Jump to content
The Education Forum

Whereabouts of Mr. Hudson


David Josephs
 Share

Recommended Posts

DJ,

There is some SS images posted in the old Arnold threads that show that the ground was higher between the sidewalk and the fence. When I recreated those individuals images, the soil was severely worn away and the tree roots were visible. Even with the ground level as it was when used stand-ins ... I still got very close after scaling the wall correctly.

One common mistake I see is that people will place someone off to the side of the dogleg of the wall when the Arnold figure was further back from the camera which in Mary's lens the individual will be smaller than if moved out to the top of the walkway. This is precisely why we opted to actually go there for the laws of Physics would apply today as then.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some images that show how much higher the ground behind the wall is compared to the front corner of the wall.

Initially I did an image much like Duncan's in which the size looks as if it doesn't make sense.

But the problem was, up till now, that we never seemed to show a photo of the elevation back there.

How the ground dips near the front inside of the wall and the front outside, what moorman sees, extends well below the level of the walkway.

I simply took an image of another person and placed them in these different locations. Granted, this is 2D representation of 3D space yet from this view if seems that a person standing back toward the fence might be represented as we see in moorman and is much taller than his counterpart by the wall.

and from behind we see the man at the wall much shorter than the other people. Given how the Knoll slopes away so fast... does this change your thoughts Martin... Obviously, Bill believed this all along...

Hi David, i'am not sure to understand everything correct.

The man in Darnell at the inner edge is simply tinier it looks to me but

in general it's true for sure that objects more away from the camera are smaller.

The point is that BM, GA are general way too tiny apart from the light and shadow play , you've mentioned

earlier here correctly.

As i said before to Ken, the grass surface at the inner edge of the RT Wall has the same height level

as the sidewalk adjoining the stairs.

dj.jpg

best to you

Martin

Edited by Martin Hinrichs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

I have not a clue as to what in the hell you are talking about. Yes, people have placed colorization crops in the Moorman photo - a poor print choice at that. However, Mack and White used the best actual UPI scan of the Moorman photo, thus everything is to scale. Jack and Gary did measurements and checked their work. I forget the man's name, but Jack's work was recreated for this individual who found nothing wrong with it.

I used stand-ins at the locations we are discussing. I placed Mike Brown at a point where the LOS intersected in the Betzner,Willis, and Moorman photos combined. I put Tony Cummings at the fence on the RR yard side of it and I took a recreation photo. These men's images matched what was seen in the UPI print. What made them look vertically longer than Mary's images of them was that I matched up the two retaining walls from top to bottom while not knowing that the ground base on the east side of the wall was at a different elevation than it was at the time of the assassination. Once I found out that I made the wall too tall and corrected it, then I found that Brown and Cummings were within the realm of the size of the individuals seen in Mary's photo.

All this information was posted in detail and should be in the archives for those who will take the time to read through it all. Even if the images may or may not still be available - the text should still be there. As long as people keep using the poor fuzzy prints, then their conclusions cannot be any better than their source material.

Bill

PS: In speaking with Mark Oakes today, Mark could not remember all we talked about concerning the Pascall film. It is true that Pascall didn't film the head shot, but her film did show the walkway area within about 13 seconds or so after the limo sped off and while Zapruder was getting down from the pedestal. Mark wanted someone to lighten that area to better see who, if anyone, was there.

Thanks for your response Bill.

I will not come into a quarrell with you and respect your point of view as i hope you respect mine as well.

I also do not know your relationship to famous researcher and what you can tell in public and what not.

I still think you are too good researcher for that, anyway, i don't

bother you further regarding this image.

best to you

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response Bill.

I will not come into a quarrell with you and respect your point of view as i hope you respect mine as well.

I also do not know your relationship to famous researcher and what you can tell in public and what not.

I still think you are too good researcher for that, anyway, i don't

bother you further regarding this image.

best to you

Martin

No one is quarreling here ... I simply am having a hard time understanding what you are getting at. Jack has posted the images he used many times and they were simply various prints of Moorman's photo. He and Mack chose the best print to study .... this was nothing more than common sense 101.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill -

In my opinion... the measurements of whether BM, GA and Hatman are correct requires much more precise measurements than placing people where you think they were and taking a photo. The amount of space this consumes in the moorman photo is unbelieveably small as you know.

A few % points difference in the size translates to much greater distances than cannot be measured by eye-balling.

I am trying to find the debunking of Dale Myers' analysis yet have not found anything conclusive... Searches come up with Ed Forum threads that go round and round.

I think I am agreeing with the fact that the ground level was different enough from the front of the retaining wall to make those types of size comparisions moot. If you can explain to me and the new reader to these subjects why the Dale Myers' image here is incorrect and the men are not really farther away from the camera then you would place them.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm

I am aware of the "Moorman in the street" argument yet I do not believe she was in the street - would that make as much difference in the images as the Myers animation shows?

As i said before to Ken, the grass surface at the inner edge of the RT Wall has the same height level

as the sidewalk adjoining the stairs.

Martin - In reality, the grass surface is actually a bit lower at the inside corner of the wall as seen in the photo posted earlier. It dips quite a bit at the corner in fact. A person standing back, west of the sidewalk would indeed be quite a bit taller than someone standing at the corner of the wall.

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Duncan, that's the one.... Although my size comparison results in GA being not as small as yours...

While on the surface this looks like a conclusive analysis - it just doesn't seem right...

Are the lens apeture and focal lengths the same in the image of GA as the Moorman image?

Was the distance to the subject the same?

Obviously, when you add the legs to GA it seems even more ridiculous that he is that close to the camera, or even there at all.

While I disagree with the process of comparing a different photographed person to be scaled and arrive at any conclusions, the addition of legs in what appears the correct scale, makes it very obvious.

Bill/Martin, why is the image of GA with legs not representative of how that image would look without the wall in the way

and therefore prove the GA image to be a result of image enhancement??

Thanks

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill -

In my opinion... the measurements of whether BM, GA and Hatman are correct requires much more precise measurements than placing people where you think they were and taking a photo. The amount of space this consumes in the moorman photo is unbelieveably small as you know.

DJ

DJ,

To start with - there first was the claim that the alleged people seen in Moorman's photo were said to be TOO SMALL.to be real. This claim was brought about by individuals who thought that using cartoon figures pasted in Moorman's photo (some using only half of the figure) was sufficient enough to carry their claim. This is exactly why I used real people to stand-in to show that the TOO SMALL claim was utter bunk. I proved that if people were placed beyond the wall at certain points and then viewed from Moorman's location, then the figures in Moorman's photo could indeed be of human proportions. Whether it was a 6' 1" / husky Mike Brown or a 6' 3" slim Tony Cummings ... they showed without a shadow of a doubt that real people could be standing beyond the wall and be the exact size of a 5'10" physically fit Gordon Arnold or an unknown individual we call Badge Man depending where the stood. This all goes back to the records building rooftop view that I used to plot the lines of sight to the BDM in the Willis and Betzner photos, and the same to the figure seen in the good UPI print that Mack and White used. They all had a common place that those views intersected. It's been years since that time and not once has any researcher gone to the plaza and tested this fact and came back saying they didn't get the same result.

Even today there are those individuals who think that drawing a flat horizontal line on the wall and pasting figures on the knoll is somehow precise proof that the figures are too small to be human, while ignoring that real people showed that their approach is seriously flawed. Once I corrected for the wall height because of the landscaping change that had occurred since the assassination ... my stand-ins fit the bill within reason. If I used someone smaller than Mike Brown, then they would have been even closer to the Arnold figure, thus my point is indisputable.

To further prove the flawed scaling job certain individuals were and still are making is the fact that while Moorman was taking her photo - the Muchmore and the Nix films were showing an individual in light clothing who was standing beyond the wall at the Arnold location. If we remove the light colored clothed Arnold figure in Moorman's photo as being too small to be real, then there is no one left to account for the person seen in the films I just mentioned. The importance of a figure being seen standing beyond the wall in those films at the time of the kill shot to JFK cannot be stressed enough for the rules of common sense tells people who possess it that if someone is seen standing in those films, then they must also be seen in Moorman's Polaroid. But rather than to admit this simple rule of how things work in the real world, they continue ignoring it and still embrace the same old unsupported claim that this person is too small to be real. When I point this out to people, they wonder how someone could not see it. But yet there are some who rather than to admit that their over simplified half-baked scaling attempt was in error, they chose to defend it despite the evidence against it.

Then as I discovered ... the ground elevation at the time I took my photo was lower than when the assassination took place. In the archives there should be side views (from a Secret Service film) shortly after the assassination looking up the stairs that Hudson stood on and the ground when seen in profile is mounded up between the sidewalk and the fence. Instead a select few chose to embrace the Darnell film view looking downward at the ground as if to expect to see if the ground mounded upward or not. Once again common sense wasn't with them. These same individuals must be totally oblivious as to why golfers get low to the ground to get a better idea as to the high and low spots before taking their shot. I used the south pasture as an example from the Zapruder film to explain that when looking downward at a ground surface in a 2D image, it is impossible to determine ground elevation changes to any degree. The slope of the south pasture to the curb in the Zapruder film looks flat, but when seen in profile in Altgens #6 photo ... the slope is quite apparent.

So what does one do ... I guess all there is to do is leave some people to their poor fuzzy Moorman prints and their cartoon scaling for they either are not capable of seeing their flawed approach or they don't want to see it. All I can do is invite people who visit the plaza to use real people and test the view for themselves. Gary Mack has mentioned several times over the years that the Discovery Channel people did it and their stand-ins matched perfectly. So even if some individuals cannot fully understand why the cartoon scaler's are in error, they will find that the real world does not support their thinking that the images are too small to be human. I leave them with the rule that if a view from a photo can be duplicated in a real world view that doesn't seem possible from their investigative computer approach, then they have an error(s) that they just cannot find for themselves.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again Duncan... the focal distance and apeture setting of this photo can in no way be compared to the Moorman camera's setting.

Moorman's Lens: 100mm f8.8 3-element glass

What are the specs of this photo?

I completely agree that by sight it just doesn't make sense but I still believe there is much more to the analysis than just doing what you and I did. ALL distance effects are affected by the apeture and focal distance, especially the height of things in a vanishing point photograph.

http://3dsixthsense.blogspot.com/search/label/Focal%20Length

Focal Length : The distance between the lens and the light-sensitive surface, whether film or video electronics, is called the focal length of the lens. Focal length affects how much of the subject appears in the picture. Lower focal lengths include more of the scene in the picture. Higher focal lengths include less of the scene but show greater detail of more distant objects.

Focal length is always measured in millimeters. A 50mm lens is a common standard for photography. A lens with a focal length less than 50mm is called a short or wide-angle lens. A lens with a focal length longer than 50mm is called a long or telephoto lens.

Field of View (FOV) :The field of view (FOV) controls how much of the scene is visible. The FOV is measured in degrees of the horizon. It is directly related to the focal length of the lens. For example, a 50mm lens shows 46 degrees of the horizon. The longer the lens, the narrower the FOV. The shorter the lens, the wider the FOV.

Relationship Between FOV and Perspective :Short focal lengths (wide FOV) emphasize the distortions of perspective, making objects seem in-depth, looming toward the viewer.

Long focal lengths (narrow FOV) reduce perspective distortion, making objects appear flattened and parallel to the viewer.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/telephoto-lenses.htm

TELEPHOTO PERSPECTIVE: A telephoto lens is special because it has a narrow angle of view -- but what does this actually do? A narrow angle of view means that both the relative size and distance is normalized when comparing near and far objects. This causes nearby objects to appear similar in size compared to far away objects -- even if the closer object would actually appear larger in person. The reason for this is the angle of view:

Even though the two cylinders above are the same distance apart, their relative sizes are very different when one uses either a wide angle lens and telephoto lens to fill the frame with the closest cylinder. With a narrow angle of view, further objects comprise a much greater fraction of the total angle of view.

A misconception is that a telephoto lens affects perspective, but strictly speaking, this isn't true. Perspective is only influenced by where you are located when you take a photograph. However, in practical use, the very fact that you're using a telephoto lens may mean that you're far from your subject -- which does affect perspective.

This normalization of relative size can be used to give a proper sense of scale. For full impact, you'll want to get as far as possible from the nearest subject in the scene (and zoom in if necessary).

In the telephoto example to the left, the people in the foreground appear quite small compared to the background building. On the other hand, if a normal focal length lens were used, and one were closer to the foreground people, then they would appear much larger relative to the size of the building.

However, normalizing the relative size too much can make the scene appear static, flat and uninteresting, since our eyes generally expect closer objects to be a little larger. Taking a photo of someone or something from very far away should therefore be done only when necessary.

In addition to relative size, a telephoto lens can also make the distance between objects appear compressed. This can be beneficial when you're trying to emphasize the number of objects, or to enhance the appearance of congestion.

So Duncan, while the composite gif suggests a size difference, there appears to be MUCH MORE to the analysis than what we're doing.

Bill, No doubt much of your argument is sound and solid yet there are a number of conflicts: Bowers statements, Arnold's statment about hitting the dirt after the first shot and hearing more shots while on the ground... that wouldn't work with the Moorman photo as much as you want to explain away the shots and the Yarborough statement yet even Yarborough places the diving man earlier in the assassination timeline than z313(using Z timings at this alos seems a bit foolish, if altered, we have no idea of the time frames supported by that film), we KNOW there were other people behind that wall at the time of the assassination from Sitzman and a variety of other sources... there is no other substantiation for GA being there. GA doesn't mention the 2 black people, the coke bottle, the bench, the lunch, the man that runs up the steps after 313 and would basically run right over or past GA.

I believe I have as much supporting either one or both of those black people as being BDM and the image in Nix/Muchmoore moving to their left as you do supporting it being Arnold. Yet they too disappeared as I remember and have not been heard from since. Arnold's story is convincing no doubt, is it possible that he heard the stories and decided to put himself into the situation? Possible?

And Bill, thanks for the discussion... GA and BDM are extremely interesting subjects, and while they may have no direct bearing on the assassination politics, it is yet another one of the mysteries of the day that gets the thought processes flowing...

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jean Hill standing at the Moorman location.

Although this is not an exact rereation of Moorman 5, it's extremely close, and definately close enough to show that Gordon Arnold was way too small in Moorman to be a real figure in Moorman at ANY location behind the wall.

Just look at the sizes of the other people standing in the close proximity.

By adding a real Gordon Arnold beside the illusion and to as an exact scale as is possible with the illusion, the realisation that Arnold is an illusion is a no brainer conclusion.

Some things never change I guess. Duncan ... did it cross your mind at all that the image you posted makes the knoll look much closer than Moorman's camera did? How could you not notice that when it was so obvious. Different lenses show the same views at different depths. At least you have shown why you don't get any of the points in my previous post and why you continue making the same mistakes.

Long ago I showed what I referred to as the foreshortening effect whereas I showed depth differences between Moorman's view and Marie Muchmore's who was basically looking over Mary's shoulder. When the men on the steps were scaled to match - the limo was dwarfed from one image to the next. When the limo was scaled to match, then the men on the steps were different sizes and not by a little, but rather a lot. By applying the error you just made, then one could say that one set of men on the steps between the two images just mentioned were too small to be real.

I do agree with you on one point ... your comparison was certainly a no brainer. (smile)

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again Duncan... the focal distance and apeture setting of this photo can in no way be compared to the Moorman camera's setting.

And Bill, thanks for the discussion... GA and BDM are extremely interesting subjects, and while they may have no direct bearing on the assassination politics, it is yet another one of the mysteries of the day that gets the thought processes flowing...

DJ

At least you understood the problem with Duncan's Jean Hill illustration ... no offense to Duncan, but it demonstrates his lack of experience in these matters ... and I was no different and often relied on the opinions of people well versed in this area of expertise before drawing my conclusion.

Also, you are welcome for the information and possible insight I brought to this matter. All I can say is that the BDM cannot be both a black couple and Arnold ... and the timing of the photographic record doesn't support a black couple running away and Arnold running onto the scene so to stand in the same sunspot as they would have been.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I noticed that the Jean Hill image makes the knoll look closer.

I also qualified my post by saying that it was not an exact recreation. Maybe you missed that ~ sigh ~

It also gives the same results as a real Gordon Arnold placed on a Moorman image. :)

Let us see what you said and what you were getting at ....

Duncan: "Although this is not an exact rereation of Moorman 5, it's extremely close, and definately close enough to show that Gordon Arnold was way too small in Moorman to be a real figure in Moorman at ANY location behind the wall."

So again .... how can someone be seen standing beyond the wall in two films and not be seen in Moorman's photo? The answer is you can't! That was at clue that there is something about Moorman's camera lens and the ground level behind the wall that you haven't included into your 'recreation' illustration.

The next thing was the visual effect that one lens has to another when looking at the knoll and how objects look to one another in its field of view. The people on the knoll are very close to the same height above the fence in the Jean Hill image as the Arnold figure does in Moorman's photo. The fence looks larger and closer in the Jean Hill example. That is another clue that something in your illustration is missing out of the equation.

And last but not least is that real people can be placed on the knoll and photographed from Moorman's location and one can get the same effect. You may recall long ago when Miles posted a photo with a similar view and I pointed out an individual in his photo with a red arrow and I commented that he too would appear too short using the same method as you, but yet it was a real world photo, thus showing that there must have been a flaw in your investigative approach.Miles would never address that observation, but instead would post cartoons of rabbits with my face pasted on them and so on as if that would seem like an intelligent thing to do rather than to address the point that was made. I expect more out of you.

Call it an illusion, black magic, or what ever, but the fact is that this is the way people look between the wall and the fence when using a camera with a similar type lens and focal length like Moorman's, and that is why Muchmore's film despite looking over Moorman's shoulder showed vast differences in objects than Moorman's camera did.. You may recall that I said to you that you should seek some advise from someone with more expertise in photography and your response was along the line that you didn't need to. One would think that it should have been done if for no other reason than to solidify your conclusion. Many of us felt that it was more because you didn't want to be faced with the notion that your method was flawed. It should all be in the archives.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill...

I have to agree with you here - Duncan's method, and the same one I employed, completely forgets about key photographic realities, but at the same time, putting some people in "about" the same spots and taking a photo proves nothing scientifically. I've taken the photo Jack offered (qualified that it was not a reproduction attempt although it is eerily similiar to the Moorman set-up) and superimposed it and the sizes are off. Myers shows the sizes are off... All you've shown is that they are close, when eye-balled.

Even though I did not go to NARA like Mantik, his 45 page paper with explanations and images sure goes a long way to support his observations.

We have nothing like that from you Bill. The "light-blob" that we've seen posted that is supposed to be someone falling to their left is not very convincing. If've zoomed in and added brightness and contrast... All I see is one light blob move toward the other white blob... I do not see how this is a person... YET....

I am not doubting what you saw when you saw it Bill... but if you can make out a person in a version of this film AND in Muchmoore, how about showing us? Is There a book, video, photo, anything that shows a person there in these two films that a regular person can make out... that we can agree we both see something there other than a blob of light?

btw - what part of GA is reflecting that light within the shadows that we see falling left to right? and what do you say the other light blob is?

I am reading thru the "GA Competition" thread from a few years back as well.... over 70 pages so need some time... facinating subject...

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the most compelling evidence for where Gordon Arnold was located at the time of the last shot comes from Arnold himself in his TMWKK video interview. He said:

"And as I was panning down this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction [pointing behind him]. And that's when I fell down. And to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. It was, there's a bunch of report going on in the, in this particular area. . ."

So before the last shot was fired, according to Arnold, he was already on the ground. That means he would have been blocked from view in Moorman by the retaining wall, along with Sitzman's boy and girl who themselves had been in view only seconds before at the top of the stairs as seen in Betzner and Willis. Arnold was not in that spot as confirmed by the TMWKK video frame below. I've added in the approximate locations of where the boy and girl were standing.

Bill says:

"All I can say is that the BDM cannot be both a black couple and Arnold..."

And he's right, because Arnold was nowhere near where the couple was standing.

BDM was Sitzman's boy and girl standing side by side at the top of the stairs.

Bill also said:

". . . and the timing of the photographic record doesn't support a black couple running away. . ."

Well, the currently available photographic record doesn't show the couple running away because we have no clear films or photos of that area at the time they ran off -- which was at or about the time the limo went through the triple underpass, according to Sitzman.

I'm going to repeat once again, all this in no way precludes Gordon Arnold from being there.

Ken

post-4931-039650700 1287090540_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill...

I have to agree with you here - Duncan's method, and the same one I employed, completely forgets about key photographic realities, but at the same time, putting some people in "about" the same spots and taking a photo proves nothing scientifically. I've taken the photo Jack offered (qualified that it was not a reproduction attempt although it is eerily similiar to the Moorman set-up) and superimposed it and the sizes are off. Myers shows the sizes are off... All you've shown is that they are close, when eye-balled.

The purpose of putting people beyond the wall at the cross points of each film location for Arnold and then Badge Man behind and to his left showed scientifically that the body proportions of the subjects in Moorman's Polaroid did fall in the possible range for being human, which a select few were saying it was not possible. Using the photographer locations to certain reference points and marking them on an overhead view is a common practice when looking for a possible common intersection. About 7 to 10 years have passed since then and no one has gone to the plaza and left after seeing these lines of sight for themselves and said that I got it wrong. That's the beauty of it ... the evidence I presented can be tested very easily by just going to Dealey plaza and going to each said location and look at the wall and where certain objects are behind it. In fact, I created one Moorman view that was so close that the main trees and their large tree branches all aligned between photos.

As far as Jack's work ... his images came from the UPI Moorman print which shows the same things the other Moorman print sources show - its just far clearer.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So before the last shot was fired, according to Arnold, he was already on the ground. That means he would have been blocked from view in Moorman by the retaining wall, along with Sitzman's boy and girl who themselves had been in view only seconds before at the top of the stairs as seen in Betzner and Willis. Arnold was not in that spot as confirmed by the TMWKK video frame below. I've added in the approximate locations of where the boy and girl were standing.

Ken

If Arnold's story is true, then he points to where the limo was when JFK was shot in the head. Arnold wasn't precise is saying for sure that the other shot he heard had come after the one that whizzed past his ear, but considering that others also thought they heard a shot(s) after the kill shot as well, then it could also be possible that Arnold did the same. As Kellerman said - there were two blast almost over the top of one another like a sonic boom only 3/18ths of a second apart, thus it is possible that this is what Gordon heard.

Bill

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...