Why is this man NOT carrying a bowling ball?

[Jack White]

Jack,

Are you going to admit that you've made yet another mistake? Once again you've presented a "study" using a crop of a compressed (jpeg) image. Duncan has shown - unequivocally - that your bowling ball is a combination of your imagination and compression artefacts. His presentation doesn't suffer from the flaws that yours does.

Go on Jack, admit it. You are wrong. Can you do that, or will you simply keep putting up pointless threads? If the truth hasn't already been established by the work of the Warren Commission, how much closer to reality do you think your work has moved anyone? I know the answer, do you? Someone wrote here that even if 5% of your work is accurate, it indicates that something is amiss.

Here's a simple question for you Jack: What's 5% of nothing?

Paul.

Are you going to admit that you need to see an eye doctor? That you cannot see a "ball" with a stripe?

Go ahead, admit it. You are wrong.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Quote:

That's not an unnaturally long arm, Jack.

It's a low hanging jacket sleeve, on the jacket which he is carrying.

Spot on Duncan.

The man appears to be carrying a light colored jacket, with one of the sleeves hanging down.

...and the sleeve has a hand with moving fingers? Note the thumb sticking out!

Jack,

The "thumb" is nothing more than the shadow caused by the crease in the left pant-leg of the man behind his left kneee as he bends his leg to take a step.

This is obvious when one watches a good copy of the film in motion.

Todd

[Paul Baker]

Are you going to admit that you need to see an eye doctor? That you cannot see a "ball" with a stripe?

Go ahead, admit it. You are wrong.

Jack, I have near perfect vision. Of course I can see the shape you describe. When I first saw the image you posted (and have posted several times now) I could see that it was compressed. I looked at the file type, and could see it was in jpeg format - a compressed image format. Designed to minimise the size of images that are sent back and forth over the Internet. Under most circumstances this compression isn't important. However, when it comes to finding anomalies in the photographic record it is imperative that high quality images are used. Your work in Murder In Dealey Plaza appears to me to be all jpeg based. It's not good enough. The 'ball' in that image is a result of compression. Look at Duncan's images. You get the merest hint of that shape in his rendition. In your picture, it's obvious. Why? Not because of some whistleblower that decided to put a bowling ball in a specator's hand in the hope that some time later you would notice and blow the whole operation apart, but because of the file format.

Jpeg is not a static format. You can adjust settings to trade off image size against quality. Look here: Jpeg. Do you use Photoshop? Are you aware that you can tweak the settings so that images are larger (in terms of storage space) but of higher quality. I'd be more than happy to help you with this, if you don't already know about it.

Kind Regards,

Paul.

[Jack White]

Are you going to admit that you need to see an eye doctor? That you cannot see a "ball" with a stripe?

Go ahead, admit it. You are wrong.

Jack, I have near perfect vision. Of course I can see the shape you describe. When I first saw the image you posted (and have posted several times now) I could see that it was compressed. I looked at the file type, and could see it was in jpeg format - a compressed image format. Designed to minimise the size of images that are sent back and forth over the Internet. Under most circumstances this compression isn't important. However, when it comes to finding anomalies in the photographic record it is imperative that high quality images are used. Your work in Murder In Dealey Plaza appears to me to be all jpeg based. It's not good enough. The 'ball' in that image is a result of compression. Look at Duncan's images. You get the merest hint of that shape in his rendition. In your picture, it's obvious. Why? Not because of some whistleblower that decided to put a bowling ball in a specator's hand in the hope that some time later you would notice and blow the whole operation apart, but because of the file format.

Jpeg is not a static format. You can adjust settings to trade off image size against quality. Look here: Jpeg. Do you use Photoshop? Are you aware that you can tweak the settings so that images are larger (in terms of storage space) but of higher quality. I'd be more than happy to help you with this, if you don't already know about it.

Kind Regards,

Paul.

I know all about image compression. It is not selective to a single area of an image to create a ball with

a stripe when there was no ball and stripe. This is a single frame of the movie captured just as it appears

on the screen without compression or manipulation. The shape would NOT appear there unless it is on the

film. It is NOT a compression artifact. If that were true the entire image would be affected, not just this

one area.

[Paul Baker]

I know all about image compression. It is not selective to a single area of an image to create a ball with

a stripe when there was no ball and stripe. This is a single frame of the movie captured just as it appears

on the screen without compression or manipulation. The shape would NOT appear there unless it is on the

film. It is NOT a compression artifact. If that were true the entire image would be affected, not just this

one area.

Jack, you are wrong. Compression can affect different areas of a picture in different ways. The algorithms used to compress an image are quite complex. And compression of all but the simplest of images results in loss of detail. Please take time to compare the relevant frame in Duncan's post with your own. There is no ball in the former. But even if there was, it beggars the simplest question: Why?

I reckon I could grab a high quality image related to the assassination and compress it to prove my point. Do you think that would be a worthwhile exercise? I'm not sure whether anyone's demonstrated this already.

Kind Regards,

Paul.

[Jack White]

I know all about image compression. It is not selective to a single area of an image to create a ball with

a stripe when there was no ball and stripe. This is a single frame of the movie captured just as it appears

on the screen without compression or manipulation. The shape would NOT appear there unless it is on the

film. It is NOT a compression artifact. If that were true the entire image would be affected, not just this

one area.

Jack, you are wrong. Compression can affect different areas of a picture in different ways. The algorithms used to compress an image are quite complex. And compression of all but the simplest of images results in loss of detail. Please take time to compare the relevant frame in Duncan's post with your own. There is no ball in the former. But even if there was, it beggars the simplest question: Why?

I reckon I could grab a high quality image related to the assassination and compress it to prove my point. Do you think that would be a worthwhile exercise? I'm not sure whether anyone's demonstrated this already.

Kind Regards,

Paul.

Prove it.

[Jim Feemster]

Hi Jack,

I don't know about the stripe " ball " image. I mean I see it but I can't say what it could be.

But I aggree with the earlier fellow the black hand with the extended thumb looks like the miday,

appox. 12:30 shadow made partially from the sleeve hanging down causing the shadow to fall between the man's legs. It seems to

appear in several frames at the same juncture as the man takes a left legged step, IMO.

jim feemster

[John Dolva]

there's an illuminated fold that has been washed out at a time when the shadows happen to be in tha same plane

[Jack White]

Analyze this:

[Kathleen Collins]

Let's find some things we can agree on. I OBVIOUSLY DID NOT "LITERALLY" MEAN A BOWLING BALL! I meant it

was about the SIZE of a bowling ball.

Can we agree:

1. This "thing" is seen in the Nix film.

2. This "thing" is round.

3. This "thing" appears to have a horizontal black stripe around the circumference.

4. This "thing" has no apparent means of support.

5. This "thing" splits into two parts in subsequent frames.

6. This "thing" is about the size and shape of a bowling ball (without finger holes).

Can we agree on the above. If you disagree with any, please say why.

Here is a computer enlargement and "enhancement with pseudo-colors to try to see more:

I think, believe it or not, that the man in question is actually holding a baby. A baby and his/her diaper bag.

Kathy C

[Jack White]

Let's find some things we can agree on. I OBVIOUSLY DID NOT "LITERALLY" MEAN A BOWLING BALL! I meant it

was about the SIZE of a bowling ball.

Can we agree:

1. This "thing" is seen in the Nix film.

2. This "thing" is round.

3. This "thing" appears to have a horizontal black stripe around the circumference.

4. This "thing" has no apparent means of support.

5. This "thing" splits into two parts in subsequent frames.

6. This "thing" is about the size and shape of a bowling ball (without finger holes).

Can we agree on the above. If you disagree with any, please say why.

Here is a computer enlargement and "enhancement with pseudo-colors to try to see more:

I think, believe it or not, that the man in question is actually holding a baby. A baby and his/her diaper bag.

Kathy C

Kathy...have you ever seen a round diaper bag with a black stripe?

[Jack White]

Why are people afraid to express an opinion on the ball with the stripe?

[Kathleen Collins]

I think, believe it or not, that the man in question is actually holding a baby. A baby and his/her diaper bag.

Kathy C

Kathy...have you ever seen a round diaper bag with a black stripe?

That stripe looks to me to be added to those frames, like drawn or painted on. I don't know why the man looks like he does.

Kathy C

[Jack White]

Why are people afraid to express an opinion on the ball with the stripe?

Because it's pointless expressing an opinion in reply to your posts. You don't like opinions Jack - you have stated this on multiple occasions - unless the "opinion" completely matches your own of course.

It is pointless to reply to bigots.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Why are people afraid to express an opinion on the ball with the stripe?

Because it's pointless expressing an opinion in reply to your posts. You don't like opinions Jack - you have stated this on multiple occasions - unless the "opinion" completely matches your own of course.

It is pointless to reply to bigots.

Exactly!