Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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

As in, the person at lower level is sitting?

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

As in, the person at lower level is sitting?

Don't know.

But in Bell, I get the impression that the red at left is more torso(person1), while lower and to the right is a left arm.(person2)

Remember, Towner has the splice and the first frame(with the red arrow) in the previous gif, is the first frame after the splice.

Myers try's to convince us the splice has seven missing frames, but his fps rate tells a whole different story which I won't get into.

Wiegman/Altgens same two person problem in the photographic record.

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Chris Davidson
Added on edit:(with the red arrow)

[Chris Davidson]

53 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Remember, Towner has the splice and the first frame in the previous gif, is the first frame after the splice.

Myers try's to convince us the splice has seven missing frames, but his fps rate tells a whole different story which I won't get into.

 

 

 

 

Towner provenance via Gary Mack's response when questioned by Bill MIller:

"In reply to your questions, the camera original Towner film has one splice about 2/3 of the way through the limo turn onto Elm Street. Since the film was never examined by government investigators, the splice was first noticed by Robert Groden, who served as a consultant to the HSCA photo panel in 1978.
From what Tina and Jim Towner told me over the years, they had no knowledge of how or when that splice was made. What is known is that the film was developed for them by The Dallas Morning News within a few days of the assassination; available records suggest the film was never seen by investigators until the HSCA. The only other time the film was out of the Towner’s possession was when LIFE magazine borrowed it from them in 1967 for publication in their November issue about Kennedy assassination photographers."

Put two and two together. It's not rocket science.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

39 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Put two and two together. It's not rocket science.

It would be rocket science to successfully and covertly alter a film not seen by the general public in a way that somehow retained continuity with all the other films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza ...

[Andrej Stancak]

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

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:

 

It seems there was some misunderstanding in Lovelady's identification of Sarah Stanton as you present it. The guy you highlighted has man's clothes - a white shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbow (or short-sleeve shirt) and dark (black?) trousers. No trace of Sarah Stanton's blonde hair too. 

This man was most likely Joe Molina. He stood on one of the top steps as this man does. We have no photograph of Joe Molina from 1963, unfortunately, but his body height is known (5' 8'').  Molina told the Warren Commission to have stood next to Otis Williams and Pauline Sanders. The location of the man under your green arrow would match this location. Also, there is simply no other man in the doorway besides Jones, Lovelady, Frazier and Shelley than Molina. As the locations of other male occupants are known, this guy could only be Joe Molina.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

26 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

It would be rocket science to successfully and covertly alter a film not seen by the general public in a way that somehow retained continuity with all the other films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza ...

Or purposely,

Continuity was achieved by overtly splicing,opaquing,excising, specific films/photos, which isn't rocket science.

All depends on what continuity clock you base your conclusions on.

[Alan Ford]

16 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

It seems there was some misunderstanding in Lovelady's identification of Sarah Stanton as you present it. The guy you highlighted has man's clothes - a white shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbow (or short-sleeve shirt) and dark (black?) trousers. No trace of Sarah Stanton's blonde hair too. 

This man was most likely Joe Molina. 

Good grief, every single statement here is pure nonsense:

----"a white shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbow (or short-sleeve shirt)". Really, Mr. Stancak? Is that what the pink arrow points to?

----"dark (black?) trousers"? Where on earth are you getting that from? And have you even tried to work out what belongs here to the corpulent Mr. Otis Williams' dark (black?) trousers?

----"No trace of Sarah Stanton's blonde hair too". Her hair is in shadow, duh

----"most likely Joe Molina"? Nope, that would be the man seen just behind Mr. Lovelady (whom you no doubt have mis-identified as Mr. Bill Shelley, despite the fact that he said he was out of shot in Altgens)

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

Good grief, every single statement here is pure nonsense:

----"a white shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbow (or short-sleeve shirt)". Really, Mr. Stancak? Is that what the pink arrow points to?

----"dark (black?) trousers"? Where on earth are you getting that from? And have you even tried to work out what belongs here to the corpulent Mr. Otis Williams' dark (black?) trousers?

----"No trace of Sarah Stanton's blonde hair too". Her hair is in shadow, duh

----"most likely Joe Molina"? Nope, that would be the man seen just behind Mr. Lovelady (whom you no doubt have mis-identified as Mr. Bill Shelley, despite the fact that he said he was out of shot in Altgens)

Please  check my video on Altgens6 for identification of Otis Williams - he was photographed on that day, so his identification was quite straightforward. This was the man also in white shirt and dark trousers and wearing a tie.

[Alan Ford]

12 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Please  check my video on Altgens6 for identification of Otis Williams - he was photographed on that day, so his identification was quite straightforward. This was the man also in white shirt and dark trousers and wearing a tie.

So you don't want to acknowledge the rudimentary errors you made and which I have pointed out? You're happy to just carry on regardless of reality?

Noted.

And no, I don't need to check your identification of Mr. Williams out. But thanks anyway.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Continuity was achieved by overtly splicing,opaquing,excising, specific films/photos, which isn't rocket science.

All depends on what continuity clock you base your conclusions on.

Chris, you've got to be joking. Did the evil conspirators consist of full-time alterationists who spent decades fine-tuning their masterworks? You cannot possibly come up with a legitimate means by which these plotters could confidently alter one film and then achieve the needed continuity in the dozens and dozens of other films and photos capturing the same Dealey Plaza scenes.

[Richard Price]

Jonathan, on the surface your reasoning seems (and is sound).  My question would be, How many of these photos/films have been "passed through" various agencies (CIA ["Time-Life"]/FBI/HSCA), examined,studied or in other ways and out of the hands of the owners.  I think all or virtually all were.  If the CIA was involved (I think they were), those at the top of the conspiracy to kill would be the same ones who could oversee the gathering and censorship of the visual evidence.  Those not involved would/could be manipulated by use of the "state secrecy" and internal classification.  After all, you wouldn't want to start WWIII by revealing something told to you by the top members of the intelligence agencies (especially in the 1960's/cold war era).  Once changes/edits/splices, etc. are in place you can't go back to the originals and no one has anything more than  a memory that the photo/film somehow looks different than it did originally.  I have seen, heard or read many accounts of the people having made the photos or films saying their memory of what they sent in is slightly different from what was returned.  Also, many were simply returned "damaged" by those darn professionals that handled the materials while in "official hands".  I feel this accounts for possible alteration in the (Keep It Simple Stupid/Ocams Razor) method.  Just my opinion though.

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

Jonathan, on the surface your reasoning seems (and is sound).  My question would be, How many of these photos/films have been "passed through" various agencies (CIA ["Time-Life"]/FBI/HSCA), examined,studied or in other ways and out of the hands of the owners.  I think all or virtually all were.  If the CIA was involved (I think they were), those at the top of the conspiracy to kill would be the same ones who could oversee the gathering and censorship of the visual evidence.  Those not involved would/could be manipulated by use of the "state secrecy" and internal classification.  After all, you wouldn't want to start WWIII by revealing something told to you by the top members of the intelligence agencies (especially in the 1960's/cold war era).  Once changes/edits/splices, etc. are in place you can't go back to the originals and no one has anything more than  a memory that the photo/film somehow looks different than it did originally.  I have seen, heard or read many accounts of the people having made the photos or films saying their memory of what they sent in is slightly different from what was returned.  Also, many were simply returned "damaged" by those darn professionals that handled the materials while in "official hands".  I feel this accounts for possible alteration in the (Keep It Simple Stupid/Ocams Razor) method.  Just my opinion though.

Richard, even if what you posit were true, it would still leave the plotters open to serious repercussions in the event that photos or films were only discovered years later (which happened on several occasions). There is truly no way to account for all the possible evidence when you start altering this film here, this photo there, etc. The whole thing is a house of cards which would collapse with even the slightest discontinuity.

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chris, you've got to be joking. Did the evil conspirators consist of full-time alterationists who spent decades fine-tuning their masterworks? You cannot possibly come up with a legitimate means by which these plotters could confidently alter one film and then achieve the needed continuity in the dozens and dozens of other films and photos capturing the same Dealey Plaza scenes.

Last time I checked, the title of this thread was:

Mr. Cohen, kindly list the "dozens and dozens of other films and photos" showing the front steps, the existence of which would have presented a major "continuity" challenge to someone wishing to mask someone on the steps in the Towner film (as Mr. Davidson has suggested) or (as I have suggested) the Wiegman film.

Or are you just here to try to derail this thread with off-topic rehashing of an old controversy about the visual record of the motorcade out on the street (Zapruder, Nix, etc.)?

Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chris, you've got to be joking. Did the evil conspirators consist of full-time alterationists who spent decades fine-tuning their masterworks? You cannot possibly come up with a legitimate means by which these plotters could confidently alter one film and then achieve the needed continuity in the dozens and dozens of other films and photos capturing the same Dealey Plaza scenes.

Well stated Richard.

Jonathan, getting back to the topic at hand, which you don't particularly care for, please provide your best argument for why we have the impossible shadow that Alan discovered in Wiegman.

Here's the counterpoint to your arguments once again:

 

[Alan Ford]

1 minute ago, Chris Davidson said:

Well stated Richard.

Jonathan, getting back to the topic at hand, which you don't particularly care for, please provide your best argument for why we have the impossible shadow that Alan discovered in Wiegman.

Here's the counterpoint to your arguments once again:

 

👍

Let's help the photo-analytic giant Mr. Cohen put together yet another well-researched, fine-grained, insightful counter-analysis, shall we?

"I, Jonathan Cohen, declare that the darkness down Billy Lovelady in the frame below is easily explained. Here's my explanation: ......................................................................."

Over to you, Mr. Cohen!