Guest Duncan MacRae Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 An enhancement i did way back in 2002 which appears to show another man to the right of Black Dog Man holding something in front of him as we look at him in Betzner.I have outlined the images (Not Cartooned)) to make it easier to see for those who have difficulty seeing both figures.He is nicknamed "Bigears" Duncan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 An enhancement i did way back in 2002 which appears to show another man to the right of Black Dog Man holding something in front of him as we look at him in Betzner.I have outlined the images (Not Cartooned)) to make it easier to see for those who have difficulty seeing both figures.He is nicknamed "Bigears" Duncan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not going to comment on this thread, but I will share the definition of the word "enhancement" with everyone. Enhancement: HEIGHTEN, INCREASE; especially : to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness - en·hance·ment /-'han(t)-sm&nt/ noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 (edited) Almost totally blind with an inability to see what is staring one in the face,even though those around him can see clearly what those who sadly suffer from Magooismitis fail to see" I am curious as to why on the better quality image you placed a cartoon character over the alleged second man you alluded too in the smaller faded print? One would think you would have blown up the cleaner print instead of using it for nonsense. It appears that you did nothing more than wash out the image by expanding the light areas which in turn has created something that was never there to begin with. The pixelization only adds to the problem. Edited February 18, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Bollschweiler Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 The BDM picture is very well known and IMO it has no value concerning the shooting. So I don't quite see the point of starting the enhancement question again because we had that already in an other threat. The place up there gets really crowded and maybe if we enhance a little more we will finally see one of Rubys table dancers as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 LOL EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Bollschweiler Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 It's called a joke Bill.Some of us do have a sense of humour,serious though the subject matter may be. Hey Duncan, I think I just got ya ! IMO humor is vital for life. Hope this will not have any bad influence for futher argumentation. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I don't see you arguing against my enhancement of Black Dog Man which i think,without sounding arrogant,is probably the clearest enhancement ever produced,and not just a blob as most enhancements of BDM seem to show.The shape,the angle...it's all there to see....strange Bill..Is he too just a washed up image? Duncan, Some things are not worthy of argument. I offered you the definition of the word enhancement and you ignored it. You admit yourself as to how badly the image pixeled out which in itself distorts any image when this occurs, thus the information within that image is unreliable. I guess the only question I have that might be worth being considered an 'argument' over what you have done is to argue just how much acid you had dropped before thinking you had created the best enhancement of the BDM to date! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 (edited) I made no such admission.I stated CLEARLY that i had to reduce the quality for uploading the image on to THIS forum because of the upload restrictions,and you know it.... I must have misunderstood you about the quality of your enhancement when you said, "The pixelisation is caused by me having to save the image in very low quaility jpeg format for posting on this forum as i appear have a limit to the amount of images i can upload, therefore quility of images uploaded by me on this forum suffers badly." The upload restrictions have nothing to do with getting enlargements posted without vast pixeling and distortion. Edited February 18, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Can i believe what i am reading from you Bill???..Of course they do man.If i have a high quality image saved on my computer,lets just say for talking sake a clear non pixelised 375kb image,and i am limited to 400kb on here..What's the solution ???.You don't have to be Einstein to work out that only 25kb are available for uploading,hence the image had to be reduced in quality to be within the remaining limit.....Duh!!! I thought my posting an enlargement from Moorman's photo that allows one to see the emulsion grain without pixeling would have told you something, but I guess it didn't. Maybe my uploads are magical - you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Bill....When you are using my my work as an overlay on top of one of your images,in this instance Betzner,please try to be accurate.Your overlay is way off target.Precision is everything,and your argument simply does not merit further debate until you learn to be accurate.Pictures talk..your example is as silent as a smoke signal in a hurricane. That's odd, Duncan ... for I placed that overlay in post #10 - you repeated it in post #12 and didn't say a word about it not being accurate. It's obvious that from what information that I had to work with from your limited explanation of your work that I aligned the sloping "dogs back" for a better term so they'd be over the top of one another. Moving that slope so the two images do not match would only mean that you washed out even more of the image than I first suspected. If you care to point out on each figure where you think they should match ... I'll create another overlay and posted it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 We now have a better source for analysis than the one Duncan used. If anyone can beat this enhancement of Betzner3 I would like to see it. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1560 Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 (edited) We now have a better source for analysis than the one Duncan used.If anyone can beat this enhancement of Betzner3 I would like to see it. Alan Thanks for the link, Alan. Having a link to click onto can be a nice option rather than just looking at it embedded in the actual post. It is the same photo as seen in post # 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12 of this thread. Bill Edited February 13, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 (edited) Nothing odd about it Bill..I decided to study your overlay first before i made a decision on your accuracy of overlay,and i came to the decision,as anyone who cares to study it will see,that your overlay is lacking in pinpoint accuracy precision which is crucial in any serious study as i'm sure you will agree. Duncan - it was your work ... how long should it take for "YOU" to see if it looked right or not? I first posted the overlay at 4:38 forum time. You replied to it an 1hr and 12 mins later - then 20hrs and 11 mins later - then 25hrs and 7 minutes later. Are you saying that it took you that long to tell if I had your own alleged enhancement overlaid right? Bill PS: I'm curious about something. If you think you bettered the BDM image, then how about doing the same process to Zapruder and Sitzman in the Betzner photo so we can see how much better they look? Edited February 11, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 (edited) Nope Bill...The initial posting was my work..the overlay is ALL your work,and for you to suggest otherwise is sheer fantasy.As for lengths between replies..that is of no consequence,but i am flattered that you observe my posting schedule so keenly Now,talking about Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal reminded me of some other work i had done a few years back which imo shows them clearer than has ever been seen before in Moorman.You may have seen this before,but as it's a different topic,i'll start a new thread. Duncan - You must be so stoned that you cannot comprehend what I have been saying. I took the two images "YOU" posted and put them over the top of one another and that's it. It was the BDM image you chose and your alleged enhanement. I looked at the timeline because your excuse that you seened time to examine the images that you already had worked with didn't make sense to me. A cursory glance should have told you if they were aligned correctly. The offer still stands - mark a spot on each image where you think they should be overlaid and I'll make it for you. I look forward to seeing how sharp Sitzman and Zapruder will be if you do them like you did the BDM. If they turn out anything like the BDM did - would you mind my offering them to Groden to put in his new book? Edited February 12, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Bill...1./..It doesn't matter how many times you try to explain it..The plain fact is that i posted "ONE" image which showed "TWO" figures in the same uploaded image,and not 2 images as you continually imply. I'm sorry, Duncan. I seemed to recall the Betzner BDM image and an inserted second image that was a pixeled mess that showed less than 1/3 of the BDM. I guess I foolishly looked at it as two images. 2./...My enhancement isn't alleged,it's factual. 4./The offer?..Here's a tip.Overlay BDM exact,and everything else will fall into place...common sense Bill. Now you're dancing around because if you were serious ... you would help everyone know exactly where he should be placed. All you have done is leave yourself some wiggle room so to be able continually claim that I didn't get the overlay right no matter where I place the two images on top of each other. 5./Groden's new book...Why would you offer my work to Robert.?.Are you his agent,and on a commission?...Well i suppose booze is expensive these days,and every cent must help No - I have never charged anyone to help them with a JFK related project. I just wanted to see the expression on his face when I tried presenting your alleged enhancement to him while trying to keep a straight face. 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