Tripple Underpass

[Bill Miller]

Bill can have all the FATuous unnamed sources to my dementia he wants to imply.  I have specifically communicated about the classic gunman issue directly with Gary Mack and Josiah Thompson.  They did not express themselves as Bill's unnamed critics supposedly did (with a junior high school level of attackism). 

Tim - I too, communicate with both of those men from time to time and I hate to burst your bubble, but one of them is on the list of those who said just what I had stated. They are professionals, so I won't put anyone on the spot.

I think you missed the point here. I didn't fault you for thinking there may be someone at the wall and I believe I can go over to Lancer and find the post I said that in if you like. What should have became the dead issue here was when you were presented with the Moorman photo and saw there was no one standing in front of the shelter wall.

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

Jack,

If the HSCA did not include these enhancements in its report then I am mistaken.  I'm pretty sure you don't mean that, but if you assert that you do, I will go to the HSCA exhibits and produce the relevant page/number/whatever.  I have never represented their original source, but I understand they were incorporated as HSCA exhibits.  Are you really contesting that?  Let's be clear.  And what was the motive of this work of yours, in terms of what you were seeking to demonstrate?  Please explain what you mean by "retouching" and why you refer to what the HSCA referred to as the "classic gunman" as the "cartop gunman" (this is the first I have heard of that terminology).  As I have made clear about my examination, there is no way the gunman could have been atop the car and be in front of the pergola wall.

Tim

Just so we are all on the same page here - here is the link to the HSCA hearings showing the source for the Nix enhancements we have been using. Jack may have done his own at some point, but they are not the ones I have been posting. Page 128 says and I quote: "Computer enhancement work was carried out at both the Aerospace Corps. and the Los Alamos Scientific Labratory.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0067b.htm

I have said in the past that I do not understand why anyone would think someone was at the car in the parking lot with a rifle. I could see them being there if they were wanting to shoot Orville Nix because they could see him, but not Kennedy. I say this because the car, nor the Parking lot can be seen from where Mary is standing because she is too far over the wall to be seen from the alleged shooters location in the parking lot. All Mary can see in her photo is the top of a tree that was even further back in the parking lot. So if she is too low to be seen, then JFK surely cannot be seen either because he is lower to the street and closer to the wall than Moorman was.

[Jack White]

Light and Shadow, which comprise the essential existence of all and everything in the universe IMO, physically, philosophically and spiritually, do not explain why the same figure can be seen by Nix, Muchmore and Bell. And while I know that such interpretation can be a Rorschach test of one's own projections, I will still go ahead and admit that in the bottom of these two HSCA enhancements of Nix, taken as the limo fled the Plaza, I see what looks like the profile of a human face in profile.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you say the two bottom images [Wrong - I said the bottom of the two images] from Nix are "HSCA enhancements". This is not

correct. I made these comparisons about 30 years ago. See attachment from one of my slides produced about 30 years ago. [i'm not trying to be difficult but I'm not finding the aforementioned "attachment"] This image is one of several dozen variations I did to show the retouching in the area of the Cartop Gunman.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

If the HSCA did not include these enhancements in its report then I am mistaken. I'm pretty sure you don't mean that, but if you assert that you do, I will go to the HSCA exhibits and produce the relevant page/number/whatever. I have never represented their original source, but I understand they were incorporated as HSCA exhibits. Are you really contesting that? Let's be clear. And what was the motive of this work of yours, in terms of what you were seeking to demonstrate? Please explain what you mean by "retouching" and why you refer to what the HSCA referred to as the "classic gunman" as the "cartop gunman" (this is the first I have heard of that terminology). As I have made clear about my examination, there is no way the gunman could have been atop the car and be in front of the pergola wall.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...In 1978 I showed my images of the cartop gunman to the HSCA

when I was a consultant. I have not looked at the HSCA volumes lately.

They may have reproduced the frames from materials I showed them.

The image I posted was in my slide show, which I showed the committee

staff for some four hours.

ITEK did a study of this and concluded that the gunman was comprised of

LIGHT SPOTS on the Pergola wall. I tend to agree with ITEK on this, except

the Nix film has been altered, and the alterationists added flesh tones to

to spots to make it appear to be a person. See my attached study.

I have always referred to the figure as the "cartop gunman"...long before the

HSCA renamed him. The image was discovered by early researcher Jones

Harris, and promoted by researchers Dick Sprague and Bob Cutler. The

purpose of my studies was to demonstrate THE BLACKING IN OF THIS

AREA OF NIX. I used the term CARTOP GUNMAN in my 400-slide show

which showed to large crowds for more than 25 years. I have seldom heard

it called "classic gunman". The "car" is clearly in the parking lot behind

the pergola, and the "man" is "behind the car". That is clearly NOT A LOCATION

WHICH A GUNMAN WOULD CHOOSE. If you have ever been in that location,

you would know that Elm Street is hardly visible from there!

Jack

[Jack White]

Light and Shadow, which comprise the essential existence of all and everything in the universe IMO, physically, philosophically and spiritually, do not explain why the same figure can be seen by Nix, Muchmore and Bell. And while I know that such interpretation can be a Rorschach test of one's own projections, I will still go ahead and admit that in the bottom of these two HSCA enhancements of Nix, taken as the limo fled the Plaza, I see what looks like the profile of a human face in profile.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you say the two bottom images [Wrong - I said the bottom of the two images] from Nix are "HSCA enhancements". This is not

correct. I made these comparisons about 30 years ago. See attachment from one of my slides produced about 30 years ago. [i'm not trying to be difficult but I'm not finding the aforementioned "attachment"] This image is one of several dozen variations I did to show the retouching in the area of the Cartop Gunman.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

If the HSCA did not include these enhancements in its report then I am mistaken. I'm pretty sure you don't mean that, but if you assert that you do, I will go to the HSCA exhibits and produce the relevant page/number/whatever. I have never represented their original source, but I understand they were incorporated as HSCA exhibits. Are you really contesting that? Let's be clear. And what was the motive of this work of yours, in terms of what you were seeking to demonstrate? Please explain what you mean by "retouching" and why you refer to what the HSCA referred to as the "classic gunman" as the "cartop gunman" (this is the first I have heard of that terminology). As I have made clear about my examination, there is no way the gunman could have been atop the car and be in front of the pergola wall.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...In 1978 I showed my images of the cartop gunman to the HSCA

when I was a consultant. I have not looked at the HSCA volumes lately.

They may have reproduced the frames from materials I showed them.

The image I posted was in my slide show, which I showed the committee

staff for some four hours.

ITEK did a study of this and concluded that the gunman was comprised of

LIGHT SPOTS on the Pergola wall. I tend to agree with ITEK on this, except

the Nix film has been altered, and the alterationists added flesh tones to

to spots to make it appear to be a person. See my attached study.

I have always referred to the figure as the "cartop gunman"...long before the

HSCA renamed him. The image was discovered by early researcher Jones

Harris, and promoted by researchers Dick Sprague and Bob Cutler. The

purpose of my studies was to demonstrate THE BLACKING IN OF THIS

AREA OF NIX. I used the term CARTOP GUNMAN in my 400-slide show

which showed to large crowds for more than 25 years. I have seldom heard

it called "classic gunman". The "car" is clearly in the parking lot behind

the pergola, and the "man" is "behind the car". That is clearly NOT A LOCATION

WHICH A GUNMAN WOULD CHOOSE. If you have ever been in that location,

you would know that Elm Street is hardly visible from there!

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My studies of the Nix film many years ago were not so

much to show the cartop gunman but to show that

the area had been BLACKED IN by retouchers. This

was shown to the HSCA but ignored.

Jack

[Jack White]

Light and Shadow, which comprise the essential existence of all and everything in the universe IMO, physically, philosophically and spiritually, do not explain why the same figure can be seen by Nix, Muchmore and Bell. And while I know that such interpretation can be a Rorschach test of one's own projections, I will still go ahead and admit that in the bottom of these two HSCA enhancements of Nix, taken as the limo fled the Plaza, I see what looks like the profile of a human face in profile.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you say the two bottom images [Wrong - I said the bottom of the two images] from Nix are "HSCA enhancements". This is not

correct. I made these comparisons about 30 years ago. See attachment from one of my slides produced about 30 years ago. [i'm not trying to be difficult but I'm not finding the aforementioned "attachment"] This image is one of several dozen variations I did to show the retouching in the area of the Cartop Gunman.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

If the HSCA did not include these enhancements in its report then I am mistaken. I'm pretty sure you don't mean that, but if you assert that you do, I will go to the HSCA exhibits and produce the relevant page/number/whatever. I have never represented their original source, but I understand they were incorporated as HSCA exhibits. Are you really contesting that? Let's be clear. And what was the motive of this work of yours, in terms of what you were seeking to demonstrate? Please explain what you mean by "retouching" and why you refer to what the HSCA referred to as the "classic gunman" as the "cartop gunman" (this is the first I have heard of that terminology). As I have made clear about my examination, there is no way the gunman could have been atop the car and be in front of the pergola wall.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...In 1978 I showed my images of the cartop gunman to the HSCA

when I was a consultant. I have not looked at the HSCA volumes lately.

They may have reproduced the frames from materials I showed them.

The image I posted was in my slide show, which I showed the committee

staff for some four hours.

ITEK did a study of this and concluded that the gunman was comprised of

LIGHT SPOTS on the Pergola wall. I tend to agree with ITEK on this, except

the Nix film has been altered, and the alterationists added flesh tones to

to spots to make it appear to be a person. See my attached study.

I have always referred to the figure as the "cartop gunman"...long before the

HSCA renamed him. The image was discovered by early researcher Jones

Harris, and promoted by researchers Dick Sprague and Bob Cutler. The

purpose of my studies was to demonstrate THE BLACKING IN OF THIS

AREA OF NIX. I used the term CARTOP GUNMAN in my 400-slide show

which showed to large crowds for more than 25 years. I have seldom heard

it called "classic gunman". The "car" is clearly in the parking lot behind

the pergola, and the "man" is "behind the car". That is clearly NOT A LOCATION

WHICH A GUNMAN WOULD CHOOSE. If you have ever been in that location,

you would know that Elm Street is hardly visible from there!

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My studies of the Nix film many years ago were not so

much to show the cartop gunman but to show that

the area had been BLACKED IN by retouchers. This

was shown to the HSCA but ignored.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also extensively covered in my Nix studies of this area

was the MOVING TRAIN in the second Nix segment.

Trust me, this area has been EXTENSIVELY STUDIED

by me and OTHERS for many years.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Light and Shadow, which comprise the essential existence of all and everything in the universe IMO, physically, philosophically and spiritually, do not explain why the same figure can be seen by Nix, Muchmore and Bell. And while I know that such interpretation can be a Rorschach test of one's own projections, I will still go ahead and admit that in the bottom of these two HSCA enhancements of Nix, taken as the limo fled the Plaza, I see what looks like the profile of a human face in profile.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you say the two bottom images [Wrong - I said the bottom of the two images] from Nix are "HSCA enhancements". This is not

correct. I made these comparisons about 30 years ago. See attachment from one of my slides produced about 30 years ago. [i'm not trying to be difficult but I'm not finding the aforementioned "attachment"] This image is one of several dozen variations I did to show the retouching in the area of the Cartop Gunman.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

If the HSCA did not include these enhancements in its report then I am mistaken. I'm pretty sure you don't mean that, but if you assert that you do, I will go to the HSCA exhibits and produce the relevant page/number/whatever. I have never represented their original source, but I understand they were incorporated as HSCA exhibits. Are you really contesting that? Let's be clear. And what was the motive of this work of yours, in terms of what you were seeking to demonstrate? Please explain what you mean by "retouching" and why you refer to what the HSCA referred to as the "classic gunman" as the "cartop gunman" (this is the first I have heard of that terminology). As I have made clear about my examination, there is no way the gunman could have been atop the car and be in front of the pergola wall.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...In 1978 I showed my images of the cartop gunman to the HSCA

when I was a consultant. I have not looked at the HSCA volumes lately.

They may have reproduced the frames from materials I showed them.

The image I posted was in my slide show, which I showed the committee

staff for some four hours.

ITEK did a study of this and concluded that the gunman was comprised of

LIGHT SPOTS on the Pergola wall. I tend to agree with ITEK on this, except

the Nix film has been altered, and the alterationists added flesh tones to

to spots to make it appear to be a person. See my attached study.

I have always referred to the figure as the "cartop gunman"...long before the

HSCA renamed him. The image was discovered by early researcher Jones

Harris, and promoted by researchers Dick Sprague and Bob Cutler. The

purpose of my studies was to demonstrate THE BLACKING IN OF THIS

AREA OF NIX. I used the term CARTOP GUNMAN in my 400-slide show

which showed to large crowds for more than 25 years. I have seldom heard

it called "classic gunman". The "car" is clearly in the parking lot behind

the pergola, and the "man" is "behind the car". That is clearly NOT A LOCATION

WHICH A GUNMAN WOULD CHOOSE. If you have ever been in that location,

you would know that Elm Street is hardly visible from there!

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My studies of the Nix film many years ago were not so

much to show the cartop gunman but to show that

the area had been BLACKED IN by retouchers. This

was shown to the HSCA but ignored.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also extensively covered in my Nix studies of this area

was the MOVING TRAIN in the second Nix segment.

Trust me, this area has been EXTENSIVELY STUDIED

by me and OTHERS for many years.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is another slide I showed the HSCA, showing that

Nix sequence 1 shows no moving train, and that sequence 2

SHOWS A MOVING TRAIN...but there was NO moving train.

The HSCA ignored this.

Jack

[Jack White]

I have always referred to the figure as the "cartop gunman"...long before the

HSCA renamed him.... I have seldom heard it called "classic gunman". The "car" is clearly in the parking lot behind the pergola, and the "man" is "behind the car". That is clearly NOT A LOCATION WHICH A GUNMAN WOULD CHOOSE. If you have ever been in that location, you would know that Elm Street is hardly visible from there!

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack, I don't know if you've followed this whole thread, but I am clearly not talking about a "man" who is "behind the car" as the classic gunman image is situated in front of the pergola wall. Behind or atop the car would be too far back, obviously. But that point is moot, because no such parking lot figure would be visible in front of the pergola. As for having "seldom heard it called 'classic gunman'," or not knowing if the photos I posted are contained in the HSCA, here is a bit of that report about what has consistently been referred to as the CLASSIC GUNMAN:

"FIGURE IV 12.-Classic gunman image (Nix film) Top: Unenhanced. Bottom:

Enhanced.

Figure IV-13 (JFK exhibit F-162) shows the original and enhanced version of

one Nix frame as produced at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; the

original is shown at the top, the enhanced version at the bottom. A total of

eight frames were registered, added and enhanced to produce the lower image.

Eight frames, considered to have the least, blur or noise, were selected.

FIGURE IV-13.-Classic gunman image (Nix film) Top: Unenhanced. Bottom:

Enhanced.

After examining the enhanced image, the Panel concludes that the so-called

classic gunman object was not a gunman. First, there is no evidence of human

flesh tones in the "head" and "hands"; whereas the people in the Nix film have

distinct flesh tones, the object here is almost uniformly white. Second, the

white tones are identical in appearance with the white tones of the light

regions of the shadow patterns cast on the wall of the structure behind the

retaining wall by sunlight filtering through the nearby trees. Third, in the

enhanced image, the shadow pattern above and to the right of the object is

seen to be connected to the object itself.

The Panel concludes that the most probable explanation is that the image is a

chance pattern of sunlight on the structure behind the retaining wall. The

Panel's conclusion was strengthened by an observation at the Aerospace Corp.

that in one frame the "right arm" of the object disappears, only to reappear

in the next frame. Such behavior would be virtually impossible for a person,

but is conceivable for tree branches casting a shadow pattern on a wall.

The Panel also examined the classic gunmman object for evidence of a flash of

light or puff of smoke. To enhance any phenomena as transient as these, the

frames were differenced, that is registered frames were subtracted from each

other sequentially in time. This technique makes transient phenomena highly

visible. (113) No evidence of any flash or smoke was found.

The Panel also reviewed a previous report by the Itek Corp. (114) Itek

measured the relative displacement of the classic gunman in successive frames

of the Nix film as the camera panned from right to left. The extent to which

an object shifts in successive frames can be used to caculate the distance

from camera to object by applying the basic principles of photogrammetry. The

calculated the distance from the camera to the object in this way and found

that the calculations placed the object very near shelter 3 of Pergola 2 in

Dealey Plaza. (ILS) Further study by Itek of the ground elevation in relation

to the retaining wall showed that a line of fire toward Dealey Plaza would

require that a rifle near this structure be 9 feet above ground. Itek

concluded that the classic gunman object was a pattern of light and shadow on

shelter 3. The Panel agrees with these conclusions."

Once the idea of the gunman being behind or atop the car is removed, on the basis that the image is visible in front of the west upright of the pergola, the 9' height conclusion becomes invalid. I'm surprised, Jack, that you claim authorship for the HSCA enhancement and over the past quarter century have "seldom" heard the term, CLASSIC GUNMAN.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...I am baffled by your gratuitous insults. What is your agenda here? Your

aim obviously is not to learn the history of this...but to prove me wrong.

The history of this is:

Dick Sprague and I brought the CARTOP GUNMAN to the attention

of the HSCA. More importantly, I pointed out to them the RETOUCHING

of this area. They had "experts" examine the image. ITEK concluded

that the "gunman" was light spots on the wall. I believe ITEK was right.

I do not understand your point in pursuing me in an attempt to disprove

what I did 30 years ago.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Shanet Clark]

Good Stuff!

I never, ever see the "badgeman," ... talk about light and shadow...

but I always see the classic gunman, again and again, especially in the

material Bill Miller nicely provided for us, thanks, Bill...

I read the House link, I was already

familiar with it. The federal committee just dismissed the classic gunman as an

optical illusion, neat, huh? So does Bill, just light on the wall...not evidence.

Now I did notice one thing, Dix (w/ classic gunman and carhood)

and Moorman (w/ a different location of classic gunman)

were taken from WIDELY DIVERGENT POINTS OF VIEW!

So Moorman, down low, shows no gunman at the break in the wall,

and no car hood, but does show the classic gunman in military firing position a little farther to our right. He's over in the part Bill always crops out.

I'll give you this -- in both Dix and Moorman you can see the jog

(discontinuity) in the retaining wall

(where the classic gunman is in Dix) and in Moorman,

you don't see the car hood or the gunman, right there.

Dix, taken from a position up higher and to Kennedy's right, shows the gunman,

and the car hood...and Moorman, taken from a lower angle and much farther to Kennedy's left, just shows the classic gunman, at ease and shifted farther to our right.

If you show a cropped Moorman, you can show empty space, but the full

Moorman shows just what Tim () posted, a distinct gunman.

Since Dix and Moorman were taken from different heights and angles,

it isn't likely they both captured stray light on a wall that look just like an assassin.

((Also Bill, while reading your 'fatuously obstructionist' postings on the loony Lancer, where you repeatedly bully and insult people, I found that you "believe in the Magic Bullet" and that's what I said here. You dont have to believe in the entire "Single Bullet Theory" to believe in the "magic bullet" ...

you have spent quite a bit of time and energy trying to prove that the bullet than went into Kennedy's back came out his throat, right ? (Which is quite impossible.)

Sorry, Bill, people don't think Tim is irrational or off-base, but they are

often disappointed in your language, social skills and reasoning.

Shanet

Edited October 26, 2004 by Shanet Clark

[Jack White]

Jack may have done his own at some point, but they are not the ones I have been posting. Page 128 says and I quote: "Computer enhancement work was carried out at both the Aerospace Corps. and the Los Alamos Scientific Labratory.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0067b.htm

I have said in the past that I do not understand why anyone would think someone was at the car in the parking lot with a rifle. I could see them being there if they were wanting to shoot Orville Nix because they could see him, but not Kennedy. I say this because the car, nor the Parking lot can be seen from where Mary is standing because she is too far over the wall to be seen from the alleged shooters location in the parking lot. All Mary can see in her photo is the top of a tree that was even further back in the parking lot. So if she is too low to be seen, then JFK surely cannot be seen either because he is lower to the street and closer to the wall than Moorman was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So plainly, to twist the point, you've reverted again to the idea of the gunman "at the car." That is the old analysis with which I take exception, because I absolutely grant that no one as far back as a car, regardless of how closely it was parked, could have made a shot that would clear the retaining wall. The car was not between the fence and the pergola and the classic gunman image is in front of the westernmost pergola wall. This would move him far closer to the retaining wall, removing the 9' height calculation. I don't get how we keep going back to the gunman atop the car stuff, unless this is retro analysis rather than progressive, insightful analysis. And once we go retro, we may as well all pack up and go home because everything's already known that will ever be known, right? I am trying to communicate a thoughtful and uncommon perspective which requires the separation of the car and the gunman. The car is in the parking lot, regardless of how close, and the gunman image is in front of the pergola wall. Bill's own photo a few posts earlier with the vertical red line shows people at the steps of the pergola who clearly would have no problem with sufficient height to clear the retaining wall.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have made my opinion VERY CLEAR! There was NO "classic" nor "cartop" gunman. It

is a combination of light spots on the pergola and clever red herring retouching. Here

is a good color copy.

Since there was NO GUNMAN (classic or cartop), it is pointless to discuss "him". "He"

did not exist.

Very simple.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

Tim...I am baffled by your gratuitous insults. What is your agenda here? Your

aim obviously is not to learn the history of this...but to prove me wrong.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

I intend no insult or disrespect. As we've been posting this past hour we've been overlapping, responding to posts while new ones are going up.

How can you say, "I do not understand your point in pursuing me in an attempt to disprove what I did 30 years ago," when you haven't been on this thread until this past hour or so (time flies when you're having fun). I admit to being taken aback that you are unused to the term "classic gunman," given your past contribution. That's all.

Tim

PS As soon as I posted the above, I see that Jack has posted again on the "cartop" point. The cartop point was the very thing that misled researchers so many years ago.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Alan Healy]

Tim,

the image of the two Nix frames is the one I posted on Lancer with the words "From Jack Whites work" written between them.

Whoever I was talking to at the time asked me "where can I get more of Jacks' work?" & I told them.

I also told you/them that the "head of a man in profile" came about by me(idiot that I am) taking some of the text that was placed on the image out before I posted it(it was done for a sincere reason btw Jack) .

Now the image resurfaces, with Jacks' name taken off it & you claiming that there's a man head in profile.

What the?

*

Now I'd to like post some of my "work" on the Nix frames for the members here but it seems like I'm limited to 400k & I have to keep deleting my attachments from previous threads.

Am I missing something here?

Alan.

[Tim Carroll]

How would removing text cause the head to appear to be in profile in the bottom frame?

Am I "nuts" to think this appears to be a head turned profile?

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll