Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

Oops..I did make a mistake in my spelling, not that it's critical to the topic, as i'm sure you completely understood the meaning of the word even with the mistakes.

Anyway...good attempt to get out of a hole, but it doesn't wash. In both cases, the lightening shows improved unseen details.

Duncan

Duncan, you should have been a PR man for one of our President's. I will ask once again ... what does lightening my photo only to a point that it DOES NOT change the shape of the objects contained within it have to do with the degrading the Betzner photo's BDM to the point of totally altering it??? Please stay on point if you can. Go back to post #23 and watch the transformation a few more times if need be because it is nowhere close to what you did to my knoll photo by merely lightening the image slightly.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I will ask once again ... what does lightening my photo only to a point that it DOES NOT change the shape of the objects contained within it have to do with the degrading the Betzner photo's BDM to the point of totally altering it???

Bill

How many times do you want the same answer to the same question? I have simply taken away dark areas to expose unseen areas, not changed the shape of any objects. For example, your glasses, the buildings, your T-Shirt sleeve ( right arm ) are unseen in your photo. I have made them visible.

Using the same method I have made it possible to see the real human shape of BDM

Duncan

Duncan,

Pretend not to get it all you want, but it doesn't change anything. We know you didn't change my shape, but you did change the shape of the BDM, thus you did not give both alleged enhancements the same attention. One image you stopped short of altering my shape - the BDM image you went to such an extreme that you did alter his shape. Saying you did not do this while posting the animation showing the shape change taking place doesn't help your position IMO.

And if you really felt like you were correct, then who have you contacted so to get your ground breaking enhancement out to the world so to show this new shooter, thus proving a conspiracy in JFK's murder once and for all? In fact, add the floating cop torso to the mix, along with the guy you created one time that was said to be standing atop of the colonnade, and not to forget the tripod man and you have busted the JFK assassination wide open! So what are you waiting for?

Bill

Edited July 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Where on Earth are you coming from? In the image that you posted there is no shape to you. In the image that I posted there is a shape to you.

Obviously more attention was given to BDM as I find him a more important subject matter, howerver the same taking away of the dark areas was all that I processed. Nothing was altered except the dark areas.

You keep telling yourself, this, Duncan and I will continue to tell people to look at your animation in post #23 and they can decide for themselves if you are being serious or not.

There is no shape change of BDM There is a shape reduction of the darkened areas.

Again, you keep telling yourself, this, Duncan and I will continue to tell people to look at your animation in post #23 and they can decide for themselves if you are being serious or not.

I didn't say BDM was part of a conspiracy, did I? ..remind me

I believe you said the ridiculous shape you drew in next to him and just over the wall was a shooter was supposed to be someone dressed like the Badga Man and that they were crouched behind the wall. Here is the link .... http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...=&mode=full

In scrolling your post on the link - people will discover some more drawn in figures. The one you did of an alleged person sneaking up behind Zapruder and Sitzman at the pedestal was a real hoot!

I denounced Tripodman on this Forum a few months ago, it's no great secret. My opinions are subject to change at any time. That is a human right I and everyone has. If you add your shooter in the trees sitting on a branch 22 ft in the air which you posted on jfkresearch in 2001/2 to the mix we might have a case

Your statement is not accurate as usual. Back when you all were looking for anything to show where "THE OTHER FILM" was taken from is when I pointed out that a human shape could be made out of the foliage. This had nothing to do with a 'shooter'. And it was good that after years you had finally denounced your 'tripod man' ... it took me about three seconds at looking at what you had done for me to denounce it.

Now what about your current enhancements - can we expect to see them on the world news anytime soon?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Your statement is not accurate as usual. Back when you all were looking for anything to show where "THE OTHER FILM" was taken from is when I pointed out that a human shape could be made out of the foliage. This had nothing to do with a 'shooter'. And it was good that after years you had finally denounced your 'tripod man' ... it took me about three seconds at looking at what you had done for me to denounce it.

Bill

do you care to address the topic, ie the comparison between BDM1 AND BDM2 and say why you don't think BDM2 is the same figure as BDM1?

Duncan

For one thing - you are using a very poor blurry image of the BDM. The BDM doesn't have a tree branch passing over his person in one photo, but he does in the other. You seemed to have seen the tree branch in one photo and applied to the image in the other photo in order to think they were a match. (see below)

Have you checked all the other photos in "Pictures of the Pain" to see if there was a better view of that area around the same period in time?

Bill

Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I'm not using a blurry image. I had to reduce the quality for the upload. The image is good enough and clear enough for comparison purposes. Images from other sources such as the book in question are not relevant to my topic which is a comparison between the two aforementioned images.

Duncan

You have to be joking - right? Let's consider this scenario ... A guy claims that a known figure called the BDM is obviously in one photo, but the other photo taken at a later time shows what he thinks could be the same guy, but its not a given. So then one finds a photo taken at the same time from another angle which shows the same location, but much clearer. But the other photo shows that it really wasn't a person there at all. What is one to do? It seems that saying you do not need to check with any potentially more reliable photos is basically saying that you just want to make the claim - not verify its accuracy to the best of your ability.

And I am still asking you who have you contacted with this ground breaking enhancement stuff of yours so to get it out to the world what you've discovered?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

You have to be joking - right?

Wrong

Let's consider this scenario ... A guy claims that a known figure called the BDM is obviously in one photo, but the other photo taken at a later time shows what he thinks could be the same guy

Correct

but its not a given.

I say it is

So then one finds a photo taken at the same time from another angle which shows the same location, but much clearer.

If "one" is Bill Miller, then let's see this photo taken at the same time...educate me

Duncan, you are appearing to be more biased than you are in knowing the facts. One can read my questions and your answers to tell when it was you needed to stop being serious and start getting pinned down with your own words. As soon as I mention there maybe being another photo taken from a different angle that would show your figure not to be there or the same person - you then started demanding I find the image and post it. The point I was making that you seem to like to say you are convinced about something concerning the photographic record without you actually doing a thorough job of checking the accuracy of your conclusions. I just had found this odd to me and was trying to understand your research methods a little better.

But the other photo shows that it really wasn't a person there at all.

Let's see it than...show your ace card

What is one to do?

One should go back to writing fact instead of Harry Potter style fiction

Once again you got off point and started giving silly responses. I think this action was intentional and is why we seldom agree.

Thanks,

Bill

Edited July 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The plain fact is that you have asked me to search for another photograph which does not exist, and which shows or does not show the same figure. The reason I have not responded to your requested task is because I know and you also know that such a search would be fruitless. What puzzles me is why you asked me to undertake such a search, when someone with your knowledge of the photographic knew it would be a pointless task. Of all the photographs I have ever seen of the area, the two which I used in the comparison are the only ones which show this same shape. If you know different, i'd be pleased to be enlightened.

Duncan

"The time difference is not an issue. It's the figures which are the issue, and my opinion is that they are the same figure. Tell me what the time difference has to do with anything?

Duncan"

The above answer you gave suggests to me that you did not bother to time stamp any of the assassination images. In fact, when I asked you to tell me how you reached your confirmation, you replied only that you used your eyes. No mention of any further effort on your part to validate your conclusion was offered. Furthermore, the foliage of the pyracantha bush blocks out a good portion of what ever it is that you are seeing. All you have is a dark image seen behind the pyracantha bush. You have misread the white 45 degree angled tree branch as being the same light spot as is noted in the BDM figure in Betzner's photograph. Having said this, I will ask again why it is if you truly believe in the things you post concerning your alleged enhancements, then why have you not contacted the news media or any other party so to get your earth shattering discoveries out to the world? I suspect that in the answer lies the reason why you cannot seem to get Groden or Thompson to answer your emails.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Time stamping is not an issue. Once again you have started dancing around the topic of this thread, which is...Are these two shapes the same person?. It doesn't matter if one photograph was taken 10 hours later, the question is a simple one. Let's make this seemingly difficult for you to understand question a little easier. Just imagine you can see Groden in BDM position 1 and then in a photograph taken 2 days later in BDM position 2 ..You would be able to tell everyone that it is Groden in both images. Get my point?

Duncan

10 hours later??? What if a photo was taken less than 10 to 30 seconds later and from a different angle and it showed instead an elephant, or an elderly woman, or a nun at the location that we are discussing - now do you get my point! While seen as dark shapes in a poor image - they certainly would not account for the BDM. I have never seen so much time wasted by an individual trying to defend what I consider poor research practices before drawing a conclusion. All we have is two objects seen in deep shadow at two different points along the walkway, with one of them being partially hidden by the pyracantha bush. But if you say that is good enough for you, then so be it. But I still want to know why if you are really sincere in what you say, then why have you not gone to any authorities or news media personnel about your claims of hidden shooters and crouching cops behind the concrete wall??? I am guessing that it is because you know that what you have done is not reliable and would be a waste of anyone's time having it shown to them. How far off am I? Other excuses for not sharing such earth shattering news might be that you have a headache now and will do it later, you don't know how to use a phone so to call anyone, that you must only share this news with the Education Forum and no one else, or that you don't want the JFK murder conspiracy solved just yet. GET MY POINT!

Bill

[Robin Unger]

Hi Duncan.

What is the timeline between Willis 6 and Towner 3.

Click on the image below to view full size.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

Hi Duncan.

What is the timeline between Willis 6 and Towner 3.

I'm not sure Robin, at a guess, I'd say about 1 minute.

Duncan

About one minute??? Is that the press bus passing under the underpass that is seen in the photo you had originally used? If so, then does it take a minute for a bus to drive a few hundred feet when it took the limo only a few seconds. This is why the timing of the photos becomes important. The overhanging foliage that blocks out part of the figure on the left near the tree in Towner 3 may have caused an effect on how you thought he was the BDM from the Betzner photo when seen from the angle the other photo showed.

Bill

[Jack White]

In all the years of studying the Towner photo, I had never noticed

two important discoveries I just made. Bernice...please post image

here.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Now you are acting stupid. You know as well as I do that the second photo which I uploaded can not be time stamped exactly, but is within a 45 seconds to just over a minute approximately timerame after z313.

It can be time stamped in accordance with other films and photos showing the traffic flow on the street. After all, is that not what we did with Dillard's 3rd photo against an assassination film - two views from two different angles.

Isn't hat man just a dark shape in a poor quality image?..Double standards at work here

If you are talking about the prints used to find Badge Man, then they were sharp. In fact, before Moorman's photo had started to fade over time - it was said to be sharp. And if you had read "Six seconds in Dallas" you would know that what ever you believe to be seen at the Hat Man location was not part of the tree foliage or obstacles sitting in the RR yard.

I'm not trying to defend anything. All i'm asking is if anyone thinks the 2 images show the same person as can be seen in post number one.

I thought you said that it had confirmed in your mind that they were one in the same person. This is why I asked you about what all you did to "confirm" your confirmation so-to-speak.

Nothing in the photographic record is completely reliable in my opinin, some things are, some things are not. My subject matter in this thread topic lies in the unreliable catagory

Which is it ... "Nothing " " " " is reliable" or "some things are" reliable when talking about the photographic record??? Then you say that your subject matter is unreiliable, yet you use terms like "confirmed" ... I find your remarks somewhat confusing. It's like saying that you suspect no one, but at the same time you suspect everyone.

As far off as you are about Midgetman being a shooter Have you announced that to the worldwide press and media?

Hoffman and the Turner documentary beat me to it. I was talking about YOUR discoveries.

I only have headaches when I read your "I think this so it must be correct and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot" replies

I think you will be hard pressed to find where I have said what you just attributed to me, but at the same time when it comes to the things you post - you were not to far off the mark as to what I thought about them.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

About one minute??? Is that the press bus passing under the underpass that is seen in the photo you had originally used? If so, then does it take a minute for a bus to drive a few hundred feet when it took the limo only a few seconds.

It all depends on the speed the bus was travelling at when the photograph was taken. The bus may even have been stationary at the moment the photo was taken.

Great point about the whether the bus was moving or not and if so, then how fast. So at least we've gone from the timing of the photos that wasn't important to consider before to now maybe the timing of the photos just might tell us something - not to mention the films because the Willis photo doesn't show the writing, but it does show part of the bus. By the way, have you looked to see if the buses can be seen in motion in any of the assassination films?

This is why the timing of the photos becomes important. The overhanging foliage that blocks out part of the figure on the left near the tree in Towner 3 may have caused an effect on how you thought he was the BDM from the Betzner photo when seen from the angle the other photo showed.

Bill

What are you talking about? I have not made a comparison od BDM2 with Betzner

Duncan

The BDM is the same person in both the Willis and Betzner photos which were taken less than one second apart. The enhancement animation in this thread started with the sharper of the two BDM as seen in the Betzner photo. In fact, there are threads where it can be found that you said that you brought out the true shape of the BDM ... the term you used was "enhancement". In the above quote, I had mentioned not BDM2, but rather just "BDM".

Bill

Edited July 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

By the way, have you looked to see if the buses can be seen in motion in any of the assassination films?

Yes

Great! I assume that you have recently done this - seeing how your initial response implied that you had used your eyes when asked what all had you done to confirm your conclusion. Now having looked at the assassination films - what did you determine, if anything?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I determined that a bus can be seen, and conclude that it's viewing value is zero in relationship to the topic of this thread.

I presume you have seen the film with the bus, what did you determine?

Duncan

There are buses seen in several films taken prior and after the shooting .... can you tell us which film you saw 'the bus' in when you determined it had zero value to the topic? Just trying to make sure we are on the same page. I mean, its almost as if you are avoiding being more specific with your answers. I'm trying to learn something here, so please try and not be so general in your responses.

The Skaggs image you posted was taken a fraction of a second before Bond #7 was exposed ... the closer time period we were discussing was Towner #3, and the post shooting Willis photo and how fast the bus was moving, if at all.

Thanks,

Bill

Edited July 24, 2007 by Bill Miller