Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

I've just had a look at Groden's book TKOAP, and I think I have got the green t-shirt man correct, apart from maybe the colour. As for the other guy, who knows.

Duncan.

If what Arnold said was true, then neither he nor the two cops wore green T-shirts. None of them wore short sleeves either.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

By "Miller's" definition EVERY reproduction of an image is ALTERED, and technically

that is correct. Take any HALFTONE and look at it with a magnifying glass, and you

will see thousands of HALFTONE DOTS, not a clear smooth image. So saying a Groden

book image IS NOT ALTERED is incorrect. In fact, if one understands the COLOR

SEPARATION PROCESS, one knows that COLOR CORRECTION ARTISTS manipulate

the magenta-cyan-yellow color separations to IMPROVE THE COLOR, so that the

reproduction may be "superior" to the original. So all images printed in books are

by definition "ALTERED." The only unaltered image is the original negative or

transparency. But we do not have those. So we have to study what we have.

Groden has said to me in the past that the photo you speak of in his book was not a computer generated photo and that it was a true enlargement. You may wish to discuss the matter with Robert.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

If what Arnold said was true, then neither he nor the two cops wore green T-shirts. None of them wore short sleeves either.

Bill

Can you please provide the source for where Arnold said he seen two cops in front of the fence and where he referenced that they wore long sleeved shirts ?

Thanks

Duncan

Arnold said it in the complete Turner interview, but it was edited out. This information came from Gary Mack. I also believe the 1978 Earl Golz interview mentioned two cops.

It was at the end of November in Dallas - no assassination films or photos show any cops wearing short sleeves. In checking with Gary Mack, Gary doesn't know of any cops ever wearing short sleeve shirts as part of their uniform until recent years and in summer.

Bill

Edited July 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Gordon related that TWO UNIFORMED COPS came from behind the fence, as I recall.

One pointed a gun AS BIG AS A CANNON at him and demanded his film. He handed

him the ENTIRE CAMERA and the man removed the film. It was at this time that he

NOTICED THE COP HAD VERY DIRTY FINGERNAILS. A shy and naive man, Gordon's

inclusion of such insignificant details added to his credibility.

Jack

[Robin Unger]

In TMWKK, Arnold only mentions ONE MAN coming from behind the fence in the knoll location interview. The clip can be seen here.

Click on this to see the Gordon Arnold Knoll location video clip

Duncan

Thanks Duncan.

Interesting video, i had not seen that before.

What a Strange story, C.I.A on the overpass, that a new one to me.

I remain not convinced by this mans strange tale.

[Bill Miller]

In TMWKK, Arnold only mentions ONE MAN coming from behind the fence in the knoll location interview. The clip can be seen here.

Click on this to see the Gordon Arnold Knoll location video clip

Duncan

I think you should have said that the 'edited' clip is at that link. Gary Mack said that Gordon did mention the two cops during the unedited interview. This information was posted previously.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

In TMWKK, Arnold only mentions ONE MAN coming from behind the fence in the knoll location interview. The clip can be seen here.

Click on this to see the Gordon Arnold Knoll location video clip

Duncan

Thanks Duncan.

Interesting video, i had not seen that before.

What a Strange story, C.I.A on the overpass, that a new one to me.

I remain not convinced by this mans strange tale.

Did not Holland tell of a man who he assumed was with law enforcement, but wasn't sure? Not far away was another incident involving someone who was showing SS credentials which were obviously falsified. It should also be said that Gordon may have misspoken when he said the man showed him CIA credentials because a decade earlier he had said this man showed him credentials leading Gordon to believe he was with the Secret Service. Arnold was not a public person and it is possible that doing an interview made him nervous, thus misspeaking is a possibility IMO.

It is interesting though how he mentioned that he was able to walk the fence line ... that would be the same fence line nthat Hoffman said the Hat Man walked. Interesting indeed!

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I think you should have said that the 'edited' clip is at that link. Gary Mack said that Gordon did mention the two cops during the unedited interview. This information was posted previously.

Bill

There's no Visual proof with Audio that I have seen that shows Arnold saying there were two men. If someone can produce this evidence for viewing, then i'll believe it. Just because you say that Gary Mack said that there is an uncut version does not mean a thing. It's hearsay once again. The Visual interview evidence as it stands has Arnold quoting only ONE man and until proven otherwise, we must accept this evidence.

Another thing that bothers me is how the man/men got to Arnold...did they jump the fence or walk around the fence to Arnold's location?

Duncan

Yes ... we will call Turner and tell him that Duncan needs to see the entire interview. (sigh~) As I recall, Mack said it was in the unedited interview, thus I have no reason to doubt Gary. I also believe the two cops were mentioned to Earl Golz a decade earlier.

Bill

Edited July 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

He handed him the ENTIRE CAMERA and the man removed the film. It was at this time that he

NOTICED THE COP HAD VERY DIRTY FINGERNAILS.

Jack

Just a thought that came to me. Would the camera taker have been stupid enough to take the camera from Arnold with bare hands as Arnold stated, which would have covered the camera with fingerprints, and then give it back to him?

Duncan

Your point is valid if the cop was in fact one of the bad guys. There is a possibility that someone else caused the film to vanish and the initial cop would never be the wiser.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Yes ... we will call Turner and tell him that Duncan needs to see the entire interview. (sigh~) As I recall, Mack said it was in the unedited interview, thus I have no reason to doubt Gary. I also believe the two cops were mentioned to Earl Golz a decade earlier.

I have no reason to doubt Gary either, but until the unedited version can be seen, it must remain as hearsay, don't you agree?

Duncan

Well Duncan, let us first get it straight as to what "hearsay" is ....

Hearsay: # rumor: gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth

# heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information"

Gary is not telling me what someone else told him, but rather what he knows directly because he was there or had witnessed the entire interview. Gary also had interviewed Gordon personally. So I do not see this as being a matter involving hearsay.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Did not Holland tell of a man who he assumed was with law enforcement, but wasn't sure?

Yes he did, but that was BEFORE the shooting and is not relevant to the time period we are debating

Not far away was another incident involving someone who was showing SS credentials which were obviously falsified.

Once again this is nort relevant

Not relevant .... you use that word a lot, but seldom accurately. Holland told of seeing this guy before the shooting - Arnold met someone in the same area before the shooting who could have been this guy - what is the difference?

It is interesting though how he mentioned that he was able to walk the fence line ... that would be the same fence line that Hoffman said the Hat Man walked. Interesting indeed!

We don't if there were cars at the fence line when Arnold said he walked it, so it is once again not relevant. If I am wrong, and the time Arnold walked the fence line is known, i'd like to know when that was, and the source

Hoffman said he saw a man walk the fence line - Holland said he walked up and down the fence looking for more tracks or a shell casing - Arnold said he walked the fence line just prior to coming out on the walkway to film the President. It appears that the source of this information came from the witnesses, themselves. The cars may have been parked up near the fence, by apparently not so close as to not get between the car and the fence.

Bill

[Jack White]

I also remember Arnold saying two cops, but that was nearly 20 years ago.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Well Duncan, let us first get it straight as to what "hearsay" is ....

Hearsay: # rumor: gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth

# heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information"

Gary is not telling me what someone else told him, but rather what he knows directly because he was there or had witnessed the entire interview. Gary also had interviewed Gordon personally. So I do not see this as being a matter involving hearsay.

Bill

Well..I'm correct then...It's only being passed around by word of mouth at the moment. Until it is seen it is only a rumour, as we are all only hearing about the uncut version through another rather than directly. What people say is important, but it's not always the truth. Solid evidence is required for acceptance of the truth.

Duncan

You say the silliest things so to not have to admit when you are wrong. First, you called it hearsay. Gary is not citing something that some second party told him about what a third party had said, but rather Gary's information was witnessed by Gary. What you are trying to imply is that someone can argue that just because we read on the forum about what a witnesse said - it is just hearsay without the witness being here to say it themselves. This would also fall under the line of thinking that even quoted statements said to have come from the 26 volumes is hearsay because unless someone produces the actual volume, then it is not proven - its a ridiculous concept IMO.

I do agree with what you said about just because someone says something - it is not always the truth. A good example of this came when you called what Mack had said was nothing more than hearsay.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

You say the silliest things so to not have to admit when you are wrong. First, you called it hearsay. Gary is not citing something that some second party told him about what a third party had said, but rather Gary's information was witnessed by Gary.

As i've said before, just because Gary says something does not mean it's true...period.

So you have gone to just saying what Gary says is hearsay, thus you cannot believe it ... to what Gary says cannot be believed. That rule can apply to anyone then, especially those who have a record of not citing the facts correctly. Gary has a lot riding on the line at the Museum when it comes to citing the record correctly. This is why people like Turner go directly to Gary when doing their documentaries. I'm willing to bet that Gary wouldn't tarnish his reputation over something like this. And seeing that Turner did edit his witnesses interviews, and Arnold had told Golz about two cops 10 years earlier ... I'm thinking you are just messing around.

What you are trying to imply is that someone can argue that just because we read on the forum about what a witness said - it is just hearsay without the witness being here to say it themselves.

That's correct....It's all hearsay..All of the witnesses are not telling the truth, that's a fact...We are left to debate who is and who isn't telling the truth. That's what the topic is about, remember?

Duncan, I can tell you a lie and it not be hearsay .... you really should read the definition of the word so to know when and when not to use it.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

You say the silliest things so to not have to admit when you are wrong. First, you called it hearsay. Gary is not citing something that some second party told him about what a third party had said, but rather Gary's information was witnessed by Gary.

As i've said before, just because Gary says something does not mean it's true...period.

So you have gone to just saying what Gary says is hearsay, thus you cannot believe it ... to what Gary says cannot be believed. That rule can apply to anyone then, especially those who have a record of not citing the facts correctly. Gary has a lot riding on the line at the Museum when it comes to citing the record correctly. This is why people like Turner go directly to Gary when doing their documentaries. I'm willing to bet that Gary wouldn't tarnish his reputation over something like this. And seeing that Turner did edit his witnesses interviews, and Arnold had told Golz about two cops 10 years earlier ... I'm thinking you are just messing around.

What you are trying to imply is that someone can argue that just because we read on the forum about what a witness said - it is just hearsay without the witness being here to say it themselves.

That's correct....It's all hearsay..All of the witnesses are not telling the truth, that's a fact...We are left to debate who is and who isn't telling the truth. That's what the topic is about, remember?

Duncan, I can tell you a lie and it not be hearsay .... you really should read the definition of the word so to know when and when not to use it.

Bill

If Gary interviewed Arnold & he then tells someone else what he said, then that is indeed hearsay.

If I interviewed Arnold & told people what he said then that can only taken as hearsay by them.

You can't rely on what Gary says one hundered percent because he is not impartial when it comes to Arnold.

That is not a critisism that is just what Gary believes, he is convinced not only that Arnold was telling the truth but the M5 blow-ups show a guy, in uniform, filming the motorcade.

Even if he was impartial, a student has to take his words with a pinch of salt, unless the interview was recorded &/or he had witnnesses to this interview.

If Gary had written a report or an article at that time detailing what Arnold said to him then that would lend a lot more credibilty to what he is saying, especially if it concurs with what he says via word of mouth.

I am reminded of the time I pointed out that the "Allegedly Arnold" figure in the blow-ups of M5 is not only holding the camera with one hand but his hand is no where near is eye but down in front of his chest(which greatly differs to the way he was holding his camera in "TMWKK" anyway....).

Gary told us that he had asked Arnold about this too & asked him whether he had an attachment for his camera that allowed to hold his camera in this way. Gary said Arnold told him yes he did.

I believed Gary at the time but now I am more suspicious & do not.

That is my right though & I am perfectly entitled to it since I can find no hard evidence of Arnold's precence on the knoll that day & can find no reason to trust that figure in the blow-ups, as far as I'm concerned it's a phantasm, an illusion.

As you are specifically talking about these two cops however, then no, I have no reason not to believe Gary there, Arnold is on record saying the same thing at least three times.

As for Gary saying Arnold told him he was behind the wall, I'd need more proof because that does not concur with the recorded interviews either before or since.

I don't know what the problem is anyway, Duncan is spot on.

Go watch an episode of Judge Judy & see what she does when a witness trys to tell her what someone else told them.

If you can't be bothered I'll tell you, she tells them to be quite.