Sunday, April 22, 2018

Founded In Fetzering Part 7b

I continue with the rantings of Raff* Sink and his band of Incompetent Clowns...


Keep in mind whenever you see the color photo of Billy Lovelady above, that his is the movie that Raff* said conclusively proves that Billy Lovelady did not wear a red and white stripped, short sleeve shirt on the day of the assassination, except that the image is fake and isn't Billy Lovelady but actually stand-in used by the mysterious "they" but the mysterious "they" forgot to have his shirt unbuttoned and went back and added a white sliver to the fake image of a fake Lovelady. You got that?

Also notice the following (you'll see why at the end of this section)... that the vertical white stripes above his pocket tend to fade out and the horizontal white and black stripes are very pronounced. Notice also, that the white and black stripes alternate top and bottom order. The bottom most set near the tail of the shirt show a dark black stripe under a white stripe. Just above is the next set with the black stripe now above the white stripe.

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.


Raff* Sink has been spouting the same bloviations above for over 6 years now and it stands as proof that Raff* has not grasped the idea that different film formats, different cameras, different perspectives will cause the same person or subject to appear different. He is too incompetent to understand the premise. Any difference he's seen, between 3 different sources of imagery, are automatically deemed fake. Well, that is except for the part he says is real. Here is a good example....


Point one....Raff* Sink is not a weight loss Doctor. Raff* Sink is a washed up Chiropractor that decided to call himself a weight loss Doctor and then joined with other non-weight loss Doctors to create a club and sanction themselves as weight loss Doctors. The State of Texas has had to remind Raff* that he's not a Doctor and to quit calling himself one.

Point two....Raff* has offered no proof that the New Orleans Police dept. weighed Oswald. There is a weight listed on an arrest report and because weight is used to describe suspects, they asked suspects how much they weigh or estimate it.

What Raff*'s seasoned eye fails to admit is, that in the photo on the right, the camera lens and distance from Oswald give the impression of a more lean and gaunt Oswald.

Here is an example of what lens difference can do to make a subject look completely  different....


Now look again at Raff*'s selected photo and since he likes to make up juvenile nicknames for people that appear to be different, but they're actually the same, we'll call the Oswald on the left, Fat Elvis and on the right, Skinny Elvis.


Look at Fat Elvis from August and then Skinny Elvis from November...then look at Skinny Elvis below....


He morphed back into Fat Elvis. Look at that neck as Raff* has been heard to exclaim. Now how could Fat Elvis be Skinny Elvis and just a few short hours before he was Skinny Elvis, he was Fat Elvis?

Here is a crop from an article where the author showed the difference in the appearance of an subject, based on difference distances between the photographer and the subject....

The photographer took the photo on the left from 18 inches away. The one on the right, from 60 inches away. You can see the entire series of images shown on the card in the photos, here:


Raff*'s explanation for the Fat Elvis that you see above being fat just hours before becoming Skinny Elvis is that Fat Elvis is fake. But not the original Fat Elvis, just the Fat Elvis at the Dallas PD.

Raff* then ricochets back to the "perfect vee"...


We've already covered the remarks of one Anthony Bothello. Now let's jump into the make believe world of one, Richard Hooke, ex-refrigerator art expert of the OIC. Raff* and his merry band of clowns rely heavily on the collages of Richard. James H. Fetzer, PhD, has touted Richard's works of art all over the place, from his blog page to his various radio shows, to the pages of Veterans Today(until Fetzer was banned and his works removed) to the Education Forum. You will see several links to various discussions at the Education Forum concerning the repeated attempts of the OIC to convince the JFK world that they are right.

Richard has a tendency to contradict himself in his little works of art. Notice that in the two photos of Oswald, there is no perfect vee in the neck of his t-shirt. 

Now let's look at a blowup of Richard's collage....

As you will see, when the OIC talks perfect vee, they use a particular copy of the Altgens 6 crop. Whe Richard goes in for detail, you actually see where he's bullshitting you.

The rear reducing, ever morphing, frontal prominent sometimes but mostly middle of the road, perfect vee.

As a reminder, the rear reduced perfect vee....




There are a couple of things that Richard doesn't explain. First, he shows the supposed neckline of Doorman and it doesn't match the one shown for Oswald. The "vertex" shown by Richard on Oswald is an edge to the neck of the shirt but on "Doorman" it's a curving blob of shadow.

Another thing he can't explain is how this photo taken seconds from his "Doorman" image shows a normal crew neck t-shirt with no vee, "vortex" or anything else...


Richard is like Raff*...he never lets the facts get in the way of good refrigerator art.


If? If Doorman was wearing a v-shaped t-shirt? I thought this was the smoking gun of the JFK world? I thought it was definitive. Conclusive. Next, Raff* declares that there is no such thing as a perfectly vee shaped shadow anywhere in the world. "Keep in mind that no one has ever brought forth an image in which a round t-shirt was made to look perfectly vee-shaped due to chin shadow". Except the OIC. Just look above at any use of the crop of Altgens 6 and compare it to Wiegman's crop.
We'll see another example by Raff* in a bit....


In this collage, I'll zoom in on a particular finding by Richard....


See the little box on both the Altgens crop and Oswald on the far right. While Oswald's t-shirt was manifesting, his hair was growing as well. On the right, Oswald's hair on his left temple, which lays no further forward than his side burn suddenly grows on the left, to a length past the outside of his left eye, wrapping around his forehead. So not only do we have to deal with an always moving manifesting vee but also the Magic Hair Barbie effect. It was so bad that the mysterious "they" had to keep Lovelady in hiding for the next 16 years. My guess is it was to keep Oswald's family from suing the Mattel Toy company for patent infringement when the Magic Hair Barbie came out. I'm sure they can use Richard's collage as evidence.


Now the little spiel that Raff* gives about the film being high contrast comes from someone schooling his ass in the past about black and white photography and Altgens' use of Tri-X film. He doesn't know squat about photography. Did you also notice that the Altgens crop used by Raff* is different from others. It's smaller and at a higher contrast than what is used in Richard's collages that show an irregular edge to the neck of the shirt. Just scroll back and see for yourself.


The photo above is from Raff*'s disastrous attempt to replicate the Altgens 6 photo. In that attempt, Raff* hired a "professional" photographer to take a different camera, and stand in a different place, and take various digital photos, and pass them off as legitimate examples of Altgens' famous photo. He and James H. Fetzer, PhD have published a description of this half-assed effort on various websites and in several forums.

Here's an example....


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19722-jfk-believe-it-or-not-oswald-wasnt-even-a-shooter/?page=2

The Lamson being criticized by Raff* pointed out to Raff* later, that the photographer using the flash was not recreating Altgens...Raff* got pissed (American definition, not British). Lamson did give an example of just how bad Raff*'s super experiment failed from git go.....


Proof that Raff*'s photographer wasn't standing anywhere near Altgens' position. But here's how Raff* described it....



You can read the entire article and discussion here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19720-jfk-49-years-in-the-offing-the-altgens-reenactment/

Raff*, starts his narration and then gets into discussing his photos and the first one he offers is this...


Raff*'s professional photo reenactment starts off with a digital shot taken from a completely different location than that of here....


Now keep in mind that this....

Is an enlargement of this....
actual size

Did you notice the chin shadow? Not of Raff* On his stand in....

Those never happen in real life....

Raff* shows a variety of digital, color digital converted to black and white and what he claims is Tri-X 35mm black and white photos in his article. He blows his entire perfect vee comparison with the first closeup he uses.

Raff* is such a dumbass....

Here's another of his photos....


Raff* was wearing a v-shaped t-shirt but look at what happened.....


Major fail dos.....

And here is one he refuses to post.....

 
That's Raff*'s crew neck t-shirt. Looks a little...ummmm....veeish doesn't it?
 

He's such a tool...

But getting back to the OIC site...

This has to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen regarding the Altgens photo. Richard Hooke is demonstrating where a series of minute folds, each one showing as a line in Oswald's photo measuring less than a 16th of an inch wide



shows up in this....


The grain in the film is larger than the fucking crinkle.

Raff* continues...




Let's try this....


Lobe for lobe, Raff*'s an idiot.

Richard is as well.

That last one was almost as good as the crinkle.


Yup...Lovelady's tapers in and Oswald's gets wider...another smoking gun....

We're done with funny charts by Richard....except this one that was removed from the OIC page....


That one was actually laughed off of the OIC page due to widespread ridicule.

Raff* goes on to claim that Oswald had "postural" habits that included clasping his wrist with the other hand and pursing his lips but unfortunately, the OIC can't produce a single photo of Oswald clasping his wrist with his other hand that wasn't taken while he was in handcuffs and for one instance when he wasn't allowed to put his hands in his pockets, being out of them.

Here's a picture of Oswald cheering his postural habits...

 
And here is Oswald pursing his lips and holding his wrist all over Russia...
 

Here's Oswald holding his wrist as a teenager...


And here is proof that Oswald started thumb tugging his shirts at an early stage...



Next.....all the reasons that Billy Lovelady cannot be Billy Lovelady.....

2 comments:

  1. Excellent work in debunking more of the data presented on the Cinque website. I personally find nothing convincing in the diagrams of Richard Hooke. He offers confusing assertions about ear lobes, lips, and wrinkles in shirts—all of which is speculative discourse. Each one of the points extracted from his charts and illustrations is debatable, and there is no apparent knowledge of photographic technology in 1963.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I read through the discussion on the Education Forum from the link you provided above. The debate touched on a number of the points that you address in your 7B exposé.

    In the Education Forum thread, Robin challenged Ralph to provide him with a copy of the "re-enactment" photo. But Ralph declined. Robin wrote that Ralph "obviously doesn't want his re-enactment photo to be studied in large resolution, and prefers instead to hide behind that tiny little thumbnail image. In doing so, he hopes that no one will notice the glaring mistakes."

    Of course, Ralph is always "hiding behind" the limitations and flawed reasoning of his photo interpretations.

    The debate on the Education Forum occurred in 2012, a time when both Jim Fetzer and Ralph had privileges to post on that site. They had the opportunity to present their case through six pages of debate. Yet they failed to make any converts and were treated with non-stop ridicule.

    Now, six years later and having learned absolutely nothing from the universal rejection of his hypothesis, Ralph is still peddling the same garbage.

    ReplyDelete

Anyone can comment but anyone's comment can be removed....play nice!