Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I really need to know the distance from the corner of the fence to the Hudson tree to give a considered response. Do you agree with miles that it's approximately 10ft? Are you asking the ground distance or the LOS distance? (Check Don's map) Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) Duncan, I'm with you 110% on this one. We can do without the solipsistic sophism from different quarters. Above all, we must keep this thing in perspective. Keep up the good...... great work, Duncan. EBC Edited June 25, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Duncan,I'm with you 110% on this one. We can do without the solipsistic sophism from different quarters. Above all, we must keep this thing in perspective. Keep up the good...... great work, Duncan. EBC Heartily concur with EBC here, Duncan. EBC, may I say, sir, re: "We can do without the solipsistic sophism from different quarters." that this, sir, is a triumph of understatement. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) Duncan,I'm with you 110% on this one. We can do without the solipsistic sophism from different quarters. Above all, we must keep this thing in perspective. Keep up the good...... great work, Duncan. EBC EBC, Interesting that you used the words "sophism" and "perspective" in your reply while still applauding Duncan's error as if it hasn't been shown to exist. The first two definitions refer to a science that is structured on how the reality of the universe works. The third definition would apply to someone trying to ignore the first two definitions and offering a deliberate invalid excuse as to why the more distant head outline in Duncan's illustration is so big when compared with the size of Hudson's head on a 2D image. Definitions - 1) perspective: The technique of representing three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface. 2) vanishing point: In linear perspective, the point on the horizon line at which lines or edges that are parallel appear to converge. 3) sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone. The photo example below showing the head shrinkage between witnesses at less than 20 feet apart (McKinnon to Newman) and again at around 40 feet apart (McKinnon to the cycle officer) is in scale with the field of view. The linear perspective is correct and the field of depth remains consistent throughout the photograph. The enlarged outline of Duncan's shooter compared to Hudson is posted below once again. The two images are to scale as taken from Duncan's past post and overlaid on top of each other for visual effect. The ratio of shrinkage between the heads of Duncan's outline and Hudson do not show the same ratio of shrinkage seen throughout other objects within Moorman's field of view. (I wasn't sure what the small images in an earlier post were all about ... they were too small IMO so to check for detailed accuracy, but when the enlargement is used, then it cuts down on the chances of sophism occurring. (see definition number 3). The head of someone on the steps should not fit into an outline of an alleged head seen much further away from the camera. Bill Miller Edited June 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) Miles, Thank you for your kind comments. You are a gentleman, a scholar and a prince....as we say in these parts of a person who is held in great esteem. With all due respect...... Eugene Edited June 25, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I notice the name of YOUR attachment is dunce. You should think more highly of yourself Bill, never mind, on with my answer to your statment Yes, I make quick illustrations and give them names that will best help me remember where they go. Then I delete them from my computer. Answer : While your statement is correct, No heads from ANYONE on the steps fits the alleged head. Take up my challenge. Add what you think would be an approprate sized hat to ANYONE on the steps and let see your magical perfect match. You failed to take up the challenge previosly, let's see you do it now instead of dancing around like a Ballerina on thin ice. No heads fits within the other??? Even the width of the head belonging to the guy on the steps fits within the outline. This is so ridiculous that your alleged head isn't even in the ball park. The differences in distance to the camera for each should be like seeing a baseball against the size of a soccer ball. Other than the numbered photo example being in black and white ... Did you not get anything else out of it? Question: Have you bothered emailing some of these points to an art teacher or someone experienced in photography to see if they are valid or not? If not - why not? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) BillYou can't fool anyone by being so simplistic with your analysis by comparing the Cancellare Telephoto lens with that of Moormans. Now what you illustrate in your composite as normal is actually not normal, and what you class as not normal is actually normal. Why? Because this is the result of the capture by the Moorman Camera Lens, and comparisons with different ratio's is not acceptable when you try to cheat by comparing with a different type of photograph capture suchas Cancellare to that of Moormans. Here's a quickly done gif to illustrate my point. It's not a perfect overlay, but it shows a more accurate comparison within the same photograph of the 2 figures compared to your sloppy artwork. Duncan, you seemingly could not follow a bloody elephant in a freshly fallen snow. I wasn't saying that the Moorman and Cancellare lenses were the same, but rather they all show a set ratio of sizing alike objects in their different fields of depth within a photo. So let us use just the Moorman photograph once again ... The distance between Hargis and Channey is between 15 to 18 feet at their closest points. The vast shrinkage between their heads in accordance with Moorman's camera is as follows - (see animation) Now note the distance between Hargis and Bill Newman which is approximately the distance between the alleged shooter and the men on the steps. Pretty big difference - right? Both seen through just Moorman's lens - right? Of course they are and this is why I have said that your alleged outline is not even in the ball park as far as someone being seen that big from such a distance. (see animation) Do their head sizes vastly differ or are they anywhere close to being the same??? Anyone can compare your outline of the alleged shooter's head in relation to the men on the steps and apply that to the same ratio of shrinkage that Moorman gives any two objects seen 35 to 40 feet further from the camera to the other. The rule of "perspective" is solid and your alleged shooter can not hold up against it and come across as real. You simply took a cluster of tree foliage and drew in an outline resembling human shape, while not considering its size in relationship to its distance from the camera. Don't take my word for it - feel free to email it to anyone experienced in art or photography and they will tell you the same thing. Bill Edited June 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) I won't be sidetracked by garbage. I'm asking you for a FOURTH time to do add a hat to the same stepman as I have used. You have the right to not comply with my request of course, but I suspect you may not be complying because you know I am correct and can't find a way to wiggle out of it other than to diversify.Duncan Duncan - you can draw in a ten gallon hat or a hat the size that an organ grinder's monkey would wear ... none of it has anything to do with the still increased shrinkage ratio that your drawing doesn't allow for. I mean - you also told us about seeing a face as well and we can imagine how the face fits on the head and the head fits inside the hat - we got it! The images used in response #193 were all found on Moorman's photo in which Mary photographed them all through the same camera lens, thus no confusion over lens differences should arise. So all is left is the size variances. Have you compared the head size difference between Hargis and Bill Newman to that of your alleged shooter and the men on the steps or would doing that also be considered garbage and should be avoided at all cost??? Bill Edited June 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) You are comparing a full head of the stepman to a full head with a hat on to get a result that satisfies your ego.That's like comparing a Giraffe to a mouse standing on a set of ladders..It doesn't wash. Some might swallow it, I don't..Only your secret PM sending lurkers support you, and even then there's no proof that they actually exist. 5th time of asking..You know the question.Duncan Duncan, you are sounding like a spoiled kid. If you could rebut what I have said by way of someone with expertise in the matter - there is no doubt in my mind that you would do so. Until you do, then IMO you are wasting my time for now it isn't an opinion you have based on any factual data, but rather on a belief system. Bill Edited June 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I think your refusal ( which is within your rights ) to put a realistically sized hat on stepman is an admission that YOU know, that by doing so, it would obliterate your perspective comparison analysis in this instance. I think almost everyone reading this thread would agreeDuncan Duncan, I have been talking about the head sizes. The hat has nothing to do with anything because the size difference in their heads alone should be far greater and they are not. Any luck having someone of expertise look at the image? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) Duncan, I have been talking about the head sizes. The hat has nothing to do with anything because the size difference in their heads alone should be far greater and they are not. Any luck having someone of expertise look at the image?Bill] Oh Yeah?..Well why did you insist, I repeat, INSIST, that I upload the full outlined image including the hat, for you to compare with the stepman head. You're still dancing, but your feet must have blisters by now. Duncan The answer is simple ... I wanted people to compare YOUR outline of the alleged man's head against that of Emmett Hudson's or any of the other men on the steps. By using YOUR outline, then there can be no room for saying that I misrepresented the borders of YOUR alleged figure. Bill (see image in post #197) Edited June 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) The answer is simple ... I wanted people to compare YOUR outline of the alleged man's head against that of Emmett Hudson's or any of the other men on the steps. By using YOUR outline, then there can be no room for saying that I misrepresented the borders of YOUR alleged figure. Bill Let me rewrite what you are REALLY saying. The answer is simple... I wanted people to compare YOUR outline of the alleged man's head PLUS his hat against only the face of Emmett Hudson's or any of the other men's faces on the steps WITHOUT a hat to create the illusion that both subjects were measured accurately with each other using the same facial features, hoping no one will notice the difference.. By using MY faulty deceptive measuring system, I can then say to myself, but not anyone else, that I misrepresented the borders of YOUR alleged figure. Duncan, I have made my position very clear and even used various assassination images to show how 'perspective' works. I think someone, maybe YOU, replied with some silly remark about Picasso's paintings not keeping things in perspective ... as if that had anything to do with the real world. (sigh~) You then posted several small images of this alleged character ... one such example someone posted what looked like 4 bird droppings as if that would be helpful. Instead, I stuck with the enlargement showing YOUR outline against that of the men on the steps. I have repeatedly pointed out that even with the hat on or off - YOUR alleged drawing is many times still too large for that distance from Moorman's camera. I have asked you several times to have it checked by someone experienced in perspective like an art teacher or a photographer - and I so far you have not said anything about even wanting to test your position. Until you do so, then IMO you are just making excuses to try and salvage a bad interpretation. Bill Edited June 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) deleted duplicate post Edited June 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) Duncan, I have made my position very clearBill Clear as mud. Let's take a different approach. Using your self proclaimed expertise, and using your self proclaimed perfect perspective analysis system, tell me how you can justify the existance of Gordon Arnold behind the wall, and Badgeman and Railroadman behind the fence? I've inserted a colourised version to scale. The balls still in your court Duncan Sure, Mary Moorman is looking uphill and they are different distances from her camera - just as Hudson and YOUR alleged assassin is at a difference distance from the camera. Get Don's map and do some measurements. then maybe you'll better understand what you see and why you see it the way you do. Len Colby and John Dolva are pretty sharp - ask them to work out the shrinkage ratios and apply it to YOUR alleged assassin. Bill Edited June 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 No one needs an invite to join this thread. If John and Len wish to contibute, they will.Now let's get back to my question which you danced around once again. Using your analysis method, how can you justify the existance of Gordon Arnold as a real and perspectively accurate figure in Moorman. I would also request that you place a mark where you think his feet would be. Duncan No, but normally someone who is making claims that have been called into question will want to solicit the help of another so to try and see if their observations are correct .... unless of course one doesn't really want to risk finding out that they are incorrect. About your Arnold figure ... can you post the image without the color crop inserted. You see, the first thing I have learned by now is to check and make sure that the insert is actually scaled properly. Thanks! Bill 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