Alan Healy 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 " Hi Robin, that is exactly it. There is however one tiny little difference between the GIJoe in the drumscan & the blow-ups. He is just a touch taller in the latter(in other words we are not seeing his true height in the DS(probably because he is not real?)). http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/6452/moorarniexv3.gif Now my overlay may be a little off centre but it's not anything to worry about(if anything I've helped the Arnie myth by bringing him closer to the ground). Even if there was a extreemly sharp increase in height between the wall & the fence it is still pushing my imagination to see a man this size with his feet on the ground. If somone can prove Duncan's observation is incorrect sometime in the future, they will need to provide more than a photo taken from Moorman's position because that alone doesn't prove anything. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 This gets even more ridiculous the closer I look at it. Mr.Blobby AKA Brown had to be turned to the side to get him closer to the size of GIJoe & even then he was still way to large a figure. I was just in the proccess of trying to resize these images to compare their body mass when I stopped, spending anymore time doing so would be a waste of my time & I think these GIJoers have took up enough of it already. Look for yourself, I didn't even get close to bringing the "recreation" photo up to the size of Moorman(check out size of the south facing wall) & it was so clear that the blob was almost twice the size of the GIJoe. Dear oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 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 " That has been part of your mistake ... You cannot compare someone's height to the wall unless both are of equal distance from the camera. Arnold was back across the sidewalk towards the fence which makes his body appear smaller on film. I can show you pictures of large buildings in the background and they too will look small when compared to objects closer to the camera. The Flynn photo is one that comes to mind. Hope the information was helpful to those who can understand it. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 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 " That is right, so what do you not understand? The fence is taller than the wall, but with Mary looking uphill at the knoll - the bottom of the fence doesn't match the same point at the bottom of the wall. Even if all was perfectly flat - Moorman's uphill view combined with the distance the fence and Arnold are from the wall will cause background objects to look small compared to the closer wall. Watch Zapruder's film and note how much smaller the limo looks when seen beyond the smaller road sign. It's a sdimple matter of perspective and a not so accurate job of mixing and mat`ching upper and lower body parts - nothing more. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 (edited) Quote: Even if all was perfectly flat - Moorman's uphill view combined with the distance the fence and Arnold are from the wall. I would like you to mark on this image exactly where Arnold was standing. ? Exactly how far back from the wall was he standing, ? Edited August 11, 2007 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 (edited) Looking at Arnold from Moorman's perspective. If Arnold was standing back from the wall and closer to the fence, where the ground level appears to be higher than at the wall, it seems to me that he is around half way between the end of the picket fence and the big tree. I would place him along the fence line approx where the Cop is standing. Exactly how close to the picket fence. ? I beleive that Arnold himself puts his position much closer to the steps, near the end of the picket fence. ? Given his height in moorman, i beleive that he must have been some distance back from the wall standing on higher ground. Edited August 11, 2007 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Even allowing for Arnold to be back further standing on higher ground, the distance between Arnolds waist and the ground level cant be explained away by perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 (edited) I would like you to mark on this image exactly where Arnold was standing. ?Exactly how far back from the wall was he standing, ? I'm not sure from that particular frame and all those people in the way that I could show you the exact spot, but this image should be easier to follow. Royce Beirma (green jacket) is standing in Arnold's location from what I could tell. Bill Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Even allowing for Arnold to be back further standing on higher ground, the distance between Arnolds waist and the ground level cant be explained away by perspective. How about perspective and a mound? Like I have said already .... Yarborough saw Arnold beyond the wall and witnessed him hit the ground. Arnold fell out of sight behind the wall, thus I have no idea why anyone would think he dove to the steps. Two men in police clothing approached Arnold and Towner #3 shows such individuals at the tree. BTW, doesn't Groden's book "TKOAP" show a Nix frame where the color of Arnold's clothing is seen? I should also tell you that when Groden and I took his best Nix film print to the lab - who ever was standing beyone the wall did in fact start in motion to his left - away from the steps. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 (edited) Even allowing for Arnold to be back further standing on higher ground, the distance between Arnolds waist and the ground level cant be explained away by perspective. How about perspective and a mound? Like I have said already .... Yarborough saw Arnold beyond the wall and witnessed him hit the ground. Arnold fell out of sight behind the wall, thus I have no idea why anyone would think he dove to the steps. Two men in police clothing approached Arnold and Towner #3 shows such individuals at the tree. BTW, doesn't Groden's book "TKOAP" show a Nix frame where the color of Arnold's clothing is seen? I should also tell you that when Groden and I took his best Nix film print to the lab - who ever was standing beyone the wall did in fact start in motion to his left - away from the steps. Bill I was not sure which way Arnold dove. i assumed he would not dive towards the area where the shot over his shoulder had come from. I will go back and re-visit his youtube interview. Also, the whole Yarborough thing has been done to death on Lancer, i still remain unconvinced by his testimony as to what he saw. Edited August 11, 2007 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Quote: Even if all was perfectly flat - Moorman's uphill view combined with the distance the fence and Arnold are from the wall. I would like you to mark on this image exactly where Arnold was standing. ? Exactly how far back from the wall was he standing, ? Robin...I just made what may be an interesting discovery analyzing this photo. THIS AREA IN THIS 1963 VIEW IS UNLIKE WHAT IT WAS IN LATER YEARS! 1. I found that in this view, looking directly between the wall and fence, the top of the wall IS AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE FENCE. We know the wall has not been changed, so it appears that the wooden fence may have been changed. To see this clearly, draw a rectangle from the corner of the fence to the corner of the wall. THEY CORRESPOND. But we know that today they are not the same. 2. Unlike today when the area by the fence is all flat, it appears that in 1963, THE AREA BESIDE THE FENCE SLOPES DOWNHILL GRADUALLY, unlike today when it is fairly flat and drops off at a given point. This is clearly seen by drastically lightening the RGB chroma scales. I had lightened this area looking for a mound of dirt when I noticed the gradual slope. 3. Unlike today when all the fence palings are 5 feet tall, it appears that in 1963, the fence boards were TALLER at the corner than higher up the knoll. When you lighten the chroma, you will see a cop by the corner, and HIS SHOULDERS ARE BELOW THE TOP OF THE FENCE. We know that lamposts were moved and signs removed soon after the assassination to confound researchers...so why not change the knoll area also? These observations tend to make modern reconstructions of Arnold's location inconclusive. The terrain seems to be unlike 1963. Check it out. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 3. Unlike today when all the fence palings are 5 feet tall, it appears that in1963, the fence boards were TALLER at the corner than higher up the knoll. When you lighten the chroma, you will see a cop by the corner, and HIS SHOULDERS ARE BELOW THE TOP OF THE FENCE. The cop looks short to the fence because he is slightly over the crest of the slope. One step north or south will make his height against the fence rise or fall. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Even allowing for Arnold to be back further standing on higher ground, the distance between Arnolds waist and the ground level cant be explained away by perspective. How about perspective and a mound? Like I have said already .... Yarborough saw Arnold beyond the wall and witnessed him hit the ground. Arnold fell out of sight behind the wall, thus I have no idea why anyone would think he dove to the steps. Two men in police clothing approached Arnold and Towner #3 shows such individuals at the tree. BTW, doesn't Groden's book "TKOAP" show a Nix frame where the color of Arnold's clothing is seen? I should also tell you that when Groden and I took his best Nix film print to the lab - who ever was standing beyone the wall did in fact start in motion to his left - away from the steps. Bill I was not sure which way Arnold dove. i assumed he would not dive towards the area where the shot over his shoulder had come from. I will go back and re-visit his youtube interview. Also, the whole Yarborough thing has been done to death on Lancer, i still remain unconvinced by his testimony as to what he saw. Robin, Arnold's story & Yarborough's account are incompatible. Yarborough says that he saw a man jump about 10 feet and land against a wall. Arnold says that when a shot bullet came right past his left ear (which caused him to think that he had been shot) that that is when HE FELL DOWN. After falling down, Arnold says that at least a second shot was fired over his head. Falling down is not jumping 10 feet like the old time flying tackle in football, as Yarborough expresses it as he describes what he saw. One can construe that Yarborough saw a man running and then dive to a sheltering wall where Yarborough saw him land against that wall. Arnold who was stationary simply fell down to remove his head downward & away from the bullets trajectory. He was wise to do so Arnold implies because as he says a second bullet came oner his head, which bullet, had he remained standing, could have struck Arnold in the head. Had Arnold somehow performed the miraculous & amazing feat of leaping from a stationary position to a point 10 feet away, like a standing broad jumper who crouches & swings his arms for thrust propulsion, ....well, then, of course, the second bullet would not have gone over his head as he says it did. Arnold would have been 10 feet away from & 6 feet down from the trajectory. At the time of the shooting many people dove to the ground in different ways. The man Yarborough saw was not Arnold. Therefore, Robin, as you indicate, Yarborough's account cannot be used to support Arnold's story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Sigh. "Jumping" TEN FEET is not a considerable feat. The room in which I sit is 11 feet wide. I am over 6 feet tall. Merely by falling forward (on a matress of course) without jumping, I could nearly touch the opposite wall. If I took a step or two before falling, I might fall much more than 10 feet. Watch a football game sometime. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Sigh. "Jumping" TEN FEET is not a considerable feat.The room in which I sit is 11 feet wide. I am over 6 feet tall.The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County Merely by falling forward (on a matress of course) without jumping, I could nearly touch the opposite wall. If I took a step or two before falling, I might fall much more than 10 feet. Watch a football game sometime. Jack Yarborough enthuses "like the old time flying tackle in football." The old time FLYING tackle is executed by a man running at full speed in pursuit of a fleeing ball carrier who is also running at full speed, to escape pursuit. To bring down the ball carrier the tackler leaves his feet & flies through the air in a diving leap or jump in order to, by that extreme exertion, catch the ball carrier at his ankle with an outstretched arm(s) & so to bring him down. This is a spectacular feat which is unique to the game, so unique that it has acquired a special name: the FLYING TACKLE. Arnold says that he FELL DOWN, not that he dove away. Since Arnold thought he had been shot, the most probable & intuitively likely response on Arnold's part was to collapse downward as fast as possible. This is exactly what Arnold says he did! "I FELL DOWN." As much as it would be desirable to attribute to Arnold actions that he himself says he did not perform, it is impossible to see Arnold as a morphed Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County. Yarborough did not see Arnold. 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