Those Front Steps

[Paul Bacon]

Alan, your lastest hypothisis is very plausible and expertly laid out.  I particularly liked your observation of the segmented car antenna.  What a way to back up your assertion!  I do see the masking and the logic behind it--definitly not an appropriate shadow.  Well done! 

You've got me rearranging how I understand what happened that day.  Lovelady and Shelly by the elevators....?  And, of course, how did the shooters get out of the building....?   and on and on.

[Alan Ford]

21 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

Alan, your lastest hypothisis is very plausible and expertly laid out.  I particularly liked your observation of the segmented car antenna.  What a way to back up your assertion!  I do see the masking and the logic behind it--definitly not an appropriate shadow.  Well done! 

You've got me rearranging how I understand what happened that day.  Lovelady and Shelly by the elevators....?  And, of course, how did the shooters get out of the building....?   and on and on.

Thanks so much, Mr. Bacon---------for the kind words, and for having taken the time to actually read mine!

As I indicated in my discussion of the car antenna, I believe there may be enormous significance in the fact that it does not distort/segment when it is over PM/Wiegman. This suggests strongly IMO that PM/Wiegman is not subject to fake shadow in the way that Mr. Lovelady is. Which would lower significantly the chances of his being Mr. Oswald.

On another point you raise: the sixth-floor shooter (IMO another 'guiltocent' party like Mr. Oswald--------he deliberately missed, as per false flag operation) got out of the building only after being vouched for by Mr. Roy Truly by the rear stairs several floors up. He was the man in the light brown jacket whom Officer Baker describes in his 11/22 affidavit.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

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

The explanation is that you're using a poor quality reproduction of the film, rendering it largely useless for such analysis.

[John Cotter]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

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.)?

Disruption is Jonathan Cohen's modus operandi, and all he ever offers is unsubstantiated dogmatic statements.

Edited November 1, 2023 by John Cotter

[Alan Ford]

48 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The explanation is that you're using a poor quality reproduction of the film, rendering it largely useless for such analysis.

~Grin~

"I, Jonathan Cohen, declare that I have not the foggiest idea how to explain the darkness down Billy Lovelady in the frame below. Maybe if I pretend it's not really there, no one will notice."

Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

3 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Disruption is Jonathan Cohen's modus operandi, and all he ever offers is unsubstantiated dogmatic statements.

Don't worry, Mr. Cotter, this is far from my first rodeo with the smug low-information 'nothing-to-see-here' type. As his posts on this thread show, Mr. Cohen is an empty vessel.

(Hello, by the way!)

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/31/2023 at 4:25 PM, Alan Ford said:

 

 

Alan,

With your antenna argument, I believe that you all but proved your point the Lovelady's right side has been blackened out.

The off-location of Lovelady's undershirt does indeed support the idea of a person standing in front of and to the (our) right of Lovelady being blackened out... both his head and Lovelady's right side.

BUT... I'm afraid that this is not supported by the two-headed Lovelady seen in the film. Note that, when Lovelady has two heads, so do others standing in the doorway. It's just a "jerk blur." (Where the camera was jerked a bit.)

 

[John Cotter]

51 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Don't worry, Mr. Cotter, this is far from my first rodeo with the smug low-information 'nothing-to-see-here' type. As his posts on this thread show, Mr. Cohen is an empty vessel.

(Hello, by the way!)

Howdy, Mr Ford. I’m intrigued by your exposition.

I haven’t been so intrigued by anything here since the original Prayer Man thread led by Sean Murphy 10 years ago. I don’t see your line of argument as threatening to the Prayer Man thesis as others do, since the main thrust of that thesis is that Oswald was out in the TSBD doorway (as subsequently effectively proved by the Hosty note discovered by Bart Kamp in Malcolm Blunt’s papers) rather than up on the sixth or second floor.

Whether Oswald was actually Prayer Man or another “fuzzy” figure in the TSBD doorway is of secondary importance. I don’t understand why people are so hostile to the idea that Oswald could be a fuzzy figure other than the one they insist he is. Such hostility seems to contradict the “more than a fuzzy picture” Prayer Man thesis, as above explained.

Anyway, keep her lit. I’m looking forward to more of your instalments.

Edited November 1, 2023 by John Cotter

[Sandy Larsen]

25 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

I don’t understand why people are so hostile to the idea that Oswald could be a fuzzy figure other than the one they insist he is.

 

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.

 

[John Cotter]

16 minutes 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.

 

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.

Edited November 2, 2023 by John Cotter

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes 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.

 

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

 

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BUT... I'm afraid that this is not supported by the two-headed Lovelady seen in the film. Note that, when Lovelady has two heads, so do others standing in the doorway. It's just a "jerk blur." (Where the camera was jerked a bit.)

 

Mr. Larsen, thank you for pointing up this issue. When I said Wiegman brings us into tricky territory, this was one of the things I had in mind............................

I'll try to make this as clear as I can.

You are of course correct-----------there is obviously "jerk blur" in some frames. In the first frame of the GIF you have reposted above, for example, look at the little girl streetside on extreme right of frame, and look at the lady to her immediate right (viewer's left). We see a double-head effect on both of these. No question. It disappears in the second, less blurry frame.

We also see a double-head effect on Mr. Lovelady in the same first frame. No question. And it too disappears in the second, less blurry frame.

Well! Seems straightforward enough, yes?

No!

I would urge great caution about drawing the following particular or general conclusion from this: If we see two heads on Mr. Lovelady in any frame that contains "jerk blur", then we can safely put the double-headed Lovelady effect in that frame down to "jerk blur".

Let me confine myself here to two reasons why such a conclusion would be very unsafe.

1. You will notice, in the GIF you re-posted, that just because "jerk blur" happens to one or more person's head in a frame, it does not happen to every head in that frame. In fact, most heads (including ALL other heads in the doorway) just get stretched or distorted in some way. An optical illusion of doubling is restricted to few heads.

This fact has the consequence that, if we see what appear to be two heads in close proximity in a "jerk blur" frame, it is quite possible that they actually are two different heads. Because two heads in close proximity will show up as-----two heads in close proximity.

How would we tell in a given case if the appearance of two heads is real or illusory? By waiting for the next clearer frame, which should settle the matter.

However! If the film has been tampered with, so as to remove from any clear frame a real second head, then the clearer frames are settling the matter in a fraudulent way.

THIS, in a nutshell, is what I believe to have been the logic behind the selection criterion for frames that needed to lose Mr. Oswald's head. They left the blurry frames alone, and went for the clearer frames in order to 'settle the matter'.

2. It is a startling fact that Mr. Lovelady's head perceptibly doubles up (not just stretching, blurring, but actually looking like two different heads) vastly more often and more drastically than ANY other head anywhere across these frames. No one in the doorway undergoes any such striking head-doubling across multiple frames. Sure, there is stretching and the like. But nothing on the same level as what happens to Mr. Lovelady's head.

Nor does anyone in the street go through any such regularity of head-doubling.

And ponder this fact: MOST of the Wiegman doorway frames show Mr. Lovelady's head doubled!

Taking in both doorway occupants AND street spectators, Mr. Lovelady represents an utter anomaly in this regard.

Let me rephrase that last statement:

The man who has a demonstrably fake shadow down half his body also happens to be uniquely subject to persistent head-doubling.

And let me go one rephrase further still:

The man who has a demonstrably fake shadow down half his body, and a weirdly troubled spatial relationship between his head and his own tshirt, also happens to be uniquely subject to persistent head-doubling.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this concentration of curiosities in one single doorway occupant may indeed be telling us something of case-shattering importance.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Howdy, Mr Ford. I’m intrigued by your exposition.

I haven’t been so intrigued by anything here since the original Prayer Man thread led by Sean Murphy 10 years ago. I don’t see your line of argument as threatening to the Prayer Man thesis as others do, since the main thrust of that thesis is that Oswald was out in the TSBD doorway (as subsequently effectively proved by the Hosty note discovered by Bart Kamp in Malcolm Blunt’s papers) rather than up on the sixth or second floor.

Whether Oswald was actually Prayer Man or another “fuzzy” figure in the TSBD doorway is of secondary importance. I don’t understand why people are so hostile to the idea that Oswald could be a fuzzy figure other than the one they insist he is. Such hostility seems to contradict the “more than a fuzzy picture” Prayer Man thesis, as above explained.

Anyway, keep her lit. I’m looking forward to more of your instalments.

Many thanks, Mr. Cotter----------and glad you're enjoying the ride!

I imagine AltgensDoorwayman=LHO folks were as infuriated by Prayer Man ten years ago as PM/Darnell=LHO folks seem to be by the case I'm making here for an alternative resolution of the 'Oswald Out Front' thing. Some people who should know better appear to be having a bit of a meltdown, and have retreated into Warren Gullible-like 'nothing-to-see-here' mode. Human ego and sunk cost fallacy have a lot to answer for, I guess.................

Anyway, thanks again 👍

 

[John Cotter]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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

 

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

[Sandy Larsen]

28 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

The man who has a demonstrably fake shadow down half his body also happens to be uniquely subject to persistent head-doubling.

 

I don't think so Alan.

Lovelady has two heads, yes.

But the lady in the black coat and hat (or hair?) has two hands.

(And look! The black guy's head disappears!)

I think it's just a matter of Lovelady and Black Coat woman moving during the jerk-blur.