Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

What planet are you from, it's chalk and cheese. The second head could be the result of Wiegman's erratic panning or the video transfer or one of the multiple transfers thereafter,

 

Funny how the only person on the steps it happens to, and across multiple frames, is the person catching impossible shadow!



 

[Alan Ford]

1, Front door swings inward as Oswald exits and is not noticed by Pauline Sanders (purple figure)
2. Pauline Sanders is NOT right in front of the door but is further east of the front door and further forward, such that she would have had LOSto Elm st. Where she is depicted in the overhead plan view (purple figure), her LOS would have been blocked.
3. Prayerblob is approx in the correct position although possibly closer to the west wall , and the white object therefore NOT a hand in the sunliight but is actually a white cup.
4, Lovelady figure is in front of Buell W. Frazier, and closer to the central railing, thus is in full sunlight. This position creates a gap between BW Frazier and Prayerblob, which is where Oswald came out and stood for a brief period of time from approx 12:29 until 12:30:15. This position is approx  indicated in the graphic with the "Love" red disk marker. This is slightly  BEHIND both BWF and Prayerblob, thus Oswald not noticed by BWF nor Prayerblob (possibly Stanton)
5. Because the sunlight illuminates at least 50% of Oswald figure, possibly even had his face at one point in sunlight, this gap had to be darkened by some method to obscure the figure of Oswald.

We can quibble over details of where certain individuals were located, Mr Mason, but we are in agreement over the basic scenario here. Looks like I misjudged you-----------sorry!

Now the question of why the conspirators did not attempt to darken out the 2nd head

A. They concluded it was a motion blur effect of Lovelady face
B. The technique they used to add shadow would have taken more time than they had to carefully mask out around Loveladys face.
C. They decided micro shadowing was a greater risk of distortion to Lovelady face, than to just leave the 2nd head unaltered, which they determined was not enough detail to be discerned as Oswalds face, and could be explained as motion blur anyway.

B. + C.------------exactly! 

A.-------------I would modify to "They banked on people just assuming it was a motion blur effect of Lovelady face". 

[Alan Ford]

Don't give up your day job.

  

Notice how Mr Mytton doesn't mark the collar on the Martin frame! Now why oh why might that be...?

Friends, we haven't seen such sophisticated photoanalysis showcased on a JFK Assassination research forum since the days when Mr Ralph Cinque was proving that Mr Lovelady in Altgens is wearing Mr Oswald's arrest shirt!

 

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Oswald killed kennedy.  Get over it, folks.  Go from there, with help or no (especially with the voices in his tiny little marxist head).  How could marina stand him?  What a nightmare he must've been in bed, Ms. Porter.  Just my opinion. No clean sources.  that means HUMINT

[Alan Ford]

Friends, look at the young man in this photo taken after the assassination, when there was more shadow in the entranceway:



The young man is way west of the center railing, yet no shadow from the west column is catching him.

And this is what it comes down to:

Those still devoted to the lost cause of explaining the dark strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman know they must, at all costs, keep Mr Lovelady off the steps for all the Wiegman frames.

And this is what destroys all hope of succeeding in that ridiculous mission:



Mr Lovelady is on the steps here; Mr Lovelady is in full sunlight here; Mr Lovelady has a 'shadow' here; the 'shadow' cannot be natural!

 

[Alan Ford]

Now!

Let's consider this strange interference we see when the car aerial lands directly in front of the area where the Lovelady 'shadow' falls:



If this were natural darkness that the aerial is in front of in the Lovelady 'shadow' frame, then the aerial would simply show up clearly against the dark backdrop, just like it does in every other instance.

The fact that-------uniquely--------this does not happen in this frame, but that the darkness here--------uniquely--------interferes with the aerial tells us something very startling:

The 'shadow' cannot be behind the aerial, it must be in front of it.

Another way of putting this is that the 'shadow' has been added over the aerial.

 

[Royell Storing]

Of course it is, you're the Movie Expert, every TV I have ever watched or owned since black and white has at least had a brightness and contrast control and these were used to "enhance" and bring out the detail in the image. Isn't it ironic that the very hobby that you cherish and adore has had "image enhancements" as a standard feature for the last half a century. Hilarious!

I always calibrate my TV's and especially projectors by adjusting CONTRAST and a million other settings to best display the purest possible image as the Director intended. See I'm a REAL movie BUFF and watch REAL movies not crap like "Rocky 2-10" which were the same plot again and again with the same manipulative, bubble gum, garbage!





JohnM

    You seem to have a Problem understanding what "Jacking Up" truly means. Maybe all the images that you have Manufactured have screwed up your retinas? Also, calibrating a TV has absolutely Nothing to do with being a Movie or TV "Expert". What you are doing is akin to riding a horse and then claiming to be a Wrangler. There are No Shortcuts to mastering a craft or a field of expertise.