Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Alan Healy

Members
  • Content count

    628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alan Healy

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,270 profile views
  1. Towner vs. Zapruder

    I suspect we are about to see an entirely different kind of tourist at the Sixth Form Museum. Will Dallas ever be the same again? Paul Get ready to cry Paul! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=la61MLhlpLo&...feature=related
  2. Excellent YouTube film regarding Zfilm hoax

    Wait a minute, David ... did you not read the 'Hoax' book after it had come out and before you posted that you have seen 'NO PROOF OF ALTERATION - SOMETHING YOU HAVE SAID FOR YEARS'????? How many times have I seen you repeat this same thing now? Fifty? You always did have trouble understanding what "proof" & "evidence" meant didn't you? Is there any proof that(the plaza's very own Bigfoot) Gordon Arnold was standing in the plaza filming "the parade" as he called it? NO. There is no proof of that whatsoever but, do you still try & convince people that he was there by using the same tired circumstantial "coincidences"(that's being generous calling them that) over & over again & even go so far as twisting the truth to make it lean towards him being there? YES. So then, just because there is no proof of something does not stop an intelligent man believing in that possibility & neither does it stop him wanting to discuss it in a civil environment without fear of being trolled by some repetitive say-nothing garbage. Any Arnold fanatic with a conscience would realise this, oh wait a minute, hmm... that's another one you have trouble with, damn.
  3. Zfilm Revisited

    Thank you Chris, maybe Miles can see the movement in the 18 frame gif now that you have revealed the shape of the cap so clearly? My apologies for the OT nature of this.
  4. Zfilm Revisited

    I just wanted to mention something about Zavada & his thoughts on the films authenticity. According to Doug Horne & DSL, Zavada himself actually requested to cut into one frame of the Zfilm & have it tested in a spectrometer. In other words, the man was very obviously, not fully satisfied with the visual inspection alone, he wanted a scientific one to be 100% sure. He didn't get it but the point is, it's what he wanted. From memory, it was more about kelvin than gamma, something that cannot be checked by eye.
  5. Zfilm Revisited

    Alan, thx for reviving this gif. Not quite clear on your interesting point. Could you post some individual frames in this sequence & perhaps indicate how you see the "cap turning," as you put it. Cheers Miles Hi Miles, I did try but, when I reviewed my efforts to highlight it for you they pailed in comparison to the looping crop of Chris's stabilized Z gif that I reposted above. Did you try saving it to your desktop & enlarging it a little in your image previewer? It's the peak of the cap/hat, that suggests the movement & it juts out to the left of the cap itself.
  6. Zfilm Revisited

    Jack, somewhere back on the forum (maybe Miles can help for a change, there was a four frame gif that I posted showing Hudson turning his head with the movement of the car. So whether the frames are 1 - 4 or 16 - 20 - or 100 - 104 ... its not their numbers that was an issue here, but whether the person's head is seen in more than one frame. Bill Zapruder actually shows the peak of Hudson "Baseball" type cap turning left & then dropping sharply. Watching it again now it's even more obvious than before. I thought this observation of Chris's was also worthy of futher study. Is there a something dark on the wall behind the Willis girl or does she "really" lose her head? http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...oseheadWill.gif Anyway, ignore me I'm just catching up on some of these threads.
  7. Jack, I know it can only ever be a guess but I personally believe both of these women have been acounted for. The first is seen in Wiegman running east along the sidewalk. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...gmanrunning.jpg I heard another researcher point out that this could been the same woman who told officer Smith, "They are shooting the President from the bushes". The second woman is still right there, laying on the ground east of the Newmans. To be honest I forget her name but it's the reporter captured in many images & who said the same thing as the first woman, the shots came from the knoll.
  8. Thanks. Now everyone can plainly see the difference. You took an image of two figures on the pedestal & enhanced it so much they dissapeared. That's the bottom line. As for the personal comments, they just highlight your lack of class & there's me thinking your "enhancments" made you like bad. Did you ever apply these same "superior" techniques on the "Hatman" image? Here's hoping...
  9. This wasn't the worst "enhancement" of BDM I've ever seen(I've seen things many times worse) but when the producer of it comes out here claiming "it's the best" it actually turns into the worst. Someone needs to start a "Photo enhancement semina" on this forum asap. One thing you have to get through your head; when the image you are working with starts to become pixelated on your screen, stop enlarging the image right there, do not keep zooming in until the pixels become blocks & then click "save as" like you've found something new. Both the Moorman & Betzner images you have "Shinola"'d in this thread are rife with blocky pixels & you can't search for small details amongst those type images because, anything you find is totally unreliable since it is surrounded by all that noise which we all know was not in the original image. Your camera, your man behind the wall with his box & your words "the best", they all fit into the catagory of "noise" & I seriously can't believe your still pushing this ear-ache in '08. "It's the clearest view the vision impaired community has ever had of BDM." Fixed. This is the best view of BDM from the Betzner3 in LIFE magazine http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/blacdog.png Or this actual careful enhancment of the above. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...dogman/3074.jpg Notice an pixels? There's also the blow-up of B3 from Groden in TKOAP, http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...lifevgroden.png These are the best we have & anyone with anywhere near what we would call resonable vision can see the difference in quality. The same goes from this Moorman crop. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...n/DSpedcrop.png It's the best we have & it firmly remains in the realms of reality, where as "your best" look like they're from another dimension, one where time & space have no meaning. Enough with the cartoons already.
  10. There are otherer interpretations. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...ogman/Fixed.png Don't get transfixed on the illusionary hat. Study the best image from "SSID". http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...opuntouched.png
  11. Kathy. The shape at the fence in the "SSID" print was what Thompson found & it was never given "that" handle until most likely someone(on a forum somewhere, constantly referred to it as "Hatman" & was picked up & used by others. Very much like "Blackdogman". That is not a black dog but it's just as catchy & we all know exactly what's being referred to. Someday everyone will realise it's not a hat just like BDM is not a dog. As far as "Thompson having never claimed it's a figure" well, would the shape of a gunman fall into the catagory of "a figure"? Because that is exactly what Josiah proposed to the reader in "SSID". SSID P:127(hb) So yes, back then, Thompson thought it was a gunman/sniper w/e He did not consider the hat shape important, if it was/is a gunman like he thought then, he had to have been caught in the act of firing, with both shoulders & head above the fence. So yes he did indeeed claim it was a figure, the figure of a gunman to be exact. Fwiw Kathy, the hat shape is still simply an illusion IMO but that illusion seems to have presidence atm. Was Groden ever asked if BDM could have really been a dog? Think about it.
  12. I tried my best to get you to give details of how you arrived at your 12' foot measurment but you gave me nothing. "I don't have to be a genius to work out why".
  13. And the significance of this wonderous horticultural analysis ? Read back to this how this petty exchange started to find the significance. It was a visual analysis, not a conclusion Incorrect & you still haven't produced details of how you come to the 12' mark, which Thompson measured @14'. Is it a condition of membership that I need to ask forum members? No but it is usual when someone puts something out for "discussion", which is what you said was your intention. Wow..How can you comment on anything, when you don't even understand the objects concerned as clearly illustrated in the opening post One more try. How did you come to the 12' conclusion stated as fact in the OP? I have a better reference source than the book Yet your still looking for "confirmation" of Thompon's 14' measurement? You can't say that Alan, well you can actually, but it's an uneducated statement if you ask me, as it's not obvious that it is not a hat or that it is a hat It's obvious when you know that the original M5 photo would not illustrate such detail from that distance. It's clear to you, but no one else Who "else"? Too easy Alan , It's obviously the initials of your first and second names which just happens to be the same first and second letters of an insulting term which I can't say because of the forum rules. You work that out I did before I wrote it , you got it in two & that's what I think of your humour. Stupid question Childish answer.
  14. Hi Miles, It's not a man's hat, it is most likely his left shoulder IMHO & his face is well above the fence. Your convinced it's a hat & I strongly believe you're wrong. The "SSID" crop of M5 that started this has been worked on to bring out the shape at the fence but in doing so, has accidently produced this fedora style detail. Don't kid yourself it's trustworthy. This is like the third or fourth time you have made this response to me about "shorty", I'm telling you your mistaken & for the last time, I don't believe it's a GD hat! I believe you are correct about placing a rifle between the slats however. That was a great point you made before. It's not something this situation would warrant. At least not from a professional. He can be a shooter, you just have to get past the misleading "hat" shape. Regards.
  15. It was missing, as I didn't have a copy at the time. Here's a better quality version for you to look at. I don't need it I have the book. I believe that is correct Good Possibly It's a fact, there is more growth on the trees in the signal photo if you look closely, thus the signal photo was taken on another date. He is referring to what he calls an object in the distance, ie, the highlighted object in the first post. He has told me that he does not know what the object is. Quote from Gary with acknowledged corrected year, ie 1963 for 1966 The 1963 and 1967 shapes, IMO, are two completely different objects. Gary Okay, I think I got it the wrong way around somehow nevermind, I read it again. Gary thinks he sees the signals in the '67 footage as well. There was no conclusion, only a topic put forward for debate. I worked it out by comparing other objects in Moorman, You don't need to be Einstein to calculate the distance. You said & I quote; That is a conclusion, you never asked for confirmation from anyone & I still don't know how you worked it out so I'll try again. Exactly what objects are you talking about? I still feel that the 14' mark(Hollandman) is hidden behind the tree in the '67 footage. To be confirmed Maybe someone can post the measurment in print from "SSID" for you, would that suffice? To be confirmed Obviously. What you suggest I call it doesn't concern me, and yes i'm posting to try to get responses. Isn't that the whole logic behind posting on a Forum? It's not the whole idea no. Not everyone thinks like you. The shape is exactly that, an unidentifiable shape which is confusing to not only lay people with a passing interest, but also to everyone else. If it wasn't confusing, we would not be discussing it here and elsewhere It's not a hat, that is obvious. It all depends on the enhancement method used on a particular and specific area of a phjotograph. You should know that by now Alan. Incorrect, it starts with the quality of the original photo & this one was clearly not good enough to outline a fedora hat that well from that distance. It is clearly something else. It's not clearly something else, it's clearly unidentifiable Incorrect. Someone later identified it as a hat, others then picked up on it & now they can't get past it. So they have ID'd it, although incorrectly. It's not a hat, that IS clear. Why don't we call it " Healyhasn'tatacluewhatitisman" Or AHman for short? Less obvious, work it out. The bottom line here IMO, is that you found an object in that misalined '67 footage that is almost five times the size of the "hat". What I want to know from you Duncan is whether you think there's a chance Josiah decieved us with his photo taken from the correct position & height that shows nothing or maybe even innocently missed this huge dome(whatever it is..). FYI there are no dates in "SSID" for these photos but the 14' measurement is on the same page as them.
×