Bill Miller Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 (edited) Now back to the business in hand. I have admitted nothing you dimwit. I have shown Arnold to be unreal in his Moorman location. Duncan MacRae[/b] I agree that you have admitted nothing ... not consciously anyway. Your entire Arnold claim relies on your proper scaling. In the last animation you do not even use Mike Brown, but some unknown who was standing at the wall - on the concrete against the wall - and leaning forward. And not only was Gordon Arnold back by the fence, but your half-baked animation doesn't even show the same plane as Moorman's photo for the fence drops considerably between image transitions. Your work is sloppy and I am certain that is exactly why you refuse to have it peer reviewed by someone skilled in photography. I am also double sure that you will never take your alleged find to Nigel Turner or the press because you also know of your errors. As far as you proving Arnold not to be real ... I will leave you with this quote: Dunce-can MacRea: "no one on the planet, including me, has a clue as to where the feet of the Arnold illusion, if real, would be." The only thing you have proven is that you are delusional at times when thinking you have proven something, other times you touch reality when you admit that you don't know where Arnold's feet would really come in relation to the wall, and even after you have said something that debunks your previous position - you don't have the class to admit your error because you have too much grandstanding invested to have to admit once again that you were wrong because you didn't fully research the evidence before making yet another claim of a big find. You can say anything, but your actions have spoken louder than your words. Bill Miller Edited August 19, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 [ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Aug 19 2008, 08:36 PM' post='153091]Just goes to show how bad your viewing capabilities are. Once a Magoo, always a Magoo I suppose. The image which I used is by a leading photogrammetrist. The plane is the exact plane as Moorman. The drop in the fence line between the two images should be easy for you to figure out, it's nothing to do with poor scaling. Thanks for the correction, Duncan because accuracy is important ... would you not agree. The image bore a striking resemblance to a photo that I took years ago which can be seen at ... http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...=&mode=full post#31535 By the way, can you post a wider view of this 'recreation' photo??? Good................I'll leave you with this quote: Quincy Miller "The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket" I don't get it ... what I said was true. Bowers was asked about two men that he saw before the shots were fired. Bowers said only one man was still visible after the shooting. Some dufus tried to claim that Bowers may have been talking about the floating cop torso and I merely pointed out that the cop could not have been who Bowers saw because the other man that Bowers had just described and could not see after the shooting was the plaid coated man. You can resurrect that little game you played as often as you like and what I said will still be true. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 The images which I used in my studies were from George Pearl the photogrammatrist who Bill says did not recreate Moorman on the same plane He is saying that the experts are wrong LOL!!! Quote: Bill Miller - "but your half-baked animation doesn't even show the same plane as Moorman's photo" Funny you mention not having evidence ... didn't one of those guys say that Badge Man would have to be 40' back in the RR yard to be the size he was??? No photo of a stand-in at the fence ... no stand-in 40' back in the RR yard ... Go get'em Duncan. Send them Tony Cummings at the fence so they can see what size a human would look like at Badge Man's location. (smile) Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 The images which I used in my studies were from George Pearl the photogrammatrist who Bill says did not recreate Moorman on the same plane He is saying that the experts are wrong LOL!!! Quote: Bill Miller - "but your half-baked animation doesn't even show the same plane as Moorman's photo" Funny you mention not having evidence ... Bill Miller Duncan, BM has zero evidence of Toni not being at the wall: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 The images which I used in my studies were from George Pearl the photogrammatrist who Bill says did not recreate Moorman on the same plane He is saying that the experts are wrong LOL!!! Quote: Bill Miller - "but your half-baked animation doesn't even show the same plane as Moorman's photo" Funny you mention not having evidence ... Bill Miller Duncan, BM has zero evidence of Toni not being at the wall: BM is startled at how tiny Arnie is: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) Duncan,BM has zero evidence of Toni not being at the wall: Let us examine this statement of yours, Miles. I guess that Royce Bierma taking the time to post that he was there and witnessed my photographing Cummings at the fence isn't evidence in your mind. I also guess that it is a coincidence that Cummings was the same general size as Badge Man, which as I recall ... you had said in the past that Badge Man was out on a ladder some 35 to 40 feet back in the RR yard. Now I would like to address this ridiculous presentation you made concerning this alleged mound of dirt. You are aware (are you not) that a 2D image looking downward at the ground will only mask the appearance of elevation. A prime example of this that has been mentioned several times in the past is the height change between where Jean Hill stood Vs. the top of the curb. Yes, the 2D Zapruder film makes the ground Hill and Moorman stood on appear flat. So that means that I can post that there was no slope on the south pasture by using your flawed logic. This would also mean that a film of the infield of a major league ball diamond taken from up in the stands shows that the entire infield is flat. The pitcher mound is nothing more than a flat circle ... get my drift. So if you wish to help Duncan, then you may wish to give a little more thought to your reply. By the way, because you are talking mounds of dirt now, can I assume that you are past the Arnold is too small to be real thing. I also believe you to be too smart as to really think that someone standing further from the camera would remain the same size in an image. The man further away from the camera will get smaller. Bill Miller Edited August 20, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 You have proven Tony Cummings was behind the fence......................................................Nothing else.Click here to see why Bill Miller is wrong Duncan MacRae[/b] Maybe your interpretation is so to someone who has been less than cooperative and forthright in this matter, but your desire not to get the message does not prevent others from getting it. Not only did I show that Tony Cummings was behind the fence, but I showed that he was right against the fence. (Again thanks to Royce Bierma for confirming Tony's location) The next thing I did was show that Cummings at the fence was proportionate to Badge Man. They may not have been the same height and again they may very well have been the same height - Badge Man's data is unknown. However, Arnold said that the shot was fired just over his left shoulder ... Badge Man just happens to be seen over Arnold's left shoulder, and when Cummings stood at the said Badge Man location ... his overall body size matched that of Badge Man's. What this did was prevent the less than honest observer to continue on with the charade that Badge Man was too small to be human as what was alleged about Arnold. The other thing that came out of this exchange was that it showed the extent that you'd go to so not to have to admit that your Arnold scaling was mere speculation and was most likely in error. The proof of this came when you first refused to answer a simple question about Badge Man without first being told why I would want to know the answer. Then once you stalled for several post and it was now apparent that you were not going to cooperate, I gave you the reason for asking about Badge Man. Once you saw the problem in admitting that Badge Man was big enough to be human, thus Arnold would also be large enough to be human ... you opted to tell this forum that you had changed your previous position about Badge Man being real ... that you kept this revelation to yourself. (I doubt that anyone believed you on that matter) But regardless of your ever changing position ... Cummings was proportionate to Badge Man's body size - Arnold was proportionate to Badge Man's body size, your claim is flawed when tested against a real live human being. The last thing I have shown is that you admitted that no one knows where Arnold's feet come to behind the wall. That while this recent admission of yours contradicts your past position, its certainly the most important of all your admissions. I think you may have been so arrogant to think you were correct when the thread started, but I am confident that you saw the problem with Badge Man/Cummings being shown to be proportionate to Arnold and that in turn led to your admitting that no one really knows where Arnold's feet come to behind that wall. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Someone tell me what the view of the wall in the corner in 1963 has to do with a more recent image after its been shown time and time again that in 1963 the ground level was lower and today its all been filled in with concrete. Is there some premise that if that deception is stated enough times that it will somehow become reality??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Would you care to reconstruct the above riddle, then maybe I can give a reply? It's no longer important to make you understand ... its stated so everyone else can understand it. Not only did I show that Tony Cummings was behind the fence,You didn't actually, you just said he was behind the fence. Duncan, are you so doped up not to remember the past responses you have made. How many times did I mention that Cummings was on the RR yard side of the fence and using the cross-board to stand on. How many times did you ask for the exact height of that cross-board. So I established that Cummings was at the fence. Bierma read your moronic display of dancing the issues and took it upon himself to validate that what I said was true and that he had witnessed it. At no time did you ask Roy to be more specific if you didn't understand the information that was presented. So only now you want to carry on the charade that it was not proven that Cummings was at the fence at the Badge Man location. You're a real piece of work!!! Bierma writes: Bill is right about Tony Cummings. I met Tony in Dallas in 2005 when Bill and I were down there for the Lancer Conference. Tony and Bill did some reconstructions of the Moorman photo and others, and Tony stood behind the fence. I watched them do this. Just for the record, Roy Bierma -------------------- Royce Bierma http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...post&p=8971 No you didn't, where's a pic of him from head to toe behind the fence? Why do we need a picture of Cummings from head to toe behind the fence to validate what I and Bierma stated. This is just like the BS that was used when Miles didn't want to admit that Bowers could not see the men on the steps from his location in the tower. A word of advice ... you pretending to play dumb about everything only makes you look either completely stupid or completely dishonest. You owe Bierma an apology IMO. The next thing I did was show that Cummings at the fence was proportionate to Badge Man. Once again, No you didn't Please feel free to show how I didn't ... this should be good! They may not have been the same height and again they may very well have been the same height - Badge Man's data is unknown.The head and shoulder size can be estimated within a reasonable tolerance level. By all means ... please be specific and explain yourself????? However, Arnold said that the shot was fired just over his left shoulderSo what...Jean Hill said she seen a shooter...it means nothing Please explain how Arnold claiming a shot came over his left shoulder was also supported by a photo not known about at the time Arnold made his claim would have anything to do with Jean Hill. Your remark just sounds like more diversion tactics to avoid the points against you. Does that not seem interesting that Badge Man just happens to look like he is firing a shot just over Arnold's left shoulder ... no wait, I can answer that for you by telling people that you supported Badge Man being real and looking to be firing a shot for a very long time up until the point you found that his size debunked your Arnold is too small claim. Badge Man just happens to be seen over Arnold's left shoulder, and when Cummings stood at the said Badge Man location ... his overall body size matched that of Badge Man's.Yes, and i'll win the lottery next week LOL!!! Non-responsive idiotic reply. I have emailed Don to see if he still has the Badge Man scaling of Cummings that was posted long ago on Lancer. Until then, please show us your work that led you to post what you did because you certainly wouldn't just b low off your big mouth without having checked the sizing first. The proof of this came when you first refused to answer a simple question about Badge Man without first being told why I would want to know the answer.You have still to answer many questions which I have asked You told Mike Williams that no one can say where Arnold's feet would come behind the wall. So what information could you seek to answer a question that you have said was impossible to know. I believe you to be grandstanding which has led you to contradict your past postings. LOL!!...You really are a joker Bill, you should have your own comedy show lol!!!I don't always give my thoughts on everything on this forum , for example, do you know my view on alteration? I have a view, and I've had it for years, but havn't you noticed that i've never made my views known? Duncan, you are preaching to people who have watched you in action. Your views don't change unless you have no choice but to change them ... just as you did with Badge Man. Tripod Man also comes to mind. Until you took a beating on that ridiculous claim .... you thought someone had tried to erase a tripod out of the shelter doorway. You also tried a similar thing when you ruined the black dog man image so to make a claim that someone else was popped up over the wall next to him. I think you still believe that stupid observation to be real, so you must believe in alteration - right? So are you saying that YOU do not know where the feet of the Arnold floating torso are?....Will he answer this question?...LOL!!! Duncan MacRae Duncan, I have repeatedly posted that you do not know the data needed to say where Arnold's feet come to in relation to the wall. It was YOU who said that you got it right. Then in the end and while not thinking ... you admitted to Mike that you don't know where Arnold's feet come to ... that you never did ... that you don't believe anyone knows. You have said the following pertaining to your claim: "It's an accurate study proving your nonsense wrong" - "my study proves beyond reasonable doubt that the foating Arnold torso is an illusion" - "I'm not conceding anything Jack. The legs which I attached were attached only to show what the figure would look like IF it was real" - etc., etc.. Then the contradiction ... Duncan: "no one on the planet, including me, has a clue as to where the feet of the Arnold illusion, if real, would be" Below is yet another flawed animation in one sense and debunks your claim in another. You place a line along the wall where you believed Arnold's feet would come. You added that line to the animation and then placed a red arrow pointing to someone who looks to be between the wall and the fence. Carry your line out and see if it isn't within reason where that person's feet would be ... are they now too short to be real? Does this cause you to now claim that you believed that person wasn't real, but you just didn't want to tell anyone until now?? Now have the person under the red arrow back up until their standing height matches Arnold and tell me where their feet would be??? You see, real people seen over the wall and backed up to Arnold's size show the same body proportions within reason as Arnold had. This is just why I said that Arnold can be shown not to be too short by shooting a recreation photo with someone back by the fence as Arnold was. It appears that your animation can prevent someone from having to go to Dallas just to show the flaws in your claim. Good work!!! Bill Miller Edited August 21, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Total nonsense above of course. You tried it and could not get the correct result, and now you are saying that anyone can get the correct reult by placing someone in the correct location. Just one question...Why didn't you then?????? All you managed to produce was a Mike Brown blob ( below ) which in no way matched the size of Arnold. Duncan MacRae Forum rules or no forum rules ... you come across like a babbling idiot. This is the last time I am saying this. All that I did with Mike Brown and Tony Cummings was to see how they would stack up to one another by looking uphill at them. I knew Badge Man was at the fence, but I did not know at the time of the photo where exactly Arnold was standing. It wasn't until much later that I learned of Mack's interview with Arnold, thus I didn't know at the time that Arnold was back by the fence. There was no recreation attempted like you suggest. Brown is much larger than Arnold was ... he wasn't turned towards he camera, nor was he postured to appear to be holding a camera. Cummings was not asked to appear to be aiming a rifle ... all of which would have been staged if I was really trying to do a recreation in the sense that you are talking about. All I attempted to do was to show perspective as far as how people would look over the wall to one another at various locations. So for you to continue to say that I failed with Mike Brown to recreate Arnold is a total misstatement of the facts that is designed to misrepresent what has been repeatedly said ... especially when for the longest time you were calling Brown - Tony Cummings. Its sad enough that your stuff is so flawed and irresponsible, but do you have to continually misstate everything else as well. Also on page 6, post 76 is the clear photo that you claimed to need so to be able to tell anything about Cummings and yet you don't use the clear image when discussing Brown ... is that for self-serving purposes??? Shame on you and you still owe Bierma an apology. And after you do that ... show where the mans feet under the red arrow would be in relation to the line you attributed to Arnold and then explain why he is also not too small to be human. You skipped right over that one - didn't you Mr. 'I will admit when I am wrong' Duncan. Bill Miller Edited August 21, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 [ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Aug 21 2008, 11:53 AM' post='153177]You have proven Tony Cummings is real You have proven Mike Brown is real. Now let's see you prove, still after a year that Arnold is real, not Cummings, not Brown, not Mickey Mouse..Arnold. [/b] I have posted several times that I can only show that Gordon Arnold was not too small by using known real people. Your point was that Gordon was too small to be real. You now want him proven to be real and that is different than showing his size to be similar to known people standing beyond the wall. I am curious about something ... do you misunderstand everyday life like you do these threads or do you limit your confusion to just the responses that your nutty claims get??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Now have the person under the red arrow back up until their standing height matches Arnold and tell me where their feet would be??? You see, real people seen over the wall and backed up to Arnold's size show the same body proportions within reason as Arnold had. This is just why I said that Arnold can be shown not to be too short by shooting a recreation photo with someone back by the fence as Arnold was. It appears that your animation can prevent someone from having to go to Dallas just to show the flaws in your claim. Good work!!![/b] Bill Miller Total nonsense above of course. You tried it and could not get the correct result, and now you are saying that anyone can get the correct reult by placing someone in the correct location. Just one question...Why didn't you then?????? All you managed to produce was a Mike Brown blob ( below ) which in no way matched the size of Arnold. Duncan MacRae Duncan, In the flashing animation above, there is a horizontal line which in the static photo would come pretty close to the man in the black shirts feet. Now the man in the black shirt is almost as wide as the tree which is behind him, this would tell us he has to be closer to the camera than the tree. If we moved that man back towards the fence, his feet would be higher because Mooreman is looking uphill and his body would be smaller overall because of the added distance to the camera. Would this not replicate what we see in the photo of where Arnold may have been? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Duncan,In the flashing animation above, there is a horizontal line which in the static photo would come pretty close to the man in the black shirts feet. Now the man in the black shirt is almost as wide as the tree which is behind him, this would tell us he has to be closer to the camera than the tree. If we moved that man back towards the fence, his feet would be higher because Mooreman is looking uphill and his body would be smaller overall because of the added distance to the camera. Would this not replicate what we see in the photo of where Arnold may have been? Mike In my opinion, no.... If it could be replicated by a human, don't you think Bill would have done it by now?.. Instead he tries to win his case by using what he says is a close example, aka Mike Brown ,which is actually miles off the target. At first he claimed this was an almost exact replication of Arnold until I exposed it's innacuracy last year. He won't repeat that finding in any of his posts LOL!!! Duncan Ok, so I have to ask this. I think that we do know if the man in the black shirt backed towards the fence, that he would become smaller, and his feet would rise because of Mooremans uphill angle. So there is no reason to believe that he would not replicate the Arnold position UNLESS he could not back far enough from the wall before hitting the fence. It is supposed that Arnold was between the wall and the fence if I remember correctly. So are you saying in effect, that the man in the black shirt would just run out of runnin room to replicate Arnolds position? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 In effect, I am saying that if it could have been done, Bill would have did it, i'm 100& positive on this.If it can be done, why has no one did it?....why does someone not attempt it?. I live in Scotland, so obviously I can't do the test. I openly invite here on this forum, anyone who goes to Dallas to try to replicate Arnold, but remember to shove the human stand in's head approx 1 ft lower than we see "Arnold" in Moorman. Arnold's son said he was 5ft 10 Duncan Gary Mack has replicated Arnold's image in the past when testing it, so your remark is only based on your lack of knowledge as to what has been done. I am in British Columbia, thus my desire to make a special trip to Dallas, Texas to show another one of your half-baked claims is in error isn't at the top of my list, unless of course you'll pay for it. Its unfortunate that you are not intelligent enough to address Mike's point, then no one would need to go to Dallas. You show a guy under the the red arrow who if you were honest and unbiased ... you'd admit that this persons feet would fall very close to the horizontal line on the wall that you use for Arnold while claiming it makes Arnold look too short to be human. You'd also admit that you can see how much this guy has shrunk when compared to the people closer to the wall in the same photo and then apply that knowledge to someone like Arnold who was standing back by the fence. But one has to either be intelligent enough to follow this rule of perspective and if he or she is, then they have to be honest enough to acknowledge what it implies. You have not shown yourself to be a candidate to do this. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Composite photo for reference. Left arrow points to person behind fence, taken at Moorman's position with a 35mm camera from the documentary "Murder in Dealy Plaza". Middle arrow points to Tony Cummings, from Bill's photo, cloned in. Right arrow points to gentleman who represents Badgeman's position (cloned in) according to the documentary "Beyond the Magic Bullet". Animation consists of the 3 photos for size/registration reference chris 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