04-01-2012, 06:03 AM
Ralph Cinque Wrote:To Doyle:
What is your problem? Do you like quibbling for the sake of quibbling? I have said that Black Tie Man is a fake, a mirage who was put there to cover up Doorman's collar on his left side. Now that's it! Period! If you can't understand it, get out of my face.
This is an argument of facts and points Dr Cinque. If I'm not mistaken you seem to assume the position of pronouncing what is real and what isn't above. My problem is not that I don't understand what you are contending but is instead that I understand it all too well. Better than you might realize. I feel you have regressed off my points and tried to resort to bulling-through your theory despite your being unable to defend the matter in factual argument.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Only have his hands up for a fraction of a second? What do you think he's doing, posing for a picture? He's watching the parade! Of course he's got his hands up for longer than a fraction of a second. So stupid!
This doesn't answer anything that was being said or why. What you didn't answer was that Raised Arms Man's shaded face is perfectly explainable by the shade-line off the lintel. None of the points you tried to make changed that, nor does the above.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:I am through talking to you about the optics of the light and the shade etc. because you are getting more and more fanciful, more and more full of yourself. You know, you are not an engineer. You are not a scientist. Stop waxing on and on as if you know what you are talking about. And here's a suggestion: Why don't you tell us your theory of the crime?
I accept your less than graceful concession. It's a tough world out there Ralph. If you present a theory like yours you have to be able to defend it on its level. JFK Assassination CIA forgery is big time. Big time claims need big time proof. It is not a domain to be rushed in to without serious consideration.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:You say you're not a lone gunman advocate. You've said it more than once. But, I presume you don't think Oswald was innocent. And I presume that because you trash him. You called him a "wild liar." And you trash and ridicule Dr. Fetzer who defends Oswald. And the only other option is that you think Oswald was guilty but had an accomplice, which, if true, makes you a very rare breed, as very few people believe that any more. But either way, if you don't believe he was the lone gunman, then it means that you think that the official theory of the crime is WRONG. And that means that you must think that the Magic Bullet theory is wrong, and therefore you must think that there was subterfuge involved in promoting that theory and in handling that evidence.
So, if you think there was subterfuge involving that piece of evidence, the Magic Bullet, then why are you fighting so hard to deny subterfuge in the handling of the Altgens photo?
Dr Cinque, I'm not doing this out of personal spite or vindictiveness, but you need to learn some basic rules of logic. I didn't really pay attention in my college Logic course, but I remember enough to know you just ran several serious red lights in the rules of logic above. If we stick to the subject, that is your claim that Oswald's shirt is seen on Doorman, I think my arguments have proven correct. But to answer your question I now think Oswald was most likely on the 2nd floor where Carolyn Arnold saw him at 12:25 and was later forced by FBI criminals to push it back to 12:15 to allow their deception to work. If you do some brain crunching you'll realize for Oswald to be at that spot right before the head shot means he would have to have headed back in to the lunchroom shortly before Baker and Truly followed right behind him. I don't think after witnessing Kennedy having his brains blown-out from the front steps Oswald would have gone back in and appeared casually calm 90 seconds later.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:So, do tell us what exactly is your theory of the crime. It's time for you to lay your cards on the table. I've done it. Now you do it. Flip your cards over, Doyle!
DON'T SAY ANOTHER WORD UNTIL YOU'VE DONE THAT.
I don't get it? Are you conceding your "Doorman" theory by this?
To answer your question, I believe most of Douglass. Right now I'm trying not to irritate Drago by emphasizing CIA too much at the expense of the greater sponsors. But in no way does that mean "Doorman" was Oswald. Lovelady was on the front steps. Why can't it simply be Lovelady? I don't think you've proven your way too unprofessionally presented shirt claims.