The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Miles Scull]

...Any critics bothered to look into these basic concerns?

Bill Miller

What you say is true, but it doesn't cut the mustard in Moorman. Just follow the top of the fenceline to see how ridiculous the floating Arnold is. Can you address that?

Duncan

Duncan,

Speaking of the ridiculous, try this on:

1.) Miles said that Holland ran off the underpass immediately. But that is wrong.

2.) Miles said that Duncan consulted with Mack & Groden. But that is wrong.

3.) Miles says that Arnie is too small to be real in Moorman. THEREFORE, that is wrong.

When your position is bankrupt, then there is nothing left to do but to repeat this type of silly nonsense over & over again.

BTW, "consult" was a bad verb choice. I should have said that, whereas your critique of Arnie's reality was arrived at by you independently,

you did not, inter alia, find conflict from Mack & Groden even from reflected information, but you did, I would hazard, find some confirming reference from them if via indirect proxy trickle down.

In other words, as far as you know Mack & Groden agree that Arnie is too small, for the simple reason that that fact is patently obvious. Mack & Groden do not wish to become laughing stock.

The only defender of Arnie as real in Moorman is Miller. Therefore, the question presents itself in Technicolour:

Why does Miller not find someone (anyone - Ken?) to support his own case?

Why, Duncan, is BM asking us to seek out ways to support him & thus refute ourselves?

There's a loose cog wheel in the works.

Edited December 23, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

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.)

You have been invited to produce this evidence a few times Bill. Please produce it or there's no point in you going on about it. As it stands, it's just hearsay from you

I do not have Groden's book "The killing of a President with me, but a real researcher like yourself should have no problem finding a copy and seeking out the page(s) where Groden shows the clothing just beyond the edge of the wall. In fact, Gary Mack has mentioned before that the color of the clothing that Groden shows just happens to be the color of Gordon Arnold's uniform would have been. So we are straight - Groden's images are not hearsay any more than the ones you post to the forum.

As far as posting Groden's best Nix print - Robert allowed me to have a copy with the promise that I not distribute it or post it on the Internet.

Remove the person alleged to be Gordon Arnold from Moorman's photo, then you have no one left between the wall and the fence.

What about the black couple? They may be hidden in there somewhere.

None of the photograph and film sources that I mentioned show a black couple. And to not lose sight of the point I haver made ... the person seen above the wall in those same assassination image sources is not hidden from view, thus they are also seen in Moorman's photo because it was taken at the same moment in time as the assassination films recorded the head shot to JFK.

I don't want to remove Arnold from the image because he's not there, as anyone can see from my analysis.

Your so-called analysis does just the opposite. You obviously see something in the image or you would not have anything to try and match the latter Arnold image to. Your complaint has been that the image is too small in your unqualified opinion. Unqualified because you are missing knowledge and data from your so-called analysis. To date you have been asked several times if you have bothered to gather that data and knowledge from someone skilled in Photogrammetry who could either confirm or deny your claim and explain how they are able to reach such a conclusion. So the same dance continues whereas you make a claim and do not get it peer reviewed or validated.

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

True, I don't know why Miles said that, but I don't need help from the above mentioned researchers to come to my conclusion. If they feel so strongly about my analysis being wrong, they have my email address, or they can post on the Forum giving their reasons why they think I am wrong. I respect all of Gary's advice given to me privately and he is welcome to write. Groden doesn't have my respect yet, as he never has the courtesy to reply to any of my emails.

Oh come on ... I do not believe that you do not know why Miles once again misstated the facts. As far as disrespecting someone who doesn't return your emails ... I guess that kind of logic would also apply to people like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, and a list of other famous people who don't want to waste their time on those they do not know or see aa crack-pots whether unjustly or not. For instance - I bet Zavada wouldn't return your emails either, thus do you disrespect him, as well? I am afraid that your position pertaining to respecting those who only answer your emails is somewhat self-serving IMO.

Would not logic tell a serious researcher that if a photo shows something that other films and images do as well,

But they don't..Moorman only shows the floating Arnold, and you have shown nothing so far from your hearsay evidence.

That kind of response doesn't fly. If you have seen the images Groden presents on this matter, then what is the source for the colored clothing that he points out in his book ... if you haven't seen it, then you have no right denying its existence IMO.

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???

Like who?

What - another hand you the name of someone and you not bother to spend a dime or an ounce of energy contacting them ... I think we have been through this before. But if you like - contact Mack for a source to contact or do a Google search under 'Photogrammetry' and I know you'll come up with some contacts for I have done it myself.

What you say is true, but it doesn't cut the mustard in Moorman. Just follow the top of the fenceline to see how ridiculous the floating Arnold is. Can you address that?

Perspective and geography.

[Bill Miller]

When your position is bankrupt, then there is nothing left to do but to repeat this type of silly nonsense over & over again.

Do you mean by fabricating a story about Duncan talking to Groden or Mack? Or how about making false claims about witnesses saying 'red plaid'? If that is the case, then I agree with your statement.

In other words, as far as you know Mack & Groden agree that Arnie is too small, for the simple reason that that fact is patently obvious. Mack & Groden do not wish to become laughing stock.

So if you make a claim and no one bothers to argue it, then they must agree with your position. That means that had Duncan not have replied to what you erroneously said about him, then your fabrication would then be the truth IYO. Now that is ridiculous and probably why Groden or Mack would not waste time on you. BTW, have you even bothered to try and contact Groden or Mack as to their opinios or do you prefer to embrace your flawed past practice previously mentioned???

Why, Duncan, is BM asking us to seek out ways to support him & thus refute ourselves?

There's a loose cog wheel in the works.[/color]

When someone makes a claim or writes a paper/book ... it is the author who has the obligation to validate the things he or she says. This is a simple responsible research practice. If it is your position that all you have to do is make unqualified observations based on a lack of knowledge and/or data, then maybe this is why the more noted serious researchers do not answer your post.

[Bill Miller]

That was a big speech Bill, a few spelling mistakes, never mind

I know the images you are talking about, page 193. Both show a small tannish NON HUMAN looking object, smaller than the coke bottle which can also be seen in both frames. Strange how you can see clearly full human figure called Gordon Arnold and yet you can't see the coke bottle which really was there

Duncan

You reply was non-responsive. The color that I speak of is not smaller than a coke bottle. What ever made that color moved to the north immediately after the head shot. And it is my opinion that there was no coke bottle on the wall during the actual assassination.

[Bill Miller]

Why, Duncan, is BM asking us to seek out ways to support him & thus refute ourselves?

Miles

He obviously can't get his hands on the hearsay ( To this forum ) Nix and Muchmore materials at this moment in time, and is stalling until he feels he has enough materials to counter the no Arnold in Moorman claim, which is ok with me. A little bit of research has told me that the film Bill watched, which he claims shows a tan coloured Arnold moving , is a Groden multi generation copy of Nix from which Bill would normally reject any photographic evidence due to poor quality. Double standards at play? I don't know if this is true. Perhaps he can clear this up.

Duncan

Groden has several various generation copies. The one we took to the lab was the best print and I seem to recall Robert saying that it was a first generation print. I can say this ... it was the best Nix film print I have seen to date.

Bill

Edited December 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Well Bill, only you and Groden and whoever else he has shared it with will ever know if that is true.

As he, you, and anyone else concerned do not wish to share this motion evidence with the research community and the world at large, then it's completely useless as a potentially true historic record of the truth.

Duncan

So if I tell you that Grizzly bear scat stinks ... it isn't so until you have verified it ... maybe this another reason you cannot seem to get credible expert researchers to respond to your emails.

[Miles Scull]

So if I tell you that Grizzly bear scat stinks ....

stinks - BM

Activating an honesty ventilator:

As he, you, and anyone else concerned do not wish to share this motion evidence with the research community and the world at large, then it's completely useless as a potentially true historic record of the truth.

Duncan

Duncan,

There may have been activity behind the retaining wall.

Maybe someone had come to see the motorcade. Maybe this someone was an individual spotted by Bowers at some point.

The topic is : Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman?

In this crop below you see that BDM is much larger than Arnie even though the Arnie inset is set forward of BDM in the crop & even though Willis is further away from the wall than Moorman.

Precise scaling is not necessary to grasp the tininess of Arnie IN MOORMAN which confirms that he is an illusion in Moorman & could not be human.

Secret photos hidden from the public are irrelevant & the last gasp of the BM's position.

[Miles Scull]

scat?

Duncan: See post # 618 on this thread.

[Bill Miller]

So if I tell you that Grizzly bear scat stinks ... it isn't so until you have verified it

What kind of stupid uneducated answer is that? The fact is that you have no evidence to produce to this forum at this point in time, and what you say you have, you have confirmed that you and/or Groden will not produce it to a wider audience.

The uneducated answer was a parody of your past response. No one needs to produce scat to you for it to be common knowledge that it stinks. Nor bring molten lava to you to validate that its hot. The same can be said about the roll of Nix film that Groden possess. What do you want produced ... in some threads you geniuses will argue that one needs to see the original images in the raw because of the changes that take place in posting them to the net, only to then tell us that you somehow need such images provided for your study. You talk yourself into a box all in the name of not having your alleged all-important observations validated.

And so the record is straight ... I have not the right to take Groden's materials and post them to the Internet without his permission. Long before this thread was ever hatched - Groden had allowed the lab to make me a copy of this film with the codition that I not let it out to the public. What you do is contact Groden and ask that he allow is best Nix print to be posted to the net. If that doesn't suffice, then see about having him set up a private showing for you or representatives that you trust go to him and see it in person. The thing is that I doubt you'll bother going to all that trouble just to have spent hard earned money trying to fool people into thinking that you really believe the garbage that you have posted on this subject. Miles for instance took the time to have someone take photos of the Bowers line of sight ... yet was it too much trouble to have that same person walk over to Moorman's location and take a photo of someone of similar size of a young Arnold standing at the location of the image in question??? And to wonder why people who are spending good money to travel and buy lab time don't seem to wish to waste time answering your emails ... how dare they!

maybe this another reason you cannot seem to get credible expert researchers to respond to your emails.

Credible experts like Groden you mean, who seen Hudson shooting a rifle from the steps and announced and illustrated this to the world in his book ?

I don't believe that Groden said the alleged assassin was in the process of shooting, but yes, he made a geographical error and misread an image, and it stood unchallenged for years. Groden has since been shown who that person was and I believe that correction will come out in his new book.

[Miles Scull]

Until you produce evidence, not Groden, it's your argument not his, then your story of a tanned Arnold in Nix must only be considered a ficticious story of immense proportions.

Duncan

Duncan,

What if there was a man, who is not seen in any photo, behind the wall?

What if there was not a man, who is not seen in any photo (of course), behind the wall?

That does not bear on shrimpy who IS seen in Moorman.

Shrimpy is too small to be ANYONE.

So, BM's hat trick of Tan Man is not relevant, just as the Wietzman Report or the Weigman Smoke Hoax are not.

Notice a pattern?

Edited for grammar.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Since you have failed to come up with any evidence to pass on to the membership here who are interested and have been following this thread, you are now passing the onus on to Groden who does not contribute to this forum or reply to emails, so what's the point of you announcing to the world on this forum that you have proof positive of Arnold's existance on the knoll, but it must be kept a secret. I'll tell you the point in 4 simple words....There is NO point.

I don't have the in-camera original Zapruder film to produce for your amusement, but I can still intelligently discuss what I know about it. The problem as I see it is that others like yourself must be intelligent enough to understand what is being relayed to you. I am not here to argue with someone who hasn't the time or desire to have his claims validated. I can only share with you what I know to be so, just like in the case of the LOS to the steps that Bowers didn't have.

I also didn't say that I have proof positive that Arnold was above the wall. It is this amazing way you have in getting the facts wrong is why you have such a poor record of getting people like Groden to respond to your emails. What I have said for years now is that there is photographic proof that someone was above the wall. Groden points this out in his books and Jack White's work only strengthens that position IMO. Then there is that movement seen in deep shadow that I witnessed over and over again at the lab that several of us went to with Robert's prints and a 16MM print I had of the Nix film. You were not there as I recall, thus you don't know the facts pertaining to what was seen, thus your opinion is of no value to me. To date, you have not presented any evidence that the figure in Moorman's photo is not real other than a bush-league child-like poorly done scaling of one image to another. You presented no data on the optics involved, the geography of the knoll, nor have you posted any solicited information from an expert on these matters. It wasn't even until I posted the Flynn photo showing how high the ground had risen behind the wall that it was ever on the plate for discussion. We both know your claim is based on a lack of data and I suspectr that is precisely why you have not followed through and done the things necessary to validate your claims ... nor will you ever.

It's like me saying I have been contacted by a mystery man who was there on the knoll that day, and who took photographs behind the wall as the shots rang out, and me saying I met this man, viewed his photographs, and sure enough, Arnold was not there and what you see as Arnold is nothing more than a flaoting tan coloured balloon which he photographed, one of which shows one of the black couple bursting with a jagged edge of a broken coke bottle, the sound of it breaking confirmed by Marilyn Sitzman's testimony. He told me I could have a copy of the photographs if I didn't show them to the world....Yeah right on mister was my reply, so here I am with proof positive against your argument Bill. What should I do?

Until you produce evidence, not Groden, it's your argument not his, then your story of a tanned Arnold in Nix must only be considered a ficticious story of immense proportions.

It's not an argument for me to prove any more than its an argument for me to prove that boiling water can burn ones skin. Even if one removes from the thread what was seen at the lab by those who were there - you still have not addressed that at the same moment that Moorman's photo was taken that there was someone or something in Khaki colors standing beyond the wall, which is not seen in Moorman's photo if you remove the Arnold figure by claiming it is an illusion. Arnold was said to have worn such colored clothing on that day. Arnold has said several things that have played out as to his movements above the knoll which have been circumstantially supported by latter photo-graphical studies. The movement above the wall seen at the lab concerning Groden's best Nix print was just one more thing to add to the credibility of Arnold's past statements.

You really should take your concerns to an expert for validation. If you find that your initial thoughts are not valid, then knowing what was seen at the lab is a moot issue. If you are not interested in doing the prooper research, then have Miles make another post where he merely makes up another story whereas you consulted several experts and they validated your claim.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Shrimpy is too small to be ANYONE.

I have seen people smaller than the poorly scaled image you have produced, so I hope you are not merely saying the image is too small by comparing it to your size ... if that was the case, then most of the population would have to be excluded and that would not be a fair conclusion.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill, you can huff and puff as often as you like, but the big bad wolf will not be blowing this house down.

The facts are that almost 4 months ago you told me you would be producing the counter evidence. I agreed to wait, but my patience has worn thin over infertile months at your lack of production. The rebuttal is yours to supply, not Grodens. Your hearsay Groden has this, and Groden has that tiresome garbage has not fooled one person on this forum. The private emails I get which will remain private, confirm to me that I am not the only one who thinks you are clutching on to a sinking raft. I have produced everything required for the study of the non existance of Arnold in Moorman, No experts are required simply because, and this is important...THERE ARE NO EXPERTS, only people with opinions, so here we go again. When are you, not Groden or anyone else going to produce this mysterious, unknown, Above Top Secret evidence?

Duncan

Your notion that there are no experts shows how little you know. Someone in Photogramettry could validate or denounce your claim quite easily. In fact, a simple recreation photo using a similar lens like Moorman's could either make or break your claim, but as usual ... you and those genuises who email you do not bother to take such responsible steps. As far as evidence produced to counter your claim ... the Flynn photo was one such piece of evidence and it went over your head. If you plot where the legs to the bench come when seen from the east side of the wall, then it too would be a floating bench when applied to the same senseless sloppy approach you used for Arnold.

I have asked Gary Mack days ago to let me know if he and Robert could possibly take a photo for me showing someone standing where Gary thinks Arnold is in Moorman's photo. If it is done and shows someone of known height not to appear any higher or lower on the wall that Moorman's photo, then your claim is just another piece of crap IMO. The sad part is that you and/or Miles should have taken it upon yourself to have had this done instead of always just being the guys who make the off-the-wall claims and then leave it up to someone else to do the basics to either validate or expose the flaws in your so-called research.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

If you plot where the legs to the bench come when seen from the east side of the wall,

Bill Miller

Duncan,

Note the bench, wall & man standing next to the wall.

This man with light coloured pants & shirt is short, yet his belt is above the wall.

Next, see the man in the inset behind the wall (red arrow). Likewise, his belt is above the wall.

Finally, see little tiny Arnie (yellow arrow).

Somebody has weasel scat on his shoe. Not me. You? BM?

[Bill Miller]

Your notion that there are no experts shows how little you know.

Name one?

Someone in Photogramettry could validate or denounce your claim quite easily.

What's stopping you getting this photogrammetry ( Note the correct spelling Bill ) expert to back up your claim? Don't expect me to do your dirty work.

You make the claim ... don't bother to gather any crucial data, and then expect others to validate your claim for you. This is just why people like Groden, Thompson, Lane, and etc., do not answer your emails.