Sandy Larsen

TSBD Women in Scarves - Pre-Assassination Collection

54 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Yeah, I believe I just hit the brick wall on this one.

While it is true that I will never change the minds of people like Bill Miller, at least I can show other forum members -- whose opinions I might sway -- that I've done the work to prove my point.

Right on, bro!

--  Tommy :sun

We'll have to come back to it and "bump" it every five years or so, so people will remember what we've uncovered.  (lol)

Robin Unger said something about his editing the big color Z-Frame or something so that "CalvAry, Hicks, and Reed" on it (orwhatever  no longer has any names whatsoever affixed to their images, or something like that.  If true, maybe we've made a little progress for the research community over-all.  (Probably wishful thinking on my part.) 

It would appear that Robin requires a notorized statement from Jacob, Holt, and Simmons plus so genetic testing plus 15 high school photos of each of them before he'll consider correctly re-labeling them on his  photos.  (Unfortunately for us, he runs the wildly-popular Photographic Department over at JFK Assassination Forum) so maybe we should label our own darn photos the way we know they should be for Jacob, Hot, and Simmons, and maybe even "Big Girl" Gloria CalvEry..  You any good with that kinda stuff, Sandy?

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Yeah, I believe I just hit the brick wall on this one.

While it is true that I will never change the minds of people like Bill Miller, at least I can show other forum members -- whose opinions I might sway -- that I've done the work to prove my point.

Right on, bro!

BTW, since we'll probably never be able to motivate the highly-influential Robin Unger to correctly label Jacob, Holt, and Simmons in the Z-Frame or the short, close-up Darnell clip of them walking back up the north side sidewalk, I gotta ask you a question --  Are you any good with labeling Internet photos and videos and that kind of stuff?

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Right on, bro!

--  Tommy :sun

We'll have to come back to it and "bump" it every five years or so, so people will remember what we've uncovered.  (lol)

Robin Unger said something about his editing the big color Z-Frame or something so that "CalvAry, Hicks, and Reed" on it (orwhatever  no longer has any names whatsoever affixed to their images, or something like that.  If true, maybe we've made a little progress for the research community over-all.  (Probably wishful thinking on my part.) 

It would appear that Robin requires a notorized statement from Jacob, Holt, and Simmons plus so genetic testing plus 15 high school photos of each of them before he'll consider correctly re-labeling them on his  photos.  (Unfortunately for us, he runs the wildly-popular Photographic Department over at JFK Assassination Forum) so maybe we should label our own darn photos the way we know they should be for Jacob, Hot, and Simmons, and maybe even "Big Girl" Gloria CalvEry..  You any good with that kinda stuff, Sandy?

edited and bumped because my handlers told me to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Right on, bro!

BTW, since we'll probably never be able to motivate the highly-influential Robin Unger to correctly label Jacob, Holt, and Simmons in the Z-Frame or the short, close-up Darnell clip of them walking back up the north side sidewalk, I gotta ask you a question --  Are you any good with labeling Internet photos and videos and that kind of stuff?

--  Tommy :sun


Tommy,

I gotta tell ya, now that we are reasonably sure that at least six of the people on Robin's Zapruder frame are mislabeled, I have Grave doubts (pun intended) about the labeling of the others on the frame. I would love to see the evidence Robin (or anybody else) has that those six women are who he says they are. Or maybe it is down to three now. (Did he remove all three names from the Calvery group, or just Calvery's name? His latest post gave me the impression that he had removed only Calvery's name.)

I think that you are right, that we should create our own Zapruder frame with our own names. Maybe we should create a thread dedicated to discovering the correct names. Right now we would focus only on just the six women we know. Other names can be added later if anybody wants to work on the project. Evidence for each identification must be posted on the thread so that readers will have confidence in all identifications made.

I don't have a desire to identify all those people. But I wouldn't mind being the manager of the thread. (I also wouldn't mind somebody else being the manager.)

My graphic skills and tools are pretty limited. But I can draw lines and place words.

We could open a free photo sharing account (like on Imgur or Flickr) to keep our own copies of photos. These would be the ones posted on the forum (as opposed to the originals, which could disappear at any time).

This idea might be beyond what you had in mind. Another possibility would be to take a more informal approach. Just make and maintain our own Zapruder frame that gets updated whenever a new identification is made by somebody. The upside to this approach is that there is little effort required from us/me. The downside is that evidence will be haphazardly posted, will be hard to find, and can get lost.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tommy,

I gotta tell ya, now that we are reasonably sure that at least six of the people on Robin's Zapruder frame are mislabeled, I have Grave doubts (pun intended) about the labeling of the others on the frame. I would love to see the evidence Robin (or anybody else) has that those six women are who he says they are. Or maybe it is down to three now. (Did he remove all three names from the Calvery group, or just Calvery's name? His latest post gave me the impression that he had removed only Calvery's name.)

I think that you are right, that we should create our own Zapruder frame with our own names. Maybe we should create a thread dedicated to discovering the correct names. Right now we would focus only on just the six women we know. Other names can be added later if anybody wants to work on the project. Evidence for each identification must be posted on the thread so that readers will have confidence in all identifications made.

I don't have a desire to identify all those people. But I wouldn't mind being the manager of the thread. (I also wouldn't mind somebody else being the manager.)

My graphic skills and tools are pretty limited. But I can draw lines and place words.

We could open a free photo sharing account (like on Imgur or Flickr) to keep our own copies of photos. These would be the ones posted on the forum (as opposed to the originals, which could disappear at any time).

This idea might be beyond what you had in mind. Another possibility would be to take a more informal approach. Just make and maintain our own Zapruder frame that gets updated whenever a new identification is made by somebody. The upside to this approach is that there is little effort required from us/me. The downside is that evidence will be haphazardly posted, will be hard to find, and can get lost.

Any thoughts?

Sandy,

The only thoughts I have about it right now are 1 ) we should not make it so any member of the forum can change an identification (they gotta submit their "evidence" to us and let us decide without any potentially divisive "input" from anyone else -- I think we're pretty good at this and we work well together), and 2 ) it might be a good idea to put a question mark ("?") after the name of anyone whose identification is kinda tentative (like Calvery for example; lol).

--  Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

The only thoughts I have about it right now are 1 ) we should not make it so any member of the forum can change an identification (they gotta submit their "evidence" to us and let us decide without any potentially divisive "input" from anyone else -- I think we're pretty good at this and we work well together), and 2 ) it might be a good idea to put a question mark ("?") after the name of anyone whose identification is kinda tentative (like Calvery for example; lol).

--  Tommy :sun


I agree with not allowing others control over identifications. That's pretty much a given since you and I will have the marked Zapruder frame in our possession. (Of course, anybody could do their own identification frame. But I'm sure they won't.) I also agree with the question mark idea.

I've come up with what I believe is a methodical, yet easy system of organizing evidence and analysis. Here is what I'm thinking:

Create a thread for each logical group of spectators. The first two threads would be named:

Photographic identification of Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed.

Photographic identification of Stella Jacob, Gloria Holt, and Sharon Simmons.

Thread names can be edited. So other women's names associated with these groups can be added later, as necessary.

I will be the person who creates each thread. That will allow me to edit the first post at any time. I will use that ability to summarize what has been determined, and to maintain an index to key posts in the thread. Whatever I feel is useful to others.

If you also want to be able to add and edit your own stuff at the beginning of these threads, then you should add a post right after I create each thread. Every post requires some text, so you would have to write something in your post. (I also put "[reserved].")

After that, the thread would flow like any other thread.

So far this is very straightforward and easy.


I would make a parent/master thread titled:

Photographic identification of motorcade spectators.

(This title is open to suggestions.)

In the first post will be the marked-up Z frame and Weigman frame. There will also be an index with hyperlinks to the daughter threads. For example, the first two entries will be:

Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, Carol Reed
Stella Jacob, Gloria Holt, Sharon Simmons

This index will be for the benefit of readers of the threads, not so much for those contributing to the threads.

Again, this is straightforward and easy.


I think the only goal remaining is to have a local copy of the photographic evidence... just in case source photographs disappear from the internet. To keep that task easy, I'm thinking that contributors should be able to post directly from the source (like what we all do every day.) But to also have a dedicated photo hosting account (Imgur or Flickr) where you or I can drop those same photos at our convenience. The account would have a folder for each person. Either of us could log in.

Again, this is straightforward and easy. The downside is that, should a source photo disappear, it will also disappear from the thread that had it posted. But at least we would have a copy of it handy. Anybody could go to our photo hosting account, look for the missing photo, and restore it in a new post on the appropriate thread.

While not ideal, I feel this would make for a very good compromise. (The ideal situation would be to have all photos in the threads taken from our photo hosting account. This would be a big hassle and would require the cooperation of other forum members.)

Do you have any thoughts on this idea, Thomas?

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I agree with not allowing others control over identifications. That's pretty much a given since you and I will have the marked Zapruder frame in our possession. (Of course, anybody could do their own identification frame. But I'm sure they won't.) I also agree with the question mark idea.

I've come up with what I believe is a methodical, yet easy system of organizing evidence and analysis. Here is what I'm thinking:

Create a thread for each logical group of spectators. The first two threads would be named:

Photographic identification of Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed.

Photographic identification of Stella Jacob, Gloria Holt, and Sharon Simmons.

Thread names can be edited. So other women's names associated with these groups can be added later, as necessary.

I will be the person who creates each thread. That will allow me to edit the first post at any time. I will use that ability to summarize what has been determined, and to maintain an index to key posts in the thread. Whatever I feel is useful to others.

If you also want to be able to add and edit your own stuff at the beginning of these threads, then you should add a post right after I create each thread. Every post requires some text, so you would have to write something in your post. (I also put "[reserved].")

After that, the thread would flow like any other thread.

So far this is very straightforward and easy.


I would make a parent/master thread titled:

Photographic identification of procession spectators.

(This title is open to suggestions. Should I use "motorcade" instead of "procession?")

In the first post will be the marked-up Z frame and Weigman frame. There will also be an index with hyperlinks to the daughter threads. For example, the first two entries will be:

Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, Carol Reed
Stella Jacob, Gloria Holt, Sharon Simmons

This index will be for the benefit of readers of the threads, not so much for those contributing to the threads.

Again, this is straightforward and easy.


I think the only goal remaining is to have a local copy of the photographic evidence... just in case source photographs disappear from the internet. To keep that task easy, I'm thinking that contributors should be able to post directly from the source (like what we all do every day.) But to also have a dedicated photo hosting account (Imgur or Flickr) where you or I can drop those same photos at our convenience. The account would have a folder for each person. Either of us could log in.

Again, this is straightforward and easy. The downside is that, should a source photo disappear, it will also disappear from the thread that had it posted. But at least we would have a copy of it handy. Anybody could go to our photo hosting account, look for the missing photo, and restore it in a new post on the appropriate thread.

While not ideal, I feel this would make for a very good compromise. (The ideal situation would be to have all photos in the threads taken from our photo hosting account. This would be a big hassle and would require the cooperation of other forum members.)

Do you have any thoughts on this idea, Thomas?

 

Sandy,

I've never been very good at understanding organizational structures, but this sounds good to me.  It seems that you're really into it, which is a good thing, of course.  Just don't try to do too much at the beginning as far the of the number of identified people is concerned, because we might find ourselves swamped by the inevitable "fact checking" and "verification" and "explanation" process if-and-when other members disagree with us and / or each other about the alleged identifications. (I suppose that's why I want to put question marks ("?") around the more tentative identifications, especially important ones like Calvery and Lovelady.)

I do prefer the word "motorcade" to  (funeral?) "procession."   LOL

The plan to have fleeting, internet-based photos backed up on a hard drive or flash drive (or two) is a very good idea. 

I'm sure you will organize everything so as to keep it as simple and elegant as possible, as well as with the necessary safeguards to prevent "Murphy's Law" from having too much of an effect.

Just an idea: when we know for sure who correctly identified someone in the crowd, it would be nice to give them a little "credit".  Like me(!), for example, for finding Roy Truly (for sure), and Ochus V. Campbell ("?") to the right of the TSBD steps, not far from a Mrs. Reid (going from memory here). A Linda Z???? has identified a lot of people over the last year or so.  She used to post here a lot but has since switched her "allegiances" to the the website inhabited by Greg Parker and "Barto".  "Reopen The Kennedy Case," or something like that.  Anyway, she deserves lots of credits, as does Stan Dane, at that same website, who posted those critically-important high school photos of Gloria Jeanne Holt that I luckily stumbled upon there, and which allowed me to "connect the dots" regarding the Stella Jacob Group that had been misplaced on the south side of Elm Street by the FBI.

I like the idea of having two potential groups or clusters based on the two "nuclei" of Calvary/Holt/Reed and Jacob/Holt/Simmons.  We might also want to do the same thing with the Truly/Campbell/Reid group near the TSBD.  A lot of work has already been done on that latter group, as you have probably noticed.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

I've never been very good at understanding organizational structures, but this sounds good to me.  It seems that you're really into it, which is a good thing, of course.  Just don't try to do too much at the beginning as far the of the number of identified people is concerned, because we might find ourselves swamped by the inevitable "fact checking" and "verification" and "explanation" process if-and-when other members disagree with us and / or each other about the alleged identifications. (I suppose that's why I want to put question marks ("?") around the more tentative identifications, especially important ones like Calvery and Lovelady.)

I do prefer the word "motorcade" to  (funeral?) "procession."   LOL

The plan to have fleeting, internet-based photos backed up on a hard drive or flash drive (or two) is a very good idea. 

I'm sure you will organize everything so as to keep it as simple and elegant as possible, as well as with the necessary safeguards to prevent "Murphy's Law" from having too much of an effect.

Just an idea: when we know for sure who correctly identified someone in the crowd, it would be nice to give them a little "credit".  Like me(!), for example, for finding Roy Truly (for sure), and Ochus V. Campbell ("?") to the right of the TSBD steps, not far from a Mrs. Reid (going from memory here). A Linda Z???? has identified a lot of people over the last year or so.  She used to post here a lot but has since switched her "allegiances" to the the website inhabited by Greg Parker and "Barto".  "Reopen The Kennedy Case," or something like that.  Anyway, she deserves lots of credits, as does Stan Dane, at that same website, who posted those critically-important high school photos of Gloria Jeanne Holt that I luckily stumbled upon there, and which allowed me to "connect the dots" regarding the Stella Jacob Group that had been misplaced on the south side of Elm Street by the FBI.

I like the idea of having two potential groups or clusters based on the two "nuclei" of Calvary/Holt/Reed and Jacob/Holt/Simmons.  We might also want to do the same thing with the Truly/Campbell/Reid group near the TSBD.  A lot of work has already been done on that latter group, as you have probably noticed.

--  Tommy :sun


Tommy,

I'm sure you've noticed that I like to give credit where credit is due. So I am in favor of that. We can talk about how best to do it later on.

Just so you know, I want to introduce our first three threads slowly. The reason being that if Admin sees them all on the first page for a while, they will want to move them to the Research area of the forum. (That's what happened to these women-wearing-a-scarf threads.) The Research area gets little exposure.

I'm ready to start the first thread. I just need two things from you. 1) Do you want to reserve for yourself Post #2 on each of these threads? (The purpose being so that you can write conclusions for others to see, or to keep notes for yourself.)  2) We need to decide which thread to create first, Calvary/Holt/Reed  or Jacob/Holt/Simmons.

It seems to me that Jacob/Holt/Simmons would be a better choice. Because, since the name Gloria Calvery isn't mentioned in the title, I figure it will attract less attention and get less resistance from others. Of course, the very first step in the thread is going to have to be the debunking of the current Calvery identification. But at least the her name won't appear on the forum's main page.

Let me know what your preferences (if you have any) on these two issues.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tommy,

I'm sure you've noticed that I like to give credit where credit is due. So I am in favor of that. We can talk about how best to do it later on.

Just so you know, I want to introduce our first three threads slowly. The reason being that if Admin sees them all on the first page for a while, they will want to move them to the Research area of the forum. (That's what happened to these women-wearing-a-scarf threads.) The Research area gets little exposure.

I'm ready to start the first thread. I just need two things from you. 1) Do you want to reserve for yourself Post #2 on each of these threads? (The purpose being so that you can write conclusions for others to see, or to keep notes for yourself.)  2) We need to decide which thread to create first, Calvary/Holt/Reed  or Jacob/Holt/Simmons.

It seems to me that Jacob/Holt/Simmons would be a better choice. Because, since the name Gloria Calvery isn't mentioned in the title, I figure it will attract less attention and get less resistance from others. Of course, the very first step in the thread is going to have to be the debunking of the current Calvery identification. But at least the her name won't appear on the forum's main page.

Let me know what your preferences (if you have any) on these two issues.

1 )  -- Yes

2 )  --  I, too, would start with J/H/S.

--  Tommy  :sun

PS  Keep up the good work.

Just an Idea -- When we really get into this, it might be a good idea if I could somehow see what you're going to post about a basic identification (or a clue that led you to make said ID) before you post it (and you mine, if I have the ability to make identifications), in case I grossly disagree with you on it (or you on mine).

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now