Jump to content

The Gordon Arnold Competition


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Gordon Arnold Floating Torso Locater Theory

I think the only way to solve this problem in all seriousness is to apply my new Gordon Arnold floating torso locater theory. I know some will ridicule this, guess who?....BUT...I am being serious. It requires someone to carry out an experiment in the Plaza. Unfortunately, being in Scotland rules me out at this moment in time, and I do not have the required photograph taking skills. This would require someone to set up a camera at the Moorman location with a way of super imposing the Moorman Arnold torso over the new recreation view from the camera on to the camera before taking some shots. The person behind the wall would simply need to walk about until my Arnold locater became an exact as possible match to the Moorman torso. This should give us the torso's exact height and location. The imposed image could then be removed from the camera, and the appropriate shots taken if there is a match. I have uploaded a prototype of the Arnold floating torso locater. Obviously the placard in my illustration would need to be sized to an pre agreed real life size for the Arnold torso. I expect this suggesstion will raise a few eyebrows and give some people a laugh, but my proposal is 100% serious. Any volounteers?

Duncan

I supposed that your method could be done, but why not use a similar view of the real Arnold taken on the knoll? Would that be too accurate and that's why you prefer the cutting unknowns in half and stitching them together based on your best guesses?? I think I can offer you better than that ... so let's see what happens when I get the images I am thinking of.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I won't pre judge your images, but I will say at this point that if they are not Moorman recreations, I don't see the point. I will however remain open minded towards someone who refuses to estimate Arnold's feet to even within a foot or two and marking them on the Moorman photograph.

You already prejudged my images and when did you turn over a new leaf and start raising the bar when it comes to pinpoint accuracy - Give me a break!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an respectable on-site test is to be made, I think it would be much better coming from someone who knows nothing about Arnold or his story, or at least someone who has no fixed opinion on the legitimacy of that unproven scenario.

What has Arnold's height or "where he said he stood" got to do with unbiased test of an unestablished cartoon like figure?

Surely you get the raw data from the test first & then we find out if it comes within the boundary's of any alleged scenario.

I have trouble taking this seriously when I read the way you guys are proposing to repeat the same mistakes you made before.

You already knew it was Arnold before you went there.

You already knew where he stood too

and that is why you all failed to come back with anything close to the size of the cartoon in Moorman5.

Here's yet another man stood behind the wall "moor" than twice the size of the alleged.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/777/crawleymoorea6.gif

Anyone noticing a pattern?

Original file here.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5346.jpg

I made the above Gif too big so I changed it to a link rather than a linked image that is shown, it's making the page load slow especially now it's been quoted.

Edited by Alan Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Jack explained his picture quite well IMO. Jack also showed how the images would look if his picture was scaled down. I think your seemingly inability to follow these post can be traced back to something you have previously said about all this concerning Arnold. You said, "In all honesty, I don't want Arnold to be there.

He interferes with my firm belief that the area was controlled, so that nobody, especially someone with a camera would get in the way."

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?

They are not out of proportion to the wall in front of them when one considers the camera lens they were photographed with. But you are comparing Moorman's lens to Turner's and different cameras show different magnifications and that is why the RR car in the Nix film looks like its just a few feet behind the fence when in reality it is clear across the RR yard. If it is your position that Turner's camera had the same lens as Moorman's, then please offer me what information that you can about that for I am not aware of it.

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?

Direct me to the photo if you will.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an respectable on-site test is to be made, I think it would be much better coming from someone who knows nothing about Arnold or his story, or at least someone who has no fixed opinion on the legitimacy of that unproven scenario.

What has Arnold's height or "where he said he stood" got to do with unbiased test of an unestablished cartoon like figure?

Surely you get the raw data from the test first & then we find out if it comes within the boundary's of any alleged scenario.

I have trouble taking this seriously when I read the way you guys are proposing to repeat the same mistakes you made before.

You already knew it was Arnold before you went there.

You already knew where he stood too

and that is why you all failed to come back with anything close to the size of the cartoon in Moorman5.

Here's yet another man stood behind the wall "moor" than twice the size of the alleged.

crawleymoorea6.gif

Anyone noticing a pattern?

Original file here.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5346.jpg

Alan

Thanks for 1988 photo & I agree with your points .

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

We know what Bowers saw to the extent of his Lane interview statements.

If you have a sec., could you please detail what Bowers COULD have seen in the red rectangle, leaving out Arnold, Haygood & the motorcycle movement?

That is before, during & after the shooting, as things changed.

Could B have seen the bench?

Could B have seen the (first) running man? Was he the man running up the steps from the Hudson group as seen in NIx?

Etc., etc...

BowersView3---1---1-2.jpg

Thx

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My studies the past few days have made me move Arnold about two feet

farther north and west than I previously thought, and unless it is proved

otherwise, I think he was standing on a small mound of dirt, as he said

from the beginning...long before anyone knew he might be in the Moorman

photo. Why would he mention such an innocuous detail if it were not so?

Jack

I'm just wondering what will happen if the M5 "Arnold" is proven to be in the car lot & four feet off the ground?

Can you at least bare that idea in mind in case it does occur?

I have to wonder too Jack.

Why do you think Arnold stood anywhere near "a few feet north of the top step" when your past results show the stand-ins to be twice the size of what we see in Moorman?

For both Turner & Crawley you have him positioned there & even though you've looked at it again you've only moved him by a couple feet.

Every single photo I've found that shows a man behind the wall in that position from or near Moorman's LOS, cleary demonstrates that the "man" in the blow-ups is half the size of them.

Surely half the size would indicate that he is close to twice the distance from camera, not just a few feet?

So I'm wondering if there is a reason your stuck on that position.

It cannot be Arnold himself can it?

The rumours say that Turner independently postioned Arnold there himself to line up with the M5 blow-ups, Arnold could not remember where he stood on the day so he wasn't going to argue.

But you already did the line up with Turner & convinced him you said, that the figures were real, so when he comes back with Arnold, he puts him in the same position as where the stand-in stood(or close enough to that position).

It was Turner who eye-balled you guys into position correct, did he get help?

Whatever the case, he was way out, that has become so obvious since Duncan's canny observation.

Now I know why Bill puts him in that position & whether he likes to hear it or not, it's because it "may" coincide with the position of BDM, his theory you know by now.

Gary Mack has always refered to his own open-minded opinion that the M5 Arnold may be back further closer to the fence, not sure if that had anything to do with his impression of the size of the character but maybe more because of Arnold's own words "I was about three feet from the fence".

So are you stuck on this position for Arnold because of Turner's interpretation or some other reason I may have missed?

Because if you are, it may explain to me why your ignoring the massive size differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's yet another man stood behind the wall "moor" than twice the size of the alleged.

crawleymoorea6.gif

Anyone noticing a pattern?

I noticed a pattern a long time ago and the pattern was that some people were trying to investigate something that they were not educated and/or experienced enough to understand, thus their conclusions were erroneous. Two different camera lenses can make a large difference on how big things look in their picture at different distances. One prime example of this can be seen by simply taking the wall in Moorman's photo and scaling it to size with the wall seen in Muchmore's film. Muchmore is filming the assassination by basically looking just over Moorman's right shoulder. When the two walls are scaled to the same size - the two limos are totally different sizes ... not even close. When the two limos are scaled to match each other, then the two knolls are way out of wack with one looking further away than the other. I have posted such an example in the past and I assume that you either missed it or never understood what was being said about it.

Anyway, this is what happened in Jack's photo and you just don't understand these things well enough to make sense out of what you are seeing. In the Muchmore / Moorman illustration ... the two south dog legs are scaled the same. The limo is smaller than the limo in Moorman's photo and yet the men on the steps are larger than the same men seen in Moorman's photo. Understanding how these various lenses work can get technical and I do not thoroughly understand it all, but what I do understand is the differences are there and I can see them at work.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You explanation is correct, that's why in my analysis I have been sticking almost rigidly to the moorman photograph perspective of the Arnold torso.

I have now resized a real Arnold with real legs to a close scale and placed him over the torso. As you can see he's still way too small.

Duncan

But, Duncan,

THE CAMERA LENS WERE DIFFERENT !

Don't you get it?

That explains it.

More never need be said!

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan

Thanks for 1988 photo & I agree with you points .

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

We know what Bowers saw to the extent of his Lane interview statements.

If you have a sec., could you please detail what Bowers COULD have seen in the red rectangle, leaving out Arnold, Haygood & the motorcycle movement?

That is before, during & after the shooting, as things changed.

Could B have seen the bench?

Could B have seen the (first) running man? Was he the man running up the steps from the Hudson group as seen in NIx?

Etc., etc...

BowersView3---1---1-2.jpg

Thx

Miles,

great blow-up & very good questions, too good for me.

I can only guess.

I don't see any sign of the wall, so I would say that is because of the angle of where we are looking from.

I doubt we could make out the details of a bench in this quality photo anyway but I'm sure we could see tell tale signs of the wall if it were visable.

My guess is that both the wall & bench were blocked from view by the shelter from Bower's position.

Based purely on this photo, no other reason.

Bower's would of seen the upper halves of both Hudson & the guy next to him(I hate the name "runawayman" we have to think of something better, this might give us an idea as what we can rename him Big clue?) so I 've drawn in a very rough idea of what a man standing halfway down the steps may look like.

As far as I'm aware he is the only one seen to run back that way, of course IMO Blackdogman did too & for those who believe in Sitzman's story(I don't) they have a young couple heading back there also, all seemingly unoticed by Bowers.

roughideaml4.jpg

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone noticing a pattern?

Original file here.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5346.jpg

Alan

Thanks for 1988 photo & I agree with you points .

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

We know what Bowers saw to the extent of his Lane interview statements.

If you have a sec., could you please detail what Bowers COULD have seen in the red rectangle, leaving out Arnold, Haygood & the motorcycle movement?

That is before, during & after the shooting, as things changed.

Could B have seen the bench?

Could B have seen the (first) running man? Was he the man running up the steps from the Hudson group as seen in NIx?

Etc., etc...

BowersView3---1---1-2.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Concerning the bench:

Pointing towards the corner of the retaining wall, Sitzman recalled:

"What had happened, there was a couple sitting right over here in a park bench and they dropped a pop bottle, right after the car went under the Triple Underpass. And when that pop bottle hit the cement, it kind of woke us up. And both Mr. Z and I was still standing up here. Everybody else was laying down flat. And all's I can remember then, was going through my mind: 'What am I doing standing up here?"

Trask's 1994 landmark book, Pictures of the Pain, publishes an image taken on the afternoon of the assassination by Dallas Morning News photographer Johnny Flynn showing:

"two plainclothes men, one with a stenographer's note pad in hand, leaning over and examining a paper lunch bag, and a wrapper marked 'Tom Thumb 8 Buns 25 cents.' The lunch leavings are resting on an odd-looking metal frame slat bench positioned perpendicular to the concrete wall and next to the walkway leading to the stairs at the knoll."

This is leading indirectly to the topic: Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?

The bench is not in Bowers' view as seen here:

BowersView3---1---1-2.jpg

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

great blow-up & very good questions, too good for me.

I can only guess.

I don't see any sign of the wall, so I would say that is because of the angle of where we are looking from.

I doubt we could make out the details of a bench in this quality photo anyway but I'm sure we could see tell tale signs of the wall if it were visable.

My guess is that both the wall & bench were blocked from view by the shelter from Bower's position.

Based purely on this photo, no other reason.

Bower's would of seen the upper halves of both Hudson & the guy next to him(I hate the name "runawayman" we have to think of something better, this might give us an idea as what we can rename him Big clue?) so I 've drawn in a very rough idea of what a man standing halfway down the steps may look like.

As far as I'm aware he is the only one seen to run back that way, of course IMO Blackdogman did too & for those who believe in Sitzman's story(I don't) they have a young couple heading back there also, all seemingly unoticed by Bowers.

roughideaml4.jpg

Alan

Alan,

Right.

So, Bowers would not have seen the Sitzman couple at the time in question: THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING.

Bearing on the topic: Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?: is the question of what Bowers could see behind the fence, as well.

Bowers' would have seen persons & activity behind the fence in the area seen in these crops (1967):

(There will be more photos on this question to follow these:)

train_tracks2---1--1-CROP.jpg

train_tracks2---1--1-CROP11.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Josiah Thompson photo was not taken from the same LOS as the other Tower photos have shown. The elevation also seems to be different. I have sent a message to Josiah asking some questions concerning the photo, but no answer as of yet.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bench is not in Bowers' view as seen here:

That is not Bowers view/LOS IMO and the image was taken several years after the assassination occurred, thus there may no longer have been a bench to see.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started this new thread in an attempt to get away from what Bowers, Yarbororough or Yosemite Sam for that matter might have seen or didn't see in an attempt to keep things on topic, as whatever Bowers or anyone seen will not affect what is seen in Moorman. Anyway, I'm putting my last post here to try and get things back on track and away from the distractions which plagued this topic and which have absolutely ZERO relevance to the information contained in Moorman.

Repeat Post

Bill..You explanation is correct, that's why in my analysis I have been sticking almost rigidly to the moorman photograph perspective of the Arnold torso.

I have now resized a real Arnold with real legs to a close scale and placed him over the torso. As you can see he's still way too small.

Duncan

Wow ... You are correct, Duncan!!! The problem is that your scaling is way off once again. You merely created a Gordon Arnold that is not the same proportions as the one in Moorman's photo. How do I know this you ask??? Look at Arnold's forearms where they bend at the elbow. Belt lines can be worn at different heights depending on ones weight and type of clothing one is wearing, but Arnold's elbow to the top of his head or shoulder distance should not have changed with age or clothing styles - right!?? The Arnold you are still saying is too short has not been stretched vertically to scale with the Arnold seen with arm bent and holding a camera in the Badge Man images. You correct that noticeable mistake and you will see that Arnold's feet do end up behind the wall where they should be. I get the images I am seeking - I'll do it for everyone and there won't be anymore guess work going on here.

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...