Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Mart Hall said:

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

Got it, thank you! 👍

Ok, this would give us:

Mr. Lovelady's body angled, as in Altgens, somewhat towards the west.

However, his body's posture may be a little different to in Altgens (we have some wiggle room here as a couple of seconds separate Altgens from Wiegman's scene).

Let's compare the two Lovelady bodies to work this last issue out:

Lovelady/Altgens' leftwards lean is, we notice, so much more drastic than any that Lovelady/Wiegman might have: compare the respective left (viewer's right) shoulders. In Altgens it sinks way below the right shoulder, in Wiegman it looks at or close to normal height. So Mr. Lovelady is at least close to standing upright in Wiegman. If he's leaning left, it can't be by so much as to sink his left shoulder significantly.

So: this gives us Mr. Lovelady

-------------angled a little west

-------------standing at or close to upright.

Here's the problem: That may well be how Mr. Lovelady is standing, but it's not what Wiegman is showing us.

His left shoulder is too far back

His tshirt is in the wrong place. Try wearing a shirt open with this V-shape and rotating your body a little to your right--------------watch what happens to the V area--------------I guarantee you it won't be this!:

The darkness kicks in on his right (viewer's left) side way too soon.

To illustrate this last point, look at this boy:

His body is facing way more west than Mr. Lovelady's, yet Mr. Lovelady's body suffers just as drastic a disappearance.

Imagine if this boy were to rotate his body slowly towards a south-facing orientation. Let's imagine him doing that until he is at the same only-slightly-westwards orientation to Mr. Lovelady's body. What will we see? Obviously: the right side of his body come more and more into view. It will be utterly different to Mr. Lovelady as he shows up here.

Wiegman's presentation of Mr. Lovelady's body is, I maintain, dramatically imbalanced-----------or, to use a more polemical word, absurd.

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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

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

 

 

No, I mean why isn't his white undershirt in the wrong place, to his left, where Oswald was standing but had his head blacked out by the coverup artist? Like in the other frames.

 

 

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

No, I mean why isn't his white undershirt in the wrong place, to his left, where Oswald was standing but had his head blacked out by the coverup artist? Like in the other frames.

 

 

Because this is actually Mr. Lovelady. He has moved to a lower level.

But the now ludicrously drastic shadow down his right side tells us that Mr. Oswald is now just to his right-------------en route (as I believe) down the steps.

No more head-fixin' necessary!

[Alan Ford]

Friends, there really is no polite way to say this, but thus far there has not been a single serious attempt to explain how this 'shadow' down Mr. Lovelady can be an innocent phenomenon:

We've had loftily general dismissals of the very notion of photo-alteration. But if this specific image cannot be accounted for without a descent into absurdity, then those dismissals can be dismissed as effusions of hot air by folks too afraid to expose their own inability to explain the image.

Tick tock!

[Sandy Larsen]

Well Alan, you're right.

Only Andrej tried to give an innocent explanation, saying that if the frames weren't so contrasty, we'd be able to see Lovelady's right side. But that's hogwash.

The reason the shaded corner is black is simply because the things out in the sun are extremely bright compared to the shaded area. The camera aperture is closed way down so as not to let so much light in that the film is overexposed.

That said, if we look at the people out on the street we see that there is a wide range of gray tones. This tells us that the photo is NOT contrasty. The only things that show up as black in the photo are black or very dark things. Oh, and the shadowed area.

Now look at Lovelady. Lovelady is out in the sun just like all the other people. There is no reason why the right side of his body should be any darker than his left side. But even if it was a little darker, it would appear in the photo as just that... a little darker. The only (innocent) way Lovelady's right half could show up on the photo as black is if his right half were painted black, or a very dark color.

I'm amazed the Andrej can't see the folly in his explanation.

Those frames have been tampered with.

 

 

[Alan Ford]

Well said, Mr. Larsen.

The nothing-to-see-here crew's attempts to gaslight us on this have thus far proven an abysmal failure!

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well Alan, you're right.

Only Andrej tried to give an innocent explanation, saying that if the frames weren't so contrasty, we'd be able to see Lovelady's right side. But that's hogwash.

The reason the shaded corner is black is simply because the things out in the sun are extremely bright compared to the shaded area. The camera aperture is closed way down so as not to let so much light in that the film is overexposed.

That said, if we look at the people out on the street we see that there is a wide range of gray tones. This tells us that the photo is NOT contrasty. The only things that show up as black in the photo are black or very dark things. Oh, and the shadowed area.

Now look at Lovelady. Lovelady is out in the sun just like all the other people. There is no reason why the right side of his body should be any darker than his left side. But even if it was a little darker, it would appear in the photo as just that... a little darker. The only (innocent) way Lovelady's right half could show up on the photo as black is if his right half were painted black, or a very dark color.

I'm amazed the Andrej can't see the folly in his explanation.

Those frames have been tampered with.

 

For the sake of completeness, I want to comment on the shadows cast by things out in the sun. Those won't usually be as dark as that dark TSBD entryway because they get illuminated from sources other than direct sun. Namely, reflections off of other objects, the ground, and the sky.

 

[Chris Davidson]

[Andrej Stancak]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well Alan, you're right.

Only Andrej tried to give an innocent explanation, saying that if the frames weren't so contrasty, we'd be able to see Lovelady's right side. But that's hogwash.

The reason the shaded corner is black is simply because the things out in the sun are extremely bright compared to the shaded area. The camera aperture is closed way down so as not to let so much light in that the film is overexposed.

That said, if we look at the people out on the street we see that there is a wide range of gray tones. This tells us that the photo is NOT contrasty. The only things that show up as black in the photo are black or very dark things. Oh, and the shadowed area.

Now look at Lovelady. Lovelady is out in the sun just like all the other people. There is no reason why the right side of his body should be any darker than his left side. But even if it was a little darker, it would appear in the photo as just that... a little darker. The only (innocent) way Lovelady's right half could show up on the photo as black is if his right half were painted black, or a very dark color.

I'm amazed the Andrej can't see the folly in his explanation.

Those frames have been tampered with.

 

 

Sandy:

I took the decision not to take part in this thread any longer after seeing the style of posting and the arguments used. I only respond to your post now because you are one of the administrators of the Forum, and you are bound to protect the standards of an educated debate, and also because you called my name.

After I observed that oval shape between Lovelady's and Shelley's head in Altgens6 years ago, I worked for five years to get to the bottom of it, resulting in my Youtube video. It was up to me to figure out what that shape was. Thus, if anyone here thinks he/she just made a breaking discovery of seeing Oswald in the doorway walking through the dooraway with a paper bag and wearing a white shirt, please post the finding after checking all possibilities and after gathering strong evidence of support of such a claim. We have had enough of false claims in the JFK assassination case. It is not the role of the Forum members to refute false statements, especially if a poster does not care about the integrity of the photographic materials.  

As per the picture you and others in this thread challenged the Forum members and specifically myself to explain, I have already offered an explanation. The frame in question displays too strong contrasts in the depth of the doorway creating very sharp separation of Lovelady's figure from the background. It may be an overall bad quality of the source figure causing such sharp contrasts. For instance, if the cropped view of the doorway was from the picture below, I would not even bother analysing it as it is clearly something like a copy of a paper copy of Wiegman's frame. Subsequent steps fo copying via paper medium made this picture worthless as to the analysis of details in the doorway. It is a poor image and I would advise refraining from making any conclusions based on it. So, what was the source image you used to present the cropped view of the doorway? You may understand it is an important question.

 

As per Lovelady's figure in the picture of interest, he stood with his shoulder at a an angle more parallel with than perpendicular to the western wall of the doorway, and as he was on his way down to the lower steps, he may have his left foot one step down relative to his right foot, causing his right shoulder to be a bit higher than his left shoulder. This configuration would cause his body to appear narrow and his right shoulder hidden behind his head. Add to this Lovelady's forward head posture (often causing unusual appearance of the location of his head relative to the trunk in 2D photographs), and you have an explanation of Lovelady's figure in this frame. Maybe there is a better version of this frame which could shed further light on Lovelady's posture in the picture above?

 

[Alan Ford]

45 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sandy:

I took the decision not to take part in this thread any longer after seeing the style of posting and the arguments used. I only respond to your post now because you are one of the administrators of the Forum, and you are bound to protect the standards of an educated debate, and also because you called my name.

After I observed that oval shape between Lovelady's and Shelley's head in Altgens6 years ago, I worked for five years to get to the bottom of it, resulting in my Youtube video. It was up to me to figure out what that shape was. Thus, if anyone here thinks he/she just made a breaking discovery of seeing Oswald in the doorway walking through the dooraway with a paper bag and wearing a white shirt, please post the finding after checking all possibilities and after gathering strong evidence of support of such a claim. We have had enough of false claims in the JFK assassination case. It is not the role of the Forum members to refute false statements, especially if a poster does not care about the integrity of the photographic materials.  

As per the picture you and others in this thread challenged the Forum members and specifically myself to explain, I have already offered an explanation. The frame in question displays too strong contrasts in the depth of the doorway creating very sharp separation of Lovelady's figure from the background. It may be an overall bad quality of the source figure causing such sharp contrasts. For instance, if the cropped view of the doorway was from the picture below, I would not even bother analysing it as it is clearly something like a copy of a paper copy of Wiegman's frame. Subsequent steps fo copying via paper medium made this picture worthless as to the analysis of details in the doorway. It is a poor image and I would advise refraining from making any conclusions based on it. So, what was the source image you used to present the cropped view of the doorway? You may understand it is an important question.

 

As per Lovelady's figure in the picture of interest, he stood with his shoulder at a an angle more parallel with than perpendicular to the western wall of the doorway, and as he was on his way down to the lower steps, he may have his left foot one step down relative to his right foot, causing his right shoulder to be a bit higher than his left shoulder. This configuration would cause his body to appear narrow and his right shoulder hidden behind his head. Add to this Lovelady's forward head posture (often causing unusual appearance of the location of his head relative to the trunk in 2D photographs), and you have an explanation of Lovelady's figure in this frame. Maybe there is a better version of this frame which could shed further light on Lovelady's posture in the picture above?

 

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.......................

Mr. Stancak responded very badly indeed to having the staggering ineptitude of his 'Stanton ID' in Altgens exposed:

a) misreading of her sleeves

b) misreading of Mr. Williams' trousers

c) inventing a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton

d) ignoring what Mr. Lovelady told Mr. Bonafede

e) ignoring that the fall of shadow throws an object into-------shadow

f) misnaming Mrs. Stanton as Mr. Molina

g) misnaming Mr. Molina as Mr. Shelley.

And now he's back to demonstrate that, sadly, he has learned precisely nothing. The issues listed above are just ignored. Mr. Stancak's infallibility as an interpreter of the visual record must not be questioned.

It is painfully clear that, on the question of Mrs. Sarah Stanton's position in the doorway in Altgens, Mr. Stancak is not to be taken seriously. His impressive abilities with digital reconstructions are not, alas, matched by corresponding competence on the photo-analytic side. There it's all just self-confirming subjective impressionism run amok. This kind of thing does great damage to JFKA research.

-----------

Speaking of which: Wiegman.

Mr. Stancak disparages the Weisberg archive print------------showing Mr. Lovelady at lower level with a ridiculous darkness blanketing his right side-----------as a copy not worthy of his attention. This despite the fact that he has in the past been happy to work with frames from a far inferior version of Wiegman.

Why does he do this? Simple: because he hates what it shows. Again, nothing must be allowed to perturb the Stancakian Reality Distortion Field. (We saw him play the same I-refuse-to-acknowledge-this-image card when confronted with the Kamp Darnell frame.)

Mr. Stancak then writes:

[H]e stood with his shoulder at a an angle more parallel with than perpendicular to the western wall of the doorway, and as he was on his way down to the lower steps, he may have his left foot one step down relative to his right foot, causing his right shoulder to be a bit higher than his left shoulder. This configuration would cause his body to appear narrow and his right shoulder hidden behind his head.

I'm sure you've already noticed what Mr. Stancak has managed to studiously ignore: the position of the white tshirt and left shirt collar!

If you want a good laugh, friends, look at Mr. Lovelady here and repeat Mr. Stancak's words: "his right shoulder hidden behind his head". But please, don't try replicating Mr. Stancak's hallucination in front of a mirror---------------you're liable to do yourself an injury!

[Alan Ford]

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

 

The deception relies on one thing: the viewer's ignorance of the fact that Mr. Lovelady's body is in direct sunlight.

Once that ignorance is lifted, the absurdity becomes glaring.

[Andrej Stancak]

6 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.......................

Mr. Stancak responded very badly indeed to having the staggering ineptitude of his 'Stanton ID' in Altgens exposed:

a) misreading of her sleeves

b) misreading of Mr. Williams' trousers

c) inventing a pair of trousers for Mrs. Stanton

d) ignoring what Mr. Lovelady told Mr. Bonafede

e) ignoring that the fall of shadow throws an object into-------shadow

f) misnaming Mrs. Stanton as Mr. Molina

g) misnaming Mr. Molina as Mr. Shelley.

And now he's back to demonstrate that, sadly, he has learned precisely nothing. The issues listed above are just ignored. Mr. Stancak's infallibility as an interpreter of the visual record must not be questioned.

It is painfully clear that, on the question of Mrs. Sarah Stanton's position in the doorway in Altgens, Mr. Stancak is not to be taken seriously. His impressive abilities with digital reconstructions are not, alas, matched by corresponding competence on the photo-analytic side. There it's all just self-confirming subjective impressionism run amok. This kind of thing does great damage to JFKA research.

-----------

Speaking of which: Wiegman.

Mr. Stancak disparages the Weisberg archive print------------showing Mr. Lovelady at lower level with a ridiculous darkness blanketing his right side-----------as a copy not worthy of his attention. This despite the fact that he has in the past been happy to work with frames from a far inferior version of Wiegman.

Why does he do this? Simple: because he hates what it shows. Again, nothing must be allowed to perturb the Stancakian Reality Distortion Field. (We saw him play the same I-refuse-to-acknowledge-this-image card when confronted with the Kamp Darnell frame.)

Mr. Stancak then writes:

[H]e stood with his shoulder at a an angle more parallel with than perpendicular to the western wall of the doorway, and as he was on his way down to the lower steps, he may have his left foot one step down relative to his right foot, causing his right shoulder to be a bit higher than his left shoulder. This configuration would cause his body to appear narrow and his right shoulder hidden behind his head.

I'm sure you've already noticed what Mr. Stancak has managed to studiously ignore: the position of the white tshirt and left shirt collar!

If you want a good laugh, friends, look at Mr. Lovelady here and repeat Mr. Stancak's words: "his right shoulder hidden behind his head". But please, don't try replicating Mr. Stancak's hallucination in front of a mirror---------------you're liable to do yourself an injury!

Alan:

you are some photo expert and researcher if you can ridicule me personally, my work and my views so thoroughly. If anyone reads your criticism, s/he would think that you are right and I am wrong, and the readers would not even wonder how can Sarah Stanton's hair be obstructed by her hands as she was allegedly shielding her eyes (not hair) in Altgens6. 

So far, you could not demonstrate one single Wiegman film frame showing Oswald passing by next to Lovelady. You were taught a lesson yesterday from hands of Mart Hall who clearly and calmly showed you a better version of a Wiegman frame which allegedly had been manipulated to hide Oswald.

So you came up with another frame, a cropped view of a very poor-quality frame which clearly was copied from a paper medium. These copying steps automatically degrade information in a picture but you would not listen to it: the only truth is what you see at the moment, and if you cannot see the object which you think should be there, it was because of somebody painted it over.

While I encouraged Sandy to try to find a better version of the Wiegman frame you like to challenge Forum members with, I saw no positive response either from him or you. Therefore, I made my search and found a better version of the image with black doorway on jfkassassinationgallery.com:

And I cropped this picture to zoom on Lovelady, and brightened the cropped image a bit so that you and Sandy, two best image analysis experts, had a chance to check Lovelady's posture. The right inset shows the a few contours of Lovelady's body, in particular the right arm which turns into a partly visible shoulder. This Lovelady's posture is entirely plausible.

  

I do not expect you to agree with me; I whote my answer for other Forum members and interested guests so that they do not need to spend time refuting your silly theories. Equally though, please do not expect me to be involved in your thread.

 

 

 

[Alan Ford]

~Yawn~

1. I did not ridicule Mr. Stancak personally. But I did robustly criticize his photo-analytical work. Because it's so staggeringly inept. If Mr. Stancak gets triggered by criticism of his work, then that's neither my fault nor my problem. This Forum should not be a safe space for incompetence.

2. Mr. Mart Hall, unlike Mr. Stancak, engages in intelligent constructive dialogue. I look forward to hearing back from him. And for the record: the image I used in my reply to him was cropped from the one he had posted.

3. Mr. Stancak appears unaware of the horizontal lintel shadow that kicked in for those on the landing. His 'Stanton ID' remains D.O.A.

4. This---------------

--------------is just the latest sorry example of Mr. Stancak's

a) opportunistic habit of favoring inferior images when it suits him

b) inability to curb his self-confirming subjective impressionism

5. His posture-'explanation' for the darkness down Mr. Lovelady's side remains as absurd as the image itself.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

3. Mr. Stancak appears unaware of the horizontal lintel shadow that kicked in for those on the landing. His 'Stanton ID' remains D.O.A.

The man shielding his eyes with both hands and wearing white shirt did not stand on the top landing in Altgens6. I am well aware of all types of shadows in the doorway since I modelled them using Google Earth engine as early as 2016.  

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Alan Ford said:

opportunistic habit of favoring inferior images when it suits him

No, I retrieved two full-size images of the frame in question from the jfkassassinationgallery.com and compared them. The one you claim shows a painted-in shadow is of much worse quality than the one I posted today. Nothing has been painted in in any Wiegman frame - if any painting had to make any sense, all Wiegman frames would need to be painted over in the critical area of the doorway but no single one has been. You have no case.