Guest Duncan MacRae Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Over on Lancer, a very fine researcher named Jerry Logan has independantly produced the same results in his studies of Gordon Arnold's size which I produced 16 months ago. I don't know Jerry, and I have never had any communication with him, but I would like to congratulate him on his independant verification of my study. Judge the results for yourself. Jerry Logan Results Duncan MacRae Results Duncan MacRae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Over on Lancer, a very fine researcher named Jerry Logan has independantly produced the same results in his studies of Gordon Arnold's size which I produced 16 months ago. I don't know Jerry, and I have never had any communication with him, but I would like to congratulate him on his independant verification of my study.Judge the results for yourself. Duncan MacRae Duncan, would you mind giving the forum at least a couple of general references that make you believe that Arnold was proven to be a ghost. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 (edited) Over on Lancer, a very fine researcher named Jerry Logan has independantly produced the same results in his studies of Gordon Arnold's size which I produced 16 months ago. I don't know Jerry, and I have never had any communication with him, but I would like to congratulate him on his independant verification of my study.Judge the results for yourself. Duncan MacRae Duncan, would you mind giving the forum at least a couple of general references that make you believe that Arnold was proven to be a ghost. Thanks! Gee, Bill, don't you read or do you refuse to read? Do you have eyes? Do you have any clue to human dimensions? Can you compare? To me it's very very clear! Gordon Arnold is a ghost, even more than Badgeman (if that's possible)! And you talk about smoke and mirrors? May I tease you some more? Point out Gordon Arnold and Badgeman stealing his film in these pictures: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/knoll.htm And give me ONE witness who testified to the little quarrel between Badgeman and Arnold! Wim PS: Duncan, please make me a picture of Bigfoot behind that retaining wall! Maybe I will believe that! Edited December 2, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Gee, Bill, don't you read or do you refuse to read? Do you have eyes? Do you have any clue to human dimensions? Can you compare? To me it's very very clear! Gordon Arnold is a ghost, even more than Badgeman (if that's possible)! And you talk about smoke and mirrors? May I tease you some more? Point out Gordon Arnold and Badgeman stealing his film in these pictures: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/knoll.htm And give me ONE witness who testified to the little quarrel between Badgeman and Arnold! Wim Yes I can read ... the question was to the creator of the gif, Duncan. However, the nam Duncan does look like Wim when placed in type, so I can see your error wasn't your fault. There are reasons for my questions, so I will await an answer. There is one slight error that you didn't mention ... I place my mouse arrow on the top of the wall under Badge Man in one pic and the wall is off in the other. To compare heights ... should they not be at the same point. And let me remind you that Arnold never said Badge Man took his film ... was that supposed to be a trick question or have you not read carefully??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 And let me remind you that Arnold never said Badge Man took his film ... was that supposed to be a trick question or have you not read carefully???Bill Miller[/b] Huh? Are you sure? Arnold never said he gave "badgeman" his film? Then maybe this film is altered like the Zapruder film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn1-dy5-Ebs Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 name='Bill Miller' post='159330' date='Dec 2 2008, 04:27 PM']And let me remind you that Arnold never said Badge Man took his film ... was that supposed to be a trick question or have you not read carefully???Bill Miller[/b] Huh? Are you sure? Arnold never said he gave "badgeman" his film? Then maybe this film is altered like the Zapruder film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn1-dy5-Ebs Wim Wim, going off and assuming things isn't going to make you right. I don't even have to look at your link to point out that Arnold said that a cop who wasn't wearing a hat had come up to him after the shooting and asked for his film ... and left with it. This doesn't mean that this was the "BADGE MAN" ... that is an assumption you are making which doesn't make it fact. In fact, Arnold said that the man in the Moorman photo work of Jacks 'may be the man he saw and that he could be the only one who could identify him'. Even Arnold didn't know if they were one in the same person. If you look through enough post JFK assassination images, then you may see several policemen who didn't have their hats on. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 (edited) Duncan, would you mind giving the forum at least a couple of general references that make you believe that Arnold was proven to be a ghost. Thanks! Sure! Jerry Logan Results Duncan MacRae Results Duncan MacRae Duncan, is this where you pretend to not understand the question? I would like for you to explain how Jerry's scaling confirms your conclusion ... start with the explanation as to why your wall under Badge Man drops between transitions. You see, when you cannot offer any details as to why you support a position, then it appears you really don't know the subject matter, but are merely using propaganda over research. So lets try it again and you explain what it is exactly about you and Jerry's gifs that support one another??? Thanks! Edited December 2, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) lets try it again and you explain what it is exactly about you and Jerry's gifs that support one another???Thanks! Bill Miller They both show the same miniscule minituarized super powered floating pot bellied Arnold mini torso suspended in mid air. I can't make it any clearer than that. Duncan MacRae OK ... we appear to have now narrowed it down to the floating in mid-air issue ... that's good. I assume from your answer that Arnold's 'height' in relation to the wall is the thing that bothers you. (But before you answer ..... lets see if we agree .... ) It appears that Badge Man's upper body is pretty close to the size of Cummings, thus it appears to be only the matter of height seen over the wall that separates the two. Cummings is 6'3" ... Badge Man may have been 5'8" (more or less) and we know that heights vary, not to mention that we really don't know what Badge Man may have stood on. So if the head and upper body compared to a real human being such as Cummings and around the same distance from the camera we find that they are very close in stature, then the idea that Badge Man is too small to be real starts to crumble under its own weight. Now seeing how you like Jerry's scaling, then other than the height difference seen over the wall between Badge Man and Cummings being a little different ... both fall into the realm of human size because Cummings is a human being. So if Badge Man is close to Cummings girth and Arnold is close to Badge Man's girth, then we are much closer to the crux of the argument and no longer have to dance around whether you believe Badge Man to be real or not. The point is and always has been whether or not Gordon Arnold is too small to be real. Next is the Arnold figure. Would you not agree that the further from the camera one stands - the smaller their appearance in the cameras eye will be??? The answer should be 'Yes, this is a true fact of life'. Mike Brown is about 3" taller than Arnold and a good 50 to 60 pounds heavier. So I think we can agree that a man Mike Brown's size who is standing closer to the camera than what the smaller Arnold was reported to be, then it should be expected that Gordon Arnold's body size would appear smaller than Mike Brown's when seen from Moorman's location. These are things that are common sense, thus we should be able to put these observations in the 'accepted category' and now deal with that height over the wall issue. So before we go on and deal with Arnold's floating in mid-air as you see it to be, can we agree that what was said above was a fair assessment of the situation so far??? If not, then let us be specific in explaining what you do not agree with. Bill Miller Edited December 3, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 OK ... we appear to have now narrowed it down to the floating in mid-air issue ... that's good. I assume from your answer that Arnold's 'height' in relation to the wall is the thing that bothers you. Bill Miller I narrowed it down to that 16 months ago LOL!!! The problem is not Arnold's position behind the wall, it's his position ANYWHERE between the wall and the fence. It's quite simple really. If he is standing up against the fence, then approximately only 10" to 1ft of of the 5ft 10" Arnold should show above the fence at any point along the length of the fence. If he is standing up against the wall, then he should be much much bigger in Moorman. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Duncan MacRae Hey ... this is great progress, Duncan. It's a much more straight forward response than the one I got for the longest while when I was asking you if you believed Badge Man to be real. I can go post your responses so to refresh your memory if you like. In that exchange you didn't want to answer that simple 'yes or no' question without first being told why you were being asked it. You see, at that time you didn't want admit that Arnold's body size/girth would match the size of someone that you believed to be real. It's too bad that you just didn't come out and say that it was only Arnold's height seen above the wall that troubled you, but we seem to have finally reached that point, so lets looks at the geography to see what might bring us a step closer to understanding the figure seen in the good Moorman UPI print. There are several factors that may have been at play here, but your original postings didn't seem to address any of them ... or even be aware of them for that matter. You have never discussed the focal length of Moorman's camera and how that relates to objects seen at various distances from the camera. Your original postings didn't reflect where you had ever bothered to look at the ground elevation between the walkway and the fence in a responsible manner ... and by this I mean that you didn't make any elevation comparisons from 11/63 to the present day. What you had done was take an erroneous assumption that Darnell's film could show elevation changes and you just let it ride. The SS view from the south pasture showed us that the ground between the walkway and the fence wasn't flat after all, but nowhere have I found this data to have been re-evaluated and applied to your wall line each time you have claimed Arnold to be floating in mid-air. Below is a photo that you had used in the past. I have added a blue dotted line to represent the walkway elevation behind the concrete wall. People standing near the south dog leg are larger than the person seen in (A) under the blue arrow. It is also apparent that the person (A) cannot have their feet reach the blue dotted line that the other people are standing on - WHY IS THAT??? The reason is that the camera is looking at an upward angle to the knoll. So even if the area between the wall and the fence was indeed flat, this upward angle would make anyone standing back from the wall appear to be elevated off the blue dotted line. The further back one is from the wall - the more elevated above the blue dotted line they would appear. Are there any principles that you do not understand or agree with yet before we move on and if so, please detail them so we can discuss them. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) Why don't you comply with my longstanding request and just draw a line where you think Arnold's feet are below the alleged torso, then, for want of a better word, we can negotiate further. Using photographs other than Moorman is point unless unless they are exact recreations.Duncan MacRae Duncan, I am not playing that little game you like to revert to when you don't like where things are going. I think its somewhat hypocritical for you to complain about my using a non-Moorman recreation picture that you and Miles posted many times over in your presentations. Now back to the previous post I made .... Is there anything I said so far in that post that you do not understand and/or disagree with? If so, then please detail what you don't understand or agree with ... and why?? Thanks, Bill Miller Edited December 3, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hi Duncan: May I ask a question here, perhaps one that others also may be interested in..... Is this spot, within the Moorman, where Arnold sees himself, or where Bill Miller sees him..........through his research of the past...? Would you know ?? Thanks B..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) The little game is your baby Bill.Everything is going my way and you know it, here and elsewhere. How the ~bleep~ do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even show us where YOUR Arnold is located. Duncan Macrae Duncan, I had hoped we were past the days of your jackin' around. If you want to say that your not answering a simple question as to whether you believe Badge Man is real or not without first being told why the question is being asked is not game playing, then so be it. I contend today as I did then that you wanted to first hear why the question was being asked so you'd know which way to go with your answer. Your past postings had always reflected your belief that Badge Man was real and fired at the President. When you finally saw that if you still held that belief and how it could hurt your position as to Arnold being too small to be real ... you then proclaimed some secret change of opinion that you'd been sitting on for some quite some. I simply didn't believe that story then and I don't believe it now. You also said in the previous thread on Gordon that you'd not answer or discuss any more questions pertaining to Arnold and yet you took it upon yourself to start another thread on him anyway. So it seems that your not wanting to discuss Arnold any longer was just an act. Anyway, I had thought that if we could get the things that we agreed on over to one side of the isle, then we'd be able to focus on the things we didn't agree on. I have carefully walked you through some observations that have surfaced through your recent remarks in hopes you were now ready to take this subject seriously. Keep in mind for a future reference that your actions will speak louder than any words you might have to say. Now this will be the third time I have asked this God-damned question and if you are serious about this subject and care enough to start yet another thread on it, then let us move forward by you simply answering it. Here is the question once again ... "Now back to the previous post I made .... Is there anything I said so far in that post that you do not understand and/or disagree with? If so, then please detail what you don't understand or agree with ... and why??" If it is your intention not to help in this inquiry, then just say so and we can stop here until someone else steps in and and takes it serious enough to want to walk through it with me where ever it may lead. Bill Miller Edited December 4, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Duncan, You made Gordon Arnold visible in that right picture! I guess we owe Bill an apology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) Why don't you cut the crap Bill and show us, in Moorman, where, in your calculated opinion, the alleged Arnold's feet lie. We were headed in the direction that would better explain where Arnold's feet were, but you stopped cooperating in separating what we could agree on from what we still needed to discuss. Jumping from point A to point Z without dealing with what's in between is a very poor research practice that the photo and film alteration supporters like to use. Some of us take the subject serious enough not to make the same mistakes that we have seen others make. This has been requested of you long before you started mouthing off your ridiculous demands that I answer your questions. How is my asking that we separate the understood and agreed on points from those that are not understood and agreed upon? You claim to be winning when it is not a competition and yet you don't seem to show an interest in walking through the evidence to see if anything is missing by either side. Here is those awful demands that you claim were made to you ... "Duncan, would you mind giving the forum at least a couple of general references that make you believe that Arnold was proven to be a ghost. Thanks!" "So lets try it again and you explain what it is exactly about you and Jerry's gifs that support one another???" "So before we go on and deal with Arnold's floating in mid-air as you see it to be, can we agree that what was said above was a fair assessment of the situation so far??? If not, then let us be specific in explaining what you do not agree with." "Are there any principles that you do not understand or agree with yet before we move on and if so, please detail them so we can discuss them." "Now back to the previous post I made .... Is there anything I said so far in that post that you do not understand and/or disagree with? If so, then please detail what you don't understand or agree with ... and why?? Thanks, Bill Miller" Yes Duncan ... these were such ridiculous demands to someone who wishes to see them as that. If you want to discuss things with a yes man you've picked the wrong guy, This response of yours is a clever one to make sometimes, but not very bright to use here when I said, "Is there anything I said so far in that post that you do not understand and/or disagree with? If so, then please detail what you don't understand or agree with ... and why??" So unless there can be some twisted way for you to re-write the English language ... I didn't ask for a yes man with you. What I did ask for was your cooperation in us separating what we understood and agreed on from what we didn't understand and disagreed on. Your attempt to try and make that approach into my seeking out a 'yes man' doesn't seem to fit. Would you like to rethink your comment and try it again? Bill Miller PS: Seeing how data has been posted to show that the Intermembral Index of a primate doesn't match that of a human being and this about a figure seen in a UPI print concerning the JFK assassination, then tell me the purpose of you posting an alleged Sasquatch film in as thread that you don't appear to want to discuss the evidence pertaining to a JFK assassination matter??? Edited December 4, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) Why don't you cut the crap Bill and show us, in Moorman, where, in your calculated opinion, the alleged Arnold's feet lie. We were headed in the direction that would better explain where Arnold's feet were, but you stopped cooperating in separating what we could agree on from what we still needed to discuss. Jumping from point A to point Z without dealing with what's in between is a very poor research practice that the photo and film alteration supporters like to use. Some of us take the subject serious enough not to make the same mistakes that we have seen others make. This has been requested of you long before you started mouthing off your ridiculous demands that I answer your questions. How is my asking that we separate the understood and agreed on points from those that are not understood and agreed upon? You claim to be winning when it is not a competition and yet you don't seem to show an interest in walking through the evidence to see if anything is missing by either side. Here is those awful demands that you claim were made to you ... "Duncan, would you mind giving the forum at least a couple of general references that make you believe that Arnold was proven to be a ghost. Thanks!" "So lets try it again and you explain what it is exactly about you and Jerry's gifs that support one another???" "So before we go on and deal with Arnold's floating in mid-air as you see it to be, can we agree that what was said above was a fair assessment of the situation so far??? If not, then let us be specific in explaining what you do not agree with." "Are there any principles that you do not understand or agree with yet before we move on and if so, please detail them so we can discuss them." "Now back to the previous post I made .... Is there anything I said so far in that post that you do not understand and/or disagree with? If so, then please detail what you don't understand or agree with ... and why?? Thanks, Bill Miller" Yes Duncan ... these were such ridiculous demands to someone who wishes to see them as that. If you want to discuss things with a yes man you've picked the wrong guy, This response of yours is a clever one to make sometimes, but not very bright to use here when I said, "Is there anything I said so far in that post that you do not understand and/or disagree with? If so, then please detail what you don't understand or agree with ... and why??" So unless there can be some twisted way for you to re-write the English language ... I didn't ask for a yes man with you. What I did ask for was your cooperation in us separating what we understood and agreed on from what we didn't understand and disagreed on. Your attempt to try and make that approach into my seeking out a 'yes man' doesn't seem to fit. Would you like to rethink your comment and try it again? Bill Miller PS: Seeing how data has been posted to show that the Intermembral Index of a primate doesn't match that of a human being and this about a figure seen in a UPI print concerning the JFK assassination, then tell me the purpose of you posting an alleged Sasquatch film in as thread that you don't appear to want to discuss the evidence pertaining to a JFK assassination matter??? Perhaps I misunderstood. In Duncan's post (stabilized .gif animation) above, is that YOU Bill, in the monkey suit? Edited December 4, 2008 by David G. Healy 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