Bernice Moore

B...

B...

B....

Jack... B..

Jack....... B..

Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless. What an asinine accusation for a "photographer" to make. All darkroom photographers try to achieve an OPTIMAL image with silver-based images. To achieve this they BRACKET exposures and print negs using test strips, DODGING, and BURNING-IN, as well as various paper CONTRASTS. According to Lamson, he says these customary darkroom steps are "alterations", as if there is only ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION. Nonsense! I BRACKETED the copy negative of the Groden slide (which was extremely dense) at half-stop intervals from f4.5 to f32 at 4x magnification. This produced three negatives in the "acceptable" range. The middle one of this group had the best tonal range, so ALL PRINTS of badgeman were made from this single negative. As with any negative this was a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas of the negative. In this ONE negative, the very bright smoke and wall lost detail as did the very dark areas, like the trees and badgeman clothes. However the very dark exposures showed very clearly that the SMOKE HAD SHAPE AND TEXTURE, and thus was an OBJECT, not an artifact. My final print was done from the best exposure WITHOUT DODGING OR BURNING-IN. Lamson is unfamiliar with the work of famed American photographer Ansel Adams, whose test prints marked with darkroom instructions for dodging and burning in are legendary, and which are often included in museum exhibits along with finished prints, which are quite different. I guess Lamson would say that Adams ALTERED all of his photos. Jack Sigh, why post things that are untrue Jack? What is asinine is your attempt to deny you altered the Moorman. You cannot deny that you altered the Moorman because the results are available for all to see. Simply check the edge of the wall for proof of this alteration. Your attempts to 'optimize" the image created completely new detail edges that did not exist in the original. That sir is a fact. No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that what you did was an alteration of the original. You did not make "a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas". You created new "middle tones' that did not exist. In the process you threw away the detail in the original middle and highlight tones, creating new detail edge lines that did not exist in the original. And why do you think there SHOULD be detail in that small area of the Moorman original polaroid. Have you tested the camera/lens/film combination to see if it capable of that level of resolving power? As for Adams, your once again get it very wrong. And yes, Adams did alter his prints from the original rendering found in his negatives. I'm sure even he would admit it. BTW, my sister in law is the grand daughter of Edward Weston. Edward Weston was a friend and fellow photographer to Adams. I have spoken at length with Cole Weston, Edwards son, before he died a while ago. Cole printed many his fathers negs, and I a blessed to own a few of those prints. During our converstaions we often spoke of the darkroom alteration process. Cole, like his father, like Adam, Like me and ...like you all ALTERED images in the darkroom. And please don't attempt to lecture me on darkroom processes. I spent first part of my photography career diong high end b/w and color printing. I would venture I have made over a 100,000 b/w prints. Your experience in your home darkroom pales in comparison. ...... Jack....... B.....

Hi Robin: You mean you had to delete all your previous work, and your upload space was not used up..?? What a waste....but it worked...?? B.....

Hi Jack: This may help..though I did not have the time for any deep research, right now......re your study.... The man in the trenchcoat in the top photo...Beers....on the right, is Ike Pappas WNEW Radio..he was holding a mike out to LHO..at the shot, he immediately went down on one knee and and did his recording..... The man seen below in your study of the Jackson..is I believe Bob Huffaker KRLD TV......he is seen as Pappas went down on one knee, Huffaker stepped forward. #5 Appears it could be...Tom Pettit feeding NBC From "President Kennedy Has Been Shot" .Bk 2003... "When the News Went Live" Bk 2004.. Below the 2nd photo I found shows Pappas also with mike being held out.towards LHO. B.....

Jack... B..

Jack..... B... http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s143/Be...ghttest2J.W.jpg

*********** Hi Duncan.... No I do not get a message ,it uploads, but not there when finished, B..

Put your cursor arrow point on top of Newman's head. Then watch the tiny women come into view during the dissolve, and note where the Newman cursor is. Does this suggest anything to anyone (besides me and Bernice)? Why is Newman gigantic compared to the women? Jack Because the focal length in each photo is different? Riddle me this. If the people behind the wall in Chris's photos are twice the size of "Arnold" already, what changes will we see if we could bring the focal setting close to Moorman? Think about the tiny women & how they'll grow to Newman's size & then think about the men behind the wall who are already too big. Alan ***************************** Alan, & All...... Thought.....FWIW.. Bear with me.......if all the people in the new photos, are twice the size of Arnold now.......Then would it perhaps not help if Chris or whomever, took Zapruder & Sitzman out of the Moorman photo and transposed them behind the wall area.....to see what their approximate size would be, they also appear to be small, imo.....and are they not approximately or in the area of the same distance in the Moorman photo...as he would have been at the wall....I am not sure but could it not be....?? Recall also, that there has been much work done on that particular area of the knoll due to heavy rains which hit some years back, creating mud slides with the hills, and which then was all rebuilt, to a higher degree, steps and all etc...parking lot also.....so no new photo, I do not think will ever give you anywhere near when compared to what was taken back then....unless there is one out there that has not come to light??.... So could you not use the Moorman that you all have....within itself, to come to some conclusion, or there abouts..?? Here is another of peoples heads seen at the fence line, but it also appears to have been taken not too many years ago. B...... FWIW....

************* I have done a search and the photo with the X, is marked, LaneX..... so that is one of his.... The photo showing, the dotted line and the text reading the info, to Bowers view being cut off.......is not Thompsons as far as I have found.. A similar map is seen in 6 Seconds, though not the same, however, it does have the same markings.....and LOS..... Lee Bowers: " At the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area..".6H288.. Just look at the photo, and draw your LOS.... BTW Miles : I do believe the Mod Kathy, mention the same to you about bringing posts down some time ago.....in another long thread....That is what I recall, and I am not going on a search for such, though I could be in error, the point has been made and accepted....and I do believe we appreciate that fact........ B.....

The photo showing the view of Lee Bowers from the Tower, with text.... I believe was either scanned from " 6 Seconds In Dallas " , or one of Mark Lanes books...not positive..wherever an early photo and comment. I have neither at hand, next time I get to the book room... I will double check.. and pass along the info, if it can be of any help.. B.....

Shanet, if you are talking about the same shadowed "figure" that opened the thread, then can you point these particular things you see out to others so that we can see them too? Somehow I doubt that you can because I have a sneaking suspicsion that half of what you see is in your mind. It would also be be interesting to learn why you think(if you are talking of the same guy) he would be packing up his camera before the head shot occurs. Anyway(& it almost seems off-topic now but), http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/2561/nixmixhm2.jpg The comparison shows quite a contrast in quality does it not? ************************* Alan: Thanks for the Nix frame comparisons, I have found similar, and it seems no two are the same....?? B.......

I think that is what has been said. DellaRosa looks at anyone who challenges your alteration claims a direct abusive sabotage of his website. However, he has been known to wait until one's donation check has cleared his bank before actually banning that member. Well, if that's the case, he put up with Bill Miller's "direct abusive sabotage" for many many months and therefore must be a very patient man. Miller had ample opportunites to make his opinions known on that forum and he took advantage of them. Maybe DellaRosa just objected to people like Bill posting on the wrong thread. ******************** Hi Mike, Millie is just trying to start another round on another thread by stirring the xxxxe pail...and disturbing the E.Forum all the more, one thread isn't good enough, he has got to try for two. sheesh this is such an old tactic.... You know how it goes, he goes digging finds and brings up a nasty ole thread to try to make a point, it is so old and such an ugly trick that some resort to.... He is also it seems at least ten posts behind in his knowledge, in the other thread ..no suprise... Cheers.........B

Jack is either lying or has a faulty memory http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=7039&st=30 GROAN.....!!!!........ B.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hi Jack: Rich's has always been available by anyone for just reading....after they joined..... Before, when a donaton was asked for, only members could post.. Now all can join and post... and yes, that has been mentioned on here before about John, you should be aware. ********************** Quote Len :""Since you had to join to even read his forum there was no way for people not willing to pay to judge what goes on there but on the reports of others. "" Len : All anyone had to do, was use a real email ad, not a yahoo or such.. and your real name, same as on this fourm as well as at Lancer... that was never a problem... You did not have to donate anything to read..and as I mentioned above, if you asked for a dispensation for whatever reason, he admitted you without such... but yes to read you did join, and that should not have been a problem for anyone. ""I also find it odd I’ve never heard similar things said about alt.jfk, jfkresearch (Yahoo) or this forum."" You need to get out more, I think.. ""In any case I only reported that was his reputation and Dixie confirmed that she has heard such rumors as well."" Oh yes those great gossip funded rumours, how do people live without passing them along and believing what is whispered, and not finding out for themsleves. And yes Len,.........Rumours about this F as well as La, and the Alts and all, abound. out on the web..... The trouble is with the people who pass them along, and or add to when they are repeating what they heard, and yet have never taken the time to find out for themselves.. Hope all this has straightened out some of the rumours, see something good always comes out, eventually, perhaps. B.....

Would these perhaps help..........?? Miles, For heavens sake, can you stop, copying and bringing down previous posts continually. It is extremely wasteful on your part and deliberately so of Forum space and resources, seeing that this has been requested of you in the past by administration. I take it that you do not care.....It does make the information so difficult to follow, that people have stopped reading your posts, for your information.....duh...... Or is this just a part of your plan to Bug the ever loving xxxxe out of all.. All this does and has is turn people off, but oh is that also a part of your aggravating plan...?? Get real......your not doing yourself any favors, nor your research...when people are ignoring...you..FYI. B....

Thanks Jack, that was needed IMO.....

Let DellaRosa make the entire "other film" archive seen by all and I'll help your memory along. All reported seeing the limo turn the corner? No kidding?? (sigh~) I didn't know anyone said the limo didn't turn the corner, but I remember some back and forth posting where one person who claimed to see the 'other film' ... his tale had Connally reacting to being shot during that turn. Some who claimed to see the 'other film' had given a longer stopping time for the limo than other alleged witnesses to this 'other film'. In fact, I responded 'How many other films can there be with so many variations being discussed?' I remember thinking that it was funny to see how those who immediately claim alteration when a witness says something they believe doesn't jive with the Zfilm and yet the alleged 'other film' witnesses had several various versions on certain aspects of the shooting going on and those same individuals considered all the claims being made to be support of them all seeing the same 'other film'. I bet DellaRosa left that part out of his recollection. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ""Let DellaRosa make the entire "other film" archive seen by all and I'll help your memory along. All reported seeing the limo turn the corner? No kidding?? (sigh~) I didn't know anyone said the limo didn't turn the corner, but I remember some back and forth posting where one person who claimed to see the 'other film' ... his tale had Connally reacting to being shot during that turn. Some who claimed to see the 'other film' had given a longer stopping time for the limo than other alleged witnesses to this 'other film'. In fact, I responded 'How many other films can there be with so many variations being discussed?' I remember thinking that it was funny to see how those who immediately claim alteration when a witness says something they believe doesn't jive with the Zfilm and yet the alleged 'other film' witnesses had several various versions on certain aspects of the shooting going on and those same individuals considered all the claims being made to be support of them all seeing the same 'other film'. I bet DellaRosa left that part out of his recollection."" I didn't leave anything out Miller. Understand this: I related what I saw because I felt it was important. But I don't care if anyone believes me. About 10 years ago the researchers who had the opportunity to view the "other" film submitted their recollections. Of 6 people, all the descriptions matched in all the key details. William Reymond and I were nearly in lock step in our descriptions. All of this occurred long before you darkened our forum so don't post messages like you remember it. NONE of the descriptions had Connolly reacting to being shot at the turn onto Elm. The extant Z film does not show the turn -- that is one significant difference in the "other" film. Please stop making crap up and by all means do not misquote me. I will be glad to answer any questions from bona fide researchers. I invite all to join my forum. Former members booted for cause (i.e. they couldn't behave and play well with others) are not welcome. Awwwwwwwwe Miller they all can join -- but you can't. http://www.jfkresearch.com Think about it: 6 people saw a film, some saw it on multiple occasions, in various locations around the world and their descriptions all match and the film was very different from the extant Z film -- but not just different -- it matched exactly what the closest eyewitnesses reported on Day 1. Please read this article by the late Phil Melanson: http://www.jfkresearch.com/melanson.html I know there are several excellent researchers on the education forum. I have no idea why any would lend you any credence. You are often in error, but never in doubt. Rich DellaRosa P.S. If registrations were not closed on the Ed forum, I would join and address these issues there. But no matter -- my door remains open. B.......

Greetings also Charles: Well I am one of those, that think if the person is available, such as he is and he has and is willing to reply to questions posted....on his Forum... Then any suppositions or questions asked on another forum are really fruitless, and it seems to me unfair.. If you do not ask the source then you may never access the information, that you seek. Instead many end up just reading others thinkies and or snide personal remarks.....and come away with the impression that they wish them to have, to me that is allowing someone else to think for you, and is a no no. And also as a member you have yourself never asked him, but that is your perogative, of course.. Dr.D.Mantik's personal experience of no access, reminds me somewhat of one of William Reymond's, in that shortly before he was actually going to receive a copy of the other film..provided by a very nervous man whom he had been in touch with several times,..well..short story.... William came back from a short trip, and learned that the man had been murdered.. Your coincidence re Princess Diana...A Flash of light, amazing isn't it, that was reported immediatley... But was also followed by a repeated deny,deny,deny....the witnesses are as a rule in error....and so it continues.... B.....

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Hi Charles : You seem to have many questions pertaining to the other film.... You have asked ""Is Mr. DellaRosa being truthful -- to himself and to us? Or is he a victim of creative memory. Or a xxxx? From what I know of the man, I am persuaded to take him at his word."" So I take it that you neither, have ever bothered to you go to JFKresearch. Join and ask the man for information, that perhaps others would also contribute..to.. Instead of on another forum of which he is not a member.. The answers you seek are not to be found here and imo will not be forthcoming... No one speaks for him....or any of the others... B....

Len Colby said... "As for DellaRosa I know nothing about except for his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum, this suggests a narrow minded person locked into his beliefs to me. It's not a leap to image that such a person could be "a victim of creative memory"." I take it then you have never been a member..?...But believe gossip..?..Passed along by those who have a grudge to settle... Keep it up, this attitude will take you far in life... B......