The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

Miles, can you explain your remarks in any detail or is merely posting images of someone leaning against the wall - pavement under his feet - is somehow supposed to be relevant to someone who said they stood back near the fence and on dirt which has been re-done since the assassination. Here is your chance to show that your not just playing around like some xxxxx with nothing better to live for and actually show that you have some idea as to what you are talking about.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Yes, let the record stand witness to how you have posted garbage uneducated post after garbage uneducated post, with no proof that Arnold is real, and disagree with all of the undoubted experts in the links below, in particular Don Roberdeau, who for want of a better phrase....KNOWS HIS STUFF!!!

Hang your head in shame....Giving teacher an apple every day will NOT help you now.

Duncan MacRae

Dunce-can, You are still asking that Arnold be proven real when your claim was that he was not real because of his allegedly floating in mid-air. Only a an idiot would continue to confuse the difference in what your claim proposed Vs. what you are tweaking it to say now. The objective was since the beginning to show if your thinking Arnold was too small to be human was valid or not. You asked many times for a re-staging showing how that could be done. This has been done by showing a real person who's legs come close to your line for Arnold. Since that time you have refused to address that point.

About Don's link ... are you not aware that Don sees someone in Moorman's photo and makes observations as that person's body size compared to Arnold. It is also worth noting that you didn't address the person Groden points out in the Nix film. If Arnold isn't real, then were is the person in the colored clothing? You don't show the mentality of someone who thinks logically.

Bill Miller

Edited August 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

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

So the program has a whole segment on the badgeman with the photogrammetrist (man with hat in previous clip) aligning Moorman's photo with his modern day setup.

It then goes on to say that George (the photogrammetrist) has an actor placed precisely where the badgeman would have appeared in Moorman, which isn't behind the fence.

And, immediately after the actor is put into place, they show a figure through George's camera who (I guess) is supposed to represent badgeman's

position, which matches Moorman's photo.

Would that be a fair representation of what you stated?

No need to get into the scientist segment part of the program.

chris

[Bill Miller]

So the program has a whole segment on the badgeman with the photogrammetrist (man with hat in previous clip) aligning Moorman's photo with his modern day setup.

It then goes on to say that George (the photogrammetrist) has an actor placed precisely where the badgeman would have appeared in Moorman, which isn't behind the fence.

There are two ways you can look at this ... both telling the same thing. One is that by placing Tony Cummings at the fence and just behind it .... Badge Man's body proportions was able to be duplicated.

The other is by reading the following from someone who was there ...

Gary Mack: That segment of a Discovery Channel show has many, many errors. I canceled my participation when I realized the producers did not have enough advance time to conduct a proper study; I also asked them to remove any interview sessions with me.

The clip you referenced was one of several tests placing a Badge Man stand-in at various distances between the wall and the fence. The final version, of course, shows Badge Man behind the fence, and that's when we found our stand-in definitely matched what the Moorman photo shows.

Someday, researchers may be able to see the ORIGINAL version of that segment, which did not include the error-laden opinions of a couple scientists who used inaccurate reference data (the height of the wall at the corner) and never even went to Dealey Plaza.

[Bill Miller]

Dunce-can, You are still asking that Arnold be proven real when your claim was that he was not real because of his allegedly floating in mid-air.

Bile, That's correct, you are disputing it, you prove me wrong

Proving that Arnold is not too short to be within the realm of another human being has been done. It has also been noted by your own words where you stated that in your opinion that no one knows where Arnold's feet would come to in relation to the wall. That statement alone proves that even your opinion isn't reliable in your opinion.

Furthermore, a real person (like the man under the red arrow) from another photo that was provided shows him behind the wall and his estimated feet elevation level to the wall also matches that of Arnold's when considering the difference in distance each (Arnold and the guy under the red arrow) was from the wall. Mike Williams pointed this out and described a basic rule of physics and perspective as to how objects look to one another when viewed at an upward angle as the distance from the camera is increased. Someone not being 'knowledgeable enough' or in your case 'honest enough' to cooperate in acknowledging these principles and then apply those rules to the existing images does not mean that you have salvaged your claim. All you did in my view was hurt your sincerity/credibility in wanting people to believe that you are only interested in the truth and would be the first to admit when you are wrong.

Only a an idiot would continue to confuse the difference in what your claim proposed Vs. what you are tweaking it to say now.

Tip...Then don't confuse the difference, because there is none. It's the same as always, you are disputing it, you prove me wrong

If you wish to be made to look even more less than forthright, I will happy to oblige you by going back and showing that your entire claim has focused on one point ... you claim Arnold is too short against the wall to be real. Your post are full of comparisons of Arnold's proportions both in Moorman and from Turner's interview where you somewhat match the upper body, but through poor technique and faulty scaling ... you made the claim that the lower body is too short. That's all you have done ... that's all you have offered. It's been all about Arnold's lower body and where you believe his legs should come in relation to the wall ... and there lies the difference.

You have not complied to my request to upload an illustration showing where you think this mans legs come to. Do that and maybe we're in business

Mike and I both used your illustration that has the man under the red arrow. You were asked many times to address where that man's feet come to in relation to the wall. I used the horizontal line of the shrubs in relation to the line that you used for Arnold. So you have your illustration and pretending that you have not been offered one is just more Duncan MacRea deception to avoid admitting your error.

It is also worth noting that you didn't address the person Groden points out in the Nix film. If Arnold isn't real, then were is the person in the colored clothing? You don't show the mentality of someone who thinks logically.

Bill Miller

One of the kids who were eating their lunch as described by Sitzman...isn't that obvious. I'd trust her over Groden any day LOL!!!

So Duncan, is it your position that Black Dog Man is one of the black people reported to have been at the bench beyond the wall??? If you answer is yes, then it must mean that he or she is the same black person standing beyond the wall in the Nix film when JFK was fatally shot. So if Arnold isn't real, then who else is seen in Moorman's photo that represents the black person seen standing beyond the wall that Groden points out in the Nix film after JFk's head explodes??? (Do you not see the problem that you have here with your evasive 'make crap up as you go' approach!)

By the way, when did Sitzman last see the black couple at the bench because ALL the assassination photos and films show Sitzman looking not at the bench, but at the approaching President, which is exactly what one would expect to happen. If Black Dog Man is not either of the black people Sitzman spoke of, then they must have gotten up and left before the shooting started and before Betzner took his photograph.

Bill Miller

Edited August 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Still waiting for you to show us where this mans feet are at 1963 ground level

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

I still say a clinical evaluation is in order.

Note in this study the standin's right arm shows lower than the wall. Therefore, he is standing on the sidewalk or further back. But his waist is BELOW the fence top & not visible.

Thus, he cannot be Arnie whose waist is visible (in the Moorman illusion), if he is real which he is not, of course.

[Miles Scull]

Still waiting for you to show us where this mans feet are at 1963 ground level

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

I still say a clinical evaluation is in order.

Note in this study the standin's right arm shows lower than the wall. Therefore, he is standing on the sidewalk or further back. But his waist is BELOW the fence top & not visible.

Thus, he cannot be Arnie whose waist is visible (in the Moorman illusion), if he is real which he is not, of course.

Addendum:

[Miles Scull]

Addendum:

Duncan,

Note below the real Arnie is twice the size of the unreal Arnie illusion in Moorman.

Is there a doctor in the house?

[Miles Scull]

Although not 100% accurate to Moorman Miles, the Crawley image is close enough to debunk the Arnold myth, but he who knows all will continue to dispute the issue. He spends to much time in them thar mountains if you ask me.

Duncan

This about size it up?

[Miles Scull]

Yes Miles, and the real guy in Crawley is also twice the size of the Arnold illusion.

Duncan

Duncan,

Have you considered institutionalization?

Carefully examine the Titans in this shot:

[Bill Miller]

Have you considered institutionalization?

Carefully examine the Titans in this shot:[/color][/b]

Miles, have you carefully examined the photo? That's not Arnold ... the guy is not back by the fence ... and that is not Jack White despite what someone wrote on the photo. It is however showing the area beyond the wall ... it is part of the knoll .. and the location is in Dealey Plaza/Dallas, Texas. That is about the extent of its value when addressing why the guy under the red arrow in the illustration Duncan used has his feet so high up on the wall when using Duncan's method. I assume that we all can agree that the man under the red arrow is not floating in the air, so that should tell a rational - reasonable - logical person that there is another factor for how the man appears against the wall and how that can be applied to the Arnold figure. Any ideas????

Bill Miller

Edited August 26, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Once again you say I use Turners images. I did NOT use Turner images, but of course you know that, and are merely trying to win Brownie points by trying to fool others with your disinformation on this matter.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, some of the illustrations that you used show the older version of Gordon Arnold in a white shirt - cap - and black pants. The only film that he participated in that I am aware of was for the Men Who Killed Kennedy series which was done by Nigel Turner. If you know another source for that image, then I will apologize for the error because I want to earn my so-called brownie points as you called it. However, I am certain that image of Arnold came from the Turner interview footage and that you have posted that image in several of your postings. Is that correct or not?

use

Pronunciation:

\ˈyüs\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English us, from Anglo-French, from Latin usus, from uti to use

Date:

13th century

1 a: the act or practice of employing something

[Bill Miller]

Although not 100% accurate to Moorman Miles, the Crawley image is close enough to debunk the Arnold myth, but he who knows all will continue to dispute the issue. He spends to much time in them thar mountains if you ask me.

Duncan

For Miles ...

I think that it is in post #143 that I used a photo that one of you posted showing a man under the red arrow. That man is not far from the people at the end of the dog leg. That man is also much smaller than those standing closer to the camera at the end of the dog leg. Duncan has been repeatedly asked to address that man's height to the wall in relation to where his feet would touch the ground, but Duncan has refused to touch it for reasons that are obvious to any half way intelligent person.

At this time I am going to test your sincerity in all of this because you seem to enjoy posting random side by side comparisons from various photos without much forethought, so this should be fun for you. Can you be good enough to give us your best estimate as to where that man who is under the red arrow would have his feet come to in relation to the horizontal line that has been given to the Arnold crop. And once you have done that (unless you pull a Duncan and won't cooperate), will you be good enough to give us your best estimate as to where his feet would come to against that same line with him back within two feet of the fence??

Thanks!

Bill Miller

Edited August 26, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Aug 24 2008, 11:05 AM' post='153382]

Proving that Arnold is not too short to be within the realm of another human being has been done.

By who?

It was proven by YOU ... when you posted that photo showing the man under the red arrow. The people who can see and understand that man's significance are those who have taken the time to address the points that were offered. You've refused to cooperate and do the same, thus your opinion is limited by what you have only been willing to address and hindered by what you have not been willing to see.

Still waiting for you to show us where this mans feet are at 1963 ground level

Once again, YOUR FORMULA for claiming Gordon Arnold is too short to be human is found only in your head. When you have been asked to address a real live person seen beyond the wall at various distances - you have refused to cooperate and apply the Duncan formula that only you know and used on Arnold. Its like you have been handed the keys and have been offered the drivers seat, thus your complaining why we are not moving forward must fall on you.

Here below is the illustration you posted several pages back. There are people at the south dog leg - a man under the red arrow - and the Gordon Arnold crop ... compare all three to one another and their body sizes in relation to their different distances from the camera using the Duncan formula.

Gimme a break, I thank Mike for his contribution, but I do not need lessons on perspective. My learning curve was straigtened in that area a few years ago.

Great, so why will you not apply your vast knowledge in perspective and simply address the image below ... is there something about that image that your are afraid of .. if so, what???

Bill Miller

Edited August 26, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

... is there something about that image that your are afraid of .. if so, what???

Bill Miller

Duncan,

BM is afraid of this:

As Arnie retreats from the wall & moves up the incline toward the fence, his figure as seen by Moorman falls lower & lower behind the wall. First his waist disappears & then his torso above his waist.

Institutionalization seems unavoidable. Do you concur, Duncan?

Edited August 26, 2008 by Miles Scull