Thomas Graves Posted February 26, 2017 Author Share Posted February 26, 2017 Just now, Bill Miller said: I don't think Sandy know what he means at this point. Good one Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 49 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: Oswald? Surely you mean Lovelady. Oops... there I go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 10 minutes ago, Bill Miller said: You just destroyed all the claims you had been posting about seeing 'details' on Washout Man that told you that it was Lovelady you were seeing. You need to pay attention, Bill. I never said I could see that that man has Lovelady's face. I said that I can barely make out his eyes. Stuff like that. But he clearly has a receding hairline. And he clearly is standing where Lovelady had been standing. And now I realize that we can see white on his chest when he moves over a few inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 26, 2017 Author Share Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: You need to pay attention, Bill. I never said I could see that that man has Lovelady's face. I said that I can barely make out his eyes. Stuff like that. But he clearly has a receding hairline. And he clearly is standing where Lovelady had been standing. And now I realize that we can see white on his chest when he moves over a few inches. If that was Lovelady's (paper bag?) and pop bottle photographically "caught" next to the steps' west wall several minutes after the assassination, it could explain why he went from the west wall in Hughes (as the limo was passing in front of him), then to the center railing in Weigman and Altgens 6 (to get a better view down Elm Street), and then back to the wall in Couch - Darnell (to retrieve his lunch / soda pop). -- Tommy Edited February 26, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: If that was Lovelady's (paper bag?) and pop bottle photographically "caught" next to the steps' west wall several minutes after the assassination, it could explain why he went from the west wall in Hughes (as the limo was passing in front of him), then to the center railing in Weigman and Altgens 6 (to get a better view down Elm Street), and then back to the wall in Couch - Darnell (to retrieve his lunch / soda pop). -- Tommy True. Though personally I don't think he needs much of a reason to change positions. Standing continually in one spot can be rather monotonous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 26, 2017 Author Share Posted February 26, 2017 1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said: True. Though personally I don't think he needs much of a reason to change positions. Standing continually in one spot can be rather monotonous. whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: You need to pay attention, Bill. I never said I could see that that man has Lovelady's face. I said that I can barely make out his eyes. Stuff like that. Which you used to support it being Lovelady in your view. 6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: But he clearly has a receding hairline. And he clearly is standing where Lovelady had been standing.'' So did several men that have been mentioned here. 6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: And now I realize that we can see white on his chest when he moves over a few inches. One would think by now that you would illustrate through images the things you believe to see instead of just saying it. How about pointing out this 'white' so we know that you are not just talking about the sun shining off his clothing much the same way some thought they saw a disjointed arm coming from the lady in black when it was sunlight shining off the shoulders of the woman looking west. What I see is that the woman's head has remained stationary and that the individual (Washout Man) has turned slightly into the sun which has illuminated his clothing, And I am not certain that you really answered this question, but hasn't it been your previous position that this person had his shirt buttoned up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 26, 2017 Author Share Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: [...] 14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: [...] [...] Quote But he clearly has a receding hairline. And he clearly is standing where Lovelady had been standing.'' So did several men that have been mentioned here. Quote And now I realize that we can see white on his chest when he moves over a few inches. One would think by now that you would illustrate through images the things you believe to see instead of just saying it. How about pointing out this 'white' so we know that you are not just talking about the sun shining off his clothing much the same way some thought they saw a disjointed arm coming from the lady in black when it was sunlight shining off the shoulders of the woman looking west. What I see is that the woman's head has remained stationary and that the individual (Washout Man) has turned slightly into the sun which has illuminated his clothing, And I am not certain that you really answered this question, but hasn't it been your previous position that this person had his shirt buttoned up? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear William, It would seem that when trying to invalidate someone else's photographic or film observations, you often over-enlarge an individual photographic image in order to wash out the pertinent details. Do you do that intentionally? Also, when trying to disprove Lovelady's being next to the steps' west wall in Couch-Darnell, you have an annoying tendency to concentrate on over-enlarged individual frames, rather than the properly blown-up GIF, itself. Sandy's fine, blown-up two-frame GIF showing Lovelady turning his head back and forth would be a good one for you to take a look at and to comment upon, imho, especially in regard to Lovelady's distinctively-shaped bald forehead with hair on the side, which hair is visible in both frames. Back and forth, Back and forth. Do you think that moving "hair" is just a photographic "artifact"? All the best, -- Tommy PS What other men "who have been mentioned here" had a receding hairline as pronounced as Lovelady's? Edited February 26, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) Quote Dear William, It would seem that when trying to invalidate someone else's photographic or film observations, you often over-enlarge an individual photographic image in order to wash out the pertinent details. Do you do that intentionally? Also, when trying to disprove Lovelady's being next to the steps' west wall in Couch-Darnell, you have an annoying tendency to concentrate on over-enlarged individual frames, rather than the properly blown-up GIF, itself. Sandy's fine, blown-up two-frame GIF showing Lovelady turning his head back and forth would be a good one for you to take a look at and to comment upon, imho, especially in regard to Lovelady's distinctively-shaped bald forehead with hair on the side, which hair is visible in both frames. Back and forth, Back and forth. Do you think that moving "hair" is just a photographic "artifact"? You must be joking! The addition of light and contrast washes out and expands borders within an image - simply magnifying it does not. I simply take the source image that is being discussed and enlarge it so the various film artifacts and defects that make up the image are easy to see. I call it the 'man in the moon effect'. When people look up at the moon they can imagine seeing a man's face in the moon. But magnify the moon by looking at it through a telescope, then the image of a face disappears. I have stated this problem since first seeing the mistakes that were being made. So yes, I intentionally magnify the image so to expose those who don't understand the processes that cause false images. Quote Also, when trying to disprove Lovelady's being next to the steps' west wall in Couch-Darnell, you have an annoying tendency to concentrate on over-enlarged individual frames, rather than the properly blown-up GIF, itself. Sandy's fine, blown-up two-frame GIF showing Lovelady turning his head back and forth would be a good one for you to take a look at and to comment upon, imho, especially in regard to Lovelady's distinctively-shaped bald forehead with hair on the side, which hair is visible in both frames. Back and forth, Back and forth. Do you think that moving "hair" is just a photographic "artifact"? Yes - it is an illusion in my opinion. The camera moves and causes a blurring effect. Note the side wall of the building to our left of Washout Man's head - is it your position that the side wall turns to look west as well or is it an illusion that occurred at the precise moment the blur took place with Washout Man's image. That same blur blur also caused Washout Man's right shoulder to flatten and the head of the two women (black scarf and white coat woman) as well as Washout Man to change shape in 1/18th of a second. These are things that is looked for when carefully analyzing images so to differentiate natural movement or artificial movement brought about by other causes. Quote PS What other men "who have been mentioned here" had a receding hairline as pronounced as Lovelady's? It has been posted several times. The man Kamp shows walking with the guy who's hair resembles that pf Bill Shelley - the man that was passed over with the camera who was out by the street that several thought was Oswald - Prayer Man - and the man seen near Lovelady in the Hughes film for starters. All individuals that if seen blurred like Washout Man .... they would be easily mis-indentified. Edited February 26, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 26, 2017 Author Share Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: True. Though personally I don't think he needs much of a reason to change positions. Standing continually in one spot can be rather monotonous. whatever 18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: You need to pay attention, Bill. I never said I could see that that man has Lovelady's face. I said that I can barely make out his eyes. Stuff like that. Which you used to support it being Lovelady in your view. Quote But he clearly has a receding hairline. And he clearly is standing where Lovelady had been standing.'' So did several men that have been mentioned here. Quote And now I realize that we can see white on his chest when he moves over a few inches. One would think by now that you would illustrate through images the things you believe to see instead of just saying it. How about pointing out this 'white' so we know that you are not just talking about the sun shining off his clothing much the same way some thought they saw a disjointed arm coming from the lady in black when it was sunlight shining off the shoulders of the woman looking west. What I see is that the woman's head has remained stationary and that the individual (Washout Man) has turned slightly into the sun which has illuminated his clothing, And I am not certain that you really answered this question, but hasn't it been your previous position that this person had his shirt buttoned up? Dear William, It would seem that when trying to invalidate someone else's photographic or film observations, you often over-enlarge an individual photographic image in order to wash out the pertinent details. Do you do that intentionally? Also, when trying to disprove Lovelady's being next to the steps' west wall in Couch-Darnell, you have an annoying tendency to concentrate on over-enlarged individual frames, rather than the properly blown-up GIF, itself. Sandy's fine, blown-up two-frame GIF showing Lovelady turning his head back and forth would be a good one for you to take a look at and to comment upon, imho, especially in regard to Lovelady's distinctive bald forehead with hair on the side, which hair is visible in both frames. Back and forth, Back and forth. Do you think that moving "hair" is just a photographic "artifact"? All the best, -- Tommy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question was -- "Who, on or in close proximity to the steps, other than Billy Nolan Lovelady had Lovelady's distinctive bald forehead with hair on the sides?" William's answer: "The man that was passed over with the camera who was out by the street that several thought was Oswald - Prayer Man." What in the world are you talking about, William? Could you provide a link or two, or a photograph? What "several" people? "And the man seen near Lovelady in the Hughes film." That man appears to me to be wearing glasses. All the best, -- Tommy PS But at least you're admitting that the "Lovelady" figure on the steps in Couch - Darnell has a bald forehead with hair on the sides, just like Lovelady's. Edited February 26, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question was -- "Who, on or in close proximity to the steps, other than Billy Nolan Lovelady had Lovelady's distinctive bald forehead with hair on the sides?" The man that Shelley testified about who just left the stairs with him and got 15 to 25 steps before turning back to see Baker and Truly enter the front entrance of the TSBD has a hairline much like Lovelady's. Some even see the distinct bald spot on the top rear of his head along with his distinct plaid shirt. The man in this capture below has a hairline much like Lovelady's Quote "And the man seen near Lovelady in the Hughes film." That man appears to me to be wearing glasses. The same man turning his head in the Hughes film - where are those glasses again? Perhaps he isn't wearing glasses and that it is you who should be. Quote William's answer: "The man that was passed over with the camera who was out by the street that several thought was Oswald - Prayer Man." What in the world are you talking about, William? Could you provide a link or two, or a photograph? What "several" people? Perhaps had you not been up into the night talking about leaving me in the dust, then you would have had time to catch up on the three threads that mention these individuals. These images I have posted "several times" as well. Quote "And the man seen near Lovelady in the Hughes film." That man appears to me to be wearing glasses. All the best, -- Tommy PS But at least you're admitting that the "Lovelady" figure on the steps in Couch - Darnell has a bald forehead with hair on the sides, just like Lovelady's. That is not what I said at all. I said there are artifacts that have given you that impression. It's the same type of artifacts that alter Prayer Man's hairline - Buell Frazier's hairline - and Joe Malinda's hairline. all of which are artifacts and not these people's true hairlines. Note the woman just below Frazier. She too has a dark patch morph on her head and the washout makes her look bald with a dark hair-patch on the side of her head. Now I am certain she is not bald. So to say Washout Man has a certain hairline is like claiming the same with this woman's hairline. And as much as I would get a kick out of Bart finding out he was wrong about Shelley and Lovelady on the extension .... I would not choose to ignore the red flags I see so to make something appear to be something it is not. Edited February 27, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I can only assume from the silence that we can all finally agree that there was not enough information seen with Washout Man to say with any certainty that it is Billy Lovelady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bill Miller said: I can only assume from the silence that we can all finally agree that there was not enough information seen with Washout Man to say with any certainty that it is Billy Lovelady. It's definitely Bill Lovelady. I don't understand where the confusion comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I think you are just kidding, but if not - what is it about the image I previously posted that ID's this person as Lovelady? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bill Miller said: I think you are just kidding, but if not - what is it about the image I previously posted that ID's this person as Lovelady? I have sharp eyes, but I'm not a photo analysis expert. I stay away from these debates, generally. I was just giving my 2 cents, since you asked. Cheers, Michael 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