Josiah Thompson

I'll try to explain. In the spring of 1967, I was done with my LIFE assignment and was putting together all the details that went into Six Seconds. Mary Moorman's photograph was extremely important since it showed the knoll at Z 315. I had done some research with AP and Wide World in New York concerning the negatives and prints of the photo that they had. But the original Polaroid was sitting in Dallas. I paid Mary Moorman for the use of her photo in Six Second. Part of the deal was that she would let a professional photographer come to her house and copy the Polaroid. I hired a professional photographer to do this. He went to her home and copied the Polaroid using a medium format camera where the negative itself is about the size of Moorman's Polaroid. It was that negative from forty-five years ago that I had scanned in San Francisco. The drum scan resulting may turn out to be the highest resolution copy of the Moorman photo extant since the Polaroid itself has deteriorated further with each passing decade.

Robin just posted the drum scan. I was delighted to be able to do this, Robin. You are most welcome. I noticed on the drum scan you posted that it is quite easy to see that the two points Jack White said lined up perfectly (the claim that started the whole "Moorman in the Street" kerfuffle) clearly don't line up.

JT

Hello Greg, I hope that awful picture of you doesn't continue to describe your predicament. It sounds awful. I hope the progress you have made continues and soon you can tell us that you've discarded that apparatus.

I followed Craig's link (www.craiglamson.com/MOORMAN8000.png) and looked again at the drumscan image of the Moorman photo. As you know that image came from the scan of a negative as large as the original Moorman photo done in 1967 by a professional photographer in Dallas. I paid both Moorman and the photogragher to bring this about. I then took the negative to a commercial scanning outfit in San Francisco and paid a couple of hundred bucks to have it drumscanned by their sophisticated scanner. The result is the scan Craig published the link to.

I haven't looked at this drum scan in ages. You recall that the whole kerfuffle began with Jack White's claim that two points in the Moorman photo established a particular line-of-sight. That line-of-sight was established by the line-up of the left front top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the Pergola window behind it. White's point was that when you line up these two points they establish a point for the lens of Moorman's camera that is only about 40 inches above the ground. Since the Zapruder and Muchmore films show her calmly standing on the grass with the camera raised to eye-level, claimed White, Fetzer, Mantik, et al., this meant the photos must have been faked up. When I look at the drumscan image after all these years, it seems flamingly obvious that Jack White's two points don't line up. The solution to the kerfuffle is that Jack White simply misread what was in the Moorman photo.

I just wondered after all these years what you think now.

JT

Way to go, Bill!

Thanks Michael. Extremely interesting.

JT

Just for fun, I thought I'd take a look at what you posted on Veterans Today. I put up the address,

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/. Guess what happened?

It came back indicating there was no such page. I take it this means that either I clumsily put in the

wrong address or that your posting has been taken down by Veterans Today. If it really is the latter, this

means that Veterans Today has decided to agree with this Forum and disagree with you. Which is it?

JT

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

Yawn!! Jabber,jabber, jabber. Yawn!!

JT

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

Glad to help, Pat. But I don't think I have anything significant.

I was employed as a consultant to LIFE from about November 1, 1966 to March 1, 1967. I think the last interview I did for LIFE was of Dr. Boswell in Maryland in January 1967. It was done with Ed Kern and could have been December 1966 but I don't think so. I never heard from Dick Billings of anyone "shutting down" the investigation. The impression I had was that it simply ran out of gas. I was not displeased by this because I was teaching fulltime and had to get this book done. I should also point out that I was closer to Ed Kern because we worked together. Had someone "shut down" Billings' investigation, I think it is doubtful he would have told me that, or complained about it. I never did come to understand who Billings reported to besides George Hunt, the editor, and never had an understanding of how decisions got made there. I do know that I was told that some ten or twelve editors had to sign off on the November 25, 1966 article we put together before it could be published. This style of "Committee journalism" meant that things got reduced to a common denominator.

JT

Thanks for the help, guys. Is Billings mistaken about the timing? Policoff says it happened in January 67, not 68. It occurred to me that, according to Policoff's article, Life and the NY Times both closed ranks behind the WC's findings in December 66/January 67. This was precisely when McCloy took over the CBS investigation and changed it from The Warren Commission on Trial to A Defense of the Warren Commission. How close was McCloy to the Luce and Sulzberger clans?

I think Tink has responded to this before, but I couldn't find it. Sorry, Tink.

Tink, do you know anything about the shutdown of Billings' investigation, and who ordered it?

Rush Limbaugh causes a stir and calls attention to himself by calling a young law student a "slut" and a "prostitute." Likewise, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., causes a stir and calls attention to himself by starting a thread about himself where he throws various insults at Gary Mack and publishes emails without permission. Yawn! A tempest in a teapot.

We've seen this movie before. It's kind of boring. If we just ignore Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, efforts at self promotion, maybe he will go away or find something else to make outlandish claims about. Yawn a second time!

JT

I don't quite get your point here, Tom. Let's say all these coworkers were standing on the steps and noticed Oswald standing with them just as later they noticed Billy Lovelady standing with them, you mean they wouldn't have called up some reporter right away and said, "Something really screwy is going on here because while the shots were being fired Oswald was standing with me and a bunch of other people on the steps!!" The person giving the report could have suggested that the reporter talk to any of the other people. The story would have grown and been corroborated all around. Hence, it wouuld have been profoundly stupid to fake up the Altgens film (as Fetzer proposed); the fakery would have been exposed immediately.

I don't get the connection to Mary Bledsoe. Would you straighten me out?

JT

Mr. thompson, in other areas, what seems predictable did not happen. For example, Mary Blefsoe, given her past and her testimony, should have been easily discredited. Instead she was presented as a crucial, reliable witness.

Yeah, could be, Pat. Clever idea.

It just struck me that through all the argument over Lovelady being the man in the doorway, nobody thought of this: Let's assume that it was really Oswald in the doorway and the silly speculation is true.. unknown conspiritors switched Lovelady's face for Oswald's face in the Altgems.. what do you think all the other people there would have said? Had it really been Oswald standing there, then wouldn't one of the crowd of people who later mentioned seeing Lovelady, wouldn't some or all of thees people been beating there way to a reporter with the obvious story: "Oswald couldn't have shot the President! He was standing right next to me on the steps!" And wouldn't this have happened within hours of Oswald's arrest.

What do you think, Pat?

JT

Billy Lovelady: (5-24-64 article by Dom Bonafede in the New York Herald-Tribune) (While discussing the person in the Altgens photo some claim is Oswald) "Lovelady maintains it is he standing in the doorway at the moment of the assassination. 'I was standing on the first step,' he told me when I interviewed him in Dallas two weeks ago. 'Several people saw me. That lady shielding her eyes works here on the second floor.'

Pauline Saunders: (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H672) “At approximately 12:20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the presidential motorcade which I knew was due to pass the Depository about 12:30 PM. I took up a position at the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure as to the others. Mrs. Stanton is likewise an employee of the Texas School Book Depository. To the best of my recollection I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at any time on November 22, 1963, and although I knew him by sight as an employee of the building I did not know him by name and had never spoken to him at any time. I do not recall seeing any strangers in the Texas School Book Depository Building at any time on the morning of November 22, 1963. After the motorcade car carrying President John F. Kennedy passed, I remained a moment on the steps, then walked out to the concrete island in front of the Depository Building to see what had happened. I remained there a moment and then returned to the Depository Building through the main entrance. I then walked to the second floor where I usually worked.”

The thought occurs, however, that the woman shielding her eyes is not at the east end of the entrance, where Saunders claimed to have been, but towards the middle, and that the woman shielding her face is therefore the woman Saunders claims was next to her, Sarah Stanton.

Sarah Stanton (11-23-63 FBI report, CD7 p.20) “Sarah Stanton...advised that she is employed in the second floor office of the Texas School Book Depository...and at about 12:30 on November 22, 1963, she was standing on the front steps as the President passed and shortly thereafter she heard three explosions." (3-18-64 statement to the FBI, 22H675) “when President John F. Kennedy was shot, I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository with Mr. William Shelley…Mr. Otis Williams…Mrs. T.B. Saunders…and Billy Lovelady. I heard three shots after the President’s car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President’s car at that time. I cannot say positively where the shots came from. I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day.”

What do ya think?

“.. a brilliant chronology..”,

“.. stunning studies of the medical evidence..”,

“.. impressive studies of the limo stop witnesses..”,

“.. the definitive study of the Lincoln limousine..”

The only thing missing here is a reference to “.. the incredible, breakthrough opinion piece ‘Smoking Guns in the Death of JFK’ by James Fetzer, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of the University of Minnesota (Duluth) and close associate of David Mantik, Ph.D., M.D...”

“Brilliant.... stunning.... impressive... definitive...” These adjectives are drawn from the world of public relations. Flacks everywhere use these words to promote their products. Usually in the book world, they have to cherry-pick the adjective from a review of the book no matter how negative. Here, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., makes up the words himself to promote his product.

That’s what this thread is about and what the good professor is about. Undoubtedly, soon the lessons of this thread will swept under the rug and we will be told somewhere of the “.. novel, game-changing discoveries of Dr. Ralph Cinque..”

JT

Josiah Thompson again shows his true colors by trashing MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which includes a brilliant chronology of 22 November 1963, stunning studies of the medical evidence, the Zapruder film and the silence of the historians by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the definitive study of the Lincoln limousine and the bullet hole through its windshield by Douglas Weldon, J.D., impressive studies of the limo stop witnesses and of Secret Service complicity by Vincent Palamara, more on the Zapruder film at the NPIC and the two brain examinations by Douglas Horne, Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the ARRB; a study of the consistency of the descriptions of the head would by Gary Aguilar, M.D.; studies of the Zapruder film by Jack White; 16 questions about the Warren Commission by Bertrand Russell, Ph.D., and 16 smoking guns by Jim Fetzer.

That Tink is in state of denial continues to stun a lot of us. Just reading the endorsements of this book, which he claims is loaded with "opinions" but not serious research, reveals the depths of his duplicity. They come from Michael Parenti, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael Kurtz, Kerry Walters, and Steward Galanor, all of whom are more reliable and trustworthy sources on research on the assassination than is Josiah Thompson. For a very nice demonstration of the importance of this book, see the review published in THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. That will give you an appropriate measure for appreciating how very far this man has fallen.

Cinque on the Umbrella Man:

Jim, if I could throw in my two cents about the Umbrella Man- the whole thing stinks. People were talking about him right away, so why did Louis Witt wait until 1978 to come forward? And, his tale about symbolizing Neville Chamberlain to Kennedy with the umbrella was most improbable considering his age at the time, and considering that there was no reason to think that Kennedy could have picked up on the symbolism. Then, it was reported that Witt was an insurance salesman for the Rio Grande National Life Insurance company, which was housed in the same Dallas building as the Office of Immigration and Naturalization—a place Lee Harvey Oswald visited repeatedly because of his immigrant wife. And another occupant of the same building was the US Secret Service, which failed Kennedy miserably, as you know. And, Rio Grande Insurance did most of its business with the US Military. So, you do the Math.

As I said, the whole thing stinks,and that includes Eroll Morris' video ridiculing it. Eroll Morris is just an older version of Max Holland. And I'll add that the story stinks in just the same way the Doorman story stinks. Louis Witt is no more believable than Billy Lovelady, both of them being just defusing agents.

You know, with all the pictures taken of Lovelady in his famous shirt, why didn't they go about it right? Why didn't they place him next to that white pillar and then take the picture from the exact same spot that Altgens took his? Why do it any other way? They could even have used black and white film. They could have compared the two images side by side. They could have seen if Lovelady's checkered shirt assumed the same mottled look as Doorman's. But neither Altgens, the WC, the FBI, Groden, Jackson, nor anyone else wanted to do it, and I think it stinks.

I was advised by a professional photographer that they used relatively "lithographic" film for newsprint photos back in those days, which had very high contrast. Mid-tones would shift either toward the white or black end with very little in-between. Gray tones got lost in the process. And that's why the tree trunk looks coal-black, and it also explains the blackness below the faces. These appeared much darker than they actually were. In other words, it's exactly what I suspected, although I didn't know the correct terminology. I said that the dark colors were being exaggerated, and they were, but what I didn't know is that it was a function of the film. It was polarizing; dark went towards darker; light went towards lighter, and the result was that Doorman's white t-shirt shows up crisp and clear, as you can see in this image.

I think this is a really nice little job of research, Pat. Nice going!

JT

Since at least the publication of Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, it has been taken as a "given" by most conspiracy theorists that Charles Givens told two lies regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. 1. He initially claimed he saw Oswald in the domino room at 11:50 AM on the day of the shooting, but then pretended this never occurred. 2 He initially claimed he saw Oswald on the fifth floor as he (Givens) headed down for lunch between 11:30 and 11:45, but then testified he saw Oswald on the sixth floor, during his lunch, after going back up to get his cigarettes.

I have found reason to believe the first of these lies was not a lie, but a colossal misunderstanding.

The source of the confusion is an FBI report on its 11-22-63 interview of Givens. It has long been quoted as claiming: "Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M." Some researchers, based upon this statement, have even taken to stating that Givens said he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the domino room.

But this is clearly incorrect. And here's why. This FBI report is not a verbatim account of Givens' statements. It is a typed-up report taken from the notes created by the FBI agent interviewing Givens. While the FBI has never released the original notes of any of its agents, I have recently realized there is another report written based upon these notes that sheds fresh light on what Givens actually said. This report is a teletype written early on the 23rd in which Dallas Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin summarized the interviews conducted in Dallas for FBI headquarters.

Here is Shanklin's discussion of Givens:

"Charles Douglas Givens, Employee, TSBD, worked on sixth floor until about eleven thirty A.M. Left at this time going down on elevator. Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass. Oswald was reading paper in the first floor domino room seven-fifty A.M. November twenty two last when Givens came to work."

This passage can be found in FBI file 62-109060, sec 9, p54 here: Shanklin on Givens

As you can see he specifies that Givens saw Oswald at 7:50, not 11:50 as appeared in the typed-up report. But that's not quite accurate, either. After reading Shanklin's account, I went back and re-read the FBI's typed-up report on its interview with Givens, and realized that the report had actually never claimed Givens saw Oswald at 11:50. This is what people thought it claimed. But it's not what it actually claimed. It actually claimed exactly what Shanklin said it claimed, with the unfortunate subtraction of the time Givens saw Oswald. Here is the confusingly written passage, from which people, including myself, have long extracted that Givens saw Oswald at 11:50.

"Givens said that during the past few days Lee had commented that he rode to work with a boy named Wesley. Givens said all employees enter the back door of the building when Jack Dougherty, the foreman opens the door about 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.” (CD5 p329)

So, you see, by leaving out the time Givens saw Oswald--7:50--the writer of the report allowed people to think the words "On the morning" referred to 11:50.

It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some boxes or something?

There's also this. Shanklin's teletype asserts that Givens: "Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass."

While the FBI's typed-up report said Givens traveled to the first floor and then walked around until 12 o'clock, it did not specify that he did not go back up. Shanklin's message is much more specific on this matter. There is NO WAY this is compatible with Givens' subsequent testimony he went back up to the sixth floor and talked to Oswald. Shanklin's teletype thereby clears Givens of one lie, but helps convict him of another.

"..in endorsing Louis Witt as that person, he turned out to be vouching for a limo stop witness.." Some witnesses thought the limousine stopped; some witnesses thought it slowed down; some witnesses had no opinion. If you think a witness was there, that does not mean that you are "vouching for" or "endorsing" anything a witness may or may not think he saw. You keep repeating this as a kind of mantra and all it shows is your inability to get anything straight.

..in endorsing Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), he was endorsing the blow out to the black of JFK's head, which is also, like the limo stop, not present in the Zapruder film.. Similar mantra, similar answer. In a book filled with opinions but little valid research, Gary Aguilar did a nice job of researching who saw what at Bethesda and Parkland. There is no necessity that the wound to Kennedy's head in the milliseconds after Z 313 looks the same as it looked later in Parkland and Bethesda. In the interval between Z 313ff and Parkland, for example, JFK was hit a second time in the head and his body manhandled in getting it out of the limousine.

As usual, instead of dealing with the facts in argument... that apparently nobody in this Forum agrees with you and Cinque... you make your usual try at distracing attention to irrelevant points. So, as the handbook of demagoguery would advise, you move to tribal politics. "Thompson is no longer a member of our tribe since he said that what looks sinister may not be sinister." What you completely miss is the plain fact that what I said is true. Not just in the Kennedy assassination but in any of the hundreds of murder cases that I've worked on, just because something looks sinister does not mean it is sinister. Why is that? It's because the the human situation is so variegated, that people do things for the weirdest reasons, you can't believe something is sinister just because at first glance it "looks" sinister. And for the people on this Forum, I don't think tribal politics works. I don't belong to any tribe and I don't think most people on this site belong to any tribe.

So once again, you just dig yourself a deeper hole. Does anyone agree with you after this thread has ground on for thirty-some pages? Who?

JT

No, of course not. I found Tink's performance in "The Umbrella Man" fascinating for multiple reasons, not least of all that, in endorsing Louis Witt as that person, he turned out to be vouching for a limo stop witness--just as, in endorsing Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), he was endorsing the blow out to the black of JFK's head, which is also, like the limo stop, not present in the Zapruder film.

That performance, by the way, profoundly bothered me, just as his attempts to belittle this new study of the Doorway Man bothers me now. You might want to review the concluding passages of "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times", because there, in particular, he is suggesting there are arbitrarily many innocuous explanations for any evidence that has ever been viewed as “sinister” in the assassination of JFK:

Here’s a transcript: (laughing) What it means it that, if you have any fact which you think is really sinister — it’s really obviously a fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning — hey, FORGET IT, MAN, because you can never, on your own, think up all the non-sinister perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale.

As Cliff Varnell has remarked, “Check out the sarcasm dripping from Tink’s [use of the phrases] “really sinister” and “sinister underpinning”. And that, of course, is why Mark M., commented, “This was wonderful. The best – and most convincing – debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.”

Dr. Fetzer,

You said:

OF COURSE it's what we are getting here. And your intrusion is extremely revealing. Having set out to undermine evidence of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, which was beautifully illustrated by your "Umbrella Man" performance--see "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times" if you don't know what I am talking about--nothing could cause you more anxiety than a simple proof that Lee was not the lone assassin, could not even have been a shooter, but that the government was lying to us, where the FBI was covering it up and The Warren Commission was an utter sham! Panic time!

Holler at me for coming in here late, I don't care. We have had a small family crisis, and I really didn't want to get involved, but I can't let this pass.

Didn't you agree that it was Witt, even though it was AFTER you found out he could be used to pad the Limo stop argument? And have you noticed that there are several conspiracy theorists say it is Lovelady on the steps,, but still they remain conspiracy theorists? You don't have to believe that Oswald was on the steps to believe in conspiracy, do you?

C'mon-- you know better than this.

Kathy, you know it's Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, usual procedure when he can't ansnwer something to call the other person either an "intelligence disinformation specialist" (an "op") or a lone-nutter. So there is nothing new here. I only look into this thread from time to time so I don't know the answer. Has anyone at all spoken up to say they find what Fetzer (or Fetzer channeling Cinque)is saying is persuasive? I don't know. Whenever I glance in, I find people fed up with his condescension and dumping on him. But I may be wrong. Someone, somewhere may find what he's saying either interesting or persuasive. The odd thing is that Fetzer has succeeded in making a lot of the business of this Forum to be just about him? In itself, that is kind of an amazing achievement.

JT

Dr. Fetzer,

You said:

OF COURSE it's what we are getting here. And your intrusion is extremely revealing. Having set out to undermine evidence of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, which was beautifully illustrated by your "Umbrella Man" performance--see "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times" if you don't know what I am talking about--nothing could cause you more anxiety than a simple proof that Lee was not the lone assassin, could not even have been a shooter, but that the government was lying to us, where the FBI was covering it up and The Warren Commission was an utter sham! Panic time!

Holler at me for coming in here late, I don't care. We have had a small family crisis, and I really didn't want to get involved, but I can't let this pass.

Didn't you agree that it was Witt, even though it was AFTER you found out he could be used to pad the Limo stop argument? And have you noticed that there are several conspiracy theorists say it is Lovelady on the steps,, but still they remain conspiracy theorists? You don't have to believe that Oswald was on the steps to believe in conspiracy, do you?

C'mon-- you know better than this.

You make an excellent point, Greg. A new approach can lead to the successful interpretation of evidence that could not be understood before. The approach works when we are able to see a set of facts in a completely different light. But that is not what we've been getting here. I don't know how to describe any better what we've been getting. It just ain't pretty.

JT

Tink,

There are numerous examples of "questions" in this case that have been under examination from about day one. Many of those were never resolved. Some have subsequently been better understood, if not resolved. In my view, IF there was compelling evidence that had not yet been studied or had not been studied from a relevant "novel" approach, then new evidence or a new approach could possibly shed valuable insight on the case.

However, in this instance, my objection to Cinque's study is not because I am convinced it is Lovelady. It could be Lovelady. If I was asked what I believe I would say it probably is Lovelady, but I really don't know. My objection is to the presentation of the study. My objection is to the ABSOLUTENESS of the assertions. My objection is that the assertions are not well supported unless I abandon principles of, yes, critical thinking. The premises being used to bolster the argument have NOT been established, IMO.

Jim obviously feels that the premises are solid. I do not. We disagree. That he believes I am now a "brainless twit" is unfortunate. But, that is his prerogative.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

"Well, let's see. The Frtiz notes. The altered Altgens. The new studies by Ralph and me. The new observations by dkruckerman and other experts."

"The Fritz notes.." You assume their meaning while other have pointed out they are perfectly consistent with Oswald going outside after the shooting.

"The Altered Altgens.." You assume it's altered but haven't been able to show this. It was on the AP wire, for God's sake, within 33 minutes of the shooting.

"The new studies by Ralph and me.." Give me break. What's new that isn't wrong?

"The new observations by dkruckerman and other experts.." Yeah, you and your "experts."

Except for the very astute criticism of you from Greg Burnham in the last day, this thread has become a curious psychodrama for you and Dr. Cinque. For the rest of us, it has the curious fascination of a slow-developing train wreck. As for important new knowledge of the the Altgens 6 photo and November 22nd... very little and what there is shows you and the good doctor to be not just wrong, but silly.

JT

Well, let's see. The Frtiz notes. The altered Altgens. The new studies by Ralph and me. The new observations by

dkruckerman and other experts. The time-line observations by Richard Hocking. The new studies of the Doorman

by David Josephs. General contextual considerations from Don Jeffries. Background from Bernice. Useful posts by

Robin Unger. And a lot of slop and seemingly endless nonsense from MacRae, Lamson, and others. But none of it

matters to you, since you are only here to score cheap points you think count against me. You have misfired again.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

Pat Speer pointed out: "Which brings me back to Fritz's notes. How is it remotely reasonable for you to keep claiming they say Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting, when they are entirely consistent with the claims of the men who attended the interview, i.e., that Oswald was inside the building at the time of the shooting, and went outside and spoke with Shelley afterward?"

This is a perfectly reasonable point. You duck it. Instead of dealing with it, you throw a few insults around and then offer a few opinions as if they were facts. Classic "Fetzering" (as Craig Lamson would describe it).

Since this thread had crossed into the Twilight Zone, why don't you bring us something truly crazy... how about the belief that both you and Dr.Cinque have that "the Birthers" are right, that President Obama was born in Kenya not the United States? I'd really like to see you argue that belief. It would put everything in its proper place.

JT

As before, your incompetence reeks from every pour. What is the probability that stocky Billy Lovelady, who is practically bursting out of his checkered shirt, would appear to be slender in build with a loose fitting shirt in the doorway? What is the probability that another figure in the crowd would have both HIS FACE and HIS SHIRT obliterated, would they not have given the game away? What is the probability that the Altgens would have been altered UNLESS IT INCLUDED SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED? And what is the probability that the Doorway Man would have Lovelady's face but be wearing Oswald's shirt--unless Lovelady's face had been transferred to Oswald's body, just as Oswald's face had been transferred to someone else's body in the backyard photographs? I am sorry, Pat, but every post you make displays your incapacity to conduct serious research in a case laden with faked and fabricated evidence. It raises serious questions in my mind as to why you are here, where the absurdity of your position on the medical evidence--with a wound on the side of the head that could not possibly be extruding cerebellum--takes the cake. You simply deny what we have to learn from the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and EVEN FRAME 374, where anyone can see for themselves that you are completely and totally wrong. Something is very wrong with you.

Cinque comments on Kinaski:

Whenever a person's reply to "what about x?" is "what about y?" it's usually evasive and diversionary, as it is here.

Take note of this one, Jim, because you do this all the time. When someone points out an inconsistency in your claim "x", you attack them for some unrelated reason, or, even worse, claim the issue is not even in dispute due to YOUR "knowing" "y."

This flawed methodology is, in fact, the foundation for this thread. "Well, yeah, the shirt looks sort of like Lovelady's, but it FITS the man in the doorway more like Oswald's" etc... You then claim this observation as a proof, even when few here (one of the most conspiracy-minded websites in existence) remotely agree with your observation. You never address the probabilities of a shirt appearing to fit doorway man like Oswald's shirt fits Oswald, and compare them to the probabilities the photo was altered in the manner you describe. I mean, have you even looked at the provenance of the photo? When was it developed? When was it first published? WHO saw it and changed it before publication? Was Altgens in on it?

Which brings me back to Fritz's notes. How is it remotely reasonable for you to keep claiming they say Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting, when they are entirely consistent with the claims of the men who attended the interview, i.e., that Oswald was inside the building at the time of the shooting, and went outside and spoke with Shelley afterward?

I mean, please explain... Doesn't the "PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY (in giving preference to interpretations that make what they say come out true rather than false)" dictate that you should trust the reports of those present during Fritz's interview of Oswald? And are you not also disregarding the "PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY (in assuming that they are motivated to lie and distort rather than simply speak the truth as they experienced it in relation to the assassination of our president)"?

You wrote: "I had four brothers and attended an all-men's college. Four years in the Marine Corps, to boot, and I can effortlessly tell the difference between a stretched tee-shirt and one that has been repeatedly tugged."

Everyone agrees that the photo in question was taken after Oswald had his tussle with the Dallas police. With respect to the above quote, are you seriously claiming that you can discern the difference between a T-shirt that has been wrenched in a tussle and a T-shirt that "has been repeatedly tugged?" Are you also claiming that only because of experiences you had fifty years ago that you are especially qualified to make this slippery judgment?

If so, this whole thread has now become totally loony! Priceless!

JT

You must have led a strange life, Pat, to have grown up with such a grotesque tendency to distort, misread, and mislead those who read your posts. I had four brothers and attended an all-men's college. Four years in the Marine Corps, to boot, and I can effortlessly tell the difference between a stretched tee-shirt and one that has been repeatedly tugged. Your bizarre theories about JFK are boggle the mind.

To substantiate my observations about you, you go out of your way to tryI had four brothers and attended an all-men's college. Four years in the Marine Corps, to boot, and I can effortlessly tell the difference between a stretched tee-shirt and one that has been repeatedly tugged. to interpret what the witnesses and the doctors say is FALSE in order to distort the obvious interpretation of what they say to defect disproofs of your bizarre side-hit theory. You also impugn their motives by taking for granted that these witnesses would lie or otherwise misrepresent their own personal experiences in relation to the assassination.

As I have explained to you before, you are violating two conventions of conversational discourse, which are known as the PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY (in giving preference to interpretations that make what they say come out true rather than false) and the PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY (in assuming that they are motivated to lie and distort rather than simply speak the truth as they experienced it in relation to the assassination of our president).

To suggest you are inept (with witnesses, doctors, X-rays, and frames) puts is all far too kindly. You are incompetent, even in relation to trivial matters, such as whether a tee shirt is stretched or tugged! That is completely incredible. What about the guy in Ralph's photo above? Does he tug his tee shirt or was he in a brawl with the police?

Pat,

You are not only incompetent with regard to the medical evidence--where your bizarre theory of a side wound is inconsistent with the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen--but your demonstrated incapacity to understand language has been demonstrated here--by your attempts to fudge the context in which Lee told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front, which had to have meant "during the assassination". But I know you will not relent.

Now you want to dispute OBVIOUS VISUAL EVIDENCE THAT LEE TUGGED AT HIS SHIRT. Were this coming from anyone else, I might be surprised, but not from you. You do not have the liberty of making a completely unsubstantiated assumption; and even if the t-shirt had been stretched in the scuffle, what we see here is not the result of one rough and sudden tugging, but rather, of chronic, repeated tugging, over time, which deformed it. But I also know reason will not dissuade you.

Jim

Evidence, Jim, evidence. What evidence do you have that the shirt was stretched-out before Oswald scuffled with the police? Did Marina claim Oswald tugged on his t-shirts to stretch out the collars? It's possible she said such a thing. I don't know. But it appears you are basing your claim he stretched out his collars on this photo, which shows the condition of the shirt after Oswald tussled with the DPD. And that is just incredibly wrong-headed, and deceptive.

As far as my "bizarre theory of a side wound (which) is inconsistent with the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen," nothing could be further from the truth. YOU have cherry-picked a few witnesses whom you choose to believe, and ignore the rest. YOU similarly pretend these witnesses describe a wound LOW on the back of the head, when they do not, and that this wound is consistent with a wound in the location proposed by Mantik, when they do not. And then you claim this is all supported by your eccentric interpretation of frame 374, which shows a shape in location INCHES away from both the white patch described by Mantik, and the hole created by the loss of the Harper fragment, as interpreted by Mantik. In short, you have tossed together a bunch of inconsistent claims and theories into a "Fetzer Salad," and attack anyone who fails to put it on their plate.

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.

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.

"The greatest embarrassment in the history of JFK research is a guy named "Pat Speer". Good Lord, have I been demoted? For years, I thought I was at the very top of Fetzer's pantheon of "embarrassments in the history of JFK research." And Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., demotes me and moves up Pat Speer without giving me even a chance to plead my case. To be at the top of Professor's Fetzer, Ph.D's, list and the target of his unending bile is a great honor. Pat, my congratulations!

JT

Coming from a man who contradicts the witnesses, the doctors, the X-ray studies, and even frame 374, in which the blow out can actually be seen, by insisting that it was at the side of the head, from which extruding cerebellum would have been anatomically impossible, I am incredulous that you would make such a post. Look in a mirror. The greatest embarrassment in the history of JFK research is a guy named "Pat Speer".

David,

I commend you on your astute observations on this issue. However, you confound me once again by inexplicably concluding that, despite your research, Lovelady was the man in the doorway. Reminds me of Dan Moldea, writing a book on the RFK assassination, proving conclusively there was a conspiracy, and then incomprehensibly concluding that Sirhan acted alone.

Lovelady initially told the FBI he wore a shirt that day that couldn't have been the one we see on the figure in the Altgens photo. Then, to reinforce this, he shows up in that shirt for a photo. Some of us would consider that "best evidence." The authorities desperately wanted to declare that the figure wasn't Oswald, because that automatically meant he couldn't have been the assassin. No need to argue about nonsense like the SBT any more if that was the case. So obviously they had an agenda to "prove" that the figure was Lovelady.

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.

Strong doubts remain for those who started off with those doubts. I don't know anyone who's started studying this case in recent years who finds this issue anything more than an embarrassment. It's Lovelady's face. It's Lovelady's shirt. All the witnesses said it was Lovelady. And the shirt some seem to think is the shirt on the man in the doorway--Oswald's shirt--was, according to Oswald, not worn by him at the time of the shooting.

If any aspect of the shooting ought to be closed, it's this one. And yet, some prefer to have keep every door open, no matter how silly, no matter how much it wastes our time. Why? How does it benefit the community as a whole to waste time on issues such as this?

When those with only a marginal interest in the case, such as members of the mainstream media, take a closer look at the case next year, wouldn't it bolster the credibility of the research community to be able to say "No, we aren't just suspicioners, adding more and more reasons to be suspicious to our collection; in fact, we have abandoned many old theories that haven't stood the test of time?" I believe so. I believe we should unite and make a list of conspiracy factoids we ourselves have debunked. And present this to responsible members of the mainstream media along with a list of theories we still consider viable.

Among those on the kill list, IMO. 1. Greer shot Kennedy. 2. Kennedy was shot by someone hiding in the storm drain. 3. Oswald is in the doorway in the Altgens photo.

Welcome to the Forum, Dr. Cinque. I find your style of argument very similar to that of Professor Fetzer, Ph.D. Is that because you too are a Ph.D. and Professor of Philosophy somewhere? Or are you a medical doctor? Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., puts great stress on qualifications and that is why I ask.

I look forward to your contributions via Professer Fetzer, Ph.D., in the future.

JT

From Ralph (I think he's got your number):

Lamson, you have no right to make any presumptions about the chin-shade causing the vee in the t-shirt because you know of no instances in your life or anyone else's practical experience, in which such a thing has happened. Shade darkens, but it does not obliterate. Chin-shade would never fall in such a way as to produce such a perfect vee-shaped geometry. And if you think otherwise, you quit wagging your tongue so much and get busy finding an image- other than Doorway Man- in which such a thing has happened.

And regarding the build, it's true that Doorman is partially hidden behind the pillar, but I can still see the left side of his body very clearly. What are you saying, Lamson, that he might be stocky and brawny on the side that is hidden? This may sound bold, but I take the liberty of assuming that he has the same build on the hidden side that he has on the exposed side. And on the exposed side, I can see his slenderness in his face. I can see his slenderness in his arm, especially his forearm. And I can see his slenderness in the way in which his shirt is billowing. And when compared to Lovelady from the police station, with his massive arm showing, it is abundantly clear that they are two different people.

Lamson, I know your type. You're the type that doesn't think, doesn't know how to think, and has no idea what critical thinking entails. So, leave it to others.

Ralph Cinque

From Ralph Cinque:

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. His very unique and distinctive clothing matched perfectly with the Man in the Doorway. His build matched Doorman's perfectly. His whole manner of dress matched Doorman's perfectly. Lovelady was much too stocky to be Doorman. Just look at the pics. Lovelady was brawny, stocky guy; Oswald was a runt, and the same is true of Doorman.

Ralph and his silly pronouncements make me want to ...well...ralph.

Sheesh Jim you sure can "find them". This guy is really something else.

Ralph really is amazing, why he can resolve the fine details of the doorway mans clothing from a poor halftone scan yet he can't tell us WHY the skin of Doorway man is NEAR BLACK in the so called vee! Nor HOW he has proven in fact the VEE is actual created by the shirt!

Then this "analyst" tells us the can tell the build of doorway man, WHO IS LARGELY OBSCURED BY THE DOORWAY!

This guy is as silly as they come, a PERFECT FIT for Jim Fetzer.

urp...ralph....

Fetzer...Lifton...urp...Ralph...three pees in a pod!

Multiple kudos, David. This is a wonderfully complete piece of research that I hope will be kept as pretty much the last word on Billy Lovelady and his shirt. Really well done!!

JT

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

I want to share with those on this forum a new development re my own analysis regarding Billy Lovelady –specifically, this post concerns the plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing when (in 1976) he posed for Robert Groden, who then published that picture in his book. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

I no longer believe that Lovelady, in posing for Groden, wore the same plaid shirt he wore on the day of JFK’s assassination, and that's what this post is all about--not whether Lovelady was the man in the doorway (I still believe he was) but whether he has been honest in posing for pictures with the shirt he was wearing; or whether, on occasion, he had engaged in deception--and just why.

Let’s back up a moment:

At issue (for me, anyway) was whether the shirt Lovelady wore (on 11/22/63) was a proper criterion for establishing whether he (Lovelady) was the man in the TSBD doorway.

I believe it is, and believe that to this day. Nonetheless, I now believe that, in 1976, Lovelady was deceptive with Groden, and that the plaid shirt he wore for Groden, was not the same plaid shirt he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he stood in the TSBD doorway; and that’s what this post is all about.

Before proceeding further, I should note that Lovelady, while deceptive some of the time, was not deceptive all of the time. Specifically: when Lovelady testified in his Warren Commission deposition, he told the truth. He said he was standing on the top step of the TSBD entrance, and identified himself in the Altgens photograph, drawing in an arrow, pointing to the image. This exhibit—of the Altgens photograph, with the arrow pointing to Lovelady—became Warren Commission Exhibit 369 (and is published in Volume 16, of the 26 Volumes).

So: I believe that, when under oath, he told the truth.

But Billy Lovelady did not always tell the truth, and that is the problem.

So let me recap, and focus on the issue at hand: whether Lovelady was honest when he was interviewed by Groden in 1976, or –for whatever reason—was deceptive. And just how far back this pattern of deception goes.

In short, the issue at hand is whether Lovelady was “playing with a full deck” (as the saying goes), and if not, why not.

IMHO: Lovelady has lied on occasion (as to the shirt he was wearing), this pattern began back in December, 1963, and, as a consequence, he has needlessly confused the record.

THE LOVELADY ISSUE—A BRIEF RECAP

For years, I have believed Lovelady was the man in the dooway—ever since (back around 1972/73, when I was working as the researcher on the film Executive Action)—I came across newsreel footage showing Oswald being marched into the DPD at 2:02ish, and there was Lovelady, seated right there. I made 35mm slides of that footage, showed it to Groden, brought it to the attention of the HSCA (in 1976) , etc. Duncan posted a frame from that (or similar) footage, and (as far as I was concerned) that always resolved the matter.

The HSCA did further studies of this, and that study appears in Vol 6 of the HSCA’s appendix volumes.

A side story of this whole affair has been the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and just why it was, when the matter was first investigated by the FBI, back in December, 1963, Lovelady appeared in an entirely different shirt, one with vertical red and white stripes.

Just how did that happen? After all, didn’t the FBI know the shirt was an issue? (Or, for some reason, was Lovelady attempting to call attention away from himself, by leading people to believe he was not standing in the doorway?)

When Robert Groden published his first book, he interviewed Lovelady, and implored him to wear the shirt he had worn back in 1963. Lovelady then retrieved that shirt, and posed for Groden, wearing it. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

At first glance, the shirts do look identical.

But they are not.

Lovelady, to put it mildly, was not being straight with Groden.

What I am about to write does not affect my own conclusion about who was in the doorway, but it does shed light on the psychology and integrity of the late Billy Lovelady (and just why there is such a confusing record on this issue of just what shirt he was wearing).

LOVELADY - - The 1976 Groden photo versus the Martin Film

Putting the two pictures side by side—a frame from the Martin film, showing Lovelady, in front of the TSBD, just seconds (or minutes) after the shooting of JFK, and Lovelady posing for Groden, in 1976—its obvious that the two shirts are different.

The shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film has a large pocket, over the left breast area. (In the frames from the film footage taken at the TSBD, it would appear that Lovelady had a pack of cigarettes in that pocket). But. .. : the plaid shirt that Lovelady supposed “packed . . away for safekeeping” and wore for Groden (in 1976) has no pocket.

Furthermore, if you compare the striped pattern, they are obviously different. Yes, both are plaid shirts, so they are certainly similar. But the vertical stripes in the shirt worn in the Martin film are distinctly different from the vertical stripes in the 1976 photo. Also, the shirt Lovelady was wearing has a distinctly visible pocket in the left breast area—whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden in 1976 has no such pocket. (See attached

Well then, what does this all mean?

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

Here are my own observations and beliefs, and I’m sure others will have theirs:

(1) Billy Lovelady was deceptive when he was interviewed by Groden, in 1976. He produced a shirt which, while similar, was not the same shirt as he was wearing on November 22, 1963.

(2) If you go back to some of the other posts on this thread, you will find the following information:

(a) The issue goes back to December, 1963, when someone (in the FBI) noticed the similarity of Lovelady to Oswald

(b ) At that time, New York resident (and one of the earliest JFK researchers, Jones Harris) also noticed it. Harris had the time (and the money) to make flights to Dallas, and met with Lovelady. He also was in touch with reporter Dom Bonafede of the New York Herald Tribune.

( c) What did Lovelady do? He misled Jones Harris—telling Harris he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. (In effect: "Hell no, the man in the doorway was not me. You see, I was wearing an entirely different shirt.")

(d) Then, Lovelady, when asked to pose for the FBI (with whom Jones Harris was in touch), posed in the wrong shirt—i.e., a shirt with vertical stripes.

(e) –footnoe to “d” above: Gary Mack informs me that, when he –Gary—interviewed Lovelady many years ago, Lovelady said that the reason he wore that shirt was that the FBI told him it didn’t matter. They just wanted to photograph him, as a person.) Needless to say, in view of what Lovelady told Jones Harris, and the manner in which he behaved with Groden (in 1976) I don’t believe that anymore; I now realize what this pattern of evidence really means: that Lovelady was, from the outset, being deceptive. And the reason for all the deception now has become clear: Lovelady, from the outset, wanted to distance himself from the image of the man in the doorway.

(f ) A small insight to the psychology of Lovelady (and his wife): Lovelady’s wife, interviewed by the media, claimed that their house was broken into on any number of occasions, no matter where they moved, by people looking for the shirt. For what its worth (“FWIW”, in internet lingo), I don’t believe her. That’s just an absurd story—and, as far as I know, there are no police reports of any break-ins of the Lovelady home, because of unknown robbers seeking the shirt. But what I do believe this shows is that the Loveladys—as a couple—were spooked by the attention Billy Lovelady was getting, and apparently tried to escape from it, by either getting rid of the shirt, and/or misleading Jones Harris, and/or not posing in the proper shirt for the FBI, back in 1963/64.

(g) So. . what happened next? Well, back to the saying: “Oh what a web we weave. . when we set out to deceive.” What has happened, as a consequence of all this foolishness, probably the result of needless paranoia and deception, is that the record has been needlessly distorted and complicated.

First of all, there are today numerous folks who, today, honestly believe (because of the initial false reports) that there is truth to what they believe is Lovelady’s “original” story—i.e., that, when he was standing in the TSBD doorway on 11/22, he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes. That’s just rubbish. But I can assure you that I am probably not the only one who (decades ago) spent good money chasing this piece of wild goose, ordering high quality prints of the Altgeos photo from the AP, peering at it under a magnifying glass, etc etc. –and why? All because Lovelady initially said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt, and then posed for the FBI in just such garb.

Second: there are numerous folks who, analyzing the picture of Lovelady’s shirt as shown in the newsreel frames taken on 11/22/63) when Oswald was marched into the DPD, at 2:02ish PM) now notice discrepancies between that shirt, and the shirt he was wearing in the Martin film, and posit theories of alteration, all of which are (imho) totally irrelevant.

Anyway, here are my own tentative conclusions:

(a) From early December, 1963, at the very least, Billy Lovelady was spooked by the resemblance between himself and Oswald, and the attention it brought.

(b ) Lovelady lied to Jones Harris about the shirt he was wearing—saying it had vertical stripes. It did not.

(c ) Lovelady then wore the same shirt, with the vertical stripes, when he was interviewed by the FBI –thus leading a generation of JFK researchers on a wild goose chase.

(d ) When (in 1972/73) I found the newsreel footage showing Lovelady in the plaid shirt, and showed slides of it to Groden, he then pursued the matter.

(e) When the HSCA was created in 1976, and Groden contacted Lovelady, who now had to come up with a plaid shirt to wear, even though (a) he had probably gotten rid of that original plaid shirt years before and (b ) even though he had—some 12-13 years earlier—posed for the FBI in a striped shirt. Probably he (and/or his wife, the one who talked of their home constantly being broken into by people looking for “the shirt”, and who said the shirt he was wearing that day had been purchased at a flea market) found a similar plaid shirt.

(f) Lovelady—who probably dearly wanted nothing more but for the issue to “go away”—then posed for Groden in his “replacement” plaid shirt. Indeed, he not only posed for Groden in the shirt, he told him—and Groden believed him—that, with regard to the shirt, “he had packed it away from safekeeping. . . and put it on (for me) for the first time in years.” Yeah, sure.

(I have to wonder whether or not Groden paid money to Lovelady, for the favor of him posing, or whether Lovelady did it for free, hoping that Groden publishing such a photograph would increase the value of the “replacement” shirt, which he thought he might pawn off on some soul as “the original.” Who knows.)

Grand Conclusion: Billy Lovelady repeatedly (but not always) lied about the shirt he wore that day. Let’s recap:

First, back in 1963, he lied to Jones Harris, one history’s “first responders” to this critical issue. He lied to Harris, telling him he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. This encouraged Harris to believe that Lovelady was not in the doorway; ergo, it had to be Oswald. Harris was in touch with the FBI, and with reporter Dom Bonaede of the New York Herald Tribune. I have no doubt that Lovelady’s evasions and falsehoods clouded the record.

Second: back in 1963/64, when interviewed by the FBI, he posed in the “wrong shirt”, but one which matched the lie he told to Jones Harris. If memory serves, he also lied to the FBI about the shirt he wore. (And who knows if, at higher levels of the FBI, this led to confusion as to just who was standing in the doorway. After all [so the reasoning would be] if Lovelady was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, then who else could the man in the doorway be, other than Oswald?)

Third: in his Warren Commission deposition, Lovelady told the truth. He stopped playing games, and identified himself as the person in the doorway (circling himself as the man in the doorway, in cropped enlargement of the Altgens photo—Commission Exhibit 369).

Fourth: Now returning to the game playing mode. . . :Lovelady, in 1976, lied to Robert Groden, retrieving a shirt similar to—but not identical with – the shirt he had worn on 11/22/63. He then posed wearing that shirt (with the plaid pattern, but no pocket) for Groden, who then published the picture in his book, apparently not noting that the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film had a large pocket, whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden did not. Groden—and everyone else, including me—failed to notice that the plaid pattern of the two shirts, while similar, were clearly not the same. What I shall call here the “Groden shirt” and the “Martin film shirt” are clearly different.

As noted above, Groden –believing he had a journalistic scoop of sorts--captioned the picture: ““I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

WHERE WE STAND NOW:

Billy Lovelady died years ago, and I don’t wish to demean the dead—but he the fact is that he has left behind a trail of deceptive behavior which has confused the record as to the identity of the man in the doorway.

Because obviously, once you start entertaining the notion that Lovelady was telling the truth (when he told his “striped shirt” story) the odds go way up that the man in the doorway was Oswald. But Lovelady only complicated matters by attempting to distance himself from the issue by lying about the shirt he was wearing; and then by posing for Groden in a plaid shirt that was similar to (but certainly not identical with) the one he was wearing on November 22, 1963 (as clearly shown in the Martin film, or the DPD newsreel footage).

I go back to my original position: both the Martin film (of Lovelady standing outside the TSBD, minutes later) and the newsreel footage taken on 11/22/63 (showing Oswald being marched into the DPD a few minutes after 2 p.m., and which also shows Lovelady) makes one thing very clear: Lovelady, wearing the plaid shirt shown in the Martin film, was the man in the doorway. All JFK researchers would be advised to toss aside the picture published in Groden’s book, showing Lovelady in a plaid shirt. That picture, and the way he behaved with Groden, says a lot about Lovelady’s psychology. But it only confuses the record and tells us little about the identity of the man in the doorway.

The man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady.

The Martin film and the DPD newsreel footage, showing him that same shirt, is the best evidence for that.

DSL

1/31/12; 9:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

If you go to <http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5803&fullsize=1> you will find 310, 311, 312, 313. The reason I cited 312 and 313 was because the shadow on the back of JFK's head looks the same in all these photos. Hence, your claim that it shows a "black patch" is just false.

You say, "David Josephs is doing quite a good job of defeating you, in case you haven't noticed." No, I didn't notice. I thought David and I were just discussing several points. Unlike you, I don't see every discussion... every conversation... as a threat to my manhood. What on earth are you so afraid of that makes the world appear filled with people conspiring against you and every discussion a combat to the death. Once again, I ask the questions you've left unanswered in this discussion:

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

This has to be one of your weakest performances ever! By discussing frame 317, neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the black patch is missing from frames 314, 315, and 316. The black patch is present in all of them. I have no idea why you also cite 312 and 313, which I do not find at the link you cite. But you are turning into a caricature of yourself. I think you had better back up and get a running start all over. David Josephs is doing quite a good job of defeating you, in case you haven't noticed.

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, self-proclamations of "victory" are about as reliable as a Newt Gingrich stump speed (nor does the resemblance end there!). With respect to his ever-mountiing series of claims, eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. For weeks, he has been claiming that the ordinary version of the MPI video offers some confirmation for the claimed 317 "black patch." For example, among the specious self-congratulations Fetzer sends himself below is this: "And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too." You can go to Robin Ungar's very excellent web site and check out frames from the MPI video by clicking on: http://www.jfkassass...5804&fullsize=1 Right around there you can also find other Zapruder frames from the MPI video. What does the back of JFK's head look like in Z 317? Exactly like what the back of JFK's head looks like in 312, 313, 314, 314, 315, 316... there's a big old shadow there that matches other shadows in the frames.

Confronted with the actual frames, Fetzer can now argue either (1) Robin Ungar has messed with the frames. OR (2) The frames don't show what they clearly show. OR (3) It doesn't matter becuase the version of 317 in LA trumps all this. Most likely, we will not hear this claim made again.

JT

Calli,

You really need to find yourself another client, because this guy has turned into a joke. He long

ago sold his soul for a mess of pottage. If you are unfamiliar with our history, here's a sketch:

First I defeated him over Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which he endorsed even while he was

trashing the book, by pointing out that, if Aguilar was right, then the Zapruder film was FAKED.

Then I defeated him over the Umbrella Man, where, after he had gone out of his way to endorse

Louis Witt as the Umbrella Man, I pointed out that Louis Witt was also a LIMO STOP witness.

And I defeated him over his abandonment of the "double-hit" account in SIX SECONDS (1967),

by noting that Richard Feynman, Nobel-Prize winning physicist, had independently confirmed it.

And I defeated him again over Clint Hill's testimony of nearly 50 years, of pushing Jackie down,

lying across their bodies, peering into the fist-sized wound, and "tumbs down" before the TUP.

And I defeated him again about Chaney's motoring forward, which was confirmed by Chief Curry,

Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill, and even Roy Kellerman. Unbelievable!

And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies

of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too.

And now he comes here again to insist that the small, white spiral nebula is NOT THERE when it

OBVIOUSLY is there, right where JFK's left ear would be if his left ear were visible. (See below.)

Where Doug Weldon, in his brilliant chapter on the Lincoln limousine, explained how perfectly

the hole aligns with a trajectory from the above-ground sewer opening and the throat wound.

Where Jim Lewis has fired high-velocity rounds through junked cars and found that they not only

make a spiral nebula of the kind in the Altgens but the sound of a firecracker as they pass through.

But Tink will admit NONE OF THIS. He seems to believe his silver-tongue is sufficient to undo any

quantity of evidence. Whom should we believe: Tink or our lying eyes? That's his on-going refrain.

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.