Alan Healy Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Craig, I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible. I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point. Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once. I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here. This copy has just been enlarged by Robin. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 (edited) "In each case the President was between the figure over the wall and the camera, thus the subject was facing the camera! "Wrong Bill...The subject was not facing the camera(s)...The subject was facing the motorcade,and probably the limo in particular. Duncan Duncan - get the photos out and look at the President and tell me who is seen just beyond JFK - is it not the figure over the wall? No one said that JFK was dead centered on a line between Arnold and the cameras, but rather was merely facing them. The example below shows the President not more than a few degrees from being centered between the figure at the wall and the camera. There is no way of knowing if Arnold had his camera pointed directly at Kennedy or just pointed at the limo. The only way to know this is to look at Arnold's film to see if JFK was in the center of the lens at all times. If Arnold was like most people - he aimed his camera at the limo and did not pan with JFK in the very center of his lens, so to be so foolish as to think otherwise. You bare trying to hard to pick pepper out of nat dung in order to find something worng with my post, which only makes you look silly. All one can say for sure is that Arnold was surely aiming his camera towards the limo and just beyond that was each photographer. Did you not learn anything from what I posted? Bill Edited February 12, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Craig,I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible. I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point. Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once. I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here. This copy has just been enlarged by Robin. Alan A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 So much is in the eye of the beholder in this stuff.In that last Betzer BDM photo Bill posted, does anyone see, as I do, the distinct face of a lion under the left side of the Stemmons sign? Does anyone see, as I do, the face of a man wearing sunglasses right over the bush behind the Stemmons sign? (He looks a lot like Duke from Doonesbury.) I've seen faces of people and animals like this in photos all over the knoll, but I don't take them seriously. However, sometime when I have nothing better to do, I might put together a photo collection of the grassy knoll menagerie. Ron, it is nice that you see faces all over the place, but did you not see the resemblence of the sunspot on each individual over the corner of the wall for that was the crux of the matter in the work I presented. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 The data and information you produced is in error and hypothetical.You stated Arnold was facing both camera's.That was a clear error on your part.I do not think my comment was senseless as you suggest.I merely wanted to set the record straight on that fact.You made a mistake and i pointed it out to you.No fancy words can change that.We all make mistakes,don't feel bad about it Duncan Duncan ... you're jerking us around again. Of all the dozens upon dozens of researchers I have explained this to - you are the only one petty enough to try and make such a ridiculous point. The SS Agent I marked in this Zapruder frame below is not looking directly into the camera, but it would be a true statement if someone said that his body is facing the camera. The same can be said about the Willis girl. Now was there anything important about the post I made that you'd like to address or were you only interested in playing games with me? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. Craig, thank you. I don't suppose you have any results from your test shots you could show us do you? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. Craig, thank you. I don't suppose you have any results from your test shots you could show us do you? Alan No I don't. I did the test some years ago for my personal interest. I can however do a reshoot in the near future as time permits. In the mean time consider this. All of the tests that have been completed to date have used negative roll film of some sort. Not only are these filmstocks fine grained and have more resolving power than the polaroid film used by Moorman, but being negatives they can be directly enlarged and printed. The Moorman polarid had to first be copied (in the case of a number of moorman versions...many times) before it could be enlarged and printed. That also greatly reduced the resolving power. Another note. I've been an advertising photographer for a good many years. Prior to my switch to digital, shooting polaroid film for use as a proofing medium was standard practice. It was not uncommon to shoot 10-20 sheets of polaroid film of a single setup before shooting real film. I bought the stuff by the case for many many years. While b/w 4x5 polariod film was a great tool to judge exposure and composition of a photo set, it was useless as a tool to check focus. Why? Because of the image structure and lack of resolution. Under even a 4x loupe the resolution was worthless for focus checks. The only way to use a polaroid film for focus checks was to use the polaroid positive/negative film. This film actually produced a b/w negative that could be placed on a lightbox and checked under a loupe. It was messy and a PITA but it was the only way to check focus with polaroid film because the prints were just so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) Craig, I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible. I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point. Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once. I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here. This copy has just been enlarged by Robin. Alan A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. "...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! Edited February 13, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Miller presents an interesting animation of Betzners "blackdogman" and Moorman's Gordon Arnold. BUT...A BIG BUT...Betzner was at the top of Elm, pointing his camera WEST. Moorman was on the grass infield south of Elm, pointing her camera NORTH. Therefore the two images cannot be made to coincide. Sorry, no cigar. Jack PS...I think it possible that blackdogman is a red herring introduced by retouching Jack - you seemngly missed the points that were made. It doesn't matter if the camera in each instance was pointed in different directions as long as the subject was LOOKING TOWARDS THE CAMERA at the time the picture was taken. What you stated about the direction the camera was pointed between Betzner's and Moorman's photographs made absoutely no sense at all. In each case the President was between the figure over the wall and the camera, thus the subject was facing the camera! If you are interested in this subject, then I suggest that you rethink it through for Gary Mack, Robert Groden, and a list of other seasoned researchers had no problem following this presentation and the trail of evidence it offers. By the way, what part of the sunspot on the right shoulder of this person did you not understand for they were identical. The south shade line passing over each was a match. Pay very close attention to the two sunspots below ... one is from Arnold as he is facing Moorman and the other is from the BDM (black dog man) as he is facing Betzner. For anyone to have taken a step in any direction would have caused that sunspot to hit a diferent point on their body, if still at all. Yet in both images the sunspot is the same and the cenetered dark patch on their clothing in the sunlit area is present on both - thus we are looking at the same person regardless of who you believe this person was - PERIOD!!! Below is some of what I presented at last years Lancer Conference ... You believe Gordon Arnold as I do - RIGHT? Gordon didn't say that someone was standing between he and the approaching President and blocking his view - did he? Gordon Arnold didn't say that some black dog man ran off and he (Gordon) quickly ran over to his location and started filming at the last second ... now did he? No, in fact ... Gordon said that he took up a position near the south end of the walkway and was doing some test pans when he saw the President coming down the street. This means that anyone seen at the south end of the walkway in the Betzner, Willis, and Moorman photographs is Gordon Arnold if you believe Gordon told the truth. The matching sunspots show that this person was one in the same. The enhancement of the Moorman individual shows a man in what appears to be a overseas uniform and "garrison cap". Forget the retouch nonsense for a moment and just follow the evidence and you'll have little choice but to see that the BDM and Gordon Arnold are one in the same person. Below is the 'line of sight' from each photographer in question to the individual that we are discussing. These lines of sight all meet at the same location that Gordon Arnold said he stood and where the BDM is seen. Here is some more food for thought. I saw a video presentation done once that mentioned how the BDM got his name. The video mentioned the slope of the shade line resembling that of a sitting dogs back and it also mentioned the two points on the top of the head that resembled 'dog ears'. Are you aware that when someone is seen wearing a 'garrison cap' and that cap is slightly turned ... that it makes two points that match those seen on the BDM shape? See the example below. Sometimes it would pay you to actually look at the available evidence before you and not be so quick to think that everything that you fail to immediately understand must be a result of photos that have been altered and retouched. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 "...even more laughable...? I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! David, it would have been helpful had you actually countered Craig's opinion with facts instead of just posting more childish banter. Would it kill you guys to take your hands out of your pants and seriously address these responses with actual data? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Craig, I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible. I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point. Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once. I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here. This copy has just been enlarged by Robin. Alan A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. "...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera. You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word. BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Craig, I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible. I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point. Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once. I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here. This copy has just been enlarged by Robin. Alan A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. "...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera. You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word. BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog. well thank you very much, when you can afford one we'll mach trannies.... so, ah again; what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Oop's, that's right you answered that didn't you -- NOTHING! Much ado about nothing -- pretty much were all your arguments end up! But fun to watch none-the-less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Craig, I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible. I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point. Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once. I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here. This copy has just been enlarged by Robin. Alan A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test. I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing. BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted. "...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what? So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao! Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera. You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word. BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog. well thank you very much, when you can afford one we'll mach trannies.... so, ah again; what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Oop's, that's right you answered that didn't you -- NOTHING! Much ado about nothing -- pretty much were all your arguments end up! But fun to watch none-the-less Sold mine quite a while back since no one wants 8x10s anymore, but I have a nice pile of trans we can share right now if thats what you really have in mind cowboy shooter.....hell I'd love to see if you can actually LIGHT anything other than the crap the normally passes for lighting in the video wold today. However got three really nice 4x5s on the shelf, but nobody wants stuff from them either....new day and all. Wof Wof. 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