Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Goo-goo Dolls Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Get Ready for Summer and Save 15% The Baby Store Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Outdoor Recreation SnS
Customer Discussions > History forum

Doorway Man in the famous Altgens photo WAS Oswald

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 4926-4950 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 1:26:03 PM PST
spearman says: "HS says, I can't stand the heat in the kitchen so I will more than likely not be responding to your posts any further."

Straw argument and misquote. How spearman of you.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 1:46:35 PM PST
spearchucker wrote: "Why would I provide an amateur like you with an art. that you wouldn't be able to appreciate or understand. You wouldn't be able to process it in your benighted little world."

SVA: So it appears that spearchucker is pulling out yet another excuse for not revealing his scholarly article. His first excuse was that since I won't reveal my identity he won't show me his article. Now he has produced another excuse. Since I am not smart enough he doesn't want to produce something that I won't be able to understand.

One thing that can NEVER be said of conspiracy cultists--they NEVER run out of excuses as to why they cannot produce evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 4:43:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 4:45:07 PM PST
spearman says:
TSTRT, aka DA, says, Don't bother telling us to go read some obscure text or treatise. Don't bother telling us that it's obvious, because, frankly, if it WERE obvious, you would be able to describe it. I'm calling BS on your assertion, spearman, and I predict you'll make no effort to defend it.

DA, If you had paid attention you would know I have explained MacKinder quite extensively in the past here. Maybe if I find the time I'll do it again. Maybe HS can remember.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 4:54:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 4:56:05 PM PST
spearman says:
Patrick opines, Exactly what would the pretext be for this service..."oh hear yea or hear yea, all those with pictures related to the events in Dallas this 22cnd day of November, bring forth your film and we will alter it, destroy your originals and synchronise all photos so they tell the same and different story".

Patrick, you're almost at the point of acquiring a nickname with your TSTRT comments. This white van discussion was never really developed by Fetzer as you seem to want to believe for purposes of denigration of CTers. It was if anything a brainstorming process used by Fetzer which is in common use as a business strategy for coming up with new possibilities. I thought you were a corporate type that would be able to fathom such a thought but I guess LNutting dementia has the best of you.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 5:41:48 PM PST
D. Axelson says:
Judges?

Did I or did I not predict spearman's response?

DA

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 5:46:24 PM PST
Debunker says:
You did..but then again, we're talking about "I've got no evidence" Spearman, so don't let it go to your head too much. :)))

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 6:04:03 PM PST
D. Axelson says:
Yeah, you're right. The bar on that prediction is pretty low . . .

;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 7:02:58 PM PST
JR Fleming says:
spearman,
Oh, the same Fetzer who believes Sandy Hook was a Mossad op. Yeah, that has cred......
Speaking of dementia......

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 7:36:54 PM PST
spearman says:
DA said, Did I or did I not predict spearman's response?

DA, are you hard up for attention or what?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 8:36:12 PM PST
spearchucker wrote: "Patrick, you're almost at the point of acquiring a nickname with your TSTRT comments. This white van discussion was never really developed by Fetzer as you seem to want to believe for purposes of denigration of CTers. It was if anything a brainstorming process used by Fetzer which is in common use as a business strategy for coming up with new possibilities. I thought you were a corporate type that would be able to fathom such a thought but I guess LNutting dementia has the best of you."

SVA: Wrong yet again. This theory of Fetzer's was no brainstorming, we know that with 100% certainty because in order to brainstorm one must first have a brain, which immediately disqualifies James Fetzer. he HAD one years ago but it has been gone for some time now. The bizarre and hilarious claim that the photographic alterations (which never occurred in the first place) took place in a van parked in Dealey Plaza was a frantic attempt on the part of a man who was cornered thanks to his simple-minded beliefs to harmonize an evidence-less theory with a wild and extremely remote possibility. He knew he was cornered when I repeatedly asked him WHERE the alleged alterations took place between 12:45 (when Altgens left Dealey Plaza) and 1:03 when the photograph world wide. He realized how laughably ridiculous the claim was that the photograph was found, identified, stolen, altered, returned, and wired around the globe in a 18 minute time span. Therefore he hatched a frantic scenerio involving a photograph he saw in White's collection of random photographs. Of course his claim is hilarious and unfounded but when cornered people can come up with some of the most humorous claims you ever heard.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 8:44:49 PM PST
spearman says:
SV Assinineson, you're dreaming. The fact that the van was in the book The Z-Film Hoax as part of White's photo essay indicates Fetzer was talking about the van in this photo yrs. before it came up here. I remember engaging in the discussion at least 5 yrs. ago. It was never anything more than a brainstorming tangent. Just another idea being tested among many others. Now unless you were in on that discussion 5 yrs. ago, which you may have been, you claim has no legs.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 9:44:41 PM PST
Fetzer's claim whether five years ago or this morning is silly and groundless. The date of a stupid idea is really moot. Over the past five years the idea Fetzer hatched hasn't gained any more credibility than it had when he first pipe dreamed it the first time.

Posted on Feb 19, 2013 10:02:25 PM PST
Steve Haydon says:
Ralph, who's getting fed up with constantly being made to look like the utter fool he is by the excellent Joe Backes, resorts to doing what he does best - whining like a girl to anybody he thinks might listen.....

"I'm going to report you to teh National Organization for Women. http://now.org/ for your continual misogyny as illustrated by your usage of the b and c word throughout this blog. More people are coming onto my side to defeat you and take down this disgusting site aimed only at defaming me and nothing to do with JFK research. ( I did warn you) on Cinque, You Ignorant **** XV

www.ralphcinqueisastupidbitch.blogspot.com

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 11:46:57 PM PST
spearman says:
Patrick, it's bated breath not baited breath

I wasn't aware of the correct usage because it is not part of my vocabularly and I must have glossed it over in reading.I went to look the definition up and laughed at this warning:

"Baited is INCORRECT!--so don't use it, unless you put a worm in your mouth and happen to be fishing.)"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070321070056AAaqsT4

Posted on Feb 20, 2013 4:59:37 AM PST
Pokernut says:
Haydon, haven't you figured out that there are false emails going on, including in my name? I didn't send that to Backes. Maybe some woman did.

You ought to try thinking before you post, Haydon.

Posted on Feb 20, 2013 5:01:08 AM PST
Pokernut says:
So, Lovelady denied seeing Oswald again after breaking for lunch on 11/22. But, what about his wife? Surely, if the walk-by happened, Lovelady would have told his wife that very night, and it would have went something like this:

"Honey, you're not going to believe what happened. After Kennedy was killed, I and some others were taken to the Police Department, and for some reason they sat me down alone in this Squad room where I was waiting to make a statement. Then, before I knew it, this whole procession comes trapsing through, and I mean right by me in a cramped space. This big cop was leading Oswald to the lead detective's office, and behind them were these other cops and a whole slew of reporters and photographers and filmers. It was jam-packed, and I was right in the middle of it. The room was swarming with people; cameras were flashing; reporters were yelling questions. And there were no windows, so you could barely breathe. I kept looking at Oswald, but I don't think he noticed me. After they talked to the detective, they put Oswald in this little room and closed the door. It was so weird because I work with the guy every day."

But, apparently, Lovelady never said anything like that to his wife. And the reason I know that is because Mrs. Lovelady never said a word about it to Harold Weisberg when she called him in early 1967.

Harold Weisberg's Photographic Whitewash had come out in 1966, and it reignited the Doorman debate. Mrs. Lovelady called Weisberg on the phone to tell him that "it was my Billy in the doorway." She said that the photos in the striped shirt had been a big misunderstanding, that he had worn a red and black checkered shirt on 11/22, and the checks (or boxes) were about two inches square in size. She also offered to provide a picture of Lovelady wearing the checked shirt plus a sworn affadavit about it for a mere $5000 (and remember, this was 1967 dollars). Weisberg, wisely declined. And David Wrone, wisely pointed out that Doorman's shirt is neither striped nor checked, so it hardly mattered.

But, my question is: Why didn't Mrs. Lovelady just tell Harold Weisberg to watch the Dallas PD footage with Oswald being led by her husband? She had to know about it- if it happened.

Also, didn't she know about the Martin film in which Lovelady was supposedly filmed by Jack Martin outside the TSBD just scant minutes after the assassination? That Gorilla Lovelady was definitely wearing a checked shirt just like the one Mrs. Lovelady described. But, the fact is that his presence in that spot at that exact time conflicts with Lovelady's own WC testimony, where he said he left immediately for the underpass- before Officer Baker even entered the building- and upon returning went around to the back door. And Bill Shelley told the exact same story. Therefore, it could not have been Lovelady milling around outside the TSBD when Jack Martin was doing his thing.

But, let's put that one aside and just stick with the PD footage. By chance, Lovelady was inadvertently dropped into a historic moment which he must have shared with his wife. Neither one of them could possibly have forgotten about it. Yet, she didn't breathe a word about it to Harold Weisberg, even though she was begging him to extinquish his doubts about her husband's identity as Doorman.

Mrs. Lovelady did not mention that movie to Harold Weisberg because she didn't know about it, and she didn't know about it because it never happened. The movie wasn't made yet, that is, the part with Lovelady. And when it was made, it was made in response to Harold Weisberg, and others like him, such as Mark Lane.

[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/vooqiq.jpg[/IMG]

This is a poor copy of a chapter heading from Rush to Judgment, and I apologize for the poor quality. But, what I want you to notice is that Mark Lane used his own image of Lovelady, the one that he authorized. And you see, of course, the startling difference in hair coverage between Oswald and Lovelady. In every way, Doorman looks more like Oswald.

In a recent posting, Backes reported Oswald's weight as 134, but Gerald McKnight said it was only 131. That's a small difference, but I'd be willing to bet money that McKnight is correct. That's because my gut feeling was and is, as a weight loss doctor who has been weighing people his whole adult life, that Oswald was right around 130. That was my best guess from looking at him. And 131 is closer to 130 than 134.

But, even if he was 134, it's still over 40 pounds difference, and Oswald was the taller man. You can see right away that Doorman was thin like Oswald.

So, it was in response to Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane, and perhaps Penn Jones, that that phony walk-by footage was made. They started by taking the real footage, in which no one was at that desk, and embedding "Lovelady" into it. But, at some point in time they were dissatisfied with that version. So, they made another one, and this time they remembered to prop open Lovelady's shirt.

It's weird how in the Martin film fakery and the first PD footage fakery, they forgot about sprawling open Lovelady's shirt. And it's a big part of Doorman's look. How could they forget that? Twice!

I'll tell you how they forgot. They forgot because they weren't thinking about Doorman. They were just thinking about Lovelady and the posing he did in the striped shirt, and they wanted to negate that. They wanted to show the plaid shirt in all its glory. They weren't thinking about showing white t-shirt. They wanted to show checks and squares and lines and boxes and contrast.

But, when they realized that he wasn't configured like Doorman, they knew they had to do it over and give him some sprawl. So, they came up with this:

http://tinypic.com/r/ifbif5/6

No, they are not the same guy. "Lovelady" is much stockier than Doorman. His hair is different. His t-shirt is different. His outer shirt is different. And his shirt sprawl is different too, and it doesn't even look real. How is a shirt going to sprawl open like that? Give me a break.

Joseph Backes is claiming a phony bus ride. He thinks they phonied the whole thing, made it up, and got McWatters and Bledsoe and others to go along. But, the bus ride doesn't even matter. Oswald could have walked the few blocks, and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

Hey, Joe, forget about the bus ride. It's these movies that are phony. And they are fertile ground for the serious researchers.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 5:16:37 AM PST
Lawrence,

Glad you got a laugh out of that one!

Here's a good link to these words called homonyms! English must be a tough language to learn! See the b words below....

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/english/homonyms/

ball/bawl
band/banned
bear/bare
be/bee
billed/build
blew/blue
board/bored
boy/buoy
brake/break
by/bye/buy
beach/beech
bolder/boulder
bread/bred
brouse/brows

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 5:27:43 AM PST
Steve Haydon says:
Cinque says -

"Haydon, haven't you figured out that there are false emails going on, including in my name? I didn't send that to Backes. Maybe some woman did."

Are you sure Ralph? You did, after all, issue a "warning" ( snigger! ) and it certainly sounds like the sort of whingeing, whiney tripe you've been known to post on many occasions....

Anyway, it's good to see that there's somewhere where you are engaged at the level you so richly deserve.....

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 5:36:42 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 5:49:35 AM PST
Steve Haydon says:
Cinque says -

"It's these movies that are phony. And they are fertile ground for the serious researchers."

"Serious researchers"! Hilarious!
Another priceless gem from the most ignorant clown ever to express an opinion on a JFK forum!
Keep 'em coming Ralphie!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 5:56:06 AM PST
Debunker says:
What? You don't think repeating over and over again (despite zero evidence to support the claim) "it's Oswald in the doorway" constitutes "serious reserach"????

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 7:37:55 AM PST
Patrick Collins says: "Here's a good link to these words called homonyms!"

And picking on spelling is a non-rebuttal rebuttal and an admission one has no argument in any case.

About what one would expect from spearman.

Hank

Posted on Feb 20, 2013 1:28:00 PM PST
Pokernut says:
A man who goes only by "Walt" made an interesting post on McAdams' JFK forum:

"I believe it's commonly accepted that when Commander Humes couldn't find a bullet track through JFK's body he suggested that a ice bullet may have been used during the assassination."

"Obviously a gun that fires ice bullets wouldn't be something that Joe Six Pack would be carrying around, in his hip posket, so Humes must have saw something to lead him to believe that JFK had been attacked with weapons that were only available to covert intelligence agencies. The most obvious indicator that JFK had been killed by a special weapon was the way his head was blow apart."

"I believe that Humes saw that bullet hole in JFK's right temple and
the damage to the brain and skull and recognized instantly that JFK
had been murdered by someone with access to highly technical
assassination weapons, like exploding bullets. No doubt that idea that JFK had been hit with special weapons would have been broached and the reality scared the crap out of them, because they immediately thought it was Russia that was behind the assassination, and they didn't want to trigger a nuclear war with Russia."

"The Cuban Missile Crisis of the previous fall was still very fresh in
everyone's mind and they remember the cold fear that gripped the
nation during that crisis."

"That's when the Military Brass started calling the shots in that
autopsy room."

"They swore everybody to secrecy, and started covering up the
facts."

I think what Walt wrote above is excellent, and I give the ice bullet scenario serious consideration. What's the alternative? That the bullet fell out of his back? So, we had a bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh and another bullet that fell out of Kennedy's back? Then why didn't it get bound in his clothes. There was a t-shirt, an outer shirt, and a jacket. Are we supposed to believe that the holes all lined up so that the bullet could squeeze out? And what happened to it after that?

If it was an ice bullet, it explains why the bullet only penetrated a couple inches. That conforms with experiments shooting ice bullets into carcasses.

http://www.handloads.com/forum/showthread.asp?topic=5&thread=2529

Why would they shoot Kennedy with an ice bullet? To establish evidence that he was shot from behind. Obviously, if it made a hole in his back and didn't come out anywhere, it had to have entered his back.

I'm just thinking out loud, but it does seem clear that Kennedy was shot in the back, adjacent to the spine, at the level of T3, and that bullet only penetrated a couple of inches. It certainly did not come out his throat. And if it had come out anywhere else, the doctors and nurses at Parkland would have seen the exit wound.

Could it have just stayed in Kennedy's body? Well, a bullet went all the way through Connally, so why not Kennedy? Plus, they took x-rays and said there was no such bullet in Kennedy's body. I guess they could have lied, but the ice bullet idea is still on the table as far as I'm concerned.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 1:38:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 2:28:56 PM PST
JR Fleming says:
Cinque again demonstrates his lack of knowledge.
Ice bullets don't work, it is a myth.
Do you even have a remote interest in accuracy?

Posted on Feb 20, 2013 2:27:17 PM PST
Mark S. Cinque says: A man who goes only by "Walt" made an interesting post on McAdams' JFK forum:

"I believe it's commonly accepted that when Commander Humes couldn't find a bullet track through JFK's body he suggested that a ice bullet may have been used during the assassination."

Hilarious.

Humes never suggested that. 50 years after the assassination, and conspiracy hypothesizers can't get the simplest facts right.

Did you even think to ask him for a citation, Ralph? Or is getting something posted on the internet sufficient to prove it?

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 2:35:43 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 2:45:42 PM PST
I've also looked into silencers - of that time - and have been reliably advised that the sound of a shot from say the GK would have been audible.

As a lay person, just considering the concept of the "ice bullet" - ignoring the impact of the firing pin on ice, let me just share some thoughts here...

The "ice bullet" is transferred to the rifle in an ambient temp of 68f ....let us say its in the rifle for 2 minutes before it is fired...what then keeps it intact and not melting....nothing...

Take an ice cube out of your fridge tonight and fashion it down to something the size of the third "section" of your pinky. Leave it for a couple of minutes and see what you have - something that could be fired from a rifle? So where does that leave us...

My educated guess is that an ice bullet would need to be stored in a deep freezing element or compound up to the last minute surely..? Is this realistic in DP 22 Nov 63..? Yes for a sniper in isolation - but on the GK in a public space - I really dont think so...

If any one has info / expertise on this "ice bullet" scenario - please advise...

Its a long shot - forgive the pun.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  81
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 9, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions