Robin Unger Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: I don't believe Shelley was wearing a tie clip that day, but "E" appears to be wearing one. It's hard to tell, but isn't "E" also wearing a hat? sounds like you are just trolling this thread Thomas, trying to take it off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: Thomas, I don't necessarily disagree that the "E' looks 'beefy' (in comparison to other, better, photos of Shelley). As for a 'tie clip', after zooming in to that image as much as possible I still don't see a 'tie clip' - if you are meaning some kind of 'white' thing that appears across the tie and thinking that is a 'tie clip' then there appears to be a heck of a lot of tie clips on the glass doors too. lol As for the wearing of a hat, nah I can't see it. Regards the white thing in the jacket pocket, considering the angle of "E" why would it be necessarily be seen... ... how certain am I that "E" was Shelley? Oh quite certain (one can't be 100% sure of course). Based on the attire he is later (more clearly) photographed wearing and based on where he said he was on the steps and whom he was beside (Frazier & Lovelady) it ties in quite nicely, imo... The position of B (Williams) in Altgens6 ties in with where he said he was - top step against the railing on the east side of the steps in front of the building. The one labelled A (Molina) isn't wearing a suit and tie. The only other males on the steps were Lovelady, Frazier and Jones and none of them can be 'E'... there is a chance that maybe A, B & E are 'interchangable' (Jeremy Bojcuk raises a similar point on his page here) ... I have to say though that, in terms of the discussion of PM's height/location of stance, the figures labelled Molina, Williams and Shelley, regardless of if they are labelled the wrong way round, are of no particular real importance, in much the same way that Dean, Reese, Jones, Davis and McCully are of no real importance in determining the height/location of stance of PM... Setting aside the 'accuracy' of the labelled names... in the Altgens6/Weigman picture there are 7 people being pointed to, the Darnell frame points out 3 others, so 10 people in total... yet there are 12 who claimed to be on the steps... the two outstanding (pardon the pun ) are Pauline Sanders and Sarah Stanton (neither of whom, to the best of my knowledge, have been identified in the photos)... and what did Frazier say about who he was beside at the time of the shots - he said he was pretty close to Shelley and Lovelady and that "there was a lady there, a heavy–set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something". Just throwing that out there. Anyway, Thomas, the points you raised about the identification of Shelley are good points. Personally, even though I do feel that Shelley has been labelled correct, I have no real problem with it not being correct. No real biggy as far as I'm concerned. Peace Dear Alistair, You ... "don't necessarily disagree that "E" looks 'beefy' in comparison to other, better photos of Shelley"? -- Gee, that's wonderful, Alistair. Kinda. "[H]ow certain am I that "E" was Shelley? Oh quite certain" -- Oh, LOL "Personally, even though I do feel that Shelley has been labelled correct, I have no real problem with it not being correct. No real biggy as far as I'm concerned." -- Oh really? Not even if it misleads other present and future "researchers" regarding Shelly-related investigations they're doing? Not unlike the long-ago unintentional mislabeling of Stella Jacob, Gloria Holt, and Sharon Simmons on the north side of Elm Street as "Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed" has misled legions of Gloria Calvery - Billy Lovelady - William Shelley - "Running Woman" ... JFK Assassination students and researchers over the years. It seems to me the very least you could do is put a "?" next to thick-necked, burly Mister "E", seein' as how it don't mattah to yous too much anyhow. -- Tommy Edited April 17, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robin Unger said: sounds like you are just trolling this thread Thomas, trying to take it off topic. Ironic, coming from you, Robin. One of the guys who (unintentionally) mislabeled Jacob, Holt, and Simmons as "Calvery, Hicks, and Reed" eons ago. LOL -- Tommy "Hey, a little mis-identification of witnesses to the JFK assassination never hurt anybody! Even if it's getting 'set it in stone' early on makes it real difficult for some diligent researcher to overcome 'public opinion' and finally 'set it straight' decades later, it ain't no big deal!" Edited April 17, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 Area of tiled wall corresponding to the depth of the top landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 Credit: Tony Fratini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Robin Unger said: Tony Fratini calculation has the depth of the top landing at 4.3' This was the sketch I started with when building the model. However, I was not happy with the accuracy of the map because of the thickness of the lines, and some irregularities. If a line is thick, taking the measure from the edge of the line or the middle of the line already yields an error. The steps do not look like being equal, and the small recess at the second step is not accurate either. The proportions of the three partitions of the glass door do not correspond to real proportions, in my opinion. Yet, it is a useful sketch and a good indication for also testing the model with the depth of 4'3''. Edited April 17, 2017 by Andrej Stancak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I don't think taking measurements from a copy of the layout of the TSDB, made on the 22nd November 1963 is wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 Andrej the guy with one leg down on the lower step is that supposed to be PM or BL? I agree with the person who said hat and tie man in Altgens is Shelley. The guy in photo looks older and has a hat too and looks beefier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I agree that E isn't Shelley. E is too stocky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 4 hours ago, Michael Walton said: Andrej the guy with one leg down on the lower step is that supposed to be PM or BL? I agree with the person who said hat and tie man in Altgens is Shelley. The guy in photo looks older and has a hat too and looks beefier. Hello Michael: in my analysis, it would be Prayer Man having one foot on the second step. Billy Lovelady most likely stood with both his feet on the top landing in Altgens6 picture and Wiegman's film. As per Bill Shelley, he testified (and others) to stand on the top landing. The man with a tie, in my view, was most likely Bill Shelley. The old photographs are often blurry and it makes it then difficult to read details of their bodies. This man did not wear a hat - it is the sharp transition between burned light tones and a very dark shadow which make sthe impression that this man wore a hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said: I don't think taking measurements from a copy of the layout of the TSDB, made on the 22nd November 1963 is wise. Ray: the sketch by Mr. Fratini, even if based on a WC diagram, needs to be taken into account else there is a risk of committing a mistake. I would design the doorway model with three doorway depths: 3'6'', 4', and 4'3'', and check how each depth fares when the model is overlaid onto Altgens6, Wiegman's still, Darnell, and couple of other pictures. I am pretty sure that the correct depth lies between 3'6'' and 4'3'', inclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 17 hours ago, Robin Unger said: Where is Frazier in Wiegman ? is he also up against the glass, hidden in the shadows ? In Wiegman perhaps a faint face can be noticed between Shelley and Lovelady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) On 4/17/2017 at 3:38 AM, Michael Walton said: Andrej the guy with one leg down on the lower step is that supposed to be PM or BL? I agree with the person who said hat and tie man in Altgens is Shelley. The guy in photo looks older and has a hat too and looks beefier. Dear Michael, Details, details, details. Which frame from which film are you talking about? "The lower step" ? (Never mind. I think I know what you're talking about. The lower upper step, right? -- LOL) Your question: Is the guy with one leg down on the step down on the upper lower upper step "PM or BL?" My fair and balanced answers: 1 ) Some people say the reason Prayer Man (standing by himself in the upper left corner) looks so short in comparison with 6' 1" Frazier is because he's standing one step lower than Frazier. 2 ) Some people (not necessarily the same as those, above) claim that in the smaller frame (the one without the cars in the foreground) of the two-frame Weigman GIF, Lovelady is not leaning forward (as I claim), but is in the process of leaving the steps in order to "follow the limo down Elm Street with Bill Shelley". -- Tommy Edited April 18, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) On 4/17/2017 at 0:06 PM, Thomas Graves said: Dear Michael, Details, details, details. Which frame from which film are you talking about? "The lower step" ? (Never mind. I think I know what you're talking about. The lower upper step, right? -- LOL) Your question: Is the guy with one leg down on the step down on the upper lower upper step "PM or BL?" My fair and balanced answers: 1 ) Some people say the reason Prayer Man (standing by himself in the upper left corner) looks so short in comparison with 6' 1" Frazier is because he's standing one step lower than Frazier. 2 ) Some people (not necessarily the same as those, above) claim that in the smaller frame (the one without the cars in the foreground) of the two-frame Weigman GIF, Lovelady isn't leaning forward (as I claim he is), but that he's in the process of walking dpwn the steps in order to "follow the limo down Elm Street with Bill Shelley". -- Tommy severely edited and bumped for Mike Walton Edited April 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 On 4/15/2017 at 3:41 AM, Andrej Stancak said: Mr. Dale Myers reconstructed the time axes of different films, and assumed it was Wiegman's frame 14/15 which matched with Altgens6. However, I doubt Myers's time reconstruction at this particular point for a very simple reason: we see Carl Jones viewing east in Altgens6 but to the west in Wiegman's frame 14 or 15. Of course, the image quality of Groden's version of Wiegman's film available to me is very poor to determine the Mr. Jones's gaze axis. Anyway, I wonder what are the opinions of forum members about Carl Jones viewing towards the Tripple Underpass in frame 14/15 and eastwards in Altgens6. Andrej, Myers didn't assume anything. You are wise to doubt his timeline. No opinion necessary, just a matter of excised frames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts