The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Miles Scull]

Miles,

For heavens sake, can you stop, copying and bringing down previous posts continually.

B....

I agree with Bernice here Miles, I find it really annoying having to do so much scrolling, so much so, that I just ignore some posts and don't reply because there might be too much editing to do in my reply.

Duncan

Duncan,

Sure, no problem. I have made the case.

I think that what was going on was that it appeared that some participants on this thread had overlooked some photos.

Thus, it was indicated that it would be appropriate to refresh a line of argument by reintroducing an apparently overlooked

photo which proved the case.

Naturally, some readers had carefully examined each photo & understood the deductions reached. Those readers did not

need refreshing. Sorry.

I think that there is a tendency to object to a redundant replication of photos on the unusual grounds that this reduces the

cogency of the deduction.

After all, Duncan, if Arnold or Badge Man are shown to be illusions, then this reverses decades of thinking, mistaken thinking,

which is tremendously disconcerting. There is a tendency to resist at all costs.

It is extremely wasteful on your part and deliberately so of Forum space and resources, seeing that this has been requested

of you in the past by administration. -- Bernice

Administration has never requested of me that I change my posting.

Now, my photo essay is complete, so there is no need to post any previously posted photos.

Now, on to new areas:

Bernice has posted some new Photos.

One is very interesting. It has a text inset. Wonder when this was done & by whom. Bernice?

[Bill Miller]

Miles,

For heavens sake, can you stop, copying and bringing down previous posts continually.

B....

I agree with Bernice here Miles, I find it really annoying having to do so much scrolling, so much so, that I just ignore some posts and don't reply because there might be too much editing to do in my reply.

Duncan

Duncan,

Sure, no problem. I have made the case.

I think that what was going on was that it appeared that some participants on this thread had overlooked some photos.

Thus, it was indicated that it would be appropriate to refresh a line of argument by reintroducing an apparently overlooked

photo which proved the case.

Naturally, some readers had carefully examined each photo & understood the deductions reached. Those readers did not

need refreshing. Sorry.

I think that there is a tendency to object to a redundant replication of photos on the unusual grounds that this reduces the

cogency of the deduction.

After all, Duncan, if Arnold or Badge Man are shown to be illusions, then this reverses decades of thinking, mistaken thinking,

which is tremendously disconcerting. There is a tendency to resist at all costs.

It is extremely wasteful on your part and deliberately so of Forum space and resources, seeing that this has been requested

of you in the past by administration. -- Bernice

Administration has never requested of me that I change my posting.

Now, my photo essay is complete, so there is no need to post any previously posted photos.

Now, on to new areas:

Bernice has posted some new Photos.

One is very interesting. It has a text inset. Wonder when this was done & by whom. Bernice?

One can add yet another say-nothing response that Miles posted to the mix. How ridiculous was the above reply which came as a result of someone mentioning the wasted forum space Miles runs up that disrupts the flow of the thread.

[Miles Scull]

One can add yet another say-nothing response that Miles posted to the mix. How ridiculous was the above reply which came as a result of someone mentioning the wasted forum space Miles runs up that disrupts the flow of the thread.

It seems completely lost to you that your post seen here is a glaring example of the very fault which you seek, falsely, to paste me with!

Your post is:

1.) Off topic.

2.) A waste of forum space.

3.) A disruption of this thread.

4.) A continuation of multiple ad hominem attacks on me & other members.

5.) A say nothing response to debate issues you do not like, but cannot refute.

Looks like you've been caught red handed for the hundredth time.

Duncan, if you look at my previous post you will see that I asked Bernice for information.

Thus, I was on topic.

QED

Edited August 27, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

One can add yet another say-nothing response that Miles posted to the mix. How ridiculous was the above reply which came as a result of someone mentioning the wasted forum space Miles runs up that disrupts the flow of the thread.

It seems completely lost to you that your post seen here is a glaring example of the very fault which you seek, falsely, to paste me with!

Your post is:

1.) Off topic.

2.) A waste of forum space.

3.) A disruption of this thread.

4.) A continuation of multiple ad hominem attacks on me & other members.

5.) A say nothing response to debate issues you do not like, but cannot refute.

Looks like you've been caught red handed for the hundredth time.

Duncan, if you look at my previous post you will see that I asked Bernice for information.

Thus, I was on topic.

QED

Miles, the only thing concerning any evidence was mentioned in these two sentences ... "Bernice has posted some new Photos.

One is very interesting. It has a text inset. Wonder when this was done & by whom. Bernice?"

So I think they are asking that you stay on point and save the nonsense for another forum.

Bill Miller

Edited August 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

One can add yet another say-nothing response that Miles posted to the mix. How ridiculous was the above reply which came as a result of someone mentioning the wasted forum space Miles runs up that disrupts the flow of the thread.

It seems completely lost to you that your post seen here is a glaring example of the very fault which you seek, falsely, to paste me with!

Your post is:

1.) Off topic.

2.) A waste of forum space.

3.) A disruption of this thread.

4.) A continuation of multiple ad hominem attacks on me & other members.

5.) A say nothing response to debate issues you do not like, but cannot refute.

Looks like you've been caught red handed for the hundredth time.

Duncan, if you look at my previous post you will see that I asked Bernice for information.

Thus, I was on topic.

QED

Miles, the only thing concerning any evidence was mentioned in these two sentences ... "Bernice has posted some new Photos.

One is very interesting. It has a text inset. Wonder when this was done & by whom. Bernice?"

So I think they are asking that you stay on point and save the nonsense for another forum.

Bill Miller

So I think they are asking that you stay on point and save the nonsense for another forum.

You are still off topic, aren't you?

And off topic simply to try to hide the fact that yet once again:

Your post is:

1.) Off topic.

2.) A waste of forum space.

3.) A disruption of this thread.

4.) A continuation of multiple ad hominem attacks on me & other members.

5.) A say nothing response to debate issues you do not like, but cannot refute.

PLEASE GET BACK ON TOPIC !! THANK YOU!

Edited August 27, 2007 by Miles Scull

[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

Alan,

My brother took the photos when we were back there a few years ago.

They were not taken to recreate the Moorman position.

But, as they include people in different areas around the wall, thought they might offer a comparative size value between individuals.

I would try to line up/size common elements which are furthest away.

chris

Thanks for the reply Chris.

You don't have to respond to this but,

don't you find it more than a little persausive that every single photo taken from "the general area" of Moorman shows people more than twice the size of "Arnold" behind the wall, including yours?

Jack reminded us that differences are expected but, we not talking about minor differences that can be explained by repositioning people a few feet here & there.

If I can line up the south wall with each photo to M5 & every single time it shows someone over twice the size of Arnold, you have to wonder if there is something seriously wrong here, don't you?

Bill & Duncan seem to think that the whole idea of doing this is worthless because of how different things look depending on what camera set up you use(not that it ever stopped Bill in the past).

The problem I have is that the examples they used both show things at very different distances from the camera.

The face of the south wall & "Arnold" are in very close proximity, so the same distant from camera(well according to Arnold supporters they are!) & I can't see how every camera apart from Moorman's shows a giant behind the wall, when in fact they were midgets just like the "Arnold" figure. Can you?

On the correct positioning of a replica M5.

The message I am getting from this thread is.......

even if you do go to the plaza & accurately replicate the Moorman photo, if you place a man in the correct position to line up with the body mass of "Arnold"(& making you the first person to do so) & it doesn't correspond with either a. the Arnold story or b. what is humanly possible, then there must be something wrong with the focal lense you used.

Because only if you get the architecture and the hypothetical forms in the blow-ups lined up together can you ever be considered to have accurately replicated Moorman5.

Anyway Chris, I think the windows in the shelter are considered by others as one of the first things to line up in any photo that shows them, I'm sure you'd agree though that a few inches in height or width in your M5 position would make very little difference to the size of anyone behind the wall.

Alan

Edit: added one word nothing changed AH

Edited August 27, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

You are still off topic, aren't you?

And off topic simply to try to hide the fact that onc again:

Your post is:

1.) Off topic.

2.) A waste of forum space.

3.) A disruption of this thread.

4.) A continuation of multiple ad hominem attacks on me & other members.

5.) A say nothing response to debate issues you do not like, but cannot refute.

PLEASE GET BACK ON TOPIC !! THANK YOU![/color]

I was replying to text that YOU had written, so if it was off-topic` - consider who the originator of that text was. Now have a cup of coffee and another doughnut and chill out for awhile.

[Miles Scull]

You are still off topic, aren't you?

PLEASE GET BACK ON TOPIC !! THANK YOU!

I was replying to text that YOU had written, so if it was off-topic` - consider who the originator of that text was. Now have a cup of coffee and another doughnut and chill out for awhile.

Why is it necessary for you to be off topic yet even A G A I N ??

Edited August 27, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Alan Healy]

Bill & Duncan seem to think that the whole idea of doing this is worthless because of how different things look depending on what camera set up you use(not that it ever stopped Bill in the past).

Alan

Huh?...Quote me... I don't know where you got that idead from Alan. I said I'd rather stick strictly to the content of the Moorman photograph if possible, as that is the main topic. If anyone thinks that posting pics from other angles is worthwhile, then I have no objection, i've did it myself, we all have, although I keep my stance that whatever size something might appear in one photograph will probably appear a different size in another photograph, depending on the lens, distance, angles etc etc . That's only common sense.

Duncan

Bill refered to size of the limo & the wall in Muchmore, like they could be compared to the wall & the figure behind it in the Crawley photo, basically, he was saying that I am wasting my time because look what I found in Muchmore.

You said you agreed with his analysis.

So if he said it was worthless & you concured...

I keep my stance that whatever size something might appear in one photograph will probably appear a different size in another photograph, depending on the lens, distance, angles etc etc . That's only common sense.

You have to keep in mind Duncan that "Arnold/GIJ" & the wall are in close proximity to each other according to the Arnold supporters.

Two things that are in close proximity to each other do not appear a to be different sizes dependant on the camera. Not when the cameras are all within a few feet/inches to the original photographer.

Crawley

Turner

Myers

Miller

Davidson

They all show figures twice the size of Arnold when you line up the south facing wall.

Focal lense difference might explain it if there was some distance between the wall & the figure but that is our argument not theirs, they are saying there Arnold is just west of the pathway, they cannot keep that position & argue about focal lense differences.

What if I told you that Crawley already knew the focal length of Moorman's camera before he took that photo & he replicated it?

Would that make any difference?

Alan

[Bill Miller]

Bill refered to size of the limo & the wall in Muchmore, like they could be compared to the wall & the figure behind it in the Crawley photo, basically, he was saying that I am wasting my time because look what I found in Muchmore.

You said you agreed with his analysis.

So if he said it was worthless & you concured...

Alan, Do you just read the first sentence of each post and not the rest of it? I showed you that depending on the camera lens - it will make some objects look bigger or closer than they really are when compared to another photographers lens. I went as far as to show that even if you scaled the wall the same size in Moorman's photo and Muchmore's film - the limo will be drastically different in size. And in Muchmore's case ... the limo was smaller than in Moorman's photo while the men on the steps were larger than in Moorman's photo. Try sizing the limo in both images to scale so it matches up and look at Bill Newman who was 15 feet from the limo as Bill stood along the north curb of Elm Street and see what you get. I am blown away at your not understanding these things and applying them to your research. Is it that there is no one in your area that is a photographer who can explain this to you better than I can or is it that you just don't wish to learn it??

You have to keep in mind Duncan that "Arnold/GIJ" & the wall are in close proximity to each other according to the Arnold supporters.

Two things that are in close proximity to each other do not appear a to be different sizes dependant on the camera. Not when the cameras are all within a few feet/inches to the original photographer.

Sure they can .... lens variation and angle to the subject can make a difference as well. Look at the man in the westmost 6th floor of the Dillard photo. His head looks too big in Dillard's photo when compared to the diameter of the window frame, but when one sees that the window is tilted away from the camera and the man is looking directly at the camera, then the difference is understood. Another photographer looking at the same man in the window may show that the man's head is not too big because the angle at which he is seeing that location is different. It never even has to be one or the other things mentioned here that effect how things look - it could be a combination of each.

They all show figures twice the size of Arnold when you line up the south facing wall.

Focal lense difference might explain it if there was some distance between the wall & the figure but that is our argument not theirs, they are saying there Arnold is just west of the pathway, they cannot keep that position & argue about focal lense differences.

Look at the BDM in the Willis and Betzner photos .... does he not look a little different in each picture?

What if I told you that Crawley already knew the focal length of Moorman's camera before he took that photo & he replicated it?

Would that make any difference?

Alan

What if I told you that Crawley felt that the Badge Man images were the right size when he was in Dealey Plaza and it wasn't until after he went back to London that he changed his mind. As far as being the correct size goes ... Dale Myers used Todd Vaughn who was much taller and heavier than Badge Man was, thus this allowed Dale to claim that Vaughn needed to be back further into the RR yard to match up with the Badge Man images.

By the way, wasn't there a shot of Arnold in Turner's documentary where Gordon could be seen standing beyond the wall .... any thoughts on Gordon's size in that shot and how it compares to his figure in Moorman's photograph???

Bill

Edited August 29, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

I repeat...GEOFFREY CRAWLEY did not replicate the Moorman photo with

people. He and I used Mary's camera to take a replication photo WITHOUT

people...but not with people. Nigel Turner took the one with people.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I repeat...GEOFFREY CRAWLEY did not replicate the Moorman photo with

people. He and I used Mary's camera to take a replication photo WITHOUT

people...but not with people. Nigel Turner took the one with people.

Jack

Jack,

I would suggest using dictionary definitions so to help them understand, but I have tried it in the past and it didn't work either.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Why are using plurals when only one person, ie, Alan, has used the Crawley reference?.

Duncan

I used plurals because I have used definitions in my post with others like yourself so to show the definitions of the words you use I think you call it playing word games or something like that.

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

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

Alan,

My brother took the photos when we were back there a few years ago.

They were not taken to recreate the Moorman position.

But, as they include people in different areas around the wall, thought they might offer a comparative size value between individuals.

I would try to line up/size common elements which are furthest away.

chris

Thanks for the reply Chris.

You don't have to respond to this but,

don't you find it more than a little persausive that every single photo taken from "the general area" of Moorman shows people more than twice the size of "Arnold" behind the wall, including yours?

Jack reminded us that differences are expected but, we not talking about minor differences that can be explained by repositioning people a few feet here & there.

If I can line up the south wall with each photo to M5 & every single time it shows someone over twice the size of Arnold, you have to wonder if there is something seriously wrong here, don't you?

Bill & Duncan seem to think that the whole idea of doing this is worthless because of how different things look depending on what camera set up you use(not that it ever stopped Bill in the past).

The problem I have is that the examples they used both show things at very different distances from the camera.

The face of the south wall & "Arnold" are in very close proximity, so the same distant from camera(well according to Arnold supporters they are!) & I can't see how every camera apart from Moorman's shows a giant behind the wall, when in fact they were midgets just like the "Arnold" figure. Can you?

On the correct positioning of a replica M5.

The message I am getting from this thread is.......

even if you do go to the plaza & accurately replicate the Moorman photo, if you place a man in the correct position to line up with the body mass of "Arnold"(& making you the first person to do so) & it doesn't correspond with either a. the Arnold story or b. what is humanly possible, then there must be something wrong with the focal lense you used.

Because only if you get the architecture and the hypothetical forms in the blow-ups lined up together can you ever be considered to have accurately replicated Moorman5.

Anyway Chris, I think the windows in the shelter are considered by others as one of the first things to line up in any photo that shows them, I'm sure you'd agree though that a few inches in height or width in your M5 position would make very little difference to the size of anyone behind the wall.

Alan

Edit: added one word nothing changed AH

Alan,

I'll post a few examples going forward.

If I change the aspect ratio, I will say so.

chris

[Bernice Moore]

The photo showing the view of Lee Bowers from the Tower, with text....

I believe was either scanned from " 6 Seconds In Dallas " , or one of Mark Lanes

books...not positive..wherever an early photo and comment.

I have neither at hand, next time I get to the book room... I will double check..

and pass along the info, if it can be of any help..

B.....