05-01-2012, 01:32 AM
Well, I appeal to the members to look at that white blotch in the Altgens photo. It is a distinct, amorphous, and aberrant white patch below the right armpit of the man whose arms are raised around his non-existent head. Here is the link:
http://www.jfk-fr.com/images/jfk/5.jpg
Mr. Doyle said that the white blotch is my "credibility as fully exposed in a Fetzerian rorschach test." But, I must point out that he completely evaded the question and brushed me off.
How do you all feel about that? I am sincerely trying here to delve into substantive issues. The question of whether the Altgens photo was altered is a legitamate question. Is it not? I know that many of you reject the Lone Gunman hypothesis, as does Mr. Doyle. And the issue of altered evidence has been raised and accepted by conspiracy theorists of all stripes. It is not a Ralph Cinque thing. So, if I raise the question of it in relation to the Altgens photo, I am not being preposterous.
And the thing I point to does look strange. Does it not? I mean, it's a white glob that looks totally out of sync with the other elements of the picture. Is that not right? Does it not warrant some inquiry? Is it OK to ask about it? And should you be any less dissatisfied than I am with Mr. Doyle's answer?
I really want to know what it is. Mr. Doyle thinks it's nothing. But, it has to be something. Does it not? There has to be some explanation for it. Clever sarcasm is great, but for a minute, let's get serious. I am asking the members, seriously, to look at it and tell me what they think it is. Not you, Mr. Doyle. You have already rendered your opinion, and let's leave it at that. But, to the others, please render a serious opinion as to what it is. I thank you in advance.
Regarding Oswald's "lapel" please take a look at this youtube video. It isn't mine. But, it shows his lapel very well. Was that "shirt" rather different or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhLqaDt5l9Q
But, continuing my response to Mr. Doyle, you think that lying to the police about his whereabouts during the assassination was "trivial?"
Yes, Lovelady pointed to himself on the steps, but you don't really know what picture they showed him, and you don't know to whom he pointed. There was no statement in the Warren Report such as:
"Let the record show that Mr. Lovelady was shown the Altgens photo, and in identifying himself, he pointed to the figure who is generally known as the Man in the Doorway. He was wearing an open, unbuttoned outer shirt and v-necked t-shirt and standing next to the white column."
Just because somebody washes your clothes doesn't mean that they repair them. Doing laundry and doing alterations and repairs are two different things.
Who said anything about hyperscrutinizing? I'm talking about asking to see his shirt. The one they hyperscrutinzed was Oswald, and of course, they were framing him. But the point is that, for appearances sake, Hoover should have gone through the motions of investigating Lovelady. Remember: if for any reason the Doorway Man wasn't Lovelady, then it had to be Oswald. There was no one else. And the thing about a frame-up is that you don't want it to actually look like a frame-up. In this case, it looked like a frame-up, and you, a conspiracy advocate, don't even care. You're not even willing to find fault with it from a forensic/legal perspective.
Is there a way for me to post pictures on this forum? I would like to fulfill Mr. Doyle's request and have you all look at my pictures.
http://www.jfk-fr.com/images/jfk/5.jpg
Mr. Doyle said that the white blotch is my "credibility as fully exposed in a Fetzerian rorschach test." But, I must point out that he completely evaded the question and brushed me off.
How do you all feel about that? I am sincerely trying here to delve into substantive issues. The question of whether the Altgens photo was altered is a legitamate question. Is it not? I know that many of you reject the Lone Gunman hypothesis, as does Mr. Doyle. And the issue of altered evidence has been raised and accepted by conspiracy theorists of all stripes. It is not a Ralph Cinque thing. So, if I raise the question of it in relation to the Altgens photo, I am not being preposterous.
And the thing I point to does look strange. Does it not? I mean, it's a white glob that looks totally out of sync with the other elements of the picture. Is that not right? Does it not warrant some inquiry? Is it OK to ask about it? And should you be any less dissatisfied than I am with Mr. Doyle's answer?
I really want to know what it is. Mr. Doyle thinks it's nothing. But, it has to be something. Does it not? There has to be some explanation for it. Clever sarcasm is great, but for a minute, let's get serious. I am asking the members, seriously, to look at it and tell me what they think it is. Not you, Mr. Doyle. You have already rendered your opinion, and let's leave it at that. But, to the others, please render a serious opinion as to what it is. I thank you in advance.
Regarding Oswald's "lapel" please take a look at this youtube video. It isn't mine. But, it shows his lapel very well. Was that "shirt" rather different or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhLqaDt5l9Q
But, continuing my response to Mr. Doyle, you think that lying to the police about his whereabouts during the assassination was "trivial?"
Yes, Lovelady pointed to himself on the steps, but you don't really know what picture they showed him, and you don't know to whom he pointed. There was no statement in the Warren Report such as:
"Let the record show that Mr. Lovelady was shown the Altgens photo, and in identifying himself, he pointed to the figure who is generally known as the Man in the Doorway. He was wearing an open, unbuttoned outer shirt and v-necked t-shirt and standing next to the white column."
Just because somebody washes your clothes doesn't mean that they repair them. Doing laundry and doing alterations and repairs are two different things.
Who said anything about hyperscrutinizing? I'm talking about asking to see his shirt. The one they hyperscrutinzed was Oswald, and of course, they were framing him. But the point is that, for appearances sake, Hoover should have gone through the motions of investigating Lovelady. Remember: if for any reason the Doorway Man wasn't Lovelady, then it had to be Oswald. There was no one else. And the thing about a frame-up is that you don't want it to actually look like a frame-up. In this case, it looked like a frame-up, and you, a conspiracy advocate, don't even care. You're not even willing to find fault with it from a forensic/legal perspective.
Is there a way for me to post pictures on this forum? I would like to fulfill Mr. Doyle's request and have you all look at my pictures.