As I've said, bpete is definitely not Craig Lamson. You see, Lamson rationalized the notched t-shirt by saying that a perfect v-shaped neck shadow created the optical illusion of a notched t-shirt, where a crescent-shaped portion of white t-shirt got completely obscured to black by shadow. So, this was what was really there, according to Lamson.

Do you have any idea how many of those bozos were making that argument on the forums? Lancer, Amason, EF, etc.  I think it included Unger, and it definitely included Backes. 

But, bpete doesn't want to go that route, and I can't say I blame him. It was a stupid argument then, and it is a stupid argument now. 

So instead, bpete is claiming that Oswald's t-shirt got notched because of the struggle at the theater where it got ripped. He shows the shirt from behind, and he thinks it proves something.

This only proves our point because if the t-shirt was stretched enough to hang down over the shoulder, then that margin was stretched to where it could hang down in front. 

However, Oswald's t-shirt did not get the way it was from a sudden force as in a fight. That would just tear it. It got that way from a gradual, low-level force as with his habit of tugging on it. Sudden, vigorous stretch and it tears; regular, controlled, steady stretch and it just deforms without overtly tearing. 

Oswald's t-shirt wasn't torn; it was stretched. Look at it again.

Certainly for what we are talking about- the area around the margin in front- it was not torn. It was stretched to where there was more give there than what it originally had, and at times that extra give, that extra leeway, would result in a vee-ish descent of the front margin.  

It seems that bpete is trying to claim that all the damage to the t-shirt resulted from the day's altercation (post-doorway) and that prior to that, it was a perfect crewneck t-shirt. Wrong! You dumb, chit-for-brains pluck! Anything as violent as that would have torn the t-shirt overtly not stretched like we're seeing.

Besides, what evidence is there that the t-shirt was involved in the altercation? Where are you getting that from? The same place that Joseph Backes stores his proscenium arches? Was there a police report that said "I yanked on his t-shirt"? Even the image below implies no force applied to the margin of the t-shirt.

 We have two witnesses, Judyth Baker and Anthony Botelho, who maintain that Oswald had the habit of tugging on his t-shirts, and that his t-shirts often looked like what we see on the Doorway Man. They also both maintain that he was the Doorway Man. 

So, we have gone from a fictitious neck shadow that the lying dis-info community clung too for months (years actually) and now bpete has moved on to a fictitious tear that he thinks accounts for the notch in Oswald's t-shirt post-arrest. It is ridiculous; it is stupid; and it is false. Oswald's t-shirt was stretched but intact. 

  That wavy contour that you see at the lowest point in the margin was the result of a habitual force that was applied over time. It was a gradual process that stretched, deformed the t-shirt without tearing it abruptly. It pre-existed the fight in the theater. You, bpete, are a lying duncan drunken fool. And this new gambit of yours is not going to work any better than the stupid neck shadow gambit. And my prediction is that it won't last as long. 

This is an email I just sent to Jim Fetzer, and I hope he gets the message loud and clear. Our lying, deceiving enemies don't want to talk about this.

Jim, this is something I posted today, and I've posted the likes of it before, and I can tell you that the other side does not want to talk about it. Even they realize that it is a VERY weak spot in the official 9/11 story. And that means that we should hit it and hit it hard like a fighter honing in on his opponent's cut.  Ralph

 

Now, bpete also did a lot of noise-making about 9-11 this afternoon (it's morning here in Texas, but bpete is in the UK where it is afternoon). When it comes to how the towers were imploded, I don't enter that debate. I talk about what I want to talk about. And what I want to talk about is the behavior of the pilots. I've already said that they would not have turned the planes over to swarthy Arabs waving box-cutters, as they would have had no basis for assuming those swarthy Arabs could fly the planes. 

You know I'm good at Math, and if we look at the number of people who can fly 757s as a percentage of people on Earth, it's a number so small; it is vanishingly small. It is statistically close to zero as a percentage of people on Earth. And there is nothing about being swarthy and waving a box-cutter that instills any confidence in one's ability to fly a 757. So, under no circumstances would the pilots have turned over those planes to the terrorists. Have you got that, bpete? Or do I need to say it LOUDER?  Even if they were disemboweling a stewardess, the pilots would not have surrendered control of those planes to terrorists. No way, no how, no chance.

So, the pilots would have fought the terrorists- to the death if necessary; that much we know for sure. But, you know what they would have done before they started fighting the terrorists to the death? They would have switched the transponder to hijack mode. Do you know how long that would have taken? A second or less. And not one of the pilots on any of the 4 planes did it. 

It is something they would have done instantly, automatically, and by reflex- without even having to think about it. I have a brother who is a commercial airline pilot, and he was an Air Force pilot before that, and he says it's set up so that in a jiffy you can communicate that you're in trouble. There is no way that on 4 planes there wasn't enough time to do it, that on 4 planes the flight crews were overcome that fast by swarthy Arabs waving box-cutters. Any pilot or co-pilot could have pushed the hijack code on their control yoke to alert ground control of a hijacking. Yet on all 4 planes with 8 pilots, not one pilot was able to do it. What are the odds of that? How could lightly armed hijackers take over 4 cockpits and completely neutralize 8 pilots, some of whom like Charles Burlingame, captain of American 77, were ex-military and highly trained in counter-terrorist techniques including hand to hand combat? 

So, bpete, instead of dwelling on whether the towers were brought down by nano-thermite or mini-nukes or by some other means, why don't you dwell on this? How did swarthy Arabs waving box-cutters completely neutralize 8 pilots on 4 planes and get control of the planes against their will and before a distress signal could be sent? And don't tell me that those red-blooded American pilots cooperated with the terrorists and turned the planes over to them because then I say: pluck you. 

Hey MacRae! You think Bill Mitchell is a ghost? Well, Peter Janney found that ghost. And he talked to that ghost. And he recorded the voice of that ghost. And you can hear that voice right here. It occurs at the 46 minute mark in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P-aqlVzYSc

Unger, you are lying. Oswald's t-shirt fluctuated. At times, the vee showed prominently, and at times it didn't. It was not originally a v-neck t-shirt. He deformed it into a vee. But the extent to which it showed fluctuated depending on whether it was tucked in and how tightly it was pulled down. It was often there.

The one directly above shows you the true nature of it. You can see the wavering margin where he tucked his thumb in to pull it down. Do you see how crinkled it is? That's what we are talking about. That is what caused the vee.

It doesn't matter that the vee fluctuated and that it wasn't there all the time because it only had to be there the short while that Oswald was standing in the doorway of the TSBD. It was there SOME of the time. That we have proven with many images. And it was there the moment that Oswald was standing the doorway and photographed by Ike Altgens. 

Here is a nice development: a German media organization wants to send a videographer to our JFK truth conference in Santa Barbara. 

I have removed the name of the person because you never know; they may not be done killing over JFK.

From: "Welcome to JFK 50th Santa Barbara, CA" <xxxxxx@ruptly.tv>
To: oswaldinnocent@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:20 AM
Subject: JFK 50th commemoration event

Name	Xxxxx Xxxxxxx
Email	xxxxxxx@ruptly.tv
Subject	JFK 50th commemoration event
Message	To whom it may concern: My name is Xxxxx Xxxxx and I work for the German based News Agency Ruptly as a video journalist. I would like to register as media representative for the JFK 50th commemoration event on November 22nd 2013 held at the Fess Parker Double Tree Hotel. Please let me know if you need further information or documents. Kindest regards, Xxxxx Xxxxx
Site	http://www.jfk50santabarbara.com

Make no mistake: the OIC gathering in Santa Barbara shall be THE gathering for JFK truth, and I mean planet-wide. We've even got people coming from the UK. 

William Pepper's assistant, with whom I have daily contact, just sent me this video of Peter Janney speaking about the Mary Pinchot Meyer case and the upcoming lawsuit. It is a very riveting speech Peter gives, and you can tell that he is someone determined to fight the "corptocracy" to the death- just like those 9/11 pilots would have fought those knife-wielding terrorists.  

And guess who sponsored the event hosting Peter Janney? It was a 9/11 truth group. You see that, bpete? As I have been saying, JFK truth and 9/11 truth are sister movements, and they will advance together. Each helps the other. And I assure you that when one reaches the pinnacle, the other won't be far behind. And the outcome is certain; truth will prevail: for JFK and 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P-aqlVzYSc  

Ha, ha, ha. Man, are you ever deluded. Ralph Cinque being marginalized? In the OIC? You really don't understand how it works do you. The only way I could be marginalized is if Jim Fetzer decides to marginalize me (no one else), and even he would have to start a new organization. And he and I have never been on better terms. I mentioned that he called me last night with stupendous news, which I cannot currently reveal. But, I know of zero issues of dispute between him and me, and we couldn't be more unified. 

So, your predictions are worth about as much as your music, which is to say: not much. 

And, I can guarantee you that nobody in the OIC embraces Prayer Man as Oswald. How could they? Prayer Man is dressed wrong. He is built wrong. He's too heavy. He's too brawny. And he's not Oswald. 

When we've got a guy who is dressed exactly in Oswald's clothes, the loose-fitting, unbuttoned, sprawled open outer shirt over the white t-shirt, why would we switch to a guy wearing a polo shirt?

Can you see that Prayer Man has got a cubical-shaped head whereas Doorman and Oswald have a long, triangular head? It's a very big difference. I bet a 5 year old child could identify Prayer Man as the odd man out in this collage. So, bpete, go ahead and join the noise-makers about this because you've already shown us that noise-making is your preference- in music and everything else. They're a clown, you're a clown, and all you do is make noise- with your guitar or your keyboard.  

Now, bpete also did a lot of noise-making about 9-11 this afternoon (it's morning here in Texas, but bpete is in the UK where it is afternoon). When it comes to how the towers were imploded, I don't enter that debate. I talk about what I want to talk about. And what I want to talk about is the behavior of the pilots. I've already said that they would not have turned the planes over to swarthy Arabs waving box-cutters, as they would have had no basis for assuming those swarthy Arabs could fly the planes. 

You know I'm good at Math, and if we look at the number of people who can fly 757s as a percentage of people on Earth, it's a number so small; it is vanishingly small. It is statistically close to zero as a percentage of people on Earth. And there is nothing about being swarthy and waving a box-cutter that instills any confidence in one's ability to fly a 757. So, under no circumstances would the pilots have turned over those planes to the terrorists. Have you got that, bpete? Or do I need to say it LOUDER?  Even if they were disemboweling a stewardess, the pilots would not have surrendered control of those planes to terrorists. No way, no how, no chance.

So, the pilots would have fought the terrorists- to the death if necessary; that much we know for sure. But, you know what they would have done before they started fighting the terrorists to the death? They would have switched the transponder to hijack mode. Do you know how long that would have taken? A second or less. And not one of the pilots on any of the 4 planes did it. 

It is something they would have done instantly, automatically, and by reflex- without even having to think about it. I have a brother who is a commercial airline pilot, and he was an Air Force pilot before that, and he says it's set up so that in a jiffy you can communicate that you're in trouble. There is no way that on 4 planes there wasn't enough time to do it, that on 4 planes the flight crews were overcome that fast by swarthy Arabs waving box-cutters. Any pilot or co-pilot could have pushed the hijack code on their control yoke to alert ground control of a hijacking. Yet on all 4 planes with 8 pilots, not one pilot was able to do it. What are the odds of that? How could lightly armed hijackers take over 4 cockpits and completely neutralize 8 pilots, some of whom like Charles Burlingame, captain of American 77, were ex-military and highly trained in counter-terrorist techniques including hand to hand combat? 

So, bpete, instead of dwelling on whether the towers were brought down by nano-thermite or mini-nukes of by some other means, why don't you dwell on this? How did swarthy Arabs waving box-cutters completely neutralize 8 pilots on 4 planes and get control of the planes against their will and before a distress signal could be sent? And don't tell me that those red-blooded American pilots cooperated with the terrorists and turned the planes over to them because then I say: pluck you.