TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Greg Burnham]

I am not speculating. He was an Intelligence Officer with a 201 file. As such, he would not have re-entered the building after witnessing a crime for which he was being framed. It is SOP... i.e., trade-craft.

Ralph,

You have NO ROOM whatsoever to criticize speculation! Your entire thesis is based on unwarranted speculation that you are presenting as fact.

Since we KNOW--not only THAT, but--WHEN Oswald was in the lunchroom to encounter Baker and Truly it is not speculation.

What is speculative is determining where he was immediately prior to that encounter.

If we go by eyewitness testimony, he was seen there as late as 12:25pm and seen IN THE SAME PLACE again at 12:31pm. That is not speculation either. It is 6 minutes apart.

So, we have about 6 minutes or so that are unaccounted. There was nobody baby sitting him for 6 minutes.

Occam's razor anyone? The simple explanation is preferable to the more complex so long as it is adequate to the evidence.

You can argue that his remaining in the lunchroom is inadequate to the evidence based on your photographic analysis, but I disagree with your analysis. Neither you nor I nor Jim are photographic experts. I do not believe that you or anyone is capable of making the types of determinations you are attempting from the source (Altgens 6) you are employing. There are myriad factors with which to contend, each of which dramatically effect the initial conditions from which you are drawing your conclusions. Unless these conditions are precisely factored in the premises that are being accepted are more likely to be flawed than not. The effect of imprecision is cumulative. But, what you are doing is taking your best guess and then building on it. This leads to another "conclusion" and based on it you reach another premise. And, based on this premise you draw even more conclusions. But, what if the first one is wrong?

One more thing: You keep insisting that nothing trumps the physical evidence. Photographic interpretation of physical evidence does not equate to physical evidence. The first question is: WHO IS THE EXPERT interpreting the photographic evidence?

If I had an MRI or CAT scan done, I would want my friend, David Mantik, MD, PhD to interpret it because he is board certified, i.e., an EXPERT. I think Jim would agree that David is an expert in such matters. So, what qualifications make you or Jim or me experts in interpreting this photographic (not physical) evidence?

To be clear: If you could prove that Oswald was on the front steps at that time I would surely embrace it with both arms. I was hoping that all this work would have been persuasive. It is far from it.