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

[Josiah Thompson]

You wrote: "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."

Everyone agrees that the photo in question was taken after Oswald had his tussle with the Dallas police. With respect to the above quote, are you seriously claiming that you can discern the difference between a T-shirt that has been wrenched in a tussle and a T-shirt that "has been repeatedly tugged?" Are you also claiming that only because of experiences you had fifty years ago that you are especially qualified to make this slippery judgment?

If so, this whole thread has now become totally loony! Priceless!

JT

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 tryI 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. 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.

[David Josephs]

How can he tell this is a VEE?

[Craig Lamson]

How can he tell this is a VEE?

No the question is davie:

How can YOU tell ANYTHING when it comes to photograph?

Excuse me, you can't.

Good grief, can you interpolate an image any more poorly?

Move along, you have nothing of value to offer.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

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).

That is weak AND YOU KNOW IT--

LOGIC DOES NOT LOSE CONTEXT!

My "fake dog" is still a fake dog even though you couldn't tell from FOCUSED OBSERVATION! Claiming otherwise is total rubbish. If you took a photograph of my fake dog you would not be able to tell if it was fake or not! Making claims that it was either real or fake with certainty are both equally erroneous positions if there is compelling evidence to the contrary in either or both scenarios. In such an instance, the only HONEST statement is that the evidence is unsettled.

I do not know who is in the doorway. But, the arguments that Cinque, and now you by extension, are promoting are beneath your intellectual capacity. To be fair, those who claim that it is Lovelady with absolute certainty are also over extending what they can possibly know.

[Greg Burnham]

One more comment:

Perhaps you are right James Fetzer. It is not technically a circular argument to claim that "I know it is a Vee-neck because it looks like a Vee-neck."

But, what is the fallacy in that argument, Jim? C'mon, you know what it is. I can cite it for you if you would like, but you already KNOW what it is!

The key word in the assertion is "KNOW" -- as in: I AM CERTAIN.

I am certain it is an angel in the sky because it looks like an angel in the sky! It looks like an angel in the sky and therefore it IS an angel in the sky!

What's that you say? Those are clouds? No...no, no, no, no, no--I have studied it with FOCUSED OBSERVATION and those are not clouds. Those are angels.

[Karl Kinaski]

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...

@Jim Fetzer:

LOL Neither Ryan Gosling nor Oswald were in the doorway.

And both men committed no act of violence on 22.11.63...

Earnestly: do you think, all those people, who were out at the door during the shooting and KNEW Oswald suffered from amnesia? (And never mentioned him?)

- Truly (Imagine-- Baker: Do you know this man...Truly:Yes, he was out at the doorway with me!...would have been a good point to exonerate his employee..)

- Campell

- Shelley

-(Lovelady)

- Barbara Reid

- Wesley Frazier

- Sarah Shanton

etc...

It operates the other way around: if Oswald was amongst them, whey he mentioned to Fritz only Shelley? Maybe he did, and Fritz forgot? Than the question is: how reliable are the Fritz-Notes? I think it is poor piece of evidence, since Fritz was involved in the murder of his suspect.

After all, your prove is just a negative one. Acc. to Chinque and you, in Altgens Loveladys face was put on Oswalds body...that means we still do not see Oswalds face in the doorway...we never will.

I am a well satisfied CTer, without that Ossi in the doorway-thing to which I don't give a damn. Cinque and you tried to make a big thing out of it. And lost. Get over it, since your other contributions to the JFK research are presentable.

In my eyes this minor defeat doesn't diminsh your reputation. But the thing get's worse, the longer you stick on it...to the pleasure of your enemies, to which I am not belong.

KK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is embarrassing. How would you know you were eating an orange if you could not see it, feel it, taste it? But it is possible you are only having an especially vivid dream. Philosophers have acknowledge the logical uncertainty of even our direct experiences since Descartes, so you are really missing the boat, BIG TIME! Your fixation on certainty is entirely misplaced. No empirical knowledge is certain. We are dealing with likelihoods and probabilities. I have explained all of this in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK". Just read the first few sections and you might obtain a better idea how this works. The probability that the Altgens would be altered for no good reason is approximately zero. The only good reason for altering it would be if someone were there in the crowd who should not have been. The only candidate for that role is Lee Oswald. One figure has both its face and its shirt obfuscated. Surely that is because otherwise they would have given the game away. That person must have been Lovelady, where the upper part of his face has been transferred to Doorway Man, just as Lee's face was transferred onto Backyard Man. The shirt is Oswald's. So unless Billy was wearing Lee's shirt, Lee was in the doorway. There is no better explanation for the available evidence. But none of this is certain.

One more comment:

Perhaps you are right James Fetzer. It is not technically a circular argument to claim that "I know it is a Vee-neck because it looks like a Vee-neck."

But, what is the fallacy in that argument, Jim? C'mon, you know what it is. I can cite it for you if you would like, but you already KNOW what it is!

The key word in the assertion is "KNOW" -- as in: I AM CERTAIN.

I am certain it is an angel in the sky because it looks like an angel in the sky! It looks like an angel in the sky and therefore it IS an angel in the sky!

What's that you say? Those are clouds? No...no, no, no, no, no--I have studied it with FOCUSED OBSERVATION and those are not clouds. Those are angels.

Edited February 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque comments on Kinaski:

Jim, we are winning, and KK's entry proves it. That's because whenever they start saying things like: "how could nobody have seen him?" it's a way of diverting attention from the compelling visual evidence that Doorman has Oswald's build, that he is wearing Oswald's clothes, and that those clothes fit him the same way they fit Oswald. Whenever a person's reply to "what about x?" is "what about y?" it's usually evasive and diversionary, as it is here.

People should realize that the photographic evidence stands on its own merit. You don't evaluate it on the basis of other, theoretical considerations, such as, "why didn't anyone report seeing him?" You have to have the discipline to analyze the photo with a clear mind. To ask a question like that- in the context of the photo- is to introduce BIAS. Remember, this is the Kennedy assassination we are talking about. For all we know, somebody did report seeing him. Look at the Grassy Knoll witnesses who were never called by the Warren Commission. How about the guy who, of all the bystanders, was physically closest to Kennedy, who ducked down on top of his kids, who said adamantly that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll? The Warren Commission did not want to talk to him at all. With such flagrant, obvious bias against any evidence that could exonerate Oswald, why assume they would have reported someone claiming to have seen Oswald out front, even if such a person existed? The Bill Fritz notes fell through the cracks, thank God.

Two things stand out about the Altgens photo: first, the likenesses to Oswald in clothing, the way the clothing fits, and the way it is being worn. NOTHING about the clothing matches Lovelady at all. Even the vaunted match of the shirt patterns is just SLOPPY THINKING. Those patterns do not match. They are both varied, but they are varied in different ways. The essence of Doorman's pattern is that it's SPLOTCHY whereas the essence of Lovelady's pattern is that it is COMPLEX AND GEOMETRIC. Two very different things. That both Doorman and Oswald were slight in build is evidenced by how both their shirts hung loosely, but there is also the evidence of Doorman's skinny left arm, in stark contrast to Lovelady's.

But the second thing about the Altgens photo- besides the likenesses to Oswald- are the anomalies. What about Black Tie Man, who is crammed up next to Doorman? Most people don't even take him to be a human being. I didn't. How often do you see a photo in which you can't even tell if an object is a human being or not? That is the most nebulous image of a human being that I have ever seen in a photograph in my entire life. How is it not suspicious? What is going on here that everybody wants to be Keeper of the Altgens Flame, Defender of the Altgens name? Instead of Opus Dei, it's Opus Ike. And the way Black Tie Man is merged with Doorman is bizarre and impossible. And don't anyone say it's due to "photographic compression" or some such thing because no such thing happens anywhere else in the vast Altgens photo.

I knew Black Tie Man was fake. What I didn't know, at first, was why they needed him there. It was to hide the unique configuration of Oswald's shirt on his left side, with the collar, the lapel, and the button loop coming off the lapel. That would have given the whole thing away.

And you, Jim, were the first to point out Obfuscated Man- with that gross white blotch over his face. One guy tried to say it was a jacket- anything but admit that it's an anomaly. And that from a conspiracy theorist. What is going on here? I'm telling you, it's like we are in the Twilight Zone. Why are they fighting this so hard?

Jim, the Altgens photo is screaming out loud that it is not legit. And with so many other pieces of altered evidence in the Kennedy case, why are people even surprised? Ralph

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...

@Jim Fetzer:

LOL Neither Ryan Gosling nor Oswald were in the doorway.

And both men committed no act of violence on 22.11.63...

Earnestly: do you think, all those people, who were out at the door during the shooting and KNEW Oswald suffered from amnesia? (And never mentioned him?)

- Truly (Imagine-- Baker: Do you know this man...Truly:Yes, he was out at the doorway with me!...would have been a good point to exonerate his employee..)

- Campell

- Shelley

-(Lovelady)

- Barbara Reid

- Wesley Frazier

- Sarah Shanton

etc...

It operates the other way around: if Oswald was amongst them, whey he mentioned to Fritz only Shelley? Maybe he did, and Fritz forgot? Than the question is: how reliable are the Fritz-Notes? I think it is poor piece of evidence, since Fritz was involved in the murder of his suspect.

After all, your prove is just a negative one. Acc. to Chinque and you, in Altgens Loveladys face was put on Oswalds body...that means we still do not see Oswalds face in the doorway...we never will.

I am a well satisfied CTer, without that Ossi in the doorway-thing to which I don't give a damn. Cinque and you tried to make a big thing out of it. And lost. Get over it, since your other contributions to the JFK research are presentable.

In my eyes this minor defeat doesn't diminsh your reputation. But the thing get's worse, the longer you stick on it...to the pleasure of your enemies, to which I am not belong.

KK

[Craig Lamson]

Jim, the Altgens photo is screaming out loud that it is not legit. And with so many other pieces of altered evidence in the Kennedy case, why are people even surprised? Ralph

The only thing screaming out loud here is that ralph has the photo analysis and direct photographic knowledge of a gnat. His silly and ignorant statements have been proven wrong over and over yet his denials continue. There is nothing about his work that comes from a "clear head".

His stuff is fantasy at its finest.

And yet the games continue. What a DEVASTATING illustration of gullibility.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The case of the fake dog is a good one. Based upon preliminary observation, you inferred it was a (real) dog. But as you acquired more evidence, you discovered it was only a fake. That's typical of inductive reasoning. You are drawing a conclusion (real dog) based upon evidence (image of real dog) that can be defeated by the acquisition of more evidence. Your conclusion goes beyond the content of the evidence and for that reason can be false (mistaken) even when the evidence is true (authentic).

As for certainty, in mathematical and linguistic contexts, we can have proofs that are certain, because the conclusions follow deductively from the premises. "2 + 2 = 4" is an example from elementary arithmetic, and that "If John is a bachelor, then John is unmarried", from linguistic contexts, assuming, of course, that the meaning of "bachelor" is "unmarried, adult male". But that pretty much exhausts those special contexts in which we can accurately discuss conclusions as being proven with certainty.

In legal contexts, the phrase "moral certainty" can be used as equivalent in its meaning to "beyond a reasonable doubt", which, properly understood, means no alternative conclusion is reasonable. In empirical contexts, however, the term "certainty" is not appropriate, since even our most elementary observations and inferences can be mistaken or wrong, as your fake dog example displays. I therefore have no idea why you are lambasting us for presenting conclusions as "certain" when we are not.

The only additional explanation that comes to mind is that you are conflating certainty with truth. We all make assertions all the time, where each time we make an assertion, such as "It's a real dog", we are implying that what we have said is true (outside the context of acting on a stage, perhaps, or a few other special cases). But none of those assertions-as-true convey any claim of certainty. So your baseless attack leaves me surprised and disappointed, since I would have thought you would realize this already.

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).

That is weak AND YOU KNOW IT--

LOGIC DOES NOT LOSE CONTEXT!

My "fake dog" is still a fake dog even though you couldn't tell from FOCUSED OBSERVATION! Claiming otherwise is total rubbish. If you took a photograph of my fake dog you would not be able to tell if it was fake or not! Making claims that it was either real or fake with certainty are both equally erroneous positions if there is compelling evidence to the contrary in either or both scenarios. In such an instance, the only HONEST statement is that the evidence is unsettled.

I do not know who is in the doorway. But, the arguments that Cinque, and now you by extension, are promoting are beneath your intellectual capacity. To be fair, those who claim that it is Lovelady with absolute certainty are also over extending what they can possibly know.

Edited February 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

This is just fantastic.

JT summed it up in a couple of sentences. If nothing else "it's a fake", according to Professor Fetzer.

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit", said OJ's lawyer.

"If it doesn't fit, we must fake it", says Jim Fetzer. Again and again, no matter what the photographic evidence relates to.

Moreover it is a true pleasure to see one "expert" after another being brought forward by Professor Fetzer. The arguments in this discussion, as in most others, are dependent of Fetzer's endless referrals to those "untouchables". It is a discussion that boarders the farcical, to say the least.

While it is an established fact since decades back that it, indeed, is Mr Lovelady in the Altgens photo.

Amazing.

[Pat Speer]

Cinque comments on Kinaski:

Whenever a person's reply to "what about x?" is "what about y?" it's usually evasive and diversionary, as it is here.

Take note of this one, Jim, because you do this all the time. When someone points out an inconsistency in your claim "x", you attack them for some unrelated reason, or, even worse, claim the issue is not even in dispute due to YOUR "knowing" "y."

This flawed methodology is, in fact, the foundation for this thread. "Well, yeah, the shirt looks sort of like Lovelady's, but it FITS the man in the doorway more like Oswald's" etc... You then claim this observation as a proof, even when few here (one of the most conspiracy-minded websites in existence) remotely agree with your observation. You never address the probabilities of a shirt appearing to fit doorway man like Oswald's shirt fits Oswald, and compare them to the probabilities the photo was altered in the manner you describe. I mean, have you even looked at the provenance of the photo? When was it developed? When was it first published? WHO saw it and changed it before publication? Was Altgens in on it?

Which brings me back to Fritz's notes. How is it remotely reasonable for you to keep claiming they say Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting, when they are entirely consistent with the claims of the men who attended the interview, i.e., that Oswald was inside the building at the time of the shooting, and went outside and spoke with Shelley afterward?

I mean, please explain... Doesn't the "PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY (in giving preference to interpretations that make what they say come out true rather than false)" dictate that you should trust the reports of those present during Fritz's interview of Oswald? And are you not also disregarding 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)"?

Edited February 9, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Karl Kinaski]

@

Cinque:

Frazier is still alive. Phone him...

Bull Wesley Frazier: (WCH)

()

I was standing on the steps there and watched for the parade to come by and so I did and I stood there until he come by.

Mr. Ball.

You went out there after you quit work?

Mr. Frazier.

Right, for lunch.

Mr. Ball.

About 12 o'clock?

Mr. Frazier.

Right.

Mr. Ball.

And you hadn't eaten your lunch up to that time?

Mr. FRAZIER, No.

Mr. Ball.

Did you go out there with somebody?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Ball.

Who did you go out there with?

Mr. Frazier.

I stayed around there pretty close to Mr. Shelley and this boy Billy Lovelady and just standing there, people talking and just talking about how pretty a day it turned out to be, because I told you earlier it was an old cloudy and misty day and then it didn't look like it was going to be a pretty day at all.

Maybe you can persuade him, that it was Oswald, not Lovelady he saw...LOL

KK

Edited February 9, 2012 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

@Cinque

Frazier was on the first floor after the shooting and: (WCH Bull W Frazier)

Mr. Frazier.

It was between 1 and 2 there sometime, roughly, I don't know what time it was.

Mr. Ball.

Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us.

Mr. Ball.

Did they ask you where you had been at the time the President passed?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes, sir; they had. I told them I was out on the steps there.

Mr. Ball.

Asked you who you were with?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy (Lovelady, KK) vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.

You see, Cinque. We always got Billy, not Ossi...

KK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Which resurrects the question Richard Hocking raised in post #7: Why would Lee have said he was outside with Bill Shelley HAD HE NOT BEEN OUTSIDE WITH BILL SHELLEY? And how can Karl be so naive to ask anyone for their opinion now, when so many who spoke the truth in the past were taken out?

Richard Hocking #7

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.

@Cinque

Frazier was on the first floor after the shooting and: (WCH Bull W Frazier)

Mr. Frazier.

It was between 1 and 2 there sometime, roughly, I don't know what time it was.

Mr. Ball.

Had the police officers come in there and talked to you?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes, sir; they come in and talked to all of us. They asked us to show our proper identification, and then they had us to write our name down and who to get in touch with if they wanted to see us.

Mr. Ball.

Did they ask you where you had been at the time the President passed?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes, sir; they had. I told them I was out on the steps there.

Mr. Ball.

Asked you who you were with?

Mr. Frazier.

Yes, sir; I told them and naturally Mr. Shelley and Billy (Lovelady, KK) vouched for me and so they didn't think anything about it.

You see, Cinque. We always got Billy, not Ossi...

KK

Edited February 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer