I don't think Dan is dealing in correct terms here...Dan is calling the "Four Days In November" copy the superior copy when it clearly is not...The 'Four Days In November' copy was probably transferred to video at some point and obviously suffered serious degrading in quality, yet somehow Dan gets that this obviously highly-degraded copy is "superior"...I would guess that the Sprague Collection copy is washed out by high end brightness and contrast because the photo enhancement technology of the time showed detail the best at that setting...Dan has it backwards and, although the Sprague copy is washed out badly at one level, it is actually the better copy for identifying detail, which is why it shows the finer features on Shelley and Lovelady better...

And since we now have a valid technical explanation for what we are seeing in these two examples of Couch therefore Dan has come up short in explaining exactly what problem he is having understanding that Shelley's white shirt collar and black jacket...His Duck's Ass hair doo and body shape...His pulling up to talk to Hicks as she ran by...As well as Lovelady's clearly-seen plaid pattern and bald spot are all freely visible in the Sprague copy and therefore confirm the pair are Lovelady & Shelley exactly where they were supposed to be fast-walking up the extension...Dan is ignoring that those two are exactly where they are supposed to be according to testimony after leaving the steps...

Dan is ignoring that those two are exactly where they are supposed to be according to testimony after leaving the steps...

There's no point getting bogged down with everything that is wrong with this post but this last observation needs addressing.
Apparently it's me, ands not Brian, who is ignoring the WC testimony of Shelley and Lovelady.
Let's start with the fact that BOTH MEN testify that they didn't leave the steps for at least three minutes!!
How can they be on the extension seconds after the shooting??
I would really like to hear what Brian is going to make up off the top of his head to account for this.

BOTH MEN testify that, after three minutes, Gloria comes up to the steps, tells them about the shooting after which both of them make their way across the Elm Street extension to the "little, old island" (both men use exactly the same phrase to describe the concrete spur separating the Elm Streets), where they stopped "for a minute".

So, the image of the two men walking down the extension is taken 20 - 25 seconds after the shooting.
In this short span of time, according to Brian, Gloria has made her way back to the TSBD steps, told everyone about the shooting, both men have made their way across to the little old island, hung around there for a while, then made it half way down the extension before being caught on film.
Let's do him a favour and ignore the three minutes it takes Gloria to reach the steps and the time spent on the little, old island.
Even if we ignore all the testimony that Brian seems so willing to do, is it still physically possible for the two men to be so far down the extension, after the sequence of events described, in such a short span of time?
Let's be ultra kind to Brian and make it like some mad kind of tag race  being run at top speed:
1] Gloria sprints full tilt and makes it back to the steps within 15 seconds
2] She spits out a rapid-fire account of the shooting in 5 seconds
3] Shelley and Lovelady sprint across to the little old island - 3 seconds.
4] They stay there for 5 seconds
5] They then sprint to their positions on the Elm Street extension - another 3 seconds.

They still don't make it in time.
Even if we follow Brian's lead and ignore nearly every statement they made in their WC testimonies, Shelley and Lovelady still don't make it.

The reason for this is obvious - it's not Shelley and Lovelady on the Elm Street extension.
In reality, what happens is this
Shelley and Lovelady are on the steps at the time of the shooting.
Immediately after the shots Shelley runs out to the concrete spur where he encounters a distraught Gloria Calvery running the other way.
Both return to the front steps where Gloria tells everyone there about the shooting after which both Shelley and Lovelady make their way into the building through the front door.

Gloria reaches the steps in a matter seconds - not 3 minutes.
Both men do not then go across to the little, old island.
Both men do not wander along the extension.
Both men do not hang around the railroad yards.
Both men do not enter the building through the west door.
These are all lies told to hide their actual movements after the shooting.

Both men immediately enter the building and make their way towards the back of the first floor where they are seen by Vickie Adams about 60 seconds after the shooting.
Seconds later Baker and Truly arrive at the elevators where Baker notices two white men just hanging around. Clearly this is Shelley and Lovelady.



The image above shows the moment Gloria has reached the steps and is telling everyone about the shooting.
The man in front of her is Billy Lovelady.
Shelley, wearing his baggy black suit, is near the bottom of the steps after returning from the concrete spur.

Which part is dumb?

Which part is not?

You know this claim is erroneous, but you just keep repeating it anyway.

I keep repeating it because it is the truth.

I've refuted this claim in several replies to you,

Disputing something isn't the same as refuting it. You do lots of the former and none of the latter.

and each time you've either summarily dismissed or offered lame explanations for the mountain of forensic evidence that points away from Oswald

None of the forensic evidence points away from Oswald. That is a silly claim you make which you can't support.

(the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the kind of ammo that Oswald supposedly used, the fact that the head damage indicates the bullet was traveling at a high velocity [as even the Clark Panel noted, whereas the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle], the angles of the rear head shot and of the back-wound shot, the front-to-back fragmentation pattern seen on the skull x-rays, the small back-of-head fragments that could only be ricochet fragments, the evidence of a frontal entry wound on the skull x-rays, the fact that the back wound had no exit point, the evidence that the throat wound was an entry wound, etc.).

These are all claims you have made that you couldn't support if your life depended on it.

Oh, of course. But, let me guess: The people who thought shots came from the TSBD, well, they had "special powers of audio perception," while the dozens of people who heard shots from the knoll were all "mistaken," right?

The people who said the shots came from the GK are corroborated the three spent shells found in the 6th floor sniper's nest and the murder weapon found elsewhere on the same floor. The are also support by eyewitnesses who saw a shooter in the 6th floor sniper's nest. There is zero forensic evidence of a shooter from the GK and zero eyewitnesses who saw a shooter anywhere on the GK either in front of or behind the fence. He keep taking big swings and you keep whiffing. You've got nothing.

And, as you know (because I've pointed it out to you),

I know you have pointed out lots of things that are simply BS.

a number of witnesses saw gun smoke coming from a spot behind the fence on the knoll during the shooting, and a small cloud of smoke can be seen hanging over a spot near the fence on the knoll in the Wiegman film.

Do you think your GK shooter was firing an 18th century musket because that is the only type of firearm that would emit enough smoke to be seen. The fact that you don't recognize this is further evidence how really, really bad at weighing evidence.

Wrong. Why do you keep repeating claims that you know are false?

I know the things I say are true. You wish you could honestly say the same about your claims.

And what about J.C. Price, who watched the motorcade from the Terminal Annex Building in Dealey Plaza and who saw a man running from the fence into the railroad yard right after the shooting?

A man running from the fence to the railroad yard is not evidence of a shooter. That is nothing more than a wild assumption on your part but since you have no forensic evidence and no witnesses to support your claim of a shooter on the GK, wild assumptions are all you have. If you dispute that, tell us:

1. What forensic evidence is there of a shooter on the GK.

2. Name an eyewitness to a shooter on the GK.

Can't do it? I didn't think so.

Because, as Bowers explained, his attention was diverted to the bank of the knoll when a patrolman left the motorcade and roared up the knoll.

The patrolman didn't come up the GK until after the shots were fired. There was nothing that would have distracted Bowers at the time the shots were fired. Here is how Bowers described what he saw and heard DURING the shooting:

Mr. BALL - When you heard the sound, which way were you looking?
Mr. BOWERS - At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area.
Mr. BALL - And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?
Mr. BOWERS - No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he come by way of Elm Street?
Mr. BOWERS - He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some reason, which I did not know.
Mr. BALL - He came up---
Mr. BOWERS - He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know
Mr. BALL - How did he get up?
Mr. BOWERS - He just shot up over the curb and up.
Mr. BALL - He didn't come then by way of Ell, which dead ends there?
Mr. BOWERS - No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the motorcycle.
Mr. BALL - Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?
Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.

Mr. BALL - You couldn't describe it?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that---

Nothing about seeing a shooter on his side of the fence. No mention of seeing a shooter anywhere. So much for your star witness.

Speaking of Bowers, before the shooting, he observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the knoll at the edge of the parking lot, within 10 or 15 feet of each other: "one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Impressively, the HSCA's acoustical scientists determined from the police dictabelt that a shot was fired from a location just a few feet from the area that Bowers described.

Seeing unfamiliar men is not the same as seeing a shooter. Another swing and a miss.

Bowers also observed three cars conduct what clearly appeared to be a recon of the area behind the knoll, one at a time, in the 35 minutes leading up to the assassination. One of the drivers appeared to be talking into a microphone. No federal or local police drove in the parking lot before the shooting.

Tell us how that is evidence of a shooter on the GK.

During the shooting, Bowers said something unusual occurred where the two men were located: "there was some unusual occurrence -- a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."

Still no evidence of a gunshot. Is this really the best you can do? Do you think this is more compelling than witnesses who saw a shooter in the sniper's nest, the presence of spent shells at the location the witnesses saw a shooter, and a rifle found nearby that was positively matched to the only two bullets recovered from the shooting. Given how bad you are at weighing evidence, you probably do.

I've answered this nonsense several times now, as have others,

Your answers made no sense.

but you just keep repeating it.

Because you keep giving silly answers.

The only "really illogical take" is yours. It is vacuous to argue that the scent of gunpowder "originated some distance from Elm St."

Do you think it originated from Elm St.

That's not how it works. The exact opposite is true: the pungent odor of gunpowder must have originated on the knoll in order to be detected by witnesses who were on or near the knoll during or right after the shooting, especially given the fact that several witnesses saw apparent gun smoke on the knoll and that a small cloud of smoke is visible above the fence on the Wiegman film.

A perfect example of you asserting something you cannot prove.

Do you just not care that some people are bound to notice that you constantly repeat arguments that have been answered several times in previous replies? You seem to be hoping that readers won't read any of those previous replies and thus won't realize that you've been corrected on those arguments and are repeating them anyway.

It must suck being you. You've been at this for the better part of four decades, maybe longer for all I know, and all your efforts haven't amounted to a hill of beans.

Have a nice day!

You've misread Summers. Here's what he says about Carolyn Arnold and her FBI statement:

In her discussion with Earl Golz Carolyn Arnold insisted she said 12:25...That was reinforced by her March 1964 FBI statement that listed in plain writing "12:25"...

FBI acted criminally and with intent when it criminally altered both Arnold's and Stanton's key witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...

FBI displayed what Jim DiEugenio describes as a "Consciousness Of Guilt"...

Better than being stuck with imaginary policemen wearing only one glove, an imaginary getaway car and HUUUUGE gates!

      And why do you believe that the Sixth Floor Museum has Not released that last 1/2 of the Darnell Film? You know, that last 1/2 that gives us a very good look at the Bogus DPD Motorcycle Cop walking across the train yard and toward/down the Elm St Extension. We are close to 2 yrs now between the release of the 1st half of the Darnell Film and the continued radio silence outta the Sixth Floor Museum.