Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Guest James H. Fetzer

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

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

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

by Dr. Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer

350rwa8.jpg

The release of the notes taken by Dallas Police Department Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspected assassin of President John F. Kennedy, in which Lee told Fritz that he was “out front with Bill Shelly” has resurrected a debate of long-standing over whether Oswald was the “Doorway Man” in the famous photograph taken during the assassination by Associated Press photographer James “Ike” Altgens.

In this study, we examine that question. Dr. Fetzer had previously concluded that Oswald was another figure in the Altgens photo, namely, the man who is standing to the right/front of Doorway Man as viewed in the photograph (to Doorway Man’s left/front from his perspective) but whose face and shirt have been obliterated. New observations, first advanced by Ralph Cinque, have convinced Fetzer that Cinque is right: the man in the doorway was Lee Harvey Oswald, after all.

In addition to Cinque’s arguments that the man in the doorway was wearing Oswald’s shirt, Fetzer adds the complementary argument that the shirt of the other figure had to be obscured for the obvious reason that it would have given the game away, which explains why his shirt as well as his face had to be removed. Doorway Man’s face, hairline and the pattern of his shirt were “tweaked” to more closely resemble Lovelady or his face may have been transferred to him, but the form, the fit, and the lay of his man’s outer-shirt and under-shirt are those of Oswald. So, unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald’s clothing, the evidence that we present leaves no room for reasonable doubt.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

How long have you been studying this case? MOST OF THE EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED OR FAKED.

It puzzles me that, when we know that that Lee's face was imposed upon someone else's body to create

the "backyard photographs", that it should come as a surprise that they could have imposed someone else's

face on his body: "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/framing-the-patsy-the-case-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

9utceu.jpg

Check the timeline, Dawn. He was seen in and around the lunchroom BEFORE and AFTER but not DURING the

assassination, when he was out in front, just as he told Will Fritz. Then Oswald returned to the lunchroom and,

within 90 seconds thereafter by Officer Marrion Baker, who held him in his sights until Roy Truly, his supervisor,

came over to assure him he was an employee and belonged there. For more, see my latest JFK presentation,

"What happened to JFK--and why it matters today",

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government.

Dawn

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doorway Man’s face, hairline and the pattern of his shirt were “tweaked” to more closely resemble Lovelady resemble Lovelady or his face may have been transferred to him, but the form, the fit, and the lay of his man’s outer-shirt and under-shirt are those of Oswald.

MOST OF THE EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED OR FAKED.

It puzzles me that, when we know that that Lee's face was imposed upon someone else's body to create

the "backyard photographs",

ROFLMAO!

Only from someone like "everything is altered" Fetzer! LMAO...again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone inside after the shots were fired.

On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That raises several interesting points:

1. 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 is no guarantee that Shelley would have stayed there.

2. 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 at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9utceu.jpg

Check the timeline, Dawn. He was seen in and around the lunchroom BEFORE and AFTER but not DURING the

assassination, when he was out in front, just as he told Will Fritz. Then Oswald returned to the lunchroom and,

within 90 seconds thereafter by Officer Marrion Baker, who held him in his sights until Roy Truly, his supervisor,

came over to assure him he was an employee and belonged there. For more, see my latest JFK presentation,

"What happened to JFK--and why it matters today",

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government.

Dawn

Except he didn't tell that to Fritz. The notes are not written in complete sentences, and it's unclear what each phrase is supposed to represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Ray, That was my first inference, too. But it turns out that the shirt, the lapel, its texture, the buttons, and a host of other indications prove that the man in the doorway is wearing Oswald's shirt. Unless Lovelady was wearing Lee's clothing, . . .

More likely that the person whose face was erased from the photo could have been Oswald. Who altered the photo anyway?

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Excellent points, Richard. You understand this situation perfectly. He

also explained, when shown one of the backyard photographs, that it

was someone else's face pasted on his body. He was telling the truth.

vgjv3t.jpg

I am dumbfounded that some do not understand what Lee was saying

when he observe that "(I was) out with Billy Shelly in front". He was

being asked where he was during the shooting. What am I missing?

2qlcuwz.jpg

And of course they had him remove his shirt before the line-up. That's

very peculiar. How could any honest witness be expected to identify him

if they have had him take off the shirt he was wearing when they saw him?

From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone inside after the shots were fired.

On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That raises several interesting points:

1. 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 is no guarantee that Shelley would have stayed there.

2. 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 at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see James Fetzer has gone off the deep end again.

He is going to get where no serious persons are going to buy anything from him. imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent points, Richard. You understand this situation perfectly. He

also explained, when shown one of the backyard photographs, that it

was someone else's face pasted on his body. He was telling the truth.

vgjv3t.jpg

I am dumbfounded that some do not understand what Lee was saying

when he observe that "(I was) out with Billy Shelly in front". He was

being asked where he was during the shooting. What am I missing?

2qlcuwz.jpg

And of course they had him remove his shirt before the line-up. That's

very peculiar. How could any honest witness be expected to identify him

if they have had him take off the shirt he was wearing when they saw him?

From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone inside after the shots were fired.

On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That raises several interesting points:

1. 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 is no guarantee that Shelley would have stayed there.

2. 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 at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness.

Jim, will you please quit misleading people by implying words are exact quotes, when they are not? On the Chaney thread you attributed a quote from a book which Clint Hill didn't write, in a passage not presented as an exact quote by Hill, as an exact quote by Hill. And now you've done something similar.

Fritz's notes are made up of sentence fragments, and not exact quotes. And yet you claims Oswald said "(I was) out with Billy Shelly in front" when asked where he was during the shooting. The right side of the notes reads as follows:

claims 2nd floor coke when

off came in

to 1st fl had lunch

out with Bill Shelley in

front

lft wk opinion nothing be

done that day etc

There is no indication the fragment "to 1st fl had lunch" was meant to be part of the same sentence as "out with Bill Shelley in front" nor that these statements were meant as a response to the question of his whereabouts during the shooting. In fact, seeing as the lines preceding these words are in reference to Oswald's actions after the shooting, it could very well be that the line "to first fl had lunch" was his alibi, and that "out with Bill Shelley in front" was his answer to a question about how and why he left the building, that is, that he went out with Bill Shelley in front, and got the impression the work day was over, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Only someone who does not understand the nature of human communication

would react as has Pat Speer. Consider the context. He is being interrogated

as a suspect in the assassination of JFK. He works for the government and he

expects he is going to be exonerated. The question fits the context--and I am

increasingly disillusioned by this guy, who offers twisted and perverse theories

about the medical evidence and the witnesses that PRESUME they must be lying

or making stuff up because what they say does not conform to his idiosyncratic

theory. The sentence in THE KENNEDY DETAIL, to which Clint Hill contributed,

has a sentence that can only have come from Clint Hill. He was the only one to

have been in the position to make the observation as it was presented there. I

have never encountered anyone less qualified for serious research on a subject.

What else could they be talking about? This is truly bizarre--like someone who

is trying to fend off the obvious truth by simply denying its obvious significance.

Excellent points, Richard. You understand this situation perfectly. He

also explained, when shown one of the backyard photographs, that it

was someone else's face pasted on his body. He was telling the truth.

vgjv3t.jpg

I am dumbfounded that some do not understand what Lee was saying

when he observe that "(I was) out with Billy Shelly in front". He was

being asked where he was during the shooting. What am I missing?

2qlcuwz.jpg

And of course they had him remove his shirt before the line-up. That's

very peculiar. How could any honest witness be expected to identify him

if they have had him take off the shirt he was wearing when they saw him?

From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone inside after the shots were fired.

On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That raises several interesting points:

1. 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 is no guarantee that Shelley would have stayed there.

2. 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 at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness.

Jim, will you please quit misleading people by implying words are exact quotes, when they are not? On the Chaney thread you attributed a quote from a book which Clint Hill didn't write, in a passage not presented as an exact quote by Hill, as an exact quote by Hill. And now you've done something similar.

Fritz's notes are made up of sentence fragments, and not exact quotes. And yet you claims Oswald said "(I was) out with Billy Shelly in front" when asked where he was during the shooting. The right side of the notes reads as follows:

claims 2nd floor coke when

off came in

to 1st fl had lunch

out with Bill Shelley in

front

lft wk opinion nothing be

done that day etc

There is no indication the fragment "to 1st fl had lunch" was meant to be part of the same sentence as "out with Bill Shelley in front" nor that these statements were meant as a response to the question of his whereabouts during the shooting. In fact, seeing as the lines preceding these words are in reference to Oswald's actions after the shooting, it could very well be that the line "to first fl had lunch" was his alibi, and that "out with Bill Shelley in front" was his answer to a question about how and why he left the building, that is, that he went out with Bill Shelley in front, and got the impression the work day was over, etc.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

If you have an alternative explanation--such as that he was out front with Bill

Shelly "having a smoke"; or that he was out front with Bill Shelly "watching all

the girls go by"; then let us hear it and see how it fits into the context of Fritz

interrogating him about the assassination. Asking him where he was "fits"--

and goes along with saying he had been in the lunch room, for which we have

a lot of other evidence. So if you have some alternative interpretation of what

he said, spell it out and we can assess its likelihood under these circumstances.

Let me know when you have an argument that shows we have something wrong.

We have proven Oswald was the Doorway Man. If there is a disproof, present it.

Jim

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×