Miles Scull Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 so, put up your material or simply move on, your embarassing the 6th Floor Museum..... Duncan, Wasn't your original or seminal observation re: Arnie, was that Arnie must be standing behind Badgeman? It looks like Arnie's size is fixed by the reference points in the base print, as is Badgeman's. Therefore Arnie is behind Badgeman in the parking lot. No? I don't know. David Healy seems to be correct. FREE photo/paint programs are all over the web. Odd stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 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. Good God, Craig ... any moron can go to the plaza on a sunny day and see it for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 (edited) 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? David, one can go back and read everything you have posted in the past 12 month period and the only thing they will walk away with that was JFK related was your two comments in on e thread where you said, 'I believe the Zfilm is altered', and 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. And tell me what you know about the 6th floor Museum??? From what I gather they don't pay any attention to the nonsense you say. Edited January 29, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 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 Chris, I understand how you could have sent an unfamiliar email to junk mail ... we have all done it. This is just my opinion and only Mack can say for sure, but Gary is subject to certain guidelines when on the clock with the museum and the sharing of Museum materials might be one of them, but emails from home and materials from his own collection may be acceptable. You may wish to inquire about this and if so, keep his other email address in mind for future reference because even when I disagree with something that Gary has said ... I still deem him to be sincere and striving to be as accurate as possible. You may have noticed how quick once you replied that you didn't get any emails from Mack on this subject that a select few were quick to accept the accuracy of what you said in order to try and find fault with what I had said. Their behavior is often repeated when it comes to the evidence of the case and they refuse to correct their mistakes for the same reasons. Thanks for being a stand-up person for not only seeing the error, but for correcting the record. That's rarely seen on this forum. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Wasn't your original or seminal observation re: Arnie, was that Arnie must be standing behind Badgeman? The thread is archived, thus anyone can go back and review it and quote any participants past remarks. Sometimes peoples positions change as more information becomes available. Maybe Duncan saw the same sun-spot on this individuals right shoulder in the Betzner and Willis photos, which show him to be east of the fence and this effected his conclusion as to where this person is located. Duncan's currect position is that it is no one ... just an illusion, thus why would he think the figure is standing in the RR yard????? Therefore Arnie is behind Badgeman in the parking lot. No? I think that anyone who has any knowledge of perspective and how it applies to similar objects when seen while looking uphill will understand that the Arnold figure rises considerably higher than Badge Man, thus he is closer to the camera. This would account for his waist appearing higher elevated than the 5' tall wooden fence rather than posting something stupid like he must have been standing on a ladder even higher than you claim Badge Man was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 (edited) What's taking so long, fellas??? Normally you post replies within seconds without bothering to actually think things through. In the wording attached to the crop - the angle change in the wall doesn't change pitch under the flash, but rather under the word "behind" ... around the 'b' and 'e' to be more exact. I am still awaiting your brilliant responses!!! Edited January 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 (edited) 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. Good God, Craig ... any moron can go to the plaza on a sunny day and see it for themselves. Great so you CAN show that this "rounding" is visable from the low level of the Moorman lens. Post away Bill, I'm sure thats quite possible for any moron. And since you can "see" it I'm also quite sure you can show us the math that back this up. Edited January 29, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 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. Good God, Craig ... any moron can go to the plaza on a sunny day and see it for themselves. Great so you CAN show that this "rounding" is visable from the low level of the Moorman lens. Post away Bill, I'm sure thats quite possible for any moron. And since you can "see" it I'm also quite sure you can show us the math that back this up. Any comments? Just one. Tell Duncan, Craig, David, Chris, me & the Forum why you have not downloaded a FREE photo/paint program & gotten serious about Moorman & real research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 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? David, one can go back and read everything you have posted in the past 12 month period and the only thing they will walk away with that was JFK related was your two comments in on e thread where you said, 'I believe the Zfilm is altered', and 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. And tell me what you know about the 6th floor Museum??? From what I gather they don't pay any attention to the nonsense you say. if you can't handle THIS, what makes you think you can handle a debate concerning the alteration of the "alleged in-camera Zapruder Film? Only one of the Gang has the werewithal to present a decent challenge to what was presented in 2003... Currently he's banging on your door, or haven't you noticed... As for the 6th Floor, haven't been in the place, never will. DP now THAT is another story... So I say, yea, uh-huh... nearly everytime I log on to this forum Gary the Pope-Ghost is lurking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Any comments???Bill Just one. The vertical line DOES run throught the Badgeman flash in Moorman, but of course it wouldn't if a photograph of the same instant was taken from another angle...boy oh boy Duncan Duncan, with all due respect ... all you have done is draw a vertical line across the shade line. Jack's Badge Man image came from a much sharper print before fading ever took place and is enlarged and I have asked how do you account for the east wall angling upward to our left of the flash and on the same horizon line with the rest of the wall. I stated the most obvious reason for this and you didn't touch it other than posting a smaller version from a degraded drum scan whereas such detail has been lost. Is it your position that if you use a small enough degraded image that it somehow it allows you to claim the vertical line is accurate??? Again, please explain the continuation of the rise of the east wall to our left of the Badge Man's flash??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Great so you CAN show that this "rounding" is visable from the low level of the Moorman lens. Post away Bill, I'm sure thats quite possible for any moron. And since you can "see" it I'm also quite sure you can show us the math that back this up. Craig, here is something that an armchair researcher like yourself can answer ... do you care to offer an opinion as to how the edge of the east wall manages to continue to rise to our left of the Badge Man flash??? Do you not agree that the angle change of the dog leg is the center point where the wall turns west??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 (edited) if you can't handle THIS, what makes you think you can handle a debate concerning the alteration of the "alleged in-camera Zapruder Film? Only one of the Gang has the werewithal to present a decent challenge to what was presented in 2003... Currently he's banging on your door, or haven't you noticed...As for the 6th Floor, haven't been in the place, never will. DP now THAT is another story... So I say, yea, uh-huh... nearly everytime I log on to this forum Gary the Pope-Ghost is lurking. David, it was YOU, along with me and others who in the past 12 months had posted that you/we have seen no signs of alteration, so evidently those who you are trolling for didn't sway you in their direction either because the source you cite was information you had seen well before you made your statement. As far as you not being in the Museum ... doesn't surprise me. You remind me of someone who denounces a book that you have never read. It's illogical, irresponsible, and simply a poor research practice. Edited January 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Any comments?Just one. Tell Duncan, Craig, David, Chris, me & the Forum why you have not downloaded a FREE photo/paint program & gotten serious about Moorman & real research. Miles ... This is not my laptop and I have been asked not to do more than check email and my forum stuff. I will have my computer back soon enough ... have another snack and loosen your belt some more ... patience is a virtue! Until then, we have you and Duncan posting the best Badge Man image in Jack White's collection to make your case and I have used "YOUR" posting of that image to ask why the top edge of the east wall continues to rise to our left of Badge Man's flash if Duncan has placed his vertical line on the true corner of the wall. Is there some reason why you won't address my question and does it have something to do with why you would willingly and purposely post false information to this forum as you did in the case of your alleging that Duncan had been consulting Groden and Mack???? To be honest, I am starting to believe that you know exactly why that line still rises and you are still on the same mission that led you to post false information in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Great so you CAN show that this "rounding" is visable from the low level of the Moorman lens. Post away Bill, I'm sure thats quite possible for any moron. And since you can "see" it I'm also quite sure you can show us the math that back this up. Craig, here is something that an armchair researcher like yourself can answer ... do you care to offer an opinion as to how the edge of the east wall manages to continue to rise to our left of the Badge Man flash??? Do you not agree that the angle change of the dog leg is the center point where the wall turns west??? No Bill here is something a bs peddler who might be just like you can answer...the question that was asked above...and that is can the "rounded wall top" be seen from Moormans lens? Instead of trying to change the subject why not answer the question you are evading? Is it because your statement is simply bs? Awaiting more bs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 (edited) Great so you CAN show that this "rounding" is visable from the low level of the Moorman lens. Post away Bill, I'm sure thats quite possible for any moron. And since you can "see" it I'm also quite sure you can show us the math that back this up.Craig, here is something that an armchair researcher like yourself can answer ... do you care to offer an opinion as to how the edge of the east wall manages to continue to rise to our left of the Badge Man flash??? Do you not agree that the angle change of the dog leg is the center point where the wall turns west??? No Bill here is something a bs peddler who might be just like you can answer...the question that was asked above...and that is can the "rounded wall top" be seen from Moormans lens? Instead of trying to change the subject why not answer the question you are evading? Is it because your statement is simply bs? Awaiting more bs.... Craig - the east side of the semi-rounded top can be seen ... it is illuminated with sunlight. It is seen in Moorman's photo and can be seen when standing at the Moorman location. If you look closely - there is a thin white line that runs across the top of the wall above the east side that is shaded. (Its well defined in the Betzner photo - less defined in Moorman's because of the uphill view, but I believe is is still there never-the-less) That should be the side of the top of the wall that slopes to the east before then turning straight downward where the shade-line meets it. Edited January 30, 2008 by Bill Miller 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