Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Those Front Steps  (Read 135151 times)

Offline Chris Davidson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #296 on: November 12, 2019, 12:32:01 AM »
Advertisement

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #296 on: November 12, 2019, 12:32:01 AM »


Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2597
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:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #298 on: November 12, 2019, 08:19:29 AM »


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:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #300 on: November 12, 2019, 08:54:07 AM »


Offline Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 905
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #301 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---------



---------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?

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #302 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:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #302 on: November 14, 2019, 07:33:44 AM »


Offline Matthew Finch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Those Front Steps
« Reply #303 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:



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'...