Wim Dankbaar Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Your two cents is worthless in the real world! How do you know what the real world is? Are you able to define the real world? Is it the Warren Report? Or Greer turning around and shooting JFK in the head with a pistol? Or Badgeman firing from behind the fence? Or Moorman and Hill on the street instead of the grass? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Your two cents is worthless in the real world! How do you know what the real world is? Are you able to define the real world? Is it the Warren Report? Or Greer turning around and shooting JFK in the head with a pistol? Or Badgeman firing from behind the fence? Or Moorman and Hill on the street instead of the grass? Wim I don't agree with any of those idiotic ideas!!! The WCR was created to distort the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 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 Wim, I think you should have a read through the whole thread which I started, The Gordon Arnold Competition and keep up to date with the current status of discussions on this matter. As it stands, I think I have proven beyond doubt that Arnold is too small to be a real figure. Bill Miller disputes my findings and has promised to produce evidence which will destroy my claim as soon as he has the opportunity to do so. I am still waiting for this evidence to be produced. Duncan Ah, so that funny animation is yours? Thanks, I updated the page with it. Want any credits? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 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 Wim, I think you should have a read through the whole thread which I started, The Gordon Arnold Competition and keep up to date with the current status of discussions on this matter. As it stands, I think I have proven beyond doubt that Arnold is too small to be a real figure. Bill Miller disputes my findings and has promised to produce evidence which will destroy my claim as soon as he has the opportunity to do so. I am still waiting for this evidence to be produced. Duncan Ah, so that funny animation is yours? Thanks, I updated the page with it. Want any credits? Wim Wim & Duncan, Here's some interesting stuff: Where does Arnie "fit"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson 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 Yes my position IS like Davids. I'm interested in airing this out in PUBLIC. Of course thatrs not the question that was asked of you. You claim I have faulted David for taking this position. I have asked you to support this claim with fact or to remove it. Since you are STILL trying to dance around the TRUTH, one can only assume you cannot back up your claim. Bill Mller says it it "reckless" to uses anything but the "best images" and yet now, by his own admission, he tells us he does not have these "bestr images" nor has he used them in his work. Amazing. Oh he has talked to folks about these "best images" and he has seen a "good print" one day, but sadly he does not even know the providence of this print. So what was it Bill, that made this image you "talked about and saw" fall into the catagory of "best images"? Bill, what Groden did or did not do has never been the question. How many times has that been explained to you. The original question was one of photographic principal. A principal you claim to understand, yet to date have yet to explain. The second question has become your use of claims made by someone else, that you cannot support. I've no problem with you saying "Groden says" but if you do YOU best be prepared to back up the claim. You can't support your quoted claim..then don't post it. Or let Groden post the claim himself in PUBLIC and let him defend it in PUBLIC. Saying, here's the email address...you ask...is beyond a copout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) 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" No Bill, what I want is for you to stand up for the claims YOU make. If you are posting information from Groden...it is YOU who is responsible for the accuracy of that information...since it is YOU who is using this information as fact. Simple enough. Do you undertstand? And again you make this claim that I have done something...prove it or remove it Bill. Finally on Gary Mack. I like Gary but once again we see him "on the run" As Gary is well aware Whites internet images are WORTHLESS for use in study. They are small and HIGHLY JPG COMPRESSED. Oh sure we can 'see' them but for what use? As for White image of the "full UPI", the truth is that they are a COPY of the UPI. And Bill how many times have YOU asked WHite to post a high res example of the Moorman? I think you did in this thread alone. In any case as I'm sure Gary is aware, we are not looking for images stepped on by Jack White or Groden...just the same base material they started with. In this case that means a high res scan of the UPI original print... Either you or Gary can kindly point us to a very high res scan of an original UPI print...not a copy of the UPI print...and then we will be somewhere. That would qualify as a "best image". Until you can get to that point Bill, you complaints about using the 'best images" is just crap. Edited December 9, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar 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" No Bill, what I want is for you to stand up for the claims YOU make. If you are posting information from Groden...it is YOU who is responsible for the accuracy of that information...since it is YOU who is using this information as fact. Simple enough. Do you undertstand? And again you make this claim that I have done something...prove it or remove it Bill. Finally on Gary Mack. I like Gary but once again we see him "on the run" As Gary is well aware Whites internet images are WORTHLESS for use in study. They are small and HIGHLY JPG COMPRESSED. Oh sure we can 'see' them but for what use? As for White image of the "full UPI", the truth is that they are a COPY of the UPI. And Bill how many times have YOU asked WHite to post a high res example of the Moorman? I think you did in this thread alone. In any case as I'm sure Gary is aware, we are not looking for images stepped on by Jack White or Groden...just the same base material they started with. In this case that means a high res scan of the UPI original print... Either you or Gary can kindly point us to a very high res scan of an original UPI print...not a copy of the UPI print...and then we will be somewhere. That would qualify as a "best image". Until you can get to that point Bill, you complaints about using the 'best images" is just crap. It's just remarkable how Gary and Jack have created a cage and some inhabitants refuse to fly to freedom, even if you unlock the door and swing it wide open Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 How do you know what the real world is? Are you able to define the real world? Is it the Warren Report? Or Greer turning around and shooting JFK in the head with a pistol? Don's real world had Emmett Hudson as being one of the three tramps. With that being said - you are correct to question what he knows about the real world pertaining to the assassination of JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) No Bill, what I want is for you to stand up for the claims YOU make. If you are posting information from Groden...it is YOU who is responsible for the accuracy of that information...since it is YOU who is using this information as fact. Simple enough. Do you undertstand? And again you make this claim that I have done something...prove it or remove it Bill. Finally on Gary Mack. I like Gary but once again we see him "on the run" As Gary is well aware Whites internet images are WORTHLESS for use in study. Your last comment is the same line of nonsense that David Healy used over Zfilm alteration. You ask me to post the images I have and yet you bitch that that Internet only offers worthless images for study. Its a no win situation that allows you to keep dancing all day long. I guess that you either need to talk with Groden one on one and to get off your behind and go look at the images used for yourself so not to rely on how they look on the Internet. Now how serious are you, Craig? Groden was the one who created one of those copy negatives and can get as technical as you want to about what he did to get from point A to point B, but it appears that you are not really interested in dancing with someone of his expertise. Mack was with White when they worked with those best prints and probably still has some of them in his collection, so get your tail to Dallas and get as serious about seeing these images as your trying to pretend to be. You already said that seeing them on the Internet is worthless .... so now you have little choice but to do it right - although I believe you to merely be grandstanding and won't spent an ounce of energy to follow through that narrow window you have created. You may remember that it was an Internet image that was posted on this forum showing the drum scan. I don't recall you ever saying the drum scan was worthless because it was being compressed and posted to the Internet. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Talking out of both sides of your mouth doesn't look like you are really here to learn or to teach if the Internet images are worthless ... so what other purpose could you have for running up post after post and not actually doing something as simple as emailing an expert like Groden so to at least first find out what he did to create his copy negative? Bill Miller Edited December 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 No Bill, what I want is for you to stand up for the claims YOU make. If you are posting information from Groden...it is YOU who is responsible for the accuracy of that information...since it is YOU who is using this information as fact. Simple enough. Do you undertstand? And again you make this claim that I have done something...prove it or remove it Bill. Finally on Gary Mack. I like Gary but once again we see him "on the run" As Gary is well aware Whites internet images are WORTHLESS for use in study. Your last comment is the same line of nonsense that David Healy used over Zfilm alteration. You ask me to post the images I have and yet you bitch that that Internet only offers worthless images for study. Its a no win situation that allows you to keep dancing all day long. I guess that you either need to talk with Groden one on one and to get off your behind and go look at the images used for yourself so not to rely on how they look on the Internet. Now how serious are you, Craig? Groden was the one who created one of those copy negatives and can get as technical as you want to about what he did to get from point A to point B, but it appears that you are not really interested in dancing with someone of his expertise. Mack was with White when they worked with those best prints and probably still has some of them in his collection, so get your tail to Dallas and get as serious about seeing these images as your trying to pretend to be. You already said that seeing them on the Internet is worthless .... so now you have little choice but to do it right - although I believe you to merely be grandstanding and won't spent an ounce of energy to follow through that narrow window you have created. You may remember that it was an Internet image that was posted on this forum showing the drum scan. I don't recall you ever saying the drum scan was worthless because it was being compressed and posted to the Internet. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Talking out of both sides of your mouth doesn't look like you are really here to learn or to teach if the Internet images are worthless ... so what other purpose could you have for running up post after post and not actually doing something as simple as emailing an expert like Groden so to at least first find out what he did to create his copy negative? Bill Miller You really have lost the ability to read Bill, either that or you just can't form a decent rebuttal. I'm going for the latter. Come on Bill I said nothing about the internet being a bad place to post work. Bill..is that the BEST you can do. Read AGAIN Bill and perhaps THIS time you might understand. The problem is with Whites processing of the images. Are they putting something in the water in BC that makes your eyes go blurry and your brain to go numb. If you had any experience in working with images you would KNOW that the internet accepts a file format caled PNG, which is a lossless process, unlike jpg. Lets educate you... http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngintro.html DIng DIng Ding Bill! For the laast time this IS NOT ABOUT WHATEVER CRAP GRODEN DID TO ANY COPY NEGATIVE. I don't care. I'll wager I've made more very high quality copy negatives in a professional setting that Groden. I really don't need his comments on his process. I asked for an explanation of a simple photographic process and how it related to a final print. You said you have understand and yet can't even begin to offer any explanation. You are looking pretty weak Bill...kind of like you don't know what you are talking about. I'm more than happy to "dance" with someone like Groden...here I am. Lets dance in public so the whole world can hum along. If Gorden is the expert he claims what are his worries? This is not the O.J. Trial. Oh wait..is THAT the problem...na...never mind. Bring it on Groden, if you have the stuff. Geez Bill, you really have lost it. I posted uncompressed PNG crops of the drum scan and made it availabe to anyone who wanted it. I even put the complete png file up my ftp and offered it to anyone. I've posted an altered version f(or contrast. levels and even illumination and made sure everyone knew the file was not the original drum scan) and made that available. You are out to lunch again Bill. Maybe you really do need to learn a bit more about the subject matter before you run your mouth. It will really make no difference to me if I see the original UPI print. When it come to badgeman for example I know the optics and the film could not record the level of detail found in Whites badgeman alteration. Simple, hard facts. However when you claim you are working with the "best images" it has been clearly shown that is not the case. You are working with crap. Which makes your complints about the works of others being based on crap....well...crap. Deal with it Bill, you have been busted. Game over. Goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 (edited) What Wim posted is exactly what is seen in the drumscan, is that "multi-generational or degraded"?No. It might not be as sharp around the BM area as one would like but it's not the piece of cra* you are making it out to be. No one can use the clearest, sharpest print because they were never published in full. So what Wim posted was the best available to him, you or I. Are you just stubborn or what??? The drum scan is not one of Josiah's best prints ... Josiah and Gary Mack would be one of the first to tell you this and I believe that information has been posted before. I have left a message with Mack to email some data on the drum scan and I will post it once I have received it. And I agree that the Moorman image Wim refers to is the best that he can probably get his hands on, but who cares! That's like saying 'I have this dirty window in my house that I cannot get any cleaner and it doesn't offer the sharper view that someone else had looking through it before it became so dirty, thus what is seen through it now is the most reliable view.' To take that position is one of the most irresponsible approaches I have witnessed from anyone to date. Jack White and Josiah Thompson had the best prints and they have shared crops from them. In other words - they had the clean glass to see through many years ago while the prints we have today are the dirty ones. It seems that the Badge Man critics prefer to work backwards. So to those who think the drum scan is so great ... then recreate Jack's Badge Man or the Hat Man image from it!!! It cannot be done. It is impossible to use a print that has lost its clarity and by merely adjusting the lighting or contrasting of the print that this will somehow create something out of nothing. By the way - people can use the clearest images of the Badge Man and Hat Man area because people like Jack, Groden, and Thompson provided the images so many years ago. Would it be nice to see the entire image from the best prints - sure it would, but Badge Man is the issue and he is only in one location on the Moorman photo and we have been given a view of the best print showing his features. Complaining about not seeing the remaining print doesn't take away from the information these men have provided us concerning these key areas even though some are trying to pretend that it does. Bill Miller Edited December 10, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 The drumscan is worthless. I have repeatedly posted a detail comparison between the drumscan image of badgeman and the Thompson #1 image of badgeman. There are NO compression artifacts in either. Will someone repost my comparison so I don't have to send it to someone to post? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 (edited) No Bill, what I want is for you to stand up for the claims YOU make. If you are posting information from Groden...it is YOU who is responsible for the accuracy of that information...since it is YOU who is using this information as fact. Simple enough. Do you undertstand? And again you make this claim that I have done something...prove it or remove it Bill. Finally on Gary Mack. I like Gary but once again we see him "on the run" As Gary is well aware Whites internet images are WORTHLESS for use in study. Your last comment is the same line of nonsense that David Healy used over Zfilm alteration. You ask me to post the images I have and yet you bitch that that Internet only offers worthless images for study. Its a no win situation that allows you to keep dancing all day long. I guess that you either need to talk with Groden one on one and to get off your behind and go look at the images used for yourself so not to rely on how they look on the Internet. Now how serious are you, Craig? Groden was the one who created one of those copy negatives and can get as technical as you want to about what he did to get from point A to point B, but it appears that you are not really interested in dancing with someone of his expertise. Mack was with White when they worked with those best prints and probably still has some of them in his collection, so get your tail to Dallas and get as serious about seeing these images as your trying to pretend to be. You already said that seeing them on the Internet is worthless .... so now you have little choice but to do it right - although I believe you to merely be grandstanding and won't spent an ounce of energy to follow through that narrow window you have created. You may remember that it was an Internet image that was posted on this forum showing the drum scan. I don't recall you ever saying the drum scan was worthless because it was being compressed and posted to the Internet. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Talking out of both sides of your mouth doesn't look like you are really here to learn or to teach if the Internet images are worthless ... so what other purpose could you have for running up post after post and not actually doing something as simple as emailing an expert like Groden so to at least first find out what he did to create his copy negative? Bill Miller my-my you're getting sensitive there old chap... For years I've called for a central photo repository where assassination researchers have access to DP 11/23/63 1st generation (*verifiable*) films (full size) film .mov files and assassination related PHOTOS in either .tiff or .png (both lose-less codecs)... C Lamson and I have more than none thing in common (other than much heated discussions and outright attacks). He happens to be a professional (with much photographic work on the net ) the PRIMARY however happens to be: many years in this photo/film/video business.... he also was kind enough to provid me [amongst other CTer's] a cd with the Moorman 5 .tiff image years back (which I still have [and NO I can't ID Zapruder or Suitzman on the pedestal]). My opinion concerning Moorman 5 issues remains the same: it's a canard.....plain and simple..... You on the other hand post to your hearts content making broad sweeping generalizations based on poor quality 72dpi imagery, then hide behind Gary and Groden's told me so's... utter foolishness... So if Groden has something to say, get his sorry rearend here....same for Gary (after all, Gary HAS the good-great imagery, correct). Less of course the pithy commentary/excuses that he's the caretaker of the images and bound by museum dctates.... that's BS and he knows it and most of us know it..... An email from Moe Weitzman exists (and I've seen it) concerning dear Robert Groden and his Z-film actions. What Moe knew and DIDN'T know (he does now) about Robert G.'s relationship with the 35mm Zapruder film blowups Moe produced for LIFE magazine. Getting real boring listening to you front for Robert Groden and Gary (who lurks here more and more daily).... REAL boring Reason for edit: changed word to its initials Edited December 10, 2007 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Yes my position IS like Davids. I'm interested in airing this out in PUBLIC. Of course thatrs not the question that was asked of you. You claim I have faulted David for taking this position. I have asked you to support this claim with fact or to remove it. Since you are STILL trying to dance around the TRUTH, one can only assume you cannot back up your claim. It seems that you also carry the same mentality now that David applies to his arguments. You have stated that Internet images are "WORTHLESS" - so what am I supposed to do as far as posting images that you demand to see. You create an argument that has no way of being won. This is like the hearsay nonsense that was being used in the past to avoid hearing the truth. Now, there are some things that can be validated dispite the game you are running. You asked how Gary would know the 'drum scan' has faded and the answer is easy. On the day of the assassination, he tells me, Moorman's photo was filmed for TV. While the photo isn't shown in great detail - the contrast and lighting of the picture is somewhat darker than that of the drum scan. The Polaroid scientist that Mack had spoken to had said that with the fading of the photo over time also comes the loss of clarity. In other words - if the drum scan is much lighter than the original seen on the day of the assassination, then it has also lost clarity. Now you, Craig, have done some tests in order to reach the conclusions that you have come up with. I am sure that you know that you can make a print on one day and not have it come out exactly the same the next time you create one. I am curious about something ... did you use the same film stock that Moorman used and if so - was it made by Kodak or DuPont? And as far as Gary Mack seeing the original prints ... Associated Press made a Moorman print immediately after the assassination which Mack has seen and its much better and darker than the drum scan. Yes, the drum scan was a high resolution scan of a copy negative of the original Moorman Polaroid, but the Polaroid had faded and lost clarity from its original state by the time it was scanned, thus the drum scan, which is only seen on the Internet, is also worthless if we go with your approach. It is my understanding that the images Jack White has posted of the Badge Man are just as they were seen on an early 1963/64 print. If true, then you’re trying to make a case against them by way of a print that was faded with time, which means it also lost clarity according to the scientist with Polaroid, is even more worthless than not accepting the study of an image just because it is being shown on the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 C Lamson and I have more than none thing in common (other than much heated discussions and outright attacks). Do you mean other than your good looks??? He happens to be a professional (with much photographic work on the net ) the PRIMARY however happens to be: Yes, but unlike Groden and Mack ... he has little to no experience or knowledge of the assassination images, nor has he handled the images in question. You on the other hand post to your hearts content making broad sweeping generalizations based on poor quality 72dpi imagery, then hide behind Gary and Groden's told me so's... utter foolishness... That's odd ... you never said this when talking about the same images when Jack was pushing his alteration nonsense. You nposted a lot of non-responsive remarks, but never mthis. I trust you will raise these issues when the subject of alteration comes up again. So if Groden has something to say, get his sorry rearend here....same for Gary (after all, Gary HAS the good-great imagery, correct). Less of course the pithy commentary/excuses that he's the caretaker of the images and bound by museum dctates.... that's BS and he knows it and most of us know it..... I think you have foprgot that Jack also has seen those images as well and used them for the Badge Masn process of elimination ... as I recall - you have always been a supporter of Jack's Badge Man work, but talking out of both sides of your mouth is something you have become known for. And if these Internet images are not as reliable as seeing the real deal, then maybe it is you and Lamson that should take a ride to Dallas and seem them in person ... that is if you are really interested. Getting real boring listening to you front for Robert Groden and Gary (who lurks here more and more daily).... REAL boring You have been posting how boring this site is for some time, yet you hang around. 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