Bill Miller

Thomas, The wall would have been a good place to shoot from considering that its about 90feet to the kill shot location, but one would also have to consider that witnesses on either side of you (Zapruder and Sitzman or Hudson and the men with him on the steps) could easily have spotted you. And while the Willis and Betzner photos show a dark silhouette on film ... actually being there in the Secret Service car would have provided the agents with a clear view of anyone in the shooting posture. My money would be that an assassin out in the open like that would not have made it far before being shot to death. Also, its not really a matter of who you agree with. Duncan's position was that the image was too short to have his feet touch the ground while using the east side of the wall for a reference. My position was that the original image wasn't scaled properly, there was a lack of data available that would be needed so to be insure accuracy, and that there was a reasonable explanation behind the wall that would explain Arnold's height and we just could not see it using Moorman's photo. Bill

Jack ... James ... you guys are killing me here!!! That's the Flynn photo and I was going to post it as a knock-out blow to these guys who applauded this claim without really digging into the available evidence. How many times did we hear things like, "Unless you can do so, Duncan's position stands valid & verified, which fact raises strong questions as to the validity of Arnold's alleged "story." I want to make it clear that I do not fault Duncan for making the observation he did. What I do fault is that too many times there are claims being defended without that person even stepping back and thoroughly examining the evidence. I realize that for some it is a game of propaganda because they admittedly don't have time to research, so let this be yet another example that things are not always as they seem and JFK's assassination is no exception. For Arnold to be seen over the south dog leg of the wall - he would have to be on the higher ground and the further back towards the fence he stood - the higher in Moorman's photo over the wall he would appear. It appears that Arnold may actually have been there and it certainly would explain how he knew details before they were photographically discovered that could not have been known otherwise. Maybe one of these days as I have time - I'll go back and collect all the propaganda that was posted telling us how Arnold's figure was disproved and add it all up just so to expose how bias is no substitute for evidence. Bill Miller

Thanks, Jack. I know from being on that walkway and looking at all this stuff in the past that anyone standing back from the wall would look like Arnold in the Badge Man images as far as his relation to the ground. The problem was that I didn't know where to find a view showing the west side of the wall. I am sure there is some head scratching going on now! Bill

One goes hand in hand with the other! If you didn't expand the size of the lower body to match that of the upper body - then you made a mistake - plain and simple. If one has for instance an 4'' x 4'' frame ... if he increases the width by one inch and not the length as well, then the scaling is all off. The correct way to keep the frame scaled properly would be to increase the frame 1" on all sides. Ok ... now we are getting somewhere. You placed the lower part of a soldier onto the upper body of the alleged Arnold by merely guessing where the two should go. We don't know if we are even seeing Arnold's belt for sure or a shadow being cast ... we don't even know if Arnold wore a black belt on that day (most uniforms as I recall have a belt similar colored to the clothing and they certainly were not tall wide belts. So where does the belt stop and where does it begin???) ... so if Arnold wore his pants high above the navel and you used a lower body off a subject that wore his belt below the navel, then we have even more room for error to have occurred. I am not saying we do, but rather we do not know the specifics, thus all else is mere guessing on our parts. Now having said this ... look at the photo below and pay close attention to where the ground level at the west side of the wall is in relation to the east side. The ground could even rise higher, but at least we can see the highest point on the left side of the photo and use that for the comparison. Would you say that it's about half way down the wall when judged against the south dog leg? The ground Arnold stood on would even appear higher because the further back from the wall Arnold stood ... the higher on the slope he would appear against the wall with Moorman looking uphill at the knoll. So now that we have had a better look at the elevation of the ground from behind the wall ... how far off is Arnold's height now? And if we are only talking a small variance in his feet being on the ground, then we should remember that the leg length was a mere guess. One reason being is that someone like myself is taller from the waist to the top of my head than I am from my waist to the ground. Some people are just the opposite. So all this stuff about anything being proven isn't actually proven at all and that had Arnold been standing somewhere between the walkway and the fence, and on a slight mound of soil, then things start to fall in place. Bill

Question for Duncan: I pointed out that the scaling of the soldier was not aligned properly. I also added a vertical line that would show that the Moorman's Arnold's waist on the right side is not even with the lower body of the soldier's waist. Can we agree that this much was off and that by widening the lower half of the soldier 'X'% would cause the the upper and lower halves of the illustration to then match? And would you not agree that by adding 'X'% to the width to make it right - that the same 'X'% must also be applied to the height of the legs so to keep the increase to scale? Bill

Miles, Sometimes I think you could have been a better PR man for Saddam than Baghdad Bob was. Below is just one example of the errors Duncan made. I placed a vertical dotted line along the edge of Arnold's belt and ran it to the ground. Are you so blind as not to see the white wall between the soldier's waist and the dotted line! To continually misstate the facts is a disservice to the forum IMO and I'm surprised their isn't a limit on how many times someone should be allowed to get away with it. What I pointed out tells me that Duncan DID NOT scale the lower body of the soldier correctly and if he had, then Arnold's feet would have shown lower against the wall than what Duncan claimed them to be. If you do not see the white wall and Duncan's alignment error, then just say so and I can just ignore you in the future on the grounds that you are not qualified enough to even understand the simplest of evidence being presented before you. Bill Miller

Question for Duncan: I pointed out that the scaling of the soldier was not aligned properly. I also added a vertical line that would show that the Moorman's Arnold's waist on the right side is not even with the lower body of the soldier's waist. Can we agree that this much was off and that by widening the lower half of the soldier 'X'% would cause the the upper and lower halves of the illustration to then match? And would you not agree that by adding 'X'% to the width - that the same % must also be applied to the height of the legs so to keep the increase in scale? Bill

Gary Mack was cited as the source. His email is GMack@JFK.Org ... feel free to contact him about his study and observations - thats what I did! Once again - GARY MACK! Has the trolling effected your ability to read and understand the text I have posted??? I guess you are not serious about all this. In reference to peoples sizes and distance from the camera ... is it your position (Miles) that some obese person standing further back from the camera can look to be the same size as someone thinner who is standing closer to the camera??? Duncan's alleged discovery has been being addressed, but it may be hard to follow with all the trolling responses that you have placed in this thread. Bill Miller

RR worker is a description that has been attributed to this individual. How about fellow Brennan or Millican worker because those guys wore hard hats. Let me ask you this ... did the RR employ subcontractors? But lets go a step further ... there appears to be a sunlit reflection coming off the hard hat - does this not imply that there is a real 3D object located there for this to have occurred. Miles, instead of trolling - just read what I have written. Again, if even one is proven to be real, then the remaining possibilities also fall within the realm of being within the intermembral index. This point is made to show that even if one is real, then saying one is too short to be real must have an error involved in reaching that conclusion because if the upper body is of normal size to those around this person, then his lower body must also be within the normal range of humans, as well. Bill Miller

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

What I have noticed all to often is that some researchers don't seem to comprehend how to check their work. The person seen in Moorman's camera is also seen in part in the Nix film. Even the color of the clothing barely sticking out past the view of the wall matches what Arnold would have worn at the time of the assassination. The immediate movement of the figure following the head shot matches what both Arnold and Yarborough have said as far as when that movement started. Arnold even got it right as to which shoulder the shot came over and did so many years before there was ever any photographic evidence discovered to support his claim. One has to wonder how Gordon Arnold knew of these things so many years ago before the rest of the world was made aware of them when Turner did his documentary in 1987/88. Now in an earlier post I raised the question about the foreshortening effect that certain lenses cause ... has Duncan or anyone looked into this? Have they bothered to consult a photographer at all concerning the type of lens Moorman had and why it pushes objects so far back in its field of view? I have also noticed that the Arnold figure has been reported to look around the same size as the Badge Man and RR worker ... this means if any one of those individuals are real, then the other two figures must also fall within the realm of being within the intermembral index. With the latter being the case, then there must be a logical explanation as to why these figures look like they do. For someone with limited ability or knowledge of how to properly investigate the matter does not necessarily mean that the figures aren't real. In fact, none of those figures can be seen in post assassination images, but possibly one. There is one film capture I have come across that shows what looks like someone wearing the type of clothing Arnold was said to have on and this person even seems to be wearing an overseas hat based on the shape of its border. Bill Miller

In 1998, at the 35 year anniversary of JFK's assassination, I asked Jean Hill if she had seen anyone standing beyond the wall and she told me that she did see someone there. I asked if it was a man in uniform and she said 'he was'. It's too bad that someone didn't ask Brehm, Willis, and etc.. Jack is right about some of the variables that can cause a photo to look like it does. It would be interesting to see where the large tree touches the ground beyond the wall. MIT looked at these images and reached the conclusion that they were in fact real people and I am pretty sure that real people do not float, thus another explanation has to be there ... its just a matter of understanding it. Bill

I don't think it is fair to ask a question that calls for an answer that may be a forum rule violation. On another note - I believe I know why your inserts are so small. Bill

Make sure when you publish your study that you say the same thing that you wrote above. I also think that if you were ever only a few nches off on anything that civilization as know it would cease to exist. Is there not anyone in Scotland who can peer review your observation? Can you furnish a microscope so we can better determine the accuracy of your scaling? Bill

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

Who said the above statement ... Not Arnold - Not Golz - and Not Godwin who took the photo, so where did such a statement come from other than from someone who never bothered to talk to those who would know for sure??? I might also add that in the previous post showing an alleged figure where the caption reads that 'it may be someone, but not Arnold' ... isn't that the opposite position that the legs in Duncan's scaling job makes the figure too short to be real??? Bill

Duncan, You used a soldier wearing what appears to be a padded bullet proof vest and who is turned to one side, thus his width would not be as shown in Moorman's photo even if it had been Arnold wearing the vest. Then you tell me now that an accurate placement and sizing of the lower legs cannot be done and if that is true, then you had no claim to make to start with. My advice is to look for a photo of Arnold and then try and correctly size his lower body to his upper body and see how he looks compared to your previous attempt to scale an image. I don't know if anyone has a good clear sccan of Arnold out on the knoll in the DMN photo, but if they do - that might be a good start. Another way would be to get a frontal view of someone dressed similar to Arnold in his uniform and size that person's image to Grodon's height and width in his upper body while increasing or decreasing the lower portion of his body at the same ratio. I hope the advise helps. Bill

So, the idea he didn't have the ideal view [if that is even so] doesn't preclude his being there. What you guys should do is all meet in DP. Peter, jCommon sense should tell anyone that if Moorman could see the upper half of Arnold from where she stood, then he could see all over her from that distance while looking back the other way. The photo that Miles posted is not Arnold's view at all. It may have been the Badge Man's line of sight, but certainly not Arnold's. I do not know if these errors are purposely being made or they are the result of poor knowledge of the layout of the area being discussed, but they are errors never-the-less and are being used to try and get a correct answer which is an impossibility. Below is one such example. I had told Duncan several times now that his scaling is not accurate, yet it goes uncorrected. I suspect it is this type of ridiculous inaccuracy that has been the reason why no one in over 25 years has never claimed the Badge Man figures are too small to be real. I will once again point to some of the errors within that scaling job of Duncan's image. In the latest insert ... I am not even certain that Duncan aligned the Badge Man's muzzle flash correctly, but seeing how the upper sides of his Arnold don't even align with the lower sides of the soldier - why waste a lot of time dealing with something that is flawed from the start. We don't know how high the ground was where Gordon Arnold stood and a simple fuzzy B&W film looking at the ground as Darnell did will not give us the answer. Then we must know how how Gordon wore his belt line. Some people where it low below the navel and others wear it higher and above the navel ... nothing was mentioned by Duncan as to how he decided where to align the two belt lines. This is jjust another point that no one seems to have gotten on their own. And because the scaling is atrocious - any criticism of the figures size is worthless when based on bad data. If ot takes for example - 1% to correct the width, then 1% also has to be added to the lower half of the figures height to keep the proportions in scale. If 20% in width needs to be added to make the sides match up, then 20% also must be added to the lower half of the figures height. I got this message from another researcher who had this to say about what I interpret to mean how the other soldier Duncan offered as an example had looked to him ... "Duncan has misrepresented an actual photo of a serviceman with highly inaccurate proportions. The ratio can be seen by right-clicking on the image. The picture is stretched sideways which, when shown properly, would appear much taller and more slender. The ratio is .685 (divide the first figure by the second) when it should probably be about 1:1." Bill

So IF you knew there were no spectators up by the wall, then why even mention it in the first place. That's like saying why didn't Greer turn right onto Elm Street and head the other way. It seems to me that you have a hard enough time keeping the actual record straight without adding non-existing data into the mix. I think the reason why no one who has a reputation for accuracy was because they first educated themselves with the knowledge to understand why the images look the way they do. Maybe Jack can post MIT's opinion that they offered him. Myself, I am more interested in why those claiming to want accuracy didn't notice that Duncan hadn't scaled the lower body of the soldier to the upper body of Arnold correctly? Even worse, why they haven't called for the mistake to be corrected?? Bill Miller

Robin, The illustrations you provided might be of some help had Moorman not been up at the curb. You need to find her photograph location and then draw your line of sight over the dog leg of the wall. Bill

Miles, what other spectators were lined up against the wall in the assassination films and photos that you have seen??? The above statement is by far one of the best examples of your attempting to purposely mislead the reader who may not know the photographic record well enough to know better. So other than the one person with the sunspot on his right upper torso - please tell us where we can find the other spectators that you claim are lined up at the wall and taking all the good spots. Bill Miller

People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the five foot metal fence post. Jack People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the five foot metal fence post. Jack Jack, these guys are not interested in knowing anything that would show that they didn't know how to address this subject properly. In response #517, I showed an enlargement of Duncan's scaling job and what was wrong with it. This was done at Duncan's invitation. So far, Duncan has not corrected it, but in all fairness to him - he may not be comprehending what he did wrong. Miles seems to not care if Duncan's creation is accurate either ... he certainly hasn't posted a single word calling for the claim to have a properly scaled model, which is just what he'd do had I posted such a poorly scaled illustration. It is these types of behavior patterns that tell someone who really believes in what they are doing from those who do not IMO. Another example can be seen on Miles post #554. Miles posted a really horrible degraded crop from Hugh Betzner's photograph - I mean what was that all about? Could not a better image be obtained by Miles?? Was there not already a better image of the BDM area posted to the thread??? So why doesn't one choose to put up such ridiculous images over using the better ones???? And what was that question about the vertical light spot seen beyond the wall that M iles asked about ... he obviously didn't understand that because Willis had a steeper angle to the knoll than Betzner had ... the a better view of that sunspot was available to be seen if one just stopped and gave a little thought as how to go about researching the answer. I guess it all goes back to the 'I do not have time to do research' approach while having the time to xxxxx the threads with say nothing responses. I have been sitting back waiting for these guys to mention the 'foreshortnening effect' or how a particular lens or angle to a subject can mislead the observer. I am attaching a photo taken from atop of the Zapruder pedestal of the ground between the walkway and the fence ... maybe they will notice how much shorter the fence and walkway looks in the attached photo when compared to Moorman's. Arnold was viewed by Moorman's lens while looking up a slope. depending on the ground height at any given spot - the further back from the wall that Arnold stood - the higher in elevation he will appear to be when compared to the wall. None of this was covered in Duncan's illustration and we were shown was a poorly scaled lower section of a soldier that was attached to the upper body of Arnold. (Has anyone noticed that the illustration Duncan created is now being posted in a reduced size which makes the flaws harder to see?) This has been just another instance of throwing dung on the wall to see if anything sticks and we are supposed to make the corrections and hand it back to Duncan on a silver platter. Until he acknowledges his scaling error, then it becomes nothing more than a matter of who can hold out the longest while nothing gets accomplished as far as getting to the truth. Bill

Duncan was right, Miles ... your poor interpretation as to where the ground level of the walkway was behind the wall was not accurate. Miles, you are peeing in the wind. I am one of the few people who has ever bought sets of the WCR and actually read them. They are voluminous and much like these threads after you have trolled them - garbage gets entered into the mix, thus pushing the good stuff further and further apart so to make it difficult for others to follow the context of the topic matter being discussed. While going through the 26 volumes, I carefully made notes. Many times cross referencing information out of those volumes with Lane's, Weisberg's, Marrs and other authors writings. While I have looked through the Internet site provided to me ... it has not helped me find what I am looking for. And so you know, unlike you - I still have a reputation to uphold for I don't post how I don't have time to do research, thus I won't post anything unless I am certain that what I say can be supported. Your continued trolling efforts have not gone unnoticed ... that much can be taken to the bank. But let us say for arguments sake that I was in error and I find that my notes told me that I misstated there being a document with such wording or that it was attributed to someone else ... it certainly doesn't mean what you have implied, nor would I let it bother me. As JFK once repeated - A mistake is not a mistake, unless one refuses to correct it. Not correcting such a mistake or to purposely mislead someone would be like some xxxxx after being shown otherwise ... would keep posting that Holland dashed off the underpass immediately following the assassination. So xxxxx on big fella! Bill Miller

Duncan - from the moment I saw your soldier - I have asked that you size him correctly and so far that has not been done. This was your claim - you doing a poor job of getting the widths correct does not mean that someone else has to come in and fix it for you. Keep it that way, but sooner or later you will grow tired of people pointing out your error and maybe then you will fix it. Bill

Robin, I cannot believe I am telling you this ... get an overhead photo of Elm Street (I have posted a couple of them in the past from atop the records bldg) and mark where Moorman, Willis, and Betzner stood in the plaze when they took their photos. Draw a line from each position to a point over the wall so to have a LOS to the individual in question. When you have done this ... the lines should all intersect. I know you will find that having Arnold way off towards the shelter will not be what you got from where Moorman stood. Arnold is seen over the 'dog leg' of the wall. Bill