Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

It would not be Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald's fault if his true alibi turned out to be the one loudly advocated before this by some very kooky people (we all know their names!) with some outstandingly bad arguments.

Friends, this is a terribly important point.

I refuse to allow clowns like Mr. R. Cinque or Prof! J. Fetzer (or any other clowns, for that matter...........) have the least influence on where my quest for the truth of Mr. Oswald's 12:30pm whereabouts might take me.

Many serious researchers over the years (e.g. the great Mr. Harold Weisberg) have felt that the canonical Altgens image of Mr. Lovelady in the doorway just didn't pass the smell test. But they didn't have the digital resources to prove what exactly was wrong and where the solution might lie. We do, and I sincerely believe, on the basis of what has happened on this thread over the last few pages, that the case for Mr. Oswald standing in white tshirt in the Lovelady spot has become the most compelling CT thesis yet as to his alibi. I don't say this lightly. The pieces have fallen into place in the most startling and unexpected of ways.

But-----------like I say-----------over to the naysayers to give me hell over my claim. Let's see what they've got by way of details-oriented rebuttal!

[Alan Ford]

[Dupe deleted!]

Edited November 5, 2023 by Alan Ford

[James DiEugenio]

Alan:

Can you please be crystal clear about what you are saying, and how it relates to CInque and Fetzer.

 

 

[Alan Ford]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Alan:

Can you please be crystal clear about what you are saying, and how it relates to CInque and Fetzer.

Of course, Mr. DiEugenio.

My analysis of anomalies in the extant Wiegman film has led me to believe that it and the Altgens photo originally showed Mr. Oswald standing at the center rail in the doorway, wearing his white tshirt, with Mr. Lovelady standing just to his right.

The details of my analysis can be found in the foregoing pages of this thread. I draw particular attention to

a) the impossible darkness down Mr. Lovelady's right side in Wiegman

b) the 'Lovelady white tshirt' in Wiegman

c) the version of Altgens shown live on TV by Mr. Walter Cronkite the evening of the assassination.

Based on my study of Hughes, Bell & Towner, I believe Mr. Oswald came out through the glass front door only after hearing the first shot. He was carrying the long paper bag (which shows up less than a minute later in Darnell). Why was he there? To perform a post-shooting 'Hands off Cuba!' political stunt in front of the Depository: his role in what he believed would be a non-lethal missed-shots false-flag incident.

-------------------

Mr. Cinque & Prof. Fetzer (in)famously championed the AltgensDoorwayman=LHO cause, and made a complete mess of it. For instance, a central plank of their claim was the resemblance between Doorwayman's shirt and Mr. Oswald's arrest shirt (which he didn't even bring to work that day). They made a host of ludicrously inept photo-analytical claims, and even posited a 'mobile photo-alteration lab' in Dealey Plaza. Crazy stuff!

However------------not even the extreme kookiness of their efforts should be taken as substantive grounds to close one's mind to the possibility that the suspicion of first-generation Warren critics was correct: Mr. Oswald, at least originally, was the man in the doorway in Altgens.

Wiegman's corroboration of Altgens' 'Lovelady' has collapsed.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Alan Ford

[John Cotter]

The consternation expressed by some ROKCers over the damage allegedly caused to the JFKA “research community” by Alan Ford’s heretical exposition is laughable.

If the MSM were bothered to search for material which they could use to discredit the aforementioned community, they need look no further than the mudslinging and personal attacks constantly emanating from ROKC, which unfortunately has largely overshadowed the constructive contribution of ROKC to the JFKA debate.

The fact that the JFKA research community appears more riven by infighting than Monty Python’s People’s Front of Judea is due in no small measure to ROKC’s flawed zero-sum approach in JFKA research matters.

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Alan,

Why is Lovelady's white undershirt in the correct position in this frame?

 

[Alan Ford]

54 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

The consternation expressed by some ROKCers over the damage allegedly caused to the JFKA “research community” by Alan Ford’s heretical exposition is laughable.

If the MSM were bothered to search for material which they could use to discredit the aforementioned community, they need look no further than the mudslinging and personal attacks constantly emanating from ROKC, which unfortunately has largely overshadowed the constructive contribution of ROKC to the JFKA debate.

'This is almost certainly Lee Harvey Oswald! The reason it doesn't look like him here means NOTHING--------this image was altered by the Sixth Floor Museum in a nefarious plot against the truth!! Anyone who disagrees is an alterationist DISINFO KOOK!!!'

They've gone into Doyle mode, reduced to howling at the indifferent moon. Sad!

[Alan Ford]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Alan,

Why is Lovelady's white undershirt in the correct position in this frame?

 

Because he's pretty much just facing forward (south)

[Alan Ford]

Friends, Mr. Oswald on the front steps allows us to make sense of DPD's especially hostile treatment of Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier.

1. Mr. Oswald was on the front steps @12:30pm.

2. Mr. Oswald, in interrogation, is able to name three male co-workers who were also on the west side of the entranceway and who will be able to vouch for him:
          a) Mr. Bill Shelley (whom Mr. Oswald has just seen in the Homicide Office)
          b) Mr. Billy Lovelady (ditto)
          c) Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier

3. Mr. Shelley's affidavit (whose taking has been interrupted by Mr. Oswald's arrival in the Homicide Office) contains a sly workaround to the fact that he can confirm to DPD that Mr. Oswald was in the doorway:

Notice what's missing? That's right: I did not see him at the time of the shooting

4. Mr. Lovelady's affidavit makes no mention of Mr. Oswald, but his 11/22 FBI interview reports contains its own sly workaround to the fact that he can confirm that Mr. Oswald was in the doorway:

"The last contact", lol.

Notice what's missing? That's right: I did not see him at the time of the shooting

5. Two of the three men named by Mr. Oswald are, therefore, controllable by the 'investigating' authorities. There will of course be more work to do on this pair, but the problem they pose can be contained. By contrast, the third man---------Mr. Frazier----------it still at large. This is extremely concerning: he, perhaps more than any other person, represents a grave threat to the case against the suspect. He MUST be brought in and subjected to intense pressure to keep his mouth shut about the all-important fact of Mr. Oswald's alibi for the shooting.

6. This explains the otherwise curious fact that the man who happened to give the suspect a ride to work that morning (something he has done plenty times before) becomes far more of a person of interest than anyone else, even than the man who gave him the job at the building or the people from whose home he is alleged to have picked up the rifle. Mr. Frazier is hunted down, arrested and kept in custody until after midnight. The reason Captain Fritz gives him the heavy treatment in interrogation is not that he believes him to be the accused's accomplice------------no, it's that he knows he can, unless intimidated into silence, destroy the case against the accused.

7. Only one other Depository man will get anything close to the kind of heat Mr. Frazier gets: Mr. Joe Molina. And guess where he was standing at the time of the motorcade....................

8. We might also be tempted to have a little out-of-the-box think about Mr. Charles Givens..................

[Alan Ford]

Just now, Alan Ford said:

8. We might also be tempted to have a little out-of-the-box think about Mr. Charles Givens..................

Some tentative little steps...............................

Have you ever been struck by the fact that Mr. Charles Givens is the only manual worker in the Depository main building who puts himself away from Dealey Plaza at the time of the P. Parade?

And have you ever wondered why it was that, just as the cops were closing in on Mr. Oswald at the Texas Theatre, DPD were suddenly desperately anxious to get a hold of this same Mr. Charles Givens?

So!

I have a simple question: Was Mr. Charles Givens by any chance dressed in light blue clothing that day?

C.f.!--------------

Mr. SAWYER. No. There is another broadcast in there somewhere, though. I put out another description on the colored boy that worked in that department.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean the colored boy that worked in that depository?
Mr. SAWYER. He is one that had a previous record in the narcotics, and he was supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor. He was supposed to have been a witness to Oswald being there.
Mr. BELIN. Would Charles Givens have been that boy?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, I think that is the name, and I put out a description on him.
Mr. BELIN. How do you know he was supposed to be a witness on that?
Mr. SAWYER. Somebody told me that. Somebody came to me with the information. And again, that particular party, whoever it was, I don't know. I remember that a deputy sheriff came up to me who had been over taking these affidavits, that I sent them over there, and he came over from the sheriff's office with a picture and a description of this colored boy and he said that he was supposed to have worked at the Texas Book Depository, and he was the one employee who was missing, or he was missing from the building.
He wasn't accounted for, and that he was suppose to have some information about the man that did the shooting.
Mr. BELIN. When you say about the man who did the shooting, did you know at that time who did the shooting?
Mr. SAWYER. No.

Sawyer, Sawyer, pants on fire?

--------------------

And! If if please your worships, a little follow-up in the form of repetition of a question I have asked earlier on this thread:

Who is this tall guy in white on the west side of the doorway in Towner?

C.f.?----------------------

Greedy final question!

Who, out of ALL the Depository manual workers, is the single least interviewed one?

 

[Mart Hall]

On 11/3/2023 at 8:48 AM, Alan Ford said:

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.

Thank you for your response Allen.

I do agree with you about the head not becoming central. When I posted that comment I was just tilting my mobile phone around and the quality was poor but I agree that the head does not become central to the body.

I believe the image from the background of the Prayerman website ("PM image") below is the same frame as the one above. I think this PM image answers a lot of questions.

The PM image below is of a better quality. It is sharper, with less adjustment of contrast/brightness. In this PM image you can see that Lovelady is learning to his left and appears to be be craning his neck, which would make sense in order to see the motorcade. His body position does not look unnatural and the white T-shirt is in a natural position. I believe that rules out the possibility that the white t-shirt is in anyway related to alteration.

In the PM image you can see the right side of Lovelady well enough, even his right hand is visible in a natural position. It does not appear to me that there has been anything altered on Lovelady. 

Incidentally this PM image shows more of the scene to the viewer's right of the TSBD entrance. I note that there is a policeman standing in front of the mail boxes (and a light coloured object in front of his right leg).  

For me personally, I think this rules out, or at least renders some of your theory as less likely to have happened. I did think the possibility of alteration/blackening to the viewers left of Lovelady had merit but there are firm circumstantial matters that make me rule that out too.  

All that said, I have enjoyed your posts in this thread.

 

 

 

[Alan Ford]

Mr. Hall, this is just the kind of considered, detail-oriented pushback I invited, so thank you for that.

I just want to be clear I've understood you correctly when you write "you can see that Lovelady is learning to his left and appears to be be craning his neck". Are you saying that his body's orientation is the same as what Altgens shows? I.e. leaning a little east but rotated slightly west?

[Mart Hall]

4 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Mr. Hall, this is just the kind of considered, detail-oriented pushback I invited, so thank you for that.

I just want to be clear I've understood you correctly when you write "you can see that Lovelady is learning to his left and appears to be be craning his neck". Are you saying that his body's orientation is the same as what Altgens shows? I.e. leaning a little east but rotated slightly west?

Thank you, I am glad you don't see my comments as unjust criticism.

The comments I make are entirely on the basis of what I see in the Wiegman's frame.

I don't know enough about the timings of those two pieces of photographic evidence relative to the first shot and would not assume they were taken at exactly the same time.

At a guess I would say they weren't taken at exactly the same time as I'd expect to see less of the white T-Shirt in Weigman if Altgen's was taken at the same time. The apparent left arm in Altgens makes me think Lovelady has changed his body shape between the two images which could be consistent with hearing the first shot. 

[Alan Ford]

1 minute ago, Mart Hall said:

The apparent left arm in Altgens makes me think Lovelady has changed his body shape between the two images which could be consistent with hearing the first shot. 

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

So in the Wiegman frame, he's leaning slightly to his left. But which way is his body oriented? Straight ahead (south)? A little east? A little west?

[Mart Hall]

38 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

So in the Wiegman frame, he's leaning slightly to his left. But which way is his body oriented? Straight ahead (south)? A little east? A little west?

If I correctly understand the bearings of Dealey Plaza I would say his body is facing the west towards the triple underpass.