photo alteration by the media

[David G. Healy]

Lamson is fullaxxxx. I never told him anything about

my retouching experience. I retouched hundreds of

photos over 50 years as an artist. He lies.

Jack

No Jack thats EXACLY what you told me in a long email some years ago. You even metioned wearing out 3 airbrushes "blowing out backgrounds" on product shots. You also told me how unskilled you were when it came to lighting and how your photo experience was limited to shooting small products on a table in your office with what was it...a Kodak view camera. You also told me your were considered the "top silde shooter in town" making slides on a copy stand for presentations. The rest of your limited photographic experience consists of some light darkroom work and snapshots of your locale. Not a very impressive cv if you ask me but its exactly as you told me. Now who is lying again White?

But hey, post some high res scans of your "hundreds of retouched photos" and let see how good you really are..or IF you can actually retouch...

BTW you can post large PNG files ( those are lossless, not like the crappy jpg's you are famous for) at

www.pbase.com

The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it sometime.

Jack,

I believe some of these guys are obsessed with you -- next the Craigster is going to tell us the best digital file for the internet are RAW files, the ONLY way to go, tsk-tsk.... All this from a guy that hasn't posted a JFK related image to ANY internet f?orum for years, what do you make of that?

Hell, how do we know he even owns a cameraback

[Craig Lamson]

David...the Craigster does COLOR photography. No good color

photographer nowadays does his own labwork. They either send

it out, or hire expert technicians so they can spend time doing

photography, where the big bucks are. Darkroom work can

be easily taught. Lighting and composition are much harder.

Lamson DOES do nice color photos...a good average color

photographer. But he obviously is not a knowitall.

Jack

What century are you living in Jack, the darkroom is dead and buried... long gone in the age of professional digital.

I do still have a nice e-6 dip and dunk processor, a C-41 roller transport processor, a 40" color print processor, a 20" Ilford b/w paper processor and 4 very nice Besslar 4x5 enlargers making an entire garage full of all the assorted darkroom stuff a COLOR and B/W photographer might want. Too bad its worthless these days since the advent of professional digital. I know it because I'VE done it. You? A few rolls of 35mm film on a stainless steel reel aint gonna cut it.

But rest assured I can run your tired old butt into the ground when it comes to the darkroom. You dont have a chance when it comes to a camera nor retouching and compositing either. Heck I go back the the days of printing and processing 8x10s from 8x10 negs on a motorized platten contact printer..you know the kind where you use tissue paper and a grease pencil on a second stage below the negative to dodge, and with 15 or so movable lights that slide up and down and right and left to burn...well no you don't do you? Proceess 50 of them at a time in deep trays on fiber paper, soak then in a glossing agent after washing and them drying them on a big gas fired Pako ferrotype drum dryer...no you don't do you. Thats because you are a poser.

Despite davies attempt to build up up, you are simply a wannabe. You have proven time and time again you don't have a bloody clue what is going on when it comes to photography. Simply a poser...50 years "experience"...what a hoot!

Remember Jack you were a COPYWRITER... pretty good if too if the "facts" you like to write her eare any indication. But lets face it Jack when it comes to photography you are simply a hack.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

David...we know Craigster knows about retouching. It was he

who produced the "Tinkster Moorman DRUMSCAN" which featured

a retouched pedestal.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

David...we know Craigster knows about retouching. It was he

who produced the "Tinkster Moorman DRUMSCAN" which featured

a retouched pedestal.

Jack

Wow! now you are claiming I retouched the drum scan? So tell me Jack, since you say you are an expert at detecting retouching, exactly WHAT telltale signs can you detect in the drum scan file that indicate retouching? And remember the are many copies all around for comparison. So don't try any funny business.

And please explain why the drum scan MATCHES every other Moorman when it comes to the gap at the pedestal..even your crappy zippo, once to focus blur and the effects of your once too many jpg saves are take into account. Hell ever Costella has been trying to tell you that for years..

And interestingly it completely MATCHES the scan Tink made of the print produced from the negative that was later drum scanned. That print was posted many times on the web and and at the loonybin JFK forum for YEARS before the drum scan was made. How could I have retouched the scan from the neg when a print has existed for years on the web and as hard copy is others archives? And why would I since the drum scan can be easily compared to the original print made from the neg years ago. I can't wait to see you deal with that little tidbit as you try and make your case.

So please. you make a serious charge, back it up with FACTS, not you opinion based on your eyeballing a really crappy zippo print.

Of course if you can make a solid case, how wonderful for you're reputation and how very bad for mine. Of course I'm not worried because the drum scan was untouched. This should be very enterrtaining.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Wow! now you are claiming I retouched the drum scan? So tell me Jack, since you say you are an expert at detecting retouching, exactly WHAT telltale signs can you detect in the drum scan file that indicate retouching? And remember the are many copies all around for comparison. So don't try any funny business.

Jack is senile. Thompson explained the drum scan on this forum already. Jack took the position that the drum scan was altered because of his idiotic 'Moorman in the street' claim. You see, his recreation photo didn't show the gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background. However, that was a load of crap Jack handed everyone because it was obvious that all the Moorman prints showed the gap that Jack's recreation photo failed to achieve. When asked by Mark Oakes what she thought of the Jack White claim about her being in the street to take her famous Polarid ... Moorman replied, 'I think the whole thing is silly ... I was in the grass above the curb.'

Let Jack post the gap as seen on the Badge Man print!

Bill Miller

Edited July 7, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Wow! now you are claiming I retouched the drum scan? So tell me Jack, since you say you are an expert at detecting retouching, exactly WHAT telltale signs can you detect in the drum scan file that indicate retouching? And remember the are many copies all around for comparison. So don't try any funny business.

Jack is senile. Thompson explained the drum scan on this forum already. Jack took the position that the drum scan was altered because of his idiotic 'Moorman in the street' claim. You see, his recreation photo didn't show the gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background. However, that was a load of crap Jack handed everyone because it was obvious that all the Moorman prints showed the gap that Jack's recreation photo failed to achieve. When asked by Mark Oakes what she thought of the Jack White claim about her being in the street to take her famous Polarid ... Moorman replied, 'I think the whole thing is silly ... I was in the grass above the curb.'

Let Jack post the gap as seen on the Badge Man print!

Bill Miller

Of course Jack claims the drun scan is altered...because it was the final nail in the Moorman in the street debacle. What is reaaly funny is that his claim was destroyed using many of the different scans available of variouls Moorman prints. I only suggested we do the drum scan of the negative to provide the closest and most detailed material to the original possible to complete the study. Jack on the other hand has to use scan of the zippo moorman that is nothing but indistinct blobs....go figure!

[Bill Miller]

Of course Jack claims the drun scan is altered...because it was the final nail in the Moorman in the street debacle. What is reaaly funny is that his claim was destroyed using many of the different scans available of variouls Moorman prints. I only suggested we do the drum scan of the negative to provide the closest and most detailed material to the original possible to complete the study. Jack on the other hand has to use scan of the zippo moorman that is nothing but indistinct blobs....go figure!

To those who were not there - in the infancy of Jack's flawed claim about Moorman being in the street ... it was quickly pointed out to him that a DPD cycle stands 58" tall from the ground to the top of its windshield and Moorman's camera lens height was about 54" according to Jack. The relevancy to all this was that Mary Moorman was looking over the top of the cycles windshields when she took her photograph. The options for Mary achieving this feat was -

1) Jean Hill laid in the street so Mary could stand atop of her

2) Mary had stood on an object that she had sat in the street

3) Mary was elavated above the curb just as the assassination films and photographs all show

To this day I have never seen Jack explain how Mary was able to stand in the street and still have her camera raised above the highest point on the passing cycles. Instead, Jack just makes unfounded excuses about the drum scan being the only Moorman print showing the gap, while at the same time not showing us what Moorman prints do not show the gap. Below is a non-drum scan print - the drum scan - and Jack's alleged recreation photo. Jack continues to make false excuses for the gap rather than to admit that he was wrong.

Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

Does anyone have a copy of the 11-24-63 Dallas Morning News with the Miller photo? If so, could you please post the photo? I was trying to scan the 11-24 NY Times version of the photo but it's too ugly.

Thanks, Pat.

[JL Allen]

I was asking a question - but I found my answer. Thanks.

Edited July 9, 2006 by JL Allen

[JL Allen]

Clint Hill related these important events in this way:

The motorcade made a right hand turn onto Elm Street. I was on the forward portion of the left running board of the follow-up car. The motorcade made a left hand turn from Elm Street toward an underpass. We were traveling about 12 to 15 miles per hour. On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left.

I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off," then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy. SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward. I heard ASAIC Kellerman call SA Lawson on the two-way radio and say, "To the nearest hospital, quick." I shouted as loud as I could at the lead car, "To the hospital, to the hospital."

In looking at the Zapruder film, Clint Hill is just getting his body up onto the trunk as the car disappears beneath the overpass. In an aerial photo, it is quite a distance to the big, wide, right turn which takes them in the direction of Parkland Hospital - I believe this is Harry Hines Blvd. There were no businesses or storefronts between the overpass and the big turn - so I assume that this "Corham" store is on Harry Hines Blvd. In Clint Hill's story, he seems to be saying that getting Jackie back into her seat, covering the President and Mrs. Kennedy with his body, the acceleration and the initial order to head for the hospital all happened at a similar point in time - but, much later - somewhere on Harry Hines Blvd. - Hill is not even into the backseat yet. Did he lay down over them to protect them - or, do I have that wrong?

Edited July 9, 2006 by JL Allen

[David G. Healy]

Wow! now you are claiming I retouched the drum scan? So tell me Jack, since you say you are an expert at detecting retouching, exactly WHAT telltale signs can you detect in the drum scan file that indicate retouching? And remember the are many copies all around for comparison. So don't try any funny business.

Jack is senile. Thompson explained the drum scan on this forum already. Jack took the position that the drum scan was altered because of his idiotic 'Moorman in the street' claim. You see, his recreation photo didn't show the gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background. However, that was a load of crap Jack handed everyone because it was obvious that all the Moorman prints showed the gap that Jack's recreation photo failed to achieve. When asked by Mark Oakes what she thought of the Jack White claim about her being in the street to take her famous Polarid ... Moorman replied, 'I think the whole thing is silly ... I was in the grass above the curb.'

Let Jack post the gap as seen on the Badge Man print!

Bill Miller

I recall David Lifton writing something concerning a Moorman interview street/grass issue, you'll find the relevant here: The Great Zapruder Film HOAX: Pig on a Leash, by David Lifton, beginning at pg. 420 para6).

I suspect Lifton has caused the Lone Neuter camp and the pro Moorman 5 camp in particular a bit of angst, Why [my opinion]? If the Moorman 5 doesn't match up with Z-313 +/- a frame or two, the Zapruder film, more than likely is altered.

The street/grass issue is relevant in some minds because the Z-film shows Moorman on the south of Elm Street in-field grass, Jack's study claims she, Mary was on Elm street at the time she took the photo... IF she took the photo from the street (as some think) she SHOULD appear in the street on Zapruder frame 313 and earlier, she isn't.

One wonders why Lone Nutter's insist of reviving this issue by calling on Jack to post the "GAP" study. AGAIN! Probably a good idea to check around this forum and see if they're trying to avert attention from a thread they'd rather pass on, like changing locations of DP lamposts, and why the DP Stemmons St sign was removed, moved and replaced within a few days after the assassination...

Edited July 9, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

******************

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

[...]

Proceess 50 of them at a time in deep trays on fiber paper, soak then in a glossing agent after washing and them drying them on a big gas fired Pako ferrotype drum dryer...no you don't do you. Thats because you are a poser.

dgh I suspect you can show us some of these incredible dodging and burning results? After all and all encompassing professional such as yourself surely has a demo reel we can judge, judge as to your expertise knowledge and ability -- anything short of that, to me means, its YOU Mr. Lamson who is the "POSER"... where's the beef, Craig? You do all this moaning about Jack, how is a *lurker* to know you're not just another huckster searching for entertainment...

Despite davies attempt to build up up, you are simply a wannabe. You have proven time and time again you don't have a bloody clue what is going on when it comes to photography. Simply a poser...50 years "experience"...what a hoot!

dgh: there it is, again. "what a hoot", sure you're not Steve "could never hit a moving target" Keating

Remember Jack you were a COPYWRITER... pretty good if too if the "facts" you like to write her eare any indication. But lets face it Jack when it comes to photography you are simply a hack.

dgh: I hate to ask this question, again, what American university houses your photographic work? I do believe jack White can point to his and HAS, hmm?

Passing by your alledged ad work, with the exception of MotorHome monthy of course, who has published your work? I suspect there will be no answer forthcoming... what a surprise

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller'

[...]

To this day I have never seen Jack explain how Mary was able to stand in the street and still have her camera raised above the highest point on the passing cycles. Instead, Jack just makes unfounded excuses about the drum scan being the only Moorman print showing the gap, while at the same time not showing us what Moorman prints do not show the gap. Below is a non-drum scan print - the drum scan - and Jack's alleged recreation photo. Jack continues to make false excuses for the gap rather than to admit that he was wrong.

Bill Miller

dgh: this is the problem you have, Bill. Nobody on the *alteration* side of the equation believes you or anybody else that has a vested interest in preserving the photo/film history of Nov 22ned 1963 DP events, related to the JFK Assassination. You need a spokesperson displaying unbiased credibility, you guys remind me of a "fart in a space suit -- you're all trying to get out of this discussion, you just can find the zipper to let in fresh air"

Simple as that... despite the 6th Floor Museums best efforts

[Jack White]

Clint Hill related these important events in this way:

The motorcade made a right hand turn onto Elm Street. I was on the forward portion of the left running board of the follow-up car. The motorcade made a left hand turn from Elm Street toward an underpass. We were traveling about 12 to 15 miles per hour. On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left.

I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off," then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy. SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward. I heard ASAIC Kellerman call SA Lawson on the two-way radio and say, "To the nearest hospital, quick." I shouted as loud as I could at the lead car, "To the hospital, to the hospital."

In looking at the Zapruder film, Clint Hill is just getting his body up onto the trunk as the car disappears beneath the overpass. In an aerial photo, it is quite a distance to the big, wide, right turn which takes them in the direction of Parkland Hospital - I believe this is Harry Hines Blvd. There were no businesses or storefronts between the overpass and the big turn - so I assume that this "Corham" store is on Harry Hines Blvd. In Clint Hill's story, he seems to be saying that getting Jackie back into her seat, covering the President and Mrs. Kennedy with his body, the acceleration and the initial order to head for the hospital all happened at a similar point in time - but, much later - somewhere on Harry Hines Blvd. - Hill is not even into the backseat yet. Did he lay down over them to protect them - or, do I have that wrong?

Yes...you have something wrong. The Corham Chevrolet building was on

Stemmons, not Harry Hines. The motorcade exited Stemmons, as I recall

at the first exit after Oak Lawn, but the name escapes me at the moment.

All of this is in the record somewhere, but I don't think of it offhand.

Jack

[JL Allen]

I guess I had the street wrong. But, this 1st exit - Corham Chevrolet was along here - or, the other side of the street? I think Hill started climbing onto the bumper around where the pink dot is (roughly) and still hadn't covered the Kennedys when they passed the car dealership - awfully far from the area of the original extreme danger. The few pictures of him make him appear to be moving with such urgency - but it took him forever to traverse the trunk lid. I'm sure this is one of their main objectives - to get between the targets and the bullets as soon as possible - and, the way he tells it - it sounds like he did - but, he didn't. All the way to Corham - and still trying to get his foot into the backseat? Something doesn't seem right.

I can only post two or three photos before my "global space" is used up. Needed to reclaim this space to post another picture.

Edited July 12, 2006 by JL Allen