I'd hoped for something a little better in response, but even by Ralph's crushingly low standards these retorts are beyond pathetic -
Now you'll notice that Ralph hasn't given a link to my piece, and I think the reason for that is obvious. I'm more than happy to give you the link to his worthless rebuttal attempt because I want you to see what Ralph does when faced with evidence he can't refute.
He twists, turns, blusters, misrepresents and flat - out lies.
Worse than that, he doesn't even comprehend the position that he finds himself in. The whole O.I.C lie falls on solid confirmation that Doorman is wearing Lovelady's plaid shirt. This is solid visual evidence Ralph, and if the best rebuttal you can make is to lie about how it was presented then you are truly finished.
I told you I'd talk about the arm when I chose to do so, and you're going to have insurmountable difficulties with that too. It wasn't the subject of this piece though, so try to stay on topic, ok?
I don't need to go to Dallas Ralph, I already showed USING YOUR OWN PHOTOGRAPH that your "plaid looks plaid" statement is false. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal".
I showed you the upper left quadrant of the shirt and where the matches were, including an almost perfect match to Lovelady's collar. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal".
I showed you that the visible area of shirt in Altgens 6 is not sufficient to show a series of boxes. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal".
In my second gif I'd already showed you the vertical white line you so thoughtfully drew in, and how it lines up perfectly with Lovelady's shirt. You didn't mention this in your "rebuttal". Thanks for acknowledging that it's clearly visible in Altgens though.
I showed you fifteen matching lines to Lovelady's shirt pattern in exactly the place we'd expect to see them. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal" except in a lie about how the information was presented. You know perfectly well that I presented gif animations in which the confirming lines were faded away to leave the image unmarked. You don't mention this in your "rebuttal". Do you even know what an "animated gif" is? Even the frame that you choose to show you have severely cropped in an attempt to bolster your pathetic argument.
I chose to present the information in this way with the express intention of removing deliberately deceiving "collages" from the equation. This is the first time a presentation has been made which cuts through your sleight of hand tricks and shows the comparison in an honest and easily comprehensible way - which is obviously why you don't like it. Tough.
In fact, your "rebuttal" is no rebuttal whatsoever, since it addresses nothing and consists solely of lies, bluster and more lies.
I'm quite happy with that Ralph. It shows you have nothing.
People are watching Ralph. For the sake of all the well meaning folk that you have decieved with your scam have the decency to at least attempt a serious argument.
Poor Ralph is confused -
He seems to be under the impression that by simply lying and refusing to address any of the evidence I've shown he can make it go away. He seems to think that simply posting the same tired and bogus collages over and over again is helping him. ( Hint - when I said there was a perfect match to Lovelady's collar I'm referring to MY evidence, not the refuted crap that you keep churning out Ralph ). It's amazing that Ralph, who has stolen every gif and image he can lay his hands on doesn't want to steal this one unless he can use a cropped frame to lie about. You really have to ask yourself why that is. He seems to forget that he's lying in open, public view.
"So the first thing he said is that the upper left quadrant showed a perfect match to Lovelady's collar."
A lie straight off the bat. The first thing I said was that I had shown USING YOUR OWN PHOTO that your "plaid looked plaid" contention is incorrect. You don't seem to want to mention that.
" We should see the boxes everywhere, and in the smaller areas we should see parts of the boxes, corners of the boxes, etc. Plus, the visible area of the shirt is at least half the whole shirt. So, don't tell me it isn't big enough to show boxes."
Nope. The visible area of the shirt front is nothing like half, as I have shown. Try again...( Hint - try addressing the evidence I presented instead of just blustering ).
News for you Ralph.
My hit counter has gone nuts in the last 24 hours with views from 19 countries and counting. It's not going away.
I'm fine with you continuing to show that you have no credible response. Knock yourself out......