Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Lamson dronned on....Nice try White too bad its such a poor attempt to save your ignorant butt. Lets cut right through Whites bs and cut to the chase. He manipulated this image. His contact sheet offers the proof. By increasing EXPOSURE he threw away details until he had a NEW IMAGE that fit his needs. hmm, where have i heard THIS before? And thanks for pointing out that this contact sheet is a copy of a slide which is a copy of a print which is a copy of (another print or) the Moorman original. It totally destroys your silly claim that this is "badgeman"! Does that mean Gary Macks' silly "bageman" claim goes up in smoke? It was Gary and Jack that made the discovery, correcto-mundo, Lamson? You guys need to get your act together In other words, the details of the original Moorman in this 1/69 of an inch area has been changed beyond repair. IN other words....its notihng near what the orignal Moorman might have shown. Its simply a FABRICATION . keep going like this and those in the Z-film alteration crowd will allow you to do their work -- LOL White, its been perfectly clear for many years that you are among the ignorant when it comes to photography. Its a real shame your mis and disinformation has spoiled the minds of so many uninformed folks for so long. You should be ashamed of yourself. must be time for Lone Neuter gold star handouts... What institution did you say houses your work Craig? I think there's someone in this thread that has had that honor bestowed -- t'aint you BTW, calculating the proper exposure based on the length of a bellows is a very simply math calculation. Its not difficult at all...FOR AN EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not suprised you found it difficult. this guys' a hatchet job for the anti-Zfilm alteration MALCONTENT crowd. Wof Wof...guard dogs back. Outta dog food? Mack is wrong. White is wrong. Don't know about Healy because he's a chicken s__t who wont't commit himself. The z film CONTENT alteration crowd has no work.... You mean Whites tourist snaps of Fort Worth? The institution in which my works are shown is the institution of COMMERCE. Now slink on back to the smelly old dog house....guard dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) Well Bill..you finally got around to me, what?? did you run out of people to take a wack at....I' m here......usually you ignore me and others..Should I feel somewhat priveledged, one of the best of the condescenders has chosen me, will wonders never cease...? Bernice said... It has become extremely unpleasant to read yours, and a few others reply posts...as this has seemingly become a very bad habit...that you, and they continually get away with ???? Bill said... Bernice, any time you want to ... we'll go back through this forums log and compare the various remarks made by a few select posters and see who provided the most assassination related documentation and who made the most senseless 'snide remarks' as you put it. Bernice replies... See it just continues....Shame, but this thread seemingly instead of any improvement, has simply deteriorated further........not only by your posts but by a few others as well......birds of a feather ??..the word alteration, or perhaps a new finding, always seems to bring such an extreme reaction, continually..from certain members. Why would you or anyone, think of wasting so much effort..of going back and comparing various remarks, would you expect a kudo, if perhaps you won, rediculous suggestion....?? If it is important to you, please go ahead..here's a kudo.... You do at times, document your posts, there's another kudo, so many do not even try..and appear to be mainly in the "thinkie" land...that is their right.. You know not of what you speak.... I am one of the few who does, continually..document my posts.....I do not post very often but when I do, as a rule they are..documented ,not every one, but the majority I believe.....that is what I work with....not the thinkies......apparently you have not read them ...that is entirely up to you.. Bernice said.... Did you know some people no longer bother. Therefore your message is not getting out there, and at times like this perhaps, they wonder whatever that is.... Bill said..... Yet you continue to read those very same post - INTERESTING! There was also a few members once who pointed out that the threads I participated in seemed to get more hits than any others, but according to you ... nobody reads them ... ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT! Bernice replies.. ..Picking at the wrong straws here Bill.......Interesting, your damn right it is..!! ...Quote..." Did you know some people no longer bother.."..I did not say I, ???..do not twist my words. That is interesting.... Hell, Bill I have been around too long to be turned off completely by any words you may think up, you are not the best I have read...just one of the most condescending and persistant.... I have a great interest in this area, therefore I do read all, and Bill occasionally you do say something worth reading, another kudo.....Lordy will wonders never cease..? The threads you participate in Bill, are as a rule, what some call the" broo haw threads."..some love to read and see others argue, and fight..something missing in their lives??...they like to see who can get the best shot , insult in, they do not have the wherewithal, to do so themselves, so they chose their favourites, and watch as some would think to watch a hockey game..or a boxing match...it takes all kinds Bill...and some I am sorry to say, look at this type of thread as entertainment...and that is not what it is suppose to be about.....is it?? It is not you Bill, who draws them , it is the reputation that proceeds you..within such threads...and that should imo, not be the reason, but it seemingly is..?? It's like Oh Oh Duncan and or whomever has posted his opinion about a possible finding in a photograph, watch them turn up, watch for Bill Miller to appear, and whomever.....none fool any of the members, they are wise, and if not they soon are.....some never open such threads, others cannot wait...shame isn't it IMO..is it...but that is the way it proceeds.. Some who used to have, the interest, known to me, have turned away.....I think that is a shame, and I cannot bring them back...even to the F...though I have tried...let alone, to the threads...they are simply so tired, of the nasties, I shall call them, and of the kind of typical reaction......that has and is occurring within this thread...The I am right and you are wrong, don't ever possibley try to work together...attitude..Somehow way back this all got screwed up by the Government cover-up and it only gets worse as time goes on, there is still a great activity within to do so..it appears.. You as well as others seem, to want the privledge to speak your mind, and that is your right, but do you and they have to be so condescending in such.....and seemingly at the same time are not willing, to get back what you give out....?? and this is nothing new Bill, this has gone on for years, as you well know...and for ages, and with some other newer members on here...they know whom they are.....that is why they are here...to disrupt.. And then there are the whiners, they see something not correct according to their standards, or their thoughts of how a Forum should or should not be run, they snipe continually, and have much too much to say, but they cannot take it back....and then they go running to the Administration with their complaints, in the emails.....grow up... People should be able to see whatever they do ,even if different, and be able to express their opinions, and views without the fear of being attacked and or put down..nothing in this area is written in stone, nothing within the assassination is....but you continually try to tell some that it is, just because you or Gary Mack,Trask, Groden, whomever has come to their ,your decisiion, and findings so what.?...you and they are human, aren't they,you ? therefore they,you can be wrong....as we all can.... Do you and some others realise, just how many, do not give their opinions,because of that reason....they lurk, they would like to say something but......they never will.... Therefore, you do not have a Forum, with FOS...in certain threads..it is stiffled..imo I realise it is a tit for tat research world, when the word "Zapruder" and or "Alteration" is mentioned, why such extreme reactions at times, I cannot really fathom.....but this also has gone on for years...and will continue....the cover up continues in these areas...and others..imo.. I know this is a complete waste of tmy time, to post this reply, it will be ignored, or attacked one way or another, and that is my point, it will not and does not get any better... One of the major problems is the Ego...not seemingly in researching the truth, but the posting of "who seemingly knows the most".or who " has the best copies, the best access".....and if you do not, I get the impression, from some, you included, are of the opinion they should not. post....because unless they do, they do not have the right to such, it seems.... Bill, if you have the best copies, then share them around for heavens sake....it would be greatly appreciated by anyone with any interest within this field...Why seemingly halt the research of others, who do not have the same....If you are the researcher that you imply you are, you would also be a better man for doing so, IMO......After all, isn't that what we are suppose to be about, sharing our findings, and any information that we may have that will help another.....I know if anyone asks, and I have such, they have received it. So that perhaps one day, there may be a solution to the assassination of the President.....By continually telling others that their copies, are garbage as you do, that imo is not making progress ..but by seeing that they had the best copies, that you apparently, as you say, do have , and sharing with others, perhaps then.... You and others could possibley begin to work together ?????? I do not think that will ever happen, but it is a great thought... But somehow I do not think that is what it is all about, that is not the bottom line, what it is about it seems, is stopping any possible progress....it seems today to be so cut and dried, here is the answer, the finding now accept it..just like the WC at that time........sorry I do not, and some others also do not...and that is what keeps it going, because some really do care..we do not have the answers, and that is why we are still researching and hoping...perhaps they are willing to go that extra mile and keep on keeping on..You seemingly are so willing to accept the already pat answers.....???? Instead of discouragement, why not some encouragement..?? Thanks for the dance.......around that ole mulberry bush... Have a good week-end, and be sure to add another notch..oh and don't forget to gloat... I see from the new posts, it continues....that's interesting... B edited for spellum mistooks.. Edited February 11, 2006 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 From memory Sitzman said the black couple were about 21-years old.The image below shows the lunch bag still sitting on the bench, and standing in front of the bench is a young black couple. ? The original black couple may be in that crowd some where. Robin, Thanks for the reply, which I almost missed amid the xxxx fight going on in this thread. (I'm glad I never got into photography, it's a nasty business!) The black man standing in front of the bench is wearing a dark hat, as BDM also seems to have worn. But he's dressed like an older man, though of course it's hard to tell from the quality of the film. Which film is it? Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I verify that Gary's statement is correct. We studied the Moorman imagefor at least two years, with NO limitations on time. The statement is correct that the three people identified are the ONLY ones we found, and despite years of analysis, found nothing more of significance within the print. Jack, thanks for finally putting Duncan out of his misery on this one. The work you and Gary Mack did pertaining to Moorman's photo was not only good, but it was "damned good!" You two did the responsible thing as researchers when you spent considerable time first trying to obtain the best prints available to work with, then you two spent considerable time studying those prints, and then as responsible researchers you two sought a reliable outside source to peer review and validate what you had found. For some unknown reason to me ... that process has become a dying technique by many in the research community. I agree with Craig that the process you used was a form of manipulation to Moorman's image, but you are also correct in saying that anything you do in the process of developing a photo could be considered a manipulation. A simple example of this would be when one walks into a dimly lit room and turns on a light - he has manipulated is surrounding area by making things easier to see without changing anything that already wasn't there. I do not believe for a single minute that your Badge Man work was a creation of mere manipulation, nor do I think Craig is suggesting that this was the case persay. At that time, in the early 80s, I believed the Moorman image to be entirely genuine. However, since that time, I have come to believe that some alteration took place in the area of the "Zapruder" pedestal. Jack There is nothing that I can see about the area around Zapruder's pedestal in the Moorman photo that isn't reflected in the Betzner, Willis, Bronson, and Nix images. Bill Bill, let me put it bluntly. It is impossible for "badgeman" to exist in the Moorman polariod. Period. The resolution of the lens/film/distance makes it impossible. Period. Any imabge that portends to show badgeman is simply a creation from thin air. Period. Its a creation via photographic manipulation. Period. A simply JFK "ink blot test". Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 YAWN, YAWN YAWN....IS ANYONE ELSE FED UP WITH THIS NEVER ENDING GAME OF BACK AND FORTH. OR IS IT JUST ME? MAYBE I NEED TO GET OUT MORE..Fellers, and lasses if you have to do this cant you at least stop the outright hostility, if I were a newbie I'd be crappin my pants at the thought of posting here. just cut it out, and come to the point as quickly as possible PLEASE, or if you cant do that, learn to live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) BMiller wrote: [...] nor do I think Craig is suggesting that this was the case persay. [...] persay? roflmao -- baloney! Follow Lamsons' bouncing ball, if JWhites work re badgeman was a farce, so was GMacks! David, I just read your responses in post #93 and #94 ... I am interested in seeing if Bernice bitches about your remarks or not. Meanwhile, don't you ever have any facts to bring to a forum or is it all about being a jerk-off wih you. Bill Edited February 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) Bill, let me put it bluntly. It is impossible for "badgeman" to exist in the Moorman polariod. Period. The resolution of the lens/film/distance makes it impossible. Period. Any imabge that portends to show badgeman is simply a creation from thin air. Period. Its a creation via photographic manipulation. Period. A simply JFK "ink blot test". Period. Well, Craig ... in this instance I disgaree with you. The image is visible, it can be separated from the foliage, it has been validated by MIT, and the timing is right to confirm Gordon Arnold's statement concerning the shot coming past his left ear. My experience has been that if something like Badge Man is a mixture of let's say ... the distant tree foliage ... then he and the foliage would all lighten and contrast equally. However, when I checked this ... Badge Man separated from all the tree foliage around him which had washed out. Then I compared Badge Man's size and body proportions to see if they fell within the norms of a human being in the same posture and below is what I came up with. So while I understand your points, I believe there are ways to check the validity of Badge Man's image that at least tips the scale considerably as to his actual existence. Bill Edited February 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) I have a great interest in this area, therefore I do read all, and Bill occasionally you do say something worth reading, another kudo.....Lordy will wonders never cease..? Like I said, Bernice ... we can go back and pull together all the post that contained the types of remarks you are whining about that had actual factual data inserted to address the issues and do a tally of those posters who did the same, but only made the same types of remarks without addressing any of the issues. I know you won't join me in this undertaking because we both know that it would show a large variance in who is doing it and without offering any data in rebuttal ... and it would beg to ask the question - Where was your concerns when certain parties have been consistently doing it? You'll also find that the threads I have participated in were over photo and film alteration claims which you tend to support. Your bias comes to no surprize to me and you are welcome to address the specifics of those claims any time you like. Bill Edited February 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Bill, let me put it bluntly. It is impossible for "badgeman" to exist in the Moorman polariod. Period. The resolution of the lens/film/distance makes it impossible. Period. Any imabge that portends to show badgeman is simply a creation from thin air. Period. Its a creation via photographic manipulation. Period. A simply JFK "ink blot test". Period. Well, Craig ... in this instance I disgaree with you. The image is visible, it can be separated from the foliage, it has been validated by MIT, and the timing is right to confirm Gordon Arnold's statement concerning the shot coming past his left ear. My experience has been that if something like Badge Man is a mixture of let's say ... the distant tree foliage ... then he and the foliage would all lighten and contrast equally. However, when I checked this ... Badge Man separated from all the tree foliage around him which had washed out. Then I compared Badge Man's size and body proportions to see if they fell within the norms of a human being in the same posture and below is what I came up with. So while I understand your points, I believe there are ways to check the validity of Badge Man's image that at least tips the scale considerably as to his actual existence. Bill Bill, go shoot the moorman lens with polaroid film at the same distance and then get back to me with the results. Then copy it a few times and get back to me again. Lets put this very tiny area of the moorman polaroid in perspective. If you make a new photoshop document at 1/69 of an inch or .36mm which is as small as photoshop will allow you to create, at 600dpi you end up with NINE PIXELS! The opticals limits of the film/lens/distance make something like the badgeman image impossible. I'll repete myself again. All of this "enhancement" either via a computer or film is silly. Its a fools errand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) 'Tim Carroll' wrote: [...] After closely studying the Moorman Photo in the course of an exchange about Classic Gunman, I began to feel that I was seeing more images behind the wall. I sought Jack's help with getting "the best quality Moorman photo obtainable." I was surprised to realize that I couldn't intelligently answer his questions: "Which version? There are several. The early Zippo print without the thumbprint? Early wire service prints with pedestal cropped out? Later wire service prints? My copies made from the original? Gordon Smith copy from original, etc. etc. etc.? All are different." So I'm seizing this opportunity for clarification and/or an assist from Bill Miller regarding which version is the purest (perhaps "rawest" would be better, knowing Jack's position about tampering). I also question the thumbprint: how can there be versions without it? there in lies the major problem regarding DPlaza 11/22/63 imagery. We knew years ago what the Jack's and Gary's of the research world were studying and reviewing (lineage included) These day's with the internet and such, nobody deals the lineage issue.... As for the coke bottle, I'm a bit confused about that issue. Admittedly, I can't see it in the foregoing posts. But if it was at the retaining wall corner in Willis and Betzer, then it must also be within view in Moorman. Correct? here's that problem again -- to answer your question -- yes, it should be there! However when images are posted nobodys asks for said photo lineage -- A researcher could be working with fine resolution digital .tiff images (Most of JackW early work was with actual FILM stock) -- post a 320x240 .jpeg of same and wallah -- the bottle may be gone due to JPEG compression artifacting--- or worse yet, we got Photoshop cowboys riding the pixel range -- they just cloned where the bottle may of been with surrounding area imagery. Course if that is determined and someones called for that this is what you'll hear; "hey it wasn't me, who knows where that image came from..." Edited February 11, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) Bill. I was not in misery.i was merely seeking an aswer as to my assertion was being correct.I now have part of that answer. Duncan, Maybe sometime you can explain why you always seem to make the assertions first and then have to be forced to ask the appropriate questions after the fact. It seems that most anyone would learn from their mistakes, but you seem to continually repeat them - why? It is that repetitive mistake that you make that I feel causes the most damage to the CT's efforts in this case. If you would only investigate first and then reach your conclusions, what ever they may be, I would not have a problem with your assessments of the evidence. Bill Edited February 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) The opticals limits of the film/lens/distance make something like the badgeman image impossible. I'll repete myself again. All of this "enhancement" either via a computer or film is silly. Its a fools errand. Craig, with all due respect ... Groden told me that he used no computer software to make his copy negatives and slides. That the print that he deemed the best copy of Moorman's photo was not done by way of a computer. That the Badge Man image Jack shows from the actual film transfer in post #85 is not computer enhanced. Bill Edited February 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 With out taking a position on who is right on this matter, I don't think Craig was saying computers were used but rather that if you examine a multiple generation copy of a low resolution image and then blow up a small portion of it several times it's original size analyzing a small blob is of dubious value. BTW where is the original? Why can't a high quality scan be made of it? Craig when you say "manipulation" do you mean that you think "badgeman" was intentionally introduced into the image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 here's that problem again -- to answer your question -- yes, it should be there! However when images are posted nobodys asks for said photo lineage -- A researcher could be working with fine resolution digital .tiff images (Most of JackW early work was with actual FILM stock) -- post a 320x240 .jpeg of same and wallah -- the bottle may be gone due to JPEG compression artifacting--- or worse yet, we got Photoshop cowboys riding the pixel range -- they just cloned where the bottle may of been with surrounding area imagery. Course if that is determined and someones called for that this is what you'll hear; "hey it wasn't me, who knows where that image came from..." One may consider that the soda bottle is not only seen on the wall in Moorman's photo, but it isn't visible in the Betzner and Willis photos, nor is it visible in the Nix and Muchmore films. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 The opticals limits of the film/lens/distance make something like the badgeman image impossible. I'll repete myself again. All of this "enhancement" either via a computer or film is silly. Its a fools errand. Craig, with all due respect ... Groden told me that he used no computer software to make his copy negatives and slides. That the print that he deemed the best copy of Moorman's photo was not done by way of a computer. That the Badge Man image Jack shows from the actual film transfer in post #85 is not computer enhanced. Bill Bill, I never said that a computer was used for any of the original badgeman work. However there is a lot of silly stuff being done now on the computer..... With out taking a position on who is right on this matter, I don't think Craig was saying computers were used but rather that if you examine a multiple generation copy of a low resolution image and then blow up a small portion of it several times it's original size analyzing a small blob is of dubious value. BTW where is the original? Why can't a high quality scan be made of it? Craig when you say "manipulation" do you mean that you think "badgeman" was intentionally introduced into the image? My feeling is that White/Mack saw something they thought was a man and worked the image via exposure and contrast ( and in the process throwing away details from the copy image and creating new edge locations) until they got something that fit their original conclusion. In short they created a new image that was not present before the manipulations. 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