Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

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.

smoke.jpg

Duncan MacRae

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Don Bailey

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No_Wall1.jpg

As for Don, I don't know what you're on about, maybe you've caught the Bailey Bug :lol:

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!!! :lol:

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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??? :lol:

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :lol:

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

Is this what you refer to?

GroundLevel2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 xxxxx 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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Duncan MacRae

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

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! :lol:

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan,

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

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.

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?

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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[/b]

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :unsure:

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, 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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Duncan

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...