Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I'll answer now, but not for Craig. I will submit that even with digital images appearances can be deceiving. Really ... you didn't mention a word about such a possibility when Duncan was pushing the out of scale floating cop torso ... in that case you applauded the effort without so much as contacting anyone as to what the original photo/and or clearer earlier prints had shown. You also never mentioned a word about Duncan's alleged shooter as being an illusion even though the sky between the tree foliage and the top of the fence could be seen. But maybe why you did it will be shown if we read on ... I asked, "show me how you can take any image and by adjusting the contrast and/or lighting and create a persons image with features that are anatomically correct ...." Miles replies, "Ok, OK" "Not so. You have seen it done on this forum. And, of course, you have seen it done with the Moorman photo." "By adjusting the contrast and/or lighting I created a person's image with features that are anatomically correct, but which is a fiction because Mike could not have rested his arm as seen, did not wear a stetson, is much too large for the perspective & never had David Ferrie eyebrows. See those elevated eyebrows? " "This sequence shows what is possible by way of distorting via contrast & lighting controls an image's data. Enlargement as with Moorman is a factor. Much more dramatic effects can be achieved than are shown here." "But the possibility is demonstrated. It's easy to see illusions.[/color][/b]" You are not going to convince me that you are so incompetent as to not know what I am talking about, Miles. All these replies in your previous response were not even about what Craig and I were discussing. The image you chose was not of Moorman's Polaroid, but rather a mixture of two photos placed over the top of one another. Your lighting adjustment is nothing more than the combining of two images into one from two different photos. Go back and do as I requested bv using a single photograph/image because from what I remember - Moorman's photo was just one single photograph - not a transparency overlay of two separate photographs. Take any single photograph and merely adjust the lighting and contrast and create the image of someone who is anatomically correct - JUST ONE!!! What Moorman's photo shows is three such individuals ... such individuals that you cannot find in similar views of that location after the shooting. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I'll answer now, but not for Craig. I will submit that even with digital images appearances can be deceiving. Really ... you didn't mention a word about such a possibility when Duncan was pushing the out of scale floating cop torso ... in that case you applauded the effort without so much as contacting anyone as to what the original photo/and or clearer earlier prints had shown. You also never mentioned a word about Duncan's alleged shooter as being an illusion even though the sky between the tree foliage and the top of the fence could be seen. But maybe why you did it will be shown if we read on ... I asked, "show me how you can take any image and by adjusting the contrast and/or lighting and create a persons image with features that are anatomically correct ...." Miles replies, "Ok, OK" "Not so. You have seen it done on this forum. And, of course, you have seen it done with the Moorman photo." "By adjusting the contrast and/or lighting I created a person's image with features that are anatomically correct, but which is a fiction because Mike could not have rested his arm as seen, did not wear a stetson, is much too large for the perspective & never had David Ferrie eyebrows. See those elevated eyebrows? " "This sequence shows what is possible by way of distorting via contrast & lighting controls an image's data. Enlargement as with Moorman is a factor. Much more dramatic effects can be achieved than are shown here." "But the possibility is demonstrated. It's easy to see illusions.[/color][/b]" You are not going to convince me that you are so incompetent as to not know what I am talking about, Miles. All these replies in your previous response were not even about what Craig and I were discussing. The image you chose was not of Moorman's Polaroid, but rather a mixture of two photos placed over the top of one another. Your lighting adjustment is nothing more than the combining of two images into one from two different photos. Go back and do as I requested bv using a single photograph/image because from what I remember - Moorman's photo was just one single photograph - not a transparency overlay of two separate photographs. Take any single photograph and merely adjust the lighting and contrast and create the image of someone who is anatomically correct - JUST ONE!!! What Moorman's photo shows is three such individuals ... such individuals that you cannot find in similar views of that location after the shooting. Bill Miller Hey Bill, what about the blob known as "hatman"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Hey Bill, what about the blob known as "hatman"? See Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" for more information. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Alan,In setting up a quick alternative to the Simkin forum for downloads, I forgot to tell my wife don't shut down the machine. The link is good: http://66.75.7.97 If it's down, try back later. Will try to keep it up and running for as long as possible. chris I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location. Bill Thank you Chris, I've got them now Chris, could you tell us anything you noticed about the positioning of the Crawley photo from your work on the overlay? We know he used Mary's camera with the same lens & had the focal setting calculated, it looks pretty good to me, not perfect but who needs perfect? What is perfectly obvious to me, is that Nigel Turner seems to have stood in the place "they" thought Arnold stood, nothing to do with sizing the figure up to Moorman at all. Turner et al never noticed the size difference & still don't today, but Crawley did. That's why he puts all these characters way back in the car lot. I say he puts them back there, if they were real he would. Since Craig has now posted in this thread I wonder if he wouldn't mind giving us his honest opinion of the value of Chris's overlay above? I know you probably think that we are all wasting our time here Craig but could you just pretend that the Arnold figure was a possiblity for a minute & comment on how Nigel Turner is three times the size of that Arnold figure in an overlay when almost everything else seems to line up? Can we take anything positive away from a comparison like this in your opinion? Thank you Alan Alan, I've not really been following this discussion so I don't have the background. However in the overlay, its clear that the recreation has problems, the biggest is that the film in the camera was not flat. You can see evidence of that in the warping of the curb. I'm really suprised that no one else has simply taken the lens from a model 80 polaroid and placed it on a view camera to shoot recreations. I've done this and it works great, allowing you to shoot almost the entire image circle cast by the lens onto any 4x5 film of your choice. In fact, just the other day I shot that setup using modern 100iso 4x5 film and took a photograph of a human head at 100 feet, just to see how much the lens would resolve. Interesting results...I'll get around to posting them sometime. Anyways, people are differnt sizes for one and size changes of person in a photograph due to changing distances from the camera can either be calulated or proven by experiment. That would be my suggestion, either do the calculations or experiment. As for the size difference in the recreation photo, it could be he was too close to the camera, or was bigger thana Arnold, or Arnold simply is not in the Moorman. I go for the latter. Thank you for the straight forward input Craig. Can I just pick up on one thing? You said before in another thread how Crawley used film that had near to twice the resolving power that the film in Moorman's camera had(I hope that's worded correctly) & I understand the significance of that. Now, you just said used a "modern 100iso 4x5 film" for your test on a person's head at 100 feet. Was the film you chose for that test significant to this very subject in anway? Maybe I'm reading too much into your words but if so, what film available today could be used to come closer to Mary's set up? Also Craig, I'm aware how confident you are that three figures that detailed & small could never be picked on film by Mary's camera from that distance. It crosses my mind everytime I see these figures now so, your words haven't fallen on deaf ears. I just hope that if someone like yourself does find the time to reacreate that set-up of Mary's accurately, they will do a honest job with no preconceptions & like you said, experiment. Thanks again. Alan Sorry Alan, I missed this post. Actually the tri-x film used had closer to 4 times the resolution of ISO 3000 polaroaid film. Current iso 3000 Polaroid film resolution: 14-17 lp/mm Kodak Tri-X film resolution: 65 lp/mm Note that this is the resolution of the film only and at very high contrast (pure black and white line pairs). Resolution falls as the subject contrast decreases. I used iso 100 polaroid film for my test because I had some on hand. I was doing some tests for an Apollo article I am writing and I had a few sheets left over so I did a test photo using the same lens as the Moorman polaroid camera. This film has over twice the resolution as the ISO 3000 film. I did this test to satisfy myself. (I did it years ago as well) I'm not that interested in the project to go the the plaza with the correct film and do the recreation. However anyone with the time and desire can use my methods if they wish. Does a modern version of iso 3000 polaroid film exist? Yes. It's Polaroid Type 57 sheet film for 4x5 cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Hey Bill, what about the blob known as "hatman"? See Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" for more information. Bill Oh I know all about it Bill, but you have many times posted a very high contrast verison here on the forum (you like to say its the best image quality). That version shows very well what happens to a blob when you add contrast and overexpose. You create a 'person" where none existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Hey Bill, what about the blob known as "hatman"? See Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" for more information. Bill Yes, it's a magic show with focus on rabbit in hatman's hat: Is this Manolette sweeping a capote over horns behind the fence? Or a very small person, unaccountably donning a very narrow brimmed Tyrol hat, with his nose caught in the fence? Note the light spot pointed to by the green arrow. This artifact should not appear, unless there was lightning bug activity at high noon. It's just another illusion, of a hat, resulting from gross over exposure. QED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Chris...I notice that in your gif the CORNER OF THE PICKET FENCE MISSES LINING UPby a considerable amount. I put my cursor on it and when the picture changed it was about an eighth inch off. Please check it. Jack Jack, I think the Crawley photo may be missing a few south facing palings. It's hard for me to tell where the actual corner is. Maybe with this comparison, you can point it out to me. chris If one places their mouse arrow on the Hudson tree - they can quickly see that the one alleged Moorman view photo was not even taken from the correct location. The Hudson tree shifts dramatically because of the different angle each photographer had to the knoll. Bill Bill, Same photos (35mm.gif) with the Hudson tree aligned. Corner of the wall slightly shifted. Next, (Moorman Similar.gif). I think everyone knows that the Moorman position has not been successfully repeated. These examples are for sizing purposes, and not Moorman positioning. Even though these last two gif's are taken from the "Murder in Dealy Plaza" special. And as you know, they tried hard to duplicate Moorman's position exactly, both with a 35mm and Moorman Similar camera. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Oh I know all about it Bill, but you have many times posted a very high contrast verison here on the forum (you like to say its the best image quality). That version shows very well what happens to a blob when you add contrast and overexpose. You create a 'person" where none existed. OK, Craig ... take that drum scan you have and contrast and lighten it all you want and show me a clear image like that seen in Thomspon's book. It simply cannot be done ... you haven't done it so far when I have asked for you to do it ... and we both know that it will never be done. If you want to simply sit there and say otherwise - then no problem because so far that is the only response you can give. All I have asked is for you to show me something I have never been able to do or see done and I have seen a lot of things pertaining to the photographical record concerning JFK's assassination. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Chris...I notice that in your gif the CORNER OF THE PICKET FENCE MISSES LINING UPby a considerable amount. I put my cursor on it and when the picture changed it was about an eighth inch off. Please check it. Jack Jack, I think the Crawley photo may be missing a few south facing palings. It's hard for me to tell where the actual corner is. Maybe with this comparison, you can point it out to me. chris If one places their mouse arrow on the Hudson tree - they can quickly see that the one alleged Moorman view photo was not even taken from the correct location. The Hudson tree shifts dramatically because of the different angle each photographer had to the knoll. Bill Bill, Same photos (35mm.gif) with the Hudson tree aligned. Corner of the wall slightly shifted. Next, (Moorman Similar.gif). I think everyone knows that the Moorman position has not been successfully repeated. These examples are for sizing purposes, and not Moorman positioning. Even though these last two gif's are taken from the "Murder in Dealy Plaza" special. And as you know, they tried hard to duplicate Moorman's position exactly, both with a 35mm and Moorman Similar camera. chris BTW, Here is Moorman Similar and Moorman, as opposed to Crawley/Moorman. This is as close to the Moorman position that I have seen. Perhaps it gives a better representation of where the corner of the fence is. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Bill,Same photos (35mm.gif) with the Hudson tree aligned. Corner of the wall slightly shifted. Next, (Moorman Similar.gif). I think everyone knows that the Moorman position has not been successfully repeated. I didn't know that Chris ... someone forgot to tell me this when I took this photogragh. Feel free to test any permanent object with your mouse cursor. While the shrubs and foliage on the trees may have changed with time ... it looks to me that there is not even a recogonizable variance in the major tree trunks and branches in the overlay. And as you know, they tried hard to duplicate Moorman's position exactly, both with a 35mm and Moorman Similar camera. I am sure they did try hard, Chris ... just like I tried hard to get it right when I did mine. however, they didn't get it right and the spacing between the colonnade window and the corner of the pedestal, which is missing from your last Gif was testimonial to that fact! They should have had Mack or someone more familar with what to look for when aligning the photo to have taken the picture. Three more reference points that are off can be seen below. This is what happens when trying to match up photos in overlays when the pictures were not taken from the same elevation or location as the other. Bill Edited September 2, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Oh I know all about it Bill, but you have many times posted a very high contrast verison here on the forum (you like to say its the best image quality). That version shows very well what happens to a blob when you add contrast and overexpose. You create a 'person" where none existed. OK, Craig ... take that drum scan you have and contrast and lighten it all you want and show me a clear image like that seen in Thomspon's book. It simply cannot be done ... you haven't done it so far when I have asked for you to do it ... and we both know that it will never be done. If you want to simply sit there and say otherwise - then no problem because so far that is the only response you can give. All I have asked is for you to show me something I have never been able to do or see done and I have seen a lot of things pertaining to the photographical record concerning JFK's assassination. Bill Good grief Bill, for the last time. It can't be done. You can't do the same thing to a digital image that you can with a film image, the process's are incompatible. You can't do it with digtital and you don't know why. Pretty hard for you to be a JFK photo expert when you don't understand the processes involved. And I'm not going to get back in the wet darkroom business to satisfy those who don't understand the process. Your "hatman image is exactly like the badgeman, created via overexposure and high contrast. You high school photo stuff is just ot going to cut it Bill. So take it or leave it. That's your choice. The science is against you but that be danged....ya gotta make those blobs mean something..right? Edited September 2, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Oh I know all about it Bill, but you have many times posted a very high contrast verison here on the forum (you like to say its the best image quality). That version shows very well what happens to a blob when you add contrast and overexpose. You create a 'person" where none existed. OK, Craig ... take that drum scan you have and contrast and lighten it all you want and show me a clear image like that seen in Thomspon's book. It simply cannot be done ... you haven't done it so far when I have asked for you to do it ... and we both know that it will never be done. If you want to simply sit there and say otherwise - then no problem because so far that is the only response you can give. All I have asked is for you to show me something I have never been able to do or see done and I have seen a lot of things pertaining to the photographical record concerning JFK's assassination. Bill Good grief Bill, for the last time. It can't be done. You can't do the same thing to a digital image that you can with a film image, the process's are incompatible. You can't do it with digtital and you don't know why. Pretty hard for you to be a JFK photo expert when you don't understand the processes involved. And I'm not going to get back in the wet darkroom business to satisfy those who don't understand the process. Your "hatman image is exactly like the badgeman, created via overexposure and high contrast. You high school photo stuff is just ot going to cut it Bill. So take it or leave it. That's your choice. The science is against you but that be danged....ya gotta make those blobs mean something..right? This is droll. It's the simplest & most elementary concept. Then, of course, there is the insurmountable scaling absurdity. Yes, it's embarrassing to have thought wrongly for decades. Can we move on? No? It's more blobomania? Sheesh! Edited September 2, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Good grief Bill, for the last time. It can't be done. You can't do the same thing to a digital image that you can with a film image, the process's are incompatible. You can't do it with digtital and you don't know why. Pretty hard for you to be a JFK photo expert when you don't understand the processes involved.And I'm not going to get back in the wet darkroom business to satisfy those who don't understand the process. Your "hatman image is exactly like the badgeman, created via overexposure and high contrast. You high school photo stuff is just ot going to cut it Bill. So take it or leave it. That's your choice. The science is against you but that be danged....ya gotta make those blobs mean something..right? Craig, I have said this so many times that the words should be retired from the English language, but here they are again. I have repeatedly said that I am not a photo expert. What I am very good at is interpreting images through the countless hours of studying them and comparing them to various lighting and contrasting techniques. For instance - you say the Badge Man is an illusion and you pretty much base that on one thing. I have asked other photo experts (Groden being one of them and who created the copy negative for the prints used) and he says that you are wrong. But there is more to go on. There is Arnold who without so much as ever knowing about Jack and Gary's Badge Man work - he was able to give details that the images support. And not one image, but all three images in the Badge Man matter are anatomically correct. At least two of the images appear to be doing exactly what Arnold said was going on at the time the President was at the kill spot. So even if I cancel out what you have said and what Groden and Jack have said ... there is the matter of how in the heck did someone merely adjust the contrast and lighting of Moorman's photo so to get three figures to show up and have at least two of them doing what Arnold said occurred at that particular moment in time? This is where you and I separate on the matter because I cannot ignore the latter when applied to you and Groden having opposing opinions to one another. Bill Edited September 2, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) This is droll. It's the simplest & most elementary concept. Then, of course, there is the insurmountable scaling absurdity. Yes, it's embarrassing to have thought wrongly for decades. Can we move on? No? It's more blobomania? Sheesh! Miles, Thanks for another fine well thought out and informative response not designed to xxxxx or disrupt the thread, but to better educate those serious researchers who had to read that garbage! Bill Miller Edited September 2, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Good grief Bill, for the last time. It can't be done. You can't do the same thing to a digital image that you can with a film image, the process's are incompatible. You can't do it with digtital and you don't know why. Pretty hard for you to be a JFK photo expert when you don't understand the processes involved.And I'm not going to get back in the wet darkroom business to satisfy those who don't understand the process. Your "hatman image is exactly like the badgeman, created via overexposure and high contrast. You high school photo stuff is just ot going to cut it Bill. So take it or leave it. That's your choice. The science is against you but that be danged....ya gotta make those blobs mean something..right? Craig, I have said this so many times that the words should be retired from the English language, but here they are again. I have repeatedly said that I am not a photo expert. What I am very good at is interpreting images through the countless hours of studying them and comparing them to various lighting and contrasting techniques. For instance - you say the Badge Man is an illusion and you pretty much base that on one thing. I have asked other photo experts (Groden being one of them and who created the copy negative for the prints used) and he says that you are wrong. But there is more to go on. There is Arnold who without so much as ever knowing about Jack and Gary's Badge Man work - he was able to give details that the images support. And not one image, but all three images in the Badge Man matter are anatomically correct. At least two of the images appear to be doing exactly what Arnold said was going on at the time the President was at the kill spot. So even if I cancel out what you have said and what Groden and Jack have said ... there is the matter of how in the heck did someone merely adjust the contrast and lighting of Moorman's photo so to get three figures to show up and have at least two of them doing what Arnold said occurred at that particular moment in time? This is where you and I separate on the matter because I cannot ignore the latter when applied to you and Groden having opposing opinions to one another. Bill Bill, lets finish this right now. First If you want to use Groden, bring him here so the discussion can be direct. Second in the badgeman image there are not "three images in the Badge Man matter are anatomically correct". There are shapes and blobs that you and others THINK look like people. Thats the fact of the matter. If it was conclusive the matter would be settled. But its not conclusive. Its conjecture. Third, is Arnold telling the truth? Lots of people say no...so thats inconclusive. Fourth, more was done to the image than contrast and "lighting" (BTW were in the world did you get this term?) The image is many generations old, passing through a number of lenses and papers, each destroying the what little fine detail would have been found in the Moorman original. Even IF the original been the detail seen in the badgeman alteration it never would have made it through all the copy/print steps it went through to get to Badgeman. That cannot be denied. Fifth, and finally, either the Moorman polaroid can resolve the level of detail found in Badgeman or it can't. If it can't its Game, Set and Match. The data says it can't. Recreation photos produced with higher resolution systems say it can't. I"d say that trumps everything else. Game. Set. Match. I'm done with this Bill. Enjoy. Edited September 2, 2007 by Craig Lamson 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