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

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!

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

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,

He describes the man who came to him and took his film--

"...while I was laying on the ground, it seemed like a gentleman came from this particular direction, and I thought he was a police officer, because he had the uniform of a police officer, but he didn't wear a hat, and he had dirty hands..."

Arnold had not seen the man behind the fence, for he(Arnold) was in front of him--he saw this person he describes after the shots.

So, he did not specify.

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

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

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!

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.
The biggest mystery to me is why you can't see this, when everyone else on every other forum ( apart from Kathy ) can see the glaring errors in your flawed recreation and wild assumptions.
Jerry's animation is far superior and much more accurate than mine, so i'll use his stupendously fine gif animation in future references.

Jerry's superb Transition

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

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.
Click to view attachment

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

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

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 agree with? If not, then please detail what you don't agree with and why??

Thanks,

Bill Miller

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.
In order for me and everyone to understand where you are coming from, I/We, need to know where you have Arnold located, after all, if you can't even locate Arnold, what chance do you have of locating Bigfoot

Duncan Macrae

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.....

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

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,

Hi Bernice, as far as I know, Arnold never said to anyone or pointed out to anyone with a recorded comment such as " I was standing exactly here "

or where Bill Miller sees him..........through his research of the past...?

Bill refuses to tell where he sees Arnold standing, this is the reason for the hold up of progression of getting to a solution.

Would you know ??

If he was there, I wouldn't know as he can not be seen in the photographic record......yet...... All I know is that the alleged Arnold in Moorman is not real.

Thanks

You're welcome as always Bernice

B.....

Duncan

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

Why don't you cut the crap Bill and show us, in Moorman, where, in your calculated opinion, the alleged Arnold's feet lie. This has been requested of you long before you started mouthing off your ridiculous demands that I answer your questions.
If you want to discuss things with a yes man you've picked the wrong guy, and if you don't wish to discuss things further with me, then I suggest you fight it out over at Lancer...no...wait a minute...I see Debs is considering censoring all posting of research and opinion on Gordon Arnold now over there
If you can't comply with my request that you illustrate where your Arnold's feet lie, it is probably best if you surrender your unknown position, admit defeat, and walk in the same direction as this guy below.
]
Duncan

Duncan,

You made Gordon Arnold visible in that right picture!

I guess we owe Bill an apology

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.





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.









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?

You go first

Duncan

Bill,

I can't agree or disagree with anything you say unless I know where you locate Arnold's feet. This is the basic starting point of the whole argument. Your refusal to commit this crucial factor says a lot to everyone observing this thread. Just Mark a line where you say his feet are in Moorman and we can move forward.


Duncan MacRae

Duncan, I am talking about Logan's scaling to my photo that you already agreed with and praised. I am not talking about Arnold's lower body ... I am going to talk about it soon enough, but when I do it will be because you have claimed to understand the points that's been made and/or if not, then you will be kind enough to detail them so I, and possibly others, can better understand where you're coming from. You see, you made several references to Arnold's body size, so I believe there to be aspects that we can agree with to the size of the Badge Man and Arnold figures that do fall into the realm of human range. If we can get the things we agree on out of the way, then we will be able dive in to Arnold's height against the wall and with a the same basic understanding of the evidence going in.

Below is the earlier post I spoke of:

"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

Educate yourself, David.

http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

Duncan,

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

I don't agree that Badge Man's body comes anywhere close in size to Tony's body.


Duncan MacRae

Ok ... beautiful, now we are getting somewhere. Now if you wouldn't mind ... could you please explain your remark in some detail. For instance, Tony's shoulder width seems to match that of Badge Man's to a reasonable degree. If you disagree, can you explain why??????

Also, Badge Man's face is what I see in your miniature overlay, but the rest of his head and hair is difficult to make out. Admittedly, Cummings wasn't aiming a gun at the camera, thus some degree of posture change would take place with Tony to match the head tilt of Badge Man looking down a gun barrel. But regardless, do you not think that their two heads fall into the realm of human proportions compared to their girth. If not, then please detail why not???

Reminder of how real peoples head sizes can vary.
Click to view attachment

I believe you understand these points and must agree with them, thus standing height against the wall is your only problem with the figure in Moorman's photo. I await your response in hopes we can move forward.

UPDATE:
I took the liberty to capture the two images from the animated gif that you used. When I looked at the shoulder width and standing height of each man (Badge Man and Cummings) ... I found them to be very close to each others upper body size. I am hoping that you are not just claiming differences without at least looking first! I don't want this to be a game of making stuff up as we go. So please look at the comparison before you ... the two images were cropped from your gif and enlarged equally.
Click to view attachment

Do you now agree that what is seen over the wall of Badge Man and Cummings are very close in size to one another? If not, then why not??

Bill Miller

Do you now agree that what is seen over the wall of Badge Man and Cummings are very close in size to one another? If not, then why not??

Bill Miller

I don't agree.
The Badge Man image is portrayed as in a shooting position, which means that both of his arms are extended outwards while in the firing position, creating the illusion of added body width. Tony's arms are at his side in a straight downwards position.



The true width of badgeman would be approximately where I have drawn the yellow lines in between your red lines.


Duncan MacRae

Do you now agree that what is seen over the wall of Badge Man and Cummings are very close in size to one another? If not, then why not??

Bill Miller

I don't agree.
The Badge Man image is portrayed as in a shooting position, which means that both of his arms are extended outwards while in the firing position, creating the illusion of added body width. Tony's arms are at his side in a straight downwards position.



The true width of badgeman would be approximately where I have drawn the yellow lines in between your red lines.


Duncan MacRae

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation. Now let us look closer at what you have just implied ... The two individuals could be doing jumping jacks and it wouldn't change the shoulder width. Their girth is what I am talking about. Their head size - the distance they are seen above the wall, their shoulder width ... no one is implying they could pass as the 'double mint twins', but I think a serious observer would have to admit that the two figures are very close to each other in upper body size.

Below is an example of two equal widths ... one facing ahead and the other turned in a shooter's position. Note that the side to side change in position did not lessen the girth between the two lines.
Click to view attachment

Duncan, I cannot see how you justify what you said with what is seen in this now very blurry illustration of yours. (I have taken the liberty to overlay Badge Man back into the image so to better see his outline) I know the head will narrow when the object is looking straight at the camera because its more oblong from front to back .... (something I wish you would have jumped in and made clear to Miles when he was arguing just the opposite, but I guess you missed it the many times he debated his position)

But anyway, I don't believe the shoulders would hardly be as wide as Badge Man's ears if he were square with the camera. I think you erred in your assessment. Would you consider looking at it again and see if you don't want to change your position about Badge Man and Cummings have a similar girth that allows them to fall within the realm of being real.
Click to view attachment


Bill Miller

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation.

Bill Miller

Thanks for your reluctant thanks

Now let us look closer at what you have just implied ... The two individuals could be doing jumping jacks and it wouldn't change the shoulder width. Their girth is what I am talking about. Their head size

Badge Man's head is smaller, by approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of Tony's head size, even though it's difficult to size Tony's head in comparison using the blurry ghost like silhouette of Tony which you have provided. My example below clearly shows this to be a true fact.



the distance they are seen above the wall

Badge Man is lower

their shoulder width

Badge Man's shoulders are narrower

... no one is implying they could pass as the 'double mint twins'

Never heard of them... are you one of them? or am I getting mixed up with the double talk twins?

but I think a serious observer would have to admit that the two figures are very close to each other in upper body size.

What do you quantify as very close ? Remember, this is a 2 dimensional image.

Below is an example of two equal widths ... one facing ahead and the other turned in a shooter's position. Note that the side to side change in position did not lessen the girth between the two lines.
Click to view attachment

Badgeman and Tony Cummings are not equal widths

Duncan, I cannot see how you justify what you said with what is seen in this now very blurry illustration of yours.

The blown up blurry illustration is yours, I merely drew the yellow lines in between your blown up blurry red lines

(I have taken the liberty to overlay Badge Man back into the image so to better see his outline)

Fine, but there's no need really as the point made by me is clearly seen and justified in your blurry blow up

I know the head will narrow when the object is looking straight at the camera because its more oblong from front to back .... (something I wish you would have jumped in and made clear to Miles when he was arguing just the opposite, but I guess you missed it the many times he debated his position)

I didn't miss it, I didn't see the point in jumping in to discuss an obvious point. I'm sure Miles would agree that a head appears narrower looking straight at a camera.

But anyway, I don't believe the shoulders would hardly be as wide as Badge Man's ears if he were square with the camera.

So, are you now saying that in your recreation, you told Tony to face in a different direction?...That's really clever

I think you erred in your assessment.

Nope

Would you consider looking at it again and see if you don't want to change your position about Badge Man and Cummings have a similar girth that allows them to fall within the realm of being real.

Bill Miller

I looked again.Same Conclusion

Duncan MacRae

Duncan ... your 'true fact' is only a partial true fact. Yes, I provided Jerry Logan with a photograph of the knoll where Tony Cummings stood at the fence ... how it got to be such a pixeled blur was someones doing other than my own. In fact, I notice that a lot of your images of choice seem to be those that are most blurred and degraded. Here is your opening illustration in this thread and what ever lack of clarity you obtained was of no fault of mine ... furthermore, its that same blurry image that you accepted and praised in support of Arnold being too small to be real, so I find it somewhat hypocritical of you to complain about its clarity when asked to demonstrate how you decided the boundaries from which you validate your allegations.

Once again the record speaks for itself. You are once again afforded a clean image of Cummings at the fence.

Duncan McRae image ...
Click to view attachment

Miller image of Cummings ...
Click to view attachment






Yes, I agree that Cummings is taller than Badge Man. Whether Tony would be seen lower against the wall had he been in a firing position and how much ... I cannot say. I also cannot say that Badge Man was as tall as Cummings, but of course I made sure to mention this from the onset so not to confuse the issue as you are attempting to do. But I have been talking girth ... its been mentioned over a half dozen times now, so let us look at those shoulders you alluded to. Can you locate Badge Man's shoulders for me and mark them where you believe them to be? Here again is an overlay using Roscoe White ...
Click to view attachment







Yes, I am aware what a 2D image is ... its the same type of image you used to illustrate your claims. We are not talking about back to front, but side to side. This is a simple observation that I do not believe that even you can make complicated. Below is another photo of Cummings and Royce along the walkway. Cummings is taller and has a slightly longer head than Royce, but one could easily claim them to be very close in upper body size .... would you not agree????????
Click to view attachment

Can anyone not see the upper body proportions between these two individuals. Would someone be silly enough to say that Royce is 'miniscule, minituarized, super powered, pot bellied', etc., when comparing him to Tony when only asked about their similar sized upper body proportions.



Duncan, it appears that you are attempting to be difficult and are going to just spout off meaningless remarks rather than work with me here to actually attempt to take a serious look at this issue. To start with ... You do not know what Badge Man's measurements are, thus it is impossible for you to know if Badge Man and Cummings are the same widths or not. That's the first sign of your lack of cooperation.

The second sign is that the widths I created were not to represent Cummings at all. It was a test to show that a said width (Badge Man's) facing the camera would also take up as much spacial width when turned at an angle to the same camera. In other words, Badge Man facing a camera would also take up approximately the same spaqcial width when postured to fire, which brings us back to those narrow yellow lines that you drew. I am still trying to see how you justified their location in representation of Badge Man's shoulders. You have some clearer images to use than you originally posted, so can you better address this at this time???





I refer you back to post #1. In this response I have once again posted my image, so if its being blurred, then possibly someone else is doing it, and seemingly on purpose I might add.







You might wish to read Mile's responses on Lancer a bit closer the next time you're browsing there.





How many times have I posted the intent of that photo of Cummings ... 12 - 24 ... how many times??? I wanted to see the view from Moorman's location to see how people above the wall would stack up to one another when looking uphill. I had Tony stand at the fence ... Tony was not asked to wear a policeman's uniform, nor pretend to be aiming a gun, or to look in any particular direction. As I have stated countless times on these forums ... Had I wanted to recreate the Badge Man images, then I would have first gotten someone much smaller that Mike Brown to portray Gordon Arnold. I would have also gotten someone not so lanky to portray Badge Man. I feel that i have stated this fact enough times that even you should be able to cite it correctly, so I'd appreciate you stick to the facts and stop trying to misstate the record.

It is important that we stay on the same page and at any time that you wish to go back to the old way of jackin' around to avoid moving forward, then just say so and we'll stop here and find someone else who is serious about this topic.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

I'll keep this short. If you are whinging about image quality, why do you keep posting a blurred facing in the wrong direction silhouette image of Tony for comparison purposes?

Duncan MacRae

I wish your responses would be a bit more detailed for they are hard to follow. If you are talking about my use of the illustration where I placed vertical red lines on it, I did this because they were your images of choice where you had validated in your own mind that the scaling was correct. I would have preferred that you used the clearer images, but you didn't. Maybe it would help if you created a similar comparison using the clearer Cummings print with Jack's Badge Man image.

If I have misunderstood something, then please clarifiy it.

Bill Miller

I wish your responses would be a bit more detailed for they are hard to follow.

What's difficult to understand about the question which have not really answered, ie, Why don't you upload a clear pic of Tony cummings at the fence?

If you are talking about my use of the illustration where I placed vertical red lines on it, I did this because they were your images of choice where you had validated in your own mind that the scaling was correct.

I didn't validate the scaling, Jerry Logan did that

I would have preferred that you used the clearer images, but you didn't.

I only originally worked with Jerry's scaling reference to get my point across to you.
You decided to put some weird yellow block rectangular blur over the subjects and then added red lines over the images.

Maybe it would help if you created a similar comparison using the clearer Cummings print with Jack's Badge Man image.

I don't see any clear Cummings image..Can you point me in the right direction to find it?

If I have misunderstood something, then please clarifiy it.

Bill Miller

Yes, you have misunderstood the importance of this accurate Jerry Logan scaling which blows your hypothesis to the four winds. Why don't you just get a ruler and measure the differences?



Duncan MacRae

Duncan, I have provided a clear image of Cummings silhouette over the wall and against the Dallas sky. His shoulders and head are quite easy to see. We have been and still are talking body sizes within the realm of human beings. Who gives a damn if we see the color of Cummings eyes, the whites of his teeth, or any other details other than his shoulder width, head size, and overall upper girth. I don't care if Badge Man had a nicer complexion, prettier hair, or cuter dimples.

You have already said early on that it is Arnold's height that has you bothered. I can go back and re-post the exchange again if you like. You must now be seeing the problem with Badge Man being closer to the girth of Cummings and thats why you are back into the old Duncan maneuvering game. Even if you deny the similarity in size between the two ... others will see it and wonder about your sincerity when it comes to this so-called search for truth you claim to have. The bottom line is that there cannot be 10 to 15% variance in the girth of Badge Man and Tony Cummings, which falls into the normal range among people. I have posted a line of people of various sizes several times now in support of this observation. If we cannot agree on this, then there is no point in wasting my time trying to work through this with you.





Please read the wording more carefully and if you do not understand what has been said, then simply ask for clarification and I will try to better word my post to help you better follow along. When you posted, "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 independent verification of my study', I assume that you checked Jerry's work before praising it. I also assume that you validated it when you said that it validated your work. Like I said before ... your actions will speak louder than your words. So if you are using someone's work to support your claim, then you must have validated it or why else would someone use something they don't know to be correct.



The yellow blocks were of equal size to show the similarities between the two images.



So you are saying that you cannot make out Cumming's outline against the background of the sky so to do height and girth comparisons? Are you sure you wish to take this position considering you could obviously see Cummings well enough in a lesser quality image of the same when you proclaimed that Logan validated your claim. Do you not see that your logic isn't supported by your past remarks? Let me be clear - If you can see Cumming's in the fuzzy pixel's gif well enough to praise , then you can see his sharper image just fine in the image I posted.

And if you still wish to play the 'I can't see Cumming's outline' in the image I posted, I will be happy to start a thread showing that blackened Zapruder on the pedestal illustration you made where you claimed to see all kinds of detail. I would love to hear you explain how your selective interpretation skills work.



Earlier in this very post you wrote, 'I didn't validate the scaling, Jerry Logan did that' ... now you are saying the scaling Jerry did is accurate. Do you care to tell me just when you validated Jerry's scaling ... when you first opted to post it or just now in your last remark???

Bill Miller

Duncan, I have provided a clear image of Cummings silhouette over the wall and against the Dallas sky.

Bill Miller

So now you are changing your wording from a clear image of Tony Cummings to a clear silhouette
Let's start again. Do you or do you not agree that Jerry Logan's illustration is as accurate as is humanly possible, and if not, why not?



Duncan MacRae

A better comarison showing that Tony is much bigger.
Sizes are accurate and taken from the precise Jerry logan gif. I have just scaled them up at an equal ratio.




Duncan MacRae

'Jack around' if you must, the Silhouette was because of the location of the sun when the photo was taken. The sun was perfect in our view so that the outlines of the stand-ins would show up quite well against the background of the sky. You had previously been given another view of Cummings head for a comparison ... there should be no excuse for confusion at this time.
Click to view attachment

I will answer your question about Logans animated gif in my next response.

Bill Miller

The first thing that has not changed and is in error in my view is that when I place the tip of my mouse at the top of the wall under Badge Man ... I see the animated overlaid wall in my picture of Cummings is placed higher in elevation for that gif. To be precise ... they should be exact. So before we ever get started, Badge Man will appear shorter against Cummings if the two walls are not starting at the same elevation. This was quite apparent in one of the earlier larger versions of this gif, but since my mentioning this early on ... it has been the smaller harder to detect version that has been used ever since.

The second thing that is misleading is that your images are so pixel'd that its hard to see where Cummings head stops and the overhanging foliage ends. But if you measure the width and vertical height from the top of the wall to the tops of the shoulders on each individual ... they are basically the same. However, your terribly pixel'd animations do not show this ... do you have an honest explanation for this???

Another observation that you have not even remotely addressed one way or the other is that Cummings shoulders are relaxed and Badge Man's shoulders are in a 'shrugged posture' which is what happens when one lifts a rifle to aim it. Feel free to test this for yourself. What this does is make the shooters head look lower against his shoulders. Have Cummings aim a gun and/or Badge Man relax his shoulders and their visible body size above the wall gets even closer to one another.

So now having pointing these things out ... my last point and question is this .... Is it your position that there is so much of a visible body size difference between Cummings and Badge Man standing over the wall ... that Badge Man could be said to be too small to be real???

Bill Miller

'Jack around' if you must, the Silhouette was because of the location of the sun when the photo was taken. The sun was perfect in our view so that the outlines of the stand-ins would show up quite well against the background of the sky. You had previously been given another view of Cummings head for a comparison ... there should be no excuse for confusion at this time.
Click to view attachment

I will answer your question about Logans animated gif in my next response.

Bill Miller

The only one Jackin around is you, and you're doing it at a below par standard. Do you think people are stupid and will be fooled when looking at your above images comparison?
It's obvious you have not scaled them properly, and you have made Jack's coloured version bigger to make a comparison, trying to deceive and give people who don't know any better, the impression that Badge Man is a similar size to Tony Cummings. It's shameful.
If you want to take this seriously instead of making a fool of yourself, scale them to a reasonable level of accuracy like I do, like Jerry Logan does, and then present your case.

Duncan MacRae

The first thing that has not changed and is in error in my view is that when I place the tip of my mouse at the top of the wall under Badge Man ... I see the animated overlaid wall in my picture of Cummings is placed higher in elevation for that gif. To be precise ... they should be exact. So before we ever get started, Badge Man will appear shorter against Cummings if the two walls are not starting at the same elevation. This was quite apparent in one of the earlier larger versions of this gif, but since my mentioning this early on ... it has been the smaller harder to detect version that has been used ever since.

Bill Miller

Is this big enough? You need a new mouse and an appointment with an optician. Click on the image to view full size


Duncan MacRae

Duncan, I do not understand why you continue to waste time wanting to argue about things not being discussed. I am talking about Tony Cummings outline being quite clear against the Dallas sky. So not to allow you to continue losing focus of the issue ... I have removed Badge Man from the picture, so no unless you can think of something else non-related to this discussion to want to talk about .... you should now have to admit that you have a good idea where Cummings head starts and stops ... do you not???????
Click to view attachment


Bill Miller

Duncan, again you are screwing around and never even touched the most important part of my response and that was the question asking if you agreed that Cummings and Badge Man are close enough in visible proportions to one another above the wall for Badge Man to be considered real???



Click to view attachment
As far as your poor eyesight remarks ... the dark clothing of Badge Man stops at the top of the white wall, as well as that of Cummings. All the poor fuzzy images that you post will not hide that fact and when I tested this in your animation - they simply do not match. (see red arrows)

If it is your intention to continue side-stepping the relevant questions and would rather just push propaganda such as the above animation shows, then we can stop here for I want to discuss this with a serious researcher and not someone with an agenda of not cooperating to the point of responding with such irrelevant nonsense..

Bill Miller

Duncan, again you are screwing around and never even touched the most important part of my response and that was the question asking if you agreed that Cummings and Badge Man are close enough in visible proportions to one another above the wall for Badge Man to be considered real???

I've told you, but I guess you're having another one of your Magoo days. I don't believe they are close in visible proportions. You are not taking the depth of the image in to consideration.

Click to view attachment
As far as your poor eyesight remarks ... the dark clothing of Badge Man stops at the top of the white wall, as well as that of Cummings. All the poor fuzzy images that you post will not hide that fact and when I tested this in your animation - they simply do not match. (see red arrows)

I think even Stevie Wonder could tell that they do match.

If it is your intention to continue side-stepping the relevant questions and would rather just push propaganda such as the above animation shows, then we can stop here for I want to discuss this with a serious researcher and not someone with an agenda of not cooperating to the point of responding with such irrelevant nonsense..

Bill Miller

If you want to walk, i'm not stopping you, just make sure you don't fall down any holes on your way out.


What you posted above only confirms that I am correct, and that Jerry's scaling is correct, but most of all, it confirms that i was correct in suggesting that you do need to make an urgent appointment with an optician, or monumentally increase your daily ration of carrots. Any extraneous white bits on the Moorman wall are down to the quality of Moorman. If you have a totally straight edged Moorman wall, I would love to see it.

Duncan MacRae

Great information, Duncan ... 'not taking the depth of the image into consideration' ....... this is a terminology I have not heard of before. Please take a moment and explain in detail what you meant by your remark. While you are thinking of a way to explain it ... allow me to leave this image up in case it may help us better understand what you have said.
Click to view attachment




Nothing serious or informative in that response - typical Duncan.





I was talking about where the dark of Badge Man and Cumming's torso meet the white wall. You were asked to explain in detail if you disagreed ... you have not done so. Can you offer a more detailed response?

Also, do you really think it is wise to continue posting cartoons and other stupid images designed to troll when you saw what happened to your 'study buddy' for trolling the forum? Maybe less time creating such nonsense, then the more time you'll have for created better detailed responses.

Bill Miller

Also, do you really think it is wise to continue posting cartoons and other stupid images designed to troll when you saw what happened to your 'study buddy' for trolling the forum? Maybe less time creating such nonsense, then the more time you'll have for created better detailed responses.

Bill Miller

I object to you calling me a troll, I find that more offensive than posting a cartoon. I'll remove the cartoon to keep you happy as you obviously don't have a sense of humour. You must be the life and soul of any party Bill
As for your hinting in a sneaky way that I might be banned for posting the cartoon, and I have no doubts that this is what you are trying to do, I suggest you watch what you say as other members and mods will note your open poorly disguised subliminal hints to the mods to ban me. It worked on Lancer because you are one of the in crowd there, but the mods here are a different story, higher class and intellect. Grow up, try smiling sometimes, stop whinging, and post something which gives me a challenge, because so far you're just posting uncalculated nonsense comments and moans and groans about everything and anything. Try posting YOUR to scale comparison and we can move forward.

Accurate Scaling

Duncan MacRae

It's OK, Duncan ... I am sure that some trolls get equally upset when they are referred to as 'anotherDuncan'.




Yes, Duncan and here is what happened ... I used black magic to get you to post such moronic images in hopes of you getting banned. Then I use my connections to the underworld to take over your mind so you won't see that your grief is the result of your own making. It all became quite easy to achieve when I got my instruction manual on 'How to control someones actions who has the intelligence of a chicken'.

Now that we have the nonsense out of the way ... how about telling me if what is seen of Badge Man over the wall in your view would make him look too small to be a real person when compared to Tony Cummings? If your answer is that Badge Man is too small to be human when compared to Cummings, then please detail your reasons for thinking this way.





Before you go much further ... you do know that a moderator cannot ban someone from a forum right? So regardless of their level of class or intellect (much like the other things you have said in this thread) ... its irrelevant! But if you would be so kind as to use your vast intelligence, please detail how it is that the upper body girth of Badge Man is not close enough to that of Cummings to be considered real ... that is if that is your position. Your self-proclaimed scaling in your previous response shows Badge Man to have a reasonably similar sized head as Cummings. The distance from the head to the end of the shoulders between the two individuals seems very similar, as well. This means that while not exact, the shoulder width of each individual is consistent to that of a human being. So if you disagree and other than you just saying it as any one can do, it would really help if you were specific and detailed in your response so to ...
1) Help others to learn the Duncan MacRae method of photo analogy
2) To prove that you have a valid reason for what you are saying and are not just making it up as you go.

Thanks,

Bill Miller