Ray Mitcham Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Bill Miller said: 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 .... 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited February 23, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Have you considered that Lovelady may have put on weight in the intervening years? (Rather like yours truly) Edited February 23, 2017 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Tommy, For the face forward shot (Lovelady NOT turning his head), Alistair has the better frame because it is easier to see the hair. For the turning-head shot, Unger (in Chris's post) has the better frame because Alistair's loses eyes and mouth. You see a tiny bit in Unger's. (Though really, not good.) Note the color of gray differs between the two groups. Also, Unger's are NOT cropped and enlarged, Alistair's are. Therefore, I would choose from Alistair's group if I were you. (All IMO.) EDIT: #4 and #5 are my picks too. Sandy, Ok, thanks. It's interesting that William refuses to address the issue regarding whether or not hair is visible on the side of "Lovelady's" distinctive bald forehead. Don't you think? -- Tommy Edited February 23, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 On 2/20/2017 at 3:25 AM, Chris Davidson said: Minus some of the cra-pier frames. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OTEZKSjRpQ0FmOTg/view?usp=sharing Excellent stabilized GIF Chris, great work as always Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: It's interesting that William refuses to address the issue regarding whether or not hair is visible on the side of "Lovelady's" distinctive bald forehead. Don't you think? Yes it is interesting. But not surprising. There are some people who favor simplicity over anything of any complexity. And rather than trying to explain seemingly inexplicable things, they simply choose to ignore them. At least their silence makes it appear they are doing so. But who knows what's really going on in their minds. Of course there are varying degrees of this type of person. LNers being extreme examples, IMO. Edited February 23, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: 6 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: It's interesting that William refuses to address the issue regarding whether or not hair is visible on the side of "Lovelady's" distinctive bald forehead. Don't you think? Yes it is interesting. But not surprising. There are some people who favor simplicity over anything of any complexity. And rather than trying to explain seemingly inexplicable things, they simply choose to ignore them. At least their silence makes it appear they are doing so. But who knows what's really going on in their minds. Of course there are varying degrees of this type of person. LNers being extreme examples, IMO. I might have Bill pegged wrong. His might be more of a ideological issue... an unwillingness to consider new ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Yes it is interesting. But not surprising. There are some people who favor simplicity over anything of any complexity. And rather than trying to explain seemingly inexplicable things, they simply choose to ignore them. At least their silence makes it appear they are doing so. But who knows what's really going on in their minds. Of course there are varying degrees of this type of person. LNers being extreme examples, IMO. Occam's Razor... It is not always an I'll-advised or disreputable approach. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: Occam's Razor... It is not always an I'll-advised or disreputable approach. 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. Edited February 24, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 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'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Bill Miller said: 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. 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? 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? 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? What about the fact that Lovelady still being on the steps is consistent with nearly all of his testimony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Bill Miller said: 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. Bill, You make a good point. Barto is another hard nut to crack. (I don't use that idiom derogatorily, BTW.) It's better for a person to be hard to sway than too easily swayed, I think. Let me ask you... do you see the receding hairline in this simple animated gif I made of Lovelady Man (Washed Out Man) turning his head to his right and down a little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) 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 Edited February 24, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now