy, because it does lack Clarity in some area's especially around the doorway area."

Now the doorway area represents perhaps 1% of the total area of the photograph as a totality (more or less). The question thus becomes, (h1) assuming this photograph is authentic and unchanged, what is the probability that it would have a small area that is unclear, when the rest of the photograph is clear? The answer: very small, indeed.

Consider the alternative, (h2) assuming that the photograph is not authentic but has been changed in one area of the image (around the doorway), what is the probability that that small area would be unclear, when the rest of the photograph is clear? The answer: very high. Which makes (h2) preferable to (h1) but not therefore acceptable.

What we need is further evidence that "settles down" or points in the same direction. We have that in this case with the discovery that the face and shirt of at least one figure in the doorway has been obliterated. And this point, the probability that the photo is authentic drops to zero and that it has been changed increases to approximately one.



This is a composite from the Altgens (top row) with the Wigman (bottom row). In relation to the Altgens, figures A and B are the crucial images, because they have been obfuscated. My initial suspicion has been that B was Oswald, which was my position when I published "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then" on Veterans Today.

Shortly thereafter, Ralph contacted me to explain why he thought I was right about Oswald being in the photograph but wrong about which figure was his. When I discovered that 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/

These are the first few stages in reasoning this through and that is our hypothesis.This is just the kind of fabrication of evidence 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 that it happened here?

Now the question becomes that of confirming our hypothesis by a more detailed and specific examination of the evidence. Ralph is personally convinced (as a matter of psychological conviction) that our hypothesis is true, but there is room for differences of opinion, since his conviction is not transferable. Here are some considerations:



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.

Now 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. Would you agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed?

Now I presume we would all agree that if dkruckman is correct--which is a matter that other qualified experts are pursuing--we would all agree that the matter is settled. And that we would also be willing to grant that Ralph has seen something that generations of students of JFK have missed: what matters is not the faces, but the shirts!

So if someone has a bone to pick with Ralph and me, then kindly explain what point we have made to which you take exception and the grounds on which you believe we are wrong. Because the weight of the evidence, as I have outlined it here, creates a prima facie case that the man in the doorway was Oswald. If you think we are wrong, show how.

Please know that all assertions in science are tentative and fallible, which means that they are subject to revision on the basis of new evidence or alternative hypothesis and that, even though we accept them as true, they may nevertheless be false. Please do not mistake the assertion of a position with a declaration of infallibility. That's a tempting but simple blunder.

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.