New JFK evidence proves Oswald innocent

reply to post by Firsk


There's been a new development concerning Billy Lovelady. On the Education Forum, a guy named James Gordon just submitted a picture of 63 Lovelady in which the presence of the pocket with the flap over it on his shirt is unassailable. I will attach the picture here. He said:

"I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt. The argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view, unimpeachable."

Thank you James R. Gordon! I tell you, it's been like the Twilight Zone for me and Jim Fetzer, with so many people fighting us and refusing to acknowledge even the most simple and obvious and basic facts.

Here is the pic. Look at it yourself.

All right, so now we know that Lovelady lied about the shirt. Leastways, when he did his famous posings as Doorway Man years later, he was wearing a different shirt and he did not make that known. And to this day, there are people like John McAdams and Megen Knuth who defend those pictures as bonafide evidence.

But, the fact that Lovelady mislead about the shirt, what does it mean? It means that his entire credibility is shot. He wore a phony shirt, and he had to go out looking for it, or someone else had to do it on his behalf. And I doubt that it was easy either. Imagine if you had to match and locate a specific shirt with a very specific pattern. Imagine how much time and effort it would likely take. This was a complicated ruse.

It is axiomatic that anytime anybody lies, they are trying to distort the truth. And, in this case, the issue concerned was the identity of Doorway Man. That's what it was about. That is the thing that Lovelady engaged in a ruse over. Ipso facto, he was trying to distort the truth about who the Doorway Man was. And it wasn't him. Billy Lovelad was put up to it. They either bribed him or threatened him or both. And as we know, they eventually "heart attacked" him out, right before he was to testify to the HSCA in 1979. Dead men tell no tales.

The presence of that flap on the original shirt and its absence on the subsequent, posing shirt is BIG. It's HUGE! It proves that Lovelady was a liar and a fake. And when you combine that with my observations of how Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothes and has Oswald's build, you have to start contemplating that Jim Fetzer and I just may be right about this whole thing.

Below is a letter that Dr. Fetzer received from a prominent JFK researcher, lending his support to us. Jim posted it on the Education Forum website.


Dear Jim: I have carefully--very carefully--looked into the matter of the shirt and the "Lovelady" figure in the doorway. I had written to you concerning this previously, but my internet connection is very bad. . . .

In the photos as observable,the shirt was retouched, and, tellingly, the build of Doorway man is too slight to be Lovelady. As noted, the shirt is not tight enough. I have investigated the habits of the TSBD workers in that milieu, and they removed their shirts to work, to keep them in better condition while laying the new floors and other refurbishing that was going on. Lee was still employed handling books, but no doubt took off his shirt as well, as described by one worker as the usual routine for them.

The unbuttoned shirt shows Doorway Man was one of the workers. Also, one of the last to arrive at the scene, for he is not standing or sitting on the steps, as Lovelady described himself. He is on the portico, not on the steps. We now know from released interrogation notes that Lee said he had gone outside to view the motorcade, which is a reasonable assumption.

The shirt worn by Doorway Man is blotched. I worked at Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, TX, in 1966-1967 and worked with airbrush and retouching of negatives there as a staff artist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the photo has been retouched. The splotches do not conform to the pattern of Lovelady's shirt but were splashed on to approximate the pattern of same.

I conjecture that whoever did the job was in a big hurry. I believe we have a transposed face, just as Lee's face was transposed onto the backyard photos, but it well could have been a matter of careful retouching. I could have done a better job myself! And in less than 15 minutes, for everything blotched there--would have done a better job.

Conclusion: I stand with you. The lay of the lapel is the final touch--and I'm convinced.

Plus, of course, another student, dkruckman, has observed that, as we all know, in the backyard photographs, there is a matte line running horizontally below the lower lip across the chin. And on Doorway Man there appears to be a matte line running horizontally below the nose above where the lips should be. If you place your thumb over the top of Doorway Man's face, what you see below does not resemble a human mandible. There is no discernible lips, chin or jaw line. To me it looks like smeared lines running in mostly 45 degree angles. Oswald may not have been looking directly at the limo, making a "cut & paste job" not easy. Lovelady's top of his face appears to be pasted over Oswald's and the bottom part manipulated to fit. Mostly by having black tie man's white shirt jut over Oswald's shoulder (obscuring his collar) and protruding into doorman's face, creating a crude jaw line. I am asking some experts to confirm these observations.

Surely we can all agree that, if these finding are accurate, the case is closed. And, given there is no doubt about the alteration of the Altgens, what alternative rational explanation can there be than that SOMEONE WAS THERE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, where the only serious candidate for that role is Lee Oswald? There is no good reason to deny how much we know about this case, as (1) through (9) display. And we have additional expert opinions that the weight to the evidence establishes that Doorway Man, apart from the upper face, does not appear to be Lovelady and that his body type, shirt, and pattern of alteration support that this was Lee.

reply to post by Firsk

There's been a new development concerning Billy Lovelady. On the Education Forum, a guy named James Gordon just submitted a picture of 63 Lovelady in which the presence of the pocket with the flap over it on his shirt is unassailable. I will attach the picture here.

"I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt. The argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view, unimpeachable."

Thank you James R. Gordon! I tell you, it's been like the Twilight Zone for me and Jim Fetzer, with so many people fighting us and refusing to acknowledge even the most simple and obvious and basic facts.

You forgot to mention what he went onto say. I shall post it here for everyone to read:

"Pat,

I agree, it is an illusion. The half moon curve fooled me into believing I was seeing the flap of the pocket. Looking at some of the Hughes frames as well as the images in the Dallas Police station I can see that actually the pocket fabric is stretched and is gaping.

It looked like the flap of a pocket, and looking at it I can still it as that, but it is not. I was wrong. I accept that the pocket does not have a flap.


James. "
Everyone can find this post by him here

Wonder why you forgot to mention that here though? Oh wait, never mind.. I'm sure I already know as do other members of this forum.

I think It's also worth pointing out that I've been reading through that debate as I'm a member of that forum and It's even more convincing for me that you're wrong with what you are trying to claim here. This theory has been utterly destroyed, particularly by Duncan MacRae and Craig Lamson for example, yet the way in which you're posting here, you're trying to give the impression endless well known people are subscribing to your theory. Sorry, but that is just sad and I urge other members here to go and take a look instead of buying into your nonsense.

Anyway, that just had to be said. I'm sure you'll continue to reply with yet more nonsense like in the past though.

reply to post by Rising Against


I didn't know about his retraction at the time. But read it very carefully. What he says is that based on other pictures he retracts his statement. But, he goes on to say that in that picture, it does look like a flap. And it is a flap. I've had shirts like that. It's a flannel shirt that we used to call a logger's shirt or a Paul Bunyan shirt. And most of the time, the flaps have a snap or button, as in the examples I shall post. And with that in mind, look again at the flap on Lovelady's shirt. What do you see right above the apex of the cuve in the midline? You see a mark, what we would call in the trade, " a solitary, circumscribed lesion with clear margins."

I have showed this to a lot of people, and most all say: "that's a button."

reply to post by Firsk


This was a post by Don Jeffries on the Education Forum. Hey, Rising Against! You let me know if he retracts it.


by Don Jeffries
The debate on this has not been closed, in my view at least, no matter how many of you claim it has. The questions about the shirt alone ought to raise doubts in thinking minds. How can any shirt look newer eight years down the road? I don't see a pocket in the '71shirt. We know that Lovelady lied. We also know that the authorities had a very strong motive to force that person in the doorway to be someone else besides Oswald. This issue IS important, because it's practically the only piece of evidence I know of that would singlehandedly prove Oswald didn't do it. How many of you have ever worked with someone who was such a deadringer for you that he could even fool your wife and kids? We know that there was an orchestrated campaign to impersonate Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination (whether or not one buys into the Harvey and Lee theory). Isn't it just too much of a coincidence that LHO happens to find employment, during the same time period, at a place where one of his co-workers appears to be eminently qualified to impersonate Oswald himself? Not only does McKnight still believe Oswald was the figure in the doorway, so does well- respected critic David Wrone. I'd be surprisedif Mark Lane still doesn't believe it. I don't think Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones, etc. ever came to the belief that it was Lovelady. Every aspect of the official story is dubious, and every CTer should be skeptical when the chorus becomes "THAT was solved. Move on!" Imho,the matter of the identity of the figure in the doorway hasn't been solved.

Mr. Unger,

Black Hole Man has got his hands up on his forehead. He is creating a visor with his hands. Why do you think he's doing that? He is doing it because the sun is shining in his eyes. He's got his elbows out so that it won't block any more sun than necessary- so that he can see. It's just his eyes that he is trying to shelter from the bright, glaring, blinding sun. Now do you get it?

You notice that in the guy you sent, that guy doesn't have his arms up like that. He doesn't need to because the sun is NOT getting into his eyes.

So, the presence of Black Hole Man's arms in the position that they are in is proof-positive that sun is reaching his face, reaching his eyes. Notice also that we can see part of Black Tie Man's face, even though he is standing farther back than Black Hole Man.

And by the way, why is Black Tie Man turned the way he is? Why is he standing sideways to the President's limo? In fact, the President has already driven by. The President is heading down the street in the other direction. Therefore, Black Tie man is facing exactly opposite to the President's limo, as though he is trying hard to avoid looking at it. He is, in effect, doing a 180 to the President.

Take a look at this picture. Study it. It is one freaky picture. If it doesn't bother you, something is wrong with you.

We now have a video of Billy Lovelady. It was sent to me by a supporter of mine from Australia. If you watch this video, you can see Lovelady very clearly. He appears from 3:03 to 3:11 in the video. Note that he is not in the center of the screen. He is towards the lower right.

www.youtube.com...

It's definitely him because for one split-second you can see the exact same pose from the Dallas PD which is so familiar. And, it turns out that he was definitely wearing the plaid shirt and NOT the striped one. So, that controversy about which shirt he wore is now resolved. However, there is a great deal more that is now confirmed:

1. At the time, Lovelady was a STOCKY dude. He was much heavier than Oswald, and he looks a lot thicker and wider and heavier than Doorman too. And that includes in the face. Doorman's face looks rather gaunt, whereas Lovelady's looks much rounder and fuller. There is NO WAY a guy as heavy as Lovelady could have such a narrow, sucked in face like Doorman. When people put on weight, they put it on in their face as well as their body. The face, like the body, gets fatter. Doorman's face is too thin to go with Lovelady's stout, chubby body.

2. Apropo of that, we now know that Lovelady was NOT wearing the same shirt that he wore years later when he posed as Doorman. You can tell, first, because you can see the pocket-flap which is missing from the Grodon and Jackson shirts. However, we also know it because he lost so much weight afterwards that there is no way the same shirt would have fit him so snugly. And it does look snug in both the Grodon and Jackson pictures despite him being MUCH thinner. Really, he went from fat to thin. I shouldn't have to point out that a shirt doesn't lose weight along with the person.

But, there's one other possibility that I think should be considered: he may have had extensive alterations done to that shirt so that it would continue to fit snugly after his having lost all that weight. And that would explain the lack of a pocket flap and what really appears to be the complete lack of a pocket. Reducing the size of the shirt would have necessitated relocating the pocket, and that was way too much trouble. So, they may have decided to just get rid of it. The faint lines that some people are construing for a pocket may just be the impression of a pocket that was once there.

So, either it was a different shirt OR it was the same shirt essentially remanufactured. And if it was the latter, it would have been a colossal undertaking. It's not something that anybody would do casually. It is not something that anybody would do, period. To have done it at all implies just as much deception and subterfuge as replacing the shirt.

Why would Lovelady have done such a thing? Why should it have mattered to him whether people believed he was Doorman or not? Why should he have cared? Why should he have undertaken the tiniest, smallest step to sell the idea? - never mind redesign the whole shirt in a massive undertaking. It shows way too much effort and determination.

3. And along the same line, the starched, pressed, preened, folded-over look of the shirt in the Grodon pictures was definitely missing on 11/22, which you can clearly see in the video. As I have been saying all along: who wakes up in the morning of an ordinary work-day and decides to primp themselves that way? It is not something that a warehouse worker does, and it is not something that Lovelady did on Nov 22.

4. The whole open and gaping look of Doorman's shirt is missing on Lovelady. Lovelady may have had a couple buttons unbuttoned, but it wasn't as unbuttoned as Doorman's, and the shirt wasn't hanging open and off of him and billowing, as it was on Doorman. Lovelady's t-shirt was NOT exposed as much as Doorman's or Oswald's.

5. Lovelady was already quite bald, a lot balder than Oswald, and bald enough to raise questions about whose hairline we're seeing on Doorman.

6. You can clearly see that Lovelady's flannel shirt had a regular collar and no lapel. But, Oswald's shirt had a lapel on the left side, and you can see that lapel on Doorman as the material looks much thicker on his left side than his right. It looks thicker because it's folded over- into a lapel.

7. The complex, highly checkered pattern of Lovelady's shirt is NOT a perfect match to Doorman's, far from it.

All in all, I am even more convinced that Lovelady was NOT Doorman and Oswald was.

Read the book Mary's Monkey. It's fact based and is said that Oswald was framed. Oswald worked in a lab that came up with the "cure" for cancer way back when. Excellent read!

Have any of you seen the Oswald Innocent Campaign, chaired by JFK assassination expert Jim Fetzer?

www.oswald-innocent.com...

It contains a lot of resources proving that Oswald was the guy in the doorway photo. See this overview:

www.oswald-innocent.com...

reply to post by Blarneystoner


The Presidents route was changed, surely whoever changed the route should be asked why the new route took the cavalcade to Dally Plaza, where assassins were waiting, just about the time when the security guards left the Presidents car.
At the swearing in on airforce 1 when asked why Jackie Kennedy still had the coat with the blood and gore on. She was reported as saying that she wanted them to see what they had done to Jack.
Oswald was the "Patsey" that he said he was. Jack Ruby told Killagen that Tibet and he had a meeting with a high profile Texas oil man about a week before.
The plot thickens as Dorothy Killagen was heard saying she was going to blow the lid off it , but dies along with her friend who held her notes. Ruby suddenly dies of cancer. High profile Mafiosi (Giancana) get shot under police guard, Jimmy Hoffa gets a presidential pardon, but disappears anyway, and Roselli is found floating in an oil drum off of Miami. That's why nothing will be released untill all those living during that time are gone to answer there maker. I think the we can guess the whodunit? but the why eludes me still.

JFK assassination research expert Professor Jim Fetzer, author of "Murder in Dealey Plaza", has done extensive analysis into the Oswald doorway photo by Altgens, comparing the features of the doorman guy with Oswald. He has made a strong case for the doorway man being Oswald based on multiple similarities in clothing and facial features. You can read his articles and photo comparison analysis at the links below:

www.veteranstoday.com...
www.veteranstoday.com...
www.veteranstoday.com...
www.veteranstoday.com...
www.veteranstoday.com...
www.veteranstoday.com...
www.lewrockwell.com...

The Oswald Innocence Campaign, chaired by Jim Fetzer, also has an extensive analysis and comparison of the doorman photo to Oswald on their website: www.oswald-innocent.com...

As further corroboration, Professor Fetzer learned in 2011 that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the Dallas Homicide Detective who questioned Lee Oswald, which had been released in 2007. Those notes reported that Oswald told Detective Fritz that he had been “out with Bill Shelley in front” during the assassination. For more info on this, see the links above.

Despite some good work done in his book Assassination Science Jim Fetzer lost all respect for his ridiculous statements about 9/11 including his musings that the FBI planted bodies and plane wreckage outside the Pentagon. Saying that the wreckage was from plane crashes 5 years prior and the FBI stored all this in anticipation of the big hoax is just silly and while it may please his 9/11 truth buddies he lost all respect within the research community-and he is simply ignored by the mainstream of researchers and investigators.

The Oswald/Lovelady discussion, while interesting, has little bearing on the case as a whole. All sides of the discussion agree that LHO's statements about being in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15, as witnessed by Carolyn Arnold, are not deceptive since he was making statements that turned out to be true in the interview with Chief Curry. Page 58 of the HSCA final report is still the accepted explanation of the similarities of the 2 men however this is still open for discussion.

James Douglass's book "JFK and the Unspeakable" is an excellent, well researched book. That being said Jack Kennedy was notoriously closed lipped about his thinking, and confided his real intentions only to his brother Bobby. Mr Douglass's contention that he, and only he, knows the real truth about the Presidents Vietnam policy is flawed. There is plenty of conflicting evidence that John Kennedy was going to expand America's involvement in Southeast Asia.

The statement "He chose peace. They marked him for murder" does not fit the profile of a man who had so many issues telling the truth in both his private and personal life-let alone his inability to react to situations only when the political ramifications were in his favor.

Originally posted by canadiansenior70

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by canadiansenior70
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

He didn't kill anyone.

Tippit's body was usd as a double for JFK

www.jfkresearch.com...

and I expect he was just expendable, alive,

This is getting better and better....

and Paul McCartney has been dead since the 60s

edit on 5-1-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

It didn't take you long to read that article about the body switching!
Gee, it took me a long enough time that I couldn't have replied about it as quickly as you did!
As far as McCartney goes, he did die in the 60s, but TPTB had just set up a plan for the Beatles to infiltrate America, (drugs and all, eh?) so Paul had to be replaced, and he was.

or did you not study up on that one either?

edit on 5-1-2012 by canadiansenior70 because: spell

The reason I couldn't buy into the Paul is dead theory is because its one thing to find a body double. But to find a body double that can sing, play, and write as good as Paul would be the most unprobable conspiracy ever. Paul McCartney's genius is indisputable. I'm not even a big Beatles fan-and I hate wings, but musically he's like tesla, Samuel Clemens, Beethoven. Arguably the greatest composer of the 20th century

reply to post by Blarneystoner



There are theories. Theories that he didn't kill the officer, and that the officer (who bore quite a resemblence to kennedy and was given a nickname regarding that fact by officers - allegedly) was killed to fake the back of the head kennedy autopsy photos. You clearly see massive damage to the presidents head in the zapruder film, but if you look at the back of the head kennedy autopsy photos it doesn't really match.

Just a theory though.

reply to post by Firsk


That's an interesting video you put up 2012. Greasy fingered chicken eater leaves no prints ?
How convenient ?

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by wtbengineer

 

I have to agree to be honest, I really do think the man in the doorway was in fact Billy Lovelady, not Lee Harvey Oswald - Although I certainly don't think Oswald fired from the 6th floor snipers nest as he was almost certainly on the first or second floor. For anyone interested here's a nice comparison:

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

I think "Drunkenshrew" said it best in an earlier reply though, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is likely a duck.

If the man looks like Lovelady, wears a shirt like Lovelady and a Mr Lovelady has identified himself on the photo, the man on the photo is likely Mr Lovelady." *

But In fairness, It could be Oswald, there's no denying it just could be, but in my opinion It's very unlikely to be.

edit on 5-1-2012 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)

Yeah, I think I agree with your assessment.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by canadiansenior70
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

He didn't kill anyone.

Tippit's body was usd as a double for JFK

www.jfkresearch.com...

and I expect he was just expendable, alive,

This is getting better and better....

and Paul McCartney has been dead since the 60s

edit on 5-1-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

I've got to agree, it's getting better. (A little better all the time...)

And yes, that's how the theory goes. September or November of 1966. Right around the time they seemingly suddenly decided to stop touring forever, around the time "Paul" took a trip to Kenya for some unknown reason, around the time they all grew mustaches and changed their appearance, right around the time the band's sound changed radically, just before creating an (epic, classic) album depicting a funerary scene on the cover.


But that, too, is a matter for another thread.

Originally posted by spooky24
Despite some good work done in his book Assassination Science Jim Fetzer lost all respect for his ridiculous statements about 9/11 including his musings that the FBI planted bodies and plane wreckage outside the Pentagon. Saying that the wreckage was from plane crashes 5 years prior and the FBI stored all this in anticipation of the big hoax is just silly and while it may please his 9/11 truth buddies he lost all respect within the research community-and he is simply ignored by the mainstream of researchers and investigators.

The Oswald/Lovelady discussion, while interesting, has little bearing on the case as a whole. All sides of the discussion agree that LHO's statements about being in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15, as witnessed by Carolyn Arnold, are not deceptive since he was making statements that turned out to be true in the interview with Chief Curry. Page 58 of the HSCA final report is still the accepted explanation of the similarities of the 2 men however this is still open for discussion.

James Douglass's book "JFK and the Unspeakable" is an excellent, well researched book. That being said Jack Kennedy was notoriously closed lipped about his thinking, and confided his real intentions only to his brother Bobby. Mr Douglass's contention that he, and only he, knows the real truth about the Presidents Vietnam policy is flawed. There is plenty of conflicting evidence that John Kennedy was going to expand America's involvement in Southeast Asia.

The statement "He chose peace. They marked him for murder" does not fit the profile of a man who had so many issues telling the truth in both his private and personal life-let alone his inability to react to situations only when the political ramifications were in his favor.

Well if you listen to Professor Fetzer's podcasts, you will see that he doesn't make claims unless there is good evidence for them. The government has planted many things in the past, so it's not an outlandish claim that they would plant plane parts or photoshop them. I don't understand your basis for saying it's outlandish.

If Oswald said he was on the 2nd floor of the book depository, then why did the notes from Captain Will Fritz say that he claimed to be "out in front with Bill Shelley"? Can you address that?

No notes of any kind were taken during any of Oswald's interrogations. The were reproduced from memory later at the request of the FBI. If you read Captain Fritz's reproduced notes carefully Oswald states at the time of the shooting-Fritz could not recall the precise question he ask-Oswald replied "I was eating lunch with the colored boys I work with" that would have been the 2nd floor lunch room. 74 seconds after the shots were fired Oswald was confronted by Officer Marrion Baker in the foyer of that lunch room at the coke machine.

It's quite easy to see the almost 50 year old problem here. Since Captain Fritz can't recall the exact question he ask Oswald-then LHO's answer is quite irreverent and I agree. The preponderance of the evidence shows that LHO is telling the truth about his whereabouts at the time. Has proper police procedure been followed none of this would have ever happened however these events continue to unravel through out Oswald's confinement and eventual death.

There is also a high probability that LHO didn't even know JFK had been shot at the point of the first interview. Anyone can see the shock and horror on his face as a news reporter tells him he is being accused of the President's murder at the ridiculous 12:30 am press conference.

Through out 3 decades of this case that one fact has always stuck out to me. If LHO was a trained operator with the CIA or Naval Intelligence I doubt we will never know for sure however no one can look at his reaction at the news that the President is dead and he is the only suspect without noticing his reaction-top notch, elite training not withstanding he is horrified to hear this.

Even Oswald did it all magic bullet proponents like Gerald Posner admit his stunned reaction is obvious and it is troubling to the entire case. That is why the entire Lovelady issue is somewhat obscure and meaningless as interesting as it is as no human being can fake a reaction like that. Mr. cool, calm and damned proud top be here Lee Oswald-upon hearing this news-droops like a wet noodle.

My point here is somewhere along the line from the arrest to interrogation to press conference to being gunned down my personal feeling is that LHO was creditable in his known testimony-to understand this you must follow a line that someone is telling the truth-Captain Fritz, DA Wade, Chief Curry or even Roger Craig can't all be correct in their recollections!

The 'lies' LHO told the WC made such a big deal about-curtain rods story etc-have no reverence since none of the interrogations were recorded, not by stenographers or by voice recordings.

It has always been my contention that in this part of the case-Lee Harvey Oswald is telling the truth about where he was. I could be wrong but all my instinct tells me I'm not-just take another look at the press conference at his reaction. I don't see any need to post it since it's easily available.

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Firsk

 

Ok, let me repeat this one last time so hopefully you understand..

I. Don't. Care. If. You. Know. Fetzer.

Just because you may know this person and he may subscribe to this theory you're promoting (and It's not "your" theory either btw, this theory has been around quite a while), that doesn't automatically make you correct in what you're saying. Constantly name dropping (which even you have to admit you've done for the most part in this thread - I'd go as far as saying about 90% of your posts have had his name in them in fact) isn't going to get you anywhere, and the facts alone should be enough to convince anyone of anything.

Next, the fact that this article has been posted, once again, means nothing. As mentioned by another poster you're just posting the same stuff there as you did here and I've already highlighted why I disagree with you which you've already rejected and for the most part replied with insults and taunts.. which just completely destroyed all credibility you had.

I wish you did have a "breakthrough" here but, in my opinion, you don't and you're very far from it to say the least.

All I have to say is that Professor Fetzer may have "proved" the falsification of the Zapruder film, but the F.B.I. collected every camera, film, photograph in Dealey immediately after the assassination. You and the Professor should know that you cannot trust any, I repeat any, visual evidence taken in the plaza that day.

You and Fetzer should know better. You two have been beating this dead horse for quite a while now.

RA has this argument in the bag.

All I have to say is that Professor Fetzer may have "proved" the falsification of the Zapruder film, but the F.B.I. collected every camera, film, photograph in Dealey immediately after the assassination. You and the Professor should know that you cannot trust any, I repeat any, visual evidence taken in the plaza that day. You and Fetzer should know better. You two have been beating this dead horse for quite a while now.

I agree except the FBI was not the ones doing the 'collecting' of evidence that day in the plaza. Perhaps, the best film evidence of the assassination disappeared without a trace from right under the Bureau nose. Uniformed solder, infantryman Gordon Arnold's, story of having his movie camera opened and the film removed by two uniformed policemen lay silent for 15years after the events. His(supposed) vantage point from behind the picket fence conflicts with other witnesses(not much of a surprise in this case) however his description of a crying, shaking, dirty person in a policeman's uniform-without a hat which is an impossibility of an real policeman in the 60's-is interesting if nothing else.

The HSCA knew about the incident but ignored it using the proven logic of the WC that if you can't explain something-or fit it into the preconceived conclusion-then just forget about it. What interested me, personally, is the fact that the FBI never mentioned something that could have easily bolstered there own pre concluded case.

The young solders description is also interesting as a 'crying, emotionally overwrought, man impersonating a policeman just sticks out like a sore thumb with all the other statements from the 40 or so witnesses statements that were privy to the area. Of course, like so many other eyewitnesses, no one else collaborated the encounter, or saw hide nor hair of a 'crying policeman'.

As I have said so many times with this case is the fact that persons need to develop there own personal timeline as to how these events evolved. Remembering, of course, the constraints of space and time and the fact that only 60 seconds of things can conspire in one minute of time. Sadly, I just can't fit the serviceman's story in my view of the events since it is totally uncorroborated by anyone else-and it's downright bizarre in a sequence of incredibly bizarre events.

This of course opens up the monster can of worms as to why a 19 year old, who had just finished basic training on his way to Alaska, would conjure up such a wild event-if he is not telling the truth.

Just another day at the office with this almost 50 year old mess.