The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

The last topic has become cluttered with material which is not relevant, so I'm staring afresh here.

Terms and Conditions : Losers must agree to terminate their Mr Magoo Appreciation Society Membership, and seek treatment for poor eyesight at their own expense.

The topic is.

Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?

Duncan

Image Is Reduced: 36% of original size [ 2000 x 788 ] - Click on the image to view the full size

Edited August 19, 2007 by Duncan MacRae

[Miles Scull]

The last topic has become cluttered with material which is not relevant, so I'm staring afresh here.

Terms and Conditions :Stay on topic

The topic is.

Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?

Duncan

Duncan,

Just a wild maybe-guess here. Bill will probably ridicule my newbie try. OK, Bill, if I'm wrong, prove it.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

The last topic has become cluttered with material which is not relevant, so I'm staring afresh here.

Terms and Conditions : Losers must agree to terminate their Mr Magoo Appreciation Society Membership, and seek treatment for their poor eyesight at their own expense.

The topic is.

Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?

Duncan

What a waste of forum space. Hope to see your work in 'Scietific American' someday. By the way, how come you post such small images now?

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

What a waste of forum space. Hope to see your work in 'Scietific American' someday. By the way, how come you post such small images now?

Bill Miller

It's not a waste of Forum space. It's an accurate study proving your nonsense wrong. I hope you read the terms and conditions. The image is not small, Reduced: 36% of original size [ 2000 x 788 ] - Click to view full image.....you need to click on it to increase the size, you obviously didn't see that, which doesn't surprise me.

Duncan

Moved from last thread

Duncan,

Is this what you want?

chris

Excellent Chris 10 out of 10. That's exactly what I wanted, thanks. It has now been shown independantly by you that my study proves beyond reasonable doubt that the foating Arnold torso is an illusion, and that my sizing was accurate as comfirmed by you. The addition of the estimated simulated legs merely confirms this.

Cheers Chris.....Duncan

Duncan...by the illustration you attached, you seem to be conceding or proving

that the image seen in Moorman is indeed, from the waist up, consistent with

a man in a khaki soldier suit. Is that accurate?

If we agree on that, let's consider the implications:

1. Moorman shows a soldier, apparently filming.

2. Of known witnesses, which one fits that description?

3. The answer is Gordon Arnold, since we know of no other.

However, you have demonstrated what appears to be a size differential between

the Moorman Arnold image and actuality. Though that has not been proven to

the satisfaction of everyone, let's consider the implications:

1. Can the size differential be explained by Arnold standing on a mound of dirt?

We do not know. We have only his word vs photographs.

2. Is there some other explanation we do not understand?

3. Can the answer be found by conducting PRECISE on-site replication photos?

I think so. The premise can be confirmed or unconfirmed by actual accurate

photography. No amount of SPECULATION can be calculated properly by people

who have never been to the plaza and do not even comprehend the parameters.

For instance I have noted several attempts to find the GROUND LEVEL behind

the wall...all wildly inaccurate.

4. If replica photos can closely match Moorman, Arnold and group are confirmed.

5. If replica photos cannot closely match Moorman, then another explanation must

be found for the three apparent people seen in Moorman. This would suggest

tampering with the photo...a near impossible task, but NOT impossible. If the

three figures were added to create confusion, it seems impossible to have

predicted a man in uniform should be there, UNLESS HE WAS PART OF THE

PLANNED RETOUCHING...which would mean Arnold was an accessory. I find this

to be highly unlikely.

Bottom line...I think everyone agrees that ALL THREE FIGURES CANNOT BE

OPTICAL ILLUSIONS. So either the Moorman image actually shows three

real persons, OR THEIR IMAGES HAVE BEEN FABRICATED almost against

all odds.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

1. Moorman shows a soldier, apparently filming.

2. Of known witnesses, which one fits that description?

3. The answer is Gordon Arnold, since we know of no other.

In 1998, at the 35 year anniversary of JFK's assassination, I asked Jean Hill if she had seen anyone standing beyond the wall and she told me that she did see someone there. I asked if it was a man in uniform and she said 'he was'. It's too bad that someone didn't ask Brehm, Willis, and etc..

Jack is right about some of the variables that can cause a photo to look like it does. It would be interesting to see where the large tree touches the ground beyond the wall. MIT looked at these images and reached the conclusion that they were in fact real people and I am pretty sure that real people do not float, thus another explanation has to be there ... its just a matter of understanding it.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

1. Moorman shows a soldier, apparently filming.

2. Of known witnesses, which one fits that description?

3. The answer is Gordon Arnold, since we know of no other.

In 1998, at the 35 year anniversary of JFK's assassination, I asked Jean Hill if she had seen anyone standing beyond the wall and she told me that she did see someone there.

I have not been able to find any source that would corroborate your statement. Please supply corroboration. The problem with hearsay has already been addressed:

Just a quick reply as you have attempted to address these points & have provided interesting comments.

It is important, however, for you to understand that it is necessary to deal directly with primary sources.

If you can obtain direct testimony from Hill which can be independently verified as hers, then that would be excellent.

Unfortunately, your relay of other's testimony is inadmissible in a court of analysis because it is barred by the hearsay rule.

I asked if it was a man in uniform and she said 'he was'.

Inadmissible on the hearsay rule. BTW, remember McVey was in uniform as were others. Please provide primary sources other than yourself or the "Weitzman Report."

MIT looked at these images and reached the conclusion that they were in fact real people and I am pretty sure that real people do not float, thus another explanation has to be there ... its just a matter of understanding it.

No. That is clearly NOT the case as has been abundantly & conclusively proved here: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman.htm

You have not read the watershed & essential analysis of:

BADGE MAN

A PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ANALYSIS OF

MOORMAN PHOTOGRAPH No.5

OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION

By Dale K. Myers

© 2004 Dale K. Myers All Rights Reserved

The onus of proof is not on Duncan. His case is proved & comports with & verifies Dale Myers' extensive analysis. It's just a matter of understanding it.

Bill

Edited August 20, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Jack White]

1. Moorman shows a soldier, apparently filming.

2. Of known witnesses, which one fits that description?

3. The answer is Gordon Arnold, since we know of no other.

In 1998, at the 35 year anniversary of JFK's assassination, I asked Jean Hill if she had seen anyone standing beyond the wall and she told me that she did see someone there. I asked if it was a man in uniform and she said 'he was'. It's too bad that someone didn't ask Brehm, Willis, and etc..

Jack is right about some of the variables that can cause a photo to look like it does. It would be interesting to see where the large tree touches the ground beyond the wall. MIT looked at these images and reached the conclusion that they were in fact real people and I am pretty sure that real people do not float, thus another explanation has to be there ... its just a matter of understanding it.

Bill

MIT confirmed only the BADGEMAN image...the other two had not been discovered

at that time.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I'm not conceding anything Jack. The legs which I attached were attached only to show what the figure would look like IF it was real. The figure does look like a soldier in uniform from the waist up, yes, and it looks like it is holding a camera or another object in front of the facial area, but... having looked at the figure by cross referencing with other photographs, it appears that the figure can only be an illusion due to its extremely small size.

What I have noticed all to often is that some researchers don't seem to comprehend how to check their work. The person seen in Moorman's camera is also seen in part in the Nix film. Even the color of the clothing barely sticking out past the view of the wall matches what Arnold would have worn at the time of the assassination. The immediate movement of the figure following the head shot matches what both Arnold and Yarborough have said as far as when that movement started. Arnold even got it right as to which shoulder the shot came over and did so many years before there was ever any photographic evidence discovered to support his claim. One has to wonder how Gordon Arnold knew of these things so many years ago before the rest of the world was made aware of them when Turner did his documentary in 1987/88.

Now in an earlier post I raised the question about the foreshortening effect that certain lenses cause ... has Duncan or anyone looked into this? Have they bothered to consult a photographer at all concerning the type of lens Moorman had and why it pushes objects so far back in its field of view? I have also noticed that the Arnold figure has been reported to look around the same size as the Badge Man and RR worker ... this means if any one of those individuals are real, then the other two figures must also fall within the realm of being within the intermembral index. With the latter being the case, then there must be a logical explanation as to why these figures look like they do. For someone with limited ability or knowledge of how to properly investigate the matter does not necessarily mean that the figures aren't real. In fact, none of those figures can be seen in post assassination images, but possibly one. There is one film capture I have come across that shows what looks like someone wearing the type of clothing Arnold was said to have on and this person even seems to be wearing an overseas hat based on the shape of its border.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The onus of proof is not on Duncan. His case is proved & comports with & verifies Dale Myers' extensive analysis. It's just a matter of understanding it.

Once again I must ask ... how do you reach that conclusion? For instance, how large is Todd Vaughn ... have any idea? 250lbs, 300lbs, 350lbs??? Are you aware that Gary Mack has used stand-ins and achieved the same body heights and ratios as that seen in the Badge Man images and he did so by placing people on the knoll and not on some ladder 40 feet into the RR yard. Would you (Miles) care to explain how that is possible? Is it possible to take a 300+ pound man and move him even further back from the camera to achieve the save body proportions as the thinner man who stood closer to the camera?? The answer is yes, thus Myers didn't prove anything other than some people are not qualified to understand these things before considering them validated facts.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I have also noticed that the Arnold figure has been reported to look around the same size as the Badge Man and RR worker

RR worker? ...No. Please cite a source that RR workmen wore Hard Hats that day.

... this means if any one of those individuals are real, then the other two figures must also fall within the realm of being within the intermembral index.

None are proved real. But, if one IS proved real, that has zero bearing on the reality of anything else.

With the latter being the case,

That is NOT the case.

Bill Miller

Edited August 20, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

The onus of proof is not on Duncan. His case is proved & comports with & verifies Dale Myers' extensive analysis. It's just a matter of understanding it.

Are you aware that Gary Mack has used stand-ins and achieved the same body heights and ratios as that seen in the Badge Man images and he did so by placing people on the knoll and not on some ladder 40 feet into the RR yard.

Again you cite zero source. Please provide the documentation of Gary's study. The head size does not very unless, to prove your case, you introduce non-standard head sizes.

Would you (Miles) care to explain how that is possible?

...that what is possible? That you continue to NOT cite sources?

Is it possible to take a 300+ pound man and move him even further back from the camera to achieve the save body proportions as the thinner man who stood closer to the camera??

What if you moved a midget like a shuttle cock?

The answer is yes,

The answer is NO.

thus Myers didn't prove anything

Myers has proved that Duncan is right & vice versa.

other than some people

Is it OK to presume that by "some people" you are referring to yourself, because you cannot be referring to Dale Myers.

are not qualified to understand these things before considering them validated facts.

May I suggest that you address Duncan's discovery now?

QUOTE(Duncan MacRae @ Aug 19 2007, 10:13 PM)

The last topic has become cluttered with material which is not relevant, so I'm staring afresh here.

Terms and Conditions :Stay on topic

The topic is.

Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?

Duncan

Bill Miller

Edited August 20, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

RR worker? ...No. Please cite a source that RR workmen wore Hand Hats that day.

RR worker is a description that has been attributed to this individual. How about fellow Brennan or Millican worker because those guys wore hard hats. Let me ask you this ... did the RR employ subcontractors? But lets go a step further ... there appears to be a sunlit reflection coming off the hard hat - does this not imply that there is a real 3D object located there for this to have occurred.

... this means if any one of those individuals are real, then the other two figures must also fall within the realm of being within the intermembral index.

None are proved real. But, if one IS proved real, that has zero bearing on the reality of anything else.

Miles, instead of trolling - just read what I have written. Again, if even one is proven to be real, then the remaining possibilities also fall within the realm of being within the intermembral index. This point is made to show that even if one is real, then saying one is too short to be real must have an error involved in reaching that conclusion because if the upper body is of normal size to those around this person, then his lower body must also be within the normal range of humans, as well.

Bill Miller

Edited August 20, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Again you cite zero source. Please provide the documentation of Gary's study. The head size does not very unless, to prove your case, you introduce non-standard head sizes.

Gary Mack was cited as the source. His email is GMack@JFK.Org ... feel free to contact him about his study and observations - thats what I did!

...that what is possible? That you continue to NOT cite sources?

Once again - GARY MACK! Has the trolling effected your ability to read and understand the text I have posted???

Is it possible to take a 300+ pound man and move him even further back from the camera to achieve the save body proportions as the thinner man who stood closer to the camera??

What if you moved a midget like a shuttle cock?

I guess you are not serious about all this.

The answer is NO.

In reference to peoples sizes and distance from the camera ... is it your position (Miles) that some obese person standing further back from the camera can look to be the same size as someone thinner who is standing closer to the camera???

May I suggest that you address Duncan's discovery now?

Duncan's alleged discovery has been being addressed, but it may be hard to follow with all the trolling responses that you have placed in this thread.

Bill Miller

Edited January 15, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

RR worker? ...No. Please cite a source that RR workmen wore Hand Hats that day.[/b]

RR worker is a description that has been attributed to this individual. How about fellow Brennan or Millican worker because those guys wore hard hats. Let me ask you this ... did the RR employ subcontractors? But lets go a step further ... there appears to be a sunlit reflection coming off the hard hat - does this not imply that there is a real 3D object located there for this to have occurred. [/b]

... this means if any one of those individuals are real, then the other two figures must also fall within the realm of being within the intermembral index.

None are proved real. But, if one IS proved real, that has zero bearing on the reality of anything else.

Miles, instead of trolling - just read what I have written. Again, if even one is proven to be real, then the remaining possibilities also fall within the realm of being within the intermembral index. This point is made to show that even if one is real, then saying one is too short to be real must have an error involved in reaching that conclusion because if the upper body is of normal size to those around this person, then his lower body must also be within the normal range of humans, as well.

Bill Miller

No. Get back on topic, please.

[Miles Scull]

May I suggest that you address Duncan's discovery now?

Duncan's alleged discovery has been being addressed, but it may be hard to follow with all the trolling responses that you have placed in this thread.

Bill Miller

OK. Fine. ... Now, get back on topic, please. So far you have said nothing to impeach or disprove Duncan's assertion & claim.

Unless you can do so, Duncan's position stands valid & verified, which fact raises strong questions as to the validity of Arnold's alleged "story."