Those Front Steps

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Oswald killed Kennedy.  He also killed Tippit.  He almost shot Walker.  He almost killed himself (oh, too bad!!).  This is all fact.  The rest is just a parlour game+

 A no-pressure shot yet Walker was missed. BTW the shots at the Presidential limo were actually easy but too bad for your case there was never a shot that originated from a southeast corner of the Book Depository. You need to figure out where they came from. I'm waiting for the picture you have of Oswald in that window, what is the hold-up? If you need help ask Mytton he might be able to fool you with some of his unique...ummmm, let's just call it photo artwork

[Matthew Finch]

Oswald killed Kennedy.  He also killed Tippit.  He almost shot Walker.  He almost killed himself (oh, too bad!!).  This is all fact.  The rest is just a parlour game+

Yup. I can't believe I check in each lunchtime to read for 30 minutes or so arguments over an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow on a piece of film, yet here I am again doing just that.

Also, doesn't anyone find it remotely odd that the one person accused of committing this act was NOT spotted 'on the steps or outside watching p. parade' by ANYONE during the entire affair?

[Alan Ford]

Yup. I can't believe I check in each lunchtime to read for 30 minutes or so arguments over an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow on a piece of film, yet here I am again doing just that.

And yet you do keep checking in, Mr Finch. Likely explanation: the issue is making you nervous!

Now! If you can put your unfortunate LN bias to one side for just a moment, let me remind you that you were the one who drew attention to the curious "interference" between the car antenna and the Lovelady 'shadow'. Can you offer an explanation for this that would be consistent with said 'shadow's' being "an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow"? How come the antenna shows up clearly against every other dark background except this one?

And---------------while you're there--------------how do you explain the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's body in the frame below as "an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow" when the real-time Mr Lovelady is clearly on the steps and nowhere near the real-time natural shadow line from the west column?



Can you do any better than your fellow LNers on this, Mr Finch? I know it's not exactly a high bar, but by all means give it your best jump!

[Royell Storing]

Here's what actually happened, Mr Mytton. It's a real hoot!

1. I posted this photo from Mr Pat Speer:



2. You, rubbing your hands in glee as you saw the shadow reaching almost the perfect midpoint of the doorway, posted this claim that all my claims were refuted by what you had noticed:



3. I gently pointed out to you that the landing depth today is different to the landing depth in 1963, and you came back with this:





So the landing was "a little deeper", "a bit deeper (from memory a couple of feet) in 2019", was it?

Let's look at the facts, shall we? 

Depth of landing in 1963: less than 4 feet



(Credit: Mr Gary Murr!  )

Depth of landing now: 9 feet.



The landing has been extended to well over twice its original depth!

This is what you call "a little deeper"!

Keep up the good work, Mr Mytton! 

    The Top Pic taken on 11/22/2019 is "The straw that broke the camels back".  Lovelady standing in Close Proximity to the Handrail running down the Middle of the steps, Rules Out an alleged shadow falling across half of his body.

[Alan Ford]

    The Top Pic taken on 11/22/2019 is "The straw that broke the camels back".  Lovelady standing in Close Proximity to the Handrail running down the Middle of the steps, Rules Out an alleged shadow falling across half of his body.

Yep! 

It's very simple. Anyone who accepts the reality that Mr Lovelady is on the steps here--------------



---------------yet refuses to acknowledge the shadow problem is just being intellectually dishonest.

And anyone who doesn't accept the reality that Mr Lovelady is on the steps here is either mad, bad or blind!

 

[Alan Ford]

Even here, friends, we are seeing not one but two heads:



Mr Lovelady's white tshirt is under his chin, where you would expect it to be; the edge of Mr Oswald's head rounds out Mr Lovelady's head, making it look unnaturally large.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Yup. I can't believe I check in each lunchtime to read for 30 minutes or so arguments over an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow on a piece of film, yet here I am again doing just that.

Also, doesn't anyone find it remotely odd that the one person accused of committing this act was NOT spotted 'on the steps or outside watching p. parade' by ANYONE during the entire affair?

Matthew below is a quote from you a couple of months back

Wasn't Oswald* spotted emptying shells from his revolver post-shooting Tippit? The three live rounds in his pocket, maybe?

*Assuming of course, it was indeed Oswald - which I think it most likely was.

Judging that both quotes are nothing more than drive-by comments maybe it would help if you read both of your quotes and ask yourself  if you took a position on anything

Answer:  It depends, for example, in the second quote if you know the answers to your two questions. Maybe you do or maybe you don't.
You said it yourself  "assuming of course, it was indeed Oswald- which I think it most likely was"     

See, you don't, even after you allow yourself to "Assume it was Oswald" you are only willing to say "it most likely was". That sounds like someone who is oblivious

Do you think any of the pictures were altered?