Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
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 »

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

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

Does that mean the least crazy?
72
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...
73
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?
74

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.
75

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
76
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.
77
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.

78

I appreciate you sticking to the facts Tommy and not using ad hom...

This has absolutely nothing to do with my post to which you replied....
79


The two men are plainly Shelley and Lovelady...
80


I appreciate you sticking to the facts Tommy and not using ad hom...
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10