The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Miles Scull]

That is certainly a possibility ...

Bill Miller

Duncan,

As far as I know the photo has no provenance. However, there are indications of close proximity to the day in question.

I'm sure you see them.

Here's another shot of interest.

We're talking blowing the Arnie illusion out of the turf, so to speak.

See any "dirt"? Ain't none.

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

As far as I know the photo has no provenance. However, there are indications of close proximity to the day in question.

I'm sure you see them.

Here's another shot of interest.

We're talking blowing the Arnie illusion out of the turf, so to speak.

See any "dirt"? Ain't none.

You must think that people are really stupid .... sigh~ By the way, didn't Arnold call the high spot a 'mound'???

mound (mound)

n.

2. A natural elevation, such as a small hill.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The illustration belonged to me. Miles reposted it.

You ask how it is being applied...The answer to that question is very simple.

Agreeing that the fence was 5ft and that Arnold was 5ft 10" I drew a line through where the top and bottom of the fence would be seen if the wall had not been blocking it's view. I assume that you agree with my fence lines as you have never disputed them.

Are you aware that the fence is below the ground by a couple of inches? Is that mentioned in your study?? Were you not aware that UPI did a study in 1967 and discovered these details??? If so, I have never seen it in your postings.

I then placed an approximate 5ft 10" Arnold as he would have looked had he been standing at any location along the length of fence, just as any other 5ft 10" person would have looked.

Is that Gordon Arnold being 5'10" with or without the ball cap? Do you know what happens to Gordon's actual body index if you are counting his height from the ground to the top of a ball cap that can be a couple of inches above his head on the front of his hat?? If the later is so, then you have about a 4" error in your illaustration and we are not done yet as you will see when you read on.

I estimated the average head size at 10".

This is the approximate amount of Arnold's body height that would have shown above the top fence line had he been standing close to it, and had he been photographed by Mary Moorman in any of the illustrated positions where I have placed him.

While what I am about to point out has been posted many times, I have not heard it addressed in your illustrations. For instance ... take to 58" tall boards and place one a couple of feet in front of the other. From eye level they will appear to be of equal heights. But when looking slightly upward at them, the one behind the closer one sinks dramatically. (see illustration)

ILLUSTRATION

Do you know where I am going yet? You show Gordon Arnold in you illustration to be what you guess to be 10" above the fence. You didn't know that the fence is under the dirt on the plaza side - you applied the top of his cap to his standing height of 5'10" to 5'11" (shoes on?) - and you have scaled him accordingly as if he and the fence were the same distance from the camera.

You have been carrying a large error in your claim by not raising Arnold up in the air to compensate for Moorman's uphill view and Arnold being IN FRONT of the fence by a couple of feet. The board stands of equal height show this. So what I am saying is that you must apply the same degree of lift to Arnold that the real world applied to the closes 58" tall board or else you end up with an even greater error in your illustration than merely not knowing the facts about the ground level against the fence on the plaza side or the distance between the top of Arnold's head and the highest point on the top of his cap. When all these things are added together ... the degree of error in your claim grows immensely.

In the beginning you were asked to seek the advice of an expert, but had refused. Do you now not see how maybe you should have considered getting another opinion from someone who may have been more qualified to have headed off some of these needless mistakes you had made.

Bill Miller

Edited September 26, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill..I will agree that the fence is 4ft 10" on the Arnold side.

You are making BIG mistakes in your study. I only placed the Arnold figure in the different positions alongside the fence to illustrate my point, ie, a human height of 5ft 10" It doesn't matter what is placed there to illustrate the point, a 5ft 10" stick would suffice.

I am either not using your language or you are not hearing me .... You are showing a 5'10" estimate of Arnold's height from the bottom of his feet to the top of his ball cap and not to the top of his head. The difference may only be a couple of inches, but when added to more small errors .... they add up to a large error. When you scrunch Arnold down to fit the top of his cap into the 5'10" limits, then you have reduced his actual body length by the same amount.

We both now agree that the fence is 4ft 10" and that Arnold was 5ft 10"

Now.....Common sense tells us that any human or object which is 5ft 10" high standing next to the fence, and which is photographed with Mary Moorman's camera will remain at a height of 5ft 10" and at a common perspective ratio with the fence all the way along the fence.

This is where your scaling mistake starts growing legs and runs away from you. You are judging how Arnold would appear NEXT to the fence as if they were of equal distance from the camera. This is why I posted a photo of two 58" tall boards only a few feet apart (one slightly closer to the camera) so to show how the closer one rises in height in the camera's field of view with it looking upward at them at a slight angle like Moorman had to Arnold and the fence. So while you have Arnold 10" above the fence in your illustrations ... because he was between the camera and Moorman's camera ... his height should be raised just like the height of the board is raised in the illustration that I used.

Perspective is important because because you didn't apply it to your height for Arnold against the fence and yet you us e it when applying Arnold to the height of the wall. This causes a huge error that you must fix. Perhaps if you would consult someone better qualified to explain this to you, then maybe you can make your adjustments accordingly so to seek that accuracy that you are always claiming to want to shoot for.

Common sense also tells us that only 1ft of that human figure or object will also show above the fence all the way along the length of the fence....Arnold would "shrink" at an exact and equal ratio in comparison to the fence in any location along the length of the fence if he was next to the fence. Because the top of the fence is hidden by the wall in Moorman, this tells us that Arnold can not be a real figure if he was standing next to the fence...........................It's that simple.

Yes, if you do not apply 'perspective' properly in your closer crop of Arnold to the fence, then all the other crops that follow along the horizon line will also be too short in Moorman's field of view. This error is so great that you have going on and you being so bias that you cannot even see that having your real life Arnold at 5'10" is not even seen over the top of the wall.

Don't take my word for it ... consult someone more skilled than yourself for advice. Show them the two boards I posted and they will immediately see how that applies to what you have done.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Don't take my word for it ...

Bill Miller

So now that we are ready to move on ... how tall is the fence and how is that being applied to the alleged scaled height being attributed to Gordon Arnold in Miles illustation???

Bill Miller

The illustration belonged to me. Miles reposted it.Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

Right!

Your study proves my case.

Arnie sinks out of Moorman's view as he retreats from the wall to the fence.

See:

It's obvious. Somebody gets a Magoo with oak leaf clusters.

[Bill Miller]

You are missing the whole point, forget the baseball cap garbage. According to folklore, Arnold was wearing an army hat which obviously deliberately escaped your notice, so that would compensate for the baseball cap height...NOT...that any of the hat stuff is relevant.

It becomes relevant when you use an image of Arnold wearing baseball cap and not a garrison cap. Its just more slight of hand on your part. Even the scaling along the horizon line varies ... you jokers just put things where you thing they should be. You start out with the line below the shade below Arnold's chin and another time you shrink Arnold down to where the shade line is above the shade line. The last image shows Arnold with the shade line moved once again. Its sloppy to say the least.

But despite these sloppy scalings ... Arnold was said to be a few feet in front of the fence, so that would make him higher when seen against the fence in your first scaling nearest the corner. So you start out with a grave error and never correct it. What part about the two same height boards did you not understand? Do you not see that the closest one only a few feet from the more distant one is sitting higher in the camera's field of view?? Why is that if they are the same height and on a flat surface??? Why if Arnold was 1' taller than the fence if they were side by side, then why do you not have him taller in the camera's field of view knowing that he was a few feet closer to the camera that the fence was on the day of the assassination???? Do you not see the error in this by not starting out accurately?????

The fact is, and it is a fact, that any objects next to each other will shrink at the same ratio in relation to each other when moved along the fence when viewed from the Morrman perspective. I think maybe you should consult an expert on this.

Again, they were not next to each other - Arnold was in front of the fence by a few feet. Correct your error or you are wasting our time.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You must have a calculated reason for the above statement or you are wasting " our " time too.

How many feet precisely is the few feet from the fence you say that Arnold was standing?

If you know where Arnold was standing, you must know the answer to my question...let's have it!

Duncan MacRae

What now ... are you saying that you don't know where Arnold said he was .... have you never consulted with Mack about any of the three times he had spoken to Gordon Arnold? How can you do these illustrations without first having collected all the necessary data?? And do you acknowledge 70" tall looks bigger as it moves towards the camera??? If so, then why didn't your Arnold show this???? If you don't think so, then why is it that the south dog leg is taller than the fence as seen in Moorman's photo! Now do you get it!!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Just as I suspected, trying to turn the question around to me LOL!!!. The fact is, you do not know where Arnold was and can not pinpoint where he was allegedly standing. The forum awaits your Arnold pinpointed location.

Duncan, there are never any 'facts' involved when it comes to the things you post pertaining to what you do and do not see. You draw outlines around film defects from degraded images and you make claims that what you see is a fact. Often times you are forced to let go of your poorly thought-out claim, but not until after response after response of the same nonsense you are doing now until you get to a point where you have no choice. I don't expect you to be interested in amitting your mistake ... much like Miles was doing when even after Groden and Mack had both independently viewed the line of sight that Bowers would have had to anyone standing on the steps.

What I do wish to show to the readers is just how far you guys will go to push a poorly researched claim. For instance, you will not answer a simple question as to your opinion on whether or not Badge Man was real in your view until after you are told the reasons why the question was being asked. The ONLY reason for this is so you can have time to not answer with a straight forthright reply, but rather with the reply that will best serve your situation at the given moment. That garbage about how you had changed your mind at some point about Badge Man being a real person, but not telling anyone and keeping that opinion to yourself is simply not believable. You've never been one to keep anything to yourself. Its said that a wolf can shed its fur, but not its habits. You are just like the wolf and many times I know what you are going to say before you ever reply and thats why I structure my questions as I do so to show a pattern of deception in your responses. Another example was your claiming to not see a man in uniform in the b&w Badge Man images ... only in the colored ones. When you were then confronted with your past response to Jack White which contradicts what you had said at that time, then you respond by not admitting that you left the b&w issue out with Jack, but rather complaining that I have gone back and used your contradictory statements from the past against you. I showed that extremely dark image you posted of the pedestal area from Moorman's photo and in that illustration there isn't a person alive who could have guessed what it was they were looking at had they not had the post to go with it. In that image you were pointing out all kinds of details just short of any blemishes Sitzman may have had. You simply cannot be believed because you have shown a pattern of flip-flopping on issues depending on what you felt they should be at a particular moment in time.

The reason I asked you if you had talked to Mack about where GORDON ARNOLD said he was standing when the shot came past his left ear was because I was certain that you either didn't know where Arnold really was or you were purposely mis-scaling him. Several times you have seemingly misread the point I was making. You have done this despite my giving you a photographic illustration of two boards of equal height being seen from slightly below there highest point. The rules of perspective will not allow two boards of equal height to be seen as the same height in the cameras field of view when looking upward at them with one a few feet behind the other. So when you show Gordon Arnold in an overlay as being 10" higher than the fence, the only way your illustration can be considered close to being accurate is to say the two things (Arnold and the fence) are side by side and equal distance from the camera. Arnold had told Mack that he was two to three feet in front of the fence, thus your initial scaling of Arnold to the fence (standing height 10" above it) is way off. Gordon Arnold should have been made even taller in the cameras field of view, but you failed to see the mistake. What is even worse is that you have been arguing how accurate your scaling was and you had not even bothered to find out how much closer Arnold was to the camera than the fence was.

So what did you do? Instead of admitting that you didn't know where Arnold was standing ... you attempted to flip it and put the responsibility on me as if somehow that would minimize your error. It is these things that someone more skilled than yourself could have assisted you with in the beginning stages of your claim, but as I recall ... you didn't need any help - you could see things for yourself. So go one and pretend that none of these things makes any difference in hopes that those as ignorant as yourself on angles and perspective will not know any better. However, those who understood the two boards in the photo that I produced will have an excellent idea as to the degree of error in your scaling of Arnold.

The man's losing his sanity lol!!!...Look Mr " let's pretend i'm thick to confuse everyone Miller "....The issue, as illustrated by me, is how Arnold would have looked had he moved AWAY from the camera in relation to the fence, I repeat...AWAY from the camera in relation to the fence............not towards.......Now do YOU get it??????

Duncan MacRae

Yes, the further away from the Moorman camera Arnold gets - the smaller he will appear. I think we discussed this when you danced around the man seen under the red arrow in another photo. However, you had Arnold's standing height seen against the height of the fence way off because Arnold cannot just appear only 10" taller than the fence if he is standing two to three feet in front of it when being viewed at an upward angle. So when you and Miles start harping like seals about how short Arnold is in relation to the wall ... its because of the original mistake that you made which has been pointed out in my last several responses.

Bill Miller

Edited September 27, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

The years go on and on, and as I have stated endless times, no one, not one person dead or alive has ever managed to recreate Arnold as seen in his Moorman location.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

If you closely examine this photo, you may see a strong clue as to its time stamp.

As a sub-Competition to the topic, I ask: can you spot the clue?

Just answer yes or no, but don't say what the clue is.

Let's see if BM can spot it.

There will be a new Magoo Award offered as well as a Hawk-eye Award offered.

[Bill Miller]

That was quite a long winded response with nothing new, and just as predicted there was no precise answer to my question.

The trouble with your flawed Arnold exists in his Moorman location theory is that you are dealing with hypothetical data.

You must be smarter than those people who have gone to the plaza and did the measurements themselves. In fact, I believe that you said that you didn't need to consult anyone more experienced than yourself. In your defense you have cited a flawed study that some expert had done whereas he used the wrong measurements, you posted poorly scaled images with no consideration to location and perspective, you refused to answer simple questions without first knowing the purpose for the question, you contradicted your past responses, and you never bothered to find out where Arnold had said he stood in relation to the fence. When someone like myself, Mike Williams, or Kathy Beckett asked for you to tell us how Arnold knew certain details pertaining to his experience that could not have been foreseen so many decades ago ... you ignored the questions and offered no rational reasonable response. When asked to address another photo and how a man seen under a red`arrow would play out against that wall in the same way you did with Gordon Arnold ... you refused to cooperate.

On the other hand we used a real photograph, we applied a real person's statements as to where he stood, we looked into the landscaping changes of the knoll. In the end you have the audacity to say that we used hypothetical data.

Soon there will be researchers going to Dallas and plans are already in the making to test your accusations. It is suspected that this new study will mirror the results that Gary Mack had achieved long ago when he looked into the matter. While some landscaping changes have taken place over time, I suspect that the basic rules of perspective and elevation changes that have existed since the assassination will support our past observations. Below is one such photo taken since the assassination and after the ground had been eroded to the point of exposing the roots of the large tree seen in Moorman's photo. Note the elevation of the ground up near the Badge Man/Gordon Arnold location to that area closer to the corner of the fence.

It is these things that will most likely put an end to the poorly researched Gordon Arnold being too short to be real claim. I suspect that just as what happened to the 'Bowers being able to see people on the steps claim' was proven to be inaccurate - the same will happen with the 'Arnold was too short to be real claim' that resulted from your accumulation of errors combined with the arrogance of thinking that you didn't need to have someone more experienced than yourself check your methods.

I also suspect that in the end that your 'truth' will be found to be as deceptive as your claim that you had secretly decided that Badge Man was not real ... or that you could see details in that dark Moorman crop, but not in the Badge Man b&w images.

The clock is ticking!

Bill Miller

Edited September 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

No, I'm not smarter Bill, I just look at the evidence they have put forward for Arnold's existance over the years in his Moorman location, and still after all this time no person including yourself has managed to recreate Arnold in his Moorman location. Doesn't that tell you something?

It should be said that you have not recreated it, nor have you tried .... am I to then ask what does that tell you??? Other than you citing a study whereas an expert used an erroneous height for the corner of the wall to compute out a false size for the Badge Man images ... what other evidence have 'THEY' put forward over the years that you have examined???

That's correct, although if any expert wishes to contact me on this matter they know how to do so if they have been following the debate.

Is that how you believe things should work. What if an expert has seen your past insane claims like the so-called analysis of the pedestal area, the third person at the pedestal claim, the degradation of the Black Dog Man which led to a peeping assassin looking over the wall claim, the tree branch atop of the colonnade that you called a person claim, the floating torso of a man disguised as a cop claim, or the tripod man claim .... you think that an expert feels obligated to contact you? Is it not an ethical move on your part to seek out such a person and ask that they review your claim??

Give us the details of the flawed study in it's entirety. I don't believe you or anyone else has published it here other than to say it's flawed.

Had you been paying attention ... you would have read where the guy used a false measurement taken of the wall from the ground up to compute the size and location needed for Badge Man. That measurement was over 1' off because he didn't know that the ground at the wall had been re-landscaped. Gary Mack even emailed Don to point out this error and asked that Don compute the correct measurements into his study so to see how that changed his results. So far Don has not posted his new results. I even recall you mentioning in one of your post that you were going to await Don's new computation or words to that effect. Are you now having selective memory relapses????

you refused to answer simple questions without first knowing the purpose for the question,

baloney

Do we need to go back and post the back and forth responses you were giving me over whether or not you believed Badge Man to be a real person? You do realize that when you deny such things despite them being logged into the forum archive that it doesn't put your credibility into a good light.

Garbage and disinfo. I know where Arnold said he stood in relation to the fence. It is Y0U who refuses to give us YOUR location for Arnold with precision.

If this was the case and you really knew where Arnold had stood, then why would you scale him to be only 10" taller than the fence on a 2D photo? Why did you not post that Arnold was of course closer to the camera than the fence and explain how you increased his size accordingly?? There can only be two reasons for this that I can think of. One is that you didn't think of it or you purposely mislead the reader ... you c`an pick the option that you want tagged to your back.

When someone like myself, Mike Williams, or Kathy Beckett asked for you to tell us how Arnold knew certain details pertaining to his experience that could not have been foreseen so many decades ago ... you ignored the questions and offered no rational reasonable response.

Look...I have answered this question many times BEFORE being asked this by whoever. The answer is that I believe it is possible that Arnold was on the knoll, but not as seen in his Moorman location. Now try and let that sink in this time please....geeeeeeeez

Really??? I seem to recall that I brought up the fact that no one has ever been able to place Arnold anywhere else during the assassination and I do not recall you offering such a response to that observation. Could you please tell me the response number where you replied in this fashion when I raised that point??? Also, can you point out Arnold on the knoll because this is the first that I have heard this new Duncan MacRea claim.???

I personally think you are making this stuff up as you go, but if what you say is true, then there must be some evidence to support what you've said, so what person on the knoll is Gordon Arnold???

When asked to address another photo and how a man seen under a red`arrow would play out against that wall in the same way you did with Gordon Arnold ... you refused to cooperate.

That's correct..I refused to cooperate on that because the red arrowed man is not relevant in the study of Gordon Armold's existance on the knoll in his Moorman location

If the man under the red arrow was irrelevant, then there could not have been any harm in you answering the question if for no other reason than to educate the students of this forum. Your response just isn't believable in my opinion.

On the other hand we used a real photograph,

yes..remind me and everyone what that was.

It was the photo that you used in one of your Arnold Illustrations ... the photo with the man under the red`arrow.

we applied a real person's statements as to where he stood,

Real person, the statements have been subject to change over the years and can not be accepted as reliable.

Please explain your response so we can check your accuracy.

[Bill Miller]

we looked into the landscaping changes of the knoll.

I'm just wondering who the "we" is...can you tell the forum?

The 'we' are all the readers of this forum who were shown the Shaw photo before the concrete was installed. The 'we' are those people who contacted the 6th Floor Museum who questioned if the knoll has ever been re-landscaped. From that inquiry it was discovered that the distance from the ground to the top of the wall at its corner was 12" different at this time when compared to the way it was on the day of the assassination. How can you not remember these things???

Soon there will be researchers going to Dallas and plans are already in the making to test your accusations.

It's good to know that my studies are so garbage that people are going to Dallas to try to prove me wrong. I look forward to seeing the Moorman recreation with the exact Arnold recreation and how they acheived it to prove me wrong.

You live in a make believe world in my view. You read things into the mix that were never there and then you misstate what you read. JFK's memorial will be coming up in November and that is the reason for the researchers going to Dallas. The testing your accusations is a request that you have been bitching about for two years. You may recall how you made it clear that you were in Scotland and couldn't do it yourself. I believe that I told you that I was in British Columbia. So only an arrogant boob could now see that people going to Dallas in November as some sort of need to prove you wrong.

It is suspected that this new study will mirror the results that Gary Mack had achieved long ago when he looked into the matter.

Gary's results did not prove the existance of Gordon Arnold in his location in the Moorman image.

Gary Mack has said to me that he has never published his recreation before. May I ask how it is that you can claim to have seen it???

Yes, it's ticking ok, and when you fail to submit this new Arnold recreation, I suspect that you will not be doing much tocking....

I am sure that those involved will see that the recreation test will be shared.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I said " Gary's results did not prove the existance of Gordon Arnold in his location in the Moorman image. "

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

By the way, here's a Bond 4 crop that shows a nice clean turf with zero dirt & zero dirt mound.

Was there a "magic dirt mound" AND a "magic bullet?"

Here's another re-enactment showing smooth, even contours to the ground in question.

See any dirt mounds here? No.

Arnie was a no show.

[Miles Scull]

Arnie was a no show.

Duncan,

Was there 2 or 3 or 4 feet from the fence a 24 inch high "Magic Dirt Mound?''

Not here:

nor here:

What do you make of this?

[Bill Miller]

Please explain how the difference of 1ft in ground level at the wall as the ground level is today is relevant to the height of the Badgeman behind the fence in 1963.

The top of the wall as far as I know is still at the same height as it was in 1963. Are you now saying that the area behind the fence has also been landscaped to a level that is 1ft lower than in 1963?

Duncan MacRae

It is not the wall that has changed, but rather the distance from its top to the ground at the corner. The expert used a false measurement from the present day and assumed that it was the same as in Moorman's photo. Should we go back and list how many times the change in the landscaping of the knoll was mentioned. Is it your position that you didn't even get this point when giving all the responses you posted?? Is it necessary to remind you once again that this was an issue in Don's work and did you not understand this when you responded to those postings???

Bill Miller

Edited September 29, 2008 by Bill Miller