Jack White Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Nobody has commented that Hill's left hand is on the left door. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) Jack, I don't understand the significance. Could you elaborate please? ________ This photo shows Clints lower leg in an angle that makes it impossible for his shoe sole to be poining upwards or to be in the location suggested. There is a person next to a tripod on the left across the road, he seems to be holding a camera. Could this be the corham photographer? The over head traffic sign and the road and the building in the distance directly in line with the sign post should make a precise location possible. Would this coincide with the Corham photo? There are suggestions in the reflections on the side of the limo showing sky and presumably buildings that indicate it's possible. Has an address for the Corham building been determined? ________________________ The left image is a subtraction of the WC photo and the 'new' one (using IA image combination features). A primary difference is (apart from things to do with the shoe) is the outlines of Clints leg areas. _________________________ EDIT:: images for comparison Edited July 15, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) Jack, please post your untouched Miller print that led to your conclusion. Like I said before, it is impossible for a hand to be pressed that far into the President's seat, thus your interpretation cannot be correct or your print has been retouched as well.Bill Miller I have no unretouched print! I scanned the large halftone in SatEvePost. The one that shows the JFK hand, and Hill with his right hand on his right knee. Jack Jack, I ask for it because if you think that is JFK's hand, then you need to explain why 2/3s of what would have to be the wrist is burried in the seat??? Bill Miller Edited July 15, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Comparison with Clint shows the wrist needs not be considered 'buried in the seat'. Suggested hand from collection of hands. Comparison of mirrored reflections suggesting that the photos are almost coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) Comparison with Clint shows the wrist needs not be considered 'buried in the seat'. Suggested hand from collection of hands.Comparison of mirrored reflections suggesting that the photos are almost coincidental. So whats hanging over the lower chrome strip John? Ever going to deal with that little tidbit again or are you still trying to understand how reflections work? Edited July 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 it could be you are beginning to see the light, Craig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 15, 2006 Author Share Posted July 15, 2006 Comparison with Clint shows the wrist needs not be considered 'buried in the seat'. Suggested hand from collection of hands. Comparison of mirrored reflections suggesting that the photos are almost coincidental. So whats hanging over the lower chrome strip John? Ever going to deal with that little tidbit again or are you still trying to undersand how reflections work? John, I'm confused by this photo. (Obviously.) The two versions of the photo scanned directly from the Sat. Post by Floyd and Jack seemed to show an intact shape, looking like the toe area of a shoe, hanging over the chrome strip. Now you're posting images where the strip seems to run through the "toe of the shoe." Did this line show up when you lightened the photo? Is this from the Yarborough Exhibit? Where did this line come from? If this line is real, then Craig's observation that the dark shape is overhanging the chrome and could not be a shadow would appear to be incorrect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 WC pdf Gamma increased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) it could be you are beginning to see the light, Craig? I've seen the light John, take another sip of koolaid, you appear thirsty. Comparison with Clint shows the wrist needs not be considered 'buried in the seat'. Suggested hand from collection of hands. Comparison of mirrored reflections suggesting that the photos are almost coincidental. So whats hanging over the lower chrome strip John? Ever going to deal with that little tidbit again or are you still trying to undersand how reflections work? John, I'm confused by this photo. (Obviously.) The two versions of the photo scanned directly from the Sat. Post by Floyd and Jack seemed to show an intact shape, looking like the toe area of a shoe, hanging over the chrome strip. Now you're posting images where the strip seems to run through the "toe of the shoe." Did this line show up when you lightened the photo? Is this from the Yarborough Exhibit? Where did this line come from? If this line is real, then Craig's observation that the dark shape is overhanging the chrome and could not be a shadow would appear to be incorrect... Grasping at straws again Pat. REGARDLESS of Dolva screwing with a jpg image of a REALLY poor scan ( thats quality research for ya) the physics eliminate this dark shape being a shadow or a reflection of the seat. Thats simply the bottom line. Edited July 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) WC pdfGamma increased Still trying to save some face by using perhaps the worst scan of an image I have ever seen....sheesh. Instead of playing silly games trying to find detail in overly compressed jpg files that appear to have been scanned or even photographed with a digital camera from a poorly reproduced halftone ... deal with the PHYSICS John! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Gosh I love watching quality research in action! LOL! Edited July 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Nobody has commented that Hill's left hand is on the left door.Jack See page 9/post 131. In that post I drew a stick figure showing Hill's hand on the drivers side of the car. There are also numerous post of the Newman photo showing Hill holding onto the side of the limo. In this thread it was said that Hill had to hold onto one side of the limo with his hand and hook his foot over the opposite side to help him keep balanced over the top of the First couple. The notion that Clint Hill has his hand on his knee is incorrect and nothong more than lines drawn onto a dark image. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) Craig, you need to understand that the results are entirely reproduceable. The base images are as downloaded Warren Commission images posted on US governement website, so that's a level playing field. If you know of better versions, please link to them. The images posted here are saved as web ready jpegs (50 to 75 % depending on post quotas) for compactness, for illustration. It's quite wrong, daft even, to assume that they are what I'm looking at prior to post preperation. Edited July 15, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) Comparison with Clint shows the wrist needs not be considered 'buried in the seat'. Huh??? I am sorry that I couldn't find a terribly pixelled out image so just any outline of the alleged hand could be drawn in. Bill Miller Edited July 15, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Kennedy shaking hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Craig, you need to understand that the results are entirely reproduceable. The base images are as downloaded Warren Commission images posted on US governement website, so that's a level playing field. If you know of better versions, please link to them. The images posted here are saved as web ready jpegs (50 to 75 % depending on post quotas) for compactness, for illustration. It's quite wrong, daft even, to assume that they are what I'm looking at prior to post preperation. So what? The original image you are using is simply crap, regardless of the source. You can reproduce you "effect" until the cows come home using the crap image, but who really cares? Its junk research. Sheesh, there are better images right here on this thread. You are still dodging the physics. Why? This is elemental. Deal with the hard stuff John... if you can. 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