The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

Why didn't you tell Kathy and everyone else who you are trying to fool what I have written in the image below?

You must think people are really stupid. Just as well I'm here to point them to your errors and deception, be it deliberate or not.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan .... the answer to your question as to why I didn't tell Kathy and everyone " " " " " " about what you had written on the image is - I felt that everyone here can read. Now if you think that I needed to read it to them, which means that I also would have to type it out as you did, then who is it that must think that people here are really stupid! (Think about it)

Now about that fence line you are talking about. Let us see if I have this correct ... You draw a line up on a tree to a point along the sidewalk and that is supposed to represent where the fence and sidewalk ends and anything south of that is in front of the fence ... I do not think so! The photo of Gary Shaw at the wall shows a considerable rise in ground elevation north of the dog leg, which is north of the end of the fence. The exposed roots go north beyond the top of the steps. The Moorman and Muchmore view of that area north of the corner of the fence also shows the elevation rising. With that being said, I disagree with your assessment of the roots all being in front of the fence.

Here below is a capture from a SS film of Dealey Plaza. This image is also eye level to the walkway. The plants growing at the base of the fence can be seen, but not beyond the high point of the mound of earth. Unlike Moorman's photo .... this one allows us a profiled view of the ground elevation. It appears that the term 'mound' that Arnold used had really existed between the walkway and the fence.

If the brink of the hill was south of the fence, then we would not see the foliage at the base area of the fence so far down its line. This causes me to see the mound to be in the area where the foliage at the base of the fence goes out of view behind the higher ground elevation.

Bill Miller

Edited January 12, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I just think you should have made it clear that the roots you were referring to were not at the Arnold area. Kathy and others heads must be spinning with confusion when you do not..let's just say reaveal all of the information that is not obvious to everyone.

I don't think so either..You read it wrong, and I think I made myself clear in what I said was represented below the red line, ie..it is not relevant to the Arnold area.

let's beg to differ, but front of the fence or not, they have no relevance to the Arnold "ground/mound" which can not be seen in the photograph which you used to try to make your point.

Your photograph is a good example. I still say that when Arnold used the term mound, he really meant the slightly sloping verge which can be seen in your photograph..I think you would probably concede this, but probably not in public on this forum

Duncan MacRae

OK - Arnold first ... If you read minds as well as you read images, then I would not quit my day job. Only Arnold would know what he meant, which brings us back to the question that Kathy asked and that was 'Why did Arnold know to mention a mound that would be important because his critics would have an issue with his height seen in a photograph 40 years later???'

Now the roots ... Of course Arnold didn't stand on those roots on the slope when Moorman snapped her shutter ... nowhere did I say that he did. And I agree that I cannot see up on top of the area well enough so to know if more roots are exposed in the same way. But I took the time to discover that this entire area has had problems with tourist walking over it and wearing down the top-soil - and not just the area visible in the photo, but all the way back to the tree and beyond. That this problem has gotten so bad over the years that more dirt has had to be brought in to cover it back over again. That over time the ground has been so beaten down and packed so hard that it started effecting the health of that large Oak tree that sits upon it. I took the time to go to someone who would know all about what goes on in that entire area because he was the one who met with the guy who had to literally poke holes into the ground and pump air into those areas.

So the point of that photo showing the exposed roots was to show the level of erosion that had taken place up there since JFK's assassination. There was no confusion on Kathy's part when I told her this ... only you have had a problem following this point, but I expect nothing less when it comes to understanding anything that shows you to be in error.

I am happy that you liked the Secret Service image showing the ground elevation in profile. It compliments the photo that showed the level of ground erosion that had taken place since JFK's murder and that is why you were shown them in the order that you did. Any thoughts on how that effects your claim that the ground was flat as you and Miles were saying by using the 2D Darnell image? Are you starting to understand how such 2D images taken at a downward angle cannot show such ground elevation changes and will make the ground appear flat when in reality it obviously wasn't?? Has the point I made about the Zapruder film not showing the ground elevation change between where Jean Hill stood and the top of the curb started making sense yet??? (I'm sure it has to others!)

By the way, in you and Miles 'Darnell image' and in your illustrations showing wedding dresses, gopher holes, apes, and orangutans and even in the ones without such nonsense placed into them ... you have always mentioned the base of the fence as if that represents the ground elevation behind the wall. I mentioned that your line across the east side of the wall was flat and showed no elevation change in the soil. You now having seen the Secret service profile image of the ground elevation where Arnold had stood and how the flowers along the base of the fence all but disappear when they extend passed the mounded ... have you any thoughts as to how much taller that would make Arnold as seen against the 4'10" to 4'11'" visible height of the fence?? Would you not agree that had Arnold stood on that mound that he would be elevated higher over the wall from Moorman's location than you have attributed to his so far??

And would you not agree that you were unaware of this Secret Service profiled image of that mound when you first made your claim and that nowhere in your analysis did you mention or apply the elevation change to your findings???

Bill Miller

Edited October 4, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Look Bill, it changes absolutely nothing, in fact it only confirms what I have been saying from the beginning that there is only a verge incline and not a mound or solitary pile of dirt as claimed by Arnold,

How can your 'verge incline' that you claimed to be only in front of the fence be attributed to the place where Arnold stood as said to be flat when you and Miles used the Darnell images? Do we need to go back and post again what you had said??

and that 4ft 10" on the fence was showing in 1963 and not the ridiculous 3ft 10" fence proposal put forward by you.

I used that proposal of 1' as a hypothetical figure for arguments sake. And to think you wanted me to believe that you want to keep the facts straight. (sigh~)

I'm sure the "others" who are only known to you and have been not commital agree with my point of view, but will not stand up to be counted on this forum because they regard you as a friend and probably don't want conflict with you.

People who would consider themselves a friend of mine know that I don't wish to be surrounded by 'yes men'. I understand your desire to think otherwise because that's the only explanation that you have to offer rather than admitting your errors.

If these anonymous others want to speak up, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

Opinions from people with no names counts for nothing.

When I have posted comments sent to me by email and by PM ... complaints of not being able to confirm their authenticity and hearsay rules was argued. Just the other day it was Miles who complained that I spoke for Gary Mack by my sharing information that I had sought from Gary. I then posted a quote from Gary which mirrored exactly what I had said. So your 'no name' theory is flawed for it doesn't mean that what I have said is fabricated. There is a theory that is not flawed that applies to your claims and it goes like this ....

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.”

You didn't care to seek the validation of an expert - you didn't have all the facts which is still being reflected in the things you say, thus your opinion is of no value.

Bill Miller

Edited October 4, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The ground is flat at the Darnell location

The ground looks flat, but it isn't. The Darnell film covers the ground along the fence to the southmost corner. The mound seen in the SS film shows the flowers disappearing behind the mount a good distance from the southmost corner. The Darnell films shows the flowers all the way from the tree to the southmost corner ... The reason for this is because you cannot see such elevation changes in a 2D image at the angle Darnell is filming the ground. One must get lower to ground level so to see the high points, which is what the Secret Service film shows. You can deny this all you like, but it is a fact that not even Miles is arguing any longer.

Yes, that's what they'll tell you..If they were not yes men, they would speak up for themselves. As I said..there is nothing stopping them posting on the Forum

I do not get it ... are you saying that when someone tells me something even when disagreeing with me ... they must post it to this forum to be official? Do you think that anyone believes that if they are 'yes men' that repeating what I have said would keep you from then saying that they are just posting what I want to hear?? In fact, I think this is what you had done at Lancer before getting booted. You made the claim that Debra Conway was just kissing up to me or words to that effect and her posting what she thought meant nothing to you. That's the beauty of going back and getting your past statements so to show how the things you now say are contradicted by the things you have said in the past. This is not something open for debate - its in the record!

That's just your opinion of my opinion and no one else's opinion...Your opinion of my opinion has no value unless your opinion is a fact

Would you like for me to go back and post again where you said that you didn't need to see the advice of an expert? Do you think that had you sought the advice of an expert and he or she agreed with your methods that you would not have posted it??

Did you know about the 1' difference at the corner of the wall, because if you did, then why did you cite an experts findings that didn't know about it which through his figures off for the size of Badge Man? Did you know that the visible fence was shorter on the plaza side than it was on the RR yard side, if so then why didn't you mentions it at any time?? There are several things you didn't seem to know ... the records stands as a testimonial to this and I say that this makes it 'fact'.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The SS photograph is also a 2D image...You can't have it both ways Bill.

Duncan, I am now thinking that you are just totally inept at all this stuff. I had explained this in considerable detail or so I thought! The key here is the word 'PROFILE'!!!

PROFILE: n. A side view of an object or structure.

Whether it was Darnell's, Zapruder's, or who ever ... I said that when looking downward at the ground as Darnell was doing that you could not see the elevation changes. Did I not mention the drop to the top of the curb from Jean Hill's location and how it cannot be seen in Zapruder's film as Abe is looking downward, but when seen from low and at the side (IN PROFILE) that the slope was quite discernible. How many times must that simple fact be repeated before you get it right!!!

The real reason I got booted from Lancer is that Debra did not like me not agreeing with you.

Duncan, you live in a make believe world full of denial. There are people there who disagree with me all the time and they have never been told to agree with Miller or be booted. No, I remember your last post and in that post you mentioned something vulgar to her doing something pertaining to me and like a southern lady - she booted your silly behind. I have no doubt that had I of spoke that way to her, then I would have been banned as well. For you to attempt to down-play your responsibility in getting the boot from Lancer sure doesn't make you appear to be the kind of a person who isn't afraid to admit when he is wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself!!!

Do you think that had you sought the advice of an expert and he or she agreed with your methods that you would not have posted it??

If I had permission to do so, yes.

Do you really think that you can imply that an expert agreed with your methods, but would not give you permission say so ... Not even Miles would buy that one!

Tell me Bill.....How does a drop of 1ft in ground level in front of the fence affect the size of Badgeman behind the fence?

It doesn't effect Bade Man. A one foot variance in ground level only effects the visible amount of the fence that can be seen above the ground ... it doesn't change Badge Man's height in relation to the fence

Bill Miller.

[Chris Davidson]

If it helps.

chris

Edited October 5, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Bill Miller]

Do you really think you are fooling anyone?...Let me remind you that you posted a 2D image...I'll call it a 2D Profile now just to keep you happy.

Duncan, all the images posted to this forum are 2D images. The difference between the two imAges are the elevation to the ground at which each image was seen from. You may recall the several times that I mentioned the south pasture and its drop from the area Jean Hill stood and the top of the curb on the sought side of Elm Street and how Altgens profiled view shows this elevation change while Zapruder's did not. I also used another example which dealt with Google Earth. The trees and mountains when looking down on them DO NOT offer the view needed to their elevation differences, but when the line of sight is lowered down to a more horizontal plane ... now the various terrain elevations can be easily differentiated from one another. Do I need to do a coupl3 screen captures for you so you can see what I am talking about or do you want to come clean now without my having to expose your game playing because I believe that you know quite well how to use Google Earth and are able to understand this stuff.

So no, I am not fooling anyone who is serious about understanding this stuff and only fooling the fools who want to pretend not to be able to follow along.

Thats because there are none at the particular fence area location in question .

Other than you merely saying differently and using a 2D image looking downward which could not possibly offer the data needed to support your position ... the Secret Service image says differently.

Did I not mention the drop to the top of the curb from Jean Hill's location and how it cannot be seen in Zapruder's film as Abe is looking downward, but when seen from low and at the side (IN PROFILE) that the slope was quite discernible. How many times must that simple fact be repeated before you get it right

As many as you like, it is not relevant to the Darnell images.

Oh really ... I love it when you make things up as you go. Please explain the angle difference between Darnell's view to the ground as compared to Zapruder's to the south curb of Elm Street? The fact is that you don't wish to deal with the ground level view because it doesn't compliment you position. The old 'I won't see it until I believe it' becomes your modus-operandi.

Several post ago you wanted to tell us that only the ground in front of the corner of the fence showed the soil erosion to the point of exposing the tree roots. I had said that the erosion has occurred all the way past the large oak tree. I want to show you how your bias has prevented you from seeing things that would normally be easily observed by you concerning any other subject. (see below)

The small iron fencing along the walkway ends at the top of the steps. The exposed tree roots extend north beyond where that fence meets the top of the steps. The top of the steps are several feet north of the corner of the fence. This image proves beyond all doubt that your observation was grossly erred. The point of all this is to show you how your bias has effected your ability to see and understand otherwise simple observations. Your continually telling me that something relevant is irrelevant is just another example of this. The Secret Service view is relevant.

I used a common British term which is non insulting in the U.K and which obviously must have a different meaning in America. I have seen you use terms which are acceptable in America but would not be acceptable in the U.K.... so where should a line be drawn?

Everyone knows the real reason and I was told so in more than a dozen emails from members at Lancer at the time.

I think that any fool knows that when you claim that someone his putting their mouth or lips to another's behind and implying what you did will not be a good thing. As far as all those supportive emails you claim to have gotten ... isn't it you that has posted that unless it is stated in the post as to who these people are and quoted, then its all talk!

Bill Miller

Edited January 12, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

If it helps.

chris

I can't get the movies to play Chris. I keep getting a " Quicktime requires new software error "

Thanks Anyway

Duncan

Duncan,

Does this work for you?

Less quality.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Boy oh boy oh boy...My observations were 10000000000000000000% correct. You are now posting a COMPELETELY DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPH FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HIGHER ANGLE...Thanks anyway..It proves my point

I have not a clue as to what you are talking about. Do you care to explain in detail what it is that makes you correct or do you stop at the propaganda? Obviously the roots extend well north of the 'verge' as you called it ... did you not say that they were only seen in front of the fence or did I dream that??? It's obvious to me that the soil in those pictures was eroded away all the way to the tree. I also think you knew this already and have seen those pictures in the past.

With the upcoming pictures being taken in Dallas .... I wanted to show the difference between the soil elevation at the time of the shooting compared to what it is today so when it is incorporated into the conclusion, then people will understand why.

That's because you're dancing again with different images, saying information is in one of them when it's not, and then posting this new image to back up your worthless first image which showed no roots on the flat incline area because the flat incline area could not be seen in your first image

Thanks for posting the new image which confirms that at the time it was taken the ground was relatively flat on the incline, even with soil erosion and showing the most minimal incline of the verge, and most likely even more so in the 1963 pre erosion period as seen in Darnell

I was able to read it in the first image ... I thought that you could as well.

LOL!!! So the fact that the ground is wore away between the sidewalk and the fence from the millions of people passing through the plaza each year doesn't seem to register with you ... that somehow you think that before JFK was killed that the ground had already been wore away from all the tourist going up there to see where the President would be shot at a later date. Are you sure you want to go with that? And once a tree is grown ... is it your position that the ground was even flatter at the time of the shooting and if so, then why are not the roots exposed in Darnell's film?? Does it not make more sense to you that the SS film shows the ground mounded up over the tops of the roots at the time of the assassination and that over the years the roots had become exposed from the vast amount of sight-seekers walking around up there??? (Just trying to get into your mindset with the use of harmful drugs)

Bill Miller

Edited October 6, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, you have said that you believe that Gordon Arnold was on the knoll at the time of the shooting ... Can you tell us why you believe this to be the case ???

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Roots covered with soil will always produce a flatter surface than roots exposed above a once flat surface,

Duncan MacRae

Can you cite anything or offer an example of what you just said above so one won't just think that you made it up??? In other words ... can dirt be mounded over a tree root or are you sticking with that nonsense that soil over roots always produce a flatter surface.

Bill Miller

Edited October 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Just looking for clarification here ...

You said: "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"

Is it your position that the ground (even when eroded) is higher than the sidewalk at the top of the 'verge' as you call it?

Would you say that before erosion occurred ... the ground at the top of the verge was higher elevated than the sidewalk in the Secret Service view looking north??

Bill Miller

Edited October 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Those pictures were some I sent you as a slideshow to put on your website, and you asked me to separate them into individual photos. They were the pictures I took for Miles last year, when we were talking about what Bowers saw.

I had started at the Hudson step, and moved about a half foot to the left, taking a picture each time, until Bowers' Tower was in "full' view.

I recall remarking about the elevation of that area and Robert Groden told me that it used to be alot higher.

The area we were talking about is precisely the area that is under discussion here.

Kathy

I could sense that Duncan had seen those photos before and that he knew all along about the erosion. I also knew that Duncan saying that everything below his red line (see below) was utter nonsense because the fence extends several feet further south than the top step of the walkway.

The exposed roots (red arrows) extend further north than the start of the walkway. The grass along the iron fence (green arrows) where it turns near the shelter is even visible.

Maybe like with Badge Man ... he was keeping his knowing about all those pictures to himself because we know Duncan is shy and keeps things secret when he wants to.

Bill Miller

Edited January 12, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

More fabrication..No, I have not said that I believe he was on the knoll. I said that I believe that it is possible that he was on the knoll.

Duncan

Ok, Duncan ... more play on words I see, so let me ask the question this way ...WHAT MAKES YOU SAY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ARNOLD WAS ON THE KNOLL???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Come on Bill, surely you are not as thick as you are appearing to everyone. Have you never planted seeds in a pot whereby the flat soil at the top of the pot becaomes less flat as the plant grows upwards and through the soil ?..gimme a break

Duncan MacRae

So any full grown trees on a hill that haven't flattened the hill, knoll, or mound is not really a real Duncan tree but natures way of trying to fool everyone. Is that where you are on this nonsense now??? Have you ever considered another cause for the soil becoming flattened when watering things that are sitting in a pot .... sigh~

Bill Miller

Edited October 7, 2008 by Bill Miller