TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Albert Doyle]

"You have correctly identified the slivers."

Indeed I have, Doyle. And those dark slivers represent shaded t-shirt. I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that the head casts shadow down on the body, and it depends on the sun's location in the sky at the time- and its relationship to the subject and the camera.

OK, you're just in full troll mode now and blowing off my points. Thank you, I consider that a concession by default. You are wearing Dr Fetzer's referral well.

And since we know the slivers are shaded t-shirt, it enables us to visualize the whole t-shirt, and when we do that, we see that the t-shirt opening of Doorman is indeed vee-shaped, just like Oswald's, and not like Lovelady's.

Everything you are avoiding by saying this, yet again, proves why it is wrong. I'm sure anyone foolish enough to still be reading this understands by now that the only thing you and Fetzer are capable of doing in the face of intelligent abstract argument is trolling and repeating your long-disproven bogus claims. You, once again, concede by doing so and forfeit your claims (which were already destroyed anyway).

For anyone who needs this narrated, what Dr Cinque is doing here is claiming the sliver area is T-shirt because when he got deeper into this issue he realized that I was right and by admitting that this was skin (which it is) it would destroy his claim that it is Oswald's V-neck T-shirt. So what we are seeing here is a very sleazy person who thinks we don't see him trying to stick with this obviously defiantly untruthful claim in order to avoid what he doesn't want to admit. Dr Cinque thinks and acts like a 12 year old. This deliberate dishonesty should invoke immediate site action. I suspect they are observing a special dispensation for those not in possession of their wits.

You ask where the shade is coming from. Well, where is it coming from in this picture? This guy is just walking along. There is nothing around him. Yet, there is shade on his neck and shoulder. Yet, it's only him. There are no other objects around him doing it. Just him. All by his lonesome, he is making some shade.

You're nuts and not capable of any intelligent argument. There is one shade in that picture, that is the slight shade seen dropping from his chin. There is no other shade in your example -which, if you had any intelligence, you would understand backs what I'm saying about Altgens. That the only shade on Lovelady in Altgens is the over-contrasted solid chin shadow. Your attempt at bombastic lesson teaching is just more evidence of your childish contempt.

...I try to stay on the issues. I'm not saying I haven't done my share of put-downs. But percentage-wise, it's less than what you do. And in terms of vehemence, it's much less too. I can enjoy a clever put-down as much as the next guy. But, you are really coming off totally unglued with hate. And honestly, you're only hurting yourself, getting yourself all worked up into a dizzy. Frankly, it's water off a duck's back to me. You got me laughing. But hey, I'm just saying: don't give yourself a nervous breakdown over it. Calm down. For yourself.

You have a real set of balls. You're obviously not to be taken seriously and why this site has allowed you to stay as long as they have is extremely puzzling to me. You haven't stayed on the issues, you've dodged them at every opportunity. Nowhere in the last few posts have you made any credible effort at all to answer what I really wrote. If what you write above is an indirect confession that you aren't really attempting any serious claim here, well, we already knew that. The fact you linger so long in this type of personal business shows in itself you aren't serious. Ralph, I hate to break it to you, but it's not something we weren't aware of from your first post. However, as a personal note I would have said "truth off a quack's back." You're about to lose this debate once and for all so cut the small talk Ralph. Don't patronize me, it makes you look foolish, especially when you are beginning to slip under the water with your theory in flames.


You haven't answered where the alleged shade you claim for the "sliver" came from. Since we know the dark "V" was caused by Lovelady's chin shadow, as you've already conceded, what then was the shade on the "sliver" caused by? The head did indeed cast a shadow down on Lovelady's neck area. You are seeing its results in the form of the chin shadow. It's a pretty solidly consistent uniform shape. Now the fact the sliver is a lighter color shows that it is not in this shadow. If it was it would be similarly dark. It isn't. So, since we know the dark "V" shadow was caused by the shade from the chin then what was causing the separate shade you are claiming for the sliver? Shades and shadows are caused by objects blocking the sun. We can account for the chin shadow and trace its results, therefore science requires we should be able to account for any other claimed shade or shadow. So, you are claiming a 'shade' on the sliver area. Now you have to account for its source. To be able to have a credible argument you must be able to answer this simple question. If you refuse to answer it, or bring yet another bogus irrelevant photo example designed to evade this simple point, you once again concede by default. What specific object capable of causing shade caused the alleged shade on the "sliver"? (Don't say it was Lovelady's head because we have already defined the shadow created by it)


Answer this directly. It isn't rocket science...