The Dillard Image

Dillard image

Leroy Blevins Sr. 9:48

o***@gmail.com

2017-03-24 02:29:46 UTC

Post by claviger
Dillard image
http://youtu.be/V4ncmQrxR8o
Leroy Blevins Sr. 9:48

I believe the image of LHO in the window is genuine for a couple of
reasons, claviger.

Either the image of LHO was not noticed by early MSM journalists or it was
& the image was darkened to conceal the presence of LHO at the window
IMHO. After studying Mr. Blevins Sr.'s video & screengrabs I made from it,
it appears to me that LHO has either a camera up to his face or is talking
into a mic.

The LHO image appears to be standing behind two stacks of boxes, one stack
in front of the other (one stack being closer to the window than the other
stack). This posture obscures LHO's lower body from Dillard's line of
sight.

After posting these comments in the Education Forum, my posting privileges
were removed. As you may already know, EF pushes the 'LHO is prayer man'
theory that LHO was captured in the Darnell, Couch & Wiegman films
standing at the rear of the TSBD front entrance operating a camera (or
drinking a soft drink from a bottle). Much of that 'research' was
contributed by former ROKC members. Those same members are intertwined
with the funders of EF, as they post at EF often.

Because my comments went against the effort EF members put into the 'LHO
is prayer man' thread that was the lead thread posted at EF, they played
Nazi with me & terminated my posting privileges at EF. EF is currently
experience a 'troll coup' for power control IMHO.

If the LHO image is genuine, it's worth noting that if it was noticed by
early investigators, MSM & WC staff, nothing was said about it. Walter
Cronkite didn't draw attention to LHO's image in the Dillard if the photo
was shown on CBS TV the assassination weekend. Neither did the newspapers
of that time period. This suggests to me the image is genuine & that those
'in the know' that may have noticed it decided to keep quiet about the
image.

If the Tom Dillard LHO image is genuine, it suggests to me two things: LHO
went to Ruth Pain's home on Thursday before the ambush to pick up his
camera or some sort of walkie-talkie device he may have had in Ruth Pain's
garage. The contents may have been what was in the package LHO carried to
work the ambush morning.

If LHO is talking into a walkie talkie type device in the Dillard photo,
he's not alone in the photo record. DCM (aka 'the Cuban') & a fellow that
seems to be resting the butt of a rifle ojn the northern arm of the triple
underpass (Cabluck photo) also appear to be talking into walkie-talkie
type devices.

For me, the Blevins video analysis of the Dillard photo offers a bit of
closure to the JFK cold case. It doesn't answer every question, but it
does suggest that LHO was participating in some sort of team effort in
surveilling Dealey Plaza during the ambush of JFK.

Say what you will about John McAdams & his 'gang of cheerleaders', the
good professor has never pulled a 'nazi' on me like EF just did.

Sincerely & respectfull,

Brad Milch

o***@gmail.com

2017-03-24 13:50:06 UTC

@claviger:

Thanks to the person(s) that posted my comments & sorry for the typos &
dropped off portions of words I didn't catch & correct in time.

I'd like to add one more comment whole readers & regular posters are
discussing if the 'LHO face' in the Dillard photo is genuine or a hoax:

Jim DiEugenio has now joined the ranks of those preaching that the
Zapruder film is not altered in his website's posting part 2 of the Jeff
Carter review of Zapruder's granddaughter's recent book. My comments are
these:

If the Zapruder film stored at the National Archives & the US Government
paid Zapruder's heirs 16 million dollars in compensation for is the camera
original, that film should have each & every splice Life Magazine made to
the film. Regardless if Life technicians used splicing tape, glue or some
other means to join the cut film back together, whatever was used should
be visible to inspectors examining the film frames.

If the splices are not evident to manual inspection, it means the
inspectors are looking at a copy of a film that was cut & spliced back
together. They would not be looking at the original film.

Also: On the extreme left corner of the Zapruder film in the National
Archives (be it the camera original or a copy), there is a repeating
appearance of some Kodak Kodachrome info that appears for a few frames,
disappears, then repeats again. This appearance lasts for the same number
of frames each time the Kodak info appears in the left border of the
Zapruder sprocket hole.

If the repeating sequence is not broken (as it should be, if Life spliced
some frames out of the original film) and repeats without interruption,
that also tells an inspector that the film being examined is NOT the
camera original. It would be a copy of the camera original that had been
spliced & copied.

I hope others will pick up on this topic as well as focus on the LHO image
in the Dillard photos as they search for truthful answers to the ambush &
murders of JFK, Officer Tippit & LHO.

Thanks again for allowing me the privilege to voice these things here.

As before, I'll probably return to being a frequent, lurking visitor.

Sincerely & respectfully,

Brad Milch

Anthony Marsh

2017-03-25 00:57:48 UTC

So, you've never read the Zavada report.
HE examined the original film and the filmstock shows the known splice.
No other splices.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Also: On the extreme left corner of the Zapruder film in the National
Archives (be it the camera original or a copy), there is a repeating
appearance of some Kodak Kodachrome info that appears for a few frames,
disappears, then repeats again. This appearance lasts for the same number
of frames each time the Kodak info appears in the left border of the
Zapruder sprocket hole.

So what?

Post by o***@gmail.com
If the repeating sequence is not broken (as it should be, if Life spliced
some frames out of the original film) and repeats without interruption,
that also tells an inspector that the film being examined is NOT the
camera original. It would be a copy of the camera original that had been
spliced & copied.

It does, except for the known splice.

Post by o***@gmail.com
I hope others will pick up on this topic as well as focus on the LHO image
in the Dillard photos as they search for truthful answers to the ambush &
murders of JFK, Officer Tippit & LHO.

Is there any photography in the world that you don't claim is fake?

Post by o***@gmail.com
Thanks again for allowing me the privilege to voice these things here.

It used to be a Free Country.

Post by o***@gmail.com
As before, I'll probably return to being a frequent, lurking visitor.
Sincerely & respectfully,
Brad Milch

claviger

2017-03-25 01:08:29 UTC

Post by o***@gmail.com
Thanks to the person(s) that posted my comments & sorry for the typos &
dropped off portions of words I didn't catch & correct in time.
I'd like to add one more comment whole readers & regular posters are
Jim DiEugenio has now joined the ranks of those preaching that the
Zapruder film is not altered in his website's posting part 2 of the Jeff
Carter review of Zapruder's granddaughter's recent book. My comments are
If the Zapruder film stored at the National Archives & the US Government
paid Zapruder's heirs 16 million dollars in compensation for is the camera
original, that film should have each & every splice Life Magazine made to
the film. Regardless if Life technicians used splicing tape, glue or some
other means to join the cut film back together, whatever was used should
be visible to inspectors examining the film frames.
If the splices are not evident to manual inspection, it means the
inspectors are looking at a copy of a film that was cut & spliced back
together. They would not be looking at the original film.
Also: On the extreme left corner of the Zapruder film in the National
Archives (be it the camera original or a copy), there is a repeating
appearance of some Kodak Kodachrome info that appears for a few frames,
disappears, then repeats again. This appearance lasts for the same number
of frames each time the Kodak info appears in the left border of the
Zapruder sprocket hole.
If the repeating sequence is not broken (as it should be, if Life spliced
some frames out of the original film) and repeats without interruption,
that also tells an inspector that the film being examined is NOT the
camera original. It would be a copy of the camera original that had been
spliced & copied.
I hope others will pick up on this topic as well as focus on the LHO image
in the Dillard photos as they search for truthful answers to the ambush &
murders of JFK, Officer Tippit & LHO.
Thanks again for allowing me the privilege to voice these things here.
As before, I'll probably return to being a frequent, lurking visitor.
Sincerely & respectfully,
Brad Milch

I have little knowledge of film technology but the guy who made this
YouTube presentation makes several assertions why this photo was not
tampered with. The height of the person would be correct and it makes
sense a sniper would pause to see the reaction of the crowd from a closed
window rather than remain at the open window he just shot from. The
enhanced photo does look like LHO. The question is has this photo been
tricked up as some critics allege?

Jonny Mayer

2017-03-26 01:09:33 UTC

I also posted this here. He has some other new interesting vids also

o***@gmail.com

2017-03-27 01:33:14 UTC

@Jonny

Indeed, Mr. Blevins has several very interesting presentations. I've been
studying a few of them the past few days. Blevins' take on LHO using a pry
bar that was found by police on the window sill inside the sniper's nest
to pry open a wooden bean to hide the rifle is very intriguing to me.
Blevins has got LHO stepping up on two boxes of books to reach the hiding
place for his weapon.

I've studied the Dillard image more since my initial post & I believe I
can make out the scope on the rifle at the extreme lower left of the
window (just before it meets the black rectangular shadow that separates
the upper from the lower side of the 'LHO face' window. I believe a
portion of the rifle barrel can be seen in LHO's right hand as well.

What I earlier stated could be a small camera or a radio transmitter
microphone up to LHO's face could also be a dirt smudge on the window.

Around the 'LHO face' I can make out people standing around the border of
the reflecting pool in the window's reflection.

From what I have read, Tom Dillard estimated he snapped his 2 TSBD photos
within 5 seconds of the last shot. If accurate, it would mean that
Zapruder is still filming the escaping limo & DPD officer Baker hasn't had
time to park & dismount his motorcycle & run towards the TSBD steps & into
the building with Truly guiding him to the elevator & stairs.

Blevins believes LHO paused to see the chaos he caused while hiding
another weapon into the aforementioned hiding place. I'm not so sure about
that portion of his analysis.

Those trying to debunk this photo have already played around with the
brightness & contrast trying to get Blevin's LHO face to disappear.

I believe it's the real deal. The 1st photographic proof LHO was where the
DPD, FBI & WC placed him during the ambush.

Brad Milch

Anthony Marsh

2017-03-27 23:31:58 UTC

Post by o***@gmail.com
@Jonny
Indeed, Mr. Blevins has several very interesting presentations. I've been
studying a few of them the past few days. Blevins' take on LHO using a pry
bar that was found by police on the window sill inside the sniper's nest
to pry open a wooden bean to hide the rifle is very intriguing to me.

Silly. There was no wooden bean.
Watch Winter Kills and call it a documentary.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Blevins has got LHO stepping up on two boxes of books to reach the hiding
place for his weapon.

No need.

Post by o***@gmail.com
I've studied the Dillard image more since my initial post & I believe I
can make out the scope on the rifle at the extreme lower left of the
window (just before it meets the black rectangular shadow that separates
the upper from the lower side of the 'LHO face' window. I believe a
portion of the rifle barrel can be seen in LHO's right hand as well.

Nope.

Post by o***@gmail.com
What I earlier stated could be a small camera or a radio transmitter
microphone up to LHO's face could also be a dirt smudge on the window.

Then just stop guessing.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Around the 'LHO face' I can make out people standing around the border of
the reflecting pool in the window's reflection.
From what I have read, Tom Dillard estimated he snapped his 2 TSBD photos
within 5 seconds of the last shot. If accurate, it would mean that
Zapruder is still filming the escaping limo & DPD officer Baker hasn't had
time to park & dismount his motorcycle & run towards the TSBD steps & into
the building with Truly guiding him to the elevator & stairs.
Blevins believes LHO paused to see the chaos he caused while hiding
another weapon into the aforementioned hiding place. I'm not so sure about
that portion of his analysis.
Those trying to debunk this photo have already played around with the
brightness & contrast trying to get Blevin's LHO face to disappear.
I believe it's the real deal. The 1st photographic proof LHO was where the
DPD, FBI & WC placed him during the ambush.
Brad Milch

o***@gmail.com

2017-03-28 16:06:14 UTC

I am waiting for the established, credible visual analysts to do their
thing with the Dillard image in the Blevins video & carry the ball further
(so amateurs like myself won't have to guess at what they are looking at.
I'm talking the likes of Dale Meyers, Robert Groden, Max Holland. The big
leaguers of visuals analysis. What they determine might be picked up by
the MSM & perhaps some sort of partial closure to the JFK case might come
of age. That might put some folks out of a job.

Expert analysis of the 'LHO face' in the Tom Dillard image will separate
the true 'truth seekers' from the phony people just out to spin a story &
make a buck or two. Those pushing the 'LHO in the doorway' & 'LHO is
prayer man' garbage will probably go into denial of the Dillard image
because if that genuinely is LHO's face in the sniper's nest in Dillard
photo, it alone debunks the other analysis made to place LHO elsewhere.
I'm thinking Ralph Cinque & most of the people running & posting at
Education Forum here. By kicking me out for expressing my opinion that the
Blevins LHO face in the Dillard image is genuine, EF admin made it obvious
to me that the JF debate forum is a farce. True debate is not allowed
under Nazi thought, word & speech control. It's a breath of fresh air to
be free from that prison.

I'm not convinced LHO was hiding a different weapon after he shot at JFK &
entourage, Anthony. Mr. Blevins hasn't convinced me of that in his other
videos. it seems more likely that LHO fumbled around trying to re-hide the
weapon after he took his shots, gave up & ditched the weapon hurriedly
where it was found.

I am convinced that is LHO in the window of Dillard's sniper's nest photo.

Sincerely & respectfully,

Brad Milch

claviger

2017-03-29 15:52:51 UTC

Post by o***@gmail.com
I am waiting for the established, credible visual analysts to do their
thing with the Dillard image in the Blevins video & carry the ball further
(so amateurs like myself won't have to guess at what they are looking at.
I'm talking the likes of Dale Meyers, Robert Groden, Max Holland. The big
leaguers of visuals analysis. What they determine might be picked up by
the MSM & perhaps some sort of partial closure to the JFK case might come
of age. That might put some folks out of a job.
Expert analysis of the 'LHO face' in the Tom Dillard image will separate
the true 'truth seekers' from the phony people just out to spin a story &
make a buck or two. Those pushing the 'LHO in the doorway' & 'LHO is
prayer man' garbage will probably go into denial of the Dillard image
because if that genuinely is LHO's face in the sniper's nest in Dillard
photo, it alone debunks the other analysis made to place LHO elsewhere.
I'm thinking Ralph Cinque & most of the people running & posting at
Education Forum here. By kicking me out for expressing my opinion that the
Blevins LHO face in the Dillard image is genuine, EF admin made it obvious
to me that the JF debate forum is a farce. True debate is not allowed
under Nazi thought, word & speech control. It's a breath of fresh air to
be free from that prison.
I'm not convinced LHO was hiding a different weapon after he shot at JFK &
entourage, Anthony. Mr. Blevins hasn't convinced me of that in his other
videos. it seems more likely that LHO fumbled around trying to re-hide the
weapon after he took his shots, gave up & ditched the weapon hurriedly
where it was found.
I am convinced that is LHO in the window of Dillard's sniper's nest photo.
Sincerely & respectfully,
Brad Milch

Well said. If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

Anthony Marsh

2017-03-30 00:52:54 UTC

Well said. If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

No. You see what you want to see.

claviger

2017-03-31 00:53:36 UTC

Post by claviger
Well said. If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

No. You see what you want to see.

My first reaction is "Don't we all?" Human nature to see what we want to
see. You're a perfect example. No one has ever seen a Sniper on the
Grassy Knoll. That is a myth and yet you believe it because you want to.
The SOTGK is a phantom who doesn't exist but you treat it as a reality.
This phantom is your version of Sasquatch, except there is more evidence
for Bigfoot than SOTGK. At least people claim to see BF, but nobody has
ever seen the SOTGK. Except GArnold who had a conversation with them.
There were 2 phantoms and a police car nobody saw. Phantom snipers in a
phantom car that vanished into thin air. Did you ever see "The Wraith"?

Anthony Marsh

2017-03-31 20:52:23 UTC

Post by claviger
Well said. If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

No. You see what you want to see.

My first reaction is "Don't we all?" Human nature to see what we want

Something like that. No one ever saw the SS agent Hickey pick up and fire
the AR-15, yet YOU believe it and claim it as a fact. You have your own
wacky theories.

to

Post by claviger
see. You're a perfect example. No one has ever seen a Sniper on the
Grassy Knoll. That is a myth and yet you believe it because you want to.
The SOTGK is a phantom who doesn't exist but you treat it as a reality.
This phantom is your version of Sasquatch, except there is more evidence
for Bigfoot than SOTGK. At least people claim to see BF, but nobody has
ever seen the SOTGK. Except GArnold who had a conversation with them.
There were 2 phantoms and a police car nobody saw. Phantom snipers in a
phantom car that vanished into thin air. Did you ever see "The Wraith"?

The acoustic evidence, science, proved the sniper on the grassy knoll.
Which is why you don't like science.

mainframetech

2017-10-07 16:35:17 UTC

Post by claviger
Well said. If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

No. You see what you want to see.

It has not been established that Arnold had a conversation with
shooters. With someone, yes. But not shooters, who would probably have
been gone by that time. Of course, there is also the report of Walter
Rischel, who was friend of Lee Bowers. He spoke wit ha reporter and gave
the story from Bowers that Bowers saw men with rifles on the GK behind the
fence, shooting toward the street, then they piled into car and left
quickly. He said that Bowers said that he lied to the WC to protect his
family. So there are 2 stories of shooters on the GK.

Chris

Jonny Mayer

2017-10-08 01:15:20 UTC

Chris don't forget DPD Tom Tilson

mainframetech

2017-10-10 14:32:10 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris don't forget DPD Tom Tilson

Tilson said he recognized Jack Ruby on the slope of the 3 way bypass.
Are you aware of anything he said regarding the GK?

Chris

John McAdams

2017-10-10 14:33:41 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris don't forget DPD Tom Tilson

Tilson said he recognized Jack Ruby on the slope of the 3 way bypass.
Are you aware of anything he said regarding the GK?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tilson.htm

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

mainframetech

2017-10-12 23:58:50 UTC

Post by John McAdams

Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris don't forget DPD Tom Tilson

Tilson said he recognized Jack Ruby on the slope of the 3 way bypass.
Are you aware of anything he said regarding the GK?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tilson.htm

Another negative piece that John saved. By looking at the photos
shown, the first shows the steep slope spoken about by Tilson that came
down from the tracks, and the people on the "sidewalk" were far from the
slope. Those people might not even have been noticed by Tilson when
driving by going toward Dealey Plaza.

The author of the article said in part:

"Given that film footage shows people on the sidewalk beside Elm Street
west of the triple underpass, it seems hard to believe that only Tilson
saw a car parked near the bank in the middle of the lawn. It Is also
likely that the lawn would have been wet from the morning rain, and
therefore, a car would leave tire tracks, especially if it sped away at a
high rate of speed. Finally, it is very likely that those people standing
on the sidewalk, still waving at the President, would be aware of a car
driving over the lawn and onto the street."

But it turns out that the people shown in the photo were very far from
the sign and where the car as parked by the Ruby lookalike. They were not
likely to have noted a man on the slope, when they were there to get a
look at the presidential limousine going by. As well, there is no
guarantee that a car that was only partially up on the curb would leave
tire marks, or whether anyone even looked for such after Tilson reported
the event. Tilson made it clear that the homicide division that he called
with the license plate number was not really interested in what he had
provided. So it is doubtful that anyone went to look for any tire tracks,
or bothered with his story. They were on the trail of the killer (they
thought) and didn't need any extraneous matter to get in the way.

Further, the author of the article tried to say that tire tracks
would be left by a car that "sped away at a high rate of speed". But in
his zeal to kill the Tilson story, that statement does not match what
Tilson said at the mock trial of Oswald held later. There Tilson said
that the car that pulled out "did not drive fast at all".

Those interested can review Tilson's statements here:

Chris

Jonny Mayer

2017-10-14 14:33:19 UTC

Good analysis Chris.

Ace Kefford

2017-10-18 00:25:08 UTC

Post by John McAdams

Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris don't forget DPD Tom Tilson

Tilson said he recognized Jack Ruby on the slope of the 3 way bypass.
Are you aware of anything he said regarding the GK?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tilson.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Unbelievable that people still believe the Tilson story or will twist it
around to try to make it work. Another example of how too many of the
buffs refuse to give up witnesses or claims even when they are debunked,
revealing again how they are pursuing justification for their
religion-like belief rather than actually seeking the truth.

Anthony Marsh

2017-10-11 15:15:41 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris don't forget DPD Tom Tilson

Tilson said he recognized Jack Ruby on the slope of the 3 way bypass.
Are you aware of anything he said regarding the GK?

All of us are. Never rely on witnesses.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

mainframetech

2017-10-10 14:34:19 UTC

Post by claviger
Well said. If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

No. You see what you want to see.

It has not been established that Arnold had a conversation with
shooters. With someone, yes. But not shooters, who would probably have
been gone by that time. Of course, there is also the report of Walter
Rischel, who was friend of Lee Bowers. He spoke with a reporter and gave
the story from Bowers that Bowers saw men with rifles on the GK behind the
fence, shooting toward the street, then they piled into car and left
quickly. He said that Bowers said that he lied to the WC to protect his
family. So there are 2 stories of shooters on the GK.
Chris

Anthony Marsh

2017-10-11 15:15:26 UTC

Post by claviger
Well said. If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

No. You see what you want to see.

I has been established the Gordon Arnold was not even in Dealey Plaza on
11/22/63.

Post by mainframetech
Rischel, who was friend of Lee Bowers. He spoke with a reporter and gave
the story from Bowers that Bowers saw men with rifles on the GK behind the
fence, shooting toward the street, then they piled into car and left
quickly. He said that Bowers said that he lied to the WC to protect his
family. So there are 2 stories of shooters on the GK.
Chris

Jason Burke

2017-10-14 22:51:37 UTC

Well said.?? If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once
and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

No. You see what you want to see.

My first reaction is "Don't we all?"?? Human nature to see what we
want to
see.?? You're a perfect example.?? No one has ever seen a Sniper on the
Grassy Knoll.?? That is a myth and yet you believe it because you
want to.
The SOTGK is a phantom who doesn't exist but you treat it as a reality.
This phantom is your version of Sasquatch, except there is more evidence
for Bigfoot than SOTGK.?? At least people claim to see BF, but nobody
has
ever seen the SOTGK.?? Except GArnold who had a conversation with them.
There were 2 phantoms and a police car nobody saw.?? Phantom snipers
in a
phantom car that vanished into thin air.?? Did you ever see "The
Wraith"?

?????? It has not been established that Arnold had a conversation with
shooters.?? With someone, yes.?? But not shooters, who would probably have
been gone by that time.?? Of course, there is also the report of Walter

I has been established the Gordon Arnold was not even in Dealey Plaza on
11/22/63.

Thank you for establishing that, Anthony Anthony. Is there anything else
you want to take credit for, Anthony Anthony? Better yet, is there
anything you *won't* take credit for, Anthony Anthony?

Rischel, who was friend of Lee Bowers.?? He spoke with a reporter and
gave
the story from Bowers that Bowers saw men with rifles on the GK behind the
fence, shooting toward the street, then they piled into car and left
quickly.?? He said that Bowers said that he lied to the WC to protect his
family.?? So there are 2 stories of shooters on the GK.
Chris

Anthony Marsh

2017-10-16 01:03:13 UTC

Post by Jason Burke

Well said.?? If Blevins is correct modern technology proves once
and for
all LHO was the sniper in the 6th floor window and did this crime by
himself.

No. You see what you want to see.

My first reaction is "Don't we all?"?? Human nature to see what we
want to
see.?? You're a perfect example.?? No one has ever seen a Sniper on the
Grassy Knoll.?? That is a myth and yet you believe it because you
want to.
The SOTGK is a phantom who doesn't exist but you treat it as a reality.
This phantom is your version of Sasquatch, except there is more evidence
for Bigfoot than SOTGK.?? At least people claim to see BF, but
nobody has
ever seen the SOTGK.?? Except GArnold who had a conversation with them.
There were 2 phantoms and a police car nobody saw.?? Phantom
snipers in a
phantom car that vanished into thin air.?? Did you ever see "The
Wraith"?

I has been established the Gordon Arnold was not even in Dealey Plaza
on 11/22/63.

Thank you for establishing that, Anthony Anthony. Is there anything else
you want to take credit for, Anthony Anthony? Better yet, is there
anything you *won't* take credit for, Anthony Anthony?

Gravity?

Post by Jason Burke

Rischel, who was friend of Lee Bowers.?? He spoke with a reporter
and gave
the story from Bowers that Bowers saw men with rifles on the GK behind the
fence, shooting toward the street, then they piled into car and left
quickly.?? He said that Bowers said that he lied to the WC to protect his
family.?? So there are 2 stories of shooters on the GK.
Chris

claviger

2017-03-28 18:22:40 UTC

If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LOH was
the sniper.

Anthony Marsh

2017-03-29 20:37:31 UTC

If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LOH was
the sniper.

No, it doesn't show a person.
And why LOH?

claviger

2017-03-29 20:37:58 UTC

If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LHO was
the sniper.

Anthony Marsh

2017-03-30 17:19:30 UTC

If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LHO was
the sniper.

Pareidolia.

OHLeeRedux

2017-03-31 03:00:35 UTC

If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LHO was
the sniper.

Pareidolia.

Yes, Anthony. We know that you are a competent user of Google. It doesn't
impress anyone.

o***@gmail.com

2017-03-31 03:11:10 UTC

@bigdog:

I'd bet the farm it is LHO in the Dillard image but I'd need more info
from the pros to steer me in a direction that would help me conclude what
exactly LHO was doing in the sniper's nest at the moment Dallas Morning
News photographer Tom Dillard captured the image Mr. Blevins shows us in
his video analysis.

In a trial scenario, the photo would probably still be considered
circumstantial evidence. The prosecutor would insist the image was proof
LHO fired the shots (when added to all the other circumstantial evidence,
but the defense is insisting that LHO was taking photos, talking to
someone on a radio transmitter or looking at the parade through binoculars
when the shooting occurred.

On top of that, a jury would have to consider LHO's mother insisting that
if her son did anything, the US Government told him to do it. Add that to
a adolescent black kid that told police he saw a black man with a bald
spot on the back of his head do the shooting, LHO telling police that
photo fakery had occurred in the 'backyard photos' of LHO & his two
weapons & I'm not so sure that jury would be so anxious to send LHO to the
electric chair (used in the day back then).

The photo could be spun several different ways.

I was attempting to address this issue at EF when the Gestapo that runs
the website abruptly kicked me out. Over there, one particular
'researcher' is spinning the story that LHO 'handed his rifle over to
someone he trusted' & that someone used the weapon to assassinate
President Kennedy. I was attempting to get the researcher to explain why
LHO would be standing next to the person he trusted & not make an attempt
to grab his rifle back when the rug got pulled out from under my feet. So
much for EF 'debate'.

I'd want to see comparison re-enactment photos of what a person that
looked like LHO appeared in photos as while holding a camera, binoculars
or a radio transmitter microphone as seen from Dillard's line of sight
with an identical camera, film & lighting conditions to help me determine
what exactly LHO was doing in the sniper's nest in the Dillard photo.

If LHO had been told to be at that spot to watch/photograph someone in the
Plaza & had not done any shooting from the sniper's nest, I'd expect the
defense to convince me of that possibility, regardless of how forceful the
prosecutor pushed for the death penalty.

Sincerely & respectfully,

Brad Milch

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-01 01:27:28 UTC

First things first. Show us which version of the Dillard photo you are
talking about. You don't have the negative, do you? Do you remember how
the HSCA accidentally damaged the original negative when they enhanced it?

Post by o***@gmail.com
In a trial scenario, the photo would probably still be considered
circumstantial evidence. The prosecutor would insist the image was proof
LHO fired the shots (when added to all the other circumstantial evidence,
but the defense is insisting that LHO was taking photos, talking to
someone on a radio transmitter or looking at the parade through binoculars
when the shooting occurred.

Not back in 1963. There was no CSI: Dallas back then.

Post by o***@gmail.com
On top of that, a jury would have to consider LHO's mother insisting that
if her son did anything, the US Government told him to do it. Add that to
a adolescent black kid that told police he saw a black man with a bald
spot on the back of his head do the shooting, LHO telling police that
photo fakery had occurred in the 'backyard photos' of LHO & his two
weapons & I'm not so sure that jury would be so anxious to send LHO to the
electric chair (used in the day back then).

Jury? They don't need no damn stinkin evidence in Dallas.
Wade could have convicted a ham sandwich.

Post by o***@gmail.com
The photo could be spun several different ways.
I was attempting to address this issue at EF when the Gestapo that runs
the website abruptly kicked me out. Over there, one particular
'researcher' is spinning the story that LHO 'handed his rifle over to
someone he trusted' & that someone used the weapon to assassinate
President Kennedy. I was attempting to get the researcher to explain why
LHO would be standing next to the person he trusted & not make an attempt
to grab his rifle back when the rug got pulled out from under my feet. So
much for EF 'debate'.

OMG! He said Gestapo! That's even worse than the Nazis here.

Post by o***@gmail.com
I'd want to see comparison re-enactment photos of what a person that
looked like LHO appeared in photos as while holding a camera, binoculars
or a radio transmitter microphone as seen from Dillard's line of sight
with an identical camera, film & lighting conditions to help me determine
what exactly LHO was doing in the sniper's nest in the Dillard photo.

If you ever want to do some real research, why don't you get the negative?

Post by o***@gmail.com
If LHO had been told to be at that spot to watch/photograph someone in the
Plaza & had not done any shooting from the sniper's nest, I'd expect the
defense to convince me of that possibility, regardless of how forceful the
prosecutor pushed for the death penalty.

I like that. Something like G. Gordon Liddy's "Just tell me what street
corner to stand on."

Post by o***@gmail.com
Sincerely & respectfully,
Brad Milch

bigdog

2017-04-01 01:43:21 UTC

Post by o***@gmail.com
I'd bet the farm it is LHO in the Dillard image but I'd need more info
from the pros to steer me in a direction that would help me conclude what
exactly LHO was doing in the sniper's nest at the moment Dallas Morning
News photographer Tom Dillard captured the image Mr. Blevins shows us in
his video analysis.
In a trial scenario, the photo would probably still be considered
circumstantial evidence. The prosecutor would insist the image was proof
LHO fired the shots (when added to all the other circumstantial evidence,
but the defense is insisting that LHO was taking photos, talking to
someone on a radio transmitter or looking at the parade through binoculars
when the shooting occurred.
On top of that, a jury would have to consider LHO's mother insisting that
if her son did anything, the US Government told him to do it. Add that to
a adolescent black kid that told police he saw a black man with a bald
spot on the back of his head do the shooting, LHO telling police that
photo fakery had occurred in the 'backyard photos' of LHO & his two
weapons & I'm not so sure that jury would be so anxious to send LHO to the
electric chair (used in the day back then).
The photo could be spun several different ways.
I was attempting to address this issue at EF when the Gestapo that runs
the website abruptly kicked me out. Over there, one particular
'researcher' is spinning the story that LHO 'handed his rifle over to
someone he trusted' & that someone used the weapon to assassinate
President Kennedy. I was attempting to get the researcher to explain why
LHO would be standing next to the person he trusted & not make an attempt
to grab his rifle back when the rug got pulled out from under my feet. So
much for EF 'debate'.
I'd want to see comparison re-enactment photos of what a person that
looked like LHO appeared in photos as while holding a camera, binoculars
or a radio transmitter microphone as seen from Dillard's line of sight
with an identical camera, film & lighting conditions to help me determine
what exactly LHO was doing in the sniper's nest in the Dillard photo.
If LHO had been told to be at that spot to watch/photograph someone in the
Plaza & had not done any shooting from the sniper's nest, I'd expect the
defense to convince me of that possibility, regardless of how forceful the
prosecutor pushed for the death penalty.
Sincerely & respectfully,

It seems to indicate someone is in that window and we have lots of other
evidence that someone is Oswald. However, I wouldn't present that as
evidence that it is Oswald because you can't determine that from the
picture alone. The picture could be used to indicate someone is there but
without the other evidence you could never make the case that person is
Oswald.

I'm sure if the case had gone to trial Oswald's attorney would have
brought up as much of the conflicting evidence as he could muster just as
Gerry Spence did in the made-for-TV trial about 30 years ago but a
competent prosecutor would overwhelm all that with unmistakable evidence
that Oswald fired the shots. That is what Bugliosi did and he obtained a
conviction. Also keep in mind that many of these conflicting theories were
cooked up many years later and would not have been available to a defense
attorney at the time Oswald would have been tried.

Based on what was known then or what is known now, I would vote to convict
Oswald without hesitation and since I believe in capital punishment I
wouldn't hesitate to vote for execution either. If the death penalty is
ever justified, it would certainly be justified for Oswald. He did it and
there is no doubt in my mind about that. Jack Ruby made that unnecessary.
Nice shot, Jack.

o***@gmail.com

2017-03-31 03:12:14 UTC

@bigdog:

Using the OJ murder trial as a reference, LHO's trial (had he not been
murdered) might have brought up the issue of how his fingerprints could
have been easily obtained on the sniper's nest boxes by LHO's supervisor
(or a co-worker) instructing LHO to make a storage spot for a certain type
of book on the 6th floor of the TSBD. LHO's fingerprints could be expected
to be found on every single carton of that particular book.

Let's not forget the issue of whether LHO was wearing Bruno Magli shoes or
not (lol). Once the likes of self-appointed visuals 'experts' like Groden
got finished dancing on the heads of the jurists, they probably wouldn't
know up from down, left from right or if they were coming or going.

Ralph Cinque does excellent visuals analysis. If he's really a 'truth
seeker', I expect him to apply his skills to the Dillard photo & tell us
what LHO was doing in the sniper's nest when Tom Dillard accidentally
captured his image in one of the two photos he snapped moments after the
gunfire stopped.

Brad Milch

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-01 01:26:45 UTC

Post by o***@gmail.com
Using the OJ murder trial as a reference, LHO's trial (had he not been
murdered) might have brought up the issue of how his fingerprints could
have been easily obtained on the sniper's nest boxes by LHO's supervisor
(or a co-worker) instructing LHO to make a storage spot for a certain type
of book on the 6th floor of the TSBD. LHO's fingerprints could be expected
to be found on every single carton of that particular book.

That's not a very good straw man argument. You can't show that EVERYONE's
fingerprints were on ALL the boxes. The floor laying crew stacked up the
boxes. Show me ALL their fingerprints and name them all.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Let's not forget the issue of whether LHO was wearing Bruno Magli shoes or
not (lol). Once the likes of self-appointed visuals 'experts' like Groden

Anachronism. They didn't have Bruno Magli back in 1963. Unless you like
the time travel argument (Red Dwarf).

Post by o***@gmail.com
got finished dancing on the heads of the jurists, they probably wouldn't
know up from down, left from right or if they were coming or going.
Ralph Cinque does excellent visuals analysis. If he's really a 'truth
seeker', I expect him to apply his skills to the Dillard photo & tell us
what LHO was doing in the sniper's nest when Tom Dillard accidentally
captured his image in one of the two photos he snapped moments after the
gunfire stopped.

Rearranging the boxes? Neatness counts.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Brad Milch

bigdog

2017-04-01 01:44:17 UTC

Why would Oswald's fingerprints be on top of the boxes? You lift heavy
boxes from the bottom.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Let's not forget the issue of whether LHO was wearing Bruno Magli shoes or
not (lol). Once the likes of self-appointed visuals 'experts' like Groden
got finished dancing on the heads of the jurists, they probably wouldn't
know up from down, left from right or if they were coming or going.

The tactics that worked for OJ wouldn't have worked for Oswald because OJ
had been a popular athlete, actor, and TV personality and he had a jury
heavily biased in his favor. That jury was looking for any excuse they
could to dismiss all the damning evidence against OJ and Tom Darden handed
it to them on a silver platter when he had OJ try on the gloves in court
and they didn't fit. The jury never considered that leather that becomes
soaked will shrink when dried. They didn't want to consider that because
they had their excuse. Oswald had none of OJ's popularity nor a
multi-million dollar dream team of defense lawyers. He wouldn't have
gotten away with murder the way OJ did.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Ralph Cinque does excellent visuals analysis.

Are you serious?

Post by o***@gmail.com
If he's really a 'truth
seeker', I expect him to apply his skills to the Dillard photo & tell us
what LHO was doing in the sniper's nest when Tom Dillard accidentally
captured his image in one of the two photos he snapped moments after the
gunfire stopped.

You can't tell that is Oswald in the Dillard photo. The image is far to
fuzzy to make a positive ID.

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-02 17:59:53 UTC

Why would Oswald's fingerprints be on top of the boxes? You lift heavy
boxes from the bottom.

Silly. The idea is to have Oswald put his prints on the top when he uses
them as a gun rest. Did they find Oswald's prints on ALL the boxes in
the TSBD? Did they find the prints of all the floor laying crew on the
boxes in the sniper's nest?

The errors were made by the prosecution, maybe on purpose.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Ralph Cinque does excellent visuals analysis.

Are you serious?

You can't tell that is Oswald in the Dillard photo. The image is far to
fuzzy to make a positive ID.

claviger

2017-03-31 12:51:34 UTC

Post by claviger
If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LHO was
the sniper.

Pareidolia.

Great word!

In this case I don't think so. How could anyone fake this film? Is that
even possible? Is so, how exactly could they do that? Does the image look
like any previous photo of LHO that could be inserted into this photo?

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-01 01:22:35 UTC

Post by claviger
If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LHO was
the sniper.

Pareidolia.

Great word!
In this case I don't think so. How could anyone fake this film? Is that
even possible? Is so, how exactly could they do that? Does the image look
like any previous photo of LHO that could be inserted into this photo?

Sure, but pareidolia is a problem with the perception of something by the
person. It has nothing to do with fakery. Yes, almost any photographic
medium can be faked. (don't tell anybody, but even Polaroid) If you mean
the Hughes film, I have a copy of it. It is not fake. What they do is
digitize it. When you do that you get what they call dancing pixels. You
can see motion when there is not real motion. Right now I'm have trouble
with the dancing pixels on some channels on Comcast. That is not
pareidolia, it is a technical problem. But if I want to play the kook I
can say it's aliens when I watch Trump.

bigdog

2017-03-29 20:38:38 UTC

If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LOH was
the sniper.

This reminds me a little of Chris's forehead/temple entrance wound. If you
want to see something definitive there you will. I can't say that isn't
Oswald nor can I say it is. All I can say is it could be. I wouldn't bet
the farm either way. There is much more solid evidence that Oswald was the
assassin. We don't have to stretch for something this vague.

Anthony Marsh

2017-03-30 17:19:07 UTC

If the assertion is true this film has been clarified and enhanced, but in
no way altered or jiggered with then this is photographic proof LOH was
the sniper.

This reminds me a little of Chris's forehead/temple entrance wound. If you
want to see something definitive there you will. I can't say that isn't

Well, YOU certainly can't see the bullet hole if you won't even look at
the evidence. You can claim that JFK wasn't even shot because you refuse
to look at the Zapruder film.

Post by bigdog
Oswald nor can I say it is. All I can say is it could be. I wouldn't bet
the farm either way. There is much more solid evidence that Oswald was the
assassin. We don't have to stretch for something this vague.

Robert Harris

2017-03-25 20:19:44 UTC

Post by claviger
Dillard image
http://youtu.be/V4ncmQrxR8o
Leroy Blevins Sr. 9:48

Yep, looks like Oswald to me.

I would call it a ninety percenter.

Robert Harris

Jonny Mayer

2017-04-03 20:36:10 UTC

Blevins colourised the photo and put Oswald in there himself I believe.

As an example of one of the interesting new videos from Blevins here he is
debunking black dog man:-

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-04 16:27:33 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Blevins colourised the photo and put Oswald in there himself I believe.
As an example of one of the interesting new videos from Blevins here he is
debunking black dog man:-
http://youtu.be/_712YcOA_1c

Junk.

o***@gmail.com

2017-04-05 19:27:30 UTC

How does one's fingerprints get on the top of a box that is lifted from
the bottom?

Simple: rotate/flip the bottom of the box to the top. The prints that were
on the bottom of the box are now on the top of the box.

From personal experience lifting cartons of boxes for a living, some
people lift from the corners, others lift from one corner & 1 side, while
some lift from the sides. Some will use their body as a 'third hand'.

If LHO had stacked several cartons of books on a dolly & had the 'this
side' up arrows lined up properly, his prints could be expected to be on
the bottom & sides of the cartons.

When the cartons are turned upside down, with the 'this side up' arrow now
pointing down, LHO's prints would appear to be on the top of the cartons.

In retrospect, I feel LHO probably would have been convicted & given the
death penalty. The reports about his activities in New Orleans came across
TV, radio & newspapers as a portrait of a traitor turned enemy agent.

When I returned to school after the funeral of JFK, my teachers were
speculating that either Joe or Robert Kennedy had used their influence to
have LHO murdered. The reason: revenge. An eye for an eye.

Brad Milch

bigdog

2017-04-06 03:39:30 UTC

Post by o***@gmail.com
How does one's fingerprints get on the top of a box that is lifted from
the bottom?
Simple: rotate/flip the bottom of the box to the top. The prints that were
on the bottom of the box are now on the top of the box.
From personal experience lifting cartons of boxes for a living, some
people lift from the corners, others lift from one corner & 1 side, while
some lift from the sides. Some will use their body as a 'third hand'.
If LHO had stacked several cartons of books on a dolly & had the 'this
side' up arrows lined up properly, his prints could be expected to be on
the bottom & sides of the cartons.
When the cartons are turned upside down, with the 'this side up' arrow now
pointing down, LHO's prints would appear to be on the top of the cartons.

Is that the best you could do? Shipping boxes have a top and a bottom for
a reason. The bottom carries the weight of the material inside the box and
that is going to be much stronger than the top. In addition if one were to
have turned the boxes upside down and lifted them that way, the prints
would be on the edges of the bottom. Oswald's prints were right in the
middle of the top of the box and they were oriented the way they would be
if he were looking down Elm St. It's amazing the things you guys will
dream up rather than admit the obvious implications of the evidence
against Oswald.

Post by o***@gmail.com
In retrospect, I feel LHO probably would have been convicted & given the
death penalty. The reports about his activities in New Orleans came across
TV, radio & newspapers as a portrait of a traitor turned enemy agent.

Of course he would have been convicted. Only a moron could look at the
evidence against him and think he was innocent. But morons do occasionally
make their way on to juries. Sometimes there is a whole jury panel of
morons like the ones that acquitted OJ.

Post by o***@gmail.com
When I returned to school after the funeral of JFK, my teachers were
speculating that either Joe or Robert Kennedy had used their influence to
have LHO murdered. The reason: revenge. An eye for an eye.

People speculated about a lot of silly things after Oswald was killed.

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-06 22:29:38 UTC

Is that the best you could do? Shipping boxes have a top and a bottom for
a reason. The bottom carries the weight of the material inside the box and

Silly and ill-informed.
We are talking about standard cardboard book boxes here.

Post by bigdog
that is going to be much stronger than the top. In addition if one were to
have turned the boxes upside down and lifted them that way, the prints
would be on the edges of the bottom. Oswald's prints were right in the
middle of the top of the box and they were oriented the way they would be
if he were looking down Elm St. It's amazing the things you guys will
dream up rather than admit the obvious implications of the evidence
against Oswald.

Oswald did not put the boxes there. The floor laying crew did and then the
police keep moving them around. It's called contamination of a crime
scene. Like the cop who walks through the pools of blood at a murder scene
and then walks to the suspect's house creating a false trail of bloody
prints, so the guy is hanged based on that phony evidence. Or a crooked
cop finds a bloody glove at a murder scene and plants it at the house of
the suspect.

As I said before Wade could convict a ham sandwich.

People speculated about a lot of silly things after Oswald was killed.

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-06 13:24:55 UTC

Without touching it? By using your foot or your Jedi mind tricks?

Post by o***@gmail.com
From personal experience lifting cartons of boxes for a living, some
people lift from the corners, others lift from one corner & 1 side, while
some lift from the sides. Some will use their body as a 'third hand'.
If LHO had stacked several cartons of books on a dolly & had the 'this
side' up arrows lined up properly, his prints could be expected to be on
the bottom & sides of the cartons.
When the cartons are turned upside down, with the 'this side up' arrow now
pointing down, LHO's prints would appear to be on the top of the cartons.

It depends on what you call top. Doesn't have to be where it says THIS
SIDE UP. It could be the top as the boxes were stacked. But the cops move
the boxes 4 times. How did they move them without leaving their
fingerprints on them? Just ignore the boxes.

As I said before, Wade could convict a ham sandwich. Oswald would have
been a cause celebre and won on appeal, then gunned down after the
verdict in court.

That's pretty naive.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Brad Milch

claviger

2017-04-05 01:43:12 UTC

How did he put LHO in the photo? Wouldn't he need a previous photo image
to place in the Dillard photo?

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-06 01:22:35 UTC

How did he put LHO in the photo? Wouldn't he need a previous photo image
to place in the Dillard photo?

His ONI photo? Or the CIA photo from Mexico?

bigdog

2017-04-05 19:30:12 UTC

Colorizing blurry images in a black and white photo is one of the tricks
used to create Badgeman. Poor Badgeman. He used to be quite the hero among
conspiracy hobbyists but he got dumped years ago and now can't find a
friend among them.

Jonny Mayer

2017-04-06 03:42:15 UTC

Vince Palamara has claimed that Blevins has used a photo taken after Lee
was arrested to place Lee in the window.

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-06 22:27:26 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Vince Palamara has claimed that Blevins has used a photo taken after Lee
was arrested to place Lee in the window.

Wow. How about if you try some actual research instead of reading every
kook web site you can find?

OHLeeRedux

2017-04-07 20:08:55 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Vince Palamara has claimed that Blevins has used a photo taken after Lee
was arrested to place Lee in the window.

Wow. How about if you try some actual research instead of reading every
kook web site you can find?

Pot, meet kettle.

Jonny Mayer

2017-04-08 12:56:48 UTC

Anthony the relevant research for fhis thread is to find out whether
Blevins has altered the image to add Lee to the snipers nest. You can join
in.

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-09 00:28:38 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Anthony the relevant research for fhis thread is to find out whether
Blevins has altered the image to add Lee to the snipers nest. You can join
in.

I would recommend not wasting ANY time on Blevins.

b***@gmail.com

2017-10-06 21:38:15 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Anthony the relevant research for fhis thread is to find out whether
Blevins has altered the image to add Lee to the snipers nest. You can join
in.

I would recommend not wasting ANY time on Blevins.

This video first posted by Mr.Blevins is completely different than the one
he claims is LHO.

See older video here >

o***@gmail.com

2017-04-08 13:01:47 UTC

Getting back to the Tom Dillard photo:

Has anyone noticed what appears to be a rifle above the 'LHO face' that
extends from slightly left of the face completely across the top of the
window? To my eyes it appears to be either in front of the LHO face or
behind it.

If it's a rifle, the barrel portion of it seems to be pointing west & is
being held by either someone wearing dark gloves or a dark complexioned
person. At least to me it does.

Where are all the Zapruder film & Altgens photo 6 'experts' when they are
really needed? Why is Ralph Cinque avoiding this Dillard image issue?
Isn't Ralph supposed to be a visual analyst guru?

This is how I study the Dillard image: I took screen grabs from the
Blevins video containing the superior quality Dillard image as well as
screen grabs from JFK documentaries that feature close ups of Tom
Dillard's photo without the 'LHO face' image. I compare the two by
switching back & forth between the two versions after instructing Windows
10 to make one of the two versions my desktop image (right click on the
photo while being viewed & make the selection).

I'm not a photo analyst. I can state what I see. Currently, I see LHO a
bit back in the window with a rifle extended in a westerly direction over
his head (either in front of LHO & closer to the front of the window)or in
back of LHO's head.

As for Palamara, Clint Hill & Gerald Blaine describe him as a 'uninformed
punk' in a couple of interviews posted on YouTube. I suspect both have
seen & dealt with countless punks in their long Federal careers. They
should both know once when they encounter one imho.

It's fitting that Palamara would join the 'Dillard image is a hoax' club.
EF is full of those kind of punks.

Brad Milch

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-09 00:27:30 UTC

Post by o***@gmail.com
Has anyone noticed what appears to be a rifle above the 'LHO face' that
extends from slightly left of the face completely across the top of the
window? To my eyes it appears to be either in front of the LHO face or
behind it.

No. It's spelled pareidolia.

Post by o***@gmail.com
If it's a rifle, the barrel portion of it seems to be pointing west & is
being held by either someone wearing dark gloves or a dark complexioned
person. At least to me it does.
Where are all the Zapruder film & Altgens photo 6 'experts' when they are
really needed? Why is Ralph Cinque avoiding this Dillard image issue?
Isn't Ralph supposed to be a visual analyst guru?

We've only been over this 1,000 times and only 100 article have been
written. People tend to get bored with impossible theories.

Post by o***@gmail.com
This is how I study the Dillard image: I took screen grabs from the

You don't study the Dillard image. You don't have the negative.

Post by o***@gmail.com
Blevins video containing the superior quality Dillard image as well as
screen grabs from JFK documentaries that feature close ups of Tom
Dillard's photo without the 'LHO face' image. I compare the two by
switching back & forth between the two versions after instructing Windows
10 to make one of the two versions my desktop image (right click on the
photo while being viewed & make the selection).

Blevin is a low-grade moron.

Post by o***@gmail.com
I'm not a photo analyst. I can state what I see. Currently, I see LHO a
bit back in the window with a rifle extended in a westerly direction over
his head (either in front of LHO & closer to the front of the window)or in
back of LHO's head.
As for Palamara, Clint Hill & Gerald Blaine describe him as a 'uninformed
punk' in a couple of interviews posted on YouTube. I suspect both have
seen & dealt with countless punks in their long Federal careers. They
should both know once when they encounter one imho.
It's fitting that Palamara would join the 'Dillard image is a hoax' club.
EF is full of those kind of punks.

Do you understand that Vince is a rabid conspiracy believer?
Are you hired to sow dissension in the ranks?

Post by o***@gmail.com
Brad Milch

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-08 19:59:00 UTC

Post by OHLeeRedux

Post by Jonny Mayer
Vince Palamara has claimed that Blevins has used a photo taken after Lee
was arrested to place Lee in the window.

Wow. How about if you try some actual research instead of reading every
kook web site you can find?

Pot, meet kettle.

I have the files, you don't.

bigdog

2017-04-08 00:22:37 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Vince Palamara has claimed that Blevins has used a photo taken after Lee
was arrested to place Lee in the window.

Vince Palamara is a con man.

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-09 00:24:36 UTC

Post by Jonny Mayer
Vince Palamara has claimed that Blevins has used a photo taken after Lee
was arrested to place Lee in the window.

Vince Palamara is a con man.

That's a little harsh and libelous.
He's just gone too far with his beliefs.
But he really does believe them.
You've never talked to him. I have, several times.

Anthony Marsh

2017-04-06 13:22:25 UTC

Please don't conflate the two. Black Dog Man was a nice guy.
Badge Man was a hoax. Gary Mack was a hoax.

Amy Joyce

2017-10-11 15:21:15 UTC