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

[Robin Unger]

When the doorway man is seen in Negative it appears to show a " CURVE " on the t-shirt.

Not a " V - SHAPE "

Edited February 5, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Regarding the so called " Headless Man"

Only an incompetent would BLACK OUT someone's head, and yet leave the rest of the body there to reveal his alteration handywork.

Much easyer to just BLACK OUT the whole person, this would then blend in with the "dark doorway shadow area" seamlesly.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Dean Hagerman]

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....

Those are great examples Craig, it shows perfectly how a pocket can blend right in

I am beside myself right now, there is so much evidence thats its Lovelady

I have known for 20+ years that it was Lovelady, all that this thread has done has drove that point home in my head even more

[Don Jeffries]

The debate on this has not been closed, in my view at least, no matter how many of you claim it has. The questions about the shirt alone ought to raise doubts in thinking minds. How can any shirt looker newer eight years down the road? I don't see a pocket in the '71 shirt. We know that Lovelady lied. We also know that the authorities had a very strong motive to force that person in the doorway to be someone else besides Oswald. This issue IS important, because it's practically the only piece of evidence I know of that would singlehandedly prove Oswald didn't do it.

How many of you have ever worked with someone who was such a dead ringer for you that he could even fool your wife and kids? We know that there was an orchestrated campaign to impersonate Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination (whether or not one buys into the Harvey and Lee theory). Isn't it just too much of a coincidence that LHO happens to find employment, during the same time period, at a place where one of his co-workers appears to be eminently qualified to impersonate Oswald himself?

Not only does McKnight still believe Oswald was the figure in the doorway, so does well- respected critic David Wrone. I'd be surprised if Mark Lane still doesn't believe it. I don't think Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones, etc. ever came to the belief that it was Lovelady. Every aspect of the official story is dubious, and every CTer should be skeptical when the chorus becomes "THAT was solved. Move on!" Imho, the matter of the identity of the figure in the doorway hasn't been solved.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque responds to Unger:

This is a response to Mr. Unger over on EF. And what that means, Mr. Doyle, is that I'm not talking to you. You don't have to fight every fight. Let other people have a chance to fight with me. I'm talking to him, not you.

Mr. Unger, you asked a question, and I'm going to answer it. You asked why someone would blacken out the face of Black Hole Man when it would have been just as easy to blacken out his whole body.

Well, in front of Black Hole Man you've got this other figure whose face is obfuscated in white. Dr. Fetzer was the first to point him out. I call him Obfuscated Man because his face is obfuscated in white, and his body in black. And if Black Hole Man had been completely blackened, then the facial obfuscation of Obfuscated Man would surely have been more visible. It would have stood out a lot more than it does. As it is, the white blotch is hidden quite well in the white t-shirt of Black Hole Man. Therefore, it was important to keep him in there.

Remember that home computers and the Internet did not exist in 1963, and I doubt that the conspirators saw them coming. And that's what enables us to blow things up today. For the picture at large, blending the white blotch with the white t-shirt was ingenious, as you can see in the Life magazine Altgens.

Also, realize that the suspicion about Black Hole Man is increased by the presence of the other anomalies in the the picture, which include Obfuscated Man, Big Afro Hair Woman, and Black Tie Man. And, even Doorman himself has to be considered an anomaly because of the absence of his left shoulder and the way he is fused with Black Tie Man in an impossible manner. If Black Hole Man had been the ONLY anomaly in the picture even I would have been less concerned and more willing to think it was something accidental.

But, there is one thing that could resolve the issue of Black Hole Man. It would not resolve the other anomalies in the picture, but it could resolve that one. And that would be to come up with another photo in which someone's head is photographically blackened out and to the same extent, that is, completely. For the record, I have looked for such a picture and have not found one. Also, I have blown up the picture and tried to see if I could discern the slightest trace of a face, the slightest hint of one. But, I get nothing. Black Hole Man is truly like the Headless Horseman. And for that reason, for now at least, he remains on the list of anomalies in the Altgens photo.

Anyway, have you got another picture with this effect showing so that we can wrap this up? That's all I need.

Regarding the so called " Headless Man"

Only an incompetent would BLACK OUT someone's head, and yet leave the rest of the body there to reveal his alteration handywork.

Much easyer to just BLACK OUT the whole person, this would then blend in with the "dark doorway shadow area" seamlesly.

[Pat Speer]

The debate on this has not been closed, in my view at least, no matter how many of you claim it has. The questions about the shirt alone ought to raise doubts in thinking minds. How can any shirt looker newer eight years down the road? I don't see a pocket in the '71 shirt. We know that Lovelady lied. We also know that the authorities had a very strong motive to force that person in the doorway to be someone else besides Oswald. This issue IS important, because it's practically the only piece of evidence I know of that would singlehandedly prove Oswald didn't do it.

How many of you have ever worked with someone who was such a dead ringer for you that he could even fool your wife and kids? We know that there was an orchestrated campaign to impersonate Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination (whether or not one buys into the Harvey and Lee theory). Isn't it just too much of a coincidence that LHO happens to find employment, during the same time period, at a place where one of his co-workers appears to be eminently qualified to impersonate Oswald himself?

Not only does McKnight still believe Oswald was the figure in the doorway, so does well- respected critic David Wrone. I'd be surprised if Mark Lane still doesn't believe it. I don't think Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones, etc. ever came to the belief that it was Lovelady. Every aspect of the official story is dubious, and every CTer should be skeptical when the chorus becomes "THAT was solved. Move on!" Imho, the matter of the identity of the figure in the doorway hasn't been solved.

But the question, Don, is never whether the developers and proponents of a closely-held theory continue to believe in it after it comes under attack. They almost always do. No, the question is whether those just learning of a theory find it credible, while looking at the sum of the evidence. And this theory is currently dead as a doornail, IMO. Not only is it in opposition to the eyewitness evidence--no one saw Oswald on the steps--but those claiming the photographic evidence PROVES it was Oswald on the steps acknowledge 1) the face on the person they claim was Oswald looks more like Billy Lovelady--the man identified by all the eyewitnesses--than Oswald, and 2) the shirt on Oswald in the photos does not look all that much like the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of the shooting. They dodge this, however, by claiming, without any strong scientific backing, that the photograph was altered so that Oswald would look more like Lovelady. Well, this is weak sauce in the extreme--I mean, if this kind of wild conjecture is to be accepted as proof then what's to stop people from claiming the unidentified man on the grassy knoll steps with Hudson was really Oswald, and that the Moorman photo and Muchmore film were altered, or something equally silly? We have to have some standards, and the theory offered by Cinque and Fetzer, at least at this point, is well below the standards most people just coming to this issue would find convincing, once exposed to the sum of the evidence.

Essentially, here is their argument;

1. Oswald said he was outside. Evidence for: THEIR subjective analysis of Fritz's notes on his interview of Oswald. Evidence against: contemporaneous reports written by the FBI on the interview in question, which specify that Oswald said he went outside after the shooting, not before. The lack of eyewitnesses seeing Oswald outside. The lack of photographic evidence showing Oswald outside.

2. The Altgens photo was altered to disguise Oswald's appearance on the steps. Evidence for: THEIR subjective analysis of the photo, leading them to conclude the photo has been altered, and the supposition this only could have been done to hide Oswald's appearance. Evidence against: the slightly more scientific analysis of the photograph performed by other people studying the photograph, who believe they are just wrong.

In sum, there's no there there. If what they claim is clear to them is not clear to others then there is no substantive basis for their claims the photo has been altered, let alone that they have proved it. Now, I will admit they could still uncover something, should they continue to study the photo, that will indeed prove its alteration. But, as of now, they've got nothing beyond "we think the photo looks wacky and the only reason we can think of that the photo would look wacky is that some evil entity must have changed it to hide Oswald's innocence." Essentially, they claim to see ghosts that are not apparent to others. Are their claims then to be taken seriously? No.

from patspeer.com, chapter 19b:

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn published a landmark work of his own, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". As part of his study, Kuhn looked at the time lapse between the development of new scientific theories and their general acceptance by the scientist's peers. He found, amazingly, that very few scientists, once committed to a theory, ever change their minds and embrace the findings of another scientist, even if this other scientist's new theory better answers the questions answered by their old theory. Kuhn relates:

"Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia appeared. Priestley never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by the scientists themselves. Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of the Origin of the Species, wrote: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume...,I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine...But I look with confidence to the future,--to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Compare my outline of the argument in post #279 with what Pat Speer has offered here, which is more

than a travesty. And for the man who insists that JFK did not have a blow out at the back of his head

but that it was actually on the side--which contradicts the witnesses, the doctors, the X-ray studies,

and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen--to suggest that we are displaying a commitment

to a presupposition that is non-responsive to the evidence is simply and completely absurd. Really!

The question before us is one of extraordinary importance where we have now established the following:

(1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

(2) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(3) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(4) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(5) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(6) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photos is not clear in the doorway;

(7) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(8) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(9) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

I have asked several experts on the case to address the evidence, where I heard back from one of them today:

Dear Jim: I have carefully--very carefully--looked into the matter of the shirt and the "Lovelady" figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

In the photos as observable, the shirt was retouched and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady's shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee's face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes--for everything blotched there--would have done a better job.

Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch--and I'm convinced.

Plus, of course, another student, 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 other experts to confirm these observations.

Surely we can all agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed. And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Hagerman:

It was good of you to come to the aid of your pal Lamson, but he already retorted to me, point by point, and it went unanswered since I can’t join there. So, exactly how desperate are you guys if you find it necessary to double-team me? You’re sure working hard to destroy a guy whom you say is already destroyed.

To the idea that there are “cigs” or “something” in the pocket, there is no evidence of it. Here’s the pic. Point to the cigs. And if it’s something else, tell me what it is. And while you’re at it, notice that round mark in the midline of the flap. It’s what we call in the trade a “solitary, circumscribed lesion with clear margins.” And in this case, it’s a button or snap to secure that flap, which is commonly found on flannel shirts with flap pockets of this kind.

Lamson said: “the top of the pocket is the lower 1/3 of 7-8, proven by the break in the vertical line between 7-8.” Here it is large. Look at it. The only thing proven is that Lamson is being fanciful and presumptuous to the extreme.

And Lamson’s shirt test was completely invalid because it makes a big difference if a shirt is new or used, and whether it’s being worn or not. Nevertheless, you can still see that the pocket is visible in his example, and much more so than anything that can be seen on the Groden or Jackson shirts.

Hagerman, you have been mistaken for 20 years that it’s Lovelady. The question is: are you going to spend another 20 years in self-delusion?

Those are great examples Craig, it shows perfectly how a pocket can blend right in

I am beside myself right now, there is so much evidence thats its Lovelady

I have known for 20+ years that it was Lovelady, all that this thread has done has drove that point home in my head even more

[Dean Hagerman]

Cinque replies to Hagerman:

It was good of you to come to the aid of your pal Lamson, but he already retorted to me, point by point, and it went unanswered since I can’t join there. So, exactly how desperate are you guys if you find it necessary to double-team me? You’re sure working hard to destroy a guy whom you say is already destroyed.

To the idea that there are “cigs” or “something” in the pocket, there is no evidence of it. Here’s the pic. Point to the cigs. And if it’s something else, tell me what it is. And while you’re at it, notice that round mark in the midline of the flap. It’s what we call in the trade a “solitary, circumscribed lesion with clear margins.” And in this case, it’s a button or snap to secure that flap, which is commonly found on flannel shirts with flap pockets of this kind.

Lamson said: “the top of the pocket is the lower 1/3 of 7-8, proven by the break in the vertical line between 7-8.” Here it is large. Look at it. The only thing proven is that Lamson is being fanciful and presumptuous to the extreme.

And Lamson’s shirt test was completely invalid because it makes a big difference if a shirt is new or used, and whether it’s being worn or not. Nevertheless, you can still see that the pocket is visible in his example, and much more so than anything that can be seen on the Groden or Jackson shirts.

Hagerman, you have been mistaken for 20 years that it’s Lovelady. The question is: are you going to spend another 20 years in self-delusion?

Those are great examples Craig, it shows perfectly how a pocket can blend right in

I am beside myself right now, there is so much evidence thats its Lovelady

I have known for 20+ years that it was Lovelady, all that this thread has done has drove that point home in my head even more

Well first of all Craig is not my "pal" we disagree on almost everything, however I respect Craig and his photographic skills

So when I see something that Craig does that jumps out at me and says thats a great point and I agree with him then I will say it and back him up

In this thread what he posted was a great example, for you to ignore that means you are just lying to yourself

Did Jim happen to tell you that I am an alterationist and have backed Jim and his studies that I agree with up for years?

It just so happens that on the subject of Lovelady Craig is correct and you and Jim are wrong

It has nothing to do with whos team who is on or who believes in what, when it comes to the man in the doorway it is without question Lovelady

[Pat Speer]

My responses in bold.

Compare my outline of the argument in post #279 with what Pat Speer has offered here, which is more

than a travesty. And for the man who insists that JFK did not have a blow out at the back of his head

but that it was actually on the side--which contradicts the witnesses

This is not remotely true. We've been over this many times. The Dealey Plaza witnesses claimed to see one wound on Kennedy, on the side of his head.

, the doctors,

Well, it depends which doctors you're talking about. The bulk of the Parkland doctors deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. Virtually all of them said the wound was NOT where you say it was--LOW on the back of the head. Deal with it.

the X-ray studies,

Whose x-ray studies? Certainly not the studies performed for the HSCA. Then who? Mantik? Does Mantik really claim there is NO wound by the temple apparent on the x-rays? I don't think so.

and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen

Need I remind you that the "blow-out" you think you see in 374 is inches away from the "white patch" Dr. Mantik has identified on the x-rays, and that Mantik thinks the x-ray in the location of your "blow-out" is unaltered?

--to suggest that we are displaying a commitment

to a presupposition that is non-responsive to the evidence is simply and completely absurd. Really!

The question before us is one of extraordinary importance where we have now established the following:

(1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

Fritz's notes say no such thing. This is how you have decided to interpret Fritz's notes. The reports of others present at the interrogation make clear Oswald said he was in the building during the assassination, and went out front with Shelley afterward.

(2) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

Yep

(3) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

This is inaccurate. Researchers such as Lifton and Groden have focused on the shirt for decades. And have come to conclude the shirt was Lovelady's, not Oswald's.

(4) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

Yeah, okay. But someone could use the same argument to claim he was on the roof. Or on the pot.

(5) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

Not to slight Don, but I suspect EVERYONE ever to study this case for more than a day has made that very same observation.

(6) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photos is not clear in the doorway;

Are all "best available copies" clear in every aspect, Jim?

(7) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

And yet few are convinced by your arguments...Hmmm...

(8) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

Pure conjecture. We are not in a position to know all the "good reasons" a photo might be altered, particularly in that you have not performed one bit of investigation into who might have altered the photo.

(9) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

Nonsense. There have got to be hundreds of people whose appearance in the photo might be deemed an embarrassment. Nixon, for example.

I have asked several experts on the case to address the evidence, where I heard back from one of them today:

Your idea of an expert is not my idea of an expert, particularly when they are anonymous experts.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Robin Unger]

Cinque responds to Unger:

This is a response to Mr. Unger over on EF. And what that means, Mr. Doyle, is that I'm not talking to you. You don't have to fight every fight. Let other people have a chance to fight with me. I'm talking to him, not you.

Mr. Unger, you asked a question, and I'm going to answer it. You asked why someone would blacken out the face of Black Hole Man when it would have been just as easy to blacken out his whole body.

Well, in front of Black Hole Man you've got this other figure whose face is obfuscated in white. Dr. Fetzer was the first to point him out. I call him Obfuscated Man because his face is obfuscated in white, and his body in black. And if Black Hole Man had been completely blackened, then the facial obfuscation of Obfuscated Man would surely have been more visible. It would have stood out a lot more than it does. As it is, the white blotch is hidden quite well in the white t-shirt of Black Hole Man. Therefore, it was important to keep him in there.

Remember that home computers and the Internet did not exist in 1963, and I doubt that the conspirators saw them coming. And that's what enables us to blow things up today. For the picture at large, blending the white blotch with the white t-shirt was ingenious, as you can see in the Life magazine Altgens.

Also, realize that the suspicion about Black Hole Man is increased by the presence of the other anomalies in the the picture, which include Obfuscated Man, Big Afro Hair Woman, and Black Tie Man. And, even Doorman himself has to be considered an anomaly because of the absence of his left shoulder and the way he is fused with Black Tie Man in an impossible manner. If Black Hole Man had been the ONLY anomaly in the picture even I would have been less concerned and more willing to think it was something accidental.

But, there is one thing that could resolve the issue of Black Hole Man. It would not resolve the other anomalies in the picture, but it could resolve that one. And that would be to come up with another photo in which someone's head is photographically blackened out and to the same extent, that is, completely. For the record, I have looked for such a picture and have not found one. Also, I have blown up the picture and tried to see if I could discern the slightest trace of a face, the slightest hint of one. But, I get nothing. Black Hole Man is truly like the Headless Horseman. And for that reason, for now at least, he remains on the list of anomalies in the Altgens photo.

Anyway, have you got another picture with this effect showing so that we can wrap this up? That's all I need.

Regarding the so called " Headless Man"

Only an incompetent would BLACK OUT someone's head, and yet leave the rest of the body there to reveal his alteration handywork.

Much easyer to just BLACK OUT the whole person, this would then blend in with the "dark doorway shadow area" seamlesly.

Quote:

But, there is one thing that could resolve the issue of Black Hole Man. It would not resolve the other anomalies in the picture, but it could resolve that one. And that would be to come up with another photo in which someone's head is photographically blackened out and to the same extent, that is, completely. For the record, I have looked for such a picture and have not found one. Also, I have blown up the picture and tried to see if I could discern the slightest trace of a face, the slightest hint of one. But, I get nothing. Black Hole Man is truly like the Headless Horseman. And for that reason, for now at least, he remains on the list of anomalies in the Altgens photo.

Anyway, have you got another picture with this effect showing so that we can wrap this up? That's all I need.

Consider it Wraped Up

Just as on the headless man seen in Altgen's

we see the chin only in sunlight, as the other portion of the face and head is in deep shadow.

Murray TSBD doorway scan.

[Karl Kinaski]

James Fetzer: (1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

Sorry, nowhere in the Fritz notes I can find the words DURING THE ASSASSINATION...

Nice addendum

KK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And those words were not in quotes but, from the context, what could be more obvious? I gather you belong to the Pat Speer

School of Linguistic Obfuscation. I spent my professional career engaged in the analysis of language, meaning, and context.

No other interpretation makes any sense, given everything we know about all of this. Pat loves to dabble in malarky. Why he

does this is beyond me, but he has demonstrated his incompetence in JFK research on many earlier occasions. We know Lee

was in the vicinity immediately before and immediately after. Nothing else makes any sense in light of the considerations that

I outlined in post #289. Perhaps you missed it. Or perhaps you also missed Richard Hocking's earlier post about this, post #7?

Richard Hocking

Experienced Member

Group:Members

Posts:83

Joined:06-August 10

Gender:Male

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:14 PM

From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone inside after the shots were fired.

On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That raises several interesting points:

1. 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 is no guarantee that Shelley would have stayed there.

2. 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 at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness.

James Fetzer: (1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

Sorry, nowhere in the Fritz notes I can find the words DURING THE ASSASSINATION...

Nice addendum

KK

Edited February 6, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

And those words were not in quotes but, from the context, what could be more obvious? I gather you belong to the Pat Speer

School of Linguistic Obfuscation. I spent my professional career engaged in the analysis of language, meaning, and context.

No other interpretation makes any sense, given everything we know about all of this. Pat loves to dabble in malarky. Why he

does this is beyond me, but he has demonstrated his incompetence in JFK research on many earlier occasions. We know Lee

was in the vicinity immediately before and immediately after. Nothing else makes any sense in light of the considerations that

I outlined in post #289. Perhaps you missed it. Or perhaps you also missed Richard Hocking's earlier post about this, post #7?

Richard Hocking

Experienced Member

Group:Members

Posts:83

Joined:06-August 10

Gender:Male

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:14 PM

From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone inside after the shots were fired.

On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That raises several interesting points:

1. 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 is no guarantee that Shelley would have stayed there.

2. 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 at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness.

James Fetzer: (1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was "with Billy Shelley out front" during the assassination;

Sorry, nowhere in the Fritz notes I can find the words DURING THE ASSASSINATION...

Nice addendum

KK

So, when we have notes on a conversation that can be taken more than way, and we have reports and testimony on this conversation that ALL present it in the same way, it's okay for you to say the notes said it happened the OTHER way, simply because you claim it's OBVIOUS to you?

That's truly remarkable. Sometimes the only way to show the flaw in someone's thinking is to create an analogy. So, here goes.

Biff is a sportswriter. His notes on the ball game report that he saw Betty at the ball game. On the next line it says he saw Sue at the ball game. Biff was with Bill and Ted at the ball game. The next day Biff, Bill, and Ted write up reports on the ball game. Biff's report fails to mention his seeing Sue at the ballgame. Bill and Ted's reports, however, make clear that they ran into Betty with her friend Veronica at the beginning of the game by the hot dog stand, and saw Sue with her friend Peggy in the parking lot as they were leaving.

A.J., Biff's roommate, comes across Biff's notes. He concludes from them that Betty, his ex-girlfriend, was at the game with Sue, his sister, and decides to confront them both. His buddy Chester, however, points out to him that Bill and Ted were at the game with Biff, and made it more than clear Betty and Sue weren't at the game together. But A.J. decides to go ahead and confront them, claiming it's OBVIOUS they were there together, and that Biff's notes SAY they were there together.

But, did they? Really? Isn't A.J. guilty of stretching the truth, if only just a little?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697&view=findpost&p=244974

Altgen's / weigman Composite.

AS I looked at the composit that Robin posted I am struck by the distance between Shelley and the black man in the corner of the doorway... which in weigman appears as if they are separated by quite a distance...

Yet in Altgens... The Shelly/Oswald charater's sleeved arm is IN FRONT of this man... and his entire left shoulder looks mis-shapened...

and the two white streaks on his shoulder deosn't seem part of the original image..

More importantly... how does "Shelly's" arm cross in front of a man standing so far away?