TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Albert Doyle]

"If we simply look at Altgens you can see there is no shade on Lovelady or his T-shirt."


Wrong, and stupidly wrong. In this picture, you can see shade falling on this man's face and his shirt from his hat. When you blow it up you can actually see the effect of the point of his hat as a wedge of shade on his shirt. It's on his right side, so our left. Notice the extensive shade over his shirt, greater than Doorman's. And the reason it is more extensive is that Doorman is not wearing a hat. But still, his bare head casts some shade. And no, nothing exists "solely" on Doorman." That's your problem: you think Doorman exists in his own little Doylenian universe with its own laws.

What is written above has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Again, you concede this debate over and over mainly through your gross incompetence. Since any person of normal intelligence could see that what I wrote clearly did not suggest what you are interpreting it suggested we are left to conclude you are either cognitively impaired or doing this intentionally which is otherwise know as trolling. Both should be good enough to get you booted from the board in any case.

It should be clear that I wasn't arguing that there was no shade on Lovelady, since we both admit the chin shadow is there. I was arguing that the full front of Lovelady has no shade affecting it. You have once again, gone away from Lovelady and what we are talking about to an outside irrelevant example to make an irrelevant point. The questions I asked were quite clear and you have invalidly evaded them once again. And are therefore, once again, proving you can't answer them.

There is no sliver between the vee and the t-shirt, that is, if you are talking about the point of the vee.

You, once again, show you are incapable of honestly recognizing what is being discussed. It should be clear by now the "sliver" that was being referenced is the lighter-colored oblong shape in the verge between Lovelady's T-shirt, the chin shadow, and his shirt. If you don't fathom that then you're simply incompetent to the debate. However, I don't believe you don't see it. I think you're playing dumb because you know it destroys your theory. Either way. No, it is not the tip of the "V" overlapping Lovelady's T-shirt. If you read your sentence above it shows an internal conflict that connotes idiocy since it doesn't make sense by any interpretation.

It goes from solid dark to solid white at the point of the vee, that is, from shaded skin to the material of the shirt. It is an abrupt, clean transition. And it makes a darn nice and sharp vee too. Here's the Marsh photo again for all to see. Look at that V! That's some vee. I feel so proud because my favorite movie is V for Vendetta. Go V! Remember, remember! The fifth of November, Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason, Why the Gunpowder treason, Should ever be forgot!

Here's the photo again with the slivers circled. You are looking at shaded t-shirt.

You have correctly identified the slivers. The main one is on Lovelady's right. But, as your childish crap shows above, you are unable to give any intelligent response to what I wrote. Those slivers are sunlit skin. You say they are shaded T-shirt but, incredibly, then attempt to ignore the answer I demand of what is shading them? You're not fooling anyone Dr Cinque. For you to make this mendacious claim (retarded really) you have to be able to identify a shading source in reality. Your idiotic arguments make quite clear you are unable to do that. The fact you think you're getting away with it bespeaks your fatuousity.


Now go back and try to honestly answer the actual questions I asked in the post you evaded with this crap above.