Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

Sigh. "Jumping" TEN FEET is not a considerable feat.

The room in which I sit is 11 feet wide. I am over 6 feet tall.

Merely by falling forward (on a matress of course) without

jumping, I could nearly touch the opposite wall.

If I took a step or two before falling, I might fall much more

than 10 feet. Watch a football game sometime.

Jack

Jack,

Miles knows all this before he even responds. Newman threw his son to the ground ... Connally was shot and driven into the floor of the car ... these are all figures of speech to describe one's perception of how something looked to the witness. When researchers start trying to make something out of nothing, then its because that's all they have left IMO.

Bill

Edited August 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I've simulated the fence as I think it would have looked if the wall was not there. It's a fact that the ground can not be above the bottom of the fence line. I wonder if anyone will disagree with the accuracy of my simulated fence.

Duncan

Duncan,

In theory one could imagine that the ground can be no higher in elevation than the bottom of the fence, but that is not the case here IMO. Go look at the photo I took of Beirma and Cumminings on the walkway ... the ground Royce is standing on is higher than the sidewalk and he ground directly behind him is slightly higher in elevation than where he stood. The uphill view gives the impression that the ground runs at a nice even angle from the sidewalk to the bottom of the fence, but that is merely an illusion. A similar example is where Moorman stood compared to where Jean was standing. The view from Zapruder's position makes the ground look even between these Mary and Jean's position, but when viewed from Muchore or Bronson's location - it becomes obvious that there is a slope for Mary's feet are slightly sunken from view - Brehm's is totally hidden, while Jean's feet are in plain sight. Anyway, I just wanted to point this out so others can be aware of it and implement it into what ever conclusions they draw from it.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Even allowing for Arnold to be back further standing on higher ground, the distance between Arnolds waist and the ground level cant be explained away by perspective.

I've simulated the fence as I think it would have looked if the wall was not there. It's a fact that the ground can not be above the bottom of the fence line. I wonder if anyone will disagree with the accuracy of my simulated fence.

Duncan

Duncan, Robin

Please examine this little snap.

Notice anything odd? Take a closer look.

Now, just for starters only, just for early days' openers mind you, where exactly is the WALL, against which Yarborough saw the jumpimg man LAND?

Later, Duncan, with your permission, I'd like you to carefully consider The Strange Case of the Missing Dirt Mound, also known to Interpol as The Case of No Pile at Ground Zero.

Au revoir

[Jack White]

I think Arnold misnamed the mild downward slope towards the mid section as the dirt mound.

I can't see anything odd in the photograph. I also suspect that Yarborough in his recollections is mistaking Bill Newman for Arnold

Duncan

I do not see how Smiling Ralph could mistake Newman for Arnold. Arnold had on an army

uniform and was alone. Newman was standing with wife and two children at the curb; the

family retreated across the sidewalk, threw the children to the ground and covered them

with their bodies. Yarbarough did not describe this family of four...he DESCRIBED THE

ACTIONS OF A SERVICEMAN WHO HAD COMPLETED BASIC TRAINING FALLING TO THE

GROUND at the sound of gunfire...ONE MAN, not a man, woman and two children.

Unfortunately, at this late date, we will never know what Arnold meant by a "mound of

dirt", and putting words in his mouth only confuses the issue...all we know is that he

SPECIFICALLY said he stood atop a mound of dirt...take it or leave it.

Researchers should stick to the facts and quit making up stuff. Speculation is not research.

Jack

[Jack White]

Researchers should stick to the facts and quit making up stuff. Speculation is not research.

Jack

Jack...What Yarborough said isn't fact. It's a story which may or may not be fact. Speculating I believe is an important part of research which can often lead to positive research results. Did you not speculate, some based on observations and some not, that Moorman was in the street? that Zapruder was not on the pedestal etc? and then set about proving your theories were correct via research? We all speculate at times. I'm currently speculating about what this area which appears to have been blacked out from the frame is..any ideas? I know it's not the pergola shelter as I can see that behind the black square, other than that I don't have a clue.

Duncan

It is the doorway to the pergola.

[Jack White]

Even allowing for Arnold to be back further standing on higher ground, the distance between Arnolds waist and the ground level cant be explained away by perspective.

I've simulated the fence as I think it would have looked if the wall was not there. It's a fact that the ground can not be above the bottom of the fence line. I wonder if anyone will disagree with the accuracy of my simulated fence.

Duncan

Duncan, Robin

Please examine this little snap.

Notice anything odd? Take a closer look.

Now, just for starters only, just for early days' openers mind you, where exactly is the WALL, against which Yarborough saw the jumpimg man LAND?

Later, Duncan, with your permission, I'd like you to carefully consider The Strange Case of the Missing Dirt Mound, also known to Interpol as The Case of No Pile at Ground Zero.

Au revoir

Miles...or anyone...please post the best possible scan of the Murray "hammerman" photo...WITHOUT THE RED BOX.

It seems to be at variance with other copies of the photo, and at the moment I am unable to locate my good scans

of it on my computer (probably can't remember the right filename). The main thing I notice is that it seems to show a

small mound of dirt and a man in a suit standing on top of it, but it is not precisely in the Arnold location. Thanks.

Please, uncropped and untilted. (the posted image is a different tilt than published images).

Bernice? Robin? James?

Thanks.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

In theory one could imagine that the ground can be no higher in elevation than the bottom of the fence, but that is not the case here IMO.

Bill

You are technically correct, I concede that good point, but I based my simulated observation on Jack's new finding in the picture which Robin upoaded which I think is important. Im my opinion, it shows that in 1963 there was a mild slope downwards towards the mid section between the wall and the fence where the people are running, and a mild slope upwards from the mid section where the people are running to the wall. If Arnold was in the area between the wall and the fence he would have been on the mild downward slope between the fence and the mid section where the people are running.

Duncan

Duncan,

If you draw a line from the east base of the wall to the fence - I believe that you will find that the ground in the middle is higher than at the wall or the fence.

Bill

[Robin Unger]

Even allowing for Arnold to be back further standing on higher ground, the distance between Arnolds waist and the ground level cant be explained away by perspective.

I've simulated the fence as I think it would have looked if the wall was not there. It's a fact that the ground can not be above the bottom of the fence line. I wonder if anyone will disagree with the accuracy of my simulated fence.

Duncan

Duncan, Robin

Please examine this little snap.

Notice anything odd? Take a closer look.

Now, just for starters only, just for early days' openers mind you, where exactly is the WALL, against which Yarborough saw the jumpimg man LAND?

Later, Duncan, with your permission, I'd like you to carefully consider The Strange Case of the Missing Dirt Mound, also known to Interpol as The Case of No Pile at Ground Zero.

Au revoir

Miles...or anyone...please post the best possible scan of the Murray "hammerman" photo...WITHOUT THE RED BOX.

It seems to be at variance with other copies of the photo, and at the moment I am unable to locate my good scans

of it on my computer (probably can't remember the right filename). The main thing I notice is that it seems to show a

small mound of dirt and a man in a suit standing on top of it, but it is not precisely in the Arnold location. Thanks.

Please, uncropped and untilted. (the posted image is a different tilt than published images).

Bernice? Robin? James?

Thanks.

Jack

I will have a look Jack.

I think that hammerman is a good likeness to our wall man in Towner 3 " same light colored workman's type clothing "

There is also a possibility that he can be seen in the Scan i posted above, before the crowd finallycleared and then made there way down to street level.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Best i could do with what is available Jack.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Jack White]

Best i could do with what is available Jack.

Thanks, Robin!

Does anyone have an uncropped untilted version?

I am having Bernice post a study here showing

three men MUCH TALLER THAN FENCE. They must

be on a pile of dirt, although not in the Arnold location.

There is also an object in front of a tree, and the photo

is tilted differently than I have seen before.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

From Jack.....

B......

[Bernice Moore]

Quote:

Even if all was perfectly flat - Moorman's uphill view combined with the distance the fence and Arnold are from the wall.

I would like you to mark on this image exactly where Arnold was standing. ?

Exactly how far back from the wall was he standing, ?

Robin...I just made what may be an interesting discovery analyzing this photo.

THIS AREA IN THIS 1963 VIEW IS UNLIKE WHAT IT WAS IN LATER YEARS!

1. I found that in this view, looking directly between the wall and fence, the

top of the wall IS AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE FENCE. We know the wall

has not been changed, so it appears that the wooden fence may have been

changed. To see this clearly, draw a rectangle from the corner of the fence

to the corner of the wall. THEY CORRESPOND. But we know that today they

are not the same.

2. Unlike today when the area by the fence is all flat, it appears that in 1963,

THE AREA BESIDE THE FENCE SLOPES DOWNHILL GRADUALLY, unlike today

when it is fairly flat and drops off at a given point. This is clearly seen by

drastically lightening the RGB chroma scales. I had lightened this area

looking for a mound of dirt when I noticed the gradual slope.

3. Unlike today when all the fence palings are 5 feet tall, it appears that in

1963, the fence boards were TALLER at the corner than higher up the knoll.

When you lighten the chroma, you will see a cop by the corner, and HIS

SHOULDERS ARE BELOW THE TOP OF THE FENCE. We know that lamposts

were moved and signs removed soon after the assassination to confound

researchers...so why not change the knoll area also?

These observations tend to make modern reconstructions of Arnold's

location inconclusive. The terrain seems to be unlike 1963. Check it out.

Jack

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Jack

On Friday I posted this information below, in this thread....Certainly they are inconclusive, I do not think

anyone but Robin paid attention to such....

Back some years ago, there were heavy rains in Dallas,

causing at that time parts of the knoll, hills,to slide down, whatever, and reconstruction work was

needed, in the area of the steps....and..the hills.. I posted info on such and parts of the fence history

area in that long thread on such some time ago..

The steps and the knoll were all repaired, but also changed

forever, the perspectives of how all had been in 1963.

......Any photos, such as the new one showing the men at

the top of the steps taken years later, or any others....Are not constructive imo

to what some are after...in their research..nor of the lay of the land re the fence area also, as that

has also been repaired and work done.....

......As all has been changed for years now...as have others areas of Dealey Plaza..

.If anyone needs to check this information

out for themselves please go ahead and do so......contact

the Dallas Works Dept..they may still have those records, or if not....

Dallas History and or I believe..Jerry Dealey...

can relate the information to you....also....

B......

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=113693

[Bill Miller]

I do not see how Smiling Ralph could mistake Newman for Arnold. Arnold had on an army

uniform and was alone. Newman was standing with wife and two children at the curb; the

family retreated across the sidewalk, threw the children to the ground and covered them

with their bodies. Yarbarough did not describe this family of four...he DESCRIBED THE

ACTIONS OF A SERVICEMAN WHO HAD COMPLETED BASIC TRAINING FALLING TO THE

GROUND at the sound of gunfire...ONE MAN, not a man, woman and two children.

Unfortunately, at this late date, we will never know what Arnold meant by a "mound of

dirt", and putting words in his mouth only confuses the issue...all we know is that he

SPECIFICALLY said he stood atop a mound of dirt...take it or leave it.

Researchers should stick to the facts and quit making up stuff. Speculation is not research.

Jack

I have posted in the past that I spoke to Golz ... more than once! Yarborough had read about Gordon Arnold in Golz article, so Ralph first contacted Golz. Ralph told Golz that he saw the service-man mentioned in Earl's article. Duncan should explain how civilian Bill Newman being at the curb could equate to a man in uniform who dove to the wall that sits above the knoll. Then Turner interviews Arnold and again Yarborough doesn't say, "No wait ... I thought we were talking about the guy at the curb who fell on his little boy", instead Ralph gives Turner an interview about a service man said to be near the walkway at the time of the shooting.

Bill

[Bernice Moore]

From Stoughton & the SS re-enactment Nov. 27th.63..

B...

[Robin Unger]

Affidavit Of Ralph W. Yarborough

The following affidavit was executed by Ralph W. Yarborough on July 10, 1964.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION

ON THE ASSASSINATION OF

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

AFFIDAVIT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss:

In response to the oral request of one of the attorneys for the Commission that I send you an affidavit for inclusion in the record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I make the following statement:

On November 22, 1963, as the President and Mrs. Kennedy rode through the streets of Dallas, I was in the second car behind them. The first car behind the Presidential car was the Secret Service car; the second car behind them was Vice-President Lyndon Johnson's car. The driver and a secret service agent were on the front seat of the Vice-President's car. Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson sat on the right side of the rear seat of the automobile, Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson was in the center of the rear seat, while I sat on the left side of the rear seat. After the Presidential motorcade had passed through the heart of downtown Dallas, experiencing an exceptionally warm and friendly greeting, as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by. I have handled firearms for fifty year, and thought immediately that it was a rifle shot. When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop). After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital.

I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear. I saw people fall to the ground on the embankment to our right, at about the time of or after the second shot, but before the cavalcade started up and raced away.

Due to the second car, with the secret service men standing on steps on the sides of it, I could not see what was happening in the Presidential car during the shooting itself. Some of the secret service men looked backward and to the right, in the general direction from which the rifle explosions seemed to come.

After the shooting, one of the secret service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward. However, all of the secret service men seemed to me to respond very slowly, with no more than a puzzled look. In fact, until the automatic weapon was uncovered, I had been lulled into a sense of false hope for the President's safety, by the lack of motion, excitement, or apparent visible knowledge by the secret service men, that anything so dreadful was happening. Knowing something of the training that combat infantrymen and Marines receive, I am amazed at the lack of instantaneous response by the Secret Service, when the rifle fire began. I make this statement in this paragraph reluctantly, not to add to the anguish of anyone, but it is my firm opinion, and I write it out in the hope that it might be of service in the better protection of our Presidents in the future.

After we went under the underpass, on the upward slope I could see over the heads of the occupants of the second car (Secret Service car) and could see an agent lying across the back or trunk of the Presidential car, with his feet to the right side of the car, his head at the left side. He beat the back of the car with one hand, his face contorted by grief, anguish, and despair, and I knew from that instant that some terrible loss had been suffered.

On arrival at the hospital, I told newsmen that three rifle shots had been fired. There was then no doubt in my mind that the shots were rifle shots, and I had neither then or now any doubts that any other shots were fired. In my opinion only three shots were fired.

The attached photograph from pages 24 and 25 of the Saturday Evening Post of December 14, 1963, shows the motorcade, as I remember it, an instant after the first shot. [Photograph is Yarborough Exhibit A.]

Given and sworn to this 10th day of July, 1964, at Washington, District of Columbia.

Signed this 10th day of July 1964.

(S) Ralph W. Yarborough,

RALPH W. YARBOROUGH.

Ralph must have good eyes to see what's happening behind this wall from Johnson's car.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Robin Unger