The Groden Copy Of Black Dog Man

[Alan Healy]

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?

Is it alright if we deal with one thing at a time for a change?

You are aware that Hugh Betzner did not hear what we refer to as the head-shot, are you not?

He describes seeing it in his DPD statement but there is no sound mentioned.

Since when does a single witnesses statement rule out anything?

Hugh Betzner said there were "at least two" that he heard & one further one that he saw the effects of in the Presidents car.

This in no way means these were the only shots fired.

Even if one is of the opinion that there were only three shots, Betzner could & did not hear everything from his position, that is very obvious from his statement.

What Betzners statement does do, is tie the first sound he heard with the same sound that Willis reacted to.

Did you ever consider that this "first" firecracker sound was actually a distraction tactic & not the sound of live ammunition being fired?

Regardless, the bottom line is, Betzner's statement, although valuable, cannot be used in the way you are doing.

Things are more complicated than that & you know it.

Alan

[Chuck Robbins]

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

I am not a religious man, normally, but I will now say AMEN, this makes great sense.

Chuck