At about 12:30 PM on 22 November 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald stepped outside of the Texas School Book Depository to watch the Presidential motorcade and was captured on camera 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 originally designed 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.



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 Billy Shelley in front”

It was astonishing to me to learn – only last year, 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 in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM by Carolyn Arnold, the executive secretary to the Vice President of the TSBD.  So, Oswald could not have been referring to being outside with Bill Shelly before the shooting
. 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 down 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.

And Lee had no reason to lie about that. He wasn't committing a crime in leaving, and he did not need an alibi for it.

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?
    (2) Why mention Shelley unless Lee believed that Shelley would confirm it?
    (3) How could he have known Shelley was out there if Lee hadn't seen him?

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).  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 Richard Hooke-- that it was instead that of Bill Shelley.  For Shelley to have been in the immediate vicinity of the enigmatic Doorman would have made Lee’s remark to Will Fritz just a bit too intriguing, which would have invited a closer look and risked exposing the entire charade.  So, they had to remove him. As we dug deeper into this, we discovered that just about everything in the above composite from John McAdams was falsified.

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 released, 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” (21 November 2011), 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!” (25 January 2012).  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 he had been wearing that day —an incredibly implausible thing to do unless it were true—and it was not the shirt of Doorman!

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. Any one 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 had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone, demented gunman.  We know that cannot be true on multiple grounds, but 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 had been altered--and not just once, but many times. We maintain that the man in the checkered shirt was used to bridge the gap between the shirt Doorman wore and the one that Billy Lovelady wore--which was not checkered but striped, and it was 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.