Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall

[Alan Healy]

Another overhead view from a different building ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.........that doesn't help!

It is the details of the area that we need to prove our cases, not pictures taken from further away.

Btw, please explain how I have "read" this picture "Wrong".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1282

[Bill Miller]

Btw, please explain how I have "read" this picture "Wrong".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1282

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Part of it is because the "X" covers about 8" of space and the BDM was much wider.

You can walk the transparent figure towards Shaw and you will have BDM just where he is seen in the Willis and Moorman photo. (The figure seen at the top of Elm Street is at the Willis location)

See what I mean!

Edited January 10, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Don Roberdeau]

Conover then asks Arnold where he was standing in relation to the north pergola steps, to which Arnold claims, “OK. OK. The steps would be almost----I would say in front of me, but it’s not in front of me because I’m standing askew to the steps----more towards the street than I am the steps.” “And I’m up as… I’m about three feet from the fence.”

...

Conover then asks, ”Between the steps and the fence?” to which Arnold replies, “Yes.”

...

Conover then asks, “So, the steps were east of you?” to which Arnold replies, “Right.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

....Good Day.... The above claims detail quoted by ARNOLD in the SFM'89 interview are very specific.

Unless I have missed it, I note that of all to-date 166 reponses within this thread, not one person has directly addressed the huge problem of ARNOLD's own claimed very specific description of his attack shots location....

....standing west of the steps

....standing only about 3' from the picket fence

Using an accurate map of the retaining wall/picket fence corner area, and the mandatory line-of-sight of the "Arnold" image "seen" by some researchers in the MOORMAN #5 photo, can anyone provide a map showing the exact ground location point of where you think ARNOLD was standing in MOORMAN #5 also utilizing ARNOLD's very specific claims quoted above?

“He had a… it looked like a Dallas Police officer’s uniform, and he was a white male. He had… oh, back in those days, it’s what they use to call shooter’s glasses. Oh remember the… it was like a yellow tint to the glasses. It kept the glare off your eyes.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also noted is that if ARNOLD's SFM'89 previously un-disclosed very specific claim of seeing yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" being worn by the second DPD-uniformed/rifle-armed/crying/shaking man AFTER the attack....it directly implies that the second DPD-uniformed/rifle-armed man was wearing the yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" DURING the attack.... yet, unless I have missed it, not one person within this thread has even attempted to illustratively point out the yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" on an un-enhanced MOORMAN #5, nor, has anyone attempted to illustratively indicate the claimed yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" on a WHITE photographic-clear-oils-enhanced MOORMAN #5.

For positive progress, (whatever the ultimate direction and/or epiphany it leads to) new information always needs to be confronted and thoroughly vetted for accuracy and authenticity.

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

"Well, to me, it sounded high, and I immediately kind of looked up, and I had a feeling that it came from the building, either right in front of me (TSBD), or, of the one across to the right of it (DAL-TEX)." (my INSERTIONS)

----MARION L. BAKER, DPD motorcycleman & President KENNEDY escortman, describing for the very first time in his warrenatti-testimony where he thought the audible muzzle blasts and/or mechanically suppress fired bullet bow shockwave that he remembered hearing had originated from

Edited January 12, 2005 by Don Roberdeau

[Don Roberdeau]

Good Day.... Someone emailed me the following diagram. Does anyone know who originally drew the following diagram?

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

"If only I had reacted, I could have taken that shot.... that would have been alright with me."

----CLINT EASTWOOD, as Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan, "In the Line of Fire" (1992)

Edited January 12, 2005 by Don Roberdeau

[Alan Healy]

Btw, please explain how I have "read" this picture "Wrong".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1282

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can walk the transparent figure towards Shaw and you will have BDM just where he is seen in the Willis and Moorman photo. (The figure seen at the top of Elm Street is at the Willis location)

See what I mean!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Incorrect!

Shaw was very close to the BDM position already, if you move him back towards the transparent figure more than a foot it will be noticable from Elm street.

The very(outside) corner of the wall is an easy reference point for anyone hoping to replicate the BDM position behind the wall.

Anyone stood on the pathway would not look like BDM in Betzner or Willis!

Try & bare in mind how much space your transparent figure would have between itself & the corner of the wall.

This gap will be clearly seen from both Willis & Betzner positions & rule out the "standing on the pathway" theory.

Good luck.

[Alan Healy]

Good Day.... Someone emailed me the following diagram. Does anyone know who originally drew the following diagram?

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

"If only I had reacted, I could have taken that shot.... that would have been alright with me."

----CLINT EASTWOOD, as Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan, "In the Line of Fire" (1992)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's one of Bills' scetches Don, not very accurate & not meant to be either.

Alan

[Bill Miller]

Conover then asks Arnold where he was standing in relation to the north pergola steps, to which Arnold claims, “OK. OK. The steps would be almost----I would say in front of me, but it’s not in front of me because I’m standing askew to the steps----more towards the street than I am the steps.” “And I’m up as… I’m about three feet from the fence.”

Arnold is right, especially as he was tracking the limo to the point when the kill shot occurred. As he is facing Moorman - he certainly is askew to the steps.

Conover then asks, ”Between the steps and the fence?” to which Arnold replies, “Yes.”

Anywhere on the grass west of the sidewalk would fit that description.

Conover then asks, “So, the steps were east of you?” to which Arnold replies, “Right.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone standing on the grass between the walkway and the fence would be west of the steps, thus Arnold is correct.

....Good Day.... The above claims detail quoted by ARNOLD in the SFM'89 interview are very specific.

Unless I have missed it, I note that of all to-date 166 reponses within this thread, not one person has directly addressed the huge problem of ARNOLD's own claimed very specific description of his attack shots location....

....standing west of the steps

....standing only about 3' from the picket fence

It seems like we have crossed this path before and the above answers were given.

Using an accurate map of the retaining wall/picket fence corner area, and the mandatory line-of-sight of the "Arnold" image "seen" by some researchers in the MOORMAN #5 photo, can anyone provide a map showing the exact ground location point of where you think ARNOLD was standing in MOORMAN #5 also utilizing ARNOLD's very specific claims quoted above?

I have seen a couple versions of your map posted in the past. When you say "an accurate map" ... are you saying the map is "DRAWN" to scale? If a map is not drawn to scale, then trying to cross trajectories will not be correct and is why I try to use overhead photos when ever possible.

Also noted is that if ARNOLD's SFM'89 previously un-disclosed very specific claim of seeing yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" being worn by the second DPD-uniformed/rifle-armed/crying/shaking man AFTER the attack....it directly implies that the second DPD-uniformed/rifle-armed man was wearing the yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" DURING the attack.... yet, unless I have missed it, not one person within this thread has even attempted to illustratively point out the yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" on an un-enhanced MOORMAN #5, nor, has anyone attempted to illustratively indicate the claimed yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" on a WHITE photographic-clear-oils-enhanced MOORMAN #5.

I personally have not said much about "shooters glasses" because Arnold never knew if the hatless cop as shown to him in the MWKK was the man that fired over his shoulder or not. Gordon only considered the idea that he may have been face to face with the man who shot at President Kennedy because he did see an officer without a had soon after the assassination. I do think that Jack White has posted concerning someone claiming the man in the Moorman enhancement did look to have on shooters glasses. I don't know if it is in this thread, but Jack has posted that information on this forum for I have read it in the past. That still doesn't tell us if the man in Moorman's photo really had on shooters glasses and it doesn't tell us if Badge Man was one of the officers who met Gordon after the assassination.

For positive progress, (whatever the ultimate direction and/or epiphany it leads to) new information always needs to be confronted and thoroughly vetted for accuracy and authenticity.

I agree. Using actual photographs and maps that are drawn to scale would be a step in the right direction when ever possible. It is however, unfortunate that the interviews were not always filmed so to eliminate much of the speculation that has arisen in some cases pertaining to what the witness meant by something he or she said or did.

[Bill Miller]

Incorrect!

Shaw was very close to the BDM position already, if you move him back towards the transparent figure more than a foot it will be noticable from Elm street.

The very(outside) corner of the wall is an easy reference point for anyone hoping to replicate the BDM position behind the wall.

Anyone stood on the pathway would not look like BDM in Betzner or Willis!

Do you know that Shaw is around 5' tall? Gordon Arnold was just under 6'. Mike Brown is 6' tall and he was standing west of the steps and in the grass when I took this photograph. Mike was not standing at the South wall. Those who look at this photo can compare it to the figure seen in Moorman's photograph. Don mentioned once that Mike was a little too close to the LOS over the corner of the wall. That means if Mike was to move towards the street to get on the exact LOS - his right shoulder would be even closer to the top of the steps and the LOS over the wall from the Betzner location. When I walked up to the top of Elm Street and looked back - Mike did not appear to be off a half of a step from being over the wall on a LOS to the BDM.

I have recently asked Groden and Mack to each look at the LOS's with someone standing where Arnold said he was in the MWKK and report back to me their findings.

When I asked Mack what he thought about anyone thinking the Arnold figure in Moorman's photo was standing at the South wall, Gary said in so many words that they are wrong. Of course that is what I knew he would say because he has been to the plaza and seen it for himself.

[Bill Miller]

It's one of Bills' scetches Don, not very accurate & not meant to be either.

Alan

Alan is correct. The diagram was drawn to show that anyone standing in the tree shadow and facing Betzner would then be turned slightly to face Moorman when she took her Ploarioid at the time of the fatal shot to JFK. A cursory glance at the illustration would tell someone that I did not attempt to draw the layout to scale, nor would I have insulted someones intelligence by claiming I had.

I would like to say something about the shadow marked with an "X" at the grass and sidewalks edge. If one wants to do the math they can calculate where Arnold would have been exactly to have that tree shadow make the turn on his chest. That turn seen on the ground does not mean that Gordon Arnold stood on the "X" for if he had the turn in that shadow would have been cast on his back. Gordon was about 5'10" and would had to have backed up to a point that the turn in that shadow crossed over his chest. That places him in the grass somewhere between the sidewalk and the fence.

Below is a general example as to what I am talking about. So there is no confusion ... it was not drawn to any particular scale. What it demonstrates is that anyone with that turn of the tree shadow on the ground passing over their chest would have to be back from the grass's edge, which is just where Gordon Arnold said he was in his Turner interview.

In the past I have said Gordon would have to be on that shadow and what I mean by that is Gordon Arnold/BDM has to be on that shadow line and at a point where it would cross his chest as I have shown in the Moorman and Betzner photos. What we see in the Darnell film is where that turn of the shadow meets the ground.

Edited January 12, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

"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."

Below is why that statement is inaccurate ... compare the width of the figure in Moorman's photo to that of a man actually at the South wall. The man in the color photo would have to back across the sidewalk to bring his body size down to that like is seen of the figure in the Moorman photo.

[Alan Healy]

When I walked up to the top of Elm Street and looked back - Mike did not appear to be off a half of a step from being over the wall on a LOS to the BDM.

This I have trouble with & hopefully one day we will see some proof one way or the other whether this observation is possible. From everything I have seen so far I strongly doubt it, in fact I think it's impossible.

I have recently asked Groden and Mack to each look at the LOS's with someone standing where Arnold said he was in the MWKK and report back to me their findings.

I'm afraid if they do not produce a photograph to back their findings up, then we will be no further forward.

Can't we do this on-line so I may have some input?

I feel all we need is a one photo, taken from West of the wall, looking up the street @ the Betzner position, with the corner of the wall on a direct line to Betzner.

This alone could pinpoint the BDM in Betzner position.

When I asked Mack what he thought about anyone thinking the Arnold figure in Moorman's photo was standing at the South wall, Gary said in so many words that they are wrong. Of course that is what I knew he would say because he has been to the plaza and seen it for himself.[/b]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, you have to believe in the Arnold figure, I do not. However if I did, seeing his beltline above the wall as we do, would lead me to think that he was about as snug to the southwall as one could get.

You say Gary says that this is wrong but you do not say why, so I cannot comment further.

[Bill Miller]

This I have trouble with & hopefully one day we will see some proof one way or the other whether this observation is possible. From everything I have seen so far I strongly doubt it, in fact I think it's impossible.

Arm chair research doesn't hold a candle to actually being on site in my view.

I'm afraid if they do not produce a photograph to back their findings up, then we will be no further forward.

Can't we do this on-line so I may have some input?

The term "we" you use basically applies to yourself. I gathered from an earlier post you made that you wouldn't even believe a photo because you felt it would have been shaded against your favor.

I feel all we need is a one photo, taken from West of the wall, looking up the street @ the Betzner position, with the corner of the wall on a direct line to Betzner.

This alone could pinpoint the BDM in Betzner position.

I think what was misleading for you is that groden was over the side of the slope slightly which gives a false impressions as to what should be seen looking back the other way. Of course the distance back from the Arnold location was another factor. My intention will be to shoot the Moorman photo and Betzner and Willis photos at the same time with one standing in place. I will also try and replicate groden's Shaw view as well.

First of all, you have to believe in the Arnold figure, I do not.  However if I did, seeing his beltline above the wall as we do, would lead me to think that he was about as snug to the southwall as one could get.

Now I am confused. Just prior to this post you had said that you saw a face in the Moorman figure just like you did the BDM. Now you go as far as to say you saw his beltline above the wall. These observations appear to be contradictory to what you are saying now. Furthermore, go back and look at the Shaw photo and explain how someone standing in the low area would have their belt above the wall if they were right against the south side of it. I also wish you'd address how the figure in Moorman can look so small and still be right at the South wall when you have a good photo showing how wide someone looks who is actually touching it. It has been said by researchers that the Badge Man and the Arnold figure are similar in size, however people come in all various sizes. Now with that said ... if Arnold is about the same size as Badge Man and Badge Man is on the RR yard side of the fence, then imagine how small that would make Arnold if he were really against the South wall.

To simplify - the south wall is about 3' long - 4' at the most. Moorman is seeing it at an angle, the figure is looking directly towards Moorman's camera and he isn't hardly 1/3 as wide as the South wall. Now how men men are only 1' to 1.5' in width?

Edited January 13, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Arm chair research doesn't hold a candle to actually being on site in my view.

Your "view" of the site is seriously flawed in my opinion & many a good observation has been made from an armchair & your in no position to knock it since 99% of your work is done from there.

I'm afraid if they do not produce a photograph to back their findings up, then we will be no further forward.

Can't we do this on-line so I may have some input?

I am concerned that any info you get via private e-mail will be edited to support your ideas.

I think what was misleading for you is that groden was over the side of the slope slightly which gives a false impressions as to what should be seen looking back the other way.

I already know what you think but you have shown nothing to support it.

Of course the distance back from the Arnold location was another factor. My intention will be to shoot the Moorman photo and Betzner  and Willis photos at the same time with one standing in place. I will also try and replicate groden's Shaw view as well.

Waste of time. We already have the Willis, Betzner & Groden views, a new approach is needed.

If we are to move this forward then we need to find out how the south wall & pathway are positioned from Betzners' point of view on Elm St.

This is the easiest & quickest way to determine the true position of Blackdogman.

Replicating the photos we already have does not help others who are not in the plaza at the time!

[Bill Miller]

Your "view" of the site is seriously flawed in my opinion & many a good observation has been made from an armchair & your in no position to knock it since 99% of your work is done from there.

I may build the photo examples I post from my office, but understanding them and relating them to the real world was done through several hundred hours of work in Dealey Plaza. I thought I had said this once before.

I'm afraid if they do not produce a photograph to back their findings up, then we will be no further forward.

Can't we do this on-line so I may have some input?

I am concerned that any info you get via private e-mail will be edited to support your ideas.

Are you not able to copy and paste a quote and email it back to them to verify it?

I think what was misleading for you is that groden was over the side of the slope slightly which gives a false impressions as to what should be seen looking back the other way.

I already know what you think but you have shown nothing to support it.

Waste of time. We already have the Willis, Betzner & Groden views, a new approach is needed.

Documented replication is always the best evidence as far as showing how things should look in the plaza compared to an assassintion photo or photos.

If we are to move this forward then we need to find out how the south wall & pathway are positioned from Betzners' point of view on Elm St.

If I rent a helicopter and document the LOS from directly above it as well ... would that suffice you? There are 100's of researchers who have followed this topic and many of them have probably been to Dealey Plaza even after this issue started over a year or more ago. Isn't it odd that no one has said they went there and couldn't see what I was talking about?

Edited January 15, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

I may build the photo examples I post from my office, but understanding them and relating them to the real world was done through several hundred hours of work in Dealey Plaza. I thought I had said this once before.

I have seen you draw your guesstimate at how much the south wall kicks back to the north from Betzners' position & it is wrong & I don't care how many hours you have been pottering around the plaza, what we are talking about here is the south wall & how it relates to the Blackdogman.

Since you obviously didn't notice the true angle of the south wall & its relevance to the position of BDM while you were in the plaza you could not have spent more than an hour on it!

Are you not able to copy and paste a quote and email it back to them to verify it?

Okay, hold on a minute.

You have already asked Gary & Robert to look at the LOS that Arnold would of had.

This has nothing to do with my study of the Blackdogman in Betzner & Willis.

My mistake!

Documented replication is always the best evidence as far as showing how things should look in the plaza compared to an assassintion photo or photos.

But if there is a wall blocking your view to important geography then you should take further photos of the view from it's far side!

If we are to move this forward then we need to find out how the south wall & pathway are positioned from Betzners' point of view on Elm St.

If I rent a helicopter and document the LOS from directly above it as well ... would that suffice you?

Obviously despite my efforts to educate you, you still have not one clue as to what is needed.

Take a look at the Flynn photo & imagine yourself at the south wall instead of the bench.

The Betzner position(green cross) see's a lot more of anything coming off the main part of the wall at a right angle than you've ever given it credit for before.

Document this!

There are 100's of researchers who have followed this topic and many of them have probably been to Dealey Plaza even after this issue started over a year or more ago. Isn't it odd that no one has said they went there and couldn't see what I was talking about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a matter of opinion, I could say the exact same thing, no one has even said I am wrong, let alone show anything to support such a claim.

Edited January 17, 2005 by Alan Healy