Article: The Man in the Doorway Was Oswald

[Douglas Caddy]

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/cinque9.1.1.html

[David Andrews]

Bill Kelly: Yes, I am aware of Fitz's notes, and I think the chronology is Oswald moving from first floor lunchroom to second floor lunchroom to buy coke, meets cop, meets secretary with coke in hand, goes down to first floor, sees Shelley at the door and Shelley says there's no more work today and Oswald splits walking east on Elm.

In which case, this interpretation of Fritz's notes contradicts later accounts of how Oswald was "noticed missing" after 1 PM, and Bill Shelley's role in alerting the police. I don't have Shelley's testimony in front of me, but I believe this is so.

Edited December 15, 2011 by David Andrews

[Thomas Graves]

LHO's favorite soft drink was Dr Pepper. I wonder why he (allegedly) bought a Coke that day.

--Tommy

[Ian Kingsbury]

LHO's favorite soft drink was Dr Pepper. I wonder why he (allegedly) bought a Coke that day.

--Tommy

Tommy

I thought the word was "Soda" in America would this not cover all the drinks Dr Pepper,Coke,7Up and Pepsi?.

In the U.K. a Soda would mean a soda water usually from a Syphon type dispenser.

Ian

[Guest Tom Scully]

Bill Kelly: Yes, I am aware of Fitz's notes, and I think the chronology is Oswald moving from first floor lunchroom to second floor lunchroom to buy coke, meets cop, meets secretary with coke in hand, goes down to first floor, sees Shelley at the door and Shelley says there's no more work today and Oswald splits walking east on Elm.

In which case, this interpretation of Fritz's notes contradicts later accounts of how Oswald was "noticed missing" after 1 PM, and Bill Shelley's role in alerting the police. I don't have Shelley's testimony in front of me, but I believe this is so.

FBI SA James W. Bookhout's reporting of what Oswald said related to leaving work. (From a post by D. von Pein in another forum.)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

[B. A. Copeland]

Jack White has done a lot of work on the photo and the clothing, particularly the shirt.

How is Jack BTW?

Another point worth noting is the fact that Oswald himself said he wasn't in the doorway watching the motorcade,

but in the first floor lunchroom, where he said he saw two of his co-workers, including Junior, and Junior confirmed

that he did indeed walk through the first floor lunchroom when Oswald said he saw him there.

The case for conspiracy does not rest on Oswald being in the doorway at the time of the assassination.

BK

JFKcountercoup

I think this is a very crucial point and have always wondered if Oswald himself somehow ever claimed (even with the 'non disclosed' interrogation perhaps by Fritz?) that he was in the doorway but he definitely claimed he was in the lunchroom. I mean you have Oswald's admission vs speculative theory. If I had to lean on anything, it would probably be Oswald's admission. The Lovelady/TSBD Doorway issue is an interesting lead but so are many in the JFK tragedy.

[Thomas Graves]

Ralph Cirque is 2 cans short of a six pack, just listen to the guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKgSUumAPc

Duncan,

I agree with you, the guy's borderline certifiable.

In my opinion, the dude-in-the-doorway's face and hairline look more like Lovelady's than Oswald's. Also, the bold pattern of Lovelady's shirt is discernable in the the Altgen's blowup. However I do have a problem with the fact that Shelly said Lovelady was sitting down on the other side of the steps, if memory serves...

--Tommy

Edited December 15, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Dean Hagerman]

Its Lovelady for sure, anybody who doubts that needs to read Robert Grodens "The Killing of a President"

Groden proves that its Lovelady

And not only that LHO was in the 2nd floor Lunchroom during the assassination.......

[Thomas Graves]

A Weigman grab showing doorway:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

Scroll down.

Ed

Ed,

I added the http:// bit to make it a live link. Hope you don't mind.

--Tommy

Dang. I still can't get it to open for me. I'm a-feared I jus' ain't too good with these new-fangled things they calls "computers"...

Edited December 15, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Ed LeDoux]

A Weigman grab showing doorway:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

Scroll down.

Ed

Ed,

I added the http:// bit to make it a live link. Hope you don't mind.

--Tommy

Dang. I still can't get it to open for me. I'm a-feared I jus' ain't too good with these new-fangled things they calls "computers"...

Thanks for the old college try! I got her fixed. Thanks anyways Tommy.

Still wonder about the shirt buttoning itself up and down?? hmmm

[Thomas Graves]

A Weigman grab showing doorway:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

Scroll down.

Ed

Ed,

I added the http:// bit to make it a live link. Hope you don't mind.

--Tommy

Dang. I still can't get it to open for me. I'm a-feared I jus' ain't too good with these new-fangled things they calls "computers"...

Thanks for the old college try! I got her fixed. Thanks anyways Tommy.

Still wonder about the shirt buttoning itself up and down?? hmmm

Ed,

Buttoning and unbuttoning Hell, I cain't even "unzip" the damn thing!

--Tommy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

You may be right. I have suggested that Lee was to his left/front in "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then".

But Ralph has some very interesting things to say about all of this based upon his analysis of the shirt. He does not

quite have our work on the Zapruder film right, but I think his arguments are worth taking seriously. Here are more,

which I am posting at his request. I do not know why he has not been allowed to post, but I am glad to post for him.

Jim

Ralph Cirque writes:

Please consider the weight of the evidence that the Man in the Doorway is Oswald.

What has never been mentioned on this forum- or any other that I know of- is how unusual the garment was that Oswald was wearing. We keep calling it a shirt, but it was no ordinary shirt. It had features of a jacket. Watch this clip of Oswald on youtube, and you’ll see that his “shirt” had lapels.

How many shirts have you ever seen like that?

And from the one picture of Lovelady that we have from the day of the assassination, he most certainly was not wearing such a shirt. He was wearing a regular, what looks like flannel shirt that was buttoned normally.

There is a huge difference in the form of those two shirts. Can anyone deny it? And it gives us a basis by which to analyze the Doorway Man.

And when you look at the Doorway Man (in the best resolutions that are available, as they do vary) you can see the extension of the collar down the front of his shirt (the lapel). And you can see the notch between the collar and the lapel. And you can see that the whole thing lies open like Oswald's shirt-jacket.

That lapel is not just a folding over of the shirt material. A folding over would produce an angular effect. Try it and see. Moreover, without pressing, it’s unlikely to stay put. Don't take my word for it; try it. Put on a regular shirt and see if you can create such an effect and make it stay put. (Of course, there is no reason to think that the Doorway Man did any such thing.)

But, the existence of the lapel is really just the clincher. Even without it, there are good reasons to believe that the Doorway Man was Oswald.

First, the overall form and fit of the shirt are amazingly similar to Oswald’s. How much faith do you have to have in coincidences to believe that Oswald and Lovelady just happened to show up at work that day dressed the same, and not only dressed the same in terms of what they wore, but in how they were wore it. You know, it’s not normal, customary, typical, or usual for a person to spend their day at workplace downtown with their shirt unbuttoned. We know why Oswald’s was unbuttoned: the buttons were missing. But what about Lovelady? Nobody even asked him whether his shirt was unbuttoned, and if so, why. And that’s irrational in itself because it is an important and highly relevant question. When you see an unusual behavior, you ask about it.

Second, both Doorway Man and Oswald wore v-necked t-shirts. Most men wear round-neck t-shirts. We have a total of 3 photos of Lovelady. In two of them, he is clearly and definitely wearing a round-neck t-shirt. And in the third one, taken on the day of the assassination, it’s hard to tell for sure because unlike Doorway Man, his shirt was not unbuttoned, but as best we can tell, it does seem to be a round-neck.

And it’s a fact that most men wear one or the other. It’s like boxers or briefs. You go with one or the other. How many men have both? Even years later, when Lovelady was posing as the Doorway Man, purposely dressed to the hilt trying to resemble him, he still wore a round-neck t-shirt. Ironic, isn’t it?

Third, the shirts of Oswald and Doorway Man fit loosely. The shirt of Lovelady fits tightly. If it were any tighter, he would be busting out of it.

Fourth, the cuffs of the shirts of Oswald and Doorway Man are big and wide, while the cuff of Lovelady’s shirt looks standard.

Fifth, when you ignore the white blotches and lines, the grain of Doorway Man’s shirt correlates well with Oswald’s. Both could be described as grainy.

But, the main thing is: that the form and the fit of the shirts, of the whole ensembles, of Doorway Man and Oswald, are remarkably similar. What are the odds that Oswald and Lovelady would just happen to show up that way? Seriously, what are the mathematical odds? By any chance, are any of you educators mathematicians? Do you really believe that much in coincidences?

But, what about all the correlations to Lovelady? the hairline? the checkered pattern of the garment? the minute facial similarities that were supposedly confirmed?

Well, if you are going to respond by going right to those questions, then something is wrong with you. You are supposed to be educators. I presume that means that, among other things, you know how to think.

You should realize that when you make an observation and you are faced with puzzling new data, and you resort to that line of reasoning- glibly saying that prior assumptions negate the new data- YOU ARE PRACTICING EVASION. You are closing your mind. And you are sabotaging all progress. The proper thing to do, mentally, at such a time, is to re-examine your old assumptions.

Professor Jim Fetzer has done more to spread the realization that the Zapruder Film was altered than anyone else. But, how did it happen? Well, the corporate media, specifically Time/Life Inc, bought the Zapruder film, and for years, they kept it under wraps. If not for Jim Garrison, the world may never have seen it. But, it gave them plenty of time to alter it. They removed frames in order to hide the slowing of the limo. Why didn’t they remove the back-and-to-left movement of Kennedy’s head? That was the most damaging evidence. Well, the answer is: they couldn’t remove it. There is only so much you can do, even as a forger. They had to live with it.

And likewise, the Altgens photo was in the hands of the corporate media, and they had plenty of time to alter it. The original only appeared in newsprint, which has very poor resolution. By the time clear magazine pictures were released, they had had plenty of time to alter it to make sure it supported the conclusions of the Warren Report. But, they couldn't remove the basic form and fit of the shirt. That's something that people had already seen and taken note of in the original. So, of course they had to leave it.

And things like hairlines and shirt patterns would have been easy to alter- even back then.

So, just as Jim Fetzer asks you to open your mind to the Zapruder film being altered, I ask you to open your mind to the Altgens photo being altered. And once you do open your mind to it, the problems of the prior assumptions go away.

But, you have to be able to think outside the box, outside the established paradigm- even outside the established conspiracy paradigm. You have to be able to let go, to free your mind. Hey, if nothing else, just do it temporarily, if nothing more than an exercise in free thinking. It won’t kill you. You can always go back to your old assumptions later with no loss of life or limb. So, what are you afraid of? I am saying: resist the tendency to glibly dismiss a new idea. Don’t become so hardened , so inflexible in your thinking that you lose all your mental mobility.

And when something seems like a great coincidence, it’s time to wonder whether you are being had.

Its Lovelady for sure, anybody who doubts that needs to read Robert Grodens "The Killing of a President"

Groden proves that its Lovelady

And not only that LHO was in the 2nd floor Lunchroom during the assassination.......

[Chris Davidson]

First time I have seen this footage.

Lovelady in the background I believe.

http://s140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/?action=view&current=LoveLady.mp4

chris

[Thomas Graves]

Interesting thread. Let's not beg the question that whomever that was standing in the doorway appeared to be wearing the same shirt LHO was arrested in.

Pamela,

I'm sorry but I beg to differ. IMHO, the shirt being worn by the man in the doorway had quite a different pattern (plaid) that the one LHO was wearing when he was arrested. Also, I think the face of the man in the doorway more closely resembles Lovelady than Oswald.

--Tommy

Edited December 30, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[William Kelly]

First time I have seen this footage.

Lovelady in the background I believe.

http://s140.photobuc...nt=LoveLady.mp4

chris

Fascinating, Chris.

It's certainly him. So I'm left wondering why:

1. He's left wandering around the world's most important crime scene?

2. What happened to the shirt?

Who is the guy giving instructions to homicide cops in the white hats?

And who is the tall guy in the background with the white shirt over white t-shirt?

Thanks to anybody who can answer these questions.

BK