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

[Josiah Thompson]

"The greatest embarrassment in the history of JFK research is a guy named "Pat Speer". Good Lord, have I been demoted? For years, I thought I was at the very top of Fetzer's pantheon of "embarrassments in the history of JFK research." And Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., demotes me and moves up Pat Speer without giving me even a chance to plead my case. To be at the top of Professor's Fetzer, Ph.D's, list and the target of his unending bile is a great honor. Pat, my congratulations!

JT

Coming from a man who contradicts the witnesses, the doctors, the X-ray studies, and even frame 374, in which the blow out can actually be seen, by insisting that it was at the side of the head, from which extruding cerebellum would have been anatomically impossible, I am incredulous that you would make such a post. Look in a mirror. The greatest embarrassment in the history of JFK research is a guy named "Pat Speer".

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. And yet, some prefer to have 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 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.

[Pat Speer]

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.

You are incorrect, Jim. These actions reflect no bias. If I was allowing my bias to control my actions, half the posts on this thread would be deleted. There was little of substance in the posts I made invisible. Just some insults and a crude expression which you had to have known was unacceptable.

You need to learn to edit yourself BEFORE posting. It's that simple.

P.S. Craig needs to cool it as well. There are certainly better ways to disagree with someone than telling them they "suck."

Edited February 2, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

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?

Geez, Ralph. First of all, Dr. Fetzer didn't find Fritz's notes. Apparently, he hasn't even read them. Here is where Oswald says he changed his shirt.

Fritz's notes on 11-23 interview of Oswald

The significance of this change is discussed on my webpage and was summarized in an earlier post.

Second of all, your photo analysis of the figure in the Altgens photo, whereby you admit the face looks like Lovelady's, and the shirt looks like Lovelady's, but nevertheless claim the figure is Oswald, is incredibly hard to swallow. I mean, do you really think historians, scientists, and journalists will ever buy into this?

If you're onto something, which I doubt, you've handicapped it with so much silliness that it will be difficult for you to recover. My suggestion is you start by re-enacting the photo, and show how the V-shape couldn't possibly be a shadow.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

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.

While you and I have had our obvious differences, I agree with you in this instance. I also believe they are the same shirt. Perhaps you, with your photographic skills, can demonstrate this for others by taking a picture of a pocketed shirt, where the pocket is as hard to make out as it is in the Groden photo. Just a thought.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Other sources indicate that Oswald wore the same shirt all day and that he did not

change it. No matter what he may have been quoted as having said, he actually did

not change it. Go back to the initial photograph with which this thread began. The

t-shirt and the outer shirt he is wearing look as though they were worn all day long.

According to the notes, Oswald said he changed his trousers and shirt "because they

were dirty" and placed them "in the lower drawer of his dresser." (WCR 604-605, 622)

A search of his room by police never turned them up and, while elements within the

DPD were framing him, there appears to be a lack of evidence that he had done that.

Based on the testimony of Mrs. Bledsoe, his landlady, and that the bus transfer was

found in Oswald's pocket, the Warren Commission concluded that "although Oswald

claimed to have changed his shirt, the evidence indicates that he continued wearing

the same shirt he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."

Changing witness testimony, of course, would hardly pose a challenge for the DPD

or the CIA. But neither the t-shirt and outer shirt he was wearing when he was taken

in have anything "fresh" about them. That tugged effect is not something that could

have emerged over the relatively short interval between "changing" and being arrested.

You want to check your sources, Pat, because some might infer that you are making it

a practice of disseminating false information when you really ought to know better. I

personally know that you advance many positions that are clearly wrong but in which

you sincerely believe, so I do not believe there is anything malicious about your posts.

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?

Geez, Ralph. First of all, Dr. Fetzer didn't find Fritz's notes. Apparently, he hasn't even read them. Here is where Oswald says he changed his shirt.

Fritz's notes on 11-23 interview of Oswald

The significance of this change is discussed on my webpage and was summarized in an earlier post.

Second of all, your photo analysis of the figure in the Altgens photo, whereby you admit the face looks like Lovelady's, and the shirt looks like Lovelady's, but nevertheless claim the figure is Oswald, is incredibly hard to swallow. I mean, do you really think historians, scientists, and journalists will ever buy into this?

If you're onto something, which I doubt, you've handicapped it with so much silliness that it will be difficult for you to recover. My suggestion is you start by re-enacting the photo, and show how the V-shape couldn't possibly be a shadow.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Lamson:

This will be my last post here. I will not post again unless I am given direct access to this site. It is not fair to me--or to Dr. Fetzer--that I should have to bother him every time I want to do battle with you, Lamson. You don't have that inconvenience. So, why should I have it? And if that's how it's got to be, then I resign in protest.

But in this last post, I want to point out that you, Lamson, didn't comment about the fact that both images in that collage were of Lovelady - same day, same time, same place. And yet, in one, he's got a pack of cigarettes in his pocket, and in the other there are no cigarettes but a big flap over the pocket. And any honest person-who is not determined to cling to his hopeless argument- would admit it.

And finally, look at this image of posing Lovelady, and look at boxes 7 and 8 as per Duncan. You say that's where the pocket is. However, there is no sign of any pocket there! And you can't tell me it's pressed down so well that the pocket's visbility is completely obliterated. If you look below that you can see wrinkles and bunching, so it's not ironed that well.

You download this picture, and you blow it up, and you look in that area, which is pretty high up. It's smooth as a baby's bottom. There is no pocket there. That is not the shirt from 11/22, so Lovelady lied. He also lied when he said he was the Doorman. That was Oswald. And that is my last word to you.

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]

Cinque replies to Lamson:

This will be my last post here. I will not post again unless I am given direct access to this site. It is not fair to me--or to Dr. Fetzer--that I should have to bother him every time I want to do battle with you, Lamson. You don't have that inconvenience. So, why should I have it? And if that's how it's got to be, then I resign in protest.

I would suggest you resign, you are getting destroyed. Though I don't know how you resign from something you don't belong , but hey thats your silly logic not mine.

But in this last post, I want to point out that you, Lamson, didn't comment about the fact that both images in that collage were of Lovelady - same day, same time, same place. And yet, in one, he's got a pack of cigarettes in his pocket, and in the other there are no cigarettes but a big flap over the pocket. And any honest person-who is not determined to cling to his hopeless argument- would admit it.

But I did comment about both of them directly. Claerly the arguments are going over your head. BOTH show an open pocket filled with something (cigs?) with no flap. Its really not that hard to understand if you have the capacity for rational thought, the ability to analyse photographs and your are not trapped in a warped and losing argument.

And finally, look at this image of posing Lovelady, and look at boxes 7 and 8 as per Duncan. You say that's where the pocket is. However, there is no sign of any pocket there! And you can't tell me it's pressed down so well that the pocket's visbility is completely obliterated. If you look below that you can see wrinkles and bunching, so it's not ironed that well.

Yep the top of the pocket is the lower 1/3 of 7-8 and this is proven by the break in the vertical line between 7-8 in the Groden. Once again superior ability to analyze images trumps your somewhat limited skills.

You download this picture, and you blow it up, and you look in that area, which is pretty high up. It's smooth as a baby's bottom. There is no pocket there. That is not the shirt from 11/22, so Lovelady lied. He also lied when he said he was the Doorman. That was Oswald. And that is my last word to you.

I'm so happy its your last word, your empty posts are getting a bit tiring.

Pat Speer suggested I take some images to buttress my position. Great idea. While grocery shopping at wally world this afternoon I slipped away from my lovely wife and went to the men's department. Now we are not talking about high quality clothing here...kind of like the stuff a warehouseman might wear. (cellphone shots)

Where oh where are the pockets on these examples? And these are not really neatly pressed, just right on the hanger...

Poof! That's the last vestige of your totally unsupported set of claims blowing up in your face. Have a nice life....

Edited February 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

My responses in bold.

Pat,

Other sources indicate that Oswald wore the same shirt all day and that he did not

change it.

Then name them.

No matter what he may have been quoted as having said, he actually did

not change it.

If Fritz's notes are unreliable, then what credible evidence do you have that Oswald was outside?

Go back to the initial photograph with which this thread began. The

t-shirt and the outer shirt he is wearing look as though they were worn all day long.

Oh my. Did you forget that ALL photos of Oswald wearing that shirt were taken AFTER he'd had a fight with the police, in which buttons were tore from his shirt? Marina said Oswald was a neat dresser. Was she lying?

According to the notes, Oswald said he changed his trousers and shirt "because they

were dirty" and placed them "in the lower drawer of his dresser." (WCR 604-605, 622)

A search of his room by police never turned them up and, while elements within the

DPD were framing him, there appears to be a lack of evidence that he had done that.

I go through this in my webpage and show that the "red shirt" Oswald claimed to have been wearing was recovered from his room, only to disappear before resurfacing as a pajama top.

Based on the testimony of Mrs. Bledsoe, his landlady, and that the bus transfer was

found in Oswald's pocket, the Warren Commission concluded that "although Oswald

claimed to have changed his shirt, the evidence indicates that he continued wearing

the same shirt he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."

And you, of all people, suddenly believe the Warren Commission on all this? And are supporting Mary Bledsoe's ID of the shirt? You've got to be kidding me. When you have a free moment you need to read chapter 4 of my webpage, starting with the section called Threads of Evidence. It presents all the available evidence regarding the shirt and fiber evidence, and shows how it overwhelmingly suggests a frame-up.

Changing witness testimony, of course, would hardly pose a challenge for the DPD

or the CIA. But neither the t-shirt and outer shirt he was wearing when he was taken

in have anything "fresh" about them. That tugged effect is not something that could

have emerged over the relatively short interval between "changing" and being arrested.

He was in a fight with the police in which buttons were tore from his shirt. The collar on his t-shirt was probably tugged on as well.

You want to check your sources, Pat, because some might infer that you are making it

a practice of disseminating false information when you really ought to know better.

No, no one is inferring that, no mater how hard you'd like them to.

I personally know that you advance many positions that are clearly wrong but in which

you sincerely believe, so I do not believe there is anything malicious about your posts.

[Pat Speer]

Cinque replies to Lamson:

This will be my last post here. I will not post again unless I am given direct access to this site. It is not fair to me--or to Dr. Fetzer--that I should have to bother him every time I want to do battle with you, Lamson. You don't have that inconvenience. So, why should I have it? And if that's how it's got to be, then I resign in protest.

I would suggest you resign. EDIT. Though I don't know how you resign from something you don't belong , but hey thats your silly logic not mine.

But in this last post, I want to point out that you, Lamson, didn't comment about the fact that both images in that collage were of Lovelady - same day, same time, same place. And yet, in one, he's got a pack of cigarettes in his pocket, and in the other there are no cigarettes but a big flap over the pocket. And any honest person-who is not determined to cling to his hopeless argument- would admit it.

But I did comment about both of them directly. Claerly the arguments are going over your head. BOTH show an open pocket filled with something (cigs?) with no flap. Its really not that hard to understand if you have the capacity for rational thought, the ability to analyse photographs and your are not trapped in a warped and losing argument.

And finally, look at this image of posing Lovelady, and look at boxes 7 and 8 as per Duncan. You say that's where the pocket is. However, there is no sign of any pocket there! And you can't tell me it's pressed down so well that the pocket's visbility is completely obliterated. If you look below that you can see wrinkles and bunching, so it's not ironed that well.

Yep the top of the pocket is the lower 1/3 of 7-8 and this is proven by the break in the vertical line between 7-8 in the Groden. Once again superior ability to analyze images trumps your somewhat limited skills.

You download this picture, and you blow it up, and you look in that area, which is pretty high up. It's smooth as a baby's bottom. There is no pocket there. That is not the shirt from 11/22, so Lovelady lied. He also lied when he said he was the Doorman. That was Oswald. And that is my last word to you.

I'm so happy its your last word, your empty posts are getting a bit tiring.

Pat Speer suggested I take some images to buttress my position. Great idea. While grocery shopping at wally world this afternoon I slipped away from my lovely wife and went to the men's department. Now we are not talking about high quality clothing here...kind of like the stuff a warehouseman might wear. (cellphone shots)

Where oh where are the pockets on these examples? And these are not really neatly pressed, just right on the hanger...

Poof! That's the last vestige of your totally unsupported set of claims blowing up in your face. Have a nice life....

Thanks, Craig. I think you've proved your point. I do request you edit your post and change the part I have edited out above. If we're gonna be less than friendly, which seems unavoidable, at least let's not be crude.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Von Pein (and I am stunned that this response was "made invisible" by Pat Speer, who has again demonstrated his incredible bias, including my addendum that anyone with military experience would know that a Mannlicher-Carcano could not possibly have been disguised as "curtain rods" that could be carried between his palm and his arm pit--not to mention that such a weapon, which is made of rigid metal and wooden parts, would have torn a paper bag to shreds.)

It's true that in that television mock trial, Buell Frazier identified the Doorway Man as Lovelady, but let's analyze it.

Jim Fetzer and I have been saying all along that they did things to convert Oswald into Lovelady. They added plaid to his shirt; they doctored his hairline; and they either altered his facial features directly OR they dmoved the entire face of Lovelady onto Oswald. And those are the reasons why Buell Frazier thought the Doorway Man was Lovelady.

But, recall that when asked about the idea that Lovelady and Oswald looked alike, Buell rejected that. He said that Lovelady was "short and stocky" whereas Oswald had a "thin frame." That was his first reaction when that very important issue was raised. It's also what I have been saying for a long time. But unfortunately, Buell did not apply that data to his analysis of who was in the picture. He just looked at the face and said it was Lovelady based on that. Why?

It's because people do not tend to contemplate the magnitude of the fraud that was committed with the JFK assassination. Buell's mind just didn't go there. Few people's minds do. It took a Jim Fetzer to realize that they actually moved the face over.

And let me ask you, Von Pein: did you notice that Buell Frazier said that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll? But of course, you think he was wrong about that, don't you? And did you notice that he also said that the package that Oswald brought with him was not long enough to be a rifle? Not even long enough to be a broken down rifle. I guess you figure that he was wrong about that too, correct? But, you figure he was right about Lovelady. Aren't you being arbitrarily selective about what you believe from him?

Well, the fact is that Buell was RIGHT about the source of the shots and the non-gun Oswald brought to work, but he was wrong about the identity of the Doorway Man. He was looking at the face of Lovelady on Oswald's body, and he didn't figure it out because he was too decent of a person to think that ANYBODY would resort to such dasdardly evil.

To those who think it was Oswald in the doorway,

is Wesley Frazier lying here [@ 8:30]? .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzw3RlNgR1s

Edited February 3, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is bad, Pat. The post explains my source and my reasoning. This is one more indication of your utter incapacity to think things through. Is that how you normally read something? Stop at the first sentence and challenge it WITHOUT READING THE REST? And for you to say that Lamson "has proved his point" is about as ridiculous a piece of rubbish as I have read on this thread. Surely you cannot have missed the refutations I have repeatedly made in earlier posts? Go back to posts #203, #204, and #205. I can't believe you would take such an absurd and unjustified stance. We have proven he is wrong, repeatedly! That demonstrates my point about you again!

My responses in bold.

Pat,

Other sources indicate that Oswald wore the same shirt all day and that he did not

change it.

Then name them.

No matter what he may have been quoted as having said, he actually did

not change it.

If Fritz's notes are unreliable, then what credible evidence do you have that Oswald was outside?

Go back to the initial photograph with which this thread began. The

t-shirt and the outer shirt he is wearing look as though they were worn all day long.

Oh my. Did you forget that ALL photos of Oswald wearing that shirt were taken AFTER he'd had a fight with the police, in which buttons were tore from his shirt? Marina said Oswald was a neat dresser. Was she lying?

According to the notes, Oswald said he changed his trousers and shirt "because they

were dirty" and placed them "in the lower drawer of his dresser." (WCR 604-605, 622)

A search of his room by police never turned them up and, while elements within the

DPD were framing him, there appears to be a lack of evidence that he had done that.

I go through this in my webpage and show that the "red shirt" Oswald claimed to have been wearing was recovered from his room, only to disappear before resurfacing as a pajama top.

Based on the testimony of Mrs. Bledsoe, his landlady, and that the bus transfer was

found in Oswald's pocket, the Warren Commission concluded that "although Oswald

claimed to have changed his shirt, the evidence indicates that he continued wearing

the same shirt he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."

And you, of all people, suddenly believe the Warren Commission on all this? And are supporting Mary Bledsoe's ID of the shirt? You've got to be kidding me. When you have a free moment you need to read chapter 4 of my webpage, starting with the section called Threads of Evidence. It presents all the available evidence regarding the shirt and fiber evidence, and shows how it overwhelmingly suggests a frame-up.

Changing witness testimony, of course, would hardly pose a challenge for the DPD

or the CIA. But neither the t-shirt and outer shirt he was wearing when he was taken

in have anything "fresh" about them. That tugged effect is not something that could

have emerged over the relatively short interval between "changing" and being arrested.

He was in a fight with the police in which buttons were tore from his shirt. The collar on his t-shirt was probably tugged on as well.

You want to check your sources, Pat, because some might infer that you are making it

a practice of disseminating false information when you really ought to know better.

No, no one is inferring that, no mater how hard you'd like them to.

I personally know that you advance many positions that are clearly wrong but in which

you sincerely believe, so I do not believe there is anything malicious about your posts.

Edited February 3, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

We have proven he is wrong, repeatedly! That demonstrates my point about you again!

Nothing could be further from the truth, which I suspect is why Ralph is running away. He can't fight cold, hard facts with his ignorant hand waving, and neither can you.

But no one here will be surprised to see you claim victory despite having been beaten to a pulp. It's yet another addition the definition of FETZERING...and it appears we need a new one for RALPHING...

[Pat Speer]

This is bad, Pat. The post explains my source and my reasoning. This is one more indication of your utter incapacity to think things through. Is that how you normally read something? Stop at the first sentence and challenge it WITHOUT READING THE REST? And for you to say that Lamson "has proved his point" is about as ridiculous a piece of rubbish as I have read on this thread. Surely you cannot have missed the refutations I have repeatedly made in earlier posts? Go back to posts #203, #204, and #205. I can't believe you would take such an absurd and unjustified stance. We have proven he is wrong, repeatedly! That demonstrates my point about you again!

To be clear, Jim, the point I believe was proved was not that the Groden photo shows a pocket, but that pockets are sometimes difficult to make out in photos.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

James Gordon raised the important question: Why all of this attention

on the presence or absence of a flap on a shirt that Lovelady may or

may not have been wearing? And the answer is that the subject under

consideration has too much potential to convince the American public

that their own government has lied to them about the assassination of

our 35th president! Hence, there is a massive need for DISTRACTIONS.

Notice how many talk about the flap but NOT about the identity of the

Doorway Man! Just review the bidding below and see the reasons why.

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

Edited February 3, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Cinque replies to Von Pein (and I am stunned that this response was "made invisible" by Pat Speer, who has again demonstrated his incredible bias, including my addendum that anyone with military experience would know that a Mannlicher-Carcano could not possibly have been disguised as "curtain rods" that could be carried between his palm and his arm pit--not to mention that such a weapon, which is made of rigid metal and wooden parts, would have torn a paper bag to shreds.)

It's true that in that television mock trial, Buell Frazier identified the Doorway Man as Lovelady, but let's analyze it.

Jim Fetzer and I have been saying all along that they did things to convert Oswald into Lovelady. They added plaid to his shirt; they doctored his hairline; and they either altered his facial features directly OR they dmoved the entire face of Lovelady onto Oswald. And those are the reasons why Buell Frazier thought the Doorway Man was Lovelady.

But, recall that when asked about the idea that Lovelady and Oswald looked alike, Buell rejected that. He said that Lovelady was "short and stocky" whereas Oswald had a "thin frame." That was his first reaction when that very important issue was raised. It's also what I have been saying for a long time. But unfortunately, Buell did not apply that data to his analysis of who was in the picture. He just looked at the face and said it was Lovelady based on that. Why?

It's because people do not tend to contemplate the magnitude of the fraud that was committed with the JFK assassination. Buell's mind just didn't go there. Few people's minds do. It took a Jim Fetzer to realize that they actually moved the face over.

And let me ask you, Von Pein: did you notice that Buell Frazier said that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll? But of course, you think he was wrong about that, don't you? And did you notice that he also said that the package that Oswald brought with him was not long enough to be a rifle? Not even long enough to be a broken down rifle. I guess you figure that he was wrong about that too, correct? But, you figure he was right about Lovelady. Aren't you being arbitrarily selective about what you believe from him?

Well, the fact is that Buell was RIGHT about the source of the shots and the non-gun Oswald brought to work, but he was wrong about the identity of the Doorway Man. He was looking at the face of Lovelady on Oswald's body, and he didn't figure it out because he was too decent of a person to think that ANYBODY would resort to such dasdardly evil.

Jim, you know full well this is not the post I made invisible. The one I made invisible included a number of insults directed at the Forum membership, including one particularly crude reference. Your pretending it is, and that I would tolerate this same type of post from others, says more about you than it does about me, I'm afraid.