Is This Black Dog Man

[Jack White]

I have never been able to confirm, but my impression is that

Arnold's camera was equipped with a PISTOL GRIP, which

allowed for easy one-handed operation. I had a pistol grip

on two of my cameras. The Apollo "astronauts" had a pistol

grip camera.

Jack

Robin, thx for pointer.

In TMWKK Arnold demonstrates his panning method as holding the camera with two hands. No pistol grip.

However, looking at this crop:

It would seem that there are certain anatomical proportionality problems.

The right forearm seems too long for a proportional fit or match with the other arm segment lengths.

(The right forearm would appear to be extended in length by a having coupled to it a prosthetic device.)

The left arm's segment from shoulder to elbow seems too long for a proportional jibe.

IOWs, the anatomical geometry doesn't tally up.

You have indicated that his wrist watch is his hand. You have no grasp of anatomy.

Jack

[Alan Healy]

You have indicated that his wrist watch is his hand. You have no grasp of anatomy.

Jack

If you could actually see a wrist watch or a hand, then you would be entitled to question Mikes grasp of anatomy but since the only clear identification of these items is in your mind's eye Jack(that is, your biased mind), I think everyone should take your above statement with a pinch of salt.

I certainly see no hand or watch, you must have a more detailed copy if you really see such things but I doubt you do.

As far as I always knew with this Arnold phantasm, his "left arm" has always been hanging straight down by his side.

Looking at it again, that still looks "right".

Didn't you ever notice the man's face on his right shoulder?

Alan

[Alan Healy]

Dupe.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

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

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

Jack

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

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

Jack

Thanks much Jack and Bernice.....I think you solved the problem of the 'Arnold' 'doll'.

As for Gratz, he apparently feels it his 'patriotic duty' to divert, thwart, reverse, and clog threads.

 

Peter..Why do you think Jack has solved this when his misleading analysis is miles out? My analysis is done to exact scale, and nothing has been altered as Jack claims. Anyone with half a brain can check my sizing for accuracy. He is JACKS b/w Moorman overlaid with JACKS colourised Moormans, with Tink Thomsons Moorman as the base reference and scaling factor . Now tell me whats wrong with it?

Duncan

Duncan this is looking really good.

I think my last post to you pointed out an opening in the trees suggesting you may have not lined them up correctly but I see now that was in error.

What I think is happening here is that your observation/revelation is a shock, to everyone, the natural response from anyone is that you might have made an error. It's going to take time for it to sink in & at this stage you have to expect some scrambling from the AA support club & others too, who have studied these photos for years and never noticed this.

Thanks to you, I can now take that high res Drum scan of Moorman, pick out "Arnold" among the shapes & shadows above the wall & I can see he is floating, I don't need to paste the Groden blow-up on top of it, it is obvious enough without it.

When I first did this yesterday, something came to my mind(because I'm wondering..... how come these guys never noticed this?).

A few years back I was asking, "why does Badgeman have to be behind the fence & not the wall?"

(not only that but I subsequently found written evidence that Gary Mack originally thought that BM was behind the wall, anyway...).

What had happened was that, when they went down to the plaza with the blow-ups in hand, it was immeadietly apparent that BM had to have been further back because of his size, he was simply just too small to be behind the wall.

Arnold is virtually the same size as BM, that is why people keep asking "why is BM's head the same size as Arnolds if he's further back?".

FACT: Arnold is too small to be behind the wall as well.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2786/gijoeff2.png

Thanks again for pointing this out to us Duncan it's an extreemly important and helpful observation, one of the best I've seen.

Alan

[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.

Alan,

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

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

Thank you Herb.

I hope at the very least that you will continue to watch for developments on the subject.

As it seems I have developed an attitude of somewhat in the course of this discussion I'll try to bow out gracefully.

If there is one thing I've learned in six decades of life it is that preconception, light, shadows and viewing angles all can play tricks on the mindseye.

Wise words Herb,

thanks again.

Alan

[Alan Healy]

Why doesn't someone check to see if this model had a pistol grip and if yes, then ask Arnold if he had one that day. Even without a pistol grip it is possible to operate using one hand with thumb on shutter.

With respect Peter,

that's not really the issue anymore.

What they really should of asked him was, "why were you floating four feet or more above the ground if you were standing "between the wall & the fence""?".

Anyway, according to Bill, Arnold was asked about the grip already by Gary Mack & Arnold's answer was "yes" he did have one.

"Most cameras were sold with those in them days" is another response that I remember getting when I was barking up the wrong tree too.

Alan

[Bill Miller]

With respect Peter,

that's not really the issue anymore.

What they really should of asked him was, "why were you floating four feet or more above the ground if you were standing "between the wall & the fence""?".

Has not anyone noticed that the slope of the knoll near the fence is higher in Moorman's field of view that the base of the wall .... of course not or you guys would have mentioned it. That is part of the puzzle. The mound of dirt he said he stood on is another. The last piece of the puzzle is the ridiculously poor sizing job Duncan did by attempting to place legs onto the upper body ... does anyone know how Duncan scaled those legs vertically??? Like I alluded to before ... there is a reason why people far more capable at studying images than we are who has seen the Badge Man images and never said anything about Arnold being the too small. And let us keep in mind that Yarborough said that he saw Arnold standing beyond the wall and Ralph mentioned how Gordon dove to the ground when the shooting occurred .... little legs and all. (sigh~) What a waste of time in my opinion.

Bill Miller

Edited August 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

Badgeman negative of the Arnold figure.

[Bill Miller]

I challenge Jack, Bill, or anyone to prove that my scaling is wrong as I have been falsely accused of alteration in order to deceive this forum. I have pointed green lines towards the common points to prove that my analysis is an honest, non deciving, not altered true representation of proof that Arnold is not real.

Duncan

The proper way to do an overlay to show the scaling to be exact is to keep the lines seen at all times so to see if the image shifts at all. As far as you deceiving anyone - I do not think that is the case. I just think you are not very qualified to be doing what you're trying to do. The lower half of your Arnold figure is ridiculous in my view and the naked eye can pick up on the scaling problem. The funny thing about your inability to see outside the box is that Groden, myself, Jack, and so on have used stand-ins who were standing on the ground and they looked just like the figures in the Badge Man images, thus your illustration must have some serious problems that you are not capable of seeing.

Bill

That's another cop out response with absolutely no substance in it's content. Mentioning Groden does not impress me. His eyes are no better than mine. Now... i'm still waiting for you to explain why my analysis is wrong, rather than you just giving namedropping replies which have no bearing on this issue. If you see serious problems, then point them out. Forget about stupid wrongly sized Moorman re-enactment stand ins, i'm using the real deal in my analysis. I suggest you do the same if you wish to prove your points.

Duncan

I guess the names Jack White and Gary Mack doesn't impress you either - hey? My point was that all these people have used real people to test these images and the REAL PEOPLE matched what was seen in Moorman's photo. So all these different researchers using real people in the real plaza are all mistaken and only Duncan's cartoon is the real deal ... did I get that right?

Now I have said that you offered nothing to show how you "VERTICALLY" scaled the legs on your image and you have not answered that question, so I will wait for your answer before moving on. You should also address where the ground would appear in relation to the wall ... it is these things that would at least make it appear that you investigated your claim before proclaiming it a success.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

With respect Peter,

that's not really the issue anymore.

What they really should of asked him was, "why were you floating four feet or more above the ground if you were standing "between the wall & the fence""?".

Has not anyone noticed that the slope of the knoll near the fence is higher in Moorman's field of view that the base of the wall

I noticed the slope.

.... of course not or you guys would have mentioned it.

Why was it necessary to mention the slope?

That is part of the puzzle.

Puzzle? What puzzle? (see: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm)

The mound of dirt he said he stood on is another.

What mound? A four foot high mound?

The last piece of the puzzle is the ridiculously poor sizing job Duncan

That is correct. Duncan's work is masterly.

did by attempting to place legs onto the upper body ... does anyone know how Duncan scaled those legs vertically???

Yes, I did the research. Duncan used a ruler.

Like I alluded to before ... there is a reason why people far more capable at studying images than we are who has seen the Badge Man images and never said anything about Arnold being the too small.

Geoffrey Crawley, one of the world's foremost photography experts, respected by his peers as the expert's expert, found via detailed analysis that Arnold was a midget.

Again see: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm

And let us keep in mind that Yarborough said that he saw Arnold standing beyond the wall and Ralph mentioned how Gordon dove to the ground when the shooting occurred .... little legs and all.

Why should one keep this in mind? It does not bear on the unreality of the alleged Arnold Image in Moorman.

(sigh~) What a waste of time in my opinion.

My opinion is that Duncan's work reinforces Crawley's conclusions. We can thank him!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Yeah!!!....It's so ridiculous that you have absolutely nothing to combat my claim in the photographic record of Arnold in Moorman. You don't need to ask if anyone knows how I scaled the legs, that's a desperate spin. It was simple, I got a picture of a soldier ( Uploaded ) and resized them to give an approximate size for the non existant floating Arnold with legs as they would have been seen on the non existant floating Arnold if the wall had not been there. I'm still waiting for you to do your own resizing comparison to prove me wrong, but as Alan says, I won't hold my breath. Why?..Because any results you get will be no different from mine, and you clearly, as demonstrated by your non compliance of my request so far, are bowing out and conceding in my favour the photographic resizing comparison issue by default

So let me get this straight ... your position is that if no one addresses a ridiculously poorly scaled image that is being used to support a silly claim, then the claim must be valid by default ... is that your position???

I also gotta tell you that the width of your cartoon scaling is not accurate either.

Like who?, Tell me who has a diploma in JFK Photographic studies, what their qualifications are, and how anyone goes about getting such a ridiculous qualification. People like Jack, Craig, David etc have technical professional qualifications, but at the end of the day, we all have basically the same tool in looking at photographs, our eyes.

Yes Duncan, and was it not your eyes who said there was a tripod in the doorway of the shelter in the Betzner photo? And was it not your eyes who said there was an assassin standing atop of the colonnade in the same photo? Lots of people have eyes, but they will openly admit that they are inept at reading still images. So to answer your question ... there is more to this stuff than just having a set of eyes. And who is qualified to read images - let's start with MIT who Jack had look at the Badge Man images to see if they could validate his findings. Maybe you should do the same - send them that ridiculous Arnold example you created and see what they tell you ... then post their response!

And let us keep in mind that Yarborough said that he saw Arnold standing beyond the wall and Ralph mentioned how Gordon dove to the ground when the shooting occurred .... little legs and all. (sigh~) What a waste of time in my opinion.

We are discussing the photographic record as it stands, not witness stories. As things are, Arnold would need to have been standing on a small Girraffe to fit your theory LOL

Well, Yarborough seeing the man standing there in real life is one way of validating what one thinks they see in a photo. You say the figure is too small - Yarborough said the figure was a real person. This tells a reasonably intelligent person that YOU possibly made an error in your cartoon scaling.

Bill

Edited August 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

[Robin Unger]

Area between the wall and the picket fence.

[Miles Scull]

Robin,

if this helps

[David Butler]

I'm not seeing a change in the format at all to be honest....You haven't perhaps clicked the Lo-Fi button in the centre of the footer by accident perhaps ? That will change it to a lower res version for use on mobile devices or those on very slow internet connections...