If The Hat Don't Fit

[Miles Scull]

Keeping in mind that Shorty is too short, is Duncan's "hat" in the exact same locus in all photos, disregarding other issues?[/color][/b]

Miles,

please do me this favour.

Compare what is seen in Thompson's drumscan to what was published in SSID.

Then tell me why you are still using the hat shape in SSID to determine what it is you are seeing.

My image says that the SSDI image does NOT look like a hat.

I really don't understand it because I can plainly see the DS is far superior & it does not show a hat with this "through" in it.

The DS is superior.

Bill was wrong to use it over & above the DS

Alan, did you just figure this out?

& in time he will recognise that.

Are you pulling my leg here?

Thompson may have had a better copy at some point(better than even the DS)but he did not publish it in SSID & that is the one & only source of this misleading "hatman" shape.

I will try to put better scans up by the end of the week for everyone to see & compare but as you have the book Miles, please give me your opinion.

In the meantime Miles, I stand by my interpretation from the DS, it is one possibilty & more likely than "shorty".

What, again, is your interpretation?

Mine is:

the image does not resemble a hat, but if you insist that it does & that someone is wearing this alleged "hat," then the alleged wearer is shooting the fence.

Okay as far as your question goes......

The area Duncan is pointing to in Bond4 is very close IMO to the area in M5 we are talking about.

Now if Duncan had the LIFE issue with B4 in it he would know that he is most likely looking at foilage but he seems to think that Chris' scan is equal to the raw print in LIFE.

He is wrong & he should ask Chris for his opinion since he doesn't trust mine.

I do not think Duncan is saying that the image is a hat image, but he is saying that the foliage image, that "some" say resembles a hat, is present in both B4 & M5.

Is that correct?

Edited November 21, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Bill was wrong to use it over & above the DS & in time he will recognise that.

Thompson may have had a better copy at some point(better than even the DS)but he did not publish it in SSID & that is the one & only source of this misleading "hatman" shape.

The DS is the worse of the Moorman images. Drum Scan is the process at which it was scanned ... the image that was DS'd was not the best Moorman print in existence. The print used in SSID and for Jack's Badge Man work were the best prints. Why someone would prefer a lesser quality print for research purposes makes no sense to me.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I'm not saying that the image of the "hat" is foliage. I don't know what it is. I only know that it appears in Moorman 5 and Bond 4. It could be a hat, but I just don't know. None of the images are clear enough to ever know for certain what the object is.[/b]

Duncan

Duncan, the correct phrase would be that it appears to you when looking at the available Bond 4 image that you have that the object is still there. This is important because it isn't there in the 1st generation slides that I bought.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

Bill was wrong to use it over & above the DS & in time he will recognise that.

Thompson may have had a better copy at some point(better than even the DS)but he did not publish it in SSID & that is the one & only source of this misleading "hatman" shape.

The DS is the worse of the Moorman images. Drum Scan is the process at which it was scanned ... the image that was DS'd was not the best Moorman print in existence. The print used in SSID and for Jack's Badge Man work were the best prints. Why someone would prefer a lesser quality print for research purposes makes no sense to me.

Bill Miller

My first capture from SSID is not perfect but it's better than what we see with the naked eye on p. 128 of that book.

The only thing missing from my capture is the "gunk" surounding every object on the printed page.

Anyone can see the DS has more detail & it's superior to the SSID print, just simple compare the details in my gif of Hudson & RAM.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...Dcomposmall.gif

What am I missing here?

Bill,

what's the source of your statement that what is seen in SSID is what Jack & Gary studied?

I prey you are mistaken because the SSID print is shabby to say the least.

Half of their heads are missing for starters in SSID &,

can you tell where RAM's shirt ends on his right hand side in SSID? No!

Can you see as much detail on the fence behind them in SSID? No!

I could go on but it's the differences are already too obvious in my comparison above.

I know Gary is busy this time of year but maybe he can sort this one out for us when he gets the time?

[Miles Scull]

Bill was wrong to use it over & above the DS & in time he will recognise that.

Thompson may have had a better copy at some point(better than even the DS)but he did not publish it in SSID & that is the one & only source of this misleading "hatman" shape.

The DS is the worse of the Moorman images. Drum Scan is the process at which it was scanned ... the image that was DS'd was not the best Moorman print in existence. The print used in SSID and for Jack's Badge Man work were the best prints. Why someone would prefer a lesser quality print for research purposes makes no sense to me.

Bill Miller

My first capture from SSID is not perfect but it's better than what we see with the naked eye on p. 128 of that book.

The only thing missing from my capture is the "gunk" surounding every object on the printed page.

Anyone can see the DS has more detail & it's superior to the SSID print, just simple compare the details in my gif of Hudson & RAM.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...Dcomposmall.gif

What am I missing here?

Bill,

what's the source of your statement that what is seen in SSID is what Jack & Gary studied?

I prey you are mistaken because the SSID print is shabby to say the least.

Half of their heads are missing for starters in SSID &,

can you tell where RAM's shirt ends on his right hand side in SSID? No!

Can you see as much detail on the fence behind them in SSID? No!

I could go on but it's the differences are already too obvious in my comparison above.

I know Gary is busy this time of year but maybe he can sort this one out for us when he gets the time?

To know what a zero is, it is always best to have the best print of a zero. Otherwise, it might not be a zero.

This is an inferior print: 0

This is a superior print: 0

It's easy to see which is the zero & which might not be that.

[Alan Healy]

The DS is superior.

Please elaborate.

[Alan Healy]

I do not think Duncan is saying that the image is a hat image, but he is saying that the foliage image, that "some" say resembles a hat, is present in both B4 & M5.

Is that correct?

No it's not Miles.

More than once he referred to a hat in Bond4 &, he actually started the thread by claiming that Hatman could not be a shooter because he(the hat) is still there in B4 & B8.

Since you & I know that the DS shows far more detail, we already know that this hat chase is a waste of time.

Is that correct Miles?

My interpretation again(since you asked).

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...rentstrokes.png

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

what's the source of your statement that what is seen in SSID is what Jack & Gary studied?

I prey you are mistaken because the SSID print is shabby to say the least.

I seem to recall Groden saying the best Moorman prints he saw were Josiah's and World Wide Press.

[Alan Healy]

I asked Gary what he thought of the DS/SSID differences.

Hi Gary,

when you have a free minute or two can you please have a look at the Moorman5 in SSID & compare it to the drumscan &/or what you & Jack studied for your BM work?

I'd like to post your comments if you don't mind.

What I see on P128 of SSID is terrible. Half of Hudson's head is missing & that is just for starters.

You have told me in the past that what you had & worked with, was better than the drumscan, so please tell me why the M5 in SSID looks so bad.

It cannot be from the same Thompson source can it?

If it is, then how can we explain the detail loss in SSID?

Link to a small comparison;

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...Dcomposmall.gif

Thanks Gary

Alan,

I only have the paperback of SSID at the house (the hardcover is in the office), but I'm very familiar with this problem. Here is what you need to know:

Thompson acquired several prints of Moorman 5 for his 1967 book; the best copies came from United Press International. The print in his book was chosen to best show the shape behind the fence, and the photo was presumably shaded for best reproduction of that area. Since the shape was in the shade, brightening the picture made the already light areas even lighter, and that's what caused some of the detail to be washed out.

He chose a UPI print rather than his own professional copy of the original Polaroid, for the original had already faded significantly. As confirmed to me by a Polaroid scientist who was responsible for solving the fading problem, Polaroids lose a lot of detail during the fading process. Thompson's copy negative, which was later used for the drumscan a few years ago, is an extemely poor example of the original image. It contains far less detail than the mid-60s prints once distrubuted by UPI.

Jack White and I had access to all the Moorman photos both Thompson and Harold Weisberg had acquired 40 years ago. Some were quite a bit sharper than others. We used the print that was sharpest in the Badge Man area than all the others, including the drumscan.

As of 1988, UPI no longer had the original copy negative; in fact, their only negatives were copies of copies. Over the years, someone must have "borrowed" or misplaced it. If the 11-22-63 Dallas copy negative(s) ever turns up, people will be amazed at the image clarity of the original picture.

Gary Mack

"Thompson acquired several prints of Moorman 5 for his 1967 book; the best copies came from United Press International. The print in his book was chosen to best show the shape behind the fence, and the photo was presumably shaded for best reproduction of that area. Since the shape was in the shade, brightening the picture made the already light areas even lighter, and that's what caused some of the detail to be washed out."

My concern is that some detail has been lost around the "Hatman" shape too in the SSID version.

I asked Gary about this & a few other things that I hope he will consider worthy of a response when he has the time.

[Jack White]

I asked Gary what he thought of the DS/SSID differences.

Hi Gary,

when you have a free minute or two can you please have a look at the Moorman5 in SSID & compare it to the drumscan &/or what you & Jack studied for your BM work?

I'd like to post your comments if you don't mind.

What I see on P128 of SSID is terrible. Half of Hudson's head is missing & that is just for starters.

You have told me in the past that what you had & worked with, was better than the drumscan, so please tell me why the M5 in SSID looks so bad.

It cannot be from the same Thompson source can it?

If it is, then how can we explain the detail loss in SSID?

Link to a small comparison;

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...Dcomposmall.gif

Thanks Gary

Alan,

I only have the paperback of SSID at the house (the hardcover is in the office), but I'm very familiar with this problem. Here is what you need to know:

Thompson acquired several prints of Moorman 5 for his 1967 book; the best copies came from United Press International. The print in his book was chosen to best show the shape behind the fence, and the photo was presumably shaded for best reproduction of that area. Since the shape was in the shade, brightening the picture made the already light areas even lighter, and that's what caused some of the detail to be washed out.

He chose a UPI print rather than his own professional copy of the original Polaroid, for the original had already faded significantly. As confirmed to me by a Polaroid scientist who was responsible for solving the fading problem, Polaroids lose a lot of detail during the fading process. Thompson's copy negative, which was later used for the drumscan a few years ago, is an extemely poor example of the original image. It contains far less detail than the mid-60s prints once distrubuted by UPI.

Jack White and I had access to all the Moorman photos both Thompson and Harold Weisberg had acquired 40 years ago. Some were quite a bit sharper than others. We used the print that was sharpest in the Badge Man area than all the others, including the drumscan.

As of 1988, UPI no longer had the original copy negative; in fact, their only negatives were copies of copies. Over the years, someone must have "borrowed" or misplaced it. If the 11-22-63 Dallas copy negative(s) ever turns up, people will be amazed at the image clarity of the original picture.

Gary Mack

"Thompson acquired several prints of Moorman 5 for his 1967 book; the best copies came from United Press International. The print in his book was chosen to best show the shape behind the fence, and the photo was presumably shaded for best reproduction of that area. Since the shape was in the shade, brightening the picture made the already light areas even lighter, and that's what caused some of the detail to be washed out."

My concern is that some detail has been lost around the "Hatman" shape too in the SSID version.

I asked Gary about this & a few other things that I hope he will consider worthy of a response when he has the time.

I am glad to see Gary acknowledge that the THOMPSON NUMBER ONE PRINT that he

and I used in the badgeman work was SUPERIOR TO THE PRINT USED FOR THE "DRUMSCAN".

I have said this numerous times only to be rebuffed by scoffers.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

My concern is that some detail has been lost around the "Hatman" shape too in the SSID version.

I asked Gary about this & a few other things that I hope he will consider worthy of a response when he has the time.

I am glad to see Gary acknowledge that the THOMPSON NUMBER ONE PRINT that he

and I used in the badgeman work was SUPERIOR TO THE PRINT USED FOR THE "DRUMSCAN".

I have said this numerous times only to be rebuffed by scoffers.

Jack

Alan, Duncan,

Question:

Was, then, the alleged "Hatman" image as seen below taken from the inferior SSID print?

[Miles Scull]

Alan, Duncan,

Question:

Was, then, the alleged "Hatman" image as seen below taken from the inferior SSID print?

Having read Gary's message to Alan, I can't think of any logical reason for Josiah to use an inferior image, so I presume that he used a superior image. It's only logical. The image which Bill used is from SSID, but that image would naturally be inferior to the copy from which it was reproduced, which COULD make the drum scan original superior over the Moorman reproduction in SSID. That too is only logical.............BUT

There is however a key statment by Gary to Alan which throws everything in to the air. By using the word presume, he leaves this issue of quality open for debate.

In other words, If it has been shaded it has been altered, and is therefore a fake and no use for research purposes.

"and the photo was presumably shaded for best reproduction of that area"

Duncan

Duncan,

This is bad news (or perhaps good news).

This means that Miller's image is not worth considering, especially in regard to the abstract possibility that there is present in the image a figure, of a hat or of anything else.

Shorty (aka Hatman) is, thus, a canard.

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

This is bad news (or perhaps good news).

This means that Miller's image is not worth considering, especially in regard to the abstract possibility that there is present in the image a figure, of a hat or of anything else.

Shorty (aka Hatman) is, thus, a canard.

What it means is that the opinions of lazy tabloid researchers are not worth considering when it comes to their views based on assumptions rather than facts. I believe it was either in talking with Groden, Josiah or Mack that the quality of a print found in a book has to do with the resolution it was scanned - not the quality of a print in its original condition or different prints were used in the same book. For instance, if one looks at a poor print where the hat shape is and its little more than a faded fuzzy blob Vs. a darker much sharper image and he or she has to ask which print is better, then they should find another hobby IMO. More detail cannot be created - detail can only be lost. Josiah had several copies of Moorman's photo, which has already been stated, and some of those copies were of different degrees of clarity. It was from the best print that Jack White did his Badge Man work for why would someone choose an inferior print to start with because as I said before - one cannot create objects seen in a photo that wasn't already there ... one can only degrade an image to a point of making them disappear. Josiah used the best print to show the Hat Man shape - if anyone doubts this, then why not email Josiah and ask him rather than polluting the forum with more tabloid type responses ... unless of course that is some peoples objective.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

This is bad news (or perhaps good news).

This means that Miller's image is not worth considering, especially in regard to the abstract possibility that there is present in the image a figure, of a hat or of anything else.

Shorty (aka Hatman) is, thus, a canard.

What it means is that the opinions of lazy tabloid researchers are not worth considering when it comes to their views based on assumptions rather than facts. I believe it was either in talking with Groden, Josiah or Mack that the quality of a print found in a book has to do with the resolution it was scanned - not the quality of a print in its original condition or different prints were used in the same book. For instance, if one looks at a poor print where the hat shape is and its little more than a faded fuzzy blob Vs. a darker much sharper image and he or she has to ask which print is better, then they should find another hobby IMO. More detail cannot be created - detail can only be lost. Josiah had several copies of Moorman's photo, which has already been stated, and some of those copies were of different degrees of clarity. It was from the best print that Jack White did his Badge Man work for why would someone choose an inferior print to start with because as I said before - one cannot create objects seen in a photo that wasn't already there ... one can only degrade an image to a point of making them disappear. Josiah used the best print to show the Hat Man shape - if anyone doubts this, then why not email Josiah and ask him rather than polluting the forum with more tabloid type responses ... unless of course that is some peoples objective.

Bill Miller

Before proceeding any further and to be fair to all concerned, let's confirm what Duncan has implied.

Did you scan the book? The page in the book SSID which reproduces the print?

Or is revealing this a threat to national security?

[Bill Miller]

Before proceeding any further and to be fair to all concerned, let's confirm what Duncan has implied.

Did you scan the book? The page in the book SSID which reproduces the print?

Or is revealing this a threat to national security?

Miles, in an effort to try and keep you from making a narrow-sighted error ... the photos are scanned so to be placed in the books. Those can range from high resolution to low resolution. Such reproductions can be of high quality prints to low quality prints. To know and understand the why as to what prints were used .... you may need to contact the author of the book from which they were presented. Josiah Thompson is a member of this forum and a minute away from trolling will make time to send a short to the point personal message ... that is if you really want to know the facts.

Bill Miller