Greg Burnham

.

No.

Thanks Greg, I think you appreciate that in no way was my post a criticism of those who have tried but have simply had enough of this now - I hope I am a little way off that but as it stands I can see there will be a point where it becomes boring, and there is lots else to do! Understood.

Lindsay, I really appreciate the tone and the intent of your offer to Jim. However, remember that he and I were very close friends when he began this OIP crusade. Also recall that I pointed out, in a very similar tone and wording, the rationale by which some of us were unable to accept his arguments as stated. I "pleaded" with him, for lack of a better word, to refrain from "taking the posture of someone being attacked" and rather opt for interpreting the criticisms as being in line with the scientific method, where conclusions are not definitive, but tentative. A world in which challenges are not interpreted as threats, but rather as opportunities for improvement. Indeed, I--like yourself--wish that there was clear evidence indicating that the Doorman was most likely Oswald. That would be a slam dunk for me. And, as you point out, if those in the choir to whom Jim now sings are unconvinced, what of those who don't even attend the services? Alas, it is a waste of time and effort. In this case: There is no reason for there to be no reason. There just isn't any. A pity. ...

Starting another thread with the EXACT same title as a previous thread is not only "message spamming" -- but in this case it includes "thread spamming" -- since the thrust of the content is nearly identical to previous threads.

One last point to this browser display issue: Back during the Moorman in the Street debate on JFKresearch Assassination Forum in the late 90's Josiah Thompson and company were attempting to refute the claim that she was in the street and not in the grass when she took her photo. Because of the detail that needed to be examined Josiah sent me and others a CD of the drum scan (a HUGE file) so that we could examine the photo at the highest resolution possible without any problem of loss of data from compression or web browser limitations. There is no question that the CD version was far and away a better sample to study than anything that was available on the web. Even when that same drum scan had been uploaded to an FTP site it was inferior when viewed through a browser, but was perfectly fine when downloaded and examined through a graphics program (not a browser).

Lindsay, There is another element to consider which compounds the challenge of making definitive determinations from this photograph, namely: All web browsers, without exception, are limited to 70 dpi on a computer monitor no matter the quality, resolution, or size of the image being viewed--and no matter the type of computer being used or the quality of your video card or monitor itself. If a person had a high quality scan of the photograph from a DVD or CD or Flash drive, etc. they could then view the image without losing the data. However, once that image is uploaded to the forum, for instance, not only would the image size be limited by the forum's rules, but the same WEB BROWSER limit of 70 dpi would apply. Moreover, even if one was to upload a very high quality version to their own FTP site that had sufficient space to accommodate the entire high resolution image without compression, once it is viewed on, yes, ANY WEB BROWSER it is limited to 70 dpi. The images that Cinque and Company are using possess unknown original quality to begin with, but as I pointed out, they are showing an extremely TINY--or should I say--tiny area of the photo which has been compressed an unknown number of times (causing loss of data) prior to being uploaded to the web, only to then to be viewed in a web browser limited to 70 dpi. The amount of total data loss is huge, but this is what they are working with and upon which they base their pseudo-scientific conclusions. ...

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.

It is amazing that James Fetzer will hold himself to a completely arbitrary standard when evaluating evidence and hold others to a much more rigid standard. For instance, Fetzer places great value in the eyewitness testimony or statements of all those witnesses that reported the limousine stop. But, he places almost no value in the testimony or statements of all of the eyewitnesses who identified Billy Lovelady as Doorman. Moreover, he ignores the fact that not a single eyewitness places Oswald on the steps! This is similar to Special Pleading where he cherry picks which eyewitness testimony to rely upon and which eyewitness testimony to discount or ignore not based on the credibility of the eyewitness, but rather based solely on the effect such testimony has on his theory. He argues that in order to believe that the limo did not stop it would mean that all of the eyewitnesses were lying or mistaken. That is a fair argument, IMO. Yet, when asked: "What of all the eyewitnesses who said Lovelady was Doorman?" -- he dismisses them as if they were all lying or mistaken. This is not a case of False Equivalency because there is no evidence indicating that the eyewitnesses to the limo stop were any more or less reliable than the eyewitnesses who said Billy Lovelady was Doorman and was not Oswald.

And the argument of Ralph Cinque, again, becomes evident. He encourages all to "proffer something", anything at all--so long as it is consistent with an arrow. This is a blatant example of Begging the Question. If what one proffers is not consistent with Ralph's predetermined notion, "the missing arrow" then Ralph renders such an opinion to be fanciful thinking and kindergarten grade work. Lindsay need not be treated condescendingly, as if the answers you elicited from him were "obviously" mistaken. Fetzer claimed that even a third grader can see the OBVIOUS proof of alteration in Altgens 6. Now, Cinque claims that anyone who reports seeing something inconsistent with the shape of an arrow is playing Imagination Day at Kindergarten. The images are extremely small and very grainy. Without overstating that which is possible I find it difficult to imagine that anyone could claim that the tiny "dot or line or mark" is an arrow. Remember: Without finding Lovelady in the photo, Fetzer and Cinque MUST contend with the problem of explaining away ALL eyewitness' testimony that indicates Lovelady was on the steps (Doorman). For if Lovelady is not Doorman nor is he anybody else on the steps, then all eyewitnesses, including Lovelady himself, were lying. Cinque's argument is dramatically circular in its desperation: There is an arrow missing in this photo. I found something resembling a "tiny mark of some inexplicable nature" in this photo. I don't know what this mark is and I don't know where the arrow is. Therefore this mark must be part of the missing arrow. However, the greater concern is not the missing arrow, which is a mere distraction. The greater concern is the MISSING LOVELADY -- unless he is Doorman. While I don't think that a kindergarten class nor a 3rd grade class would necessarily see the obvious fallacies committed here, certainly a student of Logic 101 would...unless their agenda prohibited such enlightenment.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dallas, Texas March 3, 1964 ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, NOVEMBER 22,1963, DALLAS, TEXAS On November 25, 1963, Mr. Mike Shapiro, Manager, WFAA-TV, exhibited to Special Agents of the FBI an enlarged photograph taken by an Associated Press photographer on November 22, 1963, showing President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in his car immediately after he was shot. This photograph also showed an individual standing in the entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBD), 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, who was wearing similar clothing and has some general physical characteristics similar to those of Lee Harvey Oswald. This photograph was described as "DN 5, 11/22/63, Dallas, Texas." Mr. Shapiro advised that immediately after this photograph was taken it was forwarded by wire to the Associated Press at New York, New York, and subsequently distributed to other AP offices throughout the country. He stated an individual in the Associated Press Office at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, had noted the similarity between the individual in the doorway and Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Shapiro made available a copy of this photograph for immediate use by FBI Agents and this photograph was returned to him on the same day. On November 25, 1963, the FBI received information that the Associated Press in New York had a photograph that bore the number on the bottom: "FK61345STF" with the note, "Editor, this is a blowup of DN 2, making images larger DN 5, Dallas, Texas, 11/22." This photograph was of a man who appeared to be standing in the doorway of the TSBD who resembled OSWALD. [End Page One] RE: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, NOVEMBER 22,1963, DALLAS, TEXAS On November 25, 1963, Mr. ROY S. TRULY, Warehouse Manager, TSBD, was exhibited an Associated Press photograph described as "DN 5, 11/22/63, Dallas, Texas," depicting an individual standing in the entrance of the TSBD who resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Truly, after viewing this photograph, stated, "That picture resembles Oswald, but it's not Lee Oswald, it's Billy Lovelady." On November 25, 1963, Mr. Billy Nolan Lovelady, 7722 Hume, Dallas, Texas, was exhibited an Associated Press photograph described as "DN 5, 11/22/63, Dallas, Texas," depicting an individual standing in the entrance of the TSBD who resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Lovelady advised that he is an employee at the TSBD and is acquainted with Oswald. Lovelady immediately identified himself in the above-described photograph as being the individual who resembled OSWALD and stated he had observed himself previously in this photograph in the newspaper and was saving it. Lovelady stated there who was no question whatsoever but that this was a photograph of him. By letter dated January 11, 1964, J. D. Royce, 496 West Scott Avenue, Clovis, California, advised Parade Publications, Inc, New York, New York, that he had what he believed to be "positive proof that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate the President of the United States." On January 23, 1964, J. D. Royce advised Special Agents of the FBI that the "positive proof" he referred to in the above-mentioned letter was based entirely on a double-page photograph which appeared on Pages 24-25 of the December 14, 1963, edition of the Saturday Evening Post. He stated that after examining this photograph with a magnifying glass, which photograph was reported to have been taken the instant President Kennedy was shot, he was convinced that the individual standing in the background in the left edge of the doorway was Oswald. On January 22, 1964, the U.S. Secret Service, Washington, D.C., furnished the FBI the following letter received from Mrs. Hellen Shirah, 5530 Santa Monica Boulevard South, Jacksonville, Florida, 32207, dated January 17, 1964: 2 RE: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, NOVEMBER 22,1963, DALLAS, TEXAS "Chief of the Secret Service Washington, D.C. "Dear Sir: "On January 15, 1964, I purchased a magazine, 'Four Dark Days in History' published by Special Publication, Inc. - 6627 Hollywood Blvd., Los Angeles 28, California. "On page 4 as the motorcade of our late President passes the Dallas School Depository, there, on the left, emerging in a hurry from the building, is a man who bears a striking resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald. As a matter of fact, even the clothes he has on seem to be like the ones Oswald had on when arrested. I realize that you have concrete evidence agaisnt him but if you find that the picture is of Oswald, it would mean he had an accomplice, who is still at large. "I know you are very thorough in your investigations and have probably checked out all available pictures but there could be a chance that you missed this one. I have spent two sleepless nights wondering whether or not to write. "I would appreciate it if you were to check this picture out. I 'm sure that in getting the original from the Publisher, it can be blown up to find out for sure if that man is Lee Harvey Oswald. I would send you my magazine but it is the only one I have and they are all sold out. "Thank you very much for giving attention to this letter. " Very truly yours, "/s/ Mrs. Helen Shirah "Mrs. Helen Shirah" 3 RE: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, NOVEMBER 22,1963, DALLAS, TEXAS On January 30, 1964, Mrs. Helen Shirah, 5530 Santa Monica Boulevard South, Jacksonville, Florida, was contacted by Special Agents of the FBI regarding a letter she wrote to the U.S. Secret Service, Washington, D.C. Mrs. Shirah exhibited the magazine, "Four Dark Days in History," and pointed out an individual in the photograph on Page 4 which showed the Presidential motorcade passing the TSBD, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, as being that of an individual she believed to be Lee Harvey Oswald. Mrs. Shirah based her identification of Oswald solely upon having seen previous photographs of him. On February 19, 1964, Mrs. Shirah was again shown the photograph of the Presidential motorcade appearing on Pages 4-5 in the magazine, " Four Dark Days in History," by Special Agents of the FBI. Mrs. Shirah pointed out the same photograph as she had previosly, stating that it was of an individual she believed to be Lee Harvey Oswald. On January 30, 1964, a copy of the magazine entitled, " Four Dark Days in History," published by Special Publications, Inc., Los Angeles, California, was obtained by a Special Agent of the FBI and a photograph on Pages 4 and 5 of the Presidential motorcade passing the TSBD on November 22, 1963, was exhibited to William H. Shelley, Assistant Manager, TSBD, who readily identified an individual standing just inside the entrance of the TSBD on the left as TSBD employee Billy N. Lovelady. Mr. Shelley advised he was actually standing next to Lovelady when this photograph was taken, but was not in view of the camera. He pointed out that he had seen the photograph before and there has been much comment on the fact that in the photograph Billy N. Lovelady resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. On February 29, 1964, Billy Nolan Lovelady was photographed by Special Agents of the FBI at Dallas, Texas. On this occasion, Lovelady advised that on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963, at the time of the assassination, and shortly before, he was standing in the doorway of the front entrance to the 4 RE: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, NOVEMBER 22,1963, DALLAS, TEXAS TSBD where he is employed. He stated he was wearing a read and white vertical striped shirt and blue-jeans. Lovelady stated his picture has appeared in several publications, which picture depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway to the TSBD. Lovelady was exhibited a picture appearing on Pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled, "Four Dark Days in History," copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc., 6627 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles 28, California. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph. He stated this same photograph, or one identical to it, has appeared in the Dallas Times Herald newspaper of November 23, 1963, and in the Cincinnati Inquirer, of December 3, 1963. He stated it also appeared in an edition of " The Saturday Evening Post," the date of which he does not know. Mr. Lovelady stated his close resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald has become somewhat embarrassing. He stated his stepchildren, Timmy Ekstedt, age 6, and stepdaughter, Angela Ekstedt, age 4, were watching television shortly after the assassination at a time when Lee Harvey Oswald was shown while in custody of the Dallas Police Department and both of these children remarked that they thought their daddy was on television referring to his close resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald. The following physical description and background information was obtained from interrogation and observation of Lovelady: Name: Billy Nolan Lovelady Race: White Sex: Male Born: 2/19/37, Myrtle Springs, Texas Height: 5'8" Weight: 170 Eyes: Green Hair: Brown, thin Build: Medium Complexion: Medium 5 RE: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, NOVEMBER 22,1963 Residence: Apartment C, 7722 Hume Drive, Dallas, Texas, no telephone Business Address: Texas School Book Depository Bldg., 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, telephone RI 7-3521 Wife: Patricia Ruth Lovelady Children: Stepson, Timmy Ekstedt, age 6 Stepdaughter, Angela, age 4 Daughter, Sheryl Lovelady, age 14 months. 6

RIP

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, Is "Elbow Man" the figure marked "B"?

You have referred to an area of Altgens 6 repeatedly as, Obfuscated Man. I have refuted that claim with a much less complex explanation for that portion of the photo. Using inference to the best explanation I concluded that it is a man whose elbow is pointed directly at the camera, and the attendant glare is from over exposure of the white sleeve on his forearm. I have shown that he is shielding his eyes from the sun with his right hand. It is a simple explanation that is adequate to the evidence unless one begs the question thus requiring a more complex, but generally less accurate explanation. When the issue was first raised months ago, you ridiculed me for even suggesting that an alternate interpretation of the evidence existed. Earlier this week you finally came around to at least admit that there was some merit to the possibility that my interpretation might be plausible. But, before that you've been insisting that it was an OBVIOUS alteration of the photo. You accused me of "perpetrating a fraud" on my own wife when she didn't agree that it was alteration of the photo, but rather "glare" from the sun. And now, as pointed out by Robin Unger elsewhere, the person I have dubbed "Elbow Man" -- that you dismissed as idiotic has been INCLUDED in Ralph Cinque's own so-called re-enactment photo!

Robin, Since Fetzer was cornered in the thread here: http://educationforu...92 ...where I said: [bEGIN] ========================================================================================================== Since I (monk) predicted accurately that you (Fetzer) would not answer the simple questions posed to you in this thread, thus going OFF TOPIC, let's ask again. Although I find "Len Colby" rather annoying, to say the least, he has observed, accurately, that some of us were asked to answer a few simple questions by you, which we did. Now... Simple questions, Jim: 1) Was Lovelady lying? 2) Were all the people who said that Lovelady was in front of the TSBD all lying? 3) If they were not lying, can you find him somewhere in Altgens 6 or in other images? 4) If they all were lying, where do you think he really was since he was not out front? 5) Why have no witnesses ever turned up stating where Lovelady actually was? Using your own standard, I ask you: 6) So, according to James Fetzer and Ralph Cinque, when these eyewitnesses--who, unlike Fetzer and Cinque, WERE ACTUALLY THERE-- reported that Lovelady was Doorman, they (according to Fetzer and Cinque) must have been lying their eyes off. How absurd can this get? [END]============================================================================================================== So what happened? Fetzer and Cinque know that they are beaten by this argument (using their own standard) UNLESS they can find Lovelady somewhere in Altgens 6. So, in an obviously desperate attempt to justify their folly they suddenly find him in the most obscurely hidden area of the entire photo! Why? Because if Lovelady isn't Doorman and isn't "somewhere" on the steps, then ALL eyewitnesses on the steps were lying! A theory so absurd that even Fetzer & Cinque don't buy it! ...

David Mantik is a close friend. He and I spent some time with another friend, Noel Twyman, a few months ago. During lunch, David had to chuckle when I mentioned the "Moorman in the Street" issue. He had no trouble at all admitting that John Costella, PhD had demonstrated that he (Mantik) had been mistaken about her location and that Moorman was probably on the grass at the time she took her photo. He didn't hesitate, wince, wiggle or squirm about it. He is human. Humans make mistakes. All humans make mistakes. In this instance, regarding David Mantik, it appears that Pat Speer has demonstrated that he too is human. Hopefully, he can say he's WORNG (sic).

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.

Thank you, Mark!

Thanks, Ray!

I've had enough of debating the car stop. It stopped. That's it. I've had enough of the Z-film debate. The information is out there for those who are interested, but proving Z-film alteration is unnecessary to demonstrate that there was a conspiracy.

Thanks David. We expect a full recovery.

If the shoe fits... ...

"Good men become bad men when their egos overshadow their conscience." -- Greg Burnham

I have spoken up many times about this including on your radio show. I do not even recall seeing Clint Hill interact with Jackie at the car at all! That is NOT because it didn't happen, but because I was focused elsewhere at the time, namely on the agents who emerged from the Queen Mary with weapons drawn. Therefore, I can't confirm or refute his actions as claimed from what I remember. I'm recovering from a major surgery. It is not cowardice that I have hardly been able to sit at the computer for more than 15 minutes at a time for the past month. It takes nearly that long to read even one of your convoluted picture stories. It is difficult to type since I have lost feeling in my thumbs and forefingers. That is expected to improve with time, but for now it is a challenge. So is the 24/7 hard collar neck brace which disallows me to turn my head or to bend it forward to see the keyboard easily. Jim, you are becoming a monster. At least I only look like one...but that will change when I heal. Yours is for life.