+- 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 - 08-03-2017
If you look at the Education Forum Andrej Stancak is pressing the false claim that Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the foyer when she exited the Depository prior to the shooting. This of course is false. The statement by Dallas reporter Earl Golz has been posted many times. In that statement he told of interviewing Carolyn Arnold and showing her her FBI report for the first time. When Carolyn Arnold saw the claim that she had seen Oswald in the foyer she protested to Golz that she never said that and that the FBI had added it. Carolyn Arnold further corrected the statement saying she actually saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25. Stancak and Kamp know this which is why they are lying. No one on the Education Forum has the basic honesty or decency to point this out to the two communally-rewarded deceivers because it backs the pro-Murphy majority.
Bart Kamp is basically a charlatan. He knows this about Golz but instead of pointing it out to Stancak he congratulates him and flames me. So, in other words, Stancak and Kamp are presenting knowing lies while Gordon claims he is sensitive about content.
This is why Bill Miller is weak opposition.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 08-03-2017
Edit
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 09-03-2017
What a transparent con man Andrej Stancak is. ROKC has hijacked the Education Forum with their moderator fixer James Gordon openly working things in their favor. Stancak is condescending to Bill Miller while offering nothing but a load of speculative un-evidenced spin, and then ends his dishonest entry with the statement that the Murphy defenders are polite and should just ignore Miller.
If you read Stancak's reply he ignores Miller's point that Prayer Man is too short to be Oswald. Where the Prayer Man thread on the Education Forum left-off was I out-argued Stancak, proving that the person in the portal they were calling Prayer Man was provably too short to be Oswald by scientific analysis. Stancak was unable to answer my post and his corrupted pro-ROKC moderator Gordon blocked my posting ability without explanation as soon as Stancak failed, helping his pro-Murphy site friend out of a jam. Stancak and the ROKC are dishonest con men who gladly accept the dirty assistance of crooked moderators in order to bail them out of evidence they can't answer. Stancak is doing it again with Miller and ignoring his point that we have shown Prayer Man is too short to be Oswald. And he's doing it with the help of James Gordon who will not hold Stancak accountable for his dishonesty.
Miller is weak opposition because he doesn't present the necessary argument to force Stancak to this evidence and call him on his evasion. Stancak was coddled and protected by Gordon and told to take as much time as he needed. Stancak has no intention of ever answering my post and, with the help of Gordon's dirty censorship, now has the luxury of forgetting and pretending everything is normal. Miller should ask Mr Stancak why he failed to place a cartoon image for Prayer Man is his "Overlay" image in that same thread. Gordon prefers Miller because Miller fails to press these necessary questions. And in that failure gives indirect credibility to Stancak. Stancak is a gigantic fraud who knows Gordon will respond to "politeness" and not call him on his obvious use of it to escape accounting for his not being able to answer my post. It's obvious Stancak is calling to the corrupted majority and seeking an excuse to not answer the evidence he knows he can't answer. What an incredible level of dishonesty and corruption the JFK Assassination community is tolerating. All guarded by a crooked moderator who is flagrantly censoring someone he knows can disprove his favored Murphy posters.
Quote: You are currently restricted from posting content.
Miller is making the mistake of responding to Stancak's strawmen. He should go for the firm evidence. Miller is obviously not the best representative for our side, which is exactly why Gordon has used censorship to make him the only spokesperson for the opposition (with no protest from the Murphy-ites who benefit from a dirty playing field). Miller is a dummy whose incapability causes him to ignore the fact we have disproven Prayer Man further back in the thread. Miller is enabling Stancak's deception by lack of credible response.
.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 10-03-2017
Bart Kamp is quoting Dallas newspaper articles that repeat Ochus Campbell's story of seeing Oswald in a storage closet on the 1st floor shortly after the assassination. The Murphy-ites are trumping this witnessing up in order to suggest Campbell saw Oswald enter from the Prayer Man position into the lobby storage closet where he was seen by Campbell.
First of all, the first Dallas Morning News article Kamp quotes obviously mixes up Baker's lunchroom encounter with Campbell's account. Common sense tells you that Baker and Truly did not confront Oswald in the foyer because others would have seen it. Kamp displays both his lack of research ability and honesty by ignoring this. What Kamp is telling you to believe is that Baker held a gun at Oswald in the lobby immediately upon entering and no one noticed. Smart people will realize the reason "Excellence In Research" Kamp doesn't mention these details is because he knows they refute his dishonest suggestion.
There's two reasonable explanations for Campbell's witnessing. The more likely one is that Campbell got back in to the building 3 minutes after the shots and simply saw the Oswald that was walking past Mrs Reid who had descended to the lobby by then. Kamp ignores that Campbell said he went to the Knoll before going back to the lobby. This pretty much tells you his witnessing of Oswald in the storage closet was minutes after the shots. Kamp offers an oversimplified case that ignores the Oswald in the storage closet may have been a CIA double who was trying to hide from Baker. There is nothing in Campbell's statement that necessitates the storage closet Oswald being Prayer Man nor does it exclude him from simply being Oswald who had descended to the lobby by then from the lunchroom encounter. If Campbell's encounter happened while Oswald was in the lunchroom then he's simply the other Oswald who either left out the front and was seen by Roger Craig or the Oswald who left out the back and was seen by Frazier. Kamp is trying to infer this is Prayer Man but we have already proven Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton, even if the Campbell Oswald was there immediately after the shots.
.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Tom Bowden - 10-03-2017
This forum is degenerating into a quagmire of name calling and references to other forums. So sad when we should be concentrating on proving the assassination was a murder by people other than or including Oswald. For God's sake stop dealing in minutia and name calling and deal with real subjects that relate to the true story of the assassination.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Mark A. O'Blazney - 10-03-2017
Dang, Albert, you need to chill, dude.
If DPF charged you a quarter a word to post, they'd have a nice pension fund padded by now.
You remind me of Trump, just more wordy.
I still say it was a dude taking pictures with a camera. But that's just me.
You're like a fart in an elevator, Albert.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 10-03-2017
It's not the forum that's degenerating. It is the community. The community is now overtaken by a majority that has accepted a popular bogus theory and has branched tangential sub-theories off that theory into a hijacking of the the assassination research world towards that subject. Those who insist on good evidence and input sanity into this situation are shunned and have negative comments made towards their material. And those who continue to ignore evidence and make bogus inferior analyses are those who continue to receive support from people like Jim DiEugenio who never has his posts criticized even though he is backing a notorious research group and aiding in the spreading of bad theories.
The people who are rejecting this bad trend are not the people in violation and insisting on the recognition of good evidence is never an offense. Those who protest our effort are criticizing the symptoms but they aren't criticizing the cause. The cause is that people who call themselves the best and brightest in the research community have been fooled by a very good evidence spinner named Sean Murphy. It has led to an almost cult-like backing from researchers who should know better towards evidence they normally wouldn't tolerate in such an unquestioning way. I am familiar with the normal methods someone like Jim DiEugenio applies to evidence. If you look at certain pro-Murphy posters Jim D applies none of his usual technical abilities or scrutiny towards ROKC posters and their faulty claims. The things I am pointing out from other sites are wide open failures in evidence that Jim would never miss if he were applying his usual talents. They are rotten claims based on clearly faulty reasoning and directly contradicting facts that are not only going uncriticized but are starting to become an unquestionable norm that is being used to determine community acceptability based on the opinion of persons promoting provably bad evidence and using dirty methods to avoid accounting for it. This single issue is directly responsible for the community becoming dysfunctional and potentially destroying its credibility. For reasons I still do not understand Jim refuses to apply any scrutiny at all to the offerings of these notorious pro-Murphy posters even though their offerings are full of flaws anyone could detect.
The people who are responsible for this situation are not the small discriminated-against minority capable of seeing and articulating the correct evidence. It is the dominating majority who are so determined to prove Murphy that they will ignore good evidence and push knowing lies (ROKC). They'll allow good posters to be manhandled and banned by unfit moderators while clearly credulous analyzers are given preference while the others saying nothing. These people are responsible for the unnecessary prolonging of an already debunked theory. They are the people who should be called out on the swamp they've created. That's what I am doing.
Those of us who insist on the correct Prayer Man evidence being acknowledged are actually doing the returning to productive research you are calling for. We are establishing that Oswald was not Prayer Man and was not standing on the front entrance landing as seen in the Darnell Film. Once we can dismiss this bogus ROKC research group and its undue influence via bad theories, we can return to that true pursuit of the correct evidence and assume Oswald was in the lunchroom or first floor break room as the evidence is showing. And to stay on topic, the two men seen walking up the Elm St Extension are most definitely Shelley and Lovelady. Kamp quotes Campbell but then ignores that he said he saw Truly and Baker run in to the building. A good example that the Murphy-ites ignore evidence they don't want to hear and are dishonest in broad daylight.
Kamp is completely uncredible and he's being given excellence in research awards. His own article says Campbell saw Truly and an officer run in to the building. Kamp then replies "WHERE does it say Baker & Truly entered the building?" Kamp is not only being allowed to openly defy obvious proof but those who point it out are banned and Kamp's contemptuous denials are given credit. I do take credit however that when Kamp is forced into such pathetic denial by good argument that he mentions my name. I take pride that he mentions my name when his material is blowing up in his face.
You should be helping us not fighting us. The irony of this is those who are not fighting this insidious group will probably lose their community because they didn't fight them. They'll lose their community because they attacked the victims - the people who were right.
.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - LR Trotter - 10-03-2017
Tom Bowden Wrote:So sad when we should be concentrating on proving the assassination was a murder by people other than or including Oswald.
A major area of discussion should be the whereabouts of LHO as the JFK assassination occurred. But, an open debate of the subject has been disallowed/censored on one forum, and relegated to the BearPit on DPF. And, the BearPit lacks the normal reading/reply invitation and is at a disadvantage. In any event, I am curious about any opinion of Mr Bowden, relative to his partially quoted post, as it applies to the LHO whereabouts question that has to deal with the LHO as PrayerMan theory.
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Tom Bowden - 11-03-2017
LR Trotter Wrote:Tom Bowden Wrote:So sad when we should be concentrating on proving the assassination was a murder by people other than or including Oswald.
A major area of discussion should be the whereabouts of LHO as the JFK assassination occurred. But, an open debate of the subject has been disallowed/censored on one forum, and relegated to the BearPit on DPF. And, the BearPit lacks the normal reading/reply invitation and is at a disadvantage. In any event, I am curious about any opinion of Mr Bowden, relative to his partially quoted post, as it applies to the LHO whereabouts question that has to deal with the LHO as PrayerMan theory.
I do not believe LHO is PrayerMan. I do not believe LHO was on the steps at the time of the assassination. I will not discuss where I think he was in this forum as it is too toxic and almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion. I believe as my friend, R B Cutler used to state. "Most books on the assassination have a gem of truth between their covers. Therefore read everything and throw out the Chaff."
Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 11-03-2017
I wonder what Bob Prudhomme's opinion would be on Excellence In Research Bart Kamp trying to get away with saying the men Campbell saw going in to the Depository were not Baker and Truly? Molina's timing shows Truly went in 20-30 seconds after the shots. So any officer who went in with him would have gone in at the same time. The films all show the only cop that could be is Baker. Kamp is trying to get away with the desperate suggestion that somehow because Campbell didn't specifically say "Baker" that this isn't evidence. This is the dishonest and flimsy house of cards that the Murphy theory that has taken over the community is based on. Holding people to disingenuous semantics over the obvious. Meanwhile for more credible analyzers this locks the Piper/West witnessing into place and confirms Baker and Truly entered immediately, as shown in the films and spoken of in testimony. DiEugenio is normally very critical of dishonest arguments like Kamp's but stays quiet while Kamp tries to get away with evidence murder like he does here. A clear intent of spinning the evidence becomes the norm and good researchers are seen saying things like "Kamp has done a good job in showing the second floor lunchroom encounter never happened". So an obvious clown who has had his bogus offerings rejected soundly is allowed to refer to "Doyle" as a derisive slight, as if referring to Fetzer or Cinque, even though Doyle has handed him his ass and almost single-handedly refuted Murphy with none of the 'honorable' membership of the forum saying anything.
Time to establish that the reasonable evidence shows Baker and Truly went in to the Depository as told and Shelley and Lovelady are the two men seen walking down the Elm St Extension. At this point prolonging of these subjects is due to Murphy backers ignoring reasonable proof.
.