Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

James Fetzer said:

"This is not about THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY. This is about THE OBFUSCATION OF THE ALGENS PHOTOGRAPH."

Well, James, my boy, why did you title this thread: JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all! ??? Why?

How come, pray tell, did you not title it: "The Obfuscation of the Altgens Photograph" if that was TRULY the case, Jim?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 649
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And what about that HUGE website presence dedicated to the "OSWALD was the Man in the Doorway, after all" -- VETERANS WEBSITE -- that you

maintain? Did you really "accidentally" name it: "OSWALD was the Man in the Doorway, after all" -- and then forget to correct the mistake? Or, are

you now claiming that it was supposed to be: "The Obfuscation of the Altgens Photograph" from the start?

Jim,

I'm afraid I don't have enough crumbs to find my way home...

You are done.

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

Well, this is on the order of a "bait and switch". I guess we will never know the answer to my questions, because you never asked them. I am glad to see you still have the capacity for moral outrage, but only when it changes the subject. Vent all you want, but you misled her.

What has become of your capacity to reason? The argument for Oswald in the doorway is not that complicated. But an essential element in Ralph's and my argument is that THE ALTGENS HAS BEEN ALTERED--not simply that figure, but the figure to his right/front (looking at the photo).

THAT is the OBVIOUS OBFUSCATION. The alteration of the man in the doorway is VERY SUBTLE. No one could read the series of posts that I have directed to you--such as #615, #622, #633, and #638, among others even earlier, to which you replied with #639--and miss what I was asking.

That the Altgens was altered at all is a crucial clue. It would only have been done if someone had been there who should not have been there. The only person that could have been was Oswald, where the fact the Altgens has been altered is a powerful indication that Lee was in the original.

So I replied with #642. Did you think that no one would notice that the questions I had been putting to you were not the ones that you put to her? So I called you on it and repeated it in #648. What you did was dishonest. Anyone can read these posts and judge this for themselves.

fraud [frawd] [source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud]

noun

1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.

3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.

4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

Her answers were appropriate for your questions, but you did not ask her the same questions I have asked you. Show her these images

in the posts I have directed to you. Ask her if she can see the face in the area I have circled or whether it is missing. Ask her if she can

see the areas labeled "A" and "B" and what they are covering. OK? The answers to your questions are not also answers to my questions.

2yo4p3l.jpg

Ask, "Julie, Jim says that the circled area has a face that has been obliterated and that that's what he's talking about. And that, in the

photo below, the face is area "B" and the shirt area "A". Do you agree or disagree with him that the face and the shirt were obliterated?"

17023.jpg

This question has nothing to do with the identity of the man in the doorway. It has to do with whether the images to his right/front have

been altered. That you would misdirect her attention and refashion the question when I have been so explicit simply dumbfounds me. I

am stunning that you would perpetrate a fraud on YOUR OWN WIFE. I expect things like this from Lamson, but not from Greg Burnham.

I have shown the circled image and "B" and "A" to my wife and daughter, which neither of them had any difficulty seeing were obfuscated.

The difference is that I showed them the right images and explained the issue. I did not attempt to distract either of them about the man

in the doorway. This is not about THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY. This is about THE OBFUSCATION OF THE ALGENS PHOTOGRAPH.

James Fetzer said:

"This is not about THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY. This is about THE OBFUSCATION OF THE ALGENS PHOTOGRAPH."

Well, James, my boy, why did you title this thread: JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all! ??? Why?

How come, pray tell, did you not title it: "The Obfuscation of the Altgens Photograph" if that was TRULY the case, Jim?

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

Cinque replies to Burnham (and with good reason):

"I know that Cinque's arguments do not persuade. Indeed, Cinque tends to make me more certain than ever that it is Lovelady!"

How exactly do you mean, Greg? You can't just say something like that without backing it up. Which of the evidentiary points that I made have led you think that it's Lovelady? Be specific, because now it's not a question of certainty, which is your favorite topic, but of logic, which is mine. You have just made a HUGE claim, and it's time for you to show your hand. Roll 'em over, Burnham. Point to a speciic argument of mine which led you to conclude that the Doorman is Lovelady. And if you can't do it, or won't do it, then I demand that you retract the statement. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THAT!

It looks like Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway of the TSBD to me. It looks like Billy's forehead, his more "square" chin than Oswald's, and Lovelady appears to have less hair and a more receding hairline than Oswald.

It looks like it is Billy Lovelady to me.

Perhaps it is Lovelady, Robert.

But, still...

I don't know how anyone can determine WHO IS IN THE DOORWAY from Altgens! That source renders insufficient data to reach any definitive conclusion, IMO.

I also do not understand the reluctance--on BOTH sides of this debate--to admit the fact that "Doorway Man's identity is yet unknown" -- maybe Lovelady...maybe Oswald...maybe third party.

I don't know who it is. I know that Cinque's arguments do not persuade. Indeed, Cinque tends to make me more certain than ever that it is Lovelady! But, truth be told, I do not know.

I grow weary of Cinque's nonsense.

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

Robert,

We all know it LOOKS LIKE Lovelady. The question is whether it ACTUALLY IS Lovelady. Our argument is that the figure to the right/front of the man in the doorway has had his face and shirt obfuscated. The only reason for altering the Altgens would have been if someone was there who should not have been there. The only candidate for that role is Lee Oswald.

We believe that Lovelady's face was imposed on Lee's image in the doorway, but that the shirt the figure is wearing bears a striking resemblance to the shirt that Oswald was wearing, not the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and that the build of the man is Lee's, not Billy's. The other image was that of Billy, but you could not have him in two places at the same time.

In case the very idea of switching faces comes as news to you, remember that, in the backyard photographs, Lee's face was imposed on someone else's body. (See my "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" with Jim Marrs.) So in this case they appear to have put Lovelady's face on Lee's body. It is subtle, but that is the argument in a nutshell.

Jim

It looks like Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway of the TSBD to me. It looks like Billy's forehead, his more "square" chin than Oswald's, and Lovelady appears to have less hair and a more receding hairline than Oswald.

It looks like it is Billy Lovelady to me.

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

Robert,

We all know it LOOKS LIKE Lovelady. The question is whether it ACTUALLY IS Lovelady. Our argument is that the figure to the right/front of the man in the doorway has had his face and shirt obfuscated. The only reason for altering the Altgens would have been if someone was there who should not have been there. The only candidate for that role is Lee Oswald.

We believe that Lovelady's face was imposed on Lee's image in the doorway, but that the shirt the figure is wearing bears a striking resemblance to the shirt that Oswald was wearing, not the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and that the build of the man is Lee's, not Billy's. The other image was that of Billy, but you could not have him in two places at the same time.

In case the very idea of switching faces comes as news to you, remember that, in the backyard photographs, Lee's face was imposed on someone else's body. (See my "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" with Jim Marrs.) So in this case they appear to have put Lovelady's face on Lee's body. It is subtle, but that is the argument in a nutshell.

Jim

It looks like Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway of the TSBD to me. It looks like Billy's forehead, his more "square" chin than Oswald's, and Lovelady appears to have less hair and a more receding hairline than Oswald.

It looks like it is Billy Lovelady to me.

I do not believe the backyard photos were faked. Marina today still says she took them so that is probably true. She has changed her story on much of everything else. The backyard photos were part of Oswald's "sheepdipping" operations. "Hey, look at me, I am a gun toting commie! Check out my commie newspapers." It is all so transparent (to me).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

We all know it LOOKS LIKE Lovelady. The question is whether it ACTUALLY IS Lovelady. Our argument is that the figure to the right/front of the man in the doorway has had his face and shirt obfuscated. The only reason for altering the Altgens would have been if someone was there who should not have been there. The only candidate for that role is Lee Oswald.

We believe that Lovelady's face was imposed on Lee's image in the doorway, but that the shirt the figure is wearing bears a striking resemblance to the shirt that Oswald was wearing, not the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and that the build of the man is Lee's, not Billy's. The other image was that of Billy, but you could not have him in two places at the same time.

In case the very idea of switching faces comes as news to you, remember that, in the backyard photographs, Lee's face was imposed on someone else's body. (See my "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" with Jim Marrs.) So in this case they appear to have put Lovelady's face on Lee's body. It is subtle, but that is the argument in a nutshell.

Jim

It looks like Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway of the TSBD to me. It looks like Billy's forehead, his more "square" chin than Oswald's, and Lovelady appears to have less hair and a more receding hairline than Oswald.

It looks like it is Billy Lovelady to me.

Robert,

I also think it's Lovelady on the steps, and he's wearing his own bold-plaid shirt, not "Oswald's shirt".

--Tommy :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph to Everyone:

Now let’s compare Doorman to another known picture of Lovelady. This time we are comparing images that were supposedly taken within several seconds of each other.

aaj8rp.jpg

The first thing we notice is that Doorman’s t-shirt is much more exposed than Lovelady’s. Lovelady’s exposure looks on par with what we observe in the image from the Dallas PD, but it is much less than on Doorman.

Next, the gaping quality of the right side of Doorman’s shirt-where it’s billowing like a sail-is completely missing from Lovelady.

Most of the right side of Lovelady's shirt is obscured by the black man's head. The little we can actually see certainly isn't "billowing like a sail".

As for the man with the missing face - B, I'm sure most people who have looked at this photo have wondered what happened there. In the stabilised gif that was posted here by Robin Unger (post # 625) and blown up by Duncan MacRae (post # 627), somebody clearly waves a towel/handkerchief as the President's limo turns the corner. Could that person still have been waving (maybe at LBJ) when Altgens took his photo and obscured B's face ?

MH

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

Robert,

Don't demonstrate your ignorance. Go to "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald", Veterans Today, which I co-authored with Jim Marrs. We adduced a dozen proofs that the backyard photos are fake. I am incredulous that you would not know that as we approach the 50th observance.

Jim

Robert,

We all know it LOOKS LIKE Lovelady. The question is whether it ACTUALLY IS Lovelady. Our argument is that the figure to the right/front of the man in the doorway has had his face and shirt obfuscated. The only reason for altering the Altgens would have been if someone was there who should not have been there. The only candidate for that role is Lee Oswald.

We believe that Lovelady's face was imposed on Lee's image in the doorway, but that the shirt the figure is wearing bears a striking resemblance to the shirt that Oswald was wearing, not the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and that the build of the man is Lee's, not Billy's. The other image was that of Billy, but you could not have him in two places at the same time.

In case the very idea of switching faces comes as news to you, remember that, in the backyard photographs, Lee's face was imposed on someone else's body. (See my "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" with Jim Marrs.) So in this case they appear to have put Lovelady's face on Lee's body. It is subtle, but that is the argument in a nutshell.

Jim

It looks like Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway of the TSBD to me. It looks like Billy's forehead, his more "square" chin than Oswald's, and Lovelady appears to have less hair and a more receding hairline than Oswald.

It looks like it is Billy Lovelady to me.

I do not believe the backyard photos were faked. Marina today still says she took them so that is probably true. She has changed her story on much of everything else. The backyard photos were part of Oswald's "sheepdipping" operations. "Hey, look at me, I am a gun toting commie! Check out my commie newspapers." It is all so transparent (to me).

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

Comments from Phil Giuliano:

Dear Jim and Greg,

Nice to hear from you - I'm sorry that the quest for truth has created a rift between friends. FWIW I did read the article and photo study and it is my opinion that "Doorway Man" is Lovelady's face superimposed on LHO's body. DWay man looks like a inorganic form to me - the head seems out of scale with the body and it just doesn't feel real to me. Furthermore the shape and posture of the body seem to be those of LHO, not BL. Given that I would concur that there is a high probability that the "headless" figure with his arms raised is the purposely obfuscated image of Lovelady and LHO's shirt was altered to look like BL's plaid shirt. I would stop short of declaring the identity of D'way Man as a certainty based upon this study - or proven beyond reasonable doubt - but I think it would be a mistake to not strongly consider the possibility that indeed LHO was right where he said he was at the time of the shooting.

What I do find very curious is that the SS agents and the fedora man do seem to be looking directly at Doorway Man or the Headless Man. You would think they would be looking UP toward the sounds allegedly created by the shots fired from the 6th floor window. Perhaps they were looking for a visual signal from someone in the doorway or perhaps the sound was being created from a much lower spot than the 6th floor.

Regarding the backyard photos and the employment of similar techniques to alter Altgens 6. I am aware that Marina maintains she took the photos. But I think we must consider that:

1) there is a strong probability that she was brainwashed and this idea was "planted" in her. After all she also claimed the LHO was guilty and later recanted

2) J White's work on this is very strong

3) we can't dismiss the possibility that they could BOTH be right - that Marina did take the photos AND they were altered for unknown reasons. Didn't LHO have a history with photography?

And weren't subsequent versions of the photos later found in DPD archives that showed clearly altered versions of the photos? No doubt these photos were monkeyed with - but the reason may not be the commonly accepted, seemingly obvious ones.

I would have posted all this on the forum but it's closed to new registrations.

Guys - I have a deep respect and fondness for you both and do hope you can resolve this matter amicably.

All the best,

Phil Giuliano

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph to Everyone:

Now let’s compare Doorman to another known picture of Lovelady. This time we are comparing images that were supposedly taken within several seconds of each other.

aaj8rp.jpg

The first thing we notice is that Doorman’s t-shirt is much more exposed than Lovelady’s. Lovelady’s exposure looks on par with what we observe in the image from the Dallas PD, but it is much less than on Doorman.

Next, the gaping quality of the right side of Doorman’s shirt-where it’s billowing like a sail-is completely missing from Lovelady.

Most of the right side of Lovelady's shirt is obscured by the black man's head. The little we can actually see certainly isn't "billowing like a sail".

As for the man with the missing face - B, I'm sure most people who have looked at this photo have wondered what happened there. In the stabilised gif that was posted here by Robin Unger (post # 625) and blown up by Duncan MacRae (post # 627), somebody clearly waves a towel/handkerchief as the President's limo turns the corner. Could that person still have been waving (maybe at LBJ) when Altgens took his photo and obscured B's face ?

MH (emphasis added by T. Graves)

Mark,

I agree with you. I believe you can see the same towel/handkerchief being waved by someone on the lower steps in theTowner GIF -- Stabilized on the doorway clip which Robin Unger posted in post #625, this thread.

(I would post it again right here if I only knew how.)

--Tommy :)

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