Bill Miller Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 If you "think", then that means you don't know, and are therefore not qualified to make an expert or definitive opinion. When I said "I think" - it was in reference to whether or not if you reread my response again that maybe you'd finally get it right. There is a slight difference, of course there is, that's why I stated the angles are similar, not exact But not so similar to show the bush from an angle where a competent analysis can be done ... that is the difference IMO. As I stated in my above reply, I stated the angles are similar, not exact I think if you reread my statement that you will find that I referencing the pyracantha bush and its branches as not blocking this area Vs. the photo you chose where it does block out a good percentage of the area in question.The Cabluck photograph show that there is no branch where you indicated a sunspot with your top arrow And if you move around to a view of the backside of the bush, then you won't see the front any longer as well, so what's your point? That's like saying that a person has two arms visible when seen from the front and only one arm seen when viewed in profile. I am amazed that you cannot seem to get at least one point ever made when it comes to your claims .... Its like you purposely try not to see your errors. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 My opinion: Blackdogman, seen only in Willis 5 and Betzner, did not exist.The "figure" was added by govt retouchers to hide a man in army uniform taking photos who could not be accounted for. Jack I believe that the BDM is standing in the shade of the trees and the angle at which he is seen in relation to the sun makes him appear so dark. Below are two photos taken one after the other with the same camera and settings - the only difference is that the camera location shifted slightly between photos. The tree is actually a brownish gray color. By slightly moving the camera between exposures caused the tree to appear darker than in the other picture. And why would the government wish to retouch the BDM ... would not removing him altogether serve a better purpose. Who would know that this person wouldn't come forward, thus retouching the photo would be exposed as a fraud. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 However, the elevated men are definitely behind the fence. Jack Jack, If one lightens the photo - they will find that the two mens dark outlines block out the lighter tones of the fence, thus they are standing between the wall and the fence. (see below) Bill ************ Hi......Jack..... B....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Thanks, Bernice. The men clearly are behind the fence, with their waists above the top of the five foot fence. The odd circular shape seems to perhaps be an open umbrella. The darker figure is in the badgeman position. Towner 2 is so soon after the shooting that it is odd that these people got there so quickly unless they were already behind the fence. If you have ever been there, you know that to be that high above the fence, YOU HAVE TO BE STANDING ON SOMETHING ABOUT TWO FEET TALL. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Thanks, Bernice. The men clearly are behind the fence, with theirwaists above the top of the five foot fence. The odd circular shape seems to perhaps be an open umbrella. The darker figure is in the badgeman position. Towner 2 is so soon after the shooting that it is odd that these people got there so quickly unless they were already behind the fence. If you have ever been there, you know that to be that high above the fence, YOU HAVE TO BE STANDING ON SOMETHING ABOUT TWO FEET TALL. Jack Your welcome: Fence height as seen from the Zapruder pedestal.... Also from when the tests were being made re the DPD Radio Tapes,you can see the height of the men, in comparison... They would need to be standing on something...in the photo you have shown...imo B..... Edited July 25, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 The men clearly are behind the fence, with theirwaists above the top of the five foot fence. The odd circular shape seems to perhaps be an open umbrella. The darker figure is in the badgeman position. Towner 2 is so soon after the shooting that it is odd that these people got there so quickly unless they were already behind the fence. If you have ever been there, you know that to be that high above the fence, YOU HAVE TO BE STANDING ON SOMETHING ABOUT TWO FEET TALL. Jack Where to you come up with this stuff, Jack. For instance - what's with the color of the fence and how it blends into these men's waist area .... did you not post a message to Duncan saying to never alter a photo to support one's claim. The enlargement in Groden's book clearly shows the contour of these individuals bodies because the fence is lighter in color than they are. A crop from Groden's print is seen in post #80 of this thread. It is worth looking at once more. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 (edited) The men clearly are behind the fence, with theirwaists above the top of the five foot fence. The odd circular shape seems to perhaps be an open umbrella. The darker figure is in the badgeman position. Towner 2 is so soon after the shooting that it is odd that these people got there so quickly unless they were already behind the fence. If you have ever been there, you know that to be that high above the fence, YOU HAVE TO BE STANDING ON SOMETHING ABOUT TWO FEET TALL. Jack Where to you come up with this stuff, Jack. For instance - what's with the color of the fence and how it blends into these men's waist area .... did you not post a message to Duncan saying to never alter a photo to support one's claim. The enlargement in Groden's book clearly shows the contour of these individuals bodies because the fence is lighter in color than they are. A crop from Groden's print is seen in post #80 of this thread. It is worth looking at once more. Bill Miller I altered nothing. I ENLARGED and lightened (not alteration) the image posted earlier in this thread by Robin (I think). Lightening an image is not alteration, because it only allows you to see into the darker areas. It does not change the photo, but allows you to see it better. In photography, this is called dodging. When lightened, it is seen that the fence is a continuous color, and that the two men are obviously BEHIND it. It is only logical that since the fence is five feet tall, the two men would have to be 8 feet tall if in front of it. Jack Edited July 26, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 When I look at Towner #3 - I do not see the BDM, but rather the two cops Gordon Arnold spoke of. Bill Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. You have been accusing me of using unsuitable images for analysis purposes, yet here we have you POSITIVELY identifying the 2 figures in a blurry image which you have arrowed as policemen, and then concluding that they are also the two policeman Gordon Arnold spoke of. You are practicing double standards in my opinion. Do you think potential assassins would still be hanging around at Towner3. Maybe they were giving the first people to reach the fence a guided tour of the area. Duncan Duncan, You really need to go back and learn the case. Gordon Arnold never said that either of the cops that came up to him immediately after the shooting and as he laid on the ground, were assassins. All Gordon uttered after he saw the Badge Man image - he asked if this could be the man that approached him? The point of the Towner #3 picture is that the timing and location of two figures in dark clothing like cops would wear gives a lot of support to what Arnold had said many years before attention was ever drawn to this image. Duncan has every right to complain about what you said about these two guys in T3 IMO, they might fit Arnold's story quite nicely for you Bill(is there anything that doesn't?) but there is no way that you can convince people that they have anything to do with Arnold or that they are dressed like cops. This is only your opinion that is all & they resemble policeman about as much as BDM does. You might "see them as cops" in your mind but there is nothing in that photo that seperates them from two normal Joes to anyone else. Jack has pointed out how tall these fellows seem to him & I tend to agree, especially the one closest to the tree. I do still believe that they are both east of the fence & like I said before, the body posture of the one guy makes it look like he's got both elbows up, head down(not visible) & is supporting his weight on the top of the fence. Jack said it's unlikely that anyone would do this because of the shape of the top of the slats. But take a look at this, http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5195.jpg I can see something much sturdier & safer on the west side of the fence that would make a great support if I was going to climb over it, or raise myself up to get a better view into the lot. Let's face it, these first guys up here behind the wall were there chasing a possible assassin or at least curious enough to see if they could see anyone suspicious. I'm sorry but, the Arnold scenario with these two guys coming around the fence after the shooting is codswallop but that is my opinion, sadly no one can prove if he was or wasn't there but repeating the same opinions almost like they are facts do not convince. Anyway I don't know who they are or what if anything Duncan has found behind the bush in Willis6 but it could even be the same person but IMO I doubt it's BDM. If you ever get a first class copy of Bond5 you could blow-up the same area & see if someone is there by the tree. If there is that might tie might all three figures together because I'm pretty sure what Duncan has spotted is very close to that tree(if it is not the trunk of the tree). Bill reckons he had a good copyof B5 once but I never saw it. BDM seen stalking away 20-25 secs after Wills5(IMHO) http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5176.jpg Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 However, the elevated men are definitely behind the fence. Jack Jack, If one lightens the photo - they will find that the two mens dark outlines block out the lighter tones of the fence, thus they are standing between the wall and the fence. (see below) Bill I was trying to find a better copy but no luck, so... Lightened a touch. IMO one guy walking north in short sleeve shirt & one guy with back to camera at the fence (both on the east side of it). Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 However, the elevated men are definitely behind the fence. Jack Jack, If one lightens the photo - they will find that the two mens dark outlines block out the lighter tones of the fence, thus they are standing between the wall and the fence. (see below) Bill I was trying to find a better copy but no luck, so... Lightened a touch. IMO one guy walking north in short sleeve shirt & one guy with back to camera at the fence (both on the east side of it). Alan Alan...the image you posted is far different than the one I used which was posted earlier in this thread. What is the source of your image? The quality of your image seems poor compared to the other. What you see as a man in a short sleeve shirt I see as an "umbrella-like" object behind the fence. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Duncan has every right to complain about what you said about these two guys in T3 IMO,they might fit Arnold's story quite nicely for you Bill(is there anything that doesn't?) but there is no way that you can convince people that they have anything to do with Arnold or that they are dressed like cops. I agree Alan. The same could be said about a circus passing by because you hear circus sounds and see circus shapes in silhouette, but who is to say that it wasn't really a circus at all. The point about Gordon is that he said her was approached immediately after the shooting by two men in police uniforms - the two individuals seen in Towner #3 taken immediately after the shooting are at the right location to fit Arnold's story and the two of them sre wearing what looks to be dark clothing which is what a policemen wore on 11/22/63. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Alan...the image you posted is far different than the one I used which was posted earlier in this thread. What is the source of your image? The quality of your image seems poor compared to the other. What you see as a man in a short sleeve shirt I see as an "umbrella-like" object behind the fence. Jack Jack, the source for that image was already posted ... it comes from Groden's book "The Killing of a President". That would be (according to Groden) an enlargement not created by computer, but through a dark room. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 (edited) It does not change the photo, but allows you to see it better.In photography, this is called dodging. Well Jack ... when it blends the color of the fence and the silhouettes to the point of not being able to tell them apart from one another when the original images show a noticeable difference, then by definition it is called "altering" the image. al·ter (ôltr) v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters v.tr. 1. To change or make different; modify: Bill Miller Edited July 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 As the BDM topic seems to be fading, I may as well go with the flow. Here is how I see the two men in this version which I have quickly colourised. Is this what everyone else sees?Duncan I would say that you have colored in the tree foliage and made it look like a greenish T-shirt on one figure and mistook the tree foliage as the other guys face when I believe him to have his back to the camera. The reason for the latter is that, if a cop as Arnold claimed he was, then I do not see any signs of a badge, pin, or anything else on his clothing which would not be seen on someones back. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 (edited) It does not change the photo, but allows you to see it better.In photography, this is called dodging. Well Jack ... when it blends the color of the fence and the silhouettes to the point of not being able to tell them apart from one another when the original images show a noticeable difference, then by definition it is called "altering" the image. al·ter (ôltr) v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters v.tr. 1. To change or make different; modify: Bill Miller By "Miller's" definition EVERY reproduction of an image is ALTERED, and technically that is correct. Take any HALFTONE and look at it with a magnifying glass, and you will see thousands of HALFTONE DOTS, not a clear smooth image. So saying a Groden book image IS NOT ALTERED is incorrect. In fact, if one understands the COLOR SEPARATION PROCESS, one knows that COLOR CORRECTION ARTISTS manipulate the magenta-cyan-yellow color separations to IMPROVE THE COLOR, so that the reproduction may be "superior" to the original. So all images printed in books are by definition "ALTERED." The only unaltered image is the original negative or transparency. But we do not have those. So we have to study what we have. But I repeat...LIGHTENING A PRINT FROM THE ORIGINAL IS NOT ALTERATION, BUT A TECHNIQUE USED TO SEE WHAT IS IN THE DARK AREAS OF THE ORIGINAL IMAGE. This is routinely done by photographers in the darkroom to achieve the best reproduction from the negative. "Miller" has never done this. I have printed thousands of negatives, and virtually all prints can be improved by selective dodging or burning-in. For instance, study of the evolution of an Ansel Adams museum print in-between prints shows his instructions to darkroom technicians to dodge and burn-in particular areas. So which is Adams' unaltered photo... the original negative or the final print? Jack Edited July 26, 2007 by Jack White 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