Alan Healy Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 So personal insults are tolerated but the word "Bullshi*" is not? Thanks for your support Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Evidently Miller is pressing hard for a job at the 6th Floor Museum, AGAIN David, If you are wanting invites to the film showings, then you may wish to stop making idiotic remarks like the one above. I don't live in Texas, but rather 2000 miles away, thus the commute to work and back each day wouldn't work for me. The term Drum Scan was coined by the people directly involved and it has been explained in the past just why that is. I will assume that if you couldn't understand it then, why would I or anyone else bother trying to explain it to you now. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Nonsense.I made Arnie & BM larger than in M5 just to make this tiny Arnie quite clear in a rough inset. The disproportionately tiny Arnie, like Shorty, is so pronouncedly obvious that even you would see a wee floating torso. Mies, I find it odd that some people like yourself who claim to have this great understanding of depth and perspective seem to believe you have this self-proclaimed amazing finding that would shed light on such an important previous claim made pertaining to the assassination and yet to do not spend an ounce of energy having your claim peer reviewed by anyone with any expertise. MIT looked at Jack's work and didn't have a problem with the size of Badge Man, so send your claim to them and see what they say about it. Better yet, find someone skilled in Photogammetry and get your accusations validated. Anything would be better than just posting the same flawed shoddy scalings over and over again. Unless like other things you have claimed and could have validated, but chose not to. I know that if I had what I believe to be something ground-breaking and important about the assassination to share with the world - I'd spend a little of my energy having someone of authority look at my conclusion so to tell me if I have made an error or not. FWIW - When you continually opt not to follow-up on such things - it calls into question as to whether you are really serious about the things you post. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 (edited) Oh yes. Those images that turned into HALFTONES! Are you now going to tell us all how good halftones are for judging images? I thought you worked from the best images and here you are touting HALFTONES! Please..you just blew your foot off Bill. So the correct answer to the question is no you have not seen those "best images". You are only posting hearsay. Craig, you seem to have trouble comprehending what you read. I have seen the areas in question from Robert's best images ... just because he did not turn them over to me does not mean that we have not seen them. Mack: No you have not answered the question. What Mack saw were different examples of the Moorman copied and printed by different people using different equipment, different processing methods and at different times. Garys blanket statement stinks to high heaven. Gary HAS NO CLUE how much of the differences between the different copy prints of the Moorman were caused by fading or the copy process. He can't because he NEVER saw the Moorman original before the fading began. And then we have the questions of the actual fading process. How did it progress? Did the d-max go first? Or the d-min? The midtones? Was the process equal over all of the image tones or was it selective? Lots of unanswered questions. Answers we can never fully know. Gary Mack has excess to more experts than anyone I know in this field. Gary has talked with experts on this subject who probably pass more knowledge through their stools than you and I possess put together. Now you have written enough in these say-nothing responses to have created an essay on the subject which again brings us back to why are you not seeking the opinions of other photographic experts and posting their conclusions on this forum? Is it that you are having trouble finding anyone to support what you are saying?? I once heard an attorney say to someone not to worry about getting a doctor to validate their injury because if he had to - he'd find a drunk with a medical license to get the support he sought ... you should be able to do the same. And those answers that you claim we will never fully know can be answered by talking to the man who created one of those copy negatives that you are whining about - you just have to have the drive to email your concerns and questions to him, then if he doesn't respond, then at least it is not you who is playing games, but rather Groden. How can I answer Groden? He has not posted anything yet. I'm here and ready when ever he shows up. That is a response that even the most dimwitted of researchers won't buy. Zavada doesn't post here either, but others have had correspondance with him on particular matters. I know you have the ability to send email for you have I have emailed each other. To insist that they come here is one of David Healy's old excuses that you have been critical of in the past. Fletch Prouty, Harold Weisberg, Cyril Wecht, are others who were not members of these forums and yet many of us had no trouble contacting them and sharing their responses to us with the forum members ... I guess it just depends on how serious you are about seeking the truth. Bill Edited December 8, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Crops from the very prints before fading took place were made and ended up in Josiah's and Groden's books.Bullcrap Here once again is Groden's email address .... RobertG1@airmail.net Josiah Thompson is a member of this forum so sending him a personal message asking for information should be a simple task for you to perform ... so why are you not doing it? Would they not know more about what they did and used in THEIR work than you would know ... I certainly think so. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Here's a direct crop from Craig's 12MB file for David. One can post a faded or degraded print all day long and it still doesn't address the images seen in the best earlier prints that were made. Never in my life have I seen such recklessness whereas certain people choose to argue a case using the worst prints possible. The excuse that these are the best prints available to them doesn't cut it. That's as silly as claiming all the prints of Moorman that one has doesn't show the pedestal because they are all cropped, thus it may not have been there in reality. The people who have the best prints have shared these particular areas from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 (edited) Oh yes. Those images that turned into HALFTONES! Are you now going to tell us all how good halftones are for judging images? I thought you worked from the best images and here you are touting HALFTONES! Please..you just blew your foot off Bill. So the correct answer to the question is no you have not seen those "best images". You are only posting hearsay. Craig, you seem to have trouble comprehending what you read. I have seen the areas in question from Robert's best images ... just because he did not turn them over to me does not mean that we have not seen them. In other words...you have not seen the images in question other than in a book in halftone form. The truth shall set you free Bill. Mack: No you have not answered the question. What Mack saw were different examples of the Moorman copied and printed by different people using different equipment, different processing methods and at different times. Garys blanket statement stinks to high heaven. Gary HAS NO CLUE how much of the differences between the different copy prints of the Moorman were caused by fading or the copy process. He can't because he NEVER saw the Moorman original before the fading began. And then we have the questions of the actual fading process. How did it progress? Did the d-max go first? Or the d-min? The midtones? Was the process equal over all of the image tones or was it selective? Lots of unanswered questions. Answers we can never fully know. Gary Mack has excess to more experts than anyone I know in this field. Gary has talked with experts on this subject who probably pass more knowledge through their stools than you and I possess put together. Now you have written enough in these say-nothing responses to have created an essay on the subject which again brings us back to why are you not seeking the opinions of other photographic experts and posting their conclusions on this forum? Is it that you are having trouble finding anyone to support what you are saying?? I once heard an attorney say to someone not to worry about getting a doctor to validate their injury because if he had to - he'd find a drunk with a medical license to get the support he sought ... you should be able to do the same. And those answers that you claim we will never fully know can be answered by talking to the man who created one of those copy negatives that you are whining about - you just have to have the drive to email your concerns and questions to him, then if he doesn't respond, then at least it is not you who is playing games, but rather Groden. Regardless of the "experts" Mack has passed in his stool the points I have raisied about his statements still stand. You reply indicates you cannot rebut those points. Why do I need the advice of other experts? To sink to your level? No thanks. I find it amazing that people that claim to seek the truth have so much trouble dealing with it when it is presented. I'm confident in my knowlege on the subject and by now the world has seen your lack of same. How can I answer Groden? He has not posted anything yet. I'm here and ready when ever he shows up. That is a response that even the most dimwitted of researchers won't buy. Zavada doesn't post here either, but others have had correspondance with him on particular matters. I know you have the ability to send email for you have I have emailed each other. To insist that they come here is one of David Healy's old excuses that you have been critical of in the past. Fletch Prouty, Harold Weisberg, Cyril Wecht, are others who were not members of these forums and yet many of us had no trouble contacting them and sharing their responses to us with the forum members ... I guess it just depends on how serious you are about seeking the truth. Bill[/b] Again you are making a claim for which you cannot back up with fact. Either prove I have made those statements about Healy or remove your claim. Put up or shut up time Bill. I already KNOW the truth about your (and by extension Grodens) claim. You are the one who MADE this claim and its YOU who are the one responsible for showing it is correct. It is very clear from this exchange you cannot support your claim. I've no porblem wiht that, just admit it and we can move on. Its that truth thing again Bill. Groden has every opportunity to respond if he chooses. I'm not going to lose any sleep if he hides away, and continues to use you as a mouthpiece. Edited December 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Here's a direct crop from Craig's 12MB file for David. One can post a faded or degraded print all day long and it still doesn't address the images seen in the best earlier prints that were made. Never in my life have I seen such recklessness whereas certain people choose to argue a case using the worst prints possible. The excuse that these are the best prints available to them doesn't cut it. That's as silly as claiming all the prints of Moorman that one has doesn't show the pedestal because they are all cropped, thus it may not have been there in reality. The people who have the best prints have shared these particular areas from them. So Bill, with your amazing access to these "best eariler prints" why not post some very high qualty scans of these original prints. These would be the base images before any attempts were made to 'enhance' them and these scans would be from the actual PRINTS...not from halftones in a book. These images would then qualify as proper examples of "best eariler prints". If you can't offer these images, just who is being 'reckless'? I await your posted images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Roberdeau Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 (edited) "When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth." ---- Sherlock Holmes, "A Study In Scarlet," (1887) by A.C. DOYLE Edited December 8, 2007 by Don Roberdeau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Again you are making a claim for which you cannot back up with fact. Either prove I have made those statements about Healy or remove your claim. Put up or shut up time Bill. I already KNOW the truth about your (and by extension Grodens) claim. You are the one who MADE this claim and its YOU who are the one responsible for showing it is correct. It is very clear from this exchange you cannot support your claim. I've no porblem wiht that, just admit it and we can move on. Its that truth thing again Bill. Groden has every opportunity to respond if he chooses. I'm not going to lose any sleep if he hides away, and continues to use you as a mouthpiece. Your position is just like David's when he says to bring Zavada on the forum and then he'll address his findings. I have spoken to Jack - Robert - and Mack about these images at one time or another. I saw one of Groden's good prints one day on the knoll as Mike Brown brought it out to show it to me. It was a great print, but I cannot tell you if it was the copy negative print, but Robert probably can as he can also address any questions you may have as to what he (Groden) did to get the results he obtained in exposing the copy negative prints he made. However, it seems that you are not interested in getting the facts from the man who actually did the work. Instead you seemingly want to screw around with these stupid replies you are making. For you to say Groden is hiding is a joke when you have been provided his email. It is you who are hiding by not going to the source by way of a simple email and putting an end to this subject. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 So Bill, with your amazing access to these "best eariler prints" why not post some very high qualty scans of these original prints. These would be the base images before any attempts were made to 'enhance' them and these scans would be from the actual PRINTS...not from halftones in a book. These images would then qualify as proper examples of "best eariler prints". If you can't offer these images, just who is being 'reckless'? I await your posted images. You talk like you have lost your marbles. First of all I am in British Columbia and my materials are in storage in the state of Washington. You ask for experts to come onto the forum rather than you send them a simple email asking what ever technical questions that you may have and then try and put it on someone else as if it is they who are hiding from you. To use your logic, then Mark Lane is hiding from Miles - Zavada is hiding from David - and now Groden is hiding from you. I am somewhat surprised after years of criticizing people for doing the same thing ... that you now embrace such a ridiculous posture. I will share a message Gary Mack sent me ... "Bill, Jack has been posting the best images of Moorman for years, including the full UPI picture, blowups of Badge Man, and the shape near the tree. Those images are readily accessible on various websites. Gary" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) To use your logic, then Mark Lane is hiding from Miles - Zavada is hiding from David - and now Groden is hiding from you. Mark Lane is hiding from Miles What? Lane is not hiding from me, nor am I from him. What's this silly nonsense all about? Why on earth would I call Lane? I have no reason or purpose to call Lane. The case that Bowers said that the two men he saw were seen by him in the vicinity of the stairs & not behind the fence is proved beyond all doubt from the RECORD of Bowers' own words transcribed from tapes & film. If you are saying that Mack is saying that he, Mack, understood that Lane understood from Bowers that Bowers said OFF THE RECORD that the two men were behind the fence, then I say to you that you are mistaken & that this is transparent malarkey made up out of nothing in order to rescue a lost cause. If you call Lane about this cock & bull nonsense, then Lane will tell you that you must be a nut job. That is why you want me to call Lane, isn't it? Sorry, not falling for silly tricks. Don't forget precise & accurate scaling is not necessary to show how tiny Arnie is, because he is shockingly tiny: Edited for spelling. Edited December 9, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Also helpful, the mandatory height for a shot to clear the retaining wall, is over 7 feet? Yes, more ways lead to Rome. May I update the page with this? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 To use your logic, then Mark Lane is hiding from Miles - Zavada is hiding from David - and now Groden is hiding from you. Mark Lane is hiding from Miles What? Lane is not hiding from me, nor am I from him. What's this silly nonsense all about? Why on earth would I call Lane? I have no reason or purpose to call Lane. The case that Bowers said that the two men he saw were seen by him in the vicinity of the stairs & not behind the fence is proved beyond all doubt from the RECORD of Bowers' own words transcribed from tapes & film. That is why you want me to call Lane, isn't it? Sorry, not falling for silly tricks. Don't forget precise & accurate scaling is not necessary to show how tiny Arnie is, because he is shockingly tiny: That's great, Miles! You made the point irrefutably undeniable , just with that picture alone. By the way, the men that Lee Bowers saw, were James Files and Edward Lansdale. But that's just my two cents! Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 By the way, the men that Lee Bowers saw, were James Files and Edward Lansdale. But that's just my two cents! Wim Your two cents is worthless in the real world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now