The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

Dupe

Miles,

If you cannot take the time to explain where you got the information that Arnold was scalded while crossing the steam pipe, then tell us how you posted a "dupe" some 4 hours after posting it before?

Bill Miller

Edited September 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

In the color insert ... surely the light under the scope is not being misrepresented as a muzzle flash - correct???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Arnie on the right is true to TMWKK.

I am not sure why the Arnold on the right is squished, unless purposely done. You see, someone cropped out the cars in the image on the left so there would not be anything other than Arnold to use to check for scaling accuracy. I find the illustration to be quite suspicious and certainly unreliable without the same amount of data being offered in both images.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

In the color insert ... surely the light under the scope is not being misrepresented as a muzzle flash - correct???

Bill Miller

The light under the scope is the result of a cigarette lighter ignition & has zero to do with a muzzle flash & all to do with smoke concealing scaling.

[Miles Scull]

Arnie on the right is true to TMWKK.

I am not sure why the Arnold on the right is squished, unless purposely done. You see, someone cropped out the cars in the image on the left so there would not be anything other than Arnold to use to check for scaling accuracy. I find the illustration to be quite suspicious and certainly unreliable without the same amount of data being offered in both images.

Bill Miller

Arnold often smoked tobacco. Thus, the figure on the right is not right.

He scaled down his comsumption & experienced a growth spurt.

That's when he started floating in air, as it were.

Any scaling ideas?

[Miles Scull]

I find the illustration to be quite suspicious and certainly unreliable without the same amount of data being offered in both images.

Bill Miller

There's nothing suspicious about it.

Duncan

Exactly,

Arnie's simply expelling smoke,

to hide the absent scaling.

[Bill Miller]

I find the illustration to be quite suspicious and certainly unreliable without the same amount of data being offered in both images.

Bill Miller

There's nothing suspicious about it. The" Squish" makes zero difference to Arnold's true height. These two images have all of the required data. Thanks to Chris for the gif.

Duncan

We are on the same page - I think ... that is if you are speaking of the vertical squish that I spoke of. The side by side images I posted were the invention of someone else ... perhaps the forum xxxxx? Somehow this individual thought that if he squished Arnold vertically, and removed all the background for scaling purposes from the other, then he could somehow fool people into thinking the shorter Arnold was the real deal. Those kinds of deceptions are easily spotted, especially when such a behavior pattern with certain individuals causes one to look for such efforts from the onset. Maybe Miles can offer an explanation as to how his two Arnold comparison got one so much shorter than the other when Duncan did not???

Bill Miller

Edited September 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

This study bears on the reality of GI Joe/Arnie.

Compare the left shoulder, arm, elbow & forearm between the colour & the B/W images.

There seems to be a gross disparity, in size, alignment, location, etc.

The B/W left arm seems to be anatomically impossible.

What is your opinion? Anything to this?

[Miles Scull]

His name is Gordon Arnold, not GI Joe. Whether you believe him or not I have no problem with. Please do not belittle him by using different names for him. One does not need to mock someone to prove his point.

Kathy Beckett

Kathy Beckett,

I'm not completely sure if this post from Kathy Beckett (#524) is made in response to my post (#525).

But as it seems to be, I'll simply make a couple of comments to help Kathy.

I believe that my sentence was:

This study bears on the reality of GI Joe/Arnie.

The key phrase is "of GI Joe/Arnie."

Perhaps I should have said "of GI Joe as Gordon Arnold."

Then, my meaning would have been more clear.

However, in my defence, I should point out that my post was addressed to Duncan MacRae.

I felt, perhaps hurrying I admit, that Duncan would catch my meaning with the phrase selected.

Duncan has pointed out in his post # 526 that the term "GI Joe" refers to a child's toy because, apparently, of two reasons:

1.) GI references Arnold's military uniform.

2.) The small toy references Moorman's image as being too small to be a real human.

I hope, Kathy, that you now understand that my sentence

This study bears on the reality of GI Joe/Arnie.

in no way belittles Gordon Arnold, nor in any way mocks Gordon Arnold, nor does it seek to do.

I am only stating that my study addresses the forum topic question as to whether the image in Moorman is real as a human figure.

Not whether the image is real as a small toy.

Not whether the image is real as Arnold.

Because, if the image is not a human figure, then the toy issue & the Arnold issue are, of course, eliminated.

Kathy, if you actually were suggesting that I have belittled, in my post, or mocked Gordon Arnold, would you please respond to

explain how I have so done, because I cannot follow your thinking on this, albeit that I know your intentions are always kind & well meant?

Thank you

Miles

Edited September 10, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

After having to remove those pictures of him because of poor taste, I am just not convinced that any scaling name used by you is used matter of factly, and not with some sort of cut, after what has been posted prior to this.

I just want this to continue as a photo/film study, and not as a thread where the witness is belittled.

surely you can understand that. So if you can just do that, go ahead.

Kathy,

Whom are you addressing?

Duncan

Miller

Me

?

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

You needn't worry about being censored. I just want to make sure any references are done respectfully. As long as the image is referenced as you have named, and not the person, that's fine.

I just want to make sure Gordon Arnold is treated respectfully. Surely you can understand that.

Back to business, then.....

Kathy

Kathy,

Pardon please, but just a moment of reflection before we go back to, as you put it, business.

After having to remove those pictures of him because of poor taste, I am just not convinced that any scaling name used by you is used matter of factly, and not with some sort of cut, after what has been posted prior to this.

I just want this to continue as a photo/film study, and not as a thread where the witness is belittled.

surely you can understand that. So if you can just do that, go ahead.

Kathy,

If you are addressing me here, then I must take exception to what I perceive is an unfair judgement on your part.

I can see that your intentions are good & praiseworthy, let there be no doubt about that!

Unfortunately, however, I have carefully considered your words & have come to the conclusion that you are under a false impression.

Mind you, this accidental on your part, not intentional. This thread of Duncan's can be pretty confusing to anybody.

Why?

Because abstruse & puzzling matters are under discussion which are complicated & difficult to understand for anybody.

Myself included, I can oath.

Now, humour is one thing.

Poor taste is another.

I invite you to consider Duncan's gif of Arnie bounding up from a burn experience from a point of view which is not your own.

From a different point of view, it is quite possible to see Duncan's gif as an inspiration of humorous insight into the intricacies of the knotty questions at hand.

How so?

Well, first of all, Duncan is NOT, repeat NOT, making fun of Arnold.

Instead, (and this the critical point!), Duncan is humorously drawing attention to the very important issue of the accuracy of Arnold's recollection.

This line of argument is perfectly allowable on the logic:

It is on the record that the steam pipe was too hot to touch, EVEN if it had insulation wrapping it. Therefore, Arnold is not accurate.

Duncan's gif, far from being in poor taste, is actually an excellent way to make a fair & just point in the general discussion.

Why?

Because Arnold's story is under deep suspicion as being a concoction. Remember Arnold's story contains the extremely dubious implied assertion that the first shot flew by his left ear!

No one is making cutting, injurious "fun" of Arnold. Nonsense.

Duncan is merely making a perfectly allowable flourish of humour & at the same time elucidating a tricky point. Well done!

In looking over the Forum Rules I did not find a prohibition of humour & imagination.

Again Kathy, I am convinced of your good motivation in this case, but I must say in fairness to all concerned I believe you are in error to censure Duncan in this case.

Your sense of taste should not act to dampen & control a thread of which, as I say, it is possible & in this case probable that you are not in possession of the intricacies of the difficult lines of argument.

I strongly urge you to reconsider & allow Duncan's gif back into his post where it is legitimate & proper.

Miles

Edited September 10, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

After having to remove those pictures of him because of poor taste, I am just not convinced that any scaling name used by you is used matter of factly, and not with some sort of cut, after what has been posted prior to this.

I just want this to continue as a photo/film study, and not as a thread where the witness is belittled.

surely you can understand that. So if you can just do that, go ahead.

Kathy, as you appear to be the only one offended from what I see...Can you give us all a reference name of your choice then, so that we can use it without fear of it being censored?..then we can move on without offending anyone.

Thanks

Duncan

Duncan,

A little tangential bizz, if that's OK when we are waiting for Bill's scaling (is it?):

Is this Mr. Gordon Arnold??

Edited September 10, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Antti Hynonen]

Miles Scull Posted Today, 03:27 PM

QUOTE(Kathy Beckett @ Sep 10 2007, 05:16 PM)

Duncan,

You needn't worry about being censored. I just want to make sure any references are done respectfully. As long as the image is referenced as you have named, and not the person, that's fine.

I just want to make sure Gordon Arnold is treated respectfully. Surely you can understand that.

Back to business, then.....

Kathy

Kathy,

Pardon please, but just a moment of reflection before we go back to, as you put it, business.

QUOTE(Kathy Beckett @ Sep 10 2007, 03:48 PM)

After having to remove those pictures of him because of poor taste, I am just not convinced that any scaling name used by you is used matter of factly, and not with some sort of cut, after what has been posted prior to this.

I just want this to continue as a photo/film study, and not as a thread where the witness is belittled.

surely you can understand that. So if you can just do that, go ahead.

Kathy,

If you are addressing me here, then I must take exception to what I perceive is an unfair judgement on your part.

I can see that your intentions are good & praiseworthy, let there be no doubt about that!

Unfortunately, however, I have carefully considered your words & have come to the conclusion that you are under a false impression.

Mind you, this accidental on your part, not intentional. This thread of Duncan's can be pretty confusing to anybody.

Why?

Because abstruse & puzzling matters are under discussion which are complicated & difficult to understand for anybody.

Myself included, I can oath.

Now, humour is one thing.

Poor taste is another.

I invite you to consider Duncan's gif of Arnie bounding up from a burn experience from a point of view which is not your own.

From a different point of view, it is quite possible to see Duncan's gif as an inspiration of humorous insight into the intricacies of the knotty questions at hand.

How so?

Well, first of all, Duncan is NOT, repeat NOT, making fun of Arnold.

Instead, (and this the critical point!), Duncan is humorously drawing attention to the very important issue of the accuracy of Arnold's recollection.

This line of argument is perfectly allowable on the logic:

It is on the record that the steam pipe was too hot to touch, EVEN if it had insulation wrapping it. Therefore, Arnold is not accurate.

Duncan's gif, far from being in poor taste, is actually an excellent way to make a fair & just point in the general discussion.

Why?

Because Arnold's story is under deep suspicion as being a concoction. Remember Arnold's story contains the extremely dubious implied assertion that the first shot flew by his left ear!

No one is making cutting, injurious "fun" of Arnold. Nonsense.

Duncan is merely making a perfectly allowable flourish of humour & at the same time elucidating a tricky point. Well done!

In looking over the Forum Rules I did not find a prohibition of humour & imagination.

Again Kathy, I am convinced of your good motivation in this case, but I must say in fairness to all concerned I believe you are in error to censure Duncan in this case.

Your sense of taste should not act to dampen & control a thread of which, as I say, it is possible & in this case probable that you are not in possession of the intricacies of the difficult lines of argument.

I strongly urge you to reconsider & allow Duncan's gif back into his post where it is legitimate & proper.

Miles

The gif posted by Mr. MacRae will not be reposted. It had nothing to do with researching this topic.

[Miles Scull]

The gif posted by Mr. MacRae will not be reposted. It had nothing to do with researching this topic.

Ok, Antti

I respect your decision, while not agreeing with it.

Before moving on I would like to make one final point in Mr. MacRae's defence.

It is this:

The current thread is looking into the reality of an image in Moorman as a human figure.

Closely connectected to this question is the reality of Mr. Gordon Arnold as a witness.

I and many, many others do not consider Mr. Gorgon Arnold a witness at all. I consider his story is an invention & not true.

Others consider Mr. Arnold to be an actual witness.

Who is correct?

Well, of course, that is the debate, exactly that!

Ms Beckett says:

I just want this to continue as a photo/film study, and not as a thread where the witness is belittled.

surely you can understand that. So if you can just do that, go ahead.

Apparently, Ms Beckett considers Mr. Arnold to be a witness. She says: "...where the witness is belittled."

Ms Beckett is perfectly entitled to her opinion & is welcome to join in the ongoing debate.

However, Ms Beckett, as a moderator, is NOT permitted to use her power as a moderator to influence the debate, even if she does so unwittingly.

This she has done. She has done so by asserting that Mr. Arnold is or was a witness.

Ms Beckett has censored Mr. MacRae on the grounds that Mr. Arnold is a witness who as a witness requires special respect.

But, Ms Beckett does not know that Mr. Arnold is a witness or a hoax.

Yet, she has asserted her authority AS A MODERATOR to influence the debate in favor of the reality of Mr. Arnold being a witness.

I hope Ms Beckett will be counselled that she, as a moderator, must NOT take sides.

Antti, no reply is needed to this post. Thank you.

[Jack White]

Ridiculing witnesses, rightly or wrongly...SHOULD NOT BE OFF LIMITS.

Dunc an Skull are wrong...but their ridicule of Arnold reflects badly on

them, not him. Moderators should not be censors and arbiters of

political correctness.

I do not hesitate to call the following LIARS:

Marina

Ruth Paine

Sitzman

Zapruder

Brennan

etc.etc.manymore.

So banish me.

Jack

PS. for years it has been shorthand to refer to the alleged persons

on the pedestal as ZAPPY and SITZY. I will continue to do so if I want

to. Call it ridicule if you want. They deserve ridicule. This is no different

than referring to Arnold as ARNIE. Butt out, please. There is no rule

about ridiculing the dead, please! Your opinion only!

Edited September 10, 2007 by Jack White