Is This Black Dog Man

[Alan Healy]

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.

[Bill Miller]

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, I think Herb said he saw my presentation as did Sherry, Debra, Law, Mellen, Beirma, Cummings, and countless others. People who I never met before came up and said they now understand who BDM was and that the evidence made perfect sense to them. Other included people like Groden and Dennis David and the group he meets with concerning the JFK assassination. I can only suggest that you maybe get a life and just concede that you don't get it.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

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?

Miles

No..He is not a human figure. To coin Bill Millers favourite term, he is a FLOATING TORSO of the finest caliber ...Have a look at this image to get things in to perspective Miles. If we could see through the wall, Arnold would be seen as a floating torso. I've given him some legs to make this point. The Arnold floating torso in Moorman is the one and only floating torso in Moorman.

Duncan

I think Jack questioned your scaling many post ago. It might be good to show us a transparency of one image so that the light spots in the foliage can be sized equall;y and then see how big Arnold appears to be. The ridiculous job you did offered nothing for scale and was nothing more than a ludicrous attempt and selling your position.

Bill

[Alan Healy]

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?

Miles

No..He is not a human figure. To coin Bill Millers favourite term, he is a FLOATING TORSO of the finest caliber ...Have a look at this image to get things in to perspective Miles. If we could see through the wall, Arnold would be seen as a floating torso. I've given him some legs to make this point. The Arnold floating torso in Moorman is the one and only floating torso in Moorman.

Duncan

RAOFLMAOTIP

Arnold left his GIJOE on the wall!

Exceptional observation Duncan!

First class with honours!

That blows my "short arm Arnold" out of the water, wow.

Well it looks like it's back to the drawing board for the Arnold supporters.

How the heck did all these photoanalysists miss this?

I smell a conspiracy.

Now I really want to curse.

Thank you for that Sir Duncan!

Alan

Actually Duncan the sizing is a little out, you may want to look at it again paying atttenion to the light coming through the trees above these characters.

Also try to find the shape of top of Arnolds hat in the gap in the tree behind him.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

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, I think Herb said he saw my presentation as did Sherry, Debra, Law, Mellen, Beirma, Cummings, and countless others. People who I never met before came up and said they now understand who BDM was and that the evidence made perfect sense to them. Other included people like Groden and Dennis David and the group he meets with concerning the JFK assassination. I can only suggest that you maybe get a life and just concede that you don't get it.

Bill

Was I asking your opinion?

Can you read?

As for that last sentence, anyone can compare my number of posts to yours & decide who it is who has no life.

You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever come across & it's like you don't care or are proud to be one.

What a clown you are.

[Alan Healy]

As requested by the hypocrite,

Groden leaning on the wall posing as BDM.

[Alan Healy]

Duncan I should have looked at it a bit longer , please read my modified post.

[Bill Miller]

As requested by the hypocrite,

Groden leaning on the wall posing as BDM.

Alan - that is not Groden ... you can call a rock a tree, but that does not make it so. I wouldn't care if it was Groden because I took the photo and it was not on the day that the other photos of Brown and Cummings were taken, it wasn't a recreation, and its still not Groden - period! It was just a photo that while I was up at the top of Elm - it dawned on me to take a photo of the wall with someone leaning on it. You guys seem to always be adding little things as fact when it could not be more inaccurate if someone wanted it to be.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I have rechecked Alan and the light areas are a correct match, as is the top of Arnold's hat and the Railroadman's hat and light areas surrounding him in the overlay, it's an almost exact fit. Remember that Jack has coloured in the light areas. Your arrowed comparison of the light area is wrong

Duncan

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

[Alan Healy]

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.

More hypocricy.

When I requested for any new information that you gleaned from your last visit to the plaza you produced that same photo with Roy & Tony in it & told me what a pile of crap it was because you could not organise them to stand in the correct positions.

You also referred to Tony as to having no idea as to what you were trying to do.

Now you name him on your list of supporters.

Is that a circus I hear?

Anyway, anyone who has paid close attention to this topic on Lancer & the photos produced there from that relevant area of the retaining wall(like me for example) will know for a fact that the statement I said above is true. I'll repeat it,

If you are even one pace north of the steps you will not appear in the same place as BDM in Beztner3

If you organised your expeditions a little better you would now this already. Due to your response it is obvious you still haven't noticed this simple fact.

And you don't even need to go there to know this you idiot. All you need are the right photos taken from a postion that assist your understanding.

Knowing how to read these photos & use them correctly helps too & you were right, the one you came back with was unusable, unless you need to confuse or misinform another poor soul.

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?

I don't have to read through that wall of bold text to know your not adressing what I said.

Why do you even bother quoting me then?

Your drawn in compass is out, go ask Gary for directions.

When Arnold said east, he meant east not NE.

You could also say Roy was North of the steps but to be accurate you would say NW.

If I told you to go to somewhere & I said head west, you wouldn't head NW would you?

Maybe you would.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

As requested by the hypocrite,

Groden leaning on the wall posing as BDM.

Alan - that is not Groden ... you can call a rock a tree, but that does not make it so. I wouldn't care if it was Groden because I took the photo and it was not on the day that the other photos of Brown and Cummings were taken, it wasn't a recreation, and its still not Groden - period! It was just a photo that while I was up at the top of Elm - it dawned on me to take a photo of the wall with someone leaning on it. You guys seem to always be adding little things as fact when it could not be more inaccurate if someone wanted it to be.

Bill

How would I know it was Groden unless you the photographer said it was in one of your previous posts either here or @ Lancer.

You going to make me go find it?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

How the h#ll would I know it was Groden unless you the photographer said it was in one of your previous posts either here or @ Lancer.

You going to make me go find it so I can prove your lying your #ss off again?

Yes, Alan ... I think you should go find that post I made and the photo that came with it ... If I made a mistake, then I will be the first to admit it. I look forward to seeing EXACTLY what I had said.

Bill

[Jack White]

Officially, there are no idiots nor clowns on this forum.

But I think it is safe to say there are HAIRSPLITTERS.

IMO, the average Dealey Plaza tourist doesn't give a

XXXX which direction is what, and if it is not early morn

or late eve, cannot tell one direction from another, much

less distinguish N from NW. "Compass north" describes

a direction accurate to within one degree; "northerly direction"

describes an arc that can be up to about 45 degrees. Most

people when asked to point north may be off by as much as

22 degrees, even with the sun as a guide.

The week I spent in London in '89, I NEVER knew one

direction from another...it was overcast every day!

Who cares?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Officially, there are no idiots nor clowns on this forum.

But I think it is safe to say there are HAIRSPLITTERS.

IMO, the average Dealey Plaza tourist doesn't give a

XXXX which direction is what, and if it is not early morn

or late eve, cannot tell one direction from another, much

less distinguish N from NW. "Compass north" describes

a direction accurate to within one degree; "northerly direction"

describes an arc that can be up to about 45 degrees. Most

people when asked to point north may be off by as much as

22 degrees, even with the sun as a guide.

The week I spent in London in '89, I NEVER knew one

direction from another...it was overcast every day!

Who cares?

Jack

I agree with you, Jack. I personally haven't wasted any time going over witnesses testimony looking for references concerning bearings on certain landmarks within the plaza, but I seem to remember that in some cases there was a photo or a map shown to where the interviewer laid down a guideline so to stay on the same page as the witness. It was like anything west of a certain line was to referenced as such and so on. Mack has even explained this to Alan, but with that being about all Alan has left to keep his position going - he needs to split hairs. Come to think of it - I don't recall Arnold using terms like "due-west" which could be interpreted differently than just saying you were west of somewhere.

Bill

[Tim Gratz]

Jack wrote:

The week I spent in London in '89, I NEVER knew one

direction from another...it was overcast every day!

Perhaps the old saying should now be amended to state:

The sun never SHINES on the British Empire!