JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all!

[Craig Lamson]

From Ralph Cinque:

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. His very unique and distinctive clothing matched perfectly with the Man in the Doorway. His build matched Doorman's perfectly. His whole manner of dress matched Doorman's perfectly. Lovelady was much too stocky to be Doorman. Just look at the pics. Lovelady was brawny, stocky guy; Oswald was a runt, and the same is true of Doorman.

Ralph and his silly pronouncements make me want to ...well...ralph.

Sheesh Jim you sure can "find them". This guy is really something else.

Ralph really is amazing, why he can resolve the fine details of the doorway mans clothing from a poor halftone scan yet he can't tell us WHY the skin of Doorway man is NEAR BLACK in the so called vee! Nor HOW he has proven in fact the VEE is actual created by the shirt!

Then this "analyst" tells us the can tell the build of doorway man, WHO IS LARGELY OBSCURED BY THE DOORWAY!

This guy is as silly as they come, a PERFECT FIT for Jim Fetzer.

urp...ralph....

Fetzer...Lifton...urp...Ralph...three pees in a pod!

Edited February 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

That's not what I was asking for. I was asking you overlay the star cluster on top of the spiral nubula.

It astounds me how you can pretend to misunderstand what I had explained so plainly. I am sorry to

say, but I really no longer have any confidence in you. I no longer believe you are an honest broker.

And the dark hole at the center has been filled in in this image. That's really, really nice, Robin. Nice.

Are your fingers still broken, Master? ROFLMAO!

[Dean Hagerman]

Its Lovelady!!!!!!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

From Ralph (I think he's got your number):

Lamson, you have no right to make any presumptions about the chin-shade causing the vee in the t-shirt because you know of no instances in your life or anyone else's practical experience, in which such a thing has happened. Shade darkens, but it does not obliterate. Chin-shade would never fall in such a way as to produce such a perfect vee-shaped geometry. And if you think otherwise, you quit wagging your tongue so much and get busy finding an image- other than Doorway Man- in which such a thing has happened.

And regarding the build, it's true that Doorman is partially hidden behind the pillar, but I can still see the left side of his body very clearly. What are you saying, Lamson, that he might be stocky and brawny on the side that is hidden? This may sound bold, but I take the liberty of assuming that he has the same build on the hidden side that he has on the exposed side. And on the exposed side, I can see his slenderness in his face. I can see his slenderness in his arm, especially his forearm. And I can see his slenderness in the way in which his shirt is billowing. And when compared to Lovelady from the police station, with his massive arm showing, it is abundantly clear that they are two different people.

Lamson, I know your type. You're the type that doesn't think, doesn't know how to think, and has no idea what critical thinking entails. So, leave it to others.

Ralph Cinque

From Ralph Cinque:

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. His very unique and distinctive clothing matched perfectly with the Man in the Doorway. His build matched Doorman's perfectly. His whole manner of dress matched Doorman's perfectly. Lovelady was much too stocky to be Doorman. Just look at the pics. Lovelady was brawny, stocky guy; Oswald was a runt, and the same is true of Doorman.

Ralph and his silly pronouncements make me want to ...well...ralph.

Sheesh Jim you sure can "find them". This guy is really something else.

Ralph really is amazing, why he can resolve the fine details of the doorway mans clothing from a poor halftone scan yet he can't tell us WHY the skin of Doorway man is NEAR BLACK in the so called vee! Nor HOW he has proven in fact the VEE is actual created by the shirt!

Then this "analyst" tells us the can tell the build of doorway man, WHO IS LARGELY OBSCURED BY THE DOORWAY!

This guy is as silly as they come, a PERFECT FIT for Jim Fetzer.

urp...ralph....

Fetzer...Lifton...urp...Ralph...three pees in a pod!

[Craig Lamson]

From Ralph (I think he's got your number):

Lamson, you have no right to make any presumptions about the chin-shade causing the vee in the t-shirt because you know of no instances in your life or anyone else's practical experience, in which such a thing has happened. Shade darkens, but it does not obliterate. Chin-shade would never fall in such a way as to produce such a perfect vee-shaped geometry. And if you think otherwise, you quit wagging your tongue so much and get busy finding an image- other than Doorway Man- in which such a thing has happened.

And regarding the build, it's true that Doorman is partially hidden behind the pillar, but I can still see the left side of his body very clearly. What are you saying, Lamson, that he might be stocky and brawny on the side that is hidden? This may sound bold, but I take the liberty of assuming that he has the same build on the hidden side that he has on the exposed side. And on the exposed side, I can see his slenderness in his face. I can see his slenderness in his arm, especially his forearm. And I can see his slenderness in the way in which his shirt is billowing. And when compared to Lovelady from the police station, with his massive arm showing, it is abundantly clear that they are two different people.

Lamson, I know your type. You're the type that doesn't think, doesn't know how to think, and has no idea what critical thinking entails. So, leave it to others.

Ralph Cinque

I have "no right"? Are you really serious? Yet you have EVERY RIGHT to simply wave your hands wildly and proclaim it proof? ROFLMAO! ...urp...ralph...

I see that ..urp..Ralph is really upset! HE should be, his "observations" are a far cry from proof.

Lets start with the vee shadow shall we?

I can't find one? How about from yet another Altgens...5. Notice VEE NECK SHADOW MAN on the left. Opps. I just love you logic, or what passes from logic on your part.

Oh and do your see the SHADOW "obliterate" the eyes of VEE NECK SHADOW MAN? Ralph sez this is impossible, yet in just this small section of this image we see numerous examples of a shadow OBLITERATING detail. Where did VEE NECK SHADOW MAN'S EYES GO? Sheesh Ralph you really do suck at thus.

Want more? Ok, how about from Altgens 6....notice the nice lady on the left...VEE NECK SHADOW WOMAN!

Now Ralph, please tell us HOW YOU HAVE PROVEN THE VEE SHAPE IS THE TEE SHIRT? ROFLMAO, Again!

Lets move on Ralph. You claim about the body shape of doorway man is simply hand waving, just like your claims of seeing fine detail in a SCANNED HALFTONE. Clearly it is your right to opine. HOWEVER, your opinion is just that, yet another opinion in a SEA of opinions. Earth to Ralph, opinion is not proof.

It's pretty clear here that the one failing at critical thought is Ralph. He is also failing in photography 101. That's a pretty bad thing for someone who is TRYING to do photo analysis.

I know your type, the internet CT boards are full of wannabes like you. It's pretty clear here Ralph, you are the type who can't tell us the first thing about photography, photographic analysis or even the properties of light and shadow. Why don't you go back to making "adjustments" and leave this to others who understand how it works...

Edited February 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

Welcome to the Forum, Dr. Cinque. I find your style of argument very similar to that of Professor Fetzer, Ph.D. Is that because you too are a Ph.D. and Professor of Philosophy somewhere? Or are you a medical doctor? Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., puts great stress on qualifications and that is why I ask.

I look forward to your contributions via Professer Fetzer, Ph.D., in the future.

JT

From Ralph (I think he's got your number):

Lamson, you have no right to make any presumptions about the chin-shade causing the vee in the t-shirt because you know of no instances in your life or anyone else's practical experience, in which such a thing has happened. Shade darkens, but it does not obliterate. Chin-shade would never fall in such a way as to produce such a perfect vee-shaped geometry. And if you think otherwise, you quit wagging your tongue so much and get busy finding an image- other than Doorway Man- in which such a thing has happened.

And regarding the build, it's true that Doorman is partially hidden behind the pillar, but I can still see the left side of his body very clearly. What are you saying, Lamson, that he might be stocky and brawny on the side that is hidden? This may sound bold, but I take the liberty of assuming that he has the same build on the hidden side that he has on the exposed side. And on the exposed side, I can see his slenderness in his face. I can see his slenderness in his arm, especially his forearm. And I can see his slenderness in the way in which his shirt is billowing. And when compared to Lovelady from the police station, with his massive arm showing, it is abundantly clear that they are two different people.

Lamson, I know your type. You're the type that doesn't think, doesn't know how to think, and has no idea what critical thinking entails. So, leave it to others.

Ralph Cinque

From Ralph Cinque:

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. His very unique and distinctive clothing matched perfectly with the Man in the Doorway. His build matched Doorman's perfectly. His whole manner of dress matched Doorman's perfectly. Lovelady was much too stocky to be Doorman. Just look at the pics. Lovelady was brawny, stocky guy; Oswald was a runt, and the same is true of Doorman.

Ralph and his silly pronouncements make me want to ...well...ralph.

Sheesh Jim you sure can "find them". This guy is really something else.

Ralph really is amazing, why he can resolve the fine details of the doorway mans clothing from a poor halftone scan yet he can't tell us WHY the skin of Doorway man is NEAR BLACK in the so called vee! Nor HOW he has proven in fact the VEE is actual created by the shirt!

Then this "analyst" tells us the can tell the build of doorway man, WHO IS LARGELY OBSCURED BY THE DOORWAY!

This guy is as silly as they come, a PERFECT FIT for Jim Fetzer.

urp...ralph....

Fetzer...Lifton...urp...Ralph...three pees in a pod!

[Craig Lamson]

Welcome to the Forum, Dr. Cinque. I find your style of argument very similar to that of Professor Fetzer, Ph.D. Is that because you too are a Ph.D. and Professor of Philosophy somewhere? Or are you a medical doctor? Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., puts great stress on qualifications and that is why I ask.

I look forward to your contributions via Professer Fetzer, Ph.D., in the future.

JT

From a Dr. Ralph webpage...

"Ralph Cinque [send him mail] has worked as a chiropractor, nutritionist, and health spa operator. Visit his blog."

Edited February 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Don Jeffries]

David,

I commend you on your astute observations on this issue. However, you confound me once again by inexplicably concluding that, despite your research, Lovelady was the man in the doorway. Reminds me of Dan Moldea, writing a book on the RFK assassination, proving conclusively there was a conspiracy, and then incomprehensibly concluding that Sirhan acted alone.

Lovelady initially told the FBI he wore a shirt that day that couldn't have been the one we see on the figure in the Altgens photo. Then, to reinforce this, he shows up in that shirt for a photo. Some of us would consider that "best evidence." The authorities desperately wanted to declare that the figure wasn't Oswald, because that automatically meant he couldn't have been the assassin. No need to argue about nonsense like the SBT any more if that was the case. So obviously they had an agenda to "prove" that the figure was Lovelady.

I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald.

[Pat Speer]

David,

I commend you on your astute observations on this issue. However, you confound me once again by inexplicably concluding that, despite your research, Lovelady was the man in the doorway. Reminds me of Dan Moldea, writing a book on the RFK assassination, proving conclusively there was a conspiracy, and then incomprehensibly concluding that Sirhan acted alone.

Lovelady initially told the FBI he wore a shirt that day that couldn't have been the one we see on the figure in the Altgens photo. Then, to reinforce this, he shows up in that shirt for a photo. Some of us would consider that "best evidence." The authorities desperately wanted to declare that the figure wasn't Oswald, because that automatically meant he couldn't have been the assassin. No need to argue about nonsense like the SBT any more if that was the case. So obviously they had an agenda to "prove" that the figure was Lovelady.

I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald.

Strong doubts remain for those who started off with those doubts. I don't know anyone who's started studying this case in recent years who finds this issue anything more than an embarrassment. It's Lovelady's face. It's Lovelady's shirt. All the witnesses said it was Lovelady. And the shirt some seem to think is the shirt on the man in the doorway--Oswald's shirt--was, according to Oswald, not worn by him at the time of the shooting.

If any aspect of the shooting ought to be closed, it's this one, IMO. And yet, some prefer to keep every door open, no matter how silly, no matter how much it wastes our time. Why? How does it benefit the community as a whole to waste time on issues such as this?

When those with only a marginal interest in the case, such as members of the mainstream media, take a closer look at the case next year, wouldn't it bolster the credibility of the research community to be able to say "No, we aren't just suspicioners, adding more and more reasons to be suspicious to our collection; in fact, we have abandoned many old theories that haven't stood the test of time?" I believe so. I believe we should unite and make a list of conspiracy factoids we ourselves have debunked. And present this list to responsible members of the mainstream media along with a list of theories we still consider viable.

Among those on the kill list, IMO. 1. Greer shot Kennedy. 2. Kennedy was shot by someone hiding in the storm drain. 3. Oswald is in the doorway in the Altgens photo.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Coming from a man who contradicts the witnesses, the doctors, the X-ray studies, and even frame 374, in which the blow out can actually be seen, by insisting that it was at the side of the head, from which extruding cerebellum would have been anatomically impossible, I am incredulous that you would make such a post. Look in a mirror. The greatest embarrassment in the history of JFK research is a guy named "Pat Speer".

David,

I commend you on your astute observations on this issue. However, you confound me once again by inexplicably concluding that, despite your research, Lovelady was the man in the doorway. Reminds me of Dan Moldea, writing a book on the RFK assassination, proving conclusively there was a conspiracy, and then incomprehensibly concluding that Sirhan acted alone.

Lovelady initially told the FBI he wore a shirt that day that couldn't have been the one we see on the figure in the Altgens photo. Then, to reinforce this, he shows up in that shirt for a photo. Some of us would consider that "best evidence." The authorities desperately wanted to declare that the figure wasn't Oswald, because that automatically meant he couldn't have been the assassin. No need to argue about nonsense like the SBT any more if that was the case. So obviously they had an agenda to "prove" that the figure was Lovelady.

I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald.

Strong doubts remain for those who started off with those doubts. I don't know anyone who's started studying this case in recent years who finds this issue anything more than an embarrassment. It's Lovelady's face. It's Lovelady's shirt. All the witnesses said it was Lovelady. And the shirt some seem to think is the shirt on the man in the doorway--Oswald's shirt--was, according to Oswald, not worn by him at the time of the shooting.

If any aspect of the shooting ought to be closed, it's this one. And yet, some prefer to have keep every door open, no matter how silly, no matter how much it wastes our time. Why? How does it benefit the community as a whole to waste time on issues such as this?

When those with only a marginal interest in the case, such as members of the mainstream media, take a closer look at the case next year, wouldn't it bolster the credibility of the research community to be able to say "No, we aren't just suspicioners, adding more and more reasons to be suspicious to our collection; in fact, we have abandoned many old theories that haven't stood the test of time?" I believe so. I believe we should unite and make a list of conspiracy factoids we ourselves have debunked. And present this to responsible members of the mainstream media along with a list of theories we still consider viable.

Among those on the kill list, IMO. 1. Greer shot Kennedy. 2. Kennedy was shot by someone hiding in the storm drain. 3. Oswald is in the doorway in the Altgens photo.

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Coming from a man who contradicts the witnesses, the doctors, the X-ray studies, and even frame 374, in which the blow out can actually be seen, by insisting that it was at the side of the head, from which extruding cerebellum would have been anatomically impossible, I am incredulous that you would make such a post. Look in a mirror. The greatest embarrassment in the history of JFK research is a guy named "Pat Speer".

You just don't get it, Jim. Virtually everything you say about me is how a growing number of researchers feel about you. When I spoke at COPA in 2009, people came up to me afterwards and shook my hand. When I visited Dealey Plaza later that day, people came up to me and asked if they could have their pictures taken with me. Some even asked for my autograph. Now, I didn't take it too seriously. But calling me the "greatest embarrassment" is just nonsense. In fact, now that I think about it, one group of young assassination researchers got into a prolonged discussion on 9/11, and told me that YOU were the greatest embarrassment in the history of 9/11 research.

P.S. When I mentioned this before you insisted that these young researchers were some part of a plot to undermine you and your efforts. Yeah, sure. Four 20-something guys PAY to go to COPA, just so they can corner me and bad-mouth you, as if my opinion on you and your 9/11 research was of any interest to anyone.

[Robin Unger]

That's not what I was asking for. I was asking you overlay the star cluster on top of the spiral nubula.

It astounds me how you can pretend to misunderstand what I had explained so plainly. I am sorry to

say, but I really no longer have any confidence in you. I no longer believe you are an honest broker.

And the dark hole at the center has been filled in in this image. That's really, really nice, Robin. Nice.

Here is your image Jim

There is also a document t i have seen previously stating that the workmen who replaced the windshield, sat inside the limo, and pushed the glass out using there feet causing the glass to crack.

When i find it i will post it..

Newsflash Jim

I could care less what you think !

I have an idea, do your own images and stop asking others to do your dirty work for you

I am not here at your beck and call.

In future i will ignore any request from you for photographic assistance.

[David Lifton]

David,

I commend you on your astute observations on this issue. However, you confound me once again by inexplicably concluding that, despite your research, Lovelady was the man in the doorway. Reminds me of Dan Moldea, writing a book on the RFK assassination, proving conclusively there was a conspiracy, and then incomprehensibly concluding that Sirhan acted alone.

Lovelady initially told the FBI he wore a shirt that day that couldn't have been the one we see on the figure in the Altgens photo. Then, to reinforce this, he shows up in that shirt for a photo. Some of us would consider that "best evidence." The authorities desperately wanted to declare that the figure wasn't Oswald, because that automatically meant he couldn't have been the assassin. No need to argue about nonsense like the SBT any more if that was the case. So obviously they had an agenda to "prove" that the figure was Lovelady.

I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald.

Well, I think you have mis-stated the situation. I have concluded it is Lovelady in the doorway not "in spite of" my research, but in fact because of it.

Yes, it is true: Lovelady said he wore a shirt with vertical red and white stripes. He said that several times--to the FBI, and then to newspaper reporter Dom Bonafede, who published his account in the 5/24/64 New York Herald Tribune feature article about the Altgens photo.

But then, in addition, each and every time the FBI showed up with the photo, in this or that magazine, he immediately identified himself as the person in the doorway.

Thus, for me, the puzzle comes down to why he has behaved this way, not whether he was in the doorway.

I have offered my own theory as to why he lied about the shirt he wore--when interviewed by the FBI (in the 1963/64 time frame); and then wore an entirely different shirt when interviewed by Groden in 1976.

As I have said: I think that the problem comes down to why he behaved tat way, not whether he was in the doorway.

The DPD newsreel footage, showing Lovelady wearing the "doorway man shirt" when Oswald was marched in, at about 2:02 PM, settles the matter for me.

What remains for me is why Lovelady lied so many times about the shirt he wore, and why the FBI didn't confront him on it.

DSL

2/2/12; 1:50 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[David Von Pein]

To those who think it was Oswald in the doorway,

is Wesley Frazier lying here [@ 8:30]? .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzw3RlNgR1s

Edited February 2, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Craig Lamson]

Well, I think you have mis-stated the situation. I have concluded it is Lovelady in the doorway not "in spite of" my research, but in fact because of it.

Yes, it is true: Lovelady said he wore a shirt with vertical red and white stripes. He said that several times--to the FBI, and then to newspaper reporter Dom Bonafede, who published his account in the 5/24/64 New York Herald Tribune feature article about the Altgens photo.

But then, in addition, each and every time the FBI showed up with the photo, in this or that magazine, he immediately identified himself as the person in the doorway.

Thus, for me, the puzzle comes down to why he has behaved this way, not whether he was in the doorway.

I have offered my own theory as to why he lied about the shirt he wore--when interviewed by the FBI (in the 1963/64 time frame); and then wore an entirely different shirt when interviewed by Groden in 1976.

As I have said: I think that the problem comes down to why he behaved tat way, not whether he was in the doorway.

The DPD newsreel footage, showing Lovelady wearing the "doorway man shirt" when Oswald was marched in, at about 2:02 PM, settles the matter for me.

What remains for me is why Lovelady lied so many times about the shirt he wore, and why the FBI didn't confront him on it.

DSL

2/2/12; 1:50 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Yea the Lifton Best Shirt Theory. LOL!

Has it ever crossed your mind that Lovelady confuses horizontal and vertical? After all he may not be perfect like David Lifton.

Never mind the shirt seen in all the images of him, including Groden match perfectly.

You really NEED a new set of eyes. This one totally eclipses your complete embarrassment on the full flush left issue.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson