David G. Healy Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) 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 Hey Wild Bill, ya got caught, accept the defeat and move on -- What IS unfortunate is this: neither you or Gary will post the replicated image -- nothing to do with intelligence, son.... Simple common sense, which seems to be severly lacking in your Lone Nut/SBT camp. We, however, aren't fooled. Where's a .gif animation when you need one, eh? Edited August 21, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams 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 Hey Wild Bill, ya got caught, accept the defeat and move on -- What IS unfortunate is this: neither you or Gary will post the replicated image -- nothing to do with intelligence, son.... Simple common sense, which seems to be severly lacking in your Lone Nut/SBT camp. We, however, aren't fooled. Where's a .gif animation when you need one, eh? I have finally figured it out. David places Bill firmly in the LN/SBT camp, this is a huge indication of the detachment with reality that some chose to live in. Come on David, SON, you have to get on the Varsity! Kick one in and join the TEAM LOL!! (my Healey impersonation) Not bad huh? Your village called David....do you want the message? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) 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 Has anyone noticed that the stairway in one image with the car in it shows the step Hudson stood on rise against the other two? And can someone explain the man's position as Badge Man at the third arrow? Why is he so high in the air - why is he so wide at the shoulders? Was he said to be right at the fence on the RR yard side of it? Bill Miller Edited August 22, 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 Your village called David....do you want the message?Mike I don't know what the message said, but I heard there are posters all around the village saying that their 'village idiot' as wandered off and they fear that if he doesn't come back and stay focused that he won't get that request written asking that he be allowed to examine the historical film and photos so to authenticate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Thanks Chris, I believe that adds weight to my case, and adds another nail to Bill's already overweighted coffin.Duncan Duncan, can you be specific and explain what Chris's animation does to support your claim ... and by the way, please be specific which claim it supports ... the one that said that your claim was valid or the one where you said that no one knows where Arnold's feet came in relation to the wall??? Also, are you going to address the point that both Mike and I have repeatedly raised whereas the man in your illustration appears to have his feet come down near the horizontal line that you created for Arnold or are you going to avoid it so not to have to deal with anything that shows your flawed approach???? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Bill, In the program, it appears Gary Mack is placing the gentleman in badgeman's position, according to the photographer. That spot appears to be in front of the fence (non-RR side), near the tree. Here is a brief clip from the show. Clip 2 is a comment from the photographer who states the badgeman's positioning is representative of someone behind the fence, yet they placed him in front of the fence(Clip1) to match Moorman's photo. Did he mean to say wall instead of fence??????? chris Edited August 21, 2008 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Really, I have not seen where either you or Mike have estimated where this guys feet would be via a considered scaled illustration?Would you or Mike care to supply this illustration? Duncan MacRae Listen Duncan ... we want to use the formula that you used on Arnold. Now if its something you can write out, then give it to us. But you said you used your eyes, so we want to see what YOU come up with so there is no variance from your Arnold claim. How many times does this need to be said and how many times do you want to appear like an idiot who doesn't want to get it. Just do it like you did with Arnold, then you only have yourself to blame for the results. Bill Miller Edited August 22, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Listen Duncan ... we want to use the fomula that you used on Arnold. Now if its something you can write, then give it to us. But you said you used your eyes, so we want to see what YOU come up with so there is no variance from your Arnold claim. How many times does this need to be said and how many times do you want to appear like an idiot who doesn't want to get it. Just do it like you did with Arnold, then you only have yourself to blame for the results.Bill Miller As I said above...Let's see your or Mikes estimated position for your mans feet. Guess what folks........................................................................... .................It aint coming LOL!!! Duncan MacRae It appears that You are not going to cooperate and help establish that your claim is either valid or debunked. Its not that anyone didn't know that your so-called proclamation that you'll be the first to admit when you are wrong was nothing more than propaganda because even the dimmest of wits can see that you don't want to address the point we raised because you already know that it hurts your position and leads to yet another half-baked Duncan MacRea claim being shot down. But I will be happy to demonstrate why you are reluctant to cooperate and be forthright in applying your formula used on Arnold against anyone else known to be real ... To everyone ... Lets take a look at these images below. First of all, the slope of the ground in the latter day picture showing concrete against the wall appears flat with little to no drop in elevation near the corner. On the other hand the photo showing Gary Shaw at the wall and as the ground level looked at the time of the assassination reflects a pronounced sloping of the ground at the south dog leg. Duncan and Miles had tried to dismiss this by way of the Jimmy Darnell film. They both didn't understand or didn't want to understand how Darnell's film being shot looking southward had prevented the sloping of the ground against the wall to be seen in this 2D image. It took the perpendicular view in the Groden photo of Shaw to allow the drop to be noticeable. For validation ... this principle also applies to how Zapruder's north to south view hides the elevation change from Jean Hill's feet to the top of the curb, whereas the perpendicular view in Altgens #6 shows it quite well. The absence in utilizing these principles led to more erroneous thinking on Duncan's part that no high spot of dirt could have existed to stand on as Arnold had claimed. Duncan had used the corner of the wall where Shaw stood so to claim that Arnold is somehow floating in air, but Arnold is back by the fence and north of Shaw's location, thus the ground level is much higher at that spot. The Flynn photo showing the bench next to the wall gives a good perspective as to just how high the ground was back there. This is one of several errors in Duncan's many assumptions as to where the ground level should be where Arnold stood. His using the outer edge of the wall at the dog leg did not represent the ground level back by the fence. The sloppy mistakes and misrepresentations kept mounting. Also note that there is a woman on the walkway looking at a book, but the man over at the corner near the dog leg and not 10 to 12 feet away is dwarfed in overall size. When seen from the south pasture his head is lower in the cameras field of view and his feet are higher than the woman's feet on the walkway. Lets take another look at this image below. As said before, the slope of the ground in the picture showing concrete against the wall appears flat with little to no drop in elevation. The photo showing Shaw reflects a pronounced sloping of the ground at the south dog leg. Duncan uses that corner to show that Arnold is somehow floating in air, but Arnold is back by the fence and north of Shaw's location, thus the ground level is much higher. This is just one of the errors in Duncan's assumptions as to where the ground level should be. If we use the shrub at the wall below the man under the red arrow to represent the ground level ... the man near the walkway isn't that far off from the horizontal line Duncan attributed to Arnold. If we then apply the rules of perspective seen when things are moved further from the camera, then the more that man backs away towards the fence - the lower his head will sink and the higher his feet will rise against the horizontal line on the wall. This rule only makes the man even more like the size of Arnold against the wall. Duncan has refused to acknowledge this principle of perspective, but he has his motives. The fact is that those people in that picture support the rules of perspective and Arnold's size falling into the realm of a real human being. (see below) Bill Miller Edited August 22, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) To everyone ...Lets take a look at these images below. Bill Miller Duncan, Let's take a look at these images below. Note especially the bottom image. Edit: punctuation Edited August 22, 2008 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Duncan,Let's take a look at these images below. Note especially the bottom image. I am not wasting a single second addressing whats wrong with the ignorance involved in the way you merely overlaid images onto the next ... if you don't know what you did wrong, then you are not very bright about angles, scaling, and the differences in the effects of different camera lenses. If you do know what you did and did it on purpose, then your just trolling. And someone like yourself should be able to relate to the difference between where a 20 year old fit soldier would wear his belt compared to an aging pot bellied Arnold. To assume the two belt lines are at the same height is really ridiculous. Show a wider view of the photo you use on the forum to represent who you're pretending to be and let us see if the belt is worn ... I'm guessing somewhere around the knees. Then post where a man weighing 178 pounds wears his belt. That way we can do a scaling using the two belt lines and see what we come up with. The last image from the Darnell film is a hoot. Is it that you are hoping that Duncan is too stupid to understand why you cannot see the drop in the corner from that view or is it that YOU want to be known for not being intelligent enough to understand it. Personally, I think you know better and are merely trolling to fuel Duncan's lack of understanding perspective. I'll offer another example: For years there have been a select few who didn't understand why the shadows of people walking across the south pasture would come and go. The reason for this is because the south pasture has low spots in it which alters the shadows as they pass over them and back onto the flat areas. But when someone looks at the south pasture on the 2D images ... they cannot see the low areas. And if you'd research the history of the knoll - you'd discover that the area behind the wall was unchanged since the time of the assassination before it being filled in with soil and concrete years later. The photo of Shaw was taken before the area was filled in with concrete. But don't let that stop you from pushing disinformation like you did about alleging that Bowers could see anyone standing on the steps. Bill Miller Edited August 22, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Bill,In the program, it appears Gary Mack is placing the gentleman in badgeman's position, according to the photographer. That spot appears to be in front of the fence (non-RR side), near the tree. Here is a brief clip from the show. Clip 2 is a comment from the photographer who states the badgeman's positioning is representative of someone behind the fence, yet they placed him in front of the fence(Clip1) to match Moorman's photo. Did he mean to say wall instead of fence??????? chris The show had several possible locations for Badge Man and they tested them ... thats how you get to see some of them. There ended up only being one location that matched the Badge Man figure and that subject had to be just behind the fence. The scientist who spoke in the show offered opinions based on inaccurate reference data such as the height of the wall at the corner and then used it to give inaccurate conclusions. These guys had never gone to Dealey Plaza, thus they didn't check to see if their data was even accurate.. I can only assume that they may be related to Duncan. Bill Miller Edited August 22, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 but.....It's fooling no one.Duncan MacRae Duncan, Let's go to town(er)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Let's go to town(er)![/color][/b] If you spent less time trolling and more time researching ... you'd know that Arnold said that he immediately hit the ground (supported by Yarborough's observations) I have lost track at how many times I have posted the two guys by the large tree where Arnold said he was approched by two men dressed like cops. Those two men in Towner 3 just happen to be in dark clothing ... how amazing! By the way, before you continue showing the forum all the things you know little about ... you like to paste images side by side ... I believe that Duncan pointed out that you were the idiot who does the monkey images, so how about putting down your trolling pencil and show us there the guy under the red arrow would have his feet come in relation to the wall. After all, you have agreed with Duncan that Arnold is too small, but yet when confronted with such questions you ignore them and xxxxx in other directions. Are you not a serious researcher or are you just here to look pretty! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) More impressive illustrations, and a posting which at first glance looks impressive, but.....It's fooling no one.As I have said over and over and over, for over a year now...show us your study which proves Arnold is real. You believe he is real in the Moorman location, so it's not too much to ask you to supply the evidence, is it? Duncan MacRae Duncan, once again I am going to have to correct you. Your constant desire to misstate the facts is getting highly suspicious because even an idiot can eventually learn to keep small details straight when told them enough times. Once again ... Your entire premise has not been for someone to show Arnold is real, but rather to show that Arnold was not too short to be real when seen against the horizontal line you placed on the wall. Even a recreation photo of a 20 year old in Arnold's uniform perfectly matching his image in Moorman would not prove that what is seen in Mary's photo is a real person. I suspect that because you have realized the half-baked flaws in your claim that you are purposely attempting to alter your position. Even when you supported Badge Man being real ... it didn't mean that he was real. You relied on circumstantial evidence to support the possibility of his being real. You have also done the same with your floating cop torso assassin, so don't try and play me and everyone else for a fool and act like you have demanded that I prove Arnold to be real when your position has been from day one that Arnold was not real because you believed him to be too short against the random line you posted on the wall. Next, when using the available images to show your claim was flawed ... you have gone out of your way to not cooperate to allow someone to show your observation flawed. I have already listed several examples of this behavior you exhibited and those reading this thread can judge for themselves if you have earned that criticism. For instance, you have been asked repeatedly to address the man under the red arrow and where his feet come in relation to the wall. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough because it was your claim that said because Arnold's feet came so high on the wall that you said it proved him to be too short to be real. I bet that Mike and I have asked no no less than 6 times to address this vital point and you have not done so. In your last response you once again didn't offer anything that related to the question that you were asked other than to bitch that I have not offered any proof that Arnold isn't too short to be real. If your plan is to refuse to allow me to hand you that proof by your not cooperating, then it is YOU who has caused me not to prove Arnold isn't too short to be real ... least ways in your mind because I know from the emails and PMs I get that others have noticed your suspicious behavior. Who ever has made you think otherwise has led you astray. Now the circumstantial evidence that supports Arnold being real is as follows: a - Arnold told his family immediately following the assassination of his experience. b - Arnold's story was not known to be supported by photographic evidence until many years after the assassination. Such images like c) the two men in dark clothing at the tree, (d) Yarborough's witnessing of a man hit the ground above the wall who Ralph believed to have had his military training as what to do when shots are fired, (e) Jack White and Gary Mack's work on Moorman's best print, (f) the fact that a shot does appear to come over Arnold's left shoulder at a time when Arnold had said it happen is seen in Moorman's photo, (g) the relation between the sunspot on Black Dog Man 's shoulder and the figure in Moorman's photo match, (h) Groden's 1991/92 observation of someone beyond the wall in colored clothing that happens to match the color of Arnold's uniform in 1963, (i) that the guy Groden points out moves to his left/our right and down following the head shot supports Arnold's claim made many years earlier, (j) that Arnold never sought publicity or took money for his story, (k) that no has ever placed Arnold anywhere else at the time of the assassination are all points that offer substance to Arnold being real. In fact, I just listed more things that support Arnold's being real than you ever came close to when you believed Badge Man to be real. The only thing you have offered as to Arnold not being real is a random line on a wall where you say his feet come, thus making him too short to be a real person. Yet real live people standing over the wall have now been shown to come close to the same line. You have been asked repeatedly to address this and have refused to comply. To date you have finally admitted that you don't know where Arnold's feet come to ... that you believe no one knows. So tell me again what hasn't been done that needs to be done that would show that your original claim is terribly flawed other than you cooperating by answering the points presented to you. Tell us again the story about how you are always willing to admit when you have been wrong and do it with a straight face if you can. Selling that story is as untrue as Miles using a photo of an obese person while slipping up and saying that he weighs 178 pounds. You two nuts have made a mockery out of purpose by which this forum was formed. What are the chances that the image in Moorman's photo, seen in part in color in the Nix film thanks to Groden's 1991/92 observation, would reveal the shape of someone like Arnold in his 1963 military uniform. What's the odds that all the points listed above would have unfolded as they did long after Arnold first told people of his experience. yes, nothing I and others have done in mentioning these things could compete with a couple of screwballs merely pasting random poorly scaled images against a wall. You have shown such suspicious behavior that I cannot even excuse you as making an HONEST mistake or else you would not have wanted to know why certain questions were being asked before you'd answer them. Like I said before, shame on you and let the record stand witness to that. Bill Miller Edited August 22, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Selling that story is as untrue as Miles using a photo of an obese person while slipping up and saying that he weighs 178 pounds. Bill Miller Duncan, Have you checked the clinic yet? It may be time for the big one: 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