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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph to MacRae:

Hey MacRae! You said that this guy with the towel or shirt over his shoulder in the Weigman photo is the same person as Headless Man with the white splotch in the Altgens photo. You said the white splotch was his towel or shirt. And Lamson too did a heck of a lot of arguing that way, that the white splotch is this same guy's towel or overshirt.

Well, notice that the man in Weigman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt that is rolled up, while the Headless Man in Altgens is wearing just a white t-shirt. So, they can't possibly be the same guy. So, it's back to the drawing board, boys. See what else your vivid imaginations can dream up.

Best frame I could find.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/805E0/WiegOrig.png

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Chris,

The link doesn't work.

Greg, Thanks for the heads up.

Check back to my #322 posting, I have deleted the link and reposted it.

Sorry about that !!!

chris

Thanks Chris.

I hope that when the area in question is enlarged it can be more readily determined if the t-shirt is a V-neck or not. At first, I was looking at the wrong guy and thought: " Oh wow--he is black!" Just kidding--

...

.

It's a round neck.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Very good eyes, Tommy. Because Ralph just sent me these additional comments:

And in those two pictures you posted, Jim, notice that the shirt fit him perfectly both times: when he was fat and when he was thin. So, either it was a different shirt or he had extensive tailoring done- the kind that most tailors are not used to doing. Shirts aren't valuable enough to warrant that kind of labor. If it doesn't fit any more you either get rid of it or just leave it in the drawer. You don't do a thing like that. Who does it? Nobody! But Lovelady did- unless he replaced the shirt completely.

[...]

...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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Greg,

If he's looking for something to be concerned about, he should ponder why Lovelady's shirt fit him perfectly well

both when he was fat and also after he got thin. That is an impossiblity--unless he replaced the shirt or else had it

extensively altered- and I mean the kind of alteration that most tailors don't even do. Either way, it means that he

went to extraordinary lengths to dress up as Doorway Man--and without disclosing what he was doing. That smacks

of deception--serious deception. And it's based on concrete evidence that requires next to no serious reasoning.

Jim

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.

...

[Craig Lamson]

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.

You are such a little whiner ralph. It's a simple question. Aside from your side job a a weight guesser at the sideshow, please give the details of how you know what Lovelady weighs in the Groden photos?

If as you seem to be saying, that you are GUESSING, well that's all fine and good, but it simply DESTROYS your case.

Evidence is built on facts, and your carnival sideshow job of GUESSING weights from photographs does not qualify.

Accept your fate. You have lost. You don't have the first clue what is is you are talking about. YOU have become the sideshow. And I must admit, its perfect fit for you.

You are DONE ralph.

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

Who said it blackened all parts of the trunk ralph. You can't SEE all parts of the trunk. What you CAN see is black and it is in shadow. How do we know? WE can LOOK at it in this Allen photo taken shortly after the shooting.. This is not the effect of print or film contrast, its just a BLACK tree trunk. Amazing how ANGLE OF INCIDENCE works.

Once again you get it completely wrong. Imagine that. You are such a child ralph. Just give it up.

You are DONE ralph.

“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?

Oh yea...

You are DONE ralph.

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.

Welcome to the wonderful world of ANGLE OF INCIDENCE...

You are DONE ralph.

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

Yes we do, its in the shadow created by his hands...

You are DONE ralph.

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.

Yeas we can. and you know what? The shade created by his arm is the measures as the SAME tone as the part of doorway mans round neck tee shirt covered by his chin shadow! (that would be the very tip of the vee ralph) And since the tip of the vee measures is LIGHTER than the rest of vee, and it MATCHES the tone of shadowed white shirt of the man beside him, we can conclude it TOO IS TEE SHIRT!

Thanks for bringing this up ralph. You have just helped prove doorway man has on round neck tee shirt!

You are DONE ralph.

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.

I see you fail ANGLE OF INCIDENCE once again ralph. Surprise, Surprise. Your ignorance is simply astounding.

Lets see how two hands work given the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE of 37 degrees. Prepare yourself for yet another loss ralphie. One face in total shadow. For a "doctor" your ignorance is simply astounding!

You are DONE ralph.

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.

The difference is simply ANGLE OF INCIDENCE, and a pair of hands. What a silly little child you are ralph. Doorway man is wearing a round neck tee shirt as you helped prove above.

You are DONE ralph.

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.

Of course I can use the Altgens PHOTOS. As you SHOULD know by now the images of the vee neck from Altgens SPANS TWO DIFFERENT PHOTOS. Plus you have 4 perfect examples using manikins. You have yet to provide any valid rebuttal of why replicas of a human head photographed in full sunlight provides different shadows than a real person photographed in full sunlight. You lose again. Par for the course for you ralph. You have no argument left.

You are DONE ralph.

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.

Your problem is you don't even UNDERSTAND the process of making density measurements. It's beyond your very limited skill set. Your ignorance of the process and the results are not an invalidation of those results.

The comedy that is ralph continues...roflmao!

You are DONE ralph.

“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?

See my answer to this same question above. But to put it in a phrase that is sure to set your chair spinning...ITS THE ANGLE OF INCIDENCE you silly little boy!

You are DONE ralph.

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.

No ralph it is your silly claim that is nonsense. It is your silly claim that is insane.

The tip of his tee shirt under the neck shadow is NOT OBLITERATED. It is totally detectable and measurable. And those measurements show the tip of the doorman vee to be totally CONSISTENT with a white shirt with a shadow falling over it. Its not my fault you don't have the intelligence to understand.

In other words ralph, you got it wrong...AGAIN! Wrong about the blackness of the tree, wrong about the face shadow and finally WRONG about the Doorway mans tee shirt.

You are DONE ralph.

LMAO!

Edited February 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Greg,

If he's looking for something to be concerned about, he should ponder why Lovelady's shirt fit him perfectly well

both when he was fat and also after he got thin. That is an impossiblity--unless he replaced the shirt or else had it

extensively altered- and I mean the kind of alteration that most tailors don't even do. Either way, it means that he

went to extraordinary lengths to dress up as Doorway Man--and without disclosing what he was doing. That smacks

of deception--serious deception. And it's based on concrete evidence that requires next to no serious reasoning.

Jim

What wonderful logic employed by the self proclaimed master of logic...

You forgot the third possibility...Lovelady did not either gain or lose weight...the shirt fits because his weight remained essentially the same.

And give your 'evidence' for weight gain comes from a carnival sideshow barker...

Edited February 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Ralph to MacRae:

Hey MacRae! You said that this guy with the towel or shirt over his shoulder in the Weigman photo is the same person as Headless Man with the white splotch in the Altgens photo. You said the white splotch was his towel or shirt. And Lamson too did a heck of a lot of arguing that way, that the white splotch is this same guy's towel or overshirt.

Well, notice that the man in Weigman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt that is rolled up, while the Headless Man in Altgens is wearing just a white t-shirt. So, they can't possibly be the same guy. So, it's back to the drawing board, boys. See what else your vivid imaginations can dream up.

Good job ralph! You pointed out the headless man in Altgens and have just proven it is the same guy as in Weigman. Notice the shadow of the ROLLED UP SLEEVE just below headless mans left elbow!

You are doing such a good job of completely DESTROYING YOURSELF ralph.

You are DONE ralph.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

...

The problem for ralph and his sideshow weight guess is that he is doing it from photographs taken from different distances and with different lenses.

Perspective is a bitch.

This study is unrelated but the concept and visuals are perfect for this discussion.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Sure you did ralph. You said that there is no chin shadow on doorway man, that what is ACTUALLY A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A CHIN SHADOW that is perfectly consistent with the sunlight and the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE is not a a shadow. And you can't point us to any other head or chin shadow. And that CHIN SHADOW MUST BE THERE.

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.

No you have simply proven you don't have the foggest understanding of light and shadow. Of course we all knew that already. I create and use shadows everyday in the course of business and I have for over 30 year. I really don't give a fig about what you accept or not. You don't have the intelligence for your opinion to matter.

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.

Not all shadows are irregular. And why is hers not the same? I can't believe you are so ignorant to ask this question....oh wait yes I can.

Its called ANGLE OF INCIDENCE ralph....

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson, you've been pulling that angle of incidence out of your rear-end so many times, you must be getting pretty sore back there.

Cinque replies to Lamson (originally to post #567):

But here is the vee of Doorman, and as you can see, there is no change in tone at the vee. None. You are making that up. Or, you are pulling it out of the same place you've been getting your angle of incidence.

And regarding Lovelady's weight loss, I have posted the pictures in tandem, and it's plain as day that it was dramatic, and others have agreed. It's not about GUESSING, Lamson; it's about LOOKING.

And if you can't see it, I honestly don't know what else I can say.

And by the way, as a side note to Dean, who criticized me for comparing the two Loveladys to Laurel and Hardy, granted, it's not quite that extreme. But, Laurel and Hardy happen to be a very well known reference to a fat guy and a skinny guy, and so I used it. Is that so terrible? And even though Lovelady's transformation wasn't quite that extreme, it was extreme enough to take notice of it and to wonder how the heck the same shirt could fit him so perfectly well in both cases. What, did his shirt lose weight with him?

And there is no way that Headless Man is obliterating his chin with his hands. Shade from the hands on top of the head does not go that far south. I told you to go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and place your hands up there and check it. Why didn't you do it?

Lamson, the only relevant picture you have posted was that of Burnham, and his chin shadow was NOT a vee. Forget the mannikin with the neck like a giraffe. The simple fact that you have to rely on that is evidence that you don't have anything better. You can't produce a real person with a perfect vee like Doorman. And frankly, even if you could, it wouldn't change the fact that, overwhelmingly, chin-shadows do NOT lay down such perfect vees. In other words, if it happens at all- and you have yet to post an example of one- it's still very rare, very uncommon, and highly unlikely. And yet, we've got all these dark vees in the Altgens! Fancy that! It's because of the high-contrast darkening the skin.

Lamson, I've barely started. I'm just warming up. Your only hope for relief is if Jim gets sick of posting for me.

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.

Sure you did ralph. You said that there is no chin shadow on doorway man, that what is ACTUALLY A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A CHIN SHADOW that is perfectly consistent with the sunlight and the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE is not a a shadow. And you can't point us to any other head or chin shadow. And that CHIN SHADOW MUST BE THERE.

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.

No you have simply proven you don't have the foggest understanding of light and shadow. Of course we all knew that already. I create and use shadows everyday in the course of business and I have for over 30 year. I really don't give a fig about what you accept or not. You don't have the intelligence for your opinion to matter.

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.

Not all shadows are irregular. And why is hers not the same? I can't believe you are so ignorant to ask this question....oh wait yes I can.

Its called ANGLE OF INCIDENCE ralph....

Edited February 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

Good job ralph! You pointed out the headless man in Altgens and have just proven it is the same guy as in Weigman. Notice the shadow of the ROLLED UP SLEEVE just below headless mans left elbow!

You are doing such a good job of completely DESTROYING YOURSELF ralph.

You are DONE ralph.

James H. Fetzer, on 12 February 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

Cinque responds to Lamson:

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

I wouldn't expect anything less from Cinque, he can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman.

Duncan,

--Tommy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For Lamson and MacRae:

Are you guys blind?

The guy in Weigman has his long sleeve shirt rolled up, but it's not above his elbow. It's just rolled up a little ways on his forearm. The Headless Man in Altgens has a completely bare forearm. I see what you mean that he may have something rolled on his upper arm above his elbow, although it's hard to tell for sure. But, what we can tell for sure is that his elbow and his forearm are completely bare. That is not true of the bearded guy in Weigman.

So, what are you arguing here? That he rolled it up further between Altgens and Weigman? Altgens definitely came first, so that would have meant that he partially unrolled it to get to what you see in Weigman. How likely is that?

Lamson, you're just pulling more stuff out of the same place you got the angle of incidence.

Good job ralph! You pointed out the headless man in Altgens and have just proven it is the same guy as in Weigman. Notice the shadow of the ROLLED UP SLEEVE just below headless mans left elbow!

You are doing such a good job of completely DESTROYING YOURSELF ralph.

You are DONE ralph.

James H. Fetzer, on 12 February 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

Cinque responds to Lamson:

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

I wouldn't expect anything less from Cinque, he can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman.

Edited February 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here is an extremely revealing exchange. In post #545, Richard Hocking has offered a tentative comparison of the sizes of the craniums of Lovelady and Doorway Man. Lovelady's head appears to be significantly larger than Doorway Man's.

Lamson immediate replies in post #547 that this is not a valid form of comparison. But that simply begs the question by taking for granted that he is right, which, of course, is what Lamson does, over and over and over again. Nothing new!

Since there are several ways to derive valid comparisons that could disprove their identity, including comparisons of their ears and the ridges between there eyes, if this is not a valid comparison, then where is Lamson's valid one?

This is typical shysters and frauds. Whenever they are confronted with evidence that disproves their position, they dismiss the evidence and the competence of those who advance them. The one who's work that is worthless is Lamson.

I inserted two profiles of Lovelady from still frames of the Martin film into the Altgens photo. I scaled the figures using head size. It's probably not perfect, but I think its reasonably close.

Edited February 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Here is an extremely revealing exchange. In post #545, Richard Hocking has offered a tentative comparison of the sizes of the craniums of Lovelady and Doorway Man. Lovelady's head appears to be significantly larger than Doorway Man's.

Lamson immediate replies in post #547 that this is not a valid form of comparison. But that simply begs the question by taking for granted that he is right, which, of course, is what Lamson does, over and over and over again. Nothing new!

Since there are several ways to derive valid comparisons that could disprove their identity, including comparisons of their ears and the ridges between there eyes, if this is not a valid comparison, then where is Lamson's valid one?

This is typical shysters and frauds. Whenever they are confronted with evidence that disproves their position, they dismiss the evidence and the competence of those who advance them. The one who's work that is worthless is Lamson.

I inserted two profiles of Lovelady from still frames of the Martin film into the Altgens photo. I scaled the figures using head size. It's probably not perfect, but I think its reasonably close.

It's really simple Jim. You can't resize images taken from different camera to subject distances with the intention of "measuring" That method fails to take PERSPECTIVE into account. This is basic photo 101 stuff Fetzer and it has been proven time and time again. That you fail to understand this simple photographic principle renders you incompetent to offer any photographic opinions.

You lose again jimmy.

Here it explained and proven using a simple yardstick.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph to MacRae:

MacRae, now you are just being utterly stupid, and there is no other way to put it. Gravity? Rolled up sleeves are TIGHT!

It's more like a tourniquet, and before Dean complains about the analogy, I realize it is not quite that tight, but you get the idea. It's tight.

You are being way to presumptous with your gravity hypothesis, and that's all it is a hypothesis, and a rather wild one.

And while you're hypothesizing, what about his right arm? That's got a long sleeve too, remember? But what do we see on Headless Man? We see the bare skin of his forearm, his elbow, and part of his upper arm. It means you're effffed, MaRae.

You're just shovelling sand against the tide. It's not the same guy.

For Lamson and MacRae:

Are you guys blind?

The guy in Weigman has his long sleeve shirt rolled up, but it's not above his elbow. It's just rolled up a little ways on his forearm. The Headless Man in Altgens has a completely bare forearm.

You really are clueless, Cinque.

Have you never heard of gravity?

If an arm is raised up, the bottom of a sleeve will move from below the elbow to above the elbow.

Conversely, when an arm is lowered, the bottom of a sleeve will fall down with the arm to below the elbow.

In other words, arm up. bottom of sleeve is above the elbow, and arm down the bottom of the sleeve is below the elbow.

It's all just common sense that even a two year old would understand.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Then do a better comparison, Lamson, except that I would expect anything you do to be slanted. I could not even get Robin Unger to do a simple overlay of the star configuration over the white nebula of the windshield. So we know that you guys are not going to do anything constructive to actually settle the issue. And, of course, you didn't do it yourself!

Besides, Richard was not insisting it was "the last word". But when you take a look at the relative size of the figures, it certainly looks to me to be an appropriate comparison. Your demonstration of the kinds of problems than can arise does not show that those problems were encountered here. You have given no good reason to reject his comparison.

Here is an extremely revealing exchange. In post #545, Richard Hocking has offered a tentative comparison of the sizes of the craniums of Lovelady and Doorway Man. Lovelady's head appears to be significantly larger than Doorway Man's.

Lamson immediate replies in post #547 that this is not a valid form of comparison. But that simply begs the question by taking for granted that he is right, which, of course, is what Lamson does, over and over and over again. Nothing new!

Since there are several ways to derive valid comparisons that could disprove their identity, including comparisons of their ears and the ridges between there eyes, if this is not a valid comparison, then where is Lamson's valid one?

This is typical shysters and frauds. Whenever they are confronted with evidence that disproves their position, they dismiss the evidence and the competence of those who advance them. The one who's work that is worthless is Lamson.

I inserted two profiles of Lovelady from still frames of the Martin film into the Altgens photo. I scaled the figures using head size. It's probably not perfect, but I think its reasonably close.

It's really simple Jim. You can't resize images taken from different camera to subject distances with the intention of "measuring" That method fails to take PERSPECTIVE into account. This is basic photo 101 stuff Fetzer and it has been proven time and time again. That you fail to understand this simple photographic principle renders you incompetent to offer any photographic opinions.

You lose again jimmy.

Here it explained and proven using a simple yardstick.

Edited February 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer