Jump to content

The Gordon Arnold Competition


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have looked extensively for these apocryphal photos. They do not exist & never did. One very good reason that they do NOT exist is that the WC saw the danger to their lone nut theory in having Holland's evidence tested. Go figure.

Where are the Photos, Bill?... Do you deny that they are in the "Weitzman Report?" Oh yeah, you can't find that either. Go figure.

See response #72.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

nochangejc7.gif

Not only have you just illustrated the fact that, in order to get "Arnold" & Badgeman to line up with the body mass of real adult forms, future researchers would do well to stand their test subjects twice as far away from the camera as you did, you are also adding confirmation of Myers results.

He says both figures would have to be way back in the car lot to make sense.

The changes you have made have done nothing but add fuel to Myer's claims, moving him to the north & making him appear slimmer made little difference because the "Arnold figure" in M5 is just so small.

Too small to be anywhere near the area close to the top step, sorry.

If you still cannot see the great differences in overall body mass, or won't admit to them, then there is nothing more to be said until we get an independent on-site test that comes close to matching the size of "Arnold" in Moorman5.

We don't have that at the moment unless we look to Myer's work & most people on our "side of the fence" are reluctant to do that because of his blantly obvious LN beliefs.

Still, if what I am seeing here is bolstering Myer's work then one is forced to go back & study his techniques & results more thoroughly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bower's view: WCH volume 24 p. 548 CE 2118

In addition I will try to post a photo that I first found posted by Mr. Robin Unger of Bower's view.

Dave

Are there any more Bowers' view photos in the WC report?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robin,

Do you have any Bowers' view snaps?

Other than from 6 sec. in Dallas?

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not a clue as to what you were talking about concerning my stitching error, but I doubt you do either.

Bill

O.k.... I'll remind you of your stitch job... Clue:... It's your red ground level line. You have drawn the line to run above Shaw's legs nowhere near ground level and also going through the wall to give an false and misleading impression to those who don't understand things properly that Arnold would be above this stupid red line if you were looking from the Moorman angle. It's garbage and you know it. The floating torso illusion is above this line as I have demonstrated, but a real human being, as demonstrated by Shaw, would not be.

Duncan

Duncan,

Are you really that clueless or are you jerking me around here??? To start with ... a stitch job refers to placing two images together so to make one. I did not do that with the Shaw photo, thus once again you are misstating the facts.

The next thing is that I am aware that the read line cuts through Shaws legs, but if you were to actually read my post where that photo was first introduced, then you'd see that the ground level marked on the "LEFT" side of the picture at the base of the wall represented the ground level where Arnold stood. As I said in those post - Arnold is seen over the "SOUTH DOG LEG" in Moorman's #5 Polaroid and is standing somewhere west of the walkway. If you draw a line from Moorman's location and follow it over the "SOUTH DOG LEG" all the way to the fence, then Arnold would be somewhere along that line and west of the walkway. The sloping ground where Shaw stood isn't even an issue. What I believe that I made crystal clear was that I wanted to show with the red line the height of the ground the came closest in that photo to the elevation Arnold was standing at in Moorman's picture and where that ground line came at when compared against the east side of the wall.

I suggest that you go back and read those post again and more carefully. If need be ... I will go back and walk you through it once again which will only make you look incapable of understanding even the simplest of illustrations and the purpose for which they were made.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only have you just illustrated the fact that, in order to get "Arnold" & Badgeman to line up with the body mass of real adult forms, future researchers would do well to stand their test subjects twice as far away from the camera as you did, you are also adding confirmation of Myers results.

He says both figures would have to be way back in the car lot to make sense.

Alan,

Your desire and need for Arnold to be non-existent is only overshadowed by your pretending not to understand Jack's picture. Jack didn't take his photo with the same camera lens as Moorman, from the exact same location, nor with the exact same zoom ratio ... and I think Jack made this quite clear in his post ... what he couldn't do is make you capable of understand what he was talking about and how it applied to his post. I would be like me trying to use a photo taken showing the RR cars way back in the RR yard and trying to get it to match the Nix film which because of its camera lens - the RR car looks much bigger and closer to the fence. I called this the 'foreshortening effect' ... maybe there is a better term for it. What Jack posted was correct and I feel that you just didn't or couldn't understand the infromation that he was giving you.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turner's "test" produced a figure twice the size of your man in Moorman,

the same difference is seen in TMWKK when Arnold himself stood behind the wall & then

Bill Miller too, came back with same results.

It is no coincidence that these all contain the same humungous cock-up.

I think if you research the cameras used in the two photos - you will find the lens difference can make some objects look larger and closer than they were seen by the other camera.

So you do see the size difference in the photos I referenced? Good!

I think if you even came close to matching the M5 "Arnold"' in your test photo your idea may of deserved more consideration but since your test subject was a large man to begin with(not that it made one bit of a difference as Jack's slimmer man shows)

& the test results showed he had double the body mass of your "Arnold", standing him twice as far away from your camera would hold a lot more water than your idea above & had better result that stood up to long term scrutiny.

However if you insist on keeping him near the pathway so it will to line up(hardly) with your Arnold=BDM "hypothesis" you are going to have to find a much smaller person in future & stand him/her on a tea-chest.

Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bower's view: WCH volume 24 p. 548 CE 2118

In addition I will try to post a photo that I first found posted by Mr. Robin Unger of Bower's view.

Dave

Alan, Duncan, Robin, Chris, Bernice, Dave et al., :unsure:

Concerning the time stamp on this photo, are the cars seen all of a production year of 1964 or earlier?

Are all of the buildings seen in the background existent in 1964?

WCHV24pp548CE2118.jpg

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More analysis from me which clearly shows that Bill's comparison with the crouching man at the wall has no relevance at all to the topic.

Bill Miller celebrated prematurely. Here Bill..put away the party poppers, chew on this, and try not to choke.

Note the red lines which I have overlaid showing the top and base of the wall to match accurately with Jack's posted image. I've made the red lines thick so that you don't miss them.

Duncan

Duncan,

Your animation and its base line are off. You show a red base line running along the sidewalk and it passes by the inside/westmost edge of the "SOUTH DOG LEG" of the wall. Then you scale another view of the wall and do so where the base line runs along the outside/eastmost edge of the wall. The westmost edge and the eastmost edge is on two different elevations. This is partly why the ground level is seen at around the midpoint on the wall in the photo of Shaw and you show it at a different point. (Just thought I'd point out the obvious)

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only have you just illustrated the fact that, in order to get "Arnold" & Badgeman to line up with the body mass of real adult forms, future researchers would do well to stand their test subjects twice as far away from the camera as you did, you are also adding confirmation of Myers results.

He says both figures would have to be way back in the car lot to make sense.

Alan,

Jack didn't take his photo with the same camera lens as Moorman, from the exact same location, nor with the exact same zoom ratio ....

So why do you keep refering to them & especially since the results contained in them are so out?

I called this the 'foreshortening effect' ... maybe there is a better term for it.

Can you put your money were your mouth is & prove that the figures above the wall in Turner's photo are out of proportion to the wall in front of them?

Can you also prove that the figures in the Moorman blow-ups do not appear larger than they are because of this foreshortening effect?

Have you seen Jack's photo taken with Moorman's actual camera & noticed anything about the man behind the wall that would confim your theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the post which you refer to.

look at the photo below and pay close attention to where the ground level at the west side of the wall is in relation to the east side. The ground could even rise higher, but at least we can see the highest point on the left side of the photo and use that for the comparison. Would you say that it's about half way down the wall when judged against the south dog leg?

Bill

To answer your question....No as can clearly be seen by looking at Shaw's feet. ..Next..Why did you extend the red line all the way through the joint of the dog leg?

Duncan

So let me see if I understand your behavior here ... you want to argue about Shaw's feet in relation to the red line despite it having nothing to do with Arnold being seen over the "SOUTH DOG LEG" of the wall, and you don't have a clue as to why I extended the line through the joint of the "SOUTH DOG LEG" ... is that right? So basically you will argue a position over an illustration even though you don't understand it totally. I am not sure how one can debate something they didn't even understand in the first place.

The reason for extending the red line to the "SOUTH DOG LEG" is because the same "SOUTH DOG LEG" is seen in Moorman's photo and it was that east side view of the wall that you used to show Arnold through the wall by way of an inaccurate scaling job of Gordon in relation to where the ground would be if we could see through the wall. So I extended the highest ground point visible in that picture of Shaw over to the "SOUTH DOG LEG" to show that it comes about to the halfway point of the wall. By applying that information to the "SOUTH DOG LEG" in Moorman's photo, then it gives one an idea where the ground is on the west side of the wall when viewed from the east side.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked extensively for these apocryphal photos. They do not exist & never did. One very good reason that they do NOT exist is that the WC saw the danger to their lone nut theory in having Holland's evidence tested. Go figure.

Where are the Photos, Bill?... Do you deny that they are in the "Weitzman Report?" Oh yeah, you can't find that either. Go figure.

See response #72.

Hey, Mr. Bill Miller,

QUESTION:

Do you think that this photo is an actual WC photo that you proclaimed existed & exists in the WC Report of 1964?

What is your response, please?

Yes?

No?

I do not know?

WCHV24pp548CE2118.jpg

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, Duncan, Robin, Chris, Bernice, Dave et al., :unsure:

Concerning the time stamp on this photo, are the cars seen all of a production year of 1964 or earlier?

Are all of the buildings seen in the background existent in 1964?

WCHV24pp548CE2118.jpg

Miles,

that is early nineties at least, can't think of the source though sorry(did someone find it on Corbis? Robin?)

The b/w image that you posted in the other thread is much better IMO.

5478.jpg

It's from '65 or '66 & found in Thompson's "SSID".

IHMO there could well of been men out of sight of Bower behind the cab of a pick-up truck parked close to the fence.

Also Bower's did not report seeing a man run into the car-lot after the shooting, so on that alone we cannot get the full picture from his testimonys.

If he missed runaway man come into his domain after the shooting I can only imagine what else he may of missed.

Bower's also reported a cop driving his bike up the knoll(from memory.. is that accurate?), something he could not have seen at the time only heard about later(especially since it did not happen, it was a inaccurate desciption of Hargood's failed attempt to mount the curb on his bike).

EDIT.

Actually, it may of been possible to see Hargood's failed attempt to mount the kerb from the tower.

Edited by Alan Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked extensively for these apocryphal photos. They do not exist & never did. One very good reason that they do NOT exist is that the WC saw the danger to their lone nut theory in having Holland's evidence tested. Go figure.

Where are the Photos, Bill?... Do you deny that they are in the "Weitzman Report?" Oh yeah, you can't find that either. Go figure.

See response #72.

Hey, Mr. Bill Miller,

QUESTION:

Do you think that this photo is an actual WC photo that you proclaimed existed & exists in the WC Report of 1964?

What is your response, please?

Yes?

No?

I do not know?

WCHV24pp548CE2118.jpg

All the photos shown in the 26 volumes were B&W. The color photo is an image that Dave Curbow emailed me.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, Duncan, Robin, Chris, Bernice, Dave et al., :unsure:

Concerning the time stamp on this photo, are the cars seen all of a production year of 1964 or earlier?

Are all of the buildings seen in the background existent in 1964?

WCHV24pp548CE2118.jpg

Miles,

that is early nineties at least, can't think of the source though sorry(did someone find it on Corbis? Robin?)

The b/w image that you posted in the other thread is much better IMO.

5478.jpg

It's from '65 or '66 & found in Thompson's "SSID".

IHMO there could well of been men out of sight of Bower behind the cab of a pick-up truck parked close to the fence.

Also Bower's did not report seeing a man run into the car-lot after the shooting, so on that alone we cannot get the full picture from his testimonys.

If he missed runaway man come into his domain after the shooting I can only imagine what else he may of missed.

Bower's also reported a cop driving his bike up the knoll(from memory.. is that accurate?), something he could not have seen at the time only heard about later(especially since it did not happen, it was a inaccurate desciption of Hargood's failed attempt to mount the curb on his bike).

EDIT.

Actually, it may of been possible to see Hargood's failed attempt to mount the kerb from the tower.

Alan,

Can you imagine Miller NOT knowing that the color photo above of Bowers' view was NOT from the WC Report! LOL.gif

It's from '65 or '66 & found in Thompson's "SSID".

Righto. I've got SSID.

IHMO there could well of been men out of sight of Bower behind the cab of a pick-up truck parked close to the fence.

True. But, wouldn't Bowers have spotted movement over time passage?

Also Bower's did not report seeing a man run into the car-lot after the shooting, so on that alone we cannot get the full picture from his testimonys.

Well, not so sure on that point. Bowers did report people moving into the lot post shooting. See the full 1966 interview transcripts from the De Antonio & Lane film.

If he missed runaway man come into his domain after the shooting I can only imagine what else he may of missed.

Cannot necessarily agree, although I see your point. I believe Bowers cum Lane.

Bower's also reported a cop driving his bike up the knoll(from memory.. is that accurate?), something he could not have seen at the time only heard about later(especially since it did not happen, it was a inaccurate desciption of Hargood's failed attempt to mount the curb on his bike).

EDIT.

Actually, it may of been possible to see Hargood's failed attempt to mount the kerb from the tower.

RIGHT! From Bowers' angle he could have easily misinterpreted Hargood's movement. :up

I have some comtemporary photos which support Bowers' statement that there was no one behind the fence during the shooting; i.e., in regard to behind the short arm of the fence.

(Duncan Man alone remains a possibility IF he had stayed hidden post shooting.)

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IHMO there could well of been men out of sight of Bower behind the cab of a pick-up truck parked close to the fence.

Also Bower's did not report seeing a man run into the car-lot after the shooting, so on that alone we cannot get the full picture from his testimonys.

If he missed runaway man come into his domain after the shooting I can only imagine what else he may of missed.

Bower's also reported a cop driving his bike up the knoll(from memory.. is that accurate?), something he could not have seen at the time only heard about later(especially since it did not happen, it was a inaccurate desciption of Hargood's failed attempt to mount the curb on his bike).

I don't think that Miles is interested in logical reasoning. Yes, the overhanging trees when seen from Bowers location could easily have hidden the upper body of anyone at the Badge Man location ... the cars parked along that area would have hidden the lower part of the bodies from view. And yes, Bowers didn't see or at least claim to see anyone running up the sidewalk during the shooting. How could he have missed this???

The cycle going half way up the knoll is a mystery to me. I had asked Gark Mack about this in the past and Gary felt the same way. Gary had looked at the best resolution scans the museum has of the post assassination knoll and he couldn't even find a tire mark in the grass to even make one think a motorcycle had even attempted to climb the slope of the knoll. In fact, one would think that if the cycle only made it half way up the slope, that the wheels would have roughed up the ground in the effort ... but there is nothing about the appearance of the grass on the slope that shows this ever happened.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...