Jump to content

The Gordon Arnold Competition


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

What lack of comprehension! I DID NOT STRETCH THE IMAGE. I plainly stated I reduced the width

to make Arnold less fat. By 1989 he had developed a potbelly which he likely did not have in

1963. Twisting words destroys credibility. If you must quote me, please do so correctly, not with

distortion which suits your argument.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Range:

BOWERS-range2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 :news

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 :news

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

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. :news 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:

train_tracks2---1--1.jpg

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...