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

[David Josephs]

Hi Tommy..

It's strange,no?

I post this pages and pages ago to discuss the white lines crossing in front of Doorman...

or how his shoulder and arm are so out of place... how it crosses in front of the black man.... just insults..

I make the suggestion that if the photo changers are THAT GOOD, why not just put Oswald in the 6th floor window in ANY image

If they knew he would not be there and they could control any sightings of Oswald (Arnold, Reid) thru alteration and intimidation.

why not, right?

Silence.

and then look at the images they DO use to argue DETAILS with each other...

Can you imagine ANYONE outside our group reading this thread with the heavyweights of the assassination bickering like children...

Here is the first floor B...

[...]

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

[...]

David,

You make an excellent point.

--Thomas

[Greg Burnham]

Although I don't qualify as a "heavyweight" still I regret any appearance of bickering to which I have been a party. That was not my intent.

.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[David Josephs]

So Greg...

What are you thoughts then...

If they can alter Altgens to remove Oswald... IF...

why not just simply put Oswald into one of the TSBD 6th images as I playfully did?

and what is the white line crossing in front of his shoulder and chin

and how does it actually appear as if black man is blocked out by Doorman 6-7 feet west of him in weigman... did he move to the west between images?

DJ

ps... you're one of the heavy weights Greg... anyone who's seen a differet Z film qualifies

or has offered up clarity in as many areas as you have...

cheers

[Richard Hocking]

link to fbi booklet showing floor plans etc...if of any use...

http://www.maryferre...896&relPageId=2

Got the Url. Thanks, Bernice

[Richard Hocking]

Followup to my earlier post on the angle of the sun and Chin Shadows. At the time of the Altgens photo, the angle of sunlight was 37°.

Compare this to the dark area under the chin of Doorway Man/Lovelady in the Altgen's photo.

[Thomas Graves]

Jim,

Are you simply repeating everything this guy is feeding you?

Are you actually thinking critically about his claims before you are posting them? If so: WOW.

I see what Craig is describing--at least as clearly, if not more clearly, than what this guy is attempting to describe.

Hey, and I still don't even like Lamson at all!

...

That shirt is a bold plaid. Notice the horizontal white stripe near Lovelady's left elbow. It's the same shirt he was photographed wearing later that day. Thanks, Duncan.

--Tommy

Edited February 12, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Richard Hocking]

...

Here is the first floor B...

David, I think the graphic you posted is the same one I have been working with, but thanks for posting it.

I was hoping to get lucky and find something that has all the dimensions labeled, but I can blow the graphic up and measure them myself.

[Greg Burnham]

David,

IF Altgens was altered--and I am neither convinced that it was or was not--but, IF it was, then there are several factors to consider, some of which are NOT necessarily obvious.

I agree with you that it would have been a "simpler" solution to add Oswald to a photo of the 6th floor--IF--framing him for the crime was their ONLY (or their most important) goal.

But, what if an equally--if not more--important goal was to cause: confusion, infighting, the chasing of red herrings, mis-direction, doubt, fear, cognitive dissonance, and myriad other psyops "effects" that serve a more long term goal? If true, then we must look at the subject of alteration with a different eye altogether. For instance, the topic of Z-film alteration has led, understandably, to some skeptics asking the legitimate question: "If the conspirators altered the film why did they leave in some of the most damaging evidence, such as, the "back and to the left" motion that clearly indicates a shot from the front?" That question is similar in nature to the one you raised.

Again, sometimes motivations are not as obvious or "simple" as all of that. The events in Dealey Plaza, in my view, were not just the murder of the president, a coup, and a frame-up of a patsy so the perps could get away with it. It was much more than that.

It was psychological warfare on a very deep level perpetrated against the sovereignty of the PEOPLE of the United States. I believe that the perpetrators were fully capable of completely covering up this crime to the point of it being Case Closed--accepted by everyone--within a few months.

IMHO:

THAT the official story is still being doubted by the vast majority of Americans is by DESIGN.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, we know most of the evidence has been fabricated or planted, including the backyard photographs, the Mannlicher-Carcano, the Tippit shooting, on and on. He passed his nitrate test and was not even on the 6th floor. So we KNOW the man has been framed. The manipulation of witnesses and their testimony is another aspect of all of this. The FBI did not question many of the witnesses closest to the shooting and filtered testimony to keep it from the commission. Even the Parkland Press Conference, during which Malcolm Perry, M.D., explained THREE TIMES that the throat wound was a wound of entry was never shared with its members. We also know that the Zapruder and other films have been altered to remove the limo stop, Chaney's motoring forward, and Clint Hill's activities, no to mention painting over the wound at the back of his head and painting in the "blob". If Lee had not told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", if Lee and Billy had more similar builds/had worn similar shirts, if the Altgens had not been altered by the obfuscation of the face and shirt of the figure to the right/front, if that had not been done IMMEDIATELY AND BEFORE THE PHOTO HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE PRESS, we would not have realized that SOMEONE HAD TO HAVE BEEN PRESENT WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE, WHERE THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD HAVE BEEN WAS OSWALD.

In every case, we have to take all of the evidence together to sort out what happened. No one should be surprised that the government has produced mountains of evidence, most of which is contrived, to support its house of cards. WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR IS EVIDENCE THAT FALSIFIES THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT. And that, remarkably enough, appears to be what we have here. Those who are gullible and more easily taken in are not going to be able to reason this through. Others, who do not even trust their own "lying eyes", are going to be among those who accept what others tell them. WHAT COULD BE MORE DEVASTATING ON THE EVE OF THE 50th OBSERVANCE THAN PROOF THAT OSWALD WAS STANDING IN THE DOORWAY DURING THE ASSASSINATION? It at a single stroke demonstrates the duplicity and the deceit of the American government to the American people, who are entitled to know the truth about the death of their 35th president. Some here understand the situation we are in; others do not. To simply take words that we cannot trust about whether he was or was not there from witnesses who were not paying attention to who was with them but what was taking place on Elm Street grossly underestimates the complexity of the situation we confront. If the situation were simple and straightforward, we would not be engaged in this extended debate--even though I am of the opinion that not everyone here is sincere.

But others are, where I certainly count you among them. Ralph noticed something no one else has noticed before--that it is the shirts that matter, not the faces. Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right! All kinds of arguments are being advanced to defeat our analysis, but however much they, like The Force, may persuade those who are weakminded, the proof is there staring us in the face. Persuasion, after all, is a matter of personal conviction and highly dependent upon considerations of psychology. Proof, by contrast, is a matter of logic and evidence, where I have no doubt at all that there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Ralph and I have drawn. WHY ELSE WOULD THE ALTGENS HAVE BEEN ALTERED? We are talking about an obscure figure in the crowd, whom most who view this photograph would almost certain have never noticed? BUT THE PERPS KNEW. THEY HAD TO HAVE HAD LEE UNDER THEIR SURVEILLANCE AT VIRTUALLY ALL TIMES. It was a problem, which they immediately "fixed". And, but for Ralph, none of us would have known any better and continued to believe the myth that "Bulging Billy" was in the doorway, not the slender Oswald, who, Ralph noticed, was wearing a loose fitting and very distinctive shirt.

Cinque replies to Burnham (but I do agree that an empirical hypothesis can also be defeated by new evidence, should it be undermined thereby, as the requirement of total evidence implies; and I do like the colorizing, which is a nice touch even though the original is not a color photo and its weight may therefore remain open to debate):

Greg, I know you're attracted to flashing colors, but take a look at that light show again, and try to find the point of his shoulder. Shoulders have outermost "points," and we should be able to see the point of his shoulder, but it is missing. It's like it's been shaved off.

And don't you know that eye-witness testimony is the least reliable? Why do you think so many death row inmates have been released due to DNA evidence? It's because eye-witnesses were wrong.

The Altgens photo shows very well that the Doorman was Oswald. He's wearing Oswald's outer shirt. He's wearing Oswald's t-shirt. And he's got Oswald's build.

Here are three right collars: Doorman's, Oswald's, and Lovelady's. You can see that Doorman's and Oswald's match perfectly, with the collar and the natural curling over of the material beneath the collar into a small pseudo-lapel. On Lovelady, what you see is a rigid pressing over of the material that in no way matches the other two.

The shirt on Doorman's back is Oswald's, and that means he was Oswald. And that trumps any eye-witness testimony.

Doorman's right cuff-lapel:

That you are discounting eyewitness testimony is interesting given the amount of weight that Fetzer has always given it prior to his relationship with you. Fetzer has always insisted that eyewitness testimony, particularly that which is corroborated by other reliable eyewitnesses and is given soon after the event being reported, should not be discounted out of hand. Moreover, he has often posted names of those who claim that the limousine stopped and used the list as a proof or at least as a strong indicator that the Zapruder film was altered. He has repeatedly posted a rather large list of all of the medical personnel at Parkland who reported a blow out to the rear of the head, etc.

Now, IF the Altgens was of higher quality given the rather small area with which we are dealing, then perhaps it would constitute enough new evidence to raise a question as to the reliability of multiple eyewitness' testimony. As it is, it does not persuade. Your burden of proof is not that low under these circumstances. I am not moving goal posts or changing the height of the bar.

And before you make the claim, let me say again: Your analysis of this photograph does NOT constitute physical evidence. It is not DNA evidence.

Edited February 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

Jim,

Are you simply repeating everything this guy is feeding you?

Are you actually thinking critically about his claims before you are posting them? If so: WOW.

I see what Craig is describing--at least as clearly, if not more clearly, than what this guy is attempting to describe.

Hey, and I still don't even like Lamson at all!

...

That shirt is a bold plaid. Notice the horizontal white stripe near Lovelady's left elbow. It's the same shirt he was photographed wearing later that day. Thanks, Duncan.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks for the well reasoned and civil response, Jim.

You said:

"Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right!"

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling.

Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO.

[David Josephs]

David,

IF Altgens was altered--and I am neither convinced that it was or was not--but, IF it was, then there are several factors to consider, some of which are NOT necessarily obvious.

I agree with you that it would have been a "simpler" solution to add Oswald to a photo of the 6th floor--IF--framing him for the crime was their ONLY (or their most important) goal.

But, what if an equally--if not more--important goal was to cause: confusion, infighting, the chasing of red herrings, mis-direction, doubt, fear, cognitive dissonance, and myriad other psyops "effects" that serve a more long term goal? If true, then we must look at the subject of alteration with a different eye altogether. For instance, the topic of Z-film alteration has led, understandably, to some skeptics asking the legitimate question: "If the conspirators altered the film why did they leave in some of the most damaging evidence, such as, the "back and to the left" motion that clearly indicates a shot from the front?" That question is similar in nature to the one you raised.

Again, sometimes motivations are not as obvious or "simple" as all of that. The events in Dealey Plaza, in my view, were not just the murder of the president, a coup, and a frame-up of a patsy so the perps could get away with it. It was much more than that.

It was psychological warfare on a very deep level perpetrated against the sovereignty of the PEOPLE of the United States. I believe that the perpetrators were fully capable of completely covering up this crime to the point of it being Case Closed--accepted by everyone--within a few months.

IMHO:

THAT the official story is still being doubted by the vast majority of Americans is by DESIGN.

There is no doubt that events where planned to create HONEST, conflicting testimony about identical events...

There is also no doubt that we are not only looking at the tip of the iceberg... but in many cases the wrong iceberg entirely...

So the question remains... how to authenticate the conspiracy using in-authentic evidence... by its nature, showing that the evidence cannot be authenticated

IS in itself proof of the conspiracy...

Take care Greg...

and thanks for remaining one of the truly enjopyable points of light from this forum....

DJ

[Craig Lamson]

Followup to my earlier post on the angle of the sun and Chin Shadows. At the time of the Altgens photo, the angle of sunlight was 37°.

Compare this to the dark area under the chin of Doorway Man/Lovelady in the Altgen's photo.

Lean him forward, then get back to us....

Edited February 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Note to the Mods...

At east one of these images is from the stock photo site 123RF

Unless Fetzer has paid for usage rights they really should not be posted here. And I'm guessing since the 123RF watermark appears, no usage rights have been purchased.

[Michael Hogan]

.....Ralph noticed something no one else has noticed before--that it is the shirts that matter, not the faces.

As Don Jeffries pointed out, David Wrone concluded it was Oswald in the doorway.

Although the title of his book was The Zapruder Film, it contained a chapter titled The Man In The Doorway.

From Page 175:

Thus, critics began to wonder whether the glaring shirt differences might mean the figure in the doorway was not Lovelady but possibly Oswald.

They began to search for more photographic evidence to bolster their suspicions.

From Page 179:

The identification of Oswald in Altgen's photo, however, is also based upon the shirt he was wearing. Using a high-power magnifying glass, the picture and Martin's frame can

be examined. First and most startling, the shirt's color and pattern identify it as Oswald's. Oswald's shirt was expensive but old. As noted earlier, it had a pattern like a grass leaf,

essentially brown with gold flecks through it. But, as we have seen, Lovelady's shirt had two-inch dark blue (almost black) and red squares or checks, separated by thin white lines.

Second, using a magnifying glass, certain defects in Oswald's shirt can also be detected in the Altgens photo. For example, on the right edge of the open Oswald shirt is a small tear

that is also present on the shirt of the figure in Altgens's photo. Also, on Oswald's shirt the top three button-holes are stretched, meaning the shirt could not be buttoned at the collar

or the next two buttons. In several photographs of Oswald in custody, his shirt displays the same open throat and neck as does the shirt on the man in the doorway and the shirt

in the archives. By contrast, Martin's Lovelady shirt is buttoned at the top as well as the next two buttons, none of which Oswald's could do.

Third, the collars of the two shirts furl differently. In addition, the cuffs are of a different type in size and construction. Finally, Oswald's shirt is loose and baggy, whereas Lovelady's has a more tailored fit.

Such persuasive evidence supports Oswald's location in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository viewing the motorcade at the moment the president was shot.