Bill Miller Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Clark said: 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 I appreciated the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) On 2/25/2017 at 6:09 PM, Sandy Larsen said: [...] [...] On 2/25/2017 at 5:50 PM, Sandy Larsen said: [...] [...] Quote [...] [...] Quote [...] Dear William, 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, resolution-destroyed 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF SILENT MILLER-AFFIRMING (NOT) REFLECTION One of the reasons I've been so "quiet" recently on this thread is because I'm unable to use the "quote" function effectively on this relatively new version of the forum, so I find myself forced to "reply" to something I posted earlier rather than what I really want to reply to or quote. Which is rather awkward, IMHO. I'm using google chrome with windows 10. Is that the problem? I'm also tired of "banging my head against the wall" with Miller, who evidently selectively posts Couch-Darnell "frames" that purposefully don't show what Sandy and I (and I'm sure Bob Prudhomme, too, if he were only here) are trying to point out. For example, Loveladys white t-shirt. In one of the the frames Miller posted regarding the t-shirt (not the one below), said t-shirt is partially blocked by the head of Woman In Black. And when an over-enlarged frame is posted (see below) that shows a larger, more distinct bit of Lovelady's white t-shirt in Couch - Darnell, Miller tries to explain it away as being nothing more than "sunlight reflected off of 'Washed Out Man's' shirt". I for one am convinced that we can see a little bit of Lovelady's white t-shirt on the left (as we're looking at him) side of "Lovelady's" upper-chest / lower neck in the over-enlarged frame that Miller, himself, posted during my "silent period". No, I don't think we are looking at "sunlight reflected off of his shirt" here, but a real snatch of white t-shirt. Here's the frame I'm talking about. Please note that the hair on the side of Lovelady's bald forehead isn't particularly visible in this purposefully (by Miller) overly blown-up frame, below, but is more noticeable in other frames from Couch-Darnell, and even this one, below, when not overly blown-up. Regardless, I agree with Michael Clark that the guy on the steps is Lovelady, and I'm glad he contributed his "two cents" to the discussion. As to what the "big deal" is, it seems to me that Miller's overall theory requires the "fact" that Shelley and Lovelady were "captured," in Couch - Darnell, while walking down (or across?) Elm Street Extension. Which begs the question -- What is Miller's overall-theory, anyway? -- Tommy Edited February 28, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: I'm also tired of "banging my head against the wall" with Miller, who evidently selectively posts Couch-Darnell "frames" that purposefully don't show what Sandy and I (and I'm sure Bob Prudhomme, too, if he were only here) are trying to point out. For example, Loveladys white t-shirt. In one of the the frames Miller posted regarding the t-shirt (not the one below), said t-shirt is partially blocked by the head of Woman In Black. And when an over-enlarged frame is posted (see below) that shows a larger, more distinct bit of Lovelady's white t-shirt in Couch - Darnell, Miller tries to explain it away as being nothing more than "sunlight reflected off of 'Washed Out Man's' shirt". To start with ... we may have to go back and put together some of you and Sandy's past comments because I think Sandy had Washout Man with his shirt buttoned up as the reason that no white t-shirt was seen. Now here are the three views you are referring to ... The way I see it is if the suns light hitting the front of Washout Man was truly showing his t-shirt, then it would still be seen in the third photo when the upper torso has shifted away from the sun leaving a consistent tone from the mid-chest to the left shoulder. In this animation below ... it starts with the all three views. Then comes some white lines on the second image showing shade falling across the clothing. Next is the third image coming over the second (middle) image which also has white lines showing the shade even further out over the clothing. This would be because this individual as moved in a manner that the direct sunlight is no longer hitting the front of clothing being worn. Now earlier Michael Clark mentioned the image I posted was Lovelady on the steps. However, the face was not Lovelady's, but instead belonged to the little girl seen in this film capture as she stood even closer to the camera than Washout Man had (see below) That's right! I took this little girl's degraded facial image and placed it onto the face of what has been described as Billy Lovelady's. I have repeatedly explained how unreliable those types of images are and all I heard was more rhetoric about how ever more a few here were convinced this person was Billy Lovelady. This little girl appears to have a receding hairline as well from her face being washed out. Then came T Graves asking about what other people had a hairline like Lovelady's as if he had just come out of a long coma because I had posted those images several times over the course of these discussions. One being the man walking with the Shelley hairdo guy who not only has Lovelady's receding hairline, but his plaid shirt and bald spot which Bart Kamp pointed out some time ago. 'What individuals had Lovelady's hairline?' That question was a real hoot - it was!!! Quote I for one am convinced that we can see a little bit of Lovelady's white t-shirt on the left (as we're looking at him) side of "Lovelady's" upper-chest / lower neck Are you as convinced about that observation as you were that the other guy below with the receding hairline was wearing glasses? And I am convinced that this image is so bad that the head looks like the one the 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' had. Edited February 28, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Bill Miller Wrote: "Now earlier Michael Clark mentioned the image I posted was Lovelady on the steps. However, the face was not Lovelady's, but instead belonged to the little girl seen in this film capture as she stood even closer to the camera than Washout Man had (see below)------ That's right! I took this little girl's degraded facial image and placed it onto the face of what has been described as Billy Lovelady's. I have repeatedly explained how unreliable those types of images are and all I heard was more rhetoric about how ever more a few here were convinced this person was Billy Lovelady. This little girl appears to have a receding hairline as well from her face being washed out. Then came T Graves asking about what other people had a hairline like Lovelady's as if he had just come out of a long coma because I had posted those images several times in recent times. One being the man walking with the Shelley hairdo guy who not only has Lovelady's receding hairline, but his plaid shirt and bald spot which Bart Kamp pointed out some time ago. 'What individuals had Lovelady's hairline?' That question was a real hoot - it was!!!" ---------------------------- ---------------------------- This thread has how many pages over how many days, with how many iterations of that pic, and the same person? And we're confused about what pic and which person I was referring to? Its just a reinforcement of my inclination to stay out of photo analysis pics. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) On 2/25/2017 at 6:09 PM, Sandy Larsen said: [...] [...] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear William, I don't speak for Sandy regarding the t-shirt (specifically whether or not Lovelady buttoned or unbuttoned his outer shirt), and he doesn't speak for me, What he and I do agree on is that Billy Nolan Lovelady was "captured" standing on the steps in Couch - Darnell. A question for you regarding the head of "Washed Out Man" on the steps in Couch - Darnell: Did you put the head of that little girl on him in this two-frame GIF, too? Or alter it in some other "very clever way"? I didn't think so. -- Tommy Edited February 28, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: [...] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear William, I don't speak for Sandy regarding the t-shirt (specifically whether or not Lovelady buttoned or unbuttoned his outer shirt), and he doesn't speak for me, What he and I do agree on is that Billy Nolan Lovelady was "captured" standing on the steps in Couch - Darnell. Only you could find comfort in someone agreeing with you who sees a buttoned up shirt while you see an open shirt that exposes a t-shirt. Quote A question for you regarding the head of "Washed Out Man" on the steps in Couch - Darnell: Did you put the head of that little girl on him in this two-frame GIF, too? Or alter it in some other "very clever way"? I didn't think so. I thought you carefully analyzed these images before claiming that this person was Lovelady. The truth is I knew you had not done so. The fact is that Alistair gave me the idea yesterday to look for some comparison images that would give a false impression when washed out. I sent him a gif of another film of a line of people who were standing in front of the TSBD. I noticed the similar distortion that with the girl as I did with Washout Man. Perhaps your memory is failing, so I will remind you that I posted this two frame gif to show the artifacts that suddenly popped onto the image. I mentioned the blemishes that suddenly showed up on Prayer Man's head - Buell Frazier's head - Joe Molinda's head. I mentioned the blemish on the seam of the wall, as well on the side of Washout Man's head. I specifically pointed out that Prayer Man's head morphed to the left and downward (as well as his right forearm) - Frazier's face, Molinda's face, and Washout Man's face. I think Sandy called it a head turn when it came to Washout Man, but when you look at the blemish that shows up on Washout Man's head (that you call side-hair) ... it stands alone with skin tone in front of it, as well as behind it. It's arrival comes at the same moment the other blemishes and morphing of the heads did. I am fairly certain you have never addressed it because you never looked close enough at the images to see it. You have not even addressed it since I raised your awareness to it. And lastly, you didn't address the man walking on the extension with the dark suited man with the Bill Shelley hairdo as having Lovelady's hairline, plaid shirt, and the bald spot on the upper back of his head. You may not like what I have to say and you don't have to agree, but you should attempt to be as thorough in your responses as I am when addressing yours. Edited March 1, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Bill Miller said: Only you could find comfort in someone agreeing with you who sees a buttoned up shirt while you see an open shirt that exposes a t-shirt. I thought you carefully analyzed these images before claiming that this person was Lovelady. The truth is I knew you had not done so. The fact is that Alistair gave me the idea yesterday to look for some comparison images that would give a false impression when washed out. I sent him a gif of another film of a line of people who were standing in front of the TSBD. I noticed the similar distortion that with the girl as I did with Washout Man. Perhaps your memory is failing, so I will remind you that I posted this two frame gif to show the artifacts that suddenly popped onto the image. I mentioned the blemishes that suddenly showed up on Prayer Man's head - Buell Frazier's head - Joe Molinda's head. I mentioned the blemish on the seam of the wall, as well on the side of Washout Man's head. I specifically pointed out that Prayer Man's head morphed to the left and downward (as well as his right forearm) - Frazier's face, Molinda's face, and Washout Man's face. I think Sandy called it a head turn when it came to Washout Man, but when you look at the blemish that shows up on Washout Man's head (that you call side-hair) ... it stands alone with skin tone in front of it, as well as behind it. It's arrival comes at the same moment the other blemishes and morphing of the heads did. I am fairly certain you have never addressed it because you never looked close enough at the images to see it. You have not even addressed it since I raised your awareness to it. And lastly, you didn't address the man walking on the extension with the dark suited man with the Bill Shelley hairdo as having Lovelady's hairline, plaid shirt, and the bald spot on the upper back of his head. You may not like what I have to say and you don't have to agree, but you should attempt to be as thorough in your responses as I am when addressing yours. Dear William, Altering photographs and presenting them as "the real deal" on this forum, wondering if anyone will notice? Isn't that an example of intellectual dishonesty? All the best, -- Tommy :sun Edited March 1, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: Dear William, Altering photographs and presenting them as "the real deal" on this forum, wondering if anyone will notice? Isn't that an example of intellectual dishonesty? All the best, -- Tommy " Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. " You were to be tested after the rhetoric you and Sandy were chanting concerning leaving me in the dust ..... followed by your seemingly unawareness of the other men who had a similar hairline to Billy Lovelady despite my posting about them with images on a few prior occasions. So what did I do - I first notified a trusted member of this forum that I was going to test whether your claiming Washout Man was Lovelady was because of any valid observations you had made or whether you were just relying on the concept that if you merely said it enough times, then it would somehow become true. I chose that member to be Alistair. I sent him the film from which the little girl came from, as well as a full screen capture, plus an enlargement. I also included the same images I later posted to the forum. As I suspected would happen - you failed the test just as you failed to see the artifact that you claimed was hair on the side of Washout Man's head in the one frame. You failed to see the same artifacts and panning blurs that rerouted hairlines on Prayer Man, Fraizer, and Molina. Your complaints of my using enlargements hinted to me that you were oblivious to the necessity of enlarging the images so these artifacts could be better detected. In the end, I concluded that you really hadn't given any consideration to the accuracy of your observations. Instead of just admitting that you could have paid closer attention to the details of these images - you complain that the standards of rational evaluation wasn't applied. In a way I agree as it wasn't applied when you chose to make claims about seeing details in a degraded image without first investigating other possible causes. Now when the dust clears - address the hairline of the guy walking down the extension while wearing what appears to be a plaid shirt, a receding hairline, accompanied with a bald spot on the back of his head much like this one seen here .... Edited March 1, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bill Miller said: [...] Dear William, You are insufferable. Exactly what is it, photographically-speaking, about your so-called "Washed Out Man" on the steps in Couch- Darnell that makes you to say he couldn't possibly be Lovelady? Too much hair? Not enough? Too tall? Too short? Wrong gender? Because he wasn't walking down Elm Street Extension with Shelley? -- Tommy PS In the two-frame GIF that Sandy provided, the hair on the side of Lovelady's head can be seen in both frames, so how could that be a photographic "blemish" / "artifact"? Edited March 1, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 On 2/26/2017 at 2:03 AM, Bill Miller said: On 2/25/2017 at 6:50 PM, 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. No, I didn't do that. I used the barely-made-out-eyes and other features to support my contention that the top part of the person is a face, and not the back side of a woman's scarf. Which had been suggested earlier by someone, possibly you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) On 2/26/2017 at 2:03 AM, Bill Miller said: 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. I had already posted it on my "presentation" thread. Check here and here. Edited March 1, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 6 hours ago, Bill Miller said: Only you could find comfort in someone agreeing with you who sees a buttoned up shirt while you see an open shirt that exposes a t-shirt. Don't misrepresent what I've said Bill. I never said that Lovelady Man in Couch/Darnell (the guy standing on the steps) had his shirt buttoned up. Never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Bill Miller said: I specifically pointed out that Prayer Man's head morphed to the left and downward (as well as his right forearm) - Frazier's face, Molinda's face, and Washout Man's face. I think Sandy called it a head turn when it came to Washout Man, but when you look at the blemish that shows up on Washout Man's head (that you call side-hair) ... it stands alone with skin tone in front of it, as well as behind it. It's arrival comes at the same moment the other blemishes and morphing of the heads did. Bill, What we see as hair around Lovelady Man's left ear, you see as a blemish. Your evidence is that there are other such blemishes occurring here and there throughout the very same frame. Okay, I understand that. Problem is, there is no proof that what we see on Lovelady Man's head is such a blemish. In contrast, there is evidence for our contention that what we see is side hair: The animated gif has two frames. In the frame with no blemishes, we can make out the edge of the man's hair... on his left side. It is only reasonable to expect to see even more hair if he turns his head to his right. Fortunately he does turn his head to his right, and we do see what appears to be more of his hair. We can barely make out that his side hair does no cover his ear. The outline of the man's side hair conforms perfectly to the shape of his head. So Bill, if you are correct in saying that there is a blemish on top, left side of Lovelady Man's head, then it must be perfectly shaped to cover his side hair (which we know has to be there), and must be perfectly shaped to conform to the shape of the man's head and not to cover up the man's ear! What are the odds of such a perfectly placed and perfectly shaped blemish to appear? Slim to none, I'd say. And the real funny funny thing about all this is the fact that -- if Bill were right that there is a blemish there -- if we could somehow remove the blemish, doing so would reveal... the hair! (What does Bill think we would see? Baldness?) EDIT: I see now that Thomas already touched on this topic, above. But I'll leave this here because it elaborates. Edited March 1, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Bill Miller said: Bill, Regarding the photo on the left: Why are you relying on this photo that clearly has been processed so thoroughly that it has created artifacts? If you accept that the guy on the right has a bald spot, then you must also accept that the guy on the left is wearing a plaid jacket and either is sporting a wild haircut or is wearing a baseball cap backward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: No, I didn't do that. I used the barely-made-out-eyes and other features to support my contention that the top part of the person is a face, and not the back side of a woman's scarf. Which had been suggested earlier by someone, possibly you. We know I didn't promote the Lovelady shirt buttoning fetish as he moved about on assassination day. I will however make time to go back and quote the culprit so we all know who it was. 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