Vanessa Loney Posted December 24, 2015 Author Share Posted December 24, 2015 Thanks Chris. I'm also getting a 'payment required' message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Sorry about that. Try the Google server. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQ1h5NjZUYjFXWkE/view?usp=sharing Just click on "download" . chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Thomas, 2 frame photo-stack. Enlarged 8x I believe. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Tommy, Amid all those collapsing wavefunctions, you're right: Gloria Calvary was the shooter. Oswald wasn't her spotter, however; Victoria Adams was. It was an all-female plot, which gets us to Duncan's claim PM is a woman. He's right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Sorry about that. Try the Google server. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQ1h5NjZUYjFXWkE/view?usp=sharing Just click on "download" . chris I don't understand Chris. This looks like the same 2-second video we've deen looking at. I didn't click on download... just clicked play. But that should make no difference, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Sandy, It's the same segment, but not exactly the same version. I've tweaked the brightness and contrast somewhat. chris P.S. If I can find the original source video, I will post it. But, it's been a long time since I accessed this footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Question for Tommy and Robert: I'm just curious... would you believe that the guy smoking out in front of the TSBD is Lovelady if he weren't wearing that red plaid shirt? What about if the photo was taken nearby by not at the TSBD.... again sans plaid shirt? Merry Christmas guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Chris, Many thanks for providing all these useful videos and photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) Question for Tommy and Robert: I'm just curious... would you believe that the guy smoking out in front of the TSBD is Lovelady if he weren't wearing that red plaid shirt? What about if the photo was taken nearby by not at the TSBD.... again sans plaid shirt? Merry Christmas guys! Dear Sandy, Yes, I would, because I have watched the Martin and Hughes films and in the Hughes film I can see him exhaling cigarette smoke through his mouth, jutting his head forward and distorting his face in the process. Taking that into consideration, plus his bald spot, his heavy "5 o'clock shadow" and the fact that he's obviously in need of a haircut (just like the guy sitting in the chair in the police station who, interestingly enough, has a pack of cigarettes in his shirt pocket) and the fact that most if not all of those people on the steps and directly in front of the TSBD must have been employees who were waiting to get inside the building, leads me to the conclusion that this guy must have been a TSBD employee, too, not just an interested passerby. --Tommy, the Serious Edited December 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted December 25, 2015 Author Share Posted December 25, 2015 Sorry about that. Try the Google server. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQ1h5NjZUYjFXWkE/view?usp=sharing Just click on "download" . chris Thanks Chris - that's great. One thing I noticed is that there are 2 men we can see standing behind the 'Lovelady in a t-shirt guy'. One is quite small with no hat and one is almost as tall as "Lovelady" but with a hat. They are all standing very close together so if Lovelady is standing on something it must be quite small as the small guy walks quite closely behind Lovelady. That or it isn't Lovelady at all. Chris, I have to say I'm not having much luck making out the guy on the steps below PM. You guys have much better eyesight than me on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Sorry about that. Try the Google server. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQ1h5NjZUYjFXWkE/view?usp=sharing Just click on "download" . chris Thanks Chris - that's great. One thing I noticed is that there are 2 men we can see standing behind the 'Lovelady in a t-shirt guy'. One is quite small with no hat and one is almost as tall as "Lovelady" but with a hat. They are all standing very close together so if Lovelady is standing on something it must be quite small as the small guy walks quite closely behind Lovelady. That or it isn't Lovelady at all. Chris, I have to say I'm not having much luck making out the guy on the steps below PM. You guys have much better eyesight than me on this one. Bumped. Just for the heck of it. --Tommy PS: Vanessa, your "Lovelady in a [white] t-shirt guy" dude behind the "BOOKS" boxes in the gif isn't wearing just a white t-shirt. He's also wearing a slightly darker-appearing shirt over his white t-shirt (only "slightly" darker-appearing because of the harsh lighting conditions). https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQ1h5NjZUYjFXWkE/view?usp=sharing Edited January 27, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) It is small wonder the American legal system is such a mess, when many of the population cannot distinguish hearsay from testimony. Hi Robert! I just now stumbled upon this FBI document regarding Pauline Sanders: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62319&relPageId=115&search=statement This document from the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas FBI office points out to J. Edgar Hoover that Pauline Sanders had said (or someone had mistakenly written) "November 22, 1964" instead of "November 22, 1963" -- an obvious mistake -- in her original FBI statement. The important thing for us is that this 4/01/64 document says, "Mrs. Sanders has initialed such correction" and that the "Bureau [is] requested to correct its copies [plural] ..." My question to you, Robert, is: Why don't we see Pauline Sanders' initials (see above) on the 11/22/63 document that is available for us to view on the Internet? Answer: Because what we are looking at on the Internet is a copy, not the Dallas FBI original. Which would explain why it (the copy) wasn't signed or initialed by Sanders. She signed, and later initialed (see above), only the Dallas FBI original. --Tommy Edited and bumped for Robert Prudhomme Edited January 27, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 On 12/7/2015 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Graves said: Howdy Bob! I just now stumbled upon this FBI document regarding Pauline Sanders: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62319&relPageId=115&search=statement This document from the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas FBI office points out to J. Edgar Hoover that Pauline Sanders had said (or someone had mistakenly written) "November 22, 1964" instead of "November 22, 1963" -- an obvious mistake -- in her original FBI statement. The important thing for us is that this 4/01/64 document, a letter / memo from Dallas FBI to Hoover, says, "Mrs. Sanders has initialed such correction" and that the "Bureau [is] requested to correct its copies..." My question to you, Robert, is: Why don't we see Pauline Sanders' initials (see above) on the 11/22/63 document that is available for us to view on the Internet? Answer: Because what we are looking at on the Internet is a copy, not the original. Which would explain why it (the copy) wasn't signed or initialed by Sanders. She signed, and later initialed (see above), only the Dallas FBI original. --Tommy Bumped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Just over 100.000 views, wow who would have thought. Thanks everyone for watching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 That's great Bart. Congratulations! Any chance of a sequel or update? PS Hope all is well with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now