The myth of Badgeman

[Bill Miller]

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

Maybe David Healy will. LOL!!!

[Chris Davidson]

Provided by Jack.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

This is like talking to a tree stump. Once`again and maybe it will get past the bark this time. I stated WHITES internet image were worthless. I also explained in great detail ( including a link ) how it is possible to post images to the internet that are not degraded in any way. I also explained how I have posted drum scan crops that match pixel for pixel the data tha came from the drum. Post your images in PNG format Bill. Sheesh.

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.

So we have an image seen on tv. Can you or Mack state with complete fact that the filming process did not change the contrast and density of the image? Of course not. this argument is about as lamer as ti comes. You also fail with your comparison of the drum scan to the tv image. As has been told to you more than once the data from the drum scanner was not altered in any fashion. That means none of the standard adjustments like curves or levels ( that would be contrast and lighting in you silly terms) were done to the image. With these adjustments the drum scan can look very nice and contrasty and thick.

But all of this STILL misses the point and puts us right back to Garys poor statement. He had no way to be sure the differencs he was seeing in the thumbprint Moorman or the UPI Moorman were caused by the fading. He was guessing. And there is nothing wrong with that. The correct statement from Mack would have reflected that fact. Now you (like Gary has in the past) make this blanket statement about how the image faded.."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." And I'll ask again and maybe this time Mack can provide a cite or two. What faded first..d-max or d-min? How about the mid-tones? Or did it fade evenly over the entire tonal range? And was this actual fading of the image clouds or was the fading actually a shift in tone for cool black to a warm sepia? You see Bill the blanket just can't cover the problem.

As I stated eariler, I've no doubt the image faded. The question at hand is how did that fading ACTUALLY effect the image quality in the are in question? I've yet to see anyone answer that one with any degree of certainty.

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?

Yes I have done a number of tests using the Moorman lens and quite a few different films and devices. I've shoot three kinds of polaroid and also a 48 mega-pixel digital scan back. This was quite a few years ago when we were working on the Moorman in the street issue. I'm sure you remember. You wanted me to send my system down to you in Texas. None of the polariod films were the exact same stock as was available to Moorman. The closest was the current verison of the 3000 iso film she used, Type 57. I also exposed Type 52, and Type 55 film. I've used hte specs for the current Type 57 film to calculate the lpi of the Moorman lens/film/fstop combo. Now I don't know about you but I'm guessing that the specs of this current emulsion are at least as good if not better than the emulsion used in '63

Prints...Thank you for making the point I made many posts ago. Heck if I remember correctly the negs and the prints made in 63 for UPI and their prints were all different...with one being the best. Now given the huge number of variables that can chage the look of an image (which I have listed a few times in this thread already), it kind of makes you wonder WHY this so called image of badgeman is only well defined in ONE copy print of the Moorman and not the others made the same day and even later.

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.

Bill the UPI print may or may NOT be a good example of the actual condition of the Moorman in 63. Thats the whole point. Sheesh, this is really lost on you. The fact that it was made rthe same day is great, but it does not assure that the images is faithful to the original. In fact I'm guessing it was not even close, since it was made with newpaper reproduction in mind. That implies an whole different set of printing standards.

And Bill once again you are totally wrong about what can or cannot be seen on the internet. Go to school on this stuff Bill so next time you will know what you are talking about.

Jacks badgeman stuff is NOT exactly what was seen on the UPI print. It has been overexposed and additional contast has been added to an image that has been (depending on the version) copied from the original UPI prinl adding new grain detail to a grainless image, then passed through another lens and printed with god knows what contrast and pprocessing variables, then copied to 35mm slide film, adding one more pass through a lens and another new layer of film grain, then copied again with a silde duplicator being overexposed and over contrasted adding another pass through a lens and another layer of film grain. Just as they are seen on the UPI print? Not even close! Did all of this create something that resembles a bunny in the clouds? Looks like it. Could the Morrman camera/lens'film resolve the detail shown? Nope.

[Craig Lamson]

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

No compression artifacts? Now that is funny.

Your image upsampled with bicubic in PS and saved as a png....look at those artifacts! Now thisw is a worthless set of images!

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/90176585

One day its worthless..another it is fantastic.... sheesh.

The extremely large Moorman scan posted by Robin has overwhelmed THE PARTY'S OVER

thread by Chris, making further replies impossible. I have a 19" screen and the Moorman

is twice the size of the screen, blocking all access to the thread. Can anything be done

about this?

Jack

PS...great Moorman image, Robin. The resolution is fantastic. Can you provide the

provenance. It appears to be my scan of the Gordon Smith copy from the original,

but my scan is not nearly that good. Can you give details?

I have to credit Lamson this one time IF that is indeed the famed drum scan, because the

quality is very good for a copy of the original print which has the fingerprint. At first glance

it appeared to be the Gordon Smith copy, which is one of the best that I have, made from

the original. As far as I know I have never seen the FULL UNCROPPED drum scan before.

This image, like the Smith image, includes the notches of the 4x5 film holder on the edges.

I did not know the drum scan had that feature. Previously I had only seen cropped images

from the drum scan, and perhaps inferior copies at that. The image posted by Robin is superior

to the Smith copy by about 10 percent in the Dmin/Dmax densitometer range. I compared

the two side by side full screen. The drum scan density is about 10 percent better; this is

mainly seen in the very dark areas such as the wooden fence, the badgeman tree, etc which

are enough lighter on the drum scan to discern detail, but are more blocked up on the Smith

copy. However, neither the drum scan nor the Smith copy, both made from the faded

original with the fingerprint, can match the high quality of the Thompson Number One print

as I have shown many times.

The drumscan exposure was very likely made using an electronic densitometer, which

takes a reading of the lightest area and darkest area and calculates a precise exposure

for minimum and maximum density. When I formerly owned three photostat cameras,

that is how my camera operators turned out high quality halftones...by using the densitometer

to set the camera exposure.

Jack

BTW, why not post a NICE AND BIG HIGH QUALIY SCAN of the full Thompson #1 and then we can all compare this high quality you so often claim....

Edited December 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Frank Agbat]

I like the idea of a repository -- verifiable images using a known, documented hi-res scanning technique and stored in a lossless format.

I would like to see the same for the films, but not in MOV format. I'd recommend using the avi container and a lossless codec like HuffyUV.

I know there are numerous issues (copyrights, etc), but if it is never started it will most certainly never be completed.

Without such a repository, there are simply too many opportunities for well meaning (but misguided) research efforts to drift onto the rocks of poor image quality, compression artifacts, mpeg blocking, loss, aspect ratio issues, and the like. With a few (VERY few) exceptions, most of the commonly available digital format images and films are simply not useful for anything except macroscopic analysis.

[Jack White]

Lamson keeps demanding a scan from the Thompson #1, knowing full

well that the print was returned to Thompson by Mack when we finished

with it in the 80s. Therefore we cannot scan it. Any images I post of

it are from my copy negs or prints, which Lamson will admit that are

not identical to the original. I post from my copies, and he continues

to demand scans from the ORIGINAL, which he knows that neither

Gary nor I have.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

This is like talking to a tree stump. Once`again and maybe it will get past the bark this time. I stated WHITES internet image were worthless. I also explained in great detail ( including a link ) how it is possible to post images to the internet that are not degraded in any way. I also explained how I have posted drum scan crops that match pixel for pixel the data tha came from the drum. Post your images in PNG format Bill. Sheesh.

Craig ... scan an image of Badge Man out of a book and post it in Jpeg and then in the format of your preference so we can see this vast difference for study ... I say that the image will be the same - prove me wrong!!!

So we have an image seen on tv. Can you or Mack state with complete fact that the filming process did not change the contrast and density of the image? Of course not. this argument is about as lamer as ti comes. You also fail with your comparison of the drum scan to the tv image. As has been told to you more than once the data from the drum scanner was not altered in any fashion. That means none of the standard adjustments like curves or levels ( that would be contrast and lighting in you silly terms) were done to the image. With these adjustments the drum scan can look very nice and contrasty and thick.

Craig, you have allegedly studied the drum scan and you asking if Mack can or cannot state with complete fact if the filming process changed the contrast and density on the image that was filmed on TV is something you should be asking before coming to a conclusion. Let us say that Mack can say for certain that the contrast and density looked the same, which would answer the question that you felt was important enough to ask only now ... would your position change and why or why not???

But all of this STILL misses the point and puts us right back to Garys poor statement. He had no way to be sure the differencs he was seeing in the thumbprint Moorman or the UPI Moorman were caused by the fading. He was guessing.

I think Gary has consulted the Polariod scientist who gave him the infromation that you want to argue about. Email Gary and see if I got that right or not and post it.

And there is nothing wrong with that. The correct statement from Mack would have reflected that fact. Now you (like Gary has in the past) make this blanket statement about how the image faded.."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." And I'll ask again and maybe this time Mack can provide a cite or two. What faded first..d-max or d-min? How about the mid-tones? Or did it fade evenly over the entire tonal range? And was this actual fading of the image clouds or was the fading actually a shift in tone for cool black to a warm sepia? You see Bill the blanket just can't cover the problem.

Hey great! I think Gary has answered that question and that the scientist answered it. I do however believe that they were not able to come up with the exact cause(s) as to why it happened. The important thing was that it did happen, but not before the Associated Press and UPI prints of 1963/64 were created. BUt Gary has forgotten more about this data than you or I know combined, so let him answer it and I'll ask you again that if he is correct, then how does this question and answer effect your current position.

As I stated eariler, I've no doubt the image faded. The question at hand is how did that fading ACTUALLY effect the image quality in the are in question? I've yet to see anyone answer that one with any degree of certainty.

I can tell that you haven't gone over this ground with Gary because the first time I spoke to him about it we covered this. And let us say that we don't know how it happened ... whether it was a timing delay in getting fixative applied to the Polaroid - whether it was that the photo wasn't stored at the right temperature - whether it was an issue with the composition of the film stock ... what seems to be important is that the Polaroid did fade and the scientist said with fading came the loss of quality. That loss of clarity in the image, regardless of the cause or causes, is the difference between Jack having a far better image than the one you have chosen to embrace. Is that not the bottom line here!

Yes I have done a number of tests using the Moorman lens and quite a few different films and devices. I've shoot three kinds of polaroid and also a 48 mega-pixel digital scan back. This was quite a few years ago when we were working on the Moorman in the street issue. I'm sure you remember. You wanted me to send my system down to you in Texas. None of the polariod films were the exact same stock as was available to Moorman. The closest was the current verison of the 3000 iso film she used, Type 57. I also exposed Type 52, and Type 55 film. I've used hte specs for the current Type 57 film to calculate the lpi of the Moorman lens/film/fstop combo. Now I don't know about you but I'm guessing that the specs of this current emulsion are at least as good if not better than the emulsion used in '63

So if I understood your response correctly - you never tested the exact same film stock in question, thus you cannot address what the scientist at Polaroid concluded.

Prints...Thank you for making the point I made many posts ago. Heck if I remember correctly the negs and the prints made in 63 for UPI and their prints were all different...with one being the best. Now given the huge number of variables that can chage the look of an image (which I have listed a few times in this thread already), it kind of makes you wonder WHY this so called image of badgeman is only well defined in ONE copy print of the Moorman and not the others made the same day and even later.

Do you know that Badge Man is not well defined but in only one print? How about the Associated Press print? Do you know if there can be any varibles as to why a print can be better in one attempt than in another. Let us assume that there are, which I believe to be the case - how does effect your conclusion?

Bill the UPI print may or may NOT be a good example of the actual condition of the Moorman in 63. Thats the whole point. Sheesh, this is really lost on you. The fact that it was made rthe same day is great, but it does not assure that the images is faithful to the original. In fact I'm guessing it was not even close, since it was made with newpaper reproduction in mind. That implies an whole different set of printing standards.

I think the original print was photographed and placed into evidence. That photograph showed the desk it sat on - a lighter - and other items that seem to be true to contrast and definition, so how does that influence your conclusion?

And Bill once again you are totally wrong about what can or cannot be seen on the internet. Go to school on this stuff Bill so next time you will know what you are talking about.

I'll say it again ... take a photo of something - post it in JPEG and then in the format of your choice and we will see how much man made clarity and definition was lost or in this case gained in Jack's Badge Man image. I have asked this simple task be done so to prove your point and so far I see nothing.

Jacks badgeman stuff is NOT exactly what was seen on the UPI print. It has been overexposed and additional contast has been added to an image that has been (depending on the version) copied from the original UPI prinl adding new grain detail to a grainless image, then passed through another lens and printed with god knows what contrast and pprocessing variables, then copied to 35mm slide film, adding one more pass through a lens and another new layer of film grain, then copied again with a silde duplicator being overexposed and over contrasted adding another pass through a lens and another layer of film grain. Just as they are seen on the UPI print? Not even close! Did all of this create something that resembles a bunny in the clouds? Looks like it. Could the Morrman camera/lens'film resolve the detail shown? Nope

And again ... take the drum scan and recreate Jack's image using the processes that you claim he did it with. I have asked for this several times and again you have shown nothing. I say it cannot be done and I have others tell me the same, so prove everyone wrong, Craig.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

BTW, why not post a NICE AND BIG HIGH QUALIY SCAN of the full Thompson #1 and then we can all compare this high quality you so often claim....

Craig ... If the drum scan is the true image, then recreate Jack's image ... that should prove your case in spades.

[David G. Healy]

Craig Lamson wrote:

This is like talking to a tree stump. Once`again and maybe it will get past the bark this time. I stated WHITES internet image were worthless. I also explained in great detail ( including a link ) how it is possible to post images to the internet that are not degraded in any way. I also explained how I have posted drum scan crops that match pixel for pixel the data tha came from the drum. Post your images in PNG format Bill. Sheesh

Bill Miller wrote:

Craig ... scan an image of Badge Man out of a book and post it in Jpeg and then in the format of your preference so we can see this vast difference for study ... I say that the image will be the same - prove me wrong!!!

And this is conversation about a 1st generation photo/print quality issue? Who cares what Badge Man in a book looks like! That gets someone closer to the original quality... Are you reading what your writing? Do you know what an image *loseless* codec is? This is ridiculous.... Perhaps you should get to work on that forum signature block of yours...

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson keeps demanding a scan from the Thompson #1, knowing full

well that the print was returned to Thompson by Mack when we finished

with it in the 80s. Therefore we cannot scan it. Any images I post of

it are from my copy negs or prints, which Lamson will admit that are

not identical to the original. I post from my copies, and he continues

to demand scans from the ORIGINAL, which he knows that neither

Gary nor I have.

Jack

Come on Jack, don't be silly. I've not asked you to scan the original print, because I know it's Tinks. You are the one who went on about your high quality UPI , and thats what I want you to post...YOURS..the full frame. That can't be that hard now can it? NOw you say your copies of the original UPI print produced badgeman...right? So lets all try it again FROM YOUR FULL FRAME COPY of the original...something about the same size as the drum scan. Lets see the result!

[Craig Lamson]

Craig ... scan an image of Badge Man out of a book and post it in Jpeg and then in the format of your preference so we can see this vast difference for study ... I say that the image will be the same - prove me wrong!!!

I'll be happy to do just that. However I'll offer you the chance to correct this very silly statement of yours first.

So we have an image seen on tv. Can you or Mack state with complete fact that the filming process did not change the contrast and density of the image? Of course not. this argument is about as lamer as ti comes. You also fail with your comparison of the drum scan to the tv image. As has been told to you more than once the data from the drum scanner was not altered in any fashion. That means none of the standard adjustments like curves or levels ( that would be contrast and lighting in you silly terms) were done to the image. With these adjustments the drum scan can look very nice and contrasty and thick.

Craig, you have allegedly studied the drum scan and you asking if Mack can or cannot state with complete fact if the filming process changed the contrast and density on the image that was filmed on TV is something you should be asking before coming to a conclusion. Let us say that Mack can say for certain that the contrast and density looked the same, which would answer the question that you felt was important enough to ask only now ... would your position change and why or why not???

You miss the point AGAIN Bill. Thick bark? Mack CAN'T say with certanity.

But all of this STILL misses the point and puts us right back to Garys poor statement. He had no way to be sure the differencs he was seeing in the thumbprint Moorman or the UPI Moorman were caused by the fading. He was guessing.

I think Gary has consulted the Polariod scientist who gave him the infromation that you want to argue about. Email Gary and see if I got that right or not and post it.

Yes and I've talked to Gary about this. No amount of data from a scientist can help. Gary still cannot say truthfully what caised the difference between the copy prints. Heck Bill...even the UPI prints were different. Was the loss of detrail between these examples due to fading?

And there is nothing wrong with that. The correct statement from Mack would have reflected that fact. Now you (like Gary has in the past) make this blanket statement about how the image faded.."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." And I'll ask again and maybe this time Mack can provide a cite or two. What faded first..d-max or d-min? How about the mid-tones? Or did it fade evenly over the entire tonal range? And was this actual fading of the image clouds or was the fading actually a shift in tone for cool black to a warm sepia? You see Bill the blanket just can't cover the problem.

Hey great! I think Gary has answered that question and that the scientist answered it. I do however believe that they were not able to come up with the exact cause(s) as to why it happened. The important thing was that it did happen, but not before the Associated Press and UPI prints of 1963/64 were created. BUt Gary has forgotten more about this data than you or I know combined, so let him answer it and I'll ask you again that if he is correct, then how does this question and answer effect your current position.

It changes nothing about the original problem which was Gary's statement. It's an easy fix on Garys part and well done can still convey nearly the same message. Only this time it could be the truth.

As I stated eariler, I've no doubt the image faded. The question at hand is how did that fading ACTUALLY effect the image quality in the are in question? I've yet to see anyone answer that one with any degree of certainty.

I can tell that you haven't gone over this ground with Gary because the first time I spoke to him about it we covered this. And let us say that we don't know how it happened ... whether it was a timing delay in getting fixative applied to the Polaroid - whether it was that the photo wasn't stored at the right temperature - whether it was an issue with the composition of the film stock ... what seems to be important is that the Polaroid did fade and the scientist said with fading came the loss of quality. That loss of clarity in the image, regardless of the cause or causes, is the difference between Jack having a far better image than the one you have chosen to embrace. Is that not the bottom line here!

Of course I've been over this ground with Gary. And Bill, I'm not embracing the drum scan as anything more than it is. It is not my claim that it is the best Moorman in existance. Quite the contrary. It was copied from a faded original. The question is what has changed due to fading? That sadly we can never know. We can't really compare the drum scan to the UPI to check that out either. WHY? Because there are simply TOO MANY VARIABLES in the copy and printing process! We can make some ASSUMPTIONS but assumptions are not fact, which is the whole thrust of this point.

Yes I have done a number of tests using the Moorman lens and quite a few different films and devices. I've shoot three kinds of polaroid and also a 48 mega-pixel digital scan back. This was quite a few years ago when we were working on the Moorman in the street issue. I'm sure you remember. You wanted me to send my system down to you in Texas. None of the polariod films were the exact same stock as was available to Moorman. The closest was the current verison of the 3000 iso film she used, Type 57. I also exposed Type 52, and Type 55 film. I've used hte specs for the current Type 57 film to calculate the lpi of the Moorman lens/film/fstop combo. Now I don't know about you but I'm guessing that the specs of this current emulsion are at least as good if not better than the emulsion used in '63

So if I understood your response correctly - you never tested the exact same film stock in question, thus you cannot address what the scientist at Polaroid concluded.

Well, once again you don't understand. I've not made any fading tests nor am I planning on doing any. I've made no claims at all about how the print faded. I was asking questions.

Prints...Thank you for making the point I made many posts ago. Heck if I remember correctly the negs and the prints made in 63 for UPI and their prints were all different...with one being the best. Now given the huge number of variables that can chage the look of an image (which I have listed a few times in this thread already), it kind of makes you wonder WHY this so called image of badgeman is only well defined in ONE copy print of the Moorman and not the others made the same day and even later.

Do you know that Badge Man is not well defined but in only one print? How about the Associated Press print? Do you know if there can be any varibles as to why a print can be better in one attempt than in another. Let us assume that there are, which I believe to be the case - how does effect your conclusion?

I don't know for sure, but thats the story everyone tells. Do you know for sure? Of course ther eare variables. I've been making that point for many posts now. Does it effect my conclusions? Of course not. THAT WAS MY CONCLUSION!

Bill the UPI print may or may NOT be a good example of the actual condition of the Moorman in 63. Thats the whole point. Sheesh, this is really lost on you. The fact that it was made rthe same day is great, but it does not assure that the images is faithful to the original. In fact I'm guessing it was not even close, since it was made with newpaper reproduction in mind. That implies an whole different set of printing standards.

I think the original print was photographed and placed into evidence. That photograph showed the desk it sat on - a lighter - and other items that seem to be true to contrast and definition, so how does that influence your conclusion?

The Zippo I have seen was a mess so drawing conclusions from it are worthless. Post a good copy and lets see.

And Bill once again you are totally wrong about what can or cannot be seen on the internet. Go to school on this stuff Bill so next time you will know what you are talking about.

I'll say it again ... take a photo of something - post it in JPEG and then in the format of your choice and we will see how much man made clarity and definition was lost or in this case gained in Jack's Badge Man image. I have asked this simple task be done so to prove your point and so far I see nothing.

Bill, Jacks badgman images proves the point you are too blind to see. Just look at the wall. Has the edge line of the wall changes due to over exposure and excessive contrast? Of course it has. NEW DETAIL HAS BEEN CREATED that does not exist in the original. How many times do you need to hear this before it sinks in? This is not a comppression issue. That is a different problem. Think man..think!

Jacks badgeman stuff is NOT exactly what was seen on the UPI print. It has been overexposed and additional contast has been added to an image that has been (depending on the version) copied from the original UPI prinl adding new grain detail to a grainless image, then passed through another lens and printed with god knows what contrast and pprocessing variables, then copied to 35mm slide film, adding one more pass through a lens and another new layer of film grain, then copied again with a silde duplicator being overexposed and over contrasted adding another pass through a lens and another layer of film grain. Just as they are seen on the UPI print? Not even close! Did all of this create something that resembles a bunny in the clouds? Looks like it. Could the Morrman camera/lens'film resolve the detail shown? Nope

And again ... take the drum scan and recreate Jack's image using the processes that you claim he did it with. I have asked for this several times and again you have shown nothing. I say it cannot be done and I have others tell me the same, so prove everyone wrong, Craig.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Wim Dankbaar]

Craig and Bill,

Why don't you give up arguing with each other? It's clear that Bill will not surrender. You know, on every issue there will always be denyers. There are also people who still deny the holocaust. It's no use trying to convince them.

Do you think I care that not everyone believes James Files?

Wim

[Craig Lamson]

C Lamson and I have more than none thing in common (other than much heated discussions and outright attacks).

Now David, I've always considered it just light hearted banter between peers...

[Wim Dankbaar]

Wim,

I agree with you that "never the 'twain shall meet", but I think putting James files or Badge Man in the same league with the Holocaust is a bit of a stretch.

Kathy, I don't put Badgeman and James Files in the same league with the Holocaust. On the contrary!

By the way, I believe the holocaust happened, as certain as James Files took that shot from the grassy knoll.

Wim

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

I believe that Files drew this. I'm not sure how far down this is.

Kathy

Thanks Kathy, i've seen that before. I'm just interested in confirming with Wim what the Files distance from the fence was as i've heard others say that he has frequently changed his location. Not having studied James Files in depth, I would not know if this is correct, so I would like Wim to confirm and pinpoint the location for me.

Duncan

Hi Kathy!

Would you look at the Files' drawing (did you get this from my post on a different thread?) & then look at this excellent photo made by a real pro who also knows Files' confession?

Notice anything interesting?

Edited for punctuation.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Miles Scull