Sandy Larsen Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 As I converted the Groden photo into Black and white, I assume that you are accusing me of photoshopping it. As I didn't, and, as you can see the pocket in the black and white photo, you have proven that it is there. Just that you couldn't see it in the colour version. I'm not going to argue with you any further. It's just a waste of time. You are right about one thing. I certainly am an anti Cinque guy. He is crackers. Ray, Of course I'm not accusing you of photoshopping the pocket in. I didn't know that you had made the suspect B&W from a color copy. Obviously the faked pocket is in the color copy you made the B&W from. Do you have that still? I'd like to see it. The color Groden posted in this thread does not have the fake pocket. I converted it to gray scale and confirmed that to be the case. I invite you to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 This is the photo I converted and posted. I am no longer interested in discussing the matter with you. What was the old saying? There are none so blind as those who will not see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 This is the photo I converted and posted. It's the color photo from which this came that I wanted to see. I am no longer interested in discussing the matter with you. What was the old saying? There are none so blind as those who will not see. Suit yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I've looked at both photos until my eyes were bugged out and I still cannot see a pocket. However, doesn't it bother anyone that the 1963 shirt is quite long, and the "no pocket" shirt barely makes it to the top of his pants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) I've looked at both photos until my eyes were bugged out and I still cannot see a pocket. However, doesn't it bother anyone that the 1963 shirt is quite long, and the "no pocket" shirt barely makes it to the top of his pants? Howdy Bob! From my earlier post, this thread: (slightly edited for clarification and emphasis) "But even if [the pocket] did disappear, there are several innocent and plausible scenarios in which Lovelady could have been photographed in a plaid shirt that was [color and pattern-wise speaking] [identical to or] only slightly different from the long-sleeved, plaid shirt he was photographed in on 11/22/63 by Ike Altgens in "Altgens 6," by Robert Hughes as the limo passed by the TSBD (as well as when Lovelady was smoking on the steps of the TSBD after the assassination), and by Charles Buck of WFAA-TV as the "male patterned" and the birth-dot marked or scarred left eyebrow Lovelady was sitting in a chair in the DPD's Homicide and Robbery Department, for cryin' out loud, at 2:02 pm on that fateful day. And let us not ignore the fact that in Couch, Lovelady was photographically "captured" about 20 seconds after the assassination, sporting the distinctive bald spot on the top-rear of his head, his vertical white scar on the left side of his head, and wearing a long-sleeved plaid shirt with bold white stripes in the same places as they are other photos of him, while walking / running down the Elm Street Extension towards the railway yard." I don't have time to find it right now and post it and copy and paste it here for you Bob, but I did recently post somewhere (maybe even on this thread) a detailed description of those possible innocent and plausible scenarios I allude to, above. (I'm sure you can find it if you want to.) -- Tommy Edited October 31, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Yes, I saw that post, Thomas, and it still does not do a thing to prove that Shelley and Lovelady were captured in the Couch film, walking down the Elm St. extension, just as Baker was running for the steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 6, 2016 Author Share Posted November 6, 2016 (edited) On 10/31/2016 at 10:49 AM, Robert Prudhomme said: Yes, I saw that post, Thomas, and it still does not do a thing to prove that Shelley and Lovelady were captured in the Couch film, walking down the Elm St. extension, just as Baker was running for the steps. Okay, Bob. Whatever turns you on. But I thought you said Baker was running to the corner to talk with a policeman (or my idea: to the corner, or where-ever, to ask Running Woman what she'd seen), not towards the steps, for cryin' out loud. -- Tommy Edited November 6, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 No one knows where Baker was running to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 6, 2016 Author Share Posted November 6, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said: No one knows where Baker was running to. Howdy Bob! In other words, as far as you're concerned, Baker could have run anywhere as long as it wasn't up the front steps? -- Tommy (with smiling "sun" face, wearing sunglasses) Edited November 7, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 7, 2016 Author Share Posted November 7, 2016 18 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: Howdy Bob! In other words, as far as you're concerned, Baker could have run anywhere as long as it wasn't up the front steps? -- Tommy (with smiling "sun" face, wearing sunglasses) Bumped for Cowboy Bob. 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