Where was Lovelady Standing in Wiegman and Altgens6?

[James Hackerott]

James,
at the start of this thread it seems we all agreed that Lovelady appears to have only dropped down one step. Now since you've changed your mind on what step he is on in W2, as you wrote above, then it had to change something else.  Well it seems you quite easilly went from "one step" to two steps, only the height of one step  was cut in half from 7" to around 3.5" but with no explaination or reasoning.

Barry,
I apologize for the delay with this response as there was a lot to review. The key to this mystery is that I initially worked under the two step paradigm which put Lovelady either on the landing and then step 6, or on step 6 and then step 5. The W1 rendering put Lovelady squarely on the landing. Thus, per the paradigm, defaulting him down to step 6.

Then after your input about a two step drop I agreed to test that hypothesis and found, indeed, Lovelady stepping from the landing to step 5 by W2 very probable and posted those results in reply #16 this thread. So, I had not via simulated measurement, dropped him 7?. I reviewed my previous work and did not find substantial changes involved that suddenly placed him on step 5. Dropping Ruth Dean's apparent height including hat by a few inches to eye level is superficial to the actual placement of Lovelady. I've added a hat now to Ruth to avoid more confusion about that. So, to write I changed my mind about the two step drop is a little off the mark, IMO.  I do value the feedback you and others offer.

[Barry Pollard]

Barry,
I apologize for the delay with this response as there was a lot to review. The key to this mystery is that I initially worked under the two step paradigm which put Lovelady either on the landing and then step 6, or on step 6 and then step 5. The W1 rendering put Lovelady squarely on the landing. Thus, per the paradigm, defaulting him down to step 6.

Then after your input about a two step drop I agreed to test that hypothesis and found, indeed, Lovelady stepping from the landing to step 5 by W2 very probable and posted those results in reply #16 this thread. So, I had not via simulated measurement, dropped him 7?. I reviewed my previous work and did not find substantial changes involved that suddenly placed him on step 5. Dropping Ruth Dean's apparent height including hat by a few inches to eye level is superficial to the actual placement of Lovelady. I've added a hat now to Ruth to avoid more confusion about that. So, to write I changed my mind about the two step drop is a little off the mark, IMO.  I do value the feedback you and others offer.

Hi James,
just for my own sanity, I did mention "the two step thing" yes but I gave no evidence for it nor any explaination, basically I was referring to your caution on the observed one step drop for Lovelady in Wiegman that may not be reliable because of the movement of Dave's camera(so perhaps it was two steps).
Anyway, just a thought here, how about trying it another way, put your Lovelady model on step6 and show how it doesn't line up with Altgens.
Btw James, you might be the only researcher I'm aware of that thinks Wiegman opened first, I hope that's not influencing you too much because you may have trouble supporting that idea

[James Hackerott]

Hi James,
just for my own sanity, I did mention "the two step thing" yes but I gave no evidence for it nor any explaination, basically I was referring to your caution on the observed one step drop for Lovelady in Wiegman that may not be reliable because of the movement of Dave's camera(so perhaps it was two steps).
Anyway, just a thought here, how about trying it another way, put your Lovelady model on step6 and show how it doesn't line up with Altgens.
Btw James, you might be the only researcher I'm aware of that thinks Wiegman opened first, I hope that's not influencing you too much because you may have trouble supporting that idea

Thanks for the heads-up...seems trouble is my middle name lately.
How about my last ani-collage in post #26. It cycles in order Landing, Landing-leaning 35deg, step 6 in an Altgens position, and step 5. Lovelady on 6 and Landing leaning share essentially the same 3D space. How to tell the difference? IDK

[Alan Ford]

James,
at the start of this thread it seems we all agreed that Lovelady appears to have only dropped down one step. Now since you've changed your mind on what step he is on in W2, as you wrote above, then it had to change something else.  Well it seems you quite easilly went from "one step" to two steps, only the height of one step  was cut in half from 7" to around 3.5" but with no explaination or reasoning.

Barry, James,
I hate to be a bore (!) but there is still a large issue here with the placement of Frazier in W1:



The blue line extends approximately from his chin. He is clearly much higher than, and at a much greater distance back from, Lovelady than in any of James' simulations. Given that we know pretty well the two men's actual heights, I can't for the life of me see how they can both be on the landing.

[Barry Pollard]

Hi Alan,
hopefully James will fix that and some of the other small details in the near future,
the distance between those two men in his model for example and the shadow hitting Lovelady's head.
When I saw BL on step6 for Altgens it looked good immeadiatly but the BL on the landing in Wiegman I'm still struggling with.

James, have you ever seen the Powers and Dillard images that both show the boxes in the SN put into motion by John Mytton?
That's what I was thinking of, similar to what you did with Lovelady sliding onto the lower step.
An animation that goes from Wiegman to Altgens that may rule out the 6th step for BL in W1.
I'm yet to be convinced your opinion is the correct one for W1, sorry.
Again for Altgens I had np, why would anyone doubt that? It just Syncs/Cinques/Sinks.

[James Hackerott]

Barry, James,
I hate to be a bore (!) but there is still a large issue here with the placement of Frazier in W1:



The blue line extends approximately from his chin. He is clearly much higher than, and at a much greater distance back from, Lovelady than in any of James' simulations. Given that we know pretty well the two men's actual heights, I can't for the life of me see how they can both be on the landing.

Alan,
I've created three sets of Wiegman W1 vs Altgens6 at the landing, 6in East and 12in East.
For each set Lovelady leans from his approximate waist from 0-35deg. Please review and pick one or two that best match your Lovelady to Frazier observation.

p.s. I hope you and others have means to step through these as single frames. Maybe there is a better way to display these?

20180805 ani-collage1

[James Hackerott]

Hi Alan,
hopefully James will fix that and some of the other small details in the near future,
the distance between those two men in his model for example and the shadow hitting Lovelady's head.
When I saw BL on step6 for Altgens it looked good immeadiatly but the BL on the landing in Wiegman I'm still struggling with.

James, have you ever seen the Powers and Dillard images that both show the boxes in the SN put into motion by John Mytton?
That's what I was thinking of, similar to what you did with Lovelady sliding onto the lower step.
An animation that goes from Wiegman to Altgens that may rule out the 6th step for BL in W1.
I'm yet to be convinced your opinion is the correct one for W1, sorry.
Again for Altgens I had np, why would anyone doubt that? It just Syncs/Cinques/Sinks.

Hey Barry, don't sweat the shadow on BL. Than is fixable with 4deg lean forward. I removed that when doing the 0-35deg leaning comparisons I just posted in #33.

Sure, I saw that morphing by John. Of course I tried it with my software and was quite pleased with his work vs mine. Good job. Now for what you are requesting I need to know a few more details. Are you looking for a 'morph' from W1 to W2, or W2 to Altgens6 or something else?
Before I do, please remove my name from the W1 short list for now . More to come...