Let's stat with a post from yesterday. Raff* keeps changing distances he claims various people are from other things, while doing specific things. Every time someone shows that Raff* is wrong about a specific thing, Raff* changes his claim. He's been doing this over the Moorman photo for a month and a half now.
I said specifically that the front tire of Martin's motorcycle was 42" to 45" away from the the back of the curb. And you only mentioned 6 feet because you have no damn idea where anyone was standing. You've shown that consistently since you started posting on the subject of JFK.
I purposely chose a distance of six feet from the center line of the front tire of the motorcycle for one reason. You Raff*, have been going on and on about it being impossible to capture a motorcycle rider's right arm, if taking a picture from his left side. You have maintained that at 4 1/2 feet from the rider, Mary Moorman could not have captured Martin's right arm without capturing his left. I moved to a distance of 6 feet to be well beyond the distance you claim "it couldn't be done", to make it even harder to do. I proved you wrong. In spades.
My "experiment" as you call it proved that you can capture the right arm, and only the right arm of a motorcycle rider in a picture taken from the rider's left side. Everyone that I have seen you discuss the subject with, has said what I did, but more importantly, what Moorman did, was possible.
But we'll get back to that in a moment.
Recently Raff*, you've been posting some really ridiculous statements. Let's review a few.
Are you that dense Raff*? Tell me it's an act. Are you so dense that you can't see in your own photo what the reason is? Look at the photo on the left Raff*.
You're looking at Jackie Kennedy through the windshield of a motorcycle. Look at the distortion of the upper edge of the limo door. The same thing is happening in Moorman's photo below.
You've accused the mysterious "they" of "highly" altering a photo because you can't understand the process of distortion, caused by looking through a convex windshield.
You really are dense.
Then there's this gem....
"They" Raff*? Who is "they"? Why would "they" try blurring a doorway when everything beyond the camera focal range would naturally be blurred because of two factors...one, because it's beyond the focal range and two, BECAUSE IT WAS A MOVING FILM !
Pay Attention Raff*....when you hit the pause button on your Youtube vids or your vid player...you are stopping the copy of what you are watching, in mid-blur. It was a film you idiot. The entire background, including people and buildings was blurred. The faster the pan of the camera, the greater the blur.
Actually Raff*, Jackie was sharp because the camera was set to focus on the distance she was from the camera and the person filming was panning along with the limo's movements.. If the camera had been set on infinity, she would have been more blurred and the background, less blurred.
There was no "they"..."they" didn't exist.
The above is just another example of your idiocy.
Now, let's discuss my "experiment" as you call it...
"Angle that the arms are supposed to be" ???? Are you serious? Arms on a motorcycle rider are 'SPOSE to be at a certain angle? You really are a dolt. The angle of the rider's arm depends on the size of the rider. You know as much about motorcycles as you do photography.
And why are you using a photo of an unnamed motorcycle officer to tell us where Martin's arms were 'SPOSE to be when there are plenty of pictures of Martin, showing us exactly how his arms were?
Why not compare Martin to Martin?
There's no extreme angle to Martin's arms, if anything, his forearm is damn near horizontal.. And Raff*, notice how wide his arms are spread...(you'll need that info in a moment). Your comparing different riders to Martin in Moorman amounts to severe Fetzering Raff*
What does having a zoom feature have to do with a photo of Glen McBride? It has NOTHING to do with a photo of Glen McBride. Just as a photo of Glen McBride has NOTHING to do with Martin's arm in Moorman.
Raff*....why are you discussing trying to remove Glen McBride's left arm from a photo? Glen McBride has NOTHING to do with the Moorman photo and NOTHING to do with proving that it is possible to capture someone's right arm only, while shooting from that person's left side. I proved that it can be done. More importantly, Mary Moorman proved it back in 1963.
Raff*'s earlier post...
Stacking the deck? This coming from someone that will try to compare a photo of Glen McBride with Martin's arm in Moorman? Somehow, calling you a dolt is an understatement.
There were no angles, no multiple positions. I stood in one spot and aimed my camera. When I zoomed out, I turned the camera slightly to the left so the person on the motorcycle would not be in the photo.
Why you ask? Because I didn't want them to suffer the embarrassment of being seen on your lame ass blog. And how did I know they'd end up on your blog?
Demand? Let me tell you something for your own good Raff*. People see the macho tough talk as nothing more than frustrated lip flappin from a small man over compensating for a smaller penis.
You get laughed at every time you try to flex your Tango root Raff*. People know from my prior blog that you're just an impotent little asshat. Some of us have a wager on whether you have to shove a finger up your ass to keep from having to sit to pee.
But then we're easily amused....
And talk about stacking the deck...what the hell is this Raff*?
How does your position on that bicycle even remotely resemble anything near the appearance of someone driving a motorcycle? Have you ever actually seen a real motorcycle Raff*? I mean in real life, not off a Google search?
I'll fill you in on the camera height Raff*. My photos were taken from just about the same height as you say Moorman shot her photo from.
I'll use simple measurements.....
|CLICK ON PHOTO FOR LARGER VIEW|
The turf was well above the curb.
Now for the taking of the photos...
I stood in one place and set my camera. The bike rolled into view and I took my photo.
I then zoomed back and turned the camera slightly to the left to show both arms without capturing my friend's face. There was no multiple positions and no relocating.
Here they are again...
Here are both photos together....
It was quite easy to prove you wrong Raff*. It is not only possible, but quite easy to take a picture of a right arm and only a right arm while shooting from the person's left. Scroll back up and notice that Martin's arms were much further apart than my friend's arms. It would have been easier to shoot only Martin's right arm than it was to shoot the photo above.
This is why you are irrelevant Raff*. You get every damn thing wrong. You obfuscate, fetzer, hack photos and flat out lie.
You're a joke...and a pretty bad one at that.
As you say bpeteReplyDelete
What the hell has McBride got to do with anything ?
he just kept on posting copies of Moorman 3 as if it was relevant to the discussion.?
Another case of bait and cinque. Bitch about 1 thing while throwing pictures up of something else.Delete
" the great Houduno "
watch him pull bullshit out of thin air and then make it disappear right before your eyes.
He did the suspended straight jacket trick too many times, and now needs to be fitted for a new one.
Recently, Ralph Cinque has been sparring with David Emerling of Memphis, Tennessee, who writes the following:ReplyDelete
"There is so much inaccurate information in your above blog it's difficult to know where to start."
This exposé of bpete goes a long way in addressing approximately two weeks of sheer lunacy on the Cinque site. The most ludicrous statement has to be the calculation of 3 +1 1/2 = 4 1/2. Ralph still hasn't explained how far the motorcycle was from the curb. For his "experiment" in Dallas, there will apparently be a motorcycle driving by at the time Ralph is taking his photo. So, how far from the curb will the motorcycle be? 2 feet? 4 1/2 feet? 6 feet? Or...whatever.