High quality enlargement of Blackdogman

[Bill Miller]

FYI Fedoras come in many different styles & shapes, the closest style to Blackhatman's is the "Gansters Fedora"(make of that what you will).

LIFE magazine had a superior print of Betzner3 & they published a huge copy of it.

Because of the size of it, there was next to no loss of resolution when the half-tone was filtered out of that high-res scan.

The print in LIFE came first, what Groden published was from a copy, of a copy of that same print.

I've already posted them side by side in this thread & the differences in clarity are startlingly obvious on Blackhatman alone.

Don't talk about "the original image", you have never seen an original B3, Groden's source came from a poor copy of the LIFE print, if you have to refer to original then I guess LIFE's copy must be it.

Alan - I do not know anyone who knows less about the subject than you. You can degrade an image and errode the details away through the halftone process and the use of poor resolution copies, but you cannot build them back up up despite what you care to believe. Gary Mack, Groden, myself, have all mentioned how the halftone process works and what it did to your image and you ignore it. Furthermore, Jean Hill had told me she had noticed the serviceman over the wall .... Yarborough said the same to Golz and Turner. You are looking at a B&W print with limited color tones. Some of the dark spots fell in such a way to make someone like yourself believe that you see a fedora. You see a fedora in spite of all the other evidence that it was a service man - most likely Gordon Arnold. Thats your problem!

Bill Miller

[Bernice Moore]

I have no idea if this is the Willis 5 you are looking for, but I have been told it is a very good copy.

Whatever, if it may hep..

B

[Bill Miller]

Rosemary Willis told the HSCA that a man in that position was "conspicuous"

and appeared to "disappear the next instant."

HSCA Vol 12 pg 7

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca...DealeyPlaza.pdf

A human figure who appears in only in two photos and then instantly disappears

is more consistent (albeit not conclusive) with a shooter, in my opinion.

Do people watching the President drive by pop up, take a look, then pop down?

Or people photographing the President?

Cliff,

Be carefull trying to offer reason and logic over a good ol' fashion explanation involving alteration and or sinister looking people popping up over walls and firing at the President. People who have not been to the plaza cannot appreciate how such an indiviual would appear to Kellerman, Hill, Summers, or anyone else looking in JFK's direction at the moment Betzner and Willis took their photos. The area of the BDM was in plain view and what would have been visible to the naked eye is different than how things look on film. If people would just stop for a moment and look at the backs of the SS men riding with the follow-up car ... do they really think that their suits looked so dark in real life? What about the guy not just a few feet away from Betzner ... his suit is almost black on film, but you can bet that the shaded part away from the sun didn't look like that in real life.

The Zapruder film shows Rosemary Willis stopping and looking back towards the intersection of Elm and Houston at Z204 just prior to her going off camera. Up to that point she must have recalled seeing someone standing beyond the corner of the concrete wall. By the time she had looked back - they were gone. Arnold said he hit the dirt when a shot went past his head and Yarborough confirmed this when he said he saw a man dive to the ground during the shooting. Jack's explanation starts out reasonable in the sense that it was Gordon Arnold at the south end of the wall, but IMO to many times alteration is being offered up when one cannot comprehend a more logical explanation. When one considers the shadow passing over Arnold combined with him moving and being so far from the camera, then the BDM figure makes plenty of sense. It's not as much fun as imaging all the diabolical possibilities of it being a hit man or that someone needed to alter his image, but still the same it should be apparent as to who he is and why he looks like he does if one just keeps things simple.

The distance from the subject along with the angle to the suns light is what makes the shaded parts of the BDM look so dark. Moorman was much closer to the subject and at a different angle to the sun which makes the BDM easier to see. The subject must have moved as Willis took his photo, but the subject appears sharper in Betzner's photo which tells me he had stopped what ever movement he had just performed a second earlier. The sunlight illuminating his right shoulder bares a remarkable resemblence to the sunlight shining off the individual in Moorman's photo, thus it told me a long time ago that these were one in the same person.

Bill

Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor (ŏk'əmz)

n.

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Like I already said, the B3 that appeared in LIFE was superior.

Once you realise that Groden did not have access to "an original print" this becomes easier to understand.

That is why a high res' scan of that magazine brings out a far sharper blow-up than what was seen in TKOAP.

The LIFE print came from a source much closer the negative than Groden's.

Telling me that a facet in the TKOAP blow-up is not there in the LIFE scan is approaching it from the wrong end but I'm used to that from you & your Arnold fantasy.

Arnold is your starting point, as you've said & that's why you keep going wrong.

Besides, the "dogs ears" on Groden's BDM figure are there in the HiRes scan of LIFE's sharper copy but they form part of the foilage behind Blackhatman's fedora, which is exactly what these "ears" really were.

Overlaying the two crops speaks for itself, every detail of the figure & the area surrounding it is far sharper & cleaner in the LIFE print (the two frames are not lined up perfectly but it's good enough for comparing the differences in clarity).

This is why people still say BDM is blurred, because they look at the blow-up from TKOAP & think that is the "original" image.

The print in LIFE is not blurred in the slightest & modern techniques have brought out the best image we've ever seen.

Chances are, someone deliberately interfered with the print that Groden saw before giving it to the HSCA.

Thus Blackhatman became Blackdogman due to area around him being smudged & or out of focus.

We have two blow-ups from B3 from LIFE & Groden & they are a world apart, not because of the half-tone but because Grodens was inferior to begin with.

It should amaze me how you can focus in on these "dog's ears" & say they are part of Arnold's cap while you ignore everything else about the figure because it looks nothing like him but I guess I'm used to this BS now.

Remember when you used to say as fact that, the reason this figure looked so small(in height) was because Arnold was further back, away from the wall & Betzner's camera was below the level of the top of the wall?

Are you still saying now that(now you know the above wasn't the case), that the reason that the figure looks so close to the wall is because of the "forshortening effect" making him appear bigger than he actual is?

Am I the only one who finds this turn-around a bit peculiar?

You seemed to have dropped the height problem altogether.

Is that why you sometiimes now stretch the image to make him seem taller?

Wouldn't it be so easy for someone who visits the plaza regularly to replicate this figure with any modern camera to at least determine his height?

FYI Fedoras come in many different styles & shapes, the closest style to Blackhatman's is the "Gansters Fedora"(make of that what you will).

LIFE magazine had a superior print of Betzner3 & they published a huge copy of it.

Because of the size of it, there was next to no loss of resolution when the half-tone was filtered out of that high-res scan.

The print in LIFE came first, what Groden published was from a copy, of a copy of that same print.

I've already posted them side by side in this thread & the differences in clarity are startlingly obvious on Blackhatman alone.

Don't talk about "the original image", you have never seen an original B3, Groden's source came from a poor copy of the LIFE print, if you have to refer to original then I guess LIFE's copy must be it.

Alan - I do not know anyone who knows less about the subject than you. You can degrade an image and errode the details away through the halftone process and the use of poor resolution copies, but you cannot build them back up up despite what you care to believe. Gary Mack, Groden, myself, have all mentioned how the halftone process works and what it did to your image and you ignore it. Furthermore, Jean Hill had told me she had noticed the serviceman over the wall .... Yarborough said the same to Golz and Turner. You are looking at a B&W print with limited color tones. Some of the dark spots fell in such a way to make someone like yourself believe that you see a fedora. You see a fedora in spite of all the other evidence that it was a service man - most likely Gordon Arnold. Thats your problem!

Bill Miller

Your deluding yourself.

Once more, get your interviews of witnesses on tape in future.

If you can make Groden say that BDM was Arnold & not a possible assassin like he told me a week before, I wouldn't put anything past you.

Harrassing people until you get the answer you want isn't worth too much in reality.

If you want to believe that Arnold & Yarborough mentioned the retaining wall were BHM is & this was not seen as significant by the producers of the interviews that is your own affair.

Any resonable person would understand why I believe that this would not have been cut from their interviews since it ties the two storys together so neatly.

That is also why I believe Yarborough never mentioned a uniform because it would have been left in by anyone trying to support the Arnold scenario.

Here's a tip, get a statement in writing from Golz or Turner saying he did, then you can stop with the worthless hearsay & produce at least something that resembles "evidence" next time this comes up.

There is no evidence to support Arnold only himself.

Everything else is arguable theory.

That's your problem but, since you don't know what constitutes real evidence on this issue you can convienantly gloss over it all with random quotes & never stick with the one topic at hand for too long!

[Alan Healy]

I have no idea if this is the Willis 5 you are looking for, but I have been told it is a very good copy.

Whatever, if it may hep..

B

Bernice,

I missed it, can you try again please?!

If your posting limit is reached please try http://imageshack.us/

Here is the reason I brought the topic back to "life".

The approx' position of the bench in Betzner & no sign of anyone on it.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4876/betzbench3yx.gif

(direct link to image at imageshack)

Alan

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Alan:

Hope all is well...Here you go...

B..

[Alan Healy]

Duncan I apologise.

This isn't a big deal I know but have to follow it through.

Please just put our theories aside for a minute & look at the shape the "hat area" in the LIFE scan.

I'm not after any confirmation that it really is a fedora, I just want you to say if you can or cannot see the fedora shape in the crop I posted.

Alan

So you won't even admit to seeing the fedora shape because you believe it is Arnold?

That's a pathetic response.

Alan, If you can't understand my logic of the Arnold scenario, of which I am a believer, then I can't understand your comment. Let me repeat it once again in even simpler terms to make it easier for you to understand.

1./ I believe BDM is Gordon Arnold

2./ Gordon Arnold was not wearing a Fedora

3./ Conclusion............................................BDM is not wearing a Fedora.

Now tell me what's so difficult to understand about that?

I'll try one more time:

no definite conclusions can be made from ANY versions of B3

Please elaborate on what you meant by this above statement(I don't understand it) & tell us, if you will, what you know about the sources of Betzner3.

I have already answered this question Alan. Once again it's simple to understand ( for the majority )....You are stating that BDM is wearing a Fedora, and that your conclusion qualifies this non fact as a fact which should be accepted by everyone. Likewise it can not be stated conclusively that the figure is Gordon Arnold, but my logic tells me that this is the most likely answer to the identity of BDM.

[Bill Miller]

Please just put our theories aside for a minute & look at the shape the "hat area" in the LIFE scan.

I'm not after any confirmation that it really is a fedora, I just want you to say if you can or cannot see the fedora shape in the crop I posted.

Alan

So what are you wanting from Duncan, Alan? Is it your desire to see if he will admit that one can take an image and degrade it to the point that two pointed tips have been reduced to the shape of a fedora - hell ... I will admit to that! What kind of nonsense is it that one thinks that degrading an image to the point of it changing shape brings one closer to the truth as to what it was. Let's just start a thread called "half-toning an image away until it becomes something else". If this sounds absolutely ludicrous, its because it is.

[Alan Healy]

Hi Alan:

Hope all is well...Here you go...

B..

Sorry Bernice!

That's not a bad image thank you but......... I think like Jack kindly repeated here, unless he goes through all his slides to find it, we won't be seeing the kind of quality blow-up like I'm after.

I appreciate it though.

Hopefully one day, we'll all have the same problem as Jack with his enourmous image collection!

My best to you,

Alan

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Allan:

I did send the photo and showed it to Jack first, as I thought it may be his, he said he was not sure....but that it was a very

good image...so that is the why I posted such.

It certainly would a pleasure to go through such a library...

As always take care.

B

Edited January 23, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Alan Healy]

Thank you Duncan.

There are only two sources of Betzner3 because the photographer has never let the negatives out of his posession since handing them to the(let's say) "authorities" on the day & getting them "right back"(the whereabouts of any prints made from that exchange are unknown, the WC certainly did not see them).

Unlike Willis who was supposedly selling prints of his photos in the plaza the following week, Betzner seems to have not only kept out of the limelight but also done his best to protect his photos from any publicity too.

I don't know the exact details of where the print in LIFE magazine came from, other than it was either Spague or one of his associates who tracked it down from a "private" source.

Whether that was Betzner himself I don't know.

It produced a high quality print that much is obvious.

The other source of course is Groden who published a blow-up from a Betzner3 print in his book TKOAP & repeated recently that it came straight from a negative!

From a negative!

That is highly unlikely for three reasons.

Betzner has always had the negatives,

the HSCA(who Groden was working for at the time he had access to this source of Betzner3) said;

"the negatives could not be found" or "were lost" & lastly...

Betzner himself threatened to prosecute Groden if he did not remove the picture from his book(future copies have the Betzner3 photo replaced with Willis5(that's what I've been told from reliable sources, I have only seen the one with a blow-up of B3)).

So it is safe to say it wasn't direct from a negative.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

The LIFE print came from source close to the negative if not direct from it, Groden's source came most likely, from a copy of a copy of the LIFE print.

The half-tone print in LIFE is not as good as the original photo it was printed from but is still better than Groden's results whose second-hand source we can only guess at.

You mentioned degrading the image but you are only guessing & wrongly.

I posted the two blow-ups side by side & it is plain to see which is the sharper image.

The blow-up from LIFE has only been clarified as best it could be, there was no loss of resolution because of the size of the print.

If you can't see the shape of the "fedora hat" I apologise again but, you need your eyes tested.

Also, with respect, this blow-up work is miles away from your past efforts & they shouldn't be compared.

To sum it up.

Groden's source is the degraded one.

The print that LIFE published is superior even with the half-tone taken into account.

Alan

PS.

Since when did you believe that the figure in B3 was Arnold?

Is there a thread you can point to where you've wrote about this?

An apology isn't required Alan, but thanks anyway.

To answer your question, No, I can not see a Fedora in the crop which you posted or in any other image of BDM I have ever seen.

On the topic of degraded images which Bill follows up on in his response, I have to agree with him. I hold my hands up and admit that at times, not always, and not deliberately, I have degraded images to the point of creating things that simply did not exist, and coming to believe that these creations were a reality. I won't go in to detail here re: which of my "enhancements" I still hold firm, and those which I don't, as I don't have the time right now, but these days, after having a year off after moving and returning from Canada, I have been doing more reading research than photographic research, evaluating the photographic record along with everything else, witness statements etc etc, and my opinions and conclusions have changed dramatically in many areas.

What has this got to do with this particular BDM image debate? you may ask. Everything and nothing. I'm just setting the record straight as to where I stand at this moment in time.

Duncan

Duncan I apologise.

This isn't a big deal I know but have to follow it through.

Please just put our theories aside for a minute & look at the shape the "hat area" in the LIFE scan.

I'm not after any confirmation that it really is a fedora, I just want you to say if you can or cannot see the fedora shape in the crop I posted.

Alan

[Bill Miller]

The LIFE print came from source close to the negative if not direct from it, Groden's source came most likely, from a copy of a copy of the LIFE print.

The half-tone print in LIFE is not as good as the original photo it was printed from but is still better than Groden's results whose second-hand source we can only guess at.

Alan, even a retarded person should learn something about the basics concerning these photos and films when it has been repeated numerous times. Groden's images are sharper, thus they are closer to the original than other copies that have parts of the image erroded away. It is totally in eror to think that a photo that has parts of an image melted away is more reliable than one that shows the shape in total. In other words ... if one photo shows the dog ears while the other does not ... the dog ear photo must be closer to the original because you cannot adjust an image to build the ears back up to a point once they have been beaten down to a rounded blob.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

This is pointless.

I don't mind being called out on this but at least provide some kind of technical opinions or observations on the differences between the blow-ups of BdM from LIFE & Groden.

On the topic of degraded images which Bill follows up on in his response, I have to agree with him.

Who said that?

You did Duncan yes, care to explain what you meant by it or will I just have to guess again?

You mentioned degrading the image but you are only guessing & wrongly.

I posted the two blow-ups side by side & it is plain to see which is the sharper image.

The blow-up from LIFE has only been clarified as best it could be, there was no loss of resolution because of the size of the print.

Alan, Get your fact's correct. I didn't say that YOU had degraded your posted images. I said that I, Me, Duncan, The guy who's typing this reply, had degraded images in the past. You have NEVER posted an image which shows a Fedora

If you can't see the shape of the "fedora hat" I apologise again but, you need your eyes tested.

Re: My reply above..I applied for membership to the Magoo Club, but was rejected because the last vacant membership had apparently been filled by a guy claiming to see a Fedora on BDM

Also, with respect, this blow-up work is miles away from your past efforts & they shouldn't be compared.

I'm not comparing your blow ups to any other images posted, mine or from anyone else. I'm saying that in the images which you have posted there is no Fedora. If you have the copy which shows the Fedora, post it

PS.

Since when did you believe that the figure in B3 was Arnold?

Is there a thread you can point to where you've wrote about this?

I don't see the point in your question. I used to believe in Santa Claus, but now I don't

Duncan

Why are you being so evasive?

I keep reading statements from you & when I ask for more information I get nothing.

What am I supposed to think?

Your pulling my chain right?

Why?

Edited January 25, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

How many more times?

Groden never had a print from a negative, LIFE did.

The half-tone process they used had very little effect on the scanned results because the print they published was so big.

LIFE had the sharper image & there was no loss of resolution when scanned.

With me so far?

The abcense of any "ears" in the scan from LIFE is not because of any errosion, it is because the image is superior to Grodens.

It seperates this figure from the darker parts of the background, Grodens was blurred so it did not.

You have to start seperating the two sources, they did not come both come from the high quality print LIFE used.

Groden never got anywhere near a negative & neither did the print he worked with.

Just in case anyone is actually genuinly interested, here is another scan from the superior LIFE print, with only the half-tone filtered out nothing else.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9183/op...iltering3fk.png

There never was any "ears" in the original photo, it was just an illusion & Groden's blurred "Blackdogman" has fooled people like you who refuse to look a little deeper in case you won't like what you'll find.

Groden never had a print from a negative, LIFE did.

All Groden did was print the best from what he had to work with.

That should not be compared to LIFE's print, yes it was printed in TKOAP using a better proccess but that is all, the LIFE print was sharper to begin with & it has more information on BHM because it was a better quality source than what Groden used.

Are you clearer now?

Any questions?

The LIFE print came from source close to the negative if not direct from it, Groden's source came most likely, from a copy of a copy of the LIFE print.

The half-tone print in LIFE is not as good as the original photo it was printed from but is still better than Groden's results whose second-hand source we can only guess at.

Alan, even a retarded person should learn something about the basics concerning these photos and films when it has been repeated numerous times. Groden's images are sharper, thus they are closer to the original than other copies that have parts of the image erroded away. It is totally in eror to think that a photo that has parts of an image melted away is more reliable than one that shows the shape in total. In other words ... if one photo shows the dog ears while the other does not ... the dog ear photo must be closer to the original because you cannot adjust an image to build the ears back up to a point once they have been beaten down to a rounded blob.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

Okay Duncan if you can't see the shape of the hat in the scan from LIFE there really is nothing to discuss.

I was thinking of cutting the shape of the hat out & sticking it on pictures of other people but what's the point? if you genuinly can't see even the resemblance to a hat it in what I've already posted so be it.

But just remember your own words.

Just because you say I haven't posted anything that looks like a fedora, doesn't mean I haven't.

Also, something else you used to say.

Anytime someone agreed with Bill on Lancer, you would suggest they must be in cahoots with him.

You even said it to me once.

Not only are you agreeing with Bill, you are beginning to sound a little like him & now, worst of all, actualling posting just like him in bold type.

What the...?

Did you get a bump on the head whilst moving a suitcase?

Anyways, in all seriousness, I hope your recent travels were productive, the Canadians I've met over here make them seem a pretty cool bunch(is that generalising? so be it, at least it's a positive expression).

Alan