New JFK evidence proves Oswald innocent

reply to post by Firsk




It's funny that depending on what pictures you put next to each other, means whether it can make an argument.
When placing colour photos of Oswald next to the doorman.... doesn't seem too similar.
When placing a black and white pic of lovelady next to doorman, it looks like him.



However, I think this pic of Oswald looks as much like him as the lovelady one.... at least chin, hairline, build etc.





But It's interesting reading all the same.... I'm always keen to read debates about this case

reply to post by blupblup


Yes, I agree with you that these two figures look very much alike. What are the chances that they are not the same person? What kind of coincidence would it be if Lovelady just happened to deck himself out so very much like Oswald that day? Do we really believe in coincidences to that extent?

I'll post the picture again because I want you to realize that not only do they look generally alike, but the right collars are a perfect match, and so are the left lapels. You can see the jacket-like lapel on the left side of Oswald's shirt, and on Doorman, you see it represented by the thickening of the material on his left side. Compare his left side to his right. You'll see that it's thicker. His left side (our right) looks thick and substantial, and his right side (our left) looks thin and flimsey. That's because of the lapel.

Of course, we can't see the collar on Doorman's left side because of that phony Black Tie Man they stuck in there. But if we could, I'm sure it would match Oswald's. You are definitely looking at the same person, and again, if you don't think so, if you are actually going to argue against it, then it means that you are claiming an amazing and unlikely coincidence.

Truthseekers, repeat after me: I do not believe in coincidences.

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?

With all due respect but that's quite a bad example there to say the least.

I mean people are still questioning who this man is and we all know he was never sought after by the Warren Commission.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/pu4f15936c.jpg[/atsimg]

And we all know he was a by far more important figure than those stood on the steps of the TSDB near Lovelady (or Oswald as you choose to believe). After all I'm sure you know of his bizarre movements just prior to the assassination as well as right after.

..Oh, and yes, he's also very real.

So come on now, you know as well as I do the shambles the commission was. Any true researcher who's taken the time to look into how they investigated this case knows they made a mockery of it and consistently failed to do their proper duty. For that reason I can't understand why you're making such a point here.

In regards to Lovelady - Well let me go right back to basics once more. This is the figure in the Altgens photo:




This is an image of Lovelady compared to Oswald that I just made:



The image to the left is Lovelady, the image in the center is Oswald after his arrest for the supposed murder of Tippit and to the right is a mug shot of his arrest in New Orleans..

Looking at these images I think it's quite clear that there is only one clear figure that actually fits with what we can see in the Altgens photo taking into consideration the jawline, the length and shape of the chin (particularly the part just underneath the lip), the hairline and so on etc.. and that's Billy Lovelady. Something you have already admitted to in fact as before you said this:

"Look, the situation is that the face and hairline are a match to Lovelady" *

Now, bearing all of this in mind here is what Lovelady himself claims about his position at the time of the assassination:

Joseph Ball: You ate your lunch on the steps?

Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir.

Joseph Ball: Who was with you?

Billy Lovelady: Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton....

Joseph Ball: Were you there when the President's motorcade went by?

Billy Lovelady: Right.

Joseph Ball: Did you hear anything?

Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir: sure did.

He himself states he was on the steps as the motorcade was going by (in the photo it went by seconds ago) - he has always maintained this - And where can we see him in the Altgens photo? Yes, on the steps. Oh, and he also seems to answer your above question for you.

In regards to the Collar you continue to discuss, despite the very obvious physical evidence which points solely to Lovelady, I just don't get what you're trying to say here - it makes little sense when looking at it rationally.

The matter of the fact is the shirt, although no doubt you'll come to the conclusion it's faked which is what everyone does when they can't come up with a rational conclusion to explain thing's, was stripy. This is a fact though (Image to the right below is of Doorway man).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/cq4f16abd2.jpg[/atsimg]

The stripy shirt was worn by Billy Lovelady, not Oswald. We know this already. Also notice the Bald spot we can see from the doorway man on the right hand side image - That bald spot is present in the exact same location on the image of Lovelady on the left hand side and yet there is no bald spot on the head of Lee Harvey Oswald, and on that image to the left hand side we have a perfect match to the stripy top from doorway man on the right. So here we have you admitting the face and hairline is the same and I've just shown the top is also the same, let's carry on...

He was arrested in a single colored, plain outer shirt, or jacket if you will. And that's just what he was arrested in, we all know he went back to his rooming house after the assassination to pick up a few things including a jacket - This being the jacket we can see him in in those photos after his arrest which you continue to point us to.

Owner of the rooming house, Earlene Roberts, said in her testimony:

Mrs. ROBERTS. He just walked in---he didn't look around at me---he didn't say nothing and went on to his room.

Mr. BALL. Did he run?

Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.

Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?

Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.

Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.

The matter of the fact is she saw him come into the house in his work clothing and she saw him leave in a different jacket, the one he was arrested in and was subsequently pictured in, but not one he was wearing prior to 1pm. Although her attention to detail was minimal at best as she was concentrating on other thing's at the time, such as the announcement on tv that the President had been.

To believe Oswald is on the steps of the TSDB is to ignore facts such as that which says Lovelady is a better physical match (particularly his facial features, his hairline, his bald spot which Oswald never had), he was wearing the same clothing of the man on the steps, he himself claimed he was on the steps at that very moment and to top it all off he was pointed out as the man on the steps by other people present, those who worked with him and Oswald. Not forgetting Oswald and his little trip to his rooming house..

If for example Oswald was never seen as an assassin that day and both men were arrested and looked at from a completely neutral point of view Lovelady would be without a doubt the man accepted as doorwayman today as far as I’m concerned – the reason for that is simple, all the facts point to him being Doorway man. If Oswald was picked up that day and then let go – in other words shown to be playing a very minor role thus not someone of too much suspicion we would know he was in the lunchroom, why? Because that’s what everything we have, their movements, their actions, points to.

No, I am not going to PM you

Er.. I never once asked you to PM me. This was what I said and I'm quoting my own post here:

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

Read it in the correct context (as I was highlighting your complaint that I was slow to post) and thing's will make a great deal more sense to you.

But, for a conspiracy advocate to get irate and incensed at the mere idea that the Doorman could be Oswald is baffling.

That's a lie and you know it. I've not posted in any anger in this thread at all.

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, don't continue to make up silly lies like that. Thank you in advance.

Why be so bent out of shape and downright contemptuous at the mere suggestion of it? As I said, it's baffling.

Again with making up your own lies and conclusions, which is giving me a fairly good indication of the type of researcher you are here. Once more, stop. I've posted quite calmly each and every time (whether it’s come off that way is another matter, but the fact is I’ve been calm upon posting) and if anyone has posted in anger it has been you with those constant insults I highlighted a few posts back.

So for one last time, please at least try to stick to facts in this debate. You're not going to get far with making stuff up, all you’re going to do is continuing to lose more and more credibility.

The Doorman bares only slight resemblance to Oswald , who by his own admission was eating lunch in the first floor cafeteria at the time the picture was taken .

I think the only evidence the OP has ( and dubious at best ) is a grainy , slightly over exposed and lacking detail , photograph . To keep endlessly harping on about a folded lapel is trite.

So much effort wasted on such a none starter !

OP . You have clearly put a lot of effort into this thread , but I honestly have to say you are barking up the wrong tree .
Look to LBJ and the Texas oil barons .
Look to how Connelly lured JFK to Dallas .
Look to who controlled the crime scene .
Look to how the lone gunman story was perpetuated so that the shooting could remain a state investigation and why it was esential that it remained a state investigation for the first 24 hours.

Most importantly , look to who had the most to gain and who gained from Kennedy's murder .

Happy hunting .

reply to post by Rising Against


I asked you if you were Doyle, and you did not respond. You certainly behave like Doyle. For instance, you ignored my post concerning Doorman's shoulder line. But, I'll get to that as we proceed. For now, I am going to assume that you are Doyle, and that we have moved our longstanding dispute over here.

Regarding the image you posted of the guy sitting on curb next to the other man, no, he was not more important than Doorway Man. Nobody was. And that's because if Doorway Man was Oswald, it completely exonerated him and demolished the whole theory of the crime that was being proffered. So, don't try to diminish that..

But, I will point out that at least the guy you pointed to was definitely real; he was definitely a man. We have no doubt about it. But, in the case of Black Tie Man (whose image consisted of two indistinct white stripes and a bulb) we have our doubts. I had three guests at my home last evening, and not one of them could recognize the figure as a man. When explained to them, they said, "Oh yeah, now I can see it" but that is not normal for a photo. And it has no relevance or comparison to the very real image that you posted.

And the other reason to doubt Black Tie Man's reality is because of the way he is blocking Doorman's shoulder while standing behind him. One of my visitors last night was a nurse, and I asked her whether there was anything untoward about Doorman anatomically, and she immediately spouted: "He has no shoulder."

I am going to post the image of Doorman and his shoulder line again. His shoulder extended into the white area of BT Man's shirt. There is no doubt. That makes the image photographically impossible. And as I told you on Lancer, I will debate it with another doctor, but not with you. You are not an expert on this.



I know that Lovelady was out there. Of course, he was. Did I ever say otherwise? It's just that he wasn't Doorman.

And I, personally, do NOT think that the face of Doorman matches Lovelady's better than Oswald's. But, I was speaking to those who do think that and telling them that even if they do think it that they still have to contend with the fact that Doorman's clothes match Oswald.

And, the pattern of Doorman's shirt, which has been said to match Lovelady's, did NOT match it very well. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. Either it is a match or it isn't. Lovelady's shirt had white lines, not white squares. But Doorman's shirt has white blotches. That is NOT a match. And, the so-called plaid pattern of Doorman's shirt was too inconsistent. For instance, Lovelady had a lot of pattern and contrast even on his collar, but there are no signs of it on Doorman's collar. Take a look at the picture again, and remember to use the scroll bar.



I am afraid I am going to have to use repetition to see if I can drive something into your head.

Both Doorman and Oswald have a collar, a small, compact pseudo-lapel beneath it, and a neat vertical margin.
Both Doorman and Oswald have a collar, a small, compact pseudo-lapel beneath it, and a neat vertical margin.
Both Doorman and Oswald have a collar, a small, compact pseudo-lapel beneath it, and a neat vertical margin.

Now hopefully, you will never again say, "I just don't get what you are trying to say here."

And when you look at Lovelady's collar (scroll right) you see that it is very different. The spread is angular, not vertical. And the spread would not be there at all if the exposed button were buttoned, as it was on 11/22. So, what he was doing was pretending to be the Doorman, fashioning himself to look like Doorman even though he knew full well that he did not go to work that way on 11/22 with the shirt pressed over into that formation. It was not the natural lie of the shirt, whereas what you see on Oswald and Doorman IS the natural lie of the shirt.

That exposed button is what I call the Magic Button. You've heard of the Magic Bullet, but now meet the Magic Button. It's magic because that one little thing exposes the fraud of Lovelady's intentions in the picture, and it completely exonerates Oswald. That's a lot to do for one little button.

And for goodness sake, are you not well? Did you read what you posted? Here it is:

"He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket."

ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER!

Now, here's a picture of Oswald's garment. You show me the zipper.



You've really got to slow down, Doyle. I will continue below.

OP . You obviously won't listen to reason . R.A is a far more researched authority on the subject of the Kennedy asassination .
Why are you resorting to personal insults ? You lose all credance when you do this .

Oswald himself said that he was on the first floor eating lunch in the cafeteria when all this took place , so why would you want to place him elsewhere ?

You still hang on to the " folded lapel " theory while relying on grainy , over exposed photography. Is this your whole basis for this thread , or should we expect something a little more substantial ?

reply to post by Firsk

I asked you if you were Doyle, and you did not respond.

I'm not Doyle. Happy now?

I didn't respond in my last post because It was an incredibly minor talking point and I had far more important thing's to talk about but since you're going to continue to focus on it I guess I have little choice but to respond..

I had three guests at my home last evening, and not one of them could recognize the figure as a man.

1.) I doubt that rather convenient meeting really happened.

2.) What's your point? Because they couldn't see it means it couldn't possibly be there? You used the same kind of logic with some of your past posts but instead with Fetzer which was becoming silly. And I could see it straight away and reading your posts have been the only time I've seen anyone express such doubts about the authenticity of that figure.

He clearly looks like a person and there's nothing suspicious, that I can see, about him.

You can continue to post that image of Doorman if you wish, I really don't care. You're just making up your own conclusions after all. You say we can't see his shoulder, I can see it just fine. You say he's at some impossible angle.. I hardly think so. This is one picture caught in time.. this single pose doesn't mean he was stuck there for a great period of time, something which you don't seem to be able to understand for some reason.

And I, personally, do NOT think that the face of Doorman matches Lovelady's better than Oswald's.

You said this a few posts before:

"Look, the situation is that the face and hairline are a match to Lovelady" *

Changing your story because you're now on the back foot it would seem.

And for goodness sake, are you not well? Did you read what you posted? Here it is:

"He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket."

ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER! ZIPPER!

Here's the rest of what I said which you conveniently left out:

"The matter of the fact is she saw him come into the house in his work clothing and she saw him leave in a different jacket, the one he was arrested in and was subsequently pictured in, but not one he was wearing prior to 1pm. Although her attention to detail was minimal at best as she was concentrating on other thing's at the time, such as the announcement on tv that the President had been [shot]."
(Added that last word there as I accidentally left it out)

So as you can see I already said her attention was taken away thus her attention to detail was at a minimal - but the fact remains she did definitely see him leave in a different jacket thus you no longer have a leg to stand on here. And yet you complain that I don't read what was posted. That's actually quite funny, lol.

reply to post by Rising Against


Minute facial features and the hairline are relatively SMALL photographic features. But,the form and the fit and the lay of the shirt over the notched t-shirt are LARGE photographic features. LARGE features trump SMALL features, and that's why the clothing match to Oswald should concern everybody.

And everything about the clothing matches Oswald except for the infamous pattern. But, the pattern match to Lovelady is not that good, and it raises suspicion. Doorman's shirt looks plaid-ish, but it's inconsistent. It's completely absent from the collar. You see strange irregular white blotches on Doorman, rather than neat concise squares as you see on Lovelady. Look at this collage and focus only on comparing the patterns. Will any honest person say that they are actually a match? The only thing you can say is that both have a "fluctuating" pattern, but they are hardly identical.



Again, this isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. Close is not good enough. An honest comparison of these two raises more doubt than certainty about the patterns matching. On Lovelady, only the lines are white, so why do we see white blotches on Doorman? And of course the form and the lay of the shirt is very different. Can you see that the margins of Doorman's shirt rise vertically while Lovelady's go off at an angle? Can you see that Doorman's shirt looks loose and billowing, while Lovelady's looks sleek and tightfitting? Lovelady was a MUCH bigger man than Oswald. Lovelady weighed 170, Oswald 130. Lovelady was stockier in his upper body and he filled out his shirts better. Hence Oswald the Doorman's shirt looks baggy, while buff, thick-chested Lovelady filled out his shirt much better. To say that their clothing matched is most disingenuous.

And you are being dishonest about the witness testimony. You don't know who those witnesses pointed to. Dr. Fetzer and I believe that, in all probability, Lovelady was standing right in front of and slightly to the left of Oswald, and his was blotted out. Here is a picture of the alteration.



Maybe the above image doesn't bother you, but it sure bothers me. There is no normal explanation for that in a photo. It looks like a guy whose face was blotted out, and again I'll point out that it was Dr. Fetzer who first said so.

And of course, that is just one of several anomalies in the Altgens photo, all centered around the Doorway Man. The four of them again are: Black Hole Man (who lacks a head) Obfuscated Man (whose face is obfuscated in white and body in black) Big Afro Hair Woman (whose hair is merged with the blackened body of Obfuscated Man) and Black Tie Man. And by the way, Dr. Fetzer sees great significance in the fact that Obfuscated Man's shirt was blackened because they had to conceal the distinct pattern of Lovelady's actual shirt which appeared there. So now I give you, in all their glory, that wonderful cast of characters, the Addams Family.

reply to post by dawnprince


A part of your reply to the OP:

Why are you resorting to personal insults ? You lose all credance when you do this .

That.. but not just that.

In the majority of his posts he's highlighted that James Fetzer agree's with him.. almost as if that's to say we should believe him for that reason alone which I'm sure you can understand is just silly. We're humans beings perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves here and we don't need anyone to do our thinking for us.. and as far as I can see Billy Lovelady is in the Altgens photo, not Lee Harvey Oswald. That's what all the evidence points to anyway. Oswald was almost certainly in the second or first lunchroom as far as I know, but certainly not outside, and certainly not on the 6th floor. I don't think anyone has ever been able to place him there at the time of the assassination in fact.

Anyway Firsk, you've continually lost credibility with your posts in this debate. You resorted to insults very early on and again throughout and you continued to try and sway opinion by throwing out the name of a well known and very respectable researcher in almost every single post of yours. But I have to argue, why should you need to do those things? Surely your "evidence" should be a enough? Hm, well it seems as though it most certainly is not.. The debate is obviously coming close to an end here as all we're doing is repeating ourselves, and you're presenting nothing but blurry images to try and back up what you're saying which is lame to say the least. Certainly not something that is going to convince anyone of anything, most people are much smarter than that.. But I just wanted to let you know that in the future you're never going to get far with those tactics you continue to adopt. Good luck but it's destined to fail.

reply to post by dawnprince


No, you are wrong. Oswald never said that he was in the lunch room. He told Detective Will Fritz that he was "outside in front with Bill Shelley". Fritz wrote it down. We have it in his handwriting. And Oswald had no reason to lie. Innocent people do not have a reason to lie, and Oswald was innocent. And if he had been in the lunch room, he could have said so. It wasn't against the law. The facts are that Oswald was reported to have been in the lunchroom immediately BEFORE and immediately AFTER the shooting but not DURING the shooting.

Furthermore, it is insane to dismiss the importance of the collars. It is a piece of concrete, physical evidence, and just because it's small doesn't matter. It's real and it's conclusive.

And, you don't seem to understand that "ops" are strictly government operatives.There are no "ops" trying to exonerate Oswald. The government is trying to defend the official story, and that's why they have "ops." So, I can't possibly be an op.

reply to post by dawnprince


How many times do I have to tell you that Oswald was not in the lunch room. He told Detective Fritz that he was outside during the shooting. We have it in writing- in Fritz' own handwriting. And Oswald had no reason to lie. The lunch room came before and after but not during the assassination. Remember, we are talking about a very small piece of time here.

And the collars matching is pure gold. Look at it again. Both have a collar, a small compact pseudo-lapel, and a vertical margin. It's a perfect match. That is important. That is significant. That is substantial. And Lovelady's is very different.



And again, what about the exposed button on Lovelady? That wasn't unsecured on the day of the assassination. He was just posing as Doorman in a contrived way here. What you are seeing is not the natural lay and flow of that shirt. It is not the way he wore it on 11/22. Here's how it looked on 11/22, not all neatly pressed and folded over into that artificial spread.



Do you see how Lovelady's collar is flipping up? It looks very different than the neat, pressed, artificially folded look that you see in the collage. That faker.

reply to post by Rising Against


Oswald said that he changed his PANTS only. Not his SHIRT.
Oswald said that he changed his PANTS only. Not his SHIRT.
Oswald said that he changed his PANTS only. Not his SHIRT.

Now, who are you going to believe? He did not know anything about the Altgens photo and how it could vindicate him, so he had no reason to lie about it. Furthermore, that remark about the zipper completely disqualifies what the landlady said. If you are going to cling to it, in spite of the gross error, you are just acting desperate. We've all had jackets with zippers. We know what they look like. Oswald's shirt looked very different. It was definitely a SHIRT and not a JACKET. Here, look at it again.



And why would somebody change into something so rumpled and desheveled. It's missing all those buttons. IT'S MISSING EVERY BUTTON EXCEPT THE BOTTOM BUTTON. Who would change into a shirt like that? Would you? You could see changing out of it, but changing into it? No way!

And if no one else expressed doubts about the authenticity of BT Man, it's because it never even occurred to them that it was a man. Most people do not see a man there. That is a simple fact. Most say that it looks like a towel draped over Doorman's shoulder. Imagine that: a man being mistaken for a towel.

That meeting did happen last night, and you have some nerve calling me a liar.

And, Doorman has no visible shoulder. Just because you are capable of typing in your denial of it only proves that you have fingers that can strike keys. I have provided a specific account based on the width of the clavicle bone, the acromoium process of the scapula and the deltoid cap which necessitates his shoulder extending out into the white space, and all you have said about his shoulder is "I can see it just fine." Well now, I am calling you a liar. You can see no such thing.

And then you become laughable. The issue of time? You say he wasn't stuck there for long? You make it sound like they are in some awful, awkward contortion, but it was only for a second, so it doesn't matter. This was no limbo party. Doorman and BT Man are in an impossible association where each is blocking the other's shoulder at the same moment. That can't happen even for one nanosecond. The length of time has nothing to do with it. You are being childish and ridiculous.

My position is that things were done to alter Oswald's face and hairline to make him look like Lovelady. That has always been my position, and you are trying to create inconsistency where none exists.

reply to post by Rising Against


Lovelady is not a better physical match to Doorman. Doorman looks slender, like Oswald. He does not look husky like Lovelady. Both Oswald and Doorman look like they are swimming in their shirts because they don't fill them out very well. Doorman's shirt is billowing. Lovelady looks like he is busting out of his shirt, in comparison. The weight difference was 40 pounds (170 vs 130).

And what bald spot? Here's the picture of Doorman. What exactly are you talking about? His hairline is murky at best, and you can't surmise too much from it. You reject the distinct collars but you make a big deal out of that murky issue? How biased are you?



And why are you ignoring the controversy about what Lovelady said? There is evidence that he told two FBI agents that he was wearing a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans the day of the assassination, although the story got changed to the checkered shirt later. Read PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH by Weisberg. I,frankly, am not positive which shirt he was wearing, and neither is Dr. Fetzer. And I have already pointed out the deceptive measures Lovelady took to try to "dooman-ize" his shirt for pictures, pressing it over neatly into an unnatural crease while exposing a button that would have been secured. So why exactly should we be trusting in the integrity of Lovelady? And why did he die of a fatal first heart attack at the age of 42? You think it was bad luck? Do you know how unlikely it was, statistically? And even more so because he seemed to be in very good shape? And even more so because it happened right before he was to testify to the HSCA in 1979. Can't you think like Columbo? Dead men tell no tales.

The reason why Oswald was picked is because people know better than to trust in coincidences- the coincidence that somebody else just happened to dress in a loose-fitting, unbuttoned, long-sleeve shirt over a notched t-shirt with an overall appearance that looked a lot like Oswald. It is the great likeness of these two pictures below that caused people to pick Oswald as the Doorway Man.

reply to post by Rising Against




Certainly not outside? Then why did he tell Detective Will Fritz that he "outside in front with Bill Shelley"? We have it in writing. And why would he lie about it? He was innocent, so he had no reason to lie. And there was nothing illegal or incriminating about being in the lunchroom eating lunch if that is where he was and what he was doing.

"I wasn't too interested in the motorcade, and I knew it would be crowded and noisy out there, so I preferred to just relax and eat my lunch in the lunchroom."

There. What's wrong with that? Wouldn't he have said if it were true? Any reason why he wouldn't have? Any reason why he would haver risked lying to the police over it?

There are multiple witnesses who place him both in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and possibly as late as 12:25 PM, according to Dr. Fetzer. That is a span of over half an hour- so he had plenty of time to eat lunch. And then he stepped outside to the back of the crowd. He was the last to get out there, and he stood partially behind the white pillar, so he went unseen. And then shortly after the shooting, he was encountered again in the lunchroom by Truly and Baker.

Now, if you want to dispute any of that, that's your business, and I can't stop you. But frankly, it irritates me when you keep using the word "certainly" as in he was certainly in the lunchroom, and he was certainly not outside. You are not God. Your proclamations do not determine certainty.

I don't think the shirt the OP is refering to even belonged to Oswald and I don't think he was even arrested while wearing a shirt.
Take a look at any picture of Oswald prior to and including having his mugshot taken and you will see him wearing nothing more than a scruffy white T-shirt . I think the shirt was given to him to smarten him up for when he met the members of the press.
If this is the case , then the OP's theory is blown wide open .

reply to post by dawnprince




Well, there is this picture of Oswald right while he was being arrested, and you can see that he is wearing an outer shirt. However, it is a weird picture because the man to his left (our right) who is restraing him seems to be smirking or smiling, plus he's got a cigar in his mouth. So that is just plain weird. Still, you can see the shirt.



Now, let me explain something to you. "Op" is short for "government operative". They work for the government, and they try to uphold and defend the government's version of events. I am trying to expose and demolish the government's story, so I cannot possibly be an "op."

reply to post by Firsk


OP merely refers to Original Poster .
We are all on the same side here . We all think Oswald was a patsy . I just think you are following a dead end !

reply to post by dawnprince


Here is another useful picture of Oswald. You can see that small little pseudo-lapel on his right which folds over very compactly, just as you see on Doorway Man. And you can see the collar, lapel, and button loop on the left side, all of which had to be covered up by Black Tie Man because it was so distinctive. And you can see how thin he was and how loose-fitting his shirt was. He wasn't a burly guy, like Lovelady. And when he, Oswald, was standing outside the TSBD, his shirt was billowing for the same reason because it was big on him, and it was falling off of him. If you can't see that that shirt is a spitting image for Doorway Man's, something is wrong with you.