Is This Black Dog Man

[Miles Scull]

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

It also appears that the right side hip pocket which appears to also be pooched outward with possibly something in it

Of course, needless to say, you will not be surprised that the pooch will be caught in a search light & known for what it really is that you have skillfully concealed as a trump card to guard against a sudden, unexpected injection of truth serum into this dread thread which will annihilate Arnold once & for all: "The Weitzman Report" in aspic.

You're not fooling anyone.

[Bill Miller]

Of course, needless to say, you will not be surprised that the pooch will be caught in a search light & known for what it really is that you have skillfully concealed as a trump card to guard against a sudden, unexpected injection of truth serum into this dread thread which will annihilate Arnold once & for all: "The Weitzman Report" in aspic.

You're not fooling anyone.

Well ... at least Duncan seems to want to get into this matter and get it figured out. So what do you do, Miles ... you just post some ridiculous dribble that never touched on a single thing concerning the scaling problems I mentioned. Is trolling this thread all you have to offer here? One would think with all those post containing Mike Brown's name in it that you missed in this thread that you'd have enough to do to get caught up. Are you still having trouble finding time to do research??

Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

quote:

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.

When i mentioned the BELT earlier in this thread , Jack explained to me that he does not see a belt on Arnold in the Badgeman figure. ?

What he sees is the left arm raised across the waist area.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

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

I think you have rested your case premeturely.

Like Duncan, Alan, and Miles i am still waiting for an explanation why the Arnold figure in Moorman appears to be so SMALL, we are talking Hieght not Width.

THE ONLY WAY I COULD POSSIBLY MATCH ARNOLDS SIZE WITH BAGEMAN, IS TO PUT HIM ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE FENCE AS BADGEMAN

AND STANDING ON THE BOTTOM RAIL.

You have already moved Anold back from the wall and that didn't solve the problem.

You rest your case far too early Bill.

The jury doesn't look convinced.

[Alan Healy]

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

I think I'll go & put a Gif together to show others not familiar with the moving object above the wall in Groden's enhanced Nix film.

I've posted it a few times on Lancer but it never drew much discussion there(if you have Groden's "ACFC"#1 you can see it in the section that contains the study of Blackdogman).

I'm sure I remember reading in the past that Bill said it had nothing to do with Arnold but maybe viewing an even better version in the lab has changed his mind.

I tend to agree with some of the sentiments on the last few pages that you should start thinking about wrapping this thread up but, hey it's just a thought. I could think of at least five title's for new threads given the information & arguments contained hearin.

On the other hand, we could make this thread into our own mini-forum to discuss the photos & films!

Seriously though, I'll make a new one to show people the movement in Nix anyway(unless someone posts it in here before I have the time).

[Robin Unger]

I think it was Bernice who posted a very nice Nix Gif in this thread.

It very clearly showed the man on the top of the steps running into the "dark shadow" behind the wall.

[Robin Unger]

Duncan.

This thread is not over by a long shot.

When a straight forward question is asked of Bill, he ducks, weaves, diverts, and does anything he can to sidestep the issue.

Some of the stuff he comes up with would make a philidelphia lawyer proud.

[Alan Healy]

I just feel obligated to do this, so you'll have to forgive me if you feel I'm wasting you, the readers time.

Alan

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.

Despite your words, you have not even referred to what I wrote(apart from quoting me) let alone "correct" it

In the thirty years since Arnold's story broke, you, Bill Miller, were the first person to say that Yarborough specifically referred to what some people call the "retaining" wall on the knoll &, a uniform.

You said Golz told you this on the phone.

Behind the wall & in uniform you said.

So the bemusment should be on the student's shoulders not Golz's, especially since both items where strongly & repeatedly denied by Yarborough himself & never made it in to the written/filmed record of Arnold's story.

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 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.

Like I said, the only person to claim Yarborough referred to both a uniform & that specific wall we all know & love is you Bill.

To claim that items as significant as this were left out of a piece by anyone for space or time reasons is ridiculous since it confirms beyond doubt that Yarborough saw Arnold.

I have trouble believing that both yourself & Gary can't understand what I'm getting at.

Golz & Turner were very clearly looking for confirmation of any kind & you are claiming that both these men had the definitive evidence in there hands & neither of them gave one single reference to it in their productions.

Your not saying the reference was made by Yarborough to these men, you are just suggesting that it may of been left out

Anyway I think I made my point(I am far from happy with your way of thinking, it is foreign to me) but next time you chronologise Arnold's story make sure to add your conversation with Golz in there since it was such a revelation to people like me who don't think of everything like you guys do.

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.

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.

Jounalists are researchers, most times whether they like it or not but what Golz did to Arnold by mentioning his name & place of work after the man specifically requested to remain anonomous is not something you'd expect by a credible anything.

[Bill Miller]

quote:

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.

When i mentioned the BELT earlier in this thread , Jack explained to me that he does not see a belt on Arnold in the Badgeman figure. ?

What he sees is the left arm raised across the waist area.

Jack also claims that Zapruder and Sitzman were added to Moorman's photo which was filmed for TV not 35 minutes after the shooting and it showed Z and S on the pedestal - so what is your point? Because Jack doesn't see something doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Bill

[Robin Unger]

I have often wondered if the " shadow cast on the picket fence " at the corner where the two fences meet, is not sometimes taken to be a human form.

Willis 6 Crop

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

"Because Jack doesn't see something doesn't mean it wasn't there."

Is this some oblique reference to Neil Armstrong?

[Robin Unger]

quote:

Because Jack doesn't see something doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Bill

And just because you think that Duncan's GI jOE theory is wrong, doesn't mean it's not Right.

There are only two people who will not let this thread die.

You, and Jack.

You both have a vested interest in proving that the figure behind the wall is Arnold.

In my opinion this makes you both Bias.

Jack i can understand, he has a lot invested in the Arnold figure and the Badgeman Image.

You on the other hand Bill are an egomaniac who will not admit when he may be wrong.

I will put that down to a character flaw in your upbringing as a child.

The one time you did admit you were wrong was on the Lancer forum, when we were discussing where the SS agents were riding in the follow up car.

You finally conceded three days later that you had got it wrong, even then, you put the qualifying correction in a completely

different thread " the sitzman thread " where you hoped that nobody would read it.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

I think you have rested your case premeturely.

Like Duncan, Alan, and Miles i am still waiting for an explanation why the Arnold figure in Moorman appears to be so SMALL, we are talking Hieght not Width.

You obviously didn't understand what I said about sizing an image to scale, either. One doesn't just stretch an image from side to side or else they get a result like that of the MPI frames. For the image to be scaled properly - the same % of stretching from side to side to make the image the right width also has to be applied to its vertical height as well. Once you understand this, then you won't find yourself waiting for an answer, but instead you will have realized that you had already gotten your answer. No offense, but I told you all about the scaling problem over a week or so ago and no one seemed to get it. You have now been shown the problem and your knowledge of understanding is that the image only needs to be stretched in width to have it scaled properly and that is ridiculous.

THE ONLY WAY I COULD POSSIBLY MATCH ARNOLDS SIZE WITH BAGEMAN, IS TO PUT HIM ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE FENCE AS BADGEMAN

AND STANDING ON THE BOTTOM RAIL.

Who wrote that? If that was a solid rule, then the train in the RR yard wouldn't look so big in the Nix film. Yes, that train car looks to be just right behind the fence, but we know better when looking at the train car in the overhead photo taken on the afternoon of the assassination.

You have already moved Anold back from the wall and that didn't solve the problem.

Please find a single post I have ever made whereas I said Arnold was up at the wall. I will look forward to seeing it.

You rest your case far too early Bill.

The jury doesn't look convinced.

Robin, the resting of the case was sarcasm on my part. The same sarcasm could have been directed at you thinking that all one needs to do is widen Arnold to get the width correct and not address the same increase in size to his height, as well.

I never had Arnold at the wall - you must be thinking of someone else.

Bill

[Robin Unger]

quote:

THE ONLY WAY I COULD POSSIBLY MATCH ARNOLDS SIZE WITH BAGEMAN, IS TO PUT HIM ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE FENCE AS BADGEMAN

AND STANDING ON THE BOTTOM RAIL.

Who wrote that? If that was a solid rule, then the train in the RR yard wouldn't look so big in the Nix film. Yes, that train car looks to be just right behind the fence, but we know better when looking at the train car in the overhead photo taken on the afternoon of the assassination.

Are you saying that even though Arnold looks so big in Badgeman, that he is really way back in the Carpark. ?

What the hell are you on about.

[Miles Scull]

quote:

Because Jack doesn't see something doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Bill

And just because you think that Duncan's GI jOE theory is wrong, doesn't mean it's not Right.

There are only two people who will not let this thread die.

You, and Jack.

You both have a vested interest in proving that the figure behind the wall is Arnold.

In my opinion this makes you both Bias.

Jack i can understand, he has a lot invested in the Arnold figure and the Badgeman Image.

You on the other hand Bill are an egomaniac who will not admit when he may be wrong.

I will put that down to a character flaw in your upbringing as a child.

The one time you did admit you were wrong was on the Lancer forum, when we were discussing where the SS agents were riding in the follow up car.

You finally conceded three days later that you had got it wrong, even then, you put the qualifying correction in a completely

different thread " the sitzman thread " where you hoped that nobody would read it.

Robin

Yes, and a trollish golem element as though the wind up is a misshapen lonely heart caught in a flood light engaged in romantically tinged groping that secretly seeks another's life force to replenish its own which is dwindling away.

Basically, it's an effort to romanticise & identify with the the assassin without seeming to. The trick is: thus, the assassin escapes undetected.

Of course, here I'm referring to the sniper's motivations, mind you.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Miles Scull