Greg Burnham

Since I predicted accurately that you 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? ...

I would like to point out: Fetzer went back to Special Pleading immediately in his reply just as I predicted. In his first sentence he paraphrased Fritz' notes and relied upon them as accurate because "Fritz must have asked where LHO was during the shooting"-- just as I said he would. He avoided the "changed his shirt" portion, as predicted. But, instead of cherry picking the evidence, what If we were to take ALL of Fritz' notes at face value? Well, IF Oswald was in fact doorman "out front with Shelly", then it would also mean Oswald went back home and changed his shirt into a shirt identical (according to Ralph Cinque) to the shirt HE WAS ALREADY WEARING as doorman! But...why? Why the need to change into an exactly identical shirt? This "obviously" makes no sense and is absurd on its face. If that is true, and Fetzer has agreed that "even the WC didn't think Oswald changed his shirt" then that makes Fritz' notes UNRELIABLE as evidence due to their ambiguity. Do you realize that in a court of law, unless given a foundation that was allowed by the court to accept only one portion of the notes while rejecting the remainder, Fritz note, in its entirety, would not be allowed to stand as evidence in the manner in which Fetzer is attempting? The note would cancel itself out and be treated as though it did not even exist. Or it could be treated similar to perjurious testimony, whereby the jury is advised that it is free to reject the testimony (notes) in its entirety. Without that portion of the Fritz' note the only "evidence" of LHO in the doorway resides in Mr. Potato Head-ish drawings! All eye witnesses place Lovelady as Doorman...even Lovelady! Indeed every scintilla of evidence places Oswald elsewhere. It is no more difficult to place Oswald in the sniper's lair than it is to place him in the doorway...and since we KNOW he wasn't the assassin he also wasn't doorman. On the other hand, it is very easy to place him in the lunchroom. ...

There is no shame in allowing people to find their own way, Jim. There is a tremendous difference between Lamson and Unger, and therefore a tremendous difference in my response, be it harsh or congenial, respectively, to each of them. But, this is not about me being right; my claims; or my "poster-boy" position as the 50th approaches...and it shouldn't be about yours either.

Jim, I have far and away greater "proof" than you of the limousine stop and therefore of alteration. Yet, even I do not demand that Robin Unger or anyone else accept it as fact. They owe it to themselves and to future generations to "prove it" in a manner consistent with what they know to be true and then build on that. They don't wish to end up in the uncomfortable predicament of requesting that others accept what they say as true simply because they said so. That is not good enough. So long as the person doing the study on the Zapruder film is honest and is of an open mind to where the evidence leads, then I support their efforts to find out the truth. Notice I did not say I support their efforts to prove that my belief or my argument or my position is right. I said I support their journey toward the truth--even if they must go the long way around the block to get there. So far, very few, if any, anti-alterationists have ever called me a xxxx as to what I saw. None, including Robin Unger have challenged me on what I saw. Many simply want to "see for themselves" in order to remove any doubt. It is my belief that their skepticism will ultimately pay off... where an honest broker among them attempts to discover why it cannot be true, but, somewhat serendipitously, ends up discovering why it MUST be true.

...

That has been my position from the start of this debate.

Fetzer has a habit of relying on Captain Fritz' notes, but only when it suits his predetermined conclusion, aka, Special Pleading. He will argue that Oswald told Fritz he was out front with Shelly. Although Oswald is not specific as to "when" that was, Fetzer has argued that it is "obvious" that Fritz must have asked Oswald where he was "at the time of the shooting" and thus LHO must have meant at the time of Altgens 6. However, relying on those same notes, Oswald said he changed his shirt after going home after Altgens 6 and before being arrested and photographed. It is here that Fetzer then rejects the reliability of Fritz' notes on the grounds that: "Not even the Warren Commission believed Oswald changed clothes." Fetzer fails to realize that the WC rejected that notion for the same reason he himself does: It runs counter to both of their pre-determined conclusions.

I certainly know the subject is still being argued and that it has not been settled. I've been in this debate since it began. I do not claim to know who is standing in the doorway, Oswald or Lovelady or other. However, I object to the pseudo science that is being employed to conclude Doorman is Oswald. Is Oswald doorman? I don't know. What I do know is that the arguments being put forth to advance that notion do not persuade.

Gunter, My satirical video was made for a purpose and contained a meaning that was apparently either lost on you or was over your head. However, that you come here, at this late date, supposedly ignorant of the existence of the exact claim being peddled--coincidentally in this specific thread--is hard to sell.

To find the answer, research: "Mr. Potato Head in Dealey Plaza" (available under a different name) at Veterans Today. In my view, this is the danger with The School of Random Claims of Alteration: It breeds red herrings and dopplegangers. It also tends to damage honest research into the film alteration that DID occur, encouraging the general public and the main stream media to confuse it with irresponsible supposition.

Jim, You're still making this about "the people who disagree with you" instead of keeping it about the evidence. I neither endorsed nor disputed Robin's findings. I simply voiced my support for his approach.

Yes, I remember that, Robin. It was never about "agreeing" for its own sake for Rich. He just wanted to get closer to the truth.

Robin, Thanks loads for staying on point, continuing to research, and acting like an adult even when you are repeatedly attacked. Your focus is always on the evidence and never on those with whom you disagree. KUTGW

---OR--- 5. Doorman was none of the above (logically) ----------> But, a few steps further are in order... 6. Oswald was not wearing the same shirt during the assassination because he changed it before questioning by the police (as he told Captain Fritz) and was later photographed in it 7. The shirt doorman is wearing is not the same shirt Oswald was wearing after his arrest 8. Therefore, Oswald is not doorman Signs of life. Even the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had not changed his shirt. And if you want to believe what Lee told Fritz, then it is certainly more reasonable to accept his statement that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". Plus what is the probability that, had he changed his shirt, it would correspond in so many respects with Doorman's shirt? ZERO. Now you said that you would answer my two simple questions after I had answered yours. I have answered yours. So I would appreciate (less speculative) answers to these of mine: (1) Is Doorman wearing a short-sleeved shirt? (2) Is Doorman's shirt buttoned up to the top? They are very simple questions and the answers are obvious. So what are your answers? I already answered in post #110.

---OR--- 5. Doorman was none of the above (logically) ----------> But, a few steps further are in order... 6. Oswald was not wearing the same shirt during the assassination because he changed it before questioning by the police (as he told Captain Fritz) and was later photographed in it 7. The shirt doorman is wearing is not the same shirt Oswald was wearing after his arrest 8. Therefore, Oswald is not doorman -- .

Not so fast, Jim. You owe me a straight answer first.

I will answer first, but then I expect a straight answer from you to my question asked above. Is Doorman wearing a red-and-white short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO -- No, it is not short sleeved. However, it is a black & white photo so I don't know what color the shirt is. It is too grainy for me to tell the pattern. Is the shirt Doorman is wearing buttoned up to the top? YES or NO -- No

Answer the question minus the blunder please. Yes, I caught my own error but was too exhausted from my recent surgery to correct it. You KNOW what I meant. So, what's the answer? YES or NO

Jim, I will gladly answer those questions, but first you must answer mine. Is my illustration regarding "Elbow Man" at least equally as plausible as your theory that the area (which I am calling an elbow) is evidence of alteration? YES or NO

Alternate ID.

As I said, the comments were NOT supposed to be taken as a joke. They were allegorical.

Jim, IMO: You failed to see that this was not a joke by Parker. Indeed, the same "type" of logic and form of argumentation in which you and your cohorts have been engaged is very similar in form to that which was offered by Greg Parker as an allegory. Both yours and his are grossly absurd. However, while you can identify the absurdity in his allegorical example, you fail to see it in your own.

Although I've had my differences with Groden over the years, I applaud his effort and his courage to stand up against the censorship machine run amok. He is clearly being harassed by someone(s) for some reason. That Mr. Baker refuses to admit the obviousness of the situation, even if he disagrees with larger argument, speaks volumes. As the old saying goes: [at least] "Give the Devil his due." I know I have...

You mention Weberman with such contempt. I was relying on him about something he knew about, namely the Assassination. I figured he's Jewish and would have no reason to lie. I didn't read his book, but I knew he taught the Assassination at Columbia. I asked him, "Did the Catholic Church have anything to do with Kennedy's death?" He answered, "No." I remember back to his following Bob Dylan and Dylan turned around and punched him. We all laughed. The Baptists think the Catholics killed Kennedy. Something about Cardinal Spellman. Spellman, I've read, was jealous of Fulton Sheen and caused him a lot of trouble and moved him to Rochester. Sheen made no friends there. I want to read more about this. The Baptists think Kennedy was killed because the Catholic Church didn't like his politics. Supposedly the Black Pope ordered the hit. I only know of one connection: David Ferrie was an ex-Jesuit and wanted to kill Kennedy. Kathy C I did NOT express contempt for Weberman! I accurately relayed Hemming's conversation with me. Take it or leave it.

Greg, Works for me. Did Gerry give you any hints or clues after that to keep you heading in the right direction? --Tommy I'll call you tomorrow.