Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Try posting the original photographs which made up your gif as none of the individual frames show a unique photograph, and as such are useless as a comparison study. Your gif comprises of 2 frames, each of which contains a FAKE Arnold. Duncan Duncan, You are all over the place so much that it takes a experienced tracker to follow your thoughts! First we start with your not liking the photo I posted showing the fence line and how high it rises onto the wall in Moorman's field of view. So then I post an overlay I did of the same knoll taken during the same visit to Dallas as the other photo was. The significance was to show that the wall - fence - trees and so on were unchanged as far as their locations go ... so then you go on about seeing Mike Brown standing where Arnold did. Two photos intertwined - one B&W - the other in color and they align so well that even the major tree limbs are seen coming over the top of one another and that is why I asked what was it about that photo that didn't resemble the knoll in Moorman's photo. I do not know why you do it, but you seem to purposely miss the points being made. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Butler Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Has anyone studied some of the aftermath photo's to get an idea of the perspective of the slope ? There appear to be a couple with people just behind the wall and alongside it that might be useful to try and guage how much of a slope there is and where the wall comes to on the figures..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Try posting the original photographs which made up your gif as none of the individual frames show a unique photograph, and as such are useless as a comparison study. Your gif comprises of 2 frames, each of which contains a FAKE Arnold. Duncan Duncan, You are all over the place so much that it takes a experienced tracker to follow your thoughts! First we start with your not liking the photo I posted showing the fence line and how high it rises onto the wall in Moorman's field of view. So then I post an overlay I did of the same knoll taken during the same visit to Dallas as the other photo was. The significance was to show that the wall - fence - trees and so on were unchanged as far as their locations go ... so then you go on about seeing Mike Brown standing where Arnold did. Two photos intertwined - one B&W - the other in color and they align so well that even the major tree limbs are seen coming over the top of one another and that is why I asked what was it about that photo that didn't resemble the knoll in Moorman's photo. I do not know why you do it, but you seem to purposely miss the points being made. Bill I repeat....Try posting the original photographs which made up your gif as none of the individual frames show a unique photograph, and as such are useless as a comparison study. Your gif comprises of 2 frames, each of which contains a FAKE Arnold. Duncan Duncan is correct, this first frame of the Gif does not show Arnold at all, it could just be fakery. It's just a black blob & It looks suspiciously tall to me. One thing about these researchers who have gone to the plaza & lined up this "Alleged Arnold" figure with Moorman using real people. They have never reported one single inconsitancy with the whole idea, his story is perfect(according to them), he is considered a "real witness" & anyone that continuilly contests this so called evidence with them, eventually gets called an idiot or a disinformation artist. Now either what they found lined up perfectly or we have been led astray. Now neither the Turner photo, or this Gif of Bills comes anywhere close to proving it lines up. So you can fight your way with tooth & claw to get better visuals(that seems to be the fashion these days) for everyone's sake. Or we can somehow work together. No one has proved that these figures really line up with real people, it's just been repeated until most people believe it. I don't believe it anymore & I want some real proof, not slight of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy 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 You would need to be a physic to read that photo & tell if what you said about it was accurate. It is of no real help whatsoever. You cannot find out where his feet would be until you size a stand in correctly but going there to find this out with the idea in your head that he stood in a specific spot west of the pathway may bring you back tainted results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Has anyone studied some of the aftermath photo's to get an idea of the perspective of the slope ? There appear to be a couple with people just behind the wall and alongside it that might be useful to try and guage how much of a slope there is and where the wall comes to on the figures..... David, The only photo I know of which might be used for comparison I believe the photographer's name is William Allen. Perhaps someone has a better copy. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I repeat....Try posting the original photographs which made up your gif as none of the individual frames show a unique photograph, and as such are useless as a comparison study. Your gif comprises of 2 frames, each of which contains a FAKE Arnold.Duncan Duncan, I am curious ... when you say a "faked Arnold", are you saying that there is no one seen over the wall in the good Moorman photograph print that Jack White used? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Butler Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Thanks Chris...I was just thinking out loud that there might be something out there from a different angle that might provide a better view of the slope which appears to be the only unknown factor in the studies prestented (as it's hidden behind the wall in Moorman's Polaroid). Maybe something like the Towner photo (3 ?) which has a man at the top of the steps not that far from where the alleged Arnold should be and perhaps could be used to work out if the slope is sufficient that the "floating in the air" part could be corroborated against perhaps.... I'm not sure really...I think there is a valid point that has been made that the sizing of the Arnold figure seems wrong given that he is a fair bit closer to the Moorman lens than the Badgeman figure...I think that certainly deserves further study.....However the floating in the air part I'm not convinced just yet as looking at the aftermath photo's it doesn't appear that the slope is that pronounced that the figure can possibly be that far in the air at that point in time... But just my 2 pennies FWIW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) Duncan is correct, this first frame of the Gif does not show Arnold at all, it could just be fakery.It's just a black blob & It looks suspiciously tall to me. How could Duncan not be right ... I have said repeatedly that the figure is Mike Brown - a black African American. Part of Moorman's photo comes into view in b&w ... and the other in color. Because Gordon was light and Mike is black - Mikes figure remains the dominant one between the two. Let me remind you that I did post inserts next to the stand-ins to show how they stacked against one another. Below is one such previously posted image pertaining to the many past discussions over those images. It is a joke IMO to go on about a gif that was designed to show how the stand-ins looked against Moorman's photo - if one wishes to compare the Badge Man figures to the stand-ins - examples like the one posted below was provided, thus no one was hiding anything. The only thing that seems to be being hidden is the fact that other images did exist that addressed your concerns - why you pretended that they didn't exist is anyone's guess. One thing about these researchers who have gone to the plaza & lined up this "Alleged Arnold" figure with Moorman using real people. They have never reported one single inconsitancy with the whole idea, his story is perfect(according to them), he is considered a "real witness" & anyone that continuilly contests this so called evidence with them, eventually gets called an idiot or a disinformation artist. I don't think it is necessary to call anyone an idiot ... usually their responses do that for them. As has been said a few times now on this subject - many of us started out checking Gordon's story without knowing where it would lead. We looked at all the evidence and some of us were able to draw our conclusions at that point. However, we didn't get to that point by trying to nit pick whether the steps are west of the wall or not. No one has proved that these figures really line up with real people, it's just been repeated until most people believe it.I don't believe it anymore & I want some real proof, not slight of hand. I wouldn't say that no one has done anything until you search the archives and refresh yourself on what has been posted in the past. The test below was to show how tall Brown would look compared to the Badge Man, who was played by Tony Cummings. Arnold appearing higher into the air than Badge Man was confirmed by this particular test. This photo gave me an idea as tpo where Arnold must have been in Moorman's photo which I didn't know where Brown was exactly until after the photo was taken. Brown's position was at the same location Arnold said where he stood in TMWKK. The only difference was Brown didn't have a mound of dirt under him like Arnold had, thus lifting Gordon even higher in Mary's field of view. Bill Miller Edited September 27, 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 You know exactly what i'm saying. I'm saying that you provided a gif composite comprising of 2 different frames, each of which contained crossover relics of each other. The stand ins or drawings you used do not come close to emulating the Arnold floating torso . Duncan Duncan, I don't think that you even know at this point what it is that you are saying. The reason the stand-ins don't emulate a floating Arnold is because there was no floating Arnold. If you think there was a floating Arnold - contact Turner and see if he will put you in the next TMWKK series? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Duncan is correct, this first frame of the Gif does not show Arnold at all, it could just be fakery.It's just a black blob & It looks suspiciously tall to me. How could Duncan not be right ... I have said repeatedly that the figure is Mike Brown - a black African American. Part of Moorman's photo comes into view in b&w ... and the other in color. Because Gordon was light and Mike is black - Mikes figure remains the dominant one between the two. Let me remind you that I did post inserts next to the stand-ins to show how they stacked against one another. Below is one such previously posted image pertaining to the many past discussions over those images. It is a joke IMO to go on about a gif that was designed to show how the stand-ins looked against Moorman's photo - if one wishes to compare the Badge Man figures to the stand-ins - examples like the one posted below was provided, thus no one was hiding anything. The only thing that seems to be being hidden is the fact that other images did exist that addressed your concerns - why you pretended that they didn't exist is anyone's guess. One thing about these researchers who have gone to the plaza & lined up this "Alleged Arnold" figure with Moorman using real people. They have never reported one single inconsitancy with the whole idea, his story is perfect(according to them), he is considered a "real witness" & anyone that continuilly contests this so called evidence with them, eventually gets called an idiot or a disinformation artist. I don't think it is necessary to call anyone an idiot ... usually their responses do that for them. As has been said a few times now on this subject - many of us started out checking Gordon's story without knowing where it would lead. We looked at all the evidence and some of us were able to draw our conclusions at that point. However, we didn't get to that point by trying to nit pick whether the steps are west of the wall or not. No one has proved that these figures really line up with real people, it's just been repeated until most people believe it.I don't believe it anymore & I want some real proof, not slight of hand. I wouldn't say that no one has done anything until you search the archives and refresh yourself on what has been posted in the past. The test below was to show how tall Brown would look compared to the Badge Man, who was played by Tony Cummings. Arnold appearing higher into the air than Badge Man was confirmed by this particular test. This photo gave me an idea as tpo where Arnold must have been in Moorman's photo which I didn't know where Brown was exactly until after the photo was taken. Brown's position was at the same location Arnold said where he stood in TMWKK. The only difference was Brown didn't have a mound of dirt under him like Arnold had, thus lifting Gordon even higher in Mary's field of view. Bill Miller Isn't his name ANDREW BROWN? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Has anyone studied some of the aftermath photo's to get an idea of the perspective of the slope ? There appear to be a couple with people just behind the wall and alongside it that might be useful to try and guage how much of a slope there is and where the wall comes to on the figures..... Sure we have ... I have looked at the slope in pictures and film ... stood on the slope ... and took recreation pictures showing the slope. Anyone wanting a better idea of the slope and how the ground rises in Moorman's field of view, then use a frame from Marie Muchmore's film. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Isn't his name ANDREW BROWN?Jack Groden introduced him as "Mike" when I first met him. Sometimes Robert will also refer to him as "Big Mike". I recently discovered that Mike doesn't work for Groden any longer. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 None of your stand in cans emulate ANY kind of Arnold, floating or otherwise. Using fake composites to justify your analysis is garbage. One of your " Arnolds" in your 2 frame gif is not human..It has been altered to the point that it is just a black blob designed to look like Black Dog Man in Betzner and Willis. You are not fooling anyone.Duncan Duncan, I will just have to accept that you are not capable of understanding how to read images. The black blob is simply Mike Brown in my test image that doesn't completely fade out. But again, why worry about the Gif ... have I not already explained how and why that photo was taken! Also, was not the Badge Man images inserted next to the people in my photo, thus giving everyone a clean look at each to see how they stacked up to one another when viewed from Moorman's location. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) Has anyone studied some of the aftermath photo's to get an idea of the perspective of the slope ? There appear to be a couple with people just behind the wall and alongside it that might be useful to try and guage how much of a slope there is and where the wall comes to on the figures..... David, The only photo I know of which might be used for comparison I believe the photographer's name is William Allen. Perhaps someone has a better copy. chris *************** Hi Robin: Chris & Dave.... Here are a few studies of the lay of the land, on Nov.22.1963........ Robin: Yes, re the knoll........ Back some years ago, there were heavy rains in Dallas, causing at that time parts of the knoll, hills,to slide down, whatever, and reconstruction work was needed, in the area of the steps....and..the hills.. I posted info on such and parts of the fence history area in that long thread on such some time ago.. The steps and the knoll were all repaired, but also changed forever, the perspectives of how all had been in 1963. ......Any photos, such as the new one showing the men at the top of the steps taken years later, or any others....Are not constructive imo to what some are after...in their research..nor of the lay of the land re the fence area also, as that has also been repaired and work done..... ......As all has been changed for years now...as have others areas of Dealey Plaza.. .If anyone needs to check this information out for themselves please go ahead and do so......contact the Dallas Works Dept..they may still have those records, or if not.... Dallas History and or I believe..Jerry Dealey... can relate the information to you....also.... B...... B...... Edited August 10, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Thanks for the information and pics Bernice. 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