Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: A Question For John Iacoletti ...  (Read 1424 times)

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2019, 10:27:08 PM »
Yes. A darker area near one eye and “complicated optics” is hardly conclusive.

“Horizontal bars”. LOL. It amuses me how you and Doyle just assume that what you imagine you see should just be obvious to everyone.

I don’t have any attachment to who prayerperson is. I just don’t accept ridiculous handwaving, self-serving arguments like you and Doyle make to be conclusive.

Get over it, Tommy. You can either conclusively show glasses there or not. The Betzner-blob is the Betzner-blob. Tall woman in Zapruder is “tall woman”, and the black blob on the steps in Darnell is black-blob-person. They are not necessarily Gloria Calvery or even the same person, even though I know that you really want them to be.

Iacoletti,

You should have said "a horizontal black thing crossing her eyes and going over her left temple," or words to that effect.

OMG, you actually "saw" the "complicated optics," macro and micro?

Did you "see" them combine to make her right lens and that part of her glasses frame disappear and/or shift in the photo?

Wow, that must have been about the nearest thing to a spiritual experience you've ever had!

-- MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 10:34:07 PM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2019, 10:27:08 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2019, 11:27:30 PM »
You should have said "a horizontal black thing crossing her eyes and going over her left temple," or words to that effect.

OMG, you actually "saw" the "complicated optics," macro and micro?

Did you "see" them combine to make her right lens and that part of her glasses frame disappear and/or shift in the photo?

Wow, that must have been about the nearest thing to a spiritual experience you've ever had!

No, I’m just exposing “complicated optics” as the lamest excuse in the entire discussion.

Show us the glasses, Tommy. What are you waiting for?

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2019, 12:10:40 AM »
Iacoletti, you should have said "a horizontal black thing crossing her eyes and going over her left temple," or words to that effect. OMG, you actually "saw" the complicated optics of photographing Calvery's glasses in Betzner-3, macro and micro, in action? Did you "see" them combine to make her right lens and that part of her glasses frame disappear and/or shift in the photo? (Wow, that must have been about the nearest thing to a spiritual experience you've ever had!)


... Show us the glasses, Tommy. What are you waiting for?


Iacoletti,

They're already visible in the Betzner-3 crop you posted on Moricet's FB page (conveniently juxtaposed with a photo of her depressed and bloated-looking self in that late December 1963 "Christmas Party" photo)!

(scroll down a teensy weensey bit) https://www.facebook.com/groups/780923448613656/?multi_permalinks=2146842055355115&comment_id=2191912080848112&notif_id=1554669175207671&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

Unless, of course, you think that black horizontal thing covering her eyes and her left temple is one of them notorious Dealey Plaza dragonflies, or maybe an example of a  really bad mascara and/or eyeliner application.

Is that it, Iacoletti?  Dragonflies and mascara?

--  MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 01:22:04 AM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2019, 12:10:40 AM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2019, 12:35:53 AM »
They're already visible in the Betzner-3 crop you posted on Moricet's FB page (conveniently juxtaposed with a photo of her depressed and bloated-looking self in that late December 1963 "Christmas Party" photo)!

You mean the darker area that’s only on the left eye? It’s like you invented a monocle to go along with inventing that she was “depressed” and “bloated” at Christmas. Must have been too many of those “brownies” that Doyle invented. Somehow they weren’t all eaten by Sarah Stanton who had that well known “eating problem”.

 :D
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 12:36:45 AM by John Iacoletti »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2019, 01:05:47 AM »
You mean the darker area that’s only on the left eye?

Why are you prevaricating again, John "Dragonflies And Mascara" Iacoletti?

Only her left eye?

LOL

As anyone can see, that black "thing" covers her left temple and begins near her right eye, where it was "washed out" by the strong sunlight, just like her right cheek, her forehead, and part of her hair. 

Why is it darker around her left eye than over her temple, you might ask?

Gee, could it possibly be that the black plastic frame made a complete circle around the lens?

D'oh

-- MWT  ;)


« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 01:22:57 AM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2019, 01:05:47 AM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2019, 04:51:09 AM »
As anyone can see, that black "thing" covers her left temple and begins near her right eye, where it was "washed out" by the strong sunlight, just like her right cheek, her forehead, and part of her hair. 

First it’s “her head was turned”, then it’s “complicated optics”, and now it’s “washed out”. But trust Tommy — those “glasses” are definitely there.

 :D

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2019, 07:06:59 AM »

We've proven it was Calvery so since she always wore glasses that proves they are glasses...

JFK Assassination Forum

A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2019, 07:06:59 AM »


Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2019, 07:25:03 AM »
First it’s “her head was turned”, then it’s “complicated optics”, and now it’s “washed out”. But trust Tommy — those “glasses” are definitely there.

 :D

Iacoletti,

It's interesting how your computer-programming mind over-analyzes and parses things to the max instead of looking at the big picture. Or is it just another example of your disingenuousness that we're seeing here?

You can't conceive that Calvery's turning her head that much in-and-of-itself made her right lens (i.e., the black plastic frame around it) a little less visible than her left lens to Betzner's camera? And that there's not a whole lot of "information" in her face to begin with due to the fact that it takes up such a small part of the photo? (You know, seein' as how as she was standing pretty far away from the camera?) And that the strong sunlight on the right side of her face finished the job by "washing out" that part of her glasses frames almost completely? You know, the same way the strong sunlight washed out the "information" from her cheek, and her forehead, and her dark (red) hair?
 
Pathetic.

-- MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 08:56:30 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2019, 04:27:27 PM »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2019, 04:27:27 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2019, 04:29:34 PM »
You can't conceive that Calvery's turning her head that much in-and-of-itself made her right lens (i.e., the black plastic frame around it) a little less visible than her left lens to Betzner's camera? And that there's not a whole lot of "information" in her face to begin with due to the fact that it takes up such a small part of the photo? (You know, seein' as how as she was standing pretty far away from the camera?) And that the strong sunlight on the right side of her face finished the job by "washing out" that part of her glasses frames almost completely? You know, the same way the strong sunlight washed out the "information" from her cheek, and her forehead, and her dark (red) hair?

I can conceive lots of things.  That doesn't make them actually true.  You believe it's Calvery so you're trying to make this image fit with what you know about Calvery no matter what kind of contrived explanations it takes to make it fit.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A Question For John Iacoletti ...
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2019, 04:29:34 PM »