The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

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[/b]

It's a whole new topic which requires a whole new thread. The study of Crawley has nothing to do with the existance or non existance of Gordon Arnold in his alleged Moorman loacation.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

As I said before ... it doesn't matter where we discuss this because I'm going to drag it back into this thread for all to see when ever it applies to this topic. In the meantime I am going to expose your less than acceptable sincerity and willingness to cooperate when you find that further discussion will only hurt your half-baked claims. Maybe one should go back and show just how you do this for several times now you have stopped answering questions when you felt they worked against your erroneous position. One instance that comes to mind was when you were asked about the reality of Badge Man. You refused to merely state a simple yes or no answer without first wanting to know why you were be asked the question. A small child could see through what you were doing because you wanted a chance to weigh in your own mind how your answer would apply to your position on Arnold. This forum is loaded down with your support of Badge Man being real from your words to your animations using him in support of the two shots coming over the top of one another when JFK was killed. But when you found out that to admit that Badge Man was real, you saw that if he was real, then your argument that Arnold was too small to be real was seriously damages, thus you invented the claim that you had secretly changed your mind about Badge Man a long time ago and just didn't bother to let us know. You have never been one to hold your tongue and I just don't buy it.

Now you are doing the same thing again. Let me share one of your past post concerning your offer to discuss anything in this thread other than the existence of Gordon Arnold. Take note that while the figure being real or not in the Nix film would go to the issue of Arnold's existence ... it didn't stop you from saying that it could be discussed in this thread.

Duncan Macrae: "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" (end)

Now let us talk about Crawley's test concerning Badge Man ... I await your answer to my question. If you don't do it, then you only show that I am most likely spot on concerning your past behavior of not addressing anything that you feel will lead back to your claim being in error.

Bill Miller

Edited October 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Miles has been denied the ability, through his banishment, to post his analysis on this forum. He is now posting at Lancer, where I fear, he will be banned too by Debra who is once again telling people, like she did me before banning me, not to post speculation on topic matters. How ridiculous and dictatorial is that??????

Duncan MacRae

You were asked to be specific as to how Miles absence here in this thread will affect anything that you have to say. All he was doing was repeating the same disinformation over and over again and playing off your childish cartoons ... is that the quality of his analysis that you are missing ... if so, go back and copy and paste them to your replies and it will be as if he never left.

As far as your concern about him at Lancer, I think that as long as he doesn't suggest anything as sick to Debra as you did, then he'll be just fine. If it is your contention that you cannot function without Miles in your life, then thats a personal matter that shouldn't have anything to do with the topic of JFK's assassination..

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You were asked to be specific as to how Miles absence here in this thread will affect anything that you have to say. All he was doing was repeating the same disinformation over and over again and playing off your childish cartoons ... is that the quality of his analysis that you are missing ... if so, go back and copy and paste them to your replies and it will be as if he never left.

As far as your concern about him at Lancer, I think that as long as he doesn't suggest anything as sick to Debra as you did, then he'll be just fine. If it is your contention that you cannot function without Miles in your life, then thats a personal matter that shouldn't have anything to do with the topic of JFK's assassination..

Bill Miller

And your point is?

Duncan MacRae

You just made my point - Thanks!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The remark I made was directed at you and you only. It is a common U.K. expression for when someone is sucking up to someone else to gain their favour. In the Lancer instance, you twisted the meaning deliberately through whatever sickness it is that you have and persuaded Debra that I was being suggestive to her...you are one sick man Bill

Duncan MacRae[/b]

There was nothing sexual in any inference that I ever made, nor has anyone but you ever stated such. You know what you said to her - Kathy knows as well because we have spoken about it in the past.

Now tell me why is it against your plan to discuss Arnold on a Gordon Arnold thread that you started - its against your conviction now to talk about the Badge Man, but you don't mind posting about the remark you made to Debra on Lancer ... I find that someone remarkable. If nothing else, shouldn't you start a thread on what you said to Debra ... thats been your theme over the past couple of pages.

What about the Badge Man passing in the test that Crawley did?

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

What I said on Lancer has nothing to do with Kathy, and i'm sure she would agree with that. You keep trying to drag her in to things which do not involve her.

Now why don't you take her good and sensible advice and stay on topic, as some people may want to discuss the existance or non existance of Arnold in his alleged Moorman location in this thread. I don't wish to discuss that topic for reasons well documented now.

If you wish to discuss Crawley start a thread on it by all means.

Duncan MacRae

Actually, Kathy and I talk often about JFK matters. She and I discussed your avoiding to answer certain questions. I mentioned your raising you getting banned from Lancer and I said I remember exactly what you and said and Kathy said she did as well. Her and I agreed that you were way out of line.

Yes, lets stay on the topic that you don't want to discuss ... sure thing. Maybe Kathy and I can continue on with the discussion on our own.

Bill Miller

Edited October 25, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

What you and Kathy do or say in private is none of my business, unless of course you want it to be my business and have Kathy's permission to continually and obsessively post like someone possessed, on her behalf, and for the forum at large to see

Duncan MacRae

Kathy was mentioned because you invited her into this discussion after I mentioned that some of us discuss these issues off the forum and that I was not the only one with particular questions. You then complained that she could ask her own questions. She then asked the questions and you jokers called her a Bill Miller clone. It was you who raised Miles being banned - not I or Kathy. It was you who feared that poor trolling Miles wouldn't be treated fairly at Lancer in the same way you claimed had happened to you. It was then that I reminded you as to why you got banned. You pretended that I misrepresented what you said. I said that I had recently spoken to Kathy about this and her memory of what you said had mirrored mine.

Now what comes first - the chicken or the egg, Duncan? What I do not understand is if you do not wish to discuss a topic that you started, then why even participate in this thread. Kathy and I both asked you some questions pertaining to the Nix film, which then led to Crawley's findings concerning the Badge Man. I will continue posting in this thread on that topic and you can avoid the tough questions from the sidelines if that is what you wish to do.

Now Kathy raised the issue that someone can be seen in the Nix film standing beyond the wall. You replied that the Nix film is irrelevant. You stated that you were only interested in whats seen in the Moorman photo. Kathy then mentioned the info found in Mack's article and you then told her that the person seen in the Nix film could not be seen from Moorman's location. I asked you to detail how you reached that conclusion so to be assured that you were not making it up as you go. You have refused to cooperate on that matter so far. Are you now prepared to comply with my request????????????????

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Any more off topic posts here (not dealing with the subject of the thread) are going to be made invisible by me, and, subject to the opinions of the others in the Moderating Team, may be deleted.

Let it go-please.

Kathy

I agree, Kathy ... for it seems that Duncan wishes to talk about everything but things relevant to the topic he started. I supposed now if you want to talk about Moorman's camera capabilities ... then I guess we need a separate Moorman thread, but only after Duncan has decided to have it that way. If you mention Black Dog Man and how he'd relate to Arnold within this thread, it seems that were are only now supposed to start a Black Dog Man thread. Other suggested threads that would be needed to cross reference with this thread would be the Jack White thread, the Gary Mack thread, the wall height thread, the fence thread, the walkway thread, the man on the steps thread, the ground elevation change thread, the Nix film showing someone beyond the wall thread, a Sitzman hearing broken glass thread, the timing of the head shot to JFK thread, the Darnell film thread, the Badge Man thread, the ground erosion between the wall and the fence thread, the park bench thread, the sack lunch found on the park bench thread, the two detectives examining the sack lunch thread, the black couple thread, a Josiah Thompson thread, the Duncan being concerned that Miles got banned thread, the Towner #3 thread, the worrying that Miles is being fairly dealt with at Lancer thread, a Yarborough thread, the lack of cooperation of Duncan not wanting to keep the discussion and its relevant issues in this thread - thread, etc., etc., etc.. In one case it was suggested that we continue this discussion on another site altogether which from what I hear has already gotten pictures of apes on its thread .... nothing like preserving and protecting that gene pool of serious quality research.

Previously in this thread there was an opinion posted by Duncan as to his believing that the man in the Nix film is a separate issue - to that the view from Nix to the figure above the wall is different that Mooman's, thus she couldn't have seen him, to there being no one between the wall and the fence in the Nix film. That was Duncan's choice to discuss those topics within this thread. So now I am going to exercise my right in asking Duncan to explain in detail how he came to the conclusion that the person seen beyond the wall in Nix could not be seen from where Moorman stood???

More questions to come ....

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I am hoping that as your above posting which not been made invisible or deleted by Kathy or any of the other moderators for being off topic, then what I am about to say will not be considered to be off topic either.

My reply to you is as follows.

When the threads first started 15 months ago, Miles was as important a contributor as anyone else IMO, but because of private issues unrelated to the topic, he has been denied the ability to post his research on this forum.

I have provided a solution whereby all participants can post without fear of censorship or being banned

1./ I, Duncan MacRae, am banned from Lancer and can not discuss the topic there.

2./ You, Bill Miller, are banned from JFKRESEARCH and can not discuss the topic there.

3./ Miles is banned from this forum and can not post here.

4./ Kathy and all other participants, as far as I know, are banned from no Forum and are free to post anywhere.

This is not an ideal situation, and common sense tells me that for all participants to discuss this matter openly, fairly, and without any restrictions, prejudice, or censorship, requires a different venue.

That venue has been suggested and stands as a source for discussion which can not take place anywhere else for the reasons which are clearly shown above.

I feel my offer is a reasonable one considering the circumstances.

Duncan MacRae

. I asked a specific set of JFK assassination questions to YOU that do not call for anyone else to answer for you. If you feel that you need Miles to post monkey photos to boast your position, then it doesn't say much about the quality of your claim.

As far as my being banned from JFK research along with Josiah Thompson, Lamson, and anyone else who was anti-alteration, not to mention the removal of any post that debunked Jack's alteration claims, then it is off topic and I believe you should be smart enough to have known this when you posted.

Now unless you need Miles to speak for you, then please address the questions here because even if they were placed on a new thread - Miles cannot help you, so let us stop the whining and discuss the evidence.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Bill Miller]

I think that you are pushing your luck and taking advantage of your friendship with Kathy by posting the above disgusting filthy remark, making it almost impossible for her to moderate this thread in a fair manner. She has requested that the thread stays on topic. I have honoured that request, but you appear to be ignoring it.

I hope Kathy shows some balance of fairness and deletes the above disgraceful slanderous comment.

Duncan MacRae

Christ loved all his fellow brothers and sisters ... nothing disgraceful about that. He didn't claim not to be able to function without them posting monkey pics and misstating the witnesses like Miles did, but loved them all the same. Now are you going to address the question ...

"Previously in this thread there was an opinion posted by Duncan as to his believing that the man in the Nix film is a separate issue - to that the view from Nix to the figure above the wall is different that Mooman's, thus she couldn't have seen him, to there being no one between the wall and the fence in the Nix film. That was Duncan's choice to discuss those topics within this thread. So now I am going to exercise my right in asking Duncan to explain in detail how he came to the conclusion that the person seen beyond the wall in Nix could not be seen from where Moorman stood???"

Bill Miller

Edited October 26, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[David G. Healy]

I think that you are pushing your luck and taking advantage of your friendship with Kathy by posting the above disgusting filthy remark, making it almost impossible for her to moderate this thread in a fair manner. She has requested that the thread stays on topic. I have honoured that request, but you appear to be ignoring it.

I hope Kathy shows some balance of fairness and deletes the above disgraceful slanderous comment.

Duncan MacRae

Christ loved all his fellow brothers and sisters ... nothing disgraceful about that. He didn't claim not to be able to function without them posting monkey pics and misstating the witnesses like Miles did, but loved them all the same. Now are you going to address the question ...

"Previously in this thread there was an opinion posted by Duncan as to his believing that the man in the Nix film is a separate issue - to that the view from Nix to the figure above the wall is different that Mooman's, thus she couldn't have seen him, to there being no one between the wall and the fence in the Nix film. That was Duncan's choice to discuss those topics within this thread. So now I am going to exercise my right in asking Duncan to explain in detail how he came to the conclusion that the person seen beyond the wall in Nix could not be seen from where Moorman stood???"

Bill Miller

Frankly these day's, I'm surprised anyone is responding to your nonsense. When Lone Nuts have to resort to calling on Jesus for support, ya know the Lone Nut non-film/photo alteration crowd are in deep do-do.... Carry on!

Edited October 26, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Denis Pointing]

Frankly these day's, I'm surprised anyone is responding to your nonsense. When Lone Nuts have to resort to CALLING ON JESUS FOR SUPPORT, ya know the Lone Nut non-film/photo alteration crowd are in deep do-do.... Carry on!

................................................................................

...........................

This from a guy (Healy) who just posted one word and one word only on the "LEE OSWALD'S DEPARTURE FROM THE TSBD" thread, that one word was.... "AMEN" LOL What a hypocrite.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Bill Miller]

name='David G. Healy' post='156974' date='Oct 26 2008, 08:27 PM'Frankly these day's, I'm surprised anyone is responding to your nonsense. When Lone Nuts have to resort to CALLING ON JESUS FOR SUPPORT, ya know the Lone Nut non-film/photo alteration crowd are in deep do-do.... Carry on!

................................................................................

...........................

This from a guy (Healy) who just posted one word and one word only on the "LEE OSWALD'S DEPARTURE FROM THE TSBD" thread, that one word was.... "AMEN" LOL What a hypocrite.

I say AMEN to David's saying AMEN. Denis, how does one respond to the likes of Healy. This is a guy who calls CTs - LNrs, yet he posted that he has seen no proof of alteration, but doesn't see himself as a LNr for being part of the non-alteration crowd.

Try not to tie him down to long with looking like quite the hypocrite because I know he is busy working on getting that submission done so to be allowed to examine those historical films and photos so to get them validated as camera originals.

Bill Miller

Edited October 27, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Can anyone post a crop of the walkway in Towner #3 that shows the top of the wall and fence all the way to the large oak near the shelter??? This will go along way to showing why so much of Gordon Arnold is seen above the wall.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Additional information to correct some of the unnecessary misconceptions introduced by the Gordon Arnold arm-chair critics:

Jack White writes ....

I received this copy of correspondence from Gary Mack to Bill Miller.

Gary's remembrance exactly corresponds with mine.

QUOTE:

Hi Bill,

British photo scientist Geoff Crawley was hired by Nigel Turner to study the Badge Man photo, including Jack White's blowups. His expertise was the physics of camera lenses, and he was charged with determining whether or not Moorman's camera could clearly resolve an image of the Badge Man size and distance. By shooting test pictures with Moorman's camera and using very similar film (her film was no longer being manufactured), he found that it could.

Crawley examined everything, including the original Moorman Polaroid photo, her camera, and two 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo made by United Press International from negatives they shot on 11-22-63. Those prints were the source of all the Badge Man images.

He took the original Polaroid and the UPI prints back to England where he lives and made blowups, just like Jack did, and he got identical results. He had no doubts whatsoever that Jack's blowups were accurate reproductions of what is contained within the UPI prints. He understood precisely why Jack and I believed we were looking at three people beyond the wall, and he was especially impressed with the clarity of Badge Man.

All of this happened in the late summer of 1988, but by the time TMWKK premiered in the UK that October, he had doubts about Badge Man's size and expressed them to show producer Nigel Turner. Geoff thought Badge Man might be too small to be a person immediately behind the fence.

Unfortunately, Crawley never conducted any size tests in Dealey Plaza to determine whether or not his concern was valid. His opinion, therefore, remained just an educated theory.

Geoff Crawley, whose ability and integrity are beyond question, raved about Jack's terrific ability in the dark room. He remarked several times over the two or three days he was in Dallas for the studies that Jack had exhibited some of the finest technical ability he had ever seen.

He confirmed that Jack had not done any photo manipulation of any kind. He confirmed that Jack merely bracketed his copy exposures to obtain the maximum detail of Badge Man in dark shadow and Gordon Arnold in bright sunlight. (When you darken the picture to make Arnold less washed out, Badge Man turns very dark and loses detail; conversely, by brightening Badge Man, Arnold was washed out. Jack tried various aperture and printing combinations to bring out the best of both.)

Jack did no "sharpening" or dodging of any kind, just blowups and careful printing of his best negatives. Most of his work was completed in 1982 from a copy slide provided by Robert Groden, but his best work came in 1984 from the two UPI prints I obtained from Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg.

Several years later, at the suggestion of Nigel Turner, we made a colorized version to help others see what we had been looking at for four years. Sometimes, it is just easier to show something rather than to describe it.

The shapes of three people appeared in Moorman's photo and the question was, and still is, if they aren't people, what are they? So far, no one has offered any proof that the shapes are not people. And I have seen nothing to make me change my mind that they are people.

Gary Mack

END QUOTE

Gary failed to mention the later 1984 photocopying done by professional photographer Byrd Williams IV,

from which the "colored" version was produced. Byrd's copy negatives were 8x10, using the finest

equipment available for macro copying, and produced the best available images from the Thompson One

8x10 print. Unless either/both the original Moorman and the Thompson One print are faked, Byrd's

copies represent the best available enlargement of Badgeman/ Badge Man. The "colored" version was

done on a drum scan large print made from the best of Byrd's negatives by Global Graphics. The colors

I used were transparent oil stains used by photo studios. Gary still has the large colored print. I have

transparency copies of it.

Jack

I would hope that serious researchers and students will go back and read the dis-information posted by some of the critics and then ask themselves how such recklessness could have come about. Ask how it was that they apparently didn't even attempt to get this information before launching their attack against Jack White's work on Badge Man. Let them ask themselves just who it was that was using propaganda in an attempt to discredit an assassination witness and the researchers who investigated this matter, not from an arm-chair, but rather by doing the responsible things needed to be done to offer the most accurate data possible.

Bill Miller

Edited October 30, 2008 by Bill Miller