Ralph Cinque Wrote:"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.
Ralph Cinque Wrote: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.
Ralph Cinque Wrote: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.
It turns out that our boy Lovelady was lying about those shirts of his. Here's the text, and I will also attach the image being discussed.
Here is a diagram of the location of the pockets. You can see the pocket locations in yellow. And keep in mind that I didn't draw them in. One, as you can see, is the Robert Groden picture, and the other is the Robert Jackson picture.
Now, my question is this.
Shouldn't it be the same, if they are the same shirt?
RE: Post 114;
I have to wonder about the age of "the shirt" as modeled by Billy Nolan Lovelady. The photo id'd as the Jackson Picture is dated in 1971, but I have seen no date regarding the photo id'd as the Groden Picture, but "the shirt(s)" appear somewhat pristine for a work shirt that is over 7 years old. Maybe, just maybe the "possibilty" exists that, for scene reconstruction purposes and/or concerns, a "newer" or even a "newly tailored" shirt was aquired by BNL. It all depends what "the same" means. I'm reminded of an award show where 2 female stars show up wearing "the same" dress, at the same time. So, before deciding that BNL "lied about his shirt", my supposition may need consideration. Just an opinion about a possibility, and I am unable to distinguish any pocket discrepancy.
"but the shirt appears somewhat pristine for a work shirt that is over 7 years old."
You're darn tootin' it looks pristine, LT! And actually, that occurred to me as well, but you're the one who said it, so I want you to have credit for it.
And if you look at the condition of the shirt 7 years earlier, you'll see that it already looks pretty raggy. I'll attach it.
But please, don't underestimate the significance of the subterfuge. It could not have been easy for Lovelady to duplicate that shirt so closely (and, as it turned out, the new one didn't have a pocket). But for him to do that without ANNOUNCING that he had done it is a major breach of honesty, and it shows that by that point, he was part of the ruse. He was trying a little too hard to be the Doorway Man. You called it, LT! This Bud's for you!
05-02-2012, 03:28 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2012, 03:49 AM by Ralph Cinque.)
"You have correctly identified the slivers."
Indeed I have, Doyle. And those dark slivers represent shaded t-shirt. I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that the head casts shadow down on the body, and it depends on the sun's location in the sky at the time- and its relationship to the subject and the camera.
And since we know the slivers are shaded t-shirt, it enables us to visualize the whole t-shirt, and when we do that, we see that the t-shirt opening of Doorman is indeed vee-shaped, just like Oswald's, and not like Lovelady's.
You ask where the shade is coming from. Well, where is it coming from in this picture? This guy is just walking along. There is nothing around him. Yet, there is shade on his neck and shoulder. Yet, it's only him. There are no other objects around him doing it. Just him. All by his lonesome, he is making some shade.
You know, Doyle, I just thought of something funny. You have been so vile and venomous and downright ugly lately on this forum, and I mean to me, of course. You devote at least half your wordage to spewing hate at me. Yet, you are calling for me to be banned, banished forever for my misbehavior. Well, I would ask the moderators to read YOUR last 12 or 15 posts to me before they give me the axe. I try to stay on the issues. I'm not saying I haven't done my share of put-downs. But percentage-wise, it's less than what you do. And in terms of vehemence, it's much less too. I can enjoy a clever put-down as much as the next guy. But, you are really coming off totally unglued with hate. And honestly, you're only hurting yourself, getting yourself all worked up into a dizzy. Frankly, it's water off a duck's back to me. You got me laughing. But hey, I'm just saying: don't give yourself a nervous breakdown over it. Calm down. For yourself.
The Loveladys had fled Dallas to escape harassment. They had received letters and phone calls from every state in the union and from foreign countries as well. Billy went into the trucking business in Denver, Colorado. The Loveladys were living in Denver in 1976 when the House Select Committee on Assassinations began their investigation. The HSCA sent Robert Groden to interview Billy Lovelady and to take photographs of him wearing the long sleeve shirt that is allegedly the one seen in the Altgens photograph. The Loveladys had purchased the shirt for 59 cents at a Salvation Army flea market; Conversation with Gary Mack at Sixth Floor Museum office 8/29/96 years later Patricia Lovelady would telephone author/researcher Harlold Weisberg and try to sell him the shirt for $5,000. Letter to author from Mr. Weisberg, 5/14/94 Billy Lovelady died on Sunday, January 14, 1979 of an apparent heart attack. Although he was only 41 years old, natural causes were presumed likely and his death prompted no autopsy. . "Oswald look-alike, 41, dies," Dallas Times Herald, 1-18-79, p. 1-B
When James Altgens delivered copies of his famous photo to Mrs. Lovelady, he asked her why they were being so secretive. She said, "Well, I'll tell you, we've been run out of so many places where we have lived, and it's because of that shirt he was wearing. At this time, I've got it locked up here in the safe at Houghton Mifflin Publishing Company. People break into our home looking for that shirt. We have moved to about five different places, and they find us every time." No More Silence, p. 47
Billy Lovelady had originally stated to the FBI that he was wearing a short sleeve shirt with red and white vertical stripes, buttoned to the neck. He later claimed to be wearing the shirt in this photograph, a shirt with a block pattern as bold as the pattern formed by the brick wall in the background. Robert Groden claims that he can see the large block pattern of Lovelady's shirt in the Altgens photo of the man in the doorway, although the image is too faint to be transferred to paper. Groden once believed that it was Oswald in the doorway, but he now is convinced that it is Lovelady. Note that this shirt is apparently constructed of a heavier material than Oswald's, and does not hang open loosely. Note also that the shirt does not have a pocket.
Does Billy Lovelady really resemble Oswald that much? One FBI report states:
Mr. Lovelady stated his close resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald has become somewhat embarrassing. He stated his stepchildren, Timmy Ekstedt, age 6, and step-daughter, Angela Ekstedt, age 4, were watching television shortly after the assassination at a time when Lee Harvey Oswald was shown while in custody of the Dallas Police Department and both of these children remarked that they thought their daddy was on television referring to his close resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald.
It is alleged that Oswald and Lovelady could be confused by people who were not acquainted with the pair. One newspaper reported:
Yet ironically, there are arguments both ways by those who knew them both well. Once Pat [Patricia Lovelady] went to the depository to see her husband and she saw Oswald standing with his back toward her. She called her husband's name.
"Oswald turned around and I saw it wasn't Billy.
"He told me he thought I had the wrong man but he knew who I wanted. He went and got Billy.
"Our children were very young then, and they showed Oswald's picture on television. They pointed to him and said, 'There's Daddy'."
On the other hand, Billy tells the story of the day Oswald's mother visited the depository.
"It was during the Jack Ruby trial and she was in Dallas. She announced she was going to the depository to see the young man who claimed to be the one standing in the doorway. I was standing at the counter when she came in. She asked me where the young man was and I told her he didn't come to work that day. She turned and walked away." "Oswald look-alike, 41, dies," Dallas Times Herald, 1-18-79..
B........
It is in the HSCA...Appendix to Hearings ..Vol: V1 ...page 298
there is further info and photographs within the pages..
Now it says page 292...but that is an error, it is on page 298..also in this
Volume 6..is the comparison of the backyard photos, the rifle, many photos
and the info...Milteer, and other interesting information.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:"You have correctly identified the slivers."
Indeed I have, Doyle. And those dark slivers represent shaded t-shirt. I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that the head casts shadow down on the body, and it depends on the sun's location in the sky at the time- and its relationship to the subject and the camera.
OK, you're just in full troll mode now and blowing off my points. Thank you, I consider that a concession by default. You are wearing Dr Fetzer's referral well.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:And since we know the slivers are shaded t-shirt, it enables us to visualize the whole t-shirt, and when we do that, we see that the t-shirt opening of Doorman is indeed vee-shaped, just like Oswald's, and not like Lovelady's.
Everything you are avoiding by saying this, yet again, proves why it is wrong. I'm sure anyone foolish enough to still be reading this understands by now that the only thing you and Fetzer are capable of doing in the face of intelligent abstract argument is trolling and repeating your long-disproven bogus claims. You, once again, concede by doing so and forfeit your claims (which were already destroyed anyway).
For anyone who needs this narrated, what Dr Cinque is doing here is claiming the sliver area is T-shirt because when he got deeper into this issue he realized that I was right and by admitting that this was skin (which it is) it would destroy his claim that it is Oswald's V-neck T-shirt. So what we are seeing here is a very sleazy person who thinks we don't see him trying to stick with this obviously defiantly untruthful claim in order to avoid what he doesn't want to admit. Dr Cinque thinks and acts like a 12 year old. This deliberate dishonesty should invoke immediate site action. I suspect they are observing a special dispensation for those not in possession of their wits.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:You ask where the shade is coming from. Well, where is it coming from in this picture? This guy is just walking along. There is nothing around him. Yet, there is shade on his neck and shoulder. Yet, it's only him. There are no other objects around him doing it. Just him. All by his lonesome, he is making some shade.
You're nuts and not capable of any intelligent argument. There is one shade in that picture, that is the slight shade seen dropping from his chin. There is no other shade in your example -which, if you had any intelligence, you would understand backs what I'm saying about Altgens. That the only shade on Lovelady in Altgens is the over-contrasted solid chin shadow. Your attempt at bombastic lesson teaching is just more evidence of your childish contempt.
Ralph Cinque Wrote:...I try to stay on the issues. I'm not saying I haven't done my share of put-downs. But percentage-wise, it's less than what you do. And in terms of vehemence, it's much less too. I can enjoy a clever put-down as much as the next guy. But, you are really coming off totally unglued with hate. And honestly, you're only hurting yourself, getting yourself all worked up into a dizzy. Frankly, it's water off a duck's back to me. You got me laughing. But hey, I'm just saying: don't give yourself a nervous breakdown over it. Calm down. For yourself.
You have a real set of balls. You're obviously not to be taken seriously and why this site has allowed you to stay as long as they have is extremely puzzling to me. You haven't stayed on the issues, you've dodged them at every opportunity. Nowhere in the last few posts have you made any credible effort at all to answer what I really wrote. If what you write above is an indirect confession that you aren't really attempting any serious claim here, well, we already knew that. The fact you linger so long in this type of personal business shows in itself you aren't serious. Ralph, I hate to break it to you, but it's not something we weren't aware of from your first post. However, as a personal note I would have said "truth off a quack's back." You're about to lose this debate once and for all so cut the small talk Ralph. Don't patronize me, it makes you look foolish, especially when you are beginning to slip under the water with your theory in flames.
You haven't answered where the alleged shade you claim for the "sliver" came from. Since we know the dark "V" was caused by Lovelady's chin shadow, as you've already conceded, what then was the shade on the "sliver" caused by? The head did indeed cast a shadow down on Lovelady's neck area. You are seeing its results in the form of the chin shadow. It's a pretty solidly consistent uniform shape. Now the fact the sliver is a lighter color shows that it is not in this shadow. If it was it would be similarly dark. It isn't. So, since we know the dark "V" shadow was caused by the shade from the chin then what was causing the separate shade you are claiming for the sliver? Shades and shadows are caused by objects blocking the sun. We can account for the chin shadow and trace its results, therefore science requires we should be able to account for any other claimed shade or shadow. So, you are claiming a 'shade' on the sliver area. Now you have to account for its source. To be able to have a credible argument you must be able to answer this simple question. If you refuse to answer it, or bring yet another bogus irrelevant photo example designed to evade this simple point, you once again concede by default. What specific object capable of causing shade caused the alleged shade on the "sliver"? (Don't say it was Lovelady's head because we have already defined the shadow created by it)
Mr Cinque,
I'm not sure what "it" is that I supposedly "called". You posted what appears to me to be a b/w photo of Billy Nolan Lovelady that I believe was taken/filmed in a DPD office on 11/22/'63, and next to it a color photo of Billy Nolan Lovelady that I understand to be from '71, and I'm guessing taken from the TSBD building doorway. Aside from comparing a b/w picture with a color photo, both pictures appear to show Mr Lovelady wearing the same or an identical plaid shirt. If a replica, it appears to be be the same shirt in the images you posted, at least to me, and if so it was a very good job. And, I did say "if". But, if you are saying my post "proves" LHO was wearing the shirt, or it is not the same shirt pictured in Altgens 6, I fail to see that "proof".
No, you are being stupid and ridiculous. The shadow is from his head in the same way as this picture of the other man, in which you see shade on his neck and on his trapezius muscle. It is not coming from chin. How could his chin shade his trapezius muscle?
And just look at this picture of Doorman. And keep in mind that it's much brighter than the one with the slivers. In this one, it isn't even debatable. You can clearly see that it's a vee-neck t-shirt.
Bernice, I'm asking you to step in. Please look at this picture of Doorman.
I want you to observe firstly that the fundamental vee nature of the shape of the opening is unassailable. Even if you were to assign. . . . (my God, it's hard for me to even say it because it's so stupid and ridiculous, but OK, I'll try). . . even if you were to assign some little sliver of what looks like t-shirt and say that it's sunlite skin. . . (there, I did it, pant, pant, pant) it would NOT change the fundamental vee shape of the t-shirt. The vee occurs at the notch. Get it, Doyle? And that's what I was trying to get through to you before, that you are fighting windmills here. The shirt comes to quite a point in the midline, a notch, and that is true irrespective of the slivers, which as you can see in this version are almost completely and totally inconsequential and close to non-existent. Even with the slivers in your corner, you don't have a round-neck t-shirt there. What you see there is a vee-neck t-shirt.
Now, I hope you are not going to be like your pal Duncan MacRae and start blowing it up and changing the lighting, etc. He got it to where the t-shirt opening was jagged and tooth-like. Ah, the wonders of science! I suppose you could manipulate it into just about anything you want. But, it is what it is, and the fact is that there is NO reason whatsoever to do ANYTHING to this picture, this very picture, the one that you see right here on the right. It shows the t-shrirt very well and ANYTHING you might do to it is just going to distort the reality. You want to change it because you don't like the reality. And, it's very childish of you, Albert.
"But the shirt seems rather pristine for a work shirt that is 7 years old."
That's what you said, LR. You said that in the later picture, taken 7 years later, that the shirt looked rather pristine. And I would add that it looked in better condition than it looked in 63, if it was indeed the same shirt, which I don't believe it was.
In the 63 picture, Billy has a pack of cigarettes in his shirt pocket. See if you can see a pocket on this blow-up of the shirt from 71.
