New Proof of JFK Film Fakery: "Conclusive Evidence", Experts Claim

[Ray Mitcham]

Best wishes for a full recovery, Greg.

[Mark Wengler]

Hope you get well quick Greg

[Greg Burnham]

Best wishes for a full recovery, Greg.

Thanks, Ray!

[Greg Burnham]

Hope you get well quick Greg

Thank you, Mark!

[Lindsay Anderson]

I too wish you well Greg and your posts are part of the reason I've stuck with the forum and moved from reader to member.

You largely manage (with some exceptions) to avoid switching to strike mode, even when being directly provoked which I feel is to your credit.

[Greg Burnham]

I too wish you well Greg and your posts are part of the reason I've stuck with the forum and moved from reader to member.

You largely manage (with some exceptions) to avoid switching to strike mode, even when being directly provoked which I feel is to your credit.

Welcome to the forum, Lindsay and thank you for the kind words. I feel very honored that anything I might have contributed has helped anyone

take the plunge. I am humbled by your words.

[Robin Unger]

Get well soon Greg

and just keep ignoring Fetzers attempts to bait you re: the other Z-Film

The guy is about as subtle as a bull in a china shop

[Robin Unger]

Here's your chance to speak up, Greg Burnham! Is Unger right? Did all this take place later,

AFTER the limo had reached the Triple Underpass? Tell us what you saw in "the other film"?

regarding Altgen's 7

Quote:

Lest there be any doubt on this crucial point, in Clint Hill’s written statement dated 30 November 1963, which was published as Commission Exhibit CE 1024, he wrote: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying on the seat” [18H742]. And in his testimony to the commission on 9 March 1964, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the middle of the car. His brain was exposed.” [2H141]. Since he has told us he made these observations before the limousine had reached the pilot car drive by Chief Curry (shown above), this photo has to have been faked. Clint could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as it represents. (His descriptions of the wound to the right rear of JFK’s head are discussed below.)

As i understand it Jim you conclude that Altgen's 7 is Faked because it doesn't leave time for Clint Hill to put Jackie back in her seat, and lay across her while viewing kennedys head wounds.

This is what i think is happening.

It is a PERSPECTIVE problem.

I think that you see the Limo as being much closer to the overpass than it really is ?

At this point the Limo is still some distance from the LIGHT POLE on the right hand side of the limo.

Zapruder frames showing the Limo in relation to the same LIGHT POLE

By the time the Limo reaches the light pole Jackie is back in her seat, and can be seen leaning over kennedy

Click on images to view full size:

I present you with the facts as i see them, and you completely evade the issue, by trying to drag Greg into it.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Greg Burnham]

Hey Dan,

Funny thing is this: I was barely able to walk around the block when I first got home post surgery. But I kept on doing it at least once a day for a week.

Slow progress it seemed to me. I wasn't on the forum at all for a couple of weeks (at least). When I was finally able to walk a half mile outside I also

found it easier to stay "up" while indoors too. Then I came back on the forum and could hardly keep up with the new Doorman claims as I was pretty

well medicated (still am). However, the more I "hung in there" ("here") on the forum the clearer I became. The clearer I became the more angry I got.

The anger led to focus. The focus led to more clarity. Oh, and did I mention, the argument gave me strength. I'm walking a mile and a half a day now

and visiting friends. I even went to a company party the other night with my wife.

While I agree with your prescription and I will heed your advice, still, the arguing probably did me some good!!!

Take care.

[Robin Unger]

Cheers

Thanks Daniel for the kind words.

This isn't the first time i have been in one of these style of "knock down drag out arguments" with Members of the O.I.P

and i dare say it won't be the last. LOL

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Daniel,

If you have been reading the threads, then you know the key questions are:

(1) Was Doorman wearing a short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO

(2) Was Doorman's shirt buttoned up to the top? YES or NO

Greg Burnham, whom I infer you are attempting to praise, and me, whom I

infer you are not, have had some surprisingly strong differences about this,

especially since we were once close friends. But, while he has grudgingly

conceded that the answers to both questions are "No", I have encouraged

him to carry his reasoning one step further, namely: What does that mean

for the question we are debating? Since Billy told the FBI and Jones Harris

he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt--where CE 369 suggests that he also

identified himself as the person in the background holding his arms over his

head, who is wearing a short-sleeved shirt--he cannot be Doorman; and,

since the man in the checkered shirt, which is buttoned up to the top, is the

only other candidate for that role (where we have shown Checkered Shirt

Man looks nothing like Billy Lovelady), but Doorman's shirt is splayed open,

he cannot be Doorman either, which leaves only one candidate for the role,

namely, the man whose shirt looks overwhelmingly like that being worn by

Doorman, Lee Oswald. So I would appreciate your thoughts about these

questions and the significance of their answers for this ongoing exchange.

Hi Daniel

I have posted lots of new and varied presentations in these threads, while Jim Fetzer continues to recycle the same old Richard Hooke O.I.P collages

You can tell it's amateur hour.

Fetzer is the mouth piece for the O.I.P now, since Cinque and Hooke have been BANNED from posting on

Education Forum, Lancer Forum, Duncan's Forum, and every other JFK Assassination Forum.

Why were they banned ?

They weren't banned for presenting there alteration nonsense,

no that in it's self would not have got them banned,it was the manner and style in which they presented there evidence.

they just tried to bully there way through, swearing, and abusing ANYONE who dared to put forward an apposing viewpoint.

So now Fetzer is left all on his Lonesome trying to wave the O,I,P flag

The problem is,

Fetzer tries to argue against photographic evidence which is presented here, but the truth is that he is not qualified to do so.

I doubt that he has created even one of the images he presents on this or any other forum.

instead he leeches of the skills of others, and then posts the presentations as if they were his own.

It's blatantly obvious to me, that the man has never used any sort of photographic software, and lacks the skills to create his own presentations.

He would be nothing, if it wasn't for the photographic skills of Jack White, and John Costella. who propped him up,

Jim Fetzer is a dinosaur who is past his used by date

Well, Robin, now that I've had the time to read the posts since page 13 of this thread, particularly those by Dr. Farley and the silhouette of Dr. Parker, I can see there's a longer back-story of disagreements and controversy than I was aware of. I was around last year for most of the first wave of the Who's In The Doorway marathon (I guess it was the 1st wave), and I was vaguely aware that some members had sought to raise questions/criticisms of David Lifton and were very unhappy about him being "protected" by (to me unknown) member(s) of the Moderation Team. Now that I'm more aware of the background I apologize to everyone for stoking the fire again.

I have no unrealistic expectations that Moderators should read every post looking for trouble developing, and I definitely didn't mean to suggest that Don Jeffries is SuperCensor. I was only reading through some of this thread and the (at that time) latest Oswald/Lovelady Shirt thread and noticed Dr. Fetzer's talk of "exposing" you and Craig, "blowing your cover," etc, and thought I would point it out and openly "expose" it. And since Don Jeffries had recently edited a strongly-worded criticism of Fetzer, I asked the rhetorical question of "where is he now?" without being too serious or thoughtful about it.

But since Don replied (briefly) to me by implying that Fetzer's "usual blustery putdowns" apparently aren't such a big deal (as opposed to potentially the start of more serious poop-slingings); and since Don replied to Lee (rather than me) by referencing things I said/suggested, I will only say one more thing on this particular subject. While it may have seemed an admirable attempt at toning down Fetzer, by rewriting Fetzer's post to try to demonstrate how it might look better without all the horse crap, it makes me wonder at the denial of "obvious affection"; maybe "obvious admiration" would've been more accurate, but what's the diff -- I've always found posting in these forums to be a pain in the butt, a very time-consuming process of trying to express myself, and so on, and here's someone who took the trouble to rewrite a post "for" someone else. It's also clear that some people have more time on their hands than I do, but I hope Don can accept the idea that his editing of a strongly-worded criticism of Fetzer may have been a poorer decision than asking the man who made the post to edit it himself. That would at least have been more diplomatic.

Finally, Robin, thank you for filling me in on some of the issues involved and I apologize for replying by talking about other things. I want you to know how much I appreciate your contributions to the legacy of honest research and how much I've always respected you personally and your calm, even-handed approach to posting in these forums. You know as well as I do that this thread will soon enough be on Page 5 (as it has too much in it that's detrimental to someone's "cause" and therefore it has to go away, quickly), and that the same stuff will be regurgitated in ever-newer threads -- that's how "the game" is played. So I will go back to what I was doing before I thoughtllessly re-entered the JFK Assassination "debate" and I wish you well always and that your photographs remain unbent and your website never waver.

Also, I hope Greg Burnham heals up from his surgery and makes the healthy decision to ambulate in sunshine rather than trying to sit on his butt and type stuff. This will all still be here when he's feeling better.

Take care,

Dan

[Greg Burnham]

A study of Occam's Razor Applied:

1) Why does Lovelady look like Doorman? Answer: Because Lovelady is Doorman.

2) Why does Oswald look like Doorman? Answer: Because Oswald bears a strong resemblance to Lovelady who is Doorman.

3) Why did all eyewitnesses identify Lovelady (rather than Oswald) as Doorman? Answer: Because the eyewitnesses--all of whom were very familiar with both Lovelady and Oswald--recognized Lovelady.

4) Why didn't any eyewitnesses report Oswald on the steps? Answer: Because Oswald was not on the steps. He was in or near the lunchroom as he himself unequivocally stated, where he was then confronted by Officer Baker and Mr. Truly.

5) Why was there a controversy as to the identity of Doorman? Answer: Because Altgens 6 contains a tiny portion that shows people on the steps, but is of insufficient quality to make positive identifications. One of the people shown on the steps was Lovelady who greatly resembles Oswald.

6) Can we prove the identity of Doorman using Altgens 6? Answer: No. Alone, the image is of insufficient quality to draw definitive conclusions due to size and clarity restraints, therefore eyewitness testimony and other corroborating evidence must be relied upon.

7) Why should we believe Lovelady? Answer: His testimony was corroborated by a dozen reliable eyewitnesses; his testimony does not contradict Oswald's own statement as to his own whereabouts; and there is no evidence suggesting that Lovelady was given to making false or perjurious statements.

8) Why does Doorman's shirt resemble the shirt Oswald changed into after he went home? Answer: It doesn't. The pseudo-resemblance is the result of attempting to enlarge a very tiny portion of a much larger photograph to a size more easily viewable. The amount of data lost in such operations is sufficient to render detailed comparison meaningless.

-----------------------------------

The simple explanation is preferable to the more complex so long as it is adequate to the evidence.

I believe the scenario described above is adequate to the evidence. It is exponentially less complex than the alternative offered by the OIP.

[Robin Unger]

Full Frame Altgens 6

Yes Greg

It is only the you see the full frame, that it really becomes clear, just what a tiny portion of the whole image it is that we are trying to work with.

click on thumbnail

Image Credit: John Woods

[Thomas Graves]

A study of Occam's Razor Applied:

1) Why does Lovelady look like Doorman? Answer: Because Lovelady is Doorman.

2) Why does Oswald look like Doorman? Answer: Because Oswald bears a strong resemblance to Lovelady who is Doorman.

3) Why did all eyewitnesses identify Lovelady (rather than Oswald) as Doorman? Answer: Because the eyewitnesses--all of whom were very familiar with both Lovelady and Oswald--recognized Lovelady.

4) Why didn't any eyewitnesses report Oswald on the steps? Answer: Because Oswald was not on the steps. He was in or near the lunchroom as he himself unequivocally stated, where he was then confronted by Officer Baker and Mr. Truly.

5) Why was there a controversy as to the identity of Doorman? Answer: Because Altgens 6 contains a tiny portion that shows people on the steps, but is of insufficient quality to make positive identifications. One of the people shown on the steps was Lovelady who greatly resembles Oswald.

6) Can we prove the identity of Doorman using Altgens 6? Answer: No. Alone, the image is of insufficient quality to draw definitive conclusions due to size and clarity restraints, therefore eyewitness testimony and other corroborating evidence must be relied upon.

7) Why should we believe Lovelady? Answer: His testimony was corroborated by a dozen reliable eyewitnesses; his testimony does not contradict Oswald's own statement as to his own whereabouts; and there is no evidence suggesting that Lovelady was given to making false or perjurious statements.

8) Why does Doorman's shirt resemble the shirt Oswald changed into after he went home? Answer: It doesn't. The pseudo-resemblance is the result of attempting to enlarge a very tiny portion of a much larger photograph to a size more easily viewable. The amount of data lost in such operations is sufficient to render detailed comparison meaningless.

-----------------------------------

The simple explanation is preferable to the more complex so long as it is adequate to the evidence.

I believe the scenario described above is adequate to the evidence. It is exponentially less complex than the alternative offered by the OIP.

Excellent post, Greg.

I would add one more.

Question: How do we know that Lovelady's head wasn't spliced onto Oswald's shirt in Altgens 6?

Answer: It isn't Oswald's shirt in Altgens 6, it's Lovelady's (note the three horizontal white stripes and the two black ones). And it isn't Oswald's head, it's Lovelady's (note the "widow's peak" on his forehead and the prominent cheek bones, etc).

Anyway, as Lindsay pointed out, why substitute someone who looks a lot like Oswald for Oswald? T

--Tommy

Edited March 11, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is pathetic. WE KNOW THE FACE HAS SOME FEATURES OF LOVELADY

AND ALSO SOME FEATURES OF OSWALD. That is why the shirt and build of

the two parties are so important. I find it remarkable that you are willing to be

so cavalier about the whole thing, not even mentioning that Billy had gone to

the FBI and shown them the shirt he was wearing and confirmed that it was

the shirt he had been wearing to Jones Harris--a red-and-white, vertically

striped short-sleeved shirt. In case you haven't noticed, Doorman is NOT

wearing a red-and-white vertically striped short sleeved shirt! And of course

we have also shown that Checkered Shirt Man LOOKED NOTHING LIKE

BILLY LOVELADY. And I am supposed to be the "mad man"? UNREAL.

Did you also miss the Pat Speer post #38, on "CE 369 Lovelady's Arrow"

thread, for posting some interesting information that confirms our view:

From Billy Lovelady:

Mr. Lovelady said the F.B.I. had taken pictures of him from various angles and that he had been shown a three-by-four foot blowup of the doorway picture and asked if he was in it. 'I immediately pointed to myself in the doorway,' Mr. Lovelady said. He said he was about 15 to 20 pounds heavier than Oswald and about three inches shorter. Asked whether there was any resemblance to Oswald, he replied, 'I’m fatter in the face.'''It was me in the doorway,' he said. 'If anyone doesn’t believe it, they will just have to take my word.'

That being the case, he cannot have been Doorman,

who looks like Lee Oswald but unlike Billy Lovelady.

Billy was 3" shorter and weight 15-20 pounds more.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT DISPROOF OF THE IDEA

THAT BILLY WAS DOORMAN FROM BILLY HIMSELF.

And Billy also confirms that he was in the doorway!

From Bill Shelley:

At the time President Kennedy was shot, I was standing at this same place. Billy N. Lovelady who works under my supervision at the Texas School Book Depository was seated on the entrance steps just in front of me. I recall that Wesley Frazier, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mrs, Carolyn Arnold, all employees of the Texas School Book Depository, were also standing in this entrance way near me at the time Pres. Kennedy was shot.

But if Billy had been seated, Billy could not have

been Doorman. And Shelley says he was seated.

Shelley, I am quite sure, was involved in setting

up Oswald, but this passage is a problem for the

brain trust here who wants to use him to bolster

their absurd theory of Billy having been Doorman.

More from Bill Shelley:

Sounded like a miniature cannon or baby giant firecracker, wasn’t real loud…Sounded like it came from the west…officers started running down to the lumber yards and Billy and I walked down that way. We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end…in the side door into the shipping room…

Since Bill and Billy headed down toward the

tracks and past the grassy knoll, it cannot be

the case that, when Lee told Fritz he was "out

with Bill Shelley in front", he meant AFTER THE

SHOOTING, because Shelly was no longer there.

Lee had been there with Billy Lovelady standing

beside him. Then Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley

immediately took off toward the railroad tracks.

Daniel,

If you have been reading the threads, then you know the key questions are:

(1) Was Doorman wearing a short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO

(2) Was Doorman's shirt buttoned up to the top? YES or NO

Greg Burnham, whom I infer you are attempting to praise, and me, whom I

infer you are not, have had some surprisingly strong differences about this,

especially since we were once close friends. But, while he has grudgingly

conceded that the answers to both questions are "No", I have encouraged

him to carry his reasoning one step further, namely: What does that mean

for the question we are debating? Since Billy told the FBI and Jones Harris

he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt--where CE 369 suggests that he also

identified himself as the person in the background holding his arms over his

head, who is wearing a short-sleeved shirt--he cannot be Doorman; and,

since the man in the checkered shirt, which is buttoned up to the top, is the

only other candidate for that role (where we have shown Checkered Shirt

Man looks nothing like Billy Lovelady), but Doorman's shirt is splayed open,

he cannot be Doorman either, which leaves only one candidate for the role,

namely, the man whose shirt looks overwhelmingly like that being worn by

Doorman, Lee Oswald. So I would appreciate your thoughts about these

questions and the significance of their answers for this ongoing exchange.

I was not attempting to praise Greg Burnham but wishing him well after what was clearly major surgery, and offering advice he just as clearly hasn't needed. Praise definitely seems in order, but your initial inference raises questions about your grasp of the meaning of the word praise. Not a good start, Dr. Fetzer, though your other inference seems about right.

I believe the distinctive pattern of balding at the middle top of Billy Lovelady's forehead cinches the question of the identity of the man wearing the splayed-open checkered shirt in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository building in Altgens #6. (In other words, cinches it for me, that is what I believe.) The bulbous nose is likewise there. As Robin's recently pointed out, part of the problem is that we're looking at the deep background of a photographic image that has to be blown up so much to see what's there; that would tend to lend itself to various possibilities of distortion/lack of focus in what we see. But in this case, for me, the image of the man in the doorway seems clear enough to make out what is a prominent and distinctive physical feature of Billy Lovelady, a triangular-patterned balding at the crown of his forehead.

Most of the rest of what you are talking about is filled with unproven assertions that only a pedant or a madman would want to wade through deciphering. I'm sure you know, though, that a man can and sometimes does button and unbutton his shirt depending on different circumstances; viz., unbuttoning when inside (working), buttoning back up outside. I mean, as long as there's a t-shirt underneath of course, we don't wanna shock anyone. Not that I'm saying that's the case for the (supposed) Lovelady figure standing in profile out on the TSBD steps in the Hughes film; I assume the shirt is unbuttoned and we can't easily tell because of the consistently profile view, but I would not be greatly surprised to hear that a man buttoned up his shirt while standing around outside on a late November day even in Dallas, Texas.

In parting I have more advice: I don't think it is going to be the path of wisdom to talk about how you "encouraged Greg to carry his reasoning further" because from the sounds of things he's only getting stronger.

Edited March 11, 2013 by James H. Fetzer