Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

Some of us have a vested interest in TRUTH.

Others have a vested interest in DISINFORMATION and DISRUPTION.

Jack

I agree with you on this, Jack. I see Miles mentioned a 'black blob' in his previous post despite him being told now numerous times that the image is Mike Brown who is an African American. I like the term you used - meticulous research - adding the definition might have been appropriate for some people might not know what it means. By the way, I am not talking about the word "meticulous", but rather the word "RESEARCH"!

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Can you show us evidence of these results, did you keep a record of the results? something we can look at visually?

Email Groden at RobertG1@airmail.net I think he got the paperwork ... I got the bill.

Personally, i'm not saying Arnold was not behind the wall. For the record, again, i'm stating that it can not be him in Moorman. You may have found him in Nix, who knows, Do you have, can you post, and can you tell me the equivalant number of the Nix frame which matches with Moorman? I only ask because i'm intersted.

The above statement seems illogical to me. There is only but one man seen in the Betzner and Willis photos - and one man seen in Moorman's photo who is between the fence and the walkway. A short while back - several people here put up post that showed the assassination films working in sync with one another and the frames were numbered as I recall.

Correction...It doesn't show a figure standing over the wall..The existance of the "figure" in question is in dispute, that's why this thread is dragging on and on..

There is a difference between a dispute and someone not being qualified to understand what has been laid before them. When the latter is the case, then there will always be a dispute.

Please share your visual records of the matching frame which ties everything up, otherwise it can only be considered as a red herring or hearsay..yes that word again

Groden gave me a copy of his best Nix film and asked that I not share it with anyone. Groden would be the person to ask for it was his film we had tested.

If it's an error, prove it by supplying the visual records which you and/or Bob must have kept. There's no point telling us all a story without supporting materials.

I have had that same sensation even when visual records were shown to you.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

I see Miles mentioned a 'black blob' in his previous post despite him being told now numerous times that the image is Mike Brown who is an African American.

Bill

Now with that being said and Moorman's photo showing a figure standing over the wall

who was NOT Arnold.

- the notion that the figure in Moorman's photo did not exist is ridiculous

Whatever is there may or may not be a human figure, but it is NOT Arnold.

and based on a lack of knowledge as to what the Nix film showed us in the lab.

What you saw may have been an amorphous black blob or James Files, but it was NOT Arnold.

So argue that it was Gomer Pyle in uniform if you must

You may argue it was Gomer, but I feel you may be barking up the wrong tree. But you cannot argue it is Arnold.

, but to say it is no one is in error based on the available evidence that some of us took the time and expense to have it examined.

IOWs, are you saying that you have a vested interest?

Bill Miller

I see Miles mentioned a 'black blob' in his previous post

That is not correct. I said: "...an amorphous black blob or James Files,..."

despite him being told now numerous times that the image is Mike Brown

That is not correct. I was never at any time told by anyone that any image anywhere at any time was someone whose name was Mike Brown, who ever that may or may not be. Who is Mike Brown? How would I know what Miller & Groden saw in the Nix film. Quoting Miller (see above): "what the Nix film showed us in the lab." I was not there.

who is an African American.

As I say & now repeat, not ever having heard of anyone called Mike Brown, how can I know what his ethnicity is? In fact, how do I know that Miller is not simply inventing such a person in order to create a nonexistent image of a non-existent person reminiscent of Miller's non-existent "Weitzman Report?" or Miller's non-existent dirt mound. Further, how do I know that Miller is not attempting by devious & underhanded tricks to accuse me of racism?

Clearly, Miller is violating the forum rules again by mounting ad hominem attacks.

This is not the way to restore Arnold's lost credibility.

Bill

Edited August 14, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I see Miles mentioned a 'black blob' in his previous post

That is not correct. I said:"...an amorphous black blob or James Files,..."

Looking good, Miles ... looking good.

despite him being told now numerous times that the image is Mike Brown

That is not correct. I was never at any time told by anyone that any image anywhere at any time was someone whose name was Mike Brown, who ever that may or may not be. Who is Mike Brown? How would I know what Miller & Groden saw in the Nix film. Quoting Miller (see above): "what the Nix film showed us in the lab." I was not there.

Oh brother! Do I need to go count the post I made in a thread that you were posting in and show where I mentioned Mike Brown? Do you not recall seeing the color image and Moorman photo coming in over the top of one another? Do you ever actually think before you respond???

This is not the way to restore Arnold's lost credibility.[/color]

I would be more concerned about your credibility in pretending to not heard of Mike Brown. Mike Brown was mentioned throughout this very thread and several times he was referenced as a black man. Just a quick scan has showed me he was mentioned in post 254, 345, 354, 366, 369 and so on. In my mentioning Mike Brown in post #366 - you posted #367. Now would you like to see more post that mentioned Mike Brown or are all of these been enough to refresh your memory???

Bill Miller

[Bernice Moore]

ACCIDENTALLY POSTED TO THE WRONG THREAD AT FIRST TO THE HOFFMAN THREAD.

I THOUGHT I WAS STILL IN THE GORDON ARNOLD/BLACKDOGMAN THREAD.

I HAVE MOVED THE TEXT HERE WHERE IT WAS INTENDED. My wife was on the phone

behind me and I had forgotten that I had changed threads. Sorry for the confusion.

.......................

Sadly, this has evolved into one of the most ridiculous threads ever witnessed.

Let's start over at the very beginning of the Gordon Arnold story. Now admittedly

Mr. Arnold was not the brightest bulb in the lamp...but neither was he a dishonest dummy.

Just an ordinary guy...not particularly articulate, but not out to deceive anyone. He did

not seek notoriety nor profit.

In the 1960s (remember the 60s, when the assassination happened?) Arnold had

recently returned to Dallas from a stretch in the Army, married his girlfriend and

settled down. Long past was the day he was home on leave in November '63

and witnessed the murder of the president on Elm Street. One day in the mid 1970s

he received a jury summons, which set in motion events he had not foreseen.

Waiting in the jury venire room to be called he joined a group of men in idle talk.

Howard Upchurch, an early day Dallas JFK researcher was in the group, and the

conversation eventually turned to the assassination. After listening a while, Arnold

joined in, saying, "I WAS THERE THAT DAY"...and proceeded to tell his well known

story, which I won't repeat, since what he told the jury members is the same story

that has been repeated often.

Upchurch was incredulous at first. He could not believe that a witness like Arnold

could have gone undiscovered for so long. He sought to confirm Arnold's story.

At that time I was giving slide presentations, and a group of researchers, including

Upchurch, met sometimes on Saturdays to look at photos and discuss the case.

One particular Saturday, Howard told us about Arnold, and wanted to see ALL of

my slides showing the knoll area. For a couple of hours the several of us (4 or 5)

looked in vain to locate any confirmation of a soldier on the knoll. The consensus

was that Arnold must have been confused about his location, since he was not in

in any photos. But we recommended that Howard call Earl Golz with the information

and have him check it out. We all respected the meticulous research Earl did for

all of his JFK stories. Several months later Earl's story appeared in the DMN. Earl

had checked all the information and Arnold's army history, and everything checked

out ok. Except the photos.

Earl's story was met with a big yawn by the research community. There was a

near unanimous HE'S NOT IN THE PHOTOS, SO HE WAS NOT THERE attitude.

So Arnold pretty much faded away. Until...

...in 1982 Gary Mack discovered the Badgeman image in Moorman, and I did the

photo enhancement work on it, including finding apparent images of two other

men on each side of the badgeman. I phoned Gary and said the THE ONE ON

THE LEFT APPEARS TO BE IN ARMY UNIFORM, COULD IT BE GORDON ARNOLD?

Gary agreed, and began a series of interviews with Arnold in which Gordon went

into as much detail as he could remember, without having been informed of the

Moorman research. Gary did not want to lead him into any "false memories", so

asked general questions, like WHAT WERE YOU WEARING?

When Gordon replied that he had on his khaki uniform and CLOTH CAP...Gary

got excited and asked for details...and Gordon explained it had a pointed top

and a gold medallion on the left side. That is what is seen in Moorman most

clearly.

SO, ABOUT FIVE YEARS AFTER ARNOLD FIRST TOLD HIS STORY TO UPCHURCH,

ARNOLD'S STORY SEEMED CONFIRMED!

He retold the story several times over the years, often with MINOR variations.

He told it to Nigel Turner without ever having seen the enhanced Moorman

image. His astonishment, recorded on film, would have been impossible to

fake.

It must be remembered that many of his retellings of his story were 20 or

more years after it happened. He should not be required to tell VERBATIM

the story over and over again IN EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS. He seemed

a man of limited verbal skills and not a public speaker, and his appearance

in TMWKK was TWENTY FIVE YEARS AFTERWARD. His brief notoriety was

unwelcome, and he did not profit (Nigel paid $100 to every interviewee).

But his story was always basically consistent. No ordinary person can

retell the same story in exactly the same words a quarter century later!

I am one who worries that even his death at an early age was perhaps

convenient for someone.

I also worry that parts of his story do not make sense to me: the mound of

dirt; the "not knowing the president was in the parade"; not choosing a better

location to film from; leaving the scene without reporting his film being

taken, etc. But he was a simple and naive man, trying to tell what happened

to him. We may never fully understand what happened.

I was not there. I believe he was...and we should try to understand what

his story means.

Jack

***********************

Thanks Jack for all the information you have posted on Gordon Arnold.....

Quote: ""I was not there. I believe he was...and we should try to understand what

his story means.""

As with so many of the other witnesses that were present that day, and whose

statements and information that some have tried to manipulate for one reason or another for

many years.....

All should try to work with their information not against it, it just may uncover

some of what has not been, always a possibility...

B....

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Evan Burton]

[Mod hat on]

Bill,

I'm not familiar with the thread and have only read the posts on this page.

I don't see anything wrong with the description used by Miles in any way. To try and draw this as a racist remark is, IMO, being overly sensitive.

Miles,

Bill may be over-reacting, but so are you in calling it an ad-hom attack. I don't see it that way.

My 2c.

[Mod hat off]

Edited to add: if anyone does not agree with my assessment, please - as always - feel free to consult with or complain to other Mods. Thanks.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Evan Burton
Add remark about redress

[Miles Scull]

despite him being told now numerous times that the image is Mike Brown

That is not correct. I was never at any time told by anyone that any image anywhere at any time was someone whose name was Mike Brown, who ever that may or may not be. Who is Mike Brown? How would I know what Miller & Groden saw in the Nix film. Quoting Miller (see above): "what the Nix film showed us in the lab." I was not there.

Oh brother! Do I need to go count the post I made in a thread that you were posting in and show where I mentioned Mike Brown?

You say "mentioned." That is NOT "being told." There is a huge difference! You are misstating the facts, as I will demonstrate below.

Do you not recall seeing the color image and Moorman photo coming in over the top of one another?

NO.

Do you ever actually think before you respond???

Yes, always... But, clearly you do not think before you respond, since you are fabricating false racial slurs against forum members.

This is not the way to restore Arnold's lost credibility.

I would be more concerned about your credibility in pretending

This is false. I did NOT pretend. I forgot a name mentioned only once as an AFRICAN AMERICAN! Go figure.

to not heard of Mike Brown. Mike Brown was mentioned throughout this very thread and several times he was referenced as a black man.

That is NOT correct & is false. On checking the past posts, Mike Brown was mentioned as being an African American only ONE time in only ONE post, post # 354. I, myself, posted post #340 & did not post again until my next posting which was post # 366. Clearly, I forgot this ONE reference in post # 354. That would be easy to do in a thread which has 459 posts. Go figure.

Just a quick scan has showed me he was mentioned in post 254, 345, 354, 366, 369 and so on.

But in these posts Mike Brown was sometimes only called Brown & was ONLY mentioned as an African American only ONCE in ONLY ONE post, #354. Go figure.

In my mentioning Mike Brown in post #366 - you posted #367.

This is false. You did NOT post post # 366; I did & in it there is NO mention of one Mike Brown. You are misstating the facts & distorting the posting record of this thread.

I did NOT post post # 367. Duncan MacRae did. Again, you are misstating the facts & distorting the posting record of this thread.

Here is this post # 367:

What doesn't match, Duncan? Mike Brown stood taller in my field of view than Tony did at the Badge Man location ... is that not what is seen in the Badge Man images ... of course it is.

Bill Miller

No, what you falsely represent is NOT what is seen in the Badgeman images. Your Mr Brown is a totally different size, and how you can not see this is beyond my understanding. It's like comparing an Elephant with a Fly..There is no match. Look at this gif which is extremely accurate, check the sun spots, fence, the steps, the trees, the sky through the trees, corner of wall, wall bush etc etc, they ALL match........are you blind????...Arnold is a floating torso midget. I rest my case.

Duncan

Now would you like to see more post that mentioned Mike Brown or are all of these been enough to refresh your memory???

These posts are more than enough to convince anyone that you have exaggerated & distorted the posting record of this thread in order to mount a totally baseless & unjustified slur of racial prejudice against a forum member, simply

because you are unhappy that logical analysis has brought Arnold's existence in Moorman into question.

Why NOT debate the facts? Why attack the messenger?

You will never rescue Arnold by playing Nixonian DIRTY TRICKS.

DIRTY TRICKS? These are the familiar tactics from people who have nothing left to say that is logical & that is fact based.

Bill Miller

Edited August 15, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I'm not familiar with the thread and have only read the posts on this page.

I don't see anything wrong with the description used by Miles in any way. To try and draw this as a racist remark is, IMO, being overly sensitive.

Evan and all,

The black blob is African American Mike Brown ... that is what I said and if anyone thinks that is racist, then the problem lies with them and not me. Pointing out why the blob was black was to educate - not to give fanatics the opportunity to draw attention away from the subject and onto a new one. Why is Gordon Arnold so light - why is your stand-in so black ... the black blob. Black is a dominant color over white and therefore in the transparency I created ... Mike shows up as a Black man seen in silhouette - when the two images are combined ... Mike partially fades out and is still the dominant figure seen over the wall. END OF STORY!

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Well stated Alan...If you sqeeze something long enough and hard enought to try and get it in to a small hole, you'll probably eventually succeed, unless you're trying to fit a mountain in to a mole hill, which is exactly what Bill and co were obviously trying to do.

The above comment made in reference to the angle Mike Brown was standing is erroneous and without fact. The photograph was to see how these men stacked up vertically against one another when compared to the Badge Man photo. Had I wanted to test the width possibilities, then I could have had Tony Cummings trade with Mike Brown because Mike is a large man and Tony is thin. IMO, to try and make it more than what it was is resemblance of one being a fanatic.

fanatic: A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Golz for one is on record as ignoring Arnolds wishes to remain nameless in the '78 article.

When his editor told him he would not publish the story without the mans name, Golz went ahead & published not only his name but where he worked too.

If he would do that & then later admit to it, it knda makes you wonder about his credibilty does it not?

Would you trust him after this?

And how did Gordon Arnold posing for a photo on the knoll so to be run with the article help hide his identity do you think? Something isn't making much sense here.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Black is a dominant color over white and therefore in the transparency I created ... Mike shows up as a Black man seen in silhouette - when the two images are combined ... Mike partially fades out and is still the dominant figure seen over the wall. END OF STORY!

Bill

Erm..Not quite..You forgot to mention that in no way, shape or form does Mike Brown resemble the size of the floating Arnold Torso

Duncan

Duncan,

What is the purpose of applying to the floating torso, as an overlay, a figure of a different, bigger size?

I am unable to discern a purpose or motive to do this?

Is the purpose to show that the size of the floating torso as seen in Moorman is not somehow its true size?

Please advise, as I'm at a loss on this one.

Miles

[Bill Miller]

Yes, always... But, clearly you do not think before you respond, since you are fabricating false racial slurs against forum members.

Miles, you are what we call a 'pot stirrer' from where I am from. There is another name for it, but the forum rules won't allow me to share it with you. I read Evan's post before seeing this and now I see why he responded like he did. Why am I not surprised to see that it originated from you. As I was reading the thread to find all the places that you said Mike Brown's name wasn't mentioned - I came across a few remarks you made about me allegedly violating forum rules. One such remark told of me not actually saying something, but implying it instead. On the other hand - another forum member was posting words that could have come off of a Red Fox record and yet you said nothing. In the future - save the drama and spend that time reading the threads more thoroughly and you might find yourself better informed as to what has and what has not been said ... I mean, how else can one intelligently debate a position they have if they are not bothering to learn all the facts first? I would have thought that it being shown that you had not read Hoffman's book before trying to be a critic of his story or claiming Holland ran behind into the RR yard immediately following the shooting when he was still seen at his post on the underpass in assassination photographs up to a minute later would have taught you a lesson.

This is false. I did NOT pretend. I forgot a name mentioned only once as an AFRICAN AMERICAN! Go figure.

I am sure you forgot the name, Miles. It seems that even after I mentioned Brown's name once again ... that no attempt was made by you to even do a simple forum search so to know where he was mentioned. And yes, you forgot the name, but that is not what you implied. BTW, I only posted just some of the places his name has been mentioned and I am sure you read Duncan's post - after all, you respond to them - right? I responded directly to you in post #341 and advised that you look at the transparency overlay clip. Then the next few exchanges were between Duncan and I where Brown's name came up some more. In fact, I read quoted text in Duncan's post where Mike Brown's name was mentioned, but found that you consistently left those parts out of your responses - yet other times you quote the entire response someone has given ... even when just posting a few words or a smiley icon that didn't offer anything informative. Do I see a pattern here?

That is NOT correct & is false. On checking the past posts, Mike Brown was mentioned as being an African American only ONE time in only ONE post, post # 354. I, myself, posted post #340 & did not post again until my next posting which was post # 366. Clearly, I forgot this ONE reference in post # 354. That would be easy to do in a thread which has 459 posts. Go figure.

Jack quoted my mentioning Brown being an African American in response #357. I mentioned it again in response #457. Brown was referred to as being black in other responses.

This is false. You did NOT post post # 366; I did & in it there is NO mention of one Mike Brown. You are misstating the facts & distorting the posting record of this thread.

You are correct, Milers ... you got me there. The correct numbered post where I mentioned Mike Brown was #365 ... the one before #366. Would you agree with that correction and is it your position that you didn't know this when you responded that #366 was an error on my part?

I did NOT post post # 367. Duncan MacRae did. Again, you are misstating the facts & distorting the posting record of this thread.

Here is this post # 367:

What doesn't match, Duncan? Mike Brown stood taller in my field of view than Tony did at the Badge Man location ... is that not what is seen in the Badge Man images ... of course it is.

Bill Miller

No, what you falsely represent is NOT what is seen in the Badgeman images. Your Mr Brown is a totally different size, and how you can not see this is beyond my understanding. It's like comparing an Elephant with a Fly..There is no match. Look at this gif which is extremely accurate, check the sun spots, fence, the steps, the trees, the sky through the trees, corner of wall, wall bush etc etc, they ALL match........are you blind????...Arnold is a floating torso midget. I rest my case.

Duncan

Now would you like to see more post that mentioned Mike Brown or are all of these been enough to refresh your memory???

That particular post was mentioned because Duncan had repeated the name Mike Brown ... the name you couldn't seem to recall ever seeing.

These posts are more than enough to convince anyone that you have exaggerated & distorted the posting record of this thread in order to mount a totally baseless & unjustified slur of racial prejudice against a forum member, simply because you are unhappy that logical analysis has brought Arnold's existence in Moorman into question.

Why NOT debate the facts? Why attack the messenger?

Pointing out all the references to Mike Brown's name is 'the facts'. The racial nonsense you mentioned doesn't deserve a response IMO.

You will never rescue Arnold by playing Nixonian DIRTY TRICKS.

DIRTY TRICKS? These are the familiar tactics from people who have nothing left to say that is logical & that is fact based.

Same as the previous answer.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Black is a dominant color over white and therefore in the transparency I created ... Mike shows up as a Black man seen in silhouette - when the two images are combined ... Mike partially fades out and is still the dominant figure seen over the wall. END OF STORY!

Bill

Erm..Not quite..You forgot to mention that in no way, shape or form does Mike Brown resemble the size of the floating Arnold Torso

Duncan

Duncan,

What is the purpose of applying to the floating torso, as an overlay, a figure of a different, bigger size?

I am unable to discern a purpose or motive to do this?

Is the purpose to show that the size of the floating torso as seen in Moorman is not somehow its true size?

Please advise, as I'm at a loss on this one.

Miles

Miles,

Maybe you or Duncan would like to explain Duncan's past remark whereas he said that the Gordon Arnold in TMWKK series looked to be the same size as the Gordon Arnold in the Badge Man images. In TMWKK, it was apparent that Gordon was standing on the ground, thus if he is the same size in Duncan's view as the figure in Moorman's photo - what does that tell us???

Duncan: I am saying that he looks as large as when he appeared on TMWKK.

Bill Miller

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

What is the purpose of applying to the floating torso, as an overlay, a figure of a different, bigger size?

It's my guess they were tring to get a match, which they obviously didn't get

I am unable to discern a purpose or motive to do this?

I gather from Bill's previous postings, it was to see how Mike as Arnold lined up with Bageman, strange when there's no match once again

Please advise, as I'm at a loss on this one.

Me too..

The information has been repeated several times now and a comparison in standing heights to the figures in the Badge Man images has also been posted. If one has not been able to follow along by now, then one may have to just remain in the dark on this one.

Bill

[Jack White]

This subject was exhausted several days ago. You guys should just

put your computers on auto pilot set to say DITTO to every message.

Don't you have anything better to do? Get a life.

This is a psychosis known as IMUSTHAVETHEFINALWORD.

Jack