Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) View the picket fence and wall areas (Highlighted in red rectangles) in the Moorman images below. EBC Edited July 2, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 View the picket fence and wall areas (Highlighted in red rectangles) in the Moorman images below. EBC EBC, Thx for a new thread. Pray this one will not be infected by the Miller virus as your other recent thread unfortunately was. Many thx for these fantastic images! I don't know how you do this magic, but it's stupendously helpful to me, anyway. Just on first glance I noticed something about which I'd appreciate your assistance. I adjusted a couple of things & added two red arrows: The right arrow points to a man's left ear as he faces toward Elm aiming a rifle. The left arrow points to dark sun glasses. Question for EBC & Duncan, please: Does the size of this head, if it is such, tally with perspective requirements, in your opinion? Miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 EBC: as someone who studied the Moorman photo for many years from sharp excellent copies, I hate to burst your bubble. Those are extremely terrible representations. Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur. Sorry to be so critical. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) EBC: as someone who studied the Moorman photo for many years from sharp excellent copies, I hate to burst your bubble. Those are extremely terrible representations. Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur. Sorry to be so critical. Jack I agree with Jack 100%. Making high resolution scans of poor blurry reproductions is of no benefit to anyone. Jack had the best prints available to do his work with ... this point seems to continually get forgotten be a few folks. Had Jack of only had the print that these so-called enhancements were made from, then there would not have been a Badge Man or a Gordon Arnold. Jack said, "Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur." In case someone still doesn't know what Jack has implied ... let me have a crack at it. If using a copy print that is so blurry that one can no longer see the recognizable images in the good print, then one isn't going to find legitimate shapes and figures after the clarity has been lost. In other words - blurring an image loses information - it doesn't offer new information. Bill Edited July 2, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 EBC: as someone who studied the Moorman photo for many years from sharp excellent copies, I hate to burst your bubble. Those are extremely terrible representations. Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur. Sorry to be so critical. Jack I agree with Jack 100%. Making high resolution scans of poor blurry reproductions is of no benefit to anyone. Jack had the best prints available to do his work with ... this point seems to continually get forgotten be a few folks. Had Jack of only had the print that these so-called enhancements were made from, then there would not have been a Badge Man or a Gordon Arnold. Jack said, "Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur." In case someone still doesn't know what Jack has implied ... let me have a crack at it. If using a copy print that is so blurry that one can no longer see the recognizable images in the good print, then one isn't going to find legitimate shapes and figures after the clarity has been lost. In other words - blurring an image loses information - it doesn't offer new information. Bill Thanks for saying something 100% accurate. I would post a CLEAR MOORMAN but am unable to from this computer. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) EBC: as someone who studied the Moorman photo for many years from sharp excellent copies, I hate to burst your bubble. Those are extremely terrible representations. Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur. Sorry to be so critical. Jack I agree with Jack 100%. Making high resolution scans of poor blurry reproductions is of no benefit to anyone. Jack had the best prints available to do his work with ... this point seems to continually get forgotten be a few folks. Had Jack of only had the print that these so-called enhancements were made from, then there would not have been a Badge Man or a Gordon Arnold. Jack said, "Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur." In case someone still doesn't know what Jack has implied ... let me have a crack at it. If using a copy print that is so blurry that one can no longer see the recognizable images in the good print, then one isn't going to find legitimate shapes and figures after the clarity has been lost. In other words - blurring an image loses information - it doesn't offer new information. Bill Thanks for saying something 100% accurate. I would post a CLEAR MOORMAN but am unable to from this computer. Jack Good point, Kathy! I was just out the door to catch the A train to a couple of new forum topics. The atmosphere around here has lost it's freshness & was becoming too hot. But just as I reached the door, the phone rang, so it was back down the hall to see who was calling. Exasperating! I was just about to move on, Kathy, as your advice was welcome & constructive. Damn! Guess who was calling? Yep, it was Miller. Now, take a look at this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0251&st=300 Then take a look at this one: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10390 I agree with Jack 100%. Why is Miller leaping into EBC's brand new thread which EBC just started up, considering the terrible exchanges Miller caused over on EBC's old thread? Making high resolution scans of poor blurry reproductions is of no benefit to anyone. That's not true. As Miller could easily see from my post, EBC's scans are very beneficial to me. Miller is deliberately insulting to me & worse to EBC. Miller is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. Jack had the best prints available to do his work with ... this point seems to continually get forgotten be a few folks. "...a few folks"? Who might that be? Maybe me & EBC? Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. Had Jack of only had the print that these so-called enhancements were made from, "...so-called"? An insult. It probably took EBC a lot of effort to produce these scans. Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. then there would not have been a Badge Man or a Gordon Arnold. Jack said, "Your badgeman area is an unrecognizable blur." In case someone "...someone"? Who would that be? Maybe me & EBC? Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. still doesn't know what Jack has implied ... let me have a crack at it. Why? Jack was clear enough. Miller is trying to rub it in. Why? Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. If using a copy print that is so blurry that one can no longer see the recognizable images in the good print, then one isn't going to find legitimate "...legitimate"? Why choose this word? Is EBC trying to do something illegitimate? An insult. Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. shapes and figures after the clarity has been lost. In other words - blurring an image loses information - it doesn't offer new information. Of course, this so obvious that it's clear that Miller is deliberately adopting the tone of a teacher explaining the obvious to a child in order to deliver an insult. Miller is sneering & snide & is trying to stir up trouble & resentment. Bill This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Today, 05:08 PM So, Kathy, here we were just on the brink of MOVING ON & what happens? Miller begins to pollute & poison a perfectly new, fresh & clean thread that was not his thread but was started by a helpful & polite member. Review all of EBC's posts. Then, see what happens when Miller starts with the jabs & the taunts & the digs & the insults & the slanders & the defamations & the needling & the baiting. A real nice picture for David Talbot! Oh yeah. Now what are the Mods going to do about this? WHO IS NOT MOVING ON? Edited July 2, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) Good point, Kathy!I was just out the door to catch the A train to a couple of new forum topics. The atmosphere around here has lost it's freshness & was becoming too hot. But just as I reached the door, the phone rang, so it was back down the hall to see who was calling. Exasperating! I was just about to move on, Kathy, as your advice was welcome & constructive. Damn! Guess who was calling? Yep, it was Miller. I am starting to think that you (Miles) live a very dull boring life. Why is Miller leaping into EBC's brand new thread which EBC just started up, considering the terrible exchanges Miller caused over on EBC's old thread?That's not true. As Miller could easily see from my post, EBC's scans are very beneficial to me. Miller is deliberately insulting to me & worse to EBC. Miller is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. "...a few folks"? Who might that be? Maybe me & EBC? Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. You might be impressed with EBC's scan and you may even feel that it is refreshing, but in reality as Jack will support - A large blow-up of a blurry print is only a blurry print blown up. In other words ... no more clarity can be achieved that wasn't present when the blurry photo was scanned. This is why people like Jack like to handle the originals or at least a first generation print....so-called"? An insult. It probably took EBC a lot of effort to produce these scans. Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. The point I made was enlarging an image is different than enhancing it. But seeing how you have drawn attention to the work involved in scanning a photo - Yes ... one places an image on the scanner - sets the DPI resolution - then hits the scan button. If the truth be known - it probably took more effort to write this part of my response than it did to set up the scan. If using a copy print that is so blurry that one can no longer see the recognizable images in the good print, then one isn't going to find legitimate"...legitimate"? Why choose this word? Is EBC trying to do something illegitimate? An insult. Miller is sneering & snide & is obviously trying to stir up trouble & resentment. Well Miles, if you hadn't cropped off the rest of my sentence you would have seen that it referred to the alleged images not being legitimate ... but I think you already knew that. Here is the sentence before you willfully and purposely cut part of it out ... " then one isn't going to find legitimate shapes and figures after the clarity has been lost." Of course, this so obvious that it's clear that Miller is deliberately adopting the tone of a teacher explaining the obvious to a child in order to deliver an insult. Miller is sneering & snide & is trying to stir up trouble & resentment. Miles, these ridiculous responses are only hurting yourself. So, Kathy, here we were just on the brink of MOVING ON & what happens? Miller begins to pollute & poison a perfectly new, fresh & clean thread that was not his thread but was started by a helpful & polite member. Review all of EBC's posts. Then, see what happens when Miller starts with the jabs & the taunts & the digs & the insults & the slanders & the defamations & the needling & the baiting. A real nice picture for David Talbot! Oh yeah. Now what are the Mods going to do about this? WHO IS NOT MOVING ON? What a kook! I believe that even Jack said that what I posted was accurate. You know what they say - One man's facts are another man's pollution. (eyes rolling) Bill Miller Edited July 2, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) Thanks Miles, thanks Jack. Here is an image I found on my last thread. The top image is my 'enhancement' Anyone know where the bottom image came from? The perspective(?!) is all wrong. EBC Edited July 3, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Someone used one of my images, but it appears that they scaled it too small. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Though I am responsible for producing all images of BADGEMAN following the discovery by Gary Mack, I have never claimed: ...that badgeman killed the president, even though it is a man firing a gun ...that his shot hit anything ...that the man is a Dallas policeman, though he is dressed like one ...that the badgeman image is genuine, though it appears to be I can conceive a scenario where a faked image was dangled before researchers and then used later to try to discredit them. In the JFK case, ONLY ONE FACT IS CERTAIN. The president's head was struck by gunfire on Elm Street in Dallas on 11-22-63 at about 12:30 as he was riding in a limousine, killing him. Any "fact" beyond that cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Though I am responsible for producing all images of BADGEMAN followingthe discovery by Gary Mack, I have never claimed: ...that badgeman killed the president, even though it is a man firing a gun ...that his shot hit anything ...that the man is a Dallas policeman, though he is dressed like one ...that the badgeman image is genuine, though it appears to be I can conceive a scenario where a faked image was dangled before researchers and then used later to try to discredit them. It would be hard to conceive that someone faked an image found on a photo that was filmed for TV less than 35 minutes after the shooting. I might also add that if the image is fake, then Gordon Arnold lied and we both have looked into Gordon's story and found it to be credible. I also agree that the Badge Man insert in EBC's image is not scaled accurately. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 In the JFK case, ONLY ONE FACT IS CERTAIN. The president's head wasstruck by gunfire on Elm Street in Dallas on 11-22-63 at about 12:30 as he was riding in a limousine, killing him. Any "fact" beyond that cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Jack Jack, Let the record show that I harbor the utmost respect for you and for the totality of your contributions to truth and justice. Let it also reflect the vehemence of my disagreement with your statement as quoted above. In collegiality and friendship, Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Though I am responsible for producing all images of BADGEMAN followingthe discovery by Gary Mack, I have never claimed: ...that badgeman killed the president, even though it is a man firing a gun ...that his shot hit anything ...that the man is a Dallas policeman, though he is dressed like one ...that the badgeman image is genuine, though it appears to be I can conceive a scenario where a faked image was dangled before researchers and then used later to try to discredit them. In the JFK case, ONLY ONE FACT IS CERTAIN. The president's head was struck by gunfire on Elm Street in Dallas on 11-22-63 at about 12:30 as he was riding in a limousine, killing him. Any "fact" beyond that cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Jack Factually incorrect. That John F. Kennedy was struck in the back about the level of his third thoracic vertebra (T3) is a FACT that is "challenged," to use the sword very loosely, only by an endless stream of non sequiturs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Now that is really absurd. One of the MOST CHALLENGED "facts" is the location of the "back/neck/T3/SBT" wound. How can you say that is a correct "fact".? Jack 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