Large Moorman graphic disrupts thread

[Craig Lamson]

The extremely large Moorman scan posted by Robin has overwhelmed THE PARTY'S OVER

thread by Chris, making further replies impossible. I have a 19" screen and the Moorman

is twice the size of the screen, blocking all access to the thread. Can anything be done

about this?

Jack

PS...great Moorman image, Robin. The resolution is fantastic. Can you provide the

provenance. It appears to be my scan of the Gordon Smith copy from the original,

but my scan is not nearly that good. Can you give details?

Yes that is a great Moorman image Jack, its the Thompson drum scan you usually call trash. Did you get some new glasses?

I have to credit Lamson this one time IF that is indeed the famed drum scan, because the

quality is very good for a copy of the original print which has the fingerprint. At first glance

it appeared to be the Gordon Smith copy, which is one of the best that I have, made from

the original. As far as I know I have never seen the FULL UNCROPPED drum scan before.

This image, like the Smith image, includes the notches of the 4x5 film holder on the edges.

I did not know the drum scan had that feature. Previously I had only seen cropped images

from the drum scan, and perhaps inferior copies at that. The image posted by Robin is superior

to the Smith copy by about 10 percent in the Dmin/Dmax densitometer range. I compared

the two side by side full screen. The drum scan density is about 10 percent better; this is

mainly seen in the very dark areas such as the wooden fence, the badgeman tree, etc which

are enough lighter on the drum scan to discern detail, but are more blocked up on the Smith

copy. However, neither the drum scan nor the Smith copy, both made from the faded

original with the fingerprint, can match the high quality of the Thompson Number One print

as I have shown many times.

The drumscan exposure was very likely made using an electronic densitometer, which

takes a reading of the lightest area and darkest area and calculates a precise exposure

for minimum and maximum density. When I formerly owned three photostat cameras,

that is how my camera operators turned out high quality halftones...by using the densitometer

to set the camera exposure.

Jack

Actually the file that came off the the drum was very flat, as was requested. We asked the scanner tech to add no level or curve correction, nor any sharpening. The goal was to simply get the contents of the negative into a digital form without inducing artifacts, ringing or density changes which might effect the measurements on the pedestal area which was the entire reason for having the scan made.

The image Robin has posted was downsampled for the original 109 mb 8 bit file which is simply too large to post on the net. The original

scan was about 4"x5" at 2400 dpi or 32"x40" at 300dpi. At this resolution the negative was scanned down to film grain level.

I made the following adjustments to the image Robin has posted:

I downsampled the image to around 11x14 at 300 dpi IIRC, (Robin may have reduced it further)

I adjusted the levels to bring the flat tonal range of the image to a more normal level.

I created a duplicate layer and darkend that layer a bit more using levels, then I erased about half of that layer with a large, soft edge brush. I did this to even out the image from right to left, as the right side was quite a bit lighter than the left. This in essence is a digital "burning" similar to doing the same inthe darkroom. I then flattened the image.

Finally I saved the image in a lossless compresssed format, PNG and placed it on a pubilc photosite and made it available for download.

The goal was simply to adjust the master file to produce an image that included a full tonal range

There are many copies of the original, un-adjusted drum scan file in the wild. Tink sent me the one to the two master disks (one went directly to Gary Mack) and I made about two dozen duplicates of the master cd. SOme of htese were sent to the members of the group I was part of that was working on the Moorman in the Street issue. The rest I made available to anyone who requested it via the JFKResearch forum. This included a number of folks who were on the opposite side of the issue. I think I even sent a cd to Jack but I'm not sure.

In any case, I am willing to make the original file available for download. If you PM me with your email address I will sent you a username and passsword for my ftp site. I will make the file available on Monday and keep the ftp account open during the rest of the working week.

Thanks for all the information. There are some who would call all that you did ALTERATION.

I would call it the equivalent of dodging and burning in, or OPTIMIZING.

If you have ever seen an Ansel Adams instruction print to his darkroom technicians, it was

filled with dozens of handwritten instructions for dodging and burning, some very elaborate.

It is far different than a straight print from a negative. The information is all in the image,

but it may be printed in many different ways.

The "drum scan" is still much poorer quality than Thompson #1.

Jack

The file IS altered from its original state. However the unaltered file is also still available.

[Bill Miller]

It is far different than a straight print from a negative. The information is all in the image,

but it may be printed in many different ways.

The "drum scan" is still much poorer quality than Thompson #1.

Jack

Jack,

How about having Bernice post one of your non-drum scan Moorman prints so we can see what you are talking about.

Bill

Edited February 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Yes that is a great Moorman image Jack, its the Thompson drum scan you usually call trash. Did you get some new glasses?

Jack has a tendency to change is mind depending on his needs at the moment. The drum scan is sharp in Jack's eyes until he has to defend why his recreation Moorman LOS didn't show the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window ... then all of a sudden it is an altered image. Jack cannot produce any of the other Moorman photos that he claims do not show a gap, but nevertheless ... that's just a small detail in the effort to make everything appear altered. His use of the Altgens 6 photo on the book "Hoax" wehereas he called in genuine and can be used to validate other assassination images is another example. Seeing that now he is aware that Moorman and Hill's shadows are coming from the grass, which shows his having them in the street is nonsense, then I am sure that he will now claim that Altgens 6 is altered. Isn't it ironic how in the end it has been these guys own words that has hurt the credibility of their claims.

Bill

look like this is appropriate response here, too!

dgh: sit-down! the above from someone who thought increasing screen resolution increased detail in the image..... LMAO! But we won't talk about that, will we?

Actually David, the appropriate response would be for you to show us a Moorman print that doesn't show the gap that I speak of ... so at this time I ask that you provide such a print to show us that Jack is right. You can bet your sweet behind that if what Jack said was true, then he would have posted it long ago when asked to do so. So now that you have trolled your way into the discussion, I ask that you show us such a print.

Bill Miller

I have said dozens of times that the GAP the gang is so proud of is IMMATERIAL.

I have said dozens of times that there is a gap because of the one-inch setback.

One track minds.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I have said dozens of times that the GAP the gang is so proud of is IMMATERIAL.

I have said dozens of times that there is a gap because of the one-inch setback.

One track minds.

Jack

That is not what you said, Jack! You claimed to have replicated where Mary Moorman was standing and your first example photograph had these thick lines over the edge of the pedestal hiding the fact that the gap was missing in your so-called recreation photo. Ron Hepler, Josiah Thompson, myself and some others got after you for hiding that flaw in your example picture. Eventually you had no choice but to show it. Then Thompson offered up the drum scan and your position then was that Josiah had invented the gap with his drum scan. You went as far as to say that the drum scan was the only Moorman print that showed the gap. You were then challeneged you to take any of the known Moorman copies made before the drum scan and show us that there was no gap in any of them. You then went silent and never produced any such thing. You must have finally realized that the jig was up. Now once your 'no gap' claim was exposed as yet another erroneous claim of yours - you have suddenly come up with a new spin about the gap being immaterial. What ever you do Jack - don't admit you were wrong all along.

Bill Miller

Edited February 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I have said dozens of times that the GAP the gang is so proud of is IMMATERIAL.

I have said dozens of times that there is a gap because of the one-inch setback.

One track minds.

Jack

That is not what you said, Jack! You claimed to have replicated where Mary Moorman was standing and your first example photograph had these thick lines over the edge of the pedestal hiding the fact that the gap was missing in your so-called recreation photo. Ron Hepler, Josiah Thompson, myself and some others got after you for hiding that flaw in your example picture. Eventually you had no choice but to show it. Then Thompson offered up the drum scan and your position then was that Josiah had invented the gap with his drum scan. You went as far as to say that the drum scan was the only Moorman print that showed the gap. You were then challeneged you to take any of the known Moorman copies made before the drum scan and show us that there was no gap in any of them. You then went silent and never produced any such thing. You must have finally realized that the jig was up. Now once your 'no gap' claim was exposed as yet another erroneous claim of yours - you have suddenly come up with a new spin about the gap being immaterial. What ever you do Jack - don't admit you were wrong all along.

Bill Miller

perhaps you should re-read what Craig said above -- the way I interrupt his comment is: a copy of the Thompson copy of the Moorman5 Poaroid was digitally "enhanced" in Photoshop type of program for WHATEVER reason. Based on that alteration the Gang proved Jack White's (I might add Fetzer, Mantik and others) study wrong, that about it?

Now how can you prove one persons analysis/content interpretation of a specific photo wrong based another's copy of the SAME photo that's been proveably altered? Who is spinning whom here, Bill Miller? Your in a tough spot, Guy! The term JOKE comes to mind... What if anything E-L-S-E was altered?

Photo alteration is just that, PHOTO ALTERATION

[Bill Miller]

Now how can you prove one persons analysis/content interpretation of a specific photo wrong based another's copy of the SAME photo that's been proveably altered? Who is spinning whom here, Bill Miller? Your in a tough spot, Guy! The term JOKE comes to mind... What if anything E-L-S-E was altered?

Photo alteration is just that, PHOTO ALTERATION

David, you remind me of a dumb old bass who when it sees something shiny - it always bites at it while not thinking that it may have a hook in it. We are talking about the gap in Moorman's photo - and that gap is in all of the prints made of Moorman's photo. Jack posted that his position has always been that the gap is immaterial, but that has not been his previous position. Let me share with you what Jack has said about that gap ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=1133&st=45

ORDINARILY I DO NOT READ NOR RESPOND TO MR. PETERS/MILLER'S RAVINGS,

BUT I NOTICED HIS POSTING OF THE LONG-AGO DISCREDITED "GAP" IN THE

MOORMAN PIC, AND I MUST PROVIDE AN ANTIDOTE. It was several years ago

that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap"

does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for

those who might fall for this discredited disinformation.

Jack White

In yet another response about the gap, Jack says nothing about the gap being immaterial. Instead he says the following ...

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the

pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The

"gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching

the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER

of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is

NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in

the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal,

they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve.

Jack White

So it seems that Jack's defense shifted to the drum scan being retouched. It seems that everything that Jack cannot understand has been altered. It's certainly not hard to see why his followers don't bother taking his ground breaking/earth shattering claims to the news media.

Craig Lamson explained that no retouching occurred to the drum scan.

Craig: As I was reading this old thread I found this question by you David and its time to correct the record.

When Tink had the Moorman 5 copy neg drum scanned in San Fran he had the the scanner tech make two copies of the cd containing the file. All the details of the scan are available at our web page on the Moorman 5.

Tink had the scanner tech sign each original cd and he sent one to me and one to G. Mack for the 6 floor. Gary still has this original disk.

When I recieved the disk I did noting to the file....nothing..repete...nothing. No changes what so ever. I simply made dupilcates of the master disk supplied by Tink and sent them out in the mail. The file you recieved is exactly as it came off the scanner. The master disk (with the scanners techs signature) was returned to Tink.

Any claims by White that the image was retouched is pure crap. The file is as it came from the scanner...and I might add it matches the print that was made from the same neg perfectly, as well as every other file I have seem from the Moorman except for that crappy scan White likes to promote. And even that one when subjected to careful study also shows the same gap as all the other Moormans floating around.

So now getting back to the comment that Jack made that Thompson invented the gap and that the gap doesn't exist on good copies ... let us see what ever copy that Jack is talking about where he says the gap does not exist. How about that Gordon Smith copy? You know .... the one that Jack spoke about when he said that it is one of the best that he has. Surely Jack isn't limited to only having Bernice post severely degraded blobs and blurs ... let us see the great Gordon Smith copy!

I personaly believe that the Gordon Smith copy dooes not support the allegation Jack leveled at Josiah Thompson. If it did, then Jack would have posted it with his allegations. I also believe that Jack and his alteration supporters know this and that is why no one will ever risk looking like a complete fool to a national audience in order to bring these so-called ground breaking/earth shattering finds to the world.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

I have said dozens of times that the GAP the gang is so proud of is IMMATERIAL.

I have said dozens of times that there is a gap because of the one-inch setback.

One track minds.

Jack

That is not what you said, Jack! You claimed to have replicated where Mary Moorman was standing and your first example photograph had these thick lines over the edge of the pedestal hiding the fact that the gap was missing in your so-called recreation photo. Ron Hepler, Josiah Thompson, myself and some others got after you for hiding that flaw in your example picture. Eventually you had no choice but to show it. Then Thompson offered up the drum scan and your position then was that Josiah had invented the gap with his drum scan. You went as far as to say that the drum scan was the only Moorman print that showed the gap. You were then challeneged you to take any of the known Moorman copies made before the drum scan and show us that there was no gap in any of them. You then went silent and never produced any such thing. You must have finally realized that the jig was up. Now once your 'no gap' claim was exposed as yet another erroneous claim of yours - you have suddenly come up with a new spin about the gap being immaterial. What ever you do Jack - don't admit you were wrong all along.

Bill Miller

perhaps you should re-read what Craig said above -- the way I interrupt his comment is: a copy of the Thompson copy of the Moorman5 Poaroid was digitally "enhanced" in Photoshop type of program for WHATEVER reason. Based on that alteration the Gang proved Jack White's (I might add Fetzer, Mantik and others) study wrong, that about it?

Now how can you prove one persons analysis/content interpretation of a specific photo wrong based another's copy of the SAME photo that's been proveably altered? Who is spinning whom here, Bill Miller? Your in a tough spot, Guy! The term JOKE comes to mind... What if anything E-L-S-E was altered?

Photo alteration is just that, PHOTO ALTERATION

Your interpretation skills are pretty weak David.

The file which I described above was created for posting on the web. It was not used in any of the Moorman testing. It was simply adjusted from the drum scanner output to a more pleasing tonal range for viewing.

The file that was sent out originally to any researchers who wanted it was the original scanner data file, untouched.

Quite a few controls exist to compare the original to the drun scan.

First there are the actual 4x5 b/w copy negative (I believe there are two)

Second there are actual b/w darkroom prints made from the negative that was scanned. Tink has had these prints since the copy neg was made in 1967.

Third there are the flatbed scans Tink produced from the b/w prints and posted to the web prior to the drum scan being made.

Fourth there is the second master cd that contains the drum scan data, created by the scanner tech and the disk signed by him. This disk went directly to the Sixth Floor and Gary Mack.

And finally, the drum scan Moorman in both raw data format and levels adjusted format, match completely every Moorman image availaleble when it comes to the area of concern for the Moorman in the Street study....the pedestal. It even matchs the very poor Zippo when you factor out the out of focus quality of the Zippo.

Now if you want to talk about using altered photos to attempt to prove the Zap film altered, lets talk about the gross alteration of the Z frames made by Costella.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Now how can you prove one persons analysis/content interpretation of a specific photo wrong based another's copy of the SAME photo that's been proveably altered? Who is spinning whom here, Bill Miller? Your in a tough spot, Guy! The term JOKE comes to mind... What if anything E-L-S-E was altered?

Photo alteration is just that, PHOTO ALTERATION

David, you remind me of a dumb old bass who when it sees something shiny - it always bites at it while not thinking that it may have a hook in it. We are talking about the gap in Moorman's photo - and that gap is in all of the prints made of Moorman's photo. Jack posted that his position has always been that the gap is immaterial, but that has not been his previous position. Let me share with you what Jack has said about that gap ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=1133&st=45

ORDINARILY I DO NOT READ NOR RESPOND TO MR. PETERS/MILLER'S RAVINGS,

BUT I NOTICED HIS POSTING OF THE LONG-AGO DISCREDITED "GAP" IN THE

MOORMAN PIC, AND I MUST PROVIDE AN ANTIDOTE. It was several years ago

that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap"

does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for

those who might fall for this discredited disinformation.

Jack White

In yet another response about the gap, Jack says nothing about the gap being immaterial. Instead he says the following ...

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the

pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The

"gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching

the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER

of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is

NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in

the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal,

they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve.

Jack White

So it seems that Jack's defense shifted to the drum scan being retouched. It seems that everything that Jack cannot understand has been altered. It's certainly not hard to see why his followers don't bother taking his ground breaking/earth shattering claims to the news media.

Craig Lamson explained that no retouching occurred to the drum scan.

Craig: As I was reading this old thread I found this question by you David and its time to correct the record.

When Tink had the Moorman 5 copy neg drum scanned in San Fran he had the the scanner tech make two copies of the cd containing the file. All the details of the scan are available at our web page on the Moorman 5.

Tink had the scanner tech sign each original cd and he sent one to me and one to G. Mack for the 6 floor. Gary still has this original disk.

When I recieved the disk I did noting to the file....nothing..repete...nothing. No changes what so ever. I simply made dupilcates of the master disk supplied by Tink and sent them out in the mail. The file you recieved is exactly as it came off the scanner. The master disk (with the scanners techs signature) was returned to Tink.

Any claims by White that the image was retouched is pure crap. The file is as it came from the scanner...and I might add it matches the print that was made from the same neg perfectly, as well as every other file I have seem from the Moorman except for that crappy scan White likes to promote. And even that one when subjected to careful study also shows the same gap as all the other Moormans floating around.

So now getting back to the comment that Jack made that Thompson invented the gap and that the gap doesn't exist on good copies ... let us see what ever copy that Jack is talking about where he says the gap does not exist. How about that Gordon Smith copy? You know .... the one that Jack spoke about when he said that it is one of the best that he has. Surely Jack isn't limited to only having Bernice post severely degraded blobs and blurs ... let us see the great Gordon Smith copy!

I personaly believe that the Gordon Smith copy dooes not support the allegation Jack leveled at Josiah Thompson. If it did, then Jack would have posted it with his allegations. I also believe that Jack and his alteration supporters know this and that is why no one will ever risk looking like a complete fool to a national audience in order to bring these so-called ground breaking/earth shattering finds to the world.

Bill, I don't think we have to rehash the gap, we have been over this time and time again. Nothing is going to change. Jack is never going to deal with this in an honest fashion.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I don't think we have to rehash the gap, we have been over this time and time again. Nothing is going to change. Jack is never going to deal with this in an honest fashion.

I agree, Craig, but my intention was to bring up the gap to show a history of how far Jack and his supporters will go to promote alteration despite the evidence to the contrary. This all fits in with the taking of ridiculously degraded images and inventing Zapruder and Sitzman stand-ins, which none of these guys would ever go on a national news show and make themselves look like total morons like they have been willing to do here. Jack will defame someone like Thompson, myself, you, or anyone else to promote a knowingly false claim. Then when a response like mine calls Jack on his behavior, it seems to not have upset people that Jack has withheld information and deceived his followers, but instead they turn on the messenger like a pack of wild dogs. When did John F. Kenedy's murder become a joke to these people whereas they wouldn't give the man's memory an honest investigation based on factual evidence instead of one based on lies and deception? Anyone can make a mistake, but the withholding the Gordon Cooper Moorman copy so not to expose your own false claim isn't doing anyone here any good. So people will understand ... I attack someone's credibility when I find that they have double talked or misled others in order to promote their cause. Jack on the other hand will make outlandish claims about people and hide evidence if he needs to so to give a false impression that he is sincere in his accusations and that is what is most intolerable IMO. Moorman has gone on record telling Mark Oakes that her being in the street is silly. Jack used a carefully edited clip of Jean Hill saying how she stepped into the street so to make himself look correct, while leaving out the fact that Jean said that she had gotten back out of the street before the shooting had started. If you or I had done such a dishonest thing in order to salvage a falsehood pertaing to the alleged search for the truth - we'd be black listed by the JFK research community. Did the Warren Commission try and slant the evidence away from a conspiracy - I believe that they did. To me that only shows a disregard for justice in the murder of President Kennedy. So then how can it be any different when someone claiming a conspiracy occurred follows along the same despictable tatics? Shame on those who have attempted to reduce a forum such as this to a game of tossing aside good images so to play "see what you can make out of this artifact". John Kennedy once said that a mistake isn't a mistake unless one refuses to correct it. When are certain individuals here going to start correcting their mistakes!

Bill Miller

Edited February 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I sense a derogatory retort coming from David Healy...wait for it...wait for it...

[Bill Miller]

I sense a derogatory retort coming from David Healy...wait for it...wait for it...

I welcome it for it will only strengthen my point.

Bill

[Evan Marshall]

The extremely large Moorman scan posted by Robin has overwhelmed THE PARTY'S OVER

thread by Chris, making further replies impossible. I have a 19" screen and the Moorman

is twice the size of the screen, blocking all access to the thread. Can anything be done

about this?

Jack

PS...great Moorman image, Robin. The resolution is fantastic. Can you provide the

provenance. It appears to be my scan of the Gordon Smith copy from the original,

but my scan is not nearly that good. Can you give details?

Yes that is a great Moorman image Jack, its the Thompson drum scan you usually call trash. Did you get some new glasses?

I have to credit Lamson this one time IF that is indeed the famed drum scan, because the

quality is very good for a copy of the original print which has the fingerprint. At first glance

it appeared to be the Gordon Smith copy, which is one of the best that I have, made from

the original. As far as I know I have never seen the FULL UNCROPPED drum scan before.

This image, like the Smith image, includes the notches of the 4x5 film holder on the edges.

I did not know the drum scan had that feature. Previously I had only seen cropped images

from the drum scan, and perhaps inferior copies at that. The image posted by Robin is superior

to the Smith copy by about 10 percent in the Dmin/Dmax densitometer range. I compared

the two side by side full screen. The drum scan density is about 10 percent better; this is

mainly seen in the very dark areas such as the wooden fence, the badgeman tree, etc which

are enough lighter on the drum scan to discern detail, but are more blocked up on the Smith

copy. However, neither the drum scan nor the Smith copy, both made from the faded

original with the fingerprint, can match the high quality of the Thompson Number One print

as I have shown many times.

The drumscan exposure was very likely made using an electronic densitometer, which

takes a reading of the lightest area and darkest area and calculates a precise exposure

for minimum and maximum density. When I formerly owned three photostat cameras,

that is how my camera operators turned out high quality halftones...by using the densitometer

to set the camera exposure.

Jack

I may not agree with Jack White on much, but such infantile and assinine remarks prove and solve nothing-as long as our ego's blind our common goals we'll never accomplish a solution to this murder