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

[Robin Unger]

Weigman film

approx: (1 ) - second before the frame Chris posted.

On the far right, are the young boy and girl who can be seen running in the Couch film, as Officer Baker runs towards the TSBD steps..

Edited February 10, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, I admire William Clifford. I would guess you probably learned of him through me. Either way, neither Ralph nor I has advocated any position for which there is insufficient evidence. I am gaining the impression that you do not understand the role of observation, measurement, and experiment in research. And Vince Salandria would most certainly NOT regard a proof that Oswald was actually in the doorway as unimportant, insignificant, or irrelevant! On the contrary, what could be MORE IMPORTANT, MORE SIGNIFICANT, OR MORE RELEVANT? I am not surprised at David S. Lifton, who is threatened by any discovery that he did not make first. But for you to be concocting a pseudo-justification for denying what we have proven is beyond belief. I used to think you were one of the more thoughtful members of the research community, but you don't even address the evidence and I have now completely lost those illusions. Sad to say, but you have completely lost your way.

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

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

Well, suppose we subtract the "Fritz notes" from the equation. What do we have left? All of the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(9) Lovelady was stocky and filled out his shirt; Doorway Man has a slight build and loose hanging shirt.

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. Even a Pat Speer ought to be able to admit that Billy was a stout fellow who filled out his shirts and was nearly bursting out of them, while Doorway Man has a slight build and his shirt is hanging loosely on him. To deny this obvious fact is to demonstrate his incompetence all over again..

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

You are building upon premises that you have not proved to make your broader conclusion. THAT you claim to have proved, for instance, alteration of the ALTGENS is untrue. You may have proved it to your own satisfaction, but not to anyone else's save for that of Ralph Cinque. Until that premise is accepted as established it is fallacious to build to conclusions that rely upon its accuracy.

Earlier in the thread you said:

-- "The probability that the Altgens would be altered for no good reason is

approximately zero." --

Now, I agree that IF (it was proved that) ALTGENS is altered THEN it would have been

deliberately done and for a VERY GOOD reason, indeed. However, the burden of

proof THAT Altgens was altered has not been satisfied. You might think that it

has, but....

If you are conducting this debate in a vacuum with not a care as to whether or

not anyone else is ever persuaded, then you should carry on the way you are.

However, what is the point to such a self involved exercise?

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, in this case, and assume you are

correct, the fact remains WHO CARES IF YOU ARE CORRECT IF YOU ARE INCAPABLE

OF PERSUADING ANYONE ELSE?

Discovery of the truth should benefit humanity or else it is not worthwhile. You

behave as a stubborn, egotistical man, Jim. It gets in the way of you seeing your

own shortcomings, which may have nothing at all to do with logic.

BTW: Attacking me personally is ad hominem, ugly, and discredits you.

[David Josephs]

Then post a BETTER image of the man and STFU already....

As THIS is what you posted when presenting your 3" disaster...

THIS is your idea of a quality enhancement and enlargement to prove your point...?

UTTER FAILURE there "photo expert"... That's really the BEST you can do?

or the POS images you posted a bit further down

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18646&view=findpost&p=243906

You are and will always remain a gnat on a bulls a$$ here Lamson... a minor, bloodsucking annoyance

but you go right ahead and keep swinging for the fence..

your entertainment value is priceless...

" 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.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, it's sad to see a former friend dump ad hominems on me, but that's how it plays out. If you can't see that the Altgens has been altered, you need to get your eyes examined. A man's face and shirt have been obliterated. And if you can't see that for yourself, surely you can respond to Robin Unger's observation that there is a certain lack of clarity in the doorway area. Or perhaps you can see that the shirt on Doorway Man is hanging loosely or that his build is slight, while Lovelady is stocky and fills out his shirts. They cannot both be the same guy. I am stunned that you are so incapable of processing the available relevant information.

The arguments that Ralph and I have given are well-founded--and I spent 35 years offering courses in the evaluation of arguments. What is the saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" I have no idea what has come over you, Monk, but you are putting up some of the dumbest posts I have ever read from an intelligent man. I cannot put friendship before truth, because then there is only friendship and no truth. But I can tell you are going to have lots of "new best friends" here, including Tink, Lamson, Speer, and others galore. That you have taken this path disappoints me, but sometimes life throws a curve like this our way.

Doorway Man is highlighted. You can see his slender build and loose fitting shirt. The figures that have been obscured are to his right/front (looking at the photograph) and to his left/front (from his point of view). The face has been almost completely removed, but you can see just a bit of the hairline. In another composite--which I will try to track down to add along with this photo--you can see it more clearly. But the man's shirt has also been obfuscated. That you are insisting you can't see it is astonishing to me. But others no doubt will applaud your stance. I am really, really sorry that it has come to this. You were a good friend.

Jim,

You are building upon premises that you have not proved to make your broader conclusion. THAT you claim to have proved, for instance, alteration of the ALTGENS is untrue. You may have proved it to your own satisfaction, but not to anyone else's save for that of Ralph Cinque. Until that premise is accepted as established it is fallacious to build to conclusions that rely upon its accuracy.

Earlier in the thread you said:

-- "The probability that the Altgens would be altered for no good reason is

approximately zero." --

Now, I agree that IF (it was proved that) ALTGENS is altered THEN it would have been

deliberately done and for a VERY GOOD reason, indeed. However, the burden of

proof THAT Altgens was altered has not been satisfied. You might think that it

has, but....

If you are conducting this debate in a vacuum with not a care as to whether or

not anyone else is ever persuaded, then you should carry on the way you are.

However, what is the point to such a self involved exercise?

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, in this case, and assume you are

correct, the fact remains WHO CARES IF YOU ARE CORRECT IF YOU ARE INCAPABLE

OF PERSUADING ANYONE ELSE?

Discovery of the truth should benefit humanity or else it is not worthwhile. You

behave as a stubborn, egotistical man, Jim. It gets in the way of you seeing your

own shortcomings, which may have nothing at all to do with logic.

BTW: Attacking me personally is ad hominem, ugly, and discredits you.

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Since this thread went one step beyond many pages ago, it seems silly to try to step in now. But I have to try, don't I? I think Craig and David have made it clear they don't like or respect each other. They've each gotten in a few shots.

So I'm asking them to lay off each other. Let's keep this thread focused on the article by Ralph Cinque and Dr. Fetzer, and the tactics Dr. Fetzer uses in defense of his article.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Well, it's sad to see a former friend dump ad hominems on me, but that's how it plays out. If you can't see that the Altgens has been altered, you need to get your eyes examined. A man's face and shirt have been obliterated. And if you can't see that for yourself, surely you can respond to Robin Unger's observation that there is a certain lack of clarity in the doorway area. Or perhaps you can see that the shirt on Doorway Man is hanging loosely or that his build is slight, while Lovelady is stocky and fills out his shirts. They cannot both be the same guy. I am stunned that you are so incapable of processing the available relevant information.

The arguments that Ralph and I have given are well-founded--and I spent 35 years offering courses in the evaluation of arguments. What is the saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" I have no idea what has come over you, Monk, but you are putting up some of the dumbest posts I have ever read from an intelligent man. I cannot put truth before friendship, because then there is only friendship and no truth. But I can tell you are going to have lots of "new best friends" here, including Tink, Lamson, Speer, and others galore. That you have taken this path disappoints me, but sometimes life throws a curve like this our way.

Geez, Jim. In the last 35 years I never once offered a course in the evaluation of arguments. But I'm offering one now. Your excuse for dumping on Monk "I cannot put truth before friendship, because then there is only friendship and no truth." makes no sense whatsoever. Did you mean to write "I cannot put friendship before truth, because then there is only friendship and no truth"?

If not, then, I give you an F.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Thomas Graves]

Well, it's sad to see a former friend dump ad hominems on me, but that's how it plays out. If you can't see that the Altgens has been altered, you need to get your eyes examined. A man's face and shirt have been obliterated. And if you can't see that for yourself, surely you can respond to Robin Unger's observation that there is a certain lack of clarity in the doorway area. Or perhaps you can see that the shirt on Doorway Man is hanging loosely or that his build is slight, while Lovelady is stocky and fills out his shirts. They cannot both be the same guy. I am stunned that you are so incapable of processing the available relevant information.

The arguments that Ralph and I have given are well-founded--and I spent 35 years offering courses in the evaluation of arguments. What is the saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" I have no idea what has come over you, Monk, but you are putting up some of the dumbest posts I have ever read from an intelligent man. I cannot put truth before friendship, because then there is only friendship and no truth. But I can tell you are going to have lots of "new best friends" here, including Tink, Lamson, Speer, and others galore. That you have taken this path disappoints me, but sometimes life throws a curve like this our way.

Doorway Man is highlighted. You can see his slender build and loose fitting shirt. The figures that have been obscured are to his right/front (looking at the photograph) and to his left/front (from his point of view). The face has been almost completely removed, but you can see just a bit of the hairline. In another composite--which I will try to track down to add along with this photo--you can see it more clearly. But the man's shirt has also been obfuscated. That you are insisting you can't see it is astonishing to me. But others no doubt will applaud your stance. I am really, really sorry that it has come to this. You were a good friend.

Jim,

You are building upon premises that you have not proved to make your broader conclusion. THAT you claim to have proved, for instance, alteration of the ALTGENS is untrue. You may have proved it to your own satisfaction, but not to anyone else's save for that of Ralph Cinque. Until that premise is accepted as established it is fallacious to build to conclusions that rely upon its accuracy.

Earlier in the thread you said:

-- "The probability that the Altgens would be altered for no good reason is

approximately zero." --

Now, I agree that IF (it was proved that) ALTGENS is altered THEN it would have been

deliberately done and for a VERY GOOD reason, indeed. However, the burden of

proof THAT Altgens was altered has not been satisfied. You might think that it

has, but....

If you are conducting this debate in a vacuum with not a care as to whether or

not anyone else is ever persuaded, then you should carry on the way you are.

However, what is the point to such a self involved exercise?

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, in this case, and assume you are

correct, the fact remains WHO CARES IF YOU ARE CORRECT IF YOU ARE INCAPABLE

OF PERSUADING ANYONE ELSE?

Discovery of the truth should benefit humanity or else it is not worthwhile. You

behave as a stubborn, egotistical man, Jim. It gets in the way of you seeing your

own shortcomings, which may have nothing at all to do with logic.

BTW: Attacking me personally is ad hominem, ugly, and discredits you.

It's Lovelady on the steps. His ears stick out a lot more than Oswald's. Don't worry, Dr Fetzer-- it doesn't mean that LHO shot JFK...

--Tommy

Edited February 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Just when I had thought you had reached the epitome in your quest to present yourself as a pompous A$$... you post this.

What an amzaing disappointment you are Mr. F.

It's no wonder you are the laughing stock of the JFK community and a detriment to any unified understanding of the situation...

I had defended you on other forums for you pioneering and dedication to uncovering conspiracy where you could...

yet your entire condescending approach as well as your inablility to DISCUSS rather than DEBATE... to collaborate rather than condemn and ridicule

has so turned me off to you and your work as to render you worthless... nothing you say or present is believeable... nothing you endorse can be taken seriously

With as many sets of shoulders you stand upon - oh, never mind... I may be just some inconsequential, interested party... but I USED to be your audience...

You're worse than Barnum's flea circus act.... All show, no substance

"Now what's to be found by racing around,

you carry your pain wherever you go,

Full of blues, and tryin' to lose,

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

Well, I admire William Clifford. I would guess you probably learned of him through me. Either way, neither Ralph nor I has advocated any position for which there is insufficient evidence. I am gaining the impression that you do not understand the role of observation, measurement, and experiment in research. And Vince Salandria would most certainly NOT regard a proof that Oswald was actually in the doorway as unimportant, insignificant, or irrelevant! On the contrary, what could be MORE IMPORTANT, MORE SIGNIFICANT, OR MORE RELEVANT? I am not surprised at David S. Lifton, who is threatened by any discovery that he did not make first. But for you to be concocting a pseudo-justification for denying what we have proven is beyond belief. I used to think you were one of the more thoughtful members of the research community, but you don't even address the evidence and I have now completely lost those illusions. Sad to say, but you have completely lost your way.

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

[Craig Lamson]

Then post a BETTER image of the man and STFU already....

As THIS is what you posted when presenting your 3" disaster...

THIS is your idea of a quality enhancement and enlargement to prove your point...?

UTTER FAILURE there "photo expert"... That's really the BEST you can do?

or the POS images you posted a bit further down

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18646&view=findpost&p=243906

You are and will always remain a gnat on a bulls a$$ here Lamson... a minor, bloodsucking annoyance

but you go right ahead and keep swinging for the fence..

your entertainment value is priceless...

wow davie, your buttons are SO EASY to push. I completely enjoyed it.

YOU keep telling us you are done and yet you keep on playing. What a hoot!

You just don't get it do you dave, your ignorance of all thing photographic are simply astonishing! DO you UNDERSTAND there is a point of diminishing returns when to comes to INTERPOLATION..the MAKING UP of false data...when resizing an image? I guess not, just look at the blob of crap you posted.

Like always you simply don't have to chops to keep up. Talk about a gnat. Nice work dave, you outdid yourself.

BTW, the Betzner is not what proves my point, even though it is far superior to the blob of a lovelady you posted.....its the SUN that proves my point dave, again its really beyond your limited ability to comprehend. So why even try....

Edited February 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tommy,

Maybe you missed the part where they transferred most of Lovelady's face onto Oswald's body, just as they had

transferred Lee's face onto the body of his stand-in in the backyard photographs. So that would be no surprise.

It's the shirts that are important and the slender build of the man who is wearing them. The face exchange has

deceived generations of students. Ralph had the genius to realize it was the shirts, not the faces, that mattered.

But the ear angle is a good one. Ears are as distinctive as fingerprints. If they are Lovelady's, then, for reasons I

have explained, that does not prove it was Lovelady, since they moved his face onto Doorway Man's body by our

hypothesis. If, however, they actually are Oswald's ears, then that should be considered to be conclusive, since

Oswald's ears cannot be on Lovelady's body. Ralph thinks that they actually ARE Oswald's ears. Compare them.

Jim

Well, it's sad to see a former friend dump ad hominems on me, but that's how it plays out. If you can't see that the Altgens has been altered, you need to get your eyes examined. A man's face and shirt have been obliterated. And if you can't see that for yourself, surely you can respond to Robin Unger's observation that there is a certain lack of clarity in the doorway area. Or perhaps you can see that the shirt on Doorway Man is hanging loosely or that his build is slight, while Lovelady is stocky and fills out his shirts. They cannot both be the same guy. I am stunned that you are so incapable of processing the available relevant information.

The arguments that Ralph and I have given are well-founded--and I spent 35 years offering courses in the evaluation of arguments. What is the saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" I have no idea what has come over you, Monk, but you are putting up some of the dumbest posts I have ever read from an intelligent man. I cannot put friendship before truth, because then there is only friendship and no truth. But I can tell you are going to have lots of "new best friends" here, including Tink, Lamson, Speer, and others galore. That you have taken this path disappoints me, but sometimes life throws a curve like this our way.

Doorway Man is highlighted. You can see his slender build and loose fitting shirt. The figures that have been obscured are to his right/front (looking at the photograph) and to his left/front (from his point of view). The face has been almost completely removed, but you can see just a bit of the hairline. In another composite--which I will try to track down to add along with this photo--you can see it more clearly. But the man's shirt has also been obfuscated. That you are insisting you can't see it is astonishing to me. But others no doubt will applaud your stance. I am really, really sorry that it has come to this. You were a good friend.

Jim,

You are building upon premises that you have not proved to make your broader conclusion. THAT you claim to have proved, for instance, alteration of the ALTGENS is untrue. You may have proved it to your own satisfaction, but not to anyone else's save for that of Ralph Cinque. Until that premise is accepted as established it is fallacious to build to conclusions that rely upon its accuracy.

Earlier in the thread you said:

-- "The probability that the Altgens would be altered for no good reason is

approximately zero." --

Now, I agree that IF (it was proved that) ALTGENS is altered THEN it would have been

deliberately done and for a VERY GOOD reason, indeed. However, the burden of

proof THAT Altgens was altered has not been satisfied. You might think that it

has, but....

If you are conducting this debate in a vacuum with not a care as to whether or

not anyone else is ever persuaded, then you should carry on the way you are.

However, what is the point to such a self involved exercise?

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, in this case, and assume you are

correct, the fact remains WHO CARES IF YOU ARE CORRECT IF YOU ARE INCAPABLE

OF PERSUADING ANYONE ELSE?

Discovery of the truth should benefit humanity or else it is not worthwhile. You

behave as a stubborn, egotistical man, Jim. It gets in the way of you seeing your

own shortcomings, which may have nothing at all to do with logic.

BTW: Attacking me personally is ad hominem, ugly, and discredits you.

That's Lovelady on the steps. His ears stick out a lot more than Oswald's.

--Tommy

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, even leaving Fritz' notes to one side, there are at least nine (9) elements to this proof--plus analyses contributed

by two other students of this issue. If you want to justify your ad hominem attacks, show what Ralph and I have wrong.

I really don't care about your personal feelings. This is a matter of logic and evidence. So what do he and I have wrong?

And what in the world in that specific post pissed you off? You and Lifton and Monk seem to be singing the same song.

Just when I had thought you had reached the epitome in your quest to present yourself as a pompous A$$... you post this.

What an amzaing disappointment you are Mr. F.

It's no wonder you are the laughing stock of the JFK community and a detriment to any unified understanding of the situation...

I had defended you on other forums for you pioneering and dedication to uncovering conspiracy where you could...

yet your entire condescending approach as well as your inablility to DISCUSS rather than DEBATE... to collaborate rather than condemn and ridicule

has so turned me off to you and your work as to render you worthless... nothing you say or present is believeable... nothing you endorse can be taken seriously

With as many sets of shoulders you stand upon - oh, never mind... I may be just some inconsequential, interested party... but I USED to be your audience...

You're worse than Barnum's flea circus act.... All show, no substance

"Now what's to be found by racing around,

you carry your pain wherever you go,

Full of blues, and tryin' to lose,

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Brilliant, Pat! For once we agree. Yes, I did invert the relationship. And that WASN'T OBVIOUS TO YOU?

Another stunning example of your incapacity to interpret what someone is saying to make it come out

true, even when my meaning was obvious. I am very upset about this business with Monk, which even

you should have noticed. I must be right that there is something odd about your cognitive processing.

Well, it's sad to see a former friend dump ad hominems on me, but that's how it plays out. If you can't see that the Altgens has been altered, you need to get your eyes examined. A man's face and shirt have been obliterated. And if you can't see that for yourself, surely you can respond to Robin Unger's observation that there is a certain lack of clarity in the doorway area. Or perhaps you can see that the shirt on Doorway Man is hanging loosely or that his build is slight, while Lovelady is stocky and fills out his shirts. They cannot both be the same guy. I am stunned that you are so incapable of processing the available relevant information.

The arguments that Ralph and I have given are well-founded--and I spent 35 years offering courses in the evaluation of arguments. What is the saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" I have no idea what has come over you, Monk, but you are putting up some of the dumbest posts I have ever read from an intelligent man. I cannot put truth before friendship, because then there is only friendship and no truth. But I can tell you are going to have lots of "new best friends" here, including Tink, Lamson, Speer, and others galore. That you have taken this path disappoints me, but sometimes life throws a curve like this our way.

Geez, Jim. In the last 35 years I never once argued a course in the evaluation of arguments. But I'm offering one now. Your excuse for dumping on Monk "I cannot put truth before friendship, because then there is only friendship and no truth." makes no sense whatsoever. Did you mean to write "I cannot put friendship before truth, because then there is only friendship and no truth"?

If not, then, I give you an F.

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

Well, it's sad to see a former friend dump ad hominems on me, but that's how it plays out. If you can't see that the Altgens has been altered, you need to get your eyes examined. A man's face and shirt have been obliterated. And if you can't see that for yourself, surely you can respond to Robin Unger's observation that there is a certain lack of clarity in the doorway area. Or perhaps you can see that the shirt on Doorway Man is hanging loosely or that his build is slight, while Lovelady is stocky and fills out his shirts. They cannot both be the same guy. I am stunned that you are so incapable of processing the available relevant information.

The arguments that Ralph and I have given are well-founded--and I spent 35 years offering courses in the evaluation of arguments. What is the saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" I have no idea what has come over you, Monk, but you are putting up some of the dumbest posts I have ever read from an intelligent man. I cannot put truth before friendship, because then there is only friendship and no truth. But I can tell you are going to have lots of "new best friends" here, including Tink, Lamson, Speer, and others galore. That you have taken this path disappoints me, but sometimes life throws a curve like this our way.

Doorway Man is highlighted. You can see his slender build and loose fitting shirt. The figures that have been obscured are to his right/front (looking at the photograph) and to his left/front (from his point of view). The face has been almost completely removed, but you can see just a bit of the hairline. In another composite--which I will try to track down to add along with this photo--you can see it more clearly. But the man's shirt has also been obfuscated. That you are insisting you can't see it is astonishing to me. But others no doubt will applaud your stance. I am really, really sorry that it has come to this. You were a good friend.

Jim,

You are building upon premises that you have not proved to make your broader conclusion. THAT you claim to have proved, for instance, alteration of the ALTGENS is untrue. You may have proved it to your own satisfaction, but not to anyone else's save for that of Ralph Cinque. Until that premise is accepted as established it is fallacious to build to conclusions that rely upon its accuracy.

Earlier in the thread you said:

-- "The probability that the Altgens would be altered for no good reason is

approximately zero." --

Now, I agree that IF (it was proved that) ALTGENS is altered THEN it would have been

deliberately done and for a VERY GOOD reason, indeed. However, the burden of

proof THAT Altgens was altered has not been satisfied. You might think that it

has, but....

If you are conducting this debate in a vacuum with not a care as to whether or

not anyone else is ever persuaded, then you should carry on the way you are.

However, what is the point to such a self involved exercise?

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, in this case, and assume you are

correct, the fact remains WHO CARES IF YOU ARE CORRECT IF YOU ARE INCAPABLE

OF PERSUADING ANYONE ELSE?

Discovery of the truth should benefit humanity or else it is not worthwhile. You

behave as a stubborn, egotistical man, Jim. It gets in the way of you seeing your

own shortcomings, which may have nothing at all to do with logic.

BTW: Attacking me personally is ad hominem, ugly, and discredits you.

It's Lovelady on the steps. His ears stick out a lot more than Oswald's. Don't worry, Dr Fetzer-- it doesn't mean that LHO shot JFK...

--Tommy

edited and bumped