Ed O'Hagan Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Those viewers who have the necessary software, could you please PhotoShop the attached, and if you can make out what seems to be depicted please post your results/conclusions, if any. Additionally, if indeed you are able to bring any clear images to light , please do not permit the Topic Title to influence your thinking at this time. This also applies to those subscribers who may view the picture, and conclude immediately that the images they may be seeing could not possibly have been recorded in a Zapruder frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Those viewers who have the necessary software, could you please PhotoShop the attached, and if you can make out what seems to be depicted please post your results/conclusions, if any. Additionally, if indeed you are able to bring any clear images to light , please do not permit the Topic Title to influence your thinking at this time. This also applies to those subscribers who may view the picture, and conclude immediately that the images they may be seeing could not possibly have been recorded in a Zapruder frame. Ed, because you were caught once making a similar post where you had blown up the shadows of the tree foliage being cast upon the stockade fence in Moorman's photograph and calling them cops with cameras (see below) ... I have to ask if you will post the frame number and a wide view of the area you are talking about. Thanks. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Ed...are you referring to the apparent occipital bulge? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blair Dobson Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Wow, that was so vague a post one could almost guess it could be anything. This is what I get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 (edited) Those viewers who have the necessary software, could you please PhotoShop the attached, and if you can make out what seems to be depicted please post your results/conclusions, if any. Additionally, if indeed you are able to bring any clear images to light , please do not permit the Topic Title to influence your thinking at this time. This also applies to those subscribers who may view the picture, and conclude immediately that the images they may be seeing could not possibly have been recorded in a Zapruder frame. I'll play the Rorschach game. It looks like the outline of two men standing next to each other, with the one in front holding something in front of him at arm's length with a whte end. A gun? With a muzzle flash? Edited May 14, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 I'll play the Rorscach game. It looks like the outline of two men standing next to each other, with the one in front holding something in front of him at arm's length with a whte end. A gun? With a muzzle flash? In the overlay animation that I posted in response #2 is from an earlier claim Ed made. Ed had posted only a large fuzzy B&W blow-up claiming it to be two cops with cameras. Ed was asked several times to show the wide version where the photo crop he was using had come from. Upon not being able to wait any longer, I deduced that he had used the Moorman photograph and it didn't take long to match his enlargement to the foliage seen on the fence. The inserted overlay in the clip I posted in my earlier response is Ed's image (only reduced to the size seen in Moorman's photograph. It was a perfect fit, thus Ed was pulling a fast one or had won the grand prize for being the worst at photo interpretation. I suspect that unless he shows you the wide angled view, then I imagine that the same thing may happening all over again. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' Ed, because you were caught once making a similar post where you had blown up the shadows of the tree foliage being cast upon the stockade fence in Moorman's photograph and calling them cops with cameras (see below) ... I have to ask if you will post the frame number and a wide view of the area you are talking about. Thanks. Bill ______________ did you read Ed's post? your insinuation "caught once" being? Hey Bill, I'm going to post a Z-frame in a day or so, no commentary, just what was done to the original as I received it. I want you Lone Neuter's to tell me its origin, generation and pedigree. When I post, probably Tuesday, feel free to pass it on to Roland and Ray... and all the other able and willing photo experts you command around here.... Edited May 14, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 (edited) "did you read Ed's post? your insinuation "caught once" being? " Can we assume that people who can use optical printers don't necessarily have to be able to have a general understanding of the English language? Ed posted on Lancer a few years ago a large blow-up of a very small cropping from Moorman's photograph, but he wouldn't tell anyone from where it came or even which assassination image it came from. Ed told the readers that it was a view of a cop(s) with cameras filming the assassination. For several days we requested that he give us the photo source and he didn't comply. The fact that it was a B&W image made me think that Moorman's photo was a good starting place to look for the image Ed was claiming to be cops taking photographs. I soon found that small area on the south side of the wooden fence just beyond Emmett Hudson's location. Ed's image can be seen coming in over the very spot I show in the animation I posted. Seems pretty cut and dry to me ... now is there any part of what I just said that you still couldn't follow? There is no insinuating anything - it happened! "Hey Bill, I'm going to post a Z-frame in a day or so, no commentary, just what was done to the original as I received it. I want you Lone Neuter's to tell me its origin, generation and pedigree. When I post, probably Tuesday, feel free to pass it on to Roland and Ray... and all the other able and willing photo experts you command around here..." David, you have promised to post things so many times now without delivering that I won't hold my breath waiting to see if you actually come through for a change. However, if you do post an altered image, please be sure in the name of 'possible Zfilm alteration' that it be done without the use of computers. That it was done in the way that it would have been done in 1963. And to use your own request that we have heard so many times ... please make the original altered image available for study for as you are aware by this time ... alterations cannot get past the grain found in the emulsion of Kodachrome II film and any photographic transfers will be detectable when viewed at high resolution/magnification. If it is your intention to sell us some snake oil by bypassing that process and using a computer to alter an image, then I am afraid it has nothing to do with the possibility of Zapruder's film being altered in the first two days following the assassination before B&W prints came out in Life Magazine, nor by the time the color prints came out in Life Magazine two weeks later. The one thing Costella said that actually was accurate is that in 1963/64 there were no computers to do graphic alterations with. Bill Edited May 14, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 (edited) I'll play the Rorschach game. It looks like the outline of two men standing next to each other, with the one in front holding something in front of him at arm's length with a whte end. A gun? With a muzzle flash? Pat, Thank you. That comes pretty close to what I suggest we are seeing, namely a group of police cameramen . ' Susquatch's' face has another face slightly to the left and behind, and there is a fourth and much larger image of a cameraman in the foreground of Susq's body. Jack's and Blair's pictures are well worth a second look. Now here is a more zoomed-out view of the scene. We began by looking at the area within the red rectangle. Now you are requested to take a look at the area within the lemon coloured rectangle . Here is a zoomed- in view of that paticular area : Would you please post your responses (1) after viewing the entire picture , and (2) after viewing the newly indicated area in the lemon rectangle. Edited May 14, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Ed...looks like a zapruder frame to me. Are you spoofing us? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted May 16, 2006 Author Share Posted May 16, 2006 This is the top half of the lemon coloured rectangle. Could it be two policemen lifting/carrying someone? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 This is all quite bizarre. What is the full frame, what are we looking at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 This is all quite bizarre.What is the full frame, what are we looking at? What Ed has done makes perfect sense to me. He has taken an image and degraded it so bad that there is no way to ever know where he got it and somehow through this warpped process he feels that he has found two cops carrying someone. I wouldn't be surprised if I saw this in the next book claiming more proof that the Zapruder film is altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted May 16, 2006 Author Share Posted May 16, 2006 This is all quite bizarre.What is the full frame, what are we looking at? I already stated what I see . Please expand/paraphrase 'bizarre' . What do you mean ? Do you see/do you not see what I described? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 This is all quite bizarre. What is the full frame, what are we looking at? I already stated what I see . Please expand/paraphrase 'bizarre' . What do you mean ? Do you see/do you not see what I described? I see nothing of evidentiary value ............ 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