Thanks for the thread Dan but you couldn't be more wrong!
My pleasure John and I look forward to a man of your obvious capabilities putting me on the right track.
As long as I don't have to listen to the old 'all colours turn white in daylight' schtick it should all be good.
1) Yes, Oswald was average height, slender and white there is little deviation amongst the eyewitnesses. These characteristics are by far the most important and hence the consistency.
Okay...point #1. You're off to a solid start.
Oswald was a slender, white male. There can be no doubt about that.
And this description of him was consistent, as you say. I don't recall any descriptions where his gender, race or body-type were different. For instance, I don't ever recall Oswald being described as an overweight, 7 foot, African American female, so you might be onto something.
By the same token, it's like saying the shooter had two legs, two arms and a head and you're jumping up and down shouting "So did Oswald! So did Oswald!"
There could hardly be a more generic description than "slender, white male", which probably applied to more than half the male population of Dallas in 1963.
You make a valid point but it's one hardly worth making.
2) Oswald's shirt appeared lighter when in direct sunlight, you've been told this before. This photo has deep shaded shadows, therefore this photo hasn't been artificially lightened.
Noooooooo!!
Not the 'all colours turn white in daylight' horsesh*t!!
I specifically stated I didn't want to hear this about insanity in my post.
You've already been taken to task over this nonsense fairly recently but I notice you used it again shortly afterwards.
It is so embarrassing to have to deal with this issue, it's like sitting a child down to explain something they should already understand. Unfortunately, you insist on using it so it will have to be laid to rest once and for all.
The Prayer Man fanatics used to have, what I thought, was the craziest piece of mental gymnastics to account for the fact that Oswald had stated on camera that he was "in the building" at the time of the assassination. Obviously, they needed him to be out on the front steps at the time of the assassination. In order to make this work they argued that - because Prayer Man/Oswald was stood on the front steps, and because the front steps were set into the building, that he was still "in" the building even though he was outside the front doors.
They argued that he was both in and out of the building at the same time! But now we have Bill Chapman's 'all colours turn white in daylight' argument, which you insist on resurrecting.
It is an immense problem for the Oswald-Did-It crowd that four eye-witnesses who saw the man on the 6th floor describe him wearing a shirt, open at the collar, that was so light coloured it was almost white. The problem being that Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day. In short, the man on the 6th floor was wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't. It wasn't Oswald.
To counter this most damning piece of evidence some creative thinking was required (rather than just take the evidence at face value). So, Bill came up with idea of taking an over-exposed photograph, one in which the light colours were bleached out, and pointing out that in the photograph where the difference between the colours that were in shadow and those that were in daylight demonstrated that all colours turned white in daylight.
You heard that correctly - daylight turns all colours white.
Now, in an over-exposed photographed this may well be true but the insanity kicks in when it is realised that this argument was being applied to real life!
Look at how over-exposed the light colours are in the above pic. This is not how things look to the eye in daylight.
The conditions on the day of the assassination were perfect for seeing colour, a blue sky sunny day. In these conditions colour stands out vividly, the human eye can detect the smallest change in the hue of a colour and the true colour of things are on display.
When an object moves into the shadow it's colour becomes darker, that is obvious but Bill was arguing that the true colour could be seen in shadow and then bleached out to a white colour in daylight.
It is such a desperate attempt to explain away a piece of evidence that demonstrates the man on the 6th floor wasn't Oswald.
Note the background from street level, it appears quite dark being contrasted with the relatively lightened brickwork.
This lighting phenomenon is what is known as an optical illusion and objects of the exact same shade can appear to differ wildly as compared to the contrasted background. In the following image both "A" and "B" are the exact same shade but witness the difference when contrasted with varying adjacent shades! Like night and day. eh!
When an object moves from light to dark it's colour becomes darker.
This is not an optical illusion.
There is no trick or misunderstanding.
A child can understand what's happening.
3) And most absurd of all, a man has a fair complexion regardless of facial stubble. LOL!
After peddling the 'all colours turn white in daylight' baloney you have some nerve using the word "absurd".
All I can do is accept the explanation of the eyewitness himself. Unlike you I don't know what they 'really meant to say'.
“Yes; one thing--and that is in the picture he looked like he hadn't shaved in several days at least. And--uh--I don't know whether at that distance, looking at him from the street in the School Book Depository Building--if I could have been able to---if I could have seen that. I think, if he had been unshaven in the window, it would have made his complexion appear--well---rather dark; but I remember his complexion was light; that is, unless he had just a light beard.”
4) BTW, as for your comment about what Fischer thought??, I'll let the reader make their own conclusion. Sheesh!
Mr. FISCHER - Well, they actually showed me two pictures--one of Lee Harvey Oswald, and one of Jack Ruby.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And what did you say?
Mr. FISCHER - I told them that that could have been the man.
Mr. BELIN - Now, which one did you say could have been the man?
Mr. FISCHER - Lee Harvey Oswald. That that could have been the man that I saw in the window of the School Book Depository Building, but that I was not sure. It's possible that a man fit the general description that I gave---but I can't say for sure.
Mr. BELIN - Was there anything different---do you remember the picture?--- between the picture you saw and the man you saw in the window?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes; one thing--and that is in the picture he looked like he hadn't shaved in several days at least. And--uh--I don't know whether at that distance, looking at him from the street in the School Book Depository Building--if I could have been able to---if I could have seen that. I think, if he had been unshaven in the window, it would have made his complexion appear--well---rather dark; but I remember his complexion was light; that is, unless he had just a light beard.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/fischer.htm
"...as for your comment about what Fischer thought??"What comment was that?
4a) Fischer didn't see Oswald in full sunlight.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun shining on his face when you saw him in the window or not-or don't you remember?
Mr. FISCHER - No; uh--no the sun wasn't shining on his face. He was back in the shadow of the window.
JohnM
Finishing strong with point #4.
At no time have I mentioned anything about Fischer seeing Oswald in full sunlight or not so this just seems a bit like a senior moment.
BTW doesn't this further condemn your notion that 'all colours turn white in daylight'. If the eyewitnesses are still recognizing the off white colour in shadow where does that leave your lunatic theory?
