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

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

Oswald was listed by the N.O. Police at 136 pounds in August of 1963.

Edit update: In Dr. Rose Autopsy Report he "estimates" LHO weight as 150.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0510-001.gif

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

I hope Dr. Rose didn't guess people's weights at a county fair.

--Tommy

Edited February 16, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque replies to Lamson (who seems to me to be the one who "gets it wrong"):

NO as usual the incompetent raplh is hte 'wrong doer" again...Surprise surprise.

Lamson, it doesn't surprise me that you want to continue debating about the pocket flap, although it so happens I was in a Men's store yesterday looking at flannel shirts, similar to Lovelady's, and they all had pocket-flaps. But let's put that aside.

You brought it up again ralph, and after it has been shown you have it wrong about the pocket lap more that once. Reading a skill set you have yet to master?

And you know what ralph, I can drag out a few nice flannels from MY CLOSET sans pocket flaps. And of course that means exactly the same as your mens store example...nothing.

THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE SAME SHIRT FIT HIM PERECTLY WELL AFTER HE LOST 40 POUNDS IS PROOF-POSITIVE THAT IT WAS EITHER A DIFFERENT SHIRT OR HE HAD IT ALTERED. And either way, it demonstrates the mental consciousness of masquerading- of trying extremely hard to look like Doorman, to sell the idea. Why would he have done that?

Please cite your source information for Lovelady weighting only 130 lbs when Gorden took those images...

Plus, all the other points I make in the above analysis still hold, even if you want to dispute the pocket-flap. But I say you are crazy: that pocket flap is visible. I'll give you the exact second it's most visible. It's 3:06. If all you can do is whine about the pocket-flap, you have run out of bullets. This video torpedoes the Lovelady hypothesis once and for all. The Doorman was Oswald.

You don't HAVE other points ralph. You have concocted yet another FANTASY from thin air. Speculation is fine if you want to play the stock market, not so much when yo try and calling t fact. Sheesh. Grow up. Your latest dreck makes you look infantile.

As far as the pocket flap is concerned you have yet to answer and refute the mountains of evidence posted in this thread that show there is no pocket flap in the 1963 images. But of course you can't. Much of the evidence is technical in nature and all you can muster is fantasy....

And by the way, Lamson: the Altgens photo was definitely HIGH-CONTRAST. That tree was in the sun, and there's no way the leaves would have produced enough shade to blacken the trunk. Hey, we've all seen a lot of pictures of a lot of trees with a lot of leaves, and their trunks do not look black in photographs. Here's a photo of a tree with leaves. Does the trunk look black? The idea that leaves would have that effect is just another STUPID idea in your long list of stupid ideas.

No the Altgens photo is NOT High Contrast. High contrast implies shadow detail has been crushed for example. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Corbis shows a GREAT DEAL of shadow detail. How about seeing the tread of a BLACK tire in the shadow the LIMO? Poof, that's yet another childish and incompetent claim by ralph vanishing into thin air.

The tree...wow, this one from you simply takes the cake ralph. Now you want to defy the laws of physics? ROFLMAO!

Ever stand in the shade of a big old tree in the middle of a hot summer day ralph? Did you notice that when you did, YOU GOT OUT OF THE SUNS RAYS? Imagine that, the suns rays can't reach you under the canopy of a big shade tree. Well if the suns rays can't reach you, they can't reach the tree trunk either. And if you were to take a photo of the trunk of this tree, in shadow, with a camera exposure of 1/500 sec @f11.5 ISO 400 (which is what Altgens used) the trunk has a very good chance of being recorded as black. This is just photo 101 stuff ralph. And you fail it once again.

I have mountains of images in my personal inventory and I grabed this one to illustrate black tree trunks and branches.

It is interesting because it shows the trunk and branches in both sun AND shadow, And the shadow side is black.

You childish objection is destroyed ralph. The vee shaped area under Doorway man is NOT some PHYSICS BREAKING FANTASY artifact dreamed up inside ralph's head. It is simply a shadow from Doorway mans chin.

You are DONE ralph...deal with it.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph responds to Pat:

According to the Warren Report, Oswald was weighed by the New Orleans Police when he was arrested there in August '63, and his weight was 136 pounds. The figure of 150 pounds was, according to the WC, just an estimate. Personally, I think that, if anything, Oswald lost weight between August and November '63. Look at him here. He's pretty darn thin.

But, we don't even have to argue about the numbers. You just have to look at Oswald and Lovelady and compare them. They were like Laurel and Hardy.

Is there no end to this nonsense?

In order to push that Oswald was far skinnier than Lovelady Ralph has started claiming Oswald weighed 130 lbs, when Oswald's recorded weight at autopsy was 150.

He also suspects Lovelady lost weight in the seventies on purpose, to fool people into thinking he was doorway man. He doesn't seem to realize how cruel this is. Lovelady was almost certainly ill when Groden took his photos. He died shortly thereafter, of a heart attack at the age of 42.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque responds to Lamson:

Lamson, your pal Pat Speer posted those Groden pictures of Lovelady precisely to ridicule the idea that he was stout. So, he obviously thought Lovelady looked skinny- then. But, you are just showing how irrational you are if you think this comes down to arguing about numbers. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PICTURES AND PLAINLY SEE THAT LOVELADY LOOKS MUCH HEAVIER IN THE ONE AND MUCH LIGHTER IN THE OTHER. And that’s plenty sufficient evidence- without putting him on a scale.

So, quit trying to deny the obvious. He was fat; and then he became thin. Deal with it. Stop fighting it

Now, about the Altgens photo, it WAS High Contrast. That tree is in the sun. There is nothing shading it. And its canopy was not extensive enough to completely blacken every bit of that trunk, as is seen.

And we’re seeing the high contrast in the darkness below the faces. That is NOT due to shade, per se. It is NOT a specific shadow. I already submitted pictures showing you that chin-shade doesn’t make a perfect vee. In all the examples in the Altgens photo, the shape of the darkness corresponds to the area of exposed skin. So, in the two women together, one of them has an exposed area of skin that is vee-shaped, and her darkness is vee-shaped. But, the other woman has a much smaller area of exposed skin that is not vee-shaped, and so her darkness is correspondingly smaller and shaped differently. And don’t start in with your angle of incidence b.s. because they are standing right next to each other and at similar angles. So, you can take your angle of incidence and shove it-at an angle- right where the sun don't shine.

And then also in the black man, we see the exact same thing: an area of darkness that corresponds to his exposed skin and nothing else.

So, what we are seeing is not shade per se, but simply a state of “relatively less light” which is getting pushed to blackness because of the high contrast nature of the film and the paper.

I’ll tell you what, Lamson: you start searching online, and see if you can post some pictures of people with vee-shaped shadows under their neck. Not a manniken with a freakishly long neck because that doesn’t correspond to what happens in a real human being. I have posted a number of pictures showing non-vee-shaped chin shadows. You haven’t posted any.

And if you look closely at Doorman, you can see a faint shadow over his t-shirt on both sides, but more so on his right, therefore to our left. That is the remant of chin shadow as it is affecting his t-shirt. But, you can still see the t-shirt perfectly well, and the margins of his t-shirt are completely visible. In fact, there is no indivdual in that entire vast picture whose shirt is being obscured and misconstrued and obliterated because of chin shadow. Not one. And just to keep you busy, I’m going to go through them for you, one by one, from left to right.

So, starting on the left, we have the two women, one with a vee-shaped shadow who is wearing a vee-shaped blouse. The other woman is not wearing a vee-shaped blouse, and her chin shadow is much smaller and shaped differently and correspondingly smaller due to her smaller area of her exposed skin. So, check.

Moving right, there is a black man wearing a short-sleeve white shirt, and the blackness under his chin is affecting his skin only and not any part of his shirt. So, check again.

Then, the black woman next to him, her neck looks black, that is, blacker than her skin should be otherwise, but again we are seeing the margin of her blouse OK, and it appears to be just her skin that is affected by the unusual darkness. So again, check.

The next group of black women don’t have the kind of darkness under the skin that we have been talking about. But when we get to the woman whom I call Big Afro Hair Woman because of the size of her hairdo, we see unusual blackness under her chin, but again, it is not extending over her blouse, and we can see the margins of the blouse clearly. So again, check.

Going up from there, we get to Doorman, and again, it’s his skin that is darkened, but we can see his white t-shirt plain as day, and the margins are perfectly clear. IT IS INSANE TO SAY THAT HIS SHIRT MATERIAL IS BEING OBLITERATED BY SHADOW. You have no proof of that. You have no evidence of that. And it is just plain dumb.

Moving down and over, we get to the woman with one arm raised to shield her eyes from the sun, and she also has vee-shaped darkness, but again: no reason to think that her shirt material is being obscured.

The two men in the front seat of the limo with the Secret Service agents standing on the sideboards- both of them have chin-shade but neither is a vee or anything close to a vee. In both cases, the darkness is going off to the side. Both the cops on motorcycles have chin shade that is going way off to the side as well, to their right sides.

And finally, the black man in the collared shirt has darkness under his chin that conforms entirely with his area of exposed skin, and nothing more. It is not obliterating any part of his shirt, and we can see the margins of the shirt very clearly. I'll note that in his case there is some darkening over the collar of the shirt, but IT IS NOT OBLITERATING ANY PART OF THE SHIRT. We can still see it in its entirety.

So, the bottom line is that we are seeing all of Doorman’s t-shirt. The darkness is his exposed area of skin. IF HE WAS WEARING A WHITE TURTLENECK SHIRT, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THAT VEE OF DARKNESS.

I’m going to say it again just because you’re dense as a brick:

IF HE WAS WEARING A WHITE TURTLENECK, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THAT VEE OF DARKNESS.

Do you want to argue with that Lamson? You want to say that if he was wearing a white turtleneck shirt that you'd see a vee of darkness over the turtleneck? Go ahead. Say it. I dare you.

And if you would just look at the other individuals who are wearing higher shirts, you’ll see that they have correspondingly smaller areas of darkness. It is a function of the size of the area of exposed skin and not anything else.

Doorman looks like he’s wearing a vee-necked t-shirt because he IS. It is a match to Oswald and not to Lovelady; therefore, ipso facto, Oswald is the Doorway Man.

Get this into your pea-brain, Lamson: I am NOT done. I am just getting started. And if you think that you, or the likes of you, can stop Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque, you’re even dumber than I thought.

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque responds to Lamson:

Lamson, your pal Pat Speer posted those Groden pictures of Lovelady precisely to ridicule the idea that he was stout. So, he obviously thought Lovelady looked skinny- then. But, you are just showing how irrational you are if you think this comes down to arguing about numbers. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PICTURES AND PLAINLY SEE THAT LOVELADY LOOKS MUCH HEAVIER IN THE ONE AND MUCH LIGHTER IN THE OTHER. And that’s plenty sufficient evidence- without putting him on a scale.

So, translated from ralphie speak..."I don't have a clue how much Lovelady weighted in the Groden photos and I'm JUST MAKING IT UP AS I GO AND PRETENDING MY FANTASY ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING."

Earth to ralphie, earth to ralphie...it does not mean squat. You HAVE NO IDEA IF LOVELADY's WEIGHT changed or not. Irrrational ...that would be ralphie.

You are done ralph.

So, quit trying to deny the obvious. He was fat; and then he became thin. Deal with it. Stop fighting it

When ever a silly CT tells us something is "obvious" it means only one thing. They simply don't have a clue. And ralphie, you don;t have a clue.

You are done ralph.

Now, about the Altgens photo, it WAS High Contrast. That tree is in the sun. There is nothing shading it. And its canopy was not extensive enough to completely blacken every bit of that trunk, as is seen.

What utter horse crap ralphie. Let me tell you three important words....ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. Beats you every time. That and other photos taken at the same time, like the Moorman which shows EXACTLY how the suns ANGLE OF INCIDENCE related to the canopy and tree trunk casts its shadow. Please notice how the shadow of the canopy completely surround the tree trunk in shadow.

Its not your silly "high contrast". Its just exposure values and light levels. Basic photo 101 stuff which you fail at EVERY turn.

You are done ralph.

And we’re seeing the high contrast in the darkness below the faces. That is NOT due to shade, per se. It is NOT a specific shadow. I already submitted pictures showing you that chin-shade doesn’t make a perfect vee.

Its just natural shadow falling on his neck and chest cast by his chin. As I have detailed with both images from the Altgens AND test photos for the guys at RIT, with a SPECFIC ANGLE OF INCIDENCE, hte sun can and will cast a perfectly natural vee shaped chin shadow.

It has NOTHING to do with contrast and EVERTHING TO DO with the sunlight and shadow. Simple. Basic. Photo 101. Unimpeachable proven in this thread.

You are done ralph.

In all the examples in the Altgens photo, the shape of the darkness corresponds to the area of exposed skin. So, in the two women together, one of them has an exposed area of skin that is vee-shaped, and her darkness is vee-shaped. But, the other woman has a much smaller area of exposed skin that is not vee-shaped, and so her darkness is correspondingly smaller and shaped differently. And don’t start in with your angle of incidence b.s. because they are standing right next to each other and at similar angles. So, you can take your angle of incidence and shove it-at an angle- right where the sun don't shine.

No you don't see area that "correspond" to exposed skin. How do you know. WE CAN MEASURE IT! And I have. They are SHADOWS ralph, and they have been confirmed technically. Now I KNOW that is way beyond your limited ability to understand, bu the fact remain regardless.

and of course the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE for Doorway man means the SUN DON'T SHINE on his heck and chest in the vee shaped shadow ROFLMAO!

Its a simple case of ANGLE OF INCIDENCE and if you are so ignorant you can's even determine that the heads of bodies are in TWO DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN RELATION TO THE SUN....WELL....

RALPH YOU ARE DONE!

And then also in the black man, we see the exact same thing: an area of darkness that corresponds to his exposed skin and nothing else.

So, what we are seeing is not shade per se, but simply a state of “relatively less light” which is getting pushed to blackness because of the high contrast nature of the film and the paper.

Now that takes the cake ralphie...a "state of relatively less light" ROFLMAO! I have to hand ti to you. I doi not think you could post anything any more ignorant than what you have posted to date. But this one simply takes hte cake!

So tell us ralphie, in detailed technical terms how this "state of relatively less light" occurs? Dear God, please bestow a functioning brain to this poor soul! ROFLMAO!

They are simply shadows cast by the chis ralph...nice vee shaped shadows.

You are done ralph.

I’ll tell you what, Lamson: you start searching online, and see if you can post some pictures of people with vee-shaped shadows under their neck. Not a manniken with a freakishly long neck because that doesn’t correspond to what happens in a real human being. I have posted a number of pictures showing non-vee-shaped chin shadows. You haven’t posted any.

Actually ralphie the examples from Altgens and from the RIT samples simply destroy you. The neck of the mannikin is irrelevant to the shape of the shadow cast by her chin. This is photo 101 stuff ralph and you failed again...and you do so over and over and over...

Your objections are beyond ignorance or even childish. They are infantile.

You are DONE ralph.

And if you look closely at Doorman, you can see a faint shadow over his t-shirt on both sides, but more so on his right, therefore to our left.

Opps wrong answer ralphie. That's not shadow, that is EXPOSED SKIN IN FULL SUNLIGHT! How do we know? It can be measured and compared to his face in full sunlight. And GUESS WHAT...its matches! Its NOT SHADOW.

You are done ralphie.

That is the remant of chin shadow as it is affecting his t-shirt. But, you can still see the t-shirt perfectly well, and the margins of his t-shirt are completely visible. In fact, there is no indivdual in that entire vast picture whose shirt is being obscured and misconstrued and obliterated because of chin shadow. Not one.

The only "chin shadow" is the vee shaped one raphie and we KNOW it obscures the tee shirt in the very tip of the vee. How, WE CAN MEASURE IT, I have and it shows it is LIGHTER than the shadow under his chin and in fact the tone MATCHES with with shirt fabric in FULL SHADE.

In other wors, you got it wrong....again.

Doorway man has on a round neck tee shirt.

And of course the coup de grâce is the fact that there is no "ralphie dark effect' and the fact that there MUST be a chin shadow falling on Doorway mans neck and chest. THE ONLY SHADOW PRESENT is the vee shadow shadow!

YOU ARE DONE ralph!

Lets ignore more of ralphs incompetence and snip this drool....

Doorman looks like he’s wearing a vee-necked t-shirt because he IS. It is a match to Oswald and not to Lovelady; therefore, ipso facto, Oswald is the Doorway Man.

No, Doorway man is LOVELADY and he is wearing a niche round neck tee shirt, with a vee shaped shadow cast over a small part of it. it can me measured and compared to other examples within the Altgens. However this is way beyond the ken of both ralph and fetzer.

Get this into your pea-brain, Lamson: I am NOT done. I am just getting started. And if you think that you, or the likes of you, can stop Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque, you’re even dumber than I thought.

LOL! YOU HAVE been stopped ralphie. Your complete photographic ignorance and willingness to resort to complete fantasy have been utterly exposed.

To put a point in it...

YOU ARE DONE ralph!

ROFLMAO! Thanks so much for the grins.

[Robin Unger]

Ralph replies to Richard:

Mr. Hocking, the video is a composite. Some of it was footage from WFAA News. Some of it was from the History Channel. And some of it was unidentified footage. But all of it, presumably, was shot on November 22, 1963.

The scene showing Lovelady is from the John Martin film, shot shortly after the assassination. Martin's film later became part of the Dallas Cinema Associates compilation.

The YouTube video came from here: http://www.youtube.c...c/0/1tsR8PGx2ZE

More: http://educationforu...ndpost&p=203369

Quote:

The scene showing Lovelady is from the John Martin film

Correct.

It is from the Martin Film.

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque responds to Lamson:

So, the bottom line is that we are seeing all of Doorman’s t-shirt. The darkness is his exposed area of skin. IF HE WAS WEARING A WHITE TURTLENECK SHIRT, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THAT VEE OF DARKNESS.

I’m going to say it again just because you’re dense as a brick:

IF HE WAS WEARING A WHITE TURTLENECK, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THAT VEE OF DARKNESS.

Do you want to argue with that Lamson? You want to say that if he was wearing a white turtleneck shirt that you'd see a vee of darkness over the turtleneck? Go ahead. Say it. I dare you.

Dare accepted ralph.... If he were wearing a white turtleneck the vee shadow would look exactly as it does now. IT MUST. HIS HEAD AND CHIN MUST CAST A SHADOW!

Let me give you 4 examples. A vee shadow...

And you just have to love this picture of Greg Burnham. Notice his nice chin shadow falling over EXPOSED SKIN. It would be vee shaped had his daughters head not been next to his.

Ralph, please explain how HIS EXPOSED SKIN is dark, and it is NOT because of his shirt collar. Its his CHIN SHADOW. I dare you to say otherwise

Take your favorite image of doorway man. PLEASE DRAW IN HIS CHIN SHADOW IN RED. Now remember there MUST be a chin shadow since his face was in FULL SUNLIGHT. Good luck with that! ROFLMAO!

Edited February 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Dean Hagerman]

Listen to Cinque!

Now Lovelady is not stocky but fat!

He compares Lovelady and Oswald to Laruel and Hardy!

This is insanity

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque to Lamson:

Lamson, you are really slopping around in it now. I have no idea if Lovelady’s weight changed? Your pal Pat Speer saw so much change, he declared Lovelady to be sick and dying when the Groden photos were taken! That's how much change he saw. And he’s on your side.

I am a doctor, and I happen to be very good at estimating weights, and I am telling you that there is at least a 30 pound difference between the fat Lovelady and the thin one.

And that canopy would have to hanging a lot lower to completely blacken out all parts of that tree trunk.

“It is just natural shadow falling on his neck and chest falling cast by his chin.”

Well, you really stepped in it this time, Lamson, and you’re not wearing the boots for it. So, you think that the black vee on Doorman is caused by a shawdow from his chin? You sure about that?

In that case, take a look at this picture. You see two men there, one has a black vee and the other doesn’t. They are next to each other and facing the same way. Doorman has got the black vee, and Headless Man does not.

But let me tell you something, Galileo- even Headless Man has got a chin. And we know exactly where it is.

Put a finger in your supra-sternal notch and then grab your chin with your other hand. Which hand is in front? So, the chin goes over the top of the chest. Right? And that’s true on Headless Man too, even though we’re not seeing his chin. We can assume that he’s not some kind of chinless freak. But we can see the top of his t-shirt, and he does NOT have a black vee over it. In fact, if you look closely, you can see a little shade over his left shoulder, which seems to be coming from his arm overhead. But notice that that shade does NOT obliterate the material of his shirt. We can still tell that there’s an undershirt there.

Remember, Headless Man has got his hands raised above his eyes, and it’s for a purpose: to block the sun. He is doing the same thing that the woman below him is doing, except that he is using two hands, and she is using only one.

And if you think his hands are putting his whole face in shadow, you are mistaken. Go in the bathroom and put the light on and stand in front of the mirror with your hands on top of your head and your elbows out, just like he is doing and notice that your hands only shade the top part of your face. It certainly does not put your chin in the shade.

So, we have Doorman who has a vee of blackness, and we have Headless Man standing next to him at the same angle who does not have a black vee. What’s the difference? The difference is that Doorman is wearing a vee-neck t-shirt, and Headless Man is not. If the sun was casting “a perfectly natural vee-shaped chin-shadow” we’d be seeing it on both of them.

Plus, you haven’t submitted any pictures of “perfectly natural vee-shaped chin-shadows” on anybody. And I don’t mean from this picture. This picture is in dispute, so you can’t use this picture. It has to be other pictures of real people. I have submitted several pictures of individuals, and it’s proven that chins rarely- if ever- lay perfect vee-shaped chin-shadows. I haven’t seen one yet, myself, and I have combed Google looking for one.

What we are seeing on Doorman is the REAL shape of his t-shirt, and you have said NOTHING to dispute that. You have provided zero evidence to the contrary. You have referred to your “measurements” and to your “technical analysis” but you're just wagging your lips. You've proven nothing, and you've shown nothing.

“They are simply shadows cast by the chins, ralph- nice vee-shaped shadows.”

Then where is Headless Man’s nice vee-shaped shadow, Lame-son? He’s got his hands up over his head. Can you think of any reason why he would be doing that other than to block the sun? Why isn’t his chin making a vee-shadow at the top of his chest?

And on Doorman, for you to suggest that the top of his t-shirt is being clipped off, that is, rendered totally obscured, to the point where we can’t see it at all, to where it is INVISIBLE, UNDETECTABLE, totally OBLITERATED is utter nonsense. THAT'S what's insane.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Postscript for Lamson:

Lamson, you can't possibly be that dumb. I never said that chin shadows never occurred. Yes, of course, they do, sometimes. Not always, but sometimes, and often. Are you forgetting that I'm the guy who posted pictures of chin shadows? I never denied the existence of them. But, I said the prevalence of the vees in the Altgens photo is due to the high-contrast nature of the film and paper and not to specific chin shadows. What I said is that- in that instance- something else was going on that was affecting it.

But, you just proved my point. Yes, Burnham has got a chin shadow-and a very prominent one at that. But, the shape of it is most certainly NOT a vee. And for you to say that it would be a vee if only his daughter wasn't there is PRESUMPTUOUS TO THE EXTREME, and I do not accept it. I reject it outright. His chin shadow isn't anything close to a vee. It is much more irregular than that, and actually, it's very much like the chin-shadows that I posted, which were irregular. So, you just added more fuel to my fire.

Yes, that's how chin-shadows look: IRREGULAR, AND NOT PERFECT VEES. And by the way, what happened to her chin-shadow? She doesn't have a perfect vee going either.

Cinque responds to Lamson:

So, the bottom line is that we are seeing all of Doorman’s t-shirt. The darkness is his exposed area of skin. IF HE WAS WEARING A WHITE TURTLENECK SHIRT, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THAT VEE OF DARKNESS.

I’m going to say it again just because you’re dense as a brick:

IF HE WAS WEARING A WHITE TURTLENECK, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THAT VEE OF DARKNESS.

Do you want to argue with that Lamson? You want to say that if he was wearing a white turtleneck shirt that you'd see a vee of darkness over the turtleneck? Go ahead. Say it. I dare you.

Dare accepted ralph.... If he were wearing a white turtleneck the vee shadow would look exactly as it does now. IT MUST. HIS HEAD AND CHIN MUST CAST A SHADOW!

Let me give you 4 examples. A vee shadow...

And you just have to love this picture of Greg Burnham. Notice his nice chin shadow falling over EXPOSED SKIN. It would be vee shaped had his daughters head not been next to his.

Ralph, please explain how HIS EXPOSED SKIN is dark, and it is NOT because of his shirt collar. Its his CHIN SHADOW. I dare you to say otherwise

Take your favorite image of doorway man. PLEASE DRAW IN HIS CHIN SHADOW IN RED. Now remember there MUST be a chin shadow since his face was in FULL SUNLIGHT. Good luck with that! ROFLMAO!

Edited February 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

Let's do some math with Cinque.

My height is 70 inches. Lovelady's height is 68 inches. That means that I am approximately 3% taller than Lovelady was in the photo.

I weigh 180lb. and Lovelady weighed 170lb., which means I weighed approximately 6% more than Lovelady.

This means that the increase in my height over Lovelady's height (3%) was about half the increase in my weight (6%) proportionate to that of Lovelady.

This means that my being taller is irrelevant because even after compensating for the height differential, I remain an additional 3% "stockier" than Lovelady.

You met me in Dallas and Encinitas for conferences; visited with me in San Diego and we spent time at Noel Twyman's home with David Mantik. You've seen

me in suits, in casual clothes, in my police motor uniform, and even in t-shirts and tank tops and shorts. I am not fat or heavy set by any stretch of the imagination.

Doesn't it follow, logically, that IF Lovelady is "fat" at 170lb., then I am fatter at 180lb.? And, conversely, if we KNOW for certain that I am not fat, then it follows

that the 6% lighter (or 3% after height compensation is factored in) Lovelady cannot be fat?

One more thing: I am 54 years of age in the photo. A man in his twenties or thirties typically is much leaner than a man in his fifties even if they weigh the same

due to a higher presumed percentage of muscle mass and lower body fat percentage.

...

Edited February 16, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Ray Mitcham]

I think Cinque is sunk.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Greg,

You are missing the point. The only relevant comparison is Lovelady to himself. And he does indeed go from girthy to skinny when you compare the Dallas PD photograph to Groden's, as you see here:

While you are fine shape--and clearly in much better shape than Billy!--your shape is irrelevant Look at the two pictures. The two people who need to be compared are Billy (then) and Billy (later).

Since this is the kind of move I would expect from Lamson, I am surprised to have it coming from you. Lovelady did not have your muscle density and tautness. Some will be taken in, but we are not.

Jim,

Let's do some math with Cinque.

My height is 70 inches. Lovelady's height is 68 inches. That means that I am approximately 3% taller than Lovelady was in the photo.

I weigh 180lb. and Lovelady weighed 170lb., which means I weighed approximately 6% more than Lovelady.

This means that the increase in my height over Lovelady's height (3%) was about half the increase in my weight (6%) proportionate to that of Lovelady.

This means that my being taller is irrelevant because even after compensating for the height differential, I remain an additional 3% "stockier" than Lovelady.

You met me in Dallas and Encinitas for conferences; visited with me in San Diego and we spent time at Noel Twyman's home with David Mantik. You've seen

me in suits, in casual clothes, in my police motor uniform, and even in t-shirts and tank tops and shorts. I am not fat or heavy set by any stretch of the imagination.

Doesn't it follow, logically, that IF Lovelady is "fat" at 170lb., then I am fatter at 180lb.? And, conversely, if we KNOW for certain that I am not fat, then it follows

that the 6% lighter (or 3% after height compensation is factored in) Lovelady cannot be fat?

One more thing: I am 54 years of age in the photo. A man in his twenties or thirties typically is much leaner than a man in his fifties even if they weigh the same

due to a higher presumed percentage of muscle mass and lower body fat percentage.

...

[Greg Burnham]

But, Jim--

I am at least using something concrete from which to draw my conclusion. We must have some standard of measurement from which to establish a starting point.

Granted, there may exist several unknowns that would render my comparison less than useful. Still, the height and weight are measurable as is the differential. They are not based on subjective empiricism.

And the math does not lie.

Cinque is attempting to "eyeball it" from a very small area of a photograph and that is even less reliable.

I am less concerned with the photos you just posted at this juncture. I could become more interested in them later on.

What I am currently dealing with is his assertion that Doorway Man is lean, and therefore cannot be Lovelady.

I can't tell if Doorway man is lean or not, but assuming he is, he very well could weigh 170lb., and be 5' 8" tall until PROVEN otherwise.

...

Edited February 16, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

...when you compare the Dallas PD photograph to Groden's, as you see here:

[...]

Dr. Fetzer'

I gotta admit that now I'm almost as confused as you are. Because the plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Altgens photograph is not the same one he's wearing in Groden's photographs (above).

--Tommy

Edited February 16, 2012 by Thomas Graves