Newseum displays "Oswald's shirt": Proof that he was Doorman!

[Robin Unger]

Robin:

In the Wiegman colorized frame with the Chevy driving by, post 167, can you tell what time that would be?

I think that is an important frame for evidentiary purposes.

Jim

I was informed Via - Email from Gary Mack that it was just seconds before the Altgen's 6 photo

Ralph Cinque also queried the Timeline of the Wiegman doorway frames with Gary Mack.

This is a segment from Gary's response to Cinque

Quote:

That frame blowup Robin Unger posted from the Wiegman film is within one second of the Altgens photo (researchers have timed the various films and photos many times over the years). What you are seeing is the correct perspective of those who stood in the doorway at the very moment Altgens made his picture.

Zapruder Z-255

Click on image to view FULL SIZE:

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Wiegman doorway GIF

[Robin Unger]

Work in progress !

Thomas

I have done some preliminary checking on where the TSBD ladies were reportedly standing on 22/11/63

These testimonies need to be re-checked for accuracy

Ladies reportedly standing ON THE TSBD STEPS

Sarah Stanton, Judith McCully, Avery Davis, Ruth Dean, Madie Reese, Jeraldean Reid, Pauline Sanders.

This at least gives us a place to start !

These Testimonies Confirm that Sarah Stanton, Judith McCully, Avery Davis,

were standing on the TSBD steps on 22/11/63

I still need to check on Ruth Dean, Madie Reese, Jeraldean Reid, Pauline Sanders.

Judith McCully & Lovelady Testimony

Look out gentlemen, it's about to get VERY CROWDED on those TSBD steps in Altgen's 6

the ladies are making there presence felt

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

You are the one who has been making a fool of himself here. You are not

willing to answer the two simple questions that I have repeatedly posed:

(1) Is Doorman wearing a short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO

(2) Is Doorman's shirt buttoned up to the top? YES or NO

Of course you won't answer them. The first excludes Billy Lovelady and the

second disqualifies Checkered Shirt Man, who is not Billy Lovelady. But you

are not about to admit that. Your position is untenable, so you remain silent.

name='James H. Fetzer' timestamp='1362432584' post='268254'][/b]

Caught with your pants down--and you give this completely ridiculous "explanation",

which does not account for the shoulder added, the splices or the phony left arm--

and you are ENDORSED BY Thomas Graves, David Von Pein, Gregory Burnham,

Craig Lamson and Karl Kanaski! Some names do not surprise me, but one does. I

guess I should not be surprised that so many are so gullible for palpable nonsense.

K.D. Ruckman was the student who observed the anomalies in these Lovelady photographs. He has noted where splices have occurred, two on the right sleeve, one on the left. From this photograph alone, it is obvious that fakery has been taking place, but Unger, Lamson and Graves will never admit it. The face on the figure on the right does not look right, either: more fakery here.

Lovelady showing left arm bent and shoulder high

Lovelady showing right arm straight shoulder low

result Loveladys right arm appears longer,

If he dropped his left shoulder, so that both shoulders were even, and straightened his left arm.

then naturally both arms would then appear the same length.

[Robin Unger]

Why don'you stop TROLLING the same old O.I.P posts OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

If you have nothing new to offer why are you still here.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That's the question I would pose for you. When will you admit that your position is a farce? You aren't

even willing to acknowledge that Checkered Shirt Man LOOKS NOTHING LIKE BILLY LOVELADY. As

long as you keep posting rubbish, I will be refuting it. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO COME CLEAN?

Why don'you stop TROLLING the same old O.I.P posts OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

If you have nothing new to offer why are you still here.

[Lindsay Anderson]

Here is the post I started to draft last week. Since then the thread has moved on from whether the Newseum shirt itself is evidence that Oswald is in the doorway.

I’ve followed the thread closely and viewed Altgens6 over and over. Unfortunately, the poor image quality at close zoom means it is difficult to reach firm conclusions as to the identity of the Oswald like figure or, I would suggest, even firm evidence of alteration. I think this may be why James asks his 2 killer questions - they seem easy to answer and do not require belief in alteration in order to reach the conclusion that it’s Oswald in the photo.

Is Doorman wearing a red-and-white short-sleeved shirt?

I know you all answer ‘No’ as I did every time James asked this. But now I don’t think this question is as straight forward as it seems, so my answer is that I am fairly sure it’s not the same shirt Lovelady was wearing for his FBI photo, but that’s about as far as it goes.

So why do I say that:

Extracting meaning from the photo is a bit like seeing pictures in the clouds (which I understand is related to our natural tendency to see patterns and is linked to fight or flight). Add a self-supporting belief such as extensive photo alteration you are going to see a lot of pictures. At least with clouds we know they are just clouds.

As a result of the cloud thing we have several interpretations of the photo.

There are some consistencies but other things are harder to interpret and agree on.

I’ve been very puzzled by

- Doorman's missing shoulder

- the in-front of whilst behind man in the black tie,

- the thing that looks rather like a giant hamster (below the man/woman without a face with their hands above their head)

- the missing evidence of bright sunlight (from which at least 2 people seem to be covering their eyes)

And I’ve also found an arm that may not belong to the person you think it does.

I am of the opinion that we should not assume photo alteration whenever what we see, doesn't match what we think we should see, unless no other plausible explanation can be found (and then with caution). So first, see if you can find a solution that confirms witness testimony and that does not rely on alteration to back it up.

I am not a photo expert which I’m sure will soon be evident, but here are some suggestions for consideration, none of which run contrary to witness testimony as far as I am aware.

Doorman’s Missing Shoulder / Black tie man

One thing that seems evident from the photo is that at least 2 people are covering their eyes, presumably to avoid the sun.

Where is the evidence of that sunlight? Is it possible the sunlight obscures the shoulder on doorman (what you thought was black tie man’s shirt to the right of the tie), The black tie itself is not a tie but (comparative) shadow. You then have a narrower patch of sunlight/overexposure or whatever it’s called on the person previously referred to as black tie man.

Ok, I know there is a big problem with suggestion. It is super easy to see that man in the black tie, but that’s exactly why this may have been missed and why I welcome input from the experts on what I think is distortion due to over-exposure and how that can effect what we see in photos such as this. Remember what we see in the doorway is just a small part of a much bigger photo. Light levels were set for the entire frame.

The obscure thing that looked to me like a giant hamster,

I could not work this out, then James provided the outline of black-hole man,

Robin then revealed Elbow Man below him.

I would suggest Elbow Man is especially obscure due to over-exposure, thanks once again to that sunlight, and that elbow man is not saluting but is a 3^rd person shielding their eyes.

The arm we assumed was Doorman’s – it belongs to the black man below him, who is also shielding his eyes from sunlight (or even taking a photograph).

Yes he seems to be looking the other way, but so does (former) black tie man. Once you see that arm it is very difficult not to see it. Once you see it, you no longer see Doorman’s sleeves – and this one doesn’t rely on the possible effects of sunlight on film either.

I still don’t think Doorman is wearing the Loveladys ‘FBI Letter’ shirt, not because of the sleeves but the colour which seems wrong. (However the photo experts may tell us that the colour wasn’t the problem, it was the sleeves and since we can no longer see any arms on Doorman that's not such an issue. Regardless, the FBI report states that Lovelady identified himself in the photos and I don’t think that can be discounted simply because he turned up in the wrong shirt (if indeed he did).

I have an image ready to add to this post to support the description above, just trying to work out how to add it.

Is the shirt Doorman is wearing buttoned up to the top?

No and I don’t really understand why this is so relevant as it takes seconds to button a shirt – there must be a reason why this is important and I am intrigued. Presumably to discount Checkered Shirt Man.

Where I am with this

Like James I want Altgens6 be a photo that proves Oswald could not have been the shooter but this thread has not confirmed that for me nor has it confirmed alteration. I suspect that no amount of research or explanation will do that, not because it isn’t Oswald in the picture or because I have made up my mind (or been influenced) but because the picture quality is so poor to begin with. I’ve found for myself that if you look hard enough and long enough, it's possible to come up with theories that might even have some merit, but I don’t think we will see anything game-changing by looking in the door-way.

Some final points

These are maybe clear to everyone but me

The figure in the doorway resembles Oswald to any casual observer – I just don’t get why anyone would edit the photo extensively and leave that in. They did not need to make this figure look like Lovelady. I am increasingly of the opinion that there is too much evidence of cover-up and so much of it badly done and easy to disprove – what I think we have are deliberate measures to disinform by any means, it didnt matter whether it would stand up to close scrutiny. When combined with pictures in the clouds it means the truth gets buried further every day. Despite this, leaving an image that resembles Oswald intentionally would have been, in my opinion, just too much of a risk and one hell of a double-bluff.

People we believe should be in the doorway may well be there, we just can’t see them.

From the zoomed in image it looks like we see the entire doorway, but zoomed out it seems at least half the doorway is obscured from the shot by the tree and the 2 Secret Service Agents - Oswald could very well be standing there and we wouldn't know it.

The insistence that Doorman has to be one of 3 people, Oswald, Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man –

Len Colby stole my thunder on this one

James' reply was

“no one has proposed any alternative candidates, as you know (or should know).

Lee told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", which was an important answer

to the most important question Fritz had to ask him. The shirt on Doorman is VERY

DISTINCTIVE and looks like Oswald's shirt, as the article above has explained. The

shirt Lovelady was wearing does not look like Doorman's shirt--even remotely. And

Checkered Shirt Man's shirt was buttoned up to the top, while Doorman's shirt was

splayed open. Plus Checkered Shirt Man does not look remotely like Lovelady. We

have no other candidates for Doorman, which means that the argument covers the

bases that need to be covered. Random fantasizing does make an argument, where

you, as usual, have no evidence to support the notion it was someone else entirely.”

That answer did not do it for me but it was ignored by subsequent posters so, I’m wondering, is it so basic that it is considered to be accepted fact?

Or more a case that the chances it’s Lovelady are so great, there is just no point speculating that it could be anyone else.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lindsay,

Your posts reflect that you are a far more thoughtful person than most who post on this forum,

which I greatly appreciate. When it comes to proof of alteration, however, I don't believe that

you have quite covered all the bases nor am I persuaded by some of your suggestions. I am

struck that you omit one of the most conspicuous changes, which is the obfuscation of the

man known as Obfuscated Man. Surely you can't think that his missing face was a feature of

the original? And, unless Doorman is missing his clavicle, he has a missing shoulder. And you

are even less convincing when it comes to Black Tie Man. So even if I were to leave aside the

profile of he black man's face, we are left with ample proof that this photograph has been fixed:

Roy Schaeffer, by the way, who already had an extensive background in photography, noticed

that the photo had been altered with he took it off the photo-fax on Saturday morning, the 23rd.

Once you accept the face of alteration--which, I submit, has been proven on multiple grounds--

there are no good reasons to deny that the photo would only have been fixed if someone had

been there who should not have been there, where the prime candidate for that role was Lee.

After all, how could the "lone assassin" have shot JFK if he was in the doorway at the time?

My inference is that they learned where he had been from his explanation to Fritz, which set

of a panic to insure that--one way or another--this information would never reach the public.

So I really don't think there are serious grounds for doubting that the photo was subjected to a

rather elaborate process of alteration, which we have done our best to reconstruct. But the key

is the absence of alternative explanations for Doorman's identity. We only have three choices:

that it was Oswald (who told Will Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front"), Billy Lovelady and

Checkered Shirt Man, where neither of the latter two are viable candidates for the reasons that

I have been hammering home in this thread and elsewhere. There really is no place else to go,

where I especially appreciate your quoting this paragraph, where I lay out the case so clearly:

“no one has proposed any alternative candidates, as you know (or should know).

Lee told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", which was an important answer

to the most important question Fritz had to ask him. The shirt on Doorman is VERY

DISTINCTIVE and looks like Oswald's shirt, as the article above has explained. The

shirt Lovelady was wearing does not look like Doorman's shirt--even remotely. And

Checkered Shirt Man's shirt was buttoned up to the top, while Doorman's shirt was

splayed open. Plus Checkered Shirt Man does not look remotely like Lovelady. We

have no other candidates for Doorman, which means that the argument covers the

bases that need to be covered. Random fantasizing does make an argument, where

you, as usual, have no evidence to support the notion it was someone else entirely.”

With all the resources of the federal government at its disposal and knowledge of the personnel

who worked at the Book Depository, surely the government could have established the identity

of everyone who was in that doorway area, HAD IT BEEN SO DISPOSED. That there remained

any doubt about it EVEN THEN is fairly astonishing, where Billy Lovelady's actions in going to the

FBI in an attempt to straighten it out by showing them the shirt he had been wearing and his telling

Jones Harris that he had been wearing the red-and-white vertically stripped short-sleeved shirt is

simply stunning. Some have suggests that "Billy was planing games", but that is beyond absurd.

NO ONE would have "played games" about their presence and the clothing they had been wearing

during the assassination of the President of the United States. None of us would have done THAT.

Which means that the efforts to deny (what I take to be) the obvious have included "grasping after

straws" that no reasonable person would take seriously in an effort to explain away the evidence.

And, as I have repeatedly explained, the government's fall-back position--that Billy was the man in

the checkered shirt--really cannot withstand critical scrutiny. They look nothing alike, which means

that this was a position adopted out of necessity because there were no other available alternatives:

Checkered Shirt Man has a completely different profile, a different cranium and even different ears from

Billy Lovelady: they are not the same person. And while it is certainly correct that someone might have

buttoned or unbuttoned their shirt, we have no reason to believe that that happened. It is more ad hoc

explanation that is intended to (partially) salvage an indefensible position. As you correctly emphasize,

I have been doing my best to reduce the argument to its barest-bones, with the following two questions:

(1) Was Doorman wearing a short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO

(2) Was Doorman's shirt buttoned up to the top? YES or NO

The answer to the first, of course, excludes Billy Lovelady as Doorman, while the answer to the second

excludes Checkered Shirt Man. We have also discovered that the government even created fake issues

of obscure newspapers in an effort to create the impression that there had not been time to subject the

photo to alteration, which reflects its profound concern the truth might surface an blow the case apart.

When we take all of the evidence together, there really appears to be no serious grounds for doubt. As

Lee observed, he was "out with Bill Shelly in front" and could not have been among those who shot JFK.

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Jim

I will concede one point

Lovelady may not have been playing games with the FBI

he may have been concerned for his and his families safety, and trying to distance himself from the check shirt.

But then why go on to tell the FBI that he appeared in many newspapers, and then point himself out as the Doorman .?

Also, can you post any evidence PROVING that Lovelady was asked to wear the check shirt during his FBI appearance.

this is important, because unless he was specifically asked to wear the Long sleeved Doorman check shirt.

Then who can blame him for turning up in a red and white striped short sleeve shirt

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

The obscure thing that looked to me like a giant hamster,

I could not work this out, then James provided the outline of black-hole man,

Robin then revealed Elbow Man below him.

I would suggest Elbow Man is especially obscure due to over-exposure, thanks once again to that sunlight, and that elbow man is not saluting but is a 3^rd person shielding their eyes.

Correct, the saluting term it only used to define the image shape, the man is most definitely shielding his eyes from the sun.

Here is a person from Altgen's 5 shown in almost the same stance as elbow man.

Demonstration of how the body of a person can be obscured by SHADOW

TSBD Doorway 22/11/63

Note the top of the mans head standing to the right of the steps, it has almost completely disappeared into deep dark shadow

only the chin is visible where the sunlight is hitting it

Which is exactly what we see in the black hole area underneath the interlocking folded hands in Altgen's 6

only the chin of the person is visible where the sunlight is hitting it

Click on image to view full size:

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Lindsay Anderson]

Thank Robin / James -

What do you think of my observation re the arm belonging not to Oswald but to the black man below, who has his arm(s) in the air. It means that we no longer see either of Oswalds arms!

I hoping to get an image up illustrating what I see and I think its a lot more plausible than black-tie / not black tie.

I'll be away for a bit today but back to it later,

Thanks again

[Robin Unger]

Hi Lee

Yes, to date i have seen no firm evidence to support the fact that Lovelady was SPECIFICALLY asked to turn

up wearing the Doorman style check long sleeve shirt.

I also have seen no firm evidence to support the fact that Lovelady was told he was to be photographed that day.

once he arrived and they asked to photograph him, i would assume he really had no choice but to say yes.

I am willing to retract my statement, if anyone can produce concrete evidence to the contrary

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Thank Robin / James -

What do you think of my observation re the arm belonging not to Oswald but to the black man below, who has his arm(s) in the air. It means that we no longer see either of Oswalds arms!

I hoping to get an image up illustrating what I see and I think its a lot more plausible than black-tie / not black tie.

I'll be away for a bit today but back to it later,

Thanks again

I assume by black tie you are refering to the man (E) in this Altgens6 / Wiegman composite ?

Wiegman frame showing the TSBD doorway face on

This shows the black mans stance just second apart as Altgen's 6 was snapped

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

From "JFK Special 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" (which was co-authored with Ralph Cinque). We mention my interview with Jones Harris, which every one ought to listen to. It is followed by a commentary by Richard Hooke, who also spoke with Jones Harris. It can be found at this link:

Jones Harris/Richard Hooke

You have never explained why Billy Lovelady would have gone to the FBI and deliberately misrepresented the shirt he was wearing and THEN AGAIN falsely informed Jones Harris that he had been wearing the red-and-white vertically-striped short-sleeved xxxx IF BILLY HAD NOT BEEN WEARING IT?

There are many reasons why Billy would have been pressured to change his testimony or testify falsely about being Doorman. But there is no reason for him to have gone to the FBI and misrepresent what he was wearing or lie to Jones Harris. And Doorman was clearly NOT wearing Billy Lovelady's shirt!

Billy and the FBI

Now, let us move on to Billy Lovelady, and we are going to compare his FBI image from March 1964 (which definitely was him) to his alleged image from the day of the assassination at the Dallas PD. But first, let me remind you that there is controversy about which shirt he wore on 11/22/63. He first claimed to have worn a red and white striped short-sleeve shirt. He told that to the FBI he wore that shirt, and he told the same to at least one reporter: Jones Harris. But, the Dallas PD Lovelady was wearing a plaid checkered shirt, and that is the one that became part of the official story.

But first take a look at this official letter from the FBI to the Warren Commission stating that Lovelady claimed to have worn the red and white striped shirt. The exact wording is: “He stated he was wearing a vertical red and white striped shirt and blue jeans,” which has been underlined at the end of the second paragraph:

And notice that in the pictures taken in March 1964 (below), they had him pose with his shirt unbuttoned- like Doorman. But, why would they do that if he was wearing a different shirt? What would be the point of it? Obviously, they thought at the time that he was wearing the shirt from 11/22. And notice how differently his unbuttoned shirt sprawls open compared to Doorman’s. It’s a totally different look, and that’s because every shirt is different and behaves differently. It is obviously not the same presentation that we saw on Doorman. Notice also that the shirt is short-sleeved, whereas Doorman’s shirt was long-sleeved. So they had to do something pronto to get him out of that shirt.

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lindsay has asked me to post the following image to illustrate his conjecture about the black man's arm:

I have two immediate observations, the first of which concerns the blue line. He has included the white

shirt that Black Tie Man was wearing as though it were part of Doorman's shirt. That is of course wrong,

where it would have to have been a peculiar shirt, indeed, to shift from richly textured to stark white. And

it would have been at least equally remarkable if the upwardly extended hand of Black Profile Man (as we

might call him) were to have exactly the same texture and quality as the shirt that Doorman was wearing.

While I am glad to post this on his behalf, the argument on both counts seems to have no rational merit.

But it explains why he has hesitated to concede that Doorman is missing his left shoulder. The shirt of

Black Tie Man appears on BOTH SIDES OF HIS TIE and is not part of Doorman's richly textured shirt.

And (again) I do appreciate Lindsay's thoughtful approach, where he explains his position in enough detail

that we can examine his arguments to see if he has them right. That is far superior to ad hominem attacks.

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer