Those Front Steps

[Chris Davidson]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

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

 

 

I don't see any movement on his part.

Maybe a slight torso twist to the east bringing that side out of the shadow?

Hard to tell.

Jones bending over, a lot easier to see.

[Alan Ford]

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Maybe a slight torso twist to the east bringing that side out of the shadow?

Possible, though the clip may start with his foot about to land?

Either way, the big difference between this and Lovelady-in-Wiegman is that this man is right close to natural shadow. Mr. Lovelady is nowhere near the shaded area of the doorway. And the weird 'shadow' sticks to him as he steps down

Cf!

[Marcus Fuller]

It's likely nothing but I've noticed on a few of the stills a kind of feint vertical line that runs between the 'E' and 'P' of the Depository part of the sign. It goes just past Lovelady's (?) right shoulder. Not the same line as the one highlighted above though. Isn't that a car aerial?

At first I thought it was just part of the door frame but on closer inspection I realised its not. 

[Chris Davidson]

7 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Either way, the big difference between this and Lovelady-in-Wiegman is that this man is right close to natural shadow. Mr. Lovelady is nowhere near the shaded area of the doorway. And the weird 'shadow' sticks to him as he steps down

 

 

 

Agree completely.

 

 

[Alan Ford]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:47 PM, Marcus Fuller said:

It's likely nothing but I've noticed on a few of the stills a kind of feint vertical line that runs between the 'E' and 'P' of the Depository part of the sign. It goes just past Lovelady's (?) right shoulder. Not the same line as the one highlighted above though. Isn't that a car aerial?

Thanks for this, Mr. Fuller. Yes, it goes all the way down the frame:

And it's in all the latter Wiegman frames showing Mr. Lovelady at lower height:

However, there's no trace of it in the Weisberg print (the vertical thin black line here is in the wrong place)---------------

This suggests that the white line is a film artefact. Hard to see how it could be a car aerial, given where Wiegman's car and the one in front now are in these latter frames.

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

As for this line, yes it's a car aerial from the car in front:

The strange thing that happens to it as it passes in front of the 'shadow' down Mr. Lovelady's right (viewer's left) side offers strong support for the claim that aerial imaging has artificially darkened that area of Mr. Lovelady:

Edited November 17, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

Friends, opinions are cheap. The only currency that counts is actual specific counter-analysis.

So......................

FAIR AND FRANK FOURFOLD CHALLENGE TO THE NOTHING-TO-SEE-HERE BRIGADE!

1. How do YOU explain the darkness down Mr. Lovelady's right side in all the Wiegman doorway frames?

2. What do YOU believe the person in front of the mailboxes is holding here, and why do YOU think Officer Baker is running towards them?

3. What do YOU think is being waved here in Towner, and by whom?

4. How do YOU reconcile the position of Mr. Lovelady's white tshirt here in Wiegman with YOUR understanding of the posture & orientation of Mr. Lovelady's body?

Over to you, naysayers---------------------make a fool of Ford! 👍

Edited November 18, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

While Team Keep LHO Off Dem Steps is conspicuously failing to offer cogent counter-explanations for what is shown in Towner, Wiegman & Darnell, I'd like to wonder aloud about what exactly Bell is showing us here:

Let us take it as read that we have Mr. Billy Lovelady (green arrow) and Mrs. Madie Reese (yellow arrow).

But-----------------------what is that blue object at the pink arrow?

Is it behind Mr. Lovelady or in front of him?

[Alan Ford]

16 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

But-----------------------what is that blue object at the pink arrow?

Is it behind Mr. Lovelady or in front of him?

Towner shows unmistakable blue on what appears to be WEST of the center rail (directly behind where Mrs. Madie Reese is standing), with what looks like human flesh tone above it (right beside the white upraised right arm of Mr. Otis Williams)-----------------------

Aren't we seeing the same block of blue in Towner and Bell?

What is it, where is it, and to whom does it belong?

Now Mr. James Hackerott has created a digital reconstruction of the doorway as it would show in Bell if all that damn foliage weren't in the way--------------------

I don't think he's got everything here quite right, but it's certainly close enough to illustrate a problem. Mr. Hackerott takes the block of blue I've been talking about to be the pants of Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier back on the landing. But does this work? The blue in actual Bell appears to go at least as high as Mr. Lovelady's shoulder:

And comparing Mr. Frazier in Darnell, mightn't we reasonably expect to be seeing more of his light-colored upper clothing than Towner shows? If Mr. Frazier is further back on the landing in Towner, then shouldn't the natural shadow-line from the horizontal lintel still cut in as high as it does on Mr. Molina's head next to him?------------------

Also! Given Mr. Bell's angle to the doorway (just a little west), it's hard to see how this blue could belong to the suit of Mr. Molina, who is east of the center rail.

Speaking of the center rail, here it is--------------

If the block of blue were EAST of this rail, shouldn't we be seeing some of the silver rail cut across it?

So! Again!-------------What is this blue, where exactly is it, and to whom does it belong?

Edited November 20, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

What dis?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/18/2023 at 12:27 PM, Alan Ford said:

 

 

Alan,

As I understand it, Oswald is standing in front of Lovelady, which is why we see his white tee shirt and not Lovelady's. But he's somewhat further away from the west wall than Lovelady. And so, had no hanky panky gone on, we'd see Oswald's face and perhaps half of Lovelady's face... his right half. Because Oswald's head is blocking the view of the left side of Lovelady's face (his left side).

Correct me if I'm wrong so far. But stay with me regardless, because I have a question that is more important IMO.

Since Lovelady and Oswald are roughly the same height, they must be standing in the same step of the stairway. But how can two men stand on a single step, one man in front of the other? They can't.

Therefore they must be at the top of the steps, where two men can comfortably stand one in front of the other. But if that were the case, they should appear to be just a few inches shorter than Frazier... since his is taller. but in fact, they appear to be much shorter than Frazier. (I think.)

Therefore they can't be standing at the top of the steps either.

Where have I gone wrong in my line of reasoning? If I haven't made a mistake, I believe your theory is toast. (I'm guessing I've made a mistake. But I want to check to be sure.)

 

EDIT: I think I can tell in another frame that Lovelady is indeed at the top of the stairway. but please respond so I can be sure. Don't forget to reply to my first paragraph too.

 

[Alan Ford]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Alan,

As I understand it, Oswald is standing in front of Lovelady, which is why we see his white tee shirt and not Lovelady's. But he's somewhat further away from the west wall than Lovelady. And so, had no hanky panky gone on, we'd see Oswald's face and perhaps half of Lovelady's face... his right half. Because Oswald's head is blocking the view of the left side of Lovelady's face (his left side).

Correct me if I'm wrong so far. But stay with me regardless, because I have a question that is more important IMO.

Since Lovelady and Oswald are roughly the same height, they must be standing in the same step of the stairway. But how can two men stand on a single step, one man in front of the other? They can't.

Therefore they must be at the top of the steps, where two men can comfortably stand one in front of the other. But if that were the case, they should appear to be just a few inches shorter than Frazier... since his is taller. but in fact, they appear to be much shorter than Frazier. (I think.)

Therefore they can't be standing at the top of the steps either.

Where have I gone wrong in my line of reasoning? If I haven't made a mistake, I believe your theory is toast. (I'm guessing I've made a mistake. But I want to check to be sure.)

 

EDIT: I think I can tell in another frame that Lovelady is indeed at the top of the stairway. but please respond so I can be sure. Don't forget to reply to my first paragraph too.

A good and fair question, Mr. Larsen! I'll try to address it as clearly and fully as possible.

You write:

"As I understand it, Oswald is standing in front of Lovelady, which is why we see his white tee shirt and not Lovelady's. But he's somewhat further away from the west wall than Lovelady. And so, had no hanky panky gone on, we'd see Oswald's face and perhaps half of Lovelady's face... his right half. Because Oswald's head is blocking the view of the left side of Lovelady's face (his left side)."

I think we have to be very careful about how we go from what we see in extant Wiegman to what may have been evident in original Wiegman. My method has been to start with the Lovelady-related problems with extant Wiegman ('shadow' down his right side; position of tshirt--------------no one can explain them away) and try to move out from there.

We also have to factor in the fact that there was jerk blur in some of these frames-------------a jerk blur that had a doubling effect. The key question in such instances of jerk blur is: what exactly is being doubled, the Lovelady head or the Oswald head? As I stressed at the outset of my inquiry, this is extremely tricky territory. My rule of thumb has been: look at the position of head in relation to white tshirt underneath.

Is Mr. Oswald standing in front of Lovelady? It seems so, but they may be standing side by side, with Mr. Lovelady's head doing some moving around and his posture making a telling difference (e.g. leaning a little east, rotating body, going on tiptoe), such that in certain frames Mr. Oswald's head blocks the view of some or all of the left side of Mr. Lovelady's face.

Do we only ever see Mr. Oswald's tshirt? It seems so, but that does not mean that Mr. Lovelady's tshirt made no appearance in the original version of the film. The best we can do at present to reconstruct what that original version showed is (once again:) follow any white tshirt we DO see.

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

Now let me move on to your core question:

"Therefore they must be at the top of the steps, where two men can comfortably stand one in front of the other. But if that were the case, they should appear to be just a few inches shorter than Frazier... since his is taller. but in fact, they appear to be much shorter than Frazier. (I think.)

Therefore they can't be standing at the top of the steps either."

Here's Mr. Frazier in Darnell:

Where is he in the Wiegman frames showing Mr. Lovelady at higher elevation? He shows up nicely enough in the later Wiegman frames, showing Mr. Lovelady at lower elevation. But not here. We can clearly see Messrs. Lovelady (green arrow) and Molina (pink arrow), but where is Mr. Frazier? Where even is his light-colored shirt?

Perhaps Mr. Frazier is deep back on the landing? There is perhaps a hint of his face back there. Still a little confusing that we don't see any of his brightly sunlit shirt, but let's park that issue for now------------------only to note that he appears not to be in the same place as we'll soon be seeing him in Darnell.

To the point! Look at Mr. Molina in Darnell. Notably less tall than Mr. Frazier. Now look at him in Wiegman. The upper horizontal lintel shadow appears to hit his face at the same point here as in Darnell, therefore we can be confident that he has not moved position since Darnell.

In considering where Mr. Lovelady is standing in Weigman, Mr. Molina offers a better point of reference than Mr. Frazier, because both he and Mr. Lovelady are clearly visible at the same time.

And where is Mr. Molina here in Wiegman? That's easy: he's on the landing.

Now Mr. Molina is five feet seven-and-a-half inches tall. Very close to Mr. Lovelady's five feet eight inches.

Does Mr. Lovelady in this Wiegman frame look like he's standing a step down from Mr. Molina?

Edited November 22, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

On 11/17/2023 at 1:47 PM, Alan Ford said:

Thanks for this, Mr. Fuller. Yes, it goes all the way down the frame:

And it's in all the latter Wiegman frames showing Mr. Lovelady at lower height:

However, there's no trace of it in the Weisberg print (the vertical thin black line here is in the wrong place)---------------

This suggests that the white line is a film artefact. Hard to see how it could be a car aerial, given where Wiegman's car and the one in front now are in these latter frames.

Friends, I must correct something in the above: "there's no trace of it in the Weisberg print"

The digital scan of the Weisberg print (courtesy of one of the ROKC folks) does show it:

I'm still pretty sure it's a film artefact.

Sorry for the confusion, Mr. Fuller!

[Alan Ford]

On 11/8/2023 at 1:40 PM, Alan Ford said:

From Mr. Dom Bonafede's article on the Altgens controversy, May '64:

QUESTION!

How could anyone in the 'investigation' possibly believe Oswald Out On The Steps was even a remote possibility, given that Mr. Oswald had himself ruled out any such alibi in interrogation?

ANSWER!

Mr. Oswald had done no such thing.

But! Let us not be naive.

The reason for the FBI agents' visit to Mr. Lovelady's home was not to ask Mr. Lovelady in good faith if that was him in the Altgens photo. Nor was their sign of relief when he pointed to his face anything other than a show.

Nope. They knew damn well exactly where Mr. Oswald had been @ 12.30pm-----------and what the original Altgens had shown.

The real reason for the visit was to test Mr. Lovelady's reaction to the new improved Altgens. He had been photographed down at City Hall (without being told the real reason why). Then the necessary work was done on the photo. And now they were showing him the fictional result. He saw at once what they had done: Mr. Oswald had been disappeared, and his own face pasted in. And he said, 'Yes, that's me'. The required response. He was going to play along.

The FBI agents left his home satisfied that this phase of the 'investigation' had been taken care of.

[Alan Ford]

20 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Do we only ever see Mr. Oswald's tshirt? It seems so, but that does not mean that Mr. Lovelady's tshirt made no appearance in the original version of the film. The best we can do at present to reconstruct what that original version showed is (once again:) follow any white tshirt we DO see.

What would happen to our view of Lovelady@DPD's right (viewer's left) shoulder if his white tshirt showed in the place it shows in Wiegman?

Compare this with our actual view of Lovelady-in-Wiegman's right (viewer's left) shoulder.

Small wonder the 'nothing to see here' crew don't want to talk about the position of the tshirt in Wiegman. It's a disaster!

[Alan Ford]

On 10/28/2023 at 4:27 AM, Tom Gram said:

Also, in the .gif above, something appears to be spinning/twirling/blowing in the wind at the end of the alleged bag. If whatever that is is attached to the object, that would also suggest that the object is not a paper bag. 

Friends, let's forget the what-is-the-long-object? question for a moment and focus instead on that curious spinning/twirling/blowing we see near the bottom of it.

A thought--------------------------