The doorway photo

[Jim Feemster]

After much pondering and a few sleepless nights I now believe Oswald was the man in the TSBD doorway facing south as the motorcade came by on Nov. 22, 1963.

When I saw Billy Lovelady in his striped shirt he was wearing that day, it just couldn't be him in the famous photo however much he resembled OZ.

Then there's the testimony of Roger Graig seeing OZ running down the slope from the TSBD to enter a Rambler station wagon driven by a very dark complected man.

I don't believe anything from the notes of the interviews with OZ before he was made into Ruby bait. Oz never signed a confession. The authorities couldn't hang a motive on him [ at least not one that would stick ].

I don't believe Harry Holmes and his mailroom skullduggery.

I do believe in two maybe three wallets attributed to OZ on that fatefull day.

I didn't at the time of the assassination, when i was about 12 years old and i still don't believe, an assassin would leave a soda drink bottle and some chicken bones just feet away from the sniper's nest. I don't remember if any prints came off the bottle or not. And i think these items were proven later to have belonged to Billy Ray William. But at first they were said to probably have belonged to the sniper,

who was being touted as OZ and what a dastardly villian he must be.

Many people today think OZ ate this lunch and then calmly shot our President and others.

jim

[David Josephs]

Hey there Jim...

I think you'll need a bit more proof to convince me...

They are similiar but that's not Oswald

DJ

[John Dolva]

After much pondering and a few sleepless nights I now believe Oswald was the man in the TSBD doorway facing south as the motorcade came by on Nov. 22, 1963.

When I saw Billy Lovelady in his striped shirt he was wearing that day, it just couldn't be him in the famous photo however much he resembled OZ.

Then there's the testimony of Roger Graig seeing OZ running down the slope from the TSBD to enter a Rambler station wagon driven by a very dark complected man.

I don't believe anything from the notes of the interviews with OZ before he was made into Ruby bait. Oz never signed a confession. The authorities couldn't hang a motive on him [ at least not one that would stick ].

I don't believe Harry Holmes and his mailroom skullduggery.

I do believe in two maybe three wallets attributed to OZ on that fatefull day.

I didn't at the time of the assassination, when i was about 12 years old and i still don't believe, an assassin would leave a soda drink bottle and some chicken bones just feet away from the sniper's nest. I don't remember if any prints came off the bottle or not. And i think these items were proven later to have belonged to Billy Ray William. But at first they were said to probably have belonged to the sniper,

who was being touted as OZ and what a dastardly villian he must be.

Many people today think OZ ate this lunch and then calmly shot our President and others.

jim

edit oops forgot to format.

me too.

Edited June 1, 2010 by John Dolva

[Bernice Moore]

FROM GRODEN'S BOOK I BELIEVE THIS WAS SCANNED BY ROBIN.....FROM THE BOOKS AND THEN COMP WIEGMAN AND ALTGENS DOORWAY...OOPS THEY POSTED THE OTHER WAY ROUND......HEY JIM... B

Edited June 1, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Dean Hagerman]

Its Lovelady no doubt in my mind

[John Dolva]

It must not matter. i reckon

edit to explain a bit: it is always in the realm of doubt. It cannot be a fundament in a case. There are other good arguments that Oswald could not be definitely identified as the shooter or a part of a team) one way or another.

Edited June 1, 2010 by John Dolva

[Peter McGuire]

It must not matter. i reckon

edit to explain a bit: it is always in the realm of doubt. It cannot be a fundament in a case. There are other good arguments that Oswald could not be definitely identified as the shooter or a part of a team) one way or another.

That about sums it up....but like so many aspects of this case that can not be resolved, the question that will always remain in my mind about this one is why there is a picture that even remotely looks like Oswald ( in the door) or GHW Bush ( on the street ) or Landsdale ( next to the "tramps") ?

These are not figments of our imaginations!

There are far too many of these "anomalies" for any rational person not to think that there is not a good possibility that they are the persons we suspect they are.

Besides, this Altgen’s photo is prima facie evidence of Secret Service inaction. Shots were fired and the agents did nothing.

Smoking gun big time.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Jim Feemster]

It must not matter. i reckon

edit to explain a bit: it is always in the realm of doubt. It cannot be a fundament in a case. There are other good arguments that Oswald could not be definitely identified as the shooter or a part of a team) one way or another.

That about sums it up....but like so many aspects of this case that can not be resolved, the question that will always remain in my mind about this one is why there is a picture that even remotely looks like Oswald ( in the door) or GHW Bush ( on the street ) or Landsdale ( next to the "tramps") ?

These are not figments of our imaginations!

There are far too many of these "anomalies" for any rational person not to think that there is not a good possibility that they are the persons we suspect they are.

Besides, this Altgen’s photo is prima facie evidence of Secret Service inaction. Shots were fired and the agents did nothing.

Smoking gun big time.

[Jim Feemster]

Hey guys,

You got me!

The pics posted by David J. and Bernice M. [[thanks yall ]] are the clearest i have ever seen of Lovelady's shirt. If that's his shirt then that's his mug.

I am on dial up so there are many things i can't do to make a pic more clear for example.

So now for the last and final time i will put the subject to bed in my mind. Having heard from the likes of John D. and Gary M. and Dean H.

gently nudging me to look again at the evidence, and then seeing the evidence more clearly than ever before i stand corrected.

Thanks guys and girl!

jim

[Jack White]

It must not matter. i reckon

edit to explain a bit: it is always in the realm of doubt. It cannot be a fundament in a case. There are other good arguments that Oswald could not be definitely identified as the shooter or a part of a team) one way or another.

That about sums it up....but like so many aspects of this case that can not be resolved, the question that will always remain in my mind about this one is why there is a picture that even remotely looks like Oswald ( in the door) or GHW Bush ( on the street ) or Landsdale ( next to the "tramps") ?

These are not figments of our imaginations!

There are far too many of these "anomalies" for any rational person not to think that there is not a good possibility that they are the persons we suspect they are.

Besides, this Altgen’s photo is prima facie evidence of Secret Service inaction. Shots were fired and the agents did nothing.

Smoking gun big time.

I agree. I consider "the man in the doorway" identity irrelevant UNLESS IT IS OSWALD...and this is not provable.

I believe that saying it is Lovelady also has problems for many reasons.

I consider the GHWB image identity very probable. I take Prouty's word (who worked with Lansdale for 5 years)

to be conclusive.

Jack

[Kathleen Collins]

It must not matter. i reckon

edit to explain a bit: it is always in the realm of doubt. It cannot be a fundament in a case. There are other good arguments that Oswald could not be definitely identified as the shooter or a part of a team) one way or another.

That about sums it up....but like so many aspects of this case that can not be resolved, the question that will always remain in my mind about this one is why there is a picture that even remotely looks like Oswald ( in the door) or GHW Bush ( on the street ) or Landsdale ( next to the "tramps") ?

These are not figments of our imaginations!

There are far too many of these "anomalies" for any rational person not to think that there is not a good possibility that they are the persons we suspect they are.

Besides, this Altgen’s photo is prima facie evidence of Secret Service inaction. Shots were fired and the agents did nothing.

Smoking gun big time.

I agree. I consider "the man in the doorway" identity irrelevant UNLESS IT IS OSWALD...and this is not provable.

I believe that saying it is Lovelady also has problems for many reasons.

I consider the GHWB image identity very probable. I take Prouty's word (who worked with Lansdale for 5 years)

to be conclusive.

Jack

Someone on this Forum said that the photo of Lovelady's face was possibly superimposed on the original photo. I remember when the picture came out people saying, "Is that Oswald?" Because we really didn't know what Oswald looked like. And people asking, "How could Oswald be standing in the doorway when he was supposed to be shooting the President"? It's like these things are thrown our way to confuse us.

Didn't Altgens claim he never took that photo? Maybe he was afraid.

Kathy C

[Dean Hagerman]

Hey guys,

You got me!

The pics posted by David J. and Bernice M. [[thanks yall ]] are the clearest i have ever seen of Lovelady's shirt. If that's his shirt then that's his mug.

I am on dial up so there are many things i can't do to make a pic more clear for example.

So now for the last and final time i will put the subject to bed in my mind. Having heard from the likes of John D. and Gary M. and Dean H.

gently nudging me to look again at the evidence, and then seeing the evidence more clearly than ever before i stand corrected.

Thanks guys and girl!

jim

Jim I used to believe it was Oswald in the doorway

Until I read the page in Robert Grodens TKOAP (The page that Bernice posted showing Lovelady wearing the shirt)

That changed my mind

[Jack White]

Hey guys,

You got me!

The pics posted by David J. and Bernice M. [[thanks yall ]] are the clearest i have ever seen of Lovelady's shirt. If that's his shirt then that's his mug.

I am on dial up so there are many things i can't do to make a pic more clear for example.

So now for the last and final time i will put the subject to bed in my mind. Having heard from the likes of John D. and Gary M. and Dean H.

gently nudging me to look again at the evidence, and then seeing the evidence more clearly than ever before i stand corrected.

Thanks guys and girl!

jim

Jim I used to believe it was Oswald in the doorway

Until I read the page in Robert Grodens TKOAP (The page that Bernice posted showing Lovelady wearing the shirt)

That changed my mind

For various reasons, I remain unconvinced that Lovelady is the man in the doorway.

A few reasons:

1. Lovelady testified he was SITTING on the steps.

2. The man in the colored red shirt does not look like Lovelady.

3. The plaid in that photo does not match the plaid produced by Lovelady years later.

4. The baldness and heavy beard of the man in the color photo.

5. The shirt worn by Lovelady in his FBI photo, when asked to wear the same shirt.

Reasons I may be wrong:

1. The man sitting in Fritz's office identified as Lovelady.

2. Lovelady dying a very early death after being "harassed out of Dallas."

Jack

Edited June 2, 2010 by Jack White

[David S. Brownlee]

Well the truth of the matter JF is that most folks have never shot a high powered rifle up or down hill. I have. I'm no serious expert but I have hunted Elk/Mule Deer in the Rockies with experts. The reverse of what you expect is whaty happens. If you are shooting downhill you will generally miss low. That's because you won't think you have to aim above much because the bullet is going downhill anyway. So an inexperienced downhill shooter will always miss low. Gravity still works on your bullet and will still pull it down. When shooting uphill an inexperienced shooter will generally miss high (again the reverse of what is expected) because you will expect the bullet to drop much faster. In reality the bullet drops about the same uphill or downhill (within a 1/4 at 100 yards with a high powered rifle).

So why did JFK get hit in the throat? Well....he got hit in the throat from an expert assasin who wasn't used to shooting downhill. The assasin thought that since he was shooting downhill already that the bullet wouldn't drop (1st mistake)..then he didn't realize properly that the JFK car was actually turning back to the left a bit - #2 mistake. So.....a perfect shot from a killer from the TSBD (6th floor or roof) would likely miss about 2-3 inches low and about an inch to the right. Of course that is exactly what happened. Three inches low took the brain out of the equasion and the miss right made the bullet miss the spinal cord and just went through the throat.

Now getting shot through the throat with a high powered rifle is no nice thing...you are gonna gag and try to spit and have trouble breathing...but it won't kill you if you have proper medical help within minutes....or even 20 minutes.

But if your car slows down and gives em a shot from close up (grasssy knoll) and blows your brains back across the car - well.....then you are dead.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

It must not matter. i reckon

edit to explain a bit: it is always in the realm of doubt. It cannot be a fundament in a case. There are other good arguments that Oswald could not be definitely identified as the shooter or a part of a team) one way or another.

That about sums it up....but like so many aspects of this case that can not be resolved, the question that will always remain in my mind about this one is why there is a picture that even remotely looks like Oswald ( in the door) or GHW Bush ( on the street ) or Landsdale ( next to the "tramps") ?

These are not figments of our imaginations!

There are far too many of these "anomalies" for any rational person not to think that there is not a good possibility that they are the persons we suspect they are.

Besides, this Altgen’s photo is prima facie evidence of Secret Service inaction. Shots were fired and the agents did nothing.

Smoking gun big time.

I agree. I consider "the man in the doorway" identity irrelevant UNLESS IT IS OSWALD...and this is not provable.

I believe that saying it is Lovelady also has problems for many reasons.

I consider the GHWB image identity very probable. I take Prouty's word (who worked with Lansdale for 5 years)

to be conclusive.

Jack

Someone on this Forum said that the photo of Lovelady's face was possibly superimposed on the original photo. I remember when the picture came out people saying, "Is that Oswald?" Because we really didn't know what Oswald looked like. And people asking, "How could Oswald be standing in the doorway when he was supposed to be shooting the President"? It's like these things are thrown our way to confuse us.

Didn't Altgens claim he never took that photo? Maybe he was afraid.

Kathy C

No, Altgen's never made such a claim about that photo (Altgens 1-6). That photo also went out on the wire way too quickly for it to have been altered.