Bond, No not James, Wilma Irene

Tom and I were discussing a picture of a Random Dealey Plaza Woman.


Denis Morriset had posted her picture on EF in a thread about Prayerman. 
She was supposedly Prayer Man walking about the Plaza with a camera in hand. 
This after being on and leaving the steps somehow unfilmed or photographed and unnoticed by all around... she wouldn't have entered the TSBD thus must be on film walking away..nope sorry. 

When Tom pointed me to EF and the discussion was she might be a candidate for PM, I said Wait A Second!!
... as she looked familiar and not ANY  UNKNOWN WOMAN candidate for PM.

I went to Denis's site Amateur Cameramen and Photographers In Dealey Plaza.
I scrolled down through the photographs and saw a name that clicked in my memory...Wilma Bond.


I recalled Linda Z had attempted to locate her in DP but with less than spectacular results.
A blurry rorschach at best of a man half way down Houston street hardly matched.
I was never satisfied to say the least.


Wilma testified to her actions:

She was at the corner of Houston and Main.
Taking photographs. She then went around the monument towards Elm to catch JFK again. Where she took more photos. 9 in all.

Q: "Did you observe the events in Dealey Plaza after you took this photograph?"

A: "Just walking around out of curiosity, that is all and looking."


I found Linda Zs comparison and used the yearbook pic for Wilma and did my comparison to the "Unknown Woman"
SPOT ON.

Same hair face lips eyebrows hairline nose, even her style of shirt.

Then I found Wilmas sister Lorene who was one year younger and compared to UDPW.
SPOT ON.



Wilma Irene Bond has been found. 
Huge news!!!


PM lives on as Lee.
Cheers Ed!

Wilma worked at Justin McCarty dress manufacturers.
Wilma was the cashier/receptionist.

Also of note Muchmore left Wilma and the plaza after the shooting but Wilma remained ('alone')

I really hope that the identification of Bond is correct. But, in the interest of integrity I've gotta say that as of last night I don't know if I agree on this woman regarding PM. I didn't want to post this, and it probably won't be too well received, but it seems to me like there might be too many similarities to write off as coincidence:



I scoffed at the Ed forum thread where this woman was discussed as a candidate, but they were only comparing her to Darnell. IF the above "enhanced" Weigman frame above accurately represents certain features of PM, and I really hope that it doesn't, it looks like we have a matching shirt, body type, and most disappointingly three matching items of jewelry. I really want to be convinced otherwise but right now I can't help but think that it's gotta be the same person. 

Oswald of course had a ring and a bracelet on his left arm, but I remembered the Ed forum thread on this woman last night, and that there was some discussion about a bracelet, so I went to go check if she had a ring and unfortunately she did and it was match for the Weigman frame. The thin left arm bracelet I just noticed in the last thirty minutes. 

This is the last thing I ever wanted to post here, as not twenty-four hours ago I was all-in and convinced PM was Oswald, but I'd feel like I was being dishonest if I didn't share what is making me have doubts. I want nothing more than for someone to tell me why I'm wrong, and again I really hope it's Bond, but it just seems like too much to be coincidence.

I wouldn't be too worried or surprised at the Rorschach forums attempt.
PM is quite safe as a man and is Lee Oswald.

PS if they are going to that fine of detail then they can match PMs shirt design or hairline or show us the camera, etc... patterns of the deceived attempt to usurp the known quantity of PM.

NEXT!
Ed

Ed.Ledoux wrote:I wouldn't be too worried or surprised at the Rorschach forums attempt.
PM is quite safe as a man and is Lee Oswald.

PS if they are going to that fine of detail then they can match PMs shirt design or hairline or show us the camera, etc... patterns of the deceived attempt to usurp the known quantity of PM.

NEXT!
Ed

Hey believe me, I do not by any stretch of the imagination want this woman to be PM. I just felt like I had to share what is currently giving me doubts. I really friggin' hope it's complete and utter bullshit but it just wasn't something I felt like I could ignore in good conscience. If someone who actually knows what they are doing with image processing (not me) can say that there is not enough data in the Weigman frame to actually resolve the jewelry and it just came out that way then great; but I feel, correctly or not, like there's a non-zero probability of a match there.

Of course that's meaningless in the face of Wilma Bond.
Wilma is now a known quantity and can't be shuffled into the UNKNOWN WOMAN IN THE PLAZA then stuck to PM.
Not gonna happen.

It's like Linda Zs attempt to say the person standing down Houston street is Bond.
Tom the mistake she made is the person has no camera.



Forget an image that doesn't look like Wilma.
No don't worry about it matching...
Focus on the fact at that time Bond has a camera up to her face and is taking BOND2.
Linda even includes the Bond photo.
Aye karumba....!



Linda even went as far as saying the hair seen to the right is Muchmore's since Marie said Wilma was to her left. Granted that very well may be Muchmore but Linda's view of the person she says is Wilma may very well be Muchmore herself and the photo Linda used is cut off so you can't see who is to the persons left. gee thanks.
Now this is to show how not to ID an individual as an example. Not to berate anyone. Linda was right 80-90% of the time.
Sooo,
Let's not say we can see bands on arms that are barely visible in nearly clear photos of Wilma Bond, let alone the rorschach test comparison.
The standards are very very low if this makes it a cinch for a strange woman with a camera standing
on the TSBD steps.
Seriously where did Wilma go after being on the steps... her photos tell the story and she wasn't on the steps and is not PM.
We or I don't need to look for candidates.
That slot is filled.

Cheers respectfully as possible to all involved,,, but its not like someone hasn't tried this very thing not so long ago, and were similarly mistaken but then foolishly blind.
(See Prayerwoman the tragedy as predicted by Sean Murphy)

As for Wilma Bond being Prayer Man:
Not a Chance. Though it's not a complete waste.
You've actually accomplished something Tom, spurred me to find Bond.
Thanks mate!!!

Hey if something good came out of me being crippled and staring too long at conglomerates of random pixels then great lol. Gotta understand too I’m not exactly captain positivity at the moment - finding out why leg is paralyzed today though hopefully - so disappointment is basically a reflex at this point. The jewelry plus the collar, etc. just felt like too much of a coincidence, but if anything it just further highlights the need for better scans so idiots like me don’t go crosseyed staring at ambiguous pixel blobs.

Hope your feeling tip top soon enough.
Pain and immobility are ugly things.
Especially a get away stick gone on the fritz.
When I was 5yrs old the balls of my femur dissolved. Was lucky and in a year they'd regrown.
In that time it was some anxiety and thoughts not right.
Pulling for ya!
Ed

Pete Kell has a similar identification of badgeman.
I'd say similar type of example but in reality PM exists.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/794756513932351/permalink/7248429511898320/

Please stop. 

This is akin to badge man and all that is wrong with the photographic analysis in the JFK community. I hope you're feeling better soon and the Docs can get to the cause of what's going on with the leg.

Mick_Purdy wrote:
Please stop. 

This is akin to badge man and all that is wrong with the photographic analysis in the JFK community. I hope you're feeling better soon and the Docs can get to the cause of what's going on with the leg.

Funny you say that, I was literally going to preface one of the comments in the other thread with “the following is my best Jack White impression”. The same applies here, and again, I fully acknowledge it’s just unscientific bullshit and proves nothing. I didn’t even want to post this one and knew it wouldn’t exactly be well received here. It’d be dishonest though if I said that the apparent similarities in the blob weren’t what made me think of this random woman in the first place. If that’s what led to a legit identification of Bond then great, and I don’t regret posting it. 

The evidence for Oswald’s alibi doesn’t rely on the photo, and without better scans yeah looking at blurry frames is basically a Rorschach test. At what point though i.e. image quality can certain features be resolved well enough to get out of the realm of bullshit and warrant a real comparison? It’s a legitimate question, and the answer is somewhere well short of Oswald staring back at you in 1080p. 

Hammond and others were pushing this woman as a candidate based on a comparison with Darnell that makes the above look like a retinal scan, so I think it can be productive to put this kind of thing up to scrutiny on occasion. Fetzeresque face measurements are one thing but the bar is a lot lower for being able to identify a bracelet, ring, or buttoned up collar in a blurry photo. Where is that bar? I sure as hell don’t know since I know exactly jack shit about image processing. The point though is that it’s not all black and white. There’s a real probability that PM had a shiny bracelet looking object on or near his right arm based on the data in Weigman and Darnell, for example. As long as that probability isn’t provably zero or near zero it should at least be considered. If we reject this kind of thing offhand it’s just as bad as using the blurry photo argument to reject PM altogether. Yes there’s a lot of bullshit photo analysis in the JFK community, and a lack of critical thinking, but that doesn’t make it impossible to take a more nuanced, probabilistic approach to what we’re looking at.

JFK_FNG wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:
Please stop. 

This is akin to badge man and all that is wrong with the photographic analysis in the JFK community. I hope you're feeling better soon and the Docs can get to the cause of what's going on with the leg.

Funny you say that, I was literally going to preface one of the comments in the other thread with “the following is my best Jack White impression”. The same applies here, and again, I fully acknowledge it’s just unscientific bullshit and proves nothing. I didn’t even want to post this one and knew it wouldn’t exactly be well received here. It’d be dishonest though if I said that the apparent similarities in the blob weren’t what made me think of this random woman in the first place. If that’s what led to a legit identification of Bond then great, and I don’t regret posting it. 

The evidence for Oswald’s alibi doesn’t rely on the photo, and without better scans yeah looking at blurry frames is basically a Rorschach test. At what point though i.e. image quality can certain features be resolved well enough to get out of the realm of bullshit and warrant a real comparison? It’s a legitimate question, and the answer is somewhere well short of Oswald staring back at you in 1080p. 

Hammond and others were pushing this woman as a candidate based on a comparison with Darnell that makes the above look like a retinal scan, so I think it can be productive to put this kind of thing up to scrutiny on occasion. Fetzeresque face measurements are one thing but the bar is a lot lower for being able to identify a bracelet, ring, or buttoned up collar in a blurry photo. Where is that bar? I sure as hell don’t know since I know exactly jack shit about image processing. The point though is that it’s not all black and white. There’s a real probability that PM had a shiny bracelet looking object on or near his right arm based on the data in Weigman and Darnell, for example. As long as that probability isn’t provably zero or near zero it should at least be considered. If we reject this kind of thing offhand it’s just as bad as using the blurry photo argument to reject PM altogether. Yes there’s a lot of bullshit photo analysis in the JFK community, and a lack of critical thinking, but that doesn’t make it impossible to take a more nuanced, probabilistic approach to what we’re looking at.

I've enjoyed all of your posts here and followed them with interest  because some of your work is outstanding.
You speak of a "bar" and the level that should be either raised or lowered to examine photographs etc.

Why would a bunch of blobs and a number of humungous pixels ever count for serious research? Ever. 

Yes there’s a lot of bullshit photo analysis in the JFK community, and a lack of critical thinking, but that doesn’t make it impossible to take a more nuanced, probabilistic approach to what we’re looking at.


The chasm between what you're presenting here at least pictorially and Darnell and or Weigman unaltered and uncropped  is a bridge too far, at least for me. 

The blobs and pixels above represent everything that is wrong with the JFK research community. Period.  Imagine some JFK newbie  coming across the forum and reading some of this stuff.....gonskie

You are right though this is a little Fetzeresk and or heading into Jack White territory. And it may come as a surprise to some but I quite admire some of White's earlier work but he chose to dive down the rabbit hole.

I'm sorry if I sound bitter and twisted but I have had a gutful of the super magnified blobs and pixel peeping nonsense.

I also acknowledge your caveat on the post; But you followed it with this

It’d be dishonest though if I said that the apparent similarities in the blob weren’t what made me think of this random woman in the first place. If that’s what led to a legit identification of Bond then great, and I don’t regret posting it. 


There are no similarities in "the blob" and the photo of Bond - period! Nor with Oswald. Period. 


This is akin to;

Mick_Purdy wrote:
I've enjoyed all of your posts here and followed them with interest  because some of your work is outstanding.
You speak of a "bar" and the level that should be either raised or lowered to examine photographs etc.

Why would a bunch of blobs and a number of humungous pixels ever count for serious research? Ever. 

Yes there’s a lot of bullshit photo analysis in the JFK community, and a lack of critical thinking, but that doesn’t make it impossible to take a more nuanced, probabilistic approach to what we’re looking at.


The chasm between what you're presenting here at least pictorially and Darnell and or Weigman unaltered and uncropped  is a bridge too far, at least for me. 

The blobs and pixels above represent everything that is wrong with the JFK research community. Period.  Imagine some JFK newbie  coming across the forum and reading some of this stuff.....gonskie

You are right though this is a little Fetzeresk and or heading into Jack White territory. And it may come as a surprise to some but I quite admire some of White's earlier work but he chose to dive down the rabbit hole.

I'm sorry if I sound bitter and twisted but I have had a gutful of the super magnified blobs and pixel peeping nonsense.

Totally understand, and we are on the same page here. Prayer Man represents the best chance at getting the case reopened, and the research by Murphy, Bart, etc. supporting that Oswald’s alibi was railroaded is phenomenal. 

All I’m asking, and what I mean by a “bar”, is basically how clear does a photo have to be to at least consider certain features having some basis in reality. And if it is possible to conserve the data in the original photo and bring out otherwise invisible features through image processing. This has just been a stupid distraction for me, but it got me thinking that it should be possible to pull at least some useful information out of the Weigman frame, like if there really is a visible ring, bracelet, etc.

I just don’t understand photography and image manipulation well enough to know what the data actually represents, and how to interpret it objectively. Like what’s the real significance of one pixel being lighter than another in an analog to digital transfer of a multigenerational copy of a sixty-year old home movie? We can’t say it’s completely meaningless or we could dispute literally any image on the film; but if we see what looks like a bracelet for example there has to be some explanation for the pixels turning out that way, one of them being an actual bracelet. It’s the same deal with the apparently receding hairline in Darnell. Should we not compare the hairline to Oswald just because it’s blurry and inconclusive? So I totally agree that it is not serious research, but I don’t think we should outright dismiss distorted images in the photos either. I just think there has to be a more objective evaluation method than “that looks like a bracelet”, but don’t know what that method is. 

If not me, someone else would’ve made the random woman/Weigman comparison eventually, so I think it’s productive exercise to at least know what to expect. I’ll at least acknowledge that it’s forensically worthless and that I have no idea what I’m doing.

When they balk at a slightly blurry frame then you can see where they themselves have set the bar.

For years it was pouring over imagery where a bush might be a man or a blur a gun, shadows and light of a tree, nah now its three assassins... it was horrible time to live through, slow computers and bad graphics strained eyes trying to visualize what someone else had seen in the low resolution images. Sometimes a clear photo was printed in a book and scanned in barely better but showing the bush and tree not a conspiracy.
Everyone from the first person's to question whom was Figure J. to Richard Sprague to Sean Murphy et al at EF and all at ROKC all did phenomenal work.
All are vindicated.
All opposed were proven wrong and fence sitters got splinters.
So don't worry.
Part of reopening the case will be subpoenas for films and photos.
Clean clear originals.

But as of now there are no candidates or exercises worth doing.
Cheers
Ed

Part of reopening the case will be subpoenas for films and photos.
Clean clear originals.


It's the only way forward, thanks Ed.