Those Front Steps

[Thomas Graves]

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

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?

Kleinschmidt,

Please remind us -- What are you convinced of regarding the assassination?

Do you think any of the photographs were altered?

--  MWT 

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Kleinschmidt,

Please remind us -- What are you convinced of regarding the assassination?

Do you think any of the photographs were altered?

--  MWT 

No photographs/films were altered.  Period.  Obviously, Mssr. Ford knows nothing of photogrammetry, as Jack White even testified that he himself did not know what the word meant.  Oswald shot Kennedy.  He also shot Tippit.  He almost shot Walker.  He almost shot himself (and he doesn't even know how to slit a wrist !!!  LOL !!!)  What a total loser and Kennedy Killer he wuz' !!

[Matthew Finch]

No photographs/films were altered.  Period.  Obviously, Mssr. Ford knows nothing of photogrammetry, as Jack White even testified that he himself did not know what the word meant.  Oswald shot Kennedy.  He also shot Tippit.  He almost shot Walker.  He almost shot himself (and he doesn't even know how to slit a wrist !!!  LOL !!!)  What a total loser and Kennedy Killer he wuz' !!

Thank you, Mark. This is the same answer I was about to provide (pretty much!)

[Thomas Graves]

I'd still like to know what Kleinschmidt believes regarding the assassination.

Did the same dirty rats who are trying to overthrow our beloved, pussy-grabbing president  (i.e., the "scum" FBI and CIA) murder JFK?  Or is Kleinschmidt ... gasp ... a "Lone Nutter"?

--  MWT 

[Alan Ford]

Thank you, Mark. This is the same answer I was about to provide (pretty much!)

 

So your explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman------------



---------------is?

[Royell Storing]

No photographs/films were altered.  Period.  Obviously, Mssr. Ford knows nothing of photogrammetry, as Jack White even testified that he himself did not know what the word meant.  Oswald shot Kennedy.  He also shot Tippit.  He almost shot Walker.  He almost shot himself (and he doesn't even know how to slit a wrist !!!  LOL !!!)  What a total loser and Kennedy Killer he wuz' !!

    ANY "Cropped" Image has been ALTERED. ANY B/W Image which is "Colorized" has been ALTERED. This occurs in general and Specifically on this Forum All-The-Time.

[Alan Ford]

Now!

1. It is noticed very quickly that a man resembling the accused assassin can be seen in the doorway in the Altgens photography.

2. Even before that, it is known to those privy to Mr Oswald's interrogation that Mr Oswald is placing himself out there at the time of the Presidential parade.

3. The Wiegman film is consulted, and to the horror of the cover-up investigators, Mr Oswald is recognisably there-----------but just behind Mr Billy Lovelady, the man in Altgens. The film has already been broadcast more than once to millions on NBC. To make matters worse, the presenter made a point of explaining during the running of the frames in question that they show the Depository building. So simply disappearing these frames is not an option! There is only one solution: monkey with the film before releasing 'it' back into the public domain!

4. When those tasked with altering the film look at the frames of Mr Lovelady at lower elevation, they don't see this...



What they see is Mr Lovelady's body in full sunlight and behind him the face of Mr Oswald, as identifiable as Mr Lovelady's just under him.

That face has gotta go!

5. And so they obscure Mr Oswald's face out by mimicking the effects of shadow. Thankfully-----------as Mr Mytton has shown------------that area is still brimming with detail, which enables us to make out the presence if not the features of Mr Oswald even in the doctored frames. 



6. But why do they also put a fake shadow down Mr Lovelady? Surely there's nothing needs covering up there?

Bien au contraire! They must put a fake shadow down Mr Lovelady because the other frames-------------the frames showing Mr Lovelady at upper elevation----------------need a fake shadow! You can't just give him a shadow and then have it gone just after. You'd only be tipping people off to the fix you've put in!

7. But why the need for shadow down Mr Lovelady in those Lovelady@HigherElevation frames?

The answer is that these frames, while they are not quite so disastrous as the lower-elevation frames (they don't show Mr Oswald's face clearly enough for identification), do show enough of his body and right arm to identify him as a manual employee.

8. So! Those tasked with altering Wiegman do not see what we see in the initial frames here when they receive the unaltered film...



No! They receive a film showing these frames with enough of Mr Oswald's white tshirt and right arm showing to rule out the second head's being a photofilmic quirk (e.g. motion blur). The second head must be deprived of its body!

9. And so they mimic the effects of shadow down Mr Lovelady's side--------------starting at the point furthest west on his body they can go, i.e. the point where his body disappears in Altgens!



10. It cannot be stressed enough, friends, that the entire scam is predicated on one giant gamble: that no one will notice that the shadow down Mr Lovelady is an impossible shadow.

I sincerely hope Mr Barry Pollard has been following this thread, for he saw what's what!