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

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque to Lamson:

The shadow is cast by the elbow....are you really this dense?

Look at it again. The shadow is over his elbow. It is on his elbow. It is overlying his elbow. How can his elbow be causing a shadow on itself?

No, YOU look again, not that it will help you. You have finally gone beyond the level of photographic ignorance of anyone I have ever seen on these forums.

Lets explain how the SUN works to dr ralph...

Lets take an orange and sit it in the sun with sun at a 30 degree angle.

First you will notice that the orange has a sunlit side and a shadowed side. Just like the elbow of the man in Altgens. To put this in ralphspeak, the shadow is OVER THE ORANGE, it is ON THE ORANGE and it is OVERLAYING the orange. HOWEVER the orange is also casting a shadow ON the fabric lying over the mans shoulder.

And we now see why ralph fails even the most basic of phonographic principles. He has proven himself once again to be incompetent to describe the contents of a photograph.

You are DONE ralph, deal with it.

No the the honest persons in this discussion have found it the be a fabric of some sort.

Fabrics are usually of a rectangular or oval shape. The shape of this thing is neither rectangular nor oval. I would describe it as bizarre or perhaps geographic because it looks randomly shaped, like an island. Remember that fabric is a man-made item. It is manufactured. It is not randomly shaped like what you see here. And if you think it does look manufactured, then what shape is it? What were they going for? What would the purpose of fabric of that shape have been? Towels, in case you don't know, are rectangular. That white splotch is NOT rectangular.

Fabric can lay in many different shapes and combinations of shapes ralph. For example my stylist is a mater at taking a square napkin and producing a MULTITUDE of shapes. She is also really talented in taking a rectangular throw and "throwing it" on a sofa, or bed to make it look casually draped. Same for towels, and the list goes on.

Your silly notion that it must be some certain shape is just silly, like you entire argument. This is real life, things are quite often messy.

Or it is simply a man leaning to his left with his head erect , and body turned slightly away?

Right now, you lean your body to your left and then straighten out your head so that it's perfectly vertical, like Doorman's. Do you see how contorted you are? Do you notice how uncomfortable it is? Would you stand that way and watch a parade in that position? Neither would Doorman. Neither did Doorman.

Earth to ralph...earth to ralph...

Photographs are a CAPTURED slice of time. People move. Movements and often captured in an odd stance. That's how real life works. Did doorway man stand that way for the entire parade? I don't think so. Could he have moved to this position MOMENTARILY? Of course. Could the camera have captured it. ABSOLUTELY!

Once again ralph fails photography 101. You are not qualified to comment on the contents of a photograph.

Really? Is his hidden arm raised or lowered? What? You don't know? Well then your entire statement above is an incongruous blob.

His right arm is not raised or lowered. And yes, I can tell that from looking at the 1/3 of his right shoulder that is visible.

ROFLMAO! So its sticking straight out then? LMAO! You cant tell a thing ralph. Your full fledged fantasy is not in full view fro all to see.

No, what I'm doing is LOWERING it from the neutral position. Anyone can prove you wrong on this on by simply standing in from of a mirror.

This I've got to see. Take a picture of yourself, Lamson, lowering your shoulder from a neutral position without raising the opposite shoulder. Do it now. And if you don't do it, I'm calling you a xxxx.

First calling me a xxxx is against forum rules and since Fetzer is posting for you he just might find himself in hot water over it.

Second ordering me to do something just makes you look silly.

Finally, there are a number of people reading this thread. ANY ONE of them can test this for. No photos are needed. And if I feel like destroying you with three simple photos it will be done on my terns. Besides watching you implode is far too much fun.

Angle of incidence is my stock on trade dude, and if you can't understand how the angle of the sun works in relation to objects your have no business talking about any of this.

I know how the angle of the sun varies and how it affects shadow. It's the whole principle behind the ancient sundial. But in the case of the sundial, there is an object sticking up that is causing that shadow, which varies according to the angle of the sun. But remember: there are three things involved: there is the sun, there is the vertical reflector, and there is the flat surface on which the shadow is cast. So, it's sun, the object causing the shadow, and the object receiving the shadow. In this case, you are saying that the shadow which is on his elbow is being caused by his elbow. It doesn't make sense, and neither do you.

See my example with the orange above ralph, and learn something. You have the photographic intelligence of a gnat.

That figure of the Obfuscated Man, first observed by Dr. Fetzer, IS an anomaly, and you have said NOTHING to dispute that.

Fetzer can't photo analyse his way out of a paper bag. There is NOTHING to dispute.

And, I have to laugh at you buffoons out loud:

On Doorman, you guys claim to see his left shoulder, which is NOT visible, but you say you can't see his right shoulder, which IS visible. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

You prove yourself to be the buffoon ralph. As I stated in my last reply "( that would be subject LEFT ralph)" The SUBJECTS LEFT shoulder is visible, his RIGHT should is hidden.

And by the way: you never did respond to what that skin-tone color is between the sliver of blackness and the white blotch. You said that the black sliver over his elbow is shadow from his elbow, which is ridiculous. But what about the skin-tone? I know! He splashed some Coppertone on the towel!

Sigh, some people are simply unteachable and one of those would be ralph.

There is he highlight side of he arm and elbow, the shadow side of the arm and elbow and the SHADOW CAST BY THE ELBOW falling on the fabric. Welcome to photography 101 ralph. You failed this class and you do not get advance to the next level.

BTW, in regards to ralph and his parade of shirts....

His logic is as follows:

I have no red legos in my toybox therfore no red legos exist in the world...

[Greg Burnham]

I have only agreed with Lamson twice in my life. This is one of those times.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Lamson (and, by implication, to Burnham, too):

First, if you look at this complete image of the Altgens, you can see that shade is falling to our left, as we view the picture. Look at the shade from the motorcycles. There is no shade whatsoever going to the right.

Then in the second image, we see that shade from Doorman's face and head is affecting him on his right side, which again, is our left. So again, the shade is to the left from our perspective.

Therefore, the little blackness in question could not be shade from his elbow because that blackness is to the right of his elbow, and the shade was going the other way.

Compare the two elbows of the Headless Man. His left elbow (on our right) is completely visible. You're seeing it all. It is not being affected by shade. But, on his right side (to our left), we can see the point of his elbow, but the back of his upper arm is partially obscured. That may be shade from his elbow. But, the little blackness to the right is definitely not shade from his elbow.

But, the fact is that the figure that is wrapped around the white splotch is complex. You see dark, but you also see skin-tone. It doesn't look like shade. It doesn't look the least bit like shade.

Yes, a relatively large object can cast shadow on itself, including an orange. But, an orange is spherical. It's the curvature that creates the shadow. That does not apply here to the inside of his arm, which is not going to cast a shadow on itself.

But listen, if you want to use an example of something, like an orange, then you show the example. Don't tell me to notice this and notice that and then not show it. I provide examples. You do the same. Otherwise, you're just wagging your lips and spinning your prattle, which is the only thing I know that you're good at.

Fabrics do not take the shape of amorphous splotches. They are not liquids, and that white splotch looks like spilled liquid. Face it, Lamson; it's not fabric.

And no, the point is that Doorway Man is NOT in the contorted position that you describe, with his body leaning left and his head cocked upright in opposition to it. He is not in that position even for that very moment. He is in the position of rotating his body- the whole axis of his body- slightly to his right, and that is all. It is not a contortion. He is not doing anything with his shoulders. He is not dropping his left shoulder. His left shoulder should be there; it should be visible. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS NOT HAPPENING. Not even for a moment.

"The subject's left shoulder is visible and his right shoulder is not."

No, that's wrong, and I knew that's what you meant. But you are wrong. His left shoulder is not visible. We should be seeing the point of it. We should be seeing where his upper arm is reaching the shoulder joint, but we can't. And his right shoulder is partially visible. And what you see of it is plain as day. So, you are 180 degrees wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

And regarding name-calling, let me get this straight: I can't call you an idiot, but you can say that Dr. Fetzer "can't photo-analyze his way out of a paper bag." So, ridicule and derision are OK but just don't do it with a noun. Be descriptive. Be expressive. Be creative. OK. Let's try this: comparing you to Cheeta, you're the one with the least smarts and the most body hair.

Edited February 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

Are you simply repeating everything this guy is feeding you?

Are you actually thinking critically about his claims before you are posting them? If so: WOW.

I see what Craig is describing--at least as clearly, if not more clearly, than what this guy is attempting to describe.

Hey, and I still don't even like Lamson at all!

...

Edited February 12, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

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.

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque replies to Lamson (and, by implication, to Burnham, too):

First, if you look at this complete image of the Altgens, you can see that shade is falling to our left, as we view the picture. Look at the shade from the motorcycles. There is no shade whatsoever going to the right.

Lets snip the rest of ralphs gibberish.

You really need to quit ralph.

As for you claim no other shadows fall to the right, all we need to do is look directly below the towelman to the woman with a single hand shading her eyes.

Low and behold there is a shadow on the RIGHT side of her hand/arm!

As Hany Farid once said;

"The human visual system does a poor job at judging whether cast shadows are correct. It turns out we're really bad at it. Even though our visual system is very, very good ... we are really bad at judging shadows," he said. "I'm bad at it and this is what I do for a living."

And ralph just proved his point.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque on chin shadows (and I am simply posting for Ralph; the issue was settled long ago, in my opinion; and I can't believe you are still trading in certainty, when I have explained that no empirical knowledge is certain, which makes your position a blatant straw man by imposing a standard of proof no empirical knowledge can satisfy):

Let's take a further look at this whole issue of chin-shade. You have all assumed that the dark vee under Doorman's neck is chin-shade, and that it is this chin-shade that is imparting a vee-look to his t-shirt.

Well, first chins don't actually lay down vee-shaped shade patterns. And I know that because I have spent a lot of time looking at countless images of people with chins and chin-shade. I haven't seen anything yet that comes close to it.

I am going to post several pics, and I've decided to go with outdoor shots in the bright sunlight to mimic what we see with Doorman. So, here are three, and I could provide a lot more. You'll notice that the shade pattern isn't anything like a vee under the neck.

So, what is that dark vee under Doorman's neck? It isn't a shade pattern. It's really just his skin. As I've pointed out, there is exaggerated darkness to many aspects of this picture. The trunk of the tree looks coal-black. I'm sure it wasn't. It's not in the shade either.

But, there is no reason to think that that vee-shaped darkness under his chin is chin-shade because chin-shade does not make that kind of pattern. You're assuming that it does, but it doesn't. And these three pictures that I'm posting prove it.

So, that leaves us with Doorman wearing a v-necked t-shirt, which was just like the one Oswald wore. and not like the one Lovelady wore, on that day or any other day. And get this: BY ITSELF, THIS CLINCHES IT FOR OSWALD. If the Doorman is wearing Oswald's distinctive t-shirt, then he had to be Oswald, and he could not have been Lovelady.

BEHOLD THE CHIN-SHADE!

Edited February 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Burnham (but I do agree that an empirical hypothesis can also be defeated by new evidence, should it be undermined thereby, as the requirement of total evidence implies; and I do like the colorizing, which is a nice touch even though the original is not a color photo and its weight may therefore remain open to debate):

Greg, I know you're attracted to flashing colors, but take a look at that light show again, and try to find the point of his shoulder. Shoulders have outermost "points," and we should be able to see the point of his shoulder, but it is missing. It's like it's been shaved off.

And don't you know that eye-witness testimony is the least reliable? Why do you think so many death row inmates have been released due to DNA evidence? It's because eye-witnesses were wrong.

The Altgens photo shows very well that the Doorman was Oswald. He's wearing Oswald's outer shirt. He's wearing Oswald's t-shirt. And he's got Oswald's build.

Here are three right collars: Doorman's, Oswald's, and Lovelady's. You can see that Doorman's and Oswald's match perfectly, with the collar and the natural curling over of the material beneath the collar into a small pseudo-lapel. On Lovelady, what you see is a rigid pressing over of the material that in no way matches the other two.

The shirt on Doorman's back is Oswald's, and that means he was Oswald. And that trumps any eye-witness testimony.

Doorman's right cuff-lapel:

Edited February 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Oswald's right cuff-lapel:

Lovelady's right collar:

[Richard Hocking]

Cinque on chin shadows (and I am simply posting for Ralph; the issue was settled long ago, in my opinion; and I can't believe you are still trading in certainty, when I have explained that no empirical knowledge is certain, which makes your position a blatant straw man by imposing a standard of proof no empirical knowledge can satisfy):

Let's take a further look at this whole issue of chin-shade. You have all assumed that the dark vee under Doorman's neck is chin-shade, and that it is this chin-shade that is imparting a vee-look to his t-shirt.

Well, first chins don't actually lay down vee-shaped shade patterns. And I know that because I have spent a lot of time looking at countless images of people with chins and chin-shade. I haven't seen anything yet that comes close to it.

I am going to post several pics, and I've decided to go with outdoor shots in the bright sunlight to mimic what we see with Doorman. So, here are three, and I could provide a lot more. You'll notice that the shade pattern isn't anything like a vee under the neck.

So, what is that dark vee under Doorman's neck? It isn't a shade pattern. It's really just his skin. As I've pointed out, there is exaggerated darkness to many aspects of this picture. The trunk of the tree looks coal-black. I'm sure it wasn't. It's not in the shade either.

But, there is no reason to think that that vee-shaped darkness under his chin is chin-shade because chin-shade does not make that kind of pattern. You're assuming that it does, but it doesn't. And these three pictures that I'm posting prove it.

So, that leaves us with Doorman wearing a v-necked t-shirt, which was just like the one Oswald wore. and not like the one Lovelady wore, on that day or any other day. And get this: BY ITSELF, THIS CLINCHES IT FOR OSWALD. If the Doorman is wearing Oswald's distinctive t-shirt, then he had to be Oswald, and he could not have been Lovelady.

BEHOLD THE CHIN-SHADE!

The sunlight was striking everyone in Dealey Plaza at precisely the same angle. At 12:30, on 11/22/63 that angle was 37°. There is no need to bring in unrelated photos. The Altgens 6 photo has numerous examples of individuals who are facing roughly the same direction as Doorwayman/Lovelady. Look at the spectators on N side of Elm, the secret service agents in the followup car. Or look at the stills from Weigman. There is very little chin shade visible on these other people.

Chin Shade should not be a significant factor in this discussion.

On another issue, is anyone aware of a blueprint or scaled drawing of the first floor of the TSBD?

So far, all I have been able to find is a PDF Graphic.

(edited for clarity, rh)

Edited February 12, 2012 by Richard Hocking

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque on chin shadows (and I am simply posting for Ralph; the issue was settled long ago, in my opinion; and I can't believe you are still trading in certainty, when I have explained that no empirical knowledge is certain, which makes your position a blatant straw man by imposing a standard of proof no empirical knowledge can satisfy):

Let's take a further look at this whole issue of chin-shade. You have all assumed that the dark vee under Doorman's neck is chin-shade, and that it is this chin-shade that is imparting a vee-look to his t-shirt.

Well, first chins don't actually lay down vee-shaped shade patterns. And I know that because I have spent a lot of time looking at countless images of people with chins and chin-shade. I haven't seen anything yet that comes close to it.

I am going to post several pics, and I've decided to go with outdoor shots in the bright sunlight to mimic what we see with Doorman. So, here are three, and I could provide a lot more. You'll notice that the shade pattern isn't anything like a vee under the neck.

So, what is that dark vee under Doorman's neck? It isn't a shade pattern. It's really just his skin. As I've pointed out, there is exaggerated darkness to many aspects of this picture. The trunk of the tree looks coal-black. I'm sure it wasn't. It's not in the shade either.

But, there is no reason to think that that vee-shaped darkness under his chin is chin-shade because chin-shade does not make that kind of pattern. You're assuming that it does, but it doesn't. And these three pictures that I'm posting prove it.

So, that leaves us with Doorman wearing a v-necked t-shirt, which was just like the one Oswald wore. and not like the one Lovelady wore, on that day or any other day. And get this: BY ITSELF, THIS CLINCHES IT FOR OSWALD. If the Doorman is wearing Oswald's distinctive t-shirt, then he had to be Oswald, and he could not have been Lovelady.

BEHOLD THE CHIN-SHADE!

Once again ralph shows his photographic ignorance.

His claims about the v shaped shadow are easily defeated in fact I've posted some of these images before but ralph ignores that which destroys him.

The angle of incidence of the direct sun in relation to the head and body is the biggest factor in the position and shape of a head and chin shadow. Get ti correct and you have a VEE. Of course ralph gets this all important relationship completely wrong in his examples. Imagine that.

Lets look at some examples that get it correct, first to spectators from Altgens 5 and 6. Notice the nice vee shadow, This alone destroys ralphs very silly argument. But lets go further to some empirical testing. Thanks to the wonderful guys at RIT, it is already in the record, from the HSCA. I don't need to do it again. Notice the nice vee shaped shadow in all four test images.

ralphs vee neck shirt claim is destroyed. But of course if history is any indicator, ralph will never never concede.

[Bernice Moore]

On another issue, is anyone aware of a blueprint or scaled drawing of the first floor of the TSBD?

So far, all I have been able to find is a PDF Graphic.

(edited for clarity, rh)

link to fbi booklet showing floor plans etc...if of any use...

http://www.maryferre...896&relPageId=2

Edited February 12, 2012 by Bernice Moore

[Greg Burnham]

Cinque replies to Burnham (but I do agree that an empirical hypothesis can also be defeated by new evidence, should it be undermined thereby, as the requirement of total evidence implies; and I do like the colorizing, which is a nice touch even though the original is not a color photo and its weight may therefore remain open to debate):

Greg, I know you're attracted to flashing colors, but take a look at that light show again, and try to find the point of his shoulder. Shoulders have outermost "points," and we should be able to see the point of his shoulder, but it is missing. It's like it's been shaved off.

And don't you know that eye-witness testimony is the least reliable? Why do you think so many death row inmates have been released due to DNA evidence? It's because eye-witnesses were wrong.

The Altgens photo shows very well that the Doorman was Oswald. He's wearing Oswald's outer shirt. He's wearing Oswald's t-shirt. And he's got Oswald's build.

Here are three right collars: Doorman's, Oswald's, and Lovelady's. You can see that Doorman's and Oswald's match perfectly, with the collar and the natural curling over of the material beneath the collar into a small pseudo-lapel. On Lovelady, what you see is a rigid pressing over of the material that in no way matches the other two.

The shirt on Doorman's back is Oswald's, and that means he was Oswald. And that trumps any eye-witness testimony.

Doorman's right cuff-lapel:

That you are discounting eyewitness testimony is interesting given the amount of weight that Fetzer has always given it prior to his relationship with you. Fetzer has always insisted that eyewitness testimony, particularly that which is corroborated by other reliable eyewitnesses and is given soon after the event being reported, should not be discounted out of hand. Moreover, he has often posted names of those who claim that the limousine stopped and used the list as a proof or at least as a strong indicator that the Zapruder film was altered. He has repeatedly posted a rather large list of all of the medical personnel at Parkland who reported a blow out to the rear of the head, etc.

Now, IF the Altgens was of higher quality given the rather small area with which we are dealing, then perhaps it would constitute enough new evidence to raise a question as to the reliability of multiple eyewitness' testimony. As it is, it does not persuade. Your burden of proof is not that low under these circumstances. I am not moving goal posts or changing the height of the bar.

And before you make the claim, let me say again: Your analysis of this photograph does NOT constitute physical evidence. It is not DNA evidence.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

Cinque on chin shadows (and I am simply posting for Ralph; the issue was settled long ago, in my opinion; and I can't believe you are still trading in certainty, when I have explained that no empirical knowledge is certain, which makes your position a blatant straw man by imposing a standard of proof no empirical knowledge can satisfy):

Are you kidding me, Jim! I am trading in certainty? Me? No, I am responding to the ABSOLUTE claims of certainty being advanced by Cinque. Recrimination will not work here.

Cinque says in his very last post to me:

CINQUE: "The shirt on Doorman's back is Oswald's, and that means he was Oswald. And that trumps any eye-witness testimony."

Now, THAT is the language of one who is trading in certainty!

And you can knock off the condescending attitude as though you are "teaching me" something I didn't already know about the limitations of empirical knowledge. Indeed, if Cinque, and you by extension, would refrain from making ABSOLUTE claims, as above, we would not even be disagreeing here at all!

...

Edited February 12, 2012 by Greg Burnham