Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, maybe it would best serve the members if you just posted your Moorman photo image, along with your Badge Man illustration, and let others check your accuracy. It may be a nice practice lesson for some.

Bill

I am repeating my challenge. Do an accurate overlay yourself and I GAURENTEE that your results will be no different to mine. In a previous post, I suggested this. I also claimed that you would NOT do this because you know that your results would match mine. It seems I am correct and I can only conclude that when you claim Arnold is a real figure in Moorman, your hypothesis is only guesswork based on Arnold's words and you do not take the photographic evidence of Arnold in Moorman seriously. If you did, you would try and prove me wrong with YOUR analysis of Arnold in Moorman. So far, you or anyone else have come up with absolutely nothing to destroy my claim.

Duncan

LOL! That ridiculous set of little legs that you attached to the upper body of Arnold seen over the wall destroys your claim ... nothing else needs to be done. I do agree though that someone needs to check your work. Maybe you can post your Moorman image without the inserted Arnold onto it and we'll take a close look at what you have done now.

Bill

[Herb White]

Bill,

Are there any other researchers who have commented positively on your analysis of of GA as BDM?

In my opinion, the Arnold story and photo evidence along with the Dillard photo showing the t shirt wearing, short haired person Groden found in the depository window moments after the shooting are convincing evidence of conspiracy almost on their own.

In the Badgeman photos, and the ones above aren't quite as clear, or possibly as large as some I've seen, I have thought for sometime that there appears to be another face peering around and over the right shoulder of the railroad worker. The face is slightly roundish and the right eye, cheek and nose are fairly discernable. In some photos he appears quite clearly and even may be wearing a hat. imo. I understand this could be an artifact of light or shadows, but the size of the head/face are consistent with Badgeman and the railroad worker. I respect your work and would enjoy any comment regarding

this subject.

Herb

Herb, I can only think of a few people who have not understood the connection between Arnold and the Black Dog Man (BMD). Researchers from Robert Groden, Joan Mellen, William Law, Larry Hancock, Debra Conway, and etc., have seen these images and have said that after they saw my presentation that they had finally seen the connection and that I had convinced them that the two individuals were one in the same. Had it not been for the work Jack and gary had done with the Badge Man, then I may never have made the connection. It was when I created an overlay transparency of Arnold and the BDM that convinced me they were one in the same person.

I have not seen another face in the Badge Man images other than what jack and Gary have shown.

Bill

Bill,

It is encouraging to know that so many respected people concur with your finding. I hope Jack can post the Badgeman image he referred to in his post above. I don't know how to outline what I see, but maybe someone can. Do you see the face/image I am referring to? I am not asking you to agree that it is someone. I just would like to know if anyone else sees what I do.

Herb

Don't take Bill's word for it Herb,

when you meet these people ask them why the Arnold figure in Moorman5 looks absolutley nothing like the BDM figure.

Ask yourself too while your at it.

And do us all a favour,

next time you start kissing up to your hero in the middle of a thread where there are people who are disagreeing with him, don't say "he's proved it" like some inconsiderate ass, say "he's proved it to me"(you) & tell us how.

Your post's might look like less of a distracting method then.

There is only one connection between BDM & the shapes & shadows in Moorman5 but these guys have missed it by miles. They have almost completely bleached it out with this Arnold interpretation.

But like you Herb, they're not interested because they've already made there minds up.

If you have something to add to the discussion please do.

Alan,

I asked myself for years who or what the BDM image was and have listened to various explanations and theories. None of them made any sense to me based on what I had learned about activity on the knoll and photo evidence. As with any theory I gave Bill's no more or no less weight than the others until I had listened to his reasoning and photo point correllations. With all other plausible options exhausted, I considered Bill's as the most persuasive. You are correct in stating I should have said proven to me. I certainly do not speak for anyone other than myself. And even though I belive Bill's explanation to be correct, if you have "something to add" I will certainly consider it in light of what I've gleaned over the past 30 years or so. You see, unlike many on this board I don't consider myself a researcher, but merely a student of the assassination. Therefore I have no pet theories to promote or decry. I have no heros to kiss up to, nor villians to villify. I would suggeszt from the tenor of your post that self reflection on your part may reveal whose mind is made up.

Herb if you would,

in your own words explain why BDM in Betzner3 looks nothing like the "Allegedly Arnold" figure in the Moorman5 blow-ups but you still believe it's the same figure.

We can also go over these huge differences too if you have the time.

Remember, you said in this thread that he's "proved it" & you started a new thread to repeat that statement.

So far, you haven't informed us exactly which proof you are refering to.

I need details otherwise your statements just seem like a distraction to me.

Alan,

My suggestion is, if my statements are distracting, don't read them. I do not profess to be a researcher, although I have offered personal perspectives to some over the years that have been considered worthwhile. I don't feel any need to spend time stating to you all of the reasons I have for believing Bill's evaluation of the Arnold/BDM conundrum is persuasive. Bill has provided adequate information in his posts regarding the subject. However, a short synopsys would include the fact that nobody but Gordon Arnold ever claimed to be present in that area of the knoll. The photo evidence has some similarities that Bill has demonstared, in my opinion, lend credence to the figures being the same person. The fact that the figures are so

asymetrical and unalike in appearance in no way disproves the validity of his argument. If there is one thing I've learned in six decades of life it is that preconception, light, shadows and viewing angles all can play tricks on the mindseye.

[Miles Scull]

Pardon obtuseness here, but is there, then, inescapable evidence that the Arnold figure must be placed at a point between a plane which runs through BM & which is perpendicular to Moorman's LOS (which would be another point on this plane) and Moorman?

There might be such evidence to anyone who had never been to the plaza and checked these things out for themselves, but those who have been there and have did any investigation of the Badge Man figures seem

Seem? Yes, I agree. That's how it seems, but perhaps only to you?

to always come up with basically the same location for Arnold and Badge Man.

Agreed. But there is ample evidence that that is not the case. See analysis by Duncan.

The statement above mentioning Arnold being on a plane that runs through Badge Man (BM) needs an explanation IMO.

I think that you have not understood my sentence. Please read again.

Does not one see Gordon Arnold standing to the side of Badge Man?

That is correct. One does not see GA standing beside BM.

Is the distance between the Arnold figure & BM ascertainable or already known?

That is a question that one should have asked before ever rendering their opinion on the subject.

You are not correct. One's opinion may be expressed at any time, especially if that opinion is founded on solid evidentiary grounds, as mine is. One does not need your permission before expressing one's opinion. Do you think of yourself as a forum censor?

[Frankly, I would tend to question the Arnold figure because Arnold claimed to have traveled down a navigable pathway which ran along (immediately adjacent to) the length of the north face of the picket fence. But, there was no such passable pathway there because of the blocking of the ranked parked cars which were parked up close to the picket fence. (See analysis on the "Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations, Fact or Fiction?" thread.)

Again, where do you get the information that there was no pathway alongside the fence at the time of the shooting?

My information, as has been stated, is derived from a careful examination of the available photographic evidence combined with a logically correct extrapolation via deduction.

No one that I know has seen a photo or a film of the RR yard showing the back side of the fence - do you have such privileged information?

That is correct. You do not know anyone............. But, nevertheless, it is possible to reason through to inescapable conclusions.

Three witnesses have either said they walked up and down that fence or seen someone who did.

No. Hoffman did NOT see a pathway along the fence. He never said so. Except for yourself, cite reference for Hoffman stating this. Arnold's story is not proved. Many doubt it. See Duncan. Holland did not say he found a pathway along the fence from sniper's spot to steam pipe. So, there are no witnesses.

I think it is only right that you tell this forum just how many supporting witnesses does it take to deem them reliable

To repeat, there are no reliable witnesses.

and why do you believe that misstating the facts

You are misstating the facts.

of the case is benefiting the purpose that students come here for???

You are not aiding the purpose of the forum. On the contrary.

Arnold assumed there was such a pathway, when there was not one. Is Arnold's story in general, credible?

I would deem Arnold's story reliable - the comment you made above about somehow knowing what Arnold assumed is ridiculous and obviously mere propaganda. If I am wrong, then tell us how it is that you would know what Arnold assumed at any time in his life.

That's easy. There was no passable pathway along the length of the fence from sniper's spot to steam pipe at the time in question. Therefore, Arnold must have assumed there was one, because there was not one. QED

Here's proof, a photo taken on Nov.22, 1963, which has been posted before:

Edited August 7, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

LOL! That ridiculous set of little legs that you attached to the upper body of Arnold seen over the wall destroys your claim ... nothing else needs to be done.

And what's wrong with the legs. I think it's an ok estimate. Can you do better?

I do agree though that someone needs to check your work.

I've laid down the challenge for you or anyone to replicate my analysis using your own scaling using your own Moorman. You seem to be cowering out of this challenge. That speaks volumes imo.

Maybe you can post your Moorman image without the inserted Arnold onto it and we'll take a close look at what you have done now.

You don't need my Moorman to check the results lol just do as I ask above and you'll get the same results

Duncan

What's wrong with with legs on the insert you provided ... The Badge Man work has been out for 20 years now. Intelligent researchers have examined the images, not to mention the findings of MIT and no one has ever come up with an illustration like you provided or made such a claim as you have done and I believe there is a reason for that being the case, but forum rules won't allow me to say in this post.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Agreed. But there is ample evidence that that is not the case. See analysis by Duncan.

That's the best you can suggest?

Does not one see Gordon Arnold standing to the side of Badge Man?[/b]

That is correct. One does not see GA standing beside BM.

Let me get this right ... you saw a floating cop torso and applauded it, but you do not see the man in what looks to be a service man in Jack's Badge Man images ... is that your position?

You are not correct. One's opinion may be expressed at any time, especially if that opinion is founded on solid evidentiary grounds, as mine is. One does not need your permission before expressing one's opinion. Do you think of yourself as a forum censor?

Oh heavens no ... I am just trying to understand the mindset of those who continually double talk and constantly misstates the evidence for their own personal motives.

My information, as has been stated, is derived from a careful examination of the available photographic evidence combined with a logically correct extrapolation via deduction.

Well, your careful examination started with erroneously thinking that Holland left the underpass immediately after the shooting. Your careful examination also believed that Holland immediately went to the location of the Hoffman shooter when in fact Holland said it may have taken up to four minutes before he arrived there. Your careful examination failed to note that Holland was still on the underpass when Dillard took his #3 photograph. Your careful examination failed to see that Holland said he walked up and down the fence looking for evidence - Arnold saying he walked the fence line looking for a good location to film the parade - and Hoffman seeing a man walk the same fence line Arnold and Holland spoke of. Would you like to hear of more things you alleged to carefully examine in order to offer the conclusion that you gave???

No. Hoffman did see a pathway along the fence. He never said so. Except for yourself, cite reference for Hoffman stating this. Arnold's story is not proved. Many doubt it. See Duncan. Holland did not say he found a pathway along the fence from sniper's spot to steam pipe. So, there are no witnesses.

Whoa ... hold the presses! What happened to that careful examination process that you mentioned above? If Hoffman said the man walked the fence line to the steam pipe, does that not suggest that the shooter had a clear pathway? Duncan's new claim is a joke that hardly deserves a reply. Holland went across the RR yard to a point behind the colonnade before working his way back to the location that he saw the smoke coming through the trees (thats another thing your careful examination missed). Upon finally getting to the suspected shooting location - Holland said he walked up and down the fence looking for evidence.

To repeat, there are no reliable witnesses.

And yet you have constantly used such evidence to support your position. Isn't that a double standard when you say that no witness is reliable, but yet you rely on them to draw your conclusions from. Which is why I continue to ask you if you have bothered to check your conclusions against the photographic record. Maybe once you take the position that the photographic record isn't reliable either, then one can make a case why you are even on a forum such as this in the first place.

Here's proof, a photo taken on Nov.22, 1963, which has been posted before:

I realize that perspective isn't one of your strong points ... that was apparent when you referred to Hat Man as a midget. The photo you offer doesn't show the RR yard as it was at the time of the shooting - not even a sea of cars. It also doesn't show the spacing between the end of the cars and the fence because the angle at which the RR yard is viewed doesn't allow it, but I believe that you knew that when you claimed the photo was "proof".

Bill Miller

Edited August 7, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

deleted

Jack

Edited August 7, 2007 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

Using Jack's B/W Moorman crop and overlaying it over my previous analysis gives the same results. Any illusion of movement or difference in size is caused by the colourisation. This is an almost exact overlay, as close as I can get it. Just put your mouse pointer on any key areas as the gif changes from one image to another, like the top of Arnold's hat, corner of the wall, Railroadman's neck, Badgeman's badge etc to test the accuracy. I have left in the simulated legs to once again make my point that Arnold is a floating torso in Moorman, and not real.

Duncan

The two images are not scaled the same just from taking an initial glance at it. Put your mouse arrow on the Badge Man's left arm near the patch and watch what happens.

Bill

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Jack:

Here you go.....

B...

[Jack White]

What's wrong with with legs on the insert you provided ... The Badge Man work has been out for 20 years now. Intelligent researchers have examined the images, not to mention the findings of MIT and no one has ever come up with an illustration like you provided or made such a claim as you have done and I believe there is a reason for that being the case, but forum rules won't allow me to say in this post.

Bill

No one has ever done it because no one has ever thought of it, it's that simple. You can criticise all you want, but if you have nothing to disprove my analysis, then I say you are doing a runner from the issue by quoting sources that have no bearing on my study as a sidetracking tactic. The challenge still stands. To make it a bit easier for you here is a composite which you can place on your best Moorman. Tip: Use the corner of the wall as your accuracy reference point.

Duncan

Using Jack's B/W Moorman crop and overlaying it over my previous analysis gives the same results. Any illusion of movement or difference in size is caused by the colourisation. This is an almost exact overlay, as close as I can get it. Just put your mouse pointer on any key areas as the gif changes from one image to another, like the top of Arnold's hat, corner of the wall, Railroadman's neck, Badgeman's badge etc to test the accuracy. I have left in the simulated legs to once again make my point that Arnold is a floating torso in Moorman, and not real.

Duncan

Please refer to post 184, where you will find Nigel Turner's photo

of researcher Ken Holmes standing in the Gordon Arnold position

for a realistic view of a real person standing there. In it I am in

the badgeman position, and Larry Ray Harris is in the hardhatman

position. Nigel was standing in the Moorman location to shoot the

picture, which is a fairly close match, and convinced Nigel of Arnold's

location.

Better yet, post Nigel's photo along with Duncan's to see how they

compare...real vs imaginary. Get real.

Jack

[Jack White]

Bernice is about to post a comparison here which reveals why

the midget Arnold floats in the air.

Thanks Bernice!

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

Bernice is about to post a comparison here which reveals why

the midget Arnold floats in the air.

Thanks Bernice!

Jack

B......

[Jack White]

This study has been posted two hours now WITHOUT A SINGLE RESPONSE.

Interesting.

Jack

[Jack White]

This study has been posted two hours now WITHOUT A SINGLE RESPONSE.

Interesting.

Jack

[Jack White]

It has now been more than three hours since this study was posted.

All is quiet. Must have rattled some cages. No, it will not go away.

Jack

[Jack White]

It has now been more than three hours since this study was posted.

All is quiet. Must have rattled some cages. No, it will not go away.

Jack

Gratz is attempting to flood the board to keep this topic off of page 1.

Of the 11 topics on page one now, 8 are posted by Gratz. Won't work.

Jack

Edited August 8, 2007 by Jack White