Bill Miller Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: What about the possibility that Shelley went for a little stroll all by him widdle self, while Lovelady stayed on the steps and was caught in Couch-Darnell as he was semi-crouching (and talking or listening to someone else there?), and then slowly rising to his "full height" (lol), right below Prayer Person's right elbow? Why did Shelley and Lovelady have to stay together, wherever that might have been? Because they later said that they had? LOL -- Tommy Why would they not just say they left the stairs together ... was it because they assumed the Darnell film would show them walking across the extension to the right and over onto the Island in time to see Truly and Patrolman Baker enter the front door of the TSBD because they knew their friends on the first floor 'Piper and West' would tell everyone that the first two people who entered the building were their Boss accompanied by a Police Officer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 On 1/23/2017 at 4:37 PM, Alistair Briggs said: On 1/23/2017 at 3:18 PM, Sandy Larsen said: I won't be addressing the contradictions in the testimonies of Baker, Truly, and Adams because the premise of this thread (laid out in Post #1) states that the first two lied, and the testimony of the third was altered by the WC. Sorry to say, but I think it is imperative to not rule out Baker, Truly and Adams fully because their 'journey' is mentioned by others and that is relevant to the point in hand (imo). Before moving on I think it is prudent to set up the premise - I propose we start by saying that Shelley/Lovelady left the steps after 3 minutes, how long after that did they turn to see Baker/Truly? Alistair, I set the premise the way I did in post #1 for a particular reason. So I don't wish to change it. But of course you can start a thread with the premise of your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Alistair, I set the premise the way I did in post #1 for a particular reason. So I don't wish to change it. But of course you can start a thread with the premise of your choice. Your premise selects a portion of their testimony that allows for them not to see Truly for three minutes. It has been shown why that is in error. I have now added two inside witnesses who one says no one was in the first floor vestibule but him at the time of the shooting and the other exiting his office and onto the first floor upon hearing the shots - both men seeing Truly and a Policeman being the first people to enter the building and onto their floor. For your theory to be right - no one came through the front door for three minutes when these witnesses are taken into consideration. Edited February 19, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 5 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: 7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: One of the definitions of contradict is "to conflict with." That is the one I meant. Regardless of what 'definition' of contradict you want to use, (and I have no problem with you using it to mean 'to conflict with'), the fact remains that when you said the following; On 1/23/2017 at 3:18 PM, Sandy Larsen said: Alistair Briggs claims that the testimonies of Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady -- specifically regarding their claim that they left the TSBD steps about three minutes after the shooting -- contradict the testimonies of the people he lists in this paragraph: That is utter tosh, as I never made such a claim... Oy! It must be a regional thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Alistair, I set the premise the way I did in post #1 for a particular reason. So I don't wish to change it. But of course you can start a thread with the premise of your choice. Never mind, Alistair. You guys have hijacked my thread. Go ahead and have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Bill Miller said: Why would they not just say they left the stairs together ... was it because they assumed the Darnell film would show them walking across the extension to the right and over onto the Island in time to see Truly and Patrolman Baker enter the front door of the TSBD because they knew their friends on the first floor 'Piper and West' would tell everyone that the first two people who entered the building were their Boss accompanied by a Police Officer? [large, infantile emoticon deleted by T. Graves] Dear William, Huh? All the best, -- Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 You are trolling Miller, and if you actually believe the dross that West and Piper stated then you are even further removed from everything than originally thought. Give yourself a break dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Alistair, I set the premise the way I did in post #1 for a particular reason. So I don't wish to change it. But of course you can start a thread with the premise of your choice. Me giving an opinion as to why Baker, Truly and Adams should not be ruled out fully (and fully was quite the qualifier) is not, and I repeat, not the same as telling you to change it! So fine don't change it, I have no problem with that! In your very first post in your timeline you have Shelley seeing Baker and Truly at the steps at 03:30 and Lovelady seeing them enter at 04:30, hence me asking the question to you... "...Shelley/Lovelady left the steps after 3 minutes, how long after that did they turn to see Baker/Truly?" - a question that was asked on the 23/1/17 and hasn't yet been answered... I even posted a comment in furtherance to it (on the 24th of January), to which you could have either said yes the 03:30 or no it should be the 04:30, and the discussion would have moved on... that question also hasn't yet been answered. *My next response in this thread after that (on the 28th January) was to answer a question posed by Chris Davidson after he quoted me! *My next response in this thread after that (10 hours ago from now) was to respond to you after you quoted me - I needed to respond because once again you had misrepresented what I had said... *In response to that you quoted me but again failed to quote all the pertinent bits... here is the bit you didn't quote; 10 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: To be fair, I suppose if 'contradict' was changed to 'conflict with' it would be closer to what I 'claimed' but still wouldn't be what I claimed. You can call it a 'regional thing' all you want but that doesn't change the fact that you stated that I claimed something that I didn't claim - and you were called on it more than once and instead of 'fixing' it you maintained that I did claim something that I didn't claim. And when you said; 5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Never mind, Alistair. You guys have hijacked my thread. Go ahead and have at it. First, since asking you a direct question (on the 24th of January) for the purposes of moving this thread forward (as per your 'original timeline') my only responses herein have been in response (with the exception of one which was 'on topic) directly to you after you had quoted me - if you hadn't quoted me I wouldn't have responded. Can't speak for anyone else here, but your accusation aimed towards me of 'hijacking' the thread doesn't fly for that reason. On the 23rd of January you said; Quote The purpose of this thread, from the beginning, was to discover and explore such contradictions. Therefore I plan on addressing these individuals' testimonies one by one. Still waiting for that... I genuinely wanted to see where you were going with that, and I was more than happy to 'indulge' you on your journey forward from that point, and I was looking forward to seeing how you would address those individuals 'testimonies' one by one... still waiting for that. Why you didn't persue it, I don't know. There has been ample opportunity. Seems that you 'abandoned' it, or maybe you were just taking a long time to get back to it - that's fine, no rush - can't speak for anyone else of course, but I can honestly say that I was waiting for you to come back and move the purpose of your thread forward. And I'm sure if you wanted you could have done that, but you didn't! Instead you chose to avoid the question that would have moved your thread forward (on topic). That question was " Shelley/Lovelady left the steps after 3 minutes, how long after that did they turn to see Baker/Truly? " No doubt Sandy will yet again not answer that question and instead will ignore it and either twist my words or misrepresent them because his tactic seems to be to avoid the issue at hand and then play the victim of 'poor him his thread has been hijacked' when in reality he 'hijacked' it himself by not addressing the issue at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 Alistair, I didn't "pursue it," as you say, because for some reason the software quit notifying me of additions to the thread. I just saw today that there are post made as far back as January that I was unaware of. But, nevertheless, I have lost interest in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said: You can call it a 'regional thing' all you want but that doesn't change the fact that you stated that I claimed something that I didn't claim - and you were called on it more than once and instead of 'fixing' it you maintained that I did claim something that I didn't claim. Where I grew up and where I live, the word "contradict" accurately portrays the meaning of what you said. That's why I said it must be a regional thing. Either you don't get that, or you won't accept it. Note that the American Heritage Dictionary agrees with my use of the word! con·tra·dic·tion (kŏn′trə-dĭk′shən)n. 1. a. The act or an instance of contradicting: the witness's contradiction of other testimony.b. The state of being contradicted: a supervisor who cannot tolerate contradiction from any subordinate. 2. a. An inconsistency or discrepancy: "Surprisingly few people saw a contradiction between freedom for whites and bondage for slaves" (Adam Hochschild). b. Inconsistency; discrepancy: practices that are in contradiction to human rights. 3. One that contains elements that oppose or conflict with one another: The phrase "an unmarried husband" is a contradiction in terms. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Edited February 19, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 39 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Where I grew up and where I live, the word "contradict" accurately portrays the meaning of what you said. That's why I said it must be a regional thing. Either you don't get that, or you won't accept it. Where I grew up (which is irrelevant) and where I live (which is also irrelevant), the word "contradict" accurately portrays the meaning of 'conflict with', just like the 'dictionary quote' you just posted. So, eh, yeah I do get that and, eh, I do accept that. It's still not what I said though... Did you miss the part in this comment when I said, and I quote; Quote Regardless of what 'definition' of contradict you want to use, (and I have no problem with you using it to mean 'to conflict with'), the fact remains that when you said the following; So how exactly does me saying that I have no problem with it being used to mean 'to conflict with' equate to me 'not getting it' or 'not accepting' it. That's right it does not equate to it, so yet again you misrepresent my words. Did you also miss the part in this comment when I said, and I quote; Quote To be fair, I suppose if 'contradict' was changed to 'conflict with' it would be closer to what I 'claimed' but still wouldn't be what I claimed. And here, not for the first time is what I did claim; On 23/01/2017 at 11:37 PM, Alistair Briggs said: What I 'claim' is that the thought that Shelley/Lovelady left the steps after 3 minutes causes problems elsewhere, it's not necessarily about contradicting Shelley/Lovelady directly in and of itself, it is also about the knock on effect which can be 'indirect'... Slight difference, but a very important one. (Sandy, if you can't see what the difference is, maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, apologies for that, I can try and clarify further if need be. ) Kind of indicative of what I am meaning above. One can't compare the 'testimony' of all of them directly against Shelley/Lovelady, because there is no direct correlation, in some cases it's very much indirect as a result of a 'knock-on' effect. By all means substitute 'in conflict with' for 'contradict', it still doesn't change what I said. Example: the testimony of, say, McWatters doesn't 'contradict' nor is it in 'conflict with' the testimony of either Shelley or Lovelady as there is no direct correlation between the two. So when you said that I claimed that the testimonies of Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady contradict the testimonies of the people therein list... it's utter tosh as I made no such claim, and I have repeated why on more than one occassion. Ha looks like I was spot on with my previous hidden text, Sandy yet again avoided the issue at hand and chose to twist and misrepresent my words! Can't admit he misrepresented me and won't accept the reasons given. Things that make you go Hmmmm! No doubt it will continue ad infinitum. 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: But, nevertheless, I have lost interest in this discussion. Genuinely sorry to hear you have lost 'interest' in this discussion! If you ever get the interest back, have at it, if not then that's fine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: Example: the testimony of, say, McWatters doesn't 'contradict' nor is it in 'conflict with' the testimony of either Shelley or Lovelady as there is no direct correlation between the two. Who says there has to be a direct correlation for something (or someone) to conflict with or contradict something (or someone) else? If there is a direct correlation, the conflict could be said to be a "direct contradiction," and if there is an indirect correlation, the conflict could be said to be an "indirect contradiction." Of course, use of the "direct"/"indirect" adjective is not required. Leaving it off just makes the word "contradiction" less specific. The problem with the way you are viewing this is that you recognize only one use of the word. One that you've become accustomed to. And you refuse to accept that there can be other uses. BTW, where a person grows up and/or lives is indeed relevant. Because words have different meanings and uses in different countries, and even in different parts of a country. Edited February 20, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: The problem with the way you are viewing this is that you recognize only one use of the word. One that you've become accustomed to. And you refuse to accept that there can be other uses. Well that's incorrect. As I said in my previous comment; 22 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: Where I grew up (which is irrelevant) and where I live (which is also irrelevant), the word "contradict" accurately portrays the meaning of 'conflict with', just like the 'dictionary quote' you just posted. So, eh, yeah I do get that and, eh, I do accept that. It's still not what I said though... Things that make you go hmmmm! How, straight after someone says they 'accept that', can you say that they don't accept it... well that is quite telling... is it a don't read it, can't read it, or won't understand it, idk, I wouldn't like to think it's something worse! Anyway, as you quite rightly said; 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Of course, use of the "direct"/"indirect" adjective is not required. Leaving it off just makes the word "contradiction" less specific. However if someone chose to use one of the words (as qualification) is that not their right to do so? *Funnily enough, when I say something, however I choose to word it, it means what I want it to mean. I'm sure that's the same with everyone. Or can things only mean what you want them to mean (obviously not ) If you want to continually misrepresent other people's words to mean whatever you want them to mean then that is very telling as to your 'modus operandi'. 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: BTW, where a person grows up and/or lives is indeed relevant. Because words have different meanings and uses in different countries, and even in different parts of a country. Ach awa an bile yer coupon. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) On 2/18/2017 at 6:24 PM, Bart Kamp said: You are dreaming that Shelley and Lovelady saw B&T go in. Stay on topic dude. And with regards the above from you it is more than evident that about half a dozen peeps made their way up the steps before B&T as seen in Darnell Bart. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady certainly saw Officer Marrion Baker and TSBD Superintendent Roy Truly enter the TSBD in a hurry. They also returned in time to meet Vickie Adams inside the TSBD on the 1st floor, as she testified. They also met Gloria Calvary within that time. They might have been mistaken about the exact TIMING of these events -- but their testimonies fit together logically. Also, I see no reason whatever for any of them to lie about it. Do you? By the way -- you do know that Shelley and Lovelady were convinced that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, don't you? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 1, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) On 3/1/2017 at 1:01 AM, Paul Trejo said: Bart. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady certainly saw Officer Marrion Baker and TSBD Superintendent Roy Truly enter the TSBD in a hurry. They also returned in time to meet Vickie Adams inside the TSBD on the 1st floor, as she testified. They also met Gloria Calvary within that time. They might have been mistaken about the exact TIMING of these events -- but their testimonies fit together logically. Also, I see no reason whatever for any of them to lie about it. Do you? By the way -- you do know that Shelley and Lovelady were convinced that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, don't you? Regards, --Paul Trejo Nothing certain about that, Couch shows that Lovelady was full of it in his WC testimony. They never looked back and they were gone a whole lot further than Lovelady stated looking back and seeing Baker go in. Rubbish, Vicky Adams stated she never saw Shelley and Lovelady, this was inserted by Leavelle and also in her testimony. Sandra Styles backed this up. Again read The Girl On The Stairs, Here is a summary by me from his work. “A few people were milling around on the first floor. One was a black man” When asked by Ernest whether Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were there she said “No and that she would have recognised them as she knew both men well”. When asked a again a few days later she said “No I didn’t. I believe they were at the front entrance, and we went out the back door and around to the front of the building. I believe most of the Depository employees were watching from the front entrance”. When confronted by Ernest that Victoria Adams’ testimony referred Shelley and Lovelady being on the first floor when both women arrived there. She answered “I can’t imagine why Vicky would have said that-if she did that. They definitely weren’t there”. When she is asked again on a later date by Barry Ernest about whether she saw Shelley and Lovelady she says: “No, I didn’t. I believe they were at the front entrance and we went out of the back door and around to the front of the building. I believe most of the Depository employees were watching from the front entrance. I have seen at least picture in which Billy is with that group. The photograph she is referring to has to be Altgens 6. Besides Truly, Shelley and Lovelady himself confirming it is him in that photo and not Lee Oswald as certain conspiracy theorists allege Sandra Styles is another person confirming it’s Billy Nolan Lovelady. When Styles is told by Barry Ernest that Victoria Adam’s testimony mentions the presence of Shelley and Lovelady being on the first floor when they had descended the stairs she comments: “I can’t imagine why Vicky would have said that-if she did. They definitely weren’t there”. And shortly after when he mentions that this part could have been inserted in Adam’s testimony. “All I can say is that Shelley and Lovelady were definitely not on the first floor when we got there. Calvery was encountered across the rd. as per Shelley's first statement. Quit speculating Paul.....seriously. Edited March 6, 2017 by Bart Kamp 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