03-01-2012, 06:28 PM
My position is that when I point to likenesses between Doorman's shirt and Oswald's that cannot be accounted for by chance alone, it is obfuscating to raise other questions, such as the ones you raise.
When I said the deep political analysis has nothing to do with it I meant that politcal analysis, deep or otherwise, has nothing to do with it. Politics has nothing to do with it. We are talking about physical evidence here -not political analysis. I am not asking people to look at it with a deep political perspective. I am asking people to look at it with two open eyes.
Altgens photo was in the hands of the AP. They owned it. Altgens worked for them. And they made it available to newspapers. What is vague about that?
And as far as ad hominem attacks, you are the one who is making them. You haven't talked about the shirts. You haven't responded to the likenesses that I pointed to- and whether those likenesses occurred by chance or otherwise. And if you are going to cling to the Lovelady hypothesis, then you have to wrestle with the odds that Oswald and Lovelady both dressed so similarly that day.
In other words, instead of wasting time calling me Field Marshall and alluding to my kimono, you dive into the meat of matter and address the issue of the likenesses of the shirts (Oswald's and Doorman's) and how those likenesses came about. Is that too much to ask? Hey, I enjoy sarcasm and clever wit as much as the next guy, but we are talking about a crucial thing here because if Doorman was wearing Oswald's shirt, he was Oswald. And if Oswald was standing outside, then he wasn't 6 floors up shooting at the President, and we have been lied to for 48 years. Wrap your deep political analysis around that.
When I said the deep political analysis has nothing to do with it I meant that politcal analysis, deep or otherwise, has nothing to do with it. Politics has nothing to do with it. We are talking about physical evidence here -not political analysis. I am not asking people to look at it with a deep political perspective. I am asking people to look at it with two open eyes.
Altgens photo was in the hands of the AP. They owned it. Altgens worked for them. And they made it available to newspapers. What is vague about that?
And as far as ad hominem attacks, you are the one who is making them. You haven't talked about the shirts. You haven't responded to the likenesses that I pointed to- and whether those likenesses occurred by chance or otherwise. And if you are going to cling to the Lovelady hypothesis, then you have to wrestle with the odds that Oswald and Lovelady both dressed so similarly that day.
In other words, instead of wasting time calling me Field Marshall and alluding to my kimono, you dive into the meat of matter and address the issue of the likenesses of the shirts (Oswald's and Doorman's) and how those likenesses came about. Is that too much to ask? Hey, I enjoy sarcasm and clever wit as much as the next guy, but we are talking about a crucial thing here because if Doorman was wearing Oswald's shirt, he was Oswald. And if Oswald was standing outside, then he wasn't 6 floors up shooting at the President, and we have been lied to for 48 years. Wrap your deep political analysis around that.