David G. Healy Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 The Moorman you used for your Arnold comparison with Mike Brown has been faked at the Gornold Arnold position, and no amount of " Billony " { grin } will change that.You should have used an unfaked Moorman for your study, but then again, if you had did that you would have been even further off the mark. YOUR FAKED MOORMAN ARNOLD Duncan There was no faking ... saying such a think is just the actions of some dimwit who doesn't know the facts. We didn't set out to overlay Moorman's photo - we took a photo of three people who stood at various locations above the wall and we did it from Moorman's location. Then in response to some off-the-wall post ... I placed my photo over the top of the same Moorman photo that you use. If your Moorman photo is a fake, then so is mine for it was YOUR photo. The overlay is a mixture of two opacities to show how close I was able to align the various reference points. One can act stupid all they like and it will not change that fact. Maybe if you'd consult and expert ... then possibly they can explain it to you. Anyone can look at the overlay and see some of each photo combined together. One image has less than 50% Opacity and the other greater than 50% and then visa versa. The color going from B&W and back to Color shows this, thus there was no attempt to fool anyone but a fool who cannot take the time to know what was done. Now where does Tony Cummings standing height in relation to the wall??? Bill you're really dancing now, aren't ya..... no one is fooled, but you of course.... ROTFLMFAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 you're really dancing now, aren't ya..... no one is fooled, but you of course.... ROTFLMFAO! One can always tell when they are not to far off the mark because you'll not be able to respond with any data to the contrary, so you opt instead to go with the say-nothing-childish gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 (edited) you're really dancing now, aren't ya..... no one is fooled, but you of course.... ROTFLMFAO! One can always tell when they are not to far off the mark because you'll not be able to respond with any data to the contrary, so you opt instead to go with the say-nothing-childish gibberish. we KNOW a conspiracy did JFK in. Damn near the entire worlds knows it! The longer you hold onto to first generation film/photo images, withhold them from the general public this will continue... You Lone Nuts got your man (LHO), got your report (WCR) and who knows what else.... why not release, for research purposes, the first generation films and photos of Dealey Plaza? Why are you scared? p.s. is it true, we understand the 6th Museum is the biggest attraction in Texas? Even bigger than the Alamo... keeping with the thread topic: did Marilyn Sitzman own a film camera? Edited June 8, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 we KNOW a conspiracy did JFK in. Damn near the entire worlds knows it! The longer you hold onto to first generation film/photo images, withhold them from the general public this will continue... Still waiting to hear when it was that requested to examine them and what the reply was that you were given. Your constant complaining about not getting to examine something that you never requested to do in the first place seems to be a little self serving ... don't you think? You Lone Nuts got your man (LHO), got your report (WCR) and who knows what else.... why not release, for research purposes, the first generation films and photos of Dealey Plaza? Why are you scared? Again, what have you done to get them examined ... like the song says, "Nothing from nothing is nothing!" p.s. is it true, we understand the 6th Museum is the biggest attraction in Texas? Even bigger than the Alamo...keeping with the thread topic: did Marilyn Sitzman own a film camera? If the 6th Floor Musuem is such an attraction, then why do you know so little about it. And what about this ridiculous question you have asked ... if you found out that Sitzman didn't own a camera ... you'd be claiming she must be lying or that she could have borrowed someone else's camera. You ask pointless questions that won't go anywhere. I bet Jean Hill owned a camera, but if she didn't bring it to the Plaza with her ... it becomes an irrelevant issue. And besides, has it not been your position that no one can identify Sitzman on the pedestal, so what difference would it make if she owned a camera or not. Go look at Jack's Bronson slide ... I see Sitzman's fun lit-up by the sunlight ... I don't see a camera obstructing it at all. The same for her image in the Nix film and Betzner photo. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 No no no no no...That Moorman is not my Moorman, It's yours. YOU are responsible for the images which YOU post and YOU must accept that your posted images are subject to the same scrutiny that others receive. In this case, YOU have posted a FAKE MOORMAN to make a comparison with your stand in Arnold. The Fake Arnold in the Moorman image has absolutely nothing to do with me, and any conclusions you have reached by using the fake Moorman are invalid. YOUR FAKED MOORMAN ARNOLD Duncan You are right ... any research project ever done in the plaza wasn't achieved with your help or with you in mind. However, the Moorman print you used was copied and saved to my computer, so if that then makes it my Moorman print, then so be it. My photo was overlaid onto the Moorman image that I copied that YOU posted. My image was set at about 30% opacity and again done in reverse order and that was how the gif was made. This process is quite apparent when seeing parts of both images in both interchanges. So for future reference ... any photo that you post that I copy from the forum becomes my photo ... gotcha! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 (edited) My my my said the spider to the fly. I knew if I laid enough traps I would get you eventually, so, ..........................GOTCHA LOL!!! Straight from the pages of Lancer, YOUR FAKED MOORMAN OVERLAID BY BILL MILLER. Let's see what you can come up with to get out of this The Miller/Lancer Fake Moorman Duncan Duncan, I can no longer deal with this idiocy that you bring to these discussions. The image looks like one of mine that someone has used and referenced to me. And as i said ... it is a combination of my photo and Moorman's ... the very Moorman photo that you like to post. Even the person who used that image made it clear that it was a composite of two photos. There was never an attempt to represent it as anything but what I have said. I would be most curious to see the postings around it in which it was used or if in an article ... what was being said because it already appears that it was clearly stated that it was a composite, thus I think it dishonest of anyone who tries to represent it in a way that it was unintended to be used as ... such as you are attempting to do. My question is this: Why are you spending so much time screwing around with cartoons - playing on words - and posting ridiculous animations with faces on them instead of contacting a photo expert so to either denounce or validate your claim??? It seems that anytime you are called on something, you run up countless post that don't address the original issues. Bill Edited June 8, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) Duncan, I can no longer deal with this idiocy that you bring to these discussions.Bill The idiocy started when you said that the image which you used was my image which you said you copied to your computer and used in a reply to an off the wall posting by someone. That was an outrageous lie, and the concerned Moorman image which is part of your composite can be seen here at this link in all it's glory, with your name being credited for everything on the page. The Fake Moorman Composite Duncan I don't think that another person could purposely make the kinds of errors that you do on a consistent basis. After your foolish remark about how you don't need to consult a photo expert on anything ... after you called Mike a xxxxx for applying common sense to this topic ... after you misstated the record by saying it was Holland seen through the pyracantha bush when the whole world knows it was Hudson ... the first talk of my composite came in this post ... Duncan Post #114 ... (you write in your crop that the image is my composite) You write in your text ... "and remember it's YOUR recreation". Miller Post #115 ... "Duncan, you appear to be referencing something I have done in the past, but I don't recall anything I have ever posted looking so blurry. I am however interested in seeing the two images from the GIF you have worked from. The reason that I ask this is to check and see if a tree has grown at a particular location since 1963, considering the two images are 40 years apart. It would also be interesting to see if the foliage is the same. As I recall, I mentioned that the main body of tree branches in Moorman's photo was a match ... I don't recall saying that the foliage and other trees along the fence had not grown there over the past 40 years. Please be more specific as to what you are first using and then what you are getting at. This will help prevent a lot of meaningless banter from being exchanged." Duncan Post #116 ... "The two images are your two images. Supplied and enlarged below." Miller Post #119 "The gif uses the Moorman print that has been common knowledge that it is not very sharp. By the time the drum scan had been made ... the original Polaroid had faded. The gif consist of a mixture of two images ... one in B&W and the other in color." Duncan Post #124 "The 33ft shooter has crossed over from your Moorman frame to your reproduction frame. " (Actually you had it backwards. The dark image crossed over from my reproduction photo and onto the Moorman photo) The first reference to using your Moorman image came here ... Miller Post #127 "Oh really ... this is a very interesting revelation that the photographic prodigy has made. Your Moorman image shows nothing but Dallas sky ... you call it a 'wash-out'. I take a photo 40 years later which shows what looks to be a tree trunk near that location and you somehow think that I brought that out of your alleged washed-out photo. That too is an impossibility. If the print you are using shows nothing there ... my overlaying my image over the top of it will not bring out something that you photo didn't have to start with." Note that I referred to your floating cop assassin image where you claim that a 'wash-out' occurred in Moorman's photograph. That would be the same wash-out that you were asked to explain in detail and never did. It was in the next post where you twisted it around ... Duncan Post #129 "The objects are in BOTH of YOUR images (which you used to create your gif which was unsuccessful in recreating Arnold) one crossing over from Moorman to your recreation." I then went on to explain the animation by saying that it was a combination of two images ... a Moorman image that you use and a photo that I took. Part of my photo is in the Moorman photo in my overlay and then in the interchange there is part of Moorman's photo bled into my picture. This has been clearly stated several times over. No one said that you created an overlay ... your research practices wouldn't have such detail involved. However, the Moorman print that I used did come from the same print that you have posted in the past. The issue has been defined to the best of my ability ... I cannot make you smart enough to understand what you read. Bill Miller Edited June 9, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Bill, Let's cut to the chase here.... You've over 12,000 posts to JFK boards (just under the BMiller moniker) so, when do you find the time to do "research"? I think you owe the lurkers at least an explanation... You clearly have no education in the film/photo compositing craft, no credentials so why on earth should anyone give weight to your film-photo opinions here? Simply because your Gary Mack's mouthpiece here? You need a life, son..... at least take a few classes so you have some basis for your opinions... Thinking everyone is a moron when it comes to specific subject matter you've not a clue about, is foolishness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Bill,Let's cut to the chase here.... You've over 12,000 posts to JFK boards (just under the BMiller moniker) so, when do you find the time to do "research"? I think you owe the lurkers at least an explanation... You clearly have no education in the film/photo compositing craft, no credentials so why on earth should anyone give weight to your film-photo opinions here? Simply because your Gary Mack's mouthpiece here? You need a life, son..... at least take a few classes so you have some basis for your opinions... Thinking everyone is a moron when it comes to specific subject matter you've not a clue about, is foolishness... And yet I am the one who had to tell you where the Life slides were. You know David, I never hear you cite experts, but rather you complain about not getting the originals examined and yet you have been asked to post just who you have sought these materials from and what was there response and yet we have nothing but a big fat doughnut from you. Nothing - nadda - zero. And it seems that the one time you did try to talk film ... was when you were pushed into admitting that you have seen no proof of alteration. I am sure that several people here are anxiously awaiting to hear all about your efforts to examine the originals and what the response was ???? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) Ok, let's cut to the chase.Do you believe that the Moorman photograph which you used in your composite has been altered at the alleged Arnold location? I think you know where i'm heading, so a yes or no will do. Duncan Still playing games I see ... By definition the image that you posted in your previous response, which is made up of two images molded into one, would be considered altered from each photos natural state. The Moorman photo before combining the two images was one that you had once posted and that I copied from the forum. I then took my photo and overlaid my photo over the top of it, but not before reducing the opacity of my photo to a point whereas only a hint of it could be seen on Moorman's photo. I then did just the opposite by overlaying Moorman's photo onto mine and reducing the opacity in the same way. The purpose of doing this was to show that the experiment that I had conducted in the Plaza was carried out from the exact Moorman location. This was proven by showing known landmarks that were aligned as perfectly as one could ever hope to get. You have raised a question, whether you understand it or not, whereas you have stated that there is an object between the top of the fence and the bottom of the tree foliage that is not seen in Moorman's photo. I have answered this by saying that this object was not there on 11/22/63 when Moorman took her photo. I asked that you look at some of the other assassination images taken on 11/22/63 to see if you can find anything to account for this object. My understanding is that you could not find anything, which didn't surprise me because I had already looked myself a long time ago. My conclusion has and still is that what you see between the top of the fence and the base of the tree foliage in Moorman's photo is nothing more than the high Dallas sky. I have checked with Mack, Groden, and I believe Thompson because all of them had seen or still possess good prints made from the Moorman photo before the fading had started and each said that the prints showed nothing but sky at that area. (Fading cannot come into play when looking at prints made before the camera original started to fade) This would explain why your alleged 'wash-out' didn't get into the tree foliage and onto the fence ... the sky is the background. Thats where I coined the term 'selective wash-out' because it was a convenient excuse for you to embrace so to make a case for that ridiculous outline you drew in the tree foliage. To date you have not cited where you have contacted a single person to see what the early prints showed before copies were made when Moorman's Polaroid had not yet faded. IMO ... it is nothing more than another typical Duncan claim that was not researched well before voicing your conclusion before investigating the possibilities. Bill Edited June 9, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 That's the longest yes or no answer which you still have not actually answered,never mind, it's no more than I expected.Now tell me...When did you copy to your computer this alleged Duncan copy of Moorman which you say you used in your recreation? I find it very strange that you would use a copy of mine to use in one of your studies, considering your mistaken and misled low opinion of most of the images which I actually use. Duncan Your enhancements are what looks so bad. Anyone can copy and past a Moorman image without destroying it ... even you can do it when you want to. And because your argument has now shifted to determining when and if I copied a Moorman image from the many you have posted both here and on Lancer over the years and seeing how that cannot be proven one way or the other ... I consider it a dumb question that has no probative value. Its a normal Moorman image that I recall pulling from one of your post. Now was there something in my previous post that wasn't accurate or do you want to concentrate on something as meaningless as to whose Moorman image I pulled from the forum??? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I find it very strange Duncan Duncan, Here's a Moorman BEFORE fading. Note the barrel cuts across any ALLEGED washout. Thus, the 33' shooter is proved. (Of course, the ALLEGED hatman & BM have been soundly refuted & the air is now cleansed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) Thanks Miles, and yes of course it does. I've been telling Bill this since 2001 but the guy's too wrapped up in the Hatman circus act.Duncan Funny how that isn't seen in your floating cop torso image that you used, but I forgot that in your mind the more one destroys an image ... the more you consider it to be enhanced. And seeing how we are talking about something 'before fading' to use Miles's terminology ... is it your position from looking at that small pixeled image that the slanted dark area isn't the tree foliage, but rather a floating cop who is leaning to one side ... that the middle of his body is narrower than his head ... is that the new line of crap you are going to throw at the wall to see if anything sticks??? Page 129 of Six Seconds in Dallas shows Holland behind the fence “where he saw the puff of smoke,” according to Josiah Thompson. The location is at the exact spot the HSCA said a shot was fired. Holland stood about 14 feet from the corner, Thompson said on page 127. Why not contact Jack and have him look at one of his good prints under magnification and see what you come up with before wasting more forum space on such a ridiculous poorly investigated claim as this ???? Bill Miller Edited June 9, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Officer Mclean says IT WAS NOT HIS MIKEDuncan I think you are thinking of the guy who wrote the music "American Pie" ... TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER H. B. McLAIN, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX. It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Officer McLain. Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Officer McLain. Mr. McLain, may I ask you to raise your right hand, please, and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. McLAIN. I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel, Gary Cornwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 (edited) Note the barrel cuts across any ALLEGED washout.Thus, the 33' shooter is proved. LOL!!! Duncan claims the alleged 'wash-out' proves his alleged figure is real ... and you seem to claim that because you see a rifle barrel over the alleged 'wash-out' (meaning there is no wash-out) that it proves that what Duncan claims about there being an elevated impostor in a cops uniform must be accurate. You two guys sound like a comedy team. Now can I ask YOU ... have you contacted anyone to find out if the better prints support your allegation about seeing Duncan's alleged shooter? Thanks in advance, Bill Miller Edited June 10, 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