Thomas Graves Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Thomas I love your side by side videos, good job to who ever did this. While someone may look at these films and determine that two witnesses taking movies of the same scene is supportive of it being true, I look at it and wonder what are the chances that two random witnesses randomly gathered in front of the TSBD watching a scene where nothing of significance seems to be occurring and they both take a few seconds of film, both capturing essentially the exact same moments in time. And what are the chances that the films just happened to showcase LOVELADY in his plaid shirt? We have seen all the footage of OSWALD in the police station, being dragged down crowded hallways, then we are presented a scene where we see the back of someones head being walked thru an office, this scene is unlike any other scene we have of OSWALD in police custody, but that's not all, it just happens to contain LOVELADY prominently displayed in his plaid shirt. What are the chances of a film existing of OSWALD not in the hallway and what are the chances of it also containing anyone from the TSBD, but it is not just anyone it is LOVELADY in his plaid shirt. A little more skepticism toward evidence may be warranted. Are you nuts? The President of the United States has just been shot, apparently from the TSBD. The sniper may still be inside the building. The authorities are searching for him inside the building. They could theoretically drag the sniper out through the front door at any moment. A policeman is doing "traffic control" at the front door. It's an exciting afternoon and the TSBD is one of the focal points. I see nothing unusual whatsoever about two amateur photographers filming the goings on outside the TSBD some 8 to 15 minutes after the assassination. What do other members think about this? Are these two film clips of a suspicious or normal nature, given the circumstances? Thanks, --Tommy PS -- Mady, The burden of proof is on you. It's your theory. Edited March 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Tommy, I would contend you are correct in this matter. Highly improbable. Thanks, Carmine. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? The Question: Given the circumstances, are the Martin and Hughes clips (viewable in post # 1592, above) suspicious or normal? Thanks. --Tommy Edited March 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Thanks so much Greg. My apologies I am hopeless at copying links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Totally agree, Thomas. The films are completely normal and credible. I wasn't even aware that anyone was claiming that they were staged until I came on here. The only query I have about the films taken that day by the media though is this. Up until a few years ago all the footage of the limousine leaving Love Field did not show the SS Agent leaving the post behind JFK on the limousine. In fact when you watch the footage there is a bit of a jump where this piece should be. So it seems that someone at some stage has edited that part out. It has since appeared on the internet but I don't know if we have a clear idea of where this footage came from and who posted it. But in any case it's been in existence for 40 plus years somewhere and we didn't know about it. My question is this - a lot of the media footage of the day lasts about 5 - 10 seconds that seems unusual to me. Were all the cameramen that day turning their cameras off after a few seconds? Even O'Donnell's footage from behind JFK cuts out every few seconds. Was it the style in the 1960's to do this? Were all cameramen incompetent numpty's in those days? I doubt it. It strikes me that the films from the media we have been shown are highly edited. And if the Love Field footage is anything to go by the bit that has been left out is probably more significant than the bits that have been left in. My direct reply button doesn't seem to be working properly - apologies if this response pops up out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Hi Ray Is there no-one else at all in the research community that has a computer that could do this? Is it worth posting a thread on Ed Forum asking for someone with that technology to help out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Thanks so much Greg. My apologies I am hopeless at copying links. I suspect you're being overly modest and that the link was faulty from the get-go. It actually landed on a broken ed forum url. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Were all cameramen incompetent numpty's in those days? That's what we're expected to believe, Vanessa. Take the case of cameraman, Ron Reiland who shot the arrest... nothing visible. Poor Ron didn't have the right filter on or some such thing. Maybe he left the lens cap on. I dunno. But how unlucky is that? Wouldn't happen to Ron again in a million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Were all cameramen incompetent numpty's in those days? That's what we're expected to believe, Vanessa. Take the case of cameraman, Ron Reiland who shot the arrest... nothing visible. Poor Ron didn't have the right filter on or some such thing. Maybe he left the lens cap on. I dunno. But how unlucky is that? Wouldn't happen to Ron again in a million years. Freakishly unlucky, I'd say, Greg. Makes me wonder what else has survived out there. Because if there is one piece of film that, I would imagine, some would want disappeared forever would be that of the SS stand-down at Love Field. Thanks for your kind words about the link btw. But I am truly 'not gifted' when it comes to these things. And speaking of film - is there no chance at all that someone in the research community has the computer equipment to enhance Robin Unger's copy of Prayerman even further? Is it worth putting a shout-out thread on this site? Are we allowed to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Completely normal to have films of the front of the tsbd on that day, and completely abnormal to have only short snippets from so many photographers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Abnormal? I'll give you abnormal. Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein - "Whose Brain I did put in?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Abnormal? I'll give you abnormal. Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein - "Whose Brain I did put in?" Current results of my informal "running" poll: "Abnormal" -- Robert Mady "Normal" -- Tommy, Carmine, Vanessa, Paul B. The "Normals" Have It At The Moment! Anyone else wanna weigh in? (To be "bumped" from time to time to encourage more votes and to keep the subject (Were the Martin and Hughes clips which showed Lovelady in front of the TSBD after the assassination "normal" or "abnormal"?) alive, so to speak. --Tommy "The man whose brain I did put in is doing very well, thank you very much." -- See, perfect grammar after all. So let's not jump to conclusions shall we. Everything must be taken in context! Isn't that right, Igor. Igor? Edited March 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Dr. Frankenstein: Help me with the bags. Igor: Certainly! You take the blonde and I'll grab the one in the turban! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Abnormal? I'll give you abnormal. Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein - "Whose Brain I did put in?" Current results of my informal "running" poll: "Abnormal" -- Robert Mady "Normal" -- Tommy, Carmine, Vanessa, Paul B. The "Normals" Have It At The Moment! Anyone else wanna weigh in? To be "bumped" from time to time to encourage more votes and to keep the subject (Were the Martin and Hughes clips which showed Lovelady in front of the TSBD after the assassination "normal" or "abnormal"?) alive, so to speak. To watch the two film clips, go to post #1592, above. --Tommy "The man whose brain I did put in is doing very well, thank you very much." -- See, perfect grammar after all. So let's not jump to conclusions shall we. Everything must be taken in context! Isn't that right, Igor. Igor? Electro-shocked. Don't be shy. Cast your vote today! Edited March 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I'm very impressed with your accounting there Thomas. Did you leave out Bob P. though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I'm very impressed with your accounting there Thomas. Did you leave out Bob P. though? Vanessa, I don't believe my fellow gold prospector has cast a vote yet as to whether or not he thinks the Martin and Hughes film clips, (viewable in post # 1592, above) were suspicious in nature (i.e., "abnormal") or not (i.e., "normal"). Please correct me if I am mistaken. Of course, on a personal level I believe that Bob P. is very, very ... --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts