Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Apologies for impinging on Duncan's

research. I thought I could try

and get a closer look at

the shooter in Moorman's photo.

Apologies again to Duncan.

EBC

Edited June 15, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Miles Scull]

Apologies for impinging on Duncan's

research. I thought I could try

and get a closer look at

the shooter in Moorman's photo.

Apologies again to Duncan.

EBC

EBC,

Spectacular work! I've noticed from other threads that you achieve elucidating shading & color effects which rationalize images. Dare say Duncan should concur. Any tips for the tyro (me) on learning what software might assist in image enhancement which you demonstrate? The technique looks rigor intensive!

M

[Charles Drago]

To these eyes, the images/renderings under scrutiny suffer from the same problem that impacts "enhancements" of Badgeman and Hardhat Man: they are cartoonish to a fault.

I mean no offense to anyone's artistic abilities (or sensibilities, for that matter). And colorisation surely carries with it dramatic impact.

But work done on Stetson Man, if I may coin a term, reveals to me a Disney character firing a bazooka.

Would a DPD detective/assassin wear his signature cowboy hat during the shooting? Would a non-DPD assassin endeavoring to disguise himself and falsely implicate the department intentionally keep chapeau in place? Wouldn't the large, distinctive Stetson capture the eye?

Would someone be so kind as to post the colorised version of Hard Hat man -- Dick Tracy redux?

Charles

Edited June 16, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Thanks to everyone who expressed his

views.Thanks to Miles,Duncan and Charles.

To Charles who wrote:

"To these eyes, the images/renderings under scrutiny

suffer from the same problem that impacts "enhancements" of

Badgeman and Hardhat Man: they are cartoonish to a fault."

I concur with your valid views entirely.

I had feared that the enhancements were a

touch 'cartoonish'perhaps even a touch 'Mickey Mousish'.

I have no idea what the enhancements show.

Is it a hat?

Is it a branch?

Is it a twig?

Is it - Superman?

The hat may not be a hat.I assume

it may be a hat.If it be a hat

then I assume, rightly or wrongly,

that there may be a face below that hat.

Thus the skin tones.

Charles also wrote:

"I mean no offense to anyone's artistic abilities

(or sensibilities, for that matter).

And colorisation surely carries with it dramatic impact."

Please, Charles, do not worry about my

artistic abilities,sensibilities or, for

that matter, sensitivities.I have none.

Thanking everyone again.

EBC

Edited June 16, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

I concur with your valid views entirely.

I had feared that the enhancements were a

touch 'cartoonish'perhaps even a touch 'Mickey Mousish'.

I have no idea what the enhancements show.

It has been pointed out that it is part of the foliage ... that the sky can be seen between it and the fence ... which should tell a rational thinking person something right off the bat. Duncan has taken the position that the area I speak of is a "washing out" of the image, but he is simply wrong. What Duncan has never done is to go look at the original photo, which has faded over time, but clearly shows that it is truly the sky seen between the top of the fence and the bottom of the foliage of the trees. I urge anyone to do this when in Dallas again. Multi-generational prints that have been scanned and often times had the contrast turned up will often cause alike color tones to blend together giving off the impression that 'washing out' has occurred. So many times it is ignored that what we see on these types of prints is not what is seen on the original photographs or scans made directly from them.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I concur with your valid views entirely.

I had feared that the enhancements were a

touch 'cartoonish'perhaps even a touch 'Mickey Mousish'.

I have no idea what the enhancements show.

It has been pointed out that it is part of the foliage ... that the sky can be seen between it and the fence ... which should tell a rational thinking person something right off the bat. Duncan has taken the position that the area I speak of is a "washing out" of the image, but he is simply wrong. What Duncan has never done is to go look at the original photo, which has faded over time, but clearly shows that it is truly the sky seen between the top of the fence and the bottom of the foliage of the trees. I urge anyone to do this when in Dallas again. Multi-generational prints that have been scanned and often times had the contrast turned up will often cause alike color tones to blend together giving off the impression that 'washing out' has occurred. So many times it is ignored that what we see on these types of prints is not what is seen on the original photographs or scans made directly from them.

Bill Miller

my goodness Bill Miller and James Gordon in the same week, like old home week...

Is the 6th floor Museum now making 1st generation assassination photos and scans available to researchers and the general public these day's? If so, the fee's for same?

Do you now work/volunteer at the 6th Floor Museum?

Kindest regard's

David Healy

[Michael Hogan]

my goodness Bill Miller and James Gordon in the same week, like old home week...

Is the 6th floor Museum now making 1st generation assassination photos and scans available to researchers and the general public these day's (sic)? If so, the fee's (sic) for same?

Do you now work/volunteer at the 6th Floor Museum?

Your posts on this Forum might be a little more coherent if you would learn to drop the unnecessary apostrophes. Just trying to help.

[Bill Miller]

So many times it is ignored that what we see on these types of prints is not what is seen on the original photographs or scans made directly from them.

That's true, that's why I confirm my findings with the drum scan.

Duncan, I have lost track of how many times I have posted information showing that the drum scan is inferior compared to the original scans of Moorman's photo before fading took place. Jack White for instance got his Badge Man image from an early print - find Badge Man on the drum scan if you even can and tells us how the two compare ... it's a bloody joke! The same can be said about Groden's 'Hat Man' in his book, as well as in Josiah's book "Six seconds in Dallas". Find that same location on the drum scan and compare the two for there is no comparison ... the drum scan is most inferior. Now having said that ... one must be a real dunce to still try and pass off the drum scan as being more reliable than the copies that were made when Moorman's photo was still clear and sharp. If I substitute a few words in your response, then I am basically saying something like 'its more preferable to use a fuzzy inferior image to look for details over a sharper cleaner image'. One would think that you would not want to continue such nonsense because it makes you appear lacking in common sense to continue on with such foolishness, but each person has to set his or her own standards for appearing credible ... that is your right.

Bill

Edited June 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ed O'Hagan]

Concentrate on this area....

[Bill Miller]

Can you tell me WHO tries to pass off the drum scan as being more reliable than the copies that were made when Moorman's photo was still clear and sharp? It certainly wasn't me. I only stated that I use it for comparisons. Some comparisons verify, some don't.

That is not exactly true, Duncan. I told you that the original Moorman photo quite clearly shows that what you call a "washout" on your fuzzy copies is not that at all. You replied that your drum scan, as fuzzy as it is, was good enough for study on this matter. I have to ask how it is that if the lesser quality fuzzy drum scan is giving you a false impression that cannot be found on the actual original photo, then how can you say that using the drum scan is good enough. Do you mean that it is good enough for those of you who wish to invent assassins from degraded images?

Bill

"You don't need to go to Dallas to see a good copy of Moorman, it's 2007, haven't you heard? Among many copies of Mooman which I have is a copy sent to me on disc by Craig Lamson of Tink's drum scan which is good enough for study of this particular area in my opinion."

Edited June 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Concentrate on this area....

Where is this area Ed. Can you point it out in a bigger picture please?

A man's face above a rifle: it's the MacRae sniper.

[Michael Hogan]

My response was specific and clear. Your substitution of my words with your is of no value to anyone but yourself to satisfy of your own your opinion....

.....Continue to edit my words to suit your case, no one falls for your fiction any longer. If you've got something useful to say, then say it in your own words, and back up your claims with quotes..

Personally, I don't know Duncan, but I think he is right. It can be frustrating when someone mischaracterizes what you have written in the midst of a contentious discussion, especially so when they make no effort to quote you.

[Bill Miller]

Personally, I don't know Duncan, but I think he is right. It can be frustrating when someone mischaracterizes what you have written in the midst of a contentious discussion, especially so when they make no effort to quote you.

Duncan's remarks were shown in response 10 and 14. I am still waiting for a rational and logical response from him. Duncan clearly says in his own way that he doesn't need to go see the original Moorman photo because he feels the drum scan is good enough for what he is doing. I am wanting he or someone to tell me why they would prefer a fuzzy scan over the original photo when wanting to be as certain as possible that their observations are correct.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Personally, I don't know Duncan, but I think he is right. It can be frustrating when someone mischaracterizes what you have written in the midst of a contentious discussion, especially so when they make no effort to quote you.

Duncan's remarks were shown in response 10 and 14. I am still waiting for a rational and logical response from him. Duncan clearly says in his own way that he doesn't need to go see the original Moorman photo because he feels the drum scan is good enough for what he is doing. I am wanting he or someone to tell me why they would prefer a fuzzy scan over the original photo when wanting to be as certain as possible that their observations are correct.

Bill

The question:

Why would someone prefer a road apple to the Hope diamond?

The answer:

In order to get Bill to treat with Gary to arrange for the posting on this thread a super high quality scan of Moorman from a time when Moorman was in better condition.

The purpose:

To render a better image of MacRae's sniper & of, to Bill's delight, Hatman.

Edited June 17, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Ed O'Hagan]

Concentrate on this area....

Where is this area Ed. Can you point it out in a bigger picture please?