26-12-2011, 11:02 PM
Albert Doyle Wrote:Seamus Coogan Wrote:[ But Al this type of madness (I only made it through 7 minutes, how you watched all this crap I commend you) is now standard for Ron.
I was forcing myself not to hit the stop button after a few minutes.
It's really amazing that Ralph doesn't see the obvious mistakes he's making. He doesn't detect the simplest of things like the shade line off the lintel causing most of the mysterious "forgeries" he and Fetzer have concocted. Crazy.
There's a simple thing he doesn't realize that precludes his entire theory. Lovelady is in front of Black Tie Man. Ralph's entire Fetzerian theory hinges upon this mysterious Black Tie Man being created out of thin air by CIA forgers in order to hide Oswald's lapel that is seen on Doorway Man's shirt. This whole theory hinges on Fetzer's overactive imagination searching for forgery clues in the blow-up of Altgen's photo of the Depository doorway. Fetzer and Ralph submit that Black Tie Man is a forgery creation designed to obscure plain proof of Oswald's unique shirt lapel seen on Doorway Man. However any simple photo analysis will show that Black Tie Man is: 1) Real and there. And 2) Not in front of Doorway Man but behind (which destroys the entire theory).
This Fetzerian theory suggests CIA took the plaid pattern stripes from Lovelady's shirt and placed them on Oswald's shirt and then placed Lovelady's face on the head as well. All this instead of admitting the obvious fact that the man is simply Lovelady.
Oswald was in the lunchroom as seen.
What makes me laugh mate is that if the CIA wanted to doctor the pics like Altgens one. Why the hell would they just take out a lapel? Seriously why not take Lovelady out completely? Its like the Zap film stuff. No one I show it too goes oooooooooooooooooh he was shot from behind lol. You'd think the way some people talk the film was designed to show us three legged ladies and SS agents shooting the president.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992