Bill Miller

What location? You have not made that clear. Too bad you were not at the Lancer conference for it was clear to everyone who attended. I don't think however, that it will ever be clear to you. The area has been located - the precise spot he stood on has not been located because there are no good views of this area in the assassination films and photos. It would be Arnold who was the source. It would be Golz who passed along that information to the public through Arnold. This is where your inability to understand the assassination images becomes known. Below is a view of the slope to the curb when viewed straight on and not from the side. The hill that Jean is standing on looks flat and on the same plane as Mary, but Altgen's #6 shows the slope well. I have already mentioned this illusion, but I guess actually going to look at any og those Zframes was too much bother, so I have posted an example here. Is this just another propaganda statement or do you know something about what Ralph told Golz and/or Turner that no one else knows? The post where I drew the red line from the base of the fence to the base of the east side of the wall is what showed the mound/high spot of dirt. The highest point of ground in that image appeared to be 3 to 5 feet east of the fence. Who all makes up "no one"? First there needs to be an image of that location that is good enough that people with less than average interpretation skills can follow what's being said. Who can see the slope of the south pasture between Z303 and Z312 ? I guess that means there wasn't one - right, Miles?? But let us hang on to your logic for a minute and apply it to your position that there was no pathway along the north side of the fence in the RR yard at the time of the assassination. Did you find a photo or film showing this pathway or is it not important? Bill Miller

Alan, it is little wonder that you post some of the oddest things IMO. You have never been to the plaza - I doubt that you have ever spoken to any witnesses - and you ignore the information that people like Mack, Golz, and Godwin can offer you. Now about my test photo ... I did nothing more than to use real people to see how they stacked up to one another when compared to the Badge Man images. My stand-in was not the same height and weight as Arnold. The ground behind the wall was no longer as it was on 11/22/63. What I did report was that it took Brown and Bierma (Arnold stand-ins) to stand just west of the walkway to get them to look right when viewed against the height of the Badge Man as seen in Mary's photo. There is nothing to be sorry for - nothing to apologize for - nor to retract. If I am to be sorry for anything, then I am sorry for you not being able to follow the simplest of explanations. And for you to ignore those sunspots on the right shoulder of both individuals is ridiculous IMO, but you must ignore them and say Arnold was never on the knoll because if he was, then your notion about BDM being an assassin falls apart. To this day you have never contacted anyone and reported back that they said anything different than what has been reported here. How did Arnold know that Moorman's photo would show a hatless cop shooting over his left shoulder so many years before that was ever photographically discovered? How did Arnold know to say he hit the ground as Yarborough substantiated many years later? How did Arnold know that two men came up to him immediately after the shooting when no one ever reported their presence at the large tree in Towner #3? And for you to say that you can see depth on az level plane in a 2D image is remarkable and impossible to do! The fence could be one foot from the wall and you'd not know it if not for the side view photos and films of that area. Then someone tries to say Yarborough saw Newman at the curb and confused the two - I mean, how serious can one take that nonsense? Bill

Thanks for interesting photo. Not clear on the "high spot/mound" as seen in blue rectangle. Where is this located? At the tip of the red arrow? Thanks for clarification. As simple as I can say it ... The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground. The field of depth is difficult to judge on a B&W image, especially when looking uphill. The red line is parallel with the top of the wall and the distances between the ground and red line can be seen at various points with the naked eye. In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location. The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph. Bill Miller

The passengers in the VPs car didn't seem to know the shooting was underway by the time Altgens took his #6 photo either. Bill

Not sure what has been implied here, but figures of speech used to describe an impression is just that and little more IMO. For instance there was mention of Charles Brehm. It should be pointed out once again that unless Brehm was happy that JFK and Connally were being shot, then one might ask themselves if Charles even knew a shooting was occurring by the time Altgens took his #6 photo? The reason for pointing this out is because in Altgens #6, Charles is clapping his hands still and appears unaware that men are being assassinated before his eyes. Bill Miller

I have posted in the past that I spoke to Golz ... more than once! Yarborough had read about Gordon Arnold in Golz article, so Ralph first contacted Golz. Ralph told Golz that he saw the service-man mentioned in Earl's article. Duncan should explain how civilian Bill Newman being at the curb could equate to a man in uniform who dove to the wall that sits above the knoll. Then Turner interviews Arnold and again Yarborough doesn't say, "No wait ... I thought we were talking about the guy at the curb who fell on his little boy", instead Ralph gives Turner an interview about a service man said to be near the walkway at the time of the shooting. Bill

Duncan, If you draw a line from the east base of the wall to the fence - I believe that you will find that the ground in the middle is higher than at the wall or the fence. Bill

Duncan, In theory one could imagine that the ground can be no higher in elevation than the bottom of the fence, but that is not the case here IMO. Go look at the photo I took of Beirma and Cumminings on the walkway ... the ground Royce is standing on is higher than the sidewalk and he ground directly behind him is slightly higher in elevation than where he stood. The uphill view gives the impression that the ground runs at a nice even angle from the sidewalk to the bottom of the fence, but that is merely an illusion. A similar example is where Moorman stood compared to where Jean was standing. The view from Zapruder's position makes the ground look even between these Mary and Jean's position, but when viewed from Muchore or Bronson's location - it becomes obvious that there is a slope for Mary's feet are slightly sunken from view - Brehm's is totally hidden, while Jean's feet are in plain sight. Anyway, I just wanted to point this out so others can be aware of it and implement it into what ever conclusions they draw from it. Bill

Jack, Miles knows all this before he even responds. Newman threw his son to the ground ... Connally was shot and driven into the floor of the car ... these are all figures of speech to describe one's perception of how something looked to the witness. When researchers start trying to make something out of nothing, then its because that's all they have left IMO. Bill

The cop looks short to the fence because he is slightly over the crest of the slope. One step north or south will make his height against the fence rise or fall. Bill

How about perspective and a mound? Like I have said already .... Yarborough saw Arnold beyond the wall and witnessed him hit the ground. Arnold fell out of sight behind the wall, thus I have no idea why anyone would think he dove to the steps. Two men in police clothing approached Arnold and Towner #3 shows such individuals at the tree. BTW, doesn't Groden's book "TKOAP" show a Nix frame where the color of Arnold's clothing is seen? I should also tell you that when Groden and I took his best Nix film print to the lab - who ever was standing beyone the wall did in fact start in motion to his left - away from the steps. Bill

I'm not sure from that particular frame and all those people in the way that I could show you the exact spot, but this image should be easier to follow. Royce Beirma (green jacket) is standing in Arnold's location from what I could tell. Bill

That is right, so what do you not understand? The fence is taller than the wall, but with Mary looking uphill at the knoll - the bottom of the fence doesn't match the same point at the bottom of the wall. Even if all was perfectly flat - Moorman's uphill view combined with the distance the fence and Arnold are from the wall will cause background objects to look small compared to the closer wall. Watch Zapruder's film and note how much smaller the limo looks when seen beyond the smaller road sign. It's a sdimple matter of perspective and a not so accurate job of mixing and mat`ching upper and lower body parts - nothing more. Bill

That has been part of your mistake ... You cannot compare someone's height to the wall unless both are of equal distance from the camera. Arnold was back across the sidewalk towards the fence which makes his body appear smaller on film. I can show you pictures of large buildings in the background and they too will look small when compared to objects closer to the camera. The Flynn photo is one that comes to mind. Hope the information was helpful to those who can understand it. Bill

Arnold's dead, so you cannot ask him, but I am pretty sure that the mound of dirt Gordon told Golz about wasn't a big pile of dirt persay', but rather a high spot in the landscape. The Darnell film makes the sloping of the knoll look like a flat floor that comes to an abrupt edge ... it just the way things look on film when seen at certain angles. Anyway, thinking about a giant pile of dirt being anywhere was not what I believe the witnesses was trying to relate to the listener. About the scaling Duncan did ... If one blows up his image - they will see that the hips on the lower body portion are not as wide as those on Arnold. A also asked Duncan how he got the vertical layout of the lower legs figured out and I do not think I ever got an answer to that question. But anyway, it appears that Duncan merely lined up the two belts from each subject. I had asked Duncan if he considered how someone would wear their belt in those days and while in military clothing and I do not think I got an answer then either. For instance if one man wore his belt high and over his belly button and another man wore his belt low in the hips, then a considerable height change can take place. The military man that Duncan used seems to wear his pants low ... Here is a photo of Gomer Pyle in 1963/64 military clothing - how much shorter would Gomer look if the belt line from Duncan's example was used by merely aligning the two belts??? So as I said before, not figuring in the distance back from the camera the subject was - attempting to apply his height to a wall that is closer to the camera than he is - and not scaling the image correctly will surely lead to a noticeable degree of error to occur, As previously stated, Yarborough saw Arnold, thus Arnold was standing beyond the wall with his feet on the ground. With this being the case, then Duncan's insert must have a flaw in its creation. Bill Miller

It seems to me that most anything to do with the photographic record is beyond your understanding, so what's your point? Yes, as I have said twice now already - Mike Brown is a big boy - Arnold was not. The photo was created to show how Brown would appear in relation to Cummings when seen from Moorman's field of view. When looking uphill as Moorman did ... Arnold would appear taller than the Badge Man image - just as the 4' high wall appears taller then the 5' fence in the background. Like I said before - there is a reason why no one has raised the ridiculous claim that you all of a sudden have brought to the research community ... it is because past researchers understood perspective and have been to the scene to see the illusion take place before their eyes - you don't appear to have a good understanding of perspective, nor have you bothered to go to Dealey Plaza to see these things for yourself. Until then, you will remain uniformed. To prove my point, I had mentioned Yarborough confirming Arnold being seen beyond the wall. Yarborough went on to confirm Arnold hitting the ground, thus we are dealing with a real individual unless one wishes to believe that Yarborough was hallucinating over what he claimed to have witnessed. So being we are talking about a real confirmed individual, any nonsense of short frog length legs has to involve errors within the study ... if one can even call it a study. This is why for decades that no one has ever made such a ridiculous claim as the one that has been presented only recently by who once again - Duncan! Height comparisons conducted to see where Brown and Cummings would need to be to match the Badge Man and Arnold locations. Bill Miller

I showed these overlays and Arnold comparisons at the Lancer conference and for the group that Dennis David belongs to and not a single person walked away not seeing the points that were made ... Simkin being one of them. It doesn't bother me that Duncan or yourself do not get it ... it only confirms that the rest of us must be on the right track IMO. In the future, it might be helpful if you and/or Duncan create visual examples to help make your points instead of just rambling on with disjointed meaningless sentences. Bill Miller

What doesn't match, Duncan? Mike Brown stood taller in my field of view than Tony did at the Badge Man location ... is that not what is seen in the Badge Man images ... of course it is. Was Brown a fit man who had been in training in the armed services - of course not. Was Brown wearing an overseas cap and uniform - of course not. Was Brown standing on a mound of dirt - seeing how it was no longer there, then the answer is ... of course not. But how Brown and Cummings looked to one another when compared to the view of the Badge Man images, then yes they do match. The proof is in the picture. Bill Miller

I would like to share this observation with everyone. We use a movie camera up here in BC and I have noticed that even when traveling down steep hills that on film the ground looks flat when it actually is not. An example of this might be the slope to the street that Brehm and Moorman were standing on during the shooting. When seen in profile - the slope is visible on film. When viewed from behind as in the Bronson slide or from in front as seen on the Zapruder film, then the slope is not noticeable. The same can be said about the Jimmy Darnell film. Bill

Duncan, I will just have to accept that you are not capable of understanding how to read images. The black blob is simply Mike Brown in my test image that doesn't completely fade out. But again, why worry about the Gif ... have I not already explained how and why that photo was taken! Also, was not the Badge Man images inserted next to the people in my photo, thus giving everyone a clean look at each to see how they stacked up to one another when viewed from Moorman's location. Bill Miller

Groden introduced him as "Mike" when I first met him. Sometimes Robert will also refer to him as "Big Mike". I recently discovered that Mike doesn't work for Groden any longer. Bill

Sure we have ... I have looked at the slope in pictures and film ... stood on the slope ... and took recreation pictures showing the slope. Anyone wanting a better idea of the slope and how the ground rises in Moorman's field of view, then use a frame from Marie Muchmore's film. Bill

It seems that several assassination witnesses have blown the whistle on the agents misconduct when it came to their observations. To name just a few are Edna Hartman who told the agents that the furrow in the grass led back to the knoll and yet the agents reported she said the furrow led back to the TSBD. Arnold Rowland tried to tell these highly trained and disciplined individuals that there was a black man on the 6th floor with the man with the gun and the agents told him they were not interested in the other man. David Powers said that when he told the agents that he thought the shots came from the right front - the agents were then reported to try and sway Powers into changing that part of his story. I guess the FBI was only as disciplined as one wishes to believe. Bill Miller

Duncan, I don't think that you even know at this point what it is that you are saying. The reason the stand-ins don't emulate a floating Arnold is because there was no floating Arnold. If you think there was a floating Arnold - contact Turner and see if he will put you in the next TMWKK series? Bill