REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Andrej Stancak at December 29, 2015 at 7:14 AM

Bart, I am not an expert in the history of Altgens6, however, I read somewhere that it has taken  much longer than an hour or two to release it. If you look on the shadow below Doorman's the right nostril and Doorman's dark right cheek and temple, you may start wondering how on earth this would be possible if not by a manipulation. Also, Doorman's dark V on his T shirt would be impossible if it would not be a manipulation, it could not be a shadow reaching down to the sharp edge of Doorman's V.

http://jfkassassinationimages.net/index.php/2015/11/07/the-ap-wire-photo-captions-hold-the-key-to-unlocking-the-correct-transmission-times/

I fail to see any comparison between the approaches of Cinque and Linda. Central to Cinque’s method is his photo fakery premise. It is a premise that leads inevitably to endless futile debate about hypothetical rather than actual entities and it is a highly effective disinformation gambit.

Nowhere in this discussion – or in any other discussion as far as I am aware – has Linda suggested photo fakery. It seems to me that Linda has presented a rational and plausible argument for her position, which is what I thought we’re supposed to be about in this forum.

I think Linda is therefore justified in being upset at Lee’s Cinque comment. Of course, that is not to take in any way from Lee’s stellar JFK work and in my relative ignorance I am looking forward to both Lee’s and Linda’s further thought provoking and enlightening insights in this and related matters.

Goban Saor at January 1, 2016 at 6:56 AM

I fail to see any comparison between the approaches of Cinque and Linda. Central to Cinque’s method is his photo fakery premise. It is a premise that leads inevitably to endless futile debate about hypothetical rather than actual entities and it is a highly effective disinformation gambit.

Nowhere in this discussion – or in any other discussion as far as I am aware – has Linda suggested photo fakery. It seems to me that Linda has presented a rational and plausible argument for her position, which is what I thought we’re supposed to be about in this forum.

I think Linda is therefore justified in being upset at Lee’s Cinque comment. Of course, that is not to take in any way from Lee’s stellar JFK work and in my relative ignorance I am looking forward to both Lee’s and Linda’s further thought provoking and enlightening insights in this and related matters.

 

I think Linda qualifies as a ROKCer. Nuff said there.

I 'm not going to intervene, or defend either side any more than I already have. 

One suggestion as a sidebar to this might be to go down the MacRae path and have a dedicated photo/film forum. The only exemption for contunued posting in this forum would be PM,  

Thoughts? 

I don’t see any problem with the present format, Greg.

I like the way the photo/film stuff is integrated in the overall debate – just as the way the Prayer Man visuals are and were from the beginning.

But that might just be a reflection of my (imagined?) greater aptitude for the verbal than the visual.

Greg at January 1, 2016 at 7:15 AM

Goban Saor at January 1, 2016 at 6:56 AM

I fail to see any comparison between the approaches of Cinque and Linda. Central to Cinque’s method is his photo fakery premise. It is a premise that leads inevitably to endless futile debate about hypothetical rather than actual entities and it is a highly effective disinformation gambit.

Nowhere in this discussion – or in any other discussion as far as I am aware – has Linda suggested photo fakery. It seems to me that Linda has presented a rational and plausible argument for her position, which is what I thought we’re supposed to be about in this forum.

I think Linda is therefore justified in being upset at Lee’s Cinque comment. Of course, that is not to take in any way from Lee’s stellar JFK work and in my relative ignorance I am looking forward to both Lee’s and Linda’s further thought provoking and enlightening insights in this and related matters.

 

I think Linda qualifies as a ROKCer. Nuff said there.

I 'm not going to intervene, or defend either side any more than I already have. 

One suggestion as a sidebar to this might be to go down the MacRae path and have a dedicated photo/film forum. The only exemption for contunued posting in this forum would be PM,  

Thoughts? 

Greg at January 1, 2016 at 7:15 AM

Goban Saor at January 1, 2016 at 6:56 AM

I fail to see any comparison between the approaches of Cinque and Linda. Central to Cinque’s method is his photo fakery premise. It is a premise that leads inevitably to endless futile debate about hypothetical rather than actual entities and it is a highly effective disinformation gambit.

Nowhere in this discussion – or in any other discussion as far as I am aware – has Linda suggested photo fakery. It seems to me that Linda has presented a rational and plausible argument for her position, which is what I thought we’re supposed to be about in this forum.

I think Linda is therefore justified in being upset at Lee’s Cinque comment. Of course, that is not to take in any way from Lee’s stellar JFK work and in my relative ignorance I am looking forward to both Lee’s and Linda’s further thought provoking and enlightening insights in this and related matters.

 

I think Linda qualifies as a ROKCer. Nuff said there.

I 'm not going to intervene, or defend either side any more than I already have. 

One suggestion as a sidebar to this might be to go down the MacRae path and have a dedicated photo/film forum. The only exemption for contunued posting in this forum would be PM,  

Thoughts? 

Greg, I think some kind of searchable repository for photos & videos/gifs/movies/frame captures etc. would be useful, like a gallery.

Thanks. We already have those (tho I confess I'm not sure of their searchability).

I was looking more at discussions on contentious photo/film issues, or possible identifications of people within such photos and films (again, PM being the exception).

My suggestion was based on the fact that some love that kind of research, others not so much, and to have both groups "co-habitating" this forum is probably going to cause more friction in the future.

This was not a judgement about the value of the work done be either camp.  If you're posting here at all, it's almost a given it's because you and your work are valued. 

That said, if the preference is to keep things as is, we'll stick with it.

Greg at January 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Greg, I think some kind of searchable repository for photos & videos/gifs/movies/frame captures etc. would be useful, like a gallery.

Thanks. We already have those (tho I confess I'm not sure of their searchability).

I was looking more at discussions on contentious photo/film issues, or possible identifications of people within such photos and films (again, PM being the exception).

My suggestion was based on the fact that some love that kind of research, others not so much, and to have both groups "co-habitating" this forum is probably going to cause more friction in the future.

This was not a judgement about the value of the work done be either camp.  If you're posting here at all, it's almost a given it's because you and your work are valued. 

That said, if the preference is to keep things as is, we'll stick with it.

Greg at January 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Greg, I think some kind of searchable repository for photos & videos/gifs/movies/frame captures etc. would be useful, like a gallery.

Thanks. We already have those (tho I confess I'm not sure of their searchability).

I was looking more at discussions on contentious photo/film issues, or possible identifications of people within such photos and films (again, PM being the exception).

My suggestion was based on the fact that some love that kind of research, others not so much, and to have both groups "co-habitating" this forum is probably going to cause more friction in the future.

This was not a judgement about the value of the work done be either camp.  If you're posting here at all, it's almost a given it's because you and your work are valued. 

That said, if the preference is to keep things as is, we'll stick with it.

Greg,

In my opinion keep it as it is for what its worth.

I see nothing but great stuff coming from the so called contentious photo analysis. 

As long as nobody minds a bit of healthy rational debate I see nothing wrong in keeping it the way it is.

I believe some of the stuff coming out of the threads because of the variance in views is phenomenal.

This threads at the top of my list for that very reason, its provocative, and we are getting further into the nitty gritty of the steps than ever before.

I like to refer to this process as the ROKC treatment.

IMO once this case has been "ROKCED" the truth will reveal itself!

Ed Ledoux at December 30, 2015 at 4:52 AM

Lee its all part of the process, 
Seriously though can you see a checked shirt?
It is the same location "generally" that Lovelady was in that this person is standing. (give or take a step or two)

There's not great detail but I do see some variation pattern on what he is wearing, Ed, and I see a faint flash of white as he moves.

What I don't see - - is hair.  

I've read that we should be using logic here.  Well, logic tells me the following:

Billy Lovelady was on those steps before, during and after the shots.

We see him before the shots in Hughes.

We see him during the shots in Altgens.

We see him after the shots in Weigman.

So, therefore, it doesn't take much logic for me to announce that if I see someone who resembles him in Darnell - - then I'm confident it's Billy Lovelady.

The alternative that has been put forth, that he was replaced in that area by an anonymous white haired dude whose head is on back to front - - well, let me just be kind and say that it is not really credible.

I'm leaving the Ochus Campbell non-starter out of proceedings for the time being.

Mick Purdy at January 1, 2016 at 4:58 PM

Greg at January 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Greg, I think some kind of searchable repository for photos & videos/gifs/movies/frame captures etc. would be useful, like a gallery.

Thanks. We already have those (tho I confess I'm not sure of their searchability).

I was looking more at discussions on contentious photo/film issues, or possible identifications of people within such photos and films (again, PM being the exception).

My suggestion was based on the fact that some love that kind of research, others not so much, and to have both groups "co-habitating" this forum is probably going to cause more friction in the future.

This was not a judgement about the value of the work done be either camp.  If you're posting here at all, it's almost a given it's because you and your work are valued. 

That said, if the preference is to keep things as is, we'll stick with it.

Greg,

In my opinion keep it as it is for what its worth.

I see nothing but great stuff coming from the so called contentious photo analysis. 

As long as nobody minds a bit of healthy rational debate I see nothing wrong in keeping it the way it is.

I believe some of the stuff coming out of the threads because of the variance in views is phenomenal.

This threads at the top of my list for that very reason, its provocative, and we are getting further into the nitty gritty of the steps than ever before.

I like to refer to this process as the ROKC treatment.

IMO once this case has been "ROKCED" the truth will reveal itself!

Mick,

I really like you and I like most of the other members here. And I totally understand your sentiments.  But I completely disagree with your sentiments.

There is nothing to "debate" here.  I am being totally honest with you, and everyone else, when I say that this "debate" is entering la-la land.  I'm not going to sit back and let the same nonsensical bullshit tactics get used here when we are all over them when other people use them.  Am I the only one who can see this happening?

Am I the only one shaking my head in utter despair when seeing the squiggly lines drawn around the heads of people in photos - - and the squiggly lines are being drawn outside the ACTUAL LINES OF THE HEAD OF THE PERSON so they can match some other squiggly lines elsewhere?

Have I gone insane while I've not been posting here?  Am I not on everyone's wavelength any more?

I refuse to debate lunacy.  And this is what this is turning into.  Utter lunacy.  I'm sorry everyone, but I've got to say it.  I've been biting my tongue for more than a week.  I can't bite it no more.

I love debating these things - - but, for love nor money, I will not belittle myself in debating some of the crap that has been spouted on here over the last few days.

Paul Francisco Paso at December 30, 2015 at 4:46 AM

Lee Farley at December 30, 2015 at 4:08 AM

Paul Francisco Paso at December 29, 2015 at 4:49 PM

Lee Farley at December 29, 2015 at 4:27 PM

Barto at December 29, 2015 at 4:03 PM

yeah the quality is just crap isn't it?

It's not as good as the Weigman footage that shows the same guy on the same steps but it's good enough for me to see Billy Nolan Lovelady stood where he was stood during the parade in both Altgens-6 and Weigman...

Lee, in Weigman, Lovelady is not stood in the same position as you claim Lovelady is in Darnell or have I misunderstood something?

No, Paul.  I knew once I posted it that it would possibly be taken literally.  I should have said he is in the general vicinity of where he was stood watching the parade in Weigman and Altgens-6.  He obviously moved a few feet here and there between pictures/movies and changed steps but, and I cannot express how confident I am here, the same guy is on the same "steps" in all of the photos and pictures.  

Why we are discussing a "blondie" is quite simply beyond me to think rationally right now.  I feel like I've gone back in time to Cinque Island where I once spent an entire summer being introduced to mythical creatures.

Sorry that I took it literally, bro. I now know what you meant. I don't know if its a blondie or whoever, mate. I honestly can't tell, but I just went through the original Gerda thread at Stinky's and you're not alone thinking its Lovelady. There is plenty of support for that notion. TBH, I feel just as confident that I can identify Lovelady on Couch. Shelley not so much but I reckon its him too. I found the image a lot easier to discern than the image on Darnell cause its better quality.

You have my utmost respect, Paul.

If that is what you believe then so be it.  But you now have to defend "white haired dude."  

Linda Giovanna Zambanini at December 30, 2015 at 8:10 AM

Screen capture from Anim. GIF of Shelley by DPD squad car: 


 

Ok. My work is done here. 

You've got the audacity to express your upset at my reference to Cinque Island and then you post this?

You're taking the piss...

This is what I see.

FWIW, Stan; what you see is also what I see.

We really need to get a better copy of the films before proclaiming "job done" on any of this debate over pixels.

Well said, Terry!

Stan Dane at January 2, 2016 at 10:37 AM

This is what I see.

 

 

 

Thank you, Stan.  

The screen capture i outlined above of Shelley by the squad car, showing the the shape of the back of his head - which is FLAT,  just like they guy running down the Elm Ext (compared to Lovelady's which is round with a slope)  is just more "Cinque Island" to you i take it. I've taken the time to outline point by point why those 2 are Shelley and Lovelady - based upon the shapes of their heads, body habitus, heights, clothing and their location (the Elm Ext) - which matches what they said in most of their reports and testimonies. All those things are consistent with them being S&L. And as i said, quite logically, i believe  - what are the chances there are 2 guys are running down the Elm Extension who have:

• the exact same unique and rather odd head shapes 
• running down the Elm Extension as they claimed in most of their reports and testimonies
• same height - with Shelley taller than Lovelady
• same body habituses
• same clothing

The above screen capture i outlned  shows the back of Shelley's head is flat and is from the same animated gif as the one below - which also shows a flat, straight up and down look to the back to his head - in contrast to that giant ski slope carved out of the back of Lovelady's head!  

And you have the audacity to call this more "Cinque Island"?!  Yes, you've pissed me off and now you've pissed me off even more.  I'm sorry if my work has tapped into a huge vein of cognitive dissonance.  If you are so upset about it why don't you post a graphic proving the guy or gal on the steps looks like Lovelady? 


So go ahead... describe to me what is so "Cinque Islandish" about these screen captures clearly demonstrating  the shapes of their heads? It depends on what angle you see him from - his head is flat in the above screen capture.