Bill Miller

I know a little bit about 3D graphics from studying the work of Dale Myers and your Moorman view looked like something that Picasso had painted. The data you used in your model is so far off that any images stemming from that are merely fictitious and have nothing to do with reality. As I said before - you have an elevated perspective view on part of the picture and a level ground view in other parts of it, thus making it totally inaccurate. One of the things Myers had to admit was that any measurement even an inch or more off would effect a particular LOS within his model. Your Moorman picture is so far off that you see the base of the fence above the wall ... how can any views be accurate when the information that created that false image was not correct??? For instance - the view from the fence to the lamppole near the curb with the President's car passing below ... there was never a shot fired at JFK once the car had traveled that far west. To replicate the Moorman photo view looking back the other way would take a huge correction in angle and field of depth on your part. To say that your views are accurate is simply not so. Bill

You didn't mention that despite the HSCA report saying that no one saw the large evulsed wound on the back of the President's head - Tannenbaum said that the actual sign off list of those who saw the wound showed just the opposite. So one must ask why would someone want to avoid that large avulsed wound so badly?? The Zapruder and Nix film shows the avuslion to the back of JFK's head ... Could it be that showing the evulsion existed would be detrimental to the bullet traveling from back to front? What caused the smell of gunpowder to get over by the fence and into the street? What caused the smoke to come through the trees at the precise moment shots were heard from that location? All I am asking for are logical explanations rather than fact-less propaganda. Bill

I can correct your remark above by explaining what I did time and time again, but I cannot keep from from citing it incorrectly. Yes, its there - you drew the outline and it has no lower body, nor is it the right size to be a real persons head from that distance to the camera. I am only the messenger. My guess is that he has emailed you on this and you judt don't remember it. Isn't the issue over what the best copy print(s) show or are we limited by the lesser quality copies. That's like saying that you see a figure in a copy only after it has gotten all wet and smeared ... a figure that wasn't there until all this happened. So what would be your position ... The good copy showing no one there is gone, so we can now say there must be a figure there because its seen in the bad prints after you draw it in? The same could be said about the alleged "washing out" theory. Give me a break!!! Yeh ... I have read your followers remarks ... I'd try and salvage that gene pool!

Alan,I spoke to Gary Mack today to be sure about this and I can tell you that Gordon had told Gary 5 - 6 years before Turner's documentary was filmed that he (Gordon) stood between the wall and the fence. I believe more precisely that Gordon told Gary that he was between the fence and the wall ... the wall being in front of him. It was Gary who then showed Turner 5 to 6 years later where Gordon was standing. By that time Gary had done work on what has been called the 'Badge Man image', so Gary also knew from Moorman's photo where Gordon was standing. So I asked Gary if in 1982/83 when he spoke to Gordon Arnold and Gordon had told him the general spot on the knoll he was standing ... does that information conflict with what is seen in Moorman's photo? Gary Mack replied that he didn't feel that it conflicts at all. Alan, What factual basis do you claim to be able to make such a statement as the one above? Golz told me that the photo in the paper was not shot as a reenactment, but to show Arnold on the knoll. Even Jay Godwin, who took the photo for the newspaper has said the same thing as Golz concerning the photo not being taken to replicate anything. So I must ask what is your interest in posting what Golz thought or figured when you have not heard that nonsense come from Golz or Godwin? We've even been through Golz discussing Arnold behind the wall with Yarborough who then relays his story to Turner. By the way, it was suggested to you years ago to contact Golz about this matter - I take it that you have not bothered to speak to Golz as of this date. I think it ws Roy Truly who mentioned that he thought the President's car had stopped. Most other descriptions were in reference to the 'motorcade' stopping. Bill

In post #239, you started out saying that there was no evidence of a shot being fired from the right front. In your next response you are more defined by saying that no wounds to JFK were caused from a shot from the right front. In both replies you failed to offer anything remotely detailed in support of your opinion. You also failed to address the scenario I offered up in my previous response to you. If you are serious about your position, then I ask that you take my questions serious enough to answer them if you can. Bill

Duncan, people come from miles around just to hear me talk about making transparency overlays. If there is any variance in my illustration, then the naked eye sure as hell won't see it. And please stop confusing 'any shrinkage' with the vast amount needed to make your ridiculous cartoon seem even plausible. It's bad enough that you invented the term 'washout' so to explain why the Dallas sky is seen between the top of the fence to the bottom of the tree foliage where you position the floating outline, but neither Bowers or Hoffman place a person at that location ... let alone assumably one standing on a car in the RR yard. Your term 'washout' came from you looking at a faded Moorman print. The fact Gary Mack has seen the original photo and the best prints made of the Moorman photo, and he has told you that the light area between the bottom of the foliage to the top of the fence is Dallas sky, seems to be totally ignored by you on top of the other evidence against your claim. The print you use is badly faded and the clarity for detail suffers terribly. So when you talk about a 'washout', then you are referring to that which you see in an inferior print. It's like arguing that when looking through a dirty window that you can see a figure that isn't there when the window is wiped clean. So which is the more reliable - what can be interpreted on a badly faded print or what can be interpreted on the better print? Who chooses the lesser quality prints for reliability over the prints before fading took place?? Your interpretation has failed on several levels and I believe that you know this and is why you'll not seek out someone with any expertise in the matter so not to have it recorded that they reached the same conclusion as I did. Bill

I will consider the sources for that statement above. Could it be that the remaining people deem your claim so silly that they don't even waste their time posting to it? Below is once again two crops taken from real world assassination photos. The distance between the subjects referenced with red lines is about the same in both photographs. Note the ratio of head shrinkage that occurred on film because of the increased distance one subject was from the camera compared to the other. These distances are only half of the increased distance that the Duncan outline shooter was from the men on the steps. This means that Duncan's alleged outline of a shooter should be even smaller .... twice as small as Newman's head in each photograph, but Duncan's outline shows very little shrinkage (if any). Bill

Duncan, If you are talking about the "outline man" in post #238, then you are wrong as usual. If one takes that figure from the actual 'Duncan outline' and fits its surrounding reference points over the top of your image, then it is to scale IMO. And for the last time ... even if the head you outlined was only half of what you have drawn in - IT WOULD STILL BE TOO BIG! Don't take my word for it .... show it to someone with expertise in perspective depth. Newman wasn't 15 to 20 feet from McKinnon and he and his wife's head got considerably smaller when dealing with a real photo and real 'perspective depth'. YOUR figure would be twice the distance apart as Newman and McKinnon was from each other, so apply that to your floating head and see how it works out. You can refuse to seek out people experienced in perspective to avoiding hearing that you have been wrong from them, but it won't change anything because those rules are solid. Anyone can merely state that the head size in the outline is of normal size, but when applying the field of depth to the perspective issue, then the head size isn't even close to where it needs to be. Bill Miller

I have a question ... If we were sitting in a house and off in a nearby room you heard a loud gunshot and then saw smoke drifting from the room. Then as you approached the room you could smell the distinct odor of burnt gunpowder. If someone was to tell you that there was absolutely no evidence of a shot being fired from that room ... would your position still be the same as the reply you gave to this thread? Bill Miller

EBC,I cannot help but smile at the fact that you have tried to make a 3D model to help test the things I have said, which I applaud you for. However, your model is not accurate in many ways. In the second image you have the two cycles riding on the same plane when the camera is allegedly looking downward at the car ... this means that your data put into your model is incorrect. The cycles should always stack upward in the photo when the camera is angled downward at the scene. (The Hargis and Martin cycles stack upward in that image ... the distant two cycles do not) Your view of the wall and the knoll is so far off and contradicts the cycle riders I just described. The space between the fence and the wall is so visible that one would have to have quite an elevated view so to have the base of the fence running higher then the top of the wall in their field of view. Now maybe Duncan mentioning "Picasso's" name might have been appropriate in this instance, but he failed to do so. To recap: One portion of the view shows two cycles being viewed from a slightly elevated position - the other two cycles are being seen from a level plane - and the knoll at the wall to the fence from an extremely higher elevated position. If the data within a 3D model is correct, then these things should not occur and should remain balanced. Now having pointed out some obvious flaws in the model that Miles and Duncan quickly embraced as "great" and "magnificent" .... your showing how perspective should work in the first example isn't all that bad for the basic principles are there. Your "perspective lines" in the first image are the closest to being accurate. The perspective lines looking back at the fence in the other three examples would make the shooters head as big as a section of fence and I don't think you want to take that position. So let us use the first example that shows a view from the fence. In the first view it appears that the red 'perspective lines' leading back to the fence would show a head size at the fence of about the width of 5 or 6 wooden slats, while JFK's head on the same 2D image is smaller than one fence slat. This is how perspective works. The vast decrease in size of JFK's head in EBC's field of view is quite obvious. The problem is and always has been is that Duncan's alleged shooter outline doesn't show this decreased sizing on Mary's 2D photograph. I have explained this as well as I can and I have invited Duncan to seek the expertise of someone who understands perspective like an art teacher or a photographer, but Duncan hasn't appeared interested in hearing from someone with such expertise. So now I will invite you or anyone else who doesn't seem to understand the points I have repeatedly made to contact such a person to verify or deny the laws of perspective that I have described. I once again show Duncan's outline against that of the men on the steps and I fail to see the ratio of size decreasing happening that is anything like that in your first 3D image illustration, so how do you believe that you helped Duncan's position? We do not have to worry about concealed heads or anyone breaking cover for Duncan outlined HIS alleged assassin. It is the size of that outline (as seen on Moorman's 2D image) against peoples heads who are much closer to the camera that has been the problem. (see below) Bill Miller

Arnold looks real to me. Bill Miller

There are some Badge Man/Arnold test images still on this forum if one will only look for them. Bill http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=3099&st=15

Sure you're not touching those questions because " A) " was the real answer. Bill

Duncan, there is no discernible Arnold in the overlay to alter. The dark image you see is Mike Brown in both images for these are different stages of transparency overlays allowing one picture to fade, but be less dominant over the other ... and then visa-versa. Sure...But id rather you address using a fake Arnold to justify your recreation resultsDuncan - THERE IS NO FAKE ARNOLD! Read the previous answer. You are so unaware of how to investigate these images that you make comments as fact that are incorrect. Here is a riddle for you, Duncan. Q) When is a legitimate research question considered bait? A) When Duncan knows the answer will kill his alleged over-sized assassin.

Duncan, you will seldom see me in a poker game where I don't already know what the next card is going to be. First of all, what do you mean by an "altered version of Arnold"??? Certainly you are aware that White only water colored the image and didn't change anything pertaining to the shapes of the original images. There is a slight contrasting and sharpness between the two separate Moorman image sources because the Moorman photo Jack used for his work was sharper. The claim that I had not used the Arnold Moorman ... I have not a clue as to what you meant by that. The Moorman photo recreation matched every landmark seen in Mary's photo. Now the actual normal photos with Badge Man inserts are on my other computer in the States. This is why I have emailed Don R. to see if he still has some of those images because he worked on a few of mine when he posted that my Badge Man LOS was off a half a step. I will post those images once again as I find them. BTW, any information on those "perspective" problems I asked that you take to an art teacher or photographer ... have they emailed you back yet ... ot have you not bothered to investigate it any further? Bill

I didn't fake anything, Duncan. Find one thing in the Moorman image that doesn't match the test photo ... Groden and I nailed that photo right down to the major tree limbs in the background. The animation is made up of combining/mixing a transparency of each onto the other. As far as faking Arnold and Badge Man ... I merely took a Moorman photo and radio'd the subjects on the knoll so to tell them where to be so match the heights of those in Mary's photo. It was only after the picture was taken did I then ask the test subjects where they ended up. The result was consistent within a step of where Arnold said he stood during the shooting. Bill Miller Color image of Badge Man as requested by another forum member.

In what way doesn't it match up, Duncan? The field of depth between subjects along with their sizes was found to be a match. Don R. reported that Tony was a half a step out of position to be directly over the corner of the wall. Now having said the obvious - were we not discussing the size of these individuals and not their left to right positioning when discussing your alleged shooter??? Bill

The third image in response #48 is a frame from the Jimmy Darnell/WBAP-TV film. The scene was filmed almost exactly one minute after the shooting stopped. Bill Miller

Animated overlay of test Arnold / Badge Man images against real people above the knoll. Back side of he wall. The further back from the corner of the wall towards the fence on a LOS from Moorman's location - the ground rises. Bill Miller

I will show you where the ground is once I find one of my recreation photos. I am searching forum archives for a copy at this time. In the end it will be posted - recreations by several researchers have been conducted and found to match the alleged figures in Moorman's photo, thus will end that nonsense and we can get back to why your alleged floating cop is too large when considering the further distance he would be from Moorman's camera when compared to the men on the steps. Bill

Having never been to the plaza, I can see why you might think like you do. The dirt rounds upward - you drew in a straight flat line which is incorrect. You also forgot to show the mound of dirt Arnold mentioned to Golz. And I am still interested in you answering my previous questions pertaining to any recreation Moorman images that you may have seen or read about. Any idea as to how they were accomplished? Bill

The ground level would depend how far Gordon was from the wall ... for Moorman is looking upward at a hill slope that rises beyond the wall. Follow the fence line where it meets the ground and track it from the corner of the fence to the south leg of the wall. BTW, do we know how high the dirt mound was? As far as the recreation pics ... is it your position that you have not seen them before or have never responded to a thread containing them or is it that you just don't recall the details of those pics? Below is a pic showing a man bent forward and leaning on the wall ... care to guess where his feet touch the ground? Bill

OK - good! Now if the images of Arnold and Badge Man have been recreated and they match that seen on the Moorman photograph, then how can Arnold not be real IYO??? You have basically made a typical allegation without any specific data as to how you reached it ... while not forgetting the recreations that have been achieved. Please explain, if you can. Bill

Before we dance ... can you say why the Arnold figure cannot be real? Bill Yes..Because he's a floating torso Where would you place his feet?, a rough estimate will do. Just imagine you can see through the wall and place his feet where you believe the ground is. Duncan I have emailed Don R. to see if he still has the test photo I took of Tony Cummings and Mike Brown in a Moorman recreation photo that Groden and I shot. Mack and others have also recreated their images by placing Gordon between the wall and Badge Man at the fence. If the images can be recreated and their sizes match to real known people who stood-in for them, then your assumption that Arnold is too short cannot be accurate. You do know that the wall at ground level on the outside of the wall is not the same as on the walkway side of it - right? You are also aware that Gordon told Golz that he stood on a little mound of dirt when he stood above the knoll - right? If Don has my recreation photo and emails it to me - I will post it once again. That photo has been posted numerous times in the past on both forums. Bill

Before we dance ... can you say why the Arnold figure cannot be real? Bill