Those Front Steps

[Thomas Graves]

Friends, this comes down to a simple sequence of events:

1. A Depository employee goes out onto the front landing to watch JFK pass

2. He stands just behind a fellow employee

3. He then goes back inside

4. His fleeting presence on the landing, although it has gone generally unnoticed by others in the entranceway who have been focused on the motorcade, has been caught on film

5. But the film is tampered with to hide this fact, for the cover-up investigators want the shooting to be pinned on this employee.

Complicated? Not in the least! 

Regarding point #5!

This is where the shadow line from the west column fell on the front steps at 12.30pm on 11/22/63 (credit: Mr James Hackerott):



Big deal? Oh yes, very big deal! For as soon as this simple circumstance is related to Mr Billy Lovelady's appearance in the Wiegman film-------------------



-------------------a simple observation is made:

Mr Lovelady is nowhere near west enough to catch any of that shadow.

From this simple observation a simple conclusion is arrived at:

That can't be a natural shadow down Mr Lovelady's side.

Attempts are made to explain the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side as something other than a shadow. They do not work...

And then the presence of a second head behind-------and consistently just above--------Mr Lovelady's head in Wiegman is noticed:



Suddenly it all makes perfect sense------------and no amount of intensive effort from the fanatical motley crew affectionately known as Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Entrance to explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady proves capable of stopping it from making perfect sense!

Take-Home Points To Tell Your Friends About!

A) Mr Oswald was standing just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shooting

B) His alibi was suppressed through a) burying claims he made in custody; b) inventing a post-assassination second-floor lunchroom encounter; and c) tampering with the Wiegman film

C) The success of this alibi-suppression measure depended upon people assuming incorrectly that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has been caught by natural shadow from the west column

D) For five-and-a-half decades people did make this assumption and so the alibi-suppression measure proved successful

E) But now the alibi-suppression measure has been exposed

F) Mr Oswald stands exonerated of the shooting of JFK.

This brings to a close years and years of speculation, and destroys the very foundation of the ridiculous Warren Report-------not to mention the raison d'etre of the Warren Gullible goons who continue to peddle that Report's nonsense day in day out on research forums such as this one!.

 

___________ Friends?

-------------------------------LOL!

--------------Tampered with?

-----------------------LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Royell Storing]

Thanks for the photo. I was wrong and am happy to be corrected, it doesn't mean that my sun plane physics were wrong just not right for 1963, but it pales into insignificance to the following "Theory Destroying GIF".

While calculating the position of the center railing I realized that from all the front angles of the TSBD I could find, that the top post of the railing when extended meets the light above virtually dead center.



Now when the perspective above is applied to my super duper GIF, by dropping a plumb line from the center of the lamp we see that the railings positions are accurate but my original lengths were both a bit too long so I "painted them out" and even digitally it ain't easy to paint stuff out. Anyway we see that where the railing finishes is behind "the lady in black" and Oswald is off under the shadow.



JohnM

    How many times are You going to revise your Shadow Theory? Ford busted you for posting that silly handrail and Now he's busted You for Not Knowing the depth of the Landing. At this point, No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids and Your Theories based on these same intentionally misleading concoctions. I mean, how in the world can you be gauging a shadow when you have No Idea as to the depth of the surface on which it is falling?   

[Royell Storing]

    FORD - With the Landing being Less than 4 feet deep it is difficult to envision 2 people, (Lovelady/Oswald), standing almost single file in front of a roughly 4 feet wide door which opens outward toward them. There just is Not the room to do this along with the common sense factor of standing directly in front of/on top of a glass door that opens toward you. On top of that, Buell Frazier is also supposed to be standing back behind these 2 guys on that Less than 4 feet deep Landing and in front of that same roughly 4 foot wide door. Lovelady possibly standing on the top step directly below the Landing makes more sense than piling people up on a less than 4 feet deep landing.

[John Mytton]

    How many times are You going to revise your Shadow Theory? Ford busted you for posting that silly handrail and Now he's busted You for Not Knowing the depth of the Landing. At this point, No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids and Your Theories based on these same intentionally misleading concoctions. I mean, how in the world can you be gauging a shadow when you have No Idea as to the depth of the surface on which it is falling?

How many times are You going to revise your Shadow Theory?

Since the beginning of time the Shadow Theory has been set in stone , but being the first to create these never seen before unique educational graphics does take a revision or two, do you think the theory of relativity was never revised or that NASA stuck with their prototypes before the moon lander or Space Shuttle, the only difference is their early design work is done behind closed doors whereas I put all my work on display for feedback and to achieve accuracy.
Btw for half a decade your mate Paul Ernst revised his "Sniper's Nest Theory Graphics" and at each contradictory revision you only had the highest of praise, consistency is not your forte.

Now he's busted You for Not Knowing the depth of the Landing.

The depth of the landing after any reconstruction is irrelevant.

At this point, No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids

Because you can't create anything yourself, for years and years you've bitched and moaned about my visual aids and every time you say "No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids", so like your clueless oft repeated opinion has ever made a difference.

I mean, how in the world can you be gauging a shadow when you have No Idea as to the depth of the surface on which it is falling?

Again with the stupidity, explain the connection of a shadow on Lovelady in 1963 to a reconstructed entrance in 2019?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Even though I've made minor insignificant changes along the way, the basic physics and the core construction always remained the same.
To get a better sense of scale, I painted out the distracting visual clutter between Lovelady and the railing.



JohnM

[Royell Storing]

Since the beginning of time the Shadow Theory has been set in stone , but being the first to create these never seen before unique educational graphics does take a revision or two, do you think the theory of relativity was never revised or that NASA stuck with their prototypes before the moon lander or Space Shuttle, the only difference is their early design work is done behind closed doors whereas I put all my work on display for feedback and to achieve accuracy.
Btw for half a decade your mate Paul Ernst revised his "Sniper's Nest Theory Graphics" and at each contradictory revision you only had the highest of praise, consistency is not your forte.

The depth of the landing after any reconstruction is irrelevant.

Because you can't create anything yourself, for years and years you've bitched and moaned about my visual aids and every time you say "No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids", so like your clueless oft repeated opinion has ever made a difference.

Again with the stupidity, explain the connection of a shadow on Lovelady in 1963 to a reconstructed entrance in 2019?

JohnM

    "Educational Graphics" ? You gotta be kidding. Ford has torn asunder every Mickey Mouse graphic/visual aid you have constructed/manipulated to suit your fancy. If this were a prize fight, the towel would have been thrown into the ring long ago. Right now, you resemble Apollo Creed falling face first into the mat. THUD! 

[John Mytton]

    "Educational Graphics" ? You gotta be kidding. Ford has torn asunder every Mickey Mouse graphic/visual aid you have constructed/manipulated to suit your fancy. If this were a prize fight, the towel would have been thrown into the ring long ago. Right now, you resemble Apollo Creed falling face first into the mat. THUD!

"Educational Graphics" ?

Yes.

You gotta be kidding.

No.

Ford has torn asunder every Mickey Mouse graphic/visual aid you have constructed/manipulated to suit your fancy.

Ford's made some observations and he's also invested a hellava lot more time on this than me, I only started this a couple of weeks ago whereas Ford started this thread almost 3 months ago and who knows how much longer he was studying and devising his Kooky theories before that.

If this were a prize fight, the towel would have been thrown into the ring long ago. Right now, you resemble Apollo Creed falling face first into the mat. THUD!

What a wonderful analogy yes I get knocked down but like Apollo Creed I got back up and retained the World Champion Belt! Oops! you are sooooo stupid and you can't even think up a decent insult!

JohnM