Andrej Stancak

Alan: Lovelady appears to gaze straight at a spot in front of the doorway but his body is orientated in a similar way as in Altgens6 (I do not claim that the two postures are exactly the same in this frame and in Altgens6); Lovelady was leaning to his left and front, so his right shoulder appears comparatively backward relative to his left shoulder. I see nothing unusual with this picture.

Can you please post individual frames, not GIF? I cannot analyse constantly moving frames. However, my post was in response to your claim that no Wiegman frame shows th right side of Lovelady's body. After I showed you such a frame, you now want something else?

Alan: you missed the bulk of my post that referred to the integrity of the red-arrow picture. I cannot know if it was or was not photographed at the sixth floor museum. But I questioned the data integrity of the red-arrowed picture back then and now too.

Alan: I did not imply alterations in the red-arrowed picture, I proposed a heavy digital processing being performed with this picture. The fallouts of such processing are evident in altered shapes of several objects; I have flagged up three obvious examples: the ceiling lamp in the vestibule behind the glass door is intact in the blue-ray version but broken in the red-arrow version. Also, the young man standing next to the mail boxes has horns in his hairline in red-arrow version but an intact, smooth and continuous hairline in the blue-ray version. But the most damning example was the missing back of the had in the figure of a lady in the foreground, appearance of two dark spots and male-looking face which was displaced to the front in red-arrow picture but not in blue-ray picture. You do not seem to be concerned by the presence of these phenomena in red-arrow version of Darnell frame. The other frame which shows Prayer Man manifesting a number of Lee Oswald's features was not affected by any processing, neither in the better version or the blue-ray version of that still. It is the question of data integrity; one cannot only select bits of picture that somehow support a certain claim and ignore glaring problems in other parts of the picture. Prayer Man's head and neck are one smudge in blue-ray version of the picture under discussion but become suddenly clear in the red-arrow version. This cannot be because just improving resolution of an image does not alleviate the smudge problem. The smudge was owing to a motion, possibly of the subject, and I doubt it was possible to arrive at a clear neckline without extensive digital processing.

Alan: here you have a Wiegman frame showing Lovelady's right side of the body all right. You can see his right hand and the contour of his right arm. Of course, Lovelady was photographed from south-east direction and since his body is turned almost in parallel with the view angle of Wiegman's camera in that frame, Lovelady's right shoulder cannot be seen in full.

Alan: you suggested in our recent exchange to quit the discussion on the topic of missing information on Lovelady's right body in one of Wiegman frames, and I obliged thinking it is wise to stop a discussion which cannot be resolved. You decided to call my name and raise the same problem again; I did explain why Lovelady's right body cannot be seen in that particular frame (but it can be seen in other frames quite well), and there is nothing else to be added. Simply, photographic materials on JFK assassination often have unknown provenance and show different levels of adjustments. In this particular image, the contrasts were made that sharp that we only can see basically one level of black with no gradations. Once the contrast has been strengthened that much as in the frame you are posted repeatedly, there is no information in the background and therefore, the transition between right side of Lovelady's body and the western wall of the doorway and other objects in the doorway got lost. Lovelady's right body could not be in shadow in that frame as he was still comparatively close to the central rail in that frame. I now understand that you want to propose a photographic manipulation with this frame - to achieve what? If this Wiegman frame was altered to obfuscate Lovelady's right side of the body, why other Wiegman frames showing Lovelady's right body all right were not altered? Too many conspiracy thoughts kill the JFK assassination case. Your suggestion of photographic alteration in Wiegman film is similar to the claim that Lovelady's shirt in Altgens6 was flushed with a different colour to obfuscate Carl Jones's extended arm. It is beyond embarassing.

unfortunate ... owing to unusually sharp contrasts precluding separation of Lovelady's figure from the background as the whole backgroups appears solid black. With no gradations of grey tones, this image is useless for answering certain questions, such as what was the appearance of Lovelady's right side of his body, or details of Prayer Man's figure.

l` Alan: you brought the question of "impossible shadow" here. I explained clearly what I think about the right side of Lovelady's figure. That is it.

Sure, the contrasts in the Wiegman image you posted are so strong that it is not possible to actually see the contour of Lovelady's right body. Without fine gradation of grey tones this unfortunate image is worthless as to determining the exact shape of Lovelady's figure. 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?

Alan: so how could that happen, that "impossible shadow"? In my view, the Wiegman frame I posted clearly shows the right arm hidden behind Lovelady's own chest, and the frame above does not show Lovelady with enough details to be able to say anything, therefore, I would assume that my explanation also holds for this frame, only it cannot be verified for objective reasons. Anyway, if my explanation of absence of right shoulder in Lovelady's figure does not satisfy you and you want to say it is a shadow that somehow causes Lovelady's right shoulder invisible, how comes a shadow line would be so far central in Wiegman?

Impossible to do in my view, given the quality of this image. If you disagree with my explanation, what would be your view?

Alan: have you considered the possibility that Lovelady in Wiegman was pictured from the east direction and since his body was orientated in general direction of Wiegman's view angle, we cannot see Lovelady's right shoulder; it is masked by his own body. Here is a 3D humanoid model depicting Lovelady's stance in Altgens6 overlaid on Lovelady in one Wiegman film frame. The image below was designed to check if Lovelady could have his right shoulder effortfully lifted or if he stood in a normal, relaxed stance. The left image is correct based on how the avatar's hand overlays with Lovelady's hand in Wiegman. The contrasts in Wiegman film are very sharp, so it is tempting to think shadow was somehow cast on Lovelady's right arm while in reality it was not. I hope this helps to accept this mundane explanation.

I can figure out how some extra details can be seen better in a good-quality copy of a Darnell frame in some of the doorway occupants, however, I cannot see how a smudge-like Prayer Man's neck can be seen as a smooth line by just increasing the resolution. Frazier's head can be seen in blue-ray version and it can maybe seen even better in the red-arrow version. However, information in Prayer Man's head and neck is highly distorted in blue-ray version, and there is no chance to arrive from a smudge of this sort to a smooth neckline without manipulating the picture. To show some more examples how aggressively was the red-arrow picture handled, I have extracted three examples. First, the ceiling lamp behind the glass door is intact in blue-ray version but broken in the red-arrow version. This is a new shape of the lamp, not just an enhancement of contrasts or a similar adjustment. Second, the young man standing in front of the east pillar of the doorway has smooth hairline in blue-ray version but the sampe hair gets horns in red-arrow version. Again, this is a new shape of an object which cannot be seen in the original image. The lady in the foreground provides an insight into what happened to the red-arrowed image. The lady has intact hair in the blue-ray version of this still, however, it lacks the back of her head and receives a masculine looking face in the red-arrowed version. The two black spots look disturbing in the red-arrowed version of the still. Thus, the red-arrow version of Darnell still is a problematic image. I would advise caution when drawing any conclusions on identity of Prayer Man using this image.

But we cannot see the superior "Kamp" version of Darnell film in toto. We only see one still of unknown provenience. You argue it is a superior copy of Darnell's still and I am pointing to some glaring problems with this frame in the significant area of the still - the Prayer Man figure. If the red-arrow frame was that superior, we should see the contours of Prayer Man's head, separation from backround, enough details in light tones (i.e., the lady wearing a white scarf), and the same thickness and length of arms in Prayer Man figure in the reference frame (the left one in my previous post) and the red-arrow frame. The red-arrow still is poorer on details in the area of Prayer Man than the reference image even if the whole picture looks appealing. I hope I was able to explain my point clearly.

Alan: I did not expressed my preferences in my previous post, I never wrote 'I prefer the old version', you have made it up. I posted side-by-side Prayer Man in two frames which originated from supposedly good quality versions of Darnell, and spotted- several differences which suggest that the red-arrow picture was processed: the bright tones look burned out and there are no midtones in the background. This the does not allow to evaluate the contours of Prayer Man's head in red-arrow picture. Iterative adjustments of contrasts and brightness may explain the differences seen between the two images. Please find the comparison below: By inspecting the two critical frames in Unger's version of Darnell, the one from which the red-arrow image originated is significantly more blurred than the version showing Oswald's feature. The region of Prayer Man's head in the "red-arrowed" still is specifically more blurred than other section of the still; for that reason I assumed it was motion blurr, but I cannot be sure.

Alan: for your record, I wrote to NARA back in 2019 and asked them to provide me with the original photograph of shirt CE151, the maroon one which Owald took to work on that fateful Friday. They obliged and sent me the coloured picture of this shirt and I posted it on this forum on June 15, 2019. This is the coloured version of the shirt photograph taken in 1963. I hope this helps.

The still brought by Alan was already discussed on this formum in a different thread back in September 2022; I remember Chris has brought it here from Duncan's forum. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28136-prayerperson/ The picture with the light-coloured circled area around the neck is from a different frame compared to the one showing a person resembling Lee Oswald. In the original film frames (Robin Unger's version), the one with rounded neck is noticeably more affected with motion blur than the one that shows Lee Oswald's feature more clearly. The "red arrow version" still appears processed a lot. Here is a side-by-side comparison of Prayer Man in the still showing Oswald's features and the one in "red-arrow" frame (right-hand panel). The right arm appears thinner, all light tones strongly enhanced (e.g., on the lady in white scarf), and the dark tones in the background (behind Prayer Man's head) showing no details. It is possible, using multiple iterations of contrasting and changing shadows-lights to arrive at a picture which changes the appearance and shapes of parts of photographs. It is difficult to make any conclusion from a sole still without knowing its provenience and what happened to it in terms of processing. And processed it was.

Thanks, Sandy. Your account on posting picture was useful but my Google links still do not work properly, so I revert back to my Wordpress library. I hope the pictures can now be viewed.

Sandy: the images posted today were uploaded for the first time via Google Photo where I store my other photographs. The images are not displayed in my posts, it seems, however, if you click on an image link, it will open a black window with a little icon in the middle of black area; if you then click on that small icon, the full image will pop up. I would be grateful if you could open the images this way and let me know, and of course, I will find a different way of displaying them if Google Photo does not work. However, my links from wordpress.com produce images in Forum windows that are too large and need to be truncated.

Sandy: there may be minor, insignificant mismatches in some tiny lines between the original Altgens6 and my model. However, implying intention to manipulate anything by "blackening" or by lack of attention to detail offends me; I spent five years studying this picture, learning techniques of 3D modelling, and meticuously reconstructing the doorway and every single person in it. This costly effort was spent to get to the bottom of this doorway photograph and the whole saga of Lovelady-Oswald misunderstanding. Below is a study picture which I did not include in my video and which shows the original high-resolution Altgens6 in (A) and the progressively strengthening overlays of the original picture with my model. Please have a look and tell me what have I blackened and what was the reason you think I had for doing this. Here is a view of Altgens doorway from a perspective allowing you to view Lovelady's hands. Of course, my decision to leave this thread holds; I am responding not to allow you or anyone else to question my work or my resilience to criticism. I did enough to shed light on the possibility of Jones's arm being extended up to Lovelady's shoulder. Late edit: Panels A and D magnified for better viewing:

No, I did not change any blackness of anything to accomplish a certain goal. I think I spent too much time already with your thread, and I am off.

Do you mean "front" from Altgens perspective or from the front to the doorway? Which figure should be hidden?

Here is an overhead view of Lovelady in the doorway in Altgens6 scene, and below an overlay of the same scene onto Altgens6. Lovelady's posture was not that dramatic as some people may assume by viewing Altgens6 without the advantage of seeing a model of the scene. The foreshortening effect of Altgens's camera lens created a lot of unusual perceptions.

Paul: this analysis of Altgens6 doorway may be of interest to you. It addresses all details of Lovelady's figure, including his face. https://youtu.be/C0Hwt-cIGq4

So, Sandy, would you please draw the contours of Carl Jones' arm extended onto Lovelady's figure in Altgens6? So far, you only drew an broad ellipse and let other people guessing where the Jones's arm really was. I understand that you cannot determine the contours of Jones's arm in Altgens6, and that you cannot say if the shirt seen on Lovelady in Martin and in the DPD photograph and the one in Altgens6 were different. In my view, you have no case, and all you have is that Lovelady presented a different shirt to Groden compared to the shirt he wore in that fateful Friday. That does not warrant your claim that Lovelady's shirt has been altered in Altgens6.