Newseum displays "Oswald's shirt": Proof that he was Doorman!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Scientific reasoning is based upon hypothesis formation, observation, and both deductive

and inductive reasoning. There is nothing about them that ought to challenge a reasonable

mind. I have long since observed that Robin Unger does not possess a reasonable mind.

Indeed, Lovelady and Checkered Shirt Man were not at the same places at the same times:

Further comparisons reveal our critics would have Checkered Man's shirt open and closed at the same time:

Notice none of this depends upon bright sunlight , over-exposure, poor resolution, or deep shadows.

There is much more, of course, but if any of you still want to disprove the conclusion that Oswald was

Doorman, then you need to dispute either the truth of the premises or the reliability of the reasoning to

their conclusions. So point out which premises or reasoning you dispute or else accept the conclusion.

But only if you want to qualify your position as "rational", which doesn't seem to matter to most of you.

Quote:

I still hold to my wider premise; that some of the anomalies with the image may result from bright sunlight and over-exposure rather than alteration and that the image is of sufficiently poor quality that it lends itself to many questions but few conclusions.

That is precisely what we see

bright sunlight , over-exposure, poor resolution, deep shadows

Also not forgetting the fact that the area we are looking at, is only a very tiny piece of the overall photo, and needs to be BLOWN UP just to be studied

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That's not "name calling" and it further displays your irrationality in dealing with

these issues. You have no reasonable response to the evidence, so--again and

again--you change the subject to distract from your embarrassment. Burnham

made an indefensible allegation that I was practicing "pseudo-science". THAT

is an example of "name calling", NOT my demonstration that he cannot tell the

difference between science and pseudo-science, when THERE IS NOTHING

REMOTELY "PSEDUO-SCIENTIFIC" ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS I'VE POSED.

Quote

Greg Burnham could not distinguish between science and pseudo-science

if his life depended upon

That the old Fetzer we have all come to know.

When you are incapable of presenting a good enough case to convince others that you are correct !

GO ON THE ATTACK, START NAME CALLING,

Typical Fetzer tactics

But we see right through you, your bully boy tactics won't work anymore.Jim

Now people see you for what you really are,

a snake oil salesman, with a HUGE EGO that he is incapable of keeping under control

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Lindsay Anderson]

Quote:

I still hold to my wider premise; that some of the anomalies with the image may result from bright sunlight and over-exposure rather than alteration and that the image is of sufficiently poor quality that it lends itself to many questions but few conclusions.

That is precisely what we see

bright sunlight , over-exposure, poor resolution, deep shadows

Also not forgetting the fact that the area we are looking at, is only a very tiny piece of the overall photo, and needs to be BLOWN UP just to be studied

Yeah - i got that (see below). thanks to post 22 from you on this thread showing the full photo and hence the wider context. I'd seen the full photo before, but I got so fixed on the doorway I had forgotten there is more to the picture.

Ok, I know there is a big problem with (this) suggestion. It is super easy to see that man in the black tie, but that’s exactly why this may have been missed and why I welcome input from the experts on what I think is distortion due to over-exposure and how that can effect what we see in photos such as this. Remember what we see in the doorway is just a small part of a much bigger photo. Light levels were set for the entire frame.

Robin, do you (or others) have any comments re the following from my previous post, James has already given a response to the 3rd Issue and I would like to get some other input.

These are maybe clear to everyone but me:

The figure in the doorway resembles Oswald to any casual observer – I just don’t get why anyone would edit the photo extensively and leave that in. They did not need to make this figure look like Lovelady. I am increasingly of the opinion that there is too much evidence of cover-up and so much of it badly done and easy to disprove – what I think we have are deliberate measures to disinform by any means, it didnt matter whether it would stand up to close scrutiny. When combined with pictures in the clouds it means the truth gets buried further every day. Despite this, (altering the photo but) leaving an image that resembles Oswald intentionally would have been, in my opinion, just too much of a risk and one hell of a double-bluff.

People we believe should be in the doorway may well be there, we just can’t see them.

From the zoomed in image (altgens6) it looks like we see the entire doorway, but zoomed out it seems at least half the doorway is obscured from the shot by the tree and the 2 Secret Service Agents - Oswald could very well be standing there and we wouldn't know it.

The insistence that Doorman has to be one of 3 people, Oswald, Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man –

........... (is this) considered to be accepted fact?

Edited March 6, 2013 by Lindsay Anderson

[Greg Burnham]

...

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

The insistence that Doorman has to be one of 3 people, Oswald, Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man –

........... (is this) considered to be accepted fact?

I believe there is only one Doorman ( and that is Lovelady )

I don't believe it was Oswald.

And the idea that there were multiple Lovelady's running around dealey plaza is pure fiction.

[Thomas Graves]

...

What about Arrogant Professor Ale?

--Tommy

Edited March 6, 2013 by Thomas Graves