New JFK evidence proves Oswald innocent

reply to post by Firsk


I'm asking about the Lee Harvey Oswald seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15 to 12:20PM by Roy Truly's secretary, Carolyn Arnold.

The same one that DPD Officer Marion Baker and Roy Truly found in the 2nd floor lunchroom, less than 75 seconds after the fatal gun shots. This LHO was cool, calm, collected, and not out of breathe when questioned by Officer Baker.

Remember, both elevators were stuck on the 5th floor and if LHO did the shooting, he would have had to transverse the entire 6th floor, hide the 7.65 German Mauser found behind a row of cartons, take the stairs down 4 floors, buy a drink from the machine, open it, and be standing in the lunchroom when met by Baker and Truly.


This is the Lee Harvey Oswald I'm talking about!!!!!

reply to post by Oldnslo


Yes, that is the same one I am talking about. He was seen in the lunchroom up to and within a few minutes before the shooting, and then he was seen again in the lunchroom less than 90 seconds afterwards by Truly and Baker. And in that brief span of time- no more than several minutes- he went outside and was standing next to the white pillar and partially covered by it, and he was captured on film by Ike Altgens as the Doorway Man.

reply to post by Firsk


Dr. Fetzer has been following our discussion, and he suggested that I post the first three paragraphs of the article directly, so I will do that.

JFK Special: Oswald was in the Doorway, after all!
by Dr. Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer


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

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

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

The likenesses between Oswald's and Doorman's shirts are too great to attribute to chance. And the likeness between Doorman's and Lovelady's shirts doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. In other words, when you compare them closely, they do NOT match AT ALL. The net of it is that Doorman's shirt is screaming that he is Oswald.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


I agree with your analysis of his face. ALSO, the shirt has a shimmer look... It is not Oswald it is the plaid shirt.. But the light makes it look solid with a shimmer.

Originally posted by Firsk
reply to post by Oldnslo

 

Yes, that is the same one I am talking about. He was seen in the lunchroom up to and within a few minutes before the shooting, and then he was seen again in the lunchroom less than 90 seconds afterwards by Truly and Baker. And in that brief span of time- no more than several minutes- he went outside and was standing next to the white pillar and partially covered by it, and he was captured on film by Ike Altgens as the Doorway Man.

I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

I am very familiar with Professor Fetzter's research on The Zapruder Film and I'm in complete agreement with him on that subject. But as far as a Lee Harvey Oswald in the doorway, its a bit of a stretch for me. I can't get by Lovelady's more advance stage of receding hairline and besides, as the Professor has proved, you cannot trust one bit of photographic "evidence" taken from Dealy Plaza on that day or any other.

There is also testimony to the fact that Billy Lovelady was standing on the steps of The TSBD:

"William Shelley (6H328, CE 1381 pp. 84), Sarah Stanton (CE 1381 pp. 89), Wesley Frazier (2H233-4, 22H 647), Billy Lovelady (6H338-9, CE 1381 pp. 62), and Danny Arce (6H365, 367) all testified and/or signed an affidavit stating Lovelady was standing outside the Depository doors as the motorcade passed."

Source

I just don't believe the orchestrators of the event would have allowed Oswald to stand on the steps to be photographed, when he's suppose to be in the east window of the 6th floor with a 7.65 Mauser firing off 4 shots in 6 seconds. (The Mannlicher was a throw-down.)

It seems to me the F.B.I. must have been sure it was Lovelady or that portion of Ike's photograph would have been manipulated like so many other photos and films taken that day.

reply to post by Oldnslo


Why are you being fooled by the hairline? That was the easiest thing for them to change. If you are in complete agreement with Dr. Fetzer that they altered the Zapruder film, why can't you accept that they altered the Altgens photo?

Did you read our article, mine and Dr. Fetzer's? In it, we detail all the anomalies in the Altgens photo, including the ones that pertain directly to Doorway Man. For instance, he does not have a left shoulder. It is cut off, and there is no photographic explanation for it.

Lee Harvey Oswald being the Doorway Man is not the least bit of a stretch because the Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's shirt. You have to realize how compelling that evidence is. It was a very unique, unusual, distintive shirt, and there is no chance that Lovelady wore anything like it.

And as far as Lovelady's testimony goes, he couldn't even stick to the same story about which shirt he was wearing. First, it was the short-sleeved red and white striped shirt, and then later it became the long-sleeved red, black and checkered one.

And Lovelady definitely WAS standing outside during the motorcade; he just wasn't the Doorway Man.

And why do you assume that the orchestrators could control everything Oswald did? You don't know what his handlers told him. As Dr. Fetzer and I point out in the article, it does seem as though various people are looking at the Doorway Man as if they are surprised to see him there. So, his stepping outside may be something that went distinctly against the plan. But again, we just don't know how his handlers prepped him for the events that day. It's all speculation. But, the Altgens photo most definitely WAS manipulated.

Look, this 48 year old state lie involved a tremendous amount of chicanery and subterfuge, and what they counted on is that people would think and react a certain way to certain appearances. And so far, you are mentally conforming to their playbook to a tee. I don't know how you feel about that, but that is the case. That is exactly what they counted on, depended on, that people like you would say, "you see, look at the hairline, it's receding like Lovelady's. Look at the pattern, it's varied like Lovelady's." The actual fact is that the shirt pattern is varied but NOT at all like Lovelady's. You're thinking at a reflex level. And again, that is what they were counting on.

The way to get over the hurdles- and I mean hurdles that they put up to block you from thinking correctly- is to start by focusing on Oswald's shirt, the uniqueness of it, the form, the fit, and the lay. Once you realize that Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's clothes, and that those clothes could not possibly be Lovelady's, no matter which shirt Lovelady was wearing of the two he said he was wearing at different times, then you must conclude that Doorway Man was Oswald and that the likenesses to Lovelady, including the hairline and the shirt pattern, were faked. Doorman's wearing Oswald's shirt really does ice this thing. There is no getting around it. Nothng else trumps it. It's checkmate.

Originally posted by Firsk
reply to post by Oldnslo

 

Why are you being fooled by the hairline? That was the easiest thing for them to change. If you are in complete agreement with Dr. Fetzer that they altered the Zapruder film, why can't you accept that they altered the Altgens photo?

Nothng else trumps it. It's checkmate.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Firsk because: typoe

I can't accept the fact that the Altgens photo was doctored to show what you are stating, and still leave in the through and through bullet hole Professor Fetzer believes to be in the wind screen of the limo.

And by the way, I haven't been "fooled" since I saw the body bag come off Air Force One at Andrews AFB just after it had rolled to a stop. 2 men carried the body bag to an awaiting twin rotor helo for its quick trip to Bethesda for a bit of clandestine "pre-autopsy" by Commander Humes.

In no way is your premise a "checkmate". The closest anyone has come to a "checkmate" regarding the assassination would be this:

Madeleine Duncan Brown Interview

reply to post by Oldnslo


Here is a comparison of Billy Lovelady to himself. Same man, same day, same place, same time.

Yet, in one, he has a big flap over his pocket, and in the other, no flap and a pack of cigarettes exposed.

So, what should we make of this? What does it mean? Would you think about it?

reply to post by Firsk


There is nothing to be made of it . He simply put the cigarettes back into his shirt pocket in front of the flap .

Nothing to see here .

Your theory holds as much water as a rusty old bucket.

reply to post by dawnprince


Oh, so you thnk the flap is there, but it's standing straight up and flush against the shirt so that we can't see it.

Is that what you're saying?

If so, don't you think it's a little presumptuous? What I mean is it's one thing to surmise that, but how do you know for sure?

Now look at this collage. It's all Lovelady and all the same shirt. Notice that in the two color pictures, there is good lighting, good focus, good visibility, and they are nice close-up shots.

But, it's hard to see any pocket in the two on the right, and even harder to see any flap. And in both cases, there is no pack of cigarettes holding the flap up, so therefore, it should be down and visible.

Do you want to say that they're there, but you just can't see them too well? Is that your story? Is that what you're telling me?

Well, if so, you are shovelling sand to stop the tide. . . at dawn.

Here's an interesting thread from JFK Lancer. It concerns Lovelady and his shirt- or shirts. I'll give you the link if you want to read it there.

1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com...

But, I'll post it below, including the image being discussed. Something is fishy here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'll tell you why I ask about the exact location of the pocket, Scott. It's because I'm a little confused about something.

Here is a diagram of the location of the pockets. You can see the pocket locations in yellow. And keep in mind that I didn't draw them in. One, as you can see, is the Robert Groden picture, and the other is the Robert Jackson picture.

I am going to assume that they are right about the location of those boxes that they drew. And I also presume that the boxes are drawn a little big. And I say that because that's what people generally do. When they draw a box around something, they make the box a little bigger than the object that they are trying to identify so that you can see the whole thing, and so that the margins are visible and unencumbered. Do you agree? Any problem with it?

Now, my question is this:

If they are both the same shirt, and I don't think there is any doubt that that is what they are implying, why is it that on the left, the top of the box is in the black space, whereas on the right, the top of the box is in the red space?

Shouldn't it be the same, if they are the same shirt?

Since we're on the topic, has anybody ever received that chain email where it looks as if JFK's driver actually turned around and shot Jack in the head while everybody was ducking from the initial shot? If I can figure out how to upload it, I'll put it on here in an edit. It's probably just an edited crazy video, but maybe some people here can debunk it for me. I'm not quite convinced.

And in my opinion, I still think Johnson had something to do with Jack's assassination. Just a hunch and nothing more, quite honestly.


-TS


Edit:

Here's the video I was talking about.

reply to post by truthseeker1984


Been Debunked time & time again .

reply to post by Firsk


They are not the same shirt . The pictures were taken years apart . Pockets just don't vanish .
Your theory has more holes than Bonnie & Clyde

Originally posted by dawnprince
reply to post by truthseeker1984

 

Been Debunked time & time again .

Do you have any links to the debunking? I didn't believe the video myself, and I'd like to see what others have said about it.

-TS

reply to post by truthseeker1984


The only way people can make the Driver theory remotely plausible looking is when they use very low quality images/videos. They do that because the higher quality versions debunk them completely:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bg4f2958c3.gif[/atsimg]

This is an extreme close-up of frame 312, the fatal head shot being at frame 313. The Zapruder film was travelling at 18.3 frames per second so is he shot a gun at this time.. we'd certainly see it in this image. But, we don't. There is no gun. Low quality versions of the film made it look like a gun is pulled out but in reality we're really just seeing the sun reflecting off the head of agent Roy Kellerman (the person closest to us in the above image).

William Greer's left hand is also circled in the above image because with the debunking of the "gun in the air" theory, a new theory developed.. the theory being Greer turned around with a pistol in his left hand, somehow missed Connolly and shot JFK in the head blowing the right side off (despite Greer being on the left hand side of the car) and no one in the car, or near the limousine, realizing.

Amazing, isn't it?

Anyway, this really is a dead theory now but it still has a few desperately clinging onto it for some reason. I guess some just can't let go. But trust me, this isn't the way thing's went down that day, not even close.

Here's the full frame 312 for anyone interested as well.

Edit to add after seeing your above post: If you would like to see a video conclusively debunking this theory then I'd reccomend you watch this video from researcher Bob Harris:



I hope you find the time to watch and give your thoughts.

reply to post by Rising Against


Thanks for the assessment RA. I didn't believe the theory at all. I was just wondering if people had seen the video. I honestly didn't believe it myself due to the reasons that you already gave.

Edit to add: What a clever trick of the light. Thanks for posting that video RA!

-TS

reply to post by truthseeker1984


Glad you didn't mind me jumping in there, I just reeeally can't stand this theory (It's a waste of time in my opinion and is a distraction from the real theories) so whenever I can jump in and try and debunk it.. I do so.

Oh, and I know you didn't fully believe it. I could tell from your last 2 posts you was just looking for information on it and everything which is always a good thing really. Anyway, I hope you still got a chance to watch that video I posted btw. It's a really good one I think.

And It's also worth pointing out that the speech being played over the video you originally posted was taken massively out of context as well. Many people think It's about secret societies.. but nothing could be further from the truth. Here's the full version, not the edited version.

reply to post by dawnprince


That's the point! Don't you get it? He claimed they were the same shirt. Didn't you know that?

All three shirts in this collage are supposed to be the same, according to Lovelady. Are you buying it?

Some people have tried to challenge the idea that Doorman is wearing a vee-necked t-shirt, like Oswald. They claim that it is just the shadow of his chin that's causing it.

But, could chin-shade really obliterate the shirt material to the extent that it made the round hole look v-shaped and without any tell-tale sign that it was the effect of the shadow?

If you look closely at this Marsh scan of the area around the Doorman, and focus on the right side of his t-shirt at the top (which means our left) you can see a small sliver of shade over the t-shirt. It's dark, but you still know that there is t-shirt underneath it. You aren't fooled into thinking that the line of the t-shirt is altered.

And then if you compare that dark little sliver of shade with the darkness of the central vee, you see that there is a qualitative difference. They're not the same. Cast your eyes back and forth and see.

No way is the shape of that t-shirt being converted to a vee in a perfect overlay. The reason you see a vee is because that is the shape of his t-shirt. And everyone agrees that at no time did Lovelady wear a v-neck t-shirt. Not on assassination day or any other day. He probably didn't own any.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Doorway Man.