Jump to content

Mary Moorman Photo


William Kelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint having etched away most of the

emulsion, although parts of the print are beginning to appear. But the Zippo shows

the parts not seen in later copies.

Jack

The Zippo print is one of the worse copies of Moorman's photo in my view. In blow-ups of that print the edges of objects such as the pedestal and colonnade are rough and uneven.

I am also curios as to what parts the Zippo print is supposed to show that later copies do not.

Below is the FBI and Wide World prints.

Bill Miller

FBI

MoormanFBIprint.jpg

Wide World (Zippo)

WideWorldZippowithtextfullframe2.jpg

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint having etched away most of the

emulsion, although parts of the print are beginning to appear. But the Zippo shows

the parts not seen in later copies.

Jack

The Zippo print is one of the worse copies of Moorman's photo in my view. In blow-ups of that print the edges of objects such as the pedestal and colonnade are rough and uneven.

I am also curios as to what parts the Zippo print is supposed to show that later copies do not.

Below is the FBI and Wide World prints ... no thumb print is visible on either.

Bill Miller

FBI

MoormanFBIprint.jpg

Wide World (Zippo)

WideWorldZippowithtextfullframe2.jpg

surely you jest? No fingerprint is visible in the above image? Come on ROTFLMFAO! Even I can see it in the 2053x1546 pixel sized image *without* glasses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

surely you jest? No fingerprint is visible in the above image? Come on ROTFLMFAO! Even I can see it in the 2053x1546 pixel sized image *without* glasses

You are correct, David. I should have worded my statement better. It should have read that the damage from the thumb-print isn't visible in these images as it was in others.

On a side note ... I think I heard it said that the thumb-print has faded with time.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know...the kind of thumb-print that his attacker would have left on his camera, yet Arnold was too thick to report this and hand over his camera which could have contained..The Evidence Of The Century.

Duncan MacRae[/b]

Your level of seriousness is quite remarkable.

Have you by chance had the opportunity to check the size of people in Mary's field of view from let's say - the photo of Officer McBride - to see how small her camera made those people appear at the same distance it was to the fence from her location? Isn't that half the battle of understanding.

Moorman_McBride.jpg

Take a look and see what I mean. Once the size is understood at a said distance ... then you only have ground elevation to figure out. :ice

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reply doesn't address my point which I think is a reasonable one.

You avoid any explanation as to why Arnold, after being assaulted and robbed by the murderer of the century, does not think it is important enough to report this evidence of the century to the authorities, and hand over his Camera which would almost certainly have contained the assassin of the century's prints.

All this of course..If you believe Arnold's story :ice

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, what you considerable reasonable isn't reasonable to me. After all, it seems that Mark Chapman thought it reasonable to shoot John Lennon four times in the back ... that Jeffery Dahmer thought that it was a good idea to eat his victims ... just as Van Gogh got the idea that it would be reasonable to cut his ear off. You apply the assumption that Arnold knew the cops were murders, but there is not a shred of evidence to support your position. You've made something up and have asked me to address it as if it was fact - that's whacked! Having said this, there was nothing reasonable that you said that needed addressed.

If you have nothing to offer as far as the size of those people across the street in Mary Moorman's photo of Officer McBride, which doesn't surprise me, the point was made so others with less of an agenda could at least see how Moorman's camera makes people look so small at certain distances. That even though the street is basically flat and that the people were just above the curb ... they still looked to be so small with their feet elevated so high in Mary's field of view against that of McBrides cycle. That by using the very camera that took the Badge Man images so to have a reference to go back to - that people can be prepared for what's to come.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew you would avoid answering the question, but that's par for the course when you have no answer.

That particular Moorman photo number 3 does not show anyone suspended in mid air as Moorman 5 does, ie your floating Arnold.

For you not to ask yourself why, if Arnold was telling the truth...why he did not come forward and hand over this critical evidence is insane, and shows lack of thought on your part.

I of course know that this is not true, and that you have asked yourself this baffling question many times.

A President is murdered, Arnold is assaulted by a man with a rifle within seconds... Do you think he was really so thick as to not put 2 and 2 together? and just say to himself...."Oh well, I better trod off to Alaska now, after all, I can always tell my story 25 years later, and heck, the feds won't need my Camera anyway for fingerprint testing, it's only a President that's been killed.

All this of course..If you believe Arnold's story

Duncan MacRae

Its the uneducated that don't know the facts - its a jerk who continually refuses to learn the facts and cite them correctly.

Where did you get the idea that Arnold was assaulted by a man with a rifle ... Dallas Officers had shotguns. Arnold had no reason not to believe that the two men in uniform who approached him were anything but DPD officers on the scene immediately following the shooting.

Arnold told is story - not 25 years later as you claim - but immediately to people who were close to him. Arnold had told his story privately over the years and it wasn't until someone who was ease-dropping and heard Arnold's story '15 years' later who then took it to Golz. Golz contacted Arnold and had a heck of a time convincing Arnold to speak to him.

Josiah Thompson has written a piece about the decline in the type of research that some folks who constantly make claims without first gathering all the facts and having them peer reviewed for accuracy are doing. As seen above, despite your being corrected on several of these points in the past ... you still continue to misstate them. I don't know if you're just a nut or someone who gets his jollies doing this (maybe both), but thats your problem.

As I have said before ... the figure alleged to be Gordon Arnold is not floating in mid-air. I referenced the people across the street and their size so to make this point. If the McBride cycle was a wall like seen above the knoll and you couldn't see the ground, then those people would also be thought by someone like yourself as 'floating in mid-air'.

What I do not understand is if you believe that you do not need to go to Dallas and conduct research - that you do not need to consult experts so to seek a better understanding of what you believe you see - that you don't need to consider things that are relevant - then why post at all. You obviously have it all figured out and don't seem to want to know anything more.

Just as it was with man seen under the red arrow in one of you and Miles illustrations ... and just as it is with the size of the witnesses seen on the sidewalk in the photo Mary took of McBride ... its a fact or as Fetzer calls it 'A Law of Nature' that cannot be denied and that is that Moorman's camera lens makes people look extremely small in stature at said distances, thus your claim that the Arnold figure is too small to be human isn't supported by the evidence. This only leaves the Arnold height problem to figure out and its coming.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='Duncan MacRae' date='Feb 25 2009, 09:36 PM' post='163302'

Its the uneducated that don't know the facts - its a jerk who continually refuses to learn the facts and cite them correctly.

Why do you continue to do so then, when there are no facts to verify Arnold's existance in his Moorman location?

I wonder if the communication problem between us is a geographical thing or that one of us is just not able to grasp reality. It is not a fact that it was actually Zapruder on the pedestal during the shooting, but there are facts that lead me to believe that the figure was him. The same goes for Arnold. Your previous remark seems to not recognize the difference.

Where did you get the idea that Arnold was assaulted by a man with a rifle

Arnold said he was kicked by the cop with a weapon....that's assault

... Dallas Officers had shotguns. Arnold called it a large bore weapon when describing it. So again what justifies you calling it a rifle?

Arnold had no reason not to believe that the two men in uniform who approached him were anything but DPD officers on the scene immediately following the shooting. If you step back and look at the scene ... it was Arnold who when rolling over was feeling agitated and looking for a fight. Gordon said that he 'wasn't in the mood ..... '. Arnold also says that people were coming up the knoll while this was going on and Towner #3 does show people moving up the walkway already. I personally don't see anyone robbing and assaulting an assassination witness with so many other witnesses around. I think Gordon described his impression of things at the time in the already agitated state he was in and did the same when describing the actions of the officers. I think this becomes apparent when Gordon said words to the effect that the bore of the gun looked big enough to drive a truck through its opening.

Arnold told is story - not 25 years later as you claim - but immediately to people who were close to him.

Arnold told his story - not immediately as you claim - but some 15 years later

Duncan, what data can you offer to support your remarks? I learned long ago that Arnold told his girlfriend at the time about his experience ... that girlfriend ended up being his wife ... do you know how many years before Golz article was published that Gordon got married (maybe 1964'?) ... of course you don't. This is just the type of garbage that Josiah touches on in his new article.

Just so we can differentiate the two ... the Golz article was the first time Gordon's story was told publicly. The story was told privately to family and friends following the shooting.

Josiah Thompson has written a piece about the decline in the type of research that some folks who constantly make claims without first gathering all the facts and having them peer reviewed for accuracy are doing.

Josiah's opinion on researcher quality does not matter to me on this issue, he has contributed nothing to it, nor has he expressed an opinion or desire to do so.

Lets not be stupid. Thompson didn't write about Arnold per-se, but touches on irresponsible people not doing a thorough job in researching things before posting their alleged great finds and claims.

I referenced the people across the street and their size so to make this point. If the McBride cycle was a wall like seen above the knoll and you couldn't see the ground, then those people would also be thought by someone like yourself as 'floating in mid-air'.

Garbage

What I do not understand is if you believe that you do not need to go to Dallas and conduct research - that you do not need to consult experts so to seek a better understanding of what you believe you see - that you don't need to consider things that are relevant - then why post at all. You obviously have it all figured out and don't seem to want to know anything more.

I'm the one who put forward the original Arnold is too small in Moorman theory on this Forum, you replied and have provided no proof that he is not too small over the last two years, and on and on it goes. No one asked you to butt in and provide no counter argument.

So let me get this straight ... If some boob merely looks at a photo and decides that someone looks to small to be human - has no idea at the time how tall the alleged figure was - falsely assumed the ground was flat - and did no other investigation to even see how small Moorman's camera would make someone appear at the distance Mary was from the Arnold location ... thats considered 'proof' by your definition. I don't think so, Duncan!

And if you wish to say that no one asked me to butt-in, then you should at least delete a portion of those post you have made asking me to prove you wrong. :ice

... and just as it is with the size of the witnesses seen on the sidewalk in the photo Mary took of McBride ... its a fact or as Fetzer calls it 'A Law of Nature' that cannot be denied and that is that Moorman's camera lens makes people look extremely small in stature at said distances,

So does every other Camera on the Planet...What's your point?

Let me give you an hypothetical example: If an alleged six foot tall man looks to be 1/4" tall in a photo at 120 feet from the camera ... then he cannot in all honesty be said to be too small to be real if another 6' tall person known to be real and seen from 120 feet away with the same camera is the same size (1/4") as the alleged illusion.

So the point was that if the body size of the alleged illusion falls within the limits of known average sized witnesses on the north side of Elm Street in another Moorman photo ... then the claim of someone being too small to be human is wrong. It then must shift to the person being too short to be real based on how long Arnold's legs are behind the wall and how tall the ground surface was where he was standing.

This only leaves the Arnold height problem to figure out and its coming.

Bill Miller

I'm glad you acknowledge it's a problem at last

Duncan MacRae

Its a problem like understanding how a magician creates his illusion, but once enough information is known, then its no longer a problem in understanding how the illusion worked.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas Officers had shotguns. Arnold called it a large bore weapon when describing it. So again what justifies you calling it a rifle?

What justifies you calling it a shotgun?

Duncan ... go learn the evidence ... you are wasting time now. Arnold called it a shotgun --- he was asked about it being a big bore weapon and Arnold said "SHOTGUN". He differentiated a slow moving bullet (shotgun) to fast moving bullet (rifle). Dallas police carried shotguns ... not rifles. No picture shows a DPD officer carrying a rifle on 11/22/63 - all shotguns. Now is this enough justification or are you wanting to screw around and play the role of the village idiot once again.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what Arnold said you dim-wit. I'm asking YOU what justifies YOU calling it a shotgun? not what Arnold said..Think about it :ice

Duncan MacRae

I personally do not think you had a clue as to what Arnold said. One of two things appear to have happened. One is that you were given a partial piece of what Arnold had said (most likely from your playmate (Miles) and thats why you didn't know about Arnold being more descriptive in the sentences that followed ... or you just read one part of the interview and posted before having read all the oral history, which is also typical Duncan MacRae.

If its your position that you had read all the oral history of Gordon Arnold, then I must ask why you left out Gordon's remarks about the large bore weapon being a shotgun. It has gotten old watching half-baked research discussions going on. It is no longer research, but a stupid game that goes nowhere. To ask what would justify me calling the weapon a shot gun instead of a rifle as you did is absurd for I am merely going from the part of the record of what the witness said that you left out.

Thompson's new piece says it better than I ... I suggest you read it ... or in your case have someone read it to you.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you've finished pulling the petals from your Josiah he loves me he loves me not flower, would you care to answer the question.

What justifies you calling the weapon a shotgun?

Duncan MacRae

What a load of ignorance ... must be lonesome without Miles to tickle behind the ear. Let me see if I have this right ... You said Arnold was approached by a man with a rifle. I said it was a shotgun and allude to Arnold's oral history whereas Arnold himself used the term 'large bore' weapon and 'shotgun'. Now considering that Arnold had been in the Military and was from Texas ... I think it is justifiable to assume he knew the difference between a shotgun and a rifle and I am justified in reporting that additional information vs. stopping short and not reading all of Arnold's oral history so to merely assume he was talking about a rifle.

There is your answer once again.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said Arnold was approached by a man with a rifle.

I said it was a shotgun and allude to Arnold's oral history whereas Arnold himself used the term 'large bore' weapon and 'shotgun'. Now considering that Arnold had been in the Military and was from Texas ... I think it is justifiable to assume he knew the difference between a shotgun and a rifle and I am justified in reporting that additional information vs. stopping short and not reading all of Arnold's oral history so to merely assume he was talking about a rifle.

There is your answer once again.

Bill Miller

Thanks..I just wanted to confirm that you believe the shooter behind the fence in the Badgeman position used a Shotgun to fire at Kennedy and not a Rifle. I'm glad you have cleared that up.

Duncan MacRae

As Josiah says ... its no wonder why the Kennedy asassination cannot be solved. Arnold never said that Badgeman was the man that took his film. Arnold said because the man who took his film and wore a uniform of a policeman and wore no hat ... he thought the hatless Badge Man might have been the same guy. Post assassination images show a cop in the RR yard without a hat on that doesn't fit the cops features, thus no one can tie the two together. One can only speculate as Arnold did.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I say...It's no wonder why the Kennedy assassination can not be solved when people like you believe both the Arnold story and the Hoffman story which totally contradict with each other. If you believe both stories, then you must believe that there were at least 5 people near the fence at the time of the shooting, and that Bowers got his count wrong.

Duncan MacRae

Does not your position concerning a floating cop torso depend on Bowers getting his count wrong? Neither man Bowers described was said to be someone disguised as a cop, thus your remark is illogicial and unsupoportive of your previous position.

What do you think of Beverly Oliver - Do you believe her story and that she is the BL???

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does not your position concerning a floating cop torso depend on Bowers getting his count wrong?

There is no floating torso cop

Duncan MacRae[/b]

I agree ... there is no floating cop torso ... that would be impossible.

Did Bowers mention seeing any cops or anyone disguised in a cops uniform elevated above the fence in the RR yard at any time before - during - or after the shooting?

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...