27-01-2012, 02:14 AM
Albert,
Ralph has seen something no one else has noticed for nearly 50 years--and it is decisive! What I cannot understand is why you should be so up in arms over a major advance in JFK research. Why is that? If you care about the truth of the assassination, you should be celebrating, not making these petty, unwarranted and disparaging remarks about a man who intellect exceeds your own by some considerable measure. But then I digress.
One of the arguments that I have never understood is how some want to dismiss the dozens of limo stop witnesses as having lied or made it up. I personally have never known ANYONE who would MAKE UP seeing a limo stop if a limo stop had not actually occurred. Do you know people like that? Are you a person like that--who would LIE about a LIMO STOP if no limo stop had actually occurred, much less in the case of JFK?
Let me ask a parallel question. Ralph and I do not see things EXACTLY the same way, because I believe Billy Lovelady when he went to the FBI and showed them the shirt he was actually wearing. Now I must ask, do you know ANYONE who would go to the FBI and claim that they had been wearing a shirt IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN WEARING THAT SHIRT? I don't know anyone like that. Maybe you do. I ask: WOULD YOU DO THAT?
Because not only has Ralph shown that the shirt on the man in the doorway was Oswald's shirt--based on the texture, the lapel, the way it lies, the missing buttons--but I have shown that the shirt on the man in the doorway IS NOT LOVELADY'S SHIRT. And that is the case whether you accept the SHORT SLEEVED, VERTICALLY STRIPED SHIRT or the BRIGHTLY CHECKERED SHIRT. Is that really SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEE?
Ralph has seen something no one else has noticed for nearly 50 years--and it is decisive! What I cannot understand is why you should be so up in arms over a major advance in JFK research. Why is that? If you care about the truth of the assassination, you should be celebrating, not making these petty, unwarranted and disparaging remarks about a man who intellect exceeds your own by some considerable measure. But then I digress.
One of the arguments that I have never understood is how some want to dismiss the dozens of limo stop witnesses as having lied or made it up. I personally have never known ANYONE who would MAKE UP seeing a limo stop if a limo stop had not actually occurred. Do you know people like that? Are you a person like that--who would LIE about a LIMO STOP if no limo stop had actually occurred, much less in the case of JFK?
Let me ask a parallel question. Ralph and I do not see things EXACTLY the same way, because I believe Billy Lovelady when he went to the FBI and showed them the shirt he was actually wearing. Now I must ask, do you know ANYONE who would go to the FBI and claim that they had been wearing a shirt IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN WEARING THAT SHIRT? I don't know anyone like that. Maybe you do. I ask: WOULD YOU DO THAT?
Because not only has Ralph shown that the shirt on the man in the doorway was Oswald's shirt--based on the texture, the lapel, the way it lies, the missing buttons--but I have shown that the shirt on the man in the doorway IS NOT LOVELADY'S SHIRT. And that is the case whether you accept the SHORT SLEEVED, VERTICALLY STRIPED SHIRT or the BRIGHTLY CHECKERED SHIRT. Is that really SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEE?
Albert Doyle Wrote:More credulous arguments from a person who is obviously unqualified for the subject. This was all answered before at length. Go back to Lancer and read it again if you didn't get it the first time. Lovelady is wearing the long-sleeved box plaid shirt in the "cartoon" shot. If you don't understand what that proves then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have a driver's license.