New JFK evidence proves Oswald innocent

reply to post by wtbengineer


Yes, but with your kind permission, let me point something out:

Stephen King is a mainstream author. And, the mainstream media would never promote and discuss and advance the book if he were to have given it a conspiracy angle.

I am reminded of an interview I saw of the brother of LHO. It was a long interview, mostly about early, family stuff in their lives. But then, at the end, he was asked whether in his heart of hearts, he thought his brother did it. And I knew his answer before he said it. And the reason I knew his answer was because I knew that they would never have published the interview if he had said that he believed his brother was innocent. If it had come down to that, they would have either cut that part out or trashed the whole interview.

We live in a controlled-press society. And just as 9/11 truth is not allowed to be discussed in that controlled society, other than to be trashed, so is it the same concerning JFK truth.

A pro-Warren Report book was the ONLY kind of book that Stephen King could write- without damaging his whole career.

But, once again, please watch my videos on Youtube and tell others. Dr. Jim Fetzer and I are telling you that the Doorman was LHO because he's wearing the clothes of LHO, and he's wearing them in the same manner. And that is enough- in and of itself- to clinch it.

reply to post by Firsk

In that composite picture you posted, you can see that Doorman's collar looks different from Lovelady's.

Here's the image again and we can quite clearly see you're wrong there - It looks exactly the same.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/or4f05c13c.jpg[/atsimg]

Here are the individual images:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/yq4f1559a1.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/qa4f155738.jpg[/atsimg]

The only difference between the two is the image to the left hand side (from the second image) where Lovelady is sitting down we can see more of his white t-shirt being exposed than on the image to the right, and we can quite clearly see this white t-shirt in the above image. The collar and outer shirt which is what your'e highlighting though is exactly the same.

That's forgetting the hairline and the bald patch etc..

Aren't you capable of looking at small details?

lol, brilliant, a thinly veiled insult.. That's a sure way to lose a debate.

Quit being so dismissive

I'm not just being dismissive - I've looked into this part of the case quite a bit as well and as far as I'm concerned we're obviously looking at Billy Lovelady in the Altgens photo, not Lee Harvey Oswald. It's an opinion I've come to through my own personal research into the case.

To quickly sum up my entire opinion of his involvement in this case in fact I'd say he was working in Intelligence prior to the assassination taking place and was more than likely under the impression he was working on a new mission when it did take place - this being where he was made as he said he was, a patsy. But because I believe he was involved in a conspiracy in some form or another (although he believed he was on the side of the "good guys"), I'm not just going to blindly believe everything which exonerates him from firing the fatal shots.. which I don't believe he fired anyway.

That is Oswald, and Dr. Jim Fetzer agrees.

Whats your point? Fetzer agrees therefore It's fact? Come on, don't be silly. I have a lot of respect for that guy and yes, he is a great researcher but I'm not just going to believe something because he may believe it, reason being I can think for myself and I can come to my own conclusions. I don't ever need anyone to tell me to believe anything.

Anyway, I'll end this post on a final note - If you want to convince anyone of anything here, stop insulting people with those petty comments I can see in my post and some other posts. If you want to be seen as a genuine researcher and want to be taken seriously with what you say start acting like an adult instead of a child who isn't getting his own way.. Not everyone is going to see thing's the way you are, you have to learn to deal with that. That's all..

reply to post by Firsk


I understand what you're saying with regard to Stephen King and his career, but I'm not sure I agree with that. There have been a ton of authors who've sold quite well while condemning the Warren Commission report, one of the most obvious being Mark Lane. I'm not sure why S.K. takes the stance he does, I think only he could answer that.

About the Oswald/Lovelady thing, Rising Against has answered that question well just above me so I won't go into it, except to say that I agree with him. From everything I have seen and the evidence provided here I can't place Oswald in the doorway. That doesn't mean I think he was on the sixth floor and shooting a rifle. I don't.

reply to post by Firsk


Exactly the same? Look specifically at Doorman's collar. Do you see that it has a flap and then below it there is a small pseudo-lapel? It is an extra fold in the material that bends over into a very neat, compact, pseudo-lapel. Then, look to the right at Lovelady, and not his 1971 staged photo, but to the right of that. And what you see is a regular flannel shirt with a standard collar and no lapel. THERE IS NO PSEUDO-LAPEL as you see on Doorman's shirt. Cast your eyes back and forth quickly between the two.

Here is a collage of all three right collars. Lovelady's right collar was from a picture taken years later, but it was, allegedly, the very same shirt. Notice how identical Doorman's and Oswald's collars are and how different Lovelady's is. His does not lie the same. It folds over, but not in the same way, and it does not have the look of a pseudo-lapel as you see on Doorman and Oswald. In fact, Lovelady's fold-over looks contrived, and it's not present in the composite photo that you posted. Also, notice all the pattern and contrast in Lovelady's collar that is missing from the other two.

Which two collars match perfectly and which one is the odd man out? Isn't it obvious?




And in the second picture you posted, look at the white figure to Doorman's left, which is our right. What is that? It looks like two white stripes and little white bulb. Yes?

Well, believe it or not, that is supposed to be a man. Dr. Fetzer and I call him Black Tie Man. Have you ever seen such an image of a human being before in a photo? Neither have I. That image is FAKE. That man is not real. He was put there to hide the distinctive left collar of Oswald's shirt which would have given the whole thing away. The left side had a collar, a lapel, and a button loop coming off the lapel. That's right, a button loop. The top button did not close with a button hole like most shirts, including Lovelady's. It closed with a separate piece of material, a button loop. And that's what they had to cover up with that phony Black Tie Man.

And there are other anomalies in that second picture. Why does the man to Doorman's left, our right, have no face? Dr. Fetzer and I call him Black Hole Man. And in front of him there is another man with a white blotch over his face. Dr. Fetzer and I call him Obfuscated Man. And what is going on with the wild hair of the African American woman? We call her Big Afro Hair Woman. Collectively, I refer to them as the Addams Family.

The Doorman was Oswald. Please watch my videos, and please spread the word. We have the chance to take down a 48 year old state lie, and we have to go for it.

Originally posted by zeta55
I watched the video. At first, it sure did look like Oswald in the doorway. After you showed a picture of the other man, even though it was a side view, the man in the doorway has facial features, and size, of the man that is not Oswald. Sorry, I forgot his name.

Yes!

I watched it too and got the same impression... The face structure looks like "Lovelady?"
(guys name) not Lee Harvey. Even the hair line and the length of the face...

I know about Mark Lane and Jim Douglass and Jim Marrs etc who have written conspiracy books, but they are not mainstream fiction writers like Stephen King. Can't you see the difference?

And I responded to that guy you mentioned, and I will keep responding.

Look, the likenesses to Oswald's clothes were too great to happen by chance. Lovelady didn't get up that morning and just happen to dress and comport himself in the exact same manner as Oswald, wearing a loose-fitting, unbuttoned outer shirt over a v-neck t-shirt. The odds of that alone were less than 1 in a 100 as I explain in the introduction to my video. And then when you consider the specific likenesses of the collars, it puts it over the top. That would have made the whole thing not only the crime of the century but the coincidence of the century. Please read my introduction to the video below:

In poker, you have to calculate the odds of a guy drawing a certain card. For instance, the odds of drawing an inside straight are 1 in 13. So, let's size up the odds in this case.

The fact that both Oswald and Doorman look generally alike and are both wearing a loose-fitting outer shirt, that is unbuttoned, over a white t-shirt with a v-neck, creates, in itself, a strong likelihood that they are the same person.

Take the one issue of both shirts being unbuttoned. What percentage of men at work in the city go around with their shirt largely unbuttoned? Percentage-wise, it has got to be small. I don't know what it is exactly, but you'd have to agree that it could be no greater than 1 in 10. Right? If you don't agree, then walk down the street in downtown Dallas, Texas or any other big city and start observing men, and keep track of how many are buttoned vs unbuttoned, and come up with your own number. Take a representative sample. I think 1 in 10 is actually too big, but we'll go with it. The simple fact is that: MOST MEN BUTTON UP.

Now, there's no doubt that Oswald was unbuttoned- he was unbuttoned when he was arrested. Plus, we know that his buttons were missing, so he had to be unbuttoned. But nobody reported Lovelady being unbuttoned, and in the one picture we have of him from that day, he was NOT unbuttoned.

Mathematically speaking, that one variable, by itself, creates strong odds that Doorman was Oswald and not Lovelady.

But then, you keep going. Both Oswald's and Doorman's shirts were loose-fitting, somewhat over-sized, and I put the odds of that at around 1 in 3. But now we are talking about two variables which have to be multiplied together, so we are talking about a 1 in 30 chance that Doorman and Oswald would both be wearing shirts that were both unbuttoned and loose-fitting. (10 x 3 = 30)

Then there is the v-neck t-shirt. Round-neck t-shirts, also called crew-neck, have always been more popular and still are, but v-neck users are gaining. Recent industry reports show that 67% of t-shirt sales have been crew-neck. Then came sleeveless tanks at 17%, and then v-necks at 16%. That last figure was probably much lower in 1963, but let's go with it. So, we'll say 1 in 6 odds of both wearing v-neck t-shirts. Multiplying that out, we are now at 1 in 180 (30 x 6).

In other words, the odds that both Oswald and another man who was the Doorway Man both would have worn unbuttoned, loose-fitting outer shirts over v-neck t-shirts were no greater than 1 in 180. Note also that in every picture we have of Lovelady, he is wearing a crew-neck t-shirt.

So, at first glance we are looking at odds of 180 to 1 against the apparent likenesses in dress between Oswald and Doorway Man happening by chance. But then, when we factor in the matching collars and lapels, it takes it off the chart. The odds of that are too small to calculate. They are infinitesmal. The right collars of Oswald and Doorman match PERFECTLY, as I demonstrate in my videos. And although we cannot see the left collar of Doorman, (because they covered it up with that phony, ridiculous Black Tie Man) we can see the long left lapel on Doorman, which matches the one on Oswald. Again, that puts it off the chart. How many shirts even have lapels?

Note that all this would be true even if Doorman could be ANYBODY. It would be true even Doorman could be a random guy who just happened to be walking by and stopped. But, in this case, it's not that Doorman could be just anybody. If he's not Oswald, then he can only be one other person on the face of the Earth: Billy Lovelady. We would have to assume that one particular individual just happened to dress himself and arrange himself that day in the exact same manner as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mathematically speaking, the odds that Oswald and Doorman are the same person are extremely great. And if you don't think so, I sure wish you would sit down and play some poker with me. And let's make it high stakes.

The Doorman was Oswald, and the likenesses to Lovelady were faked. I'd go all-in on that bet.

A 48 year old state lie is dying. Let's put it out of its misery.

reply to post by mastahunta


Yes, and those things were faked.

Look, the situation is that the face and hairline are a match to Lovelady, but the form and fit and lay of the clothes match Oswald.

So, what do you do in that situation? Do you just say that you think the face and hairline are more important so you are going to go with that?

I am sorry, but that is not logical. When you see what appears to be a contradiction, you know that one or the other aspect of it must be false and not real. So, the question is: which one?

Well, we know for sure that there is no chance that the picture was faked in order to exonerate Oswald. Nobody was trying to do that. But there was plenty of effort being made to incriminate him. Isn't that so?

Furthermore, the form and fit and lay of the shirt were too big of an element in the picture to alter. There is only so much you can do when you're out to commit forgery. But the facial elements were small. And the hairline merged with the black murky space above his head. So, those things could be altered. Lovelady was in the picture. They moved his facial details over to Doorman and then they obliterated what remained of Lovelady.

I need to point out that your thought process is exactly what the conspirators were counting on. I am asking you to stop going about this so quickly, so glibly. Look at it more earnestly. Watch all my videos.

Note that before I approached him about it, Dr. Fetzer, like most JFK researchers, thought it was Lovelady. And his first reaction was quite negative. But, he has done a 180 since then, and he has adopted my thesis as his own. He spoke about it on the radio the other day. He and I have co-authored a paper about it, soon to be published. I may even ask him to come on here.

reply to post by Firsk

And in the second picture you posted, look at the white figure to Doorman's left, which is our right. What is that? It looks like two white stripes and little white bulb. Yes?

This is the image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lr4f158782.jpg[/atsimg]

(Arrow has been added by me)

No it quite clearly looks like a man with a black tie to me... which you seem to agree with as you went onto say this... "Well, believe it or not, that is supposed to be a man. Dr. Fetzer and I call him Black Tie Man."

Btw, please stop name dropping. You've done it in almost every post and It's not helping your case at all here.

And there are other anomalies in that second picture. Why does the man to Doorman's left, our right, have no face?

With all due respect but you're really clutching at straws here. It's quite obvious why this man's face is tough to see and we can see why with this image in particular..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/yh4f158937.jpg[/atsimg]

He's in the shade. And even in the shade a face can still be made out, same with the man with a tie to his immediate right.

Congratulations, you just lost a great deal of credibility with that claim you just made..

The Doorman was Oswald. Please watch my videos, and please spread the word. We have the chance to take down a 48 year old state lie, and we have to go for it.

Ok, you've already seen my post - I disagree with you already. In regards to the collar I fail to see what you're obviously seeing - the quality of images for one disallows us to see what you're seeing. So no, I'm not going to spread the word because imo the word is incorrect.

The people have been lied to over the years, yes, I wholeheartedly agree, but you're yet to convince me, and others, of this theory you're promoting. And name dropping Jim Fetzer time and time again (almost every single post you've made in fact) isn't going to cut it unfortunately, like I said before his name alone and your claim that he's a follower of this theory isn't going to cause any of us to drop our arguments because we're all perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves. We don't need anyone to tell us what to believe thank you very much..

ll of this being so, I do applaud your efforts to spread something which you believe is true, that much I can say with genuine honesty, but I don't agree with you therefore I'm not spreading your word. I'm going to continue spreading my word that this man is Billy Lovelady because that's who I believe he is.

reply to post by Firsk

Look, the situation is that the face and hairline are a match to Lovelady, but the form and fit and lay of the clothes match Oswald.

Finally we're getting somewhere in this debate.

So you admit that the face and even the hairline is a match to Lovelady? Great, we'll take that a a concession from you I think as that's obviously much more crucial than any piece of clothing.. clothing which matches Lovelady as it is already in fact as far as I'm concerned, and which you're yet to convince me otherwise of.

All in all here we have Lovelady claiming he's where he is in the picture, we have a confession that you agree the face and hair is a match to Lovelady, the clothes are a perfect match as well as far as I'm concerned (and others such as the man himself) and to top it all off Lovelady himself believes it's him in the picture.. and taking all of this into consideration who do you want us to believe the man in the picture us? Lee Harvey Oswald. Amazing really, lol. In my opinion everything points to it being Billy Lovelady. It's obvious.

reply to post by Rising Against


Is this Doyle?

For one thing, in fairness, I would like to know how you insert images into the replies so that I can do the same.

But no, Black Tie Man is not real. Notice that he seems to be standing behind Doorman. Yet, he is covering up Doorman's shoulder. We should be able to see the point of Doorman's shoulder. We don't. It is being covered up, overlapped, by Black Tie Man. And yet, we don't see Black Tie Man's shoulder either. One of them should have a visible shoulder. Neither does. That image is photographically impossible.

And regarding Black Hole Man, you can't just blame the shade. Shade darkens an image, but it does not obliterate it. I wouldn't mind if the image of his face was faint, but it really looks like a black hole.

And tell me, if Black Tie Man is real, who is he? What's his name? Isn't 48 years long enough to find out? Why didn't the Warren Commission inquire? They were interested in the Doorman, so why no mention whatsoever of the guy who was breathing down his neck? Since there was a question about Doorman's identity, who could have settled it better than the guy who was attached to him like a Siamese twin?

But, there is no mention of that eerie Black Tie Man in the Warren Report.Nobody asked who he was. Doesn't that bother you? No, of course not. Are you Doyle?

I am a chiropractor by profession, and I have drawn a shoulder line across Doorway Man, and I can tell you beyond all doubt that his left shoulder extended into the white area of Black Tie Man's shirt. Therefore, Doorman's shoulder is missing, cut-off. And anatomically speaking, that is without a doubt. Hopefully, I am going to find out how to post pictures here. I feel like I am contesting you with one hand tied behind my back.

reply to post by Firsk

For one thing, in fairness, I would like to know how you insert images into the replies so that I can do the same.

Ah of course. Go to this page here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then click on "Select Image Files" found at the top left hand side.

Then click on the image you've just uploaded again and paste into a post where it says "Use in a post:"



Before posting again, or to give my thoughts and opinions I'll wait before you can post images. Genuinely, the last thing I want is to have an unfair advantage here. Like you I'm quite passionate about this case and the conclusions I've come to so I'd rather thing's were at least fair..

The big thing for me is that this Never came up before.
why?

Originally posted by buddha
The big thing for me is that this Never came up before.
why?

This has been discussed for a very long time now. Trust me, It's nothing new.

reply to post by Rising Against


Frankly, I have never felt that the face matched Lovelady better than Oswald. But, others have said it, and if that's what they believe, that's what they believe. But, my point was that even if it does, theoretically speaking, it doesn't remove the fact that the clothes match Oswald. And that has to be reckoned with.

You have to realize what an unusual shirt it was that Oswald was wearing. It had a long lapel on the left side. How many shirts have lapels? Here is a youtube video (not mine) which shows his lapel very well. Take a look. How many shirts have you ever seen like that?



And you can easily see evidence of that lapel on Doorman's shirt.

And take a look at my collage of the three collars again. What I want you to notice this time is that big white button on Lovelady's shirt. That button was not the top button, so it would normally have been buttoned. Imagine if it was buttoned. That whole roll-over of the material that you see would go away. That wasn't the natural lie of that shirt. That was done deliberately just to mimic what you see on Doorman and Oswald. And if you can't see the similarity of their two shirts, something is wrong with your vision. There's the identical collar and below it the pseudo-lapel on both. It is very much the same on each of them and also very different from that contrived phony pressing of the shirt that you see on Lovelady. Can't you see through that? You know, it doesn't take Columbo.

reply to post by Rising Against


Thank you. All right, let's try this.

First, here is the picture of Doorway Man with his shoulder line drawn in. Unless he's got some very uncommon spasmodic condition or a severe anatomical deformity, that is his shoulder line. And I am telling you that as a chiropractor of 35 years experience. I have it drawn wider than it is, but surely it extends into the white as you see. In other words, when you consider the width of the collar bone, the acromium process of the scapula, and a normal degree of deltoid development for a man his age, his shoulder would have to extend into the white of Black Tie Man's shirt. And no, he could not just happen to be dropping the one shoulder real low. Your shoulders are coordinated with each other. They work together. His shoulder is missing in that picture.



And then, I'll post the collage directly this time. And what I want you to notice this time is the button on Lovelady's shirt. You will have to use the horizontal scroll bar below to visualize Lovelady's shirt. You don't see that on Doorman's or Oswald's, do you? Well, it isn't the top button which means that it would normally be buttoned. And that means that the roll-over of the material on Lovelady's shirt is fake, contrived. It is not the natural lay of the shirt. If he buttoned that button, as he normally would, and as he did on the day of the assassination, that conspicuous roll-over of the material would go away- Sianara. Lovelady was just getting with the program. Go back to the composite that you posted, and you don't see that roll-over.



Here, I'll post it myself. Look at Lovelady from the day of the assassination, at the police station. You're looking at his left collar, not his right, but we'll assume that they were identical as most collars are. You don't see that fancy roll-over of the material as you did in the collage, do you? It just looks like a regular collar, doesn't it?

reply to post by Rising Against


I had the impression that the collage I had posted got chopped off. But, it turns out that it was too wide and required a horizontal scroll bar, which I didn't notice. But here is the full image of Lovelady so that you get the big picture. Keep in mind that this was years later where he was posing as the Doorman. But, it was, allegedly, the exact same shirt.

But notice that big white button. It's not the top button, so it normally would be buttoned. And if it were buttoned, that whole fold-over that you're saying would go away. It is not the natural lay of the shirt.



And you don't seem to see it in the original image from the day of the assassination. He doesn't have that fancy fold-over going on. Take a look:



But, on Oswald and Doorman, you do see it. It is the natural lie of the shirt on both of them. It is the same shirt. And if it's the same shirt, it is the same man. It has to be. Please use the horizontal scroll bar to see the whole image.

reply to post by Rising Against


I had been hoping to hear from Rising Against about my postings. Do you still wish to maintain that those collars are exactly the same? This time, I am going to post a collage of just two of the collars: Doorman's and Lovelady's. And again I want you to get an eyeful of that exposed button.

You've heard of the Magic Bullet. Well, we'll call this the Magic Button. And that's because that one little round object exonerates Lee Harvey Oswald. That button proves that the arrangement you see in Lovelady's shirt was a setup. That button should have beeen buttoned, and if it was, that spread that you see in Lovelady's shirt would go away. He was faking it there, and he knew very well that he didn't go to work like that the morning of Nov 22 with his shirt pressed apart artificially like that. He was just trying to look like the Doorman after the fact.

Am I getting through to you?

reply to post by Firsk

I had been hoping to hear from Rising Against about my postings.

I'm working on a separate thread of my own on a completely different topic right now so I'm spending time on researching, studying and basically trying to understand that as best as I can. So I was planning on replying to you tomorrow morning instead of going back and forward between the different topics tonight (Like I was doing earlier on today in fact which I found annoying and distracting). I'm sure you understand.

Oh, and It's worth pointing out that I just had a quick read of your last posts and no, you're not "getting through to me" as you put it, I still quite happily disagree.

Btw, if you want to contact me directly you could always send a PM.

Edit: I think It's also worth pointing out that I do have a life of my own outside of this forum. I can't always be here when wanted..

Well my friend Rising is very dependable on these matters about JFK. In fact he is the most knowledgable on ATS as far as I have seen. He speaks the truth no matter where it falls. As I feel you have done here asd far as you know. This is the memo I give to new members. Enjoy.



Welcome to ATS.

reply to post by Rising Against


No, I am not going to PM you because I am only interested in spreading and promoting my thesis publically. What you think is really of no real consequence to me, to be honest.

But, I wonder if you are willing to admit that your glib statement about the collars of Doorman and Lovelady being a perfect match wasn't quite right, in light of what I have presented.

And actually, I will never quite understand people like you because I presume you are not a lone-nutter. If you were a lone-nutter, then I would understand completely. But, for a conspiracy advocate to get irate and incensed at the mere idea that the Doorman could be Oswald is baffling. After all, they do, admittedly, look an awful lot alike. Even if you think that the facial features are closer to Lovelady's, the Doorman still has an awful lot in common with Oswald in terms of size, proportions, build, and of course, the clothing and the manner of dress. So, it's not like the whole idea is implausible and preposterous. So, why be so hasty to dismiss it? Why be so bent out of shape and downright contemptuous at the mere suggestion of it? As I said, it's baffling.

But, I will leave you all with another picture- beause I do have plenty. And here we have another picture of Lovelady dressing up like the Doorway Man. Once again, you can see that exposed button, the MAGIC BUTTON, that he deliberately left open here because, after all, it was part of the gig. But, there is no reason to think that he was arranged that way on Nov 22, and there are good reasons to think that he wasn't. And notice the nice tight round-neck t-shirt. It's funny, even when he's dressing up like the Doorway Man, it fails to occur to him to wear a matching t-shirt. And notice the collar- which is very different from Doorman's and Oswald's. That is not the Doorman. That is a guy pretending to be the Doorman.