Jack White Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Yep...the Bronson slide shows many interesting things, like this one. Jack (I am looking for the one which shows Bea Hester holding a large sign as JFK passes.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Bronson shows two mysterious unidentified identically dressed blond ladies by the curb. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 It may be a newspaper, not a sign, that Mrs. Hester holds. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) There is much interesting information in the Bronson slide.Jack Jack, with all due respect ... you are using one image that is so far away and blurred that minute detail is being lost ... not to mention the bush being seen from a totally different angle altogether which does make a difference in how the foliage will appear. I am sitting here looking at a bush across the road from me that has higher branches on it than others in the same bush, but when seen from the side they all clump together and appear to be uniform in shape. No mystery there! By the way, thanks for posting the Bronson slide image. I find it odd, although nothing new, that Duncan can draw floating cop torsos out of badly degraded images, but cannot see the white of Sitzman's hand on the back of Zapruder's coat. Maybe if someone can destroy the image to the state at which Duncan did the Black Dog Man in the image below ... then maybe he will then spot the hand. (smile~) Bill Edited May 13, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Zappy films Sitz's bosom. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) Yep...the Bronson slide shows many interesting things, like this one.Jack (I am looking for the one which shows Bea Hester holding a large sign as JFK passes.) Zapruder is much closer, thus causing him to have a steeper angle to Moorman's location. Because of that angle ... the slope of the south pasture to the curb cannot be seen, but Bronson seeing Moorman from behind and at a lesser angle sees Moorman over the edge of the pasture as it declines to the curb. No mystery here either. And the object that Mrs. Hester was holding appears to have been a newspaper ... possibly one with the already altered Zapruder frames - YOU THINK!!! Bill Edited May 13, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Zappy films Sitz's bosom.Jack The other option is that you have misread the image. That Zapruder's body is between Sitzman and Bronson, thus casting a shadow upon her. Below is a Nix frame and I can see the white of Sitzman's face and Zapruder's two legs ... just as I do in Bronson's slide. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Bill, Halt, cease and desist. Are you sure you are talking to the actual David and Jack? How can we be sure it is really them? How can we be sure the person known as Duncan is really Duncan, and not some cast off from the rock band KISS? How can we be sure that it was really JFK in that limo (I'm already ahead of their next ridiculous claim!), how do we know that JFK is not working in a McDonalds in Kalamazoo Michigan with Elvis, and Richie Valenz, and DB Cooper? Bill Old Buddy you have to draw a line in the sand of stupidity, and just refuse to cross it. Your research time is to valuable to be derailed with the ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 How can we be sure the person known as Duncan is really Duncan, and not some cast off from the rock band KISS?Mike Williams For a newcoming suspected troller, that's quite a statement to make. How do we know that you are who you say you are?. Your picture looks like a rejected frame from an old Action Man TV Commercial, with the hat being way too big for the toy's head. I suspect your comment about the identity of myself and others was intended to provoke. You've got a lot to learn mister, or as DGH would say................Son LOL!!! Gene Simmons Duncan, Man I was way off I had you pegged for Paul Stanley! I assure you if I had been intending to provoke, it would have been very clear, there would be no need to suspect it. My intention was not to provoke, it was a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous post. The question was a matter of identity, there was no intent to be mean spirited. As for me being a xxxxx, well why would that be? Could it be because I speak my mind, and just so happen to not agree with you? Is that the qualification of a xxxxx? Do I need to sugar coat my replies more so as to satisfy the thin skinned among us, and avoid them bunching their cotton lining? As for my photo simply ask around a bit, there are many here who know me, and have seen other pictures of me. I do grant that picture was about 24 years ago, most likely about the same time you had your last haircut. You should feel free to blow that picture of me up, to the point of over pixelation, and you will find my true identity I am sure. Heres a hint, I am not hatman. I would however like to add one further comment. The use of the term Son would imply that you have slept with my mother, she has far better taste than that I am sure, so in the future it may better to leave lineage out of the equation. Rock on Duncan, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 Duncan,Man I was way off I had you pegged for Paul Stanley! Yes, way off, just like the size of that hat. Now if you said you borrowed it from Bill miller who i'm sure his head would produce a better fit, then maybe I would believe you Nice one! I assure you if I had been intending to provoke, it would have been very clear, there would be no need to suspect it. It was very clear Dont be so thin skinned Duncan! My intention was not to provoke, it was a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous post. The question was a matter of identity, there was no intent to be mean spirited. As for me being a xxxxx, well why would that be? I dinn't say you were a xxxxx, I said I suspected you are a xxxxx. The reasons i'll keep to myself. Could it be because I speak my mind, and just so happen to not agree with you? Is that the qualification of a xxxxx? Do I need to sugar coat my replies more so as to satisfy the thin skinned among us, and avoid them bunching their cotton lining? Trolls need no qualifications. Their tactics are always obvious to those, like me who have been around a while. Are they as obvious as Sitzman holding a camera? If they are then reevaluate! As for my photo simply ask around a bit, there are many here who know me, and have seen other pictures of me. I do grant that picture was about 24 years ago, most likely about the same time you had your last haircut. LOL!!! More agent provocateur tactics, and hey you what's your problem with my hair, it obviously gets to you, are you bald as a billiard ball and a tad jealous? LOL!!! You caught me, its this dang receeding hairline! I have no issue with your hair man, Im just ribbing you a bit. You should feel free to blow that picture of me up, to the point of over pixelation, and you will find my true identity I am sure. I'd rather not thanks, I watched The Exorcist last night, and that was scary enough LOL!!! Did you write that one yourself? Heres a hint, I am not hatman. Maybe not the Moorman hatman, but you sure are the forum Hatman...big time Guilty as charged yurhonor! Ill wear that hat anyplace! I would however like to add one further comment. The use of the term Son would imply that you have slept with my mother, she has far better taste than that I am sure, so in the future it may better to leave lineage out of the equation. I have a reply that which I won't post because it would be in extremely bad taste, and I don't want to push the forum rules. Wise beyond your beers! Rock on Duncan, Mike Peace Brother Duncan Ah now the brother relation I would gladly accept. Peace to you as well Brother! After all we are all researching to the same end, to find out what happend that day! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 As for my photo simply ask around a bit, there are many here who know me, and have seen other pictures of me. I do grant that picture was about 24 years ago, most likely about the same time you had your last haircut. You should feel free to blow that picture of me up, to the point of over pixelation, and you will find my true identity I am sure. Heres a hint, I am not hatman. Now that was funny because it probably isn't that far off the mark! I would however like to add one further comment. The use of the term Son would imply that you have slept with my mother, she has far better taste than that I am sure, so in the future it may better to leave lineage out of the equation. I notice that David Healy likes to talk that way too ... possibly he and Duncan were raised by the same pack of wolves. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 I guess you must be thinning on top too Bill, probably be caused the stress of failing to come up with an anwser to the undisputable issues raised by me in " The Gordon Arnold Competition "Duncan The issues that you raise can be solved with a spell-check program and a Psychiatrist. You have a history of not wanting to understand things that do not support your claims. Keep working on that third man at the pedestal. By the way, have you spoken to anyone in Photogammetry yet to see if your Gordon Arnold figure is too small or are you still relying on the same expertise that made you believe that the image of BDM was somehow enhanced by you in the illustration below? The Duncan Black Dog Man enhancement (sigh~) Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 The Duncan Black Dog Man enhancementBill And what's wrong with the enhancement. It's the clearest view the research community has ever had of BDM. No one has bettered it as far as I know. Duncan I rest my case!!! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 Bill To rest a case, you first must have a case. In the case of Gordon Arnold, you promised 6 months ago to present your case. This failure to do so tells everyone who followed the concerned thread that you obviously don't have a case to present. Duncan MacRae You have proved nothing to anyone but yourself. No test images - not even a mention of having solicited the experience of someone skilled in Photogammetry. And if you want to get old claims addressed, then quit making up stupid ones on a daily basis. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Duncan, What "man" are you referring to? I believe Kathy Becket took some photos that show rather well what Bowers was capable of seeing. 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