Robert Prudhomme Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Of course I'm paranoid, Thomas. The LN's tell me that all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Anyone on this forum know how tall Bill Shelley was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Of course I'm paranoid, Thomas. The LN's tell me that all the time. Yes, and since I think you're paranoid, I'm a Lone Nutter, aren't I, Bob? Or is it a "Paid Disinformation Agent," again? What's your paranoid mind (IMHO) telling you about me this week? You've already apologized to me once by PM. Are you going go over the top and have to do it again? --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Ian, There isn't much that can be done with the extant images. If we could access original films and get a high resolution scan some information could be gained. but playing with what we have, is just that, playing. We can enhance gray values, but it will NOT add any information of value. There just isn't enough digital information in the images. IMO Mr. LeDoux's work has more credibility than Duncan's for the following simple reason: He hasn't heavily manipulated the PM images as Duncan has. Duncan's images have little to do with the extant original. They have been altered. Contrast has been heavily increased. Areas look to have been rather crudely dodged and burned. There is no way for any viewer to know how much, unless Duncan wants to provide image metadata/exif data for us so we can determine what he did, which I doubt will be volunteered. I don't post here often. I've looked at Duncan's images as one of his, um, fans, has posted them and made outrageous claims about what can be seen at another forum. Manipulated images are just that. Manipulated. No valuable conclusions can be drawn from Duncan's "work". As Mr. MacRae will tell you, Michael, "The ends justify the means." Sad isn't it? Just checked back in today. Has Duncan volunteered the exif/metadata? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Ian, There isn't much that can be done with the extant images. If we could access original films and get a high resolution scan some information could be gained. but playing with what we have, is just that, playing. We can enhance gray values, but it will NOT add any information of value. There just isn't enough digital information in the images. IMO Mr. LeDoux's work has more credibility than Duncan's for the following simple reason: He hasn't heavily manipulated the PM images as Duncan has. Duncan's images have little to do with the extant original. They have been altered. Contrast has been heavily increased. Areas look to have been rather crudely dodged and burned. There is no way for any viewer to know how much, unless Duncan wants to provide image metadata/exif data for us so we can determine what he did, which I doubt will be volunteered. I don't post here often. I've looked at Duncan's images as one of his, um, fans, has posted them and made outrageous claims about what can be seen at another forum. Manipulated images are just that. Manipulated. No valuable conclusions can be drawn from Duncan's "work". As Mr. MacRae will tell you, Michael, "The ends justify the means." Sad isn't it? Just checked back in today. Has Duncan volunteered the exif/metadata? No, actual data is in short supply in MacRae's arsenal. Innuendo and insult are his forte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) Ian, There isn't much that can be done with the extant images. If we could access original films and get a high resolution scan some information could be gained. but playing with what we have, is just that, playing. We can enhance gray values, but it will NOT add any information of value. There just isn't enough digital information in the images. IMO Mr. LeDoux's work has more credibility than Duncan's for the following simple reason: He hasn't heavily manipulated the PM images as Duncan has. Duncan's images have little to do with the extant original. They have been altered. Contrast has been heavily increased. Areas look to have been rather crudely dodged and burned. There is no way for any viewer to know how much, unless Duncan wants to provide image metadata/exif data for us so we can determine what he did, which I doubt will be volunteered. I don't post here often. I've looked at Duncan's images as one of his, um, fans, has posted them and made outrageous claims about what can be seen at another forum. Manipulated images are just that. Manipulated. No valuable conclusions can be drawn from Duncan's "work". As Mr. MacRae will tell you, Michael, "The ends justify the means." Sad isn't it? Just checked back in today. Has Duncan volunteered the exif/metadata? No, actual data is in short supply in MacRae's arsenal. Innuendo and insult are his forte. How ironic coming from your mouth, Bob. A case of "The pot calling the kettle black" if I ever saw one. --Tommy Edited December 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Lee Farley, telling it like it is (or was) about Shelley and Lovelady: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Lee Farley, telling it like it is (or was) about Shelley and Lovelady: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Lee Farley, telling it like it is (or was) about Shelley and Lovelady: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.) A quick comment about Lovelady's handwritten same-day affidavit. http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's interesting to note that he went to the trouble to write in his affidavit that his lunch period was from 12 noon to 12:45. Even though it was probably true (I haven't taken the time to verify it), I don't understand why he felt it necessary to include that information in his affidavit. Did Lovelady expect the investigators to believe that he and Shelley had strictly observed their 45-minute lunch period on that exceptional day, i.e., that the moment "when it was over" just happened to coincide with the official end of their lunch period? What exactly was "all over" when they "returned to work"? Since we all know that the assassination occurred around 12:31, if Lovelady and Shelley really did go back to work at 12:45, what had they been doing during the previous 14 minutes or so? Of Truly's other employees, who else actually went back to work at 12:45 besides Lovelady and Shelley? Anyone at all? Lovelady originally wrote, "After it was over we went back into the building and went back to work." Then for some strange reason he put an elevated but not inserted "I" above the word "and", crossed out "went back to work" and inserted in its place, "took some police officers up to search the building." I firmly believe that his final, edited sentence was meant to read, "After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers up to search the building." There's a huge difference between the two sentences. I thought I'd mention it because I honestly don't "get it." And I think it smells a bit fishy. It raises some important questions. For example, what exactly was Shelly doing while Lovelady "took some police officers up to search the building"? Working? Guarding one of the rear elevators (as he was allegedly ordered to do by his boss, Truly) before he, in turn, assigned that job to Jack Dougherty and went upstairs, himself? --Tommy Edited December 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Lee Farley, telling it like it is (or was) about Shelley and Lovelady: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.) A quick comment about Lovelady's handwritten same-day affidavit. http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's interesting to note that he went to the trouble to write in his affidavit that his lunch period was from 12 noon to 12:45. The impression I got when I read that was that he was saying why it was that the employees were given the time off to watch the procession. Read the sentence that follows, about all the employees leaving the 6th floor to watch, My question is, why were there (apparently) so many employees on the 6th floor? Even though it was probably true (I haven't taken the time to verify it), I don't understand why he felt it necessary to include that information in his affidavit. Did Lovelady expect the investigators to believe that he had strictly observed his 45-minute lunch period on that exceptional day, i.e., that the moment "when it was all over" just happened to coincide with the official end of his lunch period? What exactly was "all over" when he "returned to work"? I took that as meaning when the commotion outside was all over. Since we all know that the assassination occurred around 12:31, if Lovelady really did go back to work at 12:45, what had he been doing during the previous 14 minutes or so? Of Truly's other employees, who else actually went back to work at 12:45? Anyone at all? Was Lovelady's saying he "went back to work" just an innocent, unconscious, habit-based, colloquial expression of his for "reentered the building"? When he aid "went back to work," I think he meant went back inside the building. That is where he works. I thought I'd mention it because I honestly don't "get it." And I think it smells a bit fishy. I think it sounds like a young person talking. Seems very innocent to me. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Lee Farley, telling it like it is (or was) about Shelley and Lovelady: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.) A quick comment about Lovelady's handwritten same-day affidavit. http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's interesting to note that he went to the trouble to write in his affidavit that his lunch period was from 12 noon to 12:45. Even though it was probably true (I haven't taken the time to verify it), I don't understand why he felt it necessary to include that information in his affidavit. Did Lovelady expect the investigators to believe that he and Shelley had strictly observed their 45-minute lunch period on that exceptional day, i.e., that the moment "when it was over" just happened to coincide with the official end of their lunch period? What exactly was "all over" when they "returned to work"? Since we all know that the assassination occurred around 12:31, if Lovelady and Shelley really did go back to work at 12:45, what had they been doing during the previous 14 minutes or so? Of Truly's other employees, who else actually went back to work at 12:45 besides Lovelady and Shelley? Anyone at all? Lovelady originally wrote, "After it was over we went back into the building and went back to work." Edit: Sandy, if you read the sentence above you will realize that your recent interpretation of what Lovelady meant by the phrase "went back into the building" is incorrect. For the simple reason that if he had meant what you think he did by that phrase, then he wouldn't have written as long of a sentence as he actually did write, i.e., he would simply have written "After it was over we went back into the building." In the sentence he did write, he is telling us two things: 1 ) They went back to work, 2 ) after they went back into the building (as opposed, I suppose, to their immediately going back to work on some (admittedly silly) project outside the building.) Then for some strange reason he put a hard-to-see, elevated but not inserted "I" above the word "and", crossed out "went back to work" and inserted in its place, "took some police officers up to search the building." I firmly believe that his final, edited sentence was meant to read, "After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers up to search the building." There's a huge difference between the two sentences. I thought I'd mention it because I honestly don't "get it." And I think it smells a bit fishy. It raises some important questions. For example, what exactly was Shelly doing while Lovelady "took some police officers up to search the building"? Working? Guarding one of the rear elevators (as he was allegedly ordered to do by his boss, Truly) before he, in turn, assigned that job to Jack Dougherty and went upstairs, himself? --Tommy bumped because Sandy obviously hadn't read this edited version when he responded to the pre-edited original Edited December 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Lee Farley, telling it like it is (or was) about Shelley and Lovelady: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location [...] [...] When [Lovelady] said [sic; he actually wrote it in his handwritten affidavit] "went back to work," I think he meant went back inside the building. [...] [...] I disagree, Sandy. Please see my edited and bumped post for my reasoning on the meaning of this part of the sentence. Wait! I have a good idea! I'll bump it again! --Tommy Edited December 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Lee Farley, telling it like it is (or was) about Shelley and Lovelady: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.) A quick comment or two about Lovelady's handwritten same-day affidavit. http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's interesting to note that he went to the trouble to write in his affidavit that his lunch period was from 12 noon to 12:45. Even though it was probably true (I haven't taken the time to verify it), I don't understand why he felt it necessary to include that information in his affidavit. Did Lovelady expect the investigators to believe that he and Shelley had strictly observed their 45-minute lunch period on that exceptional day, i.e., that the moment "when it was over" just happened to coincide with the official end of their lunch period? What exactly was "all over" when they "returned to work"? Since we all know that the assassination occurred around 12:31, if Lovelady and Shelley really did go back to work at 12:45, what had they been doing during the previous 14 minutes or so? Of Truly's other employees, who else actually went back to work at 12:45 besides Lovelady and Shelley? Anyone at all? What time did Lovelady and Shelley actually go back into the TSBD? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps more importantly, Lovelady originally wrote, "After it was over we went back into the building and went back to work." Edit: Sandy, if you read the sentence above you will realize that your recent interpretation of what Lovelady meant by the phrase "went back into the building" is incorrect. For the simple reason that if he had meant what you think he did by that phrase, then he wouldn't have written as long of a sentence as he actually did write, i.e., he would simply have written "After it was over we went back into the building." In the sentence he did write, he is telling us two things: They went back to work after they had gone back into the building (as opposed, I suppose, to their immediately going back to work on some (admittedly silly) project outside the building.) The only reason the distinction I'm making is important is because Lovelady not only radically changed the meaning of the sentence by crossing out some of its words and adding some different ones in their place, but also by replacing the unwritten-but-implicit pronoun "we" in the middle of the original sentence with the written pronoun "I" in the final version. (see below) Then for some strange reason he put a hard-to-see, elevated but not inserted "I" above the word "and", crossed out "went back to work" and inserted in its place, "took some police officers up to search the building." http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's obvious to me that his final, edited sentence reads, "After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers up to search the building." There's a huge difference between the two sentences. It raises some important questions. For example, what exactly was Shelly doing while Lovelady "took some police officers up to search the building"? Working? Guarding one of the rear elevators (as he was allegedly ordered to do by somebody) before he, in turn, alegedly and admittedly assigned that job to the mysterious Jack Dougherty and allegedly went on upstairs, himself? My intuition tells me that Lovelady was telling the truth in his edited, final sentence, the one that reads, "After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers upstairs to search the building." Which leads me to believe that it was Lovelady who was "captured" upstairs on the 6th floor (while probably standing on a pallet) in Tom Alyea's film: Note: That's Captain Fritz with his back turned toward the camera, wearing stetson hat and glasses. What time did Fritz get to the TSBD? Anybody know the detective Frits is speaking with? --Tommy bumped because Sandy obviously hadn't read this edited version when he responded to the pre-edited original Bumped for Sandy Edited December 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Thomas Graves said: "It's interesting to note that he went to the trouble to write in his affidavit that his lunch period was from 12 noon to 12:45. Even though it was probably true (I haven't taken the time to verify it), I don't understand why he felt it necessary to include that information in his affidavit." If you look again at Lovelady's statement, just before he states what time his lunch period was, is this sentence: "I did not see anyone around the building that was not supposed to be there." It's quite simple, Thomas. Billy Lovelady told the officer taking his statement that he saw no one around the building that didn't belong there. Perhaps he was a bit nervous, having had run-ins with the Law before, and stated the time of his lunch break to show he was on lunch break, and nowhere near the 6th floor, or anywhere else something might have been going on at the time of the assassination, just in case there actually were people in the building that didn't belong there, and someone in the DPD thought he was covering for them. This was the DPD he was dealing with, and they were not above simply accusing and arresting everyone first, and sorting things out later. I don't blame Lovelady for being nervous, and attempting to distance himself from the 6th floor. Edited December 21, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Lee Farley, telling it like it is (or was) about Shelley and Lovelady: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location I'm also starting to believe that Lovelady and Shelly didn't leave the building. And once again I read in Lovelady's statement what I've read and heard before, that there was a shot, a short pause, followed by two shots in quick succession. The two shots in quick succession couldn't have been fired by the same gun. (But then, this belongs on another thread.) A quick comment or two about Lovelady's handwritten same-day affidavit. http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's interesting to note that he went to the trouble to write in his affidavit that his lunch period was from 12 noon to 12:45. Even though it was probably true (I haven't taken the time to verify it), I don't understand why he felt it necessary to include that information in his affidavit. Did Lovelady expect the investigators to believe that he and Shelley had strictly observed their 45-minute lunch period on that exceptional day, i.e., that the moment "when it was over" just happened to coincide with the official end of their lunch period? What exactly was "all over" when they "returned to work"? Since we all know that the assassination occurred around 12:31, if Lovelady and Shelley really did go back to work at 12:45, what had they been doing during the previous 14 minutes or so? Of Truly's other employees, who else actually went back to work at 12:45 besides Lovelady and Shelley? Anyone at all? What time did Lovelady and Shelley actually go back into the TSBD? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps more importantly, Lovelady originally wrote, "After it was over we went back into the building and went back to work." Edit: Sandy, if you read the sentence above you will realize that your recent interpretation of what Lovelady meant by the phrase "went back into the building" is incorrect. For the simple reason that if he had meant what you think he did by that phrase, then he wouldn't have written as long of a sentence as he actually did write, i.e., he would simply have written "After it was over we went back into the building." In the sentence he did write, he is telling us two things: They went back to work after they had gone back into the building (as opposed, I suppose, to their immediately going back to work on some (admittedly silly) project outside the building.) The only reason the distinction I'm making is important is because Lovelady not only radically changed the meaning of the sentence by crossing out some of its words and adding some different ones in their place, but also by replacing the unwritten-but-implicit pronoun "we" in the middle of the original sentence with the written pronoun "I" in the final version. (see below) Then for some strange reason he put a hard-to-see, elevated but not inserted "I" above the word "and", crossed out "went back to work" and inserted in its place, "took some police officers up to search the building." http://www.reopenken...velady-location It's obvious to me that his final, edited sentence reads, "After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers up to search the building." There's a huge difference between the two sentences. It raises some important questions. For example, what exactly was Shelly doing while Lovelady "took some police officers up to search the building"? Working? Guarding one of the rear elevators (as he was allegedly ordered to do by somebody) before he, in turn, alegedly and admittedly assigned that job to the mysterious Jack Dougherty and allegedly went on upstairs, himself? My intuition tells me that Lovelady was telling the truth in his edited, final sentence, the one that reads, "After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers upstairs to search the building." Which leads me to believe that it was Lovelady who was "captured" upstairs on the 6th floor (while probably standing on a pallet) in Tom Alyea's film: Note: That's Captain Fritz with his back turned toward the camera, wearing stetson hat and glasses. What time did Fritz get to the TSBD? Anybody know the detective Frits is speaking with? --Tommy bumped because Sandy obviously hadn't read this edited version when he responded to the pre-edited original Bumped for Sandy Thomas Are you beginning to believe now that Lee Farley and I are correct, and that it is highly unlikely that Lovelady and Shelley left the steps of the TSBD and walked down to the rail yards after the assassination? 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