115 pages? Can somebody give me the Reader's Digest version of this thread?
Hi Tim, good to see you posting. Alan says that the shadow on Lovelady in Wiegman is hiding Oswald who was behind?, but for some reason he found Oswald's head behind Lovelady's head but "they" didn't bother painting that out? Whew! Yes, it makes no sense, it's classic circular logic, he's got a conclusion but he's busy trying to invent fantasies to support the ever increasing complexities.
This theory boils down to, Alan thinks the shadow on Lovelady is a fake and about a dozen frames of the shakiest jerky footage with extreme motion blur showed Oswald on the TSBD landing, so they just tracked these images and painted in a mathematically accurate shadow in less than 7 hours, this process requires processing, drying, resizing, drying, painting, the perfect shade of "black", drying, converting to ntsc, etc. Just the time to work out the shadows would alone take days, and in comparison Cinques Altgens 6 allegation pales into nothingness compared to the logistical nightmare of this theory.
In Wiegman's footage the frames amounting to about half a second could be easily excised and nobody would know the difference but instead they achieved the impossible for no added value, go figure.
I posted a video that came from the archives that shows the shadow early that night on the 22nd but surprise surprise, that was the fake version.
The only proof given by Alan to support this "theory" is that he thinks he sees Lovelady standing in a particular position but completely fails to account for the compressed perspective and has in not in the slightest supported these increasingly Kooky ideas.
At the end of the day all my graphics came to the same conclusion but the following GIF is rotating around the "lady in black" who's on the lower steps and Lovelady who is behind rotates less than the doorway which is further back.
JohnM
