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

[Alan Ford]

9 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

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. 

I have not stated to a certainty that it is a flag---------I have spoken of "a flag (or somesuch)".

I'm sorry, Mr. Gram, but the idea that the idea that this is something being waved needs "corroboration" is rather odd. We can see it being waved....................

P.S. Apologies, I double-posted the first GIF in my earlier reply. Fixed now!

Edited November 8, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

I have not stated to a certainty that it is a flag---------I have spoken of "a flag (or somesuch)".

I'm sorry, Mr. Gram, but the idea that the idea that this is something being waved needs "corroboration" is rather odd. We can see it being waved....................

P.S. Apologies, I double-posted the first GIF in my earlier reply. Fixed now!

That’s fair, but in looking at the slowed down .gif (thanks by the way) I noticed that the object-blob that appears to extend downward from the arm of the person on the steps flashes in only a few frames, and its color is identical to the orange-pink shirt of the man in the foreground. The color of that man’s shirt also appears to get brighter as the .gif progresses.

Point being it looks like the blob could be some sort of light anomaly instead of an actual object - and the person on the steps is just waving their arm.

That’s why corroboration is important here. The quality of the evidence presented does not support anything even approaching a definite conclusion. However, if there was a witness statement or other evidence explaining the apparent rapid movement and blobs we see in the film, the film could be used as corroboration. On its own it’s basically a Rorschach test. We have what appears to be rapid movement, and some distorted color blobs. That’s literally it. 

[Alan Ford]

9 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

That’s fair, but in looking at the slowed down .gif (thanks by the way) I noticed that the object-blob that appears to extend downward from the arm of the person on the steps flashes in only a few frames, and its color is identical to the orange-pink shirt of the man in the foreground. The color of that man’s shirt also appears to get brighter as the .gif progresses.

Point being it looks like the blob could be some sort of light anomaly instead of an actual object - and the person on the steps is just waving their arm.

That’s why corroboration is important here. The quality of the evidence presented does not support anything even approaching a definite conclusion. However, if there was a witness statement or other evidence explaining the apparent rapid movement and blobs we see in the film, the film could be used as corroboration. On its own it’s basically a Rorschach test. We have what appears to be rapid movement, and some distorted color blobs. That’s literally it. 

"the orange-pink shirt of the man in the foreground": Which man?

"the person on the steps is just waving their arm": Their arm? You can't be serious, Mr. Gram........

 

[Tom Gram]

25 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

"the orange-pink shirt of the man in the foreground": Which man?

"the person on the steps is just waving their arm": Their arm? You can't be serious, Mr. Gram........

 

Look at the person in the bottom center-left of the .gif. Half the body is visible, hands extended in air. Arm on viewers left is connected to blob in last frame. Now pay attention to the color of that person’s shirt as the .gif progress and the color of the blob. Notice anything? 

It might be helpful to create a blow up version of the 1 frame per second .gif and outline what you believe to be a flag. Remove the flashing orange blob and all I see is an elongated grayish object moving up and down that looks like it could just be an arm. 

Like I said, it’s basically a Rorschach test.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Alan Ford]

2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Look at the person in the bottom center-left of the .gif. Half the body is visible, hands extended in air. Arm on viewers left is connected to blob in last frame. Now pay attention to the color of that person’s shirt as the .gif progress and the color of the blob. Notice anything?

Yes----------that you're looking at the frames out of context.

That 'shirt' is the raised right arm of a woman out on the street.

[Tom Gram]

28 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Yes----------that you're looking at the frames out of context.

That 'shirt' is the raised right arm of a woman out on the street.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a shirt, a wiggling color-changing elephantitis afflicted hand, or anything else. The point is that there appears to be a connection between the alleged flag-blob and whatever’s happening in the foreground i.e. it could be a non-flag and/or an anomaly - which is why I suggested posting a crop of the slow .gif showing that area of the image and outlining what you believe to be the flag. That way everyone can get on the same page and see this proposed flag. 

[Alan Ford]

1 minute ago, Tom Gram said:

It doesn’t matter if it’s a shirt, a wiggling color-changing elephantitis afflicted hand, or anything else. The point is that there appears to be a connection between the alleged flag-blob and whatever’s happening in the foreground i.e. it could be a non-flag and/or an anomaly - which is why I suggested posting a crop of the slow .gif showing that area of the image and outlining what you believe to be the flag. That way everyone can get on the same page and see this proposed flag. 

Weak sauce, Mr. Gram.

One of the first things we must do to avoid the Rorschach trap is: cross-reference with any other available images.

Unlike you, I have done that here---------------the Bell film being the cf.

And I can assure you categorically that the woman streetside whose raised unsleeved arm is responsible for what you-----------Rorschach-style-----------mistook for a pink shirt cannot possibly be responsible for the frenetic waving I have been talking about in Towner.

And you seem not to have heard me the first time: I am not stating categorically that it is a flag. That is simply the most obvious explanation for what Towner shows.

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

 

17 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

 

 

Maybe what I see can be helpful. If I am wrong about something, please someone tell me.

 

 

It appears that there is a person standing with his back to the left wall/column of the entryway. He appears to be wearing a light gray or white shirt.

His arm is extended and he is waving something like a flag. In most frames we can't see what it is he is waving because the "flag" is flying in an approximately horizontal plane that is perpendicular to the camera's line of sight.

However, in the final frame of this clip the picture was taken when the "flag" was flying in a vertical frame that is perpendicular to the camera's line of sight. And so the camera got a good shot of the flattened "flag."

The blue canton of the American flag is not present. There appears to be no canton at all. Therefore it is probably not a flag.

The most likely piece of fabric the person could be waving is a shirt.

I believe that the most likely explanation is that the guy standing with his back to the wall was wearing a red shirt with a white undershirt. He took it off and waved it as the president's limousine went by.

The wider-shot clip shows that he thing below and to the right of the flattened shirt, possessing roughly the same color, is a woman out front. She extends her arm and waves from time to time.

I reject the notion that the red thing (that I believe to be a shirt) is some sort of photographic anomaly. Calling something a photographic anomaly is an excuse often used by anti-alterationists to deny something exists in a photo.

 

[Alan Ford]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Maybe what I see can be helpful. If I am wrong about something, please someone tell me.

 

 

It appears that there is a person standing with his back to the left wall/column of the entryway. He appears to be wearing a light gray or white shirt.

His arm is extended and he is waving something like a flag. In most frames we can't see what it is he is waving because the "flag" is flying in an approximately horizontal plane that is perpendicular to the camera's line of sight.

Mr. Larsen, that person is the black man in front of the man in the red shirt. He is lowering his left hand after waving, presumably to shield his eyes:

Here he is in Hughes, just a couple of seconds before. We see him raise that same arm here:

He cannot be the person waving the object in Towner.

It has to be the man in red behind him.

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

He cannot be the person waving the object in Towner.

It has to be the man in red behind him.

 

Yes, I agree with you.

How sure are you about the timing? If it was only two seconds, then that was too short of time for him to have taken his shirt off. In which case it seems that he brought something red to wave.

Another possibility is that the flexible object is a flag -- likely American -- and in the frame where we get a good view of the red and white stripes (blurred together), the blue canton (along with part of the red and white stripes) is folded up at the instant the shot was taken. Which is why we don't see it.

Either way, it is a flag of some sort. IMO

 

[Alan Ford]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, I agree with you.

How sure are you about the timing? If it was only two seconds, then that was too short of time for him to have taken his shirt off. In which case it seems that he brought something red to wave.

Another possibility is that the flexible object is a flag -- likely American -- and in the frame where we get a good view of the red and white stripes (blurred together), the blue canton (along with part of the red and white stripes) is folded up at the instant the shot was taken. Which is why we don't see it.

Either way, it is a flag of some sort. IMO

 

Yes, Mr. Larsen, the timing is locked down------------the last frame of Hughes shows Pres. Kennedy already turning onto Elm. Miss Towner is right there at the southwest corner of Houston/Elm, filming him make (most!) of the turn.

It certainly does look like a flag. Unlikely IMO to be of a hostile political nature. That bit was to come just after the shots had been fired.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Alan Ford writes:

Quote

he has evidently gone all in on the project of making the already discredited PM/Darnell=LHO claim unfalsifiable.

That is not true. Ever since I started commenting on the Prayer Man question, I've always acknowledged the possibility that, if and when good-quality frames become available, the Prayer Man figure may turn out not to be Oswald. See, for example, http://22november1963.org.uk/prayer-man-jfk-assassination, which has been online for at least eight years:

Quote

With the current state of the evidence, the most likely candidate for Prayer Man is Lee Oswald ... It is possible that the original films or early copies will contain enough definition to allow Lee Harvey Oswald to be conclusively eliminated either as the figure in the doorway or as the gunman on the sixth floor.

Friends!

I'm far from being the only person who thinks that the most plausible candidate for the Prayer Man figure is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. Many others, including the people whom Mr Ford thinks are forming a "project", can be found at the ROKC forum. I'm sure Mr Ford will receive a warm welcome when he raises his concerns with the individuals in question. Here's one of the threads in which Mr Ford will be keen to participate:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2800-three-card-monte

But! A warning!

The members of that forum tend to be somewhat less willing to swallow blatant nonsense than the members of this forum. Nevertheless, I'm sure Mr Ford has sufficient confidence in the soundness of his evidence and arguments that he will be eager to test them before a more discerning audience!

Now!

Let us return to the question I asked Mr Ford, concerning the incident in which Billy Lovelady wrestled with Sarah Stanton over a Confederate flag, and the curious lack of corroboration by the human witnesses to that incident. Mr Ford claims that:

Quote

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.

I regret that Mr Ford has misunderstood the question I asked him. I wondered if he could help me out by thinking of a good reason why none of the dozen or more spectators who almost certainly noticed the scuffle between Lovelady and Stanton failed to mention it.

I wasn't asking about whether the scuffle was captured on film. It clearly was: if you look closely at (a copy of a copy of, etc) the Towner film you can see Lovelady and Stanton wrestling over a Confederate flag. That fact cannot be denied or wished away. I was asking why none of the human witnesses to the scuffle, who surely would have noticed such an unusual incident, failed to mention it. Even Tina Towner herself, who filmed the scuffle and must have seen it, failed to mention it!

Why could that be? Were all of the witnesses blackmailed or otherwise arm-twisted into keeping their mouths shut?

Or!

Was there an even more sinister reason, perhaps to do with shape-shifting lizard people?

You see, the problem is that some naysayers might argue that the scuffle between Billy Lovelady and Sarah Stanton, which I can clearly make out in (a copy of a copy of, etc) the Towner film, isn't actually there, and that all we can actually see is a moving blob of indeterminate origin.

Why, I implore Mr Ford, did no-one mention an incident that is so clearly visible? What conceiveable reason could there be for their silence on this important matter?

Surely it isn't possible that, as those naysayers might allege, there was no such incident and I was reading too much into a tiny moving blob in a copy of (a copy of, etc) a home movie?

The reason I ask is that I'm thinking of using the factual scuffle between Lovelady and Stanton as the foundation of an elaborate theory which claims that Altgens 6, the Wiegman film, and who know what else, were faked, and that Lovelady was actually Oswald but his face got pasted over and someone painted a black line down his right-hand side, or something. It's a very exciting and entirely rational new theory, and I'd like Mr Ford's reassurance that the whole thing isn't just made up.

P.S. If it turns out that the scuffle between Lovelady and Stanton isn't actually visible in the Towner film, we will know for a fact that the Towner film, just like the Wiegman film and the Altgens 6 photo, was faked!

[Alan Ford]

21 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Alan Ford writes:

That is not true. Ever since I started commenting on the Prayer Man question, I've always acknowledged the possibility that, if and when good-quality frames become available, the Prayer Man figure may turn out not to be Oswald.

A better-quality frame has become available, Mr. Bojczuk, and it has killed the Prayer Man claim dead.

The difference between us is that I have faced this reality and called a spade a spade. You and your pals, by contrast, are in splenetic denial over what has happened. We have already heard cries of 'SFM Nefarious Alteration!'. Should NBC ever release the original film, and we all-too-predictably meet the same woman up on that landing, those cries will simply get louder and more paranoid.

But how are you PM-to-the-death-and-beyond! guys to deflect from the acute cognitive dissonance of all this? Easy! Go into Warren Gullible-like nothing-to-see-here attack mode towards ANY other 'Oswald Out Front' line of inquiry. It's like you guys have been taking tuition from Associate Professor of Ressentiment himself, Mr. Brian Doyle.

'Reopen Kennedy Case (but only if it's with Prayer Man)!' has been revealed as your unspoken motto.

It's very sad.

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

This is now three times that you have pointedly failed to offer a serious counter-analysis of what Towner shows.

What are you afraid of?

[Pat Speer]

Am I truly witnessing this? A debate over which character on the front steps in the films and photos is the hidden Oswald? 

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Am I truly witnessing this? A debate over which character on the front steps in the films and photos is the hidden Oswald? 

Why, yes. Some of us take very seriously indeed the suppressed claim by Mr. Oswald that he "went outside to watch P. Parade". We believe that the 'P.' could stand for 'Presidential'.