23-05-2012, 05:03 AM
Charles,
Thanks, but that's not the photo I was referrring to. That is clearly Lovelady in the plaid shirt. This one showed a figure, right where the doorway man was, with a rust/brown shirt that looked identical to Oswald's.
Albert,
We could go on like this forever. You're wedded to your belief that the figure is Lovelady. Did you read the article I linked to, by John J. Johnson? There is serious doubt here.
And please stop associating me with Ralph Cinque or Jim Fetzer's photo alteration theories. I've never agreed with their specific arguments on the thread in question. In fact, it's as obvious to me as it is to anyone else that they are making fools of themselves by refusing to accept that no one has been persuaded by what they've been saying.
Just because Cinque and Fetzer are wrong about this doesn't mean that the figure in the doorway is Lovelady. That's been my point all along. It was probably inappropriate of me to insinuate you were a "neo-con." I coined that phrase-short for neo-conspiracy theorists-to describe the increasing numbers of researchers who don't think there were any mysterious deaths of witnesses, think Witt was the Umbrella Man, think there wasn't a hole in the windshield, etc. I see the Altgens photo controversy in the same light; there appears to be a strong effort to force all CTers to adhere to the new consensus that this problem has been solved.
Read Johnson's article. I think you'll be impressed.
Thanks, but that's not the photo I was referrring to. That is clearly Lovelady in the plaid shirt. This one showed a figure, right where the doorway man was, with a rust/brown shirt that looked identical to Oswald's.
Albert,
We could go on like this forever. You're wedded to your belief that the figure is Lovelady. Did you read the article I linked to, by John J. Johnson? There is serious doubt here.
And please stop associating me with Ralph Cinque or Jim Fetzer's photo alteration theories. I've never agreed with their specific arguments on the thread in question. In fact, it's as obvious to me as it is to anyone else that they are making fools of themselves by refusing to accept that no one has been persuaded by what they've been saying.
Just because Cinque and Fetzer are wrong about this doesn't mean that the figure in the doorway is Lovelady. That's been my point all along. It was probably inappropriate of me to insinuate you were a "neo-con." I coined that phrase-short for neo-conspiracy theorists-to describe the increasing numbers of researchers who don't think there were any mysterious deaths of witnesses, think Witt was the Umbrella Man, think there wasn't a hole in the windshield, etc. I see the Altgens photo controversy in the same light; there appears to be a strong effort to force all CTers to adhere to the new consensus that this problem has been solved.
Read Johnson's article. I think you'll be impressed.