Shelley and Lovelady? Are You Sure??

[Albert Doyle]

Prudhomme:



What is your opinion of Sandy Larsen lining up the plaid "bars" on the shirt of the man walking down the Elm St Extension with Lovelady's shirt and its meaning?



Unger is an incompetent. Anyone who doesn't see that that is Lovelady and Shelley simply fails the credibility litmus test. Miller places a clear image of Shelley next to the man next to Lovelady and it matches Shelley's hair style and head perfectly. You guys ignore it.



Textbook Murphy syndrome with all the accompanying dishonesties and aggressions...



.

[Albert Doyle]

When Shelley said in his March 18 1964 interview that he left the steps immediately after the shooting he was correctly describing what you see in the Dunkel video. If he joined the police by the rail yard makes no difference to this statement. I find Prudhomme's analysis silly and showing a desperation to twist things towards his Murphy-derived speculations.


This is a good example of how Prudhomme tries to force testimony over visual evidence. It is obvious that Shelley meant he and Lovelady met the police up by the Knoll where we know they rushed to. What Prudhomme is doing is showing a good example of how the JFK research community has been hijacked by the Murphy theorists.

[Bob Prudhomme]

"I read it on the Education Forum."

And you wonder why James booted your dumb ass off the EF.

[Albert Doyle]

Bob, you could not respond to my posts and fled in some kind of hysterical fit when I posted my evidence that Stancak was unable to answer. You were literally afraid of my posts and could not respond, just like you haven't done here. You are dishonest because the true point when obviously clueless James Gordon banned me was when I showed an image of Lovelady when he was on the landing. When Prayer Man was compared to all those who were known to be on the landing it proved, scientifically, that Prayer Man could never be 2-3 inches shorter than Lovleady, who was 5 foot 8 and therefore 1 inch shorter than Oswald. Gordon knew I had Stancak and ROKC on that point so I suddenly found myself unable to post with no explanation or citation of site rules. My last post to Stancak remains unanswered by either you or Stancak thanks to Gordon's dirty move. Gordon is accepting Stancak's lie that he was too busy to respond and told him to take as much time as he needs. So far it has been three and a half months and Stancak still hasn't replied. I have also discovered serious new evidence that further proves Prayer Man is not Oswald but I am being prevented from posting it while Gordon guards the Graves/Larsen circus the Education Forum has become.




Here is Linda Zambanini's write up in Gloria Calvery's 'Find A Grave' entry:

Gloria Jean Little Calvery*, worked in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), as an employee of the Southwestern Publishing Co. and was one of the extremely close witnesses to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. She and 3 of her office co-workers, Karan Hicks, Karen Westbrook, and Carol Reed, were standing on the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street about 1/2 way between Houston St. and the Triple Underpass, to the east of the Stemmons Fwy sign. According to her own FBI Statement taken 3/19/64 - Commission Exhibit 1381 - she said she heard the first shot when the President's limo was directly in front of her:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j...E_1381.pdf

Immediately following the assassination she ran back to the TSBD, following about 10-15 feet behind the sprinting DPD Officer, Marrion Baker, and they went up the front steps and into the building, as was partially captured on the Cook-Darnell Film and recounted in eyewitness testimony:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i286/n...f39e84.gif

In his Warren Commission testimony, a TSBD co-worker, Joe Molina, who had been positioned on the landing of the steps during the motorcade, stated he encountered a "horrified" Gloria Calvery in the entryway ~20-30 seconds after the final shot and she explained that she had seen the fatal head shot:

Mr. BALL. Do you know a girl named Gloria Calvary[sic]?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did Gloria come up?
Ms.. MOLINA. Yes, she came. I was in the lobby standing there and she came in with this other girl.
Mr. BALL. What did she say?
Mr. MOLINA. She said "Oh, my God, Joe, he's been shot." They were both horrified. I said "Are you sure he was shot?" She said "Oh, Joe ,I'm sure. I saw his hair fly up and I'm sure he was shot" something to that extent.

**

Ever wonder if the other woman who Molina said came in with Gloria might have been Sarah Stanton who walked in with Gloria from where she was standing right there by the west wall of the portal?



By the way, what was your opinion on Larsen matching the plaid bars on the man walking down the Elm Street Extension with Lovelady's shirt?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Bob, you could not respond to my posts and fled in some kind of hysterical fit when I posted my evidence that Stancak was unable to answer. You were literally afraid of my posts and could not respond, just like you haven't done here. You are dishonest because the true point when obviously clueless James Gordon banned me was when I showed an image of Lovelady when he was on the landing. When Prayer Man was compared to all those who were known to be on the landing it proved, scientifically, that Prayer Man could never be 2-3 inches shorter than Lovleady, who was 5 foot 8 and therefore 1 inch shorter than Oswald. Gordon knew I had Stancak and ROKC on that point so I suddenly found myself unable to post with no explanation or citation of site rules. My last post to Stancak remains unanswered by either you or Stancak thanks to Gordon's dirty move. Gordon is accepting Stancak's lie that he was too busy to respond and told him to take as much time as he needs. So far it has been three and a half months and Stancak still hasn't replied. I have also discovered serious new evidence that further proves Prayer Man is not Oswald but I am being prevented from posting it while Gordon guards the Graves/Larsen circus the Education Forum has become.




Here is Linda Zambanini's write up in Gloria Calvery's 'Find A Grave' entry:

Gloria Jean Little Calvery*, worked in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), as an employee of the Southwestern Publishing Co. and was one of the extremely close witnesses to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. She and 3 of her office co-workers, Karan Hicks, Karen Westbrook, and Carol Reed, were standing on the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street about 1/2 way between Houston St. and the Triple Underpass, to the east of the Stemmons Fwy sign. According to her own FBI Statement taken 3/19/64 - Commission Exhibit 1381 - she said she heard the first shot when the President's limo was directly in front of her:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j...E_1381.pdf

Immediately following the assassination she ran back to the TSBD, following about 10-15 feet behind the sprinting DPD Officer, Marrion Baker, and they went up the front steps and into the building, as was partially captured on the Cook-Darnell Film and recounted in eyewitness testimony:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i286/n...f39e84.gif

In his Warren Commission testimony, a TSBD co-worker, Joe Molina, who had been positioned on the landing of the steps during the motorcade, stated he encountered a "horrified" Gloria Calvery in the entryway ~20-30 seconds after the final shot and she explained that she had seen the fatal head shot:

Mr. BALL. Do you know a girl named Gloria Calvary[sic]?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did Gloria come up?
Ms.. MOLINA. Yes, she came. I was in the lobby standing there and she came in with this other girl.
Mr. BALL. What did she say?
Mr. MOLINA. She said "Oh, my God, Joe, he's been shot." They were both horrified. I said "Are you sure he was shot?" She said "Oh, Joe ,I'm sure. I saw his hair fly up and I'm sure he was shot" something to that extent.

**

Ever wonder if the other woman who Molina said came in with Gloria might have been Sarah Stanton who walked in with Gloria from where she was standing right there by the west wall of the portal?



By the way, what was your opinion on Larsen matching the plaid bars on the man walking down the Elm Street Extension with Lovelady's shirt?

I'm amazed you are allowed on any forum, Albert. You either cannot read, are a compulsive liar or are a combination of the two.

WHERE IN MOLINA'S WC TESTIMONY DOES MOLINA STATE HE ENCOUNTERED GLORIA CALVERY IN THE ENTRYWAY 20-30 SECONDS AFTER THE FINAL SHOT? I'LL GIVE YOU A HINT, ALBERT, HE NEVER DID STATE THAT! IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE YOU ARE A DELUSIONAL NUTCASE AND THE SMARTEST THING JAMES EVER DID WAS BOOT YOUR SORRY ASS OFF THE ED FORUM.

Goodbye and good riddance. Seek professional help. They have anti-psychotic drugs nowadays that can treat your condition.

[Albert Doyle]

WHERE IN MOLINA'S WC TESTIMONY DOES MOLINA STATE HE ENCOUNTERED GLORIA CALVERY IN THE ENTRYWAY 20-30 SECONDS AFTER THE FINAL SHOT? I'LL GIVE YOU A HINT, ALBERT, HE NEVER DID STATE THAT! IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE YOU ARE A DELUSIONAL NUTCASE AND THE SMARTEST THING JAMES EVER DID WAS BOOT YOUR SORRY ASS OFF THE ED FORUM.

Goodbye and good riddance. Seek professional help. They have anti-psychotic drugs nowadays that can treat your condition.

Here's Bob condemning and bailing right before we get to the obvious again. A more honest analysis of Molina's testimony would show that Ball was speaking in the context of "Did anybody tell you the president had been shot before Truly went in?" The context of that questioning leaves no doubt that Ball had established that Truly entered around 20-30 seconds after the shots according to Molina. Since we can see Calvery running towards the steps in Darnell/Couch we can safely assume an extrapolation of her movements places her in the lobby with Molina shortly after since word of the president being shot would have occurred in that narrow window shortly after the shooting. Especially since it was in such close proximity to the shooting. The hijackers insist on placing fringe speculation as the aggressive norm against that which it is obviously trying to get around. I think what bothers Bob the most is his awareness that Molina's statement makes it obvious that the running woman is Calvery, that she did run past Lovelady and Shelley and did tell them, and that she then proceeded to tell Molina the president had been shot. What Bob is trying to do is suggest that Calvery told that to Molina after she came back from her office and went to the lobby. But would nobody have said the president was shot in the 3 minutes Molina was in the lobby before Calvery returned to the lobby from her office? Especially with Calvery seen in the film running up and telling everyone the president had been shot? What is clear to me is Frazier said Calvery shouted to him and Stanton that JFK had been shot. Having this emotionally directed to her by Calvery it makes sense to me that Sarah Stanton was the person Frazier was facing and did enter the lobby with Calvery in reaction to the seriousness of Calvery's intent. Or we can let Bob take over the room with his demands that are obviously designed to avoid all this. You see Bob won't say directly that Calvery said that 4 minutes later when she came back to the lobby because he knows we will then hash it out and show why it isn't plausible. It isn't plausible for the simple reason that it isn't likely no one mentioned Kennedy being shot in the 3-4 minutes before Calvery returned to the lobby.



Case in point.


Thank you Bob.


It is up to the Assassination research world if it wants to continue allowing this unending, dishonest, self indulgently-sensational, Murphy-based pseudo analysis to keep gumming up its venues and wasting its time.


The men on the Elm St Extension are Lovelady and Shelley as the serious evidence Bob refuses to answer proves.



Frazier had trouble remembering Sarah Stanton's name because she was generally unremarkable. Funny that Molina didn't remember the name of the woman who walked in with Calvery from the front landing.


Oh, and another thing, Bob only proves his dishonesty by ignoring that all the testimonies do indeed show Calvery went right up the steps behind Truly and Baker. Molina says Truly went in at a time sequence that has to be right in front of Calvery. And Calvery herself said she went to her office (which had to be accessed through the front steps). As usual, Bob dishonestly ignores this.



.

[Albert Doyle]

I'm not sure Bob realizes he is making my case for me. In a situation where the very film he posted at the beginning of this thread shows Lovelady and Shelley obviously walking down the Elm St Extension, just as they said, we have Bob imposing an ROKC-like situation, - really an ROKC proxying, where all evidence is ignored except the contrived doubts towards the evidence these false speculations are based on. The Murphy-ites have hijacked the entire JFK research internet by flooding venues with their corrupted logic and repeating it so often that they have brainwashed themselves that it is now real and is the accepted norm. But Bob is showing us right here it is based on nothing and is just the result of saying it so often that it becomes accepted as the norm. I don't think Bob realizes he is showing us that this is achieved by ignoring evidence like the bald spot and plaid matching on the man walking down the Elm St Extension as well as a clear photo of Shelley proving it is him. Analyze this issue and you will see Bob is assisted in this distortion by Larsen and Graves who quickly focus on regressive information like Lovelady appearing shorter than Shelley on the Extension. These are dishonest researchers because any analysis of their approach shows the only reason they are discussing that height difference is to escape acknowledging and answering that other valid evidence that takes precedence over it. It's a trick the Murphy-ites have been getting away with for far too long and has successfully allowed their contrivances to displace the more valid rational evidence. When you match Lovelady's bald spot and plaid to the man walking down the Elm St Extension, as well as Shelley's head to the man next to him, you should have enough evidence to reach the conclusion that it is them - as well as determine that the 3 minute delay claimed by Lovelady is inaccurate. Bob is aware of this which is why he ignores it and responds with a rather self-embarrassing personal attack and accusations of mental illness instead of acknowledging the obvious. This is my whole point here. That the Community is suffering Murphy-itis because were are well past the point where the necessary conclusions on all this should have been reached and set as precedent. The persons who have offered the now-provably inferior case should not be allowed to dominate to the degree they have, nor should the Community be subjected to the unending space-wasting their campaign has become. When the Community prefers provably wrong evidence its got a problem.


There is enough evidence to reasonably show that the two men walking down the Elm St Extension are indeed Lovelady and Shelley. The woman running down the Extension shouting is obviously Gloria Calvery. It's right there on film. Since Molina said Truly entered the building 20-30 seconds after the shots we can reasonably assume that the film that shows him turning towards the entrance after Baker runs past him evidences him about to follow Baker up the steps and into the building as Molina testifies. In fact in that last frame I can see Truly raising his leg to do exactly that. Bill Miller shows that West and Piper witnessed Truly enter the Depository with a cop. Assassination evidence shows the only possible cop that could be is Baker. Gloria Calvery testified that she went to her office after running towards the Depository. Since we can see her running we can assume she followed Baker and Truly right up the steps and into the building. This is what we see in the Couch and Darnell Films. ROKC takes advantage of the lack of film coverage for this juncture and places as much doubt into it as it can. I'm pretty confident if Darnell didn't pan away it would show Baker running right up the steps and Truly following him, with Calvery right behind.


There's no doubt that what we are seeing here with this Murphy cultism is a damaging frenzy directly caused by Murphy and the entry of his theory on the Education Forum 4 years ago. This allowed the totally uncredible ROKC research group to attack the Depository witnessing with an onslaught of specious doubt that it then utilized as fodder for self-promotion. The research world should know better but because of its need to find confirming proof of Oswald's innocence it has looked the other way on what it should have detected sooner was obvious garbage originating from what is generally accepted to be a rogue research group practicing a boorish level of research.


Bob is a coward. He's also dishonest. He's over on the Education Forum saying I was justly banned for posting "an unending stream of nonsense". My postings are visible on the Education Forum. They are quite rational and evidence-based. So much so that Andrej Stancak was literally unable to answer them and the uncredible moderator James Gordon was forced to ban me with no explanation in order to save the people I had out argued from answering. Bob had every opportunity to directly show where my information was nonsense but didn't (couldn't). Bob prefers going directly to banning.


The murder Bob is currently trying to get away with is saying we don't know when Calvery entered the lobby and told Molina the president had been shot. It is obvious from Molina's testimony that he followed Truly in and that Calvery was right behind. It is more than obvious from the context of Ball's inquiry that this happened as Calvery arrived on the steps and went into the building. Bob, of course, is trying to seize the narrative and turn everything on its head and make this obvious explanation the only thing that isn't possible or acceptable. But it's obviously the only explanation. Bob refuses to answer that the only other alternative is a limbo 3-4 minutes for Calvery to return from her office and tell Molina this news in the lobby. The reason Bob refuses to confront his implied scenario is because he knows it is ridiculous - which is why I call him dishonest.


Bill Miller is frustrating to me because he offers weak opposition and therefore enables the Murphy bs. The woman who came in with Calvery is very likely Sarah Stanton who is now proving to be Prayer Man. Why? Because the other ladies going up the steps have their backs turned to Calvery as she shouted to Stanton and Frazier that the president had been shot. This woman is more likely to be Stanton not only because she was closest to the front door but also because she was directly involved in the information Calvery was trying to relate. In any case, any honest evaluator who isn't under the spell of Murphy Syndrome would see that Molina is describing an immediate sequence of events that occur at the 20-30 second mark he has established. Bob is not being honest because all the evidence backs this and it is actually he who has nothing. Bob is not being honest because Calvery pretty much said she went to her office. Bob refuses to answer for the fact it would be very unlikely that the first Molina heard of JFK being shot would be after the 3-4 minute delay in Calvery coming back to the lobby from her office. Think about what would be happening in that lobby in those minutes and ask yourself if it is plausible no one mentioned Kennedy being shot? Bob is dishonest because when Molina says "come in" he is obviously referring to Calvery entering the building as the films show. The known time of the Darnell film can be used to calibrate Truly's entry. Molina's estimate is accurate.



.

[Albert Doyle]

If you look at the Altgens 6 shot a woman who could be Gloria Calvery is seen between Millican and Alonzo. The hair is very similar. The build is similar as seen in Willis 5. This was already discussed by Prudhomme and Graves on the Education Forum.



As Unger pointed out this woman has the black skirt and white top seen on Calvery in Darnell.

[Albert Doyle]

The hijackers on the Education Forum are on a jihad and are now putting Bill Miller on ignore because he dared point out the truth on the Murphy material that is now transforming correct Assassination history. This is being initiated by Prudhomme who has learned the trick that if you pretend haughty offense and violation of supposed research standards that you can bully people away from having to answer their points. Larsen, being one of the weakest participants sees the opening and joins right in. These people are Murphy zealots who will use any trick or logic to push their bogus Murphy-inspired theories. They have the approval of Ray Mitcham, who, as usual, shows up to troll the victim right on time while offering no serious input towards the subject.


The Murphy gang are missing an important point. The woman seen running to the portal is Gloria Calvery, so where she is out on Elm is interesting, but unimportant in the overall conspiracy evidence. When reading the Murphy-ites' material it is important to keep in my mind that they are doing this solely for the purpose of compromising the main evidence in order to bring enough doubt to allow their Prayer Man theory to fly. A smart person who watches their approach will see that when they get caught by evidence they respond by dodging the direct matter they've been called on and focusing on the next link in the chain in order to avoid directly answering and to keep the Murphy doubt going. Right now Prudhomme has succeeded in his dramatics and aggression to avoid the fact Miller has reasonably shown that it is indeed Calvery who is seen running up to the portal in the Couch/Darnell films and that the testimony of others reasonably shows that she indeed did follow Baker up and in around 30 seconds after the shots. If you pay attention to the method used by the Murphy-ites when Miller posted the witnessing of Piper and West that attested to Truly entering with a cop, whom the timing necessitates to be Baker, Prudhomme mocked Piper and West as being unreliable (straight out of ROKC's playbook) but didn't really show any valid reason to doubt their witnessing. Prudhomme's mocking those witnesses is good enough and becomes precedent. No one points out to Larsen and Prudhomme that their response isn't good enough and they haven't adequately or honestly addressed Miller's evidence. This dishonest and uncredible non-answer then becomes the foundation upon which excuse-seeking Larsen and Prudhomme then condemn Miller and put him on ignore. This is the same dishonest business they used against me in the Prayer Man threads. It is obvious to credible posters that Larsen and Prudhomme are two pro-Murphy con-men who are using aggressive dishonesty to compensate for the failures in their arguments without anyone calling them on it because of the dishonest bias existing on the subject. The two people who are losing the argument are using more than obvious disingenuous sophistry and defense lawyer techniques to avoid the obvious evidence that shows Baker went up the steps and into the building. The reason there are gaps in the testimony on this is because at the time it was assumed this obvious act didn't need any further detailing. The only reason the demand arises now is because persons like Prudhomme have made strong efforts to force incriminating meaning on those gaps with the assumption that they indicate radical departure from the previously assumed events.


This business has gone on for too long and is now more a failure of community and moderator oversight than failure of those who promote Murphy. There has to be a point where a decision is made that the Murphy based hocus pocus is not credible and does not disprove the previously accepted definition of things like Lovelady and Shelley and Truly and Baker. Do the members and moderators of those sites realize that these Murphy research thugs have now aggressively gone after Bill Miller for exclusion when in fact Bill has made a very good case that every single issue they raised was not based on sound evidence and in turn the official accounts they were questioning almost certainly turn out to be the way they were described? These Murphy posters need to be brought under control because they have succeeded in creating and unstable and damaging situation within the core of the research community. Bob Prudhomme is full of crap and his entries are mostly based on disingenuous protest that we don't have any evidence in response to reasonable evidence that he hasn't adequately answered. More credible internet JFK researchers would see that, although Bob has brought great doubt on Lovelady and Shelley being caught walking down the Elm St Extension, the simple film provably captures them doing so immediately after the shots. This should end the question with most reasonable researchers, but not for Bob who doesn't want to give up the years of time-wasting bogus theories he has pumped in to these Kennedy research websites over the last 4 years. It turns out that Bob's presumptive speculation based on the testimonies was wrong as simply proven by the film evidence. This creates a final answer that in turn allows more reasonable people to put the Depository scenario together. But Bob can't allow that because his game only involves hacking the evidence and creating perpetual doubt that he can then work his Prayer Man theory into. What we have is Murphy-crazed posters with less skill being allowed to regressively force reasonably debunked claims perpetually without any final determination. If you view Bob's input he avoids answering that the plaid of Lovelady's shirt has been adequately identified and that Shelley's head was matched to the other man.


Larsen is now trying to pose himself as the man who showed Baker did not run to the steps. He's doing so because the Darnell film cuts off right as Baker veers. The truth is this phenomenon is probably caused either by lens-edge distortion or more likely the fact the people on the sidewalk forced the running Baker to jump right at the last moment. Typical of the Murphy-ites they take immediate advantage of what is out of visibility to force a completely unevidenced counter scenario that has absolutely no evidence behind it except for their imaginations. Again, this is all done under the motive of loosening the evidence in order to insert Oswald into Sarah Stanton's body up on the landing. A situation now exists where the moderators have allowed these Murphy zealots to attack good posters and wage an exclusion campaign against them when in fact they are the ones who showed the better evidence. Miller's claims have testimony and witnessing behind them. The necessary witnessings that Larsen's and Prudhomme's counter scenarios require do not exist. Zero. It is actually Larsen and Prudhomme who are guilty of what they accuse others of, with the moderators standing by and letting them do it. Meanwhile what you are seeing in Darnell is Baker veering right to avoid piling into the people lined up to go up the steps. He then went around them and proceeded up the steps and in as testified. Prudhomme's repeated, self-serving "where is the evidence for that?' is not an adequate counter to what all the rest of the evidence reasonably shows. His defense attorney play-acting isn't working and doesn't serve as any adequate honest approach to the evidence. And his aggressive response to this basic point doesn't get him around it. The reason Bob refuses to honestly crunch the necessary conclusions the 3 minute delay being debunked leads to is because he knows it disproves his imaginary bs in the portal. Larsen and Bob's other pro-Murphy pals help him get around that and are now making their final thuggish move on Miller (based on principle of all things!).


Bart Kamp is a fool. He doesn't answer the basic point that Molina said the first time he heard that Kennedy had been shot was from Gloria Calvery "when she came in". What Kamp and Prudhomme are ignoring is their scenario requires that if Calvery said this after she returned to the lobby 3-4 minutes later then that means that in that 3-4 minute scenario when Molina is standing in lobby that no one mentioned Kennedy had been shot, even though 4 minutes earlier Calvery had run to the portal shouting it. Kamp and Prudhomme's scenario requires that all the people who poured in to the lobby in that 4 minute interim said nothing about JFK being shot and that there was a four minute silence on the subject until Calvery returned from her office and told Molina. Kamp and Prudhomme know this scenario is preposterous, which is why they avoid answering it. Any honest person who reads Ball's inquiry of Molina will clearly see that Molina is speaking in terms of 30 seconds after the shots and that Calvery told him (like she had others) as she arrived into the lobby from her run. If Victoria Adams encountered Molina on the portal landing 6 minutes after the shots it does nothing to disprove the above. The community allows ROKC crank Bart Kamp to come in and say Molina lied about being in the lobby. The JFK research community are fools. "Excellence In Research". Nobody said Molina went in while Baker was running. It is obvious Molina slipped in behind Baker and Calvery went in behind Molina.

.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

The hijackers on the Education Forum are on a jihad and are now putting Bill Miller on ignore because he dared point out the truth on the Murphy material that is now transforming correct Assassination history. This is being initiated by Prudhomme who has learned the trick that if you pretend haughty offense and violation of supposed research standards that you can bully people away from having to answer their points. Larsen, being one of the weakest participants sees the opening and joins right in. These people are Murphy zealots who will use any trick or logic to push their bogus Murphy-inspired theories through. They have the approval of Ray Mitcham, who, as usual, shows up to troll the victim right on time while offering no serious input towards the subject.


The Murphy gang are missing an important point. The woman seen running to the portal is Gloria Calvery, so where she is out on Elm is interesting, but unimportant in the overall conspiracy evidence. When reading the Murphy-ites' material it is important to keep in my mind that they are doing this solely for the purpose of compromising the main evidence in order to bring enough doubt to allow their Prayer Man theory to fly. A smart person who watches their approach will see that when they get caught by evidence they respond by dodging the direct matter they've been called on and focusing on the next link in the chain in order to avoid directly answering and to keep the Murphy doubt going. Right now Prudhomme has succeeded in his dramatics and aggression to avoid the fact Miller has reasonably shown that it is indeed Calvery who is seen running up to the portal in the Couch/Darnell films and that the testimony of others reasonably shows that she indeed did follow Baker up and in around 30 seconds after the shots. If you pay attention to the method used by the Murphy-ites when Miller posted the witnessing of Piper and West that attested to Truly entering with a cop whom the timing necessitates to be Baker, Prudhomme mocked Piper and West as being unreliable (straight out of ROKC's playbook) but didn't really show any valid reason to doubt their witnessing. Prudhomme's mocking those witnesses is good enough and becomes precedent. No one points out to Larsen and Prudhomme that that response isn't good enough and they haven't adequately or honestly addressed Miller's evidence. This dishonest and uncredible non-answer then becomes the foundation upon which excuse-seeking Larsen and Prudhomme then condemn Miller and put him on ignore. This is the same dishonest business they used against me in the Prayer Man threads. It is obvious to credible posters that Larsen and Prudhomme are two pro-Murphy con-men who are using aggressive dishonesty to compensate for the failures in their arguments without anyone calling them on it because of the dishonest bias existing on the subject. The two people who are losing the argument are using more than obvious disingenuous sophistry and defense lawyer techniques to avoid the obvious evidence that shows Baker went up the steps and into the building. The reason their are gaps in the testimony on this is because at the time it was assumed this obvious act didn't need any further detailing. The only reason the demand arises now is because of persons like Prudhomme have made strong efforts to force incriminating meaning on those gaps with the assumption that they indicate radical departure from the previously assumed events.


This business has gone on for too long and is now more a failure of community and moderator oversight than failure of those who promote Murphy. There has to be a point where a decision is made that the Murphy based hocus pocus is not credible and does not disprove the previously accepted definition of things like Lovelady and Shelley and Truly and Baker. Do the members and moderators of those sites realize that these Murphy research thugs have now aggressively gone after Bill Miller for exclusion when in fact Bill has made a very good case that every single issue they raised was not based on sound evidence and in turn the official accounts they were questioning almost certainly turn out to be the way they were described? These Murphy posters need to be brought under control because they have succeeded in creating and unstable and damaging situation within the core of the research community. Bob Prudhomme is full of crap and his entries are mostly based on disingenuous protest that we don't have any evidence in response to reasonable evidence that he hasn't adequately answered. More credible internet JFK researchers would see that although Bob has brought great doubt on Lovelady and Shelley being caught walking down the Elm St Extension, the simple film provably captures them doing so immediately after the shots. This should end the question with most reasonable researchers, but not for Bob who doesn't want to give up the years of time-wasting bogus theories he has pumped in to these Kennedy research websites over the last 4 years. It turns out that Bob's presumptive speculation based on the testimonies was wrong as simply proven by the film evidence. This creates a final answer that in turn allows more reasonable people to put the Depository scenario together. But Bob can't allow that because his game only involves hacking the evidence and creating perpetual doubt that he can then work his Prayer Man theory into. What we have is Murphy-crazed posters with less skill being allowed to regressively force reasonably debunked claims perpetually without any final determination. If you view Bob's input he avoids answering that the plaid of Lovelady's shirt has been adequately identified and that Shelley's head was matched to the other man.


Larsen is now trying to pose himself as the man who showed Baker did not run to the steps. He's doing so because the Darnell film cuts off right as Baker veers. The truth is this phenomenon is probably caused either by lens-edge distortion or more likely the fact the people on the sidewalk forced the running Baker to jump right at the last moment. Typical of the Murphy-ites they take immediate advantage of what is out of visibility to force a completely unevidenced counter scenario that has absolutely no evidence behind it except for their imaginations. Again, this is all done under the motive of loosening the evidence in order to insert Oswald into Sarah Stanton's body up on the landing. A situation now exists where the moderators have allowed these Murphy zealots to attack good posters and wage an exclusion campaign against them when in fact they are the ones who showed the better evidence. Miller's claims have testimony and witnessing behind them. The necessary witnessings that Larsen's and Prudhomme's counter scenarios require do not exist. Zero. It is actually Larsen and Prudhomme who are guilty of what they accuse others of, with the moderators standing by and letting them do it. Meanwhile what you are seeing in Darnell is Baker veering right to avoid piling into the people lined up to go up the steps. He then went around them and proceeded up the steps and in as testified. Prudhomme's repeated, self-serving "where is the evidence for that?' is not an adequate counter to what all the rest of the evidence reasonably shows. His defense attorney play-acting isn't working and doesn't serve as any adequate honest approach to the evidence. And his aggressive response to this basic point doesn't get him around it. The reason Bob refuses to honestly crunch the necessary conclusions the 3 minute delay being debunked leads to is because he knows it disproves his imaginary bs in the portal. Larsen and Bob's other pro-Murphy pals help him get around that and are now making their final thuggish move on Miller (based on principle of all things!).

Really? Oh, what should we do ?