Chris Davidson

On 11/5/2023 at 6:20 PM, Chris Davidson said:

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

36 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

But, now, I don't quite understand what you're getting at with the "Remove the impossible shadow and we might obtain a more balanced look from Lovelady?"

"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.

40 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

I have a feeling, Sandy, that a lot of people are appreciating your and Alan's efforts, but aren't chiming in.  These hypotheses are eminently plausible, backed up by some interesting evidence--it's going to take a while for it to sink in. 

I do wonder, though, if others' are reading, mostly Alan's posts, carefully.  It's tempting to speed read through if you've already planted your flag on Prayer Man=LHO.  I, myself, was convinced that Prayer man was LHO, until I saw what Alan was putting out.

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 always just took it for granted that there was something I didn't understand to explain it--user error--I even asked my wife if she could help me reason through it.  She couldn't either.  Now I realize that Altgen's 6 was manipulated--it wasn't just me after all.  And there's still work that needs doing, ie. was Lovelady? actually LHO, how many times was the photo manipulated, when, where, how, etc.  

I think we are at the beginning stages of a paradigm shift.

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:

49 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

It's looking increasingly as though they invented a goofy lean for Mr. Lovelady------------in order to have his body extend into the LHO space to his left.

I think the man was just standing up straight, as was the man in the white tshirt beside him.

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?

11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The "Five o Clock" football shadow among other interesting hair aspects.

Lee, tilt the head a little upward and slightly to your right.

On 10/29/2023 at 2:58 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Sandy,

I'll stick with more of his shoulder should appear, which should be blocking out some of the white shirt? area.

 

22 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

Hang on, would it not be way easier just to put the fake shadow down all of both men-------Mr. Oswald and Mr. Lovelady? Just erase them both from the doorway?

QUESTIONER'S ANSWERER!

Yes, that would be way easier.

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

So you'd do that then?

QUESTIONER'S ANSWER!

Are you crazy? Everyone has seen Altgens. It doesn't permit the fiction of the whole west half of the doorway being in natural shadow a few steps up. That pesky photo places a limit on how far east our fake shadow can cut into Mr. Lovelady. Because folks will soon enough have worked out that Altgens & Wiegman are showing basically the same scene at the same time, from different angles.

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

Ah, I see. So you'd--------------

QUESTIONER'S ANSWER!

Exactly. I'd have the fake shadow in Wiegman kick in just where Mr. Lovelady's body goes out of Altgens' view..........  Folks will just assume that everything in Altgens hidden behind the west column of the doorway is in deep shadow. They won't see what a coincidence this is. Now------it's true that the tshirt/collar/left shoulder in Wiegman will look all wrong positionally (relative to Mr. Lovelady's head), but that will become apparent only to someone who thinks to subject the Wiegman-Altgens images to an extremely close and critical comparison. In the highly unlikely event that anyone does in fact spot the obvious discrepancies, they will probably just be written off as a paranoid screwball who 'doesn't understand how films and photographs work'.

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:

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chris, you've got to be joking. Did the evil conspirators consist of full-time alterationists who spent decades fine-tuning their masterworks? You cannot possibly come up with a legitimate means by which these plotters could confidently alter one film and then achieve the needed continuity in the dozens and dozens of other films and photos capturing the same Dealey Plaza scenes.

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:

26 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

It would be rocket science to successfully and covertly alter a film not seen by the general public in a way that somehow retained continuity with all the other films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza ...

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.

53 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Remember, Towner has the splice and the first frame 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.

 

 

 

 

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.

6 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

As in, the person at lower level is sitting?

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.

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

NEW ANSWER!

 

Black Mr. Oswald out?

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:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

Are you saying that something white is blocking the view of Lovelady's shoulder? Are you saying that Tie Man's white shirt is blocking the view of Lovelady's shoulder?

 

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?

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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

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.

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:

Sandy,

I'll stick with more of his shoulder should appear, which should be blocking out some of the white shirt? area.

I don't know who she is.

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

Just as the person to his left is.

If we align the left shoulders to approx the same height, what would happen if you sever that left folded arm(from the person at his left shading their eyes) and extend Bells arm to that severed point. Would it give the appearance of one continuous left arm connected to a shoulder?