TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Albert Doyle]

Doyle, if what you say is true, why are their no other visible examples of it? Don't you understand that you can't just pontificate?

I know that it really doesn't matter what I think- or what you think. It matters only what the objective evidence proves. You have got to materially, physically prove this effect- of chin-shade causing vees in t-shirts- that you claim takes place.

We've heard your explanation. So don't bother repeating it. It's not helping you. It's just making you look nervous and desperate.

And there is a lot riding on this. You have already admitted that Lovelady wore round-neck tee-shirts. In every single picture we have of him, he is wearing a round-neck tee-shirt. Even when he dressed up and posed as Doorway Man, he wore a round-neck t-shirt. That's how commited he was to round-neck t-shirts. He was just a round-neck kind of guy.

And I suggest you take a look at my post 82 on Lancer, under Help, What Happened to Doorman's Arm, because now there's a new problem concerning those pockets. It turns out that Lovelady was indeed lying about that shirt of his.

The more you publicly show you are unable to answer the basic point about the skin patch in the Marsh scan the more you skewer your own credibility. The more bluster you produce in response to a point you obviously can't answer and, I fear, probably don't possess the intellectual equipment to even understand, the more you explode your own credibility. Your Fetzerian attempts to sieze control of the argument and force it into your feeble strawmen in order to avoid answering the point about the skin patch only reinforces its merit. Like Fetzer, what you are doing is fooling yourself that your side-track contrivance answers the shadow point. It doesn't. The points stand by their own merit on their own and you simply haven't answered them. Your pseudo-scientific Fetzerian boiler-room logic suggests that I have to be able to produce other examples to prove my point. That isn't correct. My points stand as validated on their own. As a matter of fact your obvious inability to answer them and need to detour into your strawmen only proves that you can't answer directly exactly because of their merit. What you are doing is trying to obviously force this into a side argument because you can't answer the main argument. In light of this your little comments that I'm looking nervous and desperate only enhance your failure. But what is even more pathetic is the fact you don't realize the missing face on Danny Arce is another firm example of this shadow phenomenon right next to Lovelady. You are so incompetent you don't even register that this phenomenon is caused by the "over-contrast" pointed-out and understood by Unger. I wish you would refrain from further subjecting people to your ignorance. The "objective evidence" you have the nerve to cite is obviously that which you are conspicuously unable to answer above.


Answer to the skin patch Ralph. Make a coherent direct response to it that lives-up to the scientific level it demands.