Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Last post by Bill Chapman on Today at 06:35:33 PM »


I pointed to your post because you asked me when you said anything about the TT.
>>> Except it had nothing to do with the point I was making. You took it out of context, something you lot are fond of doing.

So what reason do you have to believe that the white jacket picked up by who knows in the Texaco parking lot was a gray jacket and was owned by Oswald?  Or that it was even the same jacket seen by the people who saw a guy in the vicinity of 10th and Patton?
>>> You mean the only guy on the face of the planet seen at the two death scenes and ducking into the Gloco parking lot that day?

Re jacket colour, I cannot speak to another person's perception of same.
22
Yes, but “the real reason” said sarcastically connotes  that there was an actual reason that Lee didn’t want Marina to see what he was doing. Which implies that you were claiming that Lee didn’t want Marina to see what he was doing.

Cause for what?

See post #16
23
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Larry Trotter on Today at 05:56:26 PM »
"Prayer Man"  appears to be a woman to me.....    It most certainly does NOT look like Lee Oswald.
Mr Cakebread, FYI, I remain convinced that PrayerPersonImage represents a female, and most likely SarahDeanStanton, who was then employed at the TSBD Bldg.

In DarnellFilm, she appears to me to be looking slightly to her right as if responding to GloriaCalveryImage, who as arriving along with two companions, and has announced what she/they had just witnessed.

And, to me PPI has never looked like LeeOswald. ::)
24
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Larry Trotter on Today at 05:52:52 PM »
That's a tough question.... The photo isn't clear enough to be specific....  The image just seems to be a female....and I would say a middle aged female...

The stance seems to be that of a female....and she appears to be wearing a long dark colored rain coat  which falls away from her hands as she holds them up in front of her ( after just taking a picture with the camera in her hand )   

I certainly can't accept the idea that the person is Lee Oswald.....

FWIW, Mr Cakebread, and this is not intended to be a debate, my take is that PrayerPersonImage is holding in their right hand, with assistance from the left hand, and drinking from, a cup that contains either a beverage, or possibly soup. After all, it was lunchtime. In any event, wearing a long coat, and with a small purse/handbag attached/strapped to the left forearm.

Also, if you "can't accept the idea that the person is Lee Oswald", just remember, neither did multiple eyewitnesses/co-workers on the landing/stairs at the time, nor did they ever indicate accepting said idea!  :-\
25
John Iacoletti denies that it can be proved from the photos and films that his "Glasses Woman" in Betzner-3 is  Big-Tall, Black-Blouse And Black-Headscarf-Wearing Woman (Gloria Calvery) in the Zapruder film.

However ...

If he were to were to read Dallas News' November 2012 article https://www.dallasnews.com/news/downtown-dallas/2012/11/22/two-eyewitnesses-reunite-once-a-year-on-anniversary-of-kennedys-death about JFK assassination witnesses Ernest Brandt and John Templin, ...

... and if he were to look at Robin Unger's infamous yellow-labeled Zapruder-151 frame and at Don Roberdeau's Map and find in them (gasp ... correctly-labeled!) Ernest Brand standing next to his (gasp ... correctly labeled!) 21 year-old friend John Templin, ...

... and if he were to look at the people, cars, and background in Betzner-3 and compare them with the people, cars, and background in Willis-5, ...

... Scrolling down until he finds said photos, and then enlarge them to his heart's content --
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

... taking special care to notice that John Templin is in both Betzner-3 and Willis-5), ...

... and if he were to take into consideration the fact that Hugh Betzner -- whose "Betzner-3" was taken simultaneously with Z-187 and 0.874/second before "Willis-5" -- was standing on the other side of Elm Street, about 30 feet behind and a little to the left of Phil Willis (per Zapruder's LOS at Z-187) on the other side of Elm Street, ...

... and if he were to realize that Robin Unger's seriously mislabeled Zapruder frame is Z-151, and that Betzner-3 was taken simultaneously with Zapruder-187, and that Willis-5 was taken simultaneously with Zapruder-202, ...

... and if he were to realize that Abraham Zapruder can be seen standing on his pedestal and very near the L-R center point of both Willis-3 and Betzner-5 ( http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm ; ignore the red circle around so-called Black Dog Man in Willis-5), ...

... and if he were to realize that both Phil Willis and Hugh Betzner are visible in the background of Unger's yellow-labeled Z-151 frame (or at least in a clearer frame near it), ...

... well gosh, taking all of the above together (I mean he IS capable of doing that sort of thing, isn't he?), ...

... he'd realize that fedora-wearing trilby-wearing Ernest Brandt can be seen standing next to John Templin in Willis-5, and that John Templin can be seen standing next to your "Glasses Woman" (Gloria Calvery) in Betzner-3.

-- MWT  :)

edited and bumped
26
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Barry Pollard on Today at 05:01:14 PM »
Thanks Walt that's a straightforward answer, in the eye of the beholder and all that, that's all I have also, not really something anyone can argue with imo.
Thanks Tim too, all I could request is to take a look at Alan's reversed Darnell frame and tell us you can't imagine PM on the top step.  If he/she was, then the height has to be revised.  The width could be a baggy shirt aaaaaand the face yes, could still be someone else and an amazing waste of time.

I also understand why people think it's Stanton in theory but just not when based mainly on the less than trustworthy visual blow-ups.
27
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Mr Billy Lovelady
« Last post by Patrick Jackson on Today at 04:16:58 PM »
I believe that the person in red plaid shirt was Roscoe White.
He had a day off on 11/22/63 and I think he was the person seen in front of TSBD.
Soon after he went to DPD to check if he can help somehow and that we see him in Homicide office at 2PM.
Once the Oswald identity was set, two DPD teams were formed, one went to search Oswald rooming house and second team went to Ruth Paine home. Roscoe was picked to help one of this two teams and this is explanation how he got that back yard photo. Most probably he was the first person to find the photos and took one for himself.
There are not many Roscoe White photos available but sure the resemblance between Plaid Shirt person and Roscoe is much higher than with Lovelady.
28
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Hearsay?
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 02:31:52 PM »
On page 178 of “Truth Withheld” by James T. Tague, he states that in a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were grounds to bring Clay Shaw to trial, that the defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense. But it was denied as hearsay.

I am guessing that the reason for this has to do with the requirements of how evidence has to be introduced. But I would like to know what the legal scholars have to say about this. Do we have any knowledgeable legal eagles here that want to respond?
The 26 volumes was correctly rejected as hearsay.  It contains testimonies and statements of witnesses which can only be admitted by calling the witnesses themselves and allowing the opposing party to cross-examine them. Although at a preliminary inquiry the threshold for committal to stand trial is much less than is required for a conviction (the test is essentially whether there is some evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict) the same rules of evidence that apply at a trial are followed.
29
I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:



No, CE 1952 is NOT a photo copy of a document that was copied prior to Howett signing it.... CE 1952 (date 3 / 24 63 )and the document dated 3 /26/ 63 are two different documents.

The flashing images are a trick.... ignore Mytton's trickery and ....LOOK at the two documents and compare Day's signature and other writing  on the documents....
30
The 'real reason' is clearly a part of the tongue-in-cheek nature of the OP.

Yes, but “the real reason” said sarcastically connotes  that there was an actual reason that Lee didn’t want Marina to see what he was doing. Which implies that you were claiming that Lee didn’t want Marina to see what he was doing.

Quote
And you stubbornly remain incurious about any investigating for cause, an arguably persuasive cause... and in plain sight.

Cause for what?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10