The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

The verge was and is at a higher elevation than the walkway

Duncan MacRae

I knew you'd say this, so now comes the next question ....

You and Miles have repeatedly said that the Darnell film shows that the area between the sidewalk and the fence is flat. I have repeatedly said that you cannot see elevation changes in that 2D film image because of the angle it is filmed looking down at the ground. The sidewalk is flat and the soil between the walkway looks to be the same elevation in Darnell's film and yet you just admitted that they are not the same elevation. Isn't what you have now said contradictory to your past remarks?

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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

Because he said he was.

Duncan MacRae

Is there anything else that would make you say that it is possible that Gordon Arnold was on the knoll other than he saying that he was???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

More conclusive evidence

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, is this not an 'EDUCATION FORUM', so would you not want to offer some details in your response. If your answers are sincere, then you should easily be able to offer details in support of your opinions. So let us walk through this and see exactly where you are coming from.

Now again, What makes you believe that it was possible that Arnold was on the knoll and where do you think he was? You see, if Arnold was on the knoll, then why not just say so from the onset ... he would have no reason to change his location.

I and Kathy, and I am sure others would like your thoughts on this????????????

Bill

[Bill Miller]

The higher ground where the walkway meets the grass verge can be seen in this frame.

Duncan MacRae

Really, please explain it as if you were the teacher. So far you only say things without giving us the reasons how you came to your conclusion. Can you not do better than this????

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

No one is disputing that Kathy. All I said was that in the first photograph which Bill posted, the b/w photograph, the roots could not be seen beyond the highest frontal point of the verge in that particular photograph. Bill said he could see them by "reading the photograph"

Duncan

That's correct, Duncan. At the time that I made that claim, I had not seen the other photographs that Kathy had taken. It appears that I could see them for I am not psychic in the least ... Of course there is the 'lucky guess' option if you want to use it. If you couldn't see them ... its OK ... no crime in that.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Just one question. Why are you cheating by changing the aspect ratio of your black and white photograph to give the impression of huge roots sticking up high through the ground? As I have continually said...you won't fool me or anyone else on the forum...you've been caught

Duncan

It must be lonely without Miles to play up to. The fact is that I posted the original photo twice (post #356, 358) without doing anything to it. I even ignored your placing a red line through some of the roots I had seen. Then I stretched it vertically so those who couldn't see those roots in the original photo could see them in the stretched photo. Cheating by definition would have been my not allowing anyone to see the original photo along with the stretched one.

Cheating:

# To act dishonestly; practice fraud.

# To violate rules deliberately, as in a game

In post #389 I posted it once again with your altering of it, along with my vertical stretched version so to make the roots show up better to those like yourself who wasn't able to see them before.

I look forward to you getting back on track and addressing these questions. And so you know, I knew Kathy's concerns and questions because she PM'd me asking why you were not addressing them. She can confirm this if you so desire it.

Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Some more.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

More.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Some more.

chris

Wow ... someone must have altered those photos because I could have sworn that Duncan said that the roots were in front of the fence ... Imagine that!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Look..If Kathy has concerns, she can ask me directly rather than relaying messages through you. I don't know why she needs to ask you for your opinion as to why I may or may not address any particular issue when she can ask me.

Duncan MacRae

Look Duncan, you have responded with something that has no significant meaning to this discussion. When are you going to quit screwing around and answer the question regardless of who and how many people want to know the answer to it. Here is the question again for the record ...

"Now again, What makes you believe that it was possible that Arnold was on the knoll and where do you think he was? You see, if Arnold was on the knoll, then why not just say so from the onset ... he would have no reason to change his location."

You asked to move forward and yet it is you who once again is not cooperating. You certainly are not just throwing out responses without something to support them, so why are you not able to explain how your reached your own conclusions. We don't want you to preach to us, but rather to teach us. We can get a better understanding of the sincerity of your responses if you'll just answer the questions. If more clarification is needed, then I or someone else can ask for it.

Now you added two things that appear to contradict one another. One was ...

a)I believe that it is possible that he was on the knoll.

B)I believe it's possible that Arnold was there, but I do not actually believe that he was there

Then you said the following when I asked if there was anything else that would make you claim that it was possible for Arnold to have been on the knoll .... I asked, "Is there anything else that would make you say that it is possible that Gordon Arnold was on the knoll other than he saying that he was???". You then replied, "More conclusive evidence".

Below is the exact exchange from post #401:

Is there anything else that would make you say that it is possible that Gordon Arnold was on the knoll other than he saying that he was???

Bill Miller

More conclusive evidence

Duncan MacRae

Yet when asked to tell us what some of the "more conclusive evidence" is .... you come back with, "I believe it's possible that Arnold was there, but I do not actually believe that he was there....How's that?"

First you imply that its possible that Arnold was on the knoll because he not only said so, but because of 'more conclusive evidence' and then you say that you do not actually believe that he was there. You never answered the question as to what was the "more conclusive evidence" that you spoke of. Hard to feel the sincerity in you really being serious about all this when you merely dance around these questions. So how about it ... what was the 'more conclusive evidence' that you referred to??????????

Bill Miller

Edited October 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

name='Miles Scull' date='Oct 1 2008, 01:20 AM' post='155416']

[name=Kathy Beckett' post='155411' date='Sep 30 2008, 11:57 PM]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 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.

For the students of this forum ... I would like to point out an observation pertaining to Miles Skull's attempt to mislead the reader.

The first thing that Skull did was to misstate the record by saying that Arnold said that the first shot came past his left ear. Arnold said "a shot" came past his left ear. Once it was shown that Miles had it wrong and that Arnold didn't mention anything about a 'first shot' ... Miles then attempted to say that Arnold slipped up somehow by not mentioning the first loud shot fired that other witnesses had testified to. Miles doesn't allude to the fact that this was an edited interview by Nigel Turner and that Gordon was speaking of the shots coming from behind him and nothing more. Even Yarborough didn't mention the first shot(s), but rather told of seeing a man dive to the wall during the shooting.

Then Kathy Beckett mentioned that other witnesses didn't hear the first shot(s) either ... Kathy even cited Gary Mack pointing out how Moorman, who was there during the shooting, had not heard the first shot(s) because she thought the head shot to the President was the first shot fired that day. Then Miles carefully shifts gears and says that what other witnesses did or didn't hear was irrelevant. It seems that Miles felt that Gordon Arnold should be held to a higher level of accountability that other witnesses. A serious researcher might see that if others didn't hear the first shot(s) or didn't mention them in their edited interviews dealing with shots from the knoll ... that possibly there was a sensible reason for this.

So the point of showing this type of behavior by some people like Miles Skull is so their possible agenda and bias in the things they choose to ignore may call into question their desire to seek the truth in a responsible and unbiased fashion. That the reader should consider not only what is being said by the poster, but also in what is not being said as well.

Miles Skull added: "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."

It should be noted that Miles made up what he attributed to Arnold saying. Nowhere will anyone ever find where Arnold said what Miles implied. It's probably hard enough for a student to digest the things posted in these threads, so at least what they read should be factual. What Skull was writing was not fact, but rather propaganda.

Bill Miller

Edited October 8, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

name='Miles Scull' date='Oct 1 2008, 01:20 AM' post='155416']

[name=Kathy Beckett' post='155411' date='Sep 30 2008, 11:57 PM]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 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.

For the students of this forum ... I would like to point out an observation pertaining to Miles Skull's attempt to mislead the reader.

The first thing that Skull did was to misstate the record by saying that Arnold said that the first shot came past his left ear. Arnold said "a shot" came past his left ear. Once it was shown that Miles had it wrong and that Arnold didn't mention anything about a 'first shot' ... Miles then attempted to say that Arnold slipped up somehow by not mentioning the first loud shot fired that other witnesses had testified to. Miles doesn't allude to the fact that this was an edited interview by Nigel Turner and that Gordon was speaking of the shots coming from behind him and nothing more. Even Yarborough didn't mention the first shot(s), but rather told of seeing a man dive to the wall during the shooting.

Then Kathy Beckett mentioned that other witnesses didn't hear the first shot(s) either ... Kathy even cited Gary Mack pointing out how Moorman, who was there during the shooting, had not heard the first shot(s) because she thought the head shot to the President was the first shot fired that day. Then Miles carefully shifts gears and says that what other witnesses did or didn't hear was irrelevant. It seems that Miles felt that Gordon Arnold should be held to a higher level of accountability that other witnesses. A serious researcher might see that if others didn't hear the first shot(s) or didn't mention them in their edited interviews dealing with shots from the knoll ... that possibly there was a sensible reason for this.

So the point of showing this type of behavior by some people like Miles Skull is so their possible agenda and bias in the things they choose to ignore may call into question their desire to seek the truth in a responsible and unbiased fashion. That the reader should consider not only what is being said by the poster, but also in what is not being said as well.

Miles Skull added: "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."

It should be noted that Miles made up what he attributed to Arnold saying. Nowhere will anyone ever find where Arnold said what Miles implied. It's probably hard enough for a student to digest the things posted in these threads, so at least what they read should be factual. What Skull was writing was not fact, but rather propaganda.

Bill Miller

In the interest of history or personal agendas, say you Wild Bill? In any case, I'd be careful bringing up K.Beckett citing Gary Mack pointing out anything, ANYTHING to do with what Mary Moorman heard or SAW in Dealey Plaza that day. I don't think the issue raised by David Lifton's HOAX contribution has been cleared up yet, has it?

Would you like a cite, perhaps page number?

(edit) Well here it is anyway: The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003-3rd printing), pg's 420 thru 422 (Pig on a Leash, by David Lifton - Contributor).

Thoughts (for history sake for sure)?

Edited October 8, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

The higher ground where the walkway meets the grass verge can be seen in this frame.

Duncan MacRae

More Darnell film image clarification wanted:

The grass stands taller than the sidewalk. Can you tell us if the ground is higher than, lower than, or even with the sidewalk???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Ps..When are we going to see this big red X that shows where you believe Arnold was standing?????????

And....When are we going to see the link to your Biography??????

The Arnold location has been posted many times ... I believe that you even said yourself that you know where Arnold said he stood. These off-topic references about bio's and such seem to be the kinds of things Miles does when he is bored and cannot intelligently answer the questions put forth to him.

I also thought you were serious about this subject. When I referenced how you like to spend time pasting faces and monkeys onto images over actually getting serious about the subject being discussed ... you almost seemed like that was an insult, but yet here you are again making a fool of yourself again. How one can justify having time for this nonsense rather than addressing the questions in a timely straight forth fashion is beyond me.

I will say this once again, as well .... saying that your response is self-explanatory is not an answer at all. You were asked to be specific and yet you are not complying. When a person offers a sincere opinion, then they are able to give details as to how they reached it. My experiences has been when a person cannot do this, then they are blowing smoke and really don't have a clue as to the 'whys' concerning their position. Below is that question and further down is the exchange leading up to that question. I am finding it difficult to see your responses as being sincere and forthright. Are you willing to explain yourself better?

Bill Miller

Is there anything else that would make you say that it is possible that Gordon Arnold was on the knoll other than he saying that he was???

Bill Miller

More conclusive evidence

Duncan MacRae

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 MacRae

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Yesterday, 11:21 AM ________________________________________________________________________________

___________

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

Yesterday, 04:07 PM Post #395

________________________________________________________________________________

___________

Because he said he was.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan MacRae

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Yesterday, 04:46 PM Post #396

________________________________________________________________________________

___________

Is there anything else that would make you say that it is possible that Gordon Arnold was on the knoll other than he saying that he was???

Bill Miller

More conclusive evidence

Duncan MacRae

[Bill Miller]

In the interest of history or personal agendas, say you Wild Bill? In any case, I'd be careful bringing up K.Beckett citing Gary Mack pointing out anything, ANYTHING to do with what Mary Moorman heard or SAW in Dealey Plaza that day. I don't think the issue raised by David Lifton's HOAX contribution has been cleared up yet, has it?

Would you like a cite, perhaps page number?

(edit) Well here it is anyway: The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003-3rd printing), pg's 420 thru 422 (Pig on a Leash, by David Lifton - Contributor).

Thoughts (for history sake for sure)?

Here is some data that should be recorded by history. I asked Gary Mack about a few things and this is what he said to me ... (see below)

Bill Miller

"David Lifton never bothered to ask me anything about Mary Moorman’s appearance in the Discovery Channel program Death in Dealey Plaza, so August 13, 2004, I sent him a note about several of the silly claims he published in his “Pig” article. Here is what I wrote:

1) The Museum has no "point of view" - it is neutral in content and recounts the history of the event. Nor does it do theories - mine, yours, Garrison's or anyone's. Zapruder film alteration, for example, is a theory. Moorman in the street is a theory.

2) The Museum does not "control the copyright" to the Moorman photo and has no say in how or where it is reproduced.

3) Mary Moorman's memory of where she stood and when has been clouded for years. All the assassination films, photos and properly executed re-creations of her picture prove that she stood on the grass as she took her famous photo.

4) The Discovery Channel program in which she appeared was produced based on historical fact, not personal theory, hence our strict reliance on the known evidence.

5) My placement location while speaking to her was the director's decision, for he wanted her facing both the knoll and me. Since Moorman stood on the grass when taking her picture, that is where she was placed for the program.

6) At the request of Jack White and other researchers several years ago, I asked Moorman about stepping into the street. She and I have discussed the matter several times since then (we have been good friends since 1981) and she has no clear recollection whatsoever. So rather than relying upon her 40 year old memories, the Discovery Channel program utilized the best documentation, which is the films and photographs.

7) The medical bills Mary mentioned were for the care of her son, who required constant attention for his serious medical problems. In order for Moorman to leave her home for the entire day in Dealey Plaza, a nurse had to be hired to provide that care - otherwise, she could not participate. Mary's son died several months later and her mother passed away not long after that.

8) People who donate films and photos to the Museum do NOT receive any income from them. People who lend their

camera-original films and photos to the Museum for safe keeping may license their commercial use to others if they wish, but the non-profit Museum does not receive any of those fees.

9) The ARRB did not obtain the copyright to the Z film because, by law, the government cannot own a copyright. The amount paid the Zapruder family was based entirely on the value of the film alone, not the film AND it's copyright.

Gary Mack"

Edited October 9, 2008 by Bill Miller