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

by Dr. Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer


The release of the notes taken by Dallas Police Department Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspected assassin of President John F. Kennedy, in which Lee told Fritz that he was “out with Bill Shelly in front” has resurrected a debate of long-standing over whether Oswald was the “Doorway Man” in the famous photograph taken during the assassination by Associated Press photographer James “Ike” Altgens.

In this study, we examine that question. Dr. Fetzer had previously concluded that Oswald was another figure in the Altgens photo, namely, the man who is standing to the right/front of Doorway Man as viewed in the photograph (to Doorway Man’s left/front from his perspective) but whose face and shirt have been obliterated. New observations, first advanced by Ralph Cinque, have convinced Fetzer that Cinque is right: the man in the doorway was Lee Harvey Oswald, after all.

In addition to Cinque’s arguments that the man in the doorway was wearing Oswald’s shirt, Fetzer adds the complementary argument that the shirt of the other figure had to be obscured for the obvious reason that it would have given the game away, which explains why his shirt as well as his face had to be removed. Doorway Man’s face, hairline and the pattern of his shirt were “tweaked” to more closely resemble Lovelady or his face may have been transferred to him, but the form, the fit, and the lay of his man’s outer-shirt and under-shirt are those of Oswald. So, unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald’s clothing, the evidence that we present leaves no room for reasonable doubt.

The Will Fritz Notes

In JFK: What We Know Now That We Didn’t Know Then (Veterans Today, 21 November 2011), Dr. James H. Fetzer provides a valuable summation of recent advances in JFK assassination research, including the discovery of the written notes of Detective Will Fritz concerning Oswald’s whereabouts during the shooting, as mentioned above. That Oswald told Fritz that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” contravenes the established belief that he said he was in the lunchroom, where he was shortly before and would be confronted shortly after. Here are those notes:

Will Fritz' handwritten interrogation notes

Will Fritz' typed interrogation notes

This discovery led Dr. Fetzer to take another look at the Altgens, where he noticed that one of the faces had been obfuscated. See the object in the red circle below. Since the hairline looks like Oswald’s and Oswald had told Fritz he had been there, which should have been easy to confirm, he drew the inference that that person must have been Lee:

Fetzer's hypothesis: The man with no face was Oswald

While the identity of the Man in the Doorway has been long disputed and generally supposed to be not Lee Oswald but Billy Lovelady, Ralph Cinque’s approach has been to focus on the shirt that the Doorway Man was wearing and to compare it with those worn by Lovelady and by Lee. While apologists for the Warren Report like to claim that Lee was on the 6thfloor firing at Kennedy, there are multiple witnesses who saw him both in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM, as Dr. Fetzer explains in his study.

Since Lee was “the patsy,” and the conspirators were committed to that course, they had to seize the Altgens photo and obfuscate his image, according to Dr. Fetzer. But which figure was he? Even Oliver Stone concluded that, although Doorway Man bore a strong resemblance to Oswald, he actually was Lovelady. Most JFK researchers concluded the same thing, including Dr. Fetzer. But, I maintain that the likenesses to Lovelady, such as the hairline and the shirt pattern, were faked, and that other, more compelling evidence, especially relating to their respective shirts, proves that the Doorway Man was Oswald.

It’s easy to see why Warren Report devotees jumped on the bandwagon to endorse the Lovelady hypothesis and declare the matter settled. But, to my dying day, I will never understand why conspiracy researchers, of all stripes, were ever willing to concede that point, especially in light of all of the known subterfuge in the handling of evidence in this case.

Consider: The Zapruder film: altered; the medical evidence: altered; the President’s wounds: altered; the autopsy photos: altered; the alleged murder weapon: altered; the limousine: altered; and on and on. Dr. Fetzer’s three books on the assassination, Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000) and The Great Zarpruder Film Hoax (2003), are dedicated to sorting out the authentic from the non-authentic evidence. Why would a conspiracy advocate not assume that the Altgens photo might also have been altered?

Was there any chance that local or federal officials would release a photo of Oswald standing outside that building even if he was there? Weren’t they vigorously, adamantly, and doggedly committed to the lone gunman theory, to incriminating Oswald? Was there any chance they would do otherwise? By the time that blow-up of Doorway Man came out, they had already “crossed the Rubicon” as far as blaming Oswald. Skepticism among researchers and truth-seekers should have reigned then–and it should still reign today!

The Shirt as the Key

As I see it, the shirt is the key to identifying the Doorway Man. They obfuscated the features of the man to Doorway Man’s left/front (from his perspective, right/front viewing him), but they left him, Doorway Man, largely intact. So we have the whole layout of him, with the unbuttoned, loose-fitting outer shirt and the v-necked t-shirt underneath–just as we see on Oswald.

I maintain that, while they were able to change some details, such as the hairline and the pattern of the shirt, which are features most often cited to support the Lovelady idea, they could not change the structural features of the outer-shirt or the way it hung over the t-shirt–and that that turns out to be the smoking gun.

Here in the high-tech world of 2012, the prospect of adding lines and blotches to a digital shirt to alter its pattern, to make it look more checkered and like Lovelady’s, is not only possible, but something that anyone can do. Ever hear of Photoshop? And forget Photoshop. Let’s take it down a notch.

I have watched my 6 year old granddaughter playing a computer game in which she changes the pattern of a little girl’s dress on the screen just by hitting a key. And I know that I myself could alter the hairline in a photo because I have done it. Using Picassa, I altered the hairline of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Here is what I did: In Picassa, under “Basic Fixes”, I chose “Retouch” and then I choose the smallest possible “Brush Size”. After clicking right at his hairline to indicate the target site, I duplicated a piece of clear skin from his forehead and moved it up to that little spot on his hairline and–presto! He instantly became more receding. It looked pretty authentic, too, I must say.

Now, I realize that back in 1963 there was no Picassa nor was there Photoshop. But just because they didn’t exist on the consumer level doesn’t mean that those capacities didn’t exist at all. Remember, this was during the Cold War, and there was a lot of espionage and counter-espionage going on, where altering photos was well-entrenched as a tactic of espionage. If you are willing to accept that they were able to alter the Zapruder film, then you have to concede that they had the ability to alter stills, as the Zapruder film was just a series of still photos, rapidly sequenced. And as we will explain, there are many anomalies in the Altgens photo which scream that it was altered.

But now, let’s compare these two photos to see the very strong resemblance between Lee Oswald and Doorway Man:














Look at the obvious similarities in body size and type, the shape of the head, the shape of the face, and, of course, the clothing. Look at the unusual manner in which the shirt is being worn: unbuttoned, except at the bottom. He looks a lot like Oswald, doesn’t he?

When we consider just the loose-fitting, long-sleeved, unbuttoned outer-shirt over the v-necked t-shirt, it is distinctive in itself. How likely is it that Lovelady happened to get up that morning and dress himself the same way? What were the mathematical chances of that? Well, let’s use the Altgens photo as an example:

The Altgens' photograph with the man in the doorway

Variations in Men’s Clothing

Let’s consider the variations in men’s clothing that we can see just in this one picture. And we won’t consider the policemen in their uniforms or the Secret Service agents in their suits. On the far right, there is a man wearing a jacket and white shirt. Between the rear cars, there is a man wearing a solid white shirt on the left, and a man wearing a solid black shirt on the right. In front of the façade of the building, there is a man wearing a fedora hat. The man to the left of Doorway Man with his hands raised seems to be wearing just a t-shirt with no outer shirt. The man to the right of Doorway Man is wearing a suit jacket and a fedora hat, and eerily, he is looking at Doorway Man instead of at the President. What’s up with that? Unfortunately, there are a lot more women in this picture than men, but further down to our left, there is an African-American man who is wearing a white, short-sleeved shirt.

So, every one of those men is dressed differently than Doorway Man, as we would expect. Clothing choices are quite plentiful. They are practically unlimited. To suggest that Doorway Man is Lovelady is to suggest that a tremendous coincidence took place that day, which is, that Lovelady and Oswald showed up to work as virtual twins. It’s not just that they wore the same clothes but that they wore them in the exact same manner- and an unconventional manner at that. Again, what are the odds? When you have a controversy and someone tries to tell you that an unlikely event happened by coincidence, you have every right to be skeptical.

The shirts look big on both Oswald and Doorway Man. Doorway Man is swimming in his; it’s billowing; and in Oswald, the material is bunching up and folding over. And in other pictures of Oswald, the shirt also looks big on him. So, that would have been another coincidence between Oswald and Lovelady, that they both just happened to wear large, loose-fitting shirts that day. We know that that is not true of Lovelady. We have a picture of him from that day, namely:

Does that look loose-fitting? I don’t think so. If anything, it looks tight. Across the chest, there is no excess capacity. In fact, that may be why his collar is flipping up. Also, you can see no loose material around the shoulder. It isn’t hanging low at the shoulder. At the bottom it’s wrinkled a little, but overall, the shirt seems snug. And notice that, unlike Doorway Man and Oswald, Lovelady’s shirt is mostly buttoned. Only the top button is unbuttoned, which is typical.

The above picture of Lovelady was taken on the day of the assassination after Oswald was arrested. If Lovelady was the Doorway Man, when did he button-up? And why was his shirt unbuttoned in the first place? We know why Oswald’s shirt was unbuttoned: his buttons were missing. But Lovelady’s buttons were not missing. So, why was he dressed so slovenly during the motorcade? And why did he fix himself up afterwards? And exactly when did he do so? To the best of our knowledge, nobody asked him. No one in the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, nor the Warren Commission thought it was important.

Obfuscating the Evidence

Let’s acknowledge that this whole controversy could have been easily resolved at the time. They had Lovelady; he had his shirt; they had Altgens; he had his camera. They could have put Lovelady on the landing in his same clothes and put Altgens on the spot from which he took his famous picture and then tried to duplicate it. Why didn’t they do it? The answer should be obvious. They were not trying to solve the crime but to frame the patsy. And they would do nothing to undermine that effort.

But, let’s continue our three-way comparison. Both Doorway Man and Oswald were wearing “v-necked” t-shirts. Was Lovelady? Well, we have three pictures of Lovelady, and in two of them he is clearly wearing a round-necked t-shirt. One of them was taken shortly after the assassination by the FBI, while the other was taken several years later. Most men wear one or the other. It’s like boxers or briefs. The third photo is the same one of Lovelady that you see above, taken on the day of the assassination. To my eye, as I blow the picture up, it looks like he is wearing a round-neck t-shirt. It certainly does not have that notched, descending quality that you see on Doorway Man and Oswald.

To head off an objection, I’ll admit that some have tried to say that the t-shirts are not v-necked. It’s just that the material is worn and stretched and pulled down. Dr. Fetzer informs me that Oswald tended to pull on the neck of his t-shirts. But both of them? That would amount to yet another coincidence between Oswald and Lovelady, that they shared the same quirk. And, in all the pictures we have of Lovelady, his t-shirts look pristine, undamaged. So, that is really just another arbitrary “what if”.

Much has been made of the pattern of Doorman’s shirt looking more like Lovelady’s. But, what if the white blotches had been added? If you look at the areas between the white blotches, you see that they look “grainy” much like Oswald’s tweed shirt. And what’s that black blotch above Doorman’s wrist? And there is another black blotch higher up on the other side. Don’t trust anything about that pattern. That plaid effect could easily have been faked. It was just a matter of overexposing and underexposing areas to create alternating darkness and light. And note that the pattern of the shirt was the only thing about it that matched Lovelady. Everything else about the shirt matched Oswald. And the pattern was hardly a great match to Lovelady. You see white blotches on Doorman’s shirt, but on Lovelady’s shirt, it’s only the lines between squares that are white. That inconsistency is disturbing.

The differences in the hair and the hairline would have been very easy to alter, especially since Doorway Man’s hair merges with the dark murky space above his head. The differences in minute facial details that tend to resemble Lovelady are subtle and could have been “fine tuned” or via a facial transfer. That, after all, is what they did with the backyard photographs, where Oswald’s face was imposed upon someone else’s body. They could just as easily imposed Lovelady’s face on Oswald’s body.

But, there is one more thing about Oswald’s shirt, and it’s what started me down this whole road in the first place, and that is: the lay of the shirt. It was a very unusual shirt he was wearing. It was very different from the ordinary, plaid, flannel shirt of Lovelady. Oswald’s shirt looks rather tweedy, and it had the uncanny tendency to fold over into a neat lapel below the collar, especially on the left side. We’ll look at it, but first, let’s look at an ordinary shirt, one worn by Billy Lovelady.

FBI photo of Lovelady wearing the shirt he told them he had worn

This picture was taken of Lovelady shortly after the assassination by the FBI. They asked him to leave his shirt unbuttoned, presumably to show that he could have been the Doorway Man. Notice that the margin of the shirt rises vertically and angles out as it approaches the collar. That’s the normal pattern that you typically see with most shirts. You know it isn’t a lapel. Now compare that with these pictures of Oswald:















Do you notice how nicely the material folds over on his left side? It really does look like a lapel, doesn’t it? And whether it is really a lapel or a pseudo-lapel doesn’t matter. The point is that it’s folding over very nicely, very neatly, and it’s staying down, like a lapel. Here’s another photo of Oswald to compare with Doorway Man.














You may need a magnifying glass and bright light to see clearly, but on Oswald’s right, which is your left, you can see the collar and a small lapel, and it looks uncannily like Doorway Man’s. Shift your eyes back and forth and compare. Then, on Oswald’s left, which is your right, you can see the prominent lapel. It looks more like a jacket than a shirt. With Doorway Man on his left side, it’s rather hazy, but the material does look thicker on that side. I believe it is thicker because the material is folded over, doubled over, into a lapel. Compare it to his right side, which looks weak and flimsy.

And what is that white striping over Doorway Man’s left shoulder? It looks like some kind of artifact, but was it accidental or put there on purpose? Were they trying to prevent us from seeing his left collar? I think that if those stripes weren’t there, the resemblance of those two left collars would be riveting and startling.

Some have suggested that that white artifact is really another man, and that the line between the white stripes is his black tie. Hence, he is “Black Tie Man”. But, it is one freaky image. Why is the top of his head missing? And, is he standing in front of or behind Doorman? If he is behind, as he seems to be, then how is it that he is covering up Doorman’s shoulder? And if he is in front, how is it that Doorman is covering up his shoulder? How can they both be covering up each other’s shoulder at the same time? One of them should have a visible shoulder. It’s like they are conjoined twins. If that is a man, it is one weird fusion of two people, and surely, it is photographically impossible. No physical arrangement of two people could produce an image like that. And I think I know the explanation for it: it’s fake. The conspirators were making sure that we couldn’t see Doorway Man’s left collar because if we did, the resemblance to Oswald’s would have been so striking, the jig would have been up long ago. Take a look at this close-up of Oswald’s shirt, and focus on his left side, with the collar, the lapel, and the button-loop jutting out at the top of the lapel. It’s very distinctive and unusual, and they had to cover it up. That was the purpose of Black Tie Man.

Here is what I consider to be the money shot. It’s a comparison of Doorman’s and Oswald’s right collars. Notice how perfectly they match. And it’s not typical for most shirts because the margins here are rising quite vertically on both. Do you think that Lovelady’s shirt behaved like that? It did not.














And why did they take away Oswald’s shirt and march him around in a t-shirt? It was practically December in Dallas. He complained about it, too. He wanted to know why he couldn’t have his shirt back. Were they trying to keep us from forming too many visual and mental images of him in that shirt?

Now let’s do the same kind of analysis between Lovelady and Doorway Man. The picture on the left was taken years after the assassination, where he is supposed to be all dressed up like Doorway Man.













It’s amazing to me that Dr. Megen Knuth, who writes for Dr. John McAdams on his JFK website, had the nerve and the gall to say that the above picture of Billy Lovelady “was entirely consistent with all the photos from the day of the assassination.” Oh, really? No one who has read this study this far, I think, would be inclined to agree with that.

Lovelady’s attempt to duplicate the appearance of Doorway Man strikes me as pathetic. First, he’s got that shirt pressed with an iron. That is not the natural lay and look of that shirt–and it is certainly not the way he wore it on November 22. Second, look at the exposed button. That button would have been secured. Third, higher up, his shirt would have spread apart in the normal fashion and not be all pressed down . Remember how his collar was flipping up on Assassination Day? It isn’t doing that here. It practically looks sewn down, although I’m sure it’s just pressed down. The margin of Doorway Man’s shirt is rising vertically, whereas Lovelady’s is going off at a steep angle. Fourth, notice how Doorway Man’s shirt is billowing, even sprawling, while Lovelady’s looks sleek and tight. No way is that the same fit. No way is that the same shirt.

Billy Lovelady surely knew that he did not go to work that way on 22 November 1963. So at the time this latter picture was taken, he was a minor part of the conspiracy; he was engaged in a fraud. But it may well have been involuntary. More than 100 witnesses related to the assassination came to untimely ends. Perhaps he did not want to join them.

But, alas, Billy Lovelady died of a fatal first heart attack at the young age of 42 right before he was to testify before the House Subcommittee on Assassinations in 1979. The odds of that happening were less than 1 in 10,000. Notice also that Lovelady is wearing a round-necked t-shirt. It’s ironic that, even when he is trying to look like Doorway Man, it doesn’t occur to him to wear a v-necked t-shirt.

Other weird figures in the Altgens

Let’s look at some other disturbing features of the Altgens photo.

Let’s look at some other disturbing features of the Altgens photo.

Consider the man next to Doorway Man, who is wearing a t-shirt with his arms raised. Notice he has no head. Why does he have no head? It seems strange, doesn’t it? Some have tried to tell me that it was due to shading from the lintel, but why just his head so exclusively? He’s like the Headless Horseman. And his arms are very wide–too wide to blacken his whole face. No way are his arms blocking the light.

And next to his right arm, you see a weird white blotch, what looks like an artifact. But you can also make out the outline of another man’s head. And below his head, you see his body in black, presumably as though he were wearing a black sweater, where the black of his sweater merges with the black of the hair of the African-American woman in front of him. And thereby his whole presence is very cleverly disguised. Who is he? Dr. Fetzer, when he encountered the obliteration of the face, thought that that must have been Lee Oswald. The obliteration of the shirt as well as the face, however, has caused him to reconsider.

My argument is that, since Doorway Man is wearing Oswald’s unique clothing, he has to have been Oswald. And that means that the likenesses to Lovelady have to have been faked. Clearly, no one was attempting to exonerate Oswald by inserting him into the Altgens. On the contrary, a concerted effort was being made to frame him for the crime, which included faking the backyard photographs and planting his palm print on the Mannlicher-Carcano, as others have long since explained. So, we have no reason to suspect that likenesses to Oswald were superimposed over Lovelady. It could only have been the other way around. And Lovelady would not have been wearing Oswald’s shirt.

Moreover, if Oswald was in front of Lovelady, Lovelady would have seen him, which he didn’t report doing. And I do not presume that Lovelady was lying that early in the investigation. He had the courage to tell the Warren Commission and the FBI that he thought the shots came from the Grassy Knoll. He was standing right below the supposed sniper’s nest, and yet, he never said that the shots came from overhead, as they wanted to hear. So, if he was willing to tell the truth about the direction of the shots, then I presume that he also told them the truth about not having seen Oswald.

Read through Lovelady’s testimony to the Warren Commission, as I have. He starts out observing that he was on the same floor as was Oswald and that everyone was coming down the elevator to go outside and watch the motorcade, when Oswald yelled to them to hold the elevator for him. But they didn’t do it, whether it was inadvertent or deliberate. And so Oswald missed that elevator and had to wait for the next one. So, there are good reasons to think that Oswald was later getting outside than the others.

Notice that Lovelady’s testimony already suggests that Oswald was not on the 6th floor. Now, what do people do when they are forming a line or a group that is facing a certain direction? Everyone goes forward. That’s because they know that other people are coming in from behind to fill up the space. If you got there first, would you stop on the landing so that others had to move around you? Of course not. And why wouldn’t you want to be as close to the front as possible?

Since Lovelady got outside before Oswald, it means that we should find Lovelady in front of Oswald in the crowd and not behind him. And if Oswald was behind him, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that Lovelady didn’t see him.

It’s true that nobody that we know of reported seeing Oswald outside. But, take a look at Doorway Man. Can you see that he is standing partially behind the pillar? Doesn’t it seem possible that he could have slipped in back there at the last second and have been hardly noticed?

A “more reasonable” explanation

Remember that all the attention, all the focus, all the eyes, were to the front. What I am suggesting is a more credible scenario than placing Oswald in front of several people and their saying that they didn’t see him. To use Dr. Fetzer’s phrasing, mine appears to be a “more reasonable alternative explanation.”

And at this point in time, I am very glad to say that Dr. Fetzer has expressed his agreement with me. Our contention is that the obfuscated man in front of Doorway Man appears to have been the real Lovelady. Once it was decided to convert Oswald into Lovelady, they had to get rid of the real Lovelady–which they did.

Finally, here is another, larger take of the above picture.

Do you see the man on the left in the Fedora hat? He bears a striking resemblance to Jack Ruby. Dr. Fetzer agrees and says so in his article. In fact, I didn’t notice it until he pointed it out. And doesn’t it look as though he is looking at Doorway Man? Why is he looking at Doorway Man while the President is driving by? And why do the Secret Service agents seem to be looking at Doorway Man? Perhaps they’re just looking at the crowd in general, but it looks to me as though they realized it was Oswald.

Still it does look, eerily, like all three of them are focused on Doorway Man. And if so, what interest could they possibly have had in Doorway Man if Doorway Man was Billy Lovelady? He had no connections to Ruby, which Lee Oswald most certainly had. And he didn’t have any connections to any clandestine agencies of the federal government, which Lee Oswald most certainly had.

And just look at that hair on the African-American woman on our right. A beautiful cheerful smile, a radiant face, but look how the contour of her hair looks fake, artificial, and exaggerated. Compare it to the hair on the woman next to her, which looks natural and normal. My guess is that they exaggerated her hair to further obfuscate the features of the man behind her, namely, Billy Lovelady. His shirt had such a distinct pattern that it had to be covered-up and blackened out, a question to which I return below.

Weisberg’s doubts about Lovelady’s shirt

There is some uncertainty about which of his shirts Lovelady actually wore that day. In his book, PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH (1967), Harold Weisberg displayed an FBI document in which Billy Lovelady testified that he wore a red and white vertically striped shirt that day and not the checkered one. Dated 3/2/64, its key passages are as follows:

BILLY NOLAN LOVELADY appeared at the Dallas FBI Office at which time he consented to being photographed.

LOVELADY advised that, on the day of the assassination of President JOHN F. KENNEDY November 22, 1963, at the time of the assassination and shortly before, he was standing in the doorway of the front entrance to the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, where he is employed. He stated he was wearing a red and white vertically striped shirt and blue jeans.

LOVELADY stated that his picture has appeared in several publications which depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway of the TSBD. Lovelady was exhibited a picture appearing on pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled “Four Dark Days in History”, Copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc. LA, CA. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph. He stated that this same photograph or one identical to it has appeared in the Dallas Times Herald newspaper of November 23, 1963 and in the Cincinnati Inquirer of December 3, 1963. It also appeared in an edition of the Saturday Evening Post the date of which he does not know [which was the December 14, 1963 issue.] (PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH, p. 194)

Since Lovelady identified himself as Doorway Man, which now appears to be false, we have to wonder why he did it. He must have known that it was expected of him. He may have been threatened. His family may have been threatened. He may have been bribed. And his untimely death from a first heart attack at the age of 42 is very disturbing, considering how fit he looked. As JFK observed, “Life is not fair!”

The complementary argument

The subtleties of the shirt of Doorway Man have been missed by several generations of JFK students. But it was a very distinctive shirt and had features that were not present on the checkered shirt that Lovelady was alleged to have worn that day. If the checkered shirt was the shirt that Lovelady wore that day, then he was not Doorway Man. And if he was wearing the vertically striped shirt instead, then the argument is even more compelling. The complementary argument can therefore be made about both: since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something distinctive about the shirt that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he said he was wearing for the FBI–with its broad and bright strips–it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face.

So either way–whether Lovelady was wearing either the checkered shirt or the vertically striped shirt–the shirt being worn by “Obfuscated Man” had to be blackened out, which it was. That there is a real issue of importance here is confirmed by the tactics adopted by Professor John McAdams, perhaps the most vociferous defender of the “lone nut” theory. On his website, McAdams admits that in a letter to the Warren Commission, the FBI stated that Billy Lovelady told them that,

On February 29, 1964, Billy Nolan Lovelady was photographed by Special Agents of the FBI at Dallas, Texas. On this occasion, Lovelady advised that on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963, at the time of the assassination, and shortly before, he was standing in the doorway of the front entrance to the TSBD where he is employed. He stated he was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue-jeans (CD 457, pp. 4-5).

Vertically striped shirt he told the FBI he was wearing

Even though the FBI photos show Lovelady in a red and white vertical striped, short sleeved shirt, McAdams suggests this was simply a “misunderstanding” and that Lovelady later recanted and said that he was wearing the checkered shirt instead. But that’s quite a stretch. Many of the Parkland doctors were harassed and intimidated to change their observations and findings, where Malcolm Perry, M.D., was a classic example. Having three times described the shot to JFK’s throat as a wound of entry, he was subjected to mental and emotional abuse. It is overwhelmingly more likely that Lovelady was threatened to revert to the checkered shirt than that he would “mistakenly” appear in the vertically striped shirt for an interview with the FBI.

Three Shirts and a “Magic Button”

There are several more pictures worth looking at because they make the case even stronger for Oswald being the Doorway Man. Remember, the whole case is built around the proposition that unusual coincidences are suspect. They just don’t happen. When you see a lot of likenesses between two figures, there is probably a lot more to it than sheer luck. The first picture is a collage of the three right collars: Doorman’s, Oswald’s, and Lovelady’s. You can see the likeness of Doorman’s and Oswald’s, but Lovelady’s looks different. His shirt is folding over at a different angle. That is significant; it is not trivial. Cast your eyes back and forth and see.

And while discounting the difference between color and black and white, you should still note the tremendous contrast and pattern of Lovelady’s collar and compare it to the bland and uniform patterns of Oswald’s and Doorman’s. Of course, Oswald’s collar looks bland and uniform because it was, as we have seen in all of his pictures. But, what about Doorman’s? If he is Lovelady, shouldn’t we see some evidence of that rich, exorbitant, and complicated pattern in his collar? And if you think it’s because the collar is too small to show the contrast, realize that you can find comparable areas on the sleeve and body of Doorman’s shirt which do show contrast.

Of course, Dr. Fetzer and I maintain that the pattern elsewhere on the shirt was “touched up”. The plain truth is that when committing a forgery of this kind, it’s difficult to cover every detail. A lot slips through the cracks. And they forgot about the collar. Besides, the pattern of Doorman’s shirt does not make a good match to Lovelady’s- in any respect. For example, the only thing white on Lovelady’s shirt are the lines, so why are there white blotches on Doorman’s shirt? Remember, this isn’t horseshoes or hand grenades. Close isn’t good enough. Either it is an exact match or no match at all. There can’t be contradictions in the patterns. None.

Notice also the exposed button, what I have come to call the “Magic Button.” You’ve heard of the Magic Bullet? Well, say hello to the Magic Button. It is “magical” because such a small, ordinary, inconsequential, everyday object is exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald for all time. The presence of that button proves that the normal use of that shirt was to button it up, including that button, and when it is buttoned, that spreading effect of the margins of the shirt that you see, creating that space, goes away. Lovelady took action to make his shirt lay the way you see it here–and he did it for the camera–whereas the configurations you see on Oswald and Doorman were spontaneous. That’s a big difference. Lovelady did not wake up on the morning of 22 November 1963 and do those things. And it proves that when the picture below was taken, Lovelady was part of the conspiracy. He was trying hard to be the Doorman, but he wasn’t thinking very clearly. He should have removed that button.

Do you remember those IQ tests where you had to pick out the dissimilar item from a lineup? Try it here. Who is the odd man out among these three? Just look for that “magic button”.Next, we have a collage of Oswald and his shirt from the National Archives. When you look closely, you can see that there is only one button remaining on Oswald’s shirt , (referring to the one he is wearing) and it is the very bottom button. For some reason, the shirt from the National Archives has two bottom buttons. Hmmm. I don’t know what to make of that. I have heard of buttons popping off, but have you heard of them popping on? You may need a magnifying glass to see it, but there is exactly one button at the bottom of Oswald’s shirt that he is wearing.

But now follow me: On Doorman (above and below), it looks like he has, perhaps, the three bottom buttons buttoned. See what you think. It may be only 2, but certainly no more than 3. But if the arrested Oswald only had one button, what do we make of that? Was there a progressive loss of buttons? I say, “Yes.” I say Lee started the day with no upper buttons but with 2 or 3 lower buttons. But during his scuffle with the police at the Texas Theater, more buttons came off, at least one, and perhaps two.

And that occurred because the shirt was already open and gaping which provided leverage–a hook–for force to be applied to remove those buttons. Plus, it was a well-worn shirt that had already lost buttons, so the thread of the remaining buttons was weak and vulnerable. And that is why he lost one or more buttons during the ruckus. The stitching was getting threadbare and susceptible.

Note that buttons don’t usually come off in a fight. And in this case, the fight was very short; not more than a few seconds. How long do you think it took them to subdue him? It wasn’t long. But, that already battered shirt got even more battered during that brief altercation, and because of its susceptibility, another button or two came off, and that’s why we see Oswald with hardly any buttons left afterward. The progressive loss of buttons also supports the idea that Doorman’s shirt and Oswald’s were one and the same.

“Once more, with feeling!”

Now here is a collage consisting of Doorman and another attempt by Lovelady to look like Doorman. Notice again the exposed button on Lovelady. I am sure there was another unbuttoned one above that one, although we can’t see it because it’s shaded. Or did he remove it? Perhaps he wised up this time and did so. Remember, that shirt would normally be buttoned up– except for the top button. That is the normal way to wear it, and that spreading effect you see on Lovelady is contrived, fake. He is play-acting as the Doorway Man.















Notice also how tight and sleek the shirt looks on Lovelady compared to the billowing effect you see on Doorman. Lovelady was 40 pounds heavier than Oswald, and he filled out his shirts much better. Oswald was, frankly, a scrawny guy, and he didn’t fill out his shirts very well, and that’s why you see Doorman swimming in his shirt. And notice the round-neck t-shirt on Lovelady, which is so different in form than Doorman’s. Poor Lovelady just couldn’t get it into his head that matching the t-shirts was part of the gig. No wonder they had to “heart attack” him out at age 42 before he could testify before the House Subcommittee on Assassinations. I bet that they (the conspirators) couldn’t trust him to keep his story straight. Dead men tell no tales. Look at him. Does he look like the kind of guy who would die of a first heart attack at age 42?

Look next at this image of Doorway Man with his shoulder line drawn in by me. I have it wider than it would be, just for the sake of visibility, but it is still the correct plane. How wide would it be? I can’t say for sure because I can’t see his right shoulder, but it would definitely extend into the white area. I know that by estimating the width of his collar bone or clavicle and then adding the width of the acromium process of the scapula and then allowing for reasonable musculature, particularly the cap of the deltoid. Considering the various elements, his shoulder would have to extend well into the white area. But, it doesn’t. It is being covered up by the white, which is photographically impossible. Remember that Black Tie Man is supposed to be standing behind him. How does someone standing behind block a person in front? Therefore, that is an impossible image. I am a chiropractor of 35 years experience, and I know very well where that man’s shoulder should be. Something’s missing, and it’s his shoulder.

Finally, I think this picture of Oswald is very valuable. You can see the right collar with the small, compact pseudo-lapel folding over on the right side, exactly like Doorman. And on the left you see the collar, lapel, and button loop- that very distinctive construction which had to be covered up by that phony Black Tie Man. And it’s easy to see that that shirt is quite big on him. He’s not filling it out; it’s loose on him. And, it’s easy to see that standing outside the TSBD in the open air with breezes blowing, that it would start to billow–as it did. What you are looking at here is the shirt of the Doorway Man–minus a couple more buttons. Even the cuffs of this shirt match Doorway Man’s very well.

Even when we compare the shape of the face and the head between the two, any differences are subtle and small. They could have been accomplished by “tweaking” the image. Look at them side-by-side. Even after doing all they could to lovelady-i-fy him, he still looks a great deal like Lee, where the shirt is the absolute “dead ringer”.

This should have been settled long ago. Lee Harvey Oswald WAS the Doorway man. It can’t be anyone else: not because of the face, which was apparently not his, but because of the shirt, which was. Bigger, burlier Lovelady, wearing a totally different shirt, could not possibly be him. The tremendous likeness that you see above cannot be denied or dismissed by those whose beliefs are governed by logic and evidence.

The lone-nutters will never admit it because it destroys their entire foundation. They will fight it to the end. And, the end is coming. But, if you are a conspiracy advocate, you no longer have any excuse. Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. He is the Doorway Man. And if you accept anything about the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, you need to accept and espouse that.

The Demise of the “Lone Nut” Theory

In conclusion, even though a lot of manipulation went into transforming Oswald into Lovelady, it didn’t work. We can still tell that it’s him, Oswald–and I would bet my life on it. The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming, and the meager challenges to it are riddled with suspicion and doubt. The worst thing that ever happened to the JFK research community was relinquishing Doorway Man.

We need to take him back. We need to add the Altgens photo to the list of physical evidence that the conspirators altered and corrupted. We need to shout from the rooftops that Oswald could not have killed Kennedy because he was standing outside in front of the building at the time. This settles it. This ends it. This is checkmate for THE WARREN REPORT (1964).

The cover-up of the murder of President Kennedy, by our government and our media, has been going on for 48 years, and it must stop. It has been poisoning us as a people, that is, our society and our culture. To heal, to recover, and to start anew, we need to know the truth.

Consider the long-held lies that were uncovered in another country. After the Soviet Union fell, the truth about the fate of the Romanov family, at the hands of the Bolsheviks, was made public. The family was gunned down in close quarters. It was a blood bath, a slaughter, where their bodies were dissolved in acid afterwards to destroy the evidence. It was covered up for 75 years. There was also the Katyn Forest Massacre which took place in Russia during World War II in which 22,000 Poles were executed and buried in a mass grave. For decades, it was blamed on the Nazis, but it was actually carried out by the Soviet Secret Police, by order of Stalin. It took around 50 years for that lie to be dispelled.

We are now approaching the 50th anniversary of the coup d’état that killed President Kennedy and changed the whole direction of the United States–and greatly for the worse. I say we draw the line at 50 years. We can’t let this drag on into another half-century. It’s long past time for the truth to come out. The American people deserve to know who did and who did not kill JFK.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor, health spa operator, and entrenpreneur, has published a series of articles on JFK at lewrockwell.com. His video series, “Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent”, is archived on YouTube.

James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a columnist for Veterans Today, where his most recent studies of the assassination of JFK can be found.

Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on January 25, 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom, Corruption, Government, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

60 Responses to "JFK Special: Oswald was in the Doorway, after all!"

  1. Trowbridge Ford  February 7, 2012 at 4:37 am

    I find this continuing argument about the Altgens photo of the TSBD entrance at the time of the President’s goofy in the extreme.

    Altgens was an Associated Press photographer, and the photo appeared in many newspapers on the day after the assassination, so there was no way it could be forgotten about.

    The biggest blowup that I have seen of it appeared on half the page of the second section on The Washington Post that day – what I am sure is still the most accurate depiction of what he saw, and photographed.

    Its existence persuaded J. Edgar Hoover that there was no chance of framing Oswald as the President’s assassin – what was developed ad hoc after the surprise wounding of Governor Connally had resulted in the scrubbing of the whole plan of blaming Castro and the communists for it.

    In short, everyone should know that LHO – thanks to the photo, and witnesses who had seen him around there at the time – is innocent of killing the President, and we should move on from there.

    But, no, Fetzer is now trying to make the photograph and where Oswald was precisely at that moment, the whole story.

    Just more of the divide-and-rule approach of the disinformers who are constantly preventing researchers from moving on to who really killed the President, and should be exposed for it for all eternity.

  2. Trowbridge Ford  February 2, 2012 at 6:26 am

    This continuing dispute about the Altgens photograph of the TSBD when the President was assassinated, and the one allegedly of Oswald in the Paines’ back yard is simply mind bogging.

    Whether it is Oswald in the Altgents photograph – and I still strongly think it is because Lovelady lied about the shirt he claimed he wore then, and its sleeves don’t match – and in the back yard one which could have been made up deliberately and/or for some covert purpose, they add nothing to his clear innocence in killing the President as he already had a sufficient alibi for not having committed the crime.

    So, can we all just move on to who really killed the President rather than just keeping spinning our wheels for no good purpose?

    • Jim Fetzer  February 2, 2012 at 8:25 am

      That’s because you are such a deep thinker. Who would suppose that a simple proof that Oswald cannot have shot JFK would make any difference, especially when the photo that proves it had to have been altered IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTING? Who would suppose that proving that the backyard photos had been faked–as Jim Marrs and I have done, building on the previous work of Jack White–in “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald”–would shed any light on WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE? I’ve got to hand it to you, Trow: you really keep our noses to the grindstone with one brilliant and discerning post after another. When you are around, no one else matters, because you know it all! THANK YOU!

    • Jim Fetzer  February 4, 2012 at 10:55 am

      The question at stake here is one of extraordinary importance where we have now established the following:

      (1) the Fritz notes have him explaining that he was “with Billy Shelley out front” during the assassination;

      (2) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

      (3) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

      (4) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

      (5) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

      (6) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photos is not clear in the doorway;

      (7) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

      (8) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

      (9) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the “patsy”.

      I have asked several experts on the case to address the evidence, where I heard back from one of them today:

      “Dear Jim: I have carefully–very carefully–looked into the matter of the shirt and the “Lovelady” figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

      “In the photos as observable,the shirt was retouched, and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

      “The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

      “The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady’s shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

      “I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee’s face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes, for everything blotched there–would have done a better job.

      “Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch–and I’m convinced.”

      Plus, of course, another student, dkruckman, has observed that, as we all know, in the backyard photographs, there is a matte line running horizontally below the lower lip across the chin. And on Doorway Man there appears to be a matte line running horizontally below the nose above where the lips should be. If you place your thumb over the top of Doorway Man’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. I am asking some experts to confirm these observations.

      Surely we can all agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed. And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

  3. kdruckman  January 31, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    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

    • Jim Fetzer  January 31, 2012 at 1:19 pm

      This is fantastic stuff! Could you email me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu. I would like to feature you on “The Real Deal”.

  4. kdruckman  January 31, 2012 at 11:27 am

    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

    • Jim Fetzer  January 31, 2012 at 12:53 pm

      Brilliant! I had been thinking that, in parallel with the backyard photographs, that might be the case, too! Very nice. I am going to post this at The Education Forum as well. Many thanks for contributing to this.

  5. Trowbridge Ford  January 27, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    You are right that LBJ did appoint the Congressmen – i.e. the leading Democrats in the House and Senate, and what Nixon suggested, namely that goof ball Gerry Ford and Senator John Sherman Cooper. The other members of the commission were the Chief Justice, former DCI Allen Dulles, and John McCloy. It’s hard to imagine a more important, representative body which agreed to the President’s request to serve, and was certainly not in the President’s pocket.

    As for your rambling attempt to explain away what John Connally belatedly said when he discovered he too was hit – “Oh, no.no.no. My God, they are going to kill us all.” – I have no doubt he said it, indicating that he knew that a conspiracy was involved in killing the President, and Connally had apparently been double crossed into going along with it.

    Only in America would such a blatant confession of being a plotter of the President’s murder be overlooked, and explained away, as you, like the Warren Commission, have attempted.

    The more difficult matter to explain about the Nixon-Connally et al. conspiracy to kill the President is why patsy LHO was apparently left alone and unattended near the entrance to the TSBD at the time.

    The plan was for him to be taken to Cuba via Mexico right after the shooting, and he was awaiting a call in its lunch room for getting the final arrangements when the assassination took place, though naive LHO didn’t expect it, and his set up.

    When Connally was only wounded, and promised to recover, the whole plot was scrubbed, and Oswald was arrrested at the Texas Theater. Little did the plotters realize that he then had an alibi as he was on the scene, and had been photographed apparently, requiring Ruby kill him too.

    Of course, if the plot had not been spoiled by Richard Cain’s careless handing of the rifle aka “the package” in the preparation of the killing, LHO would only have been discovered when he made it to Havana, and then the delayed Missile Crisis Settlement would have been carried out.

    Only crazy leaders make this stuff up.

  6. Mike Kay  January 27, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Excellent work. It takes courage and observation to both notice, and then point out what has been glossed over for decades. This is the kind of work we need to move beyond recognition of a high level murder plot carried out against our president to absolute proof.

    This essay proves, quite convincingly, that the photo in question has been altered. It also proves that LHO was the man in the doorway and, circumstantially, it reveals the plot unfolding. LHO alone among the crowd draws all those stares?

    The value of this kind of evidence cannot be overestimated.

    Wasn’t it daddy Bush who said if the American people knew what they did, they would be dragged through the streets? I feel that day a-coming.

  7. Trowbridge Ford  January 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Never indicated that LBJ liked having a commission, only that he was obliged to order one for fear that other investigations, especially the one the Connally was promoting, would get out of hand. LBJ consulted several leaders in making them, even Tricky Dick in making the Republican ones, which you failed to mention.

    Notice that you just keep hopping from one disinforming bit to another, particularly about what the Governor said when he discovered that he had been shot too.

    You mentioned the so-called independent researchers into the conspiracy, and I just talked about some of their dealings with them, what included trying to send me to prison, and to kill me. Some indpendent researchers!

    Wouldn’t like to go anywhere with you, even across the street.

  8. Trowbridge Ford  January 27, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Anyone with the slightest understanding of the JFK assassination should realize that the wounding of Governor Connally, either accidentally or deliberately, was the cause of the cockup, making it impossible to blame it on the communists because Big John vowed to get those who had apparently doublecrossed him.

    His crying out when he belatedly discovered that he too had been hit said it all: “Oh. no, no, no. My God, they are going to kill us all.”

    Consequently, when it was determined that he would survive, the cover up began in earnest, starting with the murder of Oswald who had been stopped on his mission to Cuba while waiting in the theater for his contact. Then LBJ was obliged to appoint the Warren Commission when the Governor was going about his own state investigation to make sure that he wasn’t seen as part of the conspiracy.

    In the WC’s investigation, the multiple wounds, especially to the Governor, became its centerpiece aka the magic bullet because only three bullets could have been fired if LHO was to be framed, and so it was.

    Then years later, when Cain started shooting off his mouth about having killed the President from the sixth floor of the TSBD, it became more than the CIA-Outfit could stomach since Cain had only hit Connally, and in the proces had ruined the whole plot.

    Consequently, he was murdered in the way I earlier stated, and it was a warning to other shooters of what they could expect if they behaved similarly.

    The quotes about what the masked man with the walkie-talkie said were what the witnesses of the killing heard, and were reported in the press.

    And no assassin would be comfortable with having another person test fire a weapon that he would use in an assassination.

    In short, Files is just a spinner of false stories who no one but you apparently believe.

    And Malcotte tried to give Cain an alibi for not being an assassin by stating falsely that he was in Chicago at the time.

    I shall not resort to any insults as your comments show just how ill-informed you are.

  9. DaveE  January 26, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    Mr. Fetzer, I admire your patience. Must be due to reading a lot of student papers and trying to see the best, or anything worthwhile at all, in them.

    In spite of all the wiseguys, this is a great writeup.

  10. Selene  January 26, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Another obvious giveaway that Oswald is in the doorway is clearly shown in your final set of comparison photos: look at the way both Oswald and Doorway Man are holding their arms with the left hand (photo right) grasped over the right wrist in what appears to be a habitual manner of standing. Even when Oswald is shown with an officer holding him by his left elbow, he reflexively reaches for his wrist with his other hand. In how many people is this a habitual pose?

    Lovelady, by contrast, never stands this way. True, he may have been asked in the “after” full-length photo to stand with his hands behind his back, but if anything, they might have asked him to duplicate the doorway pose: left hand gripping the right wrist in front. Or perhaps, the photographer said – as instructed – “clasp your hands.” And Lovelady did: but behind his back, standing in his own habitual pose. And the photographer never realized the true requirement of the instruction.


    Thank you both for your superb research. Well done.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 6:51 pm

      VERY PERCEPTIVE AND OBSERVANT. I will share this with Ralph. He will be delighted, as am I.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm

      OK. He wasn’t in cuffs in the doorway, but your rejoinder is appropriate. In a photo toward the top, his hands are reversed. Thanks for catching that, even if I think that there may be something more to it.

  11. Trowbridge Ford  January 26, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Sorry that critics are not willing to read what I say, don’t understand who is what in the American government at the time, and that the idea of explaining something most devious and controversial by who benefits by the crime works on the assumption that everything went according to plan in the JFK assassination – what is manifestly untrue.

    Fetzer is beyond reclaim with his contention that LBJ was the Dallas assassination mastermind, so there is no reason to attempt to convince him otherwise.

    And LBJ was the Vice President until Nixon, Connally et al. had masterminded JFK’S assassination, so he had almost no power to determine anything until the President was assassinated.

    And the claim about who benefits in the conspiratorial plot overlooks the fact that it did not go according to plan. Instead of JFK being dead and LBJ left holding the bag while the military backers of the Nixon-Connally plot took out Castro and his Moscow backers for the crime, the new President was left with all the problems of covering up the cockup so that the USA did not go down the tubes in some hopeless exercise.

    LBJ, despite all his warts, was a far better leader and politician than Nixon and Connally, the ultimate self-serving criminals.

  12. dalethorn  January 26, 2012 at 11:21 am

    Ford says LBJ was not the mastermind? The president of the USA, the chief suspect in the assassination, the man whose Secret Service controlled the motorcade, Parkland, and all evidence – and then that chief suspect completely controls the investigations and whitewash? That’s the man who’s not the mastermind? Hmmmm, need new definition of mastermind, or something.

  13. dalethorn  January 26, 2012 at 11:13 am

    As a juror in this case, I’ve upped my confidence level to around 70 percent, that Oswald is indeed in the doorway. If I could get a good copy of the Altgens photo I might push that percentage way higher, but so far I have not been able to get a good copy.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 11:59 am

      dalethorn, Ralph scanned this Altgens from LIFE magazine. It’s as good as they get. If you pull it onto your desk top (by putting the cursor over the image and dragging it), you should be able to open it and take a closer look by zooming in. Alternatively, if you simply click on the image, it should open larger.

  14. Excalibur  January 26, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Jim Fetzer correctly highlights this terrible event when the great land of the USA, with its tradition of true freedom and its ability to mobilize an indestructible force against enemies when necessary, had its politics usurped and changed forever by a brutal murder. The nation was changed and spun irrevocably into another direction – of somebody else’s choice and no doubt to somebody else’s benefit.

    I cannot comment in such detail as others here on this subject as a Brit who has not closely followed events through the years. I would respectfully point out, however, that WHO actually pulled the trigger is probably one of the least important issues now all these years later. More important is who was behind it – regardless of patsies and gunmen – and what has happened to America that would not have happened in the ensuing years – had Kennedy remained in office.

    • dalethorn  January 26, 2012 at 11:16 am

      If you hire a gunman to kill someone, you are guilty and so is the gunman. All parties in the JFK case are important, since they constitute important evidence. Dropping focus on any of these is welcomed by the deniers. Let’s not give them that.

  15. RC  January 26, 2012 at 10:35 am

    To Steve who said that Doorman’s sleeve is “billowing” I don’t think you understand that there is supposed to be another guy there standing behind Doorman, and it appears that he is actually fused to Doorman. Their two bodies merge together in an impossible union. There is no photographic reality to that image at all. What you are calling Doorman’s “billowing sleeve” is actually the merger of Doorman’s body with that of “Black Tie Man”. Fortunately, there is a distinct change in the color pattern from light to dark. Please take a look at it again and you’ll see.

    But, what is billowing on Doorman is his shirt, particularly the right side of it, which is on our left. It’s puffing out like a sail, and that’s because it’s over-sized and fits him loosely- just like Oswald’s shirt fit him. Oswald was 5’9″ and weighed only 130 pounds. I’m 5’6″ and weigh almost 140 and I’m not the least bit fat. So, Oswakld was a thin guy. In contrast, Lovelady was 5’8″ and weighed 170 pounds, And he wasn’t fat either; he was solid and thick through the chest and shoulders. So, he filled out his shirts much better. So, the looseness, the “billowing” that you see in Doorman’s shirt goes along with Oswald, not Lovelady.

    • Steve  January 27, 2012 at 1:07 am

      What you say about the middle part of the sleeve is correct, however I was referring more specifically to the lower part and cuff, which is definitely all Doorman’s, and is quite wide as though it’s hanging open, or if buttoned is a lot looser than Oswald’s, although the very tip is obscured by the head of someone standing in front. But it presents a definite contrast with Oswald’s tight buttoned cuff in the later shots of him. He may have buttoned his cuffs up before arrest and handcuffing, but the question would be, did he, and why? And if not would it look the way Doorman’s does, or rather would the cuff split open and dangle off the arm in that pose? Otherwise Doorman’s lower sleeve/cuff resembles Lovelady’s checked shirt more than Oswald’s shirt, at least to my eyes. Even the arm inside seems too bulky for Oswald. Also Doorman’s chest looks kind of bulky, it’s hard to tell because of the hunched pose and white t-shirt’s lack of clear definition, but again it seems to me it could be Lovelady. The face looks all him, especially compared with his mugshots, so it would have to be more than just fringe mods there.

      I am not convinced, though it’s worth looking at and discussing. But unless you can answer all the questions and critique adequately then for such a stretch of a theory it doesn’t cut the mustard. And Occam’s razor wins, something Jim should appreciate.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 2, 2012 at 8:49 am

      Well, Occam’s Razor dictates that we should prefer the simplest theory ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT CAN ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE AVAILABLE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. Even the best copy of the Altgens shows unclarity in the doorway area, which is evidence of alteration. You can see–even in poor copies and copies published in newspapers immediately following the assassination–that both the face and the shirt of the man to Doorway Man’s left front (facing him) have been obliterated. Now ask yourself, what could have motivated changing the images of obscure figures in the crowd unless they SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE?

      And who could possibly know that they should not have been there THAN THOSE WHO WERE FRAMING LEE? This is not rocket science but OBVIOUS ONCE YOU THINK ABOUT IT. Trowbridge Ford may be incapable of thinking this through, but the rest of those who post here ought to be able to figure this out. So Occam’s Razor does apply and dictates that the images had to have been altered for some extremely powerful reason, where THE PRESENCE OF OSWALD WOULD HAVE BLOWN THE FRAME OUT OF THE WATER. They took out Lovelady and his shirt and used part of his face on Oswald, but they forgot to change the shirt!

    • Steve  February 7, 2012 at 4:00 am

      I remain unconvinced for the reasons mentioned, and whilst the figure you mention is somehow obscured, the other claims regarding the shot seem vague to me at best, and my points re details remain unanswered.

      But the main point is, and this is a sort of instance of Occam’s Razor by default, why would the alleged alterers bother, if they had the photo negative before anyone else apart from Altgens, when they could just have locked it away or destroyed it? So much simpler and easier for them, if as you say “the presence of Oswald” was a problem? Why the hell bother with the (botched) forging and release of the shot to general scrutiny? It makes no sense I can see.

    • Steve  February 7, 2012 at 4:20 am

      Especially as unlike with the films, there was no need or purpose served by altering the photo, which was easier to ‘disappear’ and the alteration of which did not serve to bear out a false version of events in any significant regard (other than the presence or not of Oswald in the doorway which was more easily and securely resolved from such an interest by eliminating the shot altogether).

    • Jim Fetzer  February 7, 2012 at 7:54 am

      Steve, no. It was necessary to take him out in public in front of hundreds of witnesses. No one would have believed it was not a conspiracy if it had been done in the White House, for example. They wanted a photographic record for everyone to see. Killing him was not the problem; it was covering it up.

      And I am always fascinated by arguments about what “coulda, woulda, shoulda” happened. We have to deal with HOW IT WAS DONE and the AVAILABLE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. Maybe they needed you there to tell them what they should have done! If you have anything of value to say, say it; otherwise, let it go.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 7, 2012 at 8:25 am

      It was taken by a legitimate Associated Press photographer. Do you think they could simply toss his photo–which became world-famous!–and HE WOULDN’T NOTICE? Give this just a little more thought, Steve, if you don’t mind. And Occam’s Razor–of preferring the simpler theory–assumes that they can BOTH ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. The only reason for altering the photo, especially in relation to an obscure figure in the crowd, is that HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE. And the only person who, from the perps point of view, should not have been there was LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

  16. Trowbridge Ford  January 26, 2012 at 9:01 am

    Sorry, Fetzer, not going to waste any more of my time, pursuing your most false claims that LBJ was the mastermind of the JFK assassination.

    Bought Noel Twyman’s Bloody Treason because you said it made the case, but it didn’t satisfy me. Then went through Phil Nelson’s book, as you recommended, but it proved even worse. Now that you repeat these claims, recommending that I listen to your presentation on the same subject, and with the same answer, I cannot be bothered.

    While LBJ suspected that JFK was going to going to be killed, as did many important people, he was neither going to stop it, nor be a part of it by taking changes with his security there – what Nixon and Connally arranged by making him go there when it suited their purposes about the resumption of the Cuba MIssile Crisis after a 13-month hiatus, and breaking down JFK’s security by emphasizing his apparent needs while acting as if they didn’t have a worry in the world – what left the President because of their challenges unprotected to the three assassins.

    Even your ex-buddies on DPF trash your claim.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 9:12 am

      Trowbridge, You posts are not worth reading. Get a life. You are a very tarnished commodity here at VT.

  17. Excalibur  January 26, 2012 at 7:12 am

    On the subject of the Bolsheviks, the Katyn Forest massacre, Lavrenty Beria – and the NKVD police (who carried out the Katyn Forest murders of Polish Officers) there is an even more ‘stranger than fiction’ scenario to relate.

    Every year in Poland the population mourn the Katyn Forest murders of thousands of Military officers, non-communist intellectuals, authors, and clergy – carried out by the Marxist communists. Secretaries of state for foreign affairs from different countries usually attend to pay their respects. About four years ago, when David Miliband was the British Foreign Secretary, it became noticeable that Britain would not be sending their man. Worse still came the extremely embarrassing knowledge that this was because of information that the new Russian government held about WHO EXACTLY (which NKVD officer) was in charge of the Katyn Forest massacres. Apparently grandfather Miliband had been the Red NKVD officer in charge of the massacre. The Milibands had later left Russia and eventually claimed asylum in Britain – claiming to have been racially abused by ‘Nazi-sympathizers’ in Holland AFTER World War Two!

    Can somebody explain to me how both the two grandsons are now in top positions of power in Great Britain today? If Labour win the next election in Britain – we will all be completely at their mercy – and there does not seem to be anything anyone can do about it, (lawfully).

    Incidently – the aeroplane carrying the Polish Premiere to the Katyn Forest event then crashed killing all on board – in rather mysterious circumstances. You could not make this up!

  18. Excalibur  January 26, 2012 at 6:49 am

    The truth is without doubt always stranger than fiction. Jim Fetzer rightly points out that all kinds of terrible deeds were committed by the Marxist-zionist planners within Soviet Russia. So many that even today the evidence is still being unearthed.

    One such mass murdering Criminal was the Soviet Chief of the Secret Police – the NKVD – or ‘The People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs’. His name was Lavrenty Beria – and I won’t try to list all his crimes here as there are just too many. You could google his name and research him. Like all the Soviets in key positions of power he was jewish and always ready to use the Talmudic principle of eliminating anyone or anything that got in the way of ‘business’.

    A particular trait of Beria – was that he would send out his staff to abduct Russian schoolgirls from the streets. They would then be brought back to his torture chamber, below his office, where he would torture, rape and murder them. Recently Russian authorities discovered that he must have done this in his spare time as well – because they have found the skeletons of 200 very young women buried under the house where he lived. With a man like this in charge of all Russian police – the nation did not stand much chance of the ‘equality’ promised by the Marxists.

    • Steve  January 26, 2012 at 7:02 am

      Beria Jewish? Not. He was Georgian, more specifically Mingrelian. The only Jewish head of the NKVD was Yagoda, and he was followd by Yezhov “The Dwarf”, not Jewish but the worst butcher of the bunch besides Stalin himself.

    • Excalibur  January 26, 2012 at 7:23 am

      I suppose that this is the worldwide problem in a nutshell Steve. You do not have to be born in israel to be a jew. Most people consider themselves to be the nationality of where they are born. Have a look at this:



    • Steve  January 27, 2012 at 1:22 am

      No evidence Beria was Jewish, and I have never seen him referred to as such anywhere remotely credible. He was Mingrelian Georgian, and spoke it with Stalin, who called him “the Big Mingrelian”. Nor any evidence he considered himself Jewish. He was a perverted scumbag though without any doubt.

    • Excalibur  January 26, 2012 at 7:26 am

      Also Steve, have a look at this record and comments by people who were there at the time:



  19. foo  January 26, 2012 at 6:46 am

    Would it not be SOP for police to take clothing of a suspected shooter to test for powder residue?

    I bring this up, because it is obvious, from comparing various photos of LHO, that both the T-shirt and the outer shirt (?) are different in various photos.

    Check the photo on the left immediately below this paragraph:

    Do you notice how nicely the material folds over on his left side? It really does look like a lapel, doesn’t it? And whether it is really a lapel or a pseudo-lapel doesn’t matter. The point is that it’s folding over very nicely, very neatly, and it’s staying down, like a lapel. Here’s another photo of Oswald to compare with Doorway Man.

    The T-shirt is either a sagging round neck or a V-neck, and the outer shirt/sports jacket shows an obvious lapel on its left side. In other photos, the lapel extends down to about the middle, which strongly suggests a sports jacket. Moreover, if it is a sports jacket, then that is the normal way of buttoning it, at the bottom of the lapels; it is not an unbuttoned shirt.

    The clothing in the photo of the cuffed LHO, with upraised right fist, looks the same. Likewise in the photo which I infer is LHO’s being led into the police station.

    Compare this with the photo labeled “Henry M. Moore. Lee Harvey Oswald and Richard M. Sims.” The T-shirt is round neck and the collar is higher on LHO’s chest. Furthermore, he is wearing an outer shirt, not a sports jacket — there are no lapels. The sides above the top button are merely folded back.

    For whatever reason, the police made LHO change clothes, which they had provided.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 7:19 am

      There are multiple proofs that Lee was not the shooter: He was not on the 6th floor at the time; the rifle he was alleged to have used was not high-velocity (which means that, if THE WARREN REPORT and the death certificates are correct–that he was killed by shots from a high-powered rifle are correct, then he cannot have shot JFK, since the Mannlicher-Carcano is not high-velocity); he passed his nitrate test; the palm print used to tie him to the weapon was created at the funeral home (where the director complained it had taken him a long time to remove the ink from the hand of the deceased); on and on and on. Since the backyard photographs were created by pasting his face on someone else’s body, it should come as no surprise if, in this instance, someone else’s face should be pasted on his body! For more, my latest JFK lecture is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLL8diz-7bw

  20. Trowbridge Ford  January 26, 2012 at 6:28 am

    Tell it to your former friends on DPF, Fetzer. They don’t consider it proof, and call you every name in the book, hardly what one would expect from a site that claims it wants to pumb the depths of any apparent conspiracy.

    The argument is over exactly where Oswald was when the fatal shots were fired. Was he the man in the doorway to the TSBD or was he in the lunch room on the second floor or somewhere inbetween?

    Whatever anyone concludes, LHO had an alibi from several sources for not being the assassin, so good that he had to be killed so there would be no fiasco trial.

    Sensible people move on from there rather than engage with nutters like Charles Drago on DPF who went ballistic when I rightly claimed that Harvey’s people had tried unsuccessfully to hypnotize LHO into killing the President – what I based upon what John Marks said in The Search For The “Manchurian Candidate” about MKULTRA Subproject 128-1, pp. 202-3, and note at the bottom of p. 244.

    Drago first denied that there was any such material in the book, and then feebly contended that the person concerned was one Jerome Howard, as I recall, though he never advanced any support of his claim.

    Fortunately, I got banned for mixing it up with those who pay the piper on DPF, and I have been so happy about it.

    They are even less involved than you are about who killed JFK, as your failure to deal with my cast of conspirators demonstrates.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 7:12 am

      Well, we can always count on you to focus on yourself and to smear anyone who has pointed out that you are not the sharpest pencil in the box. Here is a nice example. When we should be on the same page, since you declare that what we have proven has always been your belief, you scrape the bottom of the barrel to cite contentious exchanges with some on a JFK assassination forum. Who cares? When I first came to the Deep Politics Forum, I was given the red carpet treatment. Since I have elaborated upon LBJ’s pivotal role in the assassination–where he forced himself onto the ticket, schmoozed with the Secret Service, sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, down to Dallas to make sure all of the arrangements were in place for the assassination, and where even Jack Ruby observed that this would not have happened had someone else, such as Adlai Stevenson, been Vice President–and given a strong endorsement to LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK’S ASSASSINATION (2011) by Phil Nelson–you would think I had committed heresy! Well, in terms of that forum, I apparently have. Too many there seem to have lost their way and turned a research site into a house of worship for Charles Drago. I am sorry, but truth means more than friendship. If we place friendship ahead of truth, then there is only friendship, no truth. But of course we all acknowledge your eternal and incomparable brilliance, of which you remind us on every occasion, lest it slip our minds. Thanks for running so true to form! We all await your next post. For anyone who wants my enumeration of those who were involved, down to and including my best guesses as to the identities of the shooters, see “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLL8diz-7bw

    • The Rahnameh  January 26, 2012 at 12:56 pm

      lol you two are funny. :) Here’s some wisdom from the Shahnameh to let you know you’re both undertaking a worthy cause and will get ostracized for it like the great Iranian kings of yore:

      “I turn to right and left, in all the earth
      I see no signs of justice, sense or worth:
      A man does evil deeds, and all his days
      Are filled with luck and universal praise;
      Another’s good in all he does – he dies
      A wretched, broken man whom all despise.”

      Doesn’t this also apply to the victim of your investigation? Thus, the closer you get to the truth, the more steadfast you must become. I often find it funny when people have a need to be PRECISE in estimates of what happened. When examining the branches of every tree, sometimes you miss the broader view: the forest. Perhaps the compromise is to offer two best and competing theories on the subject so long as the end result is not a tarnishing of the end message: JFK was assassinated by conspiracy, not a lone gunman. Fetzer vs. Ford is a far better conversation and educated context for American conventional wisdom than Official Narrative vs. the Truth.

      I would be interested in some sort of useful aid to (1) break the ceiling for the input of new ideas about what happened — typically, this requires definitive proof of a single film manipulation or otherwise to fracture the ice on the denial or apathy of a person to steer from what they’ve been programmed to believe and (2) does not bore the person to death.

      While details should be available for the real proof, I think a quick reference guide or compendium would go so far, especially in the form of an infographic. You can include both schools of thought on it and then to avoid conflicts about who gets credit, you can just attribute everything (your sweat, labor, time, etc.) all to me.

      Just sign here X______________________________

  21. mpennery  January 26, 2012 at 4:45 am

    I am in no way disagreeing that the truth of this crime has been covered up but there is not one picture above in which Lee Oswald is wearing a v-neck shirt. Not a single one. What’s up with the repeated references to a v-neck? In a couple pictures his t-shirt appears to be sorta kinda a v-neck but only because the shirt appears to be as baggy as the long sleeve he’s wearing over it and is sagging. When you wear an undershirt that’s too big and the neck gets worn, it sometimes sags at the bottom, which is what is happening in the photos. I guess you have to have grown up poor and worn handmedowns to understand that. But all of the rest of the photos clearly show a round collar t-shirt on Oswald. You can especially see it on the photos of him in custody. So when Lovelady took photos trying to look like Oswald, he wasn’t making a mistake by wearing a round collar t.


    Lexington, ky

    • Steve  January 26, 2012 at 5:03 am

      In some shots it looks like a round collar, others a bit like a v-neck, or a round collar pulled down some making it look like a v-neck. Frankly this thesis is not convincing, though interesting, and is way too elaborate and subtle to have much impact outside of rarefied circles. One has to wonder also why not just seize/destroy the Altgens photo instead of going to all the effort to alter it so supposedly unsatisfactorily?

      That said as Fetzer has pointed out there is no convincing motive or means for Oswald to have done it, if anything the contrary. But unfortunately this is not the ‘smoking gun’ either, that might have been hoped, least of all when it depends on accepting that a figure that clearly does not have Oswald’s face and looks like Lovelady is actually Oswald, based on blurred and uncertain details of his collar and lapels, and other marginal points.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 5:13 am

      If you are willing to believe that Lovelady was wearing Oswald’s shirt, then you are willing to believe anything.

    • Steve  January 26, 2012 at 5:40 am

      Far from it, but from the poor quality and detail of the Altgens shot for that area, one cannot completely dismiss the simpler theory that the shirt Lovelady was photographed in at the Dallas Police HQ is the one he has on in the doorway (and that it is him), worn front open at that point etc, with the angles wind etc introducing some distortion and uncertainty.

      Also as I asked, why not just seize and destroy the Altgens shot (supposdly showing Oswald clearly) instead of going to such lengths? Surely a much simpler and more effective solution?

    • Steve  January 26, 2012 at 5:56 am

      Also look at the billowing sleeve on the Doorway man, as opposed to Oswald’s tight buttoned cuff.
      Overall it looks a lot more like Lovelady than Oswald to me, the details you cite could have another explanation, and don’t seem convincing overall.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 10:13 am

      Steve, HAVE YOU READ THE ARTICLE? We have covered all the bases. Try reading it again.

    • Todd Marshall  January 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Jim, you really should drop any reference to the V-neck T-shirt. It’s just not convincing and in fact does the opposite. Further, citing the comment that LHO had a habit of tugging his shirt to make it look like a v-neck is just ridiculous. There’s absolutely no doubt that LHO had nothing to do with the JFK assassination but your essay comes across as pure and lengthy red herring bait.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm

      Take a closer look at the featured image of Lee in handcuffs. You can see the effects of his habitual tugging at his shirt. One problem with co-authored studies is that one author may accent one way and the other another. Ralph tends to accent the vee, while I do not. Judyth Vary Baker, with whom Lee had a relationship in New Orleans, had told me about his “tugging”. On the contrary, the arguments that Ralph and I have made, but especially his on the features that are similar between Doorway Man’s shirt and Lee’s, are subtle and complex. Your denigrating characterization simply does not apply to this article. A “red herring” is a distraction used to mislead and confuse. I can’t imagine why you would suggest that term applies to any of my work. If we are right–it may be the most carefully contrived deception in constructing the cover-up–then we have the simplest possible proof of Lee’s innocence and governmental duplicity.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 5:15 am

      That’s fine. But you are ignoring the exquisite character of the shirt, the lapel, its lay, the buttons and all the rest. We have not only proven that it was Oswald’s shirt but that it cannot have been Lovelady’s. Try reading it more carefully.

    • mpennery  January 26, 2012 at 5:22 am

      I believe you. And I have no doubt Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination. Just had to comment on the shirt.
      Thanks Jim.


    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 5:50 pm

      Matt, if you enlarge the “hand-cuffed” photo, which is also the featured photo at the top, you will see that he had tugged the front of his tee shirt to give it a pronounced v-shirt appearance. Try that! It was a habit of his.

  22. Trowbridge Ford  January 25, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    Oh, my goodness, I forget to mention the rottenest egg of them all – CIA’s Director of Executive Action William KIng Harvey who Helms allowed to set up the whole operation.

    Guess I have to settle for a baker’s dozen when comes to the scum who killed the President.

  23. Trowbridge Ford  January 25, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    I have long held that the Altgens photo shows LHO standing at the entrance of the TSBD when the President was assassinated. What is even more important is that J. Edgar Hoover thought so too when he saw the photo blown up on the front page the the second section of The Washington Post the next day – what led him to tell President Johnson that there was not enough evidence to convict Oswald of being the killer, and required Ruby, the facilitator of the conspiracy on the scene, to kill him.

    Nice to see that Fetzer has finally come around to my position, though he didn’t need this most long-winded article to justify and explain his new position.

    Probably just part of the flame-war he and Cinque are engaged in with the resident disinformers of the subject on The Deep Politics Forum.

    Now, after nearly a half-century, all we have to state and prove is who really conspired to kill JFK – what I claim is my Dirty Dozen – Nixon, Connally, DDP Richard Helms, Hoover, Ruby, NSA Director Gordon Blake, Captain Joe Glenn Hyde, Jr., NRO’s Brigadier Jack Ledford, Al ‘Deep Throat’ Haig who organized Operation Americas, and the three assassins, Chuckie Nicoletti, Richard Cain, and Milwaukee Phil Alderisio.

    It was a resumption of the Cuban Missile Crisis which suited the military’s Operation Northwoods people.

    • Jim Fetzer  January 26, 2012 at 5:17 am

      What Trowbrige does not appreciate is the difference between opinions and proofs. This has been a controversial issue for nearly 50 years since there were opinions on both sides. This is the proof that finally settles the question.

  24. The Rahnameh  January 25, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    BTW Mr. Fetzer, please keep up the good work!

  25. The Rahnameh  January 25, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    I read through about 90% of this and I am positive you are on to something because I have a past life as a graphics designer with some Da Vinci like skills with the Photoshop. My main concern is that the doorway man appears to be pulling something from his pocket. However, if you were to stand in the mirror, you would see an obvious issue: when you put your hand in your pocket, your shoulder is thrust forward from your torso and in any picture taken from an angle where your torso is facing in the perspective of that picture, your shoulder would be broadened and more apparent.

    You point out the shoulder is missing. That, to me, is the key to understanding the threshold issue: this photo has been tampered with. The rest is the icing. What a catch. I would like an infographic to spread of your strongest evidence to update so that I could share it with the friends who “don’t care about politics” :)

    • Angus Alexander McLeod  January 29, 2012 at 12:15 am

      I am the infamous guy who made the “Driver Killed JFK” video years ago, so I shouldn’t even be qualified to post a comment here, but many people know I have done all possible to atone for it’s ever getting out of my hands before the intended investigation was complete. That said, may you have the blessings of Odin himself for the work you’ve done here. I haven’t even read this yet, but I sure as hell look forward to it. Fifteen years ago I had the great fortune of spending an entire afternoon alone in conversation with LHO’s widow. We spoke of many things, but one thing she said has always stayed with me since: “At least in Russia we KNEW it was a police state and acted accordingly. You only THINK you are free here.” As you probably well know, the pressure exerted on this poor young woman back then to further implicate her husband was just immense. I KNOW she will see this and she will be deeply moved. I thank you sincerely for that, gentlemen, and so much more…

    • Jim Fetzer  February 2, 2012 at 8:39 am

      Angus, Don’t feel badly. You were doing your best to expose the truth, while others are doing what they can to suppress it. The question of whether Greer shot JFK is still debated, where, as I see it, the ballistics are wrong. Since Greer was to the left/front of JFK, if he had shot him with a .45–and as a Marine Corps officer, I qualified with a .45 four years straight between 1962 and 1966–it would have blown his brains out to the left/rear, when they were instead blown out to the right/rear (facing the limo) and hit Officer Hargis so hard that he at first thought that he himself had been shot. There is no shame in standing up for what you believe–but it is important to adjust your beliefs in response to new evidence and new hypotheses, which some, especially in the JFK research community, are having a difficult time doing. Thanks for posting. And thanks for being there. Best!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login