DEFINITIVE PROOF OSWALD WAS NOT IN THE DOORWAY (SIMPLIFIED)

  In this post I am going to let the evidence, testimony, and critical thinking speak for itself. To see for yourself what the Oswald Innocence Project is doing and saying please Google that name or Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer for their articles. The detractors will try to say that all the photos and video were faked taken that day in Dealy Plaza. That statement itself is just RIDICULOUS. While we share the same conclusion, that Oswald did not kill JFK, we arrive through different avenues…mine the story the best available evidence and testimony and theirs through degraded photos and manufactured “comparison points”. And just to keep it easy to follow, I will do this in chronological order. Okay….here we go….

image

This is the Altgens 6 photo in question, and yes it has been colorized….but the part in question that the OIC is claiming that it was really Oswald in the doorway, and that the photo has been altered to portray the figure in the doorway as Billy Lovelady. Here is the close up that they work with….

image

In this photo, they claim that the real Lovelady has both hands up and whose face has been “blacked out”, they claim that the guy in the white shirt with one hand up has been “obfuscated”, they also claim that “Doorwayman” is missing a shoulder, and that the black tie man is both in front of and behind him at the same time. Also included by them as weird “anomalies” is the floating blsck mans head and the black lady’s tall hair.
   Okay they put Oswald in the doorway at the time of the shots, contrary to several witnesses placing Oswald in the lunchroom anywhere from as early as 11:50 by Bill Shelley and as late as 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold. They also point to the fact that in Capt.Fritz’s interrogation notes that Oswald himself said he was “out front with Bill Shelley”. However they are inferring that Oswald was speaking of himself. The questions that Fritz asked are not included in the notes, he could have been asking the whereabouts of Roy Truly or someone else. Because the notes are written in a bullet point form and not like a book, they are condensed and shortened like anyone taking notes would do. The question where were you at the time of the shooting would be one of the first questions asked, and it was. Right before that it clearly says 2nd. Floor when officer came in, 1st floor had lunch…heres the notes

image

In the same notes he then says he left work…

    That sure looks like Oswald to me coming down the steps…and here are some stills showing his attire and hairline…

image

image

This video clearly shows Oswald wearing blue jeans, white t shirt, and an unbuttoned cardigan or some type of sweatshirt.  Also in the 2nd page of Fritz’s notes, he states he changed his SHIRT AND PANTS at his apt and that what he was wearing is in the hamper.

image

This is supported by the testimony and interview with Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper of his rooming house…

The so called brown shirt Oswald changed into, could be misconstrued as a short jacket by an elderly woman with bad eyesight as he hurriedly walked out the door due to its appearance and lapels.

image

Now if in fact he did grab a jacket, why wasnt he arrested with one? We all agree Oswald didnt shoot Tippit, so the OIC needs to explain what happened to this so called jacket, and why he would ditch it on the way to the theater. There are numerous pics and video showing Lovelady wearing the red flannel shirt that day, and they point to his different appearance, which can be explained by video still effects which distort the way a person looks by freezing a moving picture. The effects of the Altgens photo can be easily explained by a 2D layering effect….here is the scene from another angle…

image

From a view the angle Altgens was shooting from everyone on the stairs appear interwoven and on top of each other when in reality, there was space between the people on the stairs.
   In closing, does it make sense that Oswald was in the doorway, saw the President get shot, and rushed to the 2nd floor to get a soda within seconds of a shooting and that all video and pics were altered? Or would common sense and logic, evidence, and witness testimony make more sense? I know it’s hard to admit when you’re wrong, but the gig is up OIC. Do you want to be marginalized by the research community to crack-pottery, or taken seriously as  JFK researcher?

-conspiracycritic

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “DEFINITIVE PROOF OSWALD WAS NOT IN THE DOORWAY (SIMPLIFIED)

  1. How could there possibly be “definitive proof” that Lee was not in the doorway? That is absurd.

    (1) The Altgens photograph includes obvious evidence of fakery: one man’s face has been obfuscated, Doorman’s shoulder is missing, and Black Tie Man is both IN FRONT OF and BEHIND Doorman at the same time.

    (2) The claim has been made by no less an authority than Richard Trask that the photo was sent out immediately and therefore cannot have been altered. But since it was obviously altered, it cannot have been sent out immediately.

    (3) It is an obvious principle that the actual implies the possible: if something actually happened, then it had to have been possible for it to have happened. Who are you going to believe: your lying eyes or an author publishing 30 years later?

    (4) This is analogous to Josiah Thompson contending that the Zapruder film could not have been altered. But we even know when and where it was done. See “US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”, for an introduction.

    (5) If that is not enough, see “JFK Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”, where it turns out the film itself is not even internally consistent. Frame 374 shows the blow-out at the back of JFK’s head, which is painted over in earlier frames.

    (6) For more on Josiah Thompson, who is setting himself up to denounce conspiracy in the death of JFK for the 50th observance, see “JFK, the CIA and The New York Times”. His conduct has been despicable, but that appears to be his mission.

    (7) There would have been no reason to alter the Altgens unless someone had been there who should not have been, where the obvious candidate is Lee Oswald, the designated patsy. It would not do to have him in the doorway and not on the 6th floor.

    (8) We have established more than 27 points of identification between Doorman and Lee as well as multiple proofs that Doorman is not Billy Lovelady. Given the alternatives “Oswald vs. Lovelady”, we have not only shown it was Lee but that it was not Lovelady.

    (9) Even Billy himself went to the FBI on 29 February 1964 and showed them the shirt he had been wearing during the shooting. It was a red-and-white, vertically-striped short-sleeved shirt, which is nothing like the shirt that Doorman was wearing on 22 November 1963.

    (10) Would anyone have done something like that if it were not true? Would you? The FBI even took a series of photographs and stated in its formal report to J. Edgar at FBI Headquarters that this was the shirt Billy Lovelady showed them he had worn at the time.

    (11) Jones Harris actually flew to Dallas and conferred with Billy Lovelady about this. Billy told him that he had been wearing the red-and-white, vertically-striped short-sleeved shirt that day. I have interviewed him on “The Real Deal” and Richard Hooke has spoken with him at length.

    While it is certainly true the claim would later surface that Billy had been wearing a red-and-black, long-sleeved checkered shirt, that has been shown to be false on multiple grounds, including proof that it was not Billy who was wearing that shirt but someone who looked like a gorilla.

    I am at a loss as to why so many otherwise seemingly intelligent students of JFK are contesting the obvious: the photo was faked, a face (which we believe was Bill Shelley) was obfuscated, and we have multiple proofs that Doorman was Oswald and not Lovelady. It has been proven. Q.E.D.

    Indeed, Lee even told Will Fritz that he had been “out with Billy Shelley” in front. That has to have been during the shooting, lest Fritz have omitted asking the most important question. And it cannot have been later, because Shelley and Lovelady walked down to the TUP. Another proof. Q.E.D.

    • 1) The photo is not “obviously” obfuscated. The effects you describe are a 2 dimensional layering effect that occurs when a photo is taken, and 3 dimensional objects in front of each other appear to be next to, on top of, and jumbled with each other. That is a scientific fact not up for debate that explains your so called evidence of tampering.
      2)Your logic that because it was altered, it could not have been sent out immediately is baseless and not consistent with the the available evidence. The photo WAS on the wire within 20 min. of being developed and featured in newspapers around the world that evening. There would have been no FBI or whoever to examine this photo before it went out or time for it to have been altered. When viewing the entire photo, you are speaking about a very tiny part of a photo with a lot more interesting things going on in it. With the naked eye, this figure is inconsequential and is not visible enough to jump out to your brain and say “Hey that looks like Lee Harvey Oswald”!
      3) I am going to belive MY eyes. And they say that in this photo and many others, that man is Billy Nolan Lovelady.
      4) Not the same as Josaih Thompson, the Zapruder film had time to be faked, and thanks to Doug Horne we know how and where it was done. Like I said I dont buy that an agent was sitting at the AP in New York searching photos for Lee Oswald, that is absurd.
      5,6,7) Do not apply to this, no need for reply
      8)You may have, but I also did the same with doorway man and a picture of Brad Pitt…these days you can manufacture evidence to support your theory.
      9)Maybe he didn’t want to gobdown in history as that guy and be confused with the accused assassin. Also at that point there wasn’t the available pics and video to bombard him with for lying about his shirt.
      10) People have their own reasons for doing things.
      11) Just because he was interviewed, doesnt mean he was completely honest. He did not want the spotlight, and by then could have been threatened or compromised.

  2. Well, we have addressed all of these complaints, which have no merit. It is embarrassing to see someone try to cope with evidence that is beyond him. I am not going to attempt to recap our research, but only observe that this guy is off-the-wall with fanciful conjectures. Here is a simple presentation of the evidence that reasonable people–including the public–should find compelling:

    “JFK Part I: A National Security Event – Oswald didn’t do it”

    “JFK Part II: A National Security Event – How it was done”

    Those who like the “coulda/woulda/shoulda” school of reasoning can spend all the time they want on this blog. I have explained how we know it was altered. This is not rocket science. Someone who can’t see a missing shoulder, an obfuscated face, and a man who is both IN FRONT OF and BEHIND Doorman at the same time has demonstrated his incompetence for real research on JFK.

  3. JUST FOR THE RECORD:

    conspiracycritic7 says:
    January 7, 2013 at 3:23 am

    1) The photo is not “obviously” obfuscated. The effects you describe are a 2 dimensional layering effect that occurs when a photo is taken, and 3 dimensional objects in front of each other appear to be next to, on top of, and jumbled with each other. That is a scientific fact not up for debate that explains your so called evidence of tampering.

    ANYONE WHO CAN DENY THE OBFUSCATED FACE, THE MISSING SHOULDER, AND THE MAN WHO IS IN FRONT OF AND BEHIND HIM AT THE SAME TIME. THE SAME FEATURES ARE IN ALL VERSIONS AVAILABLE. THIS IS AS PHONY AN EXCUSE AS HE CAN DREAM UP.

    2)Your logic that because it was altered, it could not have been sent out immediately is baseless and not consistent with the the available evidence. The photo WAS on the wire within 20 min. of being developed and featured in newspapers around the world that evening. There would have been no FBI or whoever to examine this photo before it went out or time for it to have been altered. When viewing the entire photo, you are speaking about a very tiny part of a photo with a lot more interesting things going on in it. With the naked eye, this figure is inconsequential and is not visible enough to jump out to your brain and say “Hey that looks like Lee Harvey Oswald”!

    WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO WAS ACTUALLY TAKING PHOTOS OFF THE WIRE DURING THE WEEKEND AND WHO NOTICED THAT THE ALTGENS HAD BEEN ALTERED WHEN IT CAME OFF THE FOLLOWING MORNING. YOU CAN MAKE STUFF UP; THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE.

    3) I am going to belive MY eyes. And they say that in this photo and many others, that man is Billy Nolan Lovelady.

    WELL, WE HAVE EXPLAINED HOW THEY LOVELADYFIED THE ALTGENS AND THEN DID THE REVERSE BY OSWALDIFYING THE MORE DISTANT OF THE FBI PHOTOGRAPHS. EITHER YOU HAVEN’T READ OUR WORK OR YOUR ASSIGNMENT IS TO OBFUSCATE OUR FINDINGS.

    4) Not the same as Josaih Thompson, the Zapruder film had time to be faked, and thanks to Doug Horne we know how and where it was done. Like I said I dont buy that an agent was sitting at the AP in New York searching photos for Lee Oswald, that is absurd.

    SO YOU THINK THE CONSPIRATORS HAD NO IDEA WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME? OR THAT HE HAD TOLD FRITZ HE WAS “OUT WITH BILLY SHELLEY IN FRONT”? THAT INFORMATION PROBABLY SET OFF ALARM BELLS THAT THE ALTGENS HAD TO BE ALTERED–AND WAS.

    5,6,7) Do not apply to this, no need for reply

    WELL, THERE IS NO REAL NEED TO REPLY TO ANY OF YOUR ARGUMENTS, BUT I AM DOING THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE WHO MIGHT BE TAKEN IN BY YOUR SMUG RESPONSES.

    8)You may have, but I also did the same with doorway man and a picture of Brad Pitt…these days you can manufacture evidence to support your theory.

    WELL, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY EQUIVOCATING, BECAUSE OUR “POINTS” ARE FEATURES, NOT MERE POINTS, WHILE YOURS ARE NOT. THIS IS A NICE ILLUSTRATION OF THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION BY PLAYING ON THE AMBIGUOUS MEANING OF A WORD OR PHRASE.

    9)Maybe he didn’t want to gobdown in history as that guy and be confused with the accused assassin. Also at that point there wasn’t the available pics and video to bombard him with for lying about his shirt.

    HE APPEARS TO HAVE HAD A CONSCIENCE. YOU MAY WELL BE THE KIND OF MAN WHO WOULD DO WHAT YOU ATTRIBUTE TO BILLY LOVELADY, BUT HE APPEARS TO HAVE HAD A CONSCIENCE AND WANTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING TO CORRECT THE JFK RECORD.

    10) People have their own reasons for doing things.

    IF YOU THINK SOMEONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE FBI AND FALSELY CLAIMED TO HAVE WORN A SHIRT THEY WERE NOT WEARING, THEN I MUST INFER THAT YOUR MORAL CHARACTER IS SORELY LACKING. THAT’S JUST INCREDIBLE.

    11) Just because he was interviewed, doesnt mean he was completely honest. He did not want the spotlight, and by then could have been threatened or compromised.

    WELL, YOU SEEM TO WANT TO CONTRIVE EVERY REASON YOU CAN CONJUR UP FOR THE SAKE OF DISCOUNTING THE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS ALL AGAINST YOU. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU SEEM TO THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THIS SHODDY BLOG.

    AND WHY WOULD LEE HAVE TOLD FRITZ HE WAS “OUT WITH BILLY SHELLEY IN FRONT” IF IT WERE NOT TRUE? IT COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN VERIFIED HAD SHELLEY NOT BEEN IN ON IT. OTHER CLAIMS LEE MADE HAVE PROVEN TO BE TRUE. WHY WOULD HE LIE?

    AN EXAMPLE IS THE BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS. JIM MARRS AND I HAVE PUBLISHED ON THEM: “FRAMING THE PATSIES: THE CASE OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD”. LEE SAID IT WAS HIS FACE PASTED ON SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY. WE HAVE SHOWN THAT THIS WAS TRUE.

    EVERYTHING ABOUT HIS DEMEANOR IN POLICE CUSTODY SUGGESTED HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH: ABOUT HIS ARREST, ABOUT BEING HIT, ABOUT NOT HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED OF CHARGES AGAINST HIM, ABOUT THE BACKYARD PHOTOS, AND ABOUT BEING IN FRONT.

  4. I agree with your last point that Oswald seemed to be telling the truth in custody, why then will you not acknowledge that in Fritz’s wnd interview, Oswald says he changed his shirt and trousers, it sats both and that he put them in his dirty laundry. The brown shirt he was wearing looks like a jacket, so what of Earlene Roberts testimony? I am aware of all your work in the case and have followed it since 98. I am free to conject the inference of Oswalds answers as it is clearly what you are doing yourself. Go read up on photography a little bit, and adress the 2 dimensional layering effect that explains all your anomalies with the Altgens. Nobody, including Altgens, knew what pictures he had taken, or what was captured until they were developed. There is alot more going on in that picture than Doorway man. If they went to the trouble of altering Oswald, then why leave in the bullethole in the windshield, Johnson’ door open and him ducking, and the figures in and on the Dal Tex building? When you have a picture of the original Altgens before alteration and after, then I will eat the biggest crow you can find.

    • Even the Warren Commission concluded that he had NOT changes his trousers and his shirt. And if he had changed his shirt, what would be the probability of all those features of Doorman’s shirt would match the shirt that he was wearing when he was arrested? I am trying to give you benefit of the doubt, but your reasoning is very poof. There are many other indications that the photo has been altered, but it is fascinating to me that you are wandering away from the points you made that I have already refuted. Logic and evidence are not your strong suits. I suggest you abandon this misguided attempt to defend the indefensible. Oswald was in the doorway and we have proven it.

  5. Yes, i forgot how much the Warren Commission got things right. That in itself is a flimsy statement. Can you point me in the direction of another serious researcher, not in your group, that thinks you all really have something? The only thing you’ve proven is that Richard Hooke knows how to use Photoshop….Jack White is probably rolling in his grave right about now, i all his years on this case I just can’t believe, that i if your theory is authentic, he would’ve missed it.

    • Well, this is another reason you are incompetent to address these issues. What we have here is known as “an admission contrary to interests”. When a suspect admits something that tends to incriminate himself, it has special weight because he would not be expected to say anything of that kind if it were not true. Similarly for the Warren Commission. It would not be expected to report anything that tends to establish Oswald’s innocence, yet in this case, it has done precisely that. I recommend that you hang up your jock and find other ways to spend your copious free time. This is not your calling. You have committed one blunder after another. I feel badly for you. Let it go.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s