Bill Miller

Thanks. I think you are right. I don't remember where I copied this from, but it was a blowup of this set of pictures:

Here is a little cleaner enlargement for you, Steve.

I cropped the area you mentioned and blew it up some. I don't know if this will show up here or not, but I was surprised to see two beedy little eyes looking back at me.

Steve Thomas

Steve - You are not looking at the same windows that Duncan is talking about from what I can tell. Note where the bottom of the fire escape comes in relation to the sill.

Willis took 12 photographs. Willis 5 is the only one to

show the BDM.

Willis 5 is actually the 7th photo he had taken. After the assassination - Willis sold sets of slides and the one showing the BDM was the 5th slide in that set and thus "Willis 5" was what it was then called when referring to that particular photograph.

Here is a link to Willis 5. Both men who were standing on the steps with Hudson are seen in the photo. Interestingly, Hudson himself is not. Presumably he is behind the man standing highest on the steps, yet no part of Hudson is visible.

You got that right, Ron. Parts of Hudson are visible when one knows what to look for. For instance ... note the arm posture on the man on the steps closest to Willis and compare that to Hudson seen in Moorman, Nix, and Muchmore. If you assumed that the man in Willis had arms that extended that far back and then bent back so to place his hand on his hips - just imagine how long his arms would be if hanging straight down to his sides. The point I am making it that Hudson's coat is blending in with the man's coat nearest to Willis and it gives the impression we are seeing only one man with a coat. Also look behind the closest man's knees and you will see the sag in Hudson's pants sticking outward. Let me know if you have trouble finding it and I will point it out to you as soon as I can.

Why would Hudson be standing with the man on his right completely blocking his view of the president? Wouldn't Hudson at least stick his head forward into view, or take a step backward or forward, to try to get a look?

Keep in mind that the Willis camera captured about a 1/100th or less of a moment in time. A slip second later and Hudson may very well have leaned forward. I might also add that we cannot see the South side of the subjects well enough to tell if Hudson still had a view East when Willis took his photograph, so we do not really have all the needed information to know if Hudson could see JFK coming at that point or not.

It is tempting to suggest that Hudson was BDM, having gone up the steps for some reason (he was, after all, the groundskeeper - maybe he even picked up a Coke bottle off the sidewalk and set it on the wall) and was about to come back down when the photo was taken. But Hudson was wearing a white cap and shirt. He also testified that he sat on the steps by the man on his right till the motorcade turned onto Elm, and then they stood up. No mention of going up and down the steps.

I believe that Muchmore's film picks up about 3 seconds after Willis took his photograph and she is panning the steps and when Hudson comes into view he is stationary with no sign of having just been running down the stairs. There is no evidence IMO that shows Hudson doing anything other than what he said he did.

Question for Gary: Do you PM everyone else on this forum who posts or just me??? If you think people like me are going to just go away or be intimidated with these daily harrassing PM's you've got another thing coming.

Dawn - you are not being targeted by Gary Mack. Gary keeps up with certain thread topics of interest to him and then emails additional information to people when he thinks they may find useful. Many of us find that what Gary does is beneficial to our own research and we hopefully learn from it.

My point is that NIX should take precedence over MOORMAN,

a motion picture should take precedence over a throw-away Polaroid,

and clear multiple images of a distinct marksman should not be so eagerly

explained away........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet - I find your statement mind boggling to say the least. The Moorman original we still have - the original Nix film we do not have. The Moorman photo we have is the genuine article and has not been tampered with. That photo was widely shown soon after the assassination. To say that a dark second generation copy of a film takes precedence over an original photograph of lighter and better quality is a position I find illogical.

I am not even asserting that the Classic Gunman figure was a real sniper who fired.

I think he may have been posted in position there for some reason,

he is quite exposed and remains in place a few seconds too long, when Nix returns to train the camera on him after the Limousine accelerated away....

But I believe it is a real person, at the break in the wall, in a marksman's stance.

Inexplicable, like so much other compelling and strange Dallas material...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't care if he looks like a shooter, a hot dog vendor or whatever else you want to call him - he is nowhere to be seen between the notch in the wall and the shelter in Moorman's photo taken during the same moment in time, thus the only choice left is he was an illusion of light and shadows on an otherwise poor dark film because NIx didn't use the right filter on his camera and because the existing Nix film had a process called 'blocking' done to it.

Beginners can see NIX film's Classic Gunman clearly,

and that seems to be the big problem.

I could also see the 'classic gunman' image, so your point is well taken. The problem is that beginners do not know enough about the photographical record to understand the time lines and availability as to when images could or could not have been altered photographically, nor do they know the photographic record well enough to know how to cross reference the images so to rule in or rule out possible figures they think they see in a particular photo. This is where I stepped in and offered additional data. Unfortunetly I cannot make one experienced enough or knowledgable enough to know how to apply that data. For a select few - they can keep scratching their heads and wondering if the alleged 'classic guman' figure is real or not if it gives them some sort of pleasure in doing so.

I think MOORMAN may be a Polaroid of an airbushed and projected image,

where a ganzfeld covers over the CLASSIC GUNMAN seen so clearly in the

NIX film.

{{Bill Miller will repeat the HSAC 1978 findings that it is a shadow on the wall,

but that shadow looks a lot more like a markman than the RORSCHAK

phenomenon called BADGEMAN>>>>>>>>>}}

CLASSIC GUNMAN IS A SOLID FIGURE :

BADGEMAN IS A FANCIFUL FIGURE

Shanet - you appear to be really lacking in knowledge of the Kennedy assassination. Let's first address your ridiculous and unfounded airbrush claim .... The fact is that Moorman had her photograph in her possession in the first 30 minutes following the assassination. It was at that time that she was approached by the news media for a statement and they also filmed her photograph. That footage was shown on NBC by 3:25 p.m. CST. Now unless you are going to suggest that it was Mary Moorman who airbrushed her own photograph within the first 30 minutes following the assassination, then you need to put this ridiculous airbrush idea to rest.

Now having said that, if there was a classic gunman figure in the Nix film, then he also has to be between the notch in the walkway wall and the South shelter. Now knowing that the Moorman photo could not possibly have been airbrushed by Mary in the first 30 minutes of the assassination and her photo coincides with the head shot ... feel free to point out where the classic gunman is seen in this example below?

I might also tell you that Mary Moorman's photo is covered with emulsion grain and that anyone trying to airbrush such an instant photo would be brushing over the emulsion grains as well.

How does superimposing images of ANYONE's face over "badge man" advance this case in the least????

Show us the unedited photos of Badge man or show us nothing, this is just ridiculous.  Someone please bring back Classic gunman photos, as I recall they were UNEDITED, with No one's face superimposed and it was very clear to both my self and my husband that this was some serious photography. 

Dawn - I will consider that you do not know the full extent as to what is going on around you in the JFK assassination field, so I will ignore your remarks about what is and isn't ridiculous. Just so you know - recently someone challenged Badge Man's image by saying that had he of been shooting at JFK that he would have had his head tilted differently. So I then took a known photo of someone actually aiming a rifle and placed it over the top of Badge Man to show that his posture was indeed what one would expect for a gunman aiming at the motorcade. I was careful to make sure that my purpose for doing it was known. So the exercise was not ridiculous to those who understood why it needed to be done.

What would be ridiculous is to start posting about someone who cannot be seen in Moorman's photograph as was the case with the classic gunman.

Bill

I would post my original badgeman discovery, but I have reached

the limit of images allowed by the forum.

Jack White

Jack - go remove some of those Apollo images that you posted and it will free up some forum space for you to put the more worthwhile images on here. When I ran out of space in the past, that is what I did ... I chose images from past post and deleted them to make room for new ones.

Bill

So the photos above are colorized digitally enhanced versions of

a composite Bill Miller made of Roscoe White super-imposed over Moorman?

In post #1 - only the first two examples were the Roscoe White overlays I did. The rest of the images are the original Badge Man work Jack White did, plus the water color version.

Bill

As far as I know the images are based on the original Badgeman photo  which was taken from the Moorman photo. The original Badgeman  from the Moorman photo is the sixth photograph from left to right. The seventh photo is the colourised version of the sixth photo.

I used The Gimp graphics programme to sharpen up the images.

EBC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So we understand one another ... You used a Badge Man photo that already had Roscoe White's image inserted into it for I am the one who did it. You should run your program on a Badge Man photo that is still in it's raw form.

Bill

Could you guys post a large reference photo and a close up (if necessary)

showing the BLack Dog Man....many of us have never seen him.

Eugene C. - sorry to be so flippant about your photo enhancement -

it was actually pretty cool, but I question its evidentiary value....

Isn't black dog man a little black hat, behind the wall.

the photo enthusiasts need to know that most of us have no idea

what this thread is about and need a little GRASSY KNOLL 101

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Black Dog Man was an individual who was standing near the corner of the wall when both Willis and Betzner took their photos. He got his name "BDM" because of the slanted shade line that resembled a sitting dog.

Which photos are these base on. Not really of any value if you started with the colorized version.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The images in this thread are those I created by taking Roscoe White and overlaying his image onto the Badge Man figure. I did this to show the firing posture of a real person against what is seen with Badge Man. It was never my intentions to infer that we were seeing details of Badge Man's face, but rather just R.W.'s face impossed onto Badge Man.

Jack White has stated in the past that the Badge Man image is what you see on a good Moorman copy negative. The water color version was done so not to alter the shapes of the images.

Robert..........wondered if it could be a flash from a shot?!!?

You don't say!!!

Yes - kinda like the same mistake Carroll made concerning the classic gunman figure. Once I pointed out that there is nothing there in Moorman's photo to account for the lighted spot - Robert understood the situation at once.

You don't have to say, you already told me many times that you agreed with Groden it's a flash.

As you obviously haven't watched this film in a while I suggest you go & buy another copy if you can so you don't have to guess anymore.

I had a somewhat lengthy conversation today with Robert Groden on this matter. There are three points of light in the Gif animation you (Alan Healy) posted on this forum. I explained to Robert that Badge Man and the white flash is "ABOVE" the fence line in Mary Moorman's photo, thus it will above the fence line in the Nix film. (Robert followed this point, understood this point, and agreed with this point) This means that any flash seen below the fence line cannot be the same flash seen in Moorman's photo taken at the same instant. Robert saw the flash that was above the fence line and it is not the flash of light that you are talking about.

The next light spot stays lit and Robert, nor I have been able to account for it.

The lower light flash on the right is the one you have spoken about and it is below the fence line. Robert believes that it could be movement and has wondered if it could be a flash from a shot. I reminded Robert that if Badge Man's flash is above the fence and the Arnold/BDM figure is seen over the west side of the South wall, then there is no one left to cause the flash of light that we see on the NIx film. (Again Robert understood this point) Robert said the only other option would be that Moorman's photo may have been altered even though he could not see how that was possible. I reminded Robert that Mary had her photo in her possession up to the point that it was filmed on camera for a later showing on the news 2.5 hours later. Robert, as I am, cannot account for what caused the lower flash of light at this time. I have had in my possession a B&W copy of the Nix film that was duplicated before Robert did the 'blocking' for UPI and it is our hopes that this film can be exposed in a way to backlight the area in question and answer some questions for us. The film is now out of my hands and hopefully those parties who will do the work will be able to tell us something one day. When that happens, I am sure everyone will hear about it.

If you have something that places Badgeman behind the fence I would like to see it.

I believe I have posted the body height and width comparisons from the photo I took from Moorman's filming location while using stand-ins and I believe I have referenced Jack White and Gary Mack's reconstruction work. I assume that if you are disputing those findings, then you can probably state what is wrong with them rather than asking to hear about them time and time again as if you have never heard this all before.

You really have to stop misquoting me &/or assuming to know what I am thinking because you are useless at both.

I think there is a problem in the way you present your thoughts that not only I, but others have told me about concerning their inability to understand you. For instance, you said, "I do not believe the "Arnold figure" represents a real person so......." and then went on to say, "Blackdogman in Betzner3 is firing a shot, that's what I think, probably with a silenced weapon.......... what happened next I am not sure, he may of just stood there, so there is a chance he was caught in Marys' polaroid."[/b]

There are three figures being referenced in Moorman's Polaroid. The RR worker is off to our right of Badge Man and can be removed from the option list of suspects. That leaves just the Badge Man and the Arnold figure. You stated in the quote listed above that you do not believe the Arnold figure is a real person. You have also pointed out on that same figure that you do not believe is a real person that you see a face. This is what you said,[/i] "Now I have already shown you the face I found in Moorman, that may well be Blackdogman." What I and others have trouble with is you (Alan) saying the figure in Moorman isn't real, only to then say you found a face on that figure that may be the Black Dog Man that you believe is real. The statements that you go back and forth on are not supporting one another.

Maybe you should start a seminar on the Moorman5 blow-ups & why you talk about Badgeman & Arnold as fact, I have no idea why you do this but I am guessing it's arrogance.

I talk about them as fact because they are part of the evidence in a murder case. The evidence shows someone standing where Arnold said he stood during the assassination. Sen. Yarborough saw a man who Ralph believed to have just had his miltary training dive to the ground which is also what Arnold said he had done. The Nix film shows the color of the figure's clothing and it supports the khaki colors Arnold would have worn in 63'. The Moorman photo shows what appears to be the flash from a muzzle blast coming over the top of the Arnold figure's left shoulder just as Gordon Arnold said had happened. Is there anything about the Badge Man that doesn't seem correct as to posture or scale ... judge for yourself when a real person is overlaid into his form. (see below)

is too low to be the Badge Man...

Finally!!!

Say it again!

Is too low to be the Badge Man...

Hooray! Only took you about 12 months to spit it out but we finally got there.

I feel sorry for your dentist!

I believe the difference in what I said and what you think I said is that you are not looking at the right place for the light. The light I saw cannot be below the fence because Moorman's photo shows where the flash is and it shows where the fence is in comparison to the wall. So if the flash is above the fence in Moorman's photo - it also has to be above the fence in the Nix film.

There seems to be a shift of light below the fence line in the Nix film, but what it is I cannot say. As I recall, Groden thought long ago that this was someone possibly bent over and running North just prior to the shots being fired.

You mean you have actual proof that Badgeman was not behind the wall? Let's see it please!

Your question misstates my conclusion. The fence is behind the wall - Badge Man is at the fence, so Badge Man must also be behind the wall. But the issue here is not whether the flash is Badge Man's weapon because Badge Man's flash has to be higher than the fence because of the information Moorman's photo offers us.

I do not believe the "Arnold figure" represents a real person so.......

Although I "like" Badgeman he too can only be talked of as fact by people like you who think they know how it all went down on the knoll.

"Although I "like" Badgeman he too can only be talked of as fact by people like you"

Your comment above about Badge Man is a bit unclear, but if I understand you right ... this is where you seem to go astray of logical thinking. If you do not believe Arnold is a real person and you think Badge Man is something people like me only talk about, then looking at Moorman's photograph - who is left to cause the alleged light spot you have been hung up on? Do you not see the problem ... you have eliminated all the possibilities seen in the Moorman photo, yet you are still claiming a BDM fired a shot in the Nix film when there is no one left in Moorman #5 to account for his presense beyond the wall. That is illogical IMO.

"Why have you now disowned this flash Bill?"

The light spot you are talking about is too low to be the Badge Man for his flash is above the fence. Arnold is the figure in Mary's photo and the light spot is to the left of him. So besides Arnold figure - who else do you see between the wall and the fence in Moorman's photograph?

As far as I am aware, I am only saying that Blackdogman may of been a shooter(I think he was) & just in case you never noticed, the Secret Service where behind the Stemmons Freeway sign from BDM when they heard the first shot.

Clint Hill looks to be able to see the BDM in the Willis photo - Kellerman and Greer were SS and not behind the road sign ... were they not?

It was you who told me about the flash behind the wall that coincides with the Badgeman shot.

Robert said it was from behind the wall & now your disowning it, what gives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me share what Gary Mack has to say ...

"Neither Groden nor anyone else can tell whether the flash is behind the wall

or behind the fence. All one can say is that it is ABOVE the wall. The

Gordon Arnold figure is to the left of the flash (as we look at it). The

flash and light area just to the left seem to correspond to the Badge Man

location.

Gary Mack"

The "flash" in full, taken from the Nix film as seen in Robert Grodens' "A Case for Conspiracy".

According to Robert, this flash "coincides with the headshot" & is behind the wall.

This is @ around half speed I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan - On page 193 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President", Robert has an arrow pointing to the figure beyond the wall. His color Nix frame shows the khaki color of his sunlit clothing which is seen in part over the wall and down the West side beyond the South wall. Please take note below ...

You may notice that the light spot you are talking about is to the left (our right) of the figure in the Nix film that Robert is pointing to. What you have been calling smoke in the Betzner photo is to the right (our left) of the figure. In trying to make a case for what you have been proposing one is faced with the idea that someone stood at the corner of the concrete wall in plain view and shot at Kennedy as early as Z186 and then again at the time of the head shot and managed to do so by switching shooting sides and without the Secret Service or the bystanders noticing it as they looked in his direction.

You may also look at the color of the clothing Robert is pointing out to you. That color is the color of the military uniforms worn by servicemen like Gordon Arnold. Jack White knew this and used that water color for the Arnold figure in the Badge Man images. We know from looking at Moorman's photograph that there is only the serviceman figure and the Badge Man figure, not to mention the possible RR employee.

Also, as I recall in one of Robert's videos he mentions movement above the wall just prior to the kill shot. I believe the lower light flash is that movement that Robert spoke about. Whether it is actually movement I cannot say. I can say that the light spot is not high enough above the wall to be the Badge Man and if the Arnold/BDM figure is seen in khaki clothing, then he cannot be shooting either unless he somehow shot from the hip and from the opposite side from before.

There is only one way that the evidence can make any sense as a whole and your scenario isn't working IMO.

So anybody that doesn't agree with you is automatically a "provocateur"? 

If Jack is going to start new threads each time he doesn't want to respond to another individual who doesn't agree with him, then I ask that he consider just starting one thread listing all those people who he thinks does agree with him for the list will be much shorter and take up far less forum space! I'm also going to ask that John Simkin consider removing the last two threads Jack has started concerning his desire not to respond to certain researchers because such threads are nothing more than irrelevant extensions of the Apollo subject.

LN David Reese's website has several pages of interesting photos: Dallas then and now.

http://www.cannet.com/~reesedw/DealyPage1.html

On the last page I found this JFK/Tippit composite photo. This really gives me the creeps:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting how the web page makes a reference to Sam Holland being unreliable as a witness, but doesn't tell you what's reliable, nor does it mention the 5 other workers on the underpass who supported what Sam had said about the smoke on the Knoll, not to mention people on the knoll who also saw the smoke. Typical LNr IMO.

Jack, please!  A lot of your concerns are easily answered with a bit of research into the design, construction, and operatiing methods of these craft.

I know people who can point to a Boeing 747 and say "nothing that heavy with wings that small can fly!" - but would you deny that they can fly, and do every day?

Evan - Your point is not only well said, but is a valid one, as well. Some people can look at a photo of a tree in the light of day and see that the bark may look light in color, but when seen from a different angle the same bark can appear much darker. Let's say we had taken photos of that tree from the two different views that I just mentioned. These same people would be accurate in saying the color tone of the bark changed between photos, but it is their inability or maybe lack off desire to consider the natural causes for the color change that then leads them down a path of thinking there is something sinister afoot in those images. Take notice of those who accept such oddities as something beyond what they really are because they are not usually people of experence in photo interpretation and who have a good understanding in the effects of lighting and perspective.

Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor

Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz-

Function: noun

Etymology: William of Occam

Date: circa 1837

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Look at this comparison below ...

The man in the green circle seen in the Zapruder film has on a dark colored coat, but when seen in a photo looking back the other way ... part of his coat looks white. Look at the second and third woman to his right. The woman in the light peach colored dress shows two color tones of the same material just because of a mere lighting change. The woman in the plaid top loses the stripes because of the same effect. It would be easy to say the images have been tampered with and those who do not consider all the causes for what we are seeing could easily be mislead in thinking something is seriously wrong between these two different views taken at about the same time.

So again, your response offered a common sense approach that I hope people will at least take note of regardless of what their final conclusion ends up being. IMO, about each and every such claim dealing with the possible fakery of the moon photos has been because the causes for what they saw was not thoroughly researched beforehand.

However, I will say that the "Badgeman" image, both in the "Arnold" figure and in the "Badgeman" figure have lighting characteristics that appear to be consistent with the actual position and angle of the sun that day.

Frank - you just mentioned a part of the process that makes up photo interpretation an art. Your observation is justified and well taken.

Bill