The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Jack White]

Hi Duncan.

Yes that is correct, it's the same image in two versions.

Thanks for posting my good image, Robin. Yes, that particular version

was converted to grayscale from the colored version. I have made no

secret of that. However, I have also posted the same image before it

was colored. And the colored version was done using TRANSPARENT

PHOTO OIL COLORS, not watercolor as Duncan said. In olden days

(1920s-60s) photo oils were often used by photographers as a cheap

alternative to color prints.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for posting my good image, Robin. Yes, that particular version

was converted to grayscale from the colored version. I have made no

secret of that. However, I have also posted the same image before it

was colored. And the colored version was done using TRANSPARENT

PHOTO OIL COLORS, not watercolor as Duncan said. In olden days

(1920s-60s) photo oils were often used by photographers as a cheap

alternative to color prints.

Jack

Jack, so to confirm what I previously stated ... the colorized version of the Badge Man images were done with TRANSPARENT colors and the underlining details of the image were not altered by you in any way. In other words, the gray-scaling of the Badge Man images is exactly what your best print showed before color was added. Is this an accurate statement???

Also, was this particular exposed image Robin posted the best version of the Badge Man images that you had???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You got the answers which your arrogance deserved in your particular posting. You've been told the image which I used, so there's no need for me to repeat the source again.

Aside from your use of bad grammar .... you are correct that you do not need to repeat the erred source again.

Jack has confirmed that the black and white image which Robin posted was made black and white from the colour version which makes any and all of your observations null and void regarding the second Badgeman which is seen in Jack's before colourisation black and white sharp version. Time to start scratchin your head again Bill!!!

I can go back and post what I said again if it helps you ... even go through it word by word if you like.

"I also wish to add that the assertion you implied that the B&W image Robin posted is merely the reverse of the color version. In theory this is true, but it has no relevance to the details seen within the image for Jack White told me that he did nothing to change the image other than applying color to it. The reverse of the color image is the B&W image before color was added."

My position was that the color version IS the B&W version before transparent colors were applied. My position was also that Jack never altered the details of the images. And had you carefully read what Jack said "However, I have also posted the same image before it was colored." Jack has said that HE HAS IN FACT POSTED THE B&W IMAGE BEFORE BEFORE IT WAS COLORED. That the reverse of the color image IS EXACTLY what the B&W version shows. With that being said, the darkened version you posted is not the lighter version Jack calls his best print.

Bill Miller

Edited September 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

I also wish to add that the assertion you implied that the B&W image Robin posted is merely the reverse of the color version.

That is correct, and that is what I am implying. It is also what Jack has confirmed.

In theory this is true,

No..In factuality it is true. It is not a theory, it is a fact

but it has no relevance to the details seen within the image for Jack White told me that he did nothing to change the image other than applying color to it.

Wrong..The reverse image contains transparent colours which have been transferred in greyscale to the resulting greyscale image. This greyscale image is not the original sharp image which Jack posted to this forum, and which I used to show the second Badgeman. I'm sure Jack can confirm this.

The reverse of the color image is the B&W image before color was added.

Are you serious?..Come on Bill, you know better

My position was that the color version IS the B&W version before transparent colors were applied.

My position was also that Jack never altered the details of the images.

I agree that Jack didn't alter anything, but the transparent oils put a whole new perspective on the image when transferred back to black and white. The original black and white to colour and then back to black and white gives a resulting difference between the original black and white and the colour to black and white images.

And had you carefully read what Jack said "However, I have also posted the same image before it was colored." Jack has said that HE HAS IN FACT POSTED THE B&W IMAGE BEFORE BEFORE IT WAS COLORED.

I read it carefully enough. If what Jack is saying is that he posted a black and white image which was created from a colourised image, that is fair enough, but it is not the image which I used, and it contains false data because of the transfer back to black and white. I used Jack's original pre coloured image.

That the reverse of the color image IS EXACTLY what the B&W version shows.

It's contains completely different data from the original. I think Jack would agree with this.

With that being said, the darkened version you posted is not the lighter version Jack calls his best print.

I will ask Jack to post his best uncoloured print here and now which has not been transferred to black and white from a colour version.

Can you please supply this Jack?

Duncan MacRae

It is rather a miniscule difference, but Duncan is essentially correct that

the transparent oils used DID add a tiny amount of difference in tone when

the colored image is converted to grayscale. However, that was not the purpose

when I did the coloring. The coloring was done to help people see the figures,

not to alter the evidence.

I will look for the image before the coloring and post it and you guys can

argue over the details.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is a scan from an 8x10 print greatly magnified from the Thompson #1 print.

The hand-tinted version was made from a giant drum-scanned print made from

this print. The drum-scanned print was slightly enhanced and lighter than this

original.

Jack

[Jack White]

Sorry, Duncan...your "second badgeman" has nothing to support it.

It appears to be a man in a construction helmet and white t-shirt.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Here is a scan from an 8x10 print greatly magnified from the Thompson #1 print.

The hand-tinted version was made from a giant drum-scanned print made from

this print. The drum-scanned print was slightly enhanced and lighter than this

original.

Jack

Jack,

In speaking with Gary Mack in the past about the work you did on the prints you had ... you had done different exposures of contrast and lighting until you found the one that best detailed the image. In other words we know that you didn't add transparent color to the darker exposed print that Duncan posted, but rather you used a lighter version that showed the head and shoulders of the Arnold and Badge Man images. I believe that Mack used the word 'balance' meaning that you adjusted the lighting to where the images showed up the best without making them too dark or too light which as you know this will alter the shape of things seen on the photo. I believe that you will agree that this is a fair assessment.

As far as the tones seen from the color version ... of course color adds to helping people define the borders, but I recall you telling me that what you did HAD NOT altered the images as far as detail to their shapes and other details such as the eyebrows on Badge Man for instance. This is the point that I'm making and nothing else.

I will explain why Duncan has attempted to tweak what has been said in the past so to try and avoid getting trapped into admitting his error. Duncan made a reference that he could see what appeared to be a man in uniform who was holding something up to his face only by viewing only the colored Badge Man images. I asked Duncan if he agreed that "We both believe that this alleged illusion does remarkably resemble a man in uniform". Duncan replied, "When Arnold is colourised yes". In other words Duncan is saying that he cannot see a man in uniform and holding something up to his face in the b&w version. I find this just more of Duncan's self-serving deception because his alleged floating cop torso wasn't colorized ... the figure he came up with next to what used to be the Black Dog Man wasn't colorized ... the erroneous third man at the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman wasn't colorized ... the tripod man claim image wasn't colorized ... the claim that a man could be seen atop of the colonnade wasn't colorized ... and the list goes on. Only does the image of Gordon Arnold need to be colorized for Duncan to see it - pretty amazing and more importantly its very hard to swallow having seen all of Duncan's past declarations!!! I contend that Duncan is making things up as he goes and this is why his remarks are not consistent. He sees things made out of nothing when he wants them to be seen and makes up excuses about other things needing to be colorized when he doesn't want to acknowledge them. Note that colorization wasn't needed to come up with the alleged image of someone peeping over the wall in the Betzner photo (see below).

In fact, Duncan and Miles had used the b&w version of the Badge Man images for all kinds of details (as erroneous as they were) and never once mentioned needing to go to the colorized version. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...773&st=1035

Here is yet another unbelievable analysis by Duncan whereas he sees all kinds of things in this UN-COLORIZED image .... (see below)

Now someone explain to me just how it is that Duncan can outline floating torsos firing rifles to minute details of Zapruder and Sitzman's anatomy in such poor degraded b&w images and yet in the best Badge Man image he needs to see the colorized version so to see a man in uniform holding an abject up by his face. I am sorry, but I simply find Duncan to be trying to sell this forum snake oil on this one! How many deceptions must one be called on before he gives up and starts getting serious. Certainly Duncan should know by now that he isn't going to get away with such tactics.

Bill Miller

Edited September 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Here is a scan from an 8x10 print greatly magnified from the Thompson #1 print.

The hand-tinted version was made from a giant drum-scanned print made from

this print. The drum-scanned print was slightly enhanced and lighter than this

original.

Jack

Jack,

In speaking with Gary Mack in the past about the work you did on the prints you had ... you had done different exposures of contrast and lighting until you found the one that best detailed the image. In other words we know that you didn't add transparent color to the darker exposed print that Duncan posted, but rather you used a lighter version that showed the head and shoulders of the Arnold and Badge Man images. I believe that Mack used the word 'balance' meaning that you adjusted the lighting to where the images showed up the best without making them too dark or too light which as you know this will alter the shape of things seen on the photo. I believe that you will agree that this is a fair assessment.

As far as the tones seen from the color version ... of course color adds to helping people define the borders, but I recall you telling me that what you did HAD NOT altered the images as far as detail to their shapes and other details such as the eyebrows on Badge Man for instance. This is the point that I'm making and nothing else.

I will explain why Duncan has attempted to tweak what has been said in the past so to try and avoid getting trapped into admitting his error. Duncan made a reference that he could see what appeared to be a man in uniform who was holding something up to his face only by viewing only the colored Badge Man images. I asked Duncan if he agreed that "We both believe that this alleged illusion does remarkably resemble a man in uniform". Duncan replied, "When Arnold is colourised yes". In other words Duncan is saying that he cannot see a man in uniform and holding something up to his face in the b&w version. I find this just more of Duncan's self-serving deception because his alleged floating cop torso wasn't colorized ... the figure he came up with next to what used to be the Black Dog Man wasn't colorized ... the erroneous third man at the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman wasn't colorized ... the tripod man claim image wasn't colorized ... the claim that a man could be seen atop of the colonnade wasn't colorized ... and the list goes on. Only does the image of Gordon Arnold need to be colorized for Duncan to see it - pretty amazing and more importantly its very hard to swallow having seen all of Duncan's past declarations!!! I contend that Duncan is making things up as he goes and this is why his remarks are not consistent. He sees things made out of nothing when he wants them to be seen and makes up excuses about other things needing to be colorized when he doesn't want to acknowledge them. Note that colorization wasn't needed to come up with the alleged image of someone peeping over the wall in the Betzner photo (see below).

In fact, Duncan and Miles had used the b&w version of the Badge Man images for all kinds of details (as erroneous as they were) and never once mentioned needing to go to the colorized version. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...773&st=1035

Here is yet another unbelievable analysis by Duncan whereas he sees all kinds of things in this UN-COLORIZED image .... (see below)

Now someone explain to me just how it is that Duncan can outline floating torsos firing rifles to minute details of Zapruder and Sitzman's anatomy in such poor degraded b&w images and yet in the best Badge Man image he needs to see the colorized version so to see a man in uniform holding an abject up by his face. I am sorry, but I simply find Duncan to be trying to sell this forum snake oil on this one! How many deceptions must one be called on before he gives up and starts getting serious. Certainly Duncan should know by now that he isn't going to get away with such tactics.

Bill Miller

Miller is essentially correct. However, I never used the word COLORIZED, which implies

computer manipulation. I must insist on the word TINTED or COLORED, both of which

are accurate. And I DID NOT PRINT THE IMAGE WHICH I TINTED. It was a large drum

scan print done by Global Graphics, and was a little sharper and lighter than the print

they scanned. Gary Mack has the original tinted enlargement. I only have slides I shot

of it.

Duncan's "analysis" is way off base. The decision to show a khaki uniform and khaki

overseas cloth cap were BASED ON AN INTERVIEW OF ARNOLD BY GARY MACK.

Bill, ask Gary about his interview of Arnold.

Jack

[Jack White]

I shot this slide in the 1980s showing the locations of Badgeman and Arnold.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

I shot this slide in the 1980s showing the locations of Badgeman and Arnold.

Jack

Duncan,

Moorman's camera LOS is almost parallel to the theorized bullet trajectory.

This means that as the Arnie illusion figure retreats from the wall toward the picket fence, it sinks behind the wall to point whereat it is not seen.

Consider the vanishing act.

[Miles Scull]

Consider the vanishing act.

Addendum:

[Bill Miller]

I asked Duncan if he agreed that "We both believe that this alleged illusion does remarkably resemble a man in uniform". Duncan replied, "When Arnold is colourised yes"

Bill Miller

I'll clear this up now. What I meant was that when colourised the way it was coloured by Jack, yes it does resemble a man in uniform, ie, the summer Army uniform after being colourised.

It could have been coloured in many different ways to resemble any different number of uniforms, all the way from a circus clown to a traffic warden. In the black and white version, a shape can be seen. What that shape and peripheral items are is left to the individual to interpret. Jack went for the Army summer outfit. I hope this explanation of my comment is clear enough for everyone to understand.

Duncan MacRae

I didn't ask you if it looked like any particular type of uniform. The issue was that you couldn't see a man in uniform in the b&w version. Also, I didn't know that clowns wore uniforms.

By the way ... no comment on all the details that you were able to offer us concerning Zapruder and Sitzman's clothing and features in that very dark degraded b&w image, but you were not able see a man in uniform in Jack's best b&w print??? Is that the story you wish to stick with ...

Bill Miller

Edited September 24, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Miller is essentially correct. However, I never used the word COLORIZED, which implies

computer manipulation. I must insist on the word TINTED or COLORED, both of which

are accurate. And I DID NOT PRINT THE IMAGE WHICH I TINTED. It was a large drum

scan print done by Global Graphics, and was a little sharper and lighter than the print

they scanned. Gary Mack has the original tinted enlargement. I only have slides I shot

of it.

Duncan's "analysis" is way off base. The decision to show a khaki uniform and khaki

overseas cloth cap were BASED ON AN INTERVIEW OF ARNOLD BY GARY MACK.

Bill, ask Gary about his interview of Arnold.

Jack

Jack, he word 'colorized' is a term Duncan likes to use, thus I have purposely been speaking his language. I understand that you used transparent colors so not to alter the underlining images.

That bit about Duncan talking about how you could have used any color for the uniform was just hype on Duncan's part IMO. The fact is that you couldn't have used a dark color like that of a cops uniform because the Arnold figure's clothing would then not have appeared so light in color like it does in Moorman's Polaroid. Not in a million years would I have tried to sell the idea that I could not see a man in uniform in the b&w print, but would then say that I can see all the details within this ridiculous image below that Duncan posted ....

I have spoken to Gary Mack about Arnold. That is how I learned that Arnold stood back near the fence.

Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

Here is a scan from an 8x10 print greatly magnified from the Thompson #1 print.

The hand-tinted version was made from a giant drum-scanned print made from

this print. The drum-scanned print was slightly enhanced and lighter than this

original.

Jack

Thanks for the Scan Jack.

[Bill Miller]

Consider the vanishing act.

Addendum:

It is becoming more and more apparent that some of you do not know the plaza or Gordon Arnold's story very well. This has been looking like a Keystone Cop skit. Some errors should be so apparent that it is embarrassing to have to point them out ... let alone to have been the one who made them.

To start with .... what formula did you (Miles) use to show the ratio of body size increase for Arnold being moved from the wall to a point west of the walkway ... it appears that you just create crops at what ever size you wish them to be without any real world effort being made for accuracy. Is this topic not important enough to you to want to be accurate???

The other mistake in your illustration that you incorporated from Jack is that from where the 'X' is on the ground west of the walkway would place Arnold too far south to be seen over the middle of the dog leg of the south wall. What Jack has done was mark the place where Arnold stood in The Men Who Killed Kennedy series. It has been reported that when Mack interviewed Gordon Arnold .... Gordon had said that he was back by the fence. If you take a photo of the walkway as seen from above (one from the records building comes to mind in Groden's book 'The Killing of a President) and draw a straight line from Moorman's location to a point that crosses over the south dog leg to the fence ... you find that the 'X' marked on the ground in that photo is way off the mark.

Why these unnecessary errors keep being posted calls into question whether any of you want to produce accurate and well thought out post or if that is sincerely your intention, then you simply have not done a thorough study of Gordon Arnold's story. I personally think that a study of your past responses shows a consistent pattern of disinformation and that you jump at any and every opportunity to push it.

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Bill Miller