The trouble with Badge Man

[Craig Lamson]

FWIW, I think Lee Forman's idea about another scan of the fenceline might be worth trying. There's nothing to lose and it might yield something.

Thanks Mark.

Again, we devolve into something ugly and unprofessional here instead of making progress. It's absurd.

I wonder if enlargement techniques used in the traditional sense are any different from using scanners? But a scan of 'print' is already poor starting ground. Case in point is the attached. This was an original print. I was able to do much with it - and still believe there is a large resemblance between the man in Robin's enhancement [who appears to have quite a long rifle, IMO] and 'Pick-up Man.' And I still wonder if the man standing next to him might fill the bill for the young man seen by Mercer.

But, I guess I'll be wondering for awhile longer.

- lee

To be quite blunt here Lee there is nothing that even remotely resembles "professional" here. What is going on is wacko land.

This stuff is akin to the 7 year olds in the schoolyard seeing bunnies in the clouds....and just about as "professional"

"Photo enhancement" of 4th ot 5th generation copies of poor originals then scanned on who knows what? Please. Or how about seeing men in the trees in a many generational image scanned FROM A BOOK that still includes the halftone screen.

"Professional"? No ... delusional...yes.

Professionalism? You'll have no problem posting, say a Moorman 5 study for your recently won convert will you, Lampoon ? -- why not post something with your expertise all over it? Oops, you have -- Nothing!

For someone bent on calling this 'whacko land', you sure spend a lot of time in the "schoolyard", checking the pulse of the troops and looking under your pillow every morning? roflmao!

Why not visit here, its more entertaining than watching the Simpson's ... Homer.

[David G. Healy]

"Come on now, Bill. If you were a newbie to this debate I'd grant your point -- what you fail to understand is this: I deal with probables, and what if. As I stated, IFthe film was altered, then it did its job -- simple! Your not going to suggest the Warren Commission didn't base their conc;usion on the Z-film are you?"

David, you never respond with anything of substance. To say "If someone altered a film, then it did the job" is a senseless statement. The only way anything can do its job is if it really happened. In other words there can be nothing that did its job if it never really happened. If you deal in probables, then you should know that without a shred of any proof of alteration, then it is not probable that anyone got away with doing anything, unbless of course you consider making you paranoid was an accomplishment.

Bill

post something with substance Bill. Your sounding more and more like, Lamson!

IF, as some conclude the Z-film is NOT the real deal, why and what makes them think that?

That was my starting point ---before that could be answered, one has to determine if, in FACT, it was possible to alter the in-camera Z-film original, you know: equipment, manpower, technology, know-how and of course time - that all elusive, TIME! were those things available?

Roland Zavada - Ray Fielding and I are addressing that question in position papers! Maybe mine will get "wide purchase" too! You haven't forgotten that detail, have you? All will hear, I suspect, soon.

For your benefit, and others: I can't conclude the Z-film is altered. I can WITHOUT reservation state: the equipment, manpower, technology, know-how and of course time - that all elusive, TIME! was available in 1963-64 to alter the Z-film [for '?' reasons] prior to the WC formally screening the Z-film mid-to late February '64.

If you say I'm wrong, simple, prove me wrong.

Lurkers: don't expect much ofa response. There's not much the other side of this argument has regarding film compositing experience - despite Craig Lamson protestations.

That sound like Lampoon's playground....?

David

Edited March 13, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

"IF, as some conclude the Z-film is NOT the real deal, why and what makes them think that?"

David, the answer to that question has been given countless times. People who were at the assassination and saw the shooting have never said the Zapruder film shows anything other than what they saw. Not one thing seen on the Zapruder film shows anything different than what the other films and photos show that represent the same moments in time. I have already posted what Groden said about Kodachrome II film and what would be noticeable had someone tried to transfer it to 35mm to alter the images and then attempt to put them back onto 8mm film.

Those who have made claims of alteration did so by making erroneous observations that were full of mistakes. You read "TGZFH" and came out of it afterwards stating that you HAVE NOT seen proof of alteration. With that said .... there simply is no reason to believe the Zapruder film is altered. In fact, there are things seen on the film that has caused people who specialize in sciences that were not in use many years ago who say the film shows just what a frontal shot would look like. They say that it is ridiculous to think that the film was altered to show what something like blood spatter science would support decades later. The fact is that the Zapruder film shows evidence of a conspiracy to those who know what to look for.

"That was my starting point ---before that could be answered, one has to determine if, in FACT, it was possible to alter the in-camera Z-film original, you know: equipment, manpower, technology, know-how and of course time - that all elusive, TIME! were those things available?"

David, it was possible to bounce a bullet off of several buildings and hit JFK in the head, but there is no evidence that it happened and this is the one of the reasons that film alterationist have been considered incompetent in their research.

"For your benefit, and others: I can't conclude the Z-film is altered. I can WITHOUT reservation state: the equipment, manpower, technology, know-how and of course time - that all elusive, TIME! was available in 1963-64 to alter the Z-film [for '?' reasons] prior to the WC formally screening the Z-film mid-to late February '64.

If you say I'm wrong, simple, prove me wrong. "

David, the Mary Poppins movie is proof that films could be altered - the difference is that they could not be altered beyond detection under close scrutiny. You keep going on about Craig and others when in fact it is you who is ignoring the most important point of all. Films and photos can be altered, but as Groden pointed out - the type of film that Zapruder used cannot be altered and then have it go undetected because the process needed to be completed to make the alteration would certainly leave tell-tale signs of the alteration when put under close scrutiny.

END OF STORY!

BIll Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited March 14, 2006 by Bill Miller