JFK Assassination Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So!

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

Proposed solution!

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

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

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

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

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

If so!

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

Postscript!
In their weasely-worded 22nd Nov statements, neither Mr Shelley nor Mr Lovelady say outright that they did not see Mr Oswald at the time of the shooting---------------
(https://i.imgur.com/LJ5WTi7.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iAZe8vh.jpg)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on September 21, 2019, 06:56:01 PM

Sandy Larsen proved Lovelady was the man on the extension by forensically photo-matching the plaid bars on his shirt to Lovelady's shirt...Only he deleted the post from the Education Forum because he realized it disproved the Prayer Man theory...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on September 21, 2019, 07:26:46 PM


. . .



Alan,

With all due respect and in my humble opinion ... you've gotten things all screwed up.

The biggest indicator of that is 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.

(LOL)

I hope you're not an acolyte of Ralph Cinque and that other guy.

Although I don't subscribe to Brian Doyle's theory that there were two Oswalds in the TSBD and that one of them was told by his evil, evil, evil CIA handler to be in the Second Floor Lunchroom around 12:31, I do think he might be right in saying that in Couch-Darnell we can see Shelley and Lovelady bookin' it down Elm Street Extension about three seconds after hearing, on the TSBD steps, Calvery's bellowing out, "The president has been shot".

I should be grateful, though, for your at least realizing that that's Gloria Calvery standing on a lower step, talking with a man who ... gasp ... might even be Joe Molina.

--  Mudd Wrassler Tommy ;)

PS  Prayer Person was photographically captured by Wiegman during the shooting, and by Couch-Darnell about 25 seconds later.

PPS  If anyone's "testimony" is off, it's probably Lovelady's and/or Shelley's.

Which would be automatically suspicious because their statements have a bearing on the veracity of Vicki Adams' and Sandra Styles' testimonies, among other things.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 08:22:50 PM
your positing that the bald-headed man wearing the long-sleeved red shirt over a white T-shirt was not Billy Lovelady, but Lee Harvey Oswald.

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

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

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

Alan,

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

Occam's Razor?

Common sense?

Beats the heck out of me.

--  MWT  ;
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on September 21, 2019, 08:49:37 PM

In his 1964 FBI statement Lovelady said he was to the far right of the Depository entranceway when the limousine passed the building...

He said Sarah Stanton was next to him at the time...

The red plaid shirt with white T-shirt is exactly what you see Lovelady wearing in other photos...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 08:52:37 PM
Alan,

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

Occam's Razor?

Common sense?

Beats the heck out of me.

--  MWT  ;

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

And that his shirt is plaid?

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

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

 Thumb1:


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

And that his shirt is plaid?

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

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

 Thumb1:

Alan,

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

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

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

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

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

--  MWT  ;)

 :D

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

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

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

Thumb1:

Alan,

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

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

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

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

--  MWT    ;)


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on September 21, 2019, 10:05:57 PM
…..
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
…...

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?

Quote
But put this fancy to the test, and it proves groundless; for as soon as a firm belief is reached we are entirely satisfied, whether the belief be true or false. And it is clear that nothing out of the sphere of our knowledge can be our object, for nothing which does not affect the mind can be the motive for mental effort. The most that can be maintained is, that we seek for a belief that we shall think to be true. But we think each one of our beliefs to be true, and, indeed, it is mere tautology to say so.   - Charles Sanders Peirce


Mrs. Reid and "the Domino Room" rooted in the PM/PW diversion so dear to their hearts of Doyle, Kamp, et al, are the
latest "Frazier's car-like" attention grabbing, yet actually inconsequential speculations interfering with the demonstrable contradictions laid out in examples in this thread.

This is why thousands of posts are devoted to the apparently too attractive to put aside, yet impossible to prove, attempted rewrite of the JFK, LN narrative in its entirety.

The only result since 2013 I actually see in this mental masturbatory "hobby" is the sheer volume of posts offered at the expense of actual focus on what the PROVEABLE details actually indicate.

No one (i.e., our readership of JFK forums) can be two places at once. The TSBD vestibule is quite the "crowded trade" and outsized focus on it serves up the added benefit of putting Doyle's mental asylum at the forefront; prayerwoman.com (http://prayerwoman.com)
(Pursuit of a "homerun" that will never be hit, at the expense of hitting singles or doubles that realistically portend to actually result in base runners crossing home plate and scoring runs the old fashioned way, via cumbersome and meticulous hours spent on proveable research. results). The huge number of PM/PW related posts and page views are no substitute for the singles and doubles that do not require so much mindless, gargantuan posting numbers, seemingly to compensate for lack of actual results or material leads.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 21, 2019, 11:23:19 PM
Alan,

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

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

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

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

--  MWT    ;)

 :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or maybe we're right!

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

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

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

(emphasis added by MWT)


We?

We who?

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on September 22, 2019, 01:39:02 AM
We?

We who?

-- MWT  ;)

......
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
..........

Quote
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm
......
Mr. BALL - Did you see him from time to time during that day?
Mr. SHELLEY - I am sure I did. I do remember seeing him when I came down to. eat lunch about 10 to 12.
Mr. BALL - Where had you been working?
Mr. SHELLEY - I had been on the sixth floor with the boys laying that floor that morning.
Mr. BALL - What time did you go down and eat lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was around 10 'til.
Mr. BALL - Did you eat your lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - No, I started eating.
Mr. BALL - Where did you start eating it?
Mr. SHELLEY - In my office next to Mr. Truly's and 1 ate part of it which I do usually and finish up later on in the day but I went outside then to the front,
Mr. BALL - Why did you go to the front?
Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.....

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
......
Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald on the sixth floor any time that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. I didn't because like I say that was the only time I went up there at all that day and I was just up there for a few seconds.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him any that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - I don't believe I did much unless he asked me something about a book like I told you, and I was always willing to help anybody I can.
Mr. BALL - Now, you knew that the President was going to pass that building sometime that morning, didn't you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I heard he would.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to some of the men around there about it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever talk to Oswald about that?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - What time did you knock off for lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - 12.
Mr. BALL - Did you eat your lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; not right then I didn't. I say, you know, he was supposed to come by during our lunch hour so you don't get very many chances to see the President of the United States and being an old Texas boy, and [he] never having been down to Texas very much I went out there to see him and just like everybody else was, I was standing on the steps there and watched for the parade to come by and so I did and I stood there until he come by.
Mr. BALL - You went out there after you quit work?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, for lunch.
Mr. BALL - About 12 o'clock?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And you hadn't eaten your lunch up to that time?
Mr. FRAZIER - No.
Mr. BALL - Did you go out there with somebody?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL - Who did you go out there with?
Mr. FRAZIER - I stayed around there pretty close to Mr. Shelley and this boy Billy Lovelady and just standing there, people talking and just talking about how pretty a day it turned out to be, because I told you earlier it was an old cloudy and misty day and then it didn't look like it was going to be a pretty day at all.
Mr. BALL - And it turned out to be a good day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Pretty sunshiny day.
Mr. BALL - Warm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was pretty warm.
Mr. BALL - Then let's see, there was Billy Lovelady and you were there.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Anybody else you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don't know her last name.
Mr. BALL - Were you near the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there.
Mr. BALL - One step down from the top of the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; standing there by the rail.
Mr. BALL - By steps we are talking about the steps of the entrance to the Building?,,,,

Quote
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/board,1.40.html   
Prayer Woman  4982 Replies    255785 Views

I consider myself observant, practical, results oriented. IOW, I do not suffer fools lightly....

Quote
http://harveyandlee.net/Norton/Norton.html
Donald O. and Donald P. Norton

by John Armstrong
.....
All of my materials related to Donald O. Norton and Donald P. Norton are in the Baylor collection and available to anyone and everyone. I encourage people to learn more about Donald O. Norton, his wife Lexie, and his children. The 55th reunion of Norton's Stowe high school senior class is coming up in a few years (2021). It would be interesting to attend and ask 1966 classmates about Donald Norton--his height/eye color/hair color, if Norton entered the military after high school, if anyone saw him after high school, knew of his whereabouts, or if he ever attended any class reunion. Hopefully, someday, we may learn the truth about the man who introduced himself to John Judge and Mae Brussel as Donald Norton.

This is a 1968 photo of Donald O.  Norton with then new and now present wife, Lexie, I recently located and presented, 1972 mystery presented by John Judge, solved.:

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDonaldOnorton51stCrp.jpg)

Quote
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/page/26/?tab=comments#comment-406697
John Butler  Posted Tuesday at 08:02 AM
Jim,

I was trying to find or re-find an article by Penn Jones on the confrontation between Oswald and Officer Mcdonald when I ran across this by Penn Jones.
....On Saturday November 23, 1963, Jack Zangetty, the manager of a $150,000 modular motel complex near Lake Lugert, Oklahoma, remarked to some friends that "Three other men--not Oswald--killed the President." He also stated that "A man named Ruby will kill Oswald tomorrow and in a few days a member of the Frank Sinatra family will be kidnapped just to take some of the attention away from the assassination."
    Two weeks later, Jack Zangetty was found floating in Lake Lugert with bullet holes in his chest. It appeared to witnesses he had been in the water one to two weeks.......

I identified the mysterious death Penn Jones reported ??? on: He aspired to be a hit man and was actually murdered by his woman....in 1975.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=32.0
Tom Scully  Re: Was Jack Zangretti Off Base Or Not?
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2018, 02:04:30 AM »
(http://trumpnormal.com/images/CaprioBenavidesRedux.jpg)

Alan, if you are content to struggle to confirm what you believe you alreadty know, continue belittling my approach and relationship with
fact, do not change a thing, keep swinging for the fences. I will stick to hitting singles and doubles, advancing runners across the plate.
I would not be satisfied having my presentation and approach being reminiscent of Doyle's.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 22, 2019, 02:53:27 AM
Alan...Red plaid shirt is Lovelady. There are other stills that show him more clearly, but I would have to dig.
However, while we are on the front steps...I came across this---- http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4006-001.gif
Notice the bottom right [CD 354] --Oswald said [according to Fritz] that ''he left the TSBD through the front door and as he did.. he encountered two men who identified themselves as Secret Service and needed to use a telephone."
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 22, 2019, 03:52:30 AM
Alan...Red plaid shirt is Lovelady. There are other stills that show him more clearly, but I would have to dig.
However, while we are on the front steps...I came across this---- http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4006-001.gif
Notice the bottom right [CD 354] --Oswald said [according to Fritz] that ''he left the TSBD through the front door and as he did.. he encountered two men who identified themselves as Secret Service and needed to use a telephone."
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/martin-61.jpg?w=488&h=363)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 22, 2019, 04:25:18 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/79/25/ff/7925ffc5c697d4f1f3513c36b14a28d6.jpg)

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

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 12:01:53 PM
I consider myself observant, practical, results oriented. IOW, I do not suffer fools lightly....

This is a 1968 photo of Donald O.  Norton with then new and now present wife, Lexie, I recently located and presented, 1972 mystery presented by John Judge, solved.:

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDonaldOnorton51stCrp.jpg)

I identified the mysterious death Penn Jones reported ??? on: He aspired to be a hit man and was actually murdered by his woman....in 1975.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=32.0
Tom Scully  Re: Was Jack Zangretti Off Base Or Not?
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2018, 02:04:30 AM »
(http://trumpnormal.com/images/CaprioBenavidesRedux.jpg)

Alan, if you are content to struggle to confirm what you believe you alreadty know, continue belittling my approach and relationship with
fact, do not change a thing, keep swinging for the fences. I will stick to hitting singles and doubles, advancing runners across the plate.
I would not be satisfied having my presentation and approach being reminiscent of Doyle's.

 :D Thank you for yet another gloriously self-regarding off-topic data-dump, Mr Scully!

Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he went "outside to watch P. parade"---------a claim that was suppressed and only saw the light of day last year. Messrs Shelley and Lovelady's WC testimonies are flatly contradicted by their same-day statements.

You would rather ignore these facts? Your problem!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 12:12:18 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/79/25/ff/7925ffc5c697d4f1f3513c36b14a28d6.jpg)

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

Hello Mr Freeman!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on September 22, 2019, 03:42:26 PM

Here we go again with Alan Ford suggesting what can only be a shadow from the west wall on Lovelady is not a shadow...

Just like what everyone knows is Billy Lovelady standing by the west wall of the portal in Hughes is not Lovelady (but is of all people Oswald)...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 03:51:13 PM
 :D

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

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

Complete nonsense, of course!
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on September 22, 2019, 04:05:34 PM

Alan has no sense of the skewed perspective in Wiegman due to the camera angle...

Lovelady is where the shadow puts him and not the other way around...

Dark jacket over the shoulder - give me a break...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 04:14:15 PM
 :D

Mr Doyle has gone from claiming that Mr Stancak's shadow line is all wrong (yes, folks, he really did claim that, loudly, incessantly) to claiming that Mr Lovelady is standing directly behind Mr Carl Edward Jones, which Mr Lovelady would need to be doing for that dark strip down his right side to be a natural shadow------------
(https://i.imgur.com/X7KjCDx.jpg)

Mr Doyle, in short, has gone from frothing at the mouth to... frothing at the mouth!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 22, 2019, 04:18:21 PM
Can someone explain the person in the blue top appearing to be frantically waving their arms while standing seemingly much higher than anyone else?    [Like they are up on a ladder]

(https://i.imgur.com/uWtB8rk.gif)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on September 22, 2019, 04:23:30 PM

Film camera person Tina Towner standing on one of the Dealey Plaza WPA Project columns...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 04:32:55 PM
Here is Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film:
(https://i.imgur.com/X7KjCDx.jpg)

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

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

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

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

A complete non-starter!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 22, 2019, 04:34:53 PM
Film camera person Tina Towner standing on one of the Dealey Plaza WPA Project columns...

 :D

It's young Toni Glover, Mr Freeman.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 22, 2019, 04:47:19 PM
Mr Doyle, in short, has gone from frothing at the mouth to... frothing at the mouth!

He used to froth at the mouth just as much about prayerperson being obviously male.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 22, 2019, 04:49:41 PM
:D

It's young Toni Glover, Mr Freeman.

Yet another Doyle fail.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on September 22, 2019, 06:01:47 PM
……….

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:

:D Thank you for yet another gloriously self-regarding off-topic data-dump, Mr Scully!

Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he went "outside to watch P. parade"---------a claim that was suppressed and only saw the light of day last year. Messrs Shelley and Lovelady's WC testimonies are flatly contradicted by their same-day statements.

You would rather ignore these facts? Your problem!

Thumb1:

Very, very, low, even considering I expect nothing accurate or reasonable of you! Is it really that difficult to grasp your impersonation of disturbed, issues plagued Doyle is not an approach resulting in anything but distractive diversion, nonsense? "All these witnesses lied their asses off, intent on supporting the escape of the actual assassin(s) of the POTUS!" You are off your meds, Mr. Ford.

Again, my methodology achieves actual results. And yours?
Quote
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20259-the-future-of-the-jfk-forum/page/9/
Robert Charles-Dunne  Posted June 16, 2013
...Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part?
This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)
Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.
I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour:....
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on September 22, 2019, 06:17:32 PM

A "disturbed, issues-plagued Doyle" whom Scully is conspicuously unable to answer repeatedly at the substance/credibility level in his content-less name-calling responses...

Real men can answer the facts being discussed and not pile-on like boobies...

Scully denigrates me because deep down he knows he can't answer what I am posting...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on September 22, 2019, 06:29:06 PM
A "disturbed, issues-plagued Doyle" whom Scully is conspicuously unable to answer repeatedly at the substance/credibility level in his content-less name-calling responses...

Real men can answer the facts being discussed and not pile-on like boobies...

Scully denigrates me because deep down he knows he can't answer what I am posting...

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right!"

IOW....:


Quote
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?17025-The-Crimes-of-Quillette&p=126009#post126009
Tom Scully  posted 09-01-2019,
Quote
Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio
Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.

But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland.....
....

Or....?

Re: The fabrications, fallacies, and falsehoods of Brian Doyle

I absolutely have a negative opinion about somebody who pathologically lies about what witnesses said, and who fabricates stories with no basis in reality and presents them as factual.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 22, 2019, 08:27:21 PM
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right!"

IOW....:

....

Or....?

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on September 29, 2019, 12:26:24 AM

Remember this is coming for the guy who just recently posted that Lovelady in Hughes was Oswald...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on September 29, 2019, 12:30:08 AM
 :D

So Mr Doyle still believes that Mr Lovelady is actually over by the wall------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/xovaJbb.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

1. HUGHES FILM:

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

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

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

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

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

2. WIEGMAN FILM & ALTGENS PHOTO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. DARNELL FILM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occam's Razor?

Common sense?

Beats the heck out of me.

--  MWT  ;

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

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

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

::)Excuse me Ms Krotsch, but I made a comment directed at ThomasGraves, and if you have something specific to dispute, you need to state what it is. I have researched, and studied research of others to develop my conclusions, but you need to do your own research and/or studies, and I owe you no explanation.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 15, 2019, 08:52:03 PM
Just as I suspected, you're doing nothing more than cheer leading and grandstanding in support of your friends, you, with no original input of your own. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about or how to respond when confronted as you only work the sidelines, but you certainly do know how to attempt to 'pile-on' when you feel it necessary.

Good to know.  :D

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


::)Excuse me Ms Krotsch, but I made a comment directed at ThomasGraves, and if you have something specific to dispute, you need to state what it is. I have researched, and studied research of others to develop my conclusions, but you need to do your own research and/or studies, and I owe you no explanation.

As usual, “all that is known about the occupants of the steps/landing" is just another empty platitude from LarryTrotterImage.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 04:42:19 AM
I remain committed to not say anything with a keyboard that I would not say in person.

    I too would be interested in seeing your Evidence. Many of us come to this Forum to learn the Facts concerning the assassination of JFK. Please, school us.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 16, 2019, 05:45:06 AM
Larry doesn’t do evidence. He doesn’t even do spaces between words.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 02:45:55 PM
Larry doesn’t do evidence. He doesn’t even do spaces between words.

 :D

Mr Trotter is one of several people here who get curiously uncomfortable whenever the possibility is explored of Mr Oswald's being out front when JFK passed the building. They would rather we wouldn't ascribe any evidentiary value whatsoever to this little bombshell from Agent Hosty:

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

Now! How about we forget Prayer (Wo)Man and Mr Oswald and all that for just a moment and instead simply focus on this image:

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

It has been suggested that

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is a natural shadow cast by the western column of the entranceway. The angle of the sun at 12.30 that day, and the meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway by Messrs Stancak and Hackerott, rule this explanation out.

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is in fact due to the angle of his body to the camera. Look at the Wiegman frame above, and the contour of the strip as it meets Mr Lovelady's chest and stomach: this explanation is patently an anatomical impossibility.

Crucially, the dark strip is down Mr Lovelady's side in all the Wiegman frames. Even though he moves down on the steps, the dark strip moves down with him:

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

What the heck is this dark strip?

The only two logical explanations I can think of are still------------------
a) a jacket or coat
b) deliberate blacking out of the relevant area in the Wiegman film.

Any other suggestions?

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

Mr Trotter is one of several people here who get curiously uncomfortable whenever the possibility is explored of Mr Oswald's being out front when JFK passed the building. They would rather we wouldn't ascribe any evidentiary value whatsoever to this little bombshell from Agent Hosty:

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

Now! How about we forget Prayer (Wo)Man and Mr Oswald and all that for just a moment and instead simply focus on this image:

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

It has been suggested that

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is a natural shadow cast by the western column of the entranceway. The angle of the sun at 12.30 that day, and the meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway by Messrs Stancak and Hackerott, rule this explanation out.

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is in fact due to the angle of his body to the camera. Look at the Wiegman frame above, and the contour of the strip as it meets Mr Lovelady's chest and stomach: this explanation is patently an anatomical impossibility.

Crucially, the dark strip is down Mr Lovelady's side in all the Wiegman frames. Even though he moves down on the steps, the dark strip moves down with him:

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

What the heck is this dark strip?

The only two logical explanations I can think of are still------------------
a) a jacket or coat
b) deliberate blacking out of the relevant area in the Wiegman film.

Any other suggestions?

 Thumb1:

    I agree with your branding the Hosty Notes as a "Bombshell".  Unknown JFK assassination Evidence laying around the National Archives for 55+ years speaks as to the level of the WC and HSCA so called "investigations".
    The image Evidence of this case warrants being evaluated with a raised eyebrow. The Wiegman Film for roughly 40 years was touted as being filmed Continuously. Then we come to find out that so called Fact was completely Bogus. That Revelation after decades of intentional deceit renders the Wiegman Film BS:.
     I would rule out a coat being the black thing running down the entire side of the person known as Lovelady. To cover that much of his body would require a Trench coat. Many of the TSBD guys were laying plywood flooring that day while being paid minimum wage. This job function along with their scant wage would DQ a trench coat. On top of that, I have Never seen an image of any of the male TSBD employees wearing a trench coat.         
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 16, 2019, 04:32:30 PM
:D

Mr Trotter is one of several people here who get curiously uncomfortable whenever the possibility is explored of Mr Oswald's being out front when JFK passed the building. They would rather we wouldn't ascribe any evidentiary value whatsoever to this little bombshell from Agent Hosty:

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

Now! How about we forget Prayer (Wo)Man and Mr Oswald and all that for just a moment and instead simply focus on this image:

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

It has been suggested that

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is a natural shadow cast by the western column of the entranceway. The angle of the sun at 12.30 that day, and the meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway by Messrs Stancak and Hackerott, rule this explanation out.

-----------------the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is in fact due to the angle of his body to the camera. Look at the Wiegman frame above, and the contour of the strip as it meets Mr Lovelady's chest and stomach: this explanation is patently an anatomical impossibility.

Crucially, the dark strip is down Mr Lovelady's side in all the Wiegman frames. Even though he moves down on the steps, the dark strip moves down with him:

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

What the heck is this dark strip?

The only two logical explanations I can think of are still------------------
a) a jacket or coat
b) deliberate blacking out of the relevant area in the Wiegman film.

Any other suggestions?

 Thumb1:

Alan, I think you will find that Lovelady not only moved down the steps, but also moved to his right (our left) as he did so. This could account for the shadow of the western column remaining in the same position on his body.
I doubt very much that the shadow was a coat or a deliberate blacking out.

In the first frame of the gif, the top of his head is level with the sixth row of decorative bricks (from the top) to the west for the entrance, and directly below the "O" in "DEPOSITORY", over the doorway.
In the second frame the top of his head is level with the seventh row of decorative bricks (from the top) and directly below the "P" in "DEPOSITORY", showing he must have moved down and to his right.
This would also account for the shadow not being straight in the third frame as he appears to be leaning slightly backwards.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 04:56:48 PM
Alan, I think you will find that Lovelady not only moved down the steps, but also moved to his right (our left) as he did so. This could account for the shadow of the western column remaining in the same position on his body.
I doubt very much that the shadow was a coat or a deliberate blacking out.

In the first frame of the gif, the top of his head is level with the sixth row of decorative bricks (from the top) to the west for the entrance, and directly below the "O" in "DEPOSITORY", over the doorway.
In the second frame the top of his head is level with the seventh row of decorative bricks (from the top) and directly below the "P" in "DEPOSITORY", showing he must have moved down and to his right.
This would also account for the shadow not being straight in the third frame as he appears to be leaning slightly backwards.

    Regarding the 2 images above, Lovelady is standing at 2 different heights on 2 different steps. Yet, the alleged Shadow somehow fails to fall across his balding head or face vs still uniformly falling across his entire (R) side. How is this possible ?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 16, 2019, 05:26:04 PM
    Regarding the 2 images above, Lovelady is standing at 2 different heights on 2 different steps. Yet, the alleged Shadow somehow fails to fall across his balding head or face vs still uniformly falling across his entire (R) side. How is this possible ?

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

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

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

     The shadow seems peculiar/strange to me based on Lovelady having changed his position on the stairs. I keep hearing that dense black strip that consumes the (R) side of Lovelady is the shadow of a "column". Specifically, what column is being referenced? If that alleged shadow is in fact being cast by a Column, I think it would be wise to take a good look at that column along with other images taken that day that included the column and the shadow it cast. With regard to your question about the movements of a, "working stiff labouring at the TSBD", Lovelady is simply Not going to uniformly step down stairs in a manner taught at the Nancy Manners School Of Etiquette. This structured demeanor would be contrary to Lovelady impulsively hauling arse down the Elm St Extension in addition to his track record of Racing Freight Elevators up-and-down the inside of the TSBD.   
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 16, 2019, 08:53:18 PM

Since Ray now admits that is shadow on Lovelady's right side he has to then commit to where that places Lovelady according to the sun plane angle...

It places him on the landing platform so therefore his height can be compared to Prayer Man's when Lovelady is in the high and low position in Wiegman...

That photogrammetric comparison shows that the 5 foot 8 Lovelady sizes up perfectly to the 5 foot 4 Stanton when the height differences are compared between the two...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 16, 2019, 09:10:35 PM
Since Ray now admits that is shadow on Lovelady's right side he has to then commit to where that places Lovelady according to the sun plane angle...

It places him on the landing platform so therefore his height can be compared to Prayer Man's when Lovelady is in the high and low position in Wiegman...

That photogrammetric comparison shows that the 5 foot 8 Lovelady sizes up perfectly to the 5 foot 4 Stanton when the height differences are compared between the two...

      Please explain Exactly what you are getting at. Also, what do you mean by "landing platform"?  Was Buell Frazier also standing on the "landing platform"?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 16, 2019, 09:29:16 PM

We know Lovelady was standing on the front steps landing because we can see in Altgens that he is the same height as those others who are on the landing to his left...If Lovelady was on the step he'd be 7 inches shorter than those others...

Wiegman shows Lovelady when he is on the landing and then when he steps down a step...

Prayer Man doesn't change height so she is standing on the landing the whole time...

When you compare Lovelady, when he is in the high position on the landing in Wiegman, to Prayer Man he is 4 inches taller like 5 foot 8 Lovelady would be compared to 5 foot 4 Stanton if both were on the landing...

When Lovelady steps down to the step in the low position Wiegman frame he is a few inches shorter than Prayer Man just like Lovelady would be in comparison to Stanton...

This perfect measuring up to Stanton proves Prayer Man is Stanton...

Yes, Frazier is on the landing platform...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 09:47:12 PM
Alan, I think you will find that Lovelady not only moved down the steps, but also moved to his right (our left) as he did so. This could account for the shadow of the western column remaining in the same position on his body.

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

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

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

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 09:55:40 PM
    I would rule out a coat being the black thing running down the entire side of the person known as Lovelady. To cover that much of his body would require a Trench coat. Many of the TSBD guys were laying plywood flooring that day while being paid minimum wage. This job function along with their scant wage would DQ a trench coat. On top of that, I have Never seen an image of any of the male TSBD employees wearing a trench coat.         

Mr Danny Arce wore a long black coat that day:

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

Yes, this!

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Your visual aid shows absolutely No Shadow being cast anywhere on the steps by an alleged "column".  The Issue comes down to where Lovelady was standing. Based on your visual aid, Lovelady would have had to  be standing on the landing and almost hugging the TSBD wall throughout the Wiegman Film to have a shadow possibly fall across his body/(R) side. Based on the Wiegman footage, Lovelady is close to the handrail and nowhere near the side of the TSBD. (Orange Zone on the visual aid) This alleged shadow has Yet to be reasonable explained.   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 16, 2019, 10:33:26 PM
When you compare Lovelady, when he is in the high position on the landing in Wiegman, to Prayer Man he is 4 inches taller like 5 foot 8 Lovelady would be compared to 5 foot 4 Stanton if both were on the landing...

a) you've done nothing to demonstrate that Lovelady is 4 inches taller than prayer person.

b) you've done nothing to demonstrate that Stanton was exactly 5' 4".
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 16, 2019, 10:34:19 PM
But nothing can 'account for the shadow of the western column' because there is no shadow in that part of the entranceway. Mr Lovelady would have to be way over in the orange zone for the western column shadow to fall on him. Impossible!

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

Mr Ford has a poor sense of perspective and refuses to yield to what can be seen in the photography and is therefore the reality...

If you follow the perspective shift because Wiegman is far off to the right and therefore there is a major skewing of perspective, you will see Lovelady is back on the landing exactly where the shadow would fall on him like it does in Wiegman...

This isn't hard to figure out if you know basic film analysis...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 16, 2019, 10:37:34 PM
Mr Ford has a poor sense of perspective and refuses to yield to what can be seen in the photography and is therefore the reality...

If you follow the perspective shift because Wiegman is far off to the right and therefore there is a major skewing of perspective, you will see Lovelady is back on the landing exactly where the shadow would fall on him like it does in Wiegman...

This isn't hard to figure out if you know basic film analysis...

Let's see your analysis, bluffmeister.  Wiegman isn't "far off to the right".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 11:25:42 PM
    Your visual aid shows absolutely No Shadow being cast anywhere on the steps by an alleged "column".

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

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

Mr Hackerott's reconstruction yields the same result.

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

Indeed!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 16, 2019, 11:29:59 PM
Mr Ford has a poor sense of perspective and refuses to yield to what can be seen in the photography and is therefore the reality...

What can be seen in the 'photography' is that Mr Lovelady cannot possibly be west enough to have the right side of his body caught by a shadow cast by the western column.

That is the reality, Mr Doyle. The fact that reality doesn't tally with Doyle fantasy is not, never has been and never will be my problem!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 17, 2019, 01:44:22 AM
For those still doubting the evidence of their own eyes...............

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

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

Now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

(https://i.imgur.com/xnhWEzY.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 17, 2019, 06:59:04 PM
Please go over to the Deep Politics Forum and check out a thread entitled ---Heads Up!----I believe was the name of it. Toward the middle it starts to get good. lol

It is there where Doyle really gets publicly excoriated and is truly revealed for what he actually knows about photo and film science. It's a hilarious read.  :D

In addition to David Josephs' epic takedown of "560 falsehoods and fabrications" Doyle's complete ignorance of how photography works, the most remarkable thing (apart from Brian Doyle impersonating his dead father) is that Larry Trotter used to write sentences like a normal human being.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 17, 2019, 07:33:38 PM
Could you perhaps mark on this reconstruction where you think Mr Lovelady and 'Prayer Man' are in the second Wiegman frame (i.e. the one where Mr Lovelady is lower)?

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps.

If you're going to argue a geometric absurdity, Mr Mitcham, then I'm afraid you do need to!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 17, 2019, 08:53:11 PM
    If that Large/Tall Column is casting a shadow across the TSBD Steps, how is it the black guy standing back of it/leaning against it displays Not A Trace of this alleged Large Black Shadow? There is No Black Shadow at Any point across his body. Just look at the Direction/Angle of the shadows being cast by the onlookers standing in front of the TSBD. That guy standing Back of the column should show a trace of that Large Black Shadow that we see alongside the (R) side of Lovelady.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 17, 2019, 09:07:50 PM
What can be seen in the 'photography' is that Mr Lovelady cannot possibly be west enough to have the right side of his body caught by a shadow cast by the western column.

That is the reality, Mr Doyle. The fact that reality doesn't tally with Doyle fantasy is not, never has been and never will be my problem!  Thumb1:

Wrong...The dictating reality here is the shadow that is clearly seen on Lovelady in Wiegman tells you where Lovelady is...

Mr Ford has long been violating the rules of evidence by saying what can only be shadow isn't shadow...

Even Ray Mitcham agrees it is shadow...

Mr Ford simply has no sense of photographic perspective...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 17, 2019, 09:14:45 PM
Wrong...The dictating reality here is the shadow that is clearly seen on Lovelady in Wiegman tells you where Lovelady is...

Mr Ford has long been violating the rules of evidence by saying what can only be shadow isn't shadow...

Even Ray Mitcham agrees it is shadow...

Mr Ford simply has no sense of photographic perspective...

         Lovelady appears to be very close to the handrail which runs down the middle of the steps. If your opinion is based on Lovelady being close to the wall, this is where you are going Wrong = an incorrect conclusion.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 17, 2019, 09:57:37 PM
    If that Large/Tall Column is casting a shadow across the TSBD Steps, how is it the black guy standing back of it/leaning against it displays Not A Trace of this alleged Large Black Shadow?

Shadows don’t show up on black people. Doyle proved it with linguistic forensics.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 17, 2019, 10:43:34 PM
         Lovelady appears to be very close to the handrail which runs down the middle of the steps. If your opinion is based on Lovelady being close to the wall, this is where you are going Wrong = an incorrect conclusion.

The shadow is the more credible reference...

The only thing it can be is shadow...

Both yourself and Ford are bad at judging perspective skewing...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 17, 2019, 10:52:39 PM
If you're going to argue a geometric absurdity, Mr Mitcham, then I'm afraid you do need to!

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Which woman's hair do you think is causing the shadow up the black guys arm? She must be one of hell size.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 18, 2019, 08:17:35 PM
Rubbish. He was standing in a position where just his right arm was in the shadow.  You will see  this position in Stancak's overhead projection, showing the shadow on his right arm.Subsequently he moved  out of the shadow. Which you can see if you look closely at the gif.

It is a simple observation to see Carl Jones pull his arm back in to the shadow in Wiegman...There's nothing difficult to understand about this...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 18, 2019, 09:11:17 PM
What on earth are on about, Royell? Who is talking about Dox drawings? (another straw man?) I am talking about the following Wiegman frame. You willl have to enlarge to see the detail.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6TVQPjc0/right-arm-in-shadow.gif) (https://postimg.cc/6TVQPjc0)

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

    The quality of that Wiegman still frame you posted may explain what you think you are seeing . You are mistaking the Inside Edge of that Pillar on his immediate (R) to be a shadow. On the latter Wiegman frames showing the front of the TSBD, (No cars), it is easy to see his entire (R) arm. The Light colored shirt he is wearing makes it easy to distinguish his (R) arm vs the Darker Inside Edge of that pillar. No Shadow is visible running across any portion of the black guy's body.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 18, 2019, 09:17:33 PM
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?

I honestly don't know, Mr Mason........... What with dubious on-street identifications and a Doyle-vouched-for photograph, we still don't know for sure what Mrs Reid looked like!  :-[
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 18, 2019, 09:29:58 PM
The Wiegman film shows Mr Lovelady near the centre rail, looking down Elm Street, before moving downwards, still near the centre rail----------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should be fairly easy to replicate in about one month!

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

Should be fairly easy to replicate in about one month!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ::)

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 19, 2019, 12:57:40 AM

That is what I was trying to tell you when I said Stancak misdrew the shadow border...

We only have Stancak to assure us his shadow is where it should be...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 01:22:27 AM
That is what I was trying to tell you when I said Stancak misdrew the shadow border...

We only have Stancak to assure us his shadow is where it should be...

And we have Mr Hackerott's assurance too--------------

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

But Mr Doyle, evidently enjoying his prolonged residence in Absurdistan and equally evidently not knowing the first thing about how either geometry or 3D modeling works, continues to howl at the moon in his demented belief that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is naturally beshadowed even though the lady in white in Darnell is utterly unbeshadowed!

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

Meanwhile, for all those reading who are not living in la la land, here is where Mr Lovelady is standing in the Wiegman frame above:

(https://i.imgur.com/kOWL53s.jpg)

And yet this is what Wiegman shows us:

(https://i.imgur.com/V1lTdrp.jpg)

Why?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 19, 2019, 04:42:59 AM
You can't line up Darnell with Wiegman...They are not the same perspective if you look closely at like the ceiling...

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

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

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

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

     The above is akin to the SBT. In order to even make it remotely possible, you have to move people around and then come close to standing them on their head. When focusing on what with we Know to be Fact, this alleged "shadow" is pure fantasy. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 19, 2019, 05:00:25 PM
You can't line up Darnell with Wiegman...They are not the same perspective if you look closely at like the ceiling...

The fatal mistake Ford is making is failing to compute that the shadow is the hard determiner of all the variables...

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, when other indications place BillyLovelady and BillShelley elsewhere by that time, it appears to me...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 19, 2019, 05:43:40 PM
Brian, it appears to me, repeat, appears to me, that the uhh, gentleman's image illustration has a BillyLovelady mannequin on the steps facing mannequins representing GloriaCalvery and CarolReed,

LOL. Nobody knows where Calvery and Reed were.

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

“Other indications”. LOL.

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

Thank you, Mr Mitcham!  Thumb1:

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

Now where does 'Prayer Man' go?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 06:37:36 PM
The fatal mistake Ford Doyle is making is failing to compute that the shadow is the hard determiner of all the variables...

Fixed it for you, Mr Doyle!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 06:51:19 PM
Question!

Who said this?:

"I recall that as the Presidential Motorcade passed I was standing just outside the glass doors of the entrance. At the time President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing at this same place. Billy N. Lovelady who works under my supervision for the Texas School Book Depository was seated on the entrance steps just in front of me."
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 19, 2019, 07:17:53 PM
Brian, it appears to me, repeat, appears to me, that the uhh, gentleman's image illustration has a BillyLovelady mannequin on the steps facing mannequins representing GloriaCalvery and CarolReed, when other indications place BillyLovelady and BillShelley elsewhere by that time, it appears to me...


LOL. Nobody knows where Calvery and Reed were.

“Other indications”. LOL.

For anyone that is interested in correct indicative evidentiary information, there are "Other indications" that apply to the posted statement.

So, aside from repetitive insults, your point is? The posted comment, addressed to BrianDoyle, refers to mannequin/image placement provided by, I believe, AndrejStancak
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 19, 2019, 07:25:08 PM
Thank you, Mr Mitcham!  Thumb1:

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

Now where does 'Prayer Man' go?

Already posted, Alan. Reply #81 on: October 17, 2019,
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: James Hackerott on October 19, 2019, 07:37:06 PM
And we have Mr Hackerott's assurance too--------------

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

But Mr Doyle, evidently enjoying his prolonged residence in Absurdistan and equally evidently not knowing the first thing about how either geometry or 3D modeling works, continues to howl at the moon in his demented belief that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is naturally beshadowed even though the lady in white in Darnell is utterly unbeshadowed!

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

Meanwhile, for all those reading who are not living in la la land, here is where Mr Lovelady is standing in the Wiegman frame above:

(https://i.imgur.com/kOWL53s.jpg)

And yet this is what Wiegman shows us:

(https://i.imgur.com/V1lTdrp.jpg)

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

James

Thank you for these ideas, Mr Hackerott!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, maybe you can quote each and every post on this Forum that indicates said "Other indications", and provide your specific evidence for each specific post to support your claim.
Just saying it is not there, is not evidence in support of your claim!
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 19, 2019, 08:22:25 PM

No credible observer would suggest the black area on Lovelady in Wiegman is anything other than shadow from the column edge...It tells you where Lovelady was if you know how to do basic photogrammetry...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 08:38:55 PM
Sorry, Alan, but I'm not prepared to engage anymore in trying to satisfy your "I wonder what caused the black on Lovelady's body." I have suggested my idea, of what the cause is,  but it seems that you think it has been added some unknown nefarious reason. I will leave you to your deliberations. Cheers.

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

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

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

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

Notice anything?

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 08:43:46 PM
No credible observer would suggest the black area on Lovelady in Wiegman is anything other than shadow from the column edge...

But every credible observer has done just that. They understand how shadows work, see? You, on the other hand, ... :D
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 19, 2019, 09:23:15 PM
If you follow science the only answer is our assumption that Lovelady is on the center rail is wrong...

His left arm that is tucked under his body is just contorted that way because he is leaning and has nothing to do with the hand rail...

This allows the shadow to be close to where Stancak places it and still have it darkening Lovelady's right side...

This means Lovelady has to be on the landing because he has to be back on the landing for the shadow to fall on him like that...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 09:36:26 PM
If you follow science the only answer is our assumption that Lovelady is on the center rail is wrong...

His left arm that is tucked under his body is just contorted that way because he is leaning and has nothing to do with the hand rail...

This allows the shadow to be close to where Stancak places it and still have it darkening Lovelady's right side...

This means Lovelady has to be on the landing because he has to be back on the landing for the shadow to fall on him like that...

Yes, Mr Doyle, keep howling at the moon. You're good at it!  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 19, 2019, 09:51:33 PM
Yes, Mr Doyle, keep howling at the moon. You're good at it!  Thumb1:

You are failing to answer scientifically provable evidence...

Meanwhile for the more rational amongst us you can look at Wiegman and realize Lovelady's arm cannot be seen near the railing...You can see Lovelady's left hand in the high position Wiegman and it is nowhere near any hand rail - which proves my point...The Wiegman high position frame for Lovelady is Z255...Altgens 6 is Z257...

I'm afraid this is conclusive...Since you can see Lovelady's left arm in the high position Wiegman, and see it is to the west side of the portal and not touching the center rail, this proves Lovelady is over towards the west side in Altgens and is not leaning on the center rail...Which explains why his right side is darkened by shadow in Wiegman...

The simple explanation is Lovelady goes from leaning and straining in the high position Wiegman frame, as seen in Altgens, to unleaning and moving in to the shadow in the low position Wiegman frame...He moves more in to the shadow as he unleans...The only way that can happen is if Lovelady is on the landing and slightly back where the shadow is...

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 19, 2019, 09:57:17 PM
You can see Lovelady's left hand in the high position Wiegman

Show us!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 19, 2019, 10:00:58 PM
Then, maybe you can quote each and every post on this Forum that indicates said "Other indications",

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

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

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

What claim?

Leave the poor fellow alone, Mr Iacoletti. He's as robotic as his avatar.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 19, 2019, 10:51:30 PM
Show us!  Thumb1:

It is visible right there in the referenced images...

The high position Wiegman frame shows Lovelady 2 Z frames from the position he is in Altgens 6...His left arm is under and across his body as seen in Altgens...You can just look at the Wiegman high position frame and see his left hand is not near the center hand rail and is actually far away from it to the west side of the portal...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on October 20, 2019, 01:07:14 AM
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  ;)
Maybe you are Brian Doyle? I don't know that you are not, are you? Well anyway, in Altegens-6 at that moment you are saying LHO was getting ready to Murder JFK? JFK was already hit in Altegens-6 and you see Lovelady, I mean, Lovelady's head slapped crudely on to the photo. That's right, you see Lovelady's head, but unless you think Lovelady was part owl you then can not support saying it's Lovelady's body. Maybe you can show everyone that Lovelady performed circus tricks.


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 20, 2019, 04:13:55 PM
There are no posts on this forum that indicates said "Other indications".  Just empty claims and made-up crap.

What claim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If there are “indications” that place Calvery and Reed on the steps and Lovelady and Shelley “elsewhere”, then what are they?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 20, 2019, 08:08:55 PM
We've proven Calvery and Reed are on the steps...There's a person who thinks it is fun to play Skeptoid-like games and just offer negative denial to everything you post and pretend he is offering serious criticism...I think that person should be ignored...

We've proven Calvery by her plaid skirt and short-length sweater, as well as the timing that forces her to be at the steps at that time...This is further proven by Lovelady & Shelley's being seen going up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell which means Calvery has to be at the steps as Frazier and Lovelady described...

We've proven Reed by her all-white clothing as well as Reed herself telling me that she wore the long heels seen on Woman In All White who is next next to Calvery...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 03:27:37 AM
SOLVED!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Oswald was telling the truth!

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

 Thumb1:

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

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

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

By adding dark color to the relevant areas obviously

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

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

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

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

(https://i.postimg.cc/nLgVSyBh/Lovelady-in-entrance.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 21, 2019, 03:25:37 PM

Alan is running willy nilly picking out anyone who comes to his head as being Oswald...I thank him for that because it is a good example of how Greg Parker arrived at his nutty Prayer Man claim...

Bart Kamp once wrote that Alan Ford was doing a good job refuting me...

It is silly to not realize Prayer Man stays in the same place between Wiegman and Darnell so he can't be Shelley (who is seen in his suit and tie to Lovelady's left in Altgens) in one image and not be Shelley in another...

For years Ford has been assuring us Prayer Man is Oswald and now suddenly he is Shelley...

Folks, Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 21, 2019, 05:05:09 PM
SOLVED!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Oswald was telling the truth!

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

 Thumb1:

     Claiming the above shows 2 different heads is your interpretation of those images. Assigning 1 of the heads to Oswald is Speculation. Other than the Hosty Notes from the 1st Oswald Interrogation, what other Evidence do you have for assigning an alleged 2nd head to Oswald? (If this is a 2nd head, could it be a quick glimpse of Buell Frazier?)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 21, 2019, 05:10:52 PM
We've proven Calvery and Reed are on the steps...

Who's "we"?

You've proven nothing.  You've merely claimed over and over again that it's Calvery and Reed.

Quote
We've proven Calvery by her plaid skirt and short-length sweater,

a) you've done nothing to demonstrate that Calvery was wearing a "plaid skirt and short-length sweater".
b) you've done nothing to demonstrate that the figure on the steps in Darnell is wearing a "plaid skirt and short-length sweater"

Quote
as well as the timing that forces her to be at the steps at that time...

You've done nothing to demonstrate how you determined how long it took Calvery to get to the building, or even that she went up the steps.

Quote
This is further proven by Lovelady & Shelley's being seen going up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell which means Calvery has to be at the steps as Frazier and Lovelady described...

You've done nothing to demonstrate that Lovelady & Shelley are going up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell.

Quote
We've proven Reed by her all-white clothing as well as Reed herself telling me that she wore the long heels seen on Woman In All White who is next next to Calvery...

You've done nothing to demonstrate that Reed was wearing white clothing or that Reed stayed with Calvery after the shooting.  In fact, you admitted that in your alleged conversation with Reed, she said she went back to the steps alone.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan J. Ford on October 21, 2019, 06:27:59 PM
For clarification sake, where I admire, respect and enjoy reading the contributions of Alan Ford on this forum, so there is no confusion here as it may relate to our similar names, since Mr. Murphy's major breakthrough discovery in 2013, I have always maintained then and now that his Prayer Man figure is none other than the wrongly accused (Mr. Oswald).

That said, while reading along this thread, I was leaning towards Mr. Ford's focus upon the dark-coloured deception alongside Lovelady's right side as something those charged with covering up the truth may have done to conceal Lovelady's short-sleeve shirt.  However, given his recent revelation--as is his right--to state the possibility of concealment of Mr. Oswald--I'm in briefly to clarify my own position...nothing more, nothing less.

I signed on to this forum initially in May, 2014, with a profile picture of the late Charlton Heston driving a team of white horses on his chariot in his role as Judah Ben Hur. When I made an attempt to return last year the name Alan Ford was taken, thus my initial.

For those of you reading along, please be mindful of the horse manure Mr. Doyle continues to spread and cannot seem to get off his shoes. Every time he shovels his nonsense about Gloria Calvery and Carol Reed being on the steps, remind him of this same day affidavit of Bill Shelly ---->

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337377/m1/1/

Gloria Calvery hasn't even gotten over to, let alone up to the steps yet, because the walking Shelley & Lovelady we see in Darnell haven't even gone into run mode over to her location stated within his affidavit. Come clean, Mr. Doyle, stop shoveling your horse manure to fit your contrived "evidence" of "truth". I'm rather busy but I will be back after Thanksgiving break to assist (not that they need it) Mr. Scully, Mr. Plant, Mr. Iacoletti, Mr. Mitcham, Mr. Royell, Mr. Ford, Ms. Krotsch, Mr. Freeman, etc to keep your horse manure in check. Otherwise good day sir, just spare us the stench of your contrived "proof".
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 21, 2019, 06:54:45 PM
Graves and myself have proven the person Shelley mistakenly called Calvery was actually Karen Hicks who was following-up Calvery and Reed from their position together in the motorcade spectators...

Ford cannot answer the fact we have proven Calvery is on the steps by means of her plaid skirt and short-length sweater that is visible in the photography...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 21, 2019, 07:07:32 PM
Graves and myself have proven the person Shelley mistakenly called Calvery was actually Karen Hicks who was following-up Calvery and Reed from their position together in the motorcade spectators...

Ford cannot answer the fact we have proven Calvery is on the steps by means of her plaid skirt and short-length sweater that is visible in the photography...

Originally by Sandy Larsen and myself at the EF.

Don't  know why you insist on calling Calvery's skirt "plaid," although it does have wide-but-subtle horizontal dark "bands" or "bars" in it, two of which are (barely) visible in clear copies of Darnell ...

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 21, 2019, 07:08:39 PM

It is clearly a green plaid skirt Thomas as seen in the Zapruder enlargement...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan J. Ford on October 21, 2019, 07:28:53 PM
Graves and myself have proven the person Shelley mistakenly called Calvery was actually Karen Hicks who was following-up Calvery and Reed from their position together in the motorcade spectators...

Ford cannot answer the fact we have proven Calvery is on the steps by means of her plaid skirt and short-length sweater that is visible in the photography...

On the contrary, Mr. Doyle, you are wrong again ----> It wasn't you & Mr. Graves as much as it was the due diligence of Mr. Graves & Mr. Larsen making a good faith effort to do their part to offer the fruits of their work/research to the research community. Nice try though at taking a bow while pushing Mr. Larsen off stage.

Moreover, it's encouraging to see Mr. Graves holding your "evidence" of "truth" in check at plaid skirt, so Whoa! there Nellie, you got some more horse manure to sort out. Now, give me fifteen minutes and I'll be back...just checking my notes, while wondering how Gloria Calvery is shorter than her husband in her wedding photo, but somehow the woman you are identifying as her towers over several men in the Zapruder footage. Now, before you get ahead of yourself and start suggesting she is wearing high-heels, just be mindful women cannot run in the quick sprint fashion you have your "Calvery" running without risking serious injury. Back in 15, Mr. Doyle...be mindful of giving others (Mr. Larsen in this case) their due (contrary to your false misconceptions this case is Not all about YOU).
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan J. Ford on October 21, 2019, 07:39:46 PM
Okay, Mr. Doyle, let's compare the genuine Gloria Calvery here (even in high-heels doesn't even come close to towering over her newlywed husband ---->

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=72

with your choice for her in the Zapruder footage (8th position wedged between female in red-scarf and two gentlemen to her right, pause at 2-3 seconds in ---->

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=zapruder+film&view=detail&mid=04376E227A9D07EC620E04376E227A9D07EC620E&FORM=VIRE

Let us guess, Mr. Doyle, between her wedding date that Summer and November 22, 1963 you want us to believe the genuine Gloria Calvery, who doesn't tower over her husband, grew 6-8 inches?! to now tower over both those men, one even taller than her husband?

Wish I had more time to engage, but will leave it here for now, Mr. Doyle, but spare us your version of "proof" five decades removed from the actual events.

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 21, 2019, 07:43:32 PM
Graves and myself have proven the person Shelley mistakenly called Calvery was actually Karen Hicks who was following-up Calvery and Reed from their position together in the motorcade spectators...

You and Graves have done nothing to prove that Shelley was mistaken or that he saw Karen Hicks.  You've merely claimed it.

Quote
Ford cannot answer the fact we have proven Calvery is on the steps by means of her plaid skirt and short-length sweater that is visible in the photography...

You haven't proven anything.  You've merely claimed it.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 21, 2019, 07:44:24 PM
It is clearly a green plaid skirt Thomas as seen in the Zapruder enlargement...

There's no evidence that it's the same person in Zapruder or that it's Calvery.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 07:53:16 PM
So, let me see.........according to you in one film, Prayerman is Bill Shelley, but in the Darnell film,
Oswald cannot be ruled out as being Prayerman.

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

Mr Mitcham, I won't take lectures on 'thinking arguments through' from someone who just a couple of days ago was trying to sell us this Doyle-grade nonsense!:

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

As for whether 'PrayerMan' in Wiegman might be a different person to 'PrayerMan' in Darnell, it's perfectly possible---they are not standing on the same level:

(https://i.imgur.com/d7G3mVL.gif)

Quote
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/)

What 'objects in the background'? Point them out please!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 08:20:12 PM
     Claiming the above shows 2 different heads is your interpretation of those images. Assigning 1 of the heads to Oswald is Speculation. Other than the Hosty Notes from the 1st Oswald Interrogation, what other Evidence do you have for assigning an alleged 2nd head to Oswald? (If this is a 2nd head, could it be a quick glimpse of Buell Frazier?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not our man!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 08:23:28 PM
For those of you reading along, please be mindful of the horse manure Mr. Doyle continues to spread and cannot seem to get off his shoes. Every time he shovels his nonsense about Gloria Calvery and Carol Reed being on the steps, remind him of this same day affidavit of Bill Shelly ---->

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337377/m1/1/

Gloria Calvery hasn't even gotten over to, let alone up to the steps yet, because the walking Shelley & Lovelady we see in Darnell haven't even gone into run mode over to her location stated within his affidavit. Come clean, Mr. Doyle, stop shoveling your horse manure to fit your contrived "evidence" of "truth". I'm rather busy but I will be back after Thanksgiving break to assist (not that they need it) Mr. Scully, Mr. Plant, Mr. Iacoletti, Mr. Mitcham, Mr. Royell, Mr. Ford, Ms. Krotsch, Mr. Freeman, etc to keep your horse manure in check. Otherwise good day sir, just spare us the stench of your contrived "proof".

The only thing poor Mr Doyle has managed to prove on this forum is
a) his incompetence as a researcher
and
b) the toxicity of his character.

He's nothing more than a pathetically needy and narcissistic irritant!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Onto more substantial matters:

I now believe that the assumption that PrayerMan in Wiegman is PrayerMan in Darnell, while understandable, has prevented some good researchers from exploring other possibilities.

Mr Oswald's presence right behind Mr Lovelady puts him right in front of Mr Frazier...

Someone (not 'wig-in-a-professional situation'-Doyle!) needs to show Mr Frazier the Wiegman frames. Though he'll probably stonewall like he did with PrayerMan in Darnell...

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 21, 2019, 08:26:42 PM

As for whether 'PrayerMan' in Wiegman might be a different person to 'PrayerMan' in Darnell, it's perfectly possible---they are not standing on the same level:

They have to be because if not one would be 7 inches taller or shorter than the other...

Since they are both of equal height they are both standing on the same level...

Anyone with common sense realizes Prayer Man in Wiegman is the same person as Prayer Man in Darnell...I've never seen any credible researcher suggest otherwise...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 21, 2019, 08:34:15 PM

Calvery's son Chris pointed me to Tall Woman as his mother...

Alan J Ford's height argument is bogus...The people on either side of Calvery in Zapruder are just short people so there's no validity to Alan J Ford's bogus height argument...Plus Ford can't show where Calvery is...

We have a photo of Calvery's face on Tall Woman in Betzner 3...

The Prayer Man nuts ignore that Calvery has to be at the steps by Darnell because both Frazier and Lovelady described Calvery speaking to Lovelady & Shelley at the steps before they left to go up the extension...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not our man!

 Thumb1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easy: Mr Oswald had told them:

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

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

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

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

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

But Wiegman, because of the angle from which it was filmed, proved a major-league headache
-----------------------------nearly as bad as the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter by the front door which had to be moved up to the second-floor!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 21, 2019, 11:07:59 PM
Calvery's son Chris pointed me to Tall Woman as his mother...

You've never provided a scintilla of evidence that Chris Calvery (born in 1977) ever told you anything.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 21, 2019, 11:14:51 PM
Alan Ford wrote:

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

That's Pauline Sanders Alan Ford is showing peering over Shelley's shoulder...

There's nothing blacked-out in that image...It is just the column shadow on Lovelady's right side...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 21, 2019, 11:27:45 PM
Alan Ford wrote:

That's Pauline Sanders Alan Ford is showing peering over Shelley's shoulder...

Hey, maybe it's Dolores Reid!?   :D

Look, Mr Doyle, you're a busted flush. Go home.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 21, 2019, 11:34:26 PM
If it were real clear, we wouldn't be seeing it-----------it too would have been blacked out!

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

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

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

Pauline Sanders was not that tall!  :D

     Where is Buell Frazier standing on the alleged 2 Heads Images? The Circled Image that you are claiming to be Frazier, is extremely close to the same position of your alleged 2 Heads Images. Unless you can Prove otherwise, Frazier could have moved slightly becoming 1 of the heads in your alleged 2 heads images.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 21, 2019, 11:36:29 PM
That's Pauline Sanders Alan Ford is showing peering over Shelley's shoulder...

More unsupported made-up nonsense from Mr. "560 falsehoods and fabrications".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 21, 2019, 11:52:46 PM
I a months time, anybody can see where the shadow was at 12.30 on 11/22/63, as it will be the same, assuming that the sun is shining and there is a shadow.
In fact, next Tuesday, 11.22.19, the shadow will be only one and a half degrees further west than it was on the day that the President was murdered.
Is that a typo Ray? Did you mean to say, next Tuesday, 10.22.19?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 22, 2019, 12:07:12 AM
     Where is Buell Frazier standing on the alleged 2 Heads Images? The Circled Image that you are claiming to be Frazier, is extremely close to the same position of your alleged 2 Heads Images. Unless you can Prove otherwise, Frazier could have moved slightly becoming 1 of the heads in your alleged 2 heads images.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John,

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

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

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

--  MWT   ;)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 22, 2019, 01:35:34 AM
Hey, maybe it's Dolores Reid!?   :D

Look, Mr Doyle, you're a busted flush. Go home.

It is Pauline Sanders because Stancak found her in that exact spot in Darnell...

For anyone of basic research skill, once you find Sanders, since there were only two women on the landing, Prayer Man therefore has to be Stanton...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 22, 2019, 08:44:23 AM
Is that a typo Ray? Did you mean to say, next Tuesday, 10.22.19?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

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


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

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

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

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

    "Visual Evidence"?  YOU can Not Positively ID who is standing Back in that dark shadow. You are presenting your Opinion as being Fact which is often attempted around here. You well know the difference between saying I Believe or I Think vs touting a dark image immersed in dark shadow as "Visual EVIDENCE". All you are doing by running this gambit is critically damaging your credibility along with the point you are attempting to make. You are far better than this.     
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 22, 2019, 05:43:22 PM
It is Pauline Sanders because Stancak found her in that exact spot in Darnell...

For anyone of basic research skill, once you find Sanders, since there were only two women on the landing, Prayer Man therefore has to be Stanton...

Uhh Brian, "Stancak found her"?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 22, 2019, 06:19:13 PM
    "Visual Evidence"?  YOU can Not Positively ID who is standing Back in that dark shadow.

Huh? Sure we can:

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

It's the same Mr Frazier we see in the Darnell film:

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

Who else was that tall and had that hairline? Care to offer a candidate? Mr Shelley? Ms Sanders?

Mr Storing, you seem to have gone from arguing that Mr Frazier made several superquick lunges forward (was he trying to headbutt Mr Lovelady or something?) to now arguing that he may not be Mr Frazier in the first place because Mr Frazier's affidavit puts him on the 'STEPS'. I'd expect this nonsense from the AnyoneButOswaldOutFront diehards like Mr Doyle, sorry to see you engaging in it!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 22, 2019, 06:24:03 PM
Oswald @1:17 in the following video admits to being in the building at the time. Game over!
And btw if Oswald was outside watching the President with his friends wouldn't he be screaming out to the Press, "I was outside with my friends watching the President's parade", I know I would be but I guess in bizarro opposite world the rules are different?


JohnM.

 :D

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

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

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

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

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

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


JohnM.

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

So, yes, he would have stated that he was there, and named corroborating eyewitnesses for confirmation, if he had been on the steps/landing at that time. But, without any reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates said presence, and with reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates he was not there at the time, sufficient indications sufficiently indicate him to have been elsewhere.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 06:52:39 PM
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?

How do we know that Chris Calvery told "560 falsehoods and fabrications" Doyle anything?  His older brother Craig (born in 1970) told Bart Kamp that he couldn't tell who his mother was in the Zapruder stills.

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 06:59:19 PM
It is Pauline Sanders because Stancak found her in that exact spot in Darnell...

False.  Stancak said he thought that Sanders was over on the right side of the portal.

https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/mrs-sanders-mrs-stanton-where-are-you/ (https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/mrs-sanders-mrs-stanton-where-are-you/)

There is absolutely nothing that shameless Doyle will not lie about.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 07:03:39 PM
So, yes, he would have stated that he was there, and named corroborating eyewitnesses for confirmation, if he had been on the steps/landing at that time. But, without any reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates said presence, and with reliable indicative information of evidentiary value that indicates he was not there at the time, sufficient indications sufficiently indicate him to have been elsewhere.

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

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

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


Thats how i understand the sequence. Its this not correct?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 22, 2019, 07:34:36 PM
Alan is running willy nilly picking out anyone who comes to his head as being Oswald...I thank him for that because it is a good example of how Greg Parker arrived at his nutty Prayer Man claim...

Bart Kamp once wrote that Alan Ford was doing a good job refuting me...

It is silly to not realize Prayer Man stays in the same place between Wiegman and Darnell so he can't be Shelley (who is seen in his suit and tie to Lovelady's left in Altgens) in one image and not be Shelley in another...

For years Ford has been assuring us Prayer Man is Oswald and now suddenly he is Shelley...

Folks, Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...

I do believe that white, possibly porcelain, cup/mug, likely containing a beverage or soup, held by the right hand and supported by the left hand of PrayerPerson/Image reliably indicates PrayerPerson/Image represents the same person in Darnell Film and Wiegman Film.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 08:02:05 PM
Weigman film captures Lovelady on the steps 1st. Weigman film also captures  Mr.Campbell with presumably Mrs Reid, standing on the curb of Elm st, as Wiegmans car goes past. Mrs Reid may be the heavyset older woman in white scarf right beside Mr.Campbell.

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

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


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

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

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

-- MWT  ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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


JohnM.



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

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


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

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

If it is your claim that PrayerPerson/Image represents LeeHarveyOswald, what do you claim as indicative information of evidentiary value?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 22, 2019, 09:14:08 PM
Huh? Sure we can:

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

It's the same Mr Frazier we see in the Darnell film:

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

Who else was that tall and had that hairline? Care to offer a candidate? Mr Shelley? Ms Sanders?

Mr Storing, you seem to have gone from arguing that Mr Frazier made several superquick lunges forward (was he trying to headbutt Mr Lovelady or something?) to now arguing that he may not be Mr Frazier in the first place because Mr Frazier's affidavit puts him on the 'STEPS'. I'd expect this nonsense from the AnyoneButOswaldOutFront diehards like Mr Doyle, sorry to see you engaging in it!

    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. Stick with the Black Shadow issue. That has merit.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 09:29:43 PM
    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. Stick with the Black Shadow issue. That has merit.

If you look at the sliver of "light-colored" skirt that Larsen's and Doyle's and my Gloria Calvery is wearing in the lower photo (a frame from Darnell), you can see one of the dark-colored horizontal bars in it.

(Part of that light-colored mass is the left side of a woman's face.)

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 09:48:45 PM
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?

Yes, and I think that Alan responded to that adequately, given the recently discovered Hosty note.

Quote
If it is your claim that PrayerPerson/Image represents LeeHarveyOswald, what do you claim as indicative information of evidentiary value?

I don't know who prayerperson is.  But Kamp's argument is way better than Doyle's.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 09:52:06 PM
If you look at the sliver of "light-colored" skirt that Larsen's and Doyle's and my Gloria Calvery is wearing in the lower photo (a frame from Darnell), you can see one of the dark-colored horizontal bars in it.

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)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 22, 2019, 09:55:35 PM

Uhh Brian, "Stancak found her"?

He posted it on the EF...He found Sanders in one of the Darnell frames...

Alan is ignoring that since the person he circled is Sanders the only other option for Stanton is Prayer Man...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 22, 2019, 10:01:21 PM
Oswald @1:17 in the following video admits to being in the building at the time. Game over!
And btw if Oswald was outside watching the President with his friends wouldn't he be screaming out to the Press, "I was outside with my friends watching the President's parade", I know I would be but I guess in bizarro opposite world the rules are different?

JohnM.

Correct...Except you don't go far enough...Oswald did not say "Not only was I inside the building but I was in the 2nd floor lunch room"...The reason Oswald doesn't say that is because he is a trained CIA operative who is not going to give too much away lest it conflict with CIA purposes...

Oswald was in the building all right...He was in the 2nd floor lunch room...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 10:03:48 PM
He posted it on the EF...He found Sanders in one of the Darnell frames...

Yes, he "found" her over on the right side of the portal, you fabricating name-dropper.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24615-mrs-stanton-mrs-sanders-where-are-you (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24615-mrs-stanton-mrs-sanders-where-are-you)

(https://thejfktruthmatters.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/detailedframes.jpg?w=768&h=384)
(https://thejfktruthmatters.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/all_labels.jpg?w=768)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 22, 2019, 10:04:57 PM
LOL.

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

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

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

Enlarging the enlargement even further:

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

Obvious "dark colored horizontal bars", huh?

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

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

Nope.

Maybe enhancing another frame?  Still nope.

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

John,

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

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

--  MWT   ;)


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

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

Bart's very "clever," too.

Once again:

John,

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

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

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

What part of "[images credit: Bart Kamp]" are you having trouble understanding?  I didn't "blow up" anything.  Bart enlarged it to show that the tiny area in the Darnell frame that you are pretending to see horizontal bars in has no discernible horizontal bars in it.  But feel free to point them out on Royell's image (actually it was Alan Ford's image, but I'm used to you not paying attention).
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 22, 2019, 10:18:23 PM
(https://thejfktruthmatters.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/all_labels.jpg?w=768)

The Prayer Man people aren't too bright...

If you look at Stancak's graphic here he labels Sanders correctly and puts question marks over Sarah Stanton who is Prayer Man...Knowing he needs to place Stanton on the steps Stancak fabricates an imaginary Stanton behind a person that he wrongly labels "Shelley"...

This is a perfect example of the damage the Prayer Man theory has done to the research community...Not only can that person labeled Shelley not be Shelley because Shelley is seen going up the Elm St extension in Darnell, but the figure he dares label Stanton is an imaginary person that isn't there...The only reason Stancak created that imaginary woman is because he refused to place Stanton's name the only place it could go...On Prayer Man...

There is no person standing where Stancak has placed an imaginary woman with the intention of saying that is Stanton...We know this because if Stanton were there we would see her in other images and there is no one there...

This is the kind of garbage "research" that goes on on the Education Forum under the oversight and captaincy of James Gordon...

The uncredible members over there sit back and say nothing while the standard of research quality is guided down to the comic farce level by this kind of garbage research...

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 10:25:22 PM
The Prayer Man people aren't too bright...

If you look at Stancak's graphic here he labels Sanders correctly and puts question marks over Sarah Stanton who is Prayer Man...Knowing he needs to place Stanton on the steps Stancak fabricates an imaginary Stanton behind a person that he wrongly labels "Shelley"...

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  You don't get to claim that Stancak "found" Sanders in Altgens when his analysis puts her in a different spot and then backpedal by saying that he doesn't identify people properly.  You're just using his name for your own fabrication.

Quote
Not only can that person labeled Shelley not be Shelley because Shelley is seen going up the Elm St extension in Darnell,

You have done nothing to show that Shelley is seen going up the Elm St extension in Darnell (other than just claiming it).

Quote
There is no person standing where Stancak has placed an imaginary woman with the intention of saying that is Stanton...We know this because is Stanton were there we would see her in other images and there is no one there...

Wrong.  He's putting Stanton in the spot where you falsely claimed he "found Sanders".

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

John,

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

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

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

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

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

John,

As I said, the image is already up.

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

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

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on October 22, 2019, 11:13:56 PM
Alan, 22 pages, and growing, congrats! Please point out the most informative post in this thread.

How does it stack up, compared to this post?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1777.20.html#msg64767

I still hope one day you will grasp my point. You still seem more reasonable to me than Doyle or larrytrotterimage.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 22, 2019, 11:49:00 PM
LOL.

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

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

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

Enlarging the enlargement even further:

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

Obvious "dark colored horizontal bars", huh?

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

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

Nope.

Maybe enhancing another frame?  Still nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the dark strip?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 23, 2019, 12:06:07 AM
That's already proven to be Calvery because of the skirt and the short-length sweater...There was no other shirt-length sweater on any woman in the area...

Combine that with Carol Reed in all white and it is a positive match...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 23, 2019, 12:08:05 AM
So what is the dark strip?

It is the shadow of the column on the west wall edge of the portal...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 23, 2019, 12:12:06 AM
So now you do accept the identification of Mr Frazier? Good grief, Mr Storing, make up your mind, man!

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

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

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

So what is the dark strip?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

      The point is that Frazier had the Time to move and possibly be the 2nd head.  No Way that perfect Black Strip is a shadow.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 12:14:34 AM
Alan, 22 pages, and growing, congrats! Please point out the most informative post in this thread.

How does it stack up, compared to this post?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1777.20.html#msg64767

I still hope one day you will grasp my point. You still seem more reasonable to me than Doyle or larrytrotterimage.

And you, Mr Scully, seem just as self-obsessed and desperate for validation, recognition and praise as Mr Doyle. Like him, you have an unhealthy addiction to pronouns of the first person singular. Every post you make is ultimately about... yourself.

So pardon me if I refuse to take seriously the attacks of someone who believes that the exact location of the wrongfully accused Mr Oswald is a minor matter compared to the prodigious research skills of Mr Tom Scully  :D

Go back to your tangent-to-a-tangent-to-a-tangent newspaper clippings and kindly let the rest of us get on with some important work here.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 12:27:30 AM
      The point is that Frazier had the Time to move and possibly be the 2nd head.

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

Now!

Question 1!

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

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

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

Question 2!!

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

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

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

Quote
No Way that perfect Black Strip is a shadow.

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

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

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

John,

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

Kinda.

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

-- MWT ;)


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 23, 2019, 01:42:38 AM
He posted it on the EF...He found Sanders in one of the Darnell frames...

Alan is ignoring that since the person he circled is Sanders the only other option for Stanton is Prayer Man...

And, is said Lady/Image seen on all versions of DarnellFilm?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 02:02:53 AM
John,

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

Kinda.

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

Does this mean you cannot point out your "horizontal bars"?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 02:06:53 AM
That's already proven to be Calvery because of the skirt and the short-length sweater...

 BS:
Not only have you not demonstrated that the figure in the Darnell clip is wearing a "short-length sweater", but you also haven't demonstrated that Calvery was wearing a short-length sweater.

Quote
Combine that with Carol Reed in all white and it is a positive match...

And you haven't demonstrated that Reed was wearing white either.  Or that Reed stayed with Calvery.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on October 23, 2019, 02:14:31 AM
Does this mean you cannot point out your "horizontal bars"?

John,

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

Perhaps that rules you out?

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

Now!

Question 1!

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

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

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

Question 2!!

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

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

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

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

Thumb1:

      The Wiegman footage occurs Before the Darnell footage. If Frazier's initial position is 1 of the 2 heads, he then has the time to move a few feet where we see him positioned on the Darnell footage. You are so eager to buy into 1 of the heads belonging to Oswald, that you are Failing to consider alternate possibilities.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 23, 2019, 06:57:12 AM
      No Way that perfect Black Strip is a shadow.

Those who know how to analyze photos would realize from that black shadow on Lovelady to his right is people brightly lit by direct sun and to his left is darkness with nobody brightly lit...

That proves it is shadow from the column edge...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 01:32:59 PM
I don't need to point out the two "bars" visible in the woman's skirt

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 02:35:03 PM
      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.

No, Mr Storing, you are failing to consider the sheer speed with which the events reflected in these Wiegman frames took place in real time:

(https://i.imgur.com/N3NkUQz.gif)

Your suggestion that Mr Frazier's head in Wiegman (and it is good that you are no longer querying the Frazier identification in Wiegman) becomes the second 'Lovelady' head continues to be an absurdity, a non-starter, a piece of Doyle-level nonsense. You are better than this!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 23, 2019, 05:01:07 PM
No, Mr Storing, you are failing to consider the sheer speed with which the events reflected in these Wiegman frames took place in real time:

(https://i.imgur.com/N3NkUQz.gif)

Your suggestion that Mr Frazier's head in Wiegman (and it is good that you are no longer querying the Frazier identification in Wiegman) becomes the second 'Lovelady' head continues to be an absurdity, a non-starter, a piece of Doyle-level nonsense. You are better than this!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 :D

John,

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

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

-- MWT  ;)

Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 23, 2019, 05:52:09 PM
Mr Ford is publicly avoiding photo science...

Any credible review of the Wiegman image with Lovelady and the shadow across his right side shows there are brightly lit people to the east of Lovelady and no brightly lit people to the west side of that shadow line...

No credible Kennedy Assassination evidence analyst would deny that this proves the dark border on Lovelady is the shadow from the column edge...It is silly to suggest otherwise and ranks the person making the claim...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 06:01:39 PM
Any credible review of the Wiegman image (etc. etc.)

Yes, Mr Doyle, keep howling at that moon...  Aaoooooooooooooohhh!! :D

Mr Oswald has been found in Wiegman and the ridiculous magic dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side explained----------

(https://i.imgur.com/hBtST2B.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/cu5Ckn7.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/DWTDfj0.jpg)

Why don't you and your kindred spirit, Mr Scully, set up a lil' support group together so you can deal with the distress caused by this development?  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 23, 2019, 06:08:27 PM

You just dodged answering scientific evidence in public Mr Ford...

There are brightly lit by sun persons to Lovelady's east in the image where Lovelady has the shadow on his right side in Wiegman...

There are no persons lit by sun to Lovelady's west in that same image...

That scientifically proves the dark border on Lovelady's right side is shadow from the column's edge on the west portal wall...

You can't ignore it like you are doing and still be credible...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 23, 2019, 06:15:22 PM

Michael Clark wrote:

Quote
Doorway man always looked, to me, like he was leaning around a wall, not standing at a center staircase railing.

It is so hard to avoid concluding that PM and DwM have to be the same person, regardless of the sleeves and the BL likeness.

Apparently after stealing my recently-posted observation and not crediting me with it on the Education Forum (I am not allowed to be credited by rule on that uncredible forum due to the personal spite of the moderator) Clark doesn't have issues over my "style" to the point of not representing one of my claims as his own...I just recently posted over here that I realized I was mistaken and Lovelady was not holding the center rail like I mistakenly believed...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 06:16:51 PM
You just dodged answering scientific evidence in public Mr Ford...

There are brightly lit by sun persons to Lovelady's east in the image where Lovelady has the shadow on his right side in Wiegman...

There are no persons lit by sun to Lovelady's west in that same image...

That scientifically proves the dark border on Lovelady's right side is shadow from the column's edge on the west portal wall...

You can't ignore it like you are doing and still be credible...

 :D

Look at the green shadow line, Mr Doyle, the green shadow line:

(https://i.imgur.com/B1UaWBy.jpg)

Go find us one of your imaginary 'credible analysts' who will reach dramatically different conclusions to Messrs Stancak & Hackerott as to the shadow line in that entranceway at 12:30pm on 11/22/63.

Until you do, your barks of protest ain't worth diddly squat!  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 23, 2019, 06:57:42 PM


The only thing that could cause there to be brightly lit persons to the east of Lovelady and no brightly lit persons to the west of Lovelady is if that dark border were the shadow line from the west wall column edge...

You are ignoring easily-observable science in public Mr Ford...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 23, 2019, 07:00:35 PM

The only thing that could cause there to be brightly lit persons to the east of Lovelady and no brightly lit persons to the west of Lovelady is if that dark border were the shadow line from the west wall column edge...

You are ignoring easily-observable science in public Mr Ford...

Still not able to get a 'credible analyst' to back up your ludicrous reality-defying claim? Oh dear  :(
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 23, 2019, 07:03:50 PM
You are running from evidence anyone could see with their own eyes in this thread...

Because of Ford's silly-ness we are not discussing serious things like the shadow proving that Lovelady's being in a place that intersects the shadow means he is on the landing...And once he is proven to be on the landing then that means we can use his height in comparison to other people to prove he is not on the step and prove his height in comparison to Sarah Stanton... When we are hijacked in to discussing silly claims like there being no shadow on Lovelady then we are not discussing more serious things like the photogrammetric determinations we can make from this...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 07:34:21 PM
John,

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

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

What I see is you continuing to avoid pointing out where these fantasy "bars" are.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2019, 07:38:54 PM
You just dodged answering scientific evidence in public Mr Ford...

There are brightly lit by sun persons to Lovelady's east in the image where Lovelady has the shadow on his right side in Wiegman...

There are no persons lit by sun to Lovelady's west in that same image...

That scientifically proves the dark border on Lovelady's right side is shadow from the column's edge on the west portal wall...

You can't ignore it like you are doing and still be credible...

As usual, Doyle is taking pure conjecture and calling it "scientific proof".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 23, 2019, 09:39:17 PM
Alan, 22 pages, and growing, congrats! Please point out the most informative post in this thread.

How does it stack up, compared to this post?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1777.20.html#msg64767

I still hope one day you will grasp my point. You still seem more reasonable to me than Doyle or larrytrotterimage.

It appears as though a poster known as TomScully has decided to mention me disdainfully, and although I am not overly concerned, I do believe said poster needs to be specific about said disdainfulness by providing specific complete quotes with an accompanying reference indicating reasoning for said disdainful manner, as well as any post being responded to.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 23, 2019, 11:35:39 PM
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, Mr Storing. You swing between affirming Mr Frazier's identity in Wiegman-----------------so that you can argue he had 'time' to lunge forward and be the second 'Lovelady' head------------------to querying it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(https://i.imgur.com/qwcrSuc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YMw0VwB.jpg)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 24, 2019, 04:15:32 PM

Ford is ignoring the provable evidence that the divide on Lovelady in Wiegman is the shadow line...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 24, 2019, 04:52:56 PM
Like I say, Mr Storing, a name would be great!

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

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

    You DQ yourself by labeling Buell Frazier's hair as "Elvis hair". It is difficult to conduct a conversation regarding Image Observations when you come out with something like that.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 24, 2019, 08:47:27 PM
    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.

Thanks for confirming that you can't offer a single alternative candidate to Mr Frazier! Thumb1:

To continue to claim that this might not be Mr Frazier while chickening out of the challenge of offering a counter-candidate is pretty pathetic-------the kind of thing one would normally expect from a Lone Nutter or a Lone Doyler.

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

And what it leaves you with, Mr Storing, is the truly bizarre inference that a dark strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side for no reason whatsoever!

To anyone with eyes to see and no face to save, meanwhile, it's perfectly obvious that---------------------
a) this is the same man we're about to see in Darnell (i.e. Mr Frazier)
b) he can't possibly be responsible for the second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 24, 2019, 08:52:58 PM
Ford is ignoring the provable evidence that the divide on Lovelady in Wiegman is the shadow line...

You are ignoring the provable evidence that you are out of your mind...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 24, 2019, 09:16:13 PM
Thanks for confirming that you can't offer a single alternative candidate to Mr Frazier! Thumb1:

To continue to claim that this might not be Mr Frazier while chickening out of the challenge of offering a counter-candidate is pretty pathetic-------the kind of thing one would normally expect from a Lone Nutter or a Lone Doyler.

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

And what it leaves you with, Mr Storing, is the truly bizarre inference that a dark strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side for no reason whatsoever!

To anyone with eyes to see and no face to save, meanwhile, it's perfectly obvious that---------------------
a) this is the same man we're about to see in Darnell (i.e. Mr Frazier)
b) he can't possibly be responsible for the second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman.

 Thumb1:

    ID'ing someone by process of elimination is weak at best. To then pass that weak ID off as being Fact does Nothing but cast doubt on Any other proclamations you make. I have Never said that is definitely Not Frazier. What I do say is STOP passing off your Opinion as being Fact. With regard to your scenario of Oswald being on the Steps, + your placing Frazier inside that circle on your visual aid = Frazier being almost close enough to your alleged Oswald to touch him. Over the course of 55+ years Frazier has Never said he saw Oswald on the TSBD steps. Never. If Frazier had been close enough to almost touch Oswald, Frazier would have remembered seeing him on the Steps. I do think you are onto something with that dark strip. To me, it is far too uniform to be a shadow. Its' straight edge and consistently jet black color looks more like a curtain than a mere shadow.  What/Who it might be hiding I do Not know. I do Not believe that dark strip is obscuring Oswald standing on the steps. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 24, 2019, 09:43:52 PM
    ID'ing someone by process of elimination is weak at best.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh, no she didn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This sounds more like Mr Chism
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 26, 2019, 04:27:23 PM
Here’s the problem. I don’t think anybody actually knows that Campbell was wearing a dark hat and suit.

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

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

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

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

But yes---------the story told to the WC by Officer Baker and Mr Truly is also bogus. They encountered Mr Oswald at the front entrance, not in the second-floor lunchroom! Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 26, 2019, 05:20:52 PM

Ford is trying to convince us the reality of the west wall shadow across Lovelady's right side is something we don't see and that it is due to a classic Fetzerian photo alteration that has no sensible explanation...Pure Cinque material...

Shelley and Lovelady lied about the 3 minute delay because they were trying to cook their testimony in order to scuttle Victoria Adams' witnessing...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 26, 2019, 05:32:32 PM
Ford is trying to convince us the reality of the west wall shadow across Lovelady's right side is something we don't see and that it is due to a classic Fetzerian photo alteration that has no sensible explanation...Pure Cinque material...

Nope, Mr Doyle, you lost that debate long ago. Ain't no natural shadow on Mr Lovelady. Your loss of that debate was just the latest in a long and ever-growing list of the humiliating defeats you've suffered here on this, the only remaining JFK Forum that lets you be a member!

By the way, have you sourced a 'credible analyst' to back up your incredible claim yet? Thought not!  :D

Quote
Shelley and Lovelady lied about the 3 minute delay because they were trying to cook their testimony in order to scuttle Victoria Adams' witnessing...

Nope again! If discrediting Ms Adams were the reason, it would have been much easier just to add minutes to their railroad excursion. Something else going on here! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 26, 2019, 05:38:16 PM
Quite right! (Although we only have Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along-Doyle's word as to the 'one known picture of Reid'...)

No, I’m talking about her high school photo. Doyle can’t be trusted on anything.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 26, 2019, 05:41:14 PM
No, I’m talking about her high school photo. Doyle can’t be trusted on anything.

I do beg your pardon, Mr Iacoletti------yes, the high school photo of Jeraldean Bray (later Reid)! Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 26, 2019, 05:53:04 PM

Ford - Go to the Education Forum and post under the name "Alan Ford"...

Go make that nutty claim that there is no shadow on Lovelady in the low position Wiegman frame and see the response you get on the forum I am not allowed to post on...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 26, 2019, 06:16:35 PM
Ford - Go to the Education Forum and post under the name "Alan Ford"...

Go make that nutty claim that there is no shadow on Lovelady in the low position Wiegman frame and see the response you get on the forum I am not allowed to post on...

Are you suggesting there are 'credible analysts' over there who could do what you're so wretchedly unable to do here? Well, the fact that they banned you shows they must be pretty clued-in alright!  :D

Change hobbies, Mr Doyle, you're a living joke to the JFK research community!
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 26, 2019, 06:20:02 PM
Are you suggesting there are 'credible analysts' over there who could do what you're so wretchedly unable to do here? Well, the fact that they banned you shows they must be pretty clued-in alright!  :D

Change hobbies, Mr Doyle, you're a living joke to the JFK research community!

Translation: "I cannot directly answer the point because I know you're right"...

See how long you would last over there with that nutty Fetzer-Cinque drawn-in shadow claim under your "Alan Ford" name...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 26, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
Translation: "I cannot directly answer the point because I know you're right"...

Gosh dang, you see right through me, Mr Doyle! A sun-blocking angel was hovering just in front of the entranceway and this explains the shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side...

Maybe you and I could find a credible analyst to verify this scenario?  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 26, 2019, 07:16:05 PM

You're the one saying it is the hovering angel...

I'm the one saying it is the obvious, reality-based west wall of the portal...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 26, 2019, 07:21:26 PM
You're the one saying it is the hovering angel...

I'm the one saying it is the obvious, reality-based west wall of the portal...

I'll meet you halfway, Mr Doyle--------it's as likely to be a hovering angel as the western column!  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 26, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
I'll meet you halfway, Mr Doyle--------it's as likely to be a hovering angel as the western column!  Thumb1:

You are surely not asking people to take you seriously?...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 26, 2019, 09:42:21 PM
You are surely not asking people to take you seriously?...

I am explaining why no one takes you seriously, Mr Doyle. You're a joke. Everything you touch turns to dung!

Now! If anyone with actual research skills can offer an alternative rational explanation to my rational explanation as to why a dark strip covers the right side of Mr Lovelady, despite the fact that he is nowhere near the shadow line from the western column, I will be all ears...

(https://i.imgur.com/tEe1tKA.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on October 27, 2019, 01:39:51 AM
Ford is trying to convince us the reality of the west wall shadow across Lovelady's right side is something we don't see and that it is due to a classic Fetzerian photo alteration that has no sensible explanation...Pure Cinque material...

Shelley and Lovelady lied about the 3 minute delay because they were trying to cook their testimony in order to scuttle Victoria Adams' witnessing...
As opposed to you trying to convince everyone of something that only you believe. This means you are the only person in the whole world who believes something that you yourself can not prove. This may prove a split-personality.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 27, 2019, 01:53:29 AM
This may prove a split-personality.

We should probably consult “Alb*rt Doyle” and “Ralph Yates” on that...  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on October 27, 2019, 05:22:22 AM
We should probably consult “Alb*rt Doyle” and “Ralph Yates” on that...  :D

John, this might be the neatest "spelling" (is it called that when a number takes the place of a letter?) "A1bert".

Oh....hello! Didn't see you two, there. John just mentioned the two of you.

(http://jfkforum.com/images/DoyleYatesDrewPhipps.jpg)






Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on October 27, 2019, 08:51:59 AM
John, this might be the neatest "spelling" (is it called that when a number takes the place of a letter?) "A1bert".

Oh....hello! Didn't see you two, there. John just mentioned the two of you.

(http://jfkforum.com/images/DoyleYatesDrewPhipps.jpg)

Your turn, A1bert........
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 27, 2019, 05:41:20 PM

It is false to say I have no evidence of the dark border on Lovelady being shadow from the west wall edge...

It has to be shadow because we can see the people to the east of that border are all brightly lit by sun and the people to the west are all dark and in shade...

That's proof that Ford has failed to credibly answer...

It is silly to say what is obviously a shadow line isn't a shadow line...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 27, 2019, 07:07:26 PM
It is false to say I have no evidence of the dark border on Lovelady being shadow from the west wall edge...

It has to be shadow because we can see the people to the east of that border are all brightly lit by sun and the people to the west are all dark and in shade...

That's proof that Ford has failed to credibly answer...

It is silly to say what is obviously a shadow line isn't a shadow line...

    "It has to be" is Proof of Nothing. Once again, You are proffering your Opinion as being Fact.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on October 27, 2019, 07:24:58 PM
    "It has to be" is Proof of Nothing. Once again, You are proffering your Opinion as being Fact.

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

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 27, 2019, 07:36:25 PM
It has to be shadow because we can see the people to the east of that border are all brightly lit by sun and the people to the west are all dark and in shade...

 :D

If Mr Doyle doesn't like the position of the sun, he simply clicks his fingers and lo! -- the sun moves!

The only person in Wiegman on whom the natural shadow cast by the western column falls is 'Prayer Man'. That's because he's behind the shadow line.

Mr Lovelady is standing in full direct sunlight. But Wiegman shows an unnatural dark strip down his right side!

(https://i.imgur.com/tEe1tKA.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 27, 2019, 10:10:38 PM
It is false to say I have no evidence of the dark border on Lovelady being shadow from the west wall edge...

It has to be shadow because we can see the people to the east of that border are all brightly lit by sun and the people to the west are all dark and in shade...

How is that “proof” that the shadow is caused by the west wall edge?

Quote
It is silly to say what is obviously a shadow line isn't a shadow line...

True to form, your “proof” is that you said so.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 27, 2019, 10:30:56 PM
It is foolish to not see that the west wall shadow line is on Frazier right in synch with where you see it on Lovelady...

Ford doesn't realize that he is confirming it not refuting it...

The dark border on Lovelady is not shadow for what reason?...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 27, 2019, 10:53:05 PM
It is foolish to not see that the west wall shadow line is on Frazier right in synch with where you see it on Lovelady...

Ford doesn't realize that he is confirming it not refuting it...

The dark border on Lovelady is not shadow for what reason?...

 :D

Mr Doyle, purveyor extraordinaire of forensic linguistics, photogrammetry and a host of other arcane disciplines, doesn't understand the difference between vertical and horizontal... It's like trying to explain algebra to a goose
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 27, 2019, 11:04:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9QCIE8t.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 28, 2019, 12:37:34 AM
“Thank heavens I brought my glow-in-the-dark coat to work with me!”

That would make sense in a professional situation.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on October 28, 2019, 07:17:41 AM
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
How about you and your laughable attempts to convince people you're some sort of photo analyst?  Are you Doyle's brother or is he your cousin? It's not a trick question
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on October 28, 2019, 08:11:43 AM
How about you and your laughable attempts to convince people you're some sort of photo analyst?  Are you Doyle's brother or is he your cousin? It's not a trick question

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

JohnM

    Hilarious. You are getting hammered in Stereo on 2 threads simultaneously. When do we get the Mytton Mosaic or another one of your cartoon visual aids that proves nothing and mirrors a Woody Woodpecker short between the A and B movies?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 28, 2019, 03:39:36 PM

The point that is being ignored here is that the dark border on Lovelady is shadow from the column edge west wall of the portal...This is proven because Ford is unable to explain what else it is plus it is scientifically proven because anyone can see bright sun to its east and dark to its west...

The point that is being avoided here is that it shows Lovelady was not in the center in Altgens but was instead more towards the west side of the portal where the shadow line hit him...

Lovelady's left arm is tucked under his body and reaches to his right side because he was leaning in order to track the limousine...

Lovelady intersects the shadow because he is further back and behind Prayer Man than Altgen's compressed telephoto shot makes you realize...

This should now become the accepted codified explanation for Lovelady's position in the low position Wiegman shot...

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 03:55:19 PM
The point that is being ignored here is that the dark border on Lovelady is shadow from the column edge west wall of the portal...This is proven because Ford is unable to explain what else it is (~~~)

Except... Mr Ford has explained what it is! Mr Oswald has been blacked out.

Either that or Mr Lovelady contacted the authorities and said 'O jeez, my wife hates that plaid shirt, you guys have got to black it out!'

Quote
This should now become the accepted codified explanation for Lovelady's position in the low position Wiegman shot...

'codified'!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 28, 2019, 04:04:42 PM
It is false to say I have no evidence of the dark border on Lovelady being shadow from the west wall edge...

It has to be shadow because we can see the people to the east of that border are all brightly lit by sun and the people to the west are all dark and in shade...

That's proof that Ford has failed to credibly answer...

It is silly to say what is obviously a shadow line isn't a shadow line...

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
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
When carefully viewing early WiegmanFilm frames, the shadow image line on BillyLovelady/Image's right side appears not straight vertically. That to me indicates shadow line variation relative to Image angle, as well as camera height, angle, and distance. Just an observation, and no science involved.

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

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


No science involved indeed!  :D


So, are you indicating that you do not agree? If so, can you provide visual confirmation relative to your disagreement?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 28, 2019, 04:35:41 PM
Except... Mr Ford has explained what it is! Mr Oswald has been blacked out.


That is quite unscientific Mr Ford and you continue to make some bizarre claims that are refuted by simply looking at the image in question...

Firstly, who blacked out that image?...Was it Fetzer and Cinque's mobile photo forgery labs?...

Secondly, if you look at the image Prayer Man is visible to Lovelady's right in that photo...

So you are going directly against the Prayer Man theory because Prayer Man is supposed to be Oswald so you just recklessly ran roughshod across the main Prayer Man claim without credibly accounting for it...

If that was a spook photo alteration they were awfully sloppy...

Surely you are not asking to be taken seriously on this?...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 28, 2019, 07:26:24 PM
That is quite unscientific Mr Ford and you continue to make some bizarre claims that are refuted by simply looking at the image in question...

Firstly, who blacked out that image?...Was it Fetzer and Cinque's mobile photo forgery labs?...

Secondly, if you look at the image Prayer Man is visible to Lovelady's right in that photo...

So you are going directly against the Prayer Man theory because Prayer Man is supposed to be Oswald so you just recklessly ran roughshod across the main Prayer Man claim without credibly accounting for it...

If that was a spook photo alteration they were awfully sloppy...

Surely you are not asking to be taken seriously on this?...

     So proffer some Evidence refuting that Black Curtain. I have yet to see any Proof that the Black Curtain is hiding Oswald.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 07:40:02 PM
That is quite unscientific Mr Ford and you continue to make some bizarre claims that are refuted by simply looking at the image in question...

'They can't have made it look like a shadow because it looks like a shadow'. Doyle logic!  :D

Quote
Firstly, who blacked out that image?...Was it Fetzer and Cinque's mobile photo forgery labs?...

No!  :D

Quote
Secondly, if you look at the image Prayer Man is visible to Lovelady's right in that photo...

It's not a photo, but you're right. Prayer Man in Wiegman is not Mr Oswald, who's just behind Mr Lovelady. Prayer Man in Wiegman is Mr Bill Shelley!  Thumb1:

Quote
So you are going directly against the Prayer Man theory because Prayer Man is supposed to be Oswald so you just recklessly ran roughshod across the main Prayer Man claim without credibly accounting for it...

I could care less what I ride roughshod over-------my only interest is the truth!

Mr Oswald is not PrayerMan in Wiegman; but he is still the only serious candidate for PrayerMan in Darnell!  Thumb1:

Quote
If that was a spook photo alteration they were awfully sloppy...

So you admit you can see Mr Oswald's head too? Excellent!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/xVnaR5E.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 07:46:42 PM
     So proffer some Evidence refuting that Black Curtain. I have yet to see any Proof that the Black Curtain is hiding Oswald.

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

Hmmm...

Alternative Explanation for the Black Curtain:

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

Hmmm...

Alternative Explanation for the Black Curtain:

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

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

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

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

Quote
Hilarious.

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

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

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

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

Bad example, Woody Woodpecker is a classic.


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

Silly points of comparison  ::)

We can do better!

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

Same goes here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad example, Woody Woodpecker is a classic.


JohnM

"I, Mr. John Mytton, can easily explain the dark shadow down Mr Billy Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film. It is obviously due to ___________________________________"
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 28, 2019, 09:10:52 PM
Mr Oswald is not PrayerMan in Wiegman; but he is still the only serious candidate for PrayerMan in Darnell!  Thumb1:

Prayer Man is the same in both photos...

Prayer Man has the same bare arms in both photos...

You are not credible...

You never answered that you could see the west wall shadow on Frazier in Darnell and it is in the same place as the shadow on Lovelady...

You also show bad skill in not realizing Prayer Man in Wiegman is the same height as Prayer Man in Darnell...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 09:15:22 PM
Prayer Man is the same in both photos...

Prayer Man has the same bare arms in both photos...

That has been the assumption, but I think it's flawed---------and had the unfortunate effect of delaying the finding of Mr Oswald in Wiegman till 21 October 2019!

WiegmanPM is a step lower than DarnellPM (look at the arms!):

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

As for bare arms, lots of them around that day!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 28, 2019, 09:23:47 PM
Silly points of comparison  ::)

We can do better!

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

Same goes here:

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

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

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

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

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

   I am Not ruling anything/anybody out. Simply asking for Evidence/Proof. And please stick to the Facts. According to the Hosty Notes, Oswald said he went "Outside". NOT, Out Front as You claim above. BIG difference between the 2.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 28, 2019, 09:53:17 PM
That has been the assumption, but I think it's flawed---------and had the unfortunate effect of delaying the finding of Mr Oswald in Wiegman till 21 October 2019!

WiegmanPM is a step lower than DarnellPM (look at the arms!):

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

As for bare arms, lots of them around that day!  Thumb1:

They are in the exact same place and the exact same height in both pictures and have the same glowing hand...

You're not credible and you should be ignored...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 28, 2019, 10:09:55 PM
They are in the exact same place and the exact same height in both pictures and have the same glowing hand...

You're not credible and you should be ignored...

    Once again, You are offering Your Opinion, ("Same Place, EXACT Same Height, Same Glowing Hand") as being fact. Back it up with Proof.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 28, 2019, 10:17:52 PM
    Once again, You are offering Your Opinion, ("Same Place, EXACT Same Height, Same Glowing Hand") as being fact. Back it up with Proof.

You're not seriously pretending you don't see it right in front of you in Ford's gif?...

You are not answering the point that the hand is at the same level in both images as well as the head height...

If you can't see that you're not qualified to participate in photo analysis...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 28, 2019, 10:32:30 PM
You're not seriously pretending you don't see it right in front of you in Ford's gif?...

You are not answering the point that the hand is at the same level in both images as well as the head height...

If you can't see that you're not qualified to participate in photo analysis...

    Yeah, and some people SEE Badge Man. Waiting for You to offer something other than Your Opinion.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 10:55:08 PM
   I am Not ruling anything/anybody out.

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

Quote
Simply asking for Evidence/Proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad example, Woody Woodpecker is a classic.


JohnM

John M Trusted photo expert and now a long history,
let me guess,
working for Warner Brothers, Universal, and probably for Walt Disney as a top animation consultant.
It explains the typical cheesy photos you display.
All fantasy but that is your reality, such a clown
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 28, 2019, 10:59:27 PM
You are not answering the point that the hand is at the same level in both images as well as the head height...

 :D

Take off your Doyle Goggles and look again!

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

(Clue #1: the elbows!)
(Clue #2: the head!)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 28, 2019, 11:41:21 PM

They are the same...

Who are you trying to fool with that stuff?...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 12:00:48 AM
Really? So you accept that Mr Oswald may indeed have been in the front entranceway at the time of the assassination? I ask because you have poo-pooed the very notion in the past! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

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

Thanks, mate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   The Hosty Notes, Altgens Photo, + the Black Curtain, would have me believing Frazier if he said he did see Oswald during the JFK Motorcade time period. For 55+ years Frazier has said absolutely nothing about seeing Oswald during this time period. This makes me believe if asked Frazier will Not verify having seen Oswald. That said, Frazier needs to be asked.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 29, 2019, 04:28:26 PM
Sure wish that Buell W.Frazier could narrow the 5 to 10 minutes down to maybe something closer to one or the other cause 10 minutes post shooting sighting of Oswald would make it very improbable for Oswald to have boarded McWatters bus, 7 blocks away, at 12:40  ??? in fact, pretty close to impossible

The fact Oswald was seen on the bus means he made it in whatever time it took...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 29, 2019, 05:55:46 PM
The fact Oswald was seen on the bus means he made it in whatever time it took...

You mean Milton Jones who McWatters mistook for Oswald, or the guy who Bledsoe thought had the hole in the elbow of his shirt?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 29, 2019, 06:42:22 PM
Sure wish that Buell W.Frazier could narrow the 5 to 10 minutes down to maybe something closer to one or the other cause 10 minutes post shooting sighting of Oswald would make it very improbable for Oswald to have boarded McWatters bus, 7 blocks away, at 12:40  ??? in fact, pretty close to impossible

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


Not if Oswald was behind him.

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

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

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


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




Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 29, 2019, 08:14:33 PM

Frazier's telling the truth...

Ask Ford to show us any witness to Oswald going out the front door...

There should have been many...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 29, 2019, 08:18:06 PM
Frazier's telling the truth...

Ask Ford to show us any witness to Oswald going out the front door...

Mr Dave Wiegman, Jr.!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 08:22:08 PM
Who do you think you're kidding, Mr Storing?

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


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


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

 :D

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

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

Have the Courage and Character to Stand Alone, Mr Storing. There ain't room for two of you here!
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 29, 2019, 08:34:28 PM
Mr Dave Wiegman, Jr.!  Thumb1:

What does that mean?...

Oh, never mind...

Another non-serious answer from Ford to evidence he can't answer...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 29, 2019, 08:37:24 PM
:D

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

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

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

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

 :D

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most curious behavior...

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

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

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

Is this still your view, Mr Storing?

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

 :D

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

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

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

Thanks for clarifying, Mr Storing!

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

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

 Thumb1:

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

Prayerblobs shirt is DARK. Shelleys shirt is WHITE..  ::)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 31, 2019, 05:41:45 PM
Bart Kamp wrote:

Quote
KAMP HAS DONE MORE VALUABLE RESEARCH IN ONE DAY THAN i HAVE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.
HE HAS BLASTED ME TO KINGDOME COME AND ONLY WITH LYING AND FABRICATIONS DO I PRETEND TO BE ON AN EQUAL FOOTING, MY DENIALS WOULD MAKE JOPSEPH GOEBBELS PROUD.
I PERSONALLY COULD NOT TAKE CARE OF A WET DREAM LET ALONE DEBATE KAMP AS HIS EVIDENCE IS FAR SUPERIOR. YET AGAIN WITH ONLY LYING AND FABRICATING DO I PRETEND TO BE PART OF THE DEBATE.
I HAVE BEEN SUCH A NARCISSIST PIG THAT I WAS RIGHTFULLY BANNED FOR INCESSANT TROLLING AT AMAZON, DPF, ROKC AND THE EF I AM LUCKY THAT DUNCAN MACRAE ONLY BANS ME FOR WEEKLY PERIODS. BUT I HAVE USED UP ALL MY CREDIT AS THIS YEAR I HAVE BEEN BANNED 6-7 TIMES ALREADY.
KAMP'S WORK IS PRAISED FOR HIS TENACITY AND PRESENTING A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. SOMETHING I AM EXTREMELY JEALOUS OF.
SARAH STANTON STOOD EXACTLY WHERE KAMP SAID SHE WAS ON THE EAST SIDE, KAMP IS RIGHT BUT MY COCK IS TOO SMALL TO ADMIT IT.

How does the person who wrote this become the spearhead for research and encouraged board member on the Education Forum while the brilliant mind who managed to out-argue 95% of the internet research community on the Prayer Man issue gets banned and basically intellectually assassinated from those same forums?...

I was banned under false circumstances from the Education Forum by an incompetent moderator who was only protecting his friends...I was falsely accused of being too insulting and indisciplined which was then used as the reason for my banning...More importantly I was accused of not following the site rules for evidence, which was an even more obscene false accusation by that same bogus moderator because my evidence had proven Prayer Man was Stanton...That moderator was dishonest because I was the only one who was skilled enough to show Stancak where he had violated the rules of evidence and he admitted it and said he would correct it (which he never did)...

Because of this wickedly backwards and unfair exclusion the Prayer Man people have been allowed to get away with ignoring that Gloria Calvery has been correctly identified on the steps...Bart Kamp is in contempt of this and will not admit this correct identification because he knows it proves Prayer Man is not Oswald...So this intentional liar Kamp gets away with not admitting Calvery is on the steps in Darnell...Because of this the necessary conversation about how Buell Frazier located Stanton in relation to Calvery is not had...If it were had it would show that Frazier said he was facing and talking to Stanton after Calvery got to the steps...One look at Darnell shows Frazier looking at Prayer Man at the exact time he described looking at Stanton...That makes Prayer Man Stanton...So while I am being falsely accused of not obeying the rules of evidence on the Education Forum by a bully moderator who is only protecting his friends, the ones who are actually guilty of that, and banning people in order to get away with it, are the Prayer Man people and Kamp who are unfairly protected by that corrupted moderator...Despite his outright contempt for the proven evidence the board calls for, Kamp somehow enjoys preferred membership and praise over there while my research is disallowed by rule...To me, this seems like the exact opposite of all objectively-defined interpretations of academic debate and vetting of evidence...The liar is protected and the skilled researcher with the good evidence is banned and ignored...Membership in the DiEugenio-approved Prayer Man club certainly has its benefits...Oh, and Kamp also lied about Stanton being on the east steps because he couldn't find her in the photos of the portal (and the community dishonestly said nothing and allowed him to get away with it while accusing me of not following the rules of evidence)...

This is why Kamp literally hasn't gotten any responses to his Prayer Man posts for the last year...It is because the membership at the Education Forum knows I have proven my case that Prayer Man is Stanton...They just aren't honest enough to admit it...They are the kind of low character personalities that privately enjoy somebody being unfairly banned so they don't have to admit their wrongness...

Kamp will never debate me directly and on a fair playing field because he knows I will demolish him like I do each and every time...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 31, 2019, 06:29:18 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ZvgVRGFNUdKRW/giphy.gif)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on October 31, 2019, 06:41:13 PM
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)!

That's false...

We've proven Calvery is at the steps in Darnell because we identified Calvery's plaid skirt and short-length sweater on Calvery, and Carol Reed in all white next to her...

You're in contempt of the evidence Ford because Frazier said Calvery was already at the steps when Lovelady & Shelley went up the extension...

The person who Shelley said they spoke to by the concrete island was Karen Hicks who was running after Calvery and Reed who were already at the steps...

You have no right to ignore proven photographic evidence or testimony...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 31, 2019, 07:15:20 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ZvgVRGFNUdKRW/giphy.gif)

 :D ROFLMAO

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

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

"Fog drifting down"...  :D

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

And you know this how?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on October 31, 2019, 11:05:26 PM

The person who Shelley said they spoke to by the concrete island was Karen Hicks who was running after Calvery and Reed who were already at the steps...


 :D

Mr Shelley's 11/22/63 affidavit #1:

(https://i.imgur.com/e8mQ05N.jpg)

Mr Shelley had been best man at Ms Calvery's recent wedding!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on October 31, 2019, 11:37:20 PM
"Fog drifting down"...  :D

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

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

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

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxKK3O.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 01, 2019, 12:24:17 AM
We've proven Calvery is at the steps in Darnell because we identified Calvery's plaid skirt and short-length sweater on Calvery, and Carol Reed in all white next to her...

 BS: You’ve merely claimed it is them.

Quote
You're in contempt of the evidence Ford because Frazier said Calvery was already at the steps when Lovelady & Shelley went up the extension...

50 years later. Shelley said on 11/22/63 that he ran into Calvery at the corner of the park after he left the steps.

Quote
The person who Shelley said they spoke to by the concrete island was Karen Hicks who was running after Calvery and Reed who were already at the steps...

You have ZERO evidence for this. You just made it up to support your made-up BS claims.

Quote
You have no right to ignore proven photographic evidence or testimony...

You have no right to lie about testimony and falsely claim that you have proven anything.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 12:49:03 AM
Hello, Question Man! Why on earth do you describe the scene on the left as "TSBD Open House"?

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

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

A "line strewn out the door"? :D

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

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

    You posted the film snippet. You tell me what we are looking at. Or is it possible You have absolutely No Idea as to the When, Where, or Who filmed this? 
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 01, 2019, 03:08:44 AM

Mr Shelley had been best man at Ms Calvery's recent wedding!

The Darnell image shows Calvery at the steps at the time Shelley said he was talking to her at the concrete island...

Photographic evidence trumps testimony...

You can't ignore that we've proven Calvery is at the steps with her plaid skirt and short-length sweater...

You can't ignore proof and still be credible...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 03:15:00 AM
The Darnell image shows Calvery at the steps at the time Shelley said he was talking to her at the concrete island...

Photographic evidence trumps testimony...

You can't ignore that we've proven Calvery is at the steps with her plaid skirt and short-length sweater...

You can't ignore proof and still be credible...

   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.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 01, 2019, 05:07:43 AM
The Darnell image shows Calvery at the steps at the time Shelley said he was talking to her at the concrete island...

No it doesn’t. It shows a figure who you claim is Calvery with no evidence. And you don’t know that Darnell was taken at the same time. That’s just another thing you made up.

Quote
Photographic evidence trumps testimony...

You have no photographic evidence.

Quote
You can't ignore that we've proven Calvery is at the steps with her plaid skirt and short-length sweater...

You’ve neither proven that the Darnell figure wore a “plaid skirt and shirt-length sweater”, nor that Calvery wore them.

Quote
You can't ignore proof and still be credible...

Repetitive empty claims aren’t proof.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 09:23:46 AM
    You posted the film snippet. You tell me what we are looking at. Or is it possible You have absolutely No Idea as to the When, Where, or Who filmed this?

 :D

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

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

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

And both Mr Shelley and Mr Lovelady were lying.

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

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

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

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

     I asked You for a Source as to Your claimed Date of this film footage. YOU gave None. I asked You who filmed this footage, again You came up empty.  Fact is, YOU have No corroboration as to YOU Claiming this was filmed on 11/22/63. Once again, You are trying to pass off your Opinion as being a Fact.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 01, 2019, 04:23:24 PM

No, they lied and said they didn't leave the steps for 3 minutes...

They did that in order to screw up Victoria Adams' witnessing...

So that tells you they were working on the inside and corrupted...

It also makes it much more likely Shelley helped Oswald out the back and that's why Oswald mentioned him...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 04:33:45 PM
No, they lied and said they didn't leave the steps for 3 minutes...

They did that in order to screw up Victoria Adams' witnessing...

So that tells you they were working on the inside and corrupted...

It also makes it much more likely Shelley helped Oswald out the back and that's why Oswald mentioned him...

    Or..... the cavalierly accepted Time Stamping of the Images is Wrong. This would also impact the accepted time stamping of Baker of Truly entering the TSBD.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 01, 2019, 04:34:44 PM
No, they lied and said they didn't leave the steps for 3 minutes...

The guy with 560 falsehoods and fabrications has no business calling anyone else a liar.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 04:37:19 PM
The guy with 560 falsehoods and fabrications has no business calling anyone else a liar.

     This is what they do. Any eyewitness giving sworn testimony which contradicts their Theory is automatically branded a liar and "in on it".
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 01, 2019, 04:44:00 PM

The Darnell film shows Lovelady & Shelley about 3 seconds after leaving Calvery at the steps...

Couch/Darnell is about 25-30 seconds after the last shot...

That's proof that Lovelady & Shelley lied about leaving the steps 3 minutes after the last shot...

It is silly to ignore firm photographic evidence...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 04:46:12 PM
The Darnell film shows Lovelady & Shelley about 3 seconds after leaving Calvery at the steps...

Couch/Darnell is about 25-30 seconds after the last shot...

That's proof that Lovelady & Shelley lied about leaving the steps 3 minutes after the last shot...

It is silly to ignore firm photographic evidence...

    Unless.........................The cavalierly accepted Timelines of the Images referenced above are Wrong.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 01, 2019, 05:03:39 PM
    Unless.........................The cavalierly accepted Timelines of the Images referenced above are Wrong.

They can't be wrong because the time window of Calvery getting back to the steps and Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension after talking to Calvery at the base of the steps is seen in the clip...

As well as Baker running towards the steps...

Very sloppy rigor on your behalf Royell...

25-30 seconds after the last shot - firm...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 07:01:10 PM
     This is what they do. Any eyewitness giving sworn testimony which contradicts their Theory is automatically branded a liar and "in on it".

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

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

Mr Shelley is nearly as bad as Mr Storing at keeping his story straight!  :D
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 01, 2019, 07:52:42 PM

When Shelley realized his first account was wrong because he had spoken to others and realized he and Lovelady had spoken to Calvery at the steps he corrected it...

This is proven by the fact Darnell shows Calvery at the steps in her plaid skirt and short-length sweater...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 08:08:24 PM
They can't be wrong because the time window of Calvery getting back to the steps and Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension after talking to Calvery at the base of the steps is seen in the clip...

As well as Baker running towards the steps...

Very sloppy rigor on your behalf Royell...

25-30 seconds after the last shot - firm...

    EXACTLY how do You know what we are seeing happened "25-30 seconds after the last shot"? How about roughly 2-3 minutes after the last shot? And when You say "last shot" how many shots are you talking about. ALL of this is sketchy. There is Nothing nailing it down Firm.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 08:29:02 PM
When Shelley realized his first account was wrong because he had spoken to others and realized he and Lovelady had spoken to Calvery at the steps he corrected it...

Nope, first day statements trump coached testimony given months later. Sorry!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 01, 2019, 08:44:46 PM
Now! The questions we must ask are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:

    Well, if they are discrediting Vicki Adams, they are also discrediting the Baker and Truly time line. What You Fail to realize is that the longer it takes Baker/Truly to get inside the TSBD and reach the 2nd Floor lunchroom, the more time Oswald would have to go from the landing Outside the TSBD to that same 2nd floor lunchroom where he would then encounter Baker/Truly.  Your Theory is being aided by the Lovelady/Shelley roughly 3 minute time line.  Wake Up
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 01, 2019, 08:53:57 PM
The Darnell film shows Lovelady & Shelley about 3 seconds after leaving Calvery at the steps...

Bull. You don’t even know if that’s Lovelady and Shelley at all, much less how much time has elapsed since they “left the steps”. This is just fabricated nonsense.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 01, 2019, 08:57:19 PM
When Shelley realized his first account was wrong because he had spoken to others and realized he and Lovelady had spoken to Calvery at the steps he corrected it...

When Fritz corrected himself in his testimony about where Oswald said he was when the motorcade went past, you claimed he was lying. How convenient.

Quote
This is proven by the fact Darnell shows Calvery at the steps in her plaid skirt and short-length sweater...

Bull. You haven’t proven this is Calvery or even a plaid skirt.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 01, 2019, 09:04:11 PM
    EXACTLY how do You know what we are seeing happened "25-30 seconds after the last shot"? How about roughly 2-3 minutes after the last shot? And when You say "last shot" how many shots are you talking about. ALL of this is sketchy. There is Nothing nailing it down Firm.

That's kind of a dumb question..Because we know where Darnell was when he filmed that clip and how long after the shots it was...

We know Baker didn't take 3 minutes to get to the concrete island and make his run...

You are being silly...

Another reason is because Frazier is staring at Sarah in that clip and Calvery has just gotten to the steps...We know that by the timing of how far Lovelady & Shelley are from the steps after talking to Calvery who had run back to the steps immediately in a panic...

Baker had revved his motor and gotten down there fast...He parked his motorcycle and ran in...That took the 25-30 seconds you see in front of you...

If you were good you could also tell the employees who are headed back in to the Depository from the street...Their timing is also 25 to 30 seconds...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 01, 2019, 09:12:57 PM
Nope, first day statements trump coached testimony given months later. Sorry!  Thumb1:

But you never answered that the film evidence trumps 1st day statements (that were later corrected)...

It is less than honest to ignore that Frazier and Lovelady also confirmed Shelley spoke to Calvery at the steps in their original statements...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 01, 2019, 09:26:48 PM
But you never answered that the film evidence trumps 1st day statements (that were later corrected)...

It is less than honest to ignore that Frazier and Lovelady also confirmed Shelley spoke to Calvery at the steps in their original statements...

Another thing you just made up. Neither Frazier nor Lovelady said anything about Calvery in their original statements.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 01, 2019, 09:45:01 PM
That's kind of a dumb question..Because we know where Darnell was when he filmed that clip and how long after the shots it was...

We know Baker didn't take 3 minutes to get to the concrete island and make his run...

You are being silly...

Another reason is because Frazier is staring at Sarah in that clip and Calvery has just gotten to the steps...We know that by the timing of how far Lovelady & Shelley are from the steps after talking to Calvery who had run back to the steps immediately in a panic...

Baker had revved his motor and gotten down there fast...He parked his motorcycle and ran in...That took the 25-30 seconds you see in front of you...

If you were good you could also tell the employees who are headed back in to the Depository from the street...Their timing is also 25 to 30 seconds...

   "We Know" , and "We Know" is NOT DOCUMENTATION.  This is a frequent problem where people such as yourself Repeat what they have heard. Are you Pete or Re-Pete? You are actually Proving Nothing
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 02, 2019, 12:02:30 AM
Friends, here's Mr Bill Shelley on the afternoon of 11/22/63:

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

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

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

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

 Thumb1:


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

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

And if you say that Shelley had on a dark suit and a tie. Dont see any black tie on Prayerblob and Prayerblob has the dark sleeves rolled up which its extremely doubtful to me that Shelley in a suit would roll up his suit sleeves  :-\
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 02, 2019, 12:36:53 AM
   "We Know" , and "We Know" is NOT DOCUMENTATION.  This is a frequent problem where people such as yourself Repeat what they have heard. Are you Pete or Re-Pete? You are actually Proving Nothing

You're questioning established evidence like Darnell's position in the motorcade...

That position and therefore the time frame he had to have taken that clip is established...You must respect and acknowledge that because it is proven...

You're not credible...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 02, 2019, 12:37:20 AM

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

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

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

    Ford is unable to Verify: (1)  DATE of the Coffee Footage, (2) LOCATION of the Coffee Footage, and (3) WHO filmed the Coffee Footage. Until this is resolved, attempting to tie it to Shelley images captured on 11/22/63 is pointless.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 02, 2019, 12:39:33 AM
You're questioning established evidence like Darnell's position in the motorcade...

That position and therefore the time frame he had to have taken that clip is established...You must respect and acknowledge that because it is proven...

You're not credible...

    I am asking for you to proffer Evidence to validate Your Claim. Thanks for admitting that you were merely repeating what You have heard.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 02, 2019, 12:49:01 AM
   "We Know" , and "We Know" is NOT DOCUMENTATION.  This is a frequent problem where people such as yourself Repeat what they have heard. Are you Pete or Re-Pete? You are actually Proving Nothing

It’s worse than that. Doyle puts “we know” in front of stuff that he just completely made up, and expects people to just accept it.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 03:19:22 AM
    Well, if they are discrediting Vicki Adams, they are also discrediting the Baker and Truly time line. What You Fail to realize is that the longer it takes Baker/Truly to get inside the TSBD and reach the 2nd Floor lunchroom (~~~)

What you're failing to realize is that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter in the second floor lunchroom never happened. You haven't a clue (or: are pretending, true to form, not to have one)!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 03:21:46 AM
But you never answered that the film evidence trumps 1st day statements (that were later corrected)...

So Darnell shows us Mr Shelley on the steps with Ms Calvery? Golly, that's really something...

Show us!  Thumb1:

Quote
It is less than honest to ignore that Frazier and Lovelady also confirmed Shelley spoke to Calvery at the steps in their original statements...

Show us!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 03:26:28 AM

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

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

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

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

Your studied obtuseness is fooling nobody!

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

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

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 03:40:05 AM
    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.

Poor Mr Storing, the photoanalyst extraordinaire who has been sharing his dark suspicions that Darnell is showing the front entranceway 2-3 minutes after the last shot, now invites us to wonder whether the coffee (or is it Boiled Coca Cola?) footage of Mr Shelley inside the front entrance might not be from the Texas School Depository Xmas Day '63 Jamboree For Staff, Press and General Public!

Or maybe the scene is actually London, 1894? I mean, look at that fog drifting down!  :D

What's really going on here, friends, is of course very simple. Mr Storing is blowing smoke while anxiously awaiting a counter-explanation for
---------------the second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman
---------------the magic dark shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman------------
from his fellow members of Team Keep LHO Away From That Front Entranceway At All Costs!

These goons really, really, really want this issue to go away.

But it won't! Mr Oswald was out there, just like he said, and there's not a blessed thing Mr Storing, Mr Scully, Mr Mason, Mr Doyle, Mr Mytton, Mr von Pein, Mr Graves and Co. can do about it!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tim Nickerson on November 02, 2019, 04:16:22 AM
What you're failing to realize is that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter in the second floor lunchroom never happened.

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

Hello, Mr Nickerson!

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

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

No one else can!

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

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

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

No one else can!

 Thumb1:
Hi Al.

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

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

 :D

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

Anyone else want a shot?  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 02, 2019, 04:40:52 AM
Poor Mr Storing, the photoanalyst extraordinaire who has been sharing his dark suspicions that Darnell is showing the front entranceway 2-3 minutes after the last shot, now invites us to wonder whether the coffee (or is it Boiled Coca Cola?) footage of Mr Shelley inside the front entrance might not be from the Texas School Depository Xmas Day '63 Jamboree For Staff, Press and General Public!

Or maybe the scene is actually London, 1894? I mean, look at that fog drifting down!  :D

What's really going on here, friends, is of course very simple. Mr Storing is blowing smoke while anxiously awaiting a counter-explanation for
---------------the second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman
---------------the magic dark shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman------------
from his fellow members of Team Keep LHO Away From That Front Entranceway At All Costs!

These goons really, really, really want this issue to go away.

But it won't! Mr Oswald was out there, just like he said, and there's not a blessed thing Mr Storing, Mr Scully, Mr Mason, Mr Doyle, Mr Mytton, Mr von Pein, Mr Graves and Co. can do about it!  Thumb1:

    Obviously, You Know absolutely Nothing about the Shelley Footage you have posted.  Why you would post that snippet and then state as Fact that it was filmed the day of the assassination reflects very poorly on You. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tim Nickerson on November 02, 2019, 04:48:05 AM
Thank you.

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

You like me! You really like me! ;D

Can anyone do better than poor Mr Nickerson?

Go Team Keep LHO Away From That Entranceway At All Costs!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 02, 2019, 05:40:54 AM
Reflection Time!

Friends, what has just happened is momentous.

For many, many years, the only way that Mr Oswald Out Front could be made a viable claim seemed to be via the Altgens photograph. Researcher after researcher tried to force the argument that Mr Oswald was 'Doorwayman'. It didn't work, and the effort attracted some out and out nutjobs like Mr Cinque!

Then along came the PrayerMan claim. It has dominated discussion in the research community for six years now, and hostility to it has attracted some out and out nutjobs like Mr Doyle!

But----------without clearer Darnell frames-----------the issue could not be resolved definitively. However, the failure of anyone to offer a credible alternative candidate to Mr Oswald was hard to ignore!

Then Mr Kamp unearthed the Hosty notes which confirmed exactly------and I mean, exactly--------what the PrayerMan people had been arguing all along: that Mr Oswald claimed to have gotten his coke in the second floor lunchroom before the motorcade, had returned to the first floor to eat his lunch and then gone outside to watch JFK pass. Captain Fritz & Co. had lied through their teeth about what Mr Oswald had actually told them!

This predictive success from the PrayerMan camp was extremely impressive. But! The PrayerMan issue was still not locked down!  :'(

But!! It turns out the understandable assumption by the PrayerMan folks that PrayerManInWiegman = PrayerManInDarnell had been blinding them to the correct solution.

Well, thanks to the Wiegman film, we now have that correct solution, and it's pleasingly simple:

Mr Oswald was standing by Mr Lovelady's right shoulder at the time the shots rang out (the Altgens folk were nearly right!).

Mr Oswald is the second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman--------------

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

-------------and his presence just behind Mr Lovelady is the reason why an otherwise inexplicable (because completely unnatural) dark 'shadow' was artificially added down Mr Lovelady's right side in all the Wiegman frames showing the entranceway...


(https://i.imgur.com/wNab7Zo.jpg)

Nota bene! These truths are true independent of whether or not PrayerMan in Darnell is indeed Mr Oswald
-------------------PrayerManInDarnell=LHO would be no less than, but also no more than, the icing on the cake!

Dark days indeed for the Warren Gullibles, and dark days too for all those 'CTs' who are curiously happy to consider all sorts of CT-favoring scenarios except the one that matters most:

Mr Oswald Out Front.

He didn't do it.

(https://i.imgur.com/Lyre3Ux.jpg)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 02, 2019, 03:00:17 PM
It is silly to suggest Oswald cast that shadow on Lovelady in Wiegman...

A shadow has to follow science...It has to have a source...

In order to cast a shadow an object has to block the sun...If an object blocks the sun it has to be illuminated by the sun on the sun side...

It shows a laughably incompetent lack of skill to not realize if Oswald was the source of that shadow you would have to see him lit up...

It also shows a disqualifying lack of skill to not realize the sun angle would make the source of that shadow on Lovelady's right side in front and above him...

It also shows a loose grasp of reality to suggest Oswald is not Prayer Man in Wiegman but is in Darnell...

Posted at Kamp's site by "Vinny":

Quote
The other Alan Ford at Duncan's is also making nutty claims. Such as Shelley is the PM in Weigman and that Oswald was just behind Lovelady etc. I wonder what his game is.

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
"I, ______________________, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

(https://i.imgur.com/ne7id58.jpg)

Anyone?  :D
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 05, 2019, 08:50:46 PM

You can see Ford cannot seriously back up his claim that Oswald cast that shadow on Lovelady...

To cast a shadow would require the person casting that shadow be illuminated on the sun side...

Ford can't answer this in public and thinks he can get away with ignoring it...

Recently it was posted on Kamp's website that Ford was posting nutty claims...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 08:56:10 PM
Permit me to filter out irrelevant responses by rephrasing!

"I, ______________________, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, and having an adult understanding of how angles and shadows work, and being possessed of sound mind generally, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 05, 2019, 09:26:07 PM
You can see Ford cannot seriously back up his claim that Oswald cast that shadow on Lovelady...

To cast a shadow would require the person casting that shadow be illuminated on the sun side...

Ford can't answer this in public and thinks he can get away with ignoring it...

Recently it was posted on Kamp's website that Ford was posting nutty claims...

    Maybe I missed it among all the back and forth, but when has Ford claimed that Black Shadow/Curtain was cast by Oswald? That Black Shadow/Curtain has a STRAIGHT Edge running STRAIGHT Down. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 05, 2019, 10:04:24 PM
What is Alan trying to suggest in relation to what is causing the shadow?

If the film has NOT been altered, then any shadow caused by someone in front of Lovelady, that person should theoretically be at least partly illuminated thus causing the shadow on Lovelady. This was Doyle's argument which for some reason Alan thinks is not probable?

Could the shadow be caused by the upper horizontal edge of the entrance portal, just as it appears to do the same when BW Frazier moved forward and there is shadow across part of his body also?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 05, 2019, 10:11:15 PM

A horizontal lintel cannot cause a vertical shadow...

I guess the game here is anything but the obvious...

The shadow is simply the edge of the west wall column...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 10:12:16 PM
What is Alan trying to suggest in relation to what is causing the shadow?

If the film has NOT been altered, then any shadow caused by someone in front of Lovelady, that person should theoretically be at least partly illuminated thus causing the shadow on Lovelady. This was Doyle's argument which for some reason Alan thinks is not probable?

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.

Quote
Could the shadow be caused by the upper horizontal edge of the entrance portal, just as it appears to do the same when BW Frazier moved forward and there is shadow across part of his body also?

No, it couldn't. Any other suggestions?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 05, 2019, 10:19:50 PM
It would speed matters along wonderfully, Mr Mason, if you took the trouble to read the things I write before expressing your 'confusion'!

Now! What I am arguing, very simply, is the following double premise:
1. Mr Oswald was just behind Mr Lovelady
2. The black 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's right side has been added artificially in order to hide this fact.

No, it couldn't. Any other suggestions?

He's not telling you the truth Zeon....

In a previous post Ford said the shadow was caused by Oswald being in front of Lovelady...

It is foolish to not realize Prayer Man cannot not be Oswald in Wiegman but then be Oswald in Darnell...The Prayer Man person is the same in Wiegman and Darnell and therefore has to be the same person in both images...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 10:20:57 PM
He's not telling you the truth Zeon....

In a previous post Ford said the shadow was caused by Oswald being in front of Lovelady...

Quote me saying that, please and thank you!  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 05, 2019, 10:25:34 PM

It is photo analysis incompetence to not realize the shadow on Lovelady's right side is exactly where the shadow in the portal is...

Saying it is artificially added is Cinque/Fetzer level material...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 10:30:05 PM
It is photo analysis incompetence to not realize the shadow on Lovelady's right side is exactly where the shadow in the portal is...

Saying it is artificially added is Cinque/Fetzer level material...

Poor Mr Doyle thinks people haven't noticed that he can't back up his lie that "Ford said the shadow was caused by Oswald being in front of Lovelady..."

But they have!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 05, 2019, 10:38:42 PM
It would speed matters along wonderfully, Mr Mason, if you took the trouble to read the things I write before expressing your 'confusion'!

Now! What I am arguing, very simply, is the following double premise:
1. Mr Oswald was just behind Mr Lovelady
2. The black 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's right side has been added artificially in order to hide this fact.

No, it couldn't. Any other suggestions?

So you ARE suggesting that the Wiegman film has been altered? They ADDED a black shadow to mask out Oswald?

And so if that person is Oswald then Prayeblob far removed to the left of where Billy Lovelady is at this point cannot be Oswald, correct?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 10:50:11 PM
So you ARE suggesting that the Wiegman film has been altered? They ADDED a black shadow to mask out Oswald?

And so if that person is Oswald then Prayeblob far removed to the left of where Billy Lovelady is at this point cannot be Oswald, correct?

The penny finally drops with Mr Mason. Hooray!!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 05, 2019, 10:55:38 PM
He's not telling you the truth Zeon....

In a previous post Ford said the shadow was caused by Oswald being in front of Lovelady...

It is foolish to not realize Prayer Man cannot not be Oswald in Wiegman but then be Oswald in Darnell...The Prayer Man person is the same in Wiegman and Darnell and therefore has to be the same person in both images...

     You got Ford's Shadow Theory completely Wrong.  You owe him an apology.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 05, 2019, 11:04:48 PM
Well maybe I FINALLY understand what Alan is suggesting that the shadow was ADDED in some way to mask out Oswald just BEHIND? Lovelady?

Would that not put Oswald basically in FRONT of BW Frazier. In effect, Oswald would be BETWEEN Lovelady and BW Frazier, or so close to Frazier that  even Fuzzy memory Frazier could not have missed seeing Oswald?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 11:06:44 PM
Well maybe I FINALLY understand what Alan is suggesting that the shadow was ADDED in some way to mask out Oswald just BEHIND? Lovelady?

Would that not put Oswald basically in FRONT of BW Frazier. In effect, Oswald would be BETWEEN Lovelady and BW Frazier, or so close to Frazier that it would even Fuzzy memory Frazier could not have missed seeing Oswald?

Yes!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/pYcQdK4.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 05, 2019, 11:43:11 PM
Now! I don't care whether people like my claim, accept it, or consider it unworthy of serious attention. Truth is not a popularity contest, nor is it to be determined by garrulous oddball fanatics who don't have a life!

I care only about one thing here:

Can someone-------be they LNer, CTer, or 'CTer'--------offer an alternative explanation, one grounded in logic rather than in fantasy and wishful thinking, for the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman?

To date, only one person has made any serious attempt in this direction, and that person was-----------me! I tried to find a way of putting a dark jacket or coat on Mr Lovelady. But it didn't work.

So! Can anyone rise to the challenge?

"I, ______________________, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

(https://i.imgur.com/ne7id58.jpg)

If you truly understand what is at stake here, then you will make it your business to defeat my confident claim that Mr Oswald's alibi was finally established on 21 October 2019! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 06, 2019, 02:44:39 AM
Yes!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/pYcQdK4.jpg)

so if the propostiion now is that Oswald is even CLOSER to BW Frazier, in fact right in front of him,f BW Frazier missing seeing Oswald is now even more questionable

If Prayerblob is Oswald then Oswald came out late at about 12:29 opening the door inward perhaps and he could sneak BEHIND everyone over to that corner. But he would have had to be very CLOSE to Sarah Stanton who is presumed to be WITH Pauline Sanders, unless Stanton has been identified BEYOND DOUBT as being lower in front of Sanders on the right side of the handrail on some lower step.

But how Oswald could move  from the corner,between BW Frazier and Billy Lovelady for just a brief few seconds then BACK to the corner again and then move AGAIN to the front door and into the Lobby aka "vestibule"? and this all be missed being seen and also not captured in Weigman or Couch/Darnell films..

 :-X
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 06, 2019, 03:58:00 AM

He said it...He can't even keep track of his own claims...

Remember, you are talking about a person who claimed Oswald was Lovelady in Hughes...

A 29 year old can't compare to a more mature man whose skill is in its prime and confident with pipe, cap, and age...

The shadow on Lovelady is the shadow from the column edge from the west wall of the portal...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 10:58:37 AM
so if the propostiion now is that Oswald is even CLOSER to BW Frazier, in fact right in front of him,f BW Frazier missing seeing Oswald is now even more questionable

Except I'm not claiming that Mr Frazier missed Mr Oswald. Try to keep up!

Quote
If Prayerblob is Oswald

Not in Wiegman, and my ID of Mr Oswald in Wiegman is not dependent on the PrayerManInDarnell issue. Try to keep up!

Quote
then Oswald came out late at about 12:29 opening the door inward perhaps and he could sneak BEHIND everyone over to that corner. But he would have had to be very CLOSE to Sarah Stanton who is presumed to be WITH Pauline Sanders, unless Stanton has been identified BEYOND DOUBT as being lower in front of Sanders on the right side of the handrail on some lower step.

But how Oswald could move  from the corner,between BW Frazier and Billy Lovelady for just a brief few seconds then BACK to the corner again and then move AGAIN to the front door and into the Lobby aka "vestibule"? and this all be missed being seen and also not captured in Weigman or Couch/Darnell films..

 :-X

Again, a multi-layered misrepresentation of my claim!

I call  BS: on you, Mr Mason. Your studied point-missing, invention of pseudo-problems, and misrepresentation of straightforward claims is a tired little game, and it's not working.

You can't explain the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side, so you just divert to non-issues.

"I, Mr Zeon Mason, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, and having recently learned the difference between vertical and horizontal, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 03:04:45 PM
To all those who believe PrayerPerson----------in Wiegman OR in Darnell------------is NOT Mr Oswald!

Let's assume for argument's (and for peace) sake you're right. Let's forget about PrayerPerson, whom we can dismiss as 'Somebody Other Than Mr Oswald'.  Thumb1:

Now!

I am making a straightforward claim-----------that Mr Oswald is standing just behind Mr Lovelady and that his head is visible in these Wiegman frames:

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

I am relating this straightforward claim to the straightforward observation that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman cannot possibly be a natural shadow:

(https://i.imgur.com/ST3OlBP.jpg)

You don't agree? Fine-----but irrelevant!

You think Mr Oswald was not out on the steps? Fine-----but irrelevant!

I am not asking you to agree with me, I am not even asking for your opinion. I am asking you to refute me!

Can you--------without making reference to PrayerPerson or any other extraneous issue--------offer an alternative explanation for the above phenomena in Wiegman?

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 06, 2019, 03:23:58 PM

I don't think the obvious shadow from the west wall column on Lovelady should be allowed to be turned in to an unending conversation about imaginary Cinque-like film forgery...

I think it is a waste of bandwidth and the valuable time of the board members...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 03:34:36 PM
I don't think the obvious shadow from the west wall column on Lovelady should be allowed to be turned in to an unending conversation about imaginary Cinque-like film forgery...

... 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:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on November 06, 2019, 03:42:21 PM
... says the most universally despised JFK 'researcher' since----Mr Cinque!  :D

A shadow from the western wall has been categorically ruled out. End of.

Looking forward to hearing from someone who does understand how angles work and/or doesn't believe the sun was hopping back and forth in the Dallas sky at 12:30pm on 11/22/63!  Thumb1:

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

Postscript!
In their weasely-worded 22nd Nov statements, neither Mr Shelley nor Mr Lovelady say outright that they did not see Mr Oswald at the time of the shooting---------------
...........

A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 03:47:59 PM
A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?

Mr Scully, is it true that Mr Wiegman's name was misspelled 'Weigman' in the Milwaukee Dispatch of 10/13/61 and that Weigman was the middle name of Ms Pinchot Meyer's best friend's dogwalker?

Thank you in advance for your help in blowing this case wide open! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 06, 2019, 03:56:03 PM
A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?

    Is the above intended to be some kind of Refutation of Mr. Ford's Theory? It's nothing more than a personal attack. Not your finest hour Mr. Scully.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 06, 2019, 04:00:09 PM
A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?

Scully never respects or address the actual on-topic subject matter or adds anything to the discussion...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 06, 2019, 04:07:51 PM
... says the most universally despised JFK 'researcher' since----Mr Cinque!  :D

A shadow from the western wall has been categorically ruled out. End of.

Looking forward to hearing from someone who does understand how angles work and/or doesn't believe the sun was hopping back and forth in the Dallas sky at 12:30pm on 11/22/63!  Thumb1:

You Prayer Man "enthusiasts" never honestly admit that the "Cinque" in this situation is yourselves since, like Cinque, you are trying to force Oswald in to a Depository employee's body on the front steps...

Nor are you being totally honest about the reason for the animus against me...That is, the fact I did what these boards are designed for and people are encouraged to do - debate assassination evidence in the best possible way...Only the Prayer Man people didn't like the outcome so they grouped up and violated their assumed research ethics and banned an innocent person for proving evidence they didn't want to admit...

I think you are projecting what you are guilty of in your 3rd sentence...Any fool could see that dark area is the shadow from the west wall...

There are people who are here for mind games instead of good research...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on November 06, 2019, 04:32:28 PM
A tug-o-war between arrogance and ignorance. Who is going to "win"? i don't know about the rest of you, but I am sitting here on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that 40 pages more of the "insight" splashed across the voluminous pages of this thread so far, is merely the intro to blockbuster discoveries and earnest analysis! The key witnesses all lied to frame Mr. Oswald. Why didn't I think of that?

Say it again, Tom.  Say it.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 06, 2019, 04:39:52 PM
You Prayer Man "enthusiasts" never honestly admit that the "Cinque" in this situation is yourselves since, like Cinque, you are trying to force Oswald in to a Depository employee's body on the front steps...

Nor are you being totally honest about the reason for the animus against me...That is, the fact I did what these boards are designed for and people are encouraged to do - debate assassination evidence in the best possible way...Only the Prayer Man people didn't like the outcome so they grouped up and violated their assumed research ethics and banned an innocent person for proving evidence they didn't want to admit...

I think you are projecting what you are guilty of in your 3rd sentence...Any fool could see that dark area is the shadow from the west wall...

There are people who are here for mind games instead of good research...

     Please grace us with some of your self proclaimed "good research" and Prove the Straight as a razors edge, Jet Black Curtain is Your claimed, "shadow from the west wall".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on November 06, 2019, 04:49:21 PM
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:
Scully never respects or address the actual on-topic subject matter or adds anything to the discussion...

I find and present original research...verifiable facts unknown before I uncover them. You and Mr. Ford clumsily attempt to rewrite history.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483&relPageId=372&search=shelley
(http://jfkforum.com/images/TrulyShelleyNoOswald.jpg)

Quote
The China Diary of George H. W. Bush: The Making of a Global ...
https://books.google.com.... (https://books.google.com/books?id=jRvdwoKQOgQC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=devine+bemis+lias&source=bl&ots=u8_rsYOF3y&sig=ACfU3U1wJHFgBdswmj9gAYF9bIss2Z436g&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijwL6pg9blAhWnmOAKHf9gCNQQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=devine%20bemis%20lias&f=false)
Jeffrey A. Engel - 2011 - ‎History
Bemis, Lias and Devine had a meeting regarding my political future—very thoughtful of them.5 All I know now is to do the best job one can here. There is no ...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BillyJoeLordPresCarterFBIhotels.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BushLordBemissHotelExecutive.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BushLordFBIhurtBeamis.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/HenryHurtKennebunkport.jpg)
Quote
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/88953152/george-dandridge-williams
George Dandridge Williams
Parents   
Langbourne Meade Williams
1872–1931
....Siblings
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/88850510/cyane-dandridge-bemiss
....Cyane Dandridge Williams Bemiss
1867–1952
...Children
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/89080540/samuel-merrifield-bemiss
Samuel Merrifield Bemiss
1894–1966
Children
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/65388323/fitzgerald-bemiss   
FitzGerald Bemiss
1922–2011
Quote
George H.W. Bush had lifelong ties to Virginia | Government ...
https://www.richmond.com/news/local/government-politics/george-h-w-bush-had-lifelong-ties-to-virginia/article_d363b2be-2f59-5777-b542-d53b5cb636d0.html
Dec 1, 2018 - Bush and Bemiss were members of each other's wedding parties, and in 2011 the former president attended Bemiss' funeral at Richmond's St.

Quote
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=84&relPageId=64&search=cogswell_and%20dryer
 HSCA Report, Volume XII, pg 60
Found in: HSCA Appendix Volumes
The information came from Jack Cogswell of Palm Beach.
According to Cogswell, he ran into Joseph Dryer, who is a stockbroker with Loeb & Rhodes & Co. in Palm Beach and Dryer offered informa- tion about George de Mohrenschildt.(172) Dryer told Cogswell that when he knew de Mohrenshchildt in Haiti, de Mohrenschildt's behav- ior was "strange" and included following...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DevineBushAwareWubriny.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MellenDryer.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CogswellAuntVeciana1966.jpg)

Quote
W. Tracy Parnell - October, 22, 2019

The answer to all of Newman's questions is, of course, the Army. Some might argue about what agency could predict Alpha 66/SNFE operations though, as the FBI also had some very good informants inside those organizations-Godoy of the MRP being one. Why does it matter who Veciana worked for? One reason is that if he really was working for ("with" might be a better way to put it) the Army and not the CIA as he now maintains, what else has he lied about?
.....
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 06, 2019, 05:01:54 PM
     Please grace us with some of your self proclaimed "good research" and Prove the Straight as a razors edge, Jet Black Curtain is Your claimed, "shadow from the west wall".

The west wall is straight as a razor's edge...

It is silly for you to not realize that while mocking me...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 06, 2019, 05:12:33 PM
Postscript!
In their weasely-worded 22nd Nov statements, neither Mr Shelley nor Mr Lovelady say outright that they did not see Mr Oswald at the time of the shooting---------------

Were they asked that specific question, on 11/22/'63?

WilliamShelley testified for the WarrenCommission on May 14, 1964.

BillyLovelady testified for the WarrenCommission on April 7, 1964.


Perhaps their testimony should be read, again...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 06, 2019, 05:25:59 PM
Were they asked that specific question, on 11/22/'63?

WilliamShelley testified for the WarrenCommission on May 14, 1964.

BillyLovelady testified for the WarrenCommission on April 7, 1964.


Perhaps their testimony should be read, again...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

    Buell Frazier is alive. He was standing close enough to almost touch the alleged Oswald on the TSBD steps. He should be asked this "Specific question".
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 06, 2019, 05:38:14 PM

Royell is silly because he refuses to show us where he thinks the west wall shadow is in Wiegman...

It has to be somewhere...

You think maybe the shadow line on Lovelady might be where it is?...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 06, 2019, 05:49:47 PM
The west wall is straight as a razor's edge...

It is silly for you to not realize that while mocking me...

As can be seen, when BillyLovelady/Image steps farther back on the top step/landing area, he picks up a horizontal shadow effect across the shoulder, but retains the vertical shadowing caused by the west wall/column blocking the sunlight origin.

http://quaneeri.blogspot.com/2016/12/elsie-dorman-film-syncs-with-hughes.html
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 06, 2019, 06:03:04 PM
I don't think the obvious shadow from the west wall column on Lovelady should be allowed to be turned in to an unending conversation about imaginary Cinque-like film forgery...

I think it is a waste of bandwidth and the valuable time of the board members...

As opposed to the unending conversations on several threads about Doyle's Stanton fantasies and how he has been wronged on every other forum.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 06, 2019, 07:00:09 PM
Were they asked that specific question, on 11/22/'63?

WilliamShelley testified for the WarrenCommission on May 14, 1964.

BillyLovelady testified for the WarrenCommission on April 7, 1964.


Perhaps their testimony should be read, again...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm


    Buell Frazier is alive. He was standing close enough to almost touch the alleged Oswald on the TSBD steps. He should be asked this "Specific question".

Maybe he should be asked, but he should not need to be asked, the "specific question".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 06, 2019, 11:56:02 PM
Now!

The naturally impossible dark 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman would, on its own, be startling enough to raise suspicions.

The second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman would, on its own, be startling enough to raise suspicions.

But! It's the combination of the two----------pertaining to the exact same area of the entranceway------------that allows us to see their significance and thereby nail Mr Oswald's location at the time of the assassination.

If I am right (and the failure to date of anyone to mount a credible challenge to my claim is pretty conspicuous!), then we must consider Mr Buell Wesley Frazier's place in all this.

I feel awfully sorry for the guy. For fifty-six years, he has been carrying a heavy burden, a dreadful secret: his friend, Mr Lee Oswald, was just in front of him at the time of the assassination.

Six years ago he started getting asked about a figure dubbed 'Prayer Man'. He must have been relieved to discover that 'Prayer Man' in Wiegman is not in the position he remembers Mr Oswald as having been in at the time of the shooting-----------too far west:

(https://i.imgur.com/hT7Uu60.gif)

His secret was still safe. So he stonewalled, and has stonewalled ever since: 'I don't know who that is'.

Somebody (other than our resident lunatic!) needs to show Mr Frazier this------------

(https://i.imgur.com/ckh7AuP.jpg)

------------and explain that it is from the time of the actual shooting
------------and remind Mr Frazier of his own nearby position back closer to the glass door.

Most likely, of course, Mr Frazier will stonewall again, but...

There is at least the possibility that the shock of recognition, and the consciousness that the cat really is out of the bag now, will, in due course, prompt him to finally confirm the shocking truth a part of him has always wanted to admit: Yes, that's him.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 07, 2019, 01:02:45 AM

For those of us who deal in reality, in my phone call with Frazier this year he told me with paused emphasis that I should tell anyone who doubts it that he did not see Oswald on the steps and if he had he most certainly would have said something about it...

I walked through all the witnesses who would have also seen Oswald along with Frazier and the absurdity of suggesting no one would have seen Oswald or said anything and Frazier strongly agreed...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 07, 2019, 01:07:53 AM
For those of us who deal in reality, in my phone call with Frazier this year he told me with paused emphasis that I should tell anyone who doubts it that he did not see Oswald on the steps and if he had he most certainly would have said something about it...

Your “phone call with Frazier”. LOL.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 02:16:57 AM
Your “phone call with Frazier”. LOL.

The very thought of this raving lunatic having a direct line to Mr Frazier is quite scary...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 07, 2019, 02:30:16 AM
Your “phone call with Frazier”. LOL.

John,

What's your problem?

Do you think Doyle is lying about this?

Are you sure it's not "projection" on your part?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 07, 2019, 04:46:48 AM
Except I'm not claiming that Mr Frazier missed Mr Oswald. Try to keep up!

Not in Wiegman, and my ID of Mr Oswald in Wiegman is not dependent on the PrayerManInDarnell issue. Try to keep up!

Again, a multi-layered misrepresentation of my claim!

I call  BS: on you, Mr Mason. Your studied point-missing, invention of pseudo-problems, and misrepresentation of straightforward claims is a tired little game, and it's not working.

You can't explain the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's side, so you just divert to non-issues.

"I, Mr Zeon Mason, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Wiegman frames, and having recently learned the difference between vertical and horizontal, have concluded that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side is easily and innocently explained: it is _____________________________"

 Thumb1:

It is the vertical edge of the left side wall plus part of the very upper curvature shape of the capital that completes the corner of the front entrance portal, thus causing a mostly vertical shadow with a slight curvature, across part of Lovelady right side, similar to the same kind of shadow that falls upon Buell W. Frazier when he steps forward after Lovelady moved down the steps, and Shelley joins him, as they both are seen walking away in Couch and Darnell films
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 07, 2019, 03:14:56 PM
What's your problem?

Do you think Doyle is lying about this?

Are you sure it's not "projection" on your part?

Why would anyone believe a thing that Brian "590 falsehoods and fabrications" Doyle claims?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 07, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Now!

The naturally impossible dark 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman would, on its own, be startling enough to raise suspicions.

The second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman would, on its own, be startling enough to raise suspicions.

But! It's the combination of the two----------pertaining to the exact same area of the entranceway------------that allows us to see their significance and thereby nail Mr Oswald's location at the time of the assassination.

If I am right (and the failure to date of anyone to mount a credible challenge to my claim is pretty conspicuous!), then we must consider Mr Buell Wesley Frazier's place in all this.

I feel awfully sorry for the guy. For fifty-six years, he has been carrying a heavy burden, a dreadful secret: his friend, Mr Lee Oswald, was just in front of him at the time of the assassination.

Six years ago he started getting asked about a figure dubbed 'Prayer Man'. He must have been relieved to discover that 'Prayer Man' in Wiegman is not in the position he remembers Mr Oswald as having been in at the time of the shooting-----------too far west:

(https://i.imgur.com/hT7Uu60.gif)

His secret was still safe. So he stonewalled, and has stonewalled ever since: 'I don't know who that is'.

Somebody (other than our resident lunatic!) needs to show Mr Frazier this------------

(https://i.imgur.com/ckh7AuP.jpg)

------------and explain that it is from the time of the actual shooting
------------and remind Mr Frazier of his own nearby position back closer to the glass door.

Most likely, of course, Mr Frazier will stonewall again, but...

There is at least the possibility that the shock of recognition, and the consciousness that the cat really is out of the bag now, will, in due course, prompt him to finally confirm the shocking truth a part of him has always wanted to admit: Yes, that's him.

     WHY has Frazier stonewalled and kept this secret for 55+ years ? 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 07, 2019, 06:51:01 PM
     WHY has Frazier stonewalled and kept this secret for 55+ years ?

Royell, you know the CIA has experimented with implanting memories so no doubt they also may have figured out a way to remove a memory too. Just like Blazey Fords memory which she did not have for  30 years or so, and then suddenly, just coincidentally with someone getting nominated for SCOTUS judge, has a memory.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 08:28:54 PM
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

 :D

Only someone really really desperate to keep Mr Oswald out of that entryway could deduce this vertical shadow all the way down Mr Lovelady's right side-------

(https://i.imgur.com/YS0HGDo.jpg)

---------from the horizontal shadow across the neck upwards of Mr Frazier in this scene---------

(https://i.imgur.com/10Swq4Y.jpg)

Your inability to comprehend the shadow lines in that entranceway at 12.30pm 11/22/63 is positively Doylesque, Mr Mason!

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

Look at the shadow situation of Mr Lovelady vs Woman In White here!

(https://i.imgur.com/c6cJ9Hs.gif)

Try better!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 08:44:10 PM
     WHY has Frazier stonewalled and kept this secret for 55+ years ?

Well, Mr Storing, you've already given one possible answer to this question: He's a BS merchant and one would be a fool to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Other possible answers, which may interest the more recent version of you that considers Mr Frazier a key witness after all who must be listened to:

-Shame?
-Guilt?
-Fear of possible legal consequences?
-Fear of possible extra-legal consequences?

Who knows? Not me----I'm not a mind-reader, just an evidence-reader!

 And the evidence here
------------i.e. the 'coincidental' double phenomenon in Wiegman of an impossible 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's right side and the presence of a second 'Lovelady' head just to Mr Lovelady's right
------------tells us that at the time Mr Frazier heard the shots he could see just in front of him the backs of Mr Lovelady and Mr Oswald in very close proximity to one another.

If Mr Frazier were to come clean and confirm that this is indeed Mr Oswald in Wiegman--------

(https://i.imgur.com/ycXB2mf.jpg)

---------then we all know what your response would be, for you have already given it in relation to his decades-late revelation that he saw Mr Oswald by the east wall of the Depository several minutes after the shooting:

Shrug. I don't believe it. Why didn't he say this much sooner? A totally unreliable witness. His confirmation of the Ford claim is an immediate disqualifier. Etc.

And so the question becomes: WHY won't Mr Storing ever accept that Mr Oswald was in the front entranceway?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 07, 2019, 11:07:59 PM
Well, Mr Storing, you've already given one possible answer to this question: He's a BS merchant and one would be a fool to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Other possible answers, which may interest the more recent version of you that considers Mr Frazier a key witness after all who must be listened to:

-Shame?
-Guilt?
-Fear of possible legal consequences?
-Fear of possible extra-legal consequences?

Who knows? Not me----I'm not a mind-reader, just an evidence-reader!

 And the evidence here
------------i.e. the 'coincidental' double phenomenon in Wiegman of an impossible 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady's right side and the presence of a second 'Lovelady' head just to Mr Lovelady's right
------------tells us that at the time Mr Frazier heard the shots he could see just in front of him the backs of Mr Lovelady and Mr Oswald in very close proximity to one another.

If Mr Frazier were to come clean and confirm that this is indeed Mr Oswald in Wiegman--------

(https://i.imgur.com/ycXB2mf.jpg)

---------then we all know what your response would be, for you have already given it in relation to his decades-late revelation that he saw Mr Oswald by the east wall of the Depository several minutes after the shooting:

Shrug. I don't believe it. Why didn't he say this much sooner? A totally unreliable witness. His confirmation of the Ford claim is an immediate disqualifier. Etc.

And so the question becomes: WHY won't Mr Storing ever accept that Mr Oswald was in the front entranceway?

 Thumb1:

      The reason I asked You the question is due to Buell saying he saw Oswald walking up Houston St/alongside the TSBD shortly after the Kill Shot. If he is going to reveal this roughly 50 years after the assassination, why would he shy away from reporting that he saw Oswald on the TSBD steps as the JFK Limo came by the TSBD?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 11:17:49 PM
      The reason I asked You the question is due to Buell saying he saw Oswald walking up Houston St/alongside the TSBD shortly after the Kill Shot. If he is going to reveal this roughly 50 years after the assassination, why would he shy away from reporting that he saw Oswald on the TSBD steps as the JFK Limo came by the TSBD?

Because it would be so much more momentous a revelation, obviously!

Question for you: Do you believe that Mr Frazier saw Mr Oswald walking up Houston Street/alongside the TSBD several minutes after the kill shot?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 07, 2019, 11:25:01 PM
Because it would be so much more momentous a revelation, obviously!

Question for you: Do you believe that Mr Frazier saw Mr Oswald walking up Houston Street/alongside the TSBD several minutes after the kill shot?

 Thumb1:

    No, I do Not believe Frazier saw Oswald at any point-in-time after the Kill Shot. Also, why not refrain from posting that visual aid of the shadows on the TSBD steps/landing? It is speculative and right in line with one of those Zany Mytton Cartoons.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 11:31:59 PM
    No, I do Not believe Frazier saw Oswald at any point-in-time after the Kill Shot.

So anything Mr Frazier has to reveal late in the day you will dismiss as non-credible. This being the same Mr Frazier's whose failure to reveal Mr Oswald's presence in the entranceway at the time of the assassination you have put forward as a defeater to my claim!  :D

Quote
Also, why not refrain from posting that visual aid of the shadows on the TSBD steps/landing? It is speculative and right in line with one of those Zany Mytton Cartoons.

I'll post whatever I like, thank you, including images that annihilate arguments based on wild misunderstanding about how shadows work!

And-----if you think Mr Stancak (and Mr Hackerott) have gotten the shadows in the entranceway completely wrong, show us your calculations and your 3D reconstruction. Until then you're just blowing hot air out of your pompous... mouth!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 08, 2019, 12:00:38 AM
So anything Mr Frazier has to reveal late in the day you will dismiss as non-credible. This being the same Mr Frazier's whose failure to reveal Mr Oswald's presence in the entranceway at the time of the assassination you have put forward as a defeater to my claim!  :D

I'll post whatever I like, thank you, including images that annihilate arguments based on wild misunderstanding about how shadows work!

And-----if you think Mr Stancak (and Mr Hackerott) have gotten the shadows in the entranceway completely wrong, show us your calculations and your 3D reconstruction. Until then you're just blowing hot air out of your pompous... mouth!  Thumb1:

       I am willing to hear anyone out. You never know what kernel of truth might come to light. Frazier could be asked a question he has Never been asked before triggering a memory. You just don't know. Living witnesses to the assassination are quickly drying up. They need to be extensively questioned while still here.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 12:03:39 AM
       I am willing to hear anyone out. You never know what kernel of truth might come to light. Frazier could be asked a question he has Never been asked before triggering a memory. You just don't know. Living witnesses to the assassination are quickly drying up. They need to be extensively questioned while still here.

I agree!  Thumb1:

But! I don't think you do--------------you are just using Mr Frazier as a pretext not to accept that Mr Oswald was out front.

If Mr Frazier were to have his memory 'triggered', you would immediately dismiss it as "an immediate disqualifier".

This, Mr Storing, is known in the trade as 'bad faith'!
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 08, 2019, 12:50:10 AM

The photographic evidence proves Oswald wasn't Prayer Man...

Ford is like a loose cannon with his bizarre claims...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 08, 2019, 01:29:02 AM
I agree!  Thumb1:

But! I don't think you do--------------you are just using Mr Frazier as a pretext not to accept that Mr Oswald was out front.

If Mr Frazier were to have his memory 'triggered', you would immediately dismiss it as "an immediate disqualifier".

This, Mr Storing, is known in the trade as 'bad faith'!

      What is clear is that You are afraid that Frazier might definitively state he Never saw Oswald near the TSBD steps shortly before, during, or after the JFK Limo passed by. This comes down to Priorities.  Priority #1 should be finding The Truth. Unfortunately, Your Priority #1 is avoiding anything or anybody that might discredit your Theory.   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 01:55:37 AM
      What is clear is that You are afraid that Frazier might definitively state he Never saw Oswald near the TSBD steps shortly before, during, or after the JFK Limo passed by. This comes down to Priorities.  Priority #1 should be finding The Truth. Unfortunately, Your Priority #1 is avoiding anything or anybody that might discredit your Theory.

Why would I be afraid of what has already happened, Mr Storing?

Mr Frazier has already repeatedly denied seeing Mr Oswald in the entranceway at the time of the shooting. So what? His denials are belied by the visual evidence I have uncovered!  Thumb1:

As for your position, it is impressively... nuanced:

1. Without Mr. Frazier's confirmation, the claim that Mr Oswald was in the entranceway is a non-starter

2. Should Mr. Frazier's confirmation materialize, I will dismiss it as an immediate disqualifier of the claim that Mr Oswald was in the entranceway.

Way to cover all eventualities!  :D

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 02:00:22 AM
The photographic evidence proves Oswald wasn't Prayer Man...

Ford is like a loose cannon with his bizarre claims...

Poor Mr Doyle still thinks this is about Prayer Man!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 08, 2019, 02:03:20 AM
      What is clear is that You are afraid that Frazier might definitively state he Never saw Oswald near the TSBD steps shortly before, during, or after the JFK Limo passed by. This comes down to Priorities.  Priority #1 should be finding The Truth. Unfortunately, Your Priority #1 is avoiding anything or anybody that might discredit your Theory.

Why would I be afraid of what has already happened, Mr Storing?

Mr Frazier has already repeatedly denied seeing Mr Oswald in the entranceway at the time of the shooting. So what? His denials are belied by the visual evidence I have uncovered!  Thumb1:

As for your position, it is impressively... nuanced:

1. Without Mr. Frazier's confirmation, the claim that Mr Oswald was in the entranceway is a non-starter

2. Should Mr. Frazier's confirmation materialize, I will dismiss it as an immediate disqualifier of the claim that Mr Oswald was in the entranceway.

Way to cover all eventualities!  :D


The unwitting comical chemistry between you two clowns is an absolute classic, keep it up!

(https://i.imgur.com/3dXuB58.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 02:17:12 AM
Now!

Mr Ochus Campbell was quoted as having told reporters on 11/22/63 of having seen Mr Oswald in a "small storage room" on the first floor just after the assassination.

From the New York Herald Tribune 11/22/63:

(https://i.imgur.com/DT6ZT3b.jpg)

But! He supposedly can't have done because he supposedly ran straight in the direction of the grassy knoll, right?

Wrong!

On 11/24/63 Ms Pauline Sanders described seeing a white-helmeted officer (=Baker) running into the building "within a matter of ten seconds" after the shooting. Then we get this:

"Mrs. SANDERS advised that Mr. CAMPBELL, Office Manager, arrived shortly after the police officer entered the building and she told him she believed the blasts came from the upper part of the building however he insisted the shots came from the embankment."

So-------------Mr Campbell didn't run straight for the embankment. He came into the entranceway and spoke with Ms Sanders.

Logical conclusion? Mr Campbell entered the front lobby and saw Mr Oswald in the small storage room by the front stairs:

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

Later, of course, he claimed not to have known Mr Oswald from Eve's husband!  :D

What was Mr Oswald doing in the storage room just after his encounter with Officer Baker in the vestibule/front lobby?

Perhaps he was simply disposing of his empty coke bottle.

Or perhaps he was checking to see that the curtain rods he had brought to work and left there for safekeeping that morning were still there
----in case you're confused, I'm referring to the curtain rods that Lieutenant Day would later be asked to test for Mr Oswald's fingerprints several days before two curtain rods were removed from the Paine garage!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 02:19:18 AM
The unwitting comical chemistry between you two clowns is an absolute classic, keep it up!

(https://i.imgur.com/3dXuB58.gif)

JohnM

"I, Mr John Mytton, have a simple rational explanation for the dark strip down Mr. Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film: ________________________________________."

(https://i.imgur.com/gLJHi2s.jpg)
 
Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 08, 2019, 06:10:09 AM
Ford is like a loose cannon with his bizarre claims...

Says the guy who claims that Hispanic people can’t tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 08, 2019, 04:36:47 PM

No matter how hard Ford tries to hijack the narrative it is known that Campbell went to the Knoll before entering the Depository...

What Kamp, Parker and the Prayer Man people do is attack evidence that works against them in order to suggest it is wrong or people were lying...It is a tactic they employ through domination and repetition...When someone calls them on it they get their dirty moderators to remove their opponent on false charges of site rules violations and then they concentrate a trolling campaign against that person...That is happening here with Campbell's trip to the Knoll...They know it screws up their attempt to imply Oswald went from the steps to the utility closet where he was seen by Campbell who now, as it turns out, never went to the Knoll and went right back in to catch Oswald in that closet right after Oswald ducked back inside...After all, when evidence goes against you all you need to do is what Ford and Kamp do and change the evidence by coming in and reworking it with word tricks...

But that isn't what happened and Campbell still ducked to the Knoll before coming back inside...

The correct timing for Campbell is he went towards the Knoll for a few minutes and by the time he got back in to the Lobby he got there in time to see the T-shirt Oswald after he descended the stairs and hid in the utility closet...This Oswald was the second Oswald so he needed to lay low lest he accidentally be seen in the same place as the 2nd floor lunch room, long-sleeved Oswald... 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 05:15:18 PM
This Oswald was the second Oswald so he needed to lay low lest he accidentally be seen in the same place as the 2nd floor lunch room, long-sleeved Oswald...

 :D

I'm happy to let readers decide which of us has the coherent theory and which of us is indulging in his habit of howling at the moon!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 05:17:10 PM
Says the guy who claims that Hispanic people can’t tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

If you had genius level crime detection, Mr Iacoletti, you wouldn't be attacking Mr Doyle's forensic fluidology proof.  >:(
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 08, 2019, 07:03:58 PM
:D

I'm happy to let readers decide which of us has the coherent theory and which of us is indulging in his habit of howling at the moon!

It is clear that you can't respectfully, directly answer the evidence...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 08, 2019, 08:40:26 PM
New York Herald Tribune 11/22/63:

(https://i.imgur.com/DT6ZT3b.jpg)

Mr Campbell entered the front lobby and saw Mr Oswald in the small storage room by the front stairs:

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

Now!

Just before being seen by Mr Ochus Campbell in the small storage room just off the front lobby, Mr Oswald
-------------was out front standing right at Mr Lovelady's shoulder:

(https://i.imgur.com/PUP5SEI.jpg)

-------------after which he had his encounter with Officer Baker.  Thumb1:

But where exactly was the encounter with Officer Baker?

We are fortunate to have an answer of sorts from Officer Baker himself (in the 11/22 affidavit--------that's right, the one in which he goes on to tell us not about a second-floor lunchroom man but about a man caught "walking away from the stairway" on the "third or fourth floor"! :D) ----------------

(https://i.imgur.com/lYaO0cn.jpg)

Officer Baker asked Mr Oswald 'Do you work here?' ----------as a prelude to: Do you know where the nearest stairs are?

But Officer Baker's affidavit account is a little bit ambiguous..........
--------> were the "several people"----------one of whom was Mr Oswald------------"standing around" outside on the front landing or inside in the vestibule?

----------------If Mr Oswald is PrayerManInDarnell, then the former seems the more likely (although he could have gone in the door just after Mr Darnell stops filming that area)
----------------If Mr Oswald is not PrayerManInDarnell, then the latter seems the more likely, and Mr Oswald re-entered the building immediately after the shooting.

Which is the more natural reading of "As I entered the door I saw several people standing around"? I'd incline towards: the people were inside in the front lobby.

Kindly note! Mr Truly's 11/22 interview with the FBI states that, once inside the front entrance, he and Officer Baker "saw no one there"!  :D

While we're on the subject!

Doesn't Darnell show the glass front door moving?

(https://i.imgur.com/oB8qoGa.gif)

This may actually be from the re-entry into the front lobby of Mr Oswald himself!

 Thumb1:



Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 08, 2019, 11:04:45 PM
Well at least it seems Alan Ford has FINALLY accepted that prayerblob is probably NOT Oswald :)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 12:57:26 AM
Well at least it seems Alan Ford has FINALLY accepted that prayerblob is probably NOT Oswald :)

Has Mr Mason FINALLY accepted that the vertical shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman cannot be explained by the horizontal shadow across Mr Frazier in Darnell?  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 01:25:34 AM
'Hello?'
'Hi, is that Buell?'
'Yeah, who's this?'
'Hi Buell, it's Brian Doyle here. We spoke a little while back about Sarah Stanton being Prayer Man.'
(Audible sigh at other end.)
'Oh, hi Brian. What can I do for you?'
'Well, there's this guy called Ford, he's a real non-credible researcher, see, and he's ignoring my proofs that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton and it's--'
'Look, Brian, I'm kinda busy right--'
'--like when the corrupt Prayer Man gang got Jim D to get Gordon to ban me from the other forum so they could ignore my genius level crime detection proof that Bill Shelley helped the second Oswald out the back, which I have proven would be backed up by a linguistic photogrammetry expert if they looked at my forensic analysis proofs which a sharp eye will detect have--'
'Look, Brian, I'm real busy right--'
'So, what I need from you is, I was wondering could you take a look at a few frames from the Wiegman film if I send you them?'
'Well, I--'
'Ford says they show Oswald standing just behind Billy Lovelady just in front of you during the shooting, which I have proven is not credible because Hispanics and Pepsi means that--'
'He says Lee's just behind Billy Lovelady during the shooting?'
'Yeah but don't worry, I've proven the shadow is caused by the obese Sarah Stanton and besides the sun was azimuthically dancing in the sky so that's what caused the shadow down Lovelady, which any credible forensic astronomer would--'
(Click on other end of the line.)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 01:48:46 AM
So far, the sum total of responses to my perfectly fair challenge for someone to come up with a rational explanation of the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman------------

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

------------has been the following:

1. Mortified silence from Lone Nutters like Messrs Mytton and Von Pein!  :D
2. Suspension of the laws of physics from NoOswaldOutFront CTs like Messrs Doyle and Mason!  :D
3. Deliberate mis-conflation of the question with the PrayerMan question!  :D


Why oh why can't anyone rise to the challenge and offer something in refutation of my claim that Mr Oswald was right behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shooting?

(https://i.imgur.com/RtMt2Hi.jpg)

"I, __________________________, believe the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman has a simple explanation: _________________________."

Tick-tock!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 09, 2019, 02:34:06 AM
im going to suggest that BECAUSE prayerblob was NOT blackened out that Oswald therefore is not likely Prayerblob at ANY time in either Weigman or Couch/Darnell.

So if  Alan Fords theory in this thread is that Oswald is out on the steps BETWEEN Billy Lovelady and Buell W. Frazier, the question is then: Would  the conspirator film alteration experts fairly well blackened out Oswald, thus causing the vertical shadow, but forgot to blacken out the 2nd head?




Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 09, 2019, 05:24:22 AM
'Hello?'
'Hi, is that Buell?'
'Yeah, who's this?'
'Hi Buell, it's Brian Doyle here. We spoke a little while back about Sarah Stanton being Prayer Man.'
(Audible sigh at other end.)
'Oh, hi Brian. What can I do for you?'
'Well, there's this guy called Ford, he's a real non-credible researcher, see, and he's ignoring my proofs that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton and it's--'
'Look, Brian, I'm kinda busy right--'
'--like when the corrupt Prayer Man gang got Jim D to get Gordon to ban me from the other forum so they could ignore my genius level crime detection proof that Bill Shelley helped the second Oswald out the back, which I have proven would be backed up by a linguistic photogrammetry expert if they looked at my forensic analysis proofs which a sharp eye will detect have--'
'Look, Brian, I'm real busy right--'
'So, what I need from you is, I was wondering could you take a look at a few frames from the Wiegman film if I send you them?'
'Well, I--'
'Ford says they show Oswald standing just behind Billy Lovelady just in front of you during the shooting, which I have proven is not credible because Hispanics and Pepsi means that--'
'He says Lee's just behind Billy Lovelady during the shooting?'
'Yeah but don't worry, I've proven the shadow is caused by the obese Sarah Stanton and besides the sun was azimuthically dancing in the sky so that's what caused the shadow down Lovelady, which any credible forensic astronomer would--'
(Click on other end of the line.)

 :D  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 09, 2019, 07:23:42 AM
'Hello?'
'Hi, is that Buell?'
'Yeah, who's this?'
'Hi Buell, it's Brian Doyle here. We spoke a little while back about Sarah Stanton being Prayer Man.'
(Audible sigh at other end.)
'Oh, hi Brian. What can I do for you?'
'Well, there's this guy called Ford, he's a real non-credible researcher, see, and he's ignoring my proofs that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton and it's--'
'Look, Brian, I'm kinda busy right--'
'--like when the corrupt Prayer Man gang got Jim D to get Gordon to ban me from the other forum so they could ignore my genius level crime detection proof that Bill Shelley helped the second Oswald out the back, which I have proven would be backed up by a linguistic photogrammetry expert if they looked at my forensic analysis proofs which a sharp eye will detect have--'
'Look, Brian, I'm real busy right--'
'So, what I need from you is, I was wondering could you take a look at a few frames from the Wiegman film if I send you them?'
'Well, I--'
'Ford says they show Oswald standing just behind Billy Lovelady just in front of you during the shooting, which I have proven is not credible because Hispanics and Pepsi means that--'
'He says Lee's just behind Billy Lovelady during the shooting?'
'Yeah but don't worry, I've proven the shadow is caused by the obese Sarah Stanton and besides the sun was azimuthically dancing in the sky so that's what caused the shadow down Lovelady, which any credible forensic astronomer would--'
(Click on other end of the line.)

The unserious ones will usually out themselves...

Sounds like material straight from the Parker website...

In my talk with Frazier he emphasized to tell anyone who says he saw Oswald and held back that if Oswald was out there he would have said something...

I can imagine what Frazier would think of Ford's post here...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 09, 2019, 08:34:23 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 09, 2019, 09:54:22 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)

Thanks, Chris.

Isn't that tall Buell Wesley Frazier's head that appears briefly from behind Lovelady's head?

---  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 09, 2019, 11:29:53 AM
It's more likely Lovelady's head moving between frames.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 09, 2019, 11:37:19 AM
It's more likely Lovelady's head moving between frames.

Ray,

The problems is that there are two heads in some frames.

And I don't think it's "blurs" because, if you look closely at the timings and directions of the "blurs" on the rest of Lovelady's body (and on other people on the stairs, etc), you'll realize that that's not the case.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 09, 2019, 01:31:42 PM
When you split the gif, it seems that the new head has the same body, as Lovelady, just slightly lower.

(https://i.postimg.cc/LJ0Xy3Cv/frame-07-delay-0-5s.gif) (https://postimg.cc/LJ0Xy3Cv)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 09, 2019, 03:20:35 PM
Isn't that tall Buell Wesley Frazier's head that appears briefly from behind Lovelady's head?

Not sure...

However that would make sense when you compare it to Altgens which is right around this time...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 09, 2019, 03:54:47 PM
Thanks, Chris.

Isn't that tall Buell Wesley Frazier's head that appears briefly from behind Lovelady's head?

---  MWT  ;)

    Frazier is Much taller than Lovelady. He dwarfs Lovelady. This would rule out our seeing Frazier behind Lovelady.  Well, unless Frazier was possibly on his knees.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 09, 2019, 04:10:04 PM
im going to suggest that BECAUSE prayerblob was NOT blackened out that Oswald therefore is not likely Prayerblob at ANY time in either Weigman or Couch/Darnell.

So if  Alan Fords theory in this thread is that Oswald is out on the steps BETWEEN Billy Lovelady and Buell W. Frazier, the question is then: Would  the conspirator film alteration experts fairly well blackened out Oswald, thus causing the vertical shadow, but forgot to blacken out the 2nd head?

The reliable indicative information of evidentiary value, evidently reliably indicates that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the stairs or the top step/landing in WiegmanFilm or DarnellFilm.

During filming, as he passed the TSBD Bldg entrance, apparently DaveWiegman was panning back and forth as well as riding in a moving vehicle.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 09, 2019, 04:22:49 PM
Ray,

The problems is that there are two heads in some frames.

And I don't think it's "blurs" because, if you look closely at the timings and directions of the "blurs" on the rest of Lovelady's body (and on other people on the stairs, etc), you'll realize that that's not the case.

--  MWT  ;)
Shhhh... Don't tell anyone, but I believe Mr Mitcham's conclusion about blurring just might be correct.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 04:25:41 PM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)

Thank you very much for this, Mr Davidson! (How do you always seem to have such excellent versions of footage? It's wonderful!)  Thumb1:

Now!

What we're seeing here, in greater clarity than in the version of the Wiegman frames I have been posting, is that

------------------Mr Lovelady is stationary
------------------Mr Oswald (just behind him) is moving, one assumes because he is trying to get a better look at what's going on out on the street.

The Altgens photograph is taken at or around one of the points seen above (early frames!) where Mr Oswald's head is just to the left (=our right, i.e. east!) of Mr Lovelady's head. And Altgens shows a portion of Mr Oswald's head/face:

(https://i.imgur.com/mz3nkWV.gif)

Furthermore!

There is a lot of white t-shirt in the Oswald/Lovelady ensemble in Wiegman. Look closely and you will see that Mr Oswald appears to be wearing only his white t-shirt (no shirt!).

Had a dark vertical strip not been added to Mr Lovelady's right side, Mr Oswald's white t-shirt (and exposed right arm, and----who knows?-----maybe even a soda bottle in the right hand) would be all too evident even to a casual viewer. Which of course is why a dark vertical strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side!

This latter observation------------Mr Oswald in a white tshirt only------------suggests that Mr Oswald is not Prayer Man in the Darnell film after all.

Which in turn means that it's perfectly possible that only one person noticed Mr Oswald in the few moments he spent out front for the motorcade:

Mr Frazier.

Like I say, what a heavy burden to have to carry. No wonder Captain Fritz hung the threat of a charge of conspiracy to murder JFK over him!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 04:27:14 PM
Thanks, Chris.

Isn't that tall Buell Wesley Frazier's head that appears briefly from behind Lovelady's head?

---  MWT  ;)

Yes!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/oIlcnMr.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/UmdMYKP.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 04:31:14 PM
Ray,

The problems is that there are two heads in some frames.

And I don't think it's "blurs" because, if you look closely at the timings and directions of the "blurs" on the rest of Lovelady's body (and on other people on the stairs, etc), you'll realize that that's not the case.

--  MWT  ;)

Right you are, Mr Graves!  Thumb1:

And ain't it funny how the one person in that doorway to whom this double-head phenomenon attaches across multiple frames just so happens to be the one person in that doorway down whom there is a non-natural dark vertical 'shadow'?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 09, 2019, 05:11:35 PM
Right you are, Mr Graves!  Thumb1:

And ain't it funny how the one person in that doorway to whom this double-head phenomenon attaches across multiple frames just so happens to be the one person in that doorway down whom there is a non-natural dark vertical 'shadow'?

   Any person situated on that landing in front of the TSBD doorway is Not "standing in", "cloaked by" or "subject to" a Shadow.  That landing area is the equivalent of a Cave. Sunlight = Shadow(s) does Not happen.   
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 05:13:38 PM
   Any person situated on that landing in front of the TSBD doorway is Not "standing in", "cloaked by" or "subject to" a Shadow.  That landing area is the equivalent of a Cave. Sunlight = Shadow(s) does Not happen.

You are of course 100% correct, Mr Storing!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 09, 2019, 06:08:06 PM
Had a dark vertical strip not been added to Mr Lovelady's right side, Mr Oswald's white t-shirt (and exposed right arm, and----who knows?-----maybe even a soda bottle in the right hand) would be all too evident even to a casual viewer. Which of course is why a dark vertical strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side!

Now! It is important to note that if the above comments pertain to the early Wiegman frames of the entranceway-------------

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)

-------------then they pertain with bells on to the later ones, when Mr Lovelady has stepped downwards:

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

This is because, in thus stepping downwards, Mr Lovelady has left Mr Oswald's face (and much more besides) fully exposed not just to view but to closer view than in the previous frames, when Mr Wiegman was further from the entranceway and at more of an angle to it.

Hence even more extensive blacking out was required---it had to go higher than Mr Lovelady's head.

As long as no one worked out that Mr Lovelady couldn't possibly be in shadow like this, Mr Oswald's obliteration from the entranceway would be crudely but effectively achieved!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 09, 2019, 06:23:35 PM
Well at least it seems Alan Ford has FINALLY accepted that prayerblob is probably NOT Oswald :)
Perhaps Mr Ford can provide a sworn statement/testimony by Mr OchusVirgilCampbell affirming the Newspaper report?
Perhaps Mr Ford has ascertained, and can share, as to whom "we" is as mentioned by OV Campbell in the Newspaper reported LeeHarveyOswald sighting?
Perhaps Mr Ford can provide information as to the first time OV Campbell "saw" LeeHarveyOswald, as well as when he was first able to "recognize" him on sight?

Perhaps?

http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/ochus-v-campbell/#lightbox[group]/4/
http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/ochus-v-campbell/#lightbox[group]/6/
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 09, 2019, 06:37:17 PM

Mr Ford is showing us Pauline Sanders, who is actually behind Shelley and to his east in the portal in Altgens, and calling her Oswald...

Mr Ford has absolutely no sense of perspective or credible photo analysis...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 09, 2019, 07:11:40 PM

Mr Ford is showing us Pauline Sanders, who is actually behind Shelley and to his east in the portal in Altgens, and calling her Oswald...


Brian:  Just a question, not an accusation, so don't get all defensive on me.

You're saying Alan is showing us Pauline Sanders in the blue circle?

Thanks,

--  MWT   ;)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 10, 2019, 01:15:38 PM

The little orange outline mate...

Perspective hides the fact that little face is behind and east in the portal from Shelley...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 10, 2019, 01:34:24 PM

There is a lot of white t-shirt in the Oswald/Lovelady ensemble in Wiegman. Look closely and you will see that Mr Oswald appears to be wearing only his white t-shirt (no shirt!).

Had a dark vertical strip not been added to Mr Lovelady's right side, Mr Oswald's white t-shirt would be all too evident even to a casual viewer. Which of course is why a dark vertical strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side!

Now!

Mr Oswald in a white tshirt out front helps explain what has long puzzled researchers:

Mrs Reid's insistence from Day 1 that Mr Oswald was dressed in a white t-shirt when she saw him.

As readers will know, I do not believe for one second that Mrs Reid saw Mr Oswald in the second-floor office area shortly after the shooting, any more than I believe in the Baker/Truly/Oswald lunchroom encounter. Mrs Reid----------who may not even have gone outside for the motoracade-----------was prevailed upon by Mr Truly (and Mr Campbell?) to lend bogus support to the scam cooked up to take away Mr Oswald's alibi!

So......... why did Mrs Reid not get Mr Oswald's attire 'right'? Does not her failure to align the attire she saw with the lunchroom version of Mr Oswald's attire speak in favour of her honesty?

Not so fast!

I have previously surmised that Mrs Reid put Mr Oswald in a white t-shirt simply because that's what she saw him wearing in the second floor lunchroom before the P. parade.

But! How can Mr Truly have failed to ensure that she not make this 'mistake' but rather align the stories? All he had to do was say, "No, say he was wearing a shirt"!

But! This is only a problem so long as we equate Mr Oswald with PrayerManInDarnell, i.e. so long as we have to put him in a shirt.

The discovery in Wiegman of Mr Oswald in what looks like a white tshirt just behind Mr Lovelady clears up the problem at a stroke:

----------------------Mr Oswald was wearing a white tshirt (no shirt) when he went outside to watch the P. parade

----------------------Mr Oswald was (obviously!) still wearing that white tshirt (no shirt) when Mr Truly saw him in the front lobby just after the assassination

----------------------Mr Truly fed this fact to Mrs Reid.


Don't believe me? Well, look at what Mr Truly told Secret Service on 4 Dec 1963:

(https://i.imgur.com/P8Z6RvP.jpg)

Meanwhile, of course, Officer Baker had gone on the record as having seen a man in a "light brown jacket"!  :D

The WC were wise enough not to press Mr Truly about Mr Oswald's clothing:

Representative FORD. In your description of Oswald to Captain Fritz, did you describe the kind of clothes that Oswald had on that day?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know, sir. No, sir; I just told him his name and where he lived and his telephone number and his age, as 23, and I said 5 feet, 9, about 150 pounds, light brown hair--whatever I picked up off the description there. I did not try to depend on my memory to describe him. I just put down what was on this application blank.


Way to fudge the issue of jacket/shirt vs t-shirt!

Now that we have found Mr Oswald in the front entranceway for the motorcade, and the lunchroom story is as dead as an absolute doornail, we must ask the question:

Who was the man caught by Officer Baker "walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor"?

I think Officer Baker was later gaslighted into believing this man had actually been Mr Oswald, whom Officer Baker's brain will have remembered as the man he met in the front lobby. (Mr Howard Brennan seems to have gone through a similar 'process'!) Officer Baker was persuaded into moving the encounter from one of the upper landings down to the second-floor lunchroom. He knew this was a lie, but he convinced himself that it was a benign one because the man really must have been Mr Oswald. Besides, it lessened the embarrassment for him professionally of having let the man go!

This would explain the following odd moment from his WC testimony:

Mr. BELIN - Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 150, would this appear to be anything that you have ever seen before?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I believe that is the shirt that he had on when he came. I wouldn't be sure of that. It seemed to me like that other shirt was a little bit darker than that whenever I saw him in the homicide office there.
Mr. BELIN - What about when you saw him in the School Book Depository Building, does this look familiar as anything he was wearing, if you know?
Mr. BAKER - I couldn't say whether that was--it seemed to me it was a light-colored brown but I couldn't say it was that or not.
Mr. DULLES - Lighter brown did you say, I am just asking what you said. I couldn't quite hear.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; all I can remember it was in my recollection of it it was a light brown jacket.


Could it be that---------------------within the context of complicity in an overall lie-----------------------Mr Baker was actually being honest here?

If so, then we're looking for "a white man approximately 30 years old, 5' 9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket" (11/22/63 affidavit) "and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt" (WC testimony)!

Candidate?------

(https://i.imgur.com/JzgIRq8.gif)

Notice the odd bald spot (cf. young Mr Euins!)...

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 10, 2019, 04:35:41 PM
    If you seriously believe You are Seeing "young Mr Euins" anywhere in the above film snippet, all your Observations warrant being called into question. No one remotely resembling Euins is in that snippet.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 10, 2019, 05:31:17 PM
    If you seriously believe You are Seeing "young Mr Euins" anywhere in the above film snippet, all your Observations warrant being called into question. No one remotely resembling Euins is in that snippet.

<facepalm>
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 10, 2019, 05:54:52 PM
Goban Saor wrote:

Quote
One of the Harvey and Lee advocates once said it would take two years or something like that to get to understand the Harvey and Lee theory. Since I haven’t got two years to spend on it, I’ve kept away from it.

I must look into the two Alan Fords thing when I have the time.

What Goban is saying here is that he thinks Armstrong has merit but can't admit it in front of the censorship-reliant, dominating dictator ignoramus Kamp...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 10, 2019, 07:19:29 PM
    If you seriously believe You are Seeing "young Mr Euins" anywhere in the above film snippet, all your Observations warrant being called into question. No one remotely resembling Euins is in that snippet.

I believe Mr Ford is mentioning the statement made by Mr Euins. In any event, worthy of additional information.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 10, 2019, 07:36:37 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/P8Z6RvP.jpg)

Thanks Alan...

What you are seeing in that quote is evidence of two things...

The first is that Truly was combining his sighting of Oswald in the lunch room with Oswald in the Foyer...

The fact Truly speaks of Oswald wearing a white T-shirt is evidence that he either saw Oswald in a T-shirt in the Depository or he was told to say he did in order to cover Mrs Reid's Oswald...

Or maybe the Secret Service altered his statement to accent the T-shirt and soften the conflict between the long-sleeved Oswald and the T-shirt one...

This statement leaves the possibility open that Truly & Baker encountered the second Oswald in the T-shirt on the 3rd floor landing...

Ford is just contemptuously ignoring that Carolyn Arnold placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:24, so that means the lunch room encounter was real...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 10, 2019, 08:08:54 PM
Quote from: Alan Ford

Who was the man caught by Officer Baker "walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor"?

I think Officer Baker was later gaslighted into believing this man had actually been Mr Oswald, whom Officer Baker's brain will have remembered as the man he met in the front lobby. (Mr Howard Brennan seems to have

Could it be that---------------------within the context of complicity in an overall lie-----------------------Mr Baker was actually being honest here?

If so, then we're looking for "a white man approximately 30 years old, 5' 9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket" (11/22/63 affidavit) "and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt" (WC testimony)!

Candidate?------

(https://i.imgur.com/JzgIRq8.gif)

Notice the odd bald spot (cf. young Mr Euins!)...

Alan,

I believe the guy wearing the tan jacket in your gif may have been spotted standing on the Houston Street sidewalk during the motorcade, as archived on some thread at the so-called Education Forum back in the day.

Keep up the good work.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 10, 2019, 09:38:33 PM
Alan,

I believe the guy wearing the tan jacket in your gif may have been spotted standing on the Houston Street sidewalk during the motorcade, as archived on some thread at the so-called Education Forum back in the day.

Keep up the good work.

--  MWT  ;)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, Mr Graves------thank you!  Thumb1:

I would very much like to see the man standing on the Houston Street sidewalk during the P. parade... Anyone know what photo or film he's in??
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 10, 2019, 09:47:44 PM

Ford is just contemptuously ignoring that Carolyn Arnold placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:24, so that means the lunch room encounter was real...

Nope! Ms Arnold's sighting of Mr Oswald in the second floor lunchroom several minutes before the P. parade means he was in the second floor lunchroom several minutes before the P. parade. After that he went back down to the first floor to eat his lunch, and then went outside to watch the P. parade. Just like he told Captain Fritz!

(https://i.imgur.com/B7HAci8.jpg)

I think Ms Arnold may have seen Mr Oswald twice--------first in the lunchroom, then lurking behind the glass front door, biding his moment to pop out (he wasn't a mixer so would have wanted to avoid standing around on the steps making smalltalk). Perhaps Ms Arnold was spooked when Mr Earl Golz & Mr Anthony Summers contacted her in 1978 and quoted back her doorway sighting, so she insisted only on what she thought was the less explosive sighting: the lunchroom?

But don't take Mr Oswald's or my word for it when we tell you he went outside to watch the P. parade-------take a look for yourself in the Wiegman film!

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

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 10, 2019, 10:06:51 PM
Nope! Ms Arnold's sighting of Mr Oswald in the second floor lunchroom several minutes before the P. parade means he was in the second floor lunchroom several minutes before the P. parade. After that he went back down to the first floor to eat his lunch, and then went outside to watch the P. parade. Just like he told Captain Fritz!

The other two witnesses to the same interview clearly wrote that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter happened first, then Oswald went to the first floor to eat...And then he went outside to the front...

The Hosty notes above loosely correspond to the same sequence so it is reasonable to assume they also cover the same chronological context of beginning with Oswald being in the lunch room when he had the Coke...

The reason all three notes begin with the lunch room encounter is because they are avoiding mentioning that Oswald was in the same 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

Ford has Oswald following Arnold down to the front steps after their lunch room encounter...Can't be because the 2nd floor encounter with Baker is true and Ford's making it up as he goes along scenario requires Oswald to be out of breath as he gets back up there in front of Baker...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 10, 2019, 10:14:07 PM
The other two witnesses to the same interview clearly wrote that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter happened first, then Oswald went to the first floor to eat...And then he went outside to the front...

The Hosty notes above loosely correspond to the same sequence so it is reasonable to assume they also cover the same chronological context of beginning with Oswald being in the lunch room when he had the Coke...

The reason all three notes begin with the lunch room encounter is because they are avoiding mentioning that Oswald was in the same 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

Ford has Oswald following Arnold down to the front steps after their lunch room encounter...Can't be because the 2nd floor encounter with Baker is true and Ford's making it up as he goes along scenario requires Oswald to be out of breath as he gets back up there in front of Baker...

Except! The words "Then went outside to watch P. parade" destroy your entire theory! As does the fact that Mr Oswald can be seen in the Wiegman film--------whose frames have been darkened to make his presence undetectable to all but the most careful inspection! 

You've lost, Mr Doyle. Find a new obsession! Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 10, 2019, 10:26:32 PM

Not quite Ford...

You are forgetting that Sarah Stanton saw Oswald itching to get back in to the 2nd floor break room with a soda...

You think people don't see you ignoring and avoiding my interview with Stanton's relatives, however no credible researcher would avoid recognizing its significance...

What Stanton's witnessing tells you is Oswald already had the soda you are claiming he brought down to the 1st floor to eat lunch with...

Only he wasn't taking it downstairs...He told Stanton he was taking it back in to the break room where Arnold would see him shortly after...

At that point we can conclude Intel operative Oswald was assigned to be in the 2nd floor lunch room in order to keep him away from everybody...

We can assume his being seen in there bridged over from Arnold to Baker and that he was there in between...

I find your entire presentation to be a methodically-deceptive avoidance of all this, as well as Fritz clearly telling the Commission Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 10, 2019, 10:34:49 PM
Ah, I wasn't aware of that, Mr Graves------thank you!  Thumb1:

I would very much like to see the man standing on the Houston Street sidewalk during the P. parade... Anyone know what photo or film he's in??

Mr Graves, I'm most grateful for your pointer on this and have been doing some digging.

From memory, is this the man identified as the man in the light-brown jacket in Hughes?

(https://i.imgur.com/84cLshI.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/g4vobuS.gif)

Thank you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 11, 2019, 02:43:07 AM
Not quite Ford...

You are forgetting that Sarah Stanton saw Oswald itching to get back in to the 2nd floor break room with a soda...

Stanton’s relatives didn’t tell you that. That’s your made-up nonsense.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 11, 2019, 02:58:49 AM
Mr Graves, I'm most grateful for your pointer on this and have been doing some digging.

From memory, is this the man identified as the man in the light-brown jacket in Hughes?

(https://i.imgur.com/84cLshI.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/g4vobuS.gif)

Thank you!  Thumb1:

Alan,

Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forget who it was at the EF who "identified" him as my Tan Jacket Man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you could "dig into" that and let us know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Between his legs in the Hughes frame, I believe we might be able to see the umbrella he was holding in his left hand in your gif !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 08:52:52 AM
Alan,

Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forget who it was at the EF who "identified" him as my Tan Jacket Man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you could "dig into" that and let us know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Between his legs in the Hughes frame, I believe we might be able to see the umbrella he was holding in his left hand in your gif !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well it's not him!

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

(https://i.imgur.com/Evo6Wk9.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 11, 2019, 10:06:21 AM
Well it's not him!

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

(https://i.imgur.com/Evo6Wk9.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Alan,

Congratulations!!!!!!!

I think you've just cracked the case wide open!!!!!!!

I wonder if the Tan Jacket Man in the parking lot spoke Russian? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Or Spanish, maybe!!!!!!!

After the assassination, was he captured in the Bell film as he was walking towards the Grassy Knoll across the "infield grass,"  by any chance ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Carrying his rifle disguised as an umbrella and boofin' a bottle of vodka? ? ? ? ? ? ?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 02:48:52 PM
Alan,

Congratulations!!!!!!!

I think you've just cracked the case wide open!!!!!!!

I wonder if the Tan Jacket Man in the parking lot spoke Russian? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Or Spanish, maybe!!!!!!!

Was he captured in the Bell film after the assassination, by any chance ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Carrying his rifle disguised as an umbrella? ? ? ? ? ? ?

--  MWT  ;)

Tell you what, Mr Graves--------why don't you follow up those no doubt interesting lines of inquiry, and I start a new thread on this man so as not to take this thread too far away from Those Front Steps where Mr Oswald was?

Division of labor!  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 11, 2019, 03:06:49 PM
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?

I agree...The thread should go back on topic so Ford can answer this:

Quote
You are forgetting that Sarah Stanton saw Oswald itching to get back in to the 2nd floor break room with a soda...

You think people don't see you ignoring and avoiding my interview with Stanton's relatives, however no credible researcher would avoid recognizing its significance...

What Stanton's witnessing tells you is Oswald already had the soda you are claiming he brought down to the 1st floor to eat lunch with...

Only he wasn't taking it downstairs...He told Stanton he was taking it back in to the break room where Arnold would see him shortly after...

At that point we can conclude Intel operative Oswald was assigned to be in the 2nd floor lunch room in order to keep him away from everybody...

We can assume his being seen in there bridged over from Arnold to Baker and that he was there in between...

I find your entire presentation to be a methodically-deceptive avoidance of all this, as well as Fritz clearly telling the Commission Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 03:31:37 PM
Now! It is important to note that if the above comments pertain to the early Wiegman frames of the entranceway-------------

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Alan.gif)

-------------then they pertain with bells on to the later ones, when Mr Lovelady has stepped downwards:

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

This is because, in thus stepping downwards, Mr Lovelady has left Mr Oswald's face (and much more besides) fully exposed not just to view but to closer view than in the previous frames, when Mr Wiegman was further from the entranceway and at more of an angle to it.

Hence even more extensive blacking out was required---it had to go higher than Mr Lovelady's head.

As long as no one worked out that Mr Lovelady couldn't possibly be in shadow like this, Mr Oswald's obliteration from the entranceway would be crudely but effectively achieved!

 Thumb1:

Now!

Do those who still refuse to believe that Mr Oswald was standing just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shots-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/f2wUJ2c.jpg)

-------------- have any coherent response to the following?

1. If you believe that a dark vertical strip has not been added to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, what rational alternative explanation for that strip can you offer?

2. If you accept that a dark vertical strip must have been added to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, because you can think of no rational alternative explanation for it, can you offer a non-Oswaldian reason why such a dark strip might have been added to the film?

3. If you believe that this issue will go away without your being able to address these problems, do you realize how foolish you are being?

Tick-tock!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 03:55:30 PM
If we put ourselves in Mr Roy Truly's boots, it might help us put together how the fake lunchroom encounter story came into being:

1. He and the officer encountered Mr Oswald in the front lobby (--------> no problem, as it was never the plan to set up Mr Oswald as the shooter)

2. He and the officer encountered Mr Light Brown Jacket by the stairway quite far up the building, and he (Mr Truly) had falsely assured the officer that the man was an employee (--------> big problem if the officer talks about this later)

Well, the officer (Marrion Baker) does talk, and goes on the record about the rear stairway encounter. Mr Truly is apprised of this and now faces a whopping triple problem:

--------He himself has already talked about seeing Mr Oswald in the front lobby downstairs after the shooting
--------The officer has talked about seeing a Depository 'worker' upstairs by the rear stairway.
--------The authorities have made it clear they want to pin the actual shooting itself on Mr Oswald.


Mr Truly is now under intense pressure to make both encounters disappear.

He certainly cannot let it be known that he lied to the officer about the employment status of the man by the rear stairway.

Solution!------------He merges the Oswald encounter and the Rear Stairway encounter into one encounter!

But where to put it? The rear stairways on the upper floors are too crowded with witnesses and potential witnesses to simply put it there. Besides, any upper landing would be an impossible sell after all the talk of seeing Mr Oswald downstairs.

So! Prompted perhaps by Mrs Reid's sighting of Mr Oswald with coke in the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination and/or Mr Oswald's own (true) claim to have visited that lunchroom before the P. parade, Mr Truly locates the make-believe encounter in the second floor lunchroom. Close enough to downstairs to get away with!

Question! But how does he know there was no one in the lunchroom at the time in question who will come forward to challenge his story?

Answer! Because he knows that Mrs Reid was in there on her own, so all he has to do is get her onside!

Complication #1! Mrs Reid refuses to cooperate to the extent of saying she was in the lunchroom when post-assassination Mr Oswald came in.

Complication #2! Mrs Geneva Hine's presence in the office area means Mrs Reid's fake story can't have her there during the P. parade either.

De-Complication! "Tell them you were outside with me and Ochus and ran back inside".

Clever Mr Truly! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 11, 2019, 04:16:15 PM
   Personally, I have doubts regarding Anything Amos Euins testified to, said shortly thereafter, or claims today.  I have Never heard or read of a JFK assassination eyewitness verifying that Euins was anywhere near the stone pedestal he claims to have ducked behind before seeing a man withdrawing a pipe from the TSBD window. Furthermore, I have Never viewed even a single image showing him standing anywhere on Houston St in the vicinity of that stone pedestal. In addition to All of this, that stone pedestal is the same pedestal that young Toni Glover, (wearing the blue jacket) and her Mom were standing on top of. You can't miss seeing Glover wearing that bright blue jacket on the Bell Film, Dorman Film, etc. Dr Toni Glover has Never made mention of a young kid/Euins ducking/hugging that pedestal directly below her and her Mom as all hell broke loose that day. On top of ALL of this, during his questioning by HSCA investigators, Euins was asked about a Camera he claimed to have had with him that day. He said something along the lines of he did not know what happened to it following the assassination. ALL of this ambiguity make ALL claims made by Euins subject to question.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 11, 2019, 07:33:49 PM

It is silly to say Baker & Truly encountered Oswald in the front lobby.

There were just too many people who went in to the lobby at that time for that to have happened unwitnessed...

Plus I have proven Oswald was in the lunch room at the time...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 11, 2019, 08:55:34 PM

Soban Saor wrote:

Quote
Yes indeed, Steely, for what it’s worth, Brian is obviously misconstruing what I’ve said about Harvey and Lee.

But that seems to be Brian’s modus operandi.

I would add that I’ve disagreed with Greg and others here on a number of occasions, so Brian’s suggestion to the contrary is another of his ‘errors’.

Like I said....

Soban thinks Armstrong has merit but can't say so because of Kamp's bullying restriction...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 11, 2019, 11:47:56 PM
For those new to this issue, here is the depth of the problem posed by the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/jZTrM73.jpg)

These are the steps a fair while after the shooting, when the sun is further west and hence there is more shadow from the western column than there had been at 12.30pm:

(https://i.imgur.com/h7wN22G.jpg)

In short: that entranceway was bathed in direct sunlight at the time of the assassination!

Now--------try moving that shadow even closer to the west wall and then explaining the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman as a natural phenomenon...

It simply cannot be done!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 12, 2019, 12:32:01 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 12, 2019, 12:38:42 AM
The clearly seen shadow on Lovelady's chest shows he is at the front of the landing platform about to step down the steps...

No magic alteration about it...

Davidson's gif shows where the column cornice hits the backs of the cops going in...

It shows the full dimensions of the shadow border from the west wall...

If you are real good like me, that shadow on the cops going in tells you Frazier is about a foot and a half from the front door in Darnell...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 12, 2019, 12:43:01 AM
For those new to this issue, here is the depth of the problem posed by the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/jZTrM73.jpg)

These are the steps a fair while after the shooting, when the sun is further west and hence there is more shadow from the western column than there had been at 12.30pm:

(https://i.imgur.com/h7wN22G.jpg)

In short: that entranceway was bathed in direct sunlight at the time of the assassination!

Now--------try moving that shadow even closer to the west wall and then explaining the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman as a natural phenomenon...

It simply cannot be done!

     The alleged "shadow" on Lovelady is Ridiculous. It looks like he has a Heavy Jet Black Overcoat draping over his shoulder.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 12, 2019, 12:54:04 AM
The clearly seen shadow on Lovelady's chest shows he is at the front of the landing platform about to step down the steps...

No magic alteration about it...

Davidson's gif shows where the column cornice hits the backs of the cops going in...

It shows the full dimensions of the shadow border from the west wall...

If you are real good like me, that shadow on the cops going in tells you Frazier is about a foot and a half from the front door in Darnell...

     For starters, I do Not believe that Lovelady is standing on the landing. And your claiming that Frazier was standing "about a foot and a half from the front door in Darnell" is also Incorrect.  Generally, who stands Only a "foot and a half" in front of a busy doorway, with their BACK facing that busy doorway? You claim to be "real good" but clearly Lack Common Sense.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 12, 2019, 08:19:29 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

Mr Davidson, is this gif supposed to illustrate anything specific?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 12, 2019, 08:38:17 AM
     The alleged "shadow" on Lovelady is Ridiculous. It looks like he has a Heavy Jet Black Overcoat draping over his shoulder.

Indeed----and I tried to put one over that shoulder in order to avoid the conclusion that the frames had been messed with. Unfortunately it didn't work! (cf. Lovelady in Hughes as JFK is coming onto Elm Street)

It's telling that no one has thus far been able to offer a viable alternative explanation for that dark shadow-which-cannot-be-a-shadow...  Instead we've just had periodic nonsense about the west column & lintel shadows!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 12, 2019, 08:54:07 AM
Now!

The resistance to the evidence putting Mr Oswald right behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shooting---------

(https://i.imgur.com/f2wUJ2c.jpg)

---------will come from various quarters:

1. Lone Nutters (but who cares------these poor souls' capacity for motivated reasoning is already legendary!  :D )

2. CTs who consider the second floor lunchroom incident sacrosanct (they'd rather keep that fiction alive than allow Mr Oswald his legitimate alibi)

3. CTs for whom JFK assassination research is an addictive hobby (the last thing they want to see is closure on the issue of Mr Oswald's whereabouts 12.30pm... what would they do with their days?)

4. 'CTs' pretending to be CTs (usually pretty easy to spot!)

5. Harvey and Lee nuts (The Great Armstrong doesn't put either Oswald on the steps so we sure as heck ain't gonna!)

6. CTs who have been heavily invested in the Prayer Man claim (it would be very sad to see Prayer Man become the new Lunchroom Incident-----i.e. the sacrosanct X that closes good people off to alternative ideas. Especially as Mr Oswald's alibi in Wiegman would never have been established had it not been for the brilliant and indefatigable work of the Prayer Man people. E.g.! Mr Kamp's game-changing unearthing of the Hosty notes that confirmed that Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have gone outside for the P. parade after a visit to the second floor lunchroom for a coke).

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 12, 2019, 03:43:26 PM

Who or whatever that is, it isn't Oswald...

Oswald is up in the 2nd floor lunch room at that time...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 13, 2019, 05:01:21 AM
     For starters, I do Not believe that Lovelady is standing on the landing. And your claiming that Frazier was standing "about a foot and a half from the front door in Darnell" is also Incorrect.  Generally, who stands Only a "foot and a half" in front of a busy doorway, with their BACK facing that busy doorway? You claim to be "real good" but clearly Lack Common Sense.

He says while cluelessly ignoring the shadow evidence Davidson just posted and how it illustrates Frazier being 1.5 feet in front of the doorway according to the shadows seen on the cops' backs...

The door swings both ways...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 12:26:02 AM
He says while cluelessly ignoring the shadow evidence Davidson just posted and how it illustrates Frazier being 1.5 feet in front of the doorway according to the shadows seen on the cops' backs...

The door swings both ways...

    Shadows on a cop's back being proffered as evidence?  This exposes the impossible position you have been painted into.  I do Not believe that Evidence has been submitted to prove Oswald is anywhere on the TSBD steps or landing. But your "shadows" proffer is down right embarrassing.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 12:44:06 AM
    Shadows on a cop's back being proffered as evidence?  This exposes the impossible position you have been painted into.  I do Not believe that Evidence has been submitted to prove Oswald is anywhere on the TSBD steps or landing. But your "shadows" proffer is down right embarrassing.

That's just empty talk...

The science you are obviously oblivious to shows that the column/lintel corner shadow that you can see in Darnell on Frazier is also seen in the Davidson GIF on the cops' backs...If you look closely it is about 1.5 feet from the glass partition...

That's obviously why Davidson posted it even though he added no words himself...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 14, 2019, 12:51:11 AM
Now!

The resistance to the evidence putting Mr Oswald right behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shooting---------

(https://i.imgur.com/f2wUJ2c.jpg)

---------will come from various quarters:

1. Lone Nutters (but who cares------these poor souls' capacity for motivated reasoning is already legendary!  :D )

2. CTs who consider the second floor lunchroom incident sacrosanct (they'd rather keep that fiction alive than allow Mr Oswald his legitimate alibi)

3. CTs for whom JFK assassination research is an addictive hobby (the last thing they want to see is closure on the issue of Mr Oswald's whereabouts 12.30pm... what would they do with their days?)

4. 'CTs' pretending to be CTs (usually pretty easy to spot!)

5. Harvey and Lee nuts (The Great Armstrong doesn't put either Oswald on the steps so we sure as heck ain't gonna!)

6. CTs who have been heavily invested in the Prayer Man claim (it would be very sad to see Prayer Man become the new Lunchroom Incident-----i.e. the sacrosanct X that closes good people off to alternative ideas. Especially as Mr Oswald's alibi in Wiegman would never have been established had it not been for the brilliant and indefatigable work of the Prayer Man people. E.g.! Mr Kamp's game-changing unearthing of the Hosty notes that confirmed that Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have gone outside for the P. parade after a visit to the second floor lunchroom for a coke).

 Thumb1:

So anyone who questions Alan Fords theory of the day, is one of the above?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 01:35:46 AM
That's just empty talk...

The science you are obviously oblivious to shows that the column/lintel corner shadow that you can see in Darnell on Frazier is also seen in the Davidson GIF on the cops' backs...If you look closely it is about 1.5 feet from the glass partition...

That's obviously why Davidson posted it even though he added no words himself...

      Nobody, repeat Nobody stands with their back to a door that Opens Toward them and is a scant 1.5 feet away.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 07:00:19 AM
      Nobody, repeat Nobody stands with their back to a door that Opens Toward them and is a scant 1.5 feet away.

It also opens inward...

People stand with their backs toward doors all the time...

You're dodging answering the point about the shadows being similar on the cops and Frazier...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 14, 2019, 07:33:44 AM
So anyone who questions Alan Fords theory of the day, is one of the above?

Anyone who tries to explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the ridiculous way you have done, Mr Mason, certainly is!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Matthew Finch on November 14, 2019, 01:10:43 PM
Thank you very much for this, Mr Davidson! (How do you always seem to have such excellent versions of footage? It's wonderful!)  Thumb1:

Now!

What we're seeing here, in greater clarity than in the version of the Wiegman frames I have been posting, is that

------------------Mr Lovelady is stationary
------------------Mr Oswald (just behind him) is moving, one assumes because he is trying to get a better look at what's going on out on the street.

The Altgens photograph is taken at or around one of the points seen above (early frames!) where Mr Oswald's head is just to the left (=our right, i.e. east!) of Mr Lovelady's head. And Altgens shows a portion of Mr Oswald's head/face:

(https://i.imgur.com/mz3nkWV.gif)

Furthermore!

There is a lot of white t-shirt in the Oswald/Lovelady ensemble in Wiegman. Look closely and you will see that Mr Oswald appears to be wearing only his white t-shirt (no shirt!).

Had a dark vertical strip not been added to Mr Lovelady's right side, Mr Oswald's white t-shirt (and exposed right arm, and----who knows?-----maybe even a soda bottle in the right hand) would be all too evident even to a casual viewer. Which of course is why a dark vertical strip was added to Mr Lovelady's right side!

This latter observation------------Mr Oswald in a white tshirt only------------suggests that Mr Oswald is not Prayer Man in the Darnell film after all.

Which in turn means that it's perfectly possible that only one person noticed Mr Oswald in the few moments he spent out front for the motorcade:

Mr Frazier.

Like I say, what a heavy burden to have to carry. No wonder Captain Fritz hung the threat of a charge of conspiracy to murder JFK over him!


Looks like the aerial of the passing car is also causing interference with that 'flat-edged black shadow'...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 02:35:12 PM
Anyone who tries to explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the ridiculous way you have done, Mr Mason, certainly is!  Thumb1:

I don't see any credible researchers taking you seriously on that shadow business...

It's obviously just the shadow from the column on the west wall edge...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 03:27:36 PM
It also opens inward...

People stand with their backs toward doors all the time...

You're dodging answering the point about the shadows being similar on the cops and Frazier...

    There are pics of that TSBD door being OPEN Outward, and Frazier is very familiar with the TSBD. He's Not going to be standing with his Back facing a door that Opens toward him and only be 1.5 feet from that door. That door is probably roughly 2 Feet Wide to begin with = someone could Not even open it without nailing Frazier with it to begin with. Why Not stop dragging yourself any further downward with your silly positioning of Frazier?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
    There are pics of that TSBD door being OPEN Outward, and Frazier is very familiar with the TSBD. He's Not going to be standing with his Back facing a door that Opens toward him and only be 1.5 feet from that door. That door is probably roughly 2 Feet Wide to begin with = someone could Not even open it without nailing Frazier with it to begin with. Why Not stop dragging yourself any further downward with your silly positioning of Frazier?

You're not answering the point...If someone needed to come out when Frazier was there they could simply pull it inward...You're not only failing to carry your point but you're ignoring mine...

The way the door opens has nothing to do with the main point...That is, the lintel corner shadows you see on the cops' backs that Davidson posted show that Frazier is 1.5 feet from the glass partition...You're failing to answer the point that the shadow shown by Davidson on the cops' backs is identical to the one on Frazier's shoulder and chest and it shows he is about 1.5 feet from the door, no matter what way the door opens...You are failing to answer the pertinent logic and answering it with a regressive irrelevancy...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 04:04:44 PM
You're not answering the point...If someone needed to come out when Frazier was there they could simply pull it inward...You're not only failing to carry your point but you're ignoring mine...

The way the door opens has nothing to do with the main point...That is, the lintel corner shadows you see on the cops' backs that Davidson posted show that Frazier is 1.5 feet from the glass partition...You're failing to answer the point that the shadow shown by Davidson on the cops' backs is identical to the one on Frazier's shoulder and chest and it shows he is about 1.5 feet from the door, no matter what way the door opens...You are failing to answer the pertinent logic and answering it with a regressive irrelevancy...

    Wake up. This has Nothing to do with what someone Else might do. It has Everything to do with where Frazier would decide to stand KNOWING that door opened in his direction. No Way he would elect to stand 1.5 feet away from a 2 foot wide door that Opens Toward his Back.  Frazier NOT being within 1.5 feet of that door completely destroys your entire Shadow Hokum right out of the box.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 04:10:04 PM
    Wake up. This has Nothing to do with what someone Else might do. It has Everything to do with where Frazier would decide to stand KNOWING that door opened in his direction. No Way he would elect to stand 1.5 feet away from a 2 foot wide door that Opens Toward his Back.  Frazier NOT being within 1.5 feet of that door completely destroys your entire Shadow Hokum right out of the box.

That's not how evidence works...

The superior and determinative evidence are the shadows on the cops' backs...They don't go away because you start arguing the specious point about which way the door swings...

If you look closely at those shadows and match them to the shadow on Frazier in Darnell it shows Frazier is about 1.5 feet from the glass door...

You haven't answer this...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 14, 2019, 04:13:47 PM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer/Image with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 04:17:27 PM
A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.

Good point Larry...

The object on the cop's belt becomes illuminated by sunlight where the vertical shadow is...

Despite Alan Ford's misleading entries, this shows where the shadow was on Lovelady...

The door is 4 feet wide by the way...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 04:19:34 PM
That's not how evidence works...

The superior and determinative evidence are the shadows on the cops' backs...They don't go away because you start arguing the specious point about which way the door swings...

If you look closely at those shadows and match them to the shadow on Frazier in Darnell it shows Frazier is about 1.5 feet from the glass door...

You haven't answer this...

   If your "shadows" show Frazier to be Only 1.5 feet from the door, and THAT is Wrong, then everything Else these same "Shadows" are alleging showing is likewise called into question. Very simple
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 04:22:02 PM
   If your "shadows" show Frazier to be Only 1.5 feet from the door, and THAT is Wrong, then everything Else these same "Shadows" are alleging showing is likewise called into question. Very simple

The door is about 4 feet wide...

The cops are about half way along the door when the lintel corner shadow is in the same position it is on Frazier...

You're not answering the evidence as it was stated and it is obviously beyond your photo analysis skill level...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 04:22:34 PM
A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer/Image with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.

   Again, the absence of Light does Not automatically = a Shadow. This would be like claiming to be standing in a Shadow if you were situated inside a CAVE.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 04:25:47 PM
The door is about 4 feet wide...

The cops are about half way along the door when the lintel corner shadow is in the same position it is on Frazier...

You're not answering the evidence as it was stated and it is obviously beyond your photo analysis skill level...

   So NOW you have Frazier standing within 1.5 feet of a 4 FEET WIDE door that Opens toward him? And his Back is facing this same door?  I'm Not a Frazier guy but even I rate his IQ higher than that.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 14, 2019, 05:02:10 PM
   Again, the absence of Light does Not automatically = a Shadow. This would be like claiming to be standing in a Shadow if you were situated inside a CAVE.

The WiegmanFilm clip being discussed is of the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance portal, facing south, and slightly southeast, at about 12:30pm CST, on 11/22/'63, about 2000 miles north of the equator.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 05:06:04 PM
The WiegmanFilm clip being discussed is of the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance portal, facing south, and slightly southeast, at about 12:30pm CST, on 11/22/'63, about 2000 miles north of the equator.

    No. We are talking about a Cop. This explains your erroneous conclusion(s). Please Focus
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 05:07:48 PM
   So NOW you have Frazier standing within 1.5 feet of a 4 FEET WIDE door that Opens toward him? And his Back is facing this same door?  I'm Not a Frazier guy but even I rate his IQ higher than that.

You seem to be fighting the reality that Frazier is seen in front of a 4 foot wide door in Darnell...

The landing was only 4 feet wide...Which means anyone standing in the opening range of the door on the landing was within distance of the door...

The door also opened inward...

You are being silly and not answering the point...

You're not making sense because these things are all proven and we can see Frazier standing in front of the door in Darnell...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 05:14:16 PM
He says while cluelessly ignoring the shadow evidence Davidson just posted and how it illustrates Frazier being 1.5 feet in front of the doorway according to the shadows seen on the cops' backs...

The door swings both ways...

   Here you are again claiming that Frazier is, "1.5 feet in front of the doorway according to the shadows........".  YOU made this claim. If you Now want to run away from it that is OK. Just say so.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 14, 2019, 05:16:10 PM
    No. We are talking about a Cop. This explains your erroneous conclusion(s). Please Focus

You need not to be concerned about my focus, the discussion centers on a shaded area in WiegmanFilm. Mr Davidson's posted film clip offers a perfect corroborating illustration.
If agreement you seek, keep looking.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 05:18:46 PM
A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer/Image with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.

 Bump regarding COP Vertical Shadow reference. Please keep up
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 06:04:39 PM
   Here you are again claiming that Frazier is, "1.5 feet in front of the doorway according to the shadows........".  YOU made this claim. If you Now want to run away from it that is OK. Just say so.

You're not answering my last post...Instead you went and retrieved an earlier post and answered it...

You're the one who is running away by publicly not answering my last post...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 14, 2019, 07:24:51 PM
A very good illustration showing the DPD UniformedOfficer/Image with the white helmet stepping out of the landing's west side vertical shadow.

And what, pray, does the vertical shadow down the police officer in this post-assassination footage---------------------

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

------------------------have to do with the vertical shadow down Mr Lovelady in all relevant frames of the Wiegman film shot at 12.30pm?-------------------

(https://i.imgur.com/X9Gyoc3.gif)

 ::)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 14, 2019, 09:11:24 PM
And what, pray, does the vertical shadow down the police officer in this post-assassination footage---------------------

------------------------have to do with the vertical shadow down Mr Lovelady in all relevant frames of the Wiegman film shot at 12.30pm?-------------------

They are the same shadow if you have any kind of photo analysis skill what so ever...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 14, 2019, 10:13:04 PM
And what, pray, does the vertical shadow down the police officer in this post-assassination footage---------------------

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

------------------------have to do with the vertical shadow down Mr Lovelady in all relevant frames of the Wiegman film shot at 12.30pm?-------------------

(https://i.imgur.com/X9Gyoc3.gif)

 ::)

     He wants us to believe that Anybody or any body part that is obstructed from being seen is due to a "shadow" being cast.  He needs to take a ride on the Matterhorn. Also, it is interesting to see that front Door has been OPENED OUTWARD. Had Frazier been standing within 1.5 feet of that door when it was OPENED OUTWARD, he would have been viewing the JFK Motorcade from the Elm St. Ext
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 15, 2019, 01:15:40 AM
The front entrance door of the TSBD can open BOTH ways, either out. or inward.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Christer Jacobsson on November 15, 2019, 01:22:15 AM

Lovelady IMO..

https://photos.app.goo.gl/jzkzw6KCL9iZStKi8 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/jzkzw6KCL9iZStKi8)

Best Rgds,
Christer
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 15, 2019, 01:23:34 AM
Anyone who tries to explain away the magic 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the ridiculous way you have done, Mr Mason, certainly is!  Thumb1:

If I understand you right. Alan,  there has been some alteration of several frames of the Wiegman film in about 3 or 4 of 18 frames per sec sequence, in which the conspirator film experts were able to blacken out the shape of Oswald.

and I asked why the  conspirators would decide to leave SOME of the image of Oswald, his head as it were, rather than blacken the head out also, so as to leave NO chance of any Oswald EVER seen at all in the Wiegman film?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 15, 2019, 04:50:22 AM

Get back to us when you can answer Davidson's shadow evidence in his GIF Alan...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 15, 2019, 06:02:59 AM
They are the same shadow if you have any kind of photo analysis skill what so ever...

Says the guy who has no kind of photo analysis skill whatsoever.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 15, 2019, 06:13:10 AM
Get back to us when you can answer Davidson's shadow evidence in his GIF Alan...

There you go again, presuming yourself to be Davidson’s spokesperson. I suppose you’re going to call this “metadata” next.  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Tom Scully on November 15, 2019, 06:34:25 AM
Get back to us...

"us" ?

"...And there's a cold lonely light that shines from you
You'll wind up like the wreck you hide behind that mask you use...
"

https://www.amazon.com/review/R7U5WM5R54DLG/
(Click on "8 comments" link, under the Doyle alter ego, book review.)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/YatesDance_1of4.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 15, 2019, 07:47:37 AM
If I understand you right. Alan,  there has been some alteration of several frames of the Wiegman film in about 3 or 4 of 18 frames per sec sequence, in which the conspirator film experts were able to blacken out the shape of Oswald.

3 or 4 frames? Every single Wiegman frame showing Mr Lovelady has had a dark vertical strip added to his right side! Even when Mr Lovelady takes a step down, the 'shadow' moves down with him, continuing to cover most of his right side. Even if (in the parallel universe some of you KeepOswaldAwayFromTheFrontSteps people think hosted this assassination) the shadow line from the western column had extended diagonally right across much of the west side of the entranceway, this would be bizarre!

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

Quote
and I asked why the  conspirators would decide to leave SOME of the image of Oswald, his head as it were, rather than blacken the head out also, so as to leave NO chance of any Oswald EVER seen at all in the Wiegman film?

So your objection to the evidence of Mr Oswald's presence just behind Mr Lovelady is not that you have an alternative explanation for it but that the cover-up people in 1963 didn't predict the rise of digital technology and an online research community capable of producing 3D reconstructions of the entranceway!  :D

Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)

Here's what the original Wiegman film showed:

1. In the frames showing Mr Lovelady at higher elevation, the original Wiegman film showed
-----------a second head in very close proximity to Mr Lovelady's head (right behind it)
-----------a white tshirt and bare right arm, identifying the owner of the second head as a casually dressed white male employee.

Solution to the Lovelady@HigherElevation frames? Add a crude dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side. People will assume it's a natural shadow. In the absence of a second body, it's unlikely anyone will even notice the second head. Even if anyone were to do so, they won't be able to identify it as Mr Oswald's. Could be anybody!

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

2. In the frames showing Mr Lovelady at lower elevation, the original Wiegman film showed
-----------Mr Oswald's sunlit head/face now easily visible in all frames (because he hasn't changed elevation)
-----------Mr Oswald's t-shirted upper body and bare arms now easily visible
-----------> Mr Oswald now easily identifiable

Solution to the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames? Don't just add a crude dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side--------blacken out all of Mr Oswald, head included. It will be crude work, but it will fool the fools!

(https://i.imgur.com/NQ6j7H1.jpg)

The key point in all this is that the entire scam gambled on no one's ever noticing that the shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side couldn't possibly be a natural shadow. Up to very recently, the gamble paid off!

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 15, 2019, 05:23:14 PM

No serious researcher takes Alan's nutty claim seriously...

Even Kamp's website is alerting on Ford...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 15, 2019, 05:32:26 PM
No serious researcher takes Alan's nutty claim seriously...

Even Kamp's website is alerting on Ford...

    Why would anyone care what might be going on at another website? Are You incapable of evaluating Alan's claim On Your Own? Or do you need the companionship provided by a Mob?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 15, 2019, 06:47:48 PM
    Why would anyone care what might be going on at another website? Are You incapable of evaluating Alan's claim On Your Own? Or do you need the companionship provided by a Mob?

You're not seriously defending that nutty shadow claim?...

The dark area on Lovelady's right side is the shadow from the west wall column and tells you where Lovelady is standing and therefore orients the perspective...Ford is doing gremlin-like corruption of correct analysis...

It is willful ignorance of how the research community works to not reference the websites that are currently controlling the information on the assassination...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 15, 2019, 10:08:31 PM
No serious researcher takes Alan's nutty claim seriously...

Even Kamp's website is alerting on Ford...

I'm sure that they--------------unlike the toxically incompetent Mr Doyle!-------------actually understand how shadows work and so will not press either the absurd case that Mr Stancak and Mr Hackerott got their shadow line calculations completely wrong or the equally absurd case that Mr Lovelady is way over near the west wall. Unlike the toxically incompetent Mr Doyle, they have eyes to see:

(https://i.imgur.com/tcO7y05.jpg)

And so I trust that the brighter ones amongst their number have been quietly studying this thread very carefully. Certainly they will have noticed that no one here has offered anything close to a credible rebuttal of my argument!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 15, 2019, 10:14:03 PM
I'm sure that they--------------unlike the toxically incompetent Mr Doyle!-------------actually understand how shadows work and so will not press either the absurd case that Mr Stancak and Mr Hackerott got their shadow line calculations completely wrong or the equally absurd case that Mr Lovelady is way over near the west wall. Unlike the toxically incompetent Mr Doyle, they have eyes to see:

(https://i.imgur.com/tcO7y05.jpg)

And so I trust that the brighter ones amongst their number have been quietly studying this thread very carefully. Certainly they will have noticed that no one here has offered anything close to a credible rebuttal of my argument!  Thumb1:

     The lack of rebuttal would include the Forum Cartoonist Mytton. You know you are onto something when he goes crickets.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 15, 2019, 10:23:32 PM
     The lack of rebuttal would include the Forum Cartoonist Mytton. You know you are onto something when he goes crickets.

In fairness to Mr Mytton, he may be a coward but it's not his fault he can't offer a rebuttal-------------it's Mr Oswald's fault for going outside to watch the P. parade!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/5X9UiHu.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 01:57:23 AM
Bump regarding COP Vertical Shadow reference. Please keep up

Keep up with a non-provable claim that LeeHarveyOswald was on the Top Step/Landing of the TSBD Bldg Entrance Portal during filming by DaveWiegman? No Thanks.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 16, 2019, 03:04:44 PM
I'm sure that they--------------unlike the toxically incompetent Mr Doyle!-------------actually understand how shadows work and so will not press either the absurd case that Mr Stancak and Mr Hackerott got their shadow line calculations completely wrong or the equally absurd case that Mr Lovelady is way over near the west wall. Unlike the toxically incompetent Mr Doyle, they have eyes to see:

And so I trust that the brighter ones amongst their number have been quietly studying this thread very carefully. Certainly they will have noticed that no one here has offered anything close to a credible rebuttal of my argument!  Thumb1:

You're avoiding the point...

The person or blur you are calling Oswald is not Oswald because Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at the time...

The dark area on Lovelady's right side is the shadow from the west wall column edge...

You've already been shown that Hughes shows Lovelady over by the west wall where he said he was when the limousine passed...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 03:33:34 PM
If I understand you right. Alan,  there has been some alteration of several frames of the Wiegman film in about 3 or 4 of 18 frames per sec sequence, in which the conspirator film experts were able to blacken out the shape of Oswald.

and I asked why the  conspirators would decide to leave SOME of the image of Oswald, his head as it were, rather than blacken the head out also, so as to leave NO chance of any Oswald EVER seen at all in the Wiegman film?

Another question would be when was the WiegmanFilm first publicly seen? But, WiegmanFilm alteration to hide LeeHarveyOswald is a baseless claim. He is not there!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 16, 2019, 03:41:40 PM
The person or blur you are calling Oswald is not Oswald because Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at the time...

That’s such a ridiculous circular argument. Alan could just as easily say that Oswald couldn’t be in the 2nd floor lunchroom because he was out on the front steps.

Quote
You've already been shown that Hughes shows Lovelady over by the west wall where he said he was when the limousine passed...

Bull. Hughes shows an indistinct reddish blob somewhere in the entryway that could just as easily be near the center handrail.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 16, 2019, 04:17:56 PM
Keep up with a non-provable claim that LeeHarveyOswald was on the Top Step/Landing of the TSBD Bldg Entrance Portal during filming by DaveWiegman? No Thanks.

    Forget the Oswald claim. Instead, tell this Forum exactly what is that Straight-As-A-String, Jet Black, Curtain.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 04:38:19 PM
I'm sure that they--------------unlike the toxically incompetent Mr Doyle!-------------actually understand how shadows work and so will not press either the absurd case that Mr Stancak and Mr Hackerott got their shadow line calculations completely wrong or the equally absurd case that Mr Lovelady is way over near the west wall. Unlike the toxically incompetent Mr Doyle, they have eyes to see:

(https://i.imgur.com/tcO7y05.jpg)

And so I trust that the brighter ones amongst their number have been quietly studying this thread very carefully. Certainly they will have noticed that no one here has offered anything close to a credible rebuttal of my argument!  Thumb1:

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?

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 16, 2019, 04:45:15 PM

Although I do not embrace Mr Stancak's calculations regarding shadow lines, and Mannequin/Image placement, I do have total confidence that Mr Hackerott's calculations regarding shadow lines, and Mannequin/Image placement, are quite accurate.

A credible rebuttal of your argument? Your baseless argument is not credible. Where is your reliable evidence? Is your "evidence" based on a double exposure alteration of image sizing and placement, filmed by an in motion hand held motion picture camera, by a Camerman riding in a Motorcade Vehicle?

Perhaps, you can explain why there is no eyewitness statements/testimony, among numerous eyewitnesses available, that places LeeHarveyOswald on the Top Step/Landing/Stairs at the time of the Motorcade driving past the TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance?


    Come on Larry. Look at that Curtain. It is Unlike Any actual shadow anywhere close to those steps/hand rail. That curtain looks like Lovelady has a Jet Black trench coat thrown over his shoulder.  Lovelady is Not hugging the West wall and he is Not standing on top of the landing. This shadow stuff defies what we are seeing.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 05:00:24 PM
    Forget the Oswald claim. Instead, tell this Forum exactly what is that Straight-As-A-String, Jet Black, Curtain.

That is your claim. I do not claim the shadow line on BillyLovelady/Image's right side remains straight in WiegmanFilm. As a matter of fact, it does not!

It need not take a photography expert to correctly conclude that the shading and darkened area is due to blocked sunlight creating a shadow, and photograph/film frame light/dark contrast.

That is what I see, Forum!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 16, 2019, 05:40:21 PM
That is your claim. I do not claim the shadow line on BillyLovelady/Image's right side remains straight in WiegmanFilm. As a matter of fact, it does not!

It need not take a photography expert to correctly conclude that the shading and darkened area is due to blocked sunlight creating a shadow, and photograph/film frame light/dark contrast.

That is what I see, Forum!

    What you are referring to as "darkend" is actually JET BLACK. As in Jet Black inside a tunnel. Take a look at other shadows inside Dealey Plaza. Stemmons Sign, etc. Straight and Depth of BLACK.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 16, 2019, 06:39:03 PM
    What you are referring to as "darkend" is actually JET BLACK. As in Jet Black inside a tunnel. Take a look at other shadows inside Dealey Plaza. Stemmons Sign, etc. Straight and Depth of BLACK.

My comments relate to BillyLovelady/Image as seen in WiegmanFilm of the TSBD Bldg Entrance Portal at the time that the MotorcadeVehicle/CameraCar carrying Camerman/DaveWiegman is turning, and/or has turned on to Elm St from Houston St. And, I do not embrace any correlation between said filming and what may be seen, or unseen in WiegmanFilm in other areas and from other camera positioning/status/locations/angles.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 16, 2019, 09:33:22 PM

Although I do not embrace Mr Stancak's calculations regarding shadow lines, and Mannequin/Image placement, I do have total confidence that Mr Hackerott's calculations regarding shadow lines, and Mannequin/Image placement, are quite accurate.

 :D

Mr Hackerott's shadow line calculations are no different to Mr Stancak's!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 16, 2019, 11:59:40 PM
some questions

1. If there was a conspirator able to examine the Wiegman film, frame by frame, and had the skill to use some technique to blacken out the figure, why would they leave the head of the figure still visible?

2. If the 2nd head is Oswalds, why is it almost the same height as Billy Lovelady? If Oswald is behind Lovelady, he is most likely standing on one step higher, thus should be about 7 or more inches higher than Lovelady. Can you show this figure is 'bending his knees, or leaning forward in a way that can lower his head to same level as Lovelady head?

3. If its Oswald, and he is IN THE MIDST of several people, now the probability of him not being seen is  approaching "impossible", even more than when Alan Ford was certain that Prayerblob was Oswald "in the corner"  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 12:16:01 AM
some questions

1. If there was a conspirator able to examine the Wiegman film, frame by frame, and had the skill to use some technique to blacken out the figure, why would they leave the head of the figure still visible?

a question

If Mr Ford has already addressed this question at length in Post #570, why is Mr Mason mindlessly asking it again?  ::)

Quote
2. If the 2nd head is Oswalds, why is it almost the same height as Billy Lovelady?

Both on the landing--------------Mr Lovelady is leaning, Mr Oswald is not.  Thumb1:

Quote
3. If its Oswald, and he is IN THE MIDST of several people, now the probability of him not being seen is  approaching "impossible", even more than when Alan Ford was certain that Prayerblob was Oswald "in the corner"  ;)

Oh, that's easy!

a) Everyone is focused on the P. parade.

b) Only one person has Mr Oswald in their line of sight: Mr Frazier.

c) Mr Oswald only pops out front for a very short time before returning back inside to the vestibule.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 17, 2019, 01:19:09 AM
3 or 4 frames? Every single Wiegman frame showing Mr Lovelady has had a dark vertical strip added to his right side! Even when Mr Lovelady takes a step down, the 'shadow' moves down with him, continuing to cover most of his right side. Even if (in the parallel universe some of you KeepOswaldAwayFromTheFrontSteps people think hosted this assassination) the shadow line from the western column had extended diagonally right across much of the west side of the entranceway, this would be bizarre!

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

So your objection to the evidence of Mr Oswald's presence just behind Mr Lovelady is not that you have an alternative explanation for it but that the cover-up people in 1963 didn't predict the rise of digital technology and an online research community capable of producing 3D reconstructions of the entranceway!  :D

Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)

Here's what the original Wiegman film showed:

1. In the frames showing Mr Lovelady at higher elevation, the original Wiegman film showed
-----------a second head in very close proximity to Mr Lovelady's head (right behind it)
-----------a white tshirt and bare right arm, identifying the owner of the second head as a casually dressed white male employee.

Solution to the Lovelady@HigherElevation frames? Add a crude dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side. People will assume it's a natural shadow. In the absence of a second body, it's unlikely anyone will even notice the second head. Even if anyone were to do so, they won't be able to identify it as Mr Oswald's. Could be anybody!

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

2. In the frames showing Mr Lovelady at lower elevation, the original Wiegman film showed
-----------Mr Oswald's sunlit head/face now easily visible in all frames (because he hasn't changed elevation)
-----------Mr Oswald's t-shirted upper body and bare arms now easily visible
-----------> Mr Oswald now easily identifiable

Solution to the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames? Don't just add a crude dark strip down Mr Lovelady's right side--------blacken out all of Mr Oswald, head included. It will be crude work, but it will fool the fools!

(https://i.imgur.com/NQ6j7H1.jpg)

The key point in all this is that the entire scam gambled on no one's ever noticing that the shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side couldn't possibly be a natural shadow. Up to very recently, the gamble paid off!

 Thumb1:


Your post no. 570 in which you claim that 2nd head which IS VISIBLE, therefore NOT blackened out, is the head of Oswald.

Your suggestion that the conspirators were pressed for time, yet they apparently had enough time to examine EACH FRAME of the Wiegman film AND had the time to use a technique of some sort to INDIVIDUALLY blacken EACH FRAME one by one, which is NOT  a hastily done process... and yet.. the HEAD which is VISIBLE , they MISSED?????

Whether the conspirators anticipated future examination of Wiegman film with improved tech in the future is irrelevant to my question WHY DIDNT THEY BLACKEN OUT THE FACE of the supposed Oswald figure?

do you have another explanation than "a rush job" as the reason to have missed the 2nd head which if it is as distinguishable as you claim to be Oswald, they SURELY should have made EVERY effort to make sure the most ESSENTIAL element of the figure, the FACE is blacken out.

Or is the 2nd head an aberration or motion blur and does NOT actually exist? If that is the reason for the 2nd head being visible, THEN your anomalous black shadow alteration theory makes more sense, at least to me :)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 01:29:16 AM

Your post no. 570 in which you claim that 2nd head which IS VISIBLE, therefore NOT blackened out, is the head of Oswald.

Your suggestion that the conspirators were pressed for time, yet they apparently had enough time to examine EACH FRAME of the Wiegman film AND had the time to use a technique of some sort to INDIVIDUALLY blacken EACH FRAME one by one, which is NOT  a hastily done process... and yet.. the HEAD which is VISIBLE , they MISSED?????

Whether the conspirators anticipated future examination of Wiegman film with improved tech in the future is irrelevant to my question WHY DIDNT THEY BLACKEN OUT THE FACE of the supposed Oswald figure?

Because it wasn't necessary!  Thumb1:

Quote
do you have another explanation than "a rush job" as the reason to have missed the 2nd head which if it is as distinguishable as you claim to be Oswald

Where did I claim it was distinguishable as Mr Oswald's head?

Quote
, they SURELY should have made EVERY effort to make sure the most ESSENTIAL element of the figure, the FACE is blacken out.

If you're unhappy with the cover-up investigators' work, take it up with them not with me!  Thumb1:

Quote
Or is the 2nd head an aberration or motion blur and does NOT actually exist? If that is the reason for the 2nd head being visible, THEN your anomalous black shadow alteration theory makes more sense, at least to me :)

Huh? They cast half of Mr Lovelady's body into darkness for the heck of it?  ::)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 17, 2019, 01:44:52 AM
Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)


If Mr.Fords statement above is correct, then it READILY APPARENT that the conspirators made a HUGE mistake in not blackening out the 2nd head.

They were Rushed? :D yet they had enough time to meticulously go frame by frame of Wiegman carefully blackened out some figure they thought was Oswald, but.. Missed his face, AND missed the white T shirt and whatever else Mr.Ford thinks he sees in there  :D

What about my question if the 2nd head phenom is just motion blur? Agree or Not agree?

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 01:54:57 AM
Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)


If Mr.Fords statement above is correct, then it READILY APPARENT that the conspirators made a HUGE mistake in not blackening out the 2nd head.

If it was such a HUGE mistake, Mr Mason, why did it take until 21 October 2019 for the second head even to be noticed?

Quote
They were Rushed? :D yet they had enough time to meticulously go frame by frame of Wiegman carefully blackened out some figure they thought was Oswald, but.. Missed his face,

Can't you read? They didn't miss his face in those frames where it was identifiable.

Quote
AND missed the white T shirt and whatever else Mr.Ford thinks he sees in there  :D

What about my question if the 2nd head phenom is just motion blur? Agree or Not agree?

Funny how it only happens to Mr Lovelady--------------yes, that would be the same Mr Lovelady who has an impossible 'shadow' down his right side!

Your problem, Mr Mason, is that you talk as though that dark strip in all the Wiegman frames has found a credible alternative explanation to the one I have offered. It hasn't-------not even close. Your own explanation-----------it's the vertical shadow we see on Mr Frazier in Darnell------------did win marks for hilarity though!   :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:06:33 AM
    Forget the Oswald claim. Instead, tell this Forum exactly what is that Straight-As-A-String, Jet Black, Curtain.

For a start the darkened area follows Lovelady's shirt and isn't straight. And since you've only seen a copy of a copy of a video copy of a 16mm film, claiming the area is jet black is a little premature. Has your monitor been professionally calibrated?

(https://i.postimg.cc/zDtRvwcD/lovelady-shadow-steps.gif)

Here is the video and the amount of motion blur in these frames is obviously excessive and then you want to believe that someone painted in the motion blur along with the shadow into multiple frames where they essentially had to "guess" exactly what to paint and still make it photo realistic? And instead of just easily removing the frames which nobody would miss they undertook some massive project with so much potential for failure, why would they bother?
It must be really neat to live in a fantasy world where you can imagine anything you want and totally ignore any scientific technicalities.

(https://i.postimg.cc/YC2ZMNyF/lovelady-shadow.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:10:23 AM
For a start the darkened area follows Lovelady's shirt and isn't straight. And since you've only seen a copy of a copy of a video copy of a 16mm film, claiming the area is jet black is a little premature. Has your monitor been professionally calibrated?

(https://i.postimg.cc/zDtRvwcD/lovelady-shadow-steps.gif)

Here is the video and the amount of motion blur in these frames is obviously excessive and then you want to believe that someone painted in the motion blur along with the shadow into multiple frames where they essentially had to "guess" exactly what to paint and still make it photo realistic? And instead of just easily removing the frames which nobody would miss they undertook some massive project with so much potential for failure, why would they bother?
It must be really neat to live in a fantasy world where you can imagine anything you want and totally ignore any scientific technicalities.

(https://i.postimg.cc/YC2ZMNyF/lovelady-shadow.gif)

JohnM

Synopsis: Mr Mytton still can't explain why there's a dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:10:48 AM
Now!

The priority in this rush job was to kill any identification of Mr Oswald in Wiegman. (Remember: they knew exactly where to find Mr Oswald in Wiegman, because Mr Oswald will have told Captain Fritz in his first interrogation exactly where he was at the time of the shooting. Mr Lovelady's name will have been mentioned, which explains why they went straight to him with a blowup of the Altgens photograph.)


If Mr.Fords statement above is correct, then it READILY APPARENT that the conspirators made a HUGE mistake in not blackening out the 2nd head.

They were Rushed? :D yet they had enough time to meticulously go frame by frame of Wiegman carefully blackened out some figure they thought was Oswald, but.. Missed his face, AND missed the white T shirt and whatever else Mr.Ford thinks he sees in there  :D

What about my question if the 2nd head phenom is just motion blur? Agree or Not agree?

All good questions but don't expect a coherent answer, watching Ford fumble, stumble and bumble his way through his latest hare brained theory is frankly hilarious!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:12:18 AM
All good questions but don't expect a coherent answer, watching Ford fumble, stumble and bumble his way through his latest hare brained theory is frankly hilarious!

JohnM

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:19:05 AM
Synopsis: Mr Mytton still can't explain why there's a dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side!  Thumb1:

 ;D >:( 8) ??? ::) :) :-[ :-\ :-*

I don't really care, Oswald had many opportunities to tell the world that he was on the steps with his friends watching the P.Parade and for some reason he never said "Boo" and on top of this Oswald agreed with the question that he was inside at the time. It's all over red rover!

@1:13

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:21:40 AM
;D >:( 8) ??? ::) :) :-[ :-\ :-*

I don't really care, Oswald had many opportunities to tell the world that he was on the steps with his friends watching the P.Parade and for some reason he never said "Boo" and on top of this Oswald agreed with the question that he was inside at the time. It's all over red rover!

@1:13

JohnM

Oh, but you do care, Mr Mytton----------and it's plain for all to see that you've been checkmated!  :D

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:33:13 AM
I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

 Thumb1:

I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE, along with your mate Storing, you just want to believe that anything you can dream up is possible but you haven't got a clue on how anything is technically accomplished.
How about you try and manipulate a piece of film and see how it's done and then see if you can actually replicate the same type of images on your computer and when you discover how bloody hard it really is, then try to imagine how difficult it is with film celluloid and a can of paint.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:39:04 AM
I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE, along with your mate Storing, you just want to believe that anything you can dream up is possible but you haven't got a clue on how anything is technically accomplished.
How about you try and manipulate a piece of film and see how it's done and then see if you can actually replicate the same type of images on your computer and when you discover how bloody hard it really is, then try to imagine how difficult it is with film celluloid and a can of paint.

JohnM

 :D

Still drawing a humiliating blank, Mr Mytton? Keep trying!  Thumb1:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:45:17 AM
Oh, but you do care, Mr Mytton----------and it's plain for all to see that you've been checkmated!  :

Sorry, but I really don't give a stuff.
I only had my first look at this today and all I can see a lot of uneducated guesses based on other peoples uneducated guesses. When I see some genuine evidence that supports your theory then I'll take note but waving your arms and making your usual bluster saying "I can see it, why can't you" is not really convincing.

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:47:40 AM
:D

Still drawing a humiliating blank, Mr Mytton? Keep trying!  Thumb1:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

No, it's YOUR claim not mine and it's YOUR job to prove that what YOU are proposing is possible, as I just said waving your arms isn't proof of anything.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 02:55:59 AM
No, it's YOUR claim not mine and it's YOUR job to prove that what YOU are proposing is possible, as I just said waving your arms isn't proof of anything.

JohnM

:D

It's not my 'claim' that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady cannot possibly be a natural shadow from the western column-------it's just the reality.

Your problem, Mr Mytton, is that you're too intelligent to push any of the ridiculous explanations others have offered to explain away that dark vertical 'shadow', but too dishonest to admit in front of everyone that you're totally stumped by this problem. Hence all your entertaining bluster and diversion!

Thanks for the laughs, and do let us know if you think of anything!  Thumb1:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 02:59:20 AM

Thanks for the laughs, and do let us know if you think of anything!  Thumb1:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

It's never been my claim, support your ideas with some reasonable proof and let's see what happens, K.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 03:07:12 AM
It's never been my claim, support your ideas with some reasonable proof and let's see what happens, K.

JohnM

But I've already given ample proof that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady cannot possibly be shadow from the western column------------just as you've already given ample proof that you cannot explain how that dark strip got there!  Thumb1:

If I'm mischaracterizing the situation, just complete this sentence for us:

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman: _________________________.

Over to you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 03:42:32 AM
But I've already given ample proof that the dark strip down Mr Lovelady cannot possibly be shadow from the western column------------just as you've already given ample proof that you cannot explain how that dark strip got there!  Thumb1:

Where is your evidence, have you recreated the camera's position at the Depository or in a computer, and then placed Lovelady in all the different possible places along the camera's point of view?

Quote
Over to you!

Are you joking this has nothing to do with me! Stop passing the buck. Present some evidence that will dazzle the senses, go ahead and make my day and stop asking people to prove YOUR theory, it's always been YOUR claim and it's YOUR responsibility to prove it. Well? Waiting......

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 17, 2019, 03:52:56 AM
I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE, along with your mate Storing, you just want to believe that anything you can dream up is possible but you haven't got a clue on how anything is technically accomplished.
How about you try and manipulate a piece of film and see how it's done and then see if you can actually replicate the same type of images on your computer and when you discover how bloody hard it really is, then try to imagine how difficult it is with film celluloid and a can of paint.

JohnM

     Your claiming it is "difficult" to do does Not Disprove anything. To the contrary, You are actually validating that it is possible.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 04:25:29 AM
     Your claiming it is "difficult" to do does Not Disprove anything. To the contrary, You are actually validating that it is possible.

As usual Storing, you're way out of your depth and if you think that what I said validates Ford's fantasies then prove it?
Btw maybe learn how to post an image or two and really give it to me!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 17, 2019, 04:33:47 AM
As usual Storing, you're way out of your depth and if you think that what I said validates Ford's fantasies then prove it?
Btw maybe learn how to post an image or two and really give it to me!

JohnM

     You said it was "difficult" Not impossible. Check out the Hackerott review of the Darnell film he viewed at the 6th Floor Museum. It's over on the Photo Side of the Forum. He said he viewed Camera Car #2 STOPPED. This is why we have films and images with Incorrect Time Stamps. The Camera Cars were STOPPED and time was passing. This is why guys such as Wiegman eventually bailed out of their cars.  Tick, Tick, Tick.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 04:43:57 AM
     You said it was "difficult" Not impossible.

I gave you a rational explanation why your theory is IMPOSSIBLE,....

JohnM

Quote
This is why we have films and images with Incorrect Time Stamps.

And not so long ago you claimed that you had photographic proof that "a few minutes later" in Dealey Plaza, the Presidential Parade was all gone, now you admit you have no idea, nice, thanks for your support.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 11:56:08 AM
Where is your evidence, have you recreated the camera's position at the Depository or in a computer, and then placed Lovelady in all the different possible places along the camera's point of view?

Already done, Mr Mytton------------Messrs Stancak and Hackerott both did meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway at 12.30pm 11/22/63. And guess what? It is simply not possible to put Mr Lovelady anywhere near the natural shadow line of the western column!

No one has been able to challenge their calculations. If you think you can, we're all ears! Thumb1:

Quote
Are you joking this has nothing to do with me! Stop passing the buck. Present some evidence that will dazzle the senses, go ahead and make my day and stop asking people to prove YOUR theory, it's always been YOUR claim and it's YOUR responsibility to prove it. Well? Waiting......

 :D

I'm not asking anyone to prove my theory, Mr Mytton, I'm inviting them to refute one of its planks: the magic shadow down Mr Lovelady.

Thus far... no one has been able to explain this:

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

Can you?

I, Mr John Mytton, have a rational explanation for the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman: _________________________.

Good luck!  Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 17, 2019, 02:46:30 PM

Because Alan Ford says so...

In the meantime reality and good photo analysis dictate that you are not bringing the shadow to Lovelady but are instead bringing Lovelady to the shadow and that tells you where he is...

Alan is full of wishful thinking but totally lacks any sense of photo perspective...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 17, 2019, 04:03:57 PM
And not so long ago you claimed that you had photographic proof that "a few minutes later" in Dealey Plaza, the Presidential Parade was all gone, now you admit you have no idea, nice, thanks for your support.

JohnM

    You claimed it was "DIFFICULT". Difficult is Not the same as impossible. Maybe you mis-spoke? If you want to rescind your "DIFFICULT" declaration, just declare so.  You Goofed. So what? Not the 1st time You have done this.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 17, 2019, 04:39:26 PM
Where is your evidence, have you recreated the camera's position at the Depository or in a computer, and then placed Lovelady in all the different possible places along the camera's point of view?

Are you joking this has nothing to do with me! Stop passing the buck. Present some evidence that will dazzle the senses, go ahead and make my day and stop asking people to prove YOUR theory, it's always been YOUR claim and it's YOUR responsibility to prove it. Well? Waiting......

JohnM

Thank you, JohnMytton, for sticking to your forum guns. You are on the correct side of history on this discussion. However, it appears that the agenda continues to forward a "claim", that is non-provable, that LeeHarveyOswald is on the TSBD Bldg entrance landing as the Motorcade drove past..
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 17, 2019, 04:56:24 PM
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 have nothing to "disprove", John. It appears to be a claim by AlanFord, and encouraged by RoyelleStoring, and it is that claim that needs to be proven.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan J. Ford on November 17, 2019, 07:28:40 PM
In two separate instances now, law enforcement officials (one at the state level, Captain Fritz, and now one, Mr. Hosty, at the federal) place the wrongly accused outside in front of his workplace, nowhere near a contrived sniper's nest six stories away from the front entrance. In both of those separate instances, their respective notes were hidden from public view and consumption. No doubt there are more notes that aren't meant to see the light of day, essentially also placing the wrongly accused out in front as the presidential limousine passed the TSBD. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.

Now, back to the theme of the OP's thread. Though I disagree with Mr. Ford's placement of the wrongly accused, Those front steps and its occupants that fateful afternoon are the key to shedding light, truth and justice in this case.  Carry on gentlemen, you too, Mr. Doyle.

The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 07:55:15 PM
Already done, Mr Mytton------------Messrs Stancak and Hackerott both did meticulous 3D reconstructions of the entranceway at 12.30pm 11/22/63. And guess what? It is simply not possible to put Mr Lovelady anywhere near the natural shadow line of the western column!

No one has been able to challenge their calculations. If you think you can, we're all ears! Thumb1:


Expecting me to go and hunt for your evidence that proves your theory is a waste of my time.
If you had any confidence in your theory, you would have simply posted this evidence?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 08:06:20 PM
Expecting me to go and hunt for your evidence that proves your theory is a waste of my time.
If you had any confidence in your theory, you would have simply posted this evidence?

JohnM

Oh but I have full confidence in my finding of Mr Oswald just behind Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, Mr Mytton------------and the inability of you or any of your fellow Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Steps fanatics to explain the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady has only boosted that confidence! 

Off you scurry! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 08:12:40 PM
In two separate instances now, law enforcement officials (one at the state level, Captain Fritz, and now one, Mr. Hosty, at the federal) place the wrongly accused outside in front of his workplace, nowhere near a contrived sniper's nest six stories away from the front entrance. In both of those separate instances, their respective notes were hidden from public view and consumption. No doubt there are more notes that aren't meant to see the light of day, essentially also placing the wrongly accused out in front as the presidential limousine passed the TSBD. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.

Now, back to the theme of the OP's thread. Though I disagree with Mr. Ford's placement of the wrongly accused, Those front steps and its occupants that fateful afternoon are the key to shedding light, truth and justice in this case.  Carry on gentlemen, you too, Mr. Doyle.

The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.

This!  Thumb1:

And if Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. parade" had been a pathetic lie told by a cornered liar----------------------as Team Keep LHO Away From Those Front Steps would have us believe--------------------it wouldn't have been buried the way it was.

He was out there.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 17, 2019, 08:14:21 PM

That's a false argument...

What is really happening is Ford can't explain why the dark area isn't simply the straight-edged shadow from the west wall column?...
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 17, 2019, 08:17:11 PM
This!  Thumb1:

And if Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. parade" had been a pathetic lie told by a cornered liar----------------------as Team Keep LHO Away From Those Front Steps would have us believe--------------------it wouldn't have been buried the way it was.

He was out there.

He says as he ignores the witnesses who placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...

Sarah Stanton saw Oswald itching to get back in to the lunch room which is where he was when Carolyn Arnold saw him and where he stayed up until Baker & Truly saw him...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 08:32:17 PM
Now!

It is often claimed that the Altgens photograph-------------------

(https://i.imgur.com/Poenc5g.jpg)

-----------------corresponds with those frames in Wiegman showing Mr Lovelady at the higher elevation:

(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

However, the correspondence is not punctual. There is a slight time gap between them.

We can see this by comparing and contrasting the position of Mr Lovelady's tshirt relative to his head in the respective images!

(https://i.imgur.com/Poenc5g.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

In Altgens, Mr Lovelady's upper body would appear to be twisted somewhat as he leans east; in Wiegman, it would appear to be more parallel with the glass doors (but leaning east too).

Now Wiegman shows the second 'Lovelady' head (i.e. Oswald's) moving in relation to Mr Lovelady's:

(https://i.imgur.com/O38HVMR.gif)

 In the earliest frames, Mr Oswald's head (the higher of the two) appears on one side of Mr Lovelady's; in the later, on the other:

(https://i.imgur.com/vOz8I4m.jpg)

This leads me to believe Altgens must have been taken just before the first of the Wiegman frames. For Altgens shows a segment of skin just peeking out to Mr Lovelady's left:

(https://i.imgur.com/5cXzmzI.gif)

Of course this also means that Altgens confirms------------as though confirmation were needed  ;) -------------that the second 'Lovelady' head in Wiegman is real!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2019, 09:12:23 PM
Now!

To those who still hold out some residual hope that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman might be way over by the shadow line from the western column, consider----------------with the aid of Mr Hackerott's 3D reconstruction-----------------what putting Mr Lovelady far enough west so that the shadow would catch him would do to the spatial relation between Mr Lovelady and PrayerPerson:

(https://i.imgur.com/K8ps7rL.jpg)

No matter which spot on the shadow line you choose to put Mr Lovelady in, he will be blocking PrayerPerson from Wiegman's view!

Now compare what we actually see in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/K8ps7rL.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

It's not even close!  :D

And the problem is even worse when Mr Lovelady steps down to a lower elevation, for the lower you go the nearer you have to go to the west wall to catch shadow:

(https://i.imgur.com/kD78AGm.gif)(https://i.imgur.com/K8ps7rL.jpg)

The theory that Mr Lovelady is caught by natural shadow is, always has been and always will be a complete joke!

That dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady is not, never has been and never will be a natural shadow!


That impossible shadow is the 'smoking gun' in the question of Mr Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 17, 2019, 11:31:09 PM
Now!

To those who still hold out some residual hope that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman might be way over by the shadow line from the western column, consider----------------with the aid of Mr Hackerott's 3D reconstruction-----------------what putting Mr Lovelady far enough west so that the shadow would catch him would do to the spatial relation between Mr Lovelady and PrayerPerson:


Sorry.

(https://i.postimg.cc/VNhtn3XK/loveaa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 17, 2019, 11:58:27 PM
You have no idea of the accuracy of Hackerott's graphic besides your usual sales pitch...

There's nothing in there that is prohibitive of the dark area being shadow from the column...

The shadow might be slightly more east than Stancak and Hackerott realize...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Rick Plant on November 18, 2019, 12:16:11 AM
He says as he ignores the witnesses who placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...

Sarah Stanton saw Oswald itching to get back in to the lunch room which is where he was when Carolyn Arnold saw him and where he stayed up until Baker & Truly saw him...

A false lie. Sarah Stanton never said this.

Sarah Stanton:  (3-18-64 statement to the FBI, 22H675) “I was born on 6-9-22..I am a white female...when President John F. Kennedy was shot, I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository with Mr. William Shelley, Mr. Otis Williams, Mrs. T.B. Saunders, and Billy Lovelady. I heard three shots after the President’s car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President’s car at that time. I cannot say positively where the shots came from. "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day.”
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Rick Plant on November 18, 2019, 12:17:45 AM
You have no idea of the accuracy of Hackerott's graphic besides your usual sales pitch...

There's nothing in there that is prohibitive of the dark area being shadow from the column...

The shadow might be slightly more east than Stancak and Hackerott realize...

You have no idea yourself when you say "might".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 18, 2019, 12:43:47 AM
He says as he ignores the witnesses who placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...

Sarah Stanton saw Oswald itching to get back in to the lunch room which is where he was when Carolyn Arnold saw him and where he stayed up until Baker & Truly saw him...

Doyle fabrications.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 18, 2019, 12:56:01 AM
Alan, I think the problem with the 2 heads is that Billy Lovelady is being captured in 1/18th sec increments IN THE PROCESS of moving from the upper level landing, which is where his WC testimony states he WAS.. and then he is about to step down to the next lower step, thus making room for Buell Frazier to eventually move forward into the sunlight.

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 08:30:01 AM
Sorry.

(https://i.postimg.cc/VNhtn3XK/loveaa.gif)

JohnM

 :D :D :D

Seriously, though, Mr Mytton, you should never apologize for giving the joy of laughter!

Mr Mytton, friends, thinks the shadow line from the western column looks like this (pink line):

(https://i.imgur.com/S9BxPVW.jpg)

He has entered the Doyle Zone!

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has a simple and rational explanation: it's a shadow made of magic!"

  :D

 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 08:37:22 AM
Alan, I think the problem with the 2 heads is that Billy Lovelady is being captured in 1/18th sec increments IN THE PROCESS of moving from the upper level landing, which is where his WC testimony states he WAS.. and then he is about to step down to the next lower step, thus making room for Buell Frazier to eventually move forward into the sunlight.

Nope, Mr Mason, the problem with the 2 heads is that you would really rather they weren't there! Your explanation here, like all your previous knock-down objections on this issue, makes scant sense!

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 02:17:35 PM

Lovelady is in the wrong position...

There's no rational analysis attached to Ford's entries...

Just him saying so and mocking others...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 18, 2019, 02:55:31 PM
Lovelady is in the wrong position...

There's no rational analysis attached to Ford's entries...

Just him saying so and mocking others...

Says the guy who bases every one of his claims on his own say-so.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 18, 2019, 03:38:25 PM
Lovelady is in the wrong position...

There's no rational analysis attached to Ford's entries...

Just him saying so and mocking others...

    So tell the Forum again where You believe Lovelady was standing.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 04:25:49 PM
    So tell the Forum again where You believe Lovelady was standing.

The shadow already did...

Look, if you don't know how to analyze evidence isn't my fault...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 18, 2019, 04:29:47 PM
The shadow already did...

Look, if you don't know how to analyze evidence isn't my fault...

     This makes you prattle throwing bricks. Unless you have your own position to proffer, take a seat on the Bench.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 04:40:33 PM
I have given that position whether you don't possess the ability to realize it or not...

Lovelady is over by the shadow line and that is why it is darkening his right side...

Hackerott has Lovelady too far east in the portal...Maybe his shadow isn't far enough east too...

I don't need to offer a position to people who are flagrantly ignoring the basic rules of evidence...

The shadow is the determiner and no credible analyzer has a right to ignore it or what it says evidence-wise...



Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 18, 2019, 04:55:55 PM
I have given that position whether you don't possess the ability to realize it or not...

Lovelady is over by the shadow line and that is why it is darkening his right side...

Hackerott has Lovelady too far east in the portal...Maybe his shadow isn't far enough east too...

I don't need to offer a position to people who are flagrantly ignoring the basic rules of evidence...

The shadow is the determiner and no credible analyzer has a right to ignore it or what it says evidence-wise...

   "By the shadow" offers no definite position for Lovelady.  Stop offering this Forum a mouth full of mush. 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan J. Ford on November 18, 2019, 05:25:15 PM
Mr. Doyle,

Why are you cowering away from straightforward, simple questions? Is it simply much easier for you to continue to shovel horse manure?

Please address Mr. Storings straight-forward, simple questions. Turtling back into your shell is not indicative of someone being forthright.

Now, I have a simple question for you too: Why is there "shadow" around Lovelady in Weigman, or so you say, but less than 25-30 secs later, there is no "shadow" in (A) his former position or (B) upon the lady in white who assumes his position in Darnell?

Please spare us any horse manure about how you are able to control the Sun, its sun rays and its shadowing effect...just simply explain how that darkened "shadow" you claim is naturally running down Lovelady's right side suddenly disappears?

It's clearly understandable if you ignore the essence of the question altogether, deflect it in your usual cowering manner amid shoveling more horse manure to account for your contrived "truth".


Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 18, 2019, 05:25:41 PM
The shadow already did...

Look, if you don't know how to analyze evidence isn't my fault...

    Bump regarding the proffering of absolute mush.  Take a seat at the end of the Forum Bench.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 05:26:05 PM

Alan J. Ford

Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #641 on: Today at 05:25:15 PM »
ReplyQuote
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post. ;)
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 05:27:11 PM
   "By the shadow" offers no definite position for Lovelady.  Stop offering this Forum a mouth full of mush.

That shows severe scientific ignorance...

Disqualifyingly so...

The exact opposite is true and the shadow and its accompanying sun plane border in the portal offer exactly that - a clearly defined position for Lovelady as he shows where he is by having it cross his right side...What you are saying doesn't make any sense what so ever and is a rogue violation of basic photo analysis science...

What is really happening here is your photo analysis science-violating protests have failed to show why the clearly-seen west wall column shadow that visibly transects Lovelady's right side doesn't exactly show his position...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan J. Ford on November 18, 2019, 05:28:14 PM
So indicative of a yellow belly coward, Mr. Doyle, to place simple, straightforward questions on ignore.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan J. Ford on November 18, 2019, 05:35:35 PM
Mr. Doyle,

Explain the disappearing "shadow"...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 18, 2019, 05:41:53 PM
That shows severe scientific ignorance...

Disqualifyingly so...

The exact opposite is true and the shadow and its accompanying sun plane border in the portal offer exactly that - a clearly defined position for Lovelady as he shows where he is by having it cross his right side...What you are saying doesn't make any sense what so ever and is a rogue violation of basic photo analysis science...

What is really happening here is your photo analysis science-violating protests have failed to show why the clearly-seen west wall column shadow that visibly transects Lovelady's right side doesn't exactly show his position...

    Where do YOU believe Lovelady was standing?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 06:23:23 PM

I don't think he's stepping down the step between the high position Wiegman and low position Wiegman frames...

I think he's going from stretching to see the limousine to moving towards the steps while still on the landing platform...

He's back to Stanton's left and slightly behind where the shadow line is...

The compression in Altgens is much more pronounced than you realize...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 18, 2019, 06:31:13 PM
I don't think he's stepping down the step between the high position Wiegman and low position Wiegman frames...

I think he's going from stretching to see the limousine to moving towards the steps while still on the landing platform...

He's back to Stanton's left and slightly behind where the shadow line is...

The compression in Altgens is much more pronounced than you realize...

   Where SPECIFICALLY do You believe Lovelady was standing?
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 06:33:53 PM

I've given enough information for any competent researcher to know where I have him...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 06:45:57 PM
Mr Doyle is being accused here of not having told us where exactly in the entranceway Mr Lovelady is. This is most unfair!

To the question, "Where exactly is Lovelady?" Mr Doyle has given a clear answer-----------"Where the shadow is".
To the question, "But where exactly is the shadow?" Mr Doyle has given an equally clear answer--------"Where Lovelady is".

Leave him alone!  >:(

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 06:50:00 PM
Mr. Doyle,

Why are you cowering away from straightforward, simple questions? Is it simply much easier for you to continue to shovel horse manure?

Please address Mr. Storings straight-forward, simple questions. Turtling back into your shell is not indicative of someone being forthright.

Now, I have a simple question for you too: Why is there "shadow" around Lovelady in Weigman, or so you say, but less than 25-30 secs later, there is no "shadow" in (A) his former position or (B) upon the lady in white who assumes his position in Darnell?

It's quite obvious to all competent researchers that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is well to the west of the lady in white in Darnell, and that that's why he's the one who catches all that natural shadow down his right side!

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

 :D
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 06:51:29 PM
Mr Doyle is being accused here of not having told us where exactly in the entranceway Mr Lovelady is. This is most unfair!

To the question, "Where exactly is Lovelady?" Mr Doyle has given a clear answer-----------"Where the shadow is".
To the question, "But where exactly is the shadow?" Mr Doyle has given an equally clear answer--------"Where Lovelady is".

Leave him alone!  >:(

This is why your t poetry isn't credible Mr Ford...

It violates the rules of evidence by ignoring that the placement of the shadow line is very definitely known...

What Ford writes above is inherently bogus because it doesn't honestly answer the fact that we have a very good idea of where the shadow is...

And since we know where the shadow is we therefore know where Lovelady is when it crosses his right side...

Ford tries to get away with ignoring that the shadow line is independent of Lovelady...

Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 06:53:38 PM
It's quite obvious to all competent researchers that Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is well to the west of the lady in white in Darnell, and that that's why he's the one who catches all that natural shadow down his right side!

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

 :D

He mocks as he ignores the significant perspective shift in the imagery he shows...

The shadow is the determiner...

Not Ford's bs trying to get around it...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 06:56:04 PM
This is why your t poetry isn't credible Mr Ford...

It violates the rules of evidence by ignoring that the placement of the shadow line is very definitely known...

What Ford writes above is inherently bogus because it doesn't honestly answer the fact that we have a very good idea of where the shadow is...

No, we know exactly where the shadow is------------and that knowledge allows us to rule out categorically that shadow as the source of the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side. Sorry!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
The shadow is the determiner...

Correct!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 07:07:39 PM
Now!

Look at these two images:

(https://i.imgur.com/Poenc5g.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

Notice anything about the placement of the 'shadow' line down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman shot?

That's right----------------it falls exactly where the western column cuts off Mr Lovelady in the Altgens photograph!

What a fluke!  :D

Whoever added 'shadow' to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman added precisely as much shadow as they could get away with without contradicting Altgens' depiction of Mr Lovelady in direct sunlight!

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 07:13:05 PM
No, we know exactly where the shadow is------------and that knowledge allows us to rule out categorically that shadow as the source of the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady's right side. Sorry!  Thumb1:

Yeah, because you say so - right?...

You're crediting yourself with something you haven't done...

All you are showing here is the failure in your thought processes to do what objective rational thinking requires...

That is, move Lovelady from your assumed position that is obviously too far east to the position that the shadow indicates...

The shadow is the determiner and any credible analyzer must heel to what the evidence is telling him...

The failure in logic here is the shadow is the only thing that can be that dark strip down Lovelady's right side...

Good analysis then requires you to bring Lovelady to that definite spot where the shadow intersects him...

All that is happening here is a researcher is showing the public his basic lack of sense of photo perspective...

 

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2019, 07:15:06 PM

The failure in logic here is the shadow is the only thing that can be that dark strip down Lovelady's right side...

Well said, Mr Doyle!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 07:15:35 PM
Now!

Look at these two images:

(https://i.imgur.com/Poenc5g.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/yW8vTil.jpg)

Notice anything about the placement of the 'shadow' line down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman shot?

That's right----------------it falls exactly where the western column cuts off Mr Lovelady in the Altgens photograph!

What a fluke!  :D

Whoever added 'shadow' to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman added precisely as much shadow as they could get away with without contradicting Altgens' depiction of Mr Lovelady in direct sunlight!

 Thumb1:

It is silly to not realize you just made my case with that...

Yes, the shadow from the column is roughly along the cut-off line you see in Altgens...

Therefore proving that the dark area down Lovelady's right side in Wiegman is shadow from the west wall column...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 18, 2019, 08:31:32 PM
Mr Doyle is being accused here of not having told us where exactly in the entranceway Mr Lovelady is. This is most unfair!

To the question, "Where exactly is Lovelady?" Mr Doyle has given a clear answer-----------"Where the shadow is".
To the question, "But where exactly is the shadow?" Mr Doyle has given an equally clear answer--------"Where Lovelady is".

Leave him alone!  >:(

    Yes, I do believe Mr Doyle was Bud Abbott's stand-in for "Who's On First?".  Doyle's a very good Straight Man, but a not-so-good Smart Man.
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 08:40:05 PM

You can tell who the serious player is in a debate by looking at who resorts to silly ad hom first in relation to evidence they can't answer...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 18, 2019, 08:55:43 PM
You can tell who the serious player is in a debate by looking at who resorts to silly ad hom first in relation to evidence they can't answer...

     I have repeatedly asked you a very simple question: "Where do You believe Lovelady was standing?" You continue running away from answering this Important question. Reason being, You KNOW you will be Unable to place your alleged shadow in that same location. 
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 18, 2019, 10:59:01 PM
It was clear enough the first time I answered it...I think we know who is running away and it isn't me...

Quote
He's back to Stanton's left and slightly behind where the shadow line is...

The compression in Altgens is much more pronounced than you realize...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 12:16:41 AM
:D :D :D

Seriously, though, Mr Mytton, you should never apologize for giving the joy of laughter!

Mr Mytton, friends, thinks the shadow line from the western column looks like this (pink line):

(https://i.imgur.com/S9BxPVW.jpg)

He has entered the Doyle Zone!

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has a simple and rational explanation: it's a shadow made of magic!"

  :D

(https://lilyofthevalleyuk.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/borat_thumbs_up_narrowweb__300x50401.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/fLJcd0F3/loveladyindoorway.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/GtktZcV3/0515ed1dae9a7c967804ba5c080d920689a302-wm.jpg)

"I, Mr John Mytton, I know that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has a simple and rational explanation: it's a shadow!!"

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 12:42:36 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/fLJcd0F3/loveladyindoorway.gif)

 :D :D :D

The One Where Mr Mytton Jumps the Shark!

(https://i.imgur.com/aXolm8g.gif)

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 01:00:32 AM
:D :D :D

The One Where Mr Mytton Jumps the Shark!

(https://i.imgur.com/aXolm8g.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/C1Hrx2Zh/Alarmed-Paltry-Cleanerwrasse-size-restricted.gif)

All I did and you can do it too, was fill in the details and lined them up, ain't perspective a bitch! And doesn't it make sense that Lovelady like Frazier would use the shadow to their advantage and be able to duck in out to catch the P.Parade. Btw where Lovelady is appears to be just about where the 3D recreations reckon he should be, it's a double whammy.

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 01:01:13 AM

   Careful John!  Though we frequently disagree with each other, I do Not want to see you get suspended.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 01:06:51 AM
   Careful John!  Though we frequently disagree with each other, I do Not want to see you get suspended.

Suspended for what?

And why ignore my graphic? maybe because it totally screws with your stupid fakery BS!

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 01:19:52 AM
Suspended for what?

And why ignore my graphic? maybe because it totally screws with your stupid fakery BS!

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

JohnM

    I did Not want to rundown your childish cartoon. What time does that Cage come down and the Frazier vs Lovelady match begin?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 01:20:32 AM
All I did and you can do it too, was fill in the details and lined them up

Sure you did!

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

Look at that western column grow!

 :D :D :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 01:25:45 AM
Sure you did!

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

Look at that western column grow!

 :D :D :D

   Looks like a Chia Pet. Just in time for Christmas.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 01:27:05 AM
    I did Not want to rundown your childish cartoon.

No worries, at least some of us can post an actual photo when we are discussing a photo.
Anyway, perspective has never been your forte but hey at least you're trying.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 01:31:02 AM
   Looks like a Chia Pet. Just in time for Christmas.

 Thumb1:

And look at that lady in white grow!  :D

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

This latest effort from poor panicked Mr Mytton is just too funny for words!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 01:38:41 AM
No worries, at least some of us can post a photo when we are actually discussing a photo.
Anyway, perspective has never been your forte but hey at least you're trying.

JohnM

   That alleged BLACK shadow is a legit Issue. There is No way around it.  Another Issue is the main subjects possibly changing positions. Plus, we do Not know with certainty the elapsed time between the images being contrasted
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 02:06:49 AM
Sure you did!

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

Look at that western column grow!

 :D :D :D



Seriously that's the best you've got?, we're looking at Lovelady's horizontal position and a little vertical compression and a slight camera change of position is not going to move Lovelady's image halfway across the frame.

Anyway, I found a version with the correct vertical compression and now we see Prayer Person closely aligned, the western column is correctly aligned, the size of the entrance relative to the glass doors behind is correctly aligned and still Lovelady is no where near the centre railing. Sucko!
Just face it, you're way out of your depth and you can go ahead and nitpick some more minor insignificant "details" but that will in no way change the overall mathematically correct geometry, Lovelady is near the shadow EXACTLY where your 3D examples say he should be!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 02:13:53 AM
   That alleged BLACK shadow is a legit Issue. There is No way around it.  Another Issue is the main subjects possibly changing positions. Plus, we do Not know with certainty the elapsed time between the images being contrasted

A. it's a shadow
B. Yes, Lovelady appears but what has that got to do with the price of fish?
C. We are looking at the overall layout and where the shadowed Lovelady fits, how is the time elapsed relevant?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on November 19, 2019, 03:33:20 AM
Suspended for what?

And why ignore my graphic? maybe because it totally screws with your stupid fakery BS!

(https://i.postimg.cc/pd7wzKT4/loveladyindoorway2.gif)

JohnM
Your graphic? ha ha ha you need serious help. Your family needs to do an intervention, for your own good

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 03:45:21 AM
Your graphic? ha ha ha you need serious help. Your family needs to do an intervention, for your own good

Thanks for the advice, and while I have your attention, here's an updated graphic which puts the final nail in the coffin. These conspiracy nuts who have no experience in the real world should leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups, and those pathetic Noobs who can't even post an image to save their lives, really need a new hobby, looking at you Royell. Hahahaha!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 19, 2019, 04:12:05 AM
Thanks for the advice, and while I have your attention, here's an updated graphic which puts the final nail in the coffin. These conspiracy nuts who have no experience in the real world should leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups, and those pathetic Noobs who can't even post an image to save their lives, really need a new hobby, looking at you Royell. Hahahaha!

JohnM

"..leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups.."  :D

ETA: What you should have done was overlap the 2 images and fade the overlap in and out, if you are going to fade instead of blink. Not sure how applying a fade or morph effect to 2 images is advanced analysis, but you're the expert. Did you write the algorithm or did you just stumble across the Gimp menu option?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on November 19, 2019, 04:21:54 AM
Thanks for the advice, and while I have your attention, here's an updated graphic which puts the final nail in the coffin. These conspiracy nuts who have no experience in the real world should leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups, and those pathetic Noobs who can't even post an image to save their lives, really need a new hobby, looking at you Royell. Hahahaha!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM
John the Expert, "advanced graphical analysis"

Let me guess, next week you'll claim to be a Statistician. Just another hobby, right? ha ha ha  Jonathan Higgins was a fictional character too!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 05:06:06 AM
"..leave this type of advanced graphical analysis to the grown ups.."  :D

ETA: What you should have done was overlap the 2 images and fade the overlap in and out, if you are going to fade instead of blink. Not sure how applying a fade or morph effect to 2 images is advanced analysis, but you're the expert. Did you write the algorithm or did you just stumble across the Gimp menu option?

Quote
ETA: What you should have done was overlap the 2 images and fade the overlap in and out, if you are going to fade instead of blink.

Yeah, maybe next time I can add flashing lights and furry dice!

Quote
Not sure how applying a fade or morph effect to 2 images is advanced analysis, but you're the expert.

After presenting hundreds of graphics, I receive a lot of uninformed criticism, Yawn, but at the end of the day I'm my own harshest critic and after years in this industry, I learn and therefore I know better than most, it's just a fact.   

Quote
Did you write the algorithm or did you just stumble across the Gimp menu option?

Did I write the algorithm? wtf? what a ridiculously uninformed loaded question, why waste my time doing what graphic programs do for everyone in the business automatically? You try and sound clever but you just keep letting yourself down. I in fact use a number of graphical programs to best get each individual job done, but I digress, this image is an advanced rocket science powered overlay where I have highlighted the important geometry and most importantly highlighted the central railing which is invaluable in positioning Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 05:11:18 AM
John the Expert, "advanced graphical analysis"

Let me guess, next week you'll claim to be a Statistician. Just another hobby, right? ha ha ha  Jonathan Higgins was a fictional character too!

Quote
John the Expert, "advanced graphical analysis"

Yes, I heard my name and credentials being called, how can I help?

Quote
Let me guess, next week you'll claim to be a Statistician.

At least I don't claim to be an xxxxxxxx.

Quote
Just another hobby, right? ha ha ha

I have plenty of hobbies, is that a problem?

JohnM




Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 19, 2019, 02:47:16 PM

Hard science vs obnoxious sass...

Mytton has done a good job in showing that Lovelady shifts to the west side of where Frazier is in the portal...

Therefore he shifts over to where the shadow border is and it catches his right side...

Ford has no sense of perspective and doesn't understand that Mytton has proven there is a high perspective shift in Wiegman that doesn't make clear how far west Lovelady actually is in the portal...



Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 03:34:51 PM


Seriously that's the best you've got?, we're looking at Lovelady's horizontal position and a little vertical compression and a slight camera change of position is not going to move Lovelady's image halfway across the frame.

Anyway, I found a version with the correct vertical compression and now we see Prayer Person closely aligned, the western column is correctly aligned, the size of the entrance relative to the glass doors behind is correctly aligned and still Lovelady is no where near the centre railing. Sucko!
Just face it, you're way out of your depth and you can go ahead and nitpick some more minor insignificant "details" but that will in no way change the overall mathematically correct geometry, Lovelady is near the shadow EXACTLY where your 3D examples say he should be!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

JohnM

Now! Let's start with this, shall we?

Mr Mytton's imagined railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

The actual railing:

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

Mr Mytton's gone and put the lady in black on the wrong side of the railing!  :D

F for fail!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 03:42:20 PM
Now! Let's start with this, shall we?

Mr Mytton's imagined railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

The actual railing:

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

Mr Mytton's gone and put the lady in black on the wrong side of the railing!  :D

F for fail!

Now #2! We see this lady in black, who is on the east side of the center railing, twice in Mr Mytton's final gif frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/0UWslGs.gif)

She must have climbed over the railing between Wiegman and Darnell!  :D

Either that or poor panicked Mr Mytton has gotten his overlay badly wrong...

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has a simple rational explanation: the front entranceway changed shape dramatically during the shooting."

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 03:43:18 PM
Hard science vs obnoxious sass...

Mytton has done a good job in showing that Lovelady shifts to the west side of where Frazier is in the portal...

Therefore he shifts over to where the shadow border is and it catches his right side...

Ford has no sense of perspective and doesn't understand that Mytton has proven there is a high perspective shift in Wiegman that doesn't make clear how far west Lovelady actually is in the portal...

Mr Mytton has basically become what Mr Doyle would be if he could do graphics!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 04:15:45 PM
Now! Let's start with this, shall we?

Mr Mytton's imagined railing:

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

The actual railing:

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

F for fail!

Yes indeed, F for Fail, I couldn't have said it better myself! Will you ever get anything right?

(https://i.postimg.cc/FzyZBwQ5/alan-fforfailaa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 04:20:34 PM
Yes indeed, F for Fail, I couldn't have said it better myself! Will you ever get anything right?

(https://i.postimg.cc/FzyZBwQ5/alan-fforfailaa.gif)

JohnM

 :D :D :D

The rail stops where the lady's body starts, Mr Mytton! No bright rail traversing her black top! Why do you think that might be, now?

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

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 04:24:52 PM
:D :D :D

The rail stops where the lady's body starts, Mr Mytton! No bright rail traversing her black top! Why do you think that might be, now?

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

 Thumb1:

What sort of drugs are you on and where can I get some?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSxjHgqsvE1HzyAXf6uAFmTMAo1Q05JSf-bBoXsE4Uxk0mMM0x9)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 04:34:51 PM
What sort of drugs are you on and where can I get some?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSxjHgqsvE1HzyAXf6uAFmTMAo1Q05JSf-bBoXsE4Uxk0mMM0x9)

JohnM

 :D

Go on, Mr Mytton, show us the bright upper rail traversing part of the black top of the lady---------if your placement of the railing is correct, you should have no trouble!

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 04:50:46 PM
:D

Go on, Mr Mytton, show us the bright upper rail traversing part of the black top of the lady---------if your placement of the railing is correct, you should have no trouble!

(https://i.imgur.com/ErpXILD.gif)(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Thumb1:

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/drawing-101-linear-perspective/

https://www.artistsnetwork.com/art-mediums/drawing/learn-to-draw-perspective/

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 06:09:15 PM
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/drawing-101-linear-perspective/

https://www.artistsnetwork.com/art-mediums/drawing/learn-to-draw-perspective/

JohnM

Nope, nothing to do with perspective, Mr Mytton, but nice try!  Thumb1:

You claim the bright upper rail is traversing part of the lady's black top:

(https://i.imgur.com/dXS8dK1.gif)

Bright against dark? Should be easy to see! So show us on this clean Darnell frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/GEQjk07.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 19, 2019, 06:12:13 PM

No answer from Ford on Lovelady being shown to be on the west side of the portal by the shadow line according to Mytton's graphics...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 07:59:47 PM
Now! Mr Mytton's devious little game here with his gifs is to do everything he possibly can to shift Mr Lovelady as far left (i.e. west) as he can get away with!

In his first version he 'accidentally' made the figures in the Wiegman doorway much too small. But he was called out on that and forced to correct.  Thumb1:

But in his latest, second version, the other 'errors' are still present and correct. For instance, he's got the center railing pointing too sharply to the right (i.e. east) as it rises with the steps. All to create fictional space west of the center railing that will lead men and women of goodwill to believe Mr Lovelady is closer to the west wall where the real-world shadow action is!  :D

Now! Mr Mytton's problem here is that a meticulous overlay of Wiegman and Darnell was already done some time back by a researcher who--------unlike Mr Mytton--------is honest:

(https://i.imgur.com/r6x4I4y.gif)

Look up from Mr Lovelady's head to the word 'DEPOSITORY' and you will see that it is between the 'P' and the 'O'.

This is because this is exactly what Wiegman shows:

(https://i.imgur.com/73AbdJM.jpg)

This gif---this honestly made gif---has not manipulated our perception of Mr Lovelady's position by giving us the Darnell version of 'DEPOSITORY'!  Thumb1:

In Mr Mytton's dishonest version, by contrast, Mr Lovelady's head is under the letter 'E' of 'DEPOSITORY':

(https://i.imgur.com/G3OCS12.jpg)

Mr Lovelady is----you guessed it----too far west!  :D

In fairness to Mr Mytton, he has done a clever job of hiding the misalignment of letters between Wiegman and Darnell (look at the controlled mess that is 'BOOK'!).

Challenge to Mr Mytton: give us a simple two-frame gif containing just the clean Wiegman frame laid over the clean Darnell frame!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 19, 2019, 08:21:42 PM
Yeah, maybe next time I can add flashing lights and furry dice!

No, just quit with the fade, it's distracting and it provides no additional information. You wannabe photo-"experts" don't have the formal training to analyze imagery, let alone call yourself experts.

Quote
After presenting hundreds of graphics, I receive a lot of uninformed criticism, Yawn, but at the end of the day I'm my own harshest critic and after years in this industry, I learn and therefore I know better than most, it's just a fact.

"..in this industry.."  :D says the layman.

Quote
Did I write the algorithm? wtf? what a ridiculously uninformed loaded question, why waste my time doing what graphic programs do for everyone in the business automatically? You try and sound clever but you just keep letting yourself down. I in fact use a number of graphical programs to best get each individual job done, but I digress, this image is an advanced rocket science powered overlay where I have highlighted the important geometry and most importantly highlighted the central railing which is invaluable in positioning Lovelady.

I'm not uninformed, I write all my own image analysis s/w because unlike you, I'm an actual photogrammetrist. You're a photoshopper and not a particularly good one. You're better than nothing but that's not saying much.

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 08:23:26 PM
Nope, nothing to do with perspective, Mr Mytton, but nice try!  Thumb1:

You claim the bright upper rail is traversing part of the lady's black top:

(https://i.imgur.com/dXS8dK1.gif)

Bright against dark? Should be easy to see! So show us on this clean Darnell frame:

(https://i.imgur.com/GEQjk07.jpg)

 Thumb1:

I'd have an easier time trying to make my dog learn chess before you grasp the basics of perspective.

If the railing was there or not there is irrelevant but it is convenient for exactly locating the halfway point. Here is a vertical plane bisecting the front entrance into two halves and unfortunately for you Lovelady is no where near halfway.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Btw sorry for making you look stoopid but you asked for it!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 08:35:41 PM
I'd have an easier time trying to make my dog learn chess before you grasp the basics of perspective.

If the railing was there or not there is irrelevant but it is convenient for exactly locating the halfway point. Here is a vertical plane bisecting the front entrance into two halves and unfortunately for you Lovelady is no where near halfway.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Btw sorry for making you look stoopid but you asked for it!

JohnM

 :D

Mr Mytton, do you believe that the lady in the black top is to the east or to the west of the railing?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 08:43:47 PM
No, just quit with the fade, it's distracting and it provides no additional information. You wannabe photo-"experts" don't have the formal training to analyze imagery, let alone call yourself experts.

"..in this industry.."  :D says the layman.

I'm not uninformed, I write all my own image analysis s/w because unlike you, I'm an actual photogrammetrist. You're a photoshopper and not a particularly good one. You're better than nothing but that's not saying much.

Quote
You wannabe photo-"experts" don't have the formal training to analyze imagery, let alone call yourself experts.

You wannabe "humans" really need to expose yourselves to light.

Quote
I'm not uninformed, I write all my own image analysis s/w because unlike you, I'm an actual photogrammetrist.

Excellent, since there is more than enough information you can do a photogrammetry analysis like the following image and give us the precise position of Lovelady! Awesome!
Show us these elusive as yet unseen photogrammetry skills and really make me eat humble pie. And I don't want to hear your usual excuses, give this one your best shot.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS8Uh2Km1eVwHBmM69JLoEQXUFagTTQ1Ej46C6fepowUg2o5aUB)

JohnM







 





Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 19, 2019, 08:48:21 PM
Sorry.

(https://i.postimg.cc/VNhtn3XK/loveaa.gif)

JohnM

maybe the vertical blackness part of BW FRazier is ALSO a conspirator blackening of Oswalds body, which was more exposed once Billy Lovelady moved down the steps when Gloria Cavalry came running up.

 This is in the realm of Alan Ford type probability, because if Oswald can have come out the front door, right past Pauline Sanders, then past Prayerblob, then insert himself BETWEEN Buel W Frazer/Bill Shelly and just right behind Billy Lovelady, and NOT be seen doing this... as Alan Fords theory requires...

then the aspiring breakthrough researcher CTs might as well add in Gloria Cavalry and Joe Molina not seeing Oswald right there on the steps just near to them, now more exposed to the sunlight, since in Couch and Darnell films, where Baker is running towards steps, Oswald would have no longer had Billy Lovelady blocking his figure, and BW Frazier has moved up right behind Oswald.

now before you just  :D and  ::), Mr. Mytton.. this COULD be possible, you have to admit..it MAY be
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 19, 2019, 08:58:13 PM
The lower railing and two skirts.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 19, 2019, 09:04:58 PM
You wannabe "humans" really need to expose yourselves to light.

Excellent, since there is more than enough information you can do an analysis like the following image and give us the precise position of Lovelady! Awesome!
Show us these elusive as yet unseen photogrammetry skills and really make me eat humble pie. And I don't want to hear your usual excuses, give this one your best shot.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS8Uh2Km1eVwHBmM69JLoEQXUFagTTQ1Ej46C6fepowUg2o5aUB)

JohnM

 :D Yep, that's a car accident alrighty. I'm just here to critique your work as a peer (cough cough) and let the others know of your limitations. You're doing great, otherwise, but I'd rather you "eat crow" than "humble pie", since you're so full of it already. I'll be here to let you know when you f**k up. Gawd speed Myttonhead!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 09:13:35 PM
maybe the vertical blackness part of BW FRazier is ALSO a conspirator blackening of Oswalds body, which was more exposed once Billy Lovelady moved down the steps when Gloria Cavalry came running up.

But the "vertical blackness part" of Mr Frazier in Darnell is--------------unlike the vertical blackness part of Mr Lovelady in Wiegman--------------very easy to account for.

(https://i.imgur.com/GpWAU4u.jpg)

Sorry to disappoint you, Mr Mason!  Thumb1:

Quote
This is in the realm of Alan Ford type probability, because if Oswald can have come out the front door, right past Pauline Sanders, then past Prayerblob, then insert himself BETWEEN Buel W Frazer/Bill Shelly and just right behind Billy Lovelady, and NOT be seen doing this... as Alan Fords theory requires...

then the aspiring breakthrough researcher CTs might as well add in Gloria Cavalry and Joe Molina not seeing Oswald right there on the steps just near to them, now more exposed to the sunlight, since in Couch and Darnell films, where Baker is running towards steps, Oswald would have no longer had Billy Lovelady blocking his figure, and BW Frazier has moved up right behind Oswald.

now before you just  :D and  ::), Mr. Mytton.. this COULD be possible, you have to admit..it MAY be

'Please don't let LHO be out front... Please someone explain that Lovelady shadow... Please don't let LHO be out front... Please someone explain that Lovelady shadow... '

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 09:15:36 PM
The lower railing and two skirts.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

Thank you, Mr Davidson!  Thumb1:

We're still waiting to hear from Mr Mytton whether he believes the lady in the black top is on the east side of center railing or on the west side...

If the latter, we're still waiting for him to show us-------------on a clean (i.e. un-Mytton-scrawled) Darnell frame-------------the bright railing going across the lady's black top, a la this creative interpretation...

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

I'll get the popcorn!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 09:28:39 PM
:D Yep, that's a car accident alrighty. I'm just here to critique your work as a peer (cough cough) and let the others know of your limitations. You're doing great, otherwise, but I'd rather you "eat crow" than "humble pie", since you're so full of it already. I'll be here to let you know when you f**k up. Gawd speed Myttonhead!

So, I guess we won't be seeing your photogrammetry skills today or any other day it seems, what a shame.

Btw "critique my work as a peer", that's a laugh. All I do is make observations and then create graphics so that I can share my experiences, it's all extremely Zen whereas you ever so serious lunatics are so wedded to a conspiracy that often always you will attempt to bend the very fabric of time and space to make your fantasies come true.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 09:36:01 PM
I'd have an easier time trying to make my dog learn chess before you grasp the basics of perspective.

If the railing was there or not there is irrelevant but it is convenient for exactly locating the halfway point. Here is a vertical plane bisecting the front entrance into two halves and unfortunately for you Lovelady is no where near halfway.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1Bevydc.jpg)

Btw sorry for making you look stoopid but you asked for it!

JohnM

       Once again the Issue here is Time Stamping. If we are seeing Lovelady on the steps while People are now heading Back Inside the TSBD, the accepted time line has Officer Baker already inside the TSBD with Lovelady and Shelley in motion going down the Elm St Ext. How is it we are seeing Lovelady Standing Stock Still on the Steps?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 09:47:08 PM
Friends, this final frame from Mr Mytton's latest gif is an artfully misleading blend of Wiegman, Darnell and MyttonArt:

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

I am asking Mr Mytton to give us a simple, no-frills gif overlay of
a) the clean Wiegman frame Mr Mytton used
b) the clean Darnell frame Mr Mytton used.

Let's then compare the overlay of 'BOOK DEPOSITORY' in Wiegman and 'BOOK DEPOSITORY' in Darnell with what we see here in this meticulous, honest, agenda-free version:

(https://i.imgur.com/WouHp6w.gif)

Over to you, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:02:01 PM
The lower railing and two skirts.
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

Thanks Chris, that makes it easy to see and besides my top skirt being a little too forward it was pretty close. But as for Ford and Co. at the end of the day as I pointed out, the railing being there or not doesn't matter because all we are concerned with in this conversation is Lovelady's position within the front entrance area and by bisecting this space which admittedly is easier with the railing, we can easily place Frazier and Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:03:39 PM
       Once again the Issue here is Time Stamping. If we are seeing Lovelady on the steps while People are now heading Back Inside the TSBD, the accepted time line has Officer Baker already inside the TSBD with Lovelady and Shelley in motion going down the Elm St Ext. How is it we are seeing Lovelady Standing Stock Still on the Steps?

How do you know it's Lovelady? A shirt over a white T-shirt was also worn by Oswald! Da da da dumb!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 10:10:18 PM
How do you know it's Lovelady? A shirt over a white T-shirt was also worn by Oswald! Da da da dumb!

JohnM

     Are You claiming this is Not Lovelady? Be careful with that can-of-worms You are fiddling with.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:18:50 PM
Friends, this final frame from Mr Mytton's latest gif is an artfully misleading blend of Wiegman, Darnell and MyttonArt:

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

I am asking Mr Mytton to give us a simple, no-frills gif overlay of
a) the clean Wiegman frame Mr Mytton used
b) the clean Darnell frame Mr Mytton used.

Let's then compare the overlay of 'BOOK DEPOSITORY' in Wiegman and 'BOOK DEPOSITORY' in Darnell with what we see here in this meticulous, honest, agenda-free version:

(https://i.imgur.com/WouHp6w.gif)

Over to you, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:

Hey guess what, you're mad and I'm not!
I'm pretty much over this, I only first looked at this seriously a few days ago, figured it out pretty quickly and provided irrefutable proof which ironically is supported by your own 3D graphics, go figure?
But Alan, I know from experience that this will be a never ending debate because frankly you're not smart enough to know otherwise, sorry bout that.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:21:21 PM
     Are You claiming this is Not Lovelady?

How do you know it's Lovelady, prove it.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 10:24:47 PM
Thanks Chris, that makes it easy to see and besides my top skirt being a little too forward it was pretty close. But as for Ford and Co. at the end of the day as I pointed out, the railing being there or not doesn't matter

 :D :D :D

But the placement of the railing way away from Mr Lovelady was your big reveal! And now it's blown up in your face so you're backing away. Too funny!

 
Quote
because all we are concerned with in this conversation is Lovelady's position within the front entrance area and by bisecting this space which admittedly is easier with the railing, we can easily place Frazier and Lovelady.

(https://i.postimg.cc/brnmL53k/bisecting-the-frontentrancea.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/PuSg6sA.jpg)

JohnM

So take the original clean Wiegman and Darnell frames you started with-----------and put them into a simple, unannotated two-frame gif!

Or could it be you don't want your little scam to be exposed?  :o
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 10:29:07 PM
Hey guess what, you're mad and I'm not!
I'm pretty much over this, I only first looked at this seriously a few days ago, figured it out pretty quickly and provided irrefutable proof which ironically is supported by your own 3D graphics, go figure?
But Alan, I know from experience that this will be a never ending debate because frankly you're not smart enough to know otherwise, sorry bout that.

JohnM

 :D

You told us this was a nothing issue not worth your time... Then you spent hours putting your misleading Wiegman-Darnell-MyttonArt gif(s) together... And now, with the 'errors' in your gif being identified, you run to the hills!

You've embarrassed yourself dreadfully here, Mr Mytton, but you should at least take solace that your efforts are good enough to satisfy Mr Doyle!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 10:39:37 PM
Hey guess what, you're mad and I'm not!
I'm pretty much over this, I only first looked at this seriously a few days ago, figured it out pretty quickly and provided irrefutable proof which ironically is supported by your own 3D graphics, go figure?
But Alan, I know from experience that this will be a never ending debate because frankly you're not smart enough to know otherwise, sorry bout that.

JohnM

     Here's Another person claiming their  Manipulated Images are "Irrefutable Proof".  You know better than to try and pull this John.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 19, 2019, 10:41:59 PM
     Here's Another person claiming their  Manipulated Images are "Irrefutable Proof".  You know better than to try and pull this John.

No he doesn't.  He pulls this all the time.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 10:44:31 PM
:D :D :D

But the placement of the railing way away from Mr Lovelady was your big reveal! And now it's blown up in your face so you're backing away. Too funny!

 
So take the original clean Wiegman and Darnell frames you started with-----------and put them into a simple, unannotated two-frame gif!

Or could it be you don't want your little scam to be exposed?  :o

Quote
But the placement of the railing way away from Mr Lovelady was your big reveal! And now it's blown up in your face so you're backing away. Too funny!

This is what I mean by "not very smart", the "big reveal" has always been about how far Lovelady was from the center plane, which also happens to be inhabited by the railing so I initially used a physical object instead of an easy to understand concept but I found that also went way over your head.
Btw you just can't look at a 3d image and measure Lovelady's distance directly in a 2D video capture or place him under some letter from the sign above, that's absurd. And this is why you fail, learn perspective like I suggested and all will become clear.

Quote
Or could it be you don't want your little scam to be exposed?  :o

What scam?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 10:52:26 PM
This is what I mean by "not very smart", the "big reveal" has always been about how far Lovelady was from the center plane, which also happens to be inhabited by the railing

Which happened to be the marker you used to 'prove' Mr Lovelady's distance from the center. But you were rumbled!  :D

Quote

What scam?

JohnM

Your ridiculous misalignment of Wiegman and Darnell, helped along by your ridiculous drawing of the center railing, places Mr Lovelady too far west in the entranceway. You hoped no one would notice the problems with your Wiegman-Darnell-MyttonArt mashup. Didn't work!

Prove me wrong by overlaying the two clean source frames from Wiegman and Darnell!

See if you can beat this, the work of an honest researcher!:

(https://i.imgur.com/DurS8Yj.gif)

  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 19, 2019, 11:09:51 PM
     Here's Another person claiming their  Manipulated Images are "Irrefutable Proof".  You know better than to try and pull this John.

Ford may be clueless but at least he can illustrate his "ideas', whereas your participation is worthless on every level, keep it up!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 19, 2019, 11:13:58 PM
This is what I mean by "not very smart", the "big reveal" has always been about how far Lovelady was from the center plane, which also happens to be inhabited by the railing so I initially used a physical object instead of an easy to understand concept but I found that also went way over your head.
Btw you just can't look at a 3d image and measure Lovelady's distance directly in a 2D video capture or place him under some letter from the sign above, that's absurd. And this is why you fail, learn perspective like I suggested and all will become clear.

What scam?

JohnM

     You know better than to manipulate image(s) to try and prove whatever your point might be. Ford caught You cold and now you gotta live with having been Exposed. Your visual aids past, present, and future now carry this Stain.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2019, 11:35:38 PM
Friends, look at the relative positions of 'PrayerPerson' in the honest overlay of Wiegman and Darnell versus in Mr Mytton's dishonest one:

(https://i.imgur.com/qfMNmFv.gif)   (https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

This shows us just how desperately hard Mr Mytton worked to present Mr Lovelady as being farther west than he really was and higher than he really was.

An utterly pathetic and shameless attempt to make the magic shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side explicable as a natural shadow!

Major fail!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 12:10:05 AM
Now!

How did Mr Mytton solve the 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' problem in his second version----------which was created in response to the observation that the figures in Wiegman in his first version were much smaller than the figures in Darnell?

Easy-----------------he got rid of 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' altogether by keeping 'PrayerPersonInDarnell' embedded in the 'Wiegman' frame!

Look at what happens to PrayerPerson in the images below. They tell quite a story!

Honest, Non-Myttonian Version + Dishonest Myttonian Version A

(https://i.imgur.com/qfMNmFv.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

Dishonest Myttonian Version B with nothing of 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' but the bright dot:

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)
 
He realised that having 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' climbing up the west wall might be a problem! :D

What an absolute scam artist this man is!

(https://lilyofthevalleyuk.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/borat_thumbs_up_narrowweb__300x50401.jpg)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:39:38 AM
Now!

How did Mr Mytton solve the 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' problem in his second version----------which was created in response to the observation that the figures in Wiegman in his first version were much smaller than the figures in Darnell?

Easy-----------------he got rid of 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' altogether by keeping 'PrayerPersonInDarnell' embedded in the 'Wiegman' frame!

Look at what happens to PrayerPerson in the images below. They tell quite a story!

Honest, Non-Myttonian Version + Dishonest Myttonian Version A

(https://i.imgur.com/qfMNmFv.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

Dishonest Myttonian Version B with nothing of 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' but the bright dot:

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)
 
He realised that having 'PrayerPersonInWiegman' climbing up the west wall might be a problem! :D

What an absolute scam artist this man is!

(https://lilyofthevalleyuk.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/borat_thumbs_up_narrowweb__300x50401.jpg)

Hilarious, the more frustrated you become the more angry words just pour out.

For a start your non-mytton version has been squeezed horizontally to squeeze Lovelady closer to the railing, have you got even one honest bone in your body? I already told you that there were altered images on the web and now you're attempting to use them to your own advantage. naughty naughty!

But even with your "manipulated" image when the railing is made clear, Lovelady is behind and to the left, behind and to the left. Whichever way you look at this problem, the outcome is always the same. You lose! Did you ever think that painting in a shadow was going to trump reality?

(https://i.postimg.cc/4x6tf8c1/loveladyinshadow.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 12:47:29 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/4x6tf8c1/loveladyinshadow.gif)

He's still placing the railing in the wrong place!  :D

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:58:45 AM
He's still placing the railing in the wrong place!  :D

Really? You can show me where I went wrong, yes?

(https://i.postimg.cc/D0Q9xkDN/rail.gif)

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/YqddxC0F/texas-depository-front-entrancea.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:17:03 AM
     You know better than to manipulate image(s) to try and prove whatever your point might be. Ford caught You cold and now you gotta live with having been Exposed. Your visual aids past, present, and future now carry this Stain.

(http://You know better than to manipulate image(s) to try and prove whatever your point might be.)

Every comparison image I used, came from either this thread or from Google images and if you can't prove that I manipulated even 1 image I expect a full apology.

Quote
Your visual aids past, present, and future now carry this Stain.

Every image I have ever posted has been under intense scrutiny, it goes with the job.

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 01:30:15 AM
Hilarious, the more frustrated you become the more angry words just pour out.

For a start your non-mytton version has been squeezed horizontally to squeeze Lovelady closer to the railing, have you got even one honest bone in your body? I already told you that there were altered images on the web and now you're attempting to use them to your own advantage. naughty naughty!

But even with your "manipulated" image when the railing is made clear, Lovelady is behind and to the left, behind and to the left. Whichever way you look at this problem, the outcome is always the same. You lose! Did you ever think that painting in a shadow was going to trump reality?

(https://i.postimg.cc/4x6tf8c1/loveladyinshadow.gif)

JohnM

      Why don't You just Stop altering JFK Assassination Images?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:38:51 AM
      Why don't You just Stop altering JFK Assassination Images?

I knew you couldn't prove what didn't happen, I demand a full apology for your unwarranted smear.

Btw in the last couple of days a bunch of Kooks keep giving me advice but why is it always to your advantage.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 03:07:45 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/STEPS1.gif)

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 03:09:33 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder1.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 03:17:39 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder.gif)
Same event, different camera position.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dIWUwWREt2jy7ecTEY8kWDhfzG3x8Fay/view?usp=sharing
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 04:06:54 AM

Honest, Non-Myttonian Version + Dishonest Myttonian Version A


Unbelievable, I just noticed you didn't use my latest up to date version but you dug through my history and compared my very first graphic(version A) and knowing that I made more accurate versions you still persisted in making a fraudulent comparison, hey whatever it takes right?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 20, 2019, 04:32:39 AM
Unbelievable, I just noticed you didn't use my latest up to date version but you dug through my history and compared my very first graphic(version A) and knowing that I made more accurate versions you still persisted in making a fraudulent comparison, hey whatever it takes right?

JohnM

He's desperate for recognition, John.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 04:48:10 AM
He's desperate for recognition, John.

--  MWT  ;)

Yes, Alan's keen on cherry picking some minor detail that he perceives to be faulty, like a date or a shadow, and then he'll build an entire conspiracy theory around it and it doesn't matter if it makes any sense or not or even if it's physically possible or not because the big bad Government is so advanced they can do anything, well that is besides hiding a conspiracy or delivering his dole check on time.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 05:50:03 AM
Unbelievable, I just noticed you didn't use my latest up to date version but you dug through my history and compared my very first graphic(version A) and knowing that I made more accurate versions you still persisted in making a fraudulent comparison, hey whatever it takes right?

JohnM

      "More ACCURATE versions" ??  Why not just admit Your version was INCORRECT?  There is CORRECT and INCORRECT. You play around with the Images and your work product is going to reflect this Manipulation. INCORRECT Version(s) = INCORRECT Conclusion(s).
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 06:10:50 AM
      "More ACCURATE versions" ??  Why not just admit Your version was INCORRECT?  There is CORRECT and INCORRECT. You play around with the Images and your work product is going to reflect this Manipulation. INCORRECT Version(s) = INCORRECT Conclusion(s).

You really don't get it, there can never be a CORRECT version because NONE of these cameras were in the EXACT same location or were all using the EXACT same lenses, therefore there can never be a CORRECT version, then on top of that is the poisoned well of bad video transfers, Pal copies, distorted images, manipulated images and so on which finally means that by definition there will always only be INCORRECT versions, but that doesn't mean that 95% accuracy can't be used to derive a logical conclusion.

JohnM 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 09:52:28 AM
Really? You can show me where I went wrong, yes?

(https://i.postimg.cc/D0Q9xkDN/rail.gif)

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/YqddxC0F/texas-depository-front-entrancea.gif)

JohnM

On which side of the center railing---------east or west----------do you believe the lady in the black top was standing? You still haven't answered that simple question, despite being asked it multiple times!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 09:57:20 AM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder1.gif)

Yes, the younger man's body is turned, unlike Mr Lovelady's, which is facing straight ahead:

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

And the police officer gets some shadow from the young man, whereas Mr Lovelady has nobody blocking sunlight.

Apples and oranges, Mr Davidson! Thumb1:

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 10:00:41 AM
Unbelievable, I just noticed you didn't use my latest up to date version but you dug through my history and compared my very first graphic(version A) and knowing that I made more accurate versions you still persisted in making a fraudulent comparison, hey whatever it takes right?

JohnM

Why did you fraudulently get rid of PrayerPersonInWiegman in your new, improved version of the Wiegman frame, Mr Mytton? Why do we only see the bright dot from PrayerPersonInWiegman?

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Show us where your new, improved version of the Wiegman frame would actually leave PrayerPersonInWiegman!

If this PrayerPerson car crash here in your first dishonest version is anything to go by, you had very good reason indeed to eliminate PrayerPersonInWiegman!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 10:07:30 AM
Yes, Alan's keen on cherry picking some minor detail that he perceives to be faulty, like a date or a shadow, and then he'll build an entire conspiracy theory around it and it doesn't matter if it makes any sense or not or even if it's physically possible or not because the big bad Government is so advanced they can do anything, well that is besides hiding a conspiracy or delivering his dole check on time.

JohnM

 :D

Mr Mytton really doesn't like being found out!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on November 20, 2019, 11:51:09 AM
again, i believe prayerdude was some guy off the street, looking for a better view to take pictures (movies?).  just my humble opinion.  but what does it matter if oswald was busy upstairs killing the president?  i mean...... really....  who's noticing who when the president rolls by?  and then many change their recollections decades later.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 11:57:44 AM
Why did you fraudulently get rid of PrayerPersonInWiegman in your new, improved version of the Wiegman frame, Mr Mytton? Why do we only see the bright dot from PrayerPersonInWiegman?

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Show us where your new, improved version of the Wiegman frame would actually leave PrayerPersonInWiegman!

If this PrayerPerson car crash here in your first dishonest version is anything to go by, you had very good reason indeed to eliminate PrayerPersonInWiegman!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

Hahaha.
You have zero understanding of this entire procedure, prayer person is a movable object and therefore  has absolutely no bearing on Lovelady's position relative to his permanent surroundings. Just like I said earlier you're going to endlessly cherry pick insignificant irrelevent details because you cant see the forest for the trees.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 11:59:59 AM
Hahaha.
You have zero understanding of this entire procedure, prayer person is a movable object and therefore  has absolutely no bearing on Lovelady's position relative to his permanent surroundings. Just like I said earlier you're going to endlessly cherry pick insignificant irrelevent details because you cant see the forest for the trees.

JohnM

OK then, Mr Mytton, so you'll be happy to show us what your placement of LoveladyInWiegman does to PrayerPersonInWiegman. After all, you've nothing to hide here, right?  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 12:00:58 PM
(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Shoulder1.gif)

Poor Mr Lovelady is straddling the center railing here... Looks painful!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 12:02:46 PM
again, i believe prayerdude was some guy off the street, looking for a better view to take pictures (movies?).  just my humble opinion.  but what does it matter if oswald was busy upstairs killing the president?  i mean...... really....  who's noticing who when the president rolls by?  and then many change their recollections decades later.

 ::)

Has anyone ever seen a post of substance from this Lone Nut bore?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:06:41 PM
On which side of the center railing---------east or west----------do you believe the lady in the black top was standing?

Nice, you answer my question with another question, how quaint. But if you really don't know where the railing is, then you just dont know, no biggie, I did it for you.
Btw the blob you are talking about is another movable object and is again irrelevent. Focus.

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:13:20 PM
OK then, Mr Mytton, so you'll be happy to show us what your placement of LoveladyInWiegman does to PrayerPersonInWiegman. After all, you've nothing to hide here, right?  :D

Did you absorb even 1 word I said?
Prayerperson was not a fixed object and could move, so has nothing to do with this conversation.
Why cant you prove where Lovelady was standing?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 12:22:14 PM
again, i believe prayerdude was some guy off the street, looking for a better view to take pictures (movies?).  just my humble opinion.  but what does it matter if oswald was busy upstairs killing the president?  i mean...... really....  who's noticing who when the president rolls by?  and then many change their recollections decades later.

No Mark, keep up it seems that prayer person is no longer Oswald, but the black shadow on Lovelady is somehow paint that has been used to paint over the real Oswald?, yes this theory gets seriouly more deranged as it goes on. Even though nobody in the films is more than a blob the Gubermint spent considerable resources aquiring and altering a second of filmed blobs, bizarre most bizarre.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 01:26:23 PM
Nice, you answer my question with another question, how quaint. But if you really don't know where the railing is, then you just dont know, no biggie, I did it for you.
Btw the blob you are talking about is another movable object and is again irrelevent. Focus.

JohnM

 :D

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the lady in the black top in the Wiegman doorway is standing on the ________ side of the center railing."

East or west, Mr Mytton?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 01:30:53 PM
Did you absorb even 1 word I said?
Prayerperson was not a fixed object and could move, so has nothing to do with this conversation.
Why cant you prove where Lovelady was standing?

JohnM

 :D

Why did you replace PrayerPersonInWiegman with PrayerPersonInDarnell in your Wiegman frame, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Go on, show us PrayerPersonInWiegman in your Wiegman frame------------you know, the way the frame looked before you said to yourself, "Uh oh, better hide that..."!
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:37:55 PM
:D

(https://s5.gifyu.com/images/Darnell1.gif)

"I, Mr John Mytton, believe the lady in the black top in the Wiegman doorway is standing on the ________ side of the center railing."

East or west, Mr Mytton?

 Thumb1:

Who the heck is black top woman and why should I care?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:42:21 PM
:D

Why did you replace PrayerPersonInWiegman with PrayerPersonInDarnell in your Wiegman frame, Mr Mytton?

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Go on, show us PrayerPersonInWiegman in your Wiegman frame------------you know, the way the frame looked before you said to yourself, "Uh oh, better hide that..."!

If you can prove that prayer person was an immovable statue between both images then it may be worth persuing but until then the actual fixed geometry of brick and cement takes precedent.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 01:48:59 PM
Who the heck is black top woman and why should I care?

JohnM

 :D

You know full well which woman I mean, Mr Mytton!

(https://i.imgur.com/VCqo3l1.jpg)

Now answer the question: Which side of the center railing is she standing on------------east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/xK4KnPA.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 01:53:03 PM
:D

You know full well which woman I mean, Mr Mytton!

(https://i.imgur.com/VCqo3l1.jpg)

Now answer the question: Which side of the center railing is she standing on------------east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/xK4KnPA.jpg)

 Thumb1:

The top doesnt appear very black and how do you know it's a woman?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:00:51 PM
If you can prove that prayer person was an immovable statue between both images then it may be worth persuing but until then the actual fixed geometry of brick and cement takes precedent.

JohnM

 :D

No, the person who produced an honest overlay of Wiegman and Darnell proved that PrayerPerson was anything but an immovable statue!

(https://i.imgur.com/iMOP7Bw.gif)

Your first dishonest overlay of Wiegman and Darnell showed a rather different movement in PrayerPerson:

(https://i.imgur.com/8LnOCPo.gif)

OMG, they're embedded in the wall! Which is what happens when you put Mr Lovelady too far west!  :D

You noticed the problem and, being a scam artist, solved it in your second dishonest overlay by getting rid of PrayerPersonInWiegman altogether---and hoping no one would notice!

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

 But you've been caught red-handed!  :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:01:54 PM
The top doesnt appear very black and how do you know it's a woman?

JohnM

Everyone's watching you squirm, Mr Mytton!

Which side of the center railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on----east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/VCqo3l1.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xK4KnPA.jpg)

Let's get Mr Mytton's next response out of the way, shall we? 'How do you know the color of the rectangle is blue?' :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 02:15:44 PM
Everyone's watching you squirm, Mr Mytton!

Look Alan, enough of the boring questions and silly assumptions, either you can draw in the railing or you can't and it looks like you can't.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:17:25 PM
Look Alan, enough of the boring questions and silly assumptions, either you can draw in the railing or you can't and it looks like you can't.

JohnM

 :D

At least you did your best to fool people, Mr Mytton, and that has to count for something---have a biscuit!
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 20, 2019, 02:20:35 PM

Mytton's railing is accurate...

Ford just doesn't like the result and does what he always does with evidence that disproves him...

He ridicules it but doesn't answer what it shows...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 02:35:07 PM
:D

No, the person who produced an honest overlay of Wiegman and Darnell proved that PrayerPerson was anything but an immovable statue!


Oops, your honest overlay, is nothing of the sort and has been manipulated and distorted to make things fit, whereas I avoid such blatant deception and just stick with unaltered images.

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 02:50:17 PM
Mytton's railing is accurate...

Ford just doesn't like the result and does what he always does with evidence that disproves him...

He ridicules it but doesn't answer what it shows...

 Thumb1:

The front skirt of the railing is defined by being halfway between the two buttresses and there's nothing that Alan can invent that can change the basic laws of physics. And the top railing must by definition lead to the middle of the rear wall, it's all basic perspective 101.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7hCcknxF/front-door-depository-tezas.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/C5W2Ln5z/railz.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:51:33 PM
Oops, your honest overlay, is nothing of the sort and has been manipulated and distorted to make things fit, whereas I avoid such blatant deception and just stick with unaltered images.

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM

:D

Look at the movement of the vertical orange line you've drawn on the west column (the most leftward line in the image):

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqGdXGqV/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

Bang on the edge in Darnell, but not in Wiegman!

Because you cherry pick the bits in Darnell you want to use and the bits in Wiegman you want to use, your overlays are acts of deliberate deception. You're a scam artist, Mr Mytton, and it's been fun exposing your fakery!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 02:52:48 PM
:D

At least you did your best to fool people, Mr Mytton, and that has to count for something---have a biscuit!

Another post, another emoticon, a weak attempt at humour and still no answers. Yawn!

JohnM
Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 20, 2019, 02:56:13 PM

It shows Lovelady is over by the shadow...

Having no sense of perspective Ford is ignoring the depth field in Lovelady's position...

When you show that Altgens shows the shadow line from the column right on Lovelady he ignores it...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 02:56:59 PM
Thumb1:

The front skirt of the railing is defined by being halfway between the two buttresses and there's nothing that Alan can invent that can change the basic laws of physics. And the top railing must by definition lead to the middle of the rear wall, it's all basic perspective 101.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7hCcknxF/front-door-depository-tezas.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/C5W2Ln5z/railz.jpg)

JohnM

It's a measure of how deeply poor Mr Mytton's reputation has sunk over the past few pages of this thread that a scrap of encouragement from forensic photogrammetry linguist extraordinaire Mr Doyle is gratefully seized upon!  :D

But! It's good to see Mr Mytton is still up for talking about the center railing. Now perhaps he can finally tell us which side of that railing the figure in the blue rectangle is standing on----east or west:

(https://i.imgur.com/VCqo3l1.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xK4KnPA.jpg)

For those reading: The reason Mr Mytton has repeatedly run away from answering this question is that he knows he drew the railing all wrong.

Let's watch him squirm some more!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:01:26 PM
:D

Look at the movement of the vertical orange line you've drawn on the west column (the most leftward line in the image):

Bang on the edge in Darnell, but not in Wiegman!

Because you cherry pick the bits in Darnell you want to use and the bits in Wiegman you want to use, your overlays are acts of deliberate deception. You're a scam artist, Mr Mytton, and it's been fun exposing your fakery!  Thumb1:

I can understand your reluctance to confront your inner demons but sorry the image that you have been trumpeting as authentic is a FRAUD. OUCH!

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM





Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2019, 03:06:31 PM
I can understand your reluctance to confront your inner demons but sorry the image that you have been trumpeting as authentic is a FRAUD. OUCH!

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM

Show us your correction of your vertical orange line down the west column, Mr Mytton!

Show us your overlay of the words 'BOOK DEPOSITORY', Mr Mytton!

Show us your positioning of PrayerPersonInWiegman!

And, while you're about it, give us your answer to the question about the person in the dark top standing by the center railing (east or west)!

Come on, Mr Mytton, we could do with a few more good laughs from you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:10:32 PM

For those reading: The reason Mr Mytton has repeatedly run away from answering this question is that he knows he drew the railing all wrong.


That doesn't even make sense, I delivered my railing and so far as Doyle and everyone else is telling you that are avoiding what you know is absolutely devastating to your ridiculous theory.

(https://i.postimg.cc/4x6tf8c1/loveladyinshadow.gif)

Btw how about you fill those in who are reading how your black shadow on half of Lovelady is supposed to be hiding Oswald? WTF!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 20, 2019, 03:12:08 PM

Mytton's railing overlaps Ford's and can be visibly seen to be the same...

Ford tries to say that Mytton's railing is on the wrong side of the woman in black but that isn't true...

Ford is uncredibly taking advantage of Mytton not removing that section of the railing that woman in black blocks by being in front of...

But that doesn't mean Mytton's railing isn't in the right place...

Ford is doing his best to avoid answering that Mytton's railing placement is correct and it shows Lovelady is over by the shadow border (despite Ford's nutty claims)...

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:14:48 PM
Show us blah blah blah..............

Sorry Alan, but your Garbage in/Garbage out "honest" GIF has demolished whatever credibility you had left. Try again!

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

Btw how you going with that railing of yours? Hehehe!

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:25:33 PM
Mytton's railing overlaps Ford's and can be visibly seen to be the same...

Ford tries to say that Mytton's railing is on the wrong side of the woman in black but that isn't true...

Ford is uncredibly taking advantage of Mytton not removing that section of the railing that woman in black blocks by being in front of...

But that doesn't mean Mytton's railing isn't in the right place...

Ford is doing his best to avoid answering that Mytton's railing placement is correct and it shows Lovelady is over by the shadow border (despite Ford's nutty claims)...

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
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 03:49:31 PM
Look Alan, enough of the boring questions and silly assumptions, either you can draw in the railing or you can't and it looks like you can't.

JohnM

    Joe Louis put it best when he said, "You can run, but You can't hide". Give it up. Ford has you Cold.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:50:58 PM
Show us your correction of your vertical orange line down the west column, Mr Mytton!

Show us your overlay of the words 'BOOK DEPOSITORY', Mr Mytton!

Show us your positioning of PrayerPersonInWiegman!

And, while you're about it, give us your answer to the question about the person in the dark top standing by the center railing (east or west)!

Come on, Mr Mytton, we could do with a few more good laughs from you!  Thumb1:

Since the two videos were not taken in the exact same location then there is no way to line up the images with precision hence why your "GIF" was massively distorted.
The following graphic shows two images honestly overlapped without any enhancing distortions which will unfortunately place objects and letters in the wrong positions and is not a true replication of reality.

(https://i.postimg.cc/kGHPVrxG/loveladyindoorwayz.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/d35TFG0K/alans-distortion.gif)

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 03:51:18 PM
Exactly, I didn't want to play my hand so early but yes the lady in black has nothing to do with the precise position of the railing and is a worthless diversion, it's clear that when the actual position of the railing is drawn in, that it places Lovelady back in the shadow as he is supposed to be, hence the reason that Ford doesn't want to confront it.

(https://i.postimg.cc/DZWP6qq0/alan-fforfailaa.gif)

JohnM

    And NOW he is Forced into admitting Playing Games. "You can run, but You can't hide"
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 03:56:46 PM
    Joe Louis put it best when he said, "You can run, but You can't hide". Give it up. Ford has you Cold.

What the heck are you talking about?
I asked Ford to draw in his railing and so far he hasn't complied so explain how does me giving up, solve Ford's problem?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 04:22:32 PM
What the heck are you talking about?
I asked Ford to draw in his railing and so far he hasn't complied so explain how does me giving up solve Ford's problem?

JohnM

   Your answering Ford's question with a question says much. On top of that, You Now admit to playing evasive games with Ford. Again like Joe Louis, he is methodically "walking you down". 
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 04:40:18 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095164133_a90cc89afc_o.png)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Chris Davidson on November 20, 2019, 04:57:00 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095965847_4a49412442_o.png)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 05:02:16 PM
   Your answering Ford's question with a question says much. On top of that, You Now admit to playing evasive games with Ford. Again like Joe Louis, he is methodically "walking you down".

Go away, you stink.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 20, 2019, 05:09:38 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095965847_4a49412442_o.png)

Thanks Chris, the exact sizes are much appreciated because it accurately defines the overall shape. The photos, videos and video screenshots on the web are all distorted in one way or another.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 20, 2019, 07:47:02 PM
Thanks Chris, the exact sizes are much appreciated because it accurately defines the overall shape. The photos, videos and video screenshots on the web are all distorted in one way or another.

JohnM

    Yeah, and sometimes distorted Intentionally.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 01:48:08 AM
These screen grabs are from Robin's gallery so they're about the best you're going to get and as I have been trying to tell anyone who was listening, the cameras were not in the same position so when comparing images there is no way to avoid the parallax problem and if in any GIF everything appears to exactly line up in, then one or both of the images had to be distorted.
In the following morph the amount of depth of the entrance area can be calculated but unfortunately Lovelady was not standing still in both images yet even so he appears to be in the same plane as Frazier's shadow.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 04:25:15 AM
These screen grabs are from Robin's gallery so they're about the best you're going to get and as I have been trying to tell anyone who was listening, the cameras were not in the same position so when comparing images there is no way to avoid the parallax problem and if in any GIF everything appears to exactly line up in, then one or both of the images had to be distorted.
In the following morph the amount of depth of the entrance area can be calculated but unfortunately Lovelady was not standing still in both images yet even so he appears to be in the same plane as Frazier's shadow.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM

     What we are seeing above mirrors the JFK Autopsy Photo Farce that has previously been foisted on this Forum. "Second verse same as the First".
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 04:51:40 AM
     What we are seeing above mirrors the JFK Autopsy Photo.........

Thanks, yes, the above does indeed reveal a lot of depth detail.
And the following JFK Autopsy GIF's are perfect examples and prove where the injury was and that there was only a bullet entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTjzYtMq/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0N8FDFS8/JFKBOH.gif)

Btw those who can do, and those who can't just end up stinking up the place.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 04:57:06 AM
    Yeah, and sometimes distorted Intentionally.

Yeah, and I busted your hero Alan Ford red handed and not a peep from you, not only do you contribute NOTHING to the Forum but you're also a raging hypocrite.
Why are you here?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 21, 2019, 05:05:44 AM
Thanks, yes, the above does indeed reveal a lot of depth detail.
And the following JFK Autopsy GIF's are perfect examples and prove where the injury was and that there was no hole on the back of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTjzYtMq/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0N8FDFS8/JFKBOH.gif)

Btw those who can do, and those who can't just end up stinking up the place.

JohnM

John,

Do you believe the fatal head shot came from the front?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 05:16:28 AM
John,

Do you believe the fatal head shot came from the front?

--  MWT  ;)

No, all 3 shots came from behind because that's what the autopsy photos indicate, the bullet fragments which had to have come from the head wound were found in the Limo came from Oswald's rifle, about 95% of the eyewitnesses didn't describe any cross-fire, a bullet does not have the kinetic energy to drive any body any significant distance and having a frontal shooter potentially being seen or bullet direction being traced makes the whole idea nonsense, imo.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 21, 2019, 05:33:57 AM
No, all 3 shots came from behind because that's what the autopsy photos indicate, the bullet fragments which had to have come from the head wound were found in the Limo came from Oswald's rifle, about 95% of the eyewitnesses didn't describe any cross-fire, a bullet does not have the kinetic energy to drive any body any significant distance and having a frontal shooter potentially being seen or bullet direction being traced makes the whole idea nonsense, imo.

JohnM

John,

That's what I thought you thought.

I was confused by your remark that there was no bullet hole in the back of the head.

--  MWT   ;)

PS  Thanks for the explanation.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 06:04:40 AM
John,

That's what I thought you thought.

I was confused by your remark that there was no bullet hole in the back of the head.

--  MWT   ;)

PS  Thanks for the explanation.

Hi, thanks, I edited the post.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 21, 2019, 06:10:36 AM
Hi, thanks, I edited the post.

JohnM

John,

I guess you meant "no big-ass exit hole".

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 03:34:15 PM
Thanks, yes, the above does indeed reveal a lot of depth detail.
And the following JFK Autopsy GIF's are perfect examples and prove where the injury was and that there was only a bullet entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTjzYtMq/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0N8FDFS8/JFKBOH.gif)

Btw those who can do, and those who can't just end up stinking up the place.

JohnM
     Strange that Other autopsy photos which also display JFK lying on his back do Not show all this Matter freely spilling out of his head. Very Peculiar. In fact, if you pulled his hair up like we see the gloved hand doing in the other photo, the hair should easily be caked with this same Matter. Peculiarity abounds between the autopsy photos.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 21, 2019, 04:07:46 PM
the bullet fragments which had to have come from the head wound

LOL

Quote
were found in the Limo

LOL

Quote
came from Oswald's rifle,

LOL
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 21, 2019, 07:31:14 PM
Thanks, yes, the above does indeed reveal a lot of depth detail.
And the following JFK Autopsy GIF's are perfect examples and prove where the injury was and that there was only a bullet entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wTjzYtMq/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0N8FDFS8/JFKBOH.gif)

Btw those who can do, and those who can't just end up stinking up the place.

JohnM

Hey JohnM, JFK's hair sure seems longer in the top morph compared to the bottom one. Explain pls.

ETA: After another look, those 2 morphs couldn't possible be of the same person unless JFK had a post-mortem haircut. What hair length did Tippit have?

PS. what are 2 photos taken at approx the same time and morphed together supposed to prove?
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 07:31:57 PM
Exactly, I didn't want to play my hand so early but yes the lady in black has nothing to do with the precise position of the railing and is a worthless diversion (~~~)

 :D

A 'worthless diversion' that exposes your sleight of hand, Mr Mytton! You know this-------it's why you keep running away from a simple question:

Which side of the railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on--------east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

Before you answer, bear in mind that this person appears twice in your mix-n-mash final gif frame!

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Answer the question------east or west?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 07:33:41 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095164133_a90cc89afc_o.png)

Two questions, Mr Davidson!

1. What time was the above photo taken at?

2. What exactly are you hoping to achieve by comparing apples and oranges on this issue?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 07:53:38 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5QrtqCd.gif)

See what Mr Mytton did there, friends?

He's dug himself into a hole----------------let's sit back and watch him keep digging!

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 21, 2019, 07:58:10 PM

Alan is avoiding admitting that the imagery in question shows Lovelady over by the shadow border where the shadow darkens his right side...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 08:00:37 PM
Alan is avoiding admitting that the imagery in question shows Lovelady over by the shadow border where the shadow darkens his right side...

Well, Mr Mytton has Mr Doyle convinced, which tells us all we need to know about the caliber of Mr Mytton's 'research'!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 08:29:05 PM
Friends, the reason why those pushing the 'natural shadow down Lovelady' nonsense are on a hiding to nothing is that the facts simply aren't on their side. It's only by Mytton-style fakery of the visual record, or Davidson-style presentation of oranges as apples, or Doyle-style... doylisms, that their hopeless cause can be kept on life support!

Here's what the Shadow People just can't overcome:

1. We know where the shadow line cast by the western column fell:

(https://i.imgur.com/7Jp6vkC.jpg)

(Credit: Mr Stancak)

Anyone who ignores this shadow line without offering science-based reasons for doing so is just outing themselves as a fantasist and/or a disinformationalist!

2. In none of the Wiegman frames can Mr Lovelady be brought over to that green line.

(https://i.imgur.com/ytY2Xjx.gif)

Apart from the obvious absurdity of the thing, he would be blocking PrayerPerson!

(https://i.imgur.com/61X1GC9.jpg)

(Credit: Mr Hackerott)

3. Mr Lovelady breaks all Shadow People hearts by stepping down without the diagonal 'shadow' losing any volume!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/ytY2Xjx.gif)

4. All the Shadow People's arguments stupidly leave out of account the fact that Mr Lovelady shows up in Altgens too:

(https://i.imgur.com/WyHx0Rt.jpg)

This is of course only possible if he is well over near the center railing, well to the east of the shadow line:

(https://i.imgur.com/CNdkfyv.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/61X1GC9.jpg)

(Credit: Mr Hackerott)

While LoveladyInWiegman and LoveladyInAltgens are not exactly coincident in time (which----in my view----is the error the otherwise redoubtable Mr Hackerott is making with Mr Lovelady's posture in Wiegman), they are very close indeed. This causes an immense and incurable headache for those trying to push Mr Lovelady way over to the shadow line in these seconds!

In short, friends, it's all over Red Rover for the shadow explanation!  Thumb1:

The fact remains: the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady has to date received no rational explanation other than post hoc blackening out of Mr Lovelady's right side!

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

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!

Thumb1:

Title: Those Front Steps
Post by: Brian Doyle on November 21, 2019, 08:46:38 PM

That's silly incompetence...

Lovelady can be brought to the shadow if you place him behind and to the left of Stanton...
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:11:29 PM

And that blackening out has to date received no rational motivation other than the presence of the falsely accused Mr Oswald just behind Mr Lovelady as the assassination was happening!


Thanks for summing up your stoopid theory in one sentence, Oswald was standing BEHIND Lovelady so instead of just EASILY tracing around Lovelady's silhouette and blackening out where Oswald was, they instead attempted to guess where a shadow couldn't be and then painted this mathematically accurate shadow ONTO Lovelady, in what Universe is that the least bit logical? -sigh-
It's obvious you bit off more than you could chew so to justify the shadow craziness you somehow added Oswald into equation, it must be nice to have such a vivid imagination.

I decided that while the results were pretty good by comparing two 2D images, but the best way to solve this is in 3D because using two original images from two different cameras with maybe two different lenses, you have a parallax problem it's inescapable but a side benefit is that by shifting the cameras horizontally we now have a stereo view and when viewed through 3D glasses you get an effective cool 3D image but since not many people have the necessary glasses I made a 3D GIF version, see below.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k5Py9XZ5/loveeearail-3-D.jpg)

Anyway you seemed to have missed my earlier graphic which puts this issue to bed. By marrying up the relevant pixels in each video capture we can get the same 3D and we can see the depth, the only problem in this exercise is that Lovelady is only there in one frame but it's clear he's no where near the railing. Also look at Prayer Person and assuming he/she didn't move is against the wall and about a foot to a foot and a half in front of the glass, interesting.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)
The two screen captures come from Robin Unger's gallery, so it's the best you're going to get.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 10:20:41 PM
    3D Glasses and a seasick visual aid are a Joke. Just look at the footage of cops walking up the TSBD Steps and then onto the Landing shortly after the shooting. The Lovelady Black Curtain is MIA. And it was reported earlier that the Landing is Only 4 feet deep. Based on that hand rail, the landing must be at least 10 feet deep. Just look at the people stacked up Behind the Highest End of the Railing.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:30:26 PM
    3D Glasses and a seasick visual aid are a Joke. Just look at the footage of cops walking up the TSBD Steps and then onto the Landing shortly after the shooting. The Lovelady Black Curtain is MIA. And it was reported earlier that the Landing is Only 4 feet deep. Based on that hand rail, the landing must be at least 10 feet deep. Just look at the people stacked up Behind the Highest End of the Railing.

Thanks for you observations.
Btw did you use 3D red/cyan glasses to look at the image and if not how did you come to the conclusion that the 3D visual aid was a Joke?

JohnM

Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 10:31:44 PM
Thanks for you observations.

JohnM

    No problem. Let me know when you make your revisions.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:40:30 PM
    No problem. Let me know when you make your revisions.

There's nothing more to do, by definition a 3D image cannot be revised, it shows the overall structure and Lovelady's position in relation to the railing.
EDIT I'll happily make another if someone like Royell will draw in the railing.
If you want to want to make another version then go ahead, be my guest.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 10:46:07 PM
There's nothing more to do, by definition a 3D image cannot be revised, it shows the overall structure and Lovelady's position in relation to the railing.
If you want to want to make another version then go ahead, be my guest.

JohnM

     You have people stacked up behind the high end of the hand rail like chord wood. The Landing is Not that Deep. Your Mickey Mousing of the Hand Rail is exposed by the Gang of people between the High End of the rail and the glass door.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 21, 2019, 10:48:36 PM
Thanks for summing up your stoopid theory in one sentence, Oswald was standing BEHIND Lovelady so instead of just EASILY tracing around Lovelady's silhouette and blackening out where Oswald was, they instead attempted to guess where a shadow couldn't be and then painted this mathematically accurate shadow ONTO Lovelady, in what Universe is that the least bit logical? -sigh-
It's obvious you bit off more than you could chew so to justify the shadow craziness you somehow added Oswald into equation, it must be nice to have such a vivid imagination.

I decided that while the results were pretty good by comparing two 2D images, but the best way to solve this is in 3D because using two original images from two different cameras with maybe two different lenses, you have a parallax problem it's inescapable but a side benefit is that by shifting the cameras horizontally we now have a stereo view and when viewed through 3D glasses you get an effective cool 3D image but since not many people have the necessary glasses I made a 3D GIF version, see below.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k5Py9XZ5/loveeearail-3-D.jpg)

Anyway you seemed to have missed my earlier graphic which puts this issue to bed. By marrying up the relevant pixels in each video capture we can get the same 3D and we can see the depth, the only problem in this exercise is that Lovelady is only there in one frame but it's clear he's no where near the railing. Also look at Prayer Person and assuming he/she didn't move is against the wall and about a foot to a foot and a half in front of the glass, interesting.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)
The two screen captures come from Robin Unger's gallery, so it's the best you're going to get.

JohnM

     Bump regarding GANG between the handrail and the glass front door.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:49:32 PM
     You have people stacked up behind the high end of the hand rail like chord wood. The Landing is Not that Deep. Your Mickey Mousing of the Hand Rail is exposed by the Gang of people between the High End of the rail and the glass door. The Landing is Not that Deep.

The fact that you admitted to seeing the depth of the landing is very satisfying, thanks for all the good vibes. 
Btw since the start and end frames are defined by the actual Wiegman and Darnell frames, tell us exactly what you are seeing and are you in any way accounting for perspective?

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 10:51:02 PM
     Bump regarding GANG between the handrail and the glass front door.

Hmmmm, interesting, you do realize I have no control over the people or where they moved to between being the two images, and re the handrail if you can draw in the railing in both images I'll happily make another GIF to your exact specifications, that's fair isn't it.

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2019, 11:43:05 PM
I decided that while the results were pretty good by comparing (~snip snip!)

 :D  :D :D

This is truly pathetic stuff, Mr Mytton, even by your abysmal standards!

Which side of the railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

You know, the person who appears twice in your final gif frame!

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Why does this question terrify you so much, Mr Mytton?

 :D
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 21, 2019, 11:59:21 PM
:D  :D :D

This is truly pathetic stuff, Mr Mytton, even by your abysmal standards!

Which side of the railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

You know, the person who appears twice in your final gif frame!

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Why does this question terrify you so much, Mr Mytton?

 :D

Quote
:D  :D :D

The overuse of inappropriate emoticons in each and every post actually has the opposite effect of what you are intending, how old are you?

Quote
Which side of the railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Why does this question terrify you so much, Mr Mytton?

"Terrify me" WTF? For a start I have repeatedly tried to hammer into your thick skull that comparing two 2D images will introduce glitches and even if the images are dishonestly distorted and they did match perfectly the amount of error still isn't enough to get Lovelady near that elusive railing, sorry. And we don't know where people moved to between the time elapsed between the two images so if someone moved someone moved, get over it.

Are you going to draw in the rest of your railing or are you going to keep pretending that the lady in the black top is stopping you?

Royell, says he can see the depth in this GIF, how about that.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 12:05:06 AM
The overuse of inappropriate emoticons in each and every post actually has the opposite effect of what you are intending, how old are you?

I'm wiping the absolute floor with you, Mr Mytton, and it's happening in front of everyone. I think a little laughter is perfectly in order!  :D

Quote
"Terrify me" WTF? For a start I have repeatedly tried to hammer into your thick skull that comparing two 2D images will introduce glitches and even if they did match perfectly the amount of error still isn't enough to get Lovelady near that elusive railing, sorry. And we don't know where people moved to between the time elapsed between the two images so if someone moved someone moved, get over it.

Are you going to draw in the rest of your railing or are you going to keep pretending that the lady in the black top is stopping you?

Royell, says he can see the depth in this GIF, how about that.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM

Nope, still won't answer!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Let's try again, shall we?

Which side of the center railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:18:16 AM
I'm wiping the absolute floor with you, Mr Mytton, and it's happening in front of everyone. I think a little laughter is perfectly in order!  :D

Nope, still won't answer!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/6O28mSr.gif)

Let's try again, shall we?

Which side of the center railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Quote
I'm wiping the absolute floor with you, Mr Mytton, and it's happening in front of everyone. I think a little laughter is perfectly in order!  :D

You always use emoticons in response to everyone, so in your mind you must be wiping the floor with everyone, talk about delusions of grandeur.
Let's be honest absolutely not one member with any credibility has supported you, what does that tell you?

Quote
Let's try again, shall we?

Which side of the center railing is the person in the blue rectangle standing on---east or west?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:

I've answered this a hundred times, we can't see the top section of the railing so something is in front of it, now are you going to draw in the entire railing or will I have to make a new thread to embarrass you, your choice?

Btw the following morph shows why 2D comparisons are not going to be as accurate as a 3D comparison, do you see Prayer Person, pretty cool, eh and proves that it's not Oswald standing on the lower step, wasn't that you were endorsing not that long ago?

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 12:20:50 AM
I've answered this a hundred times, we can't see the top section of the railing so something is in front of it, (~~~)

So the person in the blue rectangle is on the east side of the center railing, yes?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:23:48 AM
So the person in the blue triangle is on the east side of the center railing, yes?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Why do you keep answering me with questions?

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 12:26:28 AM
Why do you keep answering me with questions?

JohnM

:D Be careful, Mr Mytton, all that perspiration might fall on your keyboard and do real damage!

Now! Let's put this little silliness to bed, shall we?

"I, Mr John Mytton, am happy to confirm that the person in the blue rectangle below is indeed standing on the east side of the center railing."

Yes?

(https://i.imgur.com/ytEVGIM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/b6k9qL7.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:41:15 AM
Be careful, Mr Mytton, all that perspiration might fall on your keyboard and do real damage!

When we position the lady in black in black as compared to the the door frame behind we see her moving from the West side to the East side, how do you explain your lady in Black moving all over the entrance? Perspective, ain't it a bitch!

(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 22, 2019, 12:44:17 AM
When we position the lady in black in black as compared to the the door frame behind we see her moving from the West side to the East side, how do you explain your lady in Black moving all over the entrance? Perspective, ain't it a bitch!

(https://i.postimg.cc/j577dCg1/ladyinblack.gif)

JohnM

John,

What do you mean by "the lady in black in black"?

You're reminding me of a Rolling Stones song, here.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 12:45:13 AM
Hmmmm, interesting, you do realize I have no control over the people or where they moved to between being the two images, and re the handrail if you can draw in the railing in both images I'll happily make another GIF to your exact specifications, that's fair isn't it.

JohnM

     It has been reported that the TSBD Landing is Only 4 feet deep. The number of people you have standing behind the top of that handrail defies the depth of the Landing. You Mickey Moused that railing in order to support your position without realizing it actually Exposed your chicanery. Just look at Frazier and the distance from the end of that rail he is. Also, the number of people/bodies between Frazier and the end of the rail. If what we are seeing were true, Frazier would actually be several feet INSIDE the TSBD standing inside the Lobby.
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Royell Storing on November 22, 2019, 12:48:39 AM
Thanks for summing up your stoopid theory in one sentence, Oswald was standing BEHIND Lovelady so instead of just EASILY tracing around Lovelady's silhouette and blackening out where Oswald was, they instead attempted to guess where a shadow couldn't be and then painted this mathematically accurate shadow ONTO Lovelady, in what Universe is that the least bit logical? -sigh-
It's obvious you bit off more than you could chew so to justify the shadow craziness you somehow added Oswald into equation, it must be nice to have such a vivid imagination.

I decided that while the results were pretty good by comparing two 2D images, but the best way to solve this is in 3D because using two original images from two different cameras with maybe two different lenses, you have a parallax problem it's inescapable but a side benefit is that by shifting the cameras horizontally we now have a stereo view and when viewed through 3D glasses you get an effective cool 3D image but since not many people have the necessary glasses I made a 3D GIF version, see below.

(https://i.postimg.cc/k5Py9XZ5/loveeearail-3-D.jpg)

Anyway you seemed to have missed my earlier graphic which puts this issue to bed. By marrying up the relevant pixels in each video capture we can get the same 3D and we can see the depth, the only problem in this exercise is that Lovelady is only there in one frame but it's clear he's no where near the railing. Also look at Prayer Person and assuming he/she didn't move is against the wall and about a foot to a foot and a half in front of the glass, interesting.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)
The two screen captures come from Robin Unger's gallery, so it's the best you're going to get.

JohnM

    Bump regarding the distance from the Top of the Handrail to the Landing/Frazier
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:50:59 AM
John,

What do you mean by "the lady in black in black"?

You're reminding me of a Rolling Stones song, here.

--  MWT  ;)

Paint it Black?


JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: John Mytton on November 22, 2019, 12:53:42 AM
     It has been reported that the TSBD Landing is Only 4 feet deep.

I canna change the laws of physics, these images were taken from Unger's images and wysiwyg.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5y8pCrYb/loveindoorrsa.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Those Front Steps
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2019, 12:55:00 AM
When we position the lady in black in black as compared to the the door frame behind we see her moving from the West side to the East side, how do you explain your lady in Black moving all over the entrance?

But that's the point, Mr Mytton-------------she doesn't move all over the entrance in reality, only in your ridiculous gif!

(https://i.imgur.com/9AJGFcy.gi