Interesting photo oddity

[Michael Crane]

Also keep in mind that people that are closer to the camera often look bigger.

[Bill Miller]

Listen you big XXXXXXXXXXXXX! I need no lectures from you. I used the best

images available to me. Apparently Chris and Frank have access to better copies

of the Nix film than available on the Groden DVD. So quit your preaching, you

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!

Go away. Have a nice day. Somewhere else.

Jack

As Groden has said, 'Jack's alteration claims have caused a lot of damage to the progressing of the JFK assassination'. I received this note from a member who has seen your post and this person wrote saying, "Do you remember Father Guido Sarducci from Saturday Night Live--he did a sketch

called "Find the Pope in the Pizza"! you were supposed to find all of the Popes

in a picture of a big pizza on TV, and you were supposed to put a piece of wax

paper over the TV screen and circle them within 30 seconds. Then send your

results in. Winner got a "I saw the Pope on TV" button.

Same stuff, only we're using assassination photos, and it's not funny."

Jack, your past mistakes using such pitiful images brought us things like the' boy turning into a girl' claim, the 'white lady looks black' claim, the 'little girl magically appearing' claim, and the 'wedding party' claim. All because you choose to try and see things from poor (often blurry) images. How many times must you make the same mistakes over and over before someone lectures you???

Bill Miller

Edited February 29, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

After more viewing of the movements of the hand, I have changed my

opinion on this one. The hand seems to belong to Connally in both

frames.

Jack

Yes, I believe this was pointed out to you in post response #59

[David G. Healy]

Listen you big XXXXXXXXXXXXX! I need no lectures from you. I used the best

images available to me. Apparently Chris and Frank have access to better copies

of the Nix film than available on the Groden DVD. So quit your preaching, you

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!

Go away. Have a nice day. Somewhere else.

Jack

As Groden has said, 'Jack's alteration claims have caused a lot of damage to the progressing of the JFK assassination'. I received this note from a member who has seen your post and this person wrote saying, "Do you remember Father Guido Sarducci from Saturday Night Live--he did a sketch

called "Find the Pope in the Pizza"! you were supposed to find all of the Popes

in a picture of a big pizza on TV, and you were supposed to put a piece of wax

paper over the TV screen and circle them within 30 seconds. Then send your

results in. Winner got a "I saw the Pope on TV" button.

Same stuff, only we're using assassination photos, and it's not funny."

Jack, your past mistakes using such pitiful images brought us things like the' boy turning into a girl' claim, the 'white lady looks black' claim, the 'little girl magically appearing' claim, and the 'wedding party' claim. All because you choose to try and see things from poor (often blurry) images. How many times must you make the same mistakes over and over before someone lectures you???

Bill Miller

Nice of you to notice the "pitiful image" angle.... seems to me I had to remind YOU of that multiple times over the years (as well as *phantom* things that grow in DP bushes ands trees), eh? And NO, up-rezzing imagery does not make an image "higher" quality... You remember that one don't ya? Be careful who you correct...

But we'll excuse the same mistakes you've made over and over and OVER....

However, I withdraw the offer to recommend you to John Warnock for a job with Adobe (Photoshop) Software, San Jose. They need REAL image application pro's....

Edited February 29, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

Nice of you to notice the "pitiful image" angle.... seems to me I had to remind YOU of that multiple times over the years (as well as *phantom* things that grow in DP bushes ands trees), eh? And NO, up-rezzing imagery does not make an image "higher" quality... You remember that one don't ya? Be careful who you correct...

But we'll excuse the same mistakes you've made over and over and OVER....

However, I withdraw the offer to recommend you to John Warnock for a job with Adobe (Photoshop) Software, San Jose. They need REAL image application pro's....

David, I have had autistic people try to say something and make more sense. I'm not sure what your remark had to do with Jack's error and why you addressed it to me.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Denis Pointing]

Nice of you to notice the "pitiful image" angle.... seems to me I had to remind YOU of that multiple times over the years (as well as *phantom* things that grow in DP bushes ands trees), eh? And NO, up-rezzing imagery does not make an image "higher" quality... You remember that one don't ya? Be careful who you correct...

But we'll excuse the same mistakes you've made over and over and OVER....

However, I withdraw the offer to recommend you to John Warnock for a job with Adobe (Photoshop) Software, San Jose. They need REAL image application pro's....

David, I have had autistic people try to say something and make more sense. I'm not sure what your remark had to do with Jack's error and why you addressed it to me.

It's the usual alterationist ploy, make ridiculous claims, present shoddy research, then when their mistakes are brought to light they deflect their embarrassment by hurling insults at YOU. Just ignore them Bill, their pathetic. Denis.

[Bill Miller]

It's the usual alterationist ploy, make ridiculous claims, present shoddy research, then when their mistakes are brought to light they deflect their embarrassment by hurling insults at YOU. Just ignore them Bill, their pathetic. Denis.

I hear ya, Denis. The puzzling thing about Healy is that he has never pointed out to Jack that he (Jack) is making erroneous claims from poor quality images. After all, David has posted that he has seen no proof of alteration and yet he had seen all Jack's silly claims in the book David participated in. It's too bad that David didn't try to prevent Jack from going forward with his claims and maybe saved us all some embarrassment as CTs.

[Denis Pointing]

It's the usual alterationist ploy, make ridiculous claims, present shoddy research, then when their mistakes are brought to light they deflect their embarrassment by hurling insults at YOU. Just ignore them Bill, their pathetic. Denis.

I hear ya, Denis. The puzzling thing about Healy is that he has never pointed out to Jack that he (Jack) is making erroneous claims from poor quality images. After all, David has posted that he has seen no proof of alteration and yet he had seen all Jack's silly claims in the book David participated in. It's too bad that David didn't try to prevent Jack from going forward with his claims and maybe saved us all some embarrassment as CTs.

And that's the real shame, they dont just embarrass themselves, but ALL of us too. No wonder so many of the general public think were all a load of nuts. How can anyone take us seriously after reading Jacks posts on this thread, even our own members are laughing at him. That guy should do us all a favour and go back to the Apollo moon hoax board.

[Chris Davidson]

The difference in height might be the result of some people standing on the curb and others standing on the street in front of the garage entrance...

Also -- using an interlaced frame for comparisons is futile. Chris -- you need to make sure you've got progressive frames. The interlacing throws off what you are doing.

Honestly, to my eyes (which aren't always good, so take it for what it is worth), the wedding party seems to be a case of false attachment, but I'll look at it more and post when I get done with work (I don't have access to my files right now).

Frank,

Is there a difference between these two versions?

I tend to think they are both cr---py.

How does interlacing change the size comparison?

thanks

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Request of Chris for better images comparing these two frames.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

In the group of people on the right side, I count 10 in both photos.

The other photos didn't show that white double sign pole on the right side.

chris

[Jack White]

Request of Chris for better images comparing these two frames.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

In the group of people on the right side, I count 10 in both photos.

The other photos didn't show that white double sign pole on the right side.

chris

It appears to me that they are not the same ten people. In Muchmore

I do not see the three guys in white uniforms.

Jack

Edited March 1, 2008 by Jack White

[David G. Healy]

It's the usual alterationist ploy, make ridiculous claims, present shoddy research, then when their mistakes are brought to light they deflect their embarrassment by hurling insults at YOU. Just ignore them Bill, their pathetic. Denis.

I hear ya, Denis. The puzzling thing about Healy is that he has never pointed out to Jack that he (Jack) is making erroneous claims from poor quality images. After all, David has posted that he has seen no proof of alteration and yet he had seen all Jack's silly claims in the book David participated in. It's too bad that David didn't try to prevent Jack from going forward with his claims and maybe saved us all some embarrassment as CTs.

And that's the real shame, they dont just embarrass themselves, but ALL of us too. No wonder so many of the general public think were all a load of nuts. How can anyone take us seriously after reading Jacks posts on this thread, even our own members are laughing at him. That guy should do us all a favour and go back to the Apollo moon hoax board.

same old argument ("nobody takes us CT's seriously" shtick ....) continue moaning and groaning by Lone Nuts (aka LHO did all by his lonesome crowd) have been laying on lurkers for years.

Not to mention, you guys need a new script... getting old- you create the illusion you believe in conspiracy, yet run the other way when confronted with conspiracy.... HSCA = JFK died because of a conspiracy..... game-set-match, hon! We're just mopping up!

Edited March 1, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

same old argument ("nobody takes us CT's seriously" shtick ....) continue moaning and groaning by Lone Nuts (aka LHO did all by his lonesome crowd) have been laying on lurkers for years.

Not to mention, you guys need a new script... getting old- you create the illusion you believe in conspiracy, yet run the other way when confronted with conspiracy.... HSCA = JFK died because of a conspiracy..... game-set-match, hon! We're just mopping up!

David, your comprehension as to what is being said and by who is amazingly poor at times and better at other times - WHY??? It is not just the 'lone nut' believers who aren't taking you seriously, but long time CT's as well. The alteration claims, which by the way you said you have seen no proof of, has divided the CT's so not to be labeled insane through guilt by association as a whole. Each time you respond to a CT's as if he or she is a lone nut believer because their views on a particular point is different than your own, then you only make my point even stronger because it makes you look like a fool to not be able to discern the difference between a CTs and a LNr. For instance, part of the problem appears to be your narrow-mindedness in thinking that anyone who doesn't believe in alteration of the DP assassination films must be a 'lone nutter'. If others thought as you appear to think, then you too, could be considered a LNr after you stated that you have seen no proof of alteration, yet no one has said such an idiotic remark concerning your position. The reason for no one saying such a thing about you on those grounds is quite simple .... its stupid!

Even more interesting is the fact that you go on to say that the HSCA found that there was a conspiracy which in your mind makes game-set-and match. The HSCA didn't say that Moorman was standing in the street, that boys turn into girls, that people magically appear, that people are shorter than parking meters, or that any other alteration claims are true when finding that a conspiracy to kill the President had probably occurred. So your bringing up the HSCA's findings makes my point even clearer ... and that is that someone can believe there was a conspiracy without being so gullible as to embrace every odd-ball claim thrown at the wall to see if it sticks.

As far as referring to me or other male forum members as 'hon', please save that for the appropriate websites. I am 100% male and straight, thus I don't cotton to male forum members calling me 'hon' - 'baby' - 'sweetie' or any other pet name you may be trying to work up to.

Thanks!!!

Edited March 1, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

As far as referring to me or other male forum members as 'hon', please save that for the appropriate websites. I am 100% male and straight, thus I don't cotton to male forum members calling me 'hon' - 'baby' - 'sweetie' or any other pet name you may be trying to work up to.

Below is an excerpt from a post from a recently (today) revived older thread ("Ed Hoffman is incorrect").

The blue dotted line indicates an excision in the the text.

What is of interest is the word fabrication.

Question:

When BM blasted these other film people, did BM mean that there is only one valid Z film?

And that the notion of alteration arises only because of composite fabrication?

And that, therefore, the Z film is not a fabrication?

Can anyone shed any light on this? Thx

[David G. Healy]

same old argument ("nobody takes us CT's seriously" shtick ....) continue moaning and groaning by Lone Nuts (aka LHO did all by his lonesome crowd) have been laying on lurkers for years.

Not to mention, you guys need a new script... getting old- you create the illusion you believe in conspiracy, yet run the other way when confronted with conspiracy.... HSCA = JFK died because of a conspiracy..... game-set-match, hon! We're just mopping up!

David, your comprehension as to what is being said and by who is amazingly poor at times and better at other times - WHY??? It is not just the 'lone nut' believers who aren't taking you seriously, but long time CT's as well. The alteration claims, which by the way you said you have seen no proof of, has divided the CT's so not to be labeled insane through guilt by association as a whole. Each time you respond to a CT's as if he or she is a lone nut believer because their views on a particular point is different than your own, then you only make my point even stronger because it makes you look like a fool to not be able to discern the difference between a CTs and a LNr. For instance, part of the problem appears to be your narrow-mindedness in thinking that anyone who doesn't believe in alteration of the DP assassination films must be a 'lone nutter'. If others thought as you appear to think, then you too, could be considered a LNr after you stated that you have seen no proof of alteration, yet no one has said such an idiotic remark concerning your position. The reason for no one saying such a thing about you on those grounds is quite simple .... its stupid!

Even more interesting is the fact that you go on to say that the HSCA found that there was a conspiracy which in your mind makes game-set-and match. The HSCA didn't say that Moorman was standing in the street, that boys turn into girls, that people magically appear, that people are shorter than parking meters, or that any other alteration claims are true when finding that a conspiracy to kill the President had probably occurred. So your bringing up the HSCA's findings makes my point even clearer ... and that is that someone can believe there was a conspiracy without being so gullible as to embrace every odd-ball claim thrown at the wall to see if it sticks.

As far as referring to me or other male forum members as 'hon', please save that for the appropriate websites. I am 100% male and straight, thus I don't cotton to male forum members calling me 'hon' - 'baby' - 'sweetie' or any other pet name you may be trying to work up to.

Thanks!!!

actually its pretty simple Bill, I understand you haven't a clue about film-photo composition (hell even Lamson called you out time and again) when confronted with the tech side of this deal you run and hide. and that's fine... your being used, champ.

so when you wonder about things like the above, here's my response: I paint a broad stroke with my film-photo commentary (which btw happens to be proven through years of experience something you lack, altogether). I throw it out in all directions and wallah.... you happen to be standing directly in front of it every time.....my suggestion? Duck. You're an easy target. I'm even starting to feel sorry for you....