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

Robin Unger · February 11, 2012

Robin... am I really that far off here?

Do we not see his left arm in front of a man 6-7 feet to the west of him?

Do we not see the white shirt of the man behind him covering his left shoulder and part of his face?

Is Doorman's left shoulder completely gone or has it been dropped down fromhis shoulder to his stomach?

I mean I do see the black tie on the white shirt... and it is obvious that the black woman in the foreground blocks the people in the doorway...

So why does it appear as if these three people overlap each other here?

Thanks...

David

Look at Jerry's photo seen above.

In Altgen's the doorway people appear to be one on top of the other, when in actual fact they were spead out right across the width of the TSBD steps.

As i said before, in the Altgen's photo ( If you don't understand the perspective seen in the image ) you will NEVER get it

David

Do you think the Weigman Film was altered ?

Edited February 11, 2012 by Robin Unger

Robin Unger · February 11, 2012

Monk

Thanks for the comments.

I know that you would not have posted what you did WITHOUT good reason.

I was also a member on Rich's forum.

Rich and others like Bernice new that i was not an Alterationist, but they always treated me respectfully, as i did with them.

David Josephs · February 11, 2012

Robin... am I really that far off here?

Do we not see his left arm in front of a man 6-7 feet to the west of him?

Do we not see the white shirt of the man behind him covering his left shoulder and part of his face?

Is Doorman's left shoulder completely gone or has it been dropped down fromhis shoulder to his stomach?

I mean I do see the black tie on the white shirt... and it is obvious that the black woman in the foreground blocks the people in the doorway...

So why does it appear as if these three people overlap each other here?

Thanks...

David

Look at Jerry's photo seen above.

In Altgen's the doorway people appear to be one on top of the other, when in actual fact they were spead out right across the width of the TSBD steps.

As i said before, in the Altgen's photo ( If you don't understand the perspective seen in the image ) you will NEVER get it

Do you think the Weigman Film was altered ?

I find it has become pointless to offer anything related to thoughts or opinions without supporting evidence....

and since none of us seem to be analyzing original negatives, or authenticated first generation prints... How do we know what we are looking at is in any way authentic?

I am more than willing to hear you out in explaning how pespective allows Doorman's left arm to cross in front of a man 6-7 west of him...

or the shirt of a man behind Doorman (in weigman as related to Altgens) and still have his left shoulder and part of his face obscured by this person.

Is it possible that Doorman walked from where he is in weigman to the west side of the doorway for Altgens?

The image as is, simply looks wrong... and of course perspective plays a role... but even perspective can't put body parts our of sequence...

Camera > Black man > Doorman > Tieman

So even though it appears as if Doorman's left wrist is between Camera & blackman... that left wrist is actually 6-7 feet BEHIND him? :blink:

I value your opinion Robin... and will let it drop... yet it sure does look like tieman's shirt covers up Doorman's shoulder and face... and I KNOW that's not possible...

Thanks for you explanation.

DJ

Greg Burnham · February 11, 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.

Thanks Mike. You are very kind.

Greg Burnham · February 11, 2012

Monk

Thanks for the comments.

I know that you would not have posted what you did WITHOUT good reason.

I was also a member on Rich's forum.

Rich and others like Bernice new that i was not an Alterationist, but they always treated me respectfully, as i did with them.

You're welcome, Robin. And thank you for your good work. You have always seemed to be "about the evidence" and not

inclined to pass judgments on people no matter if their opinions differed from your own. You have shared evidence even

when it tended to support an opposing view. I call that fair minded and honest.

Speaking of alteration...the MAIN reason I know the Z-film was altered is only because of what I witnessed. I would not be

nearly as sure as I am without that experience. So, I understand the skepticism. There are few things that I am similarly that

convinced of because I don't have the luxury of first hand knowledge. Still, the blur issues seem compelling. But, that is a

different topic.

February 11, 2012

You are being too clever by half. I EXPLAINED TO YOU OVER THE PHONE, MORE THAN ONCE, I was impaling Josiah on his own petard by observing that IF WITT WAS THE UMBRELLA MAN, as he maintains, SINCE HE IS ALSO A LIMO-STOP WITNESS, his own designated witness contradicts his position on the Zapruder film. I have no idea whether Witt actually was the Umbrella Man. My point was the irony of Tink's maintaining that he was.

I must infer that you have never understood my argument about Aguilar's chapter, either. Tink--absurdly, in my opinion--trashed MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) EXCEPT FOR ENDORSING AGUILAR'S CHAPTER. BUT, since Aguilar was demonstrating the consistency of the blow-out at the back of his head across witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda--which is not right, since Humes enlarged the wound--he also contradicts the Zapruder.

And that, of course, is because the wound that Aguilar has so thoroughly documented IS NOT VISIBLE IN THE FRAMES WHERE IT SHOULD BE VISIBLE, but has been "blacked out", as many students of the Zapruder have discovered for themselves. Why you would fabricate a fantasy scenario about Lovelady BEING THERE, which I have always taken for granted, if he were a limo stop witness, is simply beyond me. I presume most of them were.

We have lots of proofs about the fabrication of the film--the missing limo stop, Clint Hill's activities, Chaney's motoring forward, the too fast head turns, the wound being painted over in black, the absence of debris from

the trunk, and a host of others--that I CANNOT IMAGING WHY YOU WOULD MAKE UP A FANTASY SCENARIO WHERE WHETHER LOVELADY HAD SEEN THE LIMO STOP AFFECTS THE EVIDENCE RE DOORWAY MAN.

The question is whether Doorway Man was Lovelady or Oswald. Apparently, you were once prepared to agree that we (Ralph and I) may be onto something IF WE CAN PROVE THAT THE ALTGENS WAS ALTERED. But that is a matter of simple visual inspection. OF COURSE IT HAS BEEN ALTERED. Look at the image that I have circled. Where is the man's face? How can you doubt the photo has been altered when a man's face has been obliterated?

Doorway Man is highlighted below. 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 man's shirt as well as his face has also been obfuscated. That you are insisting you can't see it is astonishing to me. But so many unjustifiable arguments have been made that I am no longer surprised.

I have no idea what has come over you, Monk. You used to be a highly rational individual, who would not deny the obvious alteration of a photograph unless it was in doubt, which is not the case here. And for you

to grossly misrepresent my argument about Tink's identification of Witt as the Umbrella Man or suggest that I would change my opinion about Lovelady if he were a limo stop witness is absurd. You have lost your way.

Monk,

What's going on with you? Neither Ralph nor I have ever suggested that Lovelady was not there! (SNIP)

I understand that you didn't suggest Lovelady was not there. I didn't say that you did. I am saying, HYPOTHETICALLY that IF it was determined that Lovelady needed to be right where Doorway Man is standing in order for him to have witnessed the limo stop--and hypothetically IF testimony was found from Lovelady in which he stated he witnessed the limo stop, THEN would you abandon this exercise in "photo analysis" and defer to his statement that he was Doorway man based on the fact that he said he saw the limo stop? This is an important question and one that I fully expect you to ignore. But, that is essentially how you came to the conclusion that Louis Witt was Umbrella Man. Up until your having found out that Witt's testimony to the HSCA included witnessing the limo stop you were rather convinced that TUM was Hargraves and DCM was Santiago. Indeed, you argued that their features were altered in order to obscure their identity, but it was "highly probable" that TUM was Hargraves and DCM was Hargraves' long time Cuban associate, Santiago. Well, that is a lot of "highly probables" to abandon. I understand and allow for the modification of beliefs based on the introduction of new evidence. But, your presentation of hypotheses is not consistent with fallibility. It comes across as pontification. It is offensive, rude, beligerent, and ill received. And when, in the final analysis, you prove to yourself that you were mistaken, you fail to see, let alone acknowledge, the serious etiquette blunder.

(snip) 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?

I understand your point about Tink's blunder and I agree with you on that point. However, you are so busy pointing out his blunder that you fail to see your own!

The Altgens has been altered, which I demonstrated in an earlier post.

Sorry, that is not proof. Now, is it possible? Absolutely. But, even I am not persuaded by your argument. Jim, you inappropriately discount the importance of PERSUASION in making your arguments. The burden is on YOU to persuade. The burden "to be persuaded" is not on your "audience". If you were a prosecutor in a trial in which the guilty party was found not guilty by the jury, all things being equal, who is ultimately responsible for that verdict?

Jack and I made up, Monk. But your conduct here is simply bizarre. You seem to have lost your way. I am dumbfounded.

No, you made up with Jack. He did nothing wrong to deserve your ire in the first place. My conduct here is HONEST. It is all I know.

Edited February 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

Greg Burnham · February 11, 2012

Jim,

I don't believe you have lost your way. I know that I have not lost mine. However, I disagree with your INITIAL conclusions. That's it. Don't get mad. The problem I have with your reasoning (again, don't get mad--listen up) is that some of your premises are not yet established. You are not allowed to be the sole judge of your own work! The problem is that "not yet proved" conclusions have become yet new premises upon which you have built your overall conclusion (LHO is seen in Altgens because he was standing on the steps). So, even if it turns out that LHO was where you claim he was, your argument in support of that assertion does not persuade.

You see, the actual topic of this thread has become a side issue at this stage. We haven't even gotten there yet. We can't go there until we address some unresolved assertions.

The conclusions (become premises) with which I disagree include the following:

"The quality of the Altgens (altered or not) is sufficient to impart enough information to make a definitive determination of, including but not limited to...", the following:

a) its authenticity *

b ) facial details

c) clothing detail, beyond the general

d) the "slightness or stockiness" of build of the subject

e) the shape of the T-shirt's collar

f) the status of the pocket

g) the shape of the outer shirt

h) the pattern of the outer shirt

* This is a big one. Authenticity. Even if--indeed, especially if--you're right and the Altgens has been altered, then it is--by definition--UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE! It is very probably INADMISSABLE for use in this manner, as it would be self impeaching.

Now, granted, IF the Altgens is provably altered, then THAT'S your story! You don't need anything more. IF it is that OBVIOUS then run with that. Because building a case that you can positively identify an individual in a PROVABLY faked photograph will not fly--nor should it.

...

Edited February 11, 2012 by Greg Burnham

February 11, 2012

Ralph comments on the recent flurry of posts--and, in my opinion, nails exactly what has been going on:

Jim, the comparative photo of Jerry's from Lancer is ridiculous. He's got that guy standing 90 degrees to Doorman. Doorman is essentially facing the street. He's got a little bit of right rotation going on- that's all. He is not standing sideways with his body facing the pillar like that model of Jerry's.

And I am getting sick and tired of people blowing up the image of Doorman until it is DISTORTED in the way that they want.

And to Unger, that image I posted happens to be the mostly widely accepted image of Doorman, and it happens to be the clearest version of it that I could find. I didn't do anything to alter it because anything I might have done could have been construed as manipulation. And the fact is that it shows the cardinal features that link Doorman to Oswald. It shows the vee in the tee-shirt. In fact, it shows it so decisively that anything done to that picture to alter it amounts to outright falsification. You see the billowiness of his open shirt, which is not seen in any of the pictures of Lovelady- not from 11/22 and not in any of his staged pictures. You see that distinctive right collar and pseudo-lapel- which are a dead ringer for Oswald's shirt.

Now take a look at this collage of Lovelady which Pat Speer posted. Note that Lovelady had lost a lot of weight by then. He doesn't look anywhere close to 170 pounds any more. I'd say he looks more like 140.

Look at the top photo. Compare his right collar to his left. You notice that the left collar has a longer fold below it than the right. Why? It's because there is a button on the right, so he couldn't fold it any lower. The button was in the way. He went as far as he could. Then the left side he folded over down to where the next button was secured. All that folding that you see was contrived. It was done deliberately. And it was not the normal lay of that shirt. And I'd bet you anything that he took out his iron and pressed that shirt into that condition. Does Doorman's shirt look pressed?

I have to wonder, why didn't Lovelady open up his shirt more? He's only got one button unbuttoned, that is, besides the top button. Doorman was more unbuttoned than that. Why didn't Lovelady open it up and let the shirt billow like we see on Doorman? After all, he went to a lot of trouble to press those collars and create that artificial lapel-look that we see -IT WAS NOT NATURAL- and it was contrary to the normal lay of the shirt. Why didn't he go the distance and really try to duplicate the whole look of Doorway Man?

Well, I suspect that maybe he tried it, and it really didn't look the same. Maybe it created more doubt than certainty. This was probably the best he could come up with.

I wish I could put this into a collage with Doorway Man but I can't because it's a png file. But, compare them yourself, and I mean IN DETAIL, not just a general impression. Look at how the collars are behaving. Lovelady's looks STIFF because it's been pressed over tightly, that is, creased, folded, and ironed. Doorman's collar does NOT look pressed; it certainly does not look neat; rather, it looks like it's just curling over spontaneously. His whole look is the opposite of pressed; it's disheveled. Doorman did not "do" his collar that day; it just happened. What you see in Lovelady was a complete setup, and his aim was to mimic Doorman, but it really doesn't match. They were different shirts. Lovelady was trying, in vain, to make his flannel shirt act like Oswald's tweed, but it just didn't happen.

What you can't argue about is that Lovelady performed a manipulation. He worked the shirt. He folded it over, creased it, pressed it, whereas nothing of that sort happened with Doorman.

Edited February 11, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

February 11, 2012

So not only can you not identify which of my premises (1) though (9) you agree with, you cannot even tell me whether the Altgens has been altered, even after I have explained it to you and made it as obvious as it can be? Instead you are spinning some fantasy about evidence WE DON'T HAVE because your pristine standards cannot cope with the EVIDENCE WE DO HAVE? That's very interesting, Monk, because that tells us you have nothing of value to contribute to this debate. Thanks for making it crystal clear. One of the most common techniques of disinfo agents--and I do not think you are one for even a second!--is to move the goal posts back by insisting on the satisfaction of higher and higher standards. Given those you would impose, I am surprised you have any knowledge about the photographic record at all--and I think that I now understand why all the evidence I pointed out that justifies inferring the film has been faked was simply ignored by you, intimating instead that you would have no idea whether or not it is faked but for having seen a different and apparently unaltered version. So your confidence in reasoning is extremely limited and, oddly, in my opinion, you do not even have enough confidence in your own vision to acknowledge that the Altgens has been altered. Now we know where you stand. And, by the way, the discovery that the Altgens has been altered would remain EVIDENCE OF ALTERATION, where the interesting question is figuring out exactly how it was altered and why--the question that Ralph and I have been pursuing.

Jim,

I don't believe you have lost your way. I know that I have not lost mine. However, I disagree with your INITIAL conclusions. That's it. Don't get mad. The problem I have with your reasoning (again, don't get mad--listen up) is that some of your premises are not yet established. You are not allowed to be the sole judge of your own work! The problem is that "not yet proved" conclusions have become yet new premises upon which you have built your overall conclusion (LHO is seen in Altgens because he was standing on the steps). So, even if it turns out that LHO was where you claim he was, your argument in support of that assertion does not persuade.

You see, the actual topic of this thread has become a side issue at this stage. We haven't even gotten there yet. We can't go there until we address some unresolved assertions.

The conclusions (become premises) with which I disagree include the following:

"The quality of the Altgens (altered or not) is sufficient to impart enough information to make a definitive determination of, including but not limited to...", the following:

a) its authenticity *

b ) facial details

c) clothing detail, beyond the general

d) the "slightness or stockiness" of build of the subject

e) the shape of the T-shirt's collar

f) the status of the pocket

g) the shape of the outer shirt

h) the pattern of the outer shirt

* This is a big one. Authenticity. Even if--indeed, especially if--you're right and the Altgens has been altered, then it is--by definition--UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE! It is very probably INADMISSABLE for use in this manner, as it would be self impeachable.

Now, granted, IF the Altgens is provably altered, then THAT'S your story! You don't need anything more. IF it is that OBVIOUS then run with that. Because building a case that you can positively identify an individual in a PROVABLY faked photograph will not fly. And, it shouldn't.

Edited February 11, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

Greg Burnham · February 11, 2012

I withdraw from this debate. I concede exasperation.

Craig Lamson · February 11, 2012

The original doorway image posted by CINQUE on Lancer.

This was his BEST IMAGE

the one he drew all his conclusions from, for this GROUNDBREAKING NEW RESEARCH.

How anyone can claim to see NEW unforseen evidence of alteration in this image is ludicrous.

I then posted my Large Corbis Altgen's, the Groden doorway blow up, and Anthony Marsh's large scan

so they would have something better to work with, and which to make there conclusions.

and all i received in return for my efforts, was a mouthfull of vitrial and abuse.

and i am accused of not helping them, and only posting images that suited one side.

This was the tipping point.

I won't make the same mistake twice,

Thanks to Jerry.

Credit : Jerry Dealey Lancer Forum

This is how i see Lovelady's hand in the doorway image.

Left shoulder drops as his left hand grabs the hand rail.

Because of the Altgen's perspective, the people in the doorway appear to be standing VERY CLOSE to each other.

But the Weigman frames tell a different story.

Way too far down the steps. Lovelady is too far up the steps in Altgens to match the position see in this photo.

This is all perspective.

As an advertising photographer I an asked almost daily by a client to take a photo that meets some specs decided by them. My job is a to find a way to produce it.

Work a photographic problem like this one is exactly the same. I ask myself how can I take this picture. There is nothing in the Altgens frame that can't be worked out if you understand perspective.

What is throwing people , perspective wise is the distance from Altgens to doorway man. One if the BIGGEST visual clues about the position of objects in a photo is size relationships. Naturally larger items appear closer to the camera, smaller ones farther away.

We are looking at a very small section of the Altgens when we view the TSBD doorway. It is far background. The distances from Altgens, to black man, to doorway man to tie man vary only a tiny percentage. Thus the is little size change between any of the these people.

When you remove the visual size clues your brain gets tricked. You can see things that are behind something as being in front of it.

While there is no actual "compression effect" for a telephoto lens, what we see here could be considered spacial compression.

Also there were no handrails on the side of the stairs in 1963. The handrail went up the center of the stairs.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson

February 11, 2012

Cinque responds to Lamson:

Lamson, Doorman is not dropping his left shoulder. NOBODY can just drop their left shoulder. You think you can? Well, you go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and try to drop your left shoulder. Try to do it without raising your right shoulder an equal amount. I dare you. It can't be done.

Now, look at Doorman's right shoulder. Is it raised? Is it all hunched up? No! What he is doing there is not "dropping his shoulder" but simply rotating his spine, and to the right. That's how he's bringing his arm around to grab the railing. He is not dropping his shoulder.

Think of the shoulders like a see-saw. If you've got two kids on a see-saw, if one kid goes down, the other kid has got to go up. It's the same way with shoulders. If one goes down, the other goes up.

And that's why I have been saying all along that Doorway's left shoulder is missing. It should be there. We should be seeing the point of his shoulder. But that goofy Black Tie Man is there covering it up. And frankly- and this is something that I don't even mention on the videos- the whole line of Doorman's arm is WRONG. His forearm is alright, but the line of his upper arm is rising much too vertically and much too close to his neck. And in the process, he and Black Tie Man are merging and blending and fusing in a way that is completely impossible. That picture is not legit.

Here, look at it large. You can't sort those two guys out. It's like they are conjoined twins.

The original doorway image posted by CINQUE on Lancer.

This was his BEST IMAGE

the one he drew all his conclusions from, for this GROUNDBREAKING NEW RESEARCH.

How anyone can claim to see NEW unforseen evidence of alteration in this image is ludicrous.

I then posted my Large Corbis Altgen's, the Groden doorway blow up, and Anthony Marsh's large scan

so they would have something better to work with, and which to make there conclusions.

and all i received in return for my efforts, was a mouthfull of vitrial and abuse.

and i am accused of not helping them, and only posting images that suited one side.

This was the tipping point.

I won't make the same mistake twice,

Thanks to Jerry.

Credit : Jerry Dealey Lancer Forum

This is how i see Lovelady's hand in the doorway image.

Left shoulder drops as his left hand grabs the hand rail.

Because of the Altgen's perspective, the people in the doorway appear to be standing VERY CLOSE to each other.

But the Weigman frames tell a different story.

Way too far down the steps. Lovelady is too far up the steps in Altgens to match the position see in this photo.

This is all perspective.

As an advertising photographer I an asked almost daily by a client to take a photo that meets some specs decided by them. My job is a to find a way to produce it.

Work a photographic problem like this one is exactly the same. I ask myself how can I take this picture. There is nothing in the Altgens frame that can't be worked out if you understand perspective.

What is throwing people , perspective wise is the distance from Altgens to doorway man. One if the BIGGEST visual clues about the position of objects in a photo is size relationships. Naturally larger items appear closer to the camera, smaller ones farther away.

We are looking at a very small section of the Altgens when we view the TSBD doorway. It is far background. The distances from Altgens, to black man, to doorway man to tie man vary only a tiny percentage. Thus the is little size change between any of the these people.

When you remove the visual size clues your brain gets tricked. You can see things that are behind something as being in front of it.

While there is no actual "compression effect" for a telephoto lens, what we see here could be considered spacial compression.

Also there were no handrails on the side of the stairs in 1963. The handrail went up the center of the stairs.

Edited February 11, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

February 11, 2012

Cinque comments on Lovelady's pressed shirt:

And before anybody tries to respond by saying that, no, Lovelady

didn't work the shirt, I say this: look at that freakin' button.

Believe it or not, that is NOT a decorative button. It was supposed to

be buttoned. And if it were buttoned, that fold that you see across

from it would not exist. There is no natural tendency of that shirt to

do what it is doing. The natural arrangement of that shirt is for that

button to be buttoned.

Do an experiment. Go to your closet and take out a collared shirt,

preferably a flannel shirt like Lovelady's, but definitely one that

would normally be buttoned up, except for the top button. Put it on

and leave the top button unbuttoned, and also leave the second

unbutton unbuttoned. You now have the same status as Lovelady.

First, observe how the shirt lies just from doing that: putting it on

and leaving the top two buttons unbuttoned. It doesn't look anything

like Lovelady's, does it? It's not lying neatly and firmly folded over

in tight creases as you see on him.

Now, with your hands alone, see if you can fold it over and make it

look like his. See if you can get the very same neat, tidy look just

from putting it on and playing with it with your hands. It still

doesn't work, does it. It's not anything like his. It took some doing-

a lot of doing- to get that shirt of his to lie like that.

Hey, let's all do this experiement. I'll go first. Here's me wearing a

collared shirt and just putting it on and letting it do its things. I

actually left the top 3 buttons unbuttoned to really give it a chance.

And this is the result. Not quite a Lovelady, is it. OK, who wants to

be next? Let's find out if Lovelady was masquerading or not.

But, the question is: did he do those things on November 22? No

freakin' way! What red-blooded American male wakes up in the morning

and presses his shirt over in such a goofy way? What for? He was going

to work. Was there any practical reason to do that? Of course not. And

he didn't do it. So, he was masquerading when he posed as Doorman. And

to my mind, he was trying too damn hard to create the image, to

assemble the look. The real Doorman would not have had to do that.

February 11, 2012