Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Is this Gordon Arnold? (Bear with me)
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Anthony Marsh
Apr 18, 2012, 11:41:09 AM4/18/12
to
On 4/17/2012 11:39 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> Further to the recent Gordon Arnold credentials thread, I attach one copy
> of the Moorman photo which is smaller in size (158kb) than it's better
> versions (459 kb& 0.98 MB), since I can't recall the photo-size limit to
> upload to this newgroup. Those other photos show more detail.
>
Well, you're not trying hard enough. That is not the worst quality print
that you could find so we can still see that there is no person where
your arrow points. Go back and try converting it to a highly compressed
JPG with more dithering.
> I've indicated with a black arrow the spot immediately behind the
> retaining wall on your left as you view it. You need to zoom in to see
> how that spot differs slightly from the rest of the picket fence.
>
> At that spot, directly in front of the picket fence, the shading is
> different and the outline is either a man or branch or bush or simply an
No, nothing there. Your man would be only 5 feet tall as the fence is
known to be 5 feet tall. Gordon Arnold was taller than 5 feet.
> artifact of the film. What could be a head above the top of the picket
> fence could be a tree or branch or bush sticking up from behind the picket
> fence (or along the front of it). Bottom line, if Arnold was wearing a
> light tan or brown military uniform, would he be more difficult to spot
> (that is, would he blend in more)?
>
No, silly.
> Reitzes did a detailed article of GA which I believe included photos of
> the day, so he may have answered this question already.
>
Go out and buy Four Days. A couple of weeks ago I found a pristine copy
for $3.
> The larger file photo shows this same phenomenon slightly darker (but so
> is the rest of the surroundings).
>
>
You have a problem with the copies on my Web site? I am not limited by
McAdams rules censoring the photos that get uploaded here.
> Further to the recent Gordon Arnold credentials thread, I attach one copy
> of the Moorman photo which is smaller in size (158kb) than it's better
> versions (459 kb& 0.98 MB), since I can't recall the photo-size limit to
> upload to this newgroup. Those other photos show more detail.
>
Well, you're not trying hard enough. That is not the worst quality print
that you could find so we can still see that there is no person where
your arrow points. Go back and try converting it to a highly compressed
JPG with more dithering.
> I've indicated with a black arrow the spot immediately behind the
> retaining wall on your left as you view it. You need to zoom in to see
> how that spot differs slightly from the rest of the picket fence.
>
> At that spot, directly in front of the picket fence, the shading is
> different and the outline is either a man or branch or bush or simply an
No, nothing there. Your man would be only 5 feet tall as the fence is
known to be 5 feet tall. Gordon Arnold was taller than 5 feet.
> artifact of the film. What could be a head above the top of the picket
> fence could be a tree or branch or bush sticking up from behind the picket
> fence (or along the front of it). Bottom line, if Arnold was wearing a
> light tan or brown military uniform, would he be more difficult to spot
> (that is, would he blend in more)?
>
No, silly.
> Reitzes did a detailed article of GA which I believe included photos of
> the day, so he may have answered this question already.
>
Go out and buy Four Days. A couple of weeks ago I found a pristine copy
for $3.
> The larger file photo shows this same phenomenon slightly darker (but so
> is the rest of the surroundings).
>
>
You have a problem with the copies on my Web site? I am not limited by
McAdams rules censoring the photos that get uploaded here.
John McAdams
Apr 21, 2012, 9:57:24 PM4/21/12
to
On 18 Apr 2012 11:41:09 -0400, Anthony Marsh
and you just ignore it and continue to say something you know to be
untrue.
And you are responding to a post that *includes* a photo, and you've
*seen* the photo!
Your cover is blown. We know you know that photos can be posted here.
But a lot of servers (including Google) don't carry binary posts, and
it's better to put it on a server somewhere. Photobucket is fine, and
anything e-mailed to me will be put on my server, and I'll send back
the URL that can be incorporated in a post.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The larger file photo shows this same phenomenon slightly darker (but so
>> is the rest of the surroundings).
>>
>>
>
>You have a problem with the copies on my Web site? I am not limited by
>McAdams rules censoring the photos that get uploaded here.
>
Tony, I've repeatedly told you that we allow the posting of binaries,
>
>> The larger file photo shows this same phenomenon slightly darker (but so
>> is the rest of the surroundings).
>>
>>
>
>You have a problem with the copies on my Web site? I am not limited by
>McAdams rules censoring the photos that get uploaded here.
>
and you just ignore it and continue to say something you know to be
untrue.
And you are responding to a post that *includes* a photo, and you've
*seen* the photo!
Your cover is blown. We know you know that photos can be posted here.
But a lot of servers (including Google) don't carry binary posts, and
it's better to put it on a server somewhere. Photobucket is fine, and
anything e-mailed to me will be put on my server, and I'll send back
the URL that can be incorporated in a post.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Apr 22, 2012, 2:36:04 PM4/22/12
to
On 4/21/2012 9:57 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2012 11:41:09 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> The larger file photo shows this same phenomenon slightly darker (but so
>>> is the rest of the surroundings).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You have a problem with the copies on my Web site? I am not limited by
>> McAdams rules censoring the photos that get uploaded here.
>>
>
> Tony, I've repeatedly told you that we allow the posting of binaries,
> and you just ignore it and continue to say something you know to be
> untrue.
>
> And you are responding to a post that *includes* a photo, and you've
> *seen* the photo!
>
And I've posted thousands of photos. A certain person here always claims
> On 18 Apr 2012 11:41:09 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> The larger file photo shows this same phenomenon slightly darker (but so
>>> is the rest of the surroundings).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You have a problem with the copies on my Web site? I am not limited by
>> McAdams rules censoring the photos that get uploaded here.
>>
>
> Tony, I've repeatedly told you that we allow the posting of binaries,
> and you just ignore it and continue to say something you know to be
> untrue.
>
> And you are responding to a post that *includes* a photo, and you've
> *seen* the photo!
>
that he has never seen a document I have uploaded hundreds of times
because he refuses to click on the link to see it. If it appears inline
there is no excuse he can use for not seeing it when everyone else can see
it. This is how you WC defenders operate. You claim that we conspiracy
believers never back up our claims, then when we do you refuse to look at
the evidence. Because you protect them from having to see the files.
My advice was accurate. Binaries can not appear inline unless YOU post
them. Ordinary posters have no way of embedding HTML code to make photos
appear inline.
> Your cover is blown. We know you know that photos can be posted here.
>
> But a lot of servers (including Google) don't carry binary posts, and
from your server and put the photos on MY own Web site and then post a
link, and can do the same for anyone else who does not own his or her own
Web site to upload photos.
> it's better to put it on a server somewhere. Photobucket is fine, and
should be showing photos have instead a not found notice from Photobucket.
> anything e-mailed to me will be put on my server, and I'll send back
> the URL that can be incorporated in a post.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
0 new messages