Bill Miller

So you have backed yourself into a corner by misstating what you have done and all these excuses you have given that are defuncted by way of the dictionary is me playing on words and not you? Wanna dance some more or are you ready to admit that you were wrong .... To change the horizontal and/or vertical dimensions of an image. www.shutterfly.com/refdesk/glossary_r.jsp Verb1.resize - change the size of; make the size more appropriate size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size rescale - establish on a new scale Now let's try this again ... Is it your position that it is appropriate to merely slide the lower half of a soldier's body over under Gordon Arnold's upper body and to heck with the two bodies matching in width ... the height had been established in your mind - Is that correct?? Bill Miller

Is it fair to say that there are two different versions of the Nix film??? It appears that in the Gif Chris posted ... that the first frame (the darkest) doesn't show anyone on the walkway through the colonnade. However, once the image is lightened and the pixels are visible .... the appearance of a possible figure (one without legs BTW) becomes visible. Does this mean that there are two versions of that frame or does it mean that the frame was altered until the shadows started to take on part of a human shape. I might add that the two white arrows pointing at this figure looks exactly like the image I had once done (arrows included) in a post on JFK Research. Bill Miller By Bond 4 there is no one there, but this strange [and all to common a] phenomena in JFK research needs more work.....to find out if another example of alteration [accidental or conspiratorial or forgery] or what... I don't get it ... is everyone so bored with the other evidence of the case that they must make things out of nothing??? The frame before and the frame after the one in question shows no one there. The other assassination images showing this location around the same time shows no one there. But let someone adjust the contrast and brightness to the point of causing part of a shape in one frame to appear that could be passed off as human, then we are to feel as though it needs investigated. The image is what it is ... A similar example was when a shadow on a column was thought to be Charles Hester. I also got news for everyone ... when Groden had the lab work on his best Nix copy - there was no one there in that particular frame either. It takes a bit of doing to play with the contrast and lighting of that frame to make it appear that someone is there and that isn't a mystery IMO, but rather an explanation that about anyone should be able to understand. Bill

Is your above response a confession or what? If I were you - I would stop making it appear that no matter how wrong you are - you don't come clean about it. I assume you understand the English language to some degree and in the event that you do not ... I am always happy to offer the dictionary meanings so to limit any confusion as to what I'm saying. For you to have said that you do not stretch real images was not an honest statement. The first time you took an object from one photo and scaled it to the same object from another picture - you stretched it. If it is your position that this is not true and that you only shrink images as if to imply that you only reduce the size of an image and never increase its size, then I don't believe you and the reason for that is because too many times the resolution is degraded in your images because the size had been increased. Shrinking the image doesn't expand the pixels, thus the image stays clean. So what I am saying here is that its best to take the information and learn from it rather than always trying to salvage the mistakes you have made ... it will make you a better researcher and what you learn can be applied to the next attempt you make at scaling objects in hopes of being more accurate. Bill

Is it fair to say that there are two different versions of the Nix film??? It appears that in the Gif Chris posted ... that the first frame (the darkest) doesn't show anyone on the walkway through the colonnade. However, once the image is lightened and the pixels are visible .... the appearance of a possible figure (one without legs BTW) becomes visible. Does this mean that there are two versions of that frame or does it mean that the frame was altered until the shadows started to take on part of a human shape. I might add that the two white arrows pointing at this figure looks exactly like the image I had once done (arrows included) in a post on JFK Research. Bill Miller

Miles, Maybe you should read my response again ... possibly have someone help you understand what I said. I never said anything about Bowers and Moorman standing next to one another ... this should have been your first clue that you were not comprehending correctly the information being presented to you. I also said that Moorman's straight on view looking uphill would not be like the view Bowers had when viewing the same area from off to the side and looking downhill ... this too, should have told you that you were not comprehending anything you were being told. The nice thing about you making such an error is that it explains why so much other stuff you cite is in error most of the time. Looking down from directly above the RR yard does not give one the view Bowers had any more than it gives one the view that Holland had to where he saw the smoke coming through the trees. And why did Holland not see what caused the smoke he saw come through the trees - it was his off to one side view and looking downhill that clustered all that tree foliage together, thus hiding the area in question. Bowers had cars between he and that area hiding the lower parts of anyones body and overhanging tree foilage that hid the upper parts, as well. Bill Miller

You are spitting in a pretty stiff breeze this time, Duncan. If one increases an image whether horizontally or vertically - they have stretched it. Resize: - change the size of; make the size more appropriate size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size rescale - establish on a new scale Stretch: To become lengthened, widened, or distended. To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction Bill Miller

Groden's best print of the Nix film shows no one there in any of the frames. Shade and pixels caused the one frame to resemble someone. I posted that image many years ago on the JFK Research Forum while asking if it could be the guy Jean Hill saw running during the shooting, but I believe it was you, Jack, that mentioned it being an illusion and wasn't seen in other frames. The Bronson slide and film, nor the Betzner and Willis photos show anyone there either. Bill

Duncan, Is there no one in Scotland that can translate these post to you ... I'm sure James Gordon would if you'd let him. The reason why I mentioned the resizing goes to the Arnold matter where you said that you don't stretch images. How can someone pretend to have scaled an image if they didn't stretch it. It seems that you are just saying anything that comes to mind at any given particular moment without consideration as to how it plays against previous things you have said and done. I'd correct that flawed practice before you write that article for Scientific America concerning your scaling observations. (Just trying to be helpful!) Bill

What an odd thing to say. So you think that looking upward and straight on at the foliage is the same view you'd have being off to the side and looking downward? Take a moment from your trolling and look at the row of trees along the west stretch of the fence as seen from Nix's location and then look at the photo taken looking up the knoll .. one view shows space between the trees - the other shows them bunched together to a point of hiding whats beyond them. One would think Bowers could have seen where the Hat Man had gone, but he didn't - why? You continually cite things as fact that are not factual at all. What is even worse is that you seemingly purposely do it over and over again. Must be an obvious reason for it, but I imagine the forum rules don't allow for anyone to say what it is. Bill Miller

Ten years experience in creating transparency overlays. You may recall some of the Zfilm stabilizations I have created ... some of them keeping JFK and the limo the same size between frames. Oh yeah, did you not know that as the limo comes closer to Zapruder that it is always growing in size through the cameras lens. Create some clips while keeping the images the same size and you'll soon start seeing how things work. One such example: Bill

I believe you, Duncan. It only supports what I have said that you are not qualified to be checking these sorts of things out because you do not even know of or how to check the data you use so to get a correct result. Bill

It can be done within a small degree of error. What should be an embarrassment is that you applauded Duncan from the beginning while not believing he had the adequate programs to do the job correctly. It's called 'double talk' from where I come from. Bill Miller

Duncan, I said that as soon as I got the images I was seeking ... I would scale Arnold to Arnold and then there would be no denying the final results. Your notion that someone should post more garbage as if they are showing that they are trying to help - is a joke! You are asking someone like myself to make the same foolish mistakes that you have made by using the same bad data. Of course, you would find someone using flawed data by showing an ape in relation to Arnold's size a step in the right direction. I prefer to do it right by scaling a Gordon Arnold in one photo to himself from another photo so to be exact. Bill

Duncan, please do not insult my intelligence with this nonsense. We are not talking about trying to match an ape to the body proportions of Gordon Arnold, but rather we are talking about matching two pictures of Gordon Arnold's body proportions to each other. You had no trouble taking a photo of a soldier's lower body and widening it (while done poorly at that) and aligning it to the upper body of Arnold, so you are indeed capable of stretching a photograph. What you were incapable of, unless you purposely did it, was to not stretch the height of the lower body by the same ratio that the image had been widened. The result of this made the figure shorter than it should of been had it been done properly. So while I think your result was based more on incompetence, when you make statements like how you don't believe in stretching body proportions so to match when doing scaling test, then it makes me wonder if you have purposely made some of these mistakes and I want to give you more credit than that. Bill

Let me start by saying that any time you have compared the Badge Man figures to the actual Moorman photo or used another view of the wall from a different photo or film when showing your scaling efforts - YOU STRETCHED A REAL IMAGE!!! To say otherwise is misleading the reader. Here is something another respected researcher had written to me ... "Take a look at Duncan's post # 135, the one in which he writes, "I don't believe in stretching real photographs to make a comparison." Oh yeah? He stretched his example of Gordon Arnold on the knoll in 1988 for TMWKK. Simply right click on that image and you'll see the pixel ratio is 444 x 268 = 1.65:1. TV images are 1.33:1, not 1.65:1, so here Duncan is busted altering a picture and squashing it by a huge 24%." Having some experience myself in the study of body proportion differences between apes and man, I can say that the above nonsense is just more of someone either posting about something they know little about or it is being done to purposely confuse those who might not know better. One quick and easy example of this is that it is common knowledge that an apes forearm is longer than a mans. If someone thought they had a properly scaled human by making his body proportions match that of an ape, then they are sadly mistaken and once again pretending to by stating facts when nothing could be further from the truth. And because the body proportions of an ape compared to a man are common knowledge to anyone who has taken even a few minutes to read about it - the above statement appears to be nothing more than disinformation designed to mislead those who might be here to actually learn something. Bill Miller

What an odd thing to say. Maybe the ridiculous mistakes being made in the scaling department have come about because some people are attempting something they know little about. I agree with the last sentence. Certainly the question pertaining to being competent enough to properly investigate the matter was answered when Duncan's first illustration was applauded and called 'proof' of the figure being too small to be human when it clearly HAD NOT even been scaled in width correctly, thus making the height wrong as well. Then it was applauded once again when Duncan created yet another illustration that didn't even have the upper body of the two Arnold's scaled to match one another. The mismatch between the length of Gordon's forearms had gone unnoticed by a few. So in that aspect - the question had indeed been answered before it was ever properly investigated. Bill Miller

Miles, You doing this is like giving a baby a gun to play with. What have you done here? It looks like you used Arnold from the Badge Man images - along with Gordon's lower body from a still capture, and put them both on a wall that you suggest to be from the Muchmore film ... is this correct? If so, what did you do to insure the height of the Muchmore wall was the same as in Moorman's and are you not aware that Moorman's angle to Gordon was much steeper than Muchmore's?? Do you know how that effects how someone looks when seen beyond the wall??? I'm sorry, but your example is terribly flawed IMO. Bill Miller

What ever you say, Duncan. You just happened to NOT scale Arnold correctly when it comes to his height (because you don't believe in stretching an image) and that just so happens to be the issue here as to whether he was tall enough to have his feet reach the ground behind the wall. Give me a break! As far as you not stretching real photographs ... did you not learn anything about the Muchmore/ Moorman comparison. Unless the subjects from each photo in question was photographed with the same camera and from the same distance apart each time - one MUST stretch that person both vertically and horizontally to do what you have been wanting to find out. If you think I am kidding you, then surely there must be someone in Scotland who can explain it to you. How about James Gordon ... he's pretty sharp in this area. Bill

Wow ... You are correct, Duncan!!! The problem is that your scaling is way off once again. You merely created a Gordon Arnold that is not the same proportions as the one in Moorman's photo. How do I know this you ask??? Look at Arnold's forearms where they bend at the elbow. Belt lines can be worn at different heights depending on ones weight and type of clothing one is wearing, but Arnold's elbow to the top of his head or shoulder distance should not have changed with age or clothing styles - right!?? The Arnold you are still saying is too short has not been stretched vertically to scale with the Arnold seen with arm bent and holding a camera in the Badge Man images. You correct that noticeable mistake and you will see that Arnold's feet do end up behind the wall where they should be. I get the images I am seeking - I'll do it for everyone and there won't be anymore guess work going on here. Bill

That is not Bowers view/LOS IMO and the image was taken several years after the assassination occurred, thus there may no longer have been a bench to see. Bill Miller

The Josiah Thompson photo was not taken from the same LOS as the other Tower photos have shown. The elevation also seems to be different. I have sent a message to Josiah asking some questions concerning the photo, but no answer as of yet. Bill Miller

I noticed a pattern a long time ago and the pattern was that some people were trying to investigate something that they were not educated and/or experienced enough to understand, thus their conclusions were erroneous. Two different camera lenses can make a large difference on how big things look in their picture at different distances. One prime example of this can be seen by simply taking the wall in Moorman's photo and scaling it to size with the wall seen in Muchmore's film. Muchmore is filming the assassination by basically looking just over Moorman's right shoulder. When the two walls are scaled to the same size - the two limos are totally different sizes ... not even close. When the two limos are scaled to match each other, then the two knolls are way out of wack with one looking further away than the other. I have posted such an example in the past and I assume that you either missed it or never understood what was being said about it. Anyway, this is what happened in Jack's photo and you just don't understand these things well enough to make sense out of what you are seeing. In the Muchmore / Moorman illustration ... the two south dog legs are scaled the same. The limo is smaller than the limo in Moorman's photo and yet the men on the steps are larger than the same men seen in Moorman's photo. Understanding how these various lenses work can get technical and I do not thoroughly understand it all, but what I do understand is the differences are there and I can see them at work. Bill

Jack explained his picture quite well IMO. Jack also showed how the images would look if his picture was scaled down. I think your seemingly inability to follow these post can be traced back to something you have previously said about all this concerning Arnold. You said, "In all honesty, I don't want Arnold to be there. He interferes with my firm belief that the area was controlled, so that nobody, especially someone with a camera would get in the way." They are not out of proportion to the wall in front of them when one considers the camera lens they were photographed with. But you are comparing Moorman's lens to Turner's and different cameras show different magnifications and that is why the RR car in the Nix film looks like its just a few feet behind the fence when in reality it is clear across the RR yard. If it is your position that Turner's camera had the same lens as Moorman's, then please offer me what information that you can about that for I am not aware of it. Direct me to the photo if you will. Bill

You already prejudged my images and when did you turn over a new leaf and start raising the bar when it comes to pinpoint accuracy - Give me a break!!!

I supposed that your method could be done, but why not use a similar view of the real Arnold taken on the knoll? Would that be too accurate and that's why you prefer the cutting unknowns in half and stitching them together based on your best guesses?? I think I can offer you better than that ... so let's see what happens when I get the images I am thinking of. Bill