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

[Pat Speer]

Re the shirt photos... there is a vertical line in the grey square in the Groden photo where the pocket ought to be. Perhaps the pocket has been removed or sewn shut.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Steve Duffy]

A question I've had regarding this...

Isn't it important to suggest when these possible alterations were made?...

The Altgens pic was on the AP wires about a half hour after the shooting...? Was it not?...

So, anyone in the pic was just a bystander when the first processing took place.

And the important aspect of it was the occupants of the limo at that time.

If the first newspaper pics that afternoon/evening are the same as the image we have now, including artifacts, etc, the "Headless man"..that leaves no time for any manipulation...

Are they clear enough to tell?

Or is the suggestion that it was later copies that were tampered with?...in which case had Altgens ever said anything regarding this?...

Still worth asking....when, if alterations were made, was the time frame that this could happen in?....I ask in all sincerity...

And Bernice and Robin, thanks for the pics...The original paper scans show much the same....

Hi Steve,

Over on Duncan's forum, I once again posted this, which is from a 11-23-63 newspaper.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Altgens6.png

The red arrows indicate detail in the limo flag which I have not seen on any version of Altgen's, ever!!!

A response back from Thierry was this:

interesting pic, but this one is altered as were many prints in newspaper. The tradition was to get a negative paper from the picture and DRAW upon it with a pencil.

so it was clearer were the the pencil was. On this print we can see airbrush behind lovelady, jfk's head stretched and they put grey clear on heads and the limo.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/alteredp.jpg

I just don't believe someone took the time to figure out what was missing from the flag and then recreated the detail.

If so, they did an exquisite job on this part of it.

A look at the original neg would help greatly.

chris

Thanks Chris....

[Robin Unger]

Altgen's 6 Groden Crops Large

[David Lifton]

Re the shirt photos... there is a vertical line in the grey square in the Groden photo where the pocket ought to be. Perhaps the pocket has been removed or sewn shut.

No, Pat, that is incorrect.

Please see my Post # 143 (and the re-summary of it in post # 150).

The bottom line: the shirt Lovelady wore for Groden, in 1976, was not--I repeat not--the same shirt he was wearing when photographed on 11/22/63, either in the Martin film (in front of the TSBD); but, even more important (because it is so much clearer) in the frame from the newsreel footage posted by Duncan Macrae, taken at the DPD (see Post #26 on this thread). Specifically: by the "newsreel footage," I'm referring to the footage taken when Oswald was being marched by that clock, which showed the time as about 2:02 PM, CST, and Lovelady was sitting right there in the foreground. That shows the shirt Lovelady was wearing quite clearly.

Although the shirt pocket--so clearly evident in this DPD newsreel footage--clearly does NOT appear on the 1976 (Groden) photo, a close examination of the thumbnail I attached to post #143 will show that the striped pattern on the two shirts, while similar, is decidedly different. Specifically, and most easily perceived, the vertical stripes on the shirt Lovelady was wearing on 11/22/63 (as shown in the DPD newsreel footage) are black; whereas the vertical stripes in the shirt he wore in 1976, when he posed for Groden, are white.

So the two shirts are really distinctly different, and its not just a matter of one having a pocket (the shirt he wore on 11/22/63) and the other (1976) not having a pocket--so a hypothesis that "the pocket has been removed or sewn shut" does not explain the contradiction.

OTOH: the two shirts are sufficiently similar --and this is what I found most striking--that it is difficult to avoid the inference that Lovelady (I'm sorry to say) was deliberately involved in pawning one shirt off as the other, i.e., in deceiving Groden.

Candidly, this is what surprised me the most--that after all the analysis, and comparing images, and looking at the shirts, etc.--the realization that Lovelady himself had been dishonest.

I was quite unprepared for that.

But, finally, it answered a question that always had bothered me. From the beginning of my involvement in this "Lovelady area" decades ago, the one thing I never could understand was why Lovelady wore a striped shirt, instead of the one he was actually wearing, when photographed by the FBI.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CHRONOLOGY

You may know that James Angleton, former CIA Counter-Intelligence Chief, said that to understand something, you had to make a "good chron" - - meaning, assembling a good chronology. It was only recently, when I sat down and actually made up "a good chron," did it become rather self-evident what was going on here: that (apparently) from the beginning, Lovelady did not want to have anything to do with him being identified as "the man in the doorway," and so he said he was wearing a decidedly different shirt than he actually was wearing that day.

So that resulted in false statements Lovelady made to Jones Harris, the original JFK researcher who was all over this issue (back in 1963 and early 1964); and it also resulted in his being photographed in the same "false" shirt he had lied about wearing, in order to avoid being "involved" in this controversy. In other words, one lie led to another, led to another, etc.

"

But then, under oath before the Warren Commission, he told the truth, properly identifying himself as the man in the doorway," in the Altgens photograph, and marking the Altgens photograph, which then became WCE 369.

All very well; but then he further complicated matters 12 years later, when he was interviewed by Groden, by failing to own up to the fact that his original plaid shirt wasn't available (perhaps because he had thrown it away), and instead tried to come up with a "replacement plaid shirt" which, perhaps, he thought he could sell at some flea market. (The Lord only knows why he behaved this way. I'm just speculating.)

Whatever the reason, Lovelady produced a shirt for Groden which was obviously NOT the same plaid shirt he was wearing when photographed on 11/22/63--in the DPD newsreel footage.

The whole episode is really tawdry, and has led to much unnecessary confusion.

ABOUT HAROLD WEISBERG AND THE "LOVELADY" MATTER:

I have no doubt that the key reason that Harold Weisberg (and many others) believed that Oswald just might be the man in the doorway, was that in his original FBI statements (via Jones Harris), he said he was wearing a vertically striped shirt, and then had the gall to appear in such a shirt, when photographed by the FBI.

Now put yourself in Weisberg's shoes--circa 1964-65: the original FBI documentation says that Lovelady was in a striped shirt; but there he was, testifying in his WC deposition that its him, in the Altgens picture.

So: Who do you believe?

If you believed (as Harold usually did) that the Warren Commission was up to no good, you naturally then believe what you perceive was Lovelady's "original story"-- as told to the FBI--as "the truth"; and you then think the WC deposition was (somehow) trumped up.

And that (I believe) is what's going on here.

Weisberg is just one example. Lovelady's goofy behavior has led a whole generation of researchers to a serious misunderstanding, and sent them on a wild goose chase.

As to the untangling of this mess--I can only speak for myself: it wasn't until I discovered what I call the "DPD newsreel footage" (circa 1972/73) that I became totally convinced it was Lovelady in the doorway. Shortly thereafter, Groden--with whom I had shared this discovery--also became persuaded, and then the HSCA did their study, adding the opinions of anthropologists, etc. and writing about this in Vol 6 of their report.

But now, in 2012, along comes Fetzer, and an attempt to revive this long-ago settled issue--and I am referring here to Fetzer/Cinque article in Veterans Today, and this Internet thread, with his numerous (and, imho, largely irrelevant) arguments.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead horse, and Fetzer is involved in an attempted resuscitation, rather than a serious re-investigation.

The newsreel footage taken at the DPD, and the Martin film, establish that the man in the doorway was Lovelady.

DSL

2/1/2012; 4:20 AM

Los Angeles, CA

P.S. Despite his nastiness in private emails towards me, I want to give credit to Ralph Cinque for noticing that the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the DPD newsreel footage had a large lumberjack-size pocket, in the left breast area, whereas the one worn when he posed for Groden (in 1976) had no such pocket. In these communications, Cinque seemed to imply that the newsreel footage represented photographs which must have been altered, and berated me for not paying proper attention to "contradictions" in the evidence. But, in fact (and as demonstrated by my work in Best Evidence, re the President's wounds) I am very "contradiction sensitive". As I have pointed out, there is indeed a "contradiction" in this matter of the shirt pocket, but the answer is not that any newsreel footage has been altered, but rather that Lovelady was not wearing the same shirt , in 1976 (when he posed for Groden) as he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he was photographed at the DPD. End of story. Case closed. And, IMHO: End of any real doubt that it was anyone but Lovelady in the Altgens photo. (DSL)

Edited February 1, 2012 by David Lifton

[Robin Unger]

Weigman Man - B

Altgen's 6 large Crop Annotated

Man - B has his right arm up in a salute motion, so as to shield his eyes from the sun.

as does the small woman seen in Altgen's 6, below and directly in front of him.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Hughes Film

70-Frame GIF 15MB

Hughes frames Enlarged

showing movement in the TSBD doorway as the Limo turns the corner on to Elm St

and the girl in blue standing on the pedestal, lifts her arms up into the air as seen in the Dorman frames.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Craig Lamson]

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

Horse poop.

The one person trying to pull one over on anyone else is David Lifton.

Your complaints about the shirt are just silly.

There is no different in the stripes on the shirt at all. They are identical. And your pocket is not a problem. You can see what happens to the gird lines when the shirt is buckled by viewing the color image. The pattern in the shirt is the same, the differences the product of a buckled shirt and the way light falls over the fabric.

And then Lifton jumps the shark...

"Although the shirt pocket--so clearly evident in this DPD newsreel footage--clearly does NOT appear on the 1976 (Groden) photo, a close examination of the thumbnail I attached to post #143 will show that the striped pattern on the two shirts, while similar, is decidedly different. Specifically, and most easily perceived, the vertical stripes on the shirt Lovelady was wearing on 11/22/63 (as shown in the DPD newsreel footage) are black; whereas the vertical stripes in the shirt he wore in 1976, when he posed for Groden, are white."

Lets review,

Lifton, in his infinite wisdom thinks there is a new 'body of evidence" and that Lovelady found a shirt that was in near perfect accordance with the one he wore in 1963 right down the color composition of the squares, complete with matching "mismatches" of the pattern at the sleeve attachment points.

Such an amazing effort for a simple warehouse employee...makes you wonder is they switched out his brain out something....

Good grief, can this get any more crazy? Oh wait, just consider the source of both the original claim and this one...question answered.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Now lets deal with the pocket....

Lifton tells us the pocket is missiing inthe Groden photo:

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.)

Are there any differences in the CONDITIONS of the shirt in each photo? I can't say for certain but it sure appears to me that the shirt in the Groden photos was nicely ironed and the one in the newsreel image was not. And the pocket is empty in one and not in the other.

If we look at the newsreel image we see the top of the pocket is near the level of the third button from the top (which corresponds to 12 shirts I check in my closet).

That places the opening of the pocket at the top of the forth horizontal segment of the shirt down from the shoulder. This is the top of a row of horizontal grey squares. This position corresponds nicely for all images, including the Groden image.

So where is the pocket in the Groden image? Right there in the same spot. Why don't we see it? The shirt is ironed. The pocket is laying flat. Again when checking plaid shirts in my closet I see the same thing, on off the rack shirts...a pocket with matched patterns, lying flat and nearly invisible.

Does this prove anything? of course not, its just my observations. I suggest anyone who is interested make the observations themselves.

But lets review the choices.

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 DOWN TO THE PATTERN MISMATCH AT THE SLEEVE/SHOULDER join as the original. However he FAILS to find a shirt that has a pocket!

You decide....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=23156

Edited February 1, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

You are joking, right? I am talking about the difference between A and D in relation to C. You like B?

Ferguson's report locates the damage he is describing as "at a point directly beneath the mirror".

Surely you must know that the passage you are quoting contradicts the images that you are posting:

The "star cluster" images you have been posting ARE NOT "at a point directly beneath the mirror"!

The small, spiral nebula in the Altgens is OBVIOUSLY NOT "at a point directly beneath the mirror"!

So why are you endorsing Ferguson's report when it is OBVIOUSLY fabricated and unsupportable?

(1) The entire Ferguson report appears to be a fabrication. There is no "star cluster" configuration

on the Altgens, even though the small, white spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center is clearly

visible.

(2) Numerous witnesses observed it at Parkland and one officer even stuck a pencil through it.

Richard Dudman published about it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where I republished his column in

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 167.

(3) We know a lot about the windshield, including that the Ford official who was responsible for

replacing it told Doug Weldon that it had a through-and-through hole when they took it out, which

you would know if you had read his chapter in MURDER (2000).

(4) Since you haven't read it, I don't understand why you are posting about this. Given what we know

about faking the evidence in this case, how can Ferguson's report possibly be credible? He even locates

it "at a point directly beneath the mirror", which is obviously false.

(5) It is not even consistent with the images you have been posting, so how can you be so easily taken in?

I have heretofore supposed that you were an honest broker and that you were posting images to promote

serious research.

(6) That you post what Josiah asks to support an indefensible account is fine, but that you decline to post

images that would demonstrate the untenability of his position is not. I am sorry to say it, but you are

losing much of your credibility in my eyes. And I bet I am not alone.

Josiah

Once again, thanks for your generous comments.

Jim you say that this page proves that there was a hole in the windshield. ?

Quote:

Well, this is ROBIN UNGER claiming something that I do not believe is true. He is asserting--mistakenly, if

I am correct--that this star-like configuration is the windshield after "being kicked out during the removal

process". Maybe Robin just does not know what he is talking about, but Doug Weldon actually tracked down

the Ford official who was responsible for replacing the windshield, who confirmed that it had a through-and-

through hole in it at the location I have identified in the Altgens

THAT IS NOT HOW I READ IT

It clearly say's that there where cracks but NO PERFORATION.

Perforation

perforation [ˌpɜːfəˈreɪʃən]n1. the act of perforating or the state of being perforated2. a hole or holes made in something

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

We have no good reason to think that Oswald changed his shirt, even if

Billy Lovelady may have been asked to--which makes a lot more sense

that the malarky your are promoting. How could the shirt of Doorway

Man have borne so many similarities to the shirt that Oswald is wearing

in these many photographs, especially when it is a VERY DISTINCTIVE

SHIRT? Perhaps you are suggesting he went home and, in addition to

picking up his jacket and revolver, HE PUT ON ANOTHER IDENTICAL

SHIRT? I am sorry, Pat, but you are demonstrating your incompetence

in dealing with issues that involve (1) the use of language and (2) the

study of photographs, films, x-rays, and medical evidence in general.

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.

[Craig Lamson]

I am sorry, Pat, but you are demonstrating your incompetence

in dealing with issues that involve (1) the use of language and (2) the

study of photographs, films, x-rays, and medical evidence in general. [/b]

And yet YOU can't answer a few simple questions...

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

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?

I think its you who is demonstrating your incompetence...

[Pat Speer]

We have no good reason to think that Oswald changed his shirt, even if

Billy Lovelady may have been asked to--which makes a lot more sense

that the malarky your are promoting. How could the shirt of Doorway

Man have borne so many similarities to the shirt that Oswald is wearing

in these many photographs, especially when it is a VERY DISTINCTIVE

SHIRT? Perhaps you are suggesting he went home and, in addition to

picking up his jacket and revolver, HE PUT ON ANOTHER IDENTICAL

SHIRT? I am sorry, Pat, but you are demonstrating your incompetence

in dealing with issues that involve (1) the use of language and (2) the

study of photographs, films, x-rays, and medical evidence in general.

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.

How extraordinary! You start off this thread insisting that we KNOW Oswald was outside during the shooting because (your almost certain misunderstanding of) Will Fritz's notes tell us so, and now you insist you can ignore that Fritz's notes also tell us that Oswald changed his shirt, simply because "We have no good reason to think that Oswald changed his shirt."

You can't be so out of it you fail to see the inconsistency in your position, can you?

Are items of evidence--such as Fritz's notes--only to be trusted when and where YOU can find an angle to support your latest fantasy?

WHY not look at the evidence as a whole, rather than cherry-pick nonsense you can sell those not hip to your habit of picking wacky stuff to believe in, and then insulting and attacking every researcher who disagrees? Which is usually pretty much everyone...

I mean, have you ever, for ONE SECOND, stopped to consider what happens if you accept the accuracy of Fritz's notes, and that Oswald claimed to change his shirt? I mean, I KNOW you refuse to read my webpage, because there's just too much in there for someone used to teaching to learn...

So I'll explain it to you here...

Oswald's shirt was taken from him early in the AM of the 23rd, after the midnight press conference. It was given to the FBI, and flown to FBI's crime lab. It arrived early in the morning. When the Mannlicher-Carcano was inspected, a tuft of fibers was found wrapped around an edge of the butt plate. These fibers were compared to the shirt, and found to match. As NO legible fingerprints were found on the rifle, and the palm print purported to have been lifted from the barrel was unknown to the FBI at this time, these fibers tied the rifle to Oswald. This was widely reported in the days after the shooting. And is still cited as one of the most important pieces of evidence tying Oswald to the shooting.

There are HUGE problems with this, however.

1. The FBI's fiber expert testified that the tuft of fibers was found wrapped around the edge of the butt plate ON TOP of fingerprint powder. This means the fibers arrived there AFTER the DPD's Lt. Day dusted the rifle. The FBI expert guessed that Day's brushing of the powder had wrapped the previously dangling fibers around the edge of the plate. This is almost certainly nonsense, however. First of all, Lt. Day would have to have been incompetent not to notice the fibers himself. He was a crime scene investigator, after all, and not just a fingerprint examiner, and would have been well aware of the importance of fiber evidence.

2. Fritz's notes show that Oswald didn't tell them he'd changed shirts until the second interview, on the 23rd. While some might wish to take from this that Oswald was concerned his shirt could be linked to the shooting, and was trying to distance himself from it, there is another side to this story: WHEN OSWALD"S SHIRT WAS SENT TO THE FBI, THE DPD BELIEVED IT TO HAVE BEEN THE SHIRT OSWALD WAS WEARING AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING.

3. Now armed with the fiber evidence tying Oswald to the rifle, the FBI then began trying to prove Oswald had indeed wore the shirt to work that day. They received virtually no support for this, however. None of Oswald's co-workers could ID the shirt as one Oswald had been wearing at work. They found one witness, however, willing to play ball. It was Mary Bledsoe, purported to be Oswald's former landlady, who, after many false starts (she had seen Oswald on TV wearing the shirt in question before she ever described the shirt he'd been wearing), claimed she saw Oswald wear the shirt on his way home from work.

The reality, then, is that the only evidence offered by the commission to show Oswald was wearing that shirt at the time of the shooting was an unreliable witness, and that the far more sensible alternative--that Oswald wasn't wearing the shirt at the time of the shooting--SUGGESTS THAT SOMEONE DELIBERATELY TRIED TO FRAME OSWALD BY WRAPPING FIBERS FROM HIS SHIRT AROUND THE BUTT PLATE.

Now, this, IMO, is irrefutable. It is the kind of thing you ought to be telling our veterans, who deserve better than to be fed subjective nonsense about the shirt in the Altgens photo being Oswald's shirt, and not Lovelady's shirt, while never being told Oswald had claimed he wasn't even wearing this shirt.

Sad.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

A "JFK expert" who claims that all the shots were fired from in front has no justification for questioning my

views about the moon landings, where all of the evidence is on my side, not yours. Anyone who wants to

study the evidence can visit assassinationscience.com and take a look at the studies I have archived there.

I have also interviewed numerous experts on the subject, where you are completely out of your depth. The

fallacy at work is known as the appeal to popular sentiments. You infer from "Most people think that man

went to the moon" to "Man went to the moon". I am sorry, David, but that an elementary blunder. You have

made no case for man having gone to the moon and have no idea whether man went to the moon or not.

You are making an irrelevant appeal here as a form of ad hominem argument because your case is weak.

Indeed, you have now become a practitioner of the Josiah Thompson School of Argumentation, which employs

the tactics of evasion and duplicity, changing the topic and evasion, which I would have thought were beneath

you. You cannot explain the hit to JFK's back, the hit to Connally's back, the dent in the chrome strip, or the

injury to James Tague. Let's get serious. When it comes to candidates for the loony bin, your candidacy is over-

whelmingly stronger than any case against me. So let's leave that one alone and focus upon the matter at hand.

Since you agree that Lovelady is not a reliable source, we cannot take his word for it that he was Doorway Man.

We have to resolve the issue on the basis of other evidence, including the photographic. So how do you explain

obvious discrepancies that Ralph Cinque has identified. So far as I am aware, you have simply ignored them:

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.

2. Lovelady was 5'8" and weighed170 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.

3. 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. While the shadow may reinforce the v-shape,

Ralph has shown shadows do not change a round into a v-shape.

4. The shirt patterns don't match. 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.

And here are questions first raised by Richard Hocking, namely:

5. If Oswald was not on the steps, how did he know where Shelley

was? Oswald may have seen him there at 12:25, but that was no

guarantee that he would have stayed there.

6. Oswald is giving Fritz information that can be cross-checked

with another witness. He is now relying on Shelley to provide

verification for his alibi for the shooting.

7. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he had

thought Shelley would back him up? Shelly was a manager of the

book depository, not simply a friend of his.

8. If Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind

everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? It would have

eliminated being contradicted by anyone else.

9. Why would the Algents have been altered and the face and

shirt of a figure to Doorway Man's right front (left front from his

perspective) if Lee Oswald had not been in the photograph?

10. Ralph's points about the shirt all favor its being Oswald.

The face was tweaked or even replaced, but unless Lovelady

was wearing Oswald's shirt, Lee was in the doorway.

I want your answers to these nine questions to know where you stand on the basics. My more serious question

is this. dkruckman has observed that, as we all know, in the backyard photographs, there is a matte line running

horizontally below the lower lip across the chin. And on Doorway Man there appears to be a matte line running

horizontally below the nose above where the lips should be. If you place your thumb over the top of Doorway

Man's face, what you see below does not resemble a human mandible. There is no discernible lips, chin or jaw

line. To me it looks like smeared lines running in mostly 45 degree angles. Oswald may not have been looking

directly at the limo, making a "cut & paste job" not easy. Lovelady's top of his face appears to be pasted over

Oswald's and the bottom part manipulated to fit. Mostly by having black tie man's white shirt jut over Oswald's

shoulder (obscuring his collar) and protruding into doorman's face, creating a crude jaw line. I am asking some

experts to confirm these observations. Would you agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed?

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:

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.

Jim Fetzer,

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

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

From Ralph Cinque:

Mr. Lifton is making arbitrary statements based on his own rationalizations, with no basis in fact, and with no rational plausibility.

I’m glad, at least, that he admits that Lovelady, at the times that he posed for the camera as Doorway Man, was not wearing the same shirt as 11/22. This was a very horrendous fraud. First of all, he didn’t announce it. I don’t say that he signed a legal document certifying that it was the same shirt, but he certainly knew that the whole idea was that people would assume it was the same shirt, and he let them think so. And to this day, John McAdams and others claim it was the same shirt. So, this was a terrible fraud.

The first question that the rational mind asks about it is: Why would he engage in such a fraud? Why would he mislead on a matter so important?

It’s axiomatic that any time anybody misleads or misrepresents that it is because they are trying to distort the truth, that is to lie. So, if Lovelady was lying about the shirt AND HE WAS, then we have to assume that it was trying to cover up the truth about what happened on 11/22/63 and his involvement in it. It suggests very strongly that he was lying about being the Doorway Man. After all, why else lie about the shirt? Explain his alternative motive for lying about such an important thing, Mr. Lifton.

And don't tell me that “Lovelady did not want to have anything to do with being identified as "the man in the doorway." If he didn’t want anything to do with it, why get dressed up as Doorway Man? When he donned that phony shirt, he was SELLING the idea that he was Doorway Man. The whole purpose of wearing that shirt was to BOLSTER the idea that he was Doorway Man.

And the whole idea that he would lie just because he didn't feel like being Doorway Man, wasn't in the mood for it, is ridiculous. Are you out of your mind? This was the crime of the century. You don’t just lie arbitrarily about a thing like that because you don’t feel like being associated with a certain photograph.

If Lovelady did not want to be identified as the Doorway Man, why did he agree to be photographed at all? There was no law saying that he had to. Maybe he had to cooperate with the FBI photos, but I'm talking about the Groden and Jackson photos. He didn't have to do those at all. Why do it if you don't want to be associated with it? Why go out and buy a shirt which, presumably, would bolster the idea that you were the Doorway Man if you didn't want to be so recognized?

Your theory makes no sense in terms of human behavior.

Lovelady lied, but it wasn’t to sever his connection to Doorway Man. It was just the opposite. He lied because there was pressure on him to lie. He knew very well that it was expected of him to claim to be the Doorway Man- by powerful people. He may have done it out of fear of losing his life. And he did wind up dying of a “first heart attack” at age 42, right before he was to testify before the HSCA in 1979. Why don’t alarm bells go off in your head about that, Mr. Lifton? Do you also believe that George de Mohrenschildt shot himself in the head around the same time?

Regarding his WC testimony, I have read through it several times. He never once identified himself as the “Man in the Doorway”. He was shown a picture. He was asked to draw an arrow to himself in the picture. He did. They made note that he did. But the term “Man in the Doorway” never came up.

So, how do you know who he pointed to? I’ll add that not only did they never ask him about the “Man in the Doorway” and whether he was him specifically, there was also no mention of that mysterious guy who is wedged up next to Doorway Man, whom I call Black Tie Man, who consists, photographically, of two white stripes and a bulb. But, he’s growing out of Doorway Man’s neck and shoulder and the lower part of his face. Why didn’t they ask him and others about Black Tie Man. How could his presence in the photo be totally and completely overlooked?

But wait: now that we know Lovelady was a xxxx, why believe what he told to the Warren Commission? If he could lie about the shirt, why couldn't he lie about the figure in the picture? What kind of jurist continues having credence in someone who is a proven xxxx?

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

Lifton, you provided nothing of substance. You admitted that Lovelady lied, but just because of some DPD footage, you say you are totally convinced. So what, the rest of us are supposed to say, "David Lifton is totally convinced based on something so I guess that settles it"? You are pompous. You are full of yourself. And your whole perspective on this matter is, frankly, revolting.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

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

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

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

Here is your image Jim

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

When i find it i will post it..