Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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,

Oh My God, you're a cop? OK, I'll be one of your informants...

--Tommy :)

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Sounds like these two need a room... :blink:

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinque replies to MacRae:

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

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

Ralph,

I can see how you could be persuaded that "Headless man" is stockier. However Robin Unger, whose image is below, has pointed out that that figure B is obscuring this mans righthand side.

17023.jpg

The image of "headless man" is a composite of what how much of this man Altgens can see + the image of B. In Altgens you do not see just "Headless man." You see both and you are suggesting that it is only "Headless man" whereas it is a composite of two figures.

Therefore it is impossible to say whether he is, or is not, stockier.

I can also see how you could be persuaded that this man is dressed all in white. But that is probably also a mistake.

17018.jpg

If you look at the image above you will see a row of people standing in front of him.

On the right is a woman with a white top and behind her is another woman. And behind that woman appears to be part of the shape of someone else. This person is in front of "Headless man." That shape is in white and it that which is obscuring the man legs and suggesting that he is wearing white trousers.

Because the image of this person is blocking the lower part of "Headless man" you cannot see the colour of his trousers.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinque replies to MacRae:

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

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

Ralph,

I can see how you could be persuaded that "Headless man" is stockier. However Robin Unger, whose image is below, has pointed out that that figure B is obscuring this mans righthand side.

17023.jpg

The image of "headless man" is a composite of what how much of this man Altgens can see + the image of B. In Altgens you do not see just "Headless man." You see both and you are suggesting that it is only "Headless man" whereas it is a composite of two figures.

Therefore it is impossible to say whether he is, or is not, stockier.

I can also see how you could be persuaded that this man is dressed all in white. But that is probably also a mistake.

17018.jpg

If you look at the image above you will see a row of people standing in front of him.

On the right is a woman with a white top and behind her is another woman. And behind that woman appears to be part of the shape of someone else. This person is in front of "Headless man." That shape is in white and it that which is obscuring the man legs and suggesting that he is wearing white trousers.

Because the image of this person is blocking the lower part of "Headless man" you cannot see the colour of his trousers.

James.

James:

Not from Robin this time. I take full responsibility for the lettered collage.

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Cinque to Gordon (and, in my opinion, what could be more obvious?):

James, I categorically reject what you say. Headless Man is NOT a composite, and you have no right to say such a thing. What nerve! The Altgens photo is a big, vast picture, and if composites are taking place in it, why are they only taking place in that one small area? There are lots of people crowded close together throughout the picture. So, how is it that everybody else looks separate and distinct and normal? It’s only around Doorway Man- there and nowhere else– that you claim to see such things.

Well, I’ll make a deal with you, James. You comb through that Altgens photo, and if you see any “composites” anywhere else in the picture, where two people are merged into one, overlapped, or whatever, you point them out. But, if you can’t find any other such examples, then you can take your composite theory and shove it in the same place I told Lamson to shove his angle of incidence. Is that clear enough? Are we communicating?

And regarding the mismatch of the pants, here is the Weigman man alone. I dare say that if he was wearing black pants, some portion of it would show in this picture, notwithstanding your claim about another woman being there.

ivffqo.jpg

Forget Unger. The one you need to be listening to is Fetzer. And Fetzer says that that white splotch is not a towel or garment draped over the shoulder of Headless Man, but rather it is the obfuscation of the face of the man who is standing in front of Headless Man.

2yo4p3l.jpg

You know, you guys really crack me up. You can see a woman standing in front of this man from Weigman, but you can’t see the outline of a head around the obfuscation of the face in Altgens, which is 10X as prominent and distinguishable.

For all the reasons I gave, Headless Man cannot be the same man as in Weigman. And you are wrong, the Headless Man is NOT a composite of two figures.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Actually raphie, it is a simple test that destroys you.

You claim your eyes are superior to digital density measurements and you reject those measurements because you think your eyes can see subtle digital tones better than a highly sophisticated digital imaging program. This test shows how badly your eyes and brain really are.

So yes it is VERY relevant.

You are showing your complete lack of intellectual honesty. Great job. I'll get the the set of your dreck later, you have outdone yourself. The amount of photographic ignorance you display is simply unbelievable. Thank goodness your are a CT, you are doing a great job giving then a very bad name. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

We have had a long day and my wife and I are heading out for a nice juicy ribeye and a few adult beverages. You can wait.

But lets deal with first things first.

I posted this simple test and you failed.

Square A and B are squares of the exact same tone and color! You FAILED raphie, and you want us to believe your eyes trump accurate density measurements! Heck you can't even tell these two squares are the same color and tone! Great work destroying yourself!

checkershadow_illusion4full.jpg

ralphswrongagain.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinque replies to MacRae:

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

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

Ralph,

I can see how you could be persuaded that "Headless man" is stockier. However Robin Unger, whose image is below, has pointed out that that figure B is obscuring this mans righthand side.

17023.jpg

The image of "headless man" is a composite of what how much of this man Altgens can see + the image of B. In Altgens you do not see just "Headless man." You see both and you are suggesting that it is only "Headless man" whereas it is a composite of two figures.

Therefore it is impossible to say whether he is, or is not, stockier.

I can also see how you could be persuaded that this man is dressed all in white. But that is probably also a mistake.

17018.jpg

If you look at the image above you will see a row of people standing in front of him.

On the right is a woman with a white top and behind her is another woman. And behind that woman appears to be part of the shape of someone else. This person is in front of "Headless man." That shape is in white and it that which is obscuring the man legs and suggesting that he is wearing white trousers.

Because the image of this person is blocking the lower part of "Headless man" you cannot see the colour of his trousers.

James.

James:

Not from Robin this time. I take full responsibility for the lettered collage.

Allan

That is correct Allan.

This is your Weigman collage

I did Credit the image to you at the begining of this thread.

Cheers.

Robin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinque to Gordon (and, in my opinion, what could be more obvious?):

But, if you can’t find any other such examples, then you can take your composite theory and shove it in the same place I told Lamson to shove his angle of incidence. Is that clear enough? Are we communicating?

And regarding the mismatch of the pants, here is the Weigman man alone. I dare say that if he was wearing black pants, some portion of it would show in this picture, notwithstanding your claim about another woman being there.

Forget Unger. The one you need to be listening to is Fetzer. And Fetzer says that that white splotch is not a towel or garment draped over the shoulder of Headless Man, but rather it is the obfuscation of the face of the man who is standing in front of Headless Man.

Ralph,

I understand that you are a doctor. I hope you do not talk to your patients like that. It is hardly the language of an educated adult.

You say that you would expect to see something of the dark trousers, even if another was blocking him. Not necessarily so. This blow-up of this part of the frame is a poor resolution image. In addition the sun is streaming into the area, evidenced by the number of people covering their eyes from the glare of the sun to see the procession. If we had a better resolution and, IF, we still could not see the dark trousers then I would agree with you.

Robin Unger may not be a university Professor but he is one of the most educated and skilled researchers regarding the images of the assassination. His service to other researchers in gaining a better understanding of what happened is outstanding. It does not assist your credibility in the research community to so easily dismiss him. Many of the images you are using both on this site and on Lancer have been provided to researchers at some point by Robin Unger.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinque to Gordon (and, in my opinion, what could be more obvious?):

But, if you can't find any other such examples, then you can take your composite theory and shove it in the same place I told Lamson to shove his angle of incidence. Is that clear enough? Are we communicating?

And regarding the mismatch of the pants, here is the Weigman man alone. I dare say that if he was wearing black pants, some portion of it would show in this picture, notwithstanding your claim about another woman being there.

Forget Unger. The one you need to be listening to is Fetzer. And Fetzer says that that white splotch is not a towel or garment draped over the shoulder of Headless Man, but rather it is the obfuscation of the face of the man who is standing in front of Headless Man.

Ralph,

I understand that you are a doctor. I hope you do not talk to your patients like that. It is hardly the language of an educated adult.

You say that you would expect to see something of the dark trousers, even if another was blocking him. Not necessarily so. This blow-up of this part of the frame is a poor resolution image. In addition the sun is streaming into the area, evidenced by the number of people covering their eyes from the glare of the sun to see the procession. If we had a better resolution and, IF, we still could not see the dark trousers then I would agree with you.

Robin Unger may not be a university Professor but he is one of the most educated and skilled researchers regarding the images of the assassination. His service to other researchers in gaining a better understanding of what happened is outstanding. It does not assist your credibility in the research community to so easily dismiss him. Many of the images you are using both on this site and on Lancer have been provided to researchers at some point by Robin Unger.

James

Thanks James.

I appreciate the generous comments.

Cinque is green as grass when it comes to assassination research.

a fly by nighter trying to big note himself.

He would not even be aware of the history of most of the Researchers who have contributed to this thread.

It appears he can only stamp his foot up and down, and put on a tantrum like a five year old child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinque to Gordon (and, in my opinion, what could be more obvious?):

But, if you can't find any other such examples, then you can take your composite theory and shove it in the same place I told Lamson to shove his angle of incidence. Is that clear enough? Are we communicating?

And regarding the mismatch of the pants, here is the Weigman man alone. I dare say that if he was wearing black pants, some portion of it would show in this picture, notwithstanding your claim about another woman being there.

Forget Unger. The one you need to be listening to is Fetzer. And Fetzer says that that white splotch is not a towel or garment draped over the shoulder of Headless Man, but rather it is the obfuscation of the face of the man who is standing in front of Headless Man.

Ralph,

I understand that you are a doctor. I hope you do not talk to your patients like that. It is hardly the language of an educated adult.

You say that you would expect to see something of the dark trousers, even if another was blocking him. Not necessarily so. This blow-up of this part of the frame is a poor resolution image. In addition the sun is streaming into the area, evidenced by the number of people covering their eyes from the glare of the sun to see the procession. If we had a better resolution and, IF, we still could not see the dark trousers then I would agree with you.

Robin Unger may not be a university Professor but he is one of the most educated and skilled researchers regarding the images of the assassination. His service to other researchers in gaining a better understanding of what happened is outstanding. It does not assist your credibility in the research community to so easily dismiss him. Many of the images you are using both on this site and on Lancer have been provided to researchers at some point by Robin Unger.

James

Thanks James.

I appreciate the generous comments.

Cinque is green as grass when it comes to assassination research.

a fly by nighter trying to big note himself.

He would not even be aware of the history of most of the Researchers who have contributed to this thread.

It appears he can only stamp his foot up and down, and put on a tantrum like a five year old child.

Whaddaya say we have a POLL as to the identity of the guy on the steps in the Altgen's photo? You know, "Is it Lovelady or is it Oswald?"

I say it's Lovelady. Current poll results: Lovelady - 1, Oswald - 0

--Tommy :)

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Ralph replies to James (NOTE: In my opinion, your faith in Robin Unger is misplaced. He put two faked windshields on top of one another, as though that confirmed they were authentic. But when I asked him to place them on top of the small, white spiral nebula in the authentic windshield seen in the Altgens, he refused to do it. That is not the sign of an honest broker. Give this a little more thought.):

James, you need to understand that when you write to me and tell me, categorically, matter-of-factly, that Headless Man is a composite or some other such thing that you are being rude and insolent to me. It's like you are saying F U to me- but indirectly. And so I respond in kind. So, if you would like to receive more politeness from me, then you need to show more politeness to me. And to do that, you say something such as:

"It is my opinion that such and such. . "

OR

"I agree with so-and-so who says that such and such. . "

Even if I don't agree with you, I will respond politely and respectfully if you do that. But when you do the other and start laying out to me how it is- as if you know and I don't- then you better be prepared for a harsh response because that is what you are going to get.

Now, in regard to your latest assertion, the plain truth is that you are being highly presumptuous, very biased, and blatantly subjective. There is enough black and dark colors around Weigman Man that I dare say that some contrast would be visible if he were wearing black pants. We are seeing darkness in Lovelady's shirt standing right above him. There is some blackness just to the left of him (our right). And of course to his right, we are seeing the grey coloring in the shirt of the African-American man. So, I have to tell you that you are just blowing smoke when you say that higher resolution might show that he's wearing black trousers. Really, it's just like sour grapes. The most prominent guy in that picture is dressed all in white and standing in the center. You didn't dispute his white outfit. You didn't say that maybe with higher resolution we'd see that his pants were indeed black. You just said it for the guy whose pants you WANT to be black.

But again, if you want me to be nice to you then frame your views as your opinions when you speak to me. Then, I will be nice to you, even if I disagree.

Cinque to Gordon (and, in my opinion, what could be more obvious?):

But, if you can’t find any other such examples, then you can take your composite theory and shove it in the same place I told Lamson to shove his angle of incidence. Is that clear enough? Are we communicating?

And regarding the mismatch of the pants, here is the Weigman man alone. I dare say that if he was wearing black pants, some portion of it would show in this picture, notwithstanding your claim about another woman being there.

Forget Unger. The one you need to be listening to is Fetzer. And Fetzer says that that white splotch is not a towel or garment draped over the shoulder of Headless Man, but rather it is the obfuscation of the face of the man who is standing in front of Headless Man.

Ralph,

I understand that you are a doctor. I hope you do not talk to your patients like that. It is hardly the language of an educated adult.

You say that you would expect to see something of the dark trousers, even if another was blocking him. Not necessarily so. This blow-up of this part of the frame is a poor resolution image. In addition the sun is streaming into the area, evidenced by the number of people covering their eyes from the glare of the sun to see the procession. If we had a better resolution and, IF, we still could not see the dark trousers then I would agree with you.

Robin Unger may not be a university Professor but he is one of the most educated and skilled researchers regarding the images of the assassination. His service to other researchers in gaining a better understanding of what happened is outstanding. It does not assist your credibility in the research community to so easily dismiss him. Many of the images you are using both on this site and on Lancer have been provided to researchers at some point by Robin Unger.

James

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The double standard is dripping. My main objection to the assertions coming from Cinque have been exactly what he is now criticizing others for doing!

I have yet to see Cinque phrase his assertions in the manner that he suggests others should phrase theirs.

Not once has he said: "It is my opinion that such and such..."

No, he has been saying things like: "Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's shirt." And he has continuously insulted those who do not accept that conclusion among other conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinque to Gordon (and, in my opinion, what could be more obvious?):

But, if you can't find any other such examples, then you can take your composite theory and shove it in the same place I told Lamson to shove his angle of incidence. Is that clear enough? Are we communicating?

And regarding the mismatch of the pants, here is the Weigman man alone. I dare say that if he was wearing black pants, some portion of it would show in this picture, notwithstanding your claim about another woman being there.

Forget Unger. The one you need to be listening to is Fetzer. And Fetzer says that that white splotch is not a towel or garment draped over the shoulder of Headless Man, but rather it is the obfuscation of the face of the man who is standing in front of Headless Man.

Ralph,

I understand that you are a doctor. I hope you do not talk to your patients like that. It is hardly the language of an educated adult.

You say that you would expect to see something of the dark trousers, even if another was blocking him. Not necessarily so. This blow-up of this part of the frame is a poor resolution image. In addition the sun is streaming into the area, evidenced by the number of people covering their eyes from the glare of the sun to see the procession. If we had a better resolution and, IF, we still could not see the dark trousers then I would agree with you.

Robin Unger may not be a university Professor but he is one of the most educated and skilled researchers regarding the images of the assassination. His service to other researchers in gaining a better understanding of what happened is outstanding. It does not assist your credibility in the research community to so easily dismiss him. Many of the images you are using both on this site and on Lancer have been provided to researchers at some point by Robin Unger.

James

Thanks James.

I appreciate the generous comments.

Cinque is green as grass when it comes to assassination research.

a fly by nighter trying to big note himself.

He would not even be aware of the history of most of the Researchers who have contributed to this thread.

It appears he can only stamp his foot up and down, and put on a tantrum like a five year old child.

Whaddaya say we have a POLL as to the identity of the guy on the steps in the Altgen's photo? You know, "Is it Lovelady or is it Oswald?"

I say it's Lovelady. Current poll results: Lovelady - 1, Oswald - 0

--Tommy :)

^^LOL... Make that 2-0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...