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

[Thomas Graves]

Jim Fetzer....

Professor Fetzer...

"If" something occurs is not a proof... it is a conditional phrase...

The hypothesis that "Altgens was altered" is in no way proven or even supported by an If-Then statement.

Whether there has been a "long-standing debate" over the the figure in the doorway again, is not PROOF of anything Jim...

It is a simple statement that has no bearing at all on the authenticity of Altgens

There not being, "any good reason to alter" when alteration has yet to be proven, again... does nothing to substantiate your hypothesis... and cannot, is not considered PROOF in any sense of the word.

While Craig and I disagree on many things... his insistence you provide actual PROOF, as opposed to the "aren't you smart enough to see what I see" argument is

WHY you continue to disappoint and enrage others.

Believing YOU see something while condemning others for not, when your actual attempts at proof fall woefully short

is another reason those following this thread are besides themselves with your approach and lack of understanding in the shortcomings of the so called "evidence" you believe you are offering...

Pointing and proclaiming how nice the Kings New Clothes are... when the rest of us see he's naked.. is not proof Jim.

Using CAPITALS and showing bewilderment over anothers inability to agree with you changes nothing...

Your hypothesis remains unproven... and your LIST of 9... is nothing but opinion that you like to twist to suit your needs...

You're so close to the leaves you're drinking the chlorophyll, while Saladria discussed the forest.

and the bottom line is you still have yet to actually PROVE anything other than who you are when challenged.

That is why I enumerate points (1) through (9). Do you think, if Oswald was in the doorway, that does NOT prove conspiracy? How could we have a simpler and more obvious proof?

(1) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(2) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(3) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(4) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(5) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photo is not clear in the doorway;

(6) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(7) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(8) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

(9) Lovelady was stocky and filled out his shirt; Doorway Man has a slight build and loose hanging shirt.

David,

You gotta realize that for Fetzer and all the other hard core alterationists, everything was altered except, of course, those things which directly support their particular version of the "truth."

--Tommy

Edited February 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

kdruckman on this photograph:

Who’s the rat behind this photo? It’s all distorted except for a crisp line where the notch used to be.----This photo was made to discredit you and Ralph. The notch is visible in every print regardless of process of enhancement or blowing it up; except for this piece of crap.

Since this thread went one step beyond many pages ago, it seems silly to try to step in now. But I have to try, don't I? I think Craig and David have made it clear they don't like or respect each other. They've each gotten in a few shots.

So I'm asking them to lay off each other. Let's keep this thread focused on the article by Ralph Cinque and Dr. Fetzer, and the tactics Dr. Fetzer uses in defense of his article.

My pleasure Pat... I apologize for letting myself get sucked down to his level.

Although I have learned a few things about back-n-forth from you and Fetz...

Back to the subject at hand... I posted an extreme blowup of the Door-man and asked who what we see can be considered a "Vee" neck collar...

it is an EXTREME blow-up using the available files and shows me that there is much more shadow than Tshirt, how can the shape be identified since the collar itself is completely in shade?

Rather than insults... if Mr. Lamson has the ability to SHOW US that this collar is not actually detectable.. as I have tried

then he should simply show us and keep his insults to himself.

Can you imagine the ACTUAL SIZE of the portion of the photo this represents? and yet, with my rudimentary skills I can offer an image that DISPROVES Fetzer and friends' claims..

My real quesiton are what are the two white streaks on Door-man's left side... I do not believe the right most one (looking at the photo) is the tie of the person behind him...

Is there a version of Altgens WITHOUT these white streaks?

DJ

ps... Pat - CL is here for no other reason but to "push buttons" as he posts...

at what point does his collective body of work get banned from disrupting thread after thread? All one need do is LOOK thru his posts... for every one that attempts to say something of substance there are 20 that are filled with insults and attacks...

Are members "pushing buttons" solely to annoy others and disrupt threads the purpose of this place?

Moderators? Accusations of "Making up false data" are simply allowed as the result of enlarging a section of an image?

I enlarged an image to make a point while CL both refuses to offer an improvement and posts this kind of junk:

Correct your gross ignorance of these issues and perhaps you would not be such a target rich environment. However given your history I don't see any additional educational growth in your future. The truth hurts, and I am quite happy to administer the pain...

You just don't get it do you dave, your ignorance of all thing photographic are simply astonishing! DO you UNDERSTAND there is a point of diminishing returns when to comes to INTERPOLATION..the MAKING UP of false data...when resizing an image? I guess not, just look at the blob of crap you posted.

He pulls the same BS on every forum and in every thread... just ask Duncan.

Once more, I apologize for my posts to him and for not turning the other cheek... I will try harder.

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government.

Dawn

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

Dawn,

--Tommy

Edited February 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque comments on some recent posts (and if I had doubts about you, David Josephs, I think they have been resolved by your misleading image):

DJ said:

My real quesiton are what are the two white streaks on Door-man's left side... I do not believe the right most one (looking at the photo) is the tie of the person behind him...

Is there a version of Altgens WITHOUT these white streaks?

DJ

So, he's disputing that the image is that of a person. How many times in life do we argue about whether a certain image is human or not? A high percentage of people don't see it as human.

And further about Speers posting the slimmed down images of Lovelady from years later: people sometimes lose substantial weight. Lovelady did, and he wasn't the first. But when asked whether Oswald and Lovelady looked alike, Buell Frazier immediately shook his head no. "Lovelady was more a stocky fellow..." he said.

Jim Fetzer....

Professor Fetzer...

"If" something occurs is not a proof... it is a conditional phrase...

The hypothesis that "Altgens was altered" is in no way proven or even supported by an If-Then statement.

Whether there has been a "long-standing debate" over the the figure in the doorway again, is not PROOF of anything Jim...

It is a simple statement that has no bearing at all on the authenticity of Altgens

There not being, "any good reason to alter" when alteration has yet to be proven, again... does nothing to substantiate your hypothesis... and cannot, is not considered PROOF in any sense of the word.

While Craig and I disagree on many things... his insistence you provide actual PROOF, as opposed to the "aren't you smart enough to see what I see" argument is

WHY you continue to disappoint and enrage others.

Believing YOU see something while condemning others for not, when your actual attempts at proof fall woefully short

is another reason those following this thread are besides themselves with your approach and lack of understanding in the shortcomings of the so called "evidence" you believe you are offering...

Pointing and proclaiming how nice the Kings New Clothes are... when the rest of us see he's naked.. is not proof Jim.

Using CAPITALS and showing bewilderment over anothers inability to agree with you changes nothing...

Your hypothesis remains unproven... and your LIST of 9... is nothing but opinion that you like to twist to suit your needs...

You're so close to the leaves you're drinking the chlorophyll, while Saladria discussed the forest.

and the bottom line is you still have yet to actually PROVE anything other than who you are when challenged.

That is why I enumerate points (1) through (9). Do you think, if Oswald was in the doorway, that does NOT prove conspiracy? How could we have a simpler and more obvious proof?

(1) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(2) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(3) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(4) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(5) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photo is not clear in the doorway;

(6) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(7) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(8) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

(9) Lovelady was stocky and filled out his shirt; Doorway Man has a slight build and loose hanging shirt.

[Thomas Graves]

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government.

Dawn

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

Dawn,

--Tommy

P.S. <"altered">

Edited February 10, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad! You mean that you and Dawn (and Martin, too?) have any doubts about the manufacture and fabrication

of evidence in this case? That is simply astounding. The stole the body and altered the wounds, they faked X-

rays and autopsy photographs, they planted the Mannlicher-Carcanno and fabricated backyard photographs,

they created a phony palm print on the weapon, they recreated the Zapruder film--on and on and on. I had

no idea anyone interested in this case could continue to be this naive. In 2012, that is simply beyond belief.

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government.

Dawn (emphasis added by T. Graves)

Dawn,

--Tommy

Edited February 11, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque comments on Speer--and I have to ask, is everyone here just out to put me down, regardless of the truth?:

Jim, Speer using the image of Lovelady from 8 years later, when he had slimmed down, was truly rotten. Obviously,

it's only his size on 11/22/63 that matters. And it goes to show that Speer doesn't care about the truth; he only cares

about beating you. This is Lovelady when it counted, and he was, indeed, a lot stockier than Doorman or Oswald. Ralph

More Lovelady photos... Man is he stocky, LOL.

Lovelady in the HSCA files

Groden photo in JSCA files

Signed back of Groden photo

Edited February 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Richard Hocking]

From Page 144 of the Warren Report: "... The New Orleans Police records of his [Oswald's] arrest in August of 1963 show a weight of 136 pounds ..."

The FBI report of March 3, 1964 has Lovelady at 5' 8" and 170 pounds.

So at the time of the assassination, LHO was taller than Lovelady and some 30 pounds lighter.

(unless Oswald had put on some pounds since leaving NO 3 months earlier)

[Thomas Graves]

Did I read that right?

The man in the doorway was Oswald but his features were altered to look like Lovelady?

Seriously?

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government.

Dawn

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

Dawn,

--Tommy

P.S. <"altered">

<"altered" again>

[David Josephs]

So ignore the discussion about your complete lack of Proof in your infamous 9 and focus on whether I said there was a person behind doorman or not... I KNOW there is a person there... CL tells us that the white streak to the right is that man's tie... I dont blieve it is.

Furthermore there IS a white streak directly over Doorman... I've posted an image with arrows pointing at it... and then ask if you've EVER seen a version of this photo without those white streaks - a simple yes or no Jim... if so... post it please.

I also posted that image to show that the strange anomolie is the FACT that something is crossing in front of the black man's neck area... it APPEARS as if Doorman is holding this man's right shoulder in his hands... In weigman they are 6-7 feet apart...

Jim, can your insulting friend explain how that happens?

btw,

All I did was increase the resolution so that what was too small to see, can be seen without the fuzzy distortion...

here is a blowup of a 17 Meg PNG file without a resolution change... your friend would rather convince us using that?

Jim... man up already.... your "9" is nothing more than opinion and what if statements... if this is your example of PROOF, and your back-up to Fritz' "I SAID HE SAID" notes that could mean just about anything... I see why you have such a hard time convincing anyone of anything.

Your "notch" is a figment of your imagination at best.... Duncan, in an earlier post shows you what a crap source Jim posted, was THAT created by your critic of my enlargement?

Here is the post - your critic have anything to say about that? It's even worse than the enlargement I post above

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697&view=findpost&p=245619

Deal with the question Jim... 2 white streaks seen on the left side of Doorman... what caused them?

(EDIT: Since the man behind Doorman is, uh, BEHIND him... how does his white shirt appear infront of Doorman's left shoulder and cover part of his face?

Better yet... where is Doorman's left shoulder?)

The fact that your critic (or your alter ego, no one is sure) can't tell the difference between an enlargement and alteration of an image is quite the joke.

and when we go to Duncan's post and see what a complete POS image he used... it's no wonder you both arrive at incorrect conclusions...

Cinque comments on some recent posts (and if I had doubts about you, David Josephs, I think they have been resolved by your misleading image):

DJ said:

My real quesiton are what are the two white streaks on Door-man's left side... I do not believe the right most one (looking at the photo) is the tie of the person behind him...

Is there a version of Altgens WITHOUT these white streaks?

DJ

So, he's disputing that the image is that of a person. How many times in life do we argue about whether a certain image is human or not? A high percentage of people don't see it as human.

And further about Speers posting the slimmed down images of Lovelady from years later: people sometimes lose substantial weight. Lovelady did, and he wasn't the first. But when asked whether Oswald and Lovelady looked alike, Buell Frazier immediately shook his head no. "Lovelady was more a stocky fellow..." he said.

Jim Fetzer....

Professor Fetzer...

"If" something occurs is not a proof... it is a conditional phrase...

The hypothesis that "Altgens was altered" is in no way proven or even supported by an If-Then statement.

Whether there has been a "long-standing debate" over the the figure in the doorway again, is not PROOF of anything Jim...

It is a simple statement that has no bearing at all on the authenticity of Altgens

There not being, "any good reason to alter" when alteration has yet to be proven, again... does nothing to substantiate your hypothesis... and cannot, is not considered PROOF in any sense of the word.

While Craig and I disagree on many things... his insistence you provide actual PROOF, as opposed to the "aren't you smart enough to see what I see" argument is

WHY you continue to disappoint and enrage others.

Believing YOU see something while condemning others for not, when your actual attempts at proof fall woefully short

is another reason those following this thread are besides themselves with your approach and lack of understanding in the shortcomings of the so called "evidence" you believe you are offering...

Pointing and proclaiming how nice the Kings New Clothes are... when the rest of us see he's naked.. is not proof Jim.

Using CAPITALS and showing bewilderment over anothers inability to agree with you changes nothing...

Your hypothesis remains unproven... and your LIST of 9... is nothing but opinion that you like to twist to suit your needs...

You're so close to the leaves you're drinking the chlorophyll, while Saladria discussed the forest.

and the bottom line is you still have yet to actually PROVE anything other than who you are when challenged.

That is why I enumerate points (1) through (9). Do you think, if Oswald was in the doorway, that does NOT prove conspiracy? How could we have a simpler and more obvious proof?

(1) there has been a long-standing debate over whether the figure was Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady;

(2) unlike past generations of students, Cinque has noticed that it is the shirts, not the faces, that matter;

(3) Richard Hocking has pointed out that the time line is consistent with Oswald having been there then;

(4) Don Jeffries has observed that, if Oswald was in the doorway, that demonstrates a conspiracy at work;

(5) Robin Unger has reported that, in the best available copy, the Altens photo is not clear in the doorway;

(6) anyone can verify for themselves that the face and shirt of a figure in that area has been obfuscated;

(7) there was no good reason to alter the photo unless someone was there who should not have been;

(8) the only one who should not have been there was the person who had been targeted as the "patsy".

(9) Lovelady was stocky and filled out his shirt; Doorway Man has a slight build and loose hanging shirt.

Edited February 11, 2012 by David Josephs

[Robin Unger]

kdruckman on this photograph:

Who’s the rat behind this photo? It’s all distorted except for a crisp line where the notch used to be.----This photo was made to discredit you and Ralph. The notch is visible in every print regardless of process of enhancement or blowing it up; except for this piece of crap.

Since this thread went one step beyond many pages ago, it seems silly to try to step in now. But I have to try, don't I? I think Craig and David have made it clear they don't like or respect each other. They've each gotten in a few shots.

So I'm asking them to lay off each other. Let's keep this thread focused on the article by Ralph Cinque and Dr. Fetzer, and the tactics Dr. Fetzer uses in defense of his article.

My pleasure Pat... I apologize for letting myself get sucked down to his level.

Although I have learned a few things about back-n-forth from you and Fetz...

Back to the subject at hand... I posted an extreme blowup of the Door-man and asked who what we see can be considered a "Vee" neck collar...

it is an EXTREME blow-up using the available files and shows me that there is much more shadow than Tshirt, how can the shape be identified since the collar itself is completely in shade?

Rather than insults... if Mr. Lamson has the ability to SHOW US that this collar is not actually detectable.. as I have tried

then he should simply show us and keep his insults to himself.

Can you imagine the ACTUAL SIZE of the portion of the photo this represents? and yet, with my rudimentary skills I can offer an image that DISPROVES Fetzer and friends' claims..

My real quesiton are what are the two white streaks on Door-man's left side... I do not believe the right most one (looking at the photo) is the tie of the person behind him...

Is there a version of Altgens WITHOUT these white streaks?

DJ

ps... Pat - CL is here for no other reason but to "push buttons" as he posts...

at what point does his collective body of work get banned from disrupting thread after thread? All one need do is LOOK thru his posts... for every one that attempts to say something of substance there are 20 that are filled with insults and attacks...

Are members "pushing buttons" solely to annoy others and disrupt threads the purpose of this place?

Moderators? Accusations of "Making up false data" are simply allowed as the result of enlarging a section of an image?

I enlarged an image to make a point while CL both refuses to offer an improvement and posts this kind of junk:

Correct your gross ignorance of these issues and perhaps you would not be such a target rich environment. However given your history I don't see any additional educational growth in your future. The truth hurts, and I am quite happy to administer the pain...

You just don't get it do you dave, your ignorance of all thing photographic are simply astonishing! DO you UNDERSTAND there is a point of diminishing returns when to comes to INTERPOLATION..the MAKING UP of false data...when resizing an image? I guess not, just look at the blob of crap you posted.

He pulls the same BS on every forum and in every thread... just ask Duncan.

Once more, I apologize for my posts to him and for not turning the other cheek... I will try harder.

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

What's going on with you? Neither Ralph nor I have ever suggested that Lovelady was not there! (SNIP)

I understand that you didn't suggest Lovelady was not there. I didn't say that you did. I am saying, HYPOTHETICALLY that IF it was determined that Lovelady needed to be right where Doorway Man is standing in order for him to have witnessed the limo stop--and hypothetically IF testimony was found from Lovelady in which he stated he witnessed the limo stop, THEN would you abandon this exercise in "photo analysis" and defer to his statement that he was Doorway man based on the fact that he said he saw the limo stop? This is an important question and one that I fully expect you to ignore. But, that is essentially how you came to the conclusion that Louis Witt was Umbrella Man. Up until your having found out that Witt's testimony to the HSCA included witnessing the limo stop you were rather convinced that TUM was Hargraves and DCM was Santiago. Indeed, you argued that their features were altered in order to obscure their identity, but it was "highly probable" that TUM was Hargraves and DCM was Hargraves' long time Cuban associate, Santiago. Well, that is a lot of "highly probables" to abandon. I understand and allow for the modification of beliefs based on the introduction of new evidence. But, your presentation of hypotheses is not consistent with fallibility. It comes across as pontification. It is offensive, rude, beligerent, and ill received. And when, in the final analysis, you prove to yourself that you were mistaken, you fail to see, let alone acknowledge, the serious etiquette blunder.

(snip) And the point I was making about Umbrella Man, which I explained to you several times over the phone, is that if Tink is right about Witt having been the Umbrella Man, then, since Witt turns out to be a limo stop witness, he has thereby defeated his own arguments for Zapruder film authenticy--just as he has done before in endorsing Gary Aguliar's chapter in MURDER (2000), which confirms the blow out in the back of the head, which is not visible in the early frames where it should be visible (though it can be seen in frame 374). Or is this another case where you deny the obvious?

I understand your point about Tink's blunder and I agree with you on that point. However, you are so busy pointing out his blunder that you fail to see your own!

The Altgens has been altered, which I demonstrated in an earlier post.

Sorry, that is not proof. Now, is it possible? Absolutely. But, even I am not persuaded by your argument. Jim, you inappropriately discount the importance of PERSUASION in making your arguments. The burden is on YOU to persuade. The burden "to be persuaded" is not on your "audience". If you were a prosecutor in a trial in which the guilty party was found not guilty by the jury, all things being equal, who is ultimately responsible for that verdict?

Jack and I made up, Monk. But your conduct here is simply bizarre. You seem to have lost your way. I am dumbfounded.

No, you made up with Jack. He did nothing wrong to deserve your ire in the first place. My conduct here is HONEST. It is all I know.

[David Josephs]

Robin... am I really that far off here?

Do we not see his left arm in front of a man 6-7 feet to the west of him?

Do we not see the white shirt of the man behind him covering his left shoulder and part of his face?

Is Doorman's left shoulder completely gone or has it been dropped down fromhis shoulder to his stomach?

I mean I do see the black tie on the white shirt... and it is obvious that the black woman in the foreground blocks the people in the doorway...

So why does it appear as if these three people overlap each other here?

Thanks...

[Pat Speer]

Brilliant, Pat! For once we agree. Yes, I did invert the relationship. And that WASN'T OBVIOUS TO YOU?

Another stunning example of your incapacity to interpret what someone is saying to make it come out

true, even when my meaning was obvious. I am very upset about this business with Monk, which even

you should have noticed. I must be right that there is something odd about your cognitive processing.

Well, it's sad to see a former friend dump ad hominems on me, but that's how it plays out. If you can't see that the Altgens has been altered, you need to get your eyes examined. A man's face and shirt have been obliterated. And if you can't see that for yourself, surely you can respond to Robin Unger's observation that there is a certain lack of clarity in the doorway area. Or perhaps you can see that the shirt on Doorway Man is hanging loosely or that his build is slight, while Lovelady is stocky and fills out his shirts. They cannot both be the same guy. I am stunned that you are so incapable of processing the available relevant information.

The arguments that Ralph and I have given are well-founded--and I spent 35 years offering courses in the evaluation of arguments. What is the saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" I have no idea what has come over you, Monk, but you are putting up some of the dumbest posts I have ever read from an intelligent man. I cannot put truth before friendship, because then there is only friendship and no truth. But I can tell you are going to have lots of "new best friends" here, including Tink, Lamson, Speer, and others galore. That you have taken this path disappoints me, but sometimes life throws a curve like this our way.

Geez, Jim. In the last 35 years I never once argued a course in the evaluation of arguments. But I'm offering one now. Your excuse for dumping on Monk "I cannot put truth before friendship, because then there is only friendship and no truth." makes no sense whatsoever. Did you mean to write "I cannot put friendship before truth, because then there is only friendship and no truth"?

If not, then, I give you an F.

This is too funny. I point out what appears to have been a mistake. You acknowledge this was a mistake. But then accuse me of "odd cognitive processing" because I didn't just assume you were mistaken, and didn't assume that you had meant to write the exact opposite of what you actually wrote.

Well, if I could automatically assume that what you write makes sense, and that what you mean to write is sometimes the exact opposite of what you've actually written, I wouldn't be writing this response, as I'd have long ago assumed you'd meant to acknowledge that the man in the doorway was Lovelady.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Robin Unger]

The original doorway image posted by CINQUE on Lancer.

This was his BEST IMAGE

the one he drew all his conclusions from, for this GROUNDBREAKING NEW RESEARCH.

How anyone can claim to see NEW unforseen evidence of alteration in this image is ludicrous.

I then posted my Large Corbis Altgen's, the Groden doorway blow up, and Anthony Marsh's large scan

so they would have something better to work with, and which to make there conclusions.

and all i received in return for my efforts, was a mouthfull of vitrial and abuse.

and i am accused of not helping them, and only posting images that suited one side.

This was the tipping point.

I won't make the same mistake twice,

Thanks to Jerry.

Credit : Jerry Dealey Lancer Forum

This is how i see Lovelady's hand in the doorway image.

Left shoulder drops as his left hand grabs the hand rail.

Because of the Altgen's perspective, the people in the doorway appear to be standing VERY CLOSE to each other.

But the Weigman frames tell a different story.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Robin Unger