Sunday, April 22, 2018

Wow. This is funny. Brian Pete denounces people making and repeating declaratory statements. Then what does he do? He makes and repeats a declaratory statement.

Raff* can write for days and days about the exact same thing under the premise that the more he repeats something, the more true it becomes. Couple that with Raff*'s ability to make declaratory statements without offering any proof and you have the OIC Oswald-Lovelady-Doorman comparison in a nutshell.

How unfortunate for Raff* that Oswald didn't put on his magical, hybrid shirt-jacket until after he went to his room at the boarding house and went to the picture show.

So, him saying that Oswald changed his shirt before going to the picture show makes it a fact? He didn't even argue it; he just claimed it. 

Then, the Punk tries to dispute the obvious weight loss that Oswald incurred between New Orleans and Dallas. 

There are no photo tricks involved with that. He was heavier on the left; it's a plainly visible fact. So, the Punk put this up as evidence of what "lens difference" can do:

But, let's not use his example because he is a punk and a criminal and a hit man. Let's look at an independent demonstration of lens  difference, like this one:

Now, we'll reduce it to the two most extreme ones:

So, that is the real difference between 200 mm focal length and 24 mm focal length. Compare to:

Do you really want to attribute that difference to lens setting rather than weight loss, Punk? 

I have added the above collage to the Lovelady page of the OIC website. Here is how it appears with the write-up:

Nest, the Punk flaunts this bogus, altered image of Oswald to claim that he wasn't skinny.

Not only did they make him look MUCH heavier than he was, they altered a lot more, including his hair, his eye, and his t-shirt. And he wasn't wearing his outer shirt like that at the time. That was taken in association with this:

The cop was taking Oswald to Fritz, but Fritz wasn't there. So, they put him in that holding room. But, as you can see, his outer shirt wasn't even fully on him. So, how did it become this?

It's just more bull shit, and the bloodied Brian Pete flings it like nobody's business. 

Then, get this: Brian Pete actually claims to see the margin of Lovelady's t-shirt in the black. He added the text to Richard Hooke's collage. 

First, let's look at the best image we have, which is the scan by Dennis Cimino:

Shadow over white t-shirt would not be as dark as shadow over skin, which is brown, right? So, why would the darkest black be over the white t-shirt? And to claim Altgen's camera from the distance he shot, picked up a tiny minute thing like that, where it actually registered as an element in the photo is preposterous!
To claim that Altgen's camera picked that up is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. And, the stupid Punk apparently agrees, since he says the same thing, as you can see below, but he's too stupid to apply it to himself.  He forgets all about it when he's ready to make outrageous claims. 

Next, the Punk puts up this image from Wiegman to assert that the Doorman's t-shirt wasn't vee. But, this is a phony image. Not only isn't it Oswald, and not only isn't it Lovelady, but it isn't anyone who was there. It is a still-image that was added to the film. 

What happened is that Oswald left. He is captured at the beginning of the Wiegman film. This is him standing in the center of the doorway.

And granted, we don't see a vee in his t-shirt there either. However, it is a highly distorted image, and I believe it was distorted on purpose. Look at the other figures, most of whom have no facial features and distinctions at all. Look at the guy with the bulging forearm below Oswald. Look to Oswald's left, our right, at the weird white smear. This is a highly distorted image. So, how can you expect to see a vee in a t-shirt? But, Oswald left soon after this, within seconds, and by the time Wiegman swung his camera around again, for his second pass of the doorway, the Doorman was gone. So, they put that other figure in there just to fill in the space. So, that other guy wasn't Oswald; he wasn't Lovelady; and he wasn't there.

Next, I did go ahead and alter the text in one of the graphics because it wasn't right. This is how it reads now: lower left, in light blue:

 So, we're in good shape on that now. I'm glad I caught it.

I also went ahead and replaced a pixelated image, replacing it with this, and it's to show the perfect match of the ears. 

This is something that a smart man would shut the fuck up about. 

And that's all the time I'm devoting to this shithead's latest spew. 

Keep going, Punk. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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