Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

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

 

Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Altgens:



Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Wiegman:



Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Checkmate, Mr Mytton! 

[John Mytton]

Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Altgens:



Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Wiegman:



Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Checkmate, Mr Mytton! 

Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

First of all, can you clearly point out where Man B's head is and can you show that the shadows are exactly the same and can you prove that he didn't move?

No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Yes there is no horizontal shadow on Lovelady but how does that place him in Wiegman?

Checkmate, Mr Mytton! 

Unsupported claims is not "Checkmate", answer my above questions and we will see who is indeed "Checkmated"

JohnM

[Zeon Mason]

Okay, thank you for the clarification, Mr Mason! 

That may indeed have been the calculation for the Lovelady@UpperElevation frames:
----------with the 'shadow' added, no one would even notice the second head, and if they did they would assume it to be motion blur or somesuch
----------even if they did realize it was a second head, they wouldn't be able to identify it as belonging to Mr Oswald.

For the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames, however, Mr Oswald had to be completely excised because-----------with Mr Lovelady no longer blocking him-----------he was recognizably present much in the way that Mr Lovelady still is.

This scam worked brilliantly------for five-and-a-half decades------until someone noticed that the shadow down Mr Lovelady could not be a natural shadow!

By the way, Altgens confirms the presence of a second sunlit person just behind Mr Lovelady in Wiegman:



This photograph must have been taken just before the first Wiegman frames, which show Mr Oswald's head just right (as we look) of Mr Lovelady's!

 

Well, Mr.Baggins… I think we finally understand one another 

[John Mytton]

Well, Mr.Baggins… I think we finally understand one another 

Thanks for coaxing Mr Baggins to expose the "plot", it's friggin hilarious and let me quote Mr Baggins words direct from the horses mouth, this is funny stuff.

with the 'shadow' added, no one would even notice the second head

Brilliant, so they painted a shadow on Lovelady in order to distract from a second head instead of the bleeding obvious of easily painting out the head? This is classic circular logic, you think you know the conclusion but just getting there is the problem.

and if they did they would assume it to be motion blur or somesuch

You've only seen copies of a film which was transferred to ntsc video which is interlaced and has the frame rate adjusted to suit, in other words your uninformed safe generalization of "or somesuch" perfectly sums up the wealth of your knowledge.

even if they did realize it was a second head, they wouldn't be able to identify it as belonging to Mr Oswald.

If you can't identify Oswald, then why bother painting a shadow onto Lovelady? The deeper we go the more scattered the thinking becomes, into the Heart of Darkness.

For the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames, however, Mr Oswald had to be completely excised because-----------with Mr Lovelady no longer blocking him-----------he was recognizably present much in the way that Mr Lovelady still is.

I ------- like -------- all ---------the ----------dramatic -------pauses! Nice.
So Oswald got in front of Lovelady, yet Lovelady said he never saw Oswald, go figure?

Mr. BALL - Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - East, on back, the elevator back.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him?
Mr. LOVELADY - No; I didn't; I just heard his voice because---where those slats are in back of the elevator.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him again that day?
Mr. LOVELADY - No.

This scam worked brilliantly------for five-and-a-half decades------until someone noticed that the shadow down Mr Lovelady could not be a natural shadow!

Are you that "someone" Alan? Hee haww hee haww!

By the way, Altgens confirms the presence of a second sunlit person just behind Mr Lovelady in Wiegman:

What body part do you think you see?

This photograph must have been taken just before the first Wiegman frames, which show Mr Oswald's head just right (as we look) of Mr Lovelady's!

We can't see Wiegman's camera car or the car in front in Altgens 6 and we don't know the speed of the vehicles before Wiegman started filming but according to Mark Tyler's graphic* seems to show Wiegman started filming a few seconds after Altgens. And Oswald had a big nose, so we could be seeing Oswald's nose, good work, Champ!
*https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2277.0.html

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

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

Not evidence that “Oswald was busy upstairs killing the president”.

[Royell Storing]

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

JohnM

     You obviously are smarting from having been batted around the last several days. I have Never bought into the Oswald part of this Theory. The Jet Black Curtain is worthy of examination/discussion. And if you want to run away from answering which side of the handrail the "lady in black" is standing, obviously Ford is correct. He has placed you between a rock and a hard place by raising this issue.

[John Mytton]

     You obviously are smarting from having been batted around the last several days. I have Never bought into the Oswald part of this Theory. The Jet Black Curtain is worthy of examination/discussion. And if you want to run away from answering which side of the handrail the "lady in black" is standing, obviously Ford is correct. He has placed you between a rock and a hard place by raising this issue.

You obviously are smarting from having been batted around the last several days.

I have Alan scrambling for nit picks, he has no answer for the perspective problem of where Lovelady must be in Darnell, exposed his cgi cartoon, his only comeback was to repost the same unfinished graphic again and again and claimed it was "fair game" and have now finally ridiculed the very essence of "what happened" and as for you Royell, you are just a bundle of incompetence, God luv ya!

The Jet Black Curtain is worthy of examination/discussion.

Sure, but you have to rule out the possible before you consider the impossible. Btw the Jet black curtain is nothing of the sort and the quality of the black level was lost a dozen transfers ago, you are such a Noob.

And if you want to run away from answering which side of the handrail the "lady in black" is standing, obviously Ford is correct.

In Wiegman she is clearly in front, it was discussed when Ford posted his blue unfinished railing and we both conceded that we couldn't see the top but for some reason he wants to keep asking the same question which I keep answering and for some reason you two want to keep asking the same question over and over, it's an interesting study in mental illness, it's most bizarre. You Kooks sure are a weird bunch.

He has placed you between a rock and a hard place by raising this issue.

Ummmm, you don't understand, this is Ford's claim and it's up to Ford to scientifically place Lovelady, you say my graphics are rubbish and I'm OK with that but that means you can't use my graphics as proof of anything, and all Ford has given as evidence of Lovelady's position is say, "I see it, but I can't prove it", yeah that's a really convincing technical explanation.
And the claim that even after how many thousands perhaps millions have seen the Wiegman film, it's only now that this "shadow" has been missed for 55 years? Everyone wants to be a Hero.

JohnM