Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 As Arnie retreats from the wall & moves up the incline toward the fence, his figure as seen by Moorman falls lower & lower behind the wall. First his waist disappears & then his torso above his waist.Institutionalization seems unavoidable. Do you concur, Duncan? Miles, when you mention Arnold's waist ... are you talking about his physical waist or where a fat aging man wears his belt? There could be as much as six to eight inches difference in height as servicemen tend to wear their pants high on their hips ... and above their navel. Another interesting flaw in your illustration is that you show the ground to be flat behind the wall despite the assassination images showing the ground rising the further behind the wall one moves north. You may wish to go back and examine the Groden photo of Gary Shaw once again and apply that to your illustrations if you want them to come closer to depicting the real world ... but only if that is what you want them to do. If not, then carry on with the same mistakes. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 (edited) The image speaks for itself.Any half wit can see that the Arnold floating super minime torso is too small in comparison to the other people we see in the perspective and comparisons as shown. Have you seen on this forum any person other than yourself say I am wrong?....I wonder why. Duncan Would you care to list all the people on this forum who believe that the points Mike and I made are wrong ... seems like we have been down this flawed road before when Miles tried saying that Bowers could see the men on the steps. Now having once again been blessed with another Duncan MacRea response that didn't address the points presented to him ... would you care to be specific by starting with the feet levels of the people at the three locations and apply them to the wall. You might as well address this because it is not going to go away and your continued reluctance to cooperate only makes you appear to be trying not to admit your mistake. Let me help you ... Please tell this forum why is it that the man under the red arrow, when viewed from Moorman's location, looks so much shorter and smaller than the people standing at the south dog leg??? You do see the man under the red arrow - don't you! You said that you don't need a lesson from Mike in perspective when viewing things at an upward angle, so you should have no trouble explaining the principles at play here. Keep in mind that a journey starts with a single step, so how about you finally taking that single step so we can move forward. Bill Miller Edited August 26, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 [ name=Duncan MacRae' post='153565' date='Aug 26 2008, 02:58 PM]The image speaks for itself.Any half wit can see that the Arnold floating super minime torso is too small in comparison to the other people we see in the perspective and comparisons as shown. Have you seen on this forum any person other than yourself say I am wrong?....I wonder why. Duncan Would you care to list all the people on this forum who believe that the points Mike and I made are wrong ... seems like we have been down this flawed road before when Miles tried saying that Bowers could see the men on the steps. Now having once again been blessed with another Duncan MacRea response that didn't address the points presented to him ... would you care to be specific by starting with the feet levels of the people at the three locations and apply them to the wall. You might as well address this because it is not going to go away and your continued reluctance to cooperate only makes you appear to be trying not to admit your mistake. Let me help you ... Please tell this forum why is it that the man under the red arrow, when viewed from Moorman's location, looks so much shorter and smaller than the people standing at the south dog leg??? You do see the man under the red arrow - don't you! You said that you don't need a lesson from Mike in perspective when viewing things at an upward angle, so you should have no trouble explaining the principles at play here. Keep in mind that a journey starts with a single step, so how about you finally taking that single step so we can move forward. Bill Miller PS: A couple added remarks .... It was pointed out to you several pages ago that the Nix film shows someone standing west of the concrete wall at the moment JFK's head exploded. This would cover the moment Moorman took her photograph. I specifically asked that you consider that if you remove the Arnold figure from the Moorman photo, then where is the individual seen standing above the wall in the Nix film????????????? I also find it interesting that Arnold said that two men in police uniforms had approached him immediately after the shooting and had taken his film. I pointed out that there just so happens to have been two men at the large tree beyond the wall in Towner #3 ... both in dark clothing. Critics have been quick to point out that no one said that they saw the event take place that Arnold described. My position was that while most everyone would be looking for an assassin ... police officers approaching witnesses and asking for their film might seem like normal protocol. I recently read the following that came from one such witness who tends to add support to Arnold having his film taken .... August 23, 2008 Conspiracy Sunday: Eyewitness to the Kennedy Assassination "In Her Own Words" by Dodi Smith The following is a never before told interview featuring a first hand account of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The interview was conducted by Daniel Zanoza, Executive Director, RFFM.org Q. You said the authorities were confiscating cameras and film from people around you. Besides your binoculars, did you bring a camera with you? Many witnesses claim they never got their cameras back and, if they did, their film was missing. Do you have any first hand stories about this? A. I did see the cameras and films being taken, as I stated previously, but I never had first hand knowledge and what developed after that. I had failed to take my camera that day, only my binoculars. No one stopped me as I left the knoll. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 (edited) Mike only gave an opinion on how perspectives change which I agree with. I believe I have misjudged Mike, and do not believe he is foolish enough to believe that Arnold is real in the Moorman location when considering all of the evidence, not just from me, but from many others. Duncan, this is just more of you saying something in a general way without adding anything to substantiate it. Please explain Mike's position on the evidence surrounding Arnold being on the knoll and how you derived at it. Did you contact Mike and ask his opinion, which seems to be the most direct and precise way of knowing his position??? What if you are wrong ... can we just throw your conclusion on the heap with all the other opinions you have offered us without doing the appropriate research so to be accurate??? Now having once again been blessed with another Duncan MacRea response that didn't address the points presented to him ... would you care to be specific by starting with the feet levels of the people at the three locations and apply them to the wall.I'm asking you to do it as you are the one disputing Arnold, so go ahead and do it and prove me wrong. As I have repeatedly said ... we need to have YOU use the formula on the man under the red arrow that YOU used for Arnold. You pulled that observation out of your ... er' ... uh' ... EAR. It is apparent that you have seen where this is going and that is just why you will not do more than make general references that do not address the points that both Mike and I have made. If you are not going to take your claim seriously enough to cooperate and show how to test your claim, then don't expect anyone else to take you seriously. Please tell this forum why is it that the man under the red arrow, when viewed from Moorman's location, looks so much shorter and smaller than the people standing at the south dog leg??? You do see the man under the red arrow - don't you! You said that you don't need a lesson from Mike in perspective when viewing things at an upward angle, so you should have no trouble explaining the principles at play here.Bill Miller The principles are as they always have been and always will be Non-responsive ... we all know what the principles are and I do not believe that you used them correctly when you made the claim that Arnold is too small to be human. The only way to test your accuracy is to ask that you apply those same principles to the real people in the image that you have been presented with. Your not complying actually tells me that you know the answer and that come hell or high water you are not going to address it. That is not research and your claim can die right here on this forum because if you were to ever present it to anyone outside of here ... you'd be asked the same question that I and Mike have asked you. In the real world you won't be protected by forum rules and a spade will be called a spade there. Perhaps that is why you don't take your claims to such sources? Bill Miller Edited August 26, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 MacRea:Weather or not there is a figure in Nix is not the subject, nor subject to debate by me.My point is and only is that Arnold in Moorman is an illusion...Has that not sunk in with you yet after over a year? Miller:This would cover the moment Moorman took her photograph. I specifically asked that you consider that if you remove the Arnold figure from the Moorman photo, then where is the individual seen standing above the wall in the Nix film????????????? MacRea:This has no bearing on the topic of debate Duncan MacRae I want your response to stand as a testament to your lack of understanding in how to address a photographic issue. Unlike with your responses - I will explain mine ... Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 35 minutes following the assassination, thus there was no chance for alteration to have taken place while it was still in Moorman's possession. Moorman's photo shows only one person between the wall and the fence and you claim that person to be an illusion. The Nix film shows someone standing between the wall and the fence. That individual following the head shot had started moving north before disappearing from sight. Yarborough claimed to have seen this person. The individual that Yarborough saw and who is in the Nix film is not an illusion. So having said this ... The person seen in the Nix film is relevant and very important because if Moorman's photo shows only one person between the wall and the fence and it has not been altered, then that one person is the individual seen in the Nix film. It means that your claim is flawed and it explains why you stopped cooperating when you first realized that there were problems with your claim that you could not hide from. The simple bottom line is that if the figure in Moorman is an illusion, then there should be another real figure in Moorman's photo seen between the wall and the fence and there is not. That's the problem you have before you and I believe that is why you do not want to see that the person seen in the Nix film is relevant. I believe that if this wasn't about another faulty Duncan claim being exposed that you would have no problem following the logic that Mike and I both have presented to you. IMO, your sudden lack of cooperation is self-serving and it doesn't help promote your alleged desire to admit when you are wrong when the evidence shows it to be. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 (edited) Who says Moorman was altered? not me, I don't go for that garbage. I knew that was your position and I wanted it established ... I consider that progress. Moorman's photo shows only one person between the wall and the fence (real or not) ... that is a step in the right direction. The Nix film shows someone standing between the wall and the fence.That's your opinion I agree that is my opinion. So let us hear what your opinion is pertaining to the image Groden shows the sunlight shining off its outer edge in the Nix film. This matter has come up before, so you must have given some thought to it. The wall is white, so its not part of the wall. Something solid must be there to allow light to illuminate it. The color seen lit by the sunlight doesn't match the fence or the wall, so think carefully and give us a logical explanation of all the things it could be????? Think carefully and don't tell us that it is swamp gas ... the USS Enterprise beaming someone down from a starship. I want you to show us just how much thought you have put into this for its important. That individual following the head shot had started moving north before disappearing from sight. Yarborough claimed to have seen this person. The individual that Yarborough saw and who is in the Nix film is not an illusion. Yarborough later denied this, i'm sure you are aware of this. I guess that you don't follow these threads. This has come up before and dealt with. In 1978, Yarborough said to Golz that he saw Arnold on the knoll ... he was not confused. In 1988, Yarborough participated in The Men Who Killed Kennedy series and was not confused about seeing the serviceman on the knoll. Only just prior to his death when asked about what he saw when the shooting started did Ralph make the statement that he could not have seen the man over the wall at that time. This was correct - Ralph's car could not have been in position to have seen Arnold when the first shot was fired. This is what seems confusing to some. You see, back at the time of the assassination and when Yarborough believed the shooting started - Ralph saw the man above the wall. The key here is when Ralph felt the shooting had started. Altgens #6 shows Yarborough still smiling, thus a reasonable and rational person would conclude that Ralph was not aware that his long time friend (JFK) was being shot at this particular moment. Only when the kill shot came did Ralph realize that shots were now being fired. So the point here is that when the aging Yarborough was asked about seeing the man on the knoll when the shooting started ... Yarborough became confused because he knew that he had not yet gotten into position to see anyone beyond the wall when the ac`tual first shot(s) were fired. The interviewer blew this point and the rest is history. To think otherwise is to believe that an aging old man just prior to death has a better recall than he did 40 and 30 years earlier. So having said this ... The person seen in the Nix film is relevant and very important because if Moorman's photo shows only one person between the wall and the fence and it has not been altered, then that one person is the individual seen in the Nix film.Yarborough was wrong Then your position must be that you think that a persons memory is worse 30 to 40 years ago and closer to the event than it was just prior to death. If that is your position, then you have just helped me make you appear incapable of thinking rationally when it comes to sifting through the evidence of this case. It means that your claim is flawed and it explains why you stopped cooperating when you first realized that there were problems with your claim that you could not hide from. I realise no problem, that's all in your imagination Right Duncan. Its just a coincidence that you didn't want to cooperate and apply your sizing formula to the man under the red arrow like you did with Arnold. That you never saw the sizing problem facing you ... just like you didn't want to first know why I would ask you if you thought Badge Man was real before answering the question. If anyone buys that nonsense, then I have a bridge to sell them. The simple bottom line is that if the figure in Moorman is an illusion, then there should be another real figure in Moorman's photo seen between the wall and the fence and there is not. There possibly is another figure Interesting! Is this something you were going to keep quiet about? Please point out this possible other figure ???? Look..If you say the figure was moving north, how could it be Arnold who would have been lying on the ground after diving if what he said was true...get real, the poor guy, and I say this respectfully, obviously had mental problems to make up and change his story so often. Duncan, I do not believe that you even buy what you just said. Arnold hit the ground ... Yarborough said Arnold's actions looked like an old time flying tackle. The figure in the Nix film moves north ... no one said that the guy ran out into the RR yard. Anyone diving to the ground towards the large tree on the knoll must move north. The figure in the Nix film does just that for a few frames before disappearing in total darkness. I don't think its fair that you try and pass off your lack of knowledge on the subject as Arnold having mental problems. In fact, supposed you detail here and now all you know about Arnold having mental problems. I have studied Arnold in detail and I have never heard anyone say that he suffered from mental problems. Is your position so weak that you are now resorting to slanderous propaganda to try and salvage your claim. I want to know what justification you have for making such a claim about Arnold's mental health. Did you speak to his friends and family? Co-workers?? Gordon's doctors??? Did Golz or Turner tell you this???? Please do not tell me that you'd make such a reckless statement that you didn't bother investigating before opening your mouth. I await to hear what proof you have on Arnold's mental state. Bill Miller Edited August 27, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Roberdeau Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Data set and details expanded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Magnificent Don, absolutely magnificent research. I believe this kills the Arnold myth completely and closes this thread in an appropriate manner for those of us who know the truth of the matter. Thanks Duncan If Gordon Arnold wasn't there, then I ask : for what reason he was sent to Alaska the next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 (edited) Magnificent Don, absolutely magnificent research. I believe this kills the Arnold myth completely and closes this thread in an appropriate manner for those of us who know the truth of the matter.Thanks Duncan Duncan, do you really know what Don has done ... please explain how he killed this alleged myth ... help us understand what Don did so we don't think you are just being Duncan who doesn't even know why you say the things you do. Please explain what Don has done to show Arnold as being too small???? Bill Miller Edited August 27, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Don, Would it be accurate to say Zapruder and Hudson were the same distance from Moorman? BTW, The red lines are the same length, spaced at 5 degree increments. thanks, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 (edited) Duncan, do you really know what Don has done ... please explain how he killed this alleged myth ... help us understand what Don did so we don't think you are just being Duncan who doesn't even know why you say the things you do. Please explain what Don has done to show Arnold as being too small????Bill Miller I'm sure you do not need me to explain what Don has did. You are more than capable ( although that could be dabated ) of digesting the superior posted accurate information that Don has enlightened this forum with. He has destroyed the Moorman Arnold in a single swoop, but I know you will continue to try to keep the myth alive. I think you should thank Don publicly on this forum as he has given you the opportunity to save more years of flogging a dead horse, years which you could probably put to better researching Billfoot. Duncan Just what I expected to hear from you, Duncan. Those other researchers that I work with off the forum and who I stay in tough with will find your response no surprise for we were all in agreement that you didn't know what Don had done because you grossly had misread what he illustrated. I couldn't get anyone to take a bet that you'd not explain a single thing for your modus-operandi has long since been established when you have no data to respond with. I have lost track at how many times I have said that you cannot look down on a 2D image and see ground level changes. I used a view that everyone should be familiar with when I posted that Zapruder's 2D image on his film could not distinguish the low and high spots on the south pasture. The only way to know they are there is to watch the shadows appear and disappear as people walked across the pasture as their shadows fell into low areas and became visible when passing back over a high spot. I gave yet another example of this illusion when I pointed out that the drop from Jean Hill's feet to the curb was also hidden because of the angle at which it is seen on a 2D image. So instead of you addressing this fact that anyone can check for themselves .. you continue on repeating the same mistake as if you believe that if you say it enough times, then it will somehow become the truth. I find it hard to believe that you have selective intelligence, thus I have to believe that you are not being true to the evidence before you. Darnell film To further show this is a view of the ground between the walkway and the fence from the Darnell film. The horizon line at the brink of the knoll and seen against the south pasture shows the ground to rise from east to west and be semi-curved, yet the ground between the horizon line and Darnell's location appears to be flat. That's because the camera is too high and pointed downward at the ground in much the same way Zapruder's was pointed at the south knoll. Neither 2D views can discern a change in ground elevation unless the camera is low enough to the horizon line to see it. If you want to know if there were high spots on the ground that Don mapped off, then the camera would need to be near the ground so to see the contour of the ground against a background. You are free to present this data to anyone who is skilled in photography if you like. One of the things I have said about your inlays is that you haven't addressed the foreshortening effect that different cameras show in their photographs. You think that you can merely take images from Turners documentary and past them onto Moorman's photo to get the result that you desire. You were asked to run your claim by an expert and you declined by adding words to the effect that you don't need an expert to check your work. Below is one such example that shows how misleading your flawed approach is when dealing with images at different distances from the camera. Below is a LOS that Moorman and Muchmore had to the knoll. When the limo is made to match in each view, then the men on the steps, the wall, and other objects do not match. At no time did you mention this problem and how you applied it to your cut a paste job from various images seen by varying camera lenses. An expert could have helped you, but you believed yourself too smart to need help, thus this is just one more flaw exposed in your research of the subject. (see below) Here is the reverse whereas the men on the steps have been scaled to match and now the limo is too big to be real if we apply the Duncan MacRea formula to the mix. (see below) Ignoring one's errors does not make their claim exempt from being flawed. Bill Miller Edited August 27, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Ignoring one's errors does not make their claim exempt from being flawed. Bill Miller Duncan, BM seems to be asserting that if one makes an error, then ignoring it will not evade the consequence of its claim being flawed. I have to agree. But if an error is flawed, then its flaw might be that it is not really an error, but is really the truth disguised as an error. Thus, BM is really saying that Arnie is an obvious illusion, just as the barrel between the fence slats is an obvious nonsense. Do you read it this way? Note the huge size of the people behind the wall when compared to tiny Arnie in this shot: (Note BM is examining the curb & not the wall. An error on BM's part.) (Note, also, Arnie's view of the motorcade as in the inset, upper left corner. Arnie can't see anything. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 (edited) BM seems to be asserting that if one makes an error, then ignoring it will not evade the consequence of its claim being flawed.I have to agree. But if an error is flawed, then its flaw might be that it is not really an error, but is really the truth disguised as an error. Thus, BM is really saying that Arnie is an obvious illusion, just as the barrel between the fence slats is an obvious nonsense. Do you read it this way? Note the huge size of the people behind the wall when compared to tiny Arnie in this shot: (Note BM is examining the curb & not the wall. An error on BM's part.) (Note, also, Arnie's view of the motorcade as in the inset, upper left corner. Arnie can't see anything. ) Miles, are you sure you wish to get into what Arnold could and could not see like you did with Bowers. It is one thing to be unaware, but once you have been made aware and you still choose to push flawed or inaccurate claims, then another reason for such behavior must be considered. I will explain ... 1) You were asked previously to address the man under the red arrow (see above) and compare his size to the Arnold location, and the people at the south dog leg. In that one picture, that either you or Duncan provided, lays the answer to Duncan's inaccuracy. You, like Duncan, have yet to lift a finger to touch that point because it ends the game you two have been playing. Duncan will draw a line on a wall and tell us that the figure back by the fence is too small because Arnold's feet come to where Duncan guessed them to be. One cannot help but know that the fence is taller than the wall and yet in Moorman's photo where the distant fence disappears behind the south dog leg ... its base appears to come very close to the line Duncan created for Arnold. Because the fence is running at an angle away from Moorman - the area near the fence and behind the dog leg must be even higher against the wall just as the wall decreases in visible height the further away from the dog leg that it runs as well. (see below) So no comments on the fence appearing to be too small to be real ... no discussion about the man under the red arrow and the degree of shrinkage he has gone through because of his increased distance from the camera when compared to others at the dog leg? Do you not wish to address these valid observations??? 2) It has also been pointed out that one cannot look at a 2D image and determine elevation changes in the ground like you and Duncan have attempted to do with Darnell's film. One such example that was offered for proof is the Zapruder film. Can anyone look at the grass that runs from Jean Hill's feet to the top of the curb and tell that the elevation changes dramatically ... of course not! (see below) Can anyone look at this downward view of the grass on the knoll and tell that its elevation changes from the sidewalk to the pedestal ... of course not. The only way to see the area in the Darnell film so to know if its flat is to view it in profile. In fact, one cannot even see the grade of Elm Street from this view. No comments ... no discussion as to how these 2D images apply to the Darnell film ... of course not! 3) Next, instead of addressing the points raised, you instead opted to create what appears to be fictitious observations ... that if I am right ... they were designed to mislead the people who are supposed to be fellow researchers and students of the forum. For instance: 1a) Where was your picture of the JFK stand-in supposed to of been taken from ... do you know??? If it was from behind the fence and not on the Arnold line of sight, then its use can be for no other reason than to deceive others for it would not have accurately represented Arnold's LOS. You have previously said that you can see enough of Arnold to match his belt line with the aging Arnold's belt in Turner's documentary, so I am suspicious over your use of this JFK stand-in image and I would like to know more about the image you used if you do not mind. (Interesting that you and Duncan feel that you can see the illusion well enough to do scalings to articles of clothing - hats - bent elbows - and still maintain that its just an illusion) 2b) Moorman's photo shows Badge Man's firing height to be less elevated than Arnold's in Mary's field of view from down below. As I recall, studies have shown that Badge Man could have seen JFK's head. So if Arnold is closer to the wall, then Gordon could also see the President. But let us say for arguments sake that JFK did pass below the wall for a brief moment ... does that mean that Arnold isn't real any more than someone saying that Zapruder isn't real because he filmed from a location where JFK was going to disappear behind the road sign for a brief moment ... of course not. So instead of addressing any of the more valid points like that of the man under the red arrow or the figure seen standing in Nix beyond the wall that isn't being accounted for if you dismiss Arnold as an illusion, you brought only more irrelevant observations to the table, some possibly designed to mislead on top of everything else. Aren't you and Duncan interested at all in being accurate or is it more about trying to appear right even if it means to stop cooperating and/or mislead others in this matter. Maybe less time trolling and more time on these key issues might be in order. How about it Miles ... where does the man's feet seen under the red arrow come to in relation to the line Duncan gave for Arnold's??? Is this man also 3' tall as well or has Duncan made an big error??? Bill Miller Edited August 28, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 How about it Miles ... Bill Miller Duncan, Can you explain why BM is overlooking the obvious evidence proving that Arnie is an illusion? Arnie's got to be floating around in the parking lot. Terminal Magoo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 (edited) Duncan,Can you explain why BM is overlooking the obvious evidence proving that Arnie is an illusion? Arnie's got to be floating around in the parking lot. Terminal Magoo? It is obvious that you (Miles) are playing the fools game with Duncan. In post #190, I offered a photo of the plaza from above. Can you tell which is closer to the camera ... the water in the reflection pool or the ground surrounding it ... of course you can't. Can you tell which trees along the north side of Elm Street between the TSBD and the colonnade are tallest against one other ... of course you can't. So why would you try and play Duncan for a fool in wanting to get him to say that Arnold is further back into the RR yard than Badge Man. Do have the size of Badge Man to share with us so we can see that you just aren't making stuff up ... of course you don't. Is it just because Badge Man's head looks wider than Arnold's that you posted such a thing, because if it was I should tell you that a persons head looking straight at the camera will most always appear more narrow than when it is turned in profile. So not only do we not know Badge Man's head size ... his head is also slightly turned to the camera exposing one ear and hiding the other. I will at least give Duncan credit for he would have responded long before now if he wasn't actually realizing that the illusion has not been whether Arnold is real, but rather or not that Arnold only appears to be 'floating' as you call it because of the evidence that's been presented to him. You were given a series of observations and one of them was to address the man under the red arrow and explain his so-called floating. Instead, you come back with some nonsense about how Arnold must be behind Badge Man ... once again trying to stir the pot with something that you must know by now is flawed because you cannot judge the distance someone is from another unless you have the data to do so. This is a 2D image you have presented and you do not know the body size of Badge Man. Even worse, from the evidence Arnold presents, he and Badge Man are only a few feet apart, so without knowing Badge Man's body size -- you have nothing but propaganda to offer. I am surprised that you'd attempt to xxxxx the thread some more rather than to address the points put to you knowing that everyone is watching. I am also surprised that you'd even continue playing on Duncan so to drag him down with you by asking him to validate something like you just presented in your previous response because what's been shown about 2D images. But what won't surprise me is that after Duncan has really digested and finally understood the points presented to him ... he will tell you that his claim did have flaws in it based on a lack of data either not available to him at the time or not considered by him when he first came up with his conclusion. Things you have not done: 1- You have not addressed the size differences in the photo of the man under the red arrow and how that plays out against the line on the wall. 2- You have not acknowledged that one cannot see depth changes in a ground surface by merely looking at a 2D image alone. 3- You have not addressed the sunlit clothing of someone seen just beyond the wall in the Nix film and applied that to who the person is in Moorman's Polaroid. 4- You have not addressed the foreshortening effect between the Moorman lens and the various other crops you have inserted into your illustrations. 5- You have not addressed the ground changes of the area in question between the time of the assassination and when the concrete was put into place along the west side of the wall. In fact, the last time I checked with Gary Mack .. no one but myself had inquired about it. 6- You have not provided any validation for your claim that Arnold was too small to be real by seeking the opinion of someone skilled in photography. 7- You have not addressed the multiple things that Arnold had said about his experience on the knoll and how the overwhelming circumstantial evidence discovered many years after the fact continuously lends support to Gordon's story. Things you have done: 1) You have refused to address any valid points presented to you that shows your claim to be flawed. 2) You continue using methods that have been shown to be unreliable and/or severely flawed to try and win support for your claim. Bill Miller Edited August 29, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now