+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School (/Thread-The-Danger-Of-The-Fetzer-Assassination-School)
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 03-01-2012
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:We are talking about basic INcompetency- YOURS! If Black Hole Man's face is being shaded by the lintel, why are his arms so brightly lite up and also his shirt? We are talking about extremes here. His arms and shirt are dazzling bright; his face is a black hole. Yet, they are essentially aligned with each other. In fact, in a human being with normal posture, the face is anterior (forward ) of his torso. That's because the head leads and the body follows. Why is his face behind the shade line if his torso is not?
Because he has his arms extended slightly away from his head in order to block the glaring sun. There's a basic thing here you refuse to accept. Raised Arms Man has backed-up deliberately to the lintel shade line in order to use it to block the glare of the sun. As a person who was seeking shade would do, he backed-up and found the shade line with his eyes and stopped. This then left his arms still in the sun, adding additional shading, as was his purpose. In my opinion, it is almost comical to seek-out mysterious CIA forgery explanations for this while not seeing the obvious simple explanation. Also, your argument fails immediately if you don't see that Black Tie Man and Raised Arms Man are both standing further back into the entryway than Lovelady, who has pulled forward and tilted in order to crane himself around the corner column as is clearly seen in the picture. It is plainly evident that Lovelady is leaning forward and to his left in order to achieve this manuever. Because of this he has dropped his left shoulder into a vertical position. If you don't see that you are simply missing what is there and plainly visible.
[size=12]
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:And clearly, Black Tie Man is farther back than Black Hole Man. Yet, we can at least see part of Black Tie Man's face. (not that he's real)
Do you comprehend that you were previously arguing, with the same assurance, that Black Tie Man was in front of Lovelady? Now you are saying he is further back. He can't be further back unless he is behind Lovelady. Again, we have squarely arrived at the issue of basic competency. Furthermore, you were just saying they were all on the same plane. Now you are saying Black Tie Man is further back. Also, when you first posted this video you were saying there were two strange white stripes in front of "Doorman". When I explained the "white stripes" were actually the two sides of Black Tie Man's shirt separated by his tie you then went and changed your videos in response. We then coined the term Black Tie Man.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:And I totally dispute and deny your claim of Black Hole Man being a foot or two or more further back than Doorman. I implore someone else to come forward to render an opinion about that. And if so, how is the light reaching him at all? If he's that much further back, when clearly Doorman is largely under the lintel himself, then why isn't Black Hole Man completely in the dark?
Raised Arms Man is at the shade line. These are not difficult concepts to understand (unless of course you are trying to force a forgery theory against any and everything else). This is the basic point: The reason Raised Arms Man is in the shade and "Doorman" isn't is because Raised Arms Man is further back. The way we know he is further back is because he's shaded by the lintel shade line which is established in reality as being further back. How do we know the lintel shade line is further back? 1) because we could still show today that it is further back by going there and observing it on November 22nd, and 2) "Doorman" isn't shaded by it. You refuse to grasp that the shade-line itself (which could be proven any November 22nd) is the guiding rule here and determinative. The reason "Doorman" isn't shaded by it is because he's forward of it - which is proof in itself.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:The difference in terms of the plane of location between Black Hole Man's head and his arms, with his arms being around his head, would not be great enough to account for such an extreme difference in illumination: bright illumination vs. total darkness. No way. Those parts of his body are too close to each other. So, don't conveniently make assumptions, such as that his arms are "just" forward of the shade line while is head is "just" behind it. You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? And you're entirely willing to just glibly declare it, aren't you? How irritating. Competence? What nerve.
You've committed the basic mistake of assuming Raised Arms Man has his hands on his head. The reason his arms are raised in the first place is because he is shading his eyes from the sun. You, Dr Cinque, are the one making the assumptions here. This would be borne-out by science by going to the entryway and repeating the photo on November 22nd. If you did so you would find the shade and light to be perfectly explained by the sun angle off the lintel. The difference between light and dark areas would be further explained by the film, lens, and blow-up issues I already spoke of.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:In regard to the "craning" I suggest to any reader that you get a ruler and run through the vertical axis of Doorman's body and see if his head seems to be risely straight up squarely. Then, turn the ruler sideways and run it across his shoulders. You will find that he is twisted slightly, but the forward side is his left side, the side that is allegedly in front of BT Man. There is no valid reason why we should not be seeing that shoulder. There is no valid reason why the white stripe effect of BT Man's shirt should be covering his shoulder up. The point of Doorman's shoulder should be visible, plain as day.
If we eliminate the specious speculation, the simple explanation is the photo clearly shows Lovelady leaning forward and craning in order to peer around the entryway corner column. There's a very valid reason why the shoulder isn't upright and in its normal position. It is because he's dropped it in the act of peering around the column. He's leaning. You can see it plainly if you do close-up analysis of the photo.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:And again: Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Cough it up! And if you don't know, why don't you know?
An unnamed person standing behind Lovelady in the doorway. This does not prove the ridiculous forgeries you are suggesting. The fact you think it does kind of proves something to me.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:Finally, again, this is all a sideline. Apparently, you don't want to talk about my central thesis, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Black Hole Man. My thesis concerns Doorman and his clothes. Apparently, you are afraid to talk about that. You want to keep talking about light and optics like you're Galileo. Well, Doorman isn't in the shade. He's in the light of day, buddy boy. And there's a lot to see.
I've seen your blurry, fuzzy blow-up of "Doorman's" shirt. I honestly didn't see the firm 'proof' you claim. Remember, with your own claim of Altgens' photo being flashed around the world, when did CIA place Lovelady's plaid pattern onto this shirt? How did they figure-out who would be in conflict etc in such a short period? Sorry, but if you are going to present such a claim you have to be able to deal in the area of optical science, film properties, shade features, etc.
By the way, were Oswald's buttons ripped-off in the scuffle during his arrest?
[/SIZE]
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Bernice Moore - 03-01-2012
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:You get it, Vasilios.
Remember, one and all: The enemy's goal is not to settle this argument, but to prolong it.
Here here CD. I also agree with Vas. I just hope I don't prolong the agony myself lol.
I agree, but also, if proven positively , as Vas says, yes imo it would change things, it would prove once and for all, without a shadow of a doubt, in any way, that the Government of the U.S killed their President, because only They had possession of the Snappy Zappy.....best b
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 03-01-2012
Please define "Government of the United States."
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Ralph Cinque - 03-01-2012
I never said that Black Tie Man was in front of Doorman. You are misquoting me. My stated position has always been that Doorman and BT Man are in an impossible relationship. ONE OF THEM SHOULD HAVE A VISIBLE SHOULDER. That is, the one in front should have a visible shoulder. But neither has a visible shoulder. Therefore, BT Man is neither in front of nor behind Doorman. They are fused together like Siamese twins.
So, you are saying that Black Hole Man backed up to the lintel shade line? But, he really didn't get behind it because his shirt is so illuminated. One's torso is not forward of one's face. If anything, it's the opposite.
So, that leaves the arms. I knew you were going to have to get back to relying on those raised arms. But, the problem is that his arms are way too far out to the sides. They are not really blocking the light to his face- at least not enough to produce a black hole effect. Again, compare to the woman beneath him. And her arm is more in front of her face than either of his arms are. There is no way that his arms, as positioned, could completely block all light to reaching his face. We should see SOMETHING there. Not a black hole. How can his shading be from the lintel when it's only his face that is shaded? And since we can't see his face at all, we really don't know where his hands are. But generally, when people raise their hands like that, they rest their hands against their head, and that's because otherwise, they would have to hold them up. They get heavy! I think it's a very reasonable assumption that his hands are resting against his forehead, probably at the hairline.
Doorman is not twisted that much at all. It's a very slight twist of the left side forward. But, we should see the POINT of his shoulder. We don't. It is not visible, plainly or otherwise.
OH, so you are that guy who posted on my videos. I blocked you there, so you came here. We meet again. But, don't worry: I'm talking about you on other sites too. That was some performance.
And by the way: you should realize that lots of people don't recognize Black Tie Man as a man, and that includes other lone-nutters like yourself, and other conspiracy theorists like me.
An unnamed person? You think you can just glibly leave it at that? This ain't the Warren Commission, boy. Oswald's guilt or innocence hinged on the identity of Doorman, and this Black Tie Man was physically closer to him than people are when having sex. The omission of identifying- or even inquiring about- the Black Tie Man is glaring proof that the Warren Report was nothing but a whitewash. If they had wanted to get to the truth- rather than frame Oswald- they would have asked about Black Tie Man. But, I'll tell you why they didn't ask about him: because there was no Black Tie Man. He didn't exist. You can't interview a mirage.
Those likenesses in the collar/lapels between Doorman and Oswald mean everything. If you can't see them, that's your problem. Those two shirts were too similar to be accounted for by chance alone. You think it's all vague? You obviously have no background in Radiology. You'd be shocked at the vague lines that radiologists observe whose implications are the difference in prognosis between life and death.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 03-01-2012
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:And by the way: you should realize that lots of people don't recognize Black Tie Man as a man, and that includes other lone-nutters like yourself, and other conspiracy theorists like me.
To whom are you referring?
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:This ain't the Warren Commission, boy.
To whom do you refer as "boy"?
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:Oswald's guilt or innocence hinged on the identity of Doorman,
UTTER NONSENSE! The author of this statement is fatally unfamiliar with JFK assassination evidence and/or a third-rate agent provocateur.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Ralph Cinque - 03-01-2012
Mr. Drago, I was responding to Mr. Doyle above. I believe he is a big "boy" and can fight his own battles. So, you needn't come to his aid. And, it also explains why you are mired in confusion. So, from now on, I will start each post addressing the individual to whom I am responding, as I did here.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 03-01-2012
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:I never said that Black Tie Man was in front of Doorman. You are misquoting me. My stated position has always been that Doorman and BT Man are in an impossible relationship. ONE OF THEM SHOULD HAVE A VISIBLE SHOULDER. That is, the one in front should have a visible shoulder. But neither has a visible shoulder. Therefore, BT Man is neither in front of nor behind Doorman. They are fused together like Siamese twins.
This is silly. Credulous. First off, you very much did claim, vigorously, that Black Tie Man was in front of "Doorman" and was placed there by forgery in order to conceal the obviousness of Oswald's lapel that you credit yourself for detecting. I went back to cut and paste the quotes but I see you edited your You-Tube comments section and removed them. I think this speaks not only of your competency but your character. What's even worse about this is if you view your videos you can see in video #3 that Doorman's shoulder is completely visible and distinguishable from Black Tie Man's front. It's plain as day if you have even the most basic of photo analysis skills. Black Tie Man's shoulder isn't visible because "Doorman's" shoulder is in front of it and blocking it. "They are fused together like Siamese twins" is absurd, as was your claim Black Tie Man was in front of "Doorman" (as your revisement of that proves). After deleting his claim that Black Tie Man was in front of "Doorman" because he realized I was correct Dr Cinque called me "CIA scum" and blocked me from his comments section.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:So, you are saying that Black Hole Man backed up to the lintel shade line? But, he really didn't get behind it because his shirt is so illuminated. One's torso is not forward of one's face. If anything, it's the opposite.
Ah, ya. The anatomical arrangement is question here is the head being above the torso. This pushes the head up into the shade while the torso, being lower than the head, stays in the sun. Not difficult to understand.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:So, that leaves the arms. I knew you were going to have to get back to relying on those raised arms. But, the problem is that his arms are way too far out to the sides.
His arms and hands are right where they would be to shade his eyes. That's why he has them raised.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:They are not really blocking the light to his face- at least not enough to produce a black hole effect. Again, compare to the woman beneath him. And her arm is more in front of her face than either of his arms are. There is no way that his arms, as positioned, could completely block all light to reaching his face.
Which only proves the lintel shade is blocking his face. The woman is not in the doorway so she's not comparable. (She's not behind the shade line which in itself proves the shade line is responsible for the obscuring)
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:We should see SOMETHING there. Not a black hole.
Repeated numerous times: The film and camera won't pick up subtle contrasts at that blow-up level and distance.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:How can his shading be from the lintel when it's only his face that is shaded?
Because the shade line is from the neck up (This isn't difficult stuff to comprehend).
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:And since we can't see his face at all, we really don't know where his hands are. But generally, when people raise their hands like that, they rest their hands against their head, and that's because otherwise, they would have to hold them up. They get heavy! I think it's a very reasonable assumption that his hands are resting against his forehead, probably at the hairline.
Nope. People sometimes push their hands away from their face and up towards the light source because it creates a better viewing field. Don't speculate, just look at what the picture shows.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:Doorman is not twisted that much at all. It's a very slight twist of the left side forward. But, we should see the POINT of his shoulder. We don't. It is not visible, plainly or otherwise.
You don't see "Doorman's" right arm, however he is almost certainly holding on to something in the corner there to allow himself to drop his left shoulder as much as he does. All perfectly explained by his need to peer around the column. You can see it plain as day with competent photo analysis.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:And by the way: you should realize that lots of people don't recognize Black Tie Man as a man, and that includes other lone-nutters like yourself, and other conspiracy theorists like me.
Your description of me as a "Lone Nutter" is about as accurate as your claims.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Jan Klimkowski - 03-01-2012
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:Those likenesses in the collar/lapels between Doorman and Oswald mean everything. If you can't see them, that's your problem. Those two shirts were too similar to be accounted for by chance alone. You think it's all vague? You obviously have no background in Radiology. You'd be shocked at the vague lines that radiologists observe whose implications are the difference in prognosis between life and death.
Radiology!?!?!
You mean X-Rays? Ultrasound? PET and MRI scans?
Bejeezus.
Sometimes only Borges will suffice:
On the back part of the step, toward the right, I saw a small iridescent sphere of almost unbearable brilliance. At first I thought it was revolving; then I realised that this movement was an illusion created by the dizzying world it bounded. The Aleph's diameter was probably little more than an inch, but all space was there, actual and undiminished. Each thing (a mirror's face, let us say) was infinite things, since I distinctly saw it from every angle of the universe. I saw the teeming sea; I saw daybreak and nightfall; I saw the multitudes of America; I saw a silvery cobweb in the center of a black pyramid; I saw a splintered labyrinth (it was London); I saw, close up, unending eyes watching themselves in me as in a mirror; I saw all the mirrors on earth and none of them reflected me; I saw in a backyard of Soler Street the same tiles that thirty years before I'd seen in the entrance of a house in Fray Bentos; I saw bunches of grapes, snow, tobacco, lodes of metal, steam; I saw convex equatorial deserts and each one of their grains of sand; I saw a woman in Inverness whom I shall never forget; I saw her tangled hair, her tall figure, I saw the cancer in her breast; I saw a ring of baked mud in a sidewalk, where before there had been a tree; I saw a summer house in Adrogué and a copy of the first English translation of Pliny -- Philemon Holland's -- and all at the same time saw each letter on each page (as a boy, I used to marvel that the letters in a closed book did not get scrambled and lost overnight); I saw a sunset in Querétaro that seemed to reflect the colour of a rose in Bengal; I saw my empty bedroom; I saw in a closet in Alkmaar a terrestrial globe between two mirrors that multiplied it endlessly; I saw horses with flowing manes on a shore of the Caspian Sea at dawn; I saw the delicate bone structure of a hand; I saw the survivors of a battle sending out picture postcards; I saw in a showcase in Mirzapur a pack of Spanish playing cards; I saw the slanting shadows of ferns on a greenhouse floor; I saw tigers, pistons, bison, tides, and armies; I saw all the ants on the planet; I saw a Persian astrolabe; I saw in the drawer of a writing table (and the handwriting made me tremble) unbelievable, obscene, detailed letters, which Beatriz had written to Carlos Argentino; I saw a monument I worshipped in the Chacarita cemetery; I saw the rotted dust and bones that had once deliciously been Beatriz Viterbo; I saw the circulation of my own dark blood; I saw the coupling of love and the modification of death; I saw the Aleph from every point and angle, and in the Aleph I saw the earth and in the earth the Aleph and in the Aleph the earth; I saw my own face and my own bowels; I saw your face; and I felt dizzy and wept, for my eyes had seen that secret and conjectured object whose name is common to all men but which no man has looked upon -- the unimaginable universe.
I felt infinite wonder, infinite pity.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Ralph Cinque - 03-01-2012
Mr. Doyle,
Are you blind? You cannot see the point of Doorman's left shoulder in my Video 2 or in any other image of him. And I did not say that Black Tie Man was in front of Doorman. I don't think that Black Tie Man even exists, so how I could I think or say that he was in front? What I said was that his purpose was to cover up Oswald's distinctive shirt construction on that left side. Visually, Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind Doorman- depending on what perspective you are considering. If you consider the invisibility of Doorman's shoulder, then BT Man is in front of him. But, if you consider the invisibility of BT Man's arm and shoulder, then Doorman is in front of BT Man. Hence, indeed, it is an impossible and contradictory situation.
And when it comes to shade from the lintel, it is not a matter of above or below, but rather of forward or back. Besides, his hands are just as "above" as his head. Therefore, why are they visible, but not his head? Aren't they at the same level as his head? His torso is lower than his head, but his hands aren't lower than his head. And his hands and arms are brightly lite.
His arms are out so far precisely to preserve his field of vision- so that he can see everything. He's got them out that way so that they don't block his view, his field of vision. But, in not blocking his view, they are also letting enough light in so that we should be seeing something- of his face.
So, now you are back to saying that it's the shade line from the lintel and not his arms that are blacking out his face. But why then isn't the shade line putting his arms in shadow? You can't have it both ways.
Subtle contrasts? I'm not talking about a subtle contrast! A face is not a "subtle contrast."
The shade line is from the neck up? But, we can see his hands which are well above his neck. How is it that we see them when it's supposed to be shaded from the neck up?
I am not speculating when I say that people rest their hands on their head. It's tiring to hold your arms up like that without support.
And speaking of wildly speculating, you are the one who is doing it when you say that Doorman is holding on to something with his right hand. How dare you? You've got some nerve.
And again I want to point out to anyone else reading this that this isn't even central to my thesis. Black Hole Man is just a strange anomaly in the Altgens photo, part of what I call the Addams Family. I don't have any doubt that Black Hole Man is real, but I have no idea who he is.
But, my main claim is that Doorman's shirt- the physical form of it, the lay of it, the way he's wearing it, the way it fits him, and the v-necked t-shirt underneath, together prove that he is Oswald. You could take Black Hole Man out of the picture completely, and it wouldn't change a thing. But, Mr. Doyle wants to continue talking about Black Hole Man forever because he apparently does not want to address the larger, more crucial issues.
Mr. Doyle: Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's? Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's? Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's?
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 03-01-2012
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Mr. Doyle,
Are you blind? You cannot see the point of Doorman's left shoulder in my Video 2 or in any other image of him.
My mistake. It was You-Tube "Visible Proof Part 3" not 'Part 2' as I posted. You are ignoring my reasoning. "Doorman's" shoulder is dropped because he is hanging-on to an object with his unseen right hand and leaning-out and dropping his left shoulder into a vertical position.
Ralph Cinque said: "And I did not say that Black Tie Man was in front of Doorman."
He then said in the same paragraph: "Visually, Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind Doorman- "
I assure anyone foolish enough to still be reading this that Dr Cinque did indeed claim that the forged image of Black Tie Man was deliberately placed in front of "Doorman" in order to conceal Oswald's obvious shirt lapel seen on this figure. I think I've achieved my purpose of proving Dr Cinque's evident confusion and incoherency.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:depending on what perspective you are considering. If you consider the invisibility of Doorman's shoulder, then BT Man is in front of him. But, if you consider the invisibility of BT Man's arm and shoulder, then Doorman is in front of BT Man. Hence, indeed, it is an impossible and contradictory situation.
A very rare example of epic semantics and sophistry in order to avoid the point. "I didn't say Black Tie Man was in front of "Doorman" - well, except in the places where I said it.
To cut to the chase: "Doorman" is in front of Black Tie Man and "Doorman's" shoulder is blocking Black Tie Man's shoulder.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:And when it comes to shade from the lintel, it is not a matter of above or below, but rather of forward or back. Besides, his hands are just as "above" as his head. Therefore, why are they visible, but not his head? Aren't they at the same level as his head? His torso is lower than his head, but his hands aren't lower than his head. And his hands and arms are brightly lite.
I think the statement itself is inherently self-exposing. The shade line is defined on both vertical, horizontal, and depth axes. There is a vertical element so you are just plain wrong and have therefore failed to answer the point.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:The shade line is from the neck up? But, we can see his hands which are well above his neck. How is it that we see them when it's supposed to be shaded from the neck up?
Because the shade line runs on a diagonal from the lintel. You are applying two dimensional thinking to a three dimensional problem.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:I am not speculating when I say that people rest their hands on their head. It's tiring to hold your arms up like that without support.
He only needs to have his hands there for the fraction of a second it takes for the shutter to click.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:And speaking of wildly speculating, you are the one who is doing it when you say that Doorman is holding on to something with his right hand. How dare you? You've got some nerve.
A good detective would realize "Doorman's" shoulder drop anatomically requires his right arm to be anchored in order to drop his shoulder to that degree and offset his upper body from his feet so much.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:And again I want to point out to anyone else reading this that this isn't even central to my thesis. Black Hole Man is just a strange anomaly in the Altgens photo, part of what I call the Addams Family. I don't have any doubt that Black Hole Man is real, but I have no idea who he is.
At least you are wise enough to back-off your "Raised Arms Man" claims.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:But, my main claim is that Doorman's shirt- the physical form of it, the lay of it, the way he's wearing it, the way it fits him, and the v-necked t-shirt underneath, together prove that he is Oswald. You could take Black Hole Man out of the picture completely, and it wouldn't change a thing. But, Mr. Doyle wants to continue talking about Black Hole Man forever because he apparently does not want to address the larger, more crucial issues.
Mr. Doyle: Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's? Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's? Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's?
I would really like it if you could post your images of your Oswald shirt claims.