03-02-2012, 09:26 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2012, 09:53 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Hey Doyle, look at this. Your pal Duncan MacKrae posted it on Education Forum. It's some pic. Must admit that it shows Doorway Man more clear than ever.
But notice that sliver of shadow over his t-shirt on his right side, so our left. I believe that you have maintained that that is skin. But look on the other side, his left, so our right. There is another wedge of shadow. It's even smaller, but it is there, and it's unmistakable. And it's in line with the sliver on the other side. Put a ruler to it and see.
So THAT represents the shade line going across the shirt. On both sides, it is one continuous shadow. And on neither side does it obliterate the fabric of the t-shirt underneath. It darkens it but does not obliterate it. The opening of the t-shirt is vee-shaped.
Your input is retarded and internally, inherently contradicting. If you had any intelligence at all you would realize for the area your refer to as the "sliver" area to be the lintel shadow it would be similar to the other blackened lintel shade areas in the portal. If this wack rationalizing had successfully proven the sliver area to be the predominating shadow, as you claim, then what is your excuse for the interior area of the V-neck being so black? What is causing the difference in color between the dark area inside the alleged V-neck and the sliver (skin) area? Your input is fatuously cretinous because it fails to register the simple fact that even if the "sliver" area was representative of the lintel shade zone it makes no difference according to what I wrote. The argument still proves a relative difference between the skin patch area and the V-shaped neck shadow that continues to carry my point. Your point, as usual, is idiotic and doesn't even register its own inherent failure. Your make-it-up-as-you-go-along childish, moronic method fails to realize the shade line you allege is simply the border between Lovelady's round neck T-shirt and his neck skin. And this is what happens when garbage-in is allowed to build upon itself unchallenged. This is yet another prime example of the danger of the Fetzer Assassination School.
You are a gross incompetent Dr Cinque who is catastrophically and demonstrably unqualified for this subject from head to toe. You have been allowed to get away with this crazy theory hoaxing for way too long on this board.
Doyle, you are the one who said that that sliver, which you now admit is shade, was Doorman's skin. So, you just changed your mind, as you have changed your mind before, for instance about the appendage on Afro Woman's hair being first nothing, then a head, then an arm, and then a hat. Then, the white blotch went from being a hat to a jacket to a sweater. And if you admit that the sliver is shade and not skin, then you must admit that it's covering the fabric of the t-shirt, which means that the v-shape of the t-shirt is intact. And why is it so black underneath his face? It's precisely because there is no WHITE t-shirt there.
And as for all your vicious calumnies, all I can say is, the feeling's mutual, and efffff ewe!
03-02-2012, 09:50 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2012, 10:13 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Doyle, you are the one who said that that sliver, which you now admit is shade, was Doorman's skin. So, you just changed your mind, as you have changed your mind before, for instance about the appendage on Afro Woman's hair being first nothing, then a head, then an arm, and then a hat. Then, the white blotch went from being a hat to a jacket to a sweater. And if you admit that the sliver is shade and not skin, then you must admit that it's covering the fabric of the t-shirt, which means that the v-shape of the t-shirt is intact. And why is it so black underneath his face? It's precisely because there is no WHITE t-shirt there.
And as for all your vicious calumnies, all I can see is, the feeling's mutual, and efffff ewe!
You're obviously incapable of comprehending what is being argued and, like your mentor Fetzer, seek a self-serving, dishonestly-evasive argument to avoid points you know you can't answer. Both you and Fetzer are dishonest fools who fail by the objective measure of your own arguments.
You lose Cinque. You're simply an unwell troll who has now earned his export. Thank you for showing us a good example of what Professor Fetzer calls your superior intellect to mine...
Albert Doyle Wrote:... what is your excuse for the interior area of the V-neck being so black? What is causing the difference in color between the dark area inside the alleged V-neck and the sliver (skin) area? Your input is fatuously cretinous because it fails to register the simple fact that even if the "sliver" area was representative of the lintel shade zone it makes no difference according to what I wrote. The argument still proves a relative difference between the skin patch area and the V-shaped neck shadow that continues to carry my point. Your point, as usual, is idiotic and doesn't even register its own inherent failure. Your make-it-up-as-you-go-along childish, moronic method fails to realize the shade line you allege is simply the border between Lovelady's round neck T-shirt and his neck skin. And this is what happens when garbage-in is allowed to build upon itself unchallenged. This is yet another prime example of the danger of the Fetzer Assassination School.
You are a gross incompetent Dr Cinque who is catastrophically and demonstrably unqualified for this subject from head to toe. You have been allowed to get away with this crazy theory hoaxing for way too long on this board.
As was clear from what I wrote, I don't think the skin area (sliver) was shadow. As should be obvious to any honest person, I am arguing, exactly, that the skin area is not shadow and therefore proves the V-shape is.
Now go back and answer the questions I asked Dr Cinque.
Doyle, you admit that shade from the lintil is causing slivers of shade over Doorman's t-shirt on both sides. Obviously, it is darkening the t-shirt but not obliterating it. We can still see the margins of the t-shirt very well, and we are not confused.
Why should it be any different for chin shade? When you look at that darkness underneath his chin which forms the big expanse of vee, notice that it is consistent throughout. There is no differential between how it looks where it covers his skin as opposed to how it looks when it covers the portion of his white t-shirt that you say is covered. And you claim it is covered so well that it is making the t-shirt look like it is naturally v-shaped- a perfect illusion.
But skin is tan to brown in color, and the t-shirt was definitely white. That's a big contrast. Shouldn't that create a different result in terms of how each is manifested within the shadow? Why is it very uniform and indistinguishable as the shadow passes from skin to shirt? It is one consistent dark triangular space. That should not be if there are two different mediums being affected. Surely, we would see some difference, no matter how subtle, and enough to tell where skin ends and shirt begins. Look at it again.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:There has been an interesting new development. On the Education Forum, a guy named James Gordon just submitted a picture of 63 Lovelady in which the presence of the pocket with the flap over it on his shirt is unassailable. I will attach the picture here. He said:
"I do agree with David Lifton that, for reasons unknown, Lovelady did not wear his original shirt when being photographed. In doing that he has given rise to these questions about the shirt. The argument that the shirt worn on 11/22/63 had a flap to it, is in my view, unimpeachable."
Thank you James R. Gordon! I tell you, it's been like the Twilight Zone for me and Jim Fetzer, with so many people fighting us and refusing to acknowledge even the most simple and obvious and basic facts.
Mr.James Gordon has now realized that he made a misjudgement on his original post.He has reversed his stance on the subject.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.â€
Buckminster Fuller
Ralph Cinque Wrote:They can't be that close together in time. Here's both. Look how much the scene changed. All that shuffling in one second?
Mr Cinque,
I assume in your post the referenced picture next to the cropped Altgens 6 is another still from the Weigman film. These old eyes of mine may have not seen much, but they have done considerable looking, and it appears to be slightly later and slightly farther west than the slide and comparison previously posted in, I believe post #115, as posted by Ms Moore. If so, then possibly your posted slide is closer to the same time and maybe later than Altgens 6 and the wounding of JFK. From what it looks like to me, the crowd appears to be reacting to something out of the ordinary. Do you know the relative timing of your 2 referenced pictures?
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Doyle, you admit that shade from the lintil is causing slivers of shade over Doorman's t-shirt on both sides. Obviously, it is darkening the t-shirt but not obliterating it. We can still see the margins of the t-shirt very well, and we are not confused.
No, I don't and you know I don't. That's just a crazy contrivance you developed to avoid answering my previous points. As I've already stated it should be apparent to any honest person that I am arguing the exact opposite. That I am arguing that the "sliver" of skin is an unshaded patch of sunlit skin without any shadow on it that you can't account for. Your intellectually perverted need to put words in my mouth to change the obvious meaning of what I wrote is sick. If it is due to a genuine learning disability on your behalf I suggest you refrain from normal forums. They're only going to cause you problems. If you're a deliberate provocateur you know what I wish for you.
Your cross-eyed T-shirt darkening bs above is nonsense. That's just another one of your demented strawmen. The only T-shirt darkening in Marsh is in the spot of the round-neck being shaded by the very bottom of the chin shadow as Lamson correctly cites.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:Why should it be any different for chin shade? When you look at that darkness underneath his chin which forms the big expanse of vee, notice that it is consistent throughout. There is no differential between how it looks where it covers his skin as opposed to how it looks when it covers the portion of his white t-shirt that you say is covered. And you claim it is covered so well that it is making the t-shirt look like it is naturally v-shaped- a perfect illusion.
You are arguing from a crazy understanding that doesn't exist in reality. The V-notch is the over-contrasted chin shadow creating the alleged V-neck. It makes no difference if there is or isn't a color differential in there. The over-contrast accounts for its uniformity. As usual, you are using these crazy bogus contrivances to avoid answering for the pertinent differential that is there. That is, the differential between the skin patch and the V-shadow. Like a snake oil carnival hustler you attempt a very sloppy trick of keeping us focused on your crazy crap while ignoring the valid arguments you so visibly can't answer. So go ahead Dr Cinque, answer why there's a difference in color between the skin patch and V-shadow? You're obviously retarded because you fail to realize that if the "sliver" was from the lintel shade, as you claim, then there couldn't be a second shadow caused by the sun creating the V-notch. You attempt a very cheap method of getting around this by claiming therefore the V-notch is caused by the neck of the T-shirt. But reality dictates that you can only do that if you can answer for the differential between the skin patch and the black V-notch. You moronically fail to appreciate that if indeed you are trying to claim the neck area is shaded in lintel shade, and that the V-notch is open skin, then you have to account for why the skin color seen in the sliver area isn't seen in the V-notch area? You are undone by this Dr Cinque and skewered by the logic of your own disingenuous imbecilic arguments.
Let's make it easy for the finger-painting doctor. Answer the single point about the necessary uniform color of the neck front area according to your claim.
Shade is shade. If shade from the lintel causes the t-shirt to darken without obliterating the margins of it, without making the material vanish, why should it be any different for the chin-shade? And even if it were true that chin shade could have that effect- which I say it can't- what are the chances that the shape of the chin-shade would conform so perfectly to what was needed to make a round t-shirt look vee? Aren't you being presumptuous? For instance, it could have undershot or overshot or been offset in some way. But, in this case, according to you, the shadow fell in such a way as to exactly duplicate Oswald's vee-necked t-shirt that he wore that day. Wouldn't that be another amazing coincidence?
"Do you know the relative timing of your 2 referenced pictures?"
No, I do not. But, I can surmise from looking at it that it's a lot more than one second. And you are right that the focus of the people is farther down the street.
