The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Robin Unger]

Since arnold was standing over near the wooden fence, why are we even looking at comparisons of the height of a person when standing at the wall. ?

I assume that fom the Moorman position looking up over the wall, that the further back from the wall the subject stands, the less of the subjects uper torso would be visible.

I don't see the top of the park bench in Moorman even though i agree it is higher than the wall, thats because of the low angle Moorman is shooting from.

Without the mound of dirt to stand on, Arnold would all but dissapear behind the wall from Moormans view as he stood back only a few feet from the fence..

This is why i still have a problem with his height as seen in Moorman.

We all know that the picket fence is higher that the wall, but in Moorman it gives the illusion of being the same hieght.

ie: the picket fence has now become shorter.

Therefore if Arnold was standing just in front of the picket fence he also should appear shorter that in real life.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

Hold that premature victory celebration Bill, Jack & co.

Bill...There's no one scratching heads here. The images Jack posted are NOT a revelation. I posted the same analysis based on photographs from 1966 showing the level of the ground from different angles. You guys are way off the Mark. Here is a copy of the gif which I uploaded ages ago and which you made absolutely no comment on. Now that Jack posts nothing new, you are ecstatic. Here's the gif which you chose to ignore. The person at the wall in the photograph is at the wall and crouching. THE ARNOLD TORSO ILLUSION WHICH APPEARS TO BE IN A STANDING POSISTION IS NOT AT THE WALL, any half wit can see that no comparison can be made.What a joke.. Do you wish to be classed in that catagory? The Arnold floating torso is an illusion..learn to live with it. The truth is more important than anyones reputation. It's about time you guys stepped out of the jobs for the boys clubs and realise that just because maybe you have been mentioned in books or have appeared on the Note that Jack did not include the wall in his comparison with the crouching man

Duncan

Duncan,

Your reply hardly deserves an answer, but seeing how you seemingly purposely misstate what has been posted - I feel obligated to once again correct your remarks. Gary Shaw was not the focus of the illustration that I posted. I went out of my way to show that the dotted line dealt not with Shaw, but with the level of the ground at the location where Arnold stood in Moorman's photo. To do this, O placed an arrow on the example and labeled it "GROUND LEVEL". If you'd spend just a fraction of a second looking at where Arnold would have been by running a line from Moorman's location - over the south dog leg - to a point west of the walkway, then Arnold is on the higher ground in Moorman's photo, thus the immediate ground level at the top of the steps where Shaw is crouched has nothing to do with how Arnold is viewed in Moorman's photograph.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

More analysis from me which clearly shows that Jacks comparison with the crouching man at the wall has no relevance at all to the topic. Alhtough I don't believe that Jack meant to deceive anyone, that is what his comparison is doing, ie, giving people a false impression that my analysis is wrong.

Bill Miller celebrated prematurely. Here Bill..put away the party poppers, chew on this, and try not to choke.

Note the red lines which I have overlaid showing the top and base of the wall to match accurately with Jack's posted image. I've made the red lines thick so that you don't miss them.

Duncan

Duncan writes: It's beyond my understanding Robin, I just uploaded the new gif to show the stupidity of the comparison.

No truer words have ever been spoken! It was a mistake to try and use a model that was put together not based on fact, but on an interpretation of where you think the upper and lower body parts should come together. Even the degree of error involving the needed data that we don't have must be taken into account and considering the small variance in distance between your feet are in your interpretation is from the ground line I pointed out - any degree of error would bring the two together even more.

The man in white clothing and at the wall in the walkway footage clearly shows his belt to be well above the wall and his feet are on the ground - that is something that YOU will have to live with, Duncan. Robin is correct that the further back from the wall one stands - the lower they will appear against the wall from Moorman's field of view, unless they have found a raised spot of ground to stand on as Arnold claimed to have done long before Moorman's photo was discovered to hold his image. Arnold could have said he stood in a hole and then we would have a problem, but he didn't do that. Instead, Gordon Arnold said he stood on a mound of dirt and the interpretation as to what he meant by that is anyone's guess, but its what Gordon meant by it that is important and once again the photographic record supports this.

You calling our pointing out the ground level that COULD NOT be seen from the east side of the wall - a 'celebration' reflects your attitude about these claims you constantly make. Your alleged search for the truth reminds me of something someone else once said concerning Arnold and it went like this, "In all honesty, I don't want Arnold to be there.

He interferes with my firm belief that the area was controlled, so that nobody, especially someone with a camera would get in the way." You started with an observation that led to an immediate conclusion without first gathering all the facts. As those facts come to light - you continually ignore them and attempt to defend your position by repeating the same old mistakes. I had told you that Arnold was as large as Badge Man, thus he fell within the realm of a normal sized individual and not that ridiculous dwarfed image you had created. I told you that there must be a logical explanation as to why Arnold's height looked like it did when compared to the east side of the wall in Moorman's photo. In the end we have shown the reason for this and what do you do ... YOU place a home made stitching job of an upper and lower body of two individuals with no exact reference to how they were divided and you want to argue your position over a now small degree of ground hight difference between your line and the line I placed on the Shaw photy which was done by me at the highest ground point visible in the photo I had to work with. How much higher did the ground go before reaching the bench??? How much higher did the ground go from the edge of the walkway towards the fence? These variables all figure into the big scheme of things and you didn't touch on a single one of them before reaching your conclusion. You simply did not know how to find the data needed to check your observation IMO.

Bill

Edited August 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I went out of my way to show that the dotted line dealt not with Shaw, but with the level of the ground at the location where Arnold stood in Moorman's photo.

Bill

You didn't go out of your way. You have only repeated the ground level analysis which I posted ages ago using a different photograph, and placing a human there which is deceiving to those less educated... it's nothing new. No one is disputing that the floating torso appears to be on higher ground, the trouble is that there is no higher ground where the apparition appears. As Robin correctly states, In relation to the fence he should appear shorter, which is a contratiction of the laws of physics when he actually appears higher, yet at the same time too small perspectively in Moorman to be human.

Duncan

Having Gary Shaw at the wall was never the point in my using that photo - the level of the ground where Arnold was standing in relation to the outside of the wall was the point. Your whole claim was based on that observation. The view of the walkway from a photo taken atop of the underpass is a view looking downward and that is misleading in itself in the opposite way that Moorman's photo was misleading by looking uphill. Groden taking a photo of Shaw was closer to being on the same plane. The Flynn photo was even a better example, which was going to be my next post once you responded with something silly by not taking the time to try and understand the evidence better that was being presented to you.

Bill

Edited August 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I told you that there must be a logical explanation as to why Arnold's height looked like it did when compared to the east side of the wall in Moorman's photo. In the end we have shown the reason for this.

Bill

You've shown absolutely nothing except big words, spin, and the ability to namedrop so called respected researchers who agree with you without actually giving any of their names. That's not evidence, it's gamesmanship. You even brought Jean Hill in to the eqaution..Jesus give me strength once again lol. You also claim to have show the correct ground level by copying my ground level analysis using a different photograph with a deceiving human addition, and suggesting it is your work to help improve your failing rebuttal.

You have still not once shown a location for the floating torso feet in Moorman.....NOT ONCE...The floating torso is still floating and you don't have a pin to burst the Arnold balloon to bring it down to ground level.

Duncan

What ever you say, Duncan. What I posted was for those who are capable of understanding it - not for those without the skills to follow along. Like I said before, there is a reason why people over the past 4 decades have not made the claims that you seem to come up with on a regular basis and there is a reason why you never go to anyone with any credentials to validate the things you say. Call Turner and tell him that you've come up with new evidence that shows Arnold to be floating in midair. Maybe he'll do a whole piece on the Tripod Man - the guy atop of the colonnade - the guy you claimed was standing at the pedestal behind Zapruder and Sitzman - the floating cop torso - and the list goes on. I am never surprised to see that no matter how many errors you made along the way or how much data to the contrary that you failed to discover before hand - you always seem to come up with the same conclusion.

Bill

[Guest Stephen Turner]

The labour of cisyphus comes to mind. Why any of this being posted to a new thread, when the original BDM has over 600 posts and counting is anyone's guess.

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Duncan!

What a superb idea!

I love it!

EBC

[Jack White]

I refer all back to Nigel Turner's test photo. The three people

in Moorman can all be replicated within anatomical tolerances

in a photo from the Moorman location. Ken Holmes, standing

in for Arnold, had his feet on the ground. Face reality and

cease wild imaginings.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

I told you that there must be a logical explanation as to why Arnold's height looked like it did when compared to the east side of the wall in Moorman's photo. In the end we have shown the reason for this.

Bill

You've shown absolutely nothing except big words, spin, and the ability to namedrop so called respected researchers who agree with you without actually giving any of their names. That's not evidence, it's gamesmanship. You even brought Jean Hill in to the eqaution..Jesus give me strength once again lol. You also claim to have show the correct ground level by copying my ground level analysis using a different photograph with a deceiving human addition, and suggesting it is your work to help improve your failing rebuttal.

You have still not once shown a location for the floating torso feet in Moorman.....NOT ONCE...The floating torso is still floating and you don't have a pin to burst the Arnold balloon to bring it down to ground level.

Duncan

GI Joe is not filming the limo. BM is firing at Moorman, not at the limo.

[Miles Scull]

I told you that there must be a logical explanation as to why Arnold's height looked like it did when compared to the east side of the wall in Moorman's photo. In the end we have shown the reason for this.

Bill

You've shown absolutely nothing except big words, spin, and the ability to namedrop so called respected researchers who agree with you without actually giving any of their names. That's not evidence, it's gamesmanship. You even brought Jean Hill in to the eqaution..Jesus give me strength once again lol. You also claim to have show the correct ground level by copying my ground level analysis using a different photograph with a deceiving human addition, and suggesting it is your work to help improve your failing rebuttal.

You have still not once shown a location for the floating torso feet in Moorman.....NOT ONCE...The floating torso is still floating and you don't have a pin to burst the Arnold balloon to bring it down to ground level.

Duncan

GI Joe's or Arnie's view of the limo..... HEY, where'd it go?

Not behind the wall, is it?

Nnnaaauuuugghh.

[Miles Scull]

I refer all back to Nigel Turner's test photo. The three people

in Moorman can all be replicated within anatomical tolerances

in a photo from the Moorman location. Ken Holmes, standing

in for Arnold, had his feet on the ground. Face reality and

cease wild imaginings.

Jack

There can be absolutely no anatomical or perspective comparison with that photograph. It's a ludicrous suggestion. It is not even close to the Moorman image. Why do you guys persist with such ridiculous false comparison nonsense.

Duncan

Arnie is holding his camera (no pistol grip) a foot or more away from his face.

Jack is standing on a car bumper.

RRman is looking for his hardhat & notices that Arnie is holding his camera away from his face for some reason.

But as Duncan notes: There can be absolutely no anatomical or perspective comparison with this photograph.

(With Duncan's permission, as an aside, it could be noted that Bowers said that at the time of the shooting there was NOBODY behind the fence.)

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

[Bill Miller]

I refer all back to Nigel Turner's test photo. The three people

in Moorman can all be replicated within anatomical tolerances

in a photo from the Moorman location. Ken Holmes, standing

in for Arnold, had his feet on the ground. Face reality and

cease wild imaginings.

Jack

There can be absolutely no anotomical or perspective comparison with that photograph. It's a ludicrous suggestion. It is not even close to the Moorman image. Why do you guys persist with such ridiculous false comparison nonsense.

Duncan

Duncan,

It is only ludicrous to anyone who doesn't know how to apply it. You have merely taken two halves of peoples bodies and attached them where you think they should go. Your illustration in the beginning was so far off that I had to point out the white area that showed that the two right sides didn't even come close to matching, yet you argued it made little difference and that someone should show how Arnold's feet could be touching the ground. Then the back of the wall was shown to not be nearly as deep as you were showing in your illustration and yet you still continue to argue this ridiculously poorly researched claim you made. You cannot even say that your present cropping job shows the true Arnold body height, so I have little intention in wasting more time on someone who is hell bent on not admitting the mistakes he's made and thinking that what he has been shown is not important. I'll bet you cannot even sell your claim to the National Enquirer and they usually will publish anything whether its true or not. I'll wait for you to publish this great find and then I'll address it for its gotten way too much attention already.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired.

I believe the WC published photos taken from the Tower in which Bowers sat. The elevated tower, along with the overhanging tree foliage, prevents me from seeing the area being claimed to be in full view, so I do not see how Bowers could see something that the photos show was not visible.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired.

I believe the WC published photos taken from the Tower in which Bowers sat.

Oh, good. Please post them, then.

(Because I have evidence that Bowers' view was open & unobstructed! )

(Oh, no!... You're NOT going to claim that you do not have access to these alleged photos? This isn't going to be your tactical repeat of the mythical "Weitzman Report" tactic, which tactic you used to evade the refutation of Hoffman's story?? Yes or No? - )

The elevated tower, along with the overhanging tree foliage, prevents me

prevents me?... But only if you can see the alleged photos you allege exist. Can you see these photos? Can anyone? Do they exist? Oh, that's right, they are hidden deep within the never existing, unfindable "Weitzman Report." I see.

from seeing the area

Uh, but you can't see what you can't see, right? Can you see that what you can't see, you can't see? See what I mean? Duncan you see what I mean, don't you?

being claimed to be in full view, so I do not see how Bowers could see something that the photos

Uh, pardon me. What photos?

show was not visible.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The elevated tower, along with the overhanging tree foliage, prevents me from seeing the area being claimed to be in full view, so I do not see how Bowers could see something that the photos show was not visible.

Bill Miller

Erm..let me think...Got it...How about tree foliage growth between Nov22nd 1963 and the date the W.C took the photographs. You don't need to be a genius to work that out Bill, but I suspect you worked it out anyway and just deliberately and conveniently forgot to suggest it...lol

Duncan

Duncan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the WC finished their report within the first year following the assassination. Those photos were taken during their investigation. The tree in question is a large Texas live oak tree. wasn't it stated in the movie "JFK" that the tree doesn't lose its leaves until March ... I think it did. The WC photos were taken before the foliage had fallen off, thus there was no loss of foliage up to that time and I didn't mention it because I just assumed everyone had enough sense to know better.

Bill

Edited August 21, 2007 by Bill Miller