Mark Lane Misleads Public In His "RTJ" Film

[David Von Pein]

It appears that recently on this forum it's somewhat "open season" on Mark
Lane. And since the trend has been in place for a while now of pointing
out Mr. Lane's numerous instances of bending the evidence and misleading
people, I thought I'd point out yet another instance of this activity on
the part of Mr. Lane. This occurs in his 1967 movie, "Rush To Judgment"
(the companion film to his '66 book). From my review/website on Lane's
motion picture:

"There's also Mr. Lane's misleading his audience with the "Lovelady
or Oswald in the Doorway?" issue -- which, of course, had been cleared up
even by the time Lane produced his film in mid-1966.

On April 7, 1964, Book Depository worker Billy Lovelady testified
that it was he, and not Oswald, who was standing in the Depository doorway
when President Kennedy was being killed in Dealey Plaza (as seen in a
photograph taken by James Altgens).

And yet, still, Lane seems to infer in his film that the issue was
still "undecided" in some manner (more than two years after Lovelady
testified in front of the Warren Commission) -- hinting that it just may
have been Oswald, after all, in the Depository doorway. This is wholly
misleading on the part of Mark Lane." -- DVP

http://rush-to-judgment.blogspot.com

["Doorway Man" topic starts at 5:07 of Part 7.]

[John McAdams]

On 2 Jun 2012 13:56:54 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

Lane talls his viewers that Lovelady "agreed" that it was him in the
doorway, but fails to mention that several other Depository employees
said it was Lovelady, and that they had not seen Oswald at the time of
the shooting.

Of course, Oswald himself said he was "in that building" at the time
of the shooting!

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Can you quote where Lovelady said it was him in the doorway? Maybe all he
said was that he was out front at the time of the shooting. Can you show
me a picture of Lovelady in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/2/2012 1:56 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> It appears that recently on this forum it's somewhat "open season" on Mark
> Lane. And since the trend has been in place for a while now of pointing
> out Mr. Lane's numerous instances of bending the evidence and misleading
> people, I thought I'd point out yet another instance of this activity on
> the part of Mr. Lane. This occurs in his 1967 movie, "Rush To Judgment"

I think you are missing a golden opportunity here. Why not also cite his
various lectures and guest appearances on TV and debates? Oops, you
might accidentally reveal some National Security information and you'd
get a visit from Homeland Security.

> (the companion film to his '66 book). From my review/website on Lane's
> motion picture:
>
> "There's also Mr. Lane's misleading his audience with the "Lovelady
> or Oswald in the Doorway?" issue -- which, of course, had been cleared up
> even by the time Lane produced his film in mid-1966.
>
> On April 7, 1964, Book Depository worker Billy Lovelady testified
> that it was he, and not Oswald, who was standing in the Depository doorway
> when President Kennedy was being killed in Dealey Plaza (as seen in a
> photograph taken by James Altgens).
>
> And yet, still, Lane seems to infer in his film that the issue was
> still "undecided" in some manner (more than two years after Lovelady
> testified in front of the Warren Commission) -- hinting that it just may

FYI, many leading researchers still believed that myth right up to 1977
when the HSCA brought in experts to settle it. Even Bob Groden believed
it until he worked with the HSCA photographic panel. There may still be
some kooks who keep repeating it.

> have been Oswald, after all, in the Depository doorway. This is wholly
> misleading on the part of Mark Lane." -- DVP
>

Did he actually quote Lovelady?
Did he quote Lovelady's testimony?

[timstter]

On Jun 3, 7:53 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/2/2012 2:14 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 2 Jun 2012 13:56:54 -0400, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>

Do you post simply for the sake of keeping your stats up, Marsh?

If you want a photo of Lovelady at the time of the shooting then why
don't you put up YOUR link to the Altgens photo, Marsh?

You appear to not even think before you post, Tony.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Can you show me a picture of Lovelady in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, of course. It's CE369, which includes Lovelady's own arrow
pointing to a person that Lovelady said was him (which is an arrow on
CE369 that Lovelady himself drew on the Altgens photo):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm

>>> "Can you quote where Lovelady said it was him in the doorway?" <<<

Yes. Of course. It's on pages 338 and 339 of Warren Commission Volume
6. Clear as day:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0174b.htm

In continuing their pathetic attempts to place Lee Harvey Oswald in
the doorway of the Book Depository, many conspiracy theorists (still
to this day) totally ignore Commission Exhibit No. 369 and totally
ignore Billy Lovelady's own words that appear in black-and-white at 6
H 338-339 linked above.

And those CTers also ignore other witnesses, like Buell Wesley
Frazier, who have said that Lovelady was in the doorway and Oswald was
not. Frazier couldn't have been any clearer on the "Lovelady vs.
Oswald" matter than he was in the 1986 video presented below (at the
8:20 mark). When asked by lawyer Vincent Bugliosi who the man in the
doorway was, Wesley Frazier said, without a moment's hesitation:
"That's Billy Lovelady."

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/buell-wesley-frazier.html

So my question to those conspiracists who continue to doubt the true
identity of "Doorway Man" is: Why do you feel the need to ignore such
hard evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the man
standing in the doorway in the Altgens picture is Billy Nolan
Lovelady?


http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html

[Anthony Marsh]

I believe that they have to be alterationists who can dismiss any evidence
simply by claiming it is fake. Then what they can't do is explain how the
CIA knew to and was able to alter the evidence within minutes as some of
it was sent out over the wires or published in the newspaper within hours.

[Rick]

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a9ca6eed-fe5d-4467...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

One of the reasons this stayed alive so long as an issue is that Lovelady
supposedly identified the shirt he wore that day, and it didn't seem to
resemble the shirt worn by the man in the doorway. The shirt he said he
wore had large stripes which were hard to discern in the Altgens photo.
That's why Lane, Weisberg and others continued to discuss this for at
least two years after the issue was settled. It was a major item of
discussion in the Nov. 1966 televised special on the assassination, which
probably featured the first joint appearance of Lane, Weisberg, Penn
Jones, Leo Sauvage and a few other assassination critics.

Frankly, I never thought the doorway guy looked that much like Oswald -
the hairline in the photo is clearly Lovelady's.

[David Von Pein]

"DOORWAY MAN" ADDENDUM........

In case some people might not realize this fact, I'll point it out:

Warren Commission Exhibit No. 369 (which is a picture of James
Altgens' photograph showing Doorway Man) was actually marked with TWO
different arrows pointing toward Lovelady (aka Doorway Man).

CE369 was first marked with an arrow by Buell Wesley Frazier on March
11, 1964, at 2 H 242:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0125b.htm


And that same exhibit was then marked with another arrow by Billy
Lovelady himself on April 7, 1964 (at 6 H 338):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0174b.htm


When looking at the picture of CE369 (linked below), I cannot see the
second arrow that was drawn in. I see only one dark arrow to the left
(west) of Lovelady. But the testimony is very clear -- TWO arrows were
drawn on CE369, the first one by Wesley Frazier when the exhibit was
first introduced into evidence by the Warren Commission on March 11th;
and a second arrow marked on the same picture by Billy Lovelady on
April 7th.

Now, from the testimony, it's a bit unclear as to which witness
(Frazier or Lovelady) drew in the dark arrow that is easily visible in
CE369. But that visible arrow might very well have been drawn by
Frazier and not Lovelady. But I'm not entirely sure of that.

But Joseph Ball's instructions to Lovelady might give a clue. Ball
said this to Lovelady:

"Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. .... Draw
an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark
and one in the white pointing toward you."

So, via the above testimony, it's possible that Lovelady's arrow is
"in the dark" and cannot be easily seen.

CE369:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm

I suppose this confusion about who drew the dark arrow pointing to
Doorway Man in CE369 will spark some additional controversy concerning
the true identity of the man in the TSBD doorway, with some conspiracy
theorists possibly wanting to now claim that Billy Lovelady didn't
really mark CE369 at all with an arrow in 1964.

But it's quite clear to me from the Warren Commission records that
BOTH Wesley Frazier AND Billy Lovelady drew separate arrows pointing
to the SAME PERSON (Doorway Man) in Commission Exhibit No. 369.

And, of course, as I've pointed out in previous posts, there's also
Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 mock trial in London, where
Frazier identified Doorway Man as Lovelady.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html

[Ace Kefford]

On Jun 3, 9:50 pm, "Rick" <r...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:a9ca6eed-fe5d-4467...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

Yes, that's why it was an issue WAY BACK THEN. But it has all been
addressed since the 1970's. So why does it persist as an "issue"
among some conspiracy-oriented "researchers"? That's what is
mystifying.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe it persists only because the WC defenders keep dredging it up in
their eternal quest to recycle attacks on conspiracy believers.
There is only one conspiracy kook who brings it up once a month, but he
is on vacation this month.
It's not a straw man argument because someone does still keep bringing
it up, but it's not Mark Lane. It is a non-issue in the research community.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, that's a little bit better.
But would you get a cramp in your hand if you posted the HSCA analysis?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "But would you get a cramp in your hand if you posted the HSCA
analysis?" <<<

I already did--several times. It's at the bottom of this post below:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html


And I'm enjoying the Pot/Kettle-ism that can be derived from the above
"cramp in your hand" quote from W. Anthony Marsh and this comment made by
Tony earlier today:

"They have been posted before but you refused to read them." -- T.
Marsh; 6/4/12; 6:17 PM EDT

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/53cac21aa685bbe5