Those Front Steps

[Thomas Graves]

Mr Graves, I'm most grateful for your pointer on this and have been doing some digging.

From memory, is this the man identified as the man in the light-brown jacket in Hughes?





Thank you! 

Alan,

Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forget who it was at the EF who "identified" him as my Tan Jacket Man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you could "dig into" that and let us know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--  MWT 

PS  Between his legs in the Hughes frame, I believe we might be able to see the umbrella he was holding in his left hand in your gif !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Alan Ford]

Alan,

Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forget who it was at the EF who "identified" him as my Tan Jacket Man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you could "dig into" that and let us know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--  MWT 

PS  Between his legs in the Hughes frame, I believe we might be able to see the umbrella he was holding in his left hand in your gif !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well it's not him!





 

[Thomas Graves]

Well it's not him!





 

Alan,

Congratulations!!!!!!!

I think you've just cracked the case wide open!!!!!!!

I wonder if the Tan Jacket Man in the parking lot spoke Russian? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Or Spanish, maybe!!!!!!!

After the assassination, was he captured in the Bell film as he was walking towards the Grassy Knoll across the "infield grass,"  by any chance ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Carrying his rifle disguised as an umbrella and boofin' a bottle of vodka? ? ? ? ? ? ?

--  MWT 

[Alan Ford]

Alan,

Congratulations!!!!!!!

I think you've just cracked the case wide open!!!!!!!

I wonder if the Tan Jacket Man in the parking lot spoke Russian? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Or Spanish, maybe!!!!!!!

Was he captured in the Bell film after the assassination, by any chance ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Carrying his rifle disguised as an umbrella? ? ? ? ? ? ?

--  MWT 

Tell you what, Mr Graves--------why don't you follow up those no doubt interesting lines of inquiry, and I start a new thread on this man so as not to take this thread too far away from Those Front Steps where Mr Oswald was?

Division of labor! 

[Alan Ford]

Now! It is important to note that if the above comments pertain to the early Wiegman frames of the entranceway-------------



-------------then they pertain with bells on to the later ones, when Mr Lovelady has stepped downwards:



This is because, in thus stepping downwards, Mr Lovelady has left Mr Oswald's face (and much more besides) fully exposed not just to view but to closer view than in the previous frames, when Mr Wiegman was further from the entranceway and at more of an angle to it.

Hence even more extensive blacking out was required---it had to go higher than Mr Lovelady's head.

As long as no one worked out that Mr Lovelady couldn't possibly be in shadow like this, Mr Oswald's obliteration from the entranceway would be crudely but effectively achieved!

 

Now!

Do those who still refuse to believe that Mr Oswald was standing just behind Mr Lovelady at the time of the shots-----------



-------------- have any coherent response to the following?

1. If you believe that a dark vertical strip has not been added to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, what rational alternative explanation for that strip can you offer?

2. If you accept that a dark vertical strip must have been added to Mr Lovelady in Wiegman, because you can think of no rational alternative explanation for it, can you offer a non-Oswaldian reason why such a dark strip might have been added to the film?

3. If you believe that this issue will go away without your being able to address these problems, do you realize how foolish you are being?

Tick-tock! 

[Alan Ford]

If we put ourselves in Mr Roy Truly's boots, it might help us put together how the fake lunchroom encounter story came into being:

1. He and the officer encountered Mr Oswald in the front lobby (--------> no problem, as it was never the plan to set up Mr Oswald as the shooter)

2. He and the officer encountered Mr Light Brown Jacket by the stairway quite far up the building, and he (Mr Truly) had falsely assured the officer that the man was an employee (--------> big problem if the officer talks about this later)

Well, the officer (Marrion Baker) does talk, and goes on the record about the rear stairway encounter. Mr Truly is apprised of this and now faces a whopping triple problem:

--------He himself has already talked about seeing Mr Oswald in the front lobby downstairs after the shooting
--------The officer has talked about seeing a Depository 'worker' upstairs by the rear stairway.
--------The authorities have made it clear they want to pin the actual shooting itself on Mr Oswald.

Mr Truly is now under intense pressure to make both encounters disappear.

He certainly cannot let it be known that he lied to the officer about the employment status of the man by the rear stairway.

Solution!------------He merges the Oswald encounter and the Rear Stairway encounter into one encounter!

But where to put it? The rear stairways on the upper floors are too crowded with witnesses and potential witnesses to simply put it there. Besides, any upper landing would be an impossible sell after all the talk of seeing Mr Oswald downstairs.

So! Prompted perhaps by Mrs Reid's sighting of Mr Oswald with coke in the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination and/or Mr Oswald's own (true) claim to have visited that lunchroom before the P. parade, Mr Truly locates the make-believe encounter in the second floor lunchroom. Close enough to downstairs to get away with!

Question! But how does he know there was no one in the lunchroom at the time in question who will come forward to challenge his story?

Answer! Because he knows that Mrs Reid was in there on her own, so all he has to do is get her onside!

Complication #1! Mrs Reid refuses to cooperate to the extent of saying she was in the lunchroom when post-assassination Mr Oswald came in.

Complication #2! Mrs Geneva Hine's presence in the office area means Mrs Reid's fake story can't have her there during the P. parade either.

De-Complication! "Tell them you were outside with me and Ochus and ran back inside".

Clever Mr Truly!

[Royell Storing]

   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.

[Alan Ford]

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!