+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? (/thread-15350.html)
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 04-03-2017
Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:Really? Oh, what should we do ?
You have to get Gordon out of the moderator position on the Education Forum. He's a crooked bastard who is deliberately censoring people who can disprove his favored posters. And I think there's some national bias going on too.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Mark A. O'Blazney - 05-03-2017
Albert Doyle Wrote:Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:Really? Oh, what should we do ?
You have to get Gordon out of the moderator position on the Education Forum. He's a crooked bastard who is deliberately censoring people who can disprove his favored posters. And I think there's some national bias going on too.
If there's ANYBODY who has a sensible thing to say about all this, it would be Robin Unger. Sorry to put you on the spot, Robin, but this stuff has been getting more ridiculous every day. Shouldn't there be, like, some sort of 'Kennedy algorithm' that can process definite fact from, say, the pregnant paragraphs that Mr. Doyle proposes? Just askin'.
Go focus on Jimi, Albert. You might find something in the vomit.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 05-03-2017
Mark,
Your last comment just shows your ignorance and trollish contempt. I'm a respected world expert on Jimi's death who has done a radio show on it in San Francisco. The fact you show so little respect towards what is one if the best examples of a Deep State assassination perfectly illustrates your punkish nature and trollish intent. There's a huge double standard where certain people are allowed to rip into other certain people with no fear of site rules or anything.
Unger is like Davidson, very good technically but stays away from trouble and abstract argument of evidence. Both Davidson and Unger shy away from interpreting what they show. I think they don't want to upset bullies like yourself Mark, who exploit internecine research community politics and use intimidation, like you do here, to side with the mob instead of honoring sound analysis. Mark, it is obvious to me that you possess no skill and are threatened by those who do, hence you use the crude tactic of personal attack to defend those who you know will let you get away with it because they don't want to admit they're wrong.
Over on Duncan's site Unger made a negative comment about me saying all I did was "yak yak yak". I pointed out to Unger that actually I had made some very direct and evidenced arguments that he made no attempt to answer. The problem with this issue is persons like DiEugenio may be brilliant, but the technical evidence exists in a very narrow abstract niche that most people are not able to detect. Also, there's a huge bias towards Murphy because he represents a very temptingly sexy theory that exonerates Oswald with no doubt. It is irresistible for these CTer's to not put Oswald into that gray area that evidence magician Sean Murphy goes out of his way to craft. When you get enough prominent CTer's to give Murphy the nod others will follow because they don't possess the skill or energy to overcome Murphy's industriousness.
In short Mark, like Jim D you show intellectual/research laziness and incompetence by not realizing the issue has already been solved. Because your approach is limited to trollish attacking of my posts you don't realize that this issue has been hanging at the impasse of the Davidson enchancement and its metadata. Jim D was assisting in disallowing the posting of that fact on this board. Yet in his comments he exposed the fact that he was ignorant of the basic facts of the issue. Jim was completely unfamiliar with the basic evidence or arguments. When I informed him that the issue was stuck at the point of Davidson's metadata he didn't answer. So what you are doing here is calling for something that has already been given and you aren't aware of because of your contempt.
This is why the unaccountable absence of photo experts like Chris Davidson and Robin Unger from this issue is so damaging to credible research. Actually someone did put it directly to Davidson on Duncan's board. He responded "I am not interested in this topic but will say in my personal opinion my enhancement does show the face of a woman on Prayer Man". When I pointed out that persons like DiEugenio usually accept Chris Davidson's work without question and he is generally seen as a credible photo expert I got the usual silence. Chris's opinion is unquestioned except when it comes to putting the final word on a bogus theory that many of the silent people championed. Unger and Davidson are quiet because they don't want to get into the mess those who refuse to admit Murphy is bogus create instead of honestly admitting evidence. This effort is strongly directed by ROKC.
As to Shelley and Lovelady walking down the Elm St Extension, it's definitely them. There's enough evidence like the plaid pattern and bald spot and Shelley's head being confirmed by Miller. The reason this evidence isn't admitted is because it gives tabloid researchers like Graves and Larsen the opportunity for unending parsing and microanalysis that goes nowhere but keeps them at the top. This is enforced by witless Gordon who sees volume as preferable over quality information. It gives the artificial appearance of the Education Forum being an active academic room full of the best thinkers when in fact it promotes offerers of lesser information over persons capable of resolving issues. What good is it to have photo experts if they don't use their discoveries to reach the best conclusions? What good is discussing evidence if corrupted moderation is going to prevent the correct conclusions from being made?
The reason Graves and Larsen are concentrating on Shelley, Lovelady, and Calvery is because they are diverting from the real issue that Murphy is being debunked and therefore throwing cold reality on their favorite theory. It is quickly becoming clear that Shelley and Lovelady left right away, as the reality Bob Prudhomme is in denial of shows in the Couch/Darnell films. None of the mob will point this out to Bob because they don't want to disprove their own favorite theory. Gloria Calvery being seen running up to the portal in Darnell quickly proves that Baker and Truly ran right up and in, and she followed, just as witness Molina testified. Baker & Truly then confronted Oswald in the lunchroom. And, finally, Sarah Stanton is Prayer Man.
Prudhomme is on the Education Forum saying the fact Shelley looks taller than Lovelady on the Elm St Extension shows it isn't them. I just found a quote from Frazier on the ROKC site saying "Shelley was slightly taller than Lovelady". Bob ignores the other overwhelming evidence that proves it is them.
Mark - get back to us when you can directly confront any of this stuff yourself...
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Bob Prudhomme - 06-03-2017
"Prudhomme is on the Education Forum saying the fact Shelley looks taller than Lovelady on the Elm St Extension shows it isn't them. I just found a quote from Frazier on the ROKC site saying "Shelley was slightly taller than Lovelady". Bob ignores the other overwhelming evidence that proves it is them."
Albert
Would it be too much to ask of you to post a link to this quote from Frazier? What date and to whom did Frazier state this?
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Ray Mitcham - 06-03-2017
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:"Prudhomme is on the Education Forum saying the fact Shelley looks taller than Lovelady on the Elm St Extension shows it isn't them. I just found a quote from Frazier on the ROKC site saying "Shelley was slightly taller than Lovelady". Bob ignores the other overwhelming evidence that proves it is them."
Albert
Would it be too much to ask of you to post a link to this quote from Frazier? What date and to whom did Frazier state this?
Bob, it's not an actual quote by Frazier. It is a reported quote by Frazier, told by Gary Mack.
Slightly different.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 06-03-2017
The Assassination community has become a swamp of hijacking where it is impossible to have an objective conversation about evidence. Bob, who refuses to answer the basic question about Larsen lining-up the plaid bars in Lovelady's shirt with those on the man walking down the Elm St Extension is now back with an attitude chiding me for not providing reference. This is the giant double standard playing field created by the pro-Murphy posters where they don't have to answer basic evidence and I am always at fault no matter how good my evidence is. Bob doesn't have to answer obvious evidence that establishes the two men walking down the Elm St Extension are most definitely Lovelady and Shelley while I have to live up to his research standards on demand.
When Bob went over to the ROKC forum and verified from fantasy theory guru Greg Parker that indeed Buell Frazier had said directly that Shelley was memorably slightly taller than Lovelady, Bob's reaction to this iron-clad confirmation shows his true stripes as a Murphy-ite. He attacks Buell Frazier - a person who knew Shelley and direct witness who was there - and says he isn't credible, even though the quote is innocent and not formed in relation to any Elm St Extension questions. Bob's reaction to evidence he doesn't want to hear is a good example of the dishonest dynamic by which this Murphy nonsense has been promulgated. His obvious denial will have no penalty or remonstration from the community and he might even be in line for a Lancer Excellence In Research award for his contemptuous denial of the facts. Here we are forced to once again endure an everything-but-the-truth analysis used to counter this unwelcome information delivered with utmost sincerity and righteous indignation by Bob. The one thing we can't allow is that this lock stock and barrel confirmation proves that Lovelady and Shelley are the two men walking down the Elm St Extension, and we don't need further years-worth of pro-Murphy bullshit on it.
Thomas Graves is nothing but an irritating troll who has free reign to violate all the dishonest restrictions Gordon placed on me when I was cleaning the clocks of his favored pro-Murphy posters. While pretending he was enforcing strict academic rules instead of just protecting his friends who were losing, James Gordon has since allowed the Education Forum to degenerate in to a chat room like atmosphere where any kind of idiotic comment is OK as long as it comes from his favored posters. The only rule over there is who accepts the pro-Murphy corrupted moderation and who doesn't. The Education Forum will never be credible as long as he is in charge. It is obvious to me that the room is UK-biased and that since ROKC is UK-based they have free reign with the British crook Gordon. - Knowing that Davidson verified Prayer Woman in Wiegman Graves has pulled the obnoxious move of showing a graphic from Davidson that puts a camera in Prayer Man's hands and shows him as Oswald. Graves, who gets away with deliberate deceit from the wit-less non-moderator Gordon, is doing this because, in his usual trouble-making way, he is trying to stir up conflict in order to get around answering for Davidson's most pertinent evidence - the woman's face that is backed by his metadata. No one points out to Graves that the Oswald with camera image Davidson fabricated shows Oswald lifting the viewfinder to his eye. No one points out to these pro-Murphy trouble-makers that they were saying the glowing hand was the Imperial Reflex top viewfinder reflecting through the lens and that they are directly contradicting their own claims while pretending not to notice.
For credible analyzers, we have already proven the glowing object is Sarah Stanton's hand, as indicated by the rounded knuckles and slits between the fingers seen on this object at best resolution. Of course, the everything-except-what-it-is approach of the pro-Murphy posters automatically disallows this proof as its main objective, but the first credible photo analyzer will confirm it as soon as they get a hold of the originals. Sarah is holding her purse in both hands while her right hand glows in sun. Andrej Stancak is a would be expert pretending to be a skilled analyzer. He gets praised by Larry Hancock who doesn't answer for his failures and Gordon, having no skill himself, uses their opinion as guidance, ignoring all the proof and censoring in favor of the people who have just been out-argued while claiming a sensitivity to content. When I pointed out that Stancak did not put a cartoon graphic for Prayer Man in to his overlay image because he realized it didn't fit the dishonest pro-Murphy posters ignored it. No one asked Stancak on the Education Forum why he didn't place a cartoon graphic for Prayer Man in the overlay image? The obvious answer is he did and when he did he realized it didn't fit and therefore proved what I was saying. Gordon knew Stancak was in deep trouble so he solved the problem by banning me without explanation.
Sorry Bob but you can't call for evidence and then ignore it when it shows up. Buell Frazier was a person who knew Shelley directly and clearly said Shelley appeared slightly taller than Lovelady. It is time for you to stop filling these boards with dishonest doubt designed to bolster the now-refuted Prayer Man theory and accept the evidence. Be honest and admit that the only reason you were pursuing these peripheral cases of Depository evidence was to loosen the witnessing in order to fit Murphy in. Ray Mitcham's denial of Frazier's comment is a perfect example of the intentional dishonesty I am talking about. Mitcham is a world class fool whose lack of skill prevents him from realizing the buttons on Prayer Man's garment, that he has been mocking me over, are real and will be confirmed by the first photo analysis expert who looks at them. Ray asks us to tolerate his coming in and doubting Buell Frazier, whose witnessing pretty much puts an end to Bob's gratuitous doubt.
What is not being honestly discussed on the Education Forum or the ROKC site is that Davidson's enchancement has yet to be shown to Buell Frazier to see if he recognizes Sarah Stanton. Frazier needs to be briefed on the controversy according to the latest best evidence (Davidson) and asked if he was facing and talking to Sarah Stanton when Calvery ran up, as he said in testimony. He needs to be shown the whole thing as we have arrived at it with the best analysis. That hasn't happened because the pro-Murphy people don't want to hear the obvious answer Frazier will give.
DiEugenio backing the ROKC troll group only shows the serious danger of the Murphy Syndrome. We have arrived and proven the person is Depository employee Sarah Stanton. These dishonest Murphy-ites know this which is why they have parlayed dishonest banning into ignoring the subject. They don't want to admit I single-handedly demolished them and Murphy. They'll try their best to go after you personally but it's obvious the only reason they are doing it is to avoid admitting they've been debunked. They have the full approval of Lone Nutter Steve Logan on their site.
.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Bob Prudhomme - 06-03-2017
It's not Frazier I distrust, Albert. Gary Mack was a paid disinfo agent, and would tell you the sky was green if his handlers instructed him to do so.
Unless you can provide a tape, video or sworn deposition of Frazier commenting on Shelley's height, it simply did not happen.
Capiche?
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 06-03-2017
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:It's not Frazier I distrust, Albert. Gary Mack was a paid disinfo agent, and would tell you the sky was green if his handlers instructed him to do so. Unless you can provide a tape, video or sworn deposition of Frazier commenting on Shelley's height, it simply did not happen.Capiche?
This is exactly why I am calling you out on your dishonesty. Only a fool would ignore that 1) Frazier could simply confirm this. 2) The Couch/Darnell films show it right in front of you.
The community has been hijacked because the people who foolishly backed Murphy and gave Excellence In Research awards are the same people with access to Frazier and are not going to go out of their way to disprove their favored bogus theory.
When Frazier cuts right through Bob's preferred self-deception and admits that yes he did tell that to Gary Mack of his own volition Bob will do what he always does with information that works against him. He'll ignore it and offer the next round of unsincere excuse-making like he does here. The Murphy-ites use a very simple-minded and childish routine of calling people who refute them liars.
Quote:Unless you can provide a tape, video or sworn deposition of Frazier commenting on Shelley's height, it simply did not happen.
Bob once again trying to make a pair of deuces beat a straight. The above is known as classic denial as will quickly be proven as soon as somebody asks Frazier. And what about Bob's credibility, since his track record shows he is an ROKC defender who ignores the film evidence he calls for of Lovelady and Shelley walking down the Extension? Who do we trust here? Bob's excuses or our own lying eyes?
PS - Unger is placing White Scarf Woman on the steps before Calvery gets there. Not possible by the timing.
.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Bob Prudhomme - 06-03-2017
Well, Albert, then put your money where your big mouth is, call Frazier up and get him to confirm this for you. Put up or shut up, as they are fond of saying.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 07-03-2017
This is a shame because I was just in Dallas in September and would have gladly sat down with my video camera and recorded Frazier confirming this. I would like to video Frazier responding to the Davidson enhancement being shown to him as well as the situation in question. While video-ing I'd like to show Frazier the Dunkel clip and explain the timing of Gloria Calvery running up and shouting the president has been shot and Frazier's testimony that he asked Sarah Stanton what Calvery said at that moment.
Frazier seems to be a little hesitant to directly respond to this stuff, but if he did I guarantee he would confirm the obvious. He would say that yes that is the correct moment and that is Sarah Stanton he was talking to.
I'd like to show him a good blow-up of the Davidson enhancement and ask him is that Sarah Stanton's face?
And in a perfect world I could then drive to Carolyn Arnold's and ask her about seeing Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:24-25.
You fellows practice a peculiar form of analysis. In a case where all the photo evidence shows Shelley in a suit and tie, you then engage in a lengthy conversation over whether Shelley was wearing a suit and tie? The reason Lovelady shows no acknowledgement of Shelley in the Dunkel clip is because they were walking with each other and didn't need to.
.