Is that ... (Gasp) ... Billy Lovelady Talking With Gloria Calvery on the Steps?

[Bill Miller]

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Okay, Bill, I agree with you that that white segment you showed me is Lovelady's white tee shirt showing through. But I still maintain that he buttoned his shirt up, and that that is apparent in the video. He obviously missed one button.

There is no evidence of Lovelady unbuttoning and buttoning his shirt other than you saying it and using some selective profile views.

 

Quote

BTW, in this photo that you posted:

....you complained that it showed his shirt buttoned up higher than it was in video we're discussing. Well, apparently that is true given that the white strip we see in the video goes down to the button that we see buttoned up here. But in bringing this up, you are inadvertently making my case stronger. The further down the shirt is unbuttoned, the more the tee shirt will be exposed. And yet we see absolutely no white above the strip that you pointed out.

That is not the same shirt Billy wore on 11/22/63. Your ability to identify these noticeable differences is atrocious in my view.

 

 

Quote

Also BTW, if this is your photo:
 

....it strengthens my case even more. Look how wide that shirt is open at that point in time. Yet at the later time in the video there is nothing! No white! Except for that short strip where Lovelady apparently missed a button when buttoning up.

There is no white stripe than can humanly be possible to see in the Darnell image. You are now claiming things that is just not possible when using these images. The detail in the decorative masonry is not even discernible while you are telling me about a silly vertical pin stripe from a shirt that Lovelady didn't even wear on the day of the shooting.

By all means report me .....  

Edited February 22, 2017 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So no, I didn't misidentify Lovelady.

The mis-identification I was referring to was the one in the Darnell film that I call "washout man".

[Sandy Larsen]

Evidence just in case I decide to report Bill to admin:

 

42 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's it!

I am seriously considering reporting you to admin for questioning my honesty.

Report away because you either do it on purpose or you are showing to be inept at working with images. The latter was my first thought, but when you make the same mistakes over and over once you have been made aware of them , then one has to wonder but what you are doing it on purpose.

For example:  Just today you posted a Youtube video showing Billy Lovelady moving west on the stairs as seen in the Hughes film. At the very beginning of the walk west on the steps it is very clear that Lovelady's shirt is not buttoned up as his very white T-shirt is quite visible as seen here ...

Before that you made the claim that 'Loveday was known for buttoning up his shirt' and I asked you where did you get that information from ....... still waiting to hear you say that you made that up!

Then there was Lovelady after he moved towards the handrail and I pointed out that when he turns his head to a profile position .... his body turns just enough to give a glimpse of his unbuttoned shirt.  You responded with this, "Note the shadow now appearing on Lovelady's chest, primarily on his right half of the chest. Which proves that the right half of the shirt is exposed to the camera in this frame. The following photo can be used as a reference to see where the white tee shirt should be exposed:" What you said was utter hogwash and to make it worse - you used a different shirt than the one Lovelady wore on the day of the assassination. Did you even study that shirt before you decided to add it to the mix - it certainly doesn't appear so to me!

But even sillier is that the Lovelady who has walked wast towards the handrail in just a few steps is the same Lovelady who has his white T-shirt exposed at the onset of his moving to the middle of the steps. That's right ... here is the image used in an illustration that begs the question - where is the white T-shirt at the time of the shooting that should be seen on "washout man"?  (see below)

So until you explain where you got the information that Lovelady is known to button and unbutton his shirt often, then I will say it doesn't fit that Billy has an unbuttoned shirt in the Hughes film as JFK's car comes onto Elm Street - the same is seen in Altgens 6 as the shooting is happening - but before Patrolman Baker can run across the Elm Street extension .... washout man has buttoned up his shirt .....

.... only to unbutton it as before as seen here below.

So instead of sitting up throughout the night posting about me being left in the dust by Thomas Graves ... you may wish to get some sleep so to be refreshed when looking at the photographic evidence. Perhaps then you can look at Lovelady in a newer plaid shirt and spot that the white stripes are only half the width of those on the shirt that Billy had on at the time of the assassination.

 

[Ray Mitcham]

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

 

 

That is not the same shirt Billy wore on 11/22/63. Your ability to identify these noticeable differences is atrocious in my view.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is, Bill.  Please show your proof that it isn't.

[Sandy Larsen]

Here a portion of Bill's latest slander against me:

 

Quote

....you either do it on purpose [i.e. fudge the evidence to support my point of view] or you are showing to be inept at working with images. The latter was my first thought, but when you make the same mistakes over and over once you have been made aware of them , then one has to wonder but what you are doing it on purpose.

In that same post Bill tries to make it sound like I keep making big mistakes. That is not true.

Here are the only accusations he says in that post that are true:

1. I didn't recognize at first, in the video, that a slit of white tee shirt can be seen on Lovelady. I thought the slit was part of a white stripe on Lovelady's outer shirt. As soon as I realized Bill was right about that, I admitted so.
2. I posted a picture of Lovelady wearing a different plaid shirt.

That's it! Those are my big mistakes. Even so, most people here would disagree that I did #2. Because most people believe that the plaid shirt Lovelady sported after the assassination was the same one worn on the day of the assassination.

As a matter of fact, until now I thought I was alone in believing the two shirts are probably different. Apparently Bill believes they are. (Actually, I believe I saw Thomas Graves once comment that he thought Billy had somehow gotten a different, very similar shirt.)

I was the one last year who insisted the shirts must be different because the one that Lovelady continued to show off appears not to have a pocket. Whereas the one worn on the day of the assassination clearly does. I was accused of being a Ralph Cinque disciple for making that statement.

The reason I posted that picture was to show that the white horizontal and vertical lines are consistent in their brightness and width. I never thought that I was doing anything sneaky because 1) the shirt does look just like the one worn on assassination day; and 2) I am not absolutely 100% certain that the shirts are different shirts.

Anyway....

I am asking everyone here not to believe Bill Miller's accusations against me. I do NOT intentionally choose lesser evidence over better to make my points. And I am not generally inept with images.

I do, of course, make mistakes at times.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

The mis-identification I was referring to was the one in the Darnell film that I call "washout man".

I never even noticed, let alone identified, your "washout man" till I responded to your post. The post where you accused me of misidentifying "washout man" as Lovelady.

Didn't I make that clear in my response to you?

And you call me inept.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

 

Quote

Also BTW, if this is your photo:
 

....it strengthens my case even more. Look how wide that shirt is open at that point in time. Yet at the later time in the video there is nothing! No white! Except for that short strip where Lovelady apparently missed a button when buttoning up.

There is no white stripe than can humanly be possible to see in the Darnell image. You are now claiming things that is just not possible when using these images. The detail in the decorative masonry is not even discernible while you are telling me about a silly vertical pin stripe from a shirt that Lovelady didn't even wear on the day of the shooting.

OMG, what are you talking about?
 

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

By all means report me .....  

I don't think I will report you after all. It appears there is something wrong. Like you're having... issues or something. I don't know what's going on with you.

 

[Alistair Briggs]

8 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Are you taking into account the very real possibility that "Lovelady" is leaning forward during most of the clip, thereby making him appear to be shorter (and closer to W.I.B.?) than he really was?  When he stands fully upright near the end, it looks like he's at least 10" higher than W.I.B..

Leaning forward is a possibility, no doubt about that. But it is also a possibility that it's not, and instead, when the person 'rises' they do so because they are perhaps 'going up on their tippy toes' to see something, or perhaps taking a step back up a step. I think if we are to be honest, it's a tough one to call really. I can see what you are saying, don't get me wrong, it's just that, personally, I can justify to myself that it's not the case...

and here is my reasoning as to why...

If they were two steps apart (say, 2nd and 4th step) and that person wasn't leaning forward then W.I.B would be (approx.) 6ft 2
If they were two steps apart (say, 2nd and 4th step) and that person was leaning forward then W.I.B would be (approx.) 6ft

To me that that rules out them being two steps apart...

... so they must be one step apart

... which would also rule out someone being between them. Why? Because the steps aren't wide enough for two people to be standing 'face-to-face' on the same step. (The 'width' of each step is only 12 inches.)

If they were one step apart (say, 2nd and 3rd step) and that person wasn't leaning forward then W.I.B would be (approx.) 5ft 7
If they were one step apart (say, 2nd and 3rd step) and that person was leaning forward then W.I.B would be (approx.) 5ft 5 but, and it's a big but, the question that is raised is how much closer to W.I.B's face would that put that person's face? Could it be argued that it would thus be 'infringing' on her 'personal space'. I don't know for sure, of course.

From looking at the gif (and others) it seems to me that the view of the persons head seems to be 'straight on' and that doesn't change as that person moves 'upwards', to me that 'negates' the thought of 'leaning forward' and then 'straightening up' because the view of the head remains the same (albeit on a higher level). (that makes sense in my head, but not really sure if that will come across... happy to further clarify if need be. )

At the end of the day, we are looking at 'enlarged' copies of what was originally a relatively 'small' original 'film clip', and who knows what 'generation' of copy it is and indeed who knows how much 'lightening' has been done to it - it's difficult to say

9 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

BTW, Have you looked at Chris Davidson's other GIF's on this thread, yet? 

Oh goodness yes I've looked at it. More times than I care to remember. lol I've actually looked at all the gifs he has posted and all the other gifs pertaining to that area; not only have I looked at them I have also managed to 'extract' them so I can seem each individual frame of each individual gif. I'm sure Chris will agree that some frames are better than others.

9 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 If so, do you agree with Sandy Larsen and I that "Lovelady" really  is ... Lovelady?

Simple answer! No, I don't agree.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Tommy,

Earlier I mentioned that I did a quick estimate on how much Lovelady Man's head went up. I said that it looked like 6 inches to me, and that I thought a stair step would be significantly more than that. So I rejected the idea that he backed up one step.

Ray has posted measurements for the steps, and the height of most is 7 1/4". (Or is it 7 1/8"... I don't remember.)

That isn't as high as I thought steps would be.

I'm now of the opinion that Lovelady Man may have backed up one step.

If I overestimated the rise, then his getting up on tippy toes seems consistent.

[Sandy Larsen]

Regarding whether Lovelady buttoned his shirt up, does his white tee shirt here:
 

....seem consistent with it here:

 

(Note the shadow on Lovelady's right side.)

 

These frames were taken several seconds apart.

(And yes, Bill, I do see in the bottom frame a small gap in Lovelady's outer shirt where the white tee shirt is exposed. Like he had missed one button when buttoning up.)

[Bill Miller]

4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Yes, it is, Bill.  Please show your proof that it isn't.

Ray,

There are a couple of things that stand out to me, so I will mention the most obvious one so to save time.

Are you able to see that the black lines are 2.5X wider than the white lines on the shirt Lovelady posed with on the steps? Take a close look - get out a ruler and place it onto your screen if you like. The shirt Billy Lovelady is wearing on assassination day shows the black and while lines to be very uniform to one another. I will go out on a limb right off and say that the washing machine did not cause the white lines to narrow over time.

The assassination day shirt Lovelady wore shows black and white stripes of what appears to be equal size, and at least for closer to the same size than the Lovelady shirt shows on the front steps photo.

Now I know that some people have said Lovelady's shirt must have shrunk in the washing machine, but that is not what the evidence of those stripe widths tell me.

[Bill Miller]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Regarding whether Lovelady buttoned his shirt up, does his white tee shirt here:
 

....seem consistent with it here:

 

(Note the shadow on Lovelady's right side.)

 

These frames were taken several seconds apart.

per·spec·tive

pərˈspektiv/

noun

noun: perspective

1. 1.

   the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point.

    

   Not seconds - less than a second. Nothing in those few steps Lovelady took as he moved towards the center rail shows even the slightest movement on his part to button up his shirt. Someone not understanding perspective does not equate to a buttoned up shirt. A similar thing happened here ... Lovelady's posture change went from making his shirt look buttoned to unbuttoned.

   

    

   I find your approach to be self-serving and I do not believe that you do not understand perspective. If someone wanted the truth bad enough - they could find a mirror and with a loose fitting shirt like Lovelady had on that day and replicate these various views without ever touching a button. The idea that Lovelady buttoned and unbuttoned his shirt is just silly in my opinion.

[Thomas Graves]

4 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Leaning forward is a possibility, no doubt about that. But it is also a possibility that it's not, and instead, when the person 'rises' they do so because they are perhaps 'going up on their tippy toes' to see something, or perhaps taking a step back up a step. I think if we are to be honest, it's a tough one to call really. I can see what you are saying, don't get me wrong, it's just that, personally, I can justify to myself that it's not the case...

and here is my reasoning as to why...

If they were two steps apart (say, 2nd and 4th step) and that person wasn't leaning forward then W.I.B would be (approx.) 6ft 2
If they were two steps apart (say, 2nd and 4th step) and that person was leaning forward then W.I.B would be (approx.) 6ft

To me that that rules out them being two steps apart...

... so they must be one step apart

... which would also rule out someone being between them. Why? Because the steps aren't wide enough for two people to be standing 'face-to-face' on the same step. (The 'width' of each step is only 12 inches.)

If they were one step apart (say, 2nd and 3rd step) and that person wasn't leaning forward then W.I.B would be (approx.) 5ft 7
If they were one step apart (say, 2nd and 3rd step) and that person was leaning forward then W.I.B would be (approx.) 5ft 5 but, and it's a big but, the question that is raised is how much closer to W.I.B's face would that put that person's face? Could it be argued that it would thus be 'infringing' on her 'personal space'. I don't know for sure, of course.

From looking at the gif (and others) it seems to me that the view of the persons head seems to be 'straight on' and that doesn't change as that person moves 'upwards', to me that 'negates' the thought of 'leaning forward' and then 'straightening up' because the view of the head remains the same (albeit on a higher level). (that makes sense in my head, but not really sure if that will come across... happy to further clarify if need be. )

At the end of the day, we are looking at 'enlarged' copies of what was originally a relatively 'small' original 'film clip', and who knows what 'generation' of copy it is and indeed who knows how much 'lightening' has been done to it - it's difficult to say

Oh goodness yes I've looked at it. More times than I care to remember. lol I've actually looked at all the gifs he has posted and all the other gifs pertaining to that area; not only have I looked at them I have also managed to 'extract' them so I can seem each individual frame of each individual gif. I'm sure Chris will agree that some frames are better than others.

Simple answer! No, I don't agree.

 

 

Dear Alistair,

Sorry, but I can't even read all of this.  Too much second-guessing and over-analysis, IMHO.

I came to the conclusion that it IS Lovelady by looking at Chris's other GIF's on this page.

The figure's bald forehead (with hair on the side), a glimpse of his white t-shirt and a white horizontal stripe on his sleeve, and his placement on that side of the steps clinched it for me.

Whether he's straightening himself up from a leaning-forward position or standing on his tippytoes is of secondary importance, IMHO.

All the best,

--  Tommy

Edited February 22, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

Not seconds - less than a second. Nothing in those few steps Lovelady took as he moved towards the center rail shows even the slightest movement on his part to button up his shirt.

You apparently didn't notice the gap in the Hughes film. Lovelady must have buttoned his shirt up during that period of time.

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

Earlier I mentioned that I did a quick estimate on how much Lovelady Man's head went up. I said that it looked like 6 inches to me, and that I thought a stair step would be significantly more than that. So I rejected the idea that he backed up one step.

Ray has posted measurements for the steps, and the height of most is 7 1/4". (Or is it 7 1/8"... I don't remember.)

That isn't as high as I thought steps would be.

I'm now of the opinion that Lovelady Man may have backed up one step.

If I overestimated the rise, then his getting up on tippy toes seems consistent.

Sandy,

Have you ever tried walking up a step backwards?  I'm not talking about when you brought that new sofa into your second-floor apartment (lol), but when you did it more-or-less kinda normally.  

It's an awkward thing to do, probably because our knees bend only in one direction.

Therefore, anyone doing so looks very awkward, indeed.

IMHO.

Does "Lovelady" look like he's moving awkwardly?

--  Tommy

Edited February 22, 2017 by Thomas Graves