The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

Miller dronned:

[...]

You must have 'Duncan-itis' whereas simple messages are very hard for you to understand. I don't have my laptop and its programs that allow me to do illustrations or it would have been done immediately like all the many other times I have had to create illustrations to show the pitiful ridiculous mistakes that end up on this forum ... and usually by the same individuals.

[...]

what-a-excuse, NOW Miller can't create a illustration, what a joke. (man, Gary Mack sure hits this thread a lot, must be catching up on the new employees posting)

Look up the phone number for "Bargin Bytes" in Mission BC ... the guy who runs the place is named "Gino" ... he has had my laptop down for over a month. Call him and tell him to hurry the hell up !!! As usual you don't know what you are talking about ... you just run your mouth without knowing the facts. If there is a way to create an illustration by using a mere keyboard, then by all means - post it!!!

Edited January 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Why not supply photos with the proper aspect ratio, first.

As is always stressed by Gary and you, Bill.

Your guilty of the same carelessness that you berate others for.

And I suppose this will show us what the other supposed lousy reproductions don't?

chris

Chris ... I merely copied the image from an email ... I have no tools on this guys computer to do anything but type text. How many times must this be said ... even someone of little intelligence would get that point after the second time it has been posted. And by the way, did you not get the email I posted at your request ... oh it doesn't matter - you have it posted in this thread now so like Miles ... you can say something isn't so, but it appears that you were in error.

And let me say that I didn't insert that photo crop into another image or else I would have made them exactly the same. Which aspect ratio is correct ... and why seeing how it is you who placed it against another Moorman image that YOU didn't make them the same? You see, aspect ratios only mean anything when taking an image from one picture and inserting it into another, which is what you did in your post - not mine. Its such a shasme that you waste so much time on nonsense instead of doing the things necessary to do the job right.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill

The version below comes from a UPI print I found on the net somewhere. It's darker than most. Arnold's torso can be seen in good copies of Moorman all the way down to the top of the wall.

Gary

One can only assume that you agree with gary Re: " Arnold's torso can be seen in good copies of Moorman all the way down to the top of the wall " and you must now concede that all examples posted by Myself, Chris and Miles..do NOT show the torso of Arnold coming down to the top of the wall, and that therefore in order to prove your rebuttal.....You must produce a good copy of Moorman as described by Gary which shows Arnold's torso coming down all the way to the top of the wall. If you can't, your claim is dead in the water.

Duncan

Wrong, Duncan. The prints that you used are being said to not be good enough for you to get the lines in the right place. Your position is like the one Miles had when he wanted to argue that until someone posted the view from the Hudson location to the tower - then he must be correct. That theory was wrong - dead wrong! You - Miles - or Chris pool your money together and for a mere couple of hundred bucks ... one of you can be flown to Dallas ... go in a visit Mack - see his prints - and post their observations on the forum. So far from what I have gathered ... not a one of you have bothered to call the Museum to even see if they have better images and what they show. Mack is good enough to pull them up and look at them for you, then you bitch that they aren't laid in your hands. Its not your fault for having crap images to work with, but it is your fault for trying to argue them against better prints. If you think Mack is lying ... like was asserted over the view from the steps that he was good enough to relay to us and was proven right, then go to the plaza and call him on it. It must get pretty frustrating for Gary to read the stupid things said on this forum when he deals with so many people who actually go to the plaza to inquire about his source materials, while others choose to remain armchair researchers who are satisfied with using poor images so to make claims that are simply based on sloppy unreliable research practices.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Bill

The version below comes from a UPI print I found on the net somewhere. It's darker than most. Arnold's torso can be seen in good copies of Moorman all the way down to the top of the wall.

Gary

One can only assume that you agree with gary Re: " Arnold's torso can be seen in good copies of Moorman all the way down to the top of the wall " and you must now concede that all examples posted by Myself, Chris and Miles..do NOT show the torso of Arnold coming down to the top of the wall, and that therefore in order to prove your rebuttal.....You must produce a good copy of Moorman as described by Gary which shows Arnold's torso coming down all the way to the top of the wall. If you can't, your claim is dead in the water.

Duncan

Wrong, Duncan. The prints that you used are being said to not be good enough for you to get the lines in the right place. Your position is like the one Miles had when he wanted to argue that until someone posted the view from the Hudson location to the tower - then he must be correct. That theory was wrong - dead wrong! You - Miles - or Chris pool your money together and for a mere couple of hundred bucks ... one of you can be flown to Dallas ... go in a visit Mack - see his prints - and post their observations on the forum. So far from what I have gathered ... not a one of you have bothered to call the Museum to even see if they have better images and what they show. Mack is good enough to pull them up and look at them for you, then you bitch that they aren't laid in your hands. Its not your fault for having crap images to work with, but it is your fault for trying to argue them against better prints. If you think Mack is lying ... like was asserted over the view from the steps that he was good enough to relay to us and was proven right, then go to the plaza and call him on it. It must get pretty frustrating for Gary to read the stupid things said on this forum when he deals with so many people who actually go to the plaza to inquire about his source materials, while others choose to remain armchair researchers who are satisfied with using poor images so to make claims that are simply based on sloppy unreliable research practices.

you have access to the images and you don't deliver? - That means you got something to hide -- or, the imagery simply doesn't back up your position....

[Bill Miller]

you have access to the images and you don't deliver? - That means you got something to hide -- or, the imagery simply doesn't back up your position....

David ... here is a sock-puppet example so to try and get this simple message through to you. Imagine that you are sitting at a desk that has no computer ... would it not then be impossible for you to get on the forum so to post such foolish responses as the one above? The person who is graciously allowing me to get on the Internet DOES NOT have any programs on their laptop that allows me to do illustrations and my JFK files are not on their computer, but rather on mine which is in the shop. I hope you can understand this message because if you don't, then I don't know how to make it any simpler. Your inability to grasp this simple explanation may be why you are not invited to see the assassination films because you make people think that you are more interested in being a jerk than you are in being a serious researcher.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Wrong, Duncan. The prints that you used are being said to not be good enough for you to get the lines in the right place.

Bill

From reading of Gary's statement, it appears that he is saying that good prints of Moorman show Arnolds body ending at the top of the wall, and by saying that is also inferring that prints which I and others have posted here do not show Arnold's body ending at the top of the wall. Do you agree with that? Yes or no will do.

Duncan

"No!" Why would you expect an image source that is so faded and deteriorated that the Badge Man image is a fuzzy blob would be offering sharp clearly defined lines on the wall? All it does is leave room for misinterpretation, which is exactly what has happened concerning your line placement. In my previous response to you I thought this was quite clear when I opened saying, "Wrong, Duncan. The prints that you used are being said to not be good enough for you to get the lines in the right place."

Instead of guessing, why not email Gary and let him explain to you what he means???? It appears to me that Gary's position is that you are using the drum scan which is of poor quality for the print Josiah had scanned had badly deteriorated by that time. That if you looked at a good print, then you would see that your lines are incorrect. When I get my laptop back, I will post an example of what I have been saying. Until then, I can only say it through text. For instance, because Moorman is looking uphill .... the top edge of the wall running north and south has a different pitch in it than the dog leg does (as seen in Moorman's field of view). The wall line is still angling upward on the south side of your vertical line because you placed it over the shade-line, which is not on the exact spot where the wall turns. If you got the dog leg line correct, then it would be higher. I can only guess that because you don't lift a finger to email Mack so to possibly gain more information, then you really have no desire in being accurate and this documented behavior is just why certain long time researchers don't even bother to open your emails. Mack is an exception because answering questions and sharing JFK assassination related information is his job. The problem is that you must ask him a question like some of the rest of us do. I am always amazed at how much text is wasted on a forum such as this whereas an alleged researcher will post numerous responses defending inaccurate data rather than to send one short to the point email to the Museum so to get the correct data so to at least offer an opinion based on facts and not sloppy research for what ever reason.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

you really have no desire in being accurate and this documented behavior is just why certain long time researchers don't even bother to open your emails.

Bill

Yawn, at least you didn't mention Groden

Would you care when your laptop is repaired, to draw the line at the top of the wall where it meets Arnold's body. This is Jack's image which you revere.I assume you still trust this image of Jack's, as it's the one which you say clearly shows Arnold.

Duncan

Duncan,

Thx for pic.

David Healy's got a point.

you have access to the images and you don't deliver? - That means you got something to hide -- or, the imagery simply doesn't back up your position....

Let's say I borrowed your laptop, thanks.

Then I say: Hey Dunc, OK if I download a free photo/paint program off the net? Yeah, there are scads. I'll remove it when I return your laptop.

I want to download your pic from the thread & draw a line in it. Take two seconds, maybe three.

Edit: spelling

Edited January 28, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Here's a pic for you.

The top Arnie is faded for transparency. The idea is to scrutinise Jack's excellent work with the colonisation.

Remember the slight rotation found with Badgeman in this thread awhile back, print to colourisation?

Seems there is same with Arnie now, even if there is minimal inaccuracy with the overlay.

This might bear further study.

Looks like a lot of light under Arnie; mysterious hidden 6th floor prints should reinforce your contention.

[Chris Davidson]

Why not supply photos with the proper aspect ratio, first.

As is always stressed by Gary and you, Bill.

Your guilty of the same carelessness that you berate others for.

And I suppose this will show us what the other supposed lousy reproductions don't?

chris

Chris ... I merely copied the image from an email ... I have no tools on this guys computer to do anything but type text. How many times must this be said ... even someone of little intelligence would get that point after the second time it has been posted. And by the way, did you not get the email I posted at your request ... oh it doesn't matter - you have it posted in this thread now so like Miles ... you can say something isn't so, but it appears that you were in error.

And let me say that I didn't insert that photo crop into another image or else I would have made them exactly the same. Which aspect ratio is correct ... and why seeing how it is you who placed it against another Moorman image that YOU didn't make them the same? You see, aspect ratios only mean anything when taking an image from one picture and inserting it into another, which is what you did in your post - not mine. Its such a shasme that you waste so much time on nonsense instead of doing the things necessary to do the job right.

Bill,

If that is a copy of the email directly from Gary to me, how did your comments become part of it?

First you do a doubletalk about it, then you say I'm in error. I don't create scenario's where I have to doubletalk my way out of it, I just admit I'm wrong.

In your case, I guess that's not in your vocabulary.

If you want a photo of emails and trashed emails received by me, before and after the SUPPOSED one sent by Gary, not a problem, then we'll all know who the story-teller is, to put it mildly.

In regards to the Moormon animation I created with YOUR photo inset, I DID NOT change the aspect ratio purposely. If I had, no one would see the point I was making. Obviously you did see Yours was wrong, and if you did a size check, what I supplied was 1.33/1.

Let's see, the original Moormon is 2.875/2.125 =1.35/1

Bill's was 2.95/1.

I just love wasting time proving your little accusations are a bunch of B.S.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Bill

Yawn, at least you didn't mention Groden

Boredom is usually a sign of being too ignorant to understand a subject, thus the student loses interest because he cannot follow what's being said.

Would you care when your laptop is repaired, to draw the line at the top of the wall where it meets Arnold's body. This is Jack's image which you revere.I assume you still trust this image of Jack's, as it's the one which you say clearly shows Arnold.

Duncan[/b]

Thanks for posting the image. Until I can get my laptop, maybe I can direct you to a couple of things. Note how the east wall still rises at an angle in elevation to our left of Badge Man's alleged muzzle flash. Your vertical line that you used as the corner of the wall was under that flash ... the continued rise of the wall proves you to have erred. The angle change marks the true center of the corner of the wall.

The top of the south dog leg looks to have bites out of it, but that is an illusion due to the poor quality of the print at the time in was drum scanned. What is obvious on good prints was as Mack said ... there are shadows being cast on the top of the slightly mounded wall top. Those shadows fall on the side of the top of the wall angled in the cameras direction. This fooled you because you used the drum scan which is faded and degraded. Some even falsely thought the top of the wall was flat, which is not the case. Had you ran a line across the top of the white areas from the correct corner, then you would have found that the wall meets Arnold's body. Because Arnold is lightened in some prints - the top of the wall gets confusing as to where it meets Arnold's clothing because of color tone blending. What Mack implemented was the responsible way to check this and it was to get some darker prints to see exactly where the top of the wall ends so to cross check that with the print you chose to use. Had you of be a responsible researcher yourself, you could have contacted Mack and discovered some of this stuff early on before wasting so much time. I can only assume that your boredom problem led you to not even try to learn more about the matter.

In the end the better images and those who took the time to have them checked will win out and once again sloppy research practices will show that another false claim was born from such reckless behavior. JFK once said that a mistake is not a mistake unless one refuses to correct it, but over and over it seems that the same individuals never learn from their past errors and continue on with the same flawed practices. All the grandstanding in the world will change this fact. I can only recommend that in the future that people use the best images possible and if they don't have access to them, then contact someone who has access to them so to know what they show.

Bill Miller

Edited January 29, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

In regards to the Moormon animation I created with YOUR photo inset, I DID NOT change the aspect ratio purposely. If I had, no one would see the point I was making. Obviously you did see Yours was wrong, and if you did a size check, what I supplied was 1.33/1.

Let's see, the original Moormon is 2.875/2.125 =1.35/1

Bill's was 2.95/1.

I just love wasting time proving your little accusations are a bunch of B.S.

chris

No one said you did. As Duncan said before - aspect ratio is not important when talking about what is seen within a single image. Aspect ratios are important when using images set inside other images like with the two Gordon Arnold's posted in this thread.

As far as your email from Mack ... I had said in my initial response was that Mack had emailed you on this subject. You denied it and asked that I prove it. It's been proven. Whether you ever received it might be another matter, but was a non-issue if you read the responses more carefully.

[Chris Davidson]

In regards to the Moormon animation I created with YOUR photo inset, I DID NOT change the aspect ratio purposely. If I had, no one would see the point I was making. Obviously you did see Yours was wrong, and if you did a size check, what I supplied was 1.33/1.

Let's see, the original Moormon is 2.875/2.125 =1.35/1

Bill's was 2.95/1.

I just love wasting time proving your little accusations are a bunch of B.S.

chris

No one said you did. As Duncan said before - aspect ratio is not important when talking about what is seen within a single image. Aspect ratios are important when using images set inside other images like with the two Gordon Arnold's posted in this thread.

As far as your email from Mack ... I had said in my initial response was that Mack had emailed you on this subject. You denied it and asked that I prove it. It's been proven. Whether you ever received it might be another matter, but was a non-issue if you read the responses more carefully.

Bill,

As I said before, I will admit when I'm wrong. And in this instance, I AM.

My apologies to Gary and you.

Gary's email went directly to junk-mail, which I very rarely check.

He sent it FROM a different address than he normally does.

No deception intended, an honest mistake.

chris

[Miles Scull]

deleted

Edited January 29, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Craig Lamson]

Bill

Yawn, at least you didn't mention Groden

Boredom is usually a sign of being too ignorant to understand a subject, thus the student loses interest because he cannot follow what's being said.

Would you care when your laptop is repaired, to draw the line at the top of the wall where it meets Arnold's body. This is Jack's image which you revere.I assume you still trust this image of Jack's, as it's the one which you say clearly shows Arnold.

Duncan[/b]

Thanks for posting the image. Until I can get my laptop, maybe I can direct you to a couple of things. Note how the east wall still rises at an angle in elevation to our left of Badge Man's alleged muzzle flash. Your vertical line that you used as the corner of the wall was under that flash ... the continued rise of the wall proves you to have erred. The angle change marks the true center of the corner of the wall.

The top of the south dog leg looks to have bites out of it, but that is an illusion due to the poor quality of the print at the time in was drum scanned. What is obvious on good prints was as Mack said ... there are shadows being cast on the top of the slightly mounded wall top. Those shadows fall on the side of the top of the wall angled in the cameras direction. This fooled you because you used the drum scan which is faded and degraded. Some even falsely thought the top of the wall was flat, which is not the case. Had you ran a line across the top of the white areas from the correct corner, then you would have found that the wall meets Arnold's body. Because Arnold is lightened in some prints - the top of the wall gets confusing as to where it meets Arnold's clothing because of color tone blending. What Mack implemented was the responsible way to check this and it was to get some darker prints to see exactly where the top of the wall ends so to cross check that with the print you chose to use. Had you of be a responsible researcher yourself, you could have contacted Mack and discovered some of this stuff early on before wasting so much time. I can only assume that your boredom problem led you to not even try to learn more about the matter.

In the end the better images and those who took the time to have them checked will win out and once again sloppy research practices will show that another false claim was born from such reckless behavior. JFK once said that a mistake is not a mistake unless one refuses to correct it, but over and over it seems that the same individuals never learn from their past errors and continue on with the same flawed practices. All the grandstanding in the world will change this fact. I can only recommend that in the future that people use the best images possible and if they don't have access to them, then contact someone who has access to them so to know what they show.

Bill Miller

Good god .. all of this bs talk about shadows on the top of the 'rounded" wall causing a false edgeline. Maybe you and Mack can provide the MATH that proves from the low lens height of Moorman that the top of this 'rounding" is even visable? Surely you can do this right Bill? After how many post and how may words claiming this is the case one must assume you have the goods. So post them.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

you have access to the images and you don't deliver? - That means you got something to hide -- or, the imagery simply doesn't back up your position....

David ... here is a sock-puppet example so to try and get this simple message through to you. Imagine that you are sitting at a desk that has no computer ... would it not then be impossible for you to get on the forum so to post such foolish responses as the one above? The person who is graciously allowing me to get on the Internet DOES NOT have any programs on their laptop that allows me to do illustrations and my JFK files are not on their computer, but rather on mine which is in the shop. I hope you can understand this message because if you don't, then I don't know how to make it any simpler. Your inability to grasp this simple explanation may be why you are not invited to see the assassination films because you make people think that you are more interested in being a jerk than you are in being a serious researcher.

dance sweet gloria, DANCE.... right now I'm imagining sitting at a desk with a portable computer, access to the internet, a ftp site or imagine this, a server someplace...

From my imaginary place I created a imaginary post which made to the forum with image attachments or imagine this, a LINK... so, many of us have been doing just that for years, on other related and non-related boards -- so, put up your material or simply move on, your embarassing the 6th Floor Museum.....

Did my imaginery post make it to the forum? Looks like it. Ain't science grand?

Edited January 29, 2008 by David G. Healy