Jump to content

The Gordon Arnold Competition


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

The elevated tower, along with the overhanging tree foliage, prevents me from seeing the area being claimed to be in full view, so I do not see how Bowers could see something that the photos show was not visible.

Bill Miller

Erm..let me think...Got it...How about tree foliage growth between Nov22nd 1963 and the date the W.C took the photographs. You don't need to be a genius to work that out Bill, but I suspect you worked it out anyway and just deliberately and conveniently forgot to suggest it...lol

Duncan

Duncan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the WC finished their report within the first year following the assassination. Those photos were taken during their investigation. The tree in question is a large Texas live oak tree. wasn't it stated in the movie "JFK" that the tree doesn't lose its leaves until March ... I think it did. The WC photos were taken before the foliage had fallen off, thus there was no loss of foliage up to that time and I didn't mention it because I just assumed everyone had enough sense to know better.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, good. Please post them, then. :blink:

Miles,

Was there not a link posted that allowed someone to go review the 26 volumes ... so is there any reason why you cannot go find them? I mean, isn't this attempt of your to play the forum xxxxx about as silly as my telling you that there is a photo in a book that could be of benefit to your study and then you come back telling me I should go find a copy of that book, scan the photo, and post it so you don't have to do anything but continue trolling the forum.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason that it has gained attention, including yours, is because people are seeing Arnold as a floating torso for the FIRST time and are considering the possibilities.

I agree. You gave your possibilities and asked your questions. I pointed out your errors, some of which you admitted to when questioned how you did your scaling in the first illustration that was claimed by some to be solid proof of something, and Jack and I gave you some level plane views as to how short the wall was in relation to the ground on the west side of it. So everyone has seen the possibilities and has viewed the images. Those like Groden, Mack, Jack, Cummings, Beirma, myself, as well as others have been out to the plaza and seen real people positioned over the wall and gotten the same basic views as Moorman's. Those who have not been there and done these things seem to be the most perplexed by your claim and were willing to buy into it without looking further for a reasonable explanation. For instance, do you know that when standing up at the Betzner location and looking down Elm Street that you cannot see the island along the curb that is visible in Altgens #6 when looking back the other way. It's true! yet I had two researchers at a Lancer conference come up to me and tell me that the street had been changed since the assassination ... they had not gone down to Altgens location and looked back the other way. I about dropped off my chair when some were claiming the darnell film didn't show a high spot of ground. I have nature footage where we are riding uphill and the film when watched looks like we were on a flat plane - and my footage is far clearer than that of the walkway. Did you know that when looking uphill at someone and then getting above them and looking downhill at them will produce two different heights for the same individual? You took an uphill view of Arnold and stitched a ground level view of a soldiers body to it. This would not be acceptable to people who insist on accuracy, but it was good enough for you because I am sure you didn't think about it. In fact, I'd not be surprised that you don't even know what I am talking about.

Below was yet another example where you placed a blue line on the level of the sidewalk. Arnold wasn't on the sidewalk and above your blue line is the ground where it is still rising above the walkway. The closer Arnold moves to the fence, the higher in elevation he would rise. Keeping in mind that this is only the view that can be seen of that area ... how much higher does it rise that is being hidden by the wall? We do not know that answer - just like we do not know that your body proportion index for Arnold is correct. What we do know is that you did not scale your first illustration correctly and you have offered a second illustration mixing an upward view of Arnold with a level planbe view of someone else, which may or may not even be close to accurate.

A self proclaimed bragging expert like you holds no water with me.

Duncan, I have never claimed to be an expert at this. This is your mental state and attitude that has attributed that reference to me. Once again you misstate the facts.

It may do with the puppet yes men on Lancer who for cowardly reasons known only to them, are scared to argue many points with you. You are full of big words, and clever at making things sound as if what you say is true, by quoting and producing completely off topic points. The good people of this forum do not fall in to the crawling I must agree with Bill Miller catagory, and that's what I love about this forum, no censorship for people with different opinions, unlike Lancer.

Again, the above comment is a reference to your mental state of mind and attitude at that moment. As a matter of fact, Lancer had never prevented you from posting the same nonsense you have brought here. Would you like a link posted to your floating cop claim that can still be seen in its entirety on Lancer. Like with your claims, you tend to want to blame everyone else for your shortcomings when it comes to being accurate and thorough. Do a paper on your floating torso or floating Arnold and try and get it published. Then come back and tell everyone how Miller must have gotten to all the publishers which prevented you from sharing your ground breaking finds with the rest of the world. Give me a break!!!

You have proved less than Zilch..and have still after asking you at least a dozen times now NOT ONCE..produced an estimate of where Arnold's feet would be if the wall was not there in Moorman. Robin agreed you wouldn't do it. You are full of big words and no action as far as this topic is concerned.

Duncan

Duncan, you asked me to do the same sloppy research that you did. I don't have a full body photo of Arnold so to know his height proportions. I don't have an exact idea as to the elevation of the ground he stood on. All I can do is stretch someone else's lower body to a point where I want it to be, but where does one combine the two without a more definitive image of Arnold as seen in Moorman's photograph. Instead, Jack and I showed you that your ground elevation for the wall was way off. Maybe its not your fault and you really are not capable of understand what has been told to you, but that's not my, Jack's, or anyone else' fault.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

Was there not a link posted that allowed someone to go review the 26 volumes ... so is there any reason why you cannot go find them? I mean, isn't this attempt of your to play the forum xxxxx about as silly as my telling you that there is a photo in a book that could be of benefit to your study and then you come back telling me I should go find a copy of that book, scan the photo, and post it so you don't have to do anything but continue trolling the forum.

Bill Miller

Just popping in to se if you've managed estimate the whereabouts of the floating Arnold torso's feet yet. I know you can do it Bill, but I also know why you won't do it, and what the outcome would be if you did. Your refusal to complete my request is nothing but an admission of failure by default.

Duncan

Duncan, you appear to live in a fantasy world IMO. I noticed that Moorman's photo shows the top of the shrubs along the east side of the wall to be near the halfway point. (Miles response #50 shows Mary's photo) I also notice that the ground level on the west side of the wall is also had the midway point on the wall. There seems to be little difference in the true ground level and your estimated stitch job shows, so what is left to prove??? A small rise in the ground/mound and the degree of probable error in your latest attempt at eyeballing Arnold's height could easily make the difference.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, good. Please post them, then. :blink:

Miles,

Was there not a link posted that allowed someone to go review the 26 volumes ... so is there any reason why you cannot go find them? I mean, isn't this attempt of your to play the forum xxxxx about as silly as my telling you that there is a photo in a book that could be of benefit to your study and then you come back telling me I should go find a copy of that book, scan the photo, and post it so you don't have to do anything but continue trolling the forum.

Bill Miller

You're playing your silly little game again. It's called Bill's Snipe Hunt.

You say something exists (WC photos of Bowers' view or the "Weitzman Report"), knowing that it does not exist.

Then, you claim that your obviously completely refuted position still survives because of rescuing, phantom, yet to be seen magic evidence which you, however, fail to produce.

Then, you tell others to find this missing, non-existent evidence, so that they will help you prove what you cannot prove on your own.

Then, if they do not produce this evidence which you cannot produce to prove your own contentions, then you accuse these others of being bad researchers because they cannot help YOU.

Then, you claim that your position is proved because these same poor researchers cannot prove you wrong because THEY cannot find your evidence FOR YOU.

It may be time for a clinical evaluation. LOL-2.gif

I have looked extensively for these apocryphal photos. They do not exist & never did. One very good reason that they do NOT exist is that the WC saw the danger to their lone nut theory in having Holland's evidence tested. Go figure.

Where are the Photos, Bill?... Do you deny that they are in the "Weitzman Report?" Oh yeah, you can't find that either. Go figure.

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer all back to Nigel Turner's test photo. The three people

in Moorman can all be replicated within anatomical tolerances

in a photo from the Moorman location. Ken Holmes, standing

in for Arnold, had his feet on the ground. Face reality and

cease wild imaginings.

Jack

There can be absolutely no anotomical or perspective comparison with that photograph. It's a ludicrous suggestion. It is not even close to the Moorman image. Why do you guys persist with such ridiculous false comparison nonsense.

Duncan

moorturnerhl4.gif

Turner's "test" produced a figure twice the size of your man in Moorman,

the same difference is seen in TMWKK when Arnold himself stood behind the wall & then

Bill Miller too, came back with same results.

It is no coincidence that these all contain the same humungous cock-up.

You may have gotten the height close to what you think you see in Moorman but

you forgot to take into account the overall body mass,

which is way to small to be a fully grown man standing a few feet north of the top step.

Gary Mack told me that when he first went to the plaza to check on Badgeman he immeadiatly noticed the man(if real) would have to been back behind the fence because he was just too small to be standing behind the wall(which is what he originally thought).

The Arnold figure has somehow dodged this rather astute observation, until now(unless you count Myer's work).

I find it hard to believe you cannot see how small he is compared to those three real people behind the wall, so I'm putting your protestations down to stubborness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, you appear to live in a fantasy world IMO. I noticed that Moorman's photo shows the top of the shrubs along the east side of the wall to be near the halfway point. (Miles response #50 shows Mary's photo) I also notice that the ground level on the west side of the wall is also had the midway point on the wall. There seems to be little difference in the true ground level and your estimated stitch job shows, so what is left to prove??? A small rise in the ground/mound and the degree of probable error in your latest attempt at eyeballing Arnold's height could easily make the difference.

Bill

Your argument is about as valid as a 93 dollar bill. You don't have a clue about the accuracy of the ground level. Your white line in the above post is bonkers. The fact is Bill, that your calculation is wrong and my calculation is correct. I have discovered what I hope is not an attempt at deception by you by simply lighting your wall photograph which you claimed showed the ground level. It is clear that you got it wrong. Your Red Line is off the mark by a huge margin of error, it's bammy bonkers. I have corrected where the ground area is. I hope you appreciate me pointing out your huge scale error or stitch job. To deny this would be foolish, It's there for everyone to see. Keep on lookin for that Giant Mole Hill.

Duncan

Have a few from the backside. If it helps

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer all back to Nigel Turner's test photo. The three people

in Moorman can all be replicated within anatomical tolerances

in a photo from the Moorman location. Ken Holmes, standing

in for Arnold, had his feet on the ground. Face reality and

cease wild imaginings.

Jack

There can be absolutely no anotomical or perspective comparison with that photograph. It's a ludicrous suggestion. It is not even close to the Moorman image. Why do you guys persist with such ridiculous false comparison nonsense.

Duncan

moorturnerhl4.gif

Turner's "test" produced a figure twice the size of your man in Moorman,

the same difference is seen in TMWKK when Arnold himself stood behind the wall & then

Bill Miller too, came back with same results.

It is no coincidence that these all contain the same humungous cock-up.

You may have gotten the height close to what you think you see in Moorman but

you forgot to take into account the overall body mass,

which is way to small to be a fully grown man standing a few feet north of the top step.

Gary Mack told me that when he first went to the plaza to check on Badgeman he immeadiatly noticed the man(if real) would have to been back behind the fence because he was just too small to be standing behind the wall(which is what he originally thought).

The Arnold figure has somehow dodged this rather astute observation, until now(unless you count Myer's work).

I find it hard to believe you cannot see how small he is compared to those three real people behind the wall, so I'm putting your protestations down to stubborness.

You guys just don't seem to recognize that the reconstruction is sensitive to

slight variables:

1. Physical size, height and stature

2. What the people are standing on

3. Exact photo line of sight

4. Exact location of people

5. Exact location of corner of wall (Nigel missed slightly, but then he was

not doing a precise reconstruction, just an approximation)

I have tweaked Nigel's photo SLIGHTLY to consider variables. If you do

not comprehend this, I give up...you are just argumentative contrarians.

Bernice...post image here. Thanks.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [bOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired.

I believe the WC published photos taken from the Tower in which Bowers sat.

Oh, good. Please post them, then. :up

(Because I have evidence that Bowers' view was open & unobstructed! :D)

(Oh, no!... You're NOT going to claim that you do not have access to these alleged photos? This isn't going to be your tactical repeat of the mythical "Weitzman Report" tactic, which tactic you used to evade the refutation of Hoffman's story?? Yes or No? - LOL-2.gif)

The elevated tower, along with the overhanging tree foliage, prevents me

prevents me?... But only if you can see the alleged photos you allege exist. Can you see these photos? Can anyone? Do they exist? Oh, that's right, they are hidden deep within the never existing, unfindable "Weitzman Report." I see.

from seeing the area

Uh, but you can't see what you can't see, right? Can you see that what you can't see, you can't see? See what I mean? Duncan you see what I mean, don't you?

being claimed to be in full view, so I do not see how Bowers could see something that the photos

Uh, pardon me. What photos?

show was not visible.

Bill Miller

Bower's view: WCH volume 24 p. 548 CE 2118

In addition I will try to post a photo that I first found posted by Mr. Robin Unger of Bower's view.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, you appear to live in a fantasy world IMO. I noticed that Moorman's photo shows the top of the shrubs along the east side of the wall to be near the halfway point. (Miles response #50 shows Mary's photo) I also notice that the ground level on the west side of the wall is also had the midway point on the wall. There seems to be little difference in the true ground level and your estimated stitch job shows, so what is left to prove??? A small rise in the ground/mound and the degree of probable error in your latest attempt at eyeballing Arnold's height could easily make the difference.

Bill

Your argument is about as valid as a 93 dollar bill. You don't have a clue about the accuracy of the ground level. Your white line in the above post is bonkers. The fact is Bill, that your calculation is wrong and my calculation is correct. I have discovered what I hope is not an attempt at deception by you by simply lighting your wall photograph which you claimed showed the ground level. It is clear that you got it wrong. Your Red Line is off the mark by a huge margin of error, it's bammy bonkers. I have corrected where the ground area is. I hope you appreciate me pointing out your huge scale error or stitch job. To deny this would be foolish, It's there for everyone to see. Keep on lookin for that Giant Mole Hill.

Duncan

Duncan,

It appears that you don't even understand why the ground is seen higher that the walkway in Moorman's photo. And if trying to educate you is considered deception in your mind, then consider me guilty as charged. I hope you won't mind if I post to this thread periodically asking what you have done to get this alleged groundbreaking news out to the world.

I have not a clue as to what you were talking about concerning my stitching error, but I doubt you do either.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turner's "test" produced a figure twice the size of your man in Moorman,

the same difference is seen in TMWKK when Arnold himself stood behind the wall & then

Bill Miller too, came back with same results.

It is no coincidence that these all contain the same humungous cock-up.

I think if you research the cameras used in the two photos - you will find the lens difference can make some objects look larger and closer than they were seen by the other camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...