Bill Miller Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) They are at a hopeless impasse, each unable or unwilling to concede any point to the other, and clearly unable to combine their intelligence and expertise - to whatever degree one will concede that the other possesses any of - to reach a common ground. What expertise? The first scaling Duncan did of Arnold he never got the width correct. It appeared that Duncan just merely was cropping in things to the size that he wanted them to be. (see below) Then we have Miles coming along and doing a spin-off on Duncan's sloppy scaling as if more poorly illustrated examples was going to turn it all around. Miles takes an older pot-bellied Arnold image ... questionably scales it ... and puts it against the outer edge of the wall. Miles had marked the wall where he believe the ground to be at the wall. (below is that illustration) But the point is what is the ground height back by the fence and particularly where Arnold was standing? Moorman is looking uphill and the ground slopes somewhat from the fence to the walkway for run-off purposes. So while Miles probably did a slightly better attempt than Duncan did to resolve the matter - it too had data flaws as well. When these things were pointed out to Duncan and I asked him if he had ever consulted someone skilled in lens variations and perspective ... Duncan replied that he doesn't need to consult anyone. When I raised the issue about Badge Man being of human size and knowing that Duncan had posted many times that he believed Badge Man to be real, I got the idea of approaching this problem by way of another direction. It was then that I shifted attention to a known figure that Duncan believed to be real. But Duncan must have suspected where I was now going because for several responses ... Duncan didn't answer my question. In one response he said words to the effect that he wanted to know how his answering yes or no to my question pertaining to Badge Man was relevant and how he would not answer that question I asked until he knew the 'WHY' for my asking it. I am sure that I was not the only one who wondered why if Duncan was so sure of himself, then what difference would it matter if he answered the question or not. In fact, Duncan never said he wouldn't answer the question, but it was obvious by now that depending on how he thought it would be used against him would determine whether Duncan went along with Badge Man being real. Only once I stated why I wanted to ask about Badge Man, Duncan came up with a new position on Badge Man - he said he didn't believe Badge Man to be real and that this had been his position for some time, but had just kept it to himself. In a past post Duncan made pertaining to the conclusion I had that the figure above the wall looked to be Gordon Arnold in uniform, this is what Duncan had to say .... Duncan: "I know why Arnold, if it is him, appears fat, i don't have to ask John Or Jack's advice on this matter. He's fat because he is in the Moorman image,and that's that. It's not more than likely at all if there was more than one person behind the wall which seems,having read many witness reports,more than likely to me." It seems that there are altogether too many variables - fence, ground and clearness of imagery ... not to mention relative intelligence, imagination and skill or lack thereof - for anyone to reach any sort of definite conclusion. I agree in the manner that you speak of. This is why using real people in those locations and shooting a photo to see if they fall within reason to the size of those people believed to be seen in Moorman's photo are possible. In the above illustration showing a service man next to the alleged Arnold figure ... it was necessary to see if such a man in uniform even came close to matching the figure seen in Moorman's photo ... and it did. In Groden's book he shows a figure beyond the corner of the wall from the Nix film and the person's clothing color matches that of what Arnold would have worn. When Groden took his best Nix print to the lab, Robert, myself, Royce Bierma, and the lab tech could see movement heading north immediately after the kill shot was fired. When I compared the light patch on the figure in Moorman's photo to that of BDM - I found them to be a match. (see below) So there are many things that point to someone being above the wall at Arnold's location ... Duncan's theory is that no one is there at all. Mostly, this discussion just seems to be a contest of who can insult the other better and more imaginatively (my favorite to date: "I could solicit the assistance of an organ-grinder's helper monkey and probably get it to offer up a better finished product than what you posted." Yes, I got several messages telling me that they enjoyed that one. What makes it so funny is that there is some truth in it. Which one is the photogrammetrist? Neither has even spelled it right. I have been corrected no matter which way I spelled the word. What is important is that you know what we are talking about. http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod...n=9783110190076 Photogammetry (English) (Geometry from Images and Laser Scans - ISBN: 9783110190076) Price range: $75.50 - $98.82 from 3 Sellers Publisher: Walter De Gruyter Inc Edited August 12, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) can you tell us where Tony's feet are in relation to the ground? Thanks, Bill Miller Can you tell us where the top of Tony's head is in relation to the top of the fence? Thanks Duncan MacRae Another attempt to not answer the question??? You have told this forum where Arnold's feet would be behind a wall ... you have drawn lines across the top of the fence and passed them through the wall when talking about Arnold. So is it now your new handicap that you cannot find the top of the fence in the image showing Cummings at the fence ... if so, I am not buying it. If it is your intention not to answer these simple questions so to keep from moving forward, then just say so. The next non-responsive answer will be the last for I will have no choice but to believe that your search for the truth is as bogus as those poorly done illustrations you posted. Just keep in mind that there are those who are wondering why you are being so evasive on something so trivial. You must surely know that if you were ever to push this claim publicly to the world ... you'd be asked the same sorts of questions. Bill Miller Edited August 12, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Duncan MacRae [/b] Duncan, If Tony is real, Arnie is not: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Badgeman is as real as his twin (discovered by me last year) standing beside him.Can you tell me why your Badgeman is real, and why my Badgeman is not real?....I can't wait Duncan MacRae Well the first difference is that your Badge Man is not seen in the best original prints. Your Badge Man was computer generated. Your Badge Man didn't have a witness telling of his shot coming past his left ear since the very day of the assassination. Is there a need to give more than one reason - more than two - more than three before your Badge Man is for sure a made up image. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 The first scaling Duncan did of Arnold he never got the width correct. It appeared that Duncan just merely was cropping in things to the size that he wanted them to be. (see below)The image composite which Bill posted...L@@k Up..... is NOT my first scaling of Arnold. Forum rules forbid me from calling Bill Miller a xxxx. To comply with the forum rules, I will direct anyone who is interested in why Bill Millers above statement is yet another piece of disinfo, GO HERE TO SEE MY FIRST SCALING OF ARNOLD And here it is for those who trust my honesty when posting, and do not need to go to the original post to see that I am tellling the truth. Duncan MacRae Duncan, Let me see if I am reading you correctly. Instead of merely answering my question as to where Cummings feet would come in relation to the wall ... you instead wish to have a pissing contest over which came first - the nutty Duncan scaling or the nutty Duncan scaling. On August 20th, I read a post that Miles put up which said, "QUOTE(Duncan MacRae @ Aug 19 2007, 10:13 PM) The last topic has become cluttered with material which is not relevant, so I'm staring afresh here. Terms and Conditions :Stay on topic The topic is. Is Gordon Arnold an illusion in Moorman? Duncan" Miles post was #16 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10773&st=15 In post #21 of the same thread I posted an image that I had pulled from an earlier time - studied it - and graded it with a typical big fat Duncan 'F' score. No where in that thread is the image posted of Duncan's before I posted it. Can I assume that it came on or before the 19th of August. (Here is the image below) I find Duncan's concern at keeping the record straight some what pathetic because he will avoid answering a simple relevant question even if it means saying that he doesn't know the answer and spend more time on something unimportant to the issues here. In fact, if it were true that the image I posted here with the F- on it came after the other image, then one must ask why the poor continuation of the sloppy alignments??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Arnie isn't real if Tony is real or not real Miles, but you know that anyway Duncan How so, Duncan ... can you tell us what Cummings height is in relation to the wall like you have attempted to do with Arnold's??? I have to keep asking this because you are ignoring it and going right onto the conclusion. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 QED.* ------- * For the uninitiated, quod erat demonstrandum ("which demonstrates itself"), proving once again that I can shpell mosht shtuff, even Latin, when I want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) Can you tell us what Cummings height is in relation to the wall like you have attempted to do with Arnold's??? I have to keep asking this because you are ignoring it and going right onto the conclusion. Bill Miller In order for me to be completely accurate and for me to give you a reasoned answer to your question, I require you to give me an accurate measurement of distance between the top of the fence and the top of Tony's head.Now you were there, so you must know the answer. There's no reason why you can or should not give me the answer. If I don't agree with your answer i'll say so, and give my reasons why. Duncan Really, Duncan ... I am having trouble following all this complicated talk you're preaching. I want to hear the same sermon you preached about Arnold. Please explain to me where you got 'the required accurate measurement' of Arnold's head in relation to the top of the fence so you could be 'completely accurate'???????????????????????? You've been harping from the beginning that your method for doing Arnold was accurate, so let us use the same formula you used for Arnold and use it on Cummings (aka. Badge Man). There can be no better way to check your work than to test it on a real person. So lay it on me, Duncan. Bill Miller Edited August 12, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) I defy anyone to look at the image below and say that half of Tony Cummings body is not showing over the top of the fence line.Comments from other Forum members would be welcomed and appreciated. Duncan MacRae Duncan ... despite my correcting you in post #45 where I said, "Duncan, which image above the wall do you think is Cummings? Mike Brown may look to have half his body above the fence, but not Tony. Tony is the more distant second figure seen over the wall. I hope we are on the same page here for your responses make me think we are not." So despite my saying that you should go back to my original posting of that image so to refresh your memory ... despite my saying many times in the past to Miles that the black blob in my animation was Mike Brown ... despite my saying that Cummings was back by the fence and the second person to the right in the image ... some dufus has still labeled 'MIKE BROWN' as TONY CUMMINGS in your illustration. I hope you fire the bone-head who assisted you with that caption!!! Once again you have posted nothing but garbage because you do not wish to pay attention to what in the hell has been said. Maybe if nothing else - that expert that you refuse to consult could have at least pointed out to you that Badge Man was the guy seen just to our right of the corner of the wall, but you must have already knew that because in your response #53 you had marked Badge Man correctly. (see post #53) Now having pointed out such a major flaw in your so-called work ... I'll just sit back (enjoy this ice cream ) and watch you try to do damage control on this typical Duncan MacRae blunder so to somehow try to make it appear that you still didn't make a mistake. If you were smart .. you'd ask the moderators to delete all the nasty idiotic remarks you made because of not having the facts right to start with. It appears that your formula and skills for figuring the size of someone in a photo isn't as perfect as you believed it to be. It also appears that your understanding of perspective isn't as good as you proclaim it to be either or you would have caught your error in the beginning. So you not only earned an 'F-' in your Gordon Arnold scaling ... you also get an 'F-' for not paying attention and comprehending the information being presented to you. But one thing no one can take away from you is your consistency at being wrong! Once again - the arrow in your illustration is pointing to MIKE BROWN who was standing over the south dog leg and at the walkways edge. TONY CUMMINGS is the next figure to our right who is standing at the fence in the Badge Man location. Bill Miller Edited August 13, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 So what you are saying then is that you do not have photograph at all of Tony Cummings standing behind the fence, just a black blob which looks as if it has been cloned around the edges to show a shape in a composite of such poor quality that hardly anything or anyone is recognisable. What a waste of time lol!!Now play the game and post a CLEAR pic of Tony Cummings standing behind the fence in a single non composite picture taken from the Moorman position, and then maybe we can move this sham of yours forward. I was wondering what approach you'd take to try and not have to admit that you were in error. Regardless if you interpret the image to be a dark blob - a medium blob - or a light blob - YOU STILL HAD THE WRONG GUY! Getting back to the so-called blob ... There are a couple of things that your excuses are not actually measuring up to. One is that I have posted the photo that I took of Brown and Cummings standing over the wall. It would call for a little research on your part ... it may even sting a little, but you can find that photo if you really wanted to. In fact, it would probably be good that you reviewed the premise behind that picture. However, you will find that the sun was to their backs which is why they are seen in silhouette. The other thing I find troubling is that you have used Moorman's photo in the making of some of your nutty claims and the image of mine that you are now complaining about in what I believe is an attempt to try and draw attention away from your pathetic mistake is just as clear. I mean after all ... how good can the Badge Man images be if you can see them as not real people, but rather illusions. Over the past year or more, you and Miles had no trouble recognizing the figures in the photo that I took. The funny part is that you can claim to see things like the floating cop torso or this image seen below ... Don't you find it somewhat strange that you can make claims of seeing people in the badly degraded images that you use like those I just mentioned and now want to complain that the silhouette of Cummings is not clear enough for you to work with??? In fact, when it came to my asking you about the image and the height of Cummings ... you didn't say anything about the image not being good enough for you to work with in achieving the answer to my question at all. Instead you said, "In order for me to be completely accurate and for me to give you a reasoned answer to your question, I require you to give me an accurate measurement of distance between the top of the fence and the top of Tony's head". So why not for once, that you just admit that you screwed up rather than to put on this big production that will only make you look far worse than someone who merely made an error. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) Bill....To make this simpler, and so that there are no more misunderstandings..please indicate which one of the following 3 images shows the mysterious Tony behind the fence. Once you have did that, we can progress. Thanks Duncan MacRae Duncan, would it be simpler if I go back and start referencing threads that you participated in whereas the Mike Brown figure was discussed. You certainly don't want people to think that you participated in all those discussions and/or reviewed them and didn't ever know who was who in the image .... do you? In fact, I am willing to be that I can find instances where you referenced the figure(s) correctly. Those past threads have a lot of jewels in them that could apply to this current debate. For instance, your only now claiming that you don't believe Badge Man to be real contradicts your saying, "I agree Gary and Jack's work "appears" to show a man in uniform, if you are talking about the supposed Gordon Arnold posiition. That doesn't mean that I believe the appearance is real." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0 Same thread when talking about silhouetted figures ... post #21: Tell me how is it that with Towner #3 being taken before the photo you are discussing was exposed that you can somehow can tell from dark silhouettes who the figures are and when they were seen in both earlier and latter assassination images? Bill Easy..I use the same tools as you, my eyes. In this study, my eyes tell me that the new figure is the same shape as BDM, just as your eyes tell you that the shape behind the fence in Moorman is a Fedora hat. I've decided to call him Branch Dog Man even though he is 100% not a branch. Duncan Here is another very poor image where you were able to claim that you were seeing something ... And yes, the second silhouette ... the one at the Badge Man location which is where I stated Tony was positioned ... is the correct answer. Is there any thing else that you don't understand that you'd like to clear up at this time? Can you see that the photo was taken in Dealey Plaza ... and that it was taken from Moorman's location. Don't want any repeats like this last one you pulled! Here is a link to the description as to where Mike Brown was standing. Had someone as large as Brown looks in that photo and he had been at the fence ... that would make him almost as wide as half of a fence section. I am surprised that someone with your keen eye for perspective and depth perception didn't see that right off. (Hmmmmmmmmm?) http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...=&mode=full Bill Miller Edited August 13, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) All of the above nonsense when it would have been a lot easier for you just to say that you can't tell us where in any of the 3 degraded blurry degenerated pixelated images of yours is Tony Cummings.You're in a hole....everyone has seen that you refuse to comply and tell the Forum which one is Cummings. The only possible expanation, apart from your ongoing seemingly incurable Magooismitis infection can be that you can't remember. Then again Bill. If I was the producer of those pieces of Picasso forged style composites, I would want to forget too. LOL!!!!! Duncan MacRae Duncan, have you considered rehab? Its like you live in a make believe world ... the cause can only be left to speculation. In your own post #68, you repeated the answer that you were given. You copied and pasted, "blink.gif Duncan ... despite my correcting you in post #45 where I said, "Duncan, which image above the wall do you think is Cummings? Mike Brown may look to have half his body above the fence, but not Tony. Tony is the more distant second figure seen over the wall. I hope we are on the same page here for your responses make me think we are not." So one has to wonder why you would post in #71 that you have been kept from getting the answer to which person was Cummings. I do not see how someone being so inept to not acknowledge something that has been stated over and over should want to blame someone like me. It only makes you appear stupid and no one else IMO. Maybe had you of spent more time actually reading and thinking about the information being presented to you instead of making a jackass out of yourself with images of gopher holes and other idiotic images designed to xxxxx, you might not have made such a silly mistake in not knowing which person Brown was. What this does is show that all the other times you participated in discussions about that image and any reference to Brown or Cummings ... you were talking about something you knew nothing about. Maybe you should create another gopher hole and put your own head in it out of shame. As far as showing the photo used in the Moorman transparency ... that image has also been posted either on this forum or Lancer's. I find it irresponsible of you to ask me to take my time and go search for it while you waste your time making what looks to be drug induced cartoon images on the knoll. I know that I am not the only one who thinks this way. Bill Miller Edited October 27, 2008 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 We are not on Lancer or anywhere else. We are on the Education Forum. Now if you want to make the claim here on the Education Forum that You have a pic which shows Tony Cummings behind the fence in a Moorman recreation which proves beyond all doubt that Badgeman is real, then show it as a single quality image, not some degraded piece of garbage that shows only some miniscule ludicrous blob. If you can't, I suggest you get out of this kitchen if it's too hot for you, and stick to hunting Bigfoot. The question still remains Can you show me and the Forum at large your image of Tony Cummings in a single non composite photograph standing behind the fence in your Moorman recreation which you claim exists, and which you claim replicates the size of Badgeman in the Moorman polaroid ? Duncan MacRae Your somewhat misstated remarks are typical Duncan and is why you should seek help with your research when ever possible IMO. There is no photo re-construction that can prove Badge Man was real beyond all doubt. For you to make such a statement only strengthens my observations that you cannot keep the facts straight long enough to have an intelligent debate on the JFK assassination. It's also too bad that you wish to limit yourself (at least on this particular matter) to just the Education forum for had you of gone over to Lancer and typed in the word 'stand-in', you would have come up with a thread that had this photo in it. (see below) http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/100.jpg For some reason you think that by not following up and doing any searches will somehow make you look better, but it does the opposite. It gives the impression that you know that your position sucks and you are not going to help anyone show it to be the case. I must leave you with this question: Has that approach ever worked for you before??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Bill, if you insist Gordon Arnold was there, have you thought about how long it would take for the policeman to kick Arnold and take the film from his camera? And why there is no record, no photograph, not even an eyewitness to this? Wim Wim, Sorry to have gotten side-tracked. Here is a crop from Towner #3 whereas there does appear to be two people in dark clothing (the cops Arnold spoke of?) and while these dark clothed individuals are considered circumstantial evidence ... it is interesting that they are beyond the wall near where Arnold was said to have hit the ground. There are also two of them there which is what Arnold had said. So this image shows opportunity and evidence that supports what Arnold claimed to have happen before these figures were ever known to be in the photographic record. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Badgeman is a possibility based on your Tony Cummings photograph of him standing behind the fence. If I am in error about the 18 inch platform, give or take around 6 inches due to estimates, please tell me the height of the object he was standing on. Duncan MacRae Edited due to an error in my calculation. I now make the estimated platform height around 18 inches I recall Cummings saying that he was about 6" from the ground on the cross-board. If I can reach him ... I will see if he recalls exactly what it was. My question of course isn't where Tony's feet come in relation to the fence, but rather to the wall just as you did with Arnold. While I am happy to see that you are attempting to be somewhat accurate ... I do not recall seeing this effort reported in your Arnold study. I want you to apply the same formula to Cummings that you did Arnold ... nothing different. 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