TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

I didn't say Cinque and Fetzer had definitively solved anything. However, I think their arguments are as valid as the arguments against them. As I stated before, I didn't need Cinque's study to sway me, because I already suspected Oswald was the figure in the doorway.

My primary point is that there seems to be an incomprehensible consensus, on this forum and others, declaring that the issue has been settled, and that no sensible person doubts the figure is Lovelady. As is the case with the hole in the windshield, the identity of the Umbrella Man and several other issues, I don't believe the matter has been settled at all, and think that doubts clearly remain.

And even if I thought they were right, there is no reason to ever use the "f" word on a forum dedicated to researching important issues like this. It's not like we're arguing verbally with each other; in the heat of the moment, anyone can slip up and curse. However, there is no excuse for this when you have the time to calm down and proofread before hitting enter.

Don,

I know that isn't what you said. It is what THEY said. Given the tiny amount of data that can be studied from that section of the Altgens, I can no more determine if it's Lovelady or if it's Oswald or if it's a third "yet to be identified" individual in the doorway. I am with you up to there. But, that wasn't the point. Cinque categorically claimed--without any room for doubt or error--that the figure in the doorway was DEFINITELY Oswald because he claimed he had absolutely PROVED it. Well, that is just false. I am willing to consider a person's claims and weigh their arguments against the evidence. If the evidence supports their argument, so be it. If not, so be it. In this case, the conclusion being drawn was far too wide sweeping, absolute, and frankly, INADEQUATE to the evidence. My objection wasn't to the exploration of the topic, it was to the gross inadequacy of the argument being offered in support of the conclusion reached and--what was, in my opinion--the improper analysis of the evidence being studied.