Bill Miller Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Of course you took the bait, hook, line & sinker!This image is a deliberate fabrication designed to be grossly inaccurate by almost every criteria of precision. IOW, this image is SO wrong, it's a photographer's little haha, or joke. And you are SO right to attack this major bogus. About everything you have ever posted is a deliberate fabrication IMO. Any more people you would like to tell us that Duncan has consulted that never really happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Miles I might be wrong. I might have overlooked something. Joking apart. What an amazing angle Duncan Duncan, lets take some of your wasted time here and give you something to play with. Gordon Arnold is said to have been about 5' 10" tall. The fence is 5' tall ... so apply what you can see of your Gordon Arnold insert to the height of the fence and see how your leg allowance measures up. Then post your results. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Thanks!I'd rather you did your own experiments and post your own results. I'll give you a tip though...Arnold's floating Torso is where we see it in Moorman and in no other position..The fence is exactly where we see it in Morman and in no other position, the fence and Arnold are relative to each other in Moorman..... Get my point? Duncan Duncan, Another point. If Arnie is real, then he must be standing at the wall. If he retreats away from the wall toward the fence, then his waist disappears below the wall top . Note the waist (belt) of the man above (red arrow) is just above the wall top. Below the ground is canted to show the ground rise from east to west. This shows that Arnie if real is standing at the fence; otherwise his waist would not be visible. That being the case, then the scaling places Arnie hovering in mid air in the parking lot. WSBM will allow that humans cannot fly. Does Arnie have a rocket strapped to his back? No witness reported a rocket launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Duncan, Another point. If Arnie is real, then he must be standing at the wall. If he retreats away from the wall toward the fence, then his waist disappears below the wall top . Exactly Miles, Robin made this exact very same point way back in the thread. Duncan QUOTE(Duncan MacRae @ Jan 10 2008, 08:38 PM) Thomas, Don't let Bill fool you for one second. 1./MIT did not study Arnold. Gary or Jack can verify this. 2./ The topic of this debate is the existance or non existance of Arnold In Moorman, the thread has nothing to do with the size of Badgeman, it's a straying from the topic tactic as usual. 3./ He says he has conducted conclusive research confirming Arnold's existance in Moorman. Where is it? Duncan Duncan, are you so narrow sighted that you cannot connect the dots! The people at MIT who saw Badge Man felt that he was a real person. Gordon Arnold is standing just ahead of him and is of equal size, thus if they felt Badge Man wasn't too small, then they cannot say that Arnold is too small. I have also posted many times about my recreation of the Moorman photo and did a presentation on it at Lancer's conference where it was well received by people like William Law, Joan Mellen, Sherry Gutierrez, and etc.. -------------------- I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years and I have received the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case. Duncan, The above quote is from BM's post # 706 on this thread. I wonder if you saw it? It could be important. BM says: "I have also posted many times about my recreation of the Moorman photo and did a presentation on it at Lancer's conference where it was well received by people like William Law, Joan Mellen, Sherry Gutierrez, and etc.." Apparently BM did a presentation which asserted that Arnie was a real human figure in Moorman. BM says: "I have received the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case." Duncan, I ask you: Did BM receive this award for his presentation? The reason I ask this is that if this true (or not), then BM must have hitherto undisclosed sound & convincing evidence, other than the dubious MIT hearsay evidence for which there is zero source citation, that Arnie is real. This is good news! It may verify Arnie. The question, then, should be asked of BM: What was the content of BM's Lancer presentation? Do you agree, Duncan? Brake through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I know--went back and edited. It's there now. Thanks Duncan. Miles,I believe Bill's Award was for this: I see, Kathy. Then, it can be deduced that the presentation was for Arnie being real. The reason I ask this is that if this true (or not), then BM must have hitherto undisclosed sound & convincing evidence, other than the dubious MIT hearsay evidence for which there is zero source citation, that Arnie is real. This thread has extended now to over 700 posts, yet this key evidence, which was presented at a Lancer conference, remains hidden. Why? That's my question for Duncan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Then, it can be deduced that the presentation was for Arnie being real.The reason I ask this is that if this true (or not), then BM must have hitherto undisclosed sound & convincing evidence, other than the dubious MIT hearsay evidence for which there is zero source citation, that Arnie is real. This thread has extended now to over 700 posts, yet this key evidence, which was presented at a Lancer conference, remains hidden. Why? That's my question for Duncan. Maybe i'm missing something Miles, but I don't see the relevance between the mistaken Groden sniper in the bushes link and Arnold. Can you explain? Duncan The grodon sniper may be maroon man or leaf cluster man, that's irrelevant. BM made a presentation to a LANCER CONFERENCE on the subject of the of the alleged figures in Moorman, including Arnie. This presentation was apparently persuasive & enlightening to Lancer luminaries & VIPs. Since your thesis, Duncan, is that Arnie is not real in Moorman, but an illusion, then BM refuted you at this presentation. Otherwise, the luminaries & VIPs would not have received BM favourably. My mind is open. What did BM say or present to this audience? This thread has extended now to over 700 posts, yet this key evidence, which was presented at a Lancer conference, remains hidden. Why? That's my question for Duncan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 This topic has been beat to death BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN TO DEALEY PLAZA. One visit to the plaza with a camera would overcome ALL of their speculative ignorance. Standing in relevant locations (as I have done) and taking photos quickly reveals the probability of the locations of Arnold, Badgeman and Hardhatman. Why waste time theorizing on something which is so easily demonstrated? Been there, done that. Move on. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 If you've been there, done that, let's see your proof that Arnold exists in the floating position in Moorman from your recreation. I've never seen it.Duncan Duncan, See post above, # 747. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) BM made a presentation to a LANCER CONFERENCE on the subject of the of the alleged figures in Moorman, including Arnie.This presentation was apparently persuasive & enlightening to Lancer luminaries & VIPs. Since your thesis, Duncan, is that Arnie is not real in Moorman, but an illusion, then BM refuted you at this presentation. Miles, How do you know this? If I didn't know better. I'd think you were trying to stir the pot . Perfectly OK to assume, but you speak as if you know. "BM Made a presentation.......................including Arnie"--your words. This is not an assumption--it's a stretch, unless you were there. I don't understand why the reference to the Lancer Conference--not necessary to be a VIP or a luminary to go, for I've been to two of them . Good point , Kathy. Duncan, are you so narrow sighted that you cannot connect the dots! The people at MIT who saw Badge Man felt that he was a real person. Gordon Arnold is standing just ahead of him and is of equal size, thus if they felt Badge Man wasn't too small, then they cannot say that Arnold is too small. I have also posted many times about my recreation of the Moorman photo and did a presentation on it at Lancer's conference where it was well received by people like William Law, Joan Mellen, Sherry Gutierrez, and etc.. BM's recreation of the Moorman photo was presented. Did that "recreation" posit the Arnie figure as a real human? Evidently so, because BM asserts that on this thread without offering any proof, since the dubious MIT hearsay evidence for which there is zero source citation cannot be admitted or accepted until verifiable citations are proffered. QUOTE(Duncan MacRae @ Jan 10 2008, 09:17 PM) The people at MIT who saw Badge Man felt that he was a real person. -- Miller QUOTE By early March, 1985, MACK and WHITE had engaged the services of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California under the auspices of former HSCA photo expert Robert SELZER. [30] According to SELZER, MACK made his request through the JPL public information office, which allowed SELZER to examine the materials without charging a fee. SELZER told author Richard TRASK that he received a whole series of "extremely grainy and noisy" copy prints. The JPL ran various types of linear computer filters on the images in an attempt to suppress noise and enhance detail. In the end, SELZER said, "We felt the noise was too high to do anything with - to do anything useful." -- Dale Myers Looks like MIT were not saying that Badgeman or Arnie were real. Why? They could not know from the available prints. Therefore, BM asserted in this presentation that Arnie was real, otherwise he would have noted that there were extremely severe difficulties with Arnie being interpreted as real. My question is what evidence or proof was offered for Arnie's reality? And why has this not been put forward here after 750 posts? Edit: text spacing Edited January 14, 2008 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Duncan, lets take some of your wasted time here and give you something to play with. Gordon Arnold is said to have been about 5' 10" tall. The fence is 5' tall ... so apply what you can see of your Gordon Arnold insert to the height of the fence and see how your leg allowance measures up. Then post your results.Thanks! I'd rather you did your own experiments and post your own results. I'll give you a tip though...Arnold's floating Torso is where we see it in Moorman and in no other position..The fence is exactly where we see it in Moorman and in no other position, the fence and Arnold are relative to each other in Moorman..... Get my point? Duncan Duncan, I thought that you may want to at least glance at what I am telling you because I was confident that you are smart enough to see the problem. I will address it once again ... The fence is 5' tall ... this is a given. Gordon Arnold is standing in front of the fence. There is a measurable amount of Gordon Arnold that can be seen over the wall in Moorman's photo. I simply have asked that you apply what you can see of Gordon Arnold and paste it against the fence ... if your scaling is off, then it will be obvious when seeing how little room you have left to account for his legs. Here is an example ... Let's say that Gordon Arnold's standing height from the waist - up is as tall as 3/4s of the fence height when compared to one another. Common sense would tell you that Gordon's legs cannot be only as long as the remaining height of the fence you have to work with - this would make Gordon's body proportions all out of whack. So what I am saying is that what is seen of Gordon's body over the wall can be compared to the 5' known height of the fence. Gordon was 5'10", so if his body is then lengthened so to make him 5'10" against the 5' tall fence, then we can see if the scaling is reasonable. Once this has been seen, then its a matter of understanding the optics involved. Oh, by the way, I spoke with Gary Mack and he tells me that your aspect ratio is way off. Gary's work concerning the assassination images and their transfer to video is important. You guys know so little about this that you are making some unnecessary mistakes. I will post more information on this later. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Another point.If Arnie is real, then he must be standing at the wall. If he retreats away from the wall toward the fence, then his waist disappears below the wall top . Miles ... I am glad that you finally have understood how looking uphill at something and how it relates to reference points between it and the camera the further back it moves. As you may not wish to recall, the same thing was said over and over again about the Hat Man and your responses continuously reflected an inability on your part to grasp the point you have just made here in this thread. A Hat Man standing 1' back from the fence when viewed looking uphill will look shorter against the fence than if he was right up against it. Two feet further back and he will appear even shorter. It is good to see that you now understand this concept and that you should no longer be confused as to how it applies to the Hat Man topic. Note the waist (belt) of the man above (red arrow) is just above the wall top. Look at the Shaw photo in Groden's book and you will see that the ground is lower near the corner than it was where the bench sat. Arnold was on a LOS over the south dog-leg of the wall and on the west side of the walkway. This places him on the higher elevated ground west of the bench. Below the ground is canted to show the ground rise from east to west. This shows that Arnie if real is standing at the fence; otherwise his waist would not be visible.That being the case, then the scaling places Arnie hovering in mid air in the parking lot. The ground west of the walkway and east of the fence can be seen, thus it rises higher than the walkway. This means that the feet are on top of the ground's surface which is seen as higher than the walkway, so how does Arnold's standing hight compare to the 5' tall fence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 You obviously have not read all of today's posts. Aspect ratio has nothing to do with the height of Gordon Arnold at the fence.If he's 5ft 10, then he's 5ft 10, it's that simple. He will remain at 5ft 10 forever along the line of the fence, that's a simple fact! Aspect ratio plays no part in Arnold's height........PERIOD. Duncan Well, you seem to merely be stating an opinion without addressing why Mack is wrong. I will wait and post what Gary said and let you address it from there. There seems to be a common theme with you as with all the alteration claims of the past and that is ... If you don't understand it, then it must not be important enough to consider. If there is one thing I have learned over the years ... Gary Mack takes this subject seriously and has to be as precise and accurate as he can when discussing the assassination. I have not seen that standard of care being given when many of these claims of yours are posted. So I am willing to bet that if Gary says that you have it wrong when it comes to these aspect ratios and that they do effect the outcome of the image, then that's where I'll put my money. I'll post as soon as I can on this. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) Well Bill, as I said, 5ft 10 is 5ft 10 and aspect ratio will not change our agreed estimated height of Arnold. I have the utmost respect for Gary and look forward to seeing any input from him.Duncan I am glad that you look forward to any information Mack may have on this matter because your previous response came across like you didn't need to contact Mack because you believed you are right and nothing else mattered. I also do not believe that there was ever a dispute as to Gordon standing about 5' 10" tall. What I suggested was that you simply do not understand the optics and geography of the photo, so I chose a nearby object that could be used to test your scaling problem. There is something that you can check against the fence. The upper body of Gordon can be placed against the 5' standing height of the fence where it meets the wall. For instance, if Arnold's upper body in the insert is seen against the fence and it takes up 3/4 of the fence height, then the legs must be added to the figure. Once this is done, then the standing height from head to toe can be compared to the 5' height of the fence. So far no one has claimed that the fence is too short, thus if Arnold is taller from head to foot than the fence, then things are in balance and his looking too short to you was just an illusion based on a lack of understanding of the image. ASPECT RATIO info from Gary Mack to Bill Miller "Bill, In response to your question, I see many, many images on the web taken from video sources, and most of them are distorted. Standard video in the US and all other countries has an aspect ratio of 4:3, or four units wide to three units tall. The video frame from video must reproduce that ratio accurately; if that ratio is not held throughout all copying and editing, the image will be either squished in from side to side, or squished down from top to bottom. The best example is the Zapruder film in the MPI home video release. Of the four different versions it contains, at least two have the wrong aspect ratio and the image is squished about 17% from top to bottom. The result is useless data for measuring purposes. (Tonight’s Oswald’s Ghost program on PBS is the first to use the MPI images with the correct aspect ratio.) Cropping parts of images also induces problems, since it is possible to have a resulting crop that is 4 units wide and 3 units tall but is still distorted. In those situations, one must know what the source image is before making any measurements. How does one know if the 4:3 aspect ratio is present? Right click on the image and click on Properties. IF the full video frame is accurately reproduced, then the resulting number should be 1.33333333333 which, of course, is 4 to 3. If lucky, the ratio you see will be 800 x 600 (or multiples thereof) which is the correct aspect ratio for video frames." Edited January 15, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Why not use the existing elements in Moorman for distance/size comparisons. http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/moorman.jpg I cloned RunAwayMan in other areas for a visual. What is closer to Moorman when she takes the picture? RunAwayMan, Wall Corner or Zapruder. There is probably a formula which would give relative sizes for specific distances within the same photo, depending on the lens being used. Reduce the variables. What is the correct aspect ratio for the Moorman polaroid? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Why not use the existing elements in Moorman for distance/size comparisons.http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/moorman.jpg I cloned RunAwayMan in other areas for a visual. What is closer to Moorman when she takes the picture? RunAwayMan, Wall Corner or Zapruder. There is probably a formula which would give relative sizes for specific distances within the same photo, depending on the lens being used. Reduce the variables. What is the correct aspect ratio for the Moorman polaroid? chris Thx Chris. Here's another look: 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