Take for instance, Doorman's shirt. Does it have a "bold plaid" pattern like one H.M. Rowland said?
To even begin to answer the question, you have to be aware of what you are looking at. And what you are looking at is a very tiny image that has been blown up enormously. And when that happens, it causes distortion.
So, one first has to recognize that there is a lot of distortion in Doorman's image. How stupid would we be if we point to some distortion and describe it as an object? Pretty damn stupid.
On the left is Doorman's shirt, and on the right is the shirt of the Lovelady impostor from the fake video that was made in 1966, I presume by the FBI. I hope you know that, in this case, they are the bad guys and not to be trusted. On the left, we see variation in Doorman's shirt, meaning, light and dark. But, what accounts for it? It's not a shirt pattern because nobody would design a shirt like that. It is ugly, and nobody would buy it. What that is is light reflection off Oswald's very grainy shirt, plus some haze and distortion from the extreme enlargement. That's it. That is all it is. It is not a "plaid" pattern like we see on the right.
Plaid refers to horizontal and vertical lines which cross and form boxes. You can see the boxes on the impostor's shirt on the right. But, there isn't a single box on Doorman's shirt. There isn't a single horizontal or vertical line. It's just random splotchiness. And one would have to be very obtuse, and well, stupid, to say they are the same "pattern." But, let's move on.
Mr. Rowland submitted this image on the left, taken by Robert Jackson- the same guy who was involved in the monstrously altered image of Oswald supposedly being shot by Jack Ruby during the televised spectacle. It is of Billy Lovelady in 1971.
And, the fact is that "Lovelady" posed on the wrong step in 1971. He stood on the third step whereas Lovelady said he "on your top level." In other words, he was on the platform above the steps. It's in his Warren Commission testimony.
But, the main thing I want to point out here is that Mr. Rowland took the plaid shirt on the left and equated it with Doorman's shirt on the right, which, as I said, is splotchy not plaid. They cannot possibly be the same shirt. So, it really is stupid to equate them. It is unthinking. It is the antithesis of thinking.
Next, Mr. Rowland submitted my own image to me, the one demonstrating the parallax effect in the doorway. I made this to explain why Doorman's right shoulder isn't seen in the Altgens photo. It was not because he was behind the column. He was in the center of the doorway. It's because the west side of the doorway was cut off to Altgens' camera because of the angle from which he shot.
So, that is where Doorman was, on the top platform, next to the median handrail, slightly west of center. The parallax line went directly through his right shoulder, which is why it's out of view. His left shoulder is also out of view but not because of parallax. It's out of view because of the massive alternation that was done to the photo, including installing the man to his left, who was put there to hide the very unique construction of Oswald's Russian shirt.
And finally, Mr. Rowland posted this image of Doorman from the Wiegman film which is not legitimate. It is a bogus image that was added to the photo because Oswald was gone by then. He left for the lunch room. But, they needed a Doorman there, so they put this guy in.
If you are wondering how they could add a still image to a movie, they only added it to a few frames. You understand that that's all a movie is: a series of still frames. It's still the case today. So, they added that figure to the film for a tiny fraction of a second. He wasn't Oswald. He wasn't Lovelady. I don't know who he was.
You have to remember that the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event of all time.
I'll admit that I don't have much patience for people like Mr. Rowland. He doesn't know what he is talking about, and he shouldn't be doing this. He does not have the thinking skills to do it.