Is that ... (Gasp) ... Billy Lovelady Talking With Gloria Calvery on the Steps?

[Bill Miller]

17 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

" Mr. BALL. Did Gloria come up?
Ms.. MOLINA. Yes, she came. I was in the lobby standing there and she came in with this other girl. [if Truly came in 20-30 secs after the shots as Molina says above, and we know Calvery was not far behind him - or Baker and him - and Molina says he SAW her "come in" - then I assumed, pretty logically I think, that Molina had to have followed Truly in, and he was then almost immediately followed in by Calvery. He says he saw her come in so he had to have gone in just after Truly and before her. Does that make sense? ] "

The Molina testimony I copied from a post that Linda Zambanini made.  I don't recall you asking her if she was related to any banned members.

[Robert Prudhomme]

21 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

The Molina testimony I copied from a post that Linda Zambanini made.  I don't recall you asking her if she was related to any banned members.

I don't really care if you got it from Santa Claus, Bill. What you posted proves absolutely nothing, other than that you seem fond of making assumptions and then attempting to post them as established facts.

[Bill Miller]

38 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

I don't really care if you got it from Santa Claus, Bill. What you posted proves absolutely nothing, other than that you seem fond of making assumptions and then attempting to post them as established facts.

I believe Linda was clear that no one knows exactly how many seconds passed since the shots were fired before Baker and Truly ran through the door and before Gloria Calvery entered the building. Whether it was 30 seconds with an additional 15 or more seconds before Calvery came onto the first floor .... it was a short amount of time.

Zambanini claimed that she was proud of the research she had done on Calvery and you have not bothered to ask her for the source that allowed her to write in Calvery's orbit that Gloria followed Truly and Baker into the TSBD.

So its a fact that Linda Zambanini wrote the orbit as much as it is a fact that you have no evidence that her remarks about Gloria's following Truly and Baker wasn't factual and true.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Bill Miller

[Robert Prudhomme]

23 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I believe Linda was clear that no one knows exactly how many seconds passed since the shots were fired before Baker and Truly ran through the door and before Gloria Calvery entered the building. Whether it was 30 seconds with an additional 15 or more seconds before Calvery came onto the first floor .... it was a short amount of time.

Zambanini claimed that she was proud of the research she had done on Calvery and you have not bothered to ask her for the source that allowed her to write in Calvery's orbit that Gloria followed Truly and Baker into the TSBD.

So its a fact that Linda Zambanini wrote the orbit as much as it is a fact that you have no evidence that her remarks about Gloria's following Truly and Baker wasn't factual and true.

I'm sorry, Bill, but since you seem intent on reporting me to James Gordon every time I disagree with you, I am placing you on "Ignore". I have just been told I stand a good chance of being permanently banned from this forum.

It is quite clear at this point that discussing this case with you is rather futile, as you fail to recognize facts for what they are. For example, not having evidence that Linda's remarks were not true and factual? Don't you find that a bit absurd?

[Bill Miller]

1 hour ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

I'm sorry, Bill, but since you seem intent on reporting me to James Gordon every time I disagree with you, I am placing you on "Ignore". I have just been told I stand a good chance of being permanently banned from this forum.

It is quite clear at this point that discussing this case with you is rather futile, as you fail to recognize facts for what they are. For example, not having evidence that Linda's remarks were not true and factual? Don't you find that a bit absurd?

I try to accept someone at their word until I have reason to believe otherwise. We are talking about Calvery's orbit here, so if you think she placed false information in that orbit, then you have the right to call her on it. To accuse her of posting false information to someone's obituary without first asking her for the source of her information is absurd to me.

[Michael Clark]

deleted

Edited March 4, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

I try to accept someone at their word until I have reason to believe otherwise. We are talking about Calvery's orbit here, so if you think she placed false information in that orbit, then you have the right to call her on it. To accuse her of posting false information to someone's obituary without first asking her for the source of her information is absurd to me.

He said he is ignoring you. You are trolling.

[Ray Mitcham]

9 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

 We are talking about Calvery's orbit here,....

I think like Calvery, you are going round in circles.

[Bill Miller]

10 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

He said he is ignoring you. You are trolling.

Whether Prudhomme ignores me or not .... I have the right to respond with an explanation to the question of whether I find it absurd to believe what was written in someones obituary should be accepted. So I do not see my response as trolling. I think if someone wishes to claim that I was "trolling" in my answer - then perhaps he or she should explain how it applies to the definition of trolling.

" I try to accept someone at their word until I have reason to believe otherwise. We are talking about Calvery's orbit here, so if you think she placed false information in that orbit, then you have the right to call her on it. To accuse her of posting false information to someone's obituary without first asking her for the source of her information is absurd to me. "

xxxxx²

trōl/

verb

gerund or present participle: trolling

1. 1.

   informal

   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

    

    

Perhaps this may be an example of trolling:  " Are you by any chance related to a person by the name of Albert Doyle? He's the fellow James booted from this forum for posting a stream of non-stop nonsense. "

So I not only have clarified my position to him, but also to the other members as well who read his question. If someone wishes to contact Linda Bambanini and ask her where she obtained the information that the Gloria Calvery she mentions was the same woman who was a witness to JFK's assassination and/or had followed Patrolman Baker up the stairs, by all means ask her because it's a fair question in my view.

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Bill Miller

[Michael Clark]

On 3/2/2017 at 6:20 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Can anybody point me to a thread that has good pictures of the spectators, or just to the pictures themselves? I'd like to try my hand at trying to identify Calvery.

 

In case you have not seen this

https://www.pinterest.com/chuckmiller1694/jfk-dealey-plaza/

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

At Baker's final step that we can observe, we see his profile (side view). In contrast we see the rear ends of everybody else headed for the sidewalk that runs along the front of the TSBD. This proves that Baker is, at that point, not running toward the sidewalk. He's running almost parallel to it.

Your observation is flawed and has already been addressed. Baker's shadow is seen scaling the vertical wall of the curb just before the camera pans away and where it hits the curb appears to be well before the mailboxes.

I can easily prove that Baker was headed toward  the mailboxes. (....even before he veered to his right. But let's ignore the veering for now.)

You believe Baker was headed for the TSBD entrance, which is directly across the street from the concrete island from which he ran. So you must believe that he was running in a direction perpendicular to the TSBD sidewalk.

I have plotted two points when I can see Baker's toe hit the pavement, and drawn a straight line between the two. That shows the path and direction he ran. (See this post for details on the two toe-steps I pinpointed.)
 

Ignore the top line. The bottom line shows the direction Baker ran. (Already we can see that he is running toward the postal box. But let's ignore that for now since you are interested in where Baker's shadow hits the curb.)

Baker's line must be perpendicular to the sidewalk. Because surely he wouldn't have run at an angle to get to the other side. Had he run at an angle, after he reached the other side he'd have to back track (go west) a little in order to enter the TSBD. (Actually I do believe Baker ran at somewhat of an angle, toward the east of the TSBD stairway. But you don't.)

Now, looking at the gif above it is apparent that the bottom blue line is close to parallel with everybody's shadow. This means that people crossing the street (perpendicular to the sidewalk) will walk or run directly into their shadows. Or close to.

There is a girl running across the street whose toe-steps I also pinpointed and connected with a straight line. (I call her a girl because she seems young to me.) The red line represents her foot steps. (Ignore the left half of this line. I just extrapolated that part... we don't actually see the girl running there.)

 

 

The girl's red line is covering her shadow. But note that her red line is parallel with the other shadows.

And in the above gif you can see an older woman (she seems older to me) who is also walking into her shadow. (The girl's red line crosses over this woman's legs.)

The point I'm trying to make is that everybody crossing the road is walking into their shadows. It's a happy coincidence that the people's shadows are perpendicular to the sidewalk. As is the red line. As is Baker's blue line (before he veers off to his right, a fact we are ignoring in his post).

Okay, now let's look at Baker's shadow:

Baker's shadow is the one right above the girl's red line. The horizontal gray line crossing over the shadow represents the bottom of the curb. We can see the shadow bend up onto the face of the curb. There appears to be two shadows rising up the curb. The one on the right is really the bottom of the girl's shoe.

To this drawing I have added a second gray line. This one represents where the sidewalk and the face of the building meet.

I have also added a second blue line. This one represents where Baker's toes would hit the sidewalk if he continued running toward the building. Note that I made it parallel to all the shadows. And to the girl's red line. Remember, these are all perpendicular to the sidewalk. So if Baker is running directly toward the building, he will run in the direction of his shadow and along the upper blue line I drew for him.

Note where Baker's upper blue line intersects the upper gay line. If Baker kept on running toward the building, straight across the sidewalk, he would run into the building's outer wall where these two lines intersect. And that would be at that darker box (whatever it is) just to the east of the postal box.

I therefore prove my case. Again.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/3/2017 at 8:50 AM, Bill Miller said:

Ok so, point well taken that we don't know exactly when he was in the lobby, but she being hot on Baker's heels she had to have been in the lobby too maybe 5-10 sec later - where Molina said he saw her "come in"

PROOF:  Calvery being right behind Baker proves that Calvery was right behind Baker.

Ummm.... okay.

Now prove that Calvery was indeed right behind Baker. Oh I know... see proof above. 

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

In case you have not seen this

https://www.pinterest.com/chuckmiller1694/jfk-dealey-plaza/

Thanks Michael!

[Guest]

Molina did not go inside while Baker was running.

He can be seen standing next to Frazier.

I will do you one better, Molina did not go in for quite some time.....how do I know this?

Victoria Adams was the only person who stated she saw Molina standing on top of the stairs....4/5/6 minutes after ( see that Jim Leavelle report from Feb 1964, which in turn also contains the very first fake sighting of Shelley and Lovelady. She is the only person that mentions Molina, who was regarded as a subversive and everyone wanted to stay well clear from (not even Otis Williams his close colleague did make one mention of him).

If only you guys spend time reading Barry Ernest's book instead of bickering about......Owwwww.......talk about a spanner in the Calvery works.

Back to the drawing board lads!!!!!

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Bart Kamp

[Bill Miller]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can easily prove that Baker was headed toward  the mailboxes. (....even before he veered to his right. But let's ignore the veering for now.)

Note where Baker's upper blue line intersects the upper gay line. If Baker kept on running toward the building, straight across the sidewalk, he would run into the building's outer wall where these two lines intersect. And that would be at that darker box (whatever it is) just to the east of the postal box.

I therefore prove my case. Again.

I started looking for Jack White's illustration of Toni Foster being 7' tall because I felt it demonstrated the problem of placing lines on a 2D image from a skewed view. Some may recall that Jack drew a line between two 14' lamppost at their mid-points. I could not find Illustration online, but it is in the book called "Assassination Science". Jack's point was that a very short (5') Toni Foster looked 7' tall because her head was touching the line he had drawn between the two lamppost. He was clueless as to the deception that skewed image had caused before claiming this was an example of the Zapruder film being altered.

The same has occurred with what you have done in my view. You drew a line that you say represents Baker's path because his feet are hitting the ground on or near the line. You have not taken into consideration that you too are using a skewed view on a 2D image, thus Baker's feet are not really hitting the street where you have an elevated line, but rather his feet are hitting the pavement some distance beyond your line. This was why I asked that you note where on the curb Patrolman Baker's shadow makes contact with it.

Try to consider how much further west Baker's shadow meets the curb compared to the woman's foot immediately to his right as she is about to reach the sidewalk. In this angled view it looks like they are almost going to touch each other, but in reality they are not that close. Alistair once mentioned to me in a PM that it looked as though Baker was going to plow into that women, but in reality there was much more space between the two than what it looks like from Darnell's position. I must remind you of the spacing of people as they seen in the Zapruder film and how shoulder to shoulder they appeared and yet the Bronson photo from a more straight-on view was taken - it proved that the people were much further apart from one another that the skewed view of Zapruder had made them appear.

I have slowed the advancement of Baker's shadow and where it meets the curb easier to track.

 

Next I show Roberdeau's scaled Map of the Plaza to show the stairs are not directly across the street as some may believe. Darnell's location is not shown.

 

So what I am saying that while I understand your approach as I did the same thing many years ago as well - but it is terribly flawed. I have seen this too many times to ignore it and if you really wish to challenge what I am saying to you, then either consult someone skilled in Photogammetry or do as I have done many times in the Plaza and shoot photos from known photographer or filming locations and then again from a straight-on view and compare the two. You can get on the far side of Houston Street and find a line of sight that matched that of Darnell's and then take another photo from the south side of Elm Street across from where Baker parked his  cycle. When I get to Dallas again - I will be happy to do it for you to demonstrate what I am saying.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Bill Miller