JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all!

[James R Gordon]

James has a point, Craig. When one looks at the shape outlined in his rectangle, one can make out what appears to be a pocket with a flap. Seeing as the dimensions of this "pocket" are huge, and cover the entire left side of the shirt, however, I suspect this is just an illusion. Perhaps you can post your illustration of the "open" pocket you see next to James' image, so people can better judge which "pocket" looks more like a pocket.

Pat,

I agree, it is an illusion. The half moon curve fooled me into believing I was seeing the flap of the pocket. Looking at some of the Hughes frames as well as the images in the Dallas Police station I can see that actually the pocket fabric is stretched and is gaping.

It looked like the flap of a pocket, and looking at it I can still it as that, but it is not. I was wrong. I accept that the pocket does not have a flap.

James.

[Craig Lamson]

Perhaps you can post your illustration of the "open" pocket you see next to James' image, so people can better judge which "pocket" looks more like a pocket.

Heres the top of the pocket line, Pat.

Close, but the top of the pocket is a bit higher than that. Refer to the illustration Robin created, its a good one. The top of he pocket is actually in red fabric.

[Craig Lamson]

Pat,

I agree, it is an illusion. The half moon curve fooled me into believing I was seeing the flap of the pocket. Looking at some of the Hughes frames as well as the images in the Dallas Police station I can see that actually the pocket fabric is stretched and is gaping.

It looked like the flap of a pocket, and looking at it I can still it as that, but it is not. I was wrong. I accept that the pocket does not have a flap.

James.

Good for you!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That's not the TOP of the pocket line, Duncan, but the bottom of the FLAP. This has gone off the deep end.

Cinque replies to MacRae:

That's insane! The top of the pocket can't be that low. Draw the line across to his arm. Look how low it is on his arm. It's practically at his elbow. The top of a pocket wouldn't start there, way down there. Are you people crazy? Are you determined to remain on a sinking ship?

Perhaps you can post your illustration of the "open" pocket you see next to James' image, so people can better judge which "pocket" looks more like a pocket.

Heres the top of the pocket line, Pat.

[Craig Lamson]

I thoght I was in the red area, and that the top and front edege of the pocket was drooping below the white line maybe?

Look at the dark vertical stripe in what was thought to be the flap.

You can tell where the top edge of the pocket starts by looking for the "break" in this stripe.

A bit above the line you have marked you can see the dark stripe splits into two pieces, with the last bit shifting to the right. This is where the top of the pocket is. Perspective forces the pocket portion of the dark stripe to move rightward from the shirt fabric dark stripe. Proof it is not a flap pocket.

Did that make any sense?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

That's not the TOP of the pocket line, Duncan, but the bottom of the FLAP. This has gone off the deep end.

Cinque replies to MacRae:

That's insane! The top of the pocket can't be that low. Draw the line across to his arm. Look how low it is on his arm. It's practically at his elbow. The top of a pocket wouldn't start there, way down there. Are you people crazy? Are you determined to remain on a sinking ship?

Looks like ralph are jim and wrong...again!

At his EBBOW? ROFLMAO! Its just under the level of his armpit. And you are supposed to be an expert on the human body? LMAO!

You guys are worthless at photo analysis.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

Hello, Jim, it's been a long time since we cooperated on the Moorman-in-the-street nonsense. For you to admit you were wrong on this, is like a breath of fresh air. Kudos from all of us who like to see discussions get somewhere instead getting captured in a gyre of "I see it and you're an idiot if you don't!". Nice going, Jim.

JT

James has a point, Craig. When one looks at the shape outlined in his rectangle, one can make out what appears to be a pocket with a flap. Seeing as the dimensions of this "pocket" are huge, and cover the entire left side of the shirt, however, I suspect this is just an illusion. Perhaps you can post your illustration of the "open" pocket you see next to James' image, so people can better judge which "pocket" looks more like a pocket.

Pat,

I agree, it is an illusion. The half moon curve fooled me into believing I was seeing the flap of the pocket. Looking at some of the Hughes frames as well as the images in the Dallas Police station I can see that actually the pocket fabric is stretched and is gaping.

It looked like the flap of a pocket, and looking at it I can still it as that, but it is not. I was wrong. I accept that the pocket does not have a flap.

James.

[David Andrews]

Notice, in the 1963 DPD side view of Lovelady in the post above, that the horizontal stripe foremost on the left shoulder placket of Lovelady's shirt does not align with the vertical stripe on the left sleeve - you can see the misalignment where the sleeve meets the shoulder placket at the left armhole.

Daddy always told me that the arm and body stripes not aligning was a sign of a cheap shirt. It may be useful to bear this in mind when considering whether the shirt was copied for Lovelady to wear in the 1970s color photos.

And speaking of Lovelady's left arm - the pose in the TSBD doorway in Altgens 6, where Lovelady's arm seems to cross the shoulder and neck of an African-American man standing on the step below him, is definitely odd. Were they close friends, or only on camera? See post #255.

Edited February 3, 2012 by David Andrews

[Craig Lamson]

Notice, in the 1963 DPD side view of Lovelady in the post above, that the horizontal stripe foremost on the left shoulder placket of Lovelady's shirt does not align with the vertical stripe on the left sleeve - you can see the misalignment where the sleeve meets the shoulder placket at the left armhole.

Daddy always told me that the arm and body stripes not aligning was a sign of a cheap shirt. It may be useful to bear this in mind when considering whether the shirt was copied for Lovelady to wear in the 1970s color photos.

And speaking of Lovelady's left arm - the pose in the TSBD doorway in Altgens 6, where Lovelady's arm seems to cross the shoulder and neck of an African-American man standing on the step below him, is definitely odd. Were they close friends, or only on camera? See post #255.

The Groden image matches the 1963 images in the sleeve misalignment...

[Ray Mitcham]

And speaking of Lovelady's left arm - the pose in the TSBD doorway in Altgens 6, where Lovelady's arm seems to cross the shoulder and neck of an African-American man standing on the step below him, is definitely odd. Were they close friends, or only on camera? See post #255.

David, the black guy's body is behind the corner of the wall with just his head showing. It appears that Lovelady's arm is in front of the guy's body, only because the perspective makes it appear so.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Ray Mitcham

[Michael Hogan]

.....I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald.

Gerald McKnight agrees with you.

Professor McKnight touched briefly on this subject on page 115 of Breach of Trust. One of his sources is Secret Service Inspector Thomas J Kelley. McKnight writes:

According to Kelley's report of his private interview with the suspect, Oswald said he was standing outside the depository building right after the motorcade

was fired upon when a "young crew-cut man" rushed up to him, identified himself as a Secret Service agent, and asked for directions to the nearest telephone.

In my opinion this is not an entirely accurate description of what Kelley wrote in his report.

My own research on Oswald's whereabouts convinces me that at the time of the JFK shooting he was standing on the front steps of the Texas Depository.

He is the man at the extreme left at the top of the front steps that we see in Altgen's famous photo. Oswald in the man in the doorway, not Billy Lovelady.

Professor McKnight, thanks for your research which culminated in publishing Breach of Trust.

In your book you cite the accounts of Viola Adams, Carolyn Arnold, Pierce Allman and Terrance Ford. You also describe the conflicting testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley.

My question: Is there evidence not contained in Breach of Trust that helped you conclude that it was Oswald in Altgen's photo?

I keep wondering why Oswald said he was on the first floor during the assassination instead of in the doorway where a perfect alibi would await if one of his co-workers had happened to notice him there.

I wonder how his framers could have allowed him to be in such a crowded and visible place, where a positive identification could have ruined all their plans.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The question before us is one of extraordinary importance where we have now established the following:

(1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

(2) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(3) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(4) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(5) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(6) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photos is not clear in the doorway;

(7) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(8) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(9) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

I have asked several experts on the case to address the evidence, where I heard back from one of them today:

Dear Jim: I have carefully--very carefully--looked into the matter of the shirt and the "Lovelady" figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

In the photos as observable, the shirt was retouched and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady's shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee's face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes--for everything blotched there--would have done a better job.

Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch--and I'm convinced.

Plus, of course, another student, 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 other experts to confirm these observations.

Surely we can all agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed. And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

Edited February 4, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

The question before us is one of extraordinary importance where we have now established the following:

(1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shellby out front" during the assassination;

(2) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(3) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(4) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(5) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(6) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photos is not clear in the doorway;

(7) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(8) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(9) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

I have asked several experts on the case to address the evidence, where I heard back from one of them today:

Dear Jim: I have carefully--very carefully--looked into the matter of the shirt and the "Lovelady" figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

In the photos as observable,the shirt was retouched, and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady's shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee's face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes, for everything blotched there--would have done a better job.

Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch--and I'm convinced.

Plus, of course, another student, 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 other experts to confirm these observations.

Surely we can all agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed. And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

PROOF Fetzer...PROOF...

Once again you give us a couple of putz's who says, "I see it just believe me".

As we have seen, in living color, in this very thread, what you and yours THINK you see, is most often wrong.

This illustration is PRICELESS. And of course it simply destroys your credibility when your say "this is what we see", which is the entire basis of your foolish claims.

So move along, you have baseless CONJECTURE, and worse then you call it PROOF the Altgens was altered!

Shocking I tell you, Fetzer once again just makes it up from thin air and calls it PROOF!

Once again you show the world just how weak a stick you really are.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., completes the usual cycle. It goes like this. Fetzer leads a critique of a particular film or photo until such time as solid photo interpretation shows Fetzer is mistaken. Once this has been made clear, instead of simply admitting he was wrong, Fetzer makes his usual move: the photo has been altered! The whole Moorman-in-the-Street debacle was based on Jack White’s sloppy observation that two points in the photo lined up when they didn’t. After John Costella pointed out that the observation was a mistake, Fetzer began claiming that Moorman photo had been altered. Exactly the same cycle has been reenacted here. Based upon an abundance of evidence compiled over forty years, it is has become flamingly, defiantly clear that Lovelady is the man in the doorway. When Fetzer’s claim implodes, he once again makes his move... the Altgens photo has been messed with!

Well, let’s see.

Over the years, just what Altgens did that day has become well-known. After taking his famous photo at Z 255, Altgens prepared himself for a second photo closer in by setting his focus for 15 feet. When the limousine neared him, Kennedy was shot in the head and Altgens missed his photo form 15 feet. The limousine passed him and he shot it from behind showing Clint Hill climbing on the back and damage to the windshield that wasn’t present in his earlier Z 255 shot. He lingered for a couple of minutes in the Plaza and then took off for the AP office. (Altgens, of course, was an AP photographer.) The AP office was in the Dallas Morning News building a couple of blocks away. Altgens gave his film to a lab guy and sat down with the AP rewrite man who did up a caption for it. That picture and caption went to AP customers everywhere at 1:03 PM. Occasionally, that time stamp appears on the internet. AP kept the original negative in their files. In 1967, I was interested in it for various reasons and obtained a really clear print from them at that time.

When a claim by Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., dies, it expires with film alteration as its last gasp.

JT

The question before us is one of extraordinary importance where we have now established the following:

(1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

(2) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(3) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(4) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(5) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(6) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photos is not clear in the doorway;

(7) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(8) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(9) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

I have asked several experts on the case to address the evidence, where I heard back from one of them today:

Dear Jim: I have carefully--very carefully--looked into the matter of the shirt and the "Lovelady" figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

In the photos as observable, the shirt was retouched and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady's shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee's face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes--for everything blotched there--would have done a better job.

Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch--and I'm convinced.

Plus, of course, another student, 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 other experts to confirm these observations.

Surely we can all agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed. And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

[Craig Lamson]

Here are some interesting numbers for consideration when people tell you the Doorway man in Altgens was "retouched, had a hed cut and pasted etc.

The camera original negative measures 24mmx36mm or .94x1.41 inches.

The HEAD of doorway man in the original negative is 1 mm or .039 inches.

If the original negative was enlarged to full frame on a standard 16"x20" piece of photographic paper...

The overall height of Doorway man as seen (top of head to bottom of arm) is 14 mm or .55 inches

The height of his head is 4mm or .15 inches.

This is what hey had to work with in a 16x20 inch print.

Of course it does not get much better if we go even larger...say a 24x36 inch print...

The head is now 7 mm or .27 inch. THAT'S ABOUT ONE QUARTER OF AN INCH!

How about the body....24 mm or .94 inch. THAT'S LESS THAN ONE INCH!

Keep those numbers in mind when you hear someone tell you this could be an easy retouch.....