If The Hat Don't Fit

[Bill Miller]

I wouldn't hold my breath Craig. Bill is currently firing blanks. He must be using the same blanks that hatman used

Duncan

Still showing your concern over wasted bandwidth - hey Dunc!

Noun 1. hypocrite - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

[Alan Healy]

The only way to "cut out the middleman" when conversing with Groden is,

don't mention Bill, don't mention the forums & don't use your real name.

Otherwise Bill will know what Groden said before you do.

[Bill Miller]

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

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.

This post reminded me of something that I forgot to post the other day. Some have wondered why Groden didn't use the best Moorman prints throughout his books. When I had asked Robert about this .... he said that the photos that were specific crops were used for an expressed purpose, but the various versions of the Moorman photo were put in the book at the publishers discretion.

[Bill Miller]

The only way to "cut out the middleman" when conversing with Groden is,

don't mention Bill, don't mention the forums & don't use your real name.

Otherwise Bill will know what Groden said before you do.

That seems like a somewhat childish approach and certainly deception will not get you are far as honesty when dealing with people who are serious about this subject. You may wish to consider your methods of approaching experts for that may be why you have not been as successful in having them respond to you as you may have liked. Not that what you said about me knowing what Robert says in an email to you before you will has an ounce of truth in it ... who cares what I know pertaining to what Groden said ... do as I would do ... paste Robert's response to your post for it won't matter who reads it first or last - its still Robert's opinion.

[Craig Lamson]

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

Bill, again I'm not asking what Groden DID I'm asking for a simple explanation of YOUR statements on this forum concerning a very specfic point about the process of photography. I know the answer Bill. Do you? You have stated as much in this thread. Do I need to quote you? Your continued "quotations" from Groden carry very little weight any more. If you can't understand the subject matter, don't post like you do...Grodens "quotes" included. Now either you can answer the question or you can't. Which is it?

Now if Groden is serious he can come on-line and address these issues first hand...out in the open. No need to beat around the bush, no need for you as some sort of "middle man"..just Groden in person in an open forum. If he's right exactly what is it he stands to lose?

Again here I am. If Groden thinks I'm wrong..here is where he can find me. I'm not playing silly e-mail games.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Bill, again I'm not asking what Groden DID I'm asking for a simple explanation of YOUR statements on this forum concerning a very specfic point about the process of photography. I know the answer Bill. Do you? You have stated as much in this thread. Do I need to quote you? Your continued "quotations" from Groden carry very little weight any more. If you can't understand the subject matter, don't post like you do...Grodens "quotes" included. Now either you can answer the question or you can't. Which is it?

Now if Groden is serious he can come on-line and address these issues first hand...out in the open. No need to beat around the bush, no need for you as some sort of "middle man"..just Groden in person in an open forum. If he's right exactly what is it he stands to lose?

Again here I am. If Groden thinks I'm wrong..here is where he can find me. I'm not playing silly e-mail games.

A similar situation arose when contact information was given to researchers as how to contact Mark Lane over another matter. Those people preferred to grandstand to the forum and wouldn't do what it took to support their alleged sincerity as to merely wanting to get to the truth. You have time to post - but no time to send Groden that email. Maybe you tell me how your behavior differs from lets say David Healy when you criticize him for doing what you are now doing. We can go back and forth with me taking your comments to Groden and his to you in hopes that I didn't misstate something or allow my own opinion to be mixed in with one of yours, but the two of you speaking directly to one another so to cut to the chase seems like the most sensible and rational way of getting to the crux of the matter. For you to not wish to show any more interest than you have in doing just that, rather than to merely prefer to keep screwing around, only makes me think that you are not as serious as you have let on to be. After all, it was you who said, "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!" The way I see it ... if what you have said in the quote above was sincere, then you'd want to know those secrets and that they would be worth a simple emailing from one photographer to another ... especially when one of them has actually handled the best prints and created the copy negative in question and the other has not!

Edited December 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Bill, again I'm not asking what Groden DID I'm asking for a simple explanation of YOUR statements on this forum concerning a very specfic point about the process of photography. I know the answer Bill. Do you? You have stated as much in this thread. Do I need to quote you? Your continued "quotations" from Groden carry very little weight any more. If you can't understand the subject matter, don't post like you do...Grodens "quotes" included. Now either you can answer the question or you can't. Which is it?

Now if Groden is serious he can come on-line and address these issues first hand...out in the open. No need to beat around the bush, no need for you as some sort of "middle man"..just Groden in person in an open forum. If he's right exactly what is it he stands to lose?

Again here I am. If Groden thinks I'm wrong..here is where he can find me. I'm not playing silly e-mail games.

A similar situation arose when contact information was given to researchers as how to contact Mark Lane over another matter. Those people preferred to grandstand to the forum and wouldn't do what it took to support their alleged sincerity as to merely wanting to get to the truth. You have time to post - but no time to send Groden that email. Maybe you tell me how your behavior differs from lets say David Healy when you criticize him for doing what you are now doing. We can go back and forth with me taking your comments to Groden and his to you in hopes that I didn't misstate something or allow my own opinion to be mixed in with one of yours, but the two of you speaking directly to one another so to cut to the chase seems like the most sensible and rational way of getting to the crux of the matter. For you to not wish to show any more interest than you have in doing just that, rather than to merely prefer to keep screwing around, only makes me think that you are not as serious as you have let on to be. After all, it was you who said, "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!" The way I see it ... if what you have said in the quote above was sincere, then you'd want to know those secrets and that they would be worth a simple emailing from one photographer to another ... especially when one of them has actually handled the best prints and created the copy negative in question and the other has not!

Wow, Bill how long are you going to evade a very simple question? Looks like forever. Did you tell us the truth about your knowing all about this simple question? I'm guessing not. Unable to find a google to support your claim?

Please, show me where I have faulted Healy for wanting Groden to answer questions directly in a public forum, where his exact words become public record, not some third party crap like you are want to post. I've quite a few differences with Healy but this is not one of them. I'm more than happy to admit my error, if I am wrong.

But for the record and the question now at hand is what YOU clain to understand about the question at hand. You have claimed to have experienced it first hand, so why the dodge?

Also the "way you see it" is completey wrong. Groden has no "special secrets" to share on the subject. If you have expressed his views correctly (see here we go again...third party imnformation when the horses mouth is available) he is just plain wrong. As are you by your PERSONAL claim that the copy negative exposure changes the contrast of the final print.

So please, tell us all how this happens, as your explanation is sure to go down in the history books of photographic prcesses.

And finally..once again...this has NOTHING to do with who made what copy negative of what print, or who did not. This is a SIMPLE question of a photographic process. Can you finally understand this?

[Miles Scull]

Bill, again I'm not asking what Groden DID I'm asking for a simple explanation of YOUR statements on this forum concerning a very specfic point about the process of photography. I know the answer Bill. Do you? You have stated as much in this thread. Do I need to quote you? Your continued "quotations" from Groden carry very little weight any more. If you can't understand the subject matter, don't post like you do...Grodens "quotes" included. Now either you can answer the question or you can't. Which is it?

Now if Groden is serious he can come on-line and address these issues first hand...out in the open. No need to beat around the bush, no need for you as some sort of "middle man"..just Groden in person in an open forum. If he's right exactly what is it he stands to lose?

Again here I am. If Groden thinks I'm wrong..here is where he can find me. I'm not playing silly e-mail games.

A similar situation arose when contact information was given to researchers as how to contact Mark Lane over another matter. Those people preferred to grandstand to the forum and wouldn't do what it took to support their alleged sincerity as to merely wanting to get to the truth.

Wow, Bill how long are you going to evade a very simple question? Looks like forever.

QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Dec 6 2007, 10:26 PM)

A similar situation arose when contact information was given to researchers as how to contact Mark Lane over another matter. Those people preferred to grandstand to the forum and wouldn't do what it took to support their alleged sincerity as to merely wanting to get to the truth.

This is a gross misstatement of fact.

What are the true facts?

It was proved that Bowers actually said in his recorded & taped interview with Lane that the two men he saw were seen by him in the vicinity of the steps & were not seen by him behind the picket fence.

When it became clear that the proof was irresistible, panic set in & efforts were made to circumvent the proof by setting up a species of the old empty bag ruse.

(The empty bag ruse is a trick whereby a lockable bag, which is empty, is alleged to contain precious jewels.

This bag is then hidden & a key to it's lock is given to a dupe with the hook: "Just find the bag & the treasure is yours! Oh, while you search just hand me your wallet, then, when you search robbers won't steal your money."

Off the dupe goes in one direction & off the trickster goes in the opposite direction, with the wallet.)

The alleged treasure in the empty bag was Lane's nonexistent statement that Bower's had told him off the record that he, Bowers, HAD seen the two men behind the fence. Of course, there was no record or tape of Bower's ever saying this to Lane.

The key to this empty bag was then proffered: "Call Lane, ask him."

But, then someone counselled: "Wait, why should we call Lane? Why would not he want this treasure of precious jewels? Why doesn't he call Lane?"

So, without running off on a wild snipe hunt, we decided that the bag was empty.

Then, since we declined the bait & did not fall, we were then accused of insincerity & being disingenuous.

Then, since we were insincere & disingenuous, it was claimed that the proof of Bowers saying that the two men were seen by him at the stairs was now suspect & questionable.

So goes the fine art of ad hominem attack.

Edtited for spelling.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

But, then someone counselled: "Wait, why should we call Lane? Why would not he want this treasure of precious jewels? Why doesn't he call Lane?"

You wouldn't have believed him if he had.

Correct.

That is why Craig, Duncan, Alan, myself & others demand to see citations from original, authentic sources.

The empty bag ruse is old "hat," so to speak, and doesn't work any more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a little illustration:

Miles: The moon is made of green cheese.

Kathy: I doubt it. For example, there are no cows on the moon.

Miles: But Groden told me that "a cow jumped over the moon."

Kathy: I don't believe that Groden said this.

Miles: OK, then why don't you call Groden?

Kathy: Why don't you?

Miles: I already have.

Now, Kathy, are you really going to ask Groden if a cow jumped over the moon?

You see, I'm gambling on your sense of reality to stop you from calling Groden. You, I gamble on the odds, would be too embarrassed.

Then I'll say: "See, you will not help me prove my point. So, you really do believe the moon is green cheese. Now, let's move on. Hahahahaha!"

Later on, I'll remind you constantly how you never called Groden!

Hahahahaha.....

[Bill Miller]

But, then someone counselled: "Wait, why should we call Lane? Why would not he want this treasure of precious jewels? Why doesn't he call Lane?"

You wouldn't have believed him if he had.

Kathy,

I am sure that you see that some of these people are not interested in the JFK case at all. Craig has been given the chance to email Groden and he'd prefer to write response after response as he grandstands for the likes of those he usually bad mouths rather than to send a few well chosen questions to Groden so we can see what two professionals have to say about what the other is talking about.

Then you have Miles telling us how he, Duncan, Alan, and etc., must have originals to view as if nothing else is acceptable to his high standard of research and them guys have written the book on using less than original photos and film captures when trying to sell their opinions. Even that transcript Miles posted was not the original, but alleged to be a copy made from it and to this date the entire transcript has not been shared with anyone so to confirm that it is authentic or not. I can tell you that the original transcript didn't show multiple punch holes in it. And these guys wonder why people like Lane, Thompson and Groden do not come on these forums to participate in such nonsense. Weisberg was the same way and thank God they held/hold that view or else we'd have nothing by the way of real research on the evidence for they would have wasted all their time listening to the nonsense and grandstanding that we are witnessing now from these people. As I recall, Miles wouldn't spend a dime to make a simple phone call once the contact information had been provided to him. Ten cents a minute could have confirmed some valuable information and the critics making the claims were simply not interested in validating their accusations. Only now they want to talk about how they insist / demand precise and authenticated documents and research materials - GIVE ME A BREAK!

I see Miles went on rambling some silly talk about the moon being made of green cheese. All I can say is that are we not lucky that a certain someone must not like green cheese. Groden's email address was provided to the readers of this thread so that anyone can contact him. We'll see how long it takes for these serious dedicated researchers to get the job done. So far from my understanding is that none of them bothered contacting Mark Lane ... I suspect the same lack of effort will be made to contact Robert so to authenticate what has been posted. I was the last person that I know of to interview Harold Weisberg as he laid in the hospital just prior to his death. I was somewhat surprised as to his opinions of the research and approaches that some of his peers had taken concerning to the assassination. Harold did not mix words or beat any bones ... I'm sure the forum rules wouldn't allow him to post what he thought concerning some of these responses being made by these dedicated researchers who demand authentication.

Bill Miller

Edited December 7, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

But, then someone counselled: "Wait, why should we call Lane? Why would not he want this treasure of precious jewels? Why doesn't he call Lane?"

You wouldn't have believed him if he had.

Kathy,

I am sure that you see that some of these people are not interested in the JFK case at all. Craig has been given the chance to email Groden and he'd prefer to write response after response as he grandstands for the likes of those he usually bad mouths rather than to send a few well chosen questions to Groden so we can see what two professionals have to say about what the other is talking about.

Bill Miller

Bill I'm asking ONCE AGAIN for YOUR words, not Grodens. You said:

"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."

So tell me how and why this happens. No need for Groden. You and me, two photographers discussing the "secrets" of the copy process. So can you do it or are you going to continue to"grandstand" by claiming I'm not sending an email to Groden?

[Bill Miller]

Bill I'm asking ONCE AGAIN for YOUR words, not Grodens. You said:

"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."

So tell me how and why this happens. No need for Groden. You and me, two photographers discussing the "secrets" of the copy process. So can you do it or are you going to continue to"grandstand" by claiming I'm not sending an email to Groden?

Craig, you are joking me - right! That's like asking someone to tell you how and why if you pour water onto a grease fire that it only makes the flames go higher. I have seen the process done where these different results were achieved when I had a photography class. Groden explains this stuff and he is the one who created at least one of the copy negatives. When I read him your post - the first words to me was "Why are these people wasting my time!" So while I know what Robert is saying from observing ... I do not always know how the hows and whys work the way they do. This is exactly why I feel that it is best that you approach him so that when he talks technical stuff ... you'll better follow what he is saying rather than to leave it up to me to try and translate it, thus risking misstating something. It will be most interesting hearing what he says to you.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Miles,

If I were studying where Bowers saw the men it would be important for me to get all of the information available.

Kathy

Oh but Kathy, here is a hypothetical to consider ... let us say that you were trolling a forum, then getting all the information available would not be so important.

[Craig Lamson]

Bill I'm asking ONCE AGAIN for YOUR words, not Grodens. You said:

"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."

So tell me how and why this happens. No need for Groden. You and me, two photographers discussing the "secrets" of the copy process. So can you do it or are you going to continue to"grandstand" by claiming I'm not sending an email to Groden?

Craig, you are joking me - right! That's like asking someone to tell you how and why if you pour water onto a grease fire that it only makes the flames go higher. I have seen the process done where these different results were achieved when I had a photography class. Groden explains this stuff and he is the one who created at least one of the copy negatives. When I read him your post - the first words to me was "Why are these people wasting my time!" So while I know what Robert is saying from observing ... I do not always know how the hows and whys work the way they do. This is exactly why I feel that it is best that you approach him so that when he talks technical stuff ... you'll better follow what he is saying rather than to leave it up to me to try and translate it, thus risking misstating something. It will be most interesting hearing what he says to you.

Bill Miller

Come on Bill, what a very poor dodge. So tell us what you saw and what you did. There is a reason things happen...tell us.

Groden can't be bothered? Great. Why not quit quoting him unless you can back up the statements. Grodens says is pretty lame. You want godens words here, have him post them.