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

[Robin Unger]

Altgen's / Weigman Composite

Altgen's perspective is VERY misleading.

Without comparing Altgen's 6 with the Weigman frames, you will NEVER understand the true locations of the spectators seen standing in the doorway.

Weigman Frame

Robin,

Have A, B, C, D, E, or G ever been positively identified? Did the WC ever present any of this photographic evidence to witnesses and ask them to pick themselves out in the picture?

Just as a point of reference, does anyone know the name of "Stetson Hat Man"? Also, does anybody know if "Looking Back Man" was ever questioned as to why he was looking back towards the TSBD entrance?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Hi Thomas.

I think that it would probably take a separate thread to answer the many questions regarding the bystanders identities seen in Weigman.

Also on a number of forums, i have participated in threads discussing who or what the figure is in Weigman , that is seen standing back in the shadows on the TSBD steps.

It is positioned in between the black man and Lovelady back near the glass door entrance.

This person could not have been seen from Altgens position , as they are too far back on the steps.

The same person still appears to be there, as officer Baker runs to the doorway .

Discussions centered around what looked to be the person holding a camera up to there eye in Weigman with there arms out to the side.

many blowups were done , but none proved conclusive.

We just couldn'y get a high enough resolution on the frames we were using.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Hi Bernice.

Thanks for the pics.

Cheers.

Robin.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Richard Hocking]

Hi Richard.

The identification of the spectators seen in weigman standing in front of the TSBD are not positively known to me.

I could take a guess, but i would rather find out the correct names,

Robin.

Thanks for the Couch Film Stills.

One of the problems with Identifying individuals is the lack of other photos of these people who said they were on the steps, for comparison. Outside of Lovelady, Oswald, and Frazier, I have not found much.

Other TSBD employees who said they were on the steps at the time of the shooting (or seen there by someone else) include: Carl Jones, Madie Reese, Avery Davis, Roy Lewis, Mrs. R. Reid, Joe Molina, Sarah Stanton, Bill Shelley, Pauline Sanders, Otis Williams, Judy McCully, Ruth Dean.

Out of this Other group (above) the persons of highest interest to me (from an identification standpoint) are Joe Molina, Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton

[Robin Unger]

Josiah

Once again, thanks for your generous comments.

Jim you say that this page proves that there was a hole in the windshield. ?

Quote:

Well, this is ROBIN UNGER claiming something that I do not believe is true. He is asserting--mistakenly, if

I am correct--that this star-like configuration is the windshield after "being kicked out during the removal

process". Maybe Robin just does not know what he is talking about, but Doug Weldon actually tracked down

the Ford official who was responsible for replacing the windshield, who confirmed that it had a through-and-

through hole in it at the location I have identified in the Altgens

THAT IS NOT HOW I READ IT

It clearly say's that there where cracks but NO PERFORATION.

Perforation

perforation [ˌpɜːfəˈreɪʃən]n1. the act of perforating or the state of being perforated2. a hole or holes made in something

Quote:

Maybe Robin just doesn't know what he is talking about.

Maybe you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about Jim.

Is there a reason why you neglected to post the WHOLE letter in your book. ?

I think we both know why there was selective editing done to the letter below

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

The entire Ferguson report appears to be a fabrication. There is no "star cluster" configuration

on the Altgens, even though the small, white spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center is clearly

visible. Numerous witnesses observed it at Parkland and one officer even stuck a pencil through it.

Richard Dudman published about it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where I republished his column in

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 167. We know a lot about the windshield, including that the

Ford official who was responsible for replacing it told Doug Weldon that it had a through-and-through hole

when they took it out, which you would know if you had read his chapter in MURDER (2000). Since you

haven't read it, I don't understand why you are posting about this. Given what we know about faking the

evidence in this case, how can Ferguson's report possibly be credible? You do not know enough to be

taking a stand on this issue. He even locates it "at a point directly beneath the mirror", which is obviously

false. It is not even consistent with the images you have been posting, so how can you be so easily taken in?

I have heretofore supposed that you were an honest broker and that you were posting images to promote

serious research. Now you are forcing me to change my opinion.That you post what Josiah asks to support

an indefensible account is fine, but that you decline to post images that would demonstrate the untenability

of his position is not. I am sorry to say it, but you are losing much of your credibility in my eyes. Since you

must know that the passage you are quoting contradicts the images you are posting, I bet I am not alone.

Jim

Josiah

Once again, thanks for your generous comments.

Jim you say that this page proves that there was a hole in the windshield. ?

Quote:

Well, this is ROBIN UNGER claiming something that I do not believe is true. He is asserting--mistakenly, if

I am correct--that this star-like configuration is the windshield after "being kicked out during the removal

process". Maybe Robin just does not know what he is talking about, but Doug Weldon actually tracked down

the Ford official who was responsible for replacing the windshield, who confirmed that it had a through-and-

through hole in it at the location I have identified in the Altgens.

THAT IS NOT HOW I READ IT

It clearly say's that there where cracks but NO PERFORATION.

Perforation

perforation [ˌpɜːfəˈreɪʃən]n1. the act of perforating or the state of being perforated2. a hole or holes made in something

Quote:

Maybe Robin just doesn't know what he is talking about.

Maybe you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about Jim.

Is there a reason why you neglected to post the WHOLE letter in your book. ?

I think we both know why there was selective editing done to the letter below

Edited January 31, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Hi Bill,

The Altgens photo with Lovelady in the doorway was taken at Z255. This was established some time ago by locating the position of the limousing. The killing head shot occurred at Z313.

JT

Was the Atkins photo of the Man in the Doorway taken BEFORE the fatal headshot?

Thanks,

BK

[Pat Speer]

Not to bring up the obvious... BUT... Fetzer's argument Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting is based upon his understanding of Will Fritz's notes. Fetzer claims they prove Oswald was outside at the time of the shooring, and that the person looking like Lovelady in the Altgens photo is actually Oswald, with Lovelady's face super-imposed onto Oswald's body. And how does he know this? Because, according to him, the Lovelady character is wearing Oswald's shirt.

But there's a HUGE problem with this, beyond that it is really really difficult for most people to swallow. It's that Fritz's notes--the very basis for the whole argument--specify that OSWALD claimed he'd changed his shirt when he got home!

Fritz's notes on his 11-23 interview of Oswald

That's right. The shirt Fetzer claims the Lovelady figure is wearing in the Altgens photos was, according to Oswald himself, not worn by Oswald at the time of the shooting!

So which is it, Jim? Are Fritz's notes a fabrication? Or was Oswald lying to Fritz about changing his shirt?

Or...wait a second...there's another possibility... Could it be...that you're just w-r-o-n-g?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

As I previously observed, Tink cannot tell the difference between

George Costello, who reviewed MURDER for THE FEDERAL LAWYER,

and John Costella, who has made such important contributions to the

study of the films, including discovering that witness reports from

Chief Curry, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill

and even (indirectly) Roy Kellerman all substantiate it. That review

is archived at http://assassinationscience.com/george.html Here's another:

The following review has just appeared in THE FOURTH DECADE (January

2001), pp. 12-17.

_________________________________________________________________________

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA: A REVIEW

John Delane Williams

Murder in Dealey Plaza:What We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then About

the Death of JFK [1] is a book of readings about newly developed

information. It is edited by Jim Fetzer, who also edited Assassination

Science, [2] and convened a conference [3] in Minneapolis with many of the

same authors. Fourteen different articles are the meat of this book.

Fetzer begins this with "Smoking Guns". Sixteen smoking guns are

discussed, many of which are gone over in considerable detail by the other

authors. Fetzer chose a logical sequence for presenting the articles. With

apologies, the order is changed here, with significance to the overall

story dictating order.

Two Different Brains

A logical starting point for me is Doug Horne's "Evidence of a government

Cover-up: Two Different Brain Specimens at President Kennedy's Autopsy". I

had attended the conference in Minneapolis where John Tunheim, who had

directed the work of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), stated

that there would be no smoking guns in the released records. [4] Doug

Horne has apparently proven his boss wrong. Horne concluded that there

were two different examinations of the JFK brain. The first examination

occurred on (or about) November 25, 1963. Dr. Pierre Finck was not present

for that examination, but was present at an examination, purportedly of

JFK's brain, on November 29, 1963. An autopsy photographer, John Stringer,

claimed Finck was not present at the examination. Stringer took several

photographs. Yet the archive photographs include several different views

that Stringer did not take. This present rendering is but a short outline

of the intricate story that comes from the files at the archives that

allowed Horne to posit two different brains at the two examinations.

A Chronology of 22 November 1963

Ira David Woods III has been working on a chronology of events in Dallas.

His chronology, JFK Assassination Chronology, is said to be over 400 pages

long and still not completed. The present reported chronology ("22

November 1963: A Chronology",) is 101 pages long. The chronology has its

own smoking guns. One favorite of mine is Oswald's wallet. At 7:10 AM, he

left his wallet in the dresser with $170 in it; Oswald carried $13.87 to

work. Sixty-one pages later, he left wallet #2 at the Tippet murder scene,

together with a driver's license. Eleven pages later, wallet #3 showed up

at the Texas Theatre where Oswald is arrested. WFAA newsfilm shows the

wallet being gone through at the theatre. It should be noted that five

wallets of Oswald's have been accounted for; in addition to the three

mentioned here, two additional wallets were taken from the Paine residence

by the FBI. [5] Also related in this chronology is the Summers [6] story

that J.D. Tippit had begun an affair with a waitress who worked at

Austin's Barbecue Drive In. Tippit worked at the barbecue in his off

hours. The recently divorced paramour of Tippit was taken to the funeral

parlor by her ex-husband to see Tippit's body before Tippit's widow and

family arrived. The Tippit paramour then revealed to her jealous

ex-husband that she was pregnant by Tippit. The ex-husband had on

occasion followed the two at night in his car. The couple reunited, with

the husband raising the child as his own until their next breakup in 1968.

The Secret Service

Douglas Weldon has focused on the JFK limousine; this focus has lead

directly to the involvement of the Secret Service ("The Kennedy Limousine:

Dallas 1963"). Weldon reviews the confusing and contradictory history of

the limousine. What is clear is that the Secret Service either destroyed,

or had destroyed, evidence of the assassination regarding the limousine.

An agent was photographed with a bucket and water and sponge to wash blood

and brain matter out of the area where JFK sat. [see 7, p.41] Also, a boy

was taking pictures of the limousine outside Parkland Hospital, a Secret

Service agent took away his camera and exposed the film. The Altgen's

photo [see 8, pp. 30-31] shows the bullet hole in the limousine; the

picture was taken at a time equivalent to Z-255. It was rumored that the

Secret Service ordered 20 windshields for the limousine. The picture of

the windshield produced by the Secret Service a week after the

assassination likely could have been one of these substitutes.

Weldon hypothesizes the windshield damage was caused by a shot from the

south knoll, perhaps from the storm drain. Secret Service agent Emory

Roberts, in command of the agents in the second car, ordered the agents

not to move at the sound of the first shot. Roberts also appeared to take

command at Parkland Hospital exercising authority he did not possess.

The centerpiece of Weldon's article is the witness from the Ford Motor

Company. The Ford employee, who asked not to be named (actually he didn't

want his story told during his lifetime; he did partially relent. Weldon

played the tape recording of his conversations with the Ford employee at

the Minneapolis Conference [9]). The Ford employee was at work at the

Dearborn, Michigan plant on 11/25/63 when he was told by a division Vice

President to go to the glass plant lab. He and two other employees were to

make a template from the limousine windshield so that it could be

replaced. The windshield had a bullet through it, emlinating from the

outside. The carpeting and the interior were completely stripped out. The

original windshield was removed, broken up and scrapped, as they were

ordered to do. Only two people could have ordered the limousine taken to

Dearborn, Lyndon Johnson and James Rowley, Chief of Secret Service. It

seems unlikely that Rowley would make this decision except at Johnson's

approval.

A scathing review of Weldon's article was recently published by Tim Smith.

[10] Smith maintains that there was no hole in the windshield, and berates

Weldon for not naming the Ford employee. The idea that someone fears for

their life if they tell what they know seems to escape Smith.

Vincent Palamara, a leading student of the Secret Service's involvement

with the assassination, [see 11] addresses three focal members of the

Secret Service, Floyd Boring, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the

White House Detail, Emory Roberts and Bill Geer. Dallas Sheriff Bill

Decker had promised full support to motorcade security; this help was

rejected, presumably by Boring, who was in Washington but in charge of

planning for the Texas trip. More stripping of security included removal

of flanking police motorcyclists, and without agents sitting on the back

of the limousine. Roberts left two agents at Love Field, Henry Rybka and

Don Lawton. Both had been involved in protection to JFK in recent

motorcades. Roberts also ordered agents not to move toward the limousine.

Only Clint Hill, assigned to protect Jaqueline Kennedy, ran to the

limousine, but too late for JFK. At Parkland Hospital, Roberts usurped

Agent Kellerman's authority. Upon seeing JFK was dead in the limousine,

Roberts said to Kellerman, "You stay with Kennedy. I'm going to Johnson".

[12] Bill Geer was the driver of the limousine who apparently slowed the

limousine down almost to a stop (or did momentarily stop), allowing a

better shot (or shots).

The Zapruder film

An article that addresses eyewitness statements, Vince Palamara reports

(59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street, pp. 119-128) on 59 Dealey Plaza

witnesses. The witnesses reported that a) either the limousine stopped; or

the limousine slowed to almost a complete stop. The Zapruder film shows

no such event corresponding to these reports. The eyewitness accounts

would cast doubt on the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

A second article by Doug Horne involves interviews with two former CIA

employees of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). The

existing record says the Zapruder film had three copies made in Dallas.

Bill McMahon of the NPIC says he was told by Secret Service agent Bill

Smith that Smith took the film from the person who who exposed it, flew it

to Kodak in Rochester, NY to get it developed, and then brought it

directly to the NPIC. It was brought there because the NPIC had special

state of the art equipment. They could enlarge each frame up to 40 times

its original size; then they would produce internegatives which were used

to produce multiple colored prints of selected frames. A second NPIC

worker, Ben Hunter, recalled that a "Captain Sands" delivered the film. He

later amended this recollection to say that a secret service agent brought

the film. McMahon and Hunter were to find the three shots and select

frames for reproduction. McMahon said his opinion was that Kennedy was

shot 6-8 times from three different directions. He was told that there

were three shots from behind from the School Book Depository; McMahon

concluded they were to make frames, not do an analysis

A 16 page inset of photographs are shown and discussed by Jack White in

"The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, and Other Photographic Frauds Perpetuated

by the U.S. Government." White has done considerable photographic work. He

served as an adviser on photographic evidence to the House Select

Committee on Assassinations, as well as served as a consultant to Oliver

Stone on JFK. White also produced the video Fake! [13] on the Oswald

backyard photos. In his present contribution, White casts doubt on whether

Zapruder actually did the filming. Several frames from the Zapruder film

are compared to other photographic evidence. There are several indications

of differences. A comparison of the photos of the Nix film and the

Zapruder film are such that that at least one of them is falsified. For

example, Z-369 and the equivalent Nix frame show some but not all the same

people from the front and the back. The Zapruder figures seem less

lifelike. It would appear to me that there is a slight time differential

between the Nix and Zapruder films; it appears at least three new people

have run into the area. It appears to me that one of the persons has

vanished (this person is labelled 4 by White in Z-369, and labeled

"S.O.B." in Cicione. [14] Unfortunately, Cicione did not include younger

people in his master list of Dealey Plaza witnesses. At least some of the

people appearing in the Nix frame, but not the Zapruder frame, appear to

be younger (under 21). What White does is show that the Zapruder film and

the Nix film are incompatible; at least one of them has been altered. One

final note on the White pictures: I was unaware of the the painted yellow

stripes in the "kill zone" until my trip to Dallas in November, 2000.

White uses the yellow stripe from the Zapruder film to make an exact frame

match to show alterations in the Zapruder film.

The final essay on the Zapruder film controversy is provided by David

Mantik, who is a major contributor to this volume. Mantik had three

articles in Assassination Science [15, 16, 17] as well as presenting at

the conference in Minneapolis. [18] His presentation in Assassination

Science was more a technical explanation of how the Zapruder film was

altered. Mantik's essay on the Zapruder film is more of an reasoned

approach attempt to show altering the film was not unthinkable. Mantik

first reviews the resemblances of the JFK assassination to that of

Fedinand in 1914. He makes the point that our knowledge of the Franz

Ferdinand assassination is almost entirely by eyewitness testimony. Were

we to take the same view with the JFK assassination, we might have a

different view; the availability and use of several different recording

devices seems to feed a sense that the evidence provided by the still film

and moving film would seem to be more reliable than eyewitness

recollection; Mantik points out that, from a legal view, for a tape to be

introduced into evidence in court, eyewitness testimony needs to preceed

the introduction of photographic evidence. For the Zapruder film to be

authentic and have an evidentiary base, a chain of possession needs to be

established. The work of Horne in this volume would strongly call into

question an unbroken chain of possession.

A very strong case for film alteration can be inferred from eyewitness

testimony, which reports either a complete stop or an almost complete stop

of the limousine on Deala Plaza. An alternative interpretation is either

the camera was erratic, or Zapruder turned off the recording to exactly

coincide with the stop. There are probably technical details that would

render the latter argument to be rejected, however, I don't have the

expertise to do so. A possibility that Mantik gives is the simple excision

of frames in selected places that could achieve a number of aims,

including removing evidence on a stop by the limousine. Such an excision

could have been directed by the Secret Service for the purpose of

eliminating the inappropriate stop (or near stop) by William Greer. The

number of anomalies in the Zapruder film are quite numerous. The

intersprocket image extends all the way to the left edge, unlike the

simulations done by Roland Zavala, a retired Kodak engineer who was

re-hired to do work with Kodak for the AARB. The overexposures typical of

a beginning filming sequence is missing in the film. The likely

interpretation is an excision. Other anomalies include William Greer's

rapid head turn, Toni Foster's unusual stop (and her growing to almost

seven feet tall [19]), among many others.

It should be noted that ther are persons who support a conspiracy approach

who argue that the Zapruder film is authentic. Notable among them is Hal

Verb [see, for example, 20, 21]. On the other hand, a long term dissenter

against accuracy of the Zapruder film is Harrison Livingston [see 22-26].

The Medical Evidence

Gary Aguilar, in "The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy in the Death

of JFK", makes the point that the available medical evidence grabs the

skeptic who searches for a responsible explanation of the conflicting

evidence. Witnesses who saw Kennedy's head wounds overwhelmingly describe

a wound in the back of JFK's skull that couldn't have been caused by a

shooter from behind. Credible witnesses, when shown the autopsy photos,

called them 'doctored' because they don't show the rearward skull damage.

More photographs were taken by autopsy photographers than are now extant.

On the matter of missing photographs, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Ebersole,

together with autopsist photographer John Stringer signed on 11/1/66 a

document saying, "The X-rays and photographs described and listed above

include all the X-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy and

we have no reason to believe that any other X-rays or photographs were

made during the autopsy". [27] Another false affidavit, signed on

11/22/63 by Stringer and Floyd Riebe, an assistant autopsy photographer,

specified the number of autopsy photographs that were taken and

surrendered to Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman. Both Stringer and Riebe

stated they were ordered to sign by Captain Stover, the Commanding Officer

of the U.S. Naval Medical School. At least the 11/1/66 affidavit was

apparently at the command of Lyndon Johnson. [28]

David Mantik is uniquely qualified to address the JFK autopsy issues;

Mantik holds a Ph.D in physics as well as an M.D. The article on "The

Medical Evidence Decoded" is more an integration of his research with the

recent efforts of other researchers. From Douglas Weldon, he notes that

several witnesses indicate a shot from the left front, probably from the

storm drain south of the first overpass. Mantik concludes that this shot

is consistent with a shot to the right forehead. A right frontal shot

seems likely and consistent with metallic debris found in the X-rays.

Mantik systematically attacks the existing evidence. Much evidence is

missing. This is garnered from addressing witness testimony. Many

photographs taken at the autopsy are missing. Witnesses disagree

drastically with existing photographs. Two photographs that seem unlikely

to be of the same person are a posterior head photograph that shows an

intact head (p.221); when this photograph is contrasted to the one showing

a massive head injury (p.297), one's credulity is stretched beyond reason

that they represent different views of Kennedy's head. Mantik also

explains how a metallic object can later be added to an X-ray, using film

extant in 1963. Mantik hypothesizes that Kennedy's throat wound was due to

glass fragments from the windshield. Mantik concludes that high government

officials had to approve, and probably transmit, orders for alteration of

critical forensic evidence. Persons who might have warranted grand jury

investigations included James Rowley, who led the Secret Service, which

held the critical autopsy materials; Robert Knudsen, White House

photographer; and Admiral George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician. All

three kept their jobs in the Johnson administration.

Righting the Record and Epilogue

Jim Fetzer addresses the question, "Could Oswald be Convicted?", using

material from Jesse Curry's JFK Assassination File. [29] This article uses

Curry's evidence to construct a probable conspiracy. The evidence suggests

that Oswald was not likely a shooter. It does not address a possible

involvement in a conspiracy for Oswald.

David Mantik addresses the lack of historians becoming involved in

researching the Kennedy assassination. Mantik laments the "Silence of the

Historians". I would suggest Barbie Zelizer's Covering the Body [30] as

another way to view the lack of historian involvement regarding the JFK

assassination. Zelizer maintains that journalists refuse to allow the

assassination story be given to historians. Many journalists gain prestige

by their relation to the JFK story. Journalists form an interpretive

community and marginalize persons and views they oppose. Within the

journalistic community, the JFK assasination was a turning point to allow

national television journalists to elbow out local and print media for the

ascendency. The day that Kennedy died was the most important day in the

career of Dan Rather. He went from being a regional journalist to a

national corespondent. Rather claimed to be at Dealey Plaza at the time of

the assassination, but a mile away four minutes later after running the

distance, talking to Walter Cronkite later. The importance of "being" at

the assassination was important to the careers of other journalists. Life

Magazine could "be there" by purchasing the Zapruder film. One might guess

that, as the Dan Rathers are gone from the scene, historians may start to

assert a claim to researching the story.

A final essay by Bertrand Russell, noted British mathematician and

philosopher, was previously published in 1969. [31] This essay seems

relevant today, and adds a few snippets that have not been widely

reported. District Attorney Henry Wade made a statement of Oswald's

movements. Oswald took a taxi driven by Darryl Click, who had signed an

affidavit to his having driven Oswald. Wade later altered the driver's

name to William Wahley. If "Click" was Wahley, then Wahley had signed a

false affidavit. If the two were not the same, there is conflicting

evidence. In either case, Wade's actions were compromised. "Good showing,

Bertrand."

Some might fault this book for the lack of inclusion of other information

that we now know that we didn't know then. These might include the

involvement of LBJ [32, 33, 34], which includes identifying Mac Wallace's

(an LBJ henchman) print on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook

Depository. This print had long been unidentified. [35] The work of Peter

Dale Scott [36] as well as other research deserves mentioning. But a book

has to end somewhere. This is an excellent start.

Notes

1. Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now

that We didn't Know Then About the Death of JFK. Chicago: Catfeet

Press.

2. Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak out

on the Death of JFK. Chicago: Catfeet Press.

3. The Death of JFK Conference. (1999, May). Minneapolis.

4. Tunheim, J.R. (1999, May). The AARB Records. The Death of JFK

Conference. Minneapolis.

5. Armstrong, J. (1998). Lee and Harvey Oswald; the Mystery of the

Wallets. The Fourth Decade, 5,6,20-28.

6. Summers, A. (1980). Conspiracy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

7. Trask, R. (1994). Picture of the Pain. Danvers, MA: Yeoman's

Press.

8. Groden, R.J. (1993). The Killing of a President. New York:

Viking Studio Books.

9. Weldon, D. (1999, May). Kennedy Limousine. The Death of JFK

Conference. Minneapolis.

10. Smith, T. (2001). Windshield Reflections. JFK Deep Politics

Quarterly, 6,2,16-21.

11. Palamara, V.M. (1993). The Third Alternative: Survivor's Guilt:

The Secret Service and the JFK Murder. Pittsburgh: Author.

12. Manchester, W. (1967). The Death of a President. New York:

Harper & Row.

13. White J. (1990). Fake! (Video). Fort Worth: Third Coast

Productions.

14. Cicone, C. (1996). Schematic and Master List of Witnesses in

Dealey Plaza. Highland Park, MI: Author.

15. Mantik, D.W. (1998). The JFK Assassination: Cause for Doubt. in

Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out

on the Death of JFK (pp. 93-139). Chicago: Catfeet Press.

16. Mantik, D.W. (1998). Optical Density Measurements of the JFK X-

rays and a new Observation Based on the Chest X-ray. in Fetzer, J.H.

(Ed.) (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death

of JFK (pp. 153-160). Chicago: Catfeet Press.

17. Mantik, D.W. (1998). Special Effects in the Zapruder Film: How

the Film of the Century was Edited. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (1998).

Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (pp.

263-343). Chicago: Catfeet Press.

18. Mantik, D.W. (1999, May). The Zapruder Film. The Death of JFK

Conference. Minneapolis.

19. White, J. (2000). The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. in Fetzer, J.H.

(Ed.) Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We didn't Know

Then About the Death of JFK (ins. 1-16). Chicago: Catfeet Press.

20. Verb, H. (1998). Book reviews: Bloody Treason and Assassination

Science. The Fourth Decade. 5,2,12-17.

21. Verb, H. (2000). Livingston's creation science and the Zapruder

film. The Fourth Decade. 7,2,12-15.

22. Livingston H.E. (1999). The Zapruder film: a study in

deception- part one. The Fourth Decade. 6,4,14-31.

23. Livingston H.E. (1999). The Zapruder film: a study in

deception- part two. The Fourth Decade. 6,5,12-26.

24. Livingston H.E. (1999). The Zapruder film: a study in

deception- part three. The Fourth Decade. 6,6,25-37.

25. Livingston H.E. (1999). The Zapruder film: a study in

deception- part IV. The Fourth Decade. 7,1,17-28.

26. Livingston H.E. (2000). The Zapruder film: a study in

deception- part V. The Fourth Decade. 7,2,7-12.

27. Weisberg, H. (1975). Post Mortem. Frederick, MD: Author.

28. Aguilar, G. (2000). The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy in

the Death of JFK. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (2000). Murder in Dealey

Plaza: What We Know Now that We didn't Know Then About the Death of

JFK (pp. 175-217). Chicago: Catfeet Press.

29. Curry, J. (1969). JFK Assasination File. Dallas: American

Poster & Printing Co.

30. Zelizer, B. (1992). Covering the Body: The Kennedy

Assasination, the Media, and the Shaping of Collective Memory.

Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.

31. Russell, B. (1969). The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell,

1944-67. London: Allen & Unwin.

32. Brown, M.D. (1997). Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of

Madeleine Brown and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Baltimore: The

Conservatory Press.

33. Brown, W. (1998). TSBD Evidence Places LBJ "Hit Man" in

Sniper's Nest. JFK Deep Politics Quarterly (extra edition) 3,3.

34. Williams, J.D. (1999). Lyndon B. Johnson and the Assassination

Conspiracies. JFK Deep Politics Quarterly. 4,2,25-28.

35. Sloan, B. (1993). Breaking the Silence. Dallas: Taylor Pub. Co.

36. Scott, P.D. Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Mexico & Cuba.

Skokie, IL: Green Archive Publications.

John Delane Williams

522 Belmont Road

Grand Forks, N

Edited January 31, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Richard Hocking addressed his presence in relation to the Fritz notes back in post #7, which apparently you have never read. And if he had "changed his shirt" rather than simply picked up his jacket and revolver, why would he have done that? and how could you know that the shirt he took off was not an even better match to the one in the Altgens? Give this some thought. Your ad hoc explanations typically raise more questions than they answer, as in this case. But keep at it, Pat. Keep 'em coming.

From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone inside after the shots were fired.

On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That raises several interesting points:

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 Shelley 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 at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness.

Not to bring up the obvious... BUT... Fetzer's argument Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting is based upon his understanding of Will Fritz's notes. Fetzer claims they prove Oswald was outside at the time of the shooring, and that the person looking like Lovelady in the Altgens photo is actually Oswald, with Lovelady's face super-imposed onto Oswald's body. And how does he know this? Because, according to him, the Lovelady character is wearing Oswald's shirt.

But there's a HUGE problem with this, beyond that it is really really difficult for most people to swallow. It's that Fritz's notes--the very basis for the whole argument--specify that OSWALD claimed he'd changed his shirt when he got home!

Fritz's notes on his 11-23 interview of Oswald

That's right. The shirt Fetzer claims the Lovelady figure is wearing in the Altgens photos was, according to Oswald himself, not worn by Oswald at the time of the shooting!

So which is it, Jim? Are Fritz's notes a fabrication? Or was Oswald lying to Fritz about changing his shirt?

Or...wait a second...there's another possibility... Could it be...that you're just w-r-o-n-g?

Edited January 31, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All,

Here's the latest exchange between David Lifton and Ralph Cinque,

which is too precious not to share with those reading this thread.

Not to make the obvious point, but it is BECAUSE he is new to the

case that he has seen things that others have overlooked, where I

have found that David Lifton makes up his mind--as he did in this

instance--and NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE can cause him to change

it. So I am not surprised that Lifton has not even bothered to read

our study but instead dismisses our arguments as all SUBJECTIVE.

That that is not the case is made abundantly clear by Ralph's reply.

Jim

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:36:15 -0800

Subject: Re: What does the Anthony Marsh scan reveal about Doorw..."

From:<deleted by moderator>

To: <deleted by moderator>

Dr. Ralph,

You’re recycling an issue that was put to bed decades ago.

I gather that you are rather new to the case—otherwise, you would

have known of the Lovelady newsreel footage; footage offers an

excellent view of the shirt Lovelady was wearing. When joined with the

Martin film, which shows Lovelady, in that shirt, just minutes after

the assassiantion, that’s the end of the controversy. But apparently,

you barged ahead distributing your hypothesis unaware of this critical

evidence.

Question you might consider: On the Internet thread about all

this, Pat Speer published a list of all the people standing out front,

and on the stairs, along with copious quotes from their early FBI

interviews. Don’t you think that if Oswald was standing out there,

someone would have said something??

No one did.

In one of your photo comparisons you assert: “just compare the

two Lovelady pics. You will see that the first Lovelady has a big

pocket flap over his pocket on his shirt, and the second one does not,

and you can see the exposed pack of cigarettes. What do you make of

that, David? Same guy, same shirt, same day. Why a flap and then no

flap?” Well, first of all, I don’t “see” what you “see.” But even if

I did, what are you saying: that Lovelady changed his shirt? Or, with

regard to the newsreel footage, are you positing photo alteration

(again?).

Here’s another part of your analysis with which I disagree:

“Doorman's t-shirt is notched, v-shaped, whereas in every, single

picture of Lovelady that we have, including this one, he is wearing a

round-neck t-shirt.”

All of this is rampantly subjective interpretation, based on the

angle and lighting of this or that picture, and stemming from basic

limitations of ordinary photography.

You know, Ralph, if I am flying in an airliner at 35,000 feet, I

don’t look down at some farming community, turn to a fellow passenger,

and exclaim, “Look at that dinosaur! Over there! Can’t you see that?

And there’s another one! Right over there! Don’t you see it? And

look at the 35 foot tall gorilla, right over there! Right there! Don’t

you see it?”

Your post and your article are pervaded with this sort of rampant

subjective interpretation, which you serve up as fact, and then use as

the basis to engage in “debate”.

The truly important facts are:

1. Oswald bears a similarity in resemblance to Lovelady.

And its that resemblance, and nothing else, that put “Oswald” in the

doorway.

2. The shirts they were wearing were decidedly different

3. The newsreel footage (of which you were apparently

unaware) provides excellent “control photos” of both men, and their

shirts, at the DPD, at 2 pm.

Contrary to your statement “I’ts nut and bolts with me,” most of

your argument is a bunch of subjective assertions.

I don’t care for Warren Commission historian Alfred Goldberg, but

what he said about the JFK conspiracy proponents applies to you (and

your hypothesis) in spades: “Conspiracies are like the elves. You

have to believe in them to know that they are there.”

(And that goes for your mental meanderings regarding Ruby, too.)

DSL

Ralph's response:

David, you're way too full of yourself. Nobody needs to hear you

philosophizing about the nature of belief systems. If I want a

Psychology lecture, I'll take a class. Otherwise, cram that stuff and

address only SUBSTANCE. I'm not wading through anybody's mental

masturbation. It's nut and bolts with me, and that's it!

Now, Jack Ruby MAY be the Fedora Man in the Altgens photo. We

don't know because we can't see his face. We know from Jim Douglass

that Ruby was spotted in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.

So, it may have been him. It does seem odd that that man would be

looking towards Doorway Man when the President was already shot. But,

we don't know if it was Ruby, and perhaps we'll never know. However,

it is NOT an implausible speculation.

Now, regarding Lovelady, here is that picture from the Dallas PD.

I presume it's the one you think establishes that he was Doorman. It

does not. And your pompous, authoritarian attitude about it only

irritates me.

Unfortunately, I cannot put that picture into a collage with

Doorway Man because it contains text. But, I have another one of

Lovelady from the Dallas PD wearing the same shirt, and that one I did

put in a collage.

So, let us consider the differences, side by side:

1. Lovelady is MUCH stockier than both Oswald and Doorway Man.

Oswald was 5'9. Some reports have had him at 5'9 1/2". He weighed 128

to 130 pounds. So, he was quite slim. Lovelady was 5'8" and weighed

170 pounds. So, he was much stockier. And we can see that difference

in this collage. Lovelady looks like the Incredible Hulk compared to

Doorman. His arm is thick and beefy, while Doorman's is scrawny.

2. Doorman's t-shirt is notched, v-shaped, whereas in every,

single picture of Lovelady that we have, including this one, he is

wearing a round-neck t-shirt.

3. The shirt patterns don't match. You have to understand that

this isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. Close doesn't count. They are

either exactly the same, or they are different patterns. And in this

case, they are different patterns. Look at the cuffs. Doorman has two

white lines on the cuff, one at the top margin and the other at the

bottom margin. Lovelady has one white line running down the middle of

the cuff, with no white lines at the margins. This photo particular

image of Doorman is the famous "Marsh" photo, which the Lancer people

think is the best. But, it is too dark because it was a very day, and

there is no way that image reflects the existing light conditions.

But, when we try it again using the lighter, more familiar image of

Doorman, and there is no match at all. The only thing you can say

about the two patterns is that they are both "varied." They are

certainly no identical. So, take your pick; you lose either way.

Finally, I want you to leave Doorman out of it for a moment and

just compare the two Lovelady pics. You will see that the first

Lovelady has a big pocket flap over his pocket on his shirt, and the

second one does not, and you can see the exposed pack of cigarettes.

What do you make of that, David? Same guy, same shirt, same day. Why

a flap and then no flap?

Do you see now why I say that there is no time for philosophizing?

We have work to do. We have material things to consider. So, stick to

the issues. Substance and evidence. No more mental musings. I am not

putting with that. Ralph

Edited February 14, 2012 by Evan Burton
Removed e-mail addy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here is a comment just posted at Veterans Today:

<deleted by moderator>

Comment: In the back-yard photo's, there is a matte line running horizontally below the lower lip across the chin. On doorman there appears to be a matte line running horizontally below the nose above where the lips should be. Now if you place your thumb over the top of doorman's face, what you see below does not resemble a human mandible. There is no discernible lips, chin or jaw line. To me it looks like smeared lines running in mostly 45 degree angles. Oswald may not have been looking directly at the limo, making a "cut & paste job" not easy. Lovelady's top of his face appears to be pasted over Oswald's and the bottom part manipulated to fit. Mostly by having black tie man's white shirt jut over Oswald's shoulder ( obscuring his collar ) and protruding into doorman's face, creating a crude jaw line. Thanks

Edited February 14, 2012 by Evan Burton
Removed e-mail address

[Pat Speer]

Richard Hocking addressed his presence in relation to the Fritz notes back in post #7, which apparently you have never read. And if he had "changed his shirt" rather than simply picked up his jacket and revolver, why would he have done that? and how could you know that the shirt he took off was not an even better match to the one in the Altgens? Give this some though. Your ad hoc explanations typically raise more questions than they answer, as in this case. But keep at it, Pat. Keep 'em coming.

From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone inside after the shots were fired.

On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That raises several interesting points:

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 Shelley 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 at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness.

Not to bring up the obvious... BUT... Fetzer's argument Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting is based upon his understanding of Will Fritz's notes. Fetzer claims they prove Oswald was outside at the time of the shooring, and that the person looking like Lovelady in the Altgens photo is actually Oswald, with Lovelady's face super-imposed onto Oswald's body. And how does he know this? Because, according to him, the Lovelady character is wearing Oswald's shirt.

But there's a HUGE problem with this, beyond that it is really really difficult for most people to swallow. It's that Fritz's notes--the very basis for the whole argument--specify that OSWALD claimed he'd changed his shirt when he got home!

Fritz's notes on his 11-23 interview of Oswald

That's right. The shirt Fetzer claims the Lovelady figure is wearing in the Altgens photos was, according to Oswald himself, not worn by Oswald at the time of the shooting!

So which is it, Jim? Are Fritz's notes a fabrication? Or was Oswald lying to Fritz about changing his shirt?

Or...wait a second...there's another possibility... Could it be...that you're just w-r-o-n-g?

You must be seeing things. Richard's post says nothing about Oswald telling Fritz he changed his shirt.

As far as your question "how could you know that the shirt he took off was not an even better match to the one in the Altgens?", I don't know this. But NEITHER do you, Jim.

By extension, then, you've admitted that the Lovelady figure's shirt and Oswald's shirt are not a perfect match. Are we to take from this, then, that you've concluded that the shirts worn by Lovelady in the photos don't match the shirt in Altgens, and that THEREFORE, the shirt MUST be Oswald's shirt, NO MATTER what shirt he was wearing that day?

Because, IF SO, that's beyond...silly.

Let me see, We have a picture of a person. The identity of the person in this picture was confirmed by both a person, and a number of his co-workers. The shirt worn in this photo, however, doesn't appear to match the shirt this person said he was wearing on that day. The shirt in the photo must therefore be Oswald's, and someone must have altered the photo to make the face of the person in the picture look more like the person identified by the co-workers!

Well, that's just a little paranoid, IMO. Even if the shirt in the picture doesn't match the shirt Lovelady said he'd been wearing, the LOGICAL deduction is that Lovelady didn't remember correctly what shirt he'd been wearing, NOT THAT the shirt was Oswald's, and that the photo had been re-touched.

Spin on.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat Speer continues to demonstrate his incompetence in thinking things through. The photo was altered before it was sent out. They had to have a powerful reason to mess with it. The only figure who could have caused such consternation is Lee Oswald, who told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". Richard Hocking has analyzed the time line, which works. Focus on the photo!

It seems to me that everything he was telling Fritz is plausible and probably true. He was an informant for the FBI and had an extensive history with US intelligence, apparently including being recruited by ONI and working for the CIA. He probably thought they would exonerate him. Lee said he was out in front. Why else alter the Altgens? We have no good reason for him to change his shirt.

Pat displays a stunning incapacity to understand ordinary conversational exchanges. Pat, have you considered the reasons Ralph gave to Lifton in post #131 above, just before you began doing your song and dance? I find it incredible how often Pat demonstrates that he is incapable of assimilating evidence and putting "2 + 2" together. I am sorry, but Pat has missed the boat again.

We have produced proof that the photo is faked, where even Robin Unger complained that, when he obtained an expensive print of this photo, it was unclear in the doorway area. Any reasonable person would infer that that is because it has been altered, but not Pat Speer, who is out in a wonderland of his own devising. Here is another brilliant post from a contributor to Veterans Today:

kdruckman@hotlinkwireless.com

Submitted on 2012/01/31 at 1:03 pm

Comment: The close up of the crowd is very interesting. Everyone from the steps to the first lamp post is African-American. There are two white women cut & pasted into this group. The woman holding the baby in the wool cap is pasted over the Gentleman in the fedora. It is so crudely done that the Gentleman appears to be merged into the back of her head. Beside the woman with beautiful smile is a tiny tiny woman with her hand on her forehead, shielding her eyes from the sun. Her scale is so badly off, that she looks the size of “mini-me”. In a group of African-American faces, the only white face (doorman) would stick out like a sore thumb. The white women were probably inserted to help pull focus. The last anomaly is a African-American man’s face is poking out from behind the wall and hovering around Doorman’s navel. I can’t see a neck or body connected to it. It’s just hovering (maybe to obscure Oswald’s lower part of his shirt?). It actually looks like doorman is holding a severed head. Very bizarre, the whole scene reminds me of the Beatles Sergeant’s Peppers album cover. Thanks

Edited January 31, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A new post on Veterans Today by bpete1969 qualifies some of what kdruckman said in his second post,

but they are taking a more serious and professional interest in this matter than many here on this thread.

Submitted on 2012/01/31 at 2:05 pm | In reply to kdruckman.

Something to consider on doorway man. The smaller woman with her hands to her forehead shielding her eyes is at the steps of the school book depository. The group of blacks, the man with the baby and the woman next to him are all standing at the monument on Elm Street. Between them and the school book depository is a street names Elm Street Extension. In fact everyone you see standing along the curb has a street running behind them, between them and the school book depository. This would cause the smaller woman shielding her eyes to appear out of scale. She’s just standing much further away from the camera than the group at the monument. She could be a child with an adult standing beside her but obscured by the black woman looking at the limo

.

The man with the baby and the woman next to him appear to be standing on the base and just behind the edge of the monument and that’s why the straight vertical down his right side (your left). I wouldn’t read anything into the group of blacks together and then whites further down.

Edited February 14, 2012 by John Simkin
Removal of email address

[Craig Lamson]

We have produced proof that the photo is faked, where even Robin Unger complained that, when he obtained an expensive print of this photo, it was unclear in the doorway area. Any reasonable person would infer that that is because it has been altered, but not Pat Speer, who is out in a wonderland of his own devising. Here is another brilliant post from a contributor to Veterans Today:

Of course the real problem is you have not proven a thing. Heck you can't even deal honestly with simple objection that you have not proven a "v-neck" tee shirt.

True to FETZERING form, you bring us yet another wannabe in Dr. Ralph who's argument RESTS on his completely subjective judgement of what he THINKS he sees in a photograph. Shades of your last wannabe, Jack White!

So lets see your simple proof to answer this simple question...

HOW HAVE YOU PROVEN THE TEE SHIRT OF DOORWAY MAN IS IN FACT A V-NECK?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Craig Lamson