Miles Scull Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Exactly where along the picket fence is the Badgeman location. ?This may help find the Arnold figure location in Moorman, since Arnold is just to the left of Badgeman. Robin, Following on your very interesting lead, see crops here below. The red line is the top of the fence. If so, then there are fatal proportionality & perspective problems for both GA & BM. Do not GA & BM soar above the fence like colossal titans? There is something terribly wrong here. Your & Duncan's thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 (edited) Spin spin and even more spin. Your constant refusal to carry out mty request shows the zero strength of your argument. Duncan Duncan, I don't know if you know this, but it might be pertinent to your stupefaction that Miller evades your simple request to disprove your discovery's validity. Some time ago over on the Hoffman thread Ed Hoffman's story was shown to be incredible. Miller, a long time believer in Hoffman's story, had no response to the the criticism of Ed's story. So Miller started saying that the WC Report contained something called the "Weitzman Report" which held information which were it seen would support Hoffman's story & tend to validate it. Well, of course, Miller was asked to produce this missing & invisible (non-existent) "Weitzman Report." Everybody looked high & low for it & it was NOT to be found. Miller then said that he could not find this report because his copies of the WC Report were not at his location in Canada. Then Jack White & others observed that the complete WC Report is & has been available on-line at History Matters. Not having access to the printed volumes is no longer an excuse.They are available online at HISTORY MATTERS. Jack Miller knows this, but has NOT produced this apocryphal, non-existent, never existing report. This method of evading irresistible logic strongly resembles Miller's refusal to scale Arnie's legs to disprove your contention & discovery. The argument is: You are wrong. I know it. I don't have to prove it, because I'm a well known expert & you are not. I wonder if you should simply stop seeking Miller's cooperation? Do you see a hope? Edited August 18, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 I see no one has rescaled the Arnold image yet so to see if the modifications helped explain the all too short legs in the illustration Duncan created. Below is Arnold seen over the wall ... is his legs long enough to be on the ground in this view looking over the wall??? Bill Miller People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the five foot metal fence post. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 I see no one has rescaled the Arnold image yet so to see if the modifications helped explain the all too short legs in the illustration Duncan created. Below is Arnold seen over the wall ... is his legs long enough to be on the ground in this view looking over the wall??? Bill Miller People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the five foot metal fence post. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Duncan,I don't know if you know this, but it might be pertinent to your stupefaction that Miller evades your simple request to disprove your discovery's validity. Duncan was right, Miles ... your poor interpretation as to where the ground level of the walkway was behind the wall was not accurate. Some time ago over on the Hoffman thread Ed Hoffman's story was shown to be incredible. Miller, a long time believer in Hoffman's story, had no response to the the criticism of Ed's story.So Miller started saying that the WC Report contained something called the "Weitzman Report" which held information which were it seen would support Hoffman's story & tend to validate it. Well, of course, Miller was asked to produce this missing & invisible (non-existent) "Weitzman Report." Everybody looked high & low for it & it was NOT to be found. Miles, you are peeing in the wind. I am one of the few people who has ever bought sets of the WCR and actually read them. They are voluminous and much like these threads after you have trolled them - garbage gets entered into the mix, thus pushing the good stuff further and further apart so to make it difficult for others to follow the context of the topic matter being discussed. While going through the 26 volumes, I carefully made notes. Many times cross referencing information out of those volumes with Lane's, Weisberg's, Marrs and other authors writings. While I have looked through the Internet site provided to me ... it has not helped me find what I am looking for. And so you know, unlike you - I still have a reputation to uphold for I don't post how I don't have time to do research, thus I won't post anything unless I am certain that what I say can be supported. Your continued trolling efforts have not gone unnoticed ... that much can be taken to the bank. But let us say for arguments sake that I was in error and I find that my notes told me that I misstated there being a document with such wording or that it was attributed to someone else ... it certainly doesn't mean what you have implied, nor would I let it bother me. As JFK once repeated - A mistake is not a mistake, unless one refuses to correct it. Not correcting such a mistake or to purposely mislead someone would be like some xxxxx after being shown otherwise ... would keep posting that Holland dashed off the underpass immediately following the assassination. So xxxxx on big fella! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 (edited) Arnold looks perspectively fine here. This is not what we see in Moorman, although I do understand that this is not a Moorman recreation. How do you rate my estimated height of the ground in post number 574 Jack, and as seen below...close?..way out? Duncan O Duncan, O Robin Why would Arnold stand here? Why, when Arnold could easily have walked forward to a good position close to the wall, next to the wall so that he would have had a clear unobstructed panning view? If Arnold stayed back away from the wall as he is posed here in the TMWKK, because other spectators are already at the wall occupying the good spots close to the wall for the best view, then Arnold's view would have been completely blocked. This does not make any sense, unless Arnold was put on that spot so that he would match up with the alleged GI Joe image allegedly seen in Moorman. Was this a setup? Edited August 18, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 (edited) I see no one has rescaled the Arnold image yet so to see if the modifications helped explain the all too short legs in the illustration Duncan created. Below is Arnold seen over the wall ... is his legs long enough to be on the ground in this view looking over the wall??? Bill Miller People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the five foot metal fence post. Jack I see no one has rescaled the Arnold image yet so to see if the modifications helped explain the all too short legs in the illustration Duncan created. Below is Arnold seen over the wall ... is his legs long enough to be on the ground in this view looking over the wall??? Bill Miller People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the five foot metal fence post. Jack Jack, these guys are not interested in knowing anything that would show that they didn't know how to address this subject properly. In response #517, I showed an enlargement of Duncan's scaling job and what was wrong with it. This was done at Duncan's invitation. So far, Duncan has not corrected it, but in all fairness to him - he may not be comprehending what he did wrong. Miles seems to not care if Duncan's creation is accurate either ... he certainly hasn't posted a single word calling for the claim to have a properly scaled model, which is just what he'd do had I posted such a poorly scaled illustration. It is these types of behavior patterns that tell someone who really believes in what they are doing from those who do not IMO. Another example can be seen on Miles post #554. Miles posted a really horrible degraded crop from Hugh Betzner's photograph - I mean what was that all about? Could not a better image be obtained by Miles?? Was there not already a better image of the BDM area posted to the thread??? So why doesn't one choose to put up such ridiculous images over using the better ones???? And what was that question about the vertical light spot seen beyond the wall that M iles asked about ... he obviously didn't understand that because Willis had a steeper angle to the knoll than Betzner had ... the a better view of that sunspot was available to be seen if one just stopped and gave a little thought as how to go about researching the answer. I guess it all goes back to the 'I do not have time to do research' approach while having the time to xxxxx the threads with say nothing responses. I have been sitting back waiting for these guys to mention the 'foreshortnening effect' or how a particular lens or angle to a subject can mislead the observer. I am attaching a photo taken from atop of the Zapruder pedestal of the ground between the walkway and the fence ... maybe they will notice how much shorter the fence and walkway looks in the attached photo when compared to Moorman's. Arnold was viewed by Moorman's lens while looking up a slope. depending on the ground height at any given spot - the further back from the wall that Arnold stood - the higher in elevation he will appear to be when compared to the wall. None of this was covered in Duncan's illustration and we were shown was a poorly scaled lower section of a soldier that was attached to the upper body of Arnold. (Has anyone noticed that the illustration Duncan created is now being posted in a reduced size which makes the flaws harder to see?) This has been just another instance of throwing dung on the wall to see if anything sticks and we are supposed to make the corrections and hand it back to Duncan on a silver platter. Until he acknowledges his scaling error, then it becomes nothing more than a matter of who can hold out the longest while nothing gets accomplished as far as getting to the truth. Bill Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 If Arnold stayed back away from the wall as he is posed here in the TMWKK, because other spectators are already at the wall occupying the good spots close to the wall for the best view, then Arnold's view would have been completely blocked. Miles, what other spectators were lined up against the wall in the assassination films and photos that you have seen??? The above statement is by far one of the best examples of your attempting to purposely mislead the reader who may not know the photographic record well enough to know better. So other than the one person with the sunspot on his right upper torso - please tell us where we can find the other spectators that you claim are lined up at the wall and taking all the good spots. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 (edited) If Arnold stayed back away from the wall as he is posed here in the TMWKK, because other spectators are already at the wall occupying the good spots close to the wall for the best view, then Arnold's view would have been completely blocked. Miles, what other spectators were lined up against the wall in the assassination films and photos that you have seen??? The above statement is by far one of the best examples of your attempting to purposely mislead the reader who may not know the photographic record well enough to know better. So other than the one person with the sunspot on his right upper torso - please tell us where we can find the other spectators that you claim are lined up at the wall and taking all the good spots. Bill Miller If Arnold stayed back away from the wall as he is posed here in the TMWKK, because other spectators are already at the wall occupying the good spots close to the wall for the best view, then Arnold's view would have been completely blocked. :huh As I said: IF I think you missed the IF. Of course, there were no spectators at the wall, up close to the wall at the critical time. So, therefore, WHY did Arnold NOT step up close to the wall? Arnold does not even stand on the sidewalk for stability! Arnold is positioning himself in an extremely poor position, where the motorcade will be partially BLOCKED during his pan, when by stepping three steps forward to the wall Arnold easily attains the optimal spot. Remember Arnold said that he had spent time lining up his frame & panning shots in order to get the motorcade coming down Elm. Even the TMWKK pan from Arnold's alleged spot shows severe blockage of Arnold's view of the motorcade parade, blockage by the wall during the pan. So, Arnold chooses the worst spot for his pan, when the best spot is three steps away? Did not any "expert" allegedly holding an reputation for accuracy ever notice this giant anomaly down the years? Edited August 18, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Exactly where along the picket fence is the Badgeman location. ?This may help find the Arnold figure location in Moorman, since Arnold is just to the left of Badgeman. Robin, The illustrations you provided might be of some help had Moorman not been up at the curb. You need to find her photograph location and then draw your line of sight over the dog leg of the wall. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 I think you missed the IF.Of course, there were no spectators at the wall, up close to the wall at the critical time. So IF you knew there were no spectators up by the wall, then why even mention it in the first place. That's like saying why didn't Greer turn right onto Elm Street and head the other way. It seems to me that you have a hard enough time keeping the actual record straight without adding non-existing data into the mix. Did not any "expert" allegedly holding an reputation for accuracy ever notice this giant anomaly down the years?[/b] I think the reason why no one who has a reputation for accuracy was because they first educated themselves with the knowledge to understand why the images look the way they do. Maybe Jack can post MIT's opinion that they offered him. Myself, I am more interested in why those claiming to want accuracy didn't notice that Duncan hadn't scaled the lower body of the soldier to the upper body of Arnold correctly? Even worse, why they haven't called for the mistake to be corrected?? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 (edited) If Arnold stayed back away from the wall as he is posed here in the TMWKK, because other spectators are already at the wall occupying the good spots close to the wall for the best view, then Arnold's view would have been completely blocked. :huh As I said: IF I think you missed the IF. Of course, there were no spectators at the wall, up close to the wall at the critical time. So, therefore, WHY did Arnold NOT step up close to the wall? Arnold does not even stand on the sidewalk for stability! Arnold is positioning himself in an extremely poor position, where the motorcade will be partially BLOCKED during his pan, when by stepping three steps forward to the wall Arnold easily attains the optimal spot. Remember Arnold said that he had spent time lining up his frame & panning shots in order to get the motorcade coming down Elm. Even the TMWKK pan from Arnold's alleged spot shows severe blockage of Arnold's view of the motorcade parade, blockage by the wall during the pan. So, Arnold chooses the worst spot for his pan, when the best spot is three steps away? Did not any "expert" allegedly holding an reputation for accuracy ever notice this giant anomaly down the years? ARNOLD'S VIEW from his TMWKK spot. Edited August 18, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 (edited) ARNOLD'S VIEW Edited August 18, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 I see no one has rescaled the Arnold image yet so to see if the modifications helped explain the all too short legs in the illustration Duncan created. Below is Arnold seen over the wall ... is his legs long enough to be on the ground in this view looking over the wall??? Bill Miller People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the five foot metal fence post. Jack ********************* Just came on, Jack, and your email flew in....talk about snail air mail.... B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 Arnold "approx scale only" shown here in the position as he appears to me, when i look at Moorman and the floating Arnold Torso. Robin, I cannot believe I am telling you this ... get an overhead photo of Elm Street (I have posted a couple of them in the past from atop the records bldg) and mark where Moorman, Willis, and Betzner stood in the plaze when they took their photos. Draw a line from each position to a point over the wall so to have a LOS to the individual in question. When you have done this ... the lines should all intersect. I know you will find that having Arnold way off towards the shelter will not be what you got from where Moorman stood. Arnold is seen over the 'dog leg' of the wall. Bill None of the photos posted have ever shown enough detail in the path & wall area to be of any value. Also, if you already have the idea set in your mind that it's Arnold & you know where he stood then your on a hiding to nothing. Robin has the right idea. The position of BDM should be your first objective because he has been excepted by most distinguished researchers as being a real person. The "Arnold" figure however requires a leap of faith & there is more than enough information in this thread alone to tell most laymen that not everyone trusts the cartoon like "Arnold" figure. The most important item about the position of BDM it that part of his upper body is "sitting" on top of the corner of the wall in Betzner3. It & he are permenently connected & any honest student trying to pin-point his position cannot ignore that fact. If anyone does happen to produce a real high res photo of the wall & pathway area from atop the Records Building sometime in the future, it will finally put an end to this west of the walkway rubbish. Anyone standing were Royce did will not appear to be on top of the corner of the wall like Blackdogman does, not even close. The clean zoomed in crop is here. http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/9897.jpg An extreemly oversimlified & misinformed view. http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5302.jpg 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