The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Jack White]

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

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

Duncan...I am pleased that you finally understand that the bw image was from a Groden

35mm slide copy and that the colored version was an 8x10 copy by Bryd Williams from

a print. I think the match is REMARKABLE considering the two images are from different

sources. That they did not achieve identical verticality is of no importance.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

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

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

Duncan,

Why are people arguing with you?

The discrepancy is accidental but important.

Why?

Because the B/W makes it very clear that BM is NOT shooting at JFK. That's wormwood, as Hamlet says.

The discrepancy is not resolved by rotation. Either the B/W is correct, or the colourisation is:

in regard to:

1.) The placement of the badge in relationship to the ear.

2.) The tilt of the vertical axis.

I say the B/W is correct & that Jack's sumptuous colourisation is off.

Just imagine the two crops standing apart from each other & then rotating. What changes?

The badge in the B/W stays where it is & the badge in the colour stays where it is. The ears stay where they are.

That simple. The tilt trick is a transparent bamboozlement.

The B/W is from Jack's:

The colourisation is from Unger's:

Edited September 3, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Duncan...I am pleased that you finally understand that the bw image was from a Groden

35mm slide copy and that the colored version was an 8x10 copy by Bryd Williams from

a print. I think the match is REMARKABLE considering the two images are from different

sources. That they did not achieve identical verticality is of no importance.

Jack

I didn't realise that at first Jack. I just wanted an explanation for the gap ,which you provided to my satisfaction.

Thanks.

Duncan

Duncan,

Have you changed your mind?

Do you say that the B/W conveys one impression?

And, that the colourisation another?

Miles

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Have you changed your mind?

Do you say that the B/W conveys one impression?

And, that the colourisation another?

Miles

I'm saying that when comparing Jack's b/w with Jack's colourisation, I see absolutely nothing wrong. To compare Jack's image with a different manipulated source image is not a comparison.

Duncan

Duncan,

I think you aren't being clear enough for Miles. The two images can be compared because I compared them and saw the things I put in my post about them. In fact, once the two images were scaled to match and placed on the same axis - the comparison showed them not to have any problems with spacing as implied in Miles initial post.

Now this is this kicker and you can tell us if I have it right. What you have said is that for someone to have used those two images from different sources, thus they were not even on the same axis or scaled accurately, they are worthless for the type of analysis Miles' was trying to push for. Right?

Bill

Edited September 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

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

Whats wrong is that it's a waste of time topic as both images are different.

Quote from Jack

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.

Duncan

Duncan,

No, the difference is NOT unimportant.

The ear/badge discrepancy between the two is very noticable. The tilt is also.

The prints may be the same, yes, of course.

But the colourisation by Jack is off from the print.

Result?

The colourisation is BM friendly.

The B/W is not BM friendly.

Do you agree or not agree?

Why?

[Bill Miller]

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

Whats wrong is that it's a waste of time topic as both images are different.

Quote from Jack

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.

Duncan

Maybe you missed it in the two detailed post I gave telling what needed to be done to make them match. Yes, the vertical axis was way off. It would be interesting to see if they are seen like that on the original images or did they get like that when Miles placed them together?

The other alleged problem/discrepancy was "SPACING" as I recall. I didn't just have to put both images on the same axis, but I had to stretch the other image in various ways to get the borders to line up, thus they were not scaled correctly either.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Result?

The colourisation is BM friendly.

The B/W is not BM friendly.

Do you agree or not agree?

No

Why?

I believe Jack's interpretation is an honest one, and I believe the b/w Badgeman looks BM friendly as you put it, that's not to say I think Badgeman is real.

Duncan

Duncan,

Oh, yes, that's something that you & I are in complete agreement about.

Jack's interpretation is honest as the day is looooooooooooong.

But, it is off. Agreed.

Where we disagree, in good fellowship, is in the impressions given.

If BM is shooting at spectators or birds, fine.

That explains why there is a panic on to have BM look like he at least (!) is trying to shoot JFK.

As to BM being real, do we need an exchange of PMs for me to read your deep mind?

[Miles Scull]

Maybe you missed it in the two detailed post I gave telling what needed to be done to make them match. Yes, the vertical axis was way off. It would be interesting to see if they are seen like that on the original images or did they get like that when Miles placed them together?

The other alleged problem/discrepancy was "SPACING" as I recall. I didn't just have to put both images on the same axis, but I had to stretch the other image in various ways to get the borders to line up, thus they were not scaled correctly either.

Bill

I agree. Miles.. Can you post the 2 images without lines please?

Duncan

Quick interim query:

Is your resizing software working now?

[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:

Duncan,

Right you are.

You may want to jimmy around a bit for a true match.

Jack painted the badge more to the left, which makes it easier to reduce the titanic size of the left shoulder.

And, if you cock the head back a little, then matters are much happier than in the B/W.

Mind you, this was all innocent inadvertence & accidence on J's part.

I used these crops above & below; both are via Jack.

I only saved, resized, added colour & light & contrast adjustments.

No rotation, etc.!

[Thomas Graves]

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

_________________

Dear Mr. Scull,

One can only hope that you didn't teach English grammar on the "rez." (Your vocabulary, however, is always impressive. For example, "...innocent inadvertence & accidence.")

At least you proofread your postings for spelling errors. Or maybe you were born an excellent speller? (I wasn't.)

Nice images. Keep up the good work....

--Thomas

_________________

Edited September 3, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Bill Miller]

Now this is this kicker and you can tell us if I have it right. What you have said is that for someone to have used those two images from different sources, thus they were not even on the same axis or scaled accurately, they are worthless for the type of analysis Miles' was trying to push for. Right?

Bill

Nothing is worthless if there's a true result at the end of a sensible debate. Right or wrong, Miles was correct to point it out if he thought something wasn't right. Jacks answer satisfied my question, as for Miles, you'll need to ask him.

Duncan

Duncan, don't try and con me. Miles didn't just raise a question ... he went even further as if he had looked into the matter and the bottom line is that he had not and was just blowing off or he is incapable of knowing how to actually check this stuff out on his own. Seeing how the earlier option was evident - I have to lean that way.

"The badge in the B/W stays where it is & the badge in the colour stays where it is. The ears stay where they are.

That simple. The tilt trick is a transparent bamboozlement. "

Innocent on Miles part? .... Maybe?? .... after all, the first Indians who saw a match strike so to have fire probably said the same thing.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Ok..A close, not exact re-alignment, no manipulation was done like stretching etc etc. There is little gap between the line which was prevously drawn from the badge to the ear area. Finer tuning if I had more time would show this even better.

Ducan

The gap will get smaller the closer you scale both images the same.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Just a sec.

New image on the way.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

The old rotation alteration:

Edited September 3, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

There you are.

Badge is moved to the left, just as I said.