Those Front Steps

[John Iacoletti]

Excuse me Ms Krotsch, but I made a comment directed at ThomasGraves, and if you have something specific to dispute, you need to state what it is. I have researched, and studied research of others to develop my conclusions, but you need to do your own research and/or studies, and I owe you no explanation.

As usual, “all that is known about the occupants of the steps/landing" is just another empty platitude from LarryTrotterImage.

[Royell Storing]

I remain committed to not say anything with a keyboard that I would not say in person.

    I too would be interested in seeing your Evidence. Many of us come to this Forum to learn the Facts concerning the assassination of JFK. Please, school us.

[John Iacoletti]

Larry doesn’t do evidence. He doesn’t even do spaces between words.

[Alan Ford]

Larry doesn’t do evidence. He doesn’t even do spaces between words.

 

Mr Trotter is one of several people here who get curiously uncomfortable whenever the possibility is explored of Mr Oswald's being out front when JFK passed the building. They would rather we wouldn't ascribe any evidentiary value whatsoever to this little bombshell from Agent Hosty:



Now! How about we forget Prayer (Wo)Man and Mr Oswald and all that for just a moment and instead simply focus on this image:



It has been suggested that

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is a natural shadow cast by the western column of the entranceway. The angle of the sun at 12.30 that day, and the meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway by Messrs Stancak and Hackerott, rule this explanation out.

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is in fact due to the angle of his body to the camera. Look at the Wiegman frame above, and the contour of the strip as it meets Mr Lovelady's chest and stomach: this explanation is patently an anatomical impossibility.

Crucially, the dark strip is down Mr Lovelady's side in all the Wiegman frames. Even though he moves down on the steps, the dark strip moves down with him:



What the heck is this dark strip?

The only two logical explanations I can think of are still------------------
a) a jacket or coat
b) deliberate blacking out of the relevant area in the Wiegman film.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Royell Storing]

Mr Trotter is one of several people here who get curiously uncomfortable whenever the possibility is explored of Mr Oswald's being out front when JFK passed the building. They would rather we wouldn't ascribe any evidentiary value whatsoever to this little bombshell from Agent Hosty:



Now! How about we forget Prayer (Wo)Man and Mr Oswald and all that for just a moment and instead simply focus on this image:



It has been suggested that

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is a natural shadow cast by the western column of the entranceway. The angle of the sun at 12.30 that day, and the meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway by Messrs Stancak and Hackerott, rule this explanation out.

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is in fact due to the angle of his body to the camera. Look at the Wiegman frame above, and the contour of the strip as it meets Mr Lovelady's chest and stomach: this explanation is patently an anatomical impossibility.

Crucially, the dark strip is down Mr Lovelady's side in all the Wiegman frames. Even though he moves down on the steps, the dark strip moves down with him:



What the heck is this dark strip?

The only two logical explanations I can think of are still------------------
a) a jacket or coat
b) deliberate blacking out of the relevant area in the Wiegman film.

Any other suggestions?

 

    I agree with your branding the Hosty Notes as a "Bombshell".  Unknown JFK assassination Evidence laying around the National Archives for 55+ years speaks as to the level of the WC and HSCA so called "investigations".
    The image Evidence of this case warrants being evaluated with a raised eyebrow. The Wiegman Film for roughly 40 years was touted as being filmed Continuously. Then we come to find out that so called Fact was completely Bogus. That Revelation after decades of intentional deceit renders the Wiegman Film .
     I would rule out a coat being the black thing running down the entire side of the person known as Lovelady. To cover that much of his body would require a Trench coat. Many of the TSBD guys were laying plywood flooring that day while being paid minimum wage. This job function along with their scant wage would DQ a trench coat. On top of that, I have Never seen an image of any of the male TSBD employees wearing a trench coat.         

[Ray Mitcham]

Mr Trotter is one of several people here who get curiously uncomfortable whenever the possibility is explored of Mr Oswald's being out front when JFK passed the building. They would rather we wouldn't ascribe any evidentiary value whatsoever to this little bombshell from Agent Hosty:



Now! How about we forget Prayer (Wo)Man and Mr Oswald and all that for just a moment and instead simply focus on this image:



It has been suggested that

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is a natural shadow cast by the western column of the entranceway. The angle of the sun at 12.30 that day, and the meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway by Messrs Stancak and Hackerott, rule this explanation out.

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is in fact due to the angle of his body to the camera. Look at the Wiegman frame above, and the contour of the strip as it meets Mr Lovelady's chest and stomach: this explanation is patently an anatomical impossibility.

Crucially, the dark strip is down Mr Lovelady's side in all the Wiegman frames. Even though he moves down on the steps, the dark strip moves down with him:



What the heck is this dark strip?

The only two logical explanations I can think of are still------------------
a) a jacket or coat
b) deliberate blacking out of the relevant area in the Wiegman film.

Any other suggestions?

 

Alan, I think you will find that Lovelady not only moved down the steps, but also moved to his right (our left) as he did so. This could account for the shadow of the western column remaining in the same position on his body.
I doubt very much that the shadow was a coat or a deliberate blacking out.

In the first frame of the gif, the top of his head is level with the sixth row of decorative bricks (from the top) to the west for the entrance, and directly below the "O" in "DEPOSITORY", over the doorway.
In the second frame the top of his head is level with the seventh row of decorative bricks (from the top) and directly below the "P" in "DEPOSITORY", showing he must have moved down and to his right.
This would also account for the shadow not being straight in the third frame as he appears to be leaning slightly backwards.

[Royell Storing]

Alan, I think you will find that Lovelady not only moved down the steps, but also moved to his right (our left) as he did so. This could account for the shadow of the western column remaining in the same position on his body.
I doubt very much that the shadow was a coat or a deliberate blacking out.

In the first frame of the gif, the top of his head is level with the sixth row of decorative bricks (from the top) to the west for the entrance, and directly below the "O" in "DEPOSITORY", over the doorway.
In the second frame the top of his head is level with the seventh row of decorative bricks (from the top) and directly below the "P" in "DEPOSITORY", showing he must have moved down and to his right.
This would also account for the shadow not being straight in the third frame as he appears to be leaning slightly backwards.

    Regarding the 2 images above, Lovelady is standing at 2 different heights on 2 different steps. Yet, the alleged Shadow somehow fails to fall across his balding head or face vs still uniformly falling across his entire (R) side. How is this possible ?