Oswald's Incompetent Clowns are going to show the "stark dissimilarity" of Billy Lovelady and their "Doorman". And they plan to do this by establishing the likeness of Oswald and their "Doorman". But didn't they also tell us that the mysterious "they" moved facial features from Billy Lovelady to "Doorman"? Raff* Sink even mentioned that the HSCA hired anthropologists to examine the Altgens 6 photo but they never considered that the photographic managing "they", altered the photos (which must have also included the original negatives and every copy made). So, we must throw out the facial features of Billy Lovelady and rely entirely on a shirt and the t-shirt beneath it. I mean, we want to be scientific in our approach to satisfy James H. Fetzer, PhD, right? You will soon see that the scientific method goes out the window at the OIC along with every other logical thinking process.
But for now, let's get back to James H. Fetzer, PhD....
First a little background on Will Fritz's notes.
Copies of which can be found at the Mary Ferrell Foundation here: Papers of Capt. Will Fritz
Many researchers say that Fritz's notes were not written at the time of the interrogation of Oswald. Some claim that they were written by Fritz after reading reports by others (FBI, Secret Service, etc.). I make no claim as to when they were written, they are what they are.
Back to Fetzer. He states that it was the discovery by him, of these notes that caused him to take another look at the Altgens 6 photo. He continues.....
Some have claimed that Lee was not talking about his location during the shooting but some time thereafter but that makes no sense at all because...Oswald could not have been referring to being outside with Bill Shelly before the shooting. That sums up Fetzer's critical thinking skills in a nutshell.
For a breakdown of Carolyn Arnold's statements concerning seeing Oswald go here: Founded In Fetzering
(You will notice throughout this series that the OIC, Raff* and Fetzer particularly, put full faith in Will Fritz's notes in this instance but will disregard every other statement, report or even additional comments in these notes when needed.)
So Fetzer contends that Oswald can't be talking about after the shooting because he couldn't be talking about before the shooting. Let's continue...
The OIC have decided that the 90 second time frame from shooting to Baker seeing Oswald in the second floor lunchroom is legit. Personally I think the 90 second time frame established by the Warren Commission is highly questionable but that's neither here nor there. We're going to hold the OIC to their claims.
Now it gets interesting....
Fetzer omits a lot of information in his misrepresentation of Shelley's statements. William "Bill" Shelley was interviewed on multiple days concerning his actions on the day of the assassination and testified before the Warren Commission. There is one interview report by the FBI, dated March 18, 1964, that claims Shelley said he left immediately after the shooting with Billy Lovelady, to head down to the railroad tracks. But, Fetzer ignores the fact that in that same report, Shelley denies seeing Oswald when the President was shot.
Here is that report...
Shelley also testified in front of the Warren Commission representatives and here is his testimony concerning when he left the front of the building...
And most interesting of all, Shelley was interviewed specifically about the Altgens 6 photo and identified Billy Lovelady as the OIC's "Doorman"....
For now I'll leave you with this....
To be continued.....
This excellent, multi-part series succeeds in exposing the flawed reasoning and sloppy work on the part of Fetzer and Cinque. For years, I have observed their inattention to scholarly detail, especially in their inability (or laziness) to take the time to study primary sources.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in making their case for Lovelady as Doorman, Fetzer and Cinque rely on Will Fritz's scribbled notation "out with Bill Shelley in front." But they fail to read the full narrative version of Fritz's interrogation notes, which places his earlier scribbled notes in context.
On p. 2 of Fritz's transcribed notes, he writes the following: "I asked him [Oswald] what part of the building he was in when the President was shot, and he said he was having lunch about that time on the first floor."
In other words, Oswald informed Fritz that he was INSIDE the building at the time of the shooting. If he had been OUTSIDE the building with an eyewitness (Shelley) to vouch for his presence, Oswald surely would have loudly proclaimed such an airtight alibi to Fritz and to the reporters in the hall who had asked him the same question.
It has now been years since the OIC floated its flimsy and poorly reasoned theory about Oswald in the doorway. To date, no serious JFK researcher has taken the theory seriously, and it has never gained traction on the internet.
The source for the Fritz citation above may be found at:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=2&tab=page