Jump to content

The Gordon Arnold Competition


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

The reason why I mentioned the resizing goes to the Arnold matter where you said that you don't stretch images. How can someone pretend to have scaled an image if they didn't stretch it.

Bill

I don't stretch images, I resize them, as I have explained on numerous occassions now, there is a difference. I don't know why you continue to bring up a false point and drag it on and on. Have you acquired the circa 1963 Arnold images yet?.

Duncan

You are spitting in a pretty stiff breeze this time, Duncan. If one increases an image whether horizontally or vertically - they have stretched it.

Resize: - change the size of; make the size more appropriate

size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size

rescale - establish on a new scale

Stretch: To become lengthened, widened, or distended.

To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But Bowers was not standing next to Moorman, if that's your contention. This is a vital consideration which you seem to have completely overlooked, as you do over & over (& over & over) again.

Miles,

Maybe you should read my response again ... possibly have someone help you understand what I said. I never said anything about Bowers and Moorman standing next to one another ... this should have been your first clue that you were not comprehending correctly the information being presented to you. I also said that Moorman's straight on view looking uphill would not be like the view Bowers had when viewing the same area from off to the side and looking downhill ... this too, should have told you that you were not comprehending anything you were being told. The nice thing about you making such an error is that it explains why so much other stuff you cite is in error most of the time.

Bowers' view was unobstructed right through to the corner of the fence

Looking down from directly above the RR yard does not give one the view Bowers had any more than it gives one the view that Holland had to where he saw the smoke coming through the trees. And why did Holland not see what caused the smoke he saw come through the trees - it was his off to one side view and looking downhill that clustered all that tree foliage together, thus hiding the area in question. Bowers had cars between he and that area hiding the lower parts of anyones body and overhanging tree foilage that hid the upper parts, as well.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resize: - change the size of; make the size more appropriate

size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size

rescale - establish on a new scale

Stretch: To become lengthened, widened, or distended.

To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction

Bill Miller

You know exactly what I mean, don't try to pretend otherwise. I also have the ability to look up Dictionary.com

Pretender

1. a person who pretends, esp. for a dishonest purpose.

2. an aspirant or claimant (often fol. by to): a pretender to the throne.

3. a person who makes unjustified or false claims, statements, etc., as about personal status, abilities, intentions, or the like: a pretender to literary genius.

Duncan

Is your above response a confession or what? If I were you - I would stop making it appear that no matter how wrong you are - you don't come clean about it. I assume you understand the English language to some degree and in the event that you do not ... I am always happy to offer the dictionary meanings so to limit any confusion as to what I'm saying. For you to have said that you do not stretch real images was not an honest statement. The first time you took an object from one photo and scaled it to the same object from another picture - you stretched it. If it is your position that this is not true and that you only shrink images as if to imply that you only reduce the size of an image and never increase its size, then I don't believe you and the reason for that is because too many times the resolution is degraded in your images because the size had been increased. Shrinking the image doesn't expand the pixels, thus the image stays clean. So what I am saying here is that its best to take the information and learn from it rather than always trying to salvage the mistakes you have made ... it will make you a better researcher and what you learn can be applied to the next attempt you make at scaling objects in hopes of being more accurate.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bowers had cars between he and that area hiding the lower parts of anyones body and overhanging tree foliage that hid the upper parts, as well.

Bill Miller

What? (LOL.gif)

Duncan,

Is everybody on the same page here?

"...overhanging tree foliage that hid the upper parts,..."

Meaning branches & leaves brushing the car tops? :lol:

So that drivers exiting their cars would have to crouch to avoid cracked pates?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This crop (Robin?) below shows the true canopy height. At least 3 feet above car tops at a very few points. Much higher above car tops at most points.

Viewing under & through this thin canopy Bowers, viewing laterally from his perch, would have encountered zero interference.

Illumination beneath the canopy would have been ample. Bright sun light rays fell at an angle to hit the ground well underneath the canopy. The sun penetrated through the sparse foliage. Zero shadowy gloom to hide anyone.

The overreaching canopy over the cars was only 10 feet north to south, less west to east. Thus, there was visual transparency through the canopy.

Any person standing or moving along the west side of the fence, either close to the fence or away from it, would have been observed by Bowers, who was looking directly into this area.

NewmansMAX-2-1.jpg

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I mentioned the resizing goes to the Arnold matter where you said that you don't stretch images. How can someone pretend to have scaled an image if they didn't stretch it.

Bill

I don't stretch images, I resize them, as I have explained on numerous occassions now, there is a difference. I don't know why you continue to bring up a false point and drag it on and on. Have you acquired the circa 1963 Arnold images yet?.

Duncan

You are spitting in a pretty stiff breeze this time, Duncan. If one increases an image whether horizontally or vertically - they have stretched it.

Resize: - change the size of; make the size more appropriate

size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size

rescale - establish on a new scale

Stretch: To become lengthened, widened, or distended.

To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction

Bill Miller

Duncan.

Anyone who has worked with images over a period of time will know the difference between stretching something until it becomes out of kilter with reality & resizing it within the boundaries of what one would expect.

We all know what "stretching" something means & we don't need a dictionary to explain it.

Things of all shapes & sizes are resized or rescaled accurately everyday in all manner of applications but they are not classed as "stretched" not even when they are magnified 500 times or more they are not.

It's because when these items are resized everything related to it is resized too & to the same degree.

When someone plays dumb like this you know your on the right track.

On another point Duncan.

You seemed to agree with Bill that by taking the Crawley/Moorman photo & resizing it so that the wall comes close to what is seen in the original M5 photo I am being misled by the size of the man behind the wall in Crawley & I shouldn't make too much of it.

Please, if you have time one day, explain to me how what I see might be way off the mark & please don't refer to Muchmore & the limo insanity, that observation has nothing to do with an object in close proximity to the wall.

Maybe you can find a plausible example of two objects in close proximity to one another & where one is seen to be twice the size in another photo even though it was taken from the same camera & from the same approximate position give or take a few feet, the photos don't have to be JFK related.

Or you could explain it in a few sentences if it's easier.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I mentioned the resizing goes to the Arnold matter where you said that you don't stretch images. How can someone pretend to have scaled an image if they didn't stretch it.

Bill

I don't stretch images, I resize them, as I have explained on numerous occassions now, there is a difference. I don't know why you continue to bring up a false point and drag it on and on. Have you acquired the circa 1963 Arnold images yet?.

Duncan

You are spitting in a pretty stiff breeze this time, Duncan. If one increases an image whether horizontally or vertically - they have stretched it.

Resize: - change the size of; make the size more appropriate

size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size

rescale - establish on a new scale

Stretch: To become lengthened, widened, or distended.

To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction

Bill Miller

Duncan.

Anyone who has worked with images over a period of time will know the difference between stretching something until it becomes out of kilter with reality & resizing it within the boundaries of what one would expect.

We all know what "stretching" something means & we don't need a dictionary to explain it.

Things of all shapes & sizes are resized or rescaled accurately everyday in all manner of applications but they are not classed as "stretched" not even when they are magnified 500 times or more they are not.

It's because when these items are resized everything related to it is resized too & to the same degree.

When someone plays dumb like this you know your on the right track.

On another point Duncan.

You seemed to agree with Bill that by taking the Crawley/Moorman photo & resizing it so that the wall comes close to what is seen in the original M5 photo I am being misled by the size of the man behind the wall in Crawley & I shouldn't make too much of it.

Please, if you have time one day, explain to me how what I see might be way off the mark & please don't refer to Muchmore & the limo insanity, that observation has nothing to do with an object in close proximity to the wall.

Maybe you can find a plausible example of two objects in close proximity to one another & where one is seen to be twice the size in another photo even though it was taken from the same camera & from the same approximate position give or take a few feet, the photos don't have to be JFK related.

Or you could explain it in a few sentences if it's easier.

Alan

Geoffrey Crawley DID NOT TAKE ANY OF THE PHOTOS BEING STUDIED.

This shows the general ineptitude of some researchers. The only photo

I have presented in this thread was taken by Nigel Turner. Crawley was

not mentioned. I was there. I should know.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I resized the object without changing the shape, I didn't stretch it. Stretching in anyones language implies that an object has been reshaped, and i'm sure most people would agree with that. If you want to pick at straws, feel free to do so. Your play on words does not affect the outcome of my analysis. Your production of circa 1963 Arnold photographs might change that outcome, time will tell.

So you have backed yourself into a corner by misstating what you have done and all these excuses you have given that are defuncted by way of the dictionary is me playing on words and not you? Wanna dance some more or are you ready to admit that you were wrong ....

To change the horizontal and/or vertical dimensions of an image.

www.shutterfly.com/refdesk/glossary_r.jsp

Verb1.resize - change the size of; make the size more appropriate

size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size

rescale - establish on a new scale

Now let's try this again ... Is it your position that it is appropriate to merely slide the lower half of a soldier's body over under Gordon Arnold's upper body and to heck with the two bodies matching in width ... the height had been established in your mind - Is that correct??

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan,

Is everybody on the same page here? [/color]

"...overhanging tree foliage that hid the upper parts,..."

Meaning branches & leaves brushing the car tops? :lol:

So that drivers exiting their cars would have to crouch to avoid cracked pates?

NewmansMAX-2-1.jpg

Miles,

If I ever need someone to help me by way of propaganda ... please don't help!!! We started out talking about Bowers view and whether he could have seen the Badge Man and so on. So what do you do ... you show a photo taken of the walkway while looking west. Is there a reason why you are looking at these trees from this angle rather than from where Bowers was stationed during the assassination? Did I not point this out to you in a previous response?? I believe that I did, so why are you not showing the elevated view from the tower while looking south??? Is it that you believe that the tree foliage spacing would be the same from both views???? Does not the people in the Willis and Betzner photos seen standing along the north curb on Elm Street appear to be bunched together while the Bronson slide shows a lot of space between the witnesses?????

Do the overhanging trees as seen from the RR tower (You know ... the one Bowers was sitting in when JFK was assassinated) look to be spaced out and easily seen through like the view from Elm Street shows?????? I think not!

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You used the word "defunked" in your reply above. Now I know what you mean, everyone else will know,...

Duncan

Duncan,

Speaking of debunking defunking, I think I have found a sneak insertion of Hatman into a recent photo which was intended as a rebuttal to the canopy question.

Take a look: (Do you see what I see? A bogus mockup moving to the steam pipe?)

MillerBowers222-33.jpgMillerBowers222-33-7-19crop.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I mentioned the resizing goes to the Arnold matter where you said that you don't stretch images. How can someone pretend to have scaled an image if they didn't stretch it.

Bill

I don't stretch images, I resize them, as I have explained on numerous occassions now, there is a difference. I don't know why you continue to bring up a false point and drag it on and on. Have you acquired the circa 1963 Arnold images yet?.

Duncan

You are spitting in a pretty stiff breeze this time, Duncan. If one increases an image whether horizontally or vertically - they have stretched it.

Resize: - change the size of; make the size more appropriate

size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size

rescale - establish on a new scale

Stretch: To become lengthened, widened, or distended.

To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction

Bill Miller

Duncan.

Anyone who has worked with images over a period of time will know the difference between stretching something until it becomes out of kilter with reality & resizing it within the boundaries of what one would expect.

We all know what "stretching" something means & we don't need a dictionary to explain it.

Things of all shapes & sizes are resized or rescaled accurately everyday in all manner of applications but they are not classed as "stretched" not even when they are magnified 500 times or more they are not.

It's because when these items are resized everything related to it is resized too & to the same degree.

When someone plays dumb like this you know your on the right track.

On another point Duncan.

You seemed to agree with Bill that by taking the Crawley/Moorman photo & resizing it so that the wall comes close to what is seen in the original M5 photo I am being misled by the size of the man behind the wall in Crawley & I shouldn't make too much of it.

Please, if you have time one day, explain to me how what I see might be way off the mark & please don't refer to Muchmore & the limo insanity, that observation has nothing to do with an object in close proximity to the wall.

Maybe you can find a plausible example of two objects in close proximity to one another & where one is seen to be twice the size in another photo even though it was taken from the same camera & from the same approximate position give or take a few feet, the photos don't have to be JFK related.

Or you could explain it in a few sentences if it's easier.

Alan

If these help for size perspective among people near the wall. Good. If not, disregard.

First 3 photo sequence is the same guy moving from back to front.

Next post is 2 photos with people closer to the wall edge.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This crop (Robin?) below shows the true canopy height. At least 3 feet above car tops at a very few points. Much higher above car tops at most points.

Viewing under & through this thin canopy Bowers, viewing laterally from his perch, would have encountered zero interference.

Duncan ... you gotta make sure you put that information in your article to Scientific American. Are you guys so inept at this stuff not to know what level the tree foliage would be seen at in relation to the fence if one was looking uphill at it - then again on a even horizontal plane - and then once more at a downward angle??? What's even crazier isa that even after the view from Bowers tower is shown to you select few who remind me of the 'key stone cops' when it comes to understanding perspective and photo interpretation ... you go back to an unrelated view and apply it to Bowers. Forum rules or no forum rules ... that kind of research is inaccurate and deplorable IMO.

Illumination beneath the canopy would have been ample. Bright sun light rays fell at an angle to hit the ground well underneath the canopy. The sun penetrated through the sparse foliage. Zero shadowy gloom to hide anyone.

Bright sun light rays? You mean like the bright sun light rays that makes BDM look so dark? How about the bright light rays that prevented Holland from seeing through the shrubs running along the fence as seen in the Nix film? Looking at the tree foliage in the Bowers view photo that I posted ... is it your position that you and Miles can see the stockade fence through that foliage??

The overreaching canopy over the cars was only 10 feet north to south, less west to east. Thus, there was visual transparency through the canopy.

Any person standing or moving along the west side of the fence, either close to the fence or away from it, would have been observed by Bowers, who was looking directly into this area.

Would that be the same Lee Bowers who said he lost track of one of the two men ... "The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees".

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll repeat...I wasn't wrong, no excuses from me. You know what I meant. Everyone else understood. You used the word "defunked" in your reply above. Now I know what you mean, everyone else will know, but guess what your favourite website's output of "defunked" is?

From Dictionary.com

No results found for DEFUNKED.

Did you mean DE FUNKED (in dictionary) or DE FUNKED (in encyclopedia)?

Duncan,

Don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong even over the simplest of things like googling a word to get the definition?

defunct

One entry found for defunct.

Main Entry: de·funct

Pronunciation: di-'f&[ng]kt, dE-

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin defunctus, from past participle of defungi to finish, die, from de- + fungi to perform -- more at FUNCTION

: no longer living, existing, or functioning <that firm is now defunct>

I believe my analysis is close, no one can ever establish the correct height. They can only give a close estimate.

Your analysis was so close that the lower hip in your first illustration was so far off that it was ridiculous. Then your next scaling of Arnold and not getting his vertical height correct when one elbow wasn't even close to where the second Arnold's elbow was located must have been just another 'close estimate' in your opinion. Make sure to put that in your article, as well.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also...You have replied to a post above by Miles Post #198, and named me as the person you are responding too. I suggest you take a rest tonight, and maybe start again in the morning when your head clears?

Duncan

Duncan,

Why would this spot (red arrow) rest at the end of a curved line (between green arrows) following the pink broken vector? What is it?

Doesn't make sense. :maggieJ

Bowers22WW.jpg

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...