Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Doorman'.
Guest posted a topic in JFK Assassination DebateJFK: Why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from Altgens6 Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services4 By Larry Rivera (with Jim Fetzer) “The world is a dangerous place, not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”–Albert Einstein Guess what, we are not going to talk about curtain rods in this article. The curtain rod story is a red herring, so we will do away with it right from the top. The Oswald Innocence Campaign (OIC) has already shown that Oswald was Doorman and that Lovelady was “Black Hole Man”, who is holding his arms up to shade his eyes, largely based upon the differences between their shirts. That much has been established by the OIC. Our next order of business, therefore, is to find out why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from the famous Altgens photograph. Buell Wesley Frazier was born June 4, 1944.(1) At 19, he arrived in Irving in early September 1963 from the town of Huntsville 200 miles away to find work and live with his sister Linnie Mae Randle, her husband Bill, and their three children.(2) With his mother also visiting with Linnie in November 1963 (3), he was left with no choice but to sleep on the couch of the Randle’s living room.(4) There are two versions of how he obtained his employment at the Texas School Book Depository. His Warren Commission testimony states he went through the Massey Employment Agency.(5) They referred him there, and the same day he interviewed with Roy Truly, he was hired. (6) However, his sister stated she was the one who enabled him to land the job at the TSBD.(7) He was making the minimum wage of $1.25 per hour.(8) At any rate, he did end up working there on 9/13/63. He drove Lee Harvey Oswald to work on 11/22/63–and the rest is history. Frazier got up at 6:30 AM, had breakfast with his mother and family at 7:15.(9) He picked up Lee, who had been waiting for him outside, after walking half a block from the Ruth Paine residence. He took Stemmons Freeway downtown and arrived at the TSBD parking lot in time for work. The image at left shows this was not just any parking lot. It was well removed from the work place. From there they walked the 3 blocks to work.(10) It was cold and foggy and it had been raining that morning.(11) At this point, he supposedly was separated from Oswald, who advanced ahead of him and went into the building. Frazier’s excuse for staying behind was that he wanted to “charge” the car’s battery.(12) After at least a half hour ride, it should be unnecessary, however, because the alternator/generator would have charged the battery by virtue of the time it took to drive from Irving. Frazier worked alongside Lee Oswald on the first floor filling orders until 11:00AM.(13) Frazier was standing on the TSBD front stairs(14) when the motorcade drove by, heard the shots, stayed for a few minutes at that position, then went back inside to eat his lunch in the basement. The assassination of the President of the United States was not going to spoil his appetite.(15) He left the depository building between 1:00PM and 2:00PM to head home.(16) Frazier, however, did not go home, but supposedly went back to Irving to see his step father David Williams at the Irving Professional Center, who had been convalescing there for a month.(17) The only problem with this is that Frazier left Huntsville to “stay away from an abusive, alcoholic stepfather”(18), so why would he be looking for solace from him on this most tragic day? Between 4:00-5:00PM Linnie Mae approached the officers who were at the Paine’s and advised Det. Adamcik that “her brother was visiting her father at Parkland Hospital, and we could reach him there.”(19) Why was she buying time for Frazier? Would this coincide with the time the Altgens was being altered? Frazier could have been unaccounted for up to 6 hours. Since his car was not enclosed in any way, he could have left anytime and apparently he did. He was arrested around 6:45PM and taken to the Irving PD to wait for DPD agents Stovall, Rose and Adamcik. They searched his car on the spot with “negative results”.(20) They went to the Randle residence and conducted a thorough search there. They found a .303 caliber British rifle with ammunition which was confiscated.(21) His sister arrived at the house and the urban legend of Lee Oswald carrying a “long package” was born when Linnie Mae supposedly told the police about the long “suspicious” package she “saw” Lee with that morning. She was here to defend her brother at all cost. She even arranged for a Baptist priest to accompany them to City Hall in Dallas.(22) With all the commotion of the day, Frazier never had a chance to change his clothes. It appears he avoided going home because he knew they were waiting for him there. Then again, he could have gone home to tie up loose ends. Did his sister Linnie Mae tip him off? Was he in direct contact with the Paines? This photograph taken the night of 11/22/63, shows what he was wearing at 12:30PM that day. The official story is that at 9:00PM the DPD finished taking affidavits from both Buell and his sister. They started back to Irving when a radio call came in asking them to turn around and go back to Dallas.(23) Captain Fritz ordered that Frazier take a polygraph test, which he passed “conclusively”.(24) The test lasted until 12:10AM 11/23/63. Many researchers believe the test was rigged. Much more on this will follow. (continued)
Guest posted a topic in JFK Assassination DebateReasoning about Doorman “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. – Sherlock Holmes (A. Conan Doyle) Jim Fetzer Since there appears to be considerable confusion about reasoning scientifically in a case of this kind, the most valuable contribution I can make to the discussion of Doormån and Oswald concerns the pattern of reasoning that applies here. Having offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning to college students for 35 years, I am well positioned to explain the principles that apply in cases of this kind, which are part and parcel of the application of the scientific method. Scientific method is a process involving four steps or stages of investigation or inquiry, beginning with PUZZLEMENT, where some phenomenon or event does not fit into your background knowledge and understanding; SPECULATION, where the full range of appropriate alternative explanations are advanced; ADAPTATION, where those alternatives are tested relative to the available relevant evidence; and finally, EXPLANATION, where the alternative that is best supported is acceptable as true but in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. Scientific Reasoning The key stage is ADAPTATION, which involves the application of inference to the best explanation to the available evidence. This requires comparing the relative degrees of evidential support for alternative hypotheses by calculating the probability of the data on the assumption that the hypothesis is true. Do that for each of them and see which of them confers the highest probability on the evidence, if it were true. It sounds like a process of reasoning backwards and, in a way, it is: you are treating the evidence as the effect of a cause and comparing the probability with which various causes could have brought about an effect. If you found a tree that had been cut in half and felled, what is the probability that that had been done with a pen-knife, a Swiss Army knife or a chain saw? Consider the effects and figure out which among its possible causes is most likely. An hypothesis with a higher likelihood is preferable to one with lower, where the one with the highest likelihood is acceptable as true when the evidence has “settled down”. It is always possible to return to make a recalculation when new evidence or new alternatives become available. Here I want to highlight a few of the key considerations that have led me to conclude that Doorman and Oswald are indeed one and the same, where, in this case, we are essentially dealing with only two alternatives, namely: that Doorman was Billy Lovelady, as the government contends, or that Doorman was Lee Oswald, as David Wrone, Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke, Orlando Martin and I – among others – contend. Because there are only two serious candidates, evidence that favors one of them disfavors the other, and evidence that disfavors one of the favors the other. Doorman is one or the other. If Doorman was Oswald, he wasn’t Lovelady; if he was Lovelady, he wasn’t Lee. “Out with Billy Shelley in front” It was astonishing to me to learn – only last year, 2011 – that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the DPD Homicide Detective who had interrogated Lee Oswald, notes that had been released way back in 2007, that said Oswald told Will Fritz that he had been “out with Bill Shelley in front” during the assassination. This discovery led me to take a second look at Altgens6 and to revist the question of whether Doorman could have been Oswald. Some have claimed Lee was not talking about his location during the shooting but some time thereafter. That makes no sense at all, however, since we know he was observed in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM by Carolyn Arnold, the executive secretary to the Vice President of the TSBD. So, Oswald could not have been referring to being outside with Bill Shelly before the shooting. Within 90 seconds, after the shooting, Oswald had been accosted in the lunchroom by Roy Truly and motorcycle officer Marion Baker. Oswald could not have meant he was “out with Bill Shelly in front” after the shooting because Bill Shelly was not there then. Shelly said he left immediately, with Billy Lovelady, to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around. When Lovelady and Shelly returned, they re-entered the building through the backdoor, of the TSBD, and went to the base of the back stairwell (in the northwest corner (rear) of the building). So, Bill Shelly was definitely not out in front when Oswald was leaving. The Altgens6 was Altered It would have been unbelievably remiss of Detective Fritz not to have asked Lee Oswald where he was at the time of the shooting; that is the most pertinent question Will Fritz would have needed to ask. Three questions therefore arise about what Lee told Fritz: (1) Why would Lee have said he was “out in front” if it were not true? (2) Why mention Shelley unless Lee believed that he would confirm it? (3) How could Lee have known Shelley was there if Lee had not been? These questions appeared to me to create a prima facie presumption that Lee was telling the truth during his interrogation. I therefore began to take a closer look at Altgent6 and was astonished to discover—and on a John McAdams site!—that Altgens6 was altered: Notice I am NOT talking about Doorman but the figure to his left / front (our right / front viewing the images). I original inferred that the face that was obfuscated must have been that of Lee Oswald, but I now believe—based on new research by Richard Hooke-- that it was instead that of Bill Shelley. For Shelley to have been in the immediate vicinity of the enigmatic Doorman would have made Lee’s remark to Will Fritz just a bit too intriguing, which would have invited taking a closer look and risk exposing the entire charade. As we have taken a closer and closer look, it is remarkable how many of the features used to pull off this charade are present in this composite image, including not only Billy and Lee but the man in a checkered shirt, who was a Lovelady imposter, and frames from a faked film. Taking a Closer Look That the Altgens6 was altered at all creates the presumption that something was wrong. Surely it would only have been altered if someone had been there who should not have been there. The only candidate for that role would have been Lee Oswald. While I now believe that the face that was obfuscated was that of Bill Shelley, his importance there would only become apparent when Oswald’s remarks to Fritz would eventually become available. And, to the best of my knowledge, that did not occur until 1997. I published my first article accenting this discovery, “JFK: What we know now that we didn’t know then” (21 November 2011), mistakenly asserting that the obfuscated face was that of Lee, which led Ralph Cinque to contact me to explain why he thought that I was right about my conclusion—that Oswald HAD been in the doorway—but that I was wrong about my reasons for thinking so, where the clothing that Doorman was wearing was the key! It did not take long for Ralph to convince me that he was right, which led to our joint article, “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (25 January 2012). The uniqueness of Oswald’s clothing had never really been addressed before. Well, perhaps it had, but not in a long time, and not with any widespread recognition. When you compare the clothing of Oswald and Doorman in detail, you realize it had to be the same clothing, which means it had to be the same man. Unless Billy was wearing Lee’s clothing, the probability that Doorman was Lovelady approaches zero and the probability Doorman was Lee approaches one. Not only is there no serious chance that Billy Lovelady just happened to dress himself exactly the same way as Lee Oswald, that particular day, but Billy himself would go to the FBI and show them the shirt he had been wearing that day —an incredibly implausible thing to do unless it was true—and it was not the same shirt! Inference to the Best Explanation As you will find on the pages of The Oswald Innocence Project, Ralph Cinque and Richard Hooke have done brilliant work in displaying the full range of alterations to which this photo has been subjected, where the more they have done, the stronger the case has become. Any one familiar with the principles of scientific reasoning--most importantly, of inference to the best explanation--will have no difficulty appreciating that the case for alteration has been made, again and again. The complexity of what was done is rather astonishing, but the price of failure would have been to blow apart the greatest hoax in American history, namely: that JFK had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone, demented gunman. We know that cannot be true on multiple grounds, but this proof is as powerful as they come. An hypothesis has been proven beyond reasonable doubt when no alternative hypothesis is reasonable. There would have been no reason to alter Altgens6 unless someone had been there who should not have been. Altgens6 was altered. Therefore, someone was there who should not have been. The only person that could have been was Lee Oswald, the designated “patsy”. Questions have long revolved over the identity of Doorman, but they have been pursued in the past in ignorance of what Lee told Fritz and that Altgens6 had been altered in at least one respect—and now turns out to have been altered in many others. We have found that the man in the checkered shirt appears to have been used as a “target of opportunity” to explain away the differences between the shirt Doorman was wearing and the shirt that Billy was not. As you will discover here, there is no reasonable alternative to the hypothesis that Lee was Doorman, which has been further confirmed in detail by more recent studies. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the charade has been exposed. Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and journalist with Veterans Today, has joined The Oswald Innocence Project (now aka The Oswald Innocence Campaign) which he highly recommends. Fifty years of deceit and deception are enough.