Jump to content
The Education Forum

Grassy Knoll Slices Close-ups


Guest Eugene B. Connolly
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Eugene B. Connolly

View the picket fence and wall areas

(Highlighted in red rectangles)

in the Moorman images below.

EBC

Edited by Eugene B. Connolly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

FENCEblowupMAN-1.jpg

I adjusted a couple of things & added two red arrows:

FENCEblowupMANarrows.jpg

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

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 by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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? :lol:

WHO IS NOT MOVING ON?

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :D

WHO IS NOT MOVING ON?

Miles,

Why are you posting similar posts in 2 different threads??? (Here and on Hogan) Miller has said nothing wrong in this thread. He has not poisoned it. As a matter of fact, he and Jack White are in agreement.

Please stop flooding threads with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :D

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 by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eugene B. Connolly

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 by Eugene B. Connolly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...