Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

CLUES!

1. The man is not just standing there holding out away from his body, and at a strange angle, a long object of some description. He is also standing behind what looks like a box- or case-like object:

2. Just in front of the west mailbox stands an object that does not belong to the mailbox:

3. There is a flickering at the lower part of the object held by the man. May be paper or something flapping in the wind. May be something else entirely. But it's fast.

[Alan Ford]

I at first thought the long object was a paper sack-------the paper sack, in fact. It's still very possible.

However, Mr. Chris Davidson's posting of the GIF below, along with the flickering noted in the last post, made me consider a second possibility: a flag that has just been set alight. Political protest.

A congruent first guess as to what the box-like object the man is standing behind: a box out of which the flag has just been taken. Cf. perhaps: what Mr. Spaulding Jones' saw in Mr. Oswald's hands in the elevator that morning: 

 

A congruent first guess as to what the object standing in front of the west mailbox might be:

To set alight a flag quickly, douse part of it with gasoline and strike a match.............

Edited March 2 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

Identifying this man facially is impossible due to the poor quality of the film frames. And the image of his head------even his hair-------is horribly unstable from frame to frame

 

[Jamey Flanagan]

The flag burning is certainly an interesting and original hypothesis to be sure, but I would think that if someone was burning a flag in protest that you'd have at least one person who saw that and told someone about it. I guess you could say that all eyes were on JFK at the time so no one really paid any attention to the man, but I'm thinking that a minute or two after the headshot that people would have seen him even if he hid out behind the mailboxes. Keep digging! You've certainly peaked my interest, but I need more to lean hard into that hypothesis.

Let me ask you this Mr. Ford, do you think a man burning a flag in protest could be the source of people in the motorcade (most notably Senator Yarborough) smelling gunpowder or seeing smoke? I know gasoline burning wouldn't smell exactly like gunpowder but maybe similar enough to mistake in the chaos. The smoke was seen near the picket fence though and I find it hard to believe that a man could carry a burning flag from that area to the TSBD entrance without being noticed. So, I'd probably say no to both.

[Jamey Flanagan]

The hair on Mailbox Man kinda makes me think of the JD Tippit "Elvis" photo. How he has his hair in that picture. You know which one I'm referring to? I wouldn't think it could be him however.

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

The hair on Mailbox Man kinda makes me think of the JD Tippit "Elvis" photo. How he has his hair in that picture. You know which one I'm referring to? I wouldn't think it could be him however.

Are you referring to picture #6 at the bottom right, here?

From what I understand, that picture was taken when he was younger, and pictures 3 and 5 are more representative of what he looked like at the time of his death.

Edited March 2 by Denny Zartman

[Jamey Flanagan]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

Are you referring to picture #6 at the bottom right, here?

From what I understand, that picture was taken when he was younger, and pictures 3 and 5 are more representative of what he looked like at the time of his death.

Yes, that's the picture I was referring to! I could see that #2 pic even being a similar hairline or hairstyle too. Maybe even #5 though he's kinda turned sideways. #3 definitely doesn't look anywhere near Mailbox Man's hair though it is very hard to make out. Thanks for the photos!

[Chris Davidson]

btw, the latter footsie is actually his left leg and foot:

[Alan Ford]

Friends, it remains a deeply intriguing scene------------------------

I asked 3 questions:

1. Who is this man? // 2. What is he doing? // 3. Why is Officer Marrion Baker dashing towards him?

Now previously I insisted that the long object is BEHIND the street barrier. This was because part of it seemed to peep out from BENEATH the barrier.

However! I'm not at all so sure about that anymore. If one looks closely at the area in question in Mr. Davidson's stabilized gif (above)--------------

--------------it becomes evident that there is movement between it and the leg of the street barrier. Moreover! This movement appears to be in sync with the overall (slightly swaying) movement of the long object.

This would seem to place the bottom section of the long object IN FRONT OF the crossbeam of the barrier.

And yet! We can still see the diagonal black stripe on the crossbeam just 'behind' it. I am talking about the second stripe from viewer's left-----------------

How is this possible? Shouldn't that stripe be covered by the bottom of the long object? Wouldn't said bottom of long object need to be transparent for the stripe to still be visible?

Well, there is an alternative explanation for the stripe's visibility 'behind' the bottom of the long object: that part of the lower section of the long object is NO LONGER THERE, for it has just been consumed by flame.

And indeed, if one looks VERY closely at the point marked below-------------

--------------one sees a flickering suggestive of flame:

In which case the flame is NOT confined to this area--------------

---------------but is present lower down too.

 

Edited June 11 by Alan Ford

[Paul Bacon]

I think you're right about the flames!  Was this intended to be a distraction?  Interesting...

[Alan Ford]

7 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

I think you're right about the flames!  Was this intended to be a distraction?  Interesting...

Possible, I guess, Mr. Bacon, though I lean towards a flag: a political signature for what has (or was meant to have) just happened.

It's worth noting by the way that the location is hardly random---------------this guy is underneath the SN pair of windows.

Apart from anything else, this location gives him a handy 'out' should he be challenged by law enforcement (which he is in fact about to be):

OFFICER: 'Hey, what the hell you doing?'

MAN: 'Someone just threw this out of that window up there!'

[Jamey Flanagan]

I don't know if I had already suggested the possibility or not, but do you think that if this "Mailbox Man" figure is a real person AND they are doing something nefarious (whether related to the assassination or not) then could this possibly be the reason for removing frames from the Tina Towner film?

I've wondered for years what could have happened on the turn from Houston to Elm for none of the MANY photos or films taken in Dealey Plaza to show the complete turn. It had to have been more than just the limo swinging wide after trying to turn on the Elm Street extension instead of the actual Elm Street.

I had considered maybe they removed frames to take out the front entrance of the TSBD but it seems the "jump" occurs before you get to that front entrance. Or in other words, where that mailbox would be located. You can see Jackie's head right as they are about to get to the TSBD and then frames are obviously removed and next thing you know her head is passing by the front entrance of the TSBD.

Just like all the other photos and films that were "damaged" during processing or had frames removed for "overexposure" or whatever "innocent" reason we are supposed to believe, I just find it hard to believe that so many coincidentally had flaws or whatever during certain timeframes like the turn onto Elm.

If something happened there, like some kind of demonstration, then even if it wasn't related to the assassination then I could see them saying it would look bad and had to be cut out of the photographic record.

But......... you'd think that someone, somewhere along the lines would mention seeing a flag burning or whatever happened there. Of course, you'd also think that whatever caused those pools of blood in Dealey Plaza would have also been seen. Or many other mysteries along the way.

Thoughts?

[Ian Lloyd]

If it was meant to be a demonstration, then surely it would have been more overt?

[Alan Ford]

12 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

I don't know if I had already suggested the possibility or not, but do you think that if this "Mailbox Man" figure is a real person AND they are doing something nefarious (whether related to the assassination or not) then could this possibly be the reason for removing frames from the Tina Towner film?

I've wondered for years what could have happened on the turn from Houston to Elm for none of the MANY photos or films taken in Dealey Plaza to show the complete turn. It had to have been more than just the limo swinging wide after trying to turn on the Elm Street extension instead of the actual Elm Street.

I had considered maybe they removed frames to take out the front entrance of the TSBD but it seems the "jump" occurs before you get to that front entrance. Or in other words, where that mailbox would be located. You can see Jackie's head right as they are about to get to the TSBD and then frames are obviously removed and next thing you know her head is passing by the front entrance of the TSBD.

Just like all the other photos and films that were "damaged" during processing or had frames removed for "overexposure" or whatever "innocent" reason we are supposed to believe, I just find it hard to believe that so many coincidentally had flaws or whatever during certain timeframes like the turn onto Elm.

If something happened there, like some kind of demonstration, then even if it wasn't related to the assassination then I could see them saying it would look bad and had to be cut out of the photographic record.

But......... you'd think that someone, somewhere along the lines would mention seeing a flag burning or whatever happened there. Of course, you'd also think that whatever caused those pools of blood in Dealey Plaza would have also been seen. Or many other mysteries along the way.

Thoughts?

I'll take your two points in turn, Mr. Flanagan:

1. I believe those excised Towner frames may have shown some giveaway detail in Pres. Kennedy's behavior-------related, as I surmise, to the frantic waving of an object on the lower west side of the doorway. I suspect Pres. Kennedy showed a little too much interest in that doorway, such as to suggest foreknowledge on his part that something planned was about to go down.

2. The scene was one of chaos and confusion. (How many people even noticed Umbrella Man down the street?) Darnell does however show us that at least two people did notice this man by the mailboxes, and that one of those two people was none other than Officer Marrion Baker. He would have been given excellent reason afterwards not to mention it on the record. Darnell proves that his on-the-record 'recollection' of having dashed straight up those front steps was a lie. Now: if the man by the mailboxes were just some innocent eccentric with no relevance to the case, why would Officer Baker have needed to erase the encounter?

[Alan Ford]

11 hours ago, Ian Lloyd said:

If it was meant to be a demonstration, then surely it would have been more overt?

Fair question, Mr. Lloyd!

We need to start with a striking fact: the Bell film shows that this man was not by those mailboxes while Pres. Kennedy was passing the building. Thus we seem to be dealing not with a straightforward demonstration but with something different------------something post hoc.

On the scenario I have been positing, this man by the mailboxes (whoever he be) has been tasked with helping to put a political 'signature' on what he has been led to believe will be a just-finished non-lethal shots-fired incident. Perhaps what he has just set alight is a 'Cuba Libre' flag or some equally unmistakeable signifier of the political intent behind the highly provocative firing of shots. 

On my hypothesis, this man (again: whoever he be) doesn't yet know that an actual shooting has taken place. But he is surely seconds away from finding out--------------and thus seconds away from aborting mission. Thus, if there is a planned next bit of his stunt with the burning [flag?], one that perhaps will be more overt (e.g. walking out towards the street with the burning [flag?]), then that next bit does not materialize. All we have is what Darnell shows------------and what Darnell shows is enough to establish something very out of the ordinary (which has caught the attention of a motorcycle cop).

Even if what was planned was to be no more than the burning or partial burning of a flag in that spot, it could do the job nicely. All that's needed is someone on hand in the vicinity to take a photo or film of him and his action, and the location directly underneath from the SN will 'tell' the rest of the story. (Of course, if he is a well-known Castroite agitator, then that's a big bonus.)

On the above basic scenario, the plan was for the newspapers and TV news later that day to lead with images of a man burning an anti-Castro flag just after a missed-shots incident in Dealey Plaza. But something horribly in excess of a missed-shots incident ended up happening, and this guy by the mailboxes had to be erased from history.