Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Printable Version +- 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?? - LR Trotter - 11-03-2017 Tom Bowden Wrote: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. ​Many thanks Mr Bowden! That is all I asked for and then some. And, it is much appreciated. Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - LR Trotter - 11-03-2017 Albert Doyle Wrote: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. I now wonder, as I wander, if possibly Ms GloriaLittleCalvery came back to the TSBD slightly later than RunningWoman? A mere thought/question, and my apology if this issue has already been vetted. Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 11-03-2017 LR Trotter Wrote: I think it would have to be Calvery seen running in the Dunkel Film because Molina referred to her entering at the 20-30 seconds after the shots time period Ball had established in his Commission testimony. Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - LR Trotter - 11-03-2017 Albert Doyle Wrote:LR Trotter Wrote: Just a thought/question, and if so she would need to be close to RW, but missed by the camera. Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure?? - Albert Doyle - 11-03-2017 She would have to be running because the time period she testified to of being 15 feet from Kennedy when he was shot to being seen by Molina necessitates running to cover that distance. It's Calvery, trust me. |