Well, it's exactly a year now since Bill Miller promised to produce evidence of Gordon Arnold's presence on the knoll in the alleged position in Moorman. I and the world still await his concrete proof. At Bill's request I am starting a new thread on the matter, and I am opening with his last response in another thread. Anyone wishing to contribute to this thread should FULLY READ " The Gordon Arnold Competition " which can easily be found by doing a forum search.
My conclusion for newcomers to the topic is that Gordon Arnold can not be real in Moorman due to his extremely small size in relation to other objects in Moorman.


Bills Last Response which I will reply to in a seperate post.

My response.
All aspect ratios are correct, Bill's disinfo on this can be seen by viewing the original Gordon Arnold thread where Chris Davidson supplied excellent information on differing aspect ratios used in different mediums, and which I had already applied to my studies.
Here is a recap.






Duncan

The whole Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion was created to attract your attention away from the real gunman in the Moorman picture. In Robert Groden’s video, “The Case for Conspiracy” he shows a close-up of what looks like two men behind the picket fence next to a tree, that area is where I believe a real shooter was hiding. IMO, someone cut out the Groden close-up and pasted it to the other side of the photo to create Badgeman.

Don Bailey

Yeah Don, sure, sure How does the tune to The Twilight Zone go again? LOL!!!
I'm sure even Bill will agree with me for once, that in this instance you are stark raving three thirds crazy bonkers

Duncan

I hear that tune every time you objectors of the "Grassy Knoll Truth" speak.

Just once I would like to see North Knoller provide the trajectory for a shot that would not damage the left side of the head.


Mike

More.

Compare " Arnold " to the real humans in this accurate recreation with my accurate overlay.



Duncan

And who exactly do you belive "created" this "Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion" Don? Are you accusing Gary Mack? Or perhaps Jack White? Gordon Arnold himself perhaps? Have you actually put any thought at all into this? Denis.

Don makes about as much sense as Chapman did when he said why he shot John Lennon.

Bill Miller

Duncan,

It takes someone about .5 seconds to understand why you'll claim that you do not need to consult an expert in Photography or Photogammetry so not to have to experience of being thrown out of their office. The only question I have is whether or not Don helped you with this ridiculous illustration of yours.

To start with ... the alignment of the above overlay is so poorly done that the top of the fence drops considerably between the two interchanges. So what do you do ... you ask the viewer to compare Arnold's height over the top of the wall to people who are not only far closer to the camera, but more of them are seen because the camera angle looking at the knoll is different than Moorman's, which is why the fence line drops and rises so dramatically between the images when they are seen in motion. When I look to our left of the kid standing on the sidewalk and I see just how far the fence drops, I just shake my head and think to myself that I could solicit the assistance of an organ-grinder's helper monkey and probably get it to offer up a better finished product than what you posted.

Also, the animated illustration in your opening post isn't any better. You have no reference points so to check for the vertical scaling of what appears to be no fewer than three different image sources stacked into one. Yes, its little wonder why you refuse to allow someone more skilled than yourself in cameras and reading images to review your claim.

I tried to make things simpler for you by asking that you compare Tony Cummings height to that of Gordon Arnold and your remark was 'Cummings height is not relevant.' My point was that if Cummings is real, then why cannot a real person who is standing not on the walkway as the people in your illustration are doing, but who is back at the fence a couple of feet from Arnold not be used to better determine if Arnold falls into the same height dimensions as Cummings. I must assume that you just don't understand what it is that needs to be done or you don't want to get it for the same reason that I believe you do not wish to have your methods critiqued by someone more skilled than yourself.

By the way, you claimed to have gotten the aspect ratios right. I would love to hear how this was accomplished ... especially when you obviously have such huge flaws in your overlays ... hearing how you compensated the aspect ratios will be very interesting to learn.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

PS: Do you believe Badge Man is a real person???

Duncan,

It takes someone about .5 seconds to understand why you'll claim that you do not need to consult an expert in Photography or Photogammetry so not to have to experience of being thrown out of their office. The only question I have is whether or not Don helped you with this ridiculous illustration of yours.

What do you think?

To start with ... the alignment of the above overlay is so poorly done that the top of the fence drops considerably between the two interchanges. So what do you do ... you ask the viewer to compare Arnold's height over the top of the wall to people who are not only far closer to the camera, but more of them are seen because the camera angle looking at the knoll is different than Moorman's, which is why the fence line drops and rises so dramatically between the images when they are seen in motion.


More baloney...as you know, the height of the fence and exact location of the fence is different than it was in 1963, so obviously there is room for compensation.

When I look to our left of the kid standing on the sidewalk and I see just how far the fence drops.

So what?

I just shake my head and think to myself that I could solicit the assistance of an organ-grinder's helper monkey and probably get it to offer up a better finished product than what you posted.

Go for it then, I've waited a year for you to submit your promised killer prosecution.

Also, the animated illustration in your opening post isn't any better.

It's superb, and makes all of the valid points, or rather all of my points valid

Yes, its little wonder why you refuse to allow someone more skilled than yourself in cameras and reading images to review your claim.

Like who?..I've asked you this a thousand times..Groden once again doesn't come in to the expert photo reading catagory.

I tried to make things simpler for you by asking that you compare Tony Cummings height to that of Gordon Arnold and your remark was 'Cummings height is not relevant.'

He is not not relevant he's taller than the alleged , the ground is lower...you have not allowed for these differentials

My point was that if Cummings is real, then why cannot a real person who is standing not on the walkway as the people in your illustration are doing, but who is back at the fence a couple of feet from Arnold not be used to better determine if Arnold falls into the same height dimensions as Cummings.


Simple, because Arnold's existance can not be determined by your faulty method. I've told you how it can be done, but you fail to acknowledge my proposed method.


By the way, you claimed to have gotten the aspect ratios right. I would love to hear how this was accomplished ... especially when you obviously have such huge flaws in your overlays ... hearing how you compensated the aspect ratios will be very interesting to learn.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

You're a gas Bill

PS: Do you believe Badge Man is a real person???

Why do you ask?

Forum rules do not allow for me to answer that question honestly.



Oh by all means, Duncan ... please explain in more detail. In what year was the fence moved - how many inches - and how does that effect a photo being taken from the south pasture ... I am looking forward to learning something here even if it is learning just how little you know about what you are talking about.



You're joking, right! The angle at which the wall is viewed from below will make a difference in how much of an object is seen over it as it moves further away from the wall. The fence is also running at an angle away from Moorman's camera, so the degree of difference at the outer edge of the wall where you pasted in Arnold's image from the Turner series is even greater if you apply the same image over the dog leg as Gordon is seen in Moorman's photo.




You have not shown the skills or intelligence to understand the data that has been presented to you, thus only another photo taken with someone standing over the dog leg and near the fence will demonstrate the flaws to your claim. Maybe an expert could have given you a more technical critique, but you have not been interested in allowing that to happen. When I get to Dallas again, I will be happy to shoot a comparison photo, but please don't expect me to make a special trip from British Columbia to Dallas, Texas just so to show that someone who cannot see why Cummings is relevant or that the fence dropping against the wall in your ill-thought-out illustration is important just so to show you to be in error once again. Because doing so would be just another instance where someone makes a claim and rather than to get it validated ... they tell how they are correct because no one has gone and did their leg work for them.

Now what about that Badge Man question ... do you believe him to be a real person or not??? I believe in the past that you said that you believed Badge Man to be real .. is that correct or do you care to continue showing the forum that you really don't have the faith in your wacky claim that you pretend to.




What a moronic thing to say. It's like saying that you used a flawed scale that shows 12/10s is a whole to make an accurate measurement. It's like saying that the rock laying on the other side of an unbroken window was just thrown through it. You can say anything, but to someone who understands that if the data is incorrect, then so is your conclusion.



So let us make this clear to everyone reading this BS of yours ... you cannot find not a single Photo expert to look at your illustrations and render an opinion. That people skilled in Photography and/or Photogammetry are so rare that someone like yourself hasn't a clue how to locate one. Is this really the position you wish to take????


Please explain in detail what you just glazed over in your statement. This will help me see whether or not you even have the slightest idea as to what you are talking about.





So you are saying that a real person at the fence cannot be used to tell if the Arnold figure at the fence is within reason big enough to be a human being. Are you sure you wish to present that position to the readers of this forum???




Saying, "You're a gas Bill" is not an answer to the question that you were asked. It could be construed as an attempt on your part to dodge the question because you really did not adjust the aspect ratios accordingly like you claimed to have done. Would you like another chance at answering the question???



This too is not an answer to the simple question that you were asked. I am starting to believe more and more that you are aware of the problems with your claim that Arnold is too small to be human and are going out of your way to avoid being put in a position to admit that your study was poorly conducted. Let me know when you are serious about your search for the truth and we'll continue on.

Bill Miller

Your Flawed Cummings garbage is beginning to bore me, and the sad thing is that your ego prevents you from admitting it's flawed. I suppose your reputation as usual is more important than the facts.
The only way to find out if and where Arnold was standing is by the method described by me over and over again. Any attempt by any real human being so far to replicate Arnold has failed miserably, including your attempt.
This is my killer composite

Funny how when you cannot really explain in detail what you are talking about ... it starts to bore you. As if no one could see that coming. Come back when you want to be serious about answering my questions if for no other reason than to educate me and others.

Bill Miller

Funny how when you cannot really explain in detail what you are talking about ... it starts to bore you. As if no one could see that coming. Come back when you want to be serious about answering my questions if for no other reason than to educate me and others.

Bill Miller


Everything has been explained in great detail in the original thread where you promised to deliver your proof that Arnold is real in the Moorman location.
Now in the past year you have did nothing to prove it. My only logic as to understanding why you have hidden behind pages and pages of pretend know it all disinfo can only be that you have nothing to offer.
I've proven the floating Arnold torso midget is not real, and most people who took part in the original thread agree with that.
Let's see your conclusion, as you promised a year ago, that you would prove he is real.
The ball's still in your court, and always will be until you supply your promised monumental proof positive.
The world awaits, or do I need to start another thread in August 2009?


Duncan MacRae

You talk like a lunatic ... when not directly ... you do it indirectly with an answer like that above. It was YOU who started a part 2 thread. You dragged over some of the old flawed examples from the past. You then say that I have done nothing to prove otherwise, yet when I ask you for information that you know is not going to help your situation or I point out some big flaws in your animation ... it is YOU who then takes the position that you have become bored and do not wish to continue.

Like I said in this thread that YOU posted ... we'll continue on when YOU get interested enough in addressing the questions put to YOU. We can start with you choosing a position as to whether you believe the Badge Man figure is real or not. We both know why you are dodging that question and until you do, then you are not going to allow me to prove you wrong, thus you are wasting my time. Come back when you are serious!

Bill Miller

We can start with you choosing a position as to whether you believe the Badge Man figure is real or not. We both know why you are dodging that question and until you do, then you are not going to allow me to prove you wrong, thus you are wasting my time. Come back when you are serious!

Bill Miller

Bageman is not in the equation, so I see no point in discussing him. If however you give me a logical reason why he should become part of the equation that proves that Arnold is real in the Moorman location, then I'll consider giving an answer. Until then, it's still your serve

Duncan MacRae

It's interesting to find an argument that a figure in a photo (Moorman's) cannot be Arnold because the figure is too small. It has been my contention that a figure (BDM) in a photo cannot be Arnold because the figure is too large. Since this thread is entitled "The Gordon Arnold Competition," I will therefore put my two cents' worth in (again) by quoting myself from a year ago:

"From my perspective, if BDM was Arnold, he had to have the broad waistline of a flabby 350-pounder or so. Hardly the likes of a young soldier. Indeed if BDM is one person, standing up straight, he needs to be renamed RPM, for Roly-Poly Man."

He also has the Roly-Poly figure in Moorman Ron, maybe we should rename him Donut Man

Duncan MacRae

Your claim has been that Arnold is too small to be a real person. I do not have to prove him real ... just show that he falls into the size realm of a known real human being, thus the reason for you making the claim is bogus - as usual!!!

Now I have asked you several times if you believe Badge Man is real. My memory tells me that you have said that you do believe Badge Man is a real person. Is that correct??? If you decide not to answer the question, then it is apparent that you have no interest in knowing validity of your claim. When it gets to the point that you must first hear someone give you reasons as to why they are asking you a question before you'll bless us with the simple answer ... that tells me that you are not so sure about your past position. I won't bargain with you ... you either want to know all you can learn so to vaildate your claim or you do not.

Bill Miller

Denis Quote:

And who exactly do you believe "created" this "Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion" Don? Are you accusing Gary Mack? Or perhaps Jack White? Gordon Arnold himself perhaps? Have you actually put any thought at all into this? Denis.

It's not up to me to accuse anyone of creating the Badgeman/Gordon Arnold nonsense... all I can do is report what I see in the Moorman picture.

Bill Quote:

Don makes about as much sense as Chapman did when he said why he shot John Lennon.

Thanks Bill for the response but you sound like Miles when he said that I look like M.D. Chapman. Next time try using a rebuttal instead of a slander remark.

The match-up of Badgeman and the Picket Fence Gunman in the Moorman photo feature many similarities. My deciding vote goes to the Picket Fence Gunman since he was the original gunman photographed by Mary Moorman. Badgeman is a fake!

Don

Your claim has been that Arnold is too small to be a real person. I do not have to prove him real ... just show that he falls into the size realm of a known real human being

Ok, after a year, I and everyone else who contributed to the last thread are still waiting....so....go for it... show us all how he falls into the size realm of a real human being

Now I have asked you several times if you believe Badge Man is real. My memory tells me that you have said that you do believe Badge Man is a real person. Is that correct???

Your memory does not serve you correct. I will however give you an answer just to give you a push forward in attempting to reach and publish your conclusion, hopefully in this thread.
At the time I made my simultaneous frontal headshots illustrations, I believed Badgeman was real.
I have since changed my opinion, based on my own research
I do not now believe Badgeman is real.

If you decide not to answer the question, then it is apparent that you have no interest in knowing validity of your claim.

Stop whingin man...you've drawn an answer out of me, count that as a small victory , although I suspect my answer will now put a hold on whatever it was that you were going to use my opinion for against the non existance of Arnold in the Moorman position.


Duncan MacRae

Badgeman and Picket Fence Gunman... which one is real? There is no way that both parties exist in the Mooorman photo.

Don Bailey

[quote name='Don Bailey' date='Aug 11 2008, 09:42 AM' post='151959']
Badgeman and Picket Fence Gunman... which one is real?

PFG exists aka Hatman, but he's not a shooter. Badgeman IMO is an illusion.
This is in my opinion the real fence shooter. The only possible trajectory which would not damage the back left side of the President's head.


Duncan MacRae

I had not remembered anything Miles said about that when I posted. I only mentioned Chapman because I was a fan of John Lennon, thus I remembered the nutty thing he said as to why he shot Lennon, and because the things you post seem as insane to me.



This goes to my remark above. You imply that Badge Man was created as a result of altering Moorman's photo .... nothing could be further from the truth. Badge Man is seen in Moorman's photo whether you agree with him being real or not, so to say that another alleged image was the original in Moorman's photo when both are in the same photo is an example of Mark Chapman logic. You, like he did, appear to be making things up in your own mind. For instance, when have you ever studied the original Moorman photo to know who or what was originally photographed in it.

Just stay calm and keep saying to yourself 'serenity now', Don ... 'serenity now'!

Bill Miller

Duncan, is the above remark supposed to be your position or Don's ... I'm a bit confused? If it is your position, then are you implying that you have never posted that you believe Badge Man to be real? If your positioned has changed, then when did it change?

I also didn't see in the four sentence remark anywhere where the size of Badge Man was considered in determining the realm of possibility to his existence, but instead only because Badge Man's angle to JFK's head couldn't account for Kennedy's head wound, which was the only logic behind Badge Man's possible existence or not. As I read that remark again ... I could not help but see that nothing was considered about Badge Man's shot missing, which means that what was said should only apply to whether Badge Man's shot is the one that caused the fatal head wound to JFK and nothing else. So that is why I am asking if those self-serving remarks above are attributed to Don or yourself???

Bill Miller

This is what I meant, Don ... Chapman's inability to reason rationally would have probably led him to have said the same thing.

Duncan, is the above remark supposed to be your position or Don's ... I'm a bit confused? If it is your position, then are you implying that you have never posted that you believe Badge Man to be real? If your positioned has changed, then when did it change?
I also didn't see in the four sentence remark anywhere where the size of Badge Man was considered in determining the realm of possibility to his existence, but instead only because Badge Man's angle to JFK's head couldn't account for Kennedy's head wound, which was the only logic behind Badge Man's possible existence or not. As I read that remark again ... I could not help but see that nothing was considered about Badge Man's shot missing, which means that what was said should only apply to whether Badge Man's shot is the one that caused the fatal head wound to JFK and nothing else. So that is why I am asking if those self-serving remarks above are attributed to Don or yourself???

Bill Miller

My position changed during my study in to the non existance of Arnold in the Moorman position. I didn't see any need to announce it to the world. This image explains why.
Just follow the natural top of the fence line, and you'll see why I think Badgeman is not real.

As for Don, I don't know what you're on about, maybe you've caught the Bailey Bug
What Don says is entirely up to him and has nothing to do with me.

Duncan MacRae

Whoa ... It's gonna take lots of fluids to wash that story down, Duncan. Lets recap ... You have pushed gif animation after gif animation like the one seen at this link in your opening post ....

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

... and what you are saying now is that all those animations and things you wrote pertaining to Badge Man were in error. That this revelation came to you only after the existence of Gordon Arnold became a question and you kept quiet about this. This is the story you wish to now sell to those who have followed your postings over the years??? You've basically said that you'll announce such things to the world at various times as there is a man standing atop of the colonnade - there was a third person at the pedestal when Zapruder and Sitzman dismounted it - That there is seen a tripod in the doorway of the Shelter near Zapruder in the Betzner photo - and a list of other nutty claims, but when you decided that you were in error about Badge Man's existence - you kept this hush, hush. Are you keeping hush, hush about your noticing the mistakes in your Arnold being too small claim, as well???

I personally feel that you have only now claimed this new position because you have been made aware that if Badge Man is real and Arnold is near the same height as Badge Man ... that your Arnold being too short claim is bogus and flawed in the ways that have been presented to you in the past. Things that gave you away is your not wanting to see Tony Cummings as relevant when his figure was mentioned ... and your not wanting to commit to answering my question about Badge Man being real in your mind unless one gives you a reason for asking the question first. Your reluctance to cooperate and just answer the question seemed very suspicious. I am guessing that your new position about Badge Man came about somewhere between your stalling in not answering that simple question and your offering up that less than believable response you just previously posted.

So let us do this another way and ask that you compare Arnold's and Badge Man's height to the 5' stockade fence ... or have you since your last post now decided that the fence isn't real either!!!

Oh so we do not forget ... you only mention some nonsense about following the top of the fence and that having to do with your not believing Badge Man to be real. Does this mean that you don't find fault with his size????????

Bill Miller

Whoa ... It's gonna take lots of fluids to wash that story down, Duncan. Lets recap ... You have pushed gif animation after gif animation like the one seen at this link in your opening post ....

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

... and what you are saying now is that all those animations and things you wrote pertaining to Badge Man were in error.

Bill Miller


That's correct, I now am saying that that particular study was in error with reference to Badgeman only....Do you have a problem with that?
Now stop beating about the bush and address the matter in hand. Explain the floating Badgeman & Arnold Torso's in relation to the top of the fence line. I've made it easy for you with the image...it's your call.

Duncan MacRae

No problem on this end with you changing your story to fit the moment ... in fact - I welcome it! For instance, this new revelation of the 'floating Badge Man' .... do you need for me to post my photo again of the knoll with Cummings at the Badge Man location ... now do you know why Cummings was relevant ... I anticipated you wavering around because I have seen it too many times before. 6' 3" Tony Cummings is real - he was never floating in the air. Now is there something else you'd like to tell this forum that you are trying to keep hush, hush???

Bill Miller

No problem on this end with you changing your story to fit the moment ... in fact - I welcome it! For instance, this new revelation of the 'floating Badge Man' .... do you need for me to post my photo again of the knoll with Cummings at the Badge Man location

Bill Miller

Ok, go on post it to remind me how ridiculous it was

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

Is this what you refer to?

Yes, Miles ... that is a photo that I took of some guy I had never met before who was standing right at the wall. He was not with me, nor did I ever meet the guy. I took that particular photo so to show how big someone would look while standing right at the wall. If that is work, then so be it. In my mind it was just a photograph, but I can see how something so trivial would appear as work to someone like yourself.

The image that Duncan was talking about was clearly stated in conjunction with Tony Cummings standing at the fence. You know which photo it is because you have posted it many times while trying to troll another thread. If you wish to be helpful or at least pretend to want to be helpful, then post a link to the thread that the Cummings and Brown images were posted to.

Bill Miller

Be careful, Duncan ... for I'm about to test your sincerity when it comes to your search for the truth.

Click to view attachment

The figure seen in the Badge Man location is 6'3" Tony Cummings. Tony Cummings is a real person, so we can shut down that avenue of retreat before getting started. Tony Cummings appears to be within the realm of Badge Man's size when it comes to he being seen over the top of the wall. The only thing we cannot see is exactly where Cummings standing height comes to in relation to the wall.

At this time I will ask Duncan to tell this forum where Cummings feet come in relation to the concrete wall. I ask that he also gives his reason(s).

Bill Miller

Duncan,

This should do the trick:

Miles,

Other than merely writing that Tony is twice the size of Arnold ... can you offer anything more like taking the Badge Man image and applying his height above the wall to Tony7's???

So not to insult anyone here ... a metaphor to this approach is to have some complete idiot offering up off-the-wall scalings rather than to take what is known like Cummings being a real person and applying that to the Arnold figure. For instance: If Cummings equals the general size of Badge Man ... and Badge Man shows to be the general size of Arnold, then the claim that Arnold is too small to be a real person goes back into the toilet from which it came.

So lets have some rational discussion here fellas ... One cannot very well be sincere in claiming Arnold is too small when he is as big as Badge Man ... when Badge Man is the same size of a known human being (Cummings) standing at his location and seen from Moorman's location along Elm Street. One might consider seeking that expert consultation at this point - you think!

Bill Miller

Boy oh boy oh boy

I am asking you once again to post a photograph of Tony Cummings standing at the Badgeman location which you have not delivered.
Your gif animation composite does not show that.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

What is it you aim for? That Bill admits that the "figure" in the Moorman photograph is NOT a human being?


Bill, if you insist Gordon Arnold was there, have you thought about how long it would take for the policeman to kick Arnold and take the film from his camera? And why there is no record, no photograph, not even an eyewitness to this?

Wim

Let me explain this in simple terms for everyone who is confused with this issue, and the reason why Bill Miller's Tony Cummings gif is so idiotic.
I've drawn a top of the fence line over Bill Miller's gif to make it easy for even the thickest of readers to understand.
Here we go.

1./ The fence is 5ft
2./ Tony Cummings is 6ft 3
3./ ...And this is the crux of the matter.....Simple mathematics tells us that only 1ft and 3inches of Tony Cummings should show above the top of the fence line if he was standing behind the fence at its closest contact point with his feet firmly on the ground.
It doesnt matter what angle a photographer standing in front of the fence takes a photograph of Tony Cummings behind the fence from
Never under any circumstances will more than 1ft and 3 inches of Tony Cumming's body show above the top of the fence line.
4./ Just one look at Bill Miller's gif clearly shows that more than half of the Tony Cummings body is showing above the fence line.
Maybe Tony was standing on Gordon Arnold's shoulders




Duncan MacRae

Duncan's aim is to bless the world with his enhancements and make idiotic claims that if were true they would be world news. One such so-called Duncan enhancement I labeled 'The Drunken AOL Guy' because of its ridiculous degradation. It used to be the Black Dog Man before Duncan said that he improved it.






It took the officers about as much time to get to Arnold as it did Towner to take his #3 photo. The two men in dark clothing near the large tree on the knoll immediately after the shooting fit the number of officers Gordon claimed to have seen ... and well before anyone ever noticed those two individuals being on the knoll after the shooting.

As far as there not being a record ... you are joking right! If what Arnold said is true, then you cannot imagine why a record of the evidence being taken and destroyed or kept from view would have a record to it .... give me a break, Wim! And if the two men who approached Arnold following the shooting were impostors ... I would not expect them to come forward and say, 'Yes - we are the guess who were involved in JFK's death and cover-up'.

To date, no critic of Arnold has intelligently addressed the fact that Arnold told of his experience immediately after the assassination ... never sought publicity ... never took a dime for his story ... and gave information about his experience long before evidence of it was ever found in the photographic record.

Bill Miller

Duncan, I thought you were serious about wanting to get at the truth ... your response was just more foolish non-responsive posturing which is only making you look like an idiot. Is there some reason why your responses always deal with you not having your facts straight? You are trying to critique the animation and yet if you were to go back and refresh your memory, what's left of it, and read over the original thread where I first posted that picture, then you'd find that Tony was not standing firmly on the ground. You would find that Tony stood right flat against the fence with his feet on the cross-board that ran along the bottom of the fence. I don't recall the exact inches, but I do recall posting them with a photo and it seems like the cross-board was attached to the fence within inches of the bottom.

You were asked only two things - 1) Do you agree that Cummings is a real person??? ... 2) Can you tell me where Tony's feet come in relation to the ground??? Your remark that more than 'half' of Tony's body is above the fence is wrong. So try again to answer my questions intelligently and we will move forward from there. If you cannot offer a sensible and accurate answer, then just say you do not know the answer ... no need to pollute this topic with more of your stupid antics. I await for your more precise answer to my questions.

Bill Miller

Duncan, I thought you were serious about wanting to get at the truth ... your response was just more foolish non-responsive posturing which is only making you look like an idiot. Is there some reason why your responses always deal with you not having your facts straight? You are trying to critique the animation and yet if you were to go back and refresh your memory, what's left of it, and read over the original thread where I first posted that picture, then you'd find that Tony was not standing firmly on the ground. You would find that Tony stood right flat against the fence with his feet on the cross-board that ran along the bottom of the fence. I don't recall the exact inches, but I do recall posting them with a photo and it seems like the cross-board was attached to the fence within inches of the bottom.

You were asked only two things - 1) Do you agree that Cummings is a real person??? ... 2) Can you tell me where Tony's feet come in relation to the ground??? Your remark that more than 'half' of Tony's body is above the fence is wrong. So try again to answer my questions intelligently and we will move forward from there. If you cannot offer a sensible and accurate answer, then just say you do not know the answer ... no need to pollute this topic with more of your stupid antics. I await for your more precise answer to my questions.

Bill Miller

You know something Bill?...That's one of the thickest loser responses i've ever seen from anyone on any forum at any time.
I notice you removed my image from your reply too,.... don't want too many people to see the truth eh?
Any half witted uneducated moron can see just by looking at the fence line that your Cummins study is one of the worst ever studies to try to prove the existance of Bageman.
I'll repeat again with the stuff you conveniently didn't want others to see.
I suggest you join up with Don, and give us all a duo rendition of the Twilight Zone theme tune, because that's where your Cummings study belongs with all of the other great episodes of fiction.

Again...I'll show some respect and leave out the laughing dog

I've drawn a top of the fence line over Bill Miller's gif to make it easy for even the thickest of readers to understand.
Here we go.

1./ The fence is 5ft
2./ Tony Cummings is 6ft 3
3./ ...And this is the crux of the matter.....Simple mathematics tells us that only 1ft and 3inches of Tony Cummings should show above the top of the fence line if he was standing behind the fence at its closest contact point with his feet firmly on the ground.
It doesnt matter what angle a photographer standing in front of the fence takes a photograph of Tony Cummings behind the fence from
Never under any circumstances will more than 1ft and 3 inches of Tony Cumming's body show above the top of the fence line.
4./ Just one look at Bill Miller's gif clearly shows that more than half of the Tony Cummings body is showing above the fence line.
Maybe Tony was standing on Gordon Arnold's shoulders



Duncan MacRae

You know something Bill?...That's one of the thickest loser responses i've ever seen from anyone on any forum at any time.
I notice you removed my image from your reply too,.... don't want too many people to see the truth eh?
Any half witted uneducated moron can see just by looking at the fence line that your Cummins study is one of the worst ever studies to try to prove the existance of Bageman.
I'll repeat again with the stuff you conveniently didn't want others to see.
I suggest you join up with Don, and give us all a duo rendition of the Twilight Zone theme tune, because that's where your Cummings study belongs with all of the other great episodes of fiction.

Again...I'll show some respect and leave out the laughing dog

I've drawn a top of the fence line over Bill Miller's gif to make it easy for even the thickest of readers to understand.
Here we go.

1./ The fence is 5ft
2./ Tony Cummings is 6ft 3
3./ ...And this is the crux of the matter.....Simple mathematics tells us that only 1ft and 3inches of Tony Cummings should show above the top of the fence line if he was standing behind the fence at its closest contact point with his feet firmly on the ground.
It doesnt matter what angle a photographer standing in front of the fence takes a photograph of Tony Cummings behind the fence from
Never under any circumstances will more than 1ft and 3 inches of Tony Cumming's body show above the top of the fence line.
4./ Just one look at Bill Miller's gif clearly shows that more than half of the Tony Cummings body is showing above the fence line.
Maybe Tony was standing on Gordon Arnold's shoulders

Duncan MacRae
[/quote]



Duncan, which image above the wall do you think is Cummings? Mike Brown may look to have half his body above the fence, but not Tony. Tony is the more distant second figure seen over the wall. I hope we are on the same page here for your responses make me think we are not.

Next, I am not sure what your complaint about my using Tony as a stand in for Badge Man is all about. In a side by side comparison ... Tony got the height over the wall very close to that of Badge Man. In all the time since my original posting of that image which was said over and over again just to be an illustration as to how someone would stack up to the next person the closer they moved to the wall, you have never complained like you are doing now. In fact, no one had complained about that illustration when it came to Tony standing where Badge Man was.

Now two times you have not answered my questions. These two questions are simple and if you don't wish to answer them, then just say so and we'll stop trying to get to the truth where ever that may lead. Below are those questions that you seem hesitant to want to answer.

You were asked only two things - 1) Do you agree that Cummings is a real person??? ... 2) Can you tell me where Tony's feet come in relation to the ground??? Your remark that more than 'half' of Tony's body is above the fence is wrong. So try again to answer my questions intelligently and we will move forward from there. If you cannot offer a sensible and accurate answer, then just say you do not know the answer ... no need to pollute this topic with more of your stupid antics. I await for your more precise answer to my questions.

Bill Miller

You were asked only two things - 1) Do you agree that Cummings is a real person???

Well, never having met him, I wouldn't really know, but I'll take your word for it as a scholar and a gentleman, that he is a real person

... 2) Can you tell me where Tony's feet come in relation to the ground???

Bill Miller

No..I don't even see any proof that he is behind the fence

Duncan

There seems little hope in resolving this issue, especially when each party to the discussion considers the other to be too stupid, naive, dull or hard-headed to understand or appreciate what the other is saying, and unable or unwilling to grasp the obvious validity of the argument, methodology or conclusions either one has employed or reached. They are at a hopeless impasse, each unable or unwilling to concede any point to the other, and clearly unable to combine their intelligence and expertise - to whatever degree one will concede that the other possesses any of - to reach a common ground.

Some things just flat-out stump me, one being the apparent use of two-dimensional measurements and projections to plot a three-dimensional perspective. In one case, a trajectory from the "Picket Fence Gunman" is shown along the "gun barrel's" length and projected to JFK's position as if left-to-right is the only valid measurement, and that front-to-back perspective is immaterial. In a three-dimensional world, the appearance of a particular angle is affected by the rotation of the object, thus what appears to be, for example, a 45° downward angle in a photo may actually be a 30° downward angle because the object is rotated clockwise toward the viewer.

The Moorman photo is simply not clear enough to be able to measure the left-to-right rotational angle by, for example, comparing the difference in the circumference of the rifle barrel at the nearest and farthest parts.

In another case - which might have been part of another thread - someone decried another's failure to take into account a one-foot change in the elevation of the ground atop the knoll (don't know about you, but that seems like an awful lot to me!), and in another, one pointed out that, in the animated GIFs posted here, the fence line "drops and rises so dramatically between the images" simply because "the camera angle looking at the knoll is different than Moorman's."

So here we have the ground "moving" as well as the fence. Oh, and the fence is no longer in the same spot nor the same height - either or both of which have an effect on perspective - as it was in 1963, although if that's so, I've seen no mention of measurements; dates don't particularly matter except to prove it happened. (Somewhere, someone called it a "five-foot" picket fence while what is there today is a six-foot picket fence; if so, making the fence taller and moving it either closer or farther will certainly change its apparent height, relative to a person standing there or not.)

It seems that there are altogether too many variables - fence, ground and clearness of imagery ... not to mention relative intelligence, imagination and skill or lack thereof - for anyone to reach any sort of definite conclusion.

Mostly, this discussion just seems to be a contest of who can insult the other better and more imaginatively (my favorite to date: "I could solicit the assistance of an organ-grinder's helper monkey and probably get it to offer up a better finished product than what you posted." You go! That almost convinces me that ... whatever it is this thread is trying to convince me of!).

It's almost not unlike an argument between two people whose only exposure to this whole deal is the "JFK" film each trying to convince the other whether or not Lee Oswald did it alone and unaided: not enough data and hardly the expertise. Which one is the photogrammetrist? Neither has even spelled it right.

Me, I'm just a humble professional photographer and don't have a clue about this shtuff.

Ok ... still wanting to dance, I see! The question was not if you thought he was behind or in front of the fence. The question was if you can tell how close his feet are to the ground?

So we can try and cut off this routine of yours to look for anything to avoid answering the question ... allow me to put it this way ........ Assuming that Tony Cummings is a real person, especially since photos of him were also posted in the original thread of he and Royce Bierma along the walkway, and assuming that he is on the RR yard side of the fence and right against it as I have repeatedly stated ... can you tell us where Tony's feet are in relation to the ground? Feel free to mark a line across the wall where you feel they would be if one could see through the wall.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

It's almost not unlike an argument between two people whose only exposure to this whole deal is the "JFK" film each trying to convince the other whether or not Lee Oswald did it alone and unaided: not enough data and hardly the expertise. Which one is the photogrammetrist? Neither has even spelled it right.

Me, I'm just a humble professional photographer and don't have a clue about this shtuff.

Duke


I enjoyed that Duke, very sensible and entertaining.....Just one thing though, well two actually.
1./ I didn't spell photogrammetrist in any of my postings in this thread, and 2./.....you spelled stuff wrong
Congratulations on the Hoffman shtuff ...excellent work.

Duncan MacRae

can you tell us where Tony's feet are in relation to the ground?

Thanks,

Bill Miller

Can you tell us where the top of Tony's head is in relation to the top of the fence?

Thanks

Duncan MacRae