Bill Miller

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But that is not Wiegman... it is Hughes.

And the interval between Darnell and Hughes is much longer than 30 seconds.

I am aware of what film it is, but no one can say they see everyone in Wiegman's film - well you could say it, but it would not make it so.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks to you and Alistair for proving me right.

I don't think it would be possible to prove you right at this point. 

Larsen:  " So you believe that Lovelady left the steps in that 30-second interval between Weigman and Darnell, and was replaced by yet another person who resembles Lovelady, Oswald, and the guy on the sixth floor wearing a white tee shirt. "

Within that 30 second window you speak of .... the population on the steps grew in number despite some people having left the stairway.

" That's a lot of Oswald-lookalikes. But what I have a hard time believing is that another guy with a receding hairline just happened to walk onto the steps just as Lovelady left. Within that 30 second window. That's a very unlikely thing to happen IMO. "

Within that 30 second window you speak of .... the population on the steps grew in number despite some people having left the stairway.

Bill Miller:   I believe the Lovelady and Shelley's statements, ....

Larsen:  Their statements say nothing about walking down Elm Street extension within seconds of the shooting. Which is what the two guys in the Darnell video do.

Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.

Looks to me that Darnell shows two men walking on the extension and well on their way to being 15 to 25 steps away as Baker gets to the stairs

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Let’s see if we can put this frame in relation to Altgens 6.   We see that the President is not shot here.  At least he shows no signs of duress.  He’s shot somewhere around Z frame 210 in the throat.  In appearance he doesn’t match the Altgens photo until Z frame 255.  This is when we see Jackie Kennedy touching her husband.

The first shot was fired between Z186 (Betzner photo) and Z202 (Willis photo).

In the "Men Who Killed Kennedy" series, Mary Woodward said when the first shot was fired that it hit the President which caused him to stop his wave as he brought his hand into the car and over his face. (Click the image and it will take you to the moving image with the audio of the first shot inserted in relation to Woodward described)

Larsen statements:

" What I said is that there is film evidence that Lovelady will -- without apparent reason -- button up his shirt. By which I was implying that he may gave done so in Darnell. "

" My only reason for making that post was to point out that Lovelady might have buttoned up his shirt before Darnell caught him on film, like he did before Martin caught him on film. For that matter, he could have buttoned up before Darnell regardless of what happened with Martin. "

10 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Exactly what is it, photographically-speaking, about your so-called "Washed Out Man" on the steps in Couch- Darnell that makes you to say he couldn't possibly be Lovelady?  Too much hair?  Not enough?  Too tall?  Too short?  Wrong gender? Because he wasn't walking down Elm Street Extension with Shelley? 

As I have repeatedly said - the image is too poor to offer the details you have attributed to it. It is ironic that anyone would argue otherwise when there is a woman a few steps down facing west that no one was seeing. There was sunlight shining off the same woman's clothing that was being referred to as an enlarged disjointed arm. The image was so poor that some thought they saw a woman's leg and backside in silhouette near the hand-rail. The image was so poor that there had to be some consideration of another person being between Washout Man and the dark scarfed woman a step or so down from him. So when one uses an image that blurred and washed out - they can consider that its possible that anyone from a little girl to Adlai Stevenson II is this person. After all - they both have eyes - right!   

I once chuckled when I heard Jim Marrs address the term 'anything is possible'. Jim replied to someone that it's possible that President Kennedy was killed by a stray bullet fired at a deer from a hunter who was two miles away ........ and then asked if that sounded probable?

In the film the little girl's washed out face was taken from ... there is a man standing over against the TSBD at the extreme right in the photo. His image is slightly better than Washout Man's and it would be reckless in my view to ascertain who that person is from that distance.

In the time Washout Man is seen in Darnell ... there are quite a few people who have shown up on the stairs since the shots were fired. To rely on the idea that because Lovelady had been on the stairs earlier, so it must me him is a bit of a stretch to me.

Quote

PS  In the two-frame GIF that Sandy provided, the hair on the side of Lovelady's head can be seen in both frames, so how could that be a photographic "blemish" / "artifact"?

 

I don't agree that it is seen in both frames, but then again the artifacts seen on Frazier and Molina's face is seen in both frames and that is not hair on those two men. And in the one frame as I pointed out before ... the artifact has a light colored tone beyond it and none of the good images of Lovelady show him to have a single growth of hair on the side of his head.

21 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 What is Miller's overall-theory, anyway?

--  Tommy

I have probably written more about what I believe to be true than anyone. Perhaps you were doing something other than reading my responses. Review the threads for everything that was said is archived.  

Still would like to know how the second guy on the steps in Hughes led you to believe he was wearing glasses.  You never responded to that point.  Maybe you missed my mentioning this because of all the dust that was in the air at the time.  

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If you accept that the guy on the right has a bald spot, then you must also accept that the guy on the left is wearing a plaid jacket and either is sporting a wild haircut or is wearing a baseball cap backward.

I have posted a photo of Shelley's hair style and have mentioned his thick wave above his forehead. Shelley wore a suit - no ball cap - and testified that he and Lovelady left the stairs together. None of this should be a mystery to those who posted in the 'How tall was Bill Shelley' thread.

As I have said many times now - I did not buy Kamp's assertion at first that the man walking on the extension was Billy Lovelady, but I eventually I came to the conclusion that it was the most probable piece of evidence between it and someone claiming they saw eyes on a washed out face that could not be 15 to 25 steps from the stairs when looking back and seeing Truly and Baker on the landing and moving towards the doorway as Billy testified to.

The artifacts that made lines over the dark suited man were not what caused the plaid shirt design on what looks to be Lovelady. Those lines, if were cased by the same effect, would be uniform in size between the two men - they are not. And as I recall, those lines were on several other people and objects that also were not uniform in size with the plaid shirt.

You may not like my answer, but seeing you asked - I answered you once again.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No, I didn't do that.

I used the barely-made-out-eyes and other features to support my contention that the top part of the person is a face, and not the back side of a woman's scarf. Which had been suggested earlier by someone, possibly you.

We know I didn't promote the Lovelady shirt buttoning fetish as he moved about on assassination day. I will however make time to go back and quote the culprit so we all know who it was.   

12 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear William,

Altering photographs and presenting them as "the real deal" on this forum, wondering if anyone will notice?

Isn't that an example of intellectual dishonesty?

All the best,

--  Tommy

 

" Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. "

You were to be tested after the rhetoric you and Sandy were chanting concerning leaving me in the dust ..... followed by your seemingly unawareness of the other men who had a similar hairline to Billy Lovelady despite my posting about them with images on a few prior occasions.

So what did I do - I first notified a trusted member of this forum that I was going to test whether your claiming Washout Man was Lovelady was because of any valid observations you had made or whether you were just relying on the concept that if you merely said it enough times, then it would somehow become true.  I chose that member to be Alistair. I sent him the film from which the little girl came from, as well as a full screen capture, plus an enlargement. I also included the same images I later posted to the forum.

As I suspected would happen - you failed the test just as you failed to see the artifact that you claimed was hair on the side of Washout Man's head in the one frame. You failed to see the same artifacts and panning blurs that rerouted hairlines on Prayer Man, Fraizer, and Molina. Your complaints of my using enlargements hinted to me that you were oblivious to the necessity of enlarging the images so these artifacts could be better detected. In the end, I concluded that you really hadn't given any consideration to the accuracy of your observations. Instead of just admitting that you could have paid closer attention to the details of these images -  you complain that the standards of rational evaluation wasn't applied. In a way I agree as it wasn't applied when you chose to make claims about seeing details in a degraded image without first investigating other possible causes.

Now when the dust clears - address the hairline of the guy walking down the extension while wearing what appears to be a plaid shirt, a receding hairline, accompanied with a bald spot on the back of his head much like this one seen here ....

3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

[...]

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear William,

I don't speak for Sandy regarding the t-shirt (specifically whether or not Lovelady buttoned or unbuttoned his outer shirt), and he doesn't speak for me, What he and I do agree on is that Billy Nolan Lovelady was "captured" standing on the steps in Couch - Darnell.

Only you could find comfort in someone agreeing with you who sees a buttoned up shirt while you see an open shirt that exposes a t-shirt. 

Quote

A question for you regarding the head of "Washed Out Man" on the steps in Couch - Darnell:  Did you put the head of that little girl on him in this two-frame GIF, too?  Or alter it in some other "very clever way"?  I didn't think so.

I  thought you carefully analyzed these images before claiming that this person was Lovelady. The truth is I knew you had not done so. The fact is that Alistair gave me the idea yesterday to look for some comparison images that would give a false impression when washed out. I sent him a gif of another film of a line of people who were standing in front of the TSBD.  I noticed the similar distortion that with the girl as I did with Washout Man.

Perhaps your memory is failing, so I will remind you that I posted this two frame gif to show the artifacts that suddenly popped onto the image. I mentioned the blemishes that suddenly showed up on Prayer Man's head - Buell Frazier's head - Joe Molinda's head. I mentioned the blemish on the seam of the wall, as well on the side of Washout Man's head.

I specifically pointed out that Prayer Man's head morphed to the left and downward (as well as his right forearm) - Frazier's face, Molinda's face, and Washout Man's face. I think Sandy called it a head turn when it came to Washout Man, but when you look at the blemish that shows up on Washout Man's head (that you call side-hair) ... it stands alone with skin tone in front of it, as well as behind it. It's arrival comes at the same moment the other blemishes and morphing of the heads did. I am fairly certain you have never addressed it because you never looked close enough at the images to see it. You have not even addressed it since I raised your awareness to it. And lastly, you didn't address the man walking on the extension with the dark suited man with the Bill Shelley hairdo as having Lovelady's hairline, plaid shirt, and the bald spot on the upper back of his head.

You may not like what I have to say and you don't have to agree, but you should attempt to be as thorough in your responses as I am when addressing yours.

Gary Mack had all those figures because this stuff came up years ago. So I am sure the Museum has that information as well.

4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

I'm also tired of "banging my head against the wall" with Miller, who evidently selectively posts Couch-Darnell "frames" that purposefully don't show what Sandy and I (and I'm sure Bob Prudhomme, too, if he were only here) are trying to point out.  For example, Loveladys white t-shirt.  In one of the the frames Miller posted regarding the t-shirt (not the one below), said t-shirt is partially blocked by the head of Woman In Black.  And when an over-enlarged frame is posted (see below) that shows a larger, more distinct bit of Lovelady's white t-shirt in Couch - Darnell, Miller tries to explain it away as being nothing more than "sunlight reflected off of 'Washed Out Man's' shirt".

To start with ... we may have to go back and put together some of you and Sandy's past comments because I think Sandy had Washout Man with his shirt buttoned up as the reason that no white t-shirt was seen.

Now here are the three views you are referring to ...

The way I see it is if the suns light hitting the front of Washout Man was truly showing his t-shirt, then it would still be seen in the third photo when the upper torso has shifted away from the sun leaving a consistent tone from the mid-chest to the left shoulder.

In this animation below ... it starts with the all three views. 

Then comes some white lines on the second image showing shade falling across the clothing.  Next is the third image coming over the second (middle) image which also has white lines showing the shade even further out over the clothing. This would be because this individual as moved in a manner that the direct sunlight is no longer hitting the front of clothing being worn.

Now earlier Michael Clark mentioned the image I posted was Lovelady on the steps. However, the face was not Lovelady's, but instead belonged to the little girl seen in this film capture as she stood even closer to the camera than Washout Man had (see below)

That's right!  I took this little girl's degraded facial image and placed it onto the face of what has been described as Billy Lovelady's. I have repeatedly explained how unreliable those types of images are and all I heard was more rhetoric about how ever more a few here were convinced this person was Billy Lovelady. This little girl appears to have a receding hairline as well from her face being washed out. 

Then came T Graves asking about what other people had a hairline like Lovelady's as if he had just come out of a long coma because I had posted those images several times over the course of these discussions. One being the man walking with the Shelley hairdo guy who not only has Lovelady's receding hairline, but his plaid shirt and bald spot which Bart Kamp pointed out some time ago. 'What individuals had Lovelady's hairline?'       That question was a real hoot - it was!!!

Quote

I for one am convinced that we can see a little bit of Lovelady's white t-shirt on the left (as we're looking at him) side of "Lovelady's" upper-chest / lower neck

 

Are you as convinced about that observation as you were that the other guy below with the receding hairline was wearing glasses?  

And I am convinced that this image is so bad that the head looks like the one the 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' had.  

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

I have sharp eyes, but I'm not a photo analysis expert. I stay away from these debates, generally. I was just giving my 2 cents, since you asked.

Cheers,

Michael

 I appreciated the response.   

I think you are just kidding, but if not - what is it about the image I previously posted that ID's this person as Lovelady?

I can only assume from the silence that we can all finally agree that there was not enough information seen with Washout Man to say with any certainty that it is Billy Lovelady.

21 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Bill ya 3 or 4, they say 4 degrees but I have not checked it myself. I assumed the curb was about 6 inches high and I would add one or two more for the carpet of grass. I have heard the street level has risen several inches due to resurfacing over the years and the crown of the street would raise him several inches if he really was 6 feet into the street. Lots of little unknowns but he definitely was 2 to 6 feet into the street in A. 6. Too bad Google Earth can't takes us off the street and onto the grass and other spots. A 3d Dealey plaza we could walk through would be great.

It was Gary Mack that confirmed the 3% grade.

I heard a long time ago about the rumor of asphalt build-up, but then someone posted photos of the work when the re-surfacing was done and the old asphalt has been removed before the new surface was put down.

What one cannot appreciate is the south pasture slopes down to the top of the curb. So even if standing back 3 - 4 inches from the top of the curb places one on a slope. t seems to me that when we tested the Moorman in the street issue many years ago - there was about a 12" difference between standing on the street to where Moorman was in elevation standing where her feet were seen in the Zapruder film.

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Bill, the limo also drops about 9 feet in altitude from Altgens 6 to 7, from No later than Z255 to z390(approx.). That is the main reason we see the trunk being lower in A. 7. The curb must add about 6 inches to the perspective also. 
 The time between A, 6 and 7 should be about 8 seconds if From Z255 to Z390. Frame 390 is my best estimate based on a LOS from the middle of the spare tire cover to the lamppost behind it.

I understand that ... Elm street has a 3% grade as best as I recall. Ike still stepped up 12 to 14 inches when he backed out of the street.

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

Yep!  You boys are wasting your time here trying to explain anything to me.   BS, falsehoods, and  nonsense is recognized for what it is.

If you can't convince some one with your arguments then move to ridicule and harassment.  I looked at posts here over time and your behavior hasn't changed.  Your like old dogs who can't learn a new trick.  There's about a half dozen of you gateway thugs I'm sure people could do without. 

You boys do a good job of keeping a lot of people from posting on this site through your actions. 

lolff

You compared Ike Altgens location at 4.5 seconds after he took his #6 photo as something sinister as if Ike couldn't move from the street back over the curb in that amount of time.

Altgens 6 supports Ike being in the street as his camera appears to be on a near level plane with the limo's trunk, so is it that you are disputing this?

Altgens 7 shows the camera to be elevated above the level plane of the limo's trunk which is what should happen if Ike stepped out of the street and atop of the curb. So is this what you are disputing?

4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The question was --  "Who, on or in close proximity to the steps, other than Billy Nolan Lovelady had Lovelady's distinctive bald forehead with hair on the sides?" 

The man that Shelley testified about who just left the stairs with him and got 15 to 25 steps before turning back to see Baker and Truly enter the front entrance of the TSBD has a hairline much like Lovelady's. Some even see the distinct bald spot on the top rear of his head along with his distinct plaid shirt.

The man in this capture below has a hairline much like Lovelady's

Quote

 

"And the man seen near Lovelady in the Hughes film." 

That man appears to me to be wearing glasses.

 

The same man turning his head in the Hughes film - where are those glasses again? Perhaps he isn't wearing glasses and that it is you who should be. 

Quote

William's answer: "The man that was passed over with the camera who was out by the street that several thought was Oswald - Prayer Man."

What in the world are you talking about, William?  Could you provide a link or two, or a photograph?  What "several" people?

Perhaps had you not been up into the night talking about leaving me in the dust, then you would have had time to catch up on the three threads that mention these individuals. These images I have posted "several times" as well.

Quote

 

"And the man seen near Lovelady in the Hughes film." 

That man appears to me to be wearing glasses.

All the best,

--  Tommy

PS  But at least you're admitting that the "Lovelady" figure on the steps in Couch - Darnell has a bald forehead with hair on the sides, just like Lovelady's.

That is not what I said at all. I said there are artifacts that have given you that impression. It's the same type of artifacts that alter Prayer Man's hairline - Buell Frazier's hairline - and Joe Malinda's hairline. all of which are artifacts and not these people's true hairlines.

Note the woman just below Frazier. She too has a dark patch morph on her head and the washout makes her look bald with a dark hair-patch on the side of her head. Now I am certain she is not bald. So to say Washout Man has a certain hairline is like claiming the same with this woman's hairline. And as much as I would get a kick out of Bart finding out he was wrong about Shelley and Lovelady on the extension .... I would not choose to ignore the red flags I see so to make something appear to be something it is not.

Quote

 

Dear William,

It would seem that when trying to invalidate someone else's photographic or film observations, you often over-enlarge an individual photographic image in order to wash out the pertinent details.

Do you do that intentionally?

Also, when trying to disprove Lovelady's being next to the steps' west wall in Couch-Darnell, you have an annoying tendency to concentrate on over-enlarged individual frames, rather than the properly blown-up GIF, itself.

Sandy's fine, blown-up two-frame GIF showing Lovelady turning his head back and forth would be a good one for you to take a look at and to comment upon, imho, especially in regard to Lovelady's distinctively-shaped bald forehead with hair on the side, which hair is visible in both frames.  Back and forth,  Back and forth.  Do you think that moving "hair" is just a photographic "artifact"?

 

You must be joking!   The addition of light and contrast washes out and expands borders within an image - simply magnifying it does not. I simply take the source image that is being discussed and enlarge it so the various film artifacts and defects that make up the image are easy to see. I call it the 'man in the moon effect'. When people look up at the moon they can imagine seeing a man's face in the moon. But magnify the moon by looking at it through a telescope, then the image of a face disappears. I have stated this problem since first seeing the mistakes that were being made.

So yes, I intentionally magnify the image so to expose those who don't understand the processes that cause false images.

Quote

Also, when trying to disprove Lovelady's being next to the steps' west wall in Couch-Darnell, you have an annoying tendency to concentrate on over-enlarged individual frames, rather than the properly blown-up GIF, itself.

Sandy's fine, blown-up two-frame GIF showing Lovelady turning his head back and forth would be a good one for you to take a look at and to comment upon, imho, especially in regard to Lovelady's distinctively-shaped bald forehead with hair on the side, which hair is visible in both frames.  Back and forth,  Back and forth.  Do you think that moving "hair" is just a photographic "artifact"?

 

Yes - it is an illusion in my opinion. The camera moves and causes a blurring effect. Note the side wall of the building to our left of Washout Man's head - is it your position that the side wall turns to look west as well or is it an illusion that occurred at the precise moment the blur took place with Washout Man's image. That same blur blur also caused Washout Man's right shoulder to flatten and the head of the two women (black scarf and white coat woman) as well as Washout Man to change shape in 1/18th of a second. These are things that is looked for when carefully analyzing images so to differentiate natural movement or artificial movement brought about by other causes.

Quote

 

PS  What other men "who have been mentioned here" had a receding hairline as pronounced as Lovelady's?

It has been posted several times. The man Kamp shows walking with the guy who's hair resembles that pf Bill Shelley - the man that was passed over with the camera who was out by the street that several thought was Oswald - Prayer Man - and the man seen near Lovelady in the Hughes film for starters. All individuals that if seen blurred like Washout Man .... they would be easily mis-indentified.

23 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

He moved to get out of the way of the traffic cops, or is that too hard for you to understand.

Maybe when you are old enough you might be able to shave too.

p.s. Why do you believe my sacred cow is the Zapruder film? 

Ray,

Don't waste time with John Butler on this. He seemingly fails to comprehend that Altgens 6 shows beyond any doubt that Ike stepped off the curb and into the street to take that particular photo. The camera is front of Ike's face and the curb is to Ike's right is a given. Let John explain to you why 4.5 seconds was not enough time for Altgens to step back up onto the curb.  

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You need to pay attention, Bill. I never said I could see that that man has Lovelady's face. I said that I can barely make out his eyes. Stuff like that.

Which you used to support it being Lovelady in your view. 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But he clearly has a receding hairline. And he clearly is standing where Lovelady had been standing.''

So did several men that have been mentioned here.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And now I realize that we can see white on his chest when he moves over a few inches.

One would think by now that you would illustrate through images the things you believe to see instead of just saying it.  How about pointing out this 'white' so we know that you are not just talking about the sun shining off his clothing much the same way some thought they saw a disjointed arm coming from the lady in black when it was sunlight shining off the shoulders of the woman looking west.

What I see is that the woman's head has remained stationary and that the individual (Washout Man) has turned slightly into the sun which has illuminated his clothing,  And I am not certain that you really answered this question, but hasn't it been your previous position that  this person had his shirt buttoned up?

47 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Oswald?

Surely you mean Lovelady.

I don't think Sandy knows what he means at this point.  

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The woman's head is blocking the view of most of the white. And with everything so blurry, the edge of her black head spills over to adjacent areas in shades of gray. These shades of gray obscure even the part of white that could otherwise be seen if there were no blurriness.

In addition, the blurriness of Lovelady's outer shirt spills over its edge and into the the white area, adding to the white area being obscured.

You should listen to yourself.       You just destroyed all the claims you had been posting about seeing 'details' on Washout Man that told you that it was Lovelady you were seeing. Sounds like details exist only when you want them to and don't exist when they become a nuisance.  

And to address something else you said - the woman's head can only hide half of the open area that would show a white t-shirt. The half that would be to the right of her head is not there when it should be and all that blurriness you just spoke about shows that you have nothing to go on that this is Lovelady Vs anyone else that could remotely resemble him.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Sure... if his shirt was opened sufficiently wide. It would have to be opened far enough that it is exposed beyond the blurry margin of Woman in Black's head.

You know, in this frame, and this closeup, it looks like alleged Lovelady is looking straight out, and that Woman in black isn't directly in front of him but rather standing somewhat to his left. But still blocking the view.

But it's probably just an illusion. I think you've processed this frame, increased the contrast or something like that. I believe I can make out his nose.

While I have seen a few skewed views of Lovelady where it, along with his posture, made it hard to see the opening in his shirt - I have seen no frontal views that didn't show his shirt to be open like it was seen in the Hughes film before and after the shots were fired, the Wiegman film, and the Altgens 6 photo.

The woman's right side of her head starts under Washout Man's mid-chin, thus the t-shirt as In just described in the other films and photos should be showing quite easily and yet it is not. The button up and unbutton theory seems born out of necessity for Washout Man to be Lovelady.

The enlarged view was taken from the gif animation that you had liked so well.