I am only going to publish it segmentally because if I post it as a big block of text, someone might start reading it and get confused, and think that I was saying it, and that would be awful.
So, this is like chemotherapy, which is dangerous, and which has to be administered very slowly and carefully to prevent harm.
James starts by claiming that the controversy started "during the weekend" with ABC, that they were the first to notice the likeness to Oswald. Well, who really knows if that's true? We have this letter from the FBI:
Next, James brings up Jim Douglass, how he voiced some support for Oswald in the doorway in the first edition of JFK and the Unspeakable, but in the paperback edition that followed, he reportedly backed off, although James did not provide a quote. And then, without providing any of the content so that we can judge for ourselves, James concludes that it demonstrates the "inherent subjectivity of photo analysis".
James, first of all, you should not be so weak. A name doesn't matter, not even a name like Jim Douglass. Evidence matters. And frankly, an argument matters if it's based on evidence and if it's logical and rational. How dare you drop a name without one iota of content and expect it to register with me as persuasive?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. We have to think for ourselves.
Now, I do not know what caused Jim Douglass to back away from advocating Oswald in the doorway, and James isn't telling. But, it has no effect on me. I am not influenced by Jim Douglass. And by that I mean that I am not influenced by the name Jim Douglass, which is all that James Norwood provided.
So here now is James Norwood's introduction which, unfortunately, says absolutely nothing. There is nothing here that sways. There is nothing here of any argumentative value. This is just propaganda.
"Introduction: The controversy about the possible presence of Oswald in the doorway, as apparent in the Altgens6 photo, began during the weekend of the assassination. ABC News did not present to the public the Altgens6 photo either on the afternoon of November 22 or throughout the weekend. ABC actually took the time to study the Altgens6 and concluded that the figure in the doorway resembled Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who was at the time in custody as the prime suspect. Out of immediate concern for the dramatic implications of this finding, ABC withheld the Altgens6 from its broadcasts. Suspecting that Oswald may have an airtight alibi due to the Altgens6 photo, ABC contacted the FBI about the tiny figure in the doorway because the news staff genuinely believed it might be Oswald. If the Altgens6 had been altered on Friday afternoon in order to obscure Doorway Man, as claimed by the Oswald Innocence Campaign (OIC), then the alterationists did not succeed in fooling ABC News!"
For over fifty years, there have been debate, controversy, and shifting positions about this topic. In his 2008 publication of JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass wrote a short section suggesting that Oswald may have been standing in the doorway. [1] But Douglass later rethought his views on this topic. The example of James Douglass should alert us to the inherent subjectivity of photo analysis in the complex Doorman topic. It is not only likely, but inevitable, that there will never be a consensus on the topic of the man in the doorway.
Next, James gets to the question of whether Oswald was in the doorway. But first, let me say that I put forward something yesterday, and I was speaking to James, although he apparently ignored it. My point was that if you are a lone-nutter denying Oswald in the doorway, you obviously maintain that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. So, your work in establishing where he was during the shooting is finished before you start.
But, if you are an Oswald-innocent advocate as James claims to be (although who knows, maybe James is going to go the whole route like Gary Mack and become a lone-nutter, and I see it as possible) you have the responsibility to place Oswald somewhere. If he wasn't in the doorway, and he wasn't on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, then where was he? I'll tell you in advance that James never addresses the matter. He erroneously thinks he can challenge Oswald in the doorway without proposing any alternative.
Think of it as in court. If the defendant denies committing the crime or being at the scene of the crime, he has to say where he was. How would it come across if he said, "I wasn't at the scene of the crime, but I can't tell you where I was." That's not going to resonate with the jury. He's got to account for himself. And it's the same for Oswald. He's not here, but we have to do it for him. If he wasn't on the 6th floor, and he wasn't in the doorway, then where was he?
James starts by quoting Will Fritz:
“I asked him [Oswald] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor.”
Amazingly, James says that that statement and the "out with Bill Shelley in front" statement from the Fritz Notes "cancel each other out." Do they? This is from my JFK Truth in 3 Minutes Video:
James, try to focus: We know who the "employees" were that Fritz was talking about. They were James Jarman and Harold Norman. That is indisputable. And we know for certain that Oswald didn't eat lunch with them. Even they said so. You don't think they're lying, do you? It's clear that Oswald meant that while he was eating lunch alone that they were in or around the place where he was, which was the Domino Room. But, since by the time of the motorcade they were perched at the window on the 5th floor after having gone outside, it means that when Oswald sighted them, it had to be much earlier than 12:30. And that means what Fritz told the Warren Commission was a lie.
In other words, we know from independent evidence, such as the above photo, that Fritz spoke falsely. There is simply no chance that Oswald was eating lunch with other employees at 12:30. There are no "other employees". There are only James Jarman and Harold Norman. There was a close encounter between Oswald and the two of them, and it definitely did not occur during the motorcade. There simply is no chance of that. So for you to say that Fritz' statement to the WC has equal weight as "out with Bill Shelley in front" is ridiculous. It is patently absurd.
So, here is the next part of James' analysis, and it is 100% wrong.
"Evidence"
"(1) WILL FRITZ: In Will Fritz’s interrogation notes, there is the scribbled notation that Oswald was “out with Bill Shelly in front.” At first glance, this appears to be a powerful piece of evidence suggesting that Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the assassination. But Fritz provided a much more expansive summary of the interrogation for the Warren Commission in which he wrote the following: “I asked him [Oswald] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor” [2] To suit his purposes, Mr. Cinque chooses as the truth the Fritz document that Mr. Cinque prefers (“out with Billy Shelly”) while rejecting as a lie Fritz’s other statement (“on the first floor”) which contradicts Mr. Cinque's preconceived conclusion of Oswald in the doorway. But for the impartial student of the JFK assassination, these two reports from Will Fritz cancel each other out. There is nothing conclusive about Oswald standing in doorway to be drawn from the writings of Will Fritz."
"Out with Bill Shelley in front" is very conclusive. It wouldn't be if Oswald had just said that he was out in front. But, the fact that he named someone who was out there makes it conclusive. How did he know that Bill Shelley was there unless he saw him there?
I guess you could think that Oswald went to the doorway without stepping outside. But, why would you think that? Why assume such a behavior on his part? Why not step outside? Was Oswald allergic to fresh air? Was he afraid of getting a sunburn? No, the clear implication is that Oswald knew Shelley was in front because he, Lee, was out in front with him. He said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." He didn't say that he saw Shelley through the glass. He said that he was out with him. There is no reason to interpret it any other way. And, it is a very powerful piece of evidence. It is one of the most powerful to pop up since November 22, 1963.
Then, James plays the eye-witness card, claming that we only know of witnesses who identified Lovelady as Doorman. He claims that there were 7 eye-witnesses who identified Billy Lovelady as the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo.
First, I believe that is inaccurate statement, and I challenge James to provide evidence for it. And until he does, it shall not be honored here. I think James is stretching it by saying 7.
But, there were definitely some, although Lovelady wasn't one of them. He was never even asked. He was only asked to draw an arrow to himself in the Altgens photo, which he did, but not to Doorway Man.
So, we have it directly from Billy Lovelady that he was not the Doorway Man. And remember that this was a default situation. It was like a toggle switch. If Lovelady wasn't Doorman, Oswald had to be. I'll add that if anyone wishes to dispute my assignment of that distinct mark on the forearm of Black Hole Man as the tail of Lovelady's arrow, they are welcome to look for another mark. And I shall not again address the stupidity of Hondo in claiming that Lovelady crowded his arrow on top of Frazier's. That is ridiculous and stupid contention. But, if you want to get out another CE 369 photo and look for an arrow for Lovelady, be my guest.
And the truth is that the very fact that Joseph Ball did not ask Billy Lovelady directly, by pointing to Doorman and saying, "Who is he?" tells you how corrupt the whole process was. Joseph Ball did that with Buell Frazier, ie ask directly. Joseph Ball did that with Danny Arce. But, Joseph Ball deliberately and shrewdly did NOT do that with Billy Lovelady because he was not sure of what Billy would say. And, Ball's fears were well-founded.
But, we have two other witnesses for Oswald in the doorway. The first is Marina Oswald Porter who has gone on record in saying that Lee was the Man in the Doorway. She has also gone on record in saying that she recognizes his shirt in the picture and recalls washing it.
And the other witness is Anthony Botelho, Oswald's Marine buddy.
Anthony noticed something that I and Richard Hooke noticed: Doorman's notched t-shirt was a match to Oswald's. And this definitely counts. Who could have been wearing Oswald's distinctive t-shirt except Oswald?
But, here is what James wrote:
"(2) EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: In the Warren Commission hearings, seven witnesses identified Billy Lovelady as the man in the doorway. (I am not including William Shelley’s ambivalent testimony.) Were all seven witnesses who identified Lovelady guilty of perjury? Were they all mistaken in their recall? Were they all coerced into giving false testimony? After fifty years, not a single one of these eyewitnesses ever recanted his/her testimony. The weight of the evidence here is on the side of the eyewitnesses who identified Lovelady in the doorway."
And next James cites the video in which a reporter asked Oswald "Were you in the building at the time" and Oswald said, "Naturally, if I work in that building.."
It was just yesterday that OIC senior member Lance Moore wrote to me saying that he believes it's possible that when Oswald left the doorway to begin his trek to the lunch room, he didn't know that Kennedy had been shot. In the Altgens photo, NO spectators show any sign of awareness of the tragedy that was unfolding. Many were happy and gleeful with big broad smiles. If Oswald left the doorway immediately after Altgens snapped his camera, then he may not have known what had happened. So, it's possible that he did think that the shooting took place after he left, and when he was in the building.
But, the most important thing is that Oswald didn't know that he had his picture taken when he was in the doorway. And it's the photo that makes him being in the doorway so significant, not just "being outside." And remember that it was the reporter who framed the question, not Oswald. What if the reporter had said:
"Where were you at the time of the shots?"
What would Oswald have said? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. All we can do is guess, and what good is that? It was a hurried, frenzid situation, where Oswald was being dragged along while he tried to answer questions. You assume that he should have distinguished between being in the building and being a few feet outside the door in a foyer that still had him surrounded by building on 5 sides: left, right, bottom, back and above. Only one wall was missing: the one in front. It was still like being deep in a cave, and that is exactly how that doorway feels when you're back on that landing.
If you were deep in a cave, would you consider yourself "inside" or "outside"? Even though there is no door to the cave, and it's open to the outside, are you really outside?
Here is what James wrote:
"(3) OSWALD’S OWN WORDS: Oswald himself had abundant opportunities from Friday evening through Sunday morning to proclaim his innocence by simply stating that he was standing in front of the building observing the passing of the motorcade. Oswald was captured on camera in an agitated state, crying out, “I’m just a patsy” or “I emphatically deny these charges.” But he never proclaimed, “I was standing in front of the building at the time of the shooting.” One reporter pointedly asked Oswald the question, “Were you in the building at the time?” It was at that moment, more than any other, that Oswald should answered loudly and clearly that he was standing out front, if that is where he was at 12:30pm on November 22. Instead, Oswald clearly informed the reporter that he was inside the building. The weight of the evidence here is on the word of Oswald himself, who stated publicly that he was in the building and not standing on the steps outside."
I shall add that even if Oswald had never told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" and worse than that, even if he had asserted that he did NOT go outside, that he never went out in the doorway, that he did not traverse the threshold of the front door at any time, it wouldn't change anything. It would simply mean that Oswald lied. Because, he was definitely in that doorway, and we know that because we can see him there, his face, his build, his stance, his expression, and most important, his clothes.
Here is James' conclusion to the first question, whether Oswald was Doorman:
"There is is not a shred of credible documentary or eyewitness evidence placing Oswald in the doorway at the time of the assassination. With the passage of over fifty years, not a single eyewitness has ever come forward to identify Oswald as the man in the doorway, despite the large crowd gathered around the alcove and waiting a substantial amount of time for the arrival of the motorcade. In my prioritizing of the evidence above, the most important is the testimony of the seven eyewitnesses who identified Lovelady in the doorway in their Warren Commission testimony. None of these eyewitnesses, their children, or their grandchildren have ever come forward with the revelation that Oswald was in the doorway. Perhaps the most important of these eyewitnesses is Buell Wesley Frazier, who is still alive and still maintains that it was Lovelady standing in the doorway. Until Frazier offers a deathbed confession to the contrary, there is not a sliver of eyewitness or documentary evidence placing Oswald in the doorway. Consequently, the weight of the evidence points to Billy Nolan Lovelady as the man in the doorway."
This is really awful; it's terrible. James is completely wrong, and it's worse than that. He's also very dishonest. When he joined the Oswald Innocent Campaign, he endorsed this Mission Statement:
Mission Statement
We, the members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, maintain that at the time of President Kennedy's assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository, where he was photographed by James "Ike" Altgens, which is clearly evident upon close examination of the photograph. This discovery categorically exonerates Oswald from having shot the President. We call upon the media to renounce the official story that impugns him--including the "Magic Bullet" theory, which is a conspiratorial fabrication--and we demand that the American government cease obstructing justice by promoting a gross falsehood, based on lies, which has allowed the true killers to remain free, unindicted, and unpunished.
So, James joined under false pretenses. He lied to us.
But here is the bottom line about this whole thing: the photo analysis trumps everything else. When we see a man who looks like Oswald, and is dressed the way Oswald was dressed, which was a very distinctive way to dress, and a very unique way to dress, and he has Oswald's anatomical features, such as Oswald's ear, Oswald's chin, etc., then we know he was Oswald. And it doesn't matter what anyone said, including Oswald. You don't argue with your eyes. And you don't put anything ahead of the objective evidence of photographs. They are more valuable, more conclusive, and more substantial than all the lip-flapping in the world.
You don't ask who was in the doorway when you can look and see for yourself, and we can.
You don't ask who was in the doorway when you can look and see for yourself, and we can.
We'll continue tomorrow with James' answer to the second question, whether Oswald can be seen, that is, recognized and identified, in the Altgens photo. The answer is a resounding yes! But, of course, James is going to continue on the same tract that he's been on. So far, I regret to say, James has not demonstrated one iota of sound reasoning. He doesn't know how to think. He doesn't know how to reason. And he certainly does not know how to prioritize evidence. I am truly relieved that he is gone from the OIC.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.