This forum only has so much bandwidth to waste on snake oil foolery.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
You really think that picture clinges it, eh Doyle?
Here is a collage of that picture of Lovelady "standing off to the side in the exact same manner as Doorman". You think this proves something? That it erase all doubt? That it's iron-clad evidence?
In case you haven't noticed, this image of Lovelady is more like a cartoon. And by the way, the pattern on Lovelady's shirt doesn't even match the one that he claimed to be wearing. That is, it doesn't match the one he claimed to be wearing after he changed his mind.
Dr. Fetzer and I include in our article a reference to the official letter from the FBI to the Warren Commission which stated that Lovelady reported- to them the FBI- that he had worn the SHORT-SLEEVED red and white, vertically striped shirt on the day of the assassination. Later, he changed his mind and said he was wore the long-sleeved, red, black, and white checkered shirt. Jim and I don't claim to know which one he actually wore, and it doesn't really matter because neither one of those shirts matches the one that Doorman was wearing. But congratulations, Doyle; you've just introduced a third possible shirt that Lovelady may have been wearing. The guy had some wardrobe, didn't he? He was a regular clothes horse.
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.
No, I think you are the one who ought to get his vision checked before he drives because those shirts do not match. By that I mean that Posing Lovelady, when he's all dressed up like Doorway Man, is not wearing the same shirt as Cartoon Lovelady. And here they are, the two Lovelady's side by side. Not only does Lovelady not match Doorway Man, he doesn't even match himself. And if you think those two shirt patterns look the same, then something is seriously wrong with your vision.
We already went over this at length. They match and it could be proven by high tech color detecting equipment. They so obviously match that I can see it with my bare eye.
27-01-2012, 01:00 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2012, 01:22 AM by Ralph Cinque.)
That is preposterous. Do I have to spell it out for you? The white in Posing Lovelady's shirt consists of fine white lines; the white in Cartoon Lovelady's shirt consists of large rectangular sections. The black in Posing Lovelady's shirt consist of narrow black stripes within the squares whereas the black in Cartoon Lovelady's shirt consists of large, long black rectangles. The collars in Posing Lovelady's shirt are richly patterned just the like rest of his shirt, while the collars in Cartoon Lovelady's shirt do not exist; there are no visible collars that we can see. Red is the predominant color of Posing Lovelady's shirt whereas there is very little red in Cartoon Lovelady's shirt.
This may be the most preposterous thing you have said yet, Doyle, and you've said a lot of preposterous things. The requirement is that the shirts match exactly, perfectly, but they don't match at all.
I have to wonder if you even looked at the collage I posted.
And your reference to "high-tech color equipment" just reminds me of who you are, now, always, and forever, the Glibster.
Snide remarks are not arguments. When are you going to appeal to logic and
evidence? Charles lost it long ago. Why are so many of you abandoning the
quest for the truth about JFK in foolhardy, shallow, and phony ad hominems?
Jim
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Threads merged.
This forum only has so much bandwidth to waste on snake oil foolery.
What anyone can "see with their bare eye" from reading your posts is that you haven't a clue and that, like many others here, you are no capable of evaluating evidence. "Deep Politics" is a gross misnomer. Call it The Cult of Charles Drago, who long since abandoned reason and rationality. Give us arguments, Albert, not merely opinions.
Albert Doyle Wrote:We already went over this at length. They match and it could be proven by high tech color detecting equipment. They so obviously match that I can see it with my bare eye.
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.
