Bill Miller

How could Duncan not be right ... I have said repeatedly that the figure is Mike Brown - a black African American. Part of Moorman's photo comes into view in b&w ... and the other in color. Because Gordon was light and Mike is black - Mikes figure remains the dominant one between the two. Let me remind you that I did post inserts next to the stand-ins to show how they stacked against one another. Below is one such previously posted image pertaining to the many past discussions over those images. It is a joke IMO to go on about a gif that was designed to show how the stand-ins looked against Moorman's photo - if one wishes to compare the Badge Man figures to the stand-ins - examples like the one posted below was provided, thus no one was hiding anything. The only thing that seems to be being hidden is the fact that other images did exist that addressed your concerns - why you pretended that they didn't exist is anyone's guess. I don't think it is necessary to call anyone an idiot ... usually their responses do that for them. As has been said a few times now on this subject - many of us started out checking Gordon's story without knowing where it would lead. We looked at all the evidence and some of us were able to draw our conclusions at that point. However, we didn't get to that point by trying to nit pick whether the steps are west of the wall or not. I wouldn't say that no one has done anything until you search the archives and refresh yourself on what has been posted in the past. The test below was to show how tall Brown would look compared to the Badge Man, who was played by Tony Cummings. Arnold appearing higher into the air than Badge Man was confirmed by this particular test. This photo gave me an idea as tpo where Arnold must have been in Moorman's photo which I didn't know where Brown was exactly until after the photo was taken. Brown's position was at the same location Arnold said where he stood in TMWKK. The only difference was Brown didn't have a mound of dirt under him like Arnold had, thus lifting Gordon even higher in Mary's field of view. Bill Miller

Duncan, I am curious ... when you say a "faked Arnold", are you saying that there is no one seen over the wall in the good Moorman photograph print that Jack White used? Bill Miller

Duncan, You are all over the place so much that it takes a experienced tracker to follow your thoughts! First we start with your not liking the photo I posted showing the fence line and how high it rises onto the wall in Moorman's field of view. So then I post an overlay I did of the same knoll taken during the same visit to Dallas as the other photo was. The significance was to show that the wall - fence - trees and so on were unchanged as far as their locations go ... so then you go on about seeing Mike Brown standing where Arnold did. Two photos intertwined - one B&W - the other in color and they align so well that even the major tree limbs are seen coming over the top of one another and that is why I asked what was it about that photo that didn't resemble the knoll in Moorman's photo. I do not know why you do it, but you seem to purposely miss the points being made. Bill

I think a similar way of thinking led to people not believing there had been a shipping casket used to transport JFK's body on the evening of the assassination .... that is until many years later someone pointed out a receipt where someone signed off for it. Bill Miller

Yes, I witnessed that modus-operandi in action when several critics of Ed's story admitted they had not so much as read Ed Hoffman's book before attempting to cite certain things as fact. I will keep doing what I can to find it. I know this has come up in the past, thus I have a specific memory of it. Until then you guys can keep busy voicing opinions about other books you haven't read. Bill Miller

It also seems like I have a way of just citing the facts as they were and making someone think it was an apology. Bill Miller

Miles, See the transparency overlay in response #341. Now does the plaque really seem that significant at this point. (smiling~) Bill Miller

Is there anything specific you'd like to discuss or are you avoiding doing that research that you have said you do not have time for? Bill Miller

Duncan, please explain your answer better if you will. I want to give you the chance to show that your reply is based on a reasonable assumption and not mere grandstanding. For instance: The knoll, the concrete wall, the fence, the steps, the shelter, the large trees among other major reference points were basically unchanged at the time I took the photographs .... (see below) So now that I have shown that Moorman's knoll is still basically the same as the knoll in my photograph illustration, would you care to tell me how my knoll doesn't resembled the image Moorman captured??? Thanks, Bill Miller

Thanks for that Robin. As far as I can see, the slope was minimal, and nothing to change my analysis. Duncan The answer above reflects what I said about some people being better qualified than others when it comes to reading these images. The wall is part way down the slope from the fence and is why the slope is important in determining where Arnold's feet would touch the ground. This point has been overlooked several times now. A red line has been placed along the base of the fence to show how much higher against the wall it looks from Moorman's location. (Note the line behind the wall is subject to change, but I think we can agree as to where it meets the wall and slips immediately behind it) Bill

Duncan, To start with - the belt on Arnold protrudes out further than your cartoon insert. Maybe if you make them both the same width, then perhaps some more height will be required to make the figure more proportionate. Bill

I am thinking that maybe Duncan enhanced his computer screen like he did the BDM and that's why he can't make heads or tails out of the formatting. Bill

duplicate post deleted

For someone who appears to be a pretty thick individual - you are really transparent. When you have gone back and actually looked at the available information and addressed it, then I will take you seriously enough to attempt to educate you on a few things that you obviously missed or purposely pretended not to get. Maybe you can explain how it is that people have replicated the image by using real people who were not midgets? Well, like I pointed out in another response ... If a witness said that he saw the man standing beyond the wall in real life, then the cartoon scaling job must be wrong because Yarborough validates Jack's finding by acknowledging that he saw the man. I am amazed (when I probably shouldn't be) that you and Duncan both failed to see the significance of Yarborough's seeing this individual. I would have thought that Crawley would be concerned that Duncan's illustration reinforced any of his conclusions. Bill Miller

So let me get this straight ... your position is that if no one addresses a ridiculously poorly scaled image that is being used to support a silly claim, then the claim must be valid by default ... is that your position??? I also gotta tell you that the width of your cartoon scaling is not accurate either. Yes Duncan, and was it not your eyes who said there was a tripod in the doorway of the shelter in the Betzner photo? And was it not your eyes who said there was an assassin standing atop of the colonnade in the same photo? Lots of people have eyes, but they will openly admit that they are inept at reading still images. So to answer your question ... there is more to this stuff than just having a set of eyes. And who is qualified to read images - let's start with MIT who Jack had look at the Badge Man images to see if they could validate his findings. Maybe you should do the same - send them that ridiculous Arnold example you created and see what they tell you ... then post their response! Well, Yarborough seeing the man standing there in real life is one way of validating what one thinks they see in a photo. You say the figure is too small - Yarborough said the figure was a real person. This tells a reasonably intelligent person that YOU possibly made an error in your cartoon scaling. Bill

The proper way to do an overlay to show the scaling to be exact is to keep the lines seen at all times so to see if the image shifts at all. As far as you deceiving anyone - I do not think that is the case. I just think you are not very qualified to be doing what you're trying to do. The lower half of your Arnold figure is ridiculous in my view and the naked eye can pick up on the scaling problem. The funny thing about your inability to see outside the box is that Groden, myself, Jack, and so on have used stand-ins who were standing on the ground and they looked just like the figures in the Badge Man images, thus your illustration must have some serious problems that you are not capable of seeing. Bill That's another cop out response with absolutely no substance in it's content. Mentioning Groden does not impress me. His eyes are no better than mine. Now... i'm still waiting for you to explain why my analysis is wrong, rather than you just giving namedropping replies which have no bearing on this issue. If you see serious problems, then point them out. Forget about stupid wrongly sized Moorman re-enactment stand ins, i'm using the real deal in my analysis. I suggest you do the same if you wish to prove your points. Duncan I guess the names Jack White and Gary Mack doesn't impress you either - hey? My point was that all these people have used real people to test these images and the REAL PEOPLE matched what was seen in Moorman's photo. So all these different researchers using real people in the real plaza are all mistaken and only Duncan's cartoon is the real deal ... did I get that right? Now I have said that you offered nothing to show how you "VERTICALLY" scaled the legs on your image and you have not answered that question, so I will wait for your answer before moving on. You should also address where the ground would appear in relation to the wall ... it is these things that would at least make it appear that you investigated your claim before proclaiming it a success. Bill

Has not anyone noticed that the slope of the knoll near the fence is higher in Moorman's field of view that the base of the wall .... of course not or you guys would have mentioned it. That is part of the puzzle. The mound of dirt he said he stood on is another. The last piece of the puzzle is the ridiculously poor sizing job Duncan did by attempting to place legs onto the upper body ... does anyone know how Duncan scaled those legs vertically??? Like I alluded to before ... there is a reason why people far more capable at studying images than we are who has seen the Badge Man images and never said anything about Arnold being the too small. And let us keep in mind that Yarborough said that he saw Arnold standing beyond the wall and Ralph mentioned how Gordon dove to the ground when the shooting occurred .... little legs and all. (sigh~) What a waste of time in my opinion. Bill Miller

Arnold said to Golz that he stood on a high spot of ground ... I believe he used the term "mound". For one to understand the image - one should first see if the fence in the recreation photo is as high against the concrete wall as it is seen in Moorman's photo - this of course can throw the image off if the test pic was not taken precisely from where Moorman stood. It is also worth noting that a young service man wore his pants higher than an aging man with a big gut. For an example - do a search under the name "Gomer Pyle" and see how he wore his uniform. If this is the case, then the younger Arnold's belt would be higher than the aging Arnold's belt. The missing mound of dirt in latter photos would also be a factor. I also believe that you will find that Turner's view of the knoll was not meant to be a recreation. To make a comparison - align the two images and see if anything matches ... I suspect that it will not. Bill

The proper way to do an overlay to show the scaling to be exact is to keep the lines seen at all times so to see if the image shifts at all. As far as you deceiving anyone - I do not think that is the case. I just think you are not very qualified to be doing what you're trying to do. The lower half of your Arnold figure is ridiculous in my view and the naked eye can pick up on the scaling problem. The funny thing about your inability to see outside the box is that Groden, myself, Jack, and so on have used stand-ins who were standing on the ground and they looked just like the figures in the Badge Man images, thus your illustration must have some serious problems that you are not capable of seeing. Bill

The two images are not scaled the same just from taking an initial glance at it. Put your mouse arrow on the Badge Man's left arm near the patch and watch what happens. Bill

That's the best you can suggest? Let me get this right ... you saw a floating cop torso and applauded it, but you do not see the man in what looks to be a service man in Jack's Badge Man images ... is that your position? Oh heavens no ... I am just trying to understand the mindset of those who continually double talk and constantly misstates the evidence for their own personal motives. My information, as has been stated, is derived from a careful examination of the available photographic evidence combined with a logically correct extrapolation via deduction. Well, your careful examination started with erroneously thinking that Holland left the underpass immediately after the shooting. Your careful examination also believed that Holland immediately went to the location of the Hoffman shooter when in fact Holland said it may have taken up to four minutes before he arrived there. Your careful examination failed to note that Holland was still on the underpass when Dillard took his #3 photograph. Your careful examination failed to see that Holland said he walked up and down the fence looking for evidence - Arnold saying he walked the fence line looking for a good location to film the parade - and Hoffman seeing a man walk the same fence line Arnold and Holland spoke of. Would you like to hear of more things you alleged to carefully examine in order to offer the conclusion that you gave??? Whoa ... hold the presses! What happened to that careful examination process that you mentioned above? If Hoffman said the man walked the fence line to the steam pipe, does that not suggest that the shooter had a clear pathway? Duncan's new claim is a joke that hardly deserves a reply. Holland went across the RR yard to a point behind the colonnade before working his way back to the location that he saw the smoke coming through the trees (thats another thing your careful examination missed). Upon finally getting to the suspected shooting location - Holland said he walked up and down the fence looking for evidence. And yet you have constantly used such evidence to support your position. Isn't that a double standard when you say that no witness is reliable, but yet you rely on them to draw your conclusions from. Which is why I continue to ask you if you have bothered to check your conclusions against the photographic record. Maybe once you take the position that the photographic record isn't reliable either, then one can make a case why you are even on a forum such as this in the first place. I realize that perspective isn't one of your strong points ... that was apparent when you referred to Hat Man as a midget. The photo you offer doesn't show the RR yard as it was at the time of the shooting - not even a sea of cars. It also doesn't show the spacing between the end of the cars and the fence because the angle at which the RR yard is viewed doesn't allow it, but I believe that you knew that when you claimed the photo was "proof". Bill Miller

What's wrong with with legs on the insert you provided ... The Badge Man work has been out for 20 years now. Intelligent researchers have examined the images, not to mention the findings of MIT and no one has ever come up with an illustration like you provided or made such a claim as you have done and I believe there is a reason for that being the case, but forum rules won't allow me to say in this post. Bill

LOL! That ridiculous set of little legs that you attached to the upper body of Arnold seen over the wall destroys your claim ... nothing else needs to be done. I do agree though that someone needs to check your work. Maybe you can post your Moorman image without the inserted Arnold onto it and we'll take a close look at what you have done now. Bill

The term "lunatic" that I used did not reference your ability as a researcher, but rather that you are so emotionally involved that you would attempt to call me a fraud not because I have purposely tried to mislead someone, but because of my current circumstances of not having access to my collection of data. This is not rational thinking on your part in my opinion and it is certainly not tolerable from where I sit. What you did is little different than someone saying they have a crop from Towner #3 showing two people at the large tree above the knoll immediately following the shooting, but cannot share it because they don't have access to their files at the current time ... only to then have someone else come back and call them a fraud for not being able to immediately get access to their materials. Had I of done that with you - I would expect others to view my actions the same way. Had I of quoted you saying something positive - you'd not said a word, but when I shared your inappropriate tone with me with this forum - you then see that as something to complain about. The point I wanted to make was to make future students of the assassination (which I get plenty of) who wish to discuss the evidence of the case with me privately ... can do so as long as things are kept on a rational level and they do not allow their emotions to get the best of them whereas they start insulting me over something as silly as my not currently being where I can get to my complete JFK assassination collection of data. When the latter occurs, then the discussion is no longer about the facts of the case, but rather a game of politics where slander is used in place of knowledge of the case. What you attempted to do could be compared to a guy bad mouthing a disabled person for not shaking his hand when it was obvious that person had no hands to shake with. That tactic is old-hack and it reflects poorly on those who use it - not those who it was used on and that's exactly why you didn't like my mentioning it in my post. Bill Miller

Email from Duke Lane: How did Ed get past the cops? I only said that I didn't believe the story because of his wide-eyed way of telling it. Facts are facts. I guess you don't like them. Thirteen minutes, my friend, and 17 motorcycle cops. If I didn't know that they existed before, does that mean that they're imaginary? I think not. Deal with it. This story is concluded. It is a matter of record. So sorry. My recommendation is to renege while you can. You also "seem to recall" a "Weitzman report" that you have yet to provide. "Seem to recall" all you want, it ain't gonna make it real. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." You just plain ol' don't have any. You, sir, seem very much to be a fraud. The only question is "why? The above was an email I had gotten from Duke Lane. The fact that I have stated that I am in the mountains of British Columbia where sets of the 26 volumes are non-existent obviously didn't register with this poor individual who seems to have came off sounding like a lunatic IMO. For the record, I cited a report that I believe I have read and posted on in the past. If I am mistaken, then I will admit it once that is shown. What I do not need is some over emotional individual who thinks they can wow me with such nonsense. In the future, Duke ... make your post to the Ed Forum and save your drama for the select few who enjoy that tabloid type mentality. You jokers who had not even read Hoffman's book had made more misstatements than anyone I had ever seen. At one point I was thinking the Guinness World Record people should be here reading this stuff. I find it pathetic that you are willing to spout such venom over something I cannot defend at the moment because of my circumstances while not once making such remarks about the things you and Miles were misstating over and over. Your remarks tell me that you don't operate on reasoning, but rather on emotion and your email can stand as a testament to that fact. J. McAdams writes: I'm inclined to think that Hoffman was there, since his tale about having a long gun waved at him sounds plausible given what Hickey picked up the AR-15. And Hoffman mentions seeing a cop on the railroad bridge over the Stemmons. The cop was there, and that's not a standard piece of conspiracy lore. Bill Miller