At 12:30 PM on 22 November 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository watching the Presidential motorcade, and he was captured on film by James "Ike" Altgens of the Associated Press. Although the issue has been disputed for decades, there is now abundant and compelling evidence which proves --beyond all reasonable doubt -- that Lee was the "Man in the Doorway" in the famous Altgens photo (seen below), where he is standing next to the white column on the left.

The area within the red rectangle in the image above is enlarged below.

Notice first that Doorman was wearing a long-sleeved, loose-fitting outer shirt, which was substantially unbuttoned and sprawled open, beneath which he wore a white t-shirt. The neck of this t-shirt was stretched because of his habit of tugging on it and thereby forming a pseudo-V. It wasn't manufactured as a V-neck t-shirt, but it became one from Lee pulling on it.

Those who were managing the photographic record in Dealey Plaza that day were alarmed that Lee was present in the photograph, and they took measures to alter his appearance by moving some of the features of Billy Lovelady, his co-worker, to Lee. However, the clothing is the key to unmasking the deception. Unless Billy attacked Lee in the Men's room, or elsewhere, and stole his clothes, it must have been Lee in the doorway. No one could be wearing Lee's clothing except Lee. We'll be looking at this much closer and in great detail, and you will see very clearly how it was done.

It is important to realize that Doorman's image consists of 80% clothing. And therefore, a close examination of his clothing is paramount in determining his identity. That should have been obvious from the beginning, yet it was repeatedly ignored. There is not a single word in The Warren Report (1964) about Doorman's clothing. And when the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered this in 1977-78, they focused mostly on Doorman's face, comparing it to Oswald's and Lovelady's.

They even hired a team of anthropologists to make some extremely fine and minute anthropometric measurements: such as the distance between the eyes, the shape of the chin, the bulbous-ness of the nose, etc. That some of Lovelady's facial features were moved to Doorman, replacing Lee's, is something that the HSCA never considered, although there is compelling evidence to support it.

Oswald's whole outfit was very unusual, actually unique, and we can see it on Doorman: conspicuously. But before we proceed with that analysis, which will consist mostly of picture collages so that you can compare the evidence with your own eyes, please make note of two important points:

(1) Establishing that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Doorman in the Altgens photo, by itself, completely and thoroughly exonerates him. If he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shooting, he could not possibly have been at the same time up on the 6th floor firing at President Kennedy. This one determination is therefore enough, by itself, to settle the matter once and for all. No one can be in two places at the same time. And we shall provide ample proof that Oswald was in the doorway.

(2) This is a default situation. There are only two possibilities for Doorman's identity, even theoretically, and they are Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Nolan Lovelady, who was another TSBD worker. Nobody is suggesting that it may have been a third person, perhaps an anonymous stranger who was walking by. All of the individuals standing on the steps were TSBD employees, and the only one who had the remotest resemblance to Oswald was Billy Lovelady.

And keep in mind that their similarities have been greatly exaggerated--they really didn't look that much alike. How could they when one weighed 170 pounds or more (Billy) and the other weighed 131 pounds (Lee), making a 40 pound weight difference between them. We'll have more to say about that later.

Our approach is going to be to establish the likeness of Oswald and Doorman on the one hand, and the unlikeness (the stark dissimilarity) of Lovelady and Doorman on the other. Since there are only two candidates for Doorman, evidence that rules out Lovelady as Doorman automatically supports Oswald. So, Lee wins by default just by proving that Billy could not be Doorman.

Then, we lay out our catalog of Altgens anomalies--proof of alteration--which shows you exactly what they did and how they did it. Then, we provide resources for further reading about this and other areas of JFK assassination research.

Finally, our Wrap page is where we wrap things up, but it is also meant to be an ongoing blog. These are short pieces, distinguished by author and date, including timely announcements by Ralph Cinque, as needed. The lead article is a synopsis of the chapter "The "Man in the Doorway" by Dr. David Wrone from his book: The Zapruder Film: Reframing the JFK Assassination.

As the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination has come and gone, it is time to dispel, once and for all, the official myth--the official lie!--that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy. He did not and could not have done it. None of us can be in two places at the same time. The lone assassin was actually standing in the doorway when the murder took place. And, it is not a close call. Distinctly and conspicuously, Lee Oswald can be seen outside as the massacre was underway. Lee Harvey Oswald was not guilty of this monstrous crime. Now, a few words from Professor James Fetzer:

Reasoning about Doorman

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. – Sherlock Holmes (A. Conan Doyle)

by James H. Fetzer

1 August 2012

Since there appears to be considerable confusion about reasoning scientifically in a case of this kind, perhaps the most valuable contribution I can make to the discussion of Doorman and Oswald concerns the pattern of reasoning that applies here.  Having offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning to college students for 35 years, I am well positioned to explain the principles that apply in cases of this kind, which are part and parcel of the application of the scientific method. 

The scientific method is a process involving four steps or stages of investigation or inquiry, beginning with PUZZLEMENT, where some phenomenon or event does not fit into your background knowledge and understanding; SPECULATION, where the full range of appropriate alternative explanations are advanced; ADAPTATION, where those alternatives are tested relative to the available evidence; and finally, EXPLANATION, where the alternative that is best supported is acceptable as true but in the tentative and fallible fashion of science--and additional research can confirm or disconfirm it.

Scientific Reasoning

The key stage is ADAPTATION, which involves the application of inference to the best explanation to the available evidence.  This requires comparing the relative degrees of evidential support for alternative hypotheses by calculating the probability of the data on the assumption that the hypothesis is true.  Do that for each of them and see which of them confers the highest probability on the evidence, if it were true.  It sounds like a process of reasoning backwards and, in a way, it is:  you are treating the evidence as the effect of a cause and comparing the probability with which various causes could have brought about an effect.  If you found a tree that had been cut in half and felled, what is the probability that that had been done with a pen-knife, a Swiss Army knife or a chain saw?  Consider the effects and figure out which among its possible causes is most likely.

An hypothesis with a higher likelihood is preferable to one with lower, where the one with the highest likelihood is acceptable as true when the evidence has “settled down”.  It is always possible to return to make a recalculation when new evidence or new alternatives become available.  Here I want to highlight a few of the key considerations that have led me to conclude that Doorman and Oswald are indeed one and the same man, where, in this case, we are essentially dealing with only two alternatives, namely:  that Doorman was Billy Lovelady, as the government contends, or that Doorman was Lee Oswald, as David Wrone, Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke, Orlando Martin and I – among others – contend.  Because there are only two serious candidates, evidence that favors one of them disfavors the other, and evidence that disfavors one of them favors the other.  Doorman is one or the other.

“Out with Bill Shelley in front”

It was astonishing to me to learn – not until 2011 – that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the DPD Homicide Detective who had interrogated Lee Oswald, notes that had been released way back in 2007, that said Oswald told Will Fritz that he had been "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the assassination.  This discovery led me to take a second look at the Altgens6 to revisit the question of whether Oswald was Doorman.

Some have claimed Lee was not talking about his location during the shooting but some time thereafter.  But, that makes no sense at all since we know Lee was observed on and around the first floor at 11:50 AM, Noon, and 12:15 PM. The latter was reported by Carolyn Arnold on November 25 when she was interviewed by the FBI. She said she believed she saw Oswald between the double doors (which means, at the doorway) at 12:15. Professor Gerald McKnight has suggested that it is likely that the FBI agent proffered the time of 12:15 in order to leave Oswald enough time to hustle up to the 6th floor. But others, smarter than FBI Agent Richard Emberling, realized that it was still a disaster for Oswald to be lingering on the first floor at 12:15. So, what happened is that the Gestapo returned to the TSBD in March 1964, and they got Carolyn Arnold to sign a statement saying that she didn't see Oswald at all. And then, they changed the time that she got outside to the accurate one: 12:25. And although Carolyn Arnold never testified to the Warren Commission, her November 25, 1963 FBI statement is one of the most damning statements to JFK Officialdom. Carolyn Arnold was a witness to Oswald at the doorway, but, this 19 year old didn't realize on November 25 that it wasn't OK to say it.

So, Oswald could not have been referring to being outside with Bill Shelly before the motorcade because the record shows that Shelley was one of the first outside while Oswald had not yet breached the glass door to go outside as late as 12:25. We presume that Oswald stepped outside right after Carolyn Arnold saw him at 12:25. But, that was the time of the motorcade, essentially. Within 90 seconds, after the shooting, Oswald had been accosted in the lunchroom by Roy Truly and motorcycle officer Marion Baker.
  Oswald could not have meant he was "out with Bill Shelly in front" after the shooting because Bill Shelly was not out there then.  Shelly said he left immediately, with Billy Lovelady, to walk over to the railroad tracks to look around. That was before Truly and Baker even entered the building. And when Lovelady and Shelly returned, they re-entered the building through the backdoor of the TSBD, and went to the base of the back stairwell in the northwest corner (rear) of the building.  So, Bill Shelly was definitely not out in front when Oswald was leaving for home.

The notion that "out with Bill Shelley in front" is a reference to after the assassination when Oswald was leaving for home is really stupid. We are dealing here with the murder of the President of the United States, so what difference does it make who Oswald saw when he was leaving for home? Why would he need an alibi for that? Does anybody doubt that he went home? Why would Fritz say, "Lee, we want to know who you saw when you left for home because unless we get a confirmation, we're going to have to assume that you just stayed in the building." And then what? Did Oswald say, "No, I really did leave for home. You've got to believe me. Just ask Bill Shelley- he'll tell you." The point is that, just as there are no chin shadows that look anything like the vee we see on Doorman, which makes the whole shadow claim preposterous, likewise, the probative value of knowing who Oswald saw when he left for home is so useless that it is preposterous to think that it came up in the interrogation. What would Fritz want to know? He would want to know where Oswald was during the murder and whether someone could vouch for it. One needs an alibi when one is accused of a crime. One needs an alibi FOR the crime. Leaving to go home wasn't a crime- not for Oswald or anyone else. He didn't need an alibi for that.

It has been pointed out that there are contradictions in Shelley's testimony as to what he did. The best way to make sense of it is to realize that the TSBD was a CIA front company. They, the operatives of the company, were intricately involved in the assassination plot, especially as to framing Oswald. The point man on this is William Weston, and his article is entitled The Spider's Web: the TSBD and the Dallas Conspiracy. You can Google it. But, getting back to Shelley, we have his statement that he left right away for the railroad tracks with Lovelady; we have Lovelady's statement confirming it; and we have Frazier's statement that Shelley and Lovelady left right away together, but he didn't. And we have this image of Shelley and Lovelady walking to the railroad yard soon after the last shot, meaning within seconds.

So, there is no reason to doubt that Shelley did that or to put stock in any other claim he made. He was NOT out front at 12:33 or 12:34 when Oswald left for home. And Oswald was not a stupid man. He was smart enough to know that it was pointless to claim that someone saw him when he didn't since he had no arrangement with Shelley to lie for him. So, when Oswald said it, he must have believed that Shelley would confirm it. So, why didn't Shelley confirm it? Because Shelley was in on it. Shelley was a conspirator. Shelley was framing Oswald. Shelley is the one who lied- not Oswald.

And Lee had no reason to lie about that or anything. He wasn't committing a crime in leaving for home, and he did not need an alibi for it. Therefore, he must have been referring to seeing Shelley when it mattered- during the motorcade.

And, think about what it means to be "with" somebody. It means to be situationally tied to them, where you are doing something together, if only standing around. If you're standing in a crowd, you could be shoulder to shoulder with someone, but you're not "with" them. But, Oswald said he was "with Bill Shelley in front." Well, that certainly didn't happen after the assassination because the time doesn't allow it. Oswald got home at 1:00. He was spotted in the Texas Theater at 1:07 by Butch Burroughs, the popcorn man. Upon leaving the TSBD, Oswald had to walk 6 blocks down Elm Street, take the bus, get mired on the bus, get off the bus after waiting for a transfer ticket, walk 6 blocks to the bus depot, get a taxi, engage with a woman who also wanted the taxi and offer it to her, then ride the taxi for 2 miles through heavy traffic to a spot 6 blocks past his boarding house and then walk back. Then, he had to change his pants, presumably get his pistol (it's just a presumption the pistol was there) and do whatever else he did before leaving. How does that leave time for him to be "with" anybody out front after the assassination? The clock was ticking. So, if Oswald saw Bill Shelley in front as he was leaving, it's likely he would have said that he saw Bill Shelley, not that he was "with" Bill Shelley. Words have very specific meanings; it's one of the beautiful things about the English language. And the meaning of "being with" someone is that you are implanted in a spot or engaged in an activity with that person. And that can't possibly be true of Oswald as he was leaving the TSBD since there was no time for it. But really, this is overkill because we have solid evidence from multiple witnesses, including Shelley, and his capture in a film which shows that Shelley left immediately with Billy Lovelady for the railroad tracks and did not return to the front. We can see him doing it. So, Bill Shelley was NOT there when Oswald left for home. And therefore "out with Bill Shelley in front" could ONLY and necessarily refer to the time of the motorcade. That is when Lee Harvey Oswald was out with Bill Shelley in front.

The Altgens6 was Altered

It would have been unbelievably remiss of Detective Fritz not to have asked Lee Oswald where he was at the time of the shooting. That was the most important question Will Fritz would have needed to ask. Hence, three questions arise about what Lee told Fritz:

    (1) Why would Lee have said that he was out in front if it were not true?
I am directing that to those who realize that he was not up on the 6th floor shooting at the President.
    (2) Why mention Shelley unless Lee believed that Shelley would confirm it?
    (3) How could he know that Shelley was out front unless he saw him there?

These questions appeared to me to create a prima facie case that Lee was telling the truth during his interrogation.  I therefore began to take a closer look at Altgent6 and was astonished to discover—and on a John McAdams site!—that Altgens6 was altered:

Now I am NOT talking about Doorman but the figure to his left/front (to the right of Doorman as we view him, and circled in red above, and in white below).

Now, I ask you: Does that not look like a photographic aberration? Like something you have never seen before in a natural, unaltered photo? Does it look like a spontaneous photographic occurrence? And if you claim that it does, then you show me another one like it. I originally inferred that the face that was obfuscated must have been that of Lee Oswald, but I now believe, based on new research by Larry Rivera, that he was TSBD Vice President Otis Williams. His image departs from the norms of photography enough to declare that photographic manipulation took place to obfuscate him. They tried to make him unrecognizable. Why? We can only speculate about that. But, I would say it was to disassociate him from the Doorman controversy. Otis Williams did testify to the Warren Commission, and he said he couldn't remember who was on the steps with him. He refused to cite a single name. The following graphic was made by OIC Chairman Larry Rivera.

Taking a Closer Look

That the Altgens6 was altered at all creates the presumption that something was wrong.  Surely it would only have been altered if someone had been there who should not have been there.  The only candidate for that would have been Lee Oswald.  While I now believe that the face that was obfuscated was that of Bill Shelley, his importance would only become apparent after Oswald’s remarks to Fritz were made public, which did not occur until 1997. However, the conspirators had to know all along of Shelley's importance.  In my first article about it, "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then" I mistakenly suggested that the obfuscated face was that of Lee, which led Ralph Cinque to contact me to explain why he thought that I was right about my conclusion—that Oswald HAD been in the doorway—but I was wrong about which figure he was. He also explained that Doorman's clothing was the key to his identification.

It did not take long for Ralph to convince me that he was right, which led to our joint article, JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway after all. The uniqueness of Oswald's clothing had never really been addressed before.  Well, perhaps it had, but not in a long time, and not with any widespread recognition.  When you compare the clothing of Oswald and Doorman -in detail- you realize it had to be the same clothing, which means it had to be the same man.  Unless Billy was wearing Lee’s clothing, the probability that Doorman was Lovelady approaches zero and the probability Doorman was Lee approaches 100%.  Not only is there no serious chance that Billy Lovelady just happened to dress himself exactly the same way as Lee Oswald on that fateful day, but Billy himself would go to the FBI and show them the shirt that he wore that day —an incredibly implausible thing to do unless it were true—and it was not the shirt of Doorman! It was, in fact, a short-sleeved, vertically-striped shirt that Billy showed them.

Inference to the Best Explanation

As you will find on the pages of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, Ralph Cinque and Richard Hooke have done brilliant work in displaying the full range of alterations to which this photo has been subjected, where the more they have done, the stronger the case has become. Anyone familiar with the principles of scientific reasoning--most importantly, of inference to the best explanation--will have no difficulty appreciating that the case for alteration has been made- again and again.  The complexity of what was done is rather astonishing, but the price of failure would have been to blow apart the greatest hoax in American history, namely: that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone, demented gunman. We know that cannot be true on multiple grounds, and this proof is as powerful as they come.

An hypothesis has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt when no alternative hypothesis is reasonable.  There would have been no reason to alter Altgens6 unless someone had been there who should not have been.  Altgens6 was altered.  Therefore, someone was there who should not have been.  The only person that could have been was Lee Oswald, the designated “patsy”.  Questions have long revolved over the identity of Doorman, but they were pursued in the past in ignorance of what Lee told Fritz and without the knowledge that Altgens6 altered--and not just once, but many times. We maintain that the man in the checkered shirt they came up with later is bogus, and he was used to bridge the gap between the shirt that Oswald wore and the one that Billy Lovelady wore--which was not checkered but striped and short-sleeved.

There is no reasonable alternative to the hypothesis that Lee Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. And it proves that the official account of the JFK assassination is a lie, a fabrication, and a charade. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the charade has been exposed. At this time, and forever more, there is no basis or excuse for anyone to claim or believe that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President John F. Kennedy.