Is This Black Dog Man

[Miles Scull]

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

OK, Billy

Let's jump on our scooters & scoot. Mind you, at this early preliminary stage I'm still push-striding, with one leg on the bed & the other pump kicking for thrust.

Now, here are a couple of Betzner crops, probably better than yours.

By using multiple arrows point out the sun patch you seem to consider significant. Why is it significant? Also, answer the question.

What are you trying to explain via the inset? Explain in detail. Also, please try to relate your contentions to Duncan's main topic which is the floating torso problem & the midgetisation of Arnold!

Edited August 18, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Here is a little more information for you to digest, Miles. Even the dark area under the arm is present in both the Moorman individual and Betzner BDM figure. I also point to the dot which seems to be the shirt pocket of Arnold in the Badge Man images. Now either BDM ran away immediately after Betzner and Willis took their photos and Arnold quickly ran in to trade him places and managed to get in the same sunspot coming through the trees .... or the two individuals are one in the same person and when Arnold turned his body to track the President after Betzner had taken his photo - it slightly altered the shade line on his person while leaving the same general shape of the sunspot, left the same dark dot on both men, and left the same dark horizontal shade line along the belt line.

Do you not see the significance to all of this now?

Bill Miller

Edited August 17, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I see no one has rescaled the Arnold image yet so to see if the modifications helped explain the all too short legs in the illustration Duncan created. Below is Arnold seen over the wall ... is his legs long enough to be on the ground in this view looking over the wall???

Bill Miller

Edited August 17, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Firstly...As Miles says, what has Betzner got to do with the content in Morman, it's a no go comparison, keep on track and maybe we can all get somewhere. Regarding "is his legs long enough to be on the ground in this view looking over the wall???"..In that particular photograph..Yes....in the illusion position in Moormam...No

Finally..Which arnold image do you refer to Re: rescaling?

It is responses like the one you gave above that shows that you must either purposely play dumb about how to test these assassination images in order to explain who they are or you actually cannot understand the process. So what photograph was Miles talking about when he asked the following of me, "By using multiple arrows point out the sun patch you seem to consider significant. Why is it significant? Also, answer the question." Now can we agree that Miles asked me to address a question pertaining to the Betzner/Moorman image?

Now to address your last question ... I posted your upper/lower body Gif image and I pointed out where you were in error on your scaling of the soldiers lower body to Gordon's upper body from the Badge Man images. Now if you had to make a wild guess as to which image that needs to be rescaled - which one do you think it would be? Maybe go back and read the immediate responses and see if you can't narrow it down a bit.

Would you like to do a comparison of the Turner Arnold over the wall by mis-aligning the lower body of the soldier to Gordon as you did with the Moorman Arnold so to see how short he too would appear ... it might prove interesting.

Bill

Edited August 17, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Here is a little more information for you to digest, Miles. Even the dark area under the arm is present in both the Moorman individual and Betzner BDM figure. I also point to the dot which seems to be the shirt pocket of Arnold in the Badge Man images. Now either BDM ran away immediately after Betzner and Willis took their photos and Arnold quickly ran in to trade him places and managed to get in the same sunspot coming through the trees .... or the two individuals are one in the same person and when Arnold turned his body to track the President after Betzner had taken his photo - it slightly altered the shade line on his person while leaving the same general shape of the sunspot, left the same dark dot on both men, and left the same dark horizontal shade line along the belt line.

Do you not see the significance to all of this now?

Bill Miller

Are you playing Photo Peeka Boo?

I can see what you are trying to say, but your photographic exegesis via your annotation inserts actually obscures your meaning.

I can see you are making an effort, however.

For example, you say: "I also point to the dot which seems to be the shirt pocket of Arnold in the Badge Man images."

Maybe you think you have done this, but you have not.

On the issue of scaling, what is your idea? If Duncan is wrong, then why can you not demonstrate what IS not wrong, namely: what you think is correct?

I see you can do insets, so what is the hang up?

Edited August 17, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

I'm not interested in your arrows ponting to what or what may be a belt, or what sun spots may or may not be on a ficticious object lol. I have given an accurate representation of the legs given that they are an unseen factor. I'm still waiting for you to add legs to the floating torso miracle that Mother Theresa would have been proud of to counter my claim. As I said to Robin in what seems like a million posts ago, and I was correct in my assumption, " He won't do it " The reson you won't do it is because you have no ammunintion to fire in to The floating torso unless you attach elastic man's legs to it and create superelasticarnoldman.

Duncan

Duncan,

Is this intentionally generous elongation on your part or something more hidden & sinister?

Edited August 17, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Robin Unger]

The blackdog figure in Betzner 3 can't be Arnold.

Bill has already said that Arnold is not standing at the wall, but back from it closer to the fence.

The floating torso as seen on Moorman would have to be closer to the Wooden fence in Betzner 3 not at the wall

He would appear approx near the corner of the Stemmons sighn where the " S " is. ?

Edited August 18, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Arnold "approx scale only" shown here in the position as he appears to me, when i look at Moorman and the floating Arnold Torso.

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

As I said to Robin in what seems like a million posts ago, and I was correct in my assumption, " He won't do it "

Duncan.

We agreed then and we agree know.

He won't do it. !

[Bill Miller]

Here is a little more information for you to digest, Miles. Even the dark area under the arm is present in both the Moorman individual and Betzner BDM figure. I also point to the dot which seems to be the shirt pocket of Arnold in the Badge Man images. Now either BDM ran away immediately after Betzner and Willis took their photos and Arnold quickly ran in to trade him places and managed to get in the same sunspot coming through the trees .... or the two individuals are one in the same person and when Arnold turned his body to track the President after Betzner had taken his photo - it slightly altered the shade line on his person while leaving the same general shape of the sunspot, left the same dark dot on both men, and left the same dark horizontal shade line along the belt line.

Do you not see the significance to all of this now?

Bill Miller

Are you playing Photo Peeka Boo?

I can see what you are trying to say, but your photographic exegesis via your annotation inserts actually obscures your meaning.

I can see you are making an effort, however.

For example, you say: "I also point to the dot which seems to be the shirt pocket of Arnold in the Badge Man images."

Maybe you think you have done this, but you have not.

Miles, I have stood in front of seasoned researchers - some in law enforcement - some in the science of criminal investigation - some photographic experts and each and every one of them came up to me after the extensive presentation I gave at Lancer's conference and said that they understood my presentation and have now come to the same conclusion concerning the relationship between Arnold and BDM. On the other hand there is you who says things like "your photographic exegesis via your annotation inserts actually obscures your meaning" which never dealt with a single point I made in my previous post. But what should one expect from a guy who started out asking for information from me while posting a ridiculously blurred BDM image while assuming that it is better than any I have. What's even more noticeable is that you said those things having already seen some of the BDM images I have - one reposted in my response to you and all are much sharper than that unbelievable example of what static noise must look like. People who read this forum can look at the post and decide for themselves who was here because they wanted to be Vs. those who are here because they have nothing better to do.

Getting back to your question as to my study - do a search on Lancer under the names "BDM - Black Dog Man - or Gordon Arnold" and you will find many topics with such illustrations and text. Until then, try and deal with the evidence before you and save the say nothing nonsense.

On the issue of scaling, what is your idea? If Duncan is wrong, then why can you not demonstrate what IS not wrong, namely: what you think is correct?

I see you can do insets, so what is the hang up?

I think I have already cited the post dealing with the scaling problem Duncan had. What was right about it was that he cut and pasted the upper and lower halves of the bodies pretty nicely - it was his doing a poor job of aligning the width of the subjects to each other that I find problem with. I also mentioned how one figure was slightly turned while the other was facing the camera ... Most people are not round, Miles. Some are actually thicker than they are wide and visa-versa. Duncan should have sought a photo of a soldier or any person that was facing the camera as Arnold was doing so to make his comparison as accurate as possible. Now what part of that critique needs further explaining because I am more than happy to give it to you?

Here is a link to help you do some research on the matter .... http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...nced&page=3

Bill Miller

Edited August 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The blackdog figure in Betzner 3 can't be Arnold.

Bill has already said that Arnold is not standing at the wall, but back from it closer to the fence.

For the above statement to be accurate - you have assumed the BDM is up near the wall - that is not my position. I will say this observation once again for the benefit of those who cannot seem to remember it ... There is only one person beyond that wall between the fence and the walkway. The angle difference between Betzner and Willis would have shown two people as staggered in at least one of their picks ... but this is not the case. One man in Betzner - one man in Willis - one man in Moorman - one man seen diving to the ground by Yarborough. The evidence is not that complicated unless one wishes to make it that way. Did not the sunspot observation tell any of you something?

The floating torso as seen on Moorman would have to be closer to the Wooden fence in Betzner 3 not at the wall

He would appear approx near the corner of the Stemmons sighn where the " S " is. ?

I'm sorry, I cannot follow this. It's like being given directions to somewhere in a national evergreen park and being told to turn right at a tree - go closer to the mountains until you see a bird flying overhead and then turn left and you're there.

Bill

Edited August 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Arnold "approx scale only" shown here in the position as he appears to me, when i look at Moorman and the floating Arnold Torso.

Robin,

I cannot believe I am telling you this ... get an overhead photo of Elm Street (I have posted a couple of them in the past from atop the records bldg) and mark where Moorman, Willis, and Betzner stood in the plaze when they took their photos. Draw a line from each position to a point over the wall so to have a LOS to the individual in question. When you have done this ... the lines should all intersect. I know you will find that having Arnold way off towards the shelter will not be what you got from where Moorman stood. Arnold is seen over the 'dog leg' of the wall.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

On the issue of scaling, what is your idea? If Duncan is wrong, then why can you not demonstrate what IS not wrong, namely: what you think is correct?

I see you can do insets, so what is the hang up?

We are on the same wavelength Miles. I just posted the same request which i've been requestng repeatedly before I read your post.

Duncan

Duncan - from the moment I saw your soldier - I have asked that you size him correctly and so far that has not been done. This was your claim - you doing a poor job of getting the widths correct does not mean that someone else has to come in and fix it for you. Keep it that way, but sooner or later you will grow tired of people pointing out your error and maybe then you will fix it.

Bill

[Robin Unger]

we have agreed that Arnold is standing back from the wall.

How far back. ?

How far along the picket fence. ?

Edited August 18, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Exactly where along the picket fence is the Badgeman location. ?

This may help find the Arnold figure location in Moorman, since Arnold is just to the left of Badgeman.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Robin Unger