You're just asking for proof of what's already been proven...
When the two men seen fast-walking up the extension are seen wearing the same clothes as Lovelady & Shelley, have the same plaid pattern, bald spot, body type, black jacket, white shirt collar, duck's Bahookie hair doo, and are where they are supposed to be according to testimony, that's usually good enough for proof with credible researchers...I have no interest in obnoxious moot court silly games...
I see no evidence that the Sprague copy has been altered...
The 6th Floor Museum copy will show the same thing as Sprague...
Listen Brian, you're clearly not a stupid person but there is something a little unsavoury about your approach to this issue.
You constantly repeat that Shelley and Lovelady "are where they are supposed to be according to testimony" but this is a bare-faced lie. It's really not on, to keep repeating this ludicrous claim over and over. You have been challenged on this a number of times but you offer nothing but childish daydreams. The testimony you are referring to is their WC testimony. When it's pointed out to you that, according to their WC testimony, BOTH MEN stayed on the steps for at least 3 minutes before they left the steps you cry that the conspirators made them lie. But if that's the case how can they be where they are supposed to be "according to testimony"? I would like you to answer this question, but you won't, because you are not credible. You are a blowhard who refuses to back up his claims with any kind of evidence.
You also conveniently forget that, according to their WC testimonies, BOTH MEN ran across to the "little, old island" where they stayed for "a minute or two" before heading along the extension. How does that fit into your made-up nonsense?
You waffle on about Sandy Larsen's photo analysis but never provide a link or any kind of hint as to where anyone might find this. It wouldn't surprise me if all this analysis has somehow mysteriously disappeared and, by some miracle, you are the only one who remembers it.
Your opinion is based on a single image.
It is the Sprague image...the image being disputed in this thread.
There is no other image that supports the Sprague image even though there are many versions of the Couch footage. There is no other image that shows the detail in 'Lovelady's' shirt or his bald spot.
I believe you are lying when you suggest their are other images.
I find you lack any kind of credibility.
And that is truly disappointing.
I see no evidence that the Sprague copy has been altered...This is the Sprague image below.
Do you notice the light square around the two men?
What do you think that is?
How is it that such a poor quality image can provide such amazing detail?
