The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

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.

This once again reminds me of a 'Hooneymooner' episode where the maid said to Ralph Cramden and Ed Norton ... "so ... The Simp' and the Blimp!' I speak with Gary Mack on the phone rather through email about 98% of the time when we converse. The same can be said with Groden. So your pitiful response about how I have not posted emails from these guys is just another asinine attempt at avoiding what you should be doing by emailing or calling these people, which we both know you'd do if you really thought I didn't tell the truth. As I recall, your veracity went down the tube when you attempted to post that Duncan and been consulting Mack and Groden when in fact that simply wasn't true. It will be a cold day in Hell when you catch me stooping to such willful deception like that you did. Now what did Mack tell you about aspect ratios or have you not bothered to call him yet?

Bill Miller

Edited January 17, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

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.

Now what did Mack tell you about aspect ratios or have you not bothered to call him yet?

Bill Miller

I'm afraid that Duncan is correct.

There is no need to contact Mack or anyone else regarding aspect ratios as they are irrelevant to the question which is the topic of this tread. Arnie is 5"10", period.

Your relay of alleged statements by Groden or Mack is hearsay & cannot be relied on.

Your apparent argument that because Duncan has not contacted Groden or Mack that that proves that Arnie is a real human in Moorman is nonsense.

[Bill Miller]

As for the aspect ratio debate, correspondance with Gary on this matter is not required as we have an agreed height of 5ft 10 for Arnold within the same aspect ratio image, ie Moorman...but rather than address this, you want me and others to write to Gary to tell us what we already know.

I think what Mack wants you to know is that in your insert - you are mixing images from TV with scanned images from other sources, thus the aspect ratios are not the same. Gary explained this to me in some detail, but to prevent hearsay from being a problem and seeing how you think you know about compression and all that other good stuff - you should hear it from Mack (himself). Mack said you were making a mistake - he has experience in this stuff, so one would think that you would have an interested in finding out more about what Gary is talking about ... after all - you only want to know the truth - right!!!

[Craig Lamson]

As for the aspect ratio debate, correspondance with Gary on this matter is not required as we have an agreed height of 5ft 10 for Arnold within the same aspect ratio image, ie Moorman...but rather than address this, you want me and others to write to Gary to tell us what we already know.

I think what Mack wants you to know is that in your insert - you are mixing images from TV with scanned images from other sources, thus the aspect ratios are not the same. Gary explained this to me in some detail, but to prevent hearsay from being a problem and seeing how you think you know about compression and all that other good stuff - you should hear it from Mack (himself). Mack said you were making a mistake - he has experience in this stuff, so one would think that you would have an interested in finding out more about what Gary is talking about ... after all - you only want to know the truth - right!!!

Bill, this is off topic I know, but with all of this endless talk about scaling images I wonder if you could point me to your work on the head size in the backyard photos?

Edited January 18, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Miles Scull]

Bill, this is off topic I know, but with all of this endless talk about scaling images I wonder if you could point me to your work on the head size in the backyard photos?

Craig, I'd show you my backyard photo scaling, but I'm away from my office where my materials are.

Duncan,

Here's another "bench mark" re: lil' Arnie.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, this is off topic I know, but with all of this endless talk about scaling images I wonder if you could point me to your work on the head size in the backyard photos?

Craig ... are you not capable of doing a search as easy as I can?

[Bill Miller]

I'm afraid that Duncan is correct.

There is no need to contact Mack or anyone else regarding aspect ratios as they are irrelevant to the question which is the topic of this tread. Arnie is 5"10", period.

I think the aspect ratio of the Badge Man images and the image of Gordon Arnold that you two geniuses are using came from TV or DVD, thus their aspect ration would be different from one another. So much time you waste avoiding spending a fraction of that time just consulting Mack.

[Craig Lamson]

Bill, this is off topic I know, but with all of this endless talk about scaling images I wonder if you could point me to your work on the head size in the backyard photos?

Craig ... are you not capable of doing a search as easy as I can?

Bill, how about you just point me to it.

[Miles Scull]

Bill, this is off topic I know, but with all of this endless talk about scaling images I wonder if you could point me to your work on the head size in the backyard photos?

Craig ... are you not capable of doing a search as easy as I can?

Bill, how about you just point me to it.

Craig & Duncan,

I put it to you:

It would appear, unless BM can provide contrary evidence which after repeated searches i have not found any, that BM has not attempted any scaling study at all on any image.

This explains BM's aspect ratio Wiegman smoke & mirrors bogus Weitzman Report diversion nonsense, does it not?

Your view is solicited, if you have a sec.?

[Miles Scull]

Bill, tell us something we don't know already.

Duncan

Note flipped Arnie image attached to Arnie floating torso against wall. (lower right)

This composite is 100% Moorman in elements!

[Miles Scull]

Note flipped Arnie image attached to Arnie floating torso against wall. (lower right)

This composite is 100% Moorman in elements!

Miles

Strictly speaking you are correct Miles, but let's make it clear so as not to give Bill other ideas, that you understand that the flipped area, ie Arnold's floating torso, is a different aspect ratio from the image over which it was superimposed, although i'd say it's close enough for Jazz in anyones language:news

Duncan

It's plenty close enough!

[Bill Miller]

Bill, tell us something we don't know already. As I have said repeatedly, and which you choose to ignore over and over again, the fact is that everything contained within the Moorman image is within the same aspect ratio of that image. Gary will tell you that, and I know he would consider this fact as a more important issue than your rantings on how the aspect ratio's of tv, dvd images etc are different from the aspect ratio of Moorman. Aspect ratio is of absolutely no relevance when we know that Arnold is approximately 5ft 10 for comparison purposes with his supposed appearance in Moorman. You just don't get it do you? Now go figure and come back when you have something relevant to say or show, like your Arnold as you see him in Moorman, and how you stack him up against the fence.

Well, the first thing I can tell you that you do not know is why Gary Mack said that in "YOUR" illustration ... you scaled your insert wrong. But you think you are smarter than Mack on this subject, probably Groden as well, and as the saying goes ... the difference between a smart man and a stupid one ... the stupid man will not know when he is wrong. It would seem that the proper thing to do would be to contact Mack and ask him why he said your illustration was in error, but that would be the responsible things to do - not your way.

I don't have my laptop at this time where I can create an illustration, but any idiot can measure their computer screen if nothing else and the part of Arnold that you show in your insert is about 3/4s of the height of the 5' tall fence. Add Gordon's legs and he is taller than the 5' high fence, which is what he should be. So you tell me how Gordon's upper body is of normal size when seen against the height of the fence and yet you cannot seem to get the legs correct??? In fact, the fence is running at an angle away from Moorman, so behind Arnold is the part of the fence that we cannot see, but I can tell you that it looks shorter at that spot than it does where it meets the concrete wall and the reason is perspective. But all I have asked its that you just use the height of the fence where it meets the wall and your error becomes quite visible. There are several factors at play that you have failed to understand and maybe Mack can explain it to you better than I can, but of course you're too smart for us. After all, you're the guy who claimed there was another person at the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman as they dismounted - you're the one who claimed there was a tripod in the doorway of the shelter in Betzner's photo - you're the one who invented the drunken AOL guy - you're the one who came up with someone standing atop of the colonnade in Betzner's photo - you're the one who couldn't understand Moorman's uphill view to the fence, thus making Hat Man appear shorter than the fence the further back is moved from it - you're the one who came up with the 'crouching man' claim at the pedestal, and the list goes on. Each claim as bogus as the next because you didn't read the images correctly, so don't contact Mack ... because you're way to advanced and smart for guys like Gary Mack, Groden, myself, and etc.. No Duncan ... your job is to just make claims based on a lack of understanding of the image ... its everyone else's job to validate it for you - give us a break!!!

To add to your severely lack of data in your claim ... I would like to offer these images. Gordon Arnold claimed to be standing on a mound of dirt when filming the President as he approached. Film images from the Darnell film have been offered by you and Miles whereas you believe that was no mound visible. The problem that you two failed to see is that at the angle as which the ground is seen in that film ... the ground looks flat regardless of any high and or low spots. An example of this illusion can be seen in the Zapruder film when viewing the south pasture where it slopes down to the curb. When looking south - the ground looks flat where Hill and Moorman stood, but when seen in profile like in Altgens #6, the slope is quite noticeable.

Below is an image of the knoll in question and with the exception of seeing the street and knowing the geography between the walkway and in relation to Elm Street ... the view shows how the film capture below causes an illusion that hides the steep slope from the walkway to the street.

The same area between the walkway and the fence can be seen in profile and this view shows how the ground is higher between the walkway and the base of the fence, thus Gordon's description of it being mounded was correct. Add the optics of the lens Moorman used, the uphill field of view Moorman had of this area, the location of where Arnold stood, the size of Arnold's upper body when compared to the 5' height of the fence, and correct the aspect ratio of your inserts, then the image size of Gordon Arnold and the Badge Man starts to make sense.

Poorly researched claims lacking data is usually the cause of one's confusion when trying to understand an image.

Bill Miller

Edited January 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Now you're saying he described the area as being mounded, and not that he said he stood on a mound of dirt.

Now that you've managed to upload a couple of pics, and thanks, good pics, would you care to mark an X where you know, not think that Arnold would have been standing had he been captured on camera from any of the 2 angles which you have supplied.

Duncan

I would look for a location on the mound between the walkway and the fence. I have listened to you jokers tell us how there was no mound by looking at a 2D image and from an angle that couldn't allow on to see the true grade of the hillside and the photo in my previous post shows that the ground was higher between the base of the fence and the walkway. You guys blew this point!

[Miles Scull]

Read this carefully.....THERE IS NO MOUND IN YOUR PICTURES.....

Duncan

Duncan,

OK

At last the clincher is provided by a renowned authority on perspective for Groden & Mach to relish.

This man is a mighty colossus in these composites compared to TA (tiny Arnie) in Moorman, even if he drops 10" as he goes down the slope to stand by the wall.

Remember TA he is standing by the wall in Moorman & there is no mound there:

[Bill Miller]

The 2 pictures you uploaded show nothing new.

Read this carefully.....THERE IS NO MOUND IN YOUR PICTURES.....

I disagree with your statement. In the photo taken from the south - looking north ... the ground above the knoll between the camera and the large tree near the shelter is higher than the ground elevation at the fence and at the wall. In other words - the elevation at that location is mounded higher than the ground east and west of it. The Darnell film doesn't show this high spot for the reasons I have stated in the past. This is just one of the reasons why Arnold's body size when compared to the 5' height of the fence is correct and it is the reason why with Moorman looking uphill that Arnold's feet come where they do in relation to the wall. And as usual it is why your claim, lacking the previous mentioned data, is just another 'tripod man claim' IMO. Maybe that's why you will say in one breath that you'd be happy to hear what Mack has to say in one response and then tell us that you don't need to hear what Mack has to say in another ... you didn't want to know the truth. With you it looks to be more about salvaging one of your wacky observations than it does in really wanting to understand an image.

This claim started out with just you making an accusation that Arnold's feet were too high in relation with the wall. In your initial post you had no information of the ground elevation, Arnold's height, and you merely used a poorly scaled lower body you pulled off the net and slide it under Arnold's upper body ... and there laid the extent of your research before making this silly claim. When Mack tries to point out a mistake you have made and is willing to share with you some information about aspect ratios so if nothing else you could use it to validate your claim, you refuse to educate yourself. So I am not surprised that you cannot see where the ground is higher between the walkway and the fence in the profile pic. With you its never the case where you will believe it when you see it, but rather you will see it when you believe it. This is just another reason why you can't get Groden to answer your emails.