Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

Any figure seen from that distance that were standing in shadow will be seen in silhouette. As shown in Towner #3 posted on response #11 - there are two dark figures seen against the background - are we to now say there were two Black Dog Men? Arnold said they were police men ... not Black Dog Men.

Bill Miller

Edited July 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Any figure seen from that distance that were standing in shadow will be seen in silhouette. As shown in Towner #3 posted on response #11 - there are two dark figures seen against the background - are we to now say there were two Black Dog Men? Arnold said they were police men ... not Black Dog Men.

Bill Miller

We are not discussing the 2 dark figures in Towner3. We are discussing the possibility of this being the same figure as Illustrated in post number one in the 2 different photographs. . Jack's great enhancement confirms, to me at least, that this is indeed the same figure in a different location.

Please keep on topic.

Duncan

Duncan,

While you seem to have a knack for confirming things in your own mind from poor quality images and without any detailed study - tell me how is it that with Towner #3 being taken before the photo you are discussing was exposed that you can somehow can tell from dark silhouettes who the figures are and when they were seen in both earlier and latter assassination images?

Bill

Edited July 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Tell me how is it that with Towner #3 being taken before the photo you are discussing was exposed that you can somehow can tell from dark silhouettes who the figures are and when they were seen in both earlier and latter assassination images?

Bill

]Easy..I use the same tools as you, my eyes. In this study, my eyes tell me that the new figure is the same shape as BDM, just as your eyes tell you that the shape behind the fence in Moorman is a Fedora hat. I've decided to call him Branch Dog Man even though he is 100% not a branch.

Duncan

Thanks for the tip, Duncan. I still find that with over half of what could or could not be a shape of someone being hidden by the pyracantha bush that you would have such an amazing ability to do these things. Below is your alleged "enhancement" of the BDM ...

... would you care to compare its enhanced shape to the partial dark area seen beyond the pyracantha bush so to be real sure about your confirmation?

Bill

Edited July 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for the tip, Duncan.

No problem Bill..I'm just glad I'm able to help improve your abilities.

Would you care to compare its enhanced shape to the partial dark area seen beyond the pyracantha bush so to be real sure about your confirmation?

I did that in the first post...didn't you notice? Eugene noticed, Jack noticed, Chris noticed, Bernice noticed, Miles noticed, Bill...ehm..yes Bill strangely didn't notice

Here's one of your gifs from the past, pretty good I must admit. I'm glad you used my image as part of your presentation, so I thought i'd to return the compliment. I'm glad you managed to get my enhancement of BDM so accurate.

Duncan

Let me see just what I did notice - shall we ....

I will start by quoting you about your so-called enhancement .... "This is a fine piece of photo analysis with limited distortion and pixelisation. " " " " " " " " " " " " " " .This is probably the clearest image of Black Dog Man that anyone has ever seen..ANYWHERE!!!"

I thought that Groden and Thompson had the clearest images of the BDM in their books, but let us look at your alleged enhancement again ...

Now you may recall that I asked you if you were going to enhance the image like you did the BDM in what you called 'the clearest image of the BDM ever' so to be sure they were a match. In fact, you enhanced/or degraded (depending on how one wants to look at it) the Betzner photo to the point that you invented what you called another shooter crouched at the wall. I would like to point out for the record that the Willis photo taken less than one second later does not show this alleged figure, but possibly with enough eventual degradation of the Willis photo - you might also be able to achieve a similar result. So what I am saying is that you obviously didn't agree that the Groden or Thompson prints showed the true shape of the BDM and that it took you altering the image to get a true look at the BDM. I will leave the forum to decide just how accurate your claims are when comparing your alleged clearest BDM image to that in Robert's and Josiah's books.

By the way, do you know the timing of these photos that you say show the same person?

Bill

Edited July 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Tell me how is it that with Towner #3 being taken before the photo you are discussing was exposed that you can somehow can tell from dark silhouettes who the figures are and when they were seen in both earlier and latter assassination images?

Bill

]Easy..I use the same tools as you, my eyes. In this study, my eyes tell me that the new figure is the same shape as BDM, just as your eyes tell you that the shape behind the fence in Moorman is a Fedora hat. I've decided to call him Branch Dog Man even though he is 100% not a branch.

Duncan

Thanks for the tip, Duncan. I still find that with over half of what could or could not be a shape of someone being hidden by the pyracantha bush that you would have such an amazing ability to do these things. Below is your alleged "enhancement" of the BDM ...

... would you care to compare its enhanced shape to the partial dark area seen beyond the pyracantha bush so to be real sure about your confirmation?

Bill

I have to agree with "Miller" on this. I am not accusing ANYONE, but the WHITEBOXMAN image

has been drawn in with computer tools. I enhanced it to remove most of the tones, and the

line drawing outlining the figure remained.

Years ago sombody on the DellaRosa forum called attention to this same area, but the

"man" was called BIGEARSMAN and the white box was a camera.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I have to agree with "Miller" on this. I am not accusing ANYONE, but the WHITEBOXMAN image

has been drawn in with computer tools. I enhanced it to remove most of the tones, and the

line drawing outlining the figure remained.

Years ago sombody on the DellaRosa forum called attention to this same area, but the

"man" was called BIGEARSMAN and the white box was a camera.

Jack

I have always had a problem with the idea that if one degrades an image far enough that somehow they will bring out other things that were not present before. This method is illogical and unethical IMO. I see little difference in this type of imagery and someone taking a recognizable image in a wet water color painting and smearing it until they have created yet another image.

I asked if Duncan had any idea as to when these photographs had been taken following the assassination for he may find other photos of this area taken at around the same time that are much sharper and could verify or deny the accuracy of Duncan's interpretation.

Bill

[Robin Unger]

Edited July 22, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Alan Healy]

Reading this thread I am reminded of the long pause between Willis#5 & #6 but, it's pretty understandable really for a man, keen to capture the presidents visit, to pause at the time of the shooting & take stock of the situation. especially a family man with his wife & kids at the scene.

Willis's photos IMO still outshine the "professional" work by the camermen in the motorcade who paniced and just shot anything & fled.

Anyway, #6's timeframe is maybe 5-10secs before Bond5 IMO so that makes it around 45-55secs after the Z313 or 35-45secs after the limo entered the underpass.

IMHO the dark object behind the bush that Duncan is pointing to is made up with at least part of the trunk of the "BM" tree.

BDM was long gone by this time, he is seen in Bothun3 walking away towards the TSBD, that corresponds quite nicely with Bond4 20-30secs after Z313. IMO it is the same guy anyway.

Bond4 & 6 show possitively no one behind the wall & #5 doesn't either although I'd need a better copy of the latter to be 100% accurate on that.

Bond6 was taken just before Towner3(5secs approx, check out the position of the press bus) & T3 is the first photo to really show anyone at all behind the wall.

You can see the men in Bond6 running up the knoll and at the same time you can see no on behind the wall!

Then we have two guys next to the tree 5secs later in Towner3, so Bond6 is the key, it shows no one behind the wall 5secs before T3.

The "Allegedly Arnold" connundrum is irrelevent, he was never behind the wall, if you believe the shapes in Moorman5 show him there then that is your own affair it is assanine to try to convince others he was behind the wall based solo on these shapes, especially since he himself said he was elsewhere.

BDM looks nothing like Arnold & there is a very good reason for that, it wasn't him, besides BDM is either crouching or a very short individual.

If you follow the Arnold story & believe it, then you'd better ignore Bond6 because it shows exactly where the guys in Towner3 came from & it wasn't from behind the fence it was from the street & they may well of been cops but they did not wear uniforms.

Once again, Bond6 & Towner3 were taken within 5secs of each other they are telling us exactly what happened & there is no leap of faith or imagination required.

Alan

[David Butler]

Alan Healy's post above has been looking at the time difference issue in a way by cross referencing other photo's to see if they show anything that might corroborate the view that the figure is BDM....IMO I would have to agree with him that it isn't the same as BDM and is more likely part of the tree and shadows...

[Bill Miller]

The figure has not been drawn in Jack. When I first posted the Bigears figure on Rich's forum i made it 100% clear that I had outlined the figure to make it easier to see. I have never cheated, and I know you are not accusing me of that, but I thought I had to get the record straight.

Duncan

It appears that you (Duncan) had merely picked out two dots after degrading the BDM figure to a good portion of it disappearing and then doing just what Jack had said. I can find other places where this can be done, but why would anyone want to? The Willis photo taken just 16/18s of a second later doesn't show anything there, but of course I have not seen where you have all but destroyed that image as well so to achieve the same effect. Will this be coming soon???

Bill

[Jack White]

I am not accusing anyone on this forum of altering images.

Many images seen here are many generations old and not of

best quality, having been copied and transmitted many times.

As is frequently pointed out (and from my experience), multiple

copying introduces electronic artifacts, especially when a

edge sharpening filter is used, or when scans are greatly

changed in size.

Through enhancement, some alterations can be detected. When

I enhanced one of the images posted here, the inserted lines

became very visible. I have no way of knowing where along

the intervening years someone unknown may have done this.

I remind anyone dealing with theses images: DON'T DO ANY

FAKERY TO PROVE YOUR POINT, unless you clearly state what

you have done. It is too easily discovered, and you will be

ignored in the future as deceptive. If you "enhance" an image,

always tell what you did to it, so that future observers do not

take it to be pristine. Better yet, I try to show the image BEFORE

AND AFTER.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

It appears that you (Duncan) had merely picked out two dots after degrading the BDM figure to a good portion of it disappearing and then doing just what Jack had said.

Are you calling me a xxxx?

The Willis photo taken just 16/18s of a second later doesn't show anything there, but of course I have not seen where you have all but destroyed that image as well so to achieve the same effect. Will this be coming soon???

Bill

Duncan, was that supposed o be a trick question? Are you saying that you didn't degrade the image and called it an enhancement? The Black Dog Man that I see in Groden and Thompson's book look nothing like the thing you ended up with. If you think about it - your enhancement looks like a chess pond that got sat too close to the fire!

And no, I don't believe that you are lying about thinking you have invented some new found way to enhance photos. I just think it is ridiculous! After all, this is why I mentioned that no one is seen like that in the Willis photo.

Please keep on topic? You are using your usual too predictable tactics of diverting from the topic of the discussion. Go back to post number 1 and make comments on the topic issuue, ie, the comparison between the 2 pics. If you can't do that, get outta Dodge.

Would that be the same topic discussed in post one about the use of poor images, or post five with the tree branch seen in the Nix film, post eight, ten, eleven,seventeen, nineteen, post twenty one, post twenty three, post twenty four, post twenty five, post twenty nine, or post number thirty - several that you participated in by the way. Yes, we have been on topic IMO. For instance, you said in an earlier response that 'the timing of when the photos were taken wasn't important', but I disagree on the grounds that if your photo was taken around the same time that another photo was taken from a different angle or maybe with better clarity - it would certainly offer a more definitive view at what we are looking at.

Bill

Edited July 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I am not accusing anyone on this forum of altering images.

Many images seen here are many generations old and not of

best quality, having been copied and transmitted many times.

Well, Jack - look at the dark room BDM in Josiah and Robert's books and all the existing prints of the BDM from Willis and Betzner copies you have ever seen and tell me which one shows something that looks like an 'AOL guy symbol' who's coming in from a week long bender? Someone altered his shape from its original form. Duncan called it an enhancement.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

what I am saying is that you obviously didn't agree that the Groden or Thompson prints showed the true shape of the BDM

Bill

If Grodens version, which I have, is the true Shape of BDM which is what you are intimating, and I don't believe it is the true shape, then I would have to agree with Jack that BDM IS fake. I don't put faith in Grodens photo interpretations. Didn't he speculate Hudson's head for a shooter at one point?

Duncan

Duncan, Groden's "interpreatation" has nothing to do with BDM's true shape. Just as Jack stayed as true to form by using a dark room developed print to work on Badge Man. That is what we are talking about here. Groden's copy print was made in a dark room from film - yours is computer generated which by the settings you used ... you had erased over half of the original BDM's shape. In destroying one shape - you invented another that never existed. I believe it's Arnold and that he is the only one between the wall and the fence in the Willis and Betzner photos. The deep shadows and the distance to the camera makes BDM look like he does. Below is a similar problem with shade and only seen from a short distance away.

Bill

Edited July 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You had erased over half of the original BDM's shape. In destroying one shape - you invented another that never existed.

I believe I have brought out the finer details of Black Dog Man using the same technique in the example below at the foot of this post

Well, post #23 shows an average print of the Black Dog Man before your alleged enhancement and after. It doesn't even take a measurement to see how the shape disappears as it was eaten away. You say that you have brought out the finer details, then so be it. Does this mean that this technique that we can call "The Duncan enhancement technique" will be showing up in a scientific journal any time soon? After all, not only have you shown that there was another person seen over the wall next to the BDM, but you managed to bring about new images never before seen in over four decades. This is BIG STUFF!!! Or will you just be limiting your amazing technique just to the forums???

Fortunately I found this to prove my point. You submitted the same image to Lancer maybe a year or so ago, and I proved then as i'm proving now, that I could bring out detail which could not be seen in YOUR original uploaded image.

I have placed MY vastly improved enhancement of YOUR image beside your almost unrecogenisable dark shadowy image.

I doubt that ANYONE will argue that I have not brought out finer clearer details which could not previously be seen in your image. Just look at the buildings in the background, your glasses the trees etc etc etc...much clearer and recognisable.

Does anyone want to dispute that I have not improved Bill's image?

The only thing you have done in the above response IMO was show that you not only misspelled the word "recognizable", but you misspelled it differently in the two places you used it in a matter of just a few sentences. Taking a photo and lightening it slightly is not what you did in post #23. The image of me on the walkway above the knoll did not change shape or become half eaten away as did the BDM figure in your so-called enhancement, thus you did not degrade the image to the point that I have been saying that you did in post #23. If you had only lightened the BDM, then his original shape WOULD NOT have changed.

Bill