The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

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?

Contact Gary Mack for details. I will once again point out that the insert shows at least the alleged upper half of Gordon Arnold ... how difficult would it be for someone to put him up against the 5' tall fence that he was standing near. So far, the guys who usually have time to create illustrations with text and inserts have all of a sudden gotten too busy to test what I recommended they do - Interesting!

Thx Chris.

Here's another look:

Miles, other than posting the same thing over and over without the proper data ... how does your figure stack up to the 5' tall fence?

[Chris Davidson]

A possible starting point for aspect ratio's.

How tiny? MOORMAN's original Polaroid print is just 2.5 x 3.25 inches, including the 0.375 inch

white border that surrounds the entire photograph. The image area is even smaller, only 2.125 x

2.875 inches. The portion of the image that contains all three figures is smaller yet, only 1/4 of a

square inch in size. The figures themselves are even more microscopic. The head of the Badge

Man figure measures only about 1/69 of an inch wide.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

A possible starting point for aspect ratio's.

How tiny? MOORMAN's original Polaroid print is just 2.5 x 3.25 inches, including the 0.375 inch

white border that surrounds the entire photograph. The image area is even smaller, only 2.125 x

2.875 inches. The portion of the image that contains all three figures is smaller yet, only 1/4 of a

square inch in size. The figures themselves are even more microscopic. The head of the Badge

Man figure measures only about 1/69 of an inch wide.

In the case of the MOORMAN photo, CRAWLEY determined that the focal length [80] of MOORMAN's Highlander Model 80A camera was 100mm (4 inches). The measurements CRAWLEY made in Dealey Plaza showed that the stockade fence, where Badge Man was alleged to be standing, was 126 feet from MOORMAN's position.

Moorman aspect ratio=.74/1

The American Cinematographer Manual describes the formula as "a very simple way to calculate camera distance, object size, lens focal length, or [image size] dimensions." [78] The formula is commonly used by movie makers to calculate how far to place the camera from a subject. For instance, if filmmakers wanted to capture an actor on film from head to toe they could use the formula to determine exactly where to place the camera to accomplish that before the actor had even arrived on set.

Simply put, the formula describes the relationship between the subject and the image captured on film. Four variables are used: size of the object being photographed, distance from the object to the camera lens, focal length of the lens being used, and the size of the object as it appears on the negative produced. If any three of the variables are known, the fourth unknown variable can be calculated with precision using variations of the formula. [79]

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123...mn/bdg_ex03.gif

chris

Edited January 15, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Jack White]

Gordon Arnold from the very beginning said he stood atop "a little mound of dirt".

This photo of Nigel Turner in the Arnold location with Arnold and Turner to the same

size shows that in Moorman Arnold is about 8" taller...SO HE WAS STANDING ON

A LITTLE MOUND OF DIRT. This photo was taken by Crawley 20 years ago so that

Turner could be certain that Arnold was the correct size before including him in

TMWKK. They agreed that he was the right size.

Jack

Edited January 15, 2008 by Jack White

[Miles Scull]

Thanks for posting Gary's info, but most, ( not all ) of this was covered way back in the thread. Let's not stray from what is a reality, ie, Arnold being the agreed approximate 5ft 10 in height which does not change, NO MATTER WHAT THE ASPECT RATIO IS IN MOORMAN. THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IN MOORMAN ALSO DOES NOT CHANGE WITHIN THE SAME ASPECT RATIO OF MOORMAN, so we have clear measuring guides to work with. Both the fence and the Arnold figure have the same overall aspect ratio in Moorman. That's the important factor.

Duncan

That's correct , Duncan.

Remember Arnie is not standing away or back from the wall.

Thus, the photographic record shows zero dirt mound:

Here's the full photo:

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for posting Gary's info, but most, ( not all ) of this was covered way back in the thread. Let's not stray from what is a reality, ie, Arnold being the agreed approximate 5ft 10 in height which does not change, NO MATTER WHAT THE ASPECT RATIO IS IN MOORMAN. THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IN MOORMAN ALSO DOES NOT CHANGE WITHIN THE SAME ASPECT RATIO OF MOORMAN, so we have clear measuring guides to work with. Both the fence and the Arnold figure have the same overall aspect ratio in Moorman. That's the important factor.

Duncan

Duncan ... how can you get so close to getting something right only to then veer off track and miss the point altogether. What Mack is saying is that if you are going to insert images from one image onto another, then to be accurate in your scaling before even getting started is to make sure you have the insert converted to the correct aspect ratio before pasting it into another photo. This you have failed to do.

Now once again I must ask ... how does the portion of Gordon Arnold seen above the wall compare to the 5' height of the fence just behind him?

Edited January 15, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The Crawley Photograph Mismatch Disinfo Shambles.

Duncan

Yes, Jack was not exact ... much the same way in your first illustration upon my checking it. However, the two things that can be scaled to one another is Gordon's upper body to the height of the fence right next to him. My question is quite simple ... How do the two compare for if Gordon is then found to be of normal height, then the optics and geography involved has confused you into thinking Gordon was too small. I look forward to your answer.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Wrong, It's the height of Arnold in Moorman that is the important factor. The overall aspect ration of everything in Moorman is the same.

Arnold is 5ft. 10 inches tall, and it doesn't matter if you substutute him with an elephant or an ant, as long as both are 5ft 10 inches tall. The width of Arnold has no bearing on the whereabouts of his feet.

Duncan, why are you wasting so much time arguing about something you obviously don't understand and not just email Mack and ask him some questions. Aspect Ratio isn't just about the width of an object, but can effect its height as well. One would think that because Mack does have a highly spoken of reputation to his credit and has worked in the transferring of film to TV ... that when he says you are missing something in your work - you should want to inquire about what that is instead of trying to pretend that you know more about what you're talking about than you really do.

And by the way - the illustration in your previous post is absurd. One picture is taken looking uphill and the other at the same elevation ... the scaling of the body in those two views are not comparable in the way you are attempting to use them. I will ask one again that you take the Gordon Arnold seen in Moorman's photo and compare his standing height against that of the fence. Your position is that he is too short and if he is as tall as the fence or taller, then your scaling obviously has a flaw in it ... a flaw that Gary Mack could explain to you if you emailed him.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Ps. You have still to address the top of the fence line which can not be seen behind Arnold in Moorman

Duncan,

Do you think BM agrees with this explanation & demonstration (below) of Arnie's tininess?

And if BM does not agree, what is your understanding of BM's disagreement? What is BM's reasoning, as you see his reasoning?

(Remember, Arnie is standing at the wall & not at any distance from the wall.)

[Bill Miller]

What planet are you from?. I've been explaining this to you over and over again, and now that you actually understand what aspect ratio is because of Gary's information, you are acting the fool and trying to reverse who said what.

What you are getting totally wrong, is that it is the aspect ratio in Morman that is important, nothing else. The aspect ratio of the Moorman Polaroid is a constant, and the sooner that sinks in with you, the better.

Duncan, it was YOU who used an insert from the Men Who Killed Kennedy series and placed it onto Moorman's photo. Mack has said that the aspect ration between those two images are different. If you would have not applied an insert from another image that was used for TV which means it has a different aspect ratio, then I could excuse your error, but you didn't do that. Mack is right and you must know it and thats why you spend so much time avoiding to contact him so not to have to address your error. It is just this type of behavior as to why you cannot get people like Groden to respond to your emails.

Fact : - Any which way you look at Arnold, ie looking down from 2 miles up in the air, from a level elevation, or looking uphill does not change the fact that he is 5ft 10. I think you're dancing again Bill.

You are wrong. Simply place two like objects in front of you with one slightly ahead of the other. When you view them from eye level ... they appear to be the same size. When viewed from below or above eye level ... one will appear shorter or taller than the other even though nothing has changed in their actual heights. To take an image of Gordon Arnold from slightly above eye level and stretch it to match Gordon's height when being viewed while looking uphill is not an accurate scaling.

If it's the image which I posted in Post #773, it's the fence which is the relevant point, not the scaling of the Arnold inset. Would tou care to address that, or do you intend to keep on ignoring it.

Ok - lets talk about Gordon Arnold's height against that of the fence. Measure the fence where it meets the wall and see how tall its standing height is from the ground to the top of the fence. Compare that to your Gordon Arnold scaling. Does not Gordon Arnold look tall enough when compared to the 5' height of the fence ... sure he does, so what does that tell us???

Do it yourself, it's you who is struggling to prove me wrong. What's stopping you doing it?.

This claim has been your baby and one might think that you would have an interest in validating your claims. As usual, you post have baked claims because you either don't know how to or have refused to thoroughly look into the subject matter so not ot have it riddles with mistakes.

Me emailing Gary will not change the fact that Arnold is 5ft 10, that the aspect ratio is a constant, that the fence is 5ft, and that everything in Moorman is relative to everything else in the Moorman image as seen through the Moorman lens.

A scanned image of Moorman photo will have a different aspect ratio than the same taken from a TV program. Take the time to consult Gary Mack and let him explain the importance to you.

Ps. You have still to address the top of the fence line which can not be seen behind Arnold in Moorman

The fence height against Arnold has been addressed many times in the past. Like I said earlier in the post and in past post .... take tow alike objects like a matching salt and pepper shaker and stand one just in front of the other. Drop your LOS down to match that of Moorman's looking up at the two objects and you will have your first lesson in perspective. The closer shaker will appear taller than the one just behind it. Any Grade School art class teaches this stuff. In support of this rule is the wall seen against that of the much taller fence. The 5' tall fence appears shorter than the wall where its no taller than a park bench ... why ... the reason was stated above. Having to ask such things should give you an idea just how unqualified you are to be trying to understand why these images look as they do.

[Bill Miller]

Your guess is as good as mine Miles.

I can agree with that statement ... both you and Miles guesswork is worthless.

If he contributes a rebuttal analysis of ANY kind, which he has failed to do so far to date, then maybe we will have a better understanding of what his actual argument actually is.

Duncan

To understand what has been said ... one must know the language. You have failed to educate yourself on this subject, thus I doubt you can ever be made to understand it. The first step for you would be to learn 'perspective' and how it applies to Gordon and the wall being seen higher in Moorman's photo than the fence.

[Miles Scull]

If you don't know how to read Moorman properly, or produce your counter evidence, then there's nothing I can do.

Duncan

Duncan,

Maybe this will help BM read & understand Moorman. Let's hope so, for his sake.

Note that in the composite below the only non-Moorman element is the inset of the legs.

The Arnie inset [ ] is scaled to be slightly larger than Arnie in the base Moorman.

Also, the scaling is done so that the legs are slightly larger (longer) than they would be to make a perfect match for the torso.

If BM shows this to Groden or Mack they can explain it to BM. Hope that happens, as I'm sure you do too.

[Bill Miller]

If BM shows this to Groden or Mack they can explain it to BM. Hope that happens, as I'm sure you do too.

I have already posted that Groden believes Arnold to be the same person seen as the BDM, thus his opinion is a matter of record. Mack believes Arnold was on the knoll and that you guys have serious errors in your scaling. I have asked several times now for one of you to offer an opinion as to Arnold's height against the fence seen just beyond him. The height of the fence where it meets with the wall would be the closest spot to make the comparison. So far, nor you or Duncan have addressed this point.

As far as you or Duncan bothering to even learn about the aspect ratio problem, I took the liberty to contact Gary Mack to see if either of you were serious enough about this Arnold matter to look into what Mack has said about this. Below is a message that I received and it appears that neither of you have done a thing to try and be accurate.

It reads as follows ...

"Bill,

In response to your question, no one other than you has asked me about the aspect ratio of images taken from video. I corresponded with Robin Unger about the subject earlier last year.

Gary"

Edited January 17, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

If BM shows this to Groden or Mack they can explain it to BM. Hope that happens, as I'm sure you do too.

Either Arnie disappears behind the wall or he floats up into thin air.

Edit: spelling

Edited January 17, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

If BM shows this to Groden or Mack they can explain it to BM. Hope that happens, as I'm sure you do too.

Either Arnie disappears behind the wall or he floats up into thin air.

Edit: spelling

Duncan,

Note:

If Groden or Mack agreed with BM & not with you, re: Arnie's tininess, & emailed those opinions to BM, then you can be sure BM would post their agreements with him as quotes to that effect here.

Has he?

No.

I think that BM has not shown these photo studies of Arnie's tininess to Groden or Mack.

That is why BM does not quote Groden or Mack as to their reactions.

I suspect that Groden & Mack agree with you, Duncan.

That's the secret!