Those Front Steps

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

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

 

Just to be clear, my position is not dogmatic.

 

[Alan Ford]

1 hour 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.

I don't see much of a V-shaped opening in the JFK BluRay version tbh, Mr. Larsen.

Look at the jumpy noise at PM's left (viewer's right) shoulder area-----------it gives an idea of just how poor this version is. I reckon this noise is what's messed with our perception of what's actually there in the collar area.

No credibility-stretching leap from the above to this IMO----------------

And no one complained back in 2013 when a comparable leap in quality was made to JFK BluRay version from this:

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Alan Ford

[John Cotter]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Just to be clear, my position is not dogmatic.

 

If that's the case, why have you strawmanned Alan Ford's latest painstaking elaboration of the double-head effect on Billy Lovelady?

Edited November 2, 2023 by John Cotter

[Alan Ford]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

 

 

With respect, Mr. Larsen, I think you've missed my point.

If we see two heads in close proximity in a "jerk blur" frame, it could mean

a) it's one head that has been artificially doubled due to the "jerk blur"

b) it's two heads that really are there.

Look at these two heads:

Now imagine if someone had, in the less blurry frame, carefully deleted the head of the woman under the yellow arrow.

What would the unsuspecting viewer see? Just one head.

What would the unsuspecting viewer conclude? That the head under the yellow arrow in the blurry frame was an illusion caused by "jerk blur". Support for this conclusion would be found in the fact that some other heads elsewhere have also been doubled in the "jerk blur" frame.

I'm proposing that was the strategy of those who deleted Mr. Oswald's head: they targeted the clearer frames.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

With respect, Mr. Larsen, I think you've missed my point.

If we see two heads in close proximity in a "jerk blur" frame, it could mean

a) it's one head that has been artificially doubled due to the "jerk blur"

b) it's two heads that really are there.

Look at these two heads:

Now imagine if someone had, in the less blurry frame, carefully deleted the head of the woman under the yellow arrow.

What would the unsuspecting viewer see? Just one head.

What would the unsuspecting viewer conclude? That the head under the yellow arrow in the blurry frame was an illusion caused by "jerk blur". Support for this conclusion would be found in the fact that some other heads elsewhere have also been doubled in the "jerk blur" frame.

I'm proposing that was the strategy of those who deleted Mr. Oswald's head: they targeted the clearer frames.

 

Yes, I understand that Alan. And It's possible your theory is correct.

What I'm saying is that an alternative to your theory is what I said... that the two-headed Lovelady is a product of motion blur without any alteration. Just like the two-handed woman is a product of motion blur without any alteration.

I suspect that the reason those two things look like there are two of them, instead of looking simply blurred like everything else, is because Lovelady's head and the woman's hand both moved while the shutter was opened.

But whatever the reason, the two hands prove that two heads could result from jerk blur.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

27 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

I'm proposing that was the strategy of those who deleted Mr. Oswald's head: they targeted the clearer frames.

Good lord - does it ever end? Nobody "deleted" Oswald's head. Give us a break already.

[Sandy Larsen]

50 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just to be clear, my position is not dogmatic.

50 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

If that's the case, why have you strawmanned Alan Ford's latest painstaking elaboration of the double-head effect on Billy Lovelady?

 

We were talking about Prayer Man's collar. Why are you now changing the subject to the double-headed Lovelady?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Good lord - does it ever end? Nobody "deleted" Oswald's head. Give us a break already.

 

Jonathan,

Since you know everything, how do you explain that Lovelady's right half is missing... it's all black.

BTW, it has been established that he isn't standing in the shade. None of him is shaded.

 

 

[Alan Ford]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, I understand that Alan. And It's possible your theory is correct.

What I'm saying is that an alternative to your theory is what I said... that the two-headed Lovelady is a product of motion blur without any alteration. Just like the two-handed woman is a product of motion blur without any alteration.

I suspect that the reason those two things look like there are two of them, instead of looking simply blurred like everything else, is because Lovelady's head and the woman's hand both moved while the shutter was opened.

But whatever the reason, the two hands prove that two heads could result from jerk blur.

Of course two heads could result from jerk blur. That was never in question. On the contrary, I've been proposing that those charged with eliminating Mr. Oswald's head took advantage precisely of this fact to fool the viewer.

And I invite you once again to ponder the fact that Mr. Lovelady's head, and only Mr. Lovelady's head, is subjected to doubling in the majority of the Wiegman frames showing him at higher elevation.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

And I invite you once again to ponder the fact that Mr. Lovelady's head, and only Mr. Lovelady's head, is subjected to doubling in the majority of the Wiegman frames showing him at higher elevation.

 

I will do that if you will post each frame individually so they can be studied.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Since you know everything, how do you explain that Lovelady's right half is missing... it's all black.

I explain it by pointing out, yet again, that Alan Ford is using a poor quality image to draw absurd conclusions about what's happening therein. As Alex Wilson eloquently summarizes on ROKC, "it's the clumsy, counterproductive, sometimes downright amateurish and embarrassing efforts, coupled with the extravagant claims" to which serious researchers object.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I explain it by pointing out, yet again, that Alan Ford is using a poor quality image to draw absurd conclusions about what's happening therein. As Alex Wilson eloquently summarizes on ROKC, "it's the clumsy, counterproductive, sometimes downright amateurish and embarrassing efforts, coupled with the extravagant claims" to which serious researchers object.

LOL

[Chris Davidson]

Natural Shadow:

[Andrej Stancak]

14 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

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.

Alan:

the reality is that you spew your fantastic inventions in rapid succession and run away once confronted with data. 

Otis Williams was photographed by William Allen when standing behind the glass door at some point after the shooting. Therefore, we have good idea about his appearance: he wore a white shirt and dark (black?) tie, and he had a nice belly.

 

There is only one candidate for a person with these features in Altgens doorway - the man standing close to the central railing and visoring his eyes. Here I have overlaid my reconstruction of Otis Williams's figure with Altgens6. You may agree it is a good match. At least I am not aware that anyone else has questioned it.

After reconstructing Williams' figure, it is possible to check the colour of the trousers of the other man visoring his eyes and standing behind Williams. That small bit of trousers is below the bent left elbow of Otis Williams. It is difficult to spot such minute details by viewing Altgens6 picture without assistance of a 3D model.

I would prefer if you called me Andrej instead of Mr. Stancak. The latter sounds polite but my impression is that it only hides your unnecessarily challenging and personal style of interacting in a debate.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Andrej Stancak

[John Cotter]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

We were talking about Prayer Man's collar. Why are you now changing the subject to the double-headed Lovelady?

 

I wasn't changing the subject, Sandy. The two posts I was referring to, Alan's and yours, relate to the double-headed Lovelady.

Edited November 2, 2023 by John Cotter