Bill Miller Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 By introducing a tilt consideration you raise the further obvious question:Why was the figure tilted? By tilting the figure a misrepresentation occurs. There can be no misrepresentation unless someone was using it against another image and stated that they were both on the same axis. What ever program it was bootlegged from could have had it laying on its side and it wouldn't be a misrepresentation unless it was said not to be laying on its side. You email me a scan and the scan was a bit tilted - so what ... it happens. It was up to the author of who put them side by side to check them for accuracy. Like you inferred ... assuming is no good. A changing of the image results. A rotation of images does not solve the problem. Nor does "computer error."If the axis is the badge, then the flash is moved as is the head from left to right. Anyone can put the two badges over the top of one another, but if the rest of the image isn't scaled correctly from side to side, then shifting of other reference points is going to occur. However, the tilt consideration does not explain the need to move the entire rifle, not just the muzzle, to achieve a trajectory at Kennedy.Nor does the tilt consideration resolve other issues. Thats why the other issues were addressed when scaling and aligning other reference points was discussed. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Nothing is worthless if there's a true result at the end of a sensible debate. Right or wrong, Miles was correct to point it out if he thought something wasn't right. Jacks answer satisfied my question, as for Miles, you'll need to ask him.Duncan Duncan, don't try and con me. Miles didn't just raise a question ... he went even further as if he had looked into the matter and the bottom line is that he had not and was just blowing off or he is incapable of knowing how to actually check this stuff out on his own. Seeing how the earlier option was evident - I have to lean that way. "The badge in the B/W stays where it is & the badge in the colour stays where it is. The ears stay where they are. That simple. The tilt trick is a transparent bamboozlement. " Innocent on Miles part? .... Maybe?? .... after all, the first Indians who saw a match strike so to have fire probably said the same thing. Bill Bill.....What are you on about? Trying to con you? I'm agreeing with you...lol Try reading what i said and don't go back to the old Magoo days... lol YES the badge stays where it is YES the ear stays where it is EVERYTHING stays where it is apart from small artistic licence details. Oh AND YES....I'm going to bed now, probably to have nightmares about this stupid issue lol Duncan I wasn't saying I disagreed with you on the scaling point - it was over Miles merely raising a question remark that you made is what I responded to. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 The old rotation alteration: Duncan, You may have gone to sleep by now. Thanks for good work. This makes my case perfectly. The colour image has been rotated, by accident, with the result that a distinctly more favourable appearance or impression is obtained which will appeal to a viewer trying hard to find a reason to suppose that BM is actually trying to shoot at JFK. If the colour image is not rotated, but holds to the B/W frame, then BM is shooting at the Moon, so to speak, & that ain't good, for BMers. QED See you tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 (edited) Duncan, You may have gone to sleep by now. Thanks for good work. This makes my case perfectly. The colour image has been rotated, by accident, with the result that a distinctly more favourable appearance or impression is obtained which will appeal to a viewer trying hard to find a reason to suppose that BM is actually trying to shoot at JFK. If the colour image is not rotated, but holds to the B/W frame, then BM is shooting at the Moon, so to speak, & that ain't good, for BMers. QED See you tomorrow. Miles, are you wanting to tuck Duncan into bed with a kiss goodnite, as well? After demonstrating that you had not a clue as to how to read a photo so to know that part of it was tilted and not scaled properly - you now want to tell us that Badge Man is shooting at the moon. Again, please tell us all you know about muzzle flashes and how they should appear when coming out the end of the barrel ... inquiring minds want to know??? Bill Miller Edited September 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 (edited) [...] The colour image has been rotated, by accident, with the result that a distinctly more favourable appearance or impression is obtained which will appeal to a viewer trying hard to find a reason to suppose that BM is actually trying to shoot at JFK. [...] ______________________ In other words, "The color image has been accidentally rotated a bit and as a result might give some viewers the impression that Badgeman was shooting at JFK." ______________________ Edited September 4, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Why am I reminded of William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra? MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING and "tilting at windmills". This is becoming a quite literary thread. How Quixotic. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 [...] The colour image has been rotated, by accident, with the result that a distinctly more favourable appearance or impression is obtained which will appeal to a viewer trying hard to find a reason to suppose that BM is actually trying to shoot at JFK. ______________________ In other words, "The color image has been accidentally rotated a bit and as a result might give some viewers the impression that Badgeman was shooting at JFK." ______________________ The sad thing is, Thomas ... is that one could show that image of Badge Man and what appears to be a muzzle flash to someone knowledgeable about guns and muzzle flashes and they would not touch claiming that they know exactly where the barrel of the gun was behind the flash with a ten foot pole. in fact, if one looks at JFK's location in relation to Moorman's, then an inch or so adjustment in the angle of the barrel could make the difference between shooting JFK and shooting Moorman. This is substantiated by Edna Hartman mentioning not the wound to Mary Moorman, but the furrow in the grass just west of her location along Elm Street. So it appears that Badge Man wasn't shooting after all. Bill miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 (edited) Miles, [...] (a)fter demonstrating that you had not a clue as to how to read a photo so to know that part of it was tilted and not scaled properly - you now want to tell us that Badge Man is shooting at the moon. [...] ___________________________ Bill, Maybe Professor Scull thinks that Badgeman was aiming at Mary Moorman or the Babuska Lady instead of JFK. lol --Thomas ___________________________ Edited September 4, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Miles, [...] (a)fter demonstrating that you had not a clue as to how to read a photo so to know that part of it was tilted and not scaled properly - you now want to tell us that Badge Man is shooting at the moon. [...] ___________________________ Bill, Maybe Professor Scull thinks that Badgeman was aiming at Mary Moorman or the Babuska Lady instead of JFK. lol --Thomas ___________________________ O Dunc, what times!, what mores! Doubting Thomas has scored a hole in one. I am in complete agreement with his penetrating assessment. What would I do without disciples supporting my logic? The badge was moved left, just as I said, by rotation. BM was shooting at Mary's right shoulder whereupon roosted a midget parakeet (remarkable!) who oddly sported a minuscule Tyrol's hat, which in turn was grossly over exposed creating a Tink nonsense. You know the rest. What can you say about people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 BM was shooting at Mary's right shoulder whereupon roosted a midget parakeet (remarkable!) who oddly sported a minuscule Tyrol's hat, which in turn was grossly over exposed creating a Tink nonsense.You know the rest. What can you say about people?[/color][/b] I think when one spouts the meaningless say-nothing dribble like that posted above - they cannot say much about other people at all. When they cannot even check an image to see if its on the same axis as the duplicate they are trying to make a case for something being wrong between the two - they should not ever say anything about anyone concerning the photographical evidence and/or how to read it! The only thing they can say that has been earned is that its a good thing they don't hang people for being inept at reading photos or a select few in this thread would have been hung a long time ago. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Why am I reminded of William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra?MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING and "tilting at windmills". This is becoming a quite literary thread. How Quixotic. Jack Don't be too harsh on Miles Jack. He has made an important discovery concerning the Parakeet on Mary's right shoulder which has blown my cover, so i'd like to confess all. I am the filmer of the other film and am now producing a few frames from it to show why Zapruder's film was altered. The Parakeet was actually an undercover agent, and had spotted Badgeman aiming the rifle. Badgeman knew this, and so, tried to blow the poor birds head off to get rid of him as a witness. Unfortunately for Badgeman, the shot missed and only blew Mr Squawk's hat off. The reason the Zapruder film was altered was to get rid of the evidence that Mr Squawk was in Dealey Plaza, and witnessed Badgeman shooting, who if he gave evidence, would have blown the cover on the lone assassin theory, and the single bullet theory which were planned well in advance. Mr Squawk passed away recently, so I am not accepting requests for his email address. Thank god this thread is not silly anymore Jack One more thing before I finish. How did Miles know all of this?..Easy...Miles was the owner of the Parakeet and was observing from Bill's Hatman postion at the right of the tree. How no one noticed this before is beyond my understanding. He still wears the same hat, but he has obviously changed the colour. Nice try Miles, but I had to grass on you, my conscience was bothering me for all of these years...lol Duncan It's a shame that you guys have no problem at taking the time to create such foolishness as the gif in the previous post, but you don't seem to have been interested enough learn how to apply that knowledge to doing the basics like understanding how to scale two images properly or how to test them so to see if the images were even on the same axis. I would think that the seriousness of JFK's murder would have been worth the effort to try and go the extra mile so to actually contribute something to a thread rather than trying to make a mockery out of it, but evidently there are some who do not agree. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I would think that the seriousness of JFK's murder would have been worth the effort to try and go the extra mile so to actually contribute something to a thread rather than trying to make a mockery out of it, but evidently there are some who do not agree. Bill Miller Lighten up Bill and take some chill pills. Accept it for what it is, a bit of light relief humour in a crazy thread. Duncan Duncan, I don't mean to be picking on you. The point I am making is that if one can learn how to create such animations for humor purposes, then why not take that knowledge and build on it by learning how to do the more productive things with those skills ... and by that I don't mean create more gifs per say, but play around with creating gifs where you can hone your skills at aligning images and understanding the processes that allow one to reach well tested conclusions. If I can help in some way - I'll be happy to share with you the techniques I have learned. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I would think that the seriousness of JFK's murder would have been worth the effort to try and go the extra mile so to actually contribute something to a thread rather than trying to make a mockery out of it, but evidently there are some who do not agree. Bill Miller Lighten up Bill and take some chill pills. Accept it for what it is, a bit of light relief humour in a crazy thread. Duncan Duncan, We know from TMWKK that Arnie walked from the steam pipe, where he was scalded, easterly along the car traffic lane of the parking lot to point half way to the fence corner. (We know this was Arnie's route from the photo analysis of one of our members who proved that there was not a open, navigable pathway next to the fence.) When Arnie got halfway along this lane, he decided to go down between the densely parked cars to the fence in order to see if he could shoot some film from there. But, Arnie was surreptitiously dogged by a CIA agent. On reaching the fence at that point Arnie was surprised to encounter a man already there. The trailing CIA agent caught up to Arnie here & told him to move along. Then Arnie went back between the parallel parked cars, back to the car traffic lane, and then moved around to the south side of the fence. This is critical. Because Arnie did NOT walk along the west side of the short leg of the fence because there was no pathway there along the fence as well because of the cars parked abutting the fence..., because Arnie walked in the car traffic lane, Arnie did NOT SEE Badge Man crouching in the small shadowy area which was his lair. This explains why Arnie was totally surprised later, as he says he was, by the FIRST shot fired that day which flew, as Arnie says, over his left shoulder. The most remarkable aspect of Arnie's story is the fact that Arnie encountered Duncan Man! Returning you kindness of placing me in an unusual place, I return the favour by appending a placement of Arnie as he found himself a time before the Moorman. Most remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 (edited) We know from TMWKK that Arnie walked from the steam pipe, where he was scalded, easterly along the car traffic lane of the parking lot to point half way to the fence corner.(We know this was Arnie's route from the photo analysis of one of our members who proved that there was not a open, navigable pathway next to the fence.) When Arnie got halfway along this lane, he decided to go down between the densely parked cars to the fence in order to see if he could shoot some film from there. Miles, do you have a different version of Gordon Arnold's interview from the MWKK series than the rest of us? It seems that you constantly cite things as fact, such as in this case, and it is not even close to what was actually said by the witness. So in front of all the members here - CITE WHERE YOU GOT THE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO ARNOLD? I will be taking some time off over the next couple of weeks and if I get bored, I am going to start going back and copying all the responses you have given whereas you posted say-nothing goofy statements, as well as all the post where you stated things that you knew to be false. In fact, I believe your responses, if studied, will reveal a pattern showing that you are purposely trying to sabotage the purpose of this forum. The reasons for your behavior is only anyone's guess, but I am certain that the pattern will be evident beyond any doubt. For instance, where in the MWKK interview did Gordon Arnold ever say he was "SCALDED"? You also stated that it was proven that at the time Arnold walked into the RR yard - that there was not an open navigational pathway. I know of no photos showing the west stretch of fence just prior or immediately after the assassination and before any vehicles had been moved, and I am sure that you do not know of any either, which brings us to your motive for saying otherwise. As I recall, Gordon Arnold said he did walk the fence line looking for a place to get a view so to film the parade. In just a matter of sentences you managed to misstate several things once again that you have been called on in the past and maybe it is about time you are exposed in detail as to what you have been doing here. It might also be worth noting that Duncan's guy is said to be a cop - Arnold was met in the RR yard by a guy claiming to be with the Feds. I would also like a clarification on Arnold's existence because in your previous response you speak of Arnold as if he was in the RR yard where he was then moved to the knoll and in other threads you claim his image in Moorman's photo is an illusion. I look forward to your answer for it will also be part of the record that I will be referring to from time to time. Bill Miller Edited September 4, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 We know from TMWKK that Arnie walked from the steam pipe, where he was scalded, easterly along the car traffic lane of the parking lot to point half way to the fence corner.(We know this was Arnie's route from the photo analysis of one of our members who proved that there was not a open, navigable pathway next to the fence.) When Arnie got halfway along this lane, he decided to go down between the densely parked cars to the fence in order to see if he could shoot some film from there. Miles, do you have a different version of Gordon Arnold's interview from the MWKK series than the rest of us? It seems that you constantly cite things as fact, such as in this case, and it is not even close to what was actually said by the witness. So in front of all the members here - CITE WHERE YOU GOT THE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO ARNOLD? I will be taking some time off over the next couple of weeks and if I get bored, I am going to start going back and copying all the responses you have given whereas you posted say-nothing goofy statements, as well as all the post where you stated things that you knew to be false. In fact, I believe your responses, if studied, will reveal a pattern showing that you are purposely trying to sabotage the purpose of this forum. The reasons for your behavior is only anyone's guess, but I am certain that the pattern will be evident beyond any doubt. For instance, where in the MWKK interview did Gordon Arnold ever say he was "SCALDED"? You also stated that it was proven that at the time Arnold walked into the RR yard - that there was not an open navigational pathway. I know of no photos showing the west stretch of fence just prior or immediately after the assassination and before any vehicles had been moved, and I am sure that you do not know of any either, which brings us to your motive for saying otherwise. As I recall, Gordon Arnold said he did walk the fence line looking for a place to get a view so to film the parade. In just a matter of sentences you managed to misstate several things once again that you have been called on in the past and maybe it is about time you are exposed in detail as to what you have been doing here. It might also be worth noting that Duncan's guy is said to be a cop - Arnold was met in the RR yard by a guy claiming to be with the Feds. I would also like a clarification on Arnold's existence because in your previous response you speak of Arnold as if he was in the RR yard where he was then moved to the knoll and in other threads you claim his image in Moorman's photo is an illusion. I look forward to your answer for it will also be part of the record that I will be referring to from time to time. Bill Miller Duncan, Did you mention chill pills? Lighten up Bill and take some chill pills. Accept it for what it is, a bit of light relief humour in a crazy thread.Duncan Maybe Bill doesn't have any? Better get some in the mail. I'm working on some new scaling problems. Should have some results soon. Cheers. 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