Jump to content
The Education Forum

I am puzzled by this Bell frame.


Recommended Posts

Guest Stephen Turner

Jack, surely these are just light patterns reflecting though leaves. It must be possible though cross reference this claim with the photographic record. FWIW, Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Mark, first mini skirts Mary quant London, Portobello Rd, Carnaby St, Kings Cross late 1965- early1966, I have no doubt that "Street versions" existed before this time, but not in conservative dallas. This was an English phenomina that went global.

Jack, This is just refracted light though foliage isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, first mini skirts Mary quant London, Portobello Rd, Carnaby St, Kings Cross late 1965- early1966, I have no doubt that "Street versions" existed before this time, but not in conservative dallas. This was an English phenomina that went global.

Jack, This is just refracted light though foliage isn't it?

Either that or there are little green men wearing mini skirts in DP.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are these people?

Jack

Ink blot type illustrations made up of lights and shadows seen on a wall .... is this a sign of whats to come?

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are these people?

Jack

Do us all a favor and retire already, Jack. You’ve been an embarrassment to serious and legitimate JFK research for far too long as it is.

Thanks in advance.

John Hunt

Ouch. While I also suspect there's nothing in this photo but leaves, I defend Jack's right to notice things in photos and ask questions about them. His take on the photo alteration of the Miller photo (see the current thread) has helped pinpoint and clarify a point of interest of the case, much to the embarrassment of those who "know better." The photo long sold as a photo of Kennedy's foot and then re-captioned as a photo of Clint Hill's foot was most likely a photo of Kennedy's hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are these people?

Jack

Do us all a favor and retire already, Jack. You’ve been an embarrassment to serious and legitimate JFK research for far too long as it is.

Thanks in advance.

John Hunt

Ouch. While I also suspect there's nothing in this photo but leaves, I defend Jack's right to notice things in photos and ask questions about them. His take on the photo alteration of the Miller photo (see the current thread) has helped pinpoint and clarify a point of interest of the case, much to the embarrassment of those who "know better." The photo long sold as a photo of Kennedy's foot and then re-captioned as a photo of Clint Hill's foot was most likely a photo of Kennedy's hand.

Thanks, Pat. Provocateurs are easily identified by attacks

like Hunt's, and their credibility destroyed to the perceptive.

He was not on my list till this attack displaying his ignorance.

I will now add his name to the list.

Hmmmm....Colby....Hunt....where have those names cropped

up before? Seem familiar.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch. While I also suspect there's nothing in this photo but leaves, I defend Jack's right to notice things in photos and ask questions about them. His take on the photo alteration of the Miller photo (see the current thread) has helped pinpoint and clarify a point of interest of the case, much to the embarrassment of those who "know better." The photo long sold as a photo of Kennedy's foot and then re-captioned as a photo of Clint Hill's foot was most likely a photo of Kennedy's hand.

Jack certainly has the right to use poor images to make unfounded claims and I'll even support Pat's right to wrongfully claim Hill's foot is JFK's hand by using second and third generation prints. However, the only thing that clears anything up is looking at the original photos or very good first generation prints.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are these people?

Jack

Do us all a favor and retire already, Jack. You’ve been an embarrassment to serious and legitimate JFK research for far too long as it is.

Thanks in advance.

John Hunt

Ouch. While I also suspect there's nothing in this photo but leaves, I defend Jack's right to notice things in photos and ask questions about them. His take on the photo alteration of the Miller photo (see the current thread) has helped pinpoint and clarify a point of interest of the case, much to the embarrassment of those who "know better." The photo long sold as a photo of Kennedy's foot and then re-captioned as a photo of Clint Hill's foot was most likely a photo of Kennedy's hand.

Claiming to see a girl in a mini shirt in a pixilated copy of a copy is just so much horsexxxx. We've had more than enough of that from White already. Thus my comment.

John Hunt

PS. I looked at the same image and I saw Nixon and Hoover. What a discovery I've made!! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...