Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

No..I don't get the point, the point is that you are failing to question yourself as to why Gordon gave two different accounts. Not once have you reasoned why he would say only one man. At least Jack put forward the possibility that it was nerves, but he must have been able to compose himself and give the second account with two men there, yet Turner chose the one man story. It doesn't make sense, can't you see that?

For the record, I have said no such thing as Duncan states!

Making such things up does not enhance credibility.

Apologies for that, it was not an intentional misquote, I mistook from memory " shy and naive " for nervous.

Duncan

I will attempt once more to reach some form of common sense that he might have ...

Lets say you have so much time to get all the things done that you wanted to do for a particular day and by the end of the day you only got 80% accomplished - why was that? Could it be that you just didn't have enough time to work with?? I spent two days in the mountains with a film crew on a documentary and the final product used about 20 - 30 minutes of the two days they filmed me and a friend of mine. The documentary runs less than 50 minutes without commercials. Turner had to make separate mini documentaries - each running around an hour in length. In reference to Gordon, if Turner had allowed the other part to come in like with the second cop who really did nothing, then he may have had to remove other parts of Gordon's story to make room for it. What would you want to remove from the other interview - the part about the CIA guy running him out from behind the fence from where a shot would soon be said to be fired from? How about removing him seeing the Badge Man work that Jack and Gary did? No, the piece was on the Badge Man figure and someone standing near the walkway filming the motorcade as the President approached. It makes perfect sense IMO that Turner's main interest would lay with the cop that took the film from Gordon.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

I do not understand the motivation of those who wish to disbelieve Arnold

and Hoffman. Both were shy men and reluctant witnesses discovered almost by

accident. Neither was a publicity seeker. Both told plausible stories. Discrediting

their stories serves the LN official cause, not the investigation of truth.

Those trying to prove them liars rely on extant photos heavily...but ignore that

such photos may be tampered with, and others confiscated.

The stories of each MAY OR MAY NOT BE TOTALLY ACCURATE, but both represent

witness testimony which must be investigated without preconceived notions.

Jack

Jack,

I realise only to well why the LN brigade dismiss these witnesses & believe or not, it does cross my mind from time to time that I may be bundled along with them when expressing my opinions on the Arnold scenario(I've never commented on Hoffman, ever). So in a way I am glad you said what you did above.

FTR I have absolutely nothing in common with the LN dismissles, I believe that shots came from at least three directions including from where both Arnold & Hoffman said they saw/heards a shooter.

So if I ever find evidence to totally rule out Arnold, I won't be looking towards the TSBD for three shots, I will be still looking at the GK.

Arnold's story is far more credible than the LN scenario, the latter is a joke to me, albeit an ongoing one that has major money behind it.

However, you cannot call Arnold a witness until you see proof he was there, I haven't seen any proof yet so, he is still an alleged witness as far as I'm concerned & I have every right to question his story.

Also, there are sometimes more than one reason why people don't want publicity, his shyness as you call it does not add anything to the argument IMO, I have often wondered if this story he told a few people was just that, a tall tale & the reason he did not want publicity is because he was scared he would be found out that he was making it up.

Anyway, you may feel that with the Arnold scenario dismissed you have lost a great witness for the conspiracy, I do not & that factor cannot influence my opinions or observations, I call them like I see them & I am after the truth.

OK.

I've illustrated the point for you regarding "Arnold's arm" in the M5 blow-ups & I'd welcome your own thoughts or interpritations Jack.

Isn't a coincidence that, right after I made this observation, word came from Gary(most likely via Bill as I remember) that not only he had already noted this & had also asked Arnold himself about this?

At the time it did not raise any questions because I knew Gary as a keen observer of the photos & films.

As I was told at the time, most cameras sold back then came with an attachment(a short pole, I forget the technical word for it) that you mount underneath the camera to help you achieve steadier pictures.

As you can see from my crude drawing, "Arnold" does not appear to have his arm or hand anywhere near the side of his face like we see him holding his camera in "TMWKK".

Proving Arnold a lier is not any kind of motavation for me, I am only after the truth but the two do coincide from time to time.

I really believe that the Arnold interpretation in M5 is hiding someone else & I also have a strong suspicion that if you hadn't of heard of the Arnold story you & Gary would not have found this figure at all but something else, closer to the truth.

.

FWIW I agree that the extant photographical evidence may of been tampered with but it is just as likely that most of the aftermath photos have not.

It's okay to champion Arnold's story but you still have to show compassion for an alteranitive scenario, especially you guys at the top of the tree.

I can & have opinionated on the idea of Arnold's real precence there that day & suggested that he may of been elsewhere, can you Gary & Bill just once play around with the idea that he wasn't there & that this Arnold interpretation is wrong?

It doesn't seem like you can despite the lack of evidence that supports his precence, you've already made your minds up & anyone who questions this is an enemy.

Alan

[Alan Healy]

Mack has said, "Regarding Gordon Arnold and his story of being challenged by TWO police officers, several of us heard that story directly from Arnold or the person who interviewed him:

1978 Howard Upchurch

1978 Earl Golz (Dallas Morning News)

1979 Earl Golz (Dallas Morning News)

1981 Gary Mack (Coverups!)

1982 Henry Hurt (Reasonable Doubt)

1982 Jim Marrs (Crossfire)

1988 Nigel Turner

Could anyone with either a copy of "Cover-ups", or the 1979 article from Golz please tell us exactly what is said about Arnold?

If it's too much to quote the whole thing verbatim then please just tell us if there is any mention of his position on the knoll please.

Arnold pin-pointed his position one time in any interview from what I can tell & it was west of the steps "the steps were east of me", have a look at Moorman5 & tell me how he can be between the wall & the fence with the steps east of him, I cannot see it, not the section of fence that runs northward anyway.

Alan

[Bill Miller]

can you Gary & Bill just once play around with the idea that he wasn't there & that this Arnold interpretation is wrong?

It doesn't seem like you can despite the lack of evidence that supports his precence, you've already made your minds up & anyone who questions this is an enemy.

Alan

I found through every way that I could think of to test it over it being Arnold - that Jack's interpretation was dead right. The same type a clothing Arnold would have worn, the same style of hat Arnold would have worn, holding something dark up in front of the head as Gordon would have done had he been filming the President as he said he did. The Betzner BDM/Arnold overlays told me that it was the same individual and that he had turned his upper body towards the sun as the President approached, which is just what Arnold did when he said he tracked the President up to the point a shot came past his head. With no one else claiming to have been where Gordon said he was ... and with no one saying they saw Gordon somewhere else when JFK was shot ... and with Gordon able to give details that were not known to exist in the photographical record at the time that only a true witness would know about, I feel safe saying Jack interpreted the image correctly. I am thinking that MIT did as well.

Then there was the comparing Jack's interpretation to a real soldier dressed as Gordon Arnold would have been. It was all these things combined that sold me on Jack's interpretation.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Could anyone with either a copy of "Cover-ups", or the 1979 article from Golz please tell us exactly what is said about Arnold?

If it's too much to quote the whole thing verbatim then please just tell us if there is any mention of his position on the knoll please.

Arnold pin-pointed his position one time in any interview from what I can tell & it was west of the steps "the steps were east of me", have a look at Moorman5 & tell me how he can be between the wall & the fence with the steps east of him, I cannot see it, not the section of fence that runs northward anyway.

Alan

The steps and the walkway are between the wall and the fence ... not sure about your question?

The Golz article did mention Arnold saying that he was standing on a mound of dirt. I cannot see standing on the hillside as meaning the same thing.

Bill

Edited July 29, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

In that interview while showing his panning technique Arnold appears to be standing to the west of the Hatman position.

On the opposite side of the tree. ?

As for shy and reluctant witnesses, wasn't Witt the so called umbrella man one of those.

in my opinion it added nothing to his credibility.

He did not convince me he was the Umbrella man.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Badgeman image from Corbis.

[Miles Scull]

Badgeman image from Corbis.

Robin,

Thanks.

Miles

[Jack White]

Badgeman image from Corbis.

Thanks, Robin...that is slightly bigger than AND LOOKS AS GOOD AND

CLEAR AS MY ORIGINAL. It almost appears that Gary Mack (who has

the original) furnished a hi-res scan to Corbis (or someone), since ALL

EXTANT COPIES OF THIS ART NECESSARILY CAME FROM SLIDES TAKEN

BY ME FROM THE ORIGINAL...and this repro is as good as any of my

slides. Only three people...me, Gary, and Groden...have copies of my

original slides.

Jack

[Robin Unger]

Badgeman image from Corbis.

Thanks, Robin...that is slightly bigger than AND LOOKS AS GOOD AND

CLEAR AS MY ORIGINAL. It almost appears that Gary Mack (who has

the original) furnished a hi-res scan to Corbis (or someone), since ALL

EXTANT COPIES OF THIS ART NECESSARILY CAME FROM SLIDES TAKEN

BY ME FROM THE ORIGINAL...and this repro is as good as any of my

slides. Only three people...me, Gary, and Groden...have copies of my

original slides.

Jack

Hi Jack.

I believe it came from Groden.

[Alan Healy]

Could anyone with either a copy of "Cover-ups", or the 1979 article from Golz please tell us exactly what is said about Arnold?

If it's too much to quote the whole thing verbatim then please just tell us if there is any mention of his position on the knoll please.

Arnold pin-pointed his position one time in any interview from what I can tell & it was west of the steps "the steps were east of me", have a look at Moorman5 & tell me how he can be between the wall & the fence with the steps east of him, I cannot see it, not the section of fence that runs northward anyway.

Alan

The steps and the walkway are between the wall and the fence ... not sure about your question?

Bill

That Jack, is what I call misinformation.

It entirely depends on where you are standing so it is a very misleading statement.

You have to head north from the Towner3 position to get someone standing on the top step to look like he/she is between the fence & the wall.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5446.jpg

(The "Nixon" man in the photo above has left the top step & is now on the path)

You have to be somewhere between the Towner & Betzner positions to make it work & that is only the top step!

So getting the steps between the wall and the fence is not easy.

If you are standing at the Moorman, Bond or Willis positions then absolutely nothing on earth can make a man on the top step appear as though he is "between the wall & the fence".

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5505.jpg

(Hudson on the top step from Bond8)

Is the phantasm in Moorman5 "west of the steps" like Arnold said he was?

One thousand percent no.

So you & Gary have to dismiss one of these as being inaccurate, sorry.

He can't be west of the steps like he makes clear he was in that interview& behind the wall in Moorman5,

you haven't thought it through.

The Golz article did mention Arnold saying that he was standing on a mound of dirt. I cannot see standing on the hillside as meaning the same thing.

You have lost me.

This mound of dirt comment comes from the follow-up(1979) article from Golz?

I want to be sure because that is what I was after.

Could anyone with either a copy of "Cover-ups", or the 1979 article from Golz please tell us exactly what is said about Arnold?

I don't think you've read what Golz wrote in '79 have you Bill?

Anyway, I am after direct quotes because I haven't.

Mound of dirt where not left lying around in DP on the day of the president's visit not in plain view anyway, another tall tale.

Alan

[Bill Miller]

That Jack, is what I call misinformation. It entirely depends on where you are standing so it is a very misleading statement.

You have to head north from the Towner3 position to get someone standing on the top step to look like he/she is between the fence & the wall.

Would not Northwest be more accurate when going from where Towner was standing to the walkway ... I think so.

You have to be somewhere between the Towner & Betzner positions to make it work & that is only the top step!

So getting the steps between the wall and the fence is not easy.

It might be helpful for you to go back and systematically lay out your position. Explain why the focus on the 'top step'. When looking down from above - the walkway leads to the steps leading down to the street. The walkway is between the concrete wall and the fence. From above - someone would be correct in saying that if they were just off the walkway in the grass, then the walkway and steps would be east of their position. While it can be fun watching someone like yourself offer your interpretation of the layout of the knoll ... one must also consider if what has described could be accurate from their point of view. Trying to make a case by picking flea dung out of pepper seems a bit ridiculous to me.

If you are standing at the Moorman, Bond or Willis positions then absolutely nothing on earth can make a man on the top step appear as though he is "between the wall & the fence".

How is being on the top step relevant to Arnold and the BDM?

Is the phantasm in Moorman5 "west of the steps" like Arnold said he was?

One thousand percent no.

The view in the image above looks to the west. Anyone standing in the grass west of the walkway would be correct in saying that the walkway/steps are east of their location. If one separates the walkway from the steps, then saying the steps are Southest of the Arnold location would also be correct. So whether Arnold said the steps were east of him or even southeast of him - either one would be correct in light of Arnold's interpretation of the layout of the knoll.

I find that trying to solve a mystery by way of creating another mystery that really doesn't exist to be somewhat of a waste of time.

So you & Gary have to dismiss one of these as being inaccurate, sorry.

He can't be west of the steps like he makes clear he was in that interview& behind the wall in Moorman5,

you haven't thought it through.

Arnold/BDM was behind the wall. The walkway and fence are also behind the wall. Such a statement is an accurate one to make. Arnold never said that he was standing up against the wall and that is where he would need to be to be in error to say the steps were east of his position.

You have lost me.

This mound of dirt comment comes from the follow-up(1979) article from Golz?

I want to be sure because that is what I was after.

Could anyone with either a copy of "Cover-ups", or the 1979 article from Golz please tell us exactly what is said about Arnold?

Try doing a search on Lancer for I am certain that the Golz articles were posted there when you debated this nonsense in the past.

I don't think you've read what Golz wrote in '79 have you Bill?

Anyway, I am after direct quotes because I haven't.

Mound of dirt where not left lying around in DP on the day of the president's visit not in plain view anyway, another tall tale.

I have read the articles and spoken to Golz personally on this matter on more than one occasion. It appears that to date you didn't save the articles when posted, nor have you spoken to Earl Golz, thus you remain confused.

Bill

Edited July 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

duplicate post removed

Edited July 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

That Jack, is what I call misinformation. It entirely depends on where you are standing so it is a very misleading statement.

You have to head north from the Towner3 position to get someone standing on the top step to look like he/she is between the fence & the wall.

Would not Northwest be more accurate when going from where Towner was standing to the walkway ... I think so.

Who said anything about "going from where Towner was standing to the walkway"??

You misread what I wrote, or did it go over your head?

You have to be somewhere between the Towner & Betzner positions to make it work & that is only the top step!

So getting the steps between the wall and the fence is not easy.

It might be helpful for you to go back and systematically lay out your position. Explain why the focus on the 'top step'.

The steps and the walkway are between the wall and the fence

Who wrote that? Indeed!

I have shown you where you would have to stand to get one step, the top one, "between the wall and the fence" & it's north of the T3 position.

You said "the steps"(plural) are between the wall and the fence where the hell do you have to stand for that Bill?

Don't even bother 'cause it's obvious you have no idea, it was a cheap statement, the steps are clearly not between the wall and the fence in any of the photos I have, NOT EVEN THE TOP ONE!.

Got it?

When looking down from above - the walkway leads to the steps leading down to the street. The walkway is between the concrete wall and the fence. From above - someone would be correct in saying that if they were just off the walkway in the grass, then the walkway and steps would be east of their position. While it can be fun watching someone like yourself offer your interpretation of the layout of the knoll ... one must also consider if what has described could be accurate from their point of view. Trying to make a case by picking flea dung out of pepper seems a bit ridiculous to me.

The thing is, if you were just off the walkway on the grass with the steps to the east of you, there is no way you would appear behind the wall to Moorman, you would be in plain sight of her, the "Allegedly Arnold" figure in the blow-ups is not east of the steps, nope.

Look at Moorman5. From that position, the corner of the fence is(almost) true west & you can already see the beginning of the pathway in that picture.

So anyone can judge for themselves just by looking at M5 where you have to be stood to say you were "west of the steps" & it ain't behind the wall.

So yes, you have to rule one of them out.

And FWIW, your rheteric, it's sounding old.

If you are standing at the Moorman, Bond or Willis positions then absolutely nothing on earth can make a man on the top step appear as though he is "between the wall & the fence".

How is being on the top step relevant to Arnold and the BDM?

You made this piece of junk statement about the steps;

The steps and the walkway are between the wall and the fence

& my comment above was one of the responses to it.

The steps are not between the wall & the fence, how you have the cheek to belittle my second hand knowledge of the plaza when you make such misleading & erroneous statements. It's not so much baffling but rather singular all the same. If it was simple irony it might be amusing but there is more to your mistakes I know.

No one who has spent as much time in the plaza as you claim you have, can say what you did & mean it.

The steps are are between the wall and the fence if you stand in one specific position on Elm Street, nowhere else.

[Jack White]

Alan, you are getting all heated up over a confusion in semantics.

With the aid of Nigel Turner, we found the exact spot Arnold would

be standing if it is he in the Moorman photo.

As I recall from the photo Nigel took, it was 18 inches west of the

sidewalk and 24 inches north of the top step.

Argue all you want over wording, but a reconstruction shows a

person in that spot will be near identical to the image in Moorman.

And before he ever saw the Moorman image, Arnold had said,

"THE BULLET WHIZZED BY MY LEFT EAR". This exact location is

the only place on the knoll that could happen, as seen in Moorman.

I have posted the image many times. If requested, I can get Bernice

to post it again.

Jack

PS...always a mystery to me is why he chose that position rather

than the Blackdogman position.