Why was this man carrying a toy dog...

[Jack White]

Thank you Barb ( Jack USPS isn't helpful) that's a history that overlaps, has disputed items, and hints at regional variations. A photo of various Dallas Postal Workers would be interesting to see (USPO 1863, Dallas.).

Talk of postal workers is irrelevant and obfuscatory. Please address

the bowling ball with the stripe around it. Or the "baby" or "toy dog".

If you have EVIDENCE that the man is a postal worker, present it. Cease

asking me to address postal workers. Speculation that the man is a

postal worker is a red herring meant to distract. The question is,

why does the man have a white ball with a perfectly horizontal stripe?

[John Dolva]

That's a question of interest to you Jack, and others maybe, not to me. Cease questioning my motivation for asking, it's ornery. I remember reading you saying you have something to do with some Dallas Historical society, so a logical person to ask. You don't want to answer, fine. Your baby and toy dog have had their day. Your bowling ball, well, have you looked in the garage?

[Jack White]

That's a question of interest to you Jack, and others maybe, not to me. Cease questioning my motivation for asking, it's ornery. I remember reading you saying you have something to do with some Dallas Historical society, so a logical person to ask. You don't want to answer, fine. Your baby and toy dog have had their day. Your bowling ball, well, have you looked in the garage?

You have me confused with Gary Mack. HE WORKS FOR THE DALLAS HISTORICAL SOCIETY. I live in Fort Worth,

not Dallas. Your speculation that the black man in khakis is a postal worker is diversionary speculation having

nothing to do with the question I posed.

[Stephen Roy]

Just my 2 cents- forgive me for saying this, but it needs to be said:

I think this whole business of "seeing things" in blurry photos and film frames is a very dodgy thing. It's a bit like a Rorschach Test: you see what you want to see. (And it's exacerbated by the compression artifacts of the JPEG images posted here.) To think you see something in these images is one thing. To doggedly defend certainty about it is to elevate a possibility to a fact.

[John Dolva]

Whatever, Jack, you said...you said I said...bla bla bla.

Has it occured to you that these rosarch tests you keep posting are just that. You gotta look at the big picture. If you can ID a uniform someone is wearing an answer to what's being carried may arise.

[Jack White]

Closer examination of Nix Bowlingballman shows that he has a left arm that dangles

nearly to the sidewalk, with his fingers below his knees. His bowling ball, seen in only

one or two frames, neatly splits into two parts. His elbow is about a foot below his

waist. This is very poor animation!

Jack

Edited February 19, 2010 by Jack White

[Robin Unger]

Closer examination of Nix Bowlingballman shows that he has a left arm that dangles

nearly to the sidewalk, with his fingers below his knees. His bowling ball, seen in only

one or two frames, neatly splits into two parts. His elbow is about a foot below his

waist. This is very poor animation!

Jack

I was going to look through my best NIX FRAMES, but too be honest, i just couldn't be bothered.

These claims are just too silly for words.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Jack White]

Closer examination of Nix Bowlingballman shows that he has a left arm that dangles

nearly to the sidewalk, with his fingers below his knees. His bowling ball, seen in only

one or two frames, neatly splits into two parts. His elbow is about a foot below his

waist. This is very poor animation!

Jack

I was going to look through my best NIX FRAMES, but too be honest, i just couldn't be bothered.

These claims are just too silly for words.

Robin...it is WHAT THE FRAMES SHOW that is just too silly for words. I make NO CLAIMS; I just

look at photos and describe what I see.

[Kathleen Collins]

I am disappointed in researchers here.

This is what the man was really holding.

I kid you not.

Jack

It looks like E.T. next to the man.

Also, how garbled that photo is yet there's that one straight line.

Kathy C

[Jack White]

I am disappointed in researchers here.

This is what the man was really holding.

I kid you not.

Jack

It looks like E.T. next to the man.

Also, how garbled that photo is yet there's that one straight line.

Kathy C

Kathy makes a great point...the stripe on the ball is THE ONE STRAIGHT LINE in the frame!

Thanks, Kathy.

[Jack White]

The further adventures of Bowlingballman:

I have been running both Nix and Bell side by side with comparable frames in sync,

and am noting lots of anomalies.

The most peculiar is that AT THE SAME MOMENT, NIX AND BELL BOTH TILTED THEIR

CAMERA AT THE SAME 5 DEGREE TILT. Is this more than a remarkable coincidence?

Also, Bell shows no sign of the ball with the stripe, which is seen in Nix.

Jack

Edited February 20, 2010 by Jack White

[Bernice Moore]

there certainly is a difference Jack whether some agree or not you have shown such...''The further adventures of Bowlingballman:''

[Jack White]

Here is another. I already know that dissenters will say that he twisted his body around.

Not so. When he is first seen in Nix, he is facing Houston Street like all the other spectators.

Compare the films.

Jack

[Martin Hinrichs]

see you have the usual hecklers and some new ones. Yet they 'hang-out' on your thead....why? [sadists, masochists, or fearful?] What are they afraid Jack might find?

How about disagreeing with Jack as an option...about not seeing what he sees? Why do the folks who frequent these threads have to be "sadists, masochists or fearful"?

Ok Kathy.

What Jack is presenting lately is beyond any judgement.

It is false as it can be and a tremendous backstep into the photographic research evidence.

I stand in with my word.

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin,

You may have misread what i wrote. I was responding to Peter Lemkin that the folks who post on these threads don't need to be "sadists, masochists or fearful". Those were Peter's words, not mine. I said that he need another option, that they were disagreeing with Jack.

And I agree with you here:

It is false as it can be and a tremendous backstep into the photographic research evidence.

as is evidenced by what I wrote here:

And as for the 5%, or ten times the 5%, if things that folks are shown are perceived as nonsensical 50% of the time, why are they going to believe the other 50%?

(Peter used the 5% and 10 times 5%in his post #61)

Thank you Kathy.

But nevertheless it was something i let you and others to know.

It was time to say it.

best to you

Martin