The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

True, Duncan, 'tis the season.

Here's a familiar Santa elf you may recall at the tree:

Let's wish all the best for Bill this joyous season.

Miles, your foolish image of the hoaxed photograph of an alleged Sasquatch that Cliff Crook took is an indication of your lack of seriousness on the JFK assassination IMO. As far as the idiotic looking illustration that looks like a waste can wearing shoes - 'BM' has nothing to do with me, but I am sure that you knew that as you were doing anything but research. 'BM' could stand for Badge Man - Big Mouth - Bowel Movement - or a number of other names that come to mind when I see such ridiculous post. In fact, the name 'Bob Marley' might be a better explanation for the abreviation 'BM' and why its even being presented to this thread.

However, I do have one question for you and/or Duncan ... With all the free time you seem to possess while worrying about things that do not concern you - have either of you presented your Gordon Arnold concerns to someone experienced in photogrammetry or are you two satisfied that you know all there is to know to make a precise and accurate claim about the sizing issue???

Bill Miller

Edited December 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

However, I do have one question for you and/or Duncan ... - have either of you presented your Gordon Arnold concerns to someone experienced in photogrammetry or are you two satisfied that you know all there is to know to make a precise and accurate claim about the sizing issue???

Bill Miller

Duncan has consulted with Mack, Groden & Lamson.

Each has confirmed that, pending your scaling, Arnie is an impossiblity on the logic.

Your move.

[Bill Miller]

However, I do have one question for you and/or Duncan ... - have either of you presented your Gordon Arnold concerns to someone experienced in photogrammetry or are you two satisfied that you know all there is to know to make a precise and accurate claim about the sizing issue???

Bill Miller

Duncan has consulted with Mack, Groden & Lamson.

Each has confirmed that, pending your scaling, Arnie is an impossiblity on the logic.

Your move.

Miles,

I spoke with Robert Groden today about the person seen beyond the wall in Moorman's photo and Robert still maintains that it is the same person called the Black Dog Man (BDM) ... that this person is seen in the Nix and Muchmore films. When I mentioned that a Duncan had allegedly said that he didn't think the person was real due to a scaling issue - Robert said that he didn't remember ever conversing with a person named Duncan. I might also add that Robert, myself, Royce Bierma, and the lab tech saw movement above the wall immediately following the head-shot, thus someone was there. What this means is that regardless of your inability to understand the principles at play in trying to understand why Gordon Arnold looks as he does ... he was there and he was real as confirmed by these other photographic sources. This is why I asked if you have ever bothered to have your observation validated or at least explained by someone skilled in Photogammetry. Your usual non-response makes it appear that you have not done any of this.

I will consult Gary tomorrow to see just how much of your post is accurate when portraying his opinion.

I know that Craig doesn't wish to believe in Badge Man, but I am unsure of his opinion concerning Gordon Arnold. Craig was not present in the lab when some of us viewed Groden's best Nix film, but if he had been there and seen the movement that we saw, noticed the colored clothing that Groden mentions in his book TKOAP, considers the BDM figure ... I would be surprised to hear him say that there is not a real person seen in Moorman's photo who I have referred to as Gordon Arnold. Common sense would tell just about anyone that Moorman's photo which is taken just prior to the movement we saw in the Nix print and which shows one person above the south dog leg of the wall, which matches the location Groden points out in his book ... that there obviously must be some optical and geographical data that some of you have failed to obtain so to understand the sizing issue that baffles you people.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

However, I do have one question for you and/or Duncan ... With all the free time you seem to possess while worrying about things that do not concern you - have either of you presented your Gordon Arnold concerns to someone experienced in photogrammetry or are you two satisfied that you know all there is to know to make a precise and accurate claim about the sizing issue???

Bill Miller

Maps, photographs, and surveys have been presented in this thread. If you have anything else to add, please do so. Please also stick to the topic which is the existance or non existance of Arnold in Moorman, NOT Nix. The two may or may not have a connection, but that is not the topic of this debate

Duncan

I'm a little confused by your response, so maybe I have failed to adequately express myself ... If this one doesn't work, then we'll try 'sock puppets' next.

I would like an explanation as to why are you telling us that this thread has maps, photographs, and surveys in it when that was not the question. Here is my question once again ... I asked, "have either of you presented your Gordon Arnold concerns to someone experienced in photogrammetry ..." ????

The next statement makes less sense to me. You say that my mentioning the one man seen between the wall and the fence in Moorman's photo is on topic, but cross checking with other films and/or photos to first see if in-fact there had been someone there at all which these others sources can either confirm or deny is off-topic. I must disagree on the grounds that when other assassination images show the presence of someone between the wall and the fence and Moorman's photo being exposed at the same time and showing one such individual, then we have a complaint that becomes very weak. So far the issue for you has not been that the shape of someone isn't visible in Moorman's photo ... its just that its too small in your opinion. (Is that pretty fair to say?)

If you have gotten that far, then if indeed someone was between the wall and the fence ... its now a matter of you understanding the 'why'. This is why I asked if you have consulted someone in photogammetry. This is precisely why the other films and photos are important because you would not want to waste lots of time on something that actually hurts your theory. Like I said - the argument then goes from there not being anyone there because you believe Arnold is too small to be human to there being conformation of someone actually being there leaving you with just needing to understand why he looks as he does.

Also, thanks for the additional information concerning the things Miles posted that appear to have been more disinformation.

Bill

Edited December 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

However, I do have one question for you and/or Duncan ... With all the free time you seem to possess while worrying about things that do not concern you - have either of you presented your Gordon Arnold concerns to someone experienced in photogrammetry or are you two satisfied that you know all there is to know to make a precise and accurate claim about the sizing issue???

Bill Miller

Maps, photographs, and surveys have been presented in this thread. If you have anything else to add, please do so. Please also stick to the topic which is the existance or non existance of Arnold in Moorman, NOT Nix. The two may or may not have a connection, but that is not the topic of this debate

Duncan

I'm a little confused

Bill

Not a problem.

Here's a side view of Arnie. Remember you put Arnie over by the fence on a mound that proved to be only vegetation growing at the base of the east side of the short arm of the picket fence.

TMWKK put Arnie just west of the sidewalk.

Somebody put Arnie at the retaining wall.

So here are a couple of SIDE views that seem to devastate Arnie. Ouch!

Where on earth do YOU put Arnie?

[i checked with someone experienced in photogrammetry & he advised sending the watch back to the factory for a MAJOR overhaul or a replacement, because obviously (his phrase) there was a screw loose in the works.]

[Miles Scull]

I'm a little confused by your response,

So what's new?

so maybe I have failed to adequately express myself .

No, you expressed yourself fine, you are clearly tring to divert from the topic which is still the existance or non existance of Arnold in Moorman.

Duncan

Duncan,

Arnie got real big all of a sudden?

Is this an error in scaling?

Your opinion?

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Arnie got real big all of a sudden?

Is this an error in scaling?

Your opinion?

I don't get your comparison with this photograph Miles or it's subject relationship to the floating Minime hovering position of the alleged Arnold in Moorman, sorry, can you explain what you're getting at a bit better?

Duncan

Duncan,

Even with sketch scaling the size disparity is huge.

What do you see here?

[Miles Scull]

I see where you're heading Miles, but I don't think you can make an accurate comparison with that particular photograph which is from a completely different angle. I think the only positive results that can be obtained are from within the contents of the Moorman photograph, and comparisons with close recreations, which Bill to his credit has attempted. Unfortunately from his postion he got it wrong and is now going down Nix route because he has failed to prove his postion from the Moorman perspective.

Duncan

Duncan,

There's a screw loose in the works:

[Bill Miller]

Not a problem.

Here's a side view of Arnie. Remember you put Arnie over by the fence on a mound that proved to be only vegetation growing at the base of the east side of the short arm of the picket fence.

TMWKK put Arnie just west of the sidewalk.

Miles - you have to be one of the worse when it comes to citing things correctly. The mound of dirt was not vegetation, but rather the hight of the ground in relation to the rest of the landscape above the wall between the sidewalk and the fence. The Flynn photo showing how low the wall was in relation to the park bench was proof of this. The definition as to what was meant by the word 'mound' is open to debate just as was Holland saying that he ran 'immediately' off the underpass following the shooting. Much to often asumptions on your part are being cited as fact when they are not.

Somebody put Arnie at the retaining wall.

So here are a couple of SIDE views that seem to devastate Arnie. Ouch!

Where on earth do YOU put Arnie?

I think that if you'd check with someone skilled in Photogrammetry, then he or she would be able to explain the factors that come into play that you seem to know nothing about.

[i checked with someone experienced in photogrammetry & he advised sending the watch back to the factory for a MAJOR overhaul or a replacement, because obviously (his phrase) there was a screw loose in the works.]

The same as my previous remark with the addition that you don't seem to want to know the factors that would cause Arnold to look as he does. Once again you have been given a lead so to gain more information so to either validate or show that your conclusion is flawed and you avoid at all cost to properly research your claim.

[Bill Miller]

I see where you're heading Miles, but I don't think you can make an accurate comparison with that particular photograph which is from a completely different angle. I think the only positive results that can be obtained are from within the contents of the Moorman photograph, and comparisons with close recreations, which Bill to his credit has attempted. Unfortunately from his postion he got it wrong and is now going down Nix route because he has failed to prove his postion from the Moorman perspective.

Duncan

Duncan - I have not gotten back to the Moorman scaling aspect yet for even I wish to consult someone to explain to me some of the factors at play. They certainly can be replicated for Mack has said that he has conducted such test and they had gotten the sizing accurate, but it isn't enough to duplicate for it should also be floowed with the technical reasons that create the effect. For instance - Miles doing that stupid side view thing just demonstrates how little he knows of such things. One can take the wall in Moorman and Muchmore films and match them up perfectly and the limo size in each will be drastically different. What is one to do ... start talking like some nut and tell people that there is a minnie-limo because of such a bush-league attempt at reconciling the two? I just find it amazing how you guys can sit around and make claims without so much as checking your allegations with those who could help you if for no other reason than to validate what you are saying. In some circles it is called nothing more than throwing 'dung' on the wall to see if it sticks.

Pointing out that someone is seen above the wall in Nix or Muchmore is important because that person should also be seen in Moorman's photo because it was taken at the same time showing the same location on the knoll. Moorman's photo does show that person above the wall, but the geography and the optics involved has left you guys with questions that you do not seem to want to research any further to answer them for you. I can see Miles not wanting to address this for the same reason he would post an outright fabrication about you consulting Groden and Mack - that Miles game that he runs. I do however believe that you would at least try and reach some people who might be able to explain to you the causes for what you are seeing.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Bill[/b]

The mound of dirt was not vegetation, but rather the hight of the ground in relation to the rest of the landscape above the wall between the sidewalk and the fence. - Miller

Nonsense.

You are making things up again.

Here is proof from your own graphic from you own post in your own words (MOUND):

Edited December 22, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Bill[/b]

The mound of dirt was not vegetation, but rather the hight of the ground in relation to the rest of the landscape above the wall between the sidewalk and the fence. - Miller

Nonsense.

You are making things up again.

Here is proof from your own graphic from you own post in your own words (MOUND):

Addendum:

The vegetation fringe is not a mound, nor is the inclined slope a high SPOT or a MOUND.

Again, where does Arnie stand?

Edited for spelling.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Wim Dankbaar]

Duncan, great picture.

No need to say more.

Wim

[Bill Miller]

The mound of dirt was not vegetation, but rather the hight of the ground in relation to the rest of the landscape above the wall between the sidewalk and the fence. - Miller

Nonsense.

You are making things up again.

Here is proof from your own graphic from you own post in your own words (MOUND):

I got to hand it to you, Miles ... you have a knack in getting about everything you say or read twisted in some way or another. The illustration I posted showed just what I said it did and that was that the further west from the wall one moves - the higher the elevation the grounds surface was. As far as the horizon line going in that illustration - I cannot tell if Gordon Arnold was on the south side of it or the north side more towards the tree. How high is the ground further north on the other side of the horizon line - do you know ... I cannot tell. What might help however is that Flynn photo that I have mentioned in the past. The Flynn photo showing just how low the west wide of the wall was near the bench is staggering. Would you say that when viewed from the east side of the wall that the bench was also floating? Maybe you'd like to cite some more things that people have allegedly told Duncan which hasn't a ring of truth in it ... yes, maybe that would help. Who's on the list next ... Arnold's wife - Arnold's kids .... come on ... tell us another made up story about the people Duncan has talked to.

Bill Miller

Edited December 22, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Addendum:

The vegetation fringe is not a mound, nor is the inclined slope a high SPOT or a MOUND.

Again, where does Arnie stand?

Correct Miles, and even if he was standing there, as Robin correctly pointed out in a previous reply, his upper body, probably only shoulders and head, would appear in relationship to the fence at the similar low viewing height pespective as the fence is seen in Moorman, and not floating around in mid air.

Duncan

Question for the forum super-sleuths ... The answer to this question has not been forthcoming - so I will raise it again. The Betzner - Willis - and Moorman photos all show someone between the wall and the fence. The Nix and Muchmore films tend to show that someone or something is also seen between the wall and the fence (with the Nix film showing this object moving to its left immediately after the head shot to the President.) Remove the person alleged to be Gordon Arnold from Moorman's photo, then you have no one left between the wall and the fence. The only way to reconcile the fact that someone was between the wall and the fence is to attempt to understand the factors involved in the Moorman Polaroid. Moorman's photo can be shown not to have been altered before being filmed for TV not 35 minutes post shooting, thus the person seen between the wall and the fence that coincides with the Nix film lets say ... is the person you want to remove from Mary Moorman's image because you don't understand the optics of the camera and the geography of that area. Instead ... Miles wants to mislead others by posting that Duncan has talked with people like Groden and Mack, which was totally untrue and so far without an explanation for such reckless posting ... and no one has posted where they have sought information as to the optics involved and how that would make things appear at various distances from the camera. Would not logic tell a serious researcher that if a photo shows something that other films and images do as well, but the sizing of something within the picture doesn't look right, then why would that person not seek the expertise of those who could offer some helpful insight on the matter??? For instance ... some assassination images make the train cars in the RR yard look far away and others make that same car(s) look to be just behind the fence because of its increased size. Do things like magnification/foreshortening effects come into play? Any critics bothered to look into these basic concerns?

Bill Miller