Bill Miller

Gentlemen, As I have said before ... If what Duncan did was mere guess work that is subject to a noticeable degree of error ... I do not see how my joining in and also doing incompetent scaling based on a lack of data would be any smarter. And in a way, I do have a reputation to uphold. You see, I don't want to be known as a type of person who merely throws dung on the wall in hopes that it will stick. I am awaiting the chance to capture an image of Gordon Arnold himself and make the comparison. I appreciate your understanding and patience. I will try and post it ASAP. On a humorous note: I do find it amusing that Miles didn't think that a poorly scaled Arnold in the first illustration Duncan posted was a waste of time and yet he thinks my using actual assassination images and post photographs is a waste of his time. Bill Miller

I believe the same could be said of you as well, Miles. Still no time to do research? Bill Miller

Miles ... other than just saying it ... What have you done to know that what you said is accurate? Can you tell by that Corbis photo if the tree's have grown? Other than budding ... how much does a mature live oak tree grow per year?? And one more thing ... Do you know if the trees in Dealy plaza had been trimmed at all before that photo was taken??? I need to ask these questions just to see if you really have looked into this or if it just more propaganda designed to disrupt yet another thread. Thanks, Bill Miller

Miles, If you are going to say such things that I do not believe are true, then I must call you on them. Please go back and show where I said that the color photo came from the 26 volumes because I believe you have once again purposely misstated the facts so to get your jollies by polluting this forum with more disinformation. If I find that I had said such a thing, then I will go back and correct it. Bill Miller

No .. you read it as you want it to read and not by what was actually said. Your putting the upper body of Arnold with the lower body of someone else is based on your interpretation as to how Arnold should have looked. As I recall - you have now done two models - both different heights when compared to one another - and both being claimed to be accurate at the time they were created. No consideration was given by you as to the two different planes at which the two halves are seen from, nor did you have the needed data to know exactly where to stitch the two halves together at. You cannot even say what the body index of the two subjects was. Did one have a longer upper body than he had in the lower body and/or visa-versa? Was the ground where Arnold stood even a little higher than the highest point shown in the photo of Shaw?? These are things we do not know with what we have to go on, thus what I have done is show the lowest elevation of the ground where Arnold stood based on the limited field of view in the photo of Shaw and pointed out that when the degree of possible error in your scaling is introduced, then the size of Arnold starts to make more sense. I cannot explain it any better than this. Perhaps once your claim gets world wide attention, then perhaps someone better qualified to teach can help you understand the information that has been provided in this thread. Bill

I don't think that Miles is interested in logical reasoning. Yes, the overhanging trees when seen from Bowers location could easily have hidden the upper body of anyone at the Badge Man location ... the cars parked along that area would have hidden the lower part of the bodies from view. And yes, Bowers didn't see or at least claim to see anyone running up the sidewalk during the shooting. How could he have missed this??? The cycle going half way up the knoll is a mystery to me. I had asked Gark Mack about this in the past and Gary felt the same way. Gary had looked at the best resolution scans the museum has of the post assassination knoll and he couldn't even find a tire mark in the grass to even make one think a motorcycle had even attempted to climb the slope of the knoll. In fact, one would think that if the cycle only made it half way up the slope, that the wheels would have roughed up the ground in the effort ... but there is nothing about the appearance of the grass on the slope that shows this ever happened. Bill

See response #72. Hey, Mr. Bill Miller, QUESTION: Do you think that this photo is an actual WC photo that you proclaimed existed & exists in the WC Report of 1964? What is your response, please? Yes? No? I do not know? All the photos shown in the 26 volumes were B&W. The color photo is an image that Dave Curbow emailed me. Bill Miller

So let me see if I understand your behavior here ... you want to argue about Shaw's feet in relation to the red line despite it having nothing to do with Arnold being seen over the "SOUTH DOG LEG" of the wall, and you don't have a clue as to why I extended the line through the joint of the "SOUTH DOG LEG" ... is that right? So basically you will argue a position over an illustration even though you don't understand it totally. I am not sure how one can debate something they didn't even understand in the first place. The reason for extending the red line to the "SOUTH DOG LEG" is because the same "SOUTH DOG LEG" is seen in Moorman's photo and it was that east side view of the wall that you used to show Arnold through the wall by way of an inaccurate scaling job of Gordon in relation to where the ground would be if we could see through the wall. So I extended the highest ground point visible in that picture of Shaw over to the "SOUTH DOG LEG" to show that it comes about to the halfway point of the wall. By applying that information to the "SOUTH DOG LEG" in Moorman's photo, then it gives one an idea where the ground is on the west side of the wall when viewed from the east side. Bill

Duncan, Your animation and its base line are off. You show a red base line running along the sidewalk and it passes by the inside/westmost edge of the "SOUTH DOG LEG" of the wall. Then you scale another view of the wall and do so where the base line runs along the outside/eastmost edge of the wall. The westmost edge and the eastmost edge is on two different elevations. This is partly why the ground level is seen at around the midpoint on the wall in the photo of Shaw and you show it at a different point. (Just thought I'd point out the obvious) Bill

Alan, Your desire and need for Arnold to be non-existent is only overshadowed by your pretending not to understand Jack's picture. Jack didn't take his photo with the same camera lens as Moorman, from the exact same location, nor with the exact same zoom ratio ... and I think Jack made this quite clear in his post ... what he couldn't do is make you capable of understand what he was talking about and how it applied to his post. I would be like me trying to use a photo taken showing the RR cars way back in the RR yard and trying to get it to match the Nix film which because of its camera lens - the RR car looks much bigger and closer to the fence. I called this the 'foreshortening effect' ... maybe there is a better term for it. What Jack posted was correct and I feel that you just didn't or couldn't understand the infromation that he was giving you. Bill

Duncan, Are you really that clueless or are you jerking me around here??? To start with ... a stitch job refers to placing two images together so to make one. I did not do that with the Shaw photo, thus once again you are misstating the facts. The next thing is that I am aware that the read line cuts through Shaws legs, but if you were to actually read my post where that photo was first introduced, then you'd see that the ground level marked on the "LEFT" side of the picture at the base of the wall represented the ground level where Arnold stood. As I said in those post - Arnold is seen over the "SOUTH DOG LEG" in Moorman's #5 Polaroid and is standing somewhere west of the walkway. If you draw a line from Moorman's location and follow it over the "SOUTH DOG LEG" all the way to the fence, then Arnold would be somewhere along that line and west of the walkway. The sloping ground where Shaw stood isn't even an issue. What I believe that I made crystal clear was that I wanted to show with the red line the height of the ground the came closest in that photo to the elevation Arnold was standing at in Moorman's picture and where that ground line came at when compared against the east side of the wall. I suggest that you go back and read those post again and more carefully. If need be ... I will go back and walk you through it once again which will only make you look incapable of understanding even the simplest of illustrations and the purpose for which they were made. Bill Miller

See response #72.

I think if you research the cameras used in the two photos - you will find the lens difference can make some objects look larger and closer than they were seen by the other camera.

Duncan, It appears that you don't even understand why the ground is seen higher that the walkway in Moorman's photo. And if trying to educate you is considered deception in your mind, then consider me guilty as charged. I hope you won't mind if I post to this thread periodically asking what you have done to get this alleged groundbreaking news out to the world. I have not a clue as to what you were talking about concerning my stitching error, but I doubt you do either. Bill

Duncan, you appear to live in a fantasy world IMO. I noticed that Moorman's photo shows the top of the shrubs along the east side of the wall to be near the halfway point. (Miles response #50 shows Mary's photo) I also notice that the ground level on the west side of the wall is also had the midway point on the wall. There seems to be little difference in the true ground level and your estimated stitch job shows, so what is left to prove??? A small rise in the ground/mound and the degree of probable error in your latest attempt at eyeballing Arnold's height could easily make the difference. Bill

I agree. You gave your possibilities and asked your questions. I pointed out your errors, some of which you admitted to when questioned how you did your scaling in the first illustration that was claimed by some to be solid proof of something, and Jack and I gave you some level plane views as to how short the wall was in relation to the ground on the west side of it. So everyone has seen the possibilities and has viewed the images. Those like Groden, Mack, Jack, Cummings, Beirma, myself, as well as others have been out to the plaza and seen real people positioned over the wall and gotten the same basic views as Moorman's. Those who have not been there and done these things seem to be the most perplexed by your claim and were willing to buy into it without looking further for a reasonable explanation. For instance, do you know that when standing up at the Betzner location and looking down Elm Street that you cannot see the island along the curb that is visible in Altgens #6 when looking back the other way. It's true! yet I had two researchers at a Lancer conference come up to me and tell me that the street had been changed since the assassination ... they had not gone down to Altgens location and looked back the other way. I about dropped off my chair when some were claiming the darnell film didn't show a high spot of ground. I have nature footage where we are riding uphill and the film when watched looks like we were on a flat plane - and my footage is far clearer than that of the walkway. Did you know that when looking uphill at someone and then getting above them and looking downhill at them will produce two different heights for the same individual? You took an uphill view of Arnold and stitched a ground level view of a soldiers body to it. This would not be acceptable to people who insist on accuracy, but it was good enough for you because I am sure you didn't think about it. In fact, I'd not be surprised that you don't even know what I am talking about. Below was yet another example where you placed a blue line on the level of the sidewalk. Arnold wasn't on the sidewalk and above your blue line is the ground where it is still rising above the walkway. The closer Arnold moves to the fence, the higher in elevation he would rise. Keeping in mind that this is only the view that can be seen of that area ... how much higher does it rise that is being hidden by the wall? We do not know that answer - just like we do not know that your body proportion index for Arnold is correct. What we do know is that you did not scale your first illustration correctly and you have offered a second illustration mixing an upward view of Arnold with a level planbe view of someone else, which may or may not even be close to accurate. Duncan, I have never claimed to be an expert at this. This is your mental state and attitude that has attributed that reference to me. Once again you misstate the facts. Again, the above comment is a reference to your mental state of mind and attitude at that moment. As a matter of fact, Lancer had never prevented you from posting the same nonsense you have brought here. Would you like a link posted to your floating cop claim that can still be seen in its entirety on Lancer. Like with your claims, you tend to want to blame everyone else for your shortcomings when it comes to being accurate and thorough. Do a paper on your floating torso or floating Arnold and try and get it published. Then come back and tell everyone how Miller must have gotten to all the publishers which prevented you from sharing your ground breaking finds with the rest of the world. Give me a break!!! Duncan, you asked me to do the same sloppy research that you did. I don't have a full body photo of Arnold so to know his height proportions. I don't have an exact idea as to the elevation of the ground he stood on. All I can do is stretch someone else's lower body to a point where I want it to be, but where does one combine the two without a more definitive image of Arnold as seen in Moorman's photograph. Instead, Jack and I showed you that your ground elevation for the wall was way off. Maybe its not your fault and you really are not capable of understand what has been told to you, but that's not my, Jack's, or anyone else' fault. Bill

Miles, Was there not a link posted that allowed someone to go review the 26 volumes ... so is there any reason why you cannot go find them? I mean, isn't this attempt of your to play the forum xxxxx about as silly as my telling you that there is a photo in a book that could be of benefit to your study and then you come back telling me I should go find a copy of that book, scan the photo, and post it so you don't have to do anything but continue trolling the forum. Bill Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smile~ .......... Maybe you and I's eyes would have been on Jackie, but the Secret Service is expected to scan the crowd for anything suspicious. (Like us staring at Jackie, I guess.) Bill