Coka Cola Man

[Bill Miller]

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

So we are clear ... I DID NOT imply that your alleged figure existed at all. What I said is that on Moorman's photograph his alleged image is less than a 16th of an inch from the RR man, thus White and Mack HAD INDEED studied his area and not seen such a figure when looking at a much better print.

Bill

[John Dolva]

Bill

" ... I am merely the messenger."

"image is less than a 16th of an inch"

______________

I think these are important points.

These facts exist independently of any person, so any discussion of them that focuses on the 'messenger' by deriding the 'messenger' and not on 'the message' really reflects on the person doing so.

To get a rough sense of dimensions consider perhaps a pack of cigarettes in your hand. This is the area within which on a very small portion these images exist. They are of a poor quality to start with. That's it. No amount of enhancing, wishing or whatever can create more data than thet which was there at the start, and every time it is copied as well as with the passage of time on the original this inrformation degrades and artefacts creep in.

I also don't think there is a reason to think this tiny area is a photo of persons as suggested. That has nothing to do with whether or not there were persons there or not.

I also think that simple reason considering size, perspective and shadow, makes it clear that the 'figure' as suggested is not that person that may have been there.

Edited February 10, 2006 by John Dolva

[Lee Forman]

Hi Duncan.

1. The image I had provided to you was a scan I performed using the 4 Dark Days. It is the clearest and best version of the Moorman I have ever seen or had access to previously. It is very sharp, which is obvious from viewing the comparison. The magazine was Copyrighted in 1963 - thus it is a very early version of the published photo. Since it was printed on glossy paper, it is a dramatic improvement over a scan that could be made from the 1963 Dallas Times Herald, for example, due to the limitations on the printing quality and the poor quality of the paper used.

That being said - I am not an expert, and I hope I have made that clear in the past.

2. I do not see your Coke bottle man, however, I have never seen Badgeman or Hardhat man either [actually, the closest I have ever come to seeing Badgeman is in the 4 Dark Days Moorman]. I have as many as 60+ different files of the Moorman which I have either scanned from different sources, [one eBay 'Original Print' which cost me over one hundred dollars] including internet downloads, book scans, FTP downloads, emailed attachments, etc. This includes JPEGs, which arguably, contain artifacts due to the compression scheme, png's and bitmaps - plus the scans I have done myself.

I see only what I have always stated that I saw for the past 2 years, many times over - what I make to be one of the camera teams, located behind the retaining wall, and as many as 5 - 7 individuals, some wearing hats and uniforms.

However, that being said - I do not believe any version of the Moorman to be 'genuine' or 'original.' I believe it to have seen extensive alteration, which would account for all of the various differences noted in the different versions [not talking about the thumbprint], and the fact that the man with the camera / spotting gear / weapon on the stairs has been washed out. In some versions of the Moorman he is non-existent. I have always used him as my rule of thumb for the quality of the Moorman I am viewing.

Additionally, there has been an argument against alteration - which in my opinion is nonsense, and truly remarkable. I am not certified in Photogrammetry - but then, I don't believe I am a sucker either.

If the Boston Traveller could publish a highly altered Moorman on Saturday, November 23rd, 1963, then why assume that the 'Moorman' polaroid was not retouched itself [attached]? What purpose would anyone have had for altering the photo like that and publishing it? Changing the Motorcop into a Nurse, for example, and having Kennedy's leg and foot hanging over the Lincoln. Why get so creative? Why the exercise in absurdity?

THE PRECEDENT FOR ALTERATION WAS ESTABLISHED WITH THE CREATION OF THE BOGUS BACKYARD PHOTOS.

But there are other sources which can be used to cast doubt on the details presented in the Altered Moorman photo - these include the fact that Emmett Hudson was not presented with the Moorman photo during his testimony - but instead, an Altgens and the FBI reinactment [if memory serves] - clever. The fact that he claimed to have been standing for some time with a young man - who went prone immediately after the first shot was heard [by Hudson], and repeatedly urged Hudson to go prone as well - which he claims to have done PRIOR to the final shot, which in his opinion, went directly over his head. I have repeated this one too many times, so I apologize - Hudson stated that there was a 'whole bunch' of people behind him, taking pictures. He never said anything about being with 2 persons. Nor did he say that the young man fled from the scene - as we see in the altered Nix and altered Muchmore films.

At the time of the Moorman photo - unless Hudson was senile, lying or 'mistaken' - we should have seen at a minimum, one man laying flat on the sidewalk or area of the steps. Worth noting is that we can see individuals sitting in the area during the aftermath - and it ain't 2, IMO.

As per Steve Osborne's account, and many other references to having seen films of the assassination that radically differ from the Authorized and Official versions - there were individuals present documenting the assassination and making a record. They were located in many different places in the Plaza. One concentration was the knoll area and the retaining wall, IMO. There was a need to create a record, not only of the results of the shots being fired [which in some cases may have been captured 'through the crosshairs' using some form of hi-tech GSAP device with a separate camera and recording unit - as per Bray and Osborne, etc.], but also of the shooters themselves.

So - I don't know if I have been of much help here. I do not trust the Moorman photo. The man on the stairs was removed, and other details appear to have been added or changed. There are too many 'differences' between different versions of the photo. Your Coca Cola man is most likely one of the camera crew, in my opinion. And the real shooter that can be seen in the Moorman is beside the tree, wearing a Cop's hat - and he was French, associated with the Corsican Maffia, brought in through Canada, working with a breakdown man, as witnessed primarily by Ed Hoffman.

- lee

Edited February 10, 2006 by Lee Forman

[Lee Forman]

This was an interpolated, cropped version of the drumscan, as produced by Robin Unger. The man, IMO, that fired the final loud, smoky shot, that slammed into Kennedy's front right temple, is right where Holland, Rosemary Willis and others saw the smoke. He's in every version of the Moorman - but this is the clearest I'd ever seen. Wearing a Cop's hat. Probably using a high velocity weapon with a frangible round.

Sorry to derail the thread.

- lee

[Lee Forman]

For example - if we add in some fleshtones, total speculation - we get a different looking perspective...

Edited February 10, 2006 by Lee Forman

[Bill Miller]

This was an interpolated, cropped version of the drumscan, as produced by Robin Unger. The man, IMO, that fired the final loud, smoky shot, that slammed into Kennedy's front right temple, is right where Holland, Rosemary Willis and others saw the smoke. He's in every version of the Moorman - but this is the clearest I'd ever seen. Wearing a Cop's hat. Probably using a high velocity weapon with a frangible round.

Sorry to derail the thread.

- lee

Well, Lee ... now this can be the clearest image of the Hat Man that you have ever seen. He gets his name because the top of his fedora hat can be seen above the fence line from Moorman's location. Ed Hoffman told me that this is exactly where he saw the man with the fedora hat and gun turn away from the fence.

Bill

[Lee Forman]

Hi Bill.

I was under the impression that the area you highlighted was the rifle that Suitman rested on the fenceposts, as per Hoffman. I sent a few things for Ed to look over, but never received a reply. I was under the impression that the Fedora was as indicated in the yellow box, by Robin. Adding color.

- lee

[Lee Forman]

Last one - I revised the 'fleshtones' added to the retaining wall piece. It's speculation, and imagination.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Lee Forman

[Bill Miller]

But there are other sources which can be used to cast doubt on the details presented in the Altered Moorman photo - these include the fact that Emmett Hudson was not presented with the Moorman photo during his testimony - but instead, an Altgens and the FBI reinactment [if memory serves] - clever. The fact that he claimed to have been standing for some time with a young man - who went prone immediately after the first shot was heard [by Hudson], and repeatedly urged Hudson to go prone as well - which he claims to have done PRIOR to the final shot, which in his opinion, went directly over his head. I have repeated this one too many times, so I apologize - Hudson stated that there was a 'whole bunch' of people behind him, taking pictures. He never said anything about being with 2 persons. Nor did he say that the young man fled from the scene - as we see in the altered Nix and altered Muchmore films.

I do not think that it is the photo sources so much that cast doubts over the authenticity of the assassination films and photos in as much as it is peoples misinterpretation of the facts pertaining to them. Emmett Hudson had a copy of Moorman's photograph and his son (William) told me his dad showed it to lots of people over the years. Hudson was 56 years old at the time of the assassination and the man next to him when the shooting first started had ran up the steps at the time of the head shot. The man in the red shirt then came up the steps and in the Nix film we can see this man start to get down as Hudson goes off the screen. The key is not that Hudson started to say the man was 'sitting' and then corrected it to 'standing', but rather that it was the man who was along side him at the 'present time' the suggestion to get down was made.

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind.

As far as 'the first shot goes ... this is what Hudson said about the number of shots and when they were fired -

Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?

Mr. HUDSON - Three.

Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I don't know if you have ever laid down close to the ground, you know, when you heard the reports coming, but it's a whole lot plainer than it is when you are standing up in the air.

So - I don't know if I have been of much help here. I do not trust the Moorman photo. The man on the stairs was removed, and other details appear to have been added or changed. There are too many 'differences' between different versions of the photo. Your Coca Cola man is most likely one of the camera crew, in my opinion. And the real shooter that can be seen in the Moorman is beside the tree, wearing a Cop's hat - and he was French, associated with the Corsican Maffia, brought in through Canada, working with a breakdown man, as witnessed primarily by Ed Hoffman.

- lee

You should have written that you do not always trust the source for the Moorman print you are looking at. Newspapers were notortious for air brushing photos. The photo you opted to show was one such photo where a decision was made to remove the tramatic scene and just draw in the foreground. The photo you used for an example looked like a five year old drew in the images, thus no real sinister attempt was made to alter anything IMO.

Bill

Bill[/b]

Hi Bill.

I was under the impression that the area you highlighted was the rifle that Suitman rested on the fenceposts, as per Hoffman. I sent a few things for Ed to look over, but never received a reply. I was under the impression that the Fedora was as indicated in the yellow box, by Robin. Adding color.

- lee

I understand what you are saying, Lee and this is just the point I have been making concerning people using such poor prints to make claims of seeing assassins, photographers, and soda drinkers when they should be seeking to find out what was visible on the more superior prints.

Bill

[Lee Forman]

What does all or any of this,interesting as it is,have to do with the topic of this thread other than disrupting the main issue of discussion.?

Duncan

I don't think it's a coke bottle. And I believe that there are multiple individuals present behind the retaining wall - between 5 or 7.

- lee

[Craig Lamson]

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

I congratulate Miller on the complete accuracy** of what he

says above. One print from Thompson and one print

from Weisberg were very good quality, and were used

for badgeman studies. Gary Mack and I labeled prints

that Gary had collected by quality. Thus Thompson 1 was

the best Thompson print and Weisberg 1 was the best

print from Harold (which unfortunately was marred by

some purple rubberstamp ink). Gary gathered about 10

prints. The first in the timeline we called the Zippo print,

because it includes a zippo lighter next to the Polaroid.

It is unique, because it was taken before the thumbprint

was applied; it is also very grainy because of small negative

size. I am attaching a copy of the Zippo print.

At some point Thompson selected his "best print"

and had a professional "drum scan" made of it. The quality

of the drum scan is miserable.

Jack

**to be completely accurate, Robert furnished not a print,

but a slide, and not to me...but to Gary Mack. Gary was

looking at the slide on a large screen monitor, and saw

the badgeman image, or as he would say the Badge Man

image. Gary passed the slide on to me, and I copied it

and made a print of optimal exposure.

Just a point of record here. Thompson did not have his "best print" "drum scanned". Jack is blowing smoke. Thompson had the copy NEGATIVE of the Moorman original print that was made for him in 1967 scanned on a drum scanner at 2400dpi. Its pretty clear that White has little or no knowelege of the drum scan process nor experience using materials created on the drum scanner. The drum scan of the Thompson Moorman negative is an excellent digital representation of the negative scanned to film grain level.

It was scanned without any post production applied to the resulting file and as such needs contrast and density modification to produce the best possible image. It should be noted that this is exactly what happens in a darkroom when a print is made from a negative. It should also be noted that the negative Thompson had drum scanned was the negative used to make the print that White and Mack examined and as such has the same information and details as the resulting print.

Another point of record. Gary Mack is concerned that I am somehow giving the impression that he and White used the print that was made from the drumscan negative as the source material for the badgeman alteration. As my post clearly states Mack/White did examine that print as part of their work. The print they actually worked from to make the badgeman alteration was a copy of the UPI moorman.

[Ron Ecker]

Images aside, it doesn't make much sense to me that a conspirator would be sipping on a Coke in the midst of the shooting. If you know that the president is going to be shot, are you going to be completely riveted on the target as he is passing by, or are you going to be lifting a Coke bottle to your mouth right when the head shot is fired? I don't think even an innocent bystander would be sucking on a Coke bottle at the moment the president is passing, particularly if explosive sounds like shots are occurring at the time. But that's just my opinion based on what (I think) I know about human nature.

[Bill Miller]

I was talking to Bill Lee.I should have made that clearer...Give him a chance to get away from the main topic in any of my posts,and he'll sieze the opportunity to redirect the thread as far from the topic as possible.I know this from 5 years experience of sometimes interesting sometimes not exchanges with him.I'm a believer in new Topic =New Thread,otherwise none of us will ever get anywhere and it all ends up in a jumbled mess leading nowhere.

Duncan

Duncan, my reply was in response to a previous post by someone else, so who is trying to get away from the topic! What it boils down to is that you didn't bother to check with Jack or Gary Mack to see if a good quality print shows what you thought you saw on a poor muddy print. You assumed that Mack and White were under some time strain to work on the Moorman photograph when all you had to do is merely email either man and ask the question outright. I find it odd that you have plenty of time to make these senseless childlike responses, but you don't have time to post some of these all important questions before making claims about there being soda drinkers on the knoll.

Bill

Images aside, it doesn't make much sense to me that a conspirator would be sipping on a Coke in the midst of the shooting. If you know that the president is going to be shot, are you going to be completely riveted on the target as he is passing by, or are you going to be lifting a Coke bottle to your mouth right when the head shot is fired? I don't think even an innocent bystander would be sucking on a Coke bottle at the moment the president is passing, particularly if explosive sounds like shots are occurring at the time. But that's just my opinion based on what (I think) I know about human nature.

Ron, your points are reasonable, but if you are going to be presenting rational thinking on this matter - be prepared to be met with resisitence.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

A coke bottle was seen on the wall in Bond,now to me that tells me,using common sense that someone was drinking coke.It may not have been my figure,but someone was..That's a fact

Also Duncan, in your previous post, to Ron

we know for a fact that a bottle of Coke was found on the wall which on applying logic tells me that someone was drinking a coke.I would also like to add that at no point in this thread have i said that this figure is a conspiritor.Thanks.

Duncan,

can you point me towards this evidence that says a bottle was found on the wall please?

If you could also show me in which Bond photo you have spotted the bottle.

I have seen only a white blob that I have half a notion is actually something back near the fence rather than sitting on the wall.

FWIW, these three photos below were taken before Towner3( the one posted previously where we see the shape of a bottle).

Obviously, anyone at all who has a better copy of these photos, please post them.

If Gary is reading this, maybe he would check Willis6 for us.

Alan

[Bill Miller]

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 ????

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.

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....

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!