Those Front Steps

[John Iacoletti]

Wow, you've gone full on Caprio, there is a mountain of actual evidence

So you keep claiming, but never producing. All you do is trot out a mountain of unsubstantiated subjective conclusions about weak, tainted, circumstantial evidence.

[Alan Ford]

This is now Ford dishonestly presents the evidence, he blows up my version to emphasise the pixels and keeps his version tiny, so it can't a fair comparison. naughty naughty. But this typical of Ford's devious tactics.



Btw the same gap is seen in both, so whatever point you were trying to make, makes no sense.




JohnM

 

Your sad little scheme to get Mr Lovelady in Altgens way over to the west of the entranceway-------------



-------------has died a death because of the angle at which Altgens is taken.

As anyone who has looked seriously and without prejudice at the relationship between the Lovelady@UpperElevation Wiegman frames and the Altgens photograph has known for years, they show Mr Lovelady (whatever about his posture) in the same part of the entranceway. And whoever doctored Wiegman recognized this too: that's why they added the dark shadow down Mr Lovelady at the exact point at which Mr Lovelady's body goes out of view in Altgens:



Sorry! 

[Alan Ford]

In Wiegman the lady in black is blocking the top half of the railing and by me drawing in the whole railing can in no way move the lady in black.

So the lady in black is on the east side of the railing in Wiegman, yes?



One-word answer required, Mr Mytton!

[John Mytton]

-snip-  weak, tainted, circumstantial evidence.

See that wasn't so hard, thanks for admitting that there is evidence, to say otherwise is pure Caprio.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Your sad little scheme to get Mr Lovelady in Altgens way over to the west of the entranceway-------------

-snip-

Altgens was not taken at the same time as Wiegman, and that unfinished graphic cannot be found in any of my posts. Try again.

JohnM

[Alan Ford]

Altgens was not taken at the same time as Wiegman, and that unfinished graphic cannot be found in any of my posts. Try again.

JohnM

 

Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Altgens:



Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Wiegman:



Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Checkmate, Mr Mytton! 

[John Mytton]

Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Altgens:



Mr Lovelady in front of Man B in Wiegman:



Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Checkmate, Mr Mytton! 

Horizontal shadow catching upper half of Man B's head in both Altgens and Wiegman, telling us that he is back a little on the landing and doesn't move position between Altgens and Wiegman.

First of all, can you clearly point out where Man B's head is and can you show that the shadows are exactly the same and can you prove that he didn't move?

No horizontal shadow on Mr Lovelady in either Altgens or Wiegman, confirming that he is indeed in front of Man B in both and hence nowhere near where you want to place him in Wiegman.

Yes there is no horizontal shadow on Lovelady but how does that place him in Wiegman?

Checkmate, Mr Mytton! 

Unsupported claims is not "Checkmate", answer my above questions and we will see who is indeed "Checkmated"

JohnM

[Zeon Mason]

Okay, thank you for the clarification, Mr Mason! 

That may indeed have been the calculation for the Lovelady@UpperElevation frames:
----------with the 'shadow' added, no one would even notice the second head, and if they did they would assume it to be motion blur or somesuch
----------even if they did realize it was a second head, they wouldn't be able to identify it as belonging to Mr Oswald.

For the Lovelady@LowerElevation frames, however, Mr Oswald had to be completely excised because-----------with Mr Lovelady no longer blocking him-----------he was recognizably present much in the way that Mr Lovelady still is.

This scam worked brilliantly------for five-and-a-half decades------until someone noticed that the shadow down Mr Lovelady could not be a natural shadow!

By the way, Altgens confirms the presence of a second sunlit person just behind Mr Lovelady in Wiegman:



This photograph must have been taken just before the first Wiegman frames, which show Mr Oswald's head just right (as we look) of Mr Lovelady's!

 

Well, Mr.Baggins… I think we finally understand one another