Alan Healy Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Is the man in the Bell film facing forward or to the right? The reason why I believe the man is facing more in a forward manner is the location of the hat over the trunk of his upper body. The hat protrudes out over his chest. When I plot where his neck would be - then the hat would be pushed far to our left when it has to be afixed to his head. It would seem that if the man turned to his right, then the left and right side of his head should stay pretty close in alignment with his neck. When one wears a hat and is facing forward, then the hat extends out over the neck and chest as the forehead and nose does, as well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What's the source of this frame Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 What's the source of this frame Bill? Alan - when you mentioned the Bell film being on the "A Case for Conspiracy" DVD - I went and found my copy and captured it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 So you have no trouble excepting Garys' word/opinion when it doesn't conflict with your own. I have little choice in the matter for Gary Mack has access to the original film which gives him a better image to view than we have. It's almost as if you are bitter that a cleaner sharper image isn't giving off the results that a poorer fuzzier image can offer. If you believe that poorer quality images are more reliable for photo analysis, then you may find it difficult to find others who think as you do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> GMack has an original Willis5 & he see's one man on the steps, he also says BDM is very dark looking, will you except that too? Gary says; The man in the Bell film does appear in left profile, though his head is turned somewhat to his right. The Museum's tape of the camera-original Bell film does not include a blowup of that part of the frame, so I cannot see his hat clearly enough to identify. END "His head is turned somewhat to his right" yes Gary & tilted up too, I say. My observation/opinion that the guy is looking in the direction of the car lot stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 What's the source of this frame Bill? Alan - when you mentioned the Bell film being on the "A Case for Conspiracy" DVD - I went and found my copy and captured it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No Bill, I was referring to the b/w footage it only appears in "ACFC", BELL appears in both. Fwiw all the footage in "Assassination films" is better quality, that's where my BELL grabs are from & that's probably why mine are just as good if not better than yours. The b/w footage is a different matter, will you show us some earlier examples of our man or not? As your BELL frame highlights, using one selected frame from a bunch can be misleading. The moving footage suggests the Bell-man is looking to his right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 I have tried and I posted the results with an opinion. My opinion was the hat on the man in the Bell film is not an overseas cap, nor is the clothing that of a service man on leave from the U.S. miltary. I told you that the Bell film from the Groden copy was not of such quality that I could do any more with it. You say the Bell-man has his hat pulled down on the side of his head, like an overseas cap(what other hats do you know are worn like that?) but even though GMack cannot ID the hat from the original film your convinced it's not an military hat from the copy you have...why? In reply #47 you can see the man's left arm. No rolled up sleeves. The man in the Bell film is not only a Negro, but had rolled up sleeves. Show me the rolled up sleeves please & while your at it, get some other examples of him at the top o' the steps in the b/w footage. The reference was made to the Negro in the Bell film. Like I said I don't think the man in BELL is a serviceman, your misquoting me. Btw when you say "negroe" do you mean n? My old man called them darkies, is it okay for me to use that one? I do see a peak, as well as some distortion. See the enlargement in post #47. Walk me through this peak/distortion observation of yours, would you? The shirt across the back and shoulders appears to be well fitted, unlike the clothing of the man in the Bell film. Is the Bell-mans clothing baggy around the shoulders? I don't see it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 (edited) I have noticed that certain things you had relied on to reach your conclusion was shown to be in error from time to time and yet your opinion never changes. Well I'm glad your paying attention at least, I was wondering if this discussion between me & Bill might be boring the baggy pants off people. My opinions do change on some issues as I learn more about them, please specify the exact point you are making with the "your opinion never changes" statement. One of the latter errors was in thinking that the sunlight was hitting off the man's neck, thus making it appear light in tone. As Bill pointed out - this was not the case. Yes but I am relying on Bills captures here & he only shows us things that support Arnold, the issue of this mans "neck" is not over. I'm sorry, but the man in Moorman's photograph appears to be wearing an overseas cap. No need to apologise, many real researchers who I respect think the same way. I am convinced they are all wrong too The man Bill shows from the rear and on the walkway also has on what looks like an overseas cap. The wide "V" shape Bill shows us is quite discernible IMO. His left sleeve doesn't appear to be rolled up, nor does the skin on his neck look dark enough to be the black man in the Bell film. Where does the blackman in BELL dissapear too, if that is not him in the b/w footage? Edited September 9, 2004 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 David G. Healy,Sep 9 2004, 07:20 PM][...] Mr. Peters states [in this thread] he's seen you present this material... according to him, Peter's, its circumstatial evidence and I suspect, you too. Yet you state the above regarding said circumstantial evidence. Appears any contrary opinion is "stupid and reckless..." a bit disengenuous at best, don't you think? What does Mr. Peters do when he's not banging around the boards? Must of missed it the first time around... David - Allow me to address this by working my way backwards through your senseless reply. [...] Well, thanks Mr. Peter's for the thoughtful reply, however, you have failed to reply regarding the "stupid and reckless comments. Shall we look at whatever you post as being "stupid and reckless? Or is this the "real Bill Miller? For those that need a explanation, Alan Healy and I are NOT related. David Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 (edited) No Bill, I was referring to the b/w footage it only appears in "ACFC", BELL appears in both.Fwiw all the footage in "Assassination films" is better quality, that's where my BELL grabs are from & that's probably why mine are just as good if not better than yours. A Case for Conspiracy - is the only DVD I have of the Bell film. The image I posted was equalized and I removed the glare expansion from the image. The original film at the Museum will be the best print for viewing. The b/w footage is a different matter, will you show us some earlier examples of our man or not? The B&W film is the color film without the color. That means it's a step further away from the original, unless just the mode to grayscale was elctronically changed during the transfer. I can do that myself and it will not change the image. As your BELL frame highlights, using one selected frame from a bunch can be misleading.The moving footage suggests the Bell-man is looking to his right. I strongly disagree! The moving footage is riddled with frame blur and that is misleading in any film when it comes to movement. That's why I took the cleanest and sharpest frame I could find for consideration. Like I said - the white cap extends forward over the chest and the color of the knoll can be seen underneath it. The cap on the man's head on the walkway has it's sides coming right down the side of the head even with the ears just like an overseas cap does. No matter if he is looking forward or turned to the right - those undeniable observations exclude the Negro in the Bell film as being the man on the walkway image I produced. No Bill, I was referring to the b/w footage it only appears in "ACFC", BELL appears in both.Fwiw all the footage in "Assassination films" is better quality, that's where my BELL grabs are from & that's probably why mine are just as good if not better than yours. A Case for Conspiracy - is the only DVD I have of the Bell film. The image I posted was equalized and I removed the glare expansion from the image. The original film at the Museum will be the best print for viewing. The b/w footage is a different matter, will you show us some earlier examples of our man or not? The B&W film is the color film without the color. That means it's a step further away from the original, unless just the mode to grayscale was elctronically changed during the transfer. I can do that myself and it will not change the image. As your BELL frame highlights, using one selected frame from a bunch can be misleading.The moving footage suggests the Bell-man is looking to his right. I strongly disagree! The moving footage is riddled with motion blur and that is misleading in any film when it comes to movement. That's why I took the cleanest and sharpest frame I could find for consideration. Like I said - the white cap extends forward over the chest and the color of the knoll can be seen underneath it. The cap on the man's head on the walkway has it's sides coming right down the side of the head even with the ears just like an overseas cap does. No matter if he is looking forward or turned to the right - those undeniable observations exclude the Negro in the Bell film as being the man on the walkway image I produced. I'll also address something you posted above. It should have been clear to Gary Mack when I wrote him that I was talking about the man's head for I told him what you were saying about it. Below is the title of the email where I requested him to tell me if the man was in profile or not and I made sure the hat was the issue: Yes, left profile. Gary -----Original Message----- From: IMSJLE@aol.com [mailto:IMSJLE@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 3:09 PM To: GMack@jfk.org Subject: Re: That blasted hat doesn't seem right. In a message dated 9/8/2004 9:53:47 AM Central Daylight Time, GMack@jfk.org writes: Maybe his hat moved as he ran from Houston to the knoll? Can you tell if the guy is in profile or not? Bill (end of email) Today I spoke to Gary again and I pointed out how the hat was sticking out far over the chest area and I discussed the possibilities that would cause this. He then said that he would try to view the film on a larger screen. I have not heard back from him since. Now about the capture: On a human - the neck is set into the latter half of the skull. Whether looking forward or turned to the right - the back of the neck has to meet the top of the rear shirt collar. "IF" the black man in the Bell film is looking off to the right, then one has to explain why his hat protrudes so far west over his chest. What kind of a hat does that other than a Chefs hat? If it is the man that Mack thinks it is, then we could be seeing the flat top of the hat at an angle to the sun. The man on the walkway is not wearing such a hat. That alone excludes the man in the Bell film from being the man I have shown with the wide "V" in the rear. I also think that the image you have produced is absurd! You washed the man out so much that the detail of his clothing is eradicated. The object/hat on the head has lost it's original shape and has now become a perfectly round sphere. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone to tell you that you have offered a better look at the black man's head cover. You should try to learn some lightening techniques that do not cause the shape of the hat to become distorted from it's original shape for that defeats the purpose of comparing it to the shape of the hat on the man on the walkway. As far as where this man went once he got up on the walkway ... I addressed that in post #50 if my memory is correct. Edited September 10, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 (edited) Well, thanks Mr. Peter's for the thoughtful reply, however, you have failed to reply regarding the "stupid and reckless comments. Shall we look at whatever you post as being "stupid and reckless? Or is this the "real Bill Miller?For those that need a explanation, Alan Healy and I are NOT related. David Healy The real Bill Miller? Now you sound like Jack White and I thought we were all past that foolishness. You should first try and keep it straight who you are addressing. It was I who answered you in post #59, not Larry. If you cannot keep the simple things straight, then the Kennedy assassination will probably overwhelm you. It certainly would explain the lack of evidentiary value in your replies. However, if you should ever come up with something specific about the Kennedy assassination and it's evidence, feel free to post it. Now about your misstated remark of mine. You said, "Appears any contrary opinion is "stupid and reckless..." a bit disengenuous at best, don't you think?" If one goes back to post #56 and studies the content of that reply they will see that the remark was made over the approach Alan was taking by blowing off information drawn from the original film and choosing to go with a poorer degraded print. There was no mention that his opinion had to coincide with my own, but it is foolish, stupid, reckless, 'of poor choice', or any other phrase I can think of when it comes to not chosing to draw information from the best possible prints available and for that - I stand by my remark. Edited September 10, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 (edited) Bill/Peter's went on... The real Bill Miller? Now you sound like Jack White and I thought we were all past that foolishness. dgh01: NO comment, for now. ----------- You should first try and keep it straight who you are addressing. It was I who answered you in post #59, not Larry. If you cannot keep the simple things straight, then the Kennedy assassination will probably overwhelm you. It certainly would explain the lack of evidentiary value in your replies. However, if you should ever come up with something specific about the Kennedy assassination and it's evidence, feel free to post it. Now about your misstated remark of mine. You said, "Appears any contrary opinion is "stupid and reckless..." a bit disengenuous at best, don't you think?" If one goes back to post #56 and studies the content of that reply they will see that the remark was made over the approach Alan was taking by blowing off information drawn from the original film and choosing to go with a poorer degraded print. dgh01: I'm glad you bring that (genesis of a film print, negative and/or film) up -- that's the REAL problem isn't it? NO ONE, including you, knows what generation film, print, negative anyone tinkers with -- all photo researchers get is noise from the 6th Museum, as to what's out there... Your the master of the UNmasterful when it comes to the DP film-photos... like the 6th floor, keep the real stuff close to the vest... rofl ------------------ There was no mention that his opinion had to coincide with my own, but it is foolish, stupid, reckless, 'of poor choice', or any other phrase I can think of when it comes to not chosing to draw information from the best possible prints available and for that - I stand by my remark dgh01: please do, that's what makes this so easy - till you post ANYTHING regarding the DP films and photos with proven provenance, your opinion are just that, opinions. Closest we've got is David Lifton's material, which sheds all sorts of light, on the Groden's way of handling DP films, photos and negatives... ------------------- Edited September 10, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 (edited) dgh01: ....... till you post ANYTHING regarding the DP films and photos with proven provenance, your opinion are just that, opinions. I have never understood your thinking process, but that's probably a good thing. You act like all the photos and films have to be authenticated or they are not reliable enough to even bother with. Many of us have wondered if that is really your position and seeing how you have no way of doing what you believe must be done, then why bother hanging out on JFK assassination forums such as this one in the first place. If nothing that you research can be validated, then by your standards it is all a waste of time anyway and yet you continue to make replies on a topic that can't go anywhere. That doesn't seem to make any sense. Closest we've got is David Lifton's material, which sheds all sorts of light, on the Groden's way of handling DP films, photos and negatives... Here is a point maybe worth mentioning - I believe you are on record as saying, 'I have no proof that any of the assassination photos and films are faked', so what vast amount of light was shed by Lifton to lead you to make that statement when you have to know Lifton is pro-film and photo alteration ... it seems that Lifton only took you back to where you started from. Edited September 11, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 (edited) ...The moving footage is riddled with frame blur and that is misleading in any film when it comes to movement. That's why I took the cleanest and sharpest frame I could find for consideration. Like I said - the white cap extends forward over the chest and the color of the knoll can be seen underneath it. The cap on the man's head on the walkway has it's sides coming right down the side of the head even with the ears just like an overseas cap does. No matter if he is looking forward or turned to the right - those undeniable observations exclude the Negro in the Bell film as being the man on the walkway image I produced. The frame you used is not the best example, it is one of two, right at the end, that have that shape & like the majority of the frames, in those two his hat is not 100%clear of the edge of the film. If it was anyway a good representation of the shape of his hat in the whole sequence, there wouldn't be anything to argue the toss about but in the other eight or so frames his hat does not protrude out in front of his body like this. Please try & enhance one of the frames where his hat is clear of the edge of the film. Now, as for my last effort, I was trying to get a digital capture & it just didn't work out, so I agree with you, it was rather lame, sorry. Here's the best I can manage, try & work it to your advantage. Edited September 12, 2004 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Gary Mack was right IMO. The same baggy clothes - the same big wide dark belt - the same long black shoes - long arms with sleves rolled back, etc. See below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Gary Mack was right IMO. The same baggy clothes - the same big wide dark belt - the same long black shoes - long arms with sleves rolled back, etc. See below. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fellow in NIX does not have a big black belt, that's his left arm folded in front of him, draped over which, is his jacket. His long "arms" is just the sleeve of this jacket, he has it folded in an unconventional manner. If this is the only source of your rolled up sleeves observation then could the reason that we see no rolled up sleeves in BELL & DARNELL be because he put his jacket on? Do you see rolled up sleeves or a jacket over his arm in BELL? Anyway I thought the BELL mans' hat protruded in front of his body, you change your mind on this? Please let me know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 (edited) The fellow in NIX does not have a big black belt, that's his left arm folded in front of him, draped over which, is his jacket.His long "arms" is just the sleeve of this jacket, he has it folded in an unconventional manner. Then that must be an extra arm he keeps in the sleeve of his jacket so to tug at the back of his pant leg - see 20/21 second mark on the Nix film. If this is the only source of your rolled up sleeves observation then could the reason that we see no rolled up sleeves in BELL & DARNELL be because he put his jacket on? The man on Houston Street is not holding a jacket. I have not a clue where you come up wuth these observations. Anyway I thought the BELL mans' hat protruded in front of his body, you change your mind on this? I said the man's hat extended out over his chest - not in front of his body. I believe I used the forehead and nose as reference points. Edited September 14, 2004 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