Prayer Woman

[Barry Pollard]

Friends!

Here's a nice blend of Wiegman and Darnell that (if memory serves) Chris Davidson put together:



Look at Billy Lovelady. He is one step down from where he was in the earlier Wiegman frames.
Look at Buell Wesley Frazier. He's on the landing.


Now! Compare their heights. Can anyone seriously believe that the 5'8.5" Lovelady is here only one step down from the ~6' Frazier? Yet that is what those trying to put Lovelady on the landing in the earlier Wiegman frames would have you believe!
No way. No how!

The above is the best way to look at it because BL is without doubt two steps lower than BWF.
In the looping Wiegman gif, Lovelady descends less than the height of his head, one step.
So I'm officially off the fence, I was already once before when I said there's no shadow on BL's head but that alone wasn't enough and I almost got back on it.
Cheers Alan. 

[Barry Pollard]

Altgens might be useful if you could replicate it accurately and prove your point Brian but that ship may have sailed if the steps have been refurbished, at this stage you can only guess, I myself cannot tell from Altgens alone and refer you back to what you just quouted.

[Barry Pollard]

You cannot tell with one frame of Wiegamn alone, that's the problem Brian.
Stick with Altgens, you have a point but I would want to see it proven.
Two things to consider;
Lovelady is probably on the toes of his right foot.
He's also probably stood closer to the camera than we thought, not by the railing at all but halfway between it and the wall.

You don't need Dallas to prove this, just a set of steps with 7" risers. Go for it.

[Barry Pollard]

RE: blob of pixels.
John, I've thought it looks a little like LHO but I've never had to use the pixels to do it.
That's what you need to see female features not male ones.
Blobs and pixels are what was shown to Stanton's family(allegedly).

[Barry Pollard]

Luckily for me, up on the toes on just the one foot while leaning is not too jarring, in fact it's the most natural thing to do the further I lean.
Perhaps it makes no difference to what we see but the ball is in your court, you have a point to prove.

Wiegman says he's two steps down and only came down one, ie. not on the landing, are you going to go on record as not being able to see that?

[James Hackerott]

I have entered comment and graphics related to Lovelady in Wiegman & Altgens in the Photographic forum.
Where was Lovelady Standing in Wiegman and Altgens6?

[Barry Pollard]

Brian, remind yourself of the efforts made to find a shadow on anyone in any image, anywhere near the railing's west side(virtually nothing found).
Then remind yourself how close Altgens and that hIgh Lovelady frame is in time(he cannot have moved much).
Then remember what you told me, how the angle might be misleading me, when I myself said he looks close to the railing.

Now you have to be kidding, after all that you're still claiming he's close to the railing but now even worse, behind the end of it, for what!?  To support the "he's on the landing" claim that then proves PM is not Lee?
How will you prove that?  Certainly not with words.

[Alan Ford]

I can't offer you a good argument for this blob of pixels being anyone in particular at all.

No offence, John, but you're just being glib.
There was enough information in this blob of pixels to enable folk to correctly identify Buell Wesley Frazier:



Same went for Marrion Baker, Roy Truly and several others. No problem in principle with applying the same procedure to PP. As one leading researcher pointed out when the above frame first became available: "A sharp eye will detect a male receding hairline and side part of the hair." Fits LHO. Why not him, given that
a) his exact whereabouts at this time are not firmly established
b) he claimed to have been on the first floor at the time of the assassination
c) every other employee in the building has been ruled out?

It's quite amusing. When the above Darnell frame first appeared five years ago, several LNers rushed to identify PP as Billy Lovelady. When that didn't, uh, work out, they turned to dismissing PP as an unrecognisable bunch of pixels. Basically, anything but admit that it might be LHO! It stops being amusing, however, when Warren Report critics follow their lead.

Why do you assume that PP is necessarily a Depository employee?

Why wouldn't I?

Since you haven't offered an alternative candidate to LHO, are we take your question above as an admission that PP is either LHO or a non-employee?