Robert Harris's Broken 3rd Floor Daltex Window Theory Blown Out Of The Water

[Robin Unger]

Look for this woman in Betzner's photo and you will see her arm raised and holding that rolled up newspaper.

Bill, with all respect, here you are mistaken.

Lady 8 is wearing a kind of apron and not holding a newspaper.

best

Martin

I agree Martin

Lady 8 seems to be wearing an apron with some sort of little bag or pouch on the right side.

Josiah Thompson has the Altgen's / Croft composite you did saved on his Photobucket site.

I also remember him complementing you on the work you did singling out lady 8 in Altgens and croft.

Lady 8 can also be seen in Wiegman.

No newspaper.

[Robin Unger]

I'm not sure why anyone would be seeking a better Thompson version. This much higher resolution photo has been sitting at my website for years and is freely available to everyone.

Robert, what you are posting here again and again i most likely the Corbis purchase from Robin Unger.

It's by far so most used cause it it's really highres but it contains of lot of grain and noise.

The Thompson copy is in it's clarity a top of all. The pity is: We don't have a high resoultion version of fit.

Someone should contact Josiah. If nobody will do it the next days, i'll PM him.

So, when you post this Altgens6 image again, feel free to give Robin Credit for it.

best

Martin

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

I didn't twist your arm to use it Robert.

Corbis Large Contrast modified so as to match closer to the Thompson print look

I have deleted the "Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image" from my website.

New version

1.5MB Size

Click on thumbnail to view "FULL SIZE"

Edited November 20, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Can we have a quick discussion on the tools and techniques used to enhance/enlarge digital images?

What do you feel is the best way to enlarge, enhance and improve Altgens6 regardless of the original file size and resolution?

thx

DJ

Craig is the best person to ask the question, David.

What I do however is this.

Whatever the digital image format is, I always save in a lossless format like tiff or png.

Once saved, I then hike up the resolution in photoshop to usually around 5000 DPI.

After doing that, I then reduce the size of the image to a workable size.

The image can not be improved in a technical sense, as there can never be more information gained than is already there.

I then play about so to speak with contrast and brightness to try to bring out things in darker areas that are not easily seen in an original image.

That's it.

Duncan

Duncan.

I also hike up the resolution to 4800 DPI

then i usually half the image, and bring it back to 300 DPI

Edited November 20, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robert Harris]

I'm not sure why anyone would be seeking a better Thompson version. This much higher resolution photo has been sitting at my website for years and is freely available to everyone.

Robert, what you are posting here again and again i most likely the Corbis purchase from Robin Unger.

It's by far so most used cause it it's really highres but it contains of lot of grain and noise.

The Thompson copy is in it's clarity a top of all. The pity is: We don't have a high resoultion version of fit.

Someone should contact Josiah. If nobody will do it the next days, i'll PM him.

So, when you post this Altgens6 image again, feel free to give Robin Credit for it.

best

Martin

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

I didn't twist your arm to use it Robert.

Corbis Large Contrast modified so as to match closer to the Thompson print look

I have deleted the "Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image" from my website.

New version

1.5MB Size

Click on thumbnail to view "FULL SIZE"

ROFLMAO!!!

I love how everyone on team Duncan has to believe or at least pretend to believe everything he says, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As for your blownup lo-res picture, thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the hi rez stuff and believe what I see rather than what I'm told to see

[Robert Harris]

There will be obvious differences in photographic quality as viewed on a monitor and thru video cards.

Quality of the card, the computer, the monitor, resolution settings, etc....

And doesn't what matter is our ability to use things like Photoshop to zoom, enhance, etc... to bring out detail in whatever quality image we have to work with.

Good, bad or indifference, Harris' image has more pixels, more data than the ONLINE version of Josiah's so at 200%, side by side, we wind up seeing in Josaih's, the little squares that become apparent when the digital image runs out of data. Green as it may be, there is some compelling "data" there.

Thank you Joseph. I don't see how any sane person can fail to realize the difference in the quality of those images.

What is more important however, is that in spite of the goofy claims that there are boxes or a little man in the window, we see in BOTH images, clear evidence that the cord on the left side has been cut, and an irregularly shaped section of the blinds in that corner is missing.

Robert...

What each of us actually sees (resolution, detail, color, etc) is very subjective imo. Some people claim the softness of the Sony TVs provides better detail than of more "sharper" manufacturers... a matter of preference.

I've added some arrows to try and understand your point.

First off some common ground:

- the "cord" of a blind, venetian in this case I believe, is always on the inside of the room, not between the blind and the window

(I would ask if you know on those specific blinds whether the cord(s) is/are on the left or right facing the window from the inside... if usually on the left then obviously your conclusions are incorrect at face value. If on the right, and potentially in the altgens image, were they within the frame of the blinds or at the very end of the window... again, matters as to you conclusions.

I see a cord hanging down in the image on the left, 1st arrow on the left

- the blinds themselves have cloth guides (top right arrow) that we see stops... the blinds are not completely down or are they even down at all? If one looks at the 3rd floor window to the left of the fire-escape we can see the overhead light and it's obvious that the blinds are up in the window full of people

- the middle arrow is the one pointing to the cut cord YOU are referring to

- the bottoms of all these windows DO NOT HAVE PANES

- YOU know for a fact that each window had blinds the spliced in window on the left seems to show the overhead lights thru the top part of the window... there are no blinds there or they are completely up. Seems the same everywhere.

Without conceding one way or the other Robert... you'd have to admit it POSSIBLE that the blinds are completely open and there are items

within that room that can cause lighter and darker areas to be noticed.

The bottom left of the window with the people also seems discolored at the bottom left... darker at least.

And this Dillard blow-up... the darkened areas within the windows, foloowing your presentation, should be broken windows and not contrasting areas casued by items behind the window.

I don't think your concept is completely far-fetched - I've read in a number of places that a shooting lane created by a hole in a wall, window or whatever is a perfect place for a sniper yet there are a number of other bits of data we should know about the blinds, window, room behind the window, etc... before we conclude THAT specific window was broken when opening the window slightly and stepping back into the room would have accomplished the same thing, I'd like to know the answer to some of these other questions.

There are three cords in that window. The rightmost is out of view. That can be confirmed in other photos taken that day.

And this is different than the Dillard photo you referenced, because there is more than just an apparent break in the left cord. The top and bottom sections are no longer aligned, which means the break is very real and not just an artifact of the photo.

I do however, appreciate you not trying to tell me you see a pile of boxes

What we are seeing cannot be explained as anything inside the room, because that could not explain the disrupted cord.

[Bill Miller]

ROFLMAO!!!

I love how everyone on team Duncan has to believe or at least pretend to believe everything he says, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As for your blownup lo-res picture, thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the hi rez stuff and believe what I see rather than what I'm told to see

Robert, are you confessing or talking about Duncan for you are always saying 'everyone' when claiming support for your claim .... If anyone wishes to check it out - its archived!

None of the images provided so far are quite as good as Josiah's hi-res scan. That is not to say it has not been shown, but when the size is lowered and then increased again, then it is nothing more than an enlargement of an image that lost some of its clarity during the lowering of its size only to increase it again. It would be better if people would just make small crops from the large file before decreasing its size for what ever reason. The clarity still remains with the cropped image until such a time it is enlarged again.

Now about your claim .... you were wrong about JFK making a fist, being struck in the face by debri, and no matter what quality image that has been shown so far ... the window has not been broken as you originally claimed. This was obvious when comparing it to windows that were open and showed a much darker opening. The reason for this is quite simple to understand ... the windows have a haze on the glass whereas an open or missing window is void of haze. So whether the blinds were cut, broken, or spliced is irrelevant because the window is closed and the glass shows no sign of being broken. So unless you have something else to add, then your claim has already gotten more attention than it deserved in my view. I think all you have left is to continue to make ignorant off-the-cuff irrelevant remarks about Duncan as if that somehow will help your erred claim. It doesn't!

Bill Miller

Edited November 20, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill, with all respect, here you are mistaken.

Lady 8 is wearing a kind of apron and not holding a newspaper.

best

Martin

If I can find a really good enlargement of Betzner, I will show you the woman with the newspaper. The Betnzer image posted here is not that great. I've gone back to Lancer to look for the thread, but it seems Lancer's site was not backed up and they have needlessly lost a lot - if not all - of the really good images that were posted there years ago. That is most unfortunate.

Bill

[Craig Lamson]

I also hike up the resolution to 4800 DPI

then i usually half the image, and bring it back to 300 DPI

Bad moves guys. Hiking up the resolution reduces the actual detail, it does not increase it. All you ar doing is having the software "make up" pixels to fill in the areas that don't exist on the original file. Crushing it back down just adds to the detail loss.

If your file is only 3"x4" at 72dpi,upressing is not going to give you anything better to work with, detail wise, just a bigger file.

Any interpolation costs you detail. Avoid it at all cost.

If low have a low res file, say under 25mb, viewing it too larege mihgt not be a great help, as yo quickly get to pixelation, and jpg artifacts if its a jpg file ore one that was saved froma jpg. Once a file goes to a jpg, you will never get the data that was lost back. And even a level 12 jpg tosses data.

Also JPG is the format of last resort, for detailed analysis. Save the file as a png or a lzw compressed tif whenever possible. Transmit via ftp or one of the file moving sites like usendit, or put up the full png as a webpage if you have a website. Jpgs, are fine for web display, crappy for detailed analysis.

[Bill Miller]

Rolled up newspaper in hand? What ever it is seen through the windshield ... its connected to one of those women.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Another look at JFK smiling and waving ... just for Robert Harris.

Bill Miller

Edited November 20, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Connally before the press cameras demonstrating his look over his shoulder upon hearing the first shot. This is what Connally looked for at the Life Magazine Interview and determined that it occurred while he was behind the road sign. (The clip has been slowed down)

Enjoy it Robert!

[Dean Hagerman]

Lets all watch Harris defend the waving and smiling

I bet he says JFK was so overwhelmed with fear that his only reaction was to keep smiling and waving

[Robert Harris]

ROFLMAO!!!

I love how everyone on team Duncan has to believe or at least pretend to believe everything he says, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As for your blownup lo-res picture, thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the hi rez stuff and believe what I see rather than what I'm told to see

Robert, are you confessing or talking about Duncan for you are always saying 'everyone' when claiming support for your claim .... If anyone wishes to check it out - its archived!

None of the images provided so far are quite as good as Josiah's hi-res scan. That is not to say it has not been shown, but when the size is lowered and then increased again, then it is nothing more than an enlargement of an image that lost some of its clarity during the lowering of its size only to increase it again. It would be better if people would just make small crops from the large file before decreasing its size for what ever reason. The clarity still remains with the cropped image until such a time it is enlarged again.

Now about your claim .... you were wrong about JFK making a fist, being struck in the face by debri, and no matter what quality image that has been shown so far ... the window has not been broken as you originally claimed. This was obvious when comparing it to windows that were open and showed a much darker opening. The reason for this is quite simple to understand ... the windows have a haze on the glass whereas an open or missing window is void of haze. So whether the blinds were cut, broken, or spliced is irrelevant because the window is closed and the glass shows no sign of being broken. So unless you have something else to add, then your claim has already gotten more attention than it deserved in my view. I think all you have left is to continue to make ignorant off-the-cuff irrelevant remarks about Duncan as if that somehow will help your erred claim. It doesn't!

Bill Miller

Why do you waste bandwidth with all these unsupported assertions Bill?

Your new "haze" theory is just as ridiculous as Duncan's mythical boxes and that other character who said he saw a little man in the window.

All I have to do is post the image and let people see for themselves. I don't need to post a thousand words of drivel.

[Dean Hagerman]

Robert

Was the shot at 285 taken by the scissor snipping window breaking assassin?

[Robert Harris]

Connally before the press cameras demonstrating his look over his shoulder upon hearing the first shot. This is what Connally looked for at the Life Magazine Interview and determined that it occurred while he was behind the road sign. (The clip has been slowed down)

I have no idea what your point is Bill. Connally told Life that he thought he turned to the rear while the limo was behind the sign and then was hit sometime after he turned to the front, at about 228. But we both know that he was hit at 223. Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter when he thought he looked back. What matters is when Nellie thought he looked back. And she didn't turn toward him until the late 230's.

Since you seem so reliant on that article, why don't you take this part of it to heart?

"Of all the witnesses to the tragedy, the only unimpeachable one is the 8 mm movie camera of Abraham Zapruder, which recorded the assassination in sequence."

In the Zapruder film, we see the ONLY time that he reacted in a way that matched Mrs. Connally's description of his actions. And that took place between 234 and just after 285. That is the ONLY time he looked back far enough to even come close to seeing JFK. And we know for a fact, that Nellie was watching him then.

As she watched him, one of two things were happening. Either she realized he was wounded but then callously turned away from him to study JFK, OR she didn't know he was hurt and believed he was just turning to check out the President, like she was.

The answer is ridiculously obvious.