Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

   Ford - To be fair here, You have a blurry image of what appears to be 2 heads. THAT is all the actual physical evidence you have. On the Hosty Notes it is noted that Oswald claimed to have Gone Outside to watch the "P. Parade". There is Nothing on the Hosty Notes pinpointing a location from which Oswald allegedly watched the "P. Parade". Nothing on the Hosty Notes places Oswald on the TSBD Landing or the TSBD Steps. On top of that, NO EYEWITNESS on 11/22/63 has Ever recounted seeing Oswald on the TSBD Landing or the TSBD Steps before, during, or after the assassination. I find the Jet Black Shadow worthy of discussion/investigation. The Oswald element of your position has absolutely No Evidentiary Foundation what-so-ever.

On the contrary, Mr Storing, the case for Mr Oswald having been just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the assassination is locked down. As is the way with these things, it will take some time for the implications of my finding to sink in with people more generally, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic validity of the claim.

We have
-----------the recently uncovered confirmation that Mr Oswald (as already deduced by smart researchers) did indeed claim to have gone "outside to watch P. parade"
-----------the confirmation (from this) that Mr Oswald's claim in custody was suppressed by the cover-up investigators
-----------the inexplicable (as a natural physical phenomenon) 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film
-----------the double-headed Lovewald creature in Wiegman
-----------the glimpse of sunlit human skin just behind Mr Lovelady in Altgens

This is nothing short of the first truly cogent and watertight claim ever proposed as to Mr Oswald's whereabouts at 12.30pm on 11/22/63.

Now! Let us be quite clear as to how the logical inference to Oswald-Behind-Lovelady is made here:

1. If no one can explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady as an innocent phenomenon (and no one can--------I mean, look at poor Mr Mytton's recent efforts!), then...

2. The only explanatory recourse left to us is doctoring of the film, which raises the question...

3. Why, if unrelated to any Oswaldian presence in Mr Lovelady's immediate vicinity, would anyone have bothered to doctor the film?

You have no answer to #3, do you?

The burning desire of Warren Gullibles to keep Mr Oswald away from that front entrance does not keep Mr Oswald away from that front entrance, no more than the burning desire of the more idiotic and/or pet-theory-driven and/or plain mad CT hobbyists to keep Mr Oswald away from that front entrance can keep Mr Oswald away from that front entrance.

He was there----------



-------------and that unnatural dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady is the smoking gun that establishes his alibi by telling us who that second 'Lovelady' head must belong to----------------



This case, Mr Storing, is not a game that one should want to see play out endlessly for its own sake. It is a matter of truth and justice. Apart from anything else, Mr Oswald's daughters have grown up being told that their father shot JFK. Well, he didn't, and it's important that they----------and everyone else------------know that.

 

[John Mytton]

   Ford - To be fair here, You have a blurry image of what appears -snip-

 

Hahahahahahahahaha!, even Fords biggest cheerleader has had enough and is deserting Ford.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Wow, you've gone full on Caprio, there is a mountain of actual evidence

So you keep claiming, but never producing. All you do is trot out a mountain of unsubstantiated subjective conclusions about weak, tainted, circumstantial evidence.

[Alan Ford]

This is now Ford dishonestly presents the evidence, he blows up my version to emphasise the pixels and keeps his version tiny, so it can't a fair comparison. naughty naughty. But this typical of Ford's devious tactics.



Btw the same gap is seen in both, so whatever point you were trying to make, makes no sense.




JohnM

 

Your sad little scheme to get Mr Lovelady in Altgens way over to the west of the entranceway-------------



-------------has died a death because of the angle at which Altgens is taken.

As anyone who has looked seriously and without prejudice at the relationship between the Lovelady@UpperElevation Wiegman frames and the Altgens photograph has known for years, they show Mr Lovelady (whatever about his posture) in the same part of the entranceway. And whoever doctored Wiegman recognized this too: that's why they added the dark shadow down Mr Lovelady at the exact point at which Mr Lovelady's body goes out of view in Altgens:



Sorry! 

[Alan Ford]

In Wiegman the lady in black is blocking the top half of the railing and by me drawing in the whole railing can in no way move the lady in black.

So the lady in black is on the east side of the railing in Wiegman, yes?



One-word answer required, Mr Mytton!

[John Mytton]

-snip-  weak, tainted, circumstantial evidence.

See that wasn't so hard, thanks for admitting that there is evidence, to say otherwise is pure Caprio.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Your sad little scheme to get Mr Lovelady in Altgens way over to the west of the entranceway-------------

-snip-

Altgens was not taken at the same time as Wiegman, and that unfinished graphic cannot be found in any of my posts. Try again.

JohnM