Chris Davidson Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Minus some of the cra-pier frames. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OTEZKSjRpQ0FmOTg/view?usp=sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: Minus some of the cra-pier frames. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OTEZKSjRpQ0FmOTg/view?usp=sharing Thanks, Chris! I've been waiting for about a year for something like this! Excellent work! -- Tommy PS -- You photoshopped it, right? (Just kidding) Edited February 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Sometimes, it's better to remove the cra-py frames than slow it down. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OMnBfWUV6UHFDMXc/view?usp=sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: Dear William, Regarding whether or not "Lovelady" rose up somewhat while standing (broad definition of "standing" here) on that step, I suggest that you look at Prayer Person's right arm and ask yourself whether or not he / she moves it in a downward direction. If he / she doesn't, then how else than "Lovelady's" rising a little bit or a lot (straightening up from a leaning-over position?) could explain the fact that his ("Lovelady's") head rises above said arm at the very, very end of the GIF? Perspective: 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. The upward line of sight to the PM's arm would not need but the person between he and the camera to lean forward or back just a slight amount to expose more or less of PM's figure. If the camera was on the same plane as both men then the difference would not seem so drastic. Several reference points beyond the man in the video and marked with horizontal lines and letters both above and below the camera's line of sight. Even a slight lean causes the man's height to either expose or hide objects behind him. It's a simple matter of understanding perspective when dealing with objects seen in a 2D image. Graves: " If I have ever said I thought the "Lovelady" figure in Couch-Darnell "stood up" from a sitting-down position, or a squatting-on-"his"- haunches position, or a kneeling-down-on-the-steps position, then I deeply apologize for having chosen those particular words, because that's not what I believe now at all." You have posted on this matter in two or three threads now, so you may not recall what you have said from time to time. The same may occur with those who have to read several threads to piece meaningless nonsense together as none of it proves the washed-out figure you now feel is Lovelady is in fact him. However, this is what you said prior to where we are now ... "What about the possibility that Shelley went for a little stroll all by him widdle self, while Lovelady stayed on the steps and was caught in Couch-Darnell as he was semi-crouching (and talking or listening to someone else there?), and then slowly rising to his "full height" (lol), right below Prayer Person's right elbow?" Then you posted some nonsense about my mentioning "leaning" as a possibility to account for what is seen and then you asked if that was some sort of damage control statement I had made. There was no damage that needed to be controlled as I addressed that one did not need to get up from a sitting position or rise from a squatting position as even a simple lean or posture adjustment could cause that person to rise slightly upward towards PM's right arm. That simple rule of perspective has been shown above. Elsewhere you wrote that you deleted an 'infantile image' that I posted. The offensive animation was a laughing smiley seen below. I posted it after you wrote " LOL" throughout your many responses. I can only assume that you are looking to find fault anywhere you can and had nothing of value to complain about, but that is your problem to overcome - not mine. Edited February 19, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bill Miller said: [...] Dear William, Thanks for confirming, from an art teacher's perspective (pardon the pun) that "Billy Lovelady," on the steps in Couch - Darnell, leaned back quite a bit from his leaning-forward / bending-over position. I couldn't have said it any better, myself! [ Chris Davidson's fine, non-blurry GIF shows what I'm talking about: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OTEZKSjRpQ0FmOTg/view?usp=sharing ] All the best, -- Tommy Edited February 20, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: Chris Davidson's fine, non-blurry GIF shows what I'm talking about: Removing frames or contrasting the images do not make them any clearer and in this instance it certainly didn't make washout man any more recognizable. And what I don't understand is if you are simply going to suggest that person being anyone, then why not just say its Lee Oswald making change for the bus ride home. The zip/frames Chris has made do not even show the detail of the white decoration on the front of the building and yet you can say it offers more detail so you can say with certainty that washout man is Lovelady .... that defies all logic as I know it to be. Like I said before - I wish it was Lovelady for I would love to see the expression on Kamp's face, but saying its Lovelady without more to go on doesn't make it so. One might as well be saying that the bullet's missed the President - he walked into Parkland on his own accord - and resigned being President because it would make us all feel better to think it. Oh by the way ... your mystery Lovelady man better get a move on .... Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building? Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building. Can one assume anything else than Lovelady is talking about himself and Bill Shelley leaving the steps together? This doesn't fit your theory "the possibility that Shelley went for a little stroll all by him widdle self, while Lovelady stayed on the steps and was caught in Couch-Darnell" And can we not say that Truly and Patrolman Baker didn't dally around on those steps so to be the first ones to enter the building and come onto the first floor as West and Piper said they witnessed. Help me out here for I am having trouble re-writing all these things so to get your wash-out man to be Lovelady. Let us see if Shelley uses "we" to describe he and Lovelady leaving the steps together .... Mr. BALL - What seemed to be the direction or source of the sound:? Mr. SHELLEY - Sounded like it came from the west. Mr. BALL - It sounded like it came from the west? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Then what happened? Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute. Mr. BALL - Across the street, you mean directly south? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, slightly to the right, you know where the light is there? Mr. BALL - Yes. Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building? Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island. Mr. BALL - While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes. Well Shelley was no help as he too says that he and Lovelady left at the stairs at the same time. And lastly there is this image of two men together who are walking away from the TSBD. One is wearing a dark suit and has a similar wave of hair at the top front of his head like Bill Shelley had - and the other guy in what looks to be a plaid shirt with a Billy Lovelady receding hairline getting closer to where they said they were when they saw Truly and a policeman about to enter the front door of the TSBD. " We " But how can that be when your theory has the following concept that you offered ... "Shelley went for a little stroll all by him widdle self, while Lovelady stayed on the steps and was caught in Couch-Darnell ". Edited February 20, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 8 hours ago, Bill Miller said: Oh by the way ... your mystery Lovelady man better get a move on .... Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building? Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building. The problem, Bill, is you are assuming two things: That Officer Baker ran immediately into the building. That Lovelady is telling the truth. The problem with #1 is that it has been debunked. The film evidence shows otherwise. (Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?) The problem with #2 is that Lovelady says -- in the same breath as what you've quoted above -- that he and Shelley didn't leave the steps till 3 minutes after the shooting. Shelley said the same. And yet Darnell shows that the two guys walking down the extension had to have left the steps (assuming that is where they came from) within a few seconds after the shots. Like less than 10 seconds. How could BOTH Shelley and Lovelady confuse 10 seconds with 3 minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 42 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: The problem, Bill, is you are assuming two things: That Officer Baker ran immediately into the building. That Lovelady is telling the truth. The problem with #1 is that it has been debunked. The film evidence shows otherwise. (Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?) The problem with #2 is that Lovelady says -- in the same breath as what you've quoted above -- that he and Shelley didn't leave the steps till 3 minutes after the shooting. Shelley said the same. And yet Darnell shows that the two guys walking down the extension had to have left the steps (assuming that is where they came from) within a few seconds after the shots. Like less than 10 seconds. How could BOTH Shelley and Lovelady confuse 10 seconds with 3 minutes? He's also assuming that Lovelady accompanied Shelly on his little walk about. -- Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: The problem, Bill, is you are assuming two things: That Officer Baker ran immediately into the building. That Lovelady is telling the truth. The problem with #1 is that it has been debunked. The film evidence shows otherwise. (Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?) The problem with #2 is that Lovelady says -- in the same breath as what you've quoted above -- that he and Shelley didn't leave the steps till 3 minutes after the shooting. Shelley said the same. And yet Darnell shows that the two guys walking down the extension had to have left the steps (assuming that is where they came from) within a few seconds after the shots. Like less than 10 seconds. How could BOTH Shelley and Lovelady confuse 10 seconds with 3 minutes? Someone make up their minds because not that long ago the people moving up the stairs were said to be on their way back inside the TSBD as if they were to be the first people to enter the building. The theory that Patrolman Baker ran on past the stairs means those people climbing the steps had to wait for how ever long it took so to let Truly and a policeman to enter before them. That notion is not logical in my view when two independent witnesses who were inside the building at the time the parade passed by said that Truly and a policeman were the first people onto the first floor before anyone else. Now I realize there have been things claimed by some members here that appear to me to be self-serving at best. But however ...I must remind everyone that holds to their views that Lovelady, Shelley, Truly, Patrolman Baker, West, Piper, and etc., could not have possibly known how many photos and films were taken during and after the assassination that would show that they willingly entered a conspiracy to lie about who entered the TSBD had they done so. So who's motive seems stronger - the witnesses to recall that even correctly or those egos here that have their own theory they want to be correct? As for me, I do not believe that any of those witnesses would have wanted to risk doing anything that would make them appear to be lying that could be seen as an involvement in misleading the investigators and implicating themselves in the murder of a U.S. President after the fact. I find it far more probable that because of the lack of order that the Commission questioned these witnesses - that misstatements were made in light of them saying something differently in their testimonies when first laying out the chain of events beforehand. Edited February 20, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 51 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: He's also assuming that Lovelady accompanied Shelly on his little walk about. -- Tommy It was their testimony Vs the evidence Kamp has offered showing two men walking on the extension that offer a clearer image of what looks like Shelley and Lovelady's features than that presented with washout man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 59 minutes ago, Bill Miller said: I must remind everyone that holds to their views that Lovelady, Shelley, Truly, Patrolman Baker, West, Piper, and etc., could not have possibly known how many photos and films were taken during and after the assassination that would show that they willingly entered a conspiracy to lie about who entered the TSBD had they done so.... ....As for me, I do not believe that any of those witnesses would have wanted to risk doing anything that would make them appear to be lying that could be seen as an involvement in misleading the investigators and implicating themselves in the murder of a U.S. President after the fact. Bill, I don't know of anybody here who believes that witnesses were involving themselves in some kind of conspiracy. What many of us do believe is that some of the witnesses were convinced by the authorities -- by citing national security concerns, or through intimidation -- that they should say things that weren't true. Anybody who believes that the government covered up the facts of the assassination should also accept the fact that the authorities changed witness testimonies. When researchers like us see witness testimony that is unbelievably inconsistent with physical evidence or the testimonies of several other witnesses, we consider the possibility that their testimony was altered. That is the wise and proper thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Bill, I don't know of anybody here who believes that witnesses were involving themselves in some kind of conspiracy. What many of us do believe is that some of the witnesses were convinced by the authorities -- by citing national security concerns, or through intimidation -- that they should say things that weren't true. Anybody who believes that the government covered up the facts of the assassination should also accept the fact that the authorities changed witness testimonies. When researchers like us see witness testimony that is unbelievably inconsistent with physical evidence or the testimonies of several other witnesses, we consider the possibility that their testimony was altered. That is the wise and proper thing to do. All I will say about that is that there are in my opinion people who are not capable of following the line of questioning - the responses of the witnesses in their totality - and applying them things correctly against the photographic record when ever possible. Not even the Government was able to know all the peoples names who were in Dealey Plaza that day, nor was it possible for them to know that all the films and photos had been collected and viewed. So if you are suggesting that the Feds rounded up Truly, Baker, Shelley, Piper, Lovelady, West, among others and forced them to lie about silly things like who was the first persons who entered the TSBD or where they were when they witnessed it, then I say "nonsense"! Edited February 20, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 16 minutes ago, Bill Miller said: All I will say about that is that there are in my opinion people who are not capable of following the line of questioning - the responses of the witnesses in their totality - and applying them things correctly against the photographic record when ever possible. Not even the Government was able to know all the peoples names who were in Dealey Plaza that day, nor was it possible for them to know that all the films and photos had been collected and viewed. So if you are suggesting that the Feds rounded up Truly, Baker, Shelley, Piper, Lovelady, West, among others and forced them to lie about silly things like who was the first persons who entered the TSBD or where they were when they witnessed it, then I say "nonsense"! Do you believe that ANY witness before the WC was asked to tell a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Do you believe that ANY witness before the WC was asked to tell a lie? I am aware of how some witnesses were treated. None of which has anything to do with the point I have made concerning a group of people working together to mislead anyone over something as ridiculous as running up some steps or entering the TSBD. I think that for those who think every witness is a xxxx or had their testimony changed, then I see little sense in them reading the testimonies in the first place. Again - good luck with that washout man image - I have no more time to waste on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Bill Miller said: It was their testimony Vs the evidence Kamp has offered showing two men walking on the extension that offer a clearer image of what looks like Shelley and Lovelady's features than that presented with washout man. Dear William, Why do you believe the "testimony" of Shelly? Why do you believe the "testimony" of Lovelady? Because they kinda dovetailed at times? All the best, -- Tommy 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