The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

Miles is ignorant about our dealings with MIT and JPL. Maybe Gary Mack will inform him.

I do not waste my time with spreaders of false information.

Jack

Jack, the first three words of your response said it all. According to what I recall that was reported to me was that the people who looked at your best prints were in fact impressed with the quality of them. Were some grainy - of course, but Myers had a goal in mind when he tells of how Badge Man isn't real for why else would he use someone who was much larger than Badge Man so to be able to claim the person needed to be further back in the RR yard. Myers has no information as to how big Badge Man was, so when someone like Mack can place a known human being in Badge Man's place and get a match, then that only shows how poorly Myers ran his inquiry. For instance, had Myers of turned Vaughn sideways so to mimic a firing position like that of Badge Man's, then Vaughn would have had to move closer to the camera so to increase his girth so to match Badge Man's. Myers failed to see this, thus his work was in error and those who applaud it were not sharp enough to catch the mistake. But consider the source for those are the same people who will post that Duncan has consulted Groden and Mack while knowing that is a blatant lie.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Robert Groden is NOT a member of the Education Forum.

Therefore, the WS must be forwarding your postings surreptitiously, possibly using a dead drop.

I have zero contact with Groden.

So, who do you think might be the WS?

Glad you bring this up, Miles. As I recall ... that's the same Robert Groden that you didn't mind my taking your erroneous claim about Bowers LOS to and having him shoot test pictures for us. So it seems that the weasel also has a double standard, as well. Another example was wanting me to contact Mark Lane for you. Mark Lane is not a member of this forum, but that didn't seem to bother you at the time either. So yes, 'Ye shall know them by the fruit they bare'.

[Miles Scull]

Robert Groden is NOT a member of the Education Forum.

Therefore, the WS must be forwarding your postings surreptitiously, possibly using a dead drop.

I have zero contact with Groden.

So, who do you think might be the WS?

Glad you bring this up, Miles. As I recall ... that's the same Robert Groden that you didn't mind my taking your erroneous claim about Bowers LOS to and having him shoot test pictures for us. So it seems that the weasel also has a double standard, as well. Another example was wanting me to contact Mark Lane for you. Mark Lane is not a member of this forum, but that didn't seem to bother you at the time either. So yes, 'Ye shall know them by the fruit they bare'.

Duncan,

Do you agree that:

BM = WS ?

[David G. Healy]

Well, it doesn't matter who asks Bill, but it still puzzles me why Groden, according to you has such a great interest of my work. I have nothing personal against him, we have never communicated in a send and return reply manner, so as I said earlier, he is either reading my stuff on the forum or receiving information from someone about me having the audacity to challenge the existance of Arnold in Moorman. How dare I...slap my wrists

Yet again you misstate the facts. I have never said that Groden has any great interest in your work. The garbage that you come up with has been and still is the butt-end of jokes that many of us laugh about when we get together. Groden has ridiculed me by asking 'Why do you waste your time posting to those idiots!'. So now you know what he thinks and why he won't waste his time answering your emails. And your so-called challenge has been like taking a feather to a knife fight, thus there is no challenge. Groden will ask 'What does he know about the optics pertaining to Moorman's camera lens?' ... or 'What does he know about the foreshortening effect and how did he apply it to the image?' Then I tell Groden, 'He didn't address any of this.' And that's when Robert will ask why am I wasting my time when this person doesn't even know the first thing about the subject he is wanting to argue about.

And this is just why I cannot just ask Robert to do something because 'Duncan' wants it done, so I have to approach it as if its something that I'm working on, then he'll get around to doing it.

What I have done is go to Dealey Plaza and used stand-ins while viewing them from Moorman's location.

Yes, BUT YOU HAVE NEVER GOT A MATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!No one has

You don't know the facts as usual, thus you are once again wrong. I will get around to presenting some images to show how once again you are in error and it will prove nothing except how poorly some people look into their claims before making them. Like is the past - it will not stop you from carrying on with the same pitiful research practices, thus nothing will be gained other than once again showing how you were wrong, which is nothing new.

John Simkin manages to go to Dallas every year ... So buy yourself an airline ticket well in advance for a cheap rate and make the trip. Plan out your research for when you get there - go to the Museum and anywhere else you can think of so then and only then you will at least appear to be serious about the things you say.

Bill Miller

speaking of garbage -- why not [just for a change] try posting WHO you're quoting and responding too.... ?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I'm taking bets....First thread to reach a thousand posts 2-1, any takers.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

You got a winner for the 3.20 at Kempton tomorrow?

Duncan[/b]

Yes thanks Duncan, and yourself?

[Bill Miller]

speaking of garbage -- why not [just for a change] try posting WHO you're quoting and responding too.... ?

I guess that waking up in the middle of a thread can make it hard to follow when starting at the end, but if the subject really does interest you ... then go back to the beginning and read the post and then you'll know who and who's not being quoted. It also allows one to get up to speed on what's already been discussed.

[Bill Miller]

Generous odds Steven. If I was a gambling man i'd take your bet as it will probably take at least another 300 or so posts for Bill to produce his conclusive evidence against my claim which four months ago he claimed he had , as well as producing the Groden results if Groden decides to do the the test at Bill's request.

Duncan

How many post will be made before you (Duncan) produce your recreation photo so to make your claim valid? You just do the same old sorry dance ... for example ... I have said several times that I do not have permission to post Groden's best film strip of the Nix film. So instead of you doing a single thing to go see it so to validate the half-baked presentation you have made .... you complain how Groden's film strip hasn't been produced. As I recall, you are also one of those people who argued that what you see in images on the Internet cannot be trusted - that you need to see the original materials with your own eyes. It's amazing at how much effort you put into avoiding being thorough with your claims and how little effort you seem to put in validating them. Yes, it will be interesting to see which one of us gets anything done to address this matter.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Here's yet another reminder of what this thread is about as you appear to be forgetting.

Duncan

Yet still another reminder; click here for photo: Arnie in Moorman

[Miles Scull]

Excellent Miles, excellent, a great overall viewing study of the riduculousness of Arnold being real in this position in Moorman. I suggest anyone reading this to click on the BIG PICTURE LINK supplied by Miles.

Duncan

Thx, Duncan,

Is there a chance this might produce another 150 delay posts from WS/BM?

Here's a crop for you as addendum:

[Bill Miller]

What a stupid question YOU are the one disputing my claim. If you want to dispute it, which you have been doing for over 4 months now, then the ball's still in your court.

Not just disputing the claim, but the ridiculous method you used to derive at it. I thought you said you understand film transfers and so on. At least contact Gary Mack and find out the correct aspect ration for your scaling fiasco ... you've started out with a grave error right off the bat.

What's Nix got to do with anything. Once again for what seems like the millionth time, I remind you that this topic is about the existance or non existance of Gordon Arnold in Moorman, NOT Nix, NOT Muchmore, NOT anything else. Has that sunk in yet?

Those films are important because if they show the same person beyond the wall, then it says a lot towards your poor understanding of the scaling issue you are dealing with. It no longer becomes a question of 'if someone is there', but rather why do they look as they do and how to educate Duncan so to be able to understand it.

So instead of you doing a single thing to go see it so to validate the half-baked presentation you have made .... you complain how Groden's film strip hasn't been produced.

Here's yet another reminder of what this thread is about as you appear to be forgetting.

USA and UK aspect ratio's included in this analysis showing no difference which affects the height of Arnold.

Contact Gary Mack who understands this stuff wuite well and see if he can explain it to you, then apply it and see what you get.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Thx, Duncan,

Is there a chance this might produce another 150 delay posts from WS/BM?

Here's a crop for you as addendum:

Miles ... can you explain how you did your scaling for the vertical and horizontal dimensions of your insert? It looks like you just chose a size at random that would be too small and ran with it. I would think that after you got busted for posting that blatant lie about Duncan consulting Gary Mack and Robert Groden that you'd be a bit more cautious about being reckless over the information you post.

[Miles Scull]

Aspect ratio's have been covered way back in this post, and have been applied accordingly at my end.

I find it strange you have never mentioned the Moorman polaroid aspect ratio. Never mind, you probably forgot to ask Groden why this is important when making a comparison between a figure in Moorman and a comparison figure from another photographic source.

Duncan

That's right, Duncan,

WSBM, as expected, is whistling TBM & calling it a Toccata and Fugue. (TBM = Three Blind Mice)

For a variety of reasons this (image below) is not precise or exact, although it is generally telling:

On the other hand, however, whereas I have repeatedly emphasised that this comparison (below) is not 100% accurate,

it IS, still & even so, near enough to 100% as to be obviously a clear & present TRUTH in regard to the enormous disparity in size between the Arnie image & a real human.

Edit: spelling

Edited January 12, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

For a variety of reasons this (image below) is not precise or exact, although it is generally telling:

Right, Miles - its telling alright and I'd post what it tells, but I'd have to break several forum rules to cover it properly. It is said that 'its sometimes better to not say anything and look a fool ... rather than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt'. You (Miles) are using nothing for scale and merely putting up miniature inserts without any rational attempt to get their sizes accurate. Even the photo you are using is looking uphill at a much steeper angle than Moorman was, thus its a different lens that is probably much closer to the knoll. If you keep posting such nonsense, then what ever recreation that is done won't help you because you won't understand it.

[Miles Scull]

For a variety of reasons this (image below) is not precise or exact, although it is generally telling:

Right, Miles - its telling alright and I'd post what it tells, but I'd have to break several forum rules to cover it properly. It is said that 'its sometimes better to not say anything and look a fool ... rather than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt'. You (Miles) are using nothing for scale and merely putting up miniature inserts without any rational attempt to get their sizes accurate. Even the photo you are using is looking uphill at a much steeper angle than Moorman was, thus its a different lens that is probably much closer to the knoll. If you keep posting such nonsense, then what ever recreation that is done won't help you because you won't understand it.

BM,

Of course you took the bait, hook, line & sinker!

This image is a deliberate fabrication designed to be grossly inaccurate by almost every criteria of precision.

IOW, this image is SO wrong, it's a photographer's little haha, or joke.

And you are SO right to attack this major bogus.

Meanwhile the accurate image (below) you completely fail to address or even, note, mention.

Even funnier: the bogus image, bogus as it is, still tells the truth of Arnie in Moorman!

Time to take a nap, BM?