The Groden Copy Of Black Dog Man

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

In another thread on the subject of Black Dog Man,Allan posted a copy of the Groden copy of Black Dog Man.

By simply adding EQ to the image,this is the result.I have only seen this result in photographs which have been manipulated deliberately.The result is clearly showing that the image is not natural.

I am posting the copy which Allan posted and the copy which has had the EQ added.If anyone has any comments which could explain this as a natural process of EQ or any other explanation, i'd love to hear it.

For the record,i am not suggesting that Robert or Allan or Robin did the manipulation,but i would be interested in the source of this copy.

Duncan

Post edited...Correction...It was Robin who posted the original image.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Duncan MacRae

[Robin Unger]

In another thread on the subject of Black Dog Man,Allan posted a copy of the Groden copy of Black Dog Man.

By simply adding EQ to the image,this is the result.I have only seen this result in photographs which have been manipulated deliberately.The result is clearly showing that the image is not natural.

I am posting the copy which Allan posted and the copy which has had the EQ added.If anyone has any comments which could explain this as a natural process of EQ or any other explanation, i'd love to hear it.

For the record,i am not suggesting that Robert or Allan or Robin did the manipulation,but i would be interested in the source of this copy.

Duncan

Post edited...Correction...It was Robin who posted the original image.

Here Duncan.

You should remember where it all started.

Follow the thread from Betzner3 to Life to Groden.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...e=&topic_page=1

[Bill Miller]

I know the thread well Robin but i don't get your point.I'd prefer to keep on topic re: the copy of Groden uploaded.

Duncan

Groden, like Thompson with the Moorman print, has several Betzner prints of different qualities ... I take it you are scanning one of them from his book as if you are discussing how the BDM looked in the actual camera original photo ... is that right?

Bill

[Robin Unger]

Alans original post at image shack from which i "cropped the Groden section out" and posted to this forum.

img331.imageshack.us/img331/2217/lifevgroden3ry.png

Alans original post at image shack from which i "cropped the Groden section out" and posted to this forum.

img331.imageshack.us/img331/2217/lifevgroden3ry.png

If you are asking as to alans ORIGINAL scource for his groden image, i can't tell you.

You will have to take that up with alan.

[Robin Unger]

I did adjust the Gamma and Clarity before i posted the image as i always do to try and get the BEST quality.

That may have altered the image. ?

[Robin Unger]

I did adjust the Gamma and Clarity before i posted the image as i always do to try and get the BEST quality.

That may have altered the image. ?

I don't think that would give such a precise geometric effect as we can see Robin.Maybe Allan can help solve this when he comes online.Thanks

Duncan

Yeh, i don't think Alans original image was at fault.

I may have stuffed it up somehow during my processing, !

Since i sit on the fence and don't have strong views one way or the other regarding BDM and Gordon Arnold, i would have nothing to gain by intentionally altering an image.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Frank Agbat]

1) What was the size and format of the image to which Duncan applied equalization?

2) Does anyone know its "provenance"? ie -- has it been stored in a lossy format, has the palette depth been reduced, etc, etc.

3) Was it scanned from a source that induced palette reduction or other forms of loss?

4) Do you know *exactly* what occurs when this equalization algorithm is run?

For the umpteenth freaking time... (yeah, I'm getting a little frustrated)

It is POINTLESS to take a JPG (lossy) scan of a halftone (lossy) image that has been digitally enlarged (lossy) and draw conclusions in what could be called the microscopic realm... Yeah, the images have been altered -- at the very least by the very process used to print/scan/save the image.

These images are useful ONLY for considering macroscopic items (location of vehicles, etc) and are NOT useful for finding people hiding in bushes, people back in the deep shadows, etc.

Microscopic items, especially those that could be influenced by even the grain structure of the original film, require a very high resolution scan (done properly, incidentally) saved in a lossless format before digital techniques can be applied. Anything else is, quite frankly, a waste of time.

Instead of those in the research community who are interested in photo analysis constantly lobbing bile-filled missiles at one another (which rarely accomplishes anything), we need a consolidated effort to:

A. Establish and maintain a repository of the highest quality images stored in lossless formats

B. Engender and nurture proper scientific techniques and methods (including all the things that are frequently thrown about on these forums, such as correlation, false-attachment avoidance, peer review, etc, etc) in a positive manner throughout the photoanalysis group.

C. Work collaboratively

D. Learn to disagree professionally

Until this is done, most of these threads will continue to be mostly wastes of time that serve only to divide the research community.

/rant off

[J. Raymond Carroll]

1) What was the size and format of the image to which Duncan applied equalization?

It is POINTLESS to take a JPG (lossy) scan of a halftone (lossy) image that has been digitally enlarged (lossy) and draw conclusions in what could be called the microscopic realm...

The image posted by Duncan at the beginning of this thread clearly shows a naked woman, and her breasts dominate the image. Her right nipple seems to be obscured by pixels?, but her left nipple is a standout.

[Alan Healy]

So, it is ok to start a new thread with one of your "observations" Druncan but you have no problem biting on some bait in my thread & turning it to off-topic mush.

Your use of the term "off-topic" in this thread(& now any other) is a joke.

You should of started a new thread about you & Bill arguing so that we could all ignore it & kept this in my thread since it was reasonably on the topic.

I wanted to respond to Franks wise words but I feel like a rant too.

Do I start a new thread to get back to BDM/Arnold or just use this one now?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

.

Do I start a new thread to get back to BDM/Arnold or just use this one now?

Oh please Alan, in the name of sanity dont start a new thread on this. Pick up the pieces and soldier on here.

[Bill Miller]

Wow!!!..Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.One thing i am glad of at least is that you are aware of Miller's baiting tactics,but it's a pity you don't have the guts to speak to him in the same tone as you have just spoken to me here with no provacation from me whatsoever.I will admit however that arguments in threads are very annoying,but sometimes unavoidable when serious allegations are being thrown around,but if you want to get to the source of the argument go make your point to the agent provocateur aka Miller.

With respect,but disappointed by your unjustified attack.

Duncan

So it is still always someone else's fault with you, Duncan.

[Alan Healy]

So, it is ok to start a new thread with one of your "observations" Druncan but you have no problem biting on some bait in my thread & turning it to off-topic mush.

Your use of the term "off-topic" in this thread(& now any other) is a joke.

You should of started a new thread about you & Bill arguing so that we could all ignore it & kept this in my thread since it was reasonably on the topic.

I wanted to respond to Franks wise words but I feel like a rant too.

Do I start a new thread to get back to BDM/Arnold or just use this one now?

Wow!!!..Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.One thing i am glad of at least is that you are aware of Miller's baiting tactics,but it's a pity you don't have the guts to speak to him in the same tone as you have just spoken to me here with no provacation from me whatsoever.I will admit however that arguments in threads are very annoying,but sometimes unavoidable when serious allegations are being thrown around,but if you want to get to the source of the argument go make your point to the agent provocateur aka Miller.

With respect,but disappointed by your unjustified attack.

Duncan

All you have to do, if you want to debate something mentioned in a thread that is off-topic, is start a new one.

That is what I did.

I took Bills pitiful comparison & talked about it in a new thread because it was off topic from the main thrust of the thread he posted it in.

Now it has been hijacked I feel no conpunction to post in there anymore despite still having lots to discuss.

As for my remarks being unjustified I strongly disagree.

Take any remark from what I said that erks you & I will show you exactly why I wrote it.

You have shown me little respect IMO.

Go & look at Bills replys to my points again in that BDM/ARNOLD thread.

You will notice that 99% of what he has written was not about the specific overlay that I was querying.

I totally ignored it because I wanted to stay on-topic.

This small effort of mine went totally unnoticed by you it seems.

You say these arguments are annoying yet you seem to relish in them.

FYI

I'm just expressing how I feel & I speak the same way to whoever annoys me & Bill has annoyed me plenty of times with his Arnold = BDM campaign believe me.

He's a master of switching the focus of the discussion when it pleases him, just ignore what's off the point & stick to the evidence for the benifit of everyone reading these threads.

OK ON TOPIC!

Groden's Betzner3.

Robert says it came from a direct print from the negative.

That is debatable & cannot be proven either way.

Anyway, wherever it came from he enlarged his copy photographically & the results can be seen with a blow-up of BDM in "TKOAP".

All I did was take a digital photograph of that picture & edit it so it was suitable for posting on a forum.

I used the "Grayscale" function then brightened it a little, that is all.

What I was left with was a very good blow-up of BDM in Betzner, better than anything I'd seen posted before.

So know you know the source you will know that it can't be worked on.

It is just what it is, the best digital reproduction of what we see in Roberts book that I could get.

The only mistake I made was not photgraphing it in perfect lighting conditions in a TIFF format.

I still have a copy of it on a memory card & it's a jpg. My bad.

Alan

Thanks for your comment by the way Stephen.

Made me laugh but ..... Roger that!

[Robin Unger]

OK.

Let me get this straight.

As i understand it Duncan doesn't have a problem with the ORIGINAL image which Alan posted.

img331.imageshack.us/img331/2217/lifevgroden3ry.png

Duncan is that correct.?

I beleive the problem comes in when i cropped a section of Alans original image and re-posted it, and it is my post which Duncan seems to have the problem with.

Therefore i don't see that Alan should need to explain his processing of the image to anyone.:

OK.

Let me get this straight.

As i understand it Duncan doesn't have a problem with the ORIGINAL image which Alan posted.

img331.imageshack.us/img331/2217/lifevgroden3ry.png

Duncan is that correct.?

I beleive the problem comes in when i cropped a section of Alans original image and re-posted it, and it is my post which Duncan seems to have the problem with.

Therefore i don't see that Alan should need to explain his processing of the image to anyone.:

Process this and see what you come up with.

[Robin Unger]

QUOTE:

OK.

Let me get this straight.

As i understand it Duncan doesn't have a problem with the ORIGINAL image which Alan posted.

img331.imageshack.us/img331/2217/lifevgroden3ry.png

Duncan is that correct.?

I beleive the problem comes in when i cropped a section of Alans original image and re-posted it, and it is my post which Duncan seems to have the problem with.

That's correct Robin.I guess it must have been a glitch in your machine.

Duncan

Thanks.

More likely a GLITCH with me, too many late nights sitting in front of this Computer.

[Bill Miller]

Ok..I agree with you overall..I'll stick to the topic in any replies i give to anyone including Miller in any of your threads.Bill is laying more bait in this thread as you have probably noticed,but i'll ignore his persistence and stick to the topic.I'll respect your wishes,and hope you can do the same in any of my threads which you may want to contribute to.

Duncan

Duncan, you have a history of agreeing to things without even knowing why. I am still awaiting you to address the Zapruder Waltz information I posted to you on another thread. If by laying bait - you mean that I have offered examples and facts only to wait for a response, then you are correct.

Now about this BDM nonsense:

Let's start with the basics here ...

Alan thinks that the light patch on the BDM is smoke filling the air from a shot that has just been fired. Now I understand that neither you nor he has ever been to the plaza to have a better sense to just how close and visible the BDM would have been to the SS agents in the motorcade, not excluding witnesses looking in his direction. I would hope that while the BDM may look dark in a photo taken from the other end of the plaza and aimed just to the right of the sun's direction ... you do understand that in real life the figure would have been well lit and look nothing like we see him in the Betzner photo. It works under the same premise as looking at a road tunnel from a distance and seeing a pitch black hole and then again from much closer and being able to see into the tunnel itself. It's understanding that the BDM in real life would stand out against his background and not be limited in detail by our eyes from a lack of color tones such as those we are stuck with in a B&W photo. Now if you have followed what I am saying so far and understand it ... I also have pointed out something Alan had never mentioned in all the years I have seen him debate the subject and that is the simple fact that Betzner took his photograph - BEFORE - the first shot was ever fired. Now I don't know how things work in Alan's world, but in the U.S. there has to be a shot fired first before smoke can be seen coming from the barrel of a gun. Is that the way it is in Scotland too?

Another thing that Alan has failed to ever consider, least ways he has never applied it in any of his post in the past two years, and that is if it had of been smoke, why didn't anyone see it as they were looking right at this individual? Does anyone think that any of the witnesses or the SS agents would not have noticed someone aiming a gun and firing it, plus leaving a cloud of smoke behind and lingering over their person and not put 2 and 2 together ... I think not. Would you not agree that these are relevant and important details that should be considered before jumping to the conclusion that the light spot seen over the right side of the BDM is smoke from a gunshot?

So having just stated some common sense reasons why Alan has misread the photo to begin with, we have to try and consider what the light patch really is. I have shown IMO that the south shade line that bends across the BDM's body matches that of the same shade line on Arnold in the Badge Man images. I have done this by way of transparency fade-ins, side by side comparisons, and direct intermitent overlays using the actual images as I found them. I have posted countless times that Arnold said he was already at that location and filming the President as the car was coming down the street. I also have said that Senator Yarborough saw Arnold as he dove to the ground after the fatal shot. I have also stated that Groden mentions seeing not black clothing, but rather light clothing on an individual standing at that very spot over the wall in one of the assassination films before the fatal shot to JFK was fired.

Now my question to you and anyone else is this ..... If the first shot had not been fired yet when Betzner took his photograph, would it not be logical to rule out the light spot being smoke lingering in the air from a gunshot?

My next questions is, would it not be logical to see that there was a sunspot coming through the Hudson tree that was being cast upon the right shoulder of the BDM and that because this sunspot matches in basic shape the one seen on the Arnold figure that we can not only rule out it being smoke, but also that these two indiviuals must be from the evidence one in the same person?

I also have included an image of the BDM without the half-tones taking away from the two points at the top of the shade line. Some of the images you fellows are using show those points somewhat melted away. It was those points as some of you may recall that helped give this individual his name "Black Dog Man".

Bill

Edited February 17, 2006 by Bill Miller