Bill Miller Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 They go on to say that there could be no washout of one thing and not another of equal tone and density. That just about sums up their expertise then. No photographic expert could possibly come to that conclusion. Another classic piece of nonsense. What are the names of these idiots who told you this? You posted recently that you do not need to consult an expert, so how is it that you can tell this forum what an expert would and would not say??? Should we just tell the experts to go search Lancer's archives to see how you reached your conclusion or do you care to educate us on how something occurred on the Moorman photograph to wash-out just your alleged shooters body ... I look forward to another say-nothing response!!! What you have done is to rather than to admit your mistake ... you merely say that the photo washed out in that one spot. No I didn't say that, keep dancin Bill Please clarify!!! The foliage is not washed out at that location .. the top of the fence isn't washed out ... just everything between the two, so call it what ever you like, but just explain it. Thanks!!! No offence intended, but are you thick or just pretending to be? As I said, your so called experts are way off with the information that they apparently gave you, or are you just making it up??? Photographs can have washout, fading, damage, whatever you want to call it, in different areas of the same photograph, that's a fact, there's no disputing that fact. You should kick the so called experts who told you otherwise out of touch. Who are these uneducated non expert morons who fed you this garbage???Duncan[/b] Great stuff Duncan! So show us on your print where the selected damage is seen and what caused it in your view??? For instance : Fading ... can you cite any expert to have said that the Moorman photo didn't fade equally over time? Can you point to any expert who has said that the Moorman photo was subjected to damage in any particular area?? Is there anything that you can say that just isn't your opiunion based on something that you may or may not have discussed somewhere hidden in the Lancer archives??? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 (edited) nks for the lesson Alan, I really appreciate it, and it's nice to see you coming out of hibernation and posting more unqualified uneducated twallop on this your 2nd favourite forum. Are you one of the experts i've been asking Bill to name? LOL!!! I was in need of a good laugh, and you have supplied that, thanks I have overlaid my superior enhancement over your grainy Moorman at an approximate scale. Enjoy Duncan[/b] Duncan, There are two sayings that come to mind when reading your response to Alan. The first says that 'if a lawyer represents himself in a legal matter, then he has a fool for a client'. The other says that 'the difference between a smart person and a stupid one is that the stupid person never knows when they are wrong.' I have found that when someone claims that they do not need to seek the opnion of experts, if for no other reason than peer review, then its most likely because they already know that their work is flawed. Bill Edited May 26, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Simple physics tells anyone with half a brain that materials degenerate over time due to time itself, more uncommonly known as the half life of an object, and other factors. Deterioration can happen in different areas of any single photograph. That's a FACT!! There is no need for me to contact what you classify as an expert to learn something I already know...Now WHO are your so called experts who told you otherwise??? Wow ... I have photos of myself as a kid and they are as clear today as they were when they were taken. But Moorman's photo as a whole had faded over time because it wasn't coated like it should have been. As far as selective damage ... there are no water spots that show where a glass was sat on the picture. There are no holes eaten through the photo anywhere. There are no burn or scorch marks on the photo. So please give this forum just one scenario where a washout could have occurred only between the foliage and the fence so to erase your alleged shooter. I must say that your washout theory is looking like nothing but a convenience to keep from admitting that your alleged cop shooter isn't supported by the evidence. Remember that you don't need to consult any experts, so a sensible and rational answer should be no problem for you to come up with. Should we just tell the experts to go search Lancer's archives to see how you reached your conclusion or do you care to educate us on how something occurred on the Moorman photograph to wash-out just your alleged shooters body ... I look forward to another say-nothing response!!! What any researcher chooses to do is their choice So you are OK with not answering these questions so that others can possibly learn something from you. Instead ... they should just be told to go look for the answers on another forum. I must ask you ... What is your purpose for participating on an Education Forum if you aren't going to cooperate with the members??? If you just want to make claims and not have them challenged, then create a web-page. What you have done is to rather than to admit your mistake ... you merely say that the photo washed out in that one spot. Once again, I didn't say it was only washed out in one spot, but if you choose to continue saying that, say it. It's no water off my back to read your calculated I'll try to annoy Duncan disinfo garbage Beautiful! So please tell me what else has been erased from Moorman's photo due to washout??? I've shown the shooter. If you want to dispute the washout, then you tell everyone where the washout is not located in that particular area. To dispute something with me, you need to be precise, and pinpoint the location of where you say the washout is not located...I'm waiting Duncan I know James Gordon, thus I am aware that people from your country can be intelligent. You have selected a location that you claim to show a shooter dressed like a cop. I have said that between the top of the fence and the bottom of the tree foliage doesn't show a body ... so what about that specific location do you not understand? Do I need to ask James Gordon to come here and translate the question for you?? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 (edited) I have overlaid my superior enhancement over your grainy Moorman at an approximate scale. Thanks. Now everyone can plainly see the difference. You took an image of two figures on the pedestal & enhanced it so much they dissapeared. That's the bottom line. As for the personal comments, they just highlight your lack of class & there's me thinking your "enhancments" made you like bad. Did you ever apply these same "superior" techniques on the "Hatman" image? Here's hoping... Edited May 26, 2008 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Bronson shows two mysterious unidentified identically dressed blond ladies by the curb.Jack Jack, I know it can only ever be a guess but I personally believe both of these women have been acounted for. The first is seen in Wiegman running east along the sidewalk. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...gmanrunning.jpg I heard another researcher point out that this could been the same woman who told officer Smith, "They are shooting the President from the bushes". The second woman is still right there, laying on the ground east of the Newmans. To be honest I forget her name but it's the reporter captured in many images & who said the same thing as the first woman, the shots came from the knoll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Wow ... I have photos of myself as a kid and they are as clear today as they were when they were taken.They're not actually Non-responsive. But Moorman's photo as a whole had faded over time because it wasn't coated like it should have been.Plus half life degeneration Please explain in more detail. Also, address if the 'half-life' of the photograph (as you call it) would effect the entire photo equally or not certain parts?? ... there are no water spots that show where a glass was sat on the picture. There are no holes eaten through the photo anywhere. There are no burn or scorch marks on the photo.So what? "So what" .... you know that an expert would not have to say 'so what!'. You have invented a term so make it appear that the middle of your alleged shooter is missing related to the photograph washing out. In other words you ask us to believe that ther entire mid-section of a person is erased from the image, but not the top of the fence and the bottom of the tree foliage. Would it not seem at least questionable as to how this washout would know to stop at the borders I have mentioned? I contend that it is nothing more than the Dallas sky that is seen between the top of the fence and the bottom edge of the tree foliage. You content that a washout has occurred and I am trying to find out how is it that you can justify saying that the surrounding objects were not wash out, but rather just your alleged figure. All you have said so far is that you do not need to consult experts - that your alleged figure's mid-section is missing because of something you call 'washout'. The question before you is what possibly could cause your alleged figure to wash out only between the top of the fence and the bottom of the tree foliage??? So please give this forum just one scenario where a washout could have occurred only between the foliage and the fence so to erase your alleged shooter. Washout does not occur only in the area which you specified. You were asked as to what other objects besides your alleged cop impostor assassin was erased from the photo due to 'washout' and you still have not named these other things. Can you be more specific?? I must say that your washout theory is looking like nothing but a convenience to keep from admitting that your alleged cop shooter isn't supported by the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 What alleged cop shooter? The cop is your invention Yes Duncan ... I use the term 'cop' and you say its 'someone dressed like a cop'. I think we can get beyond that conflict and understand what it is that we are trying to say. Remember that you don't need to consult any experts, so a sensible and rational answer should be no problem for you to come up with.Supplied Non-responsive. For us slower dimwitted researchers ... care to link the answer you supplied??? How about just a post # that can be verified??? So you are OK with not answering these questions so that others can possibly learn something from you.I have answered them and pointed anyone who is intersted in the correct direction. And that direction was to go to another forum and look for it themselves. (really lame, Duncan) Instead ... they should just be told to go look for the answers on another forum.Yes, that's correct, it's all there. But its not here on this forum where you have entered into a debate. You don't answer direction questions - you claim it to be on another forum - you offer no links or thread titles so people can search for what you don't appear to want to say to this forum ... (quite suspicious behavior). If you just want to make claims and not have them challenged, then create a web-page. I have a website which I am still developing and I will put my research on it when time permits. Feel free to join, add and share your research. Myjfkspace.com So then why do you come to an Education Forum - the JFK debate section - only to not care to answer direct question put forth to you concerning your claims? Beautiful! So please tell me what else has been erased from Moorman's photo due to washout???Lots of areas Bill, parts of Zap, Sitz, Hudson, grass trees, sky, the limo, etc etc etc Splendid!!! Please feel free to show us just what else washed-out in Moorman's photograph. Its only fair that we see if you are only choosing locations that are of the same color-tone on a B&W images, thus you are mislabeling it a wash-out or is your assertion justifiable. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 (edited) Yes Duncan ... I use the term 'cop' An admission at last and you say its 'someone dressed like a cop'. No I don't In your response you imply that you don't refer to your alleged assassin as a cop. I think most everyone has seen your drawing and how you posted his outline next to Badge Man ... but if you say you were not alleging that it was someone dressed like a cop, then so be it, but you are not being truthful never-the-less. Let me prove just how dishonest your reply is ... Duncan MacRae Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Apr 19 2008, 12:21 AM Post #16 Super Member **** Group: Members Posts: 1099 Joined: 6-February 05 Member No.: 2442 'he didn't see the alleged Duncan floating cop torso' Bill Miller 'Maybe he did see him' Duncan In the above back and forth .. you didn't say that I was wrong about your referring to someone looking like a cop. No, instead you merely acknowledge 'maybe he (Bowers) did see him'. Here is your illustration below ... is it possible that you meant to draw in a ice-cream man - a milk-man - Miss Daisy's driver ... or were you inferring that it was someone in a cops uniform??? But don't be so quick to answer for you have said more ... Well, lets see what else you posted ... Duncan MacRae Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Apr 30 2008, 11:00 PM Post #46 Super Member **** Group: Members Posts: 1099 Joined: 6-February 05 Member No.: 2442 DUNCAN: As I said in the above post, I have never said that it was a cop. If you choose to believe it's a cop, that's ok with me. My view is that it is probably someone disguised in a cop's outfit. So it appears that for the sake of show-boating ... after I said that you claim the guy was dressed like a cop ... you then denied doing so, yet you have said that you believe it to be someone disguised in a cops outfit. Do we need to consult an expert to find out if someone dressed like a cop is the same thing as someone being disguised as a cop!!! If it is your intention to be dishonest over the little things that are really unimportant, then how am I to know when you really believe in what you are saying and not being dishonest so to keep from admitting your errors??? The rest of your reply was non-responsive. You simply are not going to cooperate and be straight forward with your answers. You claim that I already know the answers to my questions, but what about the newbies who maybe were not on Lancer ... do they not have a right to see your position detailed on the very forum you seem to want to post it on??? Yes, I know why you won't cooperate and it goes hand and hand with the deception you started your last response with. You did say that it was someone dressed like a cop, thus you were either dishonest in your answer or you say so much off-the-cuff nonsense that you have lost track of just what you have said. I do not think its the latter, but possibly a combination of both. Such is the case with this nonsense ... "Now once more... Who were the experts who told you that photographs can not fade in different areas of the same photograph???.....another classic piece of nonsense LOL!!!" Your question pertains to fading and our discussion has been over 'WASH-OUT'! Maybe it would help if you started a new policy whereas you won't no longer think that you are so knowledgeable as to not seek the opinions of experts. At east talk to one about the difference between fading and wash-out. Bill Edited May 27, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) I never said he was a cop. I said, and you have quilified what i said. " It was probably someone disguised as a cop "It may have been a cop, it may not have been a cop. Now, instead of accusing me of witholding information from other member's, which I am not, it's available at Lancer, how about you divulging the names of the experts who you consulted, and who you claimed in an earlier post reply, told you that photographs can not fade in different areas of the same photograph. Don't the member's have a right to know the inventors of this garbage disinfo? Duncan What does 'quilified" mean??? As far as the cop matter. Here is a paste of what I said in post #98 ....."You were asked as to what other objects besides your alleged cop impostor assassin was erased from the photo due to 'washout' and you still have not named these other things. Can you be more specific??" You should read these post better before responding. I said, "alleged cop impostor" ... you say 'disguised as a cop' - Would you care to tell us what the difference is between those two phrases so people just won't think you are trying to avoid the questions put forth???????? Let me see if I have this right ..... you feel that you don't need to consult experts (presumably because you think you are smarter than they are) ... and before you get their names, you have labeled what ever they are going to say as 'garbage disinfo'. So what would be accomplished now by me lining up 1000 experts that you feel that they don't know as much as you do. LOL!!!! I will tell you that only recently I had talked with Gary Mack and I asked him if any of the many experts that he has worked with on Moorman's photo - did they ever say anything about this alleged 'washout' effect that Duncan has claimed to exist. The answer was that they had not. The photo faded because of the time lapse before coating it. Now you have been asked to explain this so-called washout and what could have caused it. You are the one who doesn't need to consult experts and I don't want to tell you what they have said only to have you just say they are wrong. remember - you are smarter than they are, so let us here what you have in support of your claim. Someone as knowledgeable as you are and who doesn't need to consult an expert should be able to mow right through the specifics! I look forward to hearing what ever details you can give us. Bill Edited May 29, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) What does 'quilified" mean??? Bill Duncan, "Quilified" is not to be confused with "Qualified" but means to be made like Quiller or to be placed in a memorandum. Sometimes used to refer to a potential mole at the 6th floor. Consider this expert advice. Edited May 29, 2008 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 What does 'quilified" mean??? Bill Duncan, "Quilified" is not to be confused with "Qualified" but means to made like Quiller or to be placed in a memorandum. Sometimes used to refer to a potential mole at the 6th floor. Consider this expert advice. This is all Google would give me ... Did you mean: qualified definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) Someone as knowledgeable as you are and who doesn't need to consult an expert should be able to mow right through the specifics! I look forward to hearing what ever details you can give us.Bill I'm still waiting for you to name the experts who told you that photographs can not fade in different areas of an individual photograph. Duncan "Let me see if I have this right ..... you feel that you don't need to consult experts (presumably because you think you are smarter than they are) ... and before you get their names, you have labeled what ever they are going to say as 'garbage disinfo'. So what would be accomplished now by me lining up 1000 experts that you feel that they don't know as much as you do. LOL!!!! I will tell you that only recently I had talked with Gary Mack and I asked him if any of the many experts that he has worked with on Moorman's photo - did they ever say anything about this alleged 'washout' effect that Duncan has claimed to exist. The answer was that they had not. The photo faded because of the time lapse before coating it. Now you have been asked to explain this so-called washout and what could have caused it. You are the one who doesn't need to consult experts and I don't want to tell you what they have said only to have you just say they are wrong. remember - you are smarter than they are, so let us here what you have in support of your claim. Someone as knowledgeable as you are and who doesn't need to consult an expert should be able to mow right through the specifics! I look forward to hearing what ever details you can give us." My remarks still stand. This stalling of yours is the same ol' same ol' with you. The bottom line is that you don't know squat about Moorman's photo. You certainly had never seen it when it was still a good unfaded print. You started with a conclusion and looked for something to support it and your support came by way of claiming a wash-out at the exact location that you alleged an impostor in a cops uniform to be. The only thing you have done since then is try to argue some difference between a 'cop impostor' Vs. 'someone disguised as a cop'. I was told by those I had spoken with that your definition for what you are trying to claim isn't even accurate. You have been asked how a 'wash-out' (your term) could occur at the fence and foliage borders only so to allegedly erase a shooter that you claim to exist in Moorman's photo. Also, having inquired about the history of Moorman's photo and how it is stored ... it is a fair question to ask that you explain what causes if any could erase an image totally from the picture and not the surrounding borders on wither side of this alleged figure. Until you explain your findings by answering the questions, then I am not going further with something that you know nothing about and who believes that no matter what the experts say ... you already feel that you know more than they do when obviously you don't! In fact, you have not even supplied one example of selective washout to one area of a photo and not the other, nor have you given us any data to support how such an event could occur. Bill Edited May 29, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 The fact is Bill, you are refusing to name the "experts" who you claim told you that photographs can not fade in different areas of the individual photograph. Why won't you name those idiots who told you that?..I'll tell you why, and it doesn't take a genius to work out why..Why?...Because they didn't tell you that, it's all in your under fertile imagination LOL!!! I posted that I double checked with Gary Mack again about the MANY photographic experts that he has worked with pertaining to the Moorman photograph and what you have claimed about it. Already you are referring to them as idiots ... did you at least attempt to verify that not a single oner of them have ever proposed what you are saying about that photo??? (Of course not!) And like I have clearly said several times now ... It is you who has made the claim and all that is being asked of you is to detail how you arrived at such a conclusion. I am certain that you know absolutely nothing about what you are trying to sell here. In your owns words .. why would you need me to cite who you call 'idiots' to tell us the specifics as to how you reached your conclusion. I am still awaiting the details of your study and what principles you applied to your findings. And who might these experts be who studied the washout at 33ft? and other areas of Moorman like the fading of the men on the steps for example. I'm asking you, not Gary. Fading is not 'wash-out'. Please keep the two separate as I have done. The photo faded because of the time lapse before coating it.Yes, it was me who told you that I am not going to go back and looks for the specifics to this because even when it is shown that you have misstated something - you don't change it. It has been general knowledge that Moorman's photo has faded over time ... this has come up long before the drum scan was ever made. Now you have been asked to name the experts who told you that it is not washout, and that photographs can not fade in different areas of an individual photograph. This is not an answer to my question. This forum is still waiting for you to clarify how you reached your conclusions. Your avoiding this fair questions appears to be nothing more than an attempt to cover-up the fact that you don't really know why you have said what you have. Your claim cannot and/or should not be rebutted until you first detail how your reached your conclusion. My question will stand until you answer it. What I have as support are people who agree with it, people who know that photographs CAN fade in more than one area LOL!!! Well hopefully they will join in the discussion and answer the question that you don't seem to wish to address. I, and those who support me know that it's faded in more than one area LOL!!! Duncan The voices in your head do not count. If there is any other source for all these supporters, then let them answer the questions for you. Personally, I think its a joke for someone to make a claim and then when asked to explain the specifics as to how they drew their conclusions - the claim maker stone-walls. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) No, you said that experts, plural, told you that photographs can not fade in more than one place. Now you can duck and dive all you want, but that's what you said, and i'm still waiting to hear from you which experts gave you this information. I won't hold my breath though. Because you seem to misstate things quite a bit ... its best to paste my remark below ... Post #87 "Duncan ... the fence line, as well as the tree foliage line has been pointed out to you as 'NOT WASHING OUT' ... it was also pointed out that tree trunks and towers passing between the two are visible, but yet you say the midsection of the alleged shooter that you have purposed has no midsection because it is 'washed out'. I have asked you a simple question as to how can the photo, which has in its entirety be subjected to the same amount of light and temperature, be alleged to have washed out the area between the foliage and the top of the fence in that one particular spot??? The people I have spoke to on this matter have said that there was no so-called washout on the original photo and/or the good prints made from it. They go on to say that there could be no washout of one thing and not another of equal tone and density. What you have done is to rather than to admit your mistake ... you merely say that the photo washed out in that one spot. I refer to that premise as 'selective washout'. So please tell me how there could be washout just on your alleged figure near the fence and not of the fence and foliage, not to mention the train tower much further away??? Bill" Maybe we should do a study on the total of things you have gotten wrong in this thread alone. (sigh~) Anyone who says that a photograph can not fade in different areas is an idiot, I stand by that. You have been asked repeatedly just what would cause a photo to wash out in certain areas and not others ... and how did it apply to Moorman's photo, if at all. You seem to refuse to answer the question. You know the history of the claim, it's on Lancer. I don't recall the details, Duncan. All I remember is that some joker offered up a claim and wouldn't offer any specifics as to how he reached his conclusion. And what about the members on this forum who maybe do not belong to Lancer ... should you not post the answer for them or do you feel that they don't deserve a straight forward answer. I say to quit trying to talk about everything else and just answer the question put to you on the causes of selective washout and how did they apply to Moorman's photo??? And my question will stand regarding the identity of the experts who you claim told you, not Gary, that photographs can not fade in more than one area. Duncan Here is some history of the Moorman photo - Before 1967 ... the prints made from the Moorman photo were clearer than the photo you use (drum scan) most often. At the time Thompson made the drum scan ... it was found that Moorman's photo had faded over time. The image that you use is two generations away from the original. The negative being made and then a print being made from the negative. The fading consisted of the entire photo being light. There is nothing missing in the drum scan that was present in the early prints before fading had taken place. Two people who can vouch for this are Gary Mack and Jack White. Robert Groden would be another. Thompson would be yet another. You see (Duncecan) ... your 'the assassin has been washed out' is debunked by the early clear prints that were made before any fading ever took place. This is true because your alleged assassin is not seen between the top of the fence and the bottom of the tree foliage in the original Moorman photo and/or in early prints made from it. You have claimed 'wash-out' before first knowing the difference between fading and washout, or knowing what actually would cause washout and did it apply to Moorman's photograph. You have even outsmarted yourself this time. Bill Edited May 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 (edited) The rifle and barrel can be seen. I have always said that the unclear midsection could be washout, smoke, or a combination of both. Your recreation seems to support thisDuncan 'The rifle and barrel can be seen' ... if that is your story, then what have you done other than to post blurry images to this forum to get your findings out??? Have you contacted Scotland Yard about this??? The smoke theory might be hard to find a reference to it ... you have been pushing 'washout' for a long time now. So with the rifle aimed towards the east and knowing the direction of the wind at the time of the shooting ... do you really want to be on record as implying that the smoke could have hidden your alleged shooter ... I wouldn't! And I gotta share this observation ... Your 'I can see stuff blocking out the sky above the fence in some places and not where I claim a shooters body was, so my guy must have been washed out' is really lame - even for you. Was there not tree trunks along the fence ... any of them missing from Moorman's photo that were seen in other photos??? How about overhanging tree foliage that would appear to touch the top of the fence from Moorman's uphill view??? Are you ready to admit that you are pushing for 'selective washout'??? I mean ... you still haven't said how this 'washout' managed to stay within the borders between the top of the fence and the bottoms of the tree foliage. Bill Edited June 2, 2008 by Bill Miller 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