The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

That bit about Duncan talking about how you could have used any color for the uniform was just hype on Duncan's part IMO. The fact is that you couldn't have used a dark color like that of a cops uniform because the Arnold figure's clothing would then not have appeared so light in color like it does in Moorman's Polaroid. Not in a million years would I have tried to sell the idea that I could not see a man in uniform in the b&w print, but would then say that I can see all the details within this ridiculous image below that Duncan posted ....

Bill Miller

Yet you can positively identify Hatman in Willis When are we all going to have the privilege of seeing this astounding Hatman image?

Duncan MacRae

Is this supposed to be your best attempt to try and avoid the point that I made about all these details you claimed to see in that very poor dark image of the pedestal area concerning Sitzman and Zapruder and yet you can't see a man in uniform in the b&w Badge Man images??? I find that misrepresenting another issue does not cancel out what you have done.

I have never said that I could positively identify Hat Man in Willis. What I did was point out that the shape of what looks like a person can be seen through the tree foliage ... that Hoffman had this man up near the fence. That Bowers said that this man was looking in the direction of the approaching motorcade prior to the shooting ... that it was at this location that Sam Holland told Mark Lane that this was where he heard a shot come from and had seen smoke drift out from under the trees there. That I cannot think of anything else that blocks out the background of the skyline. That is the extent of what I have posted concerning Hat Man.

This is what someone who cannot see a man in uniform in the b&w Badge Man images was able to see in the following image ...

If I removed the wording off this image that you posted ... would anyone even know that it was related to the JFK assassination. I'll leave the reader to decide the extent of your veracity concerning the things you have posted.

Bill Miller

Edited September 24, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I have a question, and this may have been covered, but I don't remember it.....

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

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

I think it lends alot of credibility to his story.

Kathy

That is a good point, Kathy. However, Gordon didn't say a 'pile' of dirt, but rather a mound of dirt. The question remains is what did Arnold mean by the word "mound". A high spot of a matter of inches on the ground could be called a mound.

The other point you mentioned is very interesting because Arnold didn't know about his image being seen in Moorman's photo until 25 years after the assassination. Common sense and rational thinking would call for one to ponder the point you raised, but keep in mind that you are dealing with people who claim to see details in severely degraded unrecognizable images, but not in far superior images and who believe they can look at a two dimensional at a downward angle and judge ground level variations.

Bill Miller

Edited September 24, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Need I Say No More?

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

You need say no more. What a howler by BM.

By the way, have you forgotten your old work? See:

This early shot of the area in question shows the ground conditions as they were on the day in question.

See any "dirt mounds?"

All I see is smooth green sward. You?

Edited September 25, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Robin Unger]

Need I Say No More?

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

You need say no more. What a howler by BM.

By the way, have you forgotten your old work? See:

This early shot of the area in question is shows the ground conditions as they were on the day in question.

See any "dirt mounds?"

All I see is smooth green sward. You?

Nice shot of behind the wall Miles.

I will have a good look at that, it looks to be around 1963 ?

It gives us a good idea of how tall the man in the black suit is compared to the wall height.

Thanks.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

From the man who announces that he does not produce and submit poor degraded mega pixeled enhancements to any Forum for review, I present a Bill Miller classic poor degraded mega pixeled enhancement submitted to Lancer in 2005 which totally contradicts his high esteemed self appraisal of himself.

This work of Art which Picasso would be proud of apparently shows Hatman in Willis, according to the man who proclaims that he does not produce such low level work of this abysmal quality.

Anyone recognise Hatman?

Need I Say No More?

Duncan MacRae

As usual you not only misspell simple words, but you don't have your facts straight. To start with I only show the shape of what appears to be someone standing beyond the shrubs which is blocking out the background of the Dallas sky. I didn't offer a detailed map telling people about seeing eyes, noses, ears, elbows or anything else. I didn't even attempt to identify who this person was except for him being against the fence that runs along Elm Street which is where Hoffman said that Hat Man was. Moorman's photo taken only seconds later shows what appears to be the top of someones hat seen over the fence. The Moorman photo shows no one else between Hat Man and the corner of the fence. With that being said, how can you compare what I posted to that atrocious darkened image that you created.

The second thing is that you are wrong about seeing pixels. The defects you see are pits in the paper that Groden used for his book. If you take Robert's book 'TKOAP' and look at them under high magnification you will see them, thus pixels from a computer had nothing to do with what you are seeing.

Once again you jumped to a conclusion and blew off your mouth without first attempting to get your facts straight. It appears that Miles followed suit .... typical poor research practices on your part.

"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.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

Bill Miller

Edited September 25, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

This early shot of the area in question is shows the ground conditions as they were on the day in question.

See any "dirt mounds?"

All I see is smooth green sward. You?

This is a joke - right??? Allow me to point out what I consider more poor research practices which appear to be being purposely made.

1) The image is a 2D image, thus the level of the ground cannot even be distinguished from the level of the wall (if you remove the dog leg), the level of the walkway, or the level of the knoll that we know drops a good distance down to the sidewalk that runs along Elm Street. I defy any of you people to get one reputable person who will tell you any differently.

I will offer yet another example to prove this observation that I speak of. Go to Google Earth and use their tool that allows you to see the ground from high above to down at ground level. The hills and mountains all look to be the same level (flat) when the view is high above them, but once you drop your line of sight down far enough, then you can see their outlines against the background, thus you can now see the various elevations of the hills and mountains. In this case it would be a mound. Just the idea that someone would continue pushing something that is easily disproved makes the poster look really bad in more ways than one.

2) The next thing that should have been obvious had you put an once of thought into the matter is that your view only shows the first six feet or so of the stockade fence north of the corner which is at the top of the knoll. Even if the ground had a step stool in the area that is visible in that particular photo ... it wouldn't help Arnold for when you look at the amount of fence that runs from the corner to the spot behind Gordon in Moorman's photo .... one can easily see that the two ground areas are a long ways apart. In other words the area where Arnold stood isn't even visible in that photo.

I am having great difficulty in seeing this type of research as just poorly researched postings rather than purposeful deception being carried out in an effort to appear correct. One mistake or so can be excused, but when a pattern of total ineptness is being demonstrated in one direction, then it calls into question the veracity and credibility of the claims being made.

3) I would also ask Miles to tell us when this photo was taken ... does he have a date for the picture????

Bill Miller

Edited September 25, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

Robin,

What? That unidentified photo does neither of the things you think. First, you don't know how tall either man was or whether they are similar in height to Arnold. Second, you don't know when that picture was taken.

Gary Mack

Gary.

First of all i don't recall mentioning Arnold's name in my post?

Secondly, looking at the make of the cars in the photo they appear to be of the same period.

very similar to some of the cars seen in the assassination images taken that day.

[Bill Miller]

Secondly, looking at the make of the cars in the photo they appear to be of the same period.

very similar to some of the cars seen in the assassination images taken that day.

I think what Gary is trying to say is that the knoll has been landscaped over the years ... re-sodding ... ground leveling ... low spots filled in ... and etc.. Today is 9/24/2008 and there are several vehicles parked outside of where I am ... none of which are new. So let us say that the newest vehicle outside of here is two years old ... does that mean that its 9/24/2006??? This is why Gary asked when the photo was taken. If it was taken the day of the assassination, then the chances of the ground being re-landscaped in any way are basically zero Vs. a photo taken 6 months to a year later, thus leaving plenty of time for things to have been done to that area. Gary is only trying to help see that the points are as verifiable as possible.

Bill Miller

Edited September 25, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

I think what Gary is trying to say is that the knoll has been landscaped over the years ... re-sodding ... ground leveling ... low spots filled in ... and This is why Gary asked when the photo was taken. If it was taken the day of the assassination, then the chances of the ground being re-landscaped in any way are basically zero Vs. a photo taken 6 months to a year later, thus leaving plenty of time for things to have been done to that area. Gary is only trying to help see that the points are as verifiable as possible.

I'm sure that Gary Mack is fully able to speak for himself Bill.

Having said that, i agree that the date of the image posted by Miles certainly does need to be established.

I am aware of the landscaping issue. !

Also gary, to answer your question, the man in the black suit i was refering to, could not possibly be compared to Arnold as he is standing in the wrong place.

[Bill Miller]

I'm sure that Gary Mack is fully able to speak for himself Bill.

I, as you did, merely posted information that Gary had said to me personally. Gary can repeat it if he likes, but not necessary.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

I'm sure that Gary Mack is fully able to speak for himself Bill.

I, as you did, merely posted information that Gary had said to me personally. Gary can repeat it if he likes, but not necessary.

Bill

Duncan,

What if the pic in question was contemporaneous?

Or, yet even, snapped on Nov. 21? Oh Ho!

I don't think BM can or should speak for Mack.

BM will need to employ quoted citations from Mack as Robin does, or, obviously, its just the usual BM mumbo jumbo nonsense.

Do you agree?

[Bill Miller]

I didn't offer a detailed map telling people about seeing eyes, noses, ears, elbows or anything else.

That's because there's nothing to see

Duncan, your bias is so apparent that you don't even care that we know that you don't care. You will say there is nothing to see when its quite obvious that something is blocking out the Dallas sky above the fence and yet post this atrocious dark image and offer all these ridiculous details. Then to add insult to injury you want us to believe that you cannot see Arnold's outline in the b&w Badge Man images Jack White used. How shameful! (see below)

Would it not make sense that if Hat Man was the closest thing to the fence and looking towards the approaching motorcade .... that the silhouette seen behind the foliage would most likely be the man in question .... or is rational common sense and sound deduction something that your biases prevent you from being able to do.

And the nit-picking ... would another example be like me saying that you drew in a cop shooter only to have you come back and say that its not a cop, but rather someone disguised as a cop (as if that could possibly be discernible in some way). This no longer seems to be about a search for the truth with you, but rather a game whereas you change the rules from post to post in an effort to avoid admitting that you made another claim without properly researching it thoroughly.

Hoffman said a lot of things that must be dismissed because of his history of changing his story.

Then can we apply that same approach to some of the things you have said over time? That telling Jack that you can see a man in uniform holding something up to his face in the best Moorman print to changing it to you seeing it only in the colorized version could be viewed as you changing your story. You asking that I first tell you why I want to know if you believe Badge Man is a real person (something you had supported all along) only to have to now tell us that you secretly changed your view (possibly after you were told the reason for my asking the question) could also be viewed as you changing your story.

Moorman's photo taken only seconds later shows what appears to be the top of someones hat seen over the fence.

Possibly, but he is not a shooter.

Whether Hat Man was a shooter or not has nothing to do with who's silhouette is seen at his location in the Willis photo.

The Moorman photo shows no one else between Hat Man and the corner of the fence.

I agree with that

With that being said, how can you compare what I posted to that atrocious darkened image that you created.

Easy..I just look at it

Is that the story you want to stick with? Should I put the Badge Man images next to the unrecognizable pedestal image you posted so people can view them both side by side so they can see just how honest you're being with us on this one.

The second thing is that you are wrong about seeing pixels. The defects you see are pits in the paper that Groden used for his book. If you take Robert's book 'TKOAP' and look at them under high magnification you will see them, thus pixels from a computer had nothing to do with what you are seeing.

Garbage, the image including the pits is heavily pixelised, and you know it.

Again you respond with bias and not research. Don't you have Groden's book ... can you not scan it at high resolution and see the same design pattern ... do you not have a high powered magnifying glass so to look at the paper before merely calling something garbage.

Miles produced a fine honest post showing the true size of Arnold as he would have appeared close to the fence

Duncan.

OK ... great! Maybe you can explain how he reached the scaling of Arnold at different distances. I look forward to you educating me on this process.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

Edited September 25, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

What if the pic in question was contemporaneous?

Or, yet even, snapped on Nov. 21? Oh Ho!

Do you have any data to offer that would show that someone was taken the day before the assassination or is this just more of what you call 'mumbo-jumbo nonsense' and what I call 'trolling'???

I don't think BM can or should speak for Mack.

BM will need to employ quoted citations from Mack as Robin does, or, obviously, its just the usual BM mumbo jumbo nonsense.

Do you agree?[/b]

Asking Duncan if he agrees sounds like you are crying out for some sort of attention. Let me ask this ... If someone has spoken with another researcher or assassination witness and relayed parts of that discussion to the topic being discussed ... are you saying that it should be ignored if its not quoted???

If it makes you feel better to see it in quotes .... here it is from a correspondence I received from Gary when I solicited information concerning the history of the knoll.

"You might ask Miles to identify when the knoll photo was taken. It may be the week after the assassination, but it's more likely that it's from May 1964 during the FBI recreation in Dallas six months later. If the latter, then there's no comparison of the conditions."

Sorry to have let the air out of your wind-bag, Miles.

Bill Miller

Edited September 25, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Miles,

So you are saying that the photo you posted was taken November 21, 1963?? I am just asking for clarity.

Thanks!!

Kathy

I think that Myles and Duncan should answer the question you put to them some time ago, which they ignored by the way.

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

I too, would like to hear a sensible answer to that question.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill, you are very critical of others making stupid responses, but you should really look at your own responses before you come down hard on others, the reason being that you are guilty of the exact same thing. If you don't agree with someone, me mostly in this thread, you start digging up work from the past which has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic, and I reply with something similar, ie..you post the Sitzman stuff, and I post Willis stuff...It's a pointless exercise which has nothing to do with the topic...so if you agree...let's move forward with discussion only of the potential existance of Gordon Arnold in his alleged Moorman position.

Duncan, I am all for moving forward, but when someone is dancing me around and changing their level of criteria in analyzing photos and films to fit their ever changing agenda, then I have little patience. My using your past images was necessary to show how you will take something from nothing and point out details that you claim to see and then pretend that you cannot make heads or tails out of the b&w Badge Man images. Your two positions simply do not support one another and that is why I called you on them. The search for the truth does not always lead to a correct conclusion, but it should lead to an honest one never-the-less.

The Willis photo image of something blocking out the Dallas sky is a legit observation. It's not a light pole - or an automobile - or the robot from 'Lost in Space'. The Hat Man, whether a shooter or a bystander, was the only thing seen along the fence closest to the corner, thus it was a reasonable observation that those seemingly rounded shoulders belonged to him. I never went beyond that.

As for the questions asked by Kathy, I agree that Miles, if he knows, should give us any and all information which he has on the photograph in question.

We can all agree on that point. But keep in mind that Miles doesn't seem interested in details as much as in trolling the thread.

As for Arnold saying "mound"..it's my opinion that he actually meant the rising grass slope.

That is certainly a possibility ... one that didn't seem covered in you and Miles past responses. As I pointed out several times in the past ... Jack used to mention the coming and going of peoples shadows who were walking across the south pasture and the only logical explanation was that their shadows were falling down into low spots and appearing again on the higher ground levels. The point here is that the ground elevations of the south pasture could not be differentiated by simply looking at a 2D image taken on a downward angle ... that it took the shadows coming and going to see where they were. This is why the Darnell film or any other 2D image is worthless at determining the elevation changes of a few inches between the walkway and the fence, unless shot low enough to see the high spots against a background. I think that we can agree on that as well in light of all the evidence pointing to it being the case.

So now that we are ready to move on ... how tall is the fence and how is that being applied to the alleged scaled height being attributed to Gordon Arnold in Miles illustation???

Bill Miller

Edited September 25, 2008 by Bill Miller