Case in point:
Raff* seems to think this is proof that someone was wearing a hat that wasn't Jack Ruby's, while they fired a gun that wasn't Jack Ruby's, with a deformed hand that wasn't Jack Ruby's at Lee Oswald, who clutched his chest with a deformed hand that wasn't Lee Oswald's, while reacting to a gunshot wound that wasn't Lee Oswald's.
But wait......he then says that the photo was altered. That stripe on the ribbon in the photo on the left above, was painted in.
Raff* can't make up his mind.
We'll answer Raff*'s question in a bit. For now, let's let him tell us all about what we see, in the photos above...
The statements above, prove that Raff* Sink doesn't know a damn thing about lighting. Or color. Or light wave absorption. The basement of the DPD was lit by direct overhead, incandescent lights. There were several reporters taking photographs at the time of the Jackson photo, and you can see the flashes from their equipment going off in all of the live TV footage taken of the event.
But Raff* continues....
Raff* attempts to show that the color difference in the Jackson photo could be because the ribbon in the hat band was actually a different color.
The above statement is just out and out bullshit. Raff* cannot show you a single picture of James Bookhout wearing a hat. He has a picture of a bunch of people, from when Bookhout was in school, wearing uniform hats, but cannot identify Bookhout in the photo or prove that Bookhout is in the photo.
Raff* has nothing to back up his claim that Jack Ruby didn't shoot Lee Oswald.
But he continues...
James Bookhout cannot be identified in the Jackson photo. Mainly, because he was upstairs when the photo was taken.
It's so ridiculous that Raff* has been making an issue of the hat that Bookhout never wore, for over a year now.
But Raff* then contradicts everything he said about lighting and color, in this post...
And for the bazillionth time since jumping into the JFK sandbox, Raff* resorts to calling the kettle black when it comes to idiocy.
Now, Raff* claims that lighting has nothing to do with the change in the color of the ribbon on Ruby's hat and has made his default challenge to anyone that disagrees with him....pick up a camera and reproduce a change in color in a hat band ribbon.
No need.....others have done it for us, but Raff* is too stupid to realize it.
I offer the following....
In the photo above, you can clearly see that the strip of ribbon in the center of the bow on the hat band has taken on the appearance of being the same color as the hat.
The ribbon, in the center of the bow on Frank Costello's hat band, has turned grey.
Here is a photo of TV's Baretta, Robert Blake, in an promotion photo for an earlier project he was involved with.
Notice the ribbon on the hat of the man standing to far right in the photo. The ribbon of the hat band has taken on the color of the hat.
The ribbon used in hat bands are many times, woven in a way that leaves the material ribbed like corduroy fabric. The ribs will cause the satin material to give off a different shine depending on which direction the light source hitting it, is located.
Which leads me to ask Raff*.....
Better than that....Why does this gentleman's hat band take on a different color?
And why do these men's hat bands become the same color as the hat?
It's because of the weave of the satin and the light reflecting off of it, you couple of nimrods.
Why does Fat Tony's hat band take on a different color than the same color material of the bow?
It's because of the weave of the satin and the light reflecting off of it.
It's a shame that between Raff* and Amy, they can't figure out the easy stuff. Everything they don't understand is turned into a new smoking gun, greater than the last smoking gun they found. Unfortunately, between the two of them them, they haven't produced a single smoking gun...ever.
Raff will be working on a reply to this and I want you to keep this photo in mind while you read it....
Look at the center of the bow on the hat band on the man behind Ruby. It's grey....the same color as the hat.
Raff* and Amy........idiots.
It is easy to see the difference between the level of Ralph Cinque's commentary about the hats vis-à-vis the detailed analysis of bpete:ReplyDelete
In bpete's writing, there is a clear understanding of optics that demonstrates why it is unwise to draw conclusions from old photographs. In reading bpete's analysis, the reader can learn something new about the effects of light in black-and-white photography.
By contrast, in Dr. Cinque's writing, the discourse is purely interpretative with Ralph drawing conclusions about the hats that are not borne out in close scrutiny of the photos. In Ralph’s writing, there is no awareness of the scientific properties of light, shadow, aging, and the transferring of photos to the computer.
Ralph Cinque's methodology will always be flawed because he really has no methodology other than expressing unsubstantiated opinion. He starts with a conclusion (Bookhout is Ruby, Moorman is Babushka Woman, Oswald is Lovelady), then works backwards, claiming that his fanciful opinions about the photos are "proof" for his pre-determined thesis. That is not the scientific method, and it is why Ralph Cinque is not taken seriously in JFK studies.
Well, that and the fact that Cinque is a flat-out idiot.ReplyDelete