Those Front Steps

[John Cotter]

6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I explain it by pointing out, yet again, that Alan Ford is using a poor quality image to draw absurd conclusions about what's happening therein. As Alex Wilson eloquently summarizes on ROKC, "it's the clumsy, counterproductive, sometimes downright amateurish and embarrassing efforts, coupled with the extravagant claims" to which serious researchers object.

Another Jonathan Cohen disruptive special. Instead of posting a substantive argument, he quotes a non-substantive argument by someone else.

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Alan:

the reality is that you spew your fantastic inventions in rapid succession and run away once confronted with data. 

Classic projection.......................

Take your latest error: Mr. Williams' trousers go way higher in the Allen photo than in your computer model. From this error, you proceed to invent a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton.

So, to recap, your identification of Mrs. Stanton in Altgens is based on

a) misreading of her sleeves

b) misreading of Mr. Williams' trousers

c) inventing a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton

d) ignoring what Mr. Lovelady told Mr. Bonafede

e) ignoring that the fall of shadow throws an object into-------shadow

f) misnaming Mrs. Stanton as Mr. Molina

g) misnaming Mr. Molina as Mr. Shelley.

Which is to say, your identification of Mrs. Stanton in Altgens is a misidentification. You need to correct it and move on.

[Alan Ford]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I will do that if you will post each frame individually so they can be studied.

 

Rather than posting 20 separate jpgs, Mr. Larsen, here's the relevant sequence slowed down. Individual frames can of course be extracted from the downloaded GIF.

My thesis is that the original, undoctored film was unacceptable because it showed

a) evidence in every frame of Mr. Lovelady's body beside/behind Mr. Oswald's body (solved by: adding fake shadow)

b) evidence in every frame of Mr. Lovelady's head and Mr. Oswald's head in every frame (solved by: extra tampering with several clearer frames)

If I've got b) wrong, then it would mean that Mr. Lovelady's head was uniquely subject to doubling from jerk blur in most of the frames in which he appears.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

@John Cotter

Here is our entire conversation. Neither of us even mentioned the two-headed Lovelady issue. But I did show in my first post to you that I was talking about the collar-line issue.

So, yes, you did change the subject. You were apparently unaware that you did. And so was I... till you finally mentioned it in the end.

 

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't object to other fuzzy pictures. What I object to is a copy of the video that shows a collar-line that is rounded and extends around the back of the neck. I object to it because it s inconsistent with the extant copies of Darnell. In contrast, the extant copies are consistent with V-shaped opening in the front.

 

9 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Since you accept that they're all fuzzy pictures, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to be so adamant about what any of them appears to represent in detail.

 

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

They are fuzzy, but I can make out a collar-line.

 

9 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Yes, but the fundamental problem remains: adopting a dogmatic stance one way or another on the basis of just a fuzzy picture is untenable.

 

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just to be clear, my position is not dogmatic.

 

8 hours ago, John Cotter said:

If that's the case, why have you strawmanned Alan Ford's latest painstaking elaboration of the double-head effect on Billy Lovelady?

 

[John Cotter]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

@John Cotter

Here is our entire conversation. Neither of us even mentioned the two-headed Lovelady issue. But I did show in my first post to you that I was talking about the collar-line issue.

So, yes, you did change the subject. You were apparently unaware that you did. And so was I... till you finally mentioned it in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you're strawmanning my argument, since you've left out the Alan Ford post about the two-headed Lovelady which you were purportedly rebutting.

Please desist from cluttering the thread with irrelevant nonsense.

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

 

Different version of the same thing:

[Alan Ford]

On 10/30/2023 at 9:58 AM, Alan Ford said:

[W]hat I've been getting at is that the scene above is the aftermath scene of a suddenly interrupted and aborted political stunt by faux-Castroite Mr. Oswald.

Why interrupted? Because Pres. Kennedy getting shot was not part of the deal to which Mr. Oswald had signed up.

Mr. Sergio Carbo, AP Correspondent in Miami, 11/19/63:

"I believe that a coming serious event will oblige Washington to change its policy of peaceful co-existence [with Cuba]"

If my thesis is correct, then the "coming serious event" to which the indiscreet Mr. Carbo was obliquely referring was not the assassination but the 'pro-Castro' provocation in Dealey Plaza.

And its point wasn't to "oblige" Pres. Kennedy to anything. That was just choreography. It was designed to give Pres. Kennedy the pretext he needed.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

In which case we now have an explanation for the notorious fact that Mr. Oswald was taken off the FBI's watch list six weeks before Pres. Kennedy's visit to Dallas:

He was needed for the White House-approved false-flag operation planned for 11/22.

A week after being taken off the watch list, he starts working at the Texas School Book Depository.

[John Cotter]

Meanwhile over at ROKC, I see that Greg Parker is fulminating like mad against Alan Ford and me over the sanctity of how what even his own crowd have acknowledged is a “fuzzy picture” should be interpreted.

He doesn’t seem to understand the logic of the post by me which he quoted.

[Alan Ford]

43 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Meanwhile over at ROKC, I see that Greg Parker is fulminating like mad against Alan Ford and me over the sanctity of how what even his own crowd have acknowledged is a “fuzzy picture” should be interpreted.

He doesn’t seem to understand the logic of the post by me which he quoted.

'Prayer Man is more than a fuzzy picture, ok? Also, if you refuse to bow down to our fuzzy picture we will denounce you as an infidel'

The Kamp frame episode, and the reality-denying extended tantrum we're seeing now, remind me of the anguish Mr. Brian Doyle went through after he himself posted a picture of Mrs. Sarah Stanton disproving his own theory that she was Prayer Man. Poor man still hasn't recovered...........

[Andrej Stancak]

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Classic projection.......................

Take your latest error: Mr. Williams' trousers go way higher in the Allen photo than in your computer model. From this error, you proceed to invent a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton.

So, to recap, your identification of Mrs. Stanton in Altgens is based on

a) misreading of her sleeves

b) misreading of Mr. Williams' trousers

c) inventing a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton

d) ignoring what Mr. Lovelady told Mr. Bonafede

e) ignoring that the fall of shadow throws an object into-------shadow

f) misnaming Mrs. Stanton as Mr. Molina

g) misnaming Mr. Molina as Mr. Shelley.

Which is to say, your identification of Mrs. Stanton in Altgens is a misidentification. You need to correct it and move on.

Your posts would be funny if not being damaging to the standing of this forum. You are now on your own with this thread; you would not hear to any arguments to the contrary of your views anyway. 

This thread and the one on Carl Jones's arm are the two biggest lows of Educational Forum.

 

[John Cotter]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

'Prayer Man is more than a fuzzy picture, ok? Also, if you refuse to bow down to our fuzzy picture we will denounce you as an infidel'

The Kamp frame episode, and the reality-denying extended tantrum we're seeing now, remind me of the anguish Mr. Brian Doyle went through after he himself posted a picture of Mrs. Sarah Stanton disproving his own theory that she was Prayer Man. Poor man still hasn't recovered...........

Meanwhile I see that Alex Wilson has weighed in with his trademark appeal to ridicule “logic” for the amusement of the peanut gallery.

It’s a pity he spoils the fun by the manner in which he mangles some people’s names, which is really beyond the pale of decency.

[John Cotter]

27 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Your posts would be funny if not being damaging to the standing of this forum. You are now on your own with this thread; you would not hear to any arguments to the contrary of your views anyway. 

This thread and the one on Carl Jones's arm are the two biggest lows of Educational Forum.

 

There are other people here besides you, Andrej.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Your posts would be funny if not being damaging to the standing of this forum. You are now on your own with this thread; you would not hear to any arguments to the contrary of your views anyway. 

This thread and the one on Carl Jones's arm are the two biggest lows of Educational Forum.

Amen, Andrej.

[Alan Ford]

On 10/31/2023 at 11:56 PM, Alan Ford said:

QUESTIONER'S ANSWER!

[...] Using aerial imaging, I'd place a fake shadow on the west side of this problematic pair, such that the viewer would at no point see double human width, two human bodies.

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

Hang on, would it not be way easier just to put the fake shadow down all of both men-------Mr. Oswald and Mr. Lovelady? Just erase them both from the doorway?

QUESTIONER'S ANSWERER!

Yes, that would be way easier.

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

So you'd do that then?

QUESTIONER'S ANSWER!

Are you crazy? Everyone has seen Altgens. It doesn't permit the fiction of the whole west half of the doorway being in natural shadow a few steps up. That pesky photo places a limit on how far east our fake shadow can cut into Mr. Lovelady. Because folks will soon enough have worked out that Altgens & Wiegman are showing basically the same scene at the same time, from different angles.

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

Ah, I see. So you'd--------------

QUESTIONER'S ANSWER!

Exactly. I'd have the fake shadow in Wiegman kick in just where Mr. Lovelady's body goes out of Altgens' view..........  Folks will just assume that everything in Altgens hidden behind the west column of the doorway is in deep shadow. They won't see what a coincidence this is. Now------it's true that the tshirt/collar/left shoulder in Wiegman will look all wrong positionally (relative to Mr. Lovelady's head), but that will become apparent only to someone who thinks to subject the Wiegman-Altgens images to an extremely close and critical comparison. In the highly unlikely event that anyone does in fact spot the obvious discrepancies, they will probably just be written off as a paranoid screwball who 'doesn't understand how films and photographs work'.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Alan Ford