Craig Lamson 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.... ...less defined in Moorman's because of the uphill view, but I believe is is still there never-the-less) .... Like I said more bs spews forth. Back to the original question...once again...how about the math to back up this claim? Ad lets add one more, just how big will this "rounded top shot from a low camera nangle" be recorded on the original polaroid film, and can this image size be recorded with the resolution of the moorman lens/film/fstop combination? Let me get my boots on before you answer again. Edited January 30, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 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 over 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...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Like I said more bs spews forth. Back to the original question...once again...how about the math to back up this claim? Ad lets add one more, just how big will this "rounded top shot from a low camera nangle" be recorded on the original polaroid film, and can this image size be recorded with the resolution of the moorman lens/film/fstop combination?Let me get my boots on before you answer again. Sorry Craig ... where is the math that says the opposite??? What is the white thin line all about ... a racing stripe? Your armchair grandstanding by way of this poor fuzzy faded drum scan isn't as reliable as someone like Mack looking at better prints. It gets pretty old listening to people wanting to argue what they think they see and/or don't see in poor degraded images over better ones. Contact Mack and see if he'll share his prints and opinions with you. I have yet to hear you even admit that the east wall still rises on an angle to our left of the alleged Badge Man flash. Your modus-operandi seems to be to use the poorer print if it serves your purpose and ignore all else. If its all the same to you, I'll bank on what I believe I see and what confirmation I was able to get from Mack by him viewing some of his prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I am still awaiting your brilliant responses!!! Duncan, I see the piffle patrol has spotted BM & has fled in terror at the stupendous size of accumulated trivial nonsense rising like a vast tsunami on the event horizon. So, balderdash aside, you might consider that your apex estimate is correct in spades! Your thoughts when you have a sec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Like I said more bs spews forth. Back to the original question...once again...how about the math to back up this claim? Ad lets add one more, just how big will this "rounded top shot from a low camera nangle" be recorded on the original polaroid film, and can this image size be recorded with the resolution of the moorman lens/film/fstop combination?Let me get my boots on before you answer again. Sorry Craig ... where is the math that says the opposite??? What is the white thin line all about ... a racing stripe? Your armchair grandstanding by way of this poor fuzzy faded drum scan isn't as reliable as someone like Mack looking at better prints. It gets pretty old listening to people wanting to argue what they think they see and/or don't see in poor degraded images over better ones. Contact Mack and see if he'll share his prints and opinions with you. I have yet to hear you even admit that the east wall still rises on an angle to our left of the alleged Badge Man flash. Your modus-operandi seems to be to use the poorer print if it serves your purpose and ignore all else. If its all the same to you, I'll bank on what I believe I see and what confirmation I was able to get from Mack by him viewing some of his prints. Boy! I needed more than boots, I needed waders for your latest bs! First please show me WHERE I have used ANY prints in this discussion of the "rounded top"? The answer is that I have not. I've asked you a simple question that you and Mack have been unable to answer. Second please show me WHERE I've made ANY claim about the the visability of the "rounded top? The answer to that is I have not. I've asked you a simple question that you and Mack have been unable to answer. Third I'm really not interested in the you so called "rise in the wall" I've asked you a simple question that you and Mack have been unable to answer. You both made the claims about this 'rounded top"...how about backing it with something other than "what you believe you see". The simple math will do just fine thank you very much. Finally I've heard you bloavate about these "better images" and you never seem to be able to produce them. Heck you can't even get the drumscan story correct. Why should I believe ANYTHING you have to say. Bottom line here Bill. You made this "rounded top" claim along with Mack. I'm not interested in anything else from you nor your continued bs in this thread. Its waist deep in here already. I've asked you a simple question that you and Mack have been unable to answer. You both made the claims about this 'rounded top"...how about backing it with something other than "what you believe you see". The simple math will do just fine thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 First please show me WHERE I have used ANY prints in this discussion of the "rounded top"? The answer is that I have not. Of course not, Craig ... you're an armchair troller. I see craters in the moon's surface ... do I need mathematics to make that point ... of course not ... all I have to do is look at it in person or in clear images of it. You on the other hand embrace a pitiful image that was badly faded and degraded by the time it was scanned and you whine that it doesn't show what people claim it does through either seeing it in person or by way of better prints. Second please show me WHERE I've made ANY claim about the the visability of the "rounded top? Again, you don't ever offer anything because you play the D. Healy game. You won't seek a better print or consult someone who has one before them. You know it all, Craig. Third I'm really not interested in the you so called "rise in the wall" I've asked you a simple question that you and Mack have been unable to answer. You both made the claims about this 'rounded top"...how about backing it with something other than "what you believe you see". The simple math will do just fine thank you very much. The wall does rise on its top - its not flat. Anyone who doesn't believe it can go there or consult someone who has studied it. Finally I've heard you bloavate about these "better images" and you never seem to be able to produce them. Heck you can't even get the drumscan story correct. Why should I believe ANYTHING you have to say. You shouldn't believe anything, Craig. All I can tell you is that people like Mack will not say something that they do not believe to be true. Have you not been to the plaza and sat on the wall .... tell us what you know about it??? Bottom line here Bill. You made this "rounded top" claim along with Mack. I'm not interested in anything else from you nor your continued bs in this thread. Its waist deep in here already. I posted a link whereas someone sat a soda bottle on the wall. The wall edge makes a straight line when seen against the background, but the pop bottle is slanted like the 'leaning tower of pisa' ... why do you think that is? I've asked you a simple question that you and Mack have been unable to answer. You both made the claims about this 'rounded top"...how about backing it with something other than "what you believe you see". The simple math will do just fine thank you very much. The top of the wall is raised and thats why it is illuminated and see as such in both the Betzner and Willis photos. Thats why the pop bottle seen in the photo at the link I posted shows it tilted like it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 (edited) Duncan,I see the piffle patrol has spotted BM & has fled in terror at the stupendous size of accumulated trivial nonsense rising like a vast tsunami on the event horizon. So, balderdash aside, you might consider that your apex estimate is correct in spades! Your thoughts when you have a sec. Miles - get a Moorman photo and make the entrace walls to the shelter perfectly vertical and run a horizontal line across the location where you see the corner of the wall and see if the angle changes takes place at that location. If it doesn't, then you are in error as usual. Edited January 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 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 over the word "behind" ... around the 'b' and 'e' to be more exact. I am still awaiting your brilliant responses!!! Bill, I believe that rise in the wall you describe is from the effect of an enlarged digital file. When I was there, I took both 35mm digital and film photos. The photo supplied is a digital photo. At 100% viewing, you can see the same rise I believe you are pointing out in Moorman, that we have supplied. View at 200%, and it is even more pronounced. The 35mm paper photo I have, shows a straight wall. It is from a slightly different angle, but I don't believe it matter's. I will scan it at work tomorrow and post it. The corner/apex of the wall that Duncan and Miles have pointed out is correct. imo I haven't found another explanation for the rise, but I believe this duplicates what is being seen. chris Edited January 30, 2008 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 (edited) First please show me WHERE I have used ANY prints in this discussion of the "rounded top"? The answer is that I have not. Of course not, Craig ... you're an armchair troller. I see craters in the moon's surface ... do I need mathematics to make that point ... of course not ... all I have to do is look at it in person or in clear images of it. You on the other hand embrace a pitiful image that was badly faded and degraded by the time it was scanned and you whine that it doesn't show what people claim it does through either seeing it in person or by way of better prints. Wow Bill, you have a thorn in your little paw? I'm "embracing" nothing here Bill. I've just asked a simple question...on you AGAIN cannot answer. YOUR bs claim is being questioned and you run away from answering it...why? You need to work on your strawman arguments Bill...you suck at them....kinda like you suck at understanding photography. Second please show me WHERE I've made ANY claim about the the visability of the "rounded top? Again, you don't ever offer anything because you play the D. Healy game. You won't seek a better print or consult someone who has one before them. You know it all, Craig. Why don't YOU just answer the simple question and SUPPORT your claim Bill. You dont need a 'better print" to work out the math Bill. Please supply ANYTHING that supports your position. Hell put up one of those "better' prints you sputter on about. Third I'm really not interested in the you so called "rise in the wall" I've asked you a simple question that you and Mack have been unable to answer. You both made the claims about this 'rounded top"...how about backing it with something other than "what you believe you see". The simple math will do just fine thank you very much. The wall does rise on its top - its not flat. Anyone who doesn't believe it can go there or consult someone who has studied it. Sure it does, thats not in question. The simple question you keep trying to deflect is if that 'roundness' can be seen in Moorman. You say it can. I've asked you to offer proof. You squirm like a worm and offer nothing. Finally I've heard you bloavate about these "better images" and you never seem to be able to produce them. Heck you can't even get the drumscan story correct. Why should I believe ANYTHING you have to say. You shouldn't believe anything, Craig. All I can tell you is that people like Mack will not say something that they do not believe to be true. Have you not been to the plaza and sat on the wall .... tell us what you know about it??? I'm not Bill, thats why I'm asking the question. Either you can answer it or you cant. Mack has been shown before to be wrong despite his "belief". We are back to that simple question again Bill...you gonna answer it. Oh and btw being in the Plaza holds no interest to me. That however does not eliminate your need to back up your claims. Care to answer the question? Bottom line here Bill. You made this "rounded top" claim along with Mack. I'm not interested in anything else from you nor your continued bs in this thread. Its waist deep in here already. I posted a link whereas someone sat a soda bottle on the wall. The wall edge makes a straight line when seen against the background, but the pop bottle is slanted like the 'leaning tower of pisa' ... why do you think that is? See above, I'm not asking if the wall top is rounded...can't you read? Looks like you suck at strawman arguments, understanding photography AND reading. Now, back to that simple question...can you answer it? I've asked you a simple question that you and Mack have been unable to answer. You both made the claims about this 'rounded top"...how about backing it with something other than "what you believe you see". The simple math will do just fine thank you very much. The top of the wall is raised and thats why it is illuminated and see as such in both the Betzner and Willis photos. Thats why the pop bottle seen in the photo at the link I posted shows it tilted like it is. Who cares what we see in those photos. Another sucky strawman Bill. The MOORMAN is the question and you can't answer..... Back to the drawing board Bill, you simply can't back up another one of your claims. Edited January 30, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Bill,I believe that rise in the wall you describe is from the effect of an enlarged digital file. When I was there, I took both 35mm digital and film photos. The photo supplied is a digital photo. At 100% viewing, you can see the same rise I believe you are pointing out in Moorman, that we have supplied. View at 200%, and it is even more pronounced. The 35mm paper photo I have, shows a straight wall. It is from a slightly different angle, but I don't believe it matter's. I will scan it at work tomorrow and post it. The corner/apex of the wall that Duncan and Miles have pointed out is correct. imo I haven't found another explanation for the rise, but I believe this duplicates what is being seen. chris Chris, Your photo was taken at a higher elevation than Moorman's was - seeing the fence over the top of the wall at the Badge Man location tells me that much ... did you not see this??? Take a square box and hold it in front of your eyes and turn it so you are looking directly at the corner. At "EYE LEVEL" the two sides will look to be on the same plane. Lower you LOS by raising the box and you will see that the top edges of the box running away from the corner will change in pitch. I called Mack again to day and he said that those who think that Badge Mack's flash is directly over the top of the wall are wrong. His criticism is like mine and that it that you fellas keep using a very poor degraded print. When he looks at a good print, like the one that Jack's Badge Man work came from - your mistake is obvious. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 The top of the side wall actually slopes downwards from the Moorman angle...NOT UPWARDS AS BILL CLAIMS. Duncan[/b] Duncan, I am not sure that what you said was accurate for it doesn't make a lot of sense. Even when I look at your poor fuzzy drum scan image, I can see the white of the wall above and to the left of your line. Now you said that contrast causes the illusion of the angle of the wall to rise to our left of the Badge Man image in Jack's print. Please tell us all how contrast will expand light areas, unrelated to the wall according to you, and have them remain on the same plane as the pitch of the east side of the wall - its nonsense. Mack went and looked at prints that were dark and contrast wasn't even an option and the top edge of the wall does exactly what I said it does. You can say otherwise, but the better prints show that you are wrong and you are wrong because you continue to use a print that is so degraded that Arnold and Badge Man are all but erased. If we were talking about something unrelated to one of your claims and someone said there are two alike images that we can use to make as an exact determination about what the image shows - one is badly faded and fuzzy and the other is better preserved and sharper, then who in their right mind would insist on wanting to rely on the fuzzy degraded image over the other - not me - not anyone. The thing is that for you to appear to be correct, you need to embrace the fuzzy poor degraded image, but it doesn't mean you are right - it only means that your thinking is twisted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 In talking with Gary Mack today, it was brought to my attention that my description of the angle change might still be confusing to some by the way I have tried to explain it. I don't have any images with me, but I believe from memory that the Dillard photo of the TSBD would make a good example of what I have said. Tom Dillard took a wide photo of the TSBD. That photo shows the south and east side of the building. If one looks at the top of the roofs edge on the east and south sides - they will see that visually they appear to have two different pitches in that photo due to Dillard's perspective. Those angle changes occur where the corner of the wall is. The same thing happens with the wall in Moorman's photo as she too is looking upward at the wall. The shade line is not on the corner, but rather slightly north of it. The position of the sun at the time of the assassination was able to shine on a part of the east wall, thus the shade line is under Badge Man's flash instead of being right at the corner. I hope to be able to better show this soon when I have some images to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Duncan, I am not sure that what you said was accurate for it doesn't make a lot of sense. Even when I look at your poor fuzzy drum scan image, I can see the white of the wall above and to the left of your line. Bill What you see above and to the left of the side wall top red line is the Dallas skyline, as Chris has correctly pointed out to you in an earlier post. Duncan Duncan, The corner apex, even if moved left to the green line, does not lessen the light beneath Arnie. So, it's just more BM piffle pinned on Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 (edited) The pellet with the poison is in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true Duncan Duncan, Ah, deep! Another clue: What's in the middle is the center! This beautiful photo is called the sombrero galaxy. I post it here in order to draw Duncan's attention to the appearance in Moorman of stars in the astronomical sense. See post # 924 in this thread: My contention TO DUNCAN is that the star like spots of light are not badges glinting, but are instead points of light shafting through the foliage by the fence. The center of the galaxy is thus the metaphor for Duncan that the center of the truth is that the Moorman image is an illusion. Note the stars in the galaxy photo resemble & imitate the light points in Moorman! Edited February 4, 2008 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 [/b][/color] Miles, I said the corner must be where the angle changes, so why did you get it wrong once again .... is this just more disinformation purposely infiltrated onto this forum like you did when you posted that Duncan was alleged to have consulted Mack and Groden??? You move the line up the slant, but stopped it before it starts downward again ... this is just sloppy poorly done research designed to mislead people. 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