Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by Mitch Todd on Today at 12:26:26 AM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 05:45:32 PM

Another surreal denial that simply ignores contrary evidence.

So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage? Never mind that Waldon also demonstrated that some subsequent printed versions of Altgens 6 were altered to conceal the damage? I mean, he proves this for all to see in his 1999 presentation. Did you even bother to watch the video of the presentation?

And what about the windshield damage visible in some of the pre-Z256 frames of the Zapruder film in the MPI large-format version of the film? If you spend a small amount of money and buy the DVD of the MPI version and play it on a large HD flat screen TV, you can see the damage with your own eyes in at least a few of the pre-Z256 frames that Dr. Mantik discusses. We both know your theory of the shooting has no plausible explanation for that damage, which is why you won't admit its existence.

MTG: So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage?

Weldon's "enlargement" was to project a page from one of Groden's books onto a screen. The printing processes used to manufacture books do not treat photographs very well; Weldon's presentation is then based on an inferior copy of the original. Maybe a multigenerational copy. There are better copies of the photo out there, and they show that the "damage" isn't damage, or even near the windshield. just like I've said.

MTG: Never mind that Waldon also demonstrated that some subsequent printed versions of Altgens 6 were altered to conceal the damage?

He points to *one* copy of the photo where there is a straight black line cutting through part of the "spiral nebula." This does not appear in the better copies I refer to, so why make an issue of it? It's just a red herring.

MTG: And what about the windshield damage visible in some of the pre-Z256 frames of the Zapruder film in the MPI large-format version of the film?

I've seen it. It's a specular highlight caused by the sun reflecting off of the rearview mirror. That's why it disappears less than a second after it appears. Damage to the windshield wouldn't suddenly vanish like that.

MTG: We both know....

Your mind-reading skills are about as good as your photogrammetry.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?

« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:15:44 AM »

Bumped for newcomers like Brian

This is the 'Lovelady' image Bart Kamp produced from a large print obtained for him from the collection of Richard Sprague.

This image seems to include an incredible amount of detail, particularly on the shirt of 'Lovelady'.
However, the print from which Kamp got this 'Lovelady' image is of such poor quality that is very hard to understand how this amount of detail could be present when far superior pictures show no such detail.
Kamp alludes to this contradiction in his description of how he came across the Sprague print:

"This...Scan of a Couch film still at first looks very harsh and doesn’t overall have much information, but it does happen to show a lot regarding our illustrious duo. This print comes from the Richard E. Sprague Collection from the National Archives."

How can it be that the Sprague print "doesn't overall have much information", yet the part of it showing Lovelady's shirt does?

This is a copy of the Sprague print that Kamp used to get his image of Lovelady from:

Look at the poor quality of this image in general. How washed out it is and how there is a lack of fine detail. As Kamp points out, there is not much overall information in this print, as it is of such poor quality.
In contrast, here is an image from the Couch footage taken from "Four Days In November":

Look at how superior this image is in quality, look at how much more detail is present in this image, how much more information is present overall.
One would have thought that the more detailed picture of 'Lovelady' would come from this superior image.
BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
The picture of 'Lovelady' that has the very fine detail (of the distinctive check pattern of his shirt) comes from the inferior image.
How can that be?

This is a crop of 'Lovelady' from the Sprague print and 4 Days.

How was Kamp able to obtain such fine detail from the inferior Sprague print when no such detail is present in the far superior copy from 4 Days?

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?

« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 11:33:35 PM »

Quote from: Brian Doyle on July 12, 2026, 03:19:18 PM

I'm wondering what part of the man having Shelley's white shirt collar, black jacket, hair doo, and body shape you don't understand?...Or the other man having Lovelady's plaid pattern and bald spot...Or the pair being exactly where Lovelady & Shelley would be according to the other testimonies...Or Shelley pulling up and talking to Hicks as she ran by...The pair fast-walking up the extension just so happens to be where Lovelady & Shelley would be if they were going up the extension according to the witnessing...I consider doubting this to be research-damaging silly-ness...

When I first analyzed this with Thomas Graves 8 years ago the image I saw looked different and you could clearly see Molina's signature bald pate...Obviously the 6th Floor Museum's 1st generation copy should provide the best imagery once enhanced...Do you realize that copy has not been digitally enhanced?...It should yield impressive results...The JFK research community is uncredibly against obtaining that copy without any legitimate excuse...

Frazier was there, witnessed it, and said Lovelady & Shelley spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps...The Couch/Darnell clip backs this by showing that Calvery and Lovelady & Shelley are all at the correct distances for that meeting to have happened...There are strange characters in the research community who just like to cause trouble and muddy the waters...

If you time going up the extension and around the west side of the Depository, Lovelady & Shelley had too much distance to travel to get back in to the 1st Floor in time to meet Adams & Styles...Adams and Styles had a shorter route and most-likely got out the rear exit before Lovelady & Shelley got back in...

But, if you think about it, by conceding this you are admitting the men going up the extension are indeed Lovelady & Shelley (touche)...

You've been asked a very simple question - other than "it looks like that to me", what evidence do you have that the two men on the extension are Shelley and Lovelady?
It's a simple question.
What evidence do you have?

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton

« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 11:02:12 PM »

Quote from: Bill Brown on Yesterday at 04:17:07 PM

Again... After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports.

Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).

Think about it.

After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports

True, that's also where they marked pieces of evidence, regardless if they ever were in the chain of custody or not.

Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).

Really?

The sequence of events disagrees. The officers who drove in the car with Oswald, left him in the homicide bureau, with some uniformed officers.

Only minutes after Oswald had been brought in, Guy Rose started working and the first thing he did was talk to Oswald. When he walked into the room, somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.

Now, if Oswald's wallet was in Westbrook's office with a number of officers, as you claim, how could Guy Rose be given that same wallet?

Perhaps, if somebody needs to think about it, it's you.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by Mark Ulrik on Yesterday at 10:18:49 PM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 05:45:32 PM

Another surreal denial that simply ignores contrary evidence.

So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage? Never mind that Waldon also demonstrated that some subsequent printed versions of Altgens 6 were altered to conceal the damage? I mean, he proves this for all to see in his 1999 presentation. Did you even bother to watch the video of the presentation?

Weldon used a version printed in one of Groden's books for his presentation, but was at least honest enough to admit that he wasn't able to convince Groden. Here's an even clearer version from Groden's 2013 book. Notice the caption. Would you care to tell us where you see the supposed damage to the windshield? That was a rhetorical question, btw. We all know that you'll run for the hills like you always do.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 10:14:42 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:40:33 PM

Zapruder's camera was a recording device. If it didn't record something in 1963, we can't just add something in 63 years later and still claim it is the Zapruder film. AI can't perform magic. It can create the illusion of magic.

Not talking about "AI". For whatever reason You're stuck on "AI". A = "Artificial". Not talking about anything "Artificial".

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot

« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:56:42 PM »

Quote from: Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 08:29:12 PM

wCharles Brehm and Marrion Baker also offered the same opinon (London ABA trial - see Bugliosi at 492 and 494)

So were Brehm or Baker timing the shooting?

Quote

Mary Woodward said that the sound of the second had not died out before the third shot sounded.

That pretty much shoots down your theory of JBC being shot at Z270. The sound of a gunshot doesn't last 2.35 seconds. What Woodward is describing is a double sound from a single shot.

Quote

That may be what they were referring to as one on top of the other. The reverberation in Dealey plaza would have lasted more than 2 seconds given the distances between reflecting surfaces (Houston St buildings on the east, Post office on the south, railway berm and overpass on the south, west and north and the structures on the north part of DP as well as the TSBD on the north).

You pulled this one out of your ass. Sound travels at a bit over 1100 fps. None of the objects you mentioned were 1100 feet from the earwitnesses so no one would have been hearing an echo of a gunshot from 2.35 seconds earlier.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:40:33 PM »

Quote from: Royell Storing on Yesterday at 09:30:40 PM

What we see above is in line with, "If God had wanted Man to fly, he would have been born with wings". Primitive Thinking.

Zapruder's camera was a recording device. If it didn't record something in 1963, we can't just add something in 63 years later and still claim it is the Zapruder film. AI can't perform magic. It can create the illusion of magic.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 09:30:40 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:31:48 PM

I don't know anybody other than Nellie Connally who thought JFK clutched his throat. Why would anyone need technology to figure that out?
There's only so much modern technology can do to enhance the Z-film. It can enlarge it, sharpen the images, etc. but if the film didn't initially capture something, technology can't magically insert it with authenticity. There's a fine line between AI enhancements and AI alterations. AI has the capability of creating false versions of the Z-film. Things CTs have alleged for years are now possible with AI.

What we see above is in line with, "If God had wanted Man to fly, he would have been born with wings". Primitive Thinking.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot

« Last post by Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 08:29:12 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 03:22:02 PM

I didn't know Emmett Hudson was timing the shooter.

Charles Brehm and Marrion Baker also offered the same opinon (London ABA trial - see Bugliosi at 492 and 494)

Quote

If those witnesses were correct, those two shots couldn't have been fired by Oswald. Some of these witnesses said they thought the last two shots sounded like they came one on top of the other. That doesn't fit your sill scenario of a Z270 shot followed by the Z313 head shot.

Mary Woodward said that the sound of the second had not died out before the third shot sounded. That may be what they were referring to as one on top of the other. The reverberation in Dealey plaza would have lasted more than 2 seconds given the distances between reflecting surfaces (Houston St buildings on the east, Post office on the south, railway berm and overpass on the south, west and north and the structures on the north part of DP as well as the TSBD on the north).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10