Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall

[Jack White]

Jack,

What makes you think there was a soldier there with a camera, but it wasn't Arnold? If you're going to have a soldier there, why not make it Arnold, who was a soldier?

This reminds me of the old folk song about "Where have all the soldiers gone?".

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your question makes no sense. Arnold was the solder standing there with

a camera. The people who obscurred him by replacing him with BDM did not

know his name.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Mack talked to him by phone AFTER we discovered his image

in Moorman in 1983.

If Arnold therefore knew of the image before it was shown to him in TMWKK, then the surprise he showed in that video was contrived, was it not?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron - It's important that we separate Mack's time with Arnold from Turner's. Let me see if I can better explain what evolved over time ...

My understanding from talking to Gary Mack is that Gary called Arnold in 1982 and 1983 and during their conversation - Gary told Gordon that he may have a photo showing Gordon in the plaza. No other information was given to Gordon about what photo it was that may contain Gordon's image. Gordon then remarked that he would be interested in seeing this photo and Gary replied that he wanted to wait to see if he could get a clearer image made of it before showing it to Gordon.

To Mack's knowledge - no one had shown Arnold any version of the Badge Man photo until Turner showed it to Gordon in the MWKK series. It was Gary Mack who discussed with Turner beforehand how they should present the Badge Man images to Gordon Arnold. You see, Gordon was not made aware that Turner would be showing him the photo that Mack talked about years earlier - Gordon was just granting an interview for all he knew. The interview showing Arnold looking at the Badge Man enlargements was conducted in Gordon's back yard. Turner merely presented Gordon with the colorized enlargement of Badge Man with a white piece of paper blocking out Arnold’s part of the picture and asked Gordon what it was that he saw in that image. This is what we see in the MWKK interview with Gordon. It wasn't until Gordon flips over the piece of paper and reveals what looked to him to be himself in his military uniform that he put two and two together. Gordon had already told of the hatless cop taking his film immediately after the assassination and now he was staring at an enlargement showing just such an individual firing a shot over Gordon's left shoulder. This is when Gordon became upset and how upset you did not see on the filmed interview because Turner edited it out. Both Turner and his associate producer (Sue Winter) told Mack that Gordon actually got up from the table and walked away into the back yard so shaken and emotional that Gordon's wife had to go to him to console Gordon. Both Sue Winter and NigelTurner said that they were amazed at how much this still bothered Arnold and that he was clearly affected by his experience on 11/22/63 after all that time.

[Jack White]

Mack talked to him by phone AFTER we discovered his image

in Moorman in 1983.

If Arnold therefore knew of the image before it was shown to him in TMWKK, then the surprise he showed in that video was contrived, was it not?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron - It's important that we separate Mack's time with Arnold from Turner's. Let me see if I can better explain what evolved over time ...

My understanding from talking to Gary Mack is that Gary called Arnold in 1982 and 1983 and during their conversation - Gary told Gordon that he may have a photo showing Gordon in the plaza. No other information was given to Gordon about what photo it was that may contain Gordon's image. Gordon then remarked that he would be interested in seeing this photo and Gary replied that he wanted to wait to see if he could get a clearer image made of it before showing it to Gordon.

To Mack's knowledge - no one had shown Arnold any version of the Badge Man photo until Turner showed it to Gordon in the MWKK series. It was Gary Mack who discussed with Turner beforehand how they should present the Badge Man images to Gordon Arnold. You see, Gordon was not made aware that Turner would be showing him the photo that Mack talked about years earlier - Gordon was just granting an interview for all he knew. The interview showing Arnold looking at the Badge Man enlargements was conducted in Gordon's back yard. Turner merely presented Gordon with the colorized enlargement of Badge Man with a white piece of paper blocking out Arnold’s part of the picture and asked Gordon what it was that he saw in that image. This is what we see in the MWKK interview with Gordon. It wasn't until Gordon flips over the piece of paper and reveals what looked to him to be himself in his military uniform that he put two and two together. Gordon had already told of the hatless cop taking his film immediately after the assassination and now he was staring at an enlargement showing just such an individual firing a shot over Gordon's left shoulder. This is when Gordon became upset and how upset you did not see on the filmed interview because Turner edited it out. Both Turner and his associate producer (Sue Winter) told Mack that Gordon actually got up from the table and walked away into the back yard so shaken and emotional that Gordon's wife had to go to him to console Gordon. Both Sue Winter and NigelTurner said that they were amazed at how much this still bothered Arnold and that he was clearly affected by his experience on 11/22/63 after all that time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bill's accurate resume of this information exactly matches my remembrance. Arnold

HAD NOT SEEN THE BADGEMAN ENLARGEMENT prior to being filmed.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Alan...you have misstated my belief. I DO NOT BELIEVE BLACKDOGMAN IS ARNOLD!

BDM appears in only 2 photos...Willis and Betzner.

My actual belief (which you got wrong) is that both Willis and Betzner originally

showed in that location an unknown soldier with a camera. Fearing discovery of

a SOLDIER TAKING PHOTOS, the govt retouched Willis and Betzner to OBSCURE

THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER. In that location, they put in the indistinct spectator,

blackdogman.

Jack - I ask that you reconsider what you have said in the above statements for they do not support each other.

First you acknowledge a belief that Gordon Arnold is seen in Moorman's photograph filming the assassination and that he is wearing his miltary uniform. Then you say that you do not believe that Gordon Arnold is the Black Dog Man (or BDM) in the Willis and Betzner photos where you go on to say that BDM is a man in a military uniform taking photos (film) and has been retouched to obsecure him. Whether those photos are retouched or not isn't the issue, but rather there is only one man in a military uniform seen over the concrete wall in Moorman's photo, so any man in a military uniform in the Betzner or Willis photo at the same location has to be the same person. If Arnold is in Moorman's photo, then he is also in the Betzner and Willis photos as well.

Those repective LOS's from each photographers filming locations all meet at the very spot where Gordon Arnold said he was standing when the assassination took place. There is only 6 seconds between the time that the Willis photo and Moorman's Polaroid was taken. Arnold said he was already in position and filming the President as the limo was coming down Elm Street, thus the individual in all three photos being dicussed here has to be Gordon Arnold. I think once you have thought about this you will find that there can be no other choice but it to be Arnold in all three photos. (see the attachment below)

The next two images show what I discovered when overlaying the shadow crossing over the BDM into the Arnold figure in Moorman's photograph. Aside from Arnold turning his torso slightly as he tracked the limo down Elm Street from the time the Willis photo was taken to the point Moorman took her Polaroid - the shadows match. The third image shows the shadow that Arnold/BDM was standing in and it is because he stood in the same tree shadow is why the shade line crossing his body matches in each picture. The poor quality images combined with the greater distance to the subject in the Willis and Betzner photos makes Arnold's other features difficult to pick up on, but not impossible!

I truly believe that those who think the BDM is up at the wall has done so because of a term called "the foreshortening effect". This makes objects look closer than they really are much like how the train car looked like in the Nix film. In that instance the train car looked to be right behind the fence when in reality it was across the RR yard.

Edited December 22, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

About 6 seconds separate Wilis/Betzner and Moorman. I would expect

numerous changes in that amount of time. I have seen NO IMAGE in which

blackdogman resembles the Arnold image in Moorman. The HSCA "proved"

that BDM was a person leaning on the end of the wall, if that means anything.

BDM is seen in only two photos, and does NOT appear in Moorman 6 seconds

later.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

About 6 seconds separate Wilis/Betzner and Moorman. I would expect

numerous changes in that amount of time. I have seen NO IMAGE in which

blackdogman resembles the Arnold image in Moorman. The HSCA "proved"

that BDM was a person leaning on the end of the wall, if that means anything.

BDM is seen in only two photos, and does NOT appear in Moorman 6 seconds

later.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack - Let's not muddy the waters by referring to the HSCA which I thought you said earlier that they had a political agenda. Let's keep it simple for Arnold is the only reliable source at this time.

Now lets be logical here and see if the following doesn't make sense to you ... Arnold said in the TMWKK that he was standing where we see him in Moorman's photo and he was test panning with his mother's camera waiting for the "parade" to come by ... follow me so far? That places him in position before Betzner and Willis took their photographs. Gordon Arnold never said that some other guy walked in front of his camera and blocked his view of the parade. That tells me that there is one man in a military uniform above the wall - not two. I say this for the reasons I just stated ... for if there was someone at the concrete wall, then they would have been blocking Arnold from seeing the parade and if they were leaning on the wall, then we would have seen Arnold just beyond that second man in a military uniform and we don't.

Now there is the issue of the shadow passing over both men at the same points on their body. As someone who has studied shadows in the past you should know that if the same turn in the shadow passes over both figures at the same place on their body, then they are the same person or else one person moved from that location and the other walked in and took his exact place within those short 6 seconds and Arnold 'did not' say that he swapped locations with anyone during the shooting. Below is a new illustration (not drawn to scale) that will show that one man in one location accounts for what is seen between the Betzner and Moorman's photographs.

1) The first example shows how the shade line passed over Arnold as he stood at the West end of the walkway. Gordon's left shoulder is sticking out into the sunlight as seen in the red oval cirlce. As Arnold turned his body to the right so to track the limo to the point that it was between he and Moorman his left shoulder rolled into the path of that Hudson tree shadow as seen with the green oval cirlce. I have marked that shadow with a red "x". (see attachment 3)

2) Now if we take the Betzner BDM, shich has a sharper image to work with than the Willis photo did, and overlay him onto the Arnold figure from Moorman's photograph - we find that by allowing the two images to run back and forth that we can see that turning of Arnold's body and the rolling of his left shoulder into the shade line that I just described. (see attachment 2)

3) All three camera positions (Moorman, Willis, and Betzner) show the figure to be on a LOS that crosses over each other at the very spot Arnold placed himself. (see attachment 1)

I cannot explain why the HSCA didn't see this other than I wonder sometimes that they didn't want to identify that person as Arnold because that would mean having to deal with Arnold's claim. If I remember right ... the HSCA didn't utilize the walkway footage or Moorman's photograph. In the final analysis the person in both images had to be Arnold doing just what he claimed to be doing during the assassination. If the BDM is not Arnold, then there was no Arnold because a second man in a military uniform is not seen in the Betzner or Willis photographs. And when you consider that Arnold never said a word about someone blocking his view and both individuals seem to be someone in a military uniform with a camera - common sense should tell us that the figure was Arnold all along. I ask that you think this through thoroughly and see if what I have not just laid out is not only logical and supports what Gordon Arnold said, but that it's the only alternative there can be without dismissing Arnold as not really being where he said he was during the assassination.

Sorry about the examples not being in numerical order for the forum did not place them in the order that I loaded them. This is why I referenced them in the text as attachment 1, 2 or 3 accordingly.

Edited December 23, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Tim Carroll]

... the HSCA didn't utilize the walkway footage or Moorman's photograph.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting, I didn't know that.

[Bill Miller]

2) Now if we take the Betzner BDM, shich has a sharper image to work with than the Willis photo did,

Sorry for the typo in my previous post. It should have read "2) Now if we take the Betzner BDM, which has a sharper image to work with than the Willis photo did,"

One other point to anyone trying to understand the shadow change on my BDM/Arnold overlay ... Don't forget that Kennedy was between the corner of the concrete wall (Arnold's position) and the camera in both the Betzner and Moorman photos (Phil Willis's, as well). This is why the figure in each photo is looking at the camera. If you use the overhead view where I show the LOS from Betzner and Moorman to the Arnold location, you can see just how far he turned his body between photos so to be looking towards each photographer when they took his photo. That turn is exactly what the overlay shows when in motion. Just keep in mind that Arnold is looking at Betzner in one image and has turned and is looking at Moorman in the other image.

One more thing ... I took the same light patches from the street side of the subject/Arnold and compared them in both the Moorman and Betzner photos. I found them to be an identical match right down to the shadow spot in the middle of each one. The slight difference in lighting came from the body turning between photos and the way the sun hit it. I also took the liberty of creating that light spot in red so you can see how it matches each photograph.

I am happy to answer any questions. If none are asked, then I assume that I presented these images in a way that was understood by all interested parties.

Bill

Edited December 23, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Whether those photos are retouched or not isn't the issue, but rather there is only one man in a military uniform seen over the concrete wall in Moorman's photo, so any man in a military uniform in the Betzner or Willis photo at the same location has to be the same person. If Arnold is in Moorman's photo, then he is also in the Betzner and Willis photos as well.

The Arnold figure in Moorman5 is only one interpritation of what we are seeing & I'm pretty convinced you, Jack & Gary have gone with the wrong one.

I see a mans face in here.

I think so far, the only person to actually comment on it in a professional manner was GMack himself who said that the head was to big.

Although I tend to think myself that the size of the head fits in very well with the other "characters" researchers believe are above the wall in this photo.

If one was looking for Blackdogman in Moorman5, this face/figure certainly has much more in common with the dark figure in Betzner3.

Those repective LOS's from each photographers filming locations all meet at the very spot where Gordon Arnold said he was standing when the assassination took place.

This has never been proven & it never will be if Bill continues to use these inappropriate photos to illustrate his theory.

I think Blackdogman in Betzner & Willis only lines up with what we are seeing in Moorman if he/it is tucked up close to the wall in all three photos.

Maybe Jack would like to give us his opinion of where this individual would be stood behind the wall in Betzner in order for him to line up with the figure in Moorman.

There is only 6 seconds between the time that the Willis photo and Moorman's Polaroid was taken. Arnold said he was already in position and filming the President as the limo was coming down Elm Street, thus the individual in all three photos being dicussed here has to be Gordon Arnold. I think once you have thought about this you will find that there can be no other choice but it to be Arnold in all three photos. (see the attachment below)

I thought you believed that Arnold wasn't filming the motorcade in Betzner3?

What occured that made you change your mind?

The next two images show what I discovered when overlaying the shadow crossing over the BDM into the Arnold figure in Moorman's photograph. Aside from Arnold turning his torso slightly as he tracked the limo down Elm Street from the time the Willis photo was taken to the point Moorman took her Polaroid - the shadows match.The third image shows the shadow that Arnold/BDM was standing in and it is because he stood in the same tree shadow is why the shade line crossing his body matches in each picture. The poor quality images combined with the greater distance to the subject in the Willis and Betzner photos makes Arnold's other features difficult to pick up on, but not impossible!

This is some of the worst photo analysis I have ever seen, what makes it worse is, that not only have you been there yourself so you know that any person stood at the end of the walkway would not be seen behind the wall in Moorman5, worse than that, you have interfered with the Betzner3 to make it line up with the figure you go with in Moorman5.

All you have to do is take one picture from behind the wall looking up the road at Betzners position & that will be an end to it.

I truly believe that those who think the BDM is up at the wall has done so because of a term called "the foreshortening effect". This makes objects look closer than they really are much like how the train car looked like in the Nix film. In that instance the train car looked to be right behind the fence when in reality it was across the RR yard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone able to can go to the plaza with a camera & replicate these positions in such a way that can be clearly seen by other researchers & because you haven't done this already but instead continue to rely on this unreliable trash you constantly exhibit, your whole theory is a falsehood.

Call me a nut if you like but that's what I believe.

I have yet to see any real evidence that BDM & the Arnold figure "line-up" & I am more inclined to believe from the photos I have seen, that it's impossible to have anyone stand anywhere on the pathway & appear as we see him in Betzner3.

Blackdogman was leaning on the wall, to think anything else is just wrong.

[Alan Healy]

I am happy to answer any questions. If none are asked, then I assume that I presented these images in a way that was understood by all interested parties.

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you becoming confounded by your own propoganda?

THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IN THE LINK BELOW IS NOT FROM BETZNER3 SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO PRESENT IT AS THOUGH IT IS?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1166

[Bill Miller]

The Arnold figure in Moorman5 is only one interpritation of what we are seeing & I'm pretty convinced you, Jack & Gary have gone with the wrong one.

I see a mans face in here.

They used the best possible print in their possession. The quality of the print you are posting is substandard.

I think so far, the only person to actually comment on it in a professional manner was GMack himself who said that the head was to big.

Too big? In what ... the Betzner photo? Mack has thought that the individual in the Betzner photo was Emmett Hudson, so I would be puzzled as to why he would say the head is too big.

This has never been proven & it never will be if Bill continues to use these inappropriate photos to illustrate his theory.

I think Blackdogman in Betzner & Willis only lines up with what we are seeing in Moorman if he/it is tucked up close to the wall in all three photos.

Maybe Jack would like to give us his opinion of where this individual would be stood behind the wall in Betzner in order for him to line up with the figure in Moorman.

I have used the best overhead photos that I can find and not one person who is familiar with the Plaza has discounted my use of that overhead photo.

As far as what Moorman's photo would look like had the person of been standing up at the wall - here is what it would look like. (see attachment one)

I thought you believed that Arnold wasn't filming the motorcade in Betzner3?

What occured that made you change your mind?

I do not recall ever saying any such thing. My position has always been that Arnold was test panning with his camera and started filming when he seen JFK come onto Elm Street.

This is some of the worst photo analysis I have ever seen, what makes it worse is, that not only have you been there yourself so you know that any person stood at the end of the walkway would not be seen behind the wall in Moorman5, worse than that, you have interfered with the Betzner3 to make it line up with the figure you go with in Moorman5.

All you have to do is take one picture from behind the wall looking up the road at Betzners position & that will be an end to it.

As I have said many times - it is because I have been there and seen these things for myself that I say what I do about them. You have not been there, so your opinion is of no value as to what these views look like with the naked eye. There have been 100's of researchers who have seen what I have stated and who have been to the plaza. To date not a one of them has reported anything different than what I observed.

Anyone able to can go to the plaza with a camera & replicate these positions in such a way that can be clearly seen by other researchers & because you haven't done this already but instead continue to rely on this unreliable trash you constantly exhibit, your whole theory is a falsehood.

Call me a nut if you like but that's what I believe.

I have yet to see any real evidence that BDM & the Arnold figure "line-up" & I am more inclined to believe from the photos I have seen, that it's impossible to have anyone stand anywhere on the pathway & appear as we see him in Betzner3.

Blackdogman was leaning on the wall, to think anything else is just wrong.

As I said before - if BDM is leaning against the wall, then where is the guy seen in Moorman's photograph? Furthermore, there has been a recreation photo done from what Mack tells me and they ended up with Arnold back a bit further than I have him. I have also told you that when I get to the plaza again that I will take the photos that you requested. If you are in a hurry and anyone can merely go there and do the job, then why have you not done so?

Edited January 3, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IN THE LINK BELOW IS NOT FROM BETZNER3 SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO PRESENT IT AS THOUGH IT IS?

It was a transparency overlay image that I used to reference the shade line. If you look closely you will see differences in the two images. Here are the two images in their raw form at both ends of the scale. You have seen it before, but you constantly need to be reminded of them for some reason. (see attachment below)

Edited January 3, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

The Arnold figure in Moorman5 is only one interpritation of what we are seeing & I'm pretty convinced you, Jack & Gary have gone with the wrong one.

I see a mans face in here.

They used the best possible print in their possession. The quality of the print you are posting is substandard.

The face is in the superior print too.

Too big? In what ... the Betzner photo? Mack has thought that the individual in the Betzner photo was Emmett Hudson, so I would be puzzled as to why he would say the head is too big.

Try to stay focused, I was talking about the face in Moorman.

I have used the best overhead photos that I can find and not one person who is familiar with the Plaza has discounted my use of that overhead photo.

The photo is not detailed enough for people to see the details behind the wall, which is perfect for you since it cannot be used to show how the Betzner & Mooorman LOS do not line up!

As far as what Moorman's photo would look like had the person of been standing up at the wall - here is what it would look like. (see attachment one)

Once again you have proved that when it comes to Arnold you are ruled by Uranus & I'll show you why tomorrow. What you have drawn here is wrong(again).

I do not recall ever saying any such thing. My position has always been that Arnold was test panning with his camera and started filming when he seen JFK come onto Elm Street.

You told me around 18 months ago on Lancer, that BDM in Betzner doesn't have to match the Arnold figure in Moorman exactly because Arnold wasn't filming the motorcade yet!

As I have said many times - it is because I have been there and seen these things for myself that I say what I do about them. You have not been there, so your opinion is of no value as to what these views look like with the naked eye. There have been 100's of researchers who have seen what I have stated and who have been to the plaza. To date not a one of them has reported anything different than what I observed

Anyone can go to the Plaza & see that the BDM LOS to Betzner doesn't line up with someone standing on the pathway but they have to know what they're doing.

You claim to be familiar with all the details, so you really have no excuse for not knowing this.

As I said before - if BDM is leaning against the wall, then where is the guy seen in Moorman's photograph?

IF(& that is a big IF) BDM has not scarpered & what we are seeing in Moorman is the same fella, then he is most probably still on the grassy area near the corner of the wall

Furthermore, there has been a recreation photo done from what Mack tells me and they ended up with Arnold back a bit further than I have him.

But as I have said, yourself & Gary have gone with the Arnold figure, which is wrong IMO, there is a face on "Arnolds'" right shoulder, this dude is right up near the wall.

I Have also told you that when I get to the plaza again that I will take the photos that you requested. If you are in a hurry and anyone can merely go there and do the job, then why have you not done so?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't need your photos to see that the figures in Betzner & Moorman do not line up.

However, I will be interested to see what trick you will use to back this fantasy up.

Btw, I'm in London & I'm busy, I'll get there in my own time, promise.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

They used the best possible print in their possession. The quality of the print you are posting is substandard.

The face is in the superior print too.

Too big? In what ... the Betzner photo? Mack has thought that the individual in the Betzner photo was Emmett Hudson, so I would be puzzled as to why he would say the head is too big.

Try to stay focused, I was talking about the face in Moorman.

I think I now have a better idea as to what you are possibly talking about. If you are referring to the light spot with the dot in the middle of it and thinking it is a face - I can see why Gary Mack said that it is too big. Maybe if you saw your print next to the Badge Man print image it might help you. (see attachment one)

I have used the best overhead photos that I can find and not one person who is familiar with the Plaza has discounted my use of that overhead photo.

The photo is not detailed enough for people to see the details behind the wall, which is perfect for you since it cannot be used to show how the Betzner & Mooorman LOS do not line up!

I show an overhead photo with intersecting lines on it to show that they cross where Gordon Arnold said he was and now you are faulting the image because it doesn't show anything different than I said it did. I've shown that image to many researchers and no one but you seems to have trouble understanding it. I guess in this case I have to go with something Spock once said in "The Wrath of Kahn" ... 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.'

As far as what Moorman's photo would look like had the person of been standing up at the wall - here is what it would look like. (see attachment one)

Once again you have proved that when it comes to Arnold you are ruled by Uranus & I'll show you why tomorrow. What you have drawn here is wrong(again).

Anyone leaning against the wall would be to the right of the South corner when seen from where Mary was standing. Remember to address the size of the figure for to be so small next to the wall and closer to the camera will need an explanation. I'll look forward to your explanation.

I do not recall ever saying any such thing. My position has always been that Arnold was test panning with his camera and started filming when he seen JFK come onto Elm Street.

You told me around 18 months ago on Lancer, that BDM in Betzner doesn't have to match the Arnold figure in Moorman exactly because Arnold wasn't filming the motorcade yet!

Feel free to find that post for I have always believed Gordon Arnold as he told of his actions in Turner's interview.

As I have said many times - it is because I have been there and seen these things for myself that I say what I do about them. You have not been there, so your opinion is of no value as to what these views look like with the naked eye. There have been 100's of researchers who have seen what I have stated and who have been to the plaza. To date not a one of them has reported anything different than what I observed

Anyone can go to the Plaza & see that the BDM LOS to Betzner doesn't line up with someone standing on the pathway but they have to know what they're doing.

You claim to be familiar with all the details, so you really have no excuse for not knowing this.

Gary Mack, Robert Groden, Jack White, Debra Conway, Mark Oakes, and the list goes on and they go to the plaza on a regular basis and not one person has come back saying that I am incorrect on that observation. When one finally does do it, then I'll take notice.

As I said before - if BDM is leaning against the wall, then where is the guy seen in Moorman's photograph?

IF(& that is a big IF) BDM has not scarpered & what we are seeing in Moorman is the same fella, then he is most probably still on the grassy area near the corner of the wall

You really need to go to Dealey Plaza and see it for yourself for you are way off on this one.

Furthermore, there has been a recreation photo done from what Mack tells me and they ended up with Arnold back a bit further than I have him.

But as I have said, yourself & Gary have gone with the Arnold figure, which is wrong IMO, there is a face on "Arnolds'" right shoulder, this dude is right up near the wall.

Congratulations - I think you are the only person to have ever seen a face on Arnold's right shoulder. Is the face still there when the shadow is removed? (see attachment two)

I Have also told you that when I get to the plaza again that I will take the photos that you requested. If you are in a hurry and anyone can merely go there and do the job, then why have you not done so?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't need your photos to see that the figures in Betzner & Moorman do not line up.

However, I will be interested to see what trick you will use to back this fantasy up.

In other words you do not want to know the truth about the plaza and how things look. You seem to have a lot to learn, but no willingness to learn it.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Congratulations - I think you are the only person to have ever seen a face on Arnold's right shoulder. Is the face still there when the shadow is removed? (see attachment two)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My friend Robert Groden also sees the Arnold figure as a face.

(although a gigantic one). Gary Mack refers to Robert's man

as Balloonhead. I have to agree with Gary on this.

Jack