The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

I am quite satisfied that he is not in the disputed position in Moorman, and I think it's blatantly obvious to most people. Apart from yourself, not one other person on this forum has disputed my findings. Doesn't that tell you something?

Yes, it tells me that most people don't feel the need to argue with someone who double talks about the silly observations he makes. I'll repeat your exact words once again. You said, "Bill, You know as well as I do that the mystery of the Arnold small appearance in Moorman can only be solved by doing a camera experiment which replicates that exact shape as seen in Moorman and taken from the exact Moorman position and line of site with the same type of camera and lens." Yet you then turn around and say that you feel that you are correct without having done what you said is the only way to tell. You have offered no data on the lens that Moorman used and how it would play a role in how things appear at certain distances. You have little to no knowledge of the elevation of the ground behind the wall. Thus you have done little but throw dung at a wall in hopes that something might stick and you couldn't even do that without double talking as shown above. It's littler wonder why people like Groden do not answer your emails.

[Bill Miller]

Of course, you are overlooking Maroon Man who stood immediately to Hudson's left.

Had Hudson ducked, for example, then the object is Maroon Man not Hudson.

The man you speak of had black hair. Does the head seen through pyracantha bush look to be black or light in color like Hudson's hair and hat!!!

[Bill Miller]

I'd say Arnie is 15 feet up into the air & back away from the fence in the lot, higher than a car top. But Duncan's calculations may be different.

Please show us your calculations because I believe you are just making stuff up as you go. It would be nice to see your work so it can be checked.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I'd say Arnie is 15 feet up into the air & back away from the fence in the lot, higher than a car top. But Duncan's calculations may be different.

Please show us your calculations because I believe you are just making stuff up as you go. It would be nice to see your work so it can be checked.

Bill Miller

It is wrong to assert what cannot be known from the available evidence.

The object may not be anything more that a cluster of leaves, Maroon Man, Hudson or a centurion about to spill blood at the head of the steps.

[Miles Scull]

I'd say Arnie is 15 feet up into the air & back away from the fence in the lot, higher than a car top. But Duncan's calculations may be different.

Please show us your calculations because I believe you are just making stuff up as you go. It would be nice to see your work so it can be checked.

Bill Miller

It is wrong to assert what cannot be known from the available evidence.

The object may not be anything more that a cluster of leaves, Maroon Man, Hudson or a centurion about to spill blood at the head of the steps.

BTW, the image above is Robin's.

BM is not producing his promised scaling, yet he is demanding to see other's work.

If BM is really in contact with Groden, then where's the beef?

[Bill Miller]

It is wrong to assert what cannot be known from the available evidence.

The object may not be anything more that a cluster of leaves, Maroon Man, Hudson or a centurion about to spill blood at the head of the steps.

Possibly true for someone who hasn't bothered to do his homework. The cluster of leaves remark gets really absurd when the object is seen between the branches at one point.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

It is wrong to assert what cannot be known from the available evidence.

The object may not be anything more that a cluster of leaves, Maroon Man, Hudson or a centurion about to spill blood at the head of the steps.

Possibly true for someone who hasn't bothered to do his homework. The cluster of leaves remark gets really absurd when the object is seen between the branches at one point.

Oh?

Which frame?

[Chris Davidson]

Best I can do.

http://s140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123...current=NIX.flv

There appears to be activity there, too hard to distinguish what motions are occuring.

Click on the "full size" viewing option, which is to the left of the movie.

chris

Edited January 8, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Miles Scull]

Best I can do.

chris

Thanks for posting that Chris. Could you post this in gif format, or post the individual frames?

Duncan

Duncan,

This is a pop bottle.

Always has been.

No?

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

This is a pop bottle.

Always has been.

Wonder if Chris could slow gif this area.

There seems to be a figure here running away into the shadows.

Frame 56.

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

This is a pop bottle.

Always has been.

I put the pop bottle at the white spot to the right of the tanned coloured object, as you look at the frame.

Duncan

Duncan,

OK, are you saying this on perspective grounds?

Please add a word of explanation of you idea. Thx.

BTW, the area of interest figure in post # 684 above is NOT the man with Hudson who runs up the stairs from Hudson.

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

OK, are you saying this on perspective grounds?

No, it is in the same position I believe that it has always been positioned.

BTW, the area of interest figure in post # 684 above is NOT the man with Hudson who runs up the stairs from Hudson.

I know, it's the same area where I mentioned the huge flash in my reply to Chris.

Let's not forget

That the tanned object is a misleading tactic invented by Bill. He forgets ( conveniently ) that Moor man is black and white, and that the tanned floating Arnold in Moor man is a colourised interpretation by Jack and nothing more. Let's not be fooled, and let's keep in mind that the topic is still the existence or non existence of Arnold in Moor man, not Nix, Much more or anything else

Duncan

OK,

Duncan,

Is this what you or BM are proposing?

If so or not, please explain?

The proportionality of the figures resembles the Moorman figures; but again, even so, the tiny, little alleged Arnie is much, much too small in Nix as in Moorman.

Isn't that obvious on the face of it? Even to BM?

Is this some kind of a BM joke.

Edit: spelling.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Don Roberdeau]

Reference: <a href="http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/JFK/tci/tci_complete.htm" target="_blank">http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/JFK/tci/tci_complete.htm</a>

The WILMA BOND Photos Do Not

Timestamp GORDON ARNOLD's Presence

on the Grassy Knoll

Gordon Arnold’s Additional Claims

about the Grassy Knoll-Wall

Best Regards in Research. Honored to be yours in the pursuit of The Truth,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

Discovery: ROSEMARY WILLIS Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap : Westward, Ultrafast, & Directly Towards the "Grassy Knoll"

Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, & Important information & considerations

President KENNEDY "Men of Courage: 4 Principles" speech, and a portion of fellow researchers articles and my research & discoveries, 1975 to present

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

for the United states

"When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

(Sherlock Holmes, "A Study In Scarlet," (1887) by A.C. DOYLE)

Edited January 8, 2008 by Don Roberdeau

[Bill Miller]

Yes, it tells me that most people don't feel the need to argue with someone who double talks about the silly observations he makes. I'll repeat your exact words once again. You said, "Bill, You know as well as I do that the mystery of the Arnold small appearance in Moorman can only be solved by doing a camera experiment which replicates that exact shape as seen in Moorman and taken from the exact Moorman position and line of site with the same type of camera and lens.

I know what I said, and I said what I meant. The only way it can be proven that I am wrong is by carrying out my experiment. I am satisfied that I am correct. If you want to believe it's Arnold in Moorman without carrying out any research which proves you are correct, then so be it. 4 months ago you promised to deliver the goods, and so far nothing. You proved Groden wrong by carrying out your experiment. If you want to prove me wrong, then you'll need to do the same or you have no case to present.

If you knew what you said, then you wouldn't have posted the nonsense following it. Here is a hypothetical ... lets say that some moron (who isn't a member of this forum so not to break any forum rules) just ups and makes an observation and then turns it into a claim. The idiot didn't bother seeking any information about the type of camera lens used to take the picture he or she is interested in, nor had he or she not bothered to actually research thoroughly the elevation of the ground at various points of the picture. Instead this dimwit merely says 'thats my opinion - so prove me wrong'. Now does this sound like a challenge that needs immediate attention? I don't thinks so.

Now getting back to the Arnold claim here ... I see many of the same problems. Just as what had to be done when Miles was making his erroneous claims about Lee Bowers being able to see men standing on the steps ... I will ask that Groden take a similar lens to Moorman's location and shoot a photo of someone of similar height to Arnold so we can get an approximation of where their feet would appear in relation to the wall. This way we don't have to bother seeking out experts in camera lenses or Photogammetry. Instead, we just show how some simple research could have saved a lot of wasted forum space either way.

I will ask though that in the future that you at least do the basics involving your research before blessing us with your throw-it-at-the-wall-to-see-if-it-sticks claim. You see, if I have to keep asking Groden to do things because someone else is too lazy or doesn't feel obligated to do them before making their unvalidated claims, then eventually Robert Groden may stop wanting to answer my emails, too!

Bill Miller

Edited January 9, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

yet this same booze guzzling thicko says that he must keep it secret from the world,...

Duncan

Duncan,

This experiment has already been done, with obvious incontestable results.

Asking Groden to a repeat this experiment is only going to cause Groden to avoid BM as he does you on grounds of nonsense evasion.

The green dotted arrows show the obvious gross disparity in size.

Doesn't pass the smell test.