Those Front Steps

[Alan Ford]

"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.

(~Sigh~) Your altered version of Mr Speer's photograph, Mr Mitcham, added fake shadow to the real shadow, because you need some makey-uppey shadow to make your placement of Mr Lovelady way over towards the west wall a little less ridiculous.

That clear enough for you?

 

[Alan Ford]

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

 

I'm going to post what you originally posted, Mr Mytton, lest you disappear it on the ground that it was an 'unfinished post'!



Why did you post this, Mr Mytton? Because you confused the current landing depth with the 1963 landing depth! 

Now! Here's your latest Soopah-Doopah-Scam-Visual:



Compare where you've put the rightmost vertical line here in your right image to where you put it in your original version. Why, you've barely moved it! You don't want folks to see the magnitude of your latest gaffe!

The visual on the left, of course, shows where an honest placement of the rightmost vertical line in the left image should be. But we won't hold our breath!

All we can do is catalogue where this exchange has left us:

a) Messrs Hackerott and Stancak were right about the shadow line! 

b) Mr Mytton goofed up big-time by taking today's landing depth for the 1963 landing depth! 

c) Mr Mytton's latest attempt to get Mr Lovelady into natural vertical shadow has ended in Soopah-Doopah-Failure! 

[Alan Ford]

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,

Where are you getting this "all in a single afternoon" time constraint from, Mr Mytton? Your 1988 NBC broadcast? 

[Alan Ford]

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

"a tiny sliver of shadow", lol

[John Mytton]

I'm going to post what you originally posted.... blah blah blah.

No worries, I have already stated on numerous occasions that the landing is deeper today and if there is a huge difference where the sun plane hit's the door then prove it, but remember your usual proof of "it just looks right to me" is not very scientific and won't be accepted?
And btw this is the perfect opportunity for you to earn some credibility and prove that your 3D shadow models that we have been using actually match Speer's shadow line, surely a simple comparison isn't beyond your abilities?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

   My disagreement with You is,........

If you want to engage me in conversation don't start with a negative followed by another list of stupid advice/observations, because that's when I stop reading.

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

No worries, I have already stated on numerous occasions that the landing is deeper today and if there is a huge difference where the sun plane hit's the door then prove it, but remember your usual proof of "it just looks right to me" is not very scientific and won't be accepted?
And btw this is the perfect opportunity for you to earn some credibility and prove that your 3D shadow models that we have been using actually match Speer's shadow line, surely a simple comparison isn't beyond your abilities?

JohnM

    We were discussing the TSBD Landing on another thread. It was posted that the landing was 4 feet deep and that the TSBD front door was 4 feet wide. Again, I have Not verified these dimensions. That said, the lack of depth that the landing had in 1963 also Limits the number of people that could stand atop it single file back toward the TSBD. If it is Only 4 feet deep, and you have a door that Opens onto the landing that is 4 feet wide, there can Not be a lot of people situated on that Landing. 

[Royell Storing]

If you want to engage me in conversation don't start with a negative followed by another list of stupid advice/observations, because that's when I stop reading.

JohnM

 Of course You "stop reading". This is your equivalent of a 5 year old kid putting his fingers in his ears so he will Not hear Daddy correcting him. Consider yourself corrected Jr.