Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on September 23, 2026, 08:18:46 PM »
Quote from: Brian Doyle on September 23, 2026, 06:59:02 PM

Graves is in omission by not chiming-in and confirming that we have proven the woman on the steps in Couch/Darnell is Gloria Calvery...

That identification has been discussed in detail on this thread and elsewhere.

Quote
You are entering a falsehood when you say Shelley stopped and talked to Clavery on the concrete divider...He did not do so...He spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps and then took off up the extension with Lovelady...

There is so much wrong with this it's hard to believe.
1] I have never said Shelley stopped and talked with Calvery on the concrete divider.
2] I have only repeated the information in his affidavit, given a couple of hours after the assassination. After the shots he ran across to the concrete divider and ran into Gloria who was coming the other way
3] He did not speak with Gloria at the base of the steps
4] After interacting with Gloria they did not go up the extension. They went across to the concrete divider, THEN up the extension..

So much wrong in so few words.
Every time you wander into actual evidence or testimony you end up looking like someone who doesn't have a clue what's going on. You should stick to just inventing fantasies and insisting they are facts. You're really goo at that.
Speaking of which...

Quote
If you watch the zoomed Gerda Dunckel slow motion clip Shelley pulls up and talks to Karen Hicks as she ran by...THAT is what got morphed in to talking to Calvery at the concrete divider...

Utter nonsense. Made up, fantastical nonsense. This really is your strong point

You are just repeating the same disproven falsehoods...

Quote
The pattern match in Lovelady's shirt was enough for any credible, serious researcher...

So you admit that you've based your conclusion on this single, faked image.
How credible are you?  :D
62
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory
« Last post by Zeon Mason on September 23, 2026, 08:10:00 PM »
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 21, 2026, 10:18:10 PM
Commander HUMES - The wound in the low neck of which I had previously begun to speak is now posteriorly--is now depicted in 385, in 386 and in 388.
....
Commander HUMES - You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck.
.....
Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.
.....
Commander HUMES - In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs.
.....
Commander HUMES - The angle which we observed in measuring, in comparing the point of entrance, our point of entrance labeled "C" on 385 and "D" point of exit is one that the point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with the vertical.
.....
Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation.
The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.
==============

Mr. SPECTER - Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony?
Commander BOSWELL - I have, sir; yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified?
Commander BOSWELL - None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions.
Mr. SPECTER - And are you one of the three coauthors of the autopsy report which has been previously identified as a Commission Exhibit?
Commander BOSWELL - Yes; I am.
Mr. SPECTER - All the facts set forth therein are correct in accordance with your analysis and evaluation of the situation?
Commander BOSWELL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And specifically, as to the points of entry and points of exit which have been testified to by Doctor Humes, do his views express yours as well?
Commander BOSWELL - They do, yes.
==============

Mr. SPECTER - Were you present here today and did you hear the entire testimony of Doctor Humes?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And do you concur in Dr. Humes' statements and opinions regarding the point of entry C, point of exit D, and general angle on the flight of the missile?
Colonel FINCK - I certainly do.
==========

"This wound is located approximately at the point where the bullet would be expected to exit, given the nature of the entrance wound in the upper right back and the damage to the transverse process of the lower cervical and first thoracic vertebras, which are situated on a line between the entrance and exit points."- HSCA Volume VII, page 175

That may be why they said this:

"the entrance perforation is medial to the scapula and superior to the ribs." - HSCA Volume VII, page 87

T1 being the uppermost vertebra for the ribs.

And there's this from the HSCA photographic analysis panel:

168. "the evidence indicates that the bullet passed near, but did not strike, the right lateral processes of the seventh cervical and first thoracic vertebrae (nor any other bony matter) (59)"- HSCA Volume VI, page 56

(59) sources paragraphs 272-289 of the FPP report.
================

The midpoint is estimated to be 13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process, with the head and neck, as positioned within the photograph, 6 cm below the most prominent neck crease and 5 cm below the upper shoulder margin. - HSCA Volume VII, page 85
------

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck."- Clark Panel



===========

"back in the neck...just above C7". - Paul O'Connor, HSCA interview






Sorry, but the words of Hume and his drawings do not match the autopsy photo. Just no way that hole seen in the autopsy photo is above the shoulder line and as close to the folds of the neck as depicted in the drawing. I don’t give this guy much credibility if he burned his notes. He was selected over other more qualified and experienced people and that in itself is suspicious.
63
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on September 23, 2026, 08:02:59 PM »
Quote from: Zeon Mason on September 21, 2026, 06:57:07 PM
It does seem inconsistent that Oswald would shout to send up an elevator and then when one arrives, Oswald elects not to ride down on it with Givens.

"Inconsistent" doesn't really do it justice.
In reality Oswald was on the 5th floor when the elevator race was taking place. He called out to Givens to allow him onto the east elevator (Givens was on the east elevator - Williams, Lovelady and Arce on the west). Givens refused to stop, presumably because the race was under way, so Oswald called out to them to close the gate and send the elevator back up to him. Oswald was trying to get down to the first floor. If Givens would've stopped and let him on, he would have travelled down to the first floor there and then.
Even though the four men ignored Oswald, he still made his way down to the first floor because we have Eddie Piper's testimony placing him down there around 12 noon. Oswald wanted to get down to the first floor so he went down there.

The fabricated account put in Givens' mouth completely reverses this. Instead of refusing him to get on the elevator, Givens now invites Oswald to get on to travel down to the first floor. Instead of wanting to go down to the first floor, Oswald now refuses and wants to stay put. As an added extra, the Givens Fabrication puts Oswald near the southeast corner of the 6th floor, the scene of the shooting. In this invented scenario Oswald now had the time he needed to organise the Sniper's Perch and assemble his rifle.

In reality he never had this time. Bonnie Ray Williams was up on the 6th, probably before 12 noon. The workers broke for lunch around 11:50am. All Bonnie Ray had to do was wash up, collect his lunch, buy a bottle of Dr Pepper and return to the 6th floor. I doubt this took more than five minutes to do.
There is no time for Oswald to make his preparations if he was down on the first floor while Bonnie Ray was on the 6th.

Another 'lie by omission' committed by the WC Sham was Arnold Rowland's observation of a white, slender man carrying a scoped rifle at the southwest end of the 6th floor. This stunning piece of evidence was simply ignored by the WC, as if Rowland had made up this observation and, by some miracle, had guessed there was a white, slender male carrying a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.

And the gullible Nutters just swallow down everything they are told to, ignoring the string of obvious lies and manipulations that prop up their spoon-fed beliefs.

64
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: A flaw in the movie Executive Action
« Last post by John Corbett on September 23, 2026, 07:43:49 PM »
Quote from: Brian Doyle on September 23, 2026, 04:36:42 PM

Trumbo had the best CT-ers of his day advising him...

"best CT-ers of his day"???

Does that mean the least crazy?
65
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Last post by Brian Doyle on September 23, 2026, 06:59:02 PM »


Graves is in omission by not chiming-in and confirming that we have proven the woman on the steps in Couch/Darnell is Gloria Calvery...

You are entering a falsehood when you say Shelley stopped and talked to Clavery on the concrete divider...He did not do so...He spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps and then took off up the extension with Lovelady...

If you watch the zoomed Gerda Dunckel slow motion clip Shelley pulls up and talks to Karen Hicks as she ran by...THAT is what got morphed in to talking to Calvery at the concrete divider...

You are just repeating the same disproven falsehoods...

The pattern match in Lovelady's shirt was enough for any credible, serious researcher...
66
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on September 23, 2026, 06:53:44 PM »
I have advised Albert on more than one occasion to team up with another ‘doorwayman’ expert, Ralph Sink.  Ralph would bankroll the film, Doyle writes the screenplay, who knows what might happen?  a may-December romance perhaps? we’ll see, huh?
67
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on September 23, 2026, 06:39:28 PM »
Quote from: Brian Doyle on September 23, 2026, 04:39:20 PM

The two men are plainly Shelley and Lovelady...

You base this 'conclusion' on the single, doctored image that is the subject of this thread. You have been asked to present a shred of any other evidence to support your 'conclusion' and have failed to do so.
It is physically impossible for the two men to be Shelley and Lovelady if they waited for Gloria, listened to her story, went across to the concrete spur dividing the two Elm Streets and then made their way along the Elm Street extension where they were supposedly filmed.
It's physically impossible.

It must be noted that the subject of this thread can be summed up by this question - how could the washed out, inferior Sprague image contain such a wealth of amazing detail on 'Lovelady's' shirt?
The answer is...it can't.
Far superior images, containing far more information, show none of this detail or the famous bald spot. This is proof the Sprague image has been faked to give the impression it is Lovelady walking along the extension.
This faked image, and this alone, is the source of Brian's identification.
68
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on September 23, 2026, 06:07:29 PM »
Quote from: Brian Doyle on September 23, 2026, 04:39:20 PM

The two men are plainly Shelley and Lovelady...

Egad, Albert………… you don’t think those two could possibly be……………

                                          HARVEY & LEE ???

……..to be continued next post
69
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on September 23, 2026, 05:42:45 PM »
Quoting Douglass or DiEugenio on what they think JFK was going to do in Vietnam is not stating facts. It's simply repeating their opinions of what he was going to do.

JFK's own words have been cited. Statements by people around JFK including his top advisers have been cited. Primary sources have been cited. Countering that with the opinion of others isn't a credible response.
70
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 47, Memories of Ruth Paine with Joe Alesi
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on September 23, 2026, 05:08:04 PM »
For those conspiracists who insist Ruth Paine helped frame Oswald what would you accept that it didn't happen, that she had no role, that she wasn't working for the CIA?

I read/listen to those who state she set Oswald up and can't find any grounds for a discussion. They simply won't accept any counter evidence. They've concluded that she was one of the conspirators and demand you disprove it. That is you have to (somehow) prove a negative. Then when you try they simply turn that counter evidence into evidence she was a conspirator. She could have said a number of things that would have directly implicated Oswald. That he said he hated JFK, that she saw the rifle in the garage, that she saw him leave with a 38 inch long package, and more. But she said none of these things. Isn't that what someone framing Oswald would have said? But those who say she was a conspirator argue that she didn't say those things because "It would have been too obvious." So the reason she didn't more fully implicate Oswald is that she was implicating Oswald and those statements would have made it obvious. Not implicating Oswald is implicating him. Up is down and down is up.

Of all of the irrationality of the conspiracy believers this idea of Ruth as a sort of Madame DeFarge, as a conspiracy tricoteuse knitting Oswald into this conspiracy blanket, has to be at the top of the list.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10