Chris Davidson Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 No Pull Down Frames. Not Enlarged. I believe I did lighten the shadow areas. Wall is somewhat stabilized, from what I remember. Better copies always welcome. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 (edited) I have had private communication from both parties, with both parties giving me their accounts. Their communications with me will remain private and are not up for discussion.I have presented my position for the continued discussion of the existance or non existance of Arnold in his alleged location in Moorman. That situation remains, in the interests of progression towards the truth with submissions being allowed from all concerned contributors to this thread. Duncan MacRae Good ... then you know why Miles isn't here to xxxxx the forum with fact-less responses. It didn't take his behavior out of the view of the general forum to see that he was a sick-puppy. Now maybe we will have less non-addressing responses between the relevant post ... maybe Kathy can have more time to do JFK research and ask you questions that you would rather she didn't. Of course you have said for the second time now that you would no longer post on this thread, so it looks like you have found a way to avoid addressing the points put to you. Bill Miller Edited October 18, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 (edited) LOL!!!..A post designed to try to sucker me in to posting again re: Arnold...Learn to read properly Bill. I said I would not post on the topic of the existance or non existance of Gordon Arnold in his alleged postion in Moorman in this thread for reasons which I have explained. If you want to discuss it further, you know where this can be done with no fear of anyone being banned or restricted. Please note, I am not suggesting that this is the current situation on this Forum.Now if you want to discuss anything else, like the Nix object and why you think it's human, feel free to do so Duncan MacRae Yes, Duncan ... I am trying to sucker you into addressing the questions and observations that were presented to you without a sensible response by you being offered in return. And whats even more shocking ... I am trying to sucker you into addressing JFK assassination questions and observations on a 'JFK ASSASSINATION EDUCATION FORUM' ... how absurd of me to attempt to do such a thing. And this new premise of yours is just another Duncan Macrea tactic to avoid addressing these things by way of Miles obviously sick behavior. You embrace a double standard when it suits only you. When you and Miles were playing off of one another with childish and bizarre responses with pictures of monkeys, apes, orangutans, all next to an assassination witness ... taking members faces and posting them over some sick illustrations showing wedding dresses, gopher holes, and etc., you had no complaint. That kind of nonsense was just fine with you. But when someone like Kathy Becket steps in on an invite from yourself to ask what ever questions she likes ... you hypocrites make references of her being a Bill Miller clone .... that you are being double teamed .... that you're not being treated fairly ... and the saddest part of your behavior is that you know that we are aware of it and you do not care that we know that you know it. So yes ... go to your forum where you decide what is and is not relevant ... you decide who can and who cannot double team ... where hypocrites are welcome just so long as they uphold your ideas and views. Then if your non-responsive self-serving behavior isn't bad enough ... you came out whining that Miles has been banned from this forum while not wanting to share the reasons for his banishment. Once again that was very self-serving on your part. Kathy has now suggested the reasons for Miles being gone by listing the things that she should not have to be subjected to. It appears that the sick puppy was not only trolling the forum, but was sending 100s of messages to the a moderator(s) and when that wasn't getting anywhere he tried to intimidate a moderator by wanting to know her personal schedule off the forum. If Miles joining you in all those trolled sick puppy responses that I just listed wasn't enough evidence as to what kind of a cancer he was to this forum, then at least try and understand why escalating his tactics to wanting to know peoples work schedules was the last straw. If it is your contention that you found nothing wrong with that kind of psychotic behavior, then remember that people are often judged by the company they keep. If you don't support the kind of behavior that Miles was showing and understood the things that Kathy endured was wrong, then one has to wonder what your motivation was for even bringing it up seeing how it was between the administrator and the parties directly involved. Now you want to talk about the figure in Nix ... remind us where we are on the matter. You first said that the Nix film and what it shows is irrelevant. When Kathy posted that the Nix film shows movement between the wall and the fence after the kill shot to JFK, you tell her that this person wouldn't be seen from Moorman's location. Then when you were pushed to explain how you came to the conclusion that the figure in motion in Nix's film couldn't be seen in Moorman's photo ... you then took the position that no one can be seen in the Nix film or in Moorman. You were also asked if Badge Man was real and you said he was not. You had posted the Badge Man firing a shot in many of your illustrations and yet you have not removed your alleged incorrect images and text pertaining to him. The reason you were asked if Badge Man was real was because I knew you had supported him being on the knoll and firing a shot from the fence. But my question centered around his size for if Badge Man was the size of a real person, then the alleged Gordon Arnold figure must also be large enough to be considered real. Your claim was and has been that the figure in Moorman that you call an illusion ... is too small to be real. Kathy Beckett posted this link .... http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=519222 The link that Kathy posted mentions a photo scientist named Geoffrey Grawley who was known for debunking fake photos had did some recreation test and measurements and found the Badge Man images to pass every test. That same article mentions the Nix film and what it shows. It says that someone can be seen in motion moving north and downward as Jackie started climbing up out of her seat. So far all you have cited is the opinion of an expert who used measurements that were found to be in error to reach his conclusion. Your position on the Nix film has been - its not relevant - the figure seen in Nix cannot be seen in Moorman - there is no figure in the Nix and Moorman images. Your most recent position is that you will not discuss the alleged Arnold figure in Moorman and that people should come over to your forum if they wish to continue to discuss things without fear of being banned. Is it any wonder why you are missing your your buddy Miles! Bill Miller Edited October 20, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 (edited) I will not be banning anyone for having a difference of opinion with me or for posting anything which I feel is not relevant ,and that includes input from you or anyone else.Duncan MacRae Great ... to my knowledge that has never happened here either, so you started the thread here and you can answer the tough questions here. Now how about addressing the results to Crawley's on-site testing concerning the size of the Badge Man images. Have you reviewed his study and results so to offer an opinion on them??? Bill Miller Edited October 20, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Now how about addressing the results to Grawley's on-site testing concerning the size of the Badge Man images. Have you reviewed his study and results so to offer an opinion on them???Bill Miller Never heard of him. Duncan MacRrae Sorry for the typo. I am surprised that seeing that there have not been any other names close to that mentioned in relation to this thread (other than Geoffrey Crawley) that you wouldn't know who I was talking about and addressed the question. I can assume that this is just more game-playing going on to avoid the questions. Here is the link once again .... http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=519222 I assume you remember this guy, so now you can answer my question. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 (edited) If I get hundreds of persistent emails from a pest, I will just ignore them. Duncan MacRae[/b] What if you find that some sick-puppy is asking one of your female members for personal info such as her work schedule ... would you continue to ignore that kind of behavior as well? Yes I can answer your question. Feel free to ask it at the requested location, where everyone, including Miles, has the right of reply and opinion on this topic. The question is about Crawley's test results concerning Badge Man ... I would like for you to address his findings. Crawley said that his findings on Badge Man passed every test. Do you agree with him, if not, then explain in detail why you feel that this renown British photo scientist was in error? ( I look sooooooo forward to hearing your reply, unless of course you also insist that any Badge Man discussions with you to be done on the Duncan MaCrea comedy hour show, as well. Bill Miller Edited October 20, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 If I get hundreds of persistent emails from a pest, I will just ignore them. Duncan MacRae[/b] What if you find that some sick-puppy is asking one of your female members for personal info such as her work schedule ... would you continue to ignore that kind of behavior as well? Bill Miller vintage wild Bill Miller, duck-n-hide.... LMFAO! Show some grit, show up at the appropriate place and ask and answer the questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 (edited) vintage wild Bill Miller, duck-n-hide.... LMFAO! Show some grit, show up at the appropriate place and ask and answer the questions. David ... you never cease to amaze me. Duncan started the thread here and when the questions got tough ... he insist that we discuss it on another web site, yet he remains posting to this thread ... you also just posted to this thread, so I will continue posting to this thread. I see no reasons for the students who use this site for an education pertaining to JFK's assassination to be forced to start jumping from site to site. If Duncan wishes to address these questions, then we'll find a way to get them and post his answers here for the readers convenience. By the way, David ... have you an opinion as to Crawley's expertise as a photo scientist Vs. someone who calls the following an enhancement that has allowed him to see more detail (see below) Bill Miller Edited January 12, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 (edited) What if you find that some sick-puppy is asking one of your female members for personal info such as her work schedule ... would you continue to ignore that kind of behavior as well?Bill Miller What happens between member's off-forum is none of my business. Private disputes should remain private. Duncan MacRae You're quite a stand-up kinda guy, Duncan. So you know ... PM's are done through the forum. So if some sick puppy used your forum to harass another member to the point of seeking out her work schedule ... you'd be fine with it because its none of your business. I find your response to be somewhat concerning. You are the one who posted to this thread about Miles being banned in the first place and you even knew why he was banned, yet his harassment of a female member to the point of requesting through the forum to know her work schedule is none of your business, but you feel what went on between Miles and Simkin is your business. Do you not see that what Miles did was wrong ... because if you don't see it, then its starting to look like there is more than one sick puppy in that litter. If you feel that no one, let alone a female member should be harassed to the point of someone seeking to know their work schedule, then I'd hope you'd denounce such behavior and agree that it is improper. But back to JFK matters .... You only addressed half of post #495. Here is the question again, please find the time to make that your business and address it. The question was about Crawley's (a renown photo scientist) test results concerning the Badge Man figure ... I would like for you to address his findings. Crawley said that his findings on Badge Man passed every test. Do you agree with him, if not, then explain in detail why you feel that this renown British photo scientist was in error? Thanks! Bill Miller Edited October 20, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) Duncan, I want to remind you what you specifically said you would no longer address on this forum ... and I quote, "On a point of principle I will no longer be making any posts on this Forum with reference to the existance or non existance of Gordon Arnold in his location in the Mary Moorman photograph." But I asked you about the Badge Man - not Arnold, so I will ask you once again to address Crawley's findings as to his test on Badge Man passing every test he performed. Is it your position now that you won't answer Badge Man questions any longer either? If it is not, then tell us if you agree with this well renown British photo scientist and if not, then please tell us in detail why you do not agree with him about Badge Man??? Bill Miller Edited October 21, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) Thanks for the reminder which I didn't need.If you want to start a thread on Badgeman and the merits of Crawley's findings and his own final assessment of his own findings on this forum, and not someone else's opinion of his findings, then feel free to do so. Duncan MacRae When Miles mentioned Holland's path through the RR yard ... you didn't respond by telling him to start a Holland thread. When he wanted to talk about how the cars were parked in the RR yard days after the shooting ... you didn't tell him to start a RR yard thread. In fact, you discussed Badge Man in this thread yourself, so cut the crap and answer the question about Badge Man. You may think you are being slick, but several of us saw what you were up to for some time now and thats why the questions started getting tougher as you went along. You'll offer a general response about something like whether Moorman could have seen someone beyond the wall in the Nix film, but when asked to explain in detail how you reached that conclusion - you all of a sudden have nothing to say other than you won't take any more questions about Arnold on this forum. Are you not aware of how that looks to your fellow researchers and students of the assassination. I can tell you how it looks ... it looks like you're little more than a parrot who can talk, but hasn't a clue as to what its saying. Now the question was about Badge Man - not Arnold, and nowhere did you tell us that you'd not answer questions pertaining to Badge Man, which you had already discussed more than once in this thread. So I await your cooperation, unless your new position has been upgraded to how you'll no longer discuss Badge Man on this forum either ... much like one might do in the States when they take the 5th or when a crooked politician is caught with his pants down and all of a sudden will tell the press pool 'No further questions!'. Bill Miller Edited October 21, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) I found the following said about Arnold pertaining to the 'running man' and I'll address it here and now. The following was said ... "I think what is most important about the running man in the context of this thread, which the defenders of Gordon Arnold choose to ignore, is the fact that Gordon Arnold did not mention this man in any of his changing stories. The man running up the steps went in to the Arnold area, that's an undisputible fact which is supported by and can clearly be seen in the photographic evidence. There's no way in the real world where most of us belong, that Arnold could have missed seeing this guy, and there's no way that a man with a round " this big " who Arnold says attacked him, would not have seen the running man, and would have been more concerned about the potential dangers of a man running towards him in a frantic manner rather than the dangers of not stealing a film from a man supposedly shooting no film of the alleged Badgeman fence area." The first thing that comes to mind and has been posted numerous times now is supposed you tell us just what all did Arnold say in his interviews that wasn't printed or aired ... please take a few seconds, which is a few seconds more than you'll need, and tell us all that you know on this subject, Duncan. Did you stop at the couple of sentences in Golz Article or at the obviously edited interview conducted by Nigel Turner before coming to such a conclusion? Do you really want to hold on to the notion that the two brief comments that Golz printed in the Dallas Morning News or that Turner aired on his one hour documentary was the total extent of what Arnold told them?? If so, let me take you back to Turner's interview with Arnold. Did you mist the part where Arnold said to the interviewer that he had told them about a RR worker he saw that morning .... where is that interaction between Arnold and the interviewer seen on the MWKK??? Its common knowledge that people can be interviewed for and hour and only get a few brief minutes of their time on camera into the finished product. Where does your sincerity in only wanting to know the truth come into play when you willfully post something that you must have known was misleading. If you think that you are slick enough to do such things, let me tell you that you are not. I didn't see the 'running man remark that you made, but someone had contacted me over it so to draw my attention to it. Lets discuss not what I or you think, but the timing of the figure in the Nix film moving left and down in correlation to the man running up the steps. The Nix film shows the figure believed to be Arnold in motion as soon as the President's head exploded and Jackie just starts to rise up out of her seat. The man on the steps has yet to make it all the way up the steps to the walkway before Jackie is all the way out on the trunk as the limo passes below Hudson. Arnold said he hit the ground and covered his head and if that was the case ... it doesn't take a lot of critical thinking to see why Arnold may never have seen the man on the steps coming towards him or passing his position because Gordon gave the impression that he didn't look up until someone was tapping his behind and that was said to be a cop. With that being said, I again disagree with your rush to judgment assessment. Bill Miller Edited October 21, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 The overall content of the thread has been ruined by the banishment of Miles and any future input by him. I've requested you to start a new thread if you wish to talk about a different topic, in this case, the findings of Mr Crawley with reference to Badgeman. I await the new thread, but I won't hold my breath.Duncan MacRae What was lost other than pictures of apes and misstated testimony. The question is directed to you and your opinion ... surely you do not need Miles to help you think - do you? Answer the question as to the Badge Man as it pertains to Crawley's test. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) Answer the question as to the Badge Man as it pertains to Crawley's test.Bill Miller Sure, just waiting on you to start the relevant thread. Duncan MacRae Wait a minute, Duncan ... it was you who has posted on Badge Man in this thread ... do I need to post your remarks ... are you saying that its the correct thread when you want it to be, but not the correct thread when you do not want it to be??? And let me say this ... no matter where you answer the question whether it be here or on the moon ... your remarks will be placed on this thread because there are those of us who will find it relevant to this thread regardless of your attempt to keep it out. Now if you want me to go find the numerous post we did concerning whether you believed Badge Man was real or not, which was in this thread ... I will do it. This childish nonsense of you thinking that when you get into an uncomfortable situation that doesn't support your past remarks and that all you have to do is take your ball and go home ... be prepared to have your actions posted about the forum at every opportunity where it applies. So here is your chance again in the very thread where you discussed the Nix film - Holland's route through the RR yard - your opinion as to whether or not you supported the Badge Man image, and etc., to answer the question as to whether you agree or disagree with Crawley on the Badge Man image he tested. If you do not agree with this world renown photo scientist, then simply tell us why you do not agree with him??? Bill Miller Edited October 22, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 The overall content of the thread has been ruined by the banishment of Miles and any future input by him. I've requested you to start a new thread if you wish to talk about a different topic, in this case, the findings of Mr Crawley with reference to Badgeman. I await the new thread, but I won't hold my breath.Duncan MacRae Please explain in detail how the content of this thread by Miles not being here is ruined and be specific??? Someone can say anything, which is what I believe you have done once again, so be specific and tell us how you are justified to say such a thing. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now