JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started 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)
-
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:
-
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 ;
-
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:
-
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 ;)
-
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:
-
: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 ;)
-
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:
-
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:
-
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 ;)
-
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."
-
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)
-
(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)
-
(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.
-
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:
-
: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!
-
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)
-
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:
-
"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......
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
::)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.
-
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.
-
Larry doesn’t do evidence. He doesn’t even do spaces between words.
-
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:
-
: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.
-
: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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
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)
-
The shadow seems peculiar/strange to me based on Lovelady having changed his position on the stairs.
Yes, this!
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!
-
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.
-
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.
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:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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??
-
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!
-
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)
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
::)
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
when other indications place BillyLovelady and BillShelley[/i][/i] elsewhere by that time, it appears to me...
“Other indications”. LOL.
-
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?
-
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."
-
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,
-
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)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
Leave the poor fellow alone, Mr Iacoletti. He's as robotic as his avatar.
Another pointless posted insult...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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:
-
So according to you, Alan, Prayerman can't be Oswald. How did they "black out" the Wiegman film?
-
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.
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)
-
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/)
-
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?)
-
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:
-
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??
-
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!
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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:
-
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:
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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 ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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?
-
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 ;)
-
"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?
-
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 ;)
-
So its not been established definitely where exactly Mrs Robert A.Reid is in Wiegman film?
Correct.
-
[/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?
-
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 ;)
-
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".
-
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 ;)
-
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).
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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?
-
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!
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:
-
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.
-
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)
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:
-
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:
-
As I said, the image is already up.
Yep. Point out your clever "horizontal bars".
-
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 ;)
-
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"?
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
I don't need to point out the two "bars" visible in the woman's skirt
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
:D
-
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:
-
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.
-
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:
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
-
"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
-
(https://i.imgur.com/9QCIE8t.jpg)
-
“Thank heavens I brought my glow-in-the-dark coat to work with me!”
That would make sense in a professional situation.
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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?
Hilarious.
After all these years, it's nice to finally see you smile.
You are getting hammered in Stereo on 2 threads simultaneously.
Only 2, I'm not doing my job properly, I must try harder!
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
-
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:
-
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 ___________________________________"
-
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.
-
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!
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?
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
John M Trusted photo expert
Thanks, mate!
JohnM
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
: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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
-
: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.
-
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:
-
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?
-
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:
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.. ::)
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ZvgVRGFNUdKRW/giphy.gif)
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ZvgVRGFNUdKRW/giphy.gif)
:D ROFLMAO
that could be ANY of us after reading the WC report :)
-
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.
-
Prayerblobs shirt is DARK. Shelleys shirt is WHITE.. ::)
And you know this how?
-
"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?
-
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)
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
: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.
-
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".
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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 :-\
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
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.
-
??? 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:
-
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.
-
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:
-
Thank you.
You like me! You really like me! ;D
-
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:
-
"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
-
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:
-
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?
-
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:
-
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?
-
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)
-
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:
-
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
-
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!
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!
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:
-
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:
-
... 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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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".
-
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".
-
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.
-
Your “phone call with Frazier”. LOL.
The very thought of this raving lunatic having a direct line to Mr Frazier is quite scary...
-
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
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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:
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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
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:
-
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.
-
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'!
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
Well at least it seems Alan Ford has FINALLY accepted that prayerblob is probably NOT Oswald :)
-
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
-
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?
-
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)
-
(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 ;)
-
It's more likely Lovelady's head moving between frames.
-
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 ;)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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!
-
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)
-
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'?
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
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/
-
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:
-
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.
-
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>
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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??
-
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:
-
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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
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:
-
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 ;)
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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.
-
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!
-
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)
-
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.
-
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)
Mr Davidson, is this gif supposed to illustrate anything specific?
Thumb1:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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?
-
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:
-
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'...
-
(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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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)
::)
-
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
-
The front entrance door of the TSBD can open BOTH ways, either out. or inward.
-
Lovelady IMO..
https://photos.app.goo.gl/jzkzw6KCL9iZStKi8 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/jzkzw6KCL9iZStKi8)
Best Rgds,
Christer
-
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?
-
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)
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:
-
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)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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" ;)
-
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? ::)
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:
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:
-
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 :)
-
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:
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?
, 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:
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? ::)
-
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?
-
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?
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.
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
;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:
-
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
-
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: _________________________.
-
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
-
: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
-
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: _________________________.
-
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
-
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:
-
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?
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
You said it was "difficult" Not impossible.
I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE,....
JohnM
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
-
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:
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:
-
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.
-
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..
-
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
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
(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)
-
: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 As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'! 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
-
Careful John! Though we frequently disagree with each other, I do Not want to see you get suspended.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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!
-
"..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?
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!
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.
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
-
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!
John the Expert, "advanced graphical analysis"
Yes, I heard my name and credentials being called, how can I help?
Let me guess, next week you'll claim to be a Statistician.
At least I don't claim to be an xxxxxxxx.
Just another hobby, right? ha ha ha
I have plenty of hobbies, is that a problem?
JohnM
-
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!
-
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:
-
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
-
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:
-
: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
-
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:
-
: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
-
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:
-
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:
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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
-
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:
-
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.
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.
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
-
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
-
The lower railing and two skirts.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)
-
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!
-
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:
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
-
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:
-
: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
-
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?
-
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Are You claiming this is Not Lovelady?
How do you know it's Lovelady, prove it.
JohnM
-
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!
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
: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
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.
Or could it be you don't want your little scam to be exposed? :o
What scam?
JohnM
-
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
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
-
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)
-
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
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/4x6tf8c1/loveladyinshadow.gif)
He's still placing the railing in the wrong place! :D
-
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
-
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.
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
-
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?
-
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
-
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder.gif)
-
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder1.gif)
-
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder.gif)
Same event, different camera position.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dIWUwWREt2jy7ecTEY8kWDhfzG3x8Fay/view?usp=sharing
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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).
-
"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
-
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
-
(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:
-
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)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder1.gif)
Poor Mr Lovelady is straddling the center railing here... Looks painful!
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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..."!
-
: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
-
: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
-
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:
-
: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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
: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
-
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:
-
: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
-
: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
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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"
-
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
-
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".
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095164133_a90cc89afc_o.png)
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095965847_4a49412442_o.png)
-
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
-
(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
-
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.
-
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
-
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".
-
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
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Hi, thanks, I edited the post.
JohnM
John,
I guess you meant "no big-ass exit hole".
-- MWT ;)
-
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.
-
the bullet fragments which had to have come from the head wound
LOL
were found in the Limo
LOL
came from Oswald's rifle,
LOL
-
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?
-
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:
-
(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:
-
(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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Thanks for you observations.
JohnM
No problem. Let me know when you make your revisions.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
: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
: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?
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
-
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
"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:
-
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:
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?
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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:
-
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 As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'!
(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)
JohnM
-
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 As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'!
(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 ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
That’s nothing new. “Mytton” has been doing “proof” by squiggle for a long time. Remember his yellow squiggles on the backyard photo?
-
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
-
Remember his yellow squiggles on the backyard photo?
Thanks for remembering my posts, i'm flattered.
JohnM
-
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.
-
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 As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing, how about YOU fix the timeline of the visual record. Make a thread and enlighten us.
JohnM
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
: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
-
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:
-
: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
-
: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:
-
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
-
: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
-
JOHN - Focus on the Positive. You have made Alan Ford the forum Image Expert. Congrats
I have no problem with 2nd place.
JohnM
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
-
: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
-
: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. :(
-
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:
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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:
-
It's never been my shadow
~Snicker~
Bye bye, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
-
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.
-
If the sun plane is right in your 3D image then your theory is in a lot of trouble, perspective ain't it a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgS2ggp0/loveeearailzaa.gif)
JohnM
-
Every time these guys get jammed up they fall back on their old reliable "perspective" alibi. Never fails............until it does.
-
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
-
Stop shifting the burden of proof, your claim your proof.
Now “Mytton” cares about burden of proof.
-
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
-
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:
-
: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
-
I've posted this image before but this is where I believe Frazier is, in the Wiegman frame.
https://i.imgur.com/XMxdoJm.jpg
-
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:
-
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.
-
Quite right about my incorrectly posting Frazier rather than Lovelady. Thank you for correcting me.
Thumb1:
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:
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:
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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.
-
: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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
John, unfortunately this discernment deficit (~~snip snip!~~)
Wrong Alan Ford, you clown! :D
-
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 ::)
-
~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
-
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
-
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:
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
John - Please continue submitting your GIF's.
No worries.
JohnM
-
No it's not! Thumb1:
You need to look at it again. Just look at the Landing Sidewalls vs the Top 2 Steps/Handrail.
-
: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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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
-
: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
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
(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
-
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:
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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)
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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]
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
You have already Admitted to playing games on this Forum.
Yes, I play games with passive aggressive dopes and enjoy embarrassing you.
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.
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)
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)
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?
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.
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"
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
-
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
-
: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.
-
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:
-
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?
-
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:
-
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:
-
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.
-
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:
-
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?
-
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:
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:
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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:
-
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
-
This is what they had to work with, looks easy doesn't it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/kg57H245/16mm-wiegman.jpg)
JohnM
-
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:
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
: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:
-
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
There's movement in the window in the Robert Hughes film.
“Movement”, LOL.
If “movement” = Oswald, then Oswald is all over the front steps.
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
One can only wonder what “Mytton” thinks they are speaking.
:D Thumb1:
-
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.
-
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
-
:D :D :D
Which side of the center railing is this lady standing on, Mr Mytton?
(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)
Thumb1:
-
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.
-
: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
-
:D :D :D
Which side of the center railing is this lady standing on, Mr Mytton?
(https://i.imgur.com/9KsY8uX.gif)
Thumb1:
deleted
-
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:
-
(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
-
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
-
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:
-
: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.
-
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
-
(~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
-
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
He's not claiming anything of the sort, Mr Storing (and where is Lovelady in Darnell?).
Storing's stupid!
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)
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
: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
-
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
-
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:
-
: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
-
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:
-
: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.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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
-
: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:
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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:
-
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!
, 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:
-
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?
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
-
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:
-
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:
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?
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?
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!
I have established Mr Oswald's alibi.
No you haven't
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
-
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:
-
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
-
: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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
: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
-
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”.
-
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.
-
: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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
-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
-
: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
-
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:
-
: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:
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?
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?
Checkmate, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
Unsupported claims is not "Checkmate", answer my above questions and we will see who is indeed "Checkmated"
JohnM
-
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:
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
-
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”.
-
: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.
-
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.
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!
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)
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)
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
-
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
-
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:
-
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?
-
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 (...)
In other words--------------and I know it kills you to have to admit it, Mr Mytton!---------------she's on the east side of the center railing in Wiegman:
(https://i.imgur.com/CMUFKaX.jpg)
So why does your Soopah-Doopah-3D-MyttonGIF have her well to the west of your Soopah-Doopah-MyttonDrawing of the center railing?
I'll tell you why, Mr Mytton----------because, in your scam artist zeal to stick Mr Lovelady farther west than he really is, ya goofed up! :D
-
So Oswald got in front of Lovelady, yet Lovelady said he never saw Oswald, go figure?
:D :D :D
Mr Oswald never got in front of Mr Lovelady, you silly sausage------------Mr Lovelady stepped down and was therefore no longer blocking any of Mr Oswald's head or upper body!
===================> more extensive blackening out required!
(https://i.imgur.com/VD7Xx96.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
This today, friends, from Mr Pat Speer-----------a researcher whose work I esteem very much!-------------over on the Education Forum:
I was in Dallas on the weekend of the anniversary, and found myself standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30. And I looked at the steps from the angle of Altgens. Well, it hit me then that the Lovelady figure in Altgens was standing in the middle of the steps, and not on the far west of the steps, as seems apparent from the photo.
Mr Speer took this photograph at 12:30pm on 11/22/19:
(https://i.imgur.com/jfJDv4D.jpg)
There is simply no physical way that this shadowline can be reconciled with the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film:
(https://i.imgur.com/CCbqc7z.jpg)
Like I've been telling you people, ain't no shadow on Lovelady!
Thumb1:
-
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
Yep-------but this one is not just "different from their view", it destroys everything they have been told (and have in turn been telling us) about the case.
Hence the pressure poor Mr Mytton has been under these last days... he hasn't held up very well, has he?
(https://i.imgur.com/stwdCLc.gif)
:D
-
This today, friends, from Mr Pat Speer-----------a researcher whose work I esteem very much!-------------over on the Education Forum:
I was in Dallas on the weekend of the anniversary, and found myself standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30. And I looked at the steps from the angle of Altgens. Well, it hit me then that the Lovelady figure in Altgens was standing in the middle of the steps, and not on the far west of the steps, as seems apparent from the photo.
Mr Speer took this photograph at 12:30pm on 11/22/19:
(https://i.imgur.com/jfJDv4D.jpg)
There is simply no physical way that this shadowline can be reconciled with the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film:
(https://i.imgur.com/CCbqc7z.jpg)
Like I've been telling you people, ain't no shadow on Lovelady!
Thumb1:
Beautiful work. Easy to quickly comprehend. The footage taken after the assassination on 11/22/63 showing people walking Up the steps and then onto the landing also clearly displays the shadow does Not even extend remotely close to the handrail.
-
Beautiful work. Easy to quickly comprehend. The footage taken after the assassination on 11/22/63 showing people walking Up the steps and then onto the landing also clearly displays the shadow does Not even extend remotely close to the handrail.
Yep! Thumb1:
Not that we didn't already know all this from the work of Messrs Hackerott & Stancak, not to mention from images like this taken after the tragedy, when the shadow took up more space than at 12.30pm:
(https://i.imgur.com/csG9Q3M.jpg)
Anyone who still thinks this is shadow from the west column down Mr Lovelady frankly needs their head examined...
(https://i.imgur.com/oflqTdI.gif)
Thumb1:
-
Yep! Thumb1:
Not that we didn't already know all this from the work of Messrs Hackerott & Stancak, not to mention from images like this taken after the tragedy, when the shadow took up more space than at 12.30pm:
(https://i.imgur.com/csG9Q3M.jpg)
Anyone who still thinks this is shadow from the west column down Mr Lovelady frankly needs their head examined...
(https://i.imgur.com/oflqTdI.gif)
Thumb1:
Yeah, I believe your previous work supported by that Speer Photo has put a stake into the heart of Mytton's Sea Sick Visual Aids. You Nailed him.
-
In other words--------------and I know it kills you to have to admit it, Mr Mytton!---------------she's on the east side of the center railing in Wiegman:
Even after I explain that the cutout of Lovelady included the lady in black, you still misrepresent my 3D graphic. And again you post my unfinished Altgens 6 graphic, which btw I have finished and posted. What a lowlife.
Since you have such a hard on for the lady in black not moving, I had a closer examination and ironically she is the solution.
The lady in black in both images appears on the same lower step, right next to the railing therefore her position can be triangulated with the permanent fixed geometry of the entrance.
If we had a clear view of the railing, the railing in front of the lady in black is solid and the hidden part behind the lady in black is a dotted line.
We know Lovelady is higher up and must be further behind.
The door frame must also be behind but even further back.
By focusing on the lady in black and rotating the scene around her, whatever is close behind will show little horizontal movement and as objects move away the horizontal distance increases. The door frame will show the greatest movement and anything in between will move less.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
JohnM
-
This today, friends, from Mr Pat Speer-----------a researcher whose work I esteem very much!-------------over on the Education Forum:
I was in Dallas on the weekend of the anniversary, and found myself standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30. And I looked at the steps from the angle of Altgens. Well, it hit me then that the Lovelady figure in Altgens was standing in the middle of the steps, and not on the far west of the steps, as seems apparent from the photo.
Mr Speer took this photograph at 12:30pm on 11/22/19:
(https://i.imgur.com/jfJDv4D.jpg)
There is simply no physical way that this shadowline can be reconciled with the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film:
(https://i.imgur.com/CCbqc7z.jpg)
Like I've been telling you people, ain't no shadow on Lovelady!
Thumb1:
JOHN - If YOU believe Lovelady was standing inside the shadow we see on the Speer Photo, say so. If Not, tip your cap to Ford and walk away. You're Done.
-
:D :D :D :D :D
Mr Mytton has surpassed himself, friends! His solution to the problem of Wiegman's lady in black appearing twice and on the wrong side of the center railing in his Soopah-Doopah-3D-GIF----------
(https://i.imgur.com/TxDNjQM.jpg)
is... (...please try to contain your mirth...) ... to erase her simultaneous double presence altogether in his New-Improved-Soopah-Doopah-3D-GIF!
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
That way he gets to do what he really wishes he'd done first time around-------------uncouple Mr Lovelady (whom he wants to move west) from that pesky lady (whom he now knows he can't)!
(https://i.imgur.com/jVGbjY7.jpg)
:D
And have you noticed how he has the poor woman impaled by his Soopah-Doopah-MyttonDrawing of the center railing?
Too, too funny, and from the same production team that brought you this 'proof' that Mr Lovelady is way over on the west side of the entranceway in Altgens!
(https://i.imgur.com/64pAEAj.gif)
:D
-
JOHN - If YOU believe Lovelady was standing inside the shadow we see on the Speer Photo, say so. If Not, tip your cap to Ford and walk away. You're Done.
Mr Mytton says he believes Mr Lovelady is several feet back on the landing. (No, really!) Of course he believes nothing of the sort, but he knows there's literally no other option left him if he is to continue prostituting his Soopah-Doopah-3D-Talents to the lost cause of Lone Nutterism.
Except-----back on the landing isn't even an option, because Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is catching no horizontal shadow! :D
Friends, I urge you to save Mr Mytton's Soopah-Doopah-3D-GIFS and to take screenshots of his posts here---------comedy like this doesn't come around but once in a blue moon! Thumb1:
-
:D :D :D :D :D
Mr Mytton has surpassed himself, friends! His solution to the problem of Wiegman's lady in black appearing twice and on the wrong side of the center railing in his Soopah-Doopah-3D-GIF----------
(https://i.imgur.com/TxDNjQM.jpg)
is... (...please try to contain your mirth...) ... to erase her simultaneous double presence altogether in his New-Improved-Soopah-Doopah-3D-GIF!
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
That way he gets to do what he really wishes he'd done first time around-------------uncouple Mr Lovelady from that pesky lady! :D
And have you noticed how he has the poor woman impaled by his Soopah-Doopah-MyttonDrawing of the center railing?
Too, too funny, and from the same production team that brought you this 'proof' that Mr Lovelady is way over on the west side of the entranceway in Altgens!
(https://i.imgur.com/64pAEAj.gif)
:D
That's why I questioned him earlier regarding his squiggly handrail Not reaching the landing. He knew he could Not extend that thing all the way Up to the landing without Shish Kabobing several individuals standing on The Steps. All of this chicanery being due to his Incorrect positioning of Lovelady. You have exposed Mytton and his intentionally misleading visual aids. He's Toast
-
JOHN - If YOU believe Lovelady was standing inside the shadow we see on the Speer Photo, say so. If Not, tip your cap to Ford and walk away. You're Done.
AWESOME, thanks Pat Speer's he's proven all Ford's 3D graphics and self serving guesses were way off and the shadow hits the back doorway a little less than halfway and funnily enough the railing was forward of halfway, thanks Royell, you're too stoopid to know why, but you've made my day, I bet Ford will be real pissed now! Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMXHnGv1/stupid-royell.jpg)
JohnM
-
Mr Mytton says he believes Mr Lovelady is several feet back on the landing. (No, really!) Of course he believes nothing of the sort, but he knows there's literally no other option left him if he is to continue prostituting his Soopah-Doopah-3D-Talents to the lost cause of Lone Nutterism.
Except-----back on the landing isn't even an option, because Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is catching no horizontal shadow! :D
Friends, I urge you to save Mr Mytton's Soopah-Doopah-3D-GIFS and to take screenshots of his posts here---------comedy like this doesn't come around but once in a blue moon! Thumb1:
The Speer photo taken at 12:30 on 11/22/19 was your coup de grace. That photo cooked his goose. His scrawled handrail shenanigans really look Bogus when compared to the Speer Photo.
-
It's all over boys, time to get a life.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
JohnM
-
That's why I questioned him earlier regarding his squiggly handrail Not reaching the landing. He knew he could Not extend that thing all the way Up to the landing without Shish Kabobing several individuals standing on The Steps. All of this chicanery being due to his Incorrect positioning of Lovelady. You have exposed Mytton and his intentionally misleading visual aids. He's Toast
Indeed he is, Mr Storing! Thumb1:
The pathetic thing (amidst all the good healthy hearty hilarity) is that Mr Mytton knows this stuff he's peddling is total BS: His goal is not establishing facts but serving a lie by fooling folks.
-
It's all over boys, time to get a life.
Well said, Mr Mytton------------one just hopes your fellow Lone Nutters listen! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/zRKVXVj.jpg)
-
Well said, Mr Mytton------------one just hopes your fellow Lone Nutters listen! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/zRKVXVj.jpg)
Thumb1:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQBD97-1JgQCPcdSBj4A_vSqIZeR_D6dT56sYDQ6F6i1WTVaQ8f)
JohnM
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQBD97-1JgQCPcdSBj4A_vSqIZeR_D6dT56sYDQ6F6i1WTVaQ8f)
A moving testimony to how you're feeling right now, Mr Mytton. Thank you for sharing with the group! Thumb1:
-
Well said, Mr Mytton
No worries, Pat Speer's photo and the following GIF are the final nail in this ridiculous theory. YOU LOSE!
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMXHnGv1/stupid-royell.jpg)
JohnM
-
No worries, Pat Speer's photo and the following GIF are the final nail in this ridiculous theory. YOU LOSE!
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMXHnGv1/stupid-royell.jpg)
JohnM
:D :D :D
You keep telling us you've just delivered the final blow, Mr Mytton, only to have to go back humiliatingly to square one again each and every time!
No different here, I'm afraid!
Try so desperately as you might, you can't get Mr Lovelady in Wiegman anywhere close to the shadow line on the steps, and you can't get him right back on the landing:
(https://i.imgur.com/vEvEz4O.gif)
When Mr Lovelady is at higher elevation, he's in front of the man half of whose face is catching horizontal shadow:
(https://i.imgur.com/7jxv82G.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/TYLuHxq.gif)
And when he's at lower elevation, things are even worse for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/IwPwHDz.jpg)
This is why you were reduced to the truly desperate resort of suggesting that this----------
(https://i.imgur.com/vEvEz4O.gif)
----------shows Mr Lovelady bending forward to tie his shoelaces! :D
-
:D :D :D
You keep telling us you've just delivered the final blow, Mr Mytton!
Everyone of my graphics always has the same result and therefore each can be defined as "the final blow", I canna change the laws of physics, sorry about that.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
And a BIG thank you to Pat Speers. OUCH!
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMXHnGv1/stupid-royell.jpg)
JohnM
-
----------shows Mr Lovelady bending forward to tie his shoelaces! :D
What I said and the graphic I posted:
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
-
Everyone of my graphics always has the same result and therefore each can be defined as "the final blow", I canna change the laws of physics, sorry about that.
But changing the laws of physics is precisely what every one of your GIFS tries to do! :D
And a BIG thank you to Pat Speers. OUCH!
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMXHnGv1/stupid-royell.jpg)
JohnM
Question for you, Mr Mytton!
Has the front doorway of the Depository building changed in any way since 1963?
Thumb1:
-
And have you noticed how he has the poor woman impaled by his Soopah-Doopah-MyttonDrawing of the center railing?
Sorry Alan, but you posted this first and I just copied you, did I do something wrong? -giggle-
(https://i.postimg.cc/1t6GmGMG/alan-fforfail.jpg)
Btw you're not very good at this!
JohnM
-
But changing the laws of physics is precisely what every one of your GIFS tries to do! :D
Question for you, Mr Mytton!
Has the front doorway of the Depository building changed in any way since 1963?
Thumb1:
But changing the laws of physics is precisely what every one of your GIFS tries to do! :D
What, based on what you "think" you see? Get outta here!
Has the front doorway of the Depository building changed in any way since 1963?
Are you for real, you post a photo with a different door from 1963 and I post a photo with a different door from 1963?
JohnM
-
And if Mr Lovelady is leaning and/or on tiptoe before stepping down? Thumb1:
On tiptoe!?? Fkn Hilarious, what a brilliant comedian!
Like I said, you suck at this!
JohnM
-
What, based on what you "think" you see? Get outta here!
Are you for real, you post a photo with a different door from 1963 and I post a photo with a different door from 1963?
JohnM
(~Snicker as panic creeps into Mr Mytton's voice~)
Is the current doorway at the same depth as the doorway in 1963?
Thumb1:
-
On tiptoe!?? Fkn Hilarious, what a brilliant comedian!
Like I said, you suck at this!
JohnM
Temper, Mr Mytton! :D
Why, pray, can Mr Lovelady not be on tiptoe?
Why can he not be leaning?
Thumb1:
-
Temper, Mr Mytton! :D
Why, pray, can Mr Lovelady not be on tiptoe?
Why can he not be leaning?
Thumb1:
Temper, Mr Mytton!
I'm too busy laughing at you to even remotely have a Temper.
Why, pray, can Mr Lovelady not be on tiptoe?
Whatever it takes, eh Alan?
Why can he not be leaning?
Well duh, I proved he leaned forward, pay attention.
JohnM
-
There is simply no "physical" way that this shadowline can be reconciled with the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film:
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what amounts to the total of Ford's proof, a claim of what he thinks he sees, but where is the "physical" evidence to support this claim?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so far the only evidence has been from me!
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
JohnM
-
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what amounts to the total of Ford's proof, a claim of what he thinks he sees, but where is the "physical" evidence to support this claim?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so far the only evidence has been from me!
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
JohnM
(~Snicker~)
And the depth of the doorway in 1963 vs today, Mr Mytton?
Remember, this is what you posted in a rush of Lone Nutter euphoria:
(https://i.imgur.com/vOfJ4Y3.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
(~Snicker~)
And the depth of the doorway in 1963 vs today, Mr Mytton?
Remember, this is what you posted in a rush of Lone Nutter euphoria:
(https://i.imgur.com/vOfJ4Y3.jpg)
Thumb1:
Since you're obviously a novice and didn't even know they changed the front doors, Doh!
It's a little deeper today than in 1963 but not enough to make a significant difference to my graphic.
JohnM
-
Since you're obviously a novice and didn't even know they changed the front doors, Doh!
It's a little deeper today than in 1963 but not enough to make a significant difference to my graphic.
JohnM
It's "a little deeper", is it, Mr Mytton? :D :D :D
Suggestion for you! Why don't you go away and actually find out how much deeper it actually is, then come back to us with a Soopah-Doopah-3D-GIF proving it makes no significant difference to your graphic?
(https://i.imgur.com/vOfJ4Y3.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
115 pages? Can somebody give me the Reader's Digest version of this thread?
-
It's "a little deeper", is it, Mr Mytton? :D :D :D
Enough of the diversions, I'm not going to do your research.
Because of the extreme angle of your "required" shadow, unless the landing is now 20 feet deeper there isn't going to be much of a change. Here I drastically reduced the depth of the landing and the shadow line is still near the center.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZqfS0Pm0/tsbd-lobbya.jpg)
The real issue is you have no answer for this GIF that rotates around the woman in black and shows Lovelady cannot exist in the physical space near the railing, Einstein wins every time, you've been out of your depth as soon as you had to think up fantasies to cover each facet of this increasingly insane theory. But no worries, I enjoy beating up on Bullies!
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
JohnM
-
115 pages? Can somebody give me the Reader's Digest version of this thread?
Hi Tim, good to see you posting. Alan says that the shadow on Lovelady in Wiegman is hiding Oswald who was behind?, but for some reason he found Oswald's head behind Lovelady's head but "they" didn't bother painting that out? Whew! Yes, it makes no sense, it's classic circular logic, he's got a conclusion but he's busy trying to invent fantasies to support the ever increasing complexities.
This theory boils down to, Alan thinks the shadow on Lovelady is a fake and about a dozen frames of the shakiest jerky footage with extreme motion blur showed Oswald on the TSBD landing, so they just tracked these images and painted in a mathematically accurate shadow in less than 7 hours, this process requires processing, drying, resizing, drying, painting, the perfect shade of "black", drying, converting to ntsc, etc. Just the time to work out the shadows would alone take days, and in comparison Cinques Altgens 6 allegation pales into nothingness compared to the logistical nightmare of this theory.
In Wiegman's footage the frames amounting to about half a second could be easily excised and nobody would know the difference but instead they achieved the impossible for no added value, go figure.
I posted a video that came from the archives that shows the shadow early that night on the 22nd but surprise surprise, that was the fake version.
The only proof given by Alan to support this "theory" is that he thinks he sees Lovelady standing in a particular position but completely fails to account for the compressed perspective and has in not in the slightest supported these increasingly Kooky ideas.
At the end of the day all my graphics came to the same conclusion but the following GIF is rotating around the "lady in black" who's on the lower steps and Lovelady who is behind rotates less than the doorway which is further back.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
JohnM
-
AWESOME, thanks Pat Speer's he's proven all Ford's 3D graphics and self serving guesses were way off and the shadow hits the back doorway a little less than halfway and funnily enough the railing was forward of halfway, thanks Royell, you're too stoopid to know why, but you've made my day, I bet Ford will be real pissed now! Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMXHnGv1/stupid-royell.jpg)
JohnM
JOHN - You should have just walked away. Based on YOUR positioning Lovelady standing atop the landing/on the Extreme West Edge of the front door, Lovelady should be Completely Engulfed by the shadow. Just reference the Speer Photo & Frazier.
-
Just reference the Speer Photo & Frazier.
Translation: "Sorry but I'm so bloody useless, you'll have to go find the evidence of my claim and then you have to prove that my dumbass observation are wrong, rinse, wash, repeat, ad nauseam!
If you can't play the game then you shouldn't be playing, just saying.
JohnM
-
Translation: "Sorry but I'm so bloody useless, you'll have to go find the evidence of my claim and then you have to prove that my dumbass observation are wrong, rinse, wash, repeat, ad nauseam!
If you can't play the game then you shouldn't be playing, just saying.
JohnM
Like usual, you get caught and then are forced to play games. Based on YOUR Positioning of Lovelady, he should be Completely standing in shadow. If Lovelady is standing atop the landing and in front of the West Edge of the front door frame = Nothing but shadow on this portion of the landing. Your Mickey Mouse Handrail makes Your positioning of Lovelady even more obvious. You boned it.
-
Like usual, you get caught and then are forced to play games. Based on YOUR Positioning of Lovelady, he should be Completely standing in shadow. If Lovelady is standing atop the landing and in front of the West Edge of the front door frame = Nothing but shadow on this portion of the landing. Your Mickey Mouse Handrail makes Your positioning of Lovelady even more obvious. You boned it.
Sorry ROYELL, but I have no idea what you are babbling about, because when we talk graphics we need to show graphics and you're not in the game.
Get an Education then get back to us, K?
JohnM
-
Hi Tim, good to see you posting. Alan says that the shadow on Lovelady in Wiegman is hiding Oswald who was behind?, but for some reason he found Oswald's head behind Lovelady's head but "they" didn't bother painting that out? Whew! Yes, it makes no sense, it's classic circular logic, he's got a conclusion but he's busy trying to invent fantasies to support the ever increasing complexities.
This theory boils down to, Alan thinks the shadow on Lovelady is a fake and about a dozen frames of the shakiest jerky footage with extreme motion blur showed Oswald on the TSBD landing, so they just tracked these images and painted in a mathematically accurate shadow in less than 7 hours, this process requires processing, drying, resizing, drying, painting, the perfect shade of "black", drying, converting to ntsc, etc. Just the time to work out the shadows would alone take days, and in comparison Cinques Altgens 6 allegation pales into nothingness compared to the logistical nightmare of this theory.
In Wiegman's footage the frames amounting to about half a second could be easily excised and nobody would know the difference but instead they achieved the impossible for no added value, go figure.
I posted a video that came from the archives that shows the shadow early that night on the 22nd but surprise surprise, that was the fake version.
The only proof given by Alan to support this "theory" is that he thinks he sees Lovelady standing in a particular position but completely fails to account for the compressed perspective and has in not in the slightest supported these increasingly Kooky ideas.
At the end of the day all my graphics came to the same conclusion but the following GIF is rotating around the "lady in black" who's on the lower steps and Lovelady who is behind rotates less than the doorway which is further back.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5tS11kG/lovelady-landing-arrow.gif)
JohnM
Thanks for the summation John. I've seen your graphics on this. My eye for photographic analysis is abysmal. As is my understanding of it. I'm not in a minority though. Alan means well, I'm sure. But he's way out of his league on this. I'm reminded of the lengthy thread here on "Will Fritz standing on the paper sack". There were a few who were adamant that the photo showed Fritz standing right where the paper bag was reported to have been found. They honestly believed it because they didn't know any better. It's understandable. However, you were eventually able to get through to them. Through repetitive explanation and patience.
-
Thanks for the summation John. I've seen your graphics on this. My eye for photographic analysis is abysmal. As is my understanding of it. I'm not in a minority though. Alan means well, I'm sure. But he's way out of his league on this. I'm reminded of the lengthy thread here on "Will Fritz standing on the paper sack". There were a few who were adamant that the photo showed Fritz standing right where the paper bag was reported to have been found. They honestly believed it because they didn't know any better. It's understandable. However, you were eventually able to get through to them. Through repetitive explanation and patience.
I forgot about the Fritz standing on the bag thread, but the difference is those CTs wanted to learn whereas Ford and Storing think they're instant experts but unfortunately they havn't done the miles to know any difference, I do feel sorry for them..
JohnM
-
115 pages? Can somebody give me the Reader's Digest version of this thread?
Happy to, Mr Nickerson!
Mr Lee Harvey Oswald was standing just behind Mr Billy Lovelady at the time of the assassination:
(https://i.imgur.com/CIYJB53.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Enough of the diversions, I'm not going to do your research.
:D :D :D
Oh but I did my research, Mr Mytton---------you, on the other hand, goofed up big-time again! Thumb1:
Because of the extreme angle of your "required" shadow, unless the landing is now 20 feet deeper there isn't going to be much of a change. Here I drastically reduced the depth of the landing and the shadow line is still near the center.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZqfS0Pm0/tsbd-lobbya.jpg)
There are not enough laughter emojis in the world to do justice to the hilarity of this latest Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Misrepresentation!
Shall we give Mr Mytton a chance to edit out this 'unfinished graphic', friends? I mean, even his Lone Nutter pals must be looking at this one through their fingers!
The real issue is
Funny how this had suddenly become "the real issue" until you realised your gaffe! You poor man, you thought you actually had something there! :D
According to you, Mr Mytton, it proved all my claims wrong...
(https://i.imgur.com/igLYlh7.jpg)
Now, friends, look at the door and the shadow here in Mr Speer's photograph:
(https://i.imgur.com/ma2N4YH.jpg)
Imagine the door coming closer to the camera as the landing shrinks in depth. What do you get?
Well, two things:
1. Mr Mytton with yet more egg on his face as he realizes that Mr Speer's photograph indeed bears out Messrs Stancak and Hackerott's placement of the shadow line! Thumb1:
2. Mr. Mytton scrambling---------as predicted----------to create yet another shamelessly misleading visual (right image) to salvage the situation! Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZqfS0Pm0/tsbd-lobbya.jpg)
Poor Mr Mytton-------------a one-trick magician whose one trick has been exposed to all and sundry! :D
-
Thanks for the summation John. I've seen your graphics on this. My eye for photographic analysis is abysmal. As is my understanding of it. I'm not in a minority though.
:D
Mr Nickerson, is this your way of saying "I want to show solidarity with my fellow Lone Nutter here but please don't ask me to play because I know I'll end up incinerated like him"?
-
Looks a bit different when the handrail is (roughly) photoshopped out of the photo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/r0snGF1K/TSBDsteps1230112319-thumb-JPG-324bf8fcaae4696c372a17b3157f9186.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/r0snGF1K)
-
(~Snippety snip-snip!~) painted in a mathematically accurate shadow in less than 7 hours (~Snippety snip-snip!~)
Where are you getting 7 hours from, Mr Mytton?
Thumb1:
-
Looks a bit different when the handrail is (roughly) photoshopped out of the photo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/r0snGF1K/TSBDsteps1230112319-thumb-JPG-324bf8fcaae4696c372a17b3157f9186.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/r0snGF1K)
That's because you've increased the shadow cover, Mr Mitcham.
Try just erasing the handrail shadow and leaving the rest alone! Thumb1:
-
That's because you've increased the shadow cover, Mr Mitcham.
Try just erasing the handrail shadow and leaving the rest alone! Thumb1:
Of course I've increased the shadow cover. I removed the wide handrail on the side wall. Doh!!!!
-
Of course I've increased the shadow cover. I removed the wide handrail on the side wall. Doh!!!!
Why would removing the wide handrail increase the shadow cover? ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/ma2N4YH.jpg)
-
See how much space the rail takes up in this photo.
http://www.biagioprivitera.it/images/JFK/2003-10-06%20Dallas36.JPG
-
See how much space the rail takes up in this photo.
http://www.biagioprivitera.it/images/JFK/2003-10-06%20Dallas36.JPG
Different rail ::)
And why would removing any rail increase the amount of shadow on the steps and landing?
-
Why would removing the wide handrail increase the shadow cover? ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/ma2N4YH.jpg)
By removing the side rail, it increases the amount of space available for somebody standing in the shadow.
-
By removing the side rail, it increases the amount of space available for somebody standing in the shadow.
Removing the side rail does not increase the amount of shadow on the steps and landing. Yet that's what your altered version of Mr Speer's photograph does. You need to fix it! Thumb1:
-
Removing the side rail does not increase the amount of shadow on the steps and landing. Yet that's what your altered version of Mr Speer's photograph does. You need to fix it! Thumb1:
It increases the amount of shadow available to stand in. Thumb1:
-
Different rail ::)
"And why would removing any rail increase the amount of shadow on the steps and landing?
"different rail" Yes, and the present rail is even wider than the one shown in the link.
""And why would removing any rail increase the amount of shadow on the steps and landing?"
Read my last post again, Alan. I said it increases the amount of space, in the shadow, available for somebody to stand in. It isn't very hard to understand.
-
"different rail" Yes, and the present rail is even wider than the one shown in the link.
""And why would removing any rail increase the amount of shadow on the steps and landing?"
Read my last post again, Alan. I said it increases the amount of space, in the shadow, available for somebody to stand in. It isn't very hard to understand.
Good on ya Ray, but Ford ain't so bright and it's not easy to explain the simplest of concepts but at least he's got a good imagination.
JohnM
-
Imagine the door coming closer to the camera as blah blah blah
And thats it folks, Alan's only way to explain any problem is to have a good imagination. Geez, an expert in his own mind.
I have already acknowledged that the landing was a bit deeper(from memory a couple of feet) in 2019 but as I showed the tight angle across a longer distance only adds a little to the shadow and adds nothing to this discussion because Lovelady was standing on the steps 56 years ago in 1963. Doh!
Btw not since the days of Cinque have I seen LNers and CTs standing together to oppose such a scatter brain theory.
JohnM
-
Happy to, Mr Nickerson!
Mr Lee Harvey Oswald was standing just behind Mr Billy Lovelady at the time of the assassination:
(https://i.imgur.com/CIYJB53.jpg)
Thumb1:
Hilarious, they painted a shadow onto Lovelady to hide Oswald but "they" missed the growth coming out of the side of Lovelady's head? WOW.
But considering "they" did all this acquiring, developing, transferring, painting, drying, telecining all in a single afternoon, then missing that huge growth must have been part of the plan, now all we have to do is wait for Ford's wonderful imagination to help us fill in tbe gaps, waiting......
Btw the very foundation of this theory is painting "black" onto celluloid, has Ford actually consulted with any film specialists to establish the feasibility of acclomplishimg this monumental task without detection?
JohnM
-
Thanks for the summation John. I've seen your graphics on this. My eye for photographic analysis is abysmal. As is my understanding of it. I'm not in a minority though. Alan means well, I'm sure. But he's way out of his league on this. I'm reminded of the lengthy thread here on "Will Fritz standing on the paper sack". There were a few who were adamant that the photo showed Fritz standing right where the paper bag was reported to have been found. They honestly believed it because they didn't know any better. It's understandable. However, you were eventually able to get through to them. Through repetitive explanation and patience.
TIM- Just look at where John has Lovelady standing in relation to the (L) West side of the front door casing. He has Lovelady standing directly in front of the West Side door casing. Then look at the Speer photo showing the shadow cast across the landing onto that same door casing. There is No Way Lovelady can be standing in this position and Not be engulfed by that shadow. The Mickey Mouse handrail that John threw onto his visual aid only makes his positioning of Lovelady more atrociously obvious. Plain and Simple, for what we are seeing on Lovelady to be an alleged shadow, John needs to move the physical position of Lovelady.
-
TIM- Just look at where John has Lovelady standing in relation to the (L) West side of the front door casing. He has Lovelady standing directly in front of the West Side door casing. Then look at the Speer photo showing the shadow cast across the landing onto that same door casing. There is No Way Lovelady can be standing in this position and Not be engulfed by that shadow. The Mickey Mouse handrail that John threw onto his visual aid only makes his positioning of Lovelady more atrociously obvious. Plain and Simple, for what we are seeing on Lovelady to be an alleged shadow, John needs to move the physical position of Lovelady.
Well Royell, you got one thing right, there is an awful lot of shadow up there. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Well Royell, you got one thing right, there is an awful lot of shadow up there. Thumb1:
JohnM
Agree. And based on where YOU have place Lovelady, he would be COMPLETELY Engulfed by that shadow. The possibility of the Landing being less deep on 11/22/63 makes Your Shadow Problem even greater.
-
Agree.
Thanks, maybe you can convince Ford because his entire theory revolves around a tiny sliver of shadow whereas as you have said, the exact opposite was true.
Btw the landing was smaller in 1963.
JohnM
-
Thanks, maybe you can convince Ford because his entire theory revolves around a tiny sliver of shadow whereas as you have said, the exact opposite was true.
Btw the landing was smaller in 1963.
JohnM
My disagreement with You is, (1) Where you have Lovelady positioned on the Landing relative to the (W) front door casing, and (2) Where you have Lovelady positioned relative to that Mickey Mouse Handrail you scrawled onto the pic. Looking at 11/22/63 footage of individuals walking up the steps and then Straight into the TSBD front door, those individuals are quickly engulfed by shadow as they move across the landing. Regarding a "sliver" shadow, I will say what we see stretching across the side of Lovelady is Not a sliver. It is Not angled. This is why I reference it as a Curtain. Straight as a string. I have heard that back in "63" the landing was 4 feet deep. I have Not verified this. The shallower the Landing the More shadow there is on that landing which further defeats your position of Lovelady and his being only HALF covered by an alleged shadow.
-
"different rail" Yes, and the present rail is even wider than the one shown in the link.
""And why would removing any rail increase the amount of shadow on the steps and landing?"
Read my last post again, Alan. I said it increases the amount of space, in the shadow, available for somebody to stand in. It isn't very hard to understand.
(~Sigh~) Your altered version of Mr Speer's photograph, Mr Mitcham, added fake shadow to the real shadow, because you need some makey-uppey shadow to make your placement of Mr Lovelady way over towards the west wall a little less ridiculous.
That clear enough for you?
Thumb1:
-
And thats it folks, Alan's only way to explain any problem is to have a good imagination. Geez, an expert in his own mind.
I have already acknowledged that the landing was a bit deeper(from memory a couple of feet) in 2019 but as I showed the tight angle across a longer distance only adds a little to the shadow and adds nothing to this discussion because Lovelady was standing on the steps 56 years ago in 1963. Doh!
Btw not since the days of Cinque have I seen LNers and CTs standing together to oppose such a scatter brain theory.
JohnM
:D :D :D
I'm going to post what you originally posted, Mr Mytton, lest you disappear it on the ground that it was an 'unfinished post'!
(https://i.imgur.com/VCoyqvo.jpg)
Why did you post this, Mr Mytton? Because you confused the current landing depth with the 1963 landing depth! :D
Now! Here's your latest Soopah-Doopah-Scam-Visual:
(https://i.imgur.com/baXL9nA.jpg)
Compare where you've put the rightmost vertical line here in your right image to where you put it in your original version. Why, you've barely moved it! You don't want folks to see the magnitude of your latest gaffe! :D
The visual on the left, of course, shows where an honest placement of the rightmost vertical line in the left image should be. But we won't hold our breath!
All we can do is catalogue where this exchange has left us:
a) Messrs Hackerott and Stancak were right about the shadow line! Thumb1:
b) Mr Mytton goofed up big-time by taking today's landing depth for the 1963 landing depth! Thumb1:
c) Mr Mytton's latest attempt to get Mr Lovelady into natural vertical shadow has ended in Soopah-Doopah-Failure! Thumb1:
-
Hilarious, they painted a shadow onto Lovelady to hide Oswald but "they" missed the growth coming out of the side of Lovelady's head? WOW.
But considering "they" did all this acquiring, developing, transferring, painting, drying, telecining all in a single afternoon,
Where are you getting this "all in a single afternoon" time constraint from, Mr Mytton? Your 1988 NBC broadcast? :D
-
Thanks, maybe you can convince Ford because his entire theory revolves around a tiny sliver of shadow whereas as you have said, the exact opposite was true.
Btw the landing was smaller in 1963.
JohnM
"a tiny sliver of shadow", lol
(https://i.imgur.com/9zb671t.jpg)
-
I'm going to post what you originally posted.... blah blah blah.
No worries, I have already stated on numerous occasions that the landing is deeper today and if there is a huge difference where the sun plane hit's the door then prove it, but remember your usual proof of "it just looks right to me" is not very scientific and won't be accepted?
And btw this is the perfect opportunity for you to earn some credibility and prove that your 3D shadow models that we have been using actually match Speer's shadow line, surely a simple comparison isn't beyond your abilities?
JohnM
-
My disagreement with You is,........
If you want to engage me in conversation don't start with a negative followed by another list of stupid advice/observations, because that's when I stop reading.
JohnM
-
No worries, I have already stated on numerous occasions that the landing is deeper today and if there is a huge difference where the sun plane hit's the door then prove it, but remember your usual proof of "it just looks right to me" is not very scientific and won't be accepted?
And btw this is the perfect opportunity for you to earn some credibility and prove that your 3D shadow models that we have been using actually match Speer's shadow line, surely a simple comparison isn't beyond your abilities?
JohnM
We were discussing the TSBD Landing on another thread. It was posted that the landing was 4 feet deep and that the TSBD front door was 4 feet wide. Again, I have Not verified these dimensions. That said, the lack of depth that the landing had in 1963 also Limits the number of people that could stand atop it single file back toward the TSBD. If it is Only 4 feet deep, and you have a door that Opens onto the landing that is 4 feet wide, there can Not be a lot of people situated on that Landing.
-
If you want to engage me in conversation don't start with a negative followed by another list of stupid advice/observations, because that's when I stop reading.
JohnM
Of course You "stop reading". This is your equivalent of a 5 year old kid putting his fingers in his ears so he will Not hear Daddy correcting him. Consider yourself corrected Jr.
-
"a tiny sliver of shadow", lol
(https://i.imgur.com/9zb671t.jpg)
Thanks for the higher res graphic.
1, The shadow is not Jet Black.
2. The shadow line is not a curtain.
3. The shadow naturally follows Lovelady's shirt.
4. The detail and associated highlighting in the entire shadow is consistent with Lovelady's shadow.
5. The level of artistry on display in the photo realistic Lovelady shadow is really a sight to behold and to think they did this not once but a dozen times with jerky, motion blurred, hand held film? Far out man, far out!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1thL5C9h/lovelady-landing-pp.jpg)
JohnM
-
Of course You "stop reading".
Yes, and again I stopped reading after the initial few words, don't take it too hard but your opinion really is worthless.
JohnM
-
(~Sigh~) Your altered version of Mr Speer's photograph, Mr Mitcham, added fake shadow to the real shadow, because you need some makey-uppey shadow to make your placement of Mr Lovelady way over towards the west wall a little less ridiculous.
That clear enough for you?
Thumb1:
The right hand line of the shadow exactly follows the right hand line in the original photo.
Please point out where I added fake shadow ..outside (i.e to the right of) the line of the shadow of the west Column.
P.U.O.S U
-
James H,
What is the distance from the west wall to where the shadow intersects the landing?
Thank you,
Chris
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49170635536_1dbd8df083_o.png)
-
Thanks for the higher res graphic.
1, The shadow is not Jet Black.
2. The shadow line is not a curtain.
3. The shadow naturally follows Lovelady's shirt.
4. The detail and associated highlighting in the entire shadow is consistent with Lovelady's shadow.
5. The level of artistry on display in the photo realistic Lovelady shadow is really a sight to behold and to think they did this not once but a dozen times with jerky, motion blurred, hand held film? Far out man, far out!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1thL5C9h/lovelady-landing-pp.jpg)
JohnM
(1) You claim we are Not seeing a Curtain, and then manage to enclose it inside a Box. Thank you. (2) You claim the Curtain is Not Jet Black. What in that pic is darker than this Jet Black Curtain? Thanks again.
-
Happy to, Mr Nickerson!
Mr Lee Harvey Oswald was standing just behind Mr Billy Lovelady at the time of the assassination:
(https://i.imgur.com/CIYJB53.jpg)
Thumb1:
WOW! There he is. Our man Oswald. Smirk and all. You da man Al. Thumb1:
-
No worries, I have already stated on numerous occasions that the landing is deeper today
:D :D :D
Here's what actually happened, Mr Mytton. It's a real hoot!
1. I posted this photo from Mr Pat Speer:
(https://i.imgur.com/K9lyZbh.jpg)
2. You, rubbing your hands in glee as you saw the shadow reaching almost the perfect midpoint of the doorway, posted this claim that all my claims were refuted by what you had noticed:
(https://i.imgur.com/Jj6kBrx.jpg)
3. I gently pointed out to you that the landing depth today is different to the landing depth in 1963, and you came back with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8sggNsS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JMpXgNB.jpg)
So the landing was "a little deeper", "a bit deeper (from memory a couple of feet) in 2019", was it?
Let's look at the facts, shall we? Thumb1:
Depth of landing in 1963: less than 4 feet
(https://i.imgur.com/f7kMn6C.jpg)
(Credit: Mr Gary Murr! Thumb1: )
Depth of landing now: 9 feet.
(https://i.imgur.com/TRoH8OJ.jpg)
The landing has been extended to well over twice its original depth!
This is what you call "a little deeper"!
Keep up the good work, Mr Mytton! :D
-
The right hand line of the shadow exactly follows the right hand line in the original photo.
Please point out where I added fake shadow ..outside (i.e to the right of) the line of the shadow of the west Column.
P.U.O.S U
Kindly stop with this nonsense, Mr Mitcham!
(https://i.imgur.com/XxDiS56.gif)
-
Thanks for the higher res graphic.
1, The shadow is not Jet Black.
2. The shadow line is not a curtain.
3. The shadow naturally follows Lovelady's shirt.
4. The detail and associated highlighting in the entire shadow is consistent with Lovelady's shadow.
5. The level of artistry on display in the photo realistic Lovelady shadow is really a sight to behold and to think they did this not once but a dozen times with jerky, motion blurred, hand held film? Far out man, far out!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1thL5C9h/lovelady-landing-pp.jpg)
JohnM
:D
The scam was to make people think this was a natural shadow. But it can't be a natural shadow, because there ain't no shadow there. Each and every one of your increasingly frantic attempts to place Mr Lovelady somewhere the natural shadow line actually was, Mr Mytton, has come an absolute cropper. Sorry! Thumb1:
-
Now!
It has been claimed that, if the Wiegman film was doctored to put Mr Lovelady in 'shadow', then the timeline for this would have been impossibly tight. The only evidence put forward for this claim has been an NBC TV broadcast from 1988 which purported to show the 'original' footage from Wiegman that went out to the American public on the afternoon of the assassination! :D
Here's what the late Mr Gary Mack told Mr Darren Hastings in March 2015 (emphases added):
NBC owns the original Wiegman film but when producers of JFK: Death in Dealey Plaza asked them for it 12 years ago (at my request), NBC could only locate a 1960s-era video tape of it. We wound up using, I think, a 1963/1964 theatrical newsreel version held by UCLA.
NBC took the original Wiegman and Darnell films from the Dallas NBC affiliate to New York following the assassination weekend.
So much for 'they only had a couple of hours to do this'! Thumb1:
-
WOW! There he is. Our man Oswald. Smirk and all. You da man Al. Thumb1:
Do let us know if you wish to offer anything substantial by way of challenging this exoneration of Mr Oswald, Mr Nickerson. So far your pal Mr Mytton has gotten absolutely nowhere! Thumb1:
-
Hilarious, they painted a shadow onto Lovelady to hide Oswald but "they" missed the growth coming out of the side of Lovelady's head? WOW.
But considering "they" did all this acquiring, developing, transferring, painting, drying, telecining all in a single afternoon, then missing that huge growth must have been part of the plan, now all we have to do is wait for Ford's wonderful imagination to help us fill in tbe gaps, waiting......
Btw the very foundation of this theory is painting "black" onto celluloid, has Ford actually consulted with any film specialists to establish the feasibility of acclomplishimg this monumental task without detection?
JohnM
I bet you wear fruity fashion glasses, right?
You should throw them away, skip having your eyes checked but make sure you talk to a neurologist.
Etch a Sketch may be what you need instead of glasses.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/TRoH8OJ.jpg)
Thanks for the photo. I was wrong and am happy to be corrected, it doesn't mean that my sun plane physics were wrong just not right for 1963, but it pales into insignificance to the following "Theory Destroying GIF".
While calculating the position of the center railing I realized that from all the front angles of the TSBD I could find, that the top post of the railing when extended meets the light above virtually dead center.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FzWPx77r/center-rail-under-light.jpg)
Now when the perspective above is applied to my super duper GIF, by dropping a plumb line from the center of the lamp we see that the railings positions are accurate but my original lengths were both a bit too long so I "painted them out" and even digitally it ain't easy to paint stuff out. Anyway we see that where the railing finishes is behind "the lady in black" and Oswald is off under the shadow.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MTb3nzRD/love-entrance-shadow3.gif)
JohnM
-
James H,
What is the distance from the west wall to where the shadow intersects the landing?
Thank you,
Chris
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49170635536_1dbd8df083_o.png)
Chris,
It looks like that distance is about 38” 29" from the wall. The renderings use a rule with 3” sections. I took a number of photos and measures of the doorway structures while in Dallas about 6 weeks ago. So, I may need to make some slight adjustments in the future. Tho Darnell overhead rendering in your post is not mine, but Andre Stancak's.
I also took photos of the doorway that may be of some help or interest in the future. All of those photos were taken while Daylight Savings Time was still in effect.
I hope this helps you.
(https://i.imgur.com/m6vu42s.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XYNehWF.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Dw1iNCK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yYHbMfO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/p9WZnsS.png)
-
Thanks for the photo. I was wrong and am happy to be corrected, it doesn't mean that my sun plane physics were wrong just not right for 1963,
Thumb1: + :D
but it pales into insignificance to the following "Theory Destroying GIF".
:D :D :D
You mean the GIF that gets the center railing all wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/Sb40Xov.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6b5Y243.jpg)
Hope you are happy to be corrected here too, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
-
Thanks for the photo. I was wrong and am happy to be corrected, it doesn't mean that my sun plane physics were wrong just not right for 1963, but it pales into insignificance to the following "Theory Destroying GIF".
While calculating the position of the center railing I realized that from all the front angles of the TSBD I could find, that the top post of the railing when extended meets the light above virtually dead center.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FzWPx77r/center-rail-under-light.jpg)
Now when the perspective above is applied to my super duper GIF, by dropping a plumb line from the center of the lamp we see that the railings positions are accurate but my original lengths were both a bit too long so I "painted them out" and even digitally it ain't easy to paint stuff out. Anyway we see that where the railing finishes is behind "the lady in black" and Oswald is off under the shadow.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MTb3nzRD/love-entrance-shadow3.gif)
JohnM
"even digitally it ain't easy to paint stuff out."
Thanks for your opinion. Ha ha ha ha ha You're right, the doctored product fails to look like an original Wake up You think everything is an original, that is simply because you don't know the difference except if you are the one tampering with it. Pretty ignorant, John
-
You mean the GIF that gets the center railing all wrong?
(https://i.imgur.com/Sb40Xov.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6b5Y243.jpg)
Hope you are happy to be corrected here too, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/mA1UI3Pa949n0EiKWb/giphy.gif)
You have absolutely no idea and to save this embarrassment you really should have checked out the perspective 101 sites I sent you to, and btw this fully explains why you suck at placing Lovelady.
Why does your yellow line go straight through the glass into the lobby?
What made you decide to stop the yellow line at the door frame, why not go on through to the Moon?
From the start of the railing how long till it hits the glass?
What is the green line?
(https://i.postimg.cc/C58snWW4/fords-perspective.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/mA1UI3Pa949n0EiKWb/giphy.gif)
You have absolutely no idea and to save this embarrassment you really should have checked out the perspective 101 sites I sent you to, and btw this fully explains why you suck at placing Lovelady.
Why does your yellow line go straight through the glass into the lobby?
What made you decide to stop the yellow line at the door frame, why not go on through to the Moon?
From the start of the railing how long till it hits the glass?
What is the green line?
(https://i.postimg.cc/C58snWW4/fords-perspective.gif)
JohnM
:D :D :D
I simply continued your line's direction of travel, Mr Mytton. You don't like where that line ends up? Fine-------------how about you continue your line's direction of travel and compare it to the direction of travel of the actual railing?
(https://i.imgur.com/FAQmjQW.jpg)
Alternatively, you could save yourself some time (and possibly even further embarrassment) by just putting your hands up and admitting that you screwed up on this one too.
Your choice! Thumb1:
-
:D :D :D
I simply continued your line's direction of travel, Mr Mytton. You don't like where that line ends up? Fine-------------how about you continue your line's direction of travel and compare it to the direction of travel of the actual railing?
(https://i.imgur.com/FAQmjQW.jpg)
Alternatively, you could save yourself some time (and possibly even further embarrassment) by just putting your hands up and admitting that you screwed up on this one too.
Your choice! Thumb1:
I simply continued your line's direction of travel, Mr Mytton. You don't like where that line ends up? Fine....
Sure, it's a totally valid method but too bad you didn't know when to stop, a bit like your juvenile antics.
Along with my bisection of the entrance, further corroborative proof is when we directly transpose your "yellow line" onto the west wall we see that your "yellow line" is way too long.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLxj84Hc/fords-perspective12s.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/C58snWW4/fords-perspective.gif)
Alternatively, you could save yourself some time (and possibly even further embarrassment) by just putting your hands up and admitting that you screwed up on this one too.
Yeah sure, I'm quaking in my boots!
Btw what happened to your green line?
JohnM
-
:D :D :D
OK, Mr Mytton, so how about you continue your upper rail's line of travel until the point where you think it meets the door? Thumb1:
My green line? Why, it simply continues the lower rail's line of travel-----------and shows how way off your red line is.
Here's your reference to help you create your next misleading GIF:
(https://i.imgur.com/dhbwuIo.jpg)
You're welcome! Thumb1:
-
Chris,
It looks like that distance is about 38” 29" from the wall. The renderings use a rule with 3” sections. I took a number of photos and measures of the doorway structures while in Dallas about 6 weeks ago. So, I may need to make some slight adjustments in the future. Tho Darnell overhead rendering in your post is not mine, but Andre Stancak's.
I also took photos of the doorway that may be of some help or interest in the future. All of those photos were taken while Daylight Savings Time was still in effect.
I hope this helps you.
Thanks James.
If anything else changes, just update it for us.
I estimated the double doors with wood casing were about 36" wide.
The remainder to the west wall as a ratio to the double doors was 33" which equaled the 69" from center rail to west wall.
The double doors might be closer to 38" each, hence the 4" shadow difference between 29" and my 33".
Much appreciated.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49171817436_df5580fc53_o.png)
-
Friends, this comes down to a simple sequence of events:
1. A Depository employee goes out onto the front landing to watch JFK pass
2. He stands just behind a fellow employee
3. He then goes back inside
4. His fleeting presence on the landing, although it has gone generally unnoticed by others in the entranceway who have been focused on the motorcade, has been caught on film
5. But the film is tampered with to hide this fact, for the cover-up investigators want the shooting to be pinned on this employee.
Complicated? Not in the least! Thumb1:
Regarding point #5!
This is where the shadow line from the west column fell on the front steps at 12.30pm on 11/22/63 (credit: Mr James Hackerott):
(https://i.imgur.com/2io9mXF.png)
Big deal? Oh yes, very big deal! For as soon as this simple circumstance is related to Mr Billy Lovelady's appearance in the Wiegman film-------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/50FIhYJ.gif)
-------------------a simple observation is made:
Mr Lovelady is nowhere near west enough to catch any of that shadow.
From this simple observation a simple conclusion is arrived at:
That can't be a natural shadow down Mr Lovelady's side.
Attempts are made to explain the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side as something other than a shadow. They do not work...
And then the presence of a second head behind-------and consistently just above--------Mr Lovelady's head in Wiegman is noticed:
(https://i.imgur.com/kZpD7ZR.jpg)
Suddenly it all makes perfect sense------------and no amount of intensive effort from the fanatical motley crew affectionately known as Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Entrance to explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady proves capable of stopping it from making perfect sense!
Take-Home Points To Tell Your Friends About!
A) Mr Oswald was standing just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shooting
B) His alibi was suppressed through a) burying claims he made in custody; b) inventing a post-assassination second-floor lunchroom encounter; and c) tampering with the Wiegman film
C) The success of this alibi-suppression measure depended upon people assuming incorrectly that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has been caught by natural shadow from the west column
D) For five-and-a-half decades people did make this assumption and so the alibi-suppression measure proved successful
E) But now the alibi-suppression measure has been exposed
F) Mr Oswald stands exonerated of the shooting of JFK.
This brings to a close years and years of speculation, and destroys the very foundation of the ridiculous Warren Report-------not to mention the raison d'etre of the Warren Gullible goons who continue to peddle that Report's nonsense day in day out on research forums such as this one!.
Thumb1:
-
Friends, this comes down to a simple sequence of events:
1. A Depository employee goes out onto the front landing to watch JFK pass
2. He stands just behind a fellow employee
3. He then goes back inside
4. His fleeting presence on the landing, although it has gone generally unnoticed by others in the entranceway who have been focused on the motorcade, has been caught on film
5. But the film is tampered with to hide this fact, for the cover-up investigators want the shooting to be pinned on this employee.
Complicated? Not in the least! Thumb1:
Regarding point #5!
This is where the shadow line from the west column fell on the front steps at 12.30pm on 11/22/63 (credit: Mr James Hackerott):
(https://i.imgur.com/2io9mXF.png)
Big deal? Oh yes, very big deal! For as soon as this simple circumstance is related to Mr Billy Lovelady's appearance in the Wiegman film-------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/50FIhYJ.gif)
-------------------a simple observation is made:
Mr Lovelady is nowhere near west enough to catch any of that shadow.
From this simple observation a simple conclusion is arrived at:
That can't be a natural shadow down Mr Lovelady's side.
Attempts are made to explain the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side as something other than a shadow. They do not work...
And then the presence of a second head behind-------and consistently just above--------Mr Lovelady's head in Wiegman is noticed:
(https://i.imgur.com/kZpD7ZR.jpg)
Suddenly it all makes perfect sense------------and no amount of intensive effort from the fanatical motley crew affectionately known as Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Entrance to explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady proves capable of stopping it from making perfect sense!
Take-Home Points To Tell Your Friends About!
A) Mr Oswald was standing just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shooting
B) His alibi was suppressed through a) burying claims he made in custody; b) inventing a post-assassination second-floor lunchroom encounter; and c) tampering with the Wiegman film
C) The success of this alibi-suppression measure depended upon people assuming incorrectly that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has been caught by natural shadow from the west column
D) For five-and-a-half decades people did make this assumption and so the alibi-suppression measure proved successful
E) But now the alibi-suppression measure has been exposed
F) Mr Oswald stands exonerated of the shooting of JFK.
This brings to a close years and years of speculation, and destroys the very foundation of the ridiculous Warren Report-------not to mention the raison d'etre of the Warren Gullible goons who continue to peddle that Report's nonsense day in day out on research forums such as this one!.
Thumb1:
___________ Friends?
-------------------------------LOL!
--------------Tampered with?
-----------------------LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Thanks for the photo. I was wrong and am happy to be corrected, it doesn't mean that my sun plane physics were wrong just not right for 1963, but it pales into insignificance to the following "Theory Destroying GIF".
While calculating the position of the center railing I realized that from all the front angles of the TSBD I could find, that the top post of the railing when extended meets the light above virtually dead center.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FzWPx77r/center-rail-under-light.jpg)
Now when the perspective above is applied to my super duper GIF, by dropping a plumb line from the center of the lamp we see that the railings positions are accurate but my original lengths were both a bit too long so I "painted them out" and even digitally it ain't easy to paint stuff out. Anyway we see that where the railing finishes is behind "the lady in black" and Oswald is off under the shadow.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MTb3nzRD/love-entrance-shadow3.gif)
JohnM
How many times are You going to revise your Shadow Theory? Ford busted you for posting that silly handrail and Now he's busted You for Not Knowing the depth of the Landing. At this point, No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids and Your Theories based on these same intentionally misleading concoctions. I mean, how in the world can you be gauging a shadow when you have No Idea as to the depth of the surface on which it is falling?
-
FORD - With the Landing being Less than 4 feet deep it is difficult to envision 2 people, (Lovelady/Oswald), standing almost single file in front of a roughly 4 feet wide door which opens outward toward them. There just is Not the room to do this along with the common sense factor of standing directly in front of/on top of a glass door that opens toward you. On top of that, Buell Frazier is also supposed to be standing back behind these 2 guys on that Less than 4 feet deep Landing and in front of that same roughly 4 foot wide door. Lovelady possibly standing on the top step directly below the Landing makes more sense than piling people up on a less than 4 feet deep landing.
-
How many times are You going to revise your Shadow Theory? Ford busted you for posting that silly handrail and Now he's busted You for Not Knowing the depth of the Landing. At this point, No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids and Your Theories based on these same intentionally misleading concoctions. I mean, how in the world can you be gauging a shadow when you have No Idea as to the depth of the surface on which it is falling?
How many times are You going to revise your Shadow Theory?
Since the beginning of time the Shadow Theory has been set in stone , but being the first to create these never seen before unique educational graphics does take a revision or two, do you think the theory of relativity was never revised or that NASA stuck with their prototypes before the moon lander or Space Shuttle, the only difference is their early design work is done behind closed doors whereas I put all my work on display for feedback and to achieve accuracy.
Btw for half a decade your mate Paul Ernst revised his "Sniper's Nest Theory Graphics" and at each contradictory revision you only had the highest of praise, consistency is not your forte.
Now he's busted You for Not Knowing the depth of the Landing.
The depth of the landing after any reconstruction is irrelevant.
At this point, No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids
Because you can't create anything yourself, for years and years you've As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ed and moaned about my visual aids and every time you say "No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids", so like your clueless oft repeated opinion has ever made a difference.
I mean, how in the world can you be gauging a shadow when you have No Idea as to the depth of the surface on which it is falling?
Again with the stupidity, explain the connection of a shadow on Lovelady in 1963 to a reconstructed entrance in 2019?
JohnM
-
Even though I've made minor insignificant changes along the way, the basic physics and the core construction always remained the same.
To get a better sense of scale, I painted out the distracting visual clutter between Lovelady and the railing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Nm2789T/revisioninfinity.gif)
JohnM
-
Since the beginning of time the Shadow Theory has been set in stone , but being the first to create these never seen before unique educational graphics does take a revision or two, do you think the theory of relativity was never revised or that NASA stuck with their prototypes before the moon lander or Space Shuttle, the only difference is their early design work is done behind closed doors whereas I put all my work on display for feedback and to achieve accuracy.
Btw for half a decade your mate Paul Ernst revised his "Sniper's Nest Theory Graphics" and at each contradictory revision you only had the highest of praise, consistency is not your forte.
The depth of the landing after any reconstruction is irrelevant.
Because you can't create anything yourself, for years and years you've As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ed and moaned about my visual aids and every time you say "No one can put Any stock in your proven to be misleading Mickey Mouse Visual Aids", so like your clueless oft repeated opinion has ever made a difference.
Again with the stupidity, explain the connection of a shadow on Lovelady in 1963 to a reconstructed entrance in 2019?
JohnM
"Educational Graphics" ? You gotta be kidding. Ford has torn asunder every Mickey Mouse graphic/visual aid you have constructed/manipulated to suit your fancy. If this were a prize fight, the towel would have been thrown into the ring long ago. Right now, you resemble Apollo Creed falling face first into the mat. THUD!
-
"Educational Graphics" ? You gotta be kidding. Ford has torn asunder every Mickey Mouse graphic/visual aid you have constructed/manipulated to suit your fancy. If this were a prize fight, the towel would have been thrown into the ring long ago. Right now, you resemble Apollo Creed falling face first into the mat. THUD!
"Educational Graphics" ?
Yes.
You gotta be kidding.
No.
Ford has torn asunder every Mickey Mouse graphic/visual aid you have constructed/manipulated to suit your fancy.
Ford's made some observations and he's also invested a hellava lot more time on this than me, I only started this a couple of weeks ago whereas Ford started this thread almost 3 months ago and who knows how much longer he was studying and devising his Kooky theories before that.
If this were a prize fight, the towel would have been thrown into the ring long ago. Right now, you resemble Apollo Creed falling face first into the mat. THUD!
What a wonderful analogy yes I get knocked down but like Apollo Creed I got back up and retained the World Champion Belt! Oops! you are sooooo stupid and you can't even think up a decent insult!
JohnM
-
Yes.
No.
Ford's made some observations and he's also invested a hellava lot more time on this than me, I only started this a couple of weeks ago whereas Ford started this thread almost 3 months ago and who knows how much longer he was studying and devising his Kooky theories before that.
What a wonderful analogy yes I get knocked down but like Apollo Creed I got back up and retained the World Champion Belt! Oops! you are sooooo stupid and you can't even think up a decent insult!
JohnM
Much like your computing the depth of the Landing WRONG, You also are referencing the WRONG Rocky Flick. I made a point of describing Apollo Creed hitting the mat FACE FIRST. Apollo did this 1 time and 1 time Only. This would be in Rocky IV where the Towel was thrown into the ring, (another clue You missed), as Creed feel face first Dead at the feet of Ivan Drago. You have a knack for getting FACTS WRONG.
-
Much like your computing the depth of the Landing WRONG, You also are referencing the WRONG Rocky Flick. I made a point of describing Apollo Creed hitting the mat FACE FIRST. Apollo did this 1 time and 1 time Only. This would be in Rocky IV where the Towel was thrown into the ring, (another clue You missed), as Creed feel face first Dead at the feet of Ivan Drago. You have a knack for getting FACTS WRONG.
Thanks for comparing me to Apollo Creed, he was the undisputed World Champion and being cheated by a Russian Steroid Freak did nothing to dishonour Apollo's legacy and in fact Apollo's sacrifice for World Peace and the Greater Good will be forever remembered as a courageous selfless act.
JohnM
-
Thanks for comparing me to Apollo Creed, he was the undisputed World Champion and being cheated by a Russian Steroid Freak did nothing to dishonour Apollo's legacy and in fact Apollo's sacrifice for World Peace and the Greater Good will be forever remembered as a courageous selfless act.
JohnM
Why not just admit you got something Wrong again? People such as yourself need to avoid wandering into areas you are completely unfamiliar with. When it comes to Movies & Politics, you are in way over your head.
-
Even though I've made minor insignificant changes along the way, the basic physics and the core construction always remained the same.
"minor insignificant changes", lol
The green arrow tells the story:
(https://i.imgur.com/X2Lu82R.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/fUhs2kB.jpg)
No wonder you felt the need to decapitate the lady in black in your latest effort! :D
And what happened to your Soopah-Doopah-Plumb-Line-Proof that you'd gotten the railing just right last time?
(https://i.imgur.com/dp43lVp.jpg)
And your Soopah-Doopah-3D-Proof?
(https://i.imgur.com/vmuCuIy.jpg)
I guess you'll have to create a brand new Soopah-Doopah-Plumb-Line-Proof and a brand new Soopah-Doopah-3D-Proof that prove that no, actually it's your new railing that's just right!
:D :D :D
-
FORD - With the Landing being Less than 4 feet deep it is difficult to envision 2 people, (Lovelady/Oswald), standing almost single file in front of a roughly 4 feet wide door which opens outward toward them. There just is Not the room to do this along with the common sense factor of standing directly in front of/on top of a glass door that opens toward you.
The glass door opened inwards and outwards, Mr Storing:
(https://i.imgur.com/EvpW7WJ.jpg)
Mr Oswald would have done what Mr Dan Rather is doing here:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4anLDq.gif)
He then slips across past Mr Frazier, who is probably the only person who notices him for the very short time he is out there.
On top of that, Buell Frazier is also supposed to be standing back behind these 2 guys on that Less than 4 feet deep Landing and in front of that same roughly 4 foot wide door. Lovelady possibly standing on the top step directly below the Landing makes more sense than piling people up on a less than 4 feet deep landing.
There has been legitimate debate as to whether Mr Lovelady is at the edge of the landing or on the top step in Wiegman. (Mr Hackerott for instance offers the former, Mr Stancak the latter.)
What's quite certain either way is that Mr Lovelady is not on the landing after he steps downwards:
(https://i.imgur.com/JS9pLfS.gif)
And yet---------the magic 'shadow' magically moves down with him! :D
Of course, the distance between Mr Lovelady and Mr Frazier----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/5f02cvQ.gif)
------------------, along with the lack of horizontal shadow hitting Mr Lovelady's head, makes it impossible for Mr Lovelady to be anywhere near where poor lost Mr Mytton desperately needs to put him to get him to the shadow line:
(https://i.imgur.com/PCd0Zq5.jpg)
This, we recall, is the reason why poor lost Mr Mytton never got back to us with his suggested placement of Mr Frazier in Wiegman---------------to do so would have committed him to a situation in which not alone is Mr Lovelady about to bend down and tie his shoelaces (!!) but he is also standing on Mr Frazier's toes! :D :D :D
-
"minor insignificant changes", lol
The green arrow tells the story:
No wonder you felt the need to decapitate the lady in black in your latest effort! :D
And what happened to your Soopah-Doopah-Plumb-Line-Proof that you'd gotten the railing just right last time?
I guess you'll have to create a brand new Soopah-Doopah-Plumb-Line-Proof that proves that no, actually it's your new railing that's just right!
:D :D :D
The green arrow tells the story:
By following the wrong line in Darnell, I made the top rail go back to a lower position on the top skirt, but after the plumb line it's still in the same horizontal position as the upper post, so yeah insignificant.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wjxsFdJv/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building-xx-r.gif)
No wonder you felt the need to decapitate the lady in black in your latest effort!
What's there to wonder about? The reason is in the post, nothing in the image besides Lovelady, the shadow, the hand rail, the rear doors and the building has any meaning and visually only adds random noise that detracts from the main mission, which as always is blindingly obvious, Lovelady is in the shadow just like the film shows. Face it you're out of excuses and are just panicking because without the added distractions, Lovelady's position was always a mile away from the center top post. Them's the breaks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Nm2789T/revisioninfinity.gif)
And what happened to your Soopah-Doopah-Plumb-Line-Proof that you'd gotten the railing just right last time?
Ummmm, the plumb line describes the vertical position and my railing as shown above was a little low but still in the same horizontal position as defined by the upper post.
The shadow is either easily explainable by science or someone somehow saw Oswald in Wiegman's wildly panning handheld shot that lasted half a second and found the copy in the archives and added a natural shadow to Lovelady to hide Oswald who was standing behind, have I got that right?
Btw your continuing of the yellow line through the glass out into the lobby shows that you are still having trouble with perspective, you really should have taken my advice. Oops!
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLxj84Hc/fords-perspective12s.gif)
JohnM
-
When it comes to Movies & Politics, you are in way over your head.
I base my reality on real life whereas as is obvious your reality revolves around the logic seen in movies, explains a lot, eh.
And watching you get your ass kicked in the "politics" thread is just another example of Storing's incompetence, aren't you good at anything?
JohnM
-
The glass door opened inwards and outwards, Mr Storing:
(https://i.imgur.com/EvpW7WJ.jpg)
Mr Oswald would have done what Mr Dan Rather is doing here:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4anLDq.gif)
He then slips across past Mr Frazier, who is probably the only person who notices him for the very short time he is out there.
There has been legitimate debate as to whether Mr Lovelady is at the edge of the landing or on the top step in Wiegman. (Mr Hackerott for instance offers the former, Mr Stancak the latter.)
What's quite certain either way is that Mr Lovelady is not on the landing after he steps downwards:
(https://i.imgur.com/JS9pLfS.gif)
And yet---------the magic 'shadow' magically moves down with him! :D
Of course, the distance between Mr Lovelady and Mr Frazier----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/5f02cvQ.gif)
------------------, along with the lack of horizontal shadow hitting Mr Lovelady's head, makes it impossible for Mr Lovelady to be anywhere near where poor lost Mr Mytton desperately needs to put him to get him to the shadow line:
(https://i.imgur.com/PCd0Zq5.jpg)
This, we recall, is the reason why poor lost Mr Mytton never got back to us with his suggested placement of Mr Frazier in Wiegman---------------to do so would have committed him to a situation in which not alone is Mr Lovelady about to bend down and tie his shoelaces (!!) but he is also standing on Mr Frazier's toes! :D :D :D
My point is those watching the parade would be facing Elm St with their Back facing the door. Anyone Exiting the TSBD during this same time would be opening the door OUTWARD and nailing those standing on the landing in front of the door. With the Landing being Less than 4 feet deep, and the door being 4 Feet Wide, the opening of that door would replicate a windshield wiper fanning across a windshield. The placement of ALL these bodies on the Landing in front of that door, (including your alleged Oswald), defies logic.
-
This, we recall, is the reason why poor lost Mr Mytton never got back to us with his suggested placement of Mr Frazier in Wiegman---------------to do so would have committed him to a situation in which not alone is Mr Lovelady about to bend down and tie his shoelaces (!!) but he is also standing on Mr Frazier's toes! :D :D :D
In this blue circle you say you see Frazier's head, really? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLh6GZs4/blue-circle.jpg)
And even if the indistinguishable blob is Frazier, the distance between Lovelady and Frazier is no different to other people in your graphic, it's the forced perspective of the 3D graphic that's confusing you.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLYbz2hF/PCd0Zq5.jpg)
Btw we also discussed this, by allowing for Wiegman's line of sight of the surrounding fixed scenery, Lovelady's position is calculated to be about six inches away in the green circle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tjRD0Tk/weigman-assassass.jpg)
JohnM
-
My point is those watching the parade would be facing Elm St with their Back facing the door. Anyone Exiting the TSBD during this same time would be opening the door OUTWARD and nailing those standing on the landing in front of the door.
Why would they be opening the door outward when they could open it inward? Look again at the Rather clip! Thumb1:
-
In this blue circle you say you see Frazier's head, really? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:D :D :D
Of course this is Mr Frazier!
(https://i.imgur.com/q8UX4Y7.gif)
Why don't you now blow up Mr Lovelady's head in the above to ridiculous pixelated magnitude and cast doubt on its really being Mr Lovelady? What childish games you play, Mr Mytton! :D
And good luck selling the idea that the horizontal-shadow-escaping Mr Lovelady (green arrow) is standing behind the head-half-in-shadow man marked with pink arrow!
(https://i.imgur.com/xTHnFSe.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ddjp6Ge.jpg)
I mean, talk about desperation! :D
Rational people, meanwhile, can see that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is in front of that man in Wiegman just as he is in Altgens:
(https://i.imgur.com/hzwP3XC.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/sxKnspR.jpg)
No rational person will believe that Mr Lovelady, standing near the center railing, strained for a better view down Elm Street (Altgens) and then stepped back into the landing and strained for a better view of--------------the west wall (Wiegman1)... And then elected to tie his shoelaces (Wiegman2)!
But that, folks, is the Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Theory! :D
-
:D :D :D
But you presented this plumb line as your knock-down argument that you had gotten the railing just right and anyone who disagreed didn't understand 'perspective':
Now, you are starting to understand, the plumb line was the knock-down argument and perfectly defined the horizontal position of the upper post, my estimate of the angle of top railing has no bearing on the horizontal position of the top post and the GIF will always show Lovelady is away from that top post in the shadow.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Nm2789T/revisioninfinity.gif)
Btw I'm happy with the above graphic and it shows exactly what I intended, so I don't need to post anymore graphics because this GIF ticked all the boxes and proved what I needed to prove, good luck proving that Lovelady was next to the railing.
JohnM
-
:D :D :D
Of course this is Mr Frazier!
(https://i.imgur.com/q8UX4Y7.gif)
Why don't you now blow up Mr Lovelady's head in the above to ridiculous pixelated magnitude and cast doubt on that's really being Mr Lovelady? What silly games you play, Mr Mytton! :D
And good luck selling the idea that the horizontal-shadow-escaping Mr Lovelady (green arrow) is standing behind the head-half-in-shadow man marked with pink arrow!
(https://i.imgur.com/xTHnFSe.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ddjp6Ge.jpg)
I mean, talk about desperation! :D
Of course this is Mr Frazier!
No worries, you see what you want to see, it's a predictable pattern and your adding of THREE laughing emoticons really seals the deal.
Why don't you now blow up Mr Lovelady's head in the above to ridiculous pixellated magnitude and cast doubt on that's really being Mr Lovelady? What silly games you play, Mr Mytton! :D
It might not be Lovelady but I can see Lovelady's shirt and white T-shirt and he's dressed the same as the man in Altgen's 6 which Lovelady confirms was him in a photo taken only seconds before whereas your blob could be anything, have fun.
And good luck selling the idea that the horizontal-shadow-escaping Mr Lovelady (green arrow) is standing behind the head-half-in-shadow man marked with pink arrow
Wow, you can see a lot of detail where not enough exists.
I mean, talk about desperation! :D
Yep, and you reek of it!
JohnM
-
:D :D :D
Yes, the accuracy of this was Scientifically-3D-Mytton-Verified---------
Hilarious, misrepresenting my early "fair game" graphics is all you got.
But eventually you will have to support your own ideas with your own graphics and I can hardly wait to see your Lovelady next to the railing proof.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/11/7a/81117a5a760efcf53a17a014e5f645f4.gif)
JohnM
-
Here, friends, is the final "minor adjustment" Mr Mytton-----------along with all his Warren Gullible pals------------is going to have to make sooner or later:
(https://i.imgur.com/ERvHzAk.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Here, friends, is the final "minor adjustment" Mr Mytton-----------along with all his Warren Gullible pals------------is going to have to make sooner or later:
(https://i.imgur.com/ERvHzAk.jpg)
Thumb1:
Even Oswald himself agreed that he was in the building at the time, or are you going to argue again that Oswald was outside the front door but was inside at the same time? Hahaha
If anyone who was innocent was outside when the President drove by, they would be screaming this to the Press, but Oswald couldn't because he wasn't.
Oswald: I work in that building.
Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
@1:13
Oswald scored as a sharpshooter in the Marines.
Oswald defected to the enemy.
Oswald's diary describes Oswald's suicide attempt.
Oswald took photos of General Walker's house not long before the assassination attempt.
Oswald had a bus map with Walker's house highlighted with a cross.
Oswald left a note for Marina where among other things he also describes that his actions may cause his death.
Oswald tried to kill General Walker.
Oswald tells Marina that he tried to kill Walker.
Oswald beat his wife.
Oswald ordered a rifle.
Oswald ordered a Revolver.
Oswald took a long package to work.
Oswald's blanket where Marina said she saw a rifle was empty on the afternoon of the 22nd.
Oswald told different stories for what was in the bag and where he put it.
Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor
Oswald's rifle exclusively matched the shells 3 shells found on the 6th floor.
Oswald's rifle exclusively matched the bullet fragments found in the Limo.
Oswald's rifle excursively matched the bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland.
Oswald's shirt fibers matched fibers on the rifle.
Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
Oswald's fresh prints were on Sniper's nest boxes, fresh as in the last 72 hours but the FBI's own test's said their prints on similar boxes only lasted a day.
Oswald's close description which was virtually identical to Brennan's description was broadcast @ 12:45.
Oswald immediately left work.
Oswald caught a bus
Oswald got off a bus after a few blocks.
Oswald caught a Taxi
Oswald got out of the Taxi a few blocks past his rooming house
Oswald admitted in the interrogation about going to his room to get his revolver.
Oswald was seen by someone he knew zipping up a jacket.
Oswald was positively identified as the man who killed a cop.
Oswald was identified by half a dozen eyewitnesses as leaving the scene while fumbling with his gun.
Oswald's jacket was found in the car park he was seen entering.
Oswald was seen on Jefferson and hid in a shop entrance.
Oswald hid in a theater.
Oswald had a concealed weapon.
Oswald punched a Police Officer.
Oswald tried to kill McDonald.
Oswald refused a lie detector.
Oswald denied owning his rifle
Oswald "forgot" his Neely street address by saying he stayed at his previous address for months longer.
Oswald lied about where he bought the revolver, likely to hide the fact that he also bought the rifle by mail order.
And that's just a quick sublimation off the top of my head.
JohnM
-
Even Oswald himself agreed that he was in the building at the time, or are you going to argue again that Oswald was outside the front door but was inside at the same time? Hahaha
If anyone who was innocent was outside when the President drove by, they would be screaming this to the Press, but Oswald couldn't because he wasn't.
Oswald: I work in that building.
Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
@1:13
Oswald scored as a sharpshooter in the Marines.
Oswald defected to the enemy.
Oswald's diary describes Oswald's suicide attempt.
Oswald took photos of General Walker's house not long before the assassination attempt.
Oswald had a bus map with Walker's house highlighted with a cross.
Oswald left a note for Marina where among other things he also describes that his actions may cause his death.
Oswald tried to kill General Walker.
Oswald tells Marina that he tried to kill Walker.
Oswald beat his wife.
Oswald ordered a rifle.
Oswald ordered a Revolver.
Oswald took a long package to work.
Oswald's blanket where Marina said she saw a rifle was empty on the afternoon of the 22nd.
Oswald told different stories for what was in the bag and where he put it.
Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor
Oswald's shirt fibers matched fibers on the rifle.
Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
Oswald's fresh prints were on Sniper's nest boxes, fresh as in the last 72 hours but the FBI's own test's said their prints on similar boxes only lasted a day.
Oswald's close description which was virtually identical to Brennan's description was broadcast @ 12:45.
Oswald immediately left work.
Oswald caught a bus
Oswald got off a bus after a few blocks.
Oswald caught a Taxi
Oswald got out of the Taxi a few blocks past his rooming house
Oswald admitted in the interrogation about going to his room to get his revolver.
Oswald was seen by someone he knew zipping up a jacket.
Oswald was positively identified as the man who killed a cop.
Oswald was identified by half a dozen eyewitnesses as leaving the scene while fumbling with his gun.
Oswald's jacket was found in the car park he was seen entering.
Oswald was seen on Jefferson and hid in a shop entrance.
Oswald hid in a theater.
Oswald had a concealed weapon.
Oswald punched a Police Officer.
Oswald tried to kill McDonald.
Oswald refused a lie detector.
Oswald denied owning his rifle
Oswald "forgot" his Neely street address by saying he stayed at his previous address for months longer.
Oswald lied about where he bought the revolver, likely to hide the fact that he also bought the rifle by mail order.
And that's just a quick sublimation off the top of my head.
JohnM
John,
Great post, but I gotta play a little "devil's advocate" or something:
Did Oswald think everyone who worked in the building was inside it while the assassination was going down?
I doubt it.
So why did he answer the question the way he did?
Why didn't he just say, "Yes, sir, I was." ?
-- MWT ;)
-
Even Oswald himself agreed that he was in the building at the time, or are you going to argue again that Oswald was outside the front door but was inside at the same time? Hahaha
If anyone who was innocent was outside when the President drove by, they would be screaming this to the Press, but Oswald couldn't because he wasn't.
Oswald: I work in that building.
Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
@1:13
Oswald scored as a sharpshooter in the Marines.
Oswald defected to the enemy.
Oswald's diary describes Oswald's suicide attempt.
Oswald took photos of General Walker's house not long before the assassination attempt.
Oswald had a bus map with Walker's house highlighted with a cross.
Oswald left a note for Marina where among other things he also describes that his actions may cause his death.
Oswald tried to kill General Walker.
Oswald tells Marina that he tried to kill Walker.
Oswald beat his wife.
Oswald ordered a rifle.
Oswald ordered a Revolver.
Oswald took a long package to work.
Oswald's blanket where Marina said she saw a rifle was empty on the afternoon of the 22nd.
Oswald told different stories for what was in the bag and where he put it.
Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor
Oswald's shirt fibers matched fibers on the rifle.
Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
Oswald's fresh prints were on Sniper's nest boxes, fresh as in the last 72 hours but the FBI's own test's said their prints on similar boxes only lasted a day.
Oswald's close description which was virtually identical to Brennan's description was broadcast @ 12:45.
Oswald immediately left work.
Oswald caught a bus
Oswald got off a bus after a few blocks.
Oswald caught a Taxi
Oswald got out of the Taxi a few blocks past his rooming house
Oswald admitted in the interrogation about going to his room to get his revolver.
Oswald was seen by someone he knew zipping up a jacket.
Oswald was positively identified as the man who killed a cop.
Oswald was identified by half a dozen eyewitnesses as leaving the scene while fumbling with his gun.
Oswald's jacket was found in the car park he was seen entering.
Oswald was seen on Jefferson and hid in a shop entrance.
Oswald hid in a theater.
Oswald had a concealed weapon.
Oswald punched a Police Officer.
Oswald tried to kill McDonald.
Oswald refused a lie detector.
Oswald denied owning his rifle
Oswald "forgot" his Neely street address by saying he stayed at his previous address for months longer.
Oswald lied about where he bought the revolver, likely to hide the fact that he also bought the rifle by mail order.
And that's just a quick sublimation off the top of my head.
JohnM
The one where Mr Mytton goes into full-on rabbit-in-the-headlights Von Pein mode! :D
Now!
We know from Agent Hosty's recently unearthed interrogation notes that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz
--------------he bought a Coca-Cola in the second floor lunchroom before the motorcade
--------------he went back down to the first floor to eat his lunch
--------------he then "went outside to watch P. parade"
(https://i.imgur.com/UJOHEoj.jpg)
We also know that Captain Fritz and the other cover-up investigators suppressed these claims
--------------they didn't want people knowing about Mr Oswald's claim as to a pre-motorcade visit to the second floor lunchroom because that would have caused people to query the Baker/Truly story
--------------they didn't want people knowing about Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade because that would have caused people to ask awkward questions about just who exactly was in that entranceway at the time of the shots.
Now!
We also have this exchange with a press reporter:
"Did you shoot the President?"
"I work in that building."
"Were you in the building at the time?"
"Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."
There is literally only one place that can be said to be both part of the Depository building and outside: the covered front entranceway.
Mr Oswald has told us exactly where he was at the time of the assassination, and the Wiegman film proves he is telling the truth:
(https://i.imgur.com/33g6A36.jpg)
Not a blessed thing poor Mr Mytton can do about it! :D
He and his Warren Gullible goons can, however, console themselves that they have nearly gotten Mr Oswald's whereabouts right all these years:
-------Correct city? Check! Thumb1:
-------Correct street? Check! Thumb1:
-------Correct building? Check! Thumb1:
-------Correct floor? A minor adjustment needed here, but not enough to make any significant difference! Thumb1:
-
John,
Great post, but I gotta play a little "devil's advocate" or something:
Did Oswald think everyone who worked in the building was inside it while the assassination was going down?
I doubt it.
So why did he answer the question the way he did?
Why didn't he just say, "Yes, sir, I was." ?
-- MWT ;)
I think like a lot of members here, Oswald tried to bluff his way to sounding intelligent and the fact that he answered the way he did says a lot about who he was.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ2AKq6JOaLh-8ocBEOp6xDfHbIFAb375H5poKzDlETSv_RKShy)
JohnM
-
I think like a lot of members here, Oswald tried to bluff his way to sounding intelligent and the fact that he answered the way he did says a lot about who he was.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ2AKq6JOaLh-8ocBEOp6xDfHbIFAb375H5poKzDlETSv_RKShy)
JohnM
John,
I think you're probably right about that.
Like many members here, he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was.
LOL
Regardless, I think Oswald's pose in the photo you posted tends to support my theory that he was more Marxist-Leninist that Khrushchev, himself, and that, being fed up with life in both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., he decided to take matters into his own hands in order to speed up "The Dialectic" for the benefit of The World and oodles and gobs of Oppressed Proletarians.
-- MWT ;)
-
John,
I think you're probably right about that.
Like many members here, he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was.
LOL
Regardless, I think Oswald's pose in the photo you posted tends to support my theory that he was more Marxist-Leninist that Khrushchev, himself, et al., and that, being fed up with life in both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., he decided to take matters into his own hands in order to speed up "The Dialectic" for the benefit of The World and oodles and gobs of Oppressed Proletarians.
-- MWT ;)
:D
The one where Mr Graves coolly pretends he isn't utterly defeated by the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady too!
(https://i.imgur.com/jTZuj9p.jpg)
'Okay, boys, let's keep our heads and just act like we haven't just lost the war'!
-
These employees refer to outside the front door as being outside and only a certified Kook would argue otherwise. (~Snippety snip-snip!~)
Just like Mr Oswald did! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/QfkKt9a.jpg)
-
John,
I think you're probably right about that.
Like many members here, he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was.
LOL
Regardless, I think Oswald's pose in the photo you posted tends to support my theory that he was more Marxist-Leninist that Khrushchev, himself, et al., and that, being fed up with life in both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., he decided to take matters into his own hands in order to speed up "The Dialectic" for the benefit of The World and oodles and gobs of Oppressed Proletarians.
-- MWT ;)
Oswald was well read and I think he was clever in a smart ass kind of way, but not clever enough to have a job beyond low paying menial labour and this pressure of being a failure along with the grim prospect of having to support a growing family lead Oswald to do the unimaginable.
JohnM
-
Just like Mr Oswald did! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/QfkKt9a.jpg)
You are so gullible, If Hosty's uncorroborated note is authentic and accurately reflects what he heard, then it's clear Oswald is weakly setting up an alibi, he was seen on the 2nd floor with a coke so he says he went to the 2nd floor to get a coke, he was seen heading through the offices towards the stairs that lead to the parade so Oswald says he went outside to see the President's parade, and after the event any timeline discrepancy is going to be his word against theirs and Oswald thought everybody was "fair game", what a slime.
JohnM
-
:D
The one where Mr Graves coolly pretends he isn't utterly defeated by the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady too!
(https://i.imgur.com/jTZuj9p.jpg)
'Okay, boys, let's keep our heads and just act like we haven't just lost the war'!
Oops!
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKPCLZmv/Prayerman.gif)
JohnM
-
John,
If Oswald was just tired of being a skinny little loser with marital problems, why, then, the "Communist salute" (or whatever it's called)?
The only other "explanation" for this pose I've read is that innocent Oswald, not realizing he'd been set up by the evil, evil, evil CIA, thought he was on some sort of deception mission for The Agency and was trying to stay in character by posing like a militant and requesting that John "Smith Act" Abt be his lawyer.
But I find that scenario a bit mplausible.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
If Oswald was just tired of being a skinny little loser with marital problems, why, then, the "Communist salute" (or whatever it's called)?
The marital problems and the life of poverty ahead were certainly factors but the chance for a Political Kill where he would have the World Stage to celebrate communism and being a Marxist and Leninist or whatever was the latest fad, and preaching to the World is how he expected this to end.
Earlier in the year in New Orleans, Oswald handed out Cuba leaflets and was on the TV and the radio, and he wanted to start a Fair Play for Cuba chapter but he was the only member.
Oswald really wanted to be a Star and had big dreams about political change but where in the World did Oswald fit?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS9weeMuMi7qDKhqRlOfOTK-IipzI_fTgxUTBFd3yIzKVlzBFZe)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4qwrniKt0)
JohnM
-
The marital problems and the life of poverty ahead were certainly factors but the chance for a Political Kill where he would have the World Stage to celebrate communism and being a Marxist and Leninist or whatever was the latest fad, and preaching to the World is how he expected this to end.
Earlier in the year in New Orleans, Oswald handed out Cuba leaflets and was on the TV and the radio, and he wanted to start a Fair Play for Cuba chapter but he was the only member.
Oswald really wanted to be a Star and had big dreams about political change but where in the World did Oswald fit?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS9weeMuMi7qDKhqRlOfOTK-IipzI_fTgxUTBFd3yIzKVlzBFZe)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4qwrniKt0)
JohnM
John,
Not wanting to derail this fascinating thread, I've started a new one titled "Oswald's 'Handcuffed Communist Salute'" and moved my last post here to it.
-- MWT ;)
PS Yes, I know all about Oswald's FPCC leafleting activities in The Big Easy ...
-
Oops!
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKPCLZmv/Prayerman.gif)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRt9DltNNAaG-JK4i_7Tw5kJi0dXZdPPEek9Y6-p4yG1FG5h9Vc)
Your point, Mr Mytton? Thumb1:
-
Your point, Mr Mytton? Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCsTf9kv/lovelady-contrast-striped-shirt.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCsTf9kv/lovelady-contrast-striped-shirt.gif)
JohnM
(~Grin~)
Your point, Mr Mytton?
-
Looks like the aerial of the passing car is also causing interference with that 'flat-edged black shadow'...
Friends, I want to bump this brilliant observation from Mr Finch. When he posted it, I didn't realize its significance! Thumb1:
Look at what happens to the car aerial when it meets the Lovelady 'shadow':
(https://i.imgur.com/HUqQFT3.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/WBaabp2.gif)
Why, the aerial disappears, but only in the Lovelady 'shadow' area! Once it's past that 'shadow', it pops back into visibility!:
(https://i.imgur.com/TCwUxmQ.gif)
What a peculiar aerial, you must be thinking!
But!
What if it's not the aerial that's causing interference with the 'shadow' but the 'shadow' that's causing interference with the aerial?
:o
-
The one where Mr Mytton goes into full-on rabbit-in-the-headlights Von Pein mode! :D
Now!
We know from Agent Hosty's recently unearthed interrogation notes that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz
--------------he bought a Coca-Cola in the second floor lunchroom before the motorcade
--------------he went back down to the first floor to eat his lunch
--------------he then "went outside to watch P. parade"
(https://i.imgur.com/UJOHEoj.jpg)
We also know that Captain Fritz and the other cover-up investigators suppressed these claims
--------------they didn't want people knowing about Mr Oswald's claim as to a pre-motorcade visit to the second floor lunchroom because that would have caused people to query the Baker/Truly story
--------------they didn't want people knowing about Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade because that would have caused people to ask awkward questions about just who exactly was in that entranceway at the time of the shots.
Now!
We also have this exchange with a press reporter:
"Did you shoot the President?"
"I work in that building."
"Were you in the building at the time?"
"Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."
There is literally only one place that can be said to be both part of the Depository building and outside: the covered front entranceway.
Mr Oswald has told us exactly where he was at the time of the assassination, and the Wiegman film proves he is telling the truth:
(https://i.imgur.com/33g6A36.jpg)
Not a blessed thing poor Mr Mytton can do about it! :D
He and his Warren Gullible goons can, however, console themselves that they have nearly gotten Mr Oswald's whereabouts right all these years:
-------Correct city? Check! Thumb1:
-------Correct street? Check! Thumb1:
-------Correct building? Check! Thumb1:
-------Correct floor? A minor adjustment needed here, but not enough to make any significant difference! Thumb1:
Why are you assuming that someone in handcuffs is Truthfully answering questions? This same person also had a False ID in his pocket and a Hand Gun when apprehended. Father Flanagan ain't got nothin' on you.
-
Why are you assuming that someone in handcuffs is Truthfully answering questions? This same person also had a False ID in his pocket and a Hand Gun when apprehended. Father Flanagan ain't got nothin' on you.
1. We know that those present at Mr Oswald's interrogation lied about his claimed whereabouts just before and at the time of the shooting.
2. Mr Oswald's claimed whereabouts at the time of the shooting are verified by the Wiegman film.
3. We're still waiting for you--------or anyone else--------to offer a non-Oswald-related explanation for the doctoring of the Wiegman film that put an impossible 'shadow' on Mr Lovelady.
Thumb1:
-
1. We know that those present at Mr Oswald's interrogation lied about his claimed whereabouts just before and at the time of the shooting.
2. Mr Oswald's claimed whereabouts at the time of the shooting are verified by the Wiegman film.
3. We're still waiting for you--------or anyone else--------to offer a non-Oswald-related explanation for the doctoring of the Wiegman film that put an impossible 'shadow' on Mr Lovelady.
Thumb1:
(1) Why is Little Lord Fauntleroy carrying a Fake ID?
(2) Why is Little Lord Fauntleroy carrying a Hand Gun?
(3) You have NOT Proven 1 of those heads belongs to Oswald.
-
(1) Why is Little Lord Fauntleroy carrying a Fake ID?
(2) Why is Little Lord Fauntleroy carrying a Hand Gun?
(3) You have NOT Proven 1 of those heads belongs to Oswald.
Mr Storing, I shall deal with your one point above that is on-topic---------------Point #3.
Have I proven to your satisfaction that the Wiegman film frames have been doctored to put fake shadow down Mr Lovelady's side?
Thumb1:
-
Look at what happens to the car aerial when it meets the Lovelady 'shadow':
(https://i.imgur.com/HUqQFT3.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/WBaabp2.gif)
Friends, what a truly remarkable shadow this shadow down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman is!
1. It falls on a man standing in direct sunlight...
(https://i.imgur.com/8v6cujF.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/AdNDHhK.gif)
2. It has the uncanny property of temporarily magicking away a car aerial that is between the camera and it...
(https://i.imgur.com/Soc3eSg.gif)
Ain't no natural shadow, people!
Ain't there for no reason either!
And ain't wholly unrelated to the second 'Lovelady' head in these same frames neither!
(https://i.imgur.com/AjNP4tx.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Mr Storing, I shall deal with your one point above that is on-topic---------------Point #3.
Have I proven to your satisfaction that the Wiegman film frames have been doctored to put fake shadow down Mr Lovelady's side?
Thumb1:
You Failed to deal with my Point #3. Asking a question "deals" with Nothing. You have been hanging around Mytton too long.
-
You Failed to deal with my Point #3. Asking a question "deals" with Nothing. You have been hanging around Mytton too long.
Oh but I am dealing with your Point #3, Mr Storing! You say I haven't proved that that's Mr Oswald behind Mr Lovelady. I draw your attention to the fact that my proof involves the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady, which you seem to accept is not a natural phenomenon.
So we at least agree that Wiegman has been tampered with, yes?
Well then! I have submitted that the only rational explanation for such tampering is that Mr Oswald's presence is being hidden. The second 'Lovelady' head seals that deal.
You disagree? Then it's over to you to offer an alternative explanation for why Wiegman would have been tampered with in the way demonstrated. As soon as you offer one, we can explore its cogency.
Have you got an alternative explanation for the doctoring of Wiegman or not?
Thumb1:
-
Oh but I am dealing with your Point #3, Mr Storing! You say I haven't proved that that's Mr Oswald behind Mr Lovelady. I draw your attention to the fact that my proof involves the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady, which you seem to accept is not a natural phenomenon.
So we at least agree that Wiegman has been tampered with, yes?
Well then! I have submitted that the only rational explanation for such tampering is that Mr Oswald's presence is being hidden. The second 'Lovelady' head seals that deal.
You disagree? Then it's over to you to offer an alternative explanation for why Wiegman would have been tampered with in the way demonstrated. As soon as you offer one, we can explore its cogency.
Have you got an alternative explanation for the doctoring of Wiegman or not?
Thumb1:
I do Not feel You have supplied Proof that the alleged other head is Oswald's. And remember, the Hosty Notes recorded that Oswald "went outside". It said Nothing about Oswald claiming to be on the Landing or The Steps. The Jet Black Curtain and possible altering of the Wiegman Film have Nothing to do with your Not supplying Proof as to the ID of that alleged head.
-
I do Not feel You have supplied Proof that the alleged other head is Oswald's. And remember, the Hosty Notes recorded that Oswald "went outside". It said Nothing about Oswald claiming to be on the Landing or The Steps. The Jet Black Curtain and possible altering of the Wiegman Film have Nothing to do with your Not supplying Proof as to the ID of that alleged head.
It's rather ironic, Mr Storing, that you can (correctly) inform Mr Mytton that I have incinerated his objections one by one, yet you fail to see that I have also incinerated your own.
Your continued failure to offer a counter-explanation for the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is duly noted. As is your continued irrational refusal to even countenance the idea that Mr Oswald was in the front entrance at the time of the assassination.
Let me know when you can offer something substantial on this! Thumb1:
-
It's rather ironic, Mr Storing, that you can (correctly) inform Mr Mytton that I have incinerated his objections one by one, yet you fail to see that I have also incinerated your own.
Your continued failure to offer a counter-explanation for the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is duly noted. As is your continued irrational refusal to even countenance the idea that Mr Oswald was in the front entrance at the time of the assassination.
Let me know when you can offer something substantial on this! Thumb1:
As I informed you way back in the early pages of this thread, the Black Curtain Issue is your Strongest Point. What specifically that Jet Black Curtain is hiding is subject to question. For a long time I have questioned the Wiegman Film due to it having been promoted as being filmed "Continuously". This Lie was accepted as a fact for roughly 40 years. I continue to believe this Timing Lie attached to the Wiegman film was due to the JFK Limo allegedly being captured going under the Triple Underpass. Also, other assassination films and photos were time stamped based on what we see on the Wiegman Film. Your Black Curtain Issue further diminishes the legitimacy of the Wiegman Film along with the time stamping of other films, photos, and the individuals captured on them.
-
As I informed you way back in the early pages of this thread, the Black Curtain Issue is your Strongest Point. What specifically that Jet Black Curtain is hiding is subject to question. For a long time I have questioned the Wiegman Film due to it having been promoted as being filmed "Continuously". This Lie was accepted as a fact for roughly 40 years. I continue to believe this Timing Lie attached to the Wiegman film was due to the JFK Limo allegedly being captured going under the Triple Underpass. Also, other assassination films and photos were time stamped based on what we see on the Wiegman Film. Your Black Curtain Issue further diminishes the legitimacy of the Wiegman Film along with the time stamping of other films, photos, and the individuals captured on them.
::)
Actually, Mr Storing, my strongest point is my exoneration of Mr Oswald as the assassin of JFK.
That your one-track obsession with widespread film & photo alteration and with fantasy alternative timestamps constitutes the limits of your interest in the case----------and hence blinds you to the logic of my argument-----------is not my problem. You're free to be as intellectually lazy as you wish. But you don't get to wear that Commentator of Authority badge of yours with any, well, authority. Sorry!
Out of interest, what possible link could there be between an inexplicable dark shadow down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman and your timestamping notions? Do you secretly suspect that Mr Lovelady's wristwatch was blacked out because it told a time other than 12.30pm?
What you got here, apart from the nothing you've already offered?
:-\
-
::)
Actually, Mr Storing, my strongest point is my exoneration of Mr Oswald as the assassin of JFK.
That your one-track obsession with widespread film & photo alteration and with fantasy alternative timestamps constitutes the limits of your interest in the case----------and hence blinds you to the logic of my argument-----------is not my problem. You're free to be as intellectually lazy as you wish. But you don't get to wear that Commentator of Authority badge of yours with any, well, authority. Sorry!
Out of interest, what possible link could there be between an inexplicable dark shadow down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman and your timestamping notions? Do you secretly suspect that Mr Lovelady's wristwatch was blacked out because it told a time other than 12.30pm?
What you got here, apart from the nothing you've already offered?
:-\
A Logical Argument is Not a Fact and Proves Nothing. Way back when, people thought they had Logically concluded the Earth was Flat. Your wanting to make "Oswald on The Landing" your Signature Issue only serves to diminish the other Issue(s) that You Have Proven. No assassination eyewitness at any time has Ever recounted seeing Oswald on the TSBD Steps. This includes Lovelady, Shelley, & Frazier who were close enough to touch your alleged Oswald standing atop the landing. THAT is a Fact.
-
What specifically that Jet Black Curtain is hiding is subject to question.
A Jet Black Curtain hangs straight and blocks out the light.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tg6kNsWx/black-curtain.jpg)
The shadow on Lovelady follows the contours of his shirt, so that's your first mistake and your second mistake is they either painted the shirt black or they did not, when the contrast is increased what should be an even plane is nothing of the sort, there is no "Jet Black" and there was never any "Jet Black".
In fact we see horizontal stripes on the lower part of Lovelady's shirt that are a match for his actual shirt which shows the same horizontal stripes and they also are a similar distance apart, so random artefacts they ain't. We can make out the sharp angle of his collar and the corresponding shadow underneath.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKPCLZmv/Prayerman.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCsTf9kv/lovelady-contrast-striped-shirt.gif)
JohnM
-
Friends, what a truly remarkable shadow this shadow down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman is!
1. It falls on a man standing in direct sunlight...
(https://i.imgur.com/AdNDHhK.gif)
Hmmm, a tiny graphic must be hiding something? Oopsies
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzgF7cbM/bigproblems.gif)
Because of the drastic perspective shift the most reliable way of placing Lovelady is in 3D.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7hHCsZt9/revisioninfinity.gif)
JohnM
-
A Jet Black Curtain hangs straight and blocks out the light.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tg6kNsWx/black-curtain.jpg)
The shadow on Lovelady follows the contours of his shirt, so that's your first mistake and your second mistake is they either painted the shirt black or they did not, when the contrast is increased what should be an even plane is nothing of the sort, there is no "Jet Black" and there was never any "Jet Black".
In fact we see horizontal stripes on the lower part of Lovelady's shirt that are a match for his actual shirt which shows the same horizontal stripes and they also are a similar distance apart, so random artefacts they ain't. We can make out the sharp angle of his collar and the corresponding shadow underneath.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKPCLZmv/Prayerman.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCsTf9kv/lovelady-contrast-striped-shirt.gif)
JohnM
Here we go again with Mytton's Image Alteration. This is the same kind of stuff Jack White did and he got lambasted for it. Crank that Contrast up even further and maybe we can make out Badge Man standing on the landing.
-
This is the same kind of stuff Jack White did and he got lambasted for it.
Cite?
Increasing the contrast can not add any detail that wasn't originally exposed on film. DUH!
Along with the lower horizontal stripes sharing the same characteristics, we have the collar on another Lovelady shirt at about the same height and position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3wryYMM/loveshirtcollar.gif)
JohnM
-
Cite?
Increasing the contrast can not add any detail that wasn't originally exposed on film. DUH!
Along with the lower horizontal stripes sharing the same characteristics, we have the collar on another Lovelady shirt at about the same height and position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3wryYMM/loveshirtcollar.gif)
JohnM
What you are doing with the above is also validating Ford's 2nd head on the Landing. If you are going to swear by what you are seeing via crappy definition then you also gotta go along with Ford.
-
The glass door opened inwards and outwards, Mr Storing:
(https://i.imgur.com/EvpW7WJ.jpg)
Mr Oswald would have done what Mr Dan Rather is doing here:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4anLDq.gif)
He then slips across past Mr Frazier, who is probably the only person who notices him for the very short time he is out there.
There has been legitimate debate as to whether Mr Lovelady is at the edge of the landing or on the top step in Wiegman. (Mr Hackerott for instance offers the former, Mr Stancak the latter.)
What's quite certain either way is that Mr Lovelady is not on the landing after he steps downwards:
(https://i.imgur.com/JS9pLfS.gif)
And yet---------the magic 'shadow' magically moves down with him! :D
Of course, the distance between Mr Lovelady and Mr Frazier----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/5f02cvQ.gif)
------------------, along with the lack of horizontal shadow hitting Mr Lovelady's head, makes it impossible for Mr Lovelady to be anywhere near where poor lost Mr Mytton desperately needs to put him to get him to the shadow line:
(https://i.imgur.com/PCd0Zq5.jpg)
This, we recall, is the reason why poor lost Mr Mytton never got back to us with his suggested placement of Mr Frazier in Wiegman---------------to do so would have committed him to a situation in which not alone is Mr Lovelady about to bend down and tie his shoelaces (!!) but he is also standing on Mr Frazier's toes! :D :D :D
1, Front door swings inward as Oswald exits and is not noticed by Pauline Sanders (purple figure)
2. Pauline Sanders is NOT right in front of the door but is further east of the front door and further forward, such that she would have had LOSto Elm st. Where she is depicted in the overhead plan view (purple figure), her LOS would have been blocked.
3. Prayerblob is approx in the correct position although possibly closer to the west wall , and the white object therefore NOT a hand in the sunliight but is actually a white cup.
4, Lovelady figure is in front of Buell W. Frazier, and closer to the central railing, thus is in full sunlight. This position creates a gap between BW Frazier and Prayerblob, which is where Oswald came out and stood for a brief period of time from approx 12:29 until 12:30:15. This position is approx indicated in the graphic with the "Love" red disk marker. This is slightly BEHIND both BWF and Prayerblob, thus Oswald not noticed by BWF nor Prayerblob (possibly Stanton)
5. Because the sunlight illuminates at least 50% of Oswald figure, possibly even had his face at one point in sunlight, this gap had to be darkened by some method to obscure the figure of Oswald.
Now the question of why the conspirators did not attempt to darken out the 2nd head
A. They concluded it was a motion blur effect of Lovelady face
B. The technique they used to add shadow would have taken more time than they had to carefully mask out around Loveladys face.
C. They decided micro shadowing was a greater risk of distortion to Lovelady face, than to just leave the 2nd head unaltered, which they determined was not enough detail to be discerned as Oswalds face, and could be explained as motion blur anyway.
-
1, Front door swings inward as Oswald exits and is not noticed by Pauline Sanders (purple figure)
2. Pauline Sanders is NOT right in front of the door but is further east of the front door and further forward, such that she would have had LOSto Elm st. Where she is depicted in the overhead plan view (purple figure), her LOS would have been blocked.
3. Prayerblob is approx in the correct position although possibly closer to the west wall , and the white object therefore NOT a hand in the sunliight but is actually a white cup.
4, Lovelady figure is in front of Buell W. Frazier, and closer to the central railing, thus is in full sunlight. This position creates a gap between BW Frazier and Prayerblob, which is where Oswald came out and stood for a brief period of time from approx 12:29 until 12:30:15. This position is approx indicated in the graphic with the "Love" red disk marker. This is slightly BEHIND both BWF and Prayerblob, thus Oswald not noticed by BWF nor Prayerblob (possibly Stanton)
5. Because the sunlight illuminates at least 50% of Oswald figure, possibly even had his face at one point in sunlight, this gap had to be darkened by some method to obscure the figure of Oswald.
Now the question of why the conspirators did not attempt to darken out the 2nd head
A. They concluded it was a motion blur effect of Lovelady face
B. The technique they used to add shadow would have taken more time than they had to carefully mask out around Loveladys face.
C. They decided micro shadowing was a greater risk of distortion to Lovelady face, than to just leave the 2nd head unaltered, which they determined was not enough detail to be discerned as Oswalds face, and could be explained as motion blur anyway.
The issue is the positioning of Lovelady. You have him placed 3+ feet away/West from of the handrail. I do Not buy into that distance
-
What you are doing with the above is also validating Ford's 2nd head on the Landing. If you are going to swear by what you are seeing via crappy definition then you also gotta go along with Ford.
What planet are you from, it's chalk and cheese. The second head could be the result of Wiegman's erratic panning or the video transfer or one of the multiple transfers thereafter, but whatever it is or wherever it came from, the blob is in the image that Ford posted.
Anyway, enhancing photographs to bring out detail is standard practice in forensic photography and has been for a very long time. A red contrast filter was used here to bring out detail in this fingerprint.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNCSz5Tv/black-white-red-filter.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRBcg39c/zapruder-z313-high-contrast.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y84nTWM9/forensic-contrast.jpg)
JohnM
-
The issue is the positioning of Lovelady. You have him placed 3+ feet away/West from of the handrail. I do Not buy into that distance
No, Royell, I have Lovelady NEAR the central handrail, just like he appears in Wiegman film frames. Where the graphic representation has Lovelady figure closer to the West wall, i DISAGREE with.
Thats why i think the darkened area between Prayerblob and Lovelady necessitates BW Frazier be behind Lovelady and that Oswalds most likely position is just behind BW Frazier and Prayerblob, somewhat midway between them, but still behind BOTH of them, such that Oswald would have had LOS to Elm st.
In this gap, the sun penetrated at least to about 50% of Oswald if he is standing there, and if he momentarily move forward,ifor a mere 2 seconds , when 1st shot is fired, its conceivable his face might have momentarily been illuminated.
-
What planet are you from, it's chalk and cheese. The second head could be the result of Wiegman's erratic panning or the video transfer or one of the multiple transfers thereafter, but whatever it is or wherever it came from, the blob is in the image that Ford posted.
Anyway, enhancing photographs to bring out detail is standard practice in forensic photography and has been for a very long time. A red contrast filter was used here to bring out detail in this fingerprint.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNCSz5Tv/black-white-red-filter.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRBcg39c/zapruder-z313-high-contrast.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y84nTWM9/forensic-contrast.jpg)
JohnM
Jacking up the Contrast on an image is Not "Enhancing". Stop with your BS:
-
1, Front door swings inward as Oswald exits and is not noticed by Pauline Sanders (purple figure)
2. Pauline Sanders is NOT right in front of the door but is further east of the front door and further forward, such that she would have had LOSto Elm st. Where she is depicted in the overhead plan view (purple figure), her LOS would have been blocked.
3. Prayerblob is approx in the correct position although possibly closer to the west wall , and the white object therefore NOT a hand in the sunliight but is actually a white cup.
4, Lovelady figure is in front of Buell W. Frazier, and closer to the central railing, thus is in full sunlight. This position creates a gap between BW Frazier and Prayerblob, which is where Oswald came out and stood for a brief period of time from approx 12:29 until 12:30:15. This position is approx indicated in the graphic with the "Love" red disk marker. This is slightly BEHIND both BWF and Prayerblob, thus Oswald not noticed by BWF nor Prayerblob (possibly Stanton)
5. Because the sunlight illuminates at least 50% of Oswald figure, possibly even had his face at one point in sunlight, this gap had to be darkened by some method to obscure the figure of Oswald.
Now the question of why the conspirators did not attempt to darken out the 2nd head
A. They concluded it was a motion blur effect of Lovelady face
B. The technique they used to add shadow would have taken more time than they had to carefully mask out around Loveladys face.
C. They decided micro shadowing was a greater risk of distortion to Lovelady face, than to just leave the 2nd head unaltered, which they determined was not enough detail to be discerned as Oswalds face, and could be explained as motion blur anyway.
Are You SURE that door is being opened Inward? He appears to be pushing the door further Open as he steps out onto the landing and the door recoils back toward him.
-
Jacking up the Contrast on an image is Not "Enhancing". Stop with your BS:
Of course it is, you're the Movie Expert, every TV I have ever watched or owned since black and white has at least had a brightness and contrast control and these were used to "enhance" and bring out the detail in the image. Isn't it ironic that the very hobby that you cherish and adore has had "image enhancements" as a standard feature for the last half a century. Hilarious!
I always calibrate my TV's and especially projectors by adjusting CONTRAST and a million other settings to best display the purest possible image as the Director intended. See I'm a REAL movie BUFF and watch REAL movies not crap like "Rocky 2-10" which were the same plot again and again with the same manipulative, bubble gum, garbage!
(http://installheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/746-h_main-w1.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k56grkxP/image-enhancement.jpg)
JohnM
-
Sure, it's a totally valid method but too bad you didn't know when to stop, a bit like your juvenile antics.
Along with my bisection of the entrance, further corroborative proof is when we directly transpose your "yellow line" onto the west wall we see that your "yellow line" is way too long.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLxj84Hc/fords-perspective12s.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/C58snWW4/fords-perspective.gif)
Yeah sure, I'm quaking in my boots!
Btw what happened to your green line?
JohnM
I don't know if you're quaking in your boots, but I know you're one of those derelicts pissing your pants by the mailbox
-
What planet are you from, it's chalk and cheese. The second head could be the result of Wiegman's erratic panning or the video transfer or one of the multiple transfers thereafter,
:D :D :D
Funny how the only person on the steps it happens to, and across multiple frames, is the person catching impossible shadow!
(https://i.imgur.com/qVaZNww.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
1, Front door swings inward as Oswald exits and is not noticed by Pauline Sanders (purple figure)
2. Pauline Sanders is NOT right in front of the door but is further east of the front door and further forward, such that she would have had LOSto Elm st. Where she is depicted in the overhead plan view (purple figure), her LOS would have been blocked.
3. Prayerblob is approx in the correct position although possibly closer to the west wall , and the white object therefore NOT a hand in the sunliight but is actually a white cup.
4, Lovelady figure is in front of Buell W. Frazier, and closer to the central railing, thus is in full sunlight. This position creates a gap between BW Frazier and Prayerblob, which is where Oswald came out and stood for a brief period of time from approx 12:29 until 12:30:15. This position is approx indicated in the graphic with the "Love" red disk marker. This is slightly BEHIND both BWF and Prayerblob, thus Oswald not noticed by BWF nor Prayerblob (possibly Stanton)
5. Because the sunlight illuminates at least 50% of Oswald figure, possibly even had his face at one point in sunlight, this gap had to be darkened by some method to obscure the figure of Oswald.
We can quibble over details of where certain individuals were located, Mr Mason, but we are in agreement over the basic scenario here. Looks like I misjudged you-----------sorry!
Now the question of why the conspirators did not attempt to darken out the 2nd head
A. They concluded it was a motion blur effect of Lovelady face
B. The technique they used to add shadow would have taken more time than they had to carefully mask out around Loveladys face.
C. They decided micro shadowing was a greater risk of distortion to Lovelady face, than to just leave the 2nd head unaltered, which they determined was not enough detail to be discerned as Oswalds face, and could be explained as motion blur anyway.
B. + C.------------exactly! Thumb1:
A.-------------I would modify to "They banked on people just assuming it was a motion blur effect of Lovelady face". Thumb1:
-
Don't give up your day job.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4sbf3cx/stripes-loveladyzz.gif)
:D :D :D
Notice how Mr Mytton doesn't mark the collar on the Martin frame! Now why oh why might that be...?
Friends, we haven't seen such sophisticated photoanalysis showcased on a JFK Assassination research forum since the days when Mr Ralph Cinque was proving that Mr Lovelady in Altgens is wearing Mr Oswald's arrest shirt!
Thumb1:
-
Oswald killed kennedy. Get over it, folks. Go from there, with help or no (especially with the voices in his tiny little marxist head). How could marina stand him? What a nightmare he must've been in bed, Ms. Porter. Just my opinion. No clean sources. that means HUMINT
-
Friends, look at the young man in this photo taken after the assassination, when there was more shadow in the entranceway:
(https://i.imgur.com/WWSrjeN.jpg)
The young man is way west of the center railing, yet no shadow from the west column is catching him.
And this is what it comes down to:
Those still devoted to the lost cause of explaining the dark strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman know they must, at all costs, keep Mr Lovelady off the steps for all the Wiegman frames.
And this is what destroys all hope of succeeding in that ridiculous mission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rellWvm.jpg)
Mr Lovelady is on the steps here; Mr Lovelady is in full sunlight here; Mr Lovelady has a 'shadow' here; the 'shadow' cannot be natural!
Thumb1:
-
Now!
Let's consider this strange interference we see when the car aerial lands directly in front of the area where the Lovelady 'shadow' falls:
(https://i.imgur.com/JvrCVBH.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/2o4xTZR.gif)
If this were natural darkness that the aerial is in front of in the Lovelady 'shadow' frame, then the aerial would simply show up clearly against the dark backdrop, just like it does in every other instance.
The fact that-------uniquely--------this does not happen in this frame, but that the darkness here--------uniquely--------interferes with the aerial tells us something very startling:
The 'shadow' cannot be behind the aerial, it must be in front of it.
Another way of putting this is that the 'shadow' has been added over the aerial.
Thumb1:
-
Of course it is, you're the Movie Expert, every TV I have ever watched or owned since black and white has at least had a brightness and contrast control and these were used to "enhance" and bring out the detail in the image. Isn't it ironic that the very hobby that you cherish and adore has had "image enhancements" as a standard feature for the last half a century. Hilarious!
I always calibrate my TV's and especially projectors by adjusting CONTRAST and a million other settings to best display the purest possible image as the Director intended. See I'm a REAL movie BUFF and watch REAL movies not crap like "Rocky 2-10" which were the same plot again and again with the same manipulative, bubble gum, garbage!
(http://installheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/746-h_main-w1.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k56grkxP/image-enhancement.jpg)
JohnM
You seem to have a Problem understanding what "Jacking Up" truly means. Maybe all the images that you have Manufactured have screwed up your retinas? Also, calibrating a TV has absolutely Nothing to do with being a Movie or TV "Expert". What you are doing is akin to riding a horse and then claiming to be a Wrangler. There are No Shortcuts to mastering a craft or a field of expertise.
-
No assassination eyewitness at any time has Ever recounted seeing Oswald on the TSBD Steps. This includes Lovelady, Shelley, & Frazier who were close enough to touch your alleged Oswald standing atop the landing. THAT is a Fact.
::)
I have dealt with each of these issues, Mr Storing, and take this opportunity to remind you that you were the one who declared that anyone who believes a word that comes out of Mr Frazier's mouth at any given time is a fool. You can't have it both ways, sorry!
My position, once again, is that
a) Mr Frazier was probably the only person who noticed Mr Oswald during the latter's short appearance in the doorway
b) Mr Wiegman's and Mr Altgens' were the only cameras that captured Mr Oswald during his short appearance in the doorway
(https://i.imgur.com/Crc78ip.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/7aNlBz0.gif)
Thumb1:
-
But with a touch of the Cinquesque added in for good measure! :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3wryYMM/loveshirtcollar.gif)
And here's how the collar of the red plaid shirt looked!
(https://i.imgur.com/gOrUjt8.jpg)
So, either
a) Mr Mytton's method is sound, and Mr Lovelady wasn't wearing that red plaid shirt at the time of the assassination
or
b) Mr Mytton's method is not sound and he's just doing what he always does, i.e. seeing whatever he so desperately wants to see.
Tough choice! :D
This is the same Hokum that Jack White used to bring us Badge Man. Mytton continues following this same path to support positions that are just as ridiculous as Badge Man.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qCFDc8L/love-newerc.gif)
Mr Mytton, can you show us this with the three red lines blinking on and off please?
(https://i.imgur.com/ezbcg5B.jpg)
Thank you! Thumb1:
-
::)
I have dealt with each of these issues, Mr Storing, and take this opportunity to remind you that you were the one who declared that anyone who believes a word that comes out of Mr Frazier's mouth at any given time is a fool. You can't have it both ways, sorry!
My position, once again, is that
a) Mr Frazier was probably the only person who noticed Mr Oswald during the latter's short appearance in the doorway
b) Mr Wiegman's and Mr Altgens' were the only cameras that captured Mr Oswald during his short appearance in the doorway.
Thumb1:
Why do you believe that "Mr Frazier was probably the only person who noticed Mr Oswald......."? What makes you think Frazier Might have seen Oswald in the doorway?
-
Why do you believe that "Mr Frazier was probably the only person who noticed Mr Oswald......."? What makes you think Frazier Might have seen Oswald in the doorway?
Because Mr Oswald was standing right in front of him! Thumb1:
-
Because Mr Oswald was standing right in front of him! Thumb1:
Well then, what about Shelley?
-
Well then, what about Shelley?
Mr Oswald was slightly behind (and to the left of) Mr Shelley, who was (like everyone else) focused on the P. parade (and who I believe to be PrayerPerson in Wiegman).
If Mr Shelley did see Mr Oswald, however, then he simply caved in to pressure afterwards and lied------------------just as he changed his story of when he left those steps after the shooting.
Thumb1:
-
Mr Oswald was slightly behind Mr Shelley, who was (like everyone else) focused on the P. parade (and who I believe to be PrayerPerson in Wiegman).
If Mr Shelley did see Mr Oswald, however, then he lied afterwards------------------just as he changed his story of when he left those steps after the shooting.
Thumb1:
The issue I have with No One seeing Oswald standing on that landing is that the landing is Less than 4 feet deep and the Door is roughly 4 feet Wide. You have a lot of people standing on that Landing in front of the 4 foot wide door with Frazier allegedly standing closest to that TSBD Door/Lobby. These people are PACKED into that limited space in front of the door yet No One has ever said they saw Oswald standing on that landing. Oswald standing in that Very limited space and going unseen does Not fly.
-
The issue I have with No One seeing Oswald standing on that landing is that the landing is Less than 4 feet deep and the Door is roughly 4 feet Wide. You have a lot of people standing on that Landing in front of the 4 foot wide door with Frazier allegedly standing closest to that TSBD Door/Lobby. These people are PACKED into that limited space in front of the door yet No One has ever said they saw Oswald standing on that landing. Oswald standing in that Very limited space and going unseen does Not fly.
Timing is everything here, Mr Storing.
If Mr Oswald went out for a few minutes awaiting the motorcade's arrival with everyone else, then yes------------it would be odd that no one would have remembered seeing him there.
But he was not one for small talk, and standing around chatting wouldn't have been his thing. I believe he stayed inside, keeping an eye and an ear out, only nipping out just in time to see JFK.
During the time he was out, the attention of everyone----------including of everyone on the landing-----------will have been focused entirely on JFK. As the limousine came down Houston Street, those on the landing will likely have stepped forward as far as they could go. Mr Frazier's height (6'0"-6'1"), however, enabled him to hang back on the landing and see over everyone's head.
The depth of the landing was quite adequate therefore for Mr Oswald to
-------pull the glass door open,
-------make his way west behind others on the landing but in front of Mr Frazier,
-------and take up his position near the edge of the landing.
I don't believe we can find Mr Oswald in the Darnell film---------------he's already gone back into the building's vestibule.
Thumb1:
-
Timing is everything here, Mr Storing.
If Mr Oswald went out for a few minutes awaiting the motorcade's arrival with everyone else, then yes------------it would be odd that no one would have remembered seeing him there.
But he was not one for small talk, and standing around chatting wouldn't have been his thing. I believe he stayed inside, keeping an eye and an ear out, only nipping out just in time to see JFK.
During the time he was out, the attention of everyone----------including of everyone on the landing-----------will have been focused entirely on JFK. As the limousine came down Houston Street, those on the landing will likely have stepped forward as far as they could go. Mr Frazier's height (6'0"-6'1"), however, enabled him to hang back on the landing and see over everyone's head.
The depth of the landing was quite adequate therefore for Mr Oswald to
-------pull the glass door open,
-------make his way west behind others on the landing but in front of Mr Frazier,
-------and take up his position near the edge of the landing.
I don't believe we can find Mr Oswald in the Darnell film---------------he's already gone back into the building's vestibule.
Thumb1:
Not sure Specifically where you are placing Frazier. If Frazier is in front of the TSBD Door, then based on your description above, Oswald would have gone out the door, moved to his (R), and then stepped forward toward the street in order to be in Front of Frazier. Again, this Landing is Less than 4 feet deep and there are people scattered all over/across it. The more You have Oswald moving (R) and then Forward, the more likely he is going to be Noticed. As Freddie Blassie sang in Pencil Neck Geek, "You couldn't hardly sneeze without knocking one down". This is much the same closeness that those standing atop that Small Landing experienced.
-
Not sure Specifically where you are placing Frazier. If Frazier is in front of the TSBD Door, then based on your description above, Oswald would have gone out the door, moved to his (R), and then stepped forward toward the street in order to be in Front of Frazier. Again, this Landing is Less than 4 feet deep and there are people scattered all over/across it. The more You have Oswald moving (R) and then Forward, the more likely he is going to be Noticed. As Freddie Blassie sang in Pencil Neck Geek, "You couldn't hardly sneeze without knocking one down". This is much the same closeness that those standing atop that Small Landing experienced.
Again, timing is key: everyone is looking in the direction of Houston Street. This is a big moment----------------the most powerful man in the world is about to pass by!
It's like someone sidling into their seat in the row behind you just as the dramatic opening scene of the movie is starting. You don't turn around, you could care less who they are.
I'm placing Mr Frazier where Wiegman places him--------------a little in front of the metal frame at the non-opening side of the door:
(https://i.imgur.com/ofHMQbm.gif)
Thumb1:
-
Again, timing is key: everyone is looking in the direction of Houston Street. This is a big moment----------------the most powerful man in the world is about to pass by!
It's like someone sidling into their seat in the row behind you just as the dramatic opening scene of the movie is starting. You don't turn around, you could care less who they are.
I'm placing Mr Frazier where Wiegman places him--------------a little in front of the metal frame at the non-opening side of the door:
(https://i.imgur.com/ofHMQbm.gif)
Thumb1:
You claim Oswald was In Front of Frazier. With the landing being LESS than 4 feet deep, how does Oswald manage to move (R) and Forward and Only be standing in front of Frazier? The avg stride of a person is roughly 2.5 feet. This is why having Lovelady, Shelley, Frazier, etc + OSWALD ALL on that shallow landing and ALL in front of the door does Not fit the minimal depth of the landing. Plus, you have No One seeing Oswald. If some of these individuals were standing on the top step closest to the landing, your scenario would be plausible. Everybody standing on that shallow landing, roughly in front of the door, and Oswald Moving (R) and Forward yet going unnoticed just doesn't FIT in more ways than 1.
-
You claim Oswald was In Front of Frazier. With the landing being LESS than 4 feet deep, how does Oswald manage to move (R) and Forward and Only be standing in front of Frazier?
I don't 'claim' that Mr Oswald is in front of Mr Frazier, I see it in Wiegman.
Your space argument has no basis. As Mr Oswald steps out, everyone else on the landing (bar Mr Frazier) is in front of him, at or near the edge. Mr Oswald does not then stride across the landing, he sidles. Ample room on that landing for all this to happen-----------and no reason for anyone other than Mr Frazier to notice him. But in the pretty unlikely event that one or two other people do happen to notice him, then they are told afterwards to shut up about it.
Not complicated, Mr Storing! Thumb1:
-
Don't give up your day job.
And what's truly "Mytton"-esque is making a gif with two photos, drawing lines on it, and just declaring that they match (or don't match).
-
Oswald killed kennedy. Get over it, folks. Go from there, with help or no (especially with the voices in his tiny little marxist head). How could marina stand him? What a nightmare he must've been in bed, Ms. Porter. Just my opinion. No clean sources. that means HUMINT
Maybe if you stomp your feet when you say it, it will become more believable.
-
I don't 'claim' that Mr Oswald is in front of Mr Frazier, I see it in Wiegman.
Your space argument has no basis. As Mr Oswald steps out, everyone else on the landing (bar Mr Frazier) is in front of him, at or near the edge. Mr Oswald does not then stride across the landing, he sidles. Ample room on that landing for all this to happen-----------and no reason for anyone other than Mr Frazier to notice him. But in the pretty unlikely event that one or two other people do happen to notice him, then they are told afterwards to shut up about it.
Not complicated, Mr Storing! Thumb1:
Ridiculous! Other than Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly, who "slides"? What's next? Oswald "moon walking" across the landing? These are the ridiculous lengths to which you are having to go to in order to have Oswald go unnoticed.
-
And what's truly "Mytton"-esque is making a gif with two photos, drawing lines on it, and just declaring that they match (or don't match).
Generally the same stuff Mytton used to belittle Paul Ernst for doing.
-
Ridiculous! Other than Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly, who "slides"? What's next? Oswald "moon walking" across the landing? These are the ridiculous lengths to which you are having to go to in order to have Oswald go unnoticed.
I wrote 'sidles', Mr Storing, not 'slides'. Apology accepted! Thumb1:
-
First it was Abbot and Costello and now with Curly, it's the 3 Stooges.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l4FGm4EoWOc5MZ16g/giphy.gif)
I looked through the posts from you clowns and here's a summary of what's being discussed and answers.
The foundation of Ford's increasingly complex theory is that in the Wiegman film, Lovelady had a shadow painted on him to hide Oswald who was behind. Storing describes the shadow as a Jet Black Curtain. Iacoletti just screams Bah Humbug to anything I post.
First of all to see if there was anything captured on film in the shadow area because a painted on jet black curtain should leave no detail or what's the point? Next a Wiegman frame from a Genuine Ford post so their can be no disputes(jTZuj9p.jpg) and increased the contrast to bring out the detail in the shadow area.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKPCLZmv/Prayerman.gif)
First of all it's not a straight curtain so a stupid analogy and then I noticed that the shadow on Lovelady wasn't a flat plane but was brimming with detail, what immediately stood out were the stripes on Lovelady's shirt and they looked to be placed about right. So let's check the positioning and they are a good match.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4sbf3cx/stripes-loveladyzz.gif)
Now, if the proportions between the lines are similar with Lovelady's actual shirt then the chances that these 3 lines are just random are incredibly small but not only were the distances the same but each location was a perfect match to Lovelady's actual shirt. This "painted on shadow theory" is in it's death throes now
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qCFDc8L/love-newerc.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2qtJs5B/love-shirt-new2ca.gif)
Looking at the collar what struck me was the shadow, so I checked the overall positioning of where a collar should sit and we have another match but I see some concern with the different Lovelady shirt, so I made a comparison with the same shirt and even though the shirt is almost a decade older, along with an older Lovelady, standing not at the exact same angle, different weather, a different sun position we can still see a shadow with a white outline in the same area as we expect.
With the stripes and the collar all lining up together, this "painted on shadow theory" has drawn it's last breath.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3wryYMM/loveshirtcollar.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRHY6b0S/love-shirt-new2.jpg)
That's a Slam Dunk, friends
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/l3q2INFDiIJL42U6s/giphy.gif)
JohnM
-
First it was Abbot and Costello and now with Curly, it's the 3 Stooges.
Namecalling is always the best way to convince people that you’re right.
Iacoletti just screams Bah Humbug to anything I post.
Not anything. Just the stuff where you make claims without any basis.
-
First it was Abbot and Costello and now with Curly, it's the 3 Stooges.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l4FGm4EoWOc5MZ16g/giphy.gif)
I looked through the posts from you clowns and here's a summary of what's being discussed and answers.
The foundation of Ford's increasingly complex theory is that in the Wiegman film, Lovelady had a shadow painted on him to hide Oswald who was behind. Storing describes the shadow as a Jet Black Curtain. Iacoletti just screams Bah Humbug to anything I post.
First of all to see if there was anything captured on film in the shadow area because a painted on jet black curtain should leave no detail or what's the point? Next a Wiegman frame from a Genuine Ford post so their can be no disputes(jTZuj9p.jpg) and increased the contrast to bring out the detail in the shadow area.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKPCLZmv/Prayerman.gif)
First of all it's not a straight curtain so a stupid analogy and then I noticed that the shadow on Lovelady wasn't a flat plane but was brimming with detail, what immediately stood out were the stripes on Lovelady's shirt and they looked to be placed about right. So let's check the positioning and they are a good match.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4sbf3cx/stripes-loveladyzz.gif)
Now, if the proportions between the lines are similar with Lovelady's actual shirt then the chances that these 3 lines are just random are incredibly small but not only were the distances the same but each location was a perfect match to Lovelady's actual shirt. This "painted on shadow theory" is in it's death throes now
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qCFDc8L/love-newerc.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2qtJs5B/love-shirt-new2ca.gif)
Looking at the collar what struck me was the shadow, so I checked the overall positioning of where a collar should sit and we have another match but I see some concern with the different Lovelady shirt, so I made a comparison with the same shirt and even though the shirt is almost a decade older, along with an older Lovelady, standing not at the exact same angle, different weather, a different sun position we can still see a shadow with a white outline in the same area as we expect.
With the stripes and the collar all lining up together, this "painted on shadow theory" has drawn it's last breath.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3wryYMM/loveshirtcollar.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRHY6b0S/love-shirt-new2.jpg)
That's a Slam Dunk, friends
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/l3q2INFDiIJL42U6s/giphy.gif)
JohnM
STOP putzing around with assassination images. I seriously doubt that Lovelady was wearing a Flack Jacket on 11/22/63.
-
First of all to see if there was anything captured on film in the shadow area because a painted on jet black curtain should leave no detail or what's the point? Next a Wiegman frame from a Genuine Ford post so their can be no disputes(jTZuj9p.jpg) and increased the contrast to bring out the detail in the shadow area.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKPCLZmv/Prayerman.gif)
First of all it's not a straight curtain so a stupid analogy and then I noticed that the shadow on Lovelady wasn't a flat plane but was brimming with detail (~Snip!~)
So the shadow area is brimming with detail, is it, Mr Mytton?
If that is the case, then we would have to say it's not the only dark area doing so:
(https://i.imgur.com/3THmEHq.gif)
Yes?
Thumb1:
-
So the shadow area is brimming with detail, is it, Mr Mytton?
If that is the case, then we would have to say it's not the only dark area doing so:
(https://i.imgur.com/3THmEHq.gif)
Yes?
Thumb1:
Mr Mytton has gone strangely quiet! :D
Now!
This illustrative enhancement of the Wiegman frame (image on left) was prepared some time back by (IIRC) Mr Kamp:
(https://i.imgur.com/fZ8DB41.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/3THmEHq.gif)
Helpful Key!
(https://i.imgur.com/sViXWOz.jpg) 1. PrayerMan 2. Lovelady 3. Frazier 4. Oswald
Thumb1:
-
Friends, the trap poor Mr Mytton walked into was to misinterpret my claim that dark color has been added to the Wiegman film as a claim that black has been painted directly onto the film.
As he may now be realizing, I never made such a claim, and was careful from the start not to.
Poor Mr Mytton, in short, has been putting tremendous energy into attacking-----------a strawman! :D
And, in so doing, he has developed a method--------
(https://i.imgur.com/sOta9MZ.gif)
--------that helps us confirm what I have been saying all along:
The second head right behind Mr Lovelady's in the Lovelady@UpperElevation frames--------------
(https://i.imgur.com/RZmShJP.jpg)
---------------is no chimera, no photofilmic quirk. It is attached to a real person who is still there in the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames!
And his name is Mr Lee Harvey Oswald, which unacceptable fact explains the initial conundrum of why on earth a dark shadow would have been added down Mr Lovelady!
Thank you, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
-
Friends, the trap poor Mr Mytton walked into was to misinterpret my claim that dark color has been added to the Wiegman film as a claim that black has been painted directly onto the film.
In the OP you say the the area was "BLACKED OUT".
black something out
2 Obscure something completely so that it cannot be read or seen.
‘the number plate had been blacked out with masking tape’
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3jsRt6B/Blacked-out.jpg)
I proved the area was not "BLACKED OUT", we can see the corresponding stripes, so sorry Alan, you LOSE! Get a life.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qCFDc8L/love-newerc.gif) (https://i.postimg.cc/m2qtJs5B/love-shirt-new2ca.gif)
JohnM
-
In the OP you say the the area was "BLACKED OUT".
:D :D :D
You described my claim as the "painted on shadow theory", Mr Mytton, and so let's see your cite for my ever saying the shadow was painted on!
Thumb1:
-
Oswald killed Kennedy. He also killed Tippit. He almost shot Walker. He almost killed himself (oh, too bad!!). This is all fact. The rest is just a parlour game+
-
Oswald killed Kennedy. He also killed Tippit. He almost shot Walker. He almost killed himself (oh, too bad!!). This is all fact. The rest is just a parlour game+
"I, Mr Mark A. Oblazney, have a rational and straightforward explanation for the dark vertical strip down Lovelady in the Wiegman film. Here it is: ___________________"
Thumb1:
-
I looked through the posts from you clowns and here's a summary of what's being discussed and answers.
The foundation of Ford's increasingly complex theory is that in the Wiegman film, Lovelady had a shadow painted on him to hide Oswald who was behind. Storing describes the shadow as a Jet Black Curtain. Iacoletti just screams Bah Humbug to anything I post.
First of all to see if there was anything captured on film in the shadow area because a painted on jet black curtain should leave no detail or what's the point? Next a Wiegman frame from a Genuine Ford post so their can be no disputes(jTZuj9p.jpg) and increased the contrast to bring out the detail in the shadow area.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKPCLZmv/Prayerman.gif)
First of all it's not a straight curtain so a stupid analogy and then I noticed that the shadow on Lovelady wasn't a flat plane but was brimming with detail, what immediately stood out were the stripes on Lovelady's shirt and they looked to be placed about right. So let's check the positioning and they are a good match.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4sbf3cx/stripes-loveladyzz.gif)
Now, if the proportions between the lines are similar with Lovelady's actual shirt then the chances that these 3 lines are just random are incredibly small but not only were the distances the same but each location was a perfect match to Lovelady's actual shirt. This "painted on shadow theory" is in it's death throes now
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qCFDc8L/love-newerc.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2qtJs5B/love-shirt-new2ca.gif)
Looking at the collar what struck me was the shadow, so I checked the overall positioning of where a collar should sit and we have another match but I see some concern with the different Lovelady shirt, so I made a comparison with the same shirt and even though the shirt is almost a decade older, along with an older Lovelady, standing not at the exact same angle, different weather, a different sun position we can still see a shadow with a white outline in the same area as we expect.
With the stripes and the collar all lining up together, this "painted on shadow theory" has drawn it's last breath.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3wryYMM/loveshirtcollar.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRHY6b0S/love-shirt-new2.jpg)
JohnM
Great post, John.
We can see the outline of the lower part of Lovelady's sleeve, and some of the marks on it.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to show this to us.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Ford has been fully discredited.
-- MWT ;)
PS I wish you would apply the same technique to the sliver of Gloria Calvery's skirt that's visible in Darnell. She's the gal wearing the black blouse (and black headscarf) to the left of the woman dressed all-in-white on the steps.
-
Great post, John.
We can see the outline of the lower part of Lovelady's sleeve, and some of the marks on it.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to show this to us.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Ford has been fully discredited.
:D :D :D
The only theory that Mr Mytton has discredited is a "painted on shadow theory"---------------that Mr Ford never advanced in the first place!
Now!
How about you de-discredit yourself here, Mr Graves, by telling us upfront whether or not you have an explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film?
(Please note: as the film was not shot in Moscow, you must avoid a film-doctoring explanation at all costs!)
Thumb1:
-
:D :D :D
The only theory that Mr Mytton has discredited is a "painted on shadow theory"---------------that Mr Ford never advanced in the first place!
Now!
How about you de-discredit yourself here, Mr Graves, by telling us upfront whether or not you have an explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film?
(Please note: as the film was not shot in Moscow, you must avoid a film-doctoring explanation at all costs!)
Mr. Ford,
Beats the heck out of me.
A shadow, cast by part of the building?
You really got me there.
-- MWT ;)
PS What does Moscow, home of the humanitarian organization known as the KGB, have to do with it?
Is Edward Snowden involved somehow?
-
Mr. Ford,
Beats the heck out of me.
A shadow, cast by part of the building?
Good luck finding a shadow cast by part of the building that would catch Mr Lovelady here!
(https://i.imgur.com/FetR3UP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/d2lFAvj.png)
:D
-
Good luck finding a shadow cast by part of the building that would catch Mr Lovelady here!
(https://i.imgur.com/FetR3UP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/d2lFAvj.png)
Mr. Ford,
I believe Mr. Davidson recently posted a film clip showing a policeman walking out of a similar shadow on the landing.
-- MWT ;)
-
Mr. Ford,
I believe Mr. Davidson recently posted a film clip showing a policeman walking out of a similar shadow on the landing.
-- MWT ;)
Do you mean this film clip, Mr Graves?
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)
Thumb1:
-
Good luck finding a shadow cast by part of the building that would catch Mr Lovelady here!
(https://i.imgur.com/FetR3UP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/d2lFAvj.png)
:D
That IS the crux of the Issue. Where is Lovelady standing? Lovelady has to be standing with his (R) Shoulder almost touching the West Wall, for a shadow to fall Anywhere on his body. For a shadow to Blanket HALF of his body he has to almost be Hugging that (W) wall. Look at the position of Lovelady vs the Black Guy below him. The Black Guy is very close to the wall and Lovelady is Clearly standing well East/to the Right of him. Also bear in mind the handrail. How far from the handrail is Lovelady standing?
-
Kindly stop with this nonsense, Mr Mitcham!
(https://i.imgur.com/XxDiS56.gif)
Bump regarding shadow being cast.
-
That IS the crux of the Issue. Where is Lovelady standing? Lovelady has to be standing with his (R) Shoulder almost touching the West Wall, for a shadow to fall Anywhere on his body. For a shadow to Blanket HALF of his body he has to almost be Hugging that (W) wall. Look at the position of Lovelady vs the Black Guy below him. The Black Guy is very close to the wall and Lovelady is Clearly standing well East/to the Right of him. Also bear in mind the handrail. How far from the handrail is Lovelady standing?
Exactly, Mr Storing! Thumb1:
And this why they're so screwed-------------------because, for Mr Lovelady to be catching shadow, he'd have to be standing directly behind Mr Carl Edward Jones (the black man standing on the second step over at the west column):
(https://i.imgur.com/WlWzGo9.jpg)
Quite apart from the self-evident absurdity of such an idea, if Mr Lovelady were that far west he would be blocking Prayer Person.
Mr Mytton, of course, recognized this problem. His solution? That Mr Lovelady in the above frame is not on the steps but halfway back on the landing... bending over to tie his shoelaces!!
Demented stuff from a LN 'researcher' in sheer denial about a devastatingly simple fact:
The 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman is not a natural shadow!
Thumb1:
-
Exactly, Mr Storing! Thumb1:
And this why they're so screwed-------------------because, for Mr Lovelady to be catching shadow, he'd have to be standing directly behind Mr Carl Edward Jones (the black man standing on the second step over at the west column):
(https://i.imgur.com/WlWzGo9.jpg)
Quite apart from the self-evident absurdity of such an idea, if Mr Lovelady were that far west he would be blocking Prayer Person.
Mr Mytton, of course, recognized this problem. His solution? That Mr Lovelady in the above frame is not on the steps but halfway back on the landing... bending over to tie his shoelaces!!
Demented stuff from a LN 'researcher' in sheer denial about a devastatingly simple fact:
The 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman is not a natural shadow!
Thumb1:
The Lovelady position issue is also why Mytton had to Mickey Mouse the position of the handrail. The Black Guy standing at the Bottom/Touching the Wall easily places Lovelady in close proximity to the handrail = NO SHADOW falling there. Easy-Peasy
-
The Lovelady position issue is also why Mytton had to Mickey Mouse the position of the handrail. The Black Guy standing at the Bottom/Touching the Wall easily places Lovelady in close proximity to the handrail = NO SHADOW falling there. Easy-Peasy
Lemon squeezy! Thumb1:
-
Lemon squeezy! Thumb1:
Shia Labeouf's Not my cup of tea, but I watch "The Greatest Game Ever Played" every time the Golf Channel puts it on. That is a stunningly beautiful looking movie. I also enjoy watching the acting of Stephen Dillane. His portrayal of Stannis Baratheon on "Game Of Thrones" was a tour de force.
-
-
Mr Mytton, of course, recognized this problem. His solution? That Mr Lovelady in the above frame is not on the steps but halfway back on the landing... bending over to tie his shoelaces!!
Demented stuff from a LN 'researcher' in sheer denial about a devastatingly simple fact:
My original quote.
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
-
In my humble opinion, Mr. Ford has been fully discredited.
-- MWT ;)
:D :D :D :D :D
Yep, and after my credibility smashing discoveries, watching Ford's mad scramble to save face is absolutely hilarious. :'(
Ford's OP clearly states that the "impossible" shadow area was BLACKED OUT but obviously it's nothing of the sort. Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qCFDc8L/love-newerc.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/m2qtJs5B/love-shirt-new2ca.gif)
JohnM
-
My original quote.
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
You continue claiming that Lovelady's "shirt right side falling FORWARD...." ?? Your Blatantly False "Forward" claim Taints All of your observations/opinions. The Lovelady shirt flap is falling BACKWARD toward the chest of Lovelady. Perhaps Lovelady is stepping down/thumping down and Jarring that shirt flap BACK toward him? Whatever the cause may be, Your Mr Magoo Description of that shirt flap falling "Forward" is Incorrect as the entire Forum can see. Not to mention the distance between Lovelady and the Black Guy standing against the West Wall DQ's there being a shadow stretching that far across the steps and then falling upon Lovelady. The total number of issues You have wrong regarding the, (1)Shadow, (2) Physical Position Of Lovelady (3) Handrail Position, and (4)Lovelady Shirt Flap continue mounting by the day. This proves the age old axiom that "one lie leads to another".
-
Perhaps Lovelady is stepping down/thumping down and Jarring that shirt flap BACK toward him?
Hilarious!
Gonna fly now!
(https://tinyfaces.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rockybalboa01-tinyfaces.jpg?w=1400)
JohnM
-
My original quote.
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
Once again, You are Busted. The Forum can clearly see the Lovelady Shirt Flap coming BACK Toward his chest. Attempting to joke your way out of a Falsehood will Not Fly.
-
:D :D :D :D :D
Yep, and after my credibility smashing discoveries, watching Ford's mad scramble to save face is absolutely hilarious. :'(
Ford's OP clearly states that the "impossible" shadow area was BLACKED OUT but obviously it's nothing of the sort. Thumb1:
:D :D :D
Mr Mytton, who misunderstood my theory as a "painted on shadow theory" (his words), cannot now find any instance of my having mentioned paint. Doh!
And so he throws the definition of 'blacked out' at me:
black something out
2 Obscure something completely so that it cannot be read or seen.
‘the number plate had been blacked out with masking tape’
Question for Mr Mytton!
Is 'masking tape' a synonym for 'paint'?
:D
-
:D :D :D
Mr Mytton, who misunderstood my theory as a "painted on shadow theory" (his words), cannot now find any instance of my having mentioned paint. Doh!
And so he throws the definition of 'blacked out' at me:
black something out
2 Obscure something completely so that it cannot be read or seen.
‘the number plate had been blacked out with masking tape’
Question for Mr Mytton!
Is 'masking tape' a synonym for 'paint'?
:D
Like I said, "One lie leads to another". You have the guy flailing around for the entire Forum to see. It's sad to witness, but like a train wreck impossible to look away from it.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/oaG01R0.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/4gBSmrs.gif)
Shadow elsewhere in the doorway doesn't have this effect on the aerial. That's because the shadow down Mr Lovelady's side is unique------------it has been added over the aerial.
Thumb1:
-
Oswald killed Kennedy. He also killed Tippit. He almost shot Walker. He almost killed himself (oh, too bad!!). This is all fact. The rest is just a parlour game+
A no-pressure shot yet Walker was missed. BTW the shots at the Presidential limo were actually easy but too bad for your case there was never a shot that originated from a southeast corner of the Book Depository. You need to figure out where they came from. I'm waiting for the picture you have of Oswald in that window, what is the hold-up? If you need help ask Mytton he might be able to fool you with some of his unique...ummmm, let's just call it photo artwork
-
Oswald killed Kennedy. He also killed Tippit. He almost shot Walker. He almost killed himself (oh, too bad!!). This is all fact. The rest is just a parlour game+
Yup. I can't believe I check in each lunchtime to read for 30 minutes or so arguments over an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow on a piece of film, yet here I am again doing just that. :D
Also, doesn't anyone find it remotely odd that the one person accused of committing this act was NOT spotted 'on the steps or outside watching p. parade' by ANYONE during the entire affair?
-
Yup. I can't believe I check in each lunchtime to read for 30 minutes or so arguments over an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow on a piece of film, yet here I am again doing just that. :D
And yet you do keep checking in, Mr Finch. Likely explanation: the issue is making you nervous!
Now! If you can put your unfortunate LN bias to one side for just a moment, let me remind you that you were the one who drew attention to the curious "interference" between the car antenna and the Lovelady 'shadow'. Can you offer an explanation for this that would be consistent with said 'shadow's' being "an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow"? How come the antenna shows up clearly against every other dark background except this one?
And---------------while you're there--------------how do you explain the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's body in the frame below as "an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow" when the real-time Mr Lovelady is clearly on the steps and nowhere near the real-time natural shadow line from the west column?
(https://i.imgur.com/gN2zoCU.jpg)
Can you do any better than your fellow LNers on this, Mr Finch? I know it's not exactly a high bar, but by all means give it your best jump!
(https://i.imgur.com/m89phO0.gif)
Thumb1:
-
:D :D :D
Here's what actually happened, Mr Mytton. It's a real hoot!
1. I posted this photo from Mr Pat Speer:
(https://i.imgur.com/K9lyZbh.jpg)
2. You, rubbing your hands in glee as you saw the shadow reaching almost the perfect midpoint of the doorway, posted this claim that all my claims were refuted by what you had noticed:
(https://i.imgur.com/Jj6kBrx.jpg)
3. I gently pointed out to you that the landing depth today is different to the landing depth in 1963, and you came back with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8sggNsS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JMpXgNB.jpg)
So the landing was "a little deeper", "a bit deeper (from memory a couple of feet) in 2019", was it?
Let's look at the facts, shall we? Thumb1:
Depth of landing in 1963: less than 4 feet
(https://i.imgur.com/f7kMn6C.jpg)
(Credit: Mr Gary Murr! Thumb1: )
Depth of landing now: 9 feet.
(https://i.imgur.com/TRoH8OJ.jpg)
The landing has been extended to well over twice its original depth!
This is what you call "a little deeper"!
Keep up the good work, Mr Mytton! :D
The Top Pic taken on 11/22/2019 is "The straw that broke the camels back". Lovelady standing in Close Proximity to the Handrail running down the Middle of the steps, Rules Out an alleged shadow falling across half of his body.
-
The Top Pic taken on 11/22/2019 is "The straw that broke the camels back". Lovelady standing in Close Proximity to the Handrail running down the Middle of the steps, Rules Out an alleged shadow falling across half of his body.
Yep! Thumb1:
It's very simple. Anyone who accepts the reality that Mr Lovelady is on the steps here--------------
(https://i.imgur.com/CKQMa7T.jpg)
---------------yet refuses to acknowledge the shadow problem is just being intellectually dishonest.
And anyone who doesn't accept the reality that Mr Lovelady is on the steps here is either mad, bad or blind!
Thumb1:
-
Even here, friends, we are seeing not one but two heads:
(https://i.imgur.com/mSKclz9.gif)
Mr Lovelady's white tshirt is under his chin, where you would expect it to be; the edge of Mr Oswald's head rounds out Mr Lovelady's head, making it look unnaturally large.
Thumb1:
-
Yup. I can't believe I check in each lunchtime to read for 30 minutes or so arguments over an obvious 'real time' (not post-production) shadow on a piece of film, yet here I am again doing just that. :D
Also, doesn't anyone find it remotely odd that the one person accused of committing this act was NOT spotted 'on the steps or outside watching p. parade' by ANYONE during the entire affair?
Matthew below is a quote from you a couple of months back
Wasn't Oswald* spotted emptying shells from his revolver post-shooting Tippit? The three live rounds in his pocket, maybe?
*Assuming of course, it was indeed Oswald - which I think it most likely was.
Judging that both quotes are nothing more than drive-by comments maybe it would help if you read both of your quotes and ask yourself if you took a position on anything
Answer: It depends, for example, in the second quote if you know the answers to your two questions. Maybe you do or maybe you don't.
You said it yourself "assuming of course, it was indeed Oswald- which I think it most likely was"
See, you don't, even after you allow yourself to "Assume it was Oswald" you are only willing to say "it most likely was". That sounds like someone who is oblivious
Do you think any of the pictures were altered?
-
Matthew below is a quote from you a couple of months back
Judging that both quotes are nothing more than drive-by comments maybe it would help if you read both of your quotes and ask yourself if you took a position on anything
Answer: It depends, for example, in the second quote if you know the answers to your two questions. Maybe you do or maybe you don't.
You said it yourself "assuming of course, it was indeed Oswald- which I think it most likely was"
See, you don't, even after you allow yourself to "Assume it was Oswald" you are only willing to say "it most likely was". That sounds like someone who is oblivious
Do you think any of the pictures were altered?
Kleinschmidt,
Please remind us -- What are you convinced of regarding the assassination?
Do you think any of the photographs were altered?
-- MWT ;)
-
Kleinschmidt,
Please remind us -- What are you convinced of regarding the assassination?
Do you think any of the photographs were altered?
-- MWT ;)
No photographs/films were altered. Period. Obviously, Mssr. Ford knows nothing of photogrammetry, as Jack White even testified that he himself did not know what the word meant. Oswald shot Kennedy. He also shot Tippit. He almost shot Walker. He almost shot himself (and he doesn't even know how to slit a wrist !!! LOL !!!) What a total loser and Kennedy Killer he wuz' !!
-
No photographs/films were altered. Period. Obviously, Mssr. Ford knows nothing of photogrammetry, as Jack White even testified that he himself did not know what the word meant. Oswald shot Kennedy. He also shot Tippit. He almost shot Walker. He almost shot himself (and he doesn't even know how to slit a wrist !!! LOL !!!) What a total loser and Kennedy Killer he wuz' !!
Thank you, Mark. This is the same answer I was about to provide (pretty much!) ;)
-
I'd still like to know what Kleinschmidt believes regarding the assassination.
Did the same dirty rats who are trying to overthrow our beloved, pussy-grabbing president (i.e., the "scum" FBI and CIA) murder JFK? Or is Kleinschmidt ... gasp ... a "Lone Nutter"?
-- MWT ;)
-
Thank you, Mark. This is the same answer I was about to provide (pretty much!) ;)
:D
So your explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman------------
(https://i.imgur.com/wePEpmy.jpg)
---------------is?
-
No photographs/films were altered. Period. Obviously, Mssr. Ford knows nothing of photogrammetry, as Jack White even testified that he himself did not know what the word meant. Oswald shot Kennedy. He also shot Tippit. He almost shot Walker. He almost shot himself (and he doesn't even know how to slit a wrist !!! LOL !!!) What a total loser and Kennedy Killer he wuz' !!
ANY "Cropped" Image has been ALTERED. ANY B/W Image which is "Colorized" has been ALTERED. This occurs in general and Specifically on this Forum All-The-Time.
-
Now!
1. It is noticed very quickly that a man resembling the accused assassin can be seen in the doorway in the Altgens photography.
2. Even before that, it is known to those privy to Mr Oswald's interrogation that Mr Oswald is placing himself out there at the time of the Presidential parade.
3. The Wiegman film is consulted, and to the horror of the cover-up investigators, Mr Oswald is recognisably there-----------but just behind Mr Billy Lovelady, the man in Altgens. The film has already been broadcast more than once to millions on NBC. To make matters worse, the presenter made a point of explaining during the running of the frames in question that they show the Depository building. So simply disappearing these frames is not an option! There is only one solution: monkey with the film before releasing 'it' back into the public domain!
4. When those tasked with altering the film look at the frames of Mr Lovelady at lower elevation, they don't see this...
(https://i.imgur.com/ck5LOXD.jpg)
What they see is Mr Lovelady's body in full sunlight and behind him the face of Mr Oswald, as identifiable as Mr Lovelady's just under him.
That face has gotta go!
5. And so they obscure Mr Oswald's face out by mimicking the effects of shadow. Thankfully-----------as Mr Mytton has shown------------that area is still brimming with detail, which enables us to make out the presence if not the features of Mr Oswald even in the doctored frames. Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/SvrekB3.gif)
6. But why do they also put a fake shadow down Mr Lovelady? Surely there's nothing needs covering up there?
Bien au contraire! They must put a fake shadow down Mr Lovelady because the other frames-------------the frames showing Mr Lovelady at upper elevation----------------need a fake shadow! You can't just give him a shadow and then have it gone just after. You'd only be tipping people off to the fix you've put in!
7. But why the need for shadow down Mr Lovelady in those Lovelady@HigherElevation frames?
The answer is that these frames, while they are not quite so disastrous as the lower-elevation frames (they don't show Mr Oswald's face clearly enough for identification), do show enough of his body and right arm to identify him as a manual employee.
8. So! Those tasked with altering Wiegman do not see what we see in the initial frames here when they receive the unaltered film...
(https://i.imgur.com/XXECkcp.gif)
No! They receive a film showing these frames with enough of Mr Oswald's white tshirt and right arm showing to rule out the second head's being a photofilmic quirk (e.g. motion blur). The second head must be deprived of its body!
9. And so they mimic the effects of shadow down Mr Lovelady's side--------------starting at the point furthest west on his body they can go, i.e. the point where his body disappears in Altgens!
(https://i.imgur.com/qEMlFK4.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/W2RZG4u.jpg)
10. It cannot be stressed enough, friends, that the entire scam is predicated on one giant gamble: that no one will notice that the shadow down Mr Lovelady is an impossible shadow.
I sincerely hope Mr Barry Pollard has been following this thread, for he saw what's what!
Thumb1:
-
Kleinschmidt,
Please remind us -- What are you convinced of regarding the assassination?
Do you think any of the photographs were altered?
-- MWT ;)
Which ones? There was one
-
--------that helps us confirm what I have been saying all along:
The second head right behind Mr Lovelady's in the Lovelady@UpperElevation frames--------------
(https://i.imgur.com/RZmShJP.jpg)
Thank you, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
The second head right behind Mr Lovelady's in the Lovelady@UpperElevation frames--------------
---------------is no chimera, no photofilmic quirk. It is attached to a real person who is still there in the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames!
And his name is Mr Lee Harvey Oswald, which unacceptable fact explains the initial conundrum of why on earth a dark shadow would have been added down Mr Lovelady!
Wrong! Lovelady is independently in the process of bending down and we are seeing Lovelady's motion blurred image being captured in the opposite direction to the movement of the camera.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)
Lovelady's "second head" in each instance is proportionally positioned compared to the speed and panning direction of Wiegman's camera.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMtQcNrr/lovemove5.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzJvhkGb/lovemove7.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKdk5QR0/lovemove9.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRZmB25w/lovemove3.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3QqNmW2/lovemove1.gif)
LOVELADY'S TWO HEAD'S BS:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0b1ty5d/0UsIadV.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/yRW15S3/zapruder-motion-blur2.jpg)
Thank you, Mr Mytton!
Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Wrong! Lovelady is independently in the process of bending down and we are seeing Lovelady's motion blurred image being captured in the opposite direction to the movement of the camera.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bYxmdPRV/love-landingg.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)
Lovelady's "second head" in each instance is proportionally positioned compared to the speed and panning direction of Wiegman's camera.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMtQcNrr/lovemove5.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzJvhkGb/lovemove7.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKdk5QR0/lovemove9.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRZmB25w/lovemove3.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3QqNmW2/lovemove1.gif)
LOVELADY'S TWO HEAD'S BS:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0b1ty5d/0UsIadV.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/yRW15S3/zapruder-motion-blur2.jpg)
Thumb1:
JohnM
John,
Excellent post.
-- MWT ;)
-
Lovelady died at the relatively young age of 45 and coincidentally just before he was scheduled to be questioned by the HSCA
Sarah Stanton (who is prayerblob imo)
was not called to testify by WC. She remained unwilling to be interviewed
Buell W. Frazier for 50 years had no recollection of having seen Oswald out front of TSBD....until after the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy (WC report revised and extended)....when EUREKA!.. BWF now does recall seeing Oswald “out front”, albeit not exactly on the steps
The timing of BWF sighting Oswald had to be about not later than approx 2 min 45 sec post shots since BWF returned into TSBD before the front door was locked by DPD officer Barnett at approx 3 min post shots.
-
Stop lying, you are becoming too comfortable like it is a skill when it is a bad habit. You need to learn how to be honest and then you will be able to analyze whatever you want. Not in this lifetime, you already ruined any chance of that happening
-
The dynamic nature of the entryway while being filmed by an approaching moving vehicle. (SS reconstruction-Nov 1963 I believe.)
Best match for Wiegman's filming location in relationship to the entryway. imo
The trailing gentleman(beginning to step down) on the stairs should help with Lovelady's position in relationship to the railing.
The lower railing's vertical support post aligns with the back corner window frame.
Use James H.(I believe) panoramic animation(choose matching frame) for the vertical railing/back corner window frame alignment.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/PrayermanFBI-Lightened.gif)
-
The previously described composite would look like this:
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Railing-200-percent.gif)
-
The dynamic nature of the entryway while being filmed by an approaching moving vehicle. (SS reconstruction-Nov 1963 I believe.)
Best match for Wiegman's filming location in relationship to the entryway. imo
The trailing gentleman(beginning to step down) on the stairs should help with Lovelady's position in relationship to the railing.
The lower railing's vertical support post aligns with the back corner window frame.
Use James H.(I believe) panoramic animation(choose matching frame) for the vertical railing/back corner window frame alignment.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/PrayermanFBI-Lightened.gif)
Chris,
You wouldn't happen to know if this was filmed around 12:30, would you?
Thanks,
-- Tommy ;)
-
John,
Excellent post.
-- MWT ;)
Hi Thomas, yeah Ford's completely screwed, the very foundation of Ford's theory is the "blacked out" shadow on Lovelady and that has been thoroughly demolished and now his "Lovelady's second head" which is obviously motion blur, has been equally exposed as complete amateur garbage, what a joke! There's no coming back from this!
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qCFDc8L/love-newerc.gif) (https://i.postimg.cc/m2qtJs5B/love-shirt-new2ca.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMtQcNrr/lovemove5.gif)
JohnM
-
And "motion blur"?
(https://i.imgur.com/Ptu3plh.gif)
Keep up the good work, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
For a start slowing down Wiegman's film to a snails pace to try and hide the speed of the camera pan and subsequent motion blur is typical of your dishonesty. Naughty naughty!
(https://i.postimg.cc/vT2KjZTJ/lovelady-shadow.gif)
And "motion blur"?
Yep, Motion Blur, what everyone's been telling you all this time, every frame that you claimed to be "Oswald's head behind Lovelady" can be traced directly back to Wiegman's corresponding camera movement, the direction of the pan and the speed determines the position, the faster the camera movement the further away is Lovelady's "second" blurred head and without fail this irrefutable pattern is repeated for every single frame that you posted.
This is so over, you have failed on every single level, go be productive and play tiddly winks because you suck at this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG5CytHs/yes-Fordmotionblur.gif)
Keep up the good work, Mr Mytton!
No worries, that's what I do!
JohnM
-
Yep, Motion Blur, what everyone's been telling you all this time, every frame that you claimed to be "Oswald's head behind Lovelady" can be traced directly back to Wiegman's corresponding camera movement, the direction of the pan and the speed determines the position, the faster the camera movement the further away is Lovelady's "second" blurred head and without fail this irrefutable pattern is repeated for every single frame that you posted.
This is so over, you have failed on every single level, go be productive and play tiddly winks because you suck at this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG5CytHs/yes-Fordmotionblur.gif)
This looks great, Mr Mytton, well done! Thumb1:
Now! Try matching the frames correctly!
And once you've done that, show us all the other people in Wiegman given two heads by this 'motion blur'!
:D :D :D
-
This looks great, Mr Mytton, well done! Thumb1:
Now! Try matching the frames correctly!
And once you've done that, show us all the other people in Wiegman given two heads by this 'motion blur'!
This looks great, Mr Mytton, well done! Thumb1:
I know.
Now! Try matching the frames correctly!
Look again Einstein, I took your video screen captures and overlayed each of them with the previous frame and since the GIFs are alternating the order on my collage is irrelevant.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGgK8Bzw/Image78a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Mp1WjTTV/Image80a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG5CytHs/yes-Fordmotionblur.gif)
And once you've done that, show us all the other people in Wiegman given two heads by this 'motion blur'!
You can't be this dense, Lovelady's head is independently moving down and as the erratic camera quickly pans it's capturing Lovelady's head, where it is and where it was.
JohnM
-
I know.
Look again Einstein, I took your video screen captures and overlayed each of them with the previous frame and since the GIFs are alternating the order on my collage is irrelevant.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGgK8Bzw/Image78a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Mp1WjTTV/Image80a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG5CytHs/yes-Fordmotionblur.gif)
You can't be this dense, Lovelady's head is independently moving down and as the erratic camera quickly pans it's capturing Lovelady's head, where it is and where it was.
JohnM
Yes, he is this dense. What in the heck is going on here? The little sh*t shot Kennedy. Why are you continuing to try and prove the opposite? Sure, he might've had help (especially from all the voices in his tiny little marxist head). Why don't you go and join Raff* Sink's OIC, Mssr. Ford? Learn to lose+
-
I know.
Look again Einstein, I took your video screen captures and overlayed each of them with the previous frame
Except you didn't, Mr Mytton---------------you made incorrect matches with my screen captures. The Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Incompetence continues! :D
And what, pray, is the nonsense with these yellow boxes meant to signify?
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGgK8Bzw/Image78a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Mp1WjTTV/Image80a.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
My original quote.
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
Still waiting for Mytton to explain why on this Frankenstein GIF he slapped together we are seeing: (1) Lovelady's shirt Moving UP toward his chest, vs (2) Lovelady's upper torso Moving DOWN. In reality, that shirt should be moving DOWN toward the ground. What we are seeing defies Gravity and renders the GIF useless.
-
Still waiting for Mytton to explain why on this Frankenstein GIF he slapped together we are seeing: (1) Lovelady's shirt Moving UP toward his chest, vs (2) Lovelady's upper torso Moving DOWN. In reality, that shirt should be moving DOWN toward the ground. What we are seeing defies Gravity and renders the GIF useless.
This GIF is a joke, Mr Storing...
(https://i.imgur.com/jV2kdjq.gif)
Poor lost Mr Mytton just took one frame of Mr Lovelady @ Upper Elevation-------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/4AbIxhT.jpg)
-------------------and morphed it into one frame of Mr Lovelady @ Lower Elevation----------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/eX6BiOY.jpg)
He's trying to fool low-information voters into thinking the Wiegman film actually shows Mr Lovelady in motion!
And the reason Mr Mytton needs to do that is that he needs to fool low-information voters into believing
a) the second 'Lovelady' head is due to a combination of motion blur and this fictional Lovelady-Motion! :D
b) Mr Lovelady is bending over to tie his shoelaces! :D
And the reason Mr Mytton needs to have Mr Lovelady bending over is he knows he can't let Mr Lovelady step down off the landing!
Poor lost Mr Mytton! Like everyone else on Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Entrance, he has gotten precisely nowhere in his frantic efforts to convince us that Mr Lovelady in this frame is not on the steps:
(https://i.imgur.com/91XHKqn.jpg)
Mr Mytton and his pals can keep attempting the impossible til the cows come home, but reality will defeat them each and every time! ;D
-
I know.
Look again Einstein, I took your video screen captures and overlayed each of them with the previous frame and since the GIFs are alternating the order on my collage is irrelevant.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGgK8Bzw/Image78a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Mp1WjTTV/Image80a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG5CytHs/yes-Fordmotionblur.gif)
You can't be this dense, Lovelady's head is independently moving down and as the erratic camera quickly pans it's capturing Lovelady's head, where it is and where it was.
JohnM
"where it is and where it was"--
What an answer
John says he can explain everything by answering nothing.
You either know or you don't
And the correct answer is you don't know
-
And what, pray, is the nonsense with these yellow boxes meant to signify?
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGgK8Bzw/Image78a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Mp1WjTTV/Image80a.jpg)
Thumb1:
Sadly, Mr Mytton hasn't got back to us on this... :(
One can only presume that the yellow rectangles are Mr Mytton's response to my challenge to "show us all the other people in Wiegman given two heads by this 'motion blur'".
Let's take a lil' look at how Mr Mytton has done, shall we?
(https://i.imgur.com/ZN7GsW5.jpg)
OMG-----------------------it's a woman's head doubled due to motion blur just like Mr Lovelady's! Mr Mytton has triumphed! :o
Hang on a second...
(https://i.imgur.com/LV4pFJB.gif)
Damn----------------------two different people, one standing behind the other... just like with Messrs Lovelady and Oswald!
Yet ANOTHER glorious Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Goof-Up! :D :D :D
-
This is not true, Brian. Lovelady was wearing a red vertically-striped short-sleeved shirt...and LHO was "Door-Man" on the top stop of the TSBD entrance.
-
positions of Lovelady in sequence:
1. Hughes film- Standing on lower step and very near west wall
2. Wiegman film- now is standing at landing level and next to the center hand rail. Lovelady head is higher than prayerblobs head
3. Couch/Darnell films- Lovelady has moved down one step from landing level, his head lower than prayrblobs
Does the shadow pattern on Lovelady change or remain the same in all 3 films?
-
It would be better to use Towner for the shadow. imo
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/TownerShadow.gif)
-
And then discredit that (limo synced) with Bell.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Lovelady-in-Bell.gif)
-
:D :D :D
Here's what actually happened, Mr Mytton. It's a real hoot!
1. I posted this photo from Mr Pat Speer:
(https://i.imgur.com/K9lyZbh.jpg)
2. You, rubbing your hands in glee as you saw the shadow reaching almost the perfect midpoint of the doorway, posted this claim that all my claims were refuted by what you had noticed:
(https://i.imgur.com/Jj6kBrx.jpg)
3. I gently pointed out to you that the landing depth today is different to the landing depth in 1963, and you came back with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8sggNsS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JMpXgNB.jpg)
So the landing was "a little deeper", "a bit deeper (from memory a couple of feet) in 2019", was it?
Let's look at the facts, shall we? Thumb1:
Depth of landing in 1963: less than 4 feet
(https://i.imgur.com/f7kMn6C.jpg)
(Credit: Mr Gary Murr! Thumb1: )
Depth of landing now: 9 feet.
(https://i.imgur.com/TRoH8OJ.jpg)
The landing has been extended to well over twice its original depth!
This is what you call "a little deeper"!
Keep up the good work, Mr Mytton! :D
Bump regarding shadow being cast.
-
We're talking about the figure generally referred to as "Doorman" (in the Algens-6 photo), who was standing on the top step...and close to the middle (though, because of perspective, appears to be on the far left (west). On this day, suspect Oswald was wearing a partially open long-sleeved, open neck shirt (with "V" type opening), while Lovelady (according to his own admission) was wearing a short-sleeved, red vertically-striped shirt.
How, the hell, do I attach a photo? This page is NOT allowing me to do so...as in other apps...like FB!!
BTW...as others have noted here....this entrance has since been modified and is considerably diff. today.
-
As seen in the Photo taken on 11/22/2019 at 12:30 PM, Anyone standing Anywhere close to the Handrail running down the Middle of the Steps would NOT be touched by any shadow.
-
How, the hell, do I attach a photo?
You mean like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/aso4cEy.jpg)
-
NOPE!!!!! I mean the short-sleeve, red vertical striped shirt he wore on the day of the assassination....not this phony picture....but thanks anyway.
-
NOPE!!!!! I mean the short-sleeve, red vertical striped shirt he wore on the day of the assassination....not this phony picture....but thanks anyway.
Phony picture? You mean like photoshopped?
-
NOPE!!!!! I mean the short-sleeve, red vertical striped shirt he wore on the day of the assassination....not this phony picture....but thanks anyway.
Where is a picture of him that day wearing a red vertical striped shirt? Did he swap out shirts that day or what?
-
No worries, that's what I do!
JohnM
Game, set and match to Mr. Mytton. That was a terrific demolition job. Thumb1:
-
Game, set and match to Mr. Mytton. That was a terrific demolition job. Thumb1:
OMG, you're totally right! Anyone who thinks there are two people rather than one person inside this circle is a kook! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/LV4pFJB.gif)
And anyone who suggests Mr Lovelady is on the steps here needs their eyes examined----------he's obviously way back on the landing! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/aIDYi0G.jpg)
Thank you for bringing some much-needed commonsense to this discussion, Mr Howsley! Thumb1:
-
NOPE!!!!! I mean the short-sleeve, red vertical striped shirt he wore on the day of the assassination....
(https://i.imgur.com/XHbi7Jn.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
And then discredit that (limo synced) with Bell.
V. interesting! Thumb1:
Where would you place the west pillar of the entrance here, Mr Davidson?
(https://i.imgur.com/rACpC54.jpg)
-
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/TownerShadow.gif)
What on earth is going on just behind Mr Carl Jones??
-
What on earth is going on just behind Mr Carl Jones??
Looks to me like (and please ignore the arrow here---------look to left of image!)-----------------------
A man holding a newspaper above his head and waving it enthusiastically to hail JFK.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/TownerShadow.gif)
Thumb1:
-
Game, set and match to Mr. Mytton. That was a terrific demolition job. Thumb1:
Thumb1: Thumb1:
-
Where would you place the west pillar of the entrance here, Mr Davidson?
Similar to this:
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Lovelady.gif)
-
Thumb1: Thumb1:
:D
So, Mr Nickerson, you agree with Mr Mytton that there are not two people but only one person inside this circle, yes?
(https://i.imgur.com/LV4pFJB.gif)
And do you agree with Mr Mytton that Mr Lovelady is not standing on the steps here?
(https://i.imgur.com/sxI1bDl.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Similar to this:
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Lovelady.gif)
Great thanks for this, Mr Davidson! Thumb1:
Your overlay suggests that Mr Lovelady only ascended and moved towards the middle of the steps after JFK had passed. This makes sense, given that the whole point of moving position would have been to keep eyes on the limousine.
And good lord, if the limo is synced here in Bell with this in Towner-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/V12zdWm.gif)
--------------then something very odd seems to be afoot with Mr Lovelady's (non-)image in the latter...
-
Game, set and match to Mr. Mytton. That was a terrific demolition job. Thumb1:
Thumb1: Thumb1:
Hi Steve and Tim, thanks, the motion blur graphic that refuted the silly "two heads theory" relied on the fact that Lovelady's head was moving down independently from everyone else and here's the proof.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fkQk3FKg/Lovelady-bend-down.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG5CytHs/yes-Fordmotionblur.gif)
JohnM
-
Hi Steve and Tim, thanks, the motion blur graphic that refuted the silly "two heads theory" relied on the fact that Lovelady's head was moving down independently from everyone else and here's the proof.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fkQk3FKg/Lovelady-bend-down.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NG5CytHs/yes-Fordmotionblur.gif)
JohnM
John,
Are you still working for the CIA? DiEugenio was on to you. You can't get anything past that guy. :D
-
John,
Are you still working for the CIA? DiEugenio was on to you. You can't get anything past that guy. :D
Geez, what can I say, I'm busted! :o
I was having a closer look at the people in the "fraction of a second" Lovelady GIF, and they all seem to have at least a slight reaction, the man next to the entrance wall seems to lean back, the lady in black's head similarly seems to lean back, the person in the front with their hand shielding their eyes seems to slightly lower their hand to cover their eyes and Lovelady of course is ducking down. Lovelady's testimony says that he heard the "fireworks" and didn't realize that there was any weapon till later.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fkQk3FKg/Lovelady-bend-down.gif)
Mark Tyler made a GIF showing the P.Parade and when the pictures/films were taken, the graphic's timeline is based on a constant speed of the vehicles and compared to what can can be seen in Zapruder and the films/photographs, so there will be some expected discrepancies of a second or two but it looks to be pretty close. Anyway Mark has the start of Wiegman about half a second before the head shot and allowing for the above expected error tolerances, the above 4 reactions may have been to the sound of the head shot that resulted in Z313?
(https://i.postimg.cc/65yXp5nm/Wiegman-start.jpg)
JohnM
-
Geez, what can I say, I'm busted! :o
I was having a closer look at the people in the "fraction of a second" Lovelady GIF, and they all seem to have at least a slight reaction, the man next to the entrance wall seems to lean back, the lady in black's head similarly seems to lean back, the person in the front with their hand shielding their eyes seems to slightly lower their hand to cover their eyes and Lovelady of course is ducking down. Lovelady's testimony says that he heard the "fireworks" and didn't realize that there was any weapon till later.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fkQk3FKg/Lovelady-bend-down.gif)
Mark Tyler made a GIF showing the P.Parade and when the pictures/films were taken, the graphic's timeline is based on a constant speed of the vehicles and compared to what can can be seen in Zapruder and the films/photographs, so there will be some expected discrepancies of a second or two but it looks to be pretty close. Anyway Mark has the start of Wiegman about half a second before the head shot and allowing for the above expected error tolerances, the above 4 reactions may have been to the sound of the head shot that resulted in Z313?
(https://i.postimg.cc/65yXp5nm/Wiegman-start.jpg)
JohnM
Nice find. I wonder how much of those movements have to do with the movement of the camera.
-
John,
Are you still working for the CIA? DiEugenio was on to you. You can't get anything past that guy. :D
Nickerson,
Are you and "Jumbo Duh" still working for the humanitarian organization formerly known as "the KGB"?
-- MWT ;)
PS Thanks for posting the Wiegman frame showing glasses-wearing Mrs. Robert Reid I mean Jack Ruby's sister in the yellow circle!
-
Hi Steve and Tim, thanks,
:D :D :D
Any other Nutters want to congratulate Mr Mytton on his Important Double Discovery that a) there are not two people but only one person inside this circle-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/LV4pFJB.gif)
-------------and b) Mr Lovelady is at this instant------------
(https://i.imgur.com/aIDYi0G.jpg)
---------------way back on the doorway landing about to tie his shoelaces in reaction to the sound of gunfire?
the motion blur graphic that refuted the silly "two heads theory" relied on the fact that Lovelady's head was moving down independently from everyone else and here's the proof.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fkQk3FKg/Lovelady-bend-down.gif)
:D
Mr Mytton, can you build on your triumphant merging of 2 people into one-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/LV4pFJB.gif)
----------------by kindly sharing with us the numbers of the two frames you used from this sequence--------------
(https://i.imgur.com/vsRNEBS.gif)
----------------to come up with this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/fkQk3FKg/Lovelady-bend-down.gif)
Thank you! Thumb1:
-
Geez, what can I say, I'm busted! :o
I was having a closer look at the people in the "fraction of a second" Lovelady GIF, and they all seem to have at least a slight reaction, the man next to the entrance wall seems to lean back, the lady in black's head similarly seems to lean back, the person in the front with their hand shielding their eyes seems to slightly lower their hand to cover their eyes and Lovelady of course is ducking down.
And my, that's rather more than "a slight reaction" from the women down on the street...
(https://i.postimg.cc/fkQk3FKg/Lovelady-bend-down.gif)
Unless of course these frames aren't consecutive like you were hoping folks would believe!
:D :D :D
-
Nice find. I wonder how much of those movements have to do with the movement of the camera.
For starters, the Tyler GIF is erroneous. There is No Way the LBJ SS Follow-Up Car was that close to the LBJ Convertible when they were almost to the Stemmons sign. If you look at the fuzzy last couple frames of the Bronson Film, (usually cut), you can see roughly 6 feet behind LBJ's Convertible. The LBJ SS Follow-Up car is Not in sight and this image is well before reaching the Stemmons Sign. Also, I believe the spacing between the Camera Cars and the 2 Press Buses is Wrong. Take a look at the Darnell footage showing the 2 Press Buses on Houston. The 1st 2 camera cars are already traveling down Elm St after having made the turn off of Houston. This is why I continue to say the Time Stamping of JFK Assassination Images is Wrong. The Tyler GIF makes the Motorcade look like pretty maids all in a row. There were Gaps in the Motorcade due to the STOPPING OF autos in the Motorcade. This is also why we see the Martin assassination film showing the LBJ Convertible emerging from the Triple Underpass with absolutely No Other vehicles trailing anywhere behind it. There were GAPS in the motorcade = Time Passing.
-
----------------by kindly sharing with us the numbers of the two frames you used from this sequence--------------
(https://i.imgur.com/vsRNEBS.gif)
----------------to come up with this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/fkQk3FKg/Lovelady-bend-down.gif)
Thank you! Thumb1:
Bumped for Mr Mytton---------------who is showing himself surprisingly slow to disabuse us all of the suspicion that his latest GIF (true to Myttonesque form) had the sole purpose of misleading us! Thumb1:
-
Now!
This problem is not going to go away, folks. The dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in all the frames in which he appears in the Wiegman film------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/NYKeQnZ.gif)
-------------------is a fake shadow which has been added by aerial imaging in order to hide something.
I have offered a logical explanation as to why this fake shadow was added (in order to hide the face of Mr Lee Harvey Oswald). I have yet to hear a single logical alternative suggestion.
Tickety-tock! Thumb1:
-
Now!
This problem is not going to go away, folks. The dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in all the frames in which he appears in the Wiegman film------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/NYKeQnZ.gif)
-------------------is a fake shadow which has been added by aerial imaging in order to hide something.
I have offered a logical explanation as to why this fake shadow was added (in order to hide the face of Mr Lee Harvey Oswald). I have yet to hear a single logical alternative suggestion.
Tickety-tock! Thumb1:
We have Yet to have Anyone, (Mytton included), provide any logical explanation for the Straight Black Curtain that is Covering 1/2 of Lovelady's body. The pic taken at 12:30 PM on 11/22/2019 shows Exactly Where the shadow falls across the Steps and the Landing. That Shadow falls nowhere close to the Handrail running Up the middle of the Steps. For a shadow to fall across the body of Lovelady, he would have to be almost Hugging the West Wall whether he is standing on the Landing or the Steps.
-
Chris,
It looks like that distance is about 38” 29" from the wall. The renderings use a rule with 3” sections. I took a number of photos and measures of the doorway structures while in Dallas about 6 weeks ago. So, I may need to make some slight adjustments in the future. Tho Darnell overhead rendering in your post is not mine, but Andre Stancak's.
I also took photos of the doorway that may be of some help or interest in the future. All of those photos were taken while Daylight Savings Time was still in effect.
I hope this helps you.
(https://i.imgur.com/m6vu42s.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XYNehWF.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Dw1iNCK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yYHbMfO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/p9WZnsS.png)
Bump regarding shadow
-
Bump regarding shadow
Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/r2jHBYQ.jpg)
The debate over whether the shadow is fake or not is over.
The debate that now matters is why the shadow was added.
-
This today, friends, from Mr Pat Speer-----------a researcher whose work I esteem very much!-------------over on the Education Forum:
I was in Dallas on the weekend of the anniversary, and found myself standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30. And I looked at the steps from the angle of Altgens. Well, it hit me then that the Lovelady figure in Altgens was standing in the middle of the steps, and not on the far west of the steps, as seems apparent from the photo.
Mr Speer took this photograph at 12:30pm on 11/22/19:
(https://i.imgur.com/jfJDv4D.jpg)
There is simply no physical way that this shadowline can be reconciled with the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film:
(https://i.imgur.com/CCbqc7z.jpg)
Like I've been telling you people, ain't no shadow on Lovelady!
Thumb1:
Bump regarding Shadow position
-
It is quite remarkable that among the many Motorcade viewers, employed at the TSBD Bldg, that were on the Elm St Entrance Landing and/or the Stairs, as well as those in front of the Entrance Portal, not one testified that they saw LeeHarveyOswald on the Landing or Stairs as the Motorcade passed the Entrance and the shooting occurred. Evidently, he was not there.
Why, did one of them say they saw him in a window above?
Answer: Not one testified they saw him in a window above
-
Why, did one of them say they say him in a window above?
Answer: Not one testified they saw him in a window above
Kleinschmidt,
Where is a person more likely to be noticed -- standing on the landing of the crowded entranceway steps of his or her workplace shortly before, during, and after the president passes by, or sticking his rifle out of a partially open sixth flloor window of said building for about ten seconds while hundreds of people down below are watching the president pass by?
-- MWT ;)
-
Kleinschmidt,
Where is a person more likely to be noticed -- standing on the landing of the crowded entranceway steps of his or her workplace shortly before, during, and after the president passes by, or sticking his rifle out of a partially open sixth flloor window of said building for about ten seconds while hundreds of people down below are watching the president pass by?
-- MWT ;)
Are you saying Oswald was in the entrance with a rifle? Come on, these people were not paying attention to what was going on. Reminds of the LNer's btw Martin should become an LN member
The way you make it sound, is that if a rifle was fired from above them, they would write down every person around them like inventory and they say " did you hear what I heard"? Hear what, I'm trying to remember who is around"
-
Are you saying Oswald was in the entrance with a rifle? Come on, these people were not paying attention to what was going on. Reminds of the LNer's btw Martin should become an LN member
The way you make it sound, is that if a rifle was fired from above them, they would write down every person around them like inventory and they say " did you hear what I heard"? Hear what, I'm trying to remember who is around"
Kleinschmidt,
It's funny how your apparently brainwashed mind misinterprets everything.
Or maybe it's just that you're such a poor communicator that I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Regardless, let me spell it out for you.
The assassin wasn't kneeling/crouching at the open part of the dirty sixth-floor window for nearly as long as Prayer Person was standing where he/she was standing, therefore he was less likely to be noticed and recognized later up there than was Prayer Person, closely surrounded by people on two sides down below.
Even so, several people did see a white male at that partially open dirty window before, during and after the shooting, but the steep angle of view and/or the distance from the viewer, in conjunction with the fact that the window glass was dirty, precluded the witnesses (none of whom knew Lee Harvey Oswald) from getting a good view of his face.
Seeing as how the assassin was six floors above street level and alone, whereas Prayer Person was about seven feet above street level and in close proximity to several people who probably knew him or her, the chance of Prayer Person's being noticed and recognized before or after the assassination was much greater than the assassin's being noticed and recognized later during the ten seconds or so his face was partially visible in the window.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the fact that no one said they saw Oswald standing on the landing before, during or after the assassination strongly suggests that Oswald wasn't Prayer Person.
-- MWT ;)
-
Seeing as how the assassin was six floors above street level and alone, whereas Prayer Person was about seven feet above street level and in close proximity to several people who probably knew him or her, the chance of Prayer Person's being noticed and recognized before or after the assassination was much greater than the assassin's being noticed and recognized later during the ten seconds or so his face was partially visible in the window.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the fact that no one said they saw Oswald standing on the landing before, during or after the assassination strongly suggests that Oswald wasn't Prayer Person.
-- MWT ;)
::)
Two points:
a) The argument driving this thread since October 21st has not been about Prayer Person!
b) You, Mr Graves, join everyone else in being unable to explain this 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman as a natural shadow:
(https://i.imgur.com/9gWZXLU.jpg)
You and your pals can keep up your diversion games till the cows come home, but it won't impact the ability of smart and unbiased readers (incl. lurkers) to note the stark fact:
The Wiegman frames have been monkeyed with in order to hide something.
And no one with a lick of sense is going to doubt that this something must be related to Mr Lee "Went-Outside-To-Watch-P.-Parade" Oswald!
Thumb1:
-
Kleinschmidt,
It's funny how your apparently brainwashed mind misinterprets everything.
Or maybe it's just that you're such a poor communicator that I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Regardless, let me spell it out for you.
The assassin wasn't kneeling/crouching at the open part of the dirty sixth-floor window for nearly as long as Prayer Person was standing where he/she was standing, therefore he was less likely to be noticed and recognized later up there than was Prayer Person, closely surrounded by people on two sides down below.
Even so, several people did see a white male at that partially open dirty window before, during and after the shooting, but the steep angle of view and/or the distance from the viewer, in conjunction with the fact that the window glass was dirty, precluded the witnesses (none of whom knew Lee Harvey Oswald) from getting a good view of his face.
Seeing as how the assassin was six floors above street level and alone, whereas Prayer Person was about seven feet above street level and in close proximity to several people who probably knew him or her, the chance of Prayer Person's being noticed and recognized before or after the assassination was much greater than the assassin's being noticed and recognized later during the ten seconds or so his face was partially visible in the window.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the fact that no one said they saw Oswald standing on the landing before, during or after the assassination strongly suggests that Oswald wasn't Prayer Person.
-- MWT ;)
You know he's down below hanging out with other employees. Oswald is not in the window, as a matter of fact, no one is in the window. If you don't see him in the window and I don't see him in the window, then he is not in the window. Talk to the CIA they have their own prints everywhere. You must be blind.
-
You know he's down below hanging out with other employees. Oswald is not in the window, as a matter of fact, no one is in the window. If you don't see him in the window and I don't see him in the window, then he is not in the window. Talk to the CIA they have their own prints everywhere. You must be blind.
Kleinschmidt,
How ignorant you pretend to be.
Several people saw a man in that window before, during and after the shooting.
Robert Hughes' film even caught movement in that window as the limousine was on Houston Street, approaching the Elm Street curve.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Why, did one of them say they saw him in a window above?
Answer: Not one testified they saw him in a window above
This thread is named Those Front Steps! My comment was relative to Those Front Steps!
However, along with sworn statements/under oath testimony that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the stairs/landing as the Motorcade passed the entrance portal, there is evidentiary valuable indicative information that places him on the 2nd floor in/at the lunchroom about 75 seconds post shooting.
-
::)
Two points:
a) The argument driving this thread since October 21st has not been about Prayer Person!
b) You, Mr Graves, join everyone else in being unable to explain this 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman as a natural shadow:
(https://i.imgur.com/9gWZXLU.jpg)
You and your pals can keep up your diversion games till the cows come home, but it won't impact the ability of smart and unbiased readers (incl. lurkers) to note the stark fact:
The Wiegman frames have been monkeyed with in order to hide something.
And no one with a lick of sense is going to doubt that this something must be related to Mr Lee "Went-Outside-To-Watch-P.-Parade" Oswald!
Thumb1:
Agree. We have seen the pics taken the day of the assassination. Those pics Prove conclusively that Lovelady would have to be almost hugging the West Wall to be immersed in the Shadow/Curtain extending Down over half of his entire body. Lovelady was Not hugging the West Wall = the alleged shadow being Bogus.
-
So EXACTLY where are you placing Lovelady in order to have a shadow fall across HALF of his Body?
Either blocking PrayerPerson (=one reality-denying solution) or deep on the landing (=another)!
These fools are not worth wasting any more time over, Mr Storing. The fake shadow down Mr Lovelady is the smoking gun that cannot be wished away! Thumb1:
-
Now!
Like an increasing number of people, I am in no doubt whatsoever that Mr Oswald was indeed on the front steps at the time of the shooting. The unearthing of the Hosty notes containing Mr Oswald's own claims about his movements prior to and at the time of the motorcade offered stunning confirmation that the Prayer Man people had gotten it right: no second-floor lunchroom encounter; Mr Oswald really did claim to have gone out to watch the P. parade; the suppression of his key claims shows that the authorities knew damn well the man's claimed alibi was veridical.
The argument going forward is no longer Was Mr Oswald in that entranceway? but Where exactly in that entranceway was Mr Oswald? I hope that smart researchers who may yet differ in their answer to that second question can come together and sort this thing out once and for all.
Outstanding Questions!
1. Why was a fake shadow put down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman?
2. Was Mr Kenneth DuVall really on the steps at the time?
3. Is this Mr Kenneth DuVall?:
(https://i.imgur.com/zoy9BEl.jpg)
If so, might his striking resemblance to Mr Oswald explain the fake shadow down Mr Lovelady?
4. Why does Mr Lovelady have a second head in Wiegman?
5. Who is PrayerPerson in Wiegman?
6. Is PrayerPerson in Wiegman the same person as PrayerPerson in Darnell?
7. Where exactly is Mr Bill Shelley standing at the time of the shots?
Some may prefer to waste their own time and that of others with discredited nonsense about Ms Sarah Stanton, etc., but anyone who cares about the central question of this case---------Where exactly was Mr Oswald at the time of the shooting?------------will wish to see the above questions answered!
Thumb1:
-
Kleinschmidt,
How ignorant you pretend to be.
Several people saw a man in that window before, during and after the shooting.
Robert Hughes' film even caught movement in that window as the limousine was on Houston Street, approaching the Elm Street curve.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Open your eyes, he's standing right there. What do you want? Do you want him to raise his hand? There are ways to redo it one last time for you and your special needs.
Hughes film caught movement? What movement? Oh, that's just Hughes moving the camera. Look at the street and look at the limo. Now tell me which one is moving, the street or the limo? That's right, the limo is and so is Hughes as he films.
-
Open your eyes, he's standing right there. What do you want? Do you want him to raise his hand? There are ways to redo it one last time for you and your special needs.
Hughes film caught movement? What movement? Oh, that's just Hughes moving the camera. Look at the street and look at the limo. Now tell me which one is moving, the street or the limo? That's right, the limo is and so is Hughes as he films.
The alleged "movement" in the window is Groden stuff. It's possible that Groden was looking at a much better copy of the Hughes Film which did show "movement" in the window. Personally, on a monitor I do Not see this alleged movement.
-
The dynamic nature of the entryway while being filmed by an approaching moving vehicle. (SS reconstruction-Nov 1963 I believe.)
Best match for Wiegman's filming location in relationship to the entryway. imo
The trailing gentleman(beginning to step down) on the stairs should help with Lovelady's position in relationship to the railing.
The lower railing's vertical support post aligns with the back corner window frame.
Use James H.(I believe) panoramic animation(choose matching frame) for the vertical railing/back corner window frame alignment.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/PrayermanFBI-Lightened.gif)
Bump regarding limited space on landing and limited space between West Wall and Handrail
-
Chris,
It looks like that distance is about 38” 29" from the wall. The renderings use a rule with 3” sections. I took a number of photos and measures of the doorway structures while in Dallas about 6 weeks ago. So, I may need to make some slight adjustments in the future. Tho Darnell overhead rendering in your post is not mine, but Andre Stancak's.
I also took photos of the doorway that may be of some help or interest in the future. All of those photos were taken while Daylight Savings Time was still in effect.
I hope this helps you.
(https://i.imgur.com/m6vu42s.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XYNehWF.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Dw1iNCK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yYHbMfO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/p9WZnsS.png)
Bump regarding shadow vs Landing
-
Chris,
It looks like that distance is about 38” 29" from the wall. The renderings use a rule with 3” sections. I took a number of photos and measures of the doorway structures while in Dallas about 6 weeks ago. So, I may need to make some slight adjustments in the future. Tho Darnell overhead rendering in your post is not mine, but Andre Stancak's.
I also took photos of the doorway that may be of some help or interest in the future. All of those photos were taken while Daylight Savings Time was still in effect.
I hope this helps you.
(https://i.imgur.com/m6vu42s.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XYNehWF.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Dw1iNCK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yYHbMfO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/p9WZnsS.png)
Bump regarding the shadow extending from the TSBD West Wall onto the Landing. With the shadow extending LESS than 2.5 Feet from the wall across the landing, Lovelady would have to be able to literally touch the wall to have the wall's shadow engulf HALF of his body. The images we see do Not place Lovelady remotely close to the wall. PLUS, you have Prayer Person ALREADY on the Landing/close to the wall.
-
Bump regarding the shadow extending from the TSBD West Wall onto the Landing. With the shadow extending LESS than 2.5 Feet from the wall across the landing, Lovelady would have to be able to literally touch the wall to have the wall's shadow engulf HALF of his body. The images we see do Not place Lovelady remotely close to the wall. PLUS, you have Prayer Person ALREADY on the Landing/close to the wall.
Some notes about the graphics I posted. For the dates/times the two values to the right are the sun's altitude and azimuth and should not be confused for distances from the wall. Not that anyone is but I left the door open for that thinking by not clearly specifying the meaning of those two values.
In my pre-editied post I showed a distance of 38” of the shadow edge from the wall along the front edge of the landing (as Chris requested). That mistake was due to my forgetting my rule divisions were 3” not 4” - thus changing the distance to 29”.
I also made some measurements on the landing. Those green wall slats are 25.5” for a run of 10 slats.
The landing bricks width measured 8.25” for a run of 2 bricks+2 mortar.
-
Some notes about the graphics I posted. For the dates/times the two values to the right are the sun's altitude and azimuth and should not be confused for distances from the wall. Not that anyone is but I left the door open for that thinking by not clearly specifying the meaning of those two values.
In my pre-editied post I showed a distance of 38” of the shadow edge from the wall along the front edge of the landing (as Chris requested). That mistake was due to my forgetting my rule divisions were 3” not 4” - thus changing the distance to 29”.
I also made some measurements on the landing. Those green wall slats are 25.5” for a run of 10 slats.
The landing bricks width measured 8.25” for a run of 2 bricks+2 mortar.
Bump regarding the scant amount of the TSBD Landing being covered by Wall Shadow.
-
Chris,
It looks like that distance is about 38” 29" from the wall. The renderings use a rule with 3” sections. I took a number of photos and measures of the doorway structures while in Dallas about 6 weeks ago. So, I may need to make some slight adjustments in the future. Tho Darnell overhead rendering in your post is not mine, but Andre Stancak's.
I also took photos of the doorway that may be of some help or interest in the future. All of those photos were taken while Daylight Savings Time was still in effect.
I hope this helps you.
(https://i.imgur.com/m6vu42s.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XYNehWF.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Dw1iNCK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yYHbMfO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/p9WZnsS.png)
Bump regarding where the West Wall shadow falls across the LESS than 4 feet deep TSBD Landing.
For that alleged Wall Shadow to cover 1/2 of Lovelady's body, he would need to be standing close enough to that wall to almost touch it with his outstretched (R) arm. Also, do Not forget that Prayer Person is wedged into that same shadow area of the Landing.
-
To anyone who is not blind, mad or dishonest, it is perfectly obvious that Mr Lovelady is not on the landing here:
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
For a shadow to fall down Mr Lovelady in this location is a physical impossibility.
Therefore the 'shadow' we see is fake. It has been added to the film in order to hide something.
Not complicated! Thumb1:
-
Some notes about the graphics I posted. For the dates/times the two values to the right are the sun's altitude and azimuth and should not be confused for distances from the wall. Not that anyone is but I left the door open for that thinking by not clearly specifying the meaning of those two values.
In my pre-editied post I showed a distance of 38” of the shadow edge from the wall along the front edge of the landing (as Chris requested). That mistake was due to my forgetting my rule divisions were 3” not 4” - thus changing the distance to 29”.
I also made some measurements on the landing. Those green wall slats are 25.5” for a run of 10 slats.
The landing bricks width measured 8.25” for a run of 2 bricks+2 mortar.
Bump regarding SHADOW EDGE.
-
If there is texture in that shadowed part of Lovelady shirt as Mytton posted earlier , then the method of adding this anomalous shadow may have been by airbrush
-
To anyone who is not blind, mad or dishonest, it is perfectly obvious that Mr Lovelady is not on the landing here:
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
For a shadow to fall down Mr Lovelady in this location is a physical impossibility.
Therefore the 'shadow' we see is fake. It has been added to the film in order to hide something.
Not complicated! Thumb1:
Not complicated? It actually is for Mr. John (misrepresentation) Mytton, he is a very very special case. He has no common sense. He is not blind but he is very dishonest. He alters all sorts of things that were already altered.
-
If there is texture in that shadowed part of Lovelady shirt as Mytton posted earlier , then the method of adding this anomalous shadow may have been by airbrush
Yes, looks like an aerial imaging job! Thumb1:
The big question is---------------------why? What needed to be hidden on that side of the entranceway? Was Mr Lovelady toting a gun in his right hand? Was Mr Ruby standing beside him smoking a cigar?
Nope! But it might--------------------and I'm just thinking out loud here, folks--------------------have something to do with the man who would later that day explain to Captain Fritz that he "went outside to watch P. parade"............
(https://i.imgur.com/NwEn1gy.jpg)
Ask yourself a simple question: Why was Mr Oswald's alibi claim suppressed by the authorities? Because it wasn't true?
And then ask a follow-up: Why was a fake shadow added to the Wiegman film? Because Mr Oswald wasn't visible?
The Warren Gullibles can remain as gullible as they want. What they can't do is explain away that 'shadow'----------------or its implications!
Thumb1:
-
Sure, it's a totally valid method but too bad you didn't know when to stop, a bit like your juvenile antics.
Along with my bisection of the entrance, further corroborative proof is when we directly transpose your "yellow line" onto the west wall we see that your "yellow line" is way too long.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLxj84Hc/fords-perspective12s.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/C58snWW4/fords-perspective.gif)
Yeah sure, I'm quaking in my boots!
Btw what happened to your green line?
JohnM
Bump regarding OPEN SPACE between Lovelady and Prayer Person.
-
I tend to believe that PrayerPerson/Image, as seen in DarnellFilm, is standing in the corner, with no available space behind, in the corner or against either wall. And, any partial BillyLovelady/Image from WiegmanFilm being placed into DarnellFilm does not provide any evidentiary value, IMHO.
I agree as to Prayer Person being back in that corner of the Landing. I also believe there is something tucked directly into that corner. Probably a trash container of some kind. Bottom line being there is No Space/Room behind Prayer Person for Lovelady or Any Person to be directly or partially standing.
-
The fake shadow down Mr Lovelady in the initial Wiegman frames---------------
(https://i.imgur.com/xF3BoPO.jpg)
-----------------falls exactly down that point where Mr Lovelady's upper body disappears from view in Altgens----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/qjEXGwk.jpg)
No coincidence! Because the Altgens photo was out in the public domain, there was a limit on how far east the fake shadowline could be put!
Thumb1:
-
Just thought of an alternative that Oswald WAS seen by Carolyn Arnold in the front lobby THRU the clear glass when she was outside approx 12:25 and “looked back”
It was NOT a mistaken glimpse of Lovelady because he was Outside on the steps at this time
Would A person standing very near the clear glass thru which the radiator can be seen be himself seen also thru the glass?
-
No, I am suggesting an alternative that Oswald NEVER went actually outside on steps but WAS just inside the front lobby standing nearby that radiator and that image was what was the reason for the “ hasty” airbrushing that area between prayerblob and Lovelady and why the overlap shadow
On part of Lovelady
however until some expert can prove there is evidence of airbrush added texturing
And until someone actually goes this Nov 22 2020 and stands in various places at the entrance and uses same type camera used at same distance and angle as by Wiegman
Therefore it’s still just an anomaly this shadow is albeit suspicious given the late find of notes by 2nd and 3rd party observers during Will Fritz “interrogation” of the suspect Oswald
-
Friends, sometimes one becomes honestly convinced about something and genuinely excited by the discovery, only to find-----------upon mature reflection-----------that one was wrong. Is having to admit one's error, and having to apologize to folks for having wasted their time, mighty embarrassing and uncomfortable? Sure. But it's the right thing to do.
Thankfully, none of the above applies here!
Mr Lovelady is on the steps in this Wiegman frame, far from any natural shadow:
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
And yet we see a shadow covering most of his right side.
It is therefore blazingly obvious that the shadow has been added to the image-------------in order to hide something, or someone, in that area.
The contortions that have been performed to argue away this simple fact have been most entertaining, but it would be irresponsible to let the fools and charlatans and liars off the hook by ignoring their complete failure to offer a sanity-based refutation.
The truth hurts, my friends, but trust me: in the long run the lie is even worse!
So! Where exactly is Mr Oswald at the time of the assassination? He's either standing right behind Mr Lovelady or he's Prayer Man. Because-------------BREAKING NEWS---------------he went outside to watch the Presidential parade, just like he claimed!
Thumb1:
-
Friends, sometimes one becomes honestly convinced about something and genuinely excited by the discovery, only to find-----------upon mature reflection-----------that one was wrong. Is having to admit one's error, and having to apologize to folks for having wasted their time, mighty embarrassing and uncomfortable? Sure. But it's the right thing to do.
Thankfully, none of the above applies here!
Mr Lovelady is on the steps in this Wiegman frame, far from any natural shadow:
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
And yet we see a shadow covering most of his right side.
It is therefore blazingly obvious that the shadow has been added to the image-------------in order to hide something, or someone, in that area.
The contortions that have been performed to argue away this simple fact have been most entertaining, but it would be irresponsible to let the fools and charlatans and liars off the hook by ignoring their complete failure to offer a sanity-based refutation.
The truth hurts, my friends, but trust me: in the long run the lie is even worse!
So! Where exactly is Mr Oswald at the time of the assassination? He's either standing right behind Mr Lovelady or he's Prayer Man. Because-------------BREAKING NEWS---------------he went outside to watch the Presidential parade, just like he claimed!
Thumb1:
The Black Guy leaning Against the Column is a good Landmark. Clearly, Lovelady is nowhere close to that Shadow Casting Wall that extends Directly UP from the Column the Black Guy is leaning against.
-
Thanks James.
If anything else changes, just update it for us.
I estimated the double doors with wood casing were about 36" wide.
The remainder to the west wall as a ratio to the double doors was 33" which equaled the 69" from center rail to west wall.
The double doors might be closer to 38" each, hence the 4" shadow difference between 29" and my 33".
Much appreciated.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49171817436_df5580fc53_o.png)
Bump regarding shadow's distance from Wall. LESS than 2 1/2 feet!
-
Now! If I had to put money on this, I would say that Mr Oswald probably is not Prayer Man in the Wiegman film. For the simple reason that his presence in that part of the doorway would not account for the lengths gone to to occlude his presence by putting a fake shadow down Mr Lovelady's side:
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
Were Mr Oswald PrayerManInWiegman, he would already be in deep shadow. No need for more shadow!
For this reason, I believe Mr Oswald at the time of Wiegman is probably the figure just behind Mr Lovelady:
(https://i.imgur.com/fUVvwdE.jpg)
And PrayerManInWiegman is probably Mr Bill Shelley. And... PrayerManInDarnell may possibly be Mr Oswald.
However!
If Mr Ken Duvall's core claim----------that he was on the steps at the time of the shooting-------------is true, and if my identification of him in the Hughes film is correct--------------
(https://i.imgur.com/57i2aY4.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qK87tSy.gif)
------------then his striking resemblance to Mr Oswald may just explain what made the cover-up investigators antsy enough to alter the Wiegman film... They thought they were looking at Mr Oswald.
If that were indeed the case, then we'd have an extraordinarily rich irony in play:
The misidentification of Mr Duvall as Mr Oswald ended up leaving the real Mr Oswald in the film!
So!
The critical question at this point is: is this Mr Ken Duvall?
(https://i.imgur.com/qK87tSy.gif)
Thumb1:
-
The issue I have with placing anyone almost Directly Behind Lovelady is the Landing is LESS than 4 feet deep. If Lovelady is standing atop that Landing, there is scant room behind him to accommodate anyone. Also, if Lovelady is standing atop the landing, and he is also standing very close to the Top of the hand rail, the glass door/entrance to the TSBD comes into play. That door when opened extends to the extreme outer edge of the Landing. If Lovelady is instead standing atop one of the steps, I could then entertain someone Possibly being behind him.
-
Ok Mr. Ford, LOL
So now it’s this other guy they thought looked like Oswald when they left that 2nd head unblackened out because the airbrush technique used was not able to mask out around Lovelady’s head
And in Couch/Darnell films prayerblob is Bill Shelley even though Lovelady can be seen walking away with someone whom is NOT Shelley? even though Shelley said he went WITH Lovelady when they both left the entrance steps together
You know, I’d rather just go back to the theory that Prayerblob is Oswald partly leaning back on a small step ladder or 3 legged stool he took back inside to the storage closet by the front staircase
-
And in Couch/Darnell films prayerblob is Bill Shelley even though Lovelady can be seen walking away with someone whom is NOT Shelley? even though Shelley said he went WITH Lovelady when they both left the entrance steps together
Like anybody really knows if that’s Lovelady or not.
-
Like anybody really knows if that’s Lovelady or not.
Lovelady and Shelley in Both of their WC Testimonies said they went across the Elm St Extension and stood on that triangle area across from the TSBD Steps. They claim to have been on that Triangle for 2-3 minutes before then heading down the Elm St Ext toward the railroad yard. Either: (1) that is Not Lovelady/Shelley heading down the Elm Ext. or, (2) the Time Stamping of the Couch/Darnell footage showing an alleged Lovelady/Shelley moving down the Elm St Ext. is Wrong.
-
Ok Mr. Ford, LOL
So now it’s this other guy they thought looked like Oswald when they left that 2nd head unblackened out because the airbrush technique used was not able to mask out around Lovelady’s head
Not what I said, Mr Mason. At all!
And in Couch/Darnell films prayerblob is Bill Shelley even though Lovelady can be seen walking away with someone whom is NOT Shelley?
We don't know that's Mr Lovelady!
even though Shelley said he went WITH Lovelady when they both left the entrance steps together
Not in his first statement on the matter!
You know, I’d rather just go back to the theory that Prayerblob is Oswald partly leaning back on a small step ladder or 3 legged stool he took back inside to the storage closet by the front staircase
You're free to believe whatever nonsense you want-------------none of which even begins to explain why a fake shadow was added down Mr Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film!
-
The issue I have with placing anyone almost Directly Behind Lovelady is the Landing is LESS than 4 feet deep. If Lovelady is standing atop that Landing, there is scant room behind him to accommodate anyone. Also, if Lovelady is standing atop the landing, and he is also standing very close to the Top of the hand rail, the glass door/entrance to the TSBD comes into play. That door when opened extends to the extreme outer edge of the Landing. If Lovelady is instead standing atop one of the steps, I could then entertain someone Possibly being behind him.
No reason that can't be Mr Oswald, Mr Storing. Mr Lovelady is either at the edge of the landing (----->no horizontal shadow on his head) or he's one step down... ample room for Mr Oswald behind him!
And-------------as already explained to you multiple times--------------the glass door opened inwards as well as outwards!
Thumb1:
-
Lovelady and Shelley in Both of their WC Testimonies said they went across the Elm St Extension and stood on that triangle area across from the TSBD Steps. They claim to have been on that Triangle for 2-3 minutes before then heading down the Elm St Ext toward the railroad yard. Either: (1) that is Not Lovelady/Shelley heading down the Elm Ext. or, (2) the Time Stamping of the Couch/Darnell footage showing an alleged Lovelady/Shelley moving down the Elm St Ext. is Wrong.
NB------------Mr Shelley's first on-the-record statement (11/22/63) has him running out (no Lovelady) and bumping into Ms Gloria Calvery. He changed his story for the WC!
-
NB------------Mr Shelley's first on-the-record statement (11/22/63) has him running out (no Lovelady) and bumping into Ms Gloria Calvery. He changed his story for the WC!
Specifically what 11/22/63 "on-the-record-statement" are You attributing to Shelley?
-
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337377/m1/1/med_res_d/)
-
---------------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)
Truth or otherwise ...if Oswald stated that, then------
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes must have lied because he testified to something quite a bit different...
His questioning stunt was just right before the transfer took place.
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say anything about Oswald saying anything about his leaving the Texas School Book Depository after the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said, as I remember, actually, in answer to questions there, he mentioned that when lunchtime came, one of the Negro employees asked him if. he would like to sit and each lunch with him, and he said, "Yes, but I can't go right now." He said, "You go and take the elevator on down." No, he said, "You go ahead, but send the elevator back up."
**He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him.
You see, I assumed that obvious questions like that had been asked in previous interrogation. So I didn't interrupt too much, but he said, "Send the elevator back up to me."
Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
And he wouldn't tell what happened then.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of----
Mr. BELIN. Did he gesture with his hands, do you remember?
Mr. HOLMES. He talked with his hands all the time. He was handcuffed,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
Why didn't Belin press on with "Did he say where he was"? Why did he give a crap if Oswald gestured with his hands?
There is no testimony that I can find that corroborates Holmes' testimony at these points.
Who else was there.....Fritz? Who else.
Add this to Holmes' lie about Oswald admitting that he [Oswald] did go to Mexico City when three other lawmen [Capt Fritz, SA Bookhout, and SA Hosty] stated that Lee denied that trip during the same interrogation.
**"He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him."
Why didn't inspector Holmes ask?
Also, why all this impromptu questioning right before the scheduled transfer? I wonder... if no one else does :-\
-
Holmes' lie about Oswald admitting that he [Oswald] did go to Mexico City when three other lawmen [Capt Fritz, SA Bookhout, and SA Hosty] stated that Lee denied that trip during the same interrogation. Why didn't inspector Holmes ask?
Also, why all this impromptu questioning right before the scheduled transfer? I wonder... if no one else does :-\
Its a fair point. Did they really need to hold up the transfer as long as they did just go over old ground in the questioning they had already covered in the previous 10 hours of questioning?
Maybe Holmes should have gone to church like he was supposed to that morning.
-
I checked to see if this impossible shadow is still running down Mr Lovelady's side---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
--------------------and whaddaya know, it's the darnedest thing: it's still there, in all its magical impossible glory!
Thumb1:
-
I checked to see if this impossible shadow is still running down Mr Lovelady's side---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
--------------------and whaddaya know, it's the darnedest thing: it's still there, in all its magical impossible glory!
Thumb1:
Did you expect the sun subsequently to go behind a cloud?
-
I checked to see if this impossible shadow is still running down Mr Lovelady's side---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
--------------------and whaddaya know, it's the darnedest thing: it's still there, in all its magical impossible glory!
Thumb1:
Why is it impossible?
-
Why is it impossible?
Oh Nicholas don't start him off again. Read the first 20 or so pages of this subject for his ideas.
-
Oh Nicholas don't start him off again. Read the first 20 or so pages of this subject for his ideas.
Okay, sorry. I'll take a look. Thanks.
-
I checked to see if this impossible shadow is still running down Mr Lovelady's side---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/vu4J15B.jpg)
--------------------and whaddaya know, it's the darnedest thing: it's still there, in all its magical impossible glory!
Thumb1:
Don't answer my question - I'll do my 'research' on the thread and get back to you ......
-
Okay, have read the early posts. I withdraw my question.
-
Just use that Black Guy standing Lower Left of Lovelady as a Reference Point. That guy is leaning against the Pillar and IS standing Very close to the wall. He could easily reach out and touch that wall. Lovelady is actually standing closer to the Handrail that runs up the middle of the Steps than he is to that wall. The photos that have been taken of the shadow Clearly show that anyone standing close to that handrail would NOT be anywhere close to being engulfed in Shadow like we see with Lovelady in this photo.
Exactly, Mr Storing------------he's not even close to the shadow line Thumb1:
Now!
Let us remind ourselves, for context, of what might be termed the Competitor Narrative to the WC Narrative--------Mr Oswald's own claims about his movements:
(https://i.imgur.com/CjuSCeE.jpg)
1. Second floor lunchroom visit before the P. parade
2. Down to first floor
3. Outside to watch the P. parade.
These claims were suppressed by those who had a duty to make them public!
It's worth noting with pleasure that Claim #1 recently got another big boost when we learned what Mr Jack Dougherty told Mr Gill Toff:
Q: Did you see him at all that day do you remember?
JD: Well, just downstairs in the lunch room, was about all.
Q: But that was when you were having lunch right?
JD: Yes, uh huh.
Q: And he was having lunch in there too?
JD: No, I was downstairs having lunch and he was having lunch upstairs on two.
Q: Oh he had lunch on two? And you had lunch on one?
JD: Yes.
Q: And did you see him have lunch before you had it or after?
JD: That was after.
Q: You had your lunch first and then you saw him at lunch?
JD: Well, I come down and I saw him on two see and then I went downstairs and had mine.
Q: And he was already in eating?
JD: Yes uh huh.
This confirms Ms Carolyn Arnold's sighting of Mr Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. We now know that huge energy went into turning that pre-motorcade visit into a post-motorcade one.
No less energy went into covering up the real event that lay behind the third part of Mr Oswald's Competitor Narrative: "Then went outside to watch the P. parade". A key part of that effort-------------I once again submit-------------is the addition of a fake shadow down Mr Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film, a shadow that just so happens to fall exactly where Mr Lovelady's body goes out of view in the Altgens photograph.
Mr Oswald was in that doorway, and they knew it.
Thumb1:
-
This entire issue comes down to Exactly WHERE you position Lovelady to be standing. Using that Black Guy at the bottom of the steps leaning against the Column as a Landmark, it is clear that Lovelady is standing close to the handrail running up the Middle of the steps. This handrail area is Well OUTSIDE of the shadow being cast by the wall.
-
This entire issue comes down to Exactly WHERE you position Lovelady to be standing. Using that Black Guy at the bottom of the steps leaning against the Column as a Landmark, it is clear that Lovelady is standing close to the handrail running up the Middle of the steps. This handrail area is Well OUTSIDE of the shadow being cast by the wall.
Different time.
-
This entire issue comes down to Exactly WHERE you position Lovelady to be standing. Using that Black Guy at the bottom of the steps leaning against the Column as a Landmark, it is clear that Lovelady is standing close to the handrail running up the Middle of the steps. This handrail area is Well OUTSIDE of the shadow being cast by the wall.
These simple, devastating facts have been known now for months, Mr Storing. The original Wiegman film showed something the authorities did not want the general public to see!
-
Different time.
Correct, Mr Mitcham, if by this you mean that the shadow down Mr Lovelady would make sense if the Wiegman film had been shot at a different time to the time at which JFK was shot! Maybe you believe it was? It would certainly explain your continued peddling of nonsense on this question!
-
Whatever may be meant by the cryptic "different time" does NOT change where the Wall Shadow falls across those steps. That shadow is a FACT!
-
Correct, Mr Mitcham, if by this you mean that the shadow down Mr Lovelady would make sense if the Wiegman film had been shot at a different time to the time at which JFK was shot! Maybe you believe it was? It would certainly explain your continued peddling of nonsense on this question!
Mr Ford, Lovelady obviously leaned forward and looked West to follow the entourage. after the still of the Weigman film. Quite simple for anybody to understand, maybe not for Storing though.
-
Mr Ford, Lovelady obviously leaned forward and looked West to follow the entourage. after the still of the Weigman film. Quite simple for anybody to understand, maybe not for Storing though.
Whatever the above has to do with Exactly Where The Shadow Falls is anybody's guess. More Gobbeldy Gook.
-
Whatever the above has to do with Exactly Where The Shadow Falls is anybody's guess. More Gobbeldy Gook.
Sorry you're not quick or bright enough to comprehend, Storing.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/emPHnXa.gif)
Is prayer man taking photos? A stranger that positioned themselves high up to get some photos?
People dont tend to raise both hands when taking a drink from a bottle.
-
Is prayer man taking photos? A stranger that positioned themselves high up to get some photos?
People dont tend to raise both hands when taking a drink from a bottle.
He's only raising his right hand---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/emPHnXa.gif)
-
If prayer man is in shadow, then why is what he is holding glistening in the sun?
Shiny chrome of a camera?
-
If prayer man is in shadow, then why is what he is holding glistening in the sun?
Shiny chrome of a camera?
He certainly is in shadow (unlike Mr Lovelady!). But why would he be bringing a camera to his mouth? Whatever it is, it's whiter than his Caucasian skin!
-
Is prayer man taking photos? A stranger that positioned themselves high up to get some photos?
People dont tend to raise both hands when taking a drink from a bottle.
I do Not believe someone taking photos would stand/bury themselves in a dense shadow.
-
I do Not believe someone taking photos would stand/bury themselves in a dense shadow.
Maybe he was Elsie Dormans twin brother.
-
"way over near the western wall" says who?
p.s. If you think that the shadow of the wall has been painted on to Lovelady, or is a garment thrown over his shoulder, you must have already been on the happybaccy.
In order to have ANY SHADOW fall across the body of Lovelady, he has to be standing NEAR the West Wall. The Photo Documentation of the West Wall Shadow falling Partially across the Steps/Landing is a FACT in addition to being a matter of Public Record. Your slap-happy research technique merits You 2 demerits and 30 minutes in-the-corner.
-
In order to have ANY SHADOW fall across the body of Lovelady, he has to be standing NEAR the West Wall. The Photo Documentation of the West Wall Shadow falling Partially across the Steps/Landing is a FACT in addition to being a matter of Public Record. Your slap-happy research technique merits You 2 demerits and 30 minutes in-the-corner.
Perhaps you will agree that in the Wiegman still we are talking about, he appears to be half in shadow.
Agreed? A quick yes or no will suffice.
-
Perhaps you will agree that in the Wiegman still we are talking about, he appears to be half in shadow.
Agreed? A quick yes or no will suffice.
"HALF IN" Something. Yes
-
"HALF IN" Something. Yes
A while back, I invited Mr Mitcham to show us where he thinks Mr Lovelady is standing. Here's what he came up with:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKAvR36.jpg)
Compare with the reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/kGZQaEp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NisvoFC.gif)
Trying to contain my laughter, I asked Mr Mitcham to show us where he thinks Prayer Man is standing in relation to Mr Lovelady. He never got back to us on that one... :D
-
A while back, I invited Mr Mitcham to show us where he thinks Mr Lovelady is standing. Here's what he came up with:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKAvR36.jpg)
Compare with the reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/kGZQaEp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NisvoFC.gif)
Trying to contain my laughter, I asked Mr Mitcham to show us where he thinks Prayer Man is standing in relation to Mr Lovelady. He never got back to us on that one... :D
The visual aid showing Lovelady's position relative to the Black Guy below him at the bottom of the steps is also a Joke. He has those 2 guys single file while also social distancing. Ridiculous based on All the images.
-
"HALF IN" Something. Yes
Wow, Storing has answered a question. We seem to be getting somewhere. I thought he would reply "Nasty question" or "Fake News" like his Messiah.
-
Wow, Storing has answered a question. We seem to be getting somewhere. I thought he would reply "Nasty question" or "Fake News" like his Messiah.
Nice try at changing the subject. Not gonna work. You're stuck Bucko!
-
Nice try at changing the subject. Not gonna work. You're stuck Bucko!
Try a little patience. Thicko. Will be posting as soon as I get time to do it.
-
Try a little patience. Thicko. Will be posting as soon as I get time to do it.
Waiting on You, Sluggo.
-
Waiting on You, Sluggo.
Keep on waiting, Thicko. You've got less patience than Orangtrump.
-
A while back, I invited Mr Mitcham to show us where he thinks Mr Lovelady is standing. Here's what he came up with:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKAvR36.jpg)
Compare with the reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/kGZQaEp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NisvoFC.gif)
Trying to contain my laughter, I asked Mr Mitcham to show us where he thinks Prayer Man is standing in relation to Mr Lovelady. He never got back to us on that one... :D
You can stop holding your laughter, Mr Ford, as I posted where I thought Prayerman was in the photo you posted.
Just in case you don't follow, he is behind and to the right of Lovelady.
Try to keep up.
-
In order to have ANY SHADOW fall across the body of Lovelady, he has to be standing NEAR the West Wall. The Photo Documentation of the West Wall Shadow falling Partially across the Steps/Landing is a FACT in addition to being a matter of Public Record. Your slap-happy research technique merits You 2 demerits and 30 minutes in-the-corner.
Quote by Storing
"In order to have any shadow fall across the body of Lovelady, he has to be standing NEAR the West wall."
Not so... in this sketch, he can be standing anywhere along the black line and be partially in shadow.
(https://i.postimg.cc/68pGqK9M/Steps.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/68pGqK9M)
-
Where's the impatient Mr Storing gone?
-
You can stop holding your laughter, Mr Ford, as I posted where I thought Prayerman was in the photo you posted.
Just in case you don't follow, he is behind and to the right of Lovelady.
Try to keep up.
No, Mr Mitcham, you never showed us where you placed Prayer Man in relation to Mr Lovelady. And here's why: it is impossible to put Prayer 'behind and to the right of Lovelady' without contradicting Wiegman in the most absurd way. Look see for yourself!
(https://i.imgur.com/Y3eQGFI.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0o9rTRo.gif)
If you still can't see the obvious here, try refuting yourself this way:
Your Mr Lovelady need only stretch his right arm perpendicular to his body to touch the redbrick column; in what possible world does Wiegman show Mr Lovelady able to do this?
Your placement of Mr Lovelady, in short, is way, way off! Thumb1:
-
No, Mr Mitcham, you never showed us where you placed Prayer Man in relation to Mr Lovelady. And here's why: it is impossible to put Prayer 'behind and to the right of Lovelady' without contradicting Wiegman in the most absurd way. Look see for yourself!
(https://i.imgur.com/Y3eQGFI.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0o9rTRo.gif)
If you still can't see the obvious here, try refuting yourself this way:
Your Mr Lovelady need only stretch his right arm perpendicular to his body to touch the redbrick column; in what possible world does Wiegman show Mr Lovelady able to do this?
Your placement of Mr Lovelady, in short, is way, way off! Thumb1:
You forgot add "IMHO." In the frames shown you can see that Lovelady moved. You can see the difference in the shape of the corner shadow on him.
-
You forgot add "IMHO." In the frame shown you can see the Lovelady moved
No idea what your point is here, Mr Mitcham.
But do tell us: Are you happy to put your name to the following statement about either of the two frames below?
"IMHO, Lovelady here need only stretch his arm out to touch the redbrick column"
(https://i.imgur.com/0o9rTRo.gif)
-
No idea what your point is here, Mr Mitcham.
But do tell us: Are you happy to put your name to the following statement about either of the two frames below?
"IMHO, Lovelady here need only stretch his arm out to touch the redbrick column"
(https://i.imgur.com/0o9rTRo.gif)
I don't have sufficient information to make any comment. Neither do you.
Why do you think "they" "painted" different shape shadows in each frame? Or did the "coat" over the shoulder move?
-
I don't have sufficient information to make any comment. Neither do you.
:D
So here's the state of play, Mr Mitcham:
We both look at these frames:
(https://i.imgur.com/0o9rTRo.gif)
I say: Mr Lovelady is clearly not within reaching distance of the redbrick column therefore Mr Mitcham's suggested placement of him is incorrect
You say: I prefer not to comment on whether Mr Lovelady is within reaching distance of the redbrick column because... uh... well...
Keep smoking the righteous stuff, Mr Mitcham!
Thumb1:
-
Why do you think "they" "painted" different shape shadows in each frame? Or did the "coat" over the shoulder move?
Bump.
-
:D
So here's the state of play, Mr Mitcham:
We both look at these frames:
(https://i.imgur.com/0o9rTRo.gif)
I say: Mr Lovelady is clearly not within reaching distance of the redbrick column therefore Mr Mitcham's suggested placement of him is incorrect
You say: I prefer not to comment on whether Mr Lovelady is within reaching distance of the redbrick column because... uh... well...
Keep smoking the righteous stuff, Mr Mitcham!
Thumb1:
What distance is Lovelady from the brick wall?
-
A while back, I invited Mr Mitcham to show us where he thinks Mr Lovelady is standing. Here's what he came up with:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKAvR36.jpg)
Compare with the reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/kGZQaEp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NisvoFC.gif)
Trying to contain my laughter, I asked Mr Mitcham to show us where he thinks Prayer Man is standing in relation to Mr Lovelady. He never got back to us on that one... :D
Hey Jughead, YOU keep Forgetting that the landing in front of the TSBD is LESS than 4 Feet Deep. You got people stacked up back there like cordwood. And Ford has You by the short-n-curlies with his "outstretched arm" of Lovelady touching that West wall = No Room for Prayer Man. You ain't got the room/space on that landing for the regiment of folk you have knocking around back there. And of course there is the Black Guy at the bottom of the Steps that YOU have in line with Lovelady. That cartoon you continue to swear by is funnier than an Archie Comic Book
-
Prayer man is taking photos. Bear in mind the second image (of the two image animation) does not tell us where the object he is holding up finished. Had the image been captured a second later, the object may have been up to his eye. In which case, it would likely be a camera he was holding and not a drink.
-
Hey Jughead, YOU keep Forgetting that the landing in front of the TSBD is LESS than 4 Feet Deep. You got people stacked up back there like cordwood. And Ford has You by the short-n-curlies with his "outstretched arm" of Lovelady touching that West wall = No Room for Prayer Man. You ain't got the room/space on that landing for the regiment of folk you have knocking around back there. And of course there is the Black Guy at the bottom of the Steps that YOU have in line with Lovelady. That cartoon you continue to swear by is funnier than an Archie Comic Book
Hey Hey, A Trumo acolyte calling somebody a jughead. (You couldn't make it up!)
I haven't got anybody stacked up as it wasn't my original presentation. You said that to have Lovelady partially in shadow he would have to close to the wall. I showed that you were wrong. Not unusual for a Republican to be wrong, particularly about hoaxes :D. But then, it's par for the course following your leader.
-
Prayer man is taking photos. Bear in mind the second image (of the two image animation) does not tell us where the object he is holding up finished. Had the image been captured a second later, the object may have been up to his eye. In which case, it would likely be a camera he was holding and not a drink.
My opinion is we are seeing someone holding a White Styrofoam Cup. The White color matches up as does the arm motion up to the mouth area.
-
Hey Hey, A Trumo acolyte calling somebody a jughead. (You couldn't make it up!)
I haven't got anybody stacked up as it wasn't my original presentation. You said that to have Lovelady partially in shadow he would have to close to the wall. I showed that you were wrong. Not unusual for a Republican to be wrong, particularly about hoaxes :D. But then, it's par for the course following your leader.
Well Bluto, I guess being close enough to touch that west wall is Not what You consider "close"? As many of us have said before, Lovelady is standing right next to that handrail that runs down the center of the steps. Just LOOK at the angled/distance between Lovelady and the Black Guy leaning against the column that abuts the West Wall.
-
Well Bluto, I guess being close enough to touch that west wall is Not what You consider "close"? As many of us have said before, Lovelady is standing right next to that handrail that runs down the center of the steps. Just LOOK at the angled/distance between Lovelady and the Black Guy leaning against the column that abuts the West Wall.
So Einstein, Lovelady is standing next to the handrail that runs down the centre of the steps, and he can touch the right wall. :D :D :D
I thought you said he had to have been standing next to the wall.
I think you are mixing his arms up with Orangatrump's.
-
So Einstein, Lovelady is standing next to the handrail that runs down the centre of the steps, and he can touch the right wall. :D :D :D
I thought you said he had to have been standing next to the wall.
I think you are mixing his arms up with Orangatrump's.
What the heck you smokin' Manson? For Lovelady to be engulfed in shadow, he would have to be standing close enough to reach out and touch the West Wall. The Shadow is Bogus! Lay off that LSD Charlie.
-
While we're on the subject of the redbricked column...........
Note how close Prayer Man's right elbow is to it, as well as the fact that we can see so much of the metal strip back in the corner of the doorway. This tells us that Prayer Man cannot possibly be back in that corner (as some people have tried to argue)!
(https://i.imgur.com/0o9rTRo.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q7AwtCh.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/l5ds7LR.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
What the heck you smokin' Manson? For Lovelady to be engulfed in shadow, he would have to be standing close enough to reach out and touch the West Wall. The Shadow is Bogus! Lay off that LSD Charlie.
Sorry, Dipstick, but he isn't "engulfed in shadow. So it's you who should lay off the Happy Baccy.
-
Sorry, Dipstick, but he isn't "engulfed in shadow. So it's you who should lay off the Happy Baccy.
As I continue to say, whenever You Jokers get "8 Balled", You immediately jump into semantics in order to divert from the Issue that has you Jammed Up. NO WAY Lovelady is close to that Wall. No Way!
-
As I continue to say, whenever You Jokers get "8 Balled", You immediately jump into semantics in order to divert from the Issue that has you Jammed Up. NO WAY Lovelady is close to that Wall. No Way!
Who said he was, goofball?
-
These GIFs from two different copies of the Wiegman film will----------I hope----------help you follow the moving head of the man behind Mr Lovelady:
(https://i.imgur.com/n3ZcKEM.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/7fqESIO.gif)
He's most certainly real and he's either Mr Bill Shelley or Mr L** H***** O*****!
Thumb1:
-
If that is another head, the hair looks Dark. This would rule out Oswald.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/b0ZGAv1.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bzyowIH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qOkh6AS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hQQvhew.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5XrOax3.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/70ga2vn.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/03dz30A.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/U8HCiZH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/q6xezT3.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/22UKpr8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Jc7fmkt.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Hdw0vKM.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tqSWspQ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TlaePtN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/U4RFTYN.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Excellent Work! To my eye, your 4th Frame from the Top-Down is the most Definitive.
-
When "they" "painted" the shadow in, "they" missed the head of whoever "they" were trying to hide.
-
When "they" "painted" the shadow in, "they" missed the head of whoever "they" were trying to hide.
So we're agreed that it is indeed a head? Excellent! Thumb1:
Ask yourself: How many people-------in the first five-and-a-half decades following the assassination--------actually noticed that there was a man standing right behind Mr Lovelady? Not a single one. So if hiding the presence of that second man was the objective, it was handsomely achieved!
This was, in short, a cover-up perpetrated in and for the age of analog. It has failed to withstand the unforeseen scrutiny of a digital age.
-
One of the problems with researching this case is that one's eyes get habituated to certain images, and we stop seeing what's actually in front of us.
Case in point! The examined-to-death Altgens photograph:
(https://i.imgur.com/DbLCgor.jpg)
As I've suggested before, it can be helpful to defamiliarize an image by flipping it. Fresh detail------------missed by the jaded eye----------can leap out this way.
Let's try it on Altgens:
(https://i.imgur.com/IVC3pnN.jpg)
What leaps out? Why, the horrible tumor on Mr Lovelady's cheekbone... and chin!
Returning to the original, we now see that it ain't no tumor--it's part of the person standing right behind Mr Lovelady:
(https://i.imgur.com/FEw8w0S.gif)
Surely the owner of the second head in Wiegman! Thumb1:
And could it be that some of the dark area everyone has seen as belonging to the head of the gentleman in the tie (in Altgens) is in fact the hair of this person (be it Mr Shelley or Mr Oswald)?
-
Really good work breaking this down from multiple images/angles.
-
Really good work breaking this down from multiple images/angles.
Thank you, sir! Thumb1:
-
I keep waiting for 1 of these naysayers to swing by and attempt to discredit the detailed work you have done, but we get nothing but Crickets. This is the Highest Praise possible for the work product you have provided.
-
I keep waiting for 1 of these naysayers to swing by and attempt to discredit the detailed work you have done, but we get nothing but Crickets. This is the Highest Praise possible for the work product you have provided.
better call saul, i mean, ralph.....
-
Friends, I want to return to two images Mr Chris Davidson posted earlier on this thread. I understand they catch the same moment in time.
Bell showing Mr Lovelady's red plaid shirt---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/ib0gSY4.jpg)
Towner showing... well, what exactly?--------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/aXVg0Hn.gif)
Thumb1:
-
Towner frames-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/JYgh6OL.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BJqwqvc.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/koaXvTz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/cgfKIxT.jpg)
-
Well!
First-day statement from Mr Bill Shelley-------------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/yrYaIne.jpg)
Pretty clear sequence of events:
1. Is on steps when hears shots
2. Runs out to corner of park, runs into Ms Gloria Calvery
3. Returns to building (no trip down Elm Street and then to railroad yards)
4. Re-enters building.
Now!
I tend to agree with those who argue that the Darnell film shows Mr Billy Lovelady still on the steps (yellow arrow), talking with Ms Gloria Calvery, who has just come running back there (orange arrow--note her left hand on the column)-------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/9R4bUcX.jpg)
If, as Mr Shelley's affidavit indicates, he went back to the building immediately after his exchange with Ms Calvery, then could this be him in the Darnell film?
(https://i.imgur.com/LwbmdoE.jpg)
There was no one standing there when Pres. Kennedy passed.............
(https://i.imgur.com/mXXQ93U.jpg)
(Bell film)
Thumb1:
-
Now!
Mr Lovelady had very good reason to invent a post-shots excursion away from the front steps!
From Mr James Jarman's HSCA interview:
"Well, there was a billy love lady standing out there, he was on the steps, see... And, Oswald was coming out the door and he (= Mr Lovelady!) said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building, billy love lady said that Mr. Tru(l)y told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs."
Mr Lovelady witnessed the real encounter involving Mr Oswald, Officer Baker and Mr Truly---------------the one that happened not in the second floor lunchroom (~60-90 secs after last shot) but at the front entrance (~30 secs after last shot).
Officer Baker was simply asking Mr Oswald if he worked there as he was seeking guidance to the nearest stairs... then Mr Truly stepped up and said 'I'll help you, officer'. This was later dramatized (i.e. completely distorted!) by DPD as Officer Baker challenging Mr Oswald... and then Mr Truly vouching for his employee. No such thing! And-------of course--------even that dramatic version had to be dropped like a hot potato as soon as folks worked out the location gave Mr Oswald an alibi all on its own because of the speed of Officer Baker's run to the steps of the building. Cue........ The Lunchroom Fiction!
Mr Harry Holmes----------------in his WC testimony--------------gave a somewhat garbled version of what Mr Oswald said about the real incident at the front entrance, but at least he did get the location and the nature of the exchange correct:
Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
It seems Mr Oswald lingered in the front entrance/vestibule area, as he soon after this gave directions to another man seeking guidance (this time to the nearest telephone).
This makes it highly improbable that our friend Mr Shelley did not cross paths with Mr Oswald when he (Mr Shelley) reentered the building
-----------------------> Another fine reason to invent a trip to the railroad yards. 'Hey Billy, let's say we went west together!' 'Great idea, Bill!'
CONCLUSION:
Neither Mr Lovelady nor Mr Shelley went far from those steps in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Why did they lie after their initial truthful same-day statements? Why did they invent an excursion to the railroad yard? Because Mr Oswald didn't go far from those steps either!
Thumb1:
-
Alan, there is zero evidence (and I mean ZERO) that the figure pointed to by your orange arrow is Gloria Calvery.
-
Alan, there is zero evidence (and I mean ZERO) that the figure pointed to by your orange arrow is Gloria Calvery.
That's right, Alan.
As Iacoletti so astutely pointed out on another thread or two back in the day, Karen Westwood must have been right
(AFTER ALL, SHE WAS THERE!!!)
... when she identified her headscarf-wearing self next to the Stemmons sign in Zapruder, and her friend and colleague Gloria Calvery to her immediate left, and "uhh ... probably (strangely dark-complected) Carol Reed" ... to HER immediate left, uhh ... from behind, at some distance from Zapruder's camera, and some fifty years after the event, to good ol' noddin'- and-smilin' Stephen Fagin and his appreciative audience (Hmm ... did he coach her beforehand?) -------------
SO! -------------- that largish woman wearing the black top and black headscarf in Darnell couldn't possibly be Gloria Calvery, especially since those three women (Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons) on the Pergola Patio a couple of minutes after the assassination in Towner couldn't possibly be confused with the three women standing next to the Stemmons sign in Zapruder because it's pretty dang obvious they aren't women at all! ... just three dudes ... on a cool and blustery late November day ... during a presidential motorcade ... in truly conservative Dallas ...Texas.
------------- Or could she?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25790-the-identification-of-gloria-calvery-in-zapruder-and-darnell/
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Alan, there is zero evidence (and I mean ZERO) that the figure pointed to by your orange arrow is Gloria Calvery.
I think that might be overstating the case, Mr Iacoletti, though I'm open to persuasion!
I guess a lot hangs on the I.D. of Mr Lovelady in Darnell. It looks an awful lot like him IMO (though the checked look of the shirt in this frame is an image artefact!)-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/hPE2XhJ.jpg) ---> cf. WIEGMAN: (https://i.imgur.com/tyLOAQz.jpg)
If that is indeed him, then
a) it's nice to see him without an absurd fake shadow down his right side like in Wiegman!
b) it greatly increases the likelihood that the woman facing him is Ms Calvery. It's hardly fanciful to assume that this woman is talking with him-------------and, given that this is so soon (~25-30 secs?) after the last shot, one has to ask how many women would have come to the steps and spoken to him before Ms Calvery did? He does single her out in his (admittedly lie-strewn!) testimony.
I also think her attire is impressively consistent with this woman's in the Zapruder film, and the woman in white beside her at the steps looks like a strong match for the woman next-but-one to her in Zapruder:
(https://i.imgur.com/9Wsotwc.jpg)
'Ms Calvery' in Zapruder is in short sleeves------------
(https://i.imgur.com/yLoSX1A.jpg)
------------as is 'Ms Calvery' in Darnell (her left hand is on the column).
I don't think it's a coincidence that the woman in Zapruder when seen from the front (in Betzner)-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/IMRvCFv.jpg)
-----------offers easily the closest match facially yet found in that part of Dealey Plaza to known images of Ms Calvery------------
(https://i.imgur.com/zKZPyQF.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
I also think her attire is impressively consistent with this woman's in the Zapruder film,
What exactly do you find so “impressively consistent”? And when did Lovelady say that Calvery climbed the steps and talked to him face-to-face?
Karen Westbrook said that she and Calvery were farther down the street than your Zapruder person.
-
I think that might be overstating the case, Mr Iacoletti, though I'm open to persuasion!
I guess a lot hangs on the I.D. of Mr Lovelady in Darnell. It looks an awful lot like him IMO (though the checked look of the shirt in this frame is an image artefact!)-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/hPE2XhJ.jpg) ---> cf. WIEGMAN: (https://i.imgur.com/tyLOAQz.jpg)
If that is indeed him, then
a) it's nice to see him without an absurd fake shadow down his right side like in Wiegman!
b) it greatly increases the likelihood that the woman facing him is Ms Calvery. It's hardly fanciful to assume that this woman is talking with him-------------and, given that this is so soon (~25-30 secs?) after the last shot, one has to ask how many women would have come to the steps and spoken to him before Ms Calvery did? He does single her out in his (admittedly lie-strewn!) testimony.
I also think her attire is impressively consistent with this woman's in the Zapruder film, and the woman in white beside her at the steps looks like a strong match for the woman next-but-one to her in Zapruder:
(https://i.imgur.com/9Wsotwc.jpg)
'Ms Calvery' in Zapruder is in short sleeves------------
(https://i.imgur.com/yLoSX1A.jpg)
------------as is 'Ms Calvery' in Darnell (her left hand is on the column).
I don't think it's a coincidence that the woman in Zapruder when seen from the front (in Betzner)-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/IMRvCFv.jpg)
-----------offers easily the closest match facially yet found in that part of Dealey Plaza to known images of Ms Calvery------------
(https://i.imgur.com/zKZPyQF.jpg)
Thumb1:
Point out, in detail, where the facial features of Orange Arrow Lady prove your contention
-
What exactly do you find so “impressively consistent”?
Dark top + lighter scarf + much lighter skirt + sleeveless. Body shape also!
And when did Lovelady say that Calvery climbed the steps and talked to him face-to-face?
He said she came running up to the steps and they had an exchange---------
Mr. BALL - When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I asked who told her.
What we see in Darnell matches that description (with the exception of one thing: Mr Shelley was not there!). Why would we expect Mr Lovelady to describe Ms Calvery's further actions? They were irrelevant to his testimony.
Karen Westbrook said that she and Calvery were farther down the street than your Zapruder person.
She may simply be misremembering. Have any other credible candidates for Ms. Westbrook & Ms. Calvery from farther down the street been found?
Thumb1:
-
Point out, in detail, where the facial features of Orange Arrow Lady prove your contention
:D
Where did I say anything about the facial features of Orange Arrow Lady? You really are dumb as a rock, Mr Chapman!
-
:D
Where did I say anything about the facial features of Orange Arrow Lady? You really are dumb as a rock, Mr Chapman!
Where did I say anything about the facial features of Orange Arrow Lady?
> That wouldn't just happen to be because there are NO facial features visible in that photo that would positively identify her as Gloria Calvery, now would it?
-
Where did I say anything about the facial features of Orange Arrow Lady?
> That wouldn't just happen to be because there are NO facial features visible in that photo that would positively identify her as Gloria Calvery, now would it?
As a rock! :D
-
CONCLUSION:
Neither Mr Lovelady nor Mr Shelley went far from those steps in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Why did they lie after their initial truthful same-day statements? Why did they invent an excursion to the railroad yard? Because Mr Oswald didn't go far from those steps either!
Thumb1:
Which reminds us of the fact--------------noted at the very start of this thread!----------------that in Mr Shelley's first on-the-record statement about Mr Oswald (11/22) and in Mr Lovelady's first on-the-record statement about Mr Oswald (11/22), there is a weird avoidance of the very question that would have needed answering before all others: Did you see Mr Oswald at the actual time the shooting happened?---------------
(https://i.imgur.com/LJ5WTi7.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iAZe8vh.jpg)
These documents are masterpieces of evasion! Neither Mr Shelley nor Mr Lovelady has yet been brought to the point where they will agree to state in clear English something they know to be an out and out lie-----------------that Mr Oswald was nowhere to be seen when Pres. Kennedy passed.
And pretty soon Captain Fritz will be threatening Mr Frazier--------another witness to Mr Oswald's presence on those front steps--------with a) violence, b) a charge of conspiracy in the assassination of Pres. Kennedy. Go figure!
Thumb1:
-
Dark top + lighter scarf + much lighter skirt + sleeveless. Body shape also!
He said she came running up to the steps and they had an exchange---------
Mr. BALL - When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I asked who told her.
What we see in Darnell matches that description (with the exception of one thing: Mr Shelley was not there!). Why would we expect Mr Lovelady to describe Ms Calvery's further actions? They were irrelevant to his testimony.
She may simply be misremembering. Have any other credible candidates for Ms. Westbrook & Ms. Calvery from farther down the street been found?
Thumb1:
In the Sixth Floor Museum's oral history interview she seemed pretty certain.
-
There is no “small sound-dampening enclosure over the 2nd floor lunch room door opening”. Nor have you ever shown these blueprints that say “vestibule”.
Iacoletti,
Why would the word "vestibule" have to be on the plans in order for somebody with a superior vocabulary to call it that?
How would you describe that strange little area in fifty-words-or-less?
"Alcove"?
"Niche"?
"Galoshes-Storing-Area"?
[fill in the blank]
-- MWT ;)
-
Try ante room.
-
In the Sixth Floor Museum's oral history interview she [Karen Westbrook] seemed pretty certain [that she was the blue-headscarf-wearing gal by the Stemmons sign in Zapruder].
Yes, except she was less certain about the identity of the black-haired gal (self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob, whose dark complexion can be discerned in Z-60, etc) standing two people to the left of her, wasn't she?
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z060.jpg
It's a pitty that Gloria Holt had strawberry-blond hair that shone so reddish (in that late November light?) in Zapruder, and that the gal next to the sign (Sharon Simmons) was wearing a medium-blue headscarf, just a little bit darker than Westbrook's own light-blue one.
And her and her three colleagues statements to the FBI suggest that they walked to their motorcade-viewing site together, and that they watched the motorcade together, so ... hmm ... where's uhh ... probably Karan Hicks ... or definitely Carol Reed, in that case?
-- MWT ;)
-
Try ante room.
Well, Mitch, although I scored in the 98th percentile in "Verbal Intelligence" in one of my college board exams (the SAT -- do you have that sort of thing in Merry Old England, old chap?) back in 1966, I hadn't thought of that one, and probably never would have without your mentioning it.
Wot?
Good one Old Boy!
Carry on!
-- MWT ;)
-
Well, Mitch, although I scored in the 98th percentile in "Verbal Intelligence" in one of my college board exams (the SAT -- do you have that sort of thing in Merry Old England, old chap?) back in 1966, I hadn't thought of that one, and probably never would have without your mentioning it.
Wot?
Good one Old Boy!
Carry on!
-- MWT ;)
Always glad to help, Gravey.
-
Yes, except she was less certain about the identity of the black-haired gal (self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob, whose dark complexion can be discerned in Z-60, etc) standing two people to the left of her, wasn't she?
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z060.jpg
It's a pitty that Gloria Holt had strawberry-blond hair that shone so reddish (in that late November light?) in Zapruder, and that the gal next to the sign (Sharon Simmons) was wearing a medium-blue headscarf, just a little bit darker than Westbrook's own light-blue one.
-- MWT ;)
Yes, interesting. In the image of the witnesses I couldn't see another light blue scarf, where in that line up is Westbrook? Hope you don't mind me asking. Could probably find it somewhere for myself ......
-
Yes, interesting. In the image of the witnesses I couldn't see another light blue scarf, where in that line up is Westbrook? Hope you don't mind me asking.
*my asking
Sorry -- can't help flaunting my superior verbal intelligence ...
I think we get a hint of the light blue color of Westbrook's headscarf in Zapruder. (She's the tallish gal standing three people to the left of big, tall Gloria Calvery.) Either that, or her memory a few years ago was so messed up that she not only couldn't remember the color of her headscarf, but, as we can see, wasn't even wearing a coat while watching the motorcade.
Easy to do, I suppose, when you get your half-hour of fame with smilin' and noddin' Stephen Fagin of the world-famous Sixth Floor Museum.
And in front of cameras and a live, on-the-edge-of-their-seats audience, to boot!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
*my asking
Sorry -- can't help flaunting my superior verbal intelligence ...
I think we get a hint of the light blue color of Westbrook's headscarf in Zapruder. (She's the tallish gal standing three people to the left of big, tall Gloria Calvery.) Either that, or her memory a few years ago was so messed up that she not only couldn't remember the color of her headscarf, but, as we can see, wasn't even wearing a coat over her dress while watching the motorcade.
Easy to do, I suppose, when you get your half-hour of fame with smilin' and noddin' astephen Fagin of theworld-famous Sixth Floor Museum, in front of cameras and a live, on-the-edge-of-their-seats audience!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Thanks, will look again at the image.
Sorry about me/my. Every day is a school day as they say :)
-
Thanks, will look again at the image.
Sorry about me/my. Every day is a school day as they say :)
Nicholas,
Haven't you seen the research I did at the so-called Education Forum couple of years ago on Stella Mae Jacob and her two Texas School Book Depository colleagues, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons, and the research Sandy Larsen and I collaborated on there regarding Gloria Calvery and her three Southwest Publishing Company colleagues, Karan Hicks, Carol Reed and Karen Westbrook?
Tsk, tsk ...
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Haven't you seen the research I did at the so-called Education Forum couple of years ago on Stella Mae Jacob and her two Texas School Book Depository colleagues, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons, and the research Sandy Larsen and I collaborated on there regarding Gloria Calvery and her three Southwest Publishing Company colleagues, Karan Hicks, Carol Reed and Karen Westbrook?
Tsk, tsk ...
-- MWT ;)
Not yet :)
-
Not yet :)
Here, I'll help you get started.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23721-photographic-identification-of-stella-jacob-gloria-holt-and-sharon-simmons/
-- MWT ;)
-
Here, I'll help you get started.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23721-photographic-identification-of-stella-jacob-gloria-holt-and-sharon-simmons/
-- MWT ;)
Ta.
-
Well, Mitch, although I scored in the 98th percentile in "Verbal Intelligence" in one of my college board exams (the SAT -- do you have that sort of thing in Merry Old England, old chap?) back in 1966, I hadn't thought of that one, and probably never would have without your mentioning it.
Wot?
Good one Old Boy!
Carry on!
-- MWT ;)
Try 'eh wot'
-
Try ante room.
Try anteroom
-
Is anyone keeping score?
-
Try anteroom
Wot?
I do say!
Very good, that!
Just wait 'till I tell the postman!
He'll curry to that!
Gobsmacked!
I'll wager you a pint Bob's your uncle!
-- MWT ;)
-
At least some form of intelligence was recorded.
Allegedly.
But that was back in '66.
Pity that.
-- MWT ;)
-
Try 'eh wot'
Wot?
Sleeping on a park bench?
-- MWT Walk:
-
Ta.
Not at all.
Hopefully, you'll "get a kick" out of some of the more stubborn and ... gulp ... overly defensive people there.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
As a rock! :D
Even your own kind are demanding proof.
Feel free to present it.
-
At least some form of intelligence was recorded.
Allegedly.
But that was back in '66.
Wanna have a push-up contest?
-- MWT ;)
-
He said she came running up to the steps and they had an exchange---------
Up to the steps, not “climbed the steps”. And Shelley talked to her on the concrete island.
-
Ta.
What Graves’ calls “research” is squinting at blurry images and declaring who people are.
-
She may simply be misremembering
No doubt in her mind.
The only reason we even know this is Gloria Calvery is because Karen Westbrook donated photos to the 6FM and identified Gloria Calvery in them.
(https://i.imgur.com/zKZPyQF.jpg)
Ponder that.
-
No doubt in her mind.
The only reason we even know this is Gloria Calvery is because Karen Westbrook donated photos to the 6FM and identified Gloria Calvery in them.
(https://i.imgur.com/zKZPyQF.jpg)
Ponder that.
Yes, well, I suppose there IS a difference between recognizing a colleague from the front versus from behind, and at a significant distance from an elevated camera, and some fifty years after the fact, at that.
No wonder Westbrook got it all screwed up.
But I shouldn't be too harsh on her, I suppose.
After all, she was wearing a (light blue?) headscarf during the motorcade (just like her three colleagues!), and the gal standing to the left of blue-headscarf-wearing Sharon Simmons by the Stemmons sign (Gloria Holt) did have strawberry-blond hair that shone kinda reddish in the light of that late November sun and/or just came out looking that way (but not nearly as red as Calvery's hair) in Zapruder's "color-saturated" film.
So there ARE those mitigating factors, aren't there.
-- MWT ;)
-
Up to the steps, not “climbed the steps”.
We see this woman standing on the bottom step in Darnell, face to face with the man. We don't see her climbing the steps. And even if we did, where would the problem be?
And Shelley talked to her on the concrete island.
Indeed! If that is Ms Calvery in Darnell, then her encounter with Mr Shelley has already happened.
The question that interests me is---------------why did Mr Shelley change his story?
Thumb1:
-
No doubt in her mind.
Maybe her memory is not infallible!
The only reason we even know this is Gloria Calvery is because Karen Westbrook donated photos to the 6FM and identified Gloria Calvery in them.
(https://i.imgur.com/zKZPyQF.jpg)
Ponder that.
How does her ability to retain photographs and/or her generosity vouch for the reliability of her memory?
In any case, researchers already knew from other photographs what Ms Calvery looked like before they got eyes on Ms Westbrook's kind donation.
Thumb1:
-
Maybe her memory is not infallible!
How does her ability to retain photographs and/or her generosity vouch for the reliability of her memory?
In any case, researchers already knew from other photographs what Ms Calvery looked like before they got eyes on Ms Westbrook's kind donation.
Thumb1:
Oh
My
Gosh
LOOK at how RED her hair is!
MUCH, MUCH, MUCH redder than Gloria Holt's strawberry-blond hair!
-- MWT Walk:
-
Okay, having read the thread on the education website and having looked at other information, I see no reason to doubt Karen Westbrook Scranton's identifications made in her oral history interview.
-
We see this woman standing on the bottom step in Darnell, face to face with the man. We don't see her climbing the steps. And even if we did, where would the problem be?
Who said that Calvery went up the steps at all? And if this person it white returned to the steps with her, why did nobody who mentioned Calvery make a mention of her as well?
-
Maybe her memory is not infallible!
How does her ability to retain photographs and/or her generosity vouch for the reliability of her memory?
Didn’t she have to remember what Calvery looked like in order to identify her?
In any case, researchers already knew from other photographs what Ms Calvery looked like before they got eyes on Ms Westbrook's kind donation.
You mean the older black and white school photo?
-
Okay, having read the thread on the education website and having looked at other information, I see no reason to doubt Karen Westbrook Scranton's identifications made in her oral history interview.
What other information?
-
What other information?
Photographs, other identifications.
-
Who said that Calvery went up the steps at all? And if this person it white returned to the steps with her, why did nobody who mentioned Calvery make a mention of her as well?
Because------------presumably-------------Ms Calvery was the one who did the talking!
-
Didn’t she have to remember what Calvery looked like in order to identify her?
From the back?
You mean the older black and white school photo?
Wedding photo, tire company photo!
-
Photographs, other identifications.
E.g.?
-
E.g.?
Well, firstly, as I said, I have no reason to doubt her identification, rather than saying I identify them. To identify them from the rear view images is difficult I would say. Images of Karen Westbrook and Gloria/Calvary Little bear enough of a resemblance to two of the women shown in the three women crying image for me to think this image can be used to discredit her identification, if that is what is being done. These images are of course featured on her and various places on the web.
Open to be convinced otherwise of course.
-
Okay, having read the thread on the education website and having looked at other information, I see no reason to doubt Karen Westbrook Scranton's identifications made in her oral history interview.
Oh Nicholas.
I thought you were a lot smarter than that.
Let me ask you just one question:
Self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob and her two colleagues Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons said in their identically-worded FBI statements a few months after the assassination that they had watched the motorcade, together, about 150 feet down Elm Street (or about halfway between the TSBD and The Triple Underpass -- going from memory here) on THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET.
If so, shouldn't we see them standing together ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ELM STREET in the various photo coverages of that area during the assassination?
Answer: "Yes, we should."
Question: "Well, do we?"
Answer: "No, we don't."
Question: "Well, where do you suppose they are, then"?
Answer: "On the other side of Elm Street?"
My comment: "Atta boy, there's hope for you yet!"
LOL
Maybe.
-- MWT ;)
-
Oh Nicholas.
I thought you were a lot smarter than that.
Let me ask you just one question:
Self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob and her two colleagues Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons said in their identically-worded FBI statements a few months after the assassination that they had watched the motorcade, together, about 150 feet down Elm Street (or about halfway between the TSBD and The Triple Underpass -- going from memory here) on THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET.
If so, shouldn't we see them standing together ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ELM STREET in the various photo coverages of that area during the assassination?
Answer: "Yes, we should."
Question: "Well, do we?"
Answer: "No, we don't."
Question: "Well, where do you suppose they are, then"?
Answer: "On the other side of Elm Street?"
My comment: "Atta boy, there's hope for you yet!"
LOL
Maybe.
-- MWT ;)
Okay, so no, can't find someone who would match Stella Mae Jacob elsewhere. Also have seen an image identified as Sharon Simmonds that matches the woman in the headscarf in the crying women photograph. Right ...... maybe Karen Westbrook was wrong. As has been said identifying people from the rear isn't easy. Also, listening to the oral history again, she says she knows that that is because of the head scarf. Hmmmm. I'll sleep on it :)
-
Okay, so no, can't find someone who would match Stella Mae Jacob elsewhere. Also have seen an image identified as Sharon Simmonds that matches the woman in the headscarf in the crying women photograph. Right ...... maybe Karen Westbrook was wrong. As has been said identifying people from the rear isn't easy. Also, listening to the oral history again, she says she knows that that is because of the head scarf. Hmmmm. I'll sleep on it :)
Nicholas,
I have all the confidence in the world in you. LOL
Just bear these things in mind. There were only two ostensibly plausible reasons for Westbrook's saying the gal to her immediate left in Zapruder was Gloria Calvery:1) the fact that that gal (Gloria Jeanne Holt) happened to have strawberry-blond hair that, in the late November sunshine, unfortunately shone a little more reddish than it actually was (especially in the color-saturated Zapruder film -- which general color-saturation was pointed out to me by my nemesis John Iacoletti), and 2) because Westbrook remembered that she, herself, had been wearing a (light blue, evidently) headscarf.
Period. Full stop. That's it.
1) In late-November sunlight
2) In color-saturated film
3) Shot from behind them (i.e., not catching their faces except for the profile of the American Indian gal on the left way back around frame 60)
4) Shot from pretty far away
5) Shot from about a 30-degree angle above them (I'm guessing here)
6) Shot some fifty years earlier
LOL
Really?
It's interesting that smilin' and noddin' Stephen Fagin didn't ask her about the location of the other member of their quartet -- uhh ... maybe Carol Reed, or ... uhh ... maybe Karan Hicks (take your pick), don't you think?
And lastly, getting back to the gal to the left of Westbrook's "Gloria Calvery" -- isn't it interesting that in Zframe-60, etc, the skin on the side of her face is considerably darker than that on the neck of the hat-wearing man to her left, just as we would expect if she was a Native American, as Stella Mae Jacob described herself to the FBI?
Sleep well, my friend.
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
-- MWT ;)
-
[...]
Ms Westbrook made an honest mistake.
----------------------------- Now!
-- MWT ;)
-
Who owns the Education Forum?
-
I was just curious. Is it Jim D?
-
Who owns the Education Forum?
Vladimir Putin, evidently.
-- MWT ;)
-
The "timing" of Lovelady and Shelley leaving The Steps is supplied in their very own WC Testimony. They claim Immediately After the shots were fired, that they Crossed the Elm St Ext in front of them and stood looking around for 2+ Minutes. This is Their Words telling Their Story. Straight from the Horse's Mouth Documented Material.
We do see the two men who are walking / running down the Elm Street Extension sidewalk begin to cross over the street towards the island in Couch-Darnell.
-- MWT ;)
-
If YOU actually have something that POSITIVELY ID's Lovelady and/or Shelley going down the Elm Ext, I would be interested in examining that. And even though You may be a Member of the, "Hair Club For Men", please refrain from getting into the "matching bald spots" hooey.
-
You want to rely on "timing", but I continue to contend that the currently accepted Time Lines of JFK Assassination Images are WRONG!
-
Who’s “we”? You haven’t proven jack.
John,
"Baby with the bathwater," STILL?
How ... gasp ... irrational!
-- MWT ;)
-
I'll take Sworn Testimony vs Your Reliance on the morphing memory of "Fuzzy" Frazier 50+ years after the assassination.
So, you claim you’ll accept sworn testimony. Interesting. How about the sworn testimony in 1973 U.S. Government versus Fred Trump, father and Donald Trump, son and Trump Management, Inc. in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Charge: Racial discrimination in renting practices to minority Americans. The Trumps were defended by mob lawyer and Trump confidante Roy Cohn. The case was settled two years later after Trump, in typical fashion tried to counter sue the Justice Dept for $100 million for making false statements. Those allegations were dismissed by the court. The case was ultimately settled when Trump management agreed to run ads in NY newspapers welcoming blacks and other minorities. Like to hear the sworn testimony of witnesses against YOUR racist POS POTUS? It’s sworn testimony which you prefer, right genius?
-
Storing, running away again. That’s is lack of character. Again.
-
So, you claim you’ll accept sworn testimony. Interesting. How about the sworn testimony in 1973 U.S. Government versus Fred Trump, father and Donald Trump, son and Trump Management, Inc. in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Charge: Racial discrimination in renting practices to minority Americans. The Trumps were defended by mob lawyer and Trump confidante Roy Cohn. The case was settled two years later after Trump, in typical fashion tried to counter sue the Justice Dept for $100 million for making false statements. Those allegations were dismissed by the court. The case was ultimately settled when Trump management agreed to run ads in NY newspapers welcoming blacks and other minorities. Like to hear the sworn testimony of witnesses against YOUR racist POS POTUS? It’s sworn testimony which you prefer, right genius?
bump
-
So let's see Your Proof regarding those 2 guys moving Up the Elm Ext being Lovelady & Shelley. Waiting.............................
-
So, you claim you’ll accept sworn testimony. Interesting. How about the sworn testimony in 1973 U.S. Government versus Fred Trump, father and Donald Trump, son and Trump Management, Inc. in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Charge: Racial discrimination in renting practices to minority Americans. The Trumps were defended by mob lawyer and Trump confidante Roy Cohn. The case was settled two years later after Trump, in typical fashion tried to counter sue the Justice Dept for $100 million for making false statements. Those allegations were dismissed by the court. The case was ultimately settled when Trump management agreed to run ads in NY newspapers welcoming blacks and other minorities. Like to hear the sworn testimony of witnesses against YOUR racist POS POTUS? It’s sworn testimony which you prefer, right genius?
Running again from your own comment? You have as much credibility as Trump. Is that even possible?
-
Ask for Proof and what do I get? NOTHING!
-
Ask for Proof and what do I get? NOTHING!
You’re so ignorant, you don’t know what you don’t know. Astounding lol.
-
bump
Big deal, old news.
Lowest Black Unemployment ever under Trump. Trump has plenty of African American supporters, Democrat disaster zones, Detroit, Minneapolis, Chicago and so on. What have the Democrats done for them? Nothing. .
Bump.
Democrat party started the Klan, lynched hundreds.
-
Big deal, old news.
Lowest Black Unemployment ever under Trump. Trump has plenty of African American supporters, Democrat disaster zones, Detroit, Minneapolis, Chicago and so on. What have the Democrats done for them? Nothing. .
Bump.
Democrat party started the Klan, lynched hundreds.
Still not fully recovered from that brain surgery, I see
-
Big deal, old news.
Lowest Black Unemployment ever under Trump. Trump has plenty of African American supporters, Democrat disaster zones, Detroit, Minneapolis, Chicago and so on. What have the Democrats done for them? Nothing. .
Bump.
Democrat party started the Klan, lynched hundreds.
:D :D :D
More Rubio Kremlin propaganda. Better work hard, Donald Trump is behind 14 points.
p.s. Black unemployment is at an all time high.