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

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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,

I'm confused.

At first I thought that you believed that Lovelady's shoulder is missing simply because his body was turned relative to the the camera's line of site. Turned to his left.

I adopted that belief. It made a lot more sense than Lovelady's strange posture in Andrej's model.

Later you said something that made me think that I was wrong, and that you believed something else. (I don't recall what.) Which is fine.

But now it appears that you are returning to what I thought was your original belief. Because your animated gif is showing a guy whose left shoulder is missing, just like Lovelady's is. And it's because he's turned to his left relative to the camera line of sight.

Will you tell me what you really believe?

 

[Chris Davidson]

No Sandy,

I've never wavered on my position.

You can read my previous response to Paul and apply that position to the latest gif I presented.

If you still don't understand what is being shown, then I can't help you with this angle.(no pun intended)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

I've never wavered on my position.

You can read my previous response to Paul and apply that position to the latest gif I presented.

 

Okay. Here's your previous response to Paul:

 

On 11/5/2023 at 1:27 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The shadow removed would expose more of his right shoulder.

 

Okay, so you believe the Wiegman film was altered. Fine.

You say that I should apply that same position to the missing shoulder in Altgens 6, and that would be what your position is for Altgens 6.

Therefore you believe Altgens 6 was also altered. Fine. I'm with you so far.

But then in your most recent post you said:

 

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Let's not forget about its sibling "the impossible shoulder" either.

It's all about the body orientations relationship to the cameraman.

 

You said that about your gif that shows a man in an orientation relative to the camera that makes his shoulder disappear. Just like Lovelady's.

This doesn't sound like photo alteration at all. It sounds like a natural phenomenon.

So, which is the case... Do you believe that Lovelady's "impossible shoulder" is due to his body orientation (like you said in your most recent post)? Or do you believe it is due to photo alteration (like you're telling me now)?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

 

 

Another possibility is that your gif is merely showing how the guy whose shoulder we can't see in the color photo, looks a lot like the guy behind Lovelady (in the camera's line of sight) in Altgens 6. But I don't know what the point of showing that would be.

 

[Alan Ford]

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

Thanks for this, Mr. Davidson.

The high white shirt collar + the fact that we see barely any of this gentleman's white shirt left of (i.e. viewer's left of) his tie allows the eye to read his orientation without disorientation.

Such is not the case with Mr. Lovelady in Wiegman-------------because of his very different upper attire.

It's why Mr. Lovelady's white tshirt, & its relationship to his shirt, is so key.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Alan Ford writes:

Quote

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

I don't know enough about that particular image to categorically rule anything in or out. With any image, alteration needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted, as seems to be the approach of people who don't understand that the production of poor-quality copies can generate anomalous details. The default setting should be to assume that an image has not been nefariously altered. We shouldn't assert that it has been until sufficient evidence is presented.

Quote

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

My account of the tussle between Billy Lovelady and Sarah Stanton, which we know happened because these antics were witnessed (and we know that they were witnessed because I say so), is about as far as I would be prepared to go, given the quality of the images that have been posted. As I'm sure Mr Ford appreciates, it's a mistake to read too much into small details of poor-quality copies of photos and film frames.

If I ever get the chance to study either the original Towner film or a good copy, ideally under a microscope, I might be able to come up with a more comprehensive account, and perhaps resolve questions such as which way up the Confederate flag was being held during the scuffle, and how high Billy Lovelady was jumping, questions which have puzzled scholars for decades.

One thing Mr Ford might be able to help me with is my failure to come up with a plausible explanation of why the flag-fluttering scuffle between Lovelady and Stanton (which we know happened because the Towner film shows something that can't possibly be anything else) wasn't commented upon by any of the other dozen or so people in the vicinity. I mean, most or all of them must have seen it, and it's not the sort of thing they would have expected to see, so they must have paid attention to it. Even Billy Lovelady and Sarah Stanton didn't mention it, and they were involved in it! So we have an obvious and unusual incident which perhaps a dozen people would have seen, but which none of them commented on. How would Mr Ford explain that lack of expected corroboration?

Quote

How do you explain the darkness down Mr. Billy Lovelady's body in this Wiegman frame?

Since this particular copy seems to be of very poor quality, a reasonable explanation might involve a combination of shadow and excessive contrast generated by the copying process. Again, there's a limit to the conclusions we can come to, if all we have to go on is a poor-quality copy which contains numerous obvious defects.

The way to find out is to get hold of the best quality version of the frame that's available, and see what that image tells us, while resisting the urge to invent convoluted stories to explain details in a poor-quality copy, details which may not actually exist in better-quality copies of that image.

Quote

Nope.

I'm still puzzled by Mr Ford's juxtaposition of the Cronkite and Groden versions of Lovelady in Altgens 6. If he wasn't claiming that the former was more accurate than the latter, what was he claiming? There's no need to answer this question, by the way. I'm puzzled but not particularly interested. But if what we see in the Cronkite version is an essential part of Mr Ford's theory, he may as well state it clearly rather than rely, Davidson-like, on posting images without explaining their relevance to his argument. He could also explain why he thinks any of the details in this very poor-quality version can be trusted, if that's what he thinks (and if he doesn't think that, why did he make such a big deal of the Cronkite version in the first place?).

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If I ever get the chance to study either the original Towner film or a good copy, ideally under a microscope, I might be able to come up with a more comprehensive account, and perhaps resolve questions such as which way up the Confederate flag was being held during the scuffle, and how high Billy Lovelady was jumping, questions which have puzzled scholars for decades.

One thing Mr Ford might be able to help me with is my failure to come up with a plausible explanation of why the flag-fluttering scuffle between Lovelady and Stanton (which we know happened because the Towner film shows something that can't possibly be anything else) wasn't commented upon by any of the other dozen or so people in the vicinity. I mean, most or all of them must have seen it, and it's not the sort of thing they would have expected to see, so they must have paid attention to it. Even Billy Lovelady and Sarah Stanton didn't mention it, and they were involved in it! So we have an obvious and unusual incident which perhaps a dozen people would have seen, but which none of them commented on. How would Mr Ford explain that lack of expected corroboration?

Folks, is it just me, or does Mr. Bojczuk seem to really really really really not want to get drawn into a serious discussion of what Towner shows?

What could it be in these frames that has made him evade a straight question for the second time?

--------------------

And let's note that Mr. Bojczuk has pointedly declined the opportunity to rule out nefarious photo-alteration in the Kamp Darnell frame. Like his PM-to-the-Death-and-Beyond! true believer pals, he has evidently gone all in on the project of making the already discredited PM/Darnell=LHO claim unfalsifiable. No matter what happens from here on in, the delusion will be kept alive. Even if NBC were to release the original film, and it showed the woman we already know from the Kamp frame, the line will simply be: Well, this shows that a panicked NBC altered the film! We were right!! 

[Chris Davidson]

On 11/5/2023 at 9:23 AM, Paul Bacon 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 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.  

 

Whole heartedly agree.

Place cursor on outside shoulder edge(red shirt)while it plays.

Imagine that part of the shoulder shielding objects behind it.

If you don't like the Poser? models (I didn't create it) body orientation, use the person next to Lovelady?

 

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Folks, is it just me, or does Mr. Bojczuk seem to really really really really not want to get drawn into a serious discussion of what Towner shows?

What could it be in these frames that has made him evade a straight question for the second time?

You appear to be deliberately missing Jeremy’s point. 

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

One thing Mr Ford might be able to help me with is my failure to come up with a plausible explanation of why the flag-fluttering scuffle between Lovelady and Stanton (which we know happened because the Towner film shows something that can't possibly be anything else) wasn't commented upon by any of the other dozen or so people in the vicinity. I mean, most or all of them must have seen it, and it's not the sort of thing they would have expected to see, so they must have paid attention to it. Even Billy Lovelady and Sarah Stanton didn't mention it, and they were involved in it! So we have an obvious and unusual incident which perhaps a dozen people would have seen, but which none of them commented on. How would Mr Ford explain that lack of expected corroboration?

You’ve asserted that Towner shows a highly visible and provocative flag waving incident, but there is zero witness corroboration that any such incident ever happened, even though it would have been witnessed by everyone on the steps and dozens of other people in Dealey Plaza. 

The alleged flag appears as an amorphous red blob that pops up for what looks like one, maybe two frames in the .gif sequence. Can you post each frame from that sequence individually so we can all get a closer look at this alleged flag? 

I can’t speak for Jeremy, but he isn’t evading anything. The image is ambiguous. The film is too blurry to claim with any level of certainty that it shows someone waving a flag. That is the main objection here. You have no idea what Towner actually shows. Your theory is only one of several possible explanations for what we’re seeing; and the lack of corroboration makes any flag waving scenario highly unlikely. 

If, and it’s a big if, the film actually shows someone waving an object at the limo, what’s more likely: 1) a highly visible and provocative flag waving incident that not one witness in sixty years has even hinted at corroborating; or 2) someone took off their shirt or something to wave at the President? 

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Whole heartedly agree.

Place cursor on outside shoulder edge(red shirt)while it plays.

Imagine that part of the shoulder shielding objects behind it.

If you don't like the Poser? models (I didn't create it) body orientation, use the person next to Lovelady?

 

Precisely, Mr. Davidson.

This is just what I'm suggesting the Cronkite version of Altgens allows us to postulate as an element in the original-original Altgens: Mr. Oswald's tshirted left shoulder, just where one would expect to find it if Mr. Oswald were simply standing up straight--------------------

I believe this Wiegman frame may have let slip through, for all the Frankensteining, a half-glimpse of that Mr. Oswald in that white tshirt standing up that way:

At the moment! I'm trying to tease out what the heck is going on with the darker elements in this area---------------

I have a thought or two, but still need a bit of a think or two...............

[Alan Ford]

49 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You’ve asserted that Towner shows a highly visible and provocative flag waving incident, but there is zero witness corroboration that any such incident ever happened, even though it would have been witnessed by everyone on the steps and dozens of other people in Dealey Plaza.

With respect, Mr. Gram, you misunderstand my argument.

The visible and provocative part was not the waving of a flag (or somesuch) as Pres. Kennedy was passing the building; the visible and provocative part was what Mr. Oswald was going to do off the steps, in front of the building, just after the shooting.

Now you say that the flag-waving "would have been witnessed by everyone on the steps and dozens of other people in Dealey Plaza". Forgive me, but this is a fanciful claim.

Question for you: How many people in the doorway and out on the street do you think were NOT looking at Pres. & Mrs. Kennedy in the very short interval of time that they were passing the front entrance?

More to the point: the waving mini-incident was witnessed---------------by the camera of young Miss Towner. It's there and cannot be wished away. On the contrary, it must be closely scrutinized.

Which leads me to.....................

[Pat Speer]

7 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Precisely, Mr. Davidson.

This is just what I'm suggesting the Cronkite version of Altgens allows us to postulate as an element in the original-original Altgens: Mr. Oswald's tshirted left shoulder, just where one would expect to find it if Mr. Oswald were simply standing up straight--------------------

I believe this Wiegman frame may have let slip through, for all the Frankensteining, a half-glimpse of that Mr. Oswald in that white tshirt standing up that way:

At the moment! I'm trying to tease out what the heck is going on with the darker elements in this area---------------

I have a thought or two, but still need a bit of a think or two...............

Only it's not Oswald. It's not him in the photo, and no one saw him there. It's Lovelady. 

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

If, and it’s a big if, the film actually shows someone waving an object at the limo

"A big if"? Here's the clip, and below that a 1-frame-per-second slowed down version. (No, it's not there for "one, maybe two frames"---------more like 18 frames.) If you don't think this is something being waved at the limo, what do you think it could be?

Edited November 8, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

If, and it’s a big if, the film actually shows someone waving an object at the limo, what’s more likely: 1) a highly visible and provocative flag waving incident that not one witness in sixty years has even hinted at corroborating; or 2) someone took off their shirt or something to wave at the President? 

Thank you for this suggestion, Mr. Gram. You've just done what Mr. Bojczuk twice chickened out of doing: offer a counter-suggestion. Believe it or not, yours is the first counter-suggestion anyone has made here as to what's being waved in Towner.

"...someone took off their shirt or something": the problem lies in the word "someone".

There is only one person who can possibly be waving this object: The man in the red shirt way over on the west side of the doorway whom we've just seen in Hughes-----------------

Bear in mind that the Towner clip comes a mere couple of seconds after this Hughes clip. Not enough time for this man to take off his shirt. And besides----------Towner shows that the person waving the flag is in red:

It's the same guy (Mr. Lovelady, evidently).

So that leaves us with "something".

As in, what?

[Tom Gram]

7 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

it must be closely scrutinized.

On this we agree, but going from amorphous flickering reddish blob in a multigenerational blurry film to asserting that we’re absolutely, positively looking at someone on the steps waving a flag at JFK is not scrutiny, it’s speculation.

Without corroboration of some kind all you have to go on here is that amorphous flickering reddish blob. It might be a flag, it might not be a flag, but you do not know it is a flag. 

Also your 1 frame per second .gif does not appear in the above comment. I’d like to see that, since in the full speed .gif the blob appears to flicker in and out and only is actually visible in a few frames.