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

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Using the image you posted here it the "vee" measures darker under the chin (rgb=38) than it does in the point (rgb=68) . What you can "see" is pretty much meaningless ralph, what it MEASURES is yet something else. So unless you have measurements of your own, your argument fails.

You are DONE ralph.

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.

Again your "looking" is meaningless. How have you accounted for the effects of PERSPECTIVE between the photos ralph? The answer is YOU HAVE NOT. I'm quite certain you don don't understand the concept of perspective in the rendering of 2d images of 3d subjects any more than you understand ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. And that level of understanding would be ZERO.

You are DONE ralph.

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?

But I did try yur experiment ralph and my face was completely shadowed. However as much fun as it was to see you get it wrong once again the simple line drawing tells the story of what happened on the TSBD steps that day. Simple GEOMETRY. ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. And you are simply proven wrong again. Don't you get tired of looking like a crackpot ralph?

You are DONE ralph.

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.

The placement of a chin shadow is totally dependent on the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE OF THE SUN IN RELATION to THE SUBJECT. And regardless of your inability to understand the test images from the highly respected ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY they are perfectly valid and and you can't impeach them ( your complaint about the neck length is simply silly considering it is the HEAD AND CHIN that cast the shadow. Your ignorance is simply astounding!

Now lets talk again about the so called contrast darkened vees in the Altgens photos.

Your claim is that the vees are in fact simple exposed skin in full sunlight. You claim they are NOT shadows.

If they are skin in full sunlight why are they darker than the skin if full sunlight on the FACES of these people? And why does this darkness MEASURE THE SAME AS WELL DEFINED SHADOWS on the faces?

Upthread you made the silly claim that this was somehow an area of 'reduced illumination' but it was NOT a shadow. This is a gut buster! You want the world to believe that this mysterious reduction in illumination ONLY occurs in the "vee" an not in the areas directly next to it?

Watch out ralphie, you just set a trap for yourself! ROFLMAO!

The contrast of the print has noting to do with the tone of the 'VEE'. It is dark because it is a SHADOW!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Institute_of_Technology

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

Post as much as you like ralph, because it won't do you a bit of good...

You are DONE ralph.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

What you "think" is an "appropriate" comparison is worthless considering you have no clue about well established principle that is involved here. It HAPPENS EVERY TIME when a stupid resizing comparison like this is done. In fact it even happens when you try and resize items from with the SAME PHOTOGRAPH.

The comparison is rejected because it fails to address photographic PERSPECTIVE.

Your ignorance of this subject matter does not a rebuttal make.

Get back to us when you have purchased your first clue jimmy.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Scott Kaiser]

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.

What you "think" is an "appropriate" comparison is worthless considering you have no clue about well established principle that is involved here. It HAPPENS EVERY TIME when a stupid resizing comparison like this is done. In fact it even happens when you try and resize items from with the SAME PHOTOGRAPH.

The comparison is rejected because it fails to address photographic PERSPECTIVE.

Your ignorance of this subject matter does not a rebuttal make.

Get back to us when you have purchased your first clue jimmy.

What you "think" is an "appropriate" comparison is worthless

And!...

BINGO WAS HIS NAME-O!

How could anyone in their right mind say this is Oswald? If you were sitting on a jury panel and this photo was passed around for (YOU) to POSTIVILY IDENTIFY beyond reasonable doubt could you? I don't know about you, but I couldn't, no way, no how, never! Not in a million years with a million overlays, are you kidding me? WOW! I bet I could sell some of you my ocean front property in Arizona, its going cheap!

Edited February 16, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

Did I read that right?

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

Seriously?

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

Dawn

^^AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME-O!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ralph responds to MacRae #577:

MacRae, no freakin' way. You've been hanging out with Lamson way too long for your own good. I'll admit you're pretty nifty at doing artsy stuff on the computer. But, I'm not buying what you're selling in your little movie.

Here is me with my sleeve rolled up on my forearm. Then there is me again with my arms raised to shield my eyes from the sun.

Plus, the fact is that we don't know what's going on with Headless Man's shirt. There's a black ring there above his left elbow, but we don't know what it is (go ahead and speculate if you want to) and you don't see anything like that on the Weigman guy.

And, what about comparing the right sides? Since the Weigman guy is wearing a long-sleeve shirt, it means that it's long-sleeve on the right side too. But, we're not seeing any distinctive roll-up of material on the right as we do on the left. It's rather vague, but whatever it is, it's nothing like the left. So, how is it that on Headless Man's right, there is no visible shirt material whatsoever: not on his forearm, not over his elbow, and not on his upper arm. Not so much as a thread.

Watch your little movie again, and this time focus only on the right arms. Not too bueno, is it.

The bottom line is that you are going way, way, way, out on a limb with your hypothesis. As Jim Fetzer likes to say, we are looking for the "most reasonable alternative explanation." Yours ain't it.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque to Lamson:

Lamson, I’m sure it won’t surprise you that I don’t accept your measurements. That fact is that when we look at it the vee of the blackness, it looks even and consistent, and likewise, the vee-shaped margin of the t-shirt looks sharp and consistent. For you to make the assumption that t-shirt material is being obscured there, that it is being totally obliterated to the point that we can’t see it at all, and all because you took some measurements, is insane. It is insane of you to think I can’t see what’s there without relying on you and your measurements. I trust my vision much more than your measurements. I do not presume for one second that I need your measurements.

And no, the difference between the large Lovelady and the frail one is stark; it’s glaring; it jumps out at you. You’re looking at a guy who underwent significant weight loss, significant shrinkage, and you need to stop fighting it. Again, no measurements are needed, not even a scale. Simple vision is quite adequate.

You can’t shade your chin by holding your hands on top of your head to shade your eyes- not if you’ve got your head up normally as it would be if you were watching a motorcade. So, I am disputing your claim .

Here is me photographing my girlfriend Linda in front of the mirror. She has her hands placed just like Headless Man, and you’ll notice that she is creating shade for her eyes, but not much lower than that.

Now let’s see your picture of your face “completely shadowed.”

And again, my point was that the dark vees under the chins in Altgens photo are not the result of specific chin shadows of that shape because, as I’ve told you, from looking at hundreds of pictures of people with chins and shadows, I now know that chins don’t actually make perfect vee shadows, or if they do, it is extremely rare. You have failed to post any such picture. You had to resort to a manikin with a neck like a giraffe to come up with one, which shows how rare they must be. But, even on the manikin, the vee was far from perfect; it was shifted. Did you not notice that? So, for so many perfect vees to occur in the Altgens photo just from chin-shading is beyond credibility. Yes, there is some shading going on, but the fact that the blackness conforms to the area of exposed skin means that it’s mainly a contrast issue, in which skin, which is inherently brown, gets pushed to the black end of the spectrum, whereas light-colored shirts and blouses are either white or show up as white, and so we get this tremendous contrast.

And, if you want to keep arguing about this, you need to post a whole bunch of people with perfect vee shadows under their chins for us to see. So, far you haven’t posted any. Again, even the manikin’s vee was offset.

[Craig Lamson]

Cinque to Lamson:

Lamson, I’m sure it won’t surprise you that I don’t accept your measurements. That fact is that when we look at it the vee of the blackness, it looks even and consistent, and likewise, the vee-shaped margin of the t-shirt looks sharp and consistent. For you to make the assumption that t-shirt material is being obscured there, that it is being totally obliterated to the point that we can’t see it at all, and all because you took some measurements, is insane. It is insane of you to think I can’t see what’s there without relying on you and your measurements. I trust my vision much more than your measurements. I do not presume for one second that I need your measurements.

Human vison is a very frail thing ralph..well really its the BRAIN attached to the eyes that is frail, and if you had any real credentials as a "dr." you would be well aware of this simple fact.

For example how would you describe the tones of A and B?

So no, your "seeing" is meaningless. We don't have to GUESS, which is your only method of doing anything. We can MEASURE the vee shadow on Doorway man and the results tells us you get it wrong again.

If you want to try and refute this, your are going to need more than your ignorance and your wildly waving hands. They do not constitute a valid rebuttal.

And no, the difference between the large Lovelady and the frail one is stark; it’s glaring; it jumps out at you. You’re looking at a guy who underwent significant weight loss, significant shrinkage, and you need to stop fighting it. Again, no measurements are needed, not even a scale. Simple vision is quite adequate.

So tell us "mr vison" what calculations and transformations did you preform to bring both images of Lovelady..1963 and Groden into perspective agreement prior to your "seeing" this weight change? If you did none, your visual inspection has failed.

Your ignorance and wild hand waving do not a rebuttal make.

You can’t shade your chin by holding your hands on top of your head to shade your eyes- not if you’ve got your head up normally as it would be if you were watching a motorcade. So, I am disputing your claim .

Here is me photographing my girlfriend Linda in front of the mirror. She has her hands placed just like Headless Man, and you’ll notice that she is creating shade for her eyes, but not much lower than that.

Now let’s see your picture of your face “completely shadowed.”

So tell us "Mr Vison", what was the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE? ROFLMAO! You are such an easy mark. BTW, I posted the geometry that proves this silly point. Review it.

Don't you understand? I'm a very skilled profession photographer.I have a comprehensive understanding of how light and shadow works and I can shoot ANY of these images by the TRUCKLOADS...all day long. The fact of the matter is that I'm batting you around like a cat would a mouse he has caught, just PLAYING with the mouse until the cat is ready to kill him.

Your ignorance of the basics of geometry, light and shadow and your wild hand waving do not a rebuttal make.

And again, my point was that the dark vees under the chins in Altgens photo are not the result of specific chin shadows of that shape because, as I’ve told you, from looking at hundreds of pictures of people with chins and shadows, I now know that chins don’t actually make perfect vee shadows, or if they do, it is extremely rare.

Really? How many do you want? 1, 10, 100? Since I UNDERSTAND I can take them at will.

Your ignorance of the basics of geometry, light and shadow and your wild hand waving do not a rebuttal make.

You have failed to post any such picture. You had to resort to a manikin with a neck like a giraffe to come up with one, which shows how rare they must be. But, even on the manikin, the vee was far from perfect; it was shifted. Did you not notice that?

But ralph, I've posted TWO different ones from Altgens alone, which proves they are not uncommon. And of course the manikins had shadows that shifted. They were not TRYING to shoot vee shadows, that was a just a bonus. But a SIMPLE CHANGE IN THE ANGLE OF INCIDENCE fixes all of that. How can you be so clueless?

Your ignorance of the basics of geometry, light and shadow and your wild hand waving do not a rebuttal make.

So, for so many perfect vees to occur in the Altgens photo just from chin-shading is beyond credibility. Yes, there is some shading going on, but the fact that the blackness conforms to the area of exposed skin means that it’s mainly a contrast issue, in which skin, which is inherently brown, gets pushed to the black end of the spectrum, whereas light-colored shirts and blouses are either white or show up as white, and so we get this tremendous contrast.

Poor "mr vison"...lost in his fantasy world.

If these vee neck shadows are so "beyond credibility" why in the world was I able to look over at by darling wife of 39 years at a quaint Mexican restaurant tonight and see....A VEE SHAPED NECK SHADOW! Now I could have been surprised but of course I was not. By looking at the lighting at the table I KNEW the shadow would be there. And of course it was.

You see ralph this is just a simple matter of geometry, light and shadow, and your ignorance of these simple thing does not a rebuttal make.

I also included a different version of the same image but with the contrast all ramped up. Once again ralphie is proven wrong. Compare the shadow vee and the exposed skin directly under it. It is CLEAR that increasing the contrast of the image WILL NOT MAKE SKIN IN FULL LIGHT LOOK LIKE SHADOWED SKIN.

That big boom you hear ringing in your ears ralph, is the cats paws smacking you around a bit more. Fair waring. Its gonna get worse...time for you to man up and admit you are wrong.

And, if you want to keep arguing about this, you need to post a whole bunch of people with perfect vee shadows under their chins for us to see. So, far you haven’t posted any. Again, even the manikin’s vee was offset.

I can do that ALL DAY LONG ralph.

The fact of the matter is ...

You are DONE ralph. Get over it.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Robin Unger]

Lady 8 seen in Towner

The small " tan colored object " on her right hip, as seen through the motorcycle windshield

once again appears as a " star nebular shape " on the windshield.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Lady 8

[John Dolva]

Sweet.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to MacRae:

MacRae, you’ll be eating my shorts before I eat that. For one, you were more rolled up than the guy in Weigman. But let’s put this whole thing in a broader perspective. You are the one who is making the claim that those two individuals are the same. So that means the burden of proof is on you, not on me. And you’ve got lots of problems to overcome. We’ll go down the list as we look at them side by side.

You’ll notice that Headless Man looks considerably stockier than Weigman Man.

You’ll notice that on the right side you can see Weigman Man’s long sleeve, which is completely missing on Headless Man, whose arm is bare, completely bare, upper and lower, all that we can see of it.

You’ll notice that Headless Man is wearing black pants, whereas Weigman Man is dressed in white from top to bottom. Oops!

You’ll notice that Weigman Man has a very prominent chin. His chin really juts out.Maybe it’s being enhanced by a goatee. But notice how far his chin sticks out over his chest. And you do see some shading below his chin. I wouldn’t call it vee-shaped. That darkness looks more rectangular in shape- at least from the angle that we’re seeing it. But on Headless Man, there is no corresponding shadow. We’re seeing a shadow over his left shoulder, presumably shade from his arm, but nothing at the top of his chest.

But this is a good time to recall that the whole look of Headless Man is incongruous. He is standing there shading his eyes with both hands, obviously to block the glaring sun, and yet, his entire face is shrouded in darkness. And then there is that goofy white splotch over his right shoulder which lacks the realistic look of the cloth material lying over Weigman Man’s shoulder. Then there is the dark ring around his left upper arm. What is that, and how does it correspond to Weigman Man? And if Headless Man is Weigman Man, where is his protruding chin? Wouldn’t that be sticking out? I dare say that that it should definitely be in the light. No way would his hands above be blocking all light to his chin.

Observe that I have listed several disparities between them here, but it only takes one to rule out them being the same person. In other words, the chances of you being right are precisely zero.

And that makes me wonder, why would you even bother to make such a case? Why fight this battle when it’s such a losing one? All I can surmise is that you’re just desperate-- desperate to try to beat me and James Fetzer. But, you’ll never beat us. You don’t have the brains or the cahones for it.

Edited February 17, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cinque replies to Lamson #587:

Lamson, your test lacks any relevance. But, to answer your question, "A” is a dark spot that’s in the light, and “B” is a light spot that’s in the shade. That’s all I have to say about it.

Now, regarding Doorway Man, you have to realize the magnitude of what YOU are claiming. You are claiming that an area in the photo which appears as deep black (the notch of his vee) is actually bright white (his t-shirt)- but we can’t see it. In other words, you’re saying that the pendulum, instead of being all the way to one side is actually all the way to the other side, and the deception is so complete that there isn’t even the slightest hint of the actual reality. That is an extraordinary claim to make. You’ve got a lot of nerve, Lamson. I’ll give you credit for that.

And I know you say you’ve studied photography, but you’ve obviously never taken a course in Logic, which Dr. Fetzer has taught at the college level. The dark vees in the Altgens photo, (the source of them) are what we are in dispute, so you can’t use them to prove your point. You have to provide other, outside evidence. And as for pointing out all the vees in the Altgens photo, that was done by ME. How could so many perfect vees occur in one picture due to chin-shade when it's something that is rarely seen?

And regarding the image of your wife, it’s not a good comparison, and you of all people, being a professional photographer, should know that. She’s got shade all over her face, under her eyes, and even ON her chin itself. Did you notice that in the examples of chin shade that I sent you that I deliberately used only people who were outside in the natural sunlight?

And notice that she’s looking down. She’s not looking out at us or at you. She looks quite uncomfortable. What, did you do, Lamson, set up the lighting just to create that shadow? What does that have to do with the real world? But, here’s something important: notice that the shadow does cover her garment, both her white sweater and her dark blouse, but in neither case, does it obliterate the material. We can see where it is shaded, but we can still see perfectly well that there is material there. There is no confusion whatsoever as what is clothing and what is human skin.

Now let’s close by looking at some relevant pictures of chin shadows, that is, of people who are out in the natural sunlight. You see any perfect vees in this mix, Lamson? And believe me, I did not have to do any sorting. I didn't pass up any images with perfect vees just to be sly.

And keep in mind that in many, many cases, there is no chin shadow at all. And I do mean none.

Edited February 17, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Scott Kaiser]

OMG!!! Means "Oh My God"!!! It never seizes to amaze me that an argument can be brought over someone warning a rolled up sleeve, the funny part is that you can go into all this detail, write a phenomenal article and a well thought out presentation on who it might be and you have absolutely no clue yourself, yes! OMG! I find it odd that Fetzer could write about the color of someones crap. OMG! Well, if you can't beat them, join them I always say, but I'm not about to write a diluted story, surgar coat it, and top it with crap, however, I think my writings are getting better don't you?

Edited February 17, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

Cinque replies to Lamson #587:

Lamson, your test lacks any relevance. But, to answer your question, "A” is a dark spot that’s in the light, and “B” is a light spot that’s in the shade. That’s all I have to say about it.

Now, regarding Doorway Man, you have to realize the magnitude of what YOU are claiming. You are claiming that an area in the photo which appears as deep black (the notch of his vee) is actually bright white (his t-shirt)- but we can’t see it. In other words, you’re saying that the pendulum, instead of being all the way to one side is actually all the way to the other side, and the deception is so complete that there isn’t even the slightest hint of the actual reality. That is an extraordinary claim to make. You’ve got a lot of nerve, Lamson. I’ll give you credit for that.

And I know you say you’ve studied photography, but you’ve obviously never taken a course in Logic, which Dr. Fetzer has taught at the college level. The dark vees in the Altgens photo, (the source of them) are what we are in dispute, so you can’t use them to prove your point. You have to provide other, outside evidence. And as for pointing out all the vees in the Altgens photo, that was done by ME. How could so many perfect vees occur in one picture due to chin-shade when it's something that is rarely seen?

And regarding the image of your wife, it’s not a good comparison, and you of all people, being a professional photographer, should know that. She’s got shade all over her face, under her eyes, and even ON her chin itself. Did you notice that in the examples of chin shade that I sent you that I deliberately used only people who were outside in the natural sunlight?

And notice that she’s looking down. She’s not looking out at us or at you. She looks quite uncomfortable. What, did you do, Lamson, set up the lighting just to create that shadow? What does that have to do with the real world? But, here’s something important: notice that the shadow does cover her garment, both her white sweater and her dark blouse, but in neither case, does it obliterate the material. We can see where it is shaded, but we can still see perfectly well that there is material there. There is no confusion whatsoever as what is clothing and what is human skin.

Now let’s close by looking at some relevant pictures of chin shadows, that is, of people who are out in the natural sunlight. You see any perfect vees in this mix, Lamson? And believe me, I did not have to do any sorting. I didn't pass up any images with perfect vees just to be sly.

And keep in mind that in many, many cases, there is no chin shadow at all. And I do mean none.

The girls on the beach look nice

[Thomas Graves]

OMG!!! Means "Oh My God"!!! It never seizes to amaze me that an argument can be brought over someone warning a rolled up sleeve, the funny part is that you can go into all this detail, write a phenomenal article and a well thought out presentation on who it might be and you have absolutely no clue yourself, yes! OMG! I find it odd that Fetzer could write about the color of someones crap. OMG! Well, if you can't beat them, join them I always say, but I'm not about to write a diluted story, surgar coat it, and top it with crap, however, I think my writings are getting better don't you?

Scott,

Yes, I do. I think you have a great future ahead of you as an historical novelist!

--Tommy