Is This Black Dog Man

[Robin Unger]

Hi Bernice.

We are in sinc, we both posted Stoughton at the same time.

Notice how it shows a steep slope on the wall going downhill, while on some other images the wall seems to slope the other way, towards the pergola entrance.

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

The first car behind the Presidential car was the Secret Service car; the second car behind them was Vice-President Lyndon Johnson's car. The driver and a secret service agent were on the front seat of the Vice-President's car. Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson sat on the right side of the rear seat of the automobile, Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson was in the center of the rear seat, while I sat on the left side of the rear seat.

Whats going on in the seat positions in this car, where is Ralph.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

The passengers in the VPs car didn't seem to know the shooting was underway by the time Altgens took his #6 photo either.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

[Miles Scull]

Thanks for interesting photo.

Not clear on the "high spot/mound" as seen in blue rectangle.

Where is this located?

At the tip of the red arrow?

Thanks for clarification.

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for interesting photo.

Not clear on the "high spot/mound" as seen in blue rectangle.

Where is this located?

At the tip of the red arrow?

Thanks for clarification.

As simple as I can say it ... The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground. The field of depth is difficult to judge on a B&W image, especially when looking uphill. The red line is parallel with the top of the wall and the distances between the ground and red line can be seen at various points with the naked eye. In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location. The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Thanks for interesting photo.

Not clear on the "high spot/mound" as seen in blue rectangle.

Where is this located?

At the tip of the red arrow?

Thanks for clarification.

As simple as I can say it ... The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground. The field of depth is difficult to judge on a B&W image, especially when looking uphill. The red line is parallel with the top of the wall and the distances between the ground and red line can be seen at various points with the naked eye. In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location. The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph.

Bill Miller

Thanks for elucidation. Couple of queries, please.

The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground.

The shadow of what?

In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location.

How many feet behind Roy's location? Or how many feet away from the fence? Approximately.

The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located,

Where is this high spot? How far from fence? How far from walkway or Roy? Where along the fence or the wall as seen here?

[Miles Scull]

Thanks for interesting photo.

Not clear on the "high spot/mound" as seen in blue rectangle.

Where is this located?

At the tip of the red arrow?

Thanks for clarification.

As simple as I can say it ... The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground. The field of depth is difficult to judge on a B&W image, especially when looking uphill. The red line is parallel with the top of the wall and the distances between the ground and red line can be seen at various points with the naked eye. In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location. The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph.

Bill Miller

Thanks for elucidation. Couple of queries, please.

The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground.

The shadow of what?

In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location.

How many feet behind Roy's location? Or how many feet away from the fence? Approximately.

The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located,

Where is this high spot? How far from fence? How far from walkway or Roy? Where along the fence or the wall as seen here?

there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph. -- Miller

there seems

Do not see this. Seems NOT to be.

to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located,

Where is the red arrow located? You can indicate this by answering the questions found above. Otherwise the red arrow could be pointing to several things?

thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said

No, not until you specify the location of what you seem to feel is a possible mound.

long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location

What location? You have not made that clear.

would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph.

Hardly. Not so. Not until the "location" is located.

[Alan Healy]

The whole Yarborough thing has been cleared up by guess who?

Yarborough himself!

He gave an interview to David Murph in '91,

I asked Gary Mack what he thought of that interview & he said he dismissed it because the former senator was in his 90's & the interveiwer himself agreed with Gary that Ralph was "a little senile" at that time.

I then asked Don why he still quoted from that interview when all parties agreed that Yarborough was not on best form in his later years.

Don emailed David Murph for his opinion.

Don—

Good to hear from you. I did find my notes and made some interesting

discoveries. First, the interview was conducted September 25, 1991, at

his Austin home.

He said that, upon hearing the first shot, he looked to his right and saw

a man fall to the ground. He said the man was not near the wooden fence

but was farther east, closer to the Book Depository Building, that he was not

in a military uniform but was wearing civilian clothes. He said: “I’m sure of that.”

I can assure you that he was not anywhere close to being senile. Before

moving to the assassination, he talked about Texas and national politics,

current books, his current projects, as well as Senate memories of John

Kennedy. He also discussed how he wound up in the Johnsons’ car that

day. He was as sharp as could be.

I hope this is helpful.

David Murph

<END QUOTE>

** In 1991 MURPH reminded YARBOROUGH that he had been quoted as saying

he had witnessed a man on the grassy knoll throw himself down on the ground, and that

the man had impressed him as a combat veteran. YARBOROUGH seemed puzzled to hear

that his words had been applied to someone standing on the grassy knoll.

“That couldn’t possibly be correct,” he insisted repeatedly.

“Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons,” he cautioned MURPH,

“too far back to have been able to see anyone drop to the ground when firing began.”

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

Thank God it was not Bill Miller conducting that interview because he would of had the man in tears telling him he was mistaken.

Fact.

Yarborough never pointed to the infamous "Retaining Wall".

He never mentioned a guy "in uniform".

Nope, he never did & when an interviewer finally tried to pin-point what Yarborough saw for history's sake rather than "a story" he flatly denied it being anywhere near GIJoe.

Do you think that if Yarborough mentioned "a man in uniform diving down behind a wall on the grassy knoll" that it would be left out of the earlier interviews by Golz & Turner(TMWKK)? Of course it wouldn't, it would of tied everything together & probably put the matter of Arnolds alleged presence to rest.

But these journalists could not put any of these descriptions in their pieces because Yarborough did not give them the chance.

It was Yarbourough who first put what he saw with the story he read of the serviceman on the knoll.

He never denied seeing someone diving for cover, he just denied it was where GIJoe was.

The man was in plain clothes, was nearer to the TSBD & not anywhere near where Arnold claims he was.

I mean do you want more information about witnesses, or are you just happy to rely on older interviews that don't give any details whatsoever?

Bill claims that Golz told him on the phone that

a) Yarborough told him the man he saw was "behind the wall"(yes the wall) &

Yarborough told him the man he saw was "in uniform"

Since either of these items would virtually confirm Arnold's story, you have to wonder why Golz felt that neither of these details warranted inclusion in his follow-up article where Yarborough was mentioned by name.

Do you think that if Turner ferreted details like this out of Yarborough he would leave them on the cutting room floor?

No of course not & that is why the segment with Yarborough is so short, Turner could not get any comfirmation to collaberate Arnold's story from Ralph, if he did we would of seen it.

Turner: Can you give any more details of where you saw this man or what he looked like?

Yarborough: Yes he was in uniform behind that wall on the knoll

Can anyone here apart from Bill tell me why Turner did not have time to include this question & answer in the segment?

Or do you think he just did what Golz did & never asked in case he got the same answer as David Murph?

If you put yourself in the place of journalist(who gets paid to publish stories) & a witness starts giving you information that contradicts what you have working on, you kinda have two options have you not?

You can either continue probing until you get the true story, or you can either drop it(either conversationaly or in the cutting room).

Finantially, most people would pick the latter, otherwise there is no story & no money.

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?

I'm not comparing him to a devil, I'm just saying, that's not what you would expect from a credible researcher.

If you have any info on Golz's other work where you think he has redeemed himself I'll be glad to give it a look.

Alan

[Miles Scull]

The whole Yarborough thing has been cleared up by guess who?

Yarborough himself!

He gave an interview to David Murph in '91,

I asked Gary Mack what he thought of that interview & he said he dismissed it because the former senator was in his 90's & the interveiwer himself agreed with Gary that Ralph was "a little senile" at that time.

I then asked Don why he still quoted from that interview when all parties agreed that Yarborough was not on best form in his later years.

Don emailed David Murph for his opinion.

Don—

Good to hear from you. I did find my notes and made some interesting

discoveries. First, the interview was conducted September 25, 1991, at

his Austin home.

He said that, upon hearing the first shot, he looked to his right and saw

a man fall to the ground. He said the man was not near the wooden fence

but was farther east, closer to the Book Depository Building, that he was not

in a military uniform but was wearing civilian clothes. He said: “I’m sure of that.”

I can assure you that he was not anywhere close to being senile. Before

moving to the assassination, he talked about Texas and national politics,

current books, his current projects, as well as Senate memories of John

Kennedy. He also discussed how he wound up in the Johnsons’ car that

day. He was as sharp as could be.

I hope this is helpful.

David Murph

<END QUOTE>

** In 1991 MURPH reminded YARBOROUGH that he had been quoted as saying

he had witnessed a man on the grassy knoll throw himself down on the ground, and that

the man had impressed him as a combat veteran. YARBOROUGH seemed puzzled to hear

that his words had been applied to someone standing on the grassy knoll.

“That couldn’t possibly be correct,” he insisted repeatedly.

“Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons,” he cautioned MURPH,

“too far back to have been able to see anyone drop to the ground when firing began.”

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

Thank God it was not Bill Miller conducting that interview because he would of had the man in tears telling him he was mistaken.

Fact.

Yarborough never pointed to the infamous "Retaining Wall".

He never mentioned a guy "in uniform".

Nope, he never did & when an interviewer finally tried to pin-point what Yarborough saw for history's sake rather than "a story" he flatly denied it being anywhere near GIJoe.

Do you think that if Yarborough mentioned "a man in uniform diving down behind a wall on the grassy knoll" that it would be left out of the earlier interviews by Golz & Turner(TMWKK)? Of course it wouldn't, it would of tied everything together & probably put the matter of Arnolds alleged presence to rest.

But these journalists could not put any of these descriptions in their pieces because Yarborough did not give them the chance.

It was Yarbourough who first put what he saw with the story he read of the serviceman on the knoll.

He never denied seeing someone diving for cover, he just denied it was where GIJoe was.

The man was in plain clothes, was nearer to the TSBD & not anywhere near where Arnold claims he was.

I mean do you want more information about witnesses, or are you just happy to rely on older interviews that don't give any details whatsoever?

Bill claims that Golz told him on the phone that

a) Yarborough told him the man he saw was "behind the wall"(yes the wall) &

Yarborough told him the man he saw was "in uniform"

Since either of these items would virtually confirm Arnold's story, you have to wonder why Golz felt that neither of these details warranted inclusion in his follow-up article where Yarborough was mentioned by name.

Do you think that if Turner ferreted details like this out of Yarborough he would leave them on the cutting room floor?

No of course not & that is why the segment with Yarborough is so short, Turner could not get any comfirmation to collaberate Arnold's story from Ralph, if he did we would of seen it.

Turner: Can you give any more details of where you saw this man or what he looked like?

Yarborough: Yes he was in uniform behind that wall on the knoll

Can anyone here apart from Bill tell me why Turner did not have time to include this question & answer in the segment?

Or do you think he just did what Golz did & never asked in case he got the same answer as David Murph?

If you put yourself in the place of journalist(who gets paid to publish stories) & a witness starts giving you information that contradicts what you have working on, you kinda have two options have you not?

You can either continue probing until you get the true story, or you can either drop it(either conversationaly or in the cutting room).

Finantially, most people would pick the latter, otherwise there is no story & no money.

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?

I'm not comparing him to a devil, I'm just saying, that's not what you would expect from a credible researcher.

If you have any info on Golz's other work where you think he has redeemed himself I'll be glad to give it a look.

Alan

Affidavit Of Ralph W. Yarborough

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

"...as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by. I have handled firearms for fifty year, and thought immediately that it was a rifle shot. When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop). After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."

Just to be clear here, did Arnold not hear any shots, according to his story (on aggregate of reports), until he heard the shot which sent the bullet right by his left ear, which shot caused Arnold to immediately fall down?

So, when did Arnold fall down? On which shot? Arnold said that a SECOND shot went over him as he lay on the ground.

Then, of course, where was Yarborough as each shot was fired?

If Arnold was hidden from Yarborough's view because of the intervening or blocking pergola wall, then Yarborough must have seen Newman or someone else fall, not Arnold.

No?

[Alan Healy]

Thanks for interesting photo.

Not clear on the "high spot/mound" as seen in blue rectangle.

Where is this located?

At the tip of the red arrow?

Thanks for clarification.

As simple as I can say it ... The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground. The field of depth is difficult to judge on a B&W image, especially when looking uphill. The red line is parallel with the top of the wall and the distances between the ground and red line can be seen at various points with the naked eye. In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location. The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph.

Bill Miller

Thanks for elucidation. Couple of queries, please.

The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground.

The shadow of what?

In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location.

How many feet behind Roy's location? Or how many feet away from the fence? Approximately.

The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located,

Where is this high spot? How far from fence? How far from walkway or Roy? Where along the fence or the wall as seen here?

there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph. -- Miller

there seems

Do not see this. Seems NOT to be.

to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located,

Where is the red arrow located? You can indicate this by answering the questions found above. Otherwise the red arrow could be pointing to several things?

thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said

No, not until you specify the location of what you seem to feel is a possible mound.

long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location

What location? You have not made that clear.

would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph.

Hardly. Not so. Not until the "location" is located.

Miles,

GIJoe looks about three feet off the ground does he not?

So what we are looking for is a huge mound of earth, not some 4 inches or so that is visable in the aftermath photos.

The difference in height from the wall to the area closest to the fence is four inches maximum(& thats being generous).

What Bill is telling us now, now that he appears to be moving his postion of GIJ back to the fence, is that everything he has said in the past about the position of this alleged person was wrong.

My oh my, what a lot of a apologising he's got to do.

Not to me but to his fans, I always knew it he was way out but, would he listen?

Pushing him back to the fence absolutely positively rules out the idea that GIJ is standing in the same spot as BDM.

He has two options from what I can see.

He can push him back to the fence west keeping close to the LOS of BDM from Betzner's POV, or he can keep true to the Moorman LOS & push him back Northwest.

Both of these has problems.

The former exposes GIJ to Moorman's FOV, any further east & he will move out from behind the wall & the latter,

takes him off the LOS of Betzner, ridicualing(if it's not ridiculous enough already) the idea that Arnold was BDM, not only that but the red arrow he used points to a spot between these two lines.

Anyway, it's clear that the on-site tests done to date were not up to scratch.

Something needs to be done to prove if Duncan's observation is sound or not.

It certainly looks correct & if it was good enough to make Bill move him back ten feet to the fence then it certainly needs comfirmation.

[Alan Healy]

The whole Yarborough thing has been cleared up by guess who?

Yarborough himself!

He gave an interview to David Murph in '91,

I asked Gary Mack what he thought of that interview & he said he dismissed it because the former senator was in his 90's & the interveiwer himself agreed with Gary that Ralph was "a little senile" at that time.

I then asked Don why he still quoted from that interview when all parties agreed that Yarborough was not on best form in his later years.

Don emailed David Murph for his opinion.

Don—

Good to hear from you. I did find my notes and made some interesting

discoveries. First, the interview was conducted September 25, 1991, at

his Austin home.

He said that, upon hearing the first shot, he looked to his right and saw

a man fall to the ground. He said the man was not near the wooden fence

but was farther east, closer to the Book Depository Building, that he was not

in a military uniform but was wearing civilian clothes. He said: “I’m sure of that.”

I can assure you that he was not anywhere close to being senile. Before

moving to the assassination, he talked about Texas and national politics,

current books, his current projects, as well as Senate memories of John

Kennedy. He also discussed how he wound up in the Johnsons’ car that

day. He was as sharp as could be.

I hope this is helpful.

David Murph

<END QUOTE>

** In 1991 MURPH reminded YARBOROUGH that he had been quoted as saying

he had witnessed a man on the grassy knoll throw himself down on the ground, and that

the man had impressed him as a combat veteran. YARBOROUGH seemed puzzled to hear

that his words had been applied to someone standing on the grassy knoll.

“That couldn’t possibly be correct,” he insisted repeatedly.

“Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons,” he cautioned MURPH,

“too far back to have been able to see anyone drop to the ground when firing began.”

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

Thank God it was not Bill Miller conducting that interview because he would of had the man in tears telling him he was mistaken.

Fact.

Yarborough never pointed to the infamous "Retaining Wall".

He never mentioned a guy "in uniform".

Nope, he never did & when an interviewer finally tried to pin-point what Yarborough saw for history's sake rather than "a story" he flatly denied it being anywhere near GIJoe.

Do you think that if Yarborough mentioned "a man in uniform diving down behind a wall on the grassy knoll" that it would be left out of the earlier interviews by Golz & Turner(TMWKK)? Of course it wouldn't, it would of tied everything together & probably put the matter of Arnolds alleged presence to rest.

But these journalists could not put any of these descriptions in their pieces because Yarborough did not give them the chance.

It was Yarbourough who first put what he saw with the story he read of the serviceman on the knoll.

He never denied seeing someone diving for cover, he just denied it was where GIJoe was.

The man was in plain clothes, was nearer to the TSBD & not anywhere near where Arnold claims he was.

I mean do you want more information about witnesses, or are you just happy to rely on older interviews that don't give any details whatsoever?

Bill claims that Golz told him on the phone that

a) Yarborough told him the man he saw was "behind the wall"(yes the wall) &

Yarborough told him the man he saw was "in uniform"

Since either of these items would virtually confirm Arnold's story, you have to wonder why Golz felt that neither of these details warranted inclusion in his follow-up article where Yarborough was mentioned by name.

Do you think that if Turner ferreted details like this out of Yarborough he would leave them on the cutting room floor?

No of course not & that is why the segment with Yarborough is so short, Turner could not get any comfirmation to collaberate Arnold's story from Ralph, if he did we would of seen it.

Turner: Can you give any more details of where you saw this man or what he looked like?

Yarborough: Yes he was in uniform behind that wall on the knoll

Can anyone here apart from Bill tell me why Turner did not have time to include this question & answer in the segment?

Or do you think he just did what Golz did & never asked in case he got the same answer as David Murph?

If you put yourself in the place of journalist(who gets paid to publish stories) & a witness starts giving you information that contradicts what you have working on, you kinda have two options have you not?

You can either continue probing until you get the true story, or you can either drop it(either conversationaly or in the cutting room).

Finantially, most people would pick the latter, otherwise there is no story & no money.

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?

I'm not comparing him to a devil, I'm just saying, that's not what you would expect from a credible researcher.

If you have any info on Golz's other work where you think he has redeemed himself I'll be glad to give it a look.

Alan

Affidavit Of Ralph W. Yarborough

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

"...as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by. I have handled firearms for fifty year, and thought immediately that it was a rifle shot. When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop). After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."

Just to be clear here, did Arnold not hear any shots, according to his story (on aggregate of reports), until he heard the shot which sent the bullet right by his left ear, which shot caused Arnold to immediately fall down?

So, when did Arnold fall down? On which shot? Arnold said that a SECOND shot went over him as he lay on the ground.

Then, of course, where was Yarborough as each shot was fired?

If Arnold was hidden from Yarborough's view because of the intervening or blocking pergola wall, then Yarborough must have seen Newman or someone else fall, not Arnold.

No?

Miles,

if I knew what little effect my Yarborough post would have on you I probably wouldn't have bothered.

If you are asking my opinion(you did quote my post) then, no,

Arnold wasn't there & yes,

Yarborough saw someone else nowhere near the wall.

Yarborough put two & two together after he read of Arnold's story & made five.

That's what got the myth started, Yarborough's mistake.

[Miles Scull]

Miles,

if I knew what little effect my Yarborough post would have on you I probably wouldn't have bothered.

If you are asking my opinion(you did quote my post) then, no,

Arnold wasn't there & yes,

Yarborough saw someone else nowhere near the wall.

Yarborough put two & two together after he read of Arnold's story & made five.

That's what got the myth started, Yarborough's mistake.

I knew you would say this. Right.

And, now?

Now, we soldier on to the DIRT PILE !

Edited August 13, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

What Bill is telling us now, now that he appears to be moving his postion of GIJ back to the fence, is that everything he has said in the past about the position of this alleged person was wrong.

My oh my, what a lot of a apologising he's got to do.

Not to me but to his fans, I always knew it he was way out but, would he listen?

Pushing him back to the fence absolutely positively rules out the idea that GIJ is standing in the same spot as BDM.

Alan, it is little wonder that you post some of the oddest things IMO. You have never been to the plaza - I doubt that you have ever spoken to any witnesses - and you ignore the information that people like Mack, Golz, and Godwin can offer you.

Now about my test photo ... I did nothing more than to use real people to see how they stacked up to one another when compared to the Badge Man images. My stand-in was not the same height and weight as Arnold. The ground behind the wall was no longer as it was on 11/22/63. What I did report was that it took Brown and Bierma (Arnold stand-ins) to stand just west of the walkway to get them to look right when viewed against the height of the Badge Man as seen in Mary's photo. There is nothing to be sorry for - nothing to apologize for - nor to retract. If I am to be sorry for anything, then I am sorry for you not being able to follow the simplest of explanations. And for you to ignore those sunspots on the right shoulder of both individuals is ridiculous IMO, but you must ignore them and say Arnold was never on the knoll because if he was, then your notion about BDM being an assassin falls apart. To this day you have never contacted anyone and reported back that they said anything different than what has been reported here. How did Arnold know that Moorman's photo would show a hatless cop shooting over his left shoulder so many years before that was ever photographically discovered? How did Arnold know to say he hit the ground as Yarborough substantiated many years later? How did Arnold know that two men came up to him immediately after the shooting when no one ever reported their presence at the large tree in Towner #3? And for you to say that you can see depth on az level plane in a 2D image is remarkable and impossible to do! The fence could be one foot from the wall and you'd not know it if not for the side view photos and films of that area. Then someone tries to say Yarborough saw Newman at the curb and confused the two - I mean, how serious can one take that nonsense?

Bill

Edited August 13, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Thanks for interesting photo.

Not clear on the "high spot/mound" as seen in blue rectangle.

Where is this located?

At the tip of the red arrow?

Thanks for clarification.

As simple as I can say it ... The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground. The field of depth is difficult to judge on a B&W image, especially when looking uphill. The red line is parallel with the top of the wall and the distances between the ground and red line can be seen at various points with the naked eye. In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location. The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph.

Bill Miller

Thanks for elucidation. Couple of queries, please.

The shadow is horizontal and being cast on the ground.

The shadow of what?

In the test photo I took with Royce Beirma - the location IMO would be about two to three steps behind Roy's location.

How many feet behind Roy's location? Or how many feet away from the fence? Approximately.

The point I was making is that from this view - there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located,

Where is this high spot? How far from fence? How far from walkway or Roy? Where along the fence or the wall as seen here?

there seems to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located, thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph. -- Miller

there seems

Do not see this. Seems NOT to be.

to be a high spot in the area where the red arrow is located,

Where is the red arrow located? You can indicate this by answering the questions found above. Otherwise the red arrow could be pointing to several things?

thus once again there is circumstantial evidence to support something Arnold had said

No, not until you specify the location of what you seem to feel is a possible mound.

long before the photographic record was found to support it. Putting Arnold on that location

What location? You have not made that clear.

would not only have lifted him higher into the air when seen beyond the wall, but it would also account for his size as seen in Moorman's photograph.

Hardly. Not so. Not until the "location" is located.

Miles,

GIJoe looks about three feet off the ground does he not?

So what we are looking for is a huge mound of earth, not some 4 inches or so that is visable in the aftermath photos.

The difference in height from the wall to the area closest to the fence is four inches maximum(& thats being generous).

What Bill is telling us now, now that he appears to be moving his postion of GIJ back to the fence, is that everything he has said in the past about the position of this alleged person was wrong.

My oh my, what a lot of a apologising he's got to do.

Not to me but to his fans, I always knew it he was way out but, would he listen?

Pushing him back to the fence absolutely positively rules out the idea that GIJ is standing in the same spot as BDM.

He has two options from what I can see.

He can push him back to the fence west keeping close to the LOS of BDM from Betzner's POV, or he can keep true to the Moorman LOS & push him back Northwest.

Both of these has problems.

The former exposes GIJ to Moorman's FOV, any further east & he will move out from behind the wall & the latter,

takes him off the LOS of Betzner, ridicualing(if it's not ridiculous enough already) the idea that Arnold was BDM, not only that but the red arrow he used points to a spot between these two lines.

Anyway, it's clear that the on-site tests done to date were not up to scratch.

Something needs to be done to prove if Duncan's observation is sound or not.

It certainly looks correct & if it was good enough to make Bill move him back ten feet to the fence then it certainly needs comfirmation.

Alan,

Sorry, I overlooked this post.

Where exactly does Arnold say that he stood on a dirt mound? What is the source on this?

No dirt mound here:

Where is this dirt mound?

Now that the Yarborough support has been removed, the only remaining question is the dirt mound.

Miller has not located with any specificity where he says he sees what apparently no one else sees: "a high spot/mound." He may have concluded that his original perception was invalid. That would be correct.

Otherwise, why not identify the area of high spot/mound seen in the Murray? Should be easy to do, if that is really there in the Murray photo. Where was Arnold standing? Does he keep floating & drifting about in perpetual search for a nonexistent dirt mound, just as one might perpetually search for a nonexistent "Weitzman Report?''

To make matters easier still, here's a snap whereby anyone can approximate by comparison the locus of the "high spot/mound" which Miller sees in the Murray.

If no one can do this, then the conclusion must be that there is in fact no dirt mound & no Arnold.