The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Gary Mack with radio in hand, receiving directions from the photographer for positioning the young man.

chris

I'll watch Duncan's clip even once again, but I know Gary Mack and that particular capture doesn't look like him to me. I can also tell you that I am certain that Mack didn't position Badge Man along the walkway.

[Bill Miller]

Are you really saying that Mack has told you that I, as Arnie in the Moorman image, must be placed on the east bank of the Trinity River? If that is the implication of your assertion, then I must call your bluff. I say you are misrepresenting Mack & misstating facts. I am 6 feet & weigh 158 pounds US. Go figure, thanks!

Miles - you aren't saying that you weigh only 158 pounds are you. By the looks of your picture ....... Besides, the point I made was in theory ... an object of twice the size of another must be moved back further from the camera to make they two appear the same size on the film.

Edited by Moderator to remove offensive remark.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Miles Scull]

I can also tell you that I am certain that Mack didn't position Badge Man along the walkway.

Oh?

You are certain.

Then, who did?

Oswald?

[Miles Scull]

Are you really saying that Mack has told you that I, as Arnie in the Moorman image, must be placed on the east bank of the Trinity River? If that is the implication of your assertion, then I must call your bluff. I say you are misrepresenting Mack & misstating facts. I am 6 feet & weigh 158 pounds US. Go figure, thanks!

Miles - you aren't saying that you weigh only 158 pounds are you. By the looks of your picture ... you could cut yourself in half and not get down to 158 pounds.[/b]

I weigh as much as this guy & not a gram more:

This guy looks suspiciously like you!

[Bill Miller]

You are certain.

Then, who did?

Oswald?

[/b][/color]

You waste forum space with such responses.

Edited by Moderator to remove offensive remark.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Bill Miller]

Gordon Arnold in TMWKK. While the angle isn't the same as Moorman, one can see how the ground rises above and beyond the top of the steps. Arnold's height, 25 years after the assassination, looks to be the same although he certainly gained a few pounds!

[Chris Davidson]

George is the name of the photo expert, who is looking at the Moorman photo, while directing Gary and the young man for positioning.

Gary and his sidekick, I believe Daniel is his name, also took part in the special "Murder in Dealy Plaza".

chris

[Jack White]

Looks like Gary to me, Kathy.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

As I have said all along, the data required is in Moorman.

Duncan

Duncan,

40' into the parking lot & 16'-20' in the air?

That jibes with Myers' calculations.

So, this is the Badgeman's shot LOS?

Or, is it Arnie's LOS?... I say it's Arnie's apocryphal LOS.

BTW, you got a nice capture; almost as good as Chris'. [I added a tiny truffle.]

Edit: spelling

Edited January 22, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I weigh as much as this guy & not a gram more:

This guy looks suspiciously like you!

I have little doubt that your photo attached to your post is not you ... I have always suspected as much, but still play the game with what you have brought to the table regardless of how erroneous because it shows how little you actually know about what you post. As far as the image looking like me ... its par for the course. The next time you are in a trolling mood ... put up the whole picture showing me and Peters shaking hands and then tell the forum how you could possibly think we look alike .... it should prove most interesting. In fact, I have sent Kathy a new photo of Larry and I shaking hands ... maybe she can post it for your amusement.

As far as your weight goes ... I went by the photo you allegedly post of yourself. If the data is phony, then the conclusion will be off, which is why your posted claims are most always worthless.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill, can we settle on the fact that no one is arguing that the ground doesn't rise, no one ever has. The argument is that Arnold can not be anywhere on that rising ground because of his small size, and no amount of positioning stand in's from DIFFERENT angles can mask the truth of the reality which is Moorman. As I have said all along, the data required is in Moorman. The Arnold data could be extracted to almost perfection, and the placard experiment could be attempted if someone had the means and equiptment to do so.

Duncan

Duncan, you are wrong and always will be because you don't have enough information to make an accurate claim. For instance, do you know that when the Discovery people first did the Badge Man recreation that they actually did get a match and said that the figure was the correct size ... its true. Then they had some computer guys (who didn't go to the plaza to take any measurements) run a test from their armchairs and they got the height of the wall from the ground to the top off by around 1'. This threw their measurements off and is why they made the dumb comment that Badge Man was between 2' and 3' tall. Mack realized their mistake and didn't want them to use him in their study if it wasn't accurate, but they obviously edited Gary into their second study, which the documentary doesn't make clear. Also, the guy in the white T-shirt with Gary was not being positioned there by Gary. That shot of them was in the initial going over the area and had nothing to do with Gary saying that Badge Man was at that location. It was the editing of the show that caused the confusion and because you geniuses never bother to follow-up on anything is why you guys are so lacking in facts and have drawn some erroneous conclusions. So the initial Discovery test using people on site did say that the person at the Badge Man location was reasonable and the computer guys who then claimed that he was too small made some errors in their measurements, which threw their results off. Now you have a little more information, not because of anything you did, but because I have handed it to you. As I said before ... someone can use a real person and place them on the knoll and get the same appearance that is seen in Moorman's photo ... all they have to do is actually do it instead of pretending to know more than they really do by trying to be an armchair researcher.

Below is some correspondence I had with Gary when asking questions about the Discovery program. I would have rather you had asked him these things so not to allow you people the opportunity to claim its hearsay, but that seems to be an out that you super-sleuths don't seem to want to give up.

"There were TWO versions of the Unsolved History/Discovery Channel show dealing with the Badge Man image. The first one, for which I was a major participant, never aired because the test re-creation proved the Badge Man image was the right size to be a person. The producers cut it from the show and later did a different test. I agreed to participate in that one, too, until I realized they did not have enough time to do a thorough study and had no intention of sending their scientists to Dealey Plaza for any onsite tests. At that point, I refused to continue. I also pointed out to the producer that one of the key reference points used by the scientists was off by at least one foot compared to 1963 and their error resulted in their erroneous finding that Badge Man was too small. I have a video tape of the original study and am prepared to have the work repeated."

Bill Miller

Edited January 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Aside from your scaling being done without any data or reference points, it still shows that you don't know the first thing about reading the image. For instance, the fence is 5' tall and Arnold was 10" taller than 5'. The Arnold standing closer to the wall is much taller in appearance to the fence, but the smaller Arnold in your poorly done sizing is closer to the actual height of the fence if he had been standing next to it. There are so many factors at play here and even this particular one that you have attempted to take on is far too complicated for you to even see the obvious. If you think I am kidding, then if the lenses are the same and the angles are close enough to suit you, then compare the height of the two fences from each image (Moorman's and TMWKK) and tell us what you got. Sloppy - shoddy - and inaccurate illustratrions is what you get!

[Bill Miller]

I am 6 feet & weigh 158 pounds US. Go figure, thanks!

Miles.

And i'm 6ft and weigh 175 pounds, just weighed myself, so I guess he got that wrong too

Duncan

Is that weight counting your hair or without? And by the way, I believe you probably weigh 175 pounds, but if Miles has used an actual picture of himself, because we know how much he bitches and looks for flaws in other peoples pictures - thus he wouldn't want to set a bad example, then he doesn't weigh less than you do. But then this is based on Miles veracity ... the same veracity he upheld when he claimed you had been consulting Gary Mack and Robert Groden.

[Bill Miller]

I have no reason to doubt Gary's story as relayed by you. He is one of the few peopel who I would call a genuine expert......However....the photogrammatrists did manage to create a perfect Moorman recreation, and when the Arnold data from Moorman is placed in to the recreation, as illustrated in my gif, it is clear that something is wrong with Arnold's size. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, and say that people have recreated Arnold as seen in Moorman by using stand ins. The plain fact is that that is not true. If it has been done, i've never seen it, and would be grateful if you could supply the proof that this has been done as you say it has. That proof would put an end to this debate.

Duncan

Fair enough, Duncan. But when another recreation is done and you see that you have been wrong ... what will that say about all those post that you and Miles made that would also have been wrong ... will that change your research practices or will you two continue on making the same ridiculous mistakes over and over again??? You said above, "that people have recreated Arnold as seen in Moorman by using stand ins. The plain fact is that that is not true." Do you think for a minute that I or Gary Mack would shoot our reputations in the tail by making such a statement if it were not true? This is the same exact crap that we heard when Gary and I both said that Lee Bowers COULD NOT have seen anyone on the steps from where he sat in the tower. An entire thread was run up with Miles taking the same position as you are doing and in the end it was he who didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about. That's the beauty of what I or Gary tells you people ... don't take our words for it - go to the Plaza and see it for yourself. I can tell you this much ... we don't write checks we cannot cash.

Now I have a question for you. The person seen in silhouette in your gif., can you tell me where this person is positioned beyond the wall? Can you tell me the size of this person? This is important because I can look at his image and tell that he is not back from the wall as Gordon was. He almost looks to be leaning forward towards the wall, but I would reserve that conclusion until a better image is produced. You see, its basic physics that the further from the camera one moves - the smaller they become. When looking uphill, their head height sinks and their feet rise. I asked that you guys take what was seen of Gordon in your insert and overlay him onto the fence where it connects to the wall and you'd see that he is bigger than you have made him out to be. This is even with him being compared to the fence where it meets the wall, not the fence directly behind him that the wall hides from out view. The fence is running at an angle away from Moorman's camera, thus it is even visibly shorter on the LOS to Arnold that it is where it meets the wall. None of this is mentioned in you geniuses post. The bottom line is that when the expert in Photogammetry used a real subject - he found Badge Man to be the right size in Moorman's photo to be a real person and said so in the clip you linked. It took another study using measurements of the wall that were as much as a foot off at one reference point to come up with a different outcome. You guys embraced the study that had the gross errors in it. As I have said many times ... you cannot rely on these bush-league illustrations you are posting because they are lacking credible data needed to test their accuracy. You stand someone at the wall - they will look far larger than the subject being seen again on the same LOS, but closer to the fence. Their size will shrink dramatically and thats how you tell where Gordon Arnold was standing. You take someone of the same height and size and move them along that LOS until they match the size of the figure in Moorman's camera. Again, even the very clip you posted a link to said that the expert in Photogrammetry managed to say that Badge Man was of the correct size when using an identical camera as Moorman's. It took someone using erroneous measurements and a computer to reach a different conclusion ... now tell me who appears to have offered the more credible data ... the Photogrammetry expert using a real person and Moorman's camera or the computer guy who used erroneous measurements that he relied on to reach his conclusions ... I say the latter is obviously flawed and that the same camera model and a real person used by the expert was the accurate conclusion.

I will attempt to get a recreation done even if it takes me going to Dealey Plaza once again and shooting it. The Expert in Photogrammetry did it - Mack has done it, and Groden and I have done it. My recreation using Mike Brown was inaccurate when it came to Gordon Arnold because Mike was a much different body proportion than Gordon was and that's OK. Cummings was the right size to be Badge Man. My test was merely to see how these individuals stacked up to one another and as my animation showed ... I used the same technique that the expert used by shooting a recreation image and overlaying it onto Moorman's photo. Mack went a step further and used people of the correct size based on the data he had on Gordon Arnold and Badge Man. The point being is that when using REAL people on the knoll ... the sizing of the subjects in the Badge Man image can be reproduced. The only difference that might call for some adjustment is the ground height between the walkway and the fence for it is no longer like it was at the time of the assassination, but maybe even it can be determined if a replica photo is taken from the south pasture and applied to the image I posted showing the mounded area against the horizon when viewed from the south side of Elm Street.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You say I am wrong by saying that a perfect recreation has never been done, and that you and Gary have already done it, so why bother to go back to the plaza to do another recreation when you can post those results which you already have to prove your point? You are shooting yourself in the foot by failing to produce this perfect match.

What you are missing is, or appear to be avoiding, is that all of the information required to measure Arnold is actually contained in Moorman. I would still like to know exactly where you locate Arnold as you have not made this clear to me. Yes moving him closer will make him look bigger, yes moving him further back will make him look smaller, I don't get your point. He is where he is, not further back, and not further forward. An Arnold ful size replica is required in height as we estimate at 5ft 10 and scaled to the width seen in Moorman. Nothing else will do, stand ins as close as they may be are not good enough when we have a full working model ready to be extracted from Moorman. Of course there will be a margin for error as we don't have Arnold's exact height, but I think a couple of inches either way is acceptable.

Duncan

Duncan, surely you must be smarter than your responses reflect. I cannot post Mack's work ... only Mack can do this and he has not given me permission to do this. The Discovery Photogammetry expert did get a match and it was so stated in that clip you linked. If you want to know more about those test - contact Mack and get the same information I have received.

And yes ... the information, except the ground height hidden by the wall, is in Moorman's photo. The Photogammetry expert could explain more about this, but as I recall in a previous reply ... you said you didn't need to talk to an expert. And your clasim that someone needs to use a cut-out of Gordon Arnold is asinine IMO. Your position has not been that the person seen as Gordon Arnold is a couple of inches too tall ot short or a few pounds heavier or lighter than Arnold is the problem, but rather the person is FAR TOO SHORT to be a real person. If someone 2" taller or shorter than Arnold is used ... one can still apply his image size to the realm of possibility when wondering if the figure in Moorman's photo is real. The Arnold full sized replica nonsense is mere BS when talking about the claim issue you have made. Like I said long ago - if Badge Man can be shown to be of normal size, then Arnold must also be acceptable. The Photogammetry expert, who you wanted me to hear, did the test and concluded that Badge Man was of the correct size to be a human being above the knoll. You used the erred study done by the computer guy, who relied on erroneous data on the wall height, to support your position. This is one of the things that seems to be a common theme with you and Miles ... you guys can say how you reached a conclusion - it can then be shown that your evidence used was erred - and then you still never alter your conclusion accordingly. It's like some goof saying that 3 + 6 is 15. No matter what arithmetic you provide to show that he is wrong or how many errors in his work that you point out ... he still embraces the number 15 as if he is correct. Its just like the old saying about how ignorant people never know when they were wrong.

Here is something that goes against your research practices, but why not find out how to contact the Photogammetry expert and ask him what he thought about the computer guys mistakes. Give him Gordon's standing height and see if he can mathematically explain to you whether it fits the image. Then feel free to post it if he doesn't mind. Until then, you are merely pushing garbage that even contradicts your position. By the way, I am sure that the Photogammetry expert doesn't own the copyrights to the work he did for the Discovery people, but I bet he can still answer your questions pertaining to the work he did and you can even ask him if he intends on ever doing another study that he can show.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Bill Miller