The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

It is obvious that you (Miles) are playing the fools game with Duncan.

Bill Miller

It's interesting to observe that EVERYONE on Lancer agrees with me that Arnold is not real. It's good to see some new people on there now with some backbone. I wonder how long it will be until Deborah starts censoring them because they disagree with you

Duncan MacRae

Wanting more negative exposure - hey Duncan??? Who are these people who support your claim??? I find this to be just more Dunce-can propaganda. In a recent email that you received, as I did, Gary Mack pointed out some really big errors in Don's Arnold scaling and asked Don that if he were to correct the numbers, then what would his scaling show. But before Don can post anything, you come on here and make such a less than forthright response. Below is the information you were prevy to just before trying to win an argument with propaganda instead of real research.

"Don,

Some of your graphics in last month’s thread on the Ed Forum show the width and height of the wall – which is NOT the retaining wall, by the way – as being 3.3 feet wide and 3.3 feet high.

Those numbers are wrong. The south end of the wall is 6’ wide for all but the very top, which is 5’ 10.5” wide.

I measured 62” from the top of the wall’s corner to the ground; the distance, of course, is now different due to mulch on the ground with the bushes.

I also measured 36” from the top of the west corner straight down to parallel with the top of the top step.

Where did your 3.3’ figure come from and how would the correct dimensions change your findings?

Gary Mack"

How about you, Duncan ... did you do anything to utilize the correct numbers before posting yet another erred statement? Is it not important that someone use the correct numbers or is it more important that they seem to agree with you even if erred data is used to accomplish that goal??

Then how about the SS Agent who also saw a man dive to the ground ... just as I said the Nix film shows someone above the wall even though you wanting to embrace erred data so to claim that anyone above the wall is an illusion. Below is another post that you would probably not want posted so to make it look like so many people are supporting your claim ...

Bill

I was re reading the reports of the Secret Service

agents who were in the motorcade. I came across SA

Johns' report of November 29, 1963. Of course, Johns

was in the car behind Yarborough. The corresponding

part of his report we are dealing with, the debate over Gordon Arnold,

is shown below. Is Agent Johns yet another witness

besides Yarborough who saw Gordon Arnold fall to the

ground?

Thanks

Bill C

"The motorcade had passed through the downtown section of Dallas, and at approximately 12:35 p.m.,

CST, I heard two "shots," not knowing whether they were firecrackers, backfire, or gun shots. These two shots were approximately two or three seconds apart,

and at this time we were on a slight downhill curve to the right. On the right-hand side of the motorcade from the street, a grassy area sloped upward to a small 2 or 3-foot concrete wall

with sidewalk area. When the shots sounded, I was looking to the right and saw a man standing and then being thrown or hit to the ground, and this together

with the shots made the situation appear dangerous to me. I estimate that the motorcade was going approximately 12 to 14 miles per hour at this time, and I jumped

from the security car and started running for the Vice President's car. I felt that if there was danger due to the slow speed of the motorcade, I would be of more assistance

and in a more proper location with the Vice President's car. Before I reached the Vice President's car a third shot had sounded and the entire motorcade then picked up speed

and I was left on the street at this point. I obtained a ride with White House movie men and joined the Vice President

and ASAIC Youngblood at the Parkland Hospital"

Did this agent see an illusion ... still wish to say that no one is beyond the wall in the Nix film ... was Arnold psychic? How many sloppy observations should take precedence over these witnesses who seem to have seen just what Arnold had described as happening??

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Strangely enough, I did not receive Gary's email until this morning. It was sent originally to Don, and then to you on September 3rd, and only to me yesterday September 8th.

Anyway, I guess we'll need to wait until Don responds to Gary's email to see what he has to say.

In the meantime, my stance remains the same. The diving man could have been anyone, as I have told you many times. These witness statements are very vague.

Duncan MacRae

Wow ... that is strange! It's almost as strange as you deciding at some point that you switched from believing that Badge Man was real to him being an illusion and not ever telling anyone until it came up in the sizing debate of Gordon Arnold ... and then only after you wanting to know why I was asking if you believed Badge Man to be real. That's right, you didn't come right out and say that you no longer believed Badge Man to be real, but rather you wanted to know why you were being asked that question before you would give me an answer. Yes, these coincidences seem very strange indeed. What is even stranger is that my copy sent on the 3rd had it CC'd to you as well, but if you say that it didn't happen, then it didn't happen.

Subject: RE: The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2, A new thread request by Bill Miller

Date: 08/09/2008 12:56:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time

From: GaryM@jfk.org

Reply To:

To: DRoberdeau@aol.com

CC: IMSJLE@aol.com, rockbloke11@yahoo.co.uk

Subject: The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2, A new thread request by Bill Miller

Date: 03/09/2008 8:32:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time

From: GaryM@jfk.org

Reply To:

To: DRoberdeau@aol.com

CC: IMSJLE@aol.com, rockbloke11@yahoo.co.uk

Now I have a question pertaining to your illustration in response #193. You seem to have merely taken a crop of Gordon Arnold and placed him beside the figure in Moorman's photo. I notice that you did an amazing job at aligning the asphalt line of the RR parking-lot to the top of the wall in Moorman's photo ... do you feel that this was an accurate way of sizing the two Arnold' or was this also just a mere coincidence? If the latter, then what did you do to scale the two backgrounds so we would have an accurate illustration and not one designed to mislead the reader??

And one more question: Not only does it appear that you merely cropped one Gordon Arnold from one film source and placed him next to Arnold from another film source without anything offered to show how YOU decided to make each figure the size that we see them at, but I cannot find where you addressed the different distances each person was from the cameras that recorded their images and how the foreshortening effect would play out. Go back to my post #188 and look at the Muchmore and Moorman views of the knoll ... two different cameras ... two different distances from the street and knoll. Please address how when certain things are scaled equally like the limo or the men on the steps .... other objects at different distances from the camera are grossly off in size to one another. I would very much like to know what you did in your last illustration to account for this so to make sure that your comparison is not terribly flawed???

Thanks,

Bill Miller

Edited September 9, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

In the meantime, my stance remains the same. The diving man could have been anyone, as I have told you many times. These witness statements are very vague.

Duncan MacRae[/b]

I must ask you this question ... How many 3' walls above the upward grassy slope that have a sidewalk area are there??? I only know of one. So when Earl Golz showed a photo of the wall above the upward grassy slope and its the sidewalk that the steps lead to from the street, or Turner showed in his documentary that Yarborough talked about, or when a SS Agent mentions 'a grassy area sloped upward to a small 2 or 3-foot concrete wall

with sidewalk area' ...... is it really all that vague to you?????????????

Bill Miller

Edited September 9, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

In the meantime, my stance remains the same. The diving man could have been anyone, as I have told you many times. These witness statements are very vague.

Duncan MacRae[/b]

How many 3' walls above the upward grassy slope that have a sidewalk area are there???

Bill Miller

Duncan,

BM asks a profound question.

But these images show a flat ground (no dirt mound) behind the wall. Note the men, red & green arrows.

Then consider how tiny the Arnie illusion figure is in comparison.

Somebody is not listening.

[Bill Miller]

That's right, the firt message I received was this morning. Believe it or don't believe it.

Duncan MacRae

Forward them to me if you do not mind.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Yes, all completely vague with no basis in fact. Golz and Turner were not accurate, and the SS agent could have been talking about anyone. My guess is that it was either Newman of Hudson.

Duncan MacRae

Are general statements all you have to offer in your defense? What were Golz and Turner not accurate about .... you see, to many times we are seeing people making general statements of criticism and when asked what specifically led to their remarks ... they then appear to be stuck for an answer because they have not thought that far ahead. I am not aware of these inaccuracies that you are talking about, so please enlighten me.

And about the SS man ... is that your best response to this witness??? Is it your opinion that Hudson on the steps and watching the Limo pass by below him as it raced to the underpass is the same as talking about a man seen up a GRASSY AREA SLOPED UPWARD to a concrete wall with a sidewalk???

Just one more question ... is it also your opinion based on sound reasoning and logical thinking that Arnold who was said to have dove to the ground ... Yaborough says dove like a flying tackle in football ... the SS`Agent described it as being THROWN to the ground ... is Hudson on the stairway getting down on the steps after the limo enters the underpass???

Now don't you feel even a little foolish!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

And more importantly Miles, he refuses to discuss the black couple as described by Sitzman. I geuss they just vanished in to thin air, or maybe they jumped aboard Arnie's jet pack and they all left together

Duncan MacRae

What can you tell us about the black couple, Duncan? When did Sitzman last see them on the knoll before turning to watch for JFK to approach?? What assassination film or photo shows this black couple in your opinion?? Is it your opinion that the Black Dog Man is this black couple??? I am concerned that you do not have any rational and reasonable responses to offer and that has led you to try and make light of the matter so to try and draw attention away from yourself.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Somebody is not listening.

Are you confessing??? In post 188 and 190 you were asked about 2D images and given examples why they do not show high and low spots. You didn't address those points put to you, instead you waited 13 days before merely posting the same nonsense as if it would just go away. Are you merely hoping for a lesser intelligent audience to play to or do you really want to be accurate in the things you present to this forum???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Sep 10 2008, 09:28 AM' post='154391]

No problem....done

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, I received the forwarded emails. They show when Mack sent them, but not when you received them. Any reason that you can think of for the first email being 13 days late ... I mean you didn't claim not to have gotten it at all ... you just claimed to have not gotten it only AFTER I posted Mack's CC'd email to you showing that you had prior information relevant to the propaganda you were pushing despite it. I am certain that it must be another coincidence much like the one where you only told of not believing that Badge Man was real only AFTER being told why you were being asked that particular question.

Now you were presented with two other post ... anything about the information you were presented with that you would not agree with??? For instance, do you understand how something like a high spot on the ground or a slope to a curb will appear flat on a 2D image???

Bill Miller

Edited September 10, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Re, answering any other questions. That will need to wait as my computer decided to self destruct yesterday, and i'm setting up everything on my new computer today and probably for the next few days.

Duncan MacRae

Sure thing, Duncan ... the computer broke, but works good enough to tell me that you can't respond ... gotcha!!! LOL!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

That's right, my old computer is broke. I made the above post from my son's computer. I'm still setting up my new computer.

Is yours fixed yet? If so can we see these fullproof images that you promised you were going to post once it was fixed that proves Arnold is not the super floating Mini Me torso whichwe see in Moorman?

Duncan MacRae

Do you want the number of post in total or numerical order showing the photo of the knoll that you posted and asking you to explain the floating man under the red arrow or are we still not willing to discuss that matter ... is it that we need a newer photo? Perhaps is needs to be in B&W?? Maybe you have a phobia over red arrows and you find the image to troubling to address??? Maybe you can solicit your son to advise you on it and get back with me. Hopefully he is more serious about this issue than you have been.

Bill Miller

Edited September 12, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

That's right, my old computer is broke. I made the above post from my son's computer. I'm still setting up my new computer.

Is yours fixed yet? If so can we see these fullproof images that you promised you were going to post once it was fixed that proves Arnold is not the super floating Mini Me torso whichwe see in Moorman?

Duncan MacRae

is it that we need a newer photo? Bill Miller

Duncan,

Have you eyes to see?

Or have you joined the opposition, who has devised an admittedly canny reality avoidance system: artificial blindness.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Have you eyes to see?

Or have you joined the opposition, who has devised an admittedly canny reality avoidance system: artificial blindness.

Miles ... you remind me of a cartoon that I once saw whereas the cartoon character repeatedly tried running through a picture of a tunnel painted onto a rock wall only to have continued busting himself up as he kept hitting the rock at full speed. One would have thought that the poor cartoon character would have been smart enough to eventually stop charging the tunnel painted onto the rock wall and realize that he had a problem, but he was so intent on passing through what he thought was an opening that he ended up looking very silly.

I think that we can all agree that the walkway was reasonably flat and yet people further away from the camera look to be shrunk compared to those individuals closer to the camera. The people further away appear shorter and their feet appear higher in elevation and yet they are all on the same sidewalk. Study the image and see if you cannot see this or else it may be you who will be thought of as 'the blind monkey'. (see below)

Now supposed you tell this forum why the illusion that peoples feet and size differences occur in that Darnell film frame because if you cannot do this, then being as blind as that monkey is the least of your problems. If you can explain the illusion, then you still have a problem for you should then explain why you post such ridiculous responses that can only be viewed as a bored man's pathetic plea for attention by trolling an education forum.

If and when you ever get past your behavior problems and wish to actually get serious about this topic, then address the man's size and feet elevation against the wall in the image that Duncan posted. This man is under the red arrow and for some reason you (like someone else I know) have not addressed this simple rule of perspective when dealing with images viewed when looking up or down at them at an angle. Until you do this, then you will be seen as being no better than the cartoon character that keeps taking runs at that tunnel painted onto the rock wall while thinking that this next time he will finally pass through it. Look at the man under the red arrow and apply the same rules of perspective that makes the people in the Darnell film look shorter to one another even though they are all on the same sidewalk. (see below)

JFK once said that a mistake is not a mistake unless one refuses to correct it. When are you going to correct your mistake by first addressing the points presented to you. So far all I have seen is you seemingly having plenty of time for posting the same images with cute little cartoons added to them, but no time to address the real images showing these rules of perspective. Other than trolling and trying to make a joke out of this forum ... have you any excuse for your behavior??? (Now did you get the attention that you were seeking???)

Bill Miller

Edited September 15, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Have you eyes to see?

Or have you joined the opposition, who has devised an admittedly canny reality avoidance system: artificial blindness.

ridiculous responses that can only be viewed as a bored man's pathetic plea for attention by trolling an education forum.

Bill Miller

Duncan,

BM seems to be describing himself in his own words: "ridiculous responses that can only be viewed as a bored man's pathetic plea for attention by trolling an education forum."

Here's the easy refutation of BM's perspective nonsense:

The black line is Arnie. The green lines are Moorman's LOS from her position. The blue lines are a flat LOS. the purple lines are an elevated LOS.

From these LOS' the image of Arnie will seem different in length, but the real Arnie vertical length will remain the same.

Thus, Arnie's illusion image is not truncated by Moorman's lower LOS to the degree that Arnie's tiny illusion image is accounted for:

Arnie, despite the perspective of Moorman's camera, is only explained as a real image by the absurdity of Arnie being airborne flying around in the parking lot.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

The red arrow man has absolutely no bearing on what is contained in Moorman. Not once have you asked if it was me who put the red arrow there, and if it wasn't me, who was it?

Maybe you should consult MiKe Williams about the red arrowed man for his expert advice....Ahhhhhh.....No...... wait a minute.......Your best buddy has vanished off the face of the Earth. It seems that I was right about good ol Mikey...The hat didn't fit after all

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, I do not give a damned who put the red arrow over the man beyond the wall. It was you who posted the image in an animation ... he is real ... and his feet also come very close to the line that you attributed to Arnold. It is that same line that you claim makes Arnold too short to be real, so why is the real person under the arrow mot too short to be human? The same observation that applies to the person seen under the red arrow also applies to the people on the walkway in the Darnell film. I find it quite suspicious that you'll not address those things that does not support your views.

As far as Mike Williams goes ... I suspect that he has been dealing with the aftermath of a hurricane.

The same response that I gave to Miles also applies to you. Let me know when you are serious about answering my questions. The issue isn't whether you believe something to be relevant, but rather for you to answer the questions and let the reader see if they are relevant or not.

Bill Miller

Edited September 16, 2008 by Bill Miller