Those Front Steps

[Chris Davidson]

22 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

Hang on, would it not be way easier just to put the fake shadow down all of both men-------Mr. Oswald and Mr. Lovelady? Just erase them both from the doorway?

QUESTIONER'S ANSWERER!

Yes, that would be way easier.

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

So you'd do that then?

QUESTIONER'S ANSWER!

Are you crazy? Everyone has seen Altgens. It doesn't permit the fiction of the whole west half of the doorway being in natural shadow a few steps up. That pesky photo places a limit on how far east our fake shadow can cut into Mr. Lovelady. Because folks will soon enough have worked out that Altgens & Wiegman are showing basically the same scene at the same time, from different angles.

ANSWERER'S QUESTION!

Ah, I see. So you'd--------------

QUESTIONER'S ANSWER!

Exactly. I'd have the fake shadow in Wiegman kick in just where Mr. Lovelady's body goes out of Altgens' view..........  Folks will just assume that everything in Altgens hidden behind the west column of the doorway is in deep shadow. They won't see what a coincidence this is. Now------it's true that the tshirt/collar/left shoulder in Wiegman will look all wrong positionally (relative to Mr. Lovelady's head), but that will become apparent only to someone who thinks to subject the Wiegman-Altgens images to an extremely close and critical comparison. In the highly unlikely event that anyone does in fact spot the obvious discrepancies, they will probably just be written off as a paranoid screwball who 'doesn't understand how films and photographs work'.

By the time they convinced you of that, they could then throw this in, making you believe, not only of the west wall shadow across a body with someone close to it, but the shadows ability to cast itself near the hand rail.

 

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

Now------it's true that the tshirt/collar/left shoulder in Wiegman will look all wrong positionally (relative to Mr. Lovelady's head) [...]

Friends, if you want a soundbite for this problem, here it is:

In the Wiegman frame: somewhere in the area of 'Lovelady's white tshirt'---------that's where his left shoulder should be.

No doubt those who have been solemnly assuring us that the shadow down Mr. Lovelady's side in the Wiegman frame is due to his body being angled southwest.................. will now assure us just as solemnly that it's actually facing straight south out of the doorway! Which little gambit turns Mr. Lovelady into our old pal Rubber Boy----------without even solving the problem it's supposed to solve............

My thesis: that's not actually Mr. Lovelady's white tshirt, it's Mr. Oswald's (and he's not wearing a shirt over it). In the original film, his head was above it.

'If you can lose your head when all about you/ Are keeping theirs...............'

Edited November 2, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Marcus Fuller]

At midday in November wouldn't the sun be blasting right into that doorway? It was obviously bright enough that a few people needed to shade their eyes. If the footage was taken by a professional cameraman in the motorcade you'd assume he would have a camera that was capable enough to render contrast adequately. And the sun would have been at his back.

Unless of course the area in question has been darkened after the fact.

[Greg Doudna]

On 11/2/2023 at 2:35 PM, Alan Ford said:

Friends, if you want a soundbite for this problem, here it is:

In the Wiegman frame: somewhere in the area of 'Lovelady's white tshirt'---------that's where his left shoulder should be.

No doubt those who have been solemnly assuring us that the shadow down Mr. Lovelady's side in the Wiegman frame is due to his body being angled southwest.................. will now assure us just as solemnly that it's actually facing straight south out of the doorway! Which little gambit turns Mr. Lovelady into our old pal Rubber Boy----------without even solving the problem it's supposed to solve............

My thesis: that's not actually Mr. Lovelady's white tshirt, it's Mr. Oswald's (and he's not wearing a shirt over it). In the original film, his head was above it.

'If you can lose your head when all about you/ Are keeping theirs...............'

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Alan Ford]

22 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Alan, that white spot in front of Lovelady’s left shoulder in Weigman you are calling someone else’s T-shirt instead of Lovelady’s T-shirt … isn’t that white spot a white-shirted elbow of a man other than Lovelady holding his arm up and hand over his eyes like others on the steps in that bright sun?

Unfortunately, Mr. Doudna, that white-shirted elbow is already accounted for in Wiegman (green arrow). The white area marked by orange arrow is what I'm talking about. What Wiegman shows of it is utterly irreconcilable with what Altgens shows of it:

It's as ridiculous in its own way as this 'shadow' down Mr. Lovelady:

[Mart Hall]

Alan, I think it’s possible there could be a simple answer for the missing right shoulder/body of Lovelady in Wiegman.

In the frame above, Lovelady’s head is not central in reference to the white t-shirt.

However using the top of the entrance to the TSBD as a reference we can see the frame is either taken at an angle or the illusion is created through photography.

When the frame is turned approximately 10 degrees clockwise, so that the top of the entrance to the TSBD is parallel to the ground, Lovelady’s head now appears to be central to the white t-shirt and hence a greater part of his right torso is in view.

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Mart Hall said:

However using the top of the entrance to the TSBD as a reference we can see the frame is either taken at an angle or the illusion is created through photography.

When the frame is turned approximately 10 degrees clockwise, so that the top of the entrance to the TSBD is parallel to the ground, Lovelady’s head now appears to be central to the white t-shirt and hence a greater part of his right torso is in view.

Thanks for this, Mr. Hall.

I honestly don't see Mr. Lovelady's head becoming central to the white-tshirt, even after rotation---------the spatial relationship between head & tshirt doesn't change. They're weirdly misaligned--------and completely different to what's shown in Altgens.

But! Even if this problem could somehow be solved, the other problem remains: in order to account for the sudden disappearance into blackness of much of Mr. Lovelady's right side (incl. shoulder), it has been argued that Mr. Lovelady's body is angled southwest, a la Altgens. So let's imagine Mr. Lovelady's right shoulder (viewer's left) going back behind him, out of Wiegman's view. What would have to happen in this scenario to the left shoulder? Why, it would------------unless Mr. Lovelady really is Rubber Boy------------have to correspondingly jut out past (=south of) his head. Draw an axis from the imagined right shoulder in Wiegman through Mr. Lovelady's neck, however, and where does it lead? Not to the left shoulder but to white tshirt.

What Wiegman shows is white tshirt where we should----------if Mr. Lovelady's body is indeed angled southwest---------be seeing shirt-covered shoulder.

In other words! The proposed explanation for the west-side shadow disallows any conceivable explanation for the white tshirt problem on the other side. It's an impossible image.

The only rational explanation I can see for why it's an impossible image is that it has been tampered with on both sides of Mr. Lovelady.

And the only rational motivation I can think of for why the 'investigating' authorities would see a need to take recourse to such an extraordinary intervention is: Mr. Oswald.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Alan Ford

[John Cotter]

20 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Meanwhile over at ROKC, I see that Greg Parker is fulminating like mad against Alan Ford and me over the sanctity of how what even his own crowd have acknowledged is a “fuzzy picture” should be interpreted.

He doesn’t seem to understand the logic of the post by me which he quoted.

Greg Parker has replied to this at ROKC.

Contrary to what he says, I know what he means by “more than a fuzzy picture” and I agree with it. The problem is that while ROKCers say they’re not 100% certain Prayer Man is Oswald, some of them behave as if they are, as evidenced by the vehemence and illogicality with which they attack any hypothesis, such as Alan Ford’s, that a fuzzy figure in the TSBD doorway other than Prayer Man might be Oswald.

GP says I’ll be celebrating if he fails in his mission to have the JFKA case reopened. This is a quite perverse claim to make for someone who talks a lot about the importance of evidence, since I never suggested anything of the kind.

I wouldn’t have emailed the FBI repeatedly this year about how the testimony of railroad workers recorded by Mark Lane constituted irrefutable proof of conspiracy if I didn’t want the case reopened. GP seems to have not noticed my mentioning this in this forum.

Everything isn’t a zero-sum game.

[Jean Ceulemans]

First of all....  I don't know who is who in these pictures

But to his right it appears there are signs of some blackening (vertical strokes), touching up, whatever you want to call it.   I have no way of knowing when or how or why.... as so many of these have been enhanced over the years. It is very well possible other versions don't show this.... so FWIW

Also, It could be something in the emulsion structure of the negatives 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Alan Ford]

Mr. Ceulemans, it may interest you to know that a while back an arch-Warren Gullible propagandist by the name of Mr. John Mytton brought these details out of the Weisberg archive print of this Lovelady-at-lower-level Wiegman frame:

Mr. Mytton triumphantly proclaimed that the traces of plaid pattern proved that Mr. Lovelady's side can't have been painted over in black.

I cordially thanked him for furnishing strong evidence of the obvious (viz., that Mr. Lovelady was indeed facing forward). When I then pointed out that this effect was consistent with the aerial imaging scenario I'd had in mind, he went very quiet.

Before long, poor Mr. Mytton was reduced to suggesting that Mr. Lovelady in this frame is in fact up on the landing, catching natural shadow by bending down to-----------wait for it---------tie his shoelaces!

🤣

But there's a serious point in all this: Not a single person has been able to offer a convincing innocent explanation for this 'shadow'.

It's not their fault: there just isn't one.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Jean Ceulemans]

Now, I don't know about some of these pictures, but is it possible they came from newspaper-archives ?

That process is very interesting, they will reproduce (and enhance) an anolog picture and next create a halftone printing matrix.  That leaves very visible artifacts (well.. depending the quality), it kinda looks like round pixels.

There is an interesting book on the subject, I will have to look for it somewhere in my photograpic books, it has been over 10 years since I got it, I think it was part of a series published in the USA

[Alan Ford]

On 11/2/2023 at 2:05 AM, Alan Ford said:

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

However! If in any individual less-blurry frame it was not viable to just delete Mr. Oswald's head, they had to be more creative-------------------------and just, well, Frankenstein it.

From the digital collection at Baylor:

"Mr. Oswald, I presume?"

Edited November 3, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

The west-side 'ear' is a lovely touch! 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/2/2023 at 5:37 AM, John Cotter said:

Now you're strawmanning my argument, since you've left out the Alan Ford post about the two-headed Lovelady which you were purportedly rebutting.

Please desist from cluttering the thread with irrelevant nonsense.

 

Show me which post in our (mine and your) conversation is about the two-headed Lovelady. You can't because it's not there. <roll-eyes>

 

[John Cotter]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Show me which post in our (mine and your) conversation is about the two-headed Lovelady. You can't because it's not there. <roll-eyes>

 

Ipse dixit.