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

[Craig Lamson]

David,

Excellent post! Yes, such differences as we have here do not revolve around this absurd (Lamson) controversy, which I am quite convinced are intended to create a completely unjustifiable distraction. Notice he talks about "testing", ignoring that science depends upon observation, measurement, and experimentation. This is a case that can be resolved on the basis of observation, as you have lucidly explained. Now we can return to the real issues that some (Lamson?) would prefer not be the focus of discussion. Many thanks!

Jim

Sadly, for you, unless your "OBSERVATION" is based on reality is is worthless. Better yet when other observation, experimentation and measurement destroy your so called observations ( which it has on both the pocket and the vee neck) your claims are destroyed.

Learn to live with it Jim, you have made yourself look quite foolish again.

[Don Jeffries]

Let's follow Thoreau's advice to "simplify, simplify" here.

We know that those tasked to investigate the assassination of JFK did not have any intention of doing so, and as a result left countless questions unanswered. We have no real way of knowing what Oswald said to Fritz or anyone else. Judging by his few public pronouncements, he was primarily concerned with obtaining a lawyer and appeared to be surprised he was accusing of being the assassin.

David Lifton did a great job of demonstrating how Billy Lovelady lied, although he then inexplicably still concluded he was the figure in the doorway. Why would Lovelady lie about anything to the authorities? It was quite convenient for the authorities to have an employee in the TSBD who looked so much like LHO, wasn't it? Whatever else you think about the Altgens photo, you can't deny that those who were busy covering up the truth and manipulating the "evidence" against Oswald, had a vested interest in that figure in the doorway not being Oswald.

There is no reason to trust anything that Oswald is officially claimed to have said in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Given the nature of the non-investigation being conducted, and the sense of self-preservation someone like Lovelady would have felt in such a situation, there is no reason to trust anything he, or the other witnesses in the doorway, said regarding just who was there at the time. There is no way of definitively knowing where he or Oswald actually was at the time of the shooting.

Imho, Fetzer and Cinque's certainty that the figure IS Oswald is just as valid as the prevailing view here that the figure definitely IS Lovelady. Lies from Lovelady, disappearing pockets, the coincidence of such a convenient LHO "double" working with him- so many reasons exist to question the entire official story about the Altgens photo.

I think we all need to remain skeptical about every aspect of this case.

[Craig Lamson]

Let's follow Thoreau's advice to "simplify, simplify" here.

We know that those tasked to investigate the assassination of JFK did not have any intention of doing so, and as a result left countless questions unanswered. We have no real way of knowing what Oswald said to Fritz or anyone else. Judging by his few public pronouncements, he was primarily concerned with obtaining a lawyer and appeared to be surprised he was accusing of being the assassin.

David Lifton did a great job of demonstrating how Billy Lovelady lied, although he then inexplicably still concluded he was the figure in the doorway. Why would Lovelady lie about anything to the authorities? It was quite convenient for the authorities to have an employee in the TSBD who looked so much like LHO, wasn't it? Whatever else you think about the Altgens photo, you can't deny that those who were busy covering up the truth and manipulating the "evidence" against Oswald, had a vested interest in that figure in the doorway not being Oswald.

There is no reason to trust anything that Oswald is officially claimed to have said in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Given the nature of the non-investigation being conducted, and the sense of self-preservation someone like Lovelady would have felt in such a situation, there is no reason to trust anything he, or the other witnesses in the doorway, said regarding just who was there at the time. There is no way of definitively knowing where he or Oswald actually was at the time of the shooting.

Imho, Fetzer and Cinque's certainty that the figure IS Oswald is just as valid as the prevailing view here that the figure definitely IS Lovelady. Lies from Lovelady, disappearing pockets, the coincidence of such a convenient LHO "double" working with him- so many reasons exist to question the entire official story about the Altgens photo.

I think we all need to remain skeptical about every aspect of this case.

Wow....

Yes, lets simplify...its the same shirt.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[James R Gordon]

That requires you to prove there IS A FLAP in at least one image, and you have failed to do that.

Craig,

Although I disagree with Jim on whether it was Oswald on the steps, on the issue of a flap to Loveldy's pocket, Jim is absolutely right.

Although I don't believe it is Oswald on the steps, I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt.

That said the argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view unimpeachable.

James.

Edited February 3, 2012 by James R Gordon

[Craig Lamson]

That requires you to prove there IS A FLAP in at least one image, and you have failed to do that.

Craig,

Although I disagree with Jim on whether it was Oswald on the steps, on the issue of a flap to Loveldy's pocket, Jim is absolutely right.

Although I don't believe it is Oswald on the steps, I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt.

That said the argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view unimpeachable.

James.

Sorry you have been impeached by all the other images of this shirt.

And of course the OTHER explanation for what is seen in the image you posted is that it is just the open pocket, which of course can be tested and it has. And the results are a perfect fit to the rest of the images showing a pocket with NO flap.

We await the results of YOUR testing that show it CAN'T be a flap less pocket.

Good luck with that.

Once again we are faced with these two choices...which one best fits ALL the available evidence and common sense?

Choice 1. The shirts actually DO match and the Groden shirt is the shirt seen in the 1963 footage.

Choice 2. Lovelady, for reasons unknown, remembers exactly what his 1963 shirt looked like and then set out to find a DIFFERENT SHIRT that was an exact match to his original shirt DOWN TO THE PATTERN MISMATCH AT THE SLEEVE/SHOULDER join as the original. However he FAILS to find a shirt that has a pocket...with a flap.! Lets set aside for a moment the difficulty of such a mission.

So YOU want us to think that a completely different shirt which is an IDENTICAL match to the original EXCEPT for the pocket is what we see? I mean what reason can you ascribe for this shirt switch, when there are may extant photos showing the shirt in 1963..ON LOVELADY?

Wow, no wonder CTS are looked at by many as whackjobs...

Edited February 3, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[James R Gordon]

And of course the OTHER explanation for what is seen in the image you posted is that it is just the open pocket, which of course can be tested and it has. And the results are a perfect fit to the rest of the images showing a pocket with NO flap.

Craig,

I can't see how you can say that. It seemed obvious to me that what I boxed in yellow is the flap to the pocket.

I'll just leave it that we disagree on whether the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a pocket.

James.

[Craig Lamson]

And of course the OTHER explanation for what is seen in the image you posted is that it is just the open pocket, which of course can be tested and it has. And the results are a perfect fit to the rest of the images showing a pocket with NO flap.

Craig,

I can't see how you can say that. It seemed obvious to me that what I boxed in yellow is the flap to the pocket.

I'll just leave it that we disagree on whether the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a pocket.

James.

How can I say that? I've tested and then photographed what a flapless pocket looks like when the top is open. There are a LOT of things that MIGHT appear obvious that in reality are NOT as obvious as they seem.

Your OBVIOUS conclusion leaves you at odds with the experimental and photographic evidence...and this...

Choice 2. Lovelady, for reasons unknown, remembers exactly what his 1963 shirt looked like and then set out to find a DIFFERENT SHIRT that was an exact match to his original shirt DOWN TO THE PATTERN MISMATCH AT THE SLEEVE/SHOULDER join as the original. However he FAILS to find a shirt that has a pocket...with a flap.! Lets set aside for a moment the difficulty of such a mission.

So YOU want us to think that a completely different shirt which is an IDENTICAL match to the original EXCEPT for the pocket is what we see? I mean what reason can you ascribe for this shirt switch, when there are may extant photos showing the shirt in 1963..ON LOVELADY?

[Chris Davidson]

It might be easier to remove the flap and/or pocket off the existing shirt.

chris

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to MacRae:

Mr. MacRae,

For you to blow that picture up and introduce that much distortion into the picture and then make claims about the shape of the t-shirt proves that either you are woefully dishonest or terribly stupid. And either way, it proves how desperate you are. You will do anything to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Notice that the opening of the t-shirt in your picture also looks jagged and tooth-like. Are you also claiming that that was the actual state of it?

Notice the distorting effect your work had on Doorman's right ear. Are you also claiming that that is how his ear actually looked? I will attach the normal view of Doorman so that people can compare.

And notice that Doorman's distinctive right collar- which, by the way, ties him inextricably to Oswald- is completely obliterated in your picture. You figured you would take care of that little problem too at the same time, eh?

Hey, I know! Why don't you blow it up 3x bigger, and then we won't be able to make out Doorman at all, and you can say he wasn't even there?

This is supposed to be the Education Forum, and you are mocking the word "educated."

Not to make the obvious point, but there is NO FLAP, so I can't possibly be the same shirt. Case closed!

The top of the pocket apears where the "white lines" are brocken.

Re the v shaped t shirt, if you enlarge the Altgens photo sufficiently you can see the start of the round neck just before it goes into the v shaped shadow.(To the left of Lovelady's chin as we look at it. )

Unfortunately because of restrictions on this machine, I can't submit an enlargement to show what I mean.

Just my 2 cents

You are correct, Ray, but that still won't stop the uncritical thinkers from imagining and proclaiming that it's a V shaped T=Shirt.

I used a deblur filter on the image below. Round neckline, end of story.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Don,

Your posts and others are like an oasis in the desert by displaying rationality in the midst of denials without refutations. I want to make just a few points of clarification, however, about the evidence and why some it is appears to be reliable. If the government had wanted to censor Will Fritz' notes, presumably it could have done so. That they include the notes about Lee being "out with Bill Shelley in front" is of enormous importance. That report is in the record, even though it works against the official story. For that reason, it has enormous credibility and appears to be consistent with other remarks attributed to Lee, including that a backyard photo had his face pasted on someone else's body.

We also have the blatant obfuscation of the Altgens photograph, which involved the obfuscation of the face and the shirt of an obscure figure in the crowd. What conceivable reason would there have been to take such an action if there had not been someone there who was not supposed to be there? and who else could that person possibly be if not Lee Oswald? We know the photo has been altered, where the only reasonable explanation is that it had to be done to conceal the presence of the patsy. In this case, they appear to have pasted Lovelady's face over Lee's body, which was the reverse of the backyard photo technique. No other explanation can account for all of the available relevant evidence.

One more point. Yes, there is no way to know DEFINITIVELY where these people were. Empirical studies are invariably open to revision based upon new evidence. But we have photographic and testimonial evidence to work with, which has been the foundation for our analysis. We are dealing with probabilities and likelihoods, where our analysis has demonstrated that it is far more likely that the man in the doorway was Lee Oswald than that it was Lovelady. The shirt, the vee, the body, the build, the obfuscation, the timeline, more, all not only establish that Oswald COULD HAVE BEEN DOORWAY MAN but the weight of the evidence supports the inference that LEE WAS THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY.

Jim

Let's follow Thoreau's advice to "simplify, simplify" here.

We know that those tasked to investigate the assassination of JFK did not have any intention of doing so, and as a result left countless questions unanswered. We have no real way of knowing what Oswald said to Fritz or anyone else. Judging by his few public pronouncements, he was primarily concerned with obtaining a lawyer and appeared to be surprised he was accusing of being the assassin.

David Lifton did a great job of demonstrating how Billy Lovelady lied, although he then inexplicably still concluded he was the figure in the doorway. Why would Lovelady lie about anything to the authorities? It was quite convenient for the authorities to have an employee in the TSBD who looked so much like LHO, wasn't it? Whatever else you think about the Altgens photo, you can't deny that those who were busy covering up the truth and manipulating the "evidence" against Oswald, had a vested interest in that figure in the doorway not being Oswald.

There is no reason to trust anything that Oswald is officially claimed to have said in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Given the nature of the non-investigation being conducted, and the sense of self-preservation someone like Lovelady would have felt in such a situation, there is no reason to trust anything he, or the other witnesses in the doorway, said regarding just who was there at the time. There is no way of definitively knowing where he or Oswald actually was at the time of the shooting.

Imho, Fetzer and Cinque's certainty that the figure IS Oswald is just as valid as the prevailing view here that the figure definitely IS Lovelady. Lies from Lovelady, disappearing pockets, the coincidence of such a convenient LHO "double" working with him- so many reasons exist to question the entire official story about the Altgens photo.

I think we all need to remain skeptical about every aspect of this case.

Edited February 3, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Excellent response to obvious evidence. That Lamson persists in this charade demonstrates conclusively, in my

opinion, that he has no interest in truth but only in diversion from making progress on the simplest possible

proof that the government has been lying to the American people about the death of our 35th president.

That requires you to prove there IS A FLAP in at least one image, and you have failed to do that.

Craig,

Although I disagree with Jim on whether it was Oswald on the steps, on the issue of a flap to Loveldy's pocket, Jim is absolutely right.

Although I don't believe it is Oswald on the steps, I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt.

That said the argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view unimpeachable.

James.

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque replies to MacRae:

Mr. MacRae,

For you to blow that picture up and introduce that much distortion into the picture and then make claims about the shape of the t-shirt proves that either you are woefully dishonest or terribly stupid. And either way, it proves how desperate you are. You will do anything to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Ralph once again shows his massive hypocrisy. He chastises Duncan for enlarging a photo yet we have his very words from another post suggesting the VERY SAME TING using a 286x381 pixel image. Never mind Duncan is actually DOING some actual research as opposed to Ralph and his "I see it just believe me." And as I have indicated MEASURING the tones of the Altgens image proves there is no VEE NECK SHIRT, only a round neck shirt that has a vee shaped shadow passing or it. It should be noted that Ralph has been unable to refute this work, seemingly because he does not know how.

Ralph sez:

"Download it and blow it up. Get out your magnifying glass. Try as hard as you can. There is no way you can say that that big flapping Moma of a pocket that is clearly visible on the 63 Lovelady is also present on this later Lovelady--at that level or at any level. "

Notice that the opening of the t-shirt in your picture also looks jagged and tooth-like. Are you also claiming that that was the actual state of it?

Is the process used by Duncan beyond your ability to comprehend?

Notice the distorting effect your work had on Doorman's right ear. Are you also claiming that that is how his ear actually looked? I will attach the normal view of Doorman so that people can compare.

And notice that Doorman's distinctive right collar- which, by the way, ties him inextricably to Oswald- is completely obliterated in your picture. You figured you would take care of that little problem too at the same time, eh?

Right...Whackjob alert

Hey, I know! Why don't you blow it up 3x bigger, and then we won't be able to make out Doorman at all, and you can say he wasn't even there?

This is supposed to be the Education Forum, and you are mocking the word "educated."

No the one mocking "educated" is Ralph and Jim. Why don't you offer us some quality testing to prove your points instead of your hand waving. That would be a step in the right direction for your work to become educational instead of a hand waving fantasy.

Oh wait that would require you to actually understand the subject matter and the technical processes involved. We all now know you don't. Never mind. Its above your head.

[Craig Lamson]

Excellent response to obvious evidence. That Lamson persists in this charade demonstrates conclusively, in my

opinion, that he has no interest in truth but only in diversion from making progress on the simplest possible

proof that the government has been lying to the American people about the death of our 35th president.

Interestingly that photo above PROVES the pocket was open and it is not a flap. You claim that your "observation" is sufficient in this matter. Then how could you have missed the GLARING indication that this is in fact just an open pocket that perfectly matches what we see in ALL the photo?

How in the world could Jim Fetzer have failed so miserably?

Is it because his "powers of observation" are non existent?

[Pat Speer]

Excellent response to obvious evidence. That Lamson persists in this charade demonstrates conclusively, in my

opinion, that he has no interest in truth but only in diversion from making progress on the simplest possible

proof that the government has been lying to the American people about the death of our 35th president.

Interestingly that photo above PROVES the pocket was open and it is not a flap. You claim that your "observation" is sufficient in this matter. Then how could you have missed the GLARING indication that this is in fact just an open pocket that perfectly matches what we see in ALL the photo?

How in the world could Jim Fetzer have failed so miserably?

Is it because his "powers of observation" are non existent?

James has a point, Craig. When one looks at the shape outlined in his rectangle, one can make out what appears to be a pocket with a flap. Seeing as the dimensions of this "pocket" are huge, and cover the entire left side of the shirt, however, I suspect this is just an illusion. Perhaps you can post your illustration of the "open" pocket you see next to James' image, so people can better judge which "pocket" looks more like a pocket.

[Craig Lamson]

Excellent response to obvious evidence. That Lamson persists in this charade demonstrates conclusively, in my

opinion, that he has no interest in truth but only in diversion from making progress on the simplest possible

proof that the government has been lying to the American people about the death of our 35th president.

Interestingly that photo above PROVES the pocket was open and it is not a flap. You claim that your "observation" is sufficient in this matter. Then how could you have missed the GLARING indication that this is in fact just an open pocket that perfectly matches what we see in ALL the photo?

How in the world could Jim Fetzer have failed so miserably?

Is it because his "powers of observation" are non existent?

James has a point, Craig. When one looks at the shape outlined in his rectangle, one can make out what appears to be a pocket with a flap. Seeing as the dimensions of this "pocket" are huge, and cover the entire left side of the shirt, however, I suspect this is just an illusion. Perhaps you can post your illustration of the "open" pocket you see next to James' image, so people can better judge which "pocket" looks more like a pocket.

Give it a bit and I'll go it one better. Still awaiting Fetzer and company and their "proofs"