If The Hat Don't Fit

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Comparing Shorty with Duncman there appears to be faults with each: Shorty is shooting into the fence & Duncman has a washout issue.

Of the two faults which, in your judgement, is causative of a failure of the reality test?

Shooting wood seems serious.

Washout? What's the harm there?[/color][/b]

What is serious is posting garbage that has no support to back it up. Hat Man is in silhouette, as well as the fence, and Moorman's photo came 4/18s of a second after the fatal shot. So tell this forum how you distinguish what is and isn't seen within the boundaries of that silhouette because you didn't touch on it in your usual say-nothing response?

[Bill Miller]

Miles....You just got one thing wrong Miles. There is no fault with the washout. Moorman has washout all over the picture, some versions more than others, that's a fact that no one can deny. The existance of Hatman is not a fact.

Duncan

Duncan, we have been over this and discussed what the original photo and best prints made from it showed according to those who have seen them ... none of which you have personally viewed, so how can you disagree with people who have studied them when you have not? Isn't that about as stupid as trying to argue what a geographical location is like with people who live there when you have never been there yourself ... I think so.

[Bill Miller]

I believe others have used the term washout in certain areas of Moorman, including Gary Mack. You say you can see your alleged hatman in Willis without any washout. Maybe he was sharing a beer over the fence with your alleged floating Arnold Minime

Duncan

Now you are wasting bandwidth by posting such nonsense.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I believe others have used the term washout in certain areas of Moorman, including Gary Mack. You say you can see your alleged hatman in Willis without any washout. Maybe he was sharing a beer over the fence with your alleged floating Arnold Minime

Duncan

Now you are wasting bandwidth by posting such nonsense.

Bill Miller

Duncan,

Where is the washout?

Doesn't Duncman connect to the fence top?

What is all the shouting about no torso?

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Where is the washout?

Doesn't Duncman connect to the fence top?

What is all the shouting about no torso?[/url]

Miles ... you should not take so many shortcuts and go back and actually read all the information that has been posted. But even if you didn't bother being thorough .... you can look at any of Duncan's images that he used and see the space between the top of the fence and where his floating torso starts.

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, we have been over this and discussed what the original photo and best prints made from it showed according to those who have seen them

Those who have seen them, and with to respect to their individual interpretation abilites, are not 100% reliable, as is verified by Groden's illustration in TKOAP where he asserts that Hudson was a shooter with a rifle. The fact that you have rightly corrected him on his "expert" observation should tell you that he is not reliable as an expert source or interpretor of what is contained within an image, regardless of it's quality.

When I refer to Groden as an expert - I am talking about his knowledge and experience in working with film - not his ability to interpret images from a picture. How could you not know this is beyond me.

none of which you have personally viewed, so how can you disagree with people who have studied them when you have not?

You have not viewed the originals either as far as i know, so how can you agree with people who have studied them?

Duncan

Again, you show no logic in the things you say. Thats like saying how can anyone agree with Zavada if they too didn't inspect the original Zapruder film for themselves. With that game going on ... you can drop acid and come up with all sorts of stupid claims.

[Miles Scull]

Again, you show no logic in the things you say.

Hat Man is in silhouette, as well as the fence, and Moorman's photo came 4/18s of a second after the fatal shot. So tell this forum how you distinguish what is and isn't seen within the boundaries of that silhouette because you didn't touch on it in your usual say-nothing response?

Are you actually suggesting that the light of a fire arms discharge is NOT seen in the so-called Shorty silhouette because the actual discharge occurred at a different time, 4/18s of a second after the fatal shot?

And that, therefore, Shorty could have been the shooter triggering a fixed pot shot from a fixed, motionless rifle?

BUT!

At those extremely brief time intervals smoke & residual flash artifacts would have disturbed the image, which, from the Shorty image they did not.

No, nice try, but we are still facing the galloping absurdity of your idea that a sniper would have selected the worst possible technique of fixing his rifle to shoot at a passing duck.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Bill Miller]

When I refer to Groden as an expert - I am talking about his knowledge and experience in working with film

And you agree with his conclusions gained from his knowledge and experience, which Craig has rightly classed as misinformation?

Duncan

You are reminding me if Miles with each post ... you state something as fact when it is not. This matter has come up between Craig and I in the past and I then requested that he demonstrate how contrasting an image adds to an image rather than to take away from it. To date Craig has not demonstrated one example of this ... do you care to try?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

You can look at any of Duncan's images that he used and see the space between the top of the fence and where his floating torso starts.

The reason there appears to be a space is due to a possible combination of a partial washout and smoke discharge. The partial washout can be seen all the way along the fence. Unfortunately due to the brightness of the Dallas skyline being similar in shade tone to the washout shade and/or white smoke tones, it's difficult to tell exactly what is washout, what is smoke, and what is sky in some areas of Moorman.

Duncan

'Selective washout' ... this is a new one. So unfortunately the Dallas sky is the same tone as the washout, thus they cannot be separated. With that in mind - maybe there is no washout and its all Dallas sky. Maybe that is more apparent on the original Moorman photo and the best prints. It not being a shooter at all would explain why someone who'd be standing on the hood of a car wasn't seen by Bowers at any time prior - during - or after the assassination.

[Bill Miller]

Are you actually suggesting that the light of a fire arms discharge is NOT seen in the so-called Shorty silhouette because the actual discharge occurred at a different time, 4/18s of a second after the fatal shot?

Hey ... you catch on pretty quick - SOMETIMES! You must have went and watch the clip of Ruby shooting Oswald to know that the flash of Jack's gun was seen in only one film frame, so 'yes' that was actually what I was suggesting.

And that, therefore, Shorty could have been the shooter triggering a fixed pot shot from a fixed, motionless rifle?

You should practice with things easier to figure out, such as those 3 to 5 piece puzzles for infants, before trying to tackle this subject. Maybe this is where you should have paid more attention as to how far Jackie raised from her seat in a matter of 4/18ths of a second instead of whining that it was not relevant.

At those extremely brief time intervals smoke & residual flash artifacts would have disturbed the image, which, from the Shorty image they did not.

The Moorman photo isn't clear enough to see faces on the men on the steps ... I have mentioned on several occasions the flash being seen in Ruby's shooting of Oswald and how it comes and goes in just one film frame. You have made another general say-nothing response and offered nothing in support of it. Here is your chance to correct the error ... what can you post that supports what you said?

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

He didn't mention seeing an elevated Badgeman and an even more elevated Railroad man either, He also didn't mention seeing a Dwarf with a Fedora, and with a rifle poised between the fence slats waiting for his target to arrive.

Duncan

QUOTE Miles Scull (Yesterday, 06:26 AM) :

"At those extremely brief time intervals smoke & residual flash artifacts would have disturbed the image, which, from the Shorty image, they did not."

Miller said (Yesterday, 09:46 PM) :

The Moorman photo isn't clear enough to see faces on the men on the steps ... I have mentioned on several occasions the flash being seen in Ruby's shooting of Oswald and how it comes and goes in just one film frame. You have made another general say-nothing response and offered nothing in support of it. Here is your chance to correct the error ... what can you post that supports what you said?

Bill Miller

Are you really saying that it is your position that smoke & residual flash artifacts or SPARKS are completely dissipated in 2/9ths of a second after discharge initiation?

The Moorman photo isn't clear enough to see faces on the men on the steps ...

So?

I have mentioned on several occasions the flash being seen in Ruby's shooting of Oswald and how it comes and goes in just one film frame.

So?

You have made another general say-nothing response and offered nothing in support of it.

I'm afraid that you have made another silly misstatement.

Sorry, once again the ship has sailed & you are still on the pier looking perplexed. Anyone who has a schoolboy's acquaintance with fire arms knows that they smoke & emit sparks on firing.

Here's the ABCs of the 5 parts of a muzzle flash. Memorise this:

Here is your chance to correct the error ... what can you post that supports what you said?

Bill Miller

What can I say?

Only repeat what I said yesterday:

"No, nice try, but we are still facing the galloping absurdity of your idea that a sniper would have selected the worst possible technique of fixing his rifle to shoot at a passing duck."

Edited for spelling.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

You are sidetracking and trying to deflect from the issue brought up rightly so by Craig. You either agree with Groden's conclusion about contrast or you don't, there's no in between.

Do you or don't you agree with Groden's conclusion? Yes or No?

Duncan

Duncan, you know so little about what is being said that you are even unaware that I have answered that question more than once.

Bill

[Craig Lamson]

.

I read to Groden what Craig had said and Robert pointed out a few things that only he would know. Robert totally disagrees with Craig on how the Exposure of the negative when making a copy print can effect the contrast of the print. I remember myself in school doing exposures in photography class and how I saw this effect first hand.

Great, why not get this expert Groden on the forum so he can explain how EXPOSURE effects the contrast of the final print. That should be the hoot of the century....

And I'm dying to hear those things...that only he would know... Gorden must have some photographic secrets known only to him LOL!

Or better yet, why don't YOU explain it, after all you have that high school experience to draw on...and you saw this effect first hand.

Fire away Bill!

[Alan Healy]

Not sure if it's really worth showing but anyway, from TKOAP, P.167

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...Pp167M5crop.png

It shows exactly the same as what the SSID print does, only it's around one sixth of the size so, less detail.

It may look richer in the book but closer inspection shows half of RAM's head is gone, exactly like what's seen in SSID(it is still better than what's seen on page 173 though).

The drumscan shows both sides of his head & I guess an untouched print would as well & I bet that same print would show more detail in the "Hatman" area too.

Here's hoping we all get to see one some day.

[Bill Miller]

I read to Groden what Craig had said and Robert pointed out a few things that only he would know. Robert totally disagrees with Craig on how the Exposure of the negative when making a copy print can effect the contrast of the print. I remember myself in school doing exposures in photography class and how I saw this effect first hand.

Great, why not get this expert Groden on the forum so he can explain how EXPOSURE effects the contrast of the final print. That should be the hoot of the century....

And I'm dying to hear those things...that only he would know... Gorden must have some photographic secrets known only to him LOL!

Or better yet, why don't YOU explain it, after all you have that high school experience to draw on...and you saw this effect first hand.

Fire away Bill!

Craig ... here is Robert's email address (RobertG1@airmail.net). As a photographer and someone interested in the JFK assassination ... email Robert and ask the technical questions that you are seeking answers to. Find out exactly what he did so you both can start on the same page. By doing this you can cut out the middle-man and then post the information that Robert shared with you and your rebuttal to what ever you may disagree with ... if you still do at that time. Asking him to come onto a forum is the same modus-operandi someone like Miles or David Healy uses so to avoid having to keep up the appearance that they have this ace in the whole that they don't wish to play. So let us see how badly you are "DYING" to hear what Robert has to say.

Bill