Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

But it just happens that Miller agrees with facts I studied many years ago regarding Gordon Arnold

and Ed Hoffman. On these two witnesses, I was there when they first became known to researchers.

These johnny-come-latelies who think they know-it-all because they can find one obscure quote

Ed or Gordon made twenty five years later that is different from what they said in the sixties are poor

excuses for objective researchers. They waste their time and ours sniffing false trails.

Too bad.

Jack

I don't blame people for asking questions pertaining to what these witnesses have said, but they should first learn that the walkway and steps are east of the fence and that the grass Arnold stood on is west of the steps and walkway.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

Arnold never stood anywhere he wasn't in the plaza that day.

He said he stood west of the steps & he was thankfully made to specify.

A person cannot be appear to be behind the wall when we are looking from from the Moorman position if they are west of the steps though, that is what's going over your heads.

Below is a photo taken of Royce Beirma as seen looking south down the walkway. Royce is standing in the grass which is west of the walkway ... that is directly connected to the steps. Royce is lined up to the figure in Moorman's photo known as Gordon Arnold and it can be said that Royce is west of the steps.

Bill

Well, what is of most import about that photo is that Roy, standing in that spot, would not appear to be standing anywhere near close to the position of BDM in Willis & Betzner.

Someone in Tony's position would be closer but you will still notice a difference.

Maybe if he hugged(lent on) the wall like Groden did in one of your Willis5 positional photos you would see a similarity.

While I'm on this, tell me, why was Groden leaning on the wall in that photo?

Yes, I suspect you know what I might be getting at but, just try & answer the question honestly dispite what it may or may not mean to me.

Anyway.

Your drawn in compass is out & you know it is, anyone here can go check the map in POTP..

If I still had all my photos I could show you one from Bill clearly illustrating the correct position of due north.

Due south is from the camermans position towards the direction of the "Husdon tree"(or just left of it as we look) as you call it.

Royce is NW of the steps not west.

No wonder your frustrated, you've lost your bearings.

Okay I'll except that it's not a big issue, Arnold may have confused west with NW, just like Bill has.

However, from memory, when I've read witnesses refer to the "north", they usually know in which direction that is when they're in the plaza.

Not that I've made notes, I just remember checking where north was for myself.

[Alan Healy]

(Edited for my point AH)

But it just happens that Miller agrees with facts I studied many years ago regarding Gordon Arnold

and Ed Hoffman. On these two witnesses, I was there when they first became known to researchers.

These johnny-come-latelies who think they know-it-all because they can find one obscure quote

Ed or Gordon made twenty five years later that is different from what they said in the sixties are poor

excuses for objective researchers. They waste their time and ours sniffing false trails.

Too bad.

Jack

Objective:

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

There are no facts to support Arnold, period, name one, if you can.

We are the ones who are being objective, you Gary & Bill have been(overly IMO) influenced by the man, his story & the illusion in the blow-ups.

If a certain someone says "Arnold stood here or there" I am perfectly entitled to state the opposite because there is no proof he was there, none at all.

Alan

[Alan Healy]

Good Day Bill.... In your staged photo, ROYCE nor TONY is not anywhere close to being in the grass only 3' from the picket fence, well west of the pergola steps (yet, as you are aware, a specific location spot visible in several 11-22-63 attack photographic references), as ARNOLD, himself, very specifically claimed on June 6, 1989 to the SFM oral histories program. http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/addi...noldCLAIMS.html

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Harping on about Arnold mentioning being 3' from the fence is pure foolishness IMO. Did Arnold say this in the first two decades of telling his story or was it a reference that he may have made a mistake about in his latter years and just prior before his death? My father still calls me by my brothers name, but that doesn't mean the things he said didn't happen or from where they occurred. Like I said - utter foolishness IMO. I have a buddy who goes out into the bush with me and he recounts our adventures at times and gets two points in time mixed up and blended into one event ... who cares - the event did happen - he just screwed up a sequence by confusing it with another.

Bill Miller

Name one other interview of Arnold that tried to pin-point his position as accurately as the one Don refers too.

If you can't, then you must rely on that one, yes that one, the one you just dismissed.

[Miles Scull]

Good Day Bill.... In your staged photo, ROYCE nor TONY is not anywhere close to being in the grass only 3' from the picket fence, well west of the pergola steps (yet, as you are aware, a specific location spot visible in several 11-22-63 attack photographic references), as ARNOLD, himself, very specifically claimed on June 6, 1989 to the SFM oral histories program. http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/addi...noldCLAIMS.html

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Harping on about Arnold mentioning being 3' from the fence is pure foolishness IMO. Did Arnold say this in the first two decades of telling his story or was it a reference that he may have made a mistake about in his latter years and just prior before his death? My father still calls me by my brothers name, but that doesn't mean the things he said didn't happen or from where they occurred. Like I said - utter foolishness IMO. I have a buddy who goes out into the bush with me and he recounts our adventures at times and gets two points in time mixed up and blended into one event ... who cares - the event did happen - he just screwed up a sequence by confusing it with another.

Bill Miller

Name one other interview of Arnold that tried to pin-point his position as accurately as the one Don refers too.

If you can't, then you must rely on that one, yes that one, the one you just dismissed.

Alan

IMHO, I do not think there is another interview such as that refered to by Don. At least I have not been able to find one. This is similar to not finding the missing "Weitzmzn report" which does not exist. (Why is there an implication by Miller that someone is being a "fool"? Is that not forum rule violation?)

Edited August 6, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Alan Healy]

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.

Alan, if you cannot cite correctly what has been written, then how can you learn by reading about the JFK assassination case??? Herb took no ones word for anything ... didn't you read his response. Dennis David and his group didn't take my word either, Groden, Law, Mellen, Beirma, Cummings, Hancock, and etc., got it, but not by taking my word for anything. It's OK if you don't get it.

I won't say anything, but expect Miles to post a response crying for the moderators to tone down the foul language, unless he only whines when I use the word.

Bill

Let's see if Herb can tell us in his own words exactly what the "Arnold" figure in M5 & the BDM in Betzner3 have in common.

Hopefully he will be objective enough(but I doubt it) to note the differences too & as we all know, that list is one thousand percent longer.

Proved it my "foot".

As for my language I'll apoligise in advance, sorry Herb.

I was looking for a better expression but couldn't think of one as apt as that, at the time.

FWIW Groden may theorise that BDM & the figure in Moorman, Nix & Muchmore as "the same person" but there is no way he thinks of the BDM in Betzner & Willis as a serviceman in uniform, standing upright & filming the motorcade.

You can twist his words anyway you want Bill, I ain't buying it.

As for the others, what research of their own have they done on BDM & why should we care what they think about it?

I remember reading an old thread @Lancer where Debra Conway was asking you questions on this theory of yours & like any reasonable person she remained unconvinced but still curious.

I highly doubt anything you have done since has changed her opinion since it's still the same circumstancial theory/ideas.

If your as stubborn in person as you are on these forums, then I think most people who debated with you face to face would say they agree with your theory in the end, just to be left alone.

I would not blame them but it is so obvious that BDM is not Gordon Arnold you have to rule one out.

Jack does this by suggesting that the shape of BDM in Betzner is a forgery.

That is logical.

The figures look nothing like each other, why?

Shadows alone do not solve it.

I'm pretty sure this is what Groden does, he rules one of them out but, like any open-minded individual he'll give out different ideas depending on who he is talking to.

The figure in Moorman5 is an illusion.

I would say the opposite about the BDM in Betzner. IMO that camera caught on film exactly what was there at the wall that day, or let's say, Mr. Betzner's camera captured it as best as it could.

Anyway, I'd rather be called an ass & told why, than to be misinformed about what constitutes real evidence & having no other choice but to agree with it because I never looked at the topic close enough to form my own opinion.

Just to punctuate.

I'm all for people joining in the debate but it angers me to see someone come in & say "I agree with this person" & give absolutley no explanation as to why.

This isn't the first time this has happened & I doubt it will be the last.

Hopefully Herb will bite the bullet & post a contribution.

Maybe if he was agreeing with me I would of handled it diferently but I still would of asked him "why?".

[Bill Miller]

Well, what is of most import about that photo is that Roy, standing in that spot, would not appear to be standing anywhere near close to the position of BDM in Willis & Betzner.

Someone in Tony's position would be closer but you will still notice a difference.

I don't mind that someone who has never been to Dealey Plaza will say the things that you do because they simply do not know what they are talking about. We went around about this years ago and to this date not one person who has visited the plaza who has read what I had stated has ever come back saying that I got that point wrong. You make too many assumptions to replace facts IMO.

Maybe if he hugged(lent on) the wall like Groden did in one of your Willis5 positional photos you would see a similarity.

While I'm on this, tell me, why was Groden leaning on the wall in that photo?

I know of no photo that I have taken of the wall that has Groden leaning against the wall. Please feel free to point it out to me. I have a feeling that your remark is based on yet another errered photo interpretation and from wrongly assuming things as fact that you have no real bases for doing. I do however, recall taking a photo of some unknown person who had leaned on the wall, but they were not there to assist me in any way. The purpose of that photo was for me to have an idea as to what someone leaning on the wall would look like on the LOS at which I took the photo from.

Anyway.

Your drawn in compass is out & you know it is, anyone here can go check the map in POTP..

If I still had all my photos I could show you one from Bill clearly illustrating the correct position of due north.

Due south is from the camermans position towards the direction of the "Husdon tree"(or just left of it as we look) as you call it.

Royce is NW of the steps not west.

No wonder your frustrated, you've lost your bearings.

If it wasn't so pathetic - it would be almost comical to read the nonsense you have tried to inject into what should be a simple exercise in interpreting what a witness has said. For instance; If someone was to look at Moorman's photo and make the comment that Hudson was west of the concrete wall, then they would be correct. How many times have we gotten directions to someone's home whereas they said that 'we live just west of a particular intersection or business' .... when if we wanted to split hairs we could argue that their house was located SW or NW of that said particular location. We don't do it because it would make us look like one of those words that we are not supposed to write in our postings. Here is another example .... Someone says that Betzner stood just east of Phil Willis as JFK rode down Elm Street. This would be a true statement to most of the world, but then there would be someone trying to pretend to be smarter than they really are who would say that Elm Street runs at a slight west to southwest angle at the top of Elm Street, thus saying Willis was west of Betzner is not accurate. I guess it just depends on how ridiculous one wishes to get over these witnesses perceptions concerning the geographical layout of the plaza. Another example might be someone saying that the pyracantha bush was west of the pedestal, but technically someone else could argue that this is false because the bush is south by southwest a few degrees from where Zapruder stood. Where does that kind of nonsense end?

Okay I'll except that it's not a big issue, Arnold may have confused west with NW, just like Bill has.

However, from memory, when I've read witnesses refer to the "north", they usually know in which direction that is when they're in the plaza.

Not that I've made notes, I just remember checking where north was for myself.

Really, Alan ... can you offer some examples of witnesses being precise with their interpretations of direction? I have read where people say the TSBD is east of the colonnade, but technically someone might say that it is NE - not east of the colonnade. How about someone saying Moorman was west of Jean Hill's position ... Moorman was closer to the curb than Hill, so some joker can now argue that Moorman was actually NW of Hill's location - it never ends. The good thing about all this nonsense is that it shows to what extent these arm-chair critics must go to in order to try and make the witness appear unreliable.

Then their next move is to state that there is no evidence to support the witnesses being there at all. The fact that a witness like Arnold had stated where he was located - what he was doing at the time of the shooting, what he did immediately after the shooting, (as in Arnold's case) he said that a shot came past his left ear which is what the Badge Man enhancements seem to show, the timing of when that shot came past Gordon's ear seems to also be supported by the Badge Man enhancements, that Towner #3 does show two people near the tree where Arnold would have been laying had he hit the dirt when the shot came past his head, not to mention other little details such as what that person was wearing on the day of the assassination are all quite remarkable statements to make if the person wasn't really there. That's right - what Gordon wearing! Gary Mack spoke to Arnold in a telephone interview long before the Turner interview and Gary was the only person at that time to ask Gordon what he wore the day of the shooting. Isn't is funny how Jack's Badge Man images show the Arnold figure to be dressed the same way as Gordon described to Mack years earlier. So for anyone to say that there is nothing factual that doesn't support Arnold's story is just mere propaganda IMO - not based on fact, but rather on disinformation.

Bill Miller

Edited August 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I have to agree with you Alan, and I also find it offensive being accused of wasting the time of other researchers. If they don't want to take part in the discussion, they have the choice to go fishing, watch TV, or do anything else they choose to do instead. Just because they spent some time with Gordon Arlnold means absolutely nothing, other than they believed his story and looked for proof to back up his story/s. We are questioning that story and the differing stories, which is our right.

Duncan

Duncan, I find it hard to believe that something I am sure you have heard throughout your many assassin finding claims would still be offensive to you .... by now I would think that you were used to it!

I also agree that you have the right to question someone's story, but you do not have the right to be wrong about the facts. I find it simply amazing that someone who can see floating cop torso's in very poor fuzzy Moorman prints, or can see what they call 'the true shape of the BDM' in a ridiculous looking image created by all but destroying a photo - is unable to see Gordon Arnold holding his mothers movie camera to his face in Jack's Badge Man images. How does that happen ????????????

Bill Miller

Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I find it simply amazing that someone who claims that a midget called hatman without a weapon fired a shot at the president can not see that the Gordon Arnold figure in Moorman is a perspectively physical impossibility in Moorman..if Badgeman is a real figure, and who also fails to give a plausible explanation for the difference in size comparison between both. How does that happen ??????????

Duncan

Duncan,

Your comparison between the Gordon Arnold figure & Badgeman presents a problem of mutually excluding alternatives. Is that correct?

IOW, because of the placement of theses figures in Newtonian space, there is an insurmountable perspective problem. Is that correct?

If you have a second could you set out the arrangement in space of the figures. Is one behind the other?

Dale Myers refers to Head size discrepancies. Is that a factor?

Thanks in advance...

[Bill Miller]

No one, other than you has ever accused me of wasting other researchers time. In fact if time is wasted by researchers, then that wasted time is wasted by themselves, go figure.

Duncan, you have got to be kidding me. I bet if I sent the stuff you've claimed to Jay Leno - that it would end up in his mono log.

You are wrong, everyone has the right to be wrong about the facts if they genuinely believe that the wrong facts are the right facts..Go figure again.

If what you cited were actually facts, then you would not be wrong.

I find it simply amazing that someone who claims that a midget called hatman without a weapon fired a shot at the president

Duncan, do you know what a midget is?

Midget: [noun] a person who is abnormally small

Synonyms: dwarf, nanus

The fence was 5' tall - Bowers described the man who stood there, as well as Hoffman and no one said they were a midget. In fact, if the better half of a fedora hat is seen over the fence, then if the person wearing it is right up against the fence, then they would be more than 5' tall. If they were 1' back from the fence, then that would make them even taller for the hat to be seen from Moorman's upward LOS. While I am surprised that no one has explained this to you before now - I `can only assume that its such common knowledge that they just figured you knew better.

Below is the same guy seen through the foliage in the Willis photo. He is up near the west end of the fence facing the oncoming President just as Bowers had said. His upper shoulders and head can be seen through the foliage as it blocks out the sky seen beyond him. As far as not having a weapon, then I guess that smoke was a genie being released from a bottle and the smell of burnt gunpowder was just an illusion.

Bill

Edited August 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Your comparison between the Gordon Arnold figure & Badgeman presents a problem of mutually excluding alternatives. Is that correct?

That's correct Miles, there are 3 alternatives

1./ Arnold is real and Badgeman is not real,

2./ Badgeman is real and Arnold is not real, or

3./ Both Arnold and the Badgeman figures are unreal

IOW, because of the placement of theses figures in Newtonian space, there is an insurmountable perspective problem. Is that correct?

Correct

If you have a second could you set out the arrangement in space of the figures. Is one behind the other?

Theoretically as the Arnold figure is smaller, then he would have to be behind Badgeman.

Dale Myers refers to Head size discrepancies. Is that a factor?

I am refering to both head and body size. Badgemans body ( right shoulder ) which is slightly turned away from Arnold is much larger than the body of Arnold, in other words, even the semi side on view of Badgeman has a bigger visible body mass than that of Arnold

Duncan,

Theoretically as the Arnold figure is smaller, then he would have to be behind Badgeman.

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?

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

[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.)

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

[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.

[Miles Scull]

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

Miles

Well Miles....Have a look at this composite. This is an actual picture of Arnold standing where he said he was standing on 22nd Nov 1963 which I have resized to exact scale and superimposed over/near the Moorman Arnold, differing angles means placement compensation, vertical scaling of the wall comparison accuracy is the important factor here. Check the wall size for the accuracy of my composite. Looks like we have 2 midgets on the scene now. The slightly different angles can not explain the HUGE difference in size between the supposed Arnold in Moorman, and the real Arnold in the photograph where I make the comparison. I conclude therefore that Arnold does not exist in the current location in Moorman.

Duncan

Duncan,

I see. Yes, the size differential is obvious.

Just to be sure, do you allow that the false positive Arnold figure may be a human, and merely disallow the identification as Arnold?

Does the failure to equate the figure to Arnold add, subtract or do nothing to Arnold's general credibility?

I ask this because I cannot account for the circumstance that Arnold's film pilferer/absconder was weeping as he kicked the supine Arnold. Weeping? If this was an assassination team member, what's there to cry about? Was he weeping in contrition for kicking Arnold?

How do you explain this?

Miles

Edited August 6, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

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 to always come up with basically the same location for Arnold and Badge Man. The statement above mentioning Arnold being on a plane that runs through Badge Man (BM) needs an explanation IMO. Does not one see Gordon Arnold standing to the side of Badge Man?

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.

[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? 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? Three witnesses have either said they walked up and down that fence or seen someone who did. I think it is only right that you tell this forum just how many supporting witnesses does it take to deem them reliable and why do you believe that misstating the facts of the case is benefiting the purpose that students come here for???

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.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Below is the same guy seen through the foliage in the Willis photo. He is up near the west end of the fence facing the oncoming President just as Bowers had said. His upper shoulders and head can be seen through the foliage as it blocks out the sky seen beyond him. As far as not having a weapon, then I guess that smoke was a genie being released from a bottle and the smell of burnt gunpowder was just an illusion.

Bill

Wow Bill...and you say it's me who posts blurry degraded images . I'm speechless for once.

Duncan

Actually Duncan - it is a scan from the Willis blow-up in Groden's book "TKOAP". The little pits you see are not pixels from a loss of resolution, but rather the pits in the paper in the book itself. I think if you look at the entire area around this person, you will find that his location - rounded shoulder appearance - and obviously dark object on his head is the hat seen in Moorman's photo and what Hoffman described. You will not find that shape present in photos taken after the assassination.

Now you can continue laughing.

Bill

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bill Miller