They have to be kidding... but I don't think they are...

Posted 29 May 2012 - 10:22 PM
Lee Farley, on 29 May 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Ralph Cinque, on 29 May 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:
I would like to share with the members a new comparison between Oswald and Doorman. In this one, we see on Oswald the very prominent fold-over of his outer shirt on his left side, and it certainly makes it thick and wide. We can see the same on Doorman except only at the bottom. The top of the shirt on his left is blocked by the presence of Black Tie Man. As you may recall, I believe that Black Tie Man was placed there precisely to cover up the distinctive form of Oswald's shirt on that side. And even if you dispute that, you do have to admit that Oswald's shirt is most unusual on that side, with the collar, the lapel, and the button loop coming off the lapel. Can you at least admit that if we saw the same formation on Doorman's shirt that the debate would be over? Or perhaps I should say that it never would have gotten started.

The contours of the line of the face look well matched. They look well matched across the eyes. Where they do not look well-matched is the hairline. That is definitely Lovelady's hairline and balding pattern, which I believe they moved there, replacing Oswald's.

But here's the piece-de-resistance: the ears. Look how well those ears match. And you know how ears have been compared to fingerprints.The size, the shape, the angle, the location, the amount of flare all match perfectly. Lovelady's right ear hung lower, as you can see below. That really was Oswald in the doorway.

Let me get this one straight?

They left Oswald's shirt in place but covered the collar by inserting a whole person into the photo to cover it up?

They left Oswald's face and ears in place but they put Billy Lovelady's hair on top to hide him?

This was done in the mobile photo processing van? Wow!

And they got away with this until the "genius" that is Ralph Cinque came along with his magnifying glass?

God give me strength!

Greg Parker said: My own painstaking pseudo scientific study shows that WITHOUT A DOUBT, Oswald was arrested wearing a clownish hat 10 sizes too small and worn at a jaunty angle. It proves CONCLUSIVELY that it was not Oswald in the Altgens. To deny the sheer genius of this analysis would be an insult to pseudo science and pseudo scientists the world over. Here is one example of a letter of support from a fellow pseudo-scientist:



Hello Dr Parker,

Thank you for allowing me a sneak peek at your wonderful study of Lee Harvey Oswald and his clown hat. It is amazing to me that this has been missed by everyone until now, and having had a visit to this "ed Forum" , it seems to me, it is the perfect place to present your findings. I note the quality of pseudo science on offer there is astoundingly high, and almost as rigorous as your own.

best regards,
Dr Waldo Mole-Khul

I would vote for a DiEugenio/Douglass ticket as an add-on to Stone/Hancock.

I look forward to the 51st even moreso than the 50th. And 52nd. 'Cause the thought police will use up all their ammo on the 50th.

Lee David Farley wrote:I'd like to see Bill Simpich's work gain a wider audience..

Frankie Vegas wrote:Ha ha! Jaunty.