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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Do my "dirty work"? So you have done multiple posts of an obviously substituted windshield, which does not

correspond--even remotely!--to the original on the vehicle, which has a white, spiral shape with a dark hole

in the center, but when I suggest you do the obvious thing of overlaying the star cluster on the spiral hole,

you balk, suggest I am out of order, ask me to do my own work, when I would have no idea how to proceed?

And then you ATTACK ME when I observer that you are displaying obvious bias by NOT doing the additional

overlay, which, I expect, would show the star cluster is not in the correct location? That's just a bit much. I

have always in the past assumed you were a neutral contributor who made resources available to all sides in

these debates And now you are committing special pleading and ad hominem fallacies? That's very revealing.

What are you afraid of, Robin? That the overlay would reveal that you have been here participating in a scam?

That's not what I was asking for. I was asking you overlay the star cluster on top of the spiral nubula.

It astounds me how you can pretend to misunderstand what I had explained so plainly. I am sorry to

say, but I really no longer have any confidence in you. I no longer believe you are an honest broker.

And the dark hole at the center has been filled in in this image. That's really, really nice, Robin. Nice.

Here is your image Jim

There is also a document t i have seen previously stating that the workmen who replaced the windshield, sat inside the limo, and pushed the glass out using there feet causing the glass to crack.

When i find it i will post it..

Newsflash Jim

I could care less what you think !

I have an idea, do your own images and stop asking others to do your dirty work for you

I am not here at your beck and call.

In future i will ignore any request from you for photographic assistance.

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

...ask me to do my own work, when I would have no idea how to proceed?

Why don't you LEARN...its not rocket science. Then you would not have to try and ORDER people around.

And geeze, maybe if you KNEW what was going on you could actually discuss it in an intelligent manner...oh wait...sorry...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Lamson (where there were already two images in post #171 to which this is a response)--and that Ralph Cinque has extensive experience dealing with human bodies makes him an ideal expert to be assessing their similarities and differences. He has not only approached this with fresh eyes but a background that reinforces his ability to sort these things out. And, as I have also explained repeatedly, it was not designed as a vee-necked shirt but rather tugged into that shape by Lee, who had that habit, as the photo I use to introduce this thread clearly illustrates.

Lamson, regarding your first picture, I can see the vee. But, it is not changing the shape of any t-shirt and causing us to think that a round-neck t-shirt is vee-shaped. And, look at the man in the middle who is leaning on something. He’s got shadow below his chin too, and notice how irregular the shape of it is, and that it's going off to the side, which is the more commonly seen result. And regarding the first man’s eyes, he practically has his hands covering them. When the obstructing influence is that close, it’s different. There is much less distance between his hands and his eyes than there is between Doorman’s chin and his t-shirt. So, you can’t compare that to what we are talking about with Doorman.

And likewise with the lady below, I see the vee, but what we are talking about is MAKING A ROUND-NECK T-SHIRT APPEAR V-SHAPED. You get it now? I thought I made myself clear the first time. It isn’t enough to just show a vee.

So, go back to the drawing board and try to find a picture of a known round-neck t-shirt that is converted, in appearance, into a perfect vee-shaped one. And I mean to the point that we really think it is vee-shaped, where it is indistinguishable from one that is really vee-shaped.

And that of course begs the question of how would you know? If it really looked vee-shaped, how would you know it wasn’t?

Well, guess what, Einstein? This can only be done on an EXPERIMENTAL basis. You have to begin with someone whom you KNOW is definitely wearing a round-neck tee-shirt before you photographically try to make that t-shirt look vee-shaped. And that would be without the slightest tell-tale sign, that is, a perfect conversion. Good luck with that.

Now, I want you to look at my picture. It is the Marsh scan of the area around the Doorman. I find it to be rather dark, but the folks over at Lancer rave about the Marsh scan, so we’ll go with it.

What I want you to notice is that at the uppermost part of Doorman’s t-shirt on his right side, so our left, there is a little sliver of shade. It is over the white of the t-shirt. It is definitely affecting the margin of the t-shirt. However, in no way does it interfere with the line of the t-shirt. We’re not being fooled. We know perfectly well what shape the t-shirt is, despite that shadow being there.

Now, I want you to compare the darkness of that little sliver of shadow over that corner of his t-shirt with the darkness of the vee in the center. Can't you see a qualitative difference? Cast your eyes back and forth. And, if necessary, download the picture and blow it up, which helps a lot. It turns out that, like the man in the middle of your first picture whose facial shadow is being cast off to the side, the same is true of Doorman.

And Lamson, when it comes to writing riveting last words, you’re not that good at. But, I’m not going to respond in kind, and that’s because: you bore me, and I really don’t want to waste time with you. So, just study my attached picture. and know that the Doorman in the Altgens photo looks like he has a vee-necked t-shirt because he does. Ralph Cinque

Welcome to the Forum, Dr. Cinque. I find your style of argument very similar to that of Professor Fetzer, Ph.D. Is that because you too are a Ph.D. and Professor of Philosophy somewhere? Or are you a medical doctor? Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., puts great stress on qualifications and that is why I ask.

I look forward to your contributions via Professer Fetzer, Ph.D., in the future.

JT

From a Dr. Ralph webpage...

"Ralph Cinque [send him mail] has worked as a chiropractor, nutritionist, and health spa operator. Visit his blog."

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque replies to Lamson (where there were already two images in post #171 to which this is a response)--and that Ralph has extensive experience dealing with human bodies makes him an ideal expert to be assessing their similarities and differences. So he has not only approached this with fresh eyes but a background that reinforces his ability to sort these things out:

Lamson, regarding your first picture, I can see the vee.

Wow ralph, you really do the BACK STROKE well! First you Tell me I can't find ANY instances where the head shadow creates a vee and low and behold we find TWO in Altgens images, (but of course I KNEW that prior to posting)

But, it is not changing the shape of any t-shirt and causing us to think that a round-neck t-shirt is vee-shaped.

How do you know? And of course that was not the point. If you recall ralph, you claimed a vee shaped shadow was IMPOSSIBLE (what an expert you are eh?) But reat your empty head, we willl be getting ot changing a round neck into a vee neck via shadow shortly....

And, look at the man in the middle who is leaning on something. He’s got shadow below his chin too, and notice how irregular the shape of it is, and that it's going off to the side, which is the more commonly seen result.

Are you really serious ralph? Is this the best you can do? Angle of incidence ralph...angle of incidence...clearly this simple concept is completely BEYOND your limited ability to comprehend. I've spent 30 years shaping light and creating shadows. YOU?

And regarding the first man’s eyes, he practically has his hands covering them. When the obstructing influence is that close, it’s different. There is much less distance between his hands and his eyes than there is between Doorman’s chin and his t-shirt. So, you can’t compare that to what we are talking about with Doorman.

Sure you can. Lets review your original statement and see what it is EXACTLY you said.

ralph sez: "Shade darkens, but it does not obliterate."

Opps, there goes that silly ralphis backstroke AGAIN. But lets go one farther shall we.

ralphie sez: There is much less distance between his hands and his eyes than there is between Doorman’s chin and his t-shirt. So, you can’t compare that to what we are talking about with Doorman.

Look at the tire in Altgens 6, in shadow...where is the tire tread? OBLITERATED..and much more distance then doorway mans chin...You should have admitted your error up front and moved along. Now I'm going to make you look foolish.....and enjoy it.

And likewise with the lady below, I see the vee, but what we are talking about is MAKING A ROUND-NECK T-SHIRT APPEAR V-SHAPED. You get it now? I thought I made myself clear the first time. It isn’t enough to just show a vee.

LOL! ROFLMAO...LOL! ralph...you have it backwards...YOU claim its a VEE NECK SHIRT, and that its impossible for shadow to create a VEE. Clearly the shadow vee IS possible. Now its YOUR job to prove your claim that what we actully see is a TEE SHIRT! You are swimming the backstroke ralph and the the drain is open. That sucking sound you hear is your silly theory and your credibility circling down the drain...

So, go back to the drawing board and try to find a picture of a known round-neck t-shirt that is converted, in appearance, into a perfect vee-shaped one. And I mean to the point that we really think it is vee-shaped, where it is indistinguishable from one that is really vee-shaped.

And that of course begs the question of how would you know? If it really looked vee-shaped, how would you know it wasn’t?

Well, guess what, Einstein? This can only be done on an EXPERIMENTAL basis. You have to begin with someone whom you KNOW is definitely wearing a round-neck tee-shirt before you photographically try to make that t-shirt look vee-shaped. And that would be without the slightest tell-tale sign, that is, a perfect conversion. Good luck with that.

Wow, you are the typical wannabe CT whackjob aren't you ralph. You make a wild claim, with NO proof to back it up and they expect someone else to flesh out your claim! Sadly fro your we don't need to experiment. we can MEASURE the Altgens . Why don't you do that for us ralph and give us the results. You do know how to do that don't you? Surely you are not pretending to be an photo analyst and have no clue HOW to measure density? Or are you?

Now, I want you to look at my picture. It is the Marsh scan of the area around the Doorman. I find it to be rather dark, but the folks over at Lancer rave about the Marsh scan, so we’ll go with it.

What I want you to notice is that at the uppermost part of Doorman’s t-shirt on his right side, so our left, there is a little sliver of shade. It is over the white of the t-shirt. It is definitely affecting the margin of the t-shirt. However, in no way does it interfere with the line of the t-shirt. We’re not being fooled. We know perfectly well what shape the t-shirt is, despite that shadow being there.

Now, I want you to compare the darkness of that little sliver of shadow over that corner of his t-shirt with the darkness of the vee in the center. Can't you see a qualitative difference? Cast your eyes back and forth. And, if necessary, download the picture and blow it up, which helps a lot. It turns out that, like the man in the middle of your first picture whose facial shadow is being cast off to the side, the same is true of Doorman.

Thanks so much for introducing the Marsh scan. It will be the thing that destroys you.

But first...WHY ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO VISUALIZE anything. MEASURE IT. Then give us the results. As we have seen more than once already your visual acuity is crap.

BTW, what you call a "sliver of shade is in reality the SUNLIT SKIN of LOVELADY ABOVE THE CIRCULAR TOP OF HIS ROUND NECK TEE SHIRT. We can MEASURE this area and see it corresponds nicely with the sunlit skin of his face. In addition we can ALSO MEASURE an area of white shirt elsewhere in the frame that is in full shadow and compare it to the shadow under Doorway mans chin. What we find is that the bottom of the vee is lighter than the top, indicating different surface reflectivity. In addition the lover part of the vee ( which is actually the white of the round tee shirt) matches in density to other samples of white shirts in full shadow.

The long and short of this ralphie, is that you simply don't have the first clue about any of this . You are completely in over your head. Yet another wannabe completely ignorant of the subject matter you are attempting to argue.

You are toast ralphie.....

And Lamson, when it comes to writing riveting last words, you’re not that good at. But, I’m not going to respond in kind, and that’s because: you bore me, and I really don’t want to waste time with you. So, just study my attached picture. and know that the Doorman in the Altgens photo looks like he has a vee-necked t-shirt because he does. Ralph Cinque

At least my words are fact based unlike thr fantasy your scribble. Sorry ralph, you could not find your asp wit both hands let alone understand what it is you think you are seeing in Altgens . Now run along and get back to making adjustments and protein shakes and leave the photo analysis to those who actually understand it. It might keep you from continuing to make yourself look so foolish.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Richard Hocking]

Weigman Man - B

Altgen's 6 large Crop Annotated

Man - B has his right arm up in a salute motion, so as to shield his eyes from the sun.

as does the small woman seen in Altgen's 6, below and directly in front of him.

In the annotated Altgen's 6 photo, the designated Lovelady figure (F) appears to have his left arm around the neck, or in front of the neck/shoulder area of the Black man wearing the white shirt (G).

In the annotated Weigman still frame these two men are roughly 5-6 feet apart, and (G) is 2-3 steps lower than (F).

The pattern of Lovelady's (F) shirt is plainly visible extending under the chin of the black man where I would expect to see white shirt.

Has this been discussed or explained before?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Duncan MacRae (where it is obvious to me that there is a pocket on the shirt to the right and no pocket in the other photos):

I am very glad that you posted that picture, and I have saved it to my files. It shows very clearly that in the two images of Lovelady posing as Doorway Man, he could not possibly be wearing the same shirt from the Dallas PD, which is on the far right.

You notice that big conspicuous pocket on Lovelady from 11/22? It is not present on the others, is it? And if you're going say that if you look closely you can see that there is a pocket there, I say to you: so what? It's obviously not the same prominent pocket that you see on the earlier Lovelady.

This isn't a game where as long as you find a pocket, any pocket, it's a victory. It's either exactly the same pocket or it's not the same at all. And it is definitely not the same.

But, there is also another problem, and this one really sinks you- you're screwed.

If you look at the '63 Lovelady, you see that his pocket starts from a level where there is a black line and then right below it a white line. Do you see that? Black line/White line. Black line/White line. Black line/White line. So naturally, we have to find the exact same thing on the later Loveladies.

So, where is it, MacRae? Do you want to say that the pocket on the later Lovelady starts at the top of your box 7 where there is a black line followed by a white line? The problem is that there is no sign of any pocket there at that level. You can't just make one up. And the pocket doesn't go that high. Also on the far left Lovelady, the pocket clearly doesn't go that high.

Look at this picture of the far left Lovelady. The pocket clearly does not go high enough to reach the Black line/White line at the top of your Box 7. And to help you, in case you are having difficulty grasping it, draw the line laterally until it reaches the arm. Where does it hit the arm? Can you see that it hits at the very top of the arm? But, on 63 Lovelady if you draw the line over from the top of the pocket, it reaches the middle of his arm. Admit it, MacRae: you're screwed. But thanks for posting that picture. I'll be using it aplenty.

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque replies to Duncan MacRae:

I am very glad that you posted that picture, and I have saved it to my files. It shows very clearly that in the two images of Lovelady posing as Doorway Man, he could not possibly be wearing the same shirt from the Dallas PD, which is on the far right.

You notice that big conspicuous pocket on Lovelady from 11/22? It is not present on the others is it. And if you're going say that if you look closely you can see that there is a pocket there, I say to you: so what. It's obviously not the same prominent pocket that you see on the earlier Lovelady.

This isn't a game where as long as you find a pocket, any pocket, it's a victory. It's either exactly the same pocket or it's not the same at all. And it is definitely not the same.

But, there is also another problem, and this one really sinks you- you're screwed.

If you look at the '63 Lovelady, you see that his pocket starts from a level where there is a black line and then right below it a white line. Do you see that? Black line/White line. Black line/White line. Black line/White line. So naturally, we have to find the exact same thing on the later Loveladies.

So, where is it, MacRae? Do you want to say that the pocket on the later Lovelady starts at the top of your box 7 where there is a black line followed by a white line? The problem is that there is no sign of any pocket there at that level. You can't just make one up. And the pocket doesn't go that high. Also on the far left Lovelady, the pocket clearly doesn't go that high.

Look at this picture of the far left Lovelady. The pocket clearly does not go high enough to reach the Black line/White line at the top of your Box 7. And to help you, in case you are having difficulty grasping it, draw the line laterally until it reaches the arm. Where does it hit the arm? Can you see that it hits at the very top of the arm? But, on 63 Lovelady if you draw the line over from the top of the pocket, it reaches the middle of his arm. Admit it, MacRae: you're screwed. But thanks for posting that picture. I'll be using it aplenty.

ROFLMAO!

I guess ralph never irons his shirts or sends them to the dry cleaners. Man that has to really STINK!

I have a bunch of them nicely pressed in my closet and on the plaid ones the pocket is invisable from a decent viewing distance.

Poor ralph, his entire silly claim is evaporating right before in eyes.

Critical Thinking? From Ralph? Hardly. LMAO!

Edited February 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

No, Lamson. The pocket flap has a slight downward extension, which is not present on the other photos. I can see you are a graduate of the Josiah Thompson School of Argumentation! When there is clear and obvious visual proof that you are wrong, simply deny that you see it and claim it is subjective: "Who are we going to believe: Lamson or our lying eyes?", vintage Tink. You guys ought to take your act on the road.

Cinque replies to Duncan MacRae:

I am very glad that you posted that picture, and I have saved it to my files. It shows very clearly that in the two images of Lovelady posing as Doorway Man, he could not possibly be wearing the same shirt from the Dallas PD, which is on the far right.

You notice that big conspicuous pocket on Lovelady from 11/22? It is not present on the others is it. And if you're going say that if you look closely you can see that there is a pocket there, I say to you: so what. It's obviously not the same prominent pocket that you see on the earlier Lovelady.

This isn't a game where as long as you find a pocket, any pocket, it's a victory. It's either exactly the same pocket or it's not the same at all. And it is definitely not the same.

But, there is also another problem, and this one really sinks you- you're screwed.

If you look at the '63 Lovelady, you see that his pocket starts from a level where there is a black line and then right below it a white line. Do you see that? Black line/White line. Black line/White line. Black line/White line. So naturally, we have to find the exact same thing on the later Loveladies.

So, where is it, MacRae? Do you want to say that the pocket on the later Lovelady starts at the top of your box 7 where there is a black line followed by a white line? The problem is that there is no sign of any pocket there at that level. You can't just make one up. And the pocket doesn't go that high. Also on the far left Lovelady, the pocket clearly doesn't go that high.

Look at this picture of the far left Lovelady. The pocket clearly does not go high enough to reach the Black line/White line at the top of your Box 7. And to help you, in case you are having difficulty grasping it, draw the line laterally until it reaches the arm. Where does it hit the arm? Can you see that it hits at the very top of the arm? But, on 63 Lovelady if you draw the line over from the top of the pocket, it reaches the middle of his arm. Admit it, MacRae: you're screwed. But thanks for posting that picture. I'll be using it aplenty.

ROFLMAO!

I guess ralph never irons his shirts or sends them to the dry cleaners. Man that has to really STINK!

I have a bunch of them nicely pressed in my closet and on the plaid ones the pocket is invisable from a decent viewing distance.

Poor ralph, his entire silly claim is evaporating right before in eyes.

Critical Thinking? From Ralph? Hardly. LMAO!

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

No, Lamson. The pocket flap has a slight downward extension, which is not present on the other photos. I can see you are a graduate of the Josiah Thompson School of Argumentation! When there is clear and obvious visual proof that you are wrong, simply deny that you see it and claim it is subjective: "Who are we going to believe: Lamson or our lying eyes?", vintage Tink. You guys ought to take your act on the road.

There is no 'POCKET FLAP'. You simply have no critical thinking or visual acuity skills. Maybe you should head back over the the moon hoax boards. Lots of nutjobs there...

In any case, there is no pocket flap. What your see in the 63 photos is the pocket being held open by what ever is in it. In the later images it is empty and ironed flat.

This is not rocket science ( not that your would understand that either).

Heck why not test it yourself.

[David G. Healy]

Cinque replies to Duncan MacRae:

I am very glad that you posted that picture, and I have saved it to my files. It shows very clearly that in the two images of Lovelady posing as Doorway Man, he could not possibly be wearing the same shirt from the Dallas PD, which is on the far right.

You notice that big conspicuous pocket on Lovelady from 11/22? It is not present on the others is it. And if you're going say that if you look closely you can see that there is a pocket there, I say to you: so what. It's obviously not the same prominent pocket that you see on the earlier Lovelady.

This isn't a game where as long as you find a pocket, any pocket, it's a victory. It's either exactly the same pocket or it's not the same at all. And it is definitely not the same.

But, there is also another problem, and this one really sinks you- you're screwed.

If you look at the '63 Lovelady, you see that his pocket starts from a level where there is a black line and then right below it a white line. Do you see that? Black line/White line. Black line/White line. Black line/White line. So naturally, we have to find the exact same thing on the later Loveladies.

So, where is it, MacRae? Do you want to say that the pocket on the later Lovelady starts at the top of your box 7 where there is a black line followed by a white line? The problem is that there is no sign of any pocket there at that level. You can't just make one up. And the pocket doesn't go that high. Also on the far left Lovelady, the pocket clearly doesn't go that high.

Look at this picture of the far left Lovelady. The pocket clearly does not go high enough to reach the Black line/White line at the top of your Box 7. And to help you, in case you are having difficulty grasping it, draw the line laterally until it reaches the arm. Where does it hit the arm? Can you see that it hits at the very top of the arm? But, on 63 Lovelady if you draw the line over from the top of the pocket, it reaches the middle of his arm. Admit it, MacRae: you're screwed. But thanks for posting that picture. I'll be using it aplenty.

ROFLMAO!

I guess ralph never irons his shirts or sends them to the dry cleaners. Man that has to really STINK!

I have a bunch of them nicely pressed in my closet and on the plaid ones the pocket is invisable from a decent viewing distance.

Poor ralph, his entire silly claim is evaporating right before in eyes.

Critical Thinking? From Ralph? Hardly. LMAO!

taking a break from Z-317? I don't blame you.... the over hyped, over priced Zapruder film cratering before the 50th anniversary? Horrors! Carry on!

[Craig Lamson]

taking a break from Z-317? I don't blame you.... the over hyped, over priced Zapruder film cratering before the 50th anniversary? Horrors! Carry on!

Whats to take a break from dave? The endless alterationist ct claims of "I see it, just believe me"? LOL!

I'm ready, you better hope the Hollyweird crew is....

They are toast.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Duncan,

How can the pocket on the shirt he was wearing in the Dallas Police Department, which we all agree is there,

compensate for the obviously MISSING POCKET on the two photos you posted? I am seeing a pattern here,

where you as well as Lamson appear to be graduates of the Thompson School of Argumentation, where the

plea, "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?", has grown tattered, torn, and very, very stale.

The pocket has a v-extension into sections 10 and 11 from 7 and 8, which is missing in the other two photos.

What your see in the 63 photos is the pocket being held open by what ever is in it. In the later images it is empty and ironed flat.

I think this proves your above point, Craig, probably something like a 20 pack of Marlboro.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque responds to Hocking:

The most likely thing is that Oswald, as Doorman, was holding on to the metal railing that was adjacent to the pillar. You can't see it at all in the picture, but it was definitely there, and it still is there today- so you can see it the next time you go to Dealey Plaza.

But, as far as the Weigman frames, you are not accounting for the time differential. Those pictures were definitely taken later. And the way we know that is that people are looking much further to the right. I have seen much clearer versions of those pictures, and you can see women with hands over their mouths.

The whole dynamic of the picture is much more right-oriented, that is their right, so our left. So people are reacting more to the assassination. There is more awareness of it by the crowd than what you see in Altgens. And so that means, it had to have been later, perhaps much later.

And I am sure that Oswald was long gone by then. Remember, he was in the lunchroom interacting with Truly and Baker just 75 seconds after the shooting. So, it's no wonder that his spot along the pillar is empty in the Weigman photo. Oswald was the last to come and the first to go- which explains why nobody reported seeing him.

So who is that guy, your figure F in the Weigman photo? That very well may be the real Lovelady.

Weigman Man - B

Altgen's 6 large Crop Annotated

Man - B has his right arm up in a salute motion, so as to shield his eyes from the sun.

as does the small woman seen in Altgen's 6, below and directly in front of him.

In the annotated Altgen's 6 photo, the designated Lovelady figure (F) appears to have his left arm around the neck, or in front of the neck/shoulder area of the Black man wearing the white shirt (G).

In the annotated Weigman still frame these two men are roughly 5-6 feet apart, and (G) is 2-3 steps lower than (F).

The pattern of Lovelady's (F) shirt is plainly visible extending under the chin of the black man where I would expect to see white shirt.

Has this been discussed or explained before?

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Duncan,

How can the pocket on the shirt he was wearing in the Dallas Police Department, which we all agree is there,

compensate for the obviously MISSING POCKET on the two photos you posted? I am seeing a pattern here,

where you as well as Lamson appear to be graduates of the Thompson School of Argumentation, where the

plea, "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?", has grown tattered, torn, and very, very stale.

The pocket has a v-extension into sections 10 and 11 from 7 and 8, which is missing in the other two photos.

LOL! Is the concept of IRONING a shirt beyond your ability to comprehend? Must be....

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque responds to Lamson:

The sunlite skin of Lovelay above the circular top of his round-neck t-shirt? But, that would mean that the white we see is the real form of his t-shirt, and it's not circular. It's going off at a very flat angle. Can't you see that? It's not even going to make it around his neck the way it's going. There is nothing "circular" about it. It's jutting off to the side. Can't you see that? Take a look at it again.

Cinque replies to Lamson (where there were already two images in post #171 to which this is a response)--and that Ralph has extensive experience dealing with human bodies makes him an ideal expert to be assessing their similarities and differences. So he has not only approached this with fresh eyes but a background that reinforces his ability to sort these things out:

Lamson, regarding your first picture, I can see the vee.

Wow ralph, you really do the BACK STROKE well! First you Tell me I can't find ANY instances where the head shadow creates a vee and low and behold we find TWO in Altgens images, (but of course I KNEW that prior to posting)

But, it is not changing the shape of any t-shirt and causing us to think that a round-neck t-shirt is vee-shaped.

How do you know? And of course that was not the point. If you recall ralph, you claimed a vee shaped shadow was IMPOSSIBLE (what an expert you are eh?) But reat your empty head, we willl be getting ot changing a round neck into a vee neck via shadow shortly....

And, look at the man in the middle who is leaning on something. He’s got shadow below his chin too, and notice how irregular the shape of it is, and that it's going off to the side, which is the more commonly seen result.

Are you really serious ralph? Is this the best you can do? Angle of incidence ralph...angle of incidence...clearly this simple concept is completely BEYOND your limited ability to comprehend. I've spent 30 years shaping light and creating shadows. YOU?

And regarding the first man’s eyes, he practically has his hands covering them. When the obstructing influence is that close, it’s different. There is much less distance between his hands and his eyes than there is between Doorman’s chin and his t-shirt. So, you can’t compare that to what we are talking about with Doorman.

Sure you can. Lets review your original statement and see what it is EXACTLY you said.

ralph sez: "Shade darkens, but it does not obliterate."

Opps, there goes that silly ralphis backstroke AGAIN. But lets go one farther shall we.

ralphie sez: There is much less distance between his hands and his eyes than there is between Doorman’s chin and his t-shirt. So, you can’t compare that to what we are talking about with Doorman.

Look at the tire in Altgens 6, in shadow...where is the tire tread? OBLITERATED..and much more distance then doorway mans chin...You should have admitted your error up front and moved along. Now I'm going to make you look foolish.....and enjoy it.

And likewise with the lady below, I see the vee, but what we are talking about is MAKING A ROUND-NECK T-SHIRT APPEAR V-SHAPED. You get it now? I thought I made myself clear the first time. It isn’t enough to just show a vee.

LOL! ROFLMAO...LOL! ralph...you have it backwards...YOU claim its a VEE NECK SHIRT, and that its impossible for shadow to create a VEE. Clearly the shadow vee IS possible. Now its YOUR job to prove your claim that what we actully see is a TEE SHIRT! You are swimming the backstroke ralph and the the drain is open. That sucking sound you hear is your silly theory and your credibility circling down the drain...

So, go back to the drawing board and try to find a picture of a known round-neck t-shirt that is converted, in appearance, into a perfect vee-shaped one. And I mean to the point that we really think it is vee-shaped, where it is indistinguishable from one that is really vee-shaped.

And that of course begs the question of how would you know? If it really looked vee-shaped, how would you know it wasn’t?

Well, guess what, Einstein? This can only be done on an EXPERIMENTAL basis. You have to begin with someone whom you KNOW is definitely wearing a round-neck tee-shirt before you photographically try to make that t-shirt look vee-shaped. And that would be without the slightest tell-tale sign, that is, a perfect conversion. Good luck with that.

Wow, you are the typical wannabe CT whackjob aren't you ralph. You make a wild claim, with NO proof to back it up and they expect someone else to flesh out your claim! Sadly fro your we don't need to experiment. we can MEASURE the Altgens . Why don't you do that for us ralph and give us the results. You do know how to do that don't you? Surely you are not pretending to be an photo analyst and have no clue HOW to measure density? Or are you?

Now, I want you to look at my picture. It is the Marsh scan of the area around the Doorman. I find it to be rather dark, but the folks over at Lancer rave about the Marsh scan, so we’ll go with it.

What I want you to notice is that at the uppermost part of Doorman’s t-shirt on his right side, so our left, there is a little sliver of shade. It is over the white of the t-shirt. It is definitely affecting the margin of the t-shirt. However, in no way does it interfere with the line of the t-shirt. We’re not being fooled. We know perfectly well what shape the t-shirt is, despite that shadow being there.

Now, I want you to compare the darkness of that little sliver of shadow over that corner of his t-shirt with the darkness of the vee in the center. Can't you see a qualitative difference? Cast your eyes back and forth. And, if necessary, download the picture and blow it up, which helps a lot. It turns out that, like the man in the middle of your first picture whose facial shadow is being cast off to the side, the same is true of Doorman.

Thanks so much for introducing the Marsh scan. It will be the thing that destroys you.

But first...WHY ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO VISUALIZE anything. MEASURE IT. Then give us the results. As we have seen more than once already your visual acuity is crap.

BTW, what you call a "sliver of shade is in reality the SUNLIT SKIN of LOVELADY ABOVE THE CIRCULAR TOP OF HIS ROUND NECK TEE SHIRT. We can MEASURE this area and see it corresponds nicely with the sunlit skin of his face. In addition we can ALSO MEASURE an area of white shirt elsewhere in the frame that is in full shadow and compare it to the shadow under Doorway mans chin. What we find is that the bottom of the vee is lighter than the top, indicating different surface reflectivity. In addition the lover part of the vee ( which is actually the white of the round tee shirt) matches in density to other samples of white shirts in full shadow.

The long and short of this ralphie, is that you simply don't have the first clue about any of this . You are completely in over your head. Yet another wannabe completely ignorant of the subject matter you are attempting to argue.

You are toast ralphie.....

And Lamson, when it comes to writing riveting last words, you’re not that good at. But, I’m not going to respond in kind, and that’s because: you bore me, and I really don’t want to waste time with you. So, just study my attached picture. and know that the Doorman in the Altgens photo looks like he has a vee-necked t-shirt because he does. Ralph Cinque

At least my words are fact based unlike thr fantasy your scribble. Sorry ralph, you could not find your asp wit both hands let alone understand what it is you think you are seeing in Altgens . Now run along and get back to making adjustments and protein shakes and leave the photo analysis to those who actually understand it. It might keep you from continuing to make yourself look so foolish.

Edited February 2, 2012 by James H. Fetzer