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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

Since you are going to stick your nose in, the last I heard from you, you were going to contact Jim Marrs about this, presumably to confirm your suspicion that he would disavow our research. I told you then that I had talked with Jim about this, but I did not want to speak for him. Have you contacted him and, if so, what did he tell you? And if you have not, why not? I recommend that you reach out to Jim Marrs and find out.

Jim

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

Edited February 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

You are not only incompetent with regard to the medical evidence--where your bizarre theory of a side wound is inconsistent with the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen--but your demonstrated incapacity to understand language has been demonstrated here--by your attempts to fudge the context in which Lee told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front, which had to have meant "during the assassination". But I know you will not relent.

Now you want to dispute OBVIOUS VISUAL EVIDENCE THAT LEE TUGGED AT HIS SHIRT. Were this coming from anyone else, I might be surprised, but not from you. You do not have the liberty of making a completely unsubstantiated assumption; and even if the t-shirt had been stretched in the scuffle, what we see here is not the result of one rough and sudden tugging, but rather, of chronic, repeated tugging, over time, which deformed it. But I also know reason will not dissuade you.

Jim

Cinque replied to Trejo:

"That's not a V-neck T-shirt, or even a round-neck T-shirt that has been nervously pulled down to emulate a V-neck. Rather, it appears to me to be a shadow of the man's chin on an ordinary T-shirt."

Oh really? Then tell me, Mr. Trejo, what would it have looked like if it had been a v-neck t-shirt? And for you to say that it appears to be the shadow of his chin on his ordinary t-shirt, I presume then that that is something that you have seen many times before. Well first of all, facial images don't always show a chin shadow. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, depending on the location of the source of light. But, the number of times that chin-shadows form a perfect vee underneath the person's neck is exactly and precisely zero. I say that from having googled and looked at hundreds of images of people with chins and chin-shadows. Not one laid down a shadow that was anything close to that. Most of the time, there was either no chin-shadow, or there was one off to the side, not down the middle, not vee-shaped, and not anything close to being vee-shaped.

What I am saying, Mr. Trejo, is that I don't believe you can provide a single example of anything remotely close to what you are claiming. And I defy you to try. Go ahead, make a fool of me. Start searching online. And hey, let's say it doesn't even have to be perfect. Even if we can still tell that it's a round-neck t-shirt, as long as it's close to converting a round-neck t-shirt into a vee, we'll consider it a win for you. And that goes for all of you. Unger? MacRey? Lamson? Don't you want to get even for the severe trouncing that you took? Show me a picture of a round-neck t-shirt that is made, convincingly, to look like a vee. Come on! All it takes is one.

Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt. And that vee is the vee in Oswald's t-shirt. And it also stands for another vee, a V for Vendetta. That's mine and Jim Fetzer's vendetta to crush the vile and wicked state-lie about how John Kennedy got slaughtered. And it is something we are going to do- without or without help from you people.

NOTE: Ralph has a colorful way of making his points. Just for the record, it LOOKS LIKE a vee-neck because LEE TUGGED AT THE NECK OF HIS TEE-SHIRTS AND STRETCHED THEM INTO VEES. What could be more obvious from the photo with which this thread began (in handcuffs)?

Why do you keep claiming OSWALD tugged on his shirts while showing him in a shirt after he'd just had a scuffle with police in which THEY had almost certainly tugged on his shirt?

Edited February 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

You are not only incompetent with regard to the medical evidence--where your bizarre theory of a side wound is inconsistent with the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen--but your demonstrated incapacity to understand language has been demonstrated here--by your attempts to fudge the context in which Lee told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front, which had to have meant "during the assassination". But I know you will not relent.

Now you want to dispute OBVIOUS VISUAL EVIDENCE THAT LEE TUGGED AT HIS SHIRT. Were this coming from anyone else, I might be surprised, but not from you. You do not have the liberty of making a completely unsubstantiated assumption; and even if the t-shirt had been stretched in the scuffle, what we see here is not the result of one rough and sudden tugging, but rather, of chronic, repeated tugging, over time, which deformed it. But I also know reason will not dissuade you.

Jim

Evidence, Jim, evidence. What evidence do you have that the shirt was stretched-out before Oswald scuffled with the police? Did Marina claim Oswald tugged on his t-shirts to stretch out the collars? It's possible she said such a thing. I don't know. But it appears you are basing your claim he stretched out his collars on this photo, which shows the condition of the shirt after Oswald tussled with the DPD. And that is just incredibly wrong-headed, and deceptive.

As far as my "bizarre theory of a side wound (which) is inconsistent with the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen," nothing could be further from the truth. YOU have cherry-picked a few witnesses whom you choose to believe, and ignore the rest. YOU similarly pretend these witnesses describe a wound LOW on the back of the head, when they do not, and that this wound is consistent with a wound in the location proposed by Mantik, when it is not. And then you claim this is all supported by your eccentric interpretation of frame 374, which shows a shape in location INCHES away from both the white patch described by Mantik, and the hole created by the loss of the Harper fragment, as interpreted by Mantik. In short, you have tossed together a bunch of inconsistent claims and theories into a "Fetzer Salad," and attack anyone who fails to put it on their plate.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Burnham:

Greg, the issue is whether the chin-shadow is converting a round-neck t-shirt into a vee. Here is a typical image of a chin shadow. You can see that it is nowhere close to a vee. The situation is that Doorman's t-shirt looks like a vee- sharply like a vee, and to claim that that is an illusion caused by shadow is an extraordinary claim, and what bothers me is not just that you make it but that you expect it to win by default. You want it to be that it's a round-neck t-shirt obfuscated by shadow to look like a vee until I prove otherwise, instead of the sane approach, which is that since it looks sharply like a vee-neck t-shirt we assume that it is until the ones making the extraordinary claim prove otherwise. THE DEFAULT GOES TO THE MOST APPARENT AND STRAIGHT-FORWARD POSSIBILITY AND NOT TO THE OBSCURE AND FANCIFUL ONE. The burden of proof is on those other guys, not on me.

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You must have led a strange life, Pat, to have grown up with such a grotesque tendency to distort, misread, and mislead those who read your posts. I had four brothers and attended an all-men's college. Four years in the Marine Corps, to boot, and I can effortlessly tell the difference between a stretched tee-shirt and one that has been repeatedly tugged. Your bizarre theories about JFK are boggle the mind.

To substantiate my observations about you, you go out of your way to try to interpret what the witnesses and the doctors say is FALSE in order to distort the obvious interpretation of what they say to defect disproofs of your bizarre side-hit theory. You also impugn their motives by taking for granted that these witnesses would lie or otherwise misrepresent their own personal experiences in relation to the assassination.

As I have explained to you before, you are violating two conventions of conversational discourse, which are known as the PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY (in giving preference to interpretations that make what they say come out true rather than false) and the PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY (in assuming that they are motivated to lie and distort rather than simply speak the truth as they experienced it in relation to the assassination of our president).

To suggest you are inept (with witnesses, doctors, X-rays, and frames) puts is all far too kindly. You are incompetent, even in relation to trivial matters, such as whether a tee shirt is stretched or tugged! That is completely incredible. What about the guy in Ralph's photo above? Does he tug his tee shirt or was he in a brawl with the police?

Pat,

You are not only incompetent with regard to the medical evidence--where your bizarre theory of a side wound is inconsistent with the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen--but your demonstrated incapacity to understand language has been demonstrated here--by your attempts to fudge the context in which Lee told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front, which had to have meant "during the assassination". But I know you will not relent.

Now you want to dispute OBVIOUS VISUAL EVIDENCE THAT LEE TUGGED AT HIS SHIRT. Were this coming from anyone else, I might be surprised, but not from you. You do not have the liberty of making a completely unsubstantiated assumption; and even if the t-shirt had been stretched in the scuffle, what we see here is not the result of one rough and sudden tugging, but rather, of chronic, repeated tugging, over time, which deformed it. But I also know reason will not dissuade you.

Jim

Evidence, Jim, evidence. What evidence do you have that the shirt was stretched-out before Oswald scuffled with the police? Did Marina claim Oswald tugged on his t-shirts to stretch out the collars? It's possible she said such a thing. I don't know. But it appears you are basing your claim he stretched out his collars on this photo, which shows the condition of the shirt after Oswald tussled with the DPD. And that is just incredibly wrong-headed, and deceptive.

As far as my "bizarre theory of a side wound (which) is inconsistent with the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and even frame 374, where it can actually be seen," nothing could be further from the truth. YOU have cherry-picked a few witnesses whom you choose to believe, and ignore the rest. YOU similarly pretend these witnesses describe a wound LOW on the back of the head, when they do not, and that this wound is consistent with a wound in the location proposed by Mantik, when they do not. And then you claim this is all supported by your eccentric interpretation of frame 374, which shows a shape in location INCHES away from both the white patch described by Mantik, and the hole created by the loss of the Harper fragment, as interpreted by Mantik. In short, you have tossed together a bunch of inconsistent claims and theories into a "Fetzer Salad," and attack anyone who fails to put it on their plate.

Edited February 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

You must have led a strange life, Pat, to have grown up with such a grotesque tendency to distort, misread, and mislead those who read your posts. I had four brothers and attended an all-men's college. Four years in the Marine Corps, to boot, and I can effortlessly tell the difference between a stretched tee-shirt and one that has been repeatedly tugged. Your bizarre theories about JFK are boggle the mind. To suggest you are inept (with witnesses, doctors, X-rays, and frames) puts is all far too kindly. You are incompetent, even in relation to trivial matters, such as whether a tee shirt is stretched or tugged! That is completely incredible. What about the guy in Ralph's photo above? Does he tug his tee shirt or was he in a brawl with the police?

LOL. Can you really be so out of it, Jim, that you don't know who that guy is? He's only one of the most famous actors in the world. And can you really be so out of it that you don't know that it's FASHIONABLE for studly men like him to TEAR the collars off their t-shirts? Here is the photo:

So you tell me, Jim. Based upon your EXPERT analysis, did Ryan Gosling tug at that shirt, as a matter of habit, for weeks or months before that photo was taken? Or did he, or one of his assistants and fashion consultants, just tear the collar off before the photo shoot? Or was it purchased without the collar?

WE AWAIT YOUR EXPERT OPINION.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

Since you are going to stick your nose in, the last I heard from you, you were going to contact Jim Marrs about this, presumably to confirm your suspicion that he would disavow our research. I told you then that I had talked with Jim about this, but I did not want to speak for him. Have you contacted him and, if so, what did he tell you? And if you have not, why not? I recommend that you reach out to Jim Marrs and find out.

Jim

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

I have misplaced Jim's contact info.

However, I don't mind saying that I stand by what I wrote irrespective of Jim's opinion, although I am curious as to what is his take on this.

Why are you suddenly characterizing the voicing of my opinions as: "sticking my nose in" Jim? I call it as I see it. This is only the second serious disagreement we have had, Jim. Is it the case that my opinion is only welcomed when it complies with your own, but it is "sticking my nose in" when it does not?

[Greg Burnham]

Cinque,

That is non-responsive. Your argument that:

"The reason it looks like it is a Vee-neck is because it IS a Vee-neck!" -- is absurdly circular.

I have a very real looking stuffed dog in my office. Jim even saw it when he was here. It is very convincing. However, the reason it looks like a dog has nothing to do with It actually being a dog! Your argument holds the same weight as: "Doorway Man's neck looks black because HE is black."

Let me ask you a question: If someone disagreed with my hypothetical idea that Doorway Man is black, by saying: "What about his white face?" -- Would it be a reasonable rebuttal if my reply was: "They altered Altgens and put a white face (Lovelady's or Oswald's or whoever) on the body to obscure a black Cuban's presence in Dealey Plaza." -- ??

IF you are correct and that is Oswald, the problem is with your PROOF and/or with the arguments you are advancing in support of your assertions. They are not persuasive. They are an abuse of language and of logic.

Cinque replies to Burnham:

Greg, the issue is whether the chin-shadow is converting a round-neck t-shirt into a vee. Here is a typical image of a chin shadow. You can see that it is nowhere close to a vee. The situation is that Doorman's t-shirt looks like a vee- sharply like a vee, and to claim that that is an illusion caused by shadow is an extraordinary claim, and what bothers me is not just that you make it but that you expect it to win by default. You want it to be that it's a round-neck t-shirt obfuscated by shadow to look like a vee until I prove otherwise, instead of the sane approach, which is that since it looks sharply like a vee-neck t-shirt we assume that it is until the ones making the extraordinary claim prove otherwise. THE DEFAULT GOES TO THE MOST APPARENT AND STRAIGHT-FORWARD POSSIBILITY AND NOT TO THE OBSCURE AND FANCIFUL ONE. The burden of proof is on those other guys, not on me.

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

[Chris Davidson]

Best frame I could find.

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Edited February 9, 2012 by Chris Davidson

[Greg Burnham]

Best frame I could find.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/805E0/WiegOrig.png

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Chris,

The link doesn't work.

[Thomas Graves]

Best frame I could find.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/805E0/WiegOrig.png

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Chris,

The link doesn't work.

I'm in the habit of always testing any links I put in my posts, just to make sure they work.

(Sigh), I wish everyone would do that.

--Tommy

Edited February 9, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Chris Davidson]

Best frame I could find.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/805E0/WiegOrig.png

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Chris,

The link doesn't work.

Greg, Thanks for the heads up.

Check back to my #322 posting, I have deleted the link and reposted it.

Sorry about that !!!

chris

Edited February 9, 2012 by Chris Davidson

[Greg Burnham]

Best frame I could find.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/805E0/WiegOrig.png

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Chris,

The link doesn't work.

Greg, Thanks for the heads up.

Check back to my #322 posting, I have deleted the link and reposted it.

Sorry about that !!!

chris

Thanks Chris.

I hope that when the area in question is enlarged it can be more readily determined if the t-shirt is a V-neck or not. At first, I was looking at the wrong guy and thought: " Oh wow--he is black!" Just kidding--

...

.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

NOTE TO MONK FROM JIM: No, Monk. It is not circular to say that you know something is a vee-neck (an orange, an elephant) BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE A VEE-NECK (AN ORANGE, AN ELEPHANT). He is appealing to the results of focused observation. If he said it is a vee-neck (an orange, an elephant) BECAUSE IT IS AN ORANGE, AN ELEPHANT) then that would be circular. I know you were keen to talk with Jim Marrs about this. I have asked you several times to report back about what Jim said. Jim and I have discussed it. What did he tell you? I can't place friendship ahead of truth, Monk, because then there is only friendship, no truth. Get back about Jim's views. I'm sure everyone would like to know.

Cinque replies to Burnham:

Greg, if you saw a photo of a dog, the only basis on which you would think, or even consider, that it was stuffed is if it looked stiff in its body, blank in its face, etc. If it just looked like a regular dog in the photo, you would assume that it was. And in this case, Doorman's t-shirt looks-unequivocally- like it has the shape of a vee; so we assume that it does.

And, you are making way too big a deal out of the blackness of his neck. The fact is that in all these blowups of the Altgens photo, there is an exaggeration of the contrast between darkness and light. The relatively dark things appear darker than they actually were. You haven't figured that out yet? Well then, you better take a look at this image and focus on the tree. It looks black, Greg, jet black. So, what are we going to do? Shall we assume that the bark of the tree actually was black? I've got news for you, Greg: the tree wasn't black, and neither was Doorman's neck. It's just an exaggerated effect. You're making a big deal out of nothing. And, you are the one who is abusing language and logic.

Cinque,

That is non-responsive. Your argument that:

"The reason it looks like it is a Vee-neck is because it IS a Vee-neck!" -- is absurdly circular.

I have a very real looking stuffed dog in my office. Jim even saw it when he was here. It is very convincing. However, the reason it looks like a dog has nothing to do with It actually being a dog! Your argument holds the same weight as: "Doorway Man's neck looks black because HE is black."

Let me ask you a question: If someone disagreed with my hypothetical idea that Doorway Man is black, by saying: "What about his white face?" -- Would it be a reasonable rebuttal if my reply was: "They altered Altgens and put a white face (Lovelady's or Oswald's or whoever) on the body to obscure a black Cuban's presence in Dealey Plaza." -- ??

IF you are correct and that is Oswald, the problem is with your PROOF and/or with the arguments you are advancing in support of your assertions. They are not persuasive. They are an abuse of language and of logic.

Cinque replies to Burnham:

Greg, the issue is whether the chin-shadow is converting a round-neck t-shirt into a vee. Here is a typical image of a chin shadow. You can see that it is nowhere close to a vee. The situation is that Doorman's t-shirt looks like a vee- sharply like a vee, and to claim that that is an illusion caused by shadow is an extraordinary claim, and what bothers me is not just that you make it but that you expect it to win by default. You want it to be that it's a round-neck t-shirt obfuscated by shadow to look like a vee until I prove otherwise, instead of the sane approach, which is that since it looks sharply like a vee-neck t-shirt we assume that it is until the ones making the extraordinary claim prove otherwise. THE DEFAULT GOES TO THE MOST APPARENT AND STRAIGHT-FORWARD POSSIBILITY AND NOT TO THE OBSCURE AND FANCIFUL ONE. The burden of proof is on those other guys, not on me.

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

Edited February 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph replies to Speer (where he has a keener eye than do I):

You can't compare those two t-shirts. The actor's t-shirt isn't just deformed; the internal margin of it has obviously been deliberately ripped or torn off, probably to create a manly look, to expose more of his chest. Oswald's t-shirt is whole and intact; it's just deformed. Here, take a look. They are very different. [FROM JIM: VERY CRAFTY, PAT. FASCINATING!]

You must have led a strange life, Pat, to have grown up with such a grotesque tendency to distort, misread, and mislead those who read your posts. I had four brothers and attended an all-men's college. Four years in the Marine Corps, to boot, and I can effortlessly tell the difference between a stretched tee-shirt and one that has been repeatedly tugged. Your bizarre theories about JFK are boggle the mind. To suggest you are inept (with witnesses, doctors, X-rays, and frames) puts is all far too kindly. You are incompetent, even in relation to trivial matters, such as whether a tee shirt is stretched or tugged! That is completely incredible. What about the guy in Ralph's photo above? Does he tug his tee shirt or was he in a brawl with the police?

LOL. Can you really be so out of it, Jim, that you don't know who that guy is? He's only one of the most famous actors in the world. And can you really be so out of it that you don't know that it's FASHIONABLE for studly men like him to TEAR the collars off their t-shirts? Here is the photo:

So you tell me, Jim. Based upon your EXPERT analysis, did Ryan Gosling tug at that shirt, as a matter of habit, for weeks or months before that photo was taken? Or did he, or one of his assistants and fashion consultants, just tear the collar off before the photo shoot? Or was it purchased without the collar?

WE AWAIT YOUR EXPERT OPINION.

Edited February 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer