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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson has a demonstrated incapacity to respond to evidence. Ralph has many photographs of men standing in shadows, none of which obfuscates the neck of their tee shirts. Oswald did not have a vee-neck as such but rather the habit of pulling at his shirt, which anyone can see in the photograph included in the first post that initiated this thread, which, of course, he simply ignores.

The evidence that makes this question objective rather than subjective include their gross differences in physical build, the difference in their shirt necks (which I have already explained: in no photo of Lovelady do we find tugging or a vee-neck); the difference in their shirt patterns; and oddities about the pocket flaps. Did I mention the insert line and jaw anomalies from post #132?

1. Lovelady is MUCH stockier than both Oswald and Doorway Man.

Oswald was 5'9. Some reports have had him at 5'9 1/2". He weighed 128

to 130 pounds. So, he was quite slim. Lovelady was 5'8" and weighed

170 pounds. So, he was much stockier. And we can see that difference

in this collage. Lovelady looks like the Incredible Hulk compared to

Doorman. His arm is thick and beefy, while Doorman's is scrawny.

2. Doorman's t-shirt is notched, v-shaped, whereas in every,

single picture of Lovelady that we have, including this one, he is

wearing a round-neck t-shirt.

3. The shirt patterns don't match. You have to understand that

this isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. Close doesn't count. They are

either exactly the same, or they are different patterns. And in this

case, they are different patterns. Look at the cuffs. Doorman has two

white lines on the cuff, one at the top margin and the other at the

bottom margin. Lovelady has one white line running down the middle of

the cuff, with no white lines at the margins. This photo particular

image of Doorman is the famous "Marsh" photo, which the Lancer people

think is the best. But, it is too dark because it was a very day, and

there is no way that image reflects the existing light conditions.

But, when we try it again using the lighter, more familiar image of

Doorman, and there is no match at all. The only thing you can say

about the two patterns is that they are both "varied." They are

certainly not identical. So, take your pick; you lose either way.

We have produced proof that the photo is faked, where even Robin Unger complained that, when he obtained an expensive print of this photo, it was unclear in the doorway area. Any reasonable person would infer that that is because it has been altered, but not Pat Speer, who is out in a wonderland of his own devising. Here is another brilliant post from a contributor to Veterans Today:

Of course the real problem is you have not proven a thing. Heck you can't even deal honestly with simple objection that you have not proven a "v-neck" tee shirt.

True to FETZERING form, you bring us yet another wannabe in Dr. Ralph who's argument RESTS on his completely subjective judgement of what he THINKS he sees in a photograph. Shades of your last wannabe, Jack White!

So lets see your simple proof to answer this simple question...

HOW HAVE YOU PROVEN THE TEE SHIRT OF DOORWAY MAN IS IN FACT A V-NECK?

Edited February 1, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Bernice Moore]

There is another older thread on CE 900 here that some may be interested in, ta b....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8321

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson has a demonstrated incapacity to respond to evidence. Ralph has many photographs of men standing in shadows, none of which obfuscates the neck of their tee shirts. Oswald did not have a vee-neck as such but rather the habit of pulling at his shirt, which anyone can see in the photograph included in the first post that initiated this thread, which, of course, he simply ignores.

The FETZERING continues.

WHEN you provide actual evidence, I will be happy to respond to it.

Which brings us to the question you STILL can't answer...

HOW HAVE YOU PROVEN THE TEE SHIRT OF DOORWAY MAN IS IN FACT A V-NECK?

So Jim, bring us some HARD evidence, and not just Ralph's CONCLUSION. Clearly you must have done some measurements, testing or SOMETHING to confirm your specious cliam. Surely you don't expect the world to just take your word for it?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson has a demonstrated incapacity to respond to evidence. Ralph has many photographs of men standing in shadows, none of which obfuscates the neck of their tee shirts. Oswald did not have a vee-neck as such but rather the habit of pulling at his shirt, which anyone can see in the photograph included in the first post that initiated this thread, which, of course, he simply ignores.

The FETZERING continues.

WHEN you provide actual evidence, I will be happy to respond to it.

Which brings us to the question you STILL can't answer...

HOW HAVE YOU PROVEN THE TEE SHIRT OF DOORWAY MAN IS IN FACT A V-NECK?

So Jim, bring us some HARD evidence, and not just Ralph's CONCLUSION. Clearly you must have done some measurements, testing or SOMETHING to confirm your specious cliam. Surely you don't expect the world to just take your word for it?

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson has a demonstrated incapacity to respond to evidence. Ralph has many photographs of men standing in shadows, none of which obfuscates the neck of their tee shirts. Oswald did not have a vee-neck as such but rather the habit of pulling at his shirt, which anyone can see in the photograph included in the first post that initiated this thread, which, of course, he simply ignores.

The FETZERING continues.

WHEN you provide actual evidence, I will be happy to respond to it.

Which brings us to the question you STILL can't answer...

HOW HAVE YOU PROVEN THE TEE SHIRT OF DOORWAY MAN IS IN FACT A V-NECK?

So Jim, bring us some HARD evidence, and not just Ralph's CONCLUSION. Clearly you must have done some measurements, testing or SOMETHING to confirm your specious cliam. Surely you don't expect the world to just take your word for it?

WOW, talk about desperate! You are asked for some hard evidence that doorway man is seen in a v-neck shirt and you post a photo of Oswald.

You have sunk to a complete new low Jim, and I did not think that was humanly possible.

You just destroyed your own case....

Lets review...

You claim the t-shirt seen in doorway man is like the short we see Oswald wearing in the photo you posted.

So tell us Jim, why is the skin of Oswald's neck nearly BLACK in the the section you say is the V neck in Altgens?

Edited February 1, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David Lifton]

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

Dupe post deleted.

Edited February 1, 2012 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

I want to share with those on this forum a new development re my own analysis regarding Billy Lovelady –specifically, this post concerns the plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing when (in 1976) he posed for Robert Groden, who then published that picture in his book. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

I no longer believe that Lovelady, in posing for Groden, wore the same plaid shirt he wore on the day of JFK’s assassination.

Let’s back up a moment:

At issue (for me, anyway) was whether the shirt Lovelady wore (on 11/22/63) was a proper criterion for establishing whether he (Lovelady) was the man in the TSBD doorway.

I believe it is, and believe that to this day. Nonetheless, I now believe that, in 1976, Lovelady was deceptive with Groden, and that the plaid shirt he wore for Groden, was not the same plaid shirt he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he stood in the TSBD doorway; and that’s what this post is all about.

Before proceeding further, I should note that Lovelady, while deceptive some of the time, was not deceptive all of the time. Specifically: when Lovelady testified in his Warren Commission deposition, he told the truth. He said he was standing on the top step of the TSBD entrance, and identified himself in the Altgens photograph, drawing in an arrow, pointing to the image. This exhibit—of the Altgens photograph, with the arrow pointing to Lovelady—became Warren Commission Exhibit 369 (and is published in Volume 16, of the 26 Volumes).

So: I believe that, when under oath, he told the truth.

But Billy Lovelady did not always tell the truth, and that is the problem.

So let me recap, and focus on the issue at hand: whether Lovelady was honest when he was interviewed by Groden in 1976, or –for whatever reason—was deceptive. And just how far back this pattern of deception goes.

In short, the issue at hand is whether Lovelady was “playing with a full deck” (as the saying goes), and if not, why not.

THE LOVELADY ISSUE—A BRIEF RECAP

For years, I have believed Lovelady was the man in the dooway—ever since (back around 1972/73, when I was working as the researcher on the film Executive Action)—I came across newsreel footage showing Oswald being marched into the DPD at 2:02ish, and there was Lovelady, seated right there. I made 35mm slides of that footage, showed it to Groden, brought it to the attention of the HSCA (in 1976) , etc. Duncan posted a frame from that (or similar) footage, and (as far as I was concerned) that always resolved the matter.

The HSCA did further studies of this, and that study appears in Vol 6 of the HSCA’s appendix volumes.

A side story of this whole affair has been the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and just why it was, when the matter was first investigated by the FBI, back in December, 1963, Lovelady appeared in an entirely different shirt, one with vertical red and white stripes.

Just how did that happen? After all, didn’t the FBI know the shirt was an issue? (Or, for some reason, was Lovelady attempting to call attention away from himself, by leading people to believe he was not standing in the doorway?)

When Robert Groden published his first book, he interviewed Lovelady, and implored him to wear the shirt he had worn back in 1963. Lovelady then retrieved that shirt, and posed for Groden, wearing it. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

At first glance, the shirts do look identical.

But they are not.

Lovelady, to put it mildly, was not being straight with Groden.

What I am about to write does not affect my own conclusion about who was in the doorway, but it does shed light on the psychology and integrity of the late Billy Lovelady (and just why there is such a confusing record on this issue of just what shirt he was wearing).

LOVELADY (and his shirt) - - The 1976 Groden photo versus the (11/22/63) Martin Film

Putting the two pictures side by side—a frame from the Martin film, showing Lovelady, in front of the TSBD, just seconds (or minutes) after the shooting of JFK, and Lovelady posing for Groden, in 1976—its obvious that the two shirts are different.

The shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film has a large pocket, over the left breast area. (In the frames from the film footage taken at the TSBD, it would appear that Lovelady had a pack of cigarettes in that pocket). But. .. : the plaid shirt that Lovelady supposed “packed . . away for safekeeping” and wore for Groden (in 1976) has no pocket. (See attached graphic. Make sure to click on it, to see the enlarged version.)

Furthermore, if you compare the striped pattern, they are obviously different. Yes, both are plaid shirts, so they are certainly similar. But the vertical stripes in the shirt worn in the Martin film are distinctly different from the vertical stripes in the 1976 photo. Also, the shirt Lovelady was wearing has a distinctly visible pocket in the left breast area—whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden in 1976 has no such pocket. (See attached graphic. Make sure to click on it, to see it when enlarged. The differences are obvious.).

Well then, what does this all mean?

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

Here are my own observations and beliefs, and I’m sure others will have theirs:

(1) Billy Lovelady was deceptive when he was interviewed by Groden, in 1976. He produced a shirt which, while similar, was not the same shirt as he was wearing on November 22, 1963.

(2) If you go back to some of the other posts on this thread, you will find the following information:

(a) The issue goes back to December, 1963, when someone (in the FBI) noticed the similarity of Lovelady to Oswald

(b ) At that time, New York resident (and one of the earliest JFK researchers, Jones Harris) also noticed it. Harris had the time and the money to make flights to Dallas, and met with Lovelady.

( c) What did Lovelady do? He misled Jones Harris—telling Harris he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. (In effect: No, the man in the doorway was not me.)

(d) Then, Lovelady, when asked to pose for the FBI (with whom Jones Harris was in touch), posed in the wrong shirt—i.e., a shirt with vertical stripes.

(e) –footnoe to “d” above: Gary Mack informs me that, when he –Gary—interviewed Lovelady many years ago, Lovelady said that the reason he wore that shirt was that the FBI told him it didn’t matter. They just wanted to photograph him, as a person.) Needless to say, in view of what Lovelady told Jones Harris, and the manner in which he behaved with Groden (in 1976) I don’t believe Lovelady—who I now realize was, from the outset, being deceptive. And the reason for all the deception now has become obvious: Lovelady wanted to distance himself from the image of the man in the doorway.

(f ) A small insight to the psychology of Lovelady (and his wife): Lovelady’s wife, interviewed by the media, claimed that their house was broken into on any number of occasions, no matter where they moved, by people looking for the shirt. For what its worth (“FWIW”, in internet lingo), I don’t believe her. That’s just an absurd story—and, as far as I know, there are no police reports of any break-ins of the Lovelady home, because of unknown robbers seeking the shirt. But what I do believe this shows is that the Loveladys—as a couple—were spooked by the attention Billy Lovelady was getting, and apparently tried to escape from it, by either getting rid of the shirt, and/or misleading Jones Harris, and/or not posing in the proper shirt for the FBI, back in 1963/64.

(g) So. . what happened next? Well, back to the saying: “Oh what a web we weave. . when we set out to deceive.” What has happened, as a consequence of all this foolishness, probably the result of needless paranoia and deception, is that the record has been needlessly distorted and complicated.

First of all, there are today numerous folks who, today, honestly believe (because of the initial false reports) that there is truth to what they believe is Lovelady’s “original” story—i.e., that, when he was standing in the TSBD doorway on 11/22, he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes. That’s just rubbish. But I can assure you that I am probably not the only one who (decades ago) spent good money chasing this piece of wild goose, ordering high quality prints of the Altgeos photo from the AP, peering at it under a magnifying glass, etc etc. –and why? All because Lovelady initially said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt, and then posed for the FBI in just such garb.

Second: there are numerous folks who, analyzing the picture of Lovelady’s shirt as shown in the newsreel frames taken on 11/22/63) when Oswald was marched into the DPD, at 2:02ish PM) now notice discrepancies between that shirt, and the shirt he was wearing in the Martin film, and posit theories of alteration, all of which are (imho) totally irrelevant.

Anyway, here are my own tentative conclusions:

(a) From early December, 1963, at the very least, Billy Lovelady was spooked by the resemblance between himself and Oswald, and the attention it brought.

(b ) Lovelady lied to Jones Harris about the shirt he was wearing—saying it had vertical stripes. It did not.

(c ) Lovelady then wore the same shirt, with the vertical stripes, when he was interviewed by the FBI –thus leading a generation of JFK researchers on a wild goose chase.

(d ) When (in 1972/73) I found the newsreel footage showing Lovelady in the plaid shirt, and showed slides of it to Groden, he then pursued the matter.

(e) When the HSCA was created in 1976, and Groden contacted Lovelady, who now had to come up with a plaid shirt to wear, even though (a) he had probably gotten rid of that original plaid shirt years before and (b ) even though he had—some 12-13 years earlier—posed for the FBI in a striped shirt. Probably he (and/or his wife, the one who talked of their home constantly being broken into by people looking for “the shirt”, and who said the shirt he was wearing that day had been purchased at a flea market) found a similar plaid shirt.

(f) Lovelady—who probably dearly wanted nothing more but for the issue to “go away”—then posed for Groden in his “replacement” plaid shirt. Indeed, he not only posed for Groden in the shirt, he told him—and Groden believed him—that, with regard to the shirt, “he had packed it away from safekeeping. . . and put it on (for me) for the first time in years.” Yeah, sure.

(I have to wonder whether or not Groden paid money to Lovelady, for the favor of him posing, or whether Lovelady did it for free, hoping that Groden publishing such a photograph would increase the value of the “replacement” shirt, which he thought he might pawn off on some soul as “the original.” Who knows.)

Grand Conclusion: Billy Lovelady repeatedly (but not always) lied about the shirt he wore that day. Let’s recap:

First, back in 1963, he lied to Jones Harris, one of history’s “first responders” to this critical issue. He lied to Harris, telling him he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. This encouraged Harris to believe that Lovelady was not in the doorway; ergo, it had to be Oswald. Harris was in touch with the FBI, and with reporter Dom Bonaede of the New York Herald Tribune. I have no doubt that Lovelady’s evasions and falsehoods clouded the record.

Second: back in 1963/64, when interviewed by the FBI, he posed in the “wrong shirt”, but one which matched the lie he told to Jones Harris. If memory serves, he also lied to the FBI about the shirt he wore. (And who knows if, at higher levels of the FBI, this led to confusion as to just who was standing in the doorway. After all [so the reasoning would be] if Lovelady was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, then who else could the man in the doorway be, other than Oswald?)

Third: in his Warren Commission deposition, Lovelady told the truth. He stopped playing games, and identified himself as the person in the doorway (circling himself as the man in the doorway, in cropped enlargement of the Altgens photo—Commission Exhibit 369).

Fourth: Now returning to the game playing mode. . . :Lovelady, in 1976, lied to Robert Groden, retrieving a shirt similar to—but not identical with – the shirt he had worn on 11/22/63. He then posed wearing that shirt (with the plaid pattern, but no pocket) for Groden, who then published the picture in his book, apparently not noting that the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film had a large pocket, whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden did not. Groden—and everyone else, including me—failed to notice that the plaid pattern of the two shirts, while similar, were clearly not the same. What I shall call here the “Groden shirt” and the “Martin film shirt” are clearly different.

As noted above, Groden –believing he had a reportorial “first,” captioned the picture: ““I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

WHERE WE STAND NOW:

Billy Lovelady died years ago, and I don’t wish to demean the dead—but he the fact is that he has left behind a trail of deceptive behavior which has confused the record as to the identity of the man in the doorway.

Because obviously, once you start entertaining the notion that Lovelady was telling the truth (when he told his “striped shirt” story) the odds go way up that the man in the doorway was Oswald. But Lovelady only complicated matters by attempting to distance himself from the issue by lying about the shirt he was wearing; and then by posing for Groden in a plaid shirt that was similar to (but certainly not identical with) the one he was wearing on November 22, 1963.

I go back to my original position: both the Martin film (of Lovelady standing outside the TSBD, minutes later) and the newsreel footage taken on 11/22/63 (showing Oswald being marched into the DPD a few minutes after 2 p.m., and which also shows Lovelady) makes one thing very clear: Lovelady, wearing the plaid shirt shown in the Martin film, was the man in the doorway. All JFK researchers would be advised to toss aside the picture published in Groden’s book, showing Lovelady in a plaid shirt. That picture, and the way he behaved with Groden, says a lot about Lovelady’s psychology. But it only confuses the record and tells us little about the identity of the man in the doorway.

The man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady.

The Martin film and the DPD newsreel footage, showing him that same shirt, is the best evidence for that.

DSL

1/31/12; 9:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

P.S.: In viewing the photo exhibit below, make sure to click on the image, so you can see the enlarged version (and read the caption that I wrote). That is important to see how clear it is that these are two entirely different (albeit similar) shirts. The vertical stripes in the Martin photo are black; in the 1976 "Groden photo," they are white. Furthermore, the "similarity" cannot be accidental. Clearly, Lovelady was trying to "put one over" on Groden--and (unfortunately) he succeeded. DSL

Edited February 1, 2012 by David Lifton

[Josiah Thompson]

Multiple kudos, David. This is a wonderfully complete piece of research that I hope will be kept as pretty much the last word on Billy Lovelady and his shirt. Really well done!!

JT

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

I want to share with those on this forum a new development re my own analysis regarding Billy Lovelady –specifically, this post concerns the plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing when (in 1976) he posed for Robert Groden, who then published that picture in his book. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

I no longer believe that Lovelady, in posing for Groden, wore the same plaid shirt he wore on the day of JFK’s assassination, and that's what this post is all about--not whether Lovelady was the man in the doorway (I still believe he was) but whether he has been honest in posing for pictures with the shirt he was wearing; or whether, on occasion, he had engaged in deception--and just why.

Let’s back up a moment:

At issue (for me, anyway) was whether the shirt Lovelady wore (on 11/22/63) was a proper criterion for establishing whether he (Lovelady) was the man in the TSBD doorway.

I believe it is, and believe that to this day. Nonetheless, I now believe that, in 1976, Lovelady was deceptive with Groden, and that the plaid shirt he wore for Groden, was not the same plaid shirt he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he stood in the TSBD doorway; and that’s what this post is all about.

Before proceeding further, I should note that Lovelady, while deceptive some of the time, was not deceptive all of the time. Specifically: when Lovelady testified in his Warren Commission deposition, he told the truth. He said he was standing on the top step of the TSBD entrance, and identified himself in the Altgens photograph, drawing in an arrow, pointing to the image. This exhibit—of the Altgens photograph, with the arrow pointing to Lovelady—became Warren Commission Exhibit 369 (and is published in Volume 16, of the 26 Volumes).

So: I believe that, when under oath, he told the truth.

But Billy Lovelady did not always tell the truth, and that is the problem.

So let me recap, and focus on the issue at hand: whether Lovelady was honest when he was interviewed by Groden in 1976, or –for whatever reason—was deceptive. And just how far back this pattern of deception goes.

In short, the issue at hand is whether Lovelady was “playing with a full deck” (as the saying goes), and if not, why not.

IMHO: Lovelady has lied on occasion (as to the shirt he was wearing), this pattern began back in December, 1963, and, as a consequence, he has needlessly confused the record.

THE LOVELADY ISSUE—A BRIEF RECAP

For years, I have believed Lovelady was the man in the dooway—ever since (back around 1972/73, when I was working as the researcher on the film Executive Action)—I came across newsreel footage showing Oswald being marched into the DPD at 2:02ish, and there was Lovelady, seated right there. I made 35mm slides of that footage, showed it to Groden, brought it to the attention of the HSCA (in 1976) , etc. Duncan posted a frame from that (or similar) footage, and (as far as I was concerned) that always resolved the matter.

The HSCA did further studies of this, and that study appears in Vol 6 of the HSCA’s appendix volumes.

A side story of this whole affair has been the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and just why it was, when the matter was first investigated by the FBI, back in December, 1963, Lovelady appeared in an entirely different shirt, one with vertical red and white stripes.

Just how did that happen? After all, didn’t the FBI know the shirt was an issue? (Or, for some reason, was Lovelady attempting to call attention away from himself, by leading people to believe he was not standing in the doorway?)

When Robert Groden published his first book, he interviewed Lovelady, and implored him to wear the shirt he had worn back in 1963. Lovelady then retrieved that shirt, and posed for Groden, wearing it. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

At first glance, the shirts do look identical.

But they are not.

Lovelady, to put it mildly, was not being straight with Groden.

What I am about to write does not affect my own conclusion about who was in the doorway, but it does shed light on the psychology and integrity of the late Billy Lovelady (and just why there is such a confusing record on this issue of just what shirt he was wearing).

LOVELADY - - The 1976 Groden photo versus the Martin Film

Putting the two pictures side by side—a frame from the Martin film, showing Lovelady, in front of the TSBD, just seconds (or minutes) after the shooting of JFK, and Lovelady posing for Groden, in 1976—its obvious that the two shirts are different.

The shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film has a large pocket, over the left breast area. (In the frames from the film footage taken at the TSBD, it would appear that Lovelady had a pack of cigarettes in that pocket). But. .. : the plaid shirt that Lovelady supposed “packed . . away for safekeeping” and wore for Groden (in 1976) has no pocket.

Furthermore, if you compare the striped pattern, they are obviously different. Yes, both are plaid shirts, so they are certainly similar. But the vertical stripes in the shirt worn in the Martin film are distinctly different from the vertical stripes in the 1976 photo. Also, the shirt Lovelady was wearing has a distinctly visible pocket in the left breast area—whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden in 1976 has no such pocket. (See attached

Well then, what does this all mean?

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

Here are my own observations and beliefs, and I’m sure others will have theirs:

(1) Billy Lovelady was deceptive when he was interviewed by Groden, in 1976. He produced a shirt which, while similar, was not the same shirt as he was wearing on November 22, 1963.

(2) If you go back to some of the other posts on this thread, you will find the following information:

(a) The issue goes back to December, 1963, when someone (in the FBI) noticed the similarity of Lovelady to Oswald

(b ) At that time, New York resident (and one of the earliest JFK researchers, Jones Harris) also noticed it. Harris had the time (and the money) to make flights to Dallas, and met with Lovelady. He also was in touch with reporter Dom Bonafede of the New York Herald Tribune.

( c) What did Lovelady do? He misled Jones Harris—telling Harris he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. (In effect: "Hell no, the man in the doorway was not me. You see, I was wearing an entirely different shirt.")

(d) Then, Lovelady, when asked to pose for the FBI (with whom Jones Harris was in touch), posed in the wrong shirt—i.e., a shirt with vertical stripes.

(e) –footnoe to “d” above: Gary Mack informs me that, when he –Gary—interviewed Lovelady many years ago, Lovelady said that the reason he wore that shirt was that the FBI told him it didn’t matter. They just wanted to photograph him, as a person.) Needless to say, in view of what Lovelady told Jones Harris, and the manner in which he behaved with Groden (in 1976) I don’t believe that anymore; I now realize what this pattern of evidence really means: that Lovelady was, from the outset, being deceptive. And the reason for all the deception now has become clear: Lovelady, from the outset, wanted to distance himself from the image of the man in the doorway.

(f ) A small insight to the psychology of Lovelady (and his wife): Lovelady’s wife, interviewed by the media, claimed that their house was broken into on any number of occasions, no matter where they moved, by people looking for the shirt. For what its worth (“FWIW”, in internet lingo), I don’t believe her. That’s just an absurd story—and, as far as I know, there are no police reports of any break-ins of the Lovelady home, because of unknown robbers seeking the shirt. But what I do believe this shows is that the Loveladys—as a couple—were spooked by the attention Billy Lovelady was getting, and apparently tried to escape from it, by either getting rid of the shirt, and/or misleading Jones Harris, and/or not posing in the proper shirt for the FBI, back in 1963/64.

(g) So. . what happened next? Well, back to the saying: “Oh what a web we weave. . when we set out to deceive.” What has happened, as a consequence of all this foolishness, probably the result of needless paranoia and deception, is that the record has been needlessly distorted and complicated.

First of all, there are today numerous folks who, today, honestly believe (because of the initial false reports) that there is truth to what they believe is Lovelady’s “original” story—i.e., that, when he was standing in the TSBD doorway on 11/22, he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes. That’s just rubbish. But I can assure you that I am probably not the only one who (decades ago) spent good money chasing this piece of wild goose, ordering high quality prints of the Altgeos photo from the AP, peering at it under a magnifying glass, etc etc. –and why? All because Lovelady initially said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt, and then posed for the FBI in just such garb.

Second: there are numerous folks who, analyzing the picture of Lovelady’s shirt as shown in the newsreel frames taken on 11/22/63) when Oswald was marched into the DPD, at 2:02ish PM) now notice discrepancies between that shirt, and the shirt he was wearing in the Martin film, and posit theories of alteration, all of which are (imho) totally irrelevant.

Anyway, here are my own tentative conclusions:

(a) From early December, 1963, at the very least, Billy Lovelady was spooked by the resemblance between himself and Oswald, and the attention it brought.

(b ) Lovelady lied to Jones Harris about the shirt he was wearing—saying it had vertical stripes. It did not.

(c ) Lovelady then wore the same shirt, with the vertical stripes, when he was interviewed by the FBI –thus leading a generation of JFK researchers on a wild goose chase.

(d ) When (in 1972/73) I found the newsreel footage showing Lovelady in the plaid shirt, and showed slides of it to Groden, he then pursued the matter.

(e) When the HSCA was created in 1976, and Groden contacted Lovelady, who now had to come up with a plaid shirt to wear, even though (a) he had probably gotten rid of that original plaid shirt years before and (b ) even though he had—some 12-13 years earlier—posed for the FBI in a striped shirt. Probably he (and/or his wife, the one who talked of their home constantly being broken into by people looking for “the shirt”, and who said the shirt he was wearing that day had been purchased at a flea market) found a similar plaid shirt.

(f) Lovelady—who probably dearly wanted nothing more but for the issue to “go away”—then posed for Groden in his “replacement” plaid shirt. Indeed, he not only posed for Groden in the shirt, he told him—and Groden believed him—that, with regard to the shirt, “he had packed it away from safekeeping. . . and put it on (for me) for the first time in years.” Yeah, sure.

(I have to wonder whether or not Groden paid money to Lovelady, for the favor of him posing, or whether Lovelady did it for free, hoping that Groden publishing such a photograph would increase the value of the “replacement” shirt, which he thought he might pawn off on some soul as “the original.” Who knows.)

Grand Conclusion: Billy Lovelady repeatedly (but not always) lied about the shirt he wore that day. Let’s recap:

First, back in 1963, he lied to Jones Harris, one history’s “first responders” to this critical issue. He lied to Harris, telling him he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. This encouraged Harris to believe that Lovelady was not in the doorway; ergo, it had to be Oswald. Harris was in touch with the FBI, and with reporter Dom Bonaede of the New York Herald Tribune. I have no doubt that Lovelady’s evasions and falsehoods clouded the record.

Second: back in 1963/64, when interviewed by the FBI, he posed in the “wrong shirt”, but one which matched the lie he told to Jones Harris. If memory serves, he also lied to the FBI about the shirt he wore. (And who knows if, at higher levels of the FBI, this led to confusion as to just who was standing in the doorway. After all [so the reasoning would be] if Lovelady was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, then who else could the man in the doorway be, other than Oswald?)

Third: in his Warren Commission deposition, Lovelady told the truth. He stopped playing games, and identified himself as the person in the doorway (circling himself as the man in the doorway, in cropped enlargement of the Altgens photo—Commission Exhibit 369).

Fourth: Now returning to the game playing mode. . . :Lovelady, in 1976, lied to Robert Groden, retrieving a shirt similar to—but not identical with – the shirt he had worn on 11/22/63. He then posed wearing that shirt (with the plaid pattern, but no pocket) for Groden, who then published the picture in his book, apparently not noting that the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film had a large pocket, whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden did not. Groden—and everyone else, including me—failed to notice that the plaid pattern of the two shirts, while similar, were clearly not the same. What I shall call here the “Groden shirt” and the “Martin film shirt” are clearly different.

As noted above, Groden –believing he had a journalistic scoop of sorts--captioned the picture: ““I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

WHERE WE STAND NOW:

Billy Lovelady died years ago, and I don’t wish to demean the dead—but he the fact is that he has left behind a trail of deceptive behavior which has confused the record as to the identity of the man in the doorway.

Because obviously, once you start entertaining the notion that Lovelady was telling the truth (when he told his “striped shirt” story) the odds go way up that the man in the doorway was Oswald. But Lovelady only complicated matters by attempting to distance himself from the issue by lying about the shirt he was wearing; and then by posing for Groden in a plaid shirt that was similar to (but certainly not identical with) the one he was wearing on November 22, 1963 (as clearly shown in the Martin film, or the DPD newsreel footage).

I go back to my original position: both the Martin film (of Lovelady standing outside the TSBD, minutes later) and the newsreel footage taken on 11/22/63 (showing Oswald being marched into the DPD a few minutes after 2 p.m., and which also shows Lovelady) makes one thing very clear: Lovelady, wearing the plaid shirt shown in the Martin film, was the man in the doorway. All JFK researchers would be advised to toss aside the picture published in Groden’s book, showing Lovelady in a plaid shirt. That picture, and the way he behaved with Groden, says a lot about Lovelady’s psychology. But it only confuses the record and tells us little about the identity of the man in the doorway.

The man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady.

The Martin film and the DPD newsreel footage, showing him that same shirt, is the best evidence for that.

DSL

1/31/12; 9:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[David Lifton]

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

# 145- - Ooops. .Sorry. This is a dupe. Deleted.

Edited February 1, 2012 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

Re #146- - ooops. Sorry. #146 is a dupe. Deleted.

Edited February 1, 2012 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

Ooops.Dupe post deleted. Sorry. See next post, # 148. DSL

Edited February 1, 2012 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

Re #148 . . Oops. Sorry, # 148 is a dupe. Deleted. DSL

Edited February 1, 2012 by David Lifton

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, this is all just fine as an historical retrospective, which is why Josiah applauds it. None of it appears

to have anything to do with the new evidence that we reported in our study, "JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in

the doorway, after all!" Not only do I see no indications that you have read it, but there is no evidence you

have even read #131, #132, #134, #135, and #137. Which leads me to ask, "Why are you even posting?"

This is quite ridiculous, David, and if you don't feel there's something strange about all of this--when you

are being lauded by Tink and challenged by me--then you may have lost your bearings in this case, which

I suppose should not surprise us. You make up your mind and then you never change it, as Ralph Cinque

pointed out in the first of those posts I have just cited. And here's more information from Veterans Today:

kdruckman

January 31, 2012 - 7:20 pm(Edit)

Your right bpete1969, I also cross referenced it with frames from the Weigman film. The distance would make

her appear “tiny”. Although the man in the fedora is not holding the baby, the woman is. Look at his forehead,

he is African-American, like everyone else in front of the monument. They are so close together, they look like

conjoined twins. Most people think he’s holding the baby, but this 1963 Texas, so we know they’re not a bi-

racial couple. I maybe wrong, but she and her baby look pasted over the gentleman in the fedora. Thanks.

Here's what Ralph Cinque had to say about you in his response on the email exchange, which I dare say

is exactly right. There's something about new comers who see things in a fresh light and, in this case, I

know that he nailed you to the wall. You really do need to get out of yourself now and then, my friend!

Is this an opportunity to post material from the book on Oswald that, I now infer, is not going to appear?

Ralph's response:

David, you're way too full of yourself. Nobody needs to hear you

philosophizing about the nature of belief systems. If I want a

Psychology lecture, I'll take a class. Otherwise, cram that stuff and

address only SUBSTANCE. I'm not wading through anybody's mental

masturbation. It's nut and bolts with me, and that's it!

Now, Jack Ruby MAY be the Fedora Man in the Altgens photo. We

don't know because we can't see his face. We know from Jim Douglass

that Ruby was spotted in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.

So, it may have been him. It does seem odd that that man would be

looking towards Doorway Man when the President was already shot. But,

we don't know if it was Ruby, and perhaps we'll never know. However,

it is NOT an implausible speculation.

Now, regarding Lovelady, here is that picture from the Dallas PD.

I presume it's the one you think establishes that he was Doorman. It

does not. And your pompous, authoritarian attitude about it only

irritates me.

Unfortunately, I cannot put that picture into a collage with

Doorway Man because it contains text. But, I have another one of

Lovelady from the Dallas PD wearing the same shirt, and that one I did

put in a collage.

So, let us consider the differences, side by side:

1. Lovelady is MUCH stockier than both Oswald and Doorway Man.

Oswald was 5'9. Some reports have had him at 5'9 1/2". He weighed 128

to 130 pounds. So, he was quite slim. Lovelady was 5'8" and weighed

170 pounds. So, he was much stockier. And we can see that difference

in this collage. Lovelady looks like the Incredible Hulk compared to

Doorman. His arm is thick and beefy, while Doorman's is scrawny.

2. Doorman's t-shirt is notched, v-shaped, whereas in every,

single picture of Lovelady that we have, including this one, he is

wearing a round-neck t-shirt.

3. The shirt patterns don't match. You have to understand that

this isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. Close doesn't count. They are

either exactly the same, or they are different patterns. And in this

case, they are different patterns. Look at the cuffs. Doorman has two

white lines on the cuff, one at the top margin and the other at the

bottom margin. Lovelady has one white line running down the middle of

the cuff, with no white lines at the margins. This photo particular

image of Doorman is the famous "Marsh" photo, which the Lancer people

think is the best. But, it is too dark because it was a very day, and

there is no way that image reflects the existing light conditions.

But, when we try it again using the lighter, more familiar image of

Doorman, and there is no match at all. The only thing you can say

about the two patterns is that they are both "varied." They are

certainly no identical. So, take your pick; you lose either way.

Finally, I want you to leave Doorman out of it for a moment and

just compare the two Lovelady pics. You will see that the first

Lovelady has a big pocket flap over his pocket on his shirt, and the

second one does not, and you can see the exposed pack of cigarettes.

What do you make of that, David? Same guy, same shirt, same day. Why

a flap and then no flap?

Do you see now why I say that there is no time for philosophizing?

We have work to do. We have material things to consider. So, stick to

the issues. Substance and evidence. No more mental musings. I am not

putting with that. Ralph

Where do you deal with the obvious alteration of the Altgens regarding

the face and shirt of the man to Doorway Man's left/front? Since the same

alteration can be found in newspaper photographs, the alteration has to

have taken place BEFORE it was sent out. You don't even acknowledge it.

Here's something else Ralph has spotted, which is rather stunning. The

shirt that Lovelady posed as wearing was not the same one that he was

wearing in the Dallas Police Department. I know you label him "untrust-

worthy", but for a chiropractor, Ralph seems to me to be doing very well:

Jim, I want you to examine this collage closely. In Lovelady on the left,

you see above the pocket, a black line and right below it a white line.

They're practically touching. Do you see it.

But then look at the Lovelady next to him. There, in the same spot, it

is the reverse: the white line is on top and the black line is beneath it.

Can you see that? Cast your eyes back and forth and see.

They're different shirts, Jim.

Reading what you have written, this may be something you had already

discovered. But that he was not wearing the same shirt does not mean

that he was the Doorway Man. Doorway Man's shirt is like Oswald's and

not like Lovelady's, whether it was checkered or even vertically striped.

David, we have a lot of new evidence that something is wrong with the

photograph, which, so far I can tell, you have never noticed. Even Robin

has noticed. For some reason, however, you don't even appear to care.

There's something wrong with this picture--something that I don't get.

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

Re #148 . . Oops. Sorry, # 148 is a dupe. Deleted. DSL

Edited February 1, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

Well, this is all just fine as an historical retrospective, which is why Josiah applauds it. None of it appears

to have anything to do with the new evidence that we reported in our study, "JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in

the doorway, after all!" Not only do I see no indications that you have read it, but there is no evidence you

have even read #131, #132, #134, #135, and #137. Which leads me to ask, "Why are you posting here?"

This is quite ridiculous, David, and if you don't feel there's something strange about all of this--when you

are being lauded by Tink and challenged by me--then you may have lost your bearings in this case, which

I suppose should not surprise us. You make up your mind and then you never change it, as Ralph Cinque

pointed out in the first of those posts I have just cited. And here's more information from Veterans Today:

Ralph's response:

They're different shirts, Jim.

Reading what you have written, this may be something you had already

discovered. But that he was not wearing the same shirt does not mean

that he was the Doorway Man. Doorway Man's shirt is like Oswald's and

not like Lovelady's, whether it was checkered or even vertically striped.

David, we have a lot of new evidence that something is wrong with the

photograph, which, so far I can tell, you have never noticed. Even Robin

has noticed. For some reason, however, you don't even appear to care.

There's something wrong with this picture--something that I don't get.

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

Re #148 . . Oops. Sorry, # 148 is a dupe. Deleted. DSL

Jim Fetzer,

My post #143 (which Josiah Thompson compliments me on, in post # 144) says it all.

Most important, it explains why the plaid shirt Lovelady wore when he posed for Groden, in 1976, is similar to (but not identical with) the plaid shirt he was wearing on 11/22/63, and which appears when he was photographed on the Martin film, within a minute of the motorcade passing the TSBD, and then at 2:02pm ish, when he was photographed on newsreel film when Oswald was marched right passed him at the DPD.

What else is there to say, Prof. Fetzer--that readers of this forum should ignore the validity of what I have posted, because they don't agree with Josiah Thompson, on some other issue?

If so, then perhaps we should all ignore the arguments you are making, because you don't believe we went to the moon.

Multiple times.

In fact, I'd bet there are more astronauts who have been to the moon (12, in fact), than their are shooters on the grassy knoll. (How's that for a comparison?!)

Now you don't hear me saying we should ignore everything you say, simply because you don't believe man ever went to the moon--which is one of the major accomplishments of the entire 20th century--so I'd suggest you not extrapolate from Josiah Thompson's endorsement of my analysis (re Lovelady's "photo scam") to the notion that my analysis is in error.

Clearly, it is not.

As I have demonstrated: Billy Lovelady engaged in a pattern of deceptive behavior starting in December, 1963, when it was first noticed that the man in the doorway appeared to be Oswald.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, that's me," he instead went off on a deceptive tangent, telling the first JFK researcher who contacted him (Jones Harris) that he was wearing a red and white striped shirt; and then posing in just such a shirt for the FBI.

That's not a very nice thing to do--lying, in general, and lying to the FBI in particular.

Its illegal; in fact, its a felony. Martha Stewart found that out--and ended up serving a prison term for such behavior.

But Lovelady apparently did just that--and misled a bunch of first generation JFK researchers into believing that it "had to be Oswald" in the doorway; because, after all, Lovelady was wearing a striped shirt, so it couldn't be him.

Then he owned up to the reality--and spoke truthfully--when formally deposed by the Warren Commission, identifying himself in the Altgens photograph, a properly marked and annotated exhibit which appears as Warren Commission Exhibit 369, in Volume 16 (of the WC's 26 volumes).

Then I found the newsreel footage of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt in 1972/73, showed slides of those frames to Groden, and also shared all that with the HSCA.

Groden went to interview Lovelady, and Lovelady put on a plaid shirt--but (as I have shown) a different one.

Perhaps he wanted to sell it as a collectible. Who knows.

All I know for sure is that Lovelady has left behind a trail of deceptive behavior.

Now you and your co-author come along, in 2012, and attempt to resurrect this dead horse--and you accuse me of not being well informed.

I have news for you, professor Fetzer- - - I was "present at the creation" re this particular issue. Perhaps I was not "first generation" on this particular matter; but I was no later than second. And when did you enter this debate on this matter: lets see. . the year was 2012. . that's 40 years after I found the news reel footage that shows Lovelady in a plaid shirt, and which definitively placed him in the doorway.

1972. . remember that date. That's three years after we went to the moon for the first time. . .an event that you believe never happened.

Of course, that's the first time we went to the moon. But how about the other five times. . you know, we returned, came back, and then returned again, and again. . (See "P.S." to this post)

But of course, you don't believe any of that happened. .

But now you're here to tell us that not only didn't we go to the moon, but we should also believe (you) that Lovelady was not the man in the doorway. . but that it was Oswald.

Oh pleez. . . do you really believe you have unlimited credibility, when it comes to such preposterous propositions?

DSL

2/1/2012; 12:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

P.S.

Re the number of times we have gone to the moon. . .(from Yahoo q and a) :

How many times did man go to the moon?

Six times. i.e. six missions that each landed two men on the moon (whilst a third remained orbiting the Moon).

12 men have therefore landed on the moon. A jury-room-full of astronauts, if you like! . . .

That's 2 each on each of the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions.

Apollo 11 and 12 were both in 1969.

After Apollo 13 had to be aborted and the crew were lucky to get back to earth alive, there was a lull in missions till investigations as to what went wrong took place. There was no further mission attempted in 1970 therefore.

Apollo 14 and 15 were both in 1971 and Apollo 16 and 17 were both in 1972. We have not been back since. Nor has any other country visited the Moon (yet).

Prof. Fetzer, please note: The twelve who landed on the Moon were:

Apollo 11 July 20, 1969:

Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin

Apollo 12 November 19-20, 1969:

Pete Conrad & Alan Bean

Apollo 14 February 5-6, 1971:

Alan Shepard & Edgar Mitchell

Apollo 15 July 31–August 2, 1971:

David Scott & James Irwin

Apollo 16 April 21-23, 1972:

John W. Young & Charles Duke

Apollo 17 December 11-14, 1972:

Eugene Cernan & Harrison Schmitt

Edited February 1, 2012 by David Lifton

[Pat Speer]

Reading what you have written, this may be something you had already

discovered. But that he was not wearing the same shirt does not mean

that he was the Doorway Man. Doorway Man's shirt is like Oswald's and

not like Lovelady's, whether it was checkered or even vertically striped.

Now, now, Jim. You have already conceded that we don't know what shirt Oswald was wearing at he time of the shooting. Having done so, you can not keep claiming "Doorway Man's shirt is like Oswald's" without looking rather silly.

If, on the other hand, you want to now claim we KNOW what shirt Oswald was wearing, then please explain how we know this. You've offered a few times that it makes no sense for Oswald to have changed shirts, even though Fritz's notes say Oswald said he did. Are you taking from this "hunch" of yours that we can then assume he didn't change shirts? Because, if so, I have news for you.

Working class people, you know, the kind of people reduced to pulling orders in a warehouse, often change their shirts when they get home from work. Crazy, I know. When one considers the probability Oswald knew people would be looking for him, the possibility he changed shirts becomes even more likely.

Spin on.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Pat Speer