Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

27 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Yawn?  Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance, Alan.  Couldn't *you* have given me contacts to Waldron?

 

Never mind.  I looked him up.

You had to look him up? I rest my case, lol

[Roger Odisio]

28 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

You had to look him up? I rest my case, lol

Another nonanswer avoidance.  You keep resting your case without responding to anything, indicating you neither have any answers nor a case to begin with.

[Alan Ford]

On 10/24/2023 at 12:32 PM, Alan Ford said:

[Credit for Towner stabilization: Mr. Chris Davidson]

[...]

Let's dim the lights a little and up the contrast:

Mr. Lovelady is not just standing there, watching Pres. Kennedy pass. No, he's energetically----------nay, frenetically----------waving a flag or somesuch object. And he's really putting his body into the pumping of that object: note the correspondence between the movement of his red shirt and movement of the waved object.

Friends, this waved object in Towner is a startling thing to have pointed out to one, and the first temptation will be to say, 'Surely not, it must be something out on the street that this fool has mistaken for an object in the doorway'.

Well, let's cross-reference the Towner frames with another film showing these moments: the Bell film.

I invite you to focus on these three people:

Green arrow: let's call him khaki man

Yellow arrow: Lady#1 (standing behind, dressed in black)

Red arrow: Lady#2

Now let's sit back and watch the Bell frames showing them:

Eureka!

Lady#1 (the lady in black standing behind) has a fluttering coming from her raised right hand, which moves west behind Khaki man's head. She's obviously the true source of what the fool is calling an object being waved in the doorway. Problem solved!

Except--------------------nope.

These Bell frames, you see, have been brilliantly synced with Towner by Mr. Chris Davidson:

What do the Towner frames here show? The waved object going right behind khaki man's head

What do the Bell frames here show? That Lady#1 hasn't yet started moving her fluttering hand west

Here are the relevant (i.e. Towner-relevant) Bell frames in the first version I posted above:

The fluttering from Lady#1's hand simply isn't (yet) far west enough to account for the mad waving Towner shows behind khaki man's head in these exact moments. The fluttering from her hand is still appearing visibly east of khaki man's head. It's not even close. Nor is there anything in her hand blowing to her right (viewer's left) such as might make up the gap between her hand and the back of his head------------we are at all times afforded an unobstructed view of the white TSBD stonework in the background.

Had Miss Towner kept her camera on the doorway another couple of seconds, then Lady#1's hand might well have appeared in front of the object waving in the doorway. But the synced Bell-Towner frames allow us to categorically rule out the fluttering coming from her hand as the source of the waving object in Towner.

So: 'The waving object in Towner belongs to Lady#1'? No---------it's a physical impossibility.

Obviously the same goes a fortiori for Lady#2. Her up-and-down waving right hand is nowhere near at the right place to account for the waving object in Towner.

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

Which leaves us with just one last possible hatch through which to escape from the troubling conclusion of an object being waved in the doorway by the man in the red shirt (Mr. Lovelady, evidently):

Maybe there is somebody standing behind the line of street spectators, but in front of the doorway? Maybe Miss Towner's camera is picking them up as they wave at the limousine?

To test this hypothesis, we can turn once again to Bell:

Nope. There ain't no one there.

The energetically waved object in Towner really is coming from the doorway. And there's only one person who can be doing the waving: the man in the red shirt we saw standing in just that spot a couple of seconds ago in Hughes. The black man in front of him would be the only other candidate, except we see him raising his empty left arm in Towner------so he's totally ruled out as the waver of the object.

So! We're back where we started:

The man in the red shirt way over on the west side of the doorway, energetically waving an object (which looks for all the world like a flag) at the limousine.

The movement of his body with the pumping of the object is as evident as would be a drummer's as he smashes a cymbal. It's unignorable:

Really internalize this startling fact, and you will understand its full significance.

[Alan Ford]

23 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

[M]y explanation for what really went down 11/22/63 is going to be challenging for anyone still clinging to the kumbaya version of the Kennedy brothers' plans for Cuba.

What Was Supposed to Happen:

A grim-but-resolute-looking Pres. Kennedy arrives at the Trade Mart, and weaves into his speech a carefully rehearsed off-the-cuff and non-committal remark about what just happened back in Dealey Plaza.

What Happened:

Pres. Kennedy never makes it to the Trade Mart. His team is left shellshocked, grief-stricken------and scrambling to avoid the public thinking this had anything whatsoever to do with Cuba.

[Alan Ford]

And thus it is we get what is perhaps the single most bizarre part of the Warren Commission account of the assassination: LHO was a LONE NUT. His motive cannot be established.

Mr. Oswald-----------who was chosen for his designated role in the false-flag operation precisely because of his distinctive pro-Castro political profile-------------must now be bizarrely de-politicized as the assassin. All the things that made him a perfect participant in Conspiracy A (the false-flag event) now make him a disastrous person to play the role of Assassin Acting Alone. But they have to go with him after all the work that went into tying him into Conspiracy A.

What an unholy mess!

And the reductio ad absurdum of this claptrap is delivered by those of today's Warren Gullibles who debase their own dignity to the point of trying to convince us that the man who vehemently and loudly protested his innocence had committed the crime for--------------fame and recognition in the history books!

[Alan Ford]

Mr. Oswald, meanwhile, must protest his innocence to reporters by politicizing his ARREST: "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"

Given how he has ended up in this desperate situation, there is actually some truth to his words: his political profile is the real reason he's here.

Captain Fritz has been keeping him in the dark as to what the world is being told: 'This man shot [as in: physically pulled the trigger on] Pres. Kennedy'. Mr. Oswald thinks he is up on a conspiracy charge-------------------because of what he was caught pulling out front just AFTER the shooting. 'Look, son, we know you didn't shoot the President yourself. We know you were out front. But we also know you were part of this Communist plot.'

And this is the tragic irony: the thing that Mr. Oswald thinks makes him seem most guilty (his aborted political stunt out front) is actually-----------for the rest of world-----------the thing that would prove him innocent of what he's actually being accused of (shooting from the sixth floor).

He has no idea that his out-front alibi is................an ALIBI!

He thinks it's the thing that most incriminates him on a capital charge!

No wonder the poor man never got to have his day in court..................

[Alan Ford]

On 11/5/2023 at 2:58 PM, Alan Ford said:

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

All TSBD employees on the front steps at the time of the motorcade have been painstakingly placed using the various witness statements (esp. CE1381). And yet we have this leftover guy whom no one seems to have noticed until now.

So........................................ who is he?

[Alan Ford]

19 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

All TSBD employees on the front steps at the time of the motorcade have been painstakingly placed using the various witness statements (esp. CE1381). And yet we have this leftover guy whom no one seems to have noticed until now.

So........................................ who is he?

EXPLORATORY HYPOTHESIS!

What the original Altgens showed was a disaster to the case against Mr. Oswald. Its disastrous information included something in the area that now is taken up by the in-profile face of 'Mr. Carl Jones'. The Cronkite version of Altgens--------------a closer-to-original version than the Canonical Altgens we have all had to work with---------------had not yet 'corrected' this issue:

For some reason, that area had to be masked too.

Those charged with taking care of this took a look at the Wiegman doorway frames and, seeing the black man standing by the west column, had an idea. They scoured what aftermath photos they had laid their hands on.

They found him:

They took the head, flipped it, and messed with it a little. The direction of his face was wrong, but it still did the job nicely:

Only one problem: they'd taken the wrong black man.

Mr. Carl Jones had actually been standing over on by the EAST column:

The aftermath photo being black-and-white, and their not having yet seen the color Hughes film, they didn't realize that the black face donor in the aftermath photo was wearing cream-colored clothing, whereas the black man over at the WEST column had actually been wearing light blue........................

Fun fact! Mr. Carl Edward Jones NEVER said he was standing on the west side of the doorway.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

On 11/4/2023 at 6:35 AM, Alan Ford said:

With your leave! Let me illustrate the weird position of Mr. Lovelady's tshirt using Mr. James Hackerott's 3D reconstruction of the Wiegman doorway scene:

Mr. Lovelady's body is shown turned and leaning. OK............ looks pretty good, yes?

Now let's add the tshirt in the place where Wiegman shows it:

Oh dear. See the problem? Of course you do!

Has Mr. Hackerott gone dreadfully wrong here somewhere? Nope. Wiegman has.

Now-----------------I have been proposing the thesis that

! the white tshirt here actually belongs to Mr. Oswald, who is blocking Mr. Lovelady's left (viewer's right) shoulder from Wiegman's view

! Mr. Oswald's head has been erased from the picture

! This composite of Mr. Oswald's tshirt and Mr. Lovelady's head is what yields the bizarre problem with what Wiegman shows us.

A thesis apt to trigger the self-appointed JFKA Elders who warn us that 'Even to SUGGEST that ANY image was tampered with is to bring discredit! on! the! JFKA! Research! Community!'

Fine. If my thesis is wrong, then there must be a better explanation. Can anyone, Elder or otherwise, offer one?

And no, in case you're wondering: telling me loftily that 'the image isn't clear enough' just ain't gonna cut it........................... 🙄

Friends, you will notice that the 'Lovelady' figure in Mr. Hackerott's reconstruction above is shown in checked-pattern shirt all the way up-----------no white tshirt. This was not, I hasten to add, an attempt at deception on Mr. Hackerott's part. The software presumably just didn't allow that level of detail in the figures' clothing.

Interestingly, here is another--------more recent---------Wiegman simulation by Mr. Hackerott, this one showing a more realistic blend of red & white on 'Lovelady's' upper chest:

Okay, the white tshirt is not too far off, though it is still noticeably different to where Wiegman actually shows it.

But! Then comes the real kicker: the problematic discrepancy between WiegmanTshirt and HackerottTshirt is actually much, much worse than that.

For it turns out that Mr. Hackerott was again creating only an approximation of the Lovelady shirt/tshirt configuration. There was no attempt to deceive here either: Mr. Hackerott was quite transparent as to his processes, giving us a 3D view from Wiegman to Altgens.

Now for the kicker............... When his 3D model shows the 'Lovelady' being used, in this very reconstruction, from the Altgens-esque angle, we see exactly which configuration of upper chest clothing has yielded the appearance/position of 'white tshirt' in the Wiegman reconstruction:

The digital 'Lovelady' actually has his upper shirt divided equally down the middle between red (west) and white (east)! That white area under his head in fact belongs entirely to the left side of his chest.

Knowing this, compare once again our WiegmanReconstructionLovelady with ActualWiegmanLovelady. The two are telling a troublingly different story:

Given that a red-white division is halfway down DigitalLovelady's chest, and given that this is the westwards rotation we would need to put on Mr. Lovelady in order to try to explain away the invisibility of so much of his right (viewer's left) side, it is plain as plain can be that the position of the white tshirt in actual Wiegman is way, way off from its digital counterpart.

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

Once again I must gently whisper in your ear a telltale fact that you may or may not wish to hear:

The position of the 'Lovelady' white tshirt in Wiegman renders the 'Lovelady' figure as shown in the Wiegman film absurd.

You want to explain away the invisibility of well-nigh half his side? Fine: you must rotate him significantly westwards. But if you do that--------------you've entered a world of explanatory pain. The damn tshirt will mock your best efforts.

And..................... your traditional go-to Corroborating Image for Wiegman (namely, the Altgens photograph) will only exacerbate your pain. Good luck explaining, without ignoring the white tshirt, how Mr. Lovelady went from that to this in just a couple of seconds:

--->

Edited November 11, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

An Old Chestnut!

'Nobody noticed Oswald out front, therefore he didn't go out front'

There were many people around the front entrance when Mr. Oswald exited the building several minutes after the assassination. How many people are on record as remembering having seen him leave? Not a one. What are we to conclude from this? That he never left?

 

[Alan Ford]

Another Old Chestnut!

REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?

MR. OSWALD: I work in that building.

REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?

MR. OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.

Four thoughts:

1. We know, from Agent Hosty's draft interrogation report, that Mr. Oswald said he "went outside to watch P. Parade"

2. The reporter does not say "inSIDE the building". It is quite possible that Mr. Oswald considered the roofed entranceway to be part of the building, such that one has not actually left the building until one has stepped off the steps on to the sidewalk

3. Contrarily, Mr. Oswald is contradicting what he told Captain Fritz, and is lying to the reporter. Why on earth would he do such a thing? I mean, this is his alibi, right? Well........................ he may not know it's his alibi. Based on what Capt. Fritz has been telling him, he may erroneously think that his having gone out front, and what he did just after the shooting, is the thing that has gotten him into so much trouble. Last thing he'll want to do is talk to the world about his having gone out front. And so he gives the reporter a snippy answer designed to deflect any question as to his precise whereabouts at the time of the assassination.

4. We might even blend #2 and #3: Mr. Oswald, not wanting to talk about where exactly he was at the time of the assassination (front steps), exploits the ambiguity of the reporter's "in the building". We might note here that there is only one part of the building (other than the roof) than can be said to be both part of the building and outside: the front doorway.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

Yet Another Old Chestnut!

SS Inspector Thomas J. Kelley writes this in his report on Mr. Oswald's interrogation on the Saturday morning:

Oswald himself said he didn't view the P. Parade. You lose!

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

Well....................

FBI Agent Bookhout writes this in HIS report on the same interrogation:

Only TWO denials instead of Insp. Kelley's tally of THREE:
-I didn't view the motorcade
-I didn't shoot Pres. Kennedy
-I didn't shoot Gov. Connally

Remarkable that Agent Bookhout wouldn't see fit to mention this all-important admission from Mr. Oswald...........

But there is more that is remarkable here. One would think that the accused assassin's specific claimed whereabouts at the time of the assassination would be the single most important thing an interrogation report would need to cover. But no. Neither Insp. Kelley nor Agent Bookhout go there. Nor does anyone else.

Imagine you ask the suspect in the assassination: 'Did you view the motorcade?' He responds, 'No, I did not.' How outlandishly stupid and incurious would you need to be to NOT follow up with the question: 'Okay, so where were you at the time?'?

In fact, the ONLY time in ANY of the official interrogation reports that we get ANY idea of where exactly Mr. Oswald said he was at the time of the assassination is in the joint interrogation report written by Agents Bookhout and Hosty on the Sunday: "on the first floor". Did Mr. Oswald really give such a vague response?

Nope. Since 2019 we know what Mr. Oswald had really said in his very first interrogation: "went outside to watch P. Parade". Agent Hosty puts this in his draft interrogation report, but it is absorbed by the weaselly formula "on the first floor" in the Bookhout/Hosty joint report. (Remember: we're talking about the identical same interrogation session here.) The only place that could conceivably be both "outside" and "on the first floor" is up in the front entrance. The Bookhout/Hosty report is resorting to creative semantics to take Mr. Oswald off the front steps.

Other than that, NONE of the official interrogation reports wants to talk about where exactly Mr. Oswald said he was. A bit like today's nothing-to-see-here JFKA researchers! 

This policy of avoiding all specificity in talking of Mr. Oswald's claimed whereabouts at the time of the motorcade is just bizarre-------------and explicable only if Mr. Oswald's answer to that question was too dangerous to be officially memorialized.

**

But back to Insp. Kelley VS Agent Bookhout on what Mr. Oswald said in the Sat morning interrogation. Did he or did he not deny having viewed the motorcade? 

Did Agent Bookhout really miss Mr. Oswald's admission that he didn't view the parade? Or did he consider it of insufficient importance to mention in his report? Hardly! This would have been a stunning and self-incriminating reversal by the suspect who had originally (in the first Friday interrogation) claimed he "went outside to watch P. Parade". Mr. Bookhout's silence about what Mr. Oswald is supposed to have said to Insp. Kelley speaks volumes.

Either Mr. Oswald really gave this response to Insp. Kelley, or Insp. Kelley misremembered/invented it.

It's probably the latter, but let's take a little time to explore the former scenario: Mr. Oswald told Insp. Kelley he didn't view the parade.

Seems damning, right? 

Well, put yourself in Mr. Oswald's shoes. He is being asked by an SS man if he viewed the parade. He has assumed all along that the SS (or some of them at least) were in on the false-flag operation. So he thinks he is being tested: Are you going to keep your cover, or are you going to talk about what you got up to out front?

And so he is much more guarded in his response to any question about his parade-time whereabouts. And Insp. Kelley is being studiously incurious in NOT asking the obvious follow-up: 'Where WERE you then?' 

In the first interrogation, Mr. Oswald freely told Capt. Fritz he "went outside to watch P. Parade". But here, he is mindful of who's asking. And so he gives a response that telegraphs the message: 'Look, I'm being a good boy. I haven't told them anything about what I did out there'.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

On 11/11/2023 at 9:36 PM, Alan Ford said:

Once again I must gently whisper in your ear a telltale fact that you may or may not wish to hear:

The position of the 'Lovelady' white tshirt in Wiegman renders the 'Lovelady' figure as shown in the Wiegman film absurd.

You want to explain away the invisibility of well-nigh half his side? Fine: you must rotate him significantly westwards. But if you do that--------------you've entered a world of explanatory pain. The damn tshirt will mock your best efforts.

And..................... your traditional go-to Corroborating Image for Wiegman (namely, the Altgens photograph) will only exacerbate your pain. Good luck explaining, without ignoring the white tshirt, how Mr. Lovelady went from that to this in just a couple of seconds:

--->

Rule of Thumb!

In looking one-by-one at each Wiegman frame showing 'Lovelady' on a higher step:

------------if you see a 'Lovelady' head positioned unnaturally west of the white tshirt underneath, you are looking at Mr. Billy Lovelady's head

------------if you see a 'Lovelady' head naturally positioned directly over white tshirt, you are looking at Mr. Oswald's head

Mr. Lovelady and Mr. Oswald were standing v. close together, with Mr. Lovelady just west of Mr. Oswald. In some of these Wiegman frames, you will see more than one 'Lovelady' head. Whether due in that particular instance to jerk blur (one head doubled) or to the real presence of two different heads, the rule of thumb still applies.

You will notice that ALL frames giving the visual impression of just ONE head show that head positioned unnaturally west of the white tshirt underneath: this is because the frame in question is showing Mr. Lovelady's head over Mr. Oswald's tshirt.

Finally, bear in mind throughout that an artificial darkness has been placed down 'Lovelady's' side in ALL these frames.

This is how they got rid of Mr. Oswald's identifiable presence on those front steps, folks.

In the frame below, we see (viewer's right of blue line) the one tantalizing trace of his features that survived the intervention of the cover-up artists. Mr. Lovelady's full head was not visible in this frame, being partially blocked by Mr. Oswald's whose face showed clearly. This was a big problem. Best they could do was frankenstein the Oswald head by, inter alia, incorporating parts of Mr. Lovelady's.  (The ludicrous right ear [viewer's left] of this 'Lovelady' points up the deception of 'just one head' they were going for.) Notice how the white of the tshirt fits smoothly round Mr. Oswald's neck.

This, I submit, is Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, "watch[ing] the P. Parade".

Edited November 15, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Chris Davidson]

Obviously later than Wiegman.

First few frames have a shadow, not covering as much of Lovelady? as we see in Wiegman.

Large gif is approx. five frames apart.

As the cameraperson moves slowly past the steps, the shadow disappears.

It's the same man in Willis.

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Obviously later than Wiegman.

First few frames have a shadow, not covering as much of Lovelady? as we see in Wiegman.

Large gif is approx. five frames apart.

As the cameraperson moves slowly past the steps, the shadow disappears.

It's the same man in Willis.

Mr. Davidson, I think he just takes a step forward, bringing his right arm/shoulder out of the natural shadow

Note btw the relation of his white shirt to his head---------------similar to 'Lovelady' in Wiegman. Which is interesting as this guy's body is rotated eastwards. 'Lovelady' manages to get the benefit of a simultaneous eastwards AND westwards rotation of his body!

P.S. Where do you get all these incredible clips from?

Edited November 16, 2023 by Alan Ford