Craig Lamson

I wonder WHY you have time to post such JUNK (and how many times now have you posted this exact same flame baiting message????) and yet you fail to find time to admit your gross errors (that would be YOU trying to suffocate the truth) in your "studies" Lets take the Armstrong shadow for instance. You have been proven wrong beyond any doubt and yet you still let your false study stand. Take some of your valuable time and post the truth instead of nonsense.

NO! how can this be? Duane mis-qouted Armstrong? I'm shocked!

You didn't understand a bit of this did you Duane?

Do you actuallly believe the stuff you just wrote is correct...OR EVEN POSSIBLE?

What's the problem here Duane? There is NO problem with these images NOT showing tracks. You have offered direct evidence that there were no tracks NEAR the rover in the pictures you posted. And with this evidence you claim the photos are proof that the images were faked in a studio. You can't offer any evidence to support ANY faking situation, though you supply many unsupported claims as to how and why the tracks are missing. Not much of a case on your side. We on the other hand show in at least ONE on the images you claim has no tracks, that there are tracks that can be shown when the image is enhanced (a process you support via Jack Whites work) We also provide a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence ( and we know by your prior posts you also support such evidence) that shows tracks all over the outer portions of the frames you claim show no tracks, still photos taken before and after your posted frames showing tracks leading up to the rover, videos showing Astronauts grossly disturbing the lunar soil when they walk and still photos showing the same. The CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE is far superior to your direct evidence. Again given the two arguments the RATIONAL choice is OUR argument. Now if you want to challenge our case, feel free. But to do so you MUST SHOW that disturbing the lunar soil WILL NOT CAUSE THE TRACK TO BE COVERED. Your standard tactics will not be accepted. I await your attempt. Good luck,

Well Duane you are spewing the stuff over a couple of thread so I'm not surpised you mised it. It appears you are using the "lets throw a whole bunch of crap against the wall and see if anything sticks method" In any case my reply was post 119 inthis thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...9235&st=105 I'm not using ANY bias, that would be you. I've simply reviewed the photographs and the videos, and they tell the story. The tire tracks were obscured by disturbed soil caused by the Astronauts kicking it as the worked around the back, sides and front of the LRV. Most of the photos you have posted may not show tracks around the rover but they DO SHOW quite a few tracks all over the rest of the frame. It is a given that the astronauts kicked around a lot of soil as they walked. It is a given that the frames you posted (as well as quite a few frames taken just before and just after the frames you posted show tracks made by the rover in the surrounding areas of the photograph. So we are left with only a few possible explainations for the track being gone from around the rover. 1. That the astronauts simply covered the tracks near the rover by stomping on them and kicking lunar soil, as evidenced in many stills and videos. OR 2. Some unknown stagehands placed the rover in position ( a vehicle with WHEELS) in some unproven studio set. The did this after moving the rover ALL OVER THE SET by rolling it, making an abundance of tracks. Then this MAJOR break in continuity was MISSED by those responsible for quality checking the supposed "studio photographs" Based on the options listed above the only RATIONAL conclusion is number 1.

John, Frankly when it comes to forum moderator's of ANY stripe, one is too many and 1000 aren't enough! Having said that, will these mod's be deleting entire posts? Or, what THEY deem 'offensive passages' within the posts, and how will those deletions appear on the screen? For that matter, what does the forum define is offensive? The criteria for their decesions is what? Who is the USofA mod Kathy Beckett? Please post her profile... David Healy David a simply forum search gives you this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=5680

No Duane, I'm not going to pretend anything. I've offered my explaination as to why no tracks are seen. Either you accept it or not, your choice. I'm comfortable with my position and my position is well supported with evidence. Yours on the other hand is simply based on unsupported conjecture.

There is NO PHOTO ERROR. Im sorry for you that your limited intellectual ability does not permit you to understand SIMPLE PROBLEMS with perspective. Whats funny is that you keep yakking like a guy who understands photography when in truth you haven't a clue. What does that make you? Crackpot: most generally means a capriciously eccentric person. In various other uses, the term can mean: Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs.

And the lack of visable tracks means what? If could mean that for some really stupid reason some stagehands on an imaginary photoset placed a LRV into a set by lowering it in place...a LRV that is ON WHEELS, which would be the height of stupidity... OR It could mean that the astronauts kicked lunar surface dust all over the tracxk and their boot prints while the worked in front of, behind, and in back of the LRV while performiong thier jobs on the surface of the moon. Given that all the evidence points to the Apollo photography being done on the surface of the moon and NONE of the evidence points to the photography being done on a photoset, chances are the former is the truth.

No Duane the person with the problem with REASON and comprehension is DUANE DAMAN. Lets explain exactly why you are at such a loss to understand the SIMPLE EXERCISE Dave performed on the shadow photo. You could NOT UNDERSTAND what you were seeing in the shadow because the LOW ANGLE OF VIEW compressed the width of the shadow. Of this there can be no doubt. What Dave did was stretch the shadow in the horizontal direction TO BRING THE SHADOWS SHAPE TO A MORE NORMAL SIZE, a size that was MASKED by the low viewing angle in the original photo. Dave simply SHOWED YOU what the shadow would look like with a less acute viewing angle, and guess what it matched the astronaut. You were simply wrong again and you refuse to admit it.

Ok so now we can add hypocrite to the list of things Duane Daman is.....

Just for the record, you claim that "altering images" is dishonest? Correct?

Eugene, You may continue to assume you can claim your enhancements are covered by copyright but your assumption is wrong. Your works are based on the works of another, and unless you hold the copyright or a use licence for the originals used in your enhancements, you simply cannot claim your works to be copyrighted. I have posted details of copyrighting derivates upthread.

You might want to rethink this one, then you might not look so f'ing ignorant! roflmao!

I can't say I am 100 percent right on copyright issues, but as a copyrighted content producer, I'm quite aware of the the process and I attempt to enforce my copyrights. I've spent a tidy sum getting advice from professionals in addition to self-research. None of this is truly black and white as case law changes all the time. But, the best course of action is to proceed as if EVERYTHING you use in the course of research is copyrighted material. Fair use will most likely save your butt if push comes to shove but even that is not a sure thing.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html 2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation." False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money. 4) "My posting was just fair use!" See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind: The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't. Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon. Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use. The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA. Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law. 5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!" False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended. You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details. You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder. "Public Domain" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain United States law In the United States, copyright law has changed several times since the founding of the country. It is held under Feist v. Rural that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain. Eldred v. Ashcroft transcript However, re-copyrighting has happened before. "After World War I and after World War II, there were special amendments to the Copyright Act to permit for a limited time and under certain conditions the recapture of works that might have fallen into the public domain, principally by aliens of countries with which we had been at war." (Testimony of Dorothy Schrader, general counsel of the U.S. copyright office, hearing for H.R. 1623, serial 100/50) Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation. Examples include military journalism, federal court opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions), congressional committee reports, and census data. However, works commissioned by the government but created by a contractor are still subject to copyright, and even in the case of public domain documents, availability of such documents may be limited by laws limiting the spread of classified information. Before 1978, unpublished works were not covered by the federal copyright act. This does not mean that the works were in the public domain. Rather, it means that they were covered under (perpetual) state copyright law. The claim that "pre-1923 works are safe" is only correct for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus seventy years. If they were created before 1978 but first published before 2002, the works have federal copyright protection until 2047. The public domain began to receive widespread attention after David Lange's seminal law review article, "Recognizing the Public Domain," which was published in volume forty-four of Law & Contemporary Problems in 1981. Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would force an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between 1978 and 1989, this defect could be cured by registering the work with the Library of Congress within 5 years of publication. After 1988, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain. Critics of copyright term extensions have said that Congress has achieved a perpetual copyright term "on the installment plan." Statement of Professor Peter Jaszi, The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995: Hearing on S.483 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 104th Cong.

EBC, you are a nut case! Just because you post an image that was taken by someone else does not mean that you own it. (However, whether it is legal or not - any capture taken from Groden's films has been offered to me by Robert to use as I see fit) We are not even supposed to be post images of the Zapruder film because we do not have written consenst to do so. Feel free to consult a lawyer if you think I'm kidding you. You don't own any assassination images from what I know. Your thinking that you do only reflects your ignorance of not only the photographical record, but the copyright laws as well. My brutish behavior as you call it is directed to your ridiculous use of degraded images to invent made up people when the better images show no one there.Bill "Miller" does not understand COPYRIGHT LAW and is not an attorney. He needs to look up FAIR USE DOCTRINE which allows for educational non-profit use of copyrighted material. He needs to look up PUBLIC DOMAIN, through which a copyright may be forfeited for failure to VIGOROUSLY ENFORCE the copyright. He needs to study trademark copyrights about how certain copyrighted terms become public domain through PUBLIC USE, such as ZIPPER, NYLON, and CELLOPHANE, etc. He should not lecture on things he does not understand, but that never stands in his way, does it? Jack Once again we go through this silly copyright argument and it is FILLED with misinformation. First, Jack is simply WRONG. As a copyright holder you do not have to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND ANYTHING. Tha only way for the owner of a copyright to LOSE IT, is to SIGN IT AWAY. The public is NOT granted licence simply because the owner fails to defend it. Second, EBC holds NO RIGHTS to claim his works are can be copyrighted. His works are "Derivatives" and while derivatives can be copyrighted, the creator must either OWN THE COPYRIGHT of the original work, or hve the owners approval to use the original work. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html Fair use is a VERY slippery slope. It has become even more so in recent years. It is simply silly to think to that you can have unfettered use of copyrighted material for educational uses. You must proceed with care in this area. Profit or non-profit may OR MAY NOT have any bearing. I suggest that members who are really interested inthe current state of copyright law do some in depth research and perhaps contact a copyright attorney. But beware the net is FILLED with gross misinformation and wives tales. Start here: http://www.copyright.gov

David, you remind me of a dumb old bass who when it sees something shiny - it always bites at it while not thinking that it may have a hook in it. We are talking about the gap in Moorman's photo - and that gap is in all of the prints made of Moorman's photo. Jack posted that his position has always been that the gap is immaterial, but that has not been his previous position. Let me share with you what Jack has said about that gap ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=1133&st=45 ORDINARILY I DO NOT READ NOR RESPOND TO MR. PETERS/MILLER'S RAVINGS, BUT I NOTICED HIS POSTING OF THE LONG-AGO DISCREDITED "GAP" IN THE MOORMAN PIC, AND I MUST PROVIDE AN ANTIDOTE. It was several years ago that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap" does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for those who might fall for this discredited disinformation. Jack White In yet another response about the gap, Jack says nothing about the gap being immaterial. Instead he says the following ... Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The "gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal, they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve. Jack White So it seems that Jack's defense shifted to the drum scan being retouched. It seems that everything that Jack cannot understand has been altered. It's certainly not hard to see why his followers don't bother taking his ground breaking/earth shattering claims to the news media. Craig Lamson explained that no retouching occurred to the drum scan. Craig: As I was reading this old thread I found this question by you David and its time to correct the record. When Tink had the Moorman 5 copy neg drum scanned in San Fran he had the the scanner tech make two copies of the cd containing the file. All the details of the scan are available at our web page on the Moorman 5. Tink had the scanner tech sign each original cd and he sent one to me and one to G. Mack for the 6 floor. Gary still has this original disk. When I recieved the disk I did noting to the file....nothing..repete...nothing. No changes what so ever. I simply made dupilcates of the master disk supplied by Tink and sent them out in the mail. The file you recieved is exactly as it came off the scanner. The master disk (with the scanners techs signature) was returned to Tink. Any claims by White that the image was retouched is pure crap. The file is as it came from the scanner...and I might add it matches the print that was made from the same neg perfectly, as well as every other file I have seem from the Moorman except for that crappy scan White likes to promote. And even that one when subjected to careful study also shows the same gap as all the other Moormans floating around. So now getting back to the comment that Jack made that Thompson invented the gap and that the gap doesn't exist on good copies ... let us see what ever copy that Jack is talking about where he says the gap does not exist. How about that Gordon Smith copy? You know .... the one that Jack spoke about when he said that it is one of the best that he has. Surely Jack isn't limited to only having Bernice post severely degraded blobs and blurs ... let us see the great Gordon Smith copy! I personaly believe that the Gordon Smith copy dooes not support the allegation Jack leveled at Josiah Thompson. If it did, then Jack would have posted it with his allegations. I also believe that Jack and his alteration supporters know this and that is why no one will ever risk looking like a complete fool to a national audience in order to bring these so-called ground breaking/earth shattering finds to the world. Bill, I don't think we have to rehash the gap, we have been over this time and time again. Nothing is going to change. Jack is never going to deal with this in an honest fashion.

That is not what you said, Jack! You claimed to have replicated where Mary Moorman was standing and your first example photograph had these thick lines over the edge of the pedestal hiding the fact that the gap was missing in your so-called recreation photo. Ron Hepler, Josiah Thompson, myself and some others got after you for hiding that flaw in your example picture. Eventually you had no choice but to show it. Then Thompson offered up the drum scan and your position then was that Josiah had invented the gap with his drum scan. You went as far as to say that the drum scan was the only Moorman print that showed the gap. You were then challeneged you to take any of the known Moorman copies made before the drum scan and show us that there was no gap in any of them. You then went silent and never produced any such thing. You must have finally realized that the jig was up. Now once your 'no gap' claim was exposed as yet another erroneous claim of yours - you have suddenly come up with a new spin about the gap being immaterial. What ever you do Jack - don't admit you were wrong all along. Bill Miller perhaps you should re-read what Craig said above -- the way I interrupt his comment is: a copy of the Thompson copy of the Moorman5 Poaroid was digitally "enhanced" in Photoshop type of program for WHATEVER reason. Based on that alteration the Gang proved Jack White's (I might add Fetzer, Mantik and others) study wrong, that about it? Now how can you prove one persons analysis/content interpretation of a specific photo wrong based another's copy of the SAME photo that's been proveably altered? Who is spinning whom here, Bill Miller? Your in a tough spot, Guy! The term JOKE comes to mind... What if anything E-L-S-E was altered? Photo alteration is just that, PHOTO ALTERATION Your interpretation skills are pretty weak David. The file which I described above was created for posting on the web. It was not used in any of the Moorman testing. It was simply adjusted from the drum scanner output to a more pleasing tonal range for viewing. The file that was sent out originally to any researchers who wanted it was the original scanner data file, untouched. Quite a few controls exist to compare the original to the drun scan. First there are the actual 4x5 b/w copy negative (I believe there are two) Second there are actual b/w darkroom prints made from the negative that was scanned. Tink has had these prints since the copy neg was made in 1967. Third there are the flatbed scans Tink produced from the b/w prints and posted to the web prior to the drum scan being made. Fourth there is the second master cd that contains the drum scan data, created by the scanner tech and the disk signed by him. This disk went directly to the Sixth Floor and Gary Mack. And finally, the drum scan Moorman in both raw data format and levels adjusted format, match completely every Moorman image availaleble when it comes to the area of concern for the Moorman in the Street study....the pedestal. It even matchs the very poor Zippo when you factor out the out of focus quality of the Zippo. Now if you want to talk about using altered photos to attempt to prove the Zap film altered, lets talk about the gross alteration of the Z frames made by Costella.

Yes that is a great Moorman image Jack, its the Thompson drum scan you usually call trash. Did you get some new glasses? I have to credit Lamson this one time IF that is indeed the famed drum scan, because the quality is very good for a copy of the original print which has the fingerprint. At first glance it appeared to be the Gordon Smith copy, which is one of the best that I have, made from the original. As far as I know I have never seen the FULL UNCROPPED drum scan before. This image, like the Smith image, includes the notches of the 4x5 film holder on the edges. I did not know the drum scan had that feature. Previously I had only seen cropped images from the drum scan, and perhaps inferior copies at that. The image posted by Robin is superior to the Smith copy by about 10 percent in the Dmin/Dmax densitometer range. I compared the two side by side full screen. The drum scan density is about 10 percent better; this is mainly seen in the very dark areas such as the wooden fence, the badgeman tree, etc which are enough lighter on the drum scan to discern detail, but are more blocked up on the Smith copy. However, neither the drum scan nor the Smith copy, both made from the faded original with the fingerprint, can match the high quality of the Thompson Number One print as I have shown many times. The drumscan exposure was very likely made using an electronic densitometer, which takes a reading of the lightest area and darkest area and calculates a precise exposure for minimum and maximum density. When I formerly owned three photostat cameras, that is how my camera operators turned out high quality halftones...by using the densitometer to set the camera exposure. Jack Actually the file that came off the the drum was very flat, as was requested. We asked the scanner tech to add no level or curve correction, nor any sharpening. The goal was to simply get the contents of the negative into a digital form without inducing artifacts, ringing or density changes which might effect the measurements on the pedestal area which was the entire reason for having the scan made. The image Robin has posted was downsampled for the original 109 mb 8 bit file which is simply too large to post on the net. The original scan was about 4"x5" at 2400 dpi or 32"x40" at 300dpi. At this resolution the negative was scanned down to film grain level. I made the following adjustments to the image Robin has posted: I downsampled the image to around 11x14 at 300 dpi IIRC, (Robin may have reduced it further) I adjusted the levels to bring the flat tonal range of the image to a more normal level. I created a duplicate layer and darkend that layer a bit more using levels, then I erased about half of that layer with a large, soft edge brush. I did this to even out the image from right to left, as the right side was quite a bit lighter than the left. This in essence is a digital "burning" similar to doing the same inthe darkroom. I then flattened the image. Finally I saved the image in a lossless compresssed format, PNG and placed it on a pubilc photosite and made it available for download. The goal was simply to adjust the master file to produce an image that included a full tonal range There are many copies of the original, un-adjusted drum scan file in the wild. Tink sent me the one to the two master disks (one went directly to Gary Mack) and I made about two dozen duplicates of the master cd. SOme of htese were sent to the members of the group I was part of that was working on the Moorman in the Street issue. The rest I made available to anyone who requested it via the JFKResearch forum. This included a number of folks who were on the opposite side of the issue. I think I even sent a cd to Jack but I'm not sure. In any case, I am willing to make the original file available for download. If you PM me with your email address I will sent you a username and passsword for my ftp site. I will make the file available on Monday and keep the ftp account open during the rest of the working week. Thanks for all the information. There are some who would call all that you did ALTERATION. I would call it the equivalent of dodging and burning in, or OPTIMIZING. If you have ever seen an Ansel Adams instruction print to his darkroom technicians, it was filled with dozens of handwritten instructions for dodging and burning, some very elaborate. It is far different than a straight print from a negative. The information is all in the image, but it may be printed in many different ways. The "drum scan" is still much poorer quality than Thompson #1. Jack The file IS altered from its original state. However the unaltered file is also still available.

Yes that is a great Moorman image Jack, its the Thompson drum scan you usually call trash. Did you get some new glasses? I have to credit Lamson this one time IF that is indeed the famed drum scan, because the quality is very good for a copy of the original print which has the fingerprint. At first glance it appeared to be the Gordon Smith copy, which is one of the best that I have, made from the original. As far as I know I have never seen the FULL UNCROPPED drum scan before. This image, like the Smith image, includes the notches of the 4x5 film holder on the edges. I did not know the drum scan had that feature. Previously I had only seen cropped images from the drum scan, and perhaps inferior copies at that. The image posted by Robin is superior to the Smith copy by about 10 percent in the Dmin/Dmax densitometer range. I compared the two side by side full screen. The drum scan density is about 10 percent better; this is mainly seen in the very dark areas such as the wooden fence, the badgeman tree, etc which are enough lighter on the drum scan to discern detail, but are more blocked up on the Smith copy. However, neither the drum scan nor the Smith copy, both made from the faded original with the fingerprint, can match the high quality of the Thompson Number One print as I have shown many times. The drumscan exposure was very likely made using an electronic densitometer, which takes a reading of the lightest area and darkest area and calculates a precise exposure for minimum and maximum density. When I formerly owned three photostat cameras, that is how my camera operators turned out high quality halftones...by using the densitometer to set the camera exposure. Jack Actually the file that came off the the drum was very flat, as was requested. We asked the scanner tech to add no level or curve correction, nor any sharpening. The goal was to simply get the contents of the negative into a digital form without inducing artifacts, ringing or density changes which might effect the measurements on the pedestal area which was the entire reason for having the scan made. The image Robin has posted was downsampled for the original 109 mb 8 bit file which is simply too large to post on the net. The original scan was about 4"x5" at 2400 dpi or 32"x40" at 300dpi. At this resolution the negative was scanned down to film grain level. I made the following adjustments to the image Robin has posted: I downsampled the image to around 11x14 at 300 dpi IIRC, (Robin may have reduced it further) I adjusted the levels to bring the flat tonal range of the image to a more normal level. I created a duplicate layer and darkend that layer a bit more using levels, then I erased about half of that layer with a large, soft edge brush. I did this to even out the image from right to left, as the right side was quite a bit lighter than the left. This in essence is a digital "burning" similar to doing the same inthe darkroom. I then flattened the image. Finally I saved the image in a lossless compresssed format, PNG and placed it on a pubilc photosite and made it available for download. The goal was simply to adjust the master file to produce an image that included a full tonal range There are many copies of the original, un-adjusted drum scan file in the wild. Tink sent me the one to the two master disks (one went directly to Gary Mack) and I made about two dozen duplicates of the master cd. SOme of htese were sent to the members of the group I was part of that was working on the Moorman in the Street issue. The rest I made available to anyone who requested it via the JFKResearch forum. This included a number of folks who were on the opposite side of the issue. I think I even sent a cd to Jack but I'm not sure. In any case, I am willing to make the original file available for download. If you PM me with your email address I will sent you a username and passsword for my ftp site. I will make the file available on Monday and keep the ftp account open during the rest of the working week.

Where can you find details on ANYONE who claims to be the author of this article and WHERE does he state his credentials. As for dealing with the contents of the article, lets just do the Daman style...the detailed rebuttals can be found a Bad Astronomy. You should be very happy with this approach, since its only one you can use....copy someone elses work. Refute them if you can by dealing with the content and not the authors. BTW, I'm still waiting for your detailed rebuttal as to why my works trashing Neville' silly lighting claim is wrong. You ever gonna get to that one again?

Yes that is a great Moorman image Jack, its the Thompson drum scan you usually call trash. Did you get some new glasses?

I guess yor hero Jack White thinks you are ignorant too! ROFLMAO!