Where was Lovelady Standing in Wiegman and Altgens6?

[Barry Pollard]

James, fifth step for Hughes also, I got it, tyvm.
Your animation suggests that Lovelady came down two steps, from the landing to the 5th step but the difference between the real Lovelady and your model on the 6th step does not appear to be near the 7" height of a riser.  It's looks to be about 3", so do you think that the movement of Wiegman's camera could turn a drop of 14"(2 steps) into 7"?

Chris,
there's some differences of opinion here on the timing of Altgens V Wiegman.
Is there anything you can add that might put us all on the same page?

[Chris Davidson]

Chris,
there's some differences of opinion here on the timing of Altgens V Wiegman.
Is there anything you can add that might put us all on the same page?

If interested, start with third post down:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,103.0.html?PHPSESSID=p4v4erfe6r7ui4pgsou2j0oou5

[James Hackerott]

James, fifth step for Hughes also, I got it, tyvm.
Your animation suggests that Lovelady came down two steps, from the landing to the 5th step but the difference between the real Lovelady and your model on the 6th step does not appear to be near the 7" height of a riser.  It's looks to be about 3", so do you think that the movement of Wiegman's camera could turn a drop of 14"(2 steps) into 7"?

Barry, I'm too whipped tonight to think about that. Please review my latest comparison animations and we can take questions up tomorrow.

Summary W1/W2
                Alt6/Bird's-eye
A1 Lovelady Landing-standing = W1
A2 Lovelady Landing-leaning 35deg Altgens positioned ? no Wiegman equivalent
B1 Lovelady 1 step down #6 Altgens positioned ? no Wiegman equivalent
B2 Lovelady 2 steps down #5 = W2

Each animation
Altgens6 is not synced to any Wiegman doorway frames.
Lovelady is on the landing in W1
Lovelady is on the 2nd step down #6


Chris,
there's some differences of opinion here on the timing of Altgens V Wiegman.
Is there anything you can add that might put us all on the same page?

[Barry Pollard]

... I can agree with you and Alan that Lovelady does appear to be on step 5 in the second pass of Wiegman's view of the doorway. That does not change my opinion of him being on the landing in W1 and step 6 for Altgens6.
...

James,
at the start of this thread it seems we all agreed that Lovelady appears to have only dropped down one step. Now since you've changed your mind on what step he is on in W2, as you wrote above, then it had to change something else.  Well it seems you quite easilly went from "one step" to two steps, only the height of one step  was cut in half from 7" to around 3.5" but with no explaination or reasoning.

[James Hackerott]

James,
at the start of this thread it seems we all agreed that Lovelady appears to have only dropped down one step. Now since you've changed your mind on what step he is on in W2, as you wrote above, then it had to change something else.  Well it seems you quite easilly went from "one step" to two steps, only the height of one step  was cut in half from 7" to around 3.5" but with no explaination or reasoning.

Barry,
I apologize for the delay with this response as there was a lot to review. The key to this mystery is that I initially worked under the two step paradigm which put Lovelady either on the landing and then step 6, or on step 6 and then step 5. The W1 rendering put Lovelady squarely on the landing. Thus, per the paradigm, defaulting him down to step 6.

Then after your input about a two step drop I agreed to test that hypothesis and found, indeed, Lovelady stepping from the landing to step 5 by W2 very probable and posted those results in reply #16 this thread. So, I had not via simulated measurement, dropped him 7?. I reviewed my previous work and did not find substantial changes involved that suddenly placed him on step 5. Dropping Ruth Dean's apparent height including hat by a few inches to eye level is superficial to the actual placement of Lovelady. I've added a hat now to Ruth to avoid more confusion about that. So, to write I changed my mind about the two step drop is a little off the mark, IMO.  I do value the feedback you and others offer.

[Barry Pollard]

Barry,
I apologize for the delay with this response as there was a lot to review. The key to this mystery is that I initially worked under the two step paradigm which put Lovelady either on the landing and then step 6, or on step 6 and then step 5. The W1 rendering put Lovelady squarely on the landing. Thus, per the paradigm, defaulting him down to step 6.

Then after your input about a two step drop I agreed to test that hypothesis and found, indeed, Lovelady stepping from the landing to step 5 by W2 very probable and posted those results in reply #16 this thread. So, I had not via simulated measurement, dropped him 7?. I reviewed my previous work and did not find substantial changes involved that suddenly placed him on step 5. Dropping Ruth Dean's apparent height including hat by a few inches to eye level is superficial to the actual placement of Lovelady. I've added a hat now to Ruth to avoid more confusion about that. So, to write I changed my mind about the two step drop is a little off the mark, IMO.  I do value the feedback you and others offer.

Hi James,
just for my own sanity, I did mention "the two step thing" yes but I gave no evidence for it nor any explaination, basically I was referring to your caution on the observed one step drop for Lovelady in Wiegman that may not be reliable because of the movement of Dave's camera(so perhaps it was two steps).
Anyway, just a thought here, how about trying it another way, put your Lovelady model on step6 and show how it doesn't line up with Altgens.
Btw James, you might be the only researcher I'm aware of that thinks Wiegman opened first, I hope that's not influencing you too much because you may have trouble supporting that idea

[James Hackerott]

Hi James,
just for my own sanity, I did mention "the two step thing" yes but I gave no evidence for it nor any explaination, basically I was referring to your caution on the observed one step drop for Lovelady in Wiegman that may not be reliable because of the movement of Dave's camera(so perhaps it was two steps).
Anyway, just a thought here, how about trying it another way, put your Lovelady model on step6 and show how it doesn't line up with Altgens.
Btw James, you might be the only researcher I'm aware of that thinks Wiegman opened first, I hope that's not influencing you too much because you may have trouble supporting that idea

Thanks for the heads-up...seems trouble is my middle name lately.
How about my last ani-collage in post #26. It cycles in order Landing, Landing-leaning 35deg, step 6 in an Altgens position, and step 5. Lovelady on 6 and Landing leaning share essentially the same 3D space. How to tell the difference? IDK

[Alan Ford]

James,
at the start of this thread it seems we all agreed that Lovelady appears to have only dropped down one step. Now since you've changed your mind on what step he is on in W2, as you wrote above, then it had to change something else.  Well it seems you quite easilly went from "one step" to two steps, only the height of one step  was cut in half from 7" to around 3.5" but with no explaination or reasoning.

Barry, James,
I hate to be a bore (!) but there is still a large issue here with the placement of Frazier in W1:



The blue line extends approximately from his chin. He is clearly much higher than, and at a much greater distance back from, Lovelady than in any of James' simulations. Given that we know pretty well the two men's actual heights, I can't for the life of me see how they can both be on the landing.