Bart Kamp's Lancer presentation

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 The only way I can think of for the impossible shadow to be present is that it was painted* by the coverup artists in order to conceal something.

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I wish you were joking, but I know you aren't. Please explain to all of us here how a conspirator "painted" over the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository? If they would go to those lengths, why not just destroy the entire film? Your insistence on massive fakery of the evidence defies all logic.

 

It doesn't matter why the coverup artists chose to conceal something on the film rather than destroying the whole film. The fact is that it has an impossible shadow.

Here's is how to paint in a shadow: Make a print of each offending frame. Paint over whatever you want to conceal with black paint. Take photos of these frames and reconstruct them into a film. Voila.

How do you explain the impossible shadow?

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you explain the impossible shadow?

There's nothing impossible about it -- you just think it is. You have the burden of proof to explain how it was done. You can't just make a claim of this type and then wave away any actual explanation for how it happened.

[Sandy Larsen]

35 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you explain the impossible shadow?

35 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

There's nothing impossible about it -- you just think it is. You have the burden of proof to explain how it was done. You can't just make a claim of this type and then wave away any actual explanation for how it happened.

 

I just explained it!

But you, as usual, just sweep it under the rug. Or choose to believe nothing is wrong. LOL

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just explained it!

You explained nothing. You made a complete guess about "painting" and rephotographing frames. That's not good enough, and really only proves that you have zero actual evidence to support your outlandish claims.

[Ron Bulman]

Bart is a treasure in JFKA research, not only for his own research but for exposing us all to the work of Uncle Malcomb Blunt. 

Still wish he would come back and further explain his work here.  I think his prior reasons for leaving can be avoided in the future.

No matter how that might work out, best wishes Bart, and Uncle Malcomb, and Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[Roger Odisio]

On 11/30/2023 at 4:33 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You're okay with Bart's contention that Oswald's alibi was that he was outside watching the motorcade? And that that the second floor encounter between Officer Baker and Oswald never took place? That it was all a fabrication?

 

Yes that was Oswald's alibi.  Yes, the WR's story of a 2nd floor encounter--that the encounter happened after Oswald descended the steps after murdering Kennedy--was a fabrication.  Greg D's version that Oswald went *up* the steps on his way out of the building after the murder when he encountered Baker is plausible, but it does not contradict or even affect Oswald's' alibi.

Oswald was not on the 6th floor during the shooting and of course did not come down the steps afterward..

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

On 11/30/2023 at 2:33 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

You [Jonathan] are okay with Bart's contention that Oswald's alibi was that he was outside watching the motorcade? And that that the second floor encounter between Officer Baker and Oswald never took place? That it was all a fabrication?

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Yes that was Oswald's alibi.  Yes, the WR's story of a 2nd floor encounter--that the encounter happened after Oswald descended the steps after murdering Kennedy--was a fabrication.

 

Just to be clear, I'm perfectly fine with those two contentions of Bart's. I just wondered if Jonathan was too, given that he praised Bart for his research and presentation.

 

[Bill Brown]

 

On film....

Oswald: "I work in that building."

Reporter: "Were you in that building at the time?"

Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."

Therefore, Oswald was not out on the front steps or on the landing.

If Oswald was not out on the front steps or the landing, then he is not Prayer Man/Prayer Woman.

 

[Tony Krome]

36 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Oswald: "I work in that building."

Reporter: "Were you in that building at the time?"

Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."

Oswald is referring to working in the building. Oswald used the word "naturally" sarcastically, when asked if he was in the building at the the time he was working.

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Oswald is referring to working in the building. Oswald used the word "naturally" sarcastically, when asked if he was in the building at the the time he was working.

 

No.

 

What exactly do you take "at the time" to mean?

 

Think about it.

 

[Tony Krome]

Just now, Bill Brown said:

What exactly do you take "at the time" to mean?

At the time he was working

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

At the time he was working

 

LOL

 

[Alan Ford]

On 12/5/2023 at 4:18 PM, Steve Roe said:

In the Sawyer photo he is clearly holding a bottle of Dr. Pepper. In the other photo, which I enhanced lighting, it clearly shows the iconic white label.

Really, Mr. Roe? That 'iconic white label' you're seeing looks more like something in front of the bottle

Could well be the lunch remains of this fellow (Mr. Lovelady, evidently), whom we see here in Hughes drinking from his Coke--------------

 

[Alan Ford]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:43 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

It doesn't matter why the coverup artists chose to conceal something on the film rather than destroying the whole film. The fact is that it has an impossible shadow.

That's an easy one, Mr. Larsen. What better way to neutralize possible rumors/reports of Mr. Oswald out on the steps than by letting the public see 'corrected' images of the doorway? 'Look, he's not there!'

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

On film....

Oswald: "I work in that building."

Reporter: "Were you in that building at the time?"

Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."

Therefore, Oswald was not out on the front steps or on the landing.

If Oswald was not out on the front steps or the landing, then he is not Prayer Man/Prayer Woman.

 

You guys lost this one in 2019, lol

For years, Team Keep LHO Off Dem Steps dismissed as absurd the very notion that Mr. Oswald had claimed to have visited the second-floor lunchroom before the motorcade, and to have gone out front for the motorcade.

Mr. Kamp may be wrongheaded in continuing to press the Prayer Man claim, but his uncovering of the Hosty draft interrogation report left Warren Gullibles and Nothing-To-See-Out-Front CTs reeling. (I remember one guy actually claiming at the time that the 'P.' in 'P. Parade' stood for 'Post-'. Talk about desperation!)

And---------------as Mr. Larsen has alluded to----------------the ridiculous disappearance of most of Mr. Lovelady's right side in Wiegman has defeated the brains of EVERY member of Team Keep LHO Off Dem Steps.

Mr. Oswald did go out front.