Cliff Varnell Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) Now that is really absurd. One of the MOST CHALLENGED "facts" isthe location of the "back/neck/T3/SBT" wound. How can you say that is a correct "fact".? Jack Challenged by what? Contradictory, improperly taken and recorded autopsy measurements? An autopsy photo of such poor quality and questionable authenticity that the HSCA speculated that the burden of proof of authentication lay with those would put it into evidence? The claim that, (1) since clothing moves, (2) therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket elevated 2" to 3" in tandem -- in spite of the fact that the "tightly tailored" shirt only had a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the motorcade photos show the jacket dropping from Main St. to Betzner #3 at Z186. The talking points of the JFK cover-up are thus readily stripped away. That John F. Kennedy was shot in the back about the level of his third thoracic vertebra (as per the overwhelming preponderance of contemporaneous evidence) is a readily established historical FACT. Edited July 3, 2007 by Cliff Varnell 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" isthe location of the "back/neck/T3/SBT" wound. How can you say that is a correct "fact".? Jack Challenged by what? Contradictory, improperly taken and recorded autopsy measurements? An autopsy photo of such poor quality and questionable authenticity that the HSCA speculated that the burden of proof of authentication lay with those would put it into evidence? The claim that, (1) since clothing moves, (2) therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket elevated 2" to 3" in tandem -- in spite of the fact that the "tightly tailored" shirt only had a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the motorcade photos show the jacket dropping from Main St. to Betzner #3 at Z186. The talking points of the JFK cover-up are thus readily stripped away. That John F. Kennedy was shot in the back about the level of his third thoracic vertebra (as per the overwhelming preponderance of contemporaneous evidence) is a readily established historical FACT. Clearly you misunderstood me. I spoke of the ONLY FACTS ABOUT WHICH NOBODY DISAGREES...I mean EVERYONE. Clearly there are many believers in the SBT. None of them believe that your statements are FACTS. On the other hand, there is a difference between perception and reality. Reality, truth, facts are synonymous. But some people do not accept reality, truth and facts, but rely on twisted logic and misplaced loyalties and see UNTRUTHS AS TRUTH. You and I believe what you have described as fact is true. But not everyone believes that. But NOBODY denies that JKF was killed on 11-22 on Elm Street by a bullet to the head. Even LNs admit that is true! Reread my posting; that is all I said, and it is unarguable. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Now that is really absurd. One of the MOST CHALLENGED "facts" isthe location of the "back/neck/T3/SBT" wound. How can you say that is a correct "fact".? Jack Challenged by what? Contradictory, improperly taken and recorded autopsy measurements? An autopsy photo of such poor quality and questionable authenticity that the HSCA speculated that the burden of proof of authentication lay with those would put it into evidence? The claim that, (1) since clothing moves, (2) therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket elevated 2" to 3" in tandem -- in spite of the fact that the "tightly tailored" shirt only had a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the motorcade photos show the jacket dropping from Main St. to Betzner #3 at Z186. The talking points of the JFK cover-up are thus readily stripped away. That John F. Kennedy was shot in the back about the level of his third thoracic vertebra (as per the overwhelming preponderance of contemporaneous evidence) is a readily established historical FACT. Clearly you misunderstood me. I spoke of the ONLY FACTS ABOUT WHICH NOBODY DISAGREES...I mean EVERYONE. Clearly there are many believers in the SBT. None of them believe that your statements are FACTS. On the other hand, there is a difference between perception and reality. Reality, truth, facts are synonymous. But some people do not accept reality, truth and facts, but rely on twisted logic and misplaced loyalties and see UNTRUTHS AS TRUTH. You and I believe what you have described as fact is true. But not everyone believes that. But NOBODY denies that JKF was killed on 11-22 on Elm Street by a bullet to the head. Even LNs admit that is true! Reread my posting; that is all I said, and it is unarguable. Jack That being the case, I'll stop arguing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 (edited) Jack, You really have to 'work' on the image! Use Photoshop or something equivalent to experiment with the brightness and contrast. It is a big file for a relatively small area of the Moorman image so there is a lot of scope for in depth analysis. Use your renowned photographic expertise to get the best out of the image. I am assuming that you did experiment with the brightness/contrast etc.,etc.,Jack? Remember not to change the file or convert it to any other format or you will lose detail and resolution. Use 'save as' to save your results. Keep the original file. Download this 300k high megapixel of the Moorman showing the area you are interested in. Put it in your Graphic software and tweak the brightness/contrast controls to bring out hidden detail. Of course we all know about your excellent groundbreaking work with Gary Mack on the original Moorman. How is Gary these days,anyway? He sends me the occasional PM and has been very helpful. Give him my regards. Maybe Gary could give you some pointers? Question for EBC & Duncan, please: Does the size of this head, if it is such, tally with perspective requirements, in your opinion? Miles, Duncan's shooter's head conforms and complies with the laws of perspective. Beware of these so-called armchair experts on this forum who will attempt to blind you with their bogus science. These individuals are not even armchair experts. I would classify them as stool experts. We have the misfortune in this illustrious forum to have more than our fair share of charlatans,nutters,conmen and twisters. Some of the biggest 'stool experts' on the JFK assassination frequent this site. Be on the lookout for them. "By their fruits ye shall know them." All the best, Miles. Eugene Edited July 4, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Jack,You really have to 'work' on the image! Use Photoshop or something equivalent to experiment with the brightness and contrast. It is a big file for a relatively small area of the Moorman image so there is a lot of scope for in depth analysis. Use your renowned photographic expertise to get the best out of the image. I am assuming that you did experiment with the brightness/contrast etc.,etc.,Jack? Remember not to change the file or convert it to any other format or you will lose detail and resolution. Use 'save as' to save your results. Keep the original file. Download this 300k high megapixel of the Moorman showing the area you are interested in. Put it in your Graphic software and tweak the brightness/contrast controls to bring out hidden detail. Of course we all know about your excellent groundbreaking work with Gary Mack on the original Moorman. How is Gary these days,anyway? He sends me the occasional PM and has been very helpful. Give him my regards. Maybe Gary could give you some pointers? Question for EBC & Duncan, please: Does the size of this head, if it is such, tally with perspective requirements, in your opinion? Miles, Duncan's shooter's head conforms and complies with the laws of perspective. Beware of these so-called armchair experts on this forum who will attempt to blind you with their bogus science. These individuals are not even armchair experts. I would classify them as stool experts. We have the misfortune in this illustrious forum to have more than our fair share of charlatans,nutters,conmen and twisters. Some of the biggest 'stool experts' on the JFK assassination frequent this site. Be on the lookout for them. "By their fruits ye shall know them." All the best, Miles. Eugene All of my photowork with Badgeman was in a darkroom. I no longer have access to a darkroom. I feel there is nothing more to accomplish with the image on the computer. I have not been in communication with Gary Mack for many years. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 (edited) Miles,Duncan's shooter's head conforms and complies with the laws of perspective. Beware of these so-called armchair experts on this forum who will attempt to blind you with their bogus science. These individuals are not even armchair experts. I would classify them as stool experts. We have the misfortune in this illustrious forum to have more than our fair share of charlatans,nutters,conmen and twisters. Some of the biggest 'stool experts' on the JFK assassination frequent this site. Be on the lookout for them. "By their fruits ye shall know them." All the best, Miles. Eugene "By their fruits ye shall know them" is quite an appropriate line for this matter. It has been pointed that you are using a poor quality print to work with and it is a fact that once information is lost from a copy print - then it cannot be reclaimed from that particular photo source no matter how high the resolution of the scan was set for. All that is accomplished is a blown-up view of a fuzzy photo. The area that Duncan said is "washed out" is a mistake on his part. He and the rest of you have been invited to contact those who have either seen the original or best prints so to see for yourselves that between the top of the fence to the underside of the tree foliage is nothing but the Dallas sky .... which means that what you think is an assassin has no lower body under his alleged torso. To date no one has said that they have followed up on this additional information that was presented early on in this topic. And other than just saying that one believes the alleged floating torso to be in perspective - nothing addressing this alleged figure has really been demonstrated to show why the image is scaled properly to conform to the laws of perspective. The Holland interview showing Sam's head next to the fence slats and the width of a single fence slat was also offered as proof that the alleged Duncan head is not scaled correctly to conform to the laws of perspective and yet I have not seen where that information has even been considered before just merely saying that the size of the alleged head looks correct to some of you. Yes - by their fruits ye shall know them! So other than just offering a conclusion ... is it possible to follow up on the evidence presented against its accuracy and maybe address it with actual data rather than to merely rely on a belief system? Jack was right about working on these images photographically. Groden had said the same thing to me in the past. Groden believes that this is why the prints Jack and Gary used were superior to those latter computer images of Moorman's photo that researchers are using at the current time. Bill Miller Edited July 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Jack,You really have to 'work' on the image! Use Photoshop or something equivalent to experiment with the brightness and contrast. It is a big file for a relatively small area of the Moorman image so there is a lot of scope for in depth analysis. Use your renowned photographic expertise to get the best out of the image. I am assuming that you did experiment with the brightness/contrast etc.,etc.,Jack? Remember not to change the file or convert it to any other format or you will lose detail and resolution. Use 'save as' to save your results. Keep the original file. Download this 300k high megapixel of the Moorman showing the area you are interested in. Put it in your Graphic software and tweak the brightness/contrast controls to bring out hidden detail. Of course we all know about your excellent groundbreaking work with Gary Mack on the original Moorman. How is Gary these days,anyway? He sends me the occasional PM and has been very helpful. Give him my regards. Maybe Gary could give you some pointers? Question for EBC & Duncan, please: Does the size of this head, if it is such, tally with perspective requirements, in your opinion? Miles, Duncan's shooter's head conforms and complies with the laws of perspective. Beware of these so-called armchair experts on this forum who will attempt to blind you with their bogus science. These individuals are not even armchair experts. I would classify them as stool experts. We have the misfortune in this illustrious forum to have more than our fair share of charlatans,nutters,conmen and twisters. Some of the biggest 'stool experts' on the JFK assassination frequent this site. Be on the lookout for them. "By their fruits ye shall know them." All the best, Miles. Eugene Seeking a response from: Eugene, Thx for your images. Much appreciated & saved immediately. (A side note: I'm not replying to Miller's posts which are efforts to pick quarrels. And I requested of Miller not to reply to my posts nor to quote from my posts. This is done to reduce conflict. This is done in compliance with Mr. Simkin's stated desire that members endeavor to maintain high standards of scholarly comportment at all times with a view toward the Forum's good reputation. I hope Miller will respect my requests. Eugene, if I may, I recommend this policy. Your call, of course.) Would you (or Duncan or Jack) take a quick glance at this, please? Is either one of these circles the locus for Hatman (aka, midget man)? Which? Just as an aside, I was wondering about forehead slope, etc.; mere speculation: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Thx for your images. Much appreciated & saved immediately. (A side note: I'm not replying to Miller's posts which are efforts to pick quarrels. And I requested of Miller not to reply to my posts nor to quote from my posts. This is done to reduce conflict. This is done in compliance with Mr. Simkin's stated desire that members endeavor to maintain high standards of scholarly comportment at all times with a view toward the Forum's good reputation. I hope Miller will respect my requests. Eugene, if I may, I recommend this policy. Your call, of course.) How subtle. Is there not a JFK related point to make? (maybe as I read on) Is either one of these circles the locus for Hatman (aka, midget man)? Which?Just as an aside, I was wondering about forehead slope, etc.; mere speculation: "Is either one of these circles the locus for Hatman" ??? In any event I am posting a sharp image of the Hat Man location. I think you'll find that the fence is blocking out where the face would be and only what looks like the top of a 'fedora' hat can be seen over the fence from Moorman's upward angle to the top of the knoll. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Jack,You really have to 'work' on the image! Use Photoshop or something equivalent to experiment with the brightness and contrast. It is a big file for a relatively small area of the Moorman image so there is a lot of scope for in depth analysis. Use your renowned photographic expertise to get the best out of the image. I am assuming that you did experiment with the brightness/contrast etc.,etc.,Jack? Remember not to change the file or convert it to any other format or you will lose detail and resolution. Use 'save as' to save your results. Keep the original file. Download this 300k high megapixel of the Moorman showing the area you are interested in. Put it in your Graphic software and tweak the brightness/contrast controls to bring out hidden detail. Of course we all know about your excellent groundbreaking work with Gary Mack on the original Moorman. How is Gary these days,anyway? He sends me the occasional PM and has been very helpful. Give him my regards. Maybe Gary could give you some pointers? Question for EBC & Duncan, please: Does the size of this head, if it is such, tally with perspective requirements, in your opinion? Miles, Duncan's shooter's head conforms and complies with the laws of perspective. Beware of these so-called armchair experts on this forum who will attempt to blind you with their bogus science. These individuals are not even armchair experts. I would classify them as stool experts. We have the misfortune in this illustrious forum to have more than our fair share of charlatans,nutters,conmen and twisters. Some of the biggest 'stool experts' on the JFK assassination frequent this site. Be on the lookout for them. "By their fruits ye shall know them." All the best, Miles. Eugene Seeking a response from: Eugene, Thx for your images. Much appreciated & saved immediately. (A side note: I'm not replying to Miller's posts which are efforts to pick quarrels. And I requested of Miller not to reply to my posts nor to quote from my posts. This is done to reduce conflict. This is done in compliance with Mr. Simkin's stated desire that members endeavor to maintain high standards of scholarly comportment at all times with a view toward the Forum's good reputation. I hope Miller will respect my requests. Eugene, if I may, I recommend this policy. Your call, of course.) Would you (or Duncan or Jack) take a quick glance at this, please? Is either one of these circles the locus for Hatman (aka, midget man)? Which? Just as an aside, I was wondering about forehead slope, etc.; mere speculation: The image you are using is of such poor quality NOTHING is discernable. I have high quality enlargements of this area (if this is Moorman) which show nothing similar to your image. My sharp enlargement shows what is "possibly" (but not certainly) a man wearing glasses who has just fired a pistol, and a white puff of smoke obscures part of the tree trunk. If I could post images from this computer, I would show you. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The image you are using is of such poor quality NOTHING is discernable.I have high quality enlargements of this area (if this is Moorman) which show nothing similar to your image. My sharp enlargement shows what is "possibly" (but not certainly) a man wearing glasses who has just fired a pistol, and a white puff of smoke obscures part of the tree trunk. If I could post images from this computer, I would show you. Jack Jack, Many thanks for this information & for your willingness to help out here. Most lamentable that you have forum posting issues. What a loss! Wonder what can be wrong? Are Robin, Chris, Lee, or Bernice aware of this problem? I ask them. If you care to do so, I can try to PM you my e-mail address. Is your PM in-box full? (It was a month or two ago, did you know?) Or you could PM me yours. If you e-mail attach the images to me, I could post them to the forum via photobucket which has limited resolution I believe. Failing putting them up on the forum, I would certainly like to see them via my viewer & rendering programs. Can do? I wonder if Bernie can assist? Miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The image you are using is of such poor quality NOTHING is discernable.I have high quality enlargements of this area (if this is Moorman) which show nothing similar to your image. My sharp enlargement shows what is "possibly" (but not certainly) a man wearing glasses who has just fired a pistol, and a white puff of smoke obscures part of the tree trunk. If I could post images from this computer, I would show you. Jack Jack, Many thanks for this information & for your willingness to help out here. Most lamentable that you have forum posting issues. What a loss! Wonder what can be wrong? Are Robin, Chris, Lee, or Bernice aware of this problem? I ask them. If you care to do so, I can try to PM you my e-mail address. Is your PM in-box full? (It was a month or two ago, did you know?) Or you could PM me yours. If you e-mail attach the images to me, I could post them to the forum via photobucket which has limited resolution I believe. Failing putting them up on the forum, I would certainly like to see them via my viewer & rendering programs. Can do? I wonder if Bernie can assist? Miles My ten year old Macintosh is only OS9.2, and the new forum software will only accept images from OSX...system ten. I am not about to spend $2000 for a new computer just to be able to post images here. I will send you the image in question by email. You may post it with my permission. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The image you are using is of such poor quality NOTHING is discernable.I have high quality enlargements of this area (if this is Moorman) which show nothing similar to your image. My sharp enlargement shows what is "possibly" (but not certainly) a man wearing glasses who has just fired a pistol, and a white puff of smoke obscures part of the tree trunk. If I could post images from this computer, I would show you. Jack Jack, Many thanks for this information & for your willingness to help out here. Most lamentable that you have forum posting issues. What a loss! Wonder what can be wrong? Are Robin, Chris, Lee, or Bernice aware of this problem? I ask them. If you care to do so, I can try to PM you my e-mail address. Is your PM in-box full? (It was a month or two ago, did you know?) Or you could PM me yours. If you e-mail attach the images to me, I could post them to the forum via photobucket which has limited resolution I believe. Failing putting them up on the forum, I would certainly like to see them via my viewer & rendering programs. Can do? I wonder if Bernie can assist? Miles "Is your PM in-box full?" I do not use the forum email, Miles. It is a waste of time for anyone to send me stuff via it, because I NEVER LOOK AT IT. If anyone wants to contact me, use my well known email address: jwjfk@flash.net Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I will send you the image in question by email. You may post it with mypermission. Thanks. Jack Jack, Extraordinary! In a nautical mood, salt seas & white whales breaching: Thar she blows!! Very interesting, indeed. Now, to some analysis, of course. Will post same in due course. To anticipate the inevitable "perspective" criticism & to preempt same, I'll ask you & EBC & Duncan for opinions (on perspective & dimension) in time so you can address opinions directly back to me, thus skirting obstacles & avoiding conflict. I'll be glad to post any other images you care to post inter alia, as you like it. Miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I will send you the image in question by email. You may post it with mypermission. Thanks. Jack Jack, Extraordinary! In a nautical mood, salt seas & white whales breaching: Thar she blows!! Very interesting, indeed. Now, to some analysis, of course. Will post same in due course. To anticipate the inevitable "perspective" criticism & to preempt same, I'll ask you & EBC & Duncan for opinions (on perspective & dimension) in time so you can address opinions directly back to me, thus skirting obstacles & avoiding conflict. I'll be glad to post any other images you care to post inter alia, as you like it. Miles I JUST POSTED A REPLY TO THIS AND IT DISAPPEARED WITHOUT REACHING THE FORUM; TRYING AGAIN) Thanks for posting the image, but you failed to post the text I requested you to post with it: Miles...you may post this if you wish with the following text: Miles: This is the image I mentioned. I made an 8x10 from a tiny cropped area of a good Moorman negative, looking for a shooter in the "acoustics area" found by the HSCA. I did this in the 1980s, not recently. It shows what possibly could be a man with a pistol in his hand, and a possible puff of smoke obscuring part of the treetrunk. I do not advocate this as a theory...I present it only as one of my studies from over twenty years ago from a good Moorman negative. Thanks for your assistance. Jack I will be glad to discuss the image on the forum, but not in private emails. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I will send you the image in question by email. You may post it with mypermission. Thanks. Jack Jack, Extraordinary! In a nautical mood, salt seas & white whales breaching: Thar she blows!! Very interesting, indeed. Now, to some analysis, of course. Will post same in due course. To anticipate the inevitable "perspective" criticism & to preempt same, I'll ask you & EBC & Duncan for opinions (on perspective & dimension) in time so you can address opinions directly back to me, thus skirting obstacles & avoiding conflict. I'll be glad to post any other images you care to post inter alia, as you like it. Miles I JUST POSTED A REPLY TO THIS AND IT DISAPPEARED WITHOUT REACHING THE FORUM; TRYING AGAIN) Thanks for posting the image, but you failed to post the text I requested you to post with it: Miles...you may post this if you wish with the following text: Miles: This is the image I mentioned. I made an 8x10 from a tiny cropped area of a good Moorman negative, looking for a shooter in the "acoustics area" found by the HSCA. I did this in the 1980s, not recently. It shows what possibly could be a man with a pistol in his hand, and a possible puff of smoke obscuring part of the treetrunk. I do not advocate this as a theory...I present it only as one of my studies from over twenty years ago from a good Moorman negative. Thanks for your assistance. Jack I will be glad to discuss the image on the forum, but not in private emails. Jack Oops! Rushed here abouts this Holiday & overlooked the text above. Thx for catching my error. Guess I was mesmerized by your study! 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