Bill Miller Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) OK. Fine. ... Now, get back on topic, please. So far you have said nothing to impeach or disprove Duncan's assertion & claim. 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 Edited August 20, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) 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 Edited August 20, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I have always called Badgeman's companion HARDHATMAN. I have never called him RRWORKER. Since I named him, I suggest using hardhatman to reduce confusion. On the relation of the ground to the height to the top of the concrete wall, there is a mistaken impression that the wall is as tall on the east side as on the west. This is wrong. On the west side, it is about hip high, or several inches below my beltline...maybe 36-40 inches tall. A very good impression of the height can be seen in Trask, page 75, which shows it shorter than the back of a park bench. Duncan seems to believe that the distance is more than a foot greater. Someone please post the Trask photo. If necessary I will ask Bernice to do so. I think if Duncan uses a more realistic wall height, he will find that Arnold's legs reach the ground, unless he is much shorter than I believe. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 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?Thanks for bringing the question here. Ok..Firstly i'll state as I have done previously, that the legs were only meant to show an approximation of the vertical length. Perhaps I didn't make this point clear enough. I can not say in all honestly that I made a mistake, but I will agree that the simulated waist was not accurate in width comparison to the torso waist. Instead of adding a vertical line from w ( waist ) to f ( feet ) I added legs to make it look more realistic. My new comparison with a real soldier is in my opinion as accurate as it is humanly possible to acheive, with a margin of error acceptable due to the simple fact that all humans legs are not the same size. 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 No, I don't agree that it's an exact set percentage rule due to the varying shapes of different human beings as can be seen by simple observations of human beings. For the sake of moving forward, I'll agree that a small unknow distance could be added to the vertical, just as a small unknown vertical distance could be taken away, but i've said that all along. It still doesn't explain the small size of Arnold in my opinion. I base my no change opinion on all of the factors that I have studied including photographs from different views circa 1963/66 which I previously posted for everyone to consider in the mix. I would appreciate your opinion of the scale of my current estimate in the uploaded composite. Thanks Duncan Just a pendent: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) I can not say in all honestly that I made a mistake, but I will agree that the simulated waist was not accurate in width comparison to the torso waist. 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. No, I don't agree that it's an exact set percentage rule due to the varying shapes of different human beings as can be seen by simple observations of human beings. For the sake of moving forward, I'll agree that a small unknown distance could be added to the vertical, just as a small unknown vertical distance could be taken away, but i've said that all along. It still doesn't explain the small size of Arnold in my opinion. I base my no change opinion on all of the factors that I have studied including photographs from different views circa 1963/66 which I previously posted for everyone to consider in the mix. 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 Edited August 20, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I can not say in all honestly that I made a mistake, but I will agree that the simulated waist was not accurate in width comparison to the torso waist. 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. No, I don't agree that it's an exact set percentage rule due to the varying shapes of different human beings as can be seen by simple observations of human beings. For the sake of moving forward, I'll agree that a small unknown distance could be added to the vertical, just as a small unknown vertical distance could be taken away, but i've said that all along. It still doesn't explain the small size of Arnold in my opinion. I base my no change opinion on all of the factors that I have studied including photographs from different views circa 1963/66 which I previously posted for everyone to consider in the mix. 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 Good photo example. And it must be pointed out that researcher J.Gary Shaw, demonstrating BDM, is a VERY SHORT PERSON, maybe about 5'7" or 5'8", and he is crouching. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Good photo example. And it must be pointed out that researcher J.Gary Shaw, demonstrating BDM, is a VERY SHORT PERSON, maybe about 5'7" or 5'8", and he is crouching. Jack 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Richards Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Photograph posted for Jack White. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Photograph posted for Jack White.James Thanks, James...great image. Note how much shorter the wall is than the back of the park bench. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Here you go Jack....... I have added two Couch-Darnells, one I have darkened showing a man on the left hand side of the photo..the other as seen in the film frame.... B...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 (edited) ______________________ The guy crouching behind the wall in the "Black Dog Man" position (in the second photo in the previous post) has a damn good place to shoot from, in my humble opinion. The closest concealed place to where JFK was hit in Z-313 and just a short run up the steps and into the parking lot/railroad yard. Even if someone did see you running away up the steps like that, many opportunities to disappear, yes? Who could ask for more? --Thomas PS I find this thread so confusing (and full of acrimony and one-upsmanship (sp?)), I gotta ask "Who am I agreeing with here, Duncan or Bill or neither?" (Never mind the "bump-a-donut" man) LOL --Thomas ______________________ Edited August 21, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 (edited) Photograph posted for Jack White.James 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 Edited August 21, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 (edited) ______________________The guy crouching behind the wall in the "Black Dog Man" position (in the second photo in the previous post) has a damn good place to shoot from, in my humble opinion. The closest concealed place to where JFK was hit in Z-313 and just a short run up the steps and into the parking lot/railroad yard. Even if someone did see you running away up the steps like that, many opportunities to disappear, yes? Who could ask for more? --Thomas PS I find this thread so confusing (and full of acrimony and one-upsmanship (sp?)), I gotta ask "Who am I agreeing with here, Duncan or Bill or neither?" (Never mind the "bump-a-donut" man) LOL --Thomas ______________________ 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 Edited August 21, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 (edited) ______________________The guy crouching behind the wall in the "Black Dog Man" position (in the second photo in the previous post) has a damn good place to shoot from, in my humble opinion. The closest concealed place to where JFK was hit in Z-313 and just a short run up the steps and into the parking lot/railroad yard. Even if someone did see you running away up the steps like that, many opportunities to disappear, yes? Who could ask for more? --Thomas PS I find this thread so confusing (and full of acrimony and one-upsmanship (sp?)), I gotta ask "Who am I agreeing with here, Duncan or Bill or neither?" (Never mind the "bump-a-donut" man) LOL --Thomas ______________________ The wall would have been a good place to shoot from considering that its about 90 feet 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. [...] ______________________ Yes, but their eyes would have been on JFK and his glamorous wife Jackie, not someone crouching behind that wall for a few seconds. --Thomas ______________________ _____________________ Edited August 21, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 (edited) Yes, but their eyes would have been on JFK and his glamorous wife Jackie, not someone crouching behind that wall for a few seconds.--Thomas Smile~ .......... Maybe you and I's eyes would have been on Jackie, but the Secret Service is expected to scan the crowd for anything suspicious. (Like us staring at Jackie, I guess.) Bill Edited August 21, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now