TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Albert Doyle]

"Where exactly did that undefined shade come from?"

It came from the same place that the shade over the t-shirt of this other guy came from. And, there is no way we are talking about "sunlite skin" on Doorman. You are forgetting something, Doyle: that Marsh photo isn't the only one around. There are others, and they have to be reckoned with as well.

Your answer is, once again, uselessly incoherent. Most people understand it is because of your rank incompetence and inability either fathom or articulate educated points. You have entered an unacceptable answer once again that comes nowhere close to credibly answering the question that was asked.

If we simply look at Altgens you can see there is no shade on Lovelady or his T-shirt. The critical areas under discussion are inarguably under direct sunlight with no shade. Dr Cinque, being a person of ill-nature, cannot bring himself to admit this so he tries to divert to an irrelevant "other guy". The things we are talking about were clearly stated. They exist solely on Lovelady and need to be discussed that way. Dr Cinque has deliberately failed to do that so he forfeits the debate. He concedes by deliberate deceit and omission like his crackpot mentor Dr Fetzer. There is no shade as Dr Cinque well knows and obviously can't answer for. Ask Dr Cinque to simply explain the source for this undefined shade and he literally cannot name it. Again, Dr Cinque expects us to endure his demented crazyland arguments with full authoritative expectation.

Here is one of the most widely circulated and visible versions of Doorman. Look at it! Are you going to tell me that that's sunlite skin? That's t-shirt, Buster, and you know it! That t-shirt is climbing right up his shoulder where it belongs.

The area I'm talking about, that you identified as a "sliver," is the oblong lighter-colored area that is just visibly detectable between the "V" area and the T-shirt in Marsh. Dr Cinque is an ass because any person possessing even the most basic level of common sense would realize that if it was the T-shirt, as he so clownishly protests above, that he wouldn't have identified it as a "sliver". But outside of having to answer Dr Cinque's insanity, several JFK researchers have credibly detected and recognized this light-colored patch as being sunlit skin. The only problem we are having with it is a recalcitrant forgery theory lunatic who refuses to admit what is plainly there.

And, to answer your question, the dark vee under his neck is shade, and it's darker precisely because it's skin that's being shaded. The shade over the t-shirt is lighter, that is, less dark, because it started as white t-shirt, and so it had farther to go to get dark. Think of it like mixing paints. If I mix brown with black (analogy to shaded skin) it's going to be darker than if I mix white with black (analogy to shaded t-shirt). It's the difference between tan skin and white cotton. Both are shade of different intensity because of the underlying medium. Shade is never going to obliterate, to blackness, a white t-shirt.

So, look at this picture of Doorman and point out the "sunlite skin" on this one, Doyle. And by the way, what about that button on Lovelady's flap?

OK, good. I agree it is shade - which now reduces the probability of it being a V-notch as you claim. Now if we apply credible analysis to what you wrote you are claiming that the dark area is shade but the lighter-colored "sliver" area outside of it is lesser shade. There's only one problem with that. There can only be one variety of shade. Now if you are finally admitting the V area is indeed shade you have now used your one shade claim for the area in question. You then claim the lighter-colored area is also under shade, but of a different indeterminate type. However, reality won't let you get away with that. Shade can only be caused by a source. Since you identified one source for the V (that is, the chin) you now need to identify the source for the "sliver". Furthermore, your argument is fatally, inherently flawed because for you to argue the "sliver" is shaded undershirt, as you do, you would have to account for why some of the undershirt is shaded and some is obviously white. To do that you would have to identify a shading source - which you clearly cannot. So not only do you now have to account for the difference between V and sliver, but you also have to account for that between unshaded T-shirt and shaded. But let's get this clear, the sliver is not shaded T-shirt, it is sunlit skin. It can't be shaded because there's no source for any shade. In the end, whether you realize it or not, all you are saying is the V-notch is caused by the chin shadow, just as I said.

In an over-contrasted photo shade absolutely will obliterate a white T-shirt. It's doing it right there in front of you as any credible photo analyst will attest. It's even provable by interpreting the continuing round-neck T-shirt line divided by the chin shadow. Maybe in another 40 pages we'll get you to finally admit that as well.

The Marsh scan shows a sunlit patch of skin represented as a lighter-colored area next to the chin shadow that the above shows you still haven't credibly accounted for. What you moronically fail to comprehend is by admitting the V area is indeed chin shadow (which it is) you still have to account for why it is different in color than the sliver area whether that sliver area was under shade or not (which it is not). What you cretinously fail to realize is once that V shape is admitted to be chin shadow that you have therefore established a shadow boundary with the rest of the neck front area. And once you've done that you've admitted it is chin shadow and not a V-neck undershirt. (DUH!)

Fetzer attempted to get away with the murder of claiming it was indeed a chin shadow but somehow miraculously fell perfectly within the profile of the V-Neck T-shirt. However, if you were smart (which you're not), you'd realize you yourself just argued why that couldn't be possible with your perfect V shadow and T-shirt obliteration arguments. (Touche! Dumb-asses)