The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Miles Scull]

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.

Bill Miller

Nonsense.

You miss the obvious point.

Arnie makes zero mention of his having heard or noticed anything at all unusual, like the concussion detonation of a nearby rifle discharge cracking through air, UNTIL he heard the shot that was the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

So, as Arnie tells his fable, the FIRST shot was the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

A huge banana peel slip completely missed by you, BM.

[Bill Miller]

Do you agree with the accuracy of this overlay?

Duncan MacRae

It's not easy to see so to be sure one way or the other. It does however come close to the size that Cummings was to Badge Man, which means that Badge Man fell within the normal body size as a real person, which also means that Arnold did as well because of his body size to Badge Man. I think having said this that we are back to Gordon's standing height ... which is where we have been dozens of times before in this thread.

By the way, do you have an opinion as to whether a young man in the service would wear his belt on or above the navel or down around his lower pelvis as the aging fat Gordon Arnold was shown to do. Feel free to consult Miles for additional data if you like.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I received this today:

Using Miles' way of (mis)thinking, Mary Moorman wasn't in Dealey Plaza either, for she heard no shots until the moment she took her famous picture.

Gary Mack

I think this about says it all, Miles.

I should say that Gary Mack has a vested interest, to say the least.

His (mis)thinking assumes that Mary Moorman's hearing of anything has a bearing on what Arnie said he heard.

What anyone else heard or did not hear does not change Arnie's self incriminating goof.

And then consider the galloping illogicality of the rest of Arnie's fable.

I think that says it all.

[Miles Scull]

Miles,

Silly me!! I thought that you were arguing that since it appears to you, (and you made a big stinkie about it) that since Arnold only heard 2 shots, there was no way he could've been there.

This was a quote posted that told of another person who we KNOW was there, that said she heard no shots until she took her picture.

This has everything to do with what you were arguing.

Hi Kathy,

Good to see you posting! Keep it up!

No, the troller who is making a big stinkie about it is none other than, tellingly, BM.

Here's why:

Arnie says that the parade was just going along just fine with nothing much unusual to notice, when suddenly KABOOM, Arnie thought he had been shot by a shot from behind that caused him to fall down.

Notice Arnie is the hero of his tale.

BM uses this fable to support the Arnie illusion in Moorman's photo.

Can I borrow your gas mask?

[Bill Miller]

Nonsense.

You miss the obvious point.

Arnie makes zero mention of his having heard or noticed anything at all unusual, like the concussion detonation of a nearby rifle discharge cracking through air, UNTIL he heard the shot that was the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

So, as Arnie tells his fable, the FIRST shot was the shot fired from behind him that came past his left ear.

A huge banana peel slip completely missed by you, BM.

Miles,

Were you sleeping over that past year or has trolling threads kept you from having time to absorb what you have read? 0ver 30 test firings were done for the JFK movie with 7 shots fired each time. It was during these test that it was discovered that witnesses at one location could not hear shots heard from another location ... and visa-versa. Yarborough appears to be smiling in Altgens #6 ... and in the same photo Charles Brehm is still applauding.

Mary Moorman must have also told a fable in your opinion for she didn't mention hearing the first shot until she had taken her #5 Polaroid.

But let us go back to Arnold's interview. Did Turner have anyone ask Arnold if he heard the first shot and if so ... to describe it? Do you have any factual details to support what you implied, Miles?? Did Turner only show the part of Arnold's interview whereas he describes the shot that came past his left ear because that was the crux of Gordon's purpose on the show??? Have you done anything to research whether or not Turner showed Arnold's entire interview????

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I should say that Gary Mack has a vested interest, to say the least.

His (mis)thinking assumes that Mary Moorman's hearing of anything has a bearing on what Arnie said he heard.

What anyone else heard or did not hear does not change Arnie's self incriminating goof.

And then consider the galloping illogicality of the rest of Arnie's fable.

I think that says it all.

Gary Mack's only vested interest has been in upholding a high standard of research, unlike that of your own. For instance, I believe that Moorman also didn't hear the first shot until she had taken her #5 Polaroid .... is not Arnold entitled to have experienced the same thing Moorman and others did??

One more question ... Did Arnold say that the shot that came over his left shoulder was the first shot fired during the shooting or is that something you have erroneously attempted to lay on him.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I should say that Gary Mack has a vested interest, to say the least.

His (mis)thinking assumes that Mary Moorman's hearing of anything has a bearing on what Arnie said he heard.

What anyone else heard or did not hear does not change Arnie's self incriminating goof.

And then consider the galloping illogicality of the rest of Arnie's fable.

I think that says it all.

.... is not Arnold entitled to have experienced the same thing Moorman and others did??

Bill Miller

No.

Arnold is only entitled to have the glaring nonsensically of his account with its obvious absurdities.

Let me introduce a new TERM into the discussion:

Münchhausen syndrome by proxy

It's clear that Arnold was suffering from this disorder.

That Arnold suffered from this disorder is obvious when one notices that Arnold, via his concocted fable, is heroically saving himself from the abuse of hostile "others": the invented CIA figure & the invented cops who kicked Arnie when he was down.

But, Duncan would say:

To return to the topic:

Go figure!

[Bill Miller]

Miles,

My, but that is interesting!!!!

Especially to a dyed-in-the-wool "chick flick" watcher like me.When this term came up in the Genene Jones movie,(the name escapes me) of course I looked it up. She injured children, and put them to the point of death, and then revived them,or tried to, to show herself, as you say, heroic. Of course, many times, she was unsuccessful.

This was her diagnosis. By Proxy--- that means using someone else, not herself. You needed just to use Munchausens, but this would show up over and over in the person's life, and I don't think it would be possible to say this about someone unless you were around them.

You can guess all you want, but the devil should be in the details, and it's probably not conducive to the study if you try to psychoanalyze. I think whatever you are looking for to pad your argument should exist in the information you have. This type of speculation only takes emphasis off the topic, and I know you wouldn't want to do that, would you?

Kathy

Good point, Kathy. For the life of me I have never understood why John Simkin would allow someone like Miles to xxxxx this forum and attempt to bring it down with such idiocy designed for only one goal in mind. Freedom of speech is one thing, but sabotage is another. Maybe its Miles way of getting back at John for his being on permanent moderation. The thing is that Gordon Arnold in death has shown more credibility and seriousness about JFK's murder that a certain select few here.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Don't you mean Baron Billhausen Miles ? ( re: The fantastic tale of Hatman in Willis )

Let's add this fresh new study to this thread too. Strange how no one has ridiculed the accuracy of it yet Miles, don't you think?

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, If no one is seen between the Hat Man location and the corner of the fence in the Moorman photo ... if not Hat Man, then who or what do you think is seen over the fence at the corner??? It is said that if you can't be part of the solution, then don't be part of the problem. You and Miles come across like two individuals who play off of each other. Is that all you have to offer???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

This is what I have to offer, still no one is disputing its accuracy.......Any chance of seeing what you have to offer ??????

Duncan MacRae

Interesting state of denial you have going. Throughout this entire thread (part 1 & 2) there has been someone disputing the accuracy of your claim and yet you will say that no one has disputed it.

As far as seeing what I have to offer ... several instances I offered real world - real people photos and you said that the questions raised by them were irrelevant. In a few cases you didn't want to cooperate by addressing those points. So to you I must say that you did have a chance to see what I had to offer, but you had refused to open your eyes so-to-speak.

For example: In your illustration as to what is behind the wall concerning the ground elevation is a steady straight line increase running south to north. Yet in a real world photo like the one below ... there is an abrupt mound near the Gordon Arnold location to where if we drew a straight line along the base of the fence from end to end in this photo ... that line would have to cut through the ground. Your simple illustration does not take this into consideration, so which is more accurate - a real life photo of the ground elevation along the bottom of the fence that can be seen or your straight line that is supposed to represent the ground elevation that cannot be seen behind the wall in Moorman's photo. Do you not see the difference and if so, what do you think its relevance is???????????????? (see below)

Bill Miller

Edited January 12, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

What do I think?......I think that my real world is of this Earth and that yours is in a Galaxy far far away with Dr Smith Will Robinson and Betty The Bloop.

Now I wonder who Betty was named after?

Back to the real world now.

I have added what I think is a reasonable and proportionate body to Badgeman for comparison with the Gordon Arnold illusion.

As you can see, the Arnold illusion is BEHIND badgeman.

My conclusion is that Arnold must have been on Professor Robinson's Jetpack

The evidence for Jetpack Arnold - Click To View Full Size

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, this is your last chance to take this seriously. It gets to be a joke when you call for some serious discussion ... how you are only interested in the truth ... and then you give such a response as above. I know why Miles won't take this thread seriously, but seeing that you are the father of this topic, then you should at least pretend to be sincere in all of this. Now once more I will make a point concerning a real world photograph and I expect a serious answer or else this topic will be closed in my view.

In the photo below there is a mound of earth in the area where Gordon Arnold had stood. This raising of the ground elevation, despite severe ground erosion exposing the tree roots, is still apparent from this view. Study the photo so we can intelligently discuss it. (see photo)

What is interesting about this particular photo is that there are openings in the fence due to missing slats which in turn show the horizontal cross-boards of the fence in relation to the ground level. The ground closer to the corner of the fence show the lowest cross-board to be well above the top of the ground. So if the the fence is 1 to 2 inches into the ground, then the visible height of the fence showing is 4' 10" to 4'11" tall. The area where the mound is seen is basically even with the horizontal cross-board. If the top of the cross-board for argument's sake is 10" off of the ground at the grounds highest point, then the visible fence would only be 4' to 4'1" tall. The mound of earth that had eroded away can only be guessed, but seeing that no roots seem to be exposed in any of the assassination images, then adding two more inches of soil would seem like a conservative figure when talking about the amount of missing earth in that photo. This now brings the visible standing height of the fence down to 3'10" to 4' tall.

The purpose of going over this is because you have based Arnold's standing height to what you thought to be a visible 5' height for the fence. Your illustration only shows a smooth straight line that is supposed to represent the ground elevation behind the wall. The photo shows differently. Can you tell us how this could effect the accuracy of your illustration???

Bill Miller

Edited October 3, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I don't pretend to be sincere, I am sincere.

Yes, photo illustrations of my image on brides, over gopher holes, orangutans used for body scale with Gordon Arnold, arguing whether someone is a cop or just someone disguised as a cop from a poor degraded image, not answering simple questions without demanding the purpose for which they were asked, etc., etc., are all supportive of your sincerity ... I just don't see it that way.

Your choice...If spitting your dummy out of the pram is more important than getting to the truth no matter how long it takes, then do as you feel you must.

More of what you call being serious???

The photo is not circa 1963...what is the relevance of it?

It's relevant in the way the photo circa of 1963 showing people on the walkway that you posted was relevant ... and then irrelevant when it was shown not to support your position when I wanted to discuss the man under the red`arrow.

The photo I previously used was taken on an even plane with the top of the ground between the walkway and the fence. It gives us a profile view of its elevation changes in relation to the fence.

This is another illusion caused by the photograph being taken from below the level of the verge.

The photo was taken on an even plane with the walkway. To prove this is to observe the peoples shoes seen on the walkway. It is that same level plane with the walkway that tells us the true elevation of the ground in that photo in relation to the base of the fence and the sidewalk. In speaking with Kathy Beckett today (and Kathy admits to having a hard time reading images) she could follow how having a camera down at ground level will allow the elevation changes to be better seen against the fence. Google earth has a function just for viewing terrain because of this simple principle in perspective. If Kathy can see it, then you should also see it.

Do you know what height the cross boards were in 1963?

Not precisely, but I used a hypothetical distance. The fact that the space between the ground to the cross-board lessens near the mound is the point I was driving home. Your illustration does not address this important data because you merely drew a straight line along the bottom of the fence.

The ground closer to the corner of the fence show the lowest cross-board to be well above the top of the ground.

correct

So if the the fence is 1 to 2 inches into the ground, then the visible height of the fence showing is 4' 10" to 4'11" tall.

correct

This much is no longer in debate ... at least until such a time that you may change your mind to fit your needs. But for now I will see it as a 'given'.

The area where the mound is seen is basically even with the horizontal cross-board.

It's not

Did you forget to offer an explanation as to why you believe its not or is this as far as the cooperation is going to go???

I've heard it all now...A 3ft 10" fence based on a deceiving uphill photograph

I will say it once again ... the camera lens seems to be very close to an even plane to the walkway. The support for this is that people who are standing away from the top step still have their shows visible down to the concrete. Any illusion of the camera looking uphill is due to the ground being higher than the walkway. Study the photo more closely ... confer with Miles if you like and tell me if what I say is not accurate.

It doesn't affect it at all. Your hypothesis is as mad as a box of frogs.

Do I detect desperation creeping in and experiments in November being cancelled now?

I have asked others to carry out the test, thus I cannot cancel anything. I would appreciate your being serious enough to address the points made with a somewhat detailed explanation rather than a few words like the one about a box of frogs. What you respond with are not facts, nor can they be considered data. Go bak and explain why it is that the gaop closed between the cross-board and the ground when the sidewalk is flat and being seen at ground level???

Bill Miller

Edited October 3, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

22nd November 1963 Flat ground next to the fence and the tree and the area where Arnold allegedly stood.

Bill's 3ft 10" fence on the day of the assassination theory based on a low level angled undated photograph belongs in the garbage bin.

Nice try Bill, but those of us in the know will not be fooled by deception tactics.

The True Flat Level Of The Ground Against The Fence On November 22nd 1963

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

I do not see how posted such a deplorable image helps your position, but I guess a guy has to do what a guy has to do.

Several times now I have referenced the Altgens #6 photo and how it shows the drop down from the hill to the curb on the south side of Elm Street. The Nix film is another example of this drop for one can see how Mary Moorman's shoes are over the hill and hidden from view from Nix's camera. Yet when we look at Moorman in the Zapruder film at roughly the same angle that Darnell had to the ground ... the hill is not discernible. In fact, the entire slope from where Jean Hill stood down to the top of the curb looks completely flat.

Because of you and Miles pretending not to understand this point ... I will now add it to the list that a photo be taken near ground level along the south curb of Elm Street so it can be compared to the view from Zapruder's pedestal. What will occur is what I have said over and over and your not getting it will not mean that I am wrong or that the photo is altered. What it will mean is that you refuse to understand perspective and how it relates to a 2D image or you simply do not have the ability to understand it. Either way it doesn't matter to me ... others will see it and understand it perfectly.

As for the image I posted - two points should have been apparent. One is that the tree roots are underground. These roots do not float to the surface so to be exposed, butt rather the soil erodes away, thus exposing them. So when someone is looking at ground level to the walkway ... the rise in ground elevation between the walkway and the fence is what this has always been about when talking about how Arnold knew to say that he stood on a mound. So whether it was a pile of dirt, a high spot in the grass, or an upward sloping of the ground .... this view shows us the elevation changes in profile between the walkway and the fence.

The other point is that the photo I posted does not give us a view down the fence line so to see if the ground elevation rolled back down towards the fence or not. You may recall that Arnold told Mack that he was 2 to 3 feet in front of the fence. The elevated ground level in this photo is 2 to 3 feet in front of the fence. So the point is that there are things that even though they may never been provable beyond any and all doubt, they certainly show that the means were there for Arnold to have appeared like he did. One of the questions that Kathy Beckett intelligently put forward was 'How was it that Arnold would have known to say he stood on a mound when he not only didn't know that he was even captured in a photo in the first place, but more importantly he could not have foreseen a need to elevate his person so to counter your criticism of his height in relation to the fence. Kathy's point is legit and I have not heard a response to it based on sound reasoning and logic.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The verge level in your photograph is higher than the wakway level...With your photograph being taken from walkway level and not the verge level, it only shows the highest point of the front of the verge at the front of the photograph, and NONE of the ground area beyond that. Did you explain that to Kathy?????????????

Duncan MacRae[/b]

Sure I did and I reminded her that you and Miles have continuously argued that the ground was flat between the walkway and the fence in the Darnell film. I had said over and over that such an angle as Darnell's 2D image could not show the high and low spots. You may recall my saying early on how Groden's photo of Gary Shaw showed the difference in ground elevation between the corner of the wall and where the park bench was sitting .... that observation was ignored by you both. In the image I posted I can see the exposed tree roots well beyond the start of the walkway. Bury them roots in at least two more inches of soil and imagine how much higher the ground will look.

No, the ground level isn't higher than the walkway ... least ways that has not been the picture that you and Miles were painting. You are calling the mound the ground level, but if the camera rises to that point, then the sidewalk is no longer being seen on an even plane. You cannot have it both ways.

Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Fence stabilized, if it helps.

chris