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

[Pat Speer]

As should be readily apparent, this thread has gotten completely out of control. In an effort to rein it in, I have made two posts in which vulgar expressions were used invisible. Let's knock off the insults, fellas.

Discuss the evidence and not the qualifications or intellect of those with an opposing view. That's the objective. If we stick by it we'll all have better days. I promise.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You can iron a shirt as often as you like and it won't make a flap with a v-extension disappear. Get serious!

Duncan,

How can the pocket on the shirt he was wearing in the Dallas Police Department, which we all agree is there,

compensate for the obviously MISSING POCKET on the two photos you posted? I am seeing a pattern here,

where you as well as Lamson appear to be graduates of the Thompson School of Argumentation, where the

plea, "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?", has grown tattered, torn, and very, very stale.

The pocket has a v-extension into sections 10 and 11 from 7 and 8, which is missing in the other two photos.

LOL! Is the concept of IRONING a shirt beyond your ability to comprehend? Must be....

[Craig Lamson]

You can iron a shirt as often as you like and it won't make a flap with a v-extension disappear. Get serious!

A FLAP? Get serious...or prove it....

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I explained to Ralph that you had probably deleted the one with the faintly obscene ending. But how can

I cope with disappearing posts when you don't even provide an opportunity to edit them? Put the other

one back with a flag on it and I will edit it to conform. But simply deleting is an offensive practice all by

itself and, if I am right that you are only deleting posts I have put up, indicates gross bias on your side.

As should be readily apparent, this thread has gotten completely out of control. In an effort to rein it in, I have made two posts in which vulgar expressions were used invisible. Let's knock off the insults, fellas.

Discuss the evidence and not the qualifications or intellect of those with an opposing view. That's the objective. If we stick by it we'll all have better days. I promise.

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The flap has an extension from sections 7 and 8 downward into sections 10 and 11, which is

clearly present in the DPD photograph on the right and clearly absent from the others. QED

You can iron a shirt as often as you like and it won't make a flap with a v-extension disappear. Get serious!

A FLAP? Get serious...or prove it....

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Lamson:

Lamson, here is the picture of Lovelady posing as Doorway Man [above left]. See if you can find the area that corresponds to box 7 in MacRae's listings. That's where there is a black line/white line configuration. But the problem is that there is no pocket there at that level. [above left and center]

You can't see one. You can't just make stuff up. Download it and blow it up. Get out your magnifying glass. Try as hard as you can. There is no way you can say that that big flapping Moma of a pocket that is clearly visible on the 63 Lovelady is also present on this later Lovelady--at that level or at any level.

And I don't care how pressed you think the shirt is. That' is just an arbitrary assertion on your part. If the shirt is so pressed, why is it bunching up below that?

And you think the appearance of Lovelady's pocket from 63 where it looks like a flap [above right] isn't really a flap but is really the result of a pack of cigarettes? [it is both.]

Then take a look at the collage. This is Lovelady at the police department, same day, same time, same shirt, same everything. Yet, it's obvious that in one case there is a big flap and in the other case there is a pack of cigarettes, and they do NOT look the same.

Duncan,

How can the pocket on the shirt he was wearing in the Dallas Police Department, which we all agree is there,

compensate for the obviously MISSING POCKET on the two photos you posted? I am seeing a pattern here,

where you as well as Lamson appear to be graduates of the Thompson School of Argumentation, where the

plea, "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?", has grown tattered, torn, and very, very stale.

The pocket has a v-extension into sections 10 and 11 from 7 and 8, which is missing in the other two photos.

LOL! Is the concept of IRONING a shirt beyond your ability to comprehend? Must be....

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[James R Gordon]

The flap has an extension from sections 7 and 8 downward into sections 10 and 11, which is

clearly present in the DPD photograph on the right and clearly absent from the others. QED

Jim,

I agree that although the shirt worn by Lovelady in either the Groden or Jackson images, clearly has a pocket, it does not have a flap.

I suspect that David Lifton is correct when he stated that, for whatever reason, Lovelady did not wear the exact shirt he wore that day but a similar looking one.

How that discrepancy helps to prove Oswald was standing in the doorway eludes me.

James

[Craig Lamson]

The flap has an extension from sections 7 and 8 downward into sections 10 and 11, which is

clearly present in the DPD photograph on the right and clearly absent from the others. QED

Uh, no.

What you see in sections 10 and 11 is the TOP OF THE OPEN POCKET that is filled with cigs, just like we see in the newsreel images. Here is the same thing on Lavelady and others...

Clearly visual acuity and critical thought is beyond your grasp.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Excellent, James. Anyone who wants to believe Lamson and not "their

lying eyes" is welcome to follow him down that primrose path. So far

as I can see, it was meant as a distraction from the serious issues:

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.

Even Robin Unger has noted that the doorway area is not clear and sharp, like the rest of the photo in the very

expensive print he obtained. The face and shirt of at least one figure were obfuscated, where this obfuscation

is also found in early copies that were published in newspapers--in the same location. My most 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?

The flap has an extension from sections 7 and 8 downward into sections 10 and 11, which is

clearly present in the DPD photograph on the right and clearly absent from the others. QED

Jim,

I agree that although the shirt worn by Lovelady in either the Groden or Jackson images, clearly has a pocket, it does not have a flap.

I suspect that David Lifton is correct when he stated that, for whatever reason, Lovelady did not wear the exact shirt he wore that day but a similar looking one.

How that discrepancy helps to prove Oswald was standing in the doorway eludes me.

James

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes, its open with a pack in the pocket, where the flap is extending upward. As a former smoker, I

have experienced this myself when taking smokes from a pack in a pocket with a shirt. Give it up,

Lamson. Everyone is worn out with your routine. They don't believe you. They believe their eyes!

In post #207, you can see the flap extending upward, from areas 10 and 11 into 7 and 8. Enough!

The flap has an extension from sections 7 and 8 downward into sections 10 and 11, which is

clearly present in the DPD photograph on the right and clearly absent from the others. QED

Uh, no.

What you see in sections 10 and 11 is the TOP OF THE OPEN POCKET that is filled with cigs, just like we see in the newsreel images. Here is the same thing on Lavelady and others...

Clearly visual acuity and critical thought is beyond your grasp.

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque replies to Lamson:

Lamson, here is the picture of Lovelady posing as Doorway Man [above left]. See if you can find the area that corresponds to box 7 in MacRae's listings. That's where there is a black line/white line configuration. But the problem is that there is no pocket there at that level. [above left and center]

You can't see one. You can't just make stuff up. Download it and blow it up. Get out your magnifying glass. Try as hard as you can. There is no way you can say that that big flapping Moma of a pocket that is clearly visible on the 63 Lovelady is also present on this later Lovelady--at that level or at any level.

And I don't care how pressed you think the shirt is. That' is just an arbitrary assertion on your part. If the shirt is so pressed, why is it bunching up below that?

And you think the appearance of Lovelady's pocket from 63 where it looks like a flap [above right] isn't really a flap but is really the result of a pack of cigarettes? [it is both.]

Then take a look at the collage. This is Lovelady at the police department, same day, same time, same shirt, same everything. Yet, it's obvious that in one case there is a big flap and in the other case there is a pack of cigarettes, and they do NOT look the same.

Good grief Ralph, you do really suck at seeing don't you?

There is NO FLAP. just an open pocket filled with cgs in 1963 and a well ironed pocket with NO cigs in the later images.

The pocket in the Groden image is exactly were it is in the 63 images.

The TOP EDGE the pocket in Groden is about 2/3 down in sections 7 and 8. In fact, in Groden, you can see the pocket pull away from the shirt fabric slightly by looking at the vertical white line between 7 and 8. it is BROKEN at the 2/3's down point in that section...a CLEAR SIGN that the pocket fabric is separated from the shirt fabric slightly.

This is called visual acuity and critical thinking ralph. Attributes you sorely lack.

You should quit, you are getting creamed....

[Craig Lamson]

Yes, its open with a pack in the pocket, where the flap is extending upward. As a former smoker, I

have experienced this myself when taking smokes from a pack in a pocket with a shirt. Give it up,

Lamson. Everyone is worn out with your routine. They don't believe you. They believe their eyes!

In post #207, you can see the flap extending upward, from areas 10 and 11 into 7 and 8. Enough!

You are visually imparied Fetzer.

Lets review the options here...

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

From G Mack:

As the only one here who interviewed Lovelady and, later, his widow, I learned important information. Both were angry they had been bothered repeatedly over the years by self-styled researchers. Billy knew where he stood and several of his co-workers confirmed it. To this day, Buell Frazier does, too, and he stood only a few feet away to Lovelady’s left.

Billy and his wife both knew of the phony controversy and, as a result, purposely kept the shirt and safeguarded it. To them, it was a form of insurance for they eventually realized the questions would continue.

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!

Fetzer, Lifton and...urp...Ralph want you to believe number two. (and that's kind of what their claim is.)

What a bunch of markley!

The evidence shows the shirts to be identical, right down to the placement of the FLAPLESS pocket.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Pat Speer:

You are very much mistaken, Mr. Speer. Oswald only said he changed his pants- not his shirt. That's just another one of those myths, like the one where he said he was in the lunchroom. Dr. Fetzer found the handwritten notes of Detective Will Fritz in which he wrote down that Oswald told him he was outside.

You say Doorman had Lovelady's face? It's because they moved it there.

You say Doorman wore Lovelady's shirt? He did not. The ONLY thing about that shirt that matched Lovelady's was the pattern. But it didn't match it very well. Lovelady's shirt had fine white lines; Doorman's had vague, amorphous whitish blotches. It also had black blotches missing from Lovelady's shirt. Lovelady's shirt had a lot of pattern and contrast in the collars whereas Doorman's shirt was like Oswald's in having a plain collar. Compare the three collars in this collage. Which two match and which is the odd man out?

And the witnesses said that Lovelady was out there because he was out there. Jim and I don't dispute that. But, he wasn't the Doorway Man. And the reason the witnesses didn't report seeing Oswald out there was because he was the last to arrive, the first to leave, and he was standing partially behind the white pillar, and all the attention and focus and interest was to the front.

All you are doing, Mr. Speer, is repeating the time-honored mistakes from the past. The Doorman was Lee Harvey Oswald. His clothing, including his outer shirt and his t-shirt, had the distinctive form and fit that we see on Oswald. Make the comparison again. Do you really think that by accident Lovelady showed up being decked out so similarly to Lee?

David,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Anyone who wants to believe Josiah Thompson, Gary Mack, and Craig Lamson when the proof of a flap is

obvious and apparent, be my guest! As I have already explained, they want you to BELIEVE THEM instead

of YOUR LYING EYES. It doesn't get more obvious than this when a scam is being perpetrated right here.

Those who care about the real issues rather than these distractions should go back to my post #207, where

I summarize the evidence about Doorway Man in response to a most appropriate query from James Gordon.

Yes, its open with a pack in the pocket, where the flap is extending upward. As a former smoker, I

have experienced this myself when taking smokes from a pack in a pocket with a shirt. Give it up,

Lamson. Everyone is worn out with your routine. They don't believe you. They believe their eyes!

In post #207, you can see the flap extending upward, from areas 10 and 11 into 7 and 8. Enough!

You are visually imparied Fetzer.

Lets review the options here...

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

From G Mack:

As the only one here who interviewed Lovelady and, later, his widow, I learned important information. Both were angry they had been bothered repeatedly over the years by self-styled researchers. Billy knew where he stood and several of his co-workers confirmed it. To this day, Buell Frazier does, too, and he stood only a few feet away to Lovelady’s left.

Billy and his wife both knew of the phony controversy and, as a result, purposely kept the shirt and safeguarded it. To them, it was a form of insurance for they eventually realized the questions would continue.

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!

Fetzer, Lifton and...urp...Ralph want you to believe number two. (and that's kind of what their claim is.)

What a bunch of markley!

The evidence shows the shirts to be identical, right down to the placement of the FLAPLESS pocket.

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Anyone who wants to believe Josiah Thompson, Gary Mack, and Craig Lamson when the proof of a flap is

obvious and apparent, be my guest! As I have already explained, they want you to BELIEVE THEM instead

of YOUR LYING EYES. It doesn't get more obvious than this when a scam is being perpetrated right here.

Those who care about the real issues rather than these distractions should go back to my post #207, where

I summarize the evidence about Doorway Man in response to a most appropriate query from James Gordon.

Good job Fetzer, you identify the top of an open pocket AS A FLAP! The top of an open pocket that MATCHES IN ALL OF THE IMAGES.

Good to see you and ralph scurrying around trying to defend the indefensible!

How we have even further evidence that ralph is visually impaired as he shows us two shirts, one with no pattern and one with a PATTERN and he tells us us they look the SAME!

No wonder he got the vee neck so wrong, his eyes no longer function.