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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Michael,

Thank you for reiterating what Wrone wrote about this. I appreciate that greatly. Although he got the Zapruder wrong, in this case, he appears to have got it right. I will be sure Ralph has the chance to read this. Thanks to you and Don Jeffries, too.

Jim

.....Ralph noticed something no one else has noticed before--that it is the shirts that matter, not the faces.

As Don Jeffries pointed out, David Wrone concluded it was Oswald in the doorway.

Although the title of his book was The Zapruder Film, it contained a chapter titled The Man In The Doorway.

From Page 175:

Thus, critics began to wonder whether the glaring shirt differences might mean the figure in the doorway was not Lovelady but possibly Oswald.

They began to search for more photographic evidence to bolster their suspicions.

From Page 179:

The identification of Oswald in Altgen's photo, however, is also based upon the shirt he was wearing. Using a high-power magnifying glass, the picture and Martin's frame can

be examined. First and most startling, the shirt's color and pattern identify it as Oswald's. Oswald's shirt was expensive but old. As noted earlier, it had a pattern like a grass leaf,

essentially brown with gold flecks through it. But, as we have seen, Lovelady's shirt had two-inch dark blue (almost black) and red squares or checks, separated by thin white lines.

Second, using a magnifying glass, certain defects in Oswald's shirt can also be detected in the Altgens photo. For example, on the right edge of the open Oswald shirt is a small tear

that is also present on the shirt of the figure in Altgens's photo. Also, on Oswald's shirt the top three button-holes are stretched, meaning the shirt could not be buttoned at the collar

or the next two buttons. In several photographs of Oswald in custody, his shirt displays the same open throat and neck as does the shirt on the man in the doorway and the shirt

in the archives. By contrast, Martin's Lovelady shirt is buttoned at the top as well as the next two buttons, none of which Oswald's could do.

Third, the collars of the two shirts furl differently. In addition, the cuffs are of a different type in size and construction. Finally, Oswald's shirt is loose and baggy, whereas Lovelady's has a more tailored fit.

Such persuasive evidence supports Oswald's location in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository viewing the motorcade at the moment the president was shot.

Edited February 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

Thanks for the well reasoned and civil response, Jim.

You said:

"Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right!"

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling.

Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO.

Edited February 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

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!

...

That shirt is a bold plaid. Notice the horizontal white stripe near Lovelady's left elbow. It's the same shirt he was photographed wearing later that day. Thanks, Duncan.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

Why all the nitpicking about the T-shirt? Can't anyone besides me see that he's wearing a mostly red, bold plaid shirt over the T-shirt?

Sheez,

--Tommy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque responds to Lamson:

Lamson, this is an image from Altgens that you posted. I presume that you like what you see in the woman. But what about the man next to her? She's got a nice vee formation under her chin but what about him? He doesn't have it. Why not? Take a close look at his shade. It's following the contour of his shirt. Where his collar juts up, so does the shadow. It's like it's making a detour around the collar, getting out of its way. But why? I thought chin-shade would not only cover material but completely obliterate it to where the shade-covered portion is completely hidden, completely obscured, where you can no longer see it. But on him it looks like the shade is pandering to the material, doing a back flip for it, assuming the inverse shape of it in order to bypass it. It's like his shade pattern is the corresponding piece in a jig-saw puzzle to his shirt. But, why would shade act like that?

So explain why the shapes of their chin-shades are so different. They're standing right next to each other. They're practically cheek to cheek. Why is his chin-shade so different from hers, and more importantly, why isn't his chin-shade doing what you claim Doorman's is doing, that is, obscuring the material of his shirt?

And notice on her that nobody has suggested that the margin of her blouse is anything but what it appears to be. Nobody has suggested that it's actually a different shape, that some of it is being covered up, obliterated by the chin-shade, that an illusion is taking place.You haven't said that, and you haven't thought that. I'm sure it never occurred to you. Why? Because you had no need for it.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There is no commercial interest and they are obviously being posted for research purposes only.

This falls under the "fair use" provision of copyright. Why am I not surprised by this nonsense?

Note to the Mods...

At east one of these images is from the stock photo site 123RF

Unless Fetzer has paid for usage rights they really should not be posted here. And I'm guessing since the 123RF watermark appears, no usage rights have been purchased.

Edited February 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

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

CONCLUSION:

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main question is: Was Lovelady in the doorway?

I believe he was.

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

I do not believe it was.

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

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

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

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

DSL

2/12/12; 2:20 PM

Los Angeles, CA

[Thomas Graves]

Cinque responds to Lamson:

I presume that you like what you see in the woman. But what about the man next to her?

Man? This says everything that we all ( apart from Jim Fetzer ) already knew about Cinque's magnificent eyesight.

Cinque can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman.

Duncan,

--Tommy

[Craig Lamson]

There is no commercial interest and they are obviously being posted for research purposes only.

This falls under the "fair use" provision of copyright. Why am I not surprised by this nonsense?

Sorry but they don't fall under fair use. THEY ARE IMAGES PLACED UP FOR INSPECTION PRIOR TO SALE. You don't just get to decide to use them for free.

What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.

Commentary and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work -- for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review

summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report

copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or

copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.

Parody

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

As I said in post #411:

=======

The conclusions (become premises) with which I disagree include the following:

"The quality of the Altgens (altered or not) is sufficient to impart enough information to make a definitive determination of, including but not limited to...", the following:

a) its authenticity *

b ) facial details

c) clothing detail, beyond the general

d) the "slightness or stockiness" of build of the subject

e) the shape of the T-shirt's collar

f) the status of the pocket

g) the shape of the outer shirt

h) the pattern of the outer shirt

* This is a big one. Authenticity. Even if--indeed, especially if--you're right and the Altgens has been altered, then it is--by definition--UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE! It is very probably INADMISSABLE for use in this manner, as it would be self impeaching.

Now, granted, IF the Altgens is provably altered, then THAT'S your story! You don't need anything more. IF it is that OBVIOUS then run with that. Because building a case that you can positively identify an individual in a PROVABLY faked photograph will not fly--nor should it.

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

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

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

Thanks for the well reasoned and civil response, Jim.

You said:

"Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right!"

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling.

Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO.

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque responds to Lamson:

Lamson, this is an image from Altgens that you posted. I presume that you like what you see in the woman.

And I presume you like what you see in the body builder pics...

But what about the man next to her?

Dr ralph, the body expert...is that really a man? LMAO!

She's got a nice vee formation under her chin but what about him? He doesn't have it. Why not?

Its called ANGLE OF INCIDENCE ralph. Let me repeat that one more time..ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. The head and body of the second WOMAN is situated differently in relation to the sun, thus a different shadow pattern is cast. Once again you fail photography 101. And it appears human anatomy 101 as well.

Take a close look at his shade. It's following the contour of his shirt. Where his collar juts up, so does the shadow. It's like it's making a detour around the collar, getting out of its way. But why? I thought chin-shade would not only cover material but completely obliterate it to where the shade-covered portion is completely hidden, completely obscured, where you can no longer see it. But on him it looks like the shade is pandering to the material, doing a back flip for it, assuming the inverse shape of it in order to bypass it. It's like his shade pattern is the corresponding piece in a jig-saw puzzle to his shirt. But, why would shade act like that?

That is simply your ASSUMPTION ralph and as we have see your "assumptions" are subject to continual failure.

So explain why the shapes of their chin-shades are so different. They're standing right next to each other. They're practically cheek to cheek. Why is his chin-shade so different from hers, and more importantly, why isn't his chin-shade doing what you claim Doorman's is doing, that is, obscuring the material of his shirt?

All answered above, but I'll predict it will all be beyond your ken as usual.

And notice on her that nobody has suggested that the margin of her blouse is anything but what it appears to be. Nobody has suggested that it's actually a different shape, that some of it is being covered up, obliterated by the chin-shade, that an illusion is taking place.You haven't said that, and you haven't thought that. I'm sure it never occurred to you. Why? Because you had no need for it.

Of course I considered it and I went so far as to measure the density. My conclusion is that the shadow is in fact obscuring the blouse, and the measurements backed that conclusion. However I don't have any other images of here that show her blouse from a different angle so I can't confirm or deny my conclusion.

The simple fact remains that vee shaped chin shadows happen and in this case we have found THREE PEOPLE in two different Altgens images with their heads and bodies in the correct position (angle of incidence) in relation to the sun for vee shaped chin shadows to be formed.

This is of course damning evidence that your claim they CAN'T happen is completely false.

[Thomas Graves]

As I said in post #411:

=======

The conclusions (become premises) with which I disagree include the following:

"The quality of the Altgens (altered or not) is sufficient to impart enough information to make a definitive determination of, including but not limited to...", the following:

a) its authenticity *

b ) facial details

c) clothing detail, beyond the general

d) the "slightness or stockiness" of build of the subject

e) the shape of the T-shirt's collar

f) the status of the pocket

g) the shape of the outer shirt

h) the pattern of the outer shirt

* This is a big one. Authenticity. Even if--indeed, especially if--you're right and the Altgens has been altered, then it is--by definition--UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE! It is very probably INADMISSABLE for use in this manner, as it would be self impeaching.

Now, granted, IF the Altgens is provably altered, then THAT'S your story! You don't need anything more. IF it is that OBVIOUS then run with that. Because building a case that you can positively identify an individual in a PROVABLY faked photograph will not fly--nor should it.

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

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

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

Thanks for the well reasoned and civil response, Jim.

You said:

"Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right!"

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling.

Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO.

The way I look at it, there's no way we can prove the Altgen photo's authenticity. All we can do is "disprove" it. Why? Because all of the other photos and films (not to mention witnesses' statements) have already been "proven", in most cases by True-Believing Alterationists, to have been well, uhhh... "altered".

--Tommy

Edited February 13, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, has it crossed you mind that it was NOVEL TO ME? I had never encountered such a line of argument and, in case

you haven't noticed, I complimented Michael Hogan for posting the observations of David Wrone about this matter. How

could Wrone have made these astute observations, if the photo is too obscure to study? How could dkruckman have made

so many other discerning observation? How Lifton can chime in with his belief that the Altgens has not been altered in any

way is beyond me. Even Robin Unger, who is no ally of mine, has complained that it is "unclear" in the area of the doorway.

The obfuscation of the man's face and shirt ARE OBVIOUS. And we could settle all of this easily using the negative--except

that THE NEGATIVE IS MISSING. I am sorry, but if you can't see that the photo has been altered, then I am completely baffled.

Where is the man's face? How can you doubt the photo has been altered when a man's face has been obliterated?

Doorway Man is highlighted below. You can see his slender build and loose fitting shirt. The figures that

have been obscured are to his right/front (looking at the photograph) and to his left/front (from his point

of view). The man's shirt as well as his face has also been obfuscated. That you are insisting you can't see

it is astonishing to me. But so many unjustified arguments have been made that I am no longer surprised.

As I said in post #411:

=======

The conclusions (become premises) with which I disagree include the following:

"The quality of the Altgens (altered or not) is sufficient to impart enough information to make a definitive determination of, including but not limited to...", the following:

a) its authenticity *

b ) facial details

c) clothing detail, beyond the general

d) the "slightness or stockiness" of build of the subject

e) the shape of the T-shirt's collar

f) the status of the pocket

g) the shape of the outer shirt

h) the pattern of the outer shirt

* This is a big one. Authenticity. Even if--indeed, especially if--you're right and the Altgens has been altered, then it is--by definition--UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE! It is very probably INADMISSABLE for use in this manner, as it would be self impeaching.

Now, granted, IF the Altgens is provably altered, then THAT'S your story! You don't need anything more. IF it is that OBVIOUS then run with that. Because building a case that you can positively identify an individual in a PROVABLY faked photograph will not fly--nor should it.

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

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

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

Thanks for the well reasoned and civil response, Jim.

You said:

"Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right!"

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling.

Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO.

Edited February 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

Well, has it crossed you mind that it was NOVEL TO ME? I had never encountered such a line of argument and, in case

you haven't noticed, I complimented Michael Hogan for posting the observations of David Wrone about this matter. How

could Wrone have made these astute observations, if the photo is too obscure to study? How could dkruckman have made

so many other discerning observation? How Lifton can chime in with his belief that the Altgens has not been altered in any

way is beyond me. Even Robin Unger, who is not ally of mine, has complained that it is "unclear" in the area of the doorway.

The obfuscation of the man's face and shirt ARE OBVIOUS. And we could settle all of this easily using the negative--except

that THE NEGATIVE IS MISSING. I am sorry, but if you can't see that the photo has been altered, then I am completely baffled.

Where is the man's face? How can you doubt the photo has been altered when a man's face has been obliterated?

Doorway Man is highlighted below. You can see his slender build and loose fitting shirt. The figures that

have been obscured are to his right/front (looking at the photograph) and to his left/front (from his point

of view). The man's shirt as well as his face has also been obfuscated. That you are insisting you can't see

it is astonishing to me. But so many unjustified arguments have been made that I am no longer surprised.

As I said in post #411:

=======

The conclusions (become premises) with which I disagree include the following:

"The quality of the Altgens (altered or not) is sufficient to impart enough information to make a definitive determination of, including but not limited to...", the following:

a) its authenticity *

b ) facial details

c) clothing detail, beyond the general

d) the "slightness or stockiness" of build of the subject

e) the shape of the T-shirt's collar

f) the status of the pocket

g) the shape of the outer shirt

h) the pattern of the outer shirt

* This is a big one. Authenticity. Even if--indeed, especially if--you're right and the Altgens has been altered, then it is--by definition--UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE! It is very probably INADMISSABLE for use in this manner, as it would be self impeaching.

Now, granted, IF the Altgens is provably altered, then THAT'S your story! You don't need anything more. IF it is that OBVIOUS then run with that. Because building a case that you can positively identify an individual in a PROVABLY faked photograph will not fly--nor should it.

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

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

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

Thanks for the well reasoned and civil response, Jim.

You said:

"Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right!"

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling.

Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO.

Dr Fetzer,

It's obvious to me that you've always been completely baffled.

--Tommy

[Dean Hagerman]

The main question is: Was Lovelady in the doorway?

I believe he was.

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

I do not believe it was.

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

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

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

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

DSL

2/12/12; 2:20 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Great post David

I agree with you 100%

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque to Lamson:

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

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

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

Cinque responds to Lamson:

Lamson, this is an image from Altgens that you posted. I presume that you like what you see in the woman.

And I presume you like what you see in the body builder pics...

But what about the man next to her?

Dr ralph, the body expert...is that really a man? LMAO!

She's got a nice vee formation under her chin but what about him? He doesn't have it. Why not?

Its called ANGLE OF INCIDENCE ralph. Let me repeat that one more time..ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. The head and body of the second WOMAN is situated differently in relation to the sun, thus a different shadow pattern is cast. Once again you fail photography 101. And it appears human anatomy 101 as well.

Take a close look at his shade. It's following the contour of his shirt. Where his collar juts up, so does the shadow. It's like it's making a detour around the collar, getting out of its way. But why? I thought chin-shade would not only cover material but completely obliterate it to where the shade-covered portion is completely hidden, completely obscured, where you can no longer see it. But on him it looks like the shade is pandering to the material, doing a back flip for it, assuming the inverse shape of it in order to bypass it. It's like his shade pattern is the corresponding piece in a jig-saw puzzle to his shirt. But, why would shade act like that?

That is simply your ASSUMPTION ralph and as we have see your "assumptions" are subject to continual failure.

So explain why the shapes of their chin-shades are so different. They're standing right next to each other. They're practically cheek to cheek. Why is his chin-shade so different from hers, and more importantly, why isn't his chin-shade doing what you claim Doorman's is doing, that is, obscuring the material of his shirt?

All answered above, but I'll predict it will all be beyond your ken as usual.

And notice on her that nobody has suggested that the margin of her blouse is anything but what it appears to be. Nobody has suggested that it's actually a different shape, that some of it is being covered up, obliterated by the chin-shade, that an illusion is taking place.You haven't said that, and you haven't thought that. I'm sure it never occurred to you. Why? Because you had no need for it.

Of course I considered it and I went so far as to measure the density. My conclusion is that the shadow is in fact obscuring the blouse, and the measurements backed that conclusion. However I don't have any other images of here that show her blouse from a different angle so I can't confirm or deny my conclusion.

The simple fact remains that vee shaped chin shadows happen and in this case we have found THREE PEOPLE in two different Altgens images with their heads and bodies in the correct position (angle of incidence) in relation to the sun for vee shaped chin shadows to be formed.

This is of course damning evidence that your claim they CAN'T happen is completely false.