The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Robin Unger]

quote:

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??

Credit: Lee Forman.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

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 reference to the fence concerned the Badge Man area being hidden from view to someone in the tower.

[Alan Healy]

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

I overlaid a crop from the Crawley image that shows you(or someone) behind the wall, onto an M5 crop that clearly shows the "Arnold" figure.

You obviously missed it & the link I provided to the untouched Crawley image.

Maybe if you started asking questions instead of jumping to conclusions we could progress.

Example:

Alan, what Crawley image were you refering to?

/sigh

[Jack White]

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

I overlaid a crop from the Crawley image that shows you(or someone) behind the wall, onto an M5 crop that clearly shows the "Arnold" figure.

You obviously missed it & the link I provided to the untouched Crawley image.

Maybe if you started asking questions instead of jumping to conclusions we could progress.

Example:

Alan, what Crawley image were you refering to?

/sigh

What Crawley image are you referring to? Crawley did not take a photo of me

behind the fence. Nigel did.

Jack

[Alan Healy]

This thread starts to take on a Monty Python-like quality folks.

Nudge nudge Peter, nudge nudge

Duncan

Duncan,

thanks for the earlier reply to my query, I still have a slight problem with the example you used but let me ask you something else(I get the general idea by the way).

If I could line up the Crawley photo honestly, so that not just the wall but something further in the background was the same size, like a part of the pergoda for example, do you think that would add a lot more credibilty to the comparison?

Or, how many items at different distances do I have to see line-up before I know it's a very good match?

You don't have to answer if you don't want I'm just after your opinion.

Alan

The parrot hasn't even had it's first birthday Peter, how can it possibly be extinct?

[Alan Healy]

EDIT:

Page 9, first post!

Edited August 26, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

If I could line up the Crawley photo honestly, so that not just the wall but something further in the background was the same size, like a part of the pergoda for example, do you think that would add a lot more credibilty to the comparison?

I think someone posted on 'focal lengths' and how that effects how large objects look at different distances from the camera. This answers your question in part - does it not? Scaling Arnold to Arnold is probably your best option.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Isn't April Fool's Day in April ? or is this a still frame from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Part-2 ?

Duncan

Duncan,

Please try and be more specific when writing out your post ... In your response above - I cannot tell if you are talking about the Badge Man images or your photo?

Bill

[Alan Healy]

If I could line up the Crawley photo honestly, so that not just the wall but something further in the background was the same size, like a part of the pergoda for example, do you think that would add a lot more credibilty to the comparison?

I think someone posted on 'focal lengths' and how that effects how large objects look at different distances from the camera. This answers your question in part - does it not? Scaling Arnold to Arnold is probably your best option.

Bill

Seriously.

If I wanted your advice I'd ask for it.

I posted that less than five minutes ago, why don't you give the person it was intended for chance to reply?

[Alan Healy]

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

Chris,

appreciate your interest & the great photos thank you!

Let me ask you something.

Were the photos where taken by your good self?

If so(& hopefully we you won't get any input from a third part for this next question, until after you've replied) how would you go about matching Moorman's fifth photo exactly?

What's the first thing you'd line-up?

Please refrain from answering Chris's question for him until he has had a chance to reply.

I'm not trying to trick him or anything else.

Alan

[Miles Scull]

Dupe

Edited August 26, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

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? ()

Duncan,

Is everybody on the same page here?

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

Meaning branches & leaves brushing the car tops?

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.

Duncan,

Bowers could have & would have seen Badge Man & Arnie, exactly because Bowers was looking directly into the area in question at the time in question.

(A word in shell like: Do you think Bill will object? Be honest.)

Photo crop time stamped Nov, 23 or 24, 1963:

Edited August 26, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Bowers could have & would have seen Badge Man & Arnie, exactly because Bowers was looking directly into the area in question at the time in question.

(A word in shell like: Do you think Bill will object? Be honest.)

Miles,

My only objection is to your purposely misstating the facts. You show an overhead view of the Badge Man area and lay claim that the tree foliage was above the cars, but what fool doesn't know that? Bowers wasn't sitting on the ground in front of the tower so to have the view that you have attributed to him. Instead he was elevated up in the train tower which hides the Badge Man location as seen in this photo taken from where Bowers was stationed.

So what is this now ... the 3rd or 4th time this has had to be pointed out to you? What you continue to do is little different than someone saying that JFK was assassinated at Love Field regardless of the facts showing otherwise.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Bowers could have & would have seen Badge Man & Arnie, exactly because Bowers was looking directly into the area in question at the time in question.

(A word in shell like: Do you think Bill will object? Be honest.)

Miles,

My only objection is to your purposely misstating the facts. You show an overhead view of the Badge Man area and lay claim that the tree foliage was above the cars, but what fool doesn't know that? Bowers wasn't sitting on the ground in front of the tower so to have the view that you have attributed to him. Instead he was elevated up in the train tower which hides the Badge Man location as seen in this photo taken from where Bowers was stationed.

So what is this now ... the 3rd or 4th time this has had to be pointed out to you? What you continue to do is little different than someone saying that JFK was assassinated at Love Field regardless of the facts showing otherwise.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Bowers could have & would have seen Badge Man & Arnie, exactly because Bowers was looking directly into the area in question at the time in question.

(A word in shell like: Do you think Bill will object? Be honest.)

Miles,

Instead he was elevated up in the train tower which hides the Badge Man location as seen in this photo taken from where Bowers was stationed.

So what is this now ... ?

Bill Miller

"So what is this now ... ?" EXACTLY!

as seen in this photo taken from where Bowers was stationed.

Are you overlooking the obvious refutation of your contention?

IF this is a photo of the parking lot, which is open to question, then WHAT IS THE TIME STAMP OF THIS PHOTO ? 1988?

It shows NOTHING that is relevant to the time in question: Nov. 22, 1963 !