Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

25 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Impossible to do in my view, given the quality of this image.

If you disagree with my explanation, what would be your view?

 

I've already given my view, Mr. Stancak: it's an impossible shadow.

Now there's nothing in the 'quality of [the] image' I posted to prevent your seeing where the shadow falls down Mr. Lovelady's body. So you should be able to account for that shadow.

Let's try again, shall we?

How exactly is one supposed to picture the orientation of Mr. Lovelady's body here?

Thank you.

[Alan Ford]

8 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

If someone were to cry, 'PM/Wiegman is the SAME PERSON in the SAME SPOT as Red Shirt Man in Hughes!', how would you prove them wrong?

 

 

If some over-excitable kook pointed at these two clips and cried, 'Same guy, same spot, why he's even taking a drink using the same hand! And when he lifts his right arm to drink, the elbow goes up both times to the same level-------look at its height in relation to black guy in front's head!', what would be the one simple observation you could make to shut the gibbering fool up?

Hm?

Edited October 29, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Andrej Stancak]

45 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

I've already given my view, Mr. Stancak: it's an impossible shadow.

Now there's nothing in the 'quality of [the] image' I posted to prevent your seeing where the shadow falls down Mr. Lovelady's body. So you should be able to account for that shadow.

Let's try again, shall we?

How exactly is one supposed to picture the orientation of Mr. Lovelady's body here?

Thank you.

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?

 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Andrej Stancak

[Alan Ford]

20 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

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?

 

 

Thanks for your reply, Mr. Stancak.

My point is that, given Mr. Lovelady's position in the doorway, that cannot possibly be a shadow cast by anything. From your post above, I think we agree on that obvious fact.

You seem reluctant to talk with any specificity about the frame below, which of course shows Mr. Lovelady at a lower elevation than earlier Wiegman frames. This is a little puzzling, as Its quality is not inferior to the Wiegman frames you are comfortable working with. So what's the problem?

Do you believe that your "right arm hidden behind Lovelady's own chest" explanation also applies to this frame?

Not asking for verification, just comment.

[Andrej Stancak]

14 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Do you believe that your "right arm hidden behind Lovelady's own chest" explanation also applies to this frame?

Not asking for verification, just comment.

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?

Edited October 29, 2023 by Andrej Stancak

[Alan Ford]

38 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

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.

So.............. He looks that way because he looks that way. Let's dismiss this troublesome frame as an "unfortunate image" that is "worthless" to our efforts.

Is that really the best you can give us here, Mr. Stancak?

There is ample information in the image, which is shot significantly closer to its subject than the earlier Wiegman frames. There should be no difficulty in positing an orientation of Mr. Lovelady's body that explains it.

So can you please describe for us a way------------any way------------for Mr. Lovelady to be standing such that he will show up this way? Can you use words to help us make sense of what we're seeing?

Better still, have you ever tried to reconstruct----------via one of your (fine) digital models---------the posture you believe he has here?

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

I have not "insist[ed] it is a shadow that rendered Lovelady right side of the body invisible". I've said quite the opposite.

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Andrej Stancak]

l`

16 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

So.............. He looks that way because he looks that way. Let's dismiss this troublesome frame as an "unfortunate image" that is "worthless" to our efforts.

Is that really the best you can give us here, Mr. Stancak?

There is ample information in the image, which is shot significantly closer to its subject than the earlier Wiegman frames. There should be no difficulty in positing an orientation of Mr. Lovelady's body that explains it.

So can you please describe for us a way------------any way------------for Mr. Lovelady to be standing such that he will show up this way? Can you use words to help us make sense of what we're seeing?

Better still, have you ever tried to reconstruct----------via one of your (fine) digital models---------the posture you believe he has here?

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

I have not "insist[ed] it is a shadow that rendered Lovelady right side of the body invisible". I've said quite the opposite.

 

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.

 

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

If some over-excitable kook pointed at these two clips and cried, 'Same guy, same spot, why he's even taking a drink using the same hand! And when he lifts his right arm to drink, the elbow goes up both times to the same level-------look at its height in relation to black guy in front's head!', what would be the one simple observation you could make to shut the gibbering fool up?

Hm?

I do see your point. If it can be proven that the figures in Hughes and Weigman are the same person that’s basically game over. Lovelady is clearly visible in Weigman, so if the figure in Hughes is not Lovelady, the chances of that person being anyone other than Lee Oswald are pretty much nil. 

How do you actually prove that though? It’s too blurry to be 100% certain, but the figure in Hughes looks just like Lovelady, and more than one person could have had a drink with them on the steps. In fact, Lovelady testified that he had a coke with him: 

Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down. 
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor? 
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there. 
Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. 

So until we get better images, etc. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the guy in Hughes is Lovelady. 

[Alan Ford]

5 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

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.

 

Ok, Mr. Stancak, so you really don't want to go there. I don't blame you! Let's do what we did with the Kamp Darnell frame-------------dismiss any troublesome image as 'unfortunate' and 'worthless'

 

[Alan Ford]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

So until we get better images, etc. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the guy in Hughes is Lovelady. 

And therefore that the red-shirted man who out of nowhere started frenetically waving a flag at Pres. Kennedy was Mr. Lovelady..........

Funny how he never got around to mentioning it afterwards!

Edited October 30, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

Not complicated!

[Alan Ford]

13 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

A CANDIDATE!

•  A fellow whose account of his immediate post-assassination movements changed dramatically over time

Lest we forget!

From Mr. Bill Shelley's 11/22 affidavit:

(Note: Mr. Shelley knew Mrs. Calvery well-------------he had been best man at her wedding just a few months earlier. The chances of his misremembering this encounter within hours of the event are zilcho.)

In his WC testimony, by extraordinary contrast, Mr. Shelley says he remained on the steps until after Mrs. Gloria Calvery had come running up to the steps and told folks that Pres. Kennedy had been shot.

Obvious Questions!

Why on earth would Mr. Shelley want to erase the fact that he had his encounter with Mrs. Calvery, from which he learned that Pres. Kennedy had been shot, out at "the corner of the park" rather than at the steps?

And! Why is there no mention in his 11/22 affidavit of his having gone west to the railroad yards with Mr. Lovelady?

Obvious Answer!

Dude is hiding something.

New Question!

Is this strange little scene the thing that he's hiding?

Edited October 30, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

24 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Dude is hiding something.

New Question!

Is this strange little scene the thing that he's hiding?

SCENARIO!

Mr. Shelley learns from Mrs. Gloria Calvery---------out at "the corner of the park" (as per his same-day affidavit)-----------that Pres. Kennedy was actually hit. The news shocks him.

What does he do?

He turns around, goes to the area just east of the doorway, and informs Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald of what he has just heard.

An equally shocked Mr. Oswald aborts mission (whatever that mission is). Why? Because this was not what he was told was going to happen.

And what was he told was going to happen? Missed shots. A false-flag incident by 'pro-Castro Cubans'--------as one of whose number the thoroughly sheep-dipped Mr. Oswald was willingly incriminating himself on behalf of his President.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Tom Gram]

4 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

And therefore that the red-shirted man who out of nowhere started frenetically waving a flag at Pres. Kennedy was Mr. Lovelady..........

Funny how he never got around to mentioning it afterwards!

 

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

And therefore that the red-shirted man who out of nowhere started frenetically waving a flag at Pres. Kennedy was Mr. Lovelady..........

Funny how he never got around to mentioning it afterwards!

I don’t think that’s enough. The film is too blurry to tell what’s really going on at all, let alone that we’re definitely looking at the same person in Hughes aggressively waving a red flag at JFK. 

All I’m saying is that Lovelady’s testimony about having a coke significantly lowers the probability that the guy in Hughes isn’t Lovelady. It’s not definitive (none of this is), and I still think it’s worth confirming because it’s a zero-risk, high-yield theory that appears to not be completely impossible, but barring additional evidence I think it’s probably just Lovelady. 

Jake Sykes at ROKC also found a film of cop carrying what looks like a concrete blanket or similar object in the immediate vicinity of where we see the alleged bag in Darnell. So same deal. Any plausible non-bag candidate object lowers the probability that the object in Darnell is a long paper bag. It doesn’t prove definitively that the object is not a long paper bag, but it sure as hell doesn’t help.

[Chris Davidson]

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

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?

Here's one possibility since Lovelady was standing in total sunlight during Wiegman's film: