Bill Miller

Then I think we can agree that if Lovelady didn't button and unbutton his shirt and it remained open, then at the very least ... a portion of the white t-shirt should be visible in the image below, which it is not.

It doesn't take an Albert Einstein to see that the left side of Washout Man, starting under his chin, does not show a white t-shirt. And correct me if I am wrong for we can look it up, but wasn't your previous position that Lovelady had buttoned up his shirt just prior to being seen at that position? Now aren't we being told that the t-shirt cannot be seen because the woman is blocking it from view.

What are you saying, Sandy ... that the woman in black is blocking out the white t-shirt that should be visible?

Insults were a requirement for being allowed to stay on DellaRosa's forum ... it was standing up and debunking Jack White and Jim Fetzer's alteration claims that DellaRosa didn't like and would band members for doing. In all the history of my time on the JFK Assassination - I have never referred to myself as a photo expert. Feel free to post otherwise if you can find a single instance where I ever did.

Once again you want to say things that contradict each other and for me to ignore it. I say to just stop belly-aching and file a report if you find my quoting you word for word to be offensive.

" during nearly the full film record " " I was obviously talking about pre-assassination " It is not a single error, but rather the amount of errors that are seemingly made in support of your theories that become suspect. Even the above sentences do not mean the same thing. So far it has only been suggested that your claims makes one wonder if you purposely post erred and/or bogus observations. .

If you don't like it when someone wonders if you purposely post dis-information, then stop posting dis-information over things that are so easy to fact check. So other than Washout Man .... what other film record is there depicting Lovelady "in that very spot during nearly the full film record" as you called it. The man walking down the extension just happens to look like Lovelady - Oswald just happened to look like Lovelady - the guy a couple of feet down from Lovelady on the stairs just happened to look like Lovelady as show from the Hughes film below .... All these people in the same place and viewed from such a washed out deplorable image as you are relying on would look like Lovelady. Your thinking that if you keep suggesting that Washout Man is Lovelady and no one else is just propaganda on your part. A propaganda by the way that calls for Lovelady to be buttoning and unbuttoning his shirt because there is no white t-shirt seen on the front of Washout Man. Asked and answered Asked and answered

Sandy - I think that you just like to hear yourself talk. Have you forgotten that I did not believe Kamp when he said that it was Lovelady and Shelley walking on the Elm Street extension. So my record and detailed postings demonstrate that I have considered peoples new ideas. Your new idea of Washout Man being Lovelady is as weak as a new born baby's handshake. That doesn't mean that I do not wish you were correct - you just haven't offered anything of value to show that Washout Man is Lovelady. An open mind is a nice thing to have, but not so open that one's brains fall out onto the ground.

Like calling Washout Man 'Billy Lovelady'?

You would need to ask Oswald because the USS Enterprise wasn't available at that time for Mr. Scott to have transported him there. In fact, I don't recall anyone ever seeing him come down from the upper floor so to be seen in the second floor lunchroom. And I think the same could be said as to how he got out of the building.

Oswald doesn't have to of been involved in killing JFK to have been seen on the second floor by Baker. So no - I do not believe Baker and Truly lied about lee being on the second floor when Baker saw him.

Maybe I wasn't clear - I thought I was saying that the assassination day Lovelady looked a bit heavier - stocky - short but well built, while the older Lovelady on the stairs looked thinner in the gut with more of an Oswald build. Certainly no heavier in the latter day photo (left) compared to the assassination day Lovelady (right).

I do not believe they are an exact match and is why I aim to test your claim. Where he found another shirt is a moot point if those stripes do not match in width between the two shirts. In my view - the 11/22/63 Lovelady looked heavier then the latter photo of him in question. The 11/22/63 shirt is plenty big on Billy and I am not so quick to embrace the other shirt as being so small due to shrinkage. But as I said, transparency overlays will most likely bare some answers one way or the other. What I aim to do is no different than laying the two shirts on a table and comparing the details of each to the other. The difference now is I am doing it photographically which is a form of forensic study.

Huh??? How about Oswald being seen walking towards the inner door the 2nd floor lunchroom after having just bought a coke.

If you are talking about the images I posted previously (TSBD steps and DPD) - then they are of Billy Lovelady.beyond question. There are a couple of ways to check and cross check what I am looking for. One is by way of doing a transparency overly of the stripes in question. For instance - I can take the black stripe from each shirt and scale the width of that stripe to match in both image sources. I can do the same for an entire plaid square. I then compare the two white stripes to see how much variance, if any is present. Below is an example ... ignore the colors I used as they are irrelevant and were changed for another method of illustrating the test. As long as the view is basically the same from one surface to the other, then both the black and white stripes should match from both views. If they do not match by as far as I am thinking they didn't by merely looking at them, then they cannot be from the same shirt. example below ....

Chris, Why have you not just come right out and told these guys that there can be no more definition found in Washout Man than what there is on the film itself. That when one manipulates the image through lightening and contrast that it alters borders. You have been playing with this stuff long enough to know these things to be true. Below is your Washout Man taken directly from the images you provided. The sun shining off this person's clothing gives the false impression that something white is being seen, but in the third image there is nothing there. When you fail to explain these things to those who are not familiar with them, then you allow false tales of clothing adjustments to be born. In the first image - the right shoulder of Washout Man is not sunlit and seems semi-rounded like a natural shoulder shout me. Yet in the third image - the sunlit shoulder seems flat or square. The sunlit face and head is no different.

Ray ... just so you understand and I know that we are on the same page - I am talking about the width of a black stripe on a shirt compared to the white stripe attached to it. These stripes are not three dimensional to one another where when seen at a slight angle that one would hide a portion of the other. So what I am saying is that their proportion to one another whether they are equal or whether one is 33%, 50%, or 66% of the other will remain the same. The nice thing about the Lovelady shirt is there are both vertical and horizontal stripes to compare. Here below is an example of a pallet leaning against a wall. Whether the vertical board is leaning back against the wall or nailed flush to it - the vertical width is unchanged. So whether the vertical stripes were photographed with Lovelady standing or sitting .... the angle at which they are seen does not effect their width to one another. I think you can understand where I am going here and can agree that if the stripes are photographed from a straight-on view that the degree of error between the two images will be so minimal as to be non-existent if one white stripe against the black stripe its connected to is quite noticeable in width difference.

Let me put it to you this way that most sensible people will understand .... There is Oswald - Lovelady - a man a few steps away from Lovelady in the Hughes film - and yet another guy who looked close enough to Oswald that members here was having to take a hard look at it. While none of those images are great - they are a darn sight better than the distant image of washout man. There is so much distortion and constant blurring going on with that person that telling someone that we can see accurate details about his hair like is wishing in one hand and defecating in the other as the saying goes. Those who were seeing a disjointing arm is a perfect example of how unreliable the sunlit washed out image really is. When light and contrast is bumped up - it will expand borders and alter shapes. This is why I asked to be shown the white t-shirt and/or the vertical white pen stripe claimed to have been seen on washout man. Has anyone done this yet? Here is an enlargement of the image that has been claimed to show hair patterns and white pen stripes. If one looks the image over closely they will see white lines on the wall - on people - and etc .... none of which has anything to do with Lovelady's shirt. These are artifacts on the film. Bump up the contrast and shadows become people standing on the steps - light colored calves suddenly appear - and a sunlit shoulder and back of a woman's clothing becomes a disjointed arm. The one thing that can be done is to look at the color tone of the man's clothing to see if his shirt is open so to allow a white t-shirt to be seen. The straight on view should have produced a white t-shirt if it is indeed Billy Lovelady - but there is no white t-shirt to be seen. So how does the shirt buttoning fetish prescribed to Lovelady play out .... Altgen's 6 shows Lovelady standing with his shirt open on what turned out to be a warm sunny day. JFK's limo is now racing out of the Plaza. Wiegman's camera spots Lovelady on the landing with his shirt still open and his t-shirt exposed. Shelley may be just a step or two down from Lovelady. The camera pans away to film Patrolman Baker's run to the TSBD, so when the camera pans back - Lovelady is not on the landing and Shelley is nowhere to be seen. At the same time it is washout man standing on the west side of the stairs. Someone theorizes that this is Lovelady and that Billy (possibly got a chill?) decided to button up his shirt in all that mayhem and confusion. At the same time there is yet another man who has the same type of hairline as Lovelady who is walking on the Elm Street extension. He is in the company of a man in a dark suit who coincidentally Bill Shelley was also wearing. The man in the dark suit also has the same thick hair wave on the front of his head that photos of Bill Shelley portray him as having. Next footage from the scene shows Lovelady on the west side of the stairs with his shirt open and his t-shirt only partly visible. The second insert shows that Lovelady has shifted and much of his white t-shirt is visible.. (see inserts below) And then in just a few steps to the center hand rail - it is suggested that Lovelady buttoned-up again. (see below) The Lovelady button up / unbutton fetish theory doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. I want to chose to not waste more time on what I see as a ridiculous self-serving theory. I will follow through with the width of the stripes between the two shirts.

If they are one in the same shirt, then matching the lines through overlay will confirm this. When talking about just the width of the stripes - its a pretty simple comparison to make. If the different is great, then it is not the same shirt.

To see that the black lines are at least two times thicker than the read lines in the latter day stair photo is a no-brainer in my view. I had put enlargements of those stripes into Photoshop and measured them against each other using the ruler tool. The black line is just over 2.5X that of the white pen stripe. All that is needed now is a fairly good print of the lines on the 11/22/63 shirt and do the same. I personally believe that the black and white stripes in the 11/22/63 shirt are so close to the same width and the difference so vast that there will be no more argument. And if I am wrong, then it won't be the first time. I am intrigued because like a carpenter can eyeball a measurement within a small degree of error .... I am curious to see how close I am on this one.

I gave more reasons than just making up some nonsense about Lovelady being known to button and unbutton his shirt.

Let us start here - do you agree that the white stripes on the shirt Billy wears here are not nearly as thick as the black stripes? Plaid shirts were quite common. I was looking at some RR yard film from the assassination and thought i saw Lovelady, but it was another guy in a similar looking red plaid shirt

Where did you read that Lovelady ran to the spot where Kennedy was shot and stayed there for 5 minutes?

Your clip is a washed out piece of morphing garbage which is shot full of artifacts. It's so unreliable that several researchers here couldn't tell if they were looking at a disjointed arm coming from the woman in black or something else.

Were you his source, Thomas? Help him out and tell me that it was you that told him that it was known that Lovelady went around buttoning and unbuttoning his shirt for no apparent reason at all - because someone made that story up - so do you want to own it for him?