Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 649
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

This is not intended as a criticism of MIDP, which is a worthwhile book, IMO, but I don't think one can take from Costello's review that he was a book reviewer so swayed by MIDP that he was moved to write about it. He was clearly a CT, sharing many of your views and perhaps even contacts, who reviewed MIDP to share his own beliefs with the legal community. This does not mean he wasn't sincere. But I don't we can equate a positive review from one already in the community to some of the raves received by Epstein, Lane, Thompson, and even Lifton, where people previously disposed to think Oswald did it came out believing there was a lot more involved, and told the non-believing world about it.

Here is a 1994 joint review of Gerald Posner's Case Closed and Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation written by Costello, and published in The Federal Lawyer. It is featured on your website. Costello's review of Posner and Fonzi There is a letter from Costello to Harold Weisberg in the Weisberg Archives, moreover, that shows he was in touch with both Jim Lesar and Weisberg even before the publication of this review.

Here is a link to a list of materials provided Baylor University by Jack White. On the list is a 1998 letter to White from George Costello. White materials This is three years before Costello supposedly swept down out of nowhere to positively review your book, with its chapter by White, in the Federal Lawyer.

Here is a link to the line-up of the 2001 JFK Lancer conference at which you and Costello spoke. 2001 JFK Lancer line-up

Here is a link to a 2002 issue of Assassination Research, which you edited, featuring Costello's review of your book. Costello's review of Murder in Dealey Plaza In 2003, moreover, you published this article in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.

Here is a link to a 2002 issue of Assassination Research, which you edited, featuring an article by Costello, built upon his Lancer presentation. Assassination Research V 1 No 2

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, I did not know he was reviewing MURDER and I cannot believe how any accolades that are advanced about our research are minimized and downplayed by some of this forum. That is simply astonishing. It was great that a serious and positive review of a JFK assassination conspiracy book was published in THE FEDERAL LAWYER. As I recall, after I learned he had reviewed it, I did a search and located other reviews. I thought his MURDER review was terrific, but I don't recall if we met in Dallas, but we may have, since I was the co-chair of the 2000 and 2001 Lancer conferences. As he notes, George Costello is an attorney with the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. The views expressed in his reviews are solely his own.

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?

This is not intended as a criticism of MIDP, which is a worthwhile book, IMO, but I don't think one can take from Costello's review that he was a book reviewer so swayed by MIDP that he was moved to write about it. He was clearly a CT, sharing many of your views and perhaps even contacts, who reviewed MIDP to share his own beliefs with the legal community. This does not mean he wasn't sincere. But I don't we can equate a positive review from one already in the community to some of the raves received by Epstein, Lane, Thompson, and even Lifton, where people previously disposed to think Oswald did it came out believing there was a lot more involved, and told the non-believing world about it.

Here is a 1994 joint review of Gerald Posner's Case Closed and Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation written by Costello, and published in The Federal Lawyer. It is featured on your website. Costello's review of Posner and Fonzi

Here is a link to the line-up of the 2001 JFK Lancer conference at which you and Costello spoke. 2001 JFK Lancer line-up

Here is a link to a 2002 issue of Assassination Research, which you edited, featuring Costello's review of your book. Costello's review of Murder in Dealey Plaza In 2003, moreover, you published this article in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.

Here is a link to a 2002 issue of Assassination Research, which you edited, featuring an article by Costello, built upon his Lancer presentation. Assassination Research V 1 No 2

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

Ralph replies to Richard:

Mr. Hocking, the video is a composite. Some of it was footage from WFAA News. Some of it was from the History Channel. And some of it was unidentified footage. But all of it, presumably, was shot on November 22, 1963.

It's interesting to speculate about Lovelady's considerable weight loss. I have to wonder if it was deliberate- for sake of his claim to be Doorway Man. I think all will agree that Doorway Man has an indisputably slender look to him. His face looks gaunt, hollow. His visible arm looks slender. And the way the outer shirt is hanging off of him, billowing, gives him a distinctly slender look.

So, how would it have been if Lovelady had showed up for the Groden picture shoot weighing 170 pounds? He may have deliberately slimmed down just to play the role of Doorman.

And before Lamson or others start arguing with me about that, observe this: Lovelady does indeed look slender- decidedly slender- in the Groden pictures, and nobody took that as a contradiction to his being Doorman.

...

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 post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Ralph replies to Mark:

But, it's the other side of Doorman's shirt that is billowing, that is, his right side. That is not the side on which he had a pocket. The side with the pocket, his left side, is lying pretty flat. In fact, it is exclusively the right, non-pocketed side that is billowing. Why are you trying so hard to make it Lovelady? What compels you that way? Why are you fighting this?

Lovelady appears to be smoking at 3m 06 in the video. If he kept his cigarette packet in the shirt pocket that might explain his shirt hanging a bit loose as he leans forward in altgens...

Lovelady_Smoking.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Dean,

Look at the photos. (I will find one and post it here.) He is bulging out of his shirt. That is what I meant. The man in the doorway has a much more slender build and his shirt is loose fitting. Look how much Lovelady fills out his shirt, which is not the case for Oswald. Give this some thought.

2yo4p3l.jpg

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.

o8tbn5.jpg

Ralph to Dean:

Dean, go back and look at the pictures that Pat Speer posted of Lovelady posing for Groden. He was very thin by then, and Pat ridiculed the idea of him being stocky. But nobody- not even you- complained that he was too thin to be Doorman. Everybody was content that his build was just fine- a good match to Doorman.

So, how can his build in this latest clip also be a good match to Doorman? You can't have it both ways. If you think Doorman looks like a 170 pounder (and of course, he doesn't) then you should have been troubled by the skinny Lovelady.

This really is a numbers game, Dean. Lovelady weighed 170 pounds in Nov '63. Oswald weighed 130. Lovelady looks no more than 140 in the Groden photos. And I think he may have lost weight on purpose precisely to look more like Doorman. Doorman comes across as thin- much thinner than 170.

So, the fact that you think 170 is an OK weight for a 5'8" man is irrelevant. Doorman looks much lighter than that.

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

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

I don't know if this adds anything to the debate but at the time of the assassination Oswald was 1 inch higher than Lovelady at 5 foot 9 inches.

However Lovelady was 20 lbs heavier than Oswald at 170 lbs compared to oswalds 150.

That means that at the time of the assassination Lovelady was around 2.5 stones heavier than Oswald.

James.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Ralph to all:

This is Lovelady in the Groden photos. You can see how thin he is. He looks mighty thin to me. But, nobody complained that he looked too thin to be Doorman. Everybody thought that physically he was a good match to Doorman.

1znoi8h.jpg

So, if the much thinner Lovelady was a good match years later, how could that stocky, chubby 170 pound Lovelady from 11/63 have also been a good match?

2yo4p3l.jpg

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

Ralph replies to Richard:

Mr. Hocking, the video is a composite. Some of it was footage from WFAA News. Some of it was from the History Channel. And some of it was unidentified footage. But all of it, presumably, was shot on November 22, 1963.

The scene showing Lovelady is from the John Martin film, shot shortly after the assassination. Martin's film later became part of the Dallas Cinema Associates compilation.

The YouTube video came from here: http://www.youtube.com/user/HelmerReenberg#p/c/0/1tsR8PGx2ZE

More: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16462&view=findpost&p=203369

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think he may have lost weight on purpose precisely to look more like Doorman. Doorman comes across as thin- much thinner than 170.

Seriously?! :lol::lol::lol:

So right before the HSCA and Groden want to photograph Lovelady later on in life do you think Lovelady himself said I need to look more like Doorman I better lose some weight fast!

Or do you think he was forced to lose weight by whoever was behind the cover-up?

Either way thats the most laughable theory I have ever heard

And to answer your question I have looked at these pictures years and years ago when I came to the conclusion that it was Lovelady

The way that Lovelady is standing with his left shoulder angled back makes him look thinner, but even without the way he is standing Doorman and Lovelady have the same build anyways

Doorman and Lovelady are one in the same in my opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there no end to this nonsense?

In order to push that Oswald was far skinnier than Lovelady Ralph has started claiming Oswald weighed 130 lbs, when Oswald's recorded weight at autopsy was 150.

He also suspects Lovelady lost weight in the seventies on purpose, to fool people into thinking he was doorway man. He doesn't seem to realize how cruel this is. Lovelady was almost certainly ill when Groden took his photos. He died shortly thereafter, of a heart attack at the age of 42.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there no end to this nonsense?

In order to push that Oswald was far skinnier than Lovelady Ralph has started claiming Oswald weighed 130 lbs, when Oswald's recorded weight at autopsy was 150.

He also suspects Lovelady lost weight in the seventies on purpose, to fool people into thinking he was doorway man. He doesn't seem to realize how cruel this is. Lovelady was almost certainly ill when Groden took his photos. He died shortly thereafter, of a heart attack at the age of 42.

It is my understanding that the Oswald weight given at the autopsy was an estimate. It might be on the death certificate. Oswald was listed by the N.O. Police at 136 pounds in August of 1963.

Edit update: In Dr. Rose Autopsy Report he "estimates" LHO weight as150.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0510-001.gif

Edited by Richard Hocking
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph replies to Richard:

Mr. Hocking, the video is a composite. Some of it was footage from WFAA News. Some of it was from the History Channel. And some of it was unidentified footage. But all of it, presumably, was shot on November 22, 1963.

The scene showing Lovelady is from the John Martin film, shot shortly after the assassination. Martin's film later became part of the Dallas Cinema Associates compilation.

The YouTube video came from here: http://www.youtube.c...c/0/1tsR8PGx2ZE

More: http://educationforu...ndpost&p=203369

Michael (and Ralph),

thanks for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I inserted two profiles of Lovelady from still frames of the Martin film into the Altgens photo. I scaled the figures using head size. It's probably not perfect, but I think its reasonably close.

Not a valid method of comparing sizes...the work is worthless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...