TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Albert Doyle]

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



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

[Greg Burnham]

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.

Jim,

Please. Both he and you have argued--from an ABSOLUTIST position from the very start--that IT IS OSWALD in the doorway. Of this there is no doubt. Anyone can go back and read what you and he wrote to that effect. To deny what is obviously THE TRUTH is beneath you. It is obviously NOT beneath HIM to do the same. I don't know him--so I am not surprised nor am I disappointed in him. However, I thought I knew you...

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."

Sorry. That is irrelevant.

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.

The judgment that there even exists in this photo only a "small area that is unclear" (as opposed to other similar areas) is SUBJECTIVE, indeed. There are numerous areas in this photo that, when scaled to the same dimensions, are similarly obscured, all things be equal. So, I reject h-1 on its face--because you chose to associate it with the unestablished. Nice "grouping" Jim. But it won't fly--not on my watch and you should know better.

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.

But, that is not the only alternative. It is one alternative. Namely, alteration of the photo. It is NOT the ONLY other alternative. That you are making an argument suggesting otherwise is simply WAY beneath you.

You are forcing the premise on the subject. A pity.

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.

Again, you are taking your best (or worst) guess, as the case may be, and then building on it as though it was established. You know better than that.

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".

Is Jim Marrs of the same opinion regarding Doorway Man? I hope it's not too late to call him tonight.

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?

Are you serious? You can't see "shit from shinola" in that area of ALTGENS 6. No way. There is no way that anybody tried to obscure the doorway area because it just isn't definitive enough! C'mon, Jim!

Skipping the bullshit in between, we cut to the chase:

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.

You would be much better off approaching any future presentations of your highly speculative endeavors from that standpoint initially. In other words: Get off your high horse! Stop the pontificating!

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.

And even his rope is running out...

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert,

I don't think anyone has IGNORED your points. They have been REFUTED by Ralph several times. That
you refuse to treat them as REFUTATIONS does not mean that they are NOT refutations. I have laid all
this out rather explicitly. You major complaint seems to be that Lee's shirt is supposed to have become
stretched during his altercation, which seems most unlikely to me. Go back to the photo of Lee when he
was in handcuffs. (I'll see if I can find the post, which was merged into this thread.) But it does not look
at all to me as though it were a rounded shirt collar that had only been stretched during a brief struggle.

Yet I have a rather larger question for you, which is this. As I have explained, Robin Unger--who is not on
my side, so far as I can tell--obtained an expensive copy of the Altgens, which was unclear in the area of
the doorway. As I have explained, that creates the presumption that it was altered. We have discovered
that at least two images were obfuscated--of A and B--which raises the question of why an obscure figure
in the crowd was removed from this photograph of the assassination. As Bernice has shown, moreover,
those images are not in the photographs as they appeared in newspapers, so the photo was altered first.

Now my question for you, Albert, is this: They had to have had a powerful motive for messing with some
obscure figure in the crowd in a photo that was taken during the assassination of JFK. It is a peripheral
figure, far removed from the limousine and JFK's reaction to the shot to his throat. The only reason I can
imagine for having done that is because SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE--
where the only person that could have been was Lee Oswald. I have explained what Ralph and I believe
took place. My question is, CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY OTHER REASON FOR MESSING WITH THE ALTGENS?

That seems to me to be the preliminary burden of proof you have to bear before getting into the details.
For reasons I do not completely understand, I seem to infuriate you and some of your associates here
for even posting! When I read the post to which you refer, I was astonished at the venom and vitriol
you express. Fascinating! Now if there are good reasons to support that nasty stuff, maybe I deserve
it. But either I deserve it or you simply haven't understood the logic of our argument. Which is why I
have come to respond to Monk's post in an effort to clarify it and defuse some of that extreme hostility.

Jim

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

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

[Magda Hassan]

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.

Where are the photographs of Lovelady during this time?

[James H. Fetzer]

This is very bad, Monk. I am sorry, but this must be the least rational and most poorly reasoned post that I have ever seen from you.

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.

Jim,

Please. Both he and you have argued--from an ABSOLUTIST position from the very start--that IT IS OSWALD in the doorway. Of this there is no doubt. Anyone can go back and read what you and he wrote to that effect. To deny what is obviously THE TRUTH is beneath you. It is obviously NOT beneath HIM to do the same. I don't know him--so I am not surprised nor am I disappointed in him. However, I thought I knew you...

Well, if you don't understand that scientific assertions are both tentative and fallible, then I am not quite sure what to tell you. You seem to think that making an assertion--say, "It's raining outside!"--is ABSOLUTISTIC because it is an ASSERTION. But that's just silly. We expressed our conclusion in the title: "Oswald was in the doorway, after all!", because that's what we are arguing. He believes it. I believe it. You don't. That doesn't show we are wrong. Why don't you explain what you mean by "ABSOLUTISTIC", because I think you are confused between the ASSERTION OF A CLAIM AS TRUE and CLAIMING THAT THAT ASSERTION COULD NOT BE FALSE. Of course, we are not infallible and we might be mistaken. Our only guide is logic and evidence. Challenge it as much as you like.

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."

Sorry. That is irrelevant.

"Sorry. That is irrelevant."? That the best copy of one of the most important photographs from the assassination has an unclear area around the doorway IS IRRELEVANT? Perhaps you don't understand the concept. A factor qualifies as RELEVANT to a conclusion when its truth or falsity (presence or absence) makes a difference to the conclusion. A well-respected student of the case, Robin Unger, has found a lack of clarity in the doorway area. That matters for the reason that, as I explained, it makes it more likely that it was altered than not. An unaltered photograph would be uniform in its clarify and sharpness throughout. This one is not. It qualifies as evidence the photo is altered.

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.

The judgment that there even exists in this photo only a "small area that is unclear" (as opposed to other similar areas) is SUBJECTIVE, indeed. There are numerous areas in this photo that, when scaled to the same dimensions, are similarly obscured, all things be equal. So, I reject h-1 on its face--because you chose to associate it with the unestablished. Nice "grouping" Jim. But it won't fly--not on my watch and you should know better.

Well, that was Robin Unger's judgment. He is an expert on photographs. And the relative area of the doorway is quite modest in relation to the area covered by the photograph. I was only hazarding a guess in terms of the actual percentage. THAT ANY AREA OF THE PHOTO IS UNCLEAR IS WHAT MATTERS. "When scaled to its own dimensions?" It is not my opinion that matters. You are attempting to create subjectivity when there is no good reason for doing so. I suppose I could ask Robin. But I am familiar with him and have no reason to doubt him.

But, that is not the only alternative. It is one alternative. Namely, alteration of the photo. It is NOT the ONLY other alternative. That you are making an argument suggesting otherwise is simply WAY beneath you.

You are forcing the premise on the subject. A pity.

This is simply silly, Monk. After all, I go on to observe that the face and the shirt of a figure, A and B, have been obfuscated, which makes your earlier argument rather pointless. Since the photo has been altered, why are you contesting it? This is very strange, Monk. Are you denying that the face and shirt, A and B, have been obfuscated?

Again, you are taking your best (or worst) guess, as the case may be, and then building on it as though it was established. You know better than that.

No, I am not guessing at all. It is obvious. If you can look at the photo and deny its been altered, I am stunned.

Is Jim Marrs of the same opinion regarding Doorway Man? I hope it's not too late to call him tonight.

Please call him. We have talked about it. But I am not going to represent his views on this. Please do call him.

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?

Are you serious? You can't see "shit from shinola" in that area of ALTGENS 6. No way. There is no way that anybody tried to obscure the doorway area because it just isn't definitive enough! C'mon, Jim!

I am at a loss as to what you think you are saying. What do "shit" or "shinola" have to do with anything? Really?

Skipping the bullshit in between, we cut to the chase:

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.

You would be much better off approaching any future presentations of your highly speculative endeavors from that standpoint initially. In other words: Get off your high horse! Stop the pontificating!

Egad! I am not on a "high horse" and if anyone is "pontificating", it is you, my friend, not me. This is bizarre.

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.

And even his rope is running out...

And just for the record, if you have actually read our study, we do not claim that IT CAN BE DETERMINED WHO WAS ON THE STEPS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE ALTGENS. Why, if you have read it, would you attribute that to us? Did you mistake the first three or four paragraphs for the 20 page article? Have you actually read it? Because this characterization is completely absurd. You are grotesquely exaggerating our position for rhetorical purposes. Why resort to a blatant "straw man"? That is embarrassing. I would never have expected this from you.

[Ralph Cinque]

Magda, Dr. Fetzer and I both believe that Lovelady is the figure whom I call "Obfuscated Man" in the Altgens photo. He is standing in front of and slightly to the left of Doorway Man from his perspective, and therefore a little to the right from ours. His face is obfuscated in white, and his body is obfuscated in black.

Here is what I am talking about. Do you see the white blotch? And then the black below it? That is Obfuscated Man.

Now, people like to castigate Jim and me, but what they don't do is account for those weird blotches.

For instance, Doyle tried to say that the white blotch is a JACKET lying over the shoulder of the man whose arms are surrounding his non-existant head. An actual jacket.

Then, do you see the black woman? Look at her hair. Mentally, just look at her hair and nothing else. You notice that it's rather bizarre, the enormous size of it and the werid shape of it. Just compare it to the black woman to her right (our left), whose hair looks normal. Well, for the longest time, Doyle tried to say that there was nothing unusual about her hair, that it was a normal afro hairdo. But eventually, he came around to admitting that there is something else going on there, that it can't be all her hair. Over the course of time, he, at different times, postulated that it was an arm, a handbag, another person's head, or a hat. Ah, the joy of a vivid imagination! Isn't make-believe grand?

Jim and I feel that the most likely thing is that the body, that is, the torso of Lovelady was blackened and merged with the black hair of the African-American woman. And you have to admit that it rather looks like somebody took a black felt pen to her hair. I'm not saying that that is how they did it, but that's how it looks.

And since I've got you looking at the picture, you might as well take note of the weird figure crammed up against Doorman's left side- impinging on his neck and shoulder and even his face. He is Black Tie Man, and he consists of two white stripes and a bulb. That is his whole image: two white stripes and a bulb. Most people do not even take him for a human being. I didn't the first time I saw it. And Black Tie Man cannot possibly be real. Where, for instance, is his right arm?

[Magda Hassan]

I'm not asking about white blotches, dark blotches, "Obfuscated Man", Oswald, Doorman, Black Tie Man, or African-American woman. I'm asking you to account for Lovelady. His movements before, during and after the shooting. Evidence please.

[Don Jeffries]

Let's follow Thoreau's advice to "simplify, simplify" here.

We know that those tasked to investigate the assassination of JFK did not have any intention of doing so, and as a result left countless questions unanswered. We have no real way of knowing what Oswald said to Fritz or anyone else. Judging by his few public pronouncements, he was primarily concerned with obtaining a lawyer and appeared to be surprised he was accusing of being the assassin.

On the Ed Forum, David Lifton did a great job of demonstrating how Billy Lovelady lied, although he then inexplicably still concluded he was the figure in the doorway. Why would Lovelady lie about anything to the authorities? It was quite convenient for the authorities to have an employee in the TSBD who looked so much like LHO, wasn't it? Whatever else you think about the Altgens photo, you can't deny that those who were busy covering up the truth and manipulating the "evidence" against Oswald, had a vested interest in that figure in the doorway not being Oswald.

There is no reason to trust anything that Oswald is officially claimed to have said in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Given the nature of the non-investigation being conducted, and the sense of self-preservation someone like Lovelady would have felt in such a situation, there is no reason to trust anything he, or the other witnesses in the doorway, said regarding just who was there at the time. There is no way of definitively knowing where he or Oswald actually was at the time of the shooting.

Imho, Fetzer and Cinque's certainty that the figure IS Oswald is just as valid as the prevailing view here that the figure definitely IS Lovelady. Lies from Lovelady, disappearing pockets, the coincidence of such a convenient LHO "double" working with him- so many reasons exist to question the entire official story about the Altgens photo.

I think we all need to remain skeptical about every aspect of this case.

[Seamus Coogan]

No Don I don't think Cinque and Fetzer have argued their cases very well at all. There's nothing to see here.

[Dawn Meredith]

I cannot believe people are still arguing about this. It is a side issue and not very important. Whether LHO was in the doorway or on the 2nd floor he was not on the sixth floor shooting at JFK. People who go on for days and weeks on these tangents are doing the conspirators' bidding, inho. Does not advance the case one bit. The time wasted on this argument could be put to better use. If people keep responding to Cinque he will continue to post. Same stuff, over and over, It's the nature of the beast. He's here to waste your time.

Dawn