Jump to content

The Gordon Arnold Competition


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

I extended the highest ground point visible in that picture of Shaw over to the "SOUTH DOG LEG" to show that it comes about to the halfway point of the wall. By applying that information to the "SOUTH DOG LEG" in Moorman's photo, then it gives one an idea where the ground is on the west side of the wall when viewed from the east side.

Bill

In effect, you are agreeing with me that Arnold's torso must be above that line when viewed from Moormans position.

Duncan

No .. you read it as you want it to read and not by what was actually said. Your putting the upper body of Arnold with the lower body of someone else is based on your interpretation as to how Arnold should have looked. As I recall - you have now done two models - both different heights when compared to one another - and both being claimed to be accurate at the time they were created. No consideration was given by you as to the two different planes at which the two halves are seen from, nor did you have the needed data to know exactly where to stitch the two halves together at. You cannot even say what the body index of the two subjects was. Did one have a longer upper body than he had in the lower body and/or visa-versa? Was the ground where Arnold stood even a little higher than the highest point shown in the photo of Shaw?? These are things we do not know with what we have to go on, thus what I have done is show the lowest elevation of the ground where Arnold stood based on the limited field of view in the photo of Shaw and pointed out that when the degree of possible error in your scaling is introduced, then the size of Arnold starts to make more sense.

I cannot explain it any better than this. Perhaps once your claim gets world wide attention, then perhaps someone better qualified to teach can help you understand the information that has been provided in this thread.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Can you imagine Miller NOT knowing that the color photo above of Bowers' view was NOT from the WC Report!

Miles,

If you are going to say such things that I do not believe are true, then I must call you on them. Please go back and show where I said that the color photo came from the 26 volumes because I believe you have once again purposely misstated the facts so to get your jollies by polluting this forum with more disinformation. If I find that I had said such a thing, then I will go back and correct it.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

See response #72.

Hey, Mr. Bill Miller,

QUESTION:

Do you think that this photo is an actual WC photo that you proclaimed existed & exists in the WC Report of 1964?

What is your response, please?

Yes?

No?

I do not know?

WCHV24pp548CE2118.jpg

All the photos shown in the 26 volumes were B&W. The color photo is an image that Dave Curbow emailed me.

Bill Miller

Right!

You said these B&W photos included ones taken from Bowers point of view which led you to believe that Bowers could not have seen what was, from these WC photos, apparently invisible.

Miller said:

QUOTE

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. 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

Now, your assertion & claim are obviously totally based on the B&W WC photos you say exist because YOU BELEIVE the WC published these photos of Bowers' view.

I say that they do not exist & never did.

So Miller has claimed that he believes that these photos exist.

But he cannot produce them.

And he refuses to try to find them. --LOL.gif

Conclusion? Miller's assertion & claim that Bowers could not have seen all persons & activity behind the fence during the shooting is consigned to the proverbial garbage can. :unsure: And none too soon.

Edited by Miles Scull
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. :unsure:

(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

Hey, Dave Curbow,

Are you one of Bill Miller's old time buddies? Ho Ho! I saw your bio:

I have been an evaluator (I believe that term fits me better) rather than researcher, as Bill Miller referred to me, for over thirty years. I am a high school teacher living in the Midwest United States. I am in the process of writing a critical thinking manuscript with an emphasis on writing for an advanced placement course in my school, hence my interest in your forum.

This post has been edited by Dave Curbow: Sep 13 2004, 11:26 AM

I think I saw you at the Dallas conference? Yes? This is an earlier pic?

Curbow2.jpg

Hey, can you find any more of the B&W photos Miller is talking about? You have the full WC Report 26 volumes, right?

Let me know if you cannot find them, please. :up

Thanks much!

:D

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

It's a minor curiousity but after hearing it may be from the HSCA era

I had to go find the details of that color image on Corbis for you.

Image: © LE SEGRETAIN PASCAL/CORBIS SYGMA

Photographer: Pascal Le Segretain

Date Photographed: November 13, 1998

Location Information: Dallas, Texas, United States

This image is distributed as Rights Managed.

As for the WC images you are after

this was the best I could do

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/...bits/ce2118.jpg

they do exist, I've seen them too but like others, I didn't think they were worth saving, Thompson's is better.

Major PS.

If you have seen the "FULL" transcripts of Lane's RTJ then I suggest you, like, share them with us.

Please?

If you were refering to what Myer's has shown us, then I would advise caution because he showed us what he wanted us to see, not the the full unedited transcript.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles,

It's a minor curiousity but after hearing it may be from the HSCA era

I had to go find the details of that color image on Corbis for you.

Thanks. Yes. Car models seem post HSCA.

Image: © LE SEGRETAIN PASCAL/CORBIS SYGMA

Photographer: Pascal Le Segretain

Date Photographed: November 13, 1998

Location Information: Dallas, Texas, United States

This image is distributed as Rights Managed.

Hmm. Wonder if Dave Curbow will turn up to explain matters.

As for the WC images you are after

this was the best I could do

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/...bits/ce2118.jpg

they do exist, I've seen them too but like others, I didn't think they were worth saving, Thompson's is better.

Thanks for your help! I take it that there are other WC photos of even poorer quality? These would be useless to support any contention, pro or con Bowers. But that is worth knowing.

Major PS.

If you have seen the "FULL" transcripts of Lane's RTJ then I suggest you, like, share them with us.

More than happy to, if I can get back the exact copy. I need to also check on rights. Do you know that Gary Mack has a copy or the original, but will not permit copying. His reason is that this is rights protected. He only let it out once & then it was to Myers. Of course, you see the aftermath of that in Myers article. Ouch!

Please?

If you were refering to what Myer's has shown us, then I would advise caution because he showed us what he wanted us to see, not the the full unedited transcript.

No. From what I read I can tell you that Myers was 100% accurate. The full interview makes that fact abundantly certain & clear. The problem arises from Myers only using extracts. Unless you very carefully read Myers, you can get muddled & so then suspicious. But, no, Myers is dead on & he includes & quotes in his article the essential Bowers to carry his point firmly.

As to Bowers not mentioning the man running into the car park after the shooting, I do not see a difficulty. No one ever asked Bowers a question which would have ellicited that specific piece of data. Bowers could have seen this & most probably did. And Bowers does comment on the rush of people flooding into the lot.

Also, on the Hargood issue, I also do not see a problem. For example, why would Bowers make up such a nonsense? He simply mistook what he saw. Remember his LOS angle & the distance to Elm.

Alan

Edited by Miles Scull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better version Miles.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol24_0283b.htm

You were right to ask.

These photo shows us nothing of any value.

Yes, this is better.

Thx.

But, as you say they do not help.

Can you tell me why Miller refuses to posts these photos to support his claim?

If you found them, then so can Miller, right?

Can't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better version Miles.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol24_0283b.htm

You were right to ask.

These photo shows us nothing of any value.

Yes, this is better.

Thx.

But, as you say they do not help.

Can you tell me why Miller refuses to posts these photos to support his claim?

If you found them, then so can Miller, right?

Can't understand it.

Alan,

Here's a start to a run of shots I plan to post which contend that Bowers could have & did see in key areas behind the fence, all along the fence. More to follow when I can grab some time.

This is a crop of Robin Unger's superb 1967 Corbis. Blow it up. Boom. Notice the free LOS to the fence corner, the ample illumination on a bright sunny day :sun & the fact that these trees are larger that they were in 1963.

train_tracks2---1--1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a crop of Robin Unger's superb 1967 Corbis. Blow it up. Boom. Notice the free LOS to the fence corner, the ample illumination on a bright sunny day :sun & the fact that these trees are larger that they were in 1963.

Miles ... other than just saying it ... What have you done to know that what you said is accurate? Can you tell by that Corbis photo if the tree's have grown? Other than budding ... how much does a mature live oak tree grow per year?? And one more thing ... Do you know if the trees in Dealy plaza had been trimmed at all before that photo was taken??? I need to ask these questions just to see if you really have looked into this or if it just more propaganda designed to disrupt yet another thread.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is better.

Thx.

But, as you say they do not help.

Can you tell me why Miller refuses to posts these photos to support his claim?

If you found them, then so can Miller, right?

Can't understand it.

I believe the same could be said of you as well, Miles. Still no time to do research?

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a crop of Robin Unger's superb 1967 Corbis. Blow it up. Boom. Notice the free LOS to the fence corner, the ample illumination on a bright sunny day :sun & the fact that these trees are larger that they were in 1963.

Miles ... other than just saying it ...

I DID other than just saying it... BUT, YOU CUT THAT FROM MY POST TO ALAN... may I ask, WHY??

What have you done to know that what you said is accurate? Can you tell by that Corbis photo if the tree's have grown? Other than budding ... how much does a mature live oak tree grow per year?? And one more thing ... Do you know if the trees in Dealy plaza had been trimmed at all before that photo was taken??? I need to ask these questions just to see if you really have looked into this or if it just more propaganda designed to disrupt yet another thread.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[/b]

I believe that you cut my complete post to Alan.

See my complete post:

Alan,

Here's a start to a run of shots I plan to post which contend that Bowers could have & did see in key areas behind the fence, all along the fence. More to follow when I can grab some time.

This is a crop of Robin Unger's superb 1967 Corbis. Blow it up. Boom. Notice the free LOS to the fence corner, the ample illumination on a bright sunny day :sun & the fact that these trees are larger that they were in 1963.

As you & everybody can see you cut out:

"Here's a start to a run of shots I plan to post which contend that Bowers could have & did see in key areas behind the fence, all along the fence. More to follow when I can grab some time."

In other words, you cut out of my post a critically important part of it.

Why?

The part you cut out contains the phrase: "More to follow... "

"More to follow... " means that there is more to follow.

Now, what could that be? What could be the "More to follow... "? :huh:

Well, of course, the "More to follow... " will be more photos which will address important issues, some of which Miller raises.

Instead of waiting for "More to follow... ", Miller , instead, cuts out "More to follow... " from my post TO ALAN.

Thus, Miller is able by slight of hand & trickery to create a false image to the forum.

And that is: that Miller is justified in demanding the answers to his questions because there seems to be no indication from me that answers will be coming in due time.

AH Ha! But Miller himself cut out "More to come... ", remember?

So, Miller sets up a straw man to knock down.

Oldest trick in the troller's book.

And, then, as the icing on the cake, Miller accuses me of disrupting this thread!

When, obviously, that is exactly what Miller, himself, has just done. :sun

Bill, at least try to stay on topic. Why not scale GI Joe's legs, as Duncan has asked you to do about 50 times.

Quit wasting everybody's time with nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, at least try to stay on topic. Why not scale GI Joe's legs, as Duncan has asked you to do about 50 times.

Quit wasting everybody's time with nonsense.

[/b]

[/color]

He won't do it Miles.

He thinks his reputation is more important than the truth

Yeah, and he's trying to deflect this thread from its topic by picking on me.

But, everybody sees this!

Desperation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, at least try to stay on topic. Why not scale GI Joe's legs, as Duncan has asked you to do about 50 times.

Quit wasting everybody's time with nonsense.

[/b]

[/color]

He won't do it Miles.

He thinks his reputation is more important than the truth

Gentlemen,

As I have said before ... If what Duncan did was mere guess work that is subject to a noticeable degree of error ... I do not see how my joining in and also doing incompetent scaling based on a lack of data would be any smarter. And in a way, I do have a reputation to uphold. You see, I don't want to be known as a type of person who merely throws dung on the wall in hopes that it will stick. I am awaiting the chance to capture an image of Gordon Arnold himself and make the comparison. I appreciate your understanding and patience. I will try and post it ASAP.

On a humorous note: I do find it amusing that Miles didn't think that a poorly scaled Arnold in the first illustration Duncan posted was a waste of time and yet he thinks my using actual assassination images and post photographs is a waste of his time.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gordon Arnold Floating Torso Locater Theory

I think the only way to solve this problem in all seriousness is to apply my new Gordon Arnold floating torso locater theory. I know some will ridicule this, guess who?....BUT...I am being serious. It requires someone to carry out an experiment in the Plaza. Unfortunately, being in Scotland rules me out at this moment in time, and I do not have the required photograph taking skills. This would require someone to set up a camera at the Moorman location with a way of super imposing the Moorman Arnold torso over the new recreation view from the camera on to the camera before taking some shots. The person behind the wall would simply need to walk about until my Arnold locater became an exact as possible match to the Moorman torso. This should give us the torso's exact height and location. The imposed image could then be removed from the camera, and the appropriate shots taken if there is a match. I have uploaded a prototype of the Arnold floating torso locater. Obviously the placard in my illustration would need to be sized to an pre agreed real life size for the Arnold torso. I expect this suggesstion will raise a few eyebrows and give some people a laugh, but my proposal is 100% serious. Any volounteers?

Duncan

Duncan...your "Arnold locater" is not necessary...BUT photography CAN answer

the question...but only if the parameters are correct and all things are considered:

1. The camera must be on the exact Moorman line of sight.

2. The height of Arnold must be known, and a person of that height used.

3. Radio communication should be used to position the three models.

4. Brick or objects of known height should be used to boost heights of models;

it must be remembered that Arnold specifically mentioned a mound of dirt, so

that must be replicated at various heights.

5. Accurate vertical and horizontal measurements must be made.

The most important of these is the Moorman line of sight. In the Turner photo,

Nigel made no serious attempt to find the Moorman line of sight, and may have

been off by ten feet or more.

If for instance he was ten feet farther west than Mary, then his view of the

south dogleg of the wall would make it appear much wider than Moorman's,

considerably affecting any attempt to scale his photo to Moorman's using

the wall.

My studies the past few days have made me move Arnold about two feet

farther north and west than I previously thought, and unless it is proved

otherwise, I think he was standing on a small mound of dirt, as he said

from the beginning...long before anyone knew he might be in the Moorman

photo. Why would he mention such an innocuous detail if it were not so?

Jack

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...