JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 06:48:41 PM

Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 06:48:41 PM
Friends, let's suppose for argument's sake that

---------------Mr Billy Lovelady is indeed shown in the Couch film
(https://i.imgur.com/Uum0yYy.gif)

---------------Ms Gloria Calvery is indeed shown in the Darnell film at the front steps
(https://i.imgur.com/4Gd5X16.jpg)

---------------Mr Shelley told the truth in his November 22nd affidavit about running into Ms Calvery at 'the corner of the park' just after the shooting
(https://i.imgur.com/KHSvjlq.jpg)

---------------Mr Lovelady told the truth in his November 22nd FBI interview about leaving the steps immediately along with Mr Shelley after hearing the shots
(https://i.imgur.com/X3g40ly.jpg)

---------------Mr Oswald told the truth in custody when he claimed to have gone 'out to watch the P. parade' after eating his lunch
(https://i.imgur.com/AFj8odA.jpg)

So!

The question becomes-------------------
Why did Messrs Shelley and Lovelady change their story for the WC and say they both stayed on the steps and only left them after hearing from Ms Calvery about what had happened out on the street?
It seems such a pointless lie to tell, no?

Proposed solution!

The man in the red shirt standing just above Mr Carl Edward Jones in the Hughes film is not Mr Lovelady but Mr Oswald
(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)

'Prayer Person' in the Wiegman film-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/s6YViTg.jpg)
------------is Mr Shelley in short-sleeves-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/GGTCrCB.jpg)
-------------continuing to eat the lunch which he had started (affidavit, 22nd Nov) before going out to the steps

Mr Oswald, who is still just a step above Mr Carl Edward Jones, but now slightly more eastwards, has been blacked out of the Wiegman film (the impossible dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side!)
(https://i.imgur.com/s6YViTg.jpg)
---------------but! his raised right arm and a bit of his hairline can be seen in the Altgens photograph as originally printed on the newswires----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/jyXdp6G.jpg)

The person talking to Ms Calvery in the Darnell film is Mr Oswald (he has hardly moved position the whole time)-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/lZXe5n4.gif)

Is Prayer Person in Darnell someone who was not on the steps at the time of the shooting? If so, then my suggestion would be-----------
Mrs Jeraldean Reid----------
(https://i.imgur.com/eHr0zA4.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5bztwdH.jpg)
-------------who was originally on the steps, then ventured out as the motorcade arrived.
Did she return to the steps to get out of the line of fire?

If so!

To return to the question we opened with............
Why did Messrs Shelley and Lovelady change their story for the WC and say they both stayed on the steps and only left them after hearing from Ms Calvery about what had happened out on the street?
Answer: To knock Mr Oswald out of the talking-with-Ms-Calvery picture!

Postscript!
In their weasely-worded 22nd Nov statements, neither Mr Shelley nor Mr Lovelady say outright that they did not see Mr Oswald at the time of the shooting---------------
(https://i.imgur.com/LJ5WTi7.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iAZe8vh.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 08:22:50 PM
your positing that the bald-headed man wearing the long-sleeved red shirt over a white T-shirt was not Billy Lovelady, but Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr Graves, how on earth can you tell that this man in a red(dish) shirt in the Hughes film is Mr Lovelady rather than Mr Oswald?
(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)

Why can't it be Mr Oswald wearing this shirt? (Credit for photograph: Mr Pat Speer!)
(https://i.imgur.com/J0rysqf.png)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on September 21, 2019, 08:38:08 PM
Mr Graves, how on earth can you tell that this man [on the steps as the limo is passing by] in a red(dish) shirt in the Hughes film is Mr Lovelady rather than Mr. Oswald?

Alan,

Realizing that Lovelady was practically bald, that he said he'd watched the motorcade from the TSBD steps, that he was wearing a mostly red plaid shirt that day (over a whiteT-shirt), as can be seen in the Robert Hughes and/or the John Martin film after the assassination (as well as in footage in which the police are taking Oswald past him and into an interrogation room, or some-such thing)?

Occam's Razor?

Common sense?

Beats the heck out of me.

--  MWT  ;
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 08:52:37 PM
Alan,

Realizing that Lovelady was practically bald, that he said he'd watched the motorcade from the TSBD steps, that he was wearing a mostly red plaid shirt that day (over a whiteT-shirt), as can be seen in the Robert Hughes and/or the John Martin film after the assassination (as well as in footage in which the police are taking Oswald past him and into an interrogation room, or some-such thing)?

Occam's Razor?

Common sense?

Beats the heck out of me.

--  MWT  ;

Mr Graves, how exactly can you tell that this man is bald?
(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)

And that his shirt is plaid?

As for common sense, it takes very seriously these words from Agent Hosty's notes---------
(https://i.imgur.com/AFj8odA.jpg)

Also.......you seem to have missed this!
(https://i.imgur.com/J0rysqf.png)

 Thumb1:


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on September 21, 2019, 09:23:08 PM
Mr Graves, how exactly can you tell that this man is bald?
(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)

And that his shirt is plaid?

As for common sense, it takes very seriously these words from Agent Hosty's notes---------
(https://i.imgur.com/AFj8odA.jpg)

Also.......you seem to have missed this!
(https://i.imgur.com/J0rysqf.png)

 Thumb1:

Alan,

Are you (a much more polite) reincarnation of John Iacoletti?

Don't you understand that that's Lovelady, having moved down a few steps from his Altgens-6 "Doorman" center-railing position, and that Lee Harvey Oswald is upstairs in his white T-shirt, getting ready to murder JFK?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 09:31:23 PM
Alan,

Are you (a much more polite) reincarnation of John Iacoletti?

Don't you understand that that's Lovelady, having moved down a few steps from his Altgens-6 "Doorman" center-railing position, and that Lee Harvey Oswald is upstairs in his white T-shirt, getting ready to murder JFK?

--  MWT  ;)

 :D

So you can't back up your claim that this man in the Hughes film-------
(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)
---------is bald and wearing a plaid shirt.
It's just what your Oswald-Did-It eyes are telling you, and that's enough for you!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on September 21, 2019, 09:45:47 PM
:D

So you can't back up your claim that this man in the Hughes film-------
(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)
---------is bald and wearing a plaid shirt.
It's just what your Oswald-Did-It eyes are telling you, and that's enough for you!

Thumb1:

Alan,

1)  I just did (see my above posts -- plural)

2)  The most important thing about his shirt for purposes of this conversation is that it's mostly dark red (not brownish-pinkish), and that he's wearing it over a white T-shirt (a sliver of which can be glimpsed in the Hughes film as Lovelady, on the steps after the assassination and looking "Neanderthal-like" because he's jutting his jaw out while slowly exhaling cigarette smoke).

Which (dark-reddish) plaid shirt, by the way, Lovelady (with bald spot and everything) can be seen wearing with what looks like a pack of cigarettes in the pocket as they're leading Oswald past him in the police station.

3)  Since you don't want to be reasonable in our little "debate," the last thing I'm going to say to you regarding your "theory" is ... LOL!

--  MWT    ;)


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 11:23:19 PM
Alan,

1)  I just did (see my above posts -- plural)

2)  The most important thing about his shirt for purposes of this conversation is that it's mostly dark red (not brownish-pinkish), and that he's wearing it over a white T-shirt (a sliver of which can be glimpsed in the Hughes film as Lovelady, on the steps after the assassination and looking "Neanderthal-like" because he's jutting his jaw out while slowly exhaling cigarette smoke).

Which (dark-reddish) plaid shirt, by the way, Lovelady (with bald spot and everything) can be seen wearing with what looks like a pack of cigarettes in the pocket as they're leading Oswald past him in the police station.

3)  Since you don't want to be reasonable in our little "debate," the last thing I'm going to say to you regarding your "theory" is ... LOL!

--  MWT    ;)

 :D

So, Mr Graves, you can't see any plaid on the man in Hughes, you just assumed it's there. Got it!

You can't see that he is bald, you just assumed it. Got it!

You pretend not to know that Mr Oswald too was wearing a white tshirt under the shirt he wore to work that day. Got it!

In short-----you know that Mr Oswald shot President Kennedy, so you see whatever fits that notion--------------and block out whatever doesn't. Top-tier research!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 11:36:00 PM
Yet another thread on the same line of "inquiry". I guess the BYP (or the "Nessie"  or "Yeti" pics?) lesson is unlearned.... Who is the audience for this and what is the goal...what are readers to be convinced of, in the best of all possible outcomes? What have the BYP convinced you of? Why would your image evidence be more convincing to your audience than the BYP are to you, if you do not accept the authenticity of the BYP?

If you do not accept that these are pointless "out in front with Lovelady" "studies" in that nothing will be resolved as a result of them, why absorb this forum so completely, with them?

"Out in front with Lovelady"? What in heaven's name are you talking about, Mr Scully? :(

Anyway, to address the closest thing you have here to a substantive question------------------
Mr Oswald claimed to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade. And... Messrs Lovelady and Shelley lied about when they left the front entranceway.

Now! Let these facts sink in. Once they have, you will finally understand why so many of us consider that Depository front entranceway, and the visual record of that entranceway, to be of potentially tremendous importance to this case.

Maybe we're wrong. Maybe we should be focusing on more material matters such as the fact that Person A once went fishing with Person B whose third cousin was a grade below Person D in high school.

Or maybe we're right!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on September 22, 2019, 12:01:03 AM
Quote from: Alan Ford

link=topic=2194.msg61413#msg61413 date=1569105360
Maybe we're wrong. Maybe we should be focusing on more material matters such as the fact that Person A once went fishing with Person B whose third cousin was a grade below Person D in high school.

Or maybe we're right! [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

(emphasis added by MWT)


We?

We who?

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 22, 2019, 02:53:27 AM
Alan...Red plaid shirt is Lovelady. There are other stills that show him more clearly, but I would have to dig.
However, while we are on the front steps...I came across this---- http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4006-001.gif
Notice the bottom right [CD 354] --Oswald said [according to Fritz] that ''he left the TSBD through the front door and as he did.. he encountered two men who identified themselves as Secret Service and needed to use a telephone."
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 22, 2019, 03:52:30 AM
Alan...Red plaid shirt is Lovelady. There are other stills that show him more clearly, but I would have to dig.
However, while we are on the front steps...I came across this---- http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4006-001.gif
Notice the bottom right [CD 354] --Oswald said [according to Fritz] that ''he left the TSBD through the front door and as he did.. he encountered two men who identified themselves as Secret Service and needed to use a telephone."
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/martin-61.jpg?w=488&h=363)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 22, 2019, 04:25:18 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/79/25/ff/7925ffc5c697d4f1f3513c36b14a28d6.jpg)

Patsy Lee Harvey Oswald was scrawny and was not really all that bald. Lovelady was a beefier guy and was noticeably bald on the back of his head.
 (http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/Lovelady_HQ_Martin.jpg)

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 12:12:18 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/79/25/ff/7925ffc5c697d4f1f3513c36b14a28d6.jpg)

Patsy Lee Harvey Oswald was scrawny and was not really all that bald. Lovelady was a beefier guy and was noticeably bald on the back of his head.
 (http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/Lovelady_HQ_Martin.jpg)

Hello Mr Freeman!

We seem to be talking at cross purposes...... I am questioning the assumption that the man near the bottom of the entranceway in these frames from the Hughes film------------
(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)
----------is Mr Lovelady. Neither baldness, beefiness nor plaidness can be established in this figure.

Mr Lovelady may already be standing several steps up, which is where we will see him in the Wiegman film and the Altgens photograph in just a few seconds' time.

Mr Oswald was wearing a reddish shirt (CE151) with a white tshirt underneath. I am suggesting he may in fact be the man in the frames above.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 12:32:41 PM
The dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film----------
(https://i.imgur.com/X7KjCDx.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/T5P1tvg.jpg)
-----------cannot be caused by the shadow cast by the west wall/column.

Mr Stancak's excellent reconstruction of the shadow line in that entranceway at 12.30pm 11/22/63 (here: Darnell film) shows why:

(https://i.imgur.com/3OXYawl.jpg)

For the dark strip down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film to be natural shadow, he would have to have been way over by the the green line. He most certainly wasn't!

Either Mr Lovelady was wearing a dark jacket OR the Wiegman frames have been altered to blacken out something in that spot. Or someone.

(https://i.imgur.com/bWW3Ljl.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 03:51:13 PM
 :D

Here we go again with people suggesting that Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film is not in the red zone but way over by the green line.

(https://i.imgur.com/SRyDTPZ.jpg)

Complete nonsense, of course!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 22, 2019, 04:18:21 PM
Can someone explain the person in the blue top appearing to be frantically waving their arms while standing seemingly much higher than anyone else?    [Like they are up on a ladder]

(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 04:32:55 PM
Here is Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film:
(https://i.imgur.com/X7KjCDx.jpg)

Here is Mr Stancak's reconstruction of the doorway at 12.30pm:

(https://i.imgur.com/4QC2kM9.jpg)

I have marked Mr Carl Edward Jones' position in GREEN.

For the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side to be a natural shadow cast by the west wall/column, Mr Lovelady would have to in the position marked ORANGE.

A complete non-starter!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 22, 2019, 08:27:21 PM
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right!"

IOW....:

....

Or....?

If you don't like the circus..... Please notice the EXIT sign that is prominently posted......
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 29, 2019, 12:15:06 AM
Hands up who believes that Mr Lovelady in this Wiegman film frame-----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/X7KjCDx.jpg)
---------------------is standing in the orange zone of the doorway (as marked here on Mr Stancak's excellent reconstruction of the doorway's shadow line at 12.30pm)!-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/4QC2kM9.jpg)

If he is not (which he obviously isn't), then the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side cannot be a natural shadow. It's really very simple. No wiggle room for the shadow people!

It seems that somebody or something has been blacked out of Wiegman.................
Perhaps the authorities did not want people to see that Mr Lovelady is actually in short sleeves and not in the red plaid shirt he will soon have put on before going back out onto those those steps?
(https://i.imgur.com/P5rL5Xl.gif)

I honestly don't know the answer, friends, but I do know that this problem is not going away!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 30, 2019, 12:58:38 AM
Friends, the single biggest recent breakthrough in the case has been this from Agent Hosty:

(https://i.imgur.com/AFj8odA.jpg)

It added a massive boost to the PrayerMan claim....

However, skeptics have pointed to the following exchange as counter-evidence:

"REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?" (i.e. when the President was shot?)
"OSWALD: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."


What if the skeptics are right and Mr Oswald really did mean right inside the building,
------------i.e. not even in the front entranceway?

But! What if he was telling the truth in both of the above claims?
-----------He went outside to watch JFK pass  Thumb1:
-----------He was inside when JFK was shot  Thumb1:

1. HUGHES FILM:

(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)

--------Mr Oswald is the red-shirted (long-sleeved) man we see standing just above Mr Carl Edward Jones. He has just slipped out to catch a glimpse of JFK (‘Then went outside to watch P. parade’)

--------Although we can't see them here in the Hughes film, Mr Billy Lovelady (in red plaid shirt, but sleeves rolled up) and Mr Bill Shelley (white short-sleeved shirt) are at this moment right behind Mr Oswald, by the west wall, where Mr Buell Frazier's WC testimony puts them both

...and where Mr Lovelady's March 1964 FBI statement puts him very precisely:

(https://i.imgur.com/olcnTdk.jpg)

2. WIEGMAN FILM & ALTGENS PHOTO:

--------Mr Oswald, having watched JFK pass, has gone back inside ----- no one but Messrs Shelley and Lovelady (and Frazier?) have noticed him, everyone's attention has been on JFK's car

--------Mr. Lovelady has moved a little east across the top step to keep the President's car in view: his right side is not in shadow in Wiegman but it will be blacked out to hide the fact that his sleeves are rolled up

...but the early wirephoto version of Altgens shows the exposed white skin of his lower left forearm:

(https://i.imgur.com/tIzDvkT.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/Ut4l5Ed.gif)

'Prayer Person' in the Wiegman film-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/6nAkQ2R.jpg)
------------is Mr Shelley in short-sleeves-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/GGTCrCB.jpg)

3. DARNELL FILM:

------------Mr Shelley has left the steps and already run into Ms Gloria Calvery out at the corner of the ‘park’ (as per his 11/22 affidavit)

------------Ms Calvery is now at the steps telling people about what she's just seen down the street

------------Mr Lovelady (red plaid shirt, sleeves rolled up) has moved over to the ‘Prayer Man’ position

(https://i.imgur.com/ajtIZT5.jpg)

Oswald, back inside on the first floor, has meanwhile heard the shots and/or the ‘excitement’ and is making his way back to the front door: he is about to be stopped by Officer Baker in the front lobby (Mr Harry D. Holmes: ‘… in the vestibule… First floor. The front entrance to the first floor’) and asked if he works there (so he can show Officer Baker the way to the stairs)

The Long And The Short Of It:
Could Mr Lovelady possibly be Prayer Man in Darnell? If so, then he would not be the red-shirted man seen in Hughes as JFK is passing. That would be Mr Oswald.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 14, 2019, 11:04:14 PM
Kindly note!

'Prayer Man' in the Wiegman Film appears to be one step lower than 'Prayer Man' in the Darnell Film.........

(https://i.imgur.com/etQL5d1.gif)

I'm no longer sure we can assume they are one and the same person!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 14, 2019, 11:36:09 PM
Now!

Look at the extremely close respective positions of Mr Lovelady in Wiegman and the lady in white in Darnell.

(https://i.imgur.com/etQL5d1.gif)

Can you see a 'shadow' down the lady in white due to the western column? Nope!

Yet we do see a 'shadow' down the right side of Mr Lovelady.

Did the sun dart east between the two films??  :D

Ain't no shadow, folks! So what is it, and why is it there?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 15, 2019, 03:06:13 PM
Now!

Look at the extremely close respective positions of Mr Lovelady in Wiegman and the lady in white in Darnell.

(https://i.imgur.com/etQL5d1.gif)

Can you see a 'shadow' down the lady in white due to the western column? Nope!

Yet we do see a 'shadow' down the right side of Mr Lovelady.

Did the sun dart east between the two films??  :D

Ain't no shadow, folks! So what is it, and why is it there?

Alan, in one of your combined frames, The one in which is highest all the frames,  it appears that she is standing just in from of where Lovelady is standing, which may cause the shadow to be falling pst behind her.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 15, 2019, 03:34:51 PM
Alan, in one of your combined frames, The one in which is highest all the frames,  it appears that she is standing just in from of where Lovelady is standing, which may cause the shadow to be falling pst behind her.

But she is slightly to the west of where Mr Lovelady was less than a minute earlier!
 
(https://i.imgur.com/etQL5d1.gif)

How can she be escaping the 'shadow', which is in any case ruled out as a natural shadow by the sun's angle at that time?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 15, 2019, 07:32:20 PM
Alan,

Realizing that Lovelady was practically bald, that he said he'd watched the motorcade from the TSBD steps, that he was wearing a mostly red plaid shirt that day (over a whiteT-shirt), as can be seen in the Robert Hughes and/or the John Martin film after the assassination (as well as in footage in which the police are taking Oswald past him and into an interrogation room, or some-such thing)?

Occam's Razor?

Common sense?

Beats the heck out of me.

--  MWT  ;

With all that is known about the occupants of the steps/landing, why would anyone claim that LeeOswald/Image is even there during filming and/or when the shooting occurred?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 15, 2019, 08:05:35 PM
With all that is known about the occupants of the steps/landing, why would anyone claim that LeeOswald/Image is even there during filming and/or when the shooting occurred?

"With all that is known about the occupants of the steps/landing"

Please fill us in on all of these knowns and all of these unknowns about the occupants of the steps and landing. You seem to be full of answers, so let's see those.

::)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.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 15, 2019, 08:52:03 PM
Just as I suspected, you're doing nothing more than cheer leading and grandstanding in support of your friends, you, with no original input of your own. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about or how to respond when confronted as you only work the sidelines, but you certainly do know how to attempt to 'pile-on' when you feel it necessary.

Good to know.  :D

I remain committed to not say anything with a keyboard that I would not say in person.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 16, 2019, 03:58:27 AM


::)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.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 04:42:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 16, 2019, 05:45:06 AM
Larry doesn’t do evidence. He doesn’t even do spaces between words.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 02:45:55 PM
Larry doesn’t do evidence. He doesn’t even do spaces between words.

 :D

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/AFj8odA.jpg)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/F62M6aE.jpg)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

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?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 03:21:03 PM
:D

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/AFj8odA.jpg)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/F62M6aE.jpg)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

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?

 Thumb1:

    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 BS:.
     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.         
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 16, 2019, 04:32:30 PM
:D

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/AFj8odA.jpg)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/F62M6aE.jpg)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

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?

 Thumb1:

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.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 04:56:48 PM
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 ?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 16, 2019, 05:26:04 PM
    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 ?

Royell, if he moves down the steps at the same angle as the sun's shadow it should  remain the same.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 05:48:57 PM
Royell, if he moves down the steps at the same angle as the sun's shadow it should  remain the same.

    1 image vs the other shows more of his tee shirt along with more of his body at waist level. I don't believe he is uniformly moving from 1 step to the other like someone at a finishing school balancing a book on the top their head while walking.  This is Not what we are seeing here. It also does not fit the gait of a working stiff making ends meet via laboring at the TSBD.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 16, 2019, 05:59:31 PM
    1 image vs the other shows more of his tee shirt along with more of his body at waist level. I don't believe he is uniformly moving from 1 step to the other like someone at a finishing school balancing a book on the top their head while walking.  This is Not what we are seeing here. It also does not fit the gait of a working stiff making ends meet via laboring at the TSBD.

Who said anything about him moving uniformly? He just moved down the steps in a downward sideways movement. What's so strange about that? And what has moving down steps got to do with a working stiff labouring at the TSBD?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 08:35:23 PM
Who said anything about him moving uniformly? He just moved down the steps in a downward sideways movement. What's so strange about that? And what has moving down steps got to do with a working stiff labouring at the TSBD?

     The shadow seems peculiar/strange to me based on Lovelady having changed his position on the stairs. I keep hearing that dense black strip that consumes the (R) side of Lovelady is the shadow of a "column". Specifically, what column is being referenced? If that alleged shadow is in fact being cast by a Column, I think it would be wise to take a good look at that column along with other images taken that day that included the column and the shadow it cast. With regard to your question about the movements of a, "working stiff labouring at the TSBD", Lovelady is simply Not going to uniformly step down stairs in a manner taught at the Nancy Manners School Of Etiquette. This structured demeanor would be contrary to Lovelady impulsively hauling arse down the Elm St Extension in addition to his track record of Racing Freight Elevators up-and-down the inside of the TSBD.   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 09:47:12 PM
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.

But nothing can 'account for the shadow of the western column' because there is no shadow in that part of the entranceway. Mr Lovelady would have to be way over in the orange zone for the western column shadow to fall on him. Impossible!

(https://i.imgur.com/4QC2kM9.jpg)

Do you actually believe Mr Lovelady is way over in the orange zone in the second Wiegman frame here? Do your eyes really tell you that he is over by the redbrick wall, right behind Mr Carl Edward Jones??

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 09:55:40 PM
    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.         

Mr Danny Arce wore a long black coat that day:

(https://i.imgur.com/02ATbnJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 10:00:18 PM
     The shadow seems peculiar/strange to me based on Lovelady having changed his position on the stairs.

Yes, this!

Quote
I keep hearing that dense black strip that consumes the (R) side of Lovelady is the shadow of a "column". Specifically, what column is being referenced? If that alleged shadow is in fact being cast by a Column, I think it would be wise to take a good look at that column along with other images taken that day that included the column and the shadow it cast.

A very good look has been taken at the shadow cast by the western wall (Messrs Stancak, Hackerott et al), and it has been amply demonstrated that it did not go remotely deep (i.e. east) enough into the entranceway to fall on Mr Lovelady where we see him in the Wiegman film.

Whatever is causing that dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side, it is not a natural shadow!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 10:32:51 PM
But nothing can 'account for the shadow of the western column' because there is no shadow in that part of the entranceway. Mr Lovelady would have to be way over in the orange zone for the western column shadow to fall on him. Impossible!

(https://i.imgur.com/4QC2kM9.jpg)

Do you actually believe Mr Lovelady is way over in the orange zone in the second Wiegman frame here? Do your eyes really tell you that he is over by the redbrick wall, right behind Mr Carl Edward Jones??

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

    Your visual aid shows absolutely No Shadow being cast anywhere on the steps by an alleged "column".  The Issue comes down to where Lovelady was standing. Based on your visual aid, Lovelady would have had to  be standing on the landing and almost hugging the TSBD wall throughout the Wiegman Film to have a shadow possibly fall across his body/(R) side. Based on the Wiegman footage, Lovelady is close to the handrail and nowhere near the side of the TSBD. (Orange Zone on the visual aid) This alleged shadow has Yet to be reasonable explained.   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 11:25:42 PM
    Your visual aid shows absolutely No Shadow being cast anywhere on the steps by an alleged "column".

The green line in Mr Stancak's reconstruction of the doorway in Darnell shows the shadow line:

(https://i.imgur.com/XD86UFh.jpg)

Mr Hackerott's reconstruction yields the same result.

Quote
The Issue comes down to where Lovelady was standing. Based on your visual aid, Lovelady would have had to  be standing on the landing and almost hugging the TSBD wall throughout the Wiegman Film to have a shadow possibly fall across his body/(R) side. Based on the Wiegman footage, Lovelady is close to the handrail and nowhere near the side of the TSBD. (Orange Zone on the visual aid) This alleged shadow has Yet to be reasonable explained.

Indeed!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 17, 2019, 01:44:22 AM
For those still doubting the evidence of their own eyes...............

The fact that we can see 'Prayer Man' in these Wiegman frames (i.e. he is not at all being blocked from our view by Mr Lovelady) is further proof that Mr Lovelady is nowhere near the west wall, which is where he would need to be to catch natural shadow:

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

Now!

If the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is a dark jacket or coat, then
-----------either: Mr Lovelady is not the man in the red shirt on a lower step in the Hughes film
-----------or: Mr Lovelady is the man in the red shirt on a lower step in the Hughes film but is not the man with the dark strip down his right side in the Wiegman film

(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)

If, on the other hand, the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side is caused by deliberate blacking out on the Wiegman frames, then the question becomes------------
Why would anyone go to such trouble to hide something in the entranceway?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 17, 2019, 01:57:23 AM
Mr Danny Arce wore a long black coat that day:

(https://i.imgur.com/02ATbnJ.jpg)

    Arce gave WC testimony that he was sent over to the TSBD to lay flooring on 11/22/63. I would seriously doubt he was wearing "a long black coat" while laying flooring inside the TSBD. He also testified that he was standing on the other side of the Elm St Extension when the JFK Limo passed by, and then he eventually went back inside the TSBD for roughly 15 minutes. Arce obviously was Not photographed or filmed by Altgens, Wiegman, or Darnell, while  standing on the TSBD steps wearing "a long black coat" as the JFK Limo began going down Elm St. He probably put the coat on after eventually returning to the TSBD and being told he was being taken to City Hall to make a statement.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 17, 2019, 02:10:44 AM
For those still doubting the evidence of their own eyes...............

The fact that we can see 'Prayer Man' in these Wiegman frames (i.e. he is not at all being blocked from our view by Mr Lovelady) is further proof that Mr Lovelady is nowhere near the west wall, which is where he would need to be to catch natural shadow:

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

Now!

If the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is a dark jacket or coat, then
-----------either: Mr Lovelady is not the man in the red shirt on a lower step in the Hughes film
-----------or: Mr Lovelady is the man in the red shirt on a lower step in the Hughes film but is not the man with the dark strip down his right side in the Wiegman film

(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)

If, on the other hand, the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side is caused by deliberate blacking out on the Wiegman frames, then the question becomes------------
Why would anyone go to such trouble to hide something in the entranceway?

     To be fair, You need to acknowledge there is a Time Gap between the Hughes footage and the Wiegman footage. The same person could move a few feet during this Time Gap. The Black Shadow still remains unexplained.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 17, 2019, 11:58:50 AM
But nothing can 'account for the shadow of the western column' because there is no shadow in that part of the entranceway. Mr Lovelady would have to be way over in the orange zone for the western column shadow to fall on him. Impossible!

(https://i.imgur.com/4QC2kM9.jpg)

Do you actually believe Mr Lovelady is way over in the orange zone in the second Wiegman frame here? Do your eyes really tell you that he is over by the redbrick wall, right behind Mr Carl Edward Jones??

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

If Lovelady was standing three steps up,( i.e. the step below the top landing,) from the orange spot  shown in your  frame, he would be half in shadow. NOT on the landing.

This would mean Prayerman was standing further forward of the entrance screen, not in the corner, and further against the wall than shown in the reconstruction.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k2z9Hqps/Lovelady.png) (https://postimg.cc/k2z9Hqps)

And for Royell's benefit, the column we are talking about is the one at the West side wall of the entrance.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 17, 2019, 06:44:56 PM
     To be fair, You need to acknowledge there is a Time Gap between the Hughes footage and the Wiegman footage. The same person could move a few feet during this Time Gap. The Black Shadow still remains unexplained.

Yes of course, Mr Storing, but unless the pseudo-shadow can be explained the old assumption that Mr Lovelady is indeed the red-shirted man in Hughes is unsettled!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 17, 2019, 06:54:03 PM
If Lovelady was standing three steps up,( i.e. the step below the top landing,) from the orange spot  shown in your  frame, he would be half in shadow. NOT on the landing.

This would mean Prayerman was standing further forward of the entrance screen, not in the corner, and further against the wall than shown in the reconstruction.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k2z9Hqps/Lovelady.png) (https://postimg.cc/k2z9Hqps)


Could you perhaps mark on this reconstruction where you think Mr Lovelady and 'Prayer Man' are in the second Wiegman frame (i.e. the one where Mr Lovelady is lower)?

(https://i.imgur.com/XD86UFh.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 17, 2019, 07:33:38 PM
Could you perhaps mark on this reconstruction where you think Mr Lovelady and 'Prayer Man' are in the second Wiegman frame (i.e. the one where Mr Lovelady is lower)?

(https://i.imgur.com/XD86UFh.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

Don't think I need to, Alan. He just moved down either one or two steps in line with the shadow of the column. IMO. I've already said I think Prayerman is on the front of the top platform nearer the wall than shown on this reconstruction, possibly on the first step down.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 17, 2019, 07:41:28 PM
Don't think I need to, Alan. He just moved down either one or two steps in line with the shadow of the column. IMO. I've already said I think Prayerman is on the front of the top platform nearer the wall than shown on this reconstruction, possibly on the first step down.

Hope that helps.

If you're going to argue a geometric absurdity, Mr Mitcham, then I'm afraid you do need to!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 17, 2019, 08:53:11 PM
    If that Large/Tall Column is casting a shadow across the TSBD Steps, how is it the black guy standing back of it/leaning against it displays Not A Trace of this alleged Large Black Shadow? There is No Black Shadow at Any point across his body. Just look at the Direction/Angle of the shadows being cast by the onlookers standing in front of the TSBD. That guy standing Back of the column should show a trace of that Large Black Shadow that we see alongside the (R) side of Lovelady.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 17, 2019, 10:52:39 PM
If you're going to argue a geometric absurdity, Mr Mitcham, then I'm afraid you do need to!

I didn't argue a geometric absurdity, Alan. I told you what i think. Just because you don't understand me, isn't my fault. When I have some time, I'll alter the overhead view
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 17, 2019, 10:57:34 PM
    If that Large/Tall Column is casting a shadow across the TSBD Steps, how is it the black guy standing back of it/leaning against it displays Not A Trace of this alleged Large Black Shadow?
There is No Black Shadow at Any point across his body.
Your visual acuity seems to have abandoned you, Royell, as you can see the shadow of the column on the black guys right arm in one of the frames.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 17, 2019, 11:50:17 PM
Your visual acuity seems to have abandoned you, Royell, as you can see the shadow of the column on the black guys right arm in one of the frames.

    If there were a Shadow "on the black guys RIGHT Arm, this same shadow would then also be visible on his torso/body at some point. We see None of this. You are disproving your own contention.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 18, 2019, 10:24:11 AM
    If there were a Shadow "on the black guys RIGHT Arm, this same shadow would then also be visible on his torso/body at some point. We see None of this. You are disproving your own contention.

Rubbish. He was standing in a position where just his right arm was in the shadow.  You will see  this position in Stancak's overhead projection, showing the shadow on his right arm.Subsequently he moved  out of the shadow. Which you can see if you look closely at the gif.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 18, 2019, 02:55:09 PM
Rubbish. He was standing in a position where just his right arm was in the shadow.  You will see  this position in Stancak's overhead projection, showing the shadow on his right arm.Subsequently he moved  out of the shadow. Which you can see if you look closely at the gif.

     What you are attempting to proffer as Evidence is nothing more than a Visual Aid. This even falls short of trying to pass the Dox drawings off as being Fact. Both of which are fraught with peril. With regard to the Actual Wiegman Film images, I believe you are mistaking the hair of one of the ladies standing on the street in front of the black guy as a shadow on his (R) arm. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 18, 2019, 05:07:23 PM
Friends, let's suppose for argument's sake that

---------------Mr Billy Lovelady is indeed shown in the Couch film
(https://i.imgur.com/Uum0yYy.gif)



Alan, where exactly is Mrs. Robert A. Reid, aka Jeraldine Reid, in this slow motion gif above? I thought she was the woman to the far left, with the white scarf, dark dress, somewhat heavy.  She turns as Baker goes past. If this woman is NOT the same one seen in Wiegman film standing beside Mr.Campbell, then where has Mrs Reid gone?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 18, 2019, 06:13:44 PM
     What you are attempting to proffer as Evidence is nothing more than a Visual Aid. This even falls short of trying to pass the Dox drawings off as being Fact. Both of which are fraught with peril. With regard to the Actual Wiegman Film images, I believe you are mistaking the hair of one of the ladies standing on the street in front of the black guy as a shadow on his (R) arm.

What on earth are on about, Royell? Who is talking about Dox drawings? (another straw man?) I am talking about the following Wiegman frame. You willl have to enlarge to see the detail.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6TVQPjc0/right-arm-in-shadow.gif) (https://postimg.cc/6TVQPjc0)

Which woman's hair do you think is causing the shadow up the black guys arm? She must be one of hell size.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 18, 2019, 09:11:17 PM
What on earth are on about, Royell? Who is talking about Dox drawings? (another straw man?) I am talking about the following Wiegman frame. You willl have to enlarge to see the detail.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6TVQPjc0/right-arm-in-shadow.gif) (https://postimg.cc/6TVQPjc0)

Which woman's hair do you think is causing the shadow up the black guys arm? She must be one of hell size.

    The quality of that Wiegman still frame you posted may explain what you think you are seeing . You are mistaking the Inside Edge of that Pillar on his immediate (R) to be a shadow. On the latter Wiegman frames showing the front of the TSBD, (No cars), it is easy to see his entire (R) arm. The Light colored shirt he is wearing makes it easy to distinguish his (R) arm vs the Darker Inside Edge of that pillar. No Shadow is visible running across any portion of the black guy's body.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 18, 2019, 09:29:58 PM
The Wiegman film shows Mr Lovelady near the centre rail, looking down Elm Street, before moving downwards, still near the centre rail----------------

(https://i.imgur.com/bcp9yqO.gif)

The fact that he is near the centre rail is the reason why he shows up in the Altgens photograph:

(https://i.imgur.com/2lI5UE1.jpg)

Were he over by the shadow line cast by the western column, he would not be able to look down Elm Street and he would not be showing up in the Altgens photograph. Very simple!  Thumb1:

So-----------what is causing that dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side in all the Wiegman frames showing him in the entranceway?

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

It cannot be a natural shadow, so what can it be??
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Otto Beck on October 18, 2019, 10:02:04 PM

It cannot be a natural shadow, so what can it be??

Should be fairly easy to replicate in about one month!

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 18, 2019, 10:19:23 PM
It cannot be a natural shadow, so what can it be??

Should be fairly easy to replicate in about one month!

Well there's no need actually, Mr Beck
-----------------we know the sun's angle to the entranceway at 12.30pm 11/22/63, we know the dimensions of the entranceway, and smarter people than me have done the 3D reconstructions.

Result? Not a natural shadow! As in: completely out of the question.

Mystery of the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side? Unsolved!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 18, 2019, 10:33:53 PM
The lady in white in Darnell is catching no shadow from the western wall.

Yet Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, who is clearly not way over to the west of where she will be, has a dark strip down his right side!

(https://i.imgur.com/etQL5d1.gif)

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 18, 2019, 11:02:46 PM
The lady in white in Darnell is catching no shadow from the western wall.

Yet Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, who is clearly not way over to the west of where she will be, has a dark strip down his right side!

(https://i.imgur.com/etQL5d1.gif)

Sheesh! Lovelady is further up the steps. It's the shadow of the west column.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 18, 2019, 11:41:51 PM
Sheesh! Lovelady is further up the steps. It's the shadow of the west column.

 ::)

If spatial relations is not your forte, Mr Mitcham, there's not much I can do to help you...

But looking forward anyhow to seeing your suggestion illustrated on Mr Stancak's overhead!

(https://i.imgur.com/XD86UFh.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 19, 2019, 09:23:16 AM
I a months time, anybody can see where the shadow was at 12.30 on 11/22/63, as it will be the same, assuming that the sun is shining and there is a shadow.
In fact, next Tuesday, 11.22.19, the shadow will be only one and a half degrees further west than it was on the day that the President was murdered.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 19, 2019, 09:29:09 AM
::)

If spatial relations is not your forte, Mr Mitcham, there's not much I can do to help you...

But looking forward anyhow to seeing your suggestion illustrated on Mr Stancak's overhead!

(https://i.imgur.com/XD86UFh.jpg)

 Thumb1:

I've already posted it, Alan, but here is where I think Lovelady could have been standing to get the shadow on his right side.
https://postimg.cc/k2z9Hqps
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 19, 2019, 03:19:26 PM
I've already posted it, Alan, but here is where I think Lovelady could have been standing to get the shadow on his right side.
https://postimg.cc/k2z9Hqps

No, if he was there, he wouldn’t have been visible in Altgens.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 19, 2019, 03:57:48 PM
No, if he was there, he wouldn’t have been visible in Altgens.

John that was before he moved down the steps and leaned outwards  so he could follow the procession down the street.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 19, 2019, 04:46:04 PM
John that was before he moved down the steps and leaned outwards  so he could follow the procession down the street.

     The above is akin to the SBT. In order to even make it remotely possible, you have to move people around and then come close to standing them on their head. When focusing on what with we Know to be Fact, this alleged "shadow" is pure fantasy. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 19, 2019, 05:43:40 PM
Brian, it appears to me, repeat, appears to me, that the uhh, gentleman's image illustration has a BillyLovelady mannequin on the steps facing mannequins representing GloriaCalvery and CarolReed,

LOL. Nobody knows where Calvery and Reed were.

Quote
when other indications place BillyLovelady and BillShelley[/i][/i] elsewhere by that time, it appears to me...

“Other indications”. LOL.

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 06:35:16 PM
I've already posted it, Alan, but here is where I think Lovelady could have been standing to get the shadow on his right side.
https://postimg.cc/k2z9Hqps

Thank you, Mr Mitcham!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/XMxdoJm.jpg)

Now where does 'Prayer Man' go?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 06:51:19 PM
Question!

Who said this?:

"I recall that as the Presidential Motorcade passed I was standing just outside the glass doors of the entrance. At the time President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing at this same place. Billy N. Lovelady who works under my supervision for the Texas School Book Depository was seated on the entrance steps just in front of me."
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 19, 2019, 07:25:08 PM
Thank you, Mr Mitcham!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/XMxdoJm.jpg)

Now where does 'Prayer Man' go?

Already posted, Alan. Reply #81 on: October 17, 2019,
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 07:38:14 PM
Already posted, Alan. Reply #81 on: October 17, 2019,

Well, the words below have already been posted, Mr Mitcham
-------------------"I think Prayerman is on the front of the top platform nearer the wall than shown on this reconstruction, possibly on the first step down"------------------
but if you show us Prayerman's suggested position on the Stancak image we will all be able to see whether it is a realistic interpretation of the Wiegman film!

(https://i.imgur.com/XMxdoJm.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 07:43:25 PM
Alan,
I believe the “mystery shadow” can be understood after considering the twisting, bending and leaning of Mr. Lovelady as he strains to view the President. Dale Myers' film synchronization study found Wiegman frame 15 was equivalent in time to Altgens 6. Thus, those two images provide triangulation information that is exquisitely sensitive to even very slight changes in the doorway. I attempted to model those views over a year ago and I've not ventured back to touching that black hole scene since then (which you posted above – and thanks for the nod). Now, I've modified Lovelady's stance to include increased leaning (10 degrees up to 20 total)  to his left and gave him a little baby bump, err beer belly.

As Wiegman films the doorway he catches Lovelady almost in profile, such that his right side is barely in frame. The changes I made are also consistent with Altgens 6, although I needed to shift Lovelady further back on the landing a little to compensate. This was a quick study and some further tweaking might be needed. But the only purpose of this posting is to demonstrate the Lovelady profile (per Wiegman) blends against the darkness of the doorway in a manner that does not indicate editing or a mystery shadow falling on him, imo.
 
The attached animation of seven frames shows:
1.Full Wiegman frame ca W15
2.Full Wiegman frame from 3D model, approximated with similar camera rotation
3.Closeup of doorway showing that Lovelady's stance in W15 is nearly profile
4.Same as #3 but using lighting that simulates the darkness recorded in the Wiegman doorway
5.Same as #4 with a inset of the W15 frame doorway
6.Closeup of doorway of Altgens 6
7.Overhead of the doorway

imgur
(https://i.imgur.com/yvvlbz7.gif)

James

Thank you for these ideas, Mr Hackerott!

Would it be possible to model Mr Lovelady's posture for this Wiegman frame too?

(https://i.imgur.com/osJuoqO.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 19, 2019, 07:56:22 PM
For anyone that is interested in correct indicative evidentiary information, there are "Other indications" that apply to the posted statement.

No, there really aren't.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 19, 2019, 08:04:20 PM
Well, the words below have already been posted, Mr Mitcham
-------------------"I think Prayerman is on the front of the top platform nearer the wall than shown on this reconstruction, possibly on the first step down"------------------
but if you show us Prayerman's suggested position on the Stancak image we will all be able to see whether it is a realistic interpretation of the Wiegman film!

(https://i.imgur.com/XMxdoJm.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

Sorry, Alan, but I'm not prepared to engage anymore in trying to satisfy your "I wonder what caused the black on Lovelady's body." I have suggested my idea, of what the cause is,  but it seems that you think it has been added some unknown nefarious reason. I will leave you to your deliberations. Cheers.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 19, 2019, 08:10:23 PM
No, there really aren't.

Then, maybe you can quote each and every post on this Forum that indicates said "Other indications", and provide your specific evidence for each specific post to support your claim.
Just saying it is not there, is not evidence in support of your claim!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 08:38:55 PM
Sorry, Alan, but I'm not prepared to engage anymore in trying to satisfy your "I wonder what caused the black on Lovelady's body." I have suggested my idea, of what the cause is,  but it seems that you think it has been added some unknown nefarious reason. I will leave you to your deliberations. Cheers.

No problem, Mr Mitcham! I've done what you don't feel like doing, and shown what happens when we place 'Prayer Man' closer to the wall like you suggest:

(https://i.imgur.com/2RcHKUa.jpg)

Now let's look at the relative positions of Mr Lovelady and Prayer Man here and compare what we see in Wiegman...

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)

Notice anything?

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 19, 2019, 10:00:58 PM
Then, maybe you can quote each and every post on this Forum that indicates said "Other indications",

There are no posts on this forum that indicates said "Other indications".  Just empty claims and made-up crap.

Quote
and provide your specific evidence[/i] for each specific post to support your claim.
Just saying it is not there, is not evidence in support of your claim!

What claim?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 10:04:00 PM
There are no posts on this forum that indicates said "Other indications".  Just empty claims and made-up crap.

What claim?

Leave the poor fellow alone, Mr Iacoletti. He's as robotic as his avatar.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 20, 2019, 04:13:55 PM
There are no posts on this forum that indicates said "Other indications".  Just empty claims and made-up crap.

What claim?

As Iacoletti claims again...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 20, 2019, 04:18:25 PM
Leave the poor fellow alone, Mr Iacoletti. He's as robotic as his avatar.

Another pointless posted insult...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 20, 2019, 04:45:54 PM
As Iacoletti claims again...

Larry, feel free to actually specify what these “other indications” are that place Calvery and Reed on the steps and Lovelady and Shelley “elsewhere” at that time, rather than just claiming that they exist.

If you can’t, then you’re just blowing smoke.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 20, 2019, 06:56:54 PM
Larry, feel free to actually specify what these “other indications” are that place Calvery and Reed on the steps and Lovelady and Shelley “elsewhere” at that time, rather than just claiming that they exist.

If you can’t, then you’re just blowing smoke.

John, I can just as easily make a similar claim, simply that for you to claim there are no indications that place Calvery and Reed on the steps and Lovelady and Shelley "elsewhere" at that time, is itself a claim. Therefor, what indicates to you that Calvery and Reed are not on the steps, and that Lovelady and Shelley are "not elsewhere" at that time.
The very reason I prefer the term indications, and/or indicative "evidentiary" information, is because to me it is just that, and proof and proven are quite strong terms. And no one has been tried and convicted in the murders of JohnKennedySr and JD Tippit, as well as the wounding of JohnConnallyJr, all on 11/22/'63.
I recall linking to evidentiary valuable indicative informative testimony, as "evidence" sought by you, that you discounted as not providing what I indicated had been said. So, no I will not re-provide already existing posted "indicative information", with or without any degree of "evidentiary value".
I might add, it is quite disappointing to be involved in 'disputes'. However, I continue to maintain my conclusion that those that claim PrayerPersonImage represents LeeHarveyOswald are making a claim void of substance, and there is indicative evidentiary valuable information that sufficiently indicates that said Image does not represent LeeHarveyOswald!
And if you, JohnIacoletti, have voiced an opinion about any PrayerPersonImage/LeeHarveyOswald Theory, I must have missed it. Also, if my writing style is offensive, I do not understand why, nor do I claim it as my own.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 20, 2019, 07:16:47 PM
I recall linking to evidentiary valuable indicative informative testimony, as "evidence" sought by you, that you discounted as not providing what I indicated had been said. So, no I will not re-provide already existing posted "indicative information", with or without any degree of "evidentiary value".

You posted several links without indicating in any way how the information contained in those links supported the claims you were making.

If there are “indications” that place Calvery and Reed on the steps and Lovelady and Shelley “elsewhere”, then what are they?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 03:27:37 AM
SOLVED!

Friends, if you look closely at the early Wiegman frames of Mr Lovelady, you see something very curious:

(https://i.imgur.com/xwt5lvs.gif)

That's right------two heads belonging to Mr Lovelady!

Of course, Mr Lovelady only had one head; the other head belongs to Mr Oswald, who is right behind him and is moving his head in order to see past Mr Lovelady. In some of these upper frames his head is completely hidden behind Mr Lovelady's:

(https://i.imgur.com/iaJdVlU.gif)

Here's a nice frame of Mr Oswald, on the left as we look:

(https://i.imgur.com/Y4iftwa.jpg)

You can see a little piece of Mr Oswald in the Altgens photograph:

(https://i.imgur.com/ecFmLLw.gif)

All this explains in the simplest way why Mr Lovelady's right side was blacked out--Mr Oswald's presence would have been too obvious otherwise!

(https://i.imgur.com/tybWVr1.jpg)

Mr Oswald was telling the truth!

(https://i.imgur.com/UhTuD0M.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 21, 2019, 09:27:39 AM
So according to you, Alan, Prayerman can't be Oswald.  How did they "black out" the Wiegman film?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 12:33:51 PM
So according to you, Alan, Prayerman can't be Oswald.

Mr Mitcham, this rules Mr Oswald out as 'PrayerMan' in the Wiegman film (that's Mr Bill Shelley IMO). It does not however rule him out as 'PrayerMan' in the Darnell film. If anything, it boosts that possibility greatly.

Quote
How did they "black out" the Wiegman film?

By adding dark color to the relevant areas obviously

They did a crude job, but it did the trick!

(https://i.imgur.com/hv6KO87.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 21, 2019, 02:08:32 PM
So, let me see.........according to you in one film, Prayerman is Bill Shelley, but in the Darnell film,
Oswald cannot be ruled out as being Prayerman.

Er... have you really thought your argument through, Alan?

As far as blackening the photo out, they don't appear to have made a very good job of it,
 as you can see objects in the background if you alter the photoshop settings.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nLgVSyBh/Lovelady-in-entrance.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 21, 2019, 05:05:09 PM
SOLVED!

Friends, if you look closely at the early Wiegman frames of Mr Lovelady, you see something very curious:

(https://i.imgur.com/xwt5lvs.gif)

That's right------two heads belonging to Mr Lovelady!

Of course, Mr Lovelady only had one head; the other head belongs to Mr Oswald, who is right behind him and is moving his head in order to see past Mr Lovelady. In some of these upper frames his head is completely hidden behind Mr Lovelady's:

(https://i.imgur.com/iaJdVlU.gif)

Here's a nice frame of Mr Oswald, on the left as we look:

(https://i.imgur.com/Y4iftwa.jpg)

You can see a little piece of Mr Oswald in the Altgens photograph:

(https://i.imgur.com/ecFmLLw.gif)

All this explains in the simplest way why Mr Lovelady's right side was blacked out--Mr Oswald's presence would have been too obvious otherwise!

(https://i.imgur.com/tybWVr1.jpg)

Mr Oswald was telling the truth!

(https://i.imgur.com/UhTuD0M.jpg)

 Thumb1:

     Claiming the above shows 2 different heads is your interpretation of those images. Assigning 1 of the heads to Oswald is Speculation. Other than the Hosty Notes from the 1st Oswald Interrogation, what other Evidence do you have for assigning an alleged 2nd head to Oswald? (If this is a 2nd head, could it be a quick glimpse of Buell Frazier?)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 08:20:12 PM
     Claiming the above shows 2 different heads is your interpretation of those images. Assigning 1 of the heads to Oswald is Speculation. Other than the Hosty Notes from the 1st Oswald Interrogation, what other Evidence do you have for assigning an alleged 2nd head to Oswald? (If this is a 2nd head, could it be a quick glimpse of Buell Frazier?)

Mr Storing, if you can't see that there are two heads there, I'm afraid there's really not much I can do for you.......

(https://i.imgur.com/1cTL3Va.gif)

Now! Assigning one of the heads-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/7tcuzsG.jpg)

-----------to Mr Oswald is not speculation, it's just common sense.

They hardly would have blacked out obvious evidence of this second man if he were someone other than Mr Oswald. 'Uh oh, boss, that's young Wes Frazier right there behind Lovelady.' 'Call the retouchers, NOW!!'

Unless you have a better explanation for the magic dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side?

By the way, here's Mr Frazier in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/3vRGsY3.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/fP7Gpaz.jpg)

Not our man!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 21, 2019, 09:37:09 PM
Mr Storing, if you can't see that there are two heads there, I'm afraid there's really not much I can do for you.......

(https://i.imgur.com/1cTL3Va.gif)

Now! Assigning one of the heads-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/7tcuzsG.jpg)

-----------to Mr Oswald is not speculation, it's just common sense.

They hardly would have blacked out obvious evidence of this second man if he were someone other than Mr Oswald. 'Uh oh, boss, that's young Wes Frazier right there behind Lovelady.' 'Call the retouchers, NOW!!'

Unless you have a better explanation for the magic dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side?

By the way, here's Mr Frazier in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/3vRGsY3.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/fP7Gpaz.jpg)

Not our man!

 Thumb1:

     No need to get defensive. The image is just Not real clear. If I was not receptive to there possibly being 2 heads, I would Not have asked You if 1 of those heads might be Buell Frazier. Again, is it possible that 1 of those heads might be Buell Frazier's??
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 10:00:47 PM
     No need to get defensive. The image is just Not real clear.

If it were real clear, we wouldn't be seeing it-----------it too would have been blacked out!

Quote
If I was not receptive to there possibly being 2 heads, I would Not have asked You if 1 of those heads might be Buell Frazier. Again, is it possible that 1 of those heads might be Buell Frazier's??

Only if Mr Frazier had two heads-----here he is in the Wiegman film!

(https://i.imgur.com/3vRGsY3.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/fP7Gpaz.jpg)

Pauline Sanders was not that tall!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 10:14:24 PM
Now! If no blacking out had been done on this frame, what would we be seeing:

(https://i.imgur.com/7tcuzsG.jpg)

Well, if Mr Oswald is indeed DarnellPrayerMan, then we'd be seeing
---------------Mr Lovelady's right arm (long-sleeved) terminating in a hand
---------------Mr Oswald's right arm (sleeves rolled up) terminating in a hand.

Too many arms/hands-------------they both gotta go!

If Mr Oswald is not DarnellPrayerMan, then we'd be seeing
---------------Mr Lovelady's right arm (long-sleeved) terminating in a hand
---------------Mr Oswald's right arm (long-sleeved?) terminating in a hand.

Too many arms/hands-------------they both gotta go!

And if this frame hadn't had been subjected to blacking out, what would we be seeing?

(https://i.imgur.com/v0cP4Dh.jpg)

--------------Mr Lovelady's right side
--------------a full view of Mr Oswald's head and a significant portion of his upper body, for Mr Lovelady has moved downwards while Mr Oswald is still where he was up on the landing

Too much information-------------some of it's gotta go!

Least worst option: let's make it look like a shadow going down Mr Lovelady. No one will ever notice that a shadow on someone standing there is a complete physical impossibility!  Thumb1:

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 10:37:35 PM
Now!

How did they know where to look for unwelcome evidence of Mr Oswald's alibi in the film & photo evidence? How did they know way back then what we are only now establishing as to the identity of the man behind Mr Lovelady?

Easy: Mr Oswald had told them:

(https://i.imgur.com/ZxvmcBg.jpg)

He must have been grilled on his exact whereabouts in that entranceway at the time of the shooting, and he would have happily given them the information they needed.

This is why the Altgens photo gave them such an early fright!

It was a massive stroke of luck for the cover-up investigators that Altgens did not capture more of Mr Oswald than this:

(https://i.imgur.com/zS2YA7H.gif)

But Wiegman, because of the angle from which it was filmed, proved a major-league headache
-----------------------------nearly as bad as the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter by the front door which had to be moved up to the second-floor!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 21, 2019, 11:34:26 PM
If it were real clear, we wouldn't be seeing it-----------it too would have been blacked out!

Only if Mr Frazier had two heads-----here he is in the Wiegman film!

(https://i.imgur.com/3vRGsY3.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/fP7Gpaz.jpg)

Pauline Sanders was not that tall!  :D

     Where is Buell Frazier standing on the alleged 2 Heads Images? The Circled Image that you are claiming to be Frazier, is extremely close to the same position of your alleged 2 Heads Images. Unless you can Prove otherwise, Frazier could have moved slightly becoming 1 of the heads in your alleged 2 heads images.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 21, 2019, 11:52:46 PM
I a months time, anybody can see where the shadow was at 12.30 on 11/22/63, as it will be the same, assuming that the sun is shining and there is a shadow.
In fact, next Tuesday, 11.22.19, the shadow will be only one and a half degrees further west than it was on the day that the President was murdered.
Is that a typo Ray? Did you mean to say, next Tuesday, 10.22.19?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 22, 2019, 12:07:12 AM
     Where is Buell Frazier standing on the alleged 2 Heads Images? The Circled Image that you are claiming to be Frazier, is extremely close to the same position of your alleged 2 Heads Images. Unless you can Prove otherwise, Frazier could have moved slightly becoming 1 of the heads in your alleged 2 heads images.

No, Messrs Lovelady and Frazier are not 'extremely close' to one another--Mr Frazier is back near the door:

(https://i.imgur.com/uyuRzhG.jpg)

And no, Mr Frazier does not have time to do what you're suggesting:

(https://i.imgur.com/PLolUlu.gif)

Now! What was the height difference between Messrs Lovelady and Frazier? Greater or smaller than the height difference of Messrs Lovelady and Oswald?

(https://i.imgur.com/DmsY2CM.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 22, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
Now! The most likely scenario IMO:

1! Mr Oswald comes downstairs at lunch break
2!! He goes up to the second floor lunch room and buys a coke
3!!! He takes the coke downstairs to have with his lunch on the first floor
4!!!! He notices Messrs Jarman and Norman coming into the building from the rear
5!!!!! He goes outside to watch P. parade
6!!!!!! At the time of the shots he is standing in front and to the right of Mr Frazier and just behind Mr Lovelady
7!!!!!!! Right after the shooting, he moves across to the western wall (DarnellPrayerMan)
8!!!!!!!! He has an encounter at the front door/in the building vestibule with Officer Baker and Mr Truly
9!!!!!!!!! He is accused of being the lone assassin of JFK and shot dead two days later

Please note: points 1, 2, 3 & 5 are exactly what he claimed in custody:

(https://i.imgur.com/eYYfuIi.jpg)

Naturally, these claims were buried and only came to light five-and-a-half decades later.

As to the color of Carol Reed's shoelaces or whether the Joe Smith who married Betsy Magoo really did go to tennis camp with Buddy Klandestein's third cousin twice removed, I'm still agnostic tbh. These are weighty questions considerably above my pay grade!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 01:18:29 AM
You've never provided a scintilla of evidence that Chris Calvery (born in 1977) ever told you anything.

John,

If my math is correct, Gloria Calvery was 21 years old at the time of the assassination, and 35 years old when her son Chris was born.

Chris was around 40 years old when Brian spoke with him on the phone.

Question:  Don't you think most 40 year-old people can identify their mother or father in a photo that was taken of them when they were 21 years old?

--  MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 22, 2019, 08:44:23 AM
Is that a typo Ray? Did you mean to say, next Tuesday, 10.22.19?

Yes, It was a typo, Mr Trotter. Thank you for correcting it.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 22, 2019, 04:04:08 PM
No, Messrs Lovelady and Frazier are not 'extremely close' to one another--Mr Frazier is back near the door:

(https://i.imgur.com/uyuRzhG.jpg)

And no, Mr Frazier does not have time to do what you're suggesting:

(https://i.imgur.com/PLolUlu.gif)

Now! What was the height difference between Messrs Lovelady and Frazier? Greater or smaller than the height difference of Messrs Lovelady and Oswald?

(https://i.imgur.com/DmsY2CM.jpg)

 Thumb1:

      The 11/22/63 Affidavit filed by Buell Frazier says "I was Standing ON THE FRONT STEPS of the building when the parade came by. After President Kennedy got out of my sight, I heard three shots.  I STOOD THERE, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".  YOU state above that Mr Frazier was "Back NEAR the door". What is your source(s) for making a claim which contradicts the 11/22/63 Frazier affidavit ?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 22, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
      The 11/22/63 Affidavit filed by Buell Frazier says "I was Standing ON THE FRONT STEPS of the building when the parade came by. After President Kennedy got out of my sight, I heard three shots.  I STOOD THERE, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it".  YOU state above that Mr Frazier was "Back NEAR the door". What is your source(s) for making a claim which contradicts the 11/22/63 Frazier affidavit ?

The visual evidence, Mr Storing, the visual evidence. Have a look-see!:

(https://i.imgur.com/uyuRzhG.jpg)

How much sunlight do you see hitting Mr Frazier's body? He's back in the shadows. And if the distance between him and Mr Lovelady weren't substantial, we wouldn't be seeing the gap between them which Wiegman shows.

And no, Mr Frazier is not standing on one of the steps, not even if one puts the word in capitals  ::)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on October 22, 2019, 05:02:58 PM
Now! The most likely scenario IMO:

1! Mr Oswald comes downstairs at lunch break
2!! He goes up to the second floor lunch room and buys a coke
3!!! He takes the coke downstairs to have with his lunch on the first floor
4!!!! He notices Messrs Jarman and Norman coming into the building from the rear
5!!!!! He goes outside to watch P. parade
6!!!!!! At the time of the shots he is standing in front and to the right of Mr Frazier and just behind Mr Lovelady
7!!!!!!! Right after the shooting, he moves across to the western wall (DarnellPrayerMan)
8!!!!!!!! He has an encounter at the front door/in the building vestibule with Officer Baker and Mr Truly
9!!!!!!!!! He is accused of being the lone assassin of JFK and shot dead two days later

Please note: points 1, 2, 3 & 5 are exactly what he claimed in custody:

(https://i.imgur.com/eYYfuIi.jpg)

Naturally, these claims were buried and only came to light five-and-a-half decades later.

As to the color of Carol Reed's shoelaces or whether the Joe Smith who married Betsy Magoo really did go to tennis camp with Buddy Klandestein's third cousin twice removed, I'm still agnostic tbh. These are weighty questions considerably above my pay grade!

 Thumb1:

Oswald @1:17 in the following video admits to being in the building at the time. Game over!
And btw if Oswald was outside watching the President with his friends wouldn't he be screaming out to the Press, "I was outside with my friends watching the President's parade", I know I would be but I guess in bizarro opposite world the rules are different?


JohnM.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 22, 2019, 05:12:44 PM
The visual evidence, Mr Storing, the visual evidence. Have a look-see!:

(https://i.imgur.com/uyuRzhG.jpg)

How much sunlight do you see hitting Mr Frazier's body? He's back in the shadows. And if the distance between him and Mr Lovelady weren't substantial, we wouldn't be seeing the gap between them which Wiegman shows.

And no, Mr Frazier is not standing on one of the steps, not even if one puts the word in capitals  ::)

    "Visual Evidence"?  YOU can Not Positively ID who is standing Back in that dark shadow. You are presenting your Opinion as being Fact which is often attempted around here. You well know the difference between saying I Believe or I Think vs touting a dark image immersed in dark shadow as "Visual EVIDENCE". All you are doing by running this gambit is critically damaging your credibility along with the point you are attempting to make. You are far better than this.     
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 22, 2019, 06:24:03 PM
Oswald @1:17 in the following video admits to being in the building at the time. Game over!
And btw if Oswald was outside watching the President with his friends wouldn't he be screaming out to the Press, "I was outside with my friends watching the President's parade", I know I would be but I guess in bizarro opposite world the rules are different?


JohnM.

 :D

So why were we never told that Mr Oswald claimed to have gone 'outside to watch P. parade', when Agent Hosty's notes make it clear that he did just that?

(https://i.imgur.com/wCmH4MU.jpg)

And, as you have been told many times already, the front entranceway was part of the Depository building. Mr Oswald was simply confirming that he was not elsewhere (e.g. out in the street) at the time of the shooting.

By the way, Mr Mytton, how do you explain the magic dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film? Hm?

(https://i.imgur.com/eGMgm7x.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 22, 2019, 06:38:29 PM
Oswald @1:17 in the following video admits to being in the building at the time. Game over!
And btw if Oswald was outside watching the President with his friends wouldn't he be screaming out to the Press, "I was outside with my friends watching the President's parade", I know I would be but I guess in bizarro opposite world the rules are different?


JohnM.

If LeeHarveyOswald had been anywhere on the top step, landing, or steps, there would easily have been at least 10 eyewitnesses that also worked at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, and that either knew him or knew who he was, available to testify as confirmation of said presence as filmed and/or during the fatal wounding of JohnKennedtSr and critical wounding of JohnConnallyJr.

So, yes, he would have stated that he was there, and named corroborating eyewitnesses for confirmation, if he had been on the steps/landing at that time. But, without any reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates said presence, and with reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates he was not there at the time, sufficient indications sufficiently indicate him to have been elsewhere.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 07:03:39 PM
So, yes, he would have stated that he was there, and named corroborating eyewitnesses for confirmation, if he had been on the steps/landing at that time. But, without any reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates said presence, and with reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates he was not there at the time, sufficient indications sufficiently indicate him to have been elsewhere.

What is your "reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates he was not there at the time"?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 22, 2019, 07:19:56 PM
Weigman film captures Lovelady on the steps 1st. Weigman film also captures  Mr.Campbell with presumably Mrs Reid, standing on the curb of Elm st, as Wiegmans car goes past. Mrs Reid may be the heavyset older woman in white scarf right beside Mr.Campbell.

Then Altgens 6 photo captures  Lovelady still on the steps approx at Z255 just after  2nd shot fired (although imo, z233may be the FIRST shot heard)

Then Couch film supposedly does not start until 24 seconds after last shot fired and is capturing Lovelady and Shelly moving away and Gloria Cavalry at the front steps talking to Joe Molina, and there is finally BW Frazier seen, who moved up to the top hand railing after Shelly had left to join with Billy lovelady,


Thats how i understand the sequence. Its this not correct?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 08:02:05 PM
Weigman film captures Lovelady on the steps 1st. Weigman film also captures  Mr.Campbell with presumably Mrs Reid, standing on the curb of Elm st, as Wiegmans car goes past. Mrs Reid may be the heavyset older woman in white scarf right beside Mr.Campbell.

Then Altgens 6 photo captures  Lovelady still on the steps approx at Z255 just after  2nd shot fired (although imo, z233may be the FIRST shot heard)

Then Couch film supposedly does not start until 24 seconds after last shot fired and is capturing Lovelady and Shelly moving away and Gloria Cavalry at the front steps talking to Joe Molina, and there is finally BW Frazier seen, who moved up to the top hand railing after Shelly had left to join with Billy lovelady,


Thats how i understand the sequence. Its this not correct?

"Mrs. Reed" and Ochus Campbell were actually standing in the street (the base of Elm Street Extension) in front of the TSBD, in a line of people that stretched from the tip of the "island" to the imaginary intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street propper.

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 22, 2019, 08:09:30 PM
"Mrs. Reed" and Ochus Campbell were actually standing in the street (the base of Elm Street Extension) in front of the TSBD, in a line of people that stretched from the tip of the "island" to the imaginary intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street propper.

-- MWT  ;)

So its not been established definitely where exactly Mrs Robert A.Reid is in Wiegman film?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 08:15:24 PM
So its not been established definitely where exactly Mrs Robert A.Reid is in Wiegman film?

Mrs. Robert A. Reid, or "Mrs. Robert A. Reid"?

Look at Don Roberdeau's most recent map. He has the latter correctly placed on it (in that curving line of blue dots in the street), but not Campbell.

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 08:50:19 PM
So its not been established definitely where exactly Mrs Robert A.Reid is in Wiegman film?

Correct.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 22, 2019, 08:57:32 PM

[/quote]
Oswald @1:17 in the following video admits to being in the building at the time. Game over!
And btw if Oswald was outside watching the President with his friends wouldn't he be screaming out to the Press, "I was outside with my friends watching the President's parade", I know I would be but I guess in bizarro opposite world the rules are different?


JohnM.



If LeeHarveyOswald had been anywhere on the top step, landing, or steps, there would easily have been at least 10 eyewitnesses that also worked at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, and that either knew him or knew who he was, available to testify as confirmation of said presence as filmed and/or during the fatal wounding of JohnKennedtSr and critical wounding of JohnConnallyJr.

So, yes, he would have stated that he was there, and named corroborating eyewitnesses for confirmation, if he had been on the steps/landing at that time. But, without any reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates said presence, and with reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates he was not there at the time, sufficient indications sufficiently indicate him to have been elsewhere.


What is your "reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates he was not there at the time"?

Did you, Mr Iacoletti, by chance read Mr Mytton's posted Reply, that I posted a Reply to in agreement with Mr Mytton's said posted Reply?

If it is your claim that PrayerPerson/Image represents LeeHarveyOswald, what do you claim as indicative information of evidentiary value?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 10:04:57 PM
LOL.

Just so we're all clear about these "obvious" features that Tommy thinks he sees.  Here's what we are talking about.  [images credit: Bart Kamp]

The area we are talking about inside the actual image is this.

(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/the-skirt-4.jpg)

Enlarging the enlargement even further:

(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-3-1.jpg)

Obvious "dark colored horizontal bars", huh?

How about looking at that area in a different frame and enlarging it further:

(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-2.jpg)

Nope.

Maybe enhancing another frame?  Still nope.

(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-1.jpg)

John,

Why are you covering it up with your big clever black arrows?  And why did you blow it up so much, like you did on another thread several months ago to make Calvery's glasses in Betzner-3 "disappear" due to the poor resolution?

(At least other members and guests know where to look in the Darnell frame that Royell posted above on page 20, now, so thanks for that.)

--  MWT   ;)


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 10:08:32 PM
Why are you covering it up with your big clever black arrows?

Actually they are Bart's clever black arrows.  They show the area where you are pretending to see "horizontal bars".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 10:11:26 PM
Actually they are Bart's clever black arrows.  They show the area where you are pretending to see "horizontal bars".

Bart's very "clever," too.

Once again:

John,

Why are you covering it up with your Bart's big clever black arrows?  And why did you(?) blow it up so much, like you did on another thread several months ago to make Calvery's glasses in Betzner-3 "disappear" due to poor resolution?

(At least other members and guests know where to look in the Darnell frame that Royell posted above on page 20, now, so thanks for that.)

--  MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 10:14:06 PM
Why are you covering it up with your big clever black arrows?  And why did you blow it up so much, like you did on another thread several months ago to make Calvery's glasses in Betzner-3 "disappear" due to the poor resolution?

What part of "[images credit: Bart Kamp]" are you having trouble understanding?  I didn't "blow up" anything.  Bart enlarged it to show that the tiny area in the Darnell frame that you are pretending to see horizontal bars in has no discernible horizontal bars in it.  But feel free to point them out on Royell's image (actually it was Alan Ford's image, but I'm used to you not paying attention).
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 10:33:34 PM
What part of "[images credit: Bart Kamp]" are you having trouble understanding?  I didn't "blow up" anything.  Bart enlarged it to show that the tiny area in the Darnell frame that you are pretending to see horizontal bars in has no discernible horizontal bars in it.  But feel free to point them out on Royell's image (actually it was Alan Ford's image, but I'm used to you not paying attention).

John,

Whoever chose that particular frame from Darnell, from that particular copy of Darnell, and who put the big, black, oh-so-clever covering arrows on it, and blew it up as much as they did to destroy the required resolution, sure went out of their way to make it impossible to see the dark horizontal band in the skirt that I'm talking about.

I don't care if it was you, Bart the you-know-what, Ford, Mickey Mouse, or a collaborative effort.

I once again refer open-minded members and guests to the Darnell frame that Royell Storing posted on page 20, this thread.

--  MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 10:45:06 PM
Whoever chose that particular frame from Darnell, from that particular copy of Darnell, and who put the big, black, oh-so-clever covering arrows on it, and blew it up as much as they did to destroy the required resolution, sure went out of their way to make it impossible to see the dark horizontal band in the skirt that I'm talking about.

As I said, feel free to use whatever image you want to show your alleged "dark horizontal band".  This bluff will only carry you so far.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 10:53:58 PM
As I said, feel free to use whatever image you want to show your alleged "dark horizontal band".  This bluff will only carry you so far.

John,

As I said, the image is already up.

It's the Darnell frame Royell Storing posted on page 20, this thread.

Big "clever" black arrows and/or enlarging it would ruin it.

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 22, 2019, 11:49:00 PM
LOL.

Just so we're all clear about these "obvious" features that Tommy thinks he sees.  Here's what we are talking about.  [images credit: Bart Kamp]

The area we are talking about inside the actual image is this.

(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/the-skirt-4.jpg)

Enlarging the enlargement even further:

(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-3-1.jpg)

Obvious "dark colored horizontal bars", huh?

How about looking at that area in a different frame and enlarging it further:

(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-2.jpg)

Nope.

Maybe enhancing another frame?  Still nope.

(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-skirt-1.jpg)

         JOHN - Thanks for posting that still frame in order to make it clear as to Exactly who/what is being referenced. Does anyone know Who the suited gent is underneath the Right pointed arrow?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 12:05:11 AM
    There is a time gap between your proffered Images.  Your posted images Prove that Buell Frazier did have the time to move a few feet on the steps in front of the TSBD.

So now you do accept the identification of Mr Frazier? Good grief, Mr Storing, make up your mind, man!

Quote
Stick with the Black Shadow issue. That has merit.

That's exactly why I am sticking with it. It's at the heart of how Mr Oswald's presence just behind Mr Lovelady was covered up............

Is the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side a natural shadow? Answer: No!

Is the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side a jacket or coat he is wearing? Answer: No, because the Hughes film of the entranceway as JFK is passing shows him only in a red plaid shirt!

So what is the dark strip?

(https://i.imgur.com/ppugVyV.jpg)

Have you got a suggestion other than doctoring of the images? If not then we're left with the question:

Would images showing the entranceway have been doctored for any reason other than to hide the presence of Mr Oswald?

Answer that question, put it beside this--------

(https://i.imgur.com/BItMqre.jpg)

---------and this---------

(https://i.imgur.com/nLUKXD8.jpg)

---------and the answer as to Mr Oswald's precise whereabouts at the time JFK was shot is finally answered.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 23, 2019, 12:12:06 AM
So now you do accept the identification of Mr Frazier? Good grief, Mr Storing, make up your mind, man!

That's exactly why I am sticking with it. It's at the heart of how Mr Oswald's presence just behind Mr Lovelady was covered up............

Is the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side a natural shadow? Answer: No!

Is the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side a jacket or coat he is wearing? Answer: No, because the Hughes film of the entranceway as JFK is passing shows him only in a red plaid shirt!

So what is the dark strip?

(https://i.imgur.com/ppugVyV.jpg)

Have you got a suggestion other than doctoring of the images? If not then we're left with the question:

Would images showing the entranceway have been doctored for any reason other than to hide the presence of Mr Oswald?

Answer that question, put it beside this--------

(https://i.imgur.com/BItMqre.jpg)

---------and this---------

(https://i.imgur.com/nLUKXD8.jpg)

---------and the answer as to Mr Oswald's precise whereabouts at the time JFK was shot is finally answered.

 Thumb1:

      The point is that Frazier had the Time to move and possibly be the 2nd head.  No Way that perfect Black Strip is a shadow.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 12:27:30 AM
      The point is that Frazier had the Time to move and possibly be the 2nd head.

The first point to note is that now you accept that that's Mr Frazier in Wiegman. Progress!  Thumb1:

Now!

Question 1!

Did you not actually bother to study this gif, which offers a slowed down rendition of the Wiegman frames?

(https://i.imgur.com/MnzXYxD.gif)

Are you seriously telling me that Mr Frazier had time to be the source of the second 'Lovelady' head?

Question 2!!

What height was Mr Frazier? What height was Mr Lovelady? What height was Mr Oswald?

Who is the more reasonable candidate, on grounds of height alone, for the second 'Lovelady' head?

(https://i.imgur.com/kfjKizx.jpg)

Quote
No Way that perfect Black Strip is a shadow.

100% correct!  Now relate this to the above points, as well as to Mr Oswald's claim to have gone 'outside to watch P. parade', and the mystery of why that magic 'shadow' is there is solved.

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 12:32:40 AM

By the way, Mr Mytton, how do you explain the magic dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film? Hm?

(https://i.imgur.com/eGMgm7x.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Bumped for Mr Mytton!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 12:37:13 AM
As I said, the image is already up.

Yep.  Point out your clever "horizontal bars".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 23, 2019, 01:29:40 AM
Yep.  Point out your clever "horizontal bars".

John,

You have eyes (I think), and Bart's shown you where to look.

Kinda.

Now, go to page 20 and look closely at the sliver of that woman's skirt that's visible in the Darnell frame Royell posted.

-- MWT ;)


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 02:02:53 AM
John,

You have eyes (I think), and Bart's shown you where to look.

Kinda.

Now, go to page 20 and look closely at the woman's sliver of skirt that's visible in the Darnell frame Royell posted.

Does this mean you cannot point out your "horizontal bars"?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 23, 2019, 02:14:31 AM
Does this mean you cannot point out your "horizontal bars"?

John,

I don't need to point out the two "bars" visible in the woman's skirt in the Darnell frame on page 20 to people who can see, who know where to find that sliver of skirt, and who are open-minded.

Perhaps that rules you out?

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 23, 2019, 05:13:01 AM
The first point to note is that now you accept that that's Mr Frazier in Wiegman. Progress!  Thumb1:

Now!

Question 1!

Did you not actually bother to study this gif, which offers a slowed down rendition of the Wiegman frames?

(https://i.imgur.com/MnzXYxD.gif)

Are you seriously telling me that Mr Frazier had time to be the source of the second 'Lovelady' head?

Question 2!!

What height was Mr Frazier? What height was Mr Lovelady? What height was Mr Oswald?

Who is the more reasonable candidate, on grounds of height alone, for the second 'Lovelady' head?

(https://i.imgur.com/kfjKizx.jpg)

100% correct!  Now relate this to the above points, as well as to Mr Oswald's claim to have gone 'outside to watch P. parade', and the mystery of why that magic 'shadow' is there is solved.

Thumb1:

      The Wiegman footage occurs Before the Darnell footage. If Frazier's initial position is 1 of the 2 heads, he then has the time to move a few feet where we see him positioned on the Darnell footage. You are so eager to buy into 1 of the heads belonging to Oswald, that you are Failing to consider alternate possibilities.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 01:32:59 PM
I don't need to point out the two "bars" visible in the woman's skirt

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 05:13:18 PM
    We can resolve this quickly IF You will go on-the-record with what you believe the time interval is between the Wiegman footage of your alleged 2 Heads and the Darnell Footage showing Buell Frazier at the Top of the TSBD Steps. Go ahead.......... I "Triple Dog Dare You"

But we already have resolved it, Mr Storing, because Mr Frazier is already visible in the Wiegman film:

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)

His presence there in Darnell (~30 seconds later) is merely further confirmation that the tall Elvis-combed figure in Wiegman was not Pauline Sanders or Bill Shelley!

(https://i.imgur.com/GQbRZbL.jpg)

And the blacking out in Wiegman leads us to the inescapable inference that the second 'Lovelady' head (to our left)--------------

(https://i.imgur.com/2WWvt2y.jpg)

-------------belongs to the man the Lone Nutters still want us to believe was up at the sixth floor southeast window having just shot JFK!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 23, 2019, 05:30:22 PM
But we already have resolved it, Mr Storing, because Mr Frazier is already visible in the Wiegman film:

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)

His presence there in Darnell (~30 seconds later) is merely further confirmation that the tall Elvis-combed figure in Wiegman was not Pauline Sanders or Bill Shelley!

(https://i.imgur.com/GQbRZbL.jpg)

And the blacking out in Wiegman leads us to the inescapable inference that the second 'Lovelady' head (to our left)--------------

(https://i.imgur.com/2WWvt2y.jpg)

-------------belongs to the man the Lone Nutters still want us to believe was up at the sixth floor southeast window having just shot JFK!

 Thumb1:

    Your Positively ID'ing whomever/whatever is inside that bluish circle is You once again stating Your Opinion as if it were fact.  Be honest. YOU can Not see precisely what is inside that circle. That image is far to sketchy to permit a Positive ID. Your admitting to a roughly 30 second time gap between: (1) the alleged 2 Heads Wiegman still frame, and (2) the Darnell footage showing Frazier at the top of the steps = plenty of time for Frazier to have changed his position on the steps. In the affidavit that Frazier filed on 11/22/63 he stated, "I was Standing ON the front steps of the building when the parade came by". Frazier could possibly be 1 of your alleged 2 Heads.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 05:40:04 PM
    Your Positively ID'ing whomever/whatever is inside that bluish circle is You once again stating Your Opinion as if it were fact.  Be honest. YOU can Not see precisely what is inside that circle. That image is far to sketchy to permit a Positive ID. Your admitting to a roughly 30 second time gap between: (1) the alleged 2 Heads Wiegman still frame, and (2) the Darnell footage showing Frazier at the top of the steps = plenty of time for Frazier to have changed his position on the steps. In the affidavit that Frazier filed on 11/22/63 he stated, "I was Standing ON the front steps of the building when the parade came by". Frazier could possibly be 1 of your alleged 2 Heads.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear, Mr Storing. You swing between affirming Mr Frazier's identity in Wiegman-----------------so that you can argue he had 'time' to lunge forward and be the second 'Lovelady' head------------------to querying it.

You are defying common sense by once again reverting to the argument that Mr Frazier in Wiegman might not be Mr Frazier in Darnell:

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GQbRZbL.jpg)

It's blindingly obvious we're seeing the same tall dark-haired figure with the distinctive Elvis hair!

Who else do you think this tall dark-haired figure with the distinctive Elvis hair in Wiegman might possibly be? A name would be great!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 23, 2019, 05:50:46 PM
Yeah, that’s what I thought.

 :D

John,

Here's the whole post. You left the highlighted part out.

"I don't need to point out the two "bars" visible in the woman's skirt in the Darnell frame on page 20 to people who can see, who know where to find that sliver of skirt, and who are open-minded. Perhaps that rules you out?"

-- MWT  ;)

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 07:34:21 PM
John,

Here's the whole post. You left the highlighted part out.

"I don't need to point out the two "bars" visible in the woman's skirt in the Darnell frame on page 20 to people who can see, who know where to find that sliver of skirt, and who are open-minded. Perhaps that rules you out?"

What I see is you continuing to avoid pointing out where these fantasy "bars" are.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 23, 2019, 11:35:39 PM
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, Mr Storing. You swing between affirming Mr Frazier's identity in Wiegman-----------------so that you can argue he had 'time' to lunge forward and be the second 'Lovelady' head------------------to querying it.

You are defying common sense by once again reverting to the argument that Mr Frazier in Wiegman might not be Mr Frazier in Darnell:

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GQbRZbL.jpg)

It's blindingly obvious we're seeing the same tall dark-haired figure with the distinctive Elvis hair!

Who else do you think this tall dark-haired figure with the distinctive Elvis hair in Wiegman might possibly be? A name would be great!  Thumb1:

    Your powers of observation are Immediately called into question when You label Buell Frazier's locks to be "distinctive Elvis hair".  You continue shooting yourself in the foot.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 24, 2019, 12:06:37 AM
    Your powers of observation are Immediately called into question when You label Buell Frazier's locks to be "distinctive Elvis hair".  You continue shooting yourself in the foot.

Like I say, Mr Storing, a name would be great!

Who else--------if not Mr Frazier----------do you believe this tall dark-haired individual could possibly be?

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 24, 2019, 04:52:56 PM
Like I say, Mr Storing, a name would be great!

Who else--------if not Mr Frazier----------do you believe this tall dark-haired individual could possibly be?

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)

    You DQ yourself by labeling Buell Frazier's hair as "Elvis hair". It is difficult to conduct a conversation regarding Image Observations when you come out with something like that.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 24, 2019, 09:43:52 PM
    ID'ing someone by process of elimination is weak at best.

But I'm not IDing Mr Frazier by process of elimination, I'm IDing him by using my eyes:

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GQbRZbL.jpg)

I suggest you use yours and stop arguing for the sake of being argumentative. You haven't a leg to stand on here, sorry!

As for Mr Frazier's not talking up about Mr Oswald's location just in front of him? It's beyond naive to think great pressure wouldn't have been placed on him to shut up. Stop arguing like a Lone Nutter, Mr Storing, it doesn't become you!

Remember: Mr Oswald himself claimed to have been out front-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/pR3CJi5.jpg)

Refusing to contemplate that this bombshell fact may be related to the magic dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side is the height of silliness...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 24, 2019, 10:23:10 PM
But I'm not IDing Mr Frazier by process of elimination, I'm IDing him by using my eyes:

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GQbRZbL.jpg)

I suggest you use yours and stop arguing for the sake of being argumentative. You haven't a leg to stand on here, sorry!

As for Mr Frazier's not talking up about Mr Oswald's location just in front of him? It's beyond naive to think great pressure wouldn't have been placed on him to shut up. Stop arguing like a Lone Nutter, Mr Storing, it doesn't become you!

Remember: Mr Oswald himself claimed to have been out front-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/pR3CJi5.jpg)

Refusing to contemplate that this bombshell fact may be related to the magic dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side is the height of silliness...

    Claiming You can actually see Oswald inside that circle is  BS:. As to your claiming Frasier was under all kinds of pressure to LIE about not seeing Oswald on the TSBD steps, I remind You that Frazier is still alive. Who are You claiming Frazier is afraid of 55+ years After the fact? Your being forced to grasp at straws like this is indicative of the weakness of your theory.  With regard to the Hosty Notes documenting that Oswald was outside the TSBD, Oswald made all kinds of claims we Know to Not be true. For openers, start with the rifle which his wife ID'd that day + the pics.  I value the Hosty Notes as it Proves that there remains Unknown JFK Assassination Evidence. The Hosty Notes gives credibility to those that think it is possible that there still is Unknown assassination photo(s) and or film footage buried in grandma's attic.   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 24, 2019, 10:49:06 PM
With regard to the Hosty Notes documenting that Oswald was outside the TSBD, Oswald made all kinds of claims we Know to Not be true. For openers, start with the rifle which his wife ID'd that day + the pics.

His wife didn't ID any rifle that day.  Nor do the pics exclusively identify any specific rifle.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 24, 2019, 11:55:11 PM
    Claiming You can actually see Oswald inside that circle is  BS:. As to your claiming Frasier was under all kinds of pressure to LIE about not seeing Oswald on the TSBD steps, I remind You that Frazier is still alive. Who are You claiming Frazier is afraid of 55+ years After the fact? Your being forced to grasp at straws like this is indicative of the weakness of your theory.  With regard to the Hosty Notes documenting that Oswald was outside the TSBD, Oswald made all kinds of claims we Know to Not be true. For openers, start with the rifle which his wife ID'd that day + the pics.  I value the Hosty Notes as it Proves that there remains Unknown JFK Assassination Evidence. The Hosty Notes gives credibility to those that think it is possible that there still is Unknown assassination photo(s) and or film footage buried in grandma's attic.

 :D

So you value the Hosty note,
------------not because it proves that Mr Oswald claimed to have been out front
------------not because it proves that Mr Oswald's interrogators lied about where he claimed to have been at the time of the assassination
------------but because... well... uh...just because it's something... uh... new!

This is like saying "I value the Zapruder Film because it shows Jean Hill looked fetching in red".

I'm afraid you're in The McAdams Zone here, Mr Storing, studiously missing the point as soon as it gets dangerous.

Thankfully, however, your arguments have flopped, each and every one.

You have failed to offer
----------an alternative logical explanation for the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side
----------an alternative logical candidate for the person identified as Mr Frazier in Wiegman
----------an alternative logical candidate for the actual Mr Frazier in Wiegman
----------an alternative logical explanation for the frames showing a second 'Lovelady' head.

Yet, despite this litany of blanks fired, you blithely assure us there's nothing to see here.

This has been a most revealing exchange!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 25, 2019, 01:04:27 AM
His wife didn't ID any rifle that day.  Nor do the pics exclusively identify any specific rifle.

     The images of Lt Day parading the rifle around that crowded hallway were due to his taking the rifle to Marina in a separate room. They did Not want her walking around/amidst The Press for obvious reasons. She gave law enforcement the ID on the rifle that evening.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 25, 2019, 02:43:54 PM
     The images of Lt Day parading the rifle around that crowded hallway were due to his taking the rifle to Marina in a separate room. They did Not want her walking around/amidst The Press for obvious reasons. She gave law enforcement the ID on the rifle that evening.

Uh, no she didn't.

Mr. JENNER. Now, I think--let's go ahead--the weapon is brought in.
Mr. MAMANTOV. All right.
Mr. JENNER. It is fully assembled?
Mr. MAMANTOV. It is fully assembled.
Mr. JENNER. It has a telescopic sight on it and the leather sling?
Mr. MAMANTOV. Captain Fritz brought it in and was holding it in his two hands, with two or three fingers, not to touch gun around--in that position (indicating).
Mr. JENNER. Holding it up--holding it like that (indicating)?
Mr. MAMANTOV. More or less--you see--inclined in that position.
Mr. JENNER. Holding it up horizontally or close to the horizontal?
Mr. MAMANTOV. That's correct, and it was brought close enough to her to examine. She was specifically asked if this was the gun she had seen in the past in that blanket. She said, "I don't know. All guns to me are the same, are a dark brown or black." He asked her again--"This," which was to me very dark or black colored. He said, "Is this what you see?" She said, "No, I don't know. I saw the gun--I saw a gun ;" she said again, "All guns are the same to me." Then they asked her about a sight on the gun.
Mr. JENNER. S-i-g-h-t [spelling]
Mr. MAMANTOV. Yes; a telescope she said, "No; I never have seen gun like that in his possession," and she referred back again to the Soviet Union.
Mr. JENNER. What did she say to you--is this a conclusion on your part that she referred back to the Soviet Union
Mr. MAMANTOV. No--no--she said this way.
Mr. JENNER. It isn't a conclusion, if you put the words in her mouth, so you can go ahead.
Mr. MAMANTOV. No, she said the gun which he had in the Soviet Union, she didn't know how to say--she said, "This thing."
Mr. JENNER. The telescopic sight?
Mr. MAMANTOV. The telescopic sight--she pointed to it with her finger.
Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, did she say that the rifle or weapon, whatever it was he had in the Soviet Union--her recollection was it did not have a telescopic sight on it?.
Mr. MAMANTOV. That's correct. She was asked if she had seen this part of the gun which he had in the garage in the blanket--this she said again--she said, "No; I have only seen one part of the gun, which was the end of the gun"--which part they asked her--I think I am calling it----
Mr. JENNER. The stock?
Mr. MAMANTOV. She pointed to the stock---correct--and then she was asked about the gun again and she said, "Dark brown-black."
Mr. JENNER. Still referring to the stock?
Mr. MAMANTOV. Still referring to the stock, and then they asked her for a couple more questions, if she saw this particular gun in his possession. She insisted that to her all guns are the same and she couldn't distinguish this gun from any other gun that he had in the past.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 25, 2019, 10:40:31 PM
here is a question: If Couch started his film within just a few seconds of having seen the rifle in the 6th floor SE window of TSBD at about 3 sec post shots, then why did it take 21 seconds longer to begin filming at 24 sec post last shot?
'"
If Couch has stated that even 10 seconds is a "long time" for a professional cameraman, such as himself, are we to believe that is took him TWICE that long to reach for his camera and after a "quick adjustment" start filming?

How could Couch be capturing Weigman himself on the GK , turning around, after Weigman had just stopped his camera after filming briefly the Hester couple hiding in the Pergola structure, at approx 15 sec post last shot per Wiegman jumping from his car about at 2nd shot or 3rd shot fired?

8 seconds into Couch film, the camera pans past the women on the Elm st curb and Baker (apparently) having run past them to capture the following:

1. Police officer on the LEFT side of Elm st, with gun drawn. THAT is the officer that Couch refers too, NOT Baker. Couch  does NOT mention of Baker, or of seeing a police officer running into the crowd of women, on his way to TSBD entrance steps. HOW did Couch miss this?

2. In the background, by the Stemmons freeway sign, can be seen running, the same black suit man with black hat who looks pretty much exactly like the same man in Wiegman film on Elm st. curb earlier, who has been identified as Mr.Campbell. IF so, then that corroborates the time being approx 15 sec post shot when seen in Couch film, because Mr.Campbell had to leave his position with Mrs Reid about 2nd shot fired to have been able to have LOS to see JFK limo speed away. Any later than about 5 sec post shots, and Mr Campbell would have missed seeing the JFK Limo entirely, as it goes thru the Triple underpass and is out of LOS after that.

Since the distance from the curb where Mr.Campbell is standing in Wiegman film to the Stemmons highway sign is approx 100 ft, and since an average double time running speed is not more than 10 ft per second, then if Mr Campbell DID leave Mrs Reid not later than 5 sec post last shot fired, then indeed, Mr Campbell would have been seen at 15 sec post shots in Couch film, ONLY IF, Couch had started his film approx 7 sec post shots.  Then, 8 seconds later, as Couch camera pans to Elm st, the time would be 15 secs post shots, capturing Mr Campbell running.

3. Wiegman on the Grassy Knoll. Wiegmans camera is rolling BEFORE the shots are fired, and AS shots are fired, there is the scene captured of Mr.Campbell and (presumptively) Mrs Reid, the white scarf, heavy set woman beside him, on the Elm st. curb. At about the 3rd shot fired or even possibly the 2nd shot fired, Wiegman jumps from his car. His camera is NOT cut, it is continuously running here. This time of jumping is recorded in Wiegmans film, 15 seconds from start of his film. At the 30 sec mark, Wiegman film is CUT. That is right at approx 15 secs from when Weigman jumped from the car, hence defacto 15 sec post last shot fired.

What does Wiegman do now? Does he just stand there for another 18 to 20 seconds doing nothing with his now stopped camera? Does that seem probable for a professional camera man to do, given that Couch WC testimony is that just 10 seconds is a "long time" for a professional camera man.

Imo, Weigman stops his camera, then immediately he turns around and he spots the Newmans laying on the ground. Wiegman then starts his camera again, and this "cut" between ending filming the Hesters and beginning filming the Newmans is clearly identifiable in the Wiegman film. This "Turning Around" movement by Wiegman is CLEARLY seen in the Couch film. This could only be at 15 sec post shots fired and thus Couch film capturing Wiegman on the GK turning around, must be 15 seconds post shot as well.

This means Couch film had to have been started NOT at 24 second post shots as has been the current "factoid" established time, but actually Couch film must be started approximately 7 seconds post last shot, such that 8 seconds into Couch film, would be 15 second post shots, capturing Weigman turning around on the GK, and Mr. Campbell running past the Stemmon highway sign on Elm st.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 25, 2019, 10:51:31 PM
2. In the background, by the Stemmons freeway sign, can be seen running, the same black suit man with black hat who looks pretty much exactly like the same man in Wiegman film on Elm st. curb earlier, who has been identified as Mr.Campbell.

How was it even decided that this is Campbell?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 25, 2019, 11:01:57 PM
How was it even decided that this is Campbell?

it based on Mr Campbell FBI statements and Mrs Robert A. Reid WC testimony of where they both were relative to each other.

Of course they could both be mistaken, but where else on the Elm st curb scene in Wiegman is a man with dark hat and dark suit that could possibly probably be Mr Campbell?

 Roy Truly, is in the background of Couch, turning around as the girl we used to think was Gloria Cavalry, but apparently is not, comes running up, nearly simultaneous as Baker is approaching the front steps. So the dark hat/dark suit man on the Elm curb is not likely Truly in the Wiegman film.

Imo, that probably is Truly there near the steps turning around, because he then followed Baker AFTER Baker went up the steps on the right side of the handrailing most likely, and that explains Baker being missed being seen by Stanton, BW Frazier, Gloria Cavalry, and Joe Molina, yet being seen by Pauline Sanders, who WAS on the right side of the entrance landing and in front of the door, thus Baker running right into her virtually.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 26, 2019, 04:20:28 PM
here is a question: If Couch started his film within just a few seconds of having seen the rifle in the 6th floor SE window of TSBD at about 3 sec post shots, then why did it take 21 seconds longer to begin filming at 24 sec post last shot?
'"
If Couch has stated that even 10 seconds is a "long time" for a professional cameraman, such as himself, are we to believe that is took him TWICE that long to reach for his camera and after a "quick adjustment" start filming?

How could Couch be capturing Weigman himself on the GK , turning around, after Weigman had just stopped his camera after filming briefly the Hester couple hiding in the Pergola structure, at approx 15 sec post last shot per Wiegman jumping from his car about at 2nd shot or 3rd shot fired?

8 seconds into Couch film, the camera pans past the women on the Elm st curb and Baker (apparently) having run past them to capture the following:

1. Police officer on the LEFT side of Elm st, with gun drawn. THAT is the officer that Couch refers too, NOT Baker. Couch  does NOT mention of Baker, or of seeing a police officer running into the crowd of women, on his way to TSBD entrance steps. HOW did Couch miss this?

2. In the background, by the Stemmons freeway sign, can be seen running, the same black suit man with black hat who looks pretty much exactly like the same man in Wiegman film on Elm st. curb earlier, who has been identified as Mr.Campbell. IF so, then that corroborates the time being approx 15 sec post shot when seen in Couch film, because Mr.Campbell had to leave his position with Mrs Reid about 2nd shot fired to have been able to have LOS to see JFK limo speed away. Any later than about 5 sec post shots, and Mr Campbell would have missed seeing the JFK Limo entirely, as it goes thru the Triple underpass and is out of LOS after that.

Since the distance from the curb where Mr.Campbell is standing in Wiegman film to the Stemmons highway sign is approx 100 ft, and since an average double time running speed is not more than 10 ft per second, then if Mr Campbell DID leave Mrs Reid not later than 5 sec post last shot fired, then indeed, Mr Campbell would have been seen at 15 sec post shots in Couch film, ONLY IF, Couch had started his film approx 7 sec post shots.  Then, 8 seconds later, as Couch camera pans to Elm st, the time would be 15 secs post shots, capturing Mr Campbell running.

3. Wiegman on the Grassy Knoll. Wiegmans camera is rolling BEFORE the shots are fired, and AS shots are fired, there is the scene captured of Mr.Campbell and (presumptively) Mrs Reid, the white scarf, heavy set woman beside him, on the Elm st. curb. At about the 3rd shot fired or even possibly the 2nd shot fired, Wiegman jumps from his car. His camera is NOT cut, it is continuously running here. This time of jumping is recorded in Wiegmans film, 15 seconds from start of his film. At the 30 sec mark, Wiegman film is CUT. That is right at approx 15 secs from when Weigman jumped from the car, hence defacto 15 sec post last shot fired.

What does Wiegman do now? Does he just stand there for another 18 to 20 seconds doing nothing with his now stopped camera? Does that seem probable for a professional camera man to do, given that Couch WC testimony is that just 10 seconds is a "long time" for a professional camera man.

Imo, Weigman stops his camera, then immediately he turns around and he spots the Newmans laying on the ground. Wiegman then starts his camera again, and this "cut" between ending filming the Hesters and beginning filming the Newmans is clearly identifiable in the Wiegman film. This "Turning Around" movement by Wiegman is CLEARLY seen in the Couch film. This could only be at 15 sec post shots fired and thus Couch film capturing Wiegman on the GK turning around, must be 15 seconds post shot as well.

This means Couch film had to have been started NOT at 24 second post shots as has been the current "factoid" established time, but actually Couch film must be started approximately 7 seconds post last shot, such that 8 seconds into Couch film, would be 15 second post shots, capturing Weigman turning around on the GK, and Mr. Campbell running past the Stemmon highway sign on Elm st.

     In the revered "Pictures Of The Pain", Trask details Wiegman having run into/seeing SA Lem Johns UP the knoll. How is this Not on the Wiegman Film? The Wiegman Film for close to 40 years was ballyhooed as being filmed Continuously. We NOW Know this was a bunch of baloney as would anyone that actually views the Wiegman Film. The current timelines assigned to many of the assassination films, photos, and the individuals captured on them has been Wrong for 55+ years.  If you look at the Lovelady and Shelly WC testimonies, they both said immediately after the shooting they crossed the Elm St Ext and then stood on that small island right across from the TSBD. They both testified that they stood there for roughly 3 minutes Before going down the Elm Ext and then into the fringe of the railroad yard.  The Lovelady and Shelley WC testimonies all by themselves render the Baker and Truly timelines to be BOGUS. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 26, 2019, 04:20:47 PM
it based on Mr Campbell FBI statements and Mrs Robert A. Reid WC testimony of where they both were relative to each other.

Of course they could both be mistaken, but where else on the Elm st curb scene in Wiegman is a man with dark hat and dark suit that could possibly probably be Mr Campbell?

Here’s the problem. I don’t think anybody actually knows that Campbell was wearing a dark hat and suit.

Also the alleged Campbell is used to identify the alleged Reid, and the alleged Reid is used to identify the alleged Campbell, so it’s circular.

Also the alleged Reid does not resemble the one known picture of Reid.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 26, 2019, 04:26:01 PM
Here’s the problem. I don’t think anybody actually knows that Campbell was wearing a dark hat and suit.

Also the alleged Campbell is used to identify the alleged Reid, and the alleged Reid is used to identify the alleged Campbell, so it’s circular.

Also the alleged Reid does not resemble the one known picture of Reid.

    This sounds more like Mr Chism
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 26, 2019, 05:15:11 PM
     In the revered "Pictures Of The Pain", Trask details Wiegman having run into/seeing SA Lem Johns UP the knoll. How is this Not on the Wiegman Film? The Wiegman Film for close to 40 years was ballyhooed as being filmed Continuously. We NOW Know this was a bunch of baloney as would anyone that actually views the Wiegman Film. The current timelines assigned to many of the assassination films, photos, and the individuals captured on them has been Wrong for 55+ years.  If you look at the Lovelady and Shelly WC testimonies, they both said immediately after the shooting they crossed the Elm St Ext and then stood on that small island right across from the TSBD. They both testified that they stood there for roughly 3 minutes Before going down the Elm Ext and then into the fringe of the railroad yard.  The Lovelady and Shelley WC testimonies all by themselves render the Baker and Truly timelines to be BOGUS.

Nonsense! Messrs Lovelady and Shelley's WC testimonies are bogus----cf these gentlemen's original statements. They are both lying to (or rather: for!) the WC.

But yes---------the story told to the WC by Officer Baker and Mr Truly is also bogus. They encountered Mr Oswald at the front entrance, not in the second-floor lunchroom! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on October 27, 2019, 07:24:58 PM
    "It has to be" is Proof of Nothing. Once again, You are proffering your Opinion as being Fact.

So says the man whose sole method of interaction on this site is to proffer his opinion as fact, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hilarious.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 27, 2019, 11:04:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9QCIE8t.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 28, 2019, 12:37:34 AM
“Thank heavens I brought my glow-in-the-dark coat to work with me!”

That would make sense in a professional situation.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 28, 2019, 02:51:51 PM
Geez Louise, another "member" crawls out from under his rock and starts attacking me, this gang banging just proves you're all running scared, fortunately I have the corroborating evidence on my side and you have a short list of nothing.
Btw you're way off target, my photo analysis is always on full display, I hide nothing, can you say the same?

JohnM

    Hilarious. You are getting hammered in Stereo on 2 threads simultaneously. When do we get the Mytton Mosaic or another one of your cartoon visual aids that proves nothing and mirrors a Woody Woodpecker short between the A and B movies?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
When carefully viewing early WiegmanFilm frames, the shadow image line on BillyLovelady/Image's right side appears not straight vertically. That to me indicates shadow line variation relative to Image angle, as well as camera height, angle, and distance. Just an observation, and no science involved.

No science involved indeed!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 28, 2019, 04:29:28 PM
When carefully viewing early WiegmanFilm frames, the shadow image line on BillyLovelady/Image's right side appears not straight vertically. That to me indicates shadow line variation relative to Image angle, as well as camera height, angle, and distance. Just an observation, and no science involved.

http://quaneeri.blogspot.com/2017/09/wiegman-gif.html


No science involved indeed!  :D


So, are you indicating that you do not agree? If so, can you provide visual confirmation relative to your disagreement?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 07:46:42 PM
     So proffer some Evidence refuting that Black Curtain. I have yet to see any Proof that the Black Curtain is hiding Oswald.

No, you're quite right. Whatever would have made them want to doctor the frames, it certainly wouldn't have been Mr Oswald's presence in the front entranceway. They would have been perfectly happy to let the world see that.

Hmmm...

Alternative Explanation for the Black Curtain:

Mr Lovelady was holding up an umbrella in protest at JFK's father's support for appeasement. He felt very embarrassed about this afterwards, and got LBJ to pull some strings with the TV people!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 28, 2019, 07:56:01 PM
No, you're quite right. Whatever would have made them want to doctor the frames, it certainly wouldn't have been Mr Oswald's presence in the front entranceway. They would have been perfectly happy to let the world see that.

Hmmm...

Alternative Explanation for the Black Curtain:

Mr Lovelady was holding up an umbrella in protest at JFK's father's support for appeasement. He felt very embarrassed about this afterwards, and got LBJ to pull some strings with the TV people!  Thumb1:

      Thus far, the only Evidence YOU have proffered as to Oswald being behind that Jet Black Curtain is The Hosty Notes documenting Oswald claiming to have been watching the "P. Parade". Do you think that Booth admitted to being inside Ford's Theater when Lincoln was shot?  Oswald is lamely offering the "I didn't do it" defense. This is Proof of Nothing and Not remotely compelling.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 08:00:27 PM
      Thus far, the only Evidence YOU have proffered as to Oswald being behind that Jet Black Curtain is The Hosty Notes documenting Oswald claiming to have been watching the "P. Parade". Do you think that Booth admitted to being inside Ford's Theater when Lincoln was shot?  Oswald is lamely offering the "I didn't do it" defense. This is Proof of Nothing and Not remotely compelling.

And yet you can't come up with a credible alternative explanation for why there would be a black curtain down Mr Lovelady in all the Wiegman frames. Keep working on it, Mr Storing, you'll get there!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 28, 2019, 08:07:52 PM
And yet you can't come up with a credible alternative explanation for why there would be a black curtain down Mr Lovelady in all the Wiegman frames. Keep working on it, Mr Storing, you'll get there!  Thumb1:

      Based on your alleged "Proof", for openers I could claim: (1) David Ferrie or (2) the LBJ Hit Man whose fingerprint was allegedly found on a box in the snipers nest.  The possibilities using the Low Bar you are employing are extensive.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on October 28, 2019, 08:28:20 PM
    Hilarious. You are getting hammered in Stereo on 2 threads simultaneously. When do we get the Mytton Mosaic or another one of your cartoon visual aids that proves nothing and mirrors a Woody Woodpecker short between the A and B movies?

Quote
Hilarious.

After all these years, it's nice to finally see you smile.

Quote
You are getting hammered in Stereo on 2 threads simultaneously.

Only 2, I'm not doing my job properly, I must try harder!

Quote
When do we get the Mytton Mosaic or another one of your cartoon visual aids that proves nothing and mirrors a Woody Woodpecker short between the A and B movies?

Bad example, Woody Woodpecker is a classic.


JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 09:05:03 PM
      Based on your alleged "Proof", for openers I could claim: (1) David Ferrie or (2) the LBJ Hit Man whose fingerprint was allegedly found on a box in the snipers nest.  The possibilities using the Low Bar you are employing are extensive.

Silly points of comparison  ::)

We can do better!

If a Magic Dark Shadow were in the SN window in the Hughes film, then the logical inference would be that something was being hidden from the public, and the logical inference as to what was being hidden would be-------a party other than Mr Oswald. For if Mr Oswald had been there, the shadow wouldn't have been needed.

Same goes here:

There is a Magic Dark Shadow down one of the people in the entranceway in the Wiegman film --->  the logical inference is that something in the near vicinity of that person is being hidden from the public --> and the logical inference as to what is being hidden is-------the one person who shouldn't (according to the official story) be there, a.k.a. Mr Oswald. For if someone other than Mr Oswald were there, the shadow wouldn't have been needed.

Not difficult, Mr Storing! You're only making this difficult because you dogmatically have ruled out in advance any solution to this case that involves Mr Oswald being out front--------------which, let me remind you, is where Mr Oswald himself claimed to have been. Your approach is hopelessly biased, irrational and unobjective.

Mr Oswald doesn't need your permission to be here!:

(https://i.imgur.com/9uQpCUV.jpg)

But do let us know when you can offer a credible alternative explanation for what you call the Black Curtain. Its existence is the one thing you've got right so far! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 09:09:05 PM
After all these years, it's nice to finally see you smile.

Only 2, I'm not doing my job properly, I must try harder!

Bad example, Woody Woodpecker is a classic.


JohnM

"I, Mr. John Mytton, can easily explain the dark shadow down Mr Billy Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film. It is obviously due to ___________________________________"
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 28, 2019, 09:23:47 PM
Silly points of comparison  ::)

We can do better!

If a Magic Dark Shadow were in the SN window in the Hughes film, then the logical inference would be that something was being hidden from the public, and the logical inference as to what was being hidden would be-------a party other than Mr Oswald. For if Mr Oswald had been there, the shadow wouldn't have been needed.

Same goes here:

There is a Magic Dark Shadow down one of the people in the entranceway in the Wiegman film --->  the logical inference is that something in the near vicinity of that person is being hidden from the public --> and the logical inference as to what is being hidden is-------the one person who shouldn't (according to the official story) be there, a.k.a. Mr Oswald. For if someone other than Mr Oswald were there, the shadow wouldn't have been needed.

Not difficult, Mr Storing! You're only making this difficult because you dogmatically have ruled out in advance any solution to this case that involves Mr Oswald being out front--------------which, let me remind you, is where Mr Oswald himself claimed to have been. Your approach is hopelessly biased, irrational and unobjective.

Mr Oswald doesn't need your permission to be here!:

(https://i.imgur.com/9uQpCUV.jpg)

But do let us know when you can offer a credible alternative explanation for what you call the Black Curtain. Its existence is the one thing you've got right so far! Thumb1:

   I am Not ruling anything/anybody out. Simply asking for Evidence/Proof. And please stick to the Facts. According to the Hosty Notes, Oswald said he went "Outside". NOT, Out Front as You claim above. BIG difference between the 2.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 10:55:08 PM
   I am Not ruling anything/anybody out.

Really? So you accept that Mr Oswald may indeed have been in the front entranceway at the time of the assassination? I ask because you have poo-pooed the very notion in the past! 

Quote
Simply asking for Evidence/Proof.

I've already given evidence, and no one has been able to lay a finger on it.

What, out of interest, would qualify as proof in your book that this is Mr Oswald behind Mr Lovelady?

Quote
And please stick to the Facts. According to the Hosty Notes, Oswald said he went "Outside". NOT, Out Front as You claim above. BIG difference between the 2.

Yes, you're quite right: "Then went outside to watch P. parade."

And the following indicates that Mr Oswald did not mean out in the street:

"Mr OSWALD: I work in that building.
REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
Mr OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

Only one place fits: the enclosed front entranceway. Which is where the magic shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side is. Which in turn is where the second 'Lovelady' head is.

It's Mr Oswald, whether you like it or not.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on October 28, 2019, 10:55:34 PM
After all these years, it's nice to finally see you smile.

Only 2, I'm not doing my job properly, I must try harder!

Bad example, Woody Woodpecker is a classic.


JohnM

John M Trusted photo expert and now a long history,
let me guess,
working for Warner Brothers, Universal, and probably for Walt Disney as a top animation consultant.
It explains the typical cheesy photos you display.
All fantasy but that is your reality, such a clown
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 12:00:48 AM
Really? So you accept that Mr Oswald may indeed have been in the front entranceway at the time of the assassination? I ask because you have poo-pooed the very notion in the past! 

I've already given evidence, and no one has been able to lay a finger on it.

What, out of interest, would qualify as proof in your book that this is Mr Oswald behind Mr Lovelady?

Yes, you're quite right: "Then went outside to watch P. parade."

And the following indicates that Mr Oswald did not mean out in the street:

"Mr OSWALD: I work in that building.
REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
Mr OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

Only one place fits: the enclosed front entranceway. Which is where the magic shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side is. Which in turn is where the second 'Lovelady' head is.

It's Mr Oswald, whether you like it or not.

 Thumb1:

     My position has always been I need Proof that Oswald is behind Lovelady. Never said his allegedly being in that position was impossible. You just knee jerked. The issue I can Not get around is Buell Frazier was almost close enough to touch Oswald on the steps, yet Frazier has Never said he saw Oswald standing there. And Frazier is still alive. Frazier could clear this up very easily. Regarding your claiming that only 1 physical position fits Oswald's "I work in the building"...... etc, etc, Yeah, it fits IF Oswald is telling the Truth. You are cavalierly accepting his story as being True. Oswald's history of telling Porky Pies is vast including his carrying a Phony ID when he was arrested.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on October 29, 2019, 12:09:47 AM
John M Trusted photo expert

Thanks, mate!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Rick Plant on October 29, 2019, 02:17:18 AM
When carefully viewing early WiegmanFilm frames, the shadow image line on BillyLovelady/Image's right side appears not straight vertically. That to me indicates shadow line variation relative to Image angle, as well as camera height, angle, and distance. Just an observation, and no science involved.

http://quaneeri.blogspot.com/2017/09/wiegman-gif.html

You're saying the shadow line is from the camera height?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on October 29, 2019, 02:56:06 AM
WOW, another member associates my name with my graphics, keep em coming!

(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-there-s-no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity-p-t-barnum-76-11-96.jpg)

JohnM
Your first authentic photo
That would be one in a row

You are roughly 1 for 33  not a good batting average 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 29, 2019, 03:46:35 AM
Sure wish that Buell W.Frazier could narrow the 5 to 10 minutes down to maybe something closer to one or the other cause 10 minutes post shooting sighting of Oswald would make it very improbable for Oswald to have boarded McWatters bus, 7 blocks away, at 12:40  ??? in fact, pretty close to impossible

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 04:20:24 AM
Sure wish that Buell W.Frazier could narrow the 5 to 10 minutes down to maybe something closer to one or the other cause 10 minutes post shooting sighting of Oswald would make it very improbable for Oswald to have boarded McWatters bus, 7 blocks away, at 12:40  ??? in fact, pretty close to impossible

     Frazier needs to be asked if he saw Oswald outside the TSBD when the JFK Limo/Motorcade went by.  If Oswald was on the TSBD landing or steps, Frazier would have seen him from his high ground position on the steps. Getting into the timing/distance of the bus is not necessary.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 29, 2019, 04:33:06 AM
     Frazier needs to be asked if he saw Oswald outside the TSBD when the JFK Limo/Motorcade went by.  If Oswald was on the TSBD landing or steps, Frazier would have seen him from his high ground position on the steps.

Not if Oswald was behind him.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 09:50:46 AM
     My position has always been I need Proof that Oswald is behind Lovelady. Never said his allegedly being in that position was impossible. You just knee jerked. The issue I can Not get around is Buell Frazier was almost close enough to touch Oswald on the steps, yet Frazier has Never said he saw Oswald standing there. And Frazier is still alive. Frazier could clear this up very easily.

And if he did, you'd immediately dismiss it because----------as you have repeatedly made clear-----------you consider him an utterly unreliable witness. Heads I win, tails you lose logic!

We've been here before, you see. For years the mantra was that no one in their right mind would suggest that Mr Oswald was out front for the P. parade because he never made any such claim. Then material proof that he did make that very claim emerged, and what was the reaction? 'P. parade doesn't meant Presidential parade'; 'P. parade means the part of the parade that passed after JKF was shot (!)'; 'This is an important find because it shows there might be other new evidence in Grandma's attic'; etc. The basic position is 'There are no circumstances under which we will consider the possibility that LHO was on those steps'. And you have demonstrated that to be your own basic position.

Quote
Regarding your claiming that only 1 physical position fits Oswald's "I work in the building"...... etc, etc, Yeah, it fits IF Oswald is telling the Truth. You are cavalierly accepting his story as being True. Oswald's history of telling Porky Pies is vast including his carrying a Phony ID when he was arrested.

If there were no credible evidence of Mr Oswald's presence in the front entranceway, I would be happy to conclude that he was lying about having gone "outside to watch P. parade"!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
And if he did, you'd immediately dismiss it because----------as you have repeatedly made clear-----------you consider him an utterly unreliable witness. Heads I win, tails you lose logic!

We've been here before, you see. For years the mantra was that no one in their right mind would suggest that Mr Oswald was out front for the P. parade because he never made any such claim. Then material proof that he did make that very claim emerged, and what was the reaction? 'P. parade doesn't meant Presidential parade'; 'P. parade means the part of the parade that passed after JKF was shot (!)'; 'This is an important find because it shows there might be other new evidence in Grandma's attic'; etc. The basic position is 'There are no circumstances under which we will consider the possibility that LHO was on those steps'. And you have demonstrated that to be your own basic position.

If there were no credible evidence of Mr Oswald's presence in the front entranceway, I would be happy to conclude that he was lying about having gone "outside to watch P. parade"!  Thumb1:

   The Hosty Notes, Altgens Photo, + the Black Curtain, would have me believing Frazier if he said he did see Oswald during the JFK Motorcade time period. For 55+ years Frazier has said absolutely nothing about seeing Oswald during this time period. This makes me believe if asked Frazier will Not verify having seen Oswald. That said, Frazier needs to be asked.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 29, 2019, 06:42:22 PM
Sure wish that Buell W.Frazier could narrow the 5 to 10 minutes down to maybe something closer to one or the other cause 10 minutes post shooting sighting of Oswald would make it very improbable for Oswald to have boarded McWatters bus, 7 blocks away, at 12:40  ??? in fact, pretty close to impossible

     Frazier needs to be asked if he saw Oswald outside the TSBD when the JFK Limo/Motorcade went by.  If Oswald was on the TSBD landing or steps, Frazier would have seen him from his high ground position on the steps. Getting into the timing/distance of the bus is not necessary.


Not if Oswald was behind him.

For clarfication, is JohnIacoletti's posted reply meant to indicate that during the Motorcade passing the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, as the Limousine occupied by JohnKennedySr and JacquelineKennedy, as well as JohnConnallyJr and IdanellConnally, driven by SSA WilliamGreer and co-driven by SSA RoyKellerman had just passed the building entrance and was fired at by a sniper, the soon to be most famous accused LoneGunmanAssassin in history, LeeHarveyOswald, was actually standing on the top step/landing behind BuellFrazier, yet went unnoticed? By anyone, including BuellFrazier, with whom he rode to work with that very morning? On the landing that measures, reportedly, IIRC, approximately 3.75 feet from the stairs to the doorway entrance?
Edit-spelling correction.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 08:06:27 PM
   The Hosty Notes, Altgens Photo, + the Black Curtain, would have me believing Frazier if he said he did see Oswald during the JFK Motorcade time period. For 55+ years Frazier has said absolutely nothing about seeing Oswald during this time period. This makes me believe if asked Frazier will Not verify having seen Oswald. That said, Frazier needs to be asked.

Who do you think you're kidding, Mr Storing?

“Let's face it. Frazier is Not a reliable witness. 40 years after the fact Frazier suddenly recalls seeing Oswald walking up Houston St immediately after the assassination? And likewise 40-50 years later Frazier recalls coming close to going toe-to-toe with Fritz on the night of 11/22/63? These most recent Porky Pies coming from Frazier should be put back in the oven. They are Half Baked.”
- Mr. Royell Storing, JFK Assassination Forum, 7 October 2019, 10:27:38 PM


“Any position/belief supported via the ever changing  BS: distributed by Frazier = an immediate Disqualifier.  People for whatever reason shy away from pointing out the obvious. In "63" Frazier would have been called "Off", while today he would be labeled a "Train Wreck". Trust your own Baby Blues along with the Common Sense your parents bestowed upon you.”
- Mr. Royell Storing, JFK Assassination Forum, 11 October 2019, 08:25:30 PM




Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 08:22:08 PM
Who do you think you're kidding, Mr Storing?

“Let's face it. Frazier is Not a reliable witness. 40 years after the fact Frazier suddenly recalls seeing Oswald walking up Houston St immediately after the assassination? And likewise 40-50 years later Frazier recalls coming close to going toe-to-toe with Fritz on the night of 11/22/63? These most recent Porky Pies coming from Frazier should be put back in the oven. They are Half Baked.”
- Mr. Royell Storing, JFK Assassination Forum, 7 October 2019, 10:27:38 PM


“Any position/belief supported via the ever changing  BS: distributed by Frazier = an immediate Disqualifier.  People for whatever reason shy away from pointing out the obvious. In "63" Frazier would have been called "Off", while today he would be labeled a "Train Wreck". Trust your own Baby Blues along with the Common Sense your parents bestowed upon you.”
- Mr. Royell Storing, JFK Assassination Forum, 11 October 2019, 08:25:30 PM


      The supporting evidence I mentioned above would support a possible Frazier confirmation of Oswald being in front of the TSBD when the JFK Limo passed by. Sounds like You are afraid of what Frazier would say. Your fear is justified. The Black Curtain is worthy of discussion. Your wanting to place Oswald behind this Black Curtain has No merit. In fact, grouping Oswald with the Curtain damages the credibility of your Black Curtain.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 08:25:33 PM
      The supporting evidence I mentioned above would support a possible Frazier confirmation of Oswald being in front of the TSBD when the JFK Limo passed by. Sounds like You are afraid of what Frazier would say. Your fear is justified. The Black Curtain is worthy of discussion. Your wanting to place Oswald behind this Black Curtain has No merit. In fact, grouping Oswald with the Curtain damages the credibility of your Black Curtain.

 :D

Mr Royell Storing A: Any position/belief supported via the ever changing  BS: distributed by Frazier = an immediate Disqualifier.

Mr Royell Storing B: Your theory has no merit because Frazier doesn't confirm it.

Have the Courage and Character to Stand Alone, Mr Storing. There ain't room for two of you here!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 08:37:24 PM
:D

Mr Royell Storing A: Any position/belief supported via the ever changing  BS: distributed by Frazier = an immediate Disqualifier.

Mr Royell Storing B: Your theory has no merit because Frazier doesn't confirm it.

Have the Courage and Character to Stand Alone, Mr Storing. There ain't room for two of you here!

     You can Not get around the Fact that Not 1 single Eyewitness standing in front of the TSBD has EVER said they saw Oswald there when the JFK Limo went by. Not One. Plus, Not 1 single Image shows Oswald to be in that position. Not One. The ONLY thing putting Oswald in that position is Oswald himself via the Hosty Notes.  You do see how ridiculous your position is?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 08:56:26 PM
     You can Not get around the Fact that Not 1 single Eyewitness standing in front of the TSBD has EVER said they saw Oswald there when the JFK Limo went by. Not One. Plus, Not 1 single Image shows Oswald to be in that position. Not One. The ONLY thing putting Oswald in that position is Oswald himself via the Hosty Notes.  You do see how ridiculous your position is?

 :D

Did you go out for a beer with Mr Frazier at some point after 11 October, Mr Storing, and did he charm the cotton socks off you? Something must have happened to make you do this preposterous 180...

Mr Royell Storing A: Any position/belief supported via the ever changing  BS: distributed by Frazier = an immediate Disqualifier.

Mr Royell Storing B: I will consider your theory to have no merit until Frazier confirms it.

Stop making a clown of yourself!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on October 29, 2019, 09:20:48 PM
     You can Not get around the Fact that Not 1 single Eyewitness standing in front of the TSBD has EVER said they saw Oswald there when the JFK Limo went by. Not One. Plus, Not 1 single Image shows Oswald to be in that position. Not One. The ONLY thing putting Oswald in that position is Oswald himself via the Hosty Notes.  You do see how ridiculous your position is?
According to the notes taken by Fritz/others... indicates that Oswald just might have gone out "eating lunch in front with Shelley" as stated.
How would he know that for some reason he needed to say this? Also...understand that no one was going to stick up for the communist...no one.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 09:43:48 PM
According to the notes taken by Fritz/others... indicates that Oswald just might have gone out "eating lunch in front with Shelley" as stated.
How would he know that for some reason he needed to say this? Also...understand that no one was going to stick up for the communist...no one.

 Thumb1:

And if the communist should happen to show up on film in the wrong place, this will happen:

(https://i.imgur.com/4jbf36Q.jpg)

Still waiting for those who argue that this magic shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side has nothing to do with Mr Oswald's presence to present a counter-explanation.*

*Please note: Counter-explanations that break the laws of physics will not be considered!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 09:49:49 PM

  Any relevant living eyewitness should be questioned when New Evidence such as the Hosty Notes is discovered. Anyone running away from this is Not serious about uncovering the truth.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 09:58:37 PM
  Any relevant living eyewitness should be questioned when New Evidence such as the Hosty Notes is discovered. Anyone running away from this is Not serious about uncovering the truth.

But you repeatedly said-------------long after the Hosty Notes were discovered--------------that there was no point in listening to anything Mr Frazier had to say as he was a BS-merchant. Now, when you can't explain away the evidence I am presenting for Mr Oswald out front, Mr Frazier is suddenly promoted by you to The Key Witness Who Needs To Be Questioned!  :D

You have destroyed your own credibility here, Mr Storing. Your constant, and shameless, moving of the goalposts makes it clear: there are no circumstances under which you would ever accept that Mr Oswald was out front. On this issue at least, your logic is LNer logic--------i.e. no logic at all!

Most curious behavior...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 10:16:15 PM
But you repeatedly said-------------long after the Hosty Notes were discovered--------------that there was no point in listening to anything Mr Frazier had to say as he was a BS-merchant. Now, when you can't explain away the evidence I am presenting for Mr Oswald out front, Mr Frazier is suddenly promoted by you to The Key Witness Who Needs To Be Questioned!  :D

You have destroyed your own credibility here, Mr Storing. Your constant, and shameless, moving of the goalposts makes it clear: there are no circumstances under which you would ever accept that Mr Oswald was out front. On this issue at least, your logic is LNer logic--------i.e. no logic at all!

Most curious behavior...

         You should at least be willing to listen to what one of the few living eyewitnesses has to say. You can discount or approve Frazier's story after hearing it. You have done some very good research. Your Now running away from a living eyewitnesses stains that fine work.  Instead of exploring every possible avenue of information, You choose to stick your fingers in your ears. This not only looks dumb but it also reveals your motivation is Not Truth based. Sad. Very Sad
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 10:21:51 PM
         You should at least be willing to listen to what one of the few living eyewitnesses has to say. You can discount or approve Frazier's story after hearing it. You have done some very good research. Your Now running away from a living eyewitnesses stains that fine work.  Instead of exploring every possible avenue of information, You choose to stick your fingers in your ears. This not only looks dumb but it also reveals your motivation is Not Truth based. Sad. Very Sad

Less than a month ago, you wrote: "Frazier is Not a reliable witness."

Is this still your view, Mr Storing?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 10:26:46 PM
Less than a month ago, you wrote: "Frazier is Not a reliable witness."

Is this still your view, Mr Storing?

    I want to hear what Frazier has to say regarding Oswald allegedly being in front of the TSBD when the JFK Limo came by. I would decide his credibility on This subject at that point in time. Who knows, maybe he will claim a living eyewitness will corroborate whatever he has to say? No harm can come from simply listening to what Frazier has to say. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 10:31:35 PM
    I want to hear what Frazier has to say regarding Oswald allegedly being in front of the TSBD when the JFK Limo came by. I would decide his credibility on This subject at that point in time. Who knows, maybe he will claim a living eyewitness will corroborate whatever he has to say? No harm can come from simply listening to what Frazier has to say.

 :D

So you no longer stand by your categorical assertion that "Frazier is not a reliable witness". He's an unreliable witness, except for those times when you need him to be a reliable one. Got it!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 10:38:29 PM
:D

So you no longer stand by your categorical assertion that "Frazier is not a reliable witness". He's an unreliable witness, except for those times when you need him to be a reliable one. Got it!  Thumb1:

     A jail house snitch is also an unreliable witness. This does Not mean a jury should Not hear whatever he/she has to say. Jurors can decide the credibility of the witness as they see/hear the testimony. Same with Frazier. Your flat-out refusing to hear what Frazier has to say kinda sounds like our Justice Dept refusing to transfer Jack Ruby out of Dallas so he could tell his full story. "Ignorance is bliss" does not become You.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 10:41:43 PM
     A jail house snitch is also an unreliable witness. This does Not mean a jury should Not hear whatever he/she has to say. Jurors can decide the credibility of the witness as they see/hear the testimony. Same with Frazier. Your flat-out refusing to hear what Frazier has to say kinda sounds like our Justice Dept refusing to transfer Jack Ruby out of Dallas so he could tell his full story. "Ignorance is bliss" does not become You.

Thanks for clarifying, Mr Storing!

I now understand your considered position vis-a-vis Mr Frazier:

Any position/belief supported via the ever changing  BS: distributed by Frazier = an immediate Disqualifier. That's why there's no harm in listening to what he has to say.

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 29, 2019, 11:15:57 PM




For clarfication, is JohnIacolette's posted reply meant to indicate that during the Motorcade passing the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, as the Limousine occupied by JohnKennedySr and JacquelineKennedy, as well as JohnConnallyJr and IdanellConnally, driven by SSA WilliamGreer and co-driven by SSA RoyKellerman had just passed the building entrance and was fired at by a sniper, the soon to be most famous accused LoneGunmanAssassin in history, LeeHarveyOswald, was actually standing on the top step/landing behind BuellFrazier, yet went unnoticed? By anyone, including BuellFrazier, with whom he rode to work with that very morning? On the landing that measures, reportedly, IIRC, approximately 3.75 feet from the stairs to the doorway entrance?

Is English your first language?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 31, 2019, 03:25:16 AM
Friends, here's Mr Bill Shelley on the afternoon of 11/22/63:

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxKK3O.gif)

In the left-hand footage, look at
------------his short sleeves
------------what he's holding.

I think Mr Shelley is PrayerMan in the Wiegman film and is
-------------in those same short sleeves
-------------drinking from a disposable white coffee cup just like that...

(https://i.imgur.com/wRWtc2F.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 31, 2019, 03:40:29 AM
By the time of Darnell, Mr Shelley (a.k.a. PrayerManInWiegman) has left the steps and had his encounter with Ms Gloria Calvery out at what he will call the 'corner' of the park.

This might even be his discarded cup (note proximity to corner of park)!

(https://i.imgur.com/pdhBUKb.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 31, 2019, 02:55:42 PM
Friends, here's Mr Bill Shelley on the afternoon of 11/22/63:

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxKK3O.gif)

In the left-hand footage, look at
------------his short sleeves
------------what he's holding.

I think Mr Shelley is PrayerMan in the Wiegman film and is
-------------in those same short sleeves
-------------drinking from a disposable white coffee cup just like that...

(https://i.imgur.com/wRWtc2F.gif)

 Thumb1:

     With regard to the coffee pouring scene, Do you know: (1) Shelly's location? and (2) Who filmed it?  Just curious as I am seeing Steam or Fog drifting Down. The temp in Dallas/Dealey Plaza following the assassination was well above this possibly being someone's breath/exhale that afternoon. I also rule out cigarette smoke as I see No One in that general direction. The coffee scene may have Not been filmed on 11/22/63. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 31, 2019, 04:11:24 PM
Friends, here's Mr Bill Shelley on the afternoon of 11/22/63:

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxKK3O.gif)

In the left-hand footage, look at
------------his short sleeves
------------what he's holding.

I think Mr Shelley is PrayerMan in the Wiegman film and is
-------------in those same short sleeves
-------------drinking from a disposable white coffee cup just like that...

(https://i.imgur.com/wRWtc2F.gif)

 Thumb1:

Prayerblobs shirt is DARK. Shelleys shirt is WHITE..  ::)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 31, 2019, 06:29:18 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ZvgVRGFNUdKRW/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 31, 2019, 07:15:20 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ZvgVRGFNUdKRW/giphy.gif)

 :D ROFLMAO

that could be ANY of us after reading the WC report  :)

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 31, 2019, 10:58:13 PM
     With regard to the coffee pouring scene, Do you know: (1) Shelly's location? and (2) Who filmed it?  Just curious as I am seeing Steam or Fog drifting Down. The temp in Dallas/Dealey Plaza following the assassination was well above this possibly being someone's breath/exhale that afternoon. I also rule out cigarette smoke as I see No One in that general direction. The coffee scene may have Not been filmed on 11/22/63.

"Fog drifting down"...  :D

This is filmed at the Depository front entrance on the afternoon of the assassination.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 31, 2019, 10:58:52 PM
Prayerblobs shirt is DARK. Shelleys shirt is WHITE..  ::)

And you know this how?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 31, 2019, 11:37:20 PM
"Fog drifting down"...  :D

This is filmed at the Depository front entrance on the afternoon of the assassination.

     (1) What is your source documenting the snippet being inside the TSBD on 11/22/63?  (2) Do you Know who filmed it?    This TSBD Open House mere hours after the assassination seems very strange.  It is documented that the TSBD was sealed off with cameramen having to throw their film out of  TSBD windows due to Not being able to be readmitted to the building. Plus, the entire TSBD is a Crime Scene. I am interested in Who filmed that snippet as there may be more footage inside that 1st floor and maybe even more footage filmed elsewhere inside the building. Who knows, if this is 11/22/63 footage inside the TSBD, maybe it is Lost Alyea footage? Also, what is your guess for that fog/smoke we are seeing wafting downward?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 12:19:50 AM
    This TSBD Open House mere hours after the assassination seems very strange.

Hello, Question Man! Why on earth do you describe the scene on the left as "TSBD Open House"?

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxKK3O.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 12:49:03 AM
Hello, Question Man! Why on earth do you describe the scene on the left as "TSBD Open House"?

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxKK3O.gif)

    Well, we have a line strewn out the door and someone pouring coffee to a group standing around him with cups outstretched. It's either a TSBD Open House or a LBJ For President Coffee Hour. Now, how about answering my questions?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 01:03:18 AM
    Well, we have a line strewn out the door and someone pouring coffee to a group standing around him with cups outstretched. It's either a TSBD Open House or a LBJ For President Coffee Hour. Now, how about answering my questions?

A "line strewn out the door"? :D

Who do you actually think we're seeing in this film clip, Mr Storing, apart from Mr Shelley?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 01:48:24 AM
A "line strewn out the door"? :D

Who do you actually think we're seeing in this film clip, Mr Storing, apart from Mr Shelley?

    You posted the film snippet. You tell me what we are looking at. Or is it possible You have absolutely No Idea as to the When, Where, or Who filmed this? 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 09:23:46 AM
    You posted the film snippet. You tell me what we are looking at. Or is it possible You have absolutely No Idea as to the When, Where, or Who filmed this?

 :D

I've already told you what we're looking at, Mr Storing------------Mr Bill Shelley just inside the Depository front entrance on the afternoon of 11/22/63!

Your desire for it not to be that is leading you to throw bizarre 'observations' at it ("fog drifting down", "TSBD Open House", "line strewn out the door") in the hope that some alternative possibility might stick. Next you'll be wondering about the coffee that's being poured. ('How do you Know it's coffee? Maybe it's boiled Coca Cola.')

Who, apart from Mr Shelley, do you think we are seeing in this footage? Members of the general public?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 10:21:29 AM
   Unless the current time stamp for an Image is  BS:.  Both Shelley and Lovelady gave WC testimony as to being at that island for roughly 3 minutes.

And both Mr Shelley and Mr Lovelady were lying.

Maybe we should ask your new favorite witness Mr Frazier about this?  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 04:18:36 PM
:D

I've already told you what we're looking at, Mr Storing------------Mr Bill Shelley just inside the Depository front entrance on the afternoon of 11/22/63!

Your desire for it not to be that is leading you to throw bizarre 'observations' at it ("fog drifting down", "TSBD Open House", "line strewn out the door") in the hope that some alternative possibility might stick. Next you'll be wondering about the coffee that's being poured. ('How do you Know it's coffee? Maybe it's boiled Coca Cola.')

Who, apart from Mr Shelley, do you think we are seeing in this footage? Members of the general public?

     I asked You for a Source as to Your claimed Date of this film footage. YOU gave None. I asked You who filmed this footage, again You came up empty.  Fact is, YOU have No corroboration as to YOU Claiming this was filmed on 11/22/63. Once again, You are trying to pass off your Opinion as being a Fact.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 04:37:19 PM
The guy with 560 falsehoods and fabrications has no business calling anyone else a liar.

     This is what they do. Any eyewitness giving sworn testimony which contradicts their Theory is automatically branded a liar and "in on it".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 07:01:10 PM
     This is what they do. Any eyewitness giving sworn testimony which contradicts their Theory is automatically branded a liar and "in on it".

"I ran across the street to the corner of the park. I ran into a girl crying & she said the President had been shot. This girl's name is Gloria Calvery" (Mr Bill Shelley, 11/22/63)

"Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said 'The President has been shot' and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute" (Mr Bill Shelley, WC testimony 4/7/64)

Mr Shelley is nearly as bad as Mr Storing at keeping his story straight!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 08:44:46 PM
Now! The questions we must ask are:

1. Why did Mr Shelley pretend to have stayed on those steps for much longer than he had?

2. Why did Messrs Shelley & Lovelady both pretend they had both looked back and seen Officer Baker and Mr Truly on their way into the building 3-4 minutes (ii) after the last shot?

These wild time overestimations can't have been in order to discredit Ms Vicki Adams, because Mr Shelley and Mr Lovelady could have much more easily added phoney time to their railroad excursion.

Was it related instead to this little revelation in Mr James Jarman's HSCA interview?:

"There was a Billy Lovelady standing on the steps.... Oswald was coming out the door and Lovelady said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building.  Lovelady said that Mr. Truly told the policeman that Oswald was alright...."

Remember, remember--------------Mr Oswald was just behind Mr Lovelady when the shots were fired, therefore we can't assume that either Mr Lovelady or Mr Shelley had noticed him during the shooting!

(https://i.imgur.com/FqRhnii.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 08:52:35 PM
Now! The questions we must ask are:

1. Why did Mr Shelley pretend to have stayed on those steps for much longer than he had?

2. Why did Messrs Shelley & Lovelady both pretend they had both looked back and seen Officer Baker and Mr Truly on their way into the building 3-4 minutes (ii) after the last shot?

These wild time overestimations can't have been in order to discredit Ms Vicki Adams, because Mr Shelley and Mr Lovelady could have much more easily added phoney time to their railroad excursion.

Was it related instead to this little revelation in Mr James Jarman's HSCA interview?:

"There was a Billy Lovelady standing on the steps.... Oswald was coming out the door and Lovelady said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building.  Lovelady said that Mr. Truly told the policeman that Oswald was alright...."

Remember, remember--------------Mr Oswald was just behind Mr Lovelady when the shots were fired, therefore we can't assume that either Mr Lovelady or Mr Shelley had noticed him during the shooting!

(https://i.imgur.com/FqRhnii.jpg)

 Thumb1:

    Well, if they are discrediting Vicki Adams, they are also discrediting the Baker and Truly time line. What You Fail to realize is that the longer it takes Baker/Truly to get inside the TSBD and reach the 2nd Floor lunchroom, the more time Oswald would have to go from the landing Outside the TSBD to that same 2nd floor lunchroom where he would then encounter Baker/Truly.  Your Theory is being aided by the Lovelady/Shelley roughly 3 minute time line.  Wake Up
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 02, 2019, 12:02:30 AM
Friends, here's Mr Bill Shelley on the afternoon of 11/22/63:

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxKK3O.gif)

In the left-hand footage, look at
------------his short sleeves
------------what he's holding.

I think Mr Shelley is PrayerMan in the Wiegman film and is
-------------in those same short sleeves
-------------drinking from a disposable white coffee cup just like that...

(https://i.imgur.com/wRWtc2F.gif)

 Thumb1:


in the left side of your GIF clip is that not Shelley in the white shirt?

It certaintly is NOT a DARK shirt anywhere close to matching Prayerblobs shirt

And if you say that Shelley had on a dark suit and a tie. Dont see any black tie on Prayerblob and Prayerblob has the dark sleeves rolled up which its extremely doubtful to me that Shelley in a suit would roll up his suit sleeves  :-\
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 02, 2019, 12:37:20 AM

in the left side of your GIF clip is that not Shelley in the white shirt?

It certaintly is NOT a DARK shirt anywhere close to matching Prayerblobs shirt

And if you say that Shelley had on a dark suit and a tie. Dont see any black tie on Prayerblob and Prayerblob has the dark sleeves rolled up which its extremely doubtful to me that Shelley in a suit would roll up his suit sleeves  :-\

    Ford is unable to Verify: (1)  DATE of the Coffee Footage, (2) LOCATION of the Coffee Footage, and (3) WHO filmed the Coffee Footage. Until this is resolved, attempting to tie it to Shelley images captured on 11/22/63 is pointless.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 03:19:22 AM
    Well, if they are discrediting Vicki Adams, they are also discrediting the Baker and Truly time line. What You Fail to realize is that the longer it takes Baker/Truly to get inside the TSBD and reach the 2nd Floor lunchroom (~~~)

What you're failing to realize is that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter in the second floor lunchroom never happened. You haven't a clue (or: are pretending, true to form, not to have one)!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 03:26:28 AM

in the left side of your GIF clip is that not Shelley in the white shirt?

It certaintly is NOT a DARK shirt anywhere close to matching Prayerblobs shirt

And if you say that Shelley had on a dark suit and a tie. Dont see any black tie on Prayerblob and Prayerblob has the dark sleeves rolled up which its extremely doubtful to me that Shelley in a suit would roll up his suit sleeves  :-\

Ah, I see the source of your 'confusion', Mr Mason
---------------you are pretending that I am equating PrayerManInWiegman with PrayerManInDarnell.

Your studied obtuseness is fooling nobody!

Show us how you know that PrayerManInWiegman is not wearing a black tie!

And that Mr Shelley was wearing his suit jacket at 12:30pm that day!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tim Nickerson on November 02, 2019, 04:16:22 AM
What you're failing to realize is that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter in the second floor lunchroom never happened.

 ???  Hi Alan. How are you doing? I see that you haven't been avoiding them mushrooms.. Good for you.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 04:30:50 AM
???  Hi Alan. How are you doing? I see that you haven't been avoiding them mushrooms.. Good for you.

Hello, Mr Nickerson!

Can you explain the dark shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film?

(https://i.imgur.com/EmOdPeE.jpg)

No one else can!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tim Nickerson on November 02, 2019, 04:35:25 AM
Hello, Mr Nickerson!

Can you explain the dark shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film?

(https://i.imgur.com/EmOdPeE.jpg)

No one else can!

 Thumb1:
Hi Al.

Can I call you Al? The image is too blurry to be able to say anything other then that.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 04:39:02 AM
Hi Al.

Can I call you Al? The image is too blurry to be able to say anything other then that.

 :D

So we can add Mr Nickerson to the long and ever-growing list of 'researchers' who can't explain the dark 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman.

Anyone else want a shot?  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tim Nickerson on November 02, 2019, 04:48:05 AM
Thank you.

You like me! You really like me! ;D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 04:52:51 AM
Thank you.

You like me! You really like me! ;D

Can anyone do better than poor Mr Nickerson?

Go Team Keep LHO Away From That Entranceway At All Costs!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
"I, ______________________, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

(https://i.imgur.com/ne7id58.jpg)

Anyone?  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 08:56:10 PM
Permit me to filter out irrelevant responses by rephrasing!

"I, ______________________, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, and having an adult understanding of how angles and shadows work, and being possessed of sound mind generally, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 05, 2019, 10:38:42 PM
It would speed matters along wonderfully, Mr Mason, if you took the trouble to read the things I write before expressing your 'confusion'!

Now! What I am arguing, very simply, is the following double premise:
1. Mr Oswald was just behind Mr Lovelady
2. The black 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's right side has been added artificially in order to hide this fact.

No, it couldn't. Any other suggestions?

So you ARE suggesting that the Wiegman film has been altered? They ADDED a black shadow to mask out Oswald?

And so if that person is Oswald then Prayeblob far removed to the left of where Billy Lovelady is at this point cannot be Oswald, correct?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 10:50:11 PM
So you ARE suggesting that the Wiegman film has been altered? They ADDED a black shadow to mask out Oswald?

And so if that person is Oswald then Prayeblob far removed to the left of where Billy Lovelady is at this point cannot be Oswald, correct?

The penny finally drops with Mr Mason. Hooray!!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 05, 2019, 11:04:48 PM
Well maybe I FINALLY understand what Alan is suggesting that the shadow was ADDED in some way to mask out Oswald just BEHIND? Lovelady?

Would that not put Oswald basically in FRONT of BW Frazier. In effect, Oswald would be BETWEEN Lovelady and BW Frazier, or so close to Frazier that  even Fuzzy memory Frazier could not have missed seeing Oswald?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 11:06:44 PM
Well maybe I FINALLY understand what Alan is suggesting that the shadow was ADDED in some way to mask out Oswald just BEHIND? Lovelady?

Would that not put Oswald basically in FRONT of BW Frazier. In effect, Oswald would be BETWEEN Lovelady and BW Frazier, or so close to Frazier that it would even Fuzzy memory Frazier could not have missed seeing Oswald?

Yes!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/pYcQdK4.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 11:43:11 PM
Now! I don't care whether people like my claim, accept it, or consider it unworthy of serious attention. Truth is not a popularity contest, nor is it to be determined by garrulous oddball fanatics who don't have a life!

I care only about one thing here:

Can someone-------be they LNer, CTer, or 'CTer'--------offer an alternative explanation, one grounded in logic rather than in fantasy and wishful thinking, for the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman?

To date, only one person has made any serious attempt in this direction, and that person was-----------me! I tried to find a way of putting a dark jacket or coat on Mr Lovelady. But it didn't work.

So! Can anyone rise to the challenge?

"I, ______________________, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

(https://i.imgur.com/ne7id58.jpg)

If you truly understand what is at stake here, then you will make it your business to defeat my confident claim that Mr Oswald's alibi was finally established on 21 October 2019! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 06, 2019, 02:44:39 AM
Yes!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/pYcQdK4.jpg)

so if the propostiion now is that Oswald is even CLOSER to BW Frazier, in fact right in front of him,f BW Frazier missing seeing Oswald is now even more questionable

If Prayerblob is Oswald then Oswald came out late at about 12:29 opening the door inward perhaps and he could sneak BEHIND everyone over to that corner. But he would have had to be very CLOSE to Sarah Stanton who is presumed to be WITH Pauline Sanders, unless Stanton has been identified BEYOND DOUBT as being lower in front of Sanders on the right side of the handrail on some lower step.

But how Oswald could move  from the corner,between BW Frazier and Billy Lovelady for just a brief few seconds then BACK to the corner again and then move AGAIN to the front door and into the Lobby aka "vestibule"? and this all be missed being seen and also not captured in Weigman or Couch/Darnell films..

 :-X
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 10:58:37 AM
so if the propostiion now is that Oswald is even CLOSER to BW Frazier, in fact right in front of him,f BW Frazier missing seeing Oswald is now even more questionable

Except I'm not claiming that Mr Frazier missed Mr Oswald. Try to keep up!

Quote
If Prayerblob is Oswald

Not in Wiegman, and my ID of Mr Oswald in Wiegman is not dependent on the PrayerManInDarnell issue. Try to keep up!

Quote
then Oswald came out late at about 12:29 opening the door inward perhaps and he could sneak BEHIND everyone over to that corner. But he would have had to be very CLOSE to Sarah Stanton who is presumed to be WITH Pauline Sanders, unless Stanton has been identified BEYOND DOUBT as being lower in front of Sanders on the right side of the handrail on some lower step.

But how Oswald could move  from the corner,between BW Frazier and Billy Lovelady for just a brief few seconds then BACK to the corner again and then move AGAIN to the front door and into the Lobby aka "vestibule"? and this all be missed being seen and also not captured in Weigman or Couch/Darnell films..

 :-X

Again, a multi-layered misrepresentation of my claim!

I call  BS: on you, Mr Mason. Your studied point-missing, invention of pseudo-problems, and misrepresentation of straightforward claims is a tired little game, and it's not working.

You can't explain the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side, so you just divert to non-issues.

"I, Mr Zeon Mason, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, and having recently learned the difference between vertical and horizontal, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 03:04:45 PM
To all those who believe PrayerPerson----------in Wiegman OR in Darnell------------is NOT Mr Oswald!

Let's assume for argument's (and for peace) sake you're right. Let's forget about PrayerPerson, whom we can dismiss as 'Somebody Other Than Mr Oswald'.  Thumb1:

Now!

I am making a straightforward claim-----------that Mr Oswald is standing just behind Mr Lovelady and that his head is visible in these Wiegman frames:

(https://i.imgur.com/NVgvJJw.jpg)

I am relating this straightforward claim to the straightforward observation that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman cannot possibly be a natural shadow:

(https://i.imgur.com/ST3OlBP.jpg)

You don't agree? Fine-----but irrelevant!

You think Mr Oswald was not out on the steps? Fine-----but irrelevant!

I am not asking you to agree with me, I am not even asking for your opinion. I am asking you to refute me!

Can you--------without making reference to PrayerPerson or any other extraneous issue--------offer an alternative explanation for the above phenomena in Wiegman?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on November 06, 2019, 03:42:21 PM
... says the most universally despised JFK 'researcher' since----Mr Cinque!  :D

A shadow from the western wall has been categorically ruled out. End of.

Looking forward to hearing from someone who does understand how angles work and/or doesn't believe the sun was hopping back and forth in the Dallas sky at 12:30pm on 11/22/63!  Thumb1:

......
To return to the question we opened with............
Why did Messrs Shelley and Lovelady change their story for the WC and say they both stayed on the steps and only left them after hearing from Ms Calvery about what had happened out on the street?
Answer: To knock Mr Oswald out of the talking-with-Ms-Calvery picture!

Postscript!
In their weasely-worded 22nd Nov statements, neither Mr Shelley nor Mr Lovelady say outright that they did not see Mr Oswald at the time of the shooting---------------
...........

A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 03:47:59 PM
A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?

Mr Scully, is it true that Mr Wiegman's name was misspelled 'Weigman' in the Milwaukee Dispatch of 10/13/61 and that Weigman was the middle name of Ms Pinchot Meyer's best friend's dogwalker?

Thank you in advance for your help in blowing this case wide open! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 06, 2019, 03:56:03 PM
A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?

    Is the above intended to be some kind of Refutation of Mr. Ford's Theory? It's nothing more than a personal attack. Not your finest hour Mr. Scully.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on November 06, 2019, 04:32:28 PM
A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?

Say it again, Tom.  Say it.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 06, 2019, 05:12:33 PM
Postscript!
In their weasely-worded 22nd Nov statements, neither Mr Shelley nor Mr Lovelady say outright that they did not see Mr Oswald at the time of the shooting---------------

Were they asked that specific question, on 11/22/'63?

WilliamShelley testified for the WarrenCommission on May 14, 1964.

BillyLovelady testified for the WarrenCommission on April 7, 1964.


Perhaps their testimony should be read, again...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 06, 2019, 05:25:59 PM
Were they asked that specific question, on 11/22/'63?

WilliamShelley testified for the WarrenCommission on May 14, 1964.

BillyLovelady testified for the WarrenCommission on April 7, 1964.


Perhaps their testimony should be read, again...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

    Buell Frazier is alive. He was standing close enough to almost touch the alleged Oswald on the TSBD steps. He should be asked this "Specific question".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 06, 2019, 07:00:09 PM
Were they asked that specific question, on 11/22/'63?

WilliamShelley testified for the WarrenCommission on May 14, 1964.

BillyLovelady testified for the WarrenCommission on April 7, 1964.


Perhaps their testimony should be read, again...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm


    Buell Frazier is alive. He was standing close enough to almost touch the alleged Oswald on the TSBD steps. He should be asked this "Specific question".

Maybe he should be asked, but he should not need to be asked, the "specific question".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 11:56:02 PM
Now!

The naturally impossible dark 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman would, on its own, be startling enough to raise suspicions.

The second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman would, on its own, be startling enough to raise suspicions.

But! It's the combination of the two----------pertaining to the exact same area of the entranceway------------that allows us to see their significance and thereby nail Mr Oswald's location at the time of the assassination.

If I am right (and the failure to date of anyone to mount a credible challenge to my claim is pretty conspicuous!), then we must consider Mr Buell Wesley Frazier's place in all this.

I feel awfully sorry for the guy. For fifty-six years, he has been carrying a heavy burden, a dreadful secret: his friend, Mr Lee Oswald, was just in front of him at the time of the assassination.

Six years ago he started getting asked about a figure dubbed 'Prayer Man'. He must have been relieved to discover that 'Prayer Man' in Wiegman is not in the position he remembers Mr Oswald as having been in at the time of the shooting-----------too far west:

(https://i.imgur.com/hT7Uu60.gif)

His secret was still safe. So he stonewalled, and has stonewalled ever since: 'I don't know who that is'.

Somebody (other than our resident lunatic!) needs to show Mr Frazier this------------

(https://i.imgur.com/ckh7AuP.jpg)

------------and explain that it is from the time of the actual shooting
------------and remind Mr Frazier of his own nearby position back closer to the glass door.

Most likely, of course, Mr Frazier will stonewall again, but...

There is at least the possibility that the shock of recognition, and the consciousness that the cat really is out of the bag now, will, in due course, prompt him to finally confirm the shocking truth a part of him has always wanted to admit: Yes, that's him.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 02:16:57 AM
Your “phone call with Frazier”. LOL.

The very thought of this raving lunatic having a direct line to Mr Frazier is quite scary...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 07, 2019, 04:46:48 AM
Except I'm not claiming that Mr Frazier missed Mr Oswald. Try to keep up!

Not in Wiegman, and my ID of Mr Oswald in Wiegman is not dependent on the PrayerManInDarnell issue. Try to keep up!

Again, a multi-layered misrepresentation of my claim!

I call  BS: on you, Mr Mason. Your studied point-missing, invention of pseudo-problems, and misrepresentation of straightforward claims is a tired little game, and it's not working.

You can't explain the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side, so you just divert to non-issues.

"I, Mr Zeon Mason, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, and having recently learned the difference between vertical and horizontal, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

 Thumb1:

It is the vertical edge of the left side wall plus part of the very upper curvature shape of the capital that completes the corner of the front entrance portal, thus causing a mostly vertical shadow with a slight curvature, across part of Lovelady right side, similar to the same kind of shadow that falls upon Buell W. Frazier when he steps forward after Lovelady moved down the steps, and Shelley joins him, as they both are seen walking away in Couch and Darnell films
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 07, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Now!

The naturally impossible dark 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman would, on its own, be startling enough to raise suspicions.

The second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman would, on its own, be startling enough to raise suspicions.

But! It's the combination of the two----------pertaining to the exact same area of the entranceway------------that allows us to see their significance and thereby nail Mr Oswald's location at the time of the assassination.

If I am right (and the failure to date of anyone to mount a credible challenge to my claim is pretty conspicuous!), then we must consider Mr Buell Wesley Frazier's place in all this.

I feel awfully sorry for the guy. For fifty-six years, he has been carrying a heavy burden, a dreadful secret: his friend, Mr Lee Oswald, was just in front of him at the time of the assassination.

Six years ago he started getting asked about a figure dubbed 'Prayer Man'. He must have been relieved to discover that 'Prayer Man' in Wiegman is not in the position he remembers Mr Oswald as having been in at the time of the shooting-----------too far west:

(https://i.imgur.com/hT7Uu60.gif)

His secret was still safe. So he stonewalled, and has stonewalled ever since: 'I don't know who that is'.

Somebody (other than our resident lunatic!) needs to show Mr Frazier this------------

(https://i.imgur.com/ckh7AuP.jpg)

------------and explain that it is from the time of the actual shooting
------------and remind Mr Frazier of his own nearby position back closer to the glass door.

Most likely, of course, Mr Frazier will stonewall again, but...

There is at least the possibility that the shock of recognition, and the consciousness that the cat really is out of the bag now, will, in due course, prompt him to finally confirm the shocking truth a part of him has always wanted to admit: Yes, that's him.

     WHY has Frazier stonewalled and kept this secret for 55+ years ? 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 07, 2019, 06:51:01 PM
     WHY has Frazier stonewalled and kept this secret for 55+ years ?

Royell, you know the CIA has experimented with implanting memories so no doubt they also may have figured out a way to remove a memory too. Just like Blazey Fords memory which she did not have for  30 years or so, and then suddenly, just coincidentally with someone getting nominated for SCOTUS judge, has a memory.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 08:44:10 PM
     WHY has Frazier stonewalled and kept this secret for 55+ years ?

Well, Mr Storing, you've already given one possible answer to this question: He's a BS merchant and one would be a fool to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Other possible answers, which may interest the more recent version of you that considers Mr Frazier a key witness after all who must be listened to:

-Shame?
-Guilt?
-Fear of possible legal consequences?
-Fear of possible extra-legal consequences?

Who knows? Not me----I'm not a mind-reader, just an evidence-reader!

 And the evidence here
------------i.e. the 'coincidental' double phenomenon in Wiegman of an impossible 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's right side and the presence of a second 'Lovelady' head just to Mr Lovelady's right
------------tells us that at the time Mr Frazier heard the shots he could see just in front of him the backs of Mr Lovelady and Mr Oswald in very close proximity to one another.

If Mr Frazier were to come clean and confirm that this is indeed Mr Oswald in Wiegman--------

(https://i.imgur.com/ycXB2mf.jpg)

---------then we all know what your response would be, for you have already given it in relation to his decades-late revelation that he saw Mr Oswald by the east wall of the Depository several minutes after the shooting:

Shrug. I don't believe it. Why didn't he say this much sooner? A totally unreliable witness. His confirmation of the Ford claim is an immediate disqualifier. Etc.

And so the question becomes: WHY won't Mr Storing ever accept that Mr Oswald was in the front entranceway?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 07, 2019, 11:07:59 PM
Well, Mr Storing, you've already given one possible answer to this question: He's a BS merchant and one would be a fool to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Other possible answers, which may interest the more recent version of you that considers Mr Frazier a key witness after all who must be listened to:

-Shame?
-Guilt?
-Fear of possible legal consequences?
-Fear of possible extra-legal consequences?

Who knows? Not me----I'm not a mind-reader, just an evidence-reader!

 And the evidence here
------------i.e. the 'coincidental' double phenomenon in Wiegman of an impossible 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's right side and the presence of a second 'Lovelady' head just to Mr Lovelady's right
------------tells us that at the time Mr Frazier heard the shots he could see just in front of him the backs of Mr Lovelady and Mr Oswald in very close proximity to one another.

If Mr Frazier were to come clean and confirm that this is indeed Mr Oswald in Wiegman--------

(https://i.imgur.com/ycXB2mf.jpg)

---------then we all know what your response would be, for you have already given it in relation to his decades-late revelation that he saw Mr Oswald by the east wall of the Depository several minutes after the shooting:

Shrug. I don't believe it. Why didn't he say this much sooner? A totally unreliable witness. His confirmation of the Ford claim is an immediate disqualifier. Etc.

And so the question becomes: WHY won't Mr Storing ever accept that Mr Oswald was in the front entranceway?

 Thumb1:

      The reason I asked You the question is due to Buell saying he saw Oswald walking up Houston St/alongside the TSBD shortly after the Kill Shot. If he is going to reveal this roughly 50 years after the assassination, why would he shy away from reporting that he saw Oswald on the TSBD steps as the JFK Limo came by the TSBD?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 11:17:49 PM
      The reason I asked You the question is due to Buell saying he saw Oswald walking up Houston St/alongside the TSBD shortly after the Kill Shot. If he is going to reveal this roughly 50 years after the assassination, why would he shy away from reporting that he saw Oswald on the TSBD steps as the JFK Limo came by the TSBD?

Because it would be so much more momentous a revelation, obviously!

Question for you: Do you believe that Mr Frazier saw Mr Oswald walking up Houston Street/alongside the TSBD several minutes after the kill shot?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 07, 2019, 11:25:01 PM
Because it would be so much more momentous a revelation, obviously!

Question for you: Do you believe that Mr Frazier saw Mr Oswald walking up Houston Street/alongside the TSBD several minutes after the kill shot?

 Thumb1:

    No, I do Not believe Frazier saw Oswald at any point-in-time after the Kill Shot. Also, why not refrain from posting that visual aid of the shadows on the TSBD steps/landing? It is speculative and right in line with one of those Zany Mytton Cartoons.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 11:31:59 PM
    No, I do Not believe Frazier saw Oswald at any point-in-time after the Kill Shot.

So anything Mr Frazier has to reveal late in the day you will dismiss as non-credible. This being the same Mr Frazier's whose failure to reveal Mr Oswald's presence in the entranceway at the time of the assassination you have put forward as a defeater to my claim!  :D

Quote
Also, why not refrain from posting that visual aid of the shadows on the TSBD steps/landing? It is speculative and right in line with one of those Zany Mytton Cartoons.

I'll post whatever I like, thank you, including images that annihilate arguments based on wild misunderstanding about how shadows work!

And-----if you think Mr Stancak (and Mr Hackerott) have gotten the shadows in the entranceway completely wrong, show us your calculations and your 3D reconstruction. Until then you're just blowing hot air out of your pompous... mouth!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 08, 2019, 12:00:38 AM
So anything Mr Frazier has to reveal late in the day you will dismiss as non-credible. This being the same Mr Frazier's whose failure to reveal Mr Oswald's presence in the entranceway at the time of the assassination you have put forward as a defeater to my claim!  :D

I'll post whatever I like, thank you, including images that annihilate arguments based on wild misunderstanding about how shadows work!

And-----if you think Mr Stancak (and Mr Hackerott) have gotten the shadows in the entranceway completely wrong, show us your calculations and your 3D reconstruction. Until then you're just blowing hot air out of your pompous... mouth!  Thumb1:

       I am willing to hear anyone out. You never know what kernel of truth might come to light. Frazier could be asked a question he has Never been asked before triggering a memory. You just don't know. Living witnesses to the assassination are quickly drying up. They need to be extensively questioned while still here.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 12:03:39 AM
       I am willing to hear anyone out. You never know what kernel of truth might come to light. Frazier could be asked a question he has Never been asked before triggering a memory. You just don't know. Living witnesses to the assassination are quickly drying up. They need to be extensively questioned while still here.

I agree!  Thumb1:

But! I don't think you do--------------you are just using Mr Frazier as a pretext not to accept that Mr Oswald was out front.

If Mr Frazier were to have his memory 'triggered', you would immediately dismiss it as "an immediate disqualifier".

This, Mr Storing, is known in the trade as 'bad faith'!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 08, 2019, 01:29:02 AM
I agree!  Thumb1:

But! I don't think you do--------------you are just using Mr Frazier as a pretext not to accept that Mr Oswald was out front.

If Mr Frazier were to have his memory 'triggered', you would immediately dismiss it as "an immediate disqualifier".

This, Mr Storing, is known in the trade as 'bad faith'!

      What is clear is that You are afraid that Frazier might definitively state he Never saw Oswald near the TSBD steps shortly before, during, or after the JFK Limo passed by. This comes down to Priorities.  Priority #1 should be finding The Truth. Unfortunately, Your Priority #1 is avoiding anything or anybody that might discredit your Theory.   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 01:55:37 AM
      What is clear is that You are afraid that Frazier might definitively state he Never saw Oswald near the TSBD steps shortly before, during, or after the JFK Limo passed by. This comes down to Priorities.  Priority #1 should be finding The Truth. Unfortunately, Your Priority #1 is avoiding anything or anybody that might discredit your Theory.

Why would I be afraid of what has already happened, Mr Storing?

Mr Frazier has already repeatedly denied seeing Mr Oswald in the entranceway at the time of the shooting. So what? His denials are belied by the visual evidence I have uncovered!  Thumb1:

As for your position, it is impressively... nuanced:

1. Without Mr. Frazier's confirmation, the claim that Mr Oswald was in the entranceway is a non-starter

2. Should Mr. Frazier's confirmation materialize, I will dismiss it as an immediate disqualifier of the claim that Mr Oswald was in the entranceway.

Way to cover all eventualities!  :D

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 08, 2019, 02:03:20 AM
      What is clear is that You are afraid that Frazier might definitively state he Never saw Oswald near the TSBD steps shortly before, during, or after the JFK Limo passed by. This comes down to Priorities.  Priority #1 should be finding The Truth. Unfortunately, Your Priority #1 is avoiding anything or anybody that might discredit your Theory.

Why would I be afraid of what has already happened, Mr Storing?

Mr Frazier has already repeatedly denied seeing Mr Oswald in the entranceway at the time of the shooting. So what? His denials are belied by the visual evidence I have uncovered!  Thumb1:

As for your position, it is impressively... nuanced:

1. Without Mr. Frazier's confirmation, the claim that Mr Oswald was in the entranceway is a non-starter

2. Should Mr. Frazier's confirmation materialize, I will dismiss it as an immediate disqualifier of the claim that Mr Oswald was in the entranceway.

Way to cover all eventualities!  :D


The unwitting comical chemistry between you two clowns is an absolute classic, keep it up!

(https://i.imgur.com/3dXuB58.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 02:17:12 AM
Now!

Mr Ochus Campbell was quoted as having told reporters on 11/22/63 of having seen Mr Oswald in a "small storage room" on the first floor just after the assassination.

From the New York Herald Tribune 11/22/63:

(https://i.imgur.com/DT6ZT3b.jpg)

But! He supposedly can't have done because he supposedly ran straight in the direction of the grassy knoll, right?

Wrong!

On 11/24/63 Ms Pauline Sanders described seeing a white-helmeted officer (=Baker) running into the building "within a matter of ten seconds" after the shooting. Then we get this:

"Mrs. SANDERS advised that Mr. CAMPBELL, Office Manager, arrived shortly after the police officer entered the building and she told him she believed the blasts came from the upper part of the building however he insisted the shots came from the embankment."

So-------------Mr Campbell didn't run straight for the embankment. He came into the entranceway and spoke with Ms Sanders.

Logical conclusion? Mr Campbell entered the front lobby and saw Mr Oswald in the small storage room by the front stairs:

(https://i.imgur.com/Jcaukri.jpg)

Later, of course, he claimed not to have known Mr Oswald from Eve's husband!  :D

What was Mr Oswald doing in the storage room just after his encounter with Officer Baker in the vestibule/front lobby?

Perhaps he was simply disposing of his empty coke bottle.

Or perhaps he was checking to see that the curtain rods he had brought to work and left there for safekeeping that morning were still there
----in case you're confused, I'm referring to the curtain rods that Lieutenant Day would later be asked to test for Mr Oswald's fingerprints several days before two curtain rods were removed from the Paine garage!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 02:19:18 AM
The unwitting comical chemistry between you two clowns is an absolute classic, keep it up!

(https://i.imgur.com/3dXuB58.gif)

JohnM

"I, Mr John Mytton, have a simple rational explanation for the dark strip down Mr. Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film: ________________________________________."

(https://i.imgur.com/gLJHi2s.jpg)
 
Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 08:40:26 PM
New York Herald Tribune 11/22/63:

(https://i.imgur.com/DT6ZT3b.jpg)

Mr Campbell entered the front lobby and saw Mr Oswald in the small storage room by the front stairs:

(https://i.imgur.com/Jcaukri.jpg)

Now!

Just before being seen by Mr Ochus Campbell in the small storage room just off the front lobby, Mr Oswald
-------------was out front standing right at Mr Lovelady's shoulder:

(https://i.imgur.com/PUP5SEI.jpg)

-------------after which he had his encounter with Officer Baker.  Thumb1:

But where exactly was the encounter with Officer Baker?

We are fortunate to have an answer of sorts from Officer Baker himself (in the 11/22 affidavit--------that's right, the one in which he goes on to tell us not about a second-floor lunchroom man but about a man caught "walking away from the stairway" on the "third or fourth floor"! :D) ----------------

(https://i.imgur.com/lYaO0cn.jpg)

Officer Baker asked Mr Oswald 'Do you work here?' ----------as a prelude to: Do you know where the nearest stairs are?

But Officer Baker's affidavit account is a little bit ambiguous..........
--------> were the "several people"----------one of whom was Mr Oswald------------"standing around" outside on the front landing or inside in the vestibule?

----------------If Mr Oswald is PrayerManInDarnell, then the former seems the more likely (although he could have gone in the door just after Mr Darnell stops filming that area)
----------------If Mr Oswald is not PrayerManInDarnell, then the latter seems the more likely, and Mr Oswald re-entered the building immediately after the shooting.

Which is the more natural reading of "As I entered the door I saw several people standing around"? I'd incline towards: the people were inside in the front lobby.

Kindly note! Mr Truly's 11/22 interview with the FBI states that, once inside the front entrance, he and Officer Baker "saw no one there"!  :D

While we're on the subject!

Doesn't Darnell show the glass front door moving?

(https://i.imgur.com/oB8qoGa.gif)

This may actually be from the re-entry into the front lobby of Mr Oswald himself!

 Thumb1:



Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 08, 2019, 11:04:45 PM
Well at least it seems Alan Ford has FINALLY accepted that prayerblob is probably NOT Oswald :)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 12:57:26 AM
Well at least it seems Alan Ford has FINALLY accepted that prayerblob is probably NOT Oswald :)

Has Mr Mason FINALLY accepted that the vertical shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman cannot be explained by the horizontal shadow across Mr Frazier in Darnell?  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 09, 2019, 02:34:06 AM
im going to suggest that BECAUSE prayerblob was NOT blackened out that Oswald therefore is not likely Prayerblob at ANY time in either Weigman or Couch/Darnell.

So if  Alan Fords theory in this thread is that Oswald is out on the steps BETWEEN Billy Lovelady and Buell W. Frazier, the question is then: Would  the conspirator film alteration experts fairly well blackened out Oswald, thus causing the vertical shadow, but forgot to blacken out the 2nd head?




Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 09, 2019, 08:34:23 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 09, 2019, 09:54:22 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)

Thanks, Chris.

Isn't that tall Buell Wesley Frazier's head that appears briefly from behind Lovelady's head?

---  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 09, 2019, 11:29:53 AM
It's more likely Lovelady's head moving between frames.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 09, 2019, 11:37:19 AM
It's more likely Lovelady's head moving between frames.

Ray,

The problems is that there are two heads in some frames.

And I don't think it's "blurs" because, if you look closely at the timings and directions of the "blurs" on the rest of Lovelady's body (and on other people on the stairs, etc), you'll realize that that's not the case.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 09, 2019, 01:31:42 PM
When you split the gif, it seems that the new head has the same body, as Lovelady, just slightly lower.

(https://i.postimg.cc/LJ0Xy3Cv/frame-07-delay-0-5s.gif) (https://postimg.cc/LJ0Xy3Cv)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 09, 2019, 03:54:47 PM
Thanks, Chris.

Isn't that tall Buell Wesley Frazier's head that appears briefly from behind Lovelady's head?

---  MWT  ;)

    Frazier is Much taller than Lovelady. He dwarfs Lovelady. This would rule out our seeing Frazier behind Lovelady.  Well, unless Frazier was possibly on his knees.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 09, 2019, 04:10:04 PM
im going to suggest that BECAUSE prayerblob was NOT blackened out that Oswald therefore is not likely Prayerblob at ANY time in either Weigman or Couch/Darnell.

So if  Alan Fords theory in this thread is that Oswald is out on the steps BETWEEN Billy Lovelady and Buell W. Frazier, the question is then: Would  the conspirator film alteration experts fairly well blackened out Oswald, thus causing the vertical shadow, but forgot to blacken out the 2nd head?

The reliable indicative information of evidentiary value, evidently reliably indicates that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the stairs or the top step/landing in WiegmanFilm or DarnellFilm.

During filming, as he passed the TSBD Bldg entrance, apparently DaveWiegman was panning back and forth as well as riding in a moving vehicle.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 09, 2019, 04:22:49 PM
Ray,

The problems is that there are two heads in some frames.

And I don't think it's "blurs" because, if you look closely at the timings and directions of the "blurs" on the rest of Lovelady's body (and on other people on the stairs, etc), you'll realize that that's not the case.

--  MWT  ;)
Shhhh... Don't tell anyone, but I believe Mr Mitcham's conclusion about blurring just might be correct.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 04:25:41 PM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)

Thank you very much for this, Mr Davidson! (How do you always seem to have such excellent versions of footage? It's wonderful!)  Thumb1:

Now!

What we're seeing here, in greater clarity than in the version of the Wiegman frames I have been posting, is that

------------------Mr Lovelady is stationary
------------------Mr Oswald (just behind him) is moving, one assumes because he is trying to get a better look at what's going on out on the street.

The Altgens photograph is taken at or around one of the points seen above (early frames!) where Mr Oswald's head is just to the left (=our right, i.e. east!) of Mr Lovelady's head. And Altgens shows a portion of Mr Oswald's head/face:

(https://i.imgur.com/mz3nkWV.gif)

Furthermore!

There is a lot of white t-shirt in the Oswald/Lovelady ensemble in Wiegman. Look closely and you will see that Mr Oswald appears to be wearing only his white t-shirt (no shirt!).

Had a dark vertical strip not been added to Mr Lovelady's right side, Mr Oswald's white t-shirt (and exposed right arm, and----who knows?-----maybe even a soda bottle in the right hand) would be all too evident even to a casual viewer. Which of course is why a dark vertical strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side!

This latter observation------------Mr Oswald in a white tshirt only------------suggests that Mr Oswald is not Prayer Man in the Darnell film after all.

Which in turn means that it's perfectly possible that only one person noticed Mr Oswald in the few moments he spent out front for the motorcade:

Mr Frazier.

Like I say, what a heavy burden to have to carry. No wonder Captain Fritz hung the threat of a charge of conspiracy to murder JFK over him!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 04:27:14 PM
Thanks, Chris.

Isn't that tall Buell Wesley Frazier's head that appears briefly from behind Lovelady's head?

---  MWT  ;)

Yes!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/oIlcnMr.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/UmdMYKP.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 04:31:14 PM
Ray,

The problems is that there are two heads in some frames.

And I don't think it's "blurs" because, if you look closely at the timings and directions of the "blurs" on the rest of Lovelady's body (and on other people on the stairs, etc), you'll realize that that's not the case.

--  MWT  ;)

Right you are, Mr Graves!  Thumb1:

And ain't it funny how the one person in that doorway to whom this double-head phenomenon attaches across multiple frames just so happens to be the one person in that doorway down whom there is a non-natural dark vertical 'shadow'?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 09, 2019, 05:11:35 PM
Right you are, Mr Graves!  Thumb1:

And ain't it funny how the one person in that doorway to whom this double-head phenomenon attaches across multiple frames just so happens to be the one person in that doorway down whom there is a non-natural dark vertical 'shadow'?

   Any person situated on that landing in front of the TSBD doorway is Not "standing in", "cloaked by" or "subject to" a Shadow.  That landing area is the equivalent of a Cave. Sunlight = Shadow(s) does Not happen.   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 05:13:38 PM
   Any person situated on that landing in front of the TSBD doorway is Not "standing in", "cloaked by" or "subject to" a Shadow.  That landing area is the equivalent of a Cave. Sunlight = Shadow(s) does Not happen.

You are of course 100% correct, Mr Storing!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 06:08:06 PM
Had a dark vertical strip not been added to Mr Lovelady's right side, Mr Oswald's white t-shirt (and exposed right arm, and----who knows?-----maybe even a soda bottle in the right hand) would be all too evident even to a casual viewer. Which of course is why a dark vertical strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side!

Now! It is important to note that if the above comments pertain to the early Wiegman frames of the entranceway-------------

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)

-------------then they pertain with bells on to the later ones, when Mr Lovelady has stepped downwards:

(https://i.imgur.com/hANAqZv.jpg)

This is because, in thus stepping downwards, Mr Lovelady has left Mr Oswald's face (and much more besides) fully exposed not just to view but to closer view than in the previous frames, when Mr Wiegman was further from the entranceway and at more of an angle to it.

Hence even more extensive blacking out was required---it had to go higher than Mr Lovelady's head.

As long as no one worked out that Mr Lovelady couldn't possibly be in shadow like this, Mr Oswald's obliteration from the entranceway would be crudely but effectively achieved!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 09, 2019, 06:23:35 PM
Well at least it seems Alan Ford has FINALLY accepted that prayerblob is probably NOT Oswald :)
Perhaps Mr Ford can provide a sworn statement/testimony by Mr OchusVirgilCampbell affirming the Newspaper report?
Perhaps Mr Ford has ascertained, and can share, as to whom "we" is as mentioned by OV Campbell in the Newspaper reported LeeHarveyOswald sighting?
Perhaps Mr Ford can provide information as to the first time OV Campbell "saw" LeeHarveyOswald, as well as when he was first able to "recognize" him on sight?

Perhaps?

http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/ochus-v-campbell/#lightbox[group]/4/
http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/ochus-v-campbell/#lightbox[group]/6/
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 10, 2019, 01:34:24 PM

There is a lot of white t-shirt in the Oswald/Lovelady ensemble in Wiegman. Look closely and you will see that Mr Oswald appears to be wearing only his white t-shirt (no shirt!).

Had a dark vertical strip not been added to Mr Lovelady's right side, Mr Oswald's white t-shirt would be all too evident even to a casual viewer. Which of course is why a dark vertical strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side!

Now!

Mr Oswald in a white tshirt out front helps explain what has long puzzled researchers:

Mrs Reid's insistence from Day 1 that Mr Oswald was dressed in a white t-shirt when she saw him.

As readers will know, I do not believe for one second that Mrs Reid saw Mr Oswald in the second-floor office area shortly after the shooting, any more than I believe in the Baker/Truly/Oswald lunchroom encounter. Mrs Reid----------who may not even have gone outside for the motoracade-----------was prevailed upon by Mr Truly (and Mr Campbell?) to lend bogus support to the scam cooked up to take away Mr Oswald's alibi!

So......... why did Mrs Reid not get Mr Oswald's attire 'right'? Does not her failure to align the attire she saw with the lunchroom version of Mr Oswald's attire speak in favour of her honesty?

Not so fast!

I have previously surmised that Mrs Reid put Mr Oswald in a white t-shirt simply because that's what she saw him wearing in the second floor lunchroom before the P. parade.

But! How can Mr Truly have failed to ensure that she not make this 'mistake' but rather align the stories? All he had to do was say, "No, say he was wearing a shirt"!

But! This is only a problem so long as we equate Mr Oswald with PrayerManInDarnell, i.e. so long as we have to put him in a shirt.

The discovery in Wiegman of Mr Oswald in what looks like a white tshirt just behind Mr Lovelady clears up the problem at a stroke:

----------------------Mr Oswald was wearing a white tshirt (no shirt) when he went outside to watch the P. parade

----------------------Mr Oswald was (obviously!) still wearing that white tshirt (no shirt) when Mr Truly saw him in the front lobby just after the assassination

----------------------Mr Truly fed this fact to Mrs Reid.


Don't believe me? Well, look at what Mr Truly told Secret Service on 4 Dec 1963:

(https://i.imgur.com/P8Z6RvP.jpg)

Meanwhile, of course, Officer Baker had gone on the record as having seen a man in a "light brown jacket"!  :D

The WC were wise enough not to press Mr Truly about Mr Oswald's clothing:

Representative FORD. In your description of Oswald to Captain Fritz, did you describe the kind of clothes that Oswald had on that day?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know, sir. No, sir; I just told him his name and where he lived and his telephone number and his age, as 23, and I said 5 feet, 9, about 150 pounds, light brown hair--whatever I picked up off the description there. I did not try to depend on my memory to describe him. I just put down what was on this application blank.


Way to fudge the issue of jacket/shirt vs t-shirt!

Now that we have found Mr Oswald in the front entranceway for the motorcade, and the lunchroom story is as dead as an absolute doornail, we must ask the question:

Who was the man caught by Officer Baker "walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor"?

I think Officer Baker was later gaslighted into believing this man had actually been Mr Oswald, whom Officer Baker's brain will have remembered as the man he met in the front lobby. (Mr Howard Brennan seems to have gone through a similar 'process'!) Officer Baker was persuaded into moving the encounter from one of the upper landings down to the second-floor lunchroom. He knew this was a lie, but he convinced himself that it was a benign one because the man really must have been Mr Oswald. Besides, it lessened the embarrassment for him professionally of having let the man go!

This would explain the following odd moment from his WC testimony:

Mr. BELIN - Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 150, would this appear to be anything that you have ever seen before?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I believe that is the shirt that he had on when he came. I wouldn't be sure of that. It seemed to me like that other shirt was a little bit darker than that whenever I saw him in the homicide office there.
Mr. BELIN - What about when you saw him in the School Book Depository Building, does this look familiar as anything he was wearing, if you know?
Mr. BAKER - I couldn't say whether that was--it seemed to me it was a light-colored brown but I couldn't say it was that or not.
Mr. DULLES - Lighter brown did you say, I am just asking what you said. I couldn't quite hear.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; all I can remember it was in my recollection of it it was a light brown jacket.


Could it be that---------------------within the context of complicity in an overall lie-----------------------Mr Baker was actually being honest here?

If so, then we're looking for "a white man approximately 30 years old, 5' 9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket" (11/22/63 affidavit) "and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt" (WC testimony)!

Candidate?------

(https://i.imgur.com/JzgIRq8.gif)

Notice the odd bald spot (cf. young Mr Euins!)...

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 10, 2019, 04:35:41 PM
    If you seriously believe You are Seeing "young Mr Euins" anywhere in the above film snippet, all your Observations warrant being called into question. No one remotely resembling Euins is in that snippet.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 10, 2019, 05:31:17 PM
    If you seriously believe You are Seeing "young Mr Euins" anywhere in the above film snippet, all your Observations warrant being called into question. No one remotely resembling Euins is in that snippet.

<facepalm>
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 10, 2019, 07:19:29 PM
    If you seriously believe You are Seeing "young Mr Euins" anywhere in the above film snippet, all your Observations warrant being called into question. No one remotely resembling Euins is in that snippet.

I believe Mr Ford is mentioning the statement made by Mr Euins. In any event, worthy of additional information.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 10, 2019, 08:08:54 PM
Quote from: Alan Ford

Who was the man caught by Officer Baker "walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor"?

I think Officer Baker was later gaslighted into believing this man had actually been Mr Oswald, whom Officer Baker's brain will have remembered as the man he met in the front lobby. (Mr Howard Brennan seems to have

Could it be that---------------------within the context of complicity in an overall lie-----------------------Mr Baker was actually being honest here?

If so, then we're looking for "a white man approximately 30 years old, 5' 9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket" (11/22/63 affidavit) "and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt" (WC testimony)!

Candidate?------

(https://i.imgur.com/JzgIRq8.gif)

Notice the odd bald spot (cf. young Mr Euins!)...

Alan,

I believe the guy wearing the tan jacket in your gif may have been spotted standing on the Houston Street sidewalk during the motorcade, as archived on some thread at the so-called Education Forum back in the day.

Keep up the good work.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 10, 2019, 09:38:33 PM
Alan,

I believe the guy wearing the tan jacket in your gif may have been spotted standing on the Houston Street sidewalk during the motorcade, as archived on some thread at the so-called Education Forum back in the day.

Keep up the good work.

--  MWT  ;)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, Mr Graves------thank you!  Thumb1:

I would very much like to see the man standing on the Houston Street sidewalk during the P. parade... Anyone know what photo or film he's in??
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 10, 2019, 10:34:49 PM
Ah, I wasn't aware of that, Mr Graves------thank you!  Thumb1:

I would very much like to see the man standing on the Houston Street sidewalk during the P. parade... Anyone know what photo or film he's in??

Mr Graves, I'm most grateful for your pointer on this and have been doing some digging.

From memory, is this the man identified as the man in the light-brown jacket in Hughes?

(https://i.imgur.com/84cLshI.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/g4vobuS.gif)

Thank you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 11, 2019, 02:58:49 AM
Mr Graves, I'm most grateful for your pointer on this and have been doing some digging.

From memory, is this the man identified as the man in the light-brown jacket in Hughes?

(https://i.imgur.com/84cLshI.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/g4vobuS.gif)

Thank you!  Thumb1:

Alan,

Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forget who it was at the EF who "identified" him as my Tan Jacket Man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you could "dig into" that and let us know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Between his legs in the Hughes frame, I believe we might be able to see the umbrella he was holding in his left hand in your gif !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 08:52:52 AM
Alan,

Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forget who it was at the EF who "identified" him as my Tan Jacket Man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you could "dig into" that and let us know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Between his legs in the Hughes frame, I believe we might be able to see the umbrella he was holding in his left hand in your gif !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well it's not him!

(https://i.imgur.com/drRUBAH.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Evo6Wk9.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 11, 2019, 10:06:21 AM
Well it's not him!

(https://i.imgur.com/drRUBAH.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Evo6Wk9.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Alan,

Congratulations!!!!!!!

I think you've just cracked the case wide open!!!!!!!

I wonder if the Tan Jacket Man in the parking lot spoke Russian? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Or Spanish, maybe!!!!!!!

After the assassination, was he captured in the Bell film as he was walking towards the Grassy Knoll across the "infield grass,"  by any chance ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Carrying his rifle disguised as an umbrella and boofin' a bottle of vodka? ? ? ? ? ? ?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 02:48:52 PM
Alan,

Congratulations!!!!!!!

I think you've just cracked the case wide open!!!!!!!

I wonder if the Tan Jacket Man in the parking lot spoke Russian? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Or Spanish, maybe!!!!!!!

Was he captured in the Bell film after the assassination, by any chance ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Carrying his rifle disguised as an umbrella? ? ? ? ? ? ?

--  MWT  ;)

Tell you what, Mr Graves--------why don't you follow up those no doubt interesting lines of inquiry, and I start a new thread on this man so as not to take this thread too far away from Those Front Steps where Mr Oswald was?

Division of labor!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 03:31:37 PM
Now! It is important to note that if the above comments pertain to the early Wiegman frames of the entranceway-------------

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)

-------------then they pertain with bells on to the later ones, when Mr Lovelady has stepped downwards:

(https://i.imgur.com/hANAqZv.jpg)

This is because, in thus stepping downwards, Mr Lovelady has left Mr Oswald's face (and much more besides) fully exposed not just to view but to closer view than in the previous frames, when Mr Wiegman was further from the entranceway and at more of an angle to it.

Hence even more extensive blacking out was required---it had to go higher than Mr Lovelady's head.

As long as no one worked out that Mr Lovelady couldn't possibly be in shadow like this, Mr Oswald's obliteration from the entranceway would be crudely but effectively achieved!

 Thumb1:

Now!

Do those who still refuse to believe that Mr Oswald was standing just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shots-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/f2wUJ2c.jpg)

-------------- have any coherent response to the following?

1. If you believe that a dark vertical strip has not been added to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, what rational alternative explanation for that strip can you offer?

2. If you accept that a dark vertical strip must have been added to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, because you can think of no rational alternative explanation for it, can you offer a non-Oswaldian reason why such a dark strip might have been added to the film?

3. If you believe that this issue will go away without your being able to address these problems, do you realize how foolish you are being?

Tick-tock!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 03:55:30 PM
If we put ourselves in Mr Roy Truly's boots, it might help us put together how the fake lunchroom encounter story came into being:

1. He and the officer encountered Mr Oswald in the front lobby (--------> no problem, as it was never the plan to set up Mr Oswald as the shooter)

2. He and the officer encountered Mr Light Brown Jacket by the stairway quite far up the building, and he (Mr Truly) had falsely assured the officer that the man was an employee (--------> big problem if the officer talks about this later)

Well, the officer (Marrion Baker) does talk, and goes on the record about the rear stairway encounter. Mr Truly is apprised of this and now faces a whopping triple problem:

--------He himself has already talked about seeing Mr Oswald in the front lobby downstairs after the shooting
--------The officer has talked about seeing a Depository 'worker' upstairs by the rear stairway.
--------The authorities have made it clear they want to pin the actual shooting itself on Mr Oswald.


Mr Truly is now under intense pressure to make both encounters disappear.

He certainly cannot let it be known that he lied to the officer about the employment status of the man by the rear stairway.

Solution!------------He merges the Oswald encounter and the Rear Stairway encounter into one encounter!

But where to put it? The rear stairways on the upper floors are too crowded with witnesses and potential witnesses to simply put it there. Besides, any upper landing would be an impossible sell after all the talk of seeing Mr Oswald downstairs.

So! Prompted perhaps by Mrs Reid's sighting of Mr Oswald with coke in the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination and/or Mr Oswald's own (true) claim to have visited that lunchroom before the P. parade, Mr Truly locates the make-believe encounter in the second floor lunchroom. Close enough to downstairs to get away with!

Question! But how does he know there was no one in the lunchroom at the time in question who will come forward to challenge his story?

Answer! Because he knows that Mrs Reid was in there on her own, so all he has to do is get her onside!

Complication #1! Mrs Reid refuses to cooperate to the extent of saying she was in the lunchroom when post-assassination Mr Oswald came in.

Complication #2! Mrs Geneva Hine's presence in the office area means Mrs Reid's fake story can't have her there during the P. parade either.

De-Complication! "Tell them you were outside with me and Ochus and ran back inside".

Clever Mr Truly! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 11, 2019, 04:16:15 PM
   Personally, I have doubts regarding Anything Amos Euins testified to, said shortly thereafter, or claims today.  I have Never heard or read of a JFK assassination eyewitness verifying that Euins was anywhere near the stone pedestal he claims to have ducked behind before seeing a man withdrawing a pipe from the TSBD window. Furthermore, I have Never viewed even a single image showing him standing anywhere on Houston St in the vicinity of that stone pedestal. In addition to All of this, that stone pedestal is the same pedestal that young Toni Glover, (wearing the blue jacket) and her Mom were standing on top of. You can't miss seeing Glover wearing that bright blue jacket on the Bell Film, Dorman Film, etc. Dr Toni Glover has Never made mention of a young kid/Euins ducking/hugging that pedestal directly below her and her Mom as all hell broke loose that day. On top of ALL of this, during his questioning by HSCA investigators, Euins was asked about a Camera he claimed to have had with him that day. He said something along the lines of he did not know what happened to it following the assassination. ALL of this ambiguity make ALL claims made by Euins subject to question.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 11:47:56 PM
For those new to this issue, here is the depth of the problem posed by the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/jZTrM73.jpg)

These are the steps a fair while after the shooting, when the sun is further west and hence there is more shadow from the western column than there had been at 12.30pm:

(https://i.imgur.com/h7wN22G.jpg)

In short: that entranceway was bathed in direct sunlight at the time of the assassination!

Now--------try moving that shadow even closer to the west wall and then explaining the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman as a natural phenomenon...

It simply cannot be done!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 12, 2019, 12:32:01 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 12, 2019, 12:43:01 AM
For those new to this issue, here is the depth of the problem posed by the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/jZTrM73.jpg)

These are the steps a fair while after the shooting, when the sun is further west and hence there is more shadow from the western column than there had been at 12.30pm:

(https://i.imgur.com/h7wN22G.jpg)

In short: that entranceway was bathed in direct sunlight at the time of the assassination!

Now--------try moving that shadow even closer to the west wall and then explaining the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman as a natural phenomenon...

It simply cannot be done!

     The alleged "shadow" on Lovelady is Ridiculous. It looks like he has a Heavy Jet Black Overcoat draping over his shoulder.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 12, 2019, 08:19:29 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

Mr Davidson, is this gif supposed to illustrate anything specific?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 12, 2019, 08:38:17 AM
     The alleged "shadow" on Lovelady is Ridiculous. It looks like he has a Heavy Jet Black Overcoat draping over his shoulder.

Indeed----and I tried to put one over that shoulder in order to avoid the conclusion that the frames had been messed with. Unfortunately it didn't work! (cf. Lovelady in Hughes as JFK is coming onto Elm Street)

It's telling that no one has thus far been able to offer a viable alternative explanation for that dark shadow-which-cannot-be-a-shadow...  Instead we've just had periodic nonsense about the west column & lintel shadows!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 12, 2019, 08:54:07 AM
Now!

The resistance to the evidence putting Mr Oswald right behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shooting---------

(https://i.imgur.com/f2wUJ2c.jpg)

---------will come from various quarters:

1. Lone Nutters (but who cares------these poor souls' capacity for motivated reasoning is already legendary!  :D )

2. CTs who consider the second floor lunchroom incident sacrosanct (they'd rather keep that fiction alive than allow Mr Oswald his legitimate alibi)

3. CTs for whom JFK assassination research is an addictive hobby (the last thing they want to see is closure on the issue of Mr Oswald's whereabouts 12.30pm... what would they do with their days?)

4. 'CTs' pretending to be CTs (usually pretty easy to spot!)

5. Harvey and Lee nuts (The Great Armstrong doesn't put either Oswald on the steps so we sure as heck ain't gonna!)

6. CTs who have been heavily invested in the Prayer Man claim (it would be very sad to see Prayer Man become the new Lunchroom Incident-----i.e. the sacrosanct X that closes good people off to alternative ideas. Especially as Mr Oswald's alibi in Wiegman would never have been established had it not been for the brilliant and indefatigable work of the Prayer Man people. E.g.! Mr Kamp's game-changing unearthing of the Hosty notes that confirmed that Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have gone outside for the P. parade after a visit to the second floor lunchroom for a coke).

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 14, 2019, 12:51:11 AM
Now!

The resistance to the evidence putting Mr Oswald right behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shooting---------

(https://i.imgur.com/f2wUJ2c.jpg)

---------will come from various quarters:

1. Lone Nutters (but who cares------these poor souls' capacity for motivated reasoning is already legendary!  :D )

2. CTs who consider the second floor lunchroom incident sacrosanct (they'd rather keep that fiction alive than allow Mr Oswald his legitimate alibi)

3. CTs for whom JFK assassination research is an addictive hobby (the last thing they want to see is closure on the issue of Mr Oswald's whereabouts 12.30pm... what would they do with their days?)

4. 'CTs' pretending to be CTs (usually pretty easy to spot!)

5. Harvey and Lee nuts (The Great Armstrong doesn't put either Oswald on the steps so we sure as heck ain't gonna!)

6. CTs who have been heavily invested in the Prayer Man claim (it would be very sad to see Prayer Man become the new Lunchroom Incident-----i.e. the sacrosanct X that closes good people off to alternative ideas. Especially as Mr Oswald's alibi in Wiegman would never have been established had it not been for the brilliant and indefatigable work of the Prayer Man people. E.g.! Mr Kamp's game-changing unearthing of the Hosty notes that confirmed that Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have gone outside for the P. parade after a visit to the second floor lunchroom for a coke).

 Thumb1:

So anyone who questions Alan Fords theory of the day, is one of the above?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 14, 2019, 07:33:44 AM
So anyone who questions Alan Fords theory of the day, is one of the above?

Anyone who tries to explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the ridiculous way you have done, Mr Mason, certainly is!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Matthew Finch on November 14, 2019, 01:10:43 PM
Thank you very much for this, Mr Davidson! (How do you always seem to have such excellent versions of footage? It's wonderful!)  Thumb1:

Now!

What we're seeing here, in greater clarity than in the version of the Wiegman frames I have been posting, is that

------------------Mr Lovelady is stationary
------------------Mr Oswald (just behind him) is moving, one assumes because he is trying to get a better look at what's going on out on the street.

The Altgens photograph is taken at or around one of the points seen above (early frames!) where Mr Oswald's head is just to the left (=our right, i.e. east!) of Mr Lovelady's head. And Altgens shows a portion of Mr Oswald's head/face:

(https://i.imgur.com/mz3nkWV.gif)

Furthermore!

There is a lot of white t-shirt in the Oswald/Lovelady ensemble in Wiegman. Look closely and you will see that Mr Oswald appears to be wearing only his white t-shirt (no shirt!).

Had a dark vertical strip not been added to Mr Lovelady's right side, Mr Oswald's white t-shirt (and exposed right arm, and----who knows?-----maybe even a soda bottle in the right hand) would be all too evident even to a casual viewer. Which of course is why a dark vertical strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side!

This latter observation------------Mr Oswald in a white tshirt only------------suggests that Mr Oswald is not Prayer Man in the Darnell film after all.

Which in turn means that it's perfectly possible that only one person noticed Mr Oswald in the few moments he spent out front for the motorcade:

Mr Frazier.

Like I say, what a heavy burden to have to carry. No wonder Captain Fritz hung the threat of a charge of conspiracy to murder JFK over him!


Looks like the aerial of the passing car is also causing interference with that 'flat-edged black shadow'...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 14, 2019, 04:13:47 PM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer/Image with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 04:22:34 PM
A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer/Image with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.

   Again, the absence of Light does Not automatically = a Shadow. This would be like claiming to be standing in a Shadow if you were situated inside a CAVE.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 14, 2019, 05:02:10 PM
   Again, the absence of Light does Not automatically = a Shadow. This would be like claiming to be standing in a Shadow if you were situated inside a CAVE.

The WiegmanFilm clip being discussed is of the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance portal, facing south, and slightly southeast, at about 12:30pm CST, on 11/22/'63, about 2000 miles north of the equator.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 05:06:04 PM
The WiegmanFilm clip being discussed is of the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance portal, facing south, and slightly southeast, at about 12:30pm CST, on 11/22/'63, about 2000 miles north of the equator.

    No. We are talking about a Cop. This explains your erroneous conclusion(s). Please Focus
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 14, 2019, 05:16:10 PM
    No. We are talking about a Cop. This explains your erroneous conclusion(s). Please Focus

You need not to be concerned about my focus, the discussion centers on a shaded area in WiegmanFilm. Mr Davidson's posted film clip offers a perfect corroborating illustration.
If agreement you seek, keep looking.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 05:18:46 PM
A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer/Image with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.

 Bump regarding COP Vertical Shadow reference. Please keep up
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 14, 2019, 07:24:51 PM
A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer/Image with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.

And what, pray, does the vertical shadow down the police officer in this post-assassination footage---------------------

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

------------------------have to do with the vertical shadow down Mr Lovelady in all relevant frames of the Wiegman film shot at 12.30pm?-------------------

(https://i.imgur.com/X9Gyoc3.gif)

 ::)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 10:13:04 PM
And what, pray, does the vertical shadow down the police officer in this post-assassination footage---------------------

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

------------------------have to do with the vertical shadow down Mr Lovelady in all relevant frames of the Wiegman film shot at 12.30pm?-------------------

(https://i.imgur.com/X9Gyoc3.gif)

 ::)

     He wants us to believe that Anybody or any body part that is obstructed from being seen is due to a "shadow" being cast.  He needs to take a ride on the Matterhorn. Also, it is interesting to see that front Door has been OPENED OUTWARD. Had Frazier been standing within 1.5 feet of that door when it was OPENED OUTWARD, he would have been viewing the JFK Motorcade from the Elm St. Ext
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 15, 2019, 01:15:40 AM
The front entrance door of the TSBD can open BOTH ways, either out. or inward.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Christer Jacobsson on November 15, 2019, 01:22:15 AM

Lovelady IMO..

https://photos.app.goo.gl/jzkzw6KCL9iZStKi8 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/jzkzw6KCL9iZStKi8)

Best Rgds,
Christer
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 15, 2019, 01:23:34 AM
Anyone who tries to explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the ridiculous way you have done, Mr Mason, certainly is!  Thumb1:

If I understand you right. Alan,  there has been some alteration of several frames of the Wiegman film in about 3 or 4 of 18 frames per sec sequence, in which the conspirator film experts were able to blacken out the shape of Oswald.

and I asked why the  conspirators would decide to leave SOME of the image of Oswald, his head as it were, rather than blacken the head out also, so as to leave NO chance of any Oswald EVER seen at all in the Wiegman film?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 15, 2019, 07:47:37 AM
If I understand you right. Alan,  there has been some alteration of several frames of the Wiegman film in about 3 or 4 of 18 frames per sec sequence, in which the conspirator film experts were able to blacken out the shape of Oswald.

3 or 4 frames? Every single Wiegman frame showing Mr Lovelady has had a dark vertical strip added to his right side! Even when Mr Lovelady takes a step down, the 'shadow' moves down with him, continuing to cover most of his right side. Even if (in the parallel universe some of you KeepOswaldAwayFromTheFrontSteps people think hosted this assassination) the shadow line from the western column had extended diagonally right across much of the west side of the entranceway, this would be bizarre!

(https://i.imgur.com/tyJnWCO.gif)

Quote
and I asked why the  conspirators would decide to leave SOME of the image of Oswald, his head as it were, rather than blacken the head out also, so as to leave NO chance of any Oswald EVER seen at all in the Wiegman film?

So your objection to the evidence of Mr Oswald's presence just behind Mr Lovelady is not that you have an alternative explanation for it but that the cover-up people in 1963 didn't predict the rise of digital technology and an online research community capable of producing 3D reconstructions of the entranceway!  :D

Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)

Here's what the original Wiegman film showed:

1. In the frames showing Mr Lovelady at higher elevation, the original Wiegman film showed
-----------a second head in very close proximity to Mr Lovelady's head (right behind it)
-----------a white tshirt and bare right arm, identifying the owner of the second head as a casually dressed white male employee.

Solution to the Lovelady@HigherElevation frames? Add a crude dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side. People will assume it's a natural shadow. In the absence of a second body, it's unlikely anyone will even notice the second head. Even if anyone were to do so, they won't be able to identify it as Mr Oswald's. Could be anybody!

(https://i.imgur.com/BcMSXDX.gif)

2. In the frames showing Mr Lovelady at lower elevation, the original Wiegman film showed
-----------Mr Oswald's sunlit head/face now easily visible in all frames (because he hasn't changed elevation)
-----------Mr Oswald's t-shirted upper body and bare arms now easily visible
-----------> Mr Oswald now easily identifiable

Solution to the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames? Don't just add a crude dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side--------blacken out all of Mr Oswald, head included. It will be crude work, but it will fool the fools!

(https://i.imgur.com/NQ6j7H1.jpg)

The key point in all this is that the entire scam gambled on no one's ever noticing that the shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side couldn't possibly be a natural shadow. Up to very recently, the gamble paid off!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 15, 2019, 10:23:32 PM
     The lack of rebuttal would include the Forum Cartoonist Mytton. You know you are onto something when he goes crickets.

In fairness to Mr Mytton, he may be a coward but it's not his fault he can't offer a rebuttal-------------it's Mr Oswald's fault for going outside to watch the P. parade!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/5X9UiHu.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 01:57:23 AM
Bump regarding COP Vertical Shadow reference. Please keep up

Keep up with a non-provable claim that LeeHarveyOswald was on the Top Step/Landing of the TSBD Bldg Entrance Portal during filming by DaveWiegman? No Thanks.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 03:33:34 PM
If I understand you right. Alan,  there has been some alteration of several frames of the Wiegman film in about 3 or 4 of 18 frames per sec sequence, in which the conspirator film experts were able to blacken out the shape of Oswald.

and I asked why the  conspirators would decide to leave SOME of the image of Oswald, his head as it were, rather than blacken the head out also, so as to leave NO chance of any Oswald EVER seen at all in the Wiegman film?

Another question would be when was the WiegmanFilm first publicly seen? But, WiegmanFilm alteration to hide LeeHarveyOswald is a baseless claim. He is not there!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 16, 2019, 04:17:56 PM
Keep up with a non-provable claim that LeeHarveyOswald was on the Top Step/Landing of the TSBD Bldg Entrance Portal during filming by DaveWiegman? No Thanks.

    Forget the Oswald claim. Instead, tell this Forum exactly what is that Straight-As-A-String, Jet Black, Curtain.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 16, 2019, 04:45:15 PM

Although I do not embrace Mr Stancak's calculations regarding shadow lines, and Mannequin/Image placement, I do have total confidence that Mr Hackerott's calculations regarding shadow lines, and Mannequin/Image placement, are quite accurate.

A credible rebuttal of your argument? Your baseless argument is not credible. Where is your reliable evidence? Is your "evidence" based on a double exposure alteration of image sizing and placement, filmed by an in motion hand held motion picture camera, by a Camerman riding in a Motorcade Vehicle?

Perhaps, you can explain why there is no eyewitness statements/testimony, among numerous eyewitnesses available, that places LeeHarveyOswald on the Top Step/Landing/Stairs at the time of the Motorcade driving past the TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance?


    Come on Larry. Look at that Curtain. It is Unlike Any actual shadow anywhere close to those steps/hand rail. That curtain looks like Lovelady has a Jet Black trench coat thrown over his shoulder.  Lovelady is Not hugging the West wall and he is Not standing on top of the landing. This shadow stuff defies what we are seeing.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 05:00:24 PM
    Forget the Oswald claim. Instead, tell this Forum exactly what is that Straight-As-A-String, Jet Black, Curtain.

That is your claim. I do not claim the shadow line on BillyLovelady/Image's right side remains straight in WiegmanFilm. As a matter of fact, it does not!

It need not take a photography expert to correctly conclude that the shading and darkened area is due to blocked sunlight creating a shadow, and photograph/film frame light/dark contrast.

That is what I see, Forum!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 16, 2019, 05:40:21 PM
That is your claim. I do not claim the shadow line on BillyLovelady/Image's right side remains straight in WiegmanFilm. As a matter of fact, it does not!

It need not take a photography expert to correctly conclude that the shading and darkened area is due to blocked sunlight creating a shadow, and photograph/film frame light/dark contrast.

That is what I see, Forum!

    What you are referring to as "darkend" is actually JET BLACK. As in Jet Black inside a tunnel. Take a look at other shadows inside Dealey Plaza. Stemmons Sign, etc. Straight and Depth of BLACK.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 06:39:03 PM
    What you are referring to as "darkend" is actually JET BLACK. As in Jet Black inside a tunnel. Take a look at other shadows inside Dealey Plaza. Stemmons Sign, etc. Straight and Depth of BLACK.

My comments relate to BillyLovelady/Image as seen in WiegmanFilm of the TSBD Bldg Entrance Portal at the time that the MotorcadeVehicle/CameraCar carrying Camerman/DaveWiegman is turning, and/or has turned on to Elm St from Houston St. And, I do not embrace any correlation between said filming and what may be seen, or unseen in WiegmanFilm in other areas and from other camera positioning/status/locations/angles.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 16, 2019, 09:33:22 PM

Although I do not embrace Mr Stancak's calculations regarding shadow lines, and Mannequin/Image placement, I do have total confidence that Mr Hackerott's calculations regarding shadow lines, and Mannequin/Image placement, are quite accurate.

 :D

Mr Hackerott's shadow line calculations are no different to Mr Stancak's!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 16, 2019, 11:59:40 PM
some questions

1. If there was a conspirator able to examine the Wiegman film, frame by frame, and had the skill to use some technique to blacken out the figure, why would they leave the head of the figure still visible?

2. If the 2nd head is Oswalds, why is it almost the same height as Billy Lovelady? If Oswald is behind Lovelady, he is most likely standing on one step higher, thus should be about 7 or more inches higher than Lovelady. Can you show this figure is 'bending his knees, or leaning forward in a way that can lower his head to same level as Lovelady head?

3. If its Oswald, and he is IN THE MIDST of several people, now the probability of him not being seen is  approaching "impossible", even more than when Alan Ford was certain that Prayerblob was Oswald "in the corner"  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 12:16:01 AM
some questions

1. If there was a conspirator able to examine the Wiegman film, frame by frame, and had the skill to use some technique to blacken out the figure, why would they leave the head of the figure still visible?

a question

If Mr Ford has already addressed this question at length in Post #570, why is Mr Mason mindlessly asking it again?  ::)

Quote
2. If the 2nd head is Oswalds, why is it almost the same height as Billy Lovelady?

Both on the landing--------------Mr Lovelady is leaning, Mr Oswald is not.  Thumb1:

Quote
3. If its Oswald, and he is IN THE MIDST of several people, now the probability of him not being seen is  approaching "impossible", even more than when Alan Ford was certain that Prayerblob was Oswald "in the corner"  ;)

Oh, that's easy!

a) Everyone is focused on the P. parade.

b) Only one person has Mr Oswald in their line of sight: Mr Frazier.

c) Mr Oswald only pops out front for a very short time before returning back inside to the vestibule.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 17, 2019, 01:19:09 AM
3 or 4 frames? Every single Wiegman frame showing Mr Lovelady has had a dark vertical strip added to his right side! Even when Mr Lovelady takes a step down, the 'shadow' moves down with him, continuing to cover most of his right side. Even if (in the parallel universe some of you KeepOswaldAwayFromTheFrontSteps people think hosted this assassination) the shadow line from the western column had extended diagonally right across much of the west side of the entranceway, this would be bizarre!

(https://i.imgur.com/tyJnWCO.gif)

So your objection to the evidence of Mr Oswald's presence just behind Mr Lovelady is not that you have an alternative explanation for it but that the cover-up people in 1963 didn't predict the rise of digital technology and an online research community capable of producing 3D reconstructions of the entranceway!  :D

Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)

Here's what the original Wiegman film showed:

1. In the frames showing Mr Lovelady at higher elevation, the original Wiegman film showed
-----------a second head in very close proximity to Mr Lovelady's head (right behind it)
-----------a white tshirt and bare right arm, identifying the owner of the second head as a casually dressed white male employee.

Solution to the Lovelady@HigherElevation frames? Add a crude dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side. People will assume it's a natural shadow. In the absence of a second body, it's unlikely anyone will even notice the second head. Even if anyone were to do so, they won't be able to identify it as Mr Oswald's. Could be anybody!

(https://i.imgur.com/BcMSXDX.gif)

2. In the frames showing Mr Lovelady at lower elevation, the original Wiegman film showed
-----------Mr Oswald's sunlit head/face now easily visible in all frames (because he hasn't changed elevation)
-----------Mr Oswald's t-shirted upper body and bare arms now easily visible
-----------> Mr Oswald now easily identifiable

Solution to the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames? Don't just add a crude dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side--------blacken out all of Mr Oswald, head included. It will be crude work, but it will fool the fools!

(https://i.imgur.com/NQ6j7H1.jpg)

The key point in all this is that the entire scam gambled on no one's ever noticing that the shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side couldn't possibly be a natural shadow. Up to very recently, the gamble paid off!

 Thumb1:


Your post no. 570 in which you claim that 2nd head which IS VISIBLE, therefore NOT blackened out, is the head of Oswald.

Your suggestion that the conspirators were pressed for time, yet they apparently had enough time to examine EACH FRAME of the Wiegman film AND had the time to use a technique of some sort to INDIVIDUALLY blacken EACH FRAME one by one, which is NOT  a hastily done process... and yet.. the HEAD which is VISIBLE , they MISSED?????

Whether the conspirators anticipated future examination of Wiegman film with improved tech in the future is irrelevant to my question WHY DIDNT THEY BLACKEN OUT THE FACE of the supposed Oswald figure?

do you have another explanation than "a rush job" as the reason to have missed the 2nd head which if it is as distinguishable as you claim to be Oswald, they SURELY should have made EVERY effort to make sure the most ESSENTIAL element of the figure, the FACE is blacken out.

Or is the 2nd head an aberration or motion blur and does NOT actually exist? If that is the reason for the 2nd head being visible, THEN your anomalous black shadow alteration theory makes more sense, at least to me :)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 01:29:16 AM

Your post no. 570 in which you claim that 2nd head which IS VISIBLE, therefore NOT blackened out, is the head of Oswald.

Your suggestion that the conspirators were pressed for time, yet they apparently had enough time to examine EACH FRAME of the Wiegman film AND had the time to use a technique of some sort to INDIVIDUALLY blacken EACH FRAME one by one, which is NOT  a hastily done process... and yet.. the HEAD which is VISIBLE , they MISSED?????

Whether the conspirators anticipated future examination of Wiegman film with improved tech in the future is irrelevant to my question WHY DIDNT THEY BLACKEN OUT THE FACE of the supposed Oswald figure?

Because it wasn't necessary!  Thumb1:

Quote
do you have another explanation than "a rush job" as the reason to have missed the 2nd head which if it is as distinguishable as you claim to be Oswald

Where did I claim it was distinguishable as Mr Oswald's head?

Quote
, they SURELY should have made EVERY effort to make sure the most ESSENTIAL element of the figure, the FACE is blacken out.

If you're unhappy with the cover-up investigators' work, take it up with them not with me!  Thumb1:

Quote
Or is the 2nd head an aberration or motion blur and does NOT actually exist? If that is the reason for the 2nd head being visible, THEN your anomalous black shadow alteration theory makes more sense, at least to me :)

Huh? They cast half of Mr Lovelady's body into darkness for the heck of it?  ::)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 17, 2019, 01:44:52 AM
Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)


If Mr.Fords statement above is correct, then it READILY APPARENT that the conspirators made a HUGE mistake in not blackening out the 2nd head.

They were Rushed? :D yet they had enough time to meticulously go frame by frame of Wiegman carefully blackened out some figure they thought was Oswald, but.. Missed his face, AND missed the white T shirt and whatever else Mr.Ford thinks he sees in there  :D

What about my question if the 2nd head phenom is just motion blur? Agree or Not agree?

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 01:54:57 AM
Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)


If Mr.Fords statement above is correct, then it READILY APPARENT that the conspirators made a HUGE mistake in not blackening out the 2nd head.

If it was such a HUGE mistake, Mr Mason, why did it take until 21 October 2019 for the second head even to be noticed?

Quote
They were Rushed? :D yet they had enough time to meticulously go frame by frame of Wiegman carefully blackened out some figure they thought was Oswald, but.. Missed his face,

Can't you read? They didn't miss his face in those frames where it was identifiable.

Quote
AND missed the white T shirt and whatever else Mr.Ford thinks he sees in there  :D

What about my question if the 2nd head phenom is just motion blur? Agree or Not agree?

Funny how it only happens to Mr Lovelady--------------yes, that would be the same Mr Lovelady who has an impossible 'shadow' down his right side!

Your problem, Mr Mason, is that you talk as though that dark strip in all the Wiegman frames has found a credible alternative explanation to the one I have offered. It hasn't-------not even close. Your own explanation-----------it's the vertical shadow we see on Mr Frazier in Darnell------------did win marks for hilarity though!   :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:06:33 AM
    Forget the Oswald claim. Instead, tell this Forum exactly what is that Straight-As-A-String, Jet Black, Curtain.

For a start the darkened area follows Lovelady's shirt and isn't straight. And since you've only seen a copy of a copy of a video copy of a 16mm film, claiming the area is jet black is a little premature. Has your monitor been professionally calibrated?

(https://i.postimg.cc/zDtRvwcD/lovelady-shadow-steps.gif)

Here is the video and the amount of motion blur in these frames is obviously excessive and then you want to believe that someone painted in the motion blur along with the shadow into multiple frames where they essentially had to "guess" exactly what to paint and still make it photo realistic? And instead of just easily removing the frames which nobody would miss they undertook some massive project with so much potential for failure, why would they bother?
It must be really neat to live in a fantasy world where you can imagine anything you want and totally ignore any scientific technicalities.

(https://i.postimg.cc/YC2ZMNyF/lovelady-shadow.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:10:23 AM
For a start the darkened area follows Lovelady's shirt and isn't straight. And since you've only seen a copy of a copy of a video copy of a 16mm film, claiming the area is jet black is a little premature. Has your monitor been professionally calibrated?

(https://i.postimg.cc/zDtRvwcD/lovelady-shadow-steps.gif)

Here is the video and the amount of motion blur in these frames is obviously excessive and then you want to believe that someone painted in the motion blur along with the shadow into multiple frames where they essentially had to "guess" exactly what to paint and still make it photo realistic? And instead of just easily removing the frames which nobody would miss they undertook some massive project with so much potential for failure, why would they bother?
It must be really neat to live in a fantasy world where you can imagine anything you want and totally ignore any scientific technicalities.

(https://i.postimg.cc/YC2ZMNyF/lovelady-shadow.gif)

JohnM

Synopsis: Mr Mytton still can't explain why there's a dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:10:48 AM
Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)


If Mr.Fords statement above is correct, then it READILY APPARENT that the conspirators made a HUGE mistake in not blackening out the 2nd head.

They were Rushed? :D yet they had enough time to meticulously go frame by frame of Wiegman carefully blackened out some figure they thought was Oswald, but.. Missed his face, AND missed the white T shirt and whatever else Mr.Ford thinks he sees in there  :D

What about my question if the 2nd head phenom is just motion blur? Agree or Not agree?

All good questions but don't expect a coherent answer, watching Ford fumble, stumble and bumble his way through his latest hare brained theory is frankly hilarious!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:12:18 AM
All good questions but don't expect a coherent answer, watching Ford fumble, stumble and bumble his way through his latest hare brained theory is frankly hilarious!

JohnM

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:19:05 AM
Synopsis: Mr Mytton still can't explain why there's a dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side!  Thumb1:

 ;D >:( 8) ??? ::) :) :-[ :-\ :-*

I don't really care, Oswald had many opportunities to tell the world that he was on the steps with his friends watching the P.Parade and for some reason he never said "Boo" and on top of this Oswald agreed with the question that he was inside at the time. It's all over red rover!

@1:13

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:21:40 AM
;D >:( 8) ??? ::) :) :-[ :-\ :-*

I don't really care, Oswald had many opportunities to tell the world that he was on the steps with his friends watching the P.Parade and for some reason he never said "Boo" and on top of this Oswald agreed with the question that he was inside at the time. It's all over red rover!

@1:13

JohnM

Oh, but you do care, Mr Mytton----------and it's plain for all to see that you've been checkmated!  :D

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:33:13 AM
I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

 Thumb1:

I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE, along with your mate Storing, you just want to believe that anything you can dream up is possible but you haven't got a clue on how anything is technically accomplished.
How about you try and manipulate a piece of film and see how it's done and then see if you can actually replicate the same type of images on your computer and when you discover how bloody hard it really is, then try to imagine how difficult it is with film celluloid and a can of paint.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:39:04 AM
I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE, along with your mate Storing, you just want to believe that anything you can dream up is possible but you haven't got a clue on how anything is technically accomplished.
How about you try and manipulate a piece of film and see how it's done and then see if you can actually replicate the same type of images on your computer and when you discover how bloody hard it really is, then try to imagine how difficult it is with film celluloid and a can of paint.

JohnM

 :D

Still drawing a humiliating blank, Mr Mytton? Keep trying!  Thumb1:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:45:17 AM
Oh, but you do care, Mr Mytton----------and it's plain for all to see that you've been checkmated!  :

Sorry, but I really don't give a stuff.
I only had my first look at this today and all I can see a lot of uneducated guesses based on other peoples uneducated guesses. When I see some genuine evidence that supports your theory then I'll take note but waving your arms and making your usual bluster saying "I can see it, why can't you" is not really convincing.

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:47:40 AM
:D

Still drawing a humiliating blank, Mr Mytton? Keep trying!  Thumb1:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

No, it's YOUR claim not mine and it's YOUR job to prove that what YOU are proposing is possible, as I just said waving your arms isn't proof of anything.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:55:59 AM
No, it's YOUR claim not mine and it's YOUR job to prove that what YOU are proposing is possible, as I just said waving your arms isn't proof of anything.

JohnM

:D

It's not my 'claim' that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady cannot possibly be a natural shadow from the western column-------it's just the reality.

Your problem, Mr Mytton, is that you're too intelligent to push any of the ridiculous explanations others have offered to explain away that dark vertical 'shadow', but too dishonest to admit in front of everyone that you're totally stumped by this problem. Hence all your entertaining bluster and diversion!

Thanks for the laughs, and do let us know if you think of anything!  Thumb1:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:59:20 AM

Thanks for the laughs, and do let us know if you think of anything!  Thumb1:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

It's never been my claim, support your ideas with some reasonable proof and let's see what happens, K.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 03:07:12 AM
It's never been my claim, support your ideas with some reasonable proof and let's see what happens, K.

JohnM

But I've already given ample proof that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady cannot possibly be shadow from the western column------------just as you've already given ample proof that you cannot explain how that dark strip got there!  Thumb1:

If I'm mischaracterizing the situation, just complete this sentence for us:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

Over to you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 03:42:32 AM
But I've already given ample proof that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady cannot possibly be shadow from the western column------------just as you've already given ample proof that you cannot explain how that dark strip got there!  Thumb1:

Where is your evidence, have you recreated the camera's position at the Depository or in a computer, and then placed Lovelady in all the different possible places along the camera's point of view?

Quote
Over to you!

Are you joking this has nothing to do with me! Stop passing the buck. Present some evidence that will dazzle the senses, go ahead and make my day and stop asking people to prove YOUR theory, it's always been YOUR claim and it's YOUR responsibility to prove it. Well? Waiting......

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 17, 2019, 03:52:56 AM
I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE, along with your mate Storing, you just want to believe that anything you can dream up is possible but you haven't got a clue on how anything is technically accomplished.
How about you try and manipulate a piece of film and see how it's done and then see if you can actually replicate the same type of images on your computer and when you discover how bloody hard it really is, then try to imagine how difficult it is with film celluloid and a can of paint.

JohnM

     Your claiming it is "difficult" to do does Not Disprove anything. To the contrary, You are actually validating that it is possible.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 04:25:29 AM
     Your claiming it is "difficult" to do does Not Disprove anything. To the contrary, You are actually validating that it is possible.

As usual Storing, you're way out of your depth and if you think that what I said validates Ford's fantasies then prove it?
Btw maybe learn how to post an image or two and really give it to me!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 17, 2019, 04:33:47 AM
As usual Storing, you're way out of your depth and if you think that what I said validates Ford's fantasies then prove it?
Btw maybe learn how to post an image or two and really give it to me!

JohnM

     You said it was "difficult" Not impossible. Check out the Hackerott review of the Darnell film he viewed at the 6th Floor Museum. It's over on the Photo Side of the Forum. He said he viewed Camera Car #2 STOPPED. This is why we have films and images with Incorrect Time Stamps. The Camera Cars were STOPPED and time was passing. This is why guys such as Wiegman eventually bailed out of their cars.  Tick, Tick, Tick.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 04:43:57 AM
     You said it was "difficult" Not impossible.

I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE,....

JohnM

Quote
This is why we have films and images with Incorrect Time Stamps.

And not so long ago you claimed that you had photographic proof that "a few minutes later" in Dealey Plaza, the Presidential Parade was all gone, now you admit you have no idea, nice, thanks for your support.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 11:56:08 AM
Where is your evidence, have you recreated the camera's position at the Depository or in a computer, and then placed Lovelady in all the different possible places along the camera's point of view?

Already done, Mr Mytton------------Messrs Stancak and Hackerott both did meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway at 12.30pm 11/22/63. And guess what? It is simply not possible to put Mr Lovelady anywhere near the natural shadow line of the western column!

No one has been able to challenge their calculations. If you think you can, we're all ears! Thumb1:

Quote
Are you joking this has nothing to do with me! Stop passing the buck. Present some evidence that will dazzle the senses, go ahead and make my day and stop asking people to prove YOUR theory, it's always been YOUR claim and it's YOUR responsibility to prove it. Well? Waiting......

 :D

I'm not asking anyone to prove my theory, Mr Mytton, I'm inviting them to refute one of its planks: the magic shadow down Mr Lovelady.

Thus far... no one has been able to explain this:

(https://i.imgur.com/eNMsWnp.jpg)

Can you?

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman: _________________________.

Good luck!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 17, 2019, 04:03:57 PM
And not so long ago you claimed that you had photographic proof that "a few minutes later" in Dealey Plaza, the Presidential Parade was all gone, now you admit you have no idea, nice, thanks for your support.

JohnM

    You claimed it was "DIFFICULT". Difficult is Not the same as impossible. Maybe you mis-spoke? If you want to rescind your "DIFFICULT" declaration, just declare so.  You Goofed. So what? Not the 1st time You have done this.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 17, 2019, 04:39:26 PM
Where is your evidence, have you recreated the camera's position at the Depository or in a computer, and then placed Lovelady in all the different possible places along the camera's point of view?

Are you joking this has nothing to do with me! Stop passing the buck. Present some evidence that will dazzle the senses, go ahead and make my day and stop asking people to prove YOUR theory, it's always been YOUR claim and it's YOUR responsibility to prove it. Well? Waiting......

JohnM

Thank you, JohnMytton, for sticking to your forum guns. You are on the correct side of history on this discussion. However, it appears that the agenda continues to forward a "claim", that is non-provable, that LeeHarveyOswald is on the TSBD Bldg entrance landing as the Motorcade drove past..
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 07:55:15 PM
Already done, Mr Mytton------------Messrs Stancak and Hackerott both did meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway at 12.30pm 11/22/63. And guess what? It is simply not possible to put Mr Lovelady anywhere near the natural shadow line of the western column!

No one has been able to challenge their calculations. If you think you can, we're all ears! Thumb1:


Expecting me to go and hunt for your evidence that proves your theory is a waste of my time.
If you had any confidence in your theory, you would have simply posted this evidence?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 08:06:20 PM
Expecting me to go and hunt for your evidence that proves your theory is a waste of my time.
If you had any confidence in your theory, you would have simply posted this evidence?

JohnM

Oh but I have full confidence in my finding of Mr Oswald just behind Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, Mr Mytton------------and the inability of you or any of your fellow Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Steps fanatics to explain the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady has only boosted that confidence! 

Off you scurry! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 08:32:17 PM
Now!

It is often claimed that the Altgens photograph-------------------

(https://i.imgur.com/Poenc5g.jpg)

-----------------corresponds with those frames in Wiegman showing Mr Lovelady at the higher elevation:

(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

However, the correspondence is not punctual. There is a slight time gap between them.

We can see this by comparing and contrasting the position of Mr Lovelady's tshirt relative to his head in the respective images!

(https://i.imgur.com/Poenc5g.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

In Altgens, Mr Lovelady's upper body would appear to be twisted somewhat as he leans east; in Wiegman, it would appear to be more parallel with the glass doors (but leaning east too).

Now Wiegman shows the second 'Lovelady' head (i.e. Oswald's) moving in relation to Mr Lovelady's:

(https://i.imgur.com/O38HVMR.gif)

 In the earliest frames, Mr Oswald's head (the higher of the two) appears on one side of Mr Lovelady's; in the later, on the other:

(https://i.imgur.com/vOz8I4m.jpg)

This leads me to believe Altgens must have been taken just before the first of the Wiegman frames. For Altgens shows a segment of skin just peeking out to Mr Lovelady's left:

(https://i.imgur.com/5cXzmzI.gif)

Of course this also means that Altgens confirms------------as though confirmation were needed  ;) -------------that the second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman is real!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 09:12:23 PM
Now!

To those who still hold out some residual hope that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman might be way over by the shadow line from the western column, consider----------------with the aid of Mr Hackerott's 3D reconstruction-----------------what putting Mr Lovelady far enough west so that the shadow would catch him would do to the spatial relation between Mr Lovelady and PrayerPerson:

(https://i.imgur.com/K8ps7rL.jpg)

No matter which spot on the shadow line you choose to put Mr Lovelady in, he will be blocking PrayerPerson from Wiegman's view!

Now compare what we actually see in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/K8ps7rL.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

It's not even close!  :D

And the problem is even worse when Mr Lovelady steps down to a lower elevation, for the lower you go the nearer you have to go to the west wall to catch shadow:

(https://i.imgur.com/kD78AGm.gif)(https://i.imgur.com/K8ps7rL.jpg)

The theory that Mr Lovelady is caught by natural shadow is, always has been and always will be a complete joke!

That dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady is not, never has been and never will be a natural shadow!


That impossible shadow is the 'smoking gun' in the question of Mr Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 11:31:09 PM
Now!

To those who still hold out some residual hope that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman might be way over by the shadow line from the western column, consider----------------with the aid of Mr Hackerott's 3D reconstruction-----------------what putting Mr Lovelady far enough west so that the shadow would catch him would do to the spatial relation between Mr Lovelady and PrayerPerson:


Sorry.

(https://i.postimg.cc/VNhtn3XK/loveaa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 18, 2019, 12:56:01 AM
Alan, I think the problem with the 2 heads is that Billy Lovelady is being captured in 1/18th sec increments IN THE PROCESS of moving from the upper level landing, which is where his WC testimony states he WAS.. and then he is about to step down to the next lower step, thus making room for Buell Frazier to eventually move forward into the sunlight.

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 08:37:22 AM
Alan, I think the problem with the 2 heads is that Billy Lovelady is being captured in 1/18th sec increments IN THE PROCESS of moving from the upper level landing, which is where his WC testimony states he WAS.. and then he is about to step down to the next lower step, thus making room for Buell Frazier to eventually move forward into the sunlight.

Nope, Mr Mason, the problem with the 2 heads is that you would really rather they weren't there! Your explanation here, like all your previous knock-down objections on this issue, makes scant sense!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 07:07:39 PM
Now!

Look at these two images:

(https://i.imgur.com/Poenc5g.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

Notice anything about the placement of the 'shadow' line down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman shot?

That's right----------------it falls exactly where the western column cuts off Mr Lovelady in the Altgens photograph!

What a fluke!  :D

Whoever added 'shadow' to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman added precisely as much shadow as they could get away with without contradicting Altgens' depiction of Mr Lovelady in direct sunlight!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 12:42:36 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/fLJcd0F3/loveladyindoorway.gif)

 :D :D :D

The One Where Mr Mytton Jumps the Shark!

(https://i.imgur.com/aXolm8g.gif)

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 01:00:32 AM
:D :D :D

The One Where Mr Mytton Jumps the Shark!

(https://i.imgur.com/aXolm8g.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/C1Hrx2Zh/Alarmed-Paltry-Cleanerwrasse-size-restricted.gif)

All I did and you can do it too, was fill in the details and lined them up, ain't perspective a bitch! And doesn't it make sense that Lovelady like Frazier would use the shadow to their advantage and be able to duck in out to catch the P.Parade. Btw where Lovelady is appears to be just about where the 3D recreations reckon he should be, it's a double whammy.

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 01:01:13 AM

   Careful John!  Though we frequently disagree with each other, I do Not want to see you get suspended.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 01:06:51 AM
   Careful John!  Though we frequently disagree with each other, I do Not want to see you get suspended.

Suspended for what?

And why ignore my graphic? maybe because it totally screws with your stupid fakery BS!

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 01:19:52 AM
Suspended for what?

And why ignore my graphic? maybe because it totally screws with your stupid fakery BS!

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

JohnM

    I did Not want to rundown your childish cartoon. What time does that Cage come down and the Frazier vs Lovelady match begin?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 01:20:32 AM
All I did and you can do it too, was fill in the details and lined them up

Sure you did!

(https://i.imgur.com/cVCnIbj.gif)

Look at that western column grow!

 :D :D :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 01:25:45 AM
Sure you did!

(https://i.imgur.com/cVCnIbj.gif)

Look at that western column grow!

 :D :D :D

   Looks like a Chia Pet. Just in time for Christmas.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 01:27:05 AM
    I did Not want to rundown your childish cartoon.

No worries, at least some of us can post an actual photo when we are discussing a photo.
Anyway, perspective has never been your forte but hey at least you're trying.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 01:31:02 AM
   Looks like a Chia Pet. Just in time for Christmas.

 Thumb1:

And look at that lady in white grow!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/cVCnIbj.gif)

This latest effort from poor panicked Mr Mytton is just too funny for words!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 01:38:41 AM
No worries, at least some of us can post a photo when we are actually discussing a photo.
Anyway, perspective has never been your forte but hey at least you're trying.

JohnM

   That alleged BLACK shadow is a legit Issue. There is No way around it.  Another Issue is the main subjects possibly changing positions. Plus, we do Not know with certainty the elapsed time between the images being contrasted
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 02:06:49 AM
Sure you did!

(https://i.imgur.com/cVCnIbj.gif)

Look at that western column grow!

 :D :D :D



Seriously that's the best you've got?, we're looking at Lovelady's horizontal position and a little vertical compression and a slight camera change of position is not going to move Lovelady's image halfway across the frame.

Anyway, I found a version with the correct vertical compression and now we see Prayer Person closely aligned, the western column is correctly aligned, the size of the entrance relative to the glass doors behind is correctly aligned and still Lovelady is no where near the centre railing. Sucko!
Just face it, you're way out of your depth and you can go ahead and nitpick some more minor insignificant "details" but that will in no way change the overall mathematically correct geometry, Lovelady is near the shadow EXACTLY where your 3D examples say he should be!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 02:13:53 AM
   That alleged BLACK shadow is a legit Issue. There is No way around it.  Another Issue is the main subjects possibly changing positions. Plus, we do Not know with certainty the elapsed time between the images being contrasted

A. it's a shadow
B. Yes, Lovelady appears but what has that got to do with the price of fish?
C. We are looking at the overall layout and where the shadowed Lovelady fits, how is the time elapsed relevant?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on November 19, 2019, 03:33:20 AM
Suspended for what?

And why ignore my graphic? maybe because it totally screws with your stupid fakery BS!

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

JohnM
Your graphic? ha ha ha you need serious help. Your family needs to do an intervention, for your own good

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 03:45:21 AM
Your graphic? ha ha ha you need serious help. Your family needs to do an intervention, for your own good

Thanks for the advice, and while I have your attention, here's an updated graphic which puts the final nail in the coffin. These conspiracy nuts who have no experience in the real world should leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups, and those pathetic Noobs who can't even post an image to save their lives, really need a new hobby, looking at you Royell. Hahahaha!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 19, 2019, 04:12:05 AM
Thanks for the advice, and while I have your attention, here's an updated graphic which puts the final nail in the coffin. These conspiracy nuts who have no experience in the real world should leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups, and those pathetic Noobs who can't even post an image to save their lives, really need a new hobby, looking at you Royell. Hahahaha!

JohnM

"..leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups.."  :D

ETA: What you should have done was overlap the 2 images and fade the overlap in and out, if you are going to fade instead of blink. Not sure how applying a fade or morph effect to 2 images is advanced analysis, but you're the expert. Did you write the algorithm or did you just stumble across the Gimp menu option?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on November 19, 2019, 04:21:54 AM
Thanks for the advice, and while I have your attention, here's an updated graphic which puts the final nail in the coffin. These conspiracy nuts who have no experience in the real world should leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups, and those pathetic Noobs who can't even post an image to save their lives, really need a new hobby, looking at you Royell. Hahahaha!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM
John the Expert, "advanced graphical analysis"

Let me guess, next week you'll claim to be a Statistician. Just another hobby, right? ha ha ha  Jonathan Higgins was a fictional character too!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 05:06:06 AM
"..leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups.."  :D

ETA: What you should have done was overlap the 2 images and fade the overlap in and out, if you are going to fade instead of blink. Not sure how applying a fade or morph effect to 2 images is advanced analysis, but you're the expert. Did you write the algorithm or did you just stumble across the Gimp menu option?

Quote
ETA: What you should have done was overlap the 2 images and fade the overlap in and out, if you are going to fade instead of blink.

Yeah, maybe next time I can add flashing lights and furry dice!

Quote
Not sure how applying a fade or morph effect to 2 images is advanced analysis, but you're the expert.

After presenting hundreds of graphics, I receive a lot of uninformed criticism, Yawn, but at the end of the day I'm my own harshest critic and after years in this industry, I learn and therefore I know better than most, it's just a fact.   

Quote
Did you write the algorithm or did you just stumble across the Gimp menu option?

Did I write the algorithm? wtf? what a ridiculously uninformed loaded question, why waste my time doing what graphic programs do for everyone in the business automatically? You try and sound clever but you just keep letting yourself down. I in fact use a number of graphical programs to best get each individual job done, but I digress, this image is an advanced rocket science powered overlay where I have highlighted the important geometry and most importantly highlighted the central railing which is invaluable in positioning Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 05:11:18 AM
John the Expert, "advanced graphical analysis"

Let me guess, next week you'll claim to be a Statistician. Just another hobby, right? ha ha ha  Jonathan Higgins was a fictional character too!

Quote
John the Expert, "advanced graphical analysis"

Yes, I heard my name and credentials being called, how can I help?

Quote
Let me guess, next week you'll claim to be a Statistician.

At least I don't claim to be an xxxxxxxx.

Quote
Just another hobby, right? ha ha ha

I have plenty of hobbies, is that a problem?

JohnM




Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 03:34:51 PM


Seriously that's the best you've got?, we're looking at Lovelady's horizontal position and a little vertical compression and a slight camera change of position is not going to move Lovelady's image halfway across the frame.

Anyway, I found a version with the correct vertical compression and now we see Prayer Person closely aligned, the western column is correctly aligned, the size of the entrance relative to the glass doors behind is correctly aligned and still Lovelady is no where near the centre railing. Sucko!
Just face it, you're way out of your depth and you can go ahead and nitpick some more minor insignificant "details" but that will in no way change the overall mathematically correct geometry, Lovelady is near the shadow EXACTLY where your 3D examples say he should be!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM

Now! Let's start with this, shall we?

Mr Mytton's imagined railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

The actual railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)

Mr Mytton's gone and put the lady in black on the wrong side of the railing!  :D

F for fail!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 03:42:20 PM
Now! Let's start with this, shall we?

Mr Mytton's imagined railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

The actual railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)

Mr Mytton's gone and put the lady in black on the wrong side of the railing!  :D

F for fail!

Now #2! We see this lady in black, who is on the east side of the center railing, twice in Mr Mytton's final gif frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/0UWslGs.gif)

She must have climbed over the railing between Wiegman and Darnell!  :D

Either that or poor panicked Mr Mytton has gotten his overlay badly wrong...

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has a simple rational explanation: the front entranceway changed shape dramatically during the shooting."

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 04:15:45 PM
Now! Let's start with this, shall we?

Mr Mytton's imagined railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

The actual railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)

F for fail!

Yes indeed, F for Fail, I couldn't have said it better myself! Will you ever get anything right?

(https://i.postimg.cc/FzyZBwQ5/alan-fforfailaa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 04:20:34 PM
Yes indeed, F for Fail, I couldn't have said it better myself! Will you ever get anything right?

(https://i.postimg.cc/FzyZBwQ5/alan-fforfailaa.gif)

JohnM

 :D :D :D

The rail stops where the lady's body starts, Mr Mytton! No bright rail traversing her black top! Why do you think that might be, now?

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 04:24:52 PM
:D :D :D

The rail stops where the lady's body starts, Mr Mytton! No bright rail traversing her black top! Why do you think that might be, now?

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)

 Thumb1:

What sort of drugs are you on and where can I get some?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSxjHgqsvE1HzyAXf6uAFmTMAo1Q05JSf-bBoXsE4Uxk0mMM0x9)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 04:34:51 PM
What sort of drugs are you on and where can I get some?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSxjHgqsvE1HzyAXf6uAFmTMAo1Q05JSf-bBoXsE4Uxk0mMM0x9)

JohnM

 :D

Go on, Mr Mytton, show us the bright upper rail traversing part of the black top of the lady---------if your placement of the railing is correct, you should have no trouble!

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 04:50:46 PM
:D

Go on, Mr Mytton, show us the bright upper rail traversing part of the black top of the lady---------if your placement of the railing is correct, you should have no trouble!

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Thumb1:

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/drawing-101-linear-perspective/

https://www.artistsnetwork.com/art-mediums/drawing/learn-to-draw-perspective/

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 06:09:15 PM
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/drawing-101-linear-perspective/

https://www.artistsnetwork.com/art-mediums/drawing/learn-to-draw-perspective/

JohnM

Nope, nothing to do with perspective, Mr Mytton, but nice try!  Thumb1:

You claim the bright upper rail is traversing part of the lady's black top:

(https://i.imgur.com/dXS8dK1.gif)

Bright against dark? Should be easy to see! So show us on this clean Darnell frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/GEQjk07.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 07:59:47 PM
Now! Mr Mytton's devious little game here with his gifs is to do everything he possibly can to shift Mr Lovelady as far left (i.e. west) as he can get away with!

In his first version he 'accidentally' made the figures in the Wiegman doorway much too small. But he was called out on that and forced to correct.  Thumb1:

But in his latest, second version, the other 'errors' are still present and correct. For instance, he's got the center railing pointing too sharply to the right (i.e. east) as it rises with the steps. All to create fictional space west of the center railing that will lead men and women of goodwill to believe Mr Lovelady is closer to the west wall where the real-world shadow action is!  :D

Now! Mr Mytton's problem here is that a meticulous overlay of Wiegman and Darnell was already done some time back by a researcher who--------unlike Mr Mytton--------is honest:

(https://i.imgur.com/r6x4I4y.gif)

Look up from Mr Lovelady's head to the word 'DEPOSITORY' and you will see that it is between the 'P' and the 'O'.

This is because this is exactly what Wiegman shows:

(https://i.imgur.com/73AbdJM.jpg)

This gif---this honestly made gif---has not manipulated our perception of Mr Lovelady's position by giving us the Darnell version of 'DEPOSITORY'!  Thumb1:

In Mr Mytton's dishonest version, by contrast, Mr Lovelady's head is under the letter 'E' of 'DEPOSITORY':

(https://i.imgur.com/G3OCS12.jpg)

Mr Lovelady is----you guessed it----too far west!  :D

In fairness to Mr Mytton, he has done a clever job of hiding the misalignment of letters between Wiegman and Darnell (look at the controlled mess that is 'BOOK'!).

Challenge to Mr Mytton: give us a simple two-frame gif containing just the clean Wiegman frame laid over the clean Darnell frame!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 19, 2019, 08:21:42 PM
Yeah, maybe next time I can add flashing lights and furry dice!

No, just quit with the fade, it's distracting and it provides no additional information. You wannabe photo-"experts" don't have the formal training to analyze imagery, let alone call yourself experts.

Quote
After presenting hundreds of graphics, I receive a lot of uninformed criticism, Yawn, but at the end of the day I'm my own harshest critic and after years in this industry, I learn and therefore I know better than most, it's just a fact.

"..in this industry.."  :D says the layman.

Quote
Did I write the algorithm? wtf? what a ridiculously uninformed loaded question, why waste my time doing what graphic programs do for everyone in the business automatically? You try and sound clever but you just keep letting yourself down. I in fact use a number of graphical programs to best get each individual job done, but I digress, this image is an advanced rocket science powered overlay where I have highlighted the important geometry and most importantly highlighted the central railing which is invaluable in positioning Lovelady.

I'm not uninformed, I write all my own image analysis s/w because unlike you, I'm an actual photogrammetrist. You're a photoshopper and not a particularly good one. You're better than nothing but that's not saying much.

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 08:23:26 PM
Nope, nothing to do with perspective, Mr Mytton, but nice try!  Thumb1:

You claim the bright upper rail is traversing part of the lady's black top:

(https://i.imgur.com/dXS8dK1.gif)

Bright against dark? Should be easy to see! So show us on this clean Darnell frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/GEQjk07.jpg)

 Thumb1:

I'd have an easier time trying to make my dog learn chess before you grasp the basics of perspective.

If the railing was there or not there is irrelevant but it is convenient for exactly locating the halfway point. Here is a vertical plane bisecting the front entrance into two halves and unfortunately for you Lovelady is no where near halfway.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Btw sorry for making you look stoopid but you asked for it!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 08:35:41 PM
I'd have an easier time trying to make my dog learn chess before you grasp the basics of perspective.

If the railing was there or not there is irrelevant but it is convenient for exactly locating the halfway point. Here is a vertical plane bisecting the front entrance into two halves and unfortunately for you Lovelady is no where near halfway.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Btw sorry for making you look stoopid but you asked for it!

JohnM

 :D

Mr Mytton, do you believe that the lady in the black top is to the east or to the west of the railing?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 08:43:47 PM
No, just quit with the fade, it's distracting and it provides no additional information. You wannabe photo-"experts" don't have the formal training to analyze imagery, let alone call yourself experts.

"..in this industry.."  :D says the layman.

I'm not uninformed, I write all my own image analysis s/w because unlike you, I'm an actual photogrammetrist. You're a photoshopper and not a particularly good one. You're better than nothing but that's not saying much.

Quote
You wannabe photo-"experts" don't have the formal training to analyze imagery, let alone call yourself experts.

You wannabe "humans" really need to expose yourselves to light.

Quote
I'm not uninformed, I write all my own image analysis s/w because unlike you, I'm an actual photogrammetrist.

Excellent, since there is more than enough information you can do a photogrammetry analysis like the following image and give us the precise position of Lovelady! Awesome!
Show us these elusive as yet unseen photogrammetry skills and really make me eat humble pie. And I don't want to hear your usual excuses, give this one your best shot.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS8Uh2Km1eVwHBmM69JLoEQXUFagTTQ1Ej46C6fepowUg2o5aUB)

JohnM







 





Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 19, 2019, 08:48:21 PM
Sorry.

(https://i.postimg.cc/VNhtn3XK/loveaa.gif)

JohnM

maybe the vertical blackness part of BW FRazier is ALSO a conspirator blackening of Oswalds body, which was more exposed once Billy Lovelady moved down the steps when Gloria Cavalry came running up.

 This is in the realm of Alan Ford type probability, because if Oswald can have come out the front door, right past Pauline Sanders, then past Prayerblob, then insert himself BETWEEN Buel W Frazer/Bill Shelly and just right behind Billy Lovelady, and NOT be seen doing this... as Alan Fords theory requires...

then the aspiring breakthrough researcher CTs might as well add in Gloria Cavalry and Joe Molina not seeing Oswald right there on the steps just near to them, now more exposed to the sunlight, since in Couch and Darnell films, where Baker is running towards steps, Oswald would have no longer had Billy Lovelady blocking his figure, and BW Frazier has moved up right behind Oswald.

now before you just  :D and  ::), Mr. Mytton.. this COULD be possible, you have to admit..it MAY be
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 19, 2019, 08:58:13 PM
The lower railing and two skirts.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 19, 2019, 09:04:58 PM
You wannabe "humans" really need to expose yourselves to light.

Excellent, since there is more than enough information you can do an analysis like the following image and give us the precise position of Lovelady! Awesome!
Show us these elusive as yet unseen photogrammetry skills and really make me eat humble pie. And I don't want to hear your usual excuses, give this one your best shot.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS8Uh2Km1eVwHBmM69JLoEQXUFagTTQ1Ej46C6fepowUg2o5aUB)

JohnM

 :D Yep, that's a car accident alrighty. I'm just here to critique your work as a peer (cough cough) and let the others know of your limitations. You're doing great, otherwise, but I'd rather you "eat crow" than "humble pie", since you're so full of it already. I'll be here to let you know when you f**k up. Gawd speed Myttonhead!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 09:13:35 PM
maybe the vertical blackness part of BW FRazier is ALSO a conspirator blackening of Oswalds body, which was more exposed once Billy Lovelady moved down the steps when Gloria Cavalry came running up.

But the "vertical blackness part" of Mr Frazier in Darnell is--------------unlike the vertical blackness part of Mr Lovelady in Wiegman--------------very easy to account for.

(https://i.imgur.com/GpWAU4u.jpg)

Sorry to disappoint you, Mr Mason!  Thumb1:

Quote
This is in the realm of Alan Ford type probability, because if Oswald can have come out the front door, right past Pauline Sanders, then past Prayerblob, then insert himself BETWEEN Buel W Frazer/Bill Shelly and just right behind Billy Lovelady, and NOT be seen doing this... as Alan Fords theory requires...

then the aspiring breakthrough researcher CTs might as well add in Gloria Cavalry and Joe Molina not seeing Oswald right there on the steps just near to them, now more exposed to the sunlight, since in Couch and Darnell films, where Baker is running towards steps, Oswald would have no longer had Billy Lovelady blocking his figure, and BW Frazier has moved up right behind Oswald.

now before you just  :D and  ::), Mr. Mytton.. this COULD be possible, you have to admit..it MAY be

'Please don't let LHO be out front... Please someone explain that Lovelady shadow... Please don't let LHO be out front... Please someone explain that Lovelady shadow... '

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 09:15:36 PM
The lower railing and two skirts.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

Thank you, Mr Davidson!  Thumb1:

We're still waiting to hear from Mr Mytton whether he believes the lady in the black top is on the east side of center railing or on the west side...

If the latter, we're still waiting for him to show us-------------on a clean (i.e. un-Mytton-scrawled) Darnell frame-------------the bright railing going across the lady's black top, a la this creative interpretation...

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

I'll get the popcorn!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 09:28:39 PM
:D Yep, that's a car accident alrighty. I'm just here to critique your work as a peer (cough cough) and let the others know of your limitations. You're doing great, otherwise, but I'd rather you "eat crow" than "humble pie", since you're so full of it already. I'll be here to let you know when you f**k up. Gawd speed Myttonhead!

So, I guess we won't be seeing your photogrammetry skills today or any other day it seems, what a shame.

Btw "critique my work as a peer", that's a laugh. All I do is make observations and then create graphics so that I can share my experiences, it's all extremely Zen whereas you ever so serious lunatics are so wedded to a conspiracy that often always you will attempt to bend the very fabric of time and space to make your fantasies come true.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 09:36:01 PM
I'd have an easier time trying to make my dog learn chess before you grasp the basics of perspective.

If the railing was there or not there is irrelevant but it is convenient for exactly locating the halfway point. Here is a vertical plane bisecting the front entrance into two halves and unfortunately for you Lovelady is no where near halfway.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Btw sorry for making you look stoopid but you asked for it!

JohnM

       Once again the Issue here is Time Stamping. If we are seeing Lovelady on the steps while People are now heading Back Inside the TSBD, the accepted time line has Officer Baker already inside the TSBD with Lovelady and Shelley in motion going down the Elm St Ext. How is it we are seeing Lovelady Standing Stock Still on the Steps?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 09:47:08 PM
Friends, this final frame from Mr Mytton's latest gif is an artfully misleading blend of Wiegman, Darnell and MyttonArt:

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

I am asking Mr Mytton to give us a simple, no-frills gif overlay of
a) the clean Wiegman frame Mr Mytton used
b) the clean Darnell frame Mr Mytton used.

Let's then compare the overlay of 'BOOK DEPOSITORY' in Wiegman and 'BOOK DEPOSITORY' in Darnell with what we see here in this meticulous, honest, agenda-free version:

(https://i.imgur.com/WouHp6w.gif)

Over to you, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:02:01 PM
The lower railing and two skirts.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

Thanks Chris, that makes it easy to see and besides my top skirt being a little too forward it was pretty close. But as for Ford and Co. at the end of the day as I pointed out, the railing being there or not doesn't matter because all we are concerned with in this conversation is Lovelady's position within the front entrance area and by bisecting this space which admittedly is easier with the railing, we can easily place Frazier and Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:03:39 PM
       Once again the Issue here is Time Stamping. If we are seeing Lovelady on the steps while People are now heading Back Inside the TSBD, the accepted time line has Officer Baker already inside the TSBD with Lovelady and Shelley in motion going down the Elm St Ext. How is it we are seeing Lovelady Standing Stock Still on the Steps?

How do you know it's Lovelady? A shirt over a white T-shirt was also worn by Oswald! Da da da dumb!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 10:10:18 PM
How do you know it's Lovelady? A shirt over a white T-shirt was also worn by Oswald! Da da da dumb!

JohnM

     Are You claiming this is Not Lovelady? Be careful with that can-of-worms You are fiddling with.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:18:50 PM
Friends, this final frame from Mr Mytton's latest gif is an artfully misleading blend of Wiegman, Darnell and MyttonArt:

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

I am asking Mr Mytton to give us a simple, no-frills gif overlay of
a) the clean Wiegman frame Mr Mytton used
b) the clean Darnell frame Mr Mytton used.

Let's then compare the overlay of 'BOOK DEPOSITORY' in Wiegman and 'BOOK DEPOSITORY' in Darnell with what we see here in this meticulous, honest, agenda-free version:

(https://i.imgur.com/WouHp6w.gif)

Over to you, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:

Hey guess what, you're mad and I'm not!
I'm pretty much over this, I only first looked at this seriously a few days ago, figured it out pretty quickly and provided irrefutable proof which ironically is supported by your own 3D graphics, go figure?
But Alan, I know from experience that this will be a never ending debate because frankly you're not smart enough to know otherwise, sorry bout that.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:21:21 PM
     Are You claiming this is Not Lovelady?

How do you know it's Lovelady, prove it.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 10:24:47 PM
Thanks Chris, that makes it easy to see and besides my top skirt being a little too forward it was pretty close. But as for Ford and Co. at the end of the day as I pointed out, the railing being there or not doesn't matter

 :D :D :D

But the placement of the railing way away from Mr Lovelady was your big reveal! And now it's blown up in your face so you're backing away. Too funny!

 
Quote
because all we are concerned with in this conversation is Lovelady's position within the front entrance area and by bisecting this space which admittedly is easier with the railing, we can easily place Frazier and Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

JohnM

So take the original clean Wiegman and Darnell frames you started with-----------and put them into a simple, unannotated two-frame gif!

Or could it be you don't want your little scam to be exposed?  :o
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 10:39:37 PM
Hey guess what, you're mad and I'm not!
I'm pretty much over this, I only first looked at this seriously a few days ago, figured it out pretty quickly and provided irrefutable proof which ironically is supported by your own 3D graphics, go figure?
But Alan, I know from experience that this will be a never ending debate because frankly you're not smart enough to know otherwise, sorry bout that.

JohnM

     Here's Another person claiming their  Manipulated Images are "Irrefutable Proof".  You know better than to try and pull this John.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 19, 2019, 10:41:59 PM
     Here's Another person claiming their  Manipulated Images are "Irrefutable Proof".  You know better than to try and pull this John.

No he doesn't.  He pulls this all the time.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:44:31 PM
:D :D :D

But the placement of the railing way away from Mr Lovelady was your big reveal! And now it's blown up in your face so you're backing away. Too funny!

 
So take the original clean Wiegman and Darnell frames you started with-----------and put them into a simple, unannotated two-frame gif!

Or could it be you don't want your little scam to be exposed?  :o

Quote
But the placement of the railing way away from Mr Lovelady was your big reveal! And now it's blown up in your face so you're backing away. Too funny!

This is what I mean by "not very smart", the "big reveal" has always been about how far Lovelady was from the center plane, which also happens to be inhabited by the railing so I initially used a physical object instead of an easy to understand concept but I found that also went way over your head.
Btw you just can't look at a 3d image and measure Lovelady's distance directly in a 2D video capture or place him under some letter from the sign above, that's absurd. And this is why you fail, learn perspective like I suggested and all will become clear.

Quote
Or could it be you don't want your little scam to be exposed?  :o

What scam?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 10:52:26 PM
This is what I mean by "not very smart", the "big reveal" has always been about how far Lovelady was from the center plane, which also happens to be inhabited by the railing

Which happened to be the marker you used to 'prove' Mr Lovelady's distance from the center. But you were rumbled!  :D

Quote

What scam?

JohnM

Your ridiculous misalignment of Wiegman and Darnell, helped along by your ridiculous drawing of the center railing, places Mr Lovelady too far west in the entranceway. You hoped no one would notice the problems with your Wiegman-Darnell-MyttonArt mashup. Didn't work!

Prove me wrong by overlaying the two clean source frames from Wiegman and Darnell!

See if you can beat this, the work of an honest researcher!:

(https://i.imgur.com/DurS8Yj.gif)

  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 11:09:51 PM
     Here's Another person claiming their  Manipulated Images are "Irrefutable Proof".  You know better than to try and pull this John.

Ford may be clueless but at least he can illustrate his "ideas', whereas your participation is worthless on every level, keep it up!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 11:13:58 PM
This is what I mean by "not very smart", the "big reveal" has always been about how far Lovelady was from the center plane, which also happens to be inhabited by the railing so I initially used a physical object instead of an easy to understand concept but I found that also went way over your head.
Btw you just can't look at a 3d image and measure Lovelady's distance directly in a 2D video capture or place him under some letter from the sign above, that's absurd. And this is why you fail, learn perspective like I suggested and all will become clear.

What scam?

JohnM

     You know better than to manipulate image(s) to try and prove whatever your point might be. Ford caught You cold and now you gotta live with having been Exposed. Your visual aids past, present, and future now carry this Stain.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 11:35:38 PM
Friends, look at the relative positions of 'PrayerPerson' in the honest overlay of Wiegman and Darnell versus in Mr Mytton's dishonest one:

(https://i.imgur.com/qfMNmFv.gif)   (https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

This shows us just how desperately hard Mr Mytton worked to present Mr Lovelady as being farther west than he really was and higher than he really was.

An utterly pathetic and shameless attempt to make the magic shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side explicable as a natural shadow!

Major fail!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 12:10:05 AM
Now!

How did Mr Mytton solve the 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' problem in his second version----------which was created in response to the observation that the figures in Wiegman in his first version were much smaller than the figures in Darnell?

Easy-----------------he got rid of 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' altogether by keeping 'PrayerPersonInDarnell' embedded in the 'Wiegman' frame!

Look at what happens to PrayerPerson in the images below. They tell quite a story!

Honest, Non-Myttonian Version + Dishonest Myttonian Version A

(https://i.imgur.com/qfMNmFv.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

Dishonest Myttonian Version B with nothing of 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' but the bright dot:

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)
 
He realised that having 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' climbing up the west wall might be a problem! :D

What an absolute scam artist this man is!

(https://lilyofthevalleyuk.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/borat_thumbs_up_narrowweb__300x50401.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:39:38 AM
Now!

How did Mr Mytton solve the 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' problem in his second version----------which was created in response to the observation that the figures in Wiegman in his first version were much smaller than the figures in Darnell?

Easy-----------------he got rid of 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' altogether by keeping 'PrayerPersonInDarnell' embedded in the 'Wiegman' frame!

Look at what happens to PrayerPerson in the images below. They tell quite a story!

Honest, Non-Myttonian Version + Dishonest Myttonian Version A

(https://i.imgur.com/qfMNmFv.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

Dishonest Myttonian Version B with nothing of 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' but the bright dot:

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)
 
He realised that having 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' climbing up the west wall might be a problem! :D

What an absolute scam artist this man is!

(https://lilyofthevalleyuk.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/borat_thumbs_up_narrowweb__300x50401.jpg)

Hilarious, the more frustrated you become the more angry words just pour out.

For a start your non-mytton version has been squeezed horizontally to squeeze Lovelady closer to the railing, have you got even one honest bone in your body? I already told you that there were altered images on the web and now you're attempting to use them to your own advantage. naughty naughty!

But even with your "manipulated" image when the railing is made clear, Lovelady is behind and to the left, behind and to the left. Whichever way you look at this problem, the outcome is always the same. You lose! Did you ever think that painting in a shadow was going to trump reality?

(https://i.postimg.cc/4x6tf8c1/loveladyinshadow.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 12:47:29 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/4x6tf8c1/loveladyinshadow.gif)

He's still placing the railing in the wrong place!  :D

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:58:45 AM
He's still placing the railing in the wrong place!  :D

Really? You can show me where I went wrong, yes?

(https://i.postimg.cc/D0Q9xkDN/rail.gif)

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/YqddxC0F/texas-depository-front-entrancea.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:17:03 AM
     You know better than to manipulate image(s) to try and prove whatever your point might be. Ford caught You cold and now you gotta live with having been Exposed. Your visual aids past, present, and future now carry this Stain.

(http://You know better than to manipulate image(s) to try and prove whatever your point might be.)

Every comparison image I used, came from either this thread or from Google images and if you can't prove that I manipulated even 1 image I expect a full apology.

Quote
Your visual aids past, present, and future now carry this Stain.

Every image I have ever posted has been under intense scrutiny, it goes with the job.

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 01:30:15 AM
Hilarious, the more frustrated you become the more angry words just pour out.

For a start your non-mytton version has been squeezed horizontally to squeeze Lovelady closer to the railing, have you got even one honest bone in your body? I already told you that there were altered images on the web and now you're attempting to use them to your own advantage. naughty naughty!

But even with your "manipulated" image when the railing is made clear, Lovelady is behind and to the left, behind and to the left. Whichever way you look at this problem, the outcome is always the same. You lose! Did you ever think that painting in a shadow was going to trump reality?

(https://i.postimg.cc/4x6tf8c1/loveladyinshadow.gif)

JohnM

      Why don't You just Stop altering JFK Assassination Images?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:38:51 AM
      Why don't You just Stop altering JFK Assassination Images?

I knew you couldn't prove what didn't happen, I demand a full apology for your unwarranted smear.

Btw in the last couple of days a bunch of Kooks keep giving me advice but why is it always to your advantage.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 03:07:45 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 03:09:33 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder1.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 03:17:39 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder.gif)
Same event, different camera position.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dIWUwWREt2jy7ecTEY8kWDhfzG3x8Fay/view?usp=sharing
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 04:06:54 AM

Honest, Non-Myttonian Version + Dishonest Myttonian Version A


Unbelievable, I just noticed you didn't use my latest up to date version but you dug through my history and compared my very first graphic(version A) and knowing that I made more accurate versions you still persisted in making a fraudulent comparison, hey whatever it takes right?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 20, 2019, 04:32:39 AM
Unbelievable, I just noticed you didn't use my latest up to date version but you dug through my history and compared my very first graphic(version A) and knowing that I made more accurate versions you still persisted in making a fraudulent comparison, hey whatever it takes right?

JohnM

He's desperate for recognition, John.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 04:48:10 AM
He's desperate for recognition, John.

--  MWT  ;)

Yes, Alan's keen on cherry picking some minor detail that he perceives to be faulty, like a date or a shadow, and then he'll build an entire conspiracy theory around it and it doesn't matter if it makes any sense or not or even if it's physically possible or not because the big bad Government is so advanced they can do anything, well that is besides hiding a conspiracy or delivering his dole check on time.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 05:50:03 AM
Unbelievable, I just noticed you didn't use my latest up to date version but you dug through my history and compared my very first graphic(version A) and knowing that I made more accurate versions you still persisted in making a fraudulent comparison, hey whatever it takes right?

JohnM

      "More ACCURATE versions" ??  Why not just admit Your version was INCORRECT?  There is CORRECT and INCORRECT. You play around with the Images and your work product is going to reflect this Manipulation. INCORRECT Version(s) = INCORRECT Conclusion(s).
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 06:10:50 AM
      "More ACCURATE versions" ??  Why not just admit Your version was INCORRECT?  There is CORRECT and INCORRECT. You play around with the Images and your work product is going to reflect this Manipulation. INCORRECT Version(s) = INCORRECT Conclusion(s).

You really don't get it, there can never be a CORRECT version because NONE of these cameras were in the EXACT same location or were all using the EXACT same lenses, therefore there can never be a CORRECT version, then on top of that is the poisoned well of bad video transfers, Pal copies, distorted images, manipulated images and so on which finally means that by definition there will always only be INCORRECT versions, but that doesn't mean that 95% accuracy can't be used to derive a logical conclusion.

JohnM 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 09:52:28 AM
Really? You can show me where I went wrong, yes?

(https://i.postimg.cc/D0Q9xkDN/rail.gif)

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/YqddxC0F/texas-depository-front-entrancea.gif)

JohnM

On which side of the center railing---------east or west----------do you believe the lady in the black top was standing? You still haven't answered that simple question, despite being asked it multiple times!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 09:57:20 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder1.gif)

Yes, the younger man's body is turned, unlike Mr Lovelady's, which is facing straight ahead:

(https://i.imgur.com/ZmSiPDI.jpg)

And the police officer gets some shadow from the young man, whereas Mr Lovelady has nobody blocking sunlight.

Apples and oranges, Mr Davidson! Thumb1:

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 10:00:41 AM
Unbelievable, I just noticed you didn't use my latest up to date version but you dug through my history and compared my very first graphic(version A) and knowing that I made more accurate versions you still persisted in making a fraudulent comparison, hey whatever it takes right?

JohnM

Why did you fraudulently get rid of PrayerPersonInWiegman in your new, improved version of the Wiegman frame, Mr Mytton? Why do we only see the bright dot from PrayerPersonInWiegman?

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Show us where your new, improved version of the Wiegman frame would actually leave PrayerPersonInWiegman!

If this PrayerPerson car crash here in your first dishonest version is anything to go by, you had very good reason indeed to eliminate PrayerPersonInWiegman!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 10:07:30 AM
Yes, Alan's keen on cherry picking some minor detail that he perceives to be faulty, like a date or a shadow, and then he'll build an entire conspiracy theory around it and it doesn't matter if it makes any sense or not or even if it's physically possible or not because the big bad Government is so advanced they can do anything, well that is besides hiding a conspiracy or delivering his dole check on time.

JohnM

 :D

Mr Mytton really doesn't like being found out!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on November 20, 2019, 11:51:09 AM
again, i believe prayerdude was some guy off the street, looking for a better view to take pictures (movies?).  just my humble opinion.  but what does it matter if oswald was busy upstairs killing the president?  i mean...... really....  who's noticing who when the president rolls by?  and then many change their recollections decades later.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 11:57:44 AM
Why did you fraudulently get rid of PrayerPersonInWiegman in your new, improved version of the Wiegman frame, Mr Mytton? Why do we only see the bright dot from PrayerPersonInWiegman?

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Show us where your new, improved version of the Wiegman frame would actually leave PrayerPersonInWiegman!

If this PrayerPerson car crash here in your first dishonest version is anything to go by, you had very good reason indeed to eliminate PrayerPersonInWiegman!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

Hahaha.
You have zero understanding of this entire procedure, prayer person is a movable object and therefore  has absolutely no bearing on Lovelady's position relative to his permanent surroundings. Just like I said earlier you're going to endlessly cherry pick insignificant irrelevent details because you cant see the forest for the trees.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 11:59:59 AM
Hahaha.
You have zero understanding of this entire procedure, prayer person is a movable object and therefore  has absolutely no bearing on Lovelady's position relative to his permanent surroundings. Just like I said earlier you're going to endlessly cherry pick insignificant irrelevent details because you cant see the forest for the trees.

JohnM

OK then, Mr Mytton, so you'll be happy to show us what your placement of LoveladyInWiegman does to PrayerPersonInWiegman. After all, you've nothing to hide here, right?  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 12:00:58 PM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder1.gif)

Poor Mr Lovelady is straddling the center railing here... Looks painful!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 12:02:46 PM
again, i believe prayerdude was some guy off the street, looking for a better view to take pictures (movies?).  just my humble opinion.  but what does it matter if oswald was busy upstairs killing the president?  i mean...... really....  who's noticing who when the president rolls by?  and then many change their recollections decades later.

 ::)

Has anyone ever seen a post of substance from this Lone Nut bore?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:06:41 PM
On which side of the center railing---------east or west----------do you believe the lady in the black top was standing?

Nice, you answer my question with another question, how quaint. But if you really don't know where the railing is, then you just dont know, no biggie, I did it for you.
Btw the blob you are talking about is another movable object and is again irrelevent. Focus.

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:13:20 PM
OK then, Mr Mytton, so you'll be happy to show us what your placement of LoveladyInWiegman does to PrayerPersonInWiegman. After all, you've nothing to hide here, right?  :D

Did you absorb even 1 word I said?
Prayerperson was not a fixed object and could move, so has nothing to do with this conversation.
Why cant you prove where Lovelady was standing?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:22:14 PM
again, i believe prayerdude was some guy off the street, looking for a better view to take pictures (movies?).  just my humble opinion.  but what does it matter if oswald was busy upstairs killing the president?  i mean...... really....  who's noticing who when the president rolls by?  and then many change their recollections decades later.

No Mark, keep up it seems that prayer person is no longer Oswald, but the black shadow on Lovelady is somehow paint that has been used to paint over the real Oswald?, yes this theory gets seriouly more deranged as it goes on. Even though nobody in the films is more than a blob the Gubermint spent considerable resources aquiring and altering a second of filmed blobs, bizarre most bizarre.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 01:26:23 PM
Nice, you answer my question with another question, how quaint. But if you really don't know where the railing is, then you just dont know, no biggie, I did it for you.
Btw the blob you are talking about is another movable object and is again irrelevent. Focus.

JohnM

 :D

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the lady in the black top in the Wiegman doorway is standing on the ________ side of the center railing."

East or west, Mr Mytton?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 01:30:53 PM
Did you absorb even 1 word I said?
Prayerperson was not a fixed object and could move, so has nothing to do with this conversation.
Why cant you prove where Lovelady was standing?

JohnM

 :D

Why did you replace PrayerPersonInWiegman with PrayerPersonInDarnell in your Wiegman frame, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Go on, show us PrayerPersonInWiegman in your Wiegman frame------------you know, the way the frame looked before you said to yourself, "Uh oh, better hide that..."!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:37:55 PM
:D

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the lady in the black top in the Wiegman doorway is standing on the ________ side of the center railing."

East or west, Mr Mytton?

 Thumb1:

Who the heck is black top woman and why should I care?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:42:21 PM
:D

Why did you replace PrayerPersonInWiegman with PrayerPersonInDarnell in your Wiegman frame, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Go on, show us PrayerPersonInWiegman in your Wiegman frame------------you know, the way the frame looked before you said to yourself, "Uh oh, better hide that..."!

If you can prove that prayer person was an immovable statue between both images then it may be worth persuing but until then the actual fixed geometry of brick and cement takes precedent.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 01:48:59 PM
Who the heck is black top woman and why should I care?

JohnM

 :D

You know full well which woman I mean, Mr Mytton!

(https://i.imgur.com/VCqo3l1.jpg)

Now answer the question: Which side of the center railing is she standing on------------east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/xK4KnPA.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:53:03 PM
:D

You know full well which woman I mean, Mr Mytton!

(https://i.imgur.com/VCqo3l1.jpg)

Now answer the question: Which side of the center railing is she standing on------------east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/xK4KnPA.jpg)

 Thumb1:

The top doesnt appear very black and how do you know it's a woman?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:00:51 PM
If you can prove that prayer person was an immovable statue between both images then it may be worth persuing but until then the actual fixed geometry of brick and cement takes precedent.

JohnM

 :D

No, the person who produced an honest overlay of Wiegman and Darnell proved that PrayerPerson was anything but an immovable statue!

(https://i.imgur.com/iMOP7Bw.gif)

Your first dishonest overlay of Wiegman and Darnell showed a rather different movement in PrayerPerson:

(https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

OMG, they're embedded in the wall! Which is what happens when you put Mr Lovelady too far west!  :D

You noticed the problem and, being a scam artist, solved it in your second dishonest overlay by getting rid of PrayerPersonInWiegman altogether---and hoping no one would notice!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

 But you've been caught red-handed!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:01:54 PM
The top doesnt appear very black and how do you know it's a woman?

JohnM

Everyone's watching you squirm, Mr Mytton!

Which side of the center railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on----east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/VCqo3l1.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xK4KnPA.jpg)

Let's get Mr Mytton's next response out of the way, shall we? 'How do you know the color of the rectangle is blue?' :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 02:15:44 PM
Everyone's watching you squirm, Mr Mytton!

Look Alan, enough of the boring questions and silly assumptions, either you can draw in the railing or you can't and it looks like you can't.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:17:25 PM
Look Alan, enough of the boring questions and silly assumptions, either you can draw in the railing or you can't and it looks like you can't.

JohnM

 :D

At least you did your best to fool people, Mr Mytton, and that has to count for something---have a biscuit!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 02:35:07 PM
:D

No, the person who produced an honest overlay of Wiegman and Darnell proved that PrayerPerson was anything but an immovable statue!


Oops, your honest overlay, is nothing of the sort and has been manipulated and distorted to make things fit, whereas I avoid such blatant deception and just stick with unaltered images.

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:51:33 PM
Oops, your honest overlay, is nothing of the sort and has been manipulated and distorted to make things fit, whereas I avoid such blatant deception and just stick with unaltered images.

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM

:D

Look at the movement of the vertical orange line you've drawn on the west column (the most leftward line in the image):

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Bang on the edge in Darnell, but not in Wiegman!

Because you cherry pick the bits in Darnell you want to use and the bits in Wiegman you want to use, your overlays are acts of deliberate deception. You're a scam artist, Mr Mytton, and it's been fun exposing your fakery!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 02:52:48 PM
:D

At least you did your best to fool people, Mr Mytton, and that has to count for something---have a biscuit!

Another post, another emoticon, a weak attempt at humour and still no answers. Yawn!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:01:26 PM
:D

Look at the movement of the vertical orange line you've drawn on the west column (the most leftward line in the image):

Bang on the edge in Darnell, but not in Wiegman!

Because you cherry pick the bits in Darnell you want to use and the bits in Wiegman you want to use, your overlays are acts of deliberate deception. You're a scam artist, Mr Mytton, and it's been fun exposing your fakery!  Thumb1:

I can understand your reluctance to confront your inner demons but sorry the image that you have been trumpeting as authentic is a FRAUD. OUCH!

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM





Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 03:06:31 PM
I can understand your reluctance to confront your inner demons but sorry the image that you have been trumpeting as authentic is a FRAUD. OUCH!

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM

Show us your correction of your vertical orange line down the west column, Mr Mytton!

Show us your overlay of the words 'BOOK DEPOSITORY', Mr Mytton!

Show us your positioning of PrayerPersonInWiegman!

And, while you're about it, give us your answer to the question about the person in the dark top standing by the center railing (east or west)!

Come on, Mr Mytton, we could do with a few more good laughs from you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:14:48 PM
Show us blah blah blah..............

Sorry Alan, but your Garbage in/Garbage out "honest" GIF has demolished whatever credibility you had left. Try again!

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

Btw how you going with that railing of yours? Hehehe!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 03:49:31 PM
Look Alan, enough of the boring questions and silly assumptions, either you can draw in the railing or you can't and it looks like you can't.

JohnM

    Joe Louis put it best when he said, "You can run, but You can't hide". Give it up. Ford has you Cold.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:50:58 PM
Show us your correction of your vertical orange line down the west column, Mr Mytton!

Show us your overlay of the words 'BOOK DEPOSITORY', Mr Mytton!

Show us your positioning of PrayerPersonInWiegman!

And, while you're about it, give us your answer to the question about the person in the dark top standing by the center railing (east or west)!

Come on, Mr Mytton, we could do with a few more good laughs from you!  Thumb1:

Since the two videos were not taken in the exact same location then there is no way to line up the images with precision hence why your "GIF" was massively distorted.
The following graphic shows two images honestly overlapped without any enhancing distortions which will unfortunately place objects and letters in the wrong positions and is not a true replication of reality.

(https://i.postimg.cc/kGHPVrxG/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 03:51:18 PM
Exactly, I didn't want to play my hand so early but yes the lady in black has nothing to do with the precise position of the railing and is a worthless diversion, it's clear that when the actual position of the railing is drawn in, that it places Lovelady back in the shadow as he is supposed to be, hence the reason that Ford doesn't want to confront it.

(https://i.postimg.cc/DZWP6qq0/alan-fforfailaa.gif)

JohnM

    And NOW he is Forced into admitting Playing Games. "You can run, but You can't hide"
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:56:46 PM
    Joe Louis put it best when he said, "You can run, but You can't hide". Give it up. Ford has you Cold.

What the heck are you talking about?
I asked Ford to draw in his railing and so far he hasn't complied so explain how does me giving up, solve Ford's problem?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 04:22:32 PM
What the heck are you talking about?
I asked Ford to draw in his railing and so far he hasn't complied so explain how does me giving up solve Ford's problem?

JohnM

   Your answering Ford's question with a question says much. On top of that, You Now admit to playing evasive games with Ford. Again like Joe Louis, he is methodically "walking you down". 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 04:40:18 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095164133_a90cc89afc_o.png)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 04:57:00 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095965847_4a49412442_o.png)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 05:02:16 PM
   Your answering Ford's question with a question says much. On top of that, You Now admit to playing evasive games with Ford. Again like Joe Louis, he is methodically "walking you down".

Go away, you stink.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 05:09:38 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095965847_4a49412442_o.png)

Thanks Chris, the exact sizes are much appreciated because it accurately defines the overall shape. The photos, videos and video screenshots on the web are all distorted in one way or another.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 07:47:02 PM
Thanks Chris, the exact sizes are much appreciated because it accurately defines the overall shape. The photos, videos and video screenshots on the web are all distorted in one way or another.

JohnM

    Yeah, and sometimes distorted Intentionally.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 01:48:08 AM
These screen grabs are from Robin's gallery so they're about the best you're going to get and as I have been trying to tell anyone who was listening, the cameras were not in the same position so when comparing images there is no way to avoid the parallax problem and if in any GIF everything appears to exactly line up in, then one or both of the images had to be distorted.
In the following morph the amount of depth of the entrance area can be calculated but unfortunately Lovelady was not standing still in both images yet even so he appears to be in the same plane as Frazier's shadow.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 04:25:15 AM
These screen grabs are from Robin's gallery so they're about the best you're going to get and as I have been trying to tell anyone who was listening, the cameras were not in the same position so when comparing images there is no way to avoid the parallax problem and if in any GIF everything appears to exactly line up in, then one or both of the images had to be distorted.
In the following morph the amount of depth of the entrance area can be calculated but unfortunately Lovelady was not standing still in both images yet even so he appears to be in the same plane as Frazier's shadow.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM

     What we are seeing above mirrors the JFK Autopsy Photo Farce that has previously been foisted on this Forum. "Second verse same as the First".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 04:51:40 AM
     What we are seeing above mirrors the JFK Autopsy Photo.........

Thanks, yes, the above does indeed reveal a lot of depth detail.
And the following JFK Autopsy GIF's are perfect examples and prove where the injury was and that there was only a bullet entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTjzYtMq/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0N8FDFS8/JFKBOH.gif)

Btw those who can do, and those who can't just end up stinking up the place.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 04:57:06 AM
    Yeah, and sometimes distorted Intentionally.

Yeah, and I busted your hero Alan Ford red handed and not a peep from you, not only do you contribute NOTHING to the Forum but you're also a raging hypocrite.
Why are you here?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 21, 2019, 05:05:44 AM
Thanks, yes, the above does indeed reveal a lot of depth detail.
And the following JFK Autopsy GIF's are perfect examples and prove where the injury was and that there was no hole on the back of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTjzYtMq/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0N8FDFS8/JFKBOH.gif)

Btw those who can do, and those who can't just end up stinking up the place.

JohnM

John,

Do you believe the fatal head shot came from the front?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 05:16:28 AM
John,

Do you believe the fatal head shot came from the front?

--  MWT  ;)

No, all 3 shots came from behind because that's what the autopsy photos indicate, the bullet fragments which had to have come from the head wound were found in the Limo came from Oswald's rifle, about 95% of the eyewitnesses didn't describe any cross-fire, a bullet does not have the kinetic energy to drive any body any significant distance and having a frontal shooter potentially being seen or bullet direction being traced makes the whole idea nonsense, imo.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 21, 2019, 05:33:57 AM
No, all 3 shots came from behind because that's what the autopsy photos indicate, the bullet fragments which had to have come from the head wound were found in the Limo came from Oswald's rifle, about 95% of the eyewitnesses didn't describe any cross-fire, a bullet does not have the kinetic energy to drive any body any significant distance and having a frontal shooter potentially being seen or bullet direction being traced makes the whole idea nonsense, imo.

JohnM

John,

That's what I thought you thought.

I was confused by your remark that there was no bullet hole in the back of the head.

--  MWT   ;)

PS  Thanks for the explanation.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 06:04:40 AM
John,

That's what I thought you thought.

I was confused by your remark that there was no bullet hole in the back of the head.

--  MWT   ;)

PS  Thanks for the explanation.

Hi, thanks, I edited the post.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 21, 2019, 06:10:36 AM
Hi, thanks, I edited the post.

JohnM

John,

I guess you meant "no big-ass exit hole".

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 03:34:15 PM
Thanks, yes, the above does indeed reveal a lot of depth detail.
And the following JFK Autopsy GIF's are perfect examples and prove where the injury was and that there was only a bullet entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTjzYtMq/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0N8FDFS8/JFKBOH.gif)

Btw those who can do, and those who can't just end up stinking up the place.

JohnM
     Strange that Other autopsy photos which also display JFK lying on his back do Not show all this Matter freely spilling out of his head. Very Peculiar. In fact, if you pulled his hair up like we see the gloved hand doing in the other photo, the hair should easily be caked with this same Matter. Peculiarity abounds between the autopsy photos.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 21, 2019, 04:07:46 PM
the bullet fragments which had to have come from the head wound

LOL

Quote
were found in the Limo

LOL

Quote
came from Oswald's rifle,

LOL
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 21, 2019, 07:31:14 PM
Thanks, yes, the above does indeed reveal a lot of depth detail.
And the following JFK Autopsy GIF's are perfect examples and prove where the injury was and that there was only a bullet entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTjzYtMq/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0N8FDFS8/JFKBOH.gif)

Btw those who can do, and those who can't just end up stinking up the place.

JohnM

Hey JohnM, JFK's hair sure seems longer in the top morph compared to the bottom one. Explain pls.

ETA: After another look, those 2 morphs couldn't possible be of the same person unless JFK had a post-mortem haircut. What hair length did Tippit have?

PS. what are 2 photos taken at approx the same time and morphed together supposed to prove?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 07:31:57 PM
Exactly, I didn't want to play my hand so early but yes the lady in black has nothing to do with the precise position of the railing and is a worthless diversion (~~~)

 :D

A 'worthless diversion' that exposes your sleight of hand, Mr Mytton! You know this-------it's why you keep running away from a simple question:

Which side of the railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on--------east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

Before you answer, bear in mind that this person appears twice in your mix-n-mash final gif frame!

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Answer the question------east or west?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 07:33:41 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095164133_a90cc89afc_o.png)

Two questions, Mr Davidson!

1. What time was the above photo taken at?

2. What exactly are you hoping to achieve by comparing apples and oranges on this issue?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 07:53:38 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5QrtqCd.gif)

See what Mr Mytton did there, friends?

He's dug himself into a hole----------------let's sit back and watch him keep digging!

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:11:29 PM

And that blackening out has to date received no rational motivation other than the presence of the falsely accused Mr Oswald just behind Mr Lovelady as the assassination was happening!


Thanks for summing up your stoopid theory in one sentence, Oswald was standing BEHIND Lovelady so instead of just EASILY tracing around Lovelady's silhouette and blackening out where Oswald was, they instead attempted to guess where a shadow couldn't be and then painted this mathematically accurate shadow ONTO Lovelady, in what Universe is that the least bit logical? -sigh-
It's obvious you bit off more than you could chew so to justify the shadow craziness you somehow added Oswald into equation, it must be nice to have such a vivid imagination.

I decided that while the results were pretty good by comparing two 2D images, but the best way to solve this is in 3D because using two original images from two different cameras with maybe two different lenses, you have a parallax problem it's inescapable but a side benefit is that by shifting the cameras horizontally we now have a stereo view and when viewed through 3D glasses you get an effective cool 3D image but since not many people have the necessary glasses I made a 3D GIF version, see below.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k5Py9XZ5/loveeearail-3-D.jpg)

Anyway you seemed to have missed my earlier graphic which puts this issue to bed. By marrying up the relevant pixels in each video capture we can get the same 3D and we can see the depth, the only problem in this exercise is that Lovelady is only there in one frame but it's clear he's no where near the railing. Also look at Prayer Person and assuming he/she didn't move is against the wall and about a foot to a foot and a half in front of the glass, interesting.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)
The two screen captures come from Robin Unger's gallery, so it's the best you're going to get.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 10:20:41 PM
    3D Glasses and a seasick visual aid are a Joke. Just look at the footage of cops walking up the TSBD Steps and then onto the Landing shortly after the shooting. The Lovelady Black Curtain is MIA. And it was reported earlier that the Landing is Only 4 feet deep. Based on that hand rail, the landing must be at least 10 feet deep. Just look at the people stacked up Behind the Highest End of the Railing.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:30:26 PM
    3D Glasses and a seasick visual aid are a Joke. Just look at the footage of cops walking up the TSBD Steps and then onto the Landing shortly after the shooting. The Lovelady Black Curtain is MIA. And it was reported earlier that the Landing is Only 4 feet deep. Based on that hand rail, the landing must be at least 10 feet deep. Just look at the people stacked up Behind the Highest End of the Railing.

Thanks for you observations.
Btw did you use 3D red/cyan glasses to look at the image and if not how did you come to the conclusion that the 3D visual aid was a Joke?

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 10:31:44 PM
Thanks for you observations.

JohnM

    No problem. Let me know when you make your revisions.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:40:30 PM
    No problem. Let me know when you make your revisions.

There's nothing more to do, by definition a 3D image cannot be revised, it shows the overall structure and Lovelady's position in relation to the railing.
EDIT I'll happily make another if someone like Royell will draw in the railing.
If you want to want to make another version then go ahead, be my guest.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 10:46:07 PM
There's nothing more to do, by definition a 3D image cannot be revised, it shows the overall structure and Lovelady's position in relation to the railing.
If you want to want to make another version then go ahead, be my guest.

JohnM

     You have people stacked up behind the high end of the hand rail like chord wood. The Landing is Not that Deep. Your Mickey Mousing of the Hand Rail is exposed by the Gang of people between the High End of the rail and the glass door.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 10:48:36 PM
Thanks for summing up your stoopid theory in one sentence, Oswald was standing BEHIND Lovelady so instead of just EASILY tracing around Lovelady's silhouette and blackening out where Oswald was, they instead attempted to guess where a shadow couldn't be and then painted this mathematically accurate shadow ONTO Lovelady, in what Universe is that the least bit logical? -sigh-
It's obvious you bit off more than you could chew so to justify the shadow craziness you somehow added Oswald into equation, it must be nice to have such a vivid imagination.

I decided that while the results were pretty good by comparing two 2D images, but the best way to solve this is in 3D because using two original images from two different cameras with maybe two different lenses, you have a parallax problem it's inescapable but a side benefit is that by shifting the cameras horizontally we now have a stereo view and when viewed through 3D glasses you get an effective cool 3D image but since not many people have the necessary glasses I made a 3D GIF version, see below.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k5Py9XZ5/loveeearail-3-D.jpg)

Anyway you seemed to have missed my earlier graphic which puts this issue to bed. By marrying up the relevant pixels in each video capture we can get the same 3D and we can see the depth, the only problem in this exercise is that Lovelady is only there in one frame but it's clear he's no where near the railing. Also look at Prayer Person and assuming he/she didn't move is against the wall and about a foot to a foot and a half in front of the glass, interesting.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)
The two screen captures come from Robin Unger's gallery, so it's the best you're going to get.

JohnM

     Bump regarding GANG between the handrail and the glass front door.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:49:32 PM
     You have people stacked up behind the high end of the hand rail like chord wood. The Landing is Not that Deep. Your Mickey Mousing of the Hand Rail is exposed by the Gang of people between the High End of the rail and the glass door. The Landing is Not that Deep.

The fact that you admitted to seeing the depth of the landing is very satisfying, thanks for all the good vibes. 
Btw since the start and end frames are defined by the actual Wiegman and Darnell frames, tell us exactly what you are seeing and are you in any way accounting for perspective?

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:51:02 PM
     Bump regarding GANG between the handrail and the glass front door.

Hmmmm, interesting, you do realize I have no control over the people or where they moved to between being the two images, and re the handrail if you can draw in the railing in both images I'll happily make another GIF to your exact specifications, that's fair isn't it.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 11:43:05 PM
I decided that while the results were pretty good by comparing (~snip snip!)

 :D  :D :D

This is truly pathetic stuff, Mr Mytton, even by your abysmal standards!

Which side of the railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

You know, the person who appears twice in your final gif frame!

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Why does this question terrify you so much, Mr Mytton?

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 11:59:21 PM
:D  :D :D

This is truly pathetic stuff, Mr Mytton, even by your abysmal standards!

Which side of the railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

You know, the person who appears twice in your final gif frame!

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Why does this question terrify you so much, Mr Mytton?

 :D

Quote
:D  :D :D

The overuse of inappropriate emoticons in each and every post actually has the opposite effect of what you are intending, how old are you?

Quote
Which side of the railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Why does this question terrify you so much, Mr Mytton?

"Terrify me" WTF? For a start I have repeatedly tried to hammer into your thick skull that comparing two 2D images will introduce glitches and even if the images are dishonestly distorted and they did match perfectly the amount of error still isn't enough to get Lovelady near that elusive railing, sorry. And we don't know where people moved to between the time elapsed between the two images so if someone moved someone moved, get over it.

Are you going to draw in the rest of your railing or are you going to keep pretending that the lady in the black top is stopping you?

Royell, says he can see the depth in this GIF, how about that.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 12:05:06 AM
The overuse of inappropriate emoticons in each and every post actually has the opposite effect of what you are intending, how old are you?

I'm wiping the absolute floor with you, Mr Mytton, and it's happening in front of everyone. I think a little laughter is perfectly in order!  :D

Quote
"Terrify me" WTF? For a start I have repeatedly tried to hammer into your thick skull that comparing two 2D images will introduce glitches and even if they did match perfectly the amount of error still isn't enough to get Lovelady near that elusive railing, sorry. And we don't know where people moved to between the time elapsed between the two images so if someone moved someone moved, get over it.

Are you going to draw in the rest of your railing or are you going to keep pretending that the lady in the black top is stopping you?

Royell, says he can see the depth in this GIF, how about that.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM

Nope, still won't answer!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Let's try again, shall we?

Which side of the center railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:18:16 AM
I'm wiping the absolute floor with you, Mr Mytton, and it's happening in front of everyone. I think a little laughter is perfectly in order!  :D

Nope, still won't answer!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Let's try again, shall we?

Which side of the center railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Quote
I'm wiping the absolute floor with you, Mr Mytton, and it's happening in front of everyone. I think a little laughter is perfectly in order!  :D

You always use emoticons in response to everyone, so in your mind you must be wiping the floor with everyone, talk about delusions of grandeur.
Let's be honest absolutely not one member with any credibility has supported you, what does that tell you?

Quote
Let's try again, shall we?

Which side of the center railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:

I've answered this a hundred times, we can't see the top section of the railing so something is in front of it, now are you going to draw in the entire railing or will I have to make a new thread to embarrass you, your choice?

Btw the following morph shows why 2D comparisons are not going to be as accurate as a 3D comparison, do you see Prayer Person, pretty cool, eh and proves that it's not Oswald standing on the lower step, wasn't that you were endorsing not that long ago?

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 12:20:50 AM
I've answered this a hundred times, we can't see the top section of the railing so something is in front of it, (~~~)

So the person in the blue rectangle is on the east side of the center railing, yes?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:23:48 AM
So the person in the blue triangle is on the east side of the center railing, yes?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Why do you keep answering me with questions?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 12:26:28 AM
Why do you keep answering me with questions?

JohnM

:D Be careful, Mr Mytton, all that perspiration might fall on your keyboard and do real damage!

Now! Let's put this little silliness to bed, shall we?

"I, Mr John Mytton, am happy to confirm that the person in the blue rectangle below is indeed standing on the east side of the center railing."

Yes?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:41:15 AM
Be careful, Mr Mytton, all that perspiration might fall on your keyboard and do real damage!

When we position the lady in black in black as compared to the the door frame behind we see her moving from the West side to the East side, how do you explain your lady in Black moving all over the entrance? Perspective, ain't it a bitch!

(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 22, 2019, 12:44:17 AM
When we position the lady in black in black as compared to the the door frame behind we see her moving from the West side to the East side, how do you explain your lady in Black moving all over the entrance? Perspective, ain't it a bitch!

(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)

JohnM

John,

What do you mean by "the lady in black in black"?

You're reminding me of a Rolling Stones song, here.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 12:45:13 AM
Hmmmm, interesting, you do realize I have no control over the people or where they moved to between being the two images, and re the handrail if you can draw in the railing in both images I'll happily make another GIF to your exact specifications, that's fair isn't it.

JohnM

     It has been reported that the TSBD Landing is Only 4 feet deep. The number of people you have standing behind the top of that handrail defies the depth of the Landing. You Mickey Moused that railing in order to support your position without realizing it actually Exposed your chicanery. Just look at Frazier and the distance from the end of that rail he is. Also, the number of people/bodies between Frazier and the end of the rail. If what we are seeing were true, Frazier would actually be several feet INSIDE the TSBD standing inside the Lobby.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 12:48:39 AM
Thanks for summing up your stoopid theory in one sentence, Oswald was standing BEHIND Lovelady so instead of just EASILY tracing around Lovelady's silhouette and blackening out where Oswald was, they instead attempted to guess where a shadow couldn't be and then painted this mathematically accurate shadow ONTO Lovelady, in what Universe is that the least bit logical? -sigh-
It's obvious you bit off more than you could chew so to justify the shadow craziness you somehow added Oswald into equation, it must be nice to have such a vivid imagination.

I decided that while the results were pretty good by comparing two 2D images, but the best way to solve this is in 3D because using two original images from two different cameras with maybe two different lenses, you have a parallax problem it's inescapable but a side benefit is that by shifting the cameras horizontally we now have a stereo view and when viewed through 3D glasses you get an effective cool 3D image but since not many people have the necessary glasses I made a 3D GIF version, see below.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k5Py9XZ5/loveeearail-3-D.jpg)

Anyway you seemed to have missed my earlier graphic which puts this issue to bed. By marrying up the relevant pixels in each video capture we can get the same 3D and we can see the depth, the only problem in this exercise is that Lovelady is only there in one frame but it's clear he's no where near the railing. Also look at Prayer Person and assuming he/she didn't move is against the wall and about a foot to a foot and a half in front of the glass, interesting.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)
The two screen captures come from Robin Unger's gallery, so it's the best you're going to get.

JohnM

    Bump regarding the distance from the Top of the Handrail to the Landing/Frazier
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:50:59 AM
John,

What do you mean by "the lady in black in black"?

You're reminding me of a Rolling Stones song, here.

--  MWT  ;)

Paint it Black?


JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:53:42 AM
     It has been reported that the TSBD Landing is Only 4 feet deep.

I canna change the laws of physics, these images were taken from Unger's images and wysiwyg.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 12:55:00 AM
When we position the lady in black in black as compared to the the door frame behind we see her moving from the West side to the East side, how do you explain your lady in Black moving all over the entrance?

But that's the point, Mr Mytton-------------she doesn't move all over the entrance in reality, only in your ridiculous gif!

(https://i.imgur.com/9AJGFcy.gif)

Your positioning of the center railing in Wiegman is way--------and I mean way----------off! She is on the east side of that railing in Wiegman too, which in turn puts Mr Lovelady much closer to that railing than your nonsense gif would have us believe!

But you already knew all this full well, Mr Mytton---------it's why you didn't want to admit in front of everyone that she's on the east side of the railing in Darnell. Otherwise you'd have to have her-------between Wiegman and Darnell--------clambering over the railing or scurrying down the steps and then back up again on the other side. And that would be a hard sell, even for a con artist like you!

What an absolute fool you've made of yourself over the past few days, Mr Mytton!

 :D

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 12:56:59 AM
I canna change the laws of physics, these images were taken from Unger's images and wysiwyg.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM

    Oh. So you Posted something from Unger without crediting him for it? And NOW that it has been shown to be  BS: you blame him for it and run away? Shame on You for multiple reasons.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 01:04:18 AM
    Bump regarding the distance from the Top of the Handrail to the Landing/Frazier

I told you we can only see the bottom skirt of the railing but we can see enough of the top of the Handrail to describe the path it takes, (Ford's graphic also shows the top railing but he was too gutless to finish it). The end of this railing can't be seen and I took an educated guess but if you think that the top of the railing goes back a bit further then just show me and I'll make another morph, no problems.
Why are you and Ford so terrified of showing us where the railing ends? Here's the real thing and the top post is on the lower top step.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Y24zPCtT/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 01:07:42 AM
I told you we can only see the bottom skirt of the railing but we can see enough of the top of the Handrail to describe the path it takes,

All because Mr Mytton wanted to pretend the center railing was much farther east in Wiegman than it was in reality!

(https://i.imgur.com/TtozdMJ.gif)

What a joker!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 01:13:20 AM
I told you we can only see the bottom skirt of the railing but we can see enough of the top of the Handrail to describe the path it takes, (Ford's graphic also shows the top railing but he was too gutless to finish it). The end of this railing can't be seen and I took an educated guess but if you think that the top of the railing goes back a bit further then just show me and I'll make another morph, no problems.
Why are you and Ford so terrified of showing us where the railing ends? Here's the real thing and the top post is on the lower top step.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Y24zPCtT/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jpg)

JohnM

     You NOW admit to taking an "Educated GUESS" regarding the handrail.  Game Over
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 01:18:15 AM
     You NOW admit to taking an "Educated GUESS" regarding the handrail.  Game Over

The game was over pages back, Mr Storing.

By the way, Mr Mytton didn't take an 'educated guess' regarding the handrail, he engaged in a calculated deceit that involved convincing people that the lady in the black top is on the west side of the center railing in Darnell:

(https://i.imgur.com/TtozdMJ.gif)

This was at the heart of Mr Mytton's scam of grotesquely misrepresenting Mr Lovelady's distance from the center railing in Wiegman.

But---------it blew up in his face!   Thumb1:

Word to the wise: Never ever trust any mongrel visual that Mr Mytton posts.

He's nothing more than a low-rent scam artist. It's been a pleasure exposing his latest con job!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 01:21:55 AM
The game was over pages back, Mr Storing.

By the way, Mr Mytton didn't take an 'educated guess' regarding the handrail, he engaged in a calculated deceit that involved convincing people that the lady in the black top is on the west side of the center railing in Darnell:

(https://i.imgur.com/TtozdMJ.gif)

This was at the heart of Mr Mytton's scam of grotesquely misrepresenting Mr Lovelady's distance from the center railing in Wiegman.

But---------it blew up in his face!   Thumb1:

       You were onto him quickly. He's Not used to having to defend his cartoonish visual aids. The autopsy photo stuff he has done is more of the same.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 01:28:47 AM
But that's the point, Mr Mytton-------------she doesn't move all over the entrance in reality, only in your ridiculous gif!

(https://i.imgur.com/9AJGFcy.gif)

Your positioning of the center railing in Wiegman is way--------and I mean way----------off! She is on the east side of that railing in Wiegman too, which in turn puts Mr Lovelady much closer to that railing than your nonsense gif would have us believe!

But you already knew all this full well, Mr Mytton---------it's why you didn't want to admit in front of everyone that she's on the east side of the railing in Darnell. Otherwise you'd have to have her-------between Wiegman and Darnell--------clambering over the railing or scurrying down the steps and then back up again on the other side. And that would be a hard sell, even for a con artist like you!

What an absolute fool you've made of yourself over the past few days, Mr Mytton!

 :D

Anyway this explains why your goofy GIF was absurd, everything cannot be lined up with exact precision because there is a perspective change.

(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)

Luckily I spent more time thinking of a better solution and instead of comparing two 2D images which while broadly accurate is not going to be as perfect as a 3D comparison.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

Btw are you going to show where your railing ends, what are you scared of?

(https://i.postimg.cc/HxKYP2Tc/alan-fforfail.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 01:33:47 AM
    Oh. So you Posted something from Unger without crediting him for it? And NOW that it has been shown to be  BS: you blame him for it and run away? Shame on You for multiple reasons.

In the very first post using Unger's photos I credited Unger and have done numerous times since, sorry but you get it wrong again.
Anyway, I can't respond to two of you at a time and Ford wins because at least he can present something whereas you're useless as tits on a Bull. Get a life.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 01:58:08 AM

This was at the heart of Mr Mytton's scam of grotesquely misrepresenting Mr Lovelady's distance from the center railing in Wiegman.

But---------it blew up in his face!   Thumb1:



Are you serious, You drew in the center railing and it perfectly matches my center railing but for some reason you think that the railing just disappears into thin air, tell us where the railing ends? 

(https://i.postimg.cc/VkCC9KPh/alan-fforfailaa.gif)

Here's some help, after taking into consideration the lower perspective and where the lower top step is then it should be easy to finish what you started?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Pf13rQ7d/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building-rail.jpg)

And when you finish drawing in the railing in both images I will make another GIF but till then even if my railing is a few inches too long or too short that doesn't change that Lovelady is back in the shadow. You're trying to appear "clever" but you're nitpicking an insignificant issue, the railing can be drawn right back to the doorway as above and it still won't get Lovelady any closer to that railing.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 02:44:54 AM
By the way, Mr Mytton didn't take an 'educated guess' regarding the handrail,

Even though it won't make a difference because however long the railing is, Lovelady can't get any closer but it would be nice for you to finish what you started.

(https://i.postimg.cc/HxKYP2Tc/alan-fforfail.jpg)
I told you I'm willing to make a new GIF with the correct top skirt, here is the railing being drawn back to the wall and somewhere along this line the railing ends, tell me where?
The top vertical line along the railing is not the top skirt because it's obviously too close to the glass which means the top skirt must be way back towards the steps and this makes the bottom skirt I drew in pretty close, maybe it could be a fraction longer but it's close.

(https://i.postimg.cc/DwBWFRhR/dep2.gif)


(https://i.postimg.cc/Pf13rQ7d/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building-rail.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 03:34:07 AM
In the very first post using Unger's photos I credited Unger and have done numerous times since, sorry but you get it wrong again.
Anyway, I can't respond to two of you at a time and Ford wins because at least he can present something whereas you're useless as tits on a Bull. Get a life.

JohnM

    Big of You to credit Ford for Exposing the work You claimed and then pawned off on Unger. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 03:44:21 AM
    Big of You to credit Ford for Exposing the work You claimed and then pawned off on Unger.

Sorry, but you lack the history or credentials to participate in this conservation so take your gibberish and shove it where the sun don't shine and don't bother me again.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 04:08:14 AM
Sorry, but you lack the history or credentials to participate in this conservation so take your gibberish and shove it where the sun don't shine and don't bother me again.

JohnM

      Can't accuse me of what You admitted to upon Ford pinning you down. "Guess" work does Not cut it.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 04:40:46 AM
      Can't accuse me of what You admitted to upon Ford pinning you down. "Guess" work does Not cut it.

Ford has drawn in the bottom of the railing but doesn't want to finish what he started, maybe you can help and then we can compare your "random guess" to my "educated guess", yeah I know you have no idea how to accomplish this task so all you have to do is tell me which number is closest to the top of the railing, K?

(https://i.postimg.cc/cC8g4RYp/loveeearail4royell.jpg)

Here's some help and don't forget the angles, depth of the railing, camera position and perspective must all be taken into account, so what number?

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcrcqQXV/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 09:02:20 AM
Friends, Mr Mytton's gambit has entered its decadent phase now. He's just frantically throwing scribbles at the problem in a sad attempt to deflect and distract from what has happened.

The truth is there is no way back for Mr Mytton now that he has admitted that the lady in the black top is standing on the east side of the rail in Darnell, because it makes a mockery of his absurd 'harmonization' of Wiegman and Darnell:

(https://i.imgur.com/9AJGFcy.gif)

The lady in the black top appears twice in the above gif. Look at the version of her on the left: it's her in Wiegman and she too is standing east of the center railing in Wiegman, yet Mr Mytton has that railing way over to the east of her. All because of his scam artist desire to add fictional distance between that center railing and Mr Lovelady. Too funny!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 09:46:19 AM
The lady in the black top appears twice in the above gif. Look at the version of her on the left: it's her in Wiegman and she too is standing east of the center railing in Wiegman, yet Mr Mytton has that railing way over to the east of her. All because of his scam artist desire to add fictional distance between that center railing and Mr Lovelady. Too funny!  :D

Just how dense are you, I already spelled out why you perceive a problem. The following two dimensional comparison shows that the lady in black is to the West and to the East of the door frame and when I made the GIF I could either match up the PERMANENT architecture or rely on a woman who could have MOVED so the answer is easy, you stick with what is PERMANENT and this comparison to Lovelady was the entire point of the exercise. The only way to match the lady in black is to ignore the architecture which as explained above is worthless.

(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)

Anyway, this three dimensional GIF has the top of the railing at about 4 or 5 and guess what, Lovelady is all the way back there in the shadow, which makes sense and matches the 3D computer recreations and doesn't rely on some extensive touch up work, which somehow spilt onto Lovelady to hide Oswald who was standing behind, how stoopid.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

Finish what you started, what number?

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcrcqQXV/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 04:30:46 PM
Just how dense are you, I already spelled out why you perceive a problem. The following two dimensional comparison shows that the lady in black is to the West and to the East of the door frame and when I made the GIF I could either match up the PERMANENT architecture or rely on a woman who could have MOVED so the answer is easy, you stick with what is PERMANENT and this comparison to Lovelady was the entire point of the exercise. The only way to match the lady in black is to ignore the architecture which as explained above is worthless.

(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)

Anyway, this three dimensional GIF has the top of the railing at about 4 or 5 and guess what, Lovelady is all the way back there in the shadow, which makes sense and matches the 3D computer recreations and doesn't rely on some extensive touch up work, which somehow spilt onto Lovelady to hide Oswald who was standing behind, how stoopid.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

Finish what you started, what number?

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcrcqQXV/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

JohnM

    You used to absolutely rag Paul Ernst for drawing Lines and Squiggles on his visual aids and here You are Now doing the same.  STOP with your Guess work and the Etch-A-Sketch debauchery.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 22, 2019, 04:37:37 PM
That’s nothing new. “Mytton” has been doing “proof” by squiggle for a long time. Remember his yellow squiggles on the backyard photo?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 04:44:54 PM
    You used to absolutely rag Paul Ernst for drawing Lines and Squiggles on his visual aids and here You are Now doing the same.  STOP with your Guess work and the Etch-A-Sketch debauchery.

Sorry, you said that my railing was the wrong length but its now obvious you never had a clue, why am I not surprised.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 04:46:07 PM
Remember his yellow squiggles on the backyard photo?

Thanks for remembering my posts, i'm flattered.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 04:57:41 PM
That’s nothing new. “Mytton” has been doing “proof” by squiggle for a long time. Remember his yellow squiggles on the backyard photo?

     The Importance of Contrasting film footage focusing on the TSBD Steps is that it is Obvious that there is a serious Time Gap between the films. The People we see standing on the steps/landing is a changing cast of characters and/or radical position alterations. We have always been led to believe eyewitnesses were Stunned in place or meandering within their current space. Throw in the fact this was a Friday = the employees of the TSBD being in No Hurry to hussle back inside the building. The ever changing personnel we see on the TSBD Steps in Wiegman vs Darnell/Couch makes this time gap between the films crystal clear. The false narrative of these films capturing images at close to the same point in time is also the primary reason for roughly 40 years that we were fed the baloney that Wiegman ran his camera Continuously. The intentional FALSE Time Stamping of films, photos, and the images captured therein continues dogging this case.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 05:14:52 PM
     The Importance of Contrasting film footage focusing on the TSBD Steps is that it is Obvious that there is a serious Time Gap between the films. The People we see standing on the steps/landing is a changing cast of characters and/or radical position alterations. We have always been led to believe eyewitnesses were Stunned in place or meandering within their current space. Throw in the fact this was a Friday = the employees of the TSBD being in No Hurry to hussle back inside the building. The ever changing personnel we see on the TSBD Steps in Wiegman vs Darnell/Couch makes this time gap between the films crystal clear. The false narrative of these films capturing images at close to the same point in time is also the primary reason for roughly 40 years that we were fed the baloney that Wiegman ran his camera Continuously. The intentional FALSE Time Stamping of films, photos, and the images captured therein continues dogging this case.

Instead of this constant bitching, how about YOU fix the timeline of the visual record. Make a thread and enlighten us.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 22, 2019, 08:00:58 PM
I still haven't read any of this thread to know what it's all about but it seems like a big waste of time to me. The bottom line is Mytton got caught faking images for his own nefarious LNer agenda and he keeps trying to defend himself with more lame-assed graphics. EOS.

Give it up bro.  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 08:10:31 PM
It is a truth universally acknowledged that Mr John Mytton never puts together a gif without being up to something.

Let's look at his latest, shall we?   Thumb1:

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

What might Mr Mytton be up to here? He's just had his first and second scam visuals humiliatingly exposed------------

(https://i.imgur.com/9XLKFeC.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/nklFkis.gif)

So! He takes a new tack.

1. He shifts the discussion away from this later Wiegman frame which formed the centerpiece of his original argument------------

(https://i.imgur.com/AhbSiMG.jpg)

------------because it blew right up in his face!  :D

He now only wants to talk about an earlier Wiegman frame, which has Mr Lovelady at higher elevation.

2. Watch the railing he has drawn in here:

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

He's made it fade out. Why? Because he doesn't want awkward questions being asked about the lady in black's position--------in Wiegman as well as in Darnell---------relative to that railing (because she's on the east side of it in both)! Why not? Because the presence of that immovable barrier in that entranceway limits Mr Mytton's ability to slyly move that lady around at will in his agenda-driven way, as he tried to do here:

(https://i.imgur.com/nklFkis.gif)

But why--------------I hear you ask in unison!-------------would Mr Mytton even want to move the lady around? Simple! Because his own scam was based on positioning Mr Lovelady at a ludicrous distance from the center railing.  :D

Now! Leaving the lady in black and the center railing aside for a moment, the truly hilarious thing in all this is Mr Mytton's claim that he has managed in his latest gif to place Mr Lovelady up in the shadow.

Look at the distance between PrayerPerson and Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman part of Mr Mytton's gif:

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

Now look at where the actual shadow line was in that doorway at the time the Wiegman footage was shot and how close to PrayerPerson Mr Lovelady would have to be to be hit by that shadow:

(https://i.imgur.com/fAbvT60.jpg)

It can't be done! No way, no how!  :'(

Mr Mytton, as you would expect, has offered zero evidence to support the wild claim that Mr Hackerott has got the shadow line all wrong. Why? Because he knows damn well that Mr Hackerott has made meticulous calculations and so has not got the shadow line all wrong! (Nor for that matter has Mr Stancak!)  Thumb1:

Mr Mytton-------------in short-------------is a scam artist. But try as he might to distort the visual record and pull the wool over the eyes of men and women of goodwill reading this thread, everytime he renews his effort to explain away the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady as a natural shadow, he just fails spectacularly!

Shall we watch him dig some more? Oh let's!

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 08:47:03 PM
It is a truth universally acknowledged that Mr John Mytton never puts together a gif without being up to something.

Already explained a bajillion times, when matching two images from different directions you have parallax problems. The lady in black who could move is insignificant when comparing to the permanent brick and mortar and Lovelady's position as compared to the shadow created by the permanent brick and mortar was the point of the exercise. Ouch!

(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)

This GIF which Royell admitted seeing "depth" shows Lovelady far away from the handrail. Double Ouch!

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

How about you stop running and finish what you started and just tell us how high does that railing go? And let's get this straight I never disagreed with Hackerott and in fact on multiple occasions said that Lovelady was far enough back to be in Hackerott's 3D shadow, so I was endorsing his shadow. The amount of twisting and turning and lying on display from you is quite disappointing. Triple Ouch!

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcrcqQXV/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

Btw I notice you haven't mentioned your "paint the shadow onto Lovelady in order to hide Oswald who was behind" theory for a while? -snicker-

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 09:10:37 PM
I still haven't read any of this thread to know what it's all about but it seems like a big waste of time to me. The bottom line is Mytton got caught faking images for his own nefarious LNer agenda and he keeps trying to defend himself with more lame-assed graphics. EOS.

Give it up bro.  :D

     Let em go. He is torching himself with every sea sick video and inch worm squiggle he posts. Hilarious
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 09:16:22 PM
And let's get this straight I never disagreed with Hackerott

So you agree that this is indeed the shadow line in the entranceway?

(https://i.imgur.com/fAbvT60.jpg)

Wonderful!  Thumb1:

You also agree that Mr Lovelady steps down to a lower elevation between the early and the later Wiegman frames, so he definitely isn't on the landing in the later frames?

(https://i.imgur.com/asfrS5G.gif)

Wonderful!  Thumb1:

OK, now for the fun part, Mr Mytton!

Show us, using Mr Hackerott's reconstruction---------which includes what we both agree is the correct shadow line!---------where you believe Mr Lovelady is in this Wiegman frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/VbAv97p.jpg)

A simple 'X' will do!

(https://i.imgur.com/fAbvT60.jpg)

(But remember: you can't put him on the landing for this Wiegman frame, otherwise he would have to have been levitating in the earlier frames!)

Good luck, Mr Mytton!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 09:28:03 PM
     Let em go. He is torching himself with every sea sick video and inch worm squiggle he posts. Hilarious

You had the same spiel when Lamson was here, it's just an endless list of nastiness without a single piece of evidence to support your ideas, I'm glad I don't wake up every morning and have to deal with your venomous desperation. sucks to be you!

Btw you said that the railing was the wrong length but ironically won't pinpoint your exact size, so knowing that you can't post an image to support your criticism I made this graphic so now you have no choice either tell us which number or retract what you said.

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcrcqQXV/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 09:31:49 PM
You had the same spiel when Lamson was here, it's just an endless list of nastiness without a single piece of evidence to support your ideas, I'm glad I don't wake up every morning and have to deal with your venomous desperation. sucks to be you!

Btw you said that the railing was the wrong length but ironically won't pinpoint your exact size, so knowing that you can't post an image to support your criticism I made this graphic so now you have no choice either tell us which number or retract what you said.

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcrcqQXV/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

JohnM
    Exactly what is "nasty" about wanting you to be permitted to continue shooting yourself in the foot?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 09:33:15 PM
So you agree that this is indeed the shadow line in the entranceway?

Blah blah blah


It's your claim, prove it with the actual Depository shadow and then we can move on?

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 09:36:05 PM
It's your claim, prove it with the actual Depository shadow and then we can move on?

JohnM

 :D :D :D

No, it's Mr Hackerott's claim, which you have already stated you don't disagree with!

So! Let's try again, shall we?

Show us, using Mr Hackerott's reconstruction---------which includes what we both agree is the correct shadow line!---------where you believe Mr Lovelady is in this Wiegman frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/VbAv97p.jpg)

A simple 'X' will do!

(https://i.imgur.com/fAbvT60.jpg)

(But remember: you can't put him on the landing for this Wiegman frame, otherwise he would have to have been levitating in the earlier frames!)

Good luck, Mr Mytton!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 09:36:47 PM
    Exactly what is "nasty" about wanting you to be permitted to continue shooting yourself in the foot?

Support you claim, what number?

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcrcqQXV/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 09:42:12 PM
:D :D :D

No, it's Mr Hackerott's claim, which you have already stated you don't disagree with!


Sorry, but why do I have to prove your claim, that's nuts!

First prove that the shadow recreation shows an accurate shadow because if it doesn't then your theory ceases to be?
Second we will work on your "paint" theory?
Third we will discuss the railing?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 09:44:30 PM
Sorry, but why do I have to prove your claim, that's nuts!

 :D :D :D

Do you disagree with where Mr Hackerott has put the shadow line in Wiegman, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.imgur.com/kpK6qQn.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 09:47:33 PM
:D :D :D

Do you disagree with where Mr Hackerott has put the shadow line in Wiegman, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.imgur.com/kpK6qQn.jpg)

 Thumb1:

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

How would I know without your proof?

 Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 09:55:46 PM
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

How would I know without your proof?

 Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:

JohnM

Friends, I'm actually beginning to nearly feel a little sorry for poor Mr Mytton here. It can't be easy for him being exposed in real time as a scam artist in front of so many people. And to have his loudly trumpeted claim about the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady being a natural shadow collapse in such spectacular fashion must be traumatic indeed!  :D

Now Mr Mytton, I know you suddenly really really really don't want to talk about the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady you were so terribly interested in just a page or two back, and I understand how bruising the past couple of days have been for you. But... you have to see this thing through like a big boy, OK?  Thumb1:

So!

Do you disagree with where Mr Hackerott has put the shadow line in Wiegman?

(https://i.imgur.com/kpK6qQn.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 10:00:59 PM

Do you disagree with where Mr Hackerott has put the shadow line in Wiegman?

(https://i.imgur.com/kpK6qQn.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Asking the same question over and over again won't solve your problem, prove that the graphic's shadow is where it was at 12:30 on the 22nd of November 1963, then and only then do I give you permission to move on.
Btw STOP asking me to prove your claim, it doesn't work like that, do your own work, you lazy sob.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 10:02:56 PM
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

How would I know without your proof?

 Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:

JohnM

    JOHN - Focus on the Positive. You have made Alan Ford the forum Image Expert. Congrats
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 10:04:45 PM
    JOHN - Focus on the Positive. You have made Alan Ford the forum Image Expert. Congrats

I have no problem with 2nd place.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 10:07:47 PM
I have no problem with 2nd place.

JohnM

    Admitting where you stand is admirable. I'm sure Mr Ford will graciously accept your surrendering your sword.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 10:14:52 PM
    Admitting where you stand is admirable. I'm sure Mr Ford will graciously accept your surrendering your sword.

I never claimed to be Number 1 and if Ford is some sort of graphical expert then I'm willing to see what original work he produces because nitpicking insignificant inescapable details isn't very impressive.
And I only have a pork sword but I'm only surrendering that to anyone who asks nicely.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 10:19:32 PM
Asking the same question over and over again won't solve your problem,

 :D

Oh but I'm trying to solve your problem, Mr Mytton!

You claimed that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is a natural shadow:

(https://i.imgur.com/WUIwRVk.jpg)

Obviously you wouldn't have made this claim without first establishing to your own satisfaction where the shadow line from the western column actually fell at 12.30pm on 11/22/63. For to have done so would have been the height of stupidity, yes?  Thumb1:

So!

Where do you think the shadow from the western column fell?

(https://i.imgur.com/sZ64KE3.jpg)

Show us! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 10:37:35 PM
:D

Oh but I'm trying to solve your problem, Mr Mytton!

You claimed that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is a natural shadow:


 :D :D :D :D :D

Sorry Alan, this is your thread and in your OP it's your claim, it's always been your claim, read em and weep. And the only proof so far is that in your "opinion" it doesn't look right, as I said this is not very scientific and is just crazy, either provide proof or Royell will make me the new champion and you wouldn't what that, would you?

Mr Oswald, who is still just a step above Mr Carl Edward Jones, but now slightly more eastwards, has been blacked out of the Wiegman film (the impossible dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side!)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 10:42:46 PM
:D :D :D :D :D

Sorry Alan, this is your thread and in your OP it's your claim, it's always been your claim, read em and weep. And the only proof so far is that in your "opinion" it doesn't look right, as I said this is not very scientific and is just crazy, either provide proof or Royell will make me the new champion and you wouldn't what that, would you?

JohnM

Oh dear oh dear oh dear, that it should come to this.

"I, Mr John Mytton, have a simple rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman: it's a natural shadow from the western column. As to where that shadow actually fell in the entranceway? Don't ask me because I haven't a clue."

Mr John Mytton's Reputation, R.I.P.  :(
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 10:47:41 PM
Friends, now that Mr Mytton's claim that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman is a natural shadow has ended in humiliated exhaustion for poor Mr Mytton, where are we?

Well, we are left with that dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/WUIwRVk.jpg)

No one has be able to explain it as a natural phenomenon.

Anyone else want to try?

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 10:50:26 PM
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, that it should come to this.

"I, Mr John Mytton, have a simple rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman: it's a natural shadow from the western column. As to where that shadow actually fell in the entranceway? Don't ask me because I haven't a clue."

Mr John Mytton's Reputation, R.I.P.  :(

Stop shifting the burden of proof, your claim your proof.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTrFfNrbr00wGQ3cAsE-qjGAO3AP36WAPTQJJV2fJKmOfpI9QnF)
Mr Oswald, who is still just a step above Mr Carl Edward Jones, but now slightly more eastwards, has been blacked out of the Wiegman film (the impossible dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side!)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 10:51:38 PM
Stop shifting the burden of proof, your claim your proof.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTrFfNrbr00wGQ3cAsE-qjGAO3AP36WAPTQJJV2fJKmOfpI9QnF)
JohnM

You don't want to talk about the shadow anymore, Mr Mytton. We quite understand!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 11:00:32 PM
You don't want to talk about the shadow anymore, Mr Mytton. We quite understand!  Thumb1:

It's never been my shadow, you made a claim and now you want other people to prove your claim, in which alternate Universe does that make sense.
It's obvious from day 1 that you think you see something but you have no idea how to prove it.
But you seem to think the solution is to make post after post after post with a thousand emoticons and somehow all your dreams will all come true, nice!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 11:06:26 PM
Friends, now that Mr Mytton's claim that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman is a natural shadow has ended in humiliated exhaustion for poor Mr Mytton, where are we?

Well, we are left with that dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/WUIwRVk.jpg)

No one has be able to explain it as a natural phenomenon.

Anyone else want to try?

 Thumb1:

Now! If it remains the case that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman cannot be explained as a natural phenomenon, it follows that it is an unnatural phenomenon
-------------i.e. the Wiegman film was altered.

Yes? Yes!  Thumb1:

And if the Wiegman film was altered, then it follows that whoever altered it must have had a reason for altering it.

Yes? Yes!  Thumb1:

Now! I know what that reason is:

Mr Lee Harvey Oswald was just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the assassination.

(https://i.imgur.com/0UsIadV.jpg)

It's where he claimed he was--------------Agent Hosty's handwritten interrogation notes: "Then went outside to watch P. parade"--------------and it's where he indeed was.  Thumb1:

But! Maybe I've got this all wrong! Maybe the Wiegman film was altered for some reason that had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Oswald!

OK. Well, now that the 'natural shadow' counter-explanation for Wiegman has died a gruesome final death (thanking you again, Mr Mytton!  Thumb1: ), perhaps someone can offer a counter-explanation for the doctoring of the Wiegman film?

If no one can, then it looks like the mystery of Mr Oswald's whereabouts is solved-----------56 long years after the assassination!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 11:07:12 PM
It's never been my shadow

~Snicker~

Bye bye, Mr Mytton!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 23, 2019, 12:52:25 AM
Stop shifting the burden of proof, your claim your proof.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTrFfNrbr00wGQ3cAsE-qjGAO3AP36WAPTQJJV2fJKmOfpI9QnF)
JohnM

    John - You're a good guy. Unfortunately, you're also Toast.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 23, 2019, 03:01:54 AM
If the sun plane is right in your 3D image then your theory is in a lot of trouble, perspective ain't it a bitch.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 23, 2019, 04:18:04 AM

   Every time these guys get jammed up they fall back on their old reliable "perspective" alibi. Never fails............until it does.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 23, 2019, 05:06:14 AM
   Every time these guys get jammed up they fall back on their old reliable "perspective" alibi. Never fails............until it does.

Isn't it absolutely gobsmackingly hilarious that since you can't play the game because of your incompetence, you're reduced to being a cheerleader, Ra Ra Team! Go boys! 

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh2mkgXs/ironh.jpg)

Have the Courage and Character to Stand Alone

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 23, 2019, 05:44:37 AM
Stop shifting the burden of proof, your claim your proof.

Now “Mytton” cares about burden of proof.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 23, 2019, 07:59:57 AM
Assuming that Ford's 3D graphic is accurate, here's Frazier partially in the shadow. and for comparison next there's Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 23, 2019, 09:32:15 AM
Assuming that Ford's 3D graphic is accurate, here's Frazier partially in the shadow. and for comparison next there's Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

JohnM

 :D

And suddenly Mr Mytton, having gone away to lick his multiple wounds, gets all interested again in the shadow, because he thinks he's got something. Unfortunately, however-----------he doesn't!

First off, friends, notice how Mr Mytton calls the 3D image "Ford's graphic". As he very well knows, it's not my graphic but Mr Hackerott's-----------yes, the same Mr Hackerott Mr Mytton says he has never disagreed with!  :D

But that by the bye!

Now! Is that a dark vertical shadow down Mr Frazier in Darnell, as Mr Mytton claims? Nope! Mr Frazier's body is turned, is all, and some of him is being caught by the horizontal shadow. Let's let Mr Stancak's 3D reconstruction of Darnell help poor Mr Mytton out here:

(https://i.imgur.com/hcdMkYB.jpg)

And! Is that a natural shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman, as Mr Mytton claims? Nope! Mr Lovelady's body is not turned a la Frazier's (look at the position of Mr Lovelady's tshirt!) plus he's nowhere near the shadow line.

And! Mr Lovelady is even further away from that shadow line in this later Wiegman frame--------------the one Mr Mytton originally tried so hard to misrepresent to us all a few pages back before he suddenly lost all interest in it!:

(https://i.imgur.com/OW6TQBc.jpg)

Confident Prediction!

Mr Mytton will never show us where he thinks the actual shadow line in that doorway is, because if he did that he would then have to show us where exactly he thinks Mr Lovelady is standing in Wiegman, and if he did that then everyone reading would erupt in laughter!

Two-Part Conclusion To The Foregoing!

a) Mr Mytton still can't help making a fool of himself on this issue!  :D

b) The dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman remains unexplained!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 23, 2019, 12:18:01 PM
:D

And suddenly Mr Mytton, having gone away to lick his multiple wounds, gets all interested again in the shadow, because he thinks he's got something. Unfortunately, however-----------he doesn't!

First off, friends, notice how Mr Mytton calls the 3D image "Ford's graphic". As he very well knows, it's not my graphic but Mr Hackerott's-----------yes, the same Mr Hackerott Mr Mytton says he has never disagreed with!  :D

But that by the bye!

Now! Is that a dark vertical shadow down Mr Frazier in Darnell, as Mr Mytton claims? Nope! Mr Frazier's body is turned, is all, and some of him is being caught by the horizontal shadow. Let's let Mr Stancak's 3D reconstruction of Darnell help poor Mr Mytton out here:

(https://i.imgur.com/hcdMkYB.jpg)

And! Is that a natural shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman, as Mr Mytton claims? Nope! Mr Lovelady's body is not turned a la Frazier's (look at the position of Mr Lovelady's tshirt!) plus he's nowhere near the shadow line.

And! Mr Lovelady is even further away from that shadow line in this later Wiegman frame--------------the one Mr Mytton originally tried so hard to misrepresent to us all a few pages pack before he suddenly lost all interest in it!:

(https://i.imgur.com/OW6TQBc.jpg)

Confident Prediction!

Mr Mytton will never show us where he thinks the actual shadow line in that doorway is, because if he did that he would then have to show us where exactly he thinks Mr Lovelady is standing in Wiegman, and if he did that then everyone reading would erupt in laughter!

Two-Part Conclusion To The Foregoing!

a) Mr Mytton still can't help making a fool of himself on this issue!  :D

b) The dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman remains unexplained!  Thumb1:

Mr. Ford,

"Friends"?

LOL !!!!!!!

--  MWT   :D  :D  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 23, 2019, 12:25:44 PM
I've posted this image before but this is where I believe Frazier is, in the Wiegman frame.
https://i.imgur.com/XMxdoJm.jpg
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 23, 2019, 12:35:08 PM
I've posted this image before but this is where I believe Frazier is, in the Wiegman frame.
https://i.imgur.com/XMxdoJm.jpg

Mr Mitcham, I presume you mean Mr Lovelady?

But yes, you did indeed post this image before-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/47jPoho.jpg)

-----------whereupon I asked you where PrayerPerson might go here in a way consistent with what we see in the actual Wiegman frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/eJNxXlW.jpg)

You never responded. Care to respond now?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 23, 2019, 01:12:21 PM
Mr Mitcham, I presume you mean Mr Lovelady?

But yes, you did indeed post this image before-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/47jPoho.jpg)

-----------whereupon I asked you where PrayerPerson might go here in a way consistent with what we see in the actual Wiegman frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/eJNxXlW.jpg)

You never responded. Care to respond now?

 Thumb1:

Quite right about my incorrectly posting Frazier rather than Lovelady. Thank you for correcting me. IMO, Prayerman is further against the left wall and slightly back from where he is in the above presentation.

Incidentally both Stancak and Hackerott's angles are similar and appear to match up with the position of the sun at 12.30, which was at an angle of 185˚ to North, and the TSBD is roughly 347˚ to North.  Actually the shadow will be in the same place at the time of the assassination today, if anybody should wish to go and take a photo.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 23, 2019, 01:22:29 PM
Quite right about my incorrectly posting Frazier rather than Lovelady. Thank you for correcting me.

 Thumb1:

Quote
IMO, Prayerman is further against the left wall and slightly back from where he is in the above presentation.

Can you show us please, so that we can compare it with what we see in the actual Wiegman frame? Thank you!  Thumb1:

Quote
Incidentally both Stancak and Hackerott's angles are similar and appear to match up with the position of the sun at 12.30, which was at an angle of 185˚ to North, and the TSBD is roughly 347˚ to North.  Actually the shadow will be in the same place at the time of the assassination today, if anybody should wish to go and take a photo.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 23, 2019, 03:49:03 PM
Assuming that Ford's 3D graphic is accurate, here's Frazier partially in the shadow. and for comparison next there's Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

JohnM

    All this proves is the Incorrect Time Stamping applied to the Images. There are people moving all over the place between the time span between these images.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on November 23, 2019, 05:36:18 PM
Yes, I heard my name and credentials being called, how can I help?

At least I don't claim to be an xxxxxxxx.

I have plenty of hobbies, is that a problem?

JohnM
Yes, I don't need to hear about your life in the carnival
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 23, 2019, 06:23:12 PM
Can you show us please, so that we can compare it with what we see in the actual Wiegman frame? Thank you!  Thumb1:

Let me politely nudge Mr Mitcham along here...

Mr Mitcham, in order to get Mr Lovelady over to the shadow line you have placed him well to the west of where Mr Hackerott places him:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ol34nrg.jpg)

You have further indicated that PrayerPerson is closer to the wall and back a little from where Mr Hackerott places him. I have used a yellow arrow here to move PrayerPerson in line with your suggestion. If you are unhappy with my arrow, give us one of your own!

(https://i.imgur.com/WV2l9Dz.jpg)

Now! Let us consider first the angle at which Mr Wiegman is filming and second the sizeable gap between Mr Lovelady and PrayerPerson's heads which Wiegman shows when Mr Lovelady is at lower elevation:

(https://i.imgur.com/UcJlFLm.jpg)

Now, the green line in the image below joins the heads of Mr Lovelady and PrayerPerson in the positions you are placing them:

(https://i.imgur.com/IwlSLY8.jpg)

From Wiegman's perspective, your Mr Lovelady will be standing in front of your PrayerPerson!

Are you seriously suggesting that this is compatible with the gap between Mr Lovelady and PrayerPerson which Wiegman actually shows?

Please get real, my friend, and stop pushing this nonsense!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 23, 2019, 10:45:56 PM
The Lovelady stepping down is a red herring because look at the distance from the top of Lovelady's head to the next frame, that distance is way too much for a step but if you look closely at the shape of Lovelady's head, the way he counterbalances himself with his right arm, the angle and shape of his Tshirt, his button shirt falling forward and creating a shadow across his tummy, his upper body twisting and the shadowing on Lovelady's face, it looks like he's ducking a little and bending forward as you do, to try and get a better look at something or maybe he was just leaning forward to tie up his shoe laces? The total amount of frames of Lovelady is about half a second and is just a flash in time.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

And the shadow planes confirms the above.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

So as can be seen, Lovelady isn't stepping down and his actions as described above places him here and PP is against the wall a foot in front of the glass.

(https://i.postimg.cc/FKQnRKLR/47jPoho.jpg)

JohnM

     This sea sick motion Malarkey is Bogus. Look at the Guy Standing Below Lovelady.  The Rear of his head is Contracting/getting smaller as Lovelady allegedly "Bends Forward"/downward. On top of that, when Lovelady allegedly "Bends Forward", his shirt actually is moving Backward/ Toward him and flapping/pressing closer to his chest. That shirt is Not falling "forward" as claimed. It is falling Back toward Lovelady. What we are seeing defies gravity.  This Sea Sick Motion stuff is Manufactured Hokum
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 23, 2019, 10:55:30 PM
     This sea sick motion Malarkey is Bogus. Look at the Guy Standing Below Lovelady.  The Rear of his head is Contracting/getting smaller as Lovelady allegedly leans forward/downward. On top of that, when Lovelady allegedly "Bends Forward", his shirt actually is moving Backward/ Toward him and flapping/pressing closer to his chest. That shirt is Not falling "forward" as claimed. It is falling Back toward Lovelady. What we are seeing defies gravity.  This Sea Sick Motion stuff is Manufactured Hokum

You gotta learn how to structure a post, when you start with an uninformed negative then I ain't going to read any further, go away you stink!

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh2mkgXs/ironh.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 23, 2019, 11:01:14 PM
You gotta learn how to structure a post, when you start with an uninformed negative then I ain't going to read any further, go away you stink!

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh2mkgXs/ironh.jpg)

JohnM

    Go away because once again You have been Busted. Not happening
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 23, 2019, 11:14:45 PM
    Go away because once again You have been Busted. Not happening

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh2mkgXs/ironh.jpg)

Been busted by you? Get the fcuk outta here.
You have never posted an analysed photo in your life because you don't know how, yet you claim to be able to bust me with a technical skill that you have never yet demonstrated. WOW!
Sorry Royell but can I rarely get through an entire post of yours because you're just so boring, Boring Storing, I'm a Poet and didn't even know it.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 23, 2019, 11:19:35 PM
The Lovelady stepping down is a red herring because look at the distance from the top of Lovelady's head to the next frame, that distance is way too much for a step but if you look closely at the shape of Lovelady's head, the way he counterbalances himself with his right arm, the angle and shape of his Tshirt, his button shirt right side falling forward and creating a shadow across his tummy, his left lapel that tightens and removes the shadow, his upper body twisting and the shadowing on Lovelady's face, it looks like he's ducking a little and bending forward as you do, to try and get a better look at something or maybe he was just leaning forward to tie up his shoe laces? The total amount of frames of Lovelady is about half a second and is just a flash in time.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

And the shadow planes confirms the above.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

So as can be seen, Lovelady isn't stepping down and his actions as described above places him here and PP is against the wall a foot or two in front of the glass.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1tFZYrdz/47jPoho.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 23, 2019, 11:46:13 PM
The Lovelady stepping down is a red herring because look at the distance from the top of Lovelady's head to the next frame, that distance is way too much for a step but if you look closely at the shape of Lovelady's head, the way he counterbalances himself with his right arm, the angle and shape of his Tshirt, his button shirt right side falling forward and creating a shadow across his tummy, his upper body twisting and the shadowing on Lovelady's face, it looks like he's ducking a little and bending forward as you do, to try and get a better look at something or maybe he was just leaning forward to tie up his shoe laces? The total amount of frames of Lovelady is about half a second and is just a flash in time.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

And the shadow planes confirms the above.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

So as can be seen, Lovelady isn't stepping down and his actions as described above places him here and PP is against the wall a foot or two in front of the glass.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1tFZYrdz/47jPoho.jpg)

JohnM

John,

In the great "bobbing and weaving" GIF you posted, Lovelady doesn't "lean" as far back as Frazier and the guy in the suit (Shelley? Molina?) and the others do at their apogee, but only goes vertical, instead, suggesting to me that he was already leaning forward before he leaned forward even more, which in turn suggests that he may have already had his hand on the center railing, and that it was at this earliest (Wiegman-based) point in your GIF that Altgens-6 was taken.

Question:  How many frames from Wiegman and Darnell, respectively, were incorporated into your GIF?

Was Lovelady still definitely up there on an upper step when Darnell started filming that particular scene, or is what we see some kind of "ghost image" left behind from his dashing down to a lower step to confer with dressed-in-black Gloria Calvery (to the immediate left of the gal dressed-all-in-white)?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 12:41:47 AM
John,

In the great "bobbing and weaving" GIF you posted, Lovelady doesn't "lean" as far back as Frazier and the guy in the suit (Shelley? Molina?) and the others do at their apogee, but only goes vertical, instead, suggesting to me that he was already leaning forward before he leaned forward even more, which in turn suggests that he may have already had his hand on the center railing, and that it was at this earliest (Wiegman-based) point in your GIF that Altgens-6 was taken.

Question:  How many frames from Wiegman and Darnell, respectively, were incorporated into your GIF?

Was Lovelady still definitely up there on an upper step when Darnell started filming that particular scene, or is what we see some kind of "ghost image" left behind from his dashing down to a lower step to confer with dressed-in-black Gloria Calvery (to the immediate left of the gal dressed-all-in-white)?

--  MWT  ;)

Hi Thomas, yeah, compare Lovelady with PrayerPerson, PP is further back and has been established as being about 5'3" but Lovelady appears to be only a little taller and Frazier who is 6 foot absolutely towers over the both of them.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

Answer: using one of each is the only way to do that sort of comparison.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 24, 2019, 12:53:33 AM
Hi Thomas, yeah, compare Lovelady with PrayerPerson, PP is further back and has been established as being about 5'3" but Lovelady appears to be only a little taller and Frazier who is 6 foot absolutely towers over the both of them.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

Answer: using one of each is the only way to do that sort of comparison.

JohnM

John,

Thanks for the feedback.

Question:  Is Lovelady still up there in the Darnell frame, or could that be him on a much lower step, talking with the woman in black (to the immediate left of the woman dressed all-in-white)?

--  MWT  ;)

Edit: Come to think of it, I'm not sure I understand you. If there's only one frame from each in your GIF, why then do Prayer Person's arms go up and down so smoothly and continuously?

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 24, 2019, 02:43:52 AM
John,

Thanks for the feedback.

Question:  Is Lovelady still up there in the Darnell frame, or could that be him on a much lower step, talking with the woman in black (to the immediate left of the woman dressed all-in-white)?

--  MWT  ;)

Edit: Come to think of it, I'm not sure I understand you. If there's only one frame from each film in your GIF, why then do Prayer Person's arms go up and down so smoothly and continuously?

John?

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 03:23:51 AM
John,

Thanks for the feedback.

Question:  Is Lovelady still up there in the Darnell frame, or could that be him on a much lower step, talking with the woman in black (to the immediate left of the woman dressed all-in-white)?

--  MWT  ;)

Edit: Come to think of it, I'm not sure I understand you. If there's only one frame from each in your GIF, why then do Prayer Person's arms go up and down so smoothly and continuously?

      Your questioning the positioning of Lovelady is answered by there being a Greater Elapsed Time between the images than has previously been accepted. The same goes for Buell Frazier and other people that were  standing in the TSBD stairs area.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 24, 2019, 04:18:40 AM
Your questioning the positioning of Lovelady is answered by there being a Greater Elapsed Time between the images than has previously been accepted. The same goes for Buell Frazier and other people that were  standing in the TSBD stairs area.

Royell,

Yep, at least 25 seconds, or so.

Plenty of time for Gloria Calvery (and her all-in-white colleague, Carol Reed) to walk approximately 60 yards to the TSBD steps, and for Lovelady to get down to a lower step to greet her (if that's indeed Lovelady standing in front of black-blouse-and-black-headscarf-wearing Calvery down there).

Thanks for pointing that out!

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 05:20:29 AM
      Your questioning the positioning of Lovelady is answered by there being a Greater Elapsed Time between the images than has previously been accepted. The same goes for Buell Frazier and other people that were  standing in the TSBD stairs area.

How long after?
Accepted by whom?
In what textbook did you find all the accepted times, can I see it?
I asked you before to provide some sort of verified evidence to support your guesses, where is it?
Why do you keep making these definitive unsupported statements?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 05:26:51 AM
John,

Thanks for the feedback.

Question:  Is Lovelady still up there in the Darnell frame, or could that be him on a much lower step, talking with the woman in black (to the immediate left of the woman dressed all-in-white)?

--  MWT  ;)

Edit: Come to think of it, I'm not sure I understand you. If there's only one frame from each in your GIF, why then do Prayer Person's arms go up and down so smoothly and continuously?

Answer: I can't see him?

Edit answer: it's morphing from each corresponding pixel position in each image, so we continuously see movement between all the relative pixels.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 24, 2019, 05:37:21 AM
Answer: I can't see him?

Edit answer: it's morphing from each corresponding pixel position in each image, so we continuously see movement between all the relative pixels.

JohnM

John,

1) "I can't see him?" 

Huh? Typo?

2)  Once again, is Lovelady still up there on a top step (or on the landing, itself) in the Darnell frame/the Darnell clip/the Darnell whatever, or is that some kind of ghost image/"morphing pixels" image which only appears to show him leaning forward like a MoFo, but he ain't really there at that point?

3) "Morphing pixels" between just two frames, one from Wiegman and one from Darnell? (Your GIF is comprised of just two frames. right?)

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 06:01:46 AM
John,

1) "I can't see him?" 

Huh? Typo?

2)  Once again, is Lovelady still up there on a top step (or on the landing, itself) in the Darnell frame/the Darnell clip/the Darnell whatever, or is that some kind of ghost image/"morphing pixels" image which only appears to show him leaning forward like a MoFo, but he ain't really there at that point?

3) "Morphing pixels" between just two frames, one from Wiegman and one from Darnell? (Your GIF is comprised of just two frames. right?)

--  MWT  ;)

1. Is this what you mean because I can't really make them out but it could be?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQwN1IiRuaR_hC2LD1cOTpYPYyd38Y4p6cNKTDrZC1-N-UCRDF4)

2. Lovelady is on the top step in Wiegman and not on the top step in Darnell or if he is I can't see him.
3. Yes.



JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 24, 2019, 06:26:10 AM
1. Is this what you mean because I can't really make them out but it could be?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQwN1IiRuaR_hC2LD1cOTpYPYyd38Y4p6cNKTDrZC1-N-UCRDF4)

2. Lovelady is on the top step in Wiegman and not on the top step in Darnell or if he is I can't see him.
3. Yes.

JohnM

Yes. John.

That's Gloria Calvery and her dressed-in-white colleague, Carol Reed, in Zapruder. Sandy Larsen and I discovered Calvery and her three headscarf-wearing colleagues in Zapruder at the EF a couple of years ago, after I had found Stella Mae Jacob and her two colleagues (Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons) standing by the Stemmons sign in Zapruder, forcing researchers to look for Calvery and Co. somewhere else on the north side of Elm Street.

You can't make them (Sandy's and my Calvery and Reed) out in the Darnell frame part of your two-frame GIF ? ? ?

You can see Calvery's black blouse (or sweater) and black headscarf, can't you?  And Reed's white dress and white headscarf?

If you had a clearer Darnell frame, you could even see two "fuzzy" dark horizontal bands in the slice of Calvery's skirt that's visible, which subtle dark bands can be easily seen in clear Zapruder frames.

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Thanks for confirming for me that Lovelady is no longer on a top step in Darnell.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 06:38:45 AM
Yes. John.

That's Gloria Calvery and her dressed-in-white colleague, Carol Reed, in Zapruder. Sandy Larsen and I discovered Calvery and her three headscarf-wearing colleagues in Zapruder at the EF a couple of years ago, after I had found Stella Mae Jacob and her two colleagues (Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons) standing by the Stemmons sign in Zapruder, forcing researchers to look for Calvery and Co. somewhere else on the north side of Elm Street.

You can't make them (Sandy's and my Calvery and Reed) out in the Darnell frame part of your two-frame GIF ? ? ?

You can see Calvery's black blouse (or sweater) and black headscarf, can't you?  And Reed's white dress and white headscarf?

If you had a clearer Darnell frame, you could even see two "fuzzy" dark horizontal bands in Calvery's skirt, which subtle dark bands can be seen in clear Zapruder frames.

--  MWT  ;)

I can see the characters and they seem to match.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 07:48:50 AM

Bump for Storing, stop running, we want answers!

      Your questioning the positioning of Lovelady is answered by there being a Greater Elapsed Time between the images than has previously been accepted. The same goes for Buell Frazier and other people that were  standing in the TSBD stairs area.

How long after?
Accepted by whom?
In what textbook did you find all the accepted times, can I see it?
I asked you before to provide some sort of verified evidence to support your guesses, where is it?
Why do you keep making these definitive unsupported statements?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 11:26:32 AM
The Lovelady stepping down is a red herring because look at the distance from the top of Lovelady's head to the next frame, that distance is way too much for a step but if you look closely at the shape of Lovelady's head, the way he counterbalances himself with his right arm, the angle and shape of his Tshirt, his button shirt right side falling forward and creating a shadow across his tummy, his left lapel that tightens and removes the shadow, his upper body twisting and the shadowing on Lovelady's face, it looks like he's ducking a little and bending forward as you do, to try and get a better look at something or maybe he was just leaning forward to tie up his shoe laces? The total amount of frames of Lovelady is about half a second and is just a flash in time.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

And the shadow planes confirms the above.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

So as can be seen, Lovelady isn't stepping down and his actions as described above places him here and PP is against the wall a foot or two in front of the glass.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1tFZYrdz/47jPoho.jpg)

JohnM

 :D :D :D

Context for this latest Mytton Foray Into The Twilight Zone!

Mr Mytton has watched Mr Mitcham do what he himself knew better than to do---------------------namely, commit to actually putting Mr Lovelady on the vertical shadow line somewhere on the steps:

(https://i.imgur.com/XQJ95W3.jpg)

'Hmmmm,' said Mr Mytton to himself, still smarting from the total collapse of his center railing scam, 'that way fresh hell lies... No deuced way around the Lovelady-blocking-Prayer-Person problem if we put Lovelady anywhere on the steps'.

So! He takes a look at that shadow line (which he daren't query btw) and realises there's only one last scam left to try:

Put Mr Lovelady way back on the landing just in front of the door!

(https://i.imgur.com/4IusRLA.jpg)

He knows it's a deranged idea, even by Mytton standards, but it just might fool the fools!  Thumb1:

Problem!

Mr Lovelady clearly steps downwards and forwards between the early and the later Lovelady-In-Wiegman frames:

(https://i.imgur.com/gTn4I1a.gif)

The idea that Mr Lovelady @ lower elevation is way back on the landing, just in front of the door, is so patently absurd it must make even Mr Mytton blanch as he tries to screw his courage to the sticking place to launch his latest scam! But on he ploughs, doughty conman that he is...

Mytton Solution!

Gaslight people with the idea that "the Lovelady stepping down is a red herring"!  :D Suggest Mr Lovelady might be leaning forward to tie his shoelaces!  :D :D Claim that "total amount of frames of Lovelady is about half a second and is just a flash in time"!  :D :D :D

That sound you hear, friends, is the sound of a desperate Lone Nut scam artist scraping the bottom of a barrel that has become terrifyingly empty...

Of course, this latest scam is not going to go any better for Mr Mytton than his recent ones!  Thumb1:

Where to start?

How about here:

Mr Mytton cannot get away from the gap Wiegman shows from Mr Lovelady's head to the metal door frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/lfxDkGW.jpg)

Mr Hackerott--------whose meticulous 3D calcuations Mr Mytton daren't take on----------has already shown that this gap puts Mr Lovelady out at the edge of the landing:

(https://i.imgur.com/p0K0sdu.jpg)

The only solution for Mr Mytton here would be to make a new 'Educated Guess' and put Mr Lovelady further west back there in order to create fictional sidelong distance between Mr Lovelady and the frame. But that won't work because too much of Mr Lovelady's body would then be eaten up by shadow!

(https://i.imgur.com/oVScKyA.jpg)

Poor Mr Mytton! :D

Alternatively, we could start here:

Mr Mytton has forgotten to factor in the horizontal lintel shadow!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/p12ALEX.jpg)

He can't put Mr Lovelady back there and have his full face in direct sunlight!  :D

Or here:

Mr Mytton has forgotten to factor in Mr Frazier in Wiegman!   :D

(https://i.imgur.com/1zJcwvo.gif)

Perhaps Mr Mytton can make a second 'Educated Guess', this time as to the respective positions of Messrs Lovelady and Frazier--------------and test his two 'Educated Guesses' against the respective heights of those two gentlemen?

(https://i.imgur.com/4IusRLA.jpg)

Once Mr Mytton has addressed the above------------each of which is a deal-breaker on its own-------------we can talk about something else Mr Mytton has forgotten to factor in:

(https://i.imgur.com/OvbBCy3.jpg)

Get out the popcorn, friends! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 03:36:34 PM
Yes. John.

That's Gloria Calvery and her dressed-in-white colleague, Carol Reed, in Zapruder. Sandy Larsen and I discovered Calvery and her three headscarf-wearing colleagues in Zapruder at the EF a couple of years ago, after I had found Stella Mae Jacob and her two colleagues (Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons) standing by the Stemmons sign in Zapruder, forcing researchers to look for Calvery and Co. somewhere else on the north side of Elm Street.

You can't make them (Sandy's and my Calvery and Reed) out in the Darnell frame part of your two-frame GIF ? ? ?

You can see Calvery's black blouse (or sweater) and black headscarf, can't you?  And Reed's white dress and white headscarf?

If you had a clearer Darnell frame, you could even see two "fuzzy" dark horizontal bands in the slice of Calvery's skirt that's visible, which subtle dark bands can be easily seen in clear Zapruder frames.

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Thanks for confirming for me that Lovelady is no longer on a top step in Darnell.

    Just how long do you believe it would take these Stunned women to walk from the Stemmons Sign through the mingling mob on the corner of Elm/Houston and then through the throng milling around in front of the TSBD and then begin climbing the TSBD Steps as pictured? The Elapsed Time between the images under discussion is Greater than has been accepted as well as the currently accepted Time Stamping of those Films. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 03:41:32 PM
:D :D :D

Context for this latest Mytton Foray Into The Twilight Zone!

Mr Mytton has watched Mr Mitcham do what he himself knew better than to do---------------------namely, commit to actually putting Mr Lovelady on the vertical shadow line somewhere on the steps:

(https://i.imgur.com/XQJ95W3.jpg)

'Hmmmm,' said Mr Mytton to himself, still smarting from the total collapse of his center railing scam, 'that way fresh hell lies... No deuced way around the Lovelady-blocking-Prayer-Person problem if we put Lovelady anywhere on the steps'.

So! He takes a look at that shadow line (which he daren't query btw) and realises there's only one last scam left to try:

Put Mr Lovelady way back on the landing just in front of the door!

(https://i.imgur.com/4IusRLA.jpg)

He knows it's a deranged idea, even by Mytton standards, but it just might fool the fools!  Thumb1:

Problem!

Mr Lovelady clearly steps downwards and forwards between the early and the later Lovelady-In-Wiegman frames:

(https://i.imgur.com/gTn4I1a.gif)

The idea that Mr Lovelady @ lower elevation is way back on the landing, just in front of the door, is so patently absurd it must make even Mr Mytton blanch as he tries to screw his courage to the sticking place to launch his latest scam! But on he ploughs, doughty conman that he is...

Mytton Solution!

Gaslight people with the idea that "the Lovelady stepping down is a red herring"!  :D Suggest Mr Lovelady might be leaning forward to tie his shoelaces!  :D :D Claim that "total amount of frames of Lovelady is about half a second and is just a flash in time"!  :D :D :D

That sound you hear, friends, is the sound of a desperate Lone Nut scam artist scraping the bottom of a barrel that has become terrifyingly empty...

Of course, this latest scam is not going to go any better for Mr Mytton than his recent ones!  Thumb1:

Where to start?

How about here:

Mr Mytton cannot get away from the gap Wiegman shows from Mr Lovelady's head to the metal door frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/lfxDkGW.jpg)

Mr Hackerott--------whose meticulous 3D calcuations Mr Mytton daren't take on----------has already shown that this gap puts Mr Lovelady out at the edge of the landing:

(https://i.imgur.com/p0K0sdu.jpg)

The only solution for Mr Mytton here would be to make a new 'Educated Guess' and put Mr Lovelady further west back there in order to create fictional sidelong distance between Mr Lovelady and the frame. But that won't work because too much of Mr Lovelady's body would then be eaten up by shadow!

(https://i.imgur.com/oVScKyA.jpg)

Poor Mr Mytton! :D

Alternatively, we could start here:

Mr Mytton has forgotten to factor in the horizontal lintel shadow!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/p12ALEX.jpg)

He can't put Mr Lovelady back there and have his full face in direct sunlight!  :D

Or here:

Mr Mytton has forgotten to factor in Mr Frazier in Wiegman!   :D

(https://i.imgur.com/1zJcwvo.gif)

Perhaps Mr Mytton can make a second 'Educated Guess', this time as to the respective positions of Messrs Lovelady and Frazier--------------and test his two 'Educated Guesses' against the respective heights of those two gentlemen?

(https://i.imgur.com/4IusRLA.jpg)

Once Mr Mytton has addressed the above------------each of which is a deal-breaker on its own-------------we can talk about something else Mr Mytton has forgotten to factor in:

(https://i.imgur.com/OvbBCy3.jpg)

Get out the popcorn, friends! Thumb1:

Whenever you get flustered and unable to defend yourself the posts get longer and longer and longer, as if repeating the same uneducated words over and over is going to save you.
My sun plane evidence has not been refuted.
My 3D GIF places Lovelady no where near the railing.
My Lovelady "step down" GIF proves that Lovelady wasn't stepping down and was in fact leaning foward.

Unless Ford can explain how his "painting in a shadow" was done and how, then we're only left with scientific evidence and that will win every time.

Btw you presented a graphic with Oswald's head still behind Lovelady which kinda makes your own theory null and void, where can this very entertaining fantasy possibly go from here? I love it when you people attempt to create convulted solutions for problems that you yourselves invent.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 03:50:55 PM
Whenever you get flustered and unable to defend yourself the posts get longer and longer and longer, as if repeating the same uneducated words over and over is going to save you.
My sun plane evidence has not been refuted.
My 3D GIF places Lovelady no where near the railing.
My Lovelady "step down" GIF proves that Lovelady wasn't stepping down and was in fact leaning foward.

Unless Ford can explain how his "painting in a shadow" was done and how, then we're only left with scientific evidence and that will win every time.

Btw you presented a graphic with Oswald's head still behind Lovelady which kinda makes your own theory null and void, where can this very entertaining fantasy possibly go from here? I love it when you people attempt to create convulted solutions for problems that you yourselves invent.

JohnM

    That "Lovelady Step Down" GIF is an absolute joke. There is No Way somebody could be Leaning Forward from the waist/semi bowing and have their shirt flap Toward  Them/Their Chest. Whatever you have Constructed defies Gravity. If Lovelady were Leaning Forward at the waist, that shirt would be Flapping Away from him toward the ground. Whatever Lovelady might be doing he is NOT bending Forward at the waist in a semi bow.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 03:58:13 PM
    That "Lovelady Step Down" GIF is an absolute joke. There is No Way somebody could be Leaning Forward from the waist/semi bowing and have their shirt flap Toward  Them/Their Chest. Whatever you have Constructed defies Gravity. If Lovelady were Leaning Forward at the waist, that shirt would be Flapping Away from him toward the ground. Whatever Lovelady might be doing he is NOT bending Forward at the waist in a semi bow.

Your biased "cheerleader level" opinion has always been an absolute joke, so i win. Try again.
Btw EVERY kooky CT fakery theory that comes along you blindly embrace and every Technical refuation from a LNer is "an absolute joke", not just once but every single time and you wonder why the Forum treats you like a clown.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 04:10:21 PM
Your biased "cheerleader level" opinion has always been an absolute joke, so i win. Try again.
Btw EVERY kooky CT fakery theory that comes along you blindly embrace and every Technical refuation from a LNer is "an absolute joke", not just once but every single time and you wonder why the Forum treats you like a clown.

JohnM

   So explain how the Lovelady Shirt Flap DEFIES Gravity as seen in your GIF?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 04:18:33 PM
   So explain how the Lovelady Shirt Flap DEFIES Gravity as seen in your GIF?

What, the shirt flap that LOSES the shadow, where do YOU think the shadow went?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 04:22:47 PM
What, the shirt flap that LOSES the shadow, where do YOU think the shadow went?

JohnM

   Forget the shadow. Explain Why that Flap is defying Gravity?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 04:49:06 PM
   Forget the shadow.

Sorry, I can understand your reluctance but the whole point of this debate are the shadows on Lovelady and asking to forget this shadow only emphasizes your incompetence.
So lets try again shall we, what happened to the shadow under Lovelady's left lapel?

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 04:59:33 PM
Sorry, I can understand your reluctance but the whole point of this debate are the shadows on Lovelady and asking to forget this shadow only emphasizes your incompetence.
So lets try again shall we, what happened to the shadow under Lovelady's left lapel?

JohnM

   John- Thanks for confirming you have No Explanation for Your GIF displaying Lovelady's shirt flap defying gravity. Either: (1) It is the result of something YOU did in constructing the GIF, or (2) Lovelady is Not bending Forward from the waist/bowing.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 05:08:03 PM
   John- Thanks for confirming you have No Explanation for Your GIF displaying Lovelady's shirt flap defying gravity. Either: (1) It is the result of something YOU did in constructing the GIF, or (2) Lovelady is Not bending Forward from the waist/bowing.

Stop running, where did the shadow go, why did it just disappear, was it more paint? Hehehe.

JohnM


JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 05:10:42 PM
Whenever you get flustered and unable to defend yourself the posts get longer and longer and longer, as if repeating the same uneducated words over and over is going to save you.
My sun plane evidence has not been refuted.
My 3D GIF places Lovelady no where near the railing.
My Lovelady "step down" GIF proves that Lovelady wasn't stepping down and was in fact leaning foward.

~Snicker~

Your gifs, Mr Mytton, only ever prove one thing---------your indefatigability in trying to pull the wool over people's eyes!  Thumb1:

Now! If you're really as confident in your explanation as you say you are, you won't have the least trouble showing us

a) -----------where Mr Frazier would go here!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/NdfzZTs.jpg)

b) -----------your explanation for the fact that none of the horizontal lintel shadow hits Mr Lovelady's head! (Was Mr Lovelady a midget?) Thumb1:

c) -----------how you can account for this gap in Wiegman between Mr Lovelady's head and the door frame!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/uEHiEGt.jpg)

You can do it, Mr Mytton!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 05:15:26 PM
John, unfortunately this discernment deficit (~~snip snip!~~)

Wrong Alan Ford, you clown!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 05:19:19 PM
   Forget the shadow. Explain Why that Flap is defying Gravity?

Well, obviously Mr Lovelady is down on his knees here because he's suddenly realised he'd forgotten to say the Angelus. Does Mr Mytton have to spell everything out to you, Mr Storing? Jeesh  ::)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 05:22:03 PM
~Snicker~

Your gifs, Mr Mytton, only ever prove one thing---------your indefatigability in trying to pull the wool over people's eyes!  Thumb1:

Now! If you're really as confident in your explanation as you say you are, you won't have the least trouble showing us

a) -----------where Mr Frazier would go here!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/NdfzZTs.jpg)

b) -----------your explanation for the fact that none of the horizontal lintel shadow hits Mr Lovelady's head! (Was Mr Lovelady a midget?) Thumb1:

c) -----------how you can account for this gap in Wiegman between Mr Lovelady's head and the door frame!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/uEHiEGt.jpg)

You can do it, Mr Mytton!  :D

    Why does the visual aid show the Top 2 Steps and a portion of the Handrail extending into the Landing/toward the TSBD front door? This is Wrong
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 05:37:37 PM

Your gifs, Mr Mytton, only ever prove one thing---------your indefatigability in trying to pull the wool over people


You say my GIFs are designed to "pull the wool over your eyes" and when you can't refute the powerful evidence I present, you demand i make more GIFs. WTF?
Just face it, you got nothing and your only avenue left for success is for me to make more and more evidence so that you can hopefully find some insignificant flaw that you can ignorantly exploit.
Either support your ludicrous proposition or don't, its only your future credibility at stake.

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 05:41:58 PM
    Why does the visual aid show the Top 2 Steps and a portion of the Handrail extending into the Landing/toward the TSBD front door? This is Wrong

No it's not!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 05:44:52 PM
You say my GIFs are designed to "pull the wool over your eyes" and when you can't refute the powerful evidence I present, you demand i make more GIFs. WTF?
Just face it, you got nothing and your only avenue left for success is for me to make more and more evidence so that you can hopefully find some insignificant flaw that you can ignorantly exploit.
Either support your ludicrous proposition or don't, its only your future credibility at stake.

JohnM

   John -  Please continue submitting your GIF's. With each one you attain a New Low.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 05:47:42 PM
    Why does the visual aid show the Top 2 Steps and a portion of the Handrail extending into the Landing/toward the TSBD front door? This is Wrong

Why all the words? Be a man of courage and just post the visual aid with the handrail in the right place, and if you have trouble posting a simple graphic, I'll  be glad to help.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 05:53:00 PM
You say my GIFs are designed to "pull the wool over your eyes" and when you can't refute the powerful evidence I present, you demand i make more GIFs. WTF?
Just face it, you got nothing and your only avenue left for success is for me to make more and more evidence so that you can hopefully find some insignificant flaw that you can ignorantly exploit.
Either support your ludicrous proposition or don't, its only your future credibility at stake.

JohnM

 :D

Where did I ask for more GIFs, Mr Mytton? And why would I even do that, when I've just stated that GIFs are your way of pulling the wool over people's eyes? Think before you post, man!  Thumb1:

Now! I'm asking for you to

a) -------------put a mark on this image showing where you think Mr Frazier goes!

(https://i.imgur.com/9ibUB1V.jpg)

b) -------------explain how it is that none of the horizontal lintel shadow hits Mr Lovelady's head! (Was Mr Lovelady a midget?)

c) -------------explain why we should favor your crazy 'solution' (which fails to account for the gap in Wiegman between Mr Lovelady's head and the door frame) over Mr Hackerott's meticulous reconstruction (which does not)!

(https://i.imgur.com/uEHiEGt.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/XtHIplF.jpg)

Guess you're having another embarrassing center railing moment here, Mr Mytton, eh?  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 05:54:39 PM
   John -  Please continue submitting your GIF's.

No worries.

JohnM



Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 06:04:24 PM
No it's not!  Thumb1:

   You need to look at it again. Just look at the Landing Sidewalls vs the Top 2 Steps/Handrail.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 06:09:04 PM
:D

Where did I ask for more GIFs, Mr Mytton? And why would I even do that, when I've just stated that GIFs are your way of pulling the wool over people's eyes? Think before you post, man!  Thumb1:

Now! I'm asking for you to

a) -------------put a mark on this image showing where you think Mr Frazier goes!

(https://i.imgur.com/9ibUB1V.jpg)

b) -------------explain how it is that none of the horizontal lintel shadow hits Mr Lovelady's head! (Was Mr Lovelady a midget?)

c) -------------explain why we should favor your crazy 'solution' (which fails to account for the gap in Wiegman between Mr Lovelady's head and the door frame) over Mr Hackerott's meticulous reconstruction (which does not)!

(https://i.imgur.com/uEHiEGt.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/XtHIplF.jpg)

Guess you're having another embarrassing center railing moment here, Mr Mytton, eh?  :D

Huh? You want no more GIFS, yet you demand I submit a GIF with Frazier's position on it? Your frustrations are making you lose sight of the little sanity you had left.

Btw you clamed they painted out Oswald and then you posted a graphic showing what you claimed was Oswald's head behind Lovelady and this contradicting confusion sums up this abortion of a theory to a "T".

(https://i.postimg.cc/Fzdxy5DD/0UsIadV.jpg)

JohnM
 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 06:21:14 PM
   You need to look at it again. Just look at the Landing Sidewalls vs the Top 2 Steps/Handrail.

Hilarious, the blind leading the blind, it's no wonder you people have no answers and therefore have to resort to the "fakery explanation".

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 06:56:31 PM

b) -------------explain how it is that none of the horizontal lintel shadow hits Mr Lovelady's head! (Was Mr Lovelady a midget?)

c) -------------explain why we should favor your crazy 'solution' (which fails to account for the gap in Wiegman between Mr Lovelady's head and the door frame) over Mr Hackerott's meticulous reconstruction (which does not)!

(https://i.imgur.com/uEHiEGt.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/XtHIplF.jpg)


What do you think you are trying to prove?

(https://i.postimg.cc/wMdHhHkk/hack-3d.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 07:21:55 PM
Huh? You want no more GIFS, yet you demand I submit a GIF with Frazier's position on it?

 :D

No, Mr Mytton, not a GIF, just the single image below with your educated guess as to Mr Frazier's position marked on it------------an 'X' or a circle would do just fine!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/SES4t05.jpg)

Or don't you want to for fear of the complications it might cause you?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 07:26:42 PM
What do you think you are trying to prove?

(https://i.postimg.cc/wMdHhHkk/hack-3d.gif)

JohnM

 :D

Explain to us how a gap this size------------

(https://i.imgur.com/VB5ZOcd.jpg)

------------could be yielded by your suggested positioning of Mr Lovelady!

(https://i.imgur.com/vBAPe5x.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 07:56:06 PM
Hilarious, the blind leading the blind, it's no wonder you people have no answers and therefore have to resort to the "fakery explanation".

JohnM

       That's Non-Responsive. You have No Explanation for what is Incorrectly being illustrated.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: James Hackerott on November 24, 2019, 09:07:44 PM
What do you think you are trying to prove?

JohnM
John,
Re:
(https://i.imgur.com/1o4aDHF.gif)
This overlay was made with a POV sim that was rendered without camera rotation applied. If you'd like I can render using the  camera rotation (If I can still find it). The Wiegman frame would be Frame15.

From a draft to a post a little over a year ago about the DVD Death-In-Dealey-Plaza production (Unger?) frames:
One thing I wanted to mention about the DiDP Wiegman frames. I mentioned that they were cropped and afterward I overlaid one on the Groden frame (4:3 aspect) and the DiDP frames are about 84% by area. Not so bad by itself, but more disturbing is the aspect ratio of those frames are about 4% squashed in the vertical dimension. 4% on a 6' figure would decrease about 3” to the apparent height.  I had to increase the vertical by 4% to match the Groden frame. If not adjusted first and then after the frame is rotated that wrong aspect ratio is present at different amounts in all directions. And if the overlay frames are also rotated differently it could get confusing. My overlays below were made  before the conclusion of the doorway scenes.
(https://i.imgur.com/wol2oYp.gif)
James
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
:D

Explain to us how a gap this size------------

(https://i.imgur.com/VB5ZOcd.jpg)

------------could be yielded by your suggested positioning of Mr Lovelady!

(https://i.imgur.com/vBAPe5x.jpg)

 Thumb1:

The line of sight places Lovelady only 6 inches forward from where I originally placed him, thanks for demanding that extra fraction of accuracy which does nothing to advance your theory but makes me look pretty damn clever!

(https://i.postimg.cc/8zNP5sL4/weigman-assassass.jpg)

Btw the left red line of sight is defined by the column and the centre of the door, and if Wiegman is closer or further away, then proportionally Lovelady only needs to move a few inches either way along the shadow line.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 09:23:58 PM
John,
Re:
(https://i.imgur.com/1o4aDHF.gif)
This overlay was made with a POV sim that was rendered without camera rotation applied. If you'd like I can render using the  camera rotation (If I can still find it). The Wiegman frame would be Frame15.

From a draft to a post a little over a year ago about the DVD Death-In-Dealey-Plaza production (Unger?) frames:
One thing I wanted to mention about the DiDP Wiegman frames. I mentioned that they were cropped and afterward I overlaid one on the Groden frame (4:3 aspect) and the DiDP frames are about 84% by area. Not so bad by itself, but more disturbing is the aspect ratio of those frames are about 4% squashed in the vertical dimension. 4% on a 6' figure would decrease about 3” to the apparent height.  I had to increase the vertical by 4% to match the Groden frame. If not adjusted first and then after the frame is rotated that wrong aspect ratio is present at different amounts in all directions. And if the overlay frames are also rotated differently it could get confusing. My overlays below were made  before the conclusion of the doorway scenes.
(https://i.imgur.com/wol2oYp.gif)
James

I know from personal experience how difficult it is to make 3D graphics and then trying to match preexisting photos/screen grabs with their ratio/lens/etc distortions makes the whole exercise a pain in the ass, then you get morons like Royell who don't have a clue making uninformed criticisms about insignificant details and it's just not worth the effort, but don't let me stop you, so far what I've seen of your stuff has been quite helpful.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 09:44:55 PM
I know from personal experience how difficult it is to make 3D graphics and then trying to match preexisting photos/screen grabs with their ratio/lens/etc distortions makes the whole exercise a pain in the ass, then you get morons like Royell who don't have a clue making uninformed criticisms about insignificant details and it's just not worth the effort, but don't let me stop you, so far what I've seen of your stuff has been quite helpful.

JohnM

    If the visual aid Incorrectly displays the Top 2 steps to be extending Back into the landing, and Lovelady is standing on the edge of the Landing = Step #2, Lovelady is then being positioned Closer to the street/Closer to the Column which allegedly is casting a shadow on him. The positioning of Lovelady Impacts where any alleged shadow being cast by that column might fall on him.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
I know from personal experience how difficult it is to make 3D graphics and then trying to match preexisting photos/screen grabs with their ratio/lens/etc distortions makes the whole exercise a pain in the ass, then you get morons like Royell who don't have a clue making uninformed criticisms about insignificant details and it's just not worth the effort, but don't let me stop you, so far what I've seen of your stuff has been quite helpful.

JohnM

Indeed it has---------------and that's because Mr Hackerott, unlike Mr Mytton, does not construct images for the purpose of misleading people!  Thumb1:

How about we let this honest GIF from Mr Hackerott help Mr Mytton some more?

(https://i.imgur.com/TUEWXjh.gif)

Mr Hackerott, being an honest and meticulous researcher, has factored in the horizontal lintel shadow. It is----------one presumes-----------one reason why he knew to rule out the idea that Mr Lovelady, whose head is in direct sunlight, could be standing several feet back on the landing!  Thumb1:

Question for Mr Mytton!

What on earth makes you think you can do what Mr Hackerott knows to be impossible-------------namely, put Mr Lovelady several feet back on the landing without having him catch any of that horizontal shadow?

Perhaps you have uncovered startling evidence that Mr Lovelady was a midget?

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 09:54:55 PM
    If the visual aid Incorrectly displays the Top 2 steps to be extending Back into the landing

It doesn't----look at some photos of the entranceway!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 10:46:40 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/TUEWXjh.gif)

Question for Mr Mytton!

What on earth makes you think you can do what Mr Hackerott knows to be impossible-------------namely, put Mr Lovelady several feet back on the landing without having him catch any of that horizontal shadow?


You're making a claim based on a graphic that doesn't represent your claim and then you want me to comment on what hasn't been demonstrated? WTF?

Mark Twain — 'Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'



JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 10:54:17 PM
You're making a claim based on a graphic that doesn't represent your claim and then you want me to comment on what hasn't been demonstrated? WTF?

Mark Twain — 'Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'



JohnM

Nice deflection, Mr Mytton!  :D

Come on, explain how you have managed to put Mr Lovelady several feet back into the landing without getting any horizontal shadow on him!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 24, 2019, 11:05:59 PM
Nice deflection, Mr Mytton!  :D

Come on, explain how you have managed to put Mr Lovelady several feet back into the landing without getting any horizontal shadow on him!  Thumb1:

    That sea-sick motion visual aid he put together is Worthless. I ask him for clarification as to Lovelady's shirt flap defying gravity and he is stuck for an answer. ALL his visual aids past and present need to be scrutinized closely. This includes his earlier sea sick motion visual aid of JFK's rear head wound.     
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 11:10:13 PM
Nice deflection, Mr Mytton!  :D

Come on, explain how you have managed to put Mr Lovelady several feet back into the landing without getting any horizontal shadow on him!  Thumb1:

Already answered, Frazier is 6 foot tall, and based on the vertical shadow is virtually pressed against the glass and even still Frazier barely captures the horizontal shadow, whereas Lovelady is only 5 foot 8 and is standing forward of Frazier.

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/zGy0cmD1/frazier-sun-plane.jpg)

Mark Twain — 'Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 24, 2019, 11:20:48 PM
    That sea-sick motion visual aid he put together is Worthless. I ask him for clarification as to Lovelady's shirt flap defying gravity and he is stuck for an answer. ALL his visual aids past and present need to be scrutinized closely. This includes his earlier sea sick motion visual aid of JFK's rear head wound.   

Because I'm choosing not to respond to your absurd layman allegations, you are now screaming to anyone that might listen. Hilarious!
Now the child's having a tantrum. Boo Hoo!

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/GhxPOl1C0lbuU/source.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 24, 2019, 11:38:00 PM
Already answered, Frazier is 6 foot tall, and based on the vertical shadow is virtually pressed against the glass and even still Frazier barely captures the horizontal shadow

Oops! :D

(https://i.imgur.com/xlqVUwq.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/F5eBPqa.jpg)

Quote
whereas Lovelady is only 5 foot 8 and is standing forward of Frazier.

 :D

6'0" vs 5'8":

(https://i.imgur.com/rouF1qD.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/xlqVUwq.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 25, 2019, 12:01:01 AM
Oops! :D

Oops, indeed.

The Lovelady stepping down is a red herring because look at the distance from the top of Lovelady's head to the next frame, that distance is way too much for a step but if you look closely at the shape of Lovelady's head, the way he counterbalances himself with his right arm, the angle and shape of his Tshirt, his button shirt right side falling forward and creating a shadow across his tummy, his left lapel that tightens and removes the shadow, his upper body twisting and the shadowing on Lovelady's face, it looks like he's ducking a little and bending forward as you do, to try and get a better look at something or maybe he was just leaning forward to tie up his shoe laces? The total amount of frames of Lovelady is about half a second and is just a flash in time.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

And the shadow planes confirms the above.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/8zNP5sL4/weigman-assassass.jpg)

Btw whatever happened to your "paint it black" theory, run Alan, run!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 25, 2019, 12:08:32 AM
Oops, indeed.

The Lovelady stepping down is a red herring because (~~snippety snip-snip!~~)

Another nice deflection, Mr Mytton!  Thumb1:

Is it still your claim that Mr Frazier "barely captures the horizontal shadow"?

(https://i.imgur.com/xlqVUwq.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/F5eBPqa.jpg)

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 25, 2019, 12:18:20 AM

Is it still your claim that Mr Frazier "barely captures the horizontal shadow"?


Yes, only Frazier's head is in shadow therefore he barely captures the horizontal shadow. What do you see in the screen grabs below?

(https://i.postimg.cc/zGy0cmD1/frazier-sun-plane.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

Mark Twain — 'Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 25, 2019, 12:22:42 AM
Yes, only Frazier's head is in shadow therefore he barely captures the horizontal shadow. What do you see in the screen grabs below?

I see you looking at the wrong film, Mr Mytton! Is everything okay?  :D :D :D

Now! Is it still your claim that Mr Frazier in Wiegman "barely captures the horizontal shadow"?

(https://i.imgur.com/xlqVUwq.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/F5eBPqa.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 25, 2019, 12:47:14 AM

Now! Is it still your claim that Mr Frazier in Wiegman "barely captures the horizontal shadow"?


This is getting very tiresome I never made that claim, in fact whatever is in your blue circle is barely legible and resembles jpeg compression more than anything else, but even if it is Frazier's head I can't see his body so again what are you trying to prove? Your arguments are becoming less coherent with every post, are you drunk or sick or something or maybe you forgot your meds?

(https://i.postimg.cc/zGy0cmD1/frazier-sun-plane.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvN9YQr1/dep2a.gif)

Mark Twain — 'Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

JohnM
[/quote]

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 25, 2019, 12:55:39 AM
Because I'm choosing not to respond to your absurd layman allegations, you are now screaming to anyone that might listen. Hilarious!
Now the child's having a tantrum. Boo Hoo!

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/GhxPOl1C0lbuU/source.gif)

JohnM

    Even a "layman" can see there are serious problems with your sea-sick visual aid of the TSBD Steps. Your being unable to defend it further exposes your difficult position. The cartoon deflection is nothing more than another dodge. The insults? Juvenile   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 25, 2019, 01:20:57 AM
    Even a "layman" can see there are serious problems with your sea-sick visual aid of the TSBD Steps.

The point of the GIF was to get an idea of the relative depth between objects and you said that the GIF showed the depth of the landing but as usual you didn't account for perspective and had some BS objection, but still you could see exactly what I was trying to achieve, thanks.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

Mark Twain — 'Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 25, 2019, 01:28:36 AM
I see you looking at the wrong film, Mr Mytton! Is everything okay?  :D :D :D

Now! Is it still your claim that Mr Frazier in Wiegman "barely captures the horizontal shadow"?

(https://i.imgur.com/F5eBPqa.jpg)

 Thumb1:

(https://i.postimg.cc/qMHr0dZ4/blue-circle.jpg)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ0fF6MPPuHxeXtkVLF3Xzm9Xj6qhW7IutPsgx9wd1K3xyqNCd6)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 25, 2019, 01:33:10 AM
The point of the GIF was to get an idea of the relative depth between objects and you said that the GIF showed the depth of the landing but as usual you didn't account for perspective and had some BS objection, but still you could see exactly what I was trying to achieve, thanks.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

Mark Twain — 'Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

JohnM

    What your GIF Incorrectly displayed was the "Relative Depth" between the High End of the handrail and the Landing. The High End of the TSBD handrail runs All-The-Way Up to the Landing.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 25, 2019, 01:57:36 AM
    What your GIF Incorrectly displayed was the "Relative Depth" between the High End of the handrail and the Landing. The High End of the TSBD handrail runs All-The-Way Up to the Landing.

Really, we've been through this, -sigh- and since you cant post an analysed photo I took pity on you and made a simple graphic, now stop running and take into account the perspective, depth and angle of camera and tell me what number is the "High End of the handrail".

My educated guess while allowing for perspective is somewhere between 3 or 4, what do you reckon? Make a guess and I'll make another because my initial GIF may have well been too short but it won't make much difference.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SKSN4pRJ/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

Here is the centre handrail being extended to number 3 on the above scale and I also added the handrail into Wiegman.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVntDJWP/love-entrance-shadowa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 25, 2019, 04:34:41 AM
Really, we've been through this, -sigh- and since you cant post an analysed photo I took pity on you and made a simple graphic, now stop running and take into account the perspective, depth and angle of camera and tell me what number is the "High End of the handrail".

My educated guess while allowing for perspective is somewhere between 3 or 4, what do you reckon? Make a guess and I'll make another because my initial GIF may have well been too short but it won't make much difference.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SKSN4pRJ/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Buildingsaa.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

Here is the centre handrail being extended to number 3 on the above scale and I also added the handrail into Wiegman.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVntDJWP/love-entrance-shadowa.gif)

JohnM

    John - You have already Admitted to playing games on this Forum. And this is what you are doing here. Just Count the Steps. You boned it with your short handrail = Extending of the Landing and the gang of individuals you then displayed standing atop that landing. A complete mess courtesy of You and another Erroneous Visual Aid. Your Sea Sick visual aid is more of the same with Lovelady and his shirt flap defying gravity. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 25, 2019, 05:23:00 AM
    John - You have already Admitted to playing games on this Forum. And this is what you are doing here. Just Count the Steps. You boned it with your short handrail = Extending of the Landing and the gang of individuals you then displayed standing atop that landing. A complete mess courtesy of You and another Erroneous Visual Aid. Your Sea Sick visual aid is more of the same with Lovelady and his shirt flap defying gravity.

Quote
You have already Admitted to playing games on this Forum.

Yes, I play games with passive aggressive dopes and enjoy embarrassing you.

Quote
And this is what you are doing here.

No, my graphics have become more defining with each iteration and I never play games with my graphics, wysiwyg! And the fact that you are fighting so hard only positively reinforces my graphics.

Quote
You boned it with your short handrail

You still haven't provided any proof to support this allegation?, this is the total of every one of your arguments, "I see something different and you prove otherwise", but remember without me you wouldn't have a job because left to your own resources you provide nothing!
Anyway, here's the handrail way up to 3 on my scale and Lovelady is way way away in the shadow.

(https://i.postimg.cc/dVntDJWP/love-entrance-shadowa.gif)

Quote
Extending of the Landing

Hahaha, here is the end frame at maximum extension and as you'll see it's the common frame that has been posted all over the web, this is how the entrance looked at that angle, you can match up the ratios yourself and then you may start to understand perspective and you may realize why your poo-pooing of perspective all this time was always in your mind.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6pwbYvdR/loveee.jpg)

Quote
the gang of individuals you then displayed standing atop that landing.

What a stooooooopid statement, why do you think I can control the gang of individuals that moved around after the assassination?

Quote
A complete mess courtesy of You and another Erroneous Visual Aid.

Unfortunately your above comments were obliterated by my refutation, so your opinion has no value, it ceases to be.

Quote
Your Sea Sick visual aid is more of the same


Yawn, why not be a little original and use some different "sea sick" analogies because repeating the same comment again and again is not only boring, Storing, but it shows you have a weak grasp of the English language and this level of competence cinques into your "image analysis"

Quote
with Lovelady and his shirt flap defying gravity.

What the left lapel with the disappearing shadow, that shirt flap?

The Lovelady stepping down is a red herring because look at the distance from the top of Lovelady's head to the next frame, that distance is way too much for a step but if you look closely at the shape of Lovelady's head, the way he counterbalances himself with his right arm, the angle and shape of his Tshirt, his button shirt right side falling forward and creating a shadow across his tummy, his left lapel that tightens and removes the shadow, his upper body twisting and the shadowing on Lovelady's face, it looks like he's ducking a little and bending forward as you do, to try and get a better look at something or maybe he was just leaning forward to tie up his shoe laces? The total amount of frames of Lovelady is about half a second and is just a flash in time.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 25, 2019, 10:04:14 AM
This is getting very tiresome I never made that claim, in fact whatever is in your blue circle is barely legible and resembles jpeg compression more than anything else, but even if it is Frazier's head I can't see his body so again what are you trying to prove?

 :D :D :D

I'm simply stating a fact, Mr Mytton, and it's a fact that all on its own is lethal to your barmy idea!  Thumb1:

Because ya goofed up, Mr Mytton. Big time. You looked at this from Mr Mitcham-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/t5eB86W.jpg)

----------and asked yourself 'Where else on that shadow line could one put Lovelady?'

But in looking at the overhead and asking yourself the question you failed to factor in the horizontal shadow! :D

For there is a horizontal shadow, and it hits the head of any adult standing at any depth whatsover on that landing!  Thumb1:

Look see!

(https://i.imgur.com/R5u9nsV.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/8QEPsZB.jpg)

We know from the angle at which Altgens is taken that that guy in the yellow rectangle must be right up near the front of the landing. And yet you would have us believe that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is further back than him and yet somehow manages to catch no horizontal shadow...

Magical thinking, Mytton-style!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 25, 2019, 06:33:46 PM
:D :D :D

I'm simply stating a fact, Mr Mytton, and it's a fact that all on its own is lethal to your barmy idea!  Thumb1:

Because ya goofed up, Mr Mytton. Big time. You looked at this from Mr Mitcham-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/t5eB86W.jpg)

----------and asked yourself 'Where else on that shadow line could one put Lovelady?'

But in looking at the overhead and asking yourself the question you failed to factor in the horizontal shadow! :D

For there is a horizontal shadow, and it hits the head of any adult standing at any depth whatsover on that landing!  Thumb1:

Look see!

(https://i.imgur.com/R5u9nsV.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/8QEPsZB.jpg)

We know from the angle at which Altgens is taken that that guy in the yellow rectangle must be right up near the front of the landing. And yet you would have us believe that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is further back than him and yet somehow manages to catch no horizontal shadow...

Magical thinking, Mytton-style!  :D

And what is up with Billy Lovelady's left shoulder in Altgens photo 6? Its MISSING. How could white shirt tie guy have his white shirt in FRONT of Loveladys left shoulder but his head is behind Lovelady?

my suspicion IF Oswald is out there somewhere, that Oswald is in the area behind Lovelady but just LEFT of Buell W. Frazier.

In effect, Oswald came out behind everyone, and positions himself in the space between Prayerblob and Buell W Frazier and its THIS space which had to be darkened out.

They did NOT darken out Prayerblob, because Prayerblob, imo is Sarah Stanton and thus no reason to need to blot out Stanton.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 25, 2019, 07:24:18 PM
my suspicion IF Oswald is out there somewhere, that Oswald is in the area behind Lovelady but just LEFT of Buell W. Frazier.

In effect, Oswald came out behind everyone, and positions himself in the space between Prayerblob and Buell W Frazier and its THIS space which had to be darkened out.

Your point about PrayerPerson not being blacked out of Wiegman is well taken, Mr Mason. Thumb1:

As for Mr Oswald's precise whereabouts in that entrance, we thankfully don't need to speculate:

(https://i.imgur.com/s0CuLL3.jpg)

The first Wiegman frames show Mr Oswald at Mr Lovelady's left (i.e. east!) shoulder, after which his head moves west------------

(https://i.imgur.com/Vfi0NND.gif)

-----------and Altgens shows a tiny portion of Mr Oswald peeking out behind Mr Lovelady's left:

(https://i.imgur.com/WzaNzwn.gif)

Altgens therefore must have been taken just before those first Wiegman frames. Certainly not after them, as Mr Lovelady has stepped down by then.

This is not a fire drill, folks, this really is the official story burning down to the ground!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 26, 2019, 01:03:46 AM
Your point about PrayerPerson not being blacked out of Wiegman is well taken, Mr Mason. Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/WzaNzwn.gif)

Altgens therefore must have been taken just before those first Wiegman frames. Certainly not after them, as Mr Lovelady has stepped down by then.

This is not a fire drill, folks, this really is the official story burning down to the ground!  Thumb1:

it looks to me like that right side of tie man (is this supposed to be Bill Shelly?) is of the same texture as Loveladys shirt. How is that possible if thats supposed to be a solid BLACK suit that tie guy/Shelly? is wearing?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 26, 2019, 08:05:35 PM
it looks to me like that right side of tie man (is this supposed to be Bill Shelly?) is of the same texture as Loveladys shirt. How is that possible if thats supposed to be a solid BLACK suit that tie guy/Shelly? is wearing?

Easy-----it's not Mr Shelley!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 26, 2019, 09:04:18 PM
Now!

Let us remind ourselves of a key fact here---------------Mr Lovelady is seen in the Hughes film on a low step over by the west of the entranceway when JFK actually passes the building:

(https://i.imgur.com/X1Lw22S.gif)

He then moves east towards the center railing and up several steps in order to keep JFK's limousine in view. Both Altgens and (then) Wiegman capture him straining to do just that, though his posture does not remain quite the same from Altgens to Wiegman (compare position of tshirt relative to head!):

(https://i.imgur.com/vgBbBNG.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/y6fOTU2.jpg)

Mr Lovelady gets in Mr Oswald's way...

(https://i.imgur.com/1slDv6o.jpg)

Hence the movement of Mr Oswald's head:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vfi0NND.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 27, 2019, 02:16:42 AM
Now!

Let us remind ourselves of a key fact here---------------Mr Lovelady is seen in the Hughes film on a low step over by the west of the entranceway when JFK actually passes the building:

(https://i.imgur.com/X1Lw22S.gif)

He then moves east towards the center railing and up several steps in order to keep JFK's limousine in view. Both Altgens and (then) Wiegman capture him straining to do just that, though his posture does not remain quite the same from Altgens to Wiegman (compare position of tshirt relative to head!):

(https://i.imgur.com/vgBbBNG.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/y6fOTU2.jpg)

Mr Lovelady gets in Mr Oswald's way...

(https://i.imgur.com/1slDv6o.jpg)

Hence the movement of Mr Oswald's head:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vfi0NND.gif)

 Thumb1:

Okay, Alan, where you have highlighted the presumed to be Oswalds head located to the LEFT of and behind Lovelady, would better explain having to blacken out that space just to the left of Lovelady.


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2019, 10:44:54 AM
Okay, Alan, where you have highlighted the presumed to be Oswalds head located to the LEFT of and behind Lovelady, would better explain having to blacken out that space just to the left of Lovelady.

I'm sorry, Mr Mason, I don't quite understand what you mean here... Are you using 'left' to mean Mr Lovelady's left, i.e. east? Or left as we look at the image?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Matthew Finch on November 27, 2019, 01:04:38 PM
To think after all this time we'd be hotly debating the 3D positioning of a faffing railing pole! No-one of any consequence was in this stairwell if you ask me, anyhow. I agree we should discuss pertinent points of the case, but... ...this?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2019, 01:13:07 PM
To think after all this time we'd be hotly debating the 3D positioning of a faffing railing pole!

We're not hotly debating the center railing, Mr Finch, because there's nothing to debate-----------Mr Mytton's misleading visuals simply required robust correcting. Done!  Thumb1:

Quote
No-one of any consequence was in this stairwell if you ask me, anyhow.

So you can explain the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film? Cool!

(https://i.imgur.com/RXkNuEn.jpg)

Tell us! 

If it turns out you can't tell us, then sorry, but you don't get to dismiss this as a non-issue------because the absence of any natural explanation for that dark vertical strip forces the conclusion that the Wiegman film was doctored, which in turn forces the question--------------why would it have been altered?

I have offered a perfectly straightforward answer to that question: because Mr Oswald was standing just behind Mr Lovelady.

Ergo!------------what we're hotly debating here is in fact the central question of the whole case: Mr Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination.

The only reason I'm winning here is that I have the facts on my side. It is dawning on Team Keep LHO Away From That Entranceway that---------horror of horrors----------they have nothing credible to throw at this. A.k.a.--------they're screwed, and Mr Oswald is exonerated.

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Matthew Finch on November 27, 2019, 01:36:31 PM
Pardon my naivety here, as it is from Wiegman, have you got the previous and post frames (to that one selected frame you keep referring to) from the film in question (at the size of the image in your previous post)? What is the consistency of that 'black shadow' throughout the other frames?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2019, 01:42:27 PM
Pardon my naivety here, as it is from Wiegman, have you got the previous and post frames (to that one selected frame you keep referring to) from the film in question (at the size of the image in your previous post)? What is the consistency of that 'black shadow' throughout the other frames?

Not at the size of the frame posted (which is a scan from Mr H. Weisberg's archive), Mr Finch, but this gif shows the problem clearly:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vfi0NND.gif)

A consistent dark 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's right side------------even though the man is standing in direct sunlight!

Those who darkened his right (i.e. west) side counted on folks just assuming the shadow from the western column fell like that. Well, we now know to a certainty that it didn't, which fact changes everything.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 27, 2019, 03:22:54 PM
To think after all this time we'd be hotly debating the 3D positioning of a faffing railing pole! No-one of any consequence was in this stairwell if you ask me, anyhow. I agree we should discuss pertinent points of the case, but... ...this?

     Knowing Exactly who/everyone standing on the Landing is wide open to conjecture. In my opinion, even more so than we know due to the time span between the highlighted images and people moving around during this time gap. On the other hand, the Jet Black Curtain falling Straight Down the body of Lovelady has Only 2 options: (1) Legit, or (2) Bogus.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2019, 05:08:19 PM
the Jet Black Curtain falling Straight Down the body of Lovelady has Only 2 options: (1) Legit, or (2) Bogus.

Correct. And the fact that this curtain starts in Wiegman at the very point at which Mr Lovelady ends in Altgens----------

(https://i.imgur.com/Marn9iP.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/zAr06o1.jpg)

----------is no coincidence whatsoever.

Had Mr Altgens been standing a little further west when he took his photograph, for example, the curtain in Wiegman would have been made to cover more of Mr Lovelady:

(https://i.imgur.com/SCNsjkP.jpg)

Conversely, had Mr Altgens been standing a little further east, then this curtain scam in Wiegman would have been impossible. Folks would only start asking, 'How can Lovelady be in sunlight in this photo but half in shadow in this film?'

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 27, 2019, 06:20:28 PM
Another complicated problem that Alan Ford keeps overlooking is when and how?

(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)

NBC televised the Wiegman footage a few hours later that day, in this low quality 6 hour "The JFK Assassination As It Happened from NBC News Archives" YouTube video, just past 2 hours in we see the Wiegman footage, there's no specific timestamp for this exclusive film but during the following segment the TV news guy apologizes for the jerky footage and a little later on, the same guy's timestamp is 4:13 E.T.
Lovelady has the shadow in this earliest footage which means for Alan Ford's theory to work someone realized that some blob could be the killer that needed to be hidden and sent the footage off to some special effects dept and they painted a shadow onto Lovelady to hide Oswald who was behind and got it to air the same day? Whew!
At least Cinque's Altgens6 theory was a single photo whereas this bizarre theory is continuous film footage which is a stack more frames on jerky handheld film, then they painted a shadow onto multiple motion blurred frames all with absolute precision then on top of this, the whole procedure of developing, drying, painting, drying, transferring, then finally transferring on to video and all in a few hours is not physically possible. If the footage showed something it shouldn't then they simply -snip- it out, it's as simple as that, the alternate fantasy of some major sfx job that they did in less than a day is a miracle.

(https://i.postimg.cc/X72xHnnc/loveladynbc.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/sfM93xZM/loveladynbc4-13.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FXJYDHQ/loveladynbcd.jpg)


JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 27, 2019, 06:50:49 PM
This is what they had to work with, looks easy doesn't it?

(https://i.postimg.cc/kg57H245/16mm-wiegman.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2019, 06:58:26 PM
Another complicated problem that Alan Ford keeps overlooking is when and how?

(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)

NBC televised the Wiegman footage a few hours later that day, in this low quality 6 hour "The JFK Assassination As It Happened from NBC News Archives" YouTube video, just past 2 hours in we see the Wiegman footage, there's no specific timestamp for this exclusive film but during the following segment the TV news guy apologizes for the jerky footage and a little later on, the same guy's timestamp is 4:13 E.T.
Lovelady has the shadow in this earliest footage

 :D :D :D

Mr Mytton has a simple problem---------a shadow on Mr Lovelady he just can't explain. His pathetic efforts to date having blown up in his face, he and his Warren Gullible pals are now getting seriously worried!

Question for Mr Mytton!

Can he kindly give us the name of the technologically advanced citizen who had home video recording facilities on 11/22/63, taped the actual live broadcast from NBC and whose home recording is the source of this 'from NBC News Archives' footage?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 27, 2019, 10:20:57 PM
Another complicated problem that Alan Ford keeps overlooking is when and how?

(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)

NBC televised the Wiegman footage a few hours later that day, in this low quality 6 hour "The JFK Assassination As It Happened from NBC News Archives" YouTube video, just past 2 hours in we see the Wiegman footage, there's no specific timestamp for this exclusive film but during the following segment the TV news guy apologizes for the jerky footage and a little later on, the same guy's timestamp is 4:13 E.T.
Lovelady has the shadow in this earliest footage which means for Alan Ford's theory to work someone realized that some blob could be the killer that needed to be hidden and sent the footage off to some special effects dept and they painted a shadow onto Lovelady to hide Oswald who was behind and got it to air the same day? Whew!
At least Cinque's Altgens6 theory was a single photo whereas this bizarre theory is continuous film footage which is a stack more frames on jerky handheld film, then they painted a shadow onto multiple motion blurred frames all with absolute precision then on top of this, the whole procedure of developing, drying, painting, drying, transferring, then finally transferring on to video and all in a few hours is not physically possible. If the footage showed something it shouldn't then they simply -snip- it out, it's as simple as that, the alternate fantasy of some major sfx job that they did in less than a day is a miracle.

(https://i.postimg.cc/X72xHnnc/loveladynbc.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/sfM93xZM/loveladynbc4-13.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FXJYDHQ/loveladynbcd.jpg)


JohnM

John,

Didn't you know?

The evil, evil, evil CIA had Walt Disney and his Fantasia artists waiting for that footage in Jack Ruby's bathroom, paint brushes in hand!

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 27, 2019, 10:29:42 PM
Another complicated problem that Alan Ford keeps overlooking is when and how?

(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)

NBC televised the Wiegman footage a few hours later that day, in this low quality 6 hour "The JFK Assassination As It Happened from NBC News Archives" YouTube video, just past 2 hours in we see the Wiegman footage, there's no specific timestamp for this exclusive film but during the following segment the TV news guy apologizes for the jerky footage and a little later on, the same guy's timestamp is 4:13 E.T.
Lovelady has the shadow in this earliest footage which means for Alan Ford's theory to work someone realized that some blob could be the killer that needed to be hidden and sent the footage off to some special effects dept and they painted a shadow onto Lovelady to hide Oswald who was behind and got it to air the same day? Whew!
At least Cinque's Altgens6 theory was a single photo whereas this bizarre theory is continuous film footage which is a stack more frames on jerky handheld film, then they painted a shadow onto multiple motion blurred frames all with absolute precision then on top of this, the whole procedure of developing, drying, painting, drying, transferring, then finally transferring on to video and all in a few hours is not physically possible. If the footage showed something it shouldn't then they simply -snip- it out, it's as simple as that, the alternate fantasy of some major sfx job that they did in less than a day is a miracle.

(https://i.postimg.cc/X72xHnnc/loveladynbc.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/sfM93xZM/loveladynbc4-13.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FXJYDHQ/loveladynbcd.jpg)


JohnM

      Putting your alleged necessary time required to do this chicanery aside, I believe part of the issue is Your labeling EVERYTHING that is JET BLACK in the above footage to be Shadow. Look at the inside of the Hard Top Comm. Car passing by the TSBD at the same time we are looking at the TSBD Steps. The inside of the Comm. Car is also Jet Black. Do YOU believe we are also looking at Shadow(s) INSIDE that Hard Top Vehicle?  Personally, I do Not believe we are seeing Shadow INSIDE the Comm. Car. Your Proffering substandard 1963 TV Reproduction of the Wiegman Film only further clouds the issue under discussion and Proves Nothing.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 27, 2019, 11:45:37 PM
John,

Didn't you know?

The evil, evil, evil CIA had Walt Disney and his Fantasia artists waiting for that footage in Jack Ruby's bathroom, paint brushes in hand!

--  MWT  ;)

Thanks Thomas, you're right that's another problem, the conspirators had to quickly assemble a crew and this crew already had their hands full with altering Altgens, Zapruder, the backyard photos and all the other films/photos that contradicted these alterations and to think that all these alterations remained unseen until this latest band of clueless wonders stomped onto the scene.
There's never been a photo/film alteration conspiracy that Storing hasn't fully embraced with every fibre of his existence and without fail every scientific LNer explanation for why Storing is wrong is "rubbish/nonsense/false/a cheat/etc/etc", like when he tried to convince that Zapruder didn't match Altgens, Baker couldn't see through the glass vestibule window, Mumford, timelines, black levels, etc, etc. It's an endless list of stoopidity, that never has an explanation and again and again he says "I see something wrong, you prove it to my biased amateur/novice/layman satisfaction or it's proof of fakery"

The size of Lovelady's head in a 16mm frame is way smaller than a pinhead yet some sfx experts tracked Lovelady and in about 5-6 hours accurately painted in a shadow consistently from frame to frame onto the jerkiest handheld footage imaginable and another insurmountable problem is matching the right shade of black that seamlessly blends with the rest of the shadows in the frame and is another reason why this is just ridiculous.

(https://i.postimg.cc/kg57H245/16mm-wiegman.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 28, 2019, 12:40:02 AM


         John - So what is ALL that BLACK inside the Comm Car? Looks identical to ALL the BLACK surrounding the TSBD Steps. Are You still claiming ALL of this is Shadow? Even Inside a Hard Top Car?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 28, 2019, 02:42:45 AM

         John - So what is ALL that BLACK inside the Comm Car? Looks identical to ALL the BLACK surrounding the TSBD Steps. Are You still claiming ALL of this is Shadow? Even Inside a Hard Top Car?

In the following image from the NBC archives, the shadowed areas don't look identical, what do you think you see and then tell me what this has to do with the shadow on Lovelady?
Btw some videos out there have had their contrast either lowed or raised to bring out or hide certain details, I absolutely hate that people like you who have zero understanding have done such critical damage to the historical record, so I also have to deal with you and your buddies stuffing up these very important images, thanks for nothing, next time think before you act!

(https://i.postimg.cc/X72xHnnc/loveladynbc.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 28, 2019, 03:27:02 AM
Thanks Thomas, you're right that's another problem, the conspirators had to quickly assemble a crew and this crew already had their hands full with altering Altgens, Zapruder, the backyard photos and all the other films/photos that contradicted these alterations and to think that all these alterations remained unseen until this latest band of clueless wonders stomped onto the scene.
There's never been a photo/film alteration conspiracy that Storing hasn't fully embraced with every fibre of his existence and without fail every scientific LNer explanation for why Storing is wrong is "rubbish/nonsense/false/a cheat/etc/etc", like when he tried to convince that Zapruder didn't match Altgens, Baker couldn't see through the glass vestibule window, Mumford, timelines, black levels, etc, etc. It's an endless list of stoopidity, that never has an explanation and again and again he says "I see something wrong, you prove it to my biased amateur/novice/layman satisfaction or it's proof of fakery"

The size of Lovelady's head in a 16mm frame is way smaller than a pinhead yet some sfx experts tracked Lovelady and in about 5-6 hours accurately painted in a shadow consistently from frame to frame onto the jerkiest handheld footage imaginable and another insurmountable problem is matching the right shade of black that seamlessly blends with the rest of the shadows in the frame and is another reason why this is just ridiculous.

(https://i.postimg.cc/kg57H245/16mm-wiegman.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)

JohnM

JohnM, it looks to me like there are some Persons/Images inside that '60 Chevrolet Sedan, probably a Biscayne or Bel Air, not likely an Impala, that appear to be shaded from direct sunlight by the roof, but yet visible in shadow due to reflective sunlight being blocked by said Images. Now if, there appeared to be shaded Person/Images riding along in one of those MotorcadeConvertibleVehicles, while in direct sunlight, that should raise questions. However, I do not understand the gentleman's posted question about the passengers in that sedan. And, I have yet to see anything irregular when viewing the WiegmanFilm of the top step/landing area of the TSBD Bldg at about 12:30 pm CST, on 11/22/'63. IIRC, the TSBD Bldg faces about 165 degrees south.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 28, 2019, 03:29:44 AM
I'm sorry, Mr Mason, I don't quite understand what you mean here... Are you using 'left' to mean Mr Lovelady's left, i.e. east? Or left as we look at the image?

 Thumb1:

West of Billy Lovelady,  which that 2nd head presumably Oswalds, is in the space where the blackening was added to hide the figure of Oswald theoretically. What other reason?

The reason why the conspirators did not blaken out the 2nd head perhaps is because they though as it appears to me also, that that head was simply a motion blur effect of loveladys head.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 28, 2019, 08:28:03 AM
:D :D :D

Mr Mytton has a simple problem---------a shadow on Mr Lovelady he just can't explain. His pathetic efforts to date having blown up in his face, he and his Warren Gullible pals are now getting seriously worried!

Question for Mr Mytton!

Can he kindly give us the name of the technologically advanced citizen who had home video recording facilities on 11/22/63, taped the actual live broadcast from NBC and whose home recording is the source of this 'from NBC News Archives' footage?

 Thumb1:

Mr Mytton, can you confirm that the source for the Wiegman footage you have been using is in fact a home recording of an NBC broadcast from 22 November 1988?

Thank you! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 28, 2019, 08:47:41 AM
West of Billy Lovelady,  which that 2nd head presumably Oswalds, is in the space where the blackening was added to hide the figure of Oswald theoretically. What other reason?

The reason why the conspirators did not blaken out the 2nd head perhaps is because they though as it appears to me also, that that head was simply a motion blur effect of loveladys head.

Okay, thank you for the clarification, Mr Mason!  Thumb1:

That may indeed have been the calculation for the Lovelady@UpperElevation frames:
----------with the 'shadow' added, no one would even notice the second head, and if they did they would assume it to be motion blur or somesuch
----------even if they did realize it was a second head, they wouldn't be able to identify it as belonging to Mr Oswald.

For the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames, however, Mr Oswald had to be completely excised because-----------with Mr Lovelady no longer blocking him-----------he was recognizably present much in the way that Mr Lovelady still is.

This scam worked brilliantly------for five-and-a-half decades------until someone noticed that the shadow down Mr Lovelady could not be a natural shadow!

By the way, Altgens confirms the presence of a second sunlit person just behind Mr Lovelady in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/HSbGy2x.gif)

This photograph must have been taken just before the first Wiegman frames, which show Mr Oswald's head just right (as we look) of Mr Lovelady's!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 28, 2019, 08:51:39 AM
Thanks Thomas, you're right that's another problem, the conspirators had to quickly assemble a crew and this crew already had their hands full with altering Altgens, Zapruder, the backyard photos and all the other films/photos that contradicted these alterations and to think that all these alterations remained unseen until this latest band of clueless wonders stomped onto the scene.

Question! How do you know when a Lone Nutter is feeling the heat?

Answer! When he resorts to Von Pein-style strawman arguments!

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on November 28, 2019, 08:58:20 AM
Thanks Thomas, you're right that's another problem, the conspirators had to quickly assemble a crew and this crew already had their hands full with altering Altgens, Zapruder, the backyard photos and all the other films/photos that contradicted these alterations and to think that all these alterations remained unseen until this latest band of clueless wonders stomped onto the scene.
There's never been a photo/film alteration conspiracy that Storing hasn't fully embraced with every fibre of his existence and without fail every scientific LNer explanation for why Storing is wrong is "rubbish/nonsense/false/a cheat/etc/etc", like when he tried to convince that Zapruder didn't match Altgens, Baker couldn't see through the glass vestibule window, Mumford, timelines, black levels, etc, etc. It's an endless list of stoopidity, that never has an explanation and again and again he says "I see something wrong, you prove it to my biased amateur/novice/layman satisfaction or it's proof of fakery"

The size of Lovelady's head in a 16mm frame is way smaller than a pinhead yet some sfx experts tracked Lovelady and in about 5-6 hours accurately painted in a shadow consistently from frame to frame onto the jerkiest handheld footage imaginable and another insurmountable problem is matching the right shade of black that seamlessly blends with the rest of the shadows in the frame and is another reason why this is just ridiculous.

(https://i.postimg.cc/kg57H245/16mm-wiegman.jpg)


(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)

JohnM
Hey John, aye you ever going to show Oswald in the 6th-floor window or any window before during or after this period you are referring to. You can't though, can you? I wonder where he was, not in any window and you don't see him on the steps?
Come on John, we know he was not in any window, show us the picture of Oswald in a window with a gun..but you can't
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 28, 2019, 09:13:46 AM
Hey John, aye you ever going to show Oswald in the 6th-floor window or any window before during or after this period you are referring to. You can't though, can you? I wonder where he was, not in any window and you don't see him on the steps?
Come on John, we know he was not in any window, show us the picture of Oswald in a window with a gun..but you can't

Kleinschmidt,

There's movement in the window in the Robert Hughes film.

Must have been an evil, evil, evil CIA guy, huh?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 28, 2019, 04:32:34 PM
There's movement in the window in the Robert Hughes film.

“Movement”, LOL.

If “movement” = Oswald, then Oswald is all over the front steps.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 28, 2019, 04:49:06 PM
In the following image from the NBC archives, the shadowed areas don't look identical, what do you think you see and then tell me what this has to do with the shadow on Lovelady?
Btw some videos out there have had their contrast either lowed or raised to bring out or hide certain details, I absolutely hate that people like you who have zero understanding have done such critical damage to the historical record, so I also have to deal with you and your buddies stuffing up these very important images, thanks for nothing, next time think before you act!

(https://i.postimg.cc/X72xHnnc/loveladynbc.jpg)

JohnM

    Plain and Simple, (1) YOU stated this was a Rush Job to get it on the air, and (2) YOU pulled it off of YouTube = Exceptionally BAD Resolution. This is why the inside of the Car and The Steps/Landing area are identically JET BLACK. Bad + Bad = BAD
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 28, 2019, 11:35:24 PM
Mr Mytton, can you confirm that the source for the Wiegman footage you have been using is in fact a home recording of an NBC broadcast from 22 November 1988?

Thank you! Thumb1:

Mytton Fails So Far!

1. Lovelady was way to the west of the center railing and so caught natural shadow? ================> EPIC FAIL! :D

2. Lovelady was several feet back on the landing (maybe bending down to do his laces) and so caught natural shadow? ================>EPIC FAIL! :D  :D

3. We have provably original NBC footage whose early broadcast proves there wasn't enough time to alter Wiegman? ================> EPIC FAIL! :D  :D :D

Anyone else want to try offering us a rational counter-explanation for this dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady?

(https://i.imgur.com/K2xaciJ.jpg)

Because if Mr Mytton is the best Team Keep LHO Away From That Entranceway have got, then Team Keep LHO Away From That Entranceway really are well and truly screwed!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on November 29, 2019, 09:21:49 AM
Kleinschmidt,

There's movement in the window in the Robert Hughes film.

Must have been an evil, evil, evil CIA guy, huh?

--  MWT  ;)
So you can't see Oswald on the steps and you just admitted that you did not see Oswald anywhere else. 
Thanks, I don't see Oswald in a window or anywhere else either. I always knew he didn't do it, but it just took you some time.
I accept your apologies in advance
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 29, 2019, 08:31:59 PM
So you can't see Oswald on the steps and you just admitted that you did not see Oswald anywhere else. 
Thanks, I don't see Oswald in a window or anywhere else either. I always knew he didn't do it, but it just took you some time.
I accept your apologies in advance

Kleinschmidt,

Your wellspring of self-delusion is always flowing and evidently bottomless.

You're tapped right into The  River Styx.

Go to The Lethe Pub and Grill and fahgeddaboutit, comrade.

And take your damned Shades with ya.

--  MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 29, 2019, 08:46:46 PM
Kleinschmidt,

Your wellspring of self-delusion is always flowing and evidently bottomless.

You're tapped right into The Styx.

Go to The Lethe Pub and Grill and fahgeddaboutit, comrade.

And take your damned Shades with ya.

--  MWT   ;)

So Mr Graves can't explain the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady!  Thumb1:

Can anyone?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 29, 2019, 10:27:20 PM
Reflective Note!

Friends, the reason I am so sure of my ground here is that the discovery of Mr Oswald in Wiegman-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/f6LZg71.jpg)

------------came after I had tried desperately hard to find an innocent explanation for the 'shadow' on Mr Lovelady in Wiegman:

-------------------------> putting a jacket or coat on him (didn't work)
-------------------------> querying the very identification of Mr Lovelady in Wiegman as Mr Lovelady (didn't work)
-------------------------> querying the identification of Mr Lovelady in the early Hughes frames (didn't work)
-------------------------> trying out different postures for Mr Lovelady in Wiegman (didn't work).

In short, I already went through the same Operation Racking-Of-The-Brains that my opponents in Team Keep LHO Away From That Entranceway are now going through. And I can save them some trouble by telling them now in all candor: this will not end happily for you.

Also worth remembering! I was a strong supporter of the PrayerMan=LHO claim. But this damn 'shadow' kept niggling away at me. It was an annoyance, an irritant, a seeming irrelevance.

The breakthrough--------on 21 October---------of finding the second head behind Mr Lovelady's in Wiegman, however, solved the problem at a stroke. And forced me away from the PrayerMan claim.

I cannot help remarking that the attack line from Team Keep LHO Away From That Entranceway has moved from
a) trying to explain away the shadow
to
b) trying to suggest that darkening a few movie frames would have been a technical impossibility in 1963 (!)

If that's the net yield of Operation Racking-Of-The-Brains-----------an admission of complete perplexity as to this 'shadow'-----------then they really are in very deep trouble.

Because (as they know only too well) if they cannot defeat me on this issue, then the logic of the thing is that they don't just lose this particular argument-------------no, their entire understanding of the case dies a miserable death.

It is important, however, that they know that their defeat is a result not (just...) of their own ineptitude, but of the fact that reality is not on their side.

This holds especially for the Lone Nutters, who need to get their heads around a simple fact:

Mr Oswald did not shoot JFK, period.

(https://i.imgur.com/Q7aFBpa.jpg)

You lose. But not nearly as much as he did.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 30, 2019, 04:01:14 AM
Here's a cutout of Lovelady from Wiegman placed near the railing and nearer the wall in Darnell to see where Lovelady fits in 3D space and the results speak for themselves.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nhVSnWtZ/lovelady-positionn.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qqyyKy94/love-entrance-shadowc.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 30, 2019, 04:27:57 AM
Here's a cutout of Lovelady from Wiegman placed near the railing and nearer the wall in Darnell to see where Lovelady fits in 3D space and the results speak for themselves.

One can only wonder what “Mytton” thinks they are speaking.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 30, 2019, 04:47:07 AM
One can only wonder what “Mytton” thinks they are speaking.

The following is a small ten second sample of what they said.

(https://s3.envato.com/files/174295861/primaeger.jpg)
Translation, Ford's dream is officially over.

Here's a cutout of Lovelady from Wiegman placed near the railing and nearer the wall in Darnell to see where Lovelady fits in 3D space and the results speak for themselves.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nhVSnWtZ/lovelady-positionn.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qqyyKy94/love-entrance-shadowc.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 30, 2019, 05:32:33 AM
One can only wonder what “Mytton” thinks they are speaking.

John,

OMG,  ... gasp ... do you think Mytton's an imposter?

Is that why you put quotation marks around his name?

Bit of a cheap shot, don't  you think?

Oh ... that's right,  you don't.

All that activity in the garden has taken a toll on your vision and your mind.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 30, 2019, 09:30:13 AM
One can only wonder what “Mytton” thinks they are speaking.

 :D  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 30, 2019, 04:47:01 PM
Here's a cutout of Lovelady from Wiegman placed near the railing and nearer the wall in Darnell to see where Lovelady fits in 3D space and the results speak for themselves.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nhVSnWtZ/lovelady-positionn.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qqyyKy94/love-entrance-shadowc.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif)

JohnM

    Based on where You have positioned Lovelady in relation to the Upper End of the Handrail, YOU have Lovelady standing on The Steps and Not the Landing. Where EXACTLY do you claim to have Lovelady standing on the Wiegman Image YOU have posted as Your visual aid? Be VERY Careful Here.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 12:23:43 AM
    Based on where You have positioned Lovelady in relation to the Upper End of the Handrail, YOU have Lovelady standing on The Steps and Not the Landing. Where EXACTLY do you claim to have Lovelady standing on the Wiegman Image YOU have posted as Your visual aid? Be VERY Careful Here.

Lovelady has to be slightly lower in Darnell otherwise the relative spatial positioning makes even less sense.

Here's Lovelady up higher and let's see what happens?

(https://i.postimg.cc/X7XkV6t4/lovelady-over-railing.jpg)

The results are not good, not good at all, care to try again.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tTmB9RRQ/love-entrance-shadowd.gif)

If Darnell captured Lovelady at the same time as Wiegman he must be to our left and lower in Darnell, you can't argue with physics.
Your theory ceases to be, well not your theory because you've never had an original idea in your entire life and instead of thinking you spend your time endorsing other peoples stupidity, nice!

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 03:15:26 AM
 :D :D :D

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing on, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

 Thumb1:

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 01, 2019, 03:30:09 AM
Lovelady has to be slightly lower in Darnell otherwise the relative spatial positioning makes even less sense.

Here's Lovelady up higher and let's see what happens?

(https://i.postimg.cc/X7XkV6t4/lovelady-over-railing.jpg)

The results are not good, not good at all, care to try again.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tTmB9RRQ/love-entrance-shadowd.gif)

If Darnell captured Lovelady at the same time as Wiegman he must be to our left and lower in Darnell, you can't argue with physics.
Your theory ceases to be, well not your theory because you've never had an original idea in your entire life and instead of thinking you spend your time endorsing other peoples stupidity, nice!

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM

    Who exactly has Proven that the Wiegman Film and the  Darnell Film captured Lovelady at the same time? Answer = No One has. These 2 films Did Not capture the TSBD Steps/Lovelady at the same point in time.  The Wiegman Film shows that DPD Officer Bakers' motorcycle is Not yet standing at the Elm St. Curb. The Darnell Film shows Officer Bakers' motorcycle IS standing at the Elm St. Curb.  You, just like many before you have done, are placing a WRONG Time Stamping on a JFK Assassination Film in order to prove a point. Nice try, but Wrong and historically damaging. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 03:58:47 AM
:D :D :D

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing on, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

 Thumb1:

The following image is the cut-out of Lovelady and I simply used a body shape for Lovelady which happened to include the lady in black's face and since they were not physically attached I didn't feel it was worth the time to remove the face because no sane person would ever make such a nonsensical connection but highlighting it in a misleading 2D comparison is pathetic,-sigh- I'm not surprised, you've been way out of your depth since day 1.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vTCQ4Swq/Image11a.png)

When comparing the two images of the entrance and inserting Lovelady in the same exact position, the only way that Lovelady can exist is to our left in Darnell, even fantasies canna break the laws of physics.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

Btw why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over that I keep answering over and over and over?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 01, 2019, 03:59:45 AM
:D :D :D

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing on, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

 Thumb1:

deleted
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 04:10:50 AM
Even though the distances and ratios are a little off, there is no way that Lovelady in Altgen's 6 is near that railing

 :D

Except I didn't ask about Mr Lovelady, but about the lady in black!

Which side of the center railing is she, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.imgur.com/JTGDOmo.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 04:17:23 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/Nf2SsjJk/altgens-railing-compare.gif)

(~Facepalm~)

This gif all on its owneo discredits the Soopah-Doopah Mytton 3D Method!. :D :D :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 04:18:41 AM

Except I didn't ask about Mr Lovelady, but about the lady in black!


Is the thread and conversation about the shadow on Lovelady or the "lady in black", why are you so obsessed with the "lady in black", she has zero to do with Lovelady's shadow and if I draw a railing's full length relative to the entrance and Lovelady, then tell me how the "lady in black" affects Lovelady's shadow?

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 04:20:24 AM
Is the thread and conversation about the shadow on Lovelady or the "lady in black", why are you so obsessed with the "lady in black", she has zero to do with Lovelady's shadow and if I draw a railing's full length relative to the entrance and Lovelady, then tell me how the "lady in black" affects Lovelady's shadow?

JohnM

 :D

Which side of the center railing do you believe the lady is standing on, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 01, 2019, 04:20:52 AM
:D

Except I didn't ask about Mr Lovelady, but about the lady in black!

Which side of the center railing is she, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.imgur.com/JTGDOmo.gif)

 Thumb1:

   He will Not go on the record and answer your question. I have exposed his believing that the Wiegman Film and the Darnell Film captured the TSBD Steps/Lovelady at the same point in time is Wrong. The foundation supporting his Lovelady Position Theory has been Destroyed. Expect to see some more pointless squiggles outta him.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 04:23:36 AM
   He will Not go on the record and answer your question. I have exposed his believing that the Wiegman Film and the Darnell Film captured the TSBD Steps/Lovelady at the same point in time is Wrong.

He's not claiming anything of the sort, Mr Storing (and where is Lovelady in Darnell?). He's just trying to move Mr Lovelady as far west in Wiegman as he thinks he can get away with. Unfortunately, he's not getting away with it!  Thumb1:

His latest Altgens make-and-do gif shows that he's gone into full panic mode!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 04:25:52 AM
(~Facepalm~)

This gif all on its owneo discredits the Soopah-Doopah Mytton 3D Method!. :D :D :D

I already deleted this accidentally posted graphic way before the above comment, Naughty naughty. Next time check before making a jackass of yourself.

The 3D Mytton method proves beyond all doubt that Lovelady must be to our left in Darnell, perspective doesn't lie.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 04:34:37 AM
He's not claiming anything of the sort, Mr Storing (and where is Lovelady in Darnell?). He's just trying to move Mr Lovelady as far west in Wiegman as he thinks he can get away with. Unfortunately, he's not getting away with it!  Thumb1:

His latest Altgens make-and-do gif shows that he's gone into full panic mode!  :D

Quote
He's not claiming anything of the sort, Mr Storing (and where is Lovelady in Darnell?).

Storing's stupid!

Quote
He's just trying to move Mr Lovelady as far west in Wiegman as he thinks he can get away with. Unfortunately, he's not getting away with it!

There is no way you can place Lovelady to our right in Darnell, Perspective, simply will not allow it.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif)

Quote
His latest Altgens make-and-do gif shows that he's gone into full panic mode!  :D

I deleted the image virtually straight away and since you have no life and are jumping on every one of my posts almost immediately, you didn't realize you made a big mistake. No worries just pay attention next time.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 04:41:18 AM
Friends, the normally unembarrassable Mr Mytton is mortified because he's just let the cat out of the bag!

The Soopah-Doopah 3D Mytton Method which yielded this garbage-----------

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nf2SsjJk/altgens-railing-compare.gif)

-----------is the same Soopah-Doopah 3D Mytton Method which yielded this garbage------------

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

Word to the wise!

When Mr Mytton uses the word 'perspective', you can safely translate it as 'Please don't look too closely at this gif I've just posted'!


 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 04:43:46 AM
And--------------in case you missed it-----------------he still hasn't told us which side of the center railing this lady is standing on!

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 04:49:36 AM
Friends, the normally unembarrassable Mr Mytton is mortified because he's just let the cat out of the bag!

The Soopah-Doopah 3D Mytton Method which yielded this garbage-----------

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nf2SsjJk/altgens-railing-compare.gif)


I removed this unfinished graphic before you made your post and to keep showing an edited post of an unfinished graphic is incredibly dishonest but typical of your pathetic tactics.
Unfortunately for you and your stupid "paint it black theory", is the following graphic, there is no way you can place Lovelady anywhere but to our left, you can fight it all you want but you cannot argue with perspective.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)
JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 04:52:15 AM
And--------------in case you missed it-----------------he still hasn't told us which side of the center railing this lady is standing on!

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear!  :D

What has the "lady in black" got to do with the shadow on Lovelady?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 04:55:49 AM
Attention Alan, you can't argue with physics!

Here's a cutout of Lovelady from Wiegman placed near the railing and nearer the wall in Darnell to see where Lovelady fits in 3D space and because of perspective Lovelady MUST be on the left side in Darnell. You lose!

(https://i.postimg.cc/nhVSnWtZ/lovelady-positionn.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qqyyKy94/love-entrance-shadowc.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 05:00:55 AM
I removed this unfinished graphic before you made your post and to keep showing an edited post of an unfinished graphic is incredibly dishonest but typical of your pathetic tactics.
Unfortunately for you and your stupid "paint it black theory", is the following graphic, there is no way you can place Lovelady anywhere but to our left, you can fight it all you want but you cannot argue with perspective.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)
JohnM

 :D :D :D

Please, Mr Mytton, don't beat yourself up too much over your 'unfinished graphic'--------

(https://i.imgur.com/gKSfM4Z.gif)

It's every bit as good as your Darnell-To-Wiegman graphics!

Besides, it offers impressive proof that you have the great gift of proving anything at all you wish through your Soopah-Doopah 3D Method.  Thumb1:

Now!

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing on?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

Try answering without using your safe word, 'perspective'!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 05:03:56 AM
Attention Alan, you can't argue with physics!

You're quite right, Mr Mytton-------------the center railing is a physical object!  Thumb1:

Which side of it is the lady standing?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

You know, the lady who------------because you annoyingly can't uncouple her from Mr Lovelady-----------appears twice in the same frame in your Soopah-Doopah 3D Gif!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 05:16:15 AM
Friends, in case you're wondering what poor Mr Mytton was up to when he put together this hilarious gif------------

(https://i.imgur.com/gKSfM4Z.gif)

-------------he was trying to find a way of reconciling

a) his barmy claim that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is deep on the landing (studying the texture of the west wall, one presumes, even as he applies luminescent paint to his face to counteract the horizontal shadow and readies himself to bend down and tie his shoelaces)

with

b) the inconvenient evidence offered by the Altgens photograph.

The scam was to sell us the soopah-doopah-barmy idea that Mr Lovelady is deep on the landing in Altgens too. All a matter of-------------you guessed it---------------'perspective'...  :D

Hands up who thinks Mr Mytton should have left well alone!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 05:18:59 AM
:D :D :D

Please, Mr Mytton, don't beat yourself up too much over your 'unfinished graphic'--------

(https://i.imgur.com/gKSfM4Z.gif)


I told you repeatedly it was an unfinished graphic which I clearly edited before you even made your first post but now you keep reposting this unfinished graphic and trying to deceive members about the quality of my work, this is a clear rule violation and will not be tolerated. Either argue my published works on their own merit or face the consequences. Next time I won't be so courteous.

Quotes, images and /or articles from members of this forum, or from outside sources, must not be altered in a manner that is designed to deceive, and must reference the name of the who is person being quoted. Changing a persons quoted blue box words in ANY way is not allowed.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 05:19:50 AM
Friends, in case you're wondering what poor Mr Mytton was up to when he put together this hilarious gif------------

(https://i.imgur.com/gKSfM4Z.gif)


I told you repeatedly it was an unfinished graphic which I clearly edited before you even made your first post but now you keep reposting this unfinished graphic and trying to deceive members about the quality of my work, this is a clear rule violation and will not be tolerated. Either argue my published works on their own merit or face the consequences. Next time I won't be so courteous.

Quotes, images and /or articles from members of this forum, or from outside sources, must not be altered in a manner that is designed to deceive, and must reference the name of the who is person being quoted. Changing a persons quoted blue box words in ANY way is not allowed.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 05:25:05 AM
I told you repeatedly it was an unfinished graphic which I clearly edited before you even made your first post but now you keep reposting this unfinished graphic and trying to deceive members about the quality of my work, this is a clear rule violation and will not be tolerated. Either argue my published works on their own merit or face the consequences. Next time I won't be so courteous.

Quotes, images and /or articles from members of this forum, or from outside sources, must not be altered in a manner that is designed to deceive, and must reference the name of the who is person being quoted. Changing a persons quoted blue box words in ANY way is not allowed.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html

JohnM

 :D :D :D

But I haven't altered what you posted one jot, Mr Mytton. Here it is, just as you posted it:

(https://i.imgur.com/gKSfM4Z.gif)

And I've made sure to state clearly that it is your work!  Thumb1:

The fact that you're embarrassed by the insight this gif gives into your Soopah-Doopah-3D-Method is neither my problem nor a contravention of the rules of this forum!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 06:02:54 AM
:D :D :D

But I haven't altered what you posted one jot, Mr Mytton. Here it is, just as you posted it:


From a post that was edited before you even made your first reply and on top of that you stole my unfinished image and uploaded it to your own library and now you keep reposting the unfinished image as way to deceive members about my work. The wording is not exact but the very spirit of this rule is being violated.

Quotes, images and /or articles from members of this forum, or from outside sources, must not be altered in a manner that is designed to deceive, and must reference the name of the who is person being quoted. Changing a persons quoted blue box words in ANY way is not allowed.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html

If you think that it's ethical to be so dishonest then I'm afraid that doesn't say very nice things about your upbringing.

Anyway the facts speak for themselves, there is no way you can get Lovelady to the right in Darnell, the perspective from those angles are locked in.

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

Btw Alan beside you saying it doesn't look right what proof if any have you bought to this discussion?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
From a post that was edited before you even made your first reply and on top of that you stole my unfinished image and uploaded it to your own library and now you keep reposting the unfinished image as way to deceive members about my work. The wording is not exact but the very spirit of this rule is being violated.

Quotes, images and /or articles from members of this forum, or from outside sources, must not be altered in a manner that is designed to deceive, and must reference the name of the who is person being quoted. Changing a persons quoted blue box words in ANY way is not allowed.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html

If you think that it's ethical to be so dishonest then I'm afraid that doesn't say very nice things about your upbringing.

Anyway the facts speak for themselves, there is no way you can get Lovelady to the right in Darnell, the perspective from those angles are locked in.

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

Btw Alan beside you saying it doesn't look right what proof if any have you bought to this discussion?

JohnM

 :D :D :D

Sorry, Mr Mytton, if you post something on this forum then it's fair game. As for your giving lectures on ethics and honesty, well I've heard it all!

Here's what you posted:

(https://i.imgur.com/gKSfM4Z.gif)

Quite revealing of your Soopah-Doopah-3D-Method, eh? You'll never live this down! Maybe you might accept bespoke GIF-requests from members? 'Hi John, big fan of your work. I'd like a GIF proving that JFK was sitting in front of Connally in the limousine please'. You know, that kind of thing? :D

Now!

How many times are you going to evade my simple question?

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 06:58:42 AM
:D :D :D

Sorry, Mr Mytton, if you post something on this forum then it's fair game. As for your giving lectures on ethics and honesty, well I've heard it all!

Here's what you posted:

(https://i.imgur.com/gKSfM4Z.gif)


Fair game?, so you think posting an unfinished graphic from a post that was edited before you even replied is fair game, thanks for admitting that all you have left is to present a dishonest argument.
So far your proof of Lovelady's position is "I can see it, now you prove I'm wrong", well Alan the 3D doesn't lie, as long as the corresponding points are married up it's mathematically perfect, and there is no way you are getting Lovelady near that railing and resorting to these every devious technique to refute my work isn't helping your credibility.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

When Lovelady is placed on the opposite side all hell breaks loose.

Quote
https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif

Now post my "unfinished graphic" as a response because that's all you got and I'm actually enjoying watching you squirm.
Then fill us in how about how they painted a shadow onto Lovelady but forgot to paint out Oswald's head, Doh!
Or how they did or the forgery within a day?
Or why they just didn't snip out the half a second with Lovelady and Oswald?

JohnM





Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 09:03:00 AM

Quite revealing of your Soopah-Doopah-3D-Method, eh? You'll never live this down! Maybe you might accept bespoke GIF-requests from members? 'Hi John, big fan of your work. I'd like a GIF proving that JFK was sitting in front of Connally in the limousine please'. You know, that kind of thing? :D


How is an unfinished graphic that I took down before you even posted your first response revealing of anything besides your dishonesty? And I do hope you "never let me live it down" because my response will always show the character of someone who considers an immoral act as "fair game".

Getting back to the real subject of Lovelady's shadow, my irrefutable "Mytton 3D Wonder" proves perspective doesn't lie and Lovelady cannot exist to the right in Darnell, it's impossible. Lovelady was and always will be at that moment in the shadow and so far there's not a thing that you can do to refute it.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FHc4w5Q/love-entrance-shadowb.gif)

Btw we know you think my graphics are crap, so from your perspective they can't prove or disprove where Lovelady is standing and you are still left with the responsibility of proving that Lovelady is not in the shadow or have you forgotten?, but I bet your next post will be more of my graphics which ironically by your definition can't prove squat and therefore cannot prove your theory, which so far is "Alan sees something, but Alan can't prove it! Hilarious!

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 10:30:47 AM
Because of the dramatic parallax shift and lack of detail in Altgens, at first this morph was a little confusing as seen in the last half dozen Alan Ford posts, but after a little effort it actually turned out pretty good. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

(https://i.postimg.cc/t4KWbHRs/altgens-front-entrance-compare-a.gif)

Vs my original "unfinished" version which was deleted before anyone posted a reply which is apparently "fair game" in Alan Ford's world. Because Alan can't win with brains Alan fights with deceit, what a man.

(https://i.imgur.com/gKSfM4Z.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 12:20:32 PM
Getting back to the real subject of Lovelady's shadow, my irrefutable "Mytton 3D Wonder" proves perspective doesn't lie and Lovelady cannot exist to the right in Darnell, it's impossible. Lovelady was and always will be at that moment in the shadow and so far there's not a thing that you can do to refute it.

 :D :D :D

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

If you're so sure of your Soopah-Doopah-3D-Darnell-Wiegman-GIF, Mr Mytton, you will happily answer the question! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 12:30:59 PM
Soopah-Doopah-3D-Darnell-Wiegman-GIF

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I gave you links to "perspective 101" but you ignored my help and now we laugh at your failure.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

Btw Alan, are you ever going to prove where Lovelady is actually standing because so far you haven't proven squat and what you think you see isn't an answer.

 Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 12:31:27 PM
Because Alan can't win with brains Alan fights with deceit, what a man.

Talk about projection!  :D

Now, Mr Mytton, I'm so glad you have recovered sufficiently from your sheer and utter mortification (not to mention your impotent fury!) to feel in a position to present us with a 'finished graphic' of Altgens:

(https://i.postimg.cc/t4KWbHRs/altgens-front-entrance-compare-a.gif)

Happily, it is--------in its own way---------just as hilariously mad as your earlier effort.

For you really do seem to be laboring under the delusion that a Mr Lovelady standing several feet back on the landing would have been visible to Mr Altgens. Well I've got news for you: he wouldn't!

This is what happens if Mr Lovelady is put leaning forward at the edge of the landing:

(https://i.imgur.com/y69XUGM.gif)

Were Mr Hackerott to move Mr Lovelady back to where you're saying he is---------------------i.e. deep on the landing--------------------why he would disappear from Altgens' sight!

Oops!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 12:32:56 PM
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I gave you links to "perspective 101" but you ignored my help and now we laugh at your failure.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

Btw Alan, are you ever going to prove where Lovelady is actually standing because so far you haven't proven squat and what you think you see isn't an answer.

 Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:

JohnM

Stop crying, Mr Mytton, and just answer the question:

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 12:43:57 PM
Talk about projection!  :D

Now, Mr Mytton, I'm so glad you have recovered sufficiently from your sheer and utter mortification (not to mention your impotent fury!) to feel in a position to present us with a 'finished graphic' of Altgens:

(https://i.postimg.cc/t4KWbHRs/altgens-front-entrance-compare-a.gif)

Happily, it is--------in its own way---------just as hilariously mad as your earlier effort.

For you really do seem to be laboring under the delusion that a Mr Lovelady standing several feet back on the landing would have been visible to Mr Altgens. Well I've got news for you: he wouldn't!

This is what happens if Mr Lovelady is put leaning forward at the edge of the landing:

(https://i.imgur.com/y69XUGM.gif)

Were Mr Hackerott to move Mr Lovelady back to where you're saying he is---------------------i.e. deep on the landing--------------------why he would disappear from Altgens' sight!

Oops!  :D

My "sheer and utter mortification" and "impotent fury" Are you serious you can't beat my graphics and now you come back with juvenile unrelated ad-homs, you really aren't very good at this.
And your CGI cartoon of Altgens 6 is equally not very helpful and since Altgens 6 wasn't simultaneous with either Wiegamn or Darnell it's a waste of my time.
Try again and prove that Lovelady hasn't moved between Altgens 6 and Weigman?
As I said at the start, insulting my "crap graphics" isn't getting you any closer to proving Lovelady had a shadow painted over him, where's your proof, the whole community is waiting with baited breath.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 12:46:08 PM
Stop crying, Mr Mytton, and just answer the question:

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

 Thumb1:

Why the endless pointless diversions and what has "lady in black" got to do with the shadow on Lovelady?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 12:59:16 PM
And your CGI cartoon of Altgens 6 is equally not very helpful and since Altgens 6 wasn't simultaneous with either Wiegamn or Darnell it's a waste of my time.

So now you're disowning your second Altgens GIF along with your first one? Good call!  Thumb1:

Now! Do you believe that Mr Lovelady appears in Altgens before or after he stoops down to tie his shoelaces in Wiegman?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 01:01:16 PM
In case we have any late comers this is what's being discussed, Alan Ford believes that the shadow on Lovelady was painted on before the footage was aired at 3:14 PM ET, yes seriously, even on heavily motion blurred frames, and in addition this genius says that the reason for this deception was to paint out Oswald but another GIANT hole in this theory is that they left Oswald's head in the film, go figure, conspirators are brilliant at all the odd stops but are utter morons at the even stops.

(https://i.imgur.com/f6LZg71.jpg)

Part 2 coming soon.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 01:01:48 PM
Why the endless pointless diversions and what has "lady in black" got to do with the shadow on Lovelady?

JohnM

 :D :D :D

Oh but you know exactly what she has to do with the 'shadow' on Mr Lovelady---------------that's why you keep running away from the question!

Which side of the center railing is this lady standing?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 01:06:44 PM
In case we have any late comers this is what's being discussed, Alan Ford believes that the shadow on Lovelady was painted on before the footage was aired at 3:14 PM ET

Nope, all you could come up with was a broadcast 'from NBC Archives' that went out to the American public in 1988!  :D

The sum total of your argument now seems to be that blackening a bunch of movie frames would have been technically impossible in 1963. Good luck selling that!
 
Quote
, yes seriously, even on heavily motion blurred frames, and in addition this genius says that the reason for this deception was to paint out Oswald but another GIANT hole in this theory is that they left Oswald's head in the film, go figure, conspirators are brilliant at all the odd stops but are utter morons at the even stops.

It may be interesting that a scam artist like you, Mr Mytton, expresses displeasure at the quality of the work of other scam artists (those who doctored Wiegman), but it's hardly probative now, is it?

I have established Mr Oswald's alibi. All you've done is establish your own mendacity----------and the fact that you are a really sore loser!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 01:08:45 PM
So now you're disowning your second Altgens GIF along with your first one? Good call!  Thumb1:

Now! Do you believe that Mr Lovelady appears in Altgens before or after he stoops down to tie his shoelaces in Wiegman?

Quote
So now you're disowning your second Altgens GIF along with your first one? Good call!

Huh? Sorry but the finished version is just fine, why would I want to disown it?

(http://Now! Do you believe that Mr Lovelady appears in Altgens [i]before[/i] or [i]after[/i] he stoops down to tie his shoelaces in Wiegman?)

Why does every post ask questions, don't you know anything, remember it's your thread and you're supposed to be the expert but so far you're just an eggs-spurt!

JohnM



Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 01:16:01 PM
Huh? Sorry but the finished version is just fine, why would I want to disown it?

(http://Now! Do you believe that Mr Lovelady appears in Altgens [i]before[/i] or [i]after[/i] he stoops down to tie his shoelaces in Wiegman?)

Why does every post ask questions, don't you know anything, remember it's your thread and you're supposed to be the expert but so far you're just an eggs-spurt!

JohnM

 :D Thumb1: Such delightful repartee, Mr Mytton, thank you!

I know exactly where Mr Oswald was at the time of the assassination: he was standing right behind Mr Lovelady. And there ain't a damned thing you can do about it, because you can't step into a time machine and stop him from going out front. No more than you can magic him up to the sixth floor window.

The more you try to explain the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady, the more of a fool and a rogue you keep making of yourself in front of everything. Your Lone Nutter buddies must be squirming as they watch your pitiful performance!  :D

Speaking of which!

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe that the lady here is standing on the ___________________ side of the center railing."

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 01:17:40 PM
Nope, all you could come up with was a broadcast 'from NBC Archives' that went out to the American public in 1988!  :D

The sum total of your argument now seems to be that blackening a bunch of movie frames would have been technically impossible in 1963. Good luck selling that!
 
It may be interesting that a scam artist like you, Mr Mytton, expresses displeasure at the quality of the work of other scam artists (those who doctored Wiegman), but it's hardly probative now, is it?

I have established Mr Oswald's alibi. All you've done is establish your own mendacity----------and the fact that you are a really sore loser!  Thumb1:

Quote
Nope, all you could come up with was a broadcast 'from NBC Archives' that went out to the American public in 1988!  :D

Wow, just how deep does this conspiracy go?

Quote
The sum total of your argument now seems to be that blackening a bunch of movie frames would have been technically impossible in 1963. Good luck selling that!

Just how paranoid are you?

Quote
It may be interesting that a scam artist like you, Mr Mytton, expresses displeasure at the quality of the work of other scam artists (those who doctored Wiegman), but it's hardly probative now, is it?

Where have I scammed anyone, all my graphics place Lovelady nearer the wall and you can't handle the truth!

Quote
I have established Mr Oswald's alibi.


No you haven't

Quote
All you've done is establish your own mendacity----------and the fact that you are a really sore loser!  Thumb1:

Your thesaurus is getting a real workout -----------and sorry but I already won. Lovelady CANNOT be to the right.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 01:20:19 PM
sorry but I already won. Lovelady CANNOT be to the right.

 :D

Painfully for you, the lady in the black top needs to be on the west side of the railing for your garbage GIF to work its dark magic. And that's what you don't want to admit!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 01:22:11 PM

Speaking of which!


Yes Alan, explain why they painted a shadow onto Lovelady to hide Oswald who was behind and explain why they left Oswald's head in shot?
Btw I'm not going to let this go, the very foundation of your moronic theory is illogical.

(https://i.imgur.com/f6LZg71.jpg)

JohnM


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 01:33:55 PM
:D

Painfully for you, the lady in the black top needs to be on the west side of the railing for your garbage GIF to work its dark magic. And that's what you don't want to admit!  Thumb1:

You're not grasping the basic principle, the entire railing was drawn in as a solid object and is exactly where it should be in real life and it's relationship as compared to Lovelady is the point of this debate.
So I ask again for the hundredth time what relevance does the lady in black have and if by necessity, I drew part of the railing over her to establish the location of the railing, how does that affect where Lovelady was?
Do you understand how stupid you look with this constant irrelevant question?

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 02:03:43 PM

This is what happens if Mr Lovelady is put leaning forward at the edge of the landing:

(https://i.imgur.com/y69XUGM.gif)

Were Mr Hackerott to move Mr Lovelady back to where you're saying he is---------------------i.e. deep on the landing--------------------why he would disappear from Altgens' sight!

Oops!  :D

I am fully aware of where Lovelady is in Altgens and if it had anything to do with Wiegman, I might actually care.
But like I said you can't rely on cartoons to simulate reality, OUCH!

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcNLCZG0/altgens-cartoon.gif)

Btw I truly am sorry for using you as my punching bag but with a mouth like yours, you deserve to be smacked around.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 01, 2019, 03:31:09 PM
I already deleted this accidentally posted graphic way before the above comment, Naughty naughty. Next time check before making a jackass of yourself.

The 3D Mytton method proves beyond all doubt that Lovelady must be to our left in Darnell, perspective doesn't lie.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM

    The translation to the above = YOU Created a Frankenstein Monster of a GIF, that FORD put a torch to. Hence, your being forced to move on, (delete it), and Create another.  Your concoctions are solely constructed to corroborate whatever your fanciful point might be at that point in time. Your GIF's and Cartoons are NOT based on  Fact. Much like Dr Frankenstein, I give You credit for being Creative and having a Vivid Imagination. The positives End There.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 01, 2019, 03:52:42 PM
In case we have any late comers this is what's being discussed, Alan Ford believes that the shadow on Lovelady was painted on before the footage was aired at 3:14 PM ET, yes seriously, even on heavily motion blurred frames, and in addition this genius says that the reason for this deception was to paint out Oswald but another GIANT hole in this theory is that they left Oswald's head in the film, go figure, conspirators are brilliant at all the odd stops but are utter morons at the even stops.

(https://i.imgur.com/f6LZg71.jpg)

Part 2 coming soon.

JohnM

    John - Just for my own reference, is something posted on YouTube your source for quoting a 3:14 EST = 2:14 CST TV airing time of the Wiegman snippet above? We know for a Fact that Wiegman was filming and running around Parkland Hospital shortly after the JFK Limo arrived there. Considering the Wiegman film had to be prepped/edited for TV broadcast, and giving Wiegman an ETA at Parkland of roughly 12:45 leaves little time in between. I ask as I do Not want to reference this 2:14 CST airing in the future if it is Sketchy = YouTube based. Thanks
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on December 01, 2019, 04:45:31 PM
PrayerDude was taking pictures with a camera.  The rest is just parlour games.  But Oswald was busy upstairs killing the president.  So who cares who was standing next to who, or when they were, or what the sun plane was?  Do you realize how rediculous this all is?  I mean, really.....
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 01, 2019, 05:00:27 PM
PrayerDude was taking pictures with a camera.  The rest is just parlour games.  But Oswald was busy upstairs killing the president.  So who cares who was standing next to who, or when they were, or what the sun plane was?  Do you realize how rediculous this all is?  I mean, really.....

    History mandates Knowing who was where when. This Knowledge also helps to validate the credibility of assassination witness Testimony. This same credibility issue can also then be applied to Assassination Images along with assigned Time Lines. If a narrative is True, this Scrutiny will do it No Harm. If a narrative is False or has False information supporting it, it will Fall like a house of cards.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 05:09:43 PM
You're not grasping the basic principle, the entire railing was drawn in as a solid object and is exactly where it should be in real life and it's relationship as compared to Lovelady is the point of this debate.
So I ask again for the hundredth time what relevance does the lady in black have and if by necessity, I drew part of the railing over her to establish the location of the railing, how does that affect where Lovelady was?
Do you understand how stupid you look with this constant irrelevant question?

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM

 :D :D :D

Friends, the reason Mr Mytton doesn't want to tell us which side of the center railing he believes the lady in black is standing on------------

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

-------------is that that physical barrier limits Mr Mytton's ability to move the lady (and, with her, Mr Lovelady) as far west as he wants.

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the lady here is standing on the _____________________ side of the center railing."

He either commits to the wrong answer (west) and has that claim torn apart, or he commits to the correct answer (east) and has his GIF torn apart. Poor checkmated Mr Mytton!  :D

What say you we watch the scam artist duck the question yet again?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 05:33:52 PM
I am fully aware of where Lovelady is in Altgens and if it had anything to do with Wiegman, I might actually care.
But like I said you can't rely on cartoons to simulate reality, OUCH!

(https://i.postimg.cc/KcNLCZG0/altgens-cartoon.gif)

Btw I truly am sorry for using you as my punching bag but with a mouth like yours, you deserve to be smacked around.

JohnM

 :D :D :D

The only thing you're smacking around is your reputation, Mr Mytton!

Here, friends, is the Altgens image Mr Mytton has chosen to work with in his latest drive-by GIF:

(https://i.imgur.com/TwDZuIf.jpg)

Notice how low-grade, blurred, pixelated and dark it is? Why, we haven't seen such crappy versions of Altgens used since the days when Mr Cinque was trying to make Mr Lovelady look like Mr Oswald!  :D

Now! Here's the reason why Mr Mytton used such a crappy version of Altgens. He didn't want you to notice this:

(https://i.imgur.com/LMfsH5i.gif)

All because the Lone Nutter desperately wants to keep Mr Oswald off those steps by putting Mr Lovelady further west than he really is!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 05:37:01 PM
    John - Just for my own reference, is something posted on YouTube your source for quoting a 3:14 EST = 2:14 CST TV airing time of the Wiegman snippet above?

You're missing the point, Mr Storing. Mr Mytton is quoting a 1988 TV broadcast version 'from the NBC Archives'. His claim to have proven that the Wiegman film would need to have been altered by the time he states on 11/22/63 collapsed pages ago!

That's why he's gone back to square one and started talking about the magic shadow again!  :D

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 05:38:34 PM

With an ongoing effort to place LeeHarveyOswald on the Top Step/Landing/Stairs during the 12:30pm CST filming, but with Image "blacked out", despite numerous eyewitnesses indicating otherwise, it now appears, at least to me, that "They", or at least some of "They", have given up on the non-provable LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerPersonImage Theory.

It's actually quite intimidating to be around an intellect of such magnitude as yours, MrLarryTrotter.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 01, 2019, 06:02:18 PM
   Ford - To be fair here, You have a blurry image of what appears to be 2 heads. THAT is all the actual physical evidence you have. On the Hosty Notes it is noted that Oswald claimed to have Gone Outside to watch the "P. Parade". There is Nothing on the Hosty Notes pinpointing a location from which Oswald allegedly watched the "P. Parade". Nothing on the Hosty Notes places Oswald on the TSBD Landing or the TSBD Steps. On top of that, NO EYEWITNESS on 11/22/63 has Ever recounted seeing Oswald on the TSBD Landing or the TSBD Steps before, during, or after the assassination. I find the Jet Black Shadow worthy of discussion/investigation. The Oswald element of your position has absolutely No Evidentiary Foundation what-so-ever.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 06:34:42 PM
:D :D :D

The only thing you're smacking around is your reputation, Mr Mytton!

Here, friends, is the Altgens image Mr Mytton has chosen to work with in his latest drive-by GIF:

-snip-


This is now Ford dishonestly presents the evidence, he blows up my version to emphasise the pixels and keeps his version tiny, so it can't a fair comparison. naughty naughty. But this typical of Ford's devious tactics.

(https://i.postimg.cc/JzgY1PKd/more-ford-bs.jpg)

Btw the same gap is seen in both, so whatever point you were trying to make, makes no sense. :'(

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTrFfNrbr00wGQ3cAsE-qjGAO3AP36WAPTQJJV2fJKmOfpI9QnF)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTZMgK35rWuid-WwW9bHzhuzWo5JvjOh0Wcs3UFZ52QBVtsuCy8)
(https://i.postimg.cc/KcNLCZG0/altgens-cartoon.gif)

JohnM

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 01, 2019, 06:39:07 PM
PrayerDude was taking pictures with a camera.  The rest is just parlour games.  But Oswald was busy upstairs killing the president.  So who cares who was standing next to who, or when they were, or what the sun plane was?  Do you realize how rediculous this all is?  I mean, really.....

Well, Mark, it’s because there’s no actual evidence that “Oswald was busy upstairs killing the president”.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on December 01, 2019, 06:47:06 PM
   Ford - To be fair here, You have a blurry image of what appears to be 2 heads. THAT is all the actual physical evidence you have. On the Hosty Notes it is noted that Oswald claimed to have Gone Outside to watch the "P. Parade". There is Nothing on the Hosty Notes pinpointing a location from which Oswald allegedly watched the "P. Parade". Nothing on the Hosty Notes places Oswald on the TSBD Landing or the TSBD Steps. On top of that, NO EYEWITNESS on 11/22/63 has Ever recounted seeing Oswald on the TSBD Landing or the TSBD Steps before, during, or after the assassination. I find the Jet Black Shadow worthy of discussion/investigation. The Oswald element of your position has absolutely No Evidentiary Foundation what-so-ever.

IIRC, the PrayerPersonImage identity only became an issue after, and because of, the claim that said Image represented LeeHarveyOswald.

In any event, LeeHarveyOswald not being on the stairs/top step/landing during the shooting, does not itself place him at the sixth floor so called sniper's nest.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 07:04:15 PM
:D :D :D

Friends, the reason Mr Mytton doesn't want to tell us

-snip-

 Thumb1:

Ffs, you can't be serious, how many times and in how many ways can I answer the same question?
In Wiegman the lady in black is blocking the top half of the railing and by me drawing in the whole railing can in no way move the lady in black.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uAVnaFMTeV4/VbUrAoO7B0I/AAAAAAAAf_I/SZPl1xQfmIw/s1600/Wiegman%2BDoorman%2Bcropped.jpg)

The railing has been recreated as a solid object in both Wiegman and Darnell as a guide to calculating the distance from the railing to Lovelady and unfortunately for you "lady in black" has no bearing on this equation.
 
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 07:10:32 PM
Well, Mark, it’s because there’s no actual evidence that “Oswald was busy upstairs killing the president”.

Wow, you've gone full on Caprio, there is a mountain of actual evidence and whether you choose to believe it or not doesn't change the fact that actual evidence does exist.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 01, 2019, 07:14:49 PM
Ffs, you can't be serious, how many times and in how many ways can I answer the same question?
In Wiegman the lady in black is blocking the top half of the railing and by me drawing in the whole railing can in no way move the lady in black.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uAVnaFMTeV4/VbUrAoO7B0I/AAAAAAAAf_I/SZPl1xQfmIw/s1600/Wiegman%2BDoorman%2Bcropped.jpg)

The railing has been recreated as a solid object in both Wiegman and Darnell as a guide to calculating the distance from the railing to Lovelady and unfortunately for you "lady in black" has no bearing on this equation.
 
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qKRnDpb/love-entrance-shadowe.gif)

JohnM

     Whether "the lady in black has no bearing" on the equation or not, why not just answer Ford's question? What side of the handrail do You believe she is on? East Side of the Handrail or West Side of the Handrail?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 07:17:57 PM
     Whether "the lady in black has no bearing" on the equation or not, why not just answer Ford's question? What side of the handrail do You believe she is on? East Side of the Handrail or West Side of the Handrail?

Can you read? I answered the question in the post you responded to.

In Wiegman the lady in black is blocking the top half of the railing and by me drawing in the whole railing can in no way move the lady in black.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 07:24:02 PM
   Ford - To be fair here, You have a blurry image of what appears to be 2 heads. THAT is all the actual physical evidence you have. On the Hosty Notes it is noted that Oswald claimed to have Gone Outside to watch the "P. Parade". There is Nothing on the Hosty Notes pinpointing a location from which Oswald allegedly watched the "P. Parade". Nothing on the Hosty Notes places Oswald on the TSBD Landing or the TSBD Steps. On top of that, NO EYEWITNESS on 11/22/63 has Ever recounted seeing Oswald on the TSBD Landing or the TSBD Steps before, during, or after the assassination. I find the Jet Black Shadow worthy of discussion/investigation. The Oswald element of your position has absolutely No Evidentiary Foundation what-so-ever.

On the contrary, Mr Storing, the case for Mr Oswald having been just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the assassination is locked down. As is the way with these things, it will take some time for the implications of my finding to sink in with people more generally, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic validity of the claim.

We have
-----------the recently uncovered confirmation that Mr Oswald (as already deduced by smart researchers) did indeed claim to have gone "outside to watch P. parade"
-----------the confirmation (from this) that Mr Oswald's claim in custody was suppressed by the cover-up investigators
-----------the inexplicable (as a natural physical phenomenon) 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film
-----------the double-headed Lovewald creature in Wiegman
-----------the glimpse of sunlit human skin just behind Mr Lovelady in Altgens

This is nothing short of the first truly cogent and watertight claim ever proposed as to Mr Oswald's whereabouts at 12.30pm on 11/22/63.

Now! Let us be quite clear as to how the logical inference to Oswald-Behind-Lovelady is made here:

1. If no one can explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady as an innocent phenomenon (and no one can--------I mean, look at poor Mr Mytton's recent efforts!), then...

2. The only explanatory recourse left to us is doctoring of the film, which raises the question...

3. Why, if unrelated to any Oswaldian presence in Mr Lovelady's immediate vicinity, would anyone have bothered to doctor the film?

You have no answer to #3, do you?

The burning desire of Warren Gullibles to keep Mr Oswald away from that front entrance does not keep Mr Oswald away from that front entrance, no more than the burning desire of the more idiotic and/or pet-theory-driven and/or plain mad CT hobbyists to keep Mr Oswald away from that front entrance can keep Mr Oswald away from that front entrance.

He was there----------

(https://i.imgur.com/JiXROWM.jpg)

-------------and that unnatural dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady is the smoking gun that establishes his alibi by telling us who that second 'Lovelady' head must belong to----------------

(https://i.imgur.com/WKhXY8R.gif)

This case, Mr Storing, is not a game that one should want to see play out endlessly for its own sake. It is a matter of truth and justice. Apart from anything else, Mr Oswald's daughters have grown up being told that their father shot JFK. Well, he didn't, and it's important that they----------and everyone else------------know that.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 07:24:42 PM
   Ford - To be fair here, You have a blurry image of what appears -snip-

 :D ;D ;) :D ;) ;D :D ;) :) :D ;D ;)

Hahahahahahahahaha!, even Fords biggest cheerleader has had enough and is deserting Ford.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 01, 2019, 07:29:08 PM
Wow, you've gone full on Caprio, there is a mountain of actual evidence

So you keep claiming, but never producing. All you do is trot out a mountain of unsubstantiated subjective conclusions about weak, tainted, circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 07:37:14 PM
This is now Ford dishonestly presents the evidence, he blows up my version to emphasise the pixels and keeps his version tiny, so it can't a fair comparison. naughty naughty. But this typical of Ford's devious tactics.

(https://i.postimg.cc/JzgY1PKd/more-ford-bs.jpg)

Btw the same gap is seen in both, so whatever point you were trying to make, makes no sense. :'(

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTrFfNrbr00wGQ3cAsE-qjGAO3AP36WAPTQJJV2fJKmOfpI9QnF)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTZMgK35rWuid-WwW9bHzhuzWo5JvjOh0Wcs3UFZ52QBVtsuCy8)
(https://i.postimg.cc/KcNLCZG0/altgens-cartoon.gif)

JohnM

 :D :D :D

Your sad little scheme to get Mr Lovelady in Altgens way over to the west of the entranceway-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/QTrFYsp.gif)

-------------has died a death because of the angle at which Altgens is taken.

As anyone who has looked seriously and without prejudice at the relationship between the Lovelady@UpperElevation Wiegman frames and the Altgens photograph has known for years, they show Mr Lovelady (whatever about his posture) in the same part of the entranceway. And whoever doctored Wiegman recognized this too: that's why they added the dark shadow down Mr Lovelady at the exact point at which Mr Lovelady's body goes out of view in Altgens:

(https://i.imgur.com/LNfYevB.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/r7PTnFp.jpg)

Sorry!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 07:39:29 PM
In Wiegman the lady in black is blocking the top half of the railing and by me drawing in the whole railing can in no way move the lady in black.

So the lady in black is on the east side of the railing in Wiegman, yes?

(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)

One-word answer required, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 07:39:56 PM
-snip-  weak, tainted, circumstantial evidence.

See that wasn't so hard, thanks for admitting that there is evidence, to say otherwise is pure Caprio.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 07:46:31 PM
:D :D :D

Your sad little scheme to get Mr Lovelady in Altgens way over to the west of the entranceway-------------

-snip-


Altgens was not taken at the same time as Wiegman, and that unfinished graphic cannot be found in any of my posts. Try again.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2019, 08:08:48 PM
Altgens was not taken at the same time as Wiegman, and that unfinished graphic cannot be found in any of my posts. Try again.

JohnM

 :D :D :D

Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Altgens:

(https://i.imgur.com/08Qo5sM.gif)

Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/EEEBzmI.gif)

Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Checkmate, Mr Mytton!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 09:25:22 PM
:D :D :D

Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Altgens:

(https://i.imgur.com/08Qo5sM.gif)

Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/EEEBzmI.gif)

Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Checkmate, Mr Mytton!  Thumb1:

Quote
Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

First of all, can you clearly point out where Man B's head is and can you show that the shadows are exactly the same and can you prove that he didn't move?

Quote
No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Yes there is no horizontal shadow on Lovelady but how does that place him in Wiegman?

Quote
Checkmate, Mr Mytton!  Thumb1:

Unsupported claims is not "Checkmate", answer my above questions and we will see who is indeed "Checkmated"

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on December 01, 2019, 09:34:32 PM
Okay, thank you for the clarification, Mr Mason!  Thumb1:

That may indeed have been the calculation for the Lovelady@UpperElevation frames:
----------with the 'shadow' added, no one would even notice the second head, and if they did they would assume it to be motion blur or somesuch
----------even if they did realize it was a second head, they wouldn't be able to identify it as belonging to Mr Oswald.

For the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames, however, Mr Oswald had to be completely excised because-----------with Mr Lovelady no longer blocking him-----------he was recognizably present much in the way that Mr Lovelady still is.

This scam worked brilliantly------for five-and-a-half decades------until someone noticed that the shadow down Mr Lovelady could not be a natural shadow!

By the way, Altgens confirms the presence of a second sunlit person just behind Mr Lovelady in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/HSbGy2x.gif)

This photograph must have been taken just before the first Wiegman frames, which show Mr Oswald's head just right (as we look) of Mr Lovelady's!

 Thumb1:


Well, Mr.Baggins… I think we finally understand one another  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 11:00:13 PM

Well, Mr.Baggins… I think we finally understand one another  Thumb1:

Thanks for coaxing Mr Baggins to expose the "plot", it's friggin hilarious and let me quote Mr Baggins words direct from the horses mouth, this is funny stuff.

Quote
with the 'shadow' added, no one would even notice the second head

Brilliant, so they painted a shadow on Lovelady in order to distract from a second head instead of the bleeding obvious of easily painting out the head? This is classic circular logic, you think you know the conclusion but just getting there is the problem.

Quote
and if they did they would assume it to be motion blur or somesuch

You've only seen copies of a film which was transferred to ntsc video which is interlaced and has the frame rate adjusted to suit, in other words your uninformed safe generalization of "or somesuch" perfectly sums up the wealth of your knowledge.

Quote
even if they did realize it was a second head, they wouldn't be able to identify it as belonging to Mr Oswald.

If you can't identify Oswald, then why bother painting a shadow onto Lovelady? The deeper we go the more scattered the thinking becomes, into the Heart of Darkness.

Quote
For the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames, however, Mr Oswald had to be completely excised because-----------with Mr Lovelady no longer blocking him-----------he was recognizably present much in the way that Mr Lovelady still is.

I ------- like -------- all ---------the ----------dramatic -------pauses! Nice.
So Oswald got in front of Lovelady, yet Lovelady said he never saw Oswald, go figure?

Mr. BALL - Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - East, on back, the elevator back.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him?
Mr. LOVELADY - No; I didn't; I just heard his voice because---where those slats are in back of the elevator.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him again that day?
Mr. LOVELADY - No.


Quote
This scam worked brilliantly------for five-and-a-half decades------until someone noticed that the shadow down Mr Lovelady could not be a natural shadow!

Are you that "someone" Alan? Hee haww hee haww!

Quote
By the way, Altgens confirms the presence of a second sunlit person just behind Mr Lovelady in Wiegman:

What body part do you think you see?

Quote
This photograph must have been taken just before the first Wiegman frames, which show Mr Oswald's head just right (as we look) of Mr Lovelady's!

We can't see Wiegman's camera car or the car in front in Altgens 6 and we don't know the speed of the vehicles before Wiegman started filming but according to Mark Tyler's graphic* seems to show Wiegman started filming a few seconds after Altgens. And Oswald had a big nose, so we could be seeing Oswald's nose, good work, Champ!
*https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2277.0.html


JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 02, 2019, 01:31:21 AM
See that wasn't so hard, thanks for admitting that there is evidence, to say otherwise is pure Caprio.

Not evidence that “Oswald was busy upstairs killing the president”.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 02, 2019, 01:42:52 AM
:D ;D ;) :D ;) ;D :D ;) :) :D ;D ;)

Hahahahahahahahaha!, even Fords biggest cheerleader has had enough and is deserting Ford.

JohnM

     You obviously are smarting from having been batted around the last several days. I have Never bought into the Oswald part of this Theory. The Jet Black Curtain is worthy of examination/discussion. And if you want to run away from answering which side of the handrail the "lady in black" is standing, obviously Ford is correct. He has placed you between a rock and a hard place by raising this issue.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on December 02, 2019, 02:31:47 AM
     You obviously are smarting from having been batted around the last several days. I have Never bought into the Oswald part of this Theory. The Jet Black Curtain is worthy of examination/discussion. And if you want to run away from answering which side of the handrail the "lady in black" is standing, obviously Ford is correct. He has placed you between a rock and a hard place by raising this issue.

Quote
You obviously are smarting from having been batted around the last several days.

I have Alan scrambling for nit picks, he has no answer for the perspective problem of where Lovelady must be in Darnell, exposed his cgi cartoon, his only comeback was to repost the same unfinished graphic again and again and claimed it was "fair game" and have now finally ridiculed the very essence of "what happened" and as for you Royell, you are just a bundle of incompetence, God luv ya!

Quote
The Jet Black Curtain is worthy of examination/discussion.

Sure, but you have to rule out the possible before you consider the impossible. Btw the Jet black curtain is nothing of the sort and the quality of the black level was lost a dozen transfers ago, you are such a Noob.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

Quote
And if you want to run away from answering which side of the handrail the "lady in black" is standing, obviously Ford is correct.

In Wiegman she is clearly in front, it was discussed when Ford posted his blue unfinished railing and we both conceded that we couldn't see the top but for some reason he wants to keep asking the same question which I keep answering and for some reason you two want to keep asking the same question over and over, it's an interesting study in mental illness, it's most bizarre. You Kooks sure are a weird bunch.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1t6GmGMG/alan-fforfail.jpg)

Quote
He has placed you between a rock and a hard place by raising this issue.

Ummmm, you don't understand, this is Ford's claim and it's up to Ford to scientifically place Lovelady, you say my graphics are rubbish and I'm OK with that but that means you can't use my graphics as proof of anything, and all Ford has given as evidence of Lovelady's position is say, "I see it, but I can't prove it", yeah that's a really convincing technical explanation.
And the claim that even after how many thousands perhaps millions have seen the Wiegman film, it's only now that this "shadow" has been missed for 55 years? Everyone wants to be a Hero.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on December 02, 2019, 04:45:24 AM
So Mr Graves can't explain the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady!  Thumb1:

Can anyone?

Just a hint of anything different from their view and they freak out. Do they not know their view is constantly changing with every situation that is challenged. Their investigation amounts to someone else told them it was a LN. They never can start from the beginning or anywhere else in between with any degree of knowledge
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 03, 2019, 05:08:10 PM
Yes there is no horizontal shadow on Lovelady but how does that place him in Wiegman?

 :D :D :D

That puts him not where you need to put him to get a vertical shadow hitting him!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on December 03, 2019, 05:12:44 PM
I have Alan scrambling for nit picks, he has no answer for the perspective problem of where Lovelady must be in Darnell, exposed his cgi cartoon, his only comeback was to repost the same unfinished graphic again and again and claimed it was "fair game" and have now finally ridiculed the very essence of "what happened" and as for you Royell, you are just a bundle of incompetence, God luv ya!

Sure, but you have to rule out the possible before you consider the impossible. Btw the Jet black curtain is nothing of the sort and the quality of the black level was lost a dozen transfers ago, you are such a Noob.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)

In Wiegman she is clearly in front, it was discussed when Ford posted his blue unfinished railing and we both conceded that we couldn't see the top but for some reason he wants to keep asking the same question which I keep answering and for some reason you two want to keep asking the same question over and over, it's an interesting study in mental illness, it's most bizarre. You Kooks sure are a weird bunch.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1t6GmGMG/alan-fforfail.jpg)

Ummmm, you don't understand, this is Ford's claim and it's up to Ford to scientifically place Lovelady, you say my graphics are rubbish and I'm OK with that but that means you can't use my graphics as proof of anything, and all Ford has given as evidence of Lovelady's position is say, "I see it, but I can't prove it", yeah that's a really convincing technical explanation.
And the claim that even after how many thousands perhaps millions have seen the Wiegman film, it's only now that this "shadow" has been missed for 55 years? Everyone wants to be a Hero.

JohnM

   The above is Further Proof YOU are running away from Ford's question. WHICH SIDE of the handrail do YOU/MYTTON have the lady standing on? East or West side of the handrail? 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on December 03, 2019, 05:15:45 PM
In Wiegman she is clearly in front, it was discussed when Ford posted his blue unfinished railing and we both conceded that