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

David Josephs · February 10, 2012

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.

My pleasure Pat... I apologize for letting myself get sucked down to his level.

Although I have learned a few things about back-n-forth from you and Fetz...

Back to the subject at hand... I posted an extreme blowup of the Door-man and asked who what we see can be considered a "Vee" neck collar...

it is an EXTREME blow-up using the available files and shows me that there is much more shadow than Tshirt, how can the shape be identified since the collar itself is completely in shade?

Rather than insults... if Mr. Lamson has the ability to SHOW US that this collar is not actually detectable.. as I have tried

then he should simply show us and keep his insults to himself.

Can you imagine the ACTUAL SIZE of the portion of the photo this represents? and yet, with my rudimentary skills I can offer an image that DISPROVES Fetzer and friends' claims..

My real quesiton are what are the two white streaks on Door-man's left side... I do not believe the right most one (looking at the photo) is the tie of the person behind him...

Is there a version of Altgens WITHOUT these white streaks?

DJ

ps... Pat - CL is here for no other reason but to "push buttons" as he posts...

at what point does his collective body of work get banned from disrupting thread after thread? All one need do is LOOK thru his posts... for every one that attempts to say something of substance there are 20 that are filled with insults and attacks...

Are members "pushing buttons" solely to annoy others and disrupt threads the purpose of this place?

Moderators? Accusations of "Making up false data" are simply allowed as the result of enlarging a section of an image? :blink:

I enlarged an image to make a point while CL both refuses to offer an improvement and posts this kind of junk:

Correct your gross ignorance of these issues and perhaps you would not be such a target rich environment. However given your history I don't see any additional educational growth in your future. The truth hurts, and I am quite happy to administer the pain...

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.

He pulls the same BS on every forum and in every thread... just ask Duncan.

Once more, I apologize for my posts to him and for not turning the other cheek... I will try harder.

Thomas Graves · February 10, 2012

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.

My pleasure Pat... I apologize for letting myself get sucked down to his level.

Although I have learned a few things about back-n-forth from you and Fetz...

Back to the subject at hand... I posted an extreme blowup of the Door-man and asked who what we see can be considered a "Vee" neck collar...

it is an EXTREME blow-up using the available files and shows me that there is much more shadow than Tshirt, how can the shape be identified since the collar itself is completely in shade?

Rather than insults... if Mr. Lamson has the ability to SHOW US that this collar is not actually detectable.. as I have tried

then he should simply show us and keep his insults to himself.

Can you imagine the ACTUAL SIZE of the portion of the photo this represents? and yet, with my rudimentary skills I can offer an image that DISPROVES Fetzer and friends' claims..

My real quesiton are what are the two white streaks on Door-man's left side... I do not believe the right most one (looking at the photo) is the tie of the person behind him...

Is there a version of Altgens WITHOUT these white streaks?

DJ

ps... Pat - CL is here for no other reason but to "push buttons" as he posts...

at what point does his collective body of work get banned from disrupting thread after thread? All one need do is LOOK thru his posts... for every one that attempts to say something of substance there are 20 that are filled with insults and attacks...

Are members "pushing buttons" solely to annoy others and disrupt threads the purpose of this place?

Moderators? Accusations of "Making up false data" are simply allowed as the result of enlarging a section of an image?

I enlarged an image to make a point while CL both refuses to offer an improvement and posts this kind of junk:

Correct your gross ignorance of these issues and perhaps you would not be such a target rich environment. However given your history I don't see any additional educational growth in your future. The truth hurts, and I am quite happy to administer the pain...

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.

He pulls the same BS on every forum and in every thread... just ask Duncan.

Once more, I apologize for my posts to him and for not turning the other cheek... I will try harder.

But is it a Fruit of the Loom T-shirt? I read somewhere that that was the only kind of T-shirt that LHO would wear. Had a hell of a time finding them in Russia. The State Department had to intervene. That CIA guy working at American Express in Moscow was the cutout.

Just kidding...

--Tommy

February 10, 2012

kdruckman observes:

Oswald’s stretched collar with the damage to left shoulder area, is consistent with with a Sheriff grabbing him “by the scruff of his neck”, with a balled up fist. The notch in the center, which gives it the v-shape is vertical on the left side and tapers upward on the right side and appears soiled and yellow; consistent with repetitive tugging with a right handed thumb. Not the kind of damage from a Sheriff’s balled up fist.

Craig Lamson · February 10, 2012

My pleasure Pat... I apologize for letting myself get sucked down to his level.

Although I have learned a few things about back-n-forth from you and Fetz...

Back to the subject at hand... I posted an extreme blowup of the Door-man and asked who what we see can be considered a "Vee" neck collar...

it is an EXTREME blow-up using the available files and shows me that there is much more shadow than Tshirt, how can the shape be identified since the collar itself is completely in shade?

Rather than insults... if Mr. Lamson has the ability to SHOW US that this collar is not actually detectable.. as I have tried

then he should simply show us and keep his insults to himself.

Sheesh dave, learn to read...I posted the MEAUSREMENTS on the tee shirt many, many posts back. You know, REAL WORK...not a blob of a blowup and and hand wave.

Can you imagine the ACTUAL SIZE of the portion of the photo this represents? and yet, with my rudimentary skills I can offer an image that DISPROVES Fetzer and friends' claims..

Again and to the point you prove NOTHING other than to wave your hands and make a claim...which is the ENTIRE problem for the VAST majority of the so called photo analysis and claims on these ct boards. This thread and your replies are the perfect example.

My real quesiton are what are the two white streaks on Door-man's left side... I do not believe the right most one (looking at the photo) is the tie of the person behind him...

Once again the wild waving of hands ensues.

Is there a version of Altgens WITHOUT these white streaks?

DJ

ps... Pat - CL is here for no other reason but to "push buttons" as he posts...

at what point does his collective body of work get banned from disrupting thread after thread? All one need do is LOOK thru his posts... for every one that attempts to say something of substance there are 20 that are filled with insults and attacks...

Disruptions? You mean proving the photographic ignorance of the vast majority of posters on the photographic threads? I'm really sorry you can't keep up dave. Maybe some education is in order on your part.

Are members "pushing buttons" solely to annoy others and disrupt threads the purpose of this place?

Clearly for many actually LEARNING the subject is beyond their grasp. Don't wish to provide a target rich environment...don't post uninformed gibberish.

Moderators? Accusations of "Making up false data" are simply allowed as the result of enlarging a section of an image?

I enlarged an image to make a point while CL both refuses to offer an improvement and posts this kind of junk:

INTERPOLATION...the process involved when making a digital enlargement;

"1. The act or process of introducing something additional or extraneous between other parts."

You blob of an enlargement is comprised of lots ad lots of FALSE DATA. Data that does not exist in the original image.

Making an INTERPOLATION of the size you provided is not a really smart thing to do. Maybe someday you will learn. History however says otherwise.

Correct your gross ignorance of these issues and perhaps you would not be such a target rich environment. However given your history I don't see any additional educational growth in your future. The truth hurts, and I am quite happy to administer the pain...

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.
When you post garbage you are going to get called on it. Learn to live with to or choose not post...your choice.

He pulls the same BS on every forum and in every thread... just ask Duncan.

There is a very good supply of ct's with zero photographic knowledge all over.

Maybe you need a backslapper forum?

Once more, I apologize for my posts to him and for not turning the other cheek... I will try harder.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson

Greg Burnham · February 10, 2012

The compromise of an otherwise man of integrity is surely a sight to behold. When an individual's ego begins to become more important than friendship, it is perhaps sad. But, when that individual's ego causes him to hide behind the guise of being engaged in a search for the truth in order to justify the dismissal of arguments for which he has no rebuttal, that is rather entertaining albeit in a disappointing way.

What if someone finds testimony where Lovelady states that he saw the limo come to a complete stop? What then? Would you then claim he must have been there to see it clearly from in front and therefore it is Lovelady and not Oswald? That's what happened with your ABSOLUTE conviction that TUM was not Louis Witt, but was instead Roy Hargraves. "Oh, he said he saw the limo come to a stop? Well, then it must be Louis Witt after all!"

That is shoddy reasoning.

In an effort to refrain from engaging in the same manner as I have witnessed you engage others in the past who have disagreed with you, I will withdraw from this debate. It serves no purpose for those of us "on the same side" of the big picture to engage in bickering amongst ourselves. It is petty and pretty pathetic.

I saw you disown your friend, Jack White, a couple of years ago because "truth comes before friendship" you said.

Jack dedicated 47 years of his life to the pursuit of truth in this matter. You are not the only dedicated seeker of truth. You are just the one with the fewest social skills and the largest ego.

Thomas Graves · February 10, 2012

kdruckman observes:

Oswald’s stretched collar with the damage to left shoulder area, is consistent with with a Sheriff grabbing him “by the scruff of his neck”, with a balled up fist. The notch in the center, which gives it the v-shape is vertical on the left side and tapers upward on the right side and appears soiled and yellow; consistent with repetitive tugging with a right handed thumb. Not the kind of damage from a Sheriff’s balled up fist.

This is getting ridiculous. Faces are a lot easier to identify than T-shirts collars, for crying out loud. Just look at the faces in post # 371. The ears and foreheads and hairlines in particular. It's Lovelady on the steps, not Oswald. And no, I don't think LHO shot at the president.

--Tommy

Edited February 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves

Thomas Graves · February 10, 2012

The compromise of an otherwise man of integrity is surely a sight to behold. When an individual's ego begins to become more important than friendship, it is perhaps sad. But, when that individual's ego causes him to hide behind the guise of being engaged in a search for the truth in order to justify the dismissal of arguments for which he has no rebuttal, that is rather entertaining albeit in a disappointing way.

What if someone finds testimony where Lovelady states that he saw the limo come to a complete stop? What then? Would you then claim he must have been there to see it clearly from in front and therefore it is Lovelady and not Oswald? That's what happened with your ABSOLUTE conviction that TUM was not Louis Witt, but was instead Roy Hargraves. "Oh, he said he saw the limo come to a stop? Well, then it must be Louis Witt after all!"

That is shoddy reasoning.

In an effort to refrain from engaging in the same manner as I have witnessed you engage others in the past who have disagreed with you, I will withdraw from this debate. It serves no purpose for those of us "on the same side" of the big picture to engage in bickering amongst ourselves. It is petty and pretty pathetic.

I saw you disown your friend, Jack White, a couple of years ago because "truth comes before friendship" you said.

Jack dedicated 47 years of his life to the pursuit of truth in this matter. You are not the only dedicated seeker of truth. You are just the one with the fewest social skills and the largest ego.

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

:clapping

--Tommy

David Josephs · February 10, 2012

So these are your 9 elements of "proof" Jim?

Proof? as in - this is what you would stand up and say PROVES that Altgens was altered to make Doorman look like Lovelady?

Looks like a list of observations ABOUT the situation and photo, as in, "there is not good reason...." in #7

How again is NOT HAVING A GOOD REASON proof of an altered photo? :blink:

or the statement about Oswald being in the doorway proving conspiracy, #4... "IF ?? "

My #4 - if Oswald was in the 6th floor window holding a rifle at the time of the shots, this demonstrates he did it...

if they could put Lovelady in the doorway... why not put Oswald in the 6th floor window and call it Case Closed??

Here, throw this up to the world - the long lost proof that Oswald did it... give me a break already

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.

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.

Michael Hogan · February 10, 2012

Based on his posts both here and at Rich's forum, Greg Burnham is a class act.

Anyone that places enough value on integrity, honesty, intelligence and, yes, truth would be proud to call Greg their friend. Of that I'm sure.

February 10, 2012

Monk,

What's going on with you? Neither Ralph nor I have ever suggested that Lovelady was not there! And why is sticking up for our analysis, when no one has shown we are wrong, supposed to be an exercise in ego? Why can't you critique the argument we have made, which I recently summarized in nine (9) points, without making stuff up? I am stunned. And the point I was making about Umbrella Man, which I explained to you several times over the phone, is that if Tink is right about Witt having been the Umbrella Man, then, since Witt turns out to be a limo stop witness, he has thereby defeated his own arguments for Zapruder film authenticy--just as he has done before in endorsing Gary Aguliar's chapter in MURDER (2000), which confirms the blow out in the back of the head, which is not visible in the early frames where it should be visible (though it can be seen in frame 374). Or is this another case where you deny the obvious? The Altgens has been altered, which I demonstrated in an earlier post. Jack and I made up, Monk. But your conduct here is simply bizarre. You seem to have lost your way. I am dumbfounded.

Jim

The compromise of an otherwise man of integrity is surely a sight to behold. When an individual's ego begins to become more important than friendship, it is perhaps sad. But, when that individual's ego causes him to hide behind the guise of being engaged in a search for the truth in order to justify the dismissal of arguments for which he has no rebuttal, that is rather entertaining albeit in a disappointing way.

What if someone finds testimony where Lovelady states that he saw the limo come to a complete stop? What then? Would you then claim he must have been there to see it clearly from in front and therefore it is Lovelady and not Oswald? That's what happened with your ABSOLUTE conviction that TUM was not Louis Witt, but was instead Roy Hargraves. "Oh, he said he saw the limo come to a stop? Well, then it must be Louis Witt after all!"

That is shoddy reasoning.

In an effort to refrain from engaging in the same manner as I have witnessed you engage others in the past who have disagreed with you, I will withdraw from this debate. It serves no purpose for those of us "on the same side" of the big picture to engage in bickering amongst ourselves. It is petty and pretty pathetic.

I saw you disown your friend, Jack White, a couple of years ago because "truth comes before friendship" you said.

Jack dedicated 47 years of his life to the pursuit of truth in this matter. You are not the only dedicated seeker of truth. You are just the one with the fewest social skills and the largest ego.

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

February 10, 2012

So you are resorting to a "coulda, woulda, shoulda" argument about placing him in the 6th floor window? They tried that with Howard Brennan. The point is that, to have an adequate explanation for the alteration of the Altgens, you have to take into account all of the evidence that makes a difference. That is why I enumerate points (1) through (9). Do you think, if Oswald was in the doorway, that does NOT prove conspiracy? How could we have a simpler and more obvious proof?

We have to sort out how it was actually done at the time under very pressing circumstances. Have you gone off the deep end? What in the world have I argued that justifies the ridiculous ad hominems you have made? If you don't see how the nine pieces of the puzzle fit together, spell it out. I can't account for your lack of reasoning ability if you don't explain what it is that YOU DON'T GET! So what is it, David Josephs? PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

So these are your 9 elements of "proof" Jim?

Proof? as in - this is what you would stand up and say PROVES that Altgens was altered to make Doorman look like Lovelady?

Looks like a list of observations ABOUT the situation and photo, as in, "there is not good reason...." in #7

How again is NOT HAVING A GOOD REASON proof of an altered photo?

or the statement about Oswald being in the doorway proving conspiracy, #4... "IF ?? "

My #4 - if Oswald was in the 6th floor window holding a rifle at the time of the shots, this demonstrates he did it...

if they could put Lovelady in the doorway... why not put Oswald in the 6th floor window and call it Case Closed??

Here, throw this up to the world - the long lost proof that Oswald did it... give me a break already

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.

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.

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

February 10, 2012

Michael,

Monk has been a good friend of mine for a very long time. His attacks on my research with Ralph have come out of the blue. If you can explain what has happened to create this divide, I would welcome that. I have no idea what has gone wrong. He even denies that he can see the OBVIOUS ALTERATIONS TO THE ALTGENS. There must have been a very good reason for that.

Jim

Based on his posts both here and at Rich's forum, Greg Burnham is a class act.

Anyone that places enough value on integrity, honesty, intelligence and, yes, truth would be proud to call Greg their friend. Of that I'm sure.

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

February 10, 2012

OK, Thomas. The why is Lovelady wearing Oswald's shirt? I'm sure that will be easy for you to explain. Thanks!

kdruckman observes:

Oswald’s stretched collar with the damage to left shoulder area, is consistent with with a Sheriff grabbing him “by the scruff of his neck”, with a balled up fist. The notch in the center, which gives it the v-shape is vertical on the left side and tapers upward on the right side and appears soiled and yellow; consistent with repetitive tugging with a right handed thumb. Not the kind of damage from a Sheriff’s balled up fist.

This is getting ridiculous. Faces are a lot easier to identify than T-shirts collars, for crying out loud. Just look at the faces in post # 371. The ears and foreheads and hairlines in particular. It's Lovelady on the steps, not Oswald. And no, I don't think LHO shot at the president.

--Tommy

Thomas Graves · February 10, 2012

OK, Thomas. The why is Lovelady wearing Oswald's shirt? I'm sure that will be easy for you to explain. Thanks!

kdruckman observes:

Oswald’s stretched collar with the damage to left shoulder area, is consistent with with a Sheriff grabbing him “by the scruff of his neck”, with a balled up fist. The notch in the center, which gives it the v-shape is vertical on the left side and tapers upward on the right side and appears soiled and yellow; consistent with repetitive tugging with a right handed thumb. Not the kind of damage from a Sheriff’s balled up fist.

This is getting ridiculous. Faces are a lot easier to identify than T-shirts collars, for crying out loud. Just look at the faces in post # 371. The ears and foreheads and hairlines in particular. It's Lovelady on the steps, not Oswald. And no, I don't think LHO shot at the president.

--Tommy

How do you know he's wearing Oswald's shirt? Oswald was so skinny, Lovelady probably couldn't even have put it on.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves

David Josephs · February 10, 2012

Jim Fetzer....

Professor Fetzer...

"If" something occurs is not a proof... it is a conditional phrase...

The hypothesis that "Altgens was altered" is in no way proven or even supported by an If-Then statement.

Whether there has been a "long-standing debate" over the the figure in the doorway again, is not PROOF of anything Jim...

It is a simple statement that has no bearing at all on the authenticity of Altgens

There not being, "any good reason to alter" when alteration has yet to be proven, again... does nothing to substantiate your hypothesis... and cannot, is not considered PROOF in any sense of the word.

While Craig and I disagree on many things... his insistence you provide actual PROOF, as opposed to the "aren't you smart enough to see what I see" argument is

WHY you continue to disappoint and enrage others.

Believing YOU see something while condemning others for not, when your actual attempts at proof fall woefully short

is another reason those following this thread are besides themselves with your approach and lack of understanding in the shortcomings of the so called "evidence" you believe you are offering...

Pointing and proclaiming how nice the Kings New Clothes are... when the rest of us see he's naked.. is not proof Jim.

Using CAPITALS and showing bewilderment over anothers inability to agree with you changes nothing...

Your hypothesis remains unproven... and your LIST of 9... is nothing but opinion that you like to twist to suit your needs...

You're so close to the leaves you're drinking the chlorophyll, while Saladria discussed the forest.

and the bottom line is you still have yet to actually PROVE anything other than who you are when challenged.

That is why I enumerate points (1) through (9). Do you think, if Oswald was in the doorway, that does NOT prove conspiracy? How could we have a simpler and more obvious proof?