Those Front Steps

[John Mytton]

"different rail" Yes, and the present rail is even wider than the one shown in the link.

""And why would removing any rail increase the amount of shadow on the steps and landing?"
Read my last post again, Alan.  I said it increases the amount of space, in the shadow, available for somebody to stand in. It isn't very hard to understand.

Good on ya Ray, but Ford ain't so bright and it's not easy to explain the simplest of concepts but at least he's got a good imagination.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Imagine the door coming closer to the camera as blah blah blah

And thats it folks, Alan's only way to explain any problem is to have a good imagination. Geez, an expert in his own mind.
I have already acknowledged that the landing was a bit deeper(from memory a couple of feet) in 2019 but as I showed the tight angle across a longer distance only adds a little to the shadow and adds nothing to this discussion because Lovelady was standing on the steps 56 years ago in 1963. Doh!
Btw not since the days of Cinque have I seen LNers and CTs standing together to oppose such a scatter brain theory.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Happy to, Mr Nickerson!

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



 

Hilarious, they painted a shadow onto Lovelady to hide Oswald but "they" missed the growth coming out of the side of Lovelady's head? WOW.
But considering "they" did all this acquiring, developing, transferring, painting, drying, telecining all in a single afternoon, then missing that huge growth must have been part of the plan, now all we have to do is wait for Ford's wonderful imagination to help us fill in tbe gaps, waiting......
Btw the very foundation of this theory is painting "black" onto celluloid, has Ford actually consulted with any film specialists to establish the feasibility of acclomplishimg this monumental task without detection?

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

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.

    TIM- Just look at where John has Lovelady standing in relation to the (L) West side of the front door casing. He has Lovelady standing directly in front of the West Side door casing. Then look at the Speer photo showing the shadow cast across the landing onto that same door casing. There is No Way Lovelady can be standing in this position and Not be engulfed by that shadow. The Mickey Mouse handrail that John threw onto his visual aid only makes his positioning of Lovelady more atrociously obvious. Plain and Simple, for what we are seeing on Lovelady to be an alleged shadow, John needs to move the physical position of Lovelady.

[John Mytton]

    TIM- Just look at where John has Lovelady standing in relation to the (L) West side of the front door casing. He has Lovelady standing directly in front of the West Side door casing. Then look at the Speer photo showing the shadow cast across the landing onto that same door casing. There is No Way Lovelady can be standing in this position and Not be engulfed by that shadow. The Mickey Mouse handrail that John threw onto his visual aid only makes his positioning of Lovelady more atrociously obvious. Plain and Simple, for what we are seeing on Lovelady to be an alleged shadow, John needs to move the physical position of Lovelady.

Well Royell, you got one thing right, there is an awful lot of shadow up there.

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

Well Royell, you got one thing right, there is an awful lot of shadow up there.

JohnM

   Agree. And based on where YOU have place Lovelady, he would be COMPLETELY Engulfed by that shadow. The possibility of the Landing being less deep on 11/22/63 makes Your Shadow Problem even greater.

[John Mytton]

   Agree.

Thanks, maybe you can convince Ford because his entire theory revolves around a tiny sliver of shadow whereas as you have said, the exact opposite was true.
Btw the landing was smaller in 1963.

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

Thanks, maybe you can convince Ford because his entire theory revolves around a tiny sliver of shadow whereas as you have said, the exact opposite was true.
Btw the landing was smaller in 1963.

JohnM

   My disagreement with You is, (1) Where you have Lovelady positioned on the Landing relative to the (W) front door casing, and (2) Where you have Lovelady positioned relative to that Mickey Mouse Handrail you scrawled onto the pic. Looking at 11/22/63 footage of individuals walking up the steps and then Straight into the TSBD front door, those individuals are quickly engulfed by shadow as they move across the landing. Regarding a "sliver" shadow, I will say what we see stretching across the side of Lovelady is Not a sliver. It is Not angled. This is why I reference it as a Curtain. Straight as a string. I have heard that back in "63" the landing was 4 feet deep. I have Not verified this. The shallower the Landing the More shadow there is on that landing which further defeats your position of Lovelady and his being only HALF covered by an alleged shadow.