TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[James H. Fetzer]

It has taken me a while to appreciate the full dimensions of the incompetence of David Josephs, where his argument hinges upon an elementary fallacy of equivocation. When we (Ralph, Richard, and I) speak of "points of comparison", we are NOT speaking about LITERAL POINTS but FEATURES, such as the right ear of Doorman being the same as the right ear of Oswald, the left eye of Doorman being the same as the left eye of Oswald, and on and on and on. In post #303, which Chas. Drago was so eager to move out of the line-up and bury in this thread, when it deserved a thread of its own, no doubt many, such as David Josephs, missed the opportunity to appreciate the detail and extent of the MULTIPLE FEATURES that correspond between them. Ears, for example, are as distinctive as fingerprints. This many commonalities has an extremely high probability if they are the same person wearing the same clothing. This many commonalities by chance, however, has a miniscule probability approaching zero.

He trades upon the equivocation to suggest that POINTS OF SIMILARITY are "dime a dozen", creating the plausible sounding impression that we are trading in POINTS, when we are actually trading in FEATURES. How common, after all, is it going to be for two persons to have the same right ear? the same left eye? or the multitude of other features that Doorman happens to share with Oswald? When you understand the argument, it becomes apparent that this similarity cannot be by chance, as he would lead us to believe. And the lemmings have followed suit, including some who should not have been so easily taken in. So I really think some of you need to reconsider your positions, because they are PROFOUNDLY indefensible. And when are any of you going to get around to debunking the four major proofs that the Altgens6 has been altered? It astounds me that you can pretend to be rational when you persist in denying the obfuscated face, the missing shoulder, and so forth. (See page 31 for more.)

POINTS OF COMPARISON

The official line, for nearly 50 years, has been that another TSBD employee, Billy Lovelady, was the real man in the doorway. Not the least of the problems with that story is that, on 2 March 1964, Billy Lovelady told the FBI that he had been wearing a red and white, vertically striped, short sleeved shirt buttoned near his neck--and the FBI took photographs of Billy wearing it. Lee Oswald, by comparison, had on a long sleeve, brown tweed over shirt, which was unbuttoned more than halfway down his torso. Beneath it, he was wearing a white under shirt (or "t-shirt") with collar stretched into a V. His clothing, his stance and posture, his right ear, his left eye and brow, his mouth, expression, chin, and facial bone structure, points of light and shadow, and hair are the same as those features of Doorman (as this article explains). There are multiple unique and identifiable features of Doorman and Oswald's shirt, collar and lapels, alone. First consider his left lapel and then consider the right, as follows:



George H.W. Bush once spoke of "a thousand points of light". But in this case we can settle for 27 points of similarity between Doorman and Oswald. If you were to assume that two different people, taken at random, might share one of these features in common at one time in ten--which is probably an exaggeration, but useful for calculation--then the probability that they would share 27 features in common would be equal to 1/10 times itself 27 times, which is a one over a one followed by twenty seven zeros or 1/1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, which we would all agree is a very small number. If these similarities are not assumed to be occurring merely by chance because Doorman and Oswald were the same person, however, then the probability that they would have 27 features in common approximates the value of one. Since an hypothesis is preferable when its probability (technically, its likelihood) is greater than an alternative, unless one is a value that is smaller than 1/1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, the Oswald = Doorman hypothesis has been confirmed:

Taking posting lessons from Craig Lamson now?

Doofus?

Now we KNOW you've lost it Jim....
Sad state of affairs when you can't even address the post, only insult the poster....

Why does what Fritz & Bookout write about Oswald's clothes, on the same page as the SHELLEY comment, have any more or less credible than the SHELLEY COMMENT?
and if what he said is as true as the SHELLEY statement...

how do you reconcile that with Altgens 6?

You think you can match shirts like Doorman's and Oswald's virtually ARBITRARILY? I knew you were dumb, I just didn't know you were this stupid.

No Jim... but I see that you can ARBITRARILY decide what is and isn't a MATCH based on very flawed abilities to do so.
I can also see that you STILL have no clue how probability works or how it applies here... with a comparison of PHOTOS of shirts... not even the shirts themselves.

You've become a sad, pathetic, bitter, old man.... no WONDER you sound like Lamson.

:dancingman:

[David Josephs]

Do you also lean in and speak louder to "foreigners" Jim?

[James H. Fetzer]

Your blunders are massive, but none as striking as taking for granted that we are talking about ABSOLUTE IDENTITIES when we are talking about relative probabilities. Since we know the photo has been faked (because of the obfuscated man, the missing shoulder, the BTM in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, and the profile of the black man), it would be RIDICULOUS to suppose that the shirt on Doorman and the shirt on Oswald SHOULD MATCH IN EVERY RESPECT when they are altering the photograph to conceal his identity. What is remarkable is that we have been able to establish 27 points of identity--50, if you review the more recent and detailed comparison--where numerous dissimilarities to not affect the pattern of commonality. We are comparing the probabilities (likelihoods, technically) of two hypothesis, Doorman as Oswald vs. Doorman as Lovelady:

(h1) If Doorman is Oswald, what is the probability that they would share the same right ear, the same left eye, and the large number of other features of their clothing and build, which, given the number, turns out to be extremely high approaching one.

(h2) If Doorman is Lovelady, what is the probability that he would have Oswald's right ear, Oswald's left eye, and such, and that Lovelady would repeatedly deny that he was wearing Doorman's shirt to the FBI and others, which approaches zero.

You appear to be constrained by deductive reasoning, where you seem to think that (h1) can be refuted BE EVEN ONE POINT OF DISSIMILARITY. But that is ridiculous, under the circumstances, since many changes have been made to these images, which you appear to be incapable of confronting. When the proof that the photo has been "fixed" is overwhelming (given the face that has been obfuscated, the shoulder that is missing, BTM being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, and the black man's profile), why do you adopt an attitude OF INSISTING UPON A PERFECT MATCH that is indefensible and completely unreasonable under the circumstances? I began thinking you were a smart guy, but you are persisting in promoting falsehoods and blunders, which has convinced me you are either unfamiliar with the evidence, cognitively impaired, or wholly insincere.

Do you also lean in and speak louder to "foreigners" Jim?

But even serious students of the assassination still balk at the suggestion that Lee Oswald was out in front of the Book Depository with Bill Shelly and others, straining to catch a glimpse of JFK and Jackie--just like almost everyone else who worked there. We know from testimony by co-workers that he was in and around the lunchroom on the 2nd floor at 11:50, Noon, 12:15 and as late as 12:25, where the assassination took place at 12:30. He was then confronted by a motorcycle patrolman named "Marrion Baker" within 90 seconds of the shooting, where Baker held him in his sights until Roy Truly, his supervisor, came over to assure him that the man was an employee who belonged there. This should by now be well-known to every serious student of the death of JFK. Yet some persist in denial that Lee cannot have been a shooter, no matter how strong the evidence. And the evidence, once it has been noticed, is extraordinarily strong. Consider this close-up of the crucial area of the most famous photo taken in Dealey Plaza at the time:



Taken by James "Ike" Altgens and technically known as "Altgens6" as the sixth of a series of seven photographs purportedly taken by him on that occasion, this close-up shows the man in the doorway at the center left, where his left shoulder is anomalously missing. The man beside him, wearing a black tie, is simultaneously both in front of him and behind him, which is physically impossible. His torso and shirt are partially obscured by the extremely strange image of the right profile of a black man's head. And the face of a man to his left/front (right/front as we view the image) has been crudely obscured. There would have been no reason to have altered the photograph unless someone had been there who should not have been there, where the only candidate is Lee Oswald. These oddities are so blatant that, once they have been remarked, it is rather difficult to imagine why anyone would persist in denying that Altgens6 was altered. But one could still deny that Lee Oswald was in the doorway by insisting it was someone else. This article demonstrates how one of the most ingenious forgeries in history was pulled off by experts who knew what they were doing. Read it and weep at the massiveness of the lies our government has told us!

[Seamus Coogan]

Harold Weisberg had a very, very, very dim view of kooks and cranks in the field. Sometimes he was to quick too judge, nonetheless Weisberg would despise Mr Fetzer and almost everything he has ever championed. He would also find Fetzers position on this topic tedious and ridiculous. Oh and thanks to Phil Drago's fascinating studies...I shall have an update on the Fetzer/Ron angle. It's an even call at the moment! Hopefully, Monk can get the time to investigate some of the production in the near future. Regardless, it will be very interesting.

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert,

Why would Lovelady go to the FBI and show them a red-and-white, vertically striped, short-sleeved shirt and tell them that it was the shirt he was wearing on 22 November 1963 IF THAT WAS NOT TRUE? You don't seem to have noticed that the man in the checkered shirt DOES NOT LOOK LIKE BILLY LOVELADY AT ALL. I am sorry, Albert, I have been trying to be kind. You have no understanding of this case at all--not even remotely! Give yourself an break and get out of the kitchen. It's too hot! You are persisting in making yourself look incredibly stupid. I'm trying to spare you.

Jim

It wasn't Billy Lovelady

Critics have noticed that Billy Lovelady was pictured in the Warren Commission documents in the short sleeve, red and white, striped shirt that he had told the FBI he had worn on 22 November 1963. Obviously, if that had been the shirt that he had been wearing, then if the choice was between Lovelady and Oswald, Doorman had to be Oswald. So, in 1967, Lovelady changed his story. He claimed that it was all a misunderstanding and that he had actually not posed for the FBI in the shirt that he had actually worn, despite it having been unbuttoned and folded over in order to expose his undershirt, in an obvious attempt to simulate Altgens6 Doorman. Here are the photos that were taken by the FBI, where they described the shirt in their own report back to FBI Headquarters:



In 1967, Billy and his wife, Mrs. Lovelady, began claiming that he had worn a red, black, and white long sleeve checked shirt. Well, anyone can see the second shirt Lovelady claimed to have worn did not a match Doorman either and that it is very difficult to imaging that Doorman's shirt to have been a red-and-black check (with a white fleck) shirt with a very delineated horizontal and vertical pattern. Their contention was reinforced by the claim that Billy had inadvertently been captured in footage taken as Oswald was escorted through the offices of the Dallas Police Department and that he had likewise been filmed in front of the depository, where Professor Fetzer also believes that features of the image on the left were slightly altered to make him look more like Oswald, which is not far-fetched (see below):

[URL="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/14/jfk-believe-it-or-not-oswald-wasnt-even-a-shooter/lovelady4/"]
[/URL]Approaching the HSCA investigation of 1977-78, film clips began to surface providing additional evidence Lovelady was wearing a long sleeve red-and-black check (with a white fleck) shirt on the day of the assassination. Images of Lovelady appear to have been superimposed into the Martin, Hughs, Dallas PD and Dave Wiegman films to provide bogus, after-the-fact, evidence that Billy Lovelady had been in the TSBD doorway wearing a long sleeve, red-black-and-white check shirt. A frame of the Martin film shows a phony Lovelady (in this bogus check shirt) in the doorway with his shirt buttoned clear up to his neck, yet a frame of the Hugh's film (supposedly depicting Lovelady at the same moment in time) shows Lovelady with his shirt sprawled wide--clearly a blunder in attempting to imitate the man in the doorway. The difference are virtually those of a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde, where Jekyll looked normal but Hyde looked like a gorilla:

Dr Fetzer:


I don't think you've answered the point that you can't have Oswald's "distinctive loop" and the striped shirt in the same place as you are trying to do.

Whether you realize it you've made two separate strong claims. You can't just "disappear" that highly visible striped shirt in all the other pictures of Lovelady at the Depository that day. Meanwhile we have another photo of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt that matches many other pictures of him from that day. "Gross incompetence"? No. Just seeing what's plainly there.


The skin patches Cinque refuses to admit are what prove it is Lovelady. Ask your photographer to come on here and talk to me about those skin patches.


The problem with your theory is that you are contending CIA did some very complex forgery that day but decided to place the wrong shirt on Oswald when attempting to make him look like Lovelady.


Cinque's attempts to reason around this are totally uncredible (to be kind) and don't even merit basic recognition.

This went unanswered...

[James H. Fetzer]

What kind of rationality would cite a book published in 1989 to defeat new evidence that has been produced in 2011-2012? Are you really so dumb that you do not appreciate that we have to adjust our beliefs on the basis of new hypotheses and new evidence? I used to think you had a functioning brain, but now I am in serious doubt. Why don't you ask Jim if he is familiar with the debate and knows the evidence well enough to have evaluated it and what he thinks about Oswald/Lovelady today?

Harold Weisberg on p 250 of Whitewash II (1966) is accepting the short-sleeve vertical stripe as the shirt Lovelady wore that day.

Per numerous accounts including HSCA Vol. VI p. 287, it is not.*(see below)

In Jim Marrs Crossfire (1989) "[HSCA concludes] it is highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady."

Jim Marrs concludes the section at page 46:

Most researchers today are ready to concede that the man may have been Lovelady.

We can see that there is an exception.

*HSCA:

A widely publicized photograph taken by Associated Press photographer James W. Altgens within a few seconds after President Kennedy was first shot shows a spectator who bears a strong physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the west end of the Texas School Book Depository entranceway. Altgens has stated that he took the picture of the presidential limousine, with the Texas School Book Depository entranceway in the background, just after he heard a noise "which sounded like the popping of a firecracker."
In evaluating the evidence that Oswald was in the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting, the Warren Commission considered the allegation that the man shown in the doorway in the Altgens photograph was Oswald. The Commission concluded that the spectator was not Oswald, but rather another Texas School Book Depository employee, Billy Nolan Lovelady. This conclusion was based upon Lovelady's identification of himself in the Altgens photograph and upon statements of other persons who were present in the Texas School Book Depository entranceway at the same time.
Warren Commission critics have charged that there was insufficient basis for this conclusion, and have faulted the Commission for presenting " no supporting visual evidence by which one can appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald, although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification of the doorway man than Oswald's possible total innocence of the assassination".
This issue has also persisted because of reported discrepancies in connection with the clothing worn by the Altgens figure and Billy Lovelady on November 22, 1963. In media prints of the Altgens photograph, the man appears to be wearing a long-sleeved shirt similar to the one in which Oswald was arrested. According to a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission after Lovelady had been interviewed and photographed in 1964 by FBI agents, Lovelady was reported to have been wearing a short-sleeved red and white, vertically striped shirt. Lovelady later explained that when he was interviewed and photographed by the FBI, he had not been told to wear the same shirt he had worn on the day of the assassination and that, in fact, he had been wearing a long-sleeved, plaid shirt when he was standing in the Texas School Book Depository doorway.
This contradiction was partially resolved by photo-optical work performed by Robert Groden, a Warren Commission critic and photographic consultant to the committee. During his work with the committee Groden made photographically enhanced enlargements of the original 35 millimeter black and white Altgens negative and frames of the Bell, Martin, and Hughes color motion picture films, which also showed the spectator in the doorway, and detected a pattern of lines that correspond in pattern and color more closely to Lovelady's plaid shirt than to Oswald's tweed-patterned shirt.
Even so, in an effort to resolve the issue even more definitively, the photographic evidence panel's board of forensic anthropologists were requested to study the photograph of the spectator shown standing in the doorway.
Is it possible to identify positively as either Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady, the man, shown in the Altgens photograph standing by the doorway entrance to the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the President's assassination.
In order to produce the clearest possible photographic images of the spectator in question, the Photographic Evidence Panel had black and white prints made from the original Altgens 35 millimeter negative at various contrasts, density levels and enlargements. They included various enlargements of the spectator's face such as that shown in the photograph. The anthropologists were furnished with a number of these prints.
A series of photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, ranging from the time of his ILS. Marine Corps enlistment in 1956 to his arrest in Dallas in 1963, were provided to the anthropologists. While all were examined, those taken on the day of Oswald's arrest in Dallas received the closest scrutiny.
Photographs of Lovelady were furnished which varied in date from 1959 to 1977. Of most interest were those taken near the time of the assassination.
Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator's image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady, or Oswald. Based on a subjective assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the man in the doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady.
In comparing the photographs of Oswald and Lovelady, the general similarities in facial configuration between the two men were initially noted. Closer examination of the photographs revealed significant differences in the two men's facial proportions:
(a) Facial length.- Relative to facial breadth across the cheekbones, Lovelady's face is longer than Oswald's.
(b) Lower jaw breadth.- Relative to facial breadth, measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's lower jaw is narrower than Oswald's.
© Chin length.- Relative to facial length, Lovelady has a somewhat longer chin than Oswald.
(d) Forehead breadth - Relative to the breadth of the face measured across the cheekbones, Lovelady's is broader than Oswald's.
(e) Nasal breadth.- Relative to nose length, Lovelady's nose is broader than Oswald's.
(f) Nasal tip - Oswald's nasal tip is somewhat, small and sharply contoured, whereas that of Lovelady is rounder and more bulbous.
(g) Forehead height - Due to hairline recession, Lovelady has relatively higher forehead than Oswald.
(h) Hairline contour - Photographs of Lovelady and Oswald taken at a time close to the assassination indicate that, overall Lovelady's central hairline had receded more than Oswald's, resulting in Lovelady's higher forehead, as noted above; in addition, the recession on both sides of Lovelady's temple is more sharply advanced than Oswald's. Lovelady's recession was not uniform, and he has a downward projection in the hairline about one inch to the right of the center of his forehead. This eccentrically placed "widow's peak" was not observed in any of Oswald's photographs.
In summary, Lovelady's face is relatively longer than Oswald's its length accentuated, in part, by more advanced balding and also by his narrower lower jaw and deeper chin. The asymmetry in his hairline is also a distinctive trait.
The enlargements of the spectator's face are not of sufficient quality to permit accurate measurements. However, several features corresponding to Lovelady's traits can be discerned and subjectively assessed:
(a) A relatively broad, high forehead;
(b) Advanced recession of the hairline on each side of his head;
(e) Interruption of the central hairline by a downward extension located slightly to the right of the center of the forehead;
(d) A relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin: and
(e) A rather bulbous nasal tip.

[James H. Fetzer]

Why, then, is Harold Weisberg ON OUR SIDE? You show up every now and then to demonstrate your incompetence, which is beyond measure. In this case, if you had only bothered to read WHITEWASH II (1966), "The Lovelady Diversion" and "The Lovelady Caper", you would discover that you are completely and totally wrong. Which means you aren't even competent to cite sources when you disgrace yourself. Someone is displaying himself as a despicable crank, but that ain't me. Citing Monk or Phil about this confirms you don't know your ahole from your elbow.

Harold Weisberg had a very, very, very dim view of kooks and cranks in the field. Sometimes he was to quick too judge, nonetheless Weisberg would despise Mr Fetzer and almost everything he has ever championed. He would also find Fetzers position on this topic tedious and ridiculous. Oh and thanks to Phil Drago's fascinating studies...I shall have an update on the Fetzer/Ron angle. It's an even call at the moment! Hopefully, Monk can get the time to investigate some of the production in the near future. Regardless, it will be very interesting.

[James H. Fetzer]

This guy seems to think he can find any number of similarities in any two shirts, but that is simply absurd. I have observed that he has committed a simple fallacy of equivocation by misreading "points" as points rather than as features. Does this guy think that, for any two shirts, he can show they have the same upper right collar looping edge folds? narrowing upper right lapels? right lapel lengths? left lapels with rising collar edge folds? left lapel button loops? He committed a blunder and now appears to be unwilling to admit it--which is the sign of someone who has completely lost his bearings.

and the crowd goes wild....

sadly, changes not the fraudulent manner inwhich JF presents the probability two shirts in different photos exhibit similiar characteristics
or the probability they are either the same or different.

so that by default, only an idiot, by HIS definition, chooses the stated impossibility of them being so vastly similiar yet be in reality different shirts...
ergo, says JF... the shirts are the same.


Excuse me, this is Professor Fetzer, who must not have the resources at the University to first find out if his statements
about such probabilities will be correct. No math Professors where JF teaches... and Google must be too advanced a tool.

Thanks for the memories JF

[James H. Fetzer]

Lauren,

What makes you think that they are right and we are wrong? Have you read Harold Weisberg's WHITEWASH II (1966)? Because we are confirming with new studies what he already understood nearly fifty years ago. Can you explain away the obfuscated man? the missing shoulder? the man in front of and behind Doorman at the same time? the black man's profile?

Are you brainwashed? Why are you even taking a stand? So far as I can tell, you have never studied the proof that we have adduced and, I infer, would be at a loss to evaluate it, anyway. So why are you joining in, when you have no idea what you are talking about? Why are you embarrassing yourself with question begging claims when you have no idea what's going on?

Jim

Question and suggestion? Is there a way to have an automated response to any post by Fetzer which cautions readers to against taking anything he says seriously while honoring his past contributions? Continuing these endless responses are what usually is called "feeding the trolls." I just call it just another Groundhog Day.

[Magda Hassan]

If you'd been paying attention you would know that Lauren is not a 'her'.