Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all!


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

This suggests to me that you never bothered to read our study. I specifically describe it as an hypothesis from the beginning. And I never use the language of "ABSOLUTE". Now Ralph, who is not a student of logic or epistemology, may sometimes have expressed himself with greater epistemic emphasis than would be strictly warranted. But that THIS IS THE ISSUE YOU RAISE instead of coming to grips with the evidence is acutely disappointing. You even attempt to discredit him with the ridiculous observation that YOU KNOW A CHIROPRACTOR whose opinions about this you would not trust. But RALPH ALSO KNOWS A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION. If you want a more precise formulation of our position, it is that, when all of the evidence we have laid out has been taken into account--INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS ALTERATION OF THE ALTGENS--there is no reasonable alternative explanation than that Lee was in the doorway, which they tried to obscure by moving Billy's face onto the upper portion of Oswald's head, but where the timeline, the obfuscation of the photograph--WHICH WAS DONE IMMEDIATELY AT THE TIME, WHICH ONLY STRENGTHENS OUR CASE--and the shirt and body evidence places this question BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, where the kinds of issues MacRae, Lamson, Thompson, and even you are still raising are simply not reasonable. And I have suggested what you might read to better understand the pattern of inference involved here, which is known as "inference to the best explanation". (See the first few sections of "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", for example, which I have recommended to your before. Have you even taken the time out to read them?) So if you want to attack me on epistemic grounds, at least get my argument right. To be persisting about ABSOLUTES is completely ridiculous and, at this stage of the exchange, represents an unjustifiable appeal to an enormous STRAW MAN.

I don't get it. Every assertion, such as "Romney will not win the nomination", could be construed as ABSOLUTE, merely because, by asserting it, you are ASSERTING IT TO BE TRUE. That is a completely different question than the strength of the evidence that supports it. Since the identity of the Doorway Man is an empirical question, IT CANNOT BE KNOW WITH CERTAINTY. It is a matter of probabilities and likelihoods. I have explained this before. We all agree that new evidence or alternative hypotheses might show we are wrong. Our position--that the body and shirt are those of Lee Oswald--is obviously tentative and fallible. We could be wrong, but no one has shown that we are. I haven't even suggested that you were a "brainless twit", but this song and dance might qualify.

IF "it cannot be known with certainty" THEN STOP STATING absolutes! Even Wrone, whose work on the Z-film is extremely lacking, presented his case "that it is Oswald in the doorway" as a hypothesis. He didn't say things like: "Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's shirt, therefore either Lovelady is wearing Oswald's clothes or it is Oswald in the doorway."

I know you feel that it is established that Doorway man is wearing Oswald's shirt. But, it is not established. It is a subjective interpretation of the evidence. You need not force your subjective interpretation of the photographic evidence on the world even IF you turn out to be correct.

Persuasion is an art form. It is not a contact sport.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim,

I read your study. All of it. That is not the point.

I venture to say that if we took a poll the majority of the members here would vote that they perceived your presentation as an ABSOLUTE on your part. I don't know for sure, but I think that would be accurate.

You seem to be so busy defending yourself that you are forgetting who you are talking to here. It is me. The same me as I have always been. One of your biggest supporters.

Galileo was persecuted for stating his case because his theory ran counter to the ABSOLUTE position of the Roman Catholic Church. He was not rejected out of hand due to his presentation of the information. He was rejected because his conclusion was a direct threat to the Church. No matter how he presented it he still would have been persecuted. No matter how he presented it, it would still have been the truth.

Einstein also made his case. It and he were accepted. Stephen Hawking makes his case and it too is generally accepted. Both men have made presentations mindful of human nature and sensitive to human frailty. Both men have demonstrated a practiced rhetorical style.

How tragic if Einstein and/or Hawking were rejected simply because they were offensive to their audience?

There is more to life than logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should re-iterate my stance: ALTGENS 6 provides insufficient data to determine with certainty the claims that are being advanced by Cinque. Also, it provides insufficient data to determine with certainty the alternate claims being advanced by others.

CONCLUSION:

ALTGENS 6 cannot be used to determine the identity of the Doorway Man. Beyond that we must rely on eyewitness testimony. All eyewitnesses identified the individual in the doorway as LOVELADY. Even his own wife stated it was LOVELADY.

Now, perhaps it was not Lovelady, and it was Oswald. However, the evidence presented in support of that assertion does not persuade. The photographic image is INSUFFICIENT of itself to make a judgment that would over turn the evidence in support of the man being Lovelady.

I agree.

And this post by Burnham is one of the best single synopsis of this entire discussion.

If there was not the DPD photographs of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, I probably would have had some element of lingering doubt.

But not after I saw that newsreel footage back in 1972, when I came across it when researching Executive Action.

I also credit Groden--with whom I shared that imagery decades ago-- for getting those signed statements from Lovelady, and his wife.

I do not believe the issue turns on those statements, but they certainly cannot be ignored.

The notion that all these people were standing there --supposedly with Oswald--and nobody ssaid anything, is more than just "unlikely" or "improbable." I just don't believe it.

Finally, I think Robin Unger's posts 406 and 407, with the Jerry Dealey photos explaining how Lovelady was standing there (on the steps) are very helpful.

For me, the only question that remains is why did Lovelady say he was wearing a red and white vertically striped shirt--and say that numerous times, when questioned? And why did he pose in exactly such a shirt when asked to come in and have is picture taken in February, 1964?

I think that's an interesting puzzle but is a secondary--even a tertiary --issue.

The main question is: Was Lovelady in the doorway?

I believe he was.

Another question is: was the Altgens photo (Photo #6) altered?

I do not believe it was.

Altgens #6 was authentic. Not a thing was done to it. And it was transmitted rather early on the AP wire (within 35 minutes, I believe).

I also believe this issue provides an instance of the role of coincidence in this case. Lovelady, as he appears in the Altgens photo, does indeed look like Oswald. But in fact, it is not him.

That's my opinion, and I have studied that photo, and many others, for years.

Photo alteration in the JFK case is a very serious matter. I don't think Altgens 6 was altered in any way.

DSL

2/12/12; 2:20 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Thanks David. I know we rarely agree on anything beyond our shared belief that there was a conspiracy. But, it is a place to start...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, one of the points that Michael might have been making is the fact that Ralph Cinque was NOT the first person to study the shirt of the Doorway Man. Why you insist that it is because of Cinque's "novel" approach that discovery of the discrepancies and similarities has become evident is beyond me. It is not a new study. It is another look at the same evidence.

Well, David Josephs and Michael Hogan, not to mention Ricard Hocking and Don Jeffries, have all made important comments on this debate. So tell me: Which premises do you deny because of your lack of certainty about them? And which of the rest of the argument would be convincing to you, if only you could accept those premises, in particular?

Indeed, that was the only point I was making. I thought it would be apparent to Jim Fetzer. I guess I should have spelled it out.

Richard Trask studied the photographic record and published a book on it. In Pictures of The Pain he concluded that it was Lovelady in the doorway.

I asked Gerald McKnight, but unfortunately he never responded. Accepting as a given that Lee Oswald was the victim of an extensive and elaborate plot to frame him for the murder of President Kennedy, how on earth could the conspirators

choose a scenario that included Oswald being outside at the time of the shots? If just one person noticed his presence, all their meticulous and painstakingly-crafted plans would crumble to dust. Whoever the conspirators were, they simply

could not allow this under any circumstances. How careless were the conspirators if one believes it was Oswald in the doorway?

How many people would witness the shootings, then go back into the building and buy a soft drink without saying anything to anybody, including Baker and Truly? What would have motivated Oswald to do that?

Before he was laid to rest the world learned that no recordings were kept of Oswald's lengthy interrogations. It didn't take a clairvoyant to realize that Oswald would never be tried and he would go to his grave leaving questions

that could never be answered. The failure to record and preserve what Oswald said while in custody remains one of the inexplicable failures that tarnished the truth about an American President's death beyond recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, one of the points that Michael might have been making is the fact that Ralph Cinque was NOT the first person to study the shirt of the Doorway Man. Why you insist that it is because of Cinque's "novel" approach that discovery of the discrepancies and similarities has become evident is beyond me. It is not a new study. It is another look at the same evidence.

Indeed, that was the only point I was making. I thought it would be apparent to Jim Fetzer. I guess I should have spelled it out.

I didn't want to put words in your mouth, Michael, just in case. But, it did seem quite obvious.

Perhaps Ralph's been doing a little bit of reading about this case after all...

...

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathy, you know it's Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, usual procedure when he can't ansnwer something to call the other person either an "intelligence disinformation specialist" (an "op") or a lone-nutter. So there is nothing new here. I only look into this thread from time to time so I don't know the answer. Has anyone at all spoken up to say they find what Fetzer (or Fetzer channeling Cinque)is saying is persuasive? I don't know. Whenever I glance in, I find people fed up with his condescension and dumping on him. But I may be wrong. Someone, somewhere may find what he's saying either interesting or persuasive. The odd thing is that Fetzer has succeeded in making a lot of the business of this Forum to be just about him? In itself, that is kind of an amazing achievement.

JT

Dr. Fetzer,

You said:

OF COURSE it's what we are getting here. And your intrusion is extremely revealing. Having set out to undermine evidence of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, which was beautifully illustrated by your "Umbrella Man" performance--see "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times" if you don't know what I am talking about--nothing could cause you more anxiety than a simple proof that Lee was not the lone assassin, could not even have been a shooter, but that the government was lying to us, where the FBI was covering it up and The Warren Commission was an utter sham! Panic time!

Holler at me for coming in here late, I don't care. We have had a small family crisis, and I really didn't want to get involved, but I can't let this pass.

Didn't you agree that it was Witt, even though it was AFTER you found out he could be used to pad the Limo stop argument? And have you noticed that there are several conspiracy theorists say it is Lovelady on the steps,, but still they remain conspiracy theorists? You don't have to believe that Oswald was on the steps to believe in conspiracy, do you?

C'mon-- you know better than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Cinque replies to Lamson (for what he would like to be the last time, but that's not likely):

Lamson, once again, you are dead wrong. The fact is that in this black-and-white Altgens photo, the darker shades tend to be exaggerated. We see it in the trunk of the tree, which appears to be coal-black, although I'm sure it wasn't. It's only after a forest fire that the trunks of trees are coal-black. And yet, it looks black. And we're seeing it in the uncovered skin of the neck and the top of the chest on several individuals. And the shape of the dark pattern is determined by the shape of the exposed area of skin.

Here's another example in which you can see that the shape of the blackness corresponds to the shape of the area of the man's exposed skin. He is not wearing a low-cut blouse like the lady, nor a vee-neck t-shirt like Doorman. He is wearing a different shirt with much less exposed skin, and therefore, he has a much smaller area of exposed blackness. But, the blackness that's there corresponds to the area of his exposed skin, and that is all.

But you take a good look at him because there is NOTHING about his shirt that you can possibly claim is missing. We are seeing the whole darn thing. And likewise, we are seeing the whole blouse of the lady, and we are seeing the whole t-shirt of Doorway Man. There are no optical illusions going on- other than the exaggerated shading. THERE IS NO SHIRT MATERIAL BEING COVERED UP OR OBSCURED IN ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.

And get something straight, Lamson: THE DEFAULT DOES NOT GO TO YOU; IT GOES TO ME. Doorman's t-shirt looks vee. It looks decidedly vee. It look unquestionably vee. There is nothing arcane or blurry about the vee. His t-shirt opening has very sharp and clear margins that show it to be vee. And for you, or anyone, to argue about that is preposterous. It's absurd! The shape of that t-shirt opening is as clear and precise as ANYTHING in that picture. And if you are going to challenge it, you might as well challenge any other obvious physical feature in the picture.

So go ahead, have the last word. Ramble on some more about the angle of incidence. But, the fact remains that you are the one who is denying a very obvious physical feature whereas I'm the guy who is saying that it is what it appears to be. The point is: THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU; NOT ON ME. You're the one who's making an outlandish claim, that something plainly visible as being vee-shaped- his t-shirt- is something else. That is a big chasm to cross, Lamson. Good luck with that.

And I'll conclude by restating that the vee-neck t-shirt is a match to Oswald and not to Lovelady. And pursuant to that: if the Doorman is wearing Oswald's tee-shirt, he has got to be Oswald.

24bn8tj.jpg

Cinque to Lamson:

Lamson, there is no way the chin of the second (and rather androgenous) woman is creating shade in the shape of the darkness that we see. Just because you have ability to repeat the words "angle of incidence" over and over doesn't make it relevant. The angle of the sun to each of them can't be very different, and yet their sub-mandibular blacknesses vary a great deal. Imagine if the second woman was wearing a blouse exactly like the first woman. What do you think you would see below her chin? Do you think you would see the exact same black configuration that you currently see? Of course you wouldn't. But why not? The angle of incidence of the sun would be the same? And that proves that the shape of the blackness is being determined by the shape of the garment and not by angle of incidence of the sun.

Once again you simply fail photo 101. While the angle of the sun is a constant between the two images, the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE as it relates to the subject (the faces and bodies) is not. WHY? Because people are not stationary. They move and stand in different positions from one to another. They have different facial and body shapes and as such the shadows they cast are differing as well. Could the second womans clothing also have some effect? Of course, but that is a sideshow ralph. The question is how a vee shaped shadow is formed and as we can see from the Altgens images and more importantly the RIT test images its the position the HEAD in relation to he sun that in large part creates the shape and position of the shadow.

PHOTO 101 ralph...and despite all the lessons it sails right over your head....

And again your silly claim a vee shaped shadow is IMPOSSIBLE is blown to pieces.

The fact is that we have no reason to think that the shape of the blouse of the first woman is anything but what it appears to be. And the fact that we are even talking about it is INSANE. By your way of thinking, her blouse, Doorman's t-shirt, and any number of other forms within the photo are something other than what they appear. And of course, this happens all the time: we look at photos, and we see certain shapes, and right away we ask ourselves: is it real or is it an optical illusion? Is that a vee-shape or is it really round?

Earth to ralph....if the the dark v shape on the first woman is just the opening of her vee neck blouse, it MUST be in FULL sun and her SKIN IN THE VEE WOULD HAVE THE SAME TONE AS HER SUNLIT FACE.

Earth to ralph...it does not. IT'S A VEE SHAPED SHADOW FROM HER CHIN!

When I look at photos, I don't do that, Lamson. And I know darn well that you don't do it either. You are just doing it now for the sake of convenience. You're a blowhard, and that's what blowhards do. Yes, I am calling you a blowhard, Lamson, because that's what you are.

No Ralph, I'm a professional Advertising Photographer with over 30 years experience. I CREATE HIGHLY CRAFTED PHOTOGRAPHIC LIGHTING EVERY DAY. My job is to use careful placement of highlights and SHADOWS to create depth and definition in 2d representations of 3d subjects. In terms even you might understand ralph. I'm a MASTER at the use of shadows.

I spend a LOT of time dissecting images, for both work and pleasure. You ..well lets just be kind and say you suck mightily at it.

You an the other hand are yet another of a very long line of photographic children. You don't have the first clue as to how any of this works yet you bumble along blindly, refusing to learn. That ralph make YOU the blowhard.

Wanna try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

No, of course not. I found Tink's performance in "The Umbrella Man" fascinating for multiple reasons, not least of all that, in endorsing Louis Witt as that person, he turned out to be vouching for a limo stop witness--just as, in endorsing Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), he was endorsing the blow out to the black of JFK's head, which is also, like the limo stop, not present in the Zapruder film.

That performance, by the way, profoundly bothered me, just as his attempts to belittle this new study of the Doorway Man bothers me now. You might want to review the concluding passages of "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times", because there, in particular, he is suggesting there are arbitrarily many innocuous explanations for any evidence that has ever been viewed as “sinister” in the assassination of JFK:

Here’s a transcript: (laughing) What it means it that, if you have any fact which you think is really sinister — it’s really obviously a fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning — hey, FORGET IT, MAN, because you can never, on your own, think up all the non-sinister perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale.

As Cliff Varnell has remarked, “Check out the sarcasm dripping from Tink’s [use of the phrases] “really sinister” and “sinister underpinning”. And that, of course, is why Mark M., commented, “This was wonderful. The best – and most convincing – debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.”

Dr. Fetzer,

You said:

OF COURSE it's what we are getting here. And your intrusion is extremely revealing. Having set out to undermine evidence of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, which was beautifully illustrated by your "Umbrella Man" performance--see "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times" if you don't know what I am talking about--nothing could cause you more anxiety than a simple proof that Lee was not the lone assassin, could not even have been a shooter, but that the government was lying to us, where the FBI was covering it up and The Warren Commission was an utter sham! Panic time!

Holler at me for coming in here late, I don't care. We have had a small family crisis, and I really didn't want to get involved, but I can't let this pass.

Didn't you agree that it was Witt, even though it was AFTER you found out he could be used to pad the Limo stop argument? And have you noticed that there are several conspiracy theorists say it is Lovelady on the steps,, but still they remain conspiracy theorists? You don't have to believe that Oswald was on the steps to believe in conspiracy, do you?

C'mon-- you know better than this.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

But what's the point? I already observed that I was unaware of Wrone's reasons for holding that opinion, which I now--after having gone through all this with Ralph--believe were well-founded. So what? Ralph was not basing his argument on Wrone, who described the shirt in different ways. Ralph has accented that it is a very distinctive shirt, which Wrone also astutely observed but in different ways.

What stuns me is how Greg can deny that the photograph is clear enough to argue the case when the case has been argued based upon features in the photograph throughout this thread. Once the obfuscation is apparent--and why he should have trouble noticing it is beyond me--it comes down to features of their shirts, where for Ralph it's reducible to one or more elementary arguments:

(1) It's either Lovelady or Oswald; but not Lovelady (slender body, loose shirt); therefore, it's Oswald.

(2) Unless Lovelady is wearing Oswald's shirt--and the shirt is surely Oswald's--it's not Lovelady but Oswald.

(3) The features of the shirt are far more like those of Oswald than they are of Lovelady; very probably, it is Oswald.

(4) The features of the shirt are more like those of Oswald than they are like those of Lovelady; probably, it is Oswald.

There is not now and never was any justification for talking about "ABSOLUTES". Take your pick of the argument forms that I have offered here. THEY ALL FIT. So if Greg feels more comfortable with (3) or (4) over (1) or (2), that's fine with me. Depending upon which premises one accepts at a specific point in the argument, any of those four forms could be used to represent it properly. None of them is wrong.

Also, one of the points that Michael might have been making is the fact that Ralph Cinque was NOT the first person to study the shirt of the Doorway Man. Why you insist that it is because of Cinque's "novel" approach that discovery of the discrepancies and similarities has become evident is beyond me. It is not a new study. It is another look at the same evidence.

Indeed, that was the only point I was making. I thought it would be apparent to Jim Fetzer. I guess I should have spelled it out.

I didn't want to put words in your mouth, Michael, just in case. But, it did seem quite obvious.

Perhaps Ralph's been doing a little bit of reading about this case after all...

...

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Cinque responds to Burnham, where, based upon his meticulous study of the features of the shirt, his argument could be forumulated as either:

(5) The features of the shirt are overwhelmingly those of Oswald and not those of Lovelady, where the probability that it was Oswald approaches one; or,

(6) The features of the shirt are overwhelmingly those of Oswald and not those of Lovelady, where the probability that it was Lovelady approaches zero.

Since the probability of x or of not-x, given a fixed body of evidence, must sum to one, these are two ways of saying the same thing in terms of probabilities.

When it comes to Doorman's clothes, there is not one feature of his clothing that matches Lovelady's. Not one- not even the pattern of the outer shirt. The pattern of Doorman's shirt is NOT a match to Lovelady's- unless you, stupidly, think that both patterns being "plaid-like" comprises a match. It doesn't- they are not the same plaid-like pattern. Plus, the collars are different; the fit is different; and the t-shirts are different. Plus, Doorman looks slender, while- at the time- Lovelady was stocky.

And from the beginning, Jim, you are the one who emphasized that the presence of the anomalies, particularly that of Obfuscated Man, is epistemological evidence of alteration. And it is also epistemologically true that if there is any evidence of alteration, it had to be for the purpose of incriminating Oswald. There is ZERO chance that the photo was altered for the purpose of exonerating him.

Lovelady's claim to have been Doorway Man carries zero weight- epistemologically. For goodness sake- he changed his story about which shirt he was wearing; he posed in a shirt that could not have been the one he wore on 11/22 and without announcing such; and he went to great lengths to artificially make that shirt conform in appearance to Doorman's, including doing things to it which he most certainly did not do on 11/22.

The point is that, epistemologically, the case does not lean towards Lovelady, and therefore, this whole issue of epistemology is a phony issue; it is a non-issue. They are just creating noise, a distraction. They are just attempting to bully you through strength in numbers. [NOTE: And social pressure has a powerful effect upon the weak-minded.]

When you pile up all the evidence: the specific concrete visible likenesses to Oswald, the presence of multiple anomalies and all in the immediate vicinity of Doorway Man and nowhere else in the vast photo, the duplicitous behavior on the part of Lovelady where his posings as Doorman are comical for being so contrived, it bolsters the case for Oswald and to a high degree of certainty.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding, Cinque?

There are many folks here who have known me for an extended period of time--more than a decade--have any EVER seen me be successfully bullied--EVER?

That is comedy.

Now, Mr. Cinque, I reject your argument because you are making SUBJECTIVE judgments, leading to some key premises, with which I take exception. Simple as that.

I do not fault you for drawing a different conclusion than I do. I fault your logic. Your mind. Your stubbornness.

I agree that IF there are 3 elephants in the living room and 3 elephants in the bedroom, and 2 elephants in the kitchen, and no more elephants in any other room, then there are 8 elephants in the house. However, I don't see 3 elephants in the bedroom or 2 elephants in the kitchen. Ergo, I do not count 8 elephants. I will not call what you see a hallucination and you should not call me blind, imply that I am weak minded, or suggest that I am easily bullied. The only person who has attempted any bullying in this thread is Fetzer.

--

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinque replies to Lamson (for what he would like to be the last time, but that's not likely):

Lamson, once again, you are dead wrong. The fact is that in this black-and-white Altgens photo, the darker shades tend to be exaggerated. We see it in the trunk of the tree, which appears to be coal-black, although I'm sure it wasn't. It's only after a forest fire that the trunks of trees are coal-black. And yet, it looks black. And we're seeing it in the uncovered skin of the neck and the top of the chest on several individuals. And the shape of the dark pattern is determined by the shape of the exposed area of skin.

You continue to expose yourself as completely ignorant of basic photographic principles once gain ralph. With each post you DESTROY your credibility as a photo analyst.

As I view the Altengs and downloaded from Corbis by Robin Unger, it is QUITE CLEAR the image is not overly contrasty, that is the darker and lighter tones completely crushed. The image exhibits decent shadow detail, to the point that we can see the door frame inside the deep shadow of the TSBD entryway.

Strike ONE for ralph and his so called photo analyst skills You Lose again.

Now lets talk about the tree. You claim it in black because the dark tone are exaggerated and that is why it appears "coal black". However that can't be true because we can look DIRECTLY below the trunk we see the two SS agents quite clearly. There is no exaggeration of the dark tones here. In fact there is decent shadow detail found once again. The dark tones are NOT exaggerated at all.

So your analysis is wrong. Again. This is a PATTERN for you ralph and why your claims based on your so called ability to analyze what is seen in a photograph are faulty. You don't have the first clue what you are doing.

So why is the tree trunk so dark? Its really quite simple. The sun is NOT striking it It is being shaded by the branches and full leaves above it. The branches and leaves CST A SHADOW that obscures the trunk from the direct sunlight.

Strike two for ralph. You lose again.

So lets finally look to the woman with the vee neck shadow.

ralph claims we are just seeing exposed skin darkened by 'exaggerated dark tones". ralph says there is no shadow falling from her face over this area. Then it MUST be in full sun. If it is in full sun, why is it dark?

We can check the tone of her skin in full sun by simply looking at her face. Visually the vee shape and her sunlit face don't natch. When measured in Photoshop the densities don't match. The vee shape is NOT her skin in full sunlight.

Strike three fr Ralph, he loses again.

We now know the vee shape is not exposed skin in sunlight. But can we prove it is in fact a shadow falling on either skin or fabric? Sure we can prove it is shadow just by measuring a known shadow on her face and comparing it to the vee shape.

Measuring the KNOWN shadow under her nose and comparing it the vee shape confirms the vee shape is in fact a shadow and not exposed skin in full sunlight as ralph falsely claims.

Strike four for ralph , he loses again.

Which leaves us with the question if the vee shadow is falling on skin or fabric. Again if the fabric is lighter than the skin in sunlight we should be able to measure a difference in tone where skin and fabric meet. Sadly we can't. The tone the skin in full sun on her face is the same tone as the full sun on her blouse. Since both are the same tone we cant see a change from fabric to skin in the shadow or sunlight. The long and short of it is we don't KNOW if we are seeing exposed kin or not.

Strike FOUR for ralph. He has just been tossed out of the game.

But make no mistake about it, the vee shape we see on this woman is in FACT a shadow from her chin.

Strike Five for ralph. He has been banned from the league for life.

Here's another example in which you can see that the shape of the blackness corresponds to the shape of the area of the man's exposed skin. He is not wearing a low-cut blouse like the lady, nor a vee-neck t-shirt like Doorman. He is wearing a different shirt with much less exposed skin, and therefore, he has a much smaller area of exposed blackness. But, the blackness that's there corresponds to the area of his exposed skin, and that is all.

But you take a good look at him because there is NOTHING about his shirt that you can possibly claim is missing. We are seeing the whole darn thing. And likewise, we are seeing the whole blouse of the lady, and we are seeing the whole t-shirt of Doorway Man. There are no optical illusions going on- other than the exaggerated shading. THERE IS NO SHIRT MATERIAL BEING COVERED UP OR OBSCURED IN ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.

Sadly ralph, yo just shot yourself in the foot..again. In the latest example there sure IS shirt fabric obscured by shadow. The shadow OBSCURES the fabric under his collar for example and it also mimics what we see in doorway man....his shirt collar in the shadow MEASURES lighter than the exposed skin...exactly like the bottom of the vee shadow in doorway man measures lighter than the exposed skin.

And what does that tell us? That doorway man has on a round neck tee shirt and that the bottom of the vee shadow falls over white tee shirt fabric.

And get something straight, Lamson: THE DEFAULT DOES NOT GO TO YOU; IT GOES TO ME.

No, you get it wrong again. You made the claims the burden of proof is yours. In addition very specific and technical challenges have been made against your hand waving claims. You have yet to refute them.

Doorman's t-shirt looks vee. It looks decidedly vee. It look unquestionably vee. There is nothing arcane or blurry about the vee. His t-shirt opening has very sharp and clear margins that show it to be vee. And for you, or anyone, to argue about that is preposterous. It's absurd! The shape of that t-shirt opening is as clear and precise as ANYTHING in that picture. And if you are going to challenge it, you might as well challenge any other obvious physical feature in the picture.

No the ONLY THING THAT IS CLEAR IS THAT THERE IS A VEE SHAPED SHADOW BEING CAST BY THE CHIN OF DOORWAY MAN. You are making a SUBJECTIVE... ViSUAL... judgement that the shirt opening has a vee shape.

Again sadly for you, I have MEASURED the density of the vee shadow in Doorway man and found the density of the tip of the vee to be consistent with a WHITE SHIRT in full shadow, and the area above it to be consistent with exposed skin in shadow.

Based on this TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, the conclusion is that the vee shadow from doorway mans chin is falling over his exposed skin AND A SECTION OF HIS ROUND NECK TEE SHIRT.

In addition we can measure the skin/shirt boundary on either side of the vee shadow. Again, based on this TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, the conclusion is that the tee shirt has a round neck and the tip of the vee chin shadow falls over white tee shirt. The tee shirt HAS A ROUND NECK.

So go ahead, have the last word. Ramble on some more about the angle of incidence. But, the fact remains that you are the one who is denying a very obvious physical feature whereas I'm the guy who is saying that it is what it appears to be. The point is: THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU; NOT ON ME. You're the one who's making an outlandish claim, that something plainly visible as being vee-shaped- his t-shirt- is something else. That is a big chasm to cross, Lamson. Good luck with that.

Been there, done that.. defeated your silly hand-waving claim... and got the round neck tee shirt.

You now have a detailed technical argument to refute ralph. You can no longer claim it is therej ust because you see it. You are so far in over your head ...

Good luck with that.

And I'll conclude by restating that the vee-neck t-shirt is a match to Oswald and not to Lovelady. And pursuant to that: if the Doorman is wearing Oswald's tee-shirt, he has got to be Oswald.

ROFLMAO!

24bn8tj.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"..in endorsing Louis Witt as that person, he turned out to be vouching for a limo stop witness.." Some witnesses thought the limousine stopped; some witnesses thought it slowed down; some witnesses had no opinion. If you think a witness was there, that does not mean that you are "vouching for" or "endorsing" anything a witness may or may not think he saw. You keep repeating this as a kind of mantra and all it shows is your inability to get anything straight.

..in endorsing Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), he was endorsing the blow out to the black of JFK's head, which is also, like the limo stop, not present in the Zapruder film.. Similar mantra, similar answer. In a book filled with opinions but little valid research, Gary Aguilar did a nice job of researching who saw what at Bethesda and Parkland. There is no necessity that the wound to Kennedy's head in the milliseconds after Z 313 looks the same as it looked later in Parkland and Bethesda. In the interval between Z 313ff and Parkland, for example, JFK was hit a second time in the head and his body manhandled in getting it out of the limousine.

As usual, instead of dealing with the facts in argument... that apparently nobody in this Forum agrees with you and Cinque... you make your usual try at distracing attention to irrelevant points. So, as the handbook of demagoguery would advise, you move to tribal politics. "Thompson is no longer a member of our tribe since he said that what looks sinister may not be sinister." What you completely miss is the plain fact that what I said is true. Not just in the Kennedy assassination but in any of the hundreds of murder cases that I've worked on, just because something looks sinister does not mean it is sinister. Why is that? It's because the the human situation is so variegated, that people do things for the weirdest reasons, you can't believe something is sinister just because at first glance it "looks" sinister. And for the people on this Forum, I don't think tribal politics works. I don't belong to any tribe and I don't think most people on this site belong to any tribe.

So once again, you just dig yourself a deeper hole. Does anyone agree with you after this thread has ground on for thirty-some pages? Who?

JT

No, of course not. I found Tink's performance in "The Umbrella Man" fascinating for multiple reasons, not least of all that, in endorsing Louis Witt as that person, he turned out to be vouching for a limo stop witness--just as, in endorsing Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), he was endorsing the blow out to the black of JFK's head, which is also, like the limo stop, not present in the Zapruder film.

That performance, by the way, profoundly bothered me, just as his attempts to belittle this new study of the Doorway Man bothers me now. You might want to review the concluding passages of "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times", because there, in particular, he is suggesting there are arbitrarily many innocuous explanations for any evidence that has ever been viewed as “sinister” in the assassination of JFK:

Here’s a transcript: (laughing) What it means it that, if you have any fact which you think is really sinister — it’s really obviously a fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning — hey, FORGET IT, MAN, because you can never, on your own, think up all the non-sinister perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale.

As Cliff Varnell has remarked, “Check out the sarcasm dripping from Tink’s [use of the phrases] “really sinister” and “sinister underpinning”. And that, of course, is why Mark M., commented, “This was wonderful. The best – and most convincing – debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.”

Dr. Fetzer,

You said:

OF COURSE it's what we are getting here. And your intrusion is extremely revealing. Having set out to undermine evidence of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, which was beautifully illustrated by your "Umbrella Man" performance--see "JFK, the CIA, and The New York Times" if you don't know what I am talking about--nothing could cause you more anxiety than a simple proof that Lee was not the lone assassin, could not even have been a shooter, but that the government was lying to us, where the FBI was covering it up and The Warren Commission was an utter sham! Panic time!

Holler at me for coming in here late, I don't care. We have had a small family crisis, and I really didn't want to get involved, but I can't let this pass.

Didn't you agree that it was Witt, even though it was AFTER you found out he could be used to pad the Limo stop argument? And have you noticed that there are several conspiracy theorists say it is Lovelady on the steps,, but still they remain conspiracy theorists? You don't have to believe that Oswald was on the steps to believe in conspiracy, do you?

C'mon-- you know better than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Josiah Thompson again shows his true colors by trashing MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which includes a brilliant chronology of 22 November 1963, stunning studies of the medical evidence, the Zapruder film and the silence of the historians by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the definitive study of the Lincoln limousine and the bullet hole through its windshield by Douglas Weldon, J.D., impressive studies of the limo stop witnesses and of Secret Service complicity by Vincent Palamara, more on the Zapruder film at the NPIC and the two brain examinations by Douglas Horne, Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the ARRB; a study of the consistency of the descriptions of the head would by Gary Aguilar, M.D.; studies of the Zapruder film by Jack White; 16 questions about the Warren Commission by Bertrand Russell, Ph.D., and 16 smoking guns by Jim Fetzer.

That Tink is in state of denial continues to stun a lot of us. Just reading the endorsements of this book, which he claims is loaded with "opinions" but not serious research, reveals the depths of his duplicity. They come from Michael Parenti, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael Kurtz, Kerry Walters, and Steward Galanor, all of whom are more reliable and trustworthy sources on research on the assassination than is Josiah Thompson. For a very nice demonstration of the importance of this book, see the review published in THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. That will give you an appropriate measure for appreciating how very far this man has fallen.

Cinque on the Umbrella Man:

Jim, if I could throw in my two cents about the Umbrella Man- the whole thing stinks. People were talking about him right away, so why did Louis Witt wait until 1978 to come forward? And, his tale about symbolizing Neville Chamberlain to Kennedy with the umbrella was most improbable considering his age at the time, and considering that there was no reason to think that Kennedy could have picked up on the symbolism. Then, it was reported that Witt was an insurance salesman for the Rio Grande National Life Insurance company, which was housed in the same Dallas building as the Office of Immigration and Naturalization—a place Lee Harvey Oswald visited repeatedly because of his immigrant wife. And another occupant of the same building was the US Secret Service, which failed Kennedy miserably, as you know. And, Rio Grande Insurance did most of its business with the US Military. So, you do the Math.

As I said, the whole thing stinks,and that includes Eroll Morris' video ridiculing it. Eroll Morris is just an older version of Max Holland. And I'll add that the story stinks in just the same way the Doorman story stinks. Louis Witt is no more believable than Billy Lovelady, both of them being just defusing agents.

You know, with all the pictures taken of Lovelady in his famous shirt, why didn't they go about it right? Why didn't they place him next to that white pillar and then take the picture from the exact same spot that Altgens took his? Why do it any other way? They could even have used black and white film. They could have compared the two images side by side. They could have seen if Lovelady's checkered shirt assumed the same mottled look as Doorman's. But neither Altgens, the WC, the FBI, Groden, Jackson, nor anyone else wanted to do it, and I think it stinks.

I was advised by a professional photographer that they used relatively "lithographic" film for newsprint photos back in those days, which had very high contrast. Mid-tones would shift either toward the white or black end with very little in-between. Gray tones got lost in the process. And that's why the tree trunk looks coal-black, and it also explains the blackness below the faces. These appeared much darker than they actually were. In other words, it's exactly what I suspected, although I didn't know the correct terminology. I said that the dark colors were being exaggerated, and they were, but what I didn't know is that it was a function of the film. It was polarizing; dark went towards darker; light went towards lighter, and the result was that Doorman's white t-shirt shows up crisp and clear, as you can see in this image.

25im54h.jpg

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From: Ed Sherry

================================

193 Pinewood Road

Hartsdale, NY 10530

August 3, 1978

Mr. Robert Blakey

Select Committee on Assassinations

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Bob:

Following our telephone conversation on Tuesday August 1,

I checked with Bob Cutler, my co-author on the Umbrella

Weapon System article in Gallery June 1978. Bob told me

he left with Mr. Preyer and with you, photographic material

showing that The Umbrella Man (TUM) was quite probably

J. Gordon Novel.

Your news photo of him reinforces that belief for both of

us. I did not have that portion of the Couch film from

WFAA and so had never seen TUM's face as clearly as it

appears there. The Bothun photo of him has a light

reflection around his nose, as I'm sure you know.

We have a 1962-3 photo of Novel taken from the same angle

as the Couch, film of TUM and a photo comparison convinces

us more than ever that Novel is TUM. Mr. Preyer no doubt

told you back in April that Novel is in a jail in Georgia,

framed for a crime he and Jim Garrison, his former lawyer,

both claim he didn't commit.

Best regards,

Dick Sprague

DS/mc

P.S. I am still waiting for a response to my letters to

Louis Stokes about attending the hearings beginning

August 14.

cc: L. Stokes

R. Cutler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...