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

[Craig Lamson]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697&view=findpost&p=244974

Altgen's / weigman Composite.

AS I looked at the composit that Robin posted I am struck by the distance between Shelley and the black man in the corner of the doorway... which in weigman appears as if they are separated by quite a distance...

Yet in Altgens... The Shelly/Oswald charater's sleeved arm is IN FRONT of this man... and his entire left shoulder looks mis-shapened...

and the two white streaks on his shoulder deosn't seem part of the original image..

More importantly... how does "Shelly's" arm cross in front of a man standing so far away?

Is this a joke post David?

Clearly you can't be serious....

[David Josephs]

Just explain the photo, Mr Photo expert... in Weigman they are at least 6-7 feet apart... (F vs G)

In Altgens, "whatever that is" is obviously in front of this black man in line with Altgens camera...

Does Door-man have his left arm around the man? There is no physical way for his arm to be INFRONT of this other person when he is standing 6-7 feet behind this person from Altgens' angle...

But since YOU are the expert... 'splain.. Where IS Door-man's left arm?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697&view=findpost&p=244974

Altgen's / weigman Composite.

AS I looked at the composit that Robin posted I am struck by the distance between Shelley and the black man in the corner of the doorway... which in weigman appears as if they are separated by quite a distance...

Yet in Altgens... The Shelly/Oswald charater's sleeved arm is IN FRONT of this man... and his entire left shoulder looks mis-shapened...

and the two white streaks on his shoulder deosn't seem part of the original image..

More importantly... how does "Shelly's" arm cross in front of a man standing so far away?

Is this a joke post David?

Clearly you can't be serious....

[David Andrews]

It's possible the African-American man's face was meant to be removed, but it was forgotten in the rush to print.

[Craig Lamson]

Just explain the photo, Mr Photo expert... in Weigman they are at least 6-7 feet apart... (F vs G)

In Altgens, "whatever that is" is obviously in front of this black man in line with Altgens camera...

No, not at all, Lovelday is behind him. Its called PERSPECTIVE Daid, and if I remember correctly you don;t have the first clue how it works. Maybe you need to educate yourself.

Does Door-man have his left arm around the man? There is no physical way for his arm to be INFRONT of this other person when he is standing 6-7 feet behind this person from Altgens' angle...

Loveladys left arm is simply hanging by his side and slightly in from to his body, well behind the head of the black man. It is NOT in front of the black man at all. This is not rocket science David, even you should be able to figure this out.

But since YOU are the expert... 'splain.. Where IS Door-man's left arm?

See above, then do the work to figure it out. This thread has been REALLY instructive, Its shows how easily those with a very limited photo analysis skill set can be fooled by the simple mechanics in a photograph

Thanks Dave, you add yet another example to the mix. And get back to use when you have purchased your first clue...

Edited February 7, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

This is supposed to be the Education Forum, and you are mocking the word "educated."

Here's some education for you, Cinque.

[roflmao]

Did you see a pocket? I could not see a pocket. Clearly there is not pocket.

And wait the shirt was being worn, not on a hanger, how could that be?

Where was the pocket? There was no pocket!

Wait, he put his hand INSIDE the pocket...said there was a pocket inside the pocket...

But I can't see a pocket.

CLEARLY THE VIDEO HAS BEEN ALTERED!

ALL THE VIDEOS HAVE BEEN ALTERED![/roflmao]

Edited February 7, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

Let's try this again, shall we...?

The Doorman's arm is IN FRONT of this black man and casting a shadow on him - you DO see the black shadow on his white shirt - yes?

Since he is 6-7 feet behind him in Altgens... the black man's face and body should be blocking Doorman...

not the other way around...

This is neither science nor cause for you to get all uppity... with your cute, little, kindergarden insults...

You DO realize how much like FETZER you sound when you do this right?

Kettle and the Pot... you guys are perfect for each other...

"Pocket? what pocket, I don't see a pocket.. only an idiot sees a pocket... do you see a pocket - then you're an idiot"

-CL photo expert extraordinaire

Just explain the photo, Mr Photo expert... in Weigman they are at least 6-7 feet apart... (F vs G)

In Altgens, "whatever that is" is obviously in front of this black man in line with Altgens camera...

No, not at all, Lovelday is behind him. Its called PERSPECTIVE Daid, and if I remember correctly you don;t have the first clue how it works. Maybe you need to educate yourself.

Does Door-man have his left arm around the man? There is no physical way for his arm to be INFRONT of this other person when he is standing 6-7 feet behind this person from Altgens' angle...

Loveladys left arm is simply hanging by his side and slightly in from to his body, well behind the head of the black man. It is NOT in front of the black man at all. This is not rocket science David, even you should be able to figure this out.

But since YOU are the expert... 'splain.. Where IS Door-man's left arm?

See above, then do the work to figure it out. This thread has been REALLY instructive, Its shows how easily those with a very limited photo analysis skill set can be fooled by the simple mechanics in a photograph

Thanks Dave, you add yet another example to the mix. And get back to use when you have purchased your first clue...

[Craig Lamson]

Let's try this again, shall we...?

The Doorman's arm is IN FRONT of this black man and casting a shadow on him - you DO see the black shadow on his white shirt - yes?

I see a DARK SPOT. , but why oh why do you think its a shodow and and that it is falling on black mans shirt? Have you really LOOKED at weigman?

Since he is 6-7 feet behind him in Altgens... the black man's face and body should be blocking Doorman...

not the other way around...

Who says IT IS beside you?

This is neither science nor cause for you to get all uppity... with your cute, little, kindergarden insults...

Of course this is science davie, and I'm not uppity. I think you need to learn some things before you attempt to do photo analysis. Clearly you don't have the skills now.

You DO realize how much like FETZER you sound when you do this right?

What? Suggest you LEARN what it is you are trying to discuss prior to your actually discussing it? I've been down the "lets teach davie some basic photographic principles" path before. I'm simply not wasting my time again. Get back to me when you have a clue.

Kettle and the Pot... you guys are perfect for each other...

"Pocket? what pocket, I don't see a pocket.. only an idiot sees a pocket... do you see a pocket - then you're an idiot"

-CL photo expert extraordinaire

I see sarcasm is yet another subject where your skill set is lacking...oh well...

Edited February 7, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

Thanks Craig...

What you continue to prove about yourself with each post is perfect...

It's obvious to all that you can't SEE anything without McAdams telling you it's okay, first.

The man looks like he's wearing shoulder pads and his left arm is directly in front of the black man... which is impossible.

Better yet eagle eye... how about YOU tell us what IS crossing in front of this man's neck... his chin is almost resting on it..

and then point this out in the weigman image... should be interesting

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks Craig...

What you continue to prove about yourself with each post is perfect...

It's obvious to all that you can't SEE anything without McAdams telling you it's okay, first.

The man looks like he's wearing shoulder pads and his left arm is directly in front of the black man... which is impossible.

Better yet eagle eye... how about YOU tell us what IS crossing in front of this man's neck... his chin is almost resting on it..

and then point this out in the weigman image... should be interesting

Yea right davie. I waited for McAdams... Your paranoia is running amuck again.

I see you are failing photo 101 again.

NOTHING is crossing black mans neck. You can't SEE his neck nor his shoulder, they are BEHIND the wall of the DSBD. LOOK at Weigman. LOOK at the angle of Black Mans body, LOOK AT HIS SHIRT, and then plot his body angle with the Altgens camera position and line of sight. You can't see ANYTHING but a tiny silver of his face as he LEANS forward.

When this simple fact SINKS in....GET BACK TO US!

Your inability yo understand what you see in a photograph is simply astounding.

BTW, nice job of confusing the shirt and tie of the guy standing BEHIND Lovelady for his "shoulder pads"

You are the poster child for photographic ignorance....

[Paul Trejo]

Well, this is clearly an active thread. I'll chime in, too.

Although I agree that lots of the evidence is altered, e.g. the Backyard Photos, I wouldn't generalize, and I will continue to take each item of evidence on its own merits.

I think that shadows play a role in the photograph of the man in the doorway. That's not a V-neck T-shirt, or even a round-neck T-shirt that has been nervously pulled down to emulate a V-neck. Rather, it appears to me to be a shadow of the man's chin on an ordinary T-shirt.

The photograph is so poor, so unclear, that one doesn't need somebody to alter it in order to enjoy many fine debates over it. Anyway, that's a shadow. Also, because the photo quality is so poor, it is very difficult to say with certainty that the man in the doorway is wearing a solid color shirt or a lined shirt. I believe I see lines in the shirt. That's my eyesight on this poor photograph.

Still - it doesn't matter much to me which way it turns out - it doesn't alter the key conclusion of the HSCA, the new official US Government position (1979) that already blew the Warren Commission conclusion out of the water. There were at least two shooters, no matter who was standing in the doorway.

The larger questions to ask are - what person or group would want to frame Oswald? Did Oswald's New Orleans associates frame him? Clearly, somebody close to Oswald framed him. Why were George DeMohrenschildt and General

Edwin Walker called to testify before the Warren Commission? How close were they to Oswald? What motive did either man have to participate in a frame-up of Oswald?

Finally - as for the Backyard Photograph, I accept Marina's testimony that she took one (and only one) picture that day. But when she was confronted with two different poses of Oswald with his guns, she slightly modified her testimony: "Well, I guess I took two without knowing it." (OK, she was a chemistry graduate not a photography graduate.)

The better answer is that she took one, and somebody altered that one to make different poses. Now, who would that be? Let's ask who was close to Oswald at that time, and also close to professional photographic equipment at that time. Using Occam's Razor, the first suspect should be Oswald himself. He had the photo, and he was in his final days working at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas, which had excellent photographic equipment in 1963 (almost as good as having Photoshop in the 21st century). Oswald probaby made his "Alek Hidell" identification card there, as well as these photo variations. He only had one photo to work with (as Marina correctly recalled) so he only had one face to superimpose on different photographs -- as the expert evidence clearly shows. Why would he do it? Possibly so he could tell the police (if they ever got ahold of them) that "these photos are fake, and I can prove it!"

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Craig Lamson]

dupe deleted

Edited February 8, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replied to Trejo:

"That's not a V-neck T-shirt, or even a round-neck T-shirt that has been nervously pulled down to emulate a V-neck. Rather, it appears to me to be a shadow of the man's chin on an ordinary T-shirt."

Oh really? Then tell me, Mr. Trejo, what would it have looked like if it had been a v-neck t-shirt? And for you to say that it appears to be the shadow of his chin on his ordinary t-shirt, I presume then that that is something that you have seen many times before. Well first of all, facial images don't always show a chin shadow. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, depending on the location of the source of light. But, the number of times that chin-shadows form a perfect vee underneath the person's neck is exactly and precisely zero. I say that from having googled and looked at hundreds of images of people with chins and chin-shadows. Not one laid down a shadow that was anything close to that. Most of the time, there was either no chin-shadow, or there was one off to the side, not down the middle, not vee-shaped, and not anything close to being vee-shaped.

What I am saying, Mr. Trejo, is that I don't believe you can provide a single example of anything remotely close to what you are claiming. And I defy you to try. Go ahead, make a fool of me. Start searching online. And hey, let's say it doesn't even have to be perfect. Even if we can still tell that it's a round-neck t-shirt, as long as it's close to converting a round-neck t-shirt into a vee, we'll consider it a win for you. And that goes for all of you. Unger? MacRey? Lamson? Don't you want to get even for the severe trouncing that you took? Show me a picture of a round-neck t-shirt that is made, convincingly, to look like a vee. Come on! All it takes is one.

Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt. And that vee is the vee in Oswald's t-shirt. And it also stands for another vee, a V for Vendetta. That's mine and Jim Fetzer's vendetta to crush the vile and wicked state-lie about how John Kennedy got slaughtered. And it is something we are going to do- without or without help from you people.

NOTE: Ralph has a colorful way of making his points. Just for the record, it LOOKS LIKE a vee-neck because LEE TUGGED AT THE NECK OF HIS TEE-SHIRTS AND STRETCHED THEM INTO VEES. What could be more obvious from the photo with which this thread began (in handcuffs)?

Well, this is clearly an active thread. I'll chime in, too.

Although I agree that lots of the evidence is altered, e.g. the Backyard Photos, I wouldn't generalize, and I will continue to take each item of evidence on its own merits.

I think that shadows play a role in the photograph of the man in the doorway. That's not a V-neck T-shirt, or even a round-neck T-shirt that has been nervously pulled down to emulate a V-neck. Rather, it appears to me to be a shadow of the man's chin on an ordinary T-shirt.

The photograph is so poor, so unclear, that one doesn't need somebody to alter it in order to enjoy many fine debates over it. Anyway, that's a shadow. Also, because the photo quality is so poor, it is very difficult to say with certainty that the man in the doorway is wearing a solid color shirt or a lined shirt. I believe I see lines in the shirt. That's my eyesight on this poor photograph.

Still - it doesn't matter much to me which way it turns out - it doesn't alter the key conclusion of the HSCA, the new official US Government position (1979) that already blew the Warren Commission conclusion out of the water. There were at least two shooters, no matter who was standing in the doorway.

The larger questions to ask are - what person or group would want to frame Oswald? Did Oswald's New Orleans associates frame him? Clearly, somebody close to Oswald framed him. Why were George DeMohrenschildt and General

Edwin Walker called to testify before the Warren Commission? How close were they to Oswald? What motive did either man have to participate in a frame-up of Oswald?

Finally - as for the Backyard Photograph, I accept Marina's testimony that she took one (and only one) picture that day. But when she was confronted with two different poses of Oswald with his guns, she slightly modified her testimony: "Well, I guess I took two without knowing it." (OK, she was a chemistry graduate not a photography graduate.)

The better answer is that she took one, and somebody altered that one to make different poses. Now, who would that be? Let's ask who was close to Oswald at that time, and also close to professional photographic equipment at that time. Using Occam's Razor, the first suspect should be Oswald himself. He had the photo, and he was in his final days working at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas, which had excellent photographic equipment in 1963 (almost as good as having Photoshop in the 21st century). Oswald probaby made his "Alek Hidell" identification card there, as well as these photo variations. He only had one photo to work with (as Marina correctly recalled) so he only had one face to superimpose on different photographs -- as the expert evidence clearly shows. Why would he do it? Possibly so he could tell the police (if they ever got ahold of them) that "these photos are fake, and I can prove it!"

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

[Pat Speer]

Cinque replied to Trejo:

"That's not a V-neck T-shirt, or even a round-neck T-shirt that has been nervously pulled down to emulate a V-neck. Rather, it appears to me to be a shadow of the man's chin on an ordinary T-shirt."

Oh really? Then tell me, Mr. Trejo, what would it have looked like if it had been a v-neck t-shirt? And for you to say that it appears to be the shadow of his chin on his ordinary t-shirt, I presume then that that is something that you have seen many times before. Well first of all, facial images don't always show a chin shadow. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, depending on the location of the source of light. But, the number of times that chin-shadows form a perfect vee underneath the person's neck is exactly and precisely zero. I say that from having googled and looked at hundreds of images of people with chins and chin-shadows. Not one laid down a shadow that was anything close to that. Most of the time, there was either no chin-shadow, or there was one off to the side, not down the middle, not vee-shaped, and not anything close to being vee-shaped.

What I am saying, Mr. Trejo, is that I don't believe you can provide a single example of anything remotely close to what you are claiming. And I defy you to try. Go ahead, make a fool of me. Start searching online. And hey, let's say it doesn't even have to be perfect. Even if we can still tell that it's a round-neck t-shirt, as long as it's close to converting a round-neck t-shirt into a vee, we'll consider it a win for you. And that goes for all of you. Unger? MacRey? Lamson? Don't you want to get even for the severe trouncing that you took? Show me a picture of a round-neck t-shirt that is made, convincingly, to look like a vee. Come on! All it takes is one.

Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt. And that vee is the vee in Oswald's t-shirt. And it also stands for another vee, a V for Vendetta. That's mine and Jim Fetzer's vendetta to crush the vile and wicked state-lie about how John Kennedy got slaughtered. And it is something we are going to do- without or without help from you people.

NOTE: Ralph has a colorful way of making his points. Just for the record, it LOOKS LIKE a vee-neck because LEE TUGGED AT THE NECK OF HIS TEE-SHIRTS AND STRETCHED THEM INTO VEES. What could be more obvious from the photo with which this thread began (in handcuffs)?

Why do you keep claiming OSWALD tugged on his shirts while showing him in a shirt after he'd just had a scuffle with police in which THEY had almost certainly tugged on his shirt?

[David Josephs]

Not going to get into it with you Craig...

You're wrong.. simple as that...

Thanks for your contribution Craig... always a pleasure.

But you can continue to play with yourself...

As you've learned from so many others here

you are a complete waste of time, and nothing more.

Bu-bye now...

fyi - this means I will not be bothering with your disruptive posts... insult away Lamson...

which remains your only means of getting attention here, there or anywhere....

maybe you can bring up the 3 inch fold again while screaming "hey look at me, I'm right - you're all wrong - DEAL"

what a joke.

Thanks Craig...

What you continue to prove about yourself with each post is perfect...

It's obvious to all that you can't SEE anything without McAdams telling you it's okay, first.

The man looks like he's wearing shoulder pads and his left arm is directly in front of the black man... which is impossible.

Better yet eagle eye... how about YOU tell us what IS crossing in front of this man's neck... his chin is almost resting on it..

and then point this out in the weigman image... should be interesting

Yea right davie. I waited for McAdams... Your paranoia is running amuck again.

I see you are failing photo 101 again.

NOTHING is crossing black mans neck. You can't SEE his neck nor his shoulder, they are BEHIND the wall of the DSBD. LOOK at Weigman. LOOK at the angle of Black Mans body, LOOK AT HIS SHIRT, and then plot his body angle with the Altgens camera position and line of sight. You can't see ANYTHING but a tiny silver of his face as he LEANS forward.

When this simple fact SINKS in....GET BACK TO US!

Your inability yo understand what you see in a photograph is simply astounding.

BTW, nice job of confusing the shirt and tie of the guy standing BEHIND Lovelady for his "shoulder pads"

You are the poster child for photographic ignorance....