Bill Miller Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 (edited) There is a saying that goes, "Let justice be done though the Heaven's fall" and that was my approach when I started looking into the Gordon Arnold story and then the Arnold/BDM connection. Is this an admission Bill? Are you saying that it doesn't matter that you have manipulated the image you presented as long as you get your point across? Sounds like it to me. It's a little cryptic but I'll except it. I think the reason has already been explained by me more than once and the point was made to the extent that those seasoned researchers that I have presented it to had all understood it's purpose. Your inability to follow what I have said is something I can not do anything about. When Jack White colorized the Badge Man images - you said nothing of the same. Like I said before ... it is only because you failed miserably in your attacking Arnold's credibility that you are reduced to complaining about one example in a list of many that I produced. Had I of said that I found a Betzner print and didn't tell that it was made up of a transparency that I created, then it would have been one thing. The fact of the matter is that I have presented a mountain of evidence and the shade lines was in my view a necessary way of presenting what I deemed important. FWIW, you don't have to interfere with the images to persuade your audience, you just present them side by side & let the people make up they're own minds. In that mountain of evidence that I have presented over the past two years on this matter is plenty of side by side comparisons. I might add that maybe someone else can see how your transparency overlay showed a match of something, but I was not able to see it. You even admit that those shapes have nothing in common, but the shade line transpartency overlays I created were presented with a lot of other evidence and they all did have something in common. What I find truly amazing is that had I of shown two photos of the TSBD and taken only seconds apart - where one of them showed a particular window partially opened and the other did not - you would probably have considered that transparency overlay a viable way of showing their differences. I basically did the same thing by showing the similarities of the shade line passing over both individuals in question. I'm only complaining about the one bad apple & if you keep using it as an example of how the shapes above the wall in Betzner & Moorman are the same, then I'll keep complaining. The shape in that GIF is not seen in the Betzner photo & you know it, it's a distorted image. So why do you keep using it? Because it's convenient? Wouldn't you rather show us a full zoomed-in overlay of the best examples of these figures you have available to you, from both Moorman & Betzner? Maybe the shapes don't match when you use good images? Well they match when you look at them from Betzners position/POV on Elm don't they? I have lost track at how many examples I have created and presente don this matter ... In the beginning I sought to have them peer reviewed before ever posting them and once I obtained confirmation that others saw the same things - I shared them with the research community. Your inability to understand their use is a personal problem IMO. This is exactly what I did. I compared it to the figures in Betzner3 & Moorman5 & I could tell instantly that the frame you are using as an example of Betzner is a frame from a GIF where the "image transition effect" has been used. I know because I have done the same exact thing myself. The only difference is I would never edit the GIF down to just two frames & then present that in public in the way you do, as if it actually held any value. So you saw the obvious ... are you looking for a prize? The two frame animation I have mentioned several times now is not a composite using a transparency. The two frame animation was the actual sunspot seen on the Moorman individual overlaid over the top of Betzner image - PERIOD! No you still haven't explained why you did this butcher job, I just got the exact same response as before, a non-denial denial & now a quote from Garrison, which I have to guess at is meaning since I can't see the relevance between justice & what you have done with that image. ai find it funny how researchers from Groden to Mack to Conway to Law have all seen my presentation and it is only an arm chair researcher like yourself that complains about the way I presented the infromation. Again, that is a personal problem that you'll have to deal with. If it appears that my only purpose is to attack Bill then you are mistaken, there is no other I've come across that has has talked, researched & studied BDM more than he has, he actually thinks it's an important figure & I'm of the same opinion...... only that's where we part. He's sure he knows who it is & I disagree with his conclusion. The difference between us is that you started with a conclusion that the BDM was some sinister individual in black clothing who had already fired a shot at JFK and Betzner's photo had captured the smoke coming from his alleged gun. Had you done just the simpliest of research on the matter you would have seen that Betzner said that he took his photograph before the first shot had been fired. Considering that you started with a false assumption ... I have no doubt that you have disagreed with my investigation. If I've said anything out of order or used any words that you find offensive & unfitting to this well thought of forum, then please wrap it in a quote & pull me about it. Once more, it is not about me or Bill, it's about the photographic evidence that we have access to & are trying to make the best of. The only person you need to apologize to is Gordon Arnold IMO. Bill Edited February 15, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now