Is This Black Dog Man

[Robin Unger]

Duncan.

I agree, i dont see a mound of dirt anywhere along the picket fence.

[Bill Miller]

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.

I think you'd be accurate to say that I was the first person to point out something to you that you had not been aware of. Golz wrote about the soldier on the knoll. Yarborough saw the article and contacted Golz to tell him that he saw that man. The Golz article had mentioned that researchers had been looking through the photos for years looking for anyone on the knoll. Golz wrote that Arnold fell to the ground, which implies that Gordon went out of sight because of the wall. Yarborough held that position in 1978 and again when interviewed by Turner in 1987/88.

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.

I can only pass along information from those who know Turner and his assistant Sue Winters. Both are still alive and can be contacted if someone really put half an effort into it. For you to say why Turner did what he did is ludicrous for you have not a clue as to what decisions were made in editing that piece - you have never contacted the actual people so to offer direct insight into the matter - and you have ignored people like Mack who has shared his knowledge of this matter with you. All these reasons seem to carry the same theme and that is you really haven't done anything to try and support your assumptions and suppositions. This is why Godwin and Golz both were a bit perplexed as to some of the things you have said that I passed along to them.

On a side note, I have asked Gary Mack to find out if Earl's notes from his interviews with both Arnold and Yarborough have been donated yet to who ever he was giving them to so copies can be reviewed. Possibly once this is done, then many answers can be forthcoming to those who could not understand why certain parts of an interview was mentioned while other parts was not mentioned in the articles and filmed interviews.

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.

Well, I guess that if you have avoided talking to Golz for a few years now - that might be a fair statement. And because you have not bothered to contact Turner or Winters, then I supposed you can get away with saying no one but me mentioned Arnold in uniform. The only part of Yarborough's interview that they used was Ralph mentioning where when he saw Arnold dive to the ground - he thought to himself that Gordon had had artillery training previously. Why not Ralph had said Gordon must have had firearms training, or police training ... but he didn't. Instead Ralph mentioned the artillery training - could it be that Ralph saw it was a man in his military clothing? I can understand why you have not spoken to Golz or Turner ... its the only way to avoid risking finding out that Yarborough did mention the soldier above the wall, but don't forget - you can always then say that Golz and Turner were part of a conspiracy to make Gordon look credible.

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 am aware we do not think alike for had been you - I would have contacted Golz or Turner long ago so not to waste so much time trying to remain uniformed.

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.

I have heard you say this a couple of times now. My understanding was that Golz spoke to Arnold several times and had to talk him into giving him the interview. The newspaper went as far as to get Gordon to let them take his photo in the plaza so to run it in the news article, so what is this claim about where Golz screwed Arnold by using his name in the article? Is this more assuming on your part or did you actually hear this from one of the participants???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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.

I have never posted that Arnold was back in the car park when the shooting occurred. It was you who posted the above text in caps in your response to me.

Bill

[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, its 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.

Bowers did not report seeing an Arnold like person in Arnold's alleged postion (Moorman) when Bower's would have noticed Arnold had he been there at the time in question.

[Bill Miller]

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, its 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.

Miles,

Would you be so kind as to start a new thread for your ridiculous say-nothing responses so not to push pollute this thread by posting nonsense between the direct responses that are important to the serious researchers here.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bowers did not report seeing an Arnold like person in Arnold's alleged postion (Moorman) when Bower's would have noticed Arnold had he been there at the time in question.

Bowers didn't report the bench or the black couple who had been sitting along the walk way either. He also didn't report seeing Hudson and the other guy on the steps. Bowers didn't report one of those men running from the scene and up the walkway as the assassination was happening either. And Bowers didn't report the two figures near the large tree in Towner #3. One would think Bowers would have noticed those things and reported them as well - right, Miles? Come to think of it - Bowers never mentioned seeing the Black Dog Man, so do you not see how weak such a position as yours can be when applied to other things as well.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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

I am sure shadows are mistaken sometimes by people who are not very good at knowing how to check these things out so to know better.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Bowers did not report seeing an Arnold like person in Arnold's alleged position (Moorman) when Bower's would have noticed Arnold had he been there at the time in question.

Bowers didn't report the bench or the black couple who had been sitting along the walk way either. He also didn't report seeing Hudson and the other guy on the steps. Bowers didn't report one of those men running from the scene and up the walkway as the assassination was happening either. And Bowers didn't report the two figures near the large tree in Towner #3. One would think Bowers would have noticed those things and reported them as well - right, Miles? Come to think of it - Bowers never mentioned seeing the Black Dog Man, so do you not see how weak such a position as yours can be when applied to other things as well.

Bill Miller

Nonsense.

As usual you have completely missed the point.

I said Bowers did not report seeing ARNOLD. That is my point.

Whatever else Bowers did or did not see is immaterial to that single point.

Thus, yet another potential support for the reality & validity of Arnold's "story" is riven away.

This is merely a matter of analysis house keeping.

By the way, of course you take note that Bowers also did not report noticing a midget soldier atop a 4 foot pile of dirt.

[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.

Miles,

Would you be so kind as to start a new thread for your ridiculous say-nothing responses so not to push pollute this thread by posting nonsense between the direct responses that are important to the serious researchers here.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

Of course, you overlooked that this post was a prelude to my immediate follow up post, which logically speaking stakes the golem.

What Bowers saw. Arnold was not there.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Miles Scull

[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.

Miles,

Would you be so kind as to start a new thread for your ridiculous say-nothing responses so not to push pollute this thread by posting nonsense between the direct responses that are important to the serious researchers here.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

Of course, you overlooked that this post was a prelude to my immediate follow up post, which logically speaking stakes the golem.

What Bowers saw. Arnold was not there.

Sharper image:

Edited August 17, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Bowers did not report seeing an Arnold like person in Arnold's alleged position (Moorman) when Bower's would have noticed Arnold had he been there at the time in question.

Bowers didn't report the bench or the black couple who had been sitting along the walk way either. He also didn't report seeing Hudson and the other guy on the steps. Bowers didn't report one of those men running from the scene and up the walkway as the assassination was happening either. And Bowers didn't report the two figures near the large tree in Towner #3. One would think Bowers would have noticed those things and reported them as well - right, Miles? Come to think of it - Bowers never mentioned seeing the Black Dog Man, so do you not see how weak such a position as yours can be when applied to other things as well.

Bill Miller

Nonsense.

As usual you have completely missed the point.

I said Bowers did not report seeing ARNOLD. That is my point.

Whatever else Bowers did or did not see is immaterial to that single point.

Thus, yet another potential support for the reality & validity of Arnold's "story" is riven away.

This is merely a matter of analysis house keeping.

By the way, of course you take note that Bowers also did not report noticing a midget soldier atop a 4 foot pile of dirt.

Believe me, Miles ... I have missed any points. For instance ... who would try to make an issue out of Bowers not reporting his seeing Arnold when he didn't report the BDM or a possible assassin fleeing up the walkway and into the RR yard? In fact, Bowers didn't even report Badge Man. And what if Arnold and the Black Dog Man are the same person ... how can Bowers not mentioning seeing one of them be any less important than his not seeing the other??

Your logic is illogical IMO.

Now you seem to be able to see floating cop torsos with no problem, so tell us what is your opinion as to the sun spot seen on the right upper torso of these two individuals below? Any similarities that might cause one to believe they are one in the same person???

Bill Miller

Edited September 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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

In my opinion this makes you both Bias.

You are being ridiculous as usual. Bias would be had Duncan mentioned the sun spots being seen on Arnold and BDM being the same - you would have fallen all over yourself applauding his keen observation. So if being bias in this case is weighing all the evidence VS. someone trying to pass off Bowers not mentioning seeing a service man in uniform when he didn't mention a man fleeing up the walkway during the shooting or a possible shooter which some think BDM was as if these people never existed, then call me 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.

More stupidity that isn't worth a response to. xxxxx on big fella'!

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Bowers did not report seeing an Arnold like person in Arnold's alleged position (Moorman) when Bower's would have noticed Arnold had he been there at the time in question.

Bowers didn't report the bench or the black couple who had been sitting along the walk way either. He also didn't report seeing Hudson and the other guy on the steps. Bowers didn't report one of those men running from the scene and up the walkway as the assassination was happening either. And Bowers didn't report the two figures near the large tree in Towner #3. One would think Bowers would have noticed those things and reported them as well - right, Miles? Come to think of it - Bowers never mentioned seeing the Black Dog Man, so do you not see how weak such a position as yours can be when applied to other things as well.

Bill Miller

Nonsense.

As usual you have completely missed the point.

I said Bowers did not report seeing ARNOLD. That is my point.

Whatever else Bowers did or did not see is immaterial to that single point.

Thus, yet another potential support for the reality & validity of Arnold's "story" is riven away.

This is merely a matter of analysis house keeping.

By the way, of course you take note that Bowers also did not report noticing a midget soldier atop a 4 foot pile of dirt.

Believe me, Miles ... I have missed any points. For instance ... who would try to make an issue out of Bowers not reporting his seeing Arnold when he didn't report the BDM or a possible assassin fleeing up the walkway and into the RR yard? In fact, Bowers didn't even report Badge Man. And what if Arnold and the Black Dog Man are the same person ... how can Bowers not mentioning seeing one of them be any less important than his not seeing the other??

Your logic is illogical IMO.

Now you seem to be able to see floating cop torsos with no problem, so tell us what is your opinion as to the sun spot seen on the right upper torso of these two individuals below? Any similarities that might cause one to believe they are one in the same person???

Bill Miller

Now, you present an interesting proposition.

Before proceeding further, however, it will be a good idea for you to point out in greater detail & specificity, please, exactly what you are suggesting by way of identifying what images & objects you are looking at, how they interconnect, what the time sequencing chronology is, the significance of this, etc., etc......

I realise that this has been put forward in earlier somewhat scattered posts.

But a solid recapitulation by you is now in order.

Can do?

Edited August 17, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I know I don't have exclusive rights to this thread, but would it be possible to stick to the subject matter which is the investigation in to the possibility of Arnold being or not being in Moorman at the floating torso location, & based on the evidence provided in the Moorman photo, and that alone, along with any supporting photographical topographical evidence of the area between the fence and the wall. What Bowers said, or what anyone else said, will not move any individuals, or change the information which is contained in the Moorman polaroid....give me strength

Duncan

Duncan,

I couldn't agree more.

Let's get back on topic...please.

Kathy

I do not know if you guys know this or not, but part of the Duncan's claim means that Jack's Arnold in the Badge Man images must be an illusion. So when someone like Miles makes a point that Bowers didn't see this person as if to infer he wasn't there at all, then it is relevant to point out that this particular deduction is flawed for the reasons I stated in an earlier post. Is it getting away from the main topic - slightly, but it is still a link in the chain of things that make up this topic, thus Miles has the right to raise such inferences just as I have the right to post why they are flawed.

If anyone should be concerned of anything ... I would think it would be the posting of non-responsive foolishness that only breaks the train of thought and pushes the relevant data further apart so to make it harder for readers to follow and learn the data provided. This was a tactic attributed to the Warren Commisssion and it didn't go unnoticed, nor should it happen here.

Bill

Edited August 17, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Before proceeding further, however, it will be a good idea for you to point out in greater detail & specificity, please, exactly what you are suggesting by way of identifying what images & objects you are looking at, how they interconnect, what the time sequencing chronology is, the significance of this, etc., etc......

We can start with you going back and reading post 185. I also bet that a simple forum search under the names Arnold or BDM might bring up previous post explaining the similarities that I have mentioned.

Bill Miller