JFK Assassination Forum

We both recognize the difficulty of the early shot. You believe Oswald wouldn't have taken that shot on purpose due to the difficulty and I believe he took the shot even with the difficulty and missed as a result. Either seems plausible to me and there's only one person who knew the truth and he's not talking. I don't think a 3' miss would be necessary to miss the entire limo. JFK was as far to his right as possible. I estimate it would only be about 18" from his center of mass to the outside of the car. It would likely have required a miss of about 2' to miss the car entirely.  Given he likely would have raised up into a crouching position to fire at such a steep downward angle and probably wouldn't have been able to use the boxes to steady his aim, a miss of 2' seems reasonable to me.

I used to work on the 6th floor of an office building and my window was along an alley. The angle of the alley wasn't the same as Elm St. and the window didn't have a low sill like the 6th floor of the TSBD. Still, I was able to imagine myself trying fire downward at a moving target in the alley and it seemed it would have been a very difficult shot. I don't think it is a stretch to think Oswald would miss that shot badly.

I was 13 years, 8 months, so perhaps I have a more mature perspective. I never felt the slightest connection to JFK, positive or negative. Nor do I hate Oswald any more than I hate John Wilkes Booth or the obscure assassins of Garfield and Mckinley. What was supposedly taken from us, other than JFK himself? Is charisma a big loss? LBJ to me was about as uncharismatic as they get, but he was far more qualified to be President. Am I still supposed to be grieving something? I truly don't get what, in 2026, the "JFK angst" is all about.

I had been watching ABC earlier this evening when I fell asleep. When I woke up, I realized ABC was rebroadcasting Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK which I had seen earlier although I can't remember exactly when. My best guess is it was last fall, possible around the anniversary of the assassination. They had a typical cast of LN defenders as well as skeptics. Dale Meyers and Oliver Stone both had significant participation in the program. It had a little bit for everybody, both from the LN viewpoint and the CT side. There was nothing new about any of it. The same issues and arguments were being made that I have seen in 35 years of discussing the JFKA online. Those of us on the LN side see no mystery to what happened. All the forensic evidence points to LHO and nobody else. The CTs raise the same questions that have been asked and answered ad infinitum. It wasn't a program that was going to change anybody's mind one way or the other. Those of us on the LN side are confident we know how the assassination went down and those on the opposing side keep raising the questions but never any real evidence. All this program might have done was possibly introduce a new generation of viewers to the issues surrounding the assassination without providing any definitive answers. The case will never be explained to everyone's satisfaction. That isn't a problem for those of us on the LN side of the debate. We know who killed JFK.

I'm not veering off anything. I'm just highlighting that you completely make up all your timings out of thin air.
And that they are usually way off.
The four minutes you assign for Haygood to get to the underpass fence is a joke, completely made up by you.
You are shown real evidence demonstrating the time is actually half that and you just brush it off because it doesn't agree with your completely made up timings.

How can anything be proven to you if you don't accept actual evidence.
It's fair enough that some timings must be estimated, I have no problem with that, but these estimations must emanate from the evidence.
Saying "well, I think it's this" isn't good enough.

I've looked at the Darnell footage a lot more closely and realised the route I did for Haygood needs updating.
In the pic below:
1] Where Haygood leaves his bike
2] Haygood at the underpass fence
3] Haygood seen behind Roger Craig
4] Haygood seen walking towards the TSBD
From 4 back to 1 just shows Haygood's quickest route back to his bike after we see him in the Darnell film walking towards the TSBD building.
As Mitch has pointed out a couple of times, Haygood is not walking along the Elm Street extension, he is in the railroad yard. The extension ends at the yellow line on the pic below:



Haygood is at point 2 within one minute and forty seconds.
This gives him 3 to 4 minutes to walk the route outlined.
This is really easily done.
No need for impostors or any of that nonsense.

There are a number of forum members who have certain expertise when it comes to image analysis.
I am completely out of my comfort zone with that sort of thing, so I need a helping hand trying to understand how the image below was created.



The identification of Lovelady in the above image has been described as "conclusive" and "definitive".
Even though the known testimonial evidence relating to this identification, when taken as a whole, completely refutes this identification (as I've been arguing on a different thread).
It has boiled down to so-called researchers simply ignoring the evidence because  how can the "testimonial evidence affect what we can see with our own eyes?"
After all, just look at the level of detail in the shirt. It is clearly Lovelady's shirt because it is so distinctive and we can clearly see the pattern of it.

At some point in the debate on the other thread I posted this crop from the Gerda Dunkel footage:



I was struck by the lack of detail on 'Lovelady's' shirt.
There didn't seem to be even the faintest trace of it.
I knew Kamp had used Photoshop to sharpen the images but when I tried it I got nothing.

So I had a look on the Prayer Man website where other forum members kept pointing me towards to see if I could get a better understanding. In the part about the image Kamp writes:

"For starters, take a look at the Gerda Dunckel gifs below and check Lovelady’s shirt in the very first few frames and also check out the large still I snagged from PBS Breaking The News, click to enlarge, yes that shirt is checkered, compare it to other garments of a lighter colour or the polka dot coat which do not smudge due to  motion and quality loss. Then look at Shelly, with his black suit and his facial and hair features."

I've already posted the Dunkel image and there is no checkered image there so he must be referring to the PBS image posted on the website, from which I got this image (all I did was blow the image up and crop it from the original image):



Now, with all the best will in the world, I'm not seeing the checkered pattern that Kamp is insisting is there.
I can see four pieces of rectangular, what I would call, photographic 'noise' impinging on the right side of' Lovelady' as we look at him and there is a similar effect bleeding over between the two men. But no checkered pattern.
If any of our resident images can make a comment on my assessment of this I would be grateful.

So, we then come to the image that the amazing level of detail on Lovelady's shirt appears to be taken from. As Kamp explains:

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.




And this is where my complete lack of expertise kicks in.
In the above image we can now clearly see that there is a defined pattern on Lovelady's shirt.
There is a square of a lighter shade around the two men. I don't know if it was like that when Kemp originally got the image or if this is a result of his work on the image. If it is I would really like to see the original image
But here's the thing I'm not getting. To my eye, the Sprague image (from which we get the "definitive" Lovelady) lacks an incredible amount of detail compared to this large crop PBS image:




Note in PBS image, the pattern of the first floor 'windows',the concrete lattice in front of the windows, and then notice the complete lack of it in the Sprague image. Just compare the two images in general and we acn see that the PBS image is a far more detailed, yet the close-up of Lovelady in that image does not have any hint of the incredible shirt pattern in the inferior Sprague image.
Can anyone help me understand this?

LATER EDIT:
If anyone has, or can point me to, the Couch film that has the amazing level of detail please could you post it because every version I've come across so far is not anywhere near close the definition required