Fetzer Photo Follies

Get a load of this one:

Fetzer claims there is a version of the Altgens photo in Mark Lane’s “Rush to Judgement,” film.  And quoting one of his demented followers: 

“Mr. Kelly Ruckman has noticed that there is a significant early close-up of the region of the Altgens [photo] showing “Doorway Man” in Mark Lane’s documentary, “Rush to Judgement.”

What the hell is “significant early close-up” supposed to mean? This is nonsensical.  Lane was showing the issuse of “Doorway Man” looking a lot like Oswald.

“In this version the high contrast area of Black Tie Man’s suit is clearly evident.”

Translation - A guy with a dark suit is standing mostly in the shadow of the TSBD entranceway. So, what?

“With little definition in the blacks and in the whites, whatever was light and survived the contrasting could not have been medium toned originally.”

What the fuck kind of mumbo - jumbo is that sentence trying to say? It’s making a huge ass assumption, as ALWAYS unproven and unsubstantiated that there were alterations done on the Altgens photo.  The writer seems to think he has proven that and now can move on.  The alteration is referred to as “the contrasting,” that the photo he is looking at now was “contrasted” and this explains why “Black Tie Man,” has a dark suit.

He’s stnading almost entirely in shadow, asshole!

It continues, “On Black Tie Man there is a significant white line, fairly thick, enough for a kerchief in a breast pocket.”

Um, excuse me didn’t you just claim there was some “contrasting” procedure done to the photo, didn’t you just claim there was little definition in the blacks and the whites. And didn’t you just claim that whatever survived this “contrasting” procedure could not have been medium toned originally? And yet, something white somehow did survive?

So, he has a handkerchief in the suit’s breast pocket.  So, the fuck what?

Is this guy seriously suggesting that in the Altgens photo seen in Mark Lane’s “Rush to Judgement” documentary film that Black Tie Man has a white handkerchief in his breast pocket and this hanky doesn’t appear in any other printed or published copy of the Altgens film? That in Rush to Judgement, and only in Rush to Judgement can this hanky be seen? 

Apparently so, because he goes on to claim that this “feature” could not be taken away by mere changes in contrast of one print or another.

Who the hell said anyone did or wanted to take this hanky away? No one.  Yet he writes as if somone wanted that and accomplished that, without showing anything that anyone did do that.  And so, by this total absence of evidence it is evidence that there is more than one version of the Altgens photo out there.

Building on this non-accomplishment this idiot goes on to state that Jack Ruby was known to be a “natty” dresser.  

I don’t know what “natty” means, but I do know what NUTTY means.

Hey, asshole, millions of men, for decades, had a hanky in the breast pocket of their dress suit jacket. Men still dress this way. It doesn’t mean shit.

Then he has another claim to make, Jack Ruby dressed like Black Tie Man did. Then he asks was Black Tie Man Jack Ruby? What an asshole.

This idiot claims that the Altgens photo was “provably touched up in one area: the area of the breast pocket of a figure in the doorway.”

How can anyone believe this shit?  A hanky in the pocket was supposed to be something only Jack Ruby ever wore? Is a breast pocket hanky supposed to be as distinctive to Jack Ruby as Batman’s cape and cowl? 

And to top it all off this pinhead asks Mark Lane to come forward with the proof of this fucking stupid, baseless, fact free, proof free, theory.