Bill Miller Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 (edited) 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 I think my latest composite proves my point, and no amount of play on words by you will change the conclusion that Arnold is too small. In Jack's defence i'll say that he at least had the guts to make an attempt at scaling the figure correctly. You have not attempted this.. You have did nothing, and I believe will continue to do nothing except spout out more irelevant garbage which simply will not transform the floating torso. Actions speak louder than words. Duncan Duncan, I said that as soon as I got the images I was seeking ... I would scale Arnold to Arnold and then there would be no denying the final results. Your notion that someone should post more garbage as if they are showing that they are trying to help - is a joke! You are asking someone like myself to make the same foolish mistakes that you have made by using the same bad data. Of course, you would find someone using flawed data by showing an ape in relation to Arnold's size a step in the right direction. I prefer to do it right by scaling a Gordon Arnold in one photo to himself from another photo so to be exact. Bill Edited August 24, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Hail, Honest Duncan!I don't think someone has adequate CAD programs and Photo rendering programs to actually scale Arnold. That's a real embarrassment. It can be done within a small degree of error. What should be an embarrassment is that you applauded Duncan from the beginning while not believing he had the adequate programs to do the job correctly. It's called 'double talk' from where I come from. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 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 standard ....FALSE BUST I believe you, Duncan. It only supports what I have said that you are not qualified to be checking these sorts of things out because you do not even know of or how to check the data you use so to get a correct result. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Hail, Honest Duncan!I don't think someone has adequate CAD programs and Photo rendering programs to actually scale Arnold. That's a real embarrassment. It can be done within a small degree of error. What should be an embarrassment is that you applauded Duncan from the beginning while not believing he had the adequate programs to do the job correctly. It's called 'double talk' from where I come from. Bill Miller It's called 'double talk' from where I come from.Bill Miller Where I come from it's called 'Happy Talk': Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk, Talk about things you'd like to do. You got to have a dream, If you don't have a dream, How you gonna have a dream come true? Now, you say you are waiting for some images to have a dream come true? Yes? I said that as soon as I got the images I was seeking ... I would scale Arnold Bill What is your considered estimate as to the time duration length between now & the your image accession ? Day? Week? Do you know? (I'd like to know because my photo essay on Bowers' clear view is on hold until you scale Arnie! Right, Duncan?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 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. 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:) Range: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Bowers' would have seen persons & activity behind the fence in the area seen in these crops (1967): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 (edited) I believe you, Duncan. It only supports what I have said that you are not qualified to be checking these sorts of things out because you do not even know of or how to check the data you use so to get a correct result. Bill Any degree of error is trivial, including mininal differtials in aspect ratios. What are your qualifications? Duncan Ten years experience in creating transparency overlays. You may recall some of the Zfilm stabilizations I have created ... some of them keeping JFK and the limo the same size between frames. Oh yeah, did you not know that as the limo comes closer to Zapruder that it is always growing in size through the cameras lens. Create some clips while keeping the images the same size and you'll soon start seeing how things work. One such example: Bill Edited August 24, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 (edited) Bowers' would have seen persons & activity behind the fence as these photos (1963) show how thin the foliage was: Edited August 24, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 You've just shot a hole in one miles Duncan Over some sand traps: Aerial blowup crops from afternoon Nov. 23 or 24, 1963 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 You've just shot a hole in one miles Duncan Over some sand traps: Aerial blowup crops from afternoon Nov. 23 or 24, 1963: Summation: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 You've just shot a hole in one miles Duncan Thanks dread thane! Case seems solid. But, a private word, : Maybe Bill doesn't agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Bowers' would have seen persons & activity behind the fence as these photos (1963) show how thin the foliage was: What an odd thing to say. So you think that looking upward and straight on at the foliage is the same view you'd have being off to the side and looking downward? Take a moment from your trolling and look at the row of trees along the west stretch of the fence as seen from Nix's location and then look at the photo taken looking up the knoll .. one view shows space between the trees - the other shows them bunched together to a point of hiding whats beyond them. One would think Bowers could have seen where the Hat Man had gone, but he didn't - why? You continually cite things as fact that are not factual at all. What is even worse is that you seemingly purposely do it over and over again. Must be an obvious reason for it, but I imagine the forum rules don't allow for anyone to say what it is. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Ten years experience in creating transparency overlays. You may recall some of the Zfilm stabilizations I have created ... some of them keeping JFK and the limo the same size between frames. Oh yeah, did you not know that as the limo comes closer to Zapruder that it is always growing in size through the cameras lens. Create some clips while keeping the images the same size and you'll soon start seeing how things work.One such example: Bill Nice clip, but as I said, what are your qualifications? To answer your question...I didn't know that as things come closer to you they get bigger, that's amazing, thanks for the info, i'll spread the word, did you read that earth shattering info Miles?....astounding new Bill Miller discovery..Things get bigger as the get nearer...well I never. Duncan Footnote: Things don't actually get grow in size, they just appear to do so Ten years experience in creating transparency overlays. You may recall some of the Zfilm stabilizations I have created ... some of them keeping JFK and the limo the same size between frames. Oh yeah, did you not know that as the limo comes closer to Zapruder that it is always growing in size through the cameras lens. Create some clips while keeping the images the same size and you'll soon start seeing how things work.One such example: Bill Nice clip, but as I said, what are your qualifications? To answer your question...I didn't know that as things come closer to you they get bigger, that's amazing, thanks for the info, i'll spread the word, did you read that earth shattering info Miles?....astounding new Bill Miller discovery..Things get bigger as the get nearer...well I never. Duncan Footnote: Things don't actually get grow in size, they just appear to do so Duncan, Is there no one in Scotland that can translate these post to you ... I'm sure James Gordon would if you'd let him. The reason why I mentioned the resizing goes to the Arnold matter where you said that you don't stretch images. How can someone pretend to have scaled an image if they didn't stretch it. It seems that you are just saying anything that comes to mind at any given particular moment without consideration as to how it plays against previous things you have said and done. I'd correct that flawed practice before you write that article for Scientific America concerning your scaling observations. (Just trying to be helpful!) Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Bowers' would have seen persons & activity behind the fence as these photos (1963) show how thin the foliage was: What an odd thing to say. So you think that looking upward and straight on at the foliage is the same view you'd have being off to the side and looking downward? Take a moment from your trolling and look at the row of trees along the west stretch of the fence as seen from Nix's location and then look at the photo taken looking up the knoll .. one view shows space between the trees - the other shows them bunched together to a point of hiding whats beyond them. One would think Bowers could have seen where the Hat Man had gone, but he didn't - why? You continually cite things as fact that are not factual at all. What is even worse is that you seemingly purposely do it over and over again. Must be an obvious reason for it, but I imagine the forum rules don't allow for anyone to say what it is. Bill Miller Great feedback, thx. But Bowers was not standing next to Moorman, if that's your contention. This is a vital consideration which you seem to have completely overlooked, as you do over & over (& over & over) again. Bowers' view was unobstructed right through to the corner of the fence: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 The reason why I mentioned the resizing goes to the Arnold matter where you said that you don't stretch images. How can someone pretend to have scaled an image if they didn't stretch it. Bill I don't stretch images, I resize them, as I have explained on numerous occassions now, there is a difference. I don't know why you continue to bring up a false point and drag it on and on. Have you acquired the circa 1963 Arnold images yet?. Duncan You are spitting in a pretty stiff breeze this time, Duncan. If one increases an image whether horizontally or vertically - they have stretched it. Resize: - change the size of; make the size more appropriate size - make to a size; bring to a suitable size rescale - establish on a new scale Stretch: To become lengthened, widened, or distended. To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction 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