REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Linda Giovanna Zambanini at January 2, 2016 at 10:51 AM

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. 

I'd sooner spend the time on something more worthwhile, Linda.  Like cutting my toenails or cleaning my toilets.

With the time I've saved you by not discussing this why don't you go utilise it and change the title of your other thread.  You know?  The one where you claimed you had proof that Oswald was holding the IR camera when, in actual fact, you didn't.  You just drew more shapes onto pixels.  Can you please remove the word 'Proof' from the thread title?  Change it to something like:

NO PROOF

or

I HAVE NO PROOF

or

I DON'T KNOW WHAT PROOF IS

Terry Martin at January 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM

I do not understand why people are getting so emotional about their hypotheses. Some people can see S&L walking and others cannot. There are supporters for both arguments. Quit taking it personal. Even supported by "some" testimony, it is still just a GUESS. Others are allowed to have their own opinions, fer crissakes! Let it go.

You know what? I didn't start it. I only responded and tried to put forward a logical response - not a personal attack. 

Lee Farley at January 2, 2016 at 11:14 AM

Linda Giovanna Zambanini at January 2, 2016 at 10:51 AM

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. 

I'd sooner spend the time on something more worthwhile, Linda.  Like cutting my toenails or cleaning my toilets.

With the time I've saved you by not discussing this why don't you go utilise it and change the title of your other thread.  You know?  The one where you claimed you had proof that Oswald was holding the IR camera when, in actual fact, you didn't.  You just drew more shapes onto pixels.  Can you please remove the word 'Proof' from the thread title?  Change it to something like:

NO PROOF

or

I HAVE NO PROOF

or

I DON'T KNOW WHAT PROOF IS

Sorry, Lee, i didn't draw any shapes on that screen capture - i merely drew an arrow pointing to what appears to be a knob that looks just like the knob on the IR620. 

Linda Giovanna Zambanini at January 2, 2016 at 11:15 AM

Terry Martin at January 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM

I do not understand why people are getting so emotional about their hypotheses. Some people can see S&L walking and others cannot. There are supporters for both arguments. Quit taking it personal. Even supported by "some" testimony, it is still just a GUESS. Others are allowed to have their own opinions, fer crissakes! Let it go.

You know what? I didn't start it. I only responded and tried to put forward a logical response - not a personal attack. 

You reacted exactly the same way when Ed started prodding your work on the IR.  Got all shirty and arsey.  You cannot take criticism.

You really need me to point out how utterly piss-poor pathetic that shape is that you drew around William Shelley's head?  If MacRae did that to prove a point every single member here would be wanting to rip him a new a-hole.

You think you had "proof" Oswald was holding an IR camera.  You had nothing of the sort.  

And you and Kamp now believe you have proof that Couch shows Shelley and Lovelady.  When you have nothing of the sort.

In order to believe what you believe you have to now create new people on the steps.  Anonymous people with white hair and back to front faces.  

I am not debating lunatics.

And YES.  I stand by my comment.  You get more and more CINQUE-ESQUE by the hour...

Lunatics now, eh?

Yes, i believed and still believe there is way more proof that PM is holding a TLR camera - his IR 620, IMO, but if it's not his 620 it's at least a TLR - than holding a pop bottle. In Wiegman we see him holding the camera up near his face in PM stance using both hands. The only humans that hold a bottle up to their mouth using both hands are babies - not adult humans.  So i stand by my research on PM holding a camera - specifically a TLR style camera - not a bottle. I also believe that was probably his pop bottle on the steps. 

As for the people going up the west side of the steps - which look to be mostly women because they appear to be wearing scarves - they are basically all anonymous since they have their backs to us, and are going up the steps, having come from somewhere out front most likely, to reenter the bldg. The person Bart believes is a "dude" I believe it looks like a woman.  That's where we part, and we may never be able to tell who she - or he - is without a better scan. I didn't create any images of him/her - i based that upon looking at Vinny's attempts to enhance PM and those around him. And i doubt she has white hair - probably blonde or light brown, but it looks white due to the overexposure. She looks like she has short hair and her face turned east at one point. 

This is hard to explain...but as for drawing lines around Shelley's head shapes - in both of those screen captures by the DPD car I can see he has a "bump" at the top of the rear of his head (which i included in the outline of the 2nd one). IMO that looks like like a shock of his hair combed back or blowing back from his ducktail hairstyle which is sticking out in back. It's lighter due to sun glinting off his red hair - he has other highlights we can see in the anim gifs by the patrol car too.  It's best seen if you blow it up really big - you can see it looks like it is attached to his head, ie: it's a shock of hair, not something separate from his head in the background.  You can also see this same bump, though not as big due to the angle,  in the image above - so that lends support, IMO, to that bump being an actual shock of hair. I do see the rounded contour line Stan drew, and agree that that lower part of the back of his head - below that shock - looks rounded. But if  you include that shock of hair sticking out at the top and then go down from there the back of his head appears flat rather than rounded.  From afar (as in Darnell) we can't really discern this bump but it gives his head a 90 degree angle look (as i outlined in the Darnell frame) - rather than a round look as Stan outlined.  As he's running down the Elm Extension we are probably seeing him in the right angle/profile, and in poor resolution,  so that that shock of hair sticking out and the back of his head all blur into one and looks flat. 

Lee Farley at January 2, 2016 at 8:16 AM

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."  

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.

 

Thank you, Goban! I really appreciate your comments.  And i too agree that Lee has done great work here, and i have usually greatly enjoyed his posts. 

You're welcome, Linda.

It may have been foolish of me to rush in where angels fear to tread. But I do have a reputation to maintain!

Terry Martin at January 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM

I do not understand why people are getting so emotional about their hypotheses. Some people can see S&L walking and others cannot. There are supporters for both arguments. Quit taking it personal. Even supported by "some" testimony, it is still just a GUESS. Others are allowed to have their own opinions, fer crissakes! Let it go.

I think it highlights why, lack of expertize notwithstanding,  I have kept out of this area over the years. It just deterioates into squabbles. Look at  the carnage wrought by the zap film alteration debates over a number of forums over a number of years.

It is unfortunate if some good work gets lost in that carnage,and some gets ignored. But who would really know anyway with a 100% certainty that that this is the case since ineveitably, you need clearer film/photos to settle the issues?

Linda, I think your strength is in using your genealogy skills to ID people through that and photo comparaisons. And your real gifts are your energy and your enthusiasm. Don't let anything dampen those.

I should confess here that I agree with Stan and others about the Shelley head outline. I thought the same when I first saw it, but said nothing because i don't trust my own eyes. 

I try not to intervene in these things because i want to get away from any notion of "ownership" of this place. It belongs to the members. Linda, I noted above what I value with you and I hope you hang around. I also hope Lee does, and that a way to move forward evolves, or in some other way. presents itself.

Paul Francisco Paso at January 2, 2016 at 6:28 PM

I think the issue here is whether Linda deserves to be compared to Cinque. I disagree with Lee on that point too. We don't all have to agree with each other. If we did we'd be a cult.

Well said, Paul.

Greg at January 2, 2016 at 6:42 PM

Paul Francisco Paso at January 2, 2016 at 6:28 PM

I think the issue here is whether Linda deserves to be compared to Cinque. I disagree with Lee on that point too. We don't all have to agree with each other. If we did we'd be a cult.

Well said, Paul.

Let me spell it out - unlike Cinque, linda is not agenda-driven, dishonest, petty, or a chriopractic quack

http://www.drcinque.com/ (or at least not as far as I know!)

The comparison comes down to the lines drawn on to images. 

A few years ago, I presented "the Jaunty Hat Study" at the Ed Forum to show how silly some of the photo debates were.  I stated it proved that Oswald was not the shooter because no one claimed the shooter was wearing a hat. Especially not one worn on a jaunty angle. I further added that Lee had obviously had keyhole surgery on his brain making him a programmed patsy. I never expected anyone to take it seriously, but they did. Fetzer fell for it hook line and sinker and after he made a complete idiot of himself over it,  he finally realized it was a joke and successfully got Simpkin (or someone) to remove it, and all posts about it. This is not the image I used. It is on another computer. This is a replica made just now...

------------------

This isn't to compare anyone to Fetzer, either. It is simply to demonstrate the pitfalls of these types of debates.

But I will spell out that Lee is also not agenda-driven, dishonest, petty or a chiropractic quack. He does speak his mind, as does Linda. And no - not everyone has to agree - with either of them.

Let me just add what Fetzer's reaction was. He claimed that the hat was photoshopped on. Of course, the hat is actually being worn by a cop behind Oswald.

Lee Farley at January 2, 2016 at 8:14 AM

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.

Lee,

Perfectly fine with me to disagree with my sentiments.

I like you too mate and I have the utmost respect for you and your research, you are absolutely one of the best going round.

I perhaps wasn't as clear as I should've been with my thoughts.

Not for one nano second do I wish for anyone on this forum to be wasting theirs and everyones time looking at cartoonish comparisons.

I have steered clear as you may have noticed. I have a background in film and I do have opinions on most of whats posted here with regards to photos and films but tend to stay away. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that most pics or films are of such poor quality they are simply indercernible. As you've said, that only leads to "debate" in circles.

I guess my response was more directed at you and Greg, because this was what had me licking my lips. I am intensely interested in the steps and the thought of either you or Greg having something meaningful to add to the topic of Lovelady and Shelley's whereabouts just after the shots is tantalising. 

Insane? No not you mate. Just calling a spade a spade. Some can handle that and others cannot.

I sincerely trust you remain here mate because this place needs you, and I mean that. 

I first came here because of you and Greg, you guys are the bomb! Your work along with Gregs is unequalled. Period!

What I'm looking forward to most is your take on the whereabouts of Lovelady and Shelley after the shots.

And Greg's third volume too. 

I'm the last person who wants this to degenerate into Noddy land, we've seen this all before at most other forums.

And yes, people should be very careful when presenting photos with superimposed lines over the shape of someone's head, they must be as accurate and as honest as one can be with such poor quality low resolution photos that one can be.

Otherwise IMO we sink to the depths of the likes of McCrae and Co.

Paul Francisco Paso at January 2, 2016 at 6:28 PM

I think the issue here is whether Linda deserves to be compared to Cinque. I disagree with Lee on that point too. We don't all have to agree with each other. If we did we'd be a cult.

Hera Hear!

A spade can be called a spade here and so it should be. 

Please lets not allow PC to overide any of the great work being done here.

Mick,

I don't have any more on Shelley's whereabouts, What I do have, supports what Lee was suggesting before - that Shelley was aiding Truly in setting Oswald up and as a result of that, it seems probable that Shelley's role was in sticking with Oswald until it was time to let the rabbit run.  

Greg at January 2, 2016 at 9:20 PM

Mick,

I don't have any more on Shelley's whereabouts, What I do have, supports what Lee was suggesting before - that Shelley was aiding Truly in setting Oswald up and as a result of that, it seems probable that Shelley's role was in sticking with Oswald until it was time to let the rabbit run.  

Forgive my shit phrasing, grammar, english, etc etc I'm a more visual sorta guy. 

Thats all I meant really. that in some way you might be able to shed more light on Shelleys involvement. Whether that comes in the form of his whereabouts after the shots is irrelevant in the end, I'm just looking forward to anything that you or Lee might have to say about his involvement.

He is without doubt suspect, I've re -read his statements from that morning too and somethings NQR.

Greg at January 2, 2016 at 9:20 PM

Mick,

I don't have any more on Shelley's whereabouts, What I do have, supports what Lee was suggesting before - that Shelley was aiding Truly in setting Oswald up and as a result of that, it seems probable that Shelley's role was in sticking with Oswald until it was time to let the rabbit run.  

Mick Purdy at April 3, 2015 at 4:44 AM

Lee Farley at April 3, 2015 at 4:38 AM

I have mulled over the question of Billy Lovelady's whereabouts after the immediate aftermath of the shooting for a long time now.

I never bought into the Gerda Dunckel work that was said to show Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady walking toward the parking lot area approximately 20+ seconds after the shots.  

Now I categorically dismiss this work.  I do not believe that Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady left those steps and went out onto Elm Street or anywhere near the parking lot.  I have been looking at the Weigman film for days now and I am absolutely convinced that this person is Billy Lovelady in the frame on the left.  Frame on the right is Lovelady from Darnell:

  

Bald head, dark shirt, white t-shirt underneath, looks like he may be smoking as hand is up to his mouth.  This, IMO, is Billy Nolan Lovelady.  His original affidavit as it appears in my OP above was correct when he wrote that after the shooting he "went back into the building and went to work" and he did not go outside with Bill Shelley.

Not only did he stay on the steps but he was stood directly in front of Prayer Man and Buell Wesley Frazier and would have seen the approach of Officer Marrion Baker.  If this is Billy Lovelady in Weigman, and I now have no doubts that it is, then I believe it possible that the figure stood to Buell Wesley Frazier's left on the landing is Bill Shelley.  It was Shelley who "vouched" for Oswald on those steps when Baker got to those doors.  Truly was too far behind and he certainly did not reach the doors at the same time as Baker.

Shelley was Oswald's "Supervisor" and therefore it makes sense that the designated "patsy" was being shepherded by his "Supervisor" that day.  Shelley was watching Oswald's every move, IMO.  Shelley made sure that Oswald was pushed into the shadows of those steps away from view.  It was Shelley who sent Oswald home.  Shelley and Truly were the one's who put the spotlight on Oswald as soon as they were certain he had left.

I'm beginning to think, seriously, that Frazier left with Oswald.  I don't believe Frazier stayed after the assassination.  If he had, he'd have been rounded up with the others and taken to be interviewed.

Finally Finally.................Lee you are a super star,

Oswald left with Frazier, I have no doubt any longer......continuation of where's your rider but you've beat me to it.

And YES!!! Shelley on the landing to the left of Frazier..

its all becoming so so clear.

Thank -you for this post.....

Where is the Darnell frame which shows Lovelady?  All I can see is the Weigman frame with him. 

Thanks,

--Tommy  

Tom Graves at January 15, 2016 at 10:44 PM

Mick Purdy at April 3, 2015 at 4:44 AM

Lee Farley at April 3, 2015 at 4:38 AM

I have mulled over the question of Billy Lovelady's whereabouts after the immediate aftermath of the shooting for a long time now.

I never bought into the Gerda Dunckel work that was said to show Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady walking toward the parking lot area approximately 20+ seconds after the shots.  

Now I categorically dismiss this work.  I do not believe that Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady left those steps and went out onto Elm Street or anywhere near the parking lot.  I have been looking at the Weigman film for days now and I am absolutely convinced that this person is Billy Lovelady in the frame on the left.  Frame on the right is Lovelady from Darnell:

  

Bald head, dark shirt, white t-shirt underneath, looks like he may be smoking as hand is up to his mouth.  This, IMO, is Billy Nolan Lovelady.  His original affidavit as it appears in my OP above was correct when he wrote that after the shooting he "went back into the building and went to work" and he did not go outside with Bill Shelley.

Not only did he stay on the steps but he was stood directly in front of Prayer Man and Buell Wesley Frazier and would have seen the approach of Officer Marrion Baker.  If this is Billy Lovelady in Weigman, and I now have no doubts that it is, then I believe it possible that the figure stood to Buell Wesley Frazier's left on the landing is Bill Shelley.  It was Shelley who "vouched" for Oswald on those steps when Baker got to those doors.  Truly was too far behind and he certainly did not reach the doors at the same time as Baker.

Shelley was Oswald's "Supervisor" and therefore it makes sense that the designated "patsy" was being shepherded by his "Supervisor" that day.  Shelley was watching Oswald's every move, IMO.  Shelley made sure that Oswald was pushed into the shadows of those steps away from view.  It was Shelley who sent Oswald home.  Shelley and Truly were the one's who put the spotlight on Oswald as soon as they were certain he had left.

I'm beginning to think, seriously, that Frazier left with Oswald.  I don't believe Frazier stayed after the assassination.  If he had, he'd have been rounded up with the others and taken to be interviewed.

Finally Finally.................Lee you are a super star,

Oswald left with Frazier, I have no doubt any longer......continuation of where's your rider but you've beat me to it.

And YES!!! Shelley on the landing to the left of Frazier..

its all becoming so so clear.

Thank -you for this post.....

Where is the Darnell frame which shows Lovelady?  All I can see is the Weigman frame with him. 

Thanks,

--Tommy