The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

Oh yeah, and tell me oh wise one...What size of dirt mound was the red arrow man standing on to have his feet at a comapable level with Arnold and what calculations re: the different groung levels from 1963 did you take it to account? I mean, you can show us in a photographically illustrated comparison to Arnold where the red arrows man's feet lie, right?...I suspect not

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, please tell this forum what difference does it make where the ground level was in 1963 when it comes to one image being said to be too small to be human and the other obviously is a real person. I would like to study your computations.

I find it self-serving that in some post that your cohort Miles wanted to paint a picture where there was no slope to the south dog leg ... sometimes trying to pass off a 2D image looking downward as some sort of proof that the ground was flat while other times using an aging poorly scaled Arnold standing beyond the wall to compare to the image in Moorman's photo when it was known that the aging Arnold was not standing on a mound either. Now all of a sudden this matters to you - how interesting!

So back to business .... where does the man under the red arrow have his feet in relation to the wall??? Feel free to apply the same formula that you used to guess where Arnold's feet would come to. Then when you have been forced to address that observation, then apply the increased distance from the red arrow man form Moorman's camera to Arnold's location and let us know why we do not find Arnold to be 3' tall, but yet closer to the height of the real person in the photo. That is the crux of your flawed claim and pretending that it does not exist will not make it go away.

I look forward to your full cooperation in searching for the truth where ever it may lead us.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Sep 17 2008, 03:35 PM' post='154718]

Don't you think that's obvious? If the red arrow guy who you put so much faith in was standing at his current location in 1963, then he would appear 1ft higher than he does now.

Reversely, If the Arnold floating torso was at his current location as the ground level is now, then he would appear at a height of 1 ft lower. That's an overall height difference of 2ft, you don't need to be a genius to calculate that LOL!!!

Interesting ... can you show me your work on this so I can check your calculations???

You'll need to take that up with Miles

If I find where you supported Mile's remarks about the Darnell images not showing a mound of dirt ... can I then take it up with you???

What I find interesting is you dismissing, because it makes it appear that you have an reasonable calculation within tolerable limits (as well as the differing ground levels) the fact that you believe Arnold was standing on a dirt mound yet you ignore that in your comparison with the red arrowed man

I am happy that you mentioned this ... let us assume that there was a 6" mound of dirt present in 1963 that was not present in the latter day photo of the man under the red arrow ... You claim Arnold to be about 3' tall. You have been asked repeatedly to calculate the increased distance from the man's location who is seen under the red arrow to Arnold's position back closer to the fence. Please tell me how that would effect where Arnold's feet would come in relation to the wall when compared against the closer man under the red arrow???

So back to business .... where does the man under the red arrow have his feet in relation to the wall???

In relation to the wall, his feet would be at a 1ft lower level than they would have been in 1963

Would the latter day Arnold's feet also be 1ft lower against the wall in 1963? If not, then why not??

Full cooperation applied and supplied above

I do not see where you have complied by showing us how the man's feet seen under the red arrow would play out against that of Arnold's who is standing further back by the fence. I used the people seen on the walkway in Darnell's film to show how the illusion works. You only mention the foot elevation of each man at their different locations in relation to the wall. My point has been and still is that if the man under the red arrow was backed up to the fence, then his feet elevation in relation to the wall would be very close to that of Arnold's. That the man under the red arrow obviously wasn't 3' tall, so if he is moved back near the fence like Arnold was and he is not 3' tall ... he may appear that way by way, but he certainly isn't 3' tall. Now what does that tell you about your claim that Arnold is too short to be a real person???

Looking forward to your complete cooperation.

Bill Miller

Edited September 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

BM seems to be describing himself in his own words:"ridiculous responses that can only be viewed as a bored man's pathetic plea for attention by trolling an education forum."

Yes Miles ... my asking you and Duncan to address the standing height of people in relation to the wall and how it changes the further west they are ... is a pretty pathetic plea for attention on my part. Gotcha ... I am sure that all those people who have read these exchanges whereas you keep avoiding this important observation are quite impressed with your behavior in not answering my questions, but instead posting cartoons of blind monkeys.

In the illustration that you provided you offered no distances - no standing heights - no degree of angles so your conclusion could be validated. It's almost as if a small child helped you throw it together. When I asked Gary Mack to look at it ... Gary saw it as so inadequate for details that he wouldn't even waste a minutes time discussing it. I personally have to wonder if this is total ineptness on your part or an attempt to deceive the reader.

Lets look at your illustration for just a second. To compute the angle of Moorman's line of sight to the bottom of Arnold's feet and again to the top of his head, you must be to scale. If you are not to scale, then your angles are just more bogus disinformation seemingly designed to mislead others so to appear correct. I invite anyone to look at the vertical length that you gave Arnold and compare that to the distance you gave to Moorman's location ... it looks to be about half the distance to me. So for arguments sake if it was 150 feet from Arnold's location to Moorman's, then you have Arnold standing about 75' tall. This is junk research void of accurate data in my view and I'd be ashamed to post such foolishness. This leaves two options .. you are grossly unable to illustrate your conclusion or you are purposely trying to deceive people with such a poorly done illustration. I personally believe that its being done on purpose because the mistakes you are trying to slip by us would get you thrown out of a grade school level geometry math class.

And by the way, you call the blue lines a 'flat line of sight' .... how poorly worded on your part! A line of sight is a flat line - period! There are no curved lines of sight from Moorman's location to the knoll.

Bill Miller

Edited September 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Interesting ... can you show me your work on this so I can check your calculations???

Supplied in post 219

Merely stating that the ground level is at 1' and 2' is your calculations??? You must be joking. Followed my Arnold must have been on a step ladder is supposed to be more of your 'work'???

I must ask what is the man under the red arrow standing on in your view ... a step stool??? There is no wall between the people on the walkway and Darnell, but feel free to place one there and tell me what the people further away from the camera are standing on .... more ladders??? Do you really not see how ridiculous your replies are in the face of real people stacked up to one another in much the same way Arnold was to the wall. I also am finding it hard to believe that you can be so inept as to not understand this well enough to address it. You seemingly have no trouble understanding things well enough to avoid them, but not well enough to address them - Do you not see the conflict???

If I find where you supported Mile's remarks about the Darnell images not showing a mound of dirt ... can I then take it up with you???

Yes, but one thing first. What exactly do you classify a mound of dirt as?

A mound of dirt can be anything from a several inches to the degree of slope there was from Jean Hill's feet to the top of the south curb. As I pointed out before ... the 2D Zapruder film does not show the slope. Just like when I posted the view of the reflection pool from the records building ... Miles could not tell me which was higher ... the water in the pool or the ground around it. The reason for this is that the camera cannot read the data needed to make such a dertermination from such an angle. To see the high spot would call for the camera to be near ground level.

I am happy that you mentioned this ... let us assume that there was a 6" mound of dirt present in 1963 that was not present in the latter day photo of the man under the red arrow

Can you tell us how you calculate a 6" dirt mound?

One cannot calculate the mound of dirt when viewed on a 2D image unless looked at on a horizontal plane low to the ground or is skilled enough to use given measurements of objects in relation to the standing height of Arnold in Moorman's Polaroid. The reference I made to the 6" mound of dirt was a hypothetical figure.

... You claim Arnold to be about 3' tall.

No I don't

Really ... then you tell me what height you have been giving to Arnold that makes him too small to be a real person????

You have been asked repeatedly to calculate the increased distance from the man's location who is seen under the red arrow to Arnold's position back closer to the fence.

Can you tell me your proposed distance between the two?

Is this your best answer? You have this formula in your head ... no one knows it but you, so apply it to the man under the red arrow like you did Arnold. Then carry it out to someone who would be even further back by the fence.

Please tell me how that would effect where Arnold's feet would come in relation to the wall when compared against the closer man under the red arrow???

No other human being affects where Arnolds feet lie

This is not an answer. Tell us where the man's feet under the red arrow would come to in relation to the wall where he stands now and then again if he was back by the fence. I would appreciate your cooperation in our alleged search for the truth.

So back to business .... where does the man under the red arrow have his feet in relation to the wall???

It doesn't matter where his feet are, it does not affect the Arnold position

Again, just answer the questions and let the readers decide if it effects anything relevant to this discussion. You seemingly do not wish to address these things because its obvious where it will lead you. If I am wrong, then humor me and let the chips fall where they may ... after all we are only interested in the truth - right!

Would the latter day Arnold's feet also be 1ft lower against the wall in 1963? If not, then why not??

Bill Miller

No, because he's floating in mid air.

Please be more specific. Would Arnold be floating in the air like the people on the walkway in Darnell's film or like the man under the red arrow that you insist is irrelevant to this discussion???

Bill Miller

Edited September 20, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I am really confused as to how you are able to create idiotic illustrations of monkeys next to Arnold

That was Miles, not me

You have earned the right to be questioned as to the things you say to be true. The illustration you posted seen below does not support what you said above. Did Miles slip this into your post ... if so, you may wish to contact the moderators and tell them you have been hi-jacked. (see Duncan illustration below)

Bill Miller

Edited November 15, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Bill Miller]

As you know Bill, I like to be as accurate as possible in my posts. I do not see any monkey in the illustration above which you posted. I see an Orangutan which is an ape and not a monkey. Being a Bigfoot researcher, I am surprised that you do not know the difference, It's like comparing a Lion to a Pussy cat.

Duncan MacRae

Ok Duncan ... wanna dance on this one too ... no problem. So whether it be a monkey or an ape ... there is something called the Intermembral Index that differentiates body limb proportions between apes and humans. I have raised this issue before. So be kind enough to tell us what your purpose was in comparing Arnold to an Orangutan when the two DO NOT have the same Intermembral Index???

So can we agree that while there is a difference between a monkey and an Orangutan ... the point I raised about someone posting such ridiculous images next to Gordon Arnold is valid. To use your words ... doing such a thing with Arnold against an Orangutan is like "comparing a Lion to a Pussy cat".

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Let's try a new approach.

Rather than looking for things which we do not agree on, can we try finding things which we do agree on? I think this approach could possibly lead to a quicker resolution, whatever that may be.

Firstly. Assuming that the red arrowed man was the same height as Arnold, and that he was standing at the same alleged Arnold location in Moorman, would you agree that there would be a 1ft difference between the two, PLUS an additionial unknown dirt mound height? ie, the red arrowed man's torso would be seen to be 1ft plus the unknown height differential lower in any modern day Moorman recreation.

Duncan MacRae

The visible outside height of the wall at the time of Turner's documentary was said to be a foot taller at its corner. This does not mean that the wall was taller ... just more of it is visible where it meets the ground when seen from Moorman's location. So the base of the wall is only relevant in doing overlays whereas the more visible wall is scaled to the same size as the visible outside area of the Moorman wall.

On the other hand, you are talking about where Arnold's feet come to in relation to the upper half of the wall. I have done the same with the man under the red arrow. So far you have not specifically addressed where this man's feet would come to when using the same method that you used for Arnold. Once you have done this, then we can then start thinking about how much higher his feet would rise against the wall if he was to start backing up to the fence.

Now here is something that we can agree on...

We both believe that this alleged illusion does remarkably resemble a man in uniform. That this alleged illusion goes as far as to look like a man in uniform who is holding something up to his face which could even be a movie camera just as Arnold claims he had done. I also believe that we can agree that this alleged illusion shows this man in uniform and holding what could be a camera to his face does appear to be facing no where else but in the direction of Moorman which has the President between his location and Mary's. I also believe that we can agree that this alleged illusion appears to be west of the concrete wall that runs along the walkway. And lastly, I believe that we can agree that your complaint is that this alleged illusion is too small to be human.

Now is that seem like a fairly accurate accounting so far??????????

Bill Miller

Edited September 20, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

That this alleged illusion goes as far as to look like a man in uniform who is holding something up to his face which could even be a movie camera just as Arnold claims he had done.

When colourised, yes

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, would you agree that in your response to Jack White about Arnold ... that you made no reference to the figure needing to be in color, but only had an issue with his size. Read your response and see if I have cited it correctly!!!

Bill Miller

Post #8

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1267

Joined: 6-February 05

Member No.: 2442

Duncan...by the illustration you attached, you seem to be conceding or proving

that the image seen in Moorman is indeed, from the waist up, consistent with

a man in a khaki soldier suit. Is that accurate?

I'm not conceding anything Jack. The legs which I attached were attached only to show what the figure would look like IF it was real. The figure does look like a soldier in uniform from the waist up, yes, and it looks like it is holding a camera or another object in front of the facial area, but... having looked at the figure by cross referencing with other photographs, it appears that the figure can only be an illusion due to its extremely small size.

[Bill Miller]

When Arnold is colourised yes, but when my Badgeman twin is colourised, he too changes from the apparent hard hatted man to remarkably like another shooter.

Duncan MacRae

In a lesser quality Moorman image you can make a case for a second Badge Man, but you cannot do it with the best Moorman print that Jack White used. His best print is sharper. Jack has posted that Badge Man image many times, thus if you need to refresh your memory ... feel free to search it out and look at it again.

Bill Miller

Edited September 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The image which I used, and which shows the second Badge Man IS Jack's sharper image.

Duncan MacRae

I will say this once again ... Jack has posted a better Badge Man image ... if you do not recall seeing it or do not wish to take the time to research it, then ask Jack to post it once again. In Jack's best print the eyebrows on Badge Man were more defined. I know this because I once asked Jack if he had drawn them in, in which he replied that he had only painted on the image with transparent colors and had not added any details to the actual image.

Even at the following link and despite the expert using erred data to compute the distance Badge Man was from Moorman's camera .... the images they used were better than the one you posted. It's almost as if you wish to state the opposite of what I say much of the time without concern of the accuracy of what you're saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ru8FPSlIJM...feature=related

Now getting back to the topic of discussion ... have the things I have said about your remarks true or not concerning that image in Moorman's photo said to be Gordon Arnold does indeed appear to be someone in uniform - holding something up to his face - and facing in the direction of the President? That your complaint that I posted where you replied to Jack White was that you only found a problem with the size of the figure when determining if he was a real person or not. I have used your own words to make this point and to move on I would like for you to validate my observations as posted in these last few responses. Was I correct or not that you did not mention anything to Jack White about the figure looking like a man in uniform only in the colored version???

Bill Miller

Edited September 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I suggest that before we continue our discussions any further, you do the decent thing & acknowledge that the image shown above is a copy of Jack's sharp image, and that you got it wrong.

Even Stevie Wonder could have identified it quicker

Duncan MacRae[/b]

Duncan, I am really growing sick of your jacking around and game playing. Jack had several good Moorman prints and he did several variations of his best image ... the one you posted is not his sharpest one. If you like - email Jack and ask him so we can move on unless there is something else meaningless you'd like to screw around over.

If you like we can go over your message to Jack word by word and it will still come out the same way every time. When you get your reply back from Jack verifying what I have said, then we can move on. If you do not wish to contact Jack, then go to the link that I provided for they used a better Jack White image than you opted to use. If you are not interested in even looking at the link, then why are you here at all!

Now once again, did you say anything to Jack in the response you posted that said that you only saw the alleged man in uniform holding an object up to his face in his color version ... of course you didn't because I posted everything you said. Your only concern was the size of the alleged illusion. If you try and say otherwise, then I will be forced to discredit you by parading some of the poorest images ever posted whereas you claimed to see Tripods to assassins peeping over a wall, thus making everyone question how you can make such claims and not see the image we are discussing in the B&W version. The call is yours!!!

One such claim you (Duncan) made whereas you claimed to see someone outlined in the image below. Maybe you'd like to explain to the forum how you could make such a claim as seeing someone in that B&W image and not from the un-colorized Badge Man images???

When someone is being sincere and honest ... there should be some consistence in what they say. You appear to be trying to sell the idea that you cannot see enough detail to see a man in a service uniform and holding something up to his face in the un-colorized Badge an images, but in the severely degraded Betzner image you were able to clearly see a man peeking up over the wall.

Let me know when you are ready to proceed.

Bill Miller

Edited September 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

This is the best version of Badgeman i have, i originally found it on the Corbis site.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

It may be possible to get a good idea of the ground level behind the wall by looking at this guy.

The top of the wall appears to me to be just above his waist level. ?

Edited September 23, 2008 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Hi Duncan.

Yes that is correct, it's the same image in two versions.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

As I have said repeatedly, I used the sharpest image that Jack has ever posted on this forum, live with it

Your constant game playing has become a joke, Duncan! I post that 'you did not use Jack's sharpest image' ... I posted a link to Youtube.com so you could see some better examples of Jack's Badge Man images and you flip it from being you using 'the sharpest image that Jack has ever posted to this forum' ... how pathetic!!! Even if it were the case - is it your contention that Jack has to actually post an image to this forum for it to be counted even if someone else has posted it for him? How far from research to just being a childish simpleton are you wanting to take this kind of behavior in an effort to avoid admitting that you were not accurate??

I posted that I had previously asked Jack if the Badge Man image shown from his best print in 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' series was created by his drawing on the image and Jack's reply was that he didn't change a thing on that image other than watercoloring it. So what do you do .... you reply back that you don't have to ask Jack anything. Just like you did over the suggestion that you should speak to someone skilled in Photography if for no other reason than to validate your observations. Instead you try and pretend that you know more than the experts ... now you know more about Jack's images than Jack does. Even experts seek peer review. Then if there is any doubt about your lack of seriousness about this stuff, you offer a reply such as "Nan nah nah nah nah, I'm telling my mummy on you, you bad boy, are you gonna steal my candy too and make me cwy....boo hoo..mummy mummy.waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"

Now back to my original point ... you didn't use Jack's best Badge Man image ... whether or not Jack ever posted it or not to this forum is a moot point.

When you get your reply back from Jack verifying what I have said, then we can move on.

You'll have a long wait, i'm not going to bother Jack because of your poor identification methodology.

So I gather that it is your opinion that if someone tells you something concerning another researchers work that you may disagree with ... that following up with the actual researcher in question for clarification is considered 'poor methodology' in your view. I will leave the readers of these exchanges to decide for themselves if your thinking is silly or not.

If you do not wish to contact Jack, then go to the link that I provided for they used a better Jack White image than you opted to use.

Hey Mr lack of memory retention. I gave you that link ages ago, I know every second of the content LOL!!!

Of course I am aware that you posted it ... after all, who else but you would post an excerpt from a documentary to support their position whereas an expert reached a similar conclusion by using inaccurate measurements in his study. What's worse is that this particular documentary did use Jack's best image which you want to dismiss because in your mind you only want to consider the best image Jack has posted on THIS FORUM himself.

If you are not interested in even looking at the link, then why are you here at all!

You know Bill...You surely can't be as thick as you are making out to be in this post. As I said above ...I GAVE YOU THE LINK ...Maybe it's time to come down from those mountains, they've been known to do strange things to men.

I believe that my point was directed at the images within that link and how they pertained to this discussion and from that you allow that to go over your head so to only focus on who posted that link first. You have not a word to say about the images within the link ... how interesting.

That's right, the finest enhancement of BDM ever produced, and also showing the figure holding what is probably the lunch pack which was later found on the bench. I believe Robin Unger also found something similar in one of his studies.

I invite everyone to look at the studies done on the Black Dog Man image and compare that to that unbelievably degraded image that you created and which you call the finest enhancement ever of the BDM. Not only does it show border line insanity to make such a statement, you didn't even touch the fact that you merely drew a head around two defects on the image created by the destruction of detail from its original state. The point raised that you could see a figure in that un-colorized image and not in the best B&W Badge Man images leaves one to ponder on just how serious you are about searching for the truth. Of course maybe the answer is found in reminding us all once again where your responses are not on point with data to support your position, but rather with childish ramblings like "Nan nah nah nah nah, I'm telling my mummy on you, you bad boy, are you gonna steal my candy too and make me cwy....boo hoo..mummy mummy.waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!".

You should try being sincere and honest yourself, and admit that you can see the second Badgeman in Jack's sharp Moorman, colourised or not, and stop pretending that you don't recognise Jack's sharp image

Duncan MacRae

Robin posted Jack's best Badge Man image in B&W and in color. Neither one shows a second Badge Man where YOU used a computer to illustrate a poor illustration of such.

I also wish to add that the assertion you implied that the B&W image Robin posted is merely the reverse of the color version. In theory this is true, but it has no relevance to the details seen within the image for Jack White told me that he did nothing to change the image other than applying color to it. The reverse of the color image is the B&W image before color was added. Had you contacted Jack White like I asked you to do, then you could confirm this for yourself. Instead you opted not to do this ... presumably so not to have it be seen that once again your information is incorrect.

Bill Miller

Edited September 23, 2008 by Bill Miller