Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Duncan MacRae

Well, it's exactly a year now since Bill Miller promised to produce evidence of Gordon Arnold's presence on the knoll in the alleged position in Moorman. I and the world still await his concrete proof. At Bill's request I am starting a new thread on the matter, and I am opening with his last response in another thread. Anyone wishing to contribute to this thread should FULLY READ " The Gordon Arnold Competition " which can easily be found by doing a forum search.

My conclusion for newcomers to the topic is that Gordon Arnold can not be real in Moorman due to his extremely small size in relation to other objects in Moorman.

Moormanrec_comp.gif

Bills Last Response which I will reply to in a seperate post.

I believe your claim that you worship a being called God is what started the off topic nonsense. Now tell me, where is your evidence that god exists?

Let me see if I have this right ... Mark mentions 'worshiping' Gary Mack as if that applies to me and I in return say that I only worship God. Next you come back and are now wanting to discuss the evidence behind there being a God in a thread about the Zapruder film and Muchmore films. Feel free to start a thread asking for evidence that there is a God ... a creator of the universe ... I am sure that will go over big with the creators of this JFK assassination forum.

Duncan sees anything that he doesn't understand as non-existent.

Yes, like Gordon Arnold in the Mooman position, or should that be the Mormon position? :lol:

And yet you saw a third man at the pedestal - you saw a stick from a tree branch in Betzner's photo and saw it as a man atop of the colonnade - you saw another guy over the wall next to Black Dog Man while not giving any thought that BDM is the same guy in Moorman's photo that you claim is not real. I'd say that the fact that you are able to function at all in this world is a sign that there must be a God. :lol:

You are wrong, and Jack has corrected you on this many times. You obviously have a low memory capacity. Jack has stated to you that MIT only made comments on the Badgeman figure, nothing else.

Are you saying that Jack or Gary have never discussed the Badge Man or other figures with any other photo experts other than MIT ... is that you're position??? And did not MIT say that Badge Man looked to be someone on the knoll ... and if that is true, can you tell us what you have done to determine the height of Badge Man's figure compared to Gordon Arnold's???

And so we do not get too far off topic here ... maybe you should be asking these questions in the correct thread - you think???

but MIT said the Badge Man work appeared to show someone on the knoll.

No they didn't, other than Badgeman, no other subjects were discussed. I believe Jack can confirm this.

Badge Man is a someone and seen on the knoll ... least ways that was how he was presented in Turner's documentary on the subject.

Cummings height is not relevant. Your study has been shown by me to be a crock, and the now known 1 ft drop in ground level since 1963 only adds to your faulty study.

Cummings is without a doubt a 'REAL PERSON', thus he is relevant and I will ask you again how does his size compare to that of the Arnold figure who was standing just two to three feet closer to Moorman's camera. Feel free to consult an expert if you cannot answer the question because the very type of response you gave to my direct question tells me that you should be seeking outside help.

I've never used the Turner wall in any study, in fact it was me who pointed out to you and Jack that the turner photograph could not be used in a study.

You didn't have to say it ... You used Arnold from Turner's documentary ... you never adjusted the aspect ratio ... and you have used a latter day image of the wall in relation to your scaling claim.

Like you are going to go to the proper authorities and tell them that you have definitive proof of God LOL!!!

So you equate your not notifying the media or authorities of your find as meaningless as someone saying there is a God .. is that the best answer you can come up with to explain your lack of action???

Yeah Yeah Yaeh, ramble on Bill....oh by the way, what experts have you consulted in the photographic field, and what authorities have you taken your outstanding discoveries to, and when will Life magazine be publishing your revelations???? The Swinging Tarzan in Moorman doesn't count, and neither does Groden LOL!!! :lol:

Can you be specific ... no wait, I guess if you could have then you would have. And what is a swinging Tarzan???

Bill Miller

Edited by Duncan MacRae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The whole Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion was created to attract your attention away from the real gunman in the Moorman picture. In Robert Groden’s video, “The Case for Conspiracy” he shows a close-up of what looks like two men behind the picket fence next to a tree, that area is where I believe a real shooter was hiding. IMO, someone cut out the Groden close-up and pasted it to the other side of the photo to create Badgeman.

Don Bailey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion was created to attract your attention away from the real gunman in the Moorman picture. In Robert Groden’s video, “The Case for Conspiracy” he shows a close-up of what looks like two men behind the picket fence next to a tree, that area is where I believe a real shooter was hiding. IMO, someone cut out the Groden close-up and pasted it to the other side of the photo to create Badgeman.

Don Bailey

Yeah Don, sure, sure :lol: How does the tune to The Twilight Zone go again? LOL!!!

I'm sure even Bill will agree with me for once, that in this instance you are stark raving three thirds crazy bonkers :lol:

Duncan

I hear that tune every time you objectors of the "Grassy Knoll Truth" speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion was created to attract your attention away from the real gunman in the Moorman picture. In Robert Groden’s video, “The Case for Conspiracy” he shows a close-up of what looks like two men behind the picket fence next to a tree, that area is where I believe a real shooter was hiding. IMO, someone cut out the Groden close-up and pasted it to the other side of the photo to create Badgeman.

Don Bailey

Yeah Don, sure, sure :lol: How does the tune to The Twilight Zone go again? LOL!!!

I'm sure even Bill will agree with me for once, that in this instance you are stark raving three thirds crazy bonkers :lol:

Duncan

I hear that tune every time you objectors of the "Grassy Knoll Truth" speak.

Just once I would like to see North Knoller provide the trajectory for a shot that would not damage the left side of the head.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion was created to attract your attention away from the real gunman in the Moorman picture. In Robert Groden’s video, “The Case for Conspiracy” he shows a close-up of what looks like two men behind the picket fence next to a tree, that area is where I believe a real shooter was hiding. IMO, someone cut out the Groden close-up and pasted it to the other side of the photo to create Badgeman.

Don Bailey

And who exactly do you belive "created" this "Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion" Don? Are you accusing Gary Mack? Or perhaps Jack White? Gordon Arnold himself perhaps? Have you actually put any thought at all into this? Denis.

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='Don Bailey' post='151834' date='Aug 10 2008, 10:59 AM']The whole Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion was created to attract your attention away from the real gunman in the Moorman picture. In Robert Groden’s video, “The Case for Conspiracy” he shows a close-up of what looks like two men behind the picket fence next to a tree, that area is where I believe a real shooter was hiding. IMO, someone cut out the Groden close-up and pasted it to the other side of the photo to create Badgeman.

Don Bailey

And who exactly do you belive "created" this "Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion" Don? Are you accusing Gary Mack? Or perhaps Jack White? Gordon Arnold himself perhaps? Have you actually put any thought at all into this? Denis.

Don makes about as much sense as Chapman did when he said why he shot John Lennon.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More.

Compare " Arnold " to the real humans in this accurate recreation with my accurate overlay.

men_back.gif

Duncan

Duncan,

It takes someone about .5 seconds to understand why you'll claim that you do not need to consult an expert in Photography or Photogammetry so not to have to experience of being thrown out of their office. The only question I have is whether or not Don helped you with this ridiculous illustration of yours.

To start with ... the alignment of the above overlay is so poorly done that the top of the fence drops considerably between the two interchanges. So what do you do ... you ask the viewer to compare Arnold's height over the top of the wall to people who are not only far closer to the camera, but more of them are seen because the camera angle looking at the knoll is different than Moorman's, which is why the fence line drops and rises so dramatically between the images when they are seen in motion. When I look to our left of the kid standing on the sidewalk and I see just how far the fence drops, I just shake my head and think to myself that I could solicit the assistance of an organ-grinder's helper monkey and probably get it to offer up a better finished product than what you posted.

Also, the animated illustration in your opening post isn't any better. You have no reference points so to check for the vertical scaling of what appears to be no fewer than three different image sources stacked into one. Yes, its little wonder why you refuse to allow someone more skilled than yourself in cameras and reading images to review your claim.

I tried to make things simpler for you by asking that you compare Tony Cummings height to that of Gordon Arnold and your remark was 'Cummings height is not relevant.' My point was that if Cummings is real, then why cannot a real person who is standing not on the walkway as the people in your illustration are doing, but who is back at the fence a couple of feet from Arnold not be used to better determine if Arnold falls into the same height dimensions as Cummings. I must assume that you just don't understand what it is that needs to be done or you don't want to get it for the same reason that I believe you do not wish to have your methods critiqued by someone more skilled than yourself.

By the way, you claimed to have gotten the aspect ratios right. I would love to hear how this was accomplished ... especially when you obviously have such huge flaws in your overlays ... hearing how you compensated the aspect ratios will be very interesting to learn.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

PS: Do you believe Badge Man is a real person???

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think?

Forum rules do not allow for me to answer that question honestly.

More baloney...as you know, the height of the fence and exact location of the fence is different than it was in 1963, so obviously there is room for compensation.

Oh by all means, Duncan ... please explain in more detail. In what year was the fence moved - how many inches - and how does that effect a photo being taken from the south pasture ... I am looking forward to learning something here even if it is learning just how little you know about what you are talking about.

When I look to our left of the kid standing on the sidewalk and I see just how far the fence drops.

So what?

You're joking, right! The angle at which the wall is viewed from below will make a difference in how much of an object is seen over it as it moves further away from the wall. The fence is also running at an angle away from Moorman's camera, so the degree of difference at the outer edge of the wall where you pasted in Arnold's image from the Turner series is even greater if you apply the same image over the dog leg as Gordon is seen in Moorman's photo.

Go for it then, I've waited a year for you to submit your promised killer prosecution.

You have not shown the skills or intelligence to understand the data that has been presented to you, thus only another photo taken with someone standing over the dog leg and near the fence will demonstrate the flaws to your claim. Maybe an expert could have given you a more technical critique, but you have not been interested in allowing that to happen. When I get to Dallas again, I will be happy to shoot a comparison photo, but please don't expect me to make a special trip from British Columbia to Dallas, Texas just so to show that someone who cannot see why Cummings is relevant or that the fence dropping against the wall in your ill-thought-out illustration is important just so to show you to be in error once again. Because doing so would be just another instance where someone makes a claim and rather than to get it validated ... they tell how they are correct because no one has gone and did their leg work for them.

Now what about that Badge Man question ... do you believe him to be a real person or not??? I believe in the past that you said that you believed Badge Man to be real .. is that correct or do you care to continue showing the forum that you really don't have the faith in your wacky claim that you pretend to.

Also, the animated illustration in your opening post isn't any better.

It's superb, and makes all of the valid points, or rather all of my points valid

:ph34r: What a moronic thing to say. It's like saying that you used a flawed scale that shows 12/10s is a whole to make an accurate measurement. It's like saying that the rock laying on the other side of an unbroken window was just thrown through it. You can say anything, but to someone who understands that if the data is incorrect, then so is your conclusion.

Yes, its little wonder why you refuse to allow someone more skilled than yourself in cameras and reading images to review your claim.

Like who?..I've asked you this a thousand times..Groden once again doesn't come in to the expert photo reading catagory.

So let us make this clear to everyone reading this BS of yours ... you cannot find not a single Photo expert to look at your illustrations and render an opinion. That people skilled in Photography and/or Photogammetry are so rare that someone like yourself hasn't a clue how to locate one. Is this really the position you wish to take????

I tried to make things simpler for you by asking that you compare Tony Cummings height to that of Gordon Arnold and your remark was 'Cummings height is not relevant.'

He is not not relevant he's taller than the alleged , the ground is lower...you have not allowed for these differentials

Please explain in detail what you just glazed over in your statement. This will help me see whether or not you even have the slightest idea as to what you are talking about.

Simple, because Arnold's existance can not be determined by your faulty method. I've told you how it can be done, but you fail to acknowledge my proposed method.

So you are saying that a real person at the fence cannot be used to tell if the Arnold figure at the fence is within reason big enough to be a human being. Are you sure you wish to present that position to the readers of this forum???

By the way, you claimed to have gotten the aspect ratios right. I would love to hear how this was accomplished ... especially when you obviously have such huge flaws in your overlays ... hearing how you compensated the aspect ratios will be very interesting to learn.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

You're a gas Bill :lol:

Saying, "You're a gas Bill" is not an answer to the question that you were asked. It could be construed as an attempt on your part to dodge the question because you really did not adjust the aspect ratios accordingly like you claimed to have done. Would you like another chance at answering the question???

PS: Do you believe Badge Man is a real person???

Why do you ask?

This too is not an answer to the simple question that you were asked. I am starting to believe more and more that you are aware of the problems with your claim that Arnold is too small to be human and are going out of your way to avoid <_< being put in a position to admit that your study was poorly conducted. Let me know when you are serious about your search for the truth and we'll continue on. :lol:

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Flawed Cummings garbage is beginning to bore me, and the sad thing is that your ego prevents you from admitting it's flawed. I suppose your reputation as usual is more important than the facts.

The only way to find out if and where Arnold was standing is by the method described by me over and over again. Any attempt by any real human being so far to replicate Arnold has failed miserably, including your attempt.

This is my killer composite <_<

Funny how when you cannot really explain in detail what you are talking about ... it starts to bore you. As if no one could see that coming. Come back when you want to be serious about answering my questions if for no other reason than to educate me and others.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything has been explained in great detail in the original thread where you promised to deliver your proof that Arnold is real in the Moorman location.

Now in the past year you have did nothing to prove it.

Duncan MacRae

You talk like a lunatic ... when not directly ... you do it indirectly with an answer like that above. It was YOU who started a part 2 thread. You dragged over some of the old flawed examples from the past. You then say that I have done nothing to prove otherwise, yet when I ask you for information that you know is not going to help your situation or I point out some big flaws in your animation ... it is YOU who then takes the position that you have become bored and do not wish to continue.

Like I said in this thread that YOU posted ... we'll continue on when YOU get interested enough in addressing the questions put to YOU. We can start with you choosing a position as to whether you believe the Badge Man figure is real or not. We both know why you are dodging that question and until you do, then you are not going to allow me to prove you wrong, thus you are wasting my time. Come back when you are serious!

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to find an argument that a figure in a photo (Moorman's) cannot be Arnold because the figure is too small. It has been my contention that a figure (BDM) in a photo cannot be Arnold because the figure is too large. Since this thread is entitled "The Gordon Arnold Competition," I will therefore put my two cents' worth in (again) by quoting myself from a year ago:

"From my perspective, if BDM was Arnold, he had to have the broad waistline of a flabby 350-pounder or so. Hardly the likes of a young soldier. Indeed if BDM is one person, standing up straight, he needs to be renamed RPM, for Roly-Poly Man."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bageman is not in the equation, so I see no point in discussing him. If however you give me a logical reason why he should become part of the equation that proves that Arnold is real in the Moorman location, then I'll consider giving an answer. Until then, it's still your serve <_<

Duncan MacRae

Your claim has been that Arnold is too small to be a real person. I do not have to prove him real ... just show that he falls into the size realm of a known real human being, thus the reason for you making the claim is bogus - as usual!!!

Now I have asked you several times if you believe Badge Man is real. My memory tells me that you have said that you do believe Badge Man is a real person. Is that correct??? If you decide not to answer the question, then it is apparent that you have no interest in knowing validity of your claim. When it gets to the point that you must first hear someone give you reasons as to why they are asking you a question before you'll bless us with the simple answer ... that tells me that you are not so sure about your past position. I won't bargain with you ... you either want to know all you can learn so to vaildate your claim or you do not.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denis Quote:

And who exactly do you believe "created" this "Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion" Don? Are you accusing Gary Mack? Or perhaps Jack White? Gordon Arnold himself perhaps? Have you actually put any thought at all into this? Denis.

It's not up to me to accuse anyone of creating the Badgeman/Gordon Arnold nonsense... all I can do is report what I see in the Moorman picture.

Bill Quote:

Don makes about as much sense as Chapman did when he said why he shot John Lennon.

Thanks Bill for the response but you sound like Miles when he said that I look like M.D. Chapman. Next time try using a rebuttal instead of a slander remark.

The match-up of Badgeman and the Picket Fence Gunman in the Moorman photo feature many similarities. My deciding vote goes to the Picket Fence Gunman since he was the original gunman photographed by Mary Moorman. Badgeman is a fake!

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bill for the response but you sound like Miles when he said that I look like M.D. Chapman. Next time try using a rebuttal instead of a slander remark.

I had not remembered anything Miles said about that when I posted. I only mentioned Chapman because I was a fan of John Lennon, thus I remembered the nutty thing he said as to why he shot Lennon, and because the things you post seem as insane to me.

The match-up of Badgeman and the Picket Fence Gunman in the Moorman photo feature many similarities. My deciding vote goes to the Picket Fence Gunman since he was the original gunman photographed by Mary Moorman. Badgeman is a fake!

Don

This goes to my remark above. You imply that Badge Man was created as a result of altering Moorman's photo .... nothing could be further from the truth. Badge Man is seen in Moorman's photo whether you agree with him being real or not, so to say that another alleged image was the original in Moorman's photo when both are in the same photo is an example of Mark Chapman logic. You, like he did, appear to be making things up in your own mind. For instance, when have you ever studied the original Moorman photo to know who or what was originally photographed in it.

Just stay calm and keep saying to yourself 'serenity now', Don ... 'serenity now'!

Bill Miller

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...