Bill Miller

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have never commented specifically on Lovelady's shirt in the Darnell clip. Thomas has said that he sees signs of a white tee shirt. I personally don't. My position is that there is no way of knowing because the Woman in Black is in the way.

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.

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The Woman in Black is blocking the view, einstein.

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.  

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The Woman in Black is blocking the view, einstein.

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

12 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

old Wild Bill has been this way for 15 years now, its what got him thrown of Rich DellaRosa's JFK Assassination Research site years ago.... "photo-expert" is indeed a stretch.

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.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This is what Bill resorts to when he can't win the argument. This and being ornery and offensive.

            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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jeez, I was obviously talking about pre-assassination Bill. Do you find it necessary to always respond in such a cantankerous and offensive manner?

(And even if someone does make a mistake, do you automatically label them a disinformation agent?)

" 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. .

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What about the fact that Lovelady was standing in that very spot during nearly the full film record? And that the only time he wasn't standing there is when he moved to his left a few feet so he could peak around the corner of the entryway, as shown in Altgens 6?

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.

Quote

What about the fact the the person you call Washout Man just happens to look like Lovelady, as far as we can tell? Includes his receding hairline. And is standing right where Lovelady had stood just seconds earlier?

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.

Quote

What about the fact that most of Lovelady's and Shelley's testimony is in conflict with the timing of the two guys walking down Elm Street extension?

Asked and answered

Quote

What about the fact that Lovelady still being on the steps is consistent with nearly all of his testimony?

Asked and answered

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I might have Bill pegged wrong. His might be more of a ideological issue... an unwillingness to consider new ideas.

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.   

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course not... it worked well for millennia before the space age. 

But seriously, of course simple solutions should be sought before venturing off into more complex ones. That should go without saying. My post was referring to those who deal with complicated issues by ignoring them. Which I believe is ill advised if the goal is revealing the facts.

  Like calling Washout Man 'Billy Lovelady'?  

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

From which place then Oswald reached the second floor lunchroom and which stairs did he use?

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.

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Bill:

I am not sure I understand " walking towards the inner door the 2nd floor lunchroom after having just bought a coke". Are you referring to the testimony of Mrs. Reid?

I assume so. Well, there is a great tension between different testimonies in the Warren Report as far as Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts during or shortly after the shooting are concerned. 

One can have Mrs. Reid's testimony (which was not corroborated by Mrs. Geneva Hine though), however, it is then necessary to make a decision: Are you a LN defender? A lone nut hypothesis would be roughly consistent with Oswald being spotted in the second floor lunchroom by Officer Baker through the small window in the door leading to the vestibule of that lunchroom, and then meeting Mrs. Reid as he walked towards the front stairs. (Even here the timing would hardly hold due to the slow closing of the door).

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.

4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Have you considered that Lovelady may have put on weight in the intervening years? (Rather like yours truly)

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).

16 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

What are you trying to prove, Bill? If you think that it is  Lovelady in both photos, as he said, why would he have had to obtain a replacement shirt ? And how and where  would he obtain one where the stripes on the shirt and sleeve exactly match as do the position of the plaid on the overall shape of the shirt?

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.

20 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Paul:

Oswald could not be anywhere else than in the front (south) part of the 1st floor (vestibule) or in the doorway if we agree that he was not on the sixth floor shooting the president and that the second floor encounter between Officer Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald did happen. A bit of logical reasoning would tell you that in such a case Oswald could only be at the front (south) of the first floor.

If we accept that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter (and was therefore not descending from the sixth floor) and that the second floor encounter happened then Oswald could reach the second floor lunchroom to meet Officer Baker only using one of two stairs leading from the first to the second floor. 

A. If Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom and went to the second floor lunchroom from that place, Baker and Truly would have to see him passing by when they were trying to call the elevator. He would enter the north-west stairwell and walked up, and approximately at the time when he was about at the top of the second flight (just about stepping on the second floor platform) Truly and Baker would have just stepped on the first of two flights of stairs leading to the second floor. Why this timing? If there would be a too long time interval between Baker+Truly and Oswald, Baker would not be able to spot him because Oswald would be already deep in the lunchroom at a place which cannot be seen from the platform of the second floor. If they would follow him with a shorter delay, they would have to see the door leading to the second floor lunchroom vestibule closing. Both doors leading to the small vestibule in front of the lunchroom had a pneumatic latch system delaying the door closure after a person entered the door. This has been highlighted early on by Leo Sauvage (The Oswald Affair, 1965), and explained in detail by Gil Jesus more recently. Barry Ernest visited the Depository few years after the fact and was able to confirm the slow closure of the doors. If Oswald entered the second floor lunchroom by ascending through the northwest stairs, Truly and Oswald would be aware of his presence, would hear his steps, and would either see the door closing or hear it. Interestingly, Truly was ahead of Baker and therefore, he would have a much better chance to spot Oswald than Baker because Oswald would still be in the small vestibule or just entering the door leading to the vestibule.

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 ....

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Sandy,

Sometimes.

If I feel Photoshop didn't do a good enough job, I will re-align some/all of the frames/layers manually.

chris

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.

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

If you can provide  a photo of Lovelady  taken on 22nd, at exactly the same angle as the groden photo, I shall try it.

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.

6 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear William,

It seems you're obsessing on the t-shirt and what Lovelady's buttoning habits were.

What about the bald forehead with hair on the side?  (Just like Lovelady's.)

--  Tommy

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.

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Agreed about the width of the stripes .

Maybe, but what are the chances tat the plaid would match exactly?

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.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've studied the shirt very carefully and I have to agree with Ray on this point.

Still, I do find Bill's observation intriguing. I wonder if it possible for film to experience some kind of "blooming distortion." Blooming is an old CRT (cathode ray tube, or TV tube) term used for a phenomenon where an overly bright area gets larger than it really is. In the case of CRTs it occurs because a strong electron beam loses focus.

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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

And yet Bill is perfectly willing to embrace Lovelady Man walking down Elm Street extension, even though that isn't a clear shot either.

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

9 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I disagree with your perception of the thickness of the lines. How you can measure accurately the lines on the shirt in the photo Lovelady in the DPD office beats me

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?

9 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Where and how do you think Lovelady obtained a shirt that matches the one that he wore on 22nd Nov 1963.

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

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yeah, and he said that he and Shelley stayed there for 5 minutes.

Which again is another reason not to believe that they are the two guys walking down Elm Street extension just seconds after the shooting.

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

21 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

good one, actually

 

Question:  Can you see the hair on the side of his bald forehead in this GIF?

 

--  Tommy

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.

15 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

relax, william

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?