Jump to content

The Gordon Arnold Competition


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

Of course, but you will allow that every time you ask what time it is o'clock, a door beneath the dial mechanically & predictably, with a whirl of wheels & levers, flips open & a stuffed mocking bird pops out which accuses you of being a scaling Cuckoo.

This results in perpetual evasion. And gridlock.

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.

The scaling shows that the GI Joe figure cannot be Arnold.

But the Bowers evidence shows that the GI Joe figure cannot be human, because it asserts that there was not a human in the required space frame.

The topic is: Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?

That question has already been answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jack..What you just posted is absolute nonsense. Your composite has no bearing on the true size of the Arnold torso in Moorman. It fits the Turner photograph and nothing else. You have made Arnold a Giant and have it inserted it in to my gif composite in order to fit your viewpoint. It's a false wrongly scaled comparison. Unfortunately it does not match the real size of the floating torso. I have now overlaid the true size torso over your giant Arnold so that people can see your mistake.

Duncan

I give up on Duncan. He obviously has no sense of proportion. He fails

to recognize that the Arnold of 1989 was likely much heavier and thicker

than the trim soldier of 1963. In 1963 I weighed about 150 pounds. In 1989 I

weighed about 190 pounds; weight happens.

He shrunk the Arnold size by a third in his original study, so that it is

smaller than the blue lines he used initially.

If there is truly something wrong with the scaling, it is something we

have not yet understood, because the Turner photo shows that people

in those locations do match the Moorman images. If they do not match

the concrete wall, there must be a reason not yet discovered.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack......

B..

When Arnold is inserted into the Turner photo, NOTICE WHERE HIS

BELTLINE IS! Duncan has wrongly been assuming that Arnold's

LEFT ARM IS HIS BELT. I have said all along that his left hand is

steadying his right elbow, with his left forearm across his abdomen.

If you look, you can see his wristwatch and left hand. Moving his

Moorman waistline up nine inches makes a huge difference!

Duncan's lack of perception and sense of proportion hinder his

desire to analyze photos.

Jack

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 .....

<Edited the complete & utter nonsensicle reference to the Muchmore images>

Those images in the Gif I posted not only came from the same position they came from the same camera.

Refering to Muchmore is madness.

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 .....

<Edited the complete & utter nonsensicle reference to the Muchmore images>

Those images in the Gif I posted not only came from the same position they came from the same camera.

Refering to Muchmore is madness.

Alan, Duncan,

Here is muchmore madness:

Is this generally accurate or not?

ArnoldsFEETCROP-2-1_A-B.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack..What you just posted is absolute nonsense. Your composite has no bearing on the true size of the Arnold torso in Moorman. It fits the Turner photograph and nothing else. You have made Arnold a Giant and have it inserted it in to my gif composite in order to fit your viewpoint. It's a false wrongly scaled comparison. Unfortunately it does not match the real size of the floating torso.

I have now overlaid the true size torso over your giant Arnold so that people can see your mistake.

Duncan

I give up on Duncan. He obviously has no sense of proportion. He fails

to recognize that the Arnold of 1989 was likely much heavier and thicker

than the trim soldier of 1963. In 1963 I weighed about 150 pounds. In 1989 I

weighed about 190 pounds; weight happens.

He shrunk the Arnold size by a third in his original study, so that it is

smaller than the blue lines he used initially.

If there is truly something wrong with the scaling, it is something we

have not yet understood, because the Turner photo shows that people

in those locations do match the Moorman images. If they do not match

the concrete wall, there must be a reason not yet discovered.

Jack

Of course I recognise that most people put on weight as they get older. Let's face it Jack, unless we can get a full size photograph of Arnold as he was in 1963, everything can only be estimated and scaled to an approximate size. That is what I have tried to do, staying strictly focused on the Moorman photograph and nothing else. Weight increases, yes..but height normally decreases, that is a proven scientific fact. I believe my comparisom is accurate to within a tolerable degree of error.

I have yet to see either you or Bill place estimated legs on the Moorman Arnold, and it puzzles me why you both are avoiding this issue.

Duncan

I am sick of such dogmatic pronouncements as that HEIGHT NORMALLY DECREASES IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.

When I was 18 I was about 6'1"...weighed about 130

When I was 40 I was about 6'1.5"...weighed about 150

When I was 60 I was about 6'2"...weighed about 180

At 80 I am about 6'2.5"...now weigh about 190 (after being at 205 when I had a heart attack)

My collar size at 18 was 14

My collar size at 80 is 17.5

Does that make me UNSCIENTIFIC? Or is each individual different?

Jack

still a growing boy

PS...I have put legs on Arnold...but from the waist down, not the chest down.

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it was a " close to " scale and not exact. I was aware of the elbow region, it sticks out like a sore thumb, but I was taking in to consideration that the elbow of the torso appears to be bent, and if this figure is apparently holding a camera, the elbow would be higher than the elbow of the real Arnold which I used. I don't believe in stretching real photographs to make a comparison. Note his elbowa are bent here as he stands behind the wall in 1988

Duncan

What ever you say, Duncan. You just happened to NOT scale Arnold correctly when it comes to his height (because you don't believe in stretching an image) and that just so happens to be the issue here as to whether he was tall enough to have his feet reach the ground behind the wall. Give me a break!

As far as you not stretching real photographs ... did you not learn anything about the Muchmore/ Moorman comparison. Unless the subjects from each photo in question was photographed with the same camera and from the same distance apart each time - one MUST stretch that person both vertically and horizontally to do what you have been wanting to find out. If you think I am kidding you, then surely there must be someone in Scotland who can explain it to you. How about James Gordon ... he's pretty sharp in this area.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, Duncan,

Here is muchmore madness:

Is this generally accurate or not?

Miles,

You doing this is like giving a baby a gun to play with. What have you done here? It looks like you used Arnold from the Badge Man images - along with Gordon's lower body from a still capture, and put them both on a wall that you suggest to be from the Muchmore film ... is this correct? If so, what did you do to insure the height of the Muchmore wall was the same as in Moorman's and are you not aware that Moorman's angle to Gordon was much steeper than Muchmore's?? Do you know how that effects how someone looks when seen beyond the wall??? I'm sorry, but your example is terribly flawed IMO.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as you not stretching real photographs ... did you not learn anything about the Muchmore/ Moorman comparison.

Bill

Just take a look at Jack's Orangutang Arnold and you'll see why I don't stretch REAL images. If you or Jack choose to do so, that's up to both of you, but I suggest a future in comic book illustration might be a better direction to head in.

Real Images...Real Scaling = Real Results.

Duncan

Duncan,

If this helps:

(The horror of the extended arm fudge is seen here in the Simian Reference Key.)

ArnoldsFEETCROP-2-1_A-B-C-D-E-F.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, but you will allow that every time you ask what time it is o'clock, a door beneath the dial mechanically & predictably, with a whirl of wheels & levers, flips open & a stuffed mocking bird pops out which accuses you of being a scaling Cuckoo.

This results in perpetual evasion. And gridlock.

What an odd thing to say. Maybe the ridiculous mistakes being made in the scaling department have come about because some people are attempting something they know little about.

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.

The scaling shows that the GI Joe figure cannot be Arnold.

But the Bowers evidence shows that the GI Joe figure cannot be human, because it asserts that there was not a human in the required space frame.

The topic is: Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?

That question has already been answered.

I agree with the last sentence. Certainly the question pertaining to being competent enough to properly investigate the matter was answered when Duncan's first illustration was applauded and called 'proof' of the figure being too small to be human when it clearly HAD NOT even been scaled in width correctly, thus making the height wrong as well. Then it was applauded once again when Duncan created yet another illustration that didn't even have the upper body of the two Arnold's scaled to match one another. The mismatch between the length of Gordon's forearms had gone unnoticed by a few. So in that aspect - the question had indeed been answered before it was ever properly investigated.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just take a look at Jack's Orangutang Arnold and you'll see why I don't stretch REAL images. If you or Jack choose to do so, that's up to both of you, but I suggest a future in comic book illustration might be a better direction to head in.

Real Images...Real Scaling = Real Results.

Duncan

Let me start by saying that any time you have compared the Badge Man figures to the actual Moorman photo or used another view of the wall from a different photo or film when showing your scaling efforts - YOU STRETCHED A REAL IMAGE!!! To say otherwise is misleading the reader.

Here is something another respected researcher had written to me ...

"Take a look at Duncan's post # 135, the one in which he writes, "I don't believe in stretching real photographs to make a comparison."

Oh yeah? He stretched his example of Gordon Arnold on the knoll in 1988 for TMWKK. Simply right click on that image and you'll see the pixel ratio is 444 x 268 = 1.65:1.

TV images are 1.33:1, not 1.65:1, so here Duncan is busted altering a picture and squashing it by a huge 24%."

Duncan,

If this helps:

(The horror of the extended arm fudge is seen here in the Simian Reference Key.)

Having some experience myself in the study of body proportion differences between apes and man, I can say that the above nonsense is just more of someone either posting about something they know little about or it is being done to purposely confuse those who might not know better. One quick and easy example of this is that it is common knowledge that an apes forearm is longer than a mans. If someone thought they had a properly scaled human by making his body proportions match that of an ape, then they are sadly mistaken and once again pretending to by stating facts when nothing could be further from the truth. And because the body proportions of an ape compared to a man are common knowledge to anyone who has taken even a few minutes to read about it - the above statement appears to be nothing more than disinformation designed to mislead those who might be here to actually learn something.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as you not stretching real photographs ... did you not learn anything about the Muchmore/ Moorman comparison.

Bill

Just take a look at Jack's Orangutang Arnold and you'll see why I don't stretch REAL images. If you or Jack choose to do so, that's up to both of you, but I suggest a future in comic book illustration might be a better direction to head in.

Real Images...Real Scaling = Real Results.

Duncan

Duncan, please do not insult my intelligence with this nonsense. We are not talking about trying to match an ape to the body proportions of Gordon Arnold, but rather we are talking about matching two pictures of Gordon Arnold's body proportions to each other. You had no trouble taking a photo of a soldier's lower body and widening it (while done poorly at that) and aligning it to the upper body of Arnold, so you are indeed capable of stretching a photograph. What you were incapable of, unless you purposely did it, was to not stretch the height of the lower body by the same ratio that the image had been widened. The result of this made the figure shorter than it should of been had it been done properly. So while I think your result was based more on incompetence, when you make statements like how you don't believe in stretching body proportions so to match when doing scaling test, then it makes me wonder if you have purposely made some of these mistakes and I want to give you more credit than that.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as you not stretching real photographs ... did you not learn anything about the Muchmore/ Moorman comparison.

Bill

Just take a look at Jack's Orangutang Arnold and you'll see why I don't stretch REAL images. If you or Jack choose to do so, that's up to both of you, but I suggest a future in comic book illustration might be a better direction to head in.

Real Images...Real Scaling = Real Results.

Duncan

Duncan,

If this helps:

(The horror of the extended arm fudge is seen here in the Simian Reference Key.)

ArnoldsFEETCROP-2-1_A-B-C-D-E-F.jpg

Certainly the question pertaining to being competent enough to properly investigate the matter... the question had indeed been answered before it was ever properly investigated.

Bill Miller

Please investigate pictorially the scaling of Arnold's legs.

(CAD program downloads see Re: Weitzman Report.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying that any time you have compared the Badge Man figures to the actual Moorman photo or used another view of the wall from a different photo or film when showing your scaling efforts - YOU STRETCHED A REAL IMAGE!!! To say otherwise is misleading the reader.

No I didn't..I took a screenshot from Youtube. If any stretching was done, it certainly wasn't done by me. It was either done by the person who uploaded the Youtube video, or is a result of Youtube's processing...FALSE BUST

Here is something another respected researcher had written to me ...

Who Who Who?.... No one is interested in the words of nameless morons. It's hearsay

"Take a look at Duncan's post # 135, the one in which he writes, "I don't believe in stretching real photographs to make a comparison."

Correct

Oh yeah? He stretched his example of Gordon Arnold on the knoll in 1988 for TMWKK. Simply right click on that image and you'll see the pixel ratio is 444 x 268 = 1.65:1.

See my reply above

TV images are 1.33:1, not 1.65:1, so here Duncan is busted altering a picture and squashing it by a huge 24%."[/b]

See my reply above

Duncan...honest as the day is long

Hail, Honest Duncan!

I don't think someone has adequate CAD programs and Photo rendering programs to actually scale Arnold. :huh:

That's a real embarrassment.

Let's do the scaling for anyone in this boat. :idea

They can just post their request & instructions & we will help out.

Maybe Bill might be interested? :o

(Oh, BTW, when can I post the remainder of my photos in the series which proves the Bowers could clearly see all areas along the picket fence? :D )

Edited by Miles Scull
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...