The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

Why mention the person in silhouette? I have made no reference to him, and he is not relevant to the Arnold study. He just happens to be in the recreation image which I have used.

Duncan

You used his image from another view in your overlay. In fact, the sizing you used doesn't even match correctly, but you used it - its your so-called work, thus I have a question pertaining to it even if you don't understand why its necessary to ask it. So why dance around it - just simply answer the question and if you do not know the answer, then just say so. It's not important that you understand this stuff ... its important that the people who do understand it hears your answer.

[David G. Healy]

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.

Ok, Then why not post yours? You said both you and Gary, not just Gary

well now THAT is interesting.... perhaps Bill will now admit he's working for the 6th floor museum... Hiya Gary

The Discovery Photogammetry expert did get a match and it was so stated in that clip you linked.

He didn't say he got a match. Watch it again.

Bill has been known to OVER state much

[Bill Miller]

Ok, Then why not post yours? You said both you and Gary, not just Gary

I have posted that image several times on the forums ... go do a search and look at it. In fact, it has been posted top threads that you participated in.

A blind man can see that Arnold is too small. There's no point where his feet could ever touch the ground. Follow the estimated bottom of the fence line, at no point is the relative incline higher than the bottom of the fence where it connects with the fence, follow his estimated feet, and you'll get a negative result.

Duncan

Now you have taken the fence not next to the wall in Moorman's photo, but used the fence from a different film and by the way ... these are not inserts from the same image source, so did you adjust the aspect ratios??? And if those questions make you uncomfortable ... how does your insert measure up to the fence ... oh thats right ... you cannot do such a comparison because these are all taken from different film sources. Shoddy and shameful practices. Maybe its time to contact Gary Mack and let him tell you about the errors you have made. Better yet, send that stuff to George Pearl and post what he says about your approach.

[Bill Miller]

You used his image from another view in your overlay.

The image is from the same view Sherlock, ie the perfect Moorman recreation. Another blunder..Then again, how can I expect a man who doesn't even recognise his own researcher friend in a photograph to see anything and give a proper judgement.

Duncan

I love this ... for clarification - Are you saying that Muchmore had the same view as Moorman did to the knoll and that their cameras made alike things look to be the same size no matter what the distance from the camera was?

Edited January 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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.

Ok, Then why not post yours? You said both you and Gary, not just Gary

well now THAT is interesting.... perhaps Bill will now admit he's working for the 6th floor museum... Hiya Gary

Yes David ... anyone that Mack hasn't given them his personal photos to so they can be posted on the forum - does indeed work for the Museum. You are so clever - you really are!!! I am starting to wonder by the off-the-wall nonsense that you post that maybe you have worked for the 6th Floor Museum and gotten canned, thus making you a disgruntled ex-employee. At least through your past remarks ... a case can be made for saying it.

Bill has been known to OVER state much

I guess that Gary and I discussing an event that he has first hand knowledge about (even the parts were edited out of the show) could be seen by someone like yourself as overstating something, but I will take that title any day over being known for saying opposite positions in the same thread. What was that again ... Oh yes, 'I have never seen proof of alteration' and 'I believe the film to be altered'.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

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.

Ok, Then why not post yours? You said both you and Gary, not just Gary

well now THAT is interesting.... perhaps Bill will now admit he's working for the 6th floor museum... Hiya Gary

Yes David ... anyone that Mack hasn't given them his personal photos to so they can be posted on the forum - does indeed work for the Museum. You are so clever - you really are!!! I am starting to wonder by the off-the-wall nonsense that you post that maybe you have worked for the 6th Floor Museum and gotten canned, thus making you a disgruntled ex-employee. At least through your past remarks ... a case can be made for saying it.

dgh: oh Bill.... when you couldn't get work at the 6th Floor Museum I tried to find you employment with ADOBE, as it stands today you're certainly not qualified for the Photoshop unit, but, I suspect you could learn something sitting at the feet of the masters.... so, you're admitting your working for the 6th Floor Museum, yes? So much for gratitude.

Bill has been known to OVER state much

I guess that Gary and I discussing an event that he has first hand knowledge about (even the parts were edited out of the show) could be seen by someone like yourself as overstating something, but I will take that title any day over being known for saying opposite positions in the same thread. What was that again ... Oh yes, 'I have never seen proof of alteration' and 'I believe the film to be altered'.

Edited January 23, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Miles Scull]

Here's another showing the bigger picture from a recreation still which exposes Arnold's ridiculously small size. Not 100% accurate, but close enough.

Please note this is not Muchmore

Duncan

Duncan,

Great treatment, thx.

Here's a little look see below for your inspection:

The Arnie inset overlay is faded for translucency.

The idea is to compare the diminutive Arnie to the man standing at the wall in the original photo.

Again, the Arnie overlay is slightly larger than the Arnie in the original Moorman.

This is done in order to obviate accusations that Arnie is scaled too small.

BM seems to be focusing on forum member’s corpulence? Why? Can you see any relevance of this to Arnie’s reality in Moorman?

[Miles Scull]

The only relevance I can see is that the Arnold floating torso looks rather too corpulent for a young soldier in 1963. Maybe he was an army chef?

Duncan

Duncan,

To add to your jowl, here's an interesting jujube:

Remember when Midget Man was dunned for not showing a muzzle flash & that was explained repeatedly & at great length by BM by his asserting that the MM shot occurred just a fraction of a second BEFORE Moorman's pic?

BM contended that the muzzle flash had expired as visible because of the time interval.

Now, if this is true as BM maintains, then, Duncan, can you tell me, this forum & especially BM:

WHY IS THERE A MUZZLE FLASH IN FRONT OF BADGEMAN?

Edit: spelling

Edited January 23, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

The only relevance I can see is that the Arnold floating torso looks rather too corpulent for a young soldier in 1963. Maybe he was an army chef?

Duncan

Duncan,

To add to your jowl, here's an interesting jujube:

Remember when Midget Man was dunned for not showing a muzzle flash & that was explained repeatedly & at great length by BM by his asserting that the MM shot occurred just a fraction of a second BEFORE Moorman's pic?

BM contended that the muzzle flash had expired as visible because of the time interval.

Now, if this is true as BM maintains, then, Duncan, can you tell me, this forum & especially BM:

WHY IS THERE A MUZZLE FLASH IN FRONT OF BADGEMAN?

Well Miles, If Badgeman is real, then the only explanation can be that he fired after the fatal headshot and missed, or it may be a small area of white smoke lingering and not a flash. You know what I think

Duncan

I see, you mean it's holy smoke.

True.

[Bill Miller]

dgh: oh Bill.... when you couldn't get work at the 6th Floor Museum I tried to find you employment with ADOBE, as it stands today you're certainly not qualified for the Photoshop unit, but, I suspect you could learn something sitting at the feet of the masters.... so, you're admitting your working for the 6th Floor Museum, yes? So much for gratitude.

I live quite well, David ... thus I don't need your assistance in getting work. And as I recall ... you don't get invited to JFK related film showings - I do ... and I'd like to keep it that way, so don't try and help me because someone may think poorly of me by way of guilt by association with you.

[Bill Miller]

Well Miles, If Badgeman is real, then the only explanation can be that he fired after the fatal headshot and missed, or it may be a small area of white smoke lingering and not a flash. You know what I think

Duncan

This has been posted many times on the JFK forums - At the time of the fatal shot - Roy Kellerman who was riding in the passenger seat of the President's limo had said that he heard what sounded like a sonic boom ... bang .. bang almost over the top of one another. Mrs. Hartman said that she saw a furrow in the grass on the south pasture leading back to the large tree above the knoll. As you know .. the large tree is near the Badge Man figure. It was a nearby police officer that told Mrs. Hartman that the furrow looked to have been made by a bullet hitting the ground. This is where the story ends. So yes, Moorman's photo was taken after the sound of the kill shot that hit the President, thus Badge Man missed and possibly caused the furrow seen on the south pasture.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

What planet are you from. .Oh, I remember Planet Groden... I'm creasing up with laughter here at your sloppy slackness Bill.

Tell me, show me, post the reference where I use MUCHMORE as a comparison.... I can save you some time though..There isn't one I have used the recreation, nothing else. I suggest you make yet another appointment with your optician, and please, take someone with you in case you get lost on the way to the appointment

Duncan

My post was in response to the inserts used on an image of the knoll in #857. I will need to ask you what was the source for that poor dark knoll image that you used?

Thanks!

[David G. Healy]

Well Miles, If Badgeman is real, then the only explanation can be that he fired after the fatal headshot and missed, or it may be a small area of white smoke lingering and not a flash. You know what I think

Duncan

This has been posted many times on the JFK forums - At the time of the fatal shot - Roy Kellerman who was riding in the passenger seat of the President's limo had said that he heard what sounded like a sonic boom ... bang .. bang almost over the top of one another. Mrs. Hartman said that she saw a furrow in the grass on the south pasture leading back to the large tree above the knoll. As you know .. the large tree is near the Badge Man figure. It was a nearby police officer that told Mrs. Hartman that the furrow looked to have been made by a bullet hitting the ground. This is where the story ends. So yes, Moorman's photo was taken after the sound of the kill shot that hit the President, thus Badge Man missed and possibly caused the furrow seen on the south pasture.

Bill Miller

dgh: Gary Mack, if BMiller can work there, I want a job too! I bet my resume blows Miller's right out of the water... give me a call or drop me a note, you know where to find me -- thanks for the consideration

[Miles Scull]

Well Miles, If Badgeman is real, then the only explanation can be that he fired after the fatal headshot and missed, or it may be a small area of white smoke lingering and not a flash. You know what I think

Duncan

This has been posted many times on the JFK forums - At the time of the fatal shot - Roy Kellerman who was riding in the passenger seat of the President's limo had said that he heard what sounded like a sonic boom ... bang .. bang almost over the top of one another. Mrs. Hartman said that she saw a furrow in the grass on the south pasture leading back to the large tree above the knoll. As you know .. the large tree is near the Badge Man figure. It was a nearby police officer that told Mrs. Hartman that the furrow looked to have been made by a bullet hitting the ground. This is where the story ends. So yes, Moorman's photo was taken after the sound of the kill shot that hit the President, thus Badge Man missed and possibly caused the furrow seen on the south pasture.

Bill Miller

dgh: Gary Mack, if BMiller can work there, I want a job too! I bet my resume blows Miller's right out of the water... give me a call or drop me a note, you know where to find me -- thanks for the consideration

Duncan,

Whoa!

The ape loosed his manacle.

If it's smoke at Badgeman's front, then Midget Man is eliminated because he's smokeless.

Plus, the smoke volume at Badgeman is too big for such a short time interval between shot & Moorman.

So, it must be muzzle flash. But BM says it cannot be muzzle flash because of the same time interval.

The ape is in the pantry!

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Whoa!

The ape loosed his manacle.

If it's smoke at Badgeman's front, then Midget Man is eliminated because he's smokeless.

Plus, the smoke volume at Badgeman is too big for such a short time interval between shot & Moorman.

So, it must be muzzle flash. But BM says it cannot be muzzle flash because of the same time interval.

The ape is in the pantry!

I guess being known for posting ridiculous dribble doesn't bother you. Moorman's photo doesn't show any smoke that I am aware of ... even though you tried passing off the shadows of tree foliage on the fence as such ... I take it you have changed your position or do you keep both handle so to xxxxx both sides of the fence? (no pun intended) In fact, the guys on the underpass didn't mention even seeing the smoke until it had drifted out from under the trees, which by then the sunlight has illuminated it.

Also, please quote where I have said that what you see in Moorman's photo is not a flash ... I am not aware of ever saying this. I am thinking this is just another one of your deceptive falsehoods that you like to post so to bring down the quality of the information seen on this forum. In fact, did I not direct you to Ruby's muzzle flash seen in the shooting of Oswald to support how the flash spreads out upon leaving the barrel of the gun.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Bill Miller