Robin Unger Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Thanks Miles. I beleive the ground level behind the wall has changed in height since 1963. ? So the current images i have showing behind the wall don't show the true height as it was during the assassination. Perhaps some one can confirm if that is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Duncan the format problem may be at your end, the forum still looks the same as it always has to me. No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) Why was it necessary to mention the slope?Puzzle? What puzzle? (see: What mound? A four foot high mound? That is correct. Duncan's work is masterly. Yes, I did the research. Duncan used a ruler. For someone who appears to be a pretty thick individual - you are really transparent. When you have gone back and actually looked at the available information and addressed it, then I will take you seriously enough to attempt to educate you on a few things that you obviously missed or purposely pretended not to get. Geoffrey Crawley, one of the world's foremost photography experts, respected by his peers as the expert's expert, found via detailed analysis that Arnold was a midget. Maybe you can explain how it is that people have replicated the image by using real people who were not midgets? And let us keep in mind that Yarborough said that he saw Arnold standing beyond the wall and Ralph mentioned how Gordon dove to the ground when the shooting occurred .... little legs and all.Why should one keep this in mind? It does not bear on the unreality of the alleged Arnold Image in Moorman. Well, like I pointed out in another response ... If a witness said that he saw the man standing beyond the wall in real life, then the cartoon scaling job must be wrong because Yarborough validates Jack's finding by acknowledging that he saw the man. I am amazed (when I probably shouldn't be) that you and Duncan both failed to see the significance of Yarborough's seeing this individual. My opinion is that Duncan's work reinforces Crawley's conclusions. We can thank him! I would have thought that Crawley would be concerned that Duncan's illustration reinforced any of his conclusions. Bill Miller Edited August 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) duplicate post deleted Edited August 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Duncan the format problem may be at your end, the forum still looks the same as it always has to me. No problem. I am thinking that maybe Duncan enhanced his computer screen like he did the BDM and that's why he can't make heads or tails out of the formatting. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Duncan the format problem may be at your end, the forum still looks the same as it always has to me. No problem. Thanks Robin, Do you know if there should be a " View All " option similar to the Lancer function? I can't find anything in my control panel. My display shows all the posts like lancer Check display Options upper right hand corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) Thanks Miles. My display is set to STANDARD that show it in a linear format thread 1,2,3,4, etc: Edited August 9, 2007 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 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 Duncan, To start with - the belt on Arnold protrudes out further than your cartoon insert. Maybe if you make them both the same width, then perhaps some more height will be required to make the figure more proportionate. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) Area between the wall and the picket fence. Thanks for that Robin. As far as I can see, the slope was minimal, and nothing to change my analysis. Duncan The answer above reflects what I said about some people being better qualified than others when it comes to reading these images. The wall is part way down the slope from the fence and is why the slope is important in determining where Arnold's feet would touch the ground. This point has been overlooked several times now. A red line has been placed along the base of the fence to show how much higher against the wall it looks from Moorman's location. (Note the line behind the wall is subject to change, but I think we can agree as to where it meets the wall and slips immediately behind it) Bill Edited August 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Yeah!!!....It's so ridiculous that you have absolutely nothing to combat my claim in the photographic record of Arnold in Moorman. You don't need to ask if anyone knows how I scaled the legs, that's a desperate spin. It was simple, I got a picture of a soldier ( Uploaded ) and resized them to give an approximate size for the non existant floating Arnold with legs as they would have been seen on the non existant floating Arnold if the wall had not been there. I'm still waiting for you to do your own resizing comparison to prove me wrong, but as Alan says, I won't hold my breath. Why?..Because any results you get will be no different from mine, and you clearly, as demonstrated by your non compliance of my request so far, are bowing out and conceding in my favour the photographic resizing comparison issue by default So let me get this straight ... your position is that if no one addresses a ridiculously poorly scaled image that is being used to support a silly claim, then the claim must be valid by default ... is that your position??? I also gotta tell you that the width of your cartoon scaling is not accurate either. Like who?, Tell me who has a diploma in JFK Photographic studies, what their qualifications are, and how anyone goes about getting such a ridiculous qualification. People like Jack, Craig, David etc have technical professional qualifications, but at the end of the day, we all have basically the same tool in looking at photographs, our eyes. Yes Duncan, and was it not your eyes who said there was a tripod in the doorway of the shelter in the Betzner photo? And was it not your eyes who said there was an assassin standing atop of the colonnade in the same photo? Lots of people have eyes, but they will openly admit that they are inept at reading still images. So to answer your question ... there is more to this stuff than just having a set of eyes. And who is qualified to read images - let's start with MIT who Jack had look at the Badge Man images to see if they could validate his findings. Maybe you should do the same - send them that ridiculous Arnold example you created and see what they tell you ... then post their response! And let us keep in mind that Yarborough said that he saw Arnold standing beyond the wall and Ralph mentioned how Gordon dove to the ground when the shooting occurred .... little legs and all. (sigh~) What a waste of time in my opinion.We are discussing the photographic record as it stands, not witness stories. As things are, Arnold would need to have been standing on a small Girraffe to fit your theory LOL Well, Yarborough seeing the man standing there in real life is one way of validating what one thinks they see in a photo. You say the figure is too small - Yarborough said the figure was a real person. This tells a reasonably intelligent person that YOU possibly made an error in your cartoon scaling. Bill It was Gary Mack, not me, who made the arrangements which resulted in MIT studying and validating the badgeman image. The National Inquirer footed the expense. I prefer the expertise of Dr. Wu to that of Duncan. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Area between the wall and the picket fence. Thanks for that Robin. As far as I can see, the slope was minimal, and nothing to change my analysis. Duncan The answer above reflects what I said about some people being better qualified than others when it comes to reading these images. The wall is part way down the slope from the fence and is why the slope is important in determining where Arnold's feet would touch the ground. This point has been overlooked several times now. A red line has been placed along the base of the fence to show how much higher against the wall it looks from Moorman's location. (Note the line behind the wall is subject to change, but I think we can agree as to where it meets the wall and slips immediately behind it) Bill If you are going to do an analysis make sure you use images and data from the known 22nd Nov 1963 images and available data, and not garbage images like you just posted which bears no resemblance to how the area behind the wall was in 1963 Duncan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) With respect Peter,that's not really the issue anymore. What they really should of asked him was, "why were you floating four feet or more above the ground if you were standing "between the wall & the fence""?". Has not anyone noticed that the slope of the knoll near the fence is higher in Moorman's field of view that the base of the wall I noticed the slope. .... of course not or you guys would have mentioned it. Why was it necessary to mention the slope? That is part of the puzzle. Puzzle? What puzzle? (see: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm) The mound of dirt he said he stood on is another. What mound? A four foot high mound? The last piece of the puzzle is the ridiculously poor sizing job Duncan That is correct. Duncan's work is masterly. did by attempting to place legs onto the upper body ... does anyone know how Duncan scaled those legs vertically??? Yes, I did the research. Duncan used a ruler. Like I alluded to before ... there is a reason why people far more capable at studying images than we are who has seen the Badge Man images and never said anything about Arnold being the too small. Geoffrey Crawley, one of the world's foremost photography experts, respected by his peers as the expert's expert, found via detailed analysis that Arnold was a midget. Again see: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm And let us keep in mind that Yarborough said that he saw Arnold standing beyond the wall and Ralph mentioned how Gordon dove to the ground when the shooting occurred .... little legs and all. Why should one keep this in mind? It does not bear on the unreality of the alleged Arnold Image in Moorman. (sigh~) What a waste of time in my opinion. My opinion is that Duncan's work reinforces Crawley's conclusions. We can thank him! Bill Miller The last piece of the puzzle is the ridiculously poor sizing job Duncan That is correct. Duncan's work is masterly. did by attempting to place legs onto the upper body ... does anyone know how Duncan scaled those legs vertically??? Yes, I did the research. Duncan used a ruler. Miller's response to my assertion that Duncan used a ruler: For someone who appears to be a pretty thick individual - you are really transparent. When you have gone back and actually looked at the available information and addressed it, then I will take you seriously enough to attempt to educate you on a few things that you obviously missed or purposely pretended not to get. -- Miller What did I miss? That Arnold's floating in midget togs? How DID Duncan do this feat of magic? It was simple, I got a picture of a soldier ( Uploaded ) and resized them to give an approximate size for the non existant floating Arnold with legs as they would have been seen on the non existant floating Arnold if the wall had not been there. -- Duncan Presto chango! Calliper, two colour coded lengths of thread (fine gauge) & a millimetre incremented ruby crystal photographer's RULER & the imagination of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Boom-bodda-bing, a figure floats up. Edited August 9, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) If you are going to do an analysis make sure you use images and data from the known 22nd Nov 1963 images and available data, and not garbage images like you just posted which bears no resemblance to how the area behind the wall was in 1963 Duncan Duncan, please explain your answer better if you will. I want to give you the chance to show that your reply is based on a reasonable assumption and not mere grandstanding. For instance: The knoll, the concrete wall, the fence, the steps, the shelter, the large trees among other major reference points were basically unchanged at the time I took the photographs .... (see below) So now that I have shown that Moorman's knoll is still basically the same as the knoll in my photograph illustration, would you care to tell me how my knoll doesn't resembled the image Moorman captured??? Thanks, Bill Miller Edited August 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 What did I miss? That Arnold's floating in midget togs?How DID Duncan do this feat of magic? Presto chango! Calliper, two colour coded lengths of thread (fine gauge) & a millimetre incremented ruby crystal photographer's RULER & the imagination of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Boom-bodda-bing, a figure floats up. Is there anything specific you'd like to discuss or are you avoiding doing that research that you have said you do not have time for? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Miles, See the transparency overlay in response #341. Now does the plaque really seem that significant at this point. (smiling~) Bill Miller 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