Dawn Meredith Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 DAWNNot only is ITEK not my choice for deciding what I can and cannot see... I thought it was interesting that the HOUSE committee sent the NIX film to LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet: That says it all!!! Of course HSCA was a re-run of WC with the added bit of the mob did it thrown in for good measure, to make it look like they actually accomplished something in all those years. They left it to the AG's office to investigate further. Ha. Like the government is ever going to investigate itself. We need a Grand Jury NOW. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 DAWNNot only is ITEK not my choice for deciding what I can and cannot see... I thought it was interesting that the HOUSE committee sent the NIX film to LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet: That says it all!!! Of course HSCA was a re-run of WC with the added bit of the mob did it thrown in for good measure, to make it look like they actually accomplished something in all those years. They left it to the AG's office to investigate further. Ha. Like the government is ever going to investigate itself. We need a Grand Jury NOW. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________________________________________________ Thank You Gary Mack for the PM yesterday conceding that ITek IS CIA- connected and that this is well known. Glad we got THAT one straightened out )). A simple misunderstanding on you part. I accreciate your imput and your clarification on this. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 (edited) I am not even asserting that the Classic Gunman figure was a real sniper who fired. I think he may have been posted in position there for some reason, he is quite exposed and remains in place a few seconds too long, when Nix returns to train the camera on him after the Limousine accelerated away.... But I believe it is a real person, at the break in the wall, in a marksman's stance. Inexplicable, like so much other compelling and strange Dallas material... Edited February 6, 2005 by Shanet Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) I am not even asserting that the Classic Gunman figure was a real sniper who fired. I think he may have been posted in position there for some reason, he is quite exposed and remains in place a few seconds too long, when Nix returns to train the camera on him after the Limousine accelerated away.... But I believe it is a real person, at the break in the wall, in a marksman's stance. Inexplicable, like so much other compelling and strange Dallas material... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't care if he looks like a shooter, a hot dog vendor or whatever else you want to call him - he is nowhere to be seen between the notch in the wall and the shelter in Moorman's photo taken during the same moment in time, thus the only choice left is he was an illusion of light and shadows on an otherwise poor dark film because NIx didn't use the right filter on his camera and because the existing Nix film had a process called 'blocking' done to it. Edited February 7, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 My point is that NIX should take precedence over MOORMAN, a motion picture should take precedence over a throw-away Polaroid, and clear multiple images of a distinct marksman should not be so eagerly explained away........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 DAWNNot only is ITEK not my choice for deciding what I can and cannot see... I thought it was interesting that the HOUSE committee sent the NIX film to LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet: That says it all!!! Of course HSCA was a re-run of WC with the added bit of the mob did it thrown in for good measure, to make it look like they actually accomplished something in all those years. They left it to the AG's office to investigate further. Ha. Like the government is ever going to investigate itself. We need a Grand Jury NOW. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________________ To Gary Mack AGAIN: I know that it was the damn Justice dept. who Congress asked to continue the investigation. They are HEADED by the Attorney General's office, or did you not know this? Question for Gary: Do you PM everyone else on this forum who posts or just me??? If you think people like me are going to just go away or be intimidated with these daily harrassing PM's you've got another thing coming. Second question to Gary: Why don't you post yourself??? I have said repeatedly that I will respond to questions re the murder of JFK only in PUBLIC as after almost 42 years of secrecy by our goverment I am disgusted. And No Gary I am not happy with the fact that by 2017 "all the records will be public" because I do not happen to believe that crap. I do not trust our government to ever be honest about its complicity in the murder and cover-up of the murder of JFK. I am glad you are so trusting. Final question for Gary: Why do you not use your real name: Lawrence Allen Dunkel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) My point is that NIX should take precedence over MOORMAN,a motion picture should take precedence over a throw-away Polaroid, and clear multiple images of a distinct marksman should not be so eagerly explained away........ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet - I find your statement mind boggling to say the least. The Moorman original we still have - the original Nix film we do not have. The Moorman photo we have is the genuine article and has not been tampered with. That photo was widely shown soon after the assassination. To say that a dark second generation copy of a film takes precedence over an original photograph of lighter and better quality is a position I find illogical. Edited February 7, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Question for Gary: Do you PM everyone else on this forum who posts or just me??? If you think people like me are going to just go away or be intimidated with these daily harrassing PM's you've got another thing coming. Dawn - you are not being targeted by Gary Mack. Gary keeps up with certain thread topics of interest to him and then emails additional information to people when he thinks they may find useful. Many of us find that what Gary does is beneficial to our own research and we hopefully learn from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) My point is that NIX should take precedence over MOORMAN,a motion picture should take precedence over a throw-away Polaroid, and clear multiple images of a distinct marksman should not be so eagerly explained away........ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet - I find your statement mind boggling to say the least. The Moorman original we still have - the original Nix film we do not have. The Moorman photo we have is the genuine article and has not been tampered with. That photo was widely shown soon after the assassination. To say that a dark second generation copy of a film takes precedence over an original photograph of lighter and better quality is a position I find illogical. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Show me a November 22, 1963 television film of MOORMANs Polaroid that clearly shows the break in the wall area, or the Black Dog figure.... it doesn't exist.... She lost control of that photo while in illegal custody, remember? Jean Hill and Mary Moorman both talk about the man who took away the picture... in that little ad hoc debriefing area near the DAL-TEX....? You can blow up a doctored image and take a fresh Polaroid of it in seconds... Edited February 7, 2005 by Shanet Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 (edited) Show me a November 22, 1963 television film of MOORMANs Polaroidthat clearly shows the break in the wall area, or the Black Dog figure.... it doesn't exist.... I assume we are still talking about the classic gunman figure? There is no Black Dog Figure standing between the step in the wall and the South shelter wall. She lost control of that photo while in illegal custody, remember?Jean Hill and Mary Moorman both talk about the man who took away the picture... in that little ad hoc debriefing area near the DAL-TEX....? We probably need to get some things straight here. I am aware that Jean Hill said someone took some photos from her that she had in her pocket, but I do not recall one of them being Moorman #5 which I believe was still in the camera. Mary had that photo in her possession when the local news interviewed her not 35 minutes following the assassination. That photo was also filmed and shown on NBC three hours later. You can blow up a doctored image and take a fresh Polaroid of it in seconds... As far as altering Mary's Polaroid in a matter of seconds ... please explain how that was done on 11/22/63? One would have to remove the underlying image without disturbing the emulsion grains, so please tell me how this was done so quickly and easily. Below is a blowup of Moorman's photo showing the dark specs that are the emulsion grains. There are many sites that explain what emulsion grain is. Feel free to browse some of them. Edited February 14, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Good answer, Bill...but Polaroids don't stay in the camera, the camera spits them out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Good answer, Bill...but Polaroids don't stay in the camera, the camera spits them out... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually no. In the case of the camera Mary Moorman was using, you had to actually pull the film from the camera by hand to crush the developer pod to start the processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Show me a November 22, 1963 television film of MOORMANs Polaroidthat clearly shows the break in the wall area, or the Black Dog figure.... it doesn't exist.... I assume we are still talking about the classic gunman figure? There is no Black Dog Figure standing between the step in the wall and the South shelter wall. She lost control of that photo while in illegal custody, remember?Jean Hill and Mary Moorman both talk about the man who took away the picture... in that little ad hoc debriefing area near the DAL-TEX....? We probably need to get some things straight here. I am aware that Jean Hill said someone took some photos from her that she had in her pocket, but I do not recall one of them being Moorman #5 which I believe was still in the camera. Mary had that photo in her possession when the local news interviewed her not 35 minutes following the assassination. That photo was also filmed and shown on NBC three hours later. You can blow up a doctored image and take a fresh Polaroid of it in seconds... As far as altering Mary's Polaroid in a matter of seconds ... please explain how that was done on 11/22/63? One would have to remove the underlying image without disturbing the emulsion grains, so please tell me how this was done so quickly and easily. Below is a blowup of Moorman's photo showing the dark specs that are the emulsion grains. There are many sites that explain what emulsion grain is. Feel free to browse some of them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bill, is that crop from the drum scan? If so the grain you are seeing is the grain from the copy negative that Tink had made of the #5 Moorman. Polaroid b/w sheet and roll film has a very distinctive image structure. It tends to be rather clumpy and blotchy. You can still get the sheet film version of the asa 3000 film that Mary used. In any case, retouching the original Moorman in its small orignal size in a short amount of time would be very difficult at best. I have to chuckle when novices state how easy retouching either by airbrushing or chemical means can be without ever doing the process themself. Its not easy and its almost always detectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 But I am fascinated with the thread, how Bill super-imposed and then Eugene digitally enhanced that, and Alan Healy's remark about beginners being unable to see BADGEMAN.... Beginners can see NIX film's Classic Gunman clearly, and that seems to be the big problem. First, we need to stop explaining away evidence. Secondly, we need to stop creating new false evidence. Third we need to take a fresh look at all the outward (not occult) aspects of the available film record....although I agree with Dr. Manik, it is all suspect or corrupted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Shanet, for the longest time, I had trouble pinpointing Badgeman in a full copy of Moorman. I guess it had something to do with the low resolution of the full copies that I had picked up on the forums, along with the many shapes & shapes that are seen above the wall. Now that I am straight(the flash of light is right above the corner of the wall) & looking at him a little more often helps too, it is easy to see why he has always been placed behind the fence & not the wall. Do you understand why they have put him back there Shanet? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Would someone/anyone like to explain exactly how the blow-up that Jack & Gary used to find Badgeman came about? I am still not clear on this & as a "by the way", I think it's about time we all had our own copies( & the full scan would be nice too). Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now