Prayer Man with a rounded collar.

Chris_Davidson wrote:

alex_wilson wrote:

Plus (and I'm not questioning Chris's ethics or motives) ive lost whatever meagre respect I had for Davidson's photographic ability. Whatever talent he may once have possessed,  imho he's pissed it all away,  wasting his time on frivolous alterationist bullshit -anyone in the mood for looking at a gif of a bush?. Or how about 30+ pages of equations that would make even Mr Noseybonk's bonk of a nose do cartwheels across the paisley patterned psychedelic sky....

I find Chris Davidson's work highly unconvincing. Sometimes I get the impression he himself has no real idea of what exactly it is he's attempting to " prove "  I just don't think he possesses unparalleled skills and a savant like insight,  enabling him to illustrate and illuminate that which has remained occluded for 60 years. 

Once you start meddling with an image then , imho , it looses whatever forensic value it may once have possessed. 

I'm sorry,  until and unless he provides his data and until his images have been successfully reproduced, I'm highly dubious. How come he and he alone can conjure up images that fly in the face of 60 years worth of photographs,  with well established , traceable provenance. 

Did you miss the running woman's shadow under the mailbox or the paper bag? swaying.
Sometimes there is nothing to prove.
Were these frames scaled, stabilized and contrasted to bring forth a better viewing experience?
Was the existing scenario somehow altered after these changes were implemented?
You might think long and hard about questioning someone's abilities when you haven't a clue as to what is being presented.
So the image in Wiegman(which I brought forth from the shadows) and pointed out to Sean some 16 years ago is a figment of everyone's imagination because I used a shadow contrast filter to lighten that area. lol
Maybe someone else can explain to you what is in the Bell frames and its importance if that's your reference to bushes.
It's obvious you have no clue as to how an equation would be implemented to alter a film, but believe me, sooner rather than later, you'll be finding out.
It's called "thinking outside of the box"
So question whatever you desire about my work, but since you're pretty much clueless to what is being presented, I take your disposition with a grain of salt.

Chris_Davidson wrote:

alex_wilson wrote:

Plus (and I'm not questioning Chris's ethics or motives) ive lost whatever meagre respect I had for Davidson's photographic ability. Whatever talent he may once have possessed,  imho he's pissed it all away,  wasting his time on frivolous alterationist bullshit -anyone in the mood for looking at a gif of a bush?. Or how about 30+ pages of equations that would make even Mr Noseybonk's bonk of a nose do cartwheels across the paisley patterned psychedelic sky....

I find Chris Davidson's work highly unconvincing. Sometimes I get the impression he himself has no real idea of what exactly it is he's attempting to " prove "  I just don't think he possesses unparalleled skills and a savant like insight,  enabling him to illustrate and illuminate that which has remained occluded for 60 years. 

Once you start meddling with an image then , imho , it looses whatever forensic value it may once have possessed. 

I'm sorry,  until and unless he provides his data and until his images have been successfully reproduced, I'm highly dubious. How come he and he alone can conjure up images that fly in the face of 60 years worth of photographs,  with well established , traceable provenance. 

Did you miss the running woman's shadow under the mailbox or the paper bag? swaying.
Sometimes there is nothing to prove.
Were these frames scaled, stabilized and contrasted to bring forth a better viewing experience?
Was the existing scenario somehow altered after these changes were implemented?
You might think long and hard about questioning someone's abilities when you haven't a clue as to what is being presented.
So the image in Wiegman(which I brought forth from the shadows) and pointed out to Sean some 16 years ago is a figment of everyone's imagination because I used a shadow contrast filter to lighten that area. lol
Maybe someone else can explain to you what is in the Bell frames and its importance if that's your reference to bushes.
It's obvious you have no clue as to how an equation would be implemented to alter a film, but believe me, sooner rather than later, you'll be finding out.
It's called "thinking outside of the box"
So question whatever you desire about my work, but since you're pretty much clueless to what is being presented, I take your disposition with a grain of salt.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

I see Oswald's T-shirt and its bright white collar,,, which I assume was even less distorted and shall I say "round" before the cops roughed him up and his clothing.

Billy Lovelady gif, enlarge on your screen and Watch as Billy leans out as Limo rounds the corner placing right hand over his eyes peering out at the limo. He drops his hand, and then leans back, turns to his right and then his head turns to the right and behind him twice, as if speaking to someone behind him and then back to front. Billy was either looking back at or conversing with PM.
TSBD entrance

https://gifyu.com/image/S8sXM


Besides that Billy moved.
Billy not just moved a bit... Billy moved to the other side of the railing,,, between time the limo passes the entrance and Weigman filmed, Billy moved from shaded side of railing to sunny side, or from left side of the entrance past PM up around the railing and over to the right side. He is now next to the ladies.


There are then two documented instances where Billy had either interacted with or went by PM.
That or Billy jumped the railing which no one mentioned.

Good Luck Mr. Ford
Cheers, Ed

alex_wilson wrote:
Armstrong knows I certainly ain't no photo analyst , but the frame just looks so phoney. Where has Prayerman's white T shirt/ undershirt gone? It's visible in all the other frames/ stills- bar this one.

...

Whatever talent [Chris] may once have possessed,  imho he's pissed it all away,  [Chris Davidson] wasting his time on frivolous alterationist bullshit -anyone in the mood for looking at a gif of a bush?.

sandylarsen wrote:

alex_wilson wrote:
Armstrong knows I certainly ain't no photo analyst , but the frame just looks so phoney. Where has Prayerman's white T shirt/ undershirt gone? It's visible in all the other frames/ stills- bar this one.

...

Whatever talent [Chris] may once have possessed,  imho he's pissed it all away,  [Chris Davidson] wasting his time on frivolous alterationist bullshit -anyone in the mood for looking at a gif of a bush?.

You can declare a photo to be altered, but Chris and others can't? A bit hypocritical, don't you think Alex?

(I think I feel more anti-Larsen "humor" coming on in the debunked board.   )

Chris_Davidson wrote:

1. The person is not Shelley
   
2. It is not an established fact that the object is a paper sack, let alone THE paper sack
   

greg_parker wrote:Mr. Ford has changed his mind. on one aspect of his recent claims I am not going to belittle him for that. It is something not to be discouraged.

But he does need to reflect on what it may mean for other of his claims. 

Up until the change of heart, Mr. Ford looked at this image 



And divined from it that it depicts a female who has rushed to the scene to inspect a long paper sack dumped there by Lee Oswald and that this sack is the one and the same sack now in the archives.

His replacement claim is that it is a male - specifically Bill Shelley. 

1. The person is not Shelley
   
2. It is not an established fact that the object is a paper sack, let alone THE paper sack
   

The area and the people in it have no significance to the investigation whatsoever save anything they saw and heard as the motorcade passed.

Mr. Ford is equally mistaken about the PM figure who if the claims were true, must have almost thrown his shoulder out. so vigorously was he waving his flag in patriotic delight. 

This is so egregious a depiction of the real life Oswald, I  am sincerely lost for words. 

He might do this playing a role, but he would not be very convincing. 

This is the guy who was in trouble as a kid for not saluting the flag at school. This is the guy who was uncomfortable in social situations. This is the guy you couldn't get so much as a "boo" out of even if you gave him the role of Casper the Ghost.

The launch of this latest campaign to derail the PM train has imploded just when its comedic element were starting to shine through.

JFK_FNG wrote:Great stuff Jake. Now that we have a blanket like that on film, in basically the exact same location, I see zero reason to believe that it’s not the same object in Darnell. I bet strings, etc. or even just a loose piece of fabric are the thing twirling in the wind on the end.

steely_dan wrote:So are we all agreed that Bill Shelley was not drawing attention to an enormous bag that Oswald brought containing a Cuban flag and curtain rods to wave it with?