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

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

[Josiah Thompson]

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

[Thomas Graves]

As I said in post #411:

=======

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.

======================

Also, one of the points that Michael might have been making is the fact that Ralph Cinque was NOT the first person to study the shirt of the Doorway Man. Why you insist that it is because of Cinque's "novel" approach that discovery of the discrepancies and similarities has become evident is beyond me. It is not a new study. It is another look at the same evidence.

Well, David Josephs and Michael Hogan, not to mention Ricard Hocking and Don Jeffries, have all made important comments on this debate. So tell me: Which premises do you deny because of your lack of certainty about them? And which of the rest of the argument would be convincing to you, if only you could accept those premises, in particular?

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.

The way I look at it, there's no way we can prove the Altgen photo's authenticity. All we can do is "disprove" it. Why? Because all of the other photos and films (not to mention witnesses' statements) have already been "proven", in most cases by True-Believing Alterationists, to have been well, uhhh... "altered".

--Tommy

Altered and bumped

[Richard Hocking]

more chin shadows to look at. All photos below were within a few minutes of Altgen's, so the angle of the sun should be the same.

[Craig Lamson]

There is no commercial interest and they are obviously being posted for research purposes only.

This falls under the "fair use" provision of copyright. Why am I not surprised by this nonsense?

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.

Hi there,

We are sorry to inform you that you may NOT use our images with the watermark sign on any educational forum or blog for free. You have to purchase it as these images are contributed from our contributor.

Sincerely,

Jaycee

Best regards, always!

Submissions & Review Team

for 123RF.com

Don't forget to Follow Us on Twitter & Facebook for more info!

Twitter: http://twitter.com/123rf | Facebook : http://facebook.com/123rfFans

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

123rf.com Disclaimer:

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Craig Lamson <craig@craiglamson.com> wrote:

Can anyone use images from the royality free section of your site for use in an educational forum or blog for free?

Sender info:

=============

Name : Craig Lamson

Email : craig@craiglamson.com

Login Id :

User Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.1

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, I didn't mention the obvious, but there has been an extended discussion here about features of the photo that would be preposterous if your position is well-founded. When you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that the photo has been altered, in my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously in this context because, regardless of other contributions you have made, you have nothing at all to contribute here.

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

Edited February 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, let's see. The Frtiz notes. The altered Altgens. The new studies by Ralph and me. The new observations by

dkruckerman and other experts. The time-line observations by Richard Hocking. The new studies of the Doorman

by David Josephs. General contextual considerations from Don Jeffries. Background from Bernice. Useful posts by

Robin Unger. And a lot of other posts, arguably of lesser value, from MacRae, Lamson, and others. But none of it

matters to you, since you are only here to score cheap points you think count against me. You have misfired again.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

Edited February 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque to Lamson:

Lamson, there is no way the chin of the second (and rather androgenous) woman is creating shade in the shape of the darkness that we see. Just because you have ability to repeat the words "angle of incidence" over and over doesn't make it relevant. The angle of the sun to each of them can't be very different, and yet their sub-mandibular blacknesses vary a great deal. Imagine if the second woman was wearing a blouse exactly like the first woman. What do you think you would see below her chin? Do you think you would see the exact same black configuration that you currently see? Of course you wouldn't. But why not? The angle of incidence of the sun would be the same? And that proves that the shape of the blackness is being determined by the shape of the garment and not by angle of incidence of the sun.

Once again you simply fail photo 101. While the angle of the sun is a constant between the two images, the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE as it relates to the subject (the faces and bodies) is not. WHY? Because people are not stationary. They move and stand in different positions from one to another. They have different facial and body shapes and as such the shadows they cast are differing as well. Could the second womans clothing also have some effect? Of course, but that is a sideshow ralph. The question is how a vee shaped shadow is formed and as we can see from the Altgens images and more importantly the RIT test images its the position the HEAD in relation to he sun that in large part creates the shape and position of the shadow.

PHOTO 101 ralph...and despite all the lessons it sails right over your head....

And again your silly claim a vee shaped shadow is IMPOSSIBLE is blown to pieces.

The fact is that we have no reason to think that the shape of the blouse of the first woman is anything but what it appears to be. And the fact that we are even talking about it is INSANE. By your way of thinking, her blouse, Doorman's t-shirt, and any number of other forms within the photo are something other than what they appear. And of course, this happens all the time: we look at photos, and we see certain shapes, and right away we ask ourselves: is it real or is it an optical illusion? Is that a vee-shape or is it really round?

Earth to ralph....if the the dark v shape on the first woman is just the opening of her vee neck blouse, it MUST be in FULL sun and her SKIN IN THE VEE WOULD HAVE THE SAME TONE AS HER SUNLIT FACE.

Earth to ralph...it does not. IT'S A VEE SHAPED SHADOW FROM HER CHIN!

When I look at photos, I don't do that, Lamson. And I know darn well that you don't do it either. You are just doing it now for the sake of convenience. You're a blowhard, and that's what blowhards do. Yes, I am calling you a blowhard, Lamson, because that's what you are.

No Ralph, I'm a professional Advertising Photographer with over 30 years experience. I CREATE HIGHLY CRAFTED PHOTOGRAPHIC LIGHTING EVERY DAY. My job is to use careful placement of highlights and SHADOWS to create depth and definition in 2d representations of 3d subjects. In terms even you might understand ralph. I'm a MASTER at the use of shadows.

I spend a LOT of time dissecting images, for both work and pleasure. You ..well lets just be kind and say you suck mightily at it.

You an the other hand are yet another of a very long line of photographic children. You don't have the first clue as to how any of this works yet you bumble along blindly, refusing to learn. That ralph make YOU the blowhard.

Wanna try again?

Edited February 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Tink,

There are numerous examples of "questions" in this case that have been under examination from about day one. Many of those were never resolved. Some have subsequently been better understood, if not resolved. In my view, IF there was compelling evidence that had not yet been studied or had not been studied from a relevant "novel" approach, then new evidence or a new approach could possibly shed valuable insight on the case.

However, in this instance, my objection to Cinque's study is not because I am convinced it is Lovelady. It could be Lovelady. If I was asked what I believe I would say it probably is Lovelady, but I really don't know. My objection is to the presentation of the study. My objection is to the ABSOLUTENESS of the assertions. My objection is that the assertions are not well supported unless I abandon principles of, yes, critical thinking. The premises being used to bolster the argument have NOT been established, IMO.

Jim obviously feels that the premises are solid. I do not. We disagree. That he believes I am now a "brainless twit" is unfortunate. But, that is his prerogative.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

[Thomas Graves]

The main question is: Was Lovelady in the doorway?

I believe he was.

Another question is: was the Altgens photo (Photo #6) altered?

I do not believe it was.

Altgens #6 was authentic. Not a thing was done to it. And it was transmitted rather early on the AP wire (within 35 minutes, I believe).

I also believe this issue provides an instance of the role of coincidence in this case. Lovelady, as he appears in the Altgens photo, does indeed look like Oswald. But in fact, it is not him.

That's my opinion, and I have studied that photo, and many others, for years.

Photo alteration in the JFK case is a very serious matter. I don't think Altgens 6 was altered in any way.

DSL

2/12/12; 2:20 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Great post David

I agree with you 100%

I also agree. His face is distinctivly Lovelady's face, not Oswald's, and he's wearing the same predominately red, bold plaid shirt he was photographed in a short time later. Case closed. And that doesn't necessarilly mean that Oswald shot at the president! Heck, he was probably hovering around the pay phone, waiting to hear from somebody.

--Tommy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I don't get it. Every assertion, such as "Romney will not win the nomination", could be construed as ABSOLUTE, merely because, by asserting it, you are ASSERTING IT TO BE TRUE. That is a completely different question than the strength of the evidence that supports it. Since the identity of the Doorway Man is an empirical question, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY. It is a matter of probabilities and likelihoods. I have explained this before. We all agree that new evidence or alternative hypotheses might show we are wrong. Our position--that the body and shirt are those of Lee Oswald--is obviously tentative and fallible. We could be wrong, but no one has shown that we are. I haven't suggested that you are a "brainless twit", but this song and dance might qualify. I am incredulous that you keep posting this, because I have explained why you are wrong.

Tink,

There are numerous examples of "questions" in this case that have been under examination from about day one. Many of those were never resolved. Some have subsequently been better understood, if not resolved. In my view, IF there was compelling evidence that had not yet been studied or had not been studied from a relevant "novel" approach, then new evidence or a new approach could possibly shed valuable insight on the case.

However, in this instance, my objection to Cinque's study is not because I am convinced it is Lovelady. It could be Lovelady. If I was asked what I believe I would say it probably is Lovelady, but I really don't know. My objection is to the presentation of the study. My objection is to the ABSOLUTENESS of the assertions. My objection is that the assertions are not well supported unless I abandon principles of, yes, critical thinking. The premises being used to bolster the argument have NOT been established, IMO.

Jim obviously feels that the premises are solid. I do not. We disagree. That he believes I am now a "brainless twit" is unfortunate. But, that is his prerogative.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

Edited February 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

"Well, let's see. The Frtiz notes. The altered Altgens. The new studies by Ralph and me. The new observations by dkruckerman and other experts."

"The Fritz notes.." You assume their meaning while other have pointed out they are perfectly consistent with Oswald going outside after the shooting.

"The Altered Altgens.." You assume it's altered but haven't been able to show this. It was on the AP wire, for God's sake, within 33 minutes of the shooting.

"The new studies by Ralph and me.." Give me break. What's new that isn't wrong?

"The new observations by dkruckerman and other experts.." Yeah, you and your "experts."

Except for the very astute criticism of you from Greg Burnham in the last day, this thread has become a curious psychodrama for you and Dr. Cinque. For the rest of us, it has the curious fascination of a slow-developing train wreck. As for important new knowledge of the the Altgens 6 photo and November 22nd... very little and what there is shows you and the good doctor to be not just wrong, but silly.

JT

Well, let's see. The Frtiz notes. The altered Altgens. The new studies by Ralph and me. The new observations by

dkruckerman and other experts. The time-line observations by Richard Hocking. The new studies of the Doorman

by David Josephs. General contextual considerations from Don Jeffries. Background from Bernice. Useful posts by

Robin Unger. And a lot of slop and seemingly endless nonsense from MacRae, Lamson, and others. But none of it

matters to you, since you are only here to score cheap points you think count against me. You have misfired again.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

[Greg Burnham]

I don't get it. Every assertion, such as "Romney will not win the nomination", could be construed as ABSOLUTE, merely because, by asserting it, you are ASSERTING IT TO BE TRUE. That is a completely different question than the strength of the evidence that supports it. Since the identity of the Doorway Man is an empirical question, IT CANNOT BE KNOW WITH CERTAINTY. It is a matter of probabilities and likelihoods. I have explained this before. We all agree that new evidence or alternative hypotheses might show we are wrong. Our position--that the body and shirt are those of Lee Oswald--is obviously tentative and fallible. We could be wrong, but no one has shown that we are. I haven't even suggested that you were a "brainless twit", but this song and dance might qualify.

IF "it cannot be known with certainty" THEN STOP STATING absolutes! Even Wrone, whose work on the Z-film is extremely lacking, presented his case "that it is Oswald in the doorway" as a hypothesis. He didn't say things like: "Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's shirt, therefore either Lovelady is wearing Oswald's clothes or it is Oswald in the doorway."

I know you feel that it is established that Doorway man is wearing Oswald's shirt. But, it is not established. It is a subjective interpretation of the evidence. You need not force your subjective interpretation of the photographic evidence on the world even IF you turn out to be correct.

Persuasion is an art form. It is not a contact sport.

[Josiah Thompson]

You make an excellent point, Greg. A new approach can lead to the successful interpretation of evidence that could not be understood before. The approach works when we are able to see a set of facts in a completely different light. But that is not what we've been getting here. I don't know how to describe any better what we've been getting. It just ain't pretty.

JT

Tink,

There are numerous examples of "questions" in this case that have been under examination from about day one. Many of those were never resolved. Some have subsequently been better understood, if not resolved. In my view, IF there was compelling evidence that had not yet been studied or had not been studied from a relevant "novel" approach, then new evidence or a new approach could possibly shed valuable insight on the case.

However, in this instance, my objection to Cinque's study is not because I am convinced it is Lovelady. It could be Lovelady. If I was asked what I believe I would say it probably is Lovelady, but I really don't know. My objection is to the presentation of the study. My objection is to the ABSOLUTENESS of the assertions. My objection is that the assertions are not well supported unless I abandon principles of, yes, critical thinking. The premises being used to bolster the argument have NOT been established, IMO.

Jim obviously feels that the premises are solid. I do not. We disagree. That he believes I am now a "brainless twit" is unfortunate. But, that is his prerogative.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OF COURSE it's what we are getting here. And your intrusion is extremely revealing. Having set out to undermine evidence of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, which was beautifully illustrated by your "Umbrella Man" performance--see "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times" if you don't know what I am talking about--nothing could cause you more anxiety than a simple proof that Lee was not the lone assassin, could not even have been a shooter, but that the government was lying to us, where the FBI was covering it up and The Warren Commission was an utter sham! Panic time!

You make an excellent point, Greg. A new approach can lead to the successful interpretation of evidence that could not be understood before. The approach works when we are able to see a set of facts in a completely different light. But that is not what we've been getting here. I don't know how to describe any better what we've been getting. It just ain't pretty.

JT

Tink,

There are numerous examples of "questions" in this case that have been under examination from about day one. Many of those were never resolved. Some have subsequently been better understood, if not resolved. In my view, IF there was compelling evidence that had not yet been studied or had not been studied from a relevant "novel" approach, then new evidence or a new approach could possibly shed valuable insight on the case.

However, in this instance, my objection to Cinque's study is not because I am convinced it is Lovelady. It could be Lovelady. If I was asked what I believe I would say it probably is Lovelady, but I really don't know. My objection is to the presentation of the study. My objection is to the ABSOLUTENESS of the assertions. My objection is that the assertions are not well supported unless I abandon principles of, yes, critical thinking. The premises being used to bolster the argument have NOT been established, IMO.

Jim obviously feels that the premises are solid. I do not. We disagree. That he believes I am now a "brainless twit" is unfortunate. But, that is his prerogative.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

Edited February 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer