Moorman Comparison

[Craig Lamson]

Bill can't get anything right. I did not say THE GANG FAKED IT...I said they EXAGGERATED IT by smoothing

the top of the pedestal and changing the tilt. I have never denied that there is a "gap" between the corner

and the window. THERE IS A GAP, but it is irrelevant. I did not use it to find the line of sight. How many times

do I have say I USED THE EDGE OF THE PEDESTAL, NOT THE CORNER WHERE THE GAP IS?

Jack

It seems Jack cant get anything right either. Nothing was changed on the drumscan, its simply the data contained in the copy neg. The drumscan Moorman matches the Thompson thumbprint print that was made from the negative as well. I would call you a xxxx, since according to you that is not a personal attack but rather a statement of fact, but that would be against forum rules. Surfice it to say you are simply clueless.

And of courses the gap is inportant. It shows us EXACTLY where Mary Moorman was standing and the height of her lens. Your attempt to locate her position creates a photograph there the gap is gone...no setback..no gap. There are images upthread that prove this very point. In other words you MISSREAD the orignal Moorman and you CREATED A FALSE LOS to describe her camera position. In other words, you are wrong.

You can prove us wrong by simply having a drum scan made of your Gordon Smith copy negative under the same conditions as the Thompson scan. Make this data available to thosse who want it and lets compare. I'm sure Gary Mack would be happy to join you for the scan. Heck you could even donate an original disk the the 6th floor like Tink did. You have the guts?

[Craig Lamson]

Here you are Jack....

B....

Back up the BUS here Jack,

You say the colorized "badgeman" is made from a b/w print from a drumscan of the copy negative? Wanna explain how that happened? You had a 4th. generation 8x10 copy neg SCANNED, creating digital data of the neg. Then you somehow took that data and made your b/w print how? Details please.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Bill can't get anything right. I did not say THE GANG FAKED IT...I said they EXAGGERATED IT by smoothing

the top of the pedestal and changing the tilt. I have never denied that there is a "gap" between the corner

and the window. THERE IS A GAP, but it is irrelevant. I did not use it to find the line of sight. How many times

do I have say I USED THE EDGE OF THE PEDESTAL, NOT THE CORNER WHERE THE GAP IS?

Jack

So Jack - YOU want to dance some more - great - let's dance! On July fourth I posted the following link. Was that not you who said the gang created a fake gap???????? Please read the bold type below.

Bill

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

[Jack White]

Since Miller and Lamson will never quit without HAVING THE LAST WORD,

I hereby officially abandon this thread, letting them have the last word

and hoping the thread will die.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Since Miller and Lamson will never quit without HAVING THE LAST WORD,

I hereby officially abandon this thread, letting them have the last word

and hoping the thread will die.

Jack

Ah yes, when the tough questions keep stacking up and with no answers in sight, Jack resorts to running away....typical.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Since Miller and Lamson will never quit without HAVING THE LAST WORD,

I hereby officially abandon this thread, letting them have the last word

and hoping the thread will die.

Jack

Jack,

With all due respect ... my last post involved YOUR words, so in a sense it was YOU who got the last word. I am sorry that your past remarks come back to haunt you.

Bill

[Craig Lamson]

Firstly Craig, files do NOT use up bandwidth, they use up disc space

It simply amazes me that perople find any value in this kind of 'enhancement".

Who said it was an enhancement? The words I used were improvement enhancement, not enhancement.

As I have said before. This image "appears "to show no gap. It also "appears" to show Kennedy, the Limo, Zap and Sitz etc etc.

Until you learn to read properly and base your response on my written words , don't bother to reply with your technical rantings which have no bearing on the point being made. I 'll make it a bit clearer for you. The image appears to show no gap but due to the extremely poor quality of the image,and by comparing with better Moorman copies it is unlikely that this is a true representation of the information contained in the Moorman photograph.

Lesson over.

Duncan...apparently

Well lets continue the lesson then Duncan, since theose photos contaiined on the server diskspace need to get sent out to the viewere, then yes they DO use bandwidth.

As for your parse of improved compared to enhanced, well lets just say I read it well enough to know that EITHER means you cranked the file around in your graphics editior like you think you know what you are doing in a failed attempt to make it "better" I'm just suprised you did not find a mystery gunman in there somewhere. I'm sorry you dislike the technical parts of digital imaging, but guess what pal, thats the facts of life.

I'l make it even clearer for you DUncan. The image is USELESS.

[Craig Lamson]

Sheesh....ct's

"That's not technically true. Bandwidth depends on the user usage, not the image itself. Images do NOT use bandwidth, they take up space. I run 4 websites, it's how I make a living. I know what i'm talking about."

The image is embedded in your post, increasing the amount of data in your post. That data is tranfered from the server to my client. If the image was not in your post, less data would be transfered. Thus your crappy images were a waste of bandwidth.

"All I did was make it visually more pleasing to the average eyes than the original newspaper cutting. I don't think anyone apart from you and maybe Bill Miller would argue that point."

Actually the screened newsprint contains more original detail than your "improvement". "More visually pleasing" is an opinion ot be sure...

"I have no objection to technical aspects being raised when it is relevant. I merely made a point that my improvement appears to show no gap. That doesn't mean there is no gap."

The technical aspects were TOTALLY relevant. You posted that mishmash of pixels in an attempt to support Jacks silly gap claim. The image you posted was WORTHLESS for use in supporting ANY claim. The technical details explain WHY the image is worthless. A person f average intelligence would have taken a look at the original clipping and said there is NOTHING here we can use to use to investigate the gap claim and left it at that.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

The image is embedded in your post, increasing the amount of data in your post. That data is tranfered from the server to my client. If the image was not in your post, less data would be transfered. Thus your crappy images were a waste of bandwidth.

As I've said before, and for some reason you can't let it sink in to your head, Images do not use up bandwith. That's a technical fact, live with it. User usage of images or anything else for that matter DOES use up bandwith. Technically I am 100% correct and you are left standing in the rain with no umbrella

Actually the screened newsprint contains more original detail than your "improvement". "More visually pleasing" is an opinion ot be sure...

Jesus........Did I say it didn't..you're some spinner. I said it was visually more pleasing to the average set of eyes.

The technical aspects were TOTALLY relevant. You posted that mishmash of pixels in an attempt to support Jacks silly gap claim.

You're talking garbage. Let's put the record straight. I posted an image which I claimed "appeared" to show no gap, nothing more, nothing less

The image you posted was WORTHLESS for use in supporting ANY claim.

Agreed...does that surprise you?

The technical details explain WHY the image is worthless.

It's not a totally worthless image..it proves Kennedy was in the limo and other important points. If this was the only Moorman in existance, it would be important for the little information which it contains

A person average intelligence would have taken a look at the original clipping and said there is NOTHING here we can use to use to investigate the gap claim and left it at that.

So why didn't you leave it at that and accept the post for what it was?

Duncan

Talk about spin....

So why not explain for my hard head WHY your image, which is embedded in your post does not increase the amount of data sent from the EF server to my computer and why that same post SANS your image has the same amount data transfer to my computer. I'm all ears.

Yes you did offer your opinon tha the image MIGHT be more pleasing to the average viewer, and then again I'm offering MY opinion that your work was not any improvement at all.

And your work IS totally worthless for study. WE DO HAVE many other copies of the Moorman. Talk about spin. You made a very bad attempt to support a very shallow claim. Period.