The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Chris Davidson]

Duncan,

I believe that is a good guess.

Maybe these top views I took, will re-enforce your calculations.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/TopWall.jpg

chris

[David G. Healy]

the wonderful world of Nutter evasion, now I KNOW Miller works for the 6th Floor Mausoleum..... pound away Duncan!

More from the jerk that says he believes the Zfilm is altered and says there is no sign of alteration to the Zfilm ... all in the same thread. And you wonder why you are not invited to see the assassination films at the Museum !!!

no place to run nor hide, wild Bill -- time to put up or shut up....

Actually, I was invited by Lancer to speak at one of the anniversary get togethers, way back when on that VERY subject. Unfortunately I was working out of country at the time and had to pass. I recall mentioning in passing mentioning to a few at the time"beware of charlatans", their on the way.... Disinfo agents dressed in researcher clothing.... Seems I had a premonition you were headed our direction.... I was right, AGAIN <sigh>

p.s. the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film (located at NARA IS altered) now, WHY do you think someone would want to do a thing like that, Bill? Feel free to start another thread discussing the issue, no sense in mucking up this thread with your ravings concerning the Z-film

Edited January 26, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Miles Scull]

Actually, I was invited by Lancer to speak at one of the anniversary get togethers, way back when on that VERY subject. Unfortunately I was working out of country at the time and had to pass. I recall mentioning in passing mentioning to a few at the time"beware of charlatans", their on the way.... Disinfo agents dressed in researcher clothing.... Seems I had a premonition you were headed our direction.... I was right, AGAIN <sigh>

Duncan,

Is there some weird tartuffery afoot?

BM said:

"The point I made earlier is that the corner of the wall at the top of the knoll is not two flat surfaces meeting and forming one straight edge. The corner of the wall is rounded. " -- Miller

"The corner of the wall is rounded."

Can you figure out what BM means?

I'll await your thoughts on this.

Meanwhile, maybe these scenes will aid your calculations:

[Bill Miller]

Well, I've requested you produce what you think are the correct lines. You have continually failed to do so. The ball's still in your court.

I don't have my laptop back from the shop and the one I am using at the moment has no programs that can create illustrations. One would think that the information constantly being sdpoon fed to you after the fact would sink in, but you are one of those people who doesn't want to get it.

Another long paragraph with no sunstance. Gary is not the one who is disagreeing with the lines on the forum, you are the one. Provide your counter strike in a photographic manner, and maybe you'll get somewhere. As usual, you have provided nothing.

I had looked at this silliness before and I called Gary Mack to pull of some of his images and tell me what he sees. Its like a sickness with some people ... they use poor images and then want to argue with someone who has far better ones. Is there a reason why you haven't sought Mack's opinion or asked for him to use his better prints so to offer you some more data so to try and draw a more precise conclusion based on accuracy instead of inaccuracy due to poor research practices???

It's like me saying I have photographic proof of Jed Clampett playing the banjo on top of the wall, with Jada dancing behind him singing Yankee Doodle Dandy and then I don't produce the evidence to back it up.

Offering poor inaccurate illustrations because you fail to check your data beforehand is basically the same thing IMO.

[Bill Miller]

Brilliant Chris, thanks. I don't think there's any need for me to contact Gary to get an exact measurement. I think your photographas confirm the bevel is around 1 inch at it's highest point, give or take the odd millimeter, and means Bill is talking fictional garbage when he says this 1 inch bevel is the white area we see along the bottom of Arnold's torso, combined with shadows from foliage and sunlight glowing on the wall. I'll say one thing for him, he has a vivid imagination that ranks alongside Picasso at his peak

Duncan

It matters not whether it is .5 inches - 1 inch - or two inches ... if you don't place your line across the top of its highest point, then you allegation is just more piss-poor Duncan research which has been an ongoing these with you for years.

[Bill Miller]

Actually, I was invited by Lancer to speak at one of the anniversary get togethers, way back when on that VERY subject. Unfortunately I was working out of country at the time and had to pass. I recall mentioning in passing mentioning to a few at the time"beware of charlatans", their on the way.... Disinfo agents dressed in researcher clothing.... Seems I had a premonition you were headed our direction.... I was right, AGAIN <sigh>

It certainly didn't take long for Conway to see that mistake for I know for a fact that she wouldn't lower her conference to the level of the Jerry Springer Show so to have you on the bill at this time.

[David G. Healy]

Actually, I was invited by Lancer to speak at one of the anniversary get togethers, way back when on that VERY subject. Unfortunately I was working out of country at the time and had to pass. I recall mentioning in passing mentioning to a few at the time"beware of charlatans", their on the way.... Disinfo agents dressed in researcher clothing.... Seems I had a premonition you were headed our direction.... I was right, AGAIN <sigh>

It certainly didn't take long for Conway to see that mistake for I know for a fact that she wouldn't lower her conference to the level of the Jerry Springer Show so to have you on the bill at this time.

And, how would you know such a thing, or anything for a FACT if you weren't pulling Lancer strings -- you can tell me, I won't say a word to anyone.....

So, how much did you invest in the new and improved Lancer board?

[Jack White]

The walls and pedestals all were made WITH CAMBER on the top

to shed rainwater. As I recall, the pedestal camber is an inch and a half.

Jack

Edited January 27, 2008 by Jack White

[Chris Davidson]

Brilliant Chris, thanks. I don't think there's any need for me to contact Gary to get an exact measurement. I think your photographas confirm the bevel is around 1 inch at it's highest point, give or take the odd millimeter, and means Bill is talking fictional garbage when he says this 1 inch bevel is the white area we see along the bottom of Arnold's torso, combined with shadows from foliage and sunlight glowing on the wall. I'll say one thing for him, he has a vivid imagination that ranks alongside Picasso at his peak

Duncan

It matters not whether it is .5 inches - 1 inch - or two inches ... if you don't place your line across the top of its highest point, then you allegation is just more piss-poor Duncan research which has been an ongoing these with you for years.

Bill,

From Moorman's position, I serious doubt that someone can distinguish the camber atop the wall, in a photograph.

It's hard enough to see it at eye level and above.

We are comparing straight lines, which are more than adequate.

If you want to include the highest points, at the corner of the wall, then in this example 2+3 match.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123...n/moorman-1.jpg

The problem is 1+4 don't match.

Once again, these are straight lines extended through the photo's.

chris

[Miles Scull]

Brilliant Chris, thanks. I don't think there's any need for me to contact Gary to get an exact measurement. I think your photographas confirm the bevel is around 1 inch at it's highest point, give or take the odd millimeter, and means Bill is talking fictional garbage when he says this 1 inch bevel is the white area we see along the bottom of Arnold's torso, combined with shadows from foliage and sunlight glowing on the wall. I'll say one thing for him, he has a vivid imagination that ranks alongside Picasso at his peak

Duncan

It matters not whether it is .5 inches - 1 inch - or two inches ... if you don't place your line across the top of its highest point, then you allegation is just more piss-poor Duncan research which has been an ongoing these with you for years.

Hmmm...Strong language for a Sunday..So are you saying that your Hudson analysis showing Groden's rifle shooter is wrong and pxxx-poor research?, and that you will now need to reconsider your result?

You should have used someone who was the same size and Hudson, but maybe you had Groden bend his legs while walking to his position to fit your theory?

Was he standing at his full height? What was the height difference between Hudson and Groden? Don't get me wrong, even though you probably don't know the height difference between Hudson and Groden, I believe your conclusion, in this instance is correct, but probably inaccurate due to the same minimal measurement variables that should also be acceptable in the study of Arnold and the wall. Small degrees of error can not be acceptable in one study ( yours ) and not acceptable in another ( mine ) It's just not cricket dear chap.

Anyway..back to the main topic of discussion. As Chris has rightly pointed out, the lines are straight enough, and an inch is going to make no significant difference.

Duncan

Duncan,

If anyone deserves a Lancer Award for discovering new data it's you.

No one should be jealous or whining.

BTW, I know who deserves the Mr. Magoo award:

Yes, McBarker, who whines a lot.

Edit: spelling

Edited January 27, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

And, how would you know such a thing, or anything for a FACT if you weren't pulling Lancer strings -- you can tell me, I won't say a word to anyone.....

So, how much did you invest in the new and improved Lancer board?

By opening my ears and listening to what they think about you. And I have not a penny invested in Lancer's new and improved board. Once again you have the facts wrong - as usual.

[Bill Miller]

Hmmm...Strong language for a Sunday..So are you saying that your Hudson analysis showing Groden's rifle shooter is wrong and pxxx-poor research?, and that you will now need to reconsider your result?

You should have used someone who was the same size and Hudson, but maybe you had Groden bend his legs while walking to his position to fit your theory?

Was he standing at his full height? What was the height difference between Hudson and Groden? Don't get me wrong, even though you probably don't know the height difference between Hudson and Groden, I believe your conclusion, in this instance is correct, but probably inaccurate due to the same minimal measurement variables that should also be acceptable in the study of Arnold and the wall. Small degrees of error can not be acceptable in one study ( yours ) and not acceptable in another ( mine ) It's just not cricket dear chap.

I can only imagine that you purposely say stupid things in an attempt to avoid the issues surrounding your poorly researched claims. I created a view that matched Zapruder's ... you know ... like the Photogammetry expert did with Moorman's view. Then I overlaid the two images and as you said ... it looks like Groden came to the same height as Hudson, so yes ... their head sizes and height must have been very close to being the same.

To give you perspectively challenged individuals an idea on how objects shrink in size and at what rate when seen through a camera lens, here are two boards of equal height and width - both or less than six to seven feet apart as they sit in the same lane of traffic. The camera is below the top of them. Note how they stack up to one another. Not only did this prove that Moorman was not in the street when she took her photo, but it also showed how much the further back object shrunk in size (visually only) when sitting only a short distance behind the other.

Now in that same photo there is someone seen over the south dog leg ... note how much higher over the fence line they appear to be when seen from the curb along Elm Street. These are visuals that the Photogammetry expert explain the more technical reasons why the people in Moorman's photo look as they do, but of course you don't want to consult someone of authority because it will only show how poorly you have approached this topic.

Anyway..back to the main topic of discussion. As Chris has rightly pointed out, the lines are straight enough, and an inch is going to make no significant difference.

If Chris thinks your lines are correct, then he is as loopy as you are for not yielding to the better images. There is a rule in law that says 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' ... the same can be applied to this thread and the quality of the images being used. Of course that seems to be what some of you rely on or else there couldn't be so much idiocy posted to the forum ... you would become bored. So you don't need to talk to people who do these things for a living. It's really pretty pathetic to see how a select few of you start with a conclusion based on either incorrect data or a lack of it and no matter how many mistakes of yours that are pointed out ... you conclusion never changes ... and thats why you don't care to consult those who have the best images and the knowledge to know how to apply their expertise to understanding them. The result ends up being the drunken AOL guy - the tripod man - the crouching man - the guy standing atop of the colonnade - the third guy at the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman. Yes, why should the inventor of such foolishness ever want to contact anyone like Mack to learn about aspect ratio or to gather data to apply to what ever issues you are having because its more fun to just run of threads with disinformation. Without having the data correct - your post are no better than the ones Miles makes when he says things that are complete falsehoods like how Bowers could see anyone on the stairs from inside the tower or how Duncan has been consulting Groden and Mack ... all utter garbage designed to pollute and disrupt the purpose of this forum having anything to do with Education. The only thing you two have taught any students of the assassination is 'not what to do'.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[/color]

Yes, McBarker, who whines a lot.[/b]

I was told that the whiner award went to the guy who sent the moderators the most complaints. I'm not sure what we would call the award for purposely and willingly posting the most disinformation, but I know you'd get the most votes.

Now not to pull you away from posting your senseless contributions to the forum ... any more comments about how Tony Cummings was able to match Badge Man's size by standing up at the fence without needing to be 33 feet further back and up on a ladder???

[Bill Miller]

"The corner of the wall is rounded."

Can you figure out what BM means?

Miles

Nope, he has me baffled Miles. As you can see here, the corner of the wall is not rounded.

But, as I said before, how can we trust the visual analysis of a man who can't even recognise his friend Gary Mack in a photograph

Duncan

I believe that even Kathy Becket wasn't able to tell it was Gary Mack in that poor dark capture that was posted and she just visited Gary only a few months ago. Add that capture to the information I had that Gary had told the Discovery people not to use him in their show because of some obvious mistakes they had made. I was unaware that they edited Gary's image into the show anyway, so is it your position that this equates to the nonsense you have been posting ... give me a break!!!

And let me say this ... even a view of a round pillar will appear to have straight edges. These views from off to the sides are somewhat misleading and the same mistakes were made by the critics when talking about the LOS Bowers was alleged to have to the steps. The sunlight from the southwest did extend over onto the east side of the wall and this is why the east side of the wall still rises at an angle to the left side of your vertical line before starting its downward decline when viewed from where Moorman stood. And I know that Chris has been contacted by Gary Mack and has been made aware of the shadows falling down on the top of the wall and why your lines are incorrect. Ignore it if you must to feel like you have salvaged you poorly researched claim, but it still doesn't make you correct.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

So you are saying Hudson was the same size as Groden? What margin of error did you consider and conclude for the test?

Duncan ... we can play the idiot game all day, but it gets rather silly after a while. I didn't care to know if Groden could wear Hudson's clothes. I wanted to see which individual was seen through the pyracantha bush. It took Groden to stand exactly where Emmett Hudson is seen in the assassination images to get a match. The overlays show Groden's head matches the same location both left to right and in elevation as the man seen in the Zfilm and it only occurred when Robert stood at the same spot Hudson stood. The third guy had left the area well before that period and the red shirted guy was on a lower step. So if Groden's head is seen at the same elevation as Hudson's while standing on the very step Hudson stood during the assassination ... their height must be very close to the same size .... would you not agree!

To give you perspectively challenged individuals an idea on how objects shrink in size and at what rate when seen through a camera lens, here are two boards of equal height and width - both or less than six to seven feet apart as they sit in the same lane of traffic. The camera is below the top of them. Note how they stack up to one another. Not only did this prove that Moorman was not in the street when she took her photo, but it also showed how much the further back object shrunk in size (visually only) when sitting only a short distance behind the other.

Another beautiful job of capturing an image Bill ... the clarity ... the detail ... simply amazing! By the way ... what is it??? ..Look Familiar?

Now in that same photo there is someone seen over the south dog leg ... note how much higher over the fence line they appear to be when seen from the curb along Elm Street.

That's an impossible quality image to take anything from. The quality is beyond pathetic

The purpose for that photo was to show how objects of the same size on Elm Street would stack up in Moorman's field of view when she and her camera was located above the curb. The main purpose it was used here was to show how two boards of equal width would appear "X" amount smaller than the other by one merely being a few feet further back from the camera than the other, which addresses the issues over Badge Man and Arnold's body sizes. It's like math ... if you are ignorant as to how it works ... then all you see is numbers which means nothing to you. I can only assume that is why you failed to understand the purpose of the image.

So what's your rule for accusing people of uploading poor quality images, yet in the same response, you upload one of the poorest quality examples I have ever seen on any forum

When looking at fine detail and such ... the best images would offer the most reliable data. This is one reason why I consult with Mack on the images that the Museum has because they have some of the best available and often times they are the originals.

lol..I haven't a clue who the drunken AOL guy is, but whoever he is, i'm sure he can't rank as highly in the hall of assassins as the flying tarzan with the machine gun from you back around 2001/2002. Mud sticks. Now would you care to addres your cornered wall?

This has come up before and a simple forum search under any of the key words here or on Lancer would probably produce the thread where the term "Drunken AOL Guy' was coined. I can go find it if you like. (see link)

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...=&mode=full

BTW, you have mentioned some 'flying Tarzan' claim in relation to me in the past and I did ask that you show me where you got that nonsense. To date I have not seen it. Even Miles hasn't a clue as to what you are talking about and he trolls for such stuff all the time and would post it in a heartbeat if it really existed. I challenge you to do the same.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Bill Miller