Alan Ford Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 Friends, on page 1 of this thread I contended that the man in the red shirt standing way over west in the doorway in Hughes is Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald rather than Mr. Billy Lovelady------------- Well! Thanks in no small part to some interventions/suggestions from a number of esteemed members, I have done some recogitating (incl. a little alternative-scenario excursus), and have developed what I believe may be a strong competing hypothesis. It heavily involves the Wiegman film. Now a few pages back I warned that this film brings us into tricky, tricky territory. So I would be most grateful if you (or: those of you vulgar enough to believe, like me, that photo-analysis may actually be an honorable and game-changing enterprise) would read what I am going to lay out here as closely, carefully and patiently as you can. My analysis will be detailed, but I make no apology for that------------the stakes could be very high indeed. ------------------- Let me start with these three consecutive frames from Wiegman. They show Mr. Lovelady in shirt and (underneath) tshirt: Question! Is not Mr. Lovelady's tshirt in rather an............. odd position in relation to his neck & head? Answer! Yes, it certainly is. New Question! Is it not rather difficult to realistically square what Wiegman is showing us with what the Altgens photograph-------------taken just a couple of seconds ago------------showed us of that tshirt--neck/head relation? Startled Answer to New Question! Yes, it certainly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 (edited) [Dupe deleted] Edited October 31, 2023 by Alan Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 (edited) [Dupe deleted] Edited October 31, 2023 by Alan Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 (edited) [Dupe deleted] Edited October 31, 2023 by Alan Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 [Sorry about all the dupes, folks!] -------------------- So! ----------------------- A strange misrelation of Lovelady head to Lovelady tshirt. Probably nothing, right? Those old films, right? -------------------- OK. Now let's note another little strangeness apt to pique the curiosity of the pathologically over-curious................... Question! Do you notice the appearance of two Lovelady heads in the first of these two consecutive frames? Answer! Yes, I do. So what? It's a blurry frame. You're losing me, son. Questioner's Response! Bear with me, bear with me................... For now, just note how much this happens to poor Mr. Lovelady across the sequence: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 So! ----------------- A strange misrelation of Lovelady head to Lovelady tshirt + An unfortunate propensity of Mr. Lovelady's to double-headedness. Probably nothing, right? Those old films, right? --------------------- QUESTION! Has anyone been able to account for the impossible darkness falling down Mr. Lovelady's side here? ANSWER! Not that I've noticed, no. Everyone seems to run away in terror from the challenge. NEW QUESTION! Looking at Mr. Lovelady across the early Wiegman frames, don't you find it funny that his tshirt shows where it does in relation to his head, yet we are seriously asked to believe his right (viewer's left) shoulder is angled back so as to be out of view? NEW ANSWER! Yes, now you mention it, I do find it funny. Maybe the man used to work as a fairground attraction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 (edited) So! ----------------- A strange misrelation of Lovelady head to Lovelady tshirt + An unfortunate propensity of Mr. Lovelady's to double-headedness + An impossible darkness down Mr. Lovelady's right side. Probably nothing, right? Those old films, right? --------------------- QUESTION! If Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald came out through the glass front door--------------in response to the sound of a shot and/or a flag being waved---------------with only one upper garment (a white tshirt) on, and if he were carrying before him a long paper bag, what might we expect to see if he took up a momentary standing position right next to (to the left/east of) Mr. Billy Lovelady? ANSWER! Why, we'd see a man in an open-necked shirt standing next to a man in a white tshirt with something darker than the white tshirt below the level of his upper chest. Is this a trick question? NEW QUESTION! No, not a trick question. Now if you really really really didn't want Mr. Oswald in the white tshirt to be visible in a film of the scene, how might you erase his presence whilst keeping Mr. Lovelady there? NEW ANSWER! Black Mr. Oswald out? QUESTION #3! But wouldn't that give the game away, if the angle of the camera were such that superimposed darkness over Mr. Oswald's face & upper body & long paper bag would appear completely unnatural when set beside the other man, part of whose body is blocked from view by Mr. Oswald? ANSWER #4! Yes. It would rather give the game away. So......... what would you do? QUESTIONER'S ANSWER! I'd see about solving the problem from the other side. Edited October 31, 2023 by Alan Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 11 minutes ago, Alan Ford said: QUESTIONER'S ANSWER! I'd see about solving the problem from the other side. ANSWERER'S QUESTION! You've lost me. Can you explain? QUESTIONER'S ANSWER! Surely. 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. Then I would proceed to the next bit: head surgery. First, I would decide to leave alone those frames that are very blurry. If people see two heads in them, they will put it down to blur & film quality. The following frames would be exempt from Oswaldian decapitation: You will note that, in all these frames, in which Mr. Oswald's head is visible just beside & a little in front of Mr. Lovelady's, the white tshirt problem is not in evidence. This is because we're mainly seeing Mr. Oswald's white tshirt rather than Mr. Lovelady's, and Mr. Oswald's tshirt is right under Mr. Oswald's head (as you might expect......). ANSWERER'S NEW QUESTION! You mentioned decapitating Mr. Oswald? QUESTIONER'S NEW ANSWER! I did. I would next take each remaining frame-----------which has been selected for its unfortunate giveaway higher quality from the left-alone ones------------and carefully impose localized blackness beside Mr. Lovelady's head so as to make two heads appear as one. It won't be perfect, but it will do the job: You will note that these de-Oswalded frames WILL have the tshirt-in-the-wrong-place problem. That's because the viewer is seeing (at least mainly) Mr. Lovelady's head yoked 'onto' Mr. Oswald's white tshirt--------as well as a blend of Lovelady shirt and Oswald long paper bag. It will never even strike anyone that Mr. Oswald's head is actually, in the real world and in the original film, here: ANSWERER'S RHETORICAL QUESTION! And no one will realize that, in the undecapitated blurry frames, they are actually looking at the head of Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald? QUESTIONER'S ANSWER! Exactly. Won't even cross anyone's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted November 1, 2023 Author Share Posted November 1, 2023 ANSWERER'S QUESTION! Okay, so that would take care of the frames where Mr. Lovelady is at higher elevation. What about when he steps down? QUESTIONER'S ANSWER! Ah, that would require an operation both easier and more risky. You see, Mr. Lovelady is not the only one who has moved position. So too has Mr. Oswald. He has stepped forward and to his right, because now is the time for him to leave the steps and carry out his political stunt in front of the mailboxes. ANSWERER'S QUESTION! Why does he need to step right? QUESTIONER'S ANSWER! Because he needs to get past Mrs. Madie Reese, who is blocking his path off the steps. ANSWERER! Okay, proceed. QUESTIONER! The clean-up of these Lovelady-at-lower-elevation frames is easier because the fake west-side shadow takes care of the mobile Mr. Oswald's head & body with ease. But it's riskier because the shadow needs to fall in a ridiculously drastic fashion. And------it needs to cut way in to Mr. Lovelady's body around his chest. In undertaking this audacious piece of shadow-placing, I'd have to trust to folks' just assuming that half the doorway is in natural shadow, even at that lower elevation. It's preposterous, but needs must............... ANSWERER! So Mr. Lovelady in these lower-elevation frames is actually just facing forward? QUESTIONER! Pretty much, yeah. Now, if I were being sloppy I'd do a rush job on the final two frames, which don't even show Mr. Lovelady. So a tiny glint or two of Oswaldian presence might creep through. But, I mean, who the heck is gonna notice? It's 1963. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 11 hours ago, Alan Ford said: Stop playing games, Mr. Stancak. Kindly explain to us how you see the orientation of Mr. Lovelady's body in the frame below: Alan: Lovelady appears to gaze straight at a spot in front of the doorway but his body is orientated in a similar way as in Altgens6 (I do not claim that the two postures are exactly the same in this frame and in Altgens6); Lovelady was leaning to his left and front, so his right shoulder appears comparatively backward relative to his left shoulder. I see nothing unusual with this picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 (edited) 11 hours ago, Alan Ford said: In which case, we might turn to Altgens----------taken just a couple of seconds before this--------and identify this item, which has been generally misunderstood as Mr. Lovelady's left ear, as in fact part of the about-to-descend Mr. Oswald's face (or even his ear?): It is easy to be tempted into thinking Oswald was in the back and responsible for the shape you highlighted, and back then before I was able to analyse Altgens6 using a 3D model, I was considering this possibility too. Such ideas come from misunderstanding of the relationships in the doorway and from not linking vague photographic interprestations with witness testimonies. There was a huge lady, Mrs. Stanton, up there in the centre of the doorway, on the top landing, and it so happened that part of her face, some curles of her hair and her right shoulder can be seen as separate from Lovelady's body in Altgens6. I have studied this shape for years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Hwt-cIGq4&t=367s&pp=ygUmdGhlIGNhc2Ugb2YgYSBtaXNzaW5nIGxhZHkgaW4gYWx0Z2VuczY%3D Edited November 1, 2023 by Andrej Stancak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 7 hours ago, Alan Ford said: NEW ANSWER! Black Mr. Oswald out? Yes. Which is exactly what was done in the Towner film. But, there isn't a waving flag in Towner. The waving flag illusion is actually the film being crudely masked to hide (we know who). Below the red arrow is the masking. Obscuring two figures in red was the goal. The first frame with the red arrow(below and to the left of that arrow) shows one of the red clothed participants. This person is at a higher level than the subsequent red clothed participant, who appears directly below the red arrow Just follow the red objects within that immediate area a few times and the masked affect is exposed. P.S. Yes, I did sharpen/enlarge this to get a better view of the edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted November 1, 2023 Author Share Posted November 1, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said: Lovelady was leaning to his left and front, so his right shoulder appears comparatively backward relative to his left shoulder. Sorry, Mr. Stancak, not even close to convincing. To even hope to get the effect we see in this frame, Mr. Lovelady's body would need to be side-on to Wiegman's camera-------such that we'd see his left shoulder under his head. Instead what we see under his head is his white tshirt, and----------just beside it, in the usual place--------his left shirt collar. He may be turned a little, but not nearly enough to account for this sudden disappearance of his right side: Remember, we're actually talking about this guy: This one wasn't available that day--------- Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted November 1, 2023 Author Share Posted November 1, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said: IThere was a huge lady, Mrs. Stanton, up there in the centre of the doorway, on the top landing, and it so happened that part of her face, some curles of her hair and her right shoulder can be seen as separate from Lovelady's body in Altgens6. Nope. In early '64, Mr. Lovelady pointed Mr. Dom Bonafede to a woman in Altgens shielding her eyes as a lady who worked on the second floor. He later told WC that beside him at the time of the shooting was 'Sarah' (the only woman he mentions). His 'memory' of who was where on the steps was obviously influenced by his viewing of the Altgens photograph, in which Mrs. Stanton looks like she's standing right beside him. Here she is: Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ford Posted November 1, 2023 Author Share Posted November 1, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: But, there isn't a waving flag in Towner. The waving flag illusion is actually the film being crudely masked to hide (we know who). Hmmm... I think the correlation between the pumping of the flag and the lunging of Red Shirt Man's body is just too striking for this flag to be explicable as post-production masking Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now