Terry Adams Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 As long as crap is being thrown at the wall without sensibly investigating the other assassination images ... how about it being a bottle of "IDIOT JUICE" and Duncan has drank the whole thing! Jack White had the best Moorman print when he and Gary Mack worked on the Badge Man images - why not ask him what his print shows instead of playing games with inferior images such as the one posted here? Also, how many men with pop bottles can be seen in the Willis and Betzner photos? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator I was wondering when you would appear from your darkened cave. Once more you are spewing out unprovoked insults and ignorant crappy assertions based on your "Miller knows it all" theory which is as accurate as Oswalds Carcano. You obviously do not keep up to date with Jack's beliefs on the Moorman polaroid.Let me get you up to date.He thinks it has been altered in some areas.If you want to know his full opinion,ask him yourself,i'm not your babysitter. You ask how many pop bottles can be seen in Willis and Betzner...What a STUPID question.I'm not even going to bother answering that as it is completely irrelevant,it's like asking how may Badgemen are seen in Willis and Betzner...geeeeeez. It appears to me from this thread that the majority in general are in favour of the Coke Bottle man although some say it appears he may be holding a camera or binoculars......live with it and go have a Coke to let that overactive hot wind blowing mouth of yours cool down.....unless you're still on the Jack Daniels of course.....hic Duncan.....Bills hero and photograhic interpretation advisor Duncan...you are correct that I no longer believe the Moorman polaroid is entirely genuine. For years for various reasons I believed it escaped the govt dragnet. I now believe, for various reasons, that the Moorman is altered in the extreme right edge to make changes in the persons on the pedestal. Be wary in dealing with "Bill Miller/Larry Peters"; he is not necessarily all that he seems. Jack Jack, this is in response to your scan versus the "drum" scan. I have never seen Badgeman depicted so clearly. I must have always only seen the "drum" scan, thus, have questioned the interpretations. If this enhancement can be duplicated by anyone( obviously, I mean, anyone with the proper equipment), then, I can see no argument about a shooter from the front. This seems, to me, at least to answer the perverbial question, "Where's the beef". It is right there in front of us. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Let's assume there is something there as suggested. One would have to consider the means used to magnify the pixels that interpolated the pixel smears as done. compare unenhanced (except for pixel outlines for illustration) One would have to consider perspective and dimension, see the moorman position and the size of the 'figure' compared to the persons on the stairs. One would have to consider shadow locations, consider the shadows on the known figure. Thanks for your opinion John as usual.All points you mentioned were considered.Your example looks like a simple blow up causing extreme pixelation in a low quality starting image.My enhancement was completed by using a top quality high resolution digitised scan which was sent to me by a fellow researcher. Duncan Duncan, you're welcome. My understanding is that a polaroid photo is about 7 cm square. Therefore the part that you have enlarged is very small indeed. I wonder what the grain of a polaroid from that era is. Also a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a photo that has figerprints on it and is poor to start with is bound to have blemishes of some sort on it. Therefore the issue of enlargement is real. The straight out pixel resize ( with the edges marked in the image I posted ) would apply to any image. The idea is the introduction of values that don't exist. Obviously the question would be to see the original without enlargement and then look at the degree of enlargement and also to look at the plugin or whatever utility used to make the enlargement. However, that introduces factors into the discussion I don't think can be dealt with easily. (I don't have a good copy and think if you have one it should be made available to all to scrutinise. It's not copyright, is it?) One way or another, an enlargement of a very small area of a copy of a poor photo is doubtridden. However, one way to bolster a case that there may be a figure as sugested is to deal with such things as can be checked. These factors are independentof the copy and relate to shadow and size: How do you explain the size and 'shadows'. It seems to me the 'shadows' are very wrong. They should be as on other items on the photo. Where no light falls there should be shadow. Check the known figures shdows and the suggetsed 'figure' Size wise, the area used for the figure, would if there is a figure there, show a figure of a larger size if said 'figure' is at the 'wall'. Check the distance from moorman and see if it could be. heres the image that illustrates my concerns again: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) Duncan...you are correct that I no longer believe the Moorman polaroid is entirely genuine. For years for various reasons I believed it escaped the govt dragnet. I now believe, for various reasons, that the Moorman is altered in the extreme right edge to make changes in the persons on the pedestal. Be wary in dealing with "Bill Miller/Larry Peters"; he is not necessarily all that he seems. Jack Jack, you appear to validate photos only on whether or not they seem to support one of your alteration claims. Let me remind you and Duncan that Mary Moorman's photogragh was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the assassination. At the time her photograph was filmed - it had never left her possession. That Mary Moorman's photo was broaqdcast on NBC television around 3:25PM on the afternoon of the assassination. Now considering it was YOU who used her photo to expose the fact that Gordon Arnold and Badge Man could be seen in her photograph (not to mention the RR worker) ... what sensible explanation could anyone have for altering her photo in non-important areas while leaving the Badge Man image showing him aiming a rifle at the President, thus supporting Arnold's statement? You are so oblivious of what Duncan is proposing that you are not aware that he is making an ass out of you and your interpretation skills back when they were much better than they are now. Duncan is taking a degraded image and saying that he see's another man a few feet or so to the left (our right) of the RR worker in Mary's Polaroid. What that implies is that YOU and Gary Mack had a much superior image to work with and you COULD NOT see what Duncan says is obvious in a poor degraded print of the same. Now rethink what you have said and see if you want to tell this forum that you and Mack missed this ridiculous Duncan figure created from a far less superior print than you used! The fact is .... YOU and Mack had the best image to work with and that there was no descernible figure of anyone on the knoll drinking a coke. I hope you were able to follow the point I have laid before you and I also hope that you will not side step it again and attempt to address it accordingly. My question to you is, "Do you believe that YOU and Mack, along with MIT, failed to see a man standing next to the RR worker when you had the best print to study and that Duncan has this magical power of seeing figures in degraded muddy prints that you could not see in good quality prints?" Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Also, to John Dolva - "My understanding is that a polaroid photo is about 7 cm square. Therefore the part that you have enlarged is very small indeed. I wonder what the grain of a polaroid from that era is. Also a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a photo that has figerprints on it and is poor to start with is bound to have blemishes of some sort on it. Therefore the issue of enlargement is real." John ... did you not understand what I have said about this matter? Taking a poor quality print that has limited color tones and trying to draw faces on the backgrounds is ludicrous. Once someone thinks they may have seen something on a poor muddy print, would not the next step be to go to the best print possible and see if the image is really there or not? I mentioned doing this to Duncan, but he pretends to be too dumb to know why this should be done. I have now addressed the same reasoning with Jack White and I await to see how Jack responds. I am betting that you must also see the significance of the points I have raised. Bill Duncan, just so you know this ahead of time ... It was at one time a known fact that this forum limited the amount of image space that members could post as attachments. That means that once you run yours up to the limit - you're done. You may wish in the future to possibly utilize your attachment space a little better and stick to the evidence being discussed instead of trying to amuse someone with your non-productive childish nonsense. Bill Edited February 10, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Bill, I think you make valid points. I also think that Duncan (and anyone working on images) need encouragement in the right direction. It get's a bit hard to admit a mistake and move on and continue working while under attack. I think there's too much of that. However we live in a real world and ultimately one would hope to rise above that stuff and read the essense of the argument and not the vitriol. I'd like to see answers to the questions raised. From my viewpoint I'd like to have the issues of size and shadow dealt with because as I see it, these 'figures', quite apart from anything else seem impossible and the simpler explanations of light and dark areas on poor images is the right one. As someone else pointed out: Roscharch tests, (not proof) (IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) Quoting Bill Miller.... Jack ""your interpretation skills back when they were much better than they are now. "" ""I hope you were able to follow the point I have laid before you and I also hope that you will not side step it again and attempt to address it accordingly. "" ""John ... did you not understand what I have said about this matter?"" ""Duncan, just so you know this ahead of time ... It was at one time a known fact that this forum limited the amount of image space that members could post as attachments. That means that once you run yours up to the limit - you're done. You may wish in the future to possibly utilize your attachment space a little better and stick to the evidence being discussed instead of trying to amuse someone with your non-productive childish nonsense."" So says the Forum God.....? Bill: Stop taking those ugly pills..Your churlish ,unpleasant manner is showing again.... Why do you always add your snide remarks...?? I for one would like to know.....?? 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 ???? 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.... B.... Edited February 9, 2006 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Bill Miller wrote: [...] John ... did you not understand what I have said about this matter? Taking a poor quality print that has limited color tones and trying to draw faces on the backgrounds is ludicrous. Once someone thinks they may have seen something on a poor muddy print, would not the next step be to go to the best print possible and see if the image is really there or not? I mentioned doing this to Duncan, but he pretends to be too dumb to know why this should be done. I have now addressed the same reasoning with Jack White and I await to see how Jack responds. I am betting that you must also see the significance of the points I have raised. Bill shall we take your inference to mean, you're the LAST word on the matter, ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza photo related matter? If so, you might want to let us know your qualifications as being SUCH.... curious minds might want to know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Bill Miller wrote:[...] John ... did you not understand what I have said about this matter? Taking a poor quality print that has limited color tones and trying to draw faces on the backgrounds is ludicrous. Once someone thinks they may have seen something on a poor muddy print, would not the next step be to go to the best print possible and see if the image is really there or not? I mentioned doing this to Duncan, but he pretends to be too dumb to know why this should be done. I have now addressed the same reasoning with Jack White and I await to see how Jack responds. I am betting that you must also see the significance of the points I have raised. Bill shall we take your inference to mean, you're the LAST word on the matter, ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza photo related matter? If so, you might want to let us know your qualifications as being SUCH.... curious minds might want to know... Are you asking what my qualifications are for stating something that a five your old should know? David ... is it your position that a poor degraded print offers more accurate information than a good one? How much expertise does one need to see that the Badge Man in Jack's print is visible, while the Badge Man in Duncan's print is not visible. The point I made is common sense and doesn't need a genuis to tell why it is important to use the better print over the poorer one. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) Bill...You are three thirds crazy and more by implying to Jack,in the hope that he will turn against me,that my figure is beside the Railroad man.I SAID NO SUCH THING MORON.This is YOUR fantasy not mine.My figure is clearly behind the wall and in front of the fence,nowhere near railroad man...Nice try..but your attempted disruptive moves are too predictable these days.get some oil in your gears man you're getting rustier by the day. Duncan Duncan, there is a saying that says, "Your actions speak louder than your words." You have made a claim once again by way of using a poor degraded Moorman print and I have asked why would you not use a good print or ask someone who has access to a good print to verify your observation. There are only two alternatives to White, Mack, and MIT not seeing the alleged soda drinker and they are ... 1) They didn't want to bring attention to this person, or ... 2) This alleged soda drinker is not visible in the best and clearest print of the same, which means he never existed in the first place. So while you can dance all you want - you have put forth a post that basically says that you were able to see something in a poor muddy print that Jack White, Gary Mack, and MIT were not qualified or able to see in a print far more superior in quality than the image that you used. The two alternatives are listed above ... pick which ever alternative you wish to apply to this matter ... Jack can do the same. So you people can jerk around and act all insulted and pissed-off or you can get to business and do as I did and go right to the heart of the matter and ask Jack to either acknowledge the alleged soda drinker and explain how he, Mack and MIT missed it in the good quality print or Jack can tell you that they missed NOTHING and that you have only taken artifacts created by using a poor muddy print and mistook them for a figure drinking soda! To do anything short of this by not utilizing the best images possible is making a mockery out of JFK's murder IMO. Bill Edited February 9, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) It appears to me from this thread that the majority in general are in favour of the Coke Bottle man although some say it appears he may be holding a camera or binoculars......live with it and go have a Coke to let that overactive hot wind blowing mouth of yours cool down.....unless you're still on the Jack Daniels of course Duncan, By my count 15 people have responded to this thread. Of them only two say they can see a bottle of Coke, two see a camera and the rest either aren't sure or don't say. That comes out to about 13%. Bill (Miller) wasn't very diplomatic about it but he has a point that more than one person might have been drinking Coke (or Pepsi or RC etc) in DP around the time of the assassination. If I misstated any ones views it was unintentional, let me know. Sees a Coke bottle (2): You, Bill Kelly Sees a camera or doesn't see "soda drinker" (3): Me, Ed, Bill Miller, John, Tim C. Unsure or doesn't say (9): Mark, James, Tim G., Adam, Thomas, Jack, Bernice, Healy. PS - Duncan and Bill, I know I' not really the person to say this but please try to keep your personal feud out of this forum EDIT I changed the tally above due to Tim C.'s post and a more carful reading of what John had to say. Edited February 10, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) Bill (Miller) wasn't very diplomatic about it but he has a point that more than one person might have been drinking Coke (or Pepsi or RC etc) in DP around the time of the assassination. If I misstated any ones views it was unintentional, let me know. Len, that is not what I said at all! I said that Duncan has taken a poor muddy Moorman print and attempted to draw in a figure without first bothering to check a good quality print or at least check with Jack to see if his superior print shows anything there at all. As far as a fued with Duncan ... there is no fued. I merely want the questions and points addressed. If this forum is merely a 'take the poorest prints available and play where's Waldo' with them, then let me know for there can be no real research being done here by using such an approach. The points are simple. Why does one clean their windshield when it gets dirty ... is it not so they can see clearly? Is it not common sense to set a poor quality questionable print aside and look at a superior print to achieve the highest level of accuracy possible? What is there to not understand! Bill What i am saying is that Gary and Jack did not study closely,if at all,the area which i studied.Their time was limited as far as i know,and the Badgeman area was top priority.If i am wrong then i'm sure Jack will say so. Duncan Anyone who has ever heard Jack talk about the work he and Gary did on the Badge Man study could not make such a ridiculous remark as' they were limited on time'. Why would anyone even make such a remark when a simple email to Jack or Gary Mack could answer that question? Instead, you just make an inference when there is no foundation for doing it other than to avoid admitting that no such figure was present in the good print that Gary and Jack used. Their study was complete and quite extensive. They initially looked very closely at Moorman's photo for TWO YEARS in an effort to look for anyone standing above the wall. Your remark about them 'not studying closely, if not at all, the area you are talking about' is in error. Below is the area in question. The only reason that their Badge Man images stop with the RR worker and didn't continue north is because there was no one else visible for them to see. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited February 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Anyone who has ever heard Jack talk about the work he and Gary did on the Badge Man study could not make such a ridiculous remark as' they were limited on time'. Why would anyone even make such a remark when a simple email to Jack or Gary Mack could answer that question? Instead, you just make an inference when there is no foundation for doing it other than to avoid admitting that no such figure was present in the good print that Gary and Jack used. Their study was complete and quite extensive. They looked very closely at Moorman's photo in an effort to look for anyone standing above the wall. 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? 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? T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Bill I guess I misinterpreted this sentence "Also, how many men with pop bottles can be seen in the Willis and Betzner photos?" I know the question was retorical but assumed there were more than one pop drinkers in those pix. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Thanks Bill,He sticks out like a sore thumb to me too.I've made up this gif animation which makes him blatantly clearer for those like Len who doubt and who can't see him.I hope this helps. Duncan Duncan, It looks like it is a camera to me. But, I too, see the figure there. Call me delusional if you want to people. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) 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? Tim, I think I can answer your questions. Some of what I am about to tell you has been passed on to me via Robert Groden. If I remember it correctly ... Robert said that the clearest Moorman print that he had ever seen was an 8 x 10 print that Josiah Thompson had. Josiah's 1st genration print was made from a 'copy negative' made right from the original Moorman photograph. Robert then made a copy negative from the 1st generation print that Josiah had at the time. It was that copy negative that Robert made that was passed on to Jack White which was then used to retrieve the Badge Man images. Sometime down the road someone had placed their thumb on the original Moorman photograph and their thumb lifted some of the coating off the photo, thus leaving behind a thumb print. So prints and copy negatives made before this time would not show a thumb print on the photo and copy negatives and prints made after the fact do show the damage. FWIW ... Groden also has told me that he made several copy negatives from various prints. However, the best print he tells me was one in particular that was owned by Josiah Thompson, who also has had several diferent levels of quality prints in his possession over time. The 'Drum Scan' is one such example which shows an inferior image compared to the copy negative Jack used in the Badge Man work. Bill Edited February 10, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 The alleged "Coke bottle" in the only clear image of it shows it was almost at the very end of the concrete wall. Jack 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