Alistair Briggs

whether you (or I) see any 'logic' in it, the fact remains that newspapers and the media in general did and still do 'alter' photos in ways that they think (and that's the important bit) may make it look more 'aesthetically pleasing'... as I said, wouldn't surprise me if it came from a newspaper that did such a thing... ... also wouldn't surprise me if it had been 'edited' by someone else also... P.S. a 'famous' example - why did a technician remove a fencepost from the 1971 Pulitzer winning photo taken by John Paul Filo.

Wouldn't surprise me if the images that don't show the 'mic' come from a newspaper who, for (self-proclaimed) aesthetic purposes decided to 'edit' it out - was (probably still is) quite a common practice.

Nowt wrong with that. One of the reasons I asked about people running to the grassy knoll is because in that clip, when looking to the far left as the camera pans and shows the 'grassy knoll' the 'rush' to it seems to only be 'starting' - doesn't seem to be many already there... that, too me, at least, does speak to the clip being filmed within a short period of time after the assassination (circa 30 seconds...)... Regards

Michael, With no contentions on my part, allow me to ask a question... how long do you think it took before people started running towards the 'grassy knoll'? With no contentions on my part, Chris Davidson offered up the following a while back;

'mon the Winston Churchill...

Paul, just wondering, have you ever read Legend The Secret World Of Lee Harvey Oswald by Edward Jay Epstein? (I just picked up a copy today and about to delve in to it) Regards

He is wearing his jacket when he goes to the DPD - or so I've been led to believe...

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

Yeah I would say in Wiegman, Frazier is hidden in the shadows... ... it's possible that Frazier can just about be seen in that image - if one looks between Lovelady and Shelley there seems to be something there that might just be Frazier. If not, Frazier is likely standing more in the shadows, and presumably closer to the door. In Altgens, because of the angle, it is possible that Frazier is hidden basically behind Lovelady and to the side of Shelley... ... the time between Altgens and Darnell (where Frazier is seen standing at the top) is approx 30 seconds. ... in furtherance below is a copy of a comment I posted in the middle of February... Michael, you have previously mentioned about how it looks as if none of the people have moved between the shots and that picture. In the approx. 30 seconds that has taken place Jones has left the steps and moved across to the traffic light pole (as seen in the Couch/Darnell sync), Lovelady and Shelley have certainly moved. Molina has moved back up the stairs to what appears to be partly behind Frazier (and thus close to the door). Reese has also moved back up the stairs... so there is quite a bit of movement... ... from looking at the Couch/Darnell sync above it shows that a lot of people are static but also shows a lot of people running... that sync ties in with what Frazier said in his WC testimony about that time... Considering the relative closeness of PM and Frazier and considering that the landing is not a big space depth wise, when compared to the distance from which the 'picture' was taken any relative differential in heights due to being 'closer to the camera' is somewhat negligible... especially if both are standing as close to the edge of the landing as each other... ... in essence what Andrej is trying to show with his graphic is that PM is 5ft9, and the only way to do that is to make PM have one foot one step lower, because if PM had both feet one step down then PM's body would be more illuminated by the sun (and that doesn't match the extant photographs), the alternative is that PM has both feet on the top landing, and if that is the case then PM has to be approx. 7 inches less than 5ft 9... ... from this previous gif; ... I knocked up a couple of 'graphs' to test a simplistic height comparison... As overly simplistic as they may be, it basically reveals that the only way for the apparent height differential between PM and BL shown in the gif (that BL is approx half a head taller than PM when BL is on the top step and approx half a head shorter than PM when BL takes one step down) to match up would be if PM was standing wholly on the top landing and was either 5ft3 or 5ft4. Regards

Relatively, yeah it would matter... not sure as to what extent in real terms... ...in the other PM thread, Andrej posted the following 'overlay' of the two images... I raised a query about the overlay based on how the words 'Book Depository' don't match up between the two images, and not only do they not match up, the angle seems to be off too... and that is the same when looking at the two images isolated, the 'angle' of the ceiling of the doorway is diiferent in the two images... ... it's not far off though, a little tweak here and there and I feel it would all line up a bit better. I can imagine that there is always going to be a certain limitation in terms of 'accurate' adjustments with computer programmes.

Earlier on I posted this image... I personally can not vouch for the veracity of that red line being where the original doorway was (from doing a crude calculation I actually measured that red line as being approx. 4ft from the edge of the top step - hopefully someone else can have a go at measuring it from that photo and see what they come up with ) Andrej, alas I don't think there exists a direct measurement of the original doorway. Anyroads, you mention that the depth of the doorway had to be slightly larger than 3' to accommodate the width of a fully open door... is that not wholly dependent on how the door opens... like, if the door was a 'hinged' door that measured 3' when it was opened to 'right angles' it would extend 3' on to the landing... but the TSBD glass door wasn't a hinged door and didn't open that way, instead it opened in a way that even if it was 3' wide it would extend a small number of inches shorter than a 3' landing... here is an image to highlight what I am meaning... In terms of how close the door, when opened, comes to the edge of the landing, this following image looks to me like it is very very close to it indeed... Considering the way the door opens it is actually possible that the width of the door is actually wider than what the landing is and yet still wouldn't overhang it when opened... Robin earlier posted this image... ... which I think speaks volumes as to the narrowness of the landing. All things considered, somewhere between >3ft and 4ft is about right, and as Robin said in response to Andrej... I can buy in to that. The tiled area of the wall matches exactly with the landing (as can be seen by Robin's colorized photo above), the bricked area matches exactly with the 1st step down. From looking at the Darnell frame PM's relative position is fully and wholly 'enclosed' within the tiled area, and that, coupled with the 'sun plane', could be a very important factor in deciding the location of PM... ... Andrej, on your website you have the following image... If line number 1 was extended all the way down and through the drawing of PM I feel that it highlights that PM's position may be erroneous as it doesn't match the Darnell frame above. (For illustration purposes here is how it would look if the line was extended) What solution may there be to make it match? Regards

In the lower of those two images, the policeman with the rounded helmet on has to, I feel, be standing one step down. The door I believe pretty much, when open comes right up to the edge of the landing, or near enough... I feel that might be somewhat better highlighted by the following image... See how on the wall at the side of the doorway there is the tiled area and then the bricked area... from what I see the tiled area lines up with the top landing and the bricked area lines up with the first step down, and from looking at it I would say that the bricked area appear to be a third of the size of the tiled area, which would tie in well with the top landing being 3ft deep because the step is 12 inches... (hope that makes sense?) Cheers

Cheers Robin. I came across the following from this page... with the text " They discovered that the entrance had been pushed in from approximately 3 feet to slightly over 9 feet, per this image. " If the red line on that image was indeed where the original entrance was, and it was indeed a landing of 3ft, then by implication the width of the doorway from wall to wall must be no more than 9ft across... ... not the biggest of areas then.

A while ago I started looking for 'contemporary' images of the TSBD doorway and I came one that showed the steps very clearly but it had been taken from the opposite side... simply by flipping the image around the doorway and steps lined up relatively well with the view of the Darnell frame and as such can act as a decent (imo) visual 'guide'... Regards Regards

Cheers Ray, those measurements fit in quite nicely with what you said way back in April 2016 on the Prayer Person - Prayer Man thread - total of 72 inches and change, (6ft and some change)... it's just when you mentioned a few comments earlier on this thread that it was 7ft 6 and change it threw me off a bit. lol Cheers for the clarification.

Ray, just wanted to ask a quick question for clarification... Previously you have mentioned that the treads of each of the steps is between 12" and 12 1/8" and previously have said that the horizontal distance of the top step to the lip of the bottom step is 72 11/16" (6ft 11/16")... ...yet there you have it as 7'6 3/4". Am I missing something? Kind regards.

Robin, I was wondering about the width of the landing there... is the width known for sure? It doesn't appear to be very big from that image... Regards

Genuinely I would like to see any Darnell still that shows the door (conclusively) opening inward... a while ago I went searching for any contemporary photo that showed the door opening inwards and couldn't find any... My point was merely that in that record that lists his height as 5ft8 the likliehood is that they merely asked him his height - it wasn't an actual measurement... people do sometimes have a tendency to exaggerate, or 'over-state' their height, or indeed think they are taller than they actually are... don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that BL is shorter than that... but I did find it interesting to hear Frazier say that BL was (noticeably) shorter that Oswald (and indeed Frazier claims that BL was 'wider' than Oswald)... no biggy, just something I found interesting. I appreciate that you say it is a plausible hypothesis that needs to be tested. I agree that the relative body heights in a 2D image may not correctly inform about the real height difference... and I would also say, and I'm sure you will agree, that the 'quality' of the images (alas) are not the most conducive for as accurate readings as we may want... so, sure, there has to be some form of 'guestimation' required and that's ok. The width of the step is, if memory serves, is 12 inches... thus if BL is standing at the edge of the top landing whilst PM is standing one step down then the relative distance between them is 12 inches (although considering PM, it is claimed, has one foot down and one foot up, then the relative distance would only really be 6 inches)... that relative distance between them doesn't change... the further away the camera is though the less of a 'factor' that distance becomes Anyway, you earlier mentioned, and I quote; I don't feel that we know that 'none of the two people in question stood perfectly straight', and as true as it may be that they are not standing at their 'maximum' height I also don't feel that we know, or can determine from the extant photographs how much of their height is 'missing' or indeed for what reason... as such, for ease of simplicity I feel that the starting point should always be their 'maximum' height and see how that works out... just a different way to look at it. Not sure about every alternative or it would take more time than any of us mere mortals probably have. lol Seriously though, the 5ft2 and standing on the top landing seems to be an alternative only because the steps are 7 inches tall... Again, I know I'm over simplifying things here, and I understand the limitations, but if it was a 5ft2 person standing on the top landing, then relatively the 5ft 8 BL would look 6 inches taller whilst on the top landing and 1 inch shorter after stepping down... and that doesn't match the apparent view on the gif... I knocked up a couple of 'drawings' yesterday just for relative illustration purposes only and from that deduced that the best 'match' for the gif would have PM standing on the top landing and being the height of either 5ft4 or 5ft5. Anyroads, always glad to discuss this with you. Regards

Sheesh kebabs...that's impressive... kudos. Personally, I did French at secondary school to Standard Grade level but really I had no real interest in it and would struggle badly conversationally if I went to France... I agree.

Sounds like far too much effort. lol Seriously though, if time was available it would be an option, but you know what it's like - real life gets in the way most times. lol Peace

I find it quite intriguing as to why there is the necessity for PM to be standing one step down but with one foot up on the top landing... why not just be standing fully on the one step down... Also, I find it quite intriguing that an alternative 'scenario' under consideration is of a short 5'2" person standing on the top landing... considering the height of the step is 7 inches that carries the implication that PM then must be standing at maximum body height... *With regards to BL being closer to the camera... by what factor? The picture may be taken at an angle but it's also taken from a distance and let's be honest, the proximity of BL and PM is relatively close. Also that the picture was taken from a slight bottom up angle is somewhat moot as it applies to both PM and BL... You mention that apparent height differences cannot be accounted for by comparing the 'actual' body heights of these two people... I don't disagree - relatively. However, regarding your image of PM and Frazier, is it not a case that Frazier's actual body height of 6ft is factored and then to explain the 'apparent height difference' seen between Frazier and PM that the consideration given is between either a 5ft2 person standing on the top landing or a 5ft9 person standing one step down... but with the latter there is a need for one foot to still be on the top landing to explain the apparent standing further back than a person would be if they were fully on the one step down... fundamentally, are you not comparing the actual body heights of those two people to draw a conclusion also... ... it's not that I think you are wrong, per se... it's just I have to be honest with myself and say that I have looked at the extant photographs and can't see any real justification for having PM stand one step down but with one leg still on the top landing... although I do understand (I think) the 'need' for it to be that way... Anyroads, just wanted to throw something out there... what if BL wasn't as tall as 5ft8? Sure there is documentation putting him at that height (which Bill Miller posted earlier, and repeated below)... http://s366.photobucket.com/user/bmjfk63/media/Billy L height_zpsrlpguvfx.jpg.html The thing is though, they wouldn't have measured him they would have merely asked him and he said he was 5ft8 - it's not unusual for people to 'exaggerate' their height, so what if he was actually shorter... In an interview that Buell Frazier did he was asked about Lovelady and he claimed that Lovelady was quite short, and Frazier puts him as low as 5ft 4... personally I don't see him being that short, but it does, to me, perhaps, call in to question the 5ft8 claim... also maybe of impostance is to consider that Frazier said that Oswald and Lovelady were like 'Mutt and Jeff' - that Oswald was taller and thinner and Lovelady was shorter and wider... Just throwing that out there... Bill, if you are about you may be able to answer this question... did the door of the TSBD, at that time, only open outwards?

I think you have hit the nail on the head there... motivation would be key... ... just out of idle curiosity Paul, have you ever learned a foreign language? Regards

The modelling you have done is impressive indeed. Anyroads, the stance of PM (one foot, one step down) that you have chosen is entirely supposition and is not borne out by any extant photographs, and I understand why you have chosen that height, and in terms of the comparison to Frazier's height (from the Darnell frame) then it does add up... ... I just don't think it adds up when put against the gif showing Lovelady go from the top landing down one step. Firstly because the 'body position' looks uncomparable with the stance and secondly, (no real measurements are needed and the 'perspective' and/or 'elevation angle' are somewhat negated by the close proximity of PM and BL) just from eye-balling it something doesn't (in my opinion) add up... it looks to me, again, just from eye-balling it, that BL when on the top landing looks approx. half a head taller than PM, and when he steps down one step he looks approx half a head shorter... PM's relative height doesn't seem to change... ... ... I would like to see a graphic representation of that doorway with the focus on BL and then a few different alternative's in PM's height, to see which one most closely matches that gif... easier said than done of course. May I ask, what programme do you use for your 'graphics'? Regards

You might have misunderstood what I earlier said, or maybe I didn't say it all too well... If BL at 5ft 8 was on the landing and PM at 5ft 9 was one step lower then BL would appear to be 6" taller... If they were both on the same step, or both on the landing then PM would look 1" taller... the step being 7" ... of course, that is looking at things in a very over simplistic way.

Althought the GIF does indeed show PM being shorter when BL is on the top landing and taller when BL steps down one step... I am not seeing how that is fully consistent with 'one-foot-down-one-foot-up theory' (with PM being 5ft 9), and the reason I say I am not seeing how that is fully consistent is because if it were then, in overly simplistic terms, with BL being 5ft 8, for PM to be 5ft 9 and in a 'one-foot-down-one-foot-up theory' then when BL is on the top landing he should appear to be 6 inches taller than PM and then when he steps down one step he should appear to be 1 inch taller than PM... ... from looking at the gif (below) it does not look like BL is 6 inches taller when on the top landing and it does not look like he is only 1 inch shorter when he steps down...