Those Front Steps

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Those Front Steps  (Read 348981 times)

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5017
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #294 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.

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #295 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-------------



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:



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!

Offline Chris Davidson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #296 on: November 12, 2019, 12:32:01 AM »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5017
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #297 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-------------



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:



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.

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #298 on: November 12, 2019, 08:19:29 AM »


Mr Davidson, is this gif supposed to illustrate anything specific?

 Thumb1:

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #299 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:
« Last Edit: November 12, 2019, 08:38:58 AM by Alan Ford »

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #300 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---------



---------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: