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

[Paul Bacon]

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.

[Chris Davidson]

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:

 

 

 

[Paul Bacon]

49 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

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'm sorry Chris, I shouldn't have been so obtuse.  It hardly works for me in real life, let alone on the internet! ....the reason I invoked your name in this sentance is because I so appreciated your spelling the name "Lovelady" with a question mark at the end.  So I adopted it.  Sorry for confusing an already complicated thread!

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?"

[Chris Davidson]

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.

[Paul Bacon]

5 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

"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.

Yes Chris, I do agree.  Now that I believe the photo was altered, it puts to rest my thoughts that I must be misunderstanding something.  In my reletively short tenure here, I hadn't realized that many found issues with the photo.

[Alan Ford]

7 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

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

Actually, Mr. Bacon, I think we're in the end phase of one.

Phase A : Critical Reassessment of the Second-Floor Lunchroom Story

Phase B : Prayer Man

Phase C : Fallout from "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" revelation

Phase D : You Are Here!

[Alan Ford]

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Remove the impossible shadow and we might obtain a more balanced look from Lovelady? in Wiegman:

Nicely done, Mr. Davidson.

Remove that impossible shadow, and other 'enhancements', and we'd be looking at two men instead of one!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

I've been down the alteration road in the past, and all off-ramps lead to top secret photo alteration labs in the parking lot, which is to say, fantasyland.

Correct! Just to clarify: I wasn't suggesting that Pat agreed with any of the claims of nefarious photo-fakery! He's far too sensible to fall for that nonsense. I was just using his comments as a jumping-off point.

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

When the coverup artist pasted Carl's head on, he put it a little too low.

OK. Alternatively, we're looking at a small part of a hand-held photo that occupied part of a small TV screen, and was broadcast in low resolution using 1960s technology, and may have been copied who knows how many times since then. In other words, the image is heavily degraded and any anomalous details can be explained by the copying and transmission processes. It's a really poor-quality image, and reading anything definitive into its details is a mistake.

Alan Ford writes:

Quote

The reason he [Oswald] became a person of interest at the Depository in the first place was his witnessed antics down by the mail boxes.

OK. Alternatively, as I've already explained, it was Billy Lovelady who was witnessed trying to stuff the Confederate flag into the mailbox. I know this for a fact because I saw a strange blob in a poor-quality copy of a photo, and I didn't find the obvious explanation exciting enough so I invented a convoluted story to explain the blob. That story featured the antics of Billy Lovelady, which means the story must be true, because those antics were witnessed.

Having said that, I wouldn't entirely rule out Sarah Stanton as the person who was trying to stuff the flag into the mailbox, since her antics were also witnessed, and I know they were witnessed because I say so.

How did the wizard in the cowboy hat turn the flag into a raincoat? That's what I want to find out. I'm working on a theory now, as it happens, based on a number of blobs in a poor-quality version of a different photo of some guy wearing a cowboy hat in Dealey Plaza. The blobs definitely look like a top hat, a magic wand, and a rabbit, if you stare at them for long enough.

Quote

Let me call your bluff by asking you for your analysis of what Towner is showing here

It's Billy Lovelady jumping up and down while wrestling with Sarah Stanton over a Confederate flag, each of them wanting to have the honour of taking the flag over to the mailboxes in accordance with the wishes of their CIA handlers, Bill Shelley and Elvis Presley. Now, there's no corroboration for this, and it isn't the sort of thing that witnesses might easily have overlooked (like, say, a nondescript warehouse worker, who had only been with the company for a month, briefly emerging onto the steps while everyone's attention was elsewhere). I'll get back to you when I've thought of a plausible reason why no-one reported the flag-related scuffle, or indeed anything to do with flags being waved or stuffed into mailboxes.

Alternatively, it's something painted in by a photo-faker. You see, a film of Oswald waving a flag would give away the whole plot, so They had to eliminate any trace of a flag by painting over both Oswald and the flag, and They decided to do this by painting in something that some random guy on the internet six decades later would interpret as a flag.

In the same way, They wanted to avoid generating suspicion that Oswald was visible on the steps in Altgens 6, so They decided to disguise Oswald's head by pasting over it the head of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it generated suspicion that Oswald was on the steps (copyright © Oswald Insanity Campaign).

But!

Now let me ask Mr Ford a question. It's to do with Mr Ford's original claim, that Lovelady's left sleeve is actually Carl Jones's arm, based on analysis of the Cronkite version of Altgens 6. I've raised this matter two or three times now, and I'd be interested in hearing Mr Ford's opinion.

Mr Ford appeared to claim (several times, but first of all on page 11) that we should prefer the exceptionally poor-quality Cronkite version over better-quality versions such as Groden's, on the grounds that the Cronkite version dated from the day of the assassination and the Groden version dated from years later. In other words, the fact that the Cronkite version predated the Groden version meant that the Cronkite version was necessarily more accurate than the Groden version.

Ah!

Is that what Mr Ford was claiming? It's what he appeared to be claiming, but he didn't state it outright, so I'd like to be sure, one way or the other.

Why?

Because anyone who thinks that an earlier image is necessarily more accurate than a later image is making a big mistake and revealing a fundamental lack of understanding of photography.

Go on!

As I pointed out to Sandy a few paragraphs ago, it is the physical processes which have been applied to an image that will largely determine the accuracy of what we can see in that image.

Just look at Lovelady's (or Oswald's, if you prefer) hairline in the Cronkite version. It goes way back to the top of his head, with only a narrow strip in the middle. In reality, neither Lovelady's nor Oswald's hairline went back that far. We know this by looking at better-quality images.

Now look at Lovelady's (or Oswald's) head in the poor-quality frame from the Wiegman film that Mr Ford has posted elsewhere. Lovelady (or Oswald) is completely bald. In reality neither Lovelady nor Oswald was completely bald. We know this by looking at better-quality images. 

All that's needed to explain the discrepancies are the different processes that were involved in producing the various images. The dating of the images has nothing to do with it.

So!

Here's the question again. Does Mr Ford really think that because version A of an image predates version B, version A must necessarily be more accurate than version B?

[Alan Ford]

41 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Just to clarify: I wasn't suggesting that Pat agreed with any of the claims of nefarious photo-fakery! He's far too sensible to fall for that nonsense.

Mr. Boyczuk, would you be comfortable in stating that you categorically rule out any nefarious photo-fakery in the image below?

[Alan Ford]

43 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's Billy Lovelady jumping up and down while wrestling with Sarah Stanton over a Confederate flag, each of them wanting to have the honour of taking the flag over to the mailboxes in accordance with the wishes of their CIA handlers, Bill Shelley and Elvis Presley.

~Grin~

Is there a reason, Mr. Boyczuk, why you won't give us your actual analysis of what Towner is showing here?

 

[Alan Ford]

46 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Mr Ford's original claim, that Lovelady's left sleeve is actually Carl Jones's arm

Nope

[Alan Ford]

47 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Does Mr Ford really think that because version A of an image predates version B, version A must necessarily be more accurate than version B?

Nope.

Question for you now, Mr. Boyczuk.

How do you explain the darkness down Mr. Billy Lovelady's body in this Wiegman frame? Be specific, please and thank you! 👍

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Is there a reason, Mr. Boyczuk, why you won't give us your actual analysis of what Towner is showing here?

 

It is Jeremy's MO to ridicule people with whom he disagrees.

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 11/5/2023 at 5:24 PM, Alan Ford said:

Nicely done, Mr. Davidson.

Remove that impossible shadow, and other 'enhancements', and we'd be looking at two men instead of one!

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.

[Chris Davidson]

Increased speed: