JFK Believe it or Not: Oswald Wasn’t Even a Shooter!

by Richard Hooke (with Jim Fetzer)

“The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices – to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to . . . The Twilight Zone.” — Rod Serling, 1960
As we approach the 49th observance of the assassination of JFK, I have been invited to speak at The Roxie Theatre in San Francisco on 22 November 2012 and explain what Oliver Stone got right and got wrong in his monumental film, “JFK”.  Most of the film is right, where Oliver Stone has given us the most accurate, complete and comprehensive presentation of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 that has ever been provided to the American public though the mass media. 

But Oliver Stone had three rather important points wrong, which were that he believed (1) the home movies of the assassination, especially the Zapruder film, were authentic, when they were actually revisions of original films; (2) that there were only three teams of shooters, when there were actually six, surrounding the “kill zone”; and, perhaps most importantly,  (3) he did not know that the alleged assassin was “out with Bill Shelley in front”, as Lee explained to Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation, which means there is direct proof of his innocence beyond the circumstantial.  The third may be the most important, since it demonstrates the utter corruption of the official account of the death of our 35th president.

That the film is a fabrication has been proven on multiple grounds.  Those who study the eyewitness reports will find that more than 60 of them reported observing the limousine either slow dramatically or come to a complete halt, where it had to slow dramatically as it came to a complete halt.  The limo stop was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be removed, which left no time for Clint Hill to rush forward, climb over the trunk, push Jackie down and lie across their bodies, while peering down into the fist-sized hole in the back of JFK’s head, which led him to give a “thumbs down” to his colleagues–all before the limo reached the Triple Underpass! We know from John P. Costella’s brilliant studies of the extant version that it was recreated using original film, but where mistakes were made in the process.  And we know from Douglas Horne where it was done and how the substitution of the fabrication was made for the original.

About these matters there can be no doubt.  But even serious students of the assassination still balk at the suggestion that Lee Oswald was out in front of the Book Depository with Bill Shelly and others, straining to catch a glimpse of JFK and Jackie–just like almost everyone else who worked there.  We know from testimony by co-workers that he was in and around the lunchroom on the 2nd floor at 11:50, Noon, 12:15 and as late as 12:25, where the assassination took place at 12:30.  He was then confronted by a motorcycle patrolman named “Marrion Baker” within 90 seconds of the shooting, where Baker held him in his sights until Roy Truly, his supervisor, came over to assure him that the man was an employee who belonged there.  This should by now be well-known to every serious student of the death of JFK.  Yet some persist in denial that Lee cannot have been a shooter, no matter how strong the evidence.  And the evidence, once it has been noticed, is extraordinarily strong.  Consider this close-up of the crucial area of the most famous photos taken in Dealey Plaza at the time:

Taken by James “Ike” Altgens and technically known as “Altgens6″ as the sixth of a series of seven photographs purportedly taken by him on that occasion,  this close-up shows the man in the doorway at the center left, where his left shoulder is anomalously missing.  The man beside him, wearing a black tie, is simultaneously both in front of him and behind him, which is physically impossible.  His torso and shirt are partially obscured by the extremely strange image of the right profile of a black man’s head. And the face of a man to his left/front (right/front as we view the image) has been crudely obscured.  There would have been no reason to have altered the photograph unless someone had been there who should not have been there, where the only candidate is Lee Oswald.  These oddities are so blatant that, once they have been remarked, it is rather difficult to imagine why anyone would persist in denying that Altgens6 was altered.  But one could still deny that Lee Oswald was in the doorway by insisting it was someone else.  This article demonstrates how one of the most ingenious forgeries in history was pulled off by experts who knew what they were doing.  Read it and weep at the massiveness of the lies our government has told us!

“JFK Special 6: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”


by Richard Hooke (with Jim Fetzer)

Earlier this summer Dr. Ralph Cinque, Professor Fetzer, Professor David Wrone, and I, Richard Hooke, founded the Oswald Innocence Campaign that is a gathering of researchers, and concerned individuals, committed to spreading the truth that Lee Harvey Oswald was the “Man in the Doorway” in the famous photo, by Ike Altgens, which thereby exonerates Oswald of having shot at President Kennedy.   In this case, a picture really is worth a million words, since it trumps the massive media effort to the contrary.  We are taking a stand for what, upon close examination, the photo clearly reveals and cannot be denied by rational thinking people.  The founding of the OIC marks a sea change in JFK research.  A new breed of JFK researcher has emerged.  Nevertheless, there are those on the internet, such S.V. Anderson and other “lone gunman” shills, who comb internet forums and cannot quite figure out why I, and others, of this new breed of conspiracy theorist, are so persistent and will not be silenced.  The moment for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth has come.

The explanation is that enough time has passed that ‘The Power of Officialdom” has long since worn off and we are now sensing the warm rays of truth beginning to break through–and at an ever increasing rate.  We are no longer content to shuffle around the same familiar arguments.  The assassination of JFK happened a long time ago and nearly a world away, yet for many of us, born in the 1940s and 50s, it seems just like yesterday.  We have lived nearly our entire lives being told conflicting and crazy explanations of the of deaths JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald and we are tired of it.  We are not going to be content passing our lives without knowing what really happened to our President and to the enigmatic Lee Harvey Oswald on that fateful November day.  We realize that if we can get more Americans to face what really happened, no matter how painful that may be, we will be leaving the world a better place for our children.  In the course of human events, it was inevitable that the argument would swing back toward truth.  Our very existence demands it, and “the vector of truth”, as it might be called, is now pointing at the “Man in the Doorway” in the Altgens6.

The light has finally dawned that the question of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was the man in the Texas School Book Depository doorway can be answered. At 12:30 PM, on 22 November 1963, the famous Altgens6 photo by Dallas Associated Press photographer James “Ike” Altgens, shows JFK as the Presidential limousine passes the TSBD, with his arms crossed and hands near his throat, as he reacts to being shot by a bullet that passed through the windshield.  You can see the bullet hole itself, which is the dark spot at the center of a while, spiral nebula, where his left ear would be were it visible.  Altgens ran east to west, across the grass, toward the south curb of Elm, stopped across from the Plaza’s north colonnade, and snapped his photo approximately 295 feet south of the depository’s doorway with his 35mm Nikkorex-F single-lens-reflex camera, with 105mm telephoto lens.  The Altgens6 has been assumed to corresponds to frame 255 of the Zapruder film, where the film, like the photo, has been revised.  Altgens’ picture was allegedly “on the wire” within minutes (12:57 PM) of the assassination and forwarded to the AP in New York. It was among the first assassination photos widely printed in newspapers across the nation.  The negative remained at the Dallas AP office but was subsequently “lost”, one of many reasons that controversy has dogged the Altgens6 photo from the beginning.

The Secret Service would later substitute another windshield with a spider-web-like configuration for the original, which had a dark hole in the center of the white, spiral nebula, in another blatant example of the alteration of evidence.

Points of Comparison

The official line, for nearly 50 years, has been that another TSBD employee, Billy Lovelady, was the real man in the doorway.  Not the least of the problems with that story is that, on 2 March 1964, Billy Lovelady told the FBI that he had been wearing a red and white, vertically striped, short sleeved shirt buttoned near his neck–and the FBI took photographs of Billy wearing it.  Lee Oswald, by comparison, had on a long sleeve, brown tweed over shirt, which was unbuttoned more than halfway down his torso. Beneath it, he was wearing a white under shirt (or “t-shirt”) with collar stretched into a V.  His clothing, his stance and posture, his right ear, his left eye and brow, his mouth, expression, chin, and facial bone structure, points of light and shadow, and hair are the same as those features of Doorman (as this article explains).  There are multiple unique and identifiable features of Doorman and Oswald’s shirt, collar and lapels, alone.  First consider his left lapel and then consider the right, as follows:

George H.W. Bush once spoke of “a thousand points of light”.  But in this case we can settle for 27 points of similarity between Doorman and Oswald.  If you were to assume that two different people, taken at random, might share one of these features in common at one time in ten–which is probably an exaggeration, but useful for calculation–then the probability that they would share 27 features in common would be equal to 1/10 times itself 27 times, which is a one over a one followed by twenty seven zeros or 1/1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, which we would all agree is a very small number.  If these similarities are not assumed to be occurring merely by chance because Doorman and Oswald were the same person, however, then the probability that they would have 27 features in common approximates the value of one.  Since an hypothesis is preferable when its probability (technically, its likelihood) is greater than an alternative, unless one is a value that is smaller than 1/1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, the Oswald = Doorman hypothesis has been confirmed:

It wasn’t Billy Lovelady

Critics have noticed that Billy Lovelady was pictured in the Warren Commission documents in the short sleeve, red and white, striped shirt that he had told the FBI he had worn on 22 November 1963.  Obviously, if that had been the shirt that he had been wearing, then if the choice was between Lovelady and Oswald, Doorman had to be Oswald.  So, in 1967, Lovelady changed his story.  He claimed that it was all a misunderstanding and that he had actually not posed for the FBI in the shirt that he had actually worn, despite it having been unbuttoned and folded over in order to expose his undershirt, in an obvious attempt to simulate Altgens6 Doorman. Here are the photos that were taken by the FBI, where they described the shirt in their own report back to FBI Headquarters:

In 1967, Billy and his wife, Mrs. Lovelady, began claiming that he had worn a red, black, and white long sleeve checked shirt.  Well, anyone can see the second shirt Lovelady claimed to have worn did not a match Doorman either and that it is very difficult to imaging that Doorman’s shirt to have been a red-and-black check (with a white fleck) shirt with a very delineated horizontal and vertical pattern.  Their contention was reinforced by the claim that Billy had inadvertently been captured in footage taken as Oswald was escorted through the offices of the Dallas Police Department and that he had likewise been filmed in front of the depository, where Professor Fetzer also believes that features of the image on the left were slightly altered to make him look more like Oswald, which is not far-fetched (see below):

Approaching the HSCA investigation of 1977-78, film clips began to surface providing additional evidence Lovelady was wearing a long sleeve red-and-black check (with a white fleck) shirt on the day of the assassination.  Images of Lovelady appear to have been superimposed into the Martin, Hughs, Dallas PD and Dave Wiegman films to provide bogus, after-the-fact, evidence that Billy Lovelady had been in the TSBD doorway wearing a long sleeve, red-black-and-white check shirt.  A frame of the Martin film shows a phony Lovelady (in this bogus check shirt) in the doorway with his shirt buttoned clear up to his neck, yet a frame of the Hugh’s film (supposedly depicting Lovelady at the same moment in time) shows Lovelady with his shirt sprawled wide–clearly a blunder in attempting to imitate the man in the doorway.  The difference are virtually those of a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde, where Jekyll looked normal but Hyde looked like a gorilla:

More Proof it wasn’t Billy

Photos of Billy Lovelady were never provided for the public and no one on the Warren Commission ever saw Lovelady.  The only authentic photo of Billy we have from the approximate time of the assassination was taken by attorney Mark Lane in the 1964-65, which was included in Forgive My Grief (1966), by Penn Jones Jr.  It is included here and, as you can see, Lovelady was far too bald to be Doorman, and his cranium and facial bone structure do not look like Doorman’s:

Even the ears of Doorman can be compared with those of Oswald and of Lovelady, where again the features (indistinct as they may be) favor Oswald and undermine Lovelady.  But those who were working with the photo took measures to create ambiguity about the face of the man in the doorway, where it was Ralph Cinque’s astute observation that the clothing was the decisive indicator of the identity of Doorman, not the face itself, that cracked the case wide open, but which, upon closer, minute inspection, the other comparable features of their faces provides extraordinary additional proof.

Rearranging Doorman’s Face

Careful scrutiny and extensive study of the Altgens6 reveals that it was tampered with, where features of Lee Oswald’s face were changed to resemble Billy Lovelady.  The photograph proceeded through a series of stages until it was judged to be “good enough” to fool the public, which would remain the case until 2012, when a series of studies were published here at Veterans Today that lay out the case for alteration and obfuscation:  “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, “JFK Special 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, “JFK Special 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, “JFK Special 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, and “JFK Special 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”  The case for Oswald as Doorman, which we are summarizing here, is simply overwhelming.

They were not completely successful, however, because a careful comparison of the left eyes of Oswald and of Lovelady demonstrates that the features of Doorman’s left are the same as those of Oswald’s left eye but differ from those of Lovelady.  It becomes a question of how much proof is required to concede the point that the man in the doorway was Lee and not Billy, where we are increasingly concerned about the sincerity of those who continue to deny their identity, when it has been established by multiple, convergent lines of proof.

“Out with Billy Shelley in front”

It was astonishing to Professor Fetzer to learn–only last year, 2011–that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the DPD Homicide Detective who had questioned Lee Oswald, which the ARRB had been released back in 2007. Those notes reported that Oswald had told Detective Fritz that he had been “out with Bill Shelley in front” during the assassination. Some of our critics, however, have claimed Lee was not talking about his location during the shooting but some time thereafter.  That makes no sense at all, however, since we know he was observed in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM, the latter occasions by Carolyn Arnold, the executive secretary to the Vice President of the TSBD.

So, Oswald could not have been referring to being outside with Bill Shelly before the shooting. Within 90 seconds following the assassination, he was accosted in the lunchroom by Roy Truly and Motorcycle Officer Marion Baker.  Oswald could not have meant he was “out with Bill Shelly in front” after the shooting, because Bill Shelly had left immediately with Billy Lovelady and  walked down to the railroad tracks to look around.  When they (Lovelady and Shelly) returned, they re-entered the building through the backdoor of the TSBD and gone to the base of the back stairwell (in the northwest corner (rear) of the building).  So, Bill Shelly was definitely not out in front when Oswald was leaving leaving the building. What could make more sense than that, when his co-workers were outside watching the motorcade of the two most famous people in the word, that Lee would not have joined them?

It would have been unbelievably remiss of Detective Fritz, moreover, not to have asked Lee Oswald where he was at the time of the shooting–that is the most pertinent question Will Fritz would have needed to ask.  That led me (Jim Fetzer) to revisit the Doorman question, even though it had long been written off, not only by “lone-nutters” but by most conspiracy theorists.  And that led to discussions with Dr. Ralph Cinque about the remarkable match in the clothing of Oswald and Doorman.  The uniqueness of Oswald’s clothing had never been seriously addressed before.  When you compare the clothing of Lee Oswald and Doorman in detail, however, you realize it has to be the same clothing, which means it had to be the same man.  The chance that Billy Lovelady just happened to dress himself exactly the same way as Lee Oswald that particular day, after all, is preposterous and has to have a probability of approximately zero.  Here is some of Ralph’s reasoning from an earlier presentation that already has most of it right:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Visible Proof that Oswald was Innocent

More on rearranging Altgens6

We know the acquisition of new evidence or of novel hypotheses can make a difference to the likelihood of even the best supported alternatives.  But as more and more genuine evidence is acquired–even in the course of proving fakery–when an hypothesis is true, then the strength of its support should increase and be borne out by additional studies. That is the primary reason why every serious scientist should support further research.  It is like using a telescope to confirm findings that were originally made with the naked eye–which could be further explored using a radio telescope.  If those original findings were correct, then they will be confirmed, which remains the case no matter how controversial the subject: where it might involve determining the parentage of a child by means of DNA, confirming the precision of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity by means of atomic clocks, or re-investigating the guilt of a felon on death row for murder.  No matter how controversial the question or how surprising the results, the truth deserves to be pursued, nonetheless.  And, in this case, we have ascertained that the transformation of Altgens6 to neutralize it as proof of Oswald’s innocence involved several steps or stages of these unexpected kinds:

Billy was in the doorway, but in the background, where his presence could be easily obscured.  The crucial consideration was to obfuscate the short-sleeved, red and white vertically stripped shirt he was wearing, where they could simply black out his face and his cap.  Since they were obliterating the face of the man immediately in front of him and to his right (whom we now believe to have been Bill Shelley), while leaving his arms raised to protect his view from the Sun, darkening his image was a piece of cake.  But they had to obfuscate that distinctive left lapel on Doorman’s over shirt, which they did by moving most of the image of Fedora Man (whom we now believe to have been Jack Ruby) to conceal it, hoping that no one would notice that, in the process, they had obliterated Doorman’s left shoulder:

Publishing the Altered Altgens

Once the photo had been edited, it was a simple matter to put it out via the AP, where Roy Schaeffer was at work at a Dayton newspaper and took it off the AP wire on Saturday, 23 November 1963. Here is a scan of my (Richard Hooke) own personal copy of the Oakland Tribune ‘EXTRA’ edition, which was printed the evening of 22 November 1963 and, assuming it is authentic and not a substitution to create a false record of its first publication, appears to have been the initial release of the Altgens6. Notice that President Kennedy’s head has been altered, apparently to accent its location.  The black hole at the center of the white, spiral nebula has been obscured.  Black Tie Man has been moved, Doorman’s left shoulder is missing, the black man’s profile has been added, Shelley’s face has been obscured and Billy is opaque–all features we find in later and better versions of the photograph.

The caption, of course, is not correct, since it asserts that he is grasping his chest, when he is reaching for his throat, and this was only the second hit and not the fatal shot.  But the key points we have made should have been apparent from the beginning.  The photo has been altered; his left shoulder is missing; a face has been obfuscated; another has been introduced.  How much proof do we need to conclude that Altgens6 was reworked–just as the autopsy X-rays, the autopsy photographs, the backyard photos and the Zapruder film were revised?  They were going to do whatever they had to do to conceal the true causes of the death of our 35th president, which, as Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB (2009), would reveal, even went to the extent to taking a cranial saw to the skull of JFK and enlarging it to make it look more like the effect of a shot from above and behind.  Altering the Altgens6 would have been an obvious thing to do–as obvious as Lee Oswald stepping out to watch the most famous couple in the world.

Why, after all, would Lee have said that he was “out front with Bill Shelley” if it were not true?  What convinced me (Jim Fetzer) that he had to have been there, however, is that surely they would only have altered the Altgens6, committing photographic fraud, because someone had been there who should not have been, where the only candidate for that role is the man they were planning to frame for the murder of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, the designated “patsy”.  Otherwise, the probability of altering the photo in the doorway area would have been zero.  It would not do to have “the lone assassin” in a photo watching JFK pass by in the motorcade, which was taken at the same time the president was being shot, since Oswald, like the rest of us, could not have been in two places at the same time. That does not mean everyone is therefore going to accept the fact that Altgens6 has been altered, but it creates the presumption that those who persist in their denial are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.

NOTE: Those who want to pursue these issues further and support research on JFK should visit The Oswald Innocence Campaign.

Richard M. Hooke, a student of anthropology at UC Santa Barbara and former computer systems analyst for Bank of America, is also a writer and researcher regarding the death of President John F. Kennedy.

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. Notices

Posted by on November 14, 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

74 Responses to "JFK Believe it or Not: Oswald Wasn’t Even a Shooter!"

  1. anonyq  November 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    The fact that Oswald wasn’t a shooter is old news to those of us who have extensively studied the case. However, doorman obviously looks like Lovelady and obviously does not look like Oswald. Following false, easily debunked theories like this does a disservice to Lee Oswald and provides ammunition for the lone nutters.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 24, 2012 at 3:10 pm

      This is stupid beyond belief. What we had in the past was indirect or circumstantial evidence. Now we have direct proof. No one who had actually studied the evidence we have presented would make ignorant and uninformed remarks like these. OF COURSE they tried to make the man in the doorway LOOK LIKE LOVELADY. But we have demonstrated — on the basis of the clothing they were were wearing, their body types, the right ear, the left eye, the shape of the skull and the hairline — that Doorman WAS Oswald.

      If these findings were “easily debunked”, then this guy would have debunked them. But he has asserted we are wrong without a shred of proof. He hasn’t even touched the missing shoulder, the obscured man, the figure both in front of and behind Doorman, and the profile of the black man. I am rather embarrassed to even post this, but we all have to face up to the fact that there are many ops out there and that, if he is not among them, it can only be because he is weak-minded. This post is so dumb I have to infer he is the latter.

    • socratez  November 25, 2012 at 9:29 am

      More proof that Doorman = Oswald

  2. Steve  November 19, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Thanks to Jim also for sticking with it and calling on Richard to reply in detail.

  3. Steve  November 18, 2012 at 7:53 am


    Thanks for the reply Richard. Although I don’t agree with everything you state, certain things you noted have begun to win me over to at least the strong possibility of some alteration, if not everything you claim. I think perhaps one main problem is that between you you have made so many claims as to particular changes that whilst it may strengthen the case from a theoretical statistical or longtime forensically-oriented specialist pov it strains credulity from a skeptical layman’s pov. Perhaps in your final summary you should distinguish clearly and concisely between what you regard as rock solid and what is more tentative. Also you should give an outline of how the thing could have been pulled off logistically, ie how much time was available from taking possession to distribution, as the more alterations claimed the harder it seems to squeeze in, presumably a specialist team would have been small so as to preserve confidentiality.

    I still think I am right about Obscured Man, the blur looks exactly like his raised arm with billowing/crumpled shirt sleeve stretched by his projecting elbow, and magnified one can clearly make out the head features I described as well as part of his shielding hand above the eyes, and glasses. Your decription of Black Hole Man’s head is about right, it looks a strange lolling monstrosity. I think Doorman’s receding shoulder is visible (or inferrable), as described, but there are definitely odd things in his face that imply the possibility of tampering. The black line cuts into the ‘motion blur-like’ portion of his face, not the solid part, but it’s very odd nevertheless, and maybe one of the clearest giveaways, with the blur itself, and odd lines on Doorman’s face. Black Tie Man’s face is also very oddly blurred and indistinct all over. Black Profile Man’s head I don’t find so impossible, as I said he is looking in a similar direction to some others and COULD be sitting/squatting, maybe examine the line it makes with the pillar? Fedora man is a mystery, though the little bit of his exposed forehead looks dark-skinned, but the kid’s cap looks unusually sharp edged in front.

    I think maybe you are on the right track, but have gotten a little carried away with piling on too many features as all proven, when it’s more that some stand out, others are vaguer and uncertain, but overall I now agree, it looks like something was done to parts at least. Also the overall presentation is a bit too long-winded and complicated for the average reader I think, a neat final summary would help. It would certainly be a queer scenario, if Oswald WAS there and they chose to fiddle the photo sloppily instead of just retaining or destroying it, but maybe the idea was to visually ‘PROVE’ Oswald was NOT there, in case he claimed it before being bumped off (as he did in fact) and therefore feasibly up top instead.

    Anyway I don’t think you’re worse off for the critique, the more it stands up to the stronger it will be. I will leave it to you guys henceforth, I’m interested but not committed to the case and certainly don’t have the time in any event.

    • socratez  November 19, 2012 at 1:00 am


      Thank you for your civil and intelligent reply. Once again, I am saying the fact that Oswald was Doorman has been proven. There are too many matching points and structures between Doorman and numerous photos of Oswald, later that day at the PD, for this not to be true; or have occurred at random; or to be a random occurrence of photo irresolution; for the like structures to match up in this way is far beyond attribution to chance. Actually, the astute reader can look through my article and see there are far more matching points between Oswald and Doorman than 27; if all of my collages are taken into account.

      This is a preponderance of direct evidence; what we can clearly see with our own eyes; not dependent upon the indirect evidence of alteration and tampering, which is secondary, yet most certainly occurred. Someday it will be proven by super-computer, but for now, in layman’s terms, if we are very conservative and accept only 14 of 27 of our matching points, between Doorman and Oswald, and are also extremely optimistic and employ the exaggerated rate of 1 in 10 for matching occurrences, that still leaves us the probability of them having been a match as rare as 1/ 100,000,000,000,000, or 1 in a 100 trillion; approximately 14,286 times the current human population of planet earth (ca. 7 billion). Now, if we add in the variable that there were only a few white, male employees, in the TSBD, of similar body type, probably none with exactly the same clothing, and they just happened to arrive in the TSBD doorway, of all places, at the same moment in space and time, well, you can see that our hypothesis that Oswald = Doorman is certainly proven.

      I do not agree with your observations of Obfuscated Man. As I said before, I have examined him for the past year, and again, this morning, I printed out a 10” X 12” hardcopy, got out my high powered magnifying glass, and magnified Altgens6; in a parallel window, on my computer screen to 500% magnification. What I observed is that if you claim Obfuscated Man’s right arm is up shielding his eyes then his elbow is about 3 times too wide (a mass of cone shaped white out); and also his right arm is concurrently across his stomach. How could his right arm be in two places at the same time? The shapes by the front of his upper face; that I believe you are claiming are his eye glasses are by no means obviously glasses; they could also very easily be part of the shrunken head dangling down Black Hole Man’s upper chest.

      Thank you for acknowledging the cutting across Doorman’s nose, the sloppy touch-up and black line that connects, and extends from Doorman’s head into Black Tie Man; that is extremely odd; to say the least, and also the strange construct of Black Tie Man’s face.

      Dr. Ralph Cinque has taken some re-enactment photos of Altgens6, in Dealey Plaza, the past two weekends, and I think he may very well clear up the mystery of Black Profile Guy; as to whether he was real or not, and also many other of the aforementioned issues.

      As for Fedora Man, I disagree, the portion of exposed skin (under the front brim of his hat) appears to be lighter; in my judgment, that of a white man.

      Steve, I am glad you are finally tending to agree there were alterations and tampering done to Altgens6. I would say there are far too many strange issues for that not to be the case. As to why this was all done in such a sloppy manner, I really cannot say other than the conspirators were in a tremendous hurry and under pressure to release some photos to the world. It appears they made the mistake of not blacking out Doorman all together; which I am sure, in hindsight, the conspirators would agree was a huge mistake because Oswald was left in there to be discovered years later by the wonders of 21st century computer technology.

      I agree that critique does lead to stronger conclusions; that is how I developed a lot of this arguing my case on the internet forums; until I got to be too much for them and they banned me; rather than face the evidence that was constantly proving, more and more, Dr. Cinque, Professor Fetzer, and my hypothesis that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the TSBD doorway on November 22, 1963, at 12:30 pm, after all.

      Richard Hooke
      JFK Researcher

    • Steve  November 19, 2012 at 3:15 am


      Regarding Doorman I would say you have got a case, though one can differ on certain points, and ‘proven’ is a term open to interpretation also, especially when it is cast in terms of statistical estimates of probability. Certainly there appears to have been tampering, and that alone is highly significant, and leads naturally to the conclusion that it was actually Oswald, along with the other supporting points, such as Lovelady’s inconsistencies. So I would say, sufficiently proven by logically consistent evidenced inferral, rather than clear-cut id (not quite possible with such a mangled and poor quality shot in my opinion).

      As far as Obfuscated Man goes I should clarify as I mixed up the directions in my original description, I claim his right arm is raised, and left arm folded across his front. To me it looks exactly as I have described, his right arm is bent with the elbow pointing at the viewer, and his shirt sleeve is consequently wider around that point, the color contrast above and below is consistent, as are apparent crumple/folds at the edges, and the tapering towards the cuff at top, projecting from which appears to be his hand shileding his forehead. Below that I discern his right front half profile looking in a similar direction if not quite so extreme to Black Profile Man. I can make out a chin, mouth/lips, nose (not enough for an id though) and apparent spec lens/frame above, admittedly blurring into Black Hole Man’s frankenstein head. But It seems borne out by the visible part of his right spec temple emerging from behind his raised arm and disappearing behind his ear. In WIndows Viewer it looks quite clear, Paint seems to pixellate it somewhat more making it less clear. And overall proportions and angles seem consistent also to me. I inferred a ‘pot’ belly from the seeming bulge under his folded left arm, but it could be largely a result of his leaning back at a steep angle.
      If you disagree then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree!

      And as far as Fedora Man goes,I would say, part looks light, reflecting glare, part much darker, however the shading seems to be similar to the black lady centre front, though it’s not necessarily natural.

      Overall I agree though the shot definitely looks funny and tampered with, which is the main thing. Not blacking out Doorman was probably because it would have left too big a hole, inconsistent with (broad) testimony, and drawn even more attention to Black Tie Man et al. No one was presumably too worried about 50 years down the track then, as is usual, 5 is about the limit for such types.

      It adds to the by now indubitable conclusion that Oswald was indeed framed, exactly by who is another question, though the range of suspects are generally clear. Maybe one day he will end up a posthumously decorated hero, not for some time yet though I imagine.

    • socratez  November 19, 2012 at 9:02 am


      Your comments are appreciated. This is how the development is done, with give and take interchange.

      Concerning Obfuscated Man, if that is only his left arm extending across his stomach, why is the extremity of it so much wider (where his left wrist should be)? I am saying that has to be the fatty tissue of his upper right arm folded over into his left. I seriously doubt anyone would be leaning back like that with only one arm across their stomach; it is very unnatural. Concerning what you say is his right arm, up shielding his eyes, his right shoulder does not taper smoothly, or correctly, into what you ar saying would be his right forearm; and as I said, the forearm up there is too wide; there is too much white out (indicating alteration).

      One thing, Steve, is when you view Altgens6 the way it looked in the newspapers it just looks like there was no man there at all; and we maybe looking at a crude whiting out (under high magnification) that was sufficient under regular resolution to obfuscate the figure.

      Getting back to Obfuscated Man’s face…and, by the way, I have also been viewing all of this in Windows viewer (as you suggested I do) from the beginning…what you are saying are his nose and eye glasses are an ‘iffy’ proposition to say the least…

      Well, anyway, I have enjoyed talking about these things with you because, after 49 years, we are finally homing in closer to the truth. You say it’s now conclusive Oswald was framed and I agree and I don’t there is any question who was behind it. It could only be an inside job of our government agencies (CIA, FBI, conspiratorial politicians and businessmen); the commonly known suspected characters, because only they could have controlled all the forces, the detailed framing of the patsy, the alteration of medical evidence, and the massive 49 year cover-up that is still being perpetuated by the media today.

      I don’t know if I would go as far as making Oswald a hero, just yet, although I think he was a good man, a good spy for U.S. Intelligence; who carried out his assignments. There is a good chance he called in a warning that caused the parade in Chicago to be cancelled, in early November, and saved Kennedy’s life for an additional few weeks; yet ended up dying himself because of that. It is also said a memo was sent from someone warning of the impending assassination to all FBI offices, which were subsequently ordered destroyed by J.Edgar Hoover. So, Oswald may have been somewhat of an unsung hero, but, in the very least I think he was a good man who got up the morning of 11/22/63, left his money in his dresser drawer for his wife and kids, went to work and did his job, for fear of the safety of his family and friends, without complaint; accepted his God awful fate like a man. I wonder how many of the rest of us could have done the same?

      Richard Hooke

    • Steve  November 19, 2012 at 9:27 am


      Our replies crossed. Regarding Obfuscated Man’s folded left arm, to me it looks as though his blurred thumb is projecting out upwards at 45 degrees which seems to widen the hand, plus there is shadow and blurring around the edge of the whole which has a similar effect, but at the wrist it’s in perfect proportion with the sleeve. The whole dark area is his hand and wrist which then merges with the white of his sleeve-clad forearm projecting out to the right (from our perspective). At least that’s how I read it. As I think you said before he could be leaning back on the rail for support, one arm raised, the other folded in front, why exactly is unknowable, although perhaps it was just a habit he had. Or maybe just the whole right arm is a clever overlay for the purpose of obfuscation, but if so I think it was actually done quite well, because to me it looks pretty natural and believable, more than some other things in the shot.

      More broadly, the evidence points to elements of the suspects you say, amongst others, but not the whole groups in each case I should think (which is presumably what you meant), the rest either don’t know or stay silent for various reasons. But Oswald would be deserving of a certain hero status if by his ‘martyrdom’ he actually ends up revealing the plot beyond reasonable doubt as is now transpiring. He was moving amongst some pretty nasty people for an apparently honorable purpose, and left enough clues (deliberately and inadvertently) to unravel the frame up it would seem. One day, he may get a statue if not medal, late as it would be. But I imagine it may not be for a century or so yet.

    • Steve  November 19, 2012 at 11:21 am

      A last point as it’s the other thing that struck me. The picture does not seem consistent in terms of focus clarity at respective depths of field, and seems to have somewhat of a photomontage effect in parts, the child’s head/cap in front of Fedora Man seems to stand out in this regard, though it could be an odd effect of the material or color, but it looks more sharply defined than the women in front are. Definitely odd.

      Anyway that’s my contribution to the discussion in terms of points, there’s nothing else I have seen that has not been covered already I think.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 19, 2012 at 11:27 am

      Thanks, Steve. Even Robin Unger concedes that the doorway area was the only one with different properties from the rest of the photo.

    • Steve  November 20, 2012 at 11:52 am

      Thanks again to Richard also, for taking the time to reply at length, it helped.

      I’ll add another thing that stands out, that Black Profile Man’s head shows no supporting neck as it should, sticking out so far, underneath his chin it seems to be all Doorman’s shirt right in to the door pillar, and also there is a strange dark blotch to the right (looking at the pic) of his mid face which covers a good part of Doorman’s lower left shirt front oddly, though with a fairly clearly defined border to it, another sign that something is not right, amongst many.

    • Steve  November 19, 2012 at 9:06 am

      I will amend partly on Obfuscated Man. On reflection you are partly right, what appears like the nose and spec lens could also be part of the frankenstein head, they do appear to merge queerly, like one is transparently laid over the other perhaps. But the chin and lips/mouth are clearer, and all together when focussed on appear to make up a front half-profile as described, to me at least, though with some odd blurring/shading at the edge, up to the point of the frankenstein head’s chin. But also the specs are clearly supported by the (black) right temple section going behind the right ear noted, this indicates strongly that glasses are present though largely obscured by what to me looks clearly like the raised and bent right arm, to me the clearest thing at issue about that figure. It’s not critical to the argument, but of interest nevertheless.

    • socratez  November 19, 2012 at 9:19 am


      Right on brother.

      And now my thoughts can’t help but drift back to President Kennedy.. and how different the world would be if the Viet Nam War never happenned…I truely believe the first shots of the war were shot that day in Dealey Plaza (11/22/63)…all the killing…we are entering a very sacred week and, I for one, will be doing a lot of reflection…

      “So, let us not be blind to our differences – but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.”

      American University, June 10, 1963

    • Steve  November 19, 2012 at 9:39 am


      I would agree, JFK had the makings of perhaps the best President of the postwar period, despite his peccadilloes, and certainly he would not have let Vietnam go the way it did, which did so much to wreck ‘The American Dream’. And Johnson was a disaster, that led to another one (Nixon). What hope the US (and world) had for a saner future was shot down that day, and we are now clinging by a thread to survival as a species considerably on account of it.

      Here’s one of my favourite JFK quotes –

      “Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don’t think is in the best interest of the country. I will never compromise the principles on which this country is built, but we’re not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I’m going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maiming and killing of children like our children we saw here this evening? Do you think I’m going to cause a nuclear exchange – for what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn’t think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he’s crazy.”

      – President Kennedy, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, speaking to Assistant Navy Secretary Paul Fay, The Pleasure of His Company

      The words of a man who had experienced the evil of war, and learnt the right lessons from it.

  4. Steve  November 18, 2012 at 3:48 am

    I replied but again it’s gone missing, maybe it will show up later?

    • Jim Fetzer  November 18, 2012 at 6:27 am

      I haven’t seen it. Post it again. I will ask Richard if he has magnified Obfuscated Man and can comment on your specific claims about what you see when you blow it up, about which I remain skeptical. I have asked you to send me a copy (a screen shot or capture using Preview) so I can see what you are alleging. Why haven’t you done that?

    • Steve  November 18, 2012 at 7:50 am

      I’ve tried about half a dozen times so far. My position has changed somewhat in your favor, though I stick to my claims about Obfuscated Man. I’m not familiar with the methods you describe but I will see what I can do, give me a few days though as I am not familiar with the means and am short for time. Though if you can access something like Windows Picture Viewer you could get a look yourself, though without specific highlights.

    • socratez  November 18, 2012 at 12:44 pm

      To make sure we leave no stone unturned, the relentless Professor Fetzer has requested I take another look at Obfuscated Man. Now, I am going to be truthful here, so it may not fit everyones preconceived notions…

      Right now, I have a large 10″ by 12″ blow-up of Altgens6 in front of me, a high-powered magnifying glass, and I have it also blown up in a parallel window in Windows Paint magnified 500%. I see a man in a white shirt and tie, with dark pants, leaning back; possibly against the center railing. His shirt loosly meets his pants, by the front of his waist, but it is by no means apparent that he has a pot belly. He appears to have his arms folded across his stomach in front; with the skin of his forearms exposed; possibly with his shirt sleeves partially rolled up. There are 3 possibilities for his head: it may be facing forward(because it looks like a chin going forward), it may also be facing me(the viewer; in the direction Oswald is looking) also on it’s upper left where it appears like a curving right eyebrow; and flat top Frankenstein head, and there also is another shrunken type head on its upper right; dangling from the upper chest of the headless Black Hole Man. In any case, the bottom half of Obfuscated Man’s head has been rendered unidentifiable (is white out) by an odd white cone type shape over the lower front half of his head. I would not eliminate the possibility there could be two people sandwiched in here; in front of Black Hole Man, but certainly nothing is obvious…Believe me, nothing is obvious with this mess of a man because I have been examining him for a whole year.

      I would add that it could possibly be Bill Shelley because he had on a white long sleeve shirt, with a narrow tie, and dark pants on 11/22/63; but it is not a case of being 100% certain by any means.


    • Steve  November 19, 2012 at 3:27 am

      Answered below, but I will just add, that at first I also thought the ‘cone’ was odd and crude, until I looked closely at it magnified and it clicked. And it makes more sense, as I don’t think they would have dared to mutilate the picture so crudely as to be blatantly obvious, nor was it likely needed with that figure who seems to me to be naturally in the pose I have described, the real tampering lies elsewhere in my opinion, and bringing it to light is the real advance.

  5. Worker Bee  November 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    “George H.W. Bush once spoke of “a thousand points of light”.”

    I would like to see more investigation into proving Bush was at Dealey Plaza at the time, and what his actual role was.

  6. samd471  November 17, 2012 at 7:39 am

    JFK issued Executive Order 11111 to issue US notes and to begin to end the strangle hold of the Federal Reserve. Forbad Israel in obtaining nukes. Was to begin the withdrawal from Vietnam. Intended the break up of the CIA. Jack Ruby(Rubenstein). Two searches-Dorothy Kilgallen/Ruby and Mossad/JFK assassination

    • socratez  November 17, 2012 at 11:43 am


      Normally I would not do this but, at the request of Professor Fetzer, I have prepared this special response just for you. The following is my view on the issues you have addressed and will remain so until you produce evidence, such as graphics and convincing arguments to persuade me any of your positions are truer than mine; where, in my view, at this point, that does not appear to be the case.

      The fact that Oswald was Doorman has been proven. There are too many matching points and structures between Doorman and numerous photos of Oswald, later that day at the PD, for this not to be true. This is direct evidence. Someday it will be proven by super-computer, but for now, in layman’s terms, if we are very conservative and accept only 14 of 27 of our matching points, between Doorman and Oswald, and are also extremely optimistic and employ the exaggerated rate of 1 in 10 for matching occurrences, that still leaves us the probability of them having been a match as rare as 1/ 100,000,000,000,000, or 1 in a 100 trillion; approximately 14,286 times the current human population of planet earth (ca. 7 billion). Now, if we add in the variable that there were only a few white, male employees, in the TSBD, of similar body type, probably none with exactly the same clothing, and they just happened to arrive in the TSBD doorway, of all places, at the same moment in space and time, well, you can see that our hypothesis that Oswald = Doorman is certainly proven.

      That said, there is also a preponderance of indirect evidence. Steve, you seem to have some question as to whether Altgens6 was altered. I am certain it was and I will tell you why (and please bear with me because, as you can see by my article, I am both a right and left brained guy; so doing this without pictures or graphics cramps my style, to say the least).

      As you can see in the article, my personal copy of the Oakland Tribune ‘EXTRA’ edition printed the evening of November 22, 1963; the initial release of the Altgens6 photo. Clearly President Kennedy’s head had been altered for the viewing public. If there was time to do that, there was time, that very afternoon, for other alterations, in and around the TSBD doorway, to have been done to Altgens6.

      Altgens6 contains many blatant alterations, and obfuscations; so many, in fact, that the probability the photo was altered, to obscure the fact that Lee Oswald was in the doorway, is inordinately high, and undeniably indirect evidence of Oswald’s presence in the doorway.

      First, and foremost, Doorman has clearly been altered. There is a crescent cut across the middle of his nose bridge, sloppy touch-up work to the left of his face (bordering Black Tie Man), the top of his left shoulder (deltoid) appears to have been sliced off; by the oddly positioned Black Tie Man, and Black Profile Guy appears to be in Doorman’s lap; between Doorman’s left cuff and over-shirt; possibly obscuring something behind. Also, Doorman’s hairline appears to have been altered to accentuate a widows peak.

      In addition to Doorman, and Black Profile Guy, there are 3 other male figures in the TSBD doorway that appear to have been altered, and one other, close by, that appears obfuscated.

      The upper torso of Black Hole Man, who is standing in the right rear with his hands over his head, has been whited out to obscure the pattern of his short sleeve shirt. Black Hole Man’s head is also entirely in the dark (cannot be seen at all) and there seems to be an odd, unrecognizable, shrunken head, dangling from his upper chest. In the lower right center, Obfuscated Man is leaning back; possibly against the center rail, and his head has been whited out (rendered unidentifiable) by an odd white cone over the lower half of his face. Black Tie Man appears way too close to Doorman; like he is over the top of Doorman’s left shoulder, and it is difficult to tell if he is in front, or behind, Doorman. Also, there is an odd black line (cut?) extending, from Doorman’s left cheek, across the middle of Black Tie Man’s face; above, this black demarcation line, Black Tie Man’s face is completely in the dark, below the line, his nose, mouth, and chin are in the light; but completely unidentifiable. There is a strange mark on Black Tie Man’s mouth; like it was drawn. And then there is Fedora Man, to the left of the photo, whose face is conveniently (completely) covered by Smiling Woman with Child; dressed for the winter, on a warm day. The child appears to be standing on some sort of metal bar.

      Buell Wesley Frazier, the one TSBD employee (other than Lovelady himself) who identified Doorman as having been Lovelady (to the Warren Commission 6 months after the fact), said he (Frazier) was at the top center (in the dark area) and could not be seen in the Altgens6 photo. If Frazier was in the dark, that leaves 4 men, in the Altgens6 photo, THAT WERE NEVER MATCHED UP WITH ACTUAL PEOPLE (Black Hole Man, Obfuscated Man, Black Tie Man, Fedora Man). The fact that we are supposed to believe the U.S. Government investigation could not connect these 4 unidentified men to real people is beyond belief and undeniable proof of fraud.

      As a matter of fact, the Altgens6 photo was only shown to two witnesses: Lovelady and Frazier. And in both cases they were only asked which figure was Lovelady, and not a word about the other strange, unidentified, characters in the photo.

      Why, after all, would Lee Oswald have said that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” if it were not true? What convinced me that he had to have been there, however, is that surely they would only have altered the Altgens6, committed photographic fraud, because someone had been there who should not have been; where the only candidate for that role is the man they were planning to frame, as the patsy, for the murder of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Otherwise, the probability of altering the photo in the doorway area was zero. It would not do to have “the lone assassin” in a photo, merely watching his president drive by in the motorcade, taken at the same time the president was being shot, since Oswald, like anyone else, could not have been in two places at the same time. That does not mean everyone is therefore going to accept that Altgens6 has been altered, but every person who is both sincere, rational, and seeking the truth ought to accept it.

      Richard Hooke
      JFK Researcher

  7. Steve  November 17, 2012 at 6:06 am

    ‘Black Hole Man’s’ face is visible too, where you have the red circle is his dark hair obscured in the shadow, and his face is below it, his head lowered, and ‘Obscured Man’s’ face and hand blocking part of it also (upper right side). He seems also to be wearing some sort of specs, with bulbous lenses (one visible only).

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 6:48 am

      We know, Steve: You think when the photo is blown up, you can see an elderly man who is wearing glasses and has a pot belly. Just to humor me, is he also wearing a short sleeved, red and white vertically striped shirt? If you have the proof, then kindly produce it. Send it to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu. Thanks.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 7:08 am

      Don’t be silly, the glasses are definitely (partly) visible, especially the black right ‘temple’ going back to the right ear, partly obscured by his raised right arm. I explained the other things above. Have you actually examined the photo magnified? All the details I am noting are clearly visible, even to some degree at the scale you provide here, and for you to just persist in sarcastically ignoring them makes me wonder about your motivation.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 7:11 am

      Send me your “blow up”. Show me your proof. No one who knows me questions my motivation. I am beginning to question your sanity. If you have something, send it to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu. People see faces on Mars and Jesus in the clouds. I think you are fantasizing. So does Richard. Is he wearing a red-and-white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt? That should be an easy one for you. ENOUGH. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 7:26 am

      I am getting the blow up as described, within a temporary facility for it, I don’t have it otherwise as a free standing shot. You started with the personal remarks. But even with the shot you have here, Obfuscated Man’s raised arm, part profile, rear right head, and possibly bulging belly under his left arm are discernible. And his shirt is clearly white. I don’t see what the problem is there to be honest. If you disagree that’s your right, but stop being offensive about it.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 7:30 am

      Steve, send me what you have. Richard does not believe you. I have asked you a simple question which you have refused to answer. The image is so obscure (in part by design) that I am having a hard time taking you seriously, especially when you (by your own admission) don’t know the case and are speculating far beyond reason. Just answer the question: IS THIS FIGURE WEARING A VERTICALLY STRIPPED, SHORT SLEEVED SHIRT? YES or NO. If you can’t do that, forget it.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 7:40 am

      Which figure? I am talking about ‘obscured man’. But in fact none of them are wearing the shirt you describe. What’s your point?

      In return, answer my question, is ‘obscured man’ shielding his face with his raised right arm, and is part of his face still visible (front right side), as well as rear right head?

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 7:44 am

      What’s wrong with you? Of course I mean Obfuscated Man. If you can tell he is elderly, wearing glasses, and has a pot belly, what kind of shirt is he wearing? IS HE WEARING A SHORT-SLEEVED, VERTICALLY STRIPPED SHIRT? A simple question. What is the answer?

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 7:50 am

      Jim I answered it, no. His shirt looks white and long-sleeved. He is also wearing braces. The glasses are clear enough (ie the parts visible), age and pot belly I think probable but not certain as I said.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 9:03 am

      I have asked Richard to take another look and respond to you, but I remain incredulous that, when you have not read, much less studied, the series of articles that we have published about this–to the point that you don’t even know what Oswald said about his location at the time nor that Billy Lovelady had gone to the FBI and explained to them that he had been wearing a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt–when we are confronted by the disjunction of Doorman being EITHER Oswald OR Lovelady and have adduced a mountain of substantiating evidence BOTH that it was Oswald AND that it was not Lovelady–that you would dismiss it all with a sweep of your hand on the basis of subjective opinions about Obscured Man who is, after all, OBSCURE!

      So I fault your ability to reason in general, where you are ignoring the mass of evidence supporting our identification of Doorman as Oswald, on the basis of personal impressions about a figure in the background where, even if you were right, it would not affect the burden of the arguments we have presented based upon the clothing, the cranium, the ears, the eyes, what Lee told Fritz and that the photo has OBVIOUSLY been altered. Frankly, I am baffled why you even made an appearance here, since you appear to me to be abysmally ignorant about the case where, by your own admission, you have not been keeping up and do not even know elementary points about it. Stunning! Nevertheless, Richard will respond to your claims about Obscured Man, probably today.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 9:18 am

      I did know about Oswald’s claim but forgot it temporarily, it can happen. I knew about Lovelady’s initial claim and did not say i didn’t, but I don’t take it as definitive. I don’t agree from what I have seen that Doorman is Oswald for the reasons stated. I have read some of the articles. And I base my opinion on more than just the Obscured Man issue. I don’t ignore the evidence but clearly disagree on interpretation in many cases. I have a fair bit of knowledge about various aspects of the case, enough for instance to think Oswald was innocent and there was a conspiracy. I commented here because the points about Obscured Man seemed new and significant, though I perhaps leapt to a condemnation of the overall effort a little precipitately, but it was based also on my other and previous impressions and points. I think however you overreacted a little as we agree on the main thing, ie Oswald’s innocence and the conspiracy. The disagreement is on how to best establish this, and particulars of the photo. I will nevertheless wait for the reply on it with interest.

  8. Steve  November 17, 2012 at 4:29 am

    I think I said this before too, why not just splice in a complete Lovelady face instead of creating a bizarre composite as alleged? On your mock-up of the composition the angles don’t match until the final stage is reached, but if it could be rectified then why bother with a frankenstein process? Again much easier and more convincing to just use the whole face, and alter it a bit then if needed so as not to be TOO identical. These are the sort of things that just don’t figure, and have not been adequately addressed. And wasn’t the source shot you are using taken in 64 anyway???

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 6:45 am

      Steve, We have to deal with what they actually did, not what they might have done. If you will take the time to study our research and the SEVEN ARTICLES in which these issues have been addressed, then I think you will find the answers to most of your questions and concerns. I am doing my best to be fair and balanced with you — and, if it matters, I no longer think you are an op. You are a smart guy who is over his head and doesn’t seem to know it — even if the light is gradually beginning to dawn.

  9. Steve  November 17, 2012 at 3:33 am

    You MAY have a case though that Black Tie Man is Ruby, though there’s no way to be sure as far as I can see. And I grant that there is some odd blurring to Doorman’s face, as though he quickly turned his head leading to motion blurring. But as I said before to my eyes the face itself looks a lot like the ‘mugshot’ of Lovelady, albeit from a different angle, their facs were somewhat similar.

    Regarding Oswald you said above (and I remember now before – I don’t follow this case very often – though more than most) ‘the alleged assassin was “out with Bill Shelley in front”, as Lee explained to Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation’. Ok but could you cite again the exact source and quote of this. Also one wonders why on earth he did not then stick around, a far wiser strategy than the one he followed. And did Shelley or anyone else back this up? Or could it have been an attempt to provide an alibi better than just eating his lunch alone say? The really odd thing is that no one seems to have provided supporting testimony at any stage as to his whereabouts during the shooting itself.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 3:50 am

      You are actually claiming ‘Fedora Man’ is Ruby though, even though his visible skin is dark, and he could have been blotted out altogether if really needed by a bigger overlay. And you give the source for Oswald’s claim here halfway down (I missed it scrolling through), but again, if so, then why on earth did he then go back in the building and act as though nothing had happened, when it was far smarter and more useful to stay on the street with the others and find out what was going on, and above all be seen and make his presence known?

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 3:54 am

      Or was Ruby that is, damn it just gets too convoluted for my money, without compelling proof (not just iffy speculation) that answers the objections I have raised.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 6:42 am

      You say, “Regarding Oswald you said above (and I remember now before – I don’t follow this case very often – though more than most) ‘the alleged assassin was “out with Bill Shelley in front”, as Lee explained to Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation’. Ok but could you cite again the exact source and quote of this.”

      How much more proof do we need that you are completely out of your depth about this? I published the handwritten notes and the typed transcript as long ago as 21 November 2011 in “JFK: What we know now that we didn’t know then”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/21/jfk-what-we-know-now-that-we-didnt-know-then/

      I published them again on 25 January 2012 in “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” with Ralph Cinque, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

      The FBI photos and formal report about Billy Lovelady, by the way, appear in “JFK Special 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” with Ralph Cinque and Clare Kuehn on 13 April 2012, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

      A summary of the case, including multiple reports from experts that the Lovelady who was in the checked shirt does not resemble the Lovelady in the striped shirt, was published in “JFK Special 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, with Ralph Cinque on 5 May 2012, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

      The Lovelady FBI photos and report was published again in “JFK Special 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” with Richard Hooke, which appeared on 11 June 2012, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/11/jfk-special-4-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

      More about how it was done appeared in “JFK Special 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” with Ralph Cinque, which was published on 12 June 2012, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/12/jfk-special-5-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

      When you said, “I remember now before – I don’t follow this case very often – though more than most”, I think you said it all. You are an intelligent man, but this case is far too complex for you to be able to swoop down into a complicated argument and think you can sort it out off the top of your head. I suggest you review the evidence we have presented and try again!

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 7:30 am

      I already answered this, I made a temporary error and admitted it. But it was not germane to my points re the photo. I am willing to review the evidence as I get time but I don’t have much for this, and it would help if you were not so dismissive of the concrete points I have made, as well as fair questions i have posed.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 7:37 am

      If you already answered this, then you have the answer. WHAT IS THE ANSWER? Was this person wearing a (red-and-white) vertically stripped short-sleeved shirt? The image is so indistinct that I cannot imagine that you could be able to discern these features other than as subjective impressions like figures in clouds. But this question should have an easily discernible answer: IS THE FIGURE WEARING A VERTICALLY STRIPPED SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT?

  10. Steve  November 17, 2012 at 1:19 am

    A short version to try and get posted –

    – Me an ‘op’, what a pathetic joke, for one thing can I please get paid becaus so far I have not gotten a penny.

    – Try sticking to the facts and not just going ad hominem if you can manage it.

    – Doorman’s left arm is not missing, it’s in full view except for the hand. And as I have stated before, in one of the first articles in this series, both his shoulders are angled, one up, one down (the left), due to his posture, which makes the left shoulder look weak, but it’s still there, at the top of his sleeve. And his blurred shirt looks as much like the one he later claimed to have been wearing and appears in the other pics as it does Oswald’s, with the open left sleeve contrasting with Oswald’s tight buttoned one as I noted before.

    – Black Tie Man looks all behind Doorman to me,

    – The black man’s profile is looking in about the same direction as Black Tie and Obfuscated Man, and he could be squatting or sitting.

    – ‘Obfuscated Man’ is clearly obfuscating himself as described, with his own raised right arm, but the front part of his profile is still well visible, as are his specs, left lens and right ‘arm’ over his ear.

    – Much easier and safer to can or shred the shot (if it showed Oswald) than risk a bodgy and unnecessary alteration above all at an early stage where another might emerge to contradict it, and with all the alterations you claim, how much time was even available before it went to print? Not much by the look of it, for so many alterations, including getting it to and from the lab, and simply unnecessary.

    – I am indeed a sincere seeker of truth, if you can’t handle having your convoluted and overcomplicated theory questioned then too bad, but you are unworthy of your title if so. I am calling it the way I see it, as is my right, and I prefer simpler and clearer explanations. I believe 100% that there was a conspiracy, just not as you are portraying it here, and I don’t think your version will win much support, least of all if you defend it as you are here by attacking your interlocutor personally, a sure sign of a dud theory, if not just personality problems. I focussed on ‘Obfuscated Man’ here (Doorman in a previous article thread) because that’s what I spotted and stood out to me in relation to your theory. There is no obligation to waste time dealing with every one of your claimed points if a few key ones don’t stand up, but if you want to revise it in light of the flaws noted then I will consider it. However i am not obsessed with every minor detail as it strikes me as unnecessary and even counter-productive, it’s clear enough Oswald was innocent based on other simpler points which it’s better to stick to instead of going so far out on a limb with marginal points (minor details of a blurred shirt claimed to be altered etc) that it breaks off. If you can’t handle discussion and critique offered in good faith ( I want the truth of this out too but not on a weak or wrong basis) then you ought not to be in the field.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 1:27 am

      And lastly, if Oswald was at the door during the shooting, then what was he doing calm and unflustered in the second floor lunchroom only ’74 to 90 seconds’ later (according to Wiki/Warren). I don’t find that very plausible, if you want to argue probabilities then it’s more likely he would have stayed on the street level, either to watch events unfold (and establish his presence) or depart directly. But you have to bend everything that doesn’t fit your theory to make it fit, and I don’t find it remotely convincing. Nor is it to stick a bunch of lines and arrows on some pics and declare your case overwhelmingly proven thereby, when quite frankly it doesn’t look like it to me for one.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 1:32 am

      I don’t have it to hand but what did Oswald himself claim about where he was at the moment of the shooting? He presumably gave some account. Odd that he did not say he was at the door watching it if he was (let alone staying there in full view all throughout), and calling for other witnesses to back it up. And Lovelady is lying according to you which makes him part of the conspiracy too.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 6:23 am

      Steve, You are obsessed but missing the point. The clothing is decisive in determining who is who. Do you understand that this is a disjunction of Doorman = Oswald or Doorman = Lovelady? And do you understand that the proof based upon the clothing alone is simply overwhelming? And you do not even know that Oswald told Fritz that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”, which we have cited in all six of these articles! This is further proof that you are the one at fault for sloppy and shallow research, not those of us — including Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke, D.K. Ruckman and Clare Kuehn — who have been serious, dedicated and professional in devoting ourselves to this research program.

      You don’t even know what Oswald said about his location at the time! Instead, you offer ample subjective impressions and personal opinions in lieu of logic and evidence. Get a grip, man! If you were right and it was Lovelady, after all, why then did he go to the police and show them the red-and-white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt he said he had been wearing at the time? Your suggestion that Lee would have stuck around to gander following the shooting pales in comparison with the FBI photographs and formal report. And that is to say nothing of the 27 points of similarity — which Richard says he could increase to 50! — that you have ignored and the studies of the cranium, the ears and the eye that are presented in this article.

      What you tend to believe is plausible or implausible doesn’t matter. Anyone can believe anything they want. But for your beliefs to be rational, then need to be supported by good reasons, From everything I have seen from you, you have not even bothered to read the five earlier articles that we have published in Veterans Today, even though I have links to them in this article. You don’t even know what Lee told Fritz about his location at the time of the shooting, even though we have published the handwritten notes and a typed transcription in other articles. You don’t come to grips with the points of similarity — including the clothing, the cranium, the ear and the eye. Why should I or anyone take you seriously about any of this?

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 6:56 am

      I had read Oswald’s claim before, in your pieces, but it slipped my mind temporarily, as I said I only visit this cases once in a while between a lot else and some details are forgotten. I did acknowledge the correct facts immediately upon recall however. I have never claimed to be a researcher, I am commenting here now based on what I see. As for subjectivity and personal opinion, you offer quite a bit yourself when it suits. But I have also offered concrete points. If you want to ignore or dismiss them behind the cloak of other things then do so but it would be shoddy practice from someone who claims to be an expert and scholar. As for Lovelady’s initial claim, who knows? Maybe he made a mistake, it happens! He may have thought he wore it that day through wrong recall, or maybe he wanted to disassociate himself from the picture for some reason. My query as to Oswald’s movements is entirely as legitimate as your speculations on some things here, and a worthwhile and important question in itself. After all he doomed himself thereby, at least in posterity (he may have been eliminated anyway). I have said before that Doorman’s head looks more like Lovelady to me than Oswald, you are the one putting forward a controversial thesis and obliged to defend it, I am not obliged to contest every point, I am simply remarking on what seems to me not to be as you say, or how it seems to me.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 7:05 am

      Steve, STOP IT! Life is too short. You admit you are not an expert. You have given your opinions. If you have a blow up to send me so I can further evaluate the claims you have made, THEN DO THAT. I have taken you seriously, but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. You are trying to justify your posts while admitting that you are not qualified to post them. That should have sunk in by now. I haven’t ignored your points but have systematically refuted them. If you have more, sent it to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu. Otherwise, I ask you to CEASE AND DESIST. Thank you.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 7:14 am

      Surely you have such a facility available, like Windows Picture Viewer, just hit magnify. You have not refuted my main points adequately or at all in some cases, and your responses here do not lead me to take you all that seriously either on this. If you don’t want to discuss it fine but then don’t keep being so snide in your replies. I would suggest you study the picture more closely. You may be right on some things but i think you are also wrong on some too.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 7:22 am

      So you can’t even tell me whether this man you can see so clearly is or is not wearing a vertically stripped short sleeved shirt? I have had enough of you, Steve. You are incompetent and arrogant. You haven’t done your homework and I am impressed by your willingness to persist and persist in utter ignorance.

      No rational soul would persist and persist and persist WITHOUT DOING HIS HOMEWORK unless he had some kind of cognitive impairment. When you do not answer a simple question like this one, I know that something is wrong with you either mentally or morally. I am completely disillusioned with you. Thanks for sharing.

  11. Steve  November 17, 2012 at 12:48 am

    Jim your reply is pathetic and unworthy, and evidence of a severe personality flaw at best. I made a straightforward point based on an examination of the picture you provided. Instead of addressing it head on you dodge and weave and resort to ludicrous conspiratorial claims to try and discredit me as an ‘op’, which is a complete joke, for one thing could I please get my pay because so far I am doing it for free! It does along with some of your bizarre 9-11 theories which we have discussed before also make me think that if you are not somewhat potty then you are the ‘op’, because they seem to be doing more to render the subject so way out as to be practically useless, especially for the mainstream. And as I have generally avoided commenting on your pieces except the few times something has struck me as particularly questionable you flatter yourself to imagine I am much concerned with them.

    I focussed here on ‘obfuscated man’ because that’s what I noticed something about that was salient and new to the discussion as far as I have seen. Given your claim about him and its importance to the overall theory of image tampering, combined with my previous points about Doorman (in one of the earlier articles on this here), and my reading of the picture, and points about the likelihood and value of alteration, it seemed to me that your theories on this one were wrong, though I tried to be charitable about it, obviously a mistake. To me it seems as though you are barking up the wrong tree on this, to the detriment of better approaches, but please yourself.

    As for your other points, I have either answered them or they don’t hold as I see it. Doorman’s left arm is not ‘missing’, Black Tie Man looks all behind Doorman to my eyes, the black man’s profile can quite plausibly be accounted for in the way I proposed (and why the hell insert at all if it is so absurd ffs), and he is looking where the photo shows he is looking, for whatever reason (who knows? – but it’s not far off where ‘obfuscated man’ and ‘black tie man’ are looking), and ‘Obfuscated Man’ is quite clearly obfuscating himself as described. And certainly blown up it is clearer, at first I took it as you described, until I examined it more closely enlarged. As I have said before Doorman’s shoulders just look angled to me as he’s leaning a certain way, if anyone raises one shoulder while dropping the other the result is pretty much like Doorman, and his left shoulder is still there at the top of his left sleeve. His clothing looks somewhat like Oswald’s but also like what he claimed to have been wearing (ie later) and the other pictures of him that day show (which you claim are also faked but again that seems to me unlikely and just another redundant complexity). Frankly I don’t think it’s clear enough in the image to determine with exactitude, least of all on minor features like collar angles etc, the shirt is rather blurred.

    Knowing your touchiness I suppose I should have just stuck to the precise points rather than going on so quick to my overall conclusion as to the theory but I called it as I see it based on these and other points, some of which we have discussed before. If you can’t have a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the case without getting into ridiculous and paranoid-delusional personal attacks (which I make some allowance for as you have perhaps experienced the real thing before), or defend your theory on an objective basis then I suggest we just don’t bother, I’ve made my point(s) and have better ways to spend my time than answering complete rubbish. As I said I think it certain there WAS a conspiracy in both JFK and RFK’s cases, and that there is clearer and simpler evidence of this, but if you want to spend your time chasing in ever more abstruse and improbable circles that are not likely to convince anyone outside of a few like minded specialists and fans then be my guest.

    But if you want to get into insults like ‘fraud’ then you would do well to consider objectively your own performance here if you can. I came to this in good faith with a clear case, and you are instead playing the man rather than the ball. Not impressed. Your theory has holes and if you can’t defend it reasonably then it is truly a dud. But your replies make me wonder if that is not actually the point. And as for editing Altgens6, again, much easier and safer to can or shred it, especially than putting out such a (supposedly) incompetent and absurd fake, so early in the piece. But you prefer massively longwinded questionable and convoluted theories instead, well you are entitled to in a democracy, but then so am I to disagree.

    And lastly, if Oswald was at the door during the shooting, then what was he doing calm and unflustered in the second floor lunchroom only ’74 to 90 seconds’ later (according to Wiki/Warren). I don’t find that very plausible, if you want to argue probabilities then it’s more likely he would have stayed on the street level, either to watch events unfold (and establish his presence) or depart directly. But you have to bend everything that doesn’t fit your theory to make it fit, and I don’t find it remotely convincing. Nor is it to stick a bunch of lines and arrows on some pics and declare your case overwhelmingly proven thereby, when quite frankly it doesn’t look like it to me for one.

    If you can’t discuss this politely and in a manner worthy of a scholar if not gentleman then don’t bother.

    This is about the sixth attempt to post this at least.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 6:11 am

      I have already dispatched your objections, which appear to me to have no merit. Let me reply again:

      (1) You claim, “Doorman’s left arm is not ‘missing’”, but we are talking about his shoulder. It may be that you think he has a towel draped over his left shoulder, but that is part of Black Tie Man ‘s image.

      (2) You claim, “Black Tie Man looks all behind Doorman to my eyes” but, if that is the case, they you need to check your vision. You may be committing the same mistake that Dalethorn has corrected.

      (3) You claim, “the black man’s profile can quite plausibly be accounted for in the way I proposed (and why the hell insert at all if it is so absurd ffs), and he is looking where the photo shows he is looking,”

      (4) you claim he is “squatting”, which, under the circumstances, is preposterous. And he is looking to the east at a 45 degree angle to where everyone else is looking, which is approximately to the south.

      (5) You claim, “it’s not far off where ‘obfuscated man’ and ‘black tie man’ are looking)”, which is wrong, since “Obfuscated Man” is obviously looking at the motorcade, while the black man’s profile is not.

      (6) The case of Black Tie Man is intriguing and suggests he may have been looking at the DalTex from which three shots would be fired, something Jack Ruby might have know, assuming he is Jack Ruby.

      (7) You claim, “‘Obfuscated Man’ is quite clearly obfuscating himself as described. And certainly blown up it is clearer, (where) at first I took it as you described, until I examined it more closely enlarged.”

      But you offer no evidence. I asked Richard about it and his reply was simple: SHOW US! Where is the evidence a “blow up” reveals the features you describe: an old man with spectacles and pot belly?

      I am doing my best to take you seriously, but I find your arguments to have little or no merit. I do not see any indications that you have even bothered to read the five previous studies I’ve published here.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 6:40 am

      Ok at least this time you stick to the points at issue so we have a basis for a reasonable discussion.

      1- To my eyes, Doorman’s right arm is fully visible from the billowing cuff right up to the collar, the mid-arm joint bend is visible about where Black Tie Man’s shirt is tucked into his pants, the upper arm then covers part of BTM’s right chest. It’s just that the lowering of that shouder makes it seem smaller/less prominent, balanced by the raising of his other shoulder. Maybe you should try replicating the angles exactly with someone of similar build, it seems to me that it would look similar.

      2- Sorry but I cannot see any point at which BTM is in front of Doorman, unless maybe you confuse BTM’s jacket right side with Doorman’s upper arm.

      3-5 Why could the black man not be squatting or sitting? You may think he SHOULD be standing, but that is just opinion. The fact is he COULD be squatting or sitting, his reasons for doing so would be known only to himself. And he is certainly looking at an angle not too far off BTM and Obscured Man, who are both also looking at an angle greatly different to Doorman, and in fact the black lady to the left (bottom corner of the ‘Groden’ zoom) is looking at an angle if anything even slightly more in that direction than the black man’s profile.

      6- BTM is indeed puzzling, and I agree he could be Ruby, though unfortunately it’s not certain.

      7- I described where Obcured Man’s (part) face and specs are visible, on either side of his raised right arm. They are in fact visible even at the scale given, though not so clear, enlarge the shot with a simple zoom and they become fully apparent. The pot belly I inferred from the apparent bulge under his left arm folded over his chest, also inferrable from the line of his suspenders, but it is obscured in large part by the lady in front of him. I could be wrong there. Age I estimated from his apparently greying hair seen where I noted, but it could be a trick of the light.

      I have read one or two of the articles, and commented on at least one before re Doorman especially. But I don’t have time to read every one of your pieces in detail.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 6:54 am

      Steve, you are posting so many comments that I can’t keep up with you. You clearly are unfamiliar with human anatomy, because, as we have explained, for him to be in the pose we see in Altgens6, he would have to be missing his clavicle. You must be supposing that Doorman has a towel over his left shoulder, because BTM is OBVIOUSLY both in front of him and behind him at the same time. For the black man to be there but squatting and looking away from the motorcade defeats the apparent reason he is there. I appreciate your equivocating about BTM and Obscured Man, where I have invited you to send me the proof you believe you have. (See below.)

      And if you “don’t have time” to read the studies that we have published about this, why should you be surprised that you don’t understand the case? Why are you posting when you do not know the case very well, in spite of my recommending that you need to do that? I am sorry, Steve, but life is short and you are consuming too much of my time without having the knowledge or competence to make your case. You have lots of subjective opinions and personal impressions, but they are not EVIDENCE. If you have a blow up that substantiates your claims, then send it to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu. Please know it is pointless to keep publishing your opinions without proof.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 7:19 am

      Sorry but I disagree as stated. And I have read some of the pieces as said, not all. As I am arguing particular points here I don’t need to study everything, that is a spurious ‘argumentum ad omnium’ one might put it. As for the blow up, it’s easy enough to do yourself, but not even necessary as such for some things. But I also don’t want to waste more time on it, I would just suggest you look more closely.

  12. Steve  November 17, 2012 at 12:45 am

    You absolute frauds, my posts here are being systematically rejected now, or rather just lost without appearing. How utterly pathetic, you are disinfo bullshitartists for sure. What an absolute friggin disgrace.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 12:46 am

      Ok this one appeared but my much longer reply to Fetzer has been shredded several times now even when I added to it.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 17, 2012 at 5:53 am

      “Shredded”? This is the first time I have seen any of your latest blizzard of posts. Veterans Today — the whole site — has been experiencing severe server problems and has been inaccessible for lengthy periods the last day or two. Leaping to conclusions based upon flimsy evidence appears to be your area of specialization. One of us may actually be a “disinfo bullshitartist”, but that would not be me.

    • Steve  November 17, 2012 at 6:18 am

      I have learnt subsequently of the site problems via other posters, but I had great trouble getting a post up (or even logging on etc) for about a day without any consistent explanation during that time.

  13. Michael Farrell  November 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    It’s been pretty well known that Oswald was a lousy shot in the Marines and the supposed weaon would require a helluva shot to consistently hit anything moving at that range. Strongest reason to doubt whether or not he was the shooter is that — he wasn’t capable of making the shot without something like divine intervention.

    • socratez  November 16, 2012 at 7:35 pm

      I disagree with you; I think the strongest reason to doubt Oswald was a shooter are his matching points with Doorman. Here, I will try again: In layman’s terms, if we are very conservative and accept only 14 of 27 of our matching points, between Doorman and Oswald, and are also extremely optimistic and employ the exaggerated rate of 1 in 10 for matching occurrences, that still leaves us the probability of them having been a match as rare as 1/ 100,000,000,000,000, or 1 in a 100 trillion; approximately 14,286 times the current human population of planet earth (ca. 7 billion). Now, if we add in the variable that there were only a few white, male employees, in the TSBD, of similar body type, probably none with exactly the same clothing, and they just happened to arrive in the TSBD doorway, of all places, at the same moment in space and time, well, you can see that our hypothesis that Oswald = Doorman is certainly proven.

      Richard Hooke

    • Jim Fetzer  November 16, 2012 at 7:42 pm

      Well, he had neither the means (the Mannlicher-Carcano was in terrible shape and had the reputation of being “the humanitarian rifle” in WWII for never harming anyone on purpose), the motive (Marina reported that he admired JFK and bore him no ill will), or the opportunity (he was observed in the lunch room as late as 12:25 and again within 90 seconds of the shooting at 12:30). By the classic criteria, he should not have been a suspect, but he was being framed–big time!

      The government insists that he shot JFK from his 6th floor “assassin’s lair”, stashed his trusty carbine and raced down four floors of stairs into the lunch room. Given your reasons, as a poor shot, he could still have been one of the assassins, even one who missed! We already knew based upon circumstantial evidence that he was most unlikely to have been a shooter, but now we have direct proof. I can’t imagine a more definitive refutation of THE WARREN REPORT (1964).

  14. dalethorn  November 16, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Ohmigosh, Jim. I got it now. I’ve been looking at the man in the doorway photo all wrong up until now. Sure, I know about the shirt and a hundred other things. But I slipped up on the most important of all, and probably the thing that has people thinking Lovelady instead of Oswald — I’ve been looking at the face and including the bulge on the right (the man’s left side). Block out the bulge and it’s Oswald. No further questions.

  15. socratez  November 16, 2012 at 10:19 am

    The disinfo guys always want to talk about something other than the main issue; to sidetrack the argument. The main issue here is that it is Lee Oswald was in the TSBD doorway, beyond any doubt. Lovelady, also, was nothing but a distraction posed by the conspirators. With even half of the matching points we have found, between Oswald and Doorman, the odds say that many matches is far more rare than the total people on planet earth; then when you add in the fact there were only a few male employees in the TSBD with a remotely similar body type, and none with exactly the same clothing, well, you can see that it is proven.

  16. Steve  November 15, 2012 at 5:12 am

    I have noted problems with this theory before, but upon close examination of the blow-up provided have realized it’s fallen into a major error of misinterpretation. The ‘obscured’ figure is self-obscured, the blur is actually the bent left arm of the figure, elbow forward (ie pointing outward towards the viewer), hand covering the face from the sun (cuff and upper side if hand visible), part of the face is clearly visible to its right underneath (chin, mouth, nose, even spec frames on top). The figure’s right arm is folded across his front, hand clearly visible. The nose is quite pointed. Once realized these points are beyond doubt. So there is a simple explanation for that figure, and it has not apparently been altered after all. Some other bits are seemingly odd, though the doorway figure does look like Lovelady to me as I have said before, and the shot does not appear much tampered with to my eyes although some bits are obscured. Nor do I see how the alleged alterations could have been made so quickly as implied before distribution, nor that there was any point doing so if the negatives were in the hands of the conspirators, they could just have been kept or destroyed more simply and securely, with any passable excuse or pressure sufficing to fob (or buy) the photographer off (or at least regarding the shot in question).

    That said, I do not believe Oswald was the/a shooter, and there is enough other straightforward evidence to exonerate him reasonably. But the extremely convoluted theorising over this picture does not seem to prove anything solid, other than in purely logical terms based on false or mistaken assumptions. After so long it is understandable that those concerned for truth and justice in this matter will seek to achieve a ‘smoking gun’ by any degree of elaboration required, however in this case it does not seem to have succeeded. Science however requires ongoing experimentation and theorisation to achieve valid results, and all attempts within valid parameters are useful and legitimate.

    Keep trying.

    • Steve  November 15, 2012 at 5:19 am

      I will add that the apparent distortion/obfuscation is the subject’s billowing-crumpled sleeve above the elbow, tapering to the cuff, beyond which can be seen the upper surface and lower/right edge of the right hand shielding the subject’s forehead/face from the sun. As stated part of the face is clearly visible to the sleeve’s left right side/under the shielding hand, the forward part of a half-profile, enough to distinguish the visible features reasonably clearly.

    • Steve  November 15, 2012 at 5:23 am

      Sorry it’s the bent RIGHT arm of the figure, with the left folded in front, reversed from the viewer’s perspective (ie looking AT the figure).

    • Jim Fetzer  November 15, 2012 at 7:43 am

      “Keep trying”? You must be joking! Just to demonstrate the absurdity of your position, which focuses on a question about Doorman’s arm and posture, which we did not discuss here, how can you possibly seriously contend that that shows we are mistaken–even if you were right? You are not right and this issue is discussed in other of the series of now six articles I have published with my research colleagues about this, but suppose you were right? What would you have shown?

      Would you have thereby shown that the face that has obviously been obscured (whom we believe to be that of Bill Shelley) was NOT obscured? Would you have thereby shown that the left shoulder of Doorman (whom we believe to be Lee Oswald) is NOT missing? Would you have thereby shown that Black Tie Man (whom we believe to have been Jack Ruby) is NOT simultaneously both in front of Doorman and behind him? Would you have thereby shown the black man’s profile is NOT there?

      And this is BEFORE turning to the meticulous and detailed demonstration of the 27 features that are the same for Doorman and Oswald, the study of the cranium, the study of the ears, the study of the eyes! The multiple refutations of the identification of Doorman with Billy Lovelady! Your position is simply absurd. I have asked how much proof would be required. You appear to me to take the cake. Are you so lacking in the ability to think you missed all this?

      Surely they would only have altered the Altgens6, committing photographic fraud, because someone had been there who should not have been, where the only candidate for that role is the man they were planning to frame for the murder of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, the designated “patsy”. Otherwise, the probability of altering the photo in the doorway area would have been zero. You appear to be completely unfamiliar with the extraordinary evidence we have presented here.

      It would not do to have “the lone assassin” in a photo watching JFK pass by in the motorcade, which was taken at the same time the president was being shot, since Oswald, like the rest of us, could not have been in two places at the same time. That does not mean everyone is therefore going to accept the fact that Altgens6 has been altered, but it creates the presumption that those who persist in their denial are either unfamiliar with the evidence or else cognitively impaired.

    • Steve  November 15, 2012 at 8:26 am

      I am not talking about Doorman’s arm here but the figure labeled above as ‘obfuscated man’. You have claimed here and before that that figure has been obscured by altering the picture, when in fact a close examination shows that the ‘obfuscation’ is simply his arm held up in a bent posture to shield his face from the sun (similar to the lady in front of him), leaving part of his face (and hand) still visible. This is clearly discernible when enlarged, beyond any doubt. If you want to argue the rest of your theory in spite of that fine, but I don’t find it very credible, such other points as I have examined of it seemed marginal and open to interpretation, especially given the poor quality of the picture at the requisite resolution and the indeterminate and marginal nature of many of the points at that scale and quality. And if you are wrong on such a key point here then I am not particularly interested to spend hours poring over 27+ other points that seem weak at best (and on quick viewing) given the ones I have examined (I critiqued your interpretation of Lovelady’s sleeve and shoulder amongst other things in a previous discussion). However I do not see how Black Tie Man is in front of Doorman, he seems all behind to me (though his face is unusually blurred and obscured), and the black man’s profile whilst odd in that position could be accounted for by someone squatting or sitting behind the pillar but in front of Doorman. However my point addressed ‘obfuscated man’ in particular, and you should answer that on its own merits, as it is both key and clear.

      And regarding alteration, as I have stated before, there was no need to do so if the negative was in possession of the conspirators, and it was smarter not to bother, but merely can or shred the shot. This seems elementary both now and then. There was also the risk that another picture might emerge to contradict any major alterations, especially at such an early stage. The logic of your theory there is very weak at best, and derives mainly from the assumption that the shot WAS altered and the need to account for it somehow.

    • Steve  November 15, 2012 at 8:35 am

      And as far as ‘obfuscated man’ goes I am absolutely right, blow it up and look, there’s no doubt about it at all. His arms and face are both clearly visible as such, other than the obscured portion of his face.

    • Steve  November 15, 2012 at 8:53 am

      His spectacles are also visible, left lens over his nose, and right ‘arm’ over his right ear, the two divided by his raised right arm. As is part of his apparently greying hair, he seems to be an elderly man, with somewhat of a pot belly.

    • Jim Fetzer  November 15, 2012 at 3:52 pm

      There are four major proofs that Altgens6 has been altered: (1) Doorman’s missing left arm; (2) Black Tie Man’s presence in front of and behind him at the same time; (3) the profile of the black man’s face at mid-torso on Doorman; and (4) the obfuscation of the face of the man to Doorman’s left front. These are conspicuous features of the photo. Instead of addressing them, “Steve” focuses on Black Hole Man (the “Obfuscated Man”) and suggests that, if you blow up the photograph, you can see his image better. He tosses in a few gratuitous remarks about the black man’s face, declaring that, since he has shown we were wrong about Obfuscated Man, there is no reason to take the rest of our work seriously. On this basis, he finesses the 27 points of similarity, the features of the cranium, of the ears and of the left eye, all of which support the identification of Doorman with Oswald. Astonishingly, he doesn’t even address the similarities in clothing with Oswald and dissimilarities with Lovelady. Astounding!

      So what’s going on here? A common technique I have seen many times is to take an obscure aspect of a study, claim to have debunked it and, on that basis, generalize as if the whole study had been discredited. Even if he were right about “blowing it up”, that is a special set of circumstances. Those who altered the images were not thinking of anyone “blowing it up” but ordinary viewers, who were not supposed to even pay any special attention to this area of the photo. That is not how it has played out, of course, but even if Steve were right about Obfuscated Man–which I frankly doubt, but will ask Richard to address–that would not discredit the rest of this extremely detailed, painstaking and comprehensive study. Several fallacies are taking place here, including special pleading (by citing only the evidence on your side and ignoring the rest) and exaggerating the significance of your findings. And his suggestion that a black man could have been squatting or sitting behind the pillar is simply absurd.

      Consider that the profile not only occurs at a very odd location but there is no reason in the world why anyone would have been squatting there as JKF and Jackie passed by. He should have been standing and watching the motorcade like virtually everyone else. To be in that location and not even bother to watch strains credulity beyond the breaking point. He is simply grasping after straws. And his subjective impressions about what he personally does or does not find “plausible” carry no weight at all. If we were to apply his own methodology, then, since his argument about the black man’s profile is not merely incredibly improbable but quite preposterous, it justifies the discounting of everything else he has to say. And for him to deny the obvious–that Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind Doorman at the same time–tells us all we need to know. To defend the missing left shoulder requires the suppression of elementary anatomy, since that would only be possible if Doorman had no clavicle.

      He claims that, if the conspirators had the negative, there would have been no reason to alter it. Presumably, they could simply have destroyed the photograph. But, as in the case of the home movies, the perps wanted to have “evidence” that could be presented to support the government’s official account. They planted a carbine that cannot have been used to fire the shots. They faked the backyard photographs. They stole the body and altered the wounds. They changed the X-rays and the autopsy photographs. They destroyed the limo, when it was a crime scene on wheels. Yet this guy would have us believe they would not edit Altgens6? It captured the designated “patsy” at the time of shooting in front of the building and by itself discredits the big lies we have been told about JFK. This guy is not a sincere seeker after truth. He appears to be in possession of his rational faculties and to be familiar with the evidence. He is here to create doubt when there is no justification and to promote disinformation.

      It should be borne in mind that, as Marty Schotz observed, the purpose of disinformation is not to convince anyone of one side or the other regarding a controversy but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. The question of Doorman’s identity has been resolved–as decisively as empirical questions can be resolved in a case of this kind. But it cannot be allowed to stand without Herculean efforts to obfuscate and confuse. This op is very clever in his use of highly condescending language and suggestions that he has already dispatched key questions “elsewhere”, without even tell us where! Well, we have dealt with this issue at great length and in considerable detail in five previous studies, which are linked to this article. A fraud like him is GOING TO DENY even the most obvious falsifying features of the photo, including the obfuscated face, the missing left shoulder, the man in front and behind at the same time, even the peculiar profile of a black man starring off into space! That he should come here with the intent to mislead is an insult, not simply to the memory of JFK, but to the intelligence of every reader of Veterans Today.

  17. stephanaugust  November 15, 2012 at 3:49 am

    “Great” can’t describe how great this article is — you at VT should use the strategy applied by Daniel Pipes and translate some articles (into German please), maybe one article per month.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login