Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

 

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. 

Yes, Towner is blurry, but we absolutely can make out enough to state with confidence that someone in red is energetically waving a flag (or somesuch) at Pres. Kennedy. No other viable explanation for what Towner shows is on the table.

So----------who is the person doing the waving?

Well, literally just a couple of seconds before this (Hughes), a man in a red shirt has been seen in that exact same spot behind the black gentleman by the west column:

The sensible (indeed the only realistic) inference is that person-in-red in Towner is person-in-red in Hughes. For the person pumping the flag not to be the same person we have just seen right there in Hughes would require an extraordinarily quick (and bizarre) switching of positions between a man in red and a second person in red. Never happened.

What Towner shows happened, and we have to deal with it. And we start dealing with it by noting that no one said a word afterwards about it.

Now for the man in the red shirt to be Mr. Lovelady, we would have to posit that he went berserk with a flag without being noticed by anyone------------himself included.

If on the other hand the man in the red shirt was Mr. Oswald, and he went berserk with a flag, then what would have been the consequences of going on the record about what one saw?

Edited October 30, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

 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.

Mr. Sykes didn't find that, I did:

I wondered at the time whether it might be this:

Whatever the detective is carrying, he brings it into the building.

Why would a detective bring a 'concrete blanket' into the building?

And why would someone's response to the shooting be to run over to the mailboxes, pick up a concrete blanket and stand there holding it out from their body (in a gravity-defying way)?

And why would a police officer make a dash for that person?

Is this an extended Monty Python sketch?

Besides, what would a 'concrete blanket' be doing on a sidewalk where no concrete is being laid?

Incidentally, if one is looking for a sidewalk in need of streetworks barriers, one need only peek around the corner:

Mr. Sykes & friends desperately want to drain all significance out of this scene--------------

-----------because it threatens their already discredited PM-in-Darnell. And so they're going into Warren Gullible-like defensive mode. Sad!

Edited October 30, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

16 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?

Friends, I now cordially invite you to relate

a) the one simple observation you would make to shut up the loon described above

to

b) this Wiegman frame, which Mr. Stancak has aptly described as "unfortunate":

[Alan Ford]

57 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Mr. Sykes & friends desperately want to drain all significance out of this scene--------------

-----------because it threatens their already discredited PM-in-Darnell. And so they're going into Warren Gullible-like defensive mode. Sad!

Whereas what 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.

[Ian Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

Mr. Sykes didn't find that, I did:

I wondered at the time whether it might be this:

Whatever the detective is carrying, he brings it into the building.

Why would a detective bring a 'concrete blanket' into the building?

And why would someone's response to the shooting be to run over to the mailboxes, pick up a concrete blanket and stand there holding it out from their body (in a gravity-defying way)?

And why would a police officer make a dash for that person?

Is this an extended Monty Python sketch?

Besides, what would a 'concrete blanket' be doing on a sidewalk where no concrete is being laid?

Incidentally, if one is looking for a sidewalk in need of streetworks barriers, one need only peek around the corner:

Mr. Sykes & friends desperately want to drain all significance out of this scene--------------

-----------because it threatens their already discredited PM-in-Darnell. And so they're going into Warren Gullible-like defensive mode. Sad!

I always thought he'd just slung his raincoat over his shoulder.

[Paul Bacon]

Could the white hatted, black sport coated man with the "concrete blanket" slung over his left shoulder be the same white hatted, black sport coated man, seen in the photo posted by Chris Davidson in the last post on page 9?

It looks like a coat ...raincoat?

Alan, your work is phenomenal.  Aborted political stunt, indeed!  Mind blown....

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Ian Lloyd said:

I always thought he'd just slung his raincoat over his shoulder.

Me too, Mr. Lloyd!

Could it be a raincoat? Maybe, just maybe.

But the (at least) 2-tone pattern looks rather odd for a raincoat IMO

Also when we see him carrying it to the entrance, it just seems a bit off to me for a raincoat...............

 

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Could the white hatted, black sport coated man with the "concrete blanket" slung over his left shoulder be the same white hatted, black sport coated man, seen in the photo posted by Chris Davidson in the last post on page 9?

It looks like a coat ...raincoat?

Alan, your work is phenomenal.  Aborted political stunt, indeed!  Mind blown....

Yes, Mr. Bacon, same man.

And thank you for the kind words! 👍

[Chris Davidson]

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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

Keep in mind,

In the Wiegman frames, both have the unexplained shadow. Lovelady? moves up a step at some point during Wiegman's filming.

After initially giving Alan plenty of grief trying to explain the shadow (nothing from the photographic record disproved his point) the closest I could find was this:

Close, but no dice.

 

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Questionable photo/film interpretations notwithstanding, Oswald was not "waving a flag" as a "political stunt" on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository.

[Alan Ford]

31 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Keep in mind,

In the Wiegman frames, both have the unexplained shadow. Lovelady? moves up a step at some point during Wiegman's filming.

After initially giving Alan plenty of grief trying to explain the shadow (nothing from the photographic record disproved his point) the closest I could find was this:

Close, but no dice.

 

 

 

Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

I've learned to go straight to this Wiegman frame. It's too preposterous for words:

[Alan Ford]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Questionable photo/film interpretations notwithstanding, Oswald was not "waving a flag" as a "political stunt" on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository.

Our thanks to thee, O thrice-noble and omniscient Gatekeeper of Truth!

🤣 

[Alan Ford]

8 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

The sensible (indeed the only realistic) inference is that person-in-red in Towner is person-in-red in Hughes. 

Friends, it can be a useful exercise to steelman another's argument. In that spirit, I'd like to take a little time out here-------------by way of nothing more than speculative excursus---------to envisage a counter-narrative that would combine two counter-suggestions members have advanced in recent posts:

a) Mr. Lovelady is Red Shirt Man in Hughes and in Towner 

b) The man holding the long rectangular object in Darnell could be Mr. Oswald himself.

In doing so, I will consciously play down or just plain ignore what I see as difficulties which might arise from such a counter-narrative. Instead, I will simply ask, in good faith: 'How, if one were so minded, might one weave these two threads into a narrative?' What follows is the only such narrative I can think of that would meet this challenge.

I should mention at the outset that the darkness of the pants worn by the man in front of the mailboxes presented a particular challenge: Mr. Oswald told Capt. Fritz he wore gray pants. A pair of gray pants was found in his rooming-house, along with the reddish-brown shirt.

 

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

OK, here goes FWIW...................

I'll start with three things that are simply odd:

1. The energetic waving from Red Shirt Man in Towner:

2. The ridiculous 'shadow' down Mr. Lovelady's side in Wiegman:

3. This little scene here in Darnell, coupled with the fact that Officer Baker is dashing towards it:

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

A NARRATIVE SKETCH:

1. In order to manufacture a pretext for C-Day (12/1), the Kennedy White House develops a clandestine, off-books, false-flag provocation for 11/22, to involve missed shots fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD.

2. The TSBD agrees to facilitate this operation. A small number of people (incl. Mr. Truly, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Lovelady and of course recent arrival Mr. Oswald) are in the loop.

3. Mr. Oswald's key role: to pull a political stunt out front involving a banner which he will pull out of a long paper bag. By 12.30pm he will have changed clothing (in a first-floor storage room) into his neat Leftist agitator garb and gone out front:

His highly visible stunt is designed to solidify the official story that will be put out: pro-Castro people were behind this outrageously provocative incident.

4. Mr. Lovelady's key role: to wave a flag at Pres. Kennedy from the doorway, confirming that all is ready to go upstairs and the gunman awaits only his counter-signal............

5. Mr. Lovelady does his part; as for Mr. Oswald, he has slipped outside in 'uniform' and with his paraphernalia. Unbeknownst to them both, however, the false-flag operation has been piggybacked by elements wishing Pres. Kennedy dead. The news that Pres. Kennedy has been shot comes as a profound shock to both men (and other TSBD men in the loop).

6. Mr. Oswald never gets to complete his stunt in front of the mailboxes (draping a banner with a pro-Castro message over the streetworks barrier[s]?). Here he is with windswept hair:

In the middle of carrying out his task, he is challenged by Officer Baker. Officer Baker, anxious to make his way upstairs, cuts him loose and enters the building. After that, Mr. Oswald goes back inside. Knowing as he will surely do by now that Pres. Kennedy was actually hit & that he (Mr. Oswald) has been tricked, he ditches Escape Plan A (whatever that was) and goes for a Plan B: go back to the storage room and change back into his work clothes (in order not to match any description of his appearance that may go out after he has left the building). He is noticed in the storage room. NYHT 11/23:

This sighting----------and the prior encounter outside with Officer Baker----------will first be merged into a sighting by Officer Baker of Mr. Oswald in the storage room...............

................ and ultimately into a second-floor lunchroom encounter.

7. After the assassination, the cover-up kicks in. Everyone needs the true facts about the false-flag operation to be suppressed. Mr. Oswald must be patsified. Hence: misleading interrogation reports, second-floor lunchroom story, etc. Crucially, the cover-up must include obscuring the flag which the Wiegman film shows Mr. Lovelady to be holding in his right hand:

However, the work is sloppy, and the last couple of frames give the tiniest glimpse of that flag's presence:

And: the Altgens photograph shows the fluttering flag in front of Mr. Lovelady's shirt, which means that this image must be cleaned up too:

7. When Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier insists that Mr. Oswald was not out on the front steps at the time of the assassination, he is telling the truth. However, he knows full well that Mr. Oswald didn't shoot Pres. Kennedy---------alas, how he knows this is more than he can tell.

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

END OF THOUGHT EXPERIMENT!

Edited October 30, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Our thanks to thee, O thrice-noble and omniscient Gatekeeper of Truth!

🤣

Out of curiosity, why didn't Oswald tell anybody who would listen that he was waving a flag around on the TSBD front steps during the assassination? Why didn't any of his numerous coworkers standing right next to him mention such a thing either?

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Out of curiosity, why didn't Oswald tell anybody who would listen that he was waving a flag around on the TSBD front steps during the assassination? Why didn't any of his numerous coworkers standing right next to him mention such a thing either?

Q1/A1---------Why on earth would he want to advertise the incriminating fact to 'anybody who would listen'?

Q2/A2--------Why didn't anyone mention anything about anyone waving a flag on the steps?

Whether you like it or not, Mr. Cohen, Towner shows the thing being waved. It's a fact.

If you disagree with the above statement, I look forward to reading your counter-analysis of the relevant Towner frames. I'm sure it will be top notch. 👍