Jump to content
The Education Forum

Eye! Think!...So?


Recommended Posts

The attached was cropped from Z. frame #312 and enlarged. Study it carefully. More to follow

Ed O'Hagan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one more....

Ed O'Hagan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and zooming in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moorman's rear view . Once again study these four renditions carefully.

Ed O'Hagan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zooming in on the previous picture

Ed O'Hagan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed - If you do not mind my asking this question - what are you trying to accomplish by using poor quality images taken from the Zapruder film and why would you run up a thread with them and not make your point? My concern is that I'd hate to see this attachment option taken away for the wrong reasons.

Below is a colored version of Z312 without the blur and pixels which distort the image and cause the imagination juices to start flowing unnecessarily.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me Larry:

But can I also ask a question?

I am going to anyway, you know.

Your point Larry was? Your frame was prettier but that's just that a clearer frame.

I for one and I bet more were curious about where this gentle person was going with that material.

Your frame attached maybe clearer but that doesn't invalidate Mr/Ms. eohagan's view.

Quality of visual aid doesn't define quality of thinking and or posts.

Please gentleperson of whatever gender continue your thought:

I am not baiting you to confront, but I am curious.

After all only by open exchange and constant reconsideration can we all advance the case.

Also a newcomer might find your point instructive even if some others don't or can't.

That is education, not de-education.

Reconsider everything, examine everything afresh. If this case has proven nothing to me it has proven that knowledge evolves and old accepted proofs are not always constant. Too little of the truth is constant in this case and the best science proves what was once taken as written in stone now needs to be re-cut and put on hold.

Like the indestructability of matter -- until Einstein pondered the chiseled in stone laws of energy and matter. Then the stonecutters had more work to do.

So I ask gentleperson eohagan continue please.

Sincerely and in Regards

Jim Hackett II

Edited by Jim Hackett II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim - you asked, "Your point Larry was? Your frame was prettier but that's just that a clearer frame."

The frame image I posted was the same frame Ed used (Z312). The point of using the best possible quality image should be self-explanitory. If all you got out of my reply to Ed was that I used a prettier frame, then I must have failed to make the point clear enough

"Your frame attached maybe clearer but that doesn't invalidate Mr/Ms. eohagan's view. "

And just what view was that, Jim? Part of my question was wanting to know what his point was by using poor lesser quality images. Please let me share a recap Ed's view after five postings -

Post 1) "The attached was cropped from Z. frame #312 and enlarged. Study it carefully. More to follow "

Post 2) "Here's one more...."

Post 3) "... and zooming in"

Post 4) "Moorman's rear view . Once again study these four renditions carefully."

Post 5) "Zooming in on the previous picture"

Now maybe I'm just slow, Jim - so please tell me what Ed's view or point was after making these five post? The fact is there was no view offerered, nor was there a point made.

Now let's forget that fact for a moment and look at the bigger picture. You said, "After all only by open exchange and constant reconsideration can we all advance the case." Please tell me what value does using a lesser quality image have over its cleaner and sharper counter-part ... or maybe possibly name one instance where a lesser quality image offered more data than a sharper image, Jim? Not just Ed, but I have seen other researchers take a poor quality image full of pixels, sometimes darkened, many times blury and then claim they see things that in fact are not present in the much cleaner film frame or photo of the same. So how does that advance the case in anyway, Jim? Whether it be in the field or in the lab - when one looks through a looking glass at an object - does one turn the focus until the image is sharp and clear or does one prefer to make the image distorted and out of focus because that visual will offer him or her the best research data? So if there is a lesson that should be learned here it is that the best possible images will give a more defined conclusion to any inquiry.

Let me close by saying one other thing ... If you go to Lancer's forum and type in Ed's name into their search engine, you will find the images he has used here along with others. You will also find that Ed likes to take poor quality images and blow them up to incredible size and then tell you about all the things he sees in them. One such example over at Lancer is the tree leaf shadows being cast upon the fence in Moorman's photograph. Ed enlarged those tree leaf shadows and was posting that they were cops with cameras lined all across the knoll. Despite nimerous request to do so, he wouldn't show the wide view so one could see what photo or film source he used, but another researcher quickly recognized the image and exposed what Ed was doing. The tree leaf shadows Ed used took up less that a 2' X 2' area of stockade fence. I personally didn't see that as advancing research in any way.

I had emailed this forum administrator about allowing images to be posted here because I believe they are so important when used responsibly and to the point. The reply I got was a favorable one with the condition that the posting of images is to the point and discretion is used so not to fill up the forum with meaningless pictures. I, knowing what Ed has done on other forums, asked that he get to his point because if he is doing what I have seen elsewhere - I feared that the posting of image privledge here may be discontinued. Now whether Ed was going to repeat a past practice of his - I cannot say with certainty and is why I asked that he make his point if he had one.

It was not my intention to get into all these various things, but you raised the issue to where I had little choice but to explain myself better. If nothing else comes of it, then we should all see the need to use the best possible images when analyzing the assassination of John Kennedy. The use of poor quality images will always tend to lead to making poor quality observations and that does nothing to advance any murder case in my opinion.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me....BUT...

I judged by this thread alone. This is as it should be.

If Mr/Ms. Eohagan posts incomplete data there ARE BETTER WAYS TO ADVISE THAN TO ALIENATE. Better, more construction less obstructive ways.

Education forum root to this one, GET IT?

It seems to me your mind is already made up on nearly everything. What good can this serve the members of this educational forum? Presumably with students present, maybe younger ones.

This is to exchange ideas and constructively critique our ideas to evolve

the general knowledge of the case.

My mind is not made up on many things but it seems you have just made my

mind up about you.

Clues accumulate:

Lets see constantly pushing Lancer in almost every thread, opposing the alteration of films, argumentative put downs of others in a forum you do not run.

I'm getting a picture...who needs Miss Cleo? And it's not just me that figured it out either.

It would seem you desire something most do not... Confrontation.

Because of the atmosphere of open discussion in civil manner here I recommended this forum to my most curious nephew. It is their future that they can still shape.

With our help and clarification, not ridicule.

Younger ones that don't know of the history of the case and might ask a question like:

Oh my gosh wait a minute! You mean there was more than one rifle found and photographed coming out of the Texas School Book Depository?

IF THEY FELT A QUESTION WOULD BE ANSWERED OR ALLOWED TO BE ASKED TO BE ANSWERED.

I repeat LOUDER!!!!

BETTER QUALITY PICTURES OR FILES DO NOT BY REQUIREMENT MAKE A BETTER POST.

But again you seem to have some thing against Mr./Mrs. Eohagan and myself, that's your problem, I refuse to let it become mine.

I gave benefit of doubt that this person was going to finish the thought whatever it was.

We all have the right to voice our view with or without images. For that matter who appointed you to judge the quality of posts or intellectual intregity or research level of thought of anyone!!!

How can you possibly make any statement about the quality of his image files until

you hear him out and then MAYBE PROVIDE BETTER images. That is cooperation, that is education, not obstruction.

Jeez you didn't even let the person finish before you put down the person, the post and clearly yourself by showing what you are about in this second post.

I thought civil conduct was to refute the data, not the person. But again you and I and all the others were not allowed to hear the point of the thread were we?

NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE SUCH A HIGHLY ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE AS ONE SO WISE AND ESTEEMED AS YOU. LoL.

You forget the disservice this kind of conduct does to the newcomers lurking and having good thought provoking ideas to be expressed but stifling themselves for fear of being so shabbily treated and insulted. What for the young folks Larry?

I think we would do well to try to keep in mind that the newcomers may be reading at any time. It can not serve but to silence the newcomers to see this kind of junk. Why work so hard to belittle? It is small minded conduct.

To help another beats acting so as to stop the thread, even if you don't agree with that person, NO moreover when you don't agree with that person. We might learn something from all people, unless we close our minds first.

It wouldn't have been as intimidating to the newcomers lurking to just hear that person out.

You make much out of something somewhere else this is folly to cite as a source to ridicule as you did.

Have you noticed there is not a general trend to stupidity and flame wars here yet.

Why import it? Don't expect my help in this effort to silence or change the direction of a thread.

I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER WAS TRYING TO GET TO SAY!!

So you succeeded in nothing. Unless MR/MS Eohagan doesn't finish the post.

I will not agree with that person unless I do and I will not put them down or ridicule them if I don't agree, I will explain why I feel that this or that is wrong.

Man I had a few teachers trying to dictate students thoughts.

"Hey Teacher Leave them kids alone!"

I await the continuation by Mr/Ms Eohagan, he or she, young or old, right IMHO or wrong IMHO. But you know I would not blame them if they didn't want to be part of this crap. I am done, I don't want to be any longer part of non productive threads.

Argumentative putdowns and slams will get the case nowhere. The case is too serious to play with for ego games to me.

As another researcher said: Let them argue with themselves.

Jim Hackett II

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep..."--James Hepburn

OK Greg I stole your line again, but it fits so well, don'tcha think? If you are gonna shot me make it quick and in the brain stem. LOL.

Edited by Jim Hackett II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Mr/Ms. Eohagan posts incomplete data there ARE BETTER WAYS TO ADVISE THAN TO ALIENATE.

"Ed" is a man's name - I hope most of the students got the much so far. The original question wasn't presented to alienate anyone nor advise them. It was a question that asked why he was choosing to use poor quality images and then post them over a period of five postings and not tell the "students" why he showed the images and what they are supposed to be looking at. The question is repeated once again below ...

What are you trying to accomplish by using poor quality images taken from the Zapruder film and why would you run up a thread with them and not make your point?

Lets see constantly pushing Lancer in almost every thread, opposing the alteration of films, argumentative put downs of others in a forum you do not run.

It is not Lancer that I push, but rather the research that has been done by some of it's members. Seeing how those members are not on the McAdams forum, JFK Research, nor on this one, one cannot discuss their research or where to find it in detail without mentioning Lancer. I hope that common factor has now been made clear.

As I recall, you have spent most of your time on the "looney forum" as it has been referred to by most of the research community. That is the forum that thinks the Zapruder film has been put together from another film or been altered by the removal of photographical data. That is the forum where 'people are shorter than parking meters', 'the five foot Toni Foster is a seven tall woman', 'Moorman is standing in the street' and many other off the wall claims came from. That is the forum where if you don't understand something - just say a photo or a film must have been altered. That's the forum where it's members bad mouth the McAdams site, but would then complain about someone praising a site such as Lancer's. That's the site where members would take, if gotten the chance, my original statement to Ed and turn it into several long ridiculous replies rather than to stick to the main focus as to why I asked what his purpose was for using such lesser grade images over the better ones available. I am still waiting to know what it was we are supposed to be looking at and why?

Now having hopefully made myself clear and while I await Ed'as reply - are there any photo or film alteration claims you care to go over, for I will be happy to address any one of them for "the students" as you call them. How about the one below where a long time researcher used a poor quality Cancellare print and claimed the Zapruder film must have been altered because in his mind this man is sitting in the back of a pickup truck in the photo and the Zapruder film doesn't show that. (Below is a better quality print and the man is clearly standing outside of the truck bed, not sitting in it) This was the point I tried to raise in this thread (before your ramblings commenced) so people would try and use the best possible images available so not to waste time making such silly errors.

Larry

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you satisfied yet?

Made enough of a fool of yourself yet?

Stop beating a dead horse.

This is very VERY funny....except it is also sad, very sad.

So do I laugh or cry?

That's easy....I LAUGH OUT LOUD.

I expect next a round of "I know you are but what am I?" Schoolyard crap I would say but that would insult the school systems.

Jim Hackett II

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep..."--James Hepburn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Are you satisfied yet?"

Yes, I am satisfied. Of Course, I would have been satisfied with just asking Ed a question without having you stick your nose into the matter. I even would have been satisfied had you of offered a sensible answer of your own as to the question - 'why would one want to use inferior images over sharper cleaner images for research purposes?', but a sensible answer never came. And if you should ever wish to debate the evidence of Kennedy's assassination, especially where the photographical record is concerned, I will be most satisfied to do that with you, too!

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lncer advance search

All,

Please click on the line above to access Lancer's advanced search page . Anyone visiting the site should enter a name in the KEYWORD box ...then bring up the word AUTHOR in the SEARCH WHICH FIELDS box menu....... leave the remaining boxes as they are , and then click on the SEARCH NOW tab. .. N.B. Do not hit ENTER/RETURN on the keyboard.

Please search for my name, Ed O'Hagan (and also eohagan).... and if anyone finds that I have ever posted anything to that site in the past , please be so kind as to provide me with the relevant information.

If someone wishes to contact me privately in regard to the relevancy of the pictures, etc., would she/he please use the onsite e-mailing facility, and I'll be happy to respond . Otherwise I see little point in continuing the thread.

Ed O'Hagan

P.S Jim Hackett II, please check your e-mail box at this site. The information which you were awaiting will be found therein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Please search for my name, Ed O'Hagan (and also eohagan).... and if anyone finds that I have ever posted anything to that site in the past , please be so kind as to provide me with the relevant information."

Ed - I am getting the impression that you are trying to say that you have not been a member at Lancer's forum or have posted there in the past. I hope that I have misunderstood you. I emailed a fellow researcher who has contacted Debra Conway this morning to see where all the postings you have made on that forum has gone to. As you probably know, Lancer had a server problem and was down for some time. Conway has said that the forum is not up to 100% as of yet and I know from my searching their archives that many of their photographical images has not been restored as of yet. Debra informed my contact that your material should still be there and in fact she has everything ever posted there on backup files.

Below is the leaf shadows on the fence that you tried passing off as cops with cameras by means of making huge enlargements of a limited space on an unknown image that you were unwilling to divulge to the fellow researchers there. The animated clip is one that researcher Bill Miller posted in a thread called "The Duping of a Forum" in response to your posting on the matter and it shows the location where you had taken the shadows off the fence as seen in Moorman's number 5 Polaroid and then claimed them to be policeman with cameras for whatever reason that is still unknown to many or your peers.

The brighter overlay seen flashing on the fence in the lower right hand corner of this clip is the image you had posted on Lancer. It was Miller's knowledge and recall of the details of Moorman's photograph that allowed him to discover the source of your deceit. Miller aligned your image with the leaf shadows on the fence and found they matched perfectly. Because of limited image size restrictions I have shortened Miller's clip so it can be seen on this site.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry:

Excuse me, but what is this, he said ,she said again..??

The Looney Forum..??? if you can't refer to a Forum with it's proper

name, then IMO do not refer to such...and why bring another Forum or your

thoughts on all, onto this one.?? I for one am not interested

in put downs of any kind..whatever your harsh thoughts, do not belong here.

Check them at the door.

Threads posted on Lancer ??? who cares.??

Searching for posts ,on another Forum??? bothering administrations..

that have recently crashed, and have much work to do in resetting all,

sending emails, about what.? why??...something that has absolutely

nothing to do with here.??

Telling past tales..?? if they occured, if so, why??

Many have emailed the administration on this Forum, about the posting

of photos..

They will decide what and what is not to be judged as acceptable..

I did not see them object..

All eohagen asked after posting, the photos, was that we study them...?

Get back to your research and stop clogging up this Forum, with

any old hard feelings about, anyone, or any Forum, or such...I do not

think anyone wants to read about any past differences here,I know I

don't...I personally don't care what anyone did anywhere else..it does

not relate here...only research does..IMO

This is a new Forum let's give it a chance without dragging any old differences

along, or we may not have it for long.??

IMO it does not belong here, in too many posts tonight I have read these kind

of inferences being made..

I apologise for wasting the resources to make this post..but sorry this has

no place..IMO.

and that's my last wasted word.... :huh:

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...