Bill Miller Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 (edited) Note the bench, wall & man standing next to the wall.This man with light coloured pants & shirt is short, yet his belt is above the wall. Next, see the man in the inset behind the wall (red arrow). Likewise, his belt is above the wall. Finally, see little tiny Arnie (yellow arrow). Somebody has weasel scat on his shoe. Not me. You? BM? [/color][/b] The time frames in which these various images were taken says a lot. The location of the man on the day of the assassination has a lower ground elevation than that of the bench. The Gary Shaw photo in Groden's book makes this quite clear. Today, the area there isn't grass at all, but rather concrete with only slight sloping for water run-off. Your illustration, as usual, is without merit or facts. Edited December 30, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 (edited) One of the poorest responses i've seen from you yet Bill, a sure sign of a man on the run with his tail between his legs, and nothing to provide to counter my claim, and merely quoting the names of people who have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, unless they wish to become involved of course. Duncan, what valid claim is there that one must respond to? You made an observation without first knowing the ground height behind the wall where Arnold was standing. Your first scaling when blown-up was so bush leagued that it was an embarrassment to even see it on something called an 'education forum'. You then take a Gordon Arnold figure who is turned to the camera in a different location and rotation to the camera and once again run a ridiculously flawed comparison. Gary Mack has mentioned the aspect ratios needed to do the scaling even half correctly and you have yet to do them. Then you ignore the information concerning someone or something seen between the wall and the fence at the moment of the fatal shot as shown in Groden's book. Unless the Moorman photo is altered whereas that person or object was removed, then it is the Gordon Arnold in Moorman's photo that you believe to be too small. So without seeking a single expert in photography so to address the Moorman camera lens and how it would apply to objects seen at different distances from the wall while looking uphill, or seek someone skilled in Photogammetry who could use certain reference points and their known measurements to tell you things you need to know to even begin to validate what you think you see, you posted nothing! Mack has told me in the past that he recreated the Badge Man images and that their locations and that the stand-ins matched what is seen in Moorman's photo. Have you sought Mack out to see what he has come up with or is he not answering your emails either??? On the other hand I have sent Mack a request asking him to get Groden or someone and take a photo using a similar lens to Moorman's so we can compare that photo to Moorman's. This too, is something that a responsible researcher should have included in his off-the-cuff claim IMO. Yes indeed ... researchers should first hear Duncan's throw dung at the wall to see if it sticks claim - then read how Miles tries to validate it by making up alleged contacts between Duncan and certain well-known JFK researchers and experts - then go on a hunt to then carry out the research that Duncan should have done in the first place. Now Duncan, are you still puzzled as to why Groden doesn't answer your emails ... I'm not! Edited December 31, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Miller dronned: [...]Now Duncan, are you still puzzled as to why Groden doesn't answer your emails ... I'm not![/b] Whose Groden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Miller dronned:[...]Now Duncan, are you still puzzled as to why Groden doesn't answer your emails ... I'm not![/b] Whose Groden? Exactly. One of the poorest responses i've seen from you yet Bill, a sure sign of a man on the run with his tail between his legs, and nothing to provide to counter my claim, and merely quoting the names of people who have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, unless they wish to become involved of course. Now Duncan, are you still puzzled ... I'm not! -- BM Duncan, The ground at the bench is flat to the wall at Arnie's alleged spot. See Darnall frame inset (lower right). What is truly puzzling is BM's refusal to see the obvious. Mack & Groden consider Arnie so small as to be preposterous. That's why BM cannot & does not solicit their endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 The ground at the bench is flat to the wall at Arnie's alleged spot. See Darnall frame inset (lower right).What is truly puzzling is BM's refusal to see the obvious. The ground when seen from this angle looks flat all the way to the horizon line. As far as your other remark ... its not a refusal to see the obvious on my part, but rather a refusal to wish to look like a complete idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 (edited) On the other hand I have sent Mack a request asking him to get Groden or someone and take a photo using a similar lens to Moorman's so we can compare that photo to Moorman's. This too, is something that a responsible researcher should have included in his off-the-cuff claim IMO. Bill Oh yeah? Tell us all then what similar lens YOU used to come to your conclusion that it IS Arnold in Moorman. The forum awaits confirmation details from you. Duncan Duncan, Good point. We await BM's reply! My point is the same. For a long time BM has asserted that the ground at the bench is higher than the ground at Arnie's alleged spot. The time frames in which these various images were taken says a lot. The location of the man on the day of the assassination has a lower ground elevation than that of the bench. The Gary Shaw photo in Groden's book makes this quite clear. Today, the area there isn't grass at all, but rather concrete with only slight sloping for water run-off. Your illustration, as usual, is without merit or facts. This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Today, 01:50 AM BM, as usual, is without merit or facts. The Gary Shaw photo in Groden's book was not taken on Nov. 22, 1963 as these photos (below) were. The ground, bench to Arnie, was level then. The man with a yellow line is standing at the corner of the wall with his hands resting on the wall top. Edited for spelling. Edited December 31, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 More uninformed false disinfo spin and name dropping from the mouthmaster.Who gives a flying Donald what Groden thinks? He's NOT an expert on the existance or non existance of Arnold in Moorman, and has nothing to do with this debate, Duncan Groden is an expert in camera lenses and the way the make objects appear. That would have been a good start to anyone actually doing a valid study of a picture, but it appears that you didn't and still don't see the significance in this. This is another reason your emails must not get answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 (edited) Miles,Do you know this to be true??? Mack & Groden consider Arnie so small as to be preposterous. If you do not know it, please refrain from saying so. If you know it is true, please post your proof. Kathy, when does Miles care about about saying things that isn't so. How many times did he post that Holland ran immediately off the underpass, or that Bowers could see people standing on the steps, or that Duncan consulted Mack and Groden. Just like his inferences to Bowers talking about a 'red-plaid' shirted or jacketed man ... he merely makes it up as he goes. Duncan has already verified that Myles fabricated the Mack and Groden being consulted story. I have been helping Robert with a new book he is coming out with, thus I speak to him on a regular basis, as I do Gary Mack. The remark above that you asked Miles about is just another fabrication on his part. Bill Edited December 31, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 My point is the same. For a long time BM has asserted that the ground at the bench is higher than the ground at Arnie's alleged spot. Miles, I do not know at this time if you are incompetent or purposely fabricating the things you are saying in these post. At this time, I must ask that you post a quote from me that shows that the statement you just made is accurate. BM, as usual, is without merit or facts. The Gary Shaw photo in Groden's book was not taken on Nov. 22, 1963 as these photos (below) were. The ground, bench to Arnie, was level then. The man with a yellow line is standing at the corner of the wall with his hands resting on the wall top. Miles, I have in the past taken the time to consult the 6th Floor Museum for details concerning the walkway and its preservation. The information I received told me that the ground at the time of the Shaw photo was the same as it was at the time of the assassination. The placement of concrete at that location came at a later date. Now if you have obtained different information, then please post it so it can be verified. Until then, I assume you have not contacted the Museum and spoken to Gark Mack, thus you are still fabricating things so to disrupt and sabotage the purpose of this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 (edited) Groden is an expert in camera lenses and the way the make objects appear.Bill Don't talk garbage. If he was an expert on camera lenses and how things appear through those lenses, then he would not have woefully mistaken Hudson for a shooter with a rifle. He may admit to the mistake now, but his huge error shows conclusively that he is no expert on how things appear through camera lenses. If you want any more proof of Groden's "expertise" like O J's altered shoes, just ask and i'll be happy to supply the details, but i'm sure you know them all already Duncan Duncan, Secret camera mojo & secret, hidden phantoms are the tradecraft of someone eluding obvious facts & inconvenient verities. You don't need esoteric, arcane lens knowledge to figure this out. All you need is simple everyday common sense. Edited for grammar. Edited January 1, 2008 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Groden is an expert in camera lenses and the way the make objects appear.Bill Don't talk garbage. If he was an expert on camera lenses and how things appear through those lenses, then he would not have woefully mistaken Hudson for a shooter with a rifle. He may admit to the mistake now, but his huge error shows conclusively that he is no expert on how things appear through camera lenses. If you want any more proof of Groden's "expertise" like O J's altered shoes, just ask and i'll be happy to supply the details, but i'm sure you know them all already Duncan Not yet sure that I agree - z414 is certainly a surprise. How conclusive for Hudson? Much left to understand as to what occurred on the stairs and in this area in general. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Groden is an expert in camera lenses and the way the make objects appear.Bill Don't talk garbage. If he was an expert on camera lenses and how things appear through those lenses, then he would not have woefully mistaken Hudson for a shooter with a rifle. He may admit to the mistake now, but his huge error shows conclusively that he is no expert on how things appear through camera lenses. If you want any more proof of Groden's "expertise" like O J's altered shoes, just ask and i'll be happy to supply the details, but i'm sure you know them all already Duncan I probably shouldn't waste my time over such stupidity and this ground has been gone over in the past, but here it is again .... As far as I know ... no expert had ever challenged Groden's questioning who the mystery man was seen on the Zapruder film. I think Robert, like everyone else, had thought that this was someone standing on the walkway which meant that he could have been the BDM. I took it upon myself to do a study on this matter by going to the plaza and seeing where I would have to position someone to get the same look as Zapruder had obtained in his film. I quickly discovered that this person was standing on the same step as Emmett Hudson. Groden's misreading the image is one thing, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't understand camera lenses and if you'd bother to do some simple research - you could contact any experienced photographer in this field who understands Moorman's lens in order to get some necessary data so to intelligently address the matter at hand. As far as the OJ case goes ... it was the one photographer who had a photo of OJ at a football game that came into question. It is true that another photographer had taken photos of OJ at the game and had published some of his pictures before the Brown and Goldman murder's took place, but that didn't rule out that the one photographer hadn't fudged the print he was trying to sell. You see, I too held the same position that you do on that matter, but I discovered that there was more to this story than I previously had known. Groden had said to me that he still believes that the one print from the first photograph looked to have been retouched and that the second photographers prints that looked good didn't mean that the first photographer hadn't monkey'd around with his print. I could not argue with Groden under those circumstances. The one thing that matters is that Groden probably passes more expertise on film and camera lenses through his stools than you or I have combined. And as I have alluded to - you are welcome to pick your own expert to consult, but it should have been done just the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Not yet sure that I agree - z414 is certainly a surprise. How conclusive for Hudson? Much left to understand as to what occurred on the stairs and in this area in general. - lee Lee, Bill has proven beyond doubt, and to his credit, that the figure seen in Groden's drawing is Hudson. See Bill's full excellent work on this subject by clicking here Gif by Bill Miller Duncan _________________________________ Thanks for posting that, Duncan. Good work, Bill. Kudos to both of you. --Thomas _________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 As far as I know ... Bill Duncan, Men with functioning eyes can differentiate between big & little objects. "Photo experts" (aka PEs) are men with functioning eyes. Therefore, "photo experts" can differentiate between big & little objects. In Towner 3 & the photo below the man behind the wall is big & Arnie (inset) is small. Therefore, "photo experts" agree that Arnie is small. How small? Too small to be human? This is the question BM should ask "photo experts" who will help Duncan. Does BM know any"PEs" to ask to help Duncan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Edited: Edited January 2, 2008 by Robin Unger 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