JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Thomas Graves on June 20, 2019, 12:43:04 PM
-
Although Don finally got the three gals by the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film (Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Holt, and Sharon Simmons) correctly labeled about a year ago, and although he's had Inez Juanita Hart Dishong (aka June Dishong) correctly placed for a long time, due to the fact that he still doesn't have the four "shoulder-to-shoulder" headscarf-wearing gals (from left to right: Karen Westbrook, Carol Reed, Karan Hicks, Gloria Calvery) right, and his apparently not realizing that June Dishong came to the north side of Elm Street with an unnamed Higginbotham-Bailey Company colleague, he has mistakenly put Karen Westbrook in that unnamed person's place (to the immediate left of Dishong) on his "new" map.
As for Don's misplacement of Peggy Burney, Betty Thornton and Jane Berry, and his mis-juggling of Jane (not Gayle) Newman from his old map (where she was correctly placed, to the immediate right of Ernest Brandt) to her bogus new spot, don't even get me started ...
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS That's Dishong wearing the darkish (reddish) blouse and the dark-colored skirt in this Cabluck photo, and her unnamed colleague next to her wearing the light-colored full-length dress.
And, fwiw, that's Gloria Holt behind white-skirt and dark-jacket-wearing Stella Mae Jacob to their left. (I don't know where Jacob's and Holt's colleague, Sharron Simmons, is at this particular point in time.)
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=39&pos=1
Excerpts from Dishong's writing about the assassination, in which she very discretely appears to be protecting the identity of her colleague:
...
12:00 He (JFK) is late getting downtown. We have time to eat lunch and get out in front.
12:15 Better put on my jacket
it might be chilly although
the sun is shining bright.
We go down the elevator at the
back of the building and across
the corner down the sidewalk
in front of the Texas book
depository and about 30
feet beyond the corner.
The sun is warm. I’ll take
off my jacket -- we might have
quite a wait for the president’s car.
...
(emphasis added)
-
Do you believe that the elevations shown for the sidewalk elevation (429.5') near the point at Elm Street and Elm Street Extension, and the elevation (490.9') of the sniper's nest window ledge are correct?
-
Do you believe that the elevations shown for the sidewalk elevation (429.5') near the point at Elm Street and Elm Street Extension, and the elevation (490.9') of the sniper's nest window ledge are correct?
Dear Charles,
I wouldn't have a clue.
You?
-- MWT ;)
-
Dear Charles,
I wouldn't have a clue.
You?
-- MWT ;)
Thanks, I really don't know either. Just thought you might.
-
Do you believe that the elevations shown for the sidewalk elevation (429.5') near the point at Elm Street and Elm Street Extension, and the elevation (490.9') of the sniper's nest window ledge are correct?
That would make the window ledge about 61.4' above the top surface of the curb where 429.5' is (that surface would be level or near-level with the surface of the sidewalk adjoining the Depository). The height of 61.4' is very close to 60.7' in CE 1437.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0439a.jpg)
I don't know if "street level" in CE 1437 means from the surface of the sidewalk adjoining the building or from the surface of the roadway. Just to complicate things further, one critic claims the window ledge height was 55'.
About three weeks ago, I began rebuilding the Depository's SE corner in SketchUp. Though a work in progress, it currently has the top of the window ledge 61' 4" above the sidewalk, which I think is workable.
-
That would make the window ledge about 61.4' above the top surface of the curb where 429.5' is (that surface would be level or near-level with the surface of the sidewalk adjoining the Depository). The height of 61.4' is very close to 60.7' in CE 1437.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0439a.jpg)
I don't know if "street level" in CE 1437 means from the surface of the sidewalk adjoining the building or from the surface of the roadway. Just to complicate things further, one critic claims the window ledge height was 55'.
About three weeks ago, I began rebuilding the Depository's SE corner in SketchUp. Though a work in progress, it currently has the top of the window ledge 61' 4" above the sidewalk, which I think is workable.
Thanks. If you do the arithmetic using the numbers on Roberdeau's map, it is 61.4' difference. So it appears they pretty much agree with CE 1437.
-
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49453/m1/1/high_res/)
This drawing says the window ledge height of 60.7' was from the sidewalk (a earlier version ( Link (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338942/m1/1/high_res/) ) says 61'). To me, this indicates it wasn't from the Elm Street roadbed, which is lower (six inches?) than the top surface of the sidewalk. CE 1437 has the same height but refers to "window sill" (not "window ledge").
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_LastScan1.jpg)
There is a masonry window ledge whose outer lip is a few inches or so below the bottom of the window opening. A strict definition of "window sill" is the structure that the window frame rests on (label "1" below).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Sill_%28PSF%29.png/330px-Sill_%28PSF%29.png)
It's possible they measured to the opening on the sixth-floor as if the wooden frame wasn't there.
-
Has anyone been able to positively identify Worrell’s position from a photo or film on a map? He testified that he was right under the sniper’s nest window on the sidewalk on the same side of Elm Street as the TSBD. That is where Roberdeau's map shows him also. But has this been confirmed by photographic evidence?
-
The identities of the motorcade spectators tell you exactly nothing about where Oswald was during the assassination.
-
The identities of the motorcade spectators tell you exactly nothing about where Oswald was during the assassination.
It's really cute how you think you're Oswald's defence lawyer.
JohnM
-
It's really cute how you think you're Oswald's defence lawyer.
Not nearly as cute as you thinking you're Oswald's prosecution lawyer.
-
Not nearly as cute as you thinking you're Oswald's prosecution lawyer.
I don't care if Oswald is innocent or guilty, I just present the facts.
JohnM
-
I don't care if Oswald is innocent or guilty, I just present the facts.
No, you present assumptions, conjecture, and misrepresentations and call them facts.
-
No, you present assumptions, conjecture, and misrepresentations and call them facts.
???
JohnM
-
The identities of the motorcade spectators tell you exactly nothing about where Oswald was during the assassination.
John, what is it to you that people want to try to identify the eyewitnesses who lined the streets in Dealey Plaza? Why are you so bent on harassing Thomas Graves for wanting to do this?
Penn Jones(R.I.P.) was a staunch conspiracy theorist, author, and speaker , and once said these words:
"Pick a topic regarding the assassination, and research the hell out of it."
What is your expertise in this topic, and what have you "researched the hell out of"?
All I ever see you doing is harassing people whom you disagree with. You do the same thing on Facebook.
-
John, what is it to you that people want to try to identify the eyewitnesses who lined the streets in Dealey Plaza? Why are you so bent on harassing Thomas Graves for wanting to do this?
Penn Jones(R.I.P.) was a staunch conspiracy theorist, author, and speaker , and once said these words:
"Pick a topic regarding the assassination, and research the hell out of it."
What is your expertise in this topic, and what have you "researched the hell out of"?
All I ever see you doing is harassing people whom you disagree with. You do the same thing on Facebook.
Steve,
Iacoletti has memorized by heart all of the evidence which he fervently believes tends to suggest Oswald was innocent.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent.
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
Mr. Oswald (smirking): Thanks, sucker..
-
John, what is it to you that people want to try to identify the eyewitnesses who lined the streets in Dealey Plaza? Why are you so bent on harassing Thomas Graves for wanting to do this?
Penn Jones(R.I.P.) was a staunch conspiracy theorist, author, and speaker , and once said these words:
"Pick a topic regarding the assassination, and research the hell out of it."
What is your expertise in this topic, and what have you "researched the hell out of"?
All I ever see you doing is harassing people whom you disagree with. You do the same thing on Facebook.
Ditto on TAE
-
John, what is it to you that people want to try to identify the eyewitnesses who lined the streets in Dealey Plaza? Why are you so bent on harassing Thomas Graves for wanting to do this?
I have no problem with him wanting to do this. I'm just pointing out that just declaring that he has the right answer and everybody else is wrong is a lousy argument for his position.
Penn Jones(R.I.P.) was a staunch conspiracy theorist, author, and speaker , and once said these words:
"Pick a topic regarding the assassination, and research the hell out of it."
Absolutely. But is it research to squint at a blurry image and say "gawrsh, it sure looks like these 3 particular women to me!" ?
What is your expertise in this topic, and what have you "researched the hell out of"?
All I ever see you doing is harassing people whom you disagree with. You do the same thing on Facebook.
Disagreement is harassment now? Tommy is the one obsessively posting about this vendetta he has about me not accepting his pet conclusion to multiple threads and peppering his posts with his sarcastic cute little nicknames. Who's the one doing the harassing here?
-
Steve,
Iacoletti has memorized by heart all of the evidence which he fervently believes tends to suggest Oswald was innocent.
LOL
I don't know of any evidence that tends to suggest Oswald was innocent. Is there nothing you won't misrepresent to further your sarcastic, dishonest agenda?
-
Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent.
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
Mr. Oswald (smirking): Thanks, sucker..
That joke never gets old. ::)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/chapman-bozo.jpg)
-
Ditto on TAE
Let me guess: if you recall correctly? Probably?
-
Let me guess: if you recall correctly? Probably?
There's no 'for sure' choice? Aw, shucks...
-
There's no 'for sure' choice? Aw, shucks...
Feel free to cite some examples of this "harassment". Oh yeah, you don't do that. If memory serves.
-
That joke never gets old. ::)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/chapman-bozo.jpg)
Good ones never do ;)
@Lurkers
Dirty Harry
'Smith, Wesson... and me'
Dirty Harvey
'Smith, Wesson... and Lee'
-
Feel free to cite some examples of this "harassment". Oh yeah, you don't do that. If memory serves.
Aren't you glad I introduced that 'feel free' terminology to you?
IIRC is in common use here
You lot on TAE have to read your reviews
-
Aren't you glad I introduced that 'feel free' terminology to you?
Right, I never heard that phrase before you came along. ::)
IIRC is in common use here
You lot on TAE have to read your reviews
Sorry, is that supposed to be an example of me harassing someone?
-
Right, I never heard that phrase before you came along. ::)
Sorry, is that supposed to be an example of me harassing someone?
Show us where you used the 'feel free' expression before my 'feel free to name your shooter' ask.
And yeah, TAE harrasses and makes fun of callers who don't agree with the panellists.
-
Show us where you used the 'feel free' expression before my 'feel free to name your shooter' ask.
Is there nothing you'll shamelessly try to take credit for?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
I've been compiling a list of lame excuses that LNers make to "explain" away conflicting or contradictory evidence in this case. Feel free to suggest any additions.
* feel free to suggest someone else
And yeah, TAE harrasses and makes fun of callers who don't agree with the panellists.
Don't change the subject. You said that I harrassed people. Do you have an example or not?
-
Is there nothing you'll shamelessly try to take credit for?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
Don't change the subject. You said that I harrassed people. Do you have an example or not?
Prove that was the earliest iteration of that particular topic of mine
Pretty sure I started that up before the forum was hacked...
TAE is embedded in your behaviour here
Your devil's advocate stance firmly places you in the harasser category.
-
Prove that was the earliest iteration of that particular topic of mine
Pretty sure I started that up before the forum was hacked...
Brilliant. Anything you want to make up happened before the forum was hacked.
Like that time you admitted to bestiality before the forum was hacked.
Gee, how about you not making claims that you can't substantiate? 'K, thanks!
TAE is embedded in your behaviour here
Your devil's advocate stance firmly places you in the harasser category
So, no examples of me harrassing anybody then? That must have happened before the forum was hacked too, right?
-
What did I make up
Shhhh, you promised you wouldn't tell. And take it easy on that lamb, big fella.
Gee, how about you proving the date you provided was the first of my 'feel free to name your shooter' statements.
It's the first time you used the phrase on this forum.
How about proving your claim that I stole the expression from you?
-
It's the first time you used the phrase on this forum.
How about proving your claim that I stole the expression from you?
Is there some reason I should take you at your word?
-
How about proving your claim that I stole the expression from you?
Huh? How is he supposed to prove a question that relies on a subjective answer from you?
JohnM
-
Huh? How is he supposed to prove a question that relies on a subjective answer from you?
Maybe it's a bad idea to make unprovable claims...
-
Maybe it's a bad idea to make unprovable claims...
Maybe you should lighten up a little, you take this all too seriously.
Btw how is your Jesus stuff going?
JohnM
-
Maybe you should lighten up a little, you take this all too seriously.
Btw how is your Jesus stuff going?
What is my "Jesus stuff"? What I yelled the other night when I stubbed my toe? I have an ancestor named Jesus Vigil. Is that what you mean? My genealogy work is going fine. Thanks for asking.
-
Maybe it's a bad idea to make unprovable claims...
As an aside, are you still claiming that you've never called anyone a 'lemming' here?
-
Sorry I am not fully up to speed on all this, but what or who is 'TAE'?
-
Sorry I am not fully up to speed on all this, but what or who is 'TAE'?
The Atheist Experience
Just another dogmatic belief system
OMG
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2080.0.html#new
-
As an aside, are you still claiming that you've never called anyone a 'lemming' here?
Who here do you think I ever called a lemming?
-
Just another dogmatic belief system
Can't get any more dogmatic than the "Oswald Did It" religion.
-
Can't get any more dogmatic than the "Oswald Did It" religion.
Iacoletti,
Is that why you're so doggedly opposed to accepting the obvious -- that Gloria Calvery was "caught" in Darnell talking with a man on the lower steps of the TSBD about 25 seconds after the assassination -- because you irrationally fear that, facts-be-damned, admitting same will somehow lead to a perverse (should I say perverted?) analog of Worshiping The Golden Calf, ... gasp ... finding your boy, Oswald, ... guilty?
-- MWT ;)
-
Is that why you're so doggedly opposed to accepting the obvious -- that Gloria Calvery was "caught" in Darnell talking with a man on the lower steps of the TSBD about 25 seconds after the assassination
Calling something "obvious" doesn't make it actually true.
-- because you irrationally fear that, facts-be-damned, admitting same will somehow lead to a perverse (should I say perverted?) analog of Worshiping The Golden Calf, ... gasp ... finding your boy, Oswald, ... guilty?
Inquiring minds want to know: how does your conjecture about black-blob woman being Calvery lead to ANY conclusion about Oswald's guilt or lack thereof?
-
Inquiring minds want to know: how does your conjecture about black-blob woman being Calvery lead to ANY conclusion about Oswald's guilt or lack thereof?
Iacoletti,
Your inferring that I was suggesting that only goes to prove my point -- that you are deathly afraid that's Gloria Calvery wearing a black blouse, a black headscarf (and a mid-toned skirt with horizontal stripes in it) on the steps in Darnell because you know that if it is her, it would strongly suggest that Prayer Person isn't Oswald, after all, but instead the "Sarah" that Frazier said turned towards him (and he towards her) when they both heard a crying "girl," who had come to the steps, bellow out that JFK had been shot.
And you're so insecure in your belief that Oswald is innocent that you desperately want him up there next to Frazier in Darnell and in Wiegman to prove it, and so you irrationally deny that Sandy Larsen and I correctly identified Calvery, who was ideally placed during the motorcade to both 1) witness JFK's head getting blown off, and 2) getting to the steps within 25 seconds or so after that fatal headshot to bellow out that bit of news to the people standing on the steps, and to be "caught" on film either doing so, or very shortly thereafter, while people (most noticeably Frazier and Prayer Person) are still visibly reacting to the "news" she's brought.
Contrary to what you suggest, the two horizontal stripes in that woman's skirt isn't what led Sandy Larsen and I to "zoom in" on her in our quest to solve the long-standing mystery "Where's the Gloria Calvery that Shelley and Lovelady and Joe Molina said they spoke with on-or-near the steps so soon after the final shot?"
Rather, it was the combination of several facts that led us to her, including but not limited to: 1) no one had ever identified "on paper" the big tall gal wearing the black blouse and the black headscarf in Zapruder, 2) that gal was standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with three other headscarf-wearing gals, the same number of female colleagues (including Calvery) at Southwestern Publishing who claimed in their FBI reports to have watched the motorcade together, 3) one of those three other headscarf-wearing gals in Zapruder was tallish and wearing all white (including headscarf), and in Darnell can very likely be seen right next to the big tall gal in question, perhaps even trying to breakup her conversation with the bald-headed man standing in front of her by attempting to "pull" her (the black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal) up the steps with her.
The two horizontal stripes in that gals skirt is just "icing on the cake" in Larsen's and my correct identification of Calvery in Darnell.
Question: Is the gal we're talking about in Darnell (the black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal to the immediate left of the gal all-in-white) "halfway up the steps" (as you claim) in Darnell, or is she on one of the lower steps?
Answer: She's on one of the lower steps, perhaps even the first one.
Regardless, even if she was halfway up the steps, what would it matter?
If that were the case, do you think the big, tall, black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal in Zapruder wouldn't have had enough time to get that far in twenty-five seconds or so?
Your bringing up that lame "point" just shows how truly desperate you are, Iacoletti.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Your inferring that I was implying that proves my point -- that you are deathly afraid that that's Calvery wearing a black blouse, a black headscarf and a mid-toned skirt with horizontal stripes in it,
It's not "fear" to point out that just because you think you see two "stripes" on her "skirt" that doesn't make it Calvery.
on the steps in Darnell because you know that if it is her, that fact would strongly suggest that Prayer Person isn't Oswald, after all, but instead the "Sarah" that Frazier said turned towards him (and he towards her) when they both heard a crying "girl" who had come to the steps yell out that JFK had been shot.
That doesn't "suggest" (strongly or otherwise) anything about the identity of prayer-person. For one thing, when did anyone say that "crying" girl came halfway up the steps? For anopther, why do you assume that faceless Frazier-blob and faceless prayer-blob are "turned towards each other"?
And you're so insecure in your belief that Oswald is innocent that you desperately want him up there next to Frazier in Darnell and in Wiegman to prove it, and so you irrationally deny that Sandy Larsen and I correctly identified Calvery there in Darnell.
No, because I don't have a "belief that Oswald is innocent". That's just a strawman position you made up to pretend that you have presented anything more than a subjective opinion about "stripes" on a "skirt".
-
Just so we're all clear about these "obvious" features that Tommy thinks he sees. Here's what we are talking about. [images credit: Bart Kamp]
The area we are talking about inside the actual image is this.
(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/the-skirt-4.jpg)
Enlarging the enlargement even further:
(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-3-1.jpg)
Obvious "mid-toned skirt with horizontal stripes in it", huh?
How about looking at that area in a different frame and enlarging it further:
(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-2.jpg)
Nope.
Maybe enhancing another frame? Still nope.
(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-1.jpg)
The only thing that's obvious here is that your "obvious mid-toned skirt with horizontal stripes in it" is greatly exaggerated wishful thinking.
-
Iacoletti,
Your inferring that I was suggesting that only serves to prove my point -- that you are deathly afraid that that's Calvery wearing a black blouse and a black headscarf (and a mid-toned skirt with horizontal stripes) on the steps in Darnell because you know that if it is her, it would strongly suggest that Prayer Person isn't Oswald, after all, but instead the "Sarah" whom Frazier said turned towards him (and he towards her) when they heard a "girl" who had "come by" the steps from farther down Elm Street to bellow out that JFK had been shot.
And you're so insecure in your belief that Oswald is innocent that you not only desperately want him up there next to Frazier in Darnell and in Wiegman to prove it, but you also irrationally deny that Sandy Larsen and I correctly identified a previously unidentified gal in Zapruder and Darnell who was ideally placed during the motorcade to not only witness JFK's head being blown off, but be able to get to the steps quickly enough to be "caught" by Darnell while either bellowing out that bit of news, or standing there talking with a bald-headed man immediately afterwards, while Frazier and Prayer Person are still visibly reacting to "the news" she's just brought.
Contrary to what you suggest, the two horizontal stripes in that woman's skirt isn't what led Sandy Larsen and I to "zoom in" on her in our quest to solve the long-standing mystery "Where's the Gloria Calvery that Shelley and Lovelady and Joe Molina said they spoke with on-or-near the steps so soon after the final shot?"
Rather, it was the combination of several facts that led us to her, including but not limited to: 1) no one had ever identified "on record" for the JFK Assassination Research Community, the big tall gal wearing the black blouse and the black headscarf in Zapruder, 2) that big, tall headscarf-wearing gal was standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with three other headscarf-wearing gals*, making the same total number of female Southwestrn Publishing colleagues (four) who claimed in their FBI reports to have watched the motorcade not only together, but "on the north side of Elm Street, about halfway between the TSBD and the Triple Underpass," 3) one of those three other headscarf-wearing gals in Zapruder was tallish and wearing all white (including headscarf), and in Darnell can very likely be seen right next to the big tall gal in question, perhaps even trying to breakup her conversation with the bald-headed man standing in front of her by attempting to "pull" her (the black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal) up the steps with her.
Bottom line (pardon the pun): The two horizontal stripes in that gals skirt is just "icing on the cake" in Larsen's and my correct identification of Calvery in Darnell.
Question: Is the gal we're talking about in Darnell (the black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal to the immediate left of the gal all-in-white) "halfway up the steps" (as you claim) in Darnell, or is she on one of the lower steps?
Answer: She's on one of the lower steps, perhaps even the first one.
Regardless, even if she was "halfway up the steps," would that really matter?
If that were the case, do you think the big, tall, black-blouse and black-headscarf-wearing gal in Zapruder wouldn't have had enough time to get that far in twenty-five seconds or so?
Your bringing up that lame "point" just shows how truly desperate you are, Iacoletti.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
* which four headscarf-wearing gals who are in the middle of a virtual sea of correctly identified people in Zapruder -- i.e., to their left, Millican, Woodward, Brown, et al., and to their immediate right, John Templin, Ernest Brandt and Jean Newman -- are still, after all these years, being juggled and misidentified by Roberdeau and Unger.
LOL
Edited and bumped
-- MWT ;)