Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall

[Alan Healy]

Then that must be an extra arm he keeps in the sleeve of his jacket so to tug at the back of his pant leg - see 20/21 second mark on the Nix film.

You can't see his arm in that sleeve, so you must be referring to his glove, which is seen dangling from his cuff as he turns.

He or his spouse must of threaded his gloves into his jacket to stop him misplacing them.

The man on Houston Street is not holding a jacket. I have not a clue where you come up wuth these observations.

Because you don't see it, am I to assume that all your observations are suspect? (Well on this topic, I do anyway but the answer is) No of course not!

If you don't have a clue, don't get stroppy, just ask.

You should of noticed that the jacket is more of a pinkish colour in some frames, compared to that of his shirt.

Also, "the long arm" of his sleeve should of hinted to you that this is too long to be his real hand "tugging" his pant leg as you say.

I said the man's hat extended out over his chest - not in front of his body.

I believe I used the forehead and nose as reference points.

You did what? You see a forehead & nose on the BELL man?

Get the.

What I am pointing out to you, is that your "enhancement" of you favourite frame in BELL, does not gel with the hat of the man in NIX.

Now either, a)it's not the same guy, b)your enhancement was unreliable because of the poor quality of the film or c) both, do you understand me?

Edited September 15, 2004 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

You can't see his arm in that sleeve, so you must be referring to his glove, which is seen dangling from his cuff as he turns.

He or his spouse must of threaded his gloves into his jacket to stop him misplacing them.

Gary Mack tells me that it is not a glove, nor a forearm, but rather a shadow being cast upon the man's leg.

You should of noticed that the jacket is more of a pinkish colour in some frames, compared to that of his shirt.

It certainly does stand out more in your copy. I would have to agree and yield to the better colorization and say that he is holding a jacket or rain coat.

You did what? You see a forehead & nose on the BELL man?

No - I said the hat would at least slide over the forehead and I could see grass beneath it, thus it extended over the man's chest area. I believe his head is tilted forward and slightly to the right, thus exposing the top of the hat to the sun and camera.

The man's rolled up sleeves are seen below.

Edited September 16, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

I don't believe Gary has found the BELL man yet.

I've searched everything I have & there isn't anyone who really stands out.

I think there are more differences between the BELL man & the guy in NIX, than there are between BELL man & your Arnold candidate at the top of the steps.

The most obvious is the short sleeves & the jacket he's holding while on Houston St.

Now you told me that one of the reasons the BELL man cannot be the same guy in the b/w DARNELL footage is because the guy on the walkway doesn't have his sleeves rolled up (IMO it's a short sleeved shirt in NIX btw), so am I missing something?

Do you see anything on the man in BELL that suggests a black forearm?

If not, why doesn't this rule him out as the NIX man to you?

[Alan Healy]

Off Topic "find"

The Major outside the TSBD.

Never noticed him before.

[Bill Miller]

Now you told me that one of the reasons the BELL man cannot be the same guy in the b/w DARNELL footage is because the guy on the walkway doesn't have his sleeves rolled up (IMO it's a short sleeved shirt in NIX btw), so am I missing something?

To start with - the guy in the Nix film can be seen quite easily at the 26 second mark in the Bell film. His shirt sleeves stop between his elbow and his wrist. They appear to be rolled back somewhat. See below.

Do you see anything on the man in BELL that suggests a black forearm?

If not, why doesn't this rule him out as the NIX man to you?

I would yield to the original film that Gary Mack has access to. The same long feet, extremely baggy pants and shirt and the fact that both men are dark skinned is a start. What I don't recall asking Gary is if the man in the original Bell film is still holding onto his jacket?

Edited September 19, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

I would yield to the original film that Gary Mack has access to. The same long feet, extremely baggy pants and shirt and the fact that both men are dark skinned is a start. What I don't recall asking Gary is if the man in the original Bell film is still holding onto his jacket?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, so the lack of any rolled up sleeves on the man walking across the grass in BELL man is no longer a deciding factor for you, I was just curious.

I can't be 100% on the rolled up or short sleeves point but the NIX footage is the best quality & it seems to be telling me his sleeves are cut off at the elbow but it's not that important as long as we agree that the majority of his forearms are exposed & this is not the case on the BELL man).

Fwiw, there are no long feet/boots to be seen on the man in BELL, the man in NIX has not got "extremely" baggy pants on, there just baggy & they don't narrow at the bottom like the BELL mans' do.

Regardless of their overall similarities, they have differences that the BELL film cannot help us to solve.

I get the impression that the man in BELL is younger & taller & I think the guy sitting down in the photo below, does a much better impression of him than the fellow in NIX on Houston St.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ype=post&id=353

Note how the turn-ups are narrowing the botom of his pant legs.

Edited September 19, 2004 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

I can't be 100% on the rolled up or short sleeves point but the NIX footage is the best quality & it seems to be telling me his sleeves are cut off at the elbow but it's not that important as long as we agree that the majority of his forearms are exposed & this is not the case on the BELL man).

So I take it that you think I colored the man's forearms blue in the Bell film capture. I can assure you that I did not alter that image in a way that extended the blue sleeves down onto the Negro's forearm. The reason that part of his forearms are exposed while on Houston Street may have something to do with his shirt being so baggy.

Fwiw, there are no long feet/boots to be seen on the man in BELL, the man in NIX has not got "extremely" baggy pants on, there just baggy & they don't narrow at the bottom like the BELL mans' do.

Baggy - extremely baggy ... I guess that is a matter of opinion. I also guess the pants in the Bell film would appear too narrow to be the man in the Nix film if you only view the sunlit portion as the pant legs. The capture you used leaves a little bit to be desired. See the images below.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

So I take it that you think I colored the man's forearms blue in the Bell film capture. I can assure you that I did not alter that image in a way that extended the blue sleeves down onto the Negro's forearm. The reason that part of his forearms are exposed while on Houston Street may have something to do with his shirt being so baggy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I don't think you altered this image it's just kinda hard to tell where the jacket he is holding stops & his shirt sleeve begins from BELL alone.

NIX says the shirt ends at the elbow(whether its rolled up or not) whatcha gonna do?

Anyway, when I refer to "BELL man" I am/was talking about the fella seen walking across the grass towards the wall.

I realise the geeza on Houston St is seen in NIX, BELL, MUCHMORE & HUGHES but

the "BELL man" does not have any forearm showing & IMO is not the same dude.

However lets pretend we've proved it's him for now & move on.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

No, I don't think you altered this image it's just kinda hard to tell where the jacket he is holding stops & his shirt sleeve begins from BELL alone.

NIX says the shirt ends at the elbow(whether its rolled up or not) whatcha gonna do?

If you go to post #80 and look at the blue color on the man's forearm you should see that the shirt goes further down the arm than the elbow.

Anyway, when I refer to "BELL man" I am/was talking about the fella seen walking across the grass towards the wall.

I realise the geeza on Houston St is seen in NIX, BELL, MUCHMORE & HUGHES but

the "BELL man" does not have any forearm showing & IMO is not the same dude.

The inability to see the forearm is the only variance I can detect in the Bell film. What we do not know is if he has put on his jacket or merely had his sleeve slide down since in the Nix film he has his arms bent at a right angle while holding his jacket close to his body? What I have said and have checked with Mack is that we cannot find anyone else in the area who wore such baggy clothing that fits the description of the man in the Bell film. That's why I pointed to the dark ban over the lower stomach area as seen on the individual in both the Bell and Nix film. Regardless if this person was anyone of the Negro's in and around the knoll area - their caps do not match that of the man on the walkway in the overseas cap.

Edited September 22, 2004 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

BM writ:

dgh01: .......  till you post ANYTHING regarding the DP films and photos with proven provenance, your opinion are just that, opinions.

I have never understood your thinking process, but that's probably a good thing. You act like all the photos and films have to be authenticated or they are not reliable enough to even bother with.

dgh01: If there are legitimate questions, OF COURSE they [films-photos]should be authenticated. You doubt this?

Many of us have wondered if that is really your position and seeing how you have no way of doing what you believe must be done, then why bother hanging out on JFK assassination forums such as this one in the first place.

dgh01: Wonder away... better yet, read HOAX. Hangout? ROFLMAO! ! ! hey guy, I'm not the one with multiple thousands of posts concerning JFK Assassination related matter all over the internet...

If nothing that you research can be validated, then by your standards it is all a waste of time anyway and yet you continue to make replies on a topic that can't go anywhere.

dgh01: I answer those that have curiosity regarding the Z-film. Who says the research is going nowhere?

That doesn't seem to make any sense.

Closest we've got is David Lifton's material, which sheds all sorts of light, on the Groden's way of handling DP films, photos and negatives...

Here is a point maybe worth mentioning - I believe you are on record as saying, 'I have no proof that any of the assassination photos and films are faked',

dgh01: that's 100% percent correct - nor do you have evidence any of the films are authentic!

so what vast amount of light was shed by Lifton to lead you to make that statement when you have to know Lifton is pro-film and photo alteration

dgh01: Might try reading 'Pig on a Leash' in : The Great Zapruder Film HOAX

... it seems that Lifton only took you back to where you started from.

dgh01: I suspect DLifton forgot more than most of us will EVER know/understand regarding the backroom dealings with JFK Assassination related films and photos... that includes Groden. Groden's credibility went right out the window with the OJ case and the Bruno Magli shoes... Anything for a buck!

David Healy

Edited September 29, 2004 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh01: If there are legitimate questions, OF COURSE they [films-photos]should be authenticated. You doubt this?

If there are legitimate questions - yes. However, misunderstanding what's seen on an a film or a photo hardly represents legitimacy. I noted two places in hoax where the book cited a photograph legit in one area of the book and questioned its authenticity in another.

dgh01: Wonder away... better yet, read HOAX. Hangout? ROFLMAO! ! ! hey guy, I'm not the one with multiple thousands of posts concerning JFK Assassination related matter all over the internet...

No - you seem to be the guy with countless replies that never address any specifics about the assassination.

dgh01: I answer those that have curiosity regarding the Z-film. Who says the research is going nowhere?

You answered the question as to where the alteration research has went by saying you have seen no proof of it.

dgh01: I suspect DLifton forgot more than most of us will EVER know/understand regarding the backroom dealings with JFK Assassination related films and photos... that includes Groden. Groden's credibility went right out the window with the OJ case and the Bruno Magli shoes... Anything for a buck!

David Healy

I didn't agree with Groden's opinion in the O.J. Simpson case, but many issues were raised with the faulty claims being raised years ago over photo and film alteration and yet they made it into the hoax book after all. Yup - anything for a buck, I guess!

[John Geraghty]

I didnt notice if it had been mentioned in this post before but didnt ralph yarborough see a military man in arnolds position

John

[David G. Healy]

[snip for brevity]

No - you seem to be the guy with countless replies that never address any specifics about the assassination.

dgh:02: seeing that my interest is in the Z-film and attendant DPlaza photos, I find it needless to comment on anything related to the assassination other than generalities. There's no need to enter a arena with so many SELF-DECLARED experts mudding up the waters. Till the holders of the Assassination Film announce said films are available for forensic testing, ALL discussion about the films, any of them, as "evidence" used to legitimize the findings of the Warren Commission, regarding the single bullet theory and the guilt of LHO is pure Dallas fantasy.

WHAT are they hiding?

[...]

[Bill Miller]

dgh:02: seeing that my interest is in the Z-film and attendant DPlaza photos, I find it needless to comment on anything related to the assassination other than generalities. There's no need to enter a arena with so many SELF-DECLARED experts mudding up the waters. Till the holders of the Assassination Film announce said films are available for forensic testing, ALL discussion about the films, any of them, as "evidence" used to legitimize the findings of the Warren Commission, regarding the single bullet theory and the guilt of LHO is pure Dallas fantasy.

WHAT are they hiding?

David - I cannot see anyone taking on such a task at the request of someone who only talks in general terms. If you had witness who were saying that something wasn't as they saw it when they took their photos and films it would be one thing, but that has not been the case. That's why many of us were against the idea of placing a ton of off-the-wall alteration claims in Fetzer's book for if and when they were shown to be the product of poor research/and or lack of understanding of the photographical record, then it makes it harder for the CT's to be taken seriously enough to request what you proposed doing with the films and photos. The need for accuracy and being certain about such claims was thoroughly explained over 5 years ago on DellaRosa's site and the alteration crowd refused to listen and I'm not sure that the JFK research community distancing themselves from the alteration crowd will ever get it's credibility back to where it once was. I'm all for testing any film or photo if there is a justifiable cause for doing so. Who do we get to layout such justifiable cause for doing this ... White - Fetzer - Costella? I take no pride is saying that the hoax book has harmed their credibility, as well as others for no other reason than guilt by association. I'm certainly saddened by the fact that it lumped us all together as crackpots in many peoples minds. On the other hand even if we could make a justifiable case to test the camera originals, the risk however is immeasurable for look what happened to the Dillard negatives - they were ruined! So there is going to have to be something really solid concerning photo and film alteration to be discovered to justify getting the original photographical record tested and until then I cannot fault the National Archives for not just turning them over based on the claims of alteration I have seen so far.

[Bill Miller]

I didnt notice if it had been mentioned in this post before but didnt ralph yarborough see a military man in arnolds position

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John - Earl Golz told me that Yarborough had read the article about the man in uniform (Gordon Arnold) above the wall and that Ralph then contacted Golz to tell him that he had seen that man. Yarborough touched on thinking that the man had his military training to know how to take cover the way he did, but the Yarborough interview wasn't specific as to whether Ralph saw him in the uniform or not. Earl could no longer recall and didn't have his notes any longer, as I recall. The impression I have always had was that Yarborough saw that it was an infantry man and came to the conclusion by the man's actions that the service man had already completed his training over what to do when having live ammunition being fired in hsi direction. In my mind - for Ralph to have said this about anyone doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. He could have thought the man had police training. Newman hit the ground soon after the shots were fired as well as Malcolm Summers. It just seems to me that Yarborough saw this man as a military man who was trained in combat and it makes me believe he saw the man's uniform. It's a shame that we don't have anything more specific to go on at the present time. That doesn't mean that Ralph didn't make it clear at some point - I just don't know when that was and to whom it was said.

Bill