Is This Black Dog Man

[Bill Miller]

As I said, YOU ARE CORRECT. It is remarkable that even though they

did not instruct him where to stand, HE WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE

1963 LOCATION. I think this is more than coincidence.

Jack

I agree. It does make me wonder if Gordon tried to get as close as he could and still stay out where he could be seen for the paper.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

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"

I know this has been corrected before, but going back and misstating the same facts seems to be an ongoing thing for some posters, so once again I will attempt to keep the record straight. Golz interviewed Arnold - Golz writes article - Yarborough reads the article telling of a man on leave from the military standing on the knoll - Yarborough calls Earl and tells him that he saw that man (Arnold) - Turner interviews Yarborough and Ralph confirms for Turner that he saw Arnold. In speaking with Golz ... he said he had several discussions and/or correspondences with Ralph Yarborough. When asked if Ralph could have been talking about someone else - Golz was baffled as to why anyone would think such a thing - and Earl was quite clear about Yarborough and he talking about the same man.

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.

Contact Earl and ask him that question. While talking to earl - ask him about his notes from those conversations for they were much more extensive than the few sentences put in the article. Gary Mack knows Earl very well and could probably share some information with you from he and Earl's past discussions on the subject.

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 conformation to collaborate Arnold's story from Ralph, if he did we would of seen it.

Now you know what Turner was thinking - that is amazing. Can you guess what I am thinking right now??? In keeping with yet another matter that Turner edited out of the Arnold matter ... Gary Mack said the following -----

"I know every one of those folks, have read and/or heard their accounts directly, and all but Upchurch and Turner published the information at the time. I watched a preview of the Arnold segment of TMWKK in 1988 in England and immediately called Turner's attention to the missing second officer. He readily admitted that those references were removed during editing of the show. The reason was simple, he told me. The way Gordon told his story became confusing and hard for viewers to follow. Turner was unable to include that detail, he told me, without severely disrupting the flow of the narrative and having to add an explanation from the narrator.

That's what happens when you deal with a filmmaker rather than a true journalist. It's unfortunate that an interesting part of the story was obscured by one who failed to recognize the significance of that second officer."

Now as I recall, Turner's documentaries were all limited to less than one hour of show time. In fact, individual TV stations had edited down some of the interview that is still seen on the DVD's of the actual show. It would appear that Turner wanted to use Yarborough for a specific purpose to keep the flow of the documentary going. I do recall however, that Mack once told me that Turner went to great lengths to interview people in Arnold's past so to confirm Gordon's story. Gary knows Turner and Sue Winter (Turner's assistant) and can possibly give you more information on this subject.

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

I think as Mack pointed out ... Golz was a journalist ... not a JFK assassination researcher. Golz told me that his notes were being donated to one of the University's down there in Texas ... may have even been done already. Maybe Earl's notes can offer you some insight on the matter.

Bill

Just a quick reply as you have attempted to address these points & have provided interesting comments.

It is important, however, for you to understand that it is necessary to deal directly with primary sources.

If you can obtain direct testimony from Golz which can be independently verified as his, then that would be excellent.

Unfortunately, your relay of other's testimony is inadmissible in a court of analysis because it is barred by the hearsay rule.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

(as Arnold put himself here for this 1978 "Dallas Morning News" photo which shows Arnold standing noticeably much closer to the picket fence than the retaining wall that he stood closer to as seen in the 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." )[/b][/color]

JFK once said that a mistake is not a mistake unless you refuse to correct it. No truer words were ever spoken when it comes to some people continually posting in an attempt not to teach, but to offer disinformation. The man who took the photo of Arnold on the knoll (Jay Godwin) is yet another contact I had made years ago. Jay said that the photo was just a random picture taken of Arnold near the knoll. I asked him if it was a staged reenactment picture and he said that it wasn't. Independently, Golz said the same thing. So what happens after this information being posted countless times in the past ... certain individuals prefer to ignore the only people who would know the truth and they purposely try to re-write history ... makes one wonder why anyone would ever need to talk to a witness ever again.

Bill Miller

Just a quick reply as you have attempted to address these points & have provided interesting comments.

It is important, however, for you to understand that it is necessary to deal directly with primary sources.

If you can obtain direct testimony from Godwin which can be independently verified as his, then that would be excellent.

Unfortunately, your relay of other's testimony is inadmissible in a court of analysis because it is barred by the hearsay rule.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Jack,

What part of Godwin and Golz saying that it wasn't a recreation photo of any kind ... that Jay merely walked over to the south side of Elm Street and took a photo of Arnold that you did not understand? It wouldn't matter where Jay stood if he has said that it was a random photo, thus there was never anything offered to mislead anyone.

Bill

You are correct. It was not a recreation photo. They were not shooting from

the Moorman location, and just instructed him to stand about where he had

stood in 1963. I am saying that since he stood within about ten feet of the

correct position...that IS PRETTY ACCURATE FOR FIFTEEN YEARS LATER.

Jack

Jack,

I understand what you are saying, but I am not certain but what you may be giving the wrong impression to those less knowledgeable about this matter. I spoke to Jay Godwin in depth

Please provide direct evidence. Can you contact Gowin? Can you obtain a verifiable statement from Godwin. Such would be very helpful, indeed!

on that photo and he said that he didn't instruct Arnold to stand anywhere, but out where he could be seen. The newspaper wanted a photo of Arnold out by the knoll. To say it as though Arnold was looking for the exact location and missed it by 15 feet is what I am trying to correct. And I should add this - no one knew at that time that Arnold was in any assassination photos or films, thus from where the photo should be taken could not have been a factor for Godwin in case anyone gets that idea. So to recap the latter ... there was no Moorman recreation picture to be had for there was not one known to exist at that time - and there was no attempt by Arnold or Godwin to show the exact spot Arnold stood on that day (according to Godwin). In fact, that may have been wise for had Arnold of stood up in the shade - he might not have been seen all that well.

Bill[/b]

Edited August 16, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

dupe

Edited August 16, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

At least you make valid and easy to understand straight to the point no nonsense postings, and even with a sense of humour at times which I find refreshing, and which some foolishly mistake for stupidity. Keep up the magnificent work you are doing./b]

Duncan

Can you be specific as to what Miles posted that was so magnificent? Was it the repeated posting that Holland left the underpass immediately after the shooting despite the Dillard photo showing otherwise? Was it Miles missing the numerous times that Mike Brown's name was mentioned in this thread? Was it his thinking that the Arnold DMN photo was supposed to be a reenactment photo despite Golz and Godwin saying otherwise - please be specific?

Bill

Uh, just in passing, mind you, let's remember that:

1.) Ad hominem attacks do not contribute anything to the analysis of an issue. They are as such irrelevant.

2.) Ad hominem attacks are proscribed by the forum rules.

3.) Ad hominem attacks redound to the discredit of the person making them.

4.) Sometimes, however, ad hominem attacks, especially when they are repeated over & over again without anyone really noticing them or responding to them, CAN be amusing by supplying comic relief to the otherwise dry progression of logical fact-based analysis.

Merely as a wee jape, then, may I append this interesting quote?

Was it the repeated posting that Holland left the underpass immediately after the shooting despite the Dillard photo showing otherwise? Was it Miles missing the numerous times that Mike Brown's name was mentioned in this thread? Was it his thinking that the Arnold DMN photo was supposed to be a reenactment photo despite Golz and Godwin saying otherwise - please be specific?

Edited August 16, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Well, Duncan - you really didn't address anything, so let us try it this way ..................

Everything was addressed fully, with a full explanation, twice. If everyone else can understand it, but you can't then i'm sorry, but your reading and undertanding problems are not my problem.

The wall can be a factor because you have already admitted that Arnold is seen in Moorman's photograph

If you are trying to wind me up Bill, it wont work. You are lying and twisting things as you normally do. I said Arnold COULD be in Moorman, but I have also stated repeatedly that in my opinion he is not in the Lost In Space Danger Danger BILL Robinson Anti Gravity Arnold Floating Torso position.

... or at the very least it is someone the same size and shape as Arnold.

No

This happened when you mentioned the 1963 Arnold in the Badge Man images was the same size as the 1988 Arnold in Turner's interview.

I use the Badgeman Arnold as a reference point, nothing more. I have made this clear enough.

Your problem has been that you believe the 1963 Arnold is too short to have his feet touching the ground. Can we agree on that much at this point?

No, I don't agree, because I don't know where he was standing in Moorman in 1963 as I can't see him in Moorman 1963. I only see the 1963 MiniMe Arnold illusion of the TMWKK Arnold body mass & appearance.

Duncan

I only see the 1963 MiniMe Arnold illusion of the TMWKK Arnold body mass & appearance.

As I recall an effort was made recently to relocate Arnold from Roberdeau's Arnold locus spot seen in Don's map.

The idea was to place Arnold on a high spot/mound near the fence, thus lifting Arnold up into space to meet the floating problem & possibly the small head problem.

As I recall, this effort failed on contemporary photographic evidence issues.

Has this been revisited by its proponents?

[Bill Miller]

Everything was addressed fully, with a full explanation, twice. If everyone else can understand it, but you can't then i'm sorry, but your reading and undertanding problems are not my problem.

I wouldn't say that everyone understands it because I have had other respected researchers say that they just don't pay any attention to the things you post. So using the term "everyone" is not accurate at all.

The wall can be a factor because you have already admitted that Arnold is seen in Moorman's photograph

If you are trying to wind me up Bill, it wont work. You are lying and twisting things as you normally do. I said Arnold COULD be in Moorman, but I have also stated repeatedly that in my opinion he is not in the Lost In Space Danger Danger BILL Robinson Anti Gravity Arnold Floating Torso position.

Duncan, this is a typical response that you give and is why your alleged great earth shattering discoveries never get anywhere. If you were serious about getting to the truth, then as even scientist do ... they want their work peer reviewed and tested. When or if you get to that point, then try answering my questions again with direct serious replies and I just might be able to teach you something.

This happened when you mentioned the 1963 Arnold in the Badge Man images was the same size as the 1988 Arnold in Turner's interview.

I use the Badgeman Arnold as a reference point, nothing more. I have made this clear enough.

Again, this is the same type of response you often give and it doesn't do a thing to educate anyone as how to investigate the claim you have made. Maybe instead of being so defensive over this possibly being another bad call on your part - maybe try and work with me to try and find the solution - where ever that may lead.

Now this is what you said in a previous post - it is copied word for word and pertains to the size of Arnold in Moorman's photo when compared to his size in TMWKK.

Duncan: I am saying that he looks as large as when he appeared on TMWKK which I think is strange when you say he was not a large man when he was 22 on Nov 22nd 1963

Now would you like to start over and see if we cannot make some headway here or do you wish to evade the matter some more???

Your problem has been that you believe the 1963 Arnold is too short to have his feet touching the ground. Can we agree on that much at this point?

No, I don't agree, because I don't know where he was standing in Moorman in 1963 as I can't see him in Moorman 1963. I only see the 1963 MiniMe Arnold illusion of the TMWKK Arnold body mass & appearance.

Ok - so we dance some more. You have said that you see the 1963 Arnold as the same size as the 1988 Turner Arnold and now you are saying that you don't even see Arnold in Moorman's 1963 photo. Moorman's photo is the only source for seeing Arnold. So how can you say the two Arnold's look to be the same size if you cannot even see him in one of the images? This is what I mean by your caring more about protecting a claim than trying to get to the bottom of the problem. Let me know when you get the double talk resolved and maybe we can go from there.

Bill

Edited August 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Please provide direct evidence. Can you contact Gowin? Can you obtain a verifiable statement from Godwin. Such would be very helpful, indeed! [/b]

There were no recorders running when I spoke to Jay, nor did I ask him to sign any affidavits. I called the man and as I recall - I either got his number from the phone book or through a DMN contact I have. Jay and Earl Golz are both still alive and someone with the spare time to xxxxx a forum surely has the time to call information and speak to these guys on their own. I believe Mack has spoken to Jay, as well, so another option would be to contact someone like Gary Mack to see if what I have posted matches what Godwin has told him.

It is Jay Godwin - not Gowin.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

As I recall an effort was made recently to relocate Arnold from Roberdeau's Arnold locus spot seen in Don's map.

The idea was to place Arnold on a high spot/mound near the fence, thus lifting Arnold up into space to meet the floating problem & possibly the small head problem.

As I recall, this effort failed on contemporary photographic evidence issues.

Has this been revisited by its proponents?

I think that if you are going to invite such information, then you should be more specific so to show that you even understand the principles at work here.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Firstly I didn't say "everyone" I said "everyone " followed by except

Right - that's what I said. I didn't say that I prevented it from being "everyone" - I clearly said it was other researchers, as well. So unless you are speaking Spanish which can have a word mean several different things, then I think I got it right.

Duncan: If everyone else can understand it, but you can't then i'm sorry

Your questions are answered comprehensively by me. If you can't understand my replies, it's not my fault. Everyone else can understand me..you seem to be the only one with reading and understanding difficulties.

This is why I ask for clarification, which is something you do not seem to be willing to do. Instead you only repeat the same generic answers. Let me know when you are ready to really dive into this.

Ok - so we dance some more. You have said that you see the 1963 Arnold as the same size as the 1988 Turner Arnold and now you are saying that you don't even see Arnold in Moorman's 1963 photo.

That's correct..using the Arnold floating torso as the reference comparison to the TMWKK Arnold

Ok, now it seems that we are back to seeing Arnold or at least his upper body in Moorman's photo ... did I understand that correctly??? I think we can agree that we don't expect you to be able to see through the concrete wall in Moorman's photo. So saying that you don't see Arnold was a misstatement on your part ... would that be fair to say?

Moorman's photo is the only source for seeing Arnold.

Prove it

Still playing games? Please tell me of another film or photo that shows Arnold over the wall. There is the Betzner and Willis photos, but unless one understands the sunspot shining off the upper right side of the figure, then any details of what he is wearing or who he might be is impossible to say in those examples. So again ... tell me of another film or photo showing anywhere close to the level of detail that Jack's Badge Man images offer??? My proof is in there not being another known image of Arnold in Dealey Plaza.

I'm not trying to protect a claim Bill..I have simply put forth a study which anyone, including you, is welcome to dispute. I stand by my claim, but I am also prepared to consider photographic evidence which can destroy my claim.

I think we started down the path of helping you gather some of that evidence, but you didn't seem interested in going there. Do you want me to start over and ask you some of the past questions once again and we take it from there?

Bill

[Jack White]

You guys may be doing exactly what was intended by the creator of the legerdemain.

What if ALL relevant photo evidence is a "magician's trick"...lots of smoke and mirrors?

We know that at some point EVERY photo was in the hands of the USG.

In Las Vegas I have seen David Copperfield and Lance Burton DO THINGS THAT

CANNOT BE DONE. What if some photo anomalies are simply magic tricks to confound

those who might examine them?

We know that many images have been altered, especially the critical ones. In Moorman

I am certain that the images of "Zapruder and Sitzman" are not authentic. So if they

are not real, why must the images of badgeman, hardhat man and Arnold be real?

What if the scenario plotters were so clever that they were able to insert things in

Mary's Polaroid that were not really there? What if, as I think, they made ZandS the

wrong size? What if, as Duncan insists, they got the other three guys the wrong size?

What if they added blackdogman in other images to add to the confusion? What if they

manipulated researchers in endless debate by adding to the mix confusing stories

like Arnold's? What if some "researchers" were in on the gag and helped promote it?

What if Arnold was a plant? What if there was no badgeman? What if certain "researchers"

were conduits of the conspirators?

Impossible, you say?

No. A great magician can make you believe anything.

On television I saw Copperfield make the Statue Of Liberty "disappear". In person

I saw him do even more remarkable things. Impossible things.

For instance: He "chose" a man from the audience. After some preliminaries, he and

the man walked on a metal "plank" out over the audience. It was about twenty feet long,

two feet wide, and four inches thick. They walked to the end of the plank and he

draped a cloth around the man. Out over the audience, a trapdoor was not possible.

Seconds later, he jerked the cloth away; the man was gone, and a cage was lowered

from the ceiling, and the man was inside! (minor details altered for brevity)

This illusion is physically impossible. And we know it was not magic. So he successfully

fooled several hundred people. How? We don't know.

Have we researchers been fooled and manipulated by illusionists?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Ok Bill, let's cut to the chase an start afresh, if you agree to do so.

Duncan - I think I have asked to have this happen several post ago

I have been and will continue to be as co-operative as possible, but you must understand as a prerequisite that I am not interested in discussing the numbered points below in this thread, as I do not consider them relevant.

So let's start a fresh by not discussing what ever points I want to raise because you do not find them relevant .......... Is that your position or am I reading you wrong like I must have done when you said, "Everything was addressed fully, with a full explanation, twice. If everyone else can understand it, but you can't then i'm sorry, but your reading and undertanding problems are not my problem".

I am only interested at this stage in the content of the Moorman photograph and the physical and perspective possibilities contained within that image, and any supporting topographical information which is available pertaining to the area between the wall and the fence on Nov 22nd 1963. I would also appreciate it, if you agreed that my gif which I am uploading again is close enough in accuracy for the purposes of this debate, then we can move forward. If for example you think the legs are too short, or too long, just tell me and we can discuss that civily. Without this agreement there really can be no debate, as the viewable points, and unviewable points in the gif are what this debate is all about.

My lawyer is out of town, so your contract must wait for his approval. Until then I can tell you that your Gif is not accurate - its ridiculous! The belt on the right side of the upper body doesn't line up with the belt of the lower body. To keep the image in scale - you would have to stretch the image diagonally which would keep a balance of sizing both vertically and horizontally.

1./ What other people's opinions are, Groden, Mack etc who are not contributing to this thread.

IMO, Mack and Groden are experts in their own fields, thus what information they may have would be considered a contribution to the thread to those researchers who want to learn.

2./ I believe Gordon arnold can not be seen in the area in question in Moorman due to his apparent small size and apparent height from the ground, and I do not consider the perspective is the cause of any apparent illusional minimising of his size.

Don't you mean that Arnold cannot be recognized as himself in the Moorman photo because you have already said that the figure in the Badge Man images is the same size as the 1988 Turner-Arnold. That means that you see something, thus saying you cannot see Arnold isn't quite right - correct?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Is this an illusion or the real Arnold In the real Arnold position? I would say that this figure or illusion is perspectively sound.

Duncan

I think I can rest my case at this time.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

2./ I believe Gordon arnold can not be seen in the area in question in Moorman due to his apparent small size and apparent height from the ground, and I do not consider the perspective is the cause of any apparent illusional minimising of his size.

Duncan[/b]

Duncan,

Part of the problem in your claim is as I said days ago when I immediately saw the sizing error you made in the width of the subject. On the man's left side (our right side as we look at the image) his padded vest is rounded out further than his waist. It appears that the outside thickness of this padded vest was sized to match the upper body edge of the individual in Moorman's photo. This would throw the scaling out of balance all by itself.

The other mistake was done to the right side of the individual, as well - (the left side of the individual as we face the image). The belt of the individual in Moorman's photo is not lined up with the belt in the lower body of the soldier and the belt is pulled up against a person's hip/waist so to hold the pants up. Once these two errors are corrected, then the Arnold mismatch becomes larger on the bottom and more in balance with how Gordon would have looked had the wall not blocked the view.

(see example)

It also appears that the right side hip pocket which appears to also be pooched outward with possibly something in it - was used to line up the edge of the belt of Arnold's hip, thus the lower body was scaled too small to be accurate. My conclusion is that the lower body was never scaled properly to start with and using one individual looking dead on at the camera, with the other subject was turned slightly to one side was not a good choice for scaling purposes either.

Bill

Edited August 17, 2007 by Bill Miller