Friday, March 30, 2018

Continuing down the punk concourse, it's very clear to me that only the small handful of followers he has could be impressed with his blather. Take the issue of the t-shirt. Glibly, he says that the reason Doorman's t-shirt looks vee is because of shadow.

The Punk claims that what we're seeing is an optical illusion, that shadow is completely obscuring part of the t-shirt, that what we're really looking at is:

He's claiming that all that white is there, but we just can't see it because it's being completely obscured by shadow.

What's his evidence for this? Did he photographically demonstrate it by reproducing it? Did he provide other examples of it in which we see the same photographic phenomenon? No. He just said: 

If you do a little research on the subject, you'll find that most people see Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway with a shadow being cast over the area below his chin. 

So, that's it. He thinks that he and his friends saying it constitutes evidence. This is me standing in the doorway on November 17, 2012 trying to reproduce that alleged chin shadow.

As you can see, my round t-shirt opening hasn't be converted into vee by chin shadow. But, the situation is much worse than that for the other side: Not only can't it be demonstrated here- it can't be demonstrated anywhere. They can't produce one image of a person standing somewhere, anywhere, and laying down the kind of perfectly centered and pointed chin shadow that makes this:

look like this:
If they could do it somewhere, they would still have to prove that the lighting conditions were right to do it in the doorway on November 21. But, they can't even do it anywhere. And not only can't they do it anywhere, they can't even find an image of it happening spontaneously- and that's in the entire world of photography. Here's a toddler standing in the direct sun. Is he forming a vee shadow?

OK, so that one doesn't have it. Then find one that does. Wouldn't that be better than just flapping your lips? And even if you do, you'd still have a long way to go to establish that it happened in the Altgens photo. But, it's a first step; a start. But, they haven't even done that. No, they just lip-flap it.

Then, the Punk implies that Oswald's t-shirt got stretched during the scuffle he was in at the time of his arrest, that it got stretched in the fight.

First, there is no evidence that cops pulled on Oswald's t-shirt when subduing him. And, there is no reason to think they would have. They would have grabbed his arms; maybe grabbed his head. But, pull on his t-shirt? What for? Explain the dynamics of it in the context of the fight. But second, fabric doesn't stretch suddenly; it tears suddenly. It stretches gradually from forces that are less than that of tearing. 

The fact is that the vee-shaped t-shirt on Doorman is compelling evidence- to an intelligent person- that he is Oswald.

Then, we get to the managing of the photographic record on 11/22, in which the Punk ridicules the idea that there was any such effort. Yet, it is undeniable fact that every single person with a still or movie camera had his film confiscated by someone in authority. In Mary Moorman's case, it was Jim Featherstone who hustled her to the Sheriff's station to turn it over to authorities, which she did, but it amounts to the same thing. There isn't one spectator with a camera who just went home with his or her film- except for Babushka Lady, and she worked for the plotters. Officially, she disappeared afterwards and NEVER came forward despite many public requests that she do so. 

And then there are the Backyard photos, which are obvious forgeries. Some of the most cutting observations about them were made by our people, such as Amy Joyce, who noticed that Oswald's ring is worn on opposite hands in the pictures. So, we would have to believe that while Marina was snapping away, Lee said, "Wait a second, Honey: I need to move my ring to the other hand." 

I'm not going to start analyzing them here, but the point is that they were manipulating photos BEFORE the assassination. So, if they were doing it BEFORE the assassination, you know damn well that they were doing it afterwards.

And the claim that there was no time to alter the Altgens photo because it was wired out right away has been disproven. You can read about it on the OIC Wrap page:

If the Altgens photo really went out to the world at 1:03, then surely it went out to the Dallas Morning News, which was an AP paper. It's where Altgens went. It's where the Altgens photo was developed. So, surely the Friday morning edition of the DMN would have it, right? It doesn't. Nor does the Friday or Saturday edition of the Dallas Times Herald, also an AP paper. And what about CBS? They showed it on national television at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30 PM Central; therefore, 5 hours after it was taken. But, if they had it sooner, why wouldn't they have shown it sooner? If they had it 1:30, why wait until 5:30 to show it? So, that Walter Cronkite could show it? But, Walter Cronkite was available and reporting all afternoon; so, he could have reported it earlier. Do you think they just sat on it to show it on the Evening News? But, they could easily have shown it earlier, and then shown it again on the Evening News for those that missed it. 

The fact is that most newspapers did not publish the Altgens photo until Saturday, and that would not be true if it was given to the world at 1:03. And concerning the view exceptions with a Friday publishing date, there are suspicions, such as the Benton Harbor New Palladium, a town of 10,000 in Michigan, supposedly coming out with a lavish, all-JFK, extra edition on Friday evening- which is something that even the big city newspapers didn't do. There is nothing else like it. So, was it an elaborate scheme to falsify a Friday showing of the Altgens photo? That paper went out of business in the 1970s. 

But, as Jim Fetzer says, "the finding of photographic alterations proves that there was sufficient time to make them." So, ultimately, making claims about the timeline is futile and a waste of time. You have to address the alterations and account for them.   

Now, look at this stupidity:

Now I'm sure you're asking yourself....hey wait a minute. If there was an individual in the Altgens 6 photo that was actually Oswald...and the mysterious "they" wanted us to think it was Billy Lovelady, and the two looked nothing alike, and yet the identification of Oswald is based mainly on his clothing, why would they move some of Billy Lovelady's facial features to Oswald with the result being that people would still see that it was Oswald in the photo and not Billy Lovelady? Better yet, if they were moving Lovelady's facial features over onto Oswald, where was Billy Lovelady in the photo if he were not standing right where he testified he was standing and others identified him in the photo? More importantly, if they could move this or that, why in the hell didn't they just get rid of the photo? They were managing the photographic record, weren't they?

There is no conundrum here at all. First, besides altering the top of Oswald's head, they also tried to obscure his distinctive clothing. They did realize that his clothing gave away his identity. The distinctive lay of his shirt on the left left, with the collar, the notch, the button loop and the lapel would have given it away in an instant, so they crammed the image of "Black Tie Man" in next to him to hide it

There was no figure standing that close to Doorman, and it is impossible for anyone to stand that close to anyone. It's unreproducible. You can't have an overlap like that- not in real life and not in a photo. Doorman's left shoulder is cut off while BT Man's right shoulder is also obscured. They're both covering up each other? That's impossible. Look: one had to be in front of the other, and whichever one that was, could have been covering up the other one. But, you can't have it both ways with each obscuring the other. Here's me and a paid stand-in:

So, my left shoulder is intact, but I am covering up part of his right arm, and that's because I was standing in front of him. I was between him and the camera. But, this is impossible:

And again, I'll say that the pinks and the punks have every opportunity to get out cameras and duplicate what we see here. But, they don't do it. They just lip-flap. 

And then likewise, they sought to cover up the bottom of Oswald's shirt which was tattered and torn. 

What if that had shown in the doorway? Obviously, it would have been all over. So, they put the profile image of the black man in there to hide it.

That image was derived from a frame taken by Phil Willis (also confiscated, like the others) that was taken about 3 hours later. At the time of the shooting, the black man, whose name was Carl Jones, was facing west, as you see in the Wiegman film.

So, that is Oswald, with his angular face, standing in the center, and that is Carl Jones standing below leaning against the west column. And the time here is very close to the Altgens photo, probably within a second. Carl Jones is not turned east, and there is no reason why he would have been. He is looking in the direction of the Kennedys- as you would expect. And there is no man in a thin black tie breathing down Oswald's neck. That is the reality there. That is Oswald standing in the doorway. He was in the center of the doorway (half a step right of center, actually) and the appearance of him being next to the white column in the Altgens photo is due to the parallax effect- Altgens angle. 

So, the fact is that they worked on Oswald, and they worked on his clothing, trying to transform him into Billy Lovelady. And this occurred in the hours following the assassination. OIC Chairman Larry Rivera thinks it's likely that the work was done at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall- the CIA/military connected photo lab in downtown Dallas where Oswald used to work. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.