The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

Groden is welcome to debate me here. Jack DID create new detail, he changed the edges. Look at the wall, or the badge or the white spot on the "head' and watch them grow as the exposure changes New image detail is created with each f-stop. And yes by throwing away detail he created NEW detail.

You not seen the Moorman original at the time it was taken, nor has Jack nor has Groden, nor has Mack. You are all GUESSING about what it looked like. Was it overexposed, underexposed, over processed, uunderprocessed...tell me Bill what was the EXACT condition of that image at the time it was taken.

Here is what I know based on the film data, the resolving power of the lens as tested by me and years of experience using b/w polaroid film on a daily basis. The system resolution of the Moorman lens/film/fstop is simply unable to record the level of detail found in the badgeman alteration.

Now Bill, if the system resolution is too low to record the detail, how did it get in White badgeman image?

Until all of you can deal with that issue you are simply blowing rifle smoke...

Now you are sounding more like David Healy. I know you are aware of this, but I think everyone else should be as well ...

Mack writes:

Craig,

One more time.

The drum scan was of a copy neg shot in 1967, AFTER the Moorman Polaroid had deteriorated significantly.

The Badge Man images Jack and I worked with came from an 8x10 UPI print made from a 1963 copy of the picture BEFORE the image had deteriorated

The test pictures using Moorman's camera were made by Geoff Crawley, a British photoscientist. He chose 620 Tri-X film because, he said, it was virtually identical to the Polaroid film Moorman used (he said Kodak manufactured Polaroid's film of that type in 1963).

Crawley determined that her glass lens camera could resolve a human-sized image clearly at her distance from Badge Man.

.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Groden is welcome to debate me here. Jack DID create new detail, he changed the edges. Look at the wall, or the badge or the white spot on the "head' and watch them grow as the exposure changes New image detail is created with each f-stop. And yes by throwing away detail he created NEW detail.

You not seen the Moorman original at the time it was taken, nor has Jack nor has Groden, nor has Mack. You are all GUESSING about what it looked like. Was it overexposed, underexposed, over processed, uunderprocessed...tell me Bill what was the EXACT condition of that image at the time it was taken.

Here is what I know based on the film data, the resolving power of the lens as tested by me and years of experience using b/w polaroid film on a daily basis. The system resolution of the Moorman lens/film/fstop is simply unable to record the level of detail found in the badgeman alteration.

Now Bill, if the system resolution is too low to record the detail, how did it get in White badgeman image?

Until all of you can deal with that issue you are simply blowing rifle smoke...

Now you are sounding more like David Healy. I know you are aware of this, but I think everyone else should be as well ...

Mack writes:

Craig,

One more time.

The drum scan was of a copy neg shot in 1967, AFTER the Moorman Polaroid had deteriorated significantly.

The Badge Man images Jack and I worked with came from an 8x10 UPI print made from a 1963 copy of the picture BEFORE the image had deteriorated

The test pictures using Moorman's camera were made by Geoff Crawley, a British photoscientist. He chose 620 Tri-X film because, he said, it was virtually identical to the Polaroid film Moorman used (he said Kodak manufactured Polaroid's film of that type in 1963).

Crawley determined that her glass lens camera could resolve a human-sized image clearly at her distance from Badge Man.

.

Now Gary is blowing rifle smoke.

The drum scan is of no relevance to this discussion, it's a strawman.

Regardless of when the UPI copy was made, the fact still remains that the resolution of the Moorman lens/film/fstop will not record the detail shown in Badgeman.

Crawley did a micky mouse job of testing the Moorman lens/film/fstop. He should be ashamed of his efforts. Tri- X film has a much higher resolution that ISO 3000 polaroid film. 4x5 3000 iso film was available at the time of his tests. Model 80a Polaroid cameras were availabe for a donor lens. 4x5 cameras such as the Sinar wer available. A true professional would not have shot the wrong kind of film to test the system resolution. He test is useless. Kodak manufacturing Polaroid film is another strawman. Instant and b/w negative films are not comparable.

Crawley should know better than to just consider the "glass lens" when discussing system resolution. That he made such a statement that the GLASS lens could resolve a human sized image should disqualify his opinion in this matter.

You guys are STILL left with nothing.

So can you deal with the system resolution issue Bill? Heres one for you.

[Miles Scull]

Not to make any rash or hasty assumptions here, if BM shot, then at what was he shooting, if not at JFK?

I DO NOT KNOW. DO YOU?

I would think that a logical guess would be that the Badge Man was shooting at JFK. And if Badge Man is shooting and Mary's photo came 4/18s of a second after Z313 was exposed showing JFK's head had already been struck ... another reasonable guess could be that Badge Man may have flinched from hearing the initial kill shot being fired, he may have been influenced by the timing of the kill shot and could not fire at the exact same moment so to sound like one shot, and/or Badge Man may have aimed high so to hit the top of the President's head and to insure not hitting the wall and in the process he just missed and hit the south pasture causing the furrow that was seen in the grass. Seems there are several possibilities if one just gives some thought to the matter.

Bill Miller

Of course...several possibilities and guesses and theories.

I said I DO NOT KNOW, DO YOU?

If I were to guess, I would say he missed. But if so, that

does not negate his significance. But I don't know.

Jack

You guys are STILL left with nothing.

So can you deal with the system resolution issue Bill? Heres one for you.

Aside from Craig's knock out hit, there are a couple of alignment & proportionality questions.

If BM is shooting at JFK, then why does he appear to be shooting at Moorman?

If BM is shooting at JFK, then the muzzle flash (&/or smoke) or the rifle or both must be moved to comport with physics & trajectory requirements.

This why it is necessary to NOT posit assumptions as to what BM is doing.

Because, in the Moorman photo, BM is not shooting at JFK.

Another problem is that BM may not appear to be using a scope:

If so, then BM is not aiming or sighting at the time he fires.

Also, there is a pronounced badge shift to the left away from the ear vertical red line as seen in the print to that as seen in the colourisation.

The badge moves.

This seems to be necessary in order to structure an anatomically correctly proportioned left arm as is attempted in the colourisation.

The image proportionality is broken if the badge is not moved.

[Jack White]

Scull's foolishness makes many false assumptions:

1. Every shooter will appear identical in every photograph.

2. The Moorman photo was snapped at the exact instant the trigger was pulled.

3. That badgeman did not move after pulling the trigger.

4. That badgeman was aiming at Moorman.

5. That smoke from the rifle will always appear the same in every photo.

6. That all shooters use an identical posture.

etc.

Jack

Edited September 3, 2007 by Jack White

[Miles Scull]

Scull's foolishness makes many false assumptions:

1. Every shooter will appear identical in every photograph.

2. The Moorman photo was snapped at the exact instant the trigger was pulled.

3. That badgeman did not move after pulling the trigger.

4. That badgeman was aiming at Moorman.

5. That smoke from the rifle will always appear the same in every photo.

6. That all shooters use an identical posture.

etc.

Jack

Of course, in order to save BM in Moorman, it is necessary to find ways to explain away (read evade from) the obvious problems.

By introducing variables in timing of trigger pull, or by saying that for all we know BM was shooting a quail hen which had alighted atop Moorman's head,

by these tricks BM can be made to dance like an organ grinder's monkey for the express purpose of explaining why BM was not shooting at JFK.

So, the "you cannot assume that" defence begins to sound like the proposition:

We will never know what BM was doing, because we cannot make assumptions about what we cannot know.

Well, OK, then let's NOT assume that BM exists, shall we?

After all, BM is an assumption, a false one.

An assumption concealed within an assumption hiding from assumption assumers.

It will all be clear in the end & everything's going to work out OK.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Good observation Miles. Jack..Can you explain the gap to the right in the colour version. The head also appears to be tilted to the left in the b/w version and to the right in the colour version..just more interpretation?

Duncan

Duncan,

I may have said this in a private email, but I am going to say it here and I mean it in as nice of a way as I can say it. I am also going to address the irresponsible and careless remarks that Miles made in yet another one of his less than brilliant responses.

To start with ... I believe that you are sincere in the things you come up with, but you simply have not worked with images enough to know how to properly investigate the things you need to know so to reach a logical and accurate solution. I think sometimes you may get caught up in the cheers and chants from those who seemingly have a different motive for being here than you do. And while I do not totally understand these 'aspect ratios' like someone like Gary Mack does ... they are still part of the investigation process and without them being conducted and considered, then others who are far less qualified to be doing this stuff will forever be lost due to their own ignorance.

Now we will proceed ..........

Of course, in order to save BM in Moorman, it is necessary to find ways to explain away (read evade from) the obvious problems.

By introducing variables in timing of trigger pull, or by saying that for all we know BM was shooting a quail hen which had alighted atop Moorman's head,

by these tricks BM can be made to dance like an organ grinder's monkey for the express purpose of explaining why BM was not shooting at JFK.

The above comment is one that borders on what I said in my opening paragraph. Miles sees things that he does not understand as other peoples problems. If Miles would take some time off from supplying the forum with such meaningless dribble and will bother to educate himself on some of the things needed to be able to work with and understand the processes involved in how these various images came about, then maybe he could actually contribute something to a thread.

For instance, the 'timing of the Badge Man trigger pull' has been addressed, although obviously not understood by some. It seems that a lot of effort went into the JFK assassination early on whereas the official version was going to read that only three shots were fired during the shooting. What someone like Badge Man could not have counted on was Gordon Arnold standing where he did and the momentary pause in reacting to the shooter who caused the smoke to come out from under the trees on the west stretch of fence. Kellerman referred to the last shot(s) as sounding like a "sonic boom" where as the two blast came over the top of one another. So common sense should tell someone that when who ever it was that fired the kill shot - Badge Man had to also fire at the same time. Possibly in doing so, Badge Man didn't have the best shot to take, but still made the best out of what he had to work with. Mrs. Edna Hartman said that she and a police officer saw a furrow in the grass on the south pasture that the officer told her it was where a bullet had burrowed into the ground. Edna said that furrow led back to the location of the large tree on the knoll. This would be of course, the Badge Man location.

Now about the muzzle flash. I would like to hear Miles tell us all he knows about muzzle flashes which should take no more than about three seconds. Muzzle flashes do not come out of the end of the barrel in nice even circles (see Ruby's muzzle flash when he shot Oswald). Moorman's photo is a two dimensional image and in such an image - the flash will look flat/or square with the camera, but that doesn't mean that we are seeing it head on. In other words, the flash can be angled downward, but on film we cannot see it that way. Gordon Arnold was said to be filming JFK, not Moorman, but one could claim he appears to be filming Moorman and Hill. The same can be said about Zapruder and Sitzman. because a muzzle flash disperses unevenly in all directions - we cannot possibly know where the end of the Badge Man's gun barrel is located behind all that bright area making up the flash. And from that distance, an inch high or low and/or left to right when it comes to where the end of the barrel is located behind that flash can make the difference in shooting Moorman or JFK.

Miles was right about how one cannot make assumptions, but he doesn't seem to follow his own advice when blessing us with his constant uninformative responses brought about by his lack of understanding of the areas he is trying to appear to be knowledgeable in. The only other alternative would be that Miles does know better and such constant responses like the ones in the previous post of his are purposely being made for other reasons.

So, the "you cannot assume that" defence begins to sound like the proposition:

We will never know what BM was doing, because we cannot make assumptions about what we cannot know.

Well, OK, then let's NOT assume that BM exists, shall we?

After all, BM is an assumption, a false one.

An assumption concealed within an assumption hiding from assumption assumers.

It will all be clear in the end & everything's going to work out OK. rolleyes.gif

This set of remarks directly above goes to what I just said.

So now on to making something more clear and how everything can work out if one really takes the time to actually learn how to investigate these types of problems ....

The first mistake that was made in the Badge Man example claiming there was a problem with his image crossing one line and not the other could have been avoided by simply seeing if the two images were even tilted the same way. Without my doing anything by cutting and pasting the colored version over the B&W image - it was apparent that the two images were not even on the same axis to one another. (see below)

The next thing to look for if one is familiar with this sort of investigation work is to be sure the two images were even scaled the same. I found that they were not and the cause probably goes back to what Gary Mack has been saying about 'aspect ratios'. So when I got the two images overlaid onto one another and on the same axis ... it was a simple matter of pulling one image's sides inward to fit the other. The only differences in the two Badge Men images now was Jack had water colored one, thus the borders of the things he painted have changed slightly.

Now I have answered your question and I feel that Miles owes Jack and the forum an apology for once again running his mouth about something he was/is not qualified to be critiquing IMO. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for Jack to listen to such nonsense from those people who want to be critics and yet they won't even do the simplest of research so to know that their criticisms are justified. If those same individuals do not think that Jack deserves as much from his critics, then maybe look at it as though John Kennedy's memory deserves better.

Bill Miller

Edited September 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Good observation Miles. Jack..Can you explain the gap to between the centre line through the badge to the ear in the colour version? The head also appears to be tilted to the left in the b/w version and to the right in the colour version..just more interpretation?

Duncan

More meaningless nonsense.

The bw version is from a 35mm slide shot by Groden from the Thompson #1 print.

The color version is from a copy made by Byrd Williams IV on 8x10 film from the same print.

Both enlargements are gigantic. The slight difference noticed is simple...THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHERS

SIMPLY WERE NOT CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THE PRINT WAS PERFECTLY VERTICAL. A slight diffference

in verticality accounts for the minute difference noted. A valid observation that is totally without

meaning. A slight rotation of one of the images should align them. If not, one of the images may

be distorted by repeated scannings and resizings. I have found that computers are not always 100 percent

accurate. In copying an image from tiff to jpg, I have found that sometimes the width is one pixel wider

than the original just by conversion.

Jack

[Jack White]

Good observation Miles. Jack..Can you explain the gap to the right in the colour version. The head also appears to be tilted to the left in the b/w version and to the right in the colour version..just more interpretation?

Duncan

Duncan,

I may have said this in a private email, but I am going to say it here and I mean it in as nice of a way as I can say it. I am also going to address the irresponsible and careless remarks that Miles made in yet another one of his less than brilliant responses.

To start with ... I believe that you are sincere in the things you come up with, but you simply have not worked with images enough to know how to properly investigate the things you need to know so to reach a logical and accurate solution. I think sometimes you may get caught up in the cheers and chants from those who seemingly have a different motive for being here than you do. And while I do not totally understand these 'aspect ratios' like someone like Gary Mack does ... they are still part of the investigation process and without them being conducted and considered, then others who are far less qualified to be doing this stuff will forever be lost due to their own ignorance.

Now we will proceed ..........

Of course, in order to save BM in Moorman, it is necessary to find ways to explain away (read evade from) the obvious problems.

By introducing variables in timing of trigger pull, or by saying that for all we know BM was shooting a quail hen which had alighted atop Moorman's head,

by these tricks BM can be made to dance like an organ grinder's monkey for the express purpose of explaining why BM was not shooting at JFK.

The above comment is one that borders on what I said in my opening paragraph. Miles sees things that he does not understand as other peoples problems. If Miles would take some time off from supplying the forum with such meaningless dribble and will bother to educate himself on some of the things needed to be able to work with and understand the processes involved in how these various images came about, then maybe he could actually contribute something to a thread.

For instance, the 'timing of the Badge Man trigger pull' has been addressed, although obviously not understood by some. It seems that a lot of effort went into the JFK assassination early on whereas the official version was going to read that only three shots were fired during the shooting. What someone like Badge Man could not have counted on was Gordon Arnold standing where he did and the momentary pause in reacting to the shooter who caused the smoke to come out from under the trees on the west stretch of fence. Kellerman referred to the last shot(s) as sounding like a "sonic boom" where as the two blast came over the top of one another. So common sense should tell someone that when who ever it was that fired the kill shot - Badge Man had to also fire at the same time. Possibly in doing so, Badge Man didn't have the best shot to take, but still made the best out of what he had to work with. Mrs. Edna Hartman said that she and a police officer saw a furrow in the grass on the south pasture that the officer told her it was where a bullet had burrowed into the ground. Edna said that furrow led back to the location of the large tree on the knoll. This would be of course, the Badge Man location.

Now about the muzzle flash. I would like to hear Miles tell us all he knows about muzzle flashes which should take no more than about three seconds. Muzzle flashes do not come out of the end of the barrel in nice even circles (see Ruby's muzzle flash when he shot Oswald). Moorman's photo is a two dimensional image and in such an image - the flash will look flat/or square with the camera, but that doesn't mean that we are seeing it head on. In other words, the flash can be angled downward, but on film we cannot see it that way. Gordon Arnold was said to be filming JFK, not Moorman, but one could claim he appears to be filming Moorman and Hill. The same can be said about Zapruder and Sitzman. because a muzzle flash disperses unevenly in all directions - we cannot possibly know where the end of the Badge Man's gun barrel is located behind all that bright area making up the flash. And from that distance, an inch high or low and/or left to right when it comes to where the end of the barrel is located behind that flash can make the difference in shooting Moorman or JFK.

Miles was right about how one cannot make assumptions, but he doesn't seem to follow his own advice when blessing us with his constant uninformative responses brought about by his lack of understanding of the areas he is trying to appear to be knowledgeable in. The only other alternative would be that Miles does know better and such constant responses like the ones in the previous post of his are purposely being made for other reasons.

So, the "you cannot assume that" defence begins to sound like the proposition:

We will never know what BM was doing, because we cannot make assumptions about what we cannot know.

Well, OK, then let's NOT assume that BM exists, shall we?

After all, BM is an assumption, a false one.

An assumption concealed within an assumption hiding from assumption assumers.

It will all be clear in the end & everything's going to work out OK. rolleyes.gif

This set of remarks directly above goes to what I just said.

So now on to making something more clear and how everything can work out if one really takes the time to actually learn how to investigate these types of problems ....

The first mistake that was made in the Badge Man example claiming there was a problem with his image crossing one line and not the other could have been avoided by simply seeing if the two images were even tilted the same way. Without my doing anything by cutting and pasting the colored version over the B&W image - it was apparent that the two images were not even on the same axis to one another. (see below)

The next thing to look for if one is familiar with this sort of investigation work is to be sure the two images were even scaled the same. I found that they were not and the cause probably goes back to what Gary Mack has been saying about 'aspect ratios'. So when I got the two images overlaid onto one another and on the same axis ... it was a simple matter of pulling one image's sides inward to fit the other. The only differences in the two Badge Men images now was Jack had water colored one, thus the borders of the things he painted have changed slightly.

Now I have answered your question and I feel that Miles owes Jack and the forum an apology for once again running his mouth about something he was/is not qualified to be critiquing IMO. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for Jack to listen to such nonsense from those people who want to be critics and yet they won't even do the simplest of research so to know that their criticisms are justified. If those same individuals do not think that Jack deserves as much from his critics, then maybe look at it as though John Kennedy's memory deserves better.

Bill Miller

Miller easily spotted the "discrepancy"...it is a matter of verticality difference of the two images.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

Now I have answered your question...

Bill Miller

I think that you overlooked that you have not answered a question which was not addressed to you.

By introducing a tilt consideration you raise the further obvious question:

Why was the figure tilted?

By tilting the figure a misrepresentation occurs.

A changing of the image results. A rotation of images does not solve the problem. Nor does "computer error."

If the axis is the badge, then the flash is moved as is the head from left to right.

And, of course that means that the newly created image looks better & more believable,

if one is looking for a shooter who is shooting in a reasonable manner to have been shooting at JFK.

Jack made an honest error, no more, no less.

However, the tilt consideration does not explain the need to move the entire rifle, not just the muzzle, to achieve a trajectory at Kennedy.

Nor does the tilt consideration resolve other issues.

Duncan,

Have you become someone's apprentice?

Here's a couple of blowups:

Edited September 3, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Miller easily spotted the "discrepancy"...it is a matter of verticality difference of the two images.

Jack

Bill's scaling and new alignment are wrong and not accurate, but I think your explanation is good enough and should satisfy those who are suggesting you may have manipulated it. They obviously don't know you.

Duncan

Duncan,

See my last post, posted before your post above, #443.

Jack made an honest error, no more, no less.

So, I am NOT suggesting Jack manipulated anything.

Jack knows that.

Now, you do too.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Have you become someone's apprentice?

Miles.

I'm nobody's apprentice Miles...Just because Bill and I are communicating privately over the Arnold issue does not mean we are in cahoots with each other. What Bill and I say in private will remain so until we are ready to put forward both our views. I keep my word on any private agreements I make, and when Bill is ready to produce further evidence, i'll be ready too. Until then.

Watch this space.

Duncan

Righto, Duncan,

BTW, you do see that the tilt ruse does not solve the alignment changes problem?

I take it you are working that out?

Good.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I wasn't doing a detailed analysis, nor was I criticising Jack. I was merely asking Jack a question about his interpretation. Of course I realised the images were of a different size, that should be obvious to anyone. As for the axis, I'd need to see the 2 images which Miles used to reach his conclusion. Miles. Can you please post the uncropped versions of both images used for your comparison, same size if possible.

Thanks

Duncan

Duncan,

The axis can be checked with the side by side illustration Miles posted .... after all, that's where I got my two halves to lay over one another for my illustration.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

BTW, you do see that the tilt ruse does not solve the alignment changes problem?

I take it you are working that out?

Good

I've already worked it out. Bill's scaling and realignment are wrong, Bill may tell you he's educating me, but don't swallow that just because he says so and because I don't comment on his remarks,...lol...Our private communications are civil and that's as far as it goes on the Arnold issue. Everything else is open house. Jack says the images you used are from another source, so that seems to kill the issue for me unless you can see the same problem in Jack's b/w and colourised Badgeman. I've looked, and all seems ok to me.

Duncan

Duncan,

Be careful about allowing Miles to get you to write checks that you can't cash. In my response I laid out what I had did and then I showed the end result. The task went like this ...

1) Read post about the spacing problem and didn't see the answer with the naked eye. The matter needed further study.

2) I copied Miles image of the two Badge Men / one half B&W and one half color

3) Without changing a thing, I took the colored Badge Man and slid it over onto the B&W version and to NOT MY SURPRISE - the two halves of Miles photo were not even being displayed on the same vertical axis. And by axis - I not talking about the vertical lines on the illustration, but rather the vertical axis of the Badge Man, himself.

4) I then took the two halves once they were rotated so to be on the same axis and I placed them directly over the top of one another with one being about half the transparency of the other. So there is no later playing around over what "transparency" means ...

transparency (1) The quality of being able to see through a material.

Then by getting as many reference points as possible to line up - the overlay was complete.

Now having said this and detailed it with images in my initial response ... and other than you merely saying that I am incorrect - can you not state what was wrong with the examples I created using the image Miles posted???

Bill

Edited September 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Jack says the images are from different sources, so in my opinion you are wrong, and a common axis can not be determined due to probale manipulation

I say lets kill the issue, it's a waste of time.

Duncan

Well Duncan, you knew that one was the B&W image before Jack painted over it with water colors, thus they were different. Jack free handed the best he could over the outline shape of the features on Badge Man that he could spot and did a good job. So it being from different sources has nothing to do with your responses to my test on the matter.

Bill

[Jack White]

Good observation Miles. Jack..Can you explain the gap to the right in the colour version. The head also appears to be tilted to the left in the b/w version and to the right in the colour version..just more interpretation?

Duncan

Duncan,

I may have said this in a private email, but I am going to say it here and I mean it in as nice of a way as I can say it. I am also going to address the irresponsible and careless remarks that Miles made in yet another one of his less than brilliant responses.

To start with ... I believe that you are sincere in the things you come up with, but you simply have not worked with images enough to know how to properly investigate the things you need to know so to reach a logical and accurate solution. I think sometimes you may get caught up in the cheers and chants from those who seemingly have a different motive for being here than you do. And while I do not totally understand these 'aspect ratios' like someone like Gary Mack does ... they are still part of the investigation process and without them being conducted and considered, then others who are far less qualified to be doing this stuff will forever be lost due to their own ignorance.

Now we will proceed ..........

Of course, in order to save BM in Moorman, it is necessary to find ways to explain away (read evade from) the obvious problems.

By introducing variables in timing of trigger pull, or by saying that for all we know BM was shooting a quail hen which had alighted atop Moorman's head,

by these tricks BM can be made to dance like an organ grinder's monkey for the express purpose of explaining why BM was not shooting at JFK.

The above comment is one that borders on what I said in my opening paragraph. Miles sees things that he does not understand as other peoples problems. If Miles would take some time off from supplying the forum with such meaningless dribble and will bother to educate himself on some of the things needed to be able to work with and understand the processes involved in how these various images came about, then maybe he could actually contribute something to a thread.

For instance, the 'timing of the Badge Man trigger pull' has been addressed, although obviously not understood by some. It seems that a lot of effort went into the JFK assassination early on whereas the official version was going to read that only three shots were fired during the shooting. What someone like Badge Man could not have counted on was Gordon Arnold standing where he did and the momentary pause in reacting to the shooter who caused the smoke to come out from under the trees on the west stretch of fence. Kellerman referred to the last shot(s) as sounding like a "sonic boom" where as the two blast came over the top of one another. So common sense should tell someone that when who ever it was that fired the kill shot - Badge Man had to also fire at the same time. Possibly in doing so, Badge Man didn't have the best shot to take, but still made the best out of what he had to work with. Mrs. Edna Hartman said that she and a police officer saw a furrow in the grass on the south pasture that the officer told her it was where a bullet had burrowed into the ground. Edna said that furrow led back to the location of the large tree on the knoll. This would be of course, the Badge Man location.

Now about the muzzle flash. I would like to hear Miles tell us all he knows about muzzle flashes which should take no more than about three seconds. Muzzle flashes do not come out of the end of the barrel in nice even circles (see Ruby's muzzle flash when he shot Oswald). Moorman's photo is a two dimensional image and in such an image - the flash will look flat/or square with the camera, but that doesn't mean that we are seeing it head on. In other words, the flash can be angled downward, but on film we cannot see it that way. Gordon Arnold was said to be filming JFK, not Moorman, but one could claim he appears to be filming Moorman and Hill. The same can be said about Zapruder and Sitzman. because a muzzle flash disperses unevenly in all directions - we cannot possibly know where the end of the Badge Man's gun barrel is located behind all that bright area making up the flash. And from that distance, an inch high or low and/or left to right when it comes to where the end of the barrel is located behind that flash can make the difference in shooting Moorman or JFK.

Miles was right about how one cannot make assumptions, but he doesn't seem to follow his own advice when blessing us with his constant uninformative responses brought about by his lack of understanding of the areas he is trying to appear to be knowledgeable in. The only other alternative would be that Miles does know better and such constant responses like the ones in the previous post of his are purposely being made for other reasons.

So, the "you cannot assume that" defence begins to sound like the proposition:

We will never know what BM was doing, because we cannot make assumptions about what we cannot know.

Well, OK, then let's NOT assume that BM exists, shall we?

After all, BM is an assumption, a false one.

An assumption concealed within an assumption hiding from assumption assumers.

It will all be clear in the end & everything's going to work out OK. rolleyes.gif

This set of remarks directly above goes to what I just said.

So now on to making something more clear and how everything can work out if one really takes the time to actually learn how to investigate these types of problems ....

The first mistake that was made in the Badge Man example claiming there was a problem with his image crossing one line and not the other could have been avoided by simply seeing if the two images were even tilted the same way. Without my doing anything by cutting and pasting the colored version over the B&W image - it was apparent that the two images were not even on the same axis to one another. (see below)

The next thing to look for if one is familiar with this sort of investigation work is to be sure the two images were even scaled the same. I found that they were not and the cause probably goes back to what Gary Mack has been saying about 'aspect ratios'. So when I got the two images overlaid onto one another and on the same axis ... it was a simple matter of pulling one image's sides inward to fit the other. The only differences in the two Badge Men images now was Jack had water colored one, thus the borders of the things he painted have changed slightly.

Now I have answered your question and I feel that Miles owes Jack and the forum an apology for once again running his mouth about something he was/is not qualified to be critiquing IMO. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for Jack to listen to such nonsense from those people who want to be critics and yet they won't even do the simplest of research so to know that their criticisms are justified. If those same individuals do not think that Jack deserves as much from his critics, then maybe look at it as though John Kennedy's memory deserves better.

Bill Miller

I am forced to agree with everything Miller says, except I DID NOT USE WATERCOLORS. I used

standard TRANSPARENT photo-oil tints used by professionals. There is a considerable difference.

Jack