The Ghost Of Gordon Arnold

[Bill Miller]

so let us start from the beginning again, BEFORE you distracted the thread away from the topic of the size of Gordon Arnold to the size of Badge Man.

Duncan MacRae[/b]

Duncan, as long as you only wish to discuss the things you find relevant, then how will you know what the truth is. Your approach is like saying the avulsed bones on the back of JFK's head were not relevant in the Commissions view, so they never went in to detail about something that could have turned history around. To claim that Gordon Arnold is too small to be human, when he is as big as Badge Man ... as Badge Man is as big as Cummings, then that is a most relevant piece of data whether you admit it or not. Sam Holland was further away from the size of Mark Lane, but no one claimed Holland wasn't real. This is why I asked you if it was only Arnold's height that you have a problem with and not his shoulder to shoulder width.

In this illustration from before someone darkened Cummings image, I drew a line through the alleged muzzle flash in front of Badge Man's face and I noted that Badge Man's skin tone around his lower face and neck can be seen below the line.

I noted the same thing with Cummings. I then looked at how much of the rest of the face tone matched before getting into the hairline. It was these things that led me to say that Badge Man and Cummings heads are pretty close in size ... certainly within the realm of human size. You disagreed without any details .... and that's not research IMO.

Now once again, do you believe that you could see enough detail in Badge Man's appearance to adequately and accurately offer a reliable opinion as to whether he and Cummings heads and upper body widths were close to the same size or not???

Bill Miller

Edited December 16, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

As I stated in my previous post, I think it's best if we go back to the beginning and take things one step at a time, just so that you can follow what is going on, ie, complete step one then we can move on to step 2.

In my opinion, in order to compare the sizes of each individual with each other, we must have a good estimate of their true size. I have provided my estimates as shown below on numerous occassions...so....it's over to you to place where you locate Arnold and Badge Man's feet in relation to the fence, I said fence, not wall..just remember that.

Duncan, this entire matter started over someone merely starting with a conclusion and working backwards ... that approach doesn't work and it leads to one mistake after another. For instance, I have noticed that when you put Arnold's feet against the wall (notice I said wall), then you drew your line onto the wall (notice that I said 'wall' again) as a representation of the ground elevation behind that wall. During that proclamation of yours ... you were saying that the ground was flat between the walkway and the fence. However, the Secret Service film shows that the ground mounded up considerably between the walkway and the fence. Your illustrations showing where the ground elevation was had remained the same as it was when you first thought the ground was flat. In other words, your conclusion will remain the same if you don't correct the data you have put in your equation. To continue down the same path once again and in the same manner is inexcusable in my view.

In post #82, you posted the image of Badge Man next to Tony Cummings. I am now addressing the illustration you used by saying as fact is that one of the figures is Tony Cummings ... that Cummings is a real human being ... and that Badge Man's size is very close to that of Cummings (meaning they both fall into the realm of human size) It's obvious that Arnold and Badge Man are also similar in size and Cummings is a test model to compare the other two images against.

In the illustration you posted, I said that Cummings head is close to the size of Badge Man's. Without creating an illustration or being specific, you merely say that I got it wrong. That approach is not research and only makes for a never-ending game to continue. I want you to tell us whether or not you feel that you can see Badge Man well enough to dispute my conclusion that he and Tony are similar in upper body proportions. I would appreciate your being specific and marking the illustration so to explain how you reached your conclusion.

Getting to understanding this floating in the air illusion is to better understand why the man under the red`arrow has his feet so high against the wall compared to those others standing on the walkway. I want to know why you feel that someone obviously less distance from the wall than Arnold was said to be ... still manages to look to be floating in the air. We know the guy really isn't floating and I assume that you and Miles didn't paste this guy into the picture, so why is this obvious illusion not something that you find relevant???

I say its hot - you say its cold. Arguing for the sake of arguing isn't accomplishing anything. You have posted an image that shows the alleged Gordon Arnold sizing matter in the working by way of another human being in a photo and you seem to want to ignore it. You claim its irrelevant and I say even if we never understand how the true physics worked ... that when the process occurs with real live humans in similar photos, then the only thing lacking is our understanding the 'WHY it happens that way?'.

Bill Miller

Edited December 18, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

It started with a conclusion based on an analysis.

You didn't know Arnold's height ... you thought the area where Arnold stood was flat ... you didn't know the true height of the knoll side of the fence ... etc., etc..

Web definitions for analysis

an investigation of the component parts of a whole and their relations in making up the whole

WRONG...TOTAL BILL BALONY DISINFO...THE LINES WERE WHERE I PLACED ARNOLD'S FEET

[/b]

This is just why you are a waste of time and your claims never get anywhere ... So in this illustration above that you have used repeatedly ... your line along the bottom of the fence is where you believe Arnold's feet to be ... are you sure that you want to hold on to that response or change it now???

Mounded up That's a new term to me for a slope..I guess you're just trying to tie up Arnold's words to match YOUR mounded up description..Classic spin

Duncan MacRae

I thought when I posted a photo(s) showing the erosion of the knoll and the exposed tree roots ... you said that they were on the slope and not where Arnold stood. That the area where Arnold stood was flat ... do we need to go back to all those Darnell film post you and your study buddy showed to see if what I have stated is correct or not???

I also posted the SS view and showed how the ground is elevated between the walkway and the fence ... would you care to tell the forum why you believe what I stated was incorrect ... and be specific for a change???

And here is what Tony Cummings used to elevate himself into the Badge Man position.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

in this illustration above that you have used repeatedly ... your line along the bottom of the fence is where you believe Arnold's feet to be ... are you sure that you want to hold on to that response or change it now???

Bill Miller

UNBELIEVABLE LOL!!!...........And the winner of the Magoo worst analysis of the year ( possibly ever ) goes to....................................Bill Miller ................................For posting the above unadulterated garbage, where he can NOT see that I did NOT place Arnold's feet along the bottom of the fence as he claims in his above nonsense.

Any half wit can see that I have the Arnold illusion's feet suspended in mid air.

Can anyone else on this forum see and say that I have placed Arnolds feet along the bottom of the fence in the above illustration as Bill claims...?????????????????????

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, why do you spend so much time wanting to talk about stupid stuff and not addressing the JFK related data put to you? I am going to explain what I said and why and then if you blow off another JFK assassination question that I have repeatedly put to you without at least a responsible half-hearted attempt to answer it, then you can make this the last post in this thread.

Why did I mention Arnold's feet coming down to the line along the bottom of the fence you wonder - this is why ...

Duncan: "WRONG...TOTAL BILL BALONY DISINFO...THE LINES WERE WHERE I PLACED ARNOLD'S FEET laugh.gif "

I went to add, "are you sure that you want to hold on to that response or change it now"

I find it very odd that the JFK stuff is totally ignored and this was the only thing you posted. (sigh~) Now repeatedly you have been asked whether or not you feel confident that you were able to see enough detail in the Badge Man image to make a reliable determination that he and Cummings size were nowhere close to one another's. I would like to once again seek a direct answer to that question and some details to how you reached your conclusion?

Thanks!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

As I said, the topic is Gordon Arnold, so let's stick with him first and let's see where you place Arnold's feet (reciprocated sigh~)

Did you not say in Post #84 ...

Duncan Macrae: "As I stated in my previous post, I think it's best if we go back to the beginning and take things one step at a time, just so that you can follow what is going on, ie, complete step one then we can move on to step 2.

In that post where you wanted to start at the beginning - YOU posted a Moorman illustration with no lines at Arnold's feet, but rather along the top of the fence and again at its base. Anyone can go back and look at the illustration if they want to know if I was right or not.

You went on to say this about that illustration ... Duncan MacRae: "in order to compare the sizes of each individual with each other, we must have a good estimate of their true size. I have provided my estimates as shown below on numerous occassions"

What better way is there to estimate their true size than to put them up against real live human beings.

Making false statements about where I place Arnold's feet does nothing for your sinking credibility,

Duncan

I have referenced your remarks and where they can be read along with the illustration you said that you have used on numerous occasions. Your words and the illustration are what they are regardless of you merely saying something different.

In my response #85, I cited your previous remarks about starting at the beginning ... again I was referencing the post where you used the illustration showing only the lines running the top and bottom of the fence. Rather than to discuss the evidence, you are running off and inventing scenarios that never existed. Why is so much energy being given to denying things that can be read in black and white right in the archives? I do not know what brings you to these forums, but my repeatedly asking you to answer a simple question only to be ignored after a many times of it coming up just so you can continue jerking around is enough for me to say its time to pull the plug. I'll let the record speak for itself.

Duncan Macrae: "WRONG...TOTAL BILL BALONY DISINFO...THE LINES WERE WHERE I PLACED ARNOLD'S FEET"

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Do you get a kick out of deliberately trying to mislead people in a pathetic attempt to salvage your non existant case?

Duncan Macrae

How many times have you've been asked how confident are you that you can see Badge Man well enough to be debating his features to that of Tony Cummings, which is important to know. Instead, you just xxxxx on over meaningless things and waste my time. Going back and posting the same flawed images is not the answer and had you addressed some of the points put forth to you, then maybe you would better understand some of the errors you have made. For instance: You showing Arnold against a fence is incorrect in your scaling. If Arnold was in front of the fence and the camera is looking uphill, then Gordon would appear considerably taller against that fence than what you have allowed him to be. You've taken a flat plane approach and put it into an uphill equation when it comes to perspective, thus you start with an error before even getting out of the gate. The closer to the camera that the subject moves, then the higher against the background they will appear. This was never more prevalent than when you were asked to look at the man under the red arrow and explain his appearance against the fence.

But as you may recall ... you claimed the red arrow man and how he looks against the wall and fence was irrelevant. I am convinced that you understood his relevancy, but ignored it so not to have to address these mistakes you have created. Like you alluded to before ... its about who appears to be winning.

And yes Duncan ... I'm misleading everyone by referencing the post number ... quoting your remarks contained within that post ... and showing the illustration attached to your remarks within that post. Only an idiot would wish to argue against that kind of a response, so I am leaving you to play this game with yourself as I had promised. I will pick this up again when someone shows an interest in actually looking at all the evidence and is willing to address these things that you seemingly have purposely avoided.

Bill Miller

Edited December 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I am leaving you to play this game with yourself as I had promised.

Bill Miller

It's good to know you're cowering out of this thread, there's no point in me wasting my time with someone who only wants to discuss Badge Man in an Arnold topic, who isn't prepared to have a starting point for a debate, and who can't even place Arnold's feet in Moorman, yet claims he knows the truth.

Duncan MacRae

Thanks for enforcing my position pertaining to this fiasco by showing how you still have time to post cartoon animations and yet you have no time to answer JFK related questions. Maybe Miles would fall all over himself over your foolishness, but he is gone now and I doubt that it impresses anyone else here. In fact, some folks may even find it an insult for someone like yourself to avoid answering JFK assassination related questions only to have all the time in the world to pollute this topic with such childish nonsense.

As far as where Arnold's feet are ... they are most likely between where Cummings feet were and the man under the red`arrow's feet are. Guessing where someone's feet are is one thing ... understanding how that applies to real people and why their feet are seen in much the same way is the key.

Bill Miller

Edited December 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I could have swore you said you were leaving the thread, let me look up.....yip....you said you were leaving, and just like throughout the whole of this thread, you don't know if you are coming or going

Duncan MacRae

"And yes Duncan ... I'm misleading everyone by referencing the post number ... quoting your remarks contained within that post ... and showing the illustration attached to your remarks within that post. Only an idiot would wish to argue against that kind of a response, so I am leaving you to play this game with yourself as I had promised. I will pick this up again when someone shows an interest in actually looking at all the evidence and is willing to address these things that you seemingly have purposely avoided."

[Bill Miller]

Back again???

I invite anyone on the forum to look at the 2 posts which Bill refers, ie, posts 82 and 85, to see if they can find lines anywhere which Bill claims repeatedly now that I have placed to show Arnold's feet.

I'll save you all a search. Here are the images. Notice not one single line anywhere near Arnold's feet. Bill's Magooism strikes again.

Duncan MacRae

Thanks again for driving my point home, Duncan. Instead of addressing the many relevant points put to you ... you bypass them all so to post more meaningless crap.

Bill Miller: "In my response #85, I cited your previous remarks about starting at the beginning ... again I was referencing the post where you used the illustration showing only the lines running the top and bottom of the fence. Rather than to discuss the evidence, you are running off and inventing scenarios that never existed. Why is so much energy being given to denying things that can be read in black and white right in the archives? I do not know what brings you to these forums, but my repeatedly asking you to answer a simple question only to be ignored after a many times of it coming up just so you can continue jerking around is enough for me to say its time to pull the plug. I'll let the record speak for itself."

Duncan Macrae: "WRONG...TOTAL BILL BALONY DISINFO...THE LINES WERE WHERE I PLACED ARNOLD'S FEET"

I don't know if you're hopped-up on dope or what, but it doesn't seem that hard to follow what I posted. I referenced an illustration that you posted that had lines only along the top and bottom of a fence. You had said that the lines represented where you placed Arnold's feet (see above) ... now you say the opposite. What is even more ridiculous is the priority you give this matter vs. the important things you could have addressed and didn't.

I truly find it amazing that you have held onto the same conclusion even when you didn't even have the correct data as to which person was Tony Cummings in my picture when you first posted your findings.

You appear to want to argue Cummings head and shoulders size to Badge Man's and yet you couldn't tell Mike Brown from Cummings, nor did you consider that the image you chose wasn't at the Badge Man location. These are not small blunders on your part and somehow even when corrected - your results never change. I must ask again ..... Do you feel that you could see enough detail in the Badge Man image to make an accurate size difference comparison to Tony Cummings???

Bill Miller

Edited December 20, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Dec 20 2008, 06:22 PM' post='160235]

Yeah Yeah and thrice Yeah Bill..Trying to deflect back to Badge Man I see...It will not work. I have posted no blunders, all of my analysis has been based on Moorman, whereas yours, what little of it there is, is based on non Moorman speculation.

I don't see the point about you saying I didn't recognise Tony at first...NO ONE DID.... because of the extreme poorness of quality of the effort which you posted. No court in any land could identify those silhouettes as who you say they are, and at the time of you posting your image, you did not say who was who, or the purpose of an extra figure.

Like I said before ... how can one argue against the logic that you bring to the table. I would be an idiot to argue against someone who pointed at the wrong figure and at the same time tells me he made no blunder.

As far as no one not knowing which one was Tony ... I stated where Cummings was from the get-go. After all, did you not see the Arnold/Badge Man images posted against it from the early days as you went back and brushed up on the subject ... did you not read where I said that Cummings and Badge Man matched perfectly (you disagreed with it) ... does the larger Mike Brown look like he is where Badge Man was? Blame everyone else for your poor research, but its still your problem.

A better sincere reference would be how I posted that Gary Mack could be seen in one of my composites, and you proclaimed strongly that he couldn't be seen, only to be corrected by Gary that he was in my composite. Now tell me Bill, what chance have you of recognising ANYTHING when you can't even recognose Gary Mack

Again, meaningless trash that you bring to this thread. Becket had just been to Dallas and seen Gary and even she told me that the image you chose to post of him didn't look much like him. So I accept that the image I saw didn't look like Gary even if it was him .... so what??? What would that have to do with my asking you if you feel that you can see enough detail in Badge Man's image so to make a fair comparison to the size features of Tony Cummings ... you still have not answered that question.

The topic is Gordon Arnold in Moorman, not Badge Man in Moorman...Now, when that sinks in to that confused brain of yours, maybe you will post the most important thing which I have asked of you, and which I have received many emails about saying " HE WON'T DO IT BECAUSE HE CAN'T "

Duncan Macrae

I will say it again ... From what can be seen over the wall of them - Tony (who is real) is very close to the size of Badge Man ... Badge Man is very close to the size of Arnold ... you claim Arnold is too small to be real. Your not seeing the connection is a shortcoming that you will have to deal with ... your claiming not to see the connection doesn't change the facts. In fact, I do not believe that you cannot see this or else you wouldn't have known when to dance around it each time it comes up. You may recall that you had admitted that it was Arnold's height that bothered you. You went as far as to say that was something that you made clear from the beginning. It was only when you saw that I was linking the size of these individuals to Tony Cummings that you started having trouble trouble with more than just Arnold's height. Take your confusion over to your forum where Miles is waiting for you with open arms.

Bill Miller

Edited December 20, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Look like him or not, I had the ability to identify him, you did not..THATS A FACT!!

Duncan Macrae

Let us not kid ourselves ... you had the film to observe and I was limited to one of the poorer captures, there is the difference.

[Bill Miller]

name='Duncan MacRae' date='Dec 20 2008, 06:22 PM' post='160235']

No court in any land could identify those silhouettes as who you say they are, and at the time of you posting your image, you did not say who was who, or the purpose of an extra figure.

Duncan ... you still kept using that erred illustration even after you were corrected. Just once you should take credit for your mistakes instead of trying to put them on someone else. I found that your using that erred illustration in post #54 actually comes after post #45 mentioned in this response, so it appears that our numbering systems are the same, thus 45 comes before 54 in anyones language.

post #45 of the Arnold #2 thread: I said, "Duncan, which image above the wall do you think is Cummings? Mike Brown may look to have half his body above the fence, but not Tony. Tony is the more distant second figure seen over the wall. I hope we are on the same page here for your responses make me think we are not."

Here below is another instance where a part your claim is flawed ...

You posted a line along the bottom of the fence while looking uphill and told us that it represents the ground level behind the wall. The picture below offers an even plane/straight on view of the fence looking west ... note that a 5' 10" Arnold for instance just wouldn''t stay the same height to the fence as he moves north, but would actually rise upward when seen over the wall from Moorman's location. This is not mentioned in your alleged accurate illustration.

The identical red rectangles show how one of them actually got taller against the fence as it was moved northward along the ground because the ground rises considerably. Your illustration missed this fact totally! So when you post an illustration showing Gordon Arnold staying the same height against the fence as he is moved northward, then that isn't a true fact either. From Moorman's location ... Arnold should have been rising higher against the fence as he moved northward. I strongly suspect that this is what happened with the guy under the red arrow that you felt was irrelevant. I have posted that image again as well.

We can debate this matter forever, but until you are able to see your mistakes, then we are just wasting each others time.

Bill Miller

Edited December 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Dec 22 2008, 01:43 PM' post='160293]

The gross mistakes in your illustrations are plain to see.

In 1963, the relative to the fence soil against the fence did not rise as you have shown in your modern day photograph, which appears to show uplifted soil, caused by the growth and subsequent pushing through of roots from beneath the soil.

A word of advice: It is said that if one continually pretends to be stupid - then eventually people will start believing that he or she is stupid.

Now let us look at what you said and why I offered the word of advice ...

You continually refer back to the Darnell film which couldn't show an elevation change if it had to. The reason for this has been demonstrated many times over. One such comparison was with the south pasture slope down to the curb where Moorman and Hill were standing. When the pasture is seen from a side view like in Altgens #6, the slope going from Jean Hill's feet down to the street is quite noticeable, but when viewed in the Zapruder film with a similar angle like Darnell had to the walkway, then the ground looks flat. The illusion becomes exposed. Reasonably intelligent people will pick up on this and realize that there truly are things at play here that maybe they do not understand ... You on the other hand pretend not to see this and I do not buy that you do not understand it.

To further prove my point is your reference that the eroded area in the photo I posted between the sidewalk and fence is flat. You say this while not even offering a critique about the red rectangles seen in the illustration I posted just previous to your response. If the ground is flat as you say, then how do you account for the red rectangle rising high above the top of the fence line as it is moved northward??? This too should have told a reasonably intelligent person that what they are attempting to sell isn't right and again I do not believe that you didn't see it.

Maybe you believe that you can sit in Scotland and tell us all about the contours of the knoll, but I have been on it many times over the years and I can tell you that it is anything but flat. This is why I took the time to point out to you how the red rectangle will rise above the top of the fence line when slid northward along the ground. This is why I went to the Secret Service film taken shortly after the shooting and showed you how it mounded upward between the walkway and the fence. You may recall that image and how you scoffed at my saying that it could add as much as a foot in Arnold's height ... much like the illustration above using the red rectangles demonstrates.

I pointed out how the foliage along the base of the fence disappears behind the mounded earth, which shouldn't happen if flat as you claim it to be. But rather than an otherwise reasonably intelligent person admitting that this appears to be the case, you purposely ignored it and resorted back to a flawed Darnell view which makes the ground seem flat all the way down to the street.

Let me ask you this ... What research have you done to find out why the eroded ground looks like it does in the photo I posted? Did you check with the city to see what you could learn about the cause of the erosion?? Did you contact the Museum to get any information that might help you make a reliable determination based on fact rather than just making up self-serving propaganda??? I did and posted what I found out.

It's almost like you are purposely avoiding doing the things that would - if nothing else - validate the things you say. When the later continuously happens, then it isn't any longer about someone appearing to be stupid, but rather dishonest.

The images below prove my point that on November 22nd 1963, this was not the case.

This is why I prefer to use images of the time rather than your method of speculating by using modern day photographs and sheer guesswork.

I have posted both images taken soon after the assassination and more recent images. The reason for this is because you have said that both time frames show a flat area between the walkway and the fence and my examination of those vciews tell me that you are mistaken.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Elevation is not the point in question in my response to your ridiculous red block markings in a modern day photograph.

The issue which you are contending is that the fence in your opinion shrunk because of an increase in soil level AT THE FENCE.

The 1963 Darnell images show that you are clearly wrong and completely barking to suggest otherwise

Duncan, I am not going to argue with you because you are even bound to say dung smells good if I should say that it doesn't. I am going to answer these questions in a sensible and logical manner ... not for you, but for those people who follow this stuff and are actually serious.

Wrong inference: the fence in your opinion shrunk because of an increase in soil level AT THE FENCE.

Right inference: the fence never shrunk, but rather the soil between the walkway and the fence was mounded upward at the time of the assassination, which would allow anyone to look taller against the fence had the mound not been there.

The reason why we can see where the foliage meets the ground along the bottom of the fence in the Jimmy Darnell film is because Darnell was so much higher elevated above the base of the fence. For example, Muchmore's view didn't allow her to see where the top of the curb met the grass, but photos looking down from above on the Records Building allow us to see this. Do we then say there was no slope above the curb because we can get a similar angle to Darnell's view that allows us to see over the slope ... surely not.

The reason for this has been demonstrated many times over. One such comparison was with the south pasture slope down to the curb where Moorman and Hill were standing. When the pasture is seen from a side view like in Altgens #6,

It's not Moorman, so it's not relevant

So is the Darnell film relevant because its some extension of Moorman's photograph - How silly! This is a very foolish thing for you to say if you want to project truth seeking and honesty. You know that we are always cross referencing plaza views from different photo and film sources to gather as much information as we can in an attempt to be as accurate as possible... Now all of a sudden its not an approach that you're interested in. Sounds very self-serving to me and I'm simply not buying it.

The issue is the ground level along the fence where you claim Gordon Arnold was standing. There is NO increase of soil levels against the fence as is clearly demonstrated in Darnell

"Against the fence" ... who said Arnold had his feet against the fence? Also on top of everything else ... you are not confusing the line where the flowers meet the ground as the base of the fence - are you??? Darnell's film angle makes it impossible to see an elevation change

Arnold estimated his distance from the fence when talking to Gary Mack. My purpose isn't to argue with some boob whether Arnold was 2', 3', or 5' from the fence because Gordon could have been off ... the point that you have been fighting is that the possibility of him being elevated on the mound is there. There can be no other logical reason for you not going along to see where the evidence leads rather than to quickly take the 'its not relevant so lets move on' approach.

So me and EVERYONE on Lancer have got it wrong, and you are the only one who gets it right. I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy too?

I do not believe in the tooth fairy, but I do believe that a guy has totally lost his marbles when he believes that he speaks for 'EVERYONE'.

Easy...It's a modern day photograph, the area has changed. Just looking at Darnell tells us this.

Darnell's film also tells us that there is no slope at the crest at the top of the knoll, but thats not true either. There are two things that you refuse to understand which goes hand and hand with your rush to judgment approach ... One is that you are claiming that Darnell's film can show elevation changes on the ground, which looking to the street tells me that this isn't possible in that film.

The second thing you are ignoring is that Muchmore and Moorman's angles show the flowers running along the top of the soil at the base of the fence as arching upward - not in a horizontal even plane like Darnell's film makes them appear to be. The reason for this is as I have repeatedly stated.

So you were there on 22nd November 1963?

The first thing one does is cross reference films and photos so to be as accurate as possible. We have seen so many tiumes that a single view can be misleading, so we do comparisons to other images. No better example of this can compare to the illusion that Darnell's film makes the ground look flat ... presumably all the way down to Elm Street. For instance, Moorman's photo shows the flower line running along the ground as it arches upward. However, the Darnell film makes that same line looks straight and flat. The previous reasons for this cannot be made any clearer ... and to be honest - at this stage in researching photos and films, such basic rules shouldn't need to be explained again and again IMO.

Nonsense based on a guess and nothing else, that this is how the soil looked in 1963

Would you not wish to research the history of the knoll? Would you not like to do an overlay of the knoll as it is today vs. 11/63 so to approximate the amount of erosion that has taken place??

Well Bill, as you refuse to show EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM where you place Arnold's feet in Moorman, your whole exercise is a waste of everyones time.

I hope you know that David Healy already speaks for 'everyone' ... so you can't do it as well. I can however, tell you where Arnold's feet are ... they are on the same ground as the guy under the red arrow's feet are ... they are on the same mound seen in the Secret Service film.

Bill Miller

Edited December 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

That's good to hear, now all you need to do is complete my request and apply your insane logic to Moorman, and not to a modern day photograph taken from a completely different angle which has no relevance to the Arnold in Moorman.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, how do you justify your behavior? You and Miles were tinkling all over yourselves as you two posted illustrations and comparisons from other images and different angles, so how do you justify something being OK for you to do and not other researchers? A small selection of those images (both old and new) can be seen below ...

It seems that you have a habit of having things be relevant when you want them to be and not relevant when you do not want them to be. In your response #108, you did the same, thus it seems rather contradictory and hypocritical for you to denounce such a practice now. For the life of me I cannot see how you justify your actions.

Earlier you mentioned that I used a modern day photo showing how the further north one stands ... the higher elevated they will appear against the the background of the fence when seen from Moorman's location. Here is that illustration once again ...

You offered no explanation for your remarks other than merely saying that the ground was different in 63. Yet when I compare this Secret Service image taken soon after the assassination ... I find it to be supportive of the latter day photo illustration and contradictory to your remarks. (see below)

I personally find your practices very biased, if not bordering dishonesty. You have supported Badge Man's existence for the longest time and it wasn't until this topic did you proclaim your new belief that Badge is not real. If I go back and look at Badge Man's image ... I find him to be far more visible than any of the artifacts seen on these images whereas you merely drew in random figures. The alleged floating cop torso and the couching cop at the wall are just a couple examples that come to mind. I think it only fair that I show what I am talking about ...

I find it simply amazing that when I asked you if you felt that you could see Badge Man's details well enough to make size comparisons to Cummings features ... you clammed-up and would not give me a straight answer. Yet in your past illustrations using Badge Man ... you would point out minute details that you could see of him to support one of your other claims. In this thread alone you claimed that you could see Badge Man's outstretched arms and how that would play against Cummings relaxed posture. You spoke of Badge Man's head size - his shoulder - etc.. Now how is it that you could see all these details to support your claims and yet another time so to fit your needs at a particular moment you call him an illusion??? Add to this your being selective to say the least on what you deem relevant one time and not another ... Well, do you not see how your behavior and veracity can be viewed as somewhat suspicious???

Bill Miller

Edited December 23, 2008 by Bill Miller