The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

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???

Bill Miller

I didn't claim to have seen it, please post where I made this statement.

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

Duncan MacRae

More play on words, Dunce-can??? Is this where we are headed if the test conducted in November show that you were wrong about Arnold being too small to be real. What it boils down to is no matter what evidence is presented, it is your intention to deny that Arnold was on the knoll as he said he was. Up until now your only complaint to Arnold being seen in Moorman's photo is that he is too small to be real in your view.

By the way, what was your answer to Kathy Beckett as to how Arnold knew to add a mound to stand on to his story decades before anyone even knew that his image was seen in a photograph taken on 11/22/63? (Please try and offer only a sensible response)

Bill miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

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

What do you make of this?

Miles, I think the days of trolling Duncan are coming to an end for you. I think Duncan understands the problem with 2 dimensional imagery showing varying ground elevations when seen from above. I am sure that's why Google Earth offers 3 dimensional imagery and the capability to drop your field of view down to more of a horizontal plane so to be able to differentiate them. I am surprised that you've not been sharp enough to understand such a simple observation considering all the examples that have been supplied for you.

As far as Arnold's definition of a mound goes goes ... here is what Duncan has already written about it .... "As for Arnold saying "mound"..it's my opinion that he actually meant the rising grass slope."

Now what do you make of that, Miles???

Bill Miller

[Don Bailey]

Are you kids still arguing about this fantasy character? BORING!!!

[Bill Miller]

More play on words, Dunce-can???

LOL! Not really Jill, just giving an honest answer to a false accusation.

Is this where we are headed if the test conducted in November show that you were wrong about Arnold being too small to be real.

I'm confident that it will not show I am wrong...Time will tell.

What it boils down to is no matter what evidence is presented, it is your intention to deny that Arnold was on the knoll as he said he was.

That's your opinion, and another blatant brainless accusataion once again....I always tell the truth as I see it, that's how it works with me, right or wrong.

Up until now your only complaint to Arnold being seen in Moorman's photo is that he is too small to be real in your view.

No..That's not my only complaint

By the way, what was your answer to Kathy Beckett as to how Arnold knew to add a mound to stand on to his story decades before anyone even knew that his image was seen in a photograph taken on 11/22/63? (Please try and offer only a sensible response)

Bill Miller

Easy..he knew that there was a grass verge...This is what he calls a mound

Duncan MacRae

Not a single response above dealt with the issues being discussed. You didn't answer what your position will be if it is shown that the image said to be Gordon Arnold isn't too small to be human. Your claim that you always tell the truth can be left to the reader of these threads for there have been several instances where you have said things that were not supported by your past remarks and illustrations. When I posted such past remarks and illustrations it was you who complained about my going back and postings the things you had said and done in the past.

Your last response to Kathy's question didn't answer her question at all. Kathy wanted to know how was it that Gordon Arnold could have possibly known to have incorporated his standing on a mound so to have an excuse for his being seen in a photo by his critics some 40+ years after the fact. Kathy's question is quoted below ...

Kathy Beckett: How did Gordon Arnold know that he needed to be standing on a small pile of dirt to be "in line " with where he says he appears?

I just have a problem with him saying that if it's not true. He was descriptive in where he was..and I am sure that he didn't realize the scrutiny he would be under.

Your response (Duncan) was to merely say that Arnold knew there was a grass verge ... nowhere does that address Kathy's question. Is this supposed to be more honesty and truth being offered on your part??? How about offering a sensible and rational reply to Kathy's question because I do believe in her honesty and sincerity in asking it.

Bill Miller

Edited October 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I believe Miles is of the same opinion as myself on the matter quoted above.

Is that correct Miles?

Duncan MacRae

Miles says 'magic mound of dirt' and you say 'verge of grass' .... do these mean the same thing in your honest point of view, Duncan???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Are you kids still arguing about this fantasy character? BORING!!!

Yet you're still reading these exchanges, Don.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

No, I believe they mean something different and that there was no dirt mound. I believe Arnold should have said something like. " I stood on the grass verge behind the walkway"

I say this because I honestly believe that is what he meant.

Duncan MacRae

With that being said ... have you any idea why Miles would continue trolling you by continuing asking you about a mound of dirt???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

If it proves i'm wrong, i'll admit i'm wrong. I can't say any more than that

Do you consider yourself bias when offering opinions concerning the assassination images?

The easy answer to that is that he didn't know that he needed to be standing on a small pile of dirt.

So is it your position that its just a mere coincidence that Arnold mentioned standing on a mound and that an elevated mound is what he appears to have needed to see as much of him over the top of the wall in the Badge Man images???

The question was answered to my satisfaction. Kathy has not complained about my answer or rersponded so far, I'm sure she can speak for herself.

Now if it's proven that Arnold is too small in the specific Moorman location, will you admit that you were wrong?

Duncan MacRae

Like with Mack, I confer with Kathy privately, thus I feel that I am able to ask these questions based on my past correspondences with her. Besides, I, as well as others, are entitled to request clarification when we don't feel that a specific point has not been addressed. And keep in mind that criteria for being satisfied may be on a lower level than others try to uphold.

As far as Arnold being too small to be real ... his body size as far as girth goes has been established as being within the norm when Tony Cummings stood behind the fence. The standing height will be the question. There may be some adjustments needed to be made if the conditions are like we see in the image below, but I am confident that common sense and sound reasoning will win out in Gordon's favor.

Bill Miller

Edited January 12, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

This might sound like a strange response to you, but what if i was to tell you that I am hoping that the experiment proves me wrong? Would you believe that?

I would not believe such a statement from you. If you wanted to be shown wrong, then you would have cooperated in answering all the questions that were put to you if for no other reason than to see where they may lead. When you refuse to cooperate only because you seem to selectively find some things irrelevant ... it simply doesn't support a desire to be shown wrong. When you refuse to answer a simple question pertaining to Badge Man without first needing to be told why the question is asked, it doesn't appear to be supportive of someone hoping to be shown wrong. I think that if we were talking about anyone else making such responses over a topic that you don't have an invested interest in it, I believe that you would agree with me over these past responses of yours.

I believe that you have a problem with admitting your mistakes. This causes you to become bias in your inquiries that go beyond a lack of cooperation at times that it serves your best interest. You will make a statement that you cannot see a man in uniform in Jack White's best b&w Badge Man images and yet you claimed to have been able to see an assassin dressed like a cop and offer all those silly details about Zapruder and Sitzman from a b&w image. I personally find this not credible on your part. I offer those examples below ....

Another point...How do you equate the Gordon Arnold's story to Ed Hoffman's story? They both tell different stories of two different shooters, and two men moving in different directions after the shooting.

They can't both be telling the truth unless there were two fence shooters in different locations. Their stories are different and just don't add up in reference to each others story.

In case you have not heard this posted enough times ... I will walk you through it once again. But before I do this ... has it not been your position that you didn't believe Ed Hoffman? If so, then how can you use his story to try and make it appear that Arnold wasn't where he was?? More twisted logic due to your bias???

Ed Hoffman is a deaf mute, thus he cannot comment on how many shots were fired and from where. Ed could see into the RR yard down the fence line. At the time of the assassination there was a good deal of overhanging tree foliage hanging down in the Badge Man area, not to mention that the lot was full of cars and trucks. It takes only one tenth of the imagination you implemented in the seeing of details that you offered in those images of yours that I posted above to understand that Ed probably couldn't see Badge Man for the reasons I mentioned.

On the other hand, Gordon Arnold could hear. Gordon said that he heard a shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear. The Badge Man image supports that observation Gordon made. Gordon also thought that another shot had come from back behind him in the direction of the Hat Man location. Gordon doesn't say that he saw any shots being fired, but rather he heard them and that there seemed to be some reports going on at the same time.

Roy Kellerman riding in the limo had said that he heard two sounds coming over the top of one another that could only be compared to that of a sonic boom. Kellerman's description can be viewed as support of what Gordon Arnold had said. Sam Holland and the men on the underpass who saw smoke coming out from under the trees could be viewed as support that a second shot had been fired just as both Arnold and Kellerman had said.

Bill Miller

Edited January 12, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

On the other hand, Gordon Arnold could hear. Gordon said that he heard a shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear. The Badge Man image supports that observation Gordon made. Gordon also thought that another shot had come from back behind him in the direction of the Hat Man location. Gordon doesn't say that he saw any shots being fired, but rather he heard them and that there seemed to be some reports going on at the same time.

Bill Miller

Duncan,

BM has missed an obvious problem in Arnie's "story," which amounts to a major malfunction which destroys Arnie's credibility.

Arnie says that he was shooting & panning the motorcade when he heard a shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

Hello!

Arnie does not say that he heard a shot fired before this shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

So, Arnie didn't hear any shots fired until he heard the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear?

So, then, Arnie is saying that that shot (the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear) was the first shot fired that day?

Duncan, do elephants fly?

Edited September 30, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

BM has missed an obvious problem in Arnie's "story," which amounts to a major malfunction which destroys Arnie's credibility.

Arnie says that he was shooting & panning the motorcade when he heard a shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

Hello!

Arnie does not say that he heard a shot fired [before this shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

So, Arnie didn't hear any shots fired until he heard the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear?

So, then, Arnie is saying that that shot (the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear) was the shot fired that day?

Duncan, do elephants fly?

Miles,

Do you spend so much time trolling the threads that you have not the time to actually read them? There were others, depending on where they were who didn't hear or recognize the first shots as gunfire. Yarborough, Moorman, Brehm are some to name a few.

However, did Arnold say 'the first shot' or that 'a shot' came past his left ear .... do you know the difference???? Your continually misrepresenting the witness statements makes you either appear totally inept to keep the simplest things straight when it comes to what's been said or else you are purposely changing what has been said so to fit your agenda. Gordon Arnold DID NOT say that the first shot came past his left ear, but instead said that "a shot" came by his left ear. This is not the first time you have been corrected on this matter, so copy and paste this response and refresh your memory about it once and awhile so not to have to be corrected again on this matter.

And what about elephants flying, Miles .... you should be able to tell us about whether they can fly or not as much as anyone else here can.

Bill Miller

Edited September 30, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Mrs. Chism also testifies of hearing only 2 shots.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mchism.htm

So if Gordon Arnold only heard two, then what?

Good point.

But Arnie said he heard a second shot fired over him when he was on the ground which came from behind the fence.

Arnie said that the shot's reverberations began AFTER the first shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

So, according to Arnie there were no shots BEFORE the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

[Miles Scull]

I don't understand what you are saying

Does one, in order to be credible, have to hear at least 3 shots?

No.

Arnie's story is a tall tale because he didn't realize or know that the first shot fired that day did not come from behind the picket fence.

So, Arnie, as he tells his "story," forgets to mention that he heard a shot fired before the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

BM says Arnie just forgot about the first shot or missed it or thought it was a motorcycle backfire ( ), so to Arnie the first shot was the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

Arrant nonsense.

So, Arnie was not in Dealey Plaza that day.

OED

Edited September 30, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

He was reporting what he heard,

Righto,

Arnie forgot to mention that there was a big BOOM when the first shot was fired BEFORE the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

Arnie says that there was no big BOOM until he heard the first shot which was the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

Arnie goofed big time!

Go back & listen again to A in TMWKK.

[Bill Miller]

I don't understand what you are saying

Does one, in order to be credible, have to hear at least 3 shots?

Kathy, you are being trolled. Don't assume that this joker is citing the evidence correctly ... Duncan posted a link to Arnold's interview. I added the following to my previous response and will repeat it here once again so to drive home the point that Miles is misstating the facts once again ... I suspect purposely!!!

In a response to Miles I wrote: "Your continually misrepresenting the witness statements makes you either appear totally inept to keep the simplest things straight when it comes to what's been said or else you are purposely changing what has been said so to fit your agenda. Gordon Arnold DID NOT say that the first shot came past his left ear, but instead said that "a shot" came by his left ear. This is not the first time you have been corrected on this matter, so copy and paste this response and refresh your memory about it once and awhile so not to have to be corrected again on this matter."

Ask the village xxxxx to produce the spot in Arnold's interview where Gordon said 'the first shot came past his left ear' .... he cannot do it! Gordon even went so far as to tell us where the President was and how far in his pan it was when "a shot" came past his left ear.

Bill Miller

Edited October 8, 2008 by Bill Miller