Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Alan Ford]

The front steps were almost fully in sunlight. The preposterous Wiegman magic 'shadow'-----------



------------banked on folks' ignorance of this simple fact.

Here's how those tasked with doctoring the images went about mimicking the texture of natural shadow:

----They could see that PrayerWOMAN was standing in a place that put her in natural shadow
----A part of her shadowed head was sticking up over the bathed-in-light head of Mr. Oswald (PrayerMAN): this gave the technicians their reference
----The technicians set themselves the task of conforming the obscurity of Mr. Oswald's face & upper body to that of the background head of PrayerWOMAN
----They extended the magic 'shadow' eastwards until it went down Mr. Lovelady's right side



The scam is almost laughably crude, but it did the job for six decades!

If the American public had been able to get a proper look at the original Wiegman frames showing the doorway, our resident Warren Gullibles would have spent the last years dismissing as utterly kooky the notion that the Warren Commission got it wrong in its conclusion that Mr. Jack Edwin Dougherty [or some other patsy] had acted alone.

 

[Alan Ford]

Friends, Warren Gullibility will be remembered as a bizarre cult of propagandists and midwits. Its compound has just been razed to the ground.

Whilst I am under no illusions as to the ability of some Warren Critics to look a gift horse in the mouth, I am confident that enough people with eyes to see, brains to think, and tongues to speak plain truth will understand the significance of what has just happened. The 60th anniversary of Pres. Kennedy's horrific murder bids fair to be an anniversary like none that came before................

[Zeon Mason]

Ok Mr.Ford, I will try to be a Skeptic since the dedicated  LNs probably consider the whole Oswald Out Front theory totally absurd, thus will ignore this thread.

So Here are some Skeptic ?:

1. Did the conspirator/ cover up squad miss how similar Red shirt man in Hughes film is to Oswald?
2. If no, to 1, Then since Red shirt man is fully visible, they must have thought that the public could be convinced the man was Lovelady, therefore took no steps to alter the Hughes film?
3. The movement of the left arm of Red Shirt man in Hughes is up and down in 1 sec. Can we be certain the action of a bottle being raised, making contact with lips, a portion of liquid escapes bottle into the mouth, and the hand holding bottle returns to waist level, can occur in a mere 1sec?

[Alan Ford]

Ok Mr.Ford, I will try to be a Skeptic since the dedicated  LNs probably consider the whole Oswald Out Front theory totally absurd, thus will ignore this thread.

Again, Mr. Mason, you make the mistake of treating the Warren Gullibles as honest brokers. They're anything but.
They don't think LHO-out-front is absurd------------they're completely stumped by the evidence I have presented, and mortified at their inability to explain
a) how Redshirt Man in Hughes can be Mr. Lovelady
b) how the shadow down Mr. Lovelady in Wiegman can be natural.
If they had something, you'd be sure we'd be hearing from them.
They big mad.

So Here are some Skeptic ?:

1. Did the conspirator/ cover up squad miss how similar Red shirt man in Hughes film is to Oswald?

Nope! But bear in mind that Mr. Hughes did not come forward with his film until 11/26/63

2. If no, to 1, Then since Red shirt man is fully visible, they must have thought that the public could be convinced the man was Lovelady, therefore took no steps to alter the Hughes film?

Yep! And 'fixing' Mr. Oswald in Hughes = much trickier than in Wiegman

3. The movement of the left arm of Red Shirt man in Hughes is up and down in 1 sec. Can we be certain the action of a bottle being raised, making contact with lips, a portion of liquid escapes bottle into the mouth, and the hand holding bottle returns to waist level, can occur in a mere 1sec?

The gif is on a loop, and the cut back to the start gives the false impression of the hand being brought down v. quickly. What Hughes shows is perfectly consistent with a man taking a sip from a bottle

 

[Chris Davidson]

Here's how those tasked with doctoring the images went about mimicking the texture of natural shadow:

----They could see that PrayerWOMAN was standing in a place that put her in natural shadow
----A part of her shadowed head was sticking up over the bathed-in-light head of Mr. Oswald (PrayerMAN): this gave the technicians their reference
----The technicians set themselves the task of conforming the obscurity of Mr. Oswald's face & upper body to that of the background head of PrayerWOMAN
----They extended the magic 'shadow' eastwards until it went down Mr. Lovelady's right side

Alan,
I remember giving you a lot of grief about the Wiegman shadow initially, while supplying some alternatives for what I thought it might have been.
This, coming from someone who already knows other items had been altered.
But, after spending many many hours looking through videos/photos and not finding one which showed the shoulder shadow that far eastward at the time of Wiegman, it became apparent to me that what you were conveying was correct.
The closest I could find was this cop segment which I posted long ago, but once again, this was later than Wiegman so that shadow would not have extended even to where we see it on the cop, who is on the 1st step down from the landing.


 

[Alan Ford]

Thank you very much, Mr. Davidson!

The fact that Mr. Lovelady steps down in the later Wiegman frames only seals the disaster for those still insisting on the integrity of the images:



He is clearly facing forward and nowhere near west or back enough to catch shadow. It's not even close.

The guys who did this to Wiegman were like someone writing a PhD in 1963 full of plagiarisms, not foreseeing that a time would come when digital plagiarism software would detect their sins with painful clarity!

 

[Alan Ford]

Friends, in 2019 Mr. Pat Speer---------a real researcher unlike so many of the clowns who populate the 'research community'!---------wrote this:

I was in Dallas on the weekend of the anniversary, and found myself standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30. And I looked at the steps from the angle of Altgens. Well, it hit me then that the Lovelady figure in Altgens was standing in the middle of the steps, and not on the far west of the steps, as seems apparent from the photo.

So I walked over to the steps. And noticed something. The shadow of the wall by the steps cuts across the top step at an angle. Well, this proves Prayer person was in the back corner, and not on the top step. or standing halfway on the second to the top step and top step. I walked up to the top and turned around. When I stood up against the west side of the staircase, I was able to get my face half in shade/half in sun. But when I stood on the top steps in a normal relaxed manner, my face was always in sun. I'm not sure if this means anything. But I seem to remember someone holding out that Prayer person was straddled on the top two steps. And there's no way he/she could have done that without being at least halfway in the sun.

Mr. Speer is quite right about Mr. Lovelady in Altgens, but what he says about PrayerPerson does raise the obvious question: how on earth is Mr. Lovelady---------the same person we know to be nowhere near the shadowline in Altgens---------suddenly catching all this shadow in Wiegman?



Answer: The Wiegman frames have had shadow artificially added to them.

It's that simple. One may find this explanation shocking, but there is no other explanation that comes even close to making sense.

And, knowing, as we do, that shadow has been artificially added to one person in the doorway (Mr. Lovelady), we can hardly find it a stretch at all to posit that shadow has been added artificially to a second person (PrayerMAN) in the same frames. Especially when positing this, and seeing that PrayerMAN is in reality catching plenty of sun, suddenly makes sense of where his elbows are showing up in Wiegman in relation to a) white column, b) vertical metal strip in corner:



PrayerMAN only makes sense, in short, if he is standing at the same spot as we see Redshirt Man standing in Hughes-------------back a couple of steps from the black man who is standing on the second step up:



Boom!

 

[Alan Ford]

since Red shirt man is fully visible, they must have thought that the public could be convinced the man was Lovelady, therefore took no steps to alter the Hughes film?

However!

A very strange 'mix-up' happened in late-February 1964 when Mr. Billy Lovelady was called in to the FBI office in Dallas to have his photograph taken:



The official report said this:



The reader gets the impression that the shirt described in the report ("a red and white vertical striped shirt") is the one in the photograph------------and hence that the shirt in the photograph is the one worn by Mr. Lovelady the day of the assassination.

Mr. Lovelady would later say that he was NOT told to wear the same clothes as he had worn 11/22/63 to the photograph session, and so he just brought what he happened to be wearing this day (2/29/64). By the time he made this clear, he was showing folks his 11/22 shirt:



Okay, but read again the report's description of the shirt: "a red and white vertical striped shirt".

Note that there is no mention here that the shirt was short-sleeved, which the shirt in the photograph obviously is.

Nor does the report state explicitly that the shirt Mr. Lovelady wore for the photograph session was his 11/22 shirt.

What is going on here? A comedy of errors? Perhaps.

But I think what we're really seeing here is a deliberate mix-up by FBI-----------------------one that created enough ambiguity to allow a certain impression to be given (both the short-sleeved shirt in the Feb photograph and Mr. Lovelady's 11/22 shirt may be described as "red" and "white vertical striped"), while leaving room to correct that impression should folks notice the problem.

And why would such a deliberate mix-up be contrived? Because the 'investigating' authorities didn't want to photograph Mr. Lovelady in his actual 11/22 shirt.

And why not? Because of Redshirt Man in Hughes



The authorities, who knew damn well that Mr. Oswald was Redshirt Man in Hughes, were a whole lot LESS spooked by the LHO=AltgensDoorwayman chatter than by the LHO=RedshirtManInHughes truth which no one had yet clocked.

NB! Only when the Martin film came to light did folks get to see Mr. Lovelady's 11/22/63 shirt for the first time:



After that, the ambiguity game could no longer be played..................