Chris Davidson

Whole heartedly agree. Place cursor on outside shoulder edge(red shirt)while it plays. Imagine that part of the shoulder shielding objects behind it. If you don't like the Poser? models (I didn't create it) body orientation, use the person next to Lovelady?

No Sandy, I've never wavered on my position. You can read my previous response to Paul and apply that position to the latest gif I presented. If you still don't understand what is being shown, then I can't help you with this angle.(no pun intended)

Increased speed:

Let's not forget about its sibling "the impossible shoulder" either. It's all about the body orientations relationship to the cameraman. Sometimes it helps to consider the horizontal flipping of photos for comparisons. Compare ALL shoulders carefully.

There are other remnants of the alterations that took place, no matter the photographic quality: Place your cursor over the remnant(red arrow) in the gif above, as it moves through the three frames. The reason I provided the Wiegman frame numbers was to give you a better idea of the time between Wiegman4 and 15. Please feel free to check the accuracy, I encourage others so we have a concurrence on that. Wiegman's film was 24fps so 11 frames between (4/15)= less than 1/2 second. Approaching the turn at approx 8mph= 12ft per sec x .458=(11/24) = 5.5ft traveled by the camera car in 11 Wiegman frames. Looking at the Wiegman (frames 4/15) gif, do you notice anything different about the same women in the foreground in relationship to a 1/2 second traveled by the camera car? P.S. There's always a chance that the two frames did not come from the same camera

"For at least a decade I've been wondering what's up with Tie man's white shirt on top of Lovelady's? (thanks Chris D.) face and shoulder." I took this statement (in bold) to mean that you agree, any background objects should not be in front of Lovelady's face/shoulder as we see in Altgens based on the other comparisons I have provided, which include angles more acute than what is seen in Altgens. The shadow removed would expose more of his right shoulder.

Paul, The best quality individual frames we have (another reason while we'll never see anything close to the original film) all contain the impossible shadow. I briefly stated that I originally gave Alan a lot of sh--t(a few years back) for this claim and tried very hard to furnish film/photos that would disqualify his premise. Some of those I have posted here. Remove the impossible shadow and we might obtain a more balanced look from Lovelady? in Wiegman:

Reminds one of some back yard photos discussed over the years. Of course, those obviously weren't altered. lol Body/s orientation? https://vimeo.com/881265317?share=copy

Yes, As shown/stated repeatedly, the Lovelady? body orientation to Altgens should have yielded Lovelady's? shoulder blocking out any object that was behind it. Just picture the guy with glasses having his body rotated to the right matching Lovelady?

The "Five o Clock" football shadow among other interesting hair aspects. Lee, tilt the head a little upward and slightly to your right.

By the time they convinced you of that, they could then throw this in, making you believe, not only of the west wall shadow across a body with someone close to it, but the shadows ability to cast itself near the hand rail.

Thanks Paul. The "touch up artists" (wink wink) were at it again. Provenance!!!!

Natural Shadow:

Well stated Richard. Jonathan, getting back to the topic at hand, which you don't particularly care for, please provide your best argument for why we have the impossible shadow that Alan discovered in Wiegman. Here's the counterpoint to your arguments once again:

Or purposely, Continuity was achieved by overtly splicing,opaquing,excising, specific films/photos, which isn't rocket science. All depends on what continuity clock you base your conclusions on.

Towner provenance via Gary Mack's response when questioned by Bill MIller: "In reply to your questions, the camera original Towner film has one splice about 2/3 of the way through the limo turn onto Elm Street. Since the film was never examined by government investigators, the splice was first noticed by Robert Groden, who served as a consultant to the HSCA photo panel in 1978. From what Tina and Jim Towner told me over the years, they had no knowledge of how or when that splice was made. What is known is that the film was developed for them by The Dallas Morning News within a few days of the assassination; available records suggest the film was never seen by investigators until the HSCA. The only other time the film was out of the Towner’s possession was when LIFE magazine borrowed it from them in 1967 for publication in their November issue about Kennedy assassination photographers." Put two and two together. It's not rocket science.

Don't know. But in Bell, I get the impression that the red at left is more torso(person1), while lower and to the right is a left arm.(person2) Remember, Towner has the splice and the first frame(with the red arrow) in the previous gif, is the first frame after the splice. Myers try's to convince us the splice has seven missing frames, but his fps rate tells a whole different story which I won't get into. Wiegman/Altgens same two person problem in the photographic record.

Yes. Which is exactly what was done in the Towner film. But, there isn't a waving flag in Towner. The waving flag illusion is actually the film being crudely masked to hide (we know who). Below the red arrow is the masking. Obscuring two figures in red was the goal. The first frame with the red arrow(below and to the left of that arrow) shows one of the red clothed participants. This person is at a higher level than the subsequent red clothed participant, who appears directly below the red arrow Just follow the red objects within that immediate area a few times and the masked affect is exposed. P.S. Yes, I did sharpen/enlarge this to get a better view of the edges.

Is it the person lowering their arm between the two women in red? Looks like a white, long sleeved arm.

We can all go home now:

Along with part of Lovelady's? chin/jaw. Do you believe the backyard photos were "touched up" ? Could a striped shirt be touched up into a shirt/tie? What color suit was Tie Man wearing, because his suit edge to the right appears to match the torso clothed Lovelady? ? Was Jones' wearing matching clothing material to what Lovelady? was wearing? How many times does the narrative have to change to fit the official story?

Keep in mind, In the Wiegman frames, both have the unexplained shadow. Lovelady? moves up a step at some point during Wiegman's filming. After initially giving Alan plenty of grief trying to explain the shadow (nothing from the photographic record disproved his point) the closest I could find was this: Close, but no dice.

Here's one possibility since Lovelady was standing in total sunlight during Wiegman's film: