Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

August 3, 1978

Mr. Robert Blakey

Select Committee on Assassinations

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Bob:

Following our telephone conversation on Tuesday August 1,

I checked with Bob Cutler, my co-author on the Umbrella

Weapon System article in Gallery June 1978. Bob told me

he left with Mr. Preyer and with you, photographic material

showing that The Umbrella Man (TUM) was quite probably

J. Gordon Novel.

Your news photo of him reinforces that belief for both of

us. I did not have that portion of the Couch film from

WFAA and so had never seen TUM's face as clearly as it

appears there. The Bothun photo of him has a light

reflection around his nose, as I'm sure you know.

We have a 1962-3 photo of Novel taken from the same angle

as the Couch, film of TUM and a photo comparison convinces

us more than ever that Novel is TUM. Mr. Preyer no doubt

told you back in April that Novel is in a jail in Georgia,

framed for a crime he and Jim Garrison, his former lawyer,

both claim he didn't commit.

Best regards,

Dick Sprague

After THIS I ll call gordon Novel, GORDON SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL

Aliens are my best friends...Majestic 12 is after me...unbelievable...hahaha...

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

“.. a brilliant chronology..”,

“.. stunning studies of the medical evidence..”,

“.. impressive studies of the limo stop witnesses..”,

“.. the definitive study of the Lincoln limousine..”

The only thing missing here is a reference to “.. the incredible, breakthrough opinion piece ‘Smoking Guns in the Death of JFK’ by James Fetzer, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of the University of Minnesota (Duluth) and close associate of David Mantik, Ph.D., M.D...”

“Brilliant.... stunning.... impressive... definitive...” These adjectives are drawn from the world of public relations. Flacks everywhere use these words to promote their products. Usually in the book world, they have to cherry-pick the adjective from a review of the book no matter how negative. Here, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., makes up the words himself to promote his product.

That’s what this thread is about and what the good professor is about. Undoubtedly, soon the lessons of this thread will swept under the rug and we will be told somewhere of the “.. novel, game-changing discoveries of Dr. Ralph Cinque..”

JT

Josiah Thompson again shows his true colors by trashing MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which includes a brilliant chronology of 22 November 1963, stunning studies of the medical evidence, the Zapruder film and the silence of the historians by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the definitive study of the Lincoln limousine and the bullet hole through its windshield by Douglas Weldon, J.D., impressive studies of the limo stop witnesses and of Secret Service complicity by Vincent Palamara, more on the Zapruder film at the NPIC and the two brain examinations by Douglas Horne, Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the ARRB; a study of the consistency of the descriptions of the head would by Gary Aguilar, M.D.; studies of the Zapruder film by Jack White; 16 questions about the Warren Commission by Bertrand Russell, Ph.D., and 16 smoking guns by Jim Fetzer.

That Tink is in state of denial continues to stun a lot of us. Just reading the endorsements of this book, which he claims is loaded with "opinions" but not serious research, reveals the depths of his duplicity. They come from Michael Parenti, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael Kurtz, Kerry Walters, and Steward Galanor, all of whom are more reliable and trustworthy sources on research on the assassination than is Josiah Thompson. For a very nice demonstration of the importance of this book, see the review published in THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. That will give you an appropriate measure for appreciating how very far this man has fallen.

Cinque on the Umbrella Man:

Jim, if I could throw in my two cents about the Umbrella Man- the whole thing stinks. People were talking about him right away, so why did Louis Witt wait until 1978 to come forward? And, his tale about symbolizing Neville Chamberlain to Kennedy with the umbrella was most improbable considering his age at the time, and considering that there was no reason to think that Kennedy could have picked up on the symbolism. Then, it was reported that Witt was an insurance salesman for the Rio Grande National Life Insurance company, which was housed in the same Dallas building as the Office of Immigration and Naturalization—a place Lee Harvey Oswald visited repeatedly because of his immigrant wife. And another occupant of the same building was the US Secret Service, which failed Kennedy miserably, as you know. And, Rio Grande Insurance did most of its business with the US Military. So, you do the Math.

As I said, the whole thing stinks,and that includes Eroll Morris' video ridiculing it. Eroll Morris is just an older version of Max Holland. And I'll add that the story stinks in just the same way the Doorman story stinks. Louis Witt is no more believable than Billy Lovelady, both of them being just defusing agents.

You know, with all the pictures taken of Lovelady in his famous shirt, why didn't they go about it right? Why didn't they place him next to that white pillar and then take the picture from the exact same spot that Altgens took his? Why do it any other way? They could even have used black and white film. They could have compared the two images side by side. They could have seen if Lovelady's checkered shirt assumed the same mottled look as Doorman's. But neither Altgens, the WC, the FBI, Groden, Jackson, nor anyone else wanted to do it, and I think it stinks.

I was advised by a professional photographer that they used relatively "lithographic" film for newsprint photos back in those days, which had very high contrast. Mid-tones would shift either toward the white or black end with very little in-between. Gray tones got lost in the process. And that's why the tree trunk looks coal-black, and it also explains the blackness below the faces. These appeared much darker than they actually were. In other words, it's exactly what I suspected, although I didn't know the correct terminology. I said that the dark colors were being exaggerated, and they were, but what I didn't know is that it was a function of the film. It was polarizing; dark went towards darker; light went towards lighter, and the result was that Doorman's white t-shirt shows up crisp and clear, as you can see in this image.

25im54h.jpg

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah Thompson again shows his true colors by trashing MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which includes a brilliant chronology of 22 November 1963, stunning studies of the medical evidence, the Zapruder film and the silence of the historians by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the definitive study of the Lincoln limousine and the bullet hole through its windshield by Douglas Weldon, J.D., impressive studies of the limo stop witnesses and of Secret Service complicity by Vincent Palamara, more on the Zapruder film at the NPIC and the two brain examinations by Douglas Horne, Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the ARRB; a study of the consistency of the descriptions of the head would by Gary Aguilar, M.D.; studies of the Zapruder film by Jack White; 16 questions about the Warren Commission by Bertrand Russell, Ph.D., and 16 smoking guns by Jim Fetzer.

That Tink is in state of denial continues to stun a lot of us. Just reading the endorsements of this book, which he claims is loaded with "opinions" but not serious research, reveals the depths of his duplicity. They come from Michael Parenti, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael Kurtz, Kerry Walters, and Steward Galanor, all of whom are more reliable and trustworthy sources on research on the assassination than is Josiah Thompson. For a very nice demonstration of the importance of this book, see the review published in THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. That will give you an appropriate measure for appreciating how very far this man has fallen.

Jim, is it incorrect for me to assume that that review in The Federal Lawyer was no accident, and that you helped bring it about? I don't ask this to be a jerk. It's just that I can't imagine some stranger just up and deciding to review a conspiracy book in a legal journal. You knew George Costello beforehand, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was advised by a professional photographer that they used relatively "lithographic" film for newsprint photos back in those days, which had very high contrast. Mid-tones would shift either toward the white or black end with very little in-between. Gray tones got lost in the process. And that's why the tree trunk looks coal-black, and it also explains the blackness below the faces. These appeared much darker than they actually were. In other words, it's exactly what I suspected, although I didn't know the correct terminology. I said that the dark colors were being exaggerated, and they were, but what I didn't know is that it was a function of the film. It was polarizing; dark went towards darker; light went towards lighter, and the result was that Doorman's white t-shirt shows up crisp and clear, as you can see in this image.

Wow ralph, you are the gift that keeps on giving.

Once again you show us your infantile understanding of all things photographic. I'm going to be charitable and assume your "pro" friend had it correct and YOU screwed it up in translation.

IF you want to understand the lithography process and more importantly how a continuous tone photograph is printed via offset, I suggest you Google "HALFTONE". As it stands your post here BUTCHERED the process and how it works.

But quite frankly the use of litho film in respect to halftones is meaningless. We have very nice CONTINUOUS TONE images to work with, the Corbis for example.

But lets back up and get this correct.

Altgens shot the image in question using a Nikon 35mm camera and a 105mm USING KODAK TRI-X film. Tri is NOT litho or ...how did you put it..."relatively "lithographic"...film

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20040212-03.shtml

Tri-x is a continuous tone, high speed, medium contrast camera original film. So you fail on point one.

The CORBIS Altgens is ALSO exposed on a continuous tone film, most likely a copy neg created from a print. Since the Corbis Altgens also exhibits a very dark tree trunk and we know the image is NOT from a halftone, but rather continuous tone material, we can completely DISCARD your very silly and uninformed garbage about the "dark tones". It is complete dreck.

The tree trunk is in the SHADOW of the leaves and branches above it. When can CHECK by looking at the trunks of other trees in the Plaza at the same moment in time. For example the Moorman confirms that its tree trunk is dark...it is in shadow...just like the trunk in Altgens. More importantly the Moorman proves the angle of incidence at that moment was such that the tree trunk in Altgens would in fact BE IN SHADOW.

moorman.jpg

Once again another silly claim by ralph is busted.

The shaphe under Doorway mans chin is just a shadow, just like all the other vee shaped chin shadows in the Altgens.

ralph is the gift that keep son giving. Every time he posts he plants his foot in his mouth again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

No, I did not know him and I did not know he was going to review it. He was even recognized by the THE FEDERAL LAWYER for his review, which received a great deal of praise. Tink even thought it was written by John P. Costella, which shows how shallow and superficial he has become. As I have observed, that Tink is in state of denial continues to stun a lot of us. Just reading through the endorsements of this book, which he claims is loaded with "opinions" but not serious research, reveals the depths of his duplicity. They come from Michael Parenti, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael Kurtz, Kerry Walters, and Steward Galanor, all of whom are more reliable and trustworthy sources on research on the assassination than is he. His positions on Aguilar and Witt are simply incoherent.

Josiah Thompson again shows his true colors by trashing MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which includes a brilliant chronology of 22 November 1963, stunning studies of the medical evidence, the Zapruder film and the silence of the historians by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the definitive study of the Lincoln limousine and the bullet hole through its windshield by Douglas Weldon, J.D., impressive studies of the limo stop witnesses and of Secret Service complicity by Vincent Palamara, more on the Zapruder film at the NPIC and the two brain examinations by Douglas Horne, Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the ARRB; a study of the consistency of the descriptions of the head would by Gary Aguilar, M.D.; studies of the Zapruder film by Jack White; 16 questions about the Warren Commission by Bertrand Russell, Ph.D., and 16 smoking guns by Jim Fetzer.

That Tink is in state of denial continues to stun a lot of us. Just reading the endorsements of this book, which he claims is loaded with "opinions" but not serious research, reveals the depths of his duplicity. They come from Michael Parenti, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael Kurtz, Kerry Walters, and Steward Galanor, all of whom are more reliable and trustworthy sources on research on the assassination than is Josiah Thompson. For a very nice demonstration of the importance of this book, see the review published in THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. That will give you an appropriate measure for appreciating how very far this man has fallen.

Jim, is it incorrect for me to assume that that review in The Federal Lawyer was no accident, and that you helped bring it about? I don't ask this to be a jerk. It's just that I can't imagine some stranger just up and deciding to review a conspiracy book in a legal journal. You knew George Costello beforehand, correct?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

From Ralph to me:

Jim, we now have a video of Billy Lovelady. It was sent to me by a supporter of ours from Australia. If you watch this video, you can see Lovelady very clearly. He appears from 3:03 to 3:11 in the video. Note that he is not in the center of the screen. He is towards the lower right.

It's definitely him because for one split-second you can see the exact same pose from the Dallas PD which is so familiar. And, it turns out that he was definitely wearing the plaid shirt and NOT the striped one. So, that controversy about which shirt he wore is now resolved. However, there is a great deal more that is now confirmed:

1. At the time, Lovelady was a STOCKY dude. He was much heavier than Oswald, and he looks a lot thicker and wider and heavier than Doorman too. And that includes in the face. Doorman's face looks rather gaunt, whereas Lovelady's looks much rounder and fuller. There is NO WAY a guy as heavy as Lovelady could have such a narrow, sucked in face like Doorman. When people put on weight, they put it on in their face as well as their body. The face, like the body, gets fatter. Doorman's face is too thin to go with Lovelady's stout, chubby body.

2. Apropo of that, we now know that Lovelady was NOT wearing the same shirt that he wore years later when he posed as Doorman. You can tell, first, because you can see the pocket-flap which is missing from the Grodon and Jackson shirts. However, we also know it because he lost so much weight afterwards that there is no way the same shirt would have fit him so snugly. And it does look snug in both the Grodon and Jackson pictures despite him being MUCH thinner. Really, he went from fat to thin. I shouldn't have to point out that a shirt doesn't lose weight along with the person.

But, there's one other possibility that I think should be considered: he may have had extensive alterations done to that shirt so that it would continue to fit snugly after his having lost all that weight. And that would explain the lack of a pocket flap and what really appears to be the complete lack of a pocket. Reducing the size of the shirt would have necessitated relocating the pocket, and that was way too much trouble. So, they may have decided to just get rid of it. The faint lines that some people are construing for a pocket may just be the impression of a pocket that was once there.

So, either it was a different shirt OR it was the same shirt essentially remanufactured. And if it was the latter, it would have been a colossal undertaking. It's not something that anybody would do casually. It is not something that anybody would do, period. To have done it at all implies just as much deception and subterfuge as replacing the shirt.

Why would Lovelady have done such a thing? Why should it have mattered to him whether people believed he was Doorman or not? Why should he have cared? Why should he have undertaken the tiniest, smallest step to sell the idea? - never mind redesign the whole shirt in a massive undertaking. It shows way too much effort and determination.

3. And along the same line, the starched, pressed, preened, folded-over look of the shirt in the Grodon pictures was definitely missing on 11/22, which you can clearly see in the video. As I have been saying all along: who wakes up in the morning of an ordinary work-day and decides to primp themselves that way? It is not something that a warehouse worker does, and it is not something that Lovelady did on Nov 22.

4. The whole open and gaping look of Doorman's shirt is missing on Lovelady. Lovelady may have had a couple buttons unbuttoned, but it wasn't as unbuttoned as Doorman's, and the shirt wasn't hanging open and off of him and billowing, as it was on Doorman. Lovelady's t-shirt was NOT exposed as much as Doorman's or Oswald's.

5. Lovelady was already quite bald, a lot balder than Oswald, and bald enough to raise questions about whose hairline we're seeing on Doorman.

6. You can clearly see that Lovelady's flannel shirt had a regular collar and no lapel. But, Oswald's shirt had a lapel on the left side, and you can see that lapel on Doorman as the material looks much thicker on his left side than his right. It looks thicker because it's folded over- into a lapel.

7. The complex, highly checkered pattern of Lovelady's shirt is NOT a perfect match to Doorman's, far from it.

All in all, I am even more convinced that Lovelady was NOT Doorman and Oswald was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Apropo of that, we now know that Lovelady was NOT wearing the same shirt that he wore years later when he posed as Doorman. You can tell, first, because you can see the pocket-flap which is missing from the Grodon and Jackson shirts. However, we also know it because he lost so much weight afterwards that there is no way the same shirt would have fit him so snugly. And it does look snug in both the Grodon and Jackson pictures despite him being MUCH thinner. Really, he went from fat to thin. I shouldn't have to point out that a shirt doesn't lose weight along with the person.

But, there's one other possibility that I think should be considered: he may have had extensive alterations done to that shirt so that it would continue to fit snugly after his having lost all that weight. And that would explain the lack of a pocket flap and what really appears to be the complete lack of a pocket. Reducing the size of the shirt would have necessitated relocating the pocket, and that was way too much trouble. So, they may have decided to just get rid of it. The faint lines that some people are construing for a pocket may just be the impression of a pocket that was once there.

So, either it was a different shirt OR it was the same shirt essentially remanufactured. And if it was the latter, it would have been a colossal undertaking. It's not something that anybody would do casually. It is not something that anybody would do, period. To have done it at all implies just as much deception and subterfuge as replacing the shirt.

Why would Lovelady have done such a thing? Why should it have mattered to him whether people believed he was Doorman or not? Why should he have cared? Why should he have undertaken the tiniest, smallest step to sell the idea? - never mind redesign the whole shirt in a massive undertaking. It shows way too much effort and determination.

3. And along the same line, the starched, pressed, preened, folded-over look of the shirt in the Grodon pictures was definitely missing on 11/22, which you can clearly see in the video. As I have been saying all along: who wakes up in the morning of an ordinary work-day and decides to primp themselves that way? It is not something that a warehouse worker does, and it is not something that Lovelady did on Nov 22.

4. The whole open and gaping look of Doorman's shirt is missing on Lovelady. Lovelady may have had a couple buttons unbuttoned, but it wasn't as unbuttoned as Doorman's, and the shirt wasn't hanging open and off of him and billowing, as it was on Doorman. Lovelady's t-shirt was NOT exposed as much as Doorman's or Oswald's.

5. Lovelady was already quite bald, a lot balder than Oswald, and bald enough to raise questions about whose hairline we're seeing on Doorman.

6. You can clearly see that Lovelady's flannel shirt had a regular collar and no lapel. But, Oswald's shirt had a lapel on the left side, and you can see that lapel on Doorman as the material looks much thicker on his left side than his right. It looks thicker because it's folded over- into a lapel.

7. The complex, highly checkered pattern of Lovelady's shirt is NOT a perfect match to Doorman's, far from it.

All in all, I am even more convinced that Lovelady was NOT Doorman and Oswald was.

Once again we are left with ralph and his blatant speculation masquerading as fact. It is BUILT on his so called ability to analyze a photograph, which ralph has proven time and time again that he HAS NO ABILITY TO ANALYZE PHOTOGRAPHS!

Case in point the pocket 'Flap'. There has been a still frame form that video posted in this tread for some time. It CLEARLY shows there IS NO FLAP, only a pocket hanging open from being filled, confirmed by the SHADOW at the bottom of the pocket and the fact you can see the whit line of the fabric from the INSIDE of the pocket peeking out from under the billowing open pocket.

As usual ralph just keeps getting it wrong.

What ralph says he see's simply can't be trusted. His past failures attest to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Cinque replies to Lamson (who seems to me to be the one who "gets it wrong"):

Lamson, it doesn't surprise me that you want to continue debating about the pocket flap, although it so happens I was in a Men's store yesterday looking at flannel shirts, similar to Lovelady's, and they all had pocket-flaps. But let's put that aside.

THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE SAME SHIRT FIT HIM PERECTLY WELL AFTER HE LOST 40 POUNDS IS PROOF-POSITIVE THAT IT WAS EITHER A DIFFERENT SHIRT OR HE HAD IT ALTERED. And either way, it demonstrates the mental consciousness of masquerading- of trying extremely hard to look like Doorman, to sell the idea. Why would he have done that?

Plus, all the other points I make in the above analysis still hold, even if you want to dispute the pocket-flap. But I say you are crazy: that pocket flap is visible. I'll give you the exact second it's most visible. It's 3:06. If all you can do is whine about the pocket-flap, you have run out of bullets. This video torpedoes the Lovelady hypothesis once and for all. The Doorman was Oswald.

And by the way, Lamson: the Altgens photo was definitely HIGH-CONTRAST. That tree was in the sun, and there's no way the leaves would have produced enough shade to blacken the trunk. Hey, we've all seen a lot of pictures of a lot of trees with a lot of leaves, and their trunks do not look black in photographs. Here's a photo of a tree with leaves. Does the trunk look black? The idea that leaves would have that effect is just another STUPID idea in your long list of stupid ideas.

bfevxx.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

It's definitely him because for one split-second you can see the exact same pose from the Dallas PD which is so familiar. And, it turns out that he was definitely wearing the plaid shirt and NOT the striped one. So, that controversy about which shirt he wore is now resolved. However, there is a great deal more that is now confirmed:

1. At the time, Lovelady was a STOCKY dude. He was much heavier than Oswald,

...

Ralph/Jim,

Agree the guy in the film is Lovelady (and he looks every bit of 170 pounds, his weight given in the WC testimony).

Do we know when this video was taken, and who shot it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovelady was not that stocky/chunky

You guys are making it out like Lovelady weighed 300lbs

He was not thin, and he was not stocky, I would say his build is average, just like the man in the doorway

That man is Billy Lovelady

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovelady was not that stocky/chunky

You guys are making it out like Lovelady weighed 300lbs

He was not thin, and he was not stocky, I would say his build is average, just like the man in the doorway

That man is Billy Lovelady

I don't know who is in the doorway. But, I don't like the argument being advanced by Cinque. Oh, and by the

way, Jim knows me well. I weigh almost 180 lb. @ 5'10" tall in the attached picture. For reference purposes,

my daughter weighs about 110 lb. @ 5'4" tall.

Does that look "stocky" to you?

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovelady was not that stocky/chunky

You guys are making it out like Lovelady weighed 300lbs

He was not thin, and he was not stocky, I would say his build is average, just like the man in the doorway

That man is Billy Lovelady

I don't know who is in the doorway. But, I don't like the argument being advanced by Cinque. Oh, and by the

way, Jim knows me well. I weigh almost 180 lb. @ 5'10" tall in the attached picture. For reference purposes,

my daughter weighs about 110 lb. @ 5'4" tall.

Does that look "stocky" to you?

Not at all Greg, 5'10 180lbs is perfectly avarage for an adult male

Lovelady while shorter then Greg is still 10 lbs lighter

To say Lovelady is stocky/chunky is insane

Thanks for helping my post with your picture Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...