Miles Scull Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) It has now been more than three hours since this study was posted.All is quiet. Must have rattled some cages. No, it will not go away. Jack Gratz is attempting to flood the board to keep this topic off of page 1. Of the 11 topics on page one now, 8 are posted by Gratz. Won't work. Jack Thanks much Jack and Bernice.....I think you solved the problem of the 'Arnold' 'doll'. As for Gratz, he apparently feels it his 'patriotic duty' to divert, thwart, reverse, and clog threads. Peter..Why do you think Jack has solved this when his misleading analysis is miles out? My analysis is done to exact scale, and nothing has been altered as Jack claims. Anyone with half a brain can check my sizing for accuracy. He is JACKS b/w Moorman overlaid with JACKS colourised Moormans, with Tink Thomsons Moorman as the base reference and scaling factor . Now tell me whats wrong with it? Duncan Duncan, As a side question, is the Arnold figure supposedly filming with the camera held to his face with his right hand while his left arm remains down along his left side (with his left hand near his left trouser's pocket)? I would have thought that a camera of this size & weight would have required two hands for heft & support stabilization. Yes? Miles Edited August 8, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Duncan, As a side question, is the Arnold figure supposedly filming with the camera held to his face with his right hand while his left arm remains down along his left side (with his left hand near his left trouser's pocket)? I would have thought that a camera of this size & weight would have required two hands for heft & support stabilisation. Yes? Miles I don't really know how someone would hold a specific camera to be honest Miles, different people hold different things in different ways, but as the Moorman Arnold is not real, as I think I have proved, I don't think it's worth the time speculating on that aspect of the floating G.I. Joe Arnold torso as it's just a distraction from the main issue giving those who disagree the opportunity to jump abord and sidetack. Duncan Duncan, Very good. Holding, then, to your specific focus, would you mind assisting (me & perhaps others) by succinctly laying out a recapitulation of your proof of the invalidity of the so called Arnold figure in Moorman? Correct me, but your argument rests on perspective considerations. How exactly? What else impinges? What are the logic steps of your argument? Thx Miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Bernice is about to post a comparison here which reveals whythe midget Arnold floats in the air. Thanks Bernice! Jack B...... I assume in the Badgeman image below, that the belt and top of the pants are visible on the Arnold figure. ? The height on turner doesn't match. ? His belt line is down behind the wall not above it, and his head does not appear over Badgeman's head as it does in Jacks original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I have looked at Duncans overlay closely, and i can't find fault with it. The scaling seems correct, and the shadows and light spot area's in the Badgeman and thompsons images appear to match. I would like to see Bill Miller's equivalent for comparison. But i'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Hi Jack:Here you go..... B... Does anyone have the physical dimensions of this camera? How is it held to the eye by only the right hand for filming? Is the activation button pressed in by the little finger tip? Is that procedure reasonable given the anatomy of the hand? Would not such a procedure on Arnold's part require Arnold's right elbow to be seen swung further to his left, in front of Arnold's appendix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Bernice is about to post a comparison here which reveals whythe midget Arnold floats in the air. Thanks Bernice! Jack B...... I assume in the Badgeman image below, that the belt and top of the pants are visible on the Arnold figure. ? The height on turner doesn't match. ? His belt line is down behind the wall not above it, and his head does not appear over Badgeman's head as it does in Jacks original. Hi, Robin...there are not exact answers to your questions. My interpretation has always been, regarding a "belt and top of pants" is that they are not seen, but hidden behind the left forearm, which is across the waist and being used to support the right elbow to steady the camera. The bright spot on the left arm seems to be a wristwatch. As a matter of anatomy, place your arm in the position of the right arm, and you will note that your ELBOW is at your waistline, so my answer is that the waistline is not seen, but is at the level of the elbow. It is difficult to compare with any accuracy the heights of the people in Moorman and the Turner photo. I am about 6'3" and Larry Harris was about 6'. I think Ken is close to my height, maybe an inch shorter. The heights of any people in Moorman is unknown. This is complicated by the explicit statement of Arnold on many occasions that HE STOOD ON A PILE OF DIRT TO BE HIGHER. This statement is so specific that it seems unlikely that it would be made up. Gary and I always wondered about this, because no such pile is seen in other pictures. Another unknown is what the two men behind the fence were standing on. Their waists are even with the top of the five foot fence, but we do not know whether the men were tall or short. In the Turner photo Larry and I stood on the bumper of Nigel's car, which was about 18". Another possibility is that the entire Moorman photo has somehow been compromised. Since I am now certain that tampering is evident with the Zapruder/Sitzman figures, how can I be certain other areas are untampered? The entire image could be a red herring, but I doubt it. If I was too harsh with Duncan, I apologize. It could be that he may have discovered something which deserves further study. It may be that the figures in Moorman have all been inserted at a wrong scale. However, I must point out that Nigel's photo seems to me to confirm the likelihood of three persons in those locations. Another factor is where Moorman stood vs where Nigel stood. I remember Nigel standing on the grass about two feet from the curb. But I believe Mary was off the curb about 9 inches lower. This is noticeable by looking at the height of the picket fence in relation to the height of the concrete wall which indicates a difference in vertical point of view. There are too many variables to say anything with certitude. But clearly Duncan did not take into account the width of the concrete wall. Jack Edited August 8, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Hi Jack:Here you go..... B... Does anyone have the physical dimensions of this camera? How is it held to the eye by only the right hand for filming? Is the activation button pressed in by the little finger tip? Is that procedure reasonable given the anatomy of the hand? Would not such a procedure on Arnold's part require Arnold's right elbow to be seen swung further to his left, in front of Arnold's appendix? This crop further illustrates the unnatural contortion of Arnold's right hand required by Arnold's supposed filming procedure using this camera. The figure in the crop clearly shows, by not being true to Arnold's figure in Moorman, the extent of the contortion of hand required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Thanks for the comments Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Miles. In the youtube video of Arnold that Duncan posted, i think from memory it showed his camera panning technique. ? Not sure, but worth a look. Edited August 8, 2007 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I have never been able to confirm, but my impression is that Arnold's camera was equipped with a PISTOL GRIP, which allowed for easy one-handed operation. I had a pistol grip on two of my cameras. The Apollo "astronauts" had a pistol grip camera. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I have never been able to confirm, but my impression is thatArnold's camera was equipped with a PISTOL GRIP, which allowed for easy one-handed operation. I had a pistol grip on two of my cameras. The Apollo "astronauts" had a pistol grip camera. Jack Robin, thx for pointer. In TMWKK Arnold demonstrates his panning method as holding the camera with two hands. No pistol grip. However, looking at this crop: It would seem that there are certain anatomical proportionality problems. The right forearm seems too long for a proportional fit or match with the other arm segment lengths. (The right forearm would appear to be extended in length by a having coupled to it a prosthetic device.) The left arm's segment from shoulder to elbow seems too long for a proportional jibe. IOWs, the anatomical geometry doesn't tally up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I challenge Jack, Bill, or anyone to prove that my scaling is wrong as I have been falsely accused of alteration in order to deceive this forum. I have pointed green lines towards the common points to prove that my analysis is an honest, non deciving, not altered true representation of proof that Arnold is not real.Duncan The proper way to do an overlay to show the scaling to be exact is to keep the lines seen at all times so to see if the image shifts at all. As far as you deceiving anyone - I do not think that is the case. I just think you are not very qualified to be doing what you're trying to do. The lower half of your Arnold figure is ridiculous in my view and the naked eye can pick up on the scaling problem. The funny thing about your inability to see outside the box is that Groden, myself, Jack, and so on have used stand-ins who were standing on the ground and they looked just like the figures in the Badge Man images, thus your illustration must have some serious problems that you are not capable of seeing. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) I assume in the Badgeman image below, that the belt and top of the pants are visible on the Arnold figure. ?The height on turner doesn't match. ? His belt line is down behind the wall not above it, and his head does not appear over Badgeman's head as it does in Jacks original. Arnold said to Golz that he stood on a high spot of ground ... I believe he used the term "mound". For one to understand the image - one should first see if the fence in the recreation photo is as high against the concrete wall as it is seen in Moorman's photo - this of course can throw the image off if the test pic was not taken precisely from where Moorman stood. It is also worth noting that a young service man wore his pants higher than an aging man with a big gut. For an example - do a search under the name "Gomer Pyle" and see how he wore his uniform. If this is the case, then the younger Arnold's belt would be higher than the aging Arnold's belt. The missing mound of dirt in latter photos would also be a factor. I also believe that you will find that Turner's view of the knoll was not meant to be a recreation. To make a comparison - align the two images and see if anything matches ... I suspect that it will not. Bill Edited August 8, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 quote: It is also worth noting that a young service man wore his pants higher than an aging man with a big gut. For an example - do a search under the name "Gomer Pyle" and see how he wore his uniform. If this is the case, then the younger Arnold's belt would be higher than the aging Arnold's belt. If you read my post again you will see that is exactly what i was saying, i see what looks to me like the top of the Arnold figures pants just above the wall. Hence the question to Jack, is that a belt i see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I assume in the Badgeman image below, that the belt and top of the pants are visible on the Arnold figure. ?The height on turner doesn't match. ? His belt line is down behind the wall not above it, and his head does not appear over Badgeman's head as it does in Jacks original. Arnold said to Golz that he stood on a high spot of ground ... I believe he used the term "mound". For one to understand the image - one should first see if the fence in the recreation photo is as high against the concrete wall as it is seen in Moorman's photo - this of course can throw the image off if the test pic was not taken precisely from where Moorman stood. It is also worth noting that a young service man wore his pants higher than an aging man with a big gut. For an example - do a search under the name "Gomer Pyle" and see how he wore his uniform. If this is the case, then the younger Arnold's belt would be higher than the aging Arnold's belt. The missing mound of dirt in latter photos would also be a factor. I also believe that you will find that Turner's view of the knoll was not meant to be a recreation. To make a comparison - align the two images and see if anything matches ... I suspect that it will not. Bill I assume in the Badgeman image below, that the belt and top of the pants are visible on the Arnold figure. ?The height on turner doesn't match. ? His belt line is down behind the wall not above it, and his head does not appear over Badgeman's head as it does in Jacks original. Arnold said to Golz that he stood on a high spot of ground ... I believe he used the term "mound". For one to understand the image - one should first see if the fence in the recreation photo is as high against the concrete wall as it is seen in Moorman's photo - this of course can throw the image off if the test pic was not taken precisely from where Moorman stood. It is also worth noting that a young service man wore his pants higher than an aging man with a big gut. For an example - do a search under the name "Gomer Pyle" and see how he wore his uniform. If this is the case, then the younger Arnold's belt would be higher than the aging Arnold's belt. The missing mound of dirt in latter photos would also be a factor. I also believe that you will find that Turner's view of the knoll was not meant to be a recreation. To make a comparison - align the two images and see if anything matches ... I suspect that it will not. Bill It is CORRECT that Nigel was NOT doing a RECREATION; he wanted to satisfy himself that three persons we see in Moorman could be photographed in the correct size and location from Mary's position. The whole operation took perhaps ten minutes; if it had been a "recreation", we likely would have taken an hour to get it all right, and done it with a Polaroid for an exact match. I think he came pretty close. Also...Arnold's BELT is not seen; that is his left forearm across his waist, steadying his right elbow. His wrist watch can be seen. Jack 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