Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New JFK evidence proves Oswald innocent

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Oswald did not kill Officer Tippit. Read Jim Douglass: JFK and the Unspeakable. At the time Tippitt was shot, 1:15 pm, multiple witnesses placed Oswald in the Texas Theater. The concession operator reported selling him popcorn at that time. Please, read Jim Douglass.

But listen, the Doorman was wearing Oswald's clothes. There is no doubt about it. And that includes his loose-fitting, unbuttoned outer shirt and his v-shaped t-shirt. You have to realize how distinctive that outer shirt was in the way that it lied and the way that it secured. And his whole presentation was very unusual, and Doorman matched it very well, including a perfect match to the collar that was visible. It simply had to be him, and the likenesses to the other guy (Lovelady) were faked. With so much other evidence tampered with in the case, why would you have trouble believing that the Altgens photo was altered?

It was an unlucky break for the conspirators that Oswald chose such an unusual shirt to wear that day, but indeed he did. Dr. James Fetzer, author of several acclaimed books on the assassination, agrees with me.

This is legit. Oswald was standing outside watching. He didn't kill Tippit, and he didn't kill JFK.




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 


You can't just go by that. The facial likenesses to Lovelady were faked. In fact, I believe they actually moved Lovelady's face over to Doorman's, and there is no doubt whatsoever that Lovelady was there. But then they had to obliterate what was left of him.

Let me give you another example. I made a collage of Doorman, Oswald, and Lovelady- just their right collars. Doorman's and Oswald's match perfectly in form and pattern. Lovelady's is very different to them in both form and pattern. Elsewhere on Doorman's shirt, there is some plaiding which looks kindof, sortof like Lovelady's, but it's far from being a perfect match. But, Lovelady had a lot of contrast and pattern on his collar, and there is none of Doorman's. Why? It's because when you commit a forgery like this, it's hard to take care of everything. And they didn't take care of that.

The face and hairline were easy to change, but the form, the fit, and the lay of the shirt were the biggest elements of the picture, and they could not be changed. And they match Oswald. So, it really had to be him.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


Yes, the Zapruder film was only a "movie camera" in the sense that it took 18 still frames per second, and then those still frames were rapidly sequenced. And if you read Dr. James Fetzer's book, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, he explains the many ways in which they altered it. Here's one example: they removed frames in order to hide the slowing and even the stopping of the limo during the shooting. Many witnesses reported that the limo slowed to a crawl, including Jackie Kennedy. And one witness who said that it actually came to a complete stop was Senator Ralph Yarborough. But, do you see that in the Z-film? Of course not. They altered it; they removed frames to speed it up.

And plenty more evidence in the JFK case was altered, including the medical evidence, the autopsy photos, the limousine, Oswald's gun, and of course, the Magic Bullet. So, please open your mind to the idea that they altered the Altgens photo, and their goal was to convert Oswald into Lovelady, and then they had to obliterate the image of the real Lovelady, which they did. Dr. Fetzer is completely on-board with this analysis, and he and I have co-authored a paper about it. I hope you will watch my videos, and please spread the word. This is an opportunity to blow the official lie out of the water.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


They wanted you to think that. They did everything they could to convert Oswald to Lovelady. But, they couldn't change the form, the fit, and the lady of the shirt, and the whole presentation of the clothes, which is the biggest element of the image.

Please consider that a face is a real, physical, tangible thing- hard evidence. But so is clothing! It's just as real.

So, in this case, where the face matches Lovelady and the clothes match Oswald, how do you respond? You resopnd by thinking that one or the other had to be faked. But which one?

Well, you know there was no chance that they faked an image of Oswald in order to exonerate him. Come on, you know better than that. And that only leaves one thing: that they faked the likenesses to Lovelady in order to fool you.

In all the ways that could not be faked, the clothing worn by Doorman matches that of Oswald to a tee. And there is no way that that happened by coincidence. Coincidences like that just don't happen. That's him, Oswald! And notable JFK researcher Dr. James Fetzer fervently agrees. Please watch my videos. There are 10 of them, but each one is only 5 minutes.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 


But, his clothes do NOT match Lovelady. Only the so-called pattern matches Lovelady's and not perfectly. For instance, Lovelady had a lot of pattern and contrast on his collar, but Doorman has none. His collar looks plain and consistent like Oswald's. Why? It's because when you are committing a fraud like this, it's hard to cover everything. It's hard to think of everything.

The form, the fit, and the lay of the clothing matched Oswald, and it was a very unusual presentation. Unfortunately, you are thinking and reacting exactly as the conspirators had hoped, that is, to just glibly accept that it's Lovelady because of some half-baked associations. Please, think outside the box. I have posted in another response the intro to my first video which includes my mathematical analysis of the odds of Doorman's clothing matching Oswald's so well without being him. We are talking tremendous coincidence here if that's Lovelady, the tremendous coincidence that he happened to wake up that morning and deck himself exactly like Oswald. No way, no how! Don't fall for it! Think outside the box. That is Oswald! Please watch my videos.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by wtbengineer
 


You are wrong. Oswald told Detective Will Fritz that he was "outside in front with Bill Shelley" during the shooting. Dr. Jim Fetzer has a copy of Frtiz' handwritten notes which I have seen and read. Oswald was in the lunchroom immediately before and immediately after the shooting, but not during.

I devote a whole video to Billy Lovelady. He read the handwriting on the wall. He knew what was expected of him, and he played along. Why? Who Koows. Maybe they bribed him. Maybe they threatened him. Right before he was to testify to the HSCA in 1979 he died of a fatal first heart attack at age 42. Do you know what the odds were of that? The odds against it were 10,000 to 1 or more!

Listen, if you are a lone-nutter, then I have no business talking to you because I know that it's a hopeless effort. But, if you are conspiracy advocate, please watch my videos and please open your mind to the idea that that Doorman in the Altgens photo was Oswald. If you are a CT, you know that plenty of other evidence was altered, so why not the Altgens photo? The likenesses of the clothing and the whole manner of dress between Oswald and Doorman are too similar to have happened by chance. It's him, Oswald. If you won't believe me, how about Dr. James Fetzer? He's only written 4 books and numerous articles about the assassination. He's even led scholarly conferences about it. He is one of the leading JFK researchers in the world. And he is totally in accord with this thesis. Please watch my videos.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxBlack
 


You are focusing on the wrong things in the image. I am asking you to look at the clothing- in great detail. That's the loose-fitting, unbottoned, outer shirt over the v-neck t-shirt. Then compare it to the many pictures of Oswald. And don't forget to look at their collars. In my Video 9, which is the next to the last one, I have what I call the "money shot" of Oswald's right collar compared to Doorman's, and it's a perfect match. And since I completed the videos, I assembled a collage of Oswald's, Doorman's and Lovelady's right collars together side by side in one picture, and the contrast of Lovelady's to the other two is marked and striking. I wish I could post it here for you, but that doesn't seem to be a functionality here. I would be happy to email it to you if you request it.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by slinkey10
 
I'm in the middle of the book now (no spoilers, please
), and I absolutely love it. His attention to detail and psychological depth are as strong as they've ever been. At the same time, I've been frustrated and more than a little offended at points by how dismissive his narrator is of conspiracy theories, and how the story (so far) refuses to acknowledge facts that point towards any theory other than Oswald as lone shooter. I keep hoping that's going to change (Jake/George just listened to Oswald and de Mohrenschildt's first conversation), but I guess not. Oh well; I'll keep enjoying King's talent even though I disagree with his perspective.

On topic, I don't see proof one way or another in that photo. But I'm enjoying the discussion here.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


In that composite picture you posted, you can see that Doorman's collar looks different from Lovelady's. Aren't you capable of looking at small details? I have a collage of all three collars, and you can easily and graphically see that Lovelady's collar is the odd man out. It's all about the clothing and particularly the collars. But, you have to keep your eyes and your mind sharp and open. Quit being so dismissive. Why don't you just look at it? Respond specifically to what I am talking about. That is Oswald, and Dr. Jim Fetzer agrees.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


Dr. Jim Fetzer agrees with me that Doorman was Oswald. And you have got stop with the collectivist, pluralist argument. That is how mistakes get perpetuated.

Doorman is wearing Oswald's very distinctive clothes, and he is wearing them in the very same distinctive and unusual manner that Oswald was wearing them. You have to consider how unlikely that was that Lovelady just happened to deck himself out the same way that day. It's say it was a 1 in 1000 shot, but it was much smaller than that.

There is so much that you are not considering in your glib pronouncements. Were you aware that Lovelady was a much bigger man? He weighed 170 pounds. Oswald weighed 130. I'm no Math major, but I think 40 pounds is a big difference. Lovelady was a lot brawnier. And for that reason, he filled out his shirt better, where it looked relatively tight on him. Oswald, being scrawny, seemed to be swimming in his shirt. And the same is true of Doorman.

And that's just one thing. When you look at all the aspects of the clothing, the form, the fit, the lay, and the hang of it, there is no doubt that Doorman was Oswald.

Dr,. James Fetzer of the Univ. of Minnesota, a famed reseacher, agrees with me, and he has publically said so- on the radio. So, how about being a little less glib and hastily dismissive and a little more open-minded?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason1865
 


You really need to read Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. He goes all into how Oswald was framed, and he discusses the Tippit matter at length. Douglass interviewed witnesses at the Texas Theater who said that Oswald was there eating popcorn while Tippit was getting shot. Oswald most certainly did not kill Tippit. And I am just as certain that he was the Doorman in the Altgens photo. And by the way, Oswald said that he was outside in front during the shooting. It was written down in Detective Fritz' handwritten notes.

I know I am wasting my time with any and all lone-nutters, but if you are a CT, then you believe that Oswald was innocent. And if he was innocent, he had no reason to lie about his whereabouts. Innocent people do not lie to the police. So, if he said he was outside, he was. And he was captured in that picture. Please watch my videos on Youtube, starting with Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by wtbengineer
 


The patsy in the Chicago plot was Thomas Arthur Vallee, and if JKF hadn't cancelled his trip to Chicago over security concerns, we'd be talking today about TAV instead of LHO.

Please watch my videos on Youtube. Oswald was standing outside the Depository. The Altgens photo was altered and is full of weird anomalies, which I discuss in Video 7 in my series. I refer to them collectively as The Addams Family.

Another prominent researcher who has come around to my thinking is Dr. Jacob Hornberger, the head of the Future of Freedom Foundation. He has written extensively about the JFK assassination, and he praised the paper that Dr. Jim Fetzer and I wrote concerning my thesis. By the weay, how do I post images here, as I see others doing?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Would you just read Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable? Oswald did not shoot Tippit. He was in the Texas Theater eating popcorn at the time, as testified by several witnesses, including patrons and management. Jim Douglass interviewed the guy who sold him popcorn who was sure Oswald was engaged with him before 1:15.

If you are a lone-nutter, I don't want to waste my time. But for all CTS, Oswald was the Doorman in the Altgens photo. I know about the likenesses to Lovelady, and I also know that it's been long accepted for a long time, even by CTs, that it was Lovelady. But, I am asking you to open your mind to the other possibility, that it's Oswald.

Please consider that for years, decades Dr. Jim Fetzer, a leading conspiracy reseacher, believed it was Lovelady in the doorway. But, he has changed his mind, and he now agrees with me that it was Oswald standing there. The clothes and the whole presentation of the clothes match too well for it to be anyone other than Oswald. Please watch my videos on Youtube.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


You are on the right track, but keep going with it. If they made all those alterations and forgeries, don't you think they made sure the Altgens photo showed what they wanted it to show. Lovelady is in the picture. He's standing in front of and to the left of Oswald (Doorman). And, they moved Lovelady's face over to Lee's, and then they obliterated the rest of Lovelady's figure, effectively removing him from the picture.

A lot of the credit for that goes to Dr. James Fetzer. He and I have teamed up to promote this new thesis. Well, I suppose it's an old thesis that Oswald was the Doorway Man, but it's been cast aside for so long, it might as well be new. And Dr. Fetzer is totally on-board with it. So please, watch my videos with an open mind.

The Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothes, so he has to be Oswald. The likenesses to Lovelady were faked.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AnswerSeeker2012
 


Yes, they were found by the A/C service guy. Shots definitely came from the DCCB. Read Orlando Martin, who is a retired Army sharpshooter and balllistics expert. He says that the shots had a right to left trajectory, as per DCCB. Martin doesn't think any shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD- at least not any that hit.

And please watch my videos on Youtube: Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent.

Dr. Jim Fetzer and I are telling you that that was Oswald standing out there wearing the loose-fitting, unbuttoned outer shirt over the v-neck t-shirt. Not Lovelady. Forget the concensus. Look at the freaking clothes!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AnswerSeeker2012
 


Oswald was standing outside the building. You notice that loose-fitting, unbuttoned outer shirt on Doorman? It looks like Oswald's, right? Except, Oswald's was even more unbuttoned than Doorman's. You know why? I think it's because more of his buttons came off during the skuffle with police. From best we can tell, there was only one button left on Oswald's shirt, the bottom button. OH, well there was also the very top button which was under the collar on the right side. But that was a very weird button. For the buttons that were lined up in the usual row along the margin, only the one bottom button remained.

Take a look at Doorman's shirt. It's partially buttoned. I figure at least two buttons, and probably three were secured.- the bottom three.

So, that would mean that two buttons came off in the skuffle with police. How often does that happen? Not very often. Why did it happen this time? It's because Oswald's shirt was already partially unbuttoned and hanging open, and that provided leverage- a hook- to dislodge the remaining buttons. All but one came off.

I wish you guys would get back to talking about the subject of this thread, which is the Altgens photo and the identity of the Doorway Man. Dr. Jim Fetzer and I say that it was Lee Oswald because Doorway Man is wearing his clothes. Don't you understand that that clinches it?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AnswerSeeker2012
 


Why is it that I have found three different shirts which all claim to be Oswald's shirt in the National Archives. There is a lot of fake evidence in this case, and none more important than the fake picture of Lovelady in the Altgens photo. They altered his face and hairline and the pattern on his shirt to Love-lady-i-fy Lee Harvey Oswald. And the job of adding plaid to his shirt was done very shabbily. They added some contrast to the sleeve and body of the jacket, but they forgot completely about the collar. Doorman's right collar matches Oswald's perfectly, and it sharply contrasts with Lovelady's. I have a collage of all three which shows it vividly.

Doorway Man was Oswald because he's wearing Oswald's clothes, and there is no getting around that. Dr. Jim Fetzer, one of the most prominent JFK researchers, agrees. It's Oswald!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


I am glad you brought up Dr. Jim Fetzer because he agrees with me that the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo was Lee Harvey Oswald. And on his last radio program, that's what he talked about, and he referenced my work. I didn't hear it on-air, but he sent me an MP3 of it which I have listened to, and I appreciate what he did.

So, if you respect Dr. Fetzer, please watch my videos on Youtube and open your mind to the reality that Oswald really was standing there outside the building during the shooting And you realize what it means? It means it's checkmate for the official story. It's over.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


Then, you are taking issue not just with me but with Dr. Jim Fetzer, one of the most respected JFK researchers in the world.

And I don't appreciate you coming on here trashing my videos without even addressing any of the substantive issues raised in them. Just a blaneket condemnation? Who do you think you are? God?

Dr. Fetzer and I say that it was Oswald standing out there as the Doorway Man. And that's because Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's clothes, and he's wearing them the way Oswald wore them.

I've got a revelation for you: there are lots of different ways for men to dress. And Billy Lovelay did NOT just happen to wake up that morning and deck himself out exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald. Coincidences like that do not happen. Again: Fetzer is on-board with this, and I dare say he knows more than you do.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by slinkey10
 


Thanks. I was beginning to think I was living in the Twlight Zone. Yes, it is a shame about Stephen King. But what about Tom Hanks? He is working on a 10 part television mini-series of Buglioi's awful book, and it's going to be broadcast in 2013 in conjunction with the 50th anniversary. But, I assure you that CTs will be ready, and there will be a big response.

One of the leading JFK researchers in the world, Dr. James Fetzer, has fully endorsed my theory about the Doorman being Oswald. Jim has put his name to it, next to mine. He is totally on-board, as any rational person should be. People need to understand that that match of the clothing trumps everything else. If he's wearing Oswald's clothes, he's Oswald. You question the other stuff, but you don't question that. It could not be faked.

And who in God's name would have faked it anyway? They weren't trying to exonerate Oswald; they were trying to frame him. Do I even need to mention that?






top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join