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

[Bernice Moore]

Thank you Robin, very well done.......b

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque replies to Lamson #603:

There was nothing in my statement that contradicts them being, essentially, the same.

"one was a dark space" "other was a light space"

ROFLMAO! Even when your own word prove you wrong you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

However, I won't deny that there is a tendency to think that A is darker than B. But there’s a reason for it, Lamson. The reason is that A is surrounded by light boxes on three sides, which makes it look relatively dark, while B is surrounded by dark boxes on four sides, which makes it look relatively light. So, it’s the DISTRACTING INFLUENCES that tend to obscure the reality. If you remove the distracting influences, then the reality can be seen plainly, as you can see in the collage below.

Thanks to GOOGLE, ralphie does the backstroke. However trying to do the backstroke AFTER to screw up only makes it worse for you ralph...

And we can do the same with Lovelady, putting him side by side with himself before and after his weight loss. And again it’s easy to see the reality of the situation. He definitely looks like he lost weight and quite a lot.

Now, if you are going to argue that there are distracting influences present in the Lovelady collage, what are they?

The one you still don't understand ralphie...photographic perspective. Your so called weight estimation is based on information that is SKEWED by photographic distraction. Maybe another google is in order? ROFLMAO!

But, while we have the collage displayed here, let’s compare them further.

Lets not. You have been shown wrong on these over and over. It will be no different this time. Your "vision" and ability to "see " have been proven to be not trustworthy.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph to Everyone:

Now let’s compare Doorman to another known picture of Lovelady. This time we are comparing images that were supposedly taken within several seconds of each other.

The first thing we notice is that Doorman’s t-shirt is much more exposed than Lovelady’s. Lovelady’s exposure looks on par with what we observe in the image from the Dallas PD, but it is much less than on Doorman.

Next, the gaping quality of the right side of Doorman’s shirt-where it’s billowing like a sail-is completely missing from Lovelady. Now, I realized that Lovelady is shrouded in darkness some on his right side. However, it is still true that the overall impression that we get is that his shirt is NOT billowing like Doorman’s.

When we compare the t-shirts, we see that Doorman’s is v-shaped whereas Lovelady’s is round and it reaches high on his neck. The whole v-shaped blackness that we see on Doorman is completely missing from Lovelady. Note again that this is supposed to be within seconds; some say 2 or 3 seconds, of each other, although I think it was longer than that. Still, we are talking about a very short time interval, so you cannot argue that the sun moved and changed the “angle of incidence.”

Regarding the hairlines, we certainly get the impression that Lovelady is balder than Doorman, just as he was balder than Oswald. I realize that it’s rather obscure, but nevertheless, that is the impression that we get.

But, here is a very big difference: Doorman looks narrow in the face compared to Lovelady. Glance back and forth rapidly between the two, and you will definitely get the sense that Doorman is more slender in the face. Lovelady’s face is shorter and more block-like. Doorman’s face looks more tapered and delicate.

Finally, Lovelady looks thicker in the chest than Doorman. He has that barrel-chested look. He looks heavier overall, and his outer shirt fits more snugly because of it.

I realize that we are dealing with some vague images here, but still, there are no compelling reasons to think that these two individuals are the same man- unless it is something you WANT to believe-which is not a valid reason to believe it.

Edited February 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Ray Mitcham]

I realize that we are dealing with some vague images here, but still, there are no compelling reasons to think that these two individuals are NOT the same man- unless it is something you WANT to believe-which is not a valid reason to believe it.

Fixed.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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?

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

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.

Edited February 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

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.

[Greg Burnham]

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.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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.

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.

[Greg Burnham]

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.

...

Edited February 18, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, if you were a blind man, that line might make some sense. My belief at this point is that you originally thought

we were talking about the man in the doorway, when I first asserted that the Altgens had OBVIOUSLY been altered.

You denied that the evidence was sufficient, when ANYONE CAN SEE THAT IT HAS BEEN ALTERED. What you

are saying now is completely indefensible. Plus, as Ralph has just written to me, the other side is just as adamant:

Are you going to deny the circled face has been obliterated? WHERE IS IT? Someone had to have been there who

should not have been there. 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, because otherwise it would have given the

game away? Isn't that completely obvious? This isn't rocket science, Monk. Are you denying the face is missing?

Ralph on Burnham:

Jim, his whole argument is nothing but a red herring. It's not as though the other side is saying that Doorman MAY be Lovelady but they're not sure. There are adamant that he was Lovelady, and they get incensed at the very idea that anyone would question it or even broach the subject. He is demanding that we equivocate on the basis of some kind of philosophical principle of uncertainty. But, you could bring that up during any discussion, and really it is just a form of evasion and distraction. Burnham isn't discussing the issues, and he doesn't want to discuss the issues. We have good cause to say that the Doorman was Oswald, and that is with respect for the human capacity to be certain of anything, and recognizing that- except for tautologies and mathematical constructs- certainty is a relative concept.

But perhaps some graphic imagery would better depict the degree of certainty that I am talking about: If God were to come down to Earth to settle a bet between me and, say, Lamson, with me claiming that Doorman was Oswald, and Lamson saying he was Lovelady, and where the loser was to be struck and killed by lightening immediately while the winner got 72 virgins, I'd take the bet. Seriously, I would.

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.

...

Edited February 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

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.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Scott Kaiser]

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.

Greg, you have a very smart women, Orlando Bosch was a well known figure in Miami, a very respected individual within the Cuban Community, for years people have been arguing the fact about the dark complected man sitting next to the umbrella man, thinking it was Orlando Bosch, I showed the photos to Orlando's closest and personal friends, they laughed at me too, the photos are to blurry and inconclusive I was told. I thought to myself, why would I want to try and make a mountain out of a molehill? There is absolutely no reason for these friends of mine to lie to me, in fact, those who were bias would be more blunt, its really hard to pick people out of those photos taken in 1963. Technology back then was not as sophisticated as it is today.

As far as I know they could have been another spectator trying to find a good spot to see the presidents car as he was passing by the TSBD, now I'm not saying what I'm saying for you or anyone else beleive its not Oswald or Lovelady, but unless there is "better proof" its one of them, this information or method should never be used to positively identify and sentence someone to life, this is whats wrong with our Justice system today, and so many people get falsely accused.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

But!!! FWIW.... I think it was a great presentation by James H. Fetzer, and a good argument, not one I would convict someone to <Just saying>.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Her answers were appropriate for your questions, but you did not ask her the same questions I have asked you.. Show her these images

in the posts I have directed to you. Ask her if she can see the face in the area I have circled or whether it is missing. Ask her if she can

see the areas labeled "A" and "B" and what they are covering. OK? The answers to your questions are not also answers to my questions.

Ask, "Julie, Jim says that the circled area has a face that has been obliterated and that that's what he's talking about. And that, in the

photo below, the face is area "B" and the shirt area "A". Do you agree or disagree with him that the face and the shirt were obliterated?"

This question has nothing to do with the identity of the man in the doorway. It has to do with whether the images to his right/front have

been altered. That you would misdirect her attention and refashion the question when I have been so explicit simply dumbfounds me. I

am stunning that you would perpetrate a fraud on YOUR OWN WIFE. I expect things like this from Lamson, but not from Greg Burnham.

I have shown the circled image and "B" and "A" to my wife and daughter, which neither of them had any difficulty seeing were obfuscated.

The difference is that I showed them the right images and explained the issue. I did not attempt to distract either of them about the man

in the doorway. This is not about THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY. This is about THE OBFUSCATION OF THE ALGENS PHOTOGRAPH.

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.

Edited February 19, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

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."

ROFLMAO!

As you know I don't ... well... lets just say we tend to disagree. This however is simply priceless!

Thank so much for the grins.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Craig Lamson