Glenn Viklund Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) [ If you officially belonged here, you would now be the Education Forum's craziest member. Francois Carlier will be watching with interest. Bye BS. This "my way or the highway" EDIT Edited May 10, 2012 by Pat Speer abusive language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) [ If you officially belonged here, you would now be the Education Forum's craziest member. Francois Carlier will be watching with interest. Bye BS. This "my way or the highway" EDIT Sorry. I only speak English and a bit of French. Never been able to get my head around jibberish. Well, that's rational. Just the same way I use one ear and half my brain when dissecting your crap. Edited May 10, 2012 by Pat Speer Glenn's abusive language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Lee, A question: did you find one single, honest civilian near the Dealey Plaza? No? Well, there you go.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Lee, Thanks! All professionals would be impressed by your arguments; those civilians who did not lie; those who were not bribed and those who were not idiots - Yes - those we should believe! Congrats Lee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 No misread, Lee. You are the true essence of the new generation of researchers -those who claim to have the answers by way of Internet. "It's just a question of being bri9ght enough and diving deep enough", right? Seriously, I'm not impressed by conclusions based on a pattern of bashing witnesses that cannot defend themselves - and who's statements for all we know - are true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 New post from Ralph: Getting back to the main topic, which is that Lovelady from outside the TSBD after the assassination was not the same man as Lovelady as photographed by the FBI (who definitely was the real thing), a new wrinkle has come up, and that is that the 6 second clip from which the images of TSBD Lovelady were made is now unsourced. Keep in mind that it is an isolated 6 second movie. Someone with a very good camera produced close-up footage that is very clear, very sharp, and more vivid than all the rest of the TSBD footage, but apparently, he only had 6 seconds to spare. Perhaps he had a hot date. For decades now, that segment has been assigned to the Martin film, but it can't possibly be from Martin, and for the following reasons: 1. That 6 second clip does not occur in any of the extant versions of the Martin film, and I checked with Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum, and he confirmed that not even they have any such thing in their vast archives. 2. Qualitatively, that 6 second clip is vastly different and vastly better than the Martin film, which is drab, fuzzy, blurry, and generally low-quality. The Martin film is qualitatively crappy, while that 6 second clip looks brilliant. We're talking worlds apart. 3. It's easy to tell Martin's thought process: he was shooting the motorcade from when it entered Dealey Plaza until when it left. It's a chronological thing; it starts from when they make that big turn into Dealey Plaza and it ends at the far end of Dealey Plaza with the motorcade gone. And that's it. Then it's over. That six second clip took place some time later, and we don't know exactly how much later. It was obviously taken from a different spot than where Martin was standing. And whoever took it, must have moved in very close because it's very close-up, unlike the Martin film, which is distant. But why would Martin turn his camera on again just for 6 seconds of shooting? And what was so special about those 6 seconds? You can watch it by going to this link: There watch it from 3 minutes 4 seconds until 3 minutes 11 seconds. That's the 6 seconds we're talking about. That's the whole shebang. And what does it show? It shows a guy being led by police into the building. From behind, the guy looks like he could be Lee Harvey Oswald. He seems slender like Oswald, and the long-sleeved shirt he is wearing looks similar to Oswald's. (Obviously, it was not Oswald because Oswald was never led into the TSBD by police; I'm just saying that it resembled him). And the bystanders watching, including Lovelady, seem to be very interested in this guy, and they keep peering in through the glass after he disappears inside to see what's going on. And that's it. End of story. We don't know how much time had elapsed after the assassination for when this 6 second movie was made. But, we do have Lovelady's account of his whereabouts after the assassination. He said that right after the assassination, he and Bill Shelley walked down Dealey Plaza to the railroad tracks to see if they could see anything. Others were doing it, so they did it too. They looked around briefly. Then they returned and re-entered the TSBD through the back door. Not the front door, but the back door. Then, they guarded the freight elevator, as per instructions from Roy Truly, according to them. There they encountered Vickie Adams at the freight elevator and had a short conversation with her. Then Lovelady claimed to have led a group of policemen on a tour of the 6th floor. And after that, he was taken to the Dallas PD to make a statement. And that's it. He said nothing about having stood around in front of the TSBD after the assassination. And if you are interested, here is the complete Martin film. There are lots of postings of it, but they're all the same. You're not going to see that 6 second clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Ralph's post continued: Finally, since we can only post 2 images, here is one of Lovelady from the TSBD and one frame from the Martin film. Do they look like they were taken with the same movie camera? So, as we have reasons to doubt that the Lovelady in this 6 second movie was the real McCoy, we now have questions about the origin of the movie. Who took it? And who would take a movie for just 6 seconds. This six-second clip doesn't match the Martin film, and it doesn't match any other film or footage either. And that makes it darn suspicious. Who shoots a 6 second movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 And we all know that it was the injury to Tague that forced the commission to revise its "three shots/three hits" theory of the case to "three shots/two hits" and to introduce the "magic bullet". So why be so petty and childish? \Sorry, Jim, that's just a myth. Specter's chapter in which he pushed the single-bullet theory was written and handed over to the commissioners a month and a half before Tague even testified. Why not do some research instead of inaccurately pushing what "everyone knows"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 OMG... If you officially belonged here you'd be the Education Forum's craziest member. Francois Carlier will be watching with interest. Bye Glenn, I think you owe Lee a bit of an apology. This comment by Lee, as I understand it, was directed at Ralph. But you responded to Lee thinking it was directed at you. Am I right? Let's make nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Ralph replies to Lee: Lee! What is wrong with you? In this image, he is not sitting with "his elbows on the desk behind him." He looks like he is standing erect. ................. I'm inclined to close this thread. Ralph isn't supposed to be replying to Lee. Dr. Fetzer is prohibited from being Ralph's surrogate. Either Ralph request membership from John Simkin or Ralph has no voice. This is stated in the forum rules and an example of recent enforcement was the disapproval of an appraisal of this forum and some of its members attributed to Seamus Coogan by the member of this forum who posted it. Pat should not be about the business of clarifying who said what to who. This thread should not have been permitted to progress beyond Dr. Fetzer posting a relevant article authored by Ralph Cinque. Beyond that, Ralph should join the forum or not expect to participate here through Fetzer's membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 And we all know that it was the injury to Tague that forced the commission to revise its "three shots/three hits" theory of the case to "three shots/two hits" and to introduce the "magic bullet". So why be so petty and childish? \Sorry, Jim, that's just a myth. Specter's chapter in which he pushed the single-bullet theory was written and handed over to the commissioners a month and a half before Tague even testified. Why not do some research instead of inaccurately pushing what "everyone knows"? Sure, I apologize. But no I didn't think it was aimed vs me, but vs Fetzer. Maybe I got that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 LF: You are a meaningless and pointless distraction who I have found very easy to ignore most of the time. Amen. LF: Now if you'll excuse me but I'm sure the rest of the members want to learn stuff. The last thing a xxxxx can do is learn anything. Its his job not to. Nice to have you back Lee. Really good stuff you have turned up at Armstrong's collection at Baylor. That guy could have published a volume 2. Here we go again. The heavy hitting truth-seekers are making fun of and ridicule someone who does not agree. What else is new, boys? What I am not going to apologize about, is not agreeing to the fantasy-land you are living in. That'¨s not gone happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 No misread, Lee. You are the true essence of the new generation of researchers -those who claim to have the answers by way of Internet. "It's just a question of being bri9ght enough and diving deep enough", right? Seriously, I'm not impressed by conclusions based on a pattern of bashing witnesses that cannot defend themselves - and who's statements for all we know - are true! Shouldn't you be stalking Judy Baker or doing something more productive than trying to tease me with your messages of love quickly followed by your messages of hate? I'm assuming you've got nothing valuable to contribute to this discussion and your only purpose and aim here is to try and rile me up? Is that it, Glennie? Am I reading this one right? What is the true essence of an internet xxxxx? Oh, and by the way, Glennie, I'm not here to "impress" you. You are a meaningless and pointless distraction who I have found very easy to ignore most of the time. Now if you'll excuse me but I'm sure the rest of the members want to learn stuff. If you ever want to make a scene - do it by PM. Excellent Lee. The feeling is mutual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 If you'd read my posts above you would notice that I told Jim Fetzer that I followed this subject on the deep politics forum, where it was discussed at length recently. In other words, I suggest it's a dead end for exactly some of the reasons mentioned there, as Jim certainly should be aware. As for the rest of your rant, it's worth no further comment. No misread, Lee. You are the true essence of the new generation of researchers -those who claim to have the answers by way of Internet. "It's just a question of being bri9ght enough and diving deep enough", right? Seriously, I'm not impressed by conclusions based on a pattern of bashing witnesses that cannot defend themselves - and who's statements for all we know - are true! Shouldn't you be stalking Judy Baker or doing something more productive than trying to tease me with your messages of love quickly followed by your messages of hate? I'm assuming you've got nothing valuable to contribute to this discussion and your only purpose and aim here is to try and rile me up? Is that it, Glennie? Am I reading this one right? What is the true essence of an internet xxxxx? Oh, and by the way, Glennie, I'm not here to "impress" you. You are a meaningless and pointless distraction who I have found very easy to ignore most of the time. Now if you'll excuse me but I'm sure the rest of the members want to learn stuff. If you ever want to make a scene - do it by PM. Excellent Lee. The feeling is mutual. I've PM'd my feelings to you. What I had to say is best done in a more private manner. If you ever have anything useful to share concerning the JFK assassination then please feel free to post it but from all of your previous contributions I won't be holding my breath. Now please go and annoy someone else. There's plenty to choose from here. I think you've made enough of an unholy show of yourself by trying to xxxxx me... P.S. Have you ever reflected on your own behaviour when things like this blow up or do you only have the ability to externalise your hurt feelings? That's a rhetorical question by the way. Now, I'm sure Ralph wants some specific feedback on why his analysis is wrong. So far you have provided nothing except bringing up your unhealthy obsession with Jim Fetzer and Judy Baker. Ta ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Leaving aside Ralph Cinque's contentions or style, how many here think it's possible that Oswald is the figure in the doorway? I think it's quite possible. I object to the idea that somehow it's been "proven" definitively that Lovelady is the figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts