Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Leaving TSBD?


Recommended Posts

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 by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that the man in the shadows behind Lovelady in Altgens "may" be Shelley yet he is not longer over by the wall as Wesley claims.
For Lovelady to be a few steps in front of Wesley and for him not to be in Altgens, then Welsey is stating that he is Prayerman...

Even in Hughes with Lovelady a few steps in front of where PM would be seen, we ultimately get a photo fo Wesley and PM in the same frame, so PM could not have been Wesley, or Shelley, or Lovelady.  While I am of the opinion that PM has a very good chance at being Oswald, usually we are treated to FBI back-peddling over things like this.  The fact remains that not a soul even mistakenly mentions seeing Oswald, unless the questioning was done in such a way as to avoid that Q&A.

"Did you see Oswald during the assassination?" was asked...  With everyone watching JFK, of course no one sees Oswald during... yet there is also no instance of anyone mentioning Oswald on the steps - while in the same breath no one states they saw so-and-so as they came back into the TSBD...  Mrs. Reid is our best example since she sees an Oswald look alike in a T-shirt

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt? 
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on. 

 

Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there. 
Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. 

 

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was. 
Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also. 

 

Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. 
Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? 
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. 
Mr. BALL - I see. 
Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me. 
Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow? 
Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady. 

Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. 
Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago. 
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

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

Hughes-image-of-Lovelady-or-Oswald-in-West-corner--when-does-Lovelady-move.gif

David,

it's safe to assume that Lovelady made his way up and diagonal when the limo had tuned and was going down Elm. He was inquisitive from the word go.This movement on the steps and his subsequent departure shows he wanted to see what was gong on and did his best to see as much as possible first hand.

I don't agree with the angles being identical. I can see  much more inwards on the Western side of the steps in Wiegman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

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.

It's also a dupe from a video tape, comes with all kinds of surprises :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ed LeDoux said:

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

Another frame showing the shirt,
Cheers!

 

Lovelady.png

Ed,

Argument you say? My position was there was not enough information being given for me to be certain that man was Lovelady and from there I sought an explanation on how to rectify the shirt observation. I thought James was quite right when he encouraged someone challenging Bart on the evidence based on certain observations that was being made. That is something I have always enjoyed having done to any observation of mine because if its a bad observation - I want to know about it. At the same time .... a challenge of the evidence can also strengthen a theory. Andrej offered a great view of how Billy's shirt looked when he had put his hand in his pocket. That was the strongest explanation I had seen at that time for why the guy in Darnell's film looked the way he  did.

Lastly - this statement - "proverbial we I believe Bill uses to try and bolster a failed argument" is just ludicrous. Behind the scenes I used the author of the most detailed scaled map showing witness locations as an accurate source of where various people were at the time of the shooting. This was the best source for placing names with people seen in the various assassination films and photos. The other two sources I turned to was because they have a nice collection of images to at their disposal, especially when it came to my own they had saved which I have limited access to at this time. And for your own information - those who have known me for a long time and the many who have worked closely with me concerning these assassination witnesses, their timing of the event, along with witness testimony ... know that I do not have to bolster anything. Having the facts straight and/or peer reviewed is a good practice in my view. No bolstering needed - no horn blowing needed. One does not need to remind others of his or her accomplishments for if great enough, then others will do that for them.

Cheers back at ya!

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Sandy,

Oswald's  shirt???

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

-- Tommy :sun

Thanks for pointing that out Tommy, so that I could fix my mistakes. I have a bad cold (headache, sore throat, stuffed and runny nose,fever) which I'm sure is the reason I repeatedly made that mistake.

Hopefully readers understood from context that I meant Lovelady. (I found that I made the mistake four or five times!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

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

I DID read your post carefully, and looked carefully at the frames of the gif showing the black area below the shirt. I found that it did NOT reveal anything new about the length of Lovelady's shirt back. As I said, the part of the black area that Bill commented on moved ahead with Lovelady and changed shape, and this agreed what what you said. And, as I said, part of the black area remained behind, which also agreed with what you said. And I said that neither of these two areas of black have anything to do with the apparent length of the back of the shirt. You, on the other head, claimed that the gif debunked the long-shirt problem. Actually, what you said was, "Case closed."

If you really believe you proved something, you should have explained it better. Either that or say that you have proved it to you own satisfaction but prefer not to spend more time on to prove it to others.

But certainly not give it a cursory, "case closed!"

Having said that, I now believe the shirt length is a moot point. For I showed in a subsequent post that the length of the shirt in Couch is actually correct. So far nobody has disagreed with that proof.

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.

Okay, good thing you give a little more detail this time before declaring the issue debunked. (FWIW I still disagree with you. The long-shirt problem needed no debunking after all because, as it turns out, the length that both Bill and I thought was too long actually was correct. As I showed in the subsequent post.)

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

As I said, you have been rigorous in debunking the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter. But your cursory dismissal of issues I have recently raised in this thread, regarding Shelley and Lovelady walking down Elm extension, seems rather cavalier to me.

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

 

Steps_1-by-Robin-Unger.gif?resize=800,63

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

 

shelley-in-wiegman-film.jpg

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.

Lovelady-and-shelley-in-couch-okt-2016-B

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.

I don't deny that my knowledge in these matters is far from complete.

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:

shelley-collage-1.jpg

 

Thanks for that, Bart.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

My criticism was meant to apply to what we've been recently discussing in this thread. I'm sorry that I didn't make that more clear.

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Bart,

Look at your Shelley montage above. In the one showing his slacks, his slacks appear to have a pattern. I wonder if studying this could help in identifying the reason for the pattern in his jacket in Couch. Can you post that photo alone?

EDIT: Never mind... I believe the pattern is caused by aliasing between the newspaper print halftone and the scanner used to digitize the image.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

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

Michael,

No, my aliasing post is correct.

True, the pattern we see is called a moire pattern. But such patterns are caused by spatial aliasing, as I said.

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

Note the moire pattern in the photo on the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Bart,

Look at your Shelley montage above. In the one showing his slacks, his slacks appear to have a pattern. I wonder if studying this could help in identifying the reason for the pattern in his jacket in Couch. Can you post that photo alone?

EDIT: Never mind... I believe the pattern is caused by aliasing between the newspaper print halftone and the scanner used to digitize the image.

In this still photo they appear to be made from the same material just as most suits are. No varying design is visible that I can see.

Bill Shelley coat and pants.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

In this still photo they appear to be made from the same material just as most suits are. No varying design is visible that I can see.

Bill Shelley coat and pants.jpg

Exactly.

There is only one way I can think of where a faux pattern could have been introduced to Shelley's jacket:

Suppose the film was video recorded. Doing so would have changed each frames from being contiguous (having no pixels) to being comprised of 525 lines per frame. (This was the standard video format in the U.S. at the time.) Suppose further that separating these lines from one another were 525 very narrow lines of black.

What I just described is what you'd see on an old B&W television if you looked really close. I remember as a youngster discovering that television images consisted of hundreds of lines of varying light.

Video recording the film in effect has added a striped pattern to the whole image. Of course, the width of the lines is so narrow and the spacing so tight that the striped pattern isn't readily observable.

Next, the video is digitized by scanning it. If the scan resolution just happened to have been close to 525, aliasing would have occurred and a moire pattern created that MIGHT be mistaken as a pattern on the fabric.

The possibility of this occurring seems remote to me, because the scan resolution has to be just right.. But this scenario has to be considered. Because isn't it true that back then almost all suit coats were of solid color, with no pattern? If so, then it isn't likely that the pattern we see on that suit coat is real.

Having said that, though, there is one other thing that bothers me. Suppose that the pattern on the suit coat is indeed fake, and was created as a result of video taping and digitizing the film. If so, we should see other things in that same digitized film with similar patterns. If we look at other dark things and see no patterns, I'm inclined to conclude that the pattern in the suit coat is real. And thus is not Shelley's coat.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to gauge the height of the top landing in Darnell

even if the top landing can't be seen we have other reference points that can be used.

the bottom of the two pillars, and the line where the decorative brick pattern facade meets the concrete at the bottom.

topstep.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...