Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Not really trying to throw a wrench but... I also have many years experience digitizing and encoding video and my first impression when examining this capture is that the same "pattern" is faintly visible on both subjects (and maybe the background) and seems more to be a by-product of the encoding process. i.e. a digital anomaly.

 

Good point, Chris.

The scan of an image with a very fine pattern can yield a far different pattern. Here's a demonstration of the effect:

 

As shown here, a very fine repeating pattern can become a much larger pattern. This demo also shows the effect of rotating the picture in the scanner at various angles.

However, for this to happen the the size of the pattern (e.g. the distance from line-to-line) must be quite small, on the order of the size of a pixel in the scanned image.

This effect is called aliasing. It was more common back in the day when low resolution scans were widespread. Check out the effect on the fine pattern in this guy's suitcoat:

No, don't look at the pretty girl... look at the back of the guy's jacket!

Note how the draping of the fabric results in curves in the pattern. This is a dead giveaway for aliasing in a contoured surface, such as in the case of clothing.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Here's something that seems to support the idea that it is Lovelady walking down Elm extension:

 

 

In this composite I resized the color photo of Lovelady so that the top of his head and the bottom of his shirt line up with the same on the B&W alleged Lovelady. I used blue lines for them.

I also used a blue line to line up the tops of the two collars (in back).

The dark horizontal lines on alleged Lovelady's shirt appeared to represent the red horizontal lines on real Lovelady's shirt. I used green lines to connect them and found that both the number of lines and the spacing match quite well.

The nose and chin on real Lovelady are a little lower than on alleged Lovelady. But this can be attributed to his tilting his head down toward the reporter, or whoever the person is (see inset).

Having done this, I am satisfied that the bottom of alleged Lovelady's shirt is NOT too long, which is what I had thought before.

As for the shirt looking oversized (in breadth), it could be that alleged Lovelady had fully unbuttoned his shirt and the breeze from walking is pulling it back.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Andrej Stancak]

Sandy:

a very good find of yours with aligning the horizontal dark strips in two Lovelady's pictures. In my view, this proves Lovelady's identity in Couch film beyond any doubts.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Bart,

While I agree with you that the evidence for 2nd-floor-encounter-fabrication is highly compelling, I am less convinced about the the two walking down Elm extension being  Shelley and Lovelady.

I believe that Bill has a good point about the length of alleged Lovelady's shirt looking too long. It also looks oversized.

In addition, in some frames I've seen taken from the film, it appears that alleged Shelley's jacket has a pattern to it. Are there any other photos of him wearing a jacket that day? Do they show a pattern?

I think I debunked this oversized shirt make believe............and the jacket has already been answered above.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Bart Kamp

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

You are aware are you not that there were others in and around the plaza that wore a red plaid shirt that day - right? I had been working behind the scenes with three other well respected researchers trying to find a way to better show if that was Lovelady or not, so I started with premise that the possibility was there. As far as the plaid nonsense circumstantial and was not a strong argument in favor if it being Billy Lovelady. Their meeting with Calvery would be to us, but we had to first find her as too may people have believed her to be the woman near the Stemmons Freeway sign and with her hanging out on the near the divider and pergola post shooting - it gave the appearance that Shelley and Lovelady conspired to invent a story of seeing Gloria Calvery immediately after the shooting. The woman running towards the TSBD was the most likely candidate for Calvery once we had seen she was very light complected and was caught in Darnell's film running to towards the steps. Her obituary write-up and how she chased behind the policeman was a big plus. Some people were quick to make conspirators out of both Lovelady and Shelley in my view and failed them by not considering that under moments of extreme stress and shock there is seldom and clear cut and dry recollection of such an event as this was. The slowing of Calgary as she approached the two you believed to be Shelley and Lovelady seemed reasonable and only 1 - 1.5 seconds of her arriving at the steps. And like I have said before - no single witness knew immediately after the shooting who was taking film and photos and from where. So Shelley and Lovelady making up seeing or speaking to a particular witness had no real motive in my view. As far as definitive evidence of that being Shelley and Lovelady - its not even if most probable.

Show the evidence Bill, not what you believe. Thank you.

[Guest]

Bill who is we?

[Ed LeDoux]

That is the proverbial we I believe Bill uses to try and bolster a failed argument.

Another frame showing the shirt,
Cheers!

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

I think I debunked this oversized shirt make believe............and the jacket has already been answered above.

With all due respect I didn't see you debunk anything regarding the shirt length. You said that the black area below the shirt remained behind as alleged Lovelady walked forward from that position. You said that the black object was positioned between Lovelady and the camera,  if I understand correctly.

Looking carefully at the relevant frames, I did see a semicircular area of black that remained behind, but that was not the area of black Bill was referring to. The black area referred to by Bill moved ahead along with Lovelady, and it varied in shape, as you stated. I suspect that Lovelady had his hand in his left-front pocket and this lifted his shirt up in that area, thus revealing his dark slacks.

I appreciate all the work you and other researcher have put in regarding the 2nd floor encounter. I wish you'd be so rigorous with the Shelley/Lovelady identification in Couch.

You say the jacket question has already been answered. By which I think you mean that the pattern seen in alleged Shelley's jacket is an artifact of scanning the frame. Chris Newton made a comment that that possibility should be considered. That in and of itself hardly counts as "the answer." The best you can say is that that is your opinion.

I've asked two or three times if there's a photo of Shelley wearing a jacket that day. If someone more knowledgeable than myself reported that there is no photo of him wearing a jacket, I would be inclined to believe that Shelley's jacket did indeed have a pattern, and that it was recorded only in Couch. On the other hand, if someone more knowledgeable than myself said that a photo exists showing that Shelley's jacket had a dark solid color, then I would personally have a hard time accepting that that fellow in Couch is Shelley. The reason being this: Many have noted Lovelady's shirt having a pattern in Couch. Well, if we excuse the pattern seen on Shelley's jacket as being a scanning artifact, then we should do the same for the pattern seen on Lovelady's shirt.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

"Having done this, I am satisfied that the bottom of alleged Oswald's shirt is NOT too long, which is what I had thought before."

 

 

Quote

Dear Sandy,

Oswald's  shirt???

Obvious typo in two of your recent posts, this thread.

-- Tommy

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Guest]

With all due respect, had you read my post and its explanations, and investigated this then you would have come to the same conclusion.

Rip the GIF in PS and open its layers and start at the beginning. IN PS that's at the bottom layer.

From that you will see that the so called "shirt longer in the back" is BS due to the black object in front of it and that seems to trail behind while Lovelady is moving forward. The shirt is at one length. You and Bill have stared at that cropped sole image, which wasn't the best of images in the first place and came to a wrong observation/conclusion. And it has been debunked.

I am as rigorous,  and I regard your remark as a cheap insult. Best to leave it at that.

What did I bring to the table.......hmmmmmmmmm lemme think.

 

I put forward that Lovelady is already seen going down on the steps in Wiegman, thanks to the Robin Unger GIF. 

 

I also showed Shelley is following him which can also be seen in Wiegman, from our (ROKC) scan at the Archives, he is more in the middle of the landing whereas he originally stood more East, plus in the enlargement I showed he is seen looking west.

I put the best Couch image forward of Shelley and Lovelady and sharpening methods that tend to show Lovelady's bald patch so easily seen in the Martin footage

And the b&w news footage scene where Oswald is put into a room after passing Lovelady.

That combined with all the statements/interviews I came across I put into a blog post

 

You ask whether Shelley was wearing a jacket, I find this rather interesting since you have waded so deeply into this debate for months already. This means that you have not read the blogpost I created with ALL this info available for months.

But to give you a direct answer:

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

You are right  it's not much, I better get to work.............................................................................................

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Bart Kamp

[Guest]

Bill who is we?

And how come you are exempt of the requirement from having a bio?

[Bill Miller]

14 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Bill who is we?

Three researchers who have a history going back to Lancer and the ED Forum of more than a decade ago. One of them was referred to as a Photo expert in this thread and the other has created the most detailed scaled map of the Plaza that I know of. They can post their names if they wish.

I am well versed in the witness testimony and no how to cross reference it when putting together an image of what transpired on 11/22/63. Here is a link to one such piece that led to the discovery of who the man seen through the pyracantha bush was and where he was standing during the shooting. You may not know of me as I don't seek publicity or recognition - only accuracy .... to which some people seemingly take offense to when it interferes with their own beliefs.

http://www.jfklancer.com/miller/mysteryman.html

As far as my bio goes - I used to have one on this site and have not checked since being here as there seems to be plenty of people who know who I am anyway. Even over at the 'Foul Mouth Forum' they know of me as they mentioned it in their vulgar rants where seldom there is a post that doesn't use the "F-word" or "C-word" in it.

You have seen my work from time to time and probably didn't even know it because someone posted it without a reference to its originator - no worries here.

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

14 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Show the evidence Bill, not what you believe. Thank you.

I have posted quite a bit of evidence - even red lettered a lot of it so to make it hard to miss. If you missed it - I can try making the text larger if it helps.  

[David Josephs]

I have a question Bart....

From all the work done we continually see Lovelady in the middle of the stairs by the railing.

Except in Hughes he appears to be standing just behind the blue shirted black man over in the corner... the angles are virtually identical.

When does Lovelady make his way across, away from where he is in Hughes to get to where he is only a second or so later in Couch/Darnell?

And would you say that PM is being these men at this time?

Thanks
DJ

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by David Josephs

[Michael Walton]

Sandy, that "alias" post up above is incorrect.  The pattern you're talking about is moire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern

This can still happen even with the newest and latest technology.  If there's a tight pattern of lines and they overlap with another then you'll get the moire pattern.  You can see a short movie example at the above link.

There's a photo above of the two walking figures and the guy on the left's outfit is quite dark.  So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it appears to be Shelley.