Those Front Steps

[Tim Nickerson]

Hi Tim, good to see you posting. Alan says that the shadow on Lovelady in Wiegman is hiding Oswald who was behind?, but for some reason he found Oswald's head behind Lovelady's head but "they" didn't bother painting that out? Whew! Yes, it makes no sense, it's classic circular logic, he's got a conclusion but he's busy trying to invent fantasies to support the ever increasing complexities.

This theory boils down to, Alan thinks the shadow on Lovelady is a fake and about a dozen frames of the shakiest jerky footage with extreme motion blur showed Oswald on the TSBD landing, so they just tracked these images and painted in a mathematically accurate shadow in less than 7 hours, this process requires processing, drying, resizing, drying, painting, the perfect shade of "black", drying, converting to ntsc, etc. Just the time to work out the shadows would alone take days, and in comparison Cinques Altgens 6 allegation pales into nothingness compared to the logistical nightmare of this theory.

In Wiegman's footage the frames amounting to about half a second could be easily excised and nobody would know the difference but instead they achieved the impossible for no added value, go figure.

I posted a video that came from the archives that shows the shadow early that night on the 22nd but surprise surprise, that was the fake version.

The only proof given by Alan to support this "theory" is that he thinks he sees Lovelady standing in a particular position but completely fails to account for the compressed perspective and has in not in the slightest supported these increasingly Kooky ideas.

At the end of the day all my graphics came to the same conclusion but the following GIF is rotating around the "lady in black" who's on the lower steps and Lovelady who is behind rotates less than the doorway which is further back.



JohnM

Thanks for the summation John. I've seen your graphics on this. My eye for photographic analysis is abysmal. As is my understanding of it. I'm not in a minority though. Alan means well, I'm sure. But he's way out of his league on this. I'm reminded of the lengthy thread here on "Will Fritz standing on the paper sack". There were a few who were adamant that the photo showed Fritz standing right where the paper bag was reported to have been found. They honestly believed it because they didn't know any better. It's understandable. However, you were eventually able to get through to them. Through repetitive explanation and patience.

[John Mytton]

Thanks for the summation John. I've seen your graphics on this. My eye for photographic analysis is abysmal. As is my understanding of it. I'm not in a minority though. Alan means well, I'm sure. But he's way out of his league on this. I'm reminded of the lengthy thread here on "Will Fritz standing on the paper sack". There were a few who were adamant that the photo showed Fritz standing right where the paper bag was reported to have been found. They honestly believed it because they didn't know any better. It's understandable. However, you were eventually able to get through to them. Through repetitive explanation and patience.

I forgot about the Fritz standing on the bag thread, but the difference is those CTs wanted to learn whereas Ford and Storing think they're instant experts but unfortunately they havn't done the miles to know any difference, I do feel sorry for them..

JohnM

[Alan Ford]

115 pages? Can somebody give me the Reader's Digest version of this thread?

Happy to, Mr Nickerson!

Mr Lee Harvey Oswald was standing just behind Mr Billy Lovelady at the time of the assassination:



 

[Alan Ford]

Enough of the diversions, I'm not going to do your research.

 

Oh but I did my research, Mr Mytton---------you, on the other hand, goofed up big-time again! 

Because of the extreme angle of your "required" shadow, unless the landing is now 20 feet deeper there isn't going to be much of a change. Here I drastically reduced the depth of the landing and the shadow line is still near the center.

There are not enough laughter emojis in the world to do justice to the hilarity of this latest Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Misrepresentation!

Shall we give Mr Mytton a chance to edit out this 'unfinished graphic', friends? I mean, even his Lone Nutter pals must be looking at this one through their fingers!

The real issue is

Funny how this had suddenly become "the real issue" until you realised your gaffe! You poor man, you thought you actually had something there! 

According to you, Mr Mytton, it proved all my claims wrong...



Now, friends, look at the door and the shadow here in Mr Speer's photograph:



Imagine the door coming closer to the camera as the landing shrinks in depth. What do you get?

Well, two things:

1. Mr Mytton with yet more egg on his face as he realizes that Mr Speer's photograph indeed bears out Messrs Stancak and Hackerott's placement of the shadow line! 

2. Mr. Mytton scrambling---------as predicted----------to create yet another shamelessly misleading visual (right image) to salvage the situation! 



Poor Mr Mytton-------------a one-trick magician whose one trick has been exposed to all and sundry!

[Alan Ford]

Thanks for the summation John. I've seen your graphics on this. My eye for photographic analysis is abysmal. As is my understanding of it. I'm not in a minority though.

 

Mr Nickerson, is this your way of saying "I want to show solidarity with my fellow Lone Nutter here but please don't ask me to play because I know I'll end up incinerated like him"?

[Ray Mitcham]

Looks a bit different when the handrail is (roughly) photoshopped out of the photo.

[Alan Ford]

(~Snippety snip-snip!~) painted in a mathematically accurate shadow in less than 7 hours (~Snippety snip-snip!~)

Where are you getting 7 hours from, Mr Mytton?

 

[Alan Ford]

Looks a bit different when the handrail is (roughly) photoshopped out of the photo.

That's because you've increased the shadow cover, Mr Mitcham.

Try just erasing the handrail shadow and leaving the rest alone!