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

[Josiah Thompson]

Once again we have reason to thank Robin Ungar for his extraodinary record in making available the photo record of the shooting. And Pat, thanks for directing me to Ungar's site for Altgens 6. I thought I had the clearest copy of this photo but Ungar's is really quite extraordinarily clear. Click on "CorbisAltgens6_Large1.jpg, 281 views. Among other things this very clear enlargement makes it simple to see that what some have claimed is a bullet hole in the windshield (the whole "spiral nebula" nonsense) is really just the tan side of a purse held by a spectator. Was it the Couch photo in color that showed the woman with the tan-sided purse?

We are all in your debt, Robin.

JT

A few observations:

1) the [Altgens'] photo being studied is hardly an optimal source due to its being a copy of a copy of a copy...

2) clearly discerning what is shown at the doorway is sketchy due to the size of the image being studied even if it came from a high resolution source (but, at least then there would be a chance at clarity)

3) limitations (72k) inherent to a web browser's ability to display images further dampens the force of arguments based upon images that require SHARP resolution in order to reach a conclusion

4) if anyone has an extremely high resolution copy of Altgens 6 and would be willing to upload it to a server, such as, photo bucket for instance, others could down load it and study it without the limitations imposed by web browsers

Jim, have you studied these images after having first used a high resolution copy and without it being displayed by a web browser? If so, can you send me (us) the link to that super high resolution copy that may be downloaded?

Thanks in advance--

Robin Unger has an Altgens 6 from Corbis, and has posted it both here and on his site.

Unger's Altgens Files

[David Lifton]

Physical evidence, indeed.

One postscript to the matter of this film clip: what I never understood--and do not to this day--was how the FBI, pursuing the matter of "Oswald in the doorway" (which had become a national news item, because of the work of JFK researcher Jones Harris, and the follow-up news story by New York Herald Tribune writer Don Bonafide) could possibly pose Lovelady in the wrong shirt.

The picture showing Lovelady in the striped shirt (rather than the shirt he was actually wearing) fueled the fires of suspicion--for years.

Once I discovered this film clip, I believed it settled the matter once and for all.

But there is that one loose end. So. . .: Should any researcher come across any FBI memos or telexes that addresses this issue of why Lovelady was posed in the striped shirt, instead of the shirt these films obviously show he was wearing, I'd be interested in that issue.

DSL

1/27/12; 2:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 28, 2012 by David Lifton

[Robin Unger]

Once again we have reason to thank Robin Ungar for his extraodinary record in making available the photo record of the shooting. And Pat, thanks for directing me to Ungar's site for Altgens 6. I thought I had the clearest copy of this photo but Ungar's is really quite extraordinarily clear. Click on "CorbisAltgens6_Large1.jpg, 281 views. Among other things this very clear enlargement makes it simple to see that what some have claimed is a bullet hole in the windshield (the whole "spiral nebula" nonsense) is really just the tan side of a purse held by a spectator. Was it the Couch photo in color that showed the woman with the tan-sided purse?

We are all in your debt, Robin.

JT

A few observations:

1) the [Altgens'] photo being studied is hardly an optimal source due to its being a copy of a copy of a copy...

2) clearly discerning what is shown at the doorway is sketchy due to the size of the image being studied even if it came from a high resolution source (but, at least then there would be a chance at clarity)

3) limitations (72k) inherent to a web browser's ability to display images further dampens the force of arguments based upon images that require SHARP resolution in order to reach a conclusion

4) if anyone has an extremely high resolution copy of Altgens 6 and would be willing to upload it to a server, such as, photo bucket for instance, others could down load it and study it without the limitations imposed by web browsers

Jim, have you studied these images after having first used a high resolution copy and without it being displayed by a web browser? If so, can you send me (us) the link to that super high resolution copy that may be downloaded?

Thanks in advance--

Robin Unger has an Altgens 6 from Corbis, and has posted it both here and on his site.

Unger's Altgens Files

Josiah / Calli

Thanks for the generous comments.

.

Credit: Martin Hinricks

Altgens / Croft ( Lady 8 )

Edited January 28, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Greg Burnham]

Robin,

Thank you very much for this resource. It is quite helpful. And thanks for pointing me to it, Pat.

[Robin Unger]

Robin,

Thank you very much for this resource. It is quite helpful. And thanks for pointing me to it, Pat.

Your welcome Greg.

Pat

Thanks for posting the link to my image galleries

Cheers

Robin.

[Kathleen Collins]

. For more, see my latest JFK presentation,

"What happened to JFK--and why it matters today",

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government.

Dawn

Wasn't it the theory that Officer Baker was supposed to shoot Oswald? But another employee came over and he couldn't do it. Allegedly Oswald was told to stand by a phone. Since the Officer couldn't kill Oswald, Jack Ruby had to.

Kathy C

[David Lifton]

David,

For what it's worth, this post is non-responsive to the evidence. I cannot

even discern from what you have said that you have even read it. Please do

us a favor and give this more serious attention. Ralph noticed what matters is

not the FACES but the SHIRTS. And his arguments about them are impeccable.

Pat Speer makes a practice of disregarding evidence and imposing preposterous

interpretations on conversational contexts. When Will Fritz' notes say "out with

Bill Shelly in front", there is no more reasonable interpretation than that he was

out front with Bill Shelly during the shooting. Nothing else fits the context.

As Richard Hocking has observed--which Pat Speer ignores, because it suits him--

1. If Oswald was not on the steps, how did he know where Shelley was? Oswald may

have seen him there at 12:25, but that is no guarantee that he would have stayed there.

2. Oswald is giving Fritz information that can be cross-checked with another witness.

He is now relying on Shelley to provide verification for his alibi for the shooting.

3. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back

him up? Shelly was a manager of the book depository, not simply a friend of his.

4. If Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps

where no one noticed him? It would have eliminated being contradicted by anyone else.

Now it was discovering that the Algents has been altered and that the face and

shirt of a figure to Doorway Man's right front (left front from his perspective)

that stunned me and forced me to take a closer look. Cinque has done a brilliant

job of laying out the evidence and deserves a more thoughtful response from you.

You appear to me to be dismissing this based upon your autobiographical experience

of having gone through this before. But I can assure you that your past beliefs

have nothing to do with the arguments we present. The face was tweaked or even

replaced, but unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's shirt, Lee was in the doorway.

Jim

Pat,

If you have an alternative explanation--such as that he was out front with Bill

Shelly "having a smoke"; or that he was out front with Bill Shelly "watching all

the girls go by"; then let us hear it and see how it fits into the context of Fritz

interrogating him about the assassination. Asking him where he was "fits"--

and goes along with saying he had been in the lunch room, for which we have

a lot of other evidence. So if you have some alternative interpretation of what

he said, spell it out and we can assess its likelihood under these circumstances.

Let me know when you have an argument that shows we have something wrong.

We have proven Oswald was the Doorway Man. If there is a disproof, present it.

Jim

Like anyone else who has gotten involved in the Kennedy case, I, too, went through a period, many years ago, in which I believed that Oswald might be standing in the TSBD doorway, when the motorcade passed. Specifically, I went througha period of intense examination of the Altgens "doorway" photo (enlargements of which I ordered off the AP original negative). For awhile--and this is perhaps over 40 years ago--I was open to the belief that the "man in the doorway" was not Lovelady, but Oswald.

. . .

And now, to the matter at hand:

FWIW: I do not believe the hypothesis being advanced here. Specifically, and for the record, I do not believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway--with Bill Shelley, or anyone else--at the time the motorcade passed.

I wish it were true--i.e., I wish the "solution" to this case were that simple.

Unfortunately, its not.

DSL

1/26/12; 9:50 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Jim:

A few days ago, I wanted to post something to the effect that, with regard to your ongoing debate with Pat Speer on another thread on The London Forum (re the medical evidence, and specifically, the head wounds) it was my opinion that you handled yourself very well, and that you won that debate—hands down. It occupied many web pages, and went back and forth, with all kinds of graphics posted by the two of you, and was in fact truly informative.

If anyone has any questions about the head wound data in the future, I will simply refer them to that thread, and have them plow through all those pages of debate, and the detailed back and forth. As I say, I think your position was superior, and you have identified all the flaws in Speer’s analysis.

But here, in this instance, my position is completely reversed. Given my positive reaction to your position in that debate, I was truly disappointed to see the hypothesis you have recently advanced in this matter of Oswald in the doorway.

Regarding your criticism of my post—that I was dismissing your analysis based on my "autobiographical experience", etc.:

In fact (and as I hope you now realize), I studied this matter of “Oswald in the doorway” extensively decades ago. I went the whole nine yards, as the saying goes: blowups of Altgens, studying of FBI reports, DPD reports, Sheriff’s documents, drawing timelines, etc. etc.

Could it be (I used to wonder) that Oswald was really just standing outside? In the doorway? That it was all that terribly simple? And that this was the greatest mistake that any plot could have possibly made? That the patsy was simply standing there in public view?

Or was the opposite the case: that Oswald was elsewhere, and that Lovelady really did look similar to Oswald, and that the image (and apparent similarity) on Altgens was “just one of those things”—a true coincidence?

Then came my discovery—when working on Executive Acton (circa 1972/73)—of that film clip of Lovelady at the Dallas Police Department, a frame of which Robin Unger has just posted (plus the info on the Martin film); and at that point, as far as I was concerned, the debate was over. There was Lovelady, with the same shirt he was wearing when photographed at the Dallas Police Department, standing in the TSBD doorway.

There was no question but that it was Lovelady standing in the TSBD doorway (and, as has been pointed out, that’s what the collective testimony says, too. But I never relied on that, as the final determinant.)

As to your article, and the posts on YouTube by your associate: Yes, I took the time to listen to the first, second and seventh-and I find them highly subjective and, ultimately, non-credible.

These YouTube items are filled with “I see it. . therefore it’s a fact” kind of reasoning.

In the seventh of the series, your associate goes on to state that he “sees” Ruby in the Altgens photograph, that Ruby was Oswald’s handler, and that this “Ruby” image (which he admits is the back of someone’s head, who he interprets to be Ruby) is signaling to Oswald that he should not be standing in the doorway, for all to see, like that.

At that point, I said to myself: “Forget it. . I don’t have time to waste on this.”

Years ago, someone with a good idea had to fight their way through a mess of editors and business people to get their book published. Today, anyone with any idea can (if they choose to) “self publish” and similarly, go on the Internet, or on YouTube and broadcast their various ideas and conceptions worldwide.

So the “editorial” function devolves to each one of us as individuals to make judgments about what is credible, and what is not; because now, and because of the Internet, everything is “out there.”

So yes, I have listened, I have read, and I don’t think there’s anything to the proposition the two of you are advancing.

I do not believe that this particular Altgens photograph—which was distributed by wire rather early on, as I recall—was faked in any way.

The “other” photographic evidence—the news clip frames posted here by Robin Unger, and the Martin Film frames--establishes that the man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady. The FBI needlessly complicated matters by posing him in a striped shirt, rather than the shirt which the news camera photographs unequivocally establish he was wearing that day. Had they done their job properly, this particular controversy would have been defused--if not resolved--a long time ago.

DSL

1/27/12; 5:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 28, 2012 by David Lifton

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

Thanks for a response, even if I disagree with it. The most responsible comments, in my judgment,

come from Richard Hocking, who seems to me to be focusing on the most important evidence and

explaining why circumstances of the evolving story about where Lee was and when are suspicious.

You've reported having viewed several version of Ralph's video, which is fine for a beginning. But it

seems to me the arguments and the significance of the comparisons we present them in the article

are critical. Would you want someone to judge BEST EVIDENCE (1980) simply based upon a video?

The Altgens we have used was scanned from LIFE, which I thought was an appropriate choice. I will

certainly take a look at what Robin Unger has archived. But I would observe that the arguments based

on comparisons of the shirts have not been addressed, much less defeated. I stand by our research.

Notice, for example, that Doorway Man's shirt is loose fitting, while Lovelady's is not. The is but one

of multiple indications that the shirt being worn by Doorway Man is overwhelmingly more similar to

Oswald's very distinctive shirt than it is to either the checkered shirt or the striped shirt of Lovelady.

Even Harold Weisberg, PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH (1967), regarded questions on the striped shirt

as unsettled. Why, after all, would Billy Lovelady have come to the FBI to present the vertically striped

shirt that he said he had worn that day, were it not that shirt and he wanted to set the record straight?

No one would have supposed DM was Billy Lovelady were that the shirt he had on. And I find it of

more than passing interest that he should have had a heart attack at the age of 42 shortly before he

was to testify before the HSCA. Perhaps the agency did not want witnesses who had a conscience.

And there are other signs his shirts are wrong, including the lapel, the lay, and the buttons. Before

Ralph Cinque approached me about this, I would not have thought there was a serious issue here.

In my opinion, his program of focusing on the shirts is original and brilliant--and it is panning out!

You liked how I dealt with Pat because you actually read it. The same might be true if you were to read

this, too, as I suggest. I have created a shorter version as an introduction, but the original is the source

that I recommend: "JFK: Was Oswald in the doorway, after all?", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/01/jfk-was-oswald-in-doorway-after-all.html

Jim

David,

For what it's worth, this post is non-responsive to the evidence. I cannot

even discern from what you have said that you have even read it. Please do

us a favor and give this more serious attention. Ralph noticed what matters is

not the FACES but the SHIRTS. And his arguments about them are impeccable.

Pat Speer makes a practice of disregarding evidence and imposing preposterous

interpretations on conversational contexts. When Will Fritz' notes say "out with

Bill Shelly in front", there is no more reasonable interpretation than that he was

out front with Bill Shelly during the shooting. Nothing else fits the context.

As Richard Hocking has observed--which Pat Speer ignores, because it suits him--

1. If Oswald was not on the steps, how did he know where Shelley was? Oswald may

have seen him there at 12:25, but that is no guarantee that he would have stayed there.

2. Oswald is giving Fritz information that can be cross-checked with another witness.

He is now relying on Shelley to provide verification for his alibi for the shooting.

3. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back

him up? Shelly was a manager of the book depository, not simply a friend of his.

4. If Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps

where no one noticed him? It would have eliminated being contradicted by anyone else.

Now it was discovering that the Algents has been altered and that the face and

shirt of a figure to Doorway Man's right front (left front from his perspective)

that stunned me and forced me to take a closer look. Cinque has done a brilliant

job of laying out the evidence and deserves a more thoughtful response from you.

You appear to me to be dismissing this based upon your autobiographical experience

of having gone through this before. But I can assure you that your past beliefs

have nothing to do with the arguments we present. The face was tweaked or even

replaced, but unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's shirt, Lee was in the doorway.

Jim

Pat,

If you have an alternative explanation--such as that he was out front with Bill

Shelly "having a smoke"; or that he was out front with Bill Shelly "watching all

the girls go by"; then let us hear it and see how it fits into the context of Fritz

interrogating him about the assassination. Asking him where he was "fits"--

and goes along with saying he had been in the lunch room, for which we have

a lot of other evidence. So if you have some alternative interpretation of what

he said, spell it out and we can assess its likelihood under these circumstances.

Let me know when you have an argument that shows we have something wrong.

We have proven Oswald was the Doorway Man. If there is a disproof, present it.

Jim

Like anyone else who has gotten involved in the Kennedy case, I, too, went through a period, many years ago, in which I believed that Oswald might be standing in the TSBD doorway, when the motorcade passed. Specifically, I went througha period of intense examination of the Altgens "doorway" photo (enlargements of which I ordered off the AP original negative). For awhile--and this is perhaps over 40 years ago--I was open to the belief that the "man in the doorway" was not Lovelady, but Oswald.

. . .

And now, to the matter at hand:

FWIW: I do not believe the hypothesis being advanced here. Specifically, and for the record, I do not believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway--with Bill Shelley, or anyone else--at the time the motorcade passed.

I wish it were true--i.e., I wish the "solution" to this case were that simple.

Unfortunately, its not.

DSL

1/26/12; 9:50 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Jim:

A few days ago, I wanted to post something to the effect that, with regard to your ongoing debate with Pat Speer on another thread on The London Forum (re the medical evidence, and specifically, the head wounds) it was my opinion that you handled yourself very well, and that you won that debate—hands down. It occupied many web pages, and went back and forth, with all kinds of graphics posted by the two of you, and was in fact truly informative.

If anyone has any questions about the head wound data in the future, I will simply refer them to that thread, and have them plow through all those pages of debate, and the detailed back and forth. As I say, I think your position was superior, and you have identified all the flaws in Speer’s analysis.

But here, in this instance, my position is completely reversed. Given my positive reaction to your position in that debate, I was truly disappointed to see the hypothesis you have recently advanced in this matter of Oswald in the doorway.

Regarding your criticism of my post—that I was dismissing your analysis based on my "autobiographical experience", etc.:

In fact (and as I hope you now realize), I studied this matter of “Oswald in the doorway” extensively decades ago. I went the whole nine yards, as the saying goes: blowups of Altgens, studying of FBI reports, DPD reports, Sheriff’s documents, drawing timelines, etc. etc.

Could it be (I used to wonder) that Oswald was really just standing outside? In the doorway? That it was all that terribly simple? And that this was the greatest mistake that any plot could have possibly made? That the patsy was simply standing there in public view?

Or was the opposite the case: that Oswald was elsewhere, and that Lovelady really did look similar to Oswald, and that the image (and apparent similarity) on Altgens was “just one of those things”—a true coincidence?

Then came my discovery—when working on Executive Acton (circa 1972/73)—of that film clip of Lovelady at the Dallas Police Department, a frame of which Robin Unger has just posted (plus the info on the Martin film); and at that point, as far as I was concerned, the debate was over. There was Lovelady, with the same shirt he was wearing when photographed at the Dallas Police Department, standing in the TSBD doorway.

There was no question but that it was Lovelady standing in the TSBD doorway (and, as has been pointed out, that’s what the collective testimony says, too. But I never relied on that, as the final determinant.)

As to your article, and the posts on YouTube by your associate: Yes, I took the time to listen to the first, second and seventh-and I find them highly subjective and, ultimately, non-credible.

These YouTube items are filled with “I see it. . therefore it’s a fact” kind of reasoning.

In the seventh of the series, your associate goes on to state that he “sees” Ruby in the Altgens photograph, that Ruby was Oswald’s handler, and that this “Ruby” image (which he admits is the back of someone’s head, who he interprets to be Ruby) is signaling to Oswald that he should not be standing in the doorway, for all to see, like that.

At that point, I said to myself: “Forget it. . I don’t have time to waste on this.”

Years ago, someone with a good idea had to fight their way through a mess of editors and business people to get their book published. Today, anyone with any idea can (if they choose to) “self publish” and similarly, go on the Internet, or on YouTube and broadcast their various ideas and conceptions worldwide.

So the “editorial” function devolves to each one of us as individuals to make judgments about what is credible, and what is not; because now, and because of the Internet, everything is “out there.”

So yes, I have listened, I have read, and I don’t think there’s anything to the proposition the two of you are advancing.

I do not believe that this particular Altgens photograph—which was distributed by wire rather early on, as I recall—was faked in any way.

The “other” photographic evidence—the news clip frames posted here by Robin Unger, and the Martin Film frames--establishes that the man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady. The FBI needlessly complicated matters by posing him in a striped shirt, rather than the shirt which the news camera photographs unequivocally establish he was wearing that day. Had they done their job properly, this particular controversy would have been defused--if not resolved--a long time ago.

DSL

1/27/12; 5:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 28, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes, we are all in your debt, Robin, but not for the reasons Josiah suggests. When you expand this image, you can see the faint but dark hole at the center of the white spiral nebula on the windshield right where JFK's left ear would be if it were visible. This image confirms the bullet hole; it does not refute it. Could you post a close up of the area between DM and John Ready? That might prove to be another useful resource.

Once again we have reason to thank Robin Ungar for his extraodinary record in making available the photo record of the shooting. And Pat, thanks for directing me to Ungar's site for Altgens 6. I thought I had the clearest copy of this photo but Ungar's is really quite extraordinarily clear. Click on "CorbisAltgens6_Large1.jpg, 281 views. Among other things this very clear enlargement makes it simple to see that what some have claimed is a bullet hole in the windshield (the whole "spiral nebula" nonsense) is really just the tan side of a purse held by a spectator. Was it the Couch photo in color that showed the woman with the tan-sided purse?

We are all in your debt, Robin.

JT

A few observations:

1) the [Altgens'] photo being studied is hardly an optimal source due to its being a copy of a copy of a copy...

2) clearly discerning what is shown at the doorway is sketchy due to the size of the image being studied even if it came from a high resolution source (but, at least then there would be a chance at clarity)

3) limitations (72k) inherent to a web browser's ability to display images further dampens the force of arguments based upon images that require SHARP resolution in order to reach a conclusion

4) if anyone has an extremely high resolution copy of Altgens 6 and would be willing to upload it to a server, such as, photo bucket for instance, others could down load it and study it without the limitations imposed by web browsers

Jim, have you studied these images after having first used a high resolution copy and without it being displayed by a web browser? If so, can you send me (us) the link to that super high resolution copy that may be downloaded?

Thanks in advance--

Robin Unger has an Altgens 6 from Corbis, and has posted it both here and on his site.

Unger's Altgens Files

Josiah / Calli

Thanks for the generous comments.

.

Credit: Martin Hinricks

Altgens / Croft ( Lady 8 )

Edited January 28, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Groden Scan.

Click on image to view full size:

Edited January 28, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Altgen's / weigman Composite.

[Don Jeffries]

As a great admirer of Thoreau, I often try to urge others to "simplify" whenever possible. Let's simplify this issue:

a photo taken at the very instant JFK is being shot shows a figure in the background, peering out from the entranceway of the building where it is alleged shots were being fired from six stories above. This figure, at first glance, bears a strong resemblance to alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, especially because the rather distinct shirt he is wearing looks so similar.

When the idea that the figure might be Oswald started getting publicity, the authorities clearly took the stance that "it can't be Oswald." That wasn't even a consideration for them, because they'd already concluded he was the lone assassin. As we know from the Warren Commission's "investigation," nothing was going to change their minds about that. So...there just happens to be a TSBD employee who looks enough like Oswald from a distance to serve their purpose. The fact that Lovelady told the FBI he was wearing a short sleeve shirt that day, with very broad stripes, certainly is puzzling. WHY would he give them the wrong information on something like this? As Harold Weisberg did, I find that very important, because without the convenient Loveday it's very hard to dismiss the idea that the figure was Oswald.

I question just about everything regarding this case. Frankly, I've never understood why Oswald would ostensibly admit to not watching the presidential motorcade pass by his building (by eating lunch during it). How many other TSBD employees were not watching the motorcade? Kind of makes one suspect to convey the impression you care so little about the guy you don't even leave the lunchroom to catch a glimpse of him, doesn't it? That's just one of many reasons I place little credence in anything allegedly said by Oswald during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. On the other hand, if he were really saying, "Look, I was out front watching from the doorway, with the others," and that statement was recorded by someone, and we see that figure in the Altgens photograph after Oswald was killed, well, then you really have the perfect alibi, don't you?

As Jim noted, Lovelady's death was just one of many that befell potentially important witnesses just prior to the start of the HSCA investigation. I'm not saying the figure has been definitively proven to be Oswald, but again I don't understand how any of you can be so certain that the figure isn't him. At the very least, this is still an open question, and because the Altgens photo represents the smoking gun we've all been told we must have, if the figure can be shown to be Oswald, in order to persuade others to recognize that a conspiracy took the life of JFK, it's obviously an essential, important piece of evidence.

[Robin Unger]

Corbis Altgens 6 (Full Size)

From Gary Mack

reffering to the Corbis print.

Groden has (or had) huge blowups he made himself directly from Altgens original negative. He had access to it during the HSCA days. I've seen some of them and they are far superior to what's on Robin's site….and yes, I've mentioned this to Robin before.

Gary

Yes, i am well aware of that Gary

I paid $250.00 Aus for the Corbis copy, and to be honest , i'm not completely happy, because it does lack Clarity in some area's

especially around the doorway area.

Gary

I seem to recall you also said similar things regarding Josiah Thompson's Moorman Drumscan.

you told anyone who would listen that it was Rubbish and not to use it.

Perhaps if you would release some of the first generation images you are hoarding at the 6th floor museum, researchers like myself, wouldn't be forced to rely on 2nd,3rd,4th generation copies, and then put up with you criticizing us when we do.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Groden Scan Large.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Steve Duffy]

A question I've had regarding this...

Isn't it important to suggest when these possible alterations were made?...

The Altgens pic was on the AP wires about a half hour after the shooting...? Was it not?...

So, anyone in the pic was just a bystander when the first processing took place.

And the important aspect of it was the occupants of the limo at that time.

If the first newspaper pics that afternoon/evening are the same as the image we have now, including artifacts, etc, the "Headless man"..that leaves no time for any manipulation...

Are they clear enough to tell?

Or is the suggestion that it was later copies that were tampered with?...in which case had Altgens ever said anything regarding this?...