Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Davidson

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,301

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Chris Davidson

    Those Front Steps

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

    And what is your explanation of the "impossible shadow" if you insist it is a shadow that rendered Lovelady right side of the body invisible?

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

    S8m2i.gif

    S8vPH.gif

    Those Front Steps

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

    Very interesting Andrej. From your second and third examples, it looks like the creation of the "red arrow" version involved increasing contrast which can "create" illusory black spots not representing real items or profiles. Since the only basis for the eye "seeing" what looks like a white border on a woman's dress's scoop neckline in that photo ... is specifically caused by the creation of a black blotch in Prayer Man's throat area in that photograph, there may go the bright white scoop-neckline border on the alleged woman's dress. What is left, then, is the profile of the neckline itself but that is ambiguous between a woman's neckline or a neckline which Oswald could have at present resolution of photographs, since TSBD laboring men such as Oswald and Lovelady wore their shirts with the top unbuttoned and wide open over a white T-shirt underneath, with roughly similar outline or appearance to a woman's dress scoop neckline.

    The frame that Hackerott saw, which may or may not be the source for the "red arrow" enhanced and somewhat degraded copy of a photograph of it, probably does not have the full black splotch that the "red arrow" one does. Corroboration of that may be this: Hackerott in all three of his three sittings sketched seeing not a black splotch but a vertical line. The enhancing or processing done in the "red arrow" photo has created phantom black areas (or expanded upon some smaller shading that might have existed), in this case in the area of Prayer Man's upper chest/throat area, illusorily.

    But the vertical line itself that Hackerott saw (or thought he saw), what was that? Is it possible it was nothing actually?

    I am unable for technical reasons to show the common photos of Oswald at the Dallas Police station after his arrest, wearing a white T-shirt, but please check those images and verify this (e.g. such as this Associated Press photo of Oswald, Nov 23, 1963: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/oswald-and-the-jfk-assassination/; or this Getty Image here: https://nypost.com/2017/11/04/latest-jfk-files-say-no-evidence-of-cia-links-to-oswald/amp/, or this, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369886/original/file-20201117-19-155n0v5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip). Look at Oswald's throat from his Adam's apple down. See how a black-and-white video or still camera not in good focus could pick that up as a darker shaded vertical area. 

    Therefore here is a proposed interpretation of the "red arrow" image of Prayer Man: the scoop neckline appearance would be the way Oswald wore his shirt, his faded-maroon-colored dress shirt, CE 150. The "red arrow" photo has artificially had the contrast heightened, making brighter whites and creating illusory dark areas or expanding the size of real ones in the photo. The white above and all around the neckline in that photo could be Oswald's white t-shirt. The vertical "line" Hackerott saw, or the exaggerated and artificially expanded in size black splotch in the "red arrow" image, is actually really the slightly darker appearance of Oswald's throat seen in b & w photos of Oswald wearing his T-shirt at the Dallas Police station.

    In other words, the vertical black line seen by Hackerott is not a bolo tie, not a pendant on a choke chain, and it is not Hackerott misinterpreting seeing an actual huge black blotch on the "red arrow" photo. It is none of those. It is nothing other than a slightly darker appearance of Oswald's throat in normal b & w photos, artificially made blacker and expanded in size by the processing done on the "red arrow" photo.

    For all we know processing could have been done on what became the "red arrow" photo until, out of a spectrum of processings available to choose, that one was chosen for leaking to the JFK assassination research community which made it most look like a woman's scoop neckline of a dress with a bright white hem or border. It isn't that, but that is the kind of illusion that can happen with heightened-contrast creating or expanding the size of a darker area on a b & w photo.

    Again, the sketches of Hackerott who saw a superior quality image to that of the red-arrow photo, fail to confirm the black splotch of the size on the "red arrow" photo, although Hackerott did see, or thought he saw, something vertical. But what Hackerott saw was thinner and perhaps not as emphatic or dark as in the large blotch in that area in "red arrow". The suggestion is that what Hackerott saw is superior to and prior in importance to the processed "red arrow" photo, and what Hackerott saw--without benefit of zoom--could be simply the normal darker shade of Oswald's throat as it would be expected to appear on a b & w film, on analogy with known Oswald b & w photos.

    Greg,

    You could also find others to compare to Prayerperson as I did over a year ago using one of the Willis photos.

    Since humans are symmetrical I just took half her available image and horizontallly flopped and reattached her.

    Then sized her to appear over PrayerPerson in the "red arrow" Darnell frame.

    Before finding this frame, I had applied the scoop neck(doesn't have to be exact) description to the red arrow version.

    I'm not saying this is PrayerPerson(designating male or female) but I am saying the collar/neck match is close enough to make one pause and consider.

    And I'll bring this up again,that a majority of the photographic record(around the TSBD steps) shows more men with "long sleeve" suits/jackets/shirts on. Whereas there are more females with short sleeves on.

    Did PrayerPerson roll up their sleeves in Darnell, I don't know because the frame quality is lacking.

    Added to this is James' description from his 6th floor museum viewing and their are still doubts. imo

    S8Ehu.gif

     

     

     

    Billy Lovelady is NOT leaning over (much) in Altgens 6.

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

     

     

    This image of Chris Davidson's includes an e-mail from Sean Murphy to Chris. In it Sean says the following:

    "I am stone cold certain, though, after Altgens went out on the wirephoto it was touched up to put this fact [that it was Lovelady and not Oswald] beyond doubt in people's minds. This involved changing a raised right hand [of Carl's Jones] into Lovelady's lowered left arm." (Bold added.)

    So he agrees with what I've been saying. FWIW.

     

    carl_jones_arm_hand_marked.jpg.8df32d747

     

    I believe Bell/Hughes along with Altgens shows that as the left arm of a human being:

    S89dv.gif

    Those Front Steps

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Chris Davidson

    Response to Alan's previous posting:

    I believe that's the extended shadow from the woman(left side of the mailbox) running towards the steps/building.

    Another point being that when some videos are stabilized, even using inferior quality material, sometimes events become a little clearer.

    So those that question these methods might want to take that aspect into consideration.

    Added on edit: The object you point out could be part of a stationary shadow from the woman in white ahead of the running woman.

    Those Front Steps

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

     

    I don't think so Alan.

    The frame above was shot when Darnell was panning from one scene to another, an action that blurred the image. Where Darnell was aiming his camera directly at the TSBD (not panning), the frames are sharper. And without the panning blur, you can see the true shape of Prayer Man's shirt collar.

    Here's a frame when Darnell wasn't panning:

    Darnell-3.jpg?w=654

     

    Click on the image a few times till it quits zooming in. And then press <Ctrl>+ several times to zoom in more. Note the non-feminine collar-line on Prayer Man.

    The above was explained to me by Jake Sykes, on this page.

     

    Yet when scaled:

    S8s8r.png

    Billy Lovelady is NOT leaning over (much) in Altgens 6.

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

     

    LOL, wow! The head on Andrej's Lovelady model is also turned to the left! Same amount as with the woman!

    Thanks Chris! You bring good stuff to the party, lol.


    But what about Lovelady's body in Andrej's model? Is it also turned to the left? And if so, by how much (compared to the head). We can get an idea by studying this:

     

    lovelady_topview-3.jpg?resize=900,900

     

    The body isn't turned much to the left if at all, compared to the head. (Remember, we're talking relative to the line-of-sight of the camera.)

    If we look at this one again:

     

    lovelady_overlaid-1.jpg?resize=900,900

     

    It seems pretty clear that Andrej has his Lovelady's body tilted rather than turned (rotated). Look how much lower the left shoulder is compared to the right.

    In summary, both Chris and Andrej create what we see in Altgens 6 Lovelady, but in different ways for the body:

    Head Illusion

    Chris:       Achieved by turning head to the left.
    Andrej:     Same

    Body Illusion

    Chris:       Achieved by turning body to the left.
    Andrej:     Achieved by tilting body clockwise.

     

    The question is, whose simulation describes correctly how the real Lovelady was standing in the real Altgens 6, Chris's or Andrej's?

    I'll need to put some thought into that.

     

    Remember,

    It's Hughes, Towner, Bell, Altgens then Wiegman.

    S8StP.gif

    Billy Lovelady is NOT leaning over (much) in Altgens 6.

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

     

    Sandy, thanks for the interpretation of Chris' gifs.  I see it now, especially in light of your and Andrej's postulation of a face behind Lovelady.

     

     

    What is the angle difference between the two faces in relationship to Altgens and does the angled difference dictate that Lovelady's chin/cheek/jaw line should block out more of the white(shirt)area than it is, just as she does.

    S82vm.gif

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...