Is This Black Dog Man

[Miles Scull]

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

Miles

Have a look at this video on Youtube, it's the Darnell film. It shows what appears to be a mound of grass running all the way along the fence, certainly not high enough to elevate anyone. If anyone stood on it, their weight would crush the grass to ground level and the feet of anyone standing on it would also be lowered to ground level. No dirt mound in sight. Bill's arrow which purports to show a dirt mound is clearly and without a doubt bogus.

Darnell film shows a small mound of grass running all the way along the fence line. No dirt mound in sight. Clck here to view the short Darnell clip on Youtube

Duncan

Duncan,

You must mean the shrubbery fringe as seen below. What! Could Miller have been so deceived, when the perspective is so obvious?

[Miles Scull]

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

Miles

Have a look at this video on Youtube, it's the Darnell film. It shows what appears to be a mound of grass running all the way along the fence, certainly not high enough to elevate anyone. If anyone stood on it, their weight would crush the grass to ground level and the feet of anyone standing on it would also be lowered to ground level. No dirt mound in sight. Bill's arrow which purports to show a dirt mound is clearly and without a doubt bogus.

Darnell film shows a small mound of grass running all the way along the fence line. No dirt mound in sight. Clck here to view the short Darnell clip on Youtube

Duncan

Duncan,

You must mean the shrubbery fringe as seen below. What! Could Miller have been so deceived, when the perspective is so obvious?

Duncan,

Just doing some rough calculations.

On the theory's physical underpinnings, where is Badgeman located? Is he immediately behind the fence as he shoots? Or elsewhere?

Is he some distance away from the fence, behind the fence? How far?

The further BM is removed away from the fence, then the smaller his head becomes. But in the image Arnold's head is smaller than that of BM's head.

In TMWKK Arnold's head seems quite large.

If Arnold stands close to the fence, and so does BM, then it would seem that Arnold's left ear drum would have been ruptured by the shot detonation causing deafness. Perhaps not if the rifle's barrel extended over the fence. But Arnold states that the shot came from BEHIND him. That means that Arnold must have been close to the sidewalk, just to the west of the sidewalk. I thought Arnold said that's where he stood. No? And that's why Miller put his mock-up figures there. No? Therefore, the dirt mound must have been close to the sidewalk. But, there is no mound there.

If Arnold, standing near the fence, leaps 10 feet in any direction, then he does not land against a wall.

Duncan, do you know where Arnold says that he was standing on a dirt mound. What is the source for this?

Miles

Edited August 13, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

What location? You have not made that clear.

Too bad you were not at the Lancer conference for it was clear to everyone who attended. I don't think however, that it will ever be clear to you.

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

The area has been located - the precise spot he stood on has not been located because there are no good views of this area in the assassination films and photos.

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

It would be Arnold who was the source. It would be Golz who passed along that information to the public through Arnold.

No dirt mound here:

Where is this dirt mound?

This is where your inability to understand the assassination images becomes known. Below is a view of the slope to the curb when viewed straight on and not from the side. The hill that Jean is standing on looks flat and on the same plane as Mary, but Altgen's #6 shows the slope well. I have already mentioned this illusion, but I guess actually going to look at any og those Zframes was too much bother, so I have posted an example here.

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

Is this just another propaganda statement or do you know something about what Ralph told Golz and/or Turner that no one else knows?

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.

The post where I drew the red line from the base of the fence to the base of the east side of the wall is what showed the mound/high spot of dirt. The highest point of ground in that image appeared to be 3 to 5 feet east of the fence.

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

Who all makes up "no one"? First there needs to be an image of that location that is good enough that people with less than average interpretation skills can follow what's being said. Who can see the slope of the south pasture between Z303 and Z312 ? I guess that means there wasn't one - right, Miles?? But let us hang on to your logic for a minute and apply it to your position that there was no pathway along the north side of the fence in the RR yard at the time of the assassination. Did you find a photo or film showing this pathway or is it not important?

Bill Miller

Edited August 14, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Is there any reason to have darkened the image and to have placed a thicker red line across the ground surface between the fence and the walkway? What you seem to have done was make it harder to see where the ground meets the bottom of the fence so to compare that to the ground line that runs to the walkway. In the earlier post I did - I left the red line thin and running just about the surface of the ground so that a comparison in ground height could be gotten visually on both sides of the red arrow I had placed on the image. I was just curious as to your motive for making the image darker and harder to read.

Bill

Edited August 14, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I was just curious as to your motive for making the image darker and harder to read.

Bill

In order to provide this contrast which proves the case, which you may have, understandably, overlooked. Arnold was exposed here: http://hometown.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/add...noldCLAIMS.html

Arnold was seen here not by Yarborough:

[Bill Miller]

In order to provide this contrast which proves the case, which you may have, understandably, overlooked. Arnold was exposed here: http://hometown.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/add...noldCLAIMS.html

The camera was a gift from his mother - it was his mothers ... petty wording differences. Guy showed me SS credentials - man was with the CIA ... the nervous Arnold thinks one thing while possibly saying something different. My father still calls me by my brothers name, but that doesn't mean what he says is in error IMO.

175 pounds of muscle - look at Arnold in Moorman's photo??? Most people claim not to even see Arnold ... I think that is what you and Duncan have implied when claiming the figure is too short to be real. Now you want to turn to a claim that the figure is too heavy to be well muscled???

Arnold was seen here not by Yarborough:

Miles ... take about 5 seconds to tell us all you know about what Arnold and/or Yarborough told Golz. How many conversations have you had with Golz or Yarborough? How many attempts have you ever made to contact any of these two men? How about Turner ... how many times have you spoken to him? How many times have you tried to even contact him? Have you ever sought out anyone who has talked to Turner so to learn more about where Yarborough was talking about? Have I made my point??

Bill Miller

Edited August 14, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

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

Miles,

Marrs "Crossfire" P.78 "I walked around to the front of the fence & found this little mound of dirt to stand on..."

Miles I know I can't influence you either way, you are doing your own thing like we all do & more power to you but, I have to tell you that I don't care very much what Arnold said. I am too far gone the other way now.

After dealing with Miller on this topic over the last few years, I am much more inclined to believe Myers & his research, it is by far the more trustworthy & unbiased.

I don't really trust Myers at all, not since I saw his act on "Beyond Conspiracy" & the "this happened only one way" "rubbish" but on this particular side issue, I don't think he had many reasons to fudge what he found.

I'll say it again, it's sad but true, on this topic Dale Myer's research is far more trustworthy & unbiased when compared to Bill Miller's amateurish & ultimately flawed efforts.

If I was an Arnold fan, I would stop concentrating on this phantasm in the blow-ups that in reality would most likely be stood back in the car-lot to appear that small &, start looking for him elsewhere.

Maybe it's the guy in the red shirt on the steps?

Yes, I know it doesn't match the full "Arnold story" but I would soon get used to the idea that he may of bolstered his tale a little with a few white lies. At least he is in the pictures, he's on the knoll & very close to a possible shooter behind the fence & I wouldn't have any problem with this being Yarborough's diving man either. Far more credible IMHO.

[Miles Scull]

Arnold was seen here not by Yarborough:

Miles ... take about 5 seconds to tell us all you know about what Arnold and/or Yarborough told Golz. How many conversations have you had with Golz or Yarborough? How many attempts have you ever made to contact any of these two men? How about Turner ... how many times have you spoken to him? How many times have you tried to even contact him? Have you ever sought out anyone who has talked to Turner so to learn more about where Yarborough was talking about? Have I made my point??

Bill Miller

I agree with you. It is a bitter realization that Arnold is invalidated, especially after holding for years the unfortunately wrong notion that Arnold was valid.

Miles... Have I made my point??

But, by personally attacking me as a inadequate researcher you certainly do make your point, yes. Your point is that you will intentionally violate forum rules against personal ad hominem attacks, when the case contra Arnold is proved & it is seen that you are & have been mistaken.

Perhaps you overlooked this post, post #432 on this thread posted Yesterday, 01:03 AM ? Did I miss your response to it? What is that?

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.

QUOTE

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

Edited August 14, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

dupe

Edited August 14, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

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

Miles,

Marrs "Crossfire" P.78 "I walked around to the front of the fence & found this little mound of dirt to stand on..."

... to the front of the fence ...

Dead on, Alan!

I found this extended Arnold quote in Marrs.

OH HO !

This obviously means one thing.

Arnold is saying that he went around to the front of the long arm of the fence which runs parallel to Elm.

And NOT to the front of the short arm which is perpendicular to Elm.

Does this not explode the alleged Arnold figure in Moorman?

Edited August 14, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Arnold is saying that he went around to the front of the long arm of the fence which runs parallel to Elm.

And NOT to the front of the short arm which is perpendicular to Elm.

Does this not explode the alleged Arnold figure in Moorman?

......... or going around in front of the fence so to face the approaching parade could mean the side of the fence facing up Elm Street. How do I know this ... not only from being there, but hear so many people refer to it that way. And so you know ... I did not confuse shrubs at the base of the fence with the location I was talking about when I placed an arrow on the diagram.

One more thing you guys need reminded about ... When Groden and I went to the lab to have his best Nix film worked on ... everyone there agreed that someone was standing just beyond the wall where Arnold said he was and that when JFK's head exploded - that individual immediately moved to his left. What we could not tell was whether he ran away or dove to the ground. Now with that being said and Moorman's photo showing a figure standing over the wall - the notion that the figure in Moorman's photo did not exist is ridiculous and based on a lack of knowledge as to what the Nix film showed us in the lab. So argue that it was Gomer Pyle in uniform if you must, but to say it is no one is in error based on the available evidence that some of us took the time and expense to have it examined.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not seek notoriety nor profit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that has been repeated often.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

out ok. Except the photos.

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

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

So Arnold pretty much faded away. Until...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

asked general questions, like WHAT WERE YOU WEARING?

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

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

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

clearly.

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

ARNOLD'S STORY SEEMED CONFIRMED!

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

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

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

fake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

convenient for someone.

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

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

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

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

to him. We may never fully understand what happened.

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

his story means.

Jack

Edited August 14, 2007 by Jack White

[Miles Scull]

Arnold is saying that he went around to the front of the long arm of the fence which runs parallel to Elm.

And NOT to the front of the short arm which is perpendicular to Elm.

Does this not explode the alleged Arnold figure in Moorman?

......... or going around in front of the fence so to face the approaching parade could mean the side of the fence facing up Elm Street.

No, not so. The Marrs' quote of Arnold is clear & precise. Arnold says: "I was walking along BEHIND this picket fence when..." Then Arnold describes his encounter with a Secret Service agent who followed Arnold along behind the north side of the picket fence & told Arnold that he did not want Arnold back behind the north side of the fence. The short leg of the fence is not mentioned. Arnold makes it clear that he complied with the SS man's insistence by going from behind the fence AROUND TO its front. The FRONT referred to by Arnold is the FRONT of the fence that he & SS agent are BEHIND. One fence, one length of fence with two sides: a BEHIND & a FRONT. SEE THIS QUOTE:

Arnold claimed, "at that point in time they were putting dirt on the knoll. There was a mound of dirt. And I said, ‘Well, I'll stand on the mound of dirt.’ And I was doing some practice pan shots"

The ground between the retaining wall and the picket fence line may have then had a thinnish layer of dirt on its top in that area, possibly even a grass-people-traffic-worn-showing dirt top, but, there are no photos, no film evidence, nor a single witness(es) statement(s) that there was ever an obvious, distinct, raised, rounded "mound" of dirt --anywhere-- in that knoll/wall area. Professional surveys from the trapezoid points between the "badgeman" tree, picket fence corner, retaining wall southeast inside corner, and the northernmost wall corner (along with my several personal extended trip/vacations I have made to the plaza in the 80's and 90's) all reveal that trapezoid that ARNOLD claimed he was located within to be relatively level.

Conover then asks Arnold where he was standing in relation to the north pergola steps, to which Arnold claims, "OK. OK. The steps would be almost----I would say in front of me, but it’s not in front of me because I'm standing askew to the steps----more towards the street than I am the steps." "And I'm up as… I'm about three feet from the fence."

Please recall that the 1978 "Dallas Morning News" photo that shows Arnold standing noticeably much closer to the picket fence than the retaining wall that he stood closer to by 1988’s "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

Conover then asks, "Between the steps and the fence?" to which Arnold replies, "Yes."

*NOTE* that Arnold claims he was BETWEEN the steps and fence --in other words, he is specifically claiming he was specifically in the grass between the fence and the steps-- but he was not on the grass between the east edge of the sidewalk and the west edge of the retaining wall, he was not on the sitting bench, he was not on the west edge of the steps, he was not on the east edge of the steps, he was not on the steps or the top step, he was not on the pergola sidewalk, he was not on the west edge of the sidewalk, and, he was not on the east edge of the sidewalk. Based on the physical layout of the steps/retaining wall/picket fence corner I cannot visualize his above strange, imho, concurrent added claim that he was also "more towards the street than I am the steps." (Perhaps he was trying to vocalize that his claim was that his facing direction --not his standing location-- was facing turned "more towards the street"")

Conover then asks, "So, the steps were east of you?" to which Arnold replies, "Right." (So, he has already said he was 3' from the picket fence, and the pergola steps, not the pergola sidewalk, are east of his standing location point) -- Don Roberdeau

How do I know this ... not only from being there, but hear so many people refer to it that way.

Well, that's right. An erroneous misinterpretation that became accepted because it was repeated frequently.

And so you know ... I did not confuse shrubs at the base of the fence with the location I was talking about when I placed an arrow on the diagram.

OK. Then what were you talking about? There is no mound there.

One more thing you guys need reminded about ... When Groden and I went to the lab to have his best Nix film worked on ... everyone there agreed that someone was standing just beyond the wall where Arnold said he was

But Arnold never said that he was where the erroneous misinterpretation made by others placed him.

and that when JFK's head exploded - that individual immediately moved to his left. What we could not tell was whether he ran away or dove to the ground.

But this was NOT Arnold.

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

who was NOT Arnold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Miller

Edited August 14, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Jack White]

Some of us have a vested interest in TRUTH.

Others have a vested interest in DISINFORMATION and DISRUPTION.

Jack

[Miles Scull]

Some of us have a vested interest in TRUTH.

Others have a vested interest in DISINFORMATION and DISRUPTION.

Jack

Absolutely agree!

I also agree that some of us are genuine & earnest.

Jack & Duncan are so.

Hounds after truth.