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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

As before, your incompetence reeks from every pore. What is the probability that stocky Billy Lovelady, who is practically bursting out of his checkered shirt, would appear to be slender in build with a loose fitting shirt in the doorway? What is the probability that another figure in the crowd would have both HIS FACE and HIS SHIRT obliterated, would they not have given the game away? What is the probability that the Altgens would have been altered UNLESS IT INCLUDED SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED? And what is the probability that the Doorway Man would have Lovelady's face but be wearing Oswald's shirt--unless Lovelady's face had been transferred to Oswald's body, just as Oswald's face had been transferred to someone else's body in the backyard photographs? I am sorry, Pat, but every post you make displays your incapacity to conduct serious research in a case laden with faked and fabricated evidence. It raises serious questions in my mind as to why you are here, where the absurdity of your position on the medical evidence--with a wound on the side of the head that could not possibly be extruding cerebellum--takes the cake. You simply deny what we have to learn from the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and EVEN FRAME 374, where anyone can see for themselves that you are completely and totally wrong. Something is very wrong with you. This is a matter of your visual acuity, you have proven unable to distinguish the pink skull flap from the blue-gray blow-out:

In addition to the other witnesses, you do not even accept the observations of the mortician, who was in the best possible position to observe them:

I am sorry, Pat, but when you suffer from such acute visual and cognitive impairments, you really should not be participating in this discussion. The only way you are able to defend yourself, even remotely, is by denying the obvious meaning of the witnesses, the doctors, and even the mortician, in order to defend a position that no one else in the study of the assassination has found to be plausible. But you won't give up. Something's wrong.

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 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Pat Speer pointed out: "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?"

This is a perfectly reasonable point. You duck it. Instead of dealing with it, you throw a few insults around and then offer a few opinions as if they were facts. Classic "Fetzering" (as Craig Lamson would describe it).

Since this thread had crossed into the Twilight Zone, why don't you bring us something truly crazy... how about the belief that both you and Dr.Cinque have that "the Birthers" are right, that President Obama was born in Kenya not the United States? I'd really like to see you argue that belief. It would put everything in its proper place.

JT

As before, your incompetence reeks from every pour. What is the probability that stocky Billy Lovelady, who is practically bursting out of his checkered shirt, would appear to be slender in build with a loose fitting shirt in the doorway? What is the probability that another figure in the crowd would have both HIS FACE and HIS SHIRT obliterated, would they not have given the game away? What is the probability that the Altgens would have been altered UNLESS IT INCLUDED SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED? And what is the probability that the Doorway Man would have Lovelady's face but be wearing Oswald's shirt--unless Lovelady's face had been transferred to Oswald's body, just as Oswald's face had been transferred to someone else's body in the backyard photographs? I am sorry, Pat, but every post you make displays your incapacity to conduct serious research in a case laden with faked and fabricated evidence. It raises serious questions in my mind as to why you are here, where the absurdity of your position on the medical evidence--with a wound on the side of the head that could not possibly be extruding cerebellum--takes the cake. You simply deny what we have to learn from the witnesses, the doctors, the X-rays, and EVEN FRAME 374, where anyone can see for themselves that you are completely and totally wrong. Something is very wrong with you.

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)"?

[Greg Burnham]

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.

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

—William K. Clifford (1879)

[Thomas Graves]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

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

by Dr. Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer

The release of the notes taken by Dallas Police Department Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspected assassin of President John F. Kennedy, in which Lee told Fritz that he was “out front with Bill Shelly” has resurrected a debate of long-standing over whether Oswald was the “Doorway Man” in the famous photograph taken during the assassination by Associated Press photographer James “Ike” Altgens.

In this study, we examine that question. Dr. Fetzer had previously concluded that Oswald was another figure in the Altgens photo, namely, the man who is standing to the right/front of Doorway Man as viewed in the photograph (to Doorway Man’s left/front from his perspective) but whose face and shirt have been obliterated. New observations, first advanced by Ralph Cinque, have convinced Fetzer that Cinque is right: the man in the doorway was Lee Harvey Oswald, after all.

In addition to Cinque’s arguments that the man in the doorway was wearing Oswald’s shirt, Fetzer adds the complementary argument that the shirt of the other figure had to be obscured for the obvious reason that it would have given the game away, which explains why his shirt as well as his face had to be removed. Doorway Man’s face, hairline and the pattern of his shirt were “tweaked” to more closely resemble Lovelady or his face may have been transferred to him, but the form, the fit, and the lay of his man’s outer-shirt and under-shirt are those of Oswald. So, unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald’s clothing, the evidence that we present leaves no room for reasonable doubt.

Why are you so desperate to try to prove that LHO was captured in the Altgens photo? There's so much evidence that LHO wasn't in the sixth floor "sniper's lair" at the time of the shooting that it really doesn't matter, does it?

--Tommy

[Robert Newell]

With respect to all..I think the only Doctor needed to contribute on this thread right now is Kevorkian.

[David Josephs]

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.

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

—William K. Clifford (1879)

Good stuff Greg...

The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.

William Kingdon Clifford

and the King of them all...

"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

3" folds, Vee-necks, auto shells, Mausers, C20-T750, 38E, handwritting analysis, reconstructions, survey data.....

"micro-analyzing the evidence" is the bread and butter of the assassination... and illustrates the effectiveness of the conspiracy

Cheers Greg...

I applaud your efforts...

DJ

"The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred - by economic inequity - faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices."

Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States

[Greg Burnham]

Thank you, David. Effort only goes so far, though. The Art of Persuasion is King...

[Craig Lamson]

" 3" folds,"

"and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them;"

Which is exactly how 3 inch folds and a shoulder hidden by a wall are found.

And WHY davie j fails...(utter photographic ignorance aside)

Good stuff davie, knocked your self right out with a single punch.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David Lifton]

Best frame I could find.

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

chris

Chris,

Who is the fellow in the cowboy hat--and has someone identified any (or perhaps all) of these people?

Thanks.

DSL

[Pat Speer]

As predicted in my last post, you dodged my questions and chose to attack me instead.

As for your questions, I've answered in bold.

As before, your incompetence reeks from every pore. What is the probability that stocky Billy Lovelady, who is practically bursting out of his checkered shirt, would appear to be slender in build with a loose fitting shirt in the doorway? This is something you've imagined. Lovelady on the steps looks exactly like Lovelady in the Police Department.

What is the probability that another figure in the crowd would have both HIS FACE and HIS SHIRT obliterated, would they not have given the game away? This is something you've imagined.

What is the probability that the Altgens would have been altered UNLESS IT INCLUDED SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED? I don't know. But since we have no reason to believe it's been altered it really doesn't matter.

And what is the probability that the Doorway Man would have Lovelady's face but be wearing Oswald's shirt--unless Lovelady's face had been transferred to Oswald's body, This is something you've imagined. Virtually nobody here is buying it.

just as Oswald's face had been transferred to someone else's body in the backyard photographs? I am sorry, Pat, but every post you make displays your incapacity to conduct serious research The suggestion you are "serious" about research, whilst simultaneously RUNNING FROM every challenge I have ever laid before you, going back YEARS now, is probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Except nobody's laughing. Well, maybe Tink.

in a case laden with faked and fabricated evidence. It raises serious questions in my mind as to why you are here, No, Jim, the question is why are YOU here? You seem to have no interest in LEARNING anything. You do little more than make ridiculous claims and then attack everyone who dares say "Wait a second!"

where the absurdity of your position on the medical evidence--with a wound on the side of the head that could not possibly be extruding cerebellum Which is why the majority of those claiming to see cerebellum reversed themselves and admitted they were mistaken. Of course, you, the living embodiment of the PRINCIPLES of Charity and Humanity, get around this by insisting that they LIED.

--takes the cake. You simply deny what we have to learn from the witnesses, WRONG. I've studied the witnesses. You haven't. You've cherry-picked a few who told you what you want to hear, and claim the rest were all mistaken or LIARS.

the doctors, WRONG. I've studied the statements of the doctors. You haven't. You've cherry-picked a few who told you what you want to hear, and claim the rest were all mistaken or LIARS.

the X-rays, WRONG. The x-rays are clear evidence there was more than one head shot. The Mantik/Fetzer fantasy they've been faked is nothing but a distraction, IMO.

and EVEN FRAME 374, Which, as I've shown, shows a light section (which you call a blow-out) on the back of the head that does not remotely align with Mantik's location for the white patch and/or Harper fragment.

where anyone can see for themselves that you are completely and totally wrong. Something is very wrong with you. This is a matter of your visual acuity, you have proven unable to distinguish the pink skull flap from the blue-gray blow-out:

Coming from you, the "expert" on tugged collars who couldn't even tell the collar on Ryan Gosling's shirt had been ripped out, this is quite a compliment.

In addition to the other witnesses, you do not even accept the observations of the mortician, who was in the best possible position to observe them:

No, Jim, it is YOU who don't accept the observations of the mortician, who thought the wound on the back of the head he saw AFTER the skull had been put back together was an entrance wound in the MIDDLE of the back of the head, 5 inches or so from your "white patch."

I am sorry, Pat, but when you suffer from such acute visual and cognitive impairments, you really should not be participating in this discussion. I'm sorry, too...that your performance in this thread has been so embarrassing. You've attacked pretty much everyone, including Monk, your biggest defender. Perhaps you need to take a short break.

The only way you are able to defend yourself, even remotely, is by denying the obvious meaning of the witnesses, the doctors, and even the mortician, in order to defend a position that no one else in the study of the assassination has found to be plausible. This is one of the most ill-informed statements I've ever read. My position regarding the wound location is that the photographic evidence shows Kennedy wounds. This is the position of virtually every doctor to ever study the medical evidence. It is the position of the House Committee, etc. Your attempt at painting me as some outlier pushing some midget in the gutter type theory, etc, reeks of desperation.

But you won't give up. Something's wrong. Yes, there is. When a man whose books have not stood the test of time chooses to attack and attack those who beg to differ, and then push nonsense so embarrassing that even his biggest supporters refuse to buy it, something is most definitely wrong.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Best frame I could find.

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

chris

Chris,

Who is the fellow in the cowboy hat--and has someone identified any (or perhaps all) of these people?

Thanks.

DSL

I was thinking the man in the hat might be Ochus Campbell, VP of the TSBD.

[Greg Burnham]

Best frame I could find.

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

chris

Chris,

Who is the fellow in the cowboy hat--and has someone identified any (or perhaps all) of these people?

Thanks.

DSL

I was thinking the man in the hat might be Ochus Campbell, VP of the TSBD.

I think that is correct, Pat.

OCHUS V. CAMPBELL, 7120 Twin Lakes Lane, Dallas, Texas, furnished the following information:

He is the Vice President of the Texas School Book Depository Company, with offices located on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dallas.

On November 22, 1963, he was present at his office at the above named building and at about 12:30 PM on that day, he and several other associates were together stationed about 30 feet in front of this building facing away from the building observing the passing motorcade containing President KENNEDY. At this time, he heard a loud report, which at first he considered to be a fire cracker or some object set off by a crank and believed the noise came from away from his building. This illusion, he explained, may have been due to the sound bouncing off the building and other objects in the vicinity. After hearing two more such reports, he realized they must have been rifle shots and since President KENNEDY's car had advanced just out of his vision, he went forward a few feet to observe this automobile, inasmuch as he feared that the rifle shots were in connection with an attempt upon President KENNEDY's life. He then observed the car bearing President KENNEDY to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the scene. He then immediately rushed into his building without having seen anything unusual from any window of his building. Inside he was told shortly thereafter by the warehouse superintendent, Mr. TRULY, that all the employees of the company had been rounded up and one employee, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, was missing.

Mr. CAMPBELL observed a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, bearing New Orleans, Louisiana No. 112 723, and stated that he is sure this is a photograph of the employee named above, but added that he is not personally aquainted with him and has never seen him. He advised that he has always given Mr. TRULY the responsibility for hiring employees for the warehouse.

on 11/24/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

By Special Agent EDWARD C. HARDIL & PAUL L. SCOTT Date Dictated 11/24/63

Edited February 10, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Karl Kinaski]

James Fetzer: What is the probability that the Altgens would have been altered UNLESS IT INCLUDED SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED?

There is in fact a probability:

There was at last one fake SS man on the stairs. (The one to whom Brennan gave his observations, after crossing Elm with the words: "I ve seen it all!" This guy kept away Brennan from going inside the TSBD...

KK

Edited February 10, 2012 by Karl Kinaski

[Pat Speer]

More Lovelady photos... Man is he stocky, LOL.

Lovelady in the HSCA files

Groden photo in JSCA files

Signed back of Groden photo

Edited February 10, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David Lifton]

More Lovelady photos... Man is he stocky, LOL.

Lovelady in the HSCA files

Groden photo in JSCA files

Signed back of Groden photo

I think its good that Groden got these pictures. Of particular importance are the signed statements.

The signed statements referred to read as follows:

11/13/76

“The man standing in the entrance of the doorway, with the plaided (sic) shirt is Billy N. Lovelady.

Signed: “Billy N. Lovelady”

I hereby identify this to be my husband, Billy Nolan Lovelady.

Signed: Mrs. Patricia r.Lovelady

Robert J Groden

11-13-76

I've always believed it was Lovelady in the doorway. My question is: why did he tell the FBI--not once, but repeatedly--that he was wearing a shirt that had vertical red and white stripes--i.e., apparently the same shirt that he posed in (for the FBI, in February, 1964).

the other thing that bothers me: I do not see any pocket whatsoever, or any trace of any pocket, in these pictures taken by Groden.

So. . . : I do think its him in the TSBD doorway, but I remain unconvinced that he wore the same shirt for Groden, in 1976, that he was wearing on 11/22/63. Perhaps its not a major point--but those are my thoughts.

DSL