Greg Burnham

This whole thing smells of sensationalistic BS from a tawdry romance novel.

There are numerous examples, but since I have no time for this nonsense, I'll name just one: "He refused to kiss her on the lips when they made love."

What a crock of crap. That might be what a WOMAN would do in such a circumstance, but men don't generally have those random puritanical restrictions.

Julia Roberts' character in "Pretty Woman" followed that rule, as she was a prostitute.

Robert Morrow, as usual, swallows all lascivious reports: hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat, trailer and trailer hitch simply BECAUSE of their lasciviousness.

He said: "In my opinion MiMi Alford is telling the 100% truth."

Of course, she was such an honest woman that she had an adulterous affair with a married man in his wife's bed behind her own fiance's back! According to this,

JFK would have sex with a woman in his wife's bed without remorse, but he refused to kiss the woman on the lips. Yeah...right.

"The Kennedys also spent time looking at the art exhibitthat had been mounted in their suite especially for their visit but which theyhad overlooked during their midnightarrival in the hotel. The exhibit included, among other original works, aVanGogh, a Monet, and a Picasso. The presidential couple telephoned one of theexhibit's organizers, Mrs. Ruth Carter Stevenson, whose name they found ona special exhibit catalog in the suite. They thanked her and her associatesfor their thoughtfulness."

Does anyone find it a unique coincidence that Mrs. Ruth Carter Johnson was a friend of Ruth and Michael Paine from when they lived in Philadelphia?

Absolutely, Bill! Good catch.

Jim,

Because we were friends and because you have made valuable contributions in the past I will forgive what you did here.

I will never forget it though.

And what about that HUGE website presence dedicated to the "OSWALD was the Man in the Doorway, after all" -- VETERANS WEBSITE -- that you

maintain? Did you really "accidentally" name it: "OSWALD was the Man in the Doorway, after all" -- and then forget to correct the mistake? Or, are

you now claiming that it was supposed to be: "The Obfuscation of the Altgens Photograph" from the start?

Jim,

I'm afraid I don't have enough crumbs to find my way home...

You are done.

James Fetzer said:

"This is not about THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY. This is about THE OBFUSCATION OF THE ALGENS PHOTOGRAPH."

Well, James, my boy, why did you title this thread: JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all! ??? Why?

How come, pray tell, did you not title it: "The Obfuscation of the Altgens Photograph" if that was TRULY the case, Jim?

It looks like Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway of the TSBD to me. It looks like Billy's forehead, his more "square" chin than Oswald's, and Lovelady appears to have less hair and a more receding hairline than Oswald.

It looks like it is Billy Lovelady to me.

Perhaps it is Lovelady, Robert.

But, still...

I don't know how anyone can determine WHO IS IN THE DOORWAY from Altgens! That source renders insufficient data to reach any definitive conclusion, IMO.

I also do not understand the reluctance--on BOTH sides of this debate--to admit the fact that "Doorway Man's identity is yet unknown" -- maybe Lovelady...maybe Oswald...maybe third party.

I don't know who it is. I know that Cinque's arguments do not persuade. Indeed, Cinque tends to make me more certain than ever that it is Lovelady! But, truth be told, I do not know.

I grow weary of Cinque's nonsense.

Thanks Michael.

Interesting that Fetzer edited his original post to delete the portion in which he suggested TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE assertions as to what influence I had on my wife's answers.

He said that I "duped my wife" -- If he were not a friend I would fly to Madison and teach him a lesson that his daddy should have taught him a long time ago.

Julie told me that he is now: PERSONA NON GRATA in our home. I tend to agree.

Ok, Jim...

Here is Julie's answer.

And, NEVER suggest in the future that I have duped my wife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uS1-AM6e-Gg

...

Give me a couple of hours. We'll be back home by then.

Jim,

My wife, Julie, who you've met, has no dog in this fight at all. She couldn't care less about the subject and she is unaware of my position

in this debate. She is also honest to a fault.

I simply showed her the Altgens full size first and then showed her the cropped area in question. I asked her several questions about

what she could see in the doorway. I asked her if she thought that the figure was subject 1 or subject 2. I showed her a picture of subject

1 (Oswald) and a picture of subject 2 (Lovelady) [the same pictures you are using].

She looked at me as though I had lost my mind. She said: "I can't tell anything from that picture!" I asked why and she replied, "It's not

clear enough and the area is too small." I asked if she thought Doorway man was wearing a V-neck shaped t-shirt or a round collar. She

began to laugh AT me. I asked her, "Hey, what's so funny?" She said, "You are! I can't tell anything from that little fuzzy picture."

I asked if she thought it looked like the photo might have been intentionally obscured and that was perhaps why she couldn't make out

the details? She looked at me as if I was a raving maniac again!

She said, "You guys are actually trying to figure out who killed Kennedy from a tiny portion of an old blurry photo?"

My wife is not blind and neither am I.

EDIT: [i just read this to Julie and she corrected me] --

She said, "You forgot to mention that I said I can't tell the shape of the t-shirt's collar because of the dark shadow under the chin."

Jim, she said this UNSOLICITED by me. That was her honest take on the matter.

So what? That does not change the evidence. I'll give you all the "tone" questions you want. Why can you not

bring yourself to acknowledge that the Altgens "B" and "A" has OBVIOUSLY BEEN ALTERED? That's my question.

Listen to yourself! You asked me: "Why can you not bring yourself to acknowledge..."

Because I am not going to claim that I know something when I don't! You should not expect me to support you in defiance of my own beliefs or make

determinations beyond the scope of my expertise.

...

Greg,

Why not stop carping about the tone and come to grips with the evidence. I submit that the obfuscation of the

face and shirt in the Altgens is blatant and that there can only be one explanation for that. Lamson blows up

the images and distorts them, but the images I have posted make it obvious that the Altgens has been altered:

Are you going to deny that? And who could that possibly have been if not Lee Oswald? And once you realize

that it is not just his face "B" that has been obfuscated but also his shirt "A", how can anyone doubt the shirt

had to be obfuscated, too, since otherwise it would have given the game away? Isn't that completely obvious?

I am unable to determine if the Altgens was or was not altered. It is my opinion that the quality of the extant Altgens is

of insufficient quality to make such a determination especially without enlisting the services of an expert.

That is my opinion. It is different than your opinion.

And when consideration is given to the many lies of Lovelady, the similarities of the shirt that the man in the

doorway is wearing to Oswald's shirt, the similarity in build with Lee but not with Billy, who can doubt the rest

of what has been going on here is more obfuscation? It's not a question of tone, Monk; it's a matter of evidence.

Jim

It is more than tone and more than evidence. It is also a matter of subjective interpretation of the evidence, where

I am not qualified to make the determinations that you are making, and I suspect that neither are you.

Ralph Cinque said:

James, you need to understand that when you write to me and tell me, categorically, matter-of-factly, that Headless Man is a composite or some other such thing that you are being rude and insolent to me. It's like you are saying F U to me- but indirectly. And so I respond in kind. So, if you would like to receive more politeness from me, then you need to show more politeness to me. And to do that, you say something such as:

"It is my opinion that such and such. . "

OR

"I agree with so-and-so who says that such and such. . "

Even if I don't agree with you, I will respond politely and respectfully if you do that. But when you do the other and start laying out to me how it is- as if you know and I don't- then you better be prepared for a harsh response because that is what you are going to get.

Why do you understand this when it comes from Ralph, but not when it comes from me? Perhaps some cannot get past the tone, Jim. Just as Cinque couldn't get past it here. However, you guys have been presenting your case from the same categorically matter-of-fact tone that he couldn't handle. Yet, you expect others to handle it when you dish it out. It is like you are saying F U to everyone here...indirectly.

On Rich's forum you never would have been allowed to post for Cinque, nor would you have been allowed to state your case in this manner. Never.

Not to observe the obvious, but SINCE EVERYONE'S POSTS HERE ARE THEIR OPINIONS,

what difference does it make to add that little tab? Ralph has proven his point so many times

that he has lost his patience. I am astonished at the gullibility of so many who are posting here.

Cinque was the one who instructed that those who disagree with him should not phrase their opinions in absolutes,

which is the same thing I requested of both of you.

Cinque has NOT proved his case, Jim. He has proved it to his own satisfaction. He has proved it to your satisfaction.

But, unless someone else steps up to the plate and agrees with him, that's it.

Now, could he be right? Sure. Truth is not decided by a show of hands. However, to claim that he has PROVED his

case and is therefore entitled to disregard the same courtesy toward others as he demands for himself is a double

standard. It tends to alienate the audience. After all, Robin long ago might have lost his patience with both of you,

but remained cordial until attacked--and even then he showed restraint.

The double standard is dripping. My main objection to the assertions coming from Cinque have been exactly what he is now criticizing others for doing!

I have yet to see Cinque phrase his assertions in the manner that he suggests others should phrase theirs.

Not once has he said: "It is my opinion that such and such..."

No, he has been saying things like: "Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's shirt." And he has continuously insulted those who do not accept that conclusion among other conclusions.

But, Jim--

I am at least using something concrete from which to draw my conclusion. We must have some standard of measurement from which to establish a starting point.

Granted, there may exist several unknowns that would render my comparison less than useful. Still, the height and weight are measurable as is the differential. They are not based on subjective empiricism.

And the math does not lie.

Cinque is attempting to "eyeball it" from a very small area of a photograph and that is even less reliable.

I am less concerned with the photos you just posted at this juncture. I could become more interested in them later on.

What I am currently dealing with is his assertion that Doorway Man is lean, and therefore cannot be Lovelady.

I can't tell if Doorway man is lean or not, but assuming he is, he very well could weigh 170lb., and be 5' 8" tall until PROVEN otherwise.

...

Jim,

Let's do some math with Cinque.

My height is 70 inches. Lovelady's height is 68 inches. That means that I am approximately 3% taller than Lovelady was in the photo.

I weigh 180lb. and Lovelady weighed 170lb., which means I weighed approximately 6% more than Lovelady.

This means that the increase in my height over Lovelady's height (3%) was about half the increase in my weight (6%) proportionate to that of Lovelady.

This means that my being taller is irrelevant because even after compensating for the height differential, I remain an additional 3% "stockier" than Lovelady.

You met me in Dallas and Encinitas for conferences; visited with me in San Diego and we spent time at Noel Twyman's home with David Mantik. You've seen

me in suits, in casual clothes, in my police motor uniform, and even in t-shirts and tank tops and shorts. I am not fat or heavy set by any stretch of the imagination.

Doesn't it follow, logically, that IF Lovelady is "fat" at 170lb., then I am fatter at 180lb.? And, conversely, if we KNOW for certain that I am not fat, then it follows

that the 6% lighter (or 3% after height compensation is factored in) Lovelady cannot be fat?

One more thing: I am 54 years of age in the photo. A man in his twenties or thirties typically is much leaner than a man in his fifties even if they weigh the same

due to a higher presumed percentage of muscle mass and lower body fat percentage.

...

Lovelady was not that stocky/chunky

You guys are making it out like Lovelady weighed 300lbs

He was not thin, and he was not stocky, I would say his build is average, just like the man in the doorway

That man is Billy Lovelady

I don't know who is in the doorway. But, I don't like the argument being advanced by Cinque. Oh, and by the

way, Jim knows me well. I weigh almost 180 lb. @ 5'10" tall in the attached picture. For reference purposes,

my daughter weighs about 110 lb. @ 5'4" tall.

Does that look "stocky" to you?

From: Ed Sherry

================================

193 Pinewood Road

Hartsdale, NY 10530

August 3, 1978

Mr. Robert Blakey

Select Committee on Assassinations

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Bob:

Following our telephone conversation on Tuesday August 1,

I checked with Bob Cutler, my co-author on the Umbrella

Weapon System article in Gallery June 1978. Bob told me

he left with Mr. Preyer and with you, photographic material

showing that The Umbrella Man (TUM) was quite probably

J. Gordon Novel.

Your news photo of him reinforces that belief for both of

us. I did not have that portion of the Couch film from

WFAA and so had never seen TUM's face as clearly as it

appears there. The Bothun photo of him has a light

reflection around his nose, as I'm sure you know.

We have a 1962-3 photo of Novel taken from the same angle

as the Couch, film of TUM and a photo comparison convinces

us more than ever that Novel is TUM. Mr. Preyer no doubt

told you back in April that Novel is in a jail in Georgia,

framed for a crime he and Jim Garrison, his former lawyer,

both claim he didn't commit.

Best regards,

Dick Sprague

DS/mc

P.S. I am still waiting for a response to my letters to

Louis Stokes about attending the hearings beginning

August 14.

cc: L. Stokes

R. Cutler

Congrats Don!

Unfortunately, I don't have kindle. However, I am willing to pay you full price for an autographed copy!

Sorry, Bill. I will try to get up to speed shortly. I've been rather occupied with other threads recently. But, from what I have read so far, good work, as usual...

Are you kidding, Cinque?

There are many folks here who have known me for an extended period of time--more than a decade--have any EVER seen me be successfully bullied--EVER?

That is comedy.

Now, Mr. Cinque, I reject your argument because you are making SUBJECTIVE judgments, leading to some key premises, with which I take exception. Simple as that.

I do not fault you for drawing a different conclusion than I do. I fault your logic. Your mind. Your stubbornness.

I agree that IF there are 3 elephants in the living room and 3 elephants in the bedroom, and 2 elephants in the kitchen, and no more elephants in any other room, then there are 8 elephants in the house. However, I don't see 3 elephants in the bedroom or 2 elephants in the kitchen. Ergo, I do not count 8 elephants. I will not call what you see a hallucination and you should not call me blind, imply that I am weak minded, or suggest that I am easily bullied. The only person who has attempted any bullying in this thread is Fetzer.

--

Also, one of the points that Michael might have been making is the fact that Ralph Cinque was NOT the first person to study the shirt of the Doorway Man. Why you insist that it is because of Cinque's "novel" approach that discovery of the discrepancies and similarities has become evident is beyond me. It is not a new study. It is another look at the same evidence.

Indeed, that was the only point I was making. I thought it would be apparent to Jim Fetzer. I guess I should have spelled it out.

I didn't want to put words in your mouth, Michael, just in case. But, it did seem quite obvious.

Perhaps Ralph's been doing a little bit of reading about this case after all...

...

I should re-iterate my stance: ALTGENS 6 provides insufficient data to determine with certainty the claims that are being advanced by Cinque. Also, it provides insufficient data to determine with certainty the alternate claims being advanced by others.

CONCLUSION:

ALTGENS 6 cannot be used to determine the identity of the Doorway Man. Beyond that we must rely on eyewitness testimony. All eyewitnesses identified the individual in the doorway as LOVELADY. Even his own wife stated it was LOVELADY.

Now, perhaps it was not Lovelady, and it was Oswald. However, the evidence presented in support of that assertion does not persuade. The photographic image is INSUFFICIENT of itself to make a judgment that would over turn the evidence in support of the man being Lovelady.

I agree.

And this post by Burnham is one of the best single synopsis of this entire discussion.

If there was not the DPD photographs of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, I probably would have had some element of lingering doubt.

But not after I saw that newsreel footage back in 1972, when I came across it when researching Executive Action.

I also credit Groden--with whom I shared that imagery decades ago-- for getting those signed statements from Lovelady, and his wife.

I do not believe the issue turns on those statements, but they certainly cannot be ignored.

The notion that all these people were standing there --supposedly with Oswald--and nobody ssaid anything, is more than just "unlikely" or "improbable." I just don't believe it.

Finally, I think Robin Unger's posts 406 and 407, with the Jerry Dealey photos explaining how Lovelady was standing there (on the steps) are very helpful.

For me, the only question that remains is why did Lovelady say he was wearing a red and white vertically striped shirt--and say that numerous times, when questioned? And why did he pose in exactly such a shirt when asked to come in and have is picture taken in February, 1964?

I think that's an interesting puzzle but is a secondary--even a tertiary --issue.

The main question is: Was Lovelady in the doorway?

I believe he was.

Another question is: was the Altgens photo (Photo #6) altered?

I do not believe it was.

Altgens #6 was authentic. Not a thing was done to it. And it was transmitted rather early on the AP wire (within 35 minutes, I believe).

I also believe this issue provides an instance of the role of coincidence in this case. Lovelady, as he appears in the Altgens photo, does indeed look like Oswald. But in fact, it is not him.

That's my opinion, and I have studied that photo, and many others, for years.

Photo alteration in the JFK case is a very serious matter. I don't think Altgens 6 was altered in any way.

DSL

2/12/12; 2:20 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Thanks David. I know we rarely agree on anything beyond our shared belief that there was a conspiracy. But, it is a place to start...

Jim,

I read your study. All of it. That is not the point.

I venture to say that if we took a poll the majority of the members here would vote that they perceived your presentation as an ABSOLUTE on your part. I don't know for sure, but I think that would be accurate.

You seem to be so busy defending yourself that you are forgetting who you are talking to here. It is me. The same me as I have always been. One of your biggest supporters.

Galileo was persecuted for stating his case because his theory ran counter to the ABSOLUTE position of the Roman Catholic Church. He was not rejected out of hand due to his presentation of the information. He was rejected because his conclusion was a direct threat to the Church. No matter how he presented it he still would have been persecuted. No matter how he presented it, it would still have been the truth.

Einstein also made his case. It and he were accepted. Stephen Hawking makes his case and it too is generally accepted. Both men have made presentations mindful of human nature and sensitive to human frailty. Both men have demonstrated a practiced rhetorical style.

How tragic if Einstein and/or Hawking were rejected simply because they were offensive to their audience?

There is more to life than logic.