JFK Assassination Forum

Hahaha, you wish. Your Photoshop tricks aren't fooling anyone. LHO had a cleft chin. End of story.

Naughty naughty, you removed my graphic that I took directly from public domain TV footage from the post you replied to and no wonder because it proves Oswald's square chin in the background pix is just a lighting effect.





And this of course nothing new, Hollywood and Professional Photographers have known for decades that overhead lighting creates a strong jawline.
Look at the similarities of Arnie's photos to Oswald in the backyard, the darkened shadowed eyes, the triangular shadow under the nose and the square jawline!





JohnM

And he is leaning to his right which is ideologically inconsistent

But the murder weapon is to his left... the weight of which shifts his centre of balance to his left

That photo was the closest he ever got to stability
 

Also....
If a an application parallel with the stairs... buildings... the gate...the rest of the world is utilized...one can easily tell that the fake image is out of kilter --

 And he is leaning to his right which is ideologically inconsistent

Theory!

In Wiegman we see LHO, facing forward, raising a sandwich to his mouth with his RIGHT hand (if you look closely you see the left hand does NOT go up)...

   

… and in Darnell we see him with his arms folded, still facing forward but with head turned east, the sandwich/wrapper still in his RIGHT hand, only that hand is tucked under his left elbow and the protrusion of the sandwich/wrapper is giving the MISLEADING impression of being his left forearm! (The way to see this is to cover up the purported left forearm, take in the image of LHO with arms folded, and then return the purported left forearm to the image. It's quite startling!)

The above are garbage observations...The correct interpretation is the limousine has gone by and Sarah can't see it anymore because of the west wall of the portal...So she looks in to her purse...If you look at the Davidson enhancement that honest Alan omits you can clearly see Sarah Stanton's face and she clearly has her purse in front of her face and is looking down in to it...

Of the two Wiegman frames the first one had her hands up by her face and looking in to the purse...In the second one her hands lower...

If you are a good photo analyst you will notice the sun illuminates Sarah's right elbow area of her forearm...That means the glowing hand is also illuminated by sun and is simply that - a hand glowing in sun because it is furthest forward and in to the sun/shade plane...For years this has been misinterpreted by researchers who lack photo analysis skill...And the left hand does go up too because it is also holding the purse...

In Darnell Prayer Man pivots to "his" left and faces Frazier...This was very apparent in the stabilized clip of all Prayer Man images in Wiegman and Darnell that was posted on this board over two years ago...Prayer Man pivots towards Frazier because "he" is Sarah Stanton who is reacting to Frazier asking her what Calvery said, as Frazier made more than clear in his 2013 video interview and honest Alan outright ignores...

Alan cannot be trusted for correct interpretation of evidence and always regresses to what Larry Trotter describes as his "stupid game"...

Honest Alan omits the Davidson enhancement that Duncan posted at the end of his original post...It shows the best version of the Wiegman clear frame above and there is no doubt it depicts Sarah Stanton peering in to her purse...


 
   

But Baker thought the shots had come from the ROOF! Why would he waste his time going after a man just one floor up? Crazy!!

The reason he said LHO was already mobile when he first saw him through the glass door was he had to make the new story conform somehow to his original 'a man walking away from the stairway' statement.

I agree with you about Baker's language. His testimony is a lie. The footage of Baker & LHO in the DPD hallway on the Saturday which Barry Pollard has discovered also tells its own story. Baker's head goes down
-------------he doesn't want LHO to recognise him!

Don't play dumb Alan...Because he saw Oswald flinch away and Oswald had a particularly guilty look when he flinched because he was a spook and agent provocateur who had more to him than met the eye...Don't play dumb Alan...We both know who and what Oswald was and Oswald telegraphed that to Baker whose cop instincts picked right up on it...That's exactly my point...Why would Baker go after someone on the 2nd floor?...The answer is because that person did something to draw Baker's suspicion and that something was flinching away from the vestibule window and withdrawing into the lunch room...Baker gets fuzzy on exactly how he noticed Oswald because he can't tell the Commission that Oswald was calmly standing behind the vestibule door window watching the landing...He can't do that because that would make it too clear Oswald had not just ran down from the Sniper's Nest right in front of Baker & Truly...

Alan, the reason Baker describes seeing Oswald on the move is because Oswald was on the move when he flinched away from the window after seeing a cop appear on the landing...When you tell Alan that Truly told his wife of the encounter friday night he ignores it...

The correct interpretation of Baker's body language when he sees Oswald at the police station is Baker knows Oswald is on the inside and is undergoing a false arrest while maintaining cover...What I see in Baker is someone who knows Oswald is one of their own who is nodding his head both in respect and shame that he was involved in witnessing that proved Oswald's innocence...He knows Oswald's not guilty because he knows he saw Oswald in the lunch room and that he was there the whole time and not on the 6th floor...It's very simple and a very easily interpreted body language Alan...Baker feels guilty so he hangs his head because he knows he witnessed Oswald's innocence in the lunch room...

Wait a minute Alan...How could Oswald recognize Baker if the lunch room encounter never happened?


Alan shows all the classic earmarks of trolling...He snips off one point and aggressively answers it with a question...He does this with every post...We can review this thread and Alan chops off 90% of your evidence and then picks a low hanging fruit to ask a baited question over...By using this classic trolling technique Alan self-creates the illusion that he is controlling the narrative when in fact he's left most of the pertinent evidence unanswered and ignored...You can even call Alan a troll outright and he'll ignore it and continue on unphased...Serious researchers offering serious input wouldn't let you call them a troll if they sincere in what they were posting...