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

[Pat Speer]

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.

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.

And the beat goes on... NO defense for your interpretation of the notes offered, only that YOU are obviously right and that anyone questioning how incredibly right you are is obviously demented, etc...

Well, seeing as Shelley denied seeing Oswald outside at the time of the shooting, Oswald's having claimed to be outside with Shelley at the time of the shooting would have been incredibly damaging...should he actually have said as much and should the DPD have focused on it. But instead we have Fritz claiming that Oswald said he was on the first floor having lunch. This suggests the Fritz fragment "out with Bill Shelley in front" was an answer to a different question, and not Oswald's alibi.

Fritz's report

[David Lifton]

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

Like anyone else who has gotten involved in the Kennedy case, I, too, went through a period, many years ago, in which I believed that Oswald might be standing in the TSBD doorway, when the motorcade passed. Specifically, I went througha period of intense examination of the Altgens "doorway" photo (enlargements of which I ordered off the AP original negative). For awhile--and this is perhaps over 40 years ago--I was open to the belief that the "man in the doorway" was not Lovelady, but Oswald.

However, during the period that I was employed by the film production company that made Executive Action (circa 1972-1973) I ordered every piece of film I could lay my hands on that was available in New York film libraries.

One such strip showed Oswald being led into the Dallas Police Station, with a clock on the wall that said (from memory) 2:03, or 2:05, something like that..

In that same sequence, Billy Lovelady was sitting right there, in a sequence of frames.

So there the two of them were--in the same film frame, and in similar (but certainly not identical) shirts.

I immediately made still slides of that material, and furnished them to Robert Groden; I'm sure they have been published, and are available somewhere on the net. I believe I also made copies available to the HSCA, when I met with one of the staff around January, 1977.

Ever since, there has been no doubt in my mind that the "doorway image" was, in fact, of Lovelady. (And of course, the Martin film later became available, which shows in vivid color the shirt that Lovelady was wearing.)

(Now,I realize that I'm talking about the "Lovelady" image. . and not about any other. Still, I thought I'd relate the above experience).

As to Oswald's statements to Fritz, I would not give them very much credence.

Whateer Oswald was involved in--and many have different theories about that, and I'll have more to say about that in the future--he certainly did not expect to be arrested and charged in JFK's murder. So, from the time of his arrest onward, he made a series of statements designed to distance himself from the crime, and provide an alibi.

Among Oswald's many statements, which function so as to distance himself from the crimem (again, from memory):

--he was outside, with Shelly

--he was eating lunch with a black man named "Junior"

--he never ordered a rifle

--he never owned or possessed a rifle

--he didn't know anything about any "Hidell"

--he didn't go to Mexico City

--he brought curtain rods to work, or his lunch (depending on which version one uses)

--he left work and went to the movies because,well, he thought there would be no further work that day

--he brought a gun to the theater, but so what

--all he did wrong was pop a police officer in the nose

etc etc, , , , .

In what I have called the "1967 view" of the JFK case (in which everything happens "after the fact") much of the above is believed; and Oswald is an innocent man (even an innocent dummie), who happens to be a Marxist, subscribes to the CP Daily Worker, tried to become a member of the Socialist Workers Party, and is, in short, what I have referred to as a "Perry Mason" defendant.

In this "1967" (after the fact) view, all of this is right out of Kafka, and "Oswald knows nothing."

And, oh yes, he asks for Attorney John Abt, who was a card carrying member of the Communist Party, and defends communists--simply because. . well, simply because. . .

In short, he doesn't know anything, is really not in a position to defend himself, was there at the TSBD by accident and was just minding his own business, filling book orders, when the President happened to pass by; was then murdered in front of the building where he was employed, and then this terrible series of incriminating circumstances simply descended upon him.

There's plenty of reason to have entertained all, or at least "some of the above," as a starting point--back in 1967. Again, and as I say, as a "starting point."

But today its 2012.

There's little excuse for taking everything that Oswald says as the truth, simply because he said it. There's little reason to think (for example), "Well, he denied going to Mexico; therefore, there must have been an imposter in Mexico." Or: "He denied owning a rifle, therefore, all of that is faked up, after the fact."

Let me add, however, that I'm not arguing the "other extreme", either; i.e., that everything Oswald says is a lie. Far from it.

For example: I take his denials that he shot the President seriously.

But the art of solving this puzzle is to learn to distinguish truth, falsehood,and deliberate dissembling.

And now, to the matter at hand:

FWIW: I do not believe the hypothesis being advanced here. Specifically, and for the record, I do not believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway--with Bill Shelley, or anyone else--at the time the motorcade passed.

I wish it were true--i.e., I wish the "solution" to this case were that simple.

Unfortunately, its not.

DSL

1/26/12; 9:50 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 27, 2012 by David Lifton

[Don Jeffries]

I don't rely on Fritz's notes or Cinque's analysis to state that I think it's very likely that the figure in the doorway is Oswald. Cinque does make an astute but simple observation; Oswald had to have been a rarity at that time, in wearing his shirt with the top unbuttoned to such an extent that a good portion of his undershirt showed. To a layman, the shirt the figure in the doorway is wearing, and the way he is wearing it, certainly seems to be identical to what we saw Lee Harvey Oswald sporting after his arrest.

I've brought this up before, but I don't understand why the new conventional view among most CTers is that the figure has been "proven" to be Lovelady. That's simply not true. Harold Weisberg analyzed this issue in depth over 40 years ago, and made what I thought to be an extremely compelling case that the authorities desperately wanted the figure to be Lovelady, and clumsily constructed a story to reflect that.

It is fair to say that it isn't certain the figure is Oswald, but it's ridiculous to claim that the figure is definitely Lovelady. What is most baffling is the willingness on the part of so many in the research community to backtrack on this issue, and act as if there have been any credible studies proving it was Lovelady. IF the figure is Oswald, the Altgens photograph represents conclusive, unadulterated proof that he was not the assassin. The early critics recognized the importance of this photo, and some us still understand that.

Again, the case for conspiracy doesn't rest on the figure being Oswald, obviously. However, IF the figure is Oswald, then no one anywhere can argue there wasn't a conspiracy.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

For what it's worth, this post is non-responsive to the evidence. I cannot

even discern from what you have said that you have even read it. Please do

us a favor and give this more serious attention. Ralph noticed what matters is

not the FACES but the SHIRTS. And his arguments about them are impeccable.

Pat Speer makes a practice of disregarding evidence and imposing preposterous

interpretations on conversational contexts. When Will Fritz' notes say "out with

Bill Shelly in front", there is no more reasonable interpretation than that he was

out front with Bill Shelly during the shooting. Nothing else fits the context.

As Richard Hocking has observed--which Pat Speer ignores, because it suits him--

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 he 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 for the shooting.

3. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back

him up? Shelly was a manager of the book depository, not simply a friend of his.

4. If Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps

where no one noticed him? It would have eliminated being contradicted by anyone else.

Now it was discovering that the Algents has been altered and that the face and

shirt of a figure to Doorway Man's right front (left front from his perspective)

that stunned me and forced me to take a closer look. Cinque has done a brilliant

job of laying out the evidence and deserves a more thoughtful response from you.

You appear to me to be dismissing this based upon your autobiographical experience

of having gone through this before. But I can assure you that your past beliefs

have nothing to do with the arguments we present. The face was tweaked or even

replaced, but unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's shirt, Lee was in the doorway.

Jim

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

Like anyone else who has gotten involved in the Kennedy case, I, too, went through a period, many years ago, in which I believed that Oswald might be standing in the TSBD doorway, when the motorcade passed. Specifically, I went througha period of intense examination of the Altgens "doorway" photo (enlargements of which I ordered off the AP original negative). For awhile--and this is perhaps over 40 years ago--I was open to the belief that the "man in the doorway" was not Lovelady, but Oswald.

. . .

And now, to the matter at hand:

FWIW: I do not believe the hypothesis being advanced here. Specifically, and for the record, I do not believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway--with Bill Shelley, or anyone else--at the time the motorcade passed.

I wish it were true--i.e., I wish the "solution" to this case were that simple.

Unfortunately, its not.

DSL

1/26/12; 9:50 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Don,

I appreciate your posts, because they are typically so much more thoughtful than those of most of the others. We talk about Weisberg in our study, of course, since he had published an FBI report stating that Lovelady had come in and shown them the shirt he was wearing that day, which was a short sleeved, vertically striped shirt. Personally, just as I have never known anyone who would report a limo stop if they had not ACTUALLY SEEN a limo stop, I have never known anyone who would show the FBI the shirt they had worn on such an occasion if it was not the shirt THEY ACTUALLY WORE. Notice, in particular, that he was running some risks in doing so, since it threatened to upend one aspect of the case--at least, if anyone had actually been trying to solve the crime rather than simply frame the patsy!

The key point, however, is that we--principally Ralph--not only prove that the shirt on the man in the doorway is Oswald's shirt--because of its distinctive characteristics, including the lay of the lapel, the angles and the buttons, but that it is NOT Loveylady's shirt. And that works either way: whether he was wearing the checkered shirt or the vertically striped shirt, it is not the shirt that the man in the doorway was wearing. So I am really baffled by those, like Pat Speer, who simply ignore the physical evidence and play word games in relation to what Lee told Fritz, where there really is NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION. They are talking about his whereabouts, he mentions the lunchroom, and then that he was out front with Bill Shelly! When you put the evidence together, it really is beyond reasonable doubt.

Jim

I don't rely on Fritz's notes or Cinque's analysis to state that I think it's very likely that the figure in the doorway is Oswald. Cinque does make an astute but simple observation; Oswald had to have been a rarity at that time, in wearing his shirt with the top unbuttoned to such an extent that a good portion of his undershirt showed. To a layman, the shirt the figure in the doorway is wearing, and the way he is wearing it, certainly seems to be identical to what we saw Lee Harvey Oswald sporting after his arrest.

I've brought this up before, but I don't understand why the new conventional view among most CTers is that the figure has been "proven" to be Lovelady. That's simply not true. Harold Weisberg analyzed this issue in depth over 40 years ago, and made what I thought to be an extremely compelling case that the authorities desperately wanted the figure to be Lovelady, and clumsily constructed a story to reflect that.

It is fair to say that it isn't certain the figure is Oswald, but it's ridiculous to claim that the figure is definitely Lovelady. What is most baffling is the willingness on the part of so many in the research community to backtrack on this issue, and act as if there have been any credible studies proving it was Lovelady. IF the figure is Oswald, the Altgens photograph represents conclusive, unadulterated proof that he was not the assassin. The early critics recognized the importance of this photo, and some us still understand that.

Again, the case for conspiracy doesn't rest on the figure being Oswald, obviously. However, IF the figure is Oswald, then no one anywhere can argue there wasn't a conspiracy.

Edited January 27, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Karl Kinaski]

IF( which I do not believe for a second) Ossi was in the doorway( in Altgens), one get the following Scenario:

I can read his thoughts: Oh, the president is shot. I need a coke. And than ll have another look.

IMO

Oswald was in fact out with Shelley, but AFTER the encounter with Baker and Reid. He was lingering there, and, when we believe Roger Craig, entering a Nash Rambler.

Read the Fritz notes: FIRST he had " 2nd floor coke when off. (officer Baker) came in, THEN he(Ossi) was out with Shelley...it is that simple..

Conclusion:

WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHERE OSSI WAS DURING THE SHOOTING. MAYBE ON THE TOILETS.

KK

Edit. If we assume, there was a plan to use Ossi as patsy, you never put him in the middle of a crowd, during a shooting you want to connect to him.

Edit: typos

Edited January 27, 2012 by Karl Kinaski

[Guest Robert Morrow]

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

Like anyone else who has gotten involved in the Kennedy case, I, too, went through a period, many years ago, in which I believed that Oswald might be standing in the TSBD doorway, when the motorcade passed. Specifically, I went througha period of intense examination of the Altgens "doorway" photo (enlargements of which I ordered off the AP original negative). For awhile--and this is perhaps over 40 years ago--I was open to the belief that the "man in the doorway" was not Lovelady, but Oswald.

However, during the period that I was employed by the film production company that made Executive Action (circa 1972-1973) I ordered every piece of film I could lay my hands on that was available in New York film libraries.

One such strip showed Oswald being led into the Dallas Police Station, with a clock on the wall that said (from memory) 2:03, or 2:05, something like that..

In that same sequence, Billy Lovelady was sitting right there, in a sequence of frames.

So there the two of them were--in the same film frame, and in similar (but certainly not identical) shirts.

I immediately made still slides of that material, and furnished them to Robert Groden; I'm sure they have been published, and are available somewhere on the net. I believe I also made copies available to the HSCA, when I met with one of the staff around January, 1977.

Ever since, there has been no doubt in my mind that the "doorway image" was, in fact, of Lovelady. (And of course, the Martin film later became available, which shows in vivid color the shirt that Lovelady was wearing.)

(Now,I realize that I'm talking about the "Lovelady" image. . and not about any other. Still, I thought I'd relate the above experience).

As to Oswald's statements to Fritz, I would not give them very much credence.

Whateer Oswald was involved in--and many have different theories about that, and I'll have more to say about that in the future--he certainly did not expect to be arrested and charged in JFK's murder. So, from the time of his arrest onward, he made a series of statements designed to distance himself from the crime, and provide an alibi.

Among Oswald's many statements, which function so as to distance himself from the crimem (again, from memory):

--he was outside, with Shelly

--he was eating lunch with a black man named "Junior"

--he never ordered a rifle

--he never owned or possessed a rifle

--he didn't know anything about any "Hidell"

--he didn't go to Mexico City

--he brought curtain rods to work, or his lunch (depending on which version one uses)

--he left work and went to the movies because,well, he thought there would be no further work that day

--he brought a gun to the theater, but so what

--all he did wrong was pop a police officer in the nose

etc etc, , , , .

In what I have called the "1967 view" of the JFK case (in which everything happens "after the fact") much of the above is believed; and Oswald is an innocent man (even an innocent dummie), who happens to be a Marxist, subscribes to the CP Daily Worker, tried to become a member of the Socialist Workers Party, and is, in short, what I have referred to as a "Perry Mason" defendant.

In this "1967" (after the fact) view, all of this is right out of Kafka, and "Oswald knows nothing."

And, oh yes, he asks for Attorney John Abt, who was a card carrying member of the Communist Party, and defends communists--simply because. . well, simply because. . .

In short, he doesn't know anything, is really not in a position to defend himself, was there at the TSBD by accident and was just minding his own business, filling book orders, when the President happened to pass by; was then murdered in front of the building where he was employed, and then this terrible series of incriminating circumstances simply descended upon him.

There's plenty of reason to have entertained all, or at least "some of the above," as a starting point--back in 1967. Again, and as I say, as a "starting point."

But today its 2012.

There's little excuse for taking everything that Oswald says as the truth, simply because he said it. There's little reason to think (for example), "Well, he denied going to Mexico; therefore, there must have been an imposter in Mexico." Or: "He denied owning a rifle, therefore, all of that is faked up, after the fact."

Let me add, however, that I'm not arguing the "other extreme", either; i.e., that everything Oswald says is a lie. Far from it.

For example: I take his denials that he shot the President seriously.

But the art of solving this puzzle is to learn to distinguish truth, falsehood,and deliberate dissembling.

And now, to the matter at hand:

FWIW: I do not believe the hypothesis being advanced here. Specifically, and for the record, I do not believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway--with Bill Shelley, or anyone else--at the time the motorcade passed.

I wish it were true--i.e., I wish the "solution" to this case were that simple.

Unfortunately, its not.

DSL

1/26/12; 9:50 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

I have always thought that David Lifton was one of the most brilliant JFK researchers. (Especially when he agrees with me - ha!) I do agree with Jim Fetzer's "broad picture" view of the JFK assassination - which I think is the most important thing. David Lifton would probably tell you Lyndon Johnson & Allen Dulles (who he had personal dealings with)were involved in the JFK assassination plot. I agree.

Fetzer is right when he says you just can't trust any of the "evidence" in the JFK assassination; so much of it was A) thrown away by the authorities if legitimate B.) ignored if legitimate C) fabricated false "evidence" as needed.

David Lifton makes some super points about Oswald's comments. It is not a good idea to believe or disbelieve everything he says. Take it on a case by case method. That also happens to be my attitude towards Madeleine Duncan Brown (I am a huge fan - but she made some embellishments) and Judy Baker (I believe her general story; have reservations about certain details).

I think Oswald did in fact go to Mexico City. Why? Because David Atlee Phillips says Oswald did not! That is almost a confirmation to me that Oswald did.

My current working theory is that US intelligence agent Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed involved in the JFK assassination; but that he shot NO ONE on 11/22/63; he was a patsy with an ideally "bad" public profile of "pro-Castro marxist" - very useful for framing him post JFK assassination - especially when Oswald is a "dead Red" and not a "talking head."

So, what about Billy Lovelady, the subject of this thread? I am 99% sure that Billy Lovelady was the one standing in the door of the TSBD. Why? Because I looked closely at the photos and the man simply looks like Billy Lovelady to me and not Oswald. I weigh other facts such as Oswald as seen in the lunchroom so soon after the assassination. Is there a photo of Lovelady milling around outside post assassination?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlovelady3.jpg

Edited January 27, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Pat Speer]

Don,

I appreciate your posts, because they are typically so much more thoughtful than those of most of the others. We talk about Weisberg in our study, of course, since he had published an FBI report stating that Lovelady had come in and shown them the shirt he was wearing that day, which was a short sleeved, vertically striped shirt. Personally, just as I have never known anyone who would report a limo stop if they had not ACTUALLY SEEN a limo stop, I have never known anyone who would show the FBI the shirt they had worn on such an occasion if it was not the shirt THEY ACTUALLY WORE. Notice, in particular, that he was running some risks in doing so, since it threatened to upend one aspect of the case--at least, if anyone had actually been trying to solve the crime rather than simply frame the patsy!

The key point, however, is that we--principally Ralph--not only prove that the shirt on the man in the doorway is Oswald's shirt--because of its distinctive characteristics, including the lay of the lapel, the angles and the buttons, but that it is NOT Loveylady's shirt. And that works either way: whether he was wearing the checkered shirt or the vertically striped shirt, it is not the shirt that the man in the doorway was wearing. So I am really baffled by those, like Pat Speer, who simply ignore the physical evidence and play word games in relation to what Lee told Fritz, where there really is NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION. They are talking about his whereabouts, he mentions the lunchroom, and then that he was out front with Bill Shelly! When you put the evidence together, it really is beyond reasonable doubt.

Jim

As I recall, Groden talked to Lovelady and his wife in the 70's. They told him that Lovelady was not told to wear the same shirt he'd wore on the day of the shooting for the FBI photos. Lovelady then posed for Groden wearing his shirt. This photo is in TKOAP. It appears to be the shirt in the Altgens photo. The footage discussed by Lifton, moreover, PROVED Lovelady was wearing this shirt on the day of the shooting, and not the shirt he wore in the FBI photos.

For one supposedly enamored with witness testimony, moreover, you sure love to dismiss it when convenient. Have you really forgotten that this whole issue was dispensed with by the WC when the FBI contacted the TSBD workers who'd been standing on the steps and asked them if the photo showed Oswald or Lovelady, and they ALL said Lovelady, and NEVER reversed themselves? When one reads the statements of these witnesses, furthermore, it's clear these people weren't tampered with, as most of them said they thought the shots came from west of the building. So are you really pushing that ALL these people, including Lovelady, lied?

As far as Fritz's notes, you're still dodging the million dollar question. If Oswald had said he'd been outside with Shelley at the moment of the shooting, then why the heck would Fritz have lied about this? NONE of Oswald's co-workers said they'd seen him outside. IF he'd said Shelley was his alibi, then all they'd have needed to do was present Shelley as the proof he was lying. No ambiguous re-enactment to see if he could make it to the second floor, etc. Instead, just say "Oswald said he was with Shelley. Shelley didn't see him. Neither did anyone else." Slam dunk.

As far as Shelley, you apparently include him on your ever-growing list of liars and cowards... Well, he said he saw Oswald downstairs shortly before noon. This, along with the statements of Eddie Piper, proved the desperation/dishonesty of the WC and its ridiculous proposal Oswald never came down for lunch.

So, in sum, we have "friendly" witnesses such as Lovelady and Shelley who you choose to cast as liars and accessories after the fact so you can pretend Oswald was on the steps, a proposal supported by no one who was actually there.

BTW, Fritz wasn't the only one at the interview. Read Bookhout's FBI report on the same interview. And weep. He said Oswald claimed to talk to Shelley after the shooting, exactly as I'd proposed after reading Fritz's notes.

Bookhout's Report

P.S. Let me predict your next claim. Bookhout added that bit about Oswald saying he went outside and talked to Shelley AFTER the shooting just to undermine YOUR infallible understanding of Fritz's notes. NOTES FRITZ DENIED HAVING AND EASILY COULD HAVE DESTROYED. NOTES NO ONE WOULD SEE FOR DECADES.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Karl Kinaski]

Pat Speer: BTW, Fritz wasn't the only one at the interview. Read Bookhout's FBI report on the same interview. And weep. He said Oswald claimed to talk to Shelley after the shooting, exactly as I'd proposed after reading Fritz's notes.

Bingo

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What I do NOT find here is ANY response to the EVIDENCE:

Ignore their (ambiguous) faces and just focus on the shirts:

(1) We PROVE that Doorway Man was wearing Oswald's shirt;

(2) We PROVE that Doorway Man was not wearing Lovelady's,

which was either checkered or vertically striped, where

( a ) He was not wearing Lovelady's checkered shirt;

( b ) He was not wearing Lovelady's striped shirt;

Therefore,

(3) Unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing,

the man in the doorway was Oswald. It's that simple.

What we have here is a lot of chatter about alternatives

that do not defeat the force of the physical evidence. If

you want to defeat our argument, then you have to defeat

either (1) or (2), ( a ) or ( b ), which together jointly imply

(3) Unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing, the

man in the doorway was Oswald. And no one contends,

(4) Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing. Q.E.D.

Edited January 27, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

((DSL Note: edited and supplemented at 2:40 PM, PST)).

Thanks for posting this, Duncan.

This is from the brief film cli I "discovered" when I was working on Executive Action in either late 1972 or 1973, held the position of "researcher" and was working with Ivan Dryer, who was the editor. We ordered film materials that were available from different film archives in New York City, and received this item (among many others). It was this particular clip that persuaded me that it was Lovelady in the TSBD "doorway" photo taken by Altgens.

In this clip, the clock reads just a minute or two past 2 PM., and these detectives are accompanying Oswald as he is marched directly past Lovelady.

I made individual 35 mm slides from frames from this film, showed them to Groden, and shared them with the HSCA. (There's an HSCA document that documents my meeting with one of the staff).

Moreover, the Martin film, taken at Dealey Plaza, and showing Lovelady at or near the TSBD doorway, shows Lovelady wearing this same shirt--and that film is in full color. I believe that it was Groden who made that discovery.

In my opinion, this film clip, taken just minutes after 2 P.M. (along with the Martin film) settled the matter once and for all. There was Lovelady, sitting right there, and it was plain as day what shirt he was wearing (and it certainly wasn't the striped shirt he had posed in for those FBI photos).

I'm curious: what is the archival source for this photo, today?

Again, thanks for posting it.

DSL

1/27/12;6:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 27, 2012 by David Lifton

[Craig Lamson]

(1) We PROVE that Doorway Man was wearing Oswald's shirt;

(2) We PROVE that Doorway Man was not wearing Lovelady's,

And of course that is the problem with FETZERING. You don't prove ANYTHING. You wave your hands wildly, make up claims from thin air and generally tell the reader, "I see it just believe me".

Then as st the standard for FETZERING, you take this mishmash of crap, stir it all together and proclaim WE HAVE PROVED IT.

Sheesh.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Physical evidence, indeed.

[Craig Lamson]

Wow, can you see that v-neck tee shirt? ROFLMAO!

[Greg Burnham]

Wow, can you see that v-neck tee shirt? ROFLMAO!

Craig,

I'm not buying this "discovery" one way or another at this point. However, WTF are you talking about the V-neck for?

From Fetzer's website he says:

But, let’s continue our three-way comparison. Both Doorway Man and Oswald were wearing “v-necked” t-shirts. Was Lovelady? Well, we have three pictures of Lovelady, and in two of them he is clearly wearing a round-necked t-shirt. One of them was taken shortly after the assassination by the FBI, while the other was taken several years later. Most men wear one or the other. It’s like boxers or briefs. The third photo is the same one of Lovelady that you see above, taken on the day of the assassination. To my eye, as I blow the picture up, it looks like he [LOVELADY] is wearing a round-neck t-shirt. It certainly does not have that notched, descending quality that you see on Doorway Man and Oswald.

IOW: Fetzer is not claiming that Lovelady was wearing a V-neck T-shirt at all! The conclusion implied by your post results in a non sequitur.