Bill Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 I would like to share this observation with everyone. We use a movie camera up here in BC and I have noticed that even when traveling down steep hills that on film the ground looks flat when it actually is not. An example of this might be the slope to the street that Brehm and Moorman were standing on during the shooting. When seen in profile - the slope is visible on film. When viewed from behind as in the Bronson slide or from in front as seen on the Zapruder film, then the slope is not noticeable. The same can be said about the Jimmy Darnell film. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 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 The whole point which you seem unable to comprehend is that your Mr Brown stand in for Arnold does not match with the Moorman Arnold, and no amount of stacking up of Badgemen can change this fact. Duncan What doesn't match, Duncan? Mike Brown stood taller in my field of view than Tony did at the Badge Man location ... is that not what is seen in the Badge Man images ... of course it is. Was Brown a fit man who had been in training in the armed services - of course not. Was Brown wearing an overseas cap and uniform - of course not. Was Brown standing on a mound of dirt - seeing how it was no longer there, then the answer is ... of course not. But how Brown and Cummings looked to one another when compared to the view of the Badge Man images, then yes they do match. The proof is in the picture. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 I would like to share this observation with everyone. We use a movie camera up here in BC and I have noticed that even when traveling down steep hills that on film the ground looks flat when it actually is not. An example of this might be the slope to the street that Brehm and Moorman were standing on during the shooting. When seen in profile - the slope is visible on film. When viewed from behind as in the Bronson slide or from in front as seen on the Zapruder film, then the slope is not noticeable. The same can be said about the Jimmy Darnell film.Bill Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. Yes, perspective can be misleading & deceptive. This question has been analysed on several other threads before. The conclusion reached there was cross comparisons will provide reasonably probable solutions. But, what does this have to do with the midgetisation of the floating Arnold figure as seen in Moorman? Your overlays, as Duncan observes, seem skewed from that point of view with the comparison consequently invalid, even given the admitted dissimilarities of the individuals superimposed. A square block into a round hole? Therefore, the proof is obviously not to be found in the picture, so to speak, from that point of view, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified.Yes, perspective can be misleading & deceptive. This question has been analysed on several other threads before. The conclusion reached there was cross comparisons will provide reasonably probable solutions. But, what does this have to do with the midgetisation of the floating Arnold figure as seen in Moorman? Your overlays, as Duncan observes, seem skewed from that point of view with the comparison consequently invalid, even given the admitted dissimilarities of the individuals superimposed. A square block into a round hole? Therefore, the proof is obviously not to be found in the picture, so to speak, from that point of view, that is. I showed these overlays and Arnold comparisons at the Lancer conference and for the group that Dennis David belongs to and not a single person walked away not seeing the points that were made ... Simkin being one of them. It doesn't bother me that Duncan or yourself do not get it ... it only confirms that the rest of us must be on the right track IMO. In the future, it might be helpful if you and/or Duncan create visual examples to help make your points instead of just rambling on with disjointed meaningless sentences. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) No, what you falsely represent is NOT what is seen in the Badgeman images. Your Mr Brown is a totally different size, and how you can not see this is beyond my understanding. It seems to me that most anything to do with the photographic record is beyond your understanding, so what's your point? Yes, as I have said twice now already - Mike Brown is a big boy - Arnold was not. The photo was created to show how Brown would appear in relation to Cummings when seen from Moorman's field of view. When looking uphill as Moorman did ... Arnold would appear taller than the Badge Man image - just as the 4' high wall appears taller then the 5' fence in the background. Like I said before - there is a reason why no one has raised the ridiculous claim that you all of a sudden have brought to the research community ... it is because past researchers understood perspective and have been to the scene to see the illusion take place before their eyes - you don't appear to have a good understanding of perspective, nor have you bothered to go to Dealey Plaza to see these things for yourself. Until then, you will remain uniformed. To prove my point, I had mentioned Yarborough confirming Arnold being seen beyond the wall. Yarborough went on to confirm Arnold hitting the ground, thus we are dealing with a real individual unless one wishes to believe that Yarborough was hallucinating over what he claimed to have witnessed. So being we are talking about a real confirmed individual, any nonsense of short frog length legs has to involve errors within the study ... if one can even call it a study. This is why for decades that no one has ever made such a ridiculous claim as the one that has been presented only recently by who once again - Duncan! Height comparisons conducted to see where Brown and Cummings would need to be to match the Badge Man and Arnold locations. Bill Miller Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified.Yes, perspective can be misleading & deceptive. This question has been analysed on several other threads before. The conclusion reached there was cross comparisons will provide reasonably probable solutions. But, what does this have to do with the midgetisation of the floating Arnold figure as seen in Moorman? Your overlays, as Duncan observes, seem skewed from that point of view with the comparison consequently invalid, even given the admitted dissimilarities of the individuals superimposed. A square block into a round hole? Therefore, the proof is obviously not to be found in the picture, so to speak, from that point of view, that is. I showed these overlays and Arnold comparisons at the Lancer conference and for the group that Dennis David belongs to and not a single person walked away not seeing the points that were made ... Simkin being one of them. Mercy on a poor sinner! It doesn't bother me that Duncan or yourself do not get it I try. ... it only confirms that the rest of us must be on the right track IMO. In the future, it might be helpful if you and/or Duncan create visual examples Roger. Willco. (see below) to help make your points instead of just rambling on with disjointed meaningless sentences. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" Bill Miller Edited August 10, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) As the Hippy lifegaurd said when he heard a drowning swimmer shouting out for help..." You're Too Far Out Man "Duncan Duncan Concerning the dirt mound, is this its correct position? Thx Edited August 10, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 "dirt mound"? 11/23/63 aerial (image) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) DuncanConcerning the dirt mound, is this its correct position? Thx I suppose if there was a dirt mound, it would need to be in that vicinity. Personally, I think Black Blob Man is the dirt mound Duncan Arnold's dead, so you cannot ask him, but I am pretty sure that the mound of dirt Gordon told Golz about wasn't a big pile of dirt persay', but rather a high spot in the landscape. The Darnell film makes the sloping of the knoll look like a flat floor that comes to an abrupt edge ... it just the way things look on film when seen at certain angles. Anyway, thinking about a giant pile of dirt being anywhere was not what I believe the witnesses was trying to relate to the listener. About the scaling Duncan did ... If one blows up his image - they will see that the hips on the lower body portion are not as wide as those on Arnold. A also asked Duncan how he got the vertical layout of the lower legs figured out and I do not think I ever got an answer to that question. But anyway, it appears that Duncan merely lined up the two belts from each subject. I had asked Duncan if he considered how someone would wear their belt in those days and while in military clothing and I do not think I got an answer then either. For instance if one man wore his belt high and over his belly button and another man wore his belt low in the hips, then a considerable height change can take place. The military man that Duncan used seems to wear his pants low ... Here is a photo of Gomer Pyle in 1963/64 military clothing - how much shorter would Gomer look if the belt line from Duncan's example was used by merely aligning the two belts??? So as I said before, not figuring in the distance back from the camera the subject was - attempting to apply his height to a wall that is closer to the camera than he is - and not scaling the image correctly will surely lead to a noticeable degree of error to occur, As previously stated, Yarborough saw Arnold, thus Arnold was standing beyond the wall with his feet on the ground. With this being the case, then Duncan's insert must have a flaw in its creation. Bill Miller Edited August 10, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 duplicate with LOL .gif Duncan, Here are some comparison figures at the wall. Not time contemporary, but useful. Is the sniper's position accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) duplicate with LOL .gif Duncan, Here are some comparison figures at the wall. Not time contemporary, but useful. Is the sniper's position accurate? _________________________ Speaking of elbows, this thread reminds me of the old saying: "Opinions are like elbows and ********. Everybody's got one." (lol) Unfortunately, the main "players" on this thread are unable to express their opinions and disagreements in a consistently civil manner.... _________________________ Edited August 10, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) duplicate with LOL .gif Duncan, Here are some comparison figures at the wall. Not time contemporary, but useful. Is the sniper's position accurate? If the arrow pointing to the spot is at the 33ft mark where Gary Mack says my shooter is, then yes. I'll also add that Gary did not comment on the possibility of a shooter there. [...] _______________________ Sounds like a contradiction to me. If Gary Mack said that "your" shooter "is at the 33ft mark," then it's logical to assume that he did comment on the possibility of a shooter's being there. --Thomas _______________________ Edited August 10, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 So as I said before, not figuring in the distance back from the camera the subject was - attempting to apply his height to a wall that is closer to the camera than he is - and not scaling the image correctly will surely lead to a noticeable degree of error to occur, As previously stated, Yarborough saw Arnold, thus Arnold was standing beyond the wall with his feet on the ground. With this being the case, then Duncan's insert must have a flaw in its creation.Bill Miller So why, when attempting recreations do you not place your stand in where you think correct location is? Once again, we are not discussing Yarborough or any other witness statements. This topic is concentrated on the photographic evidence. My scaling is fine and there are no flaws. The only flaw is your two frame overlay gif which is not accurate and does not match the size of Arnold no matter how ways you want to spin an explanation. Duncan The photo is clearly NOT from the Moorman position. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) This is a crop of Craig Lamson's drumscan Moorman. The Arnold figure seen on top of the wall appears tiny when compared to the overall height of the wall. ? I beleive this is what Duncan has been trying to explain all along. Given the size of the top half of the Arnold figure seen above the wall, there is no way in hell that the bottom half of the figure could extend all the way down to the bottom of the wall " ground level " Edited August 10, 2007 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 This is a crop of Craig Lamson's drumscan Moorman.The Arnold figure seen on top of the wall appears tiny when compared to the overall height of the wall. ? I beleive this is what Duncan has been trying to explain all along. Given the size of the top half of the Arnold figure seen above the wall, there is no way in hell that the bottom half of the figure could extend all the way down to the bottom of the wall " ground level " 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