Is This Black Dog Man

[Alan Healy]

I am more interested in why those claiming to want accuracy didn't notice that Duncan hadn't scaled the lower body of the soldier to the upper body of Arnold correctly? Even worse, why they haven't called for the mistake to be corrected??

Bill Miller

No one has called for the " Mistake " to be corrected because it is not a mistake. You seem to be the only one who has missed this forum recorded point. The legs are an estimate and have never been classed as anything else.

Duncan

FWIW I looked at the difference that Bill pointed out & it's so small I deemed it as irrelavant.

Correcting it would not add more than a few inches to the overall look of the alleged figure IMHO.

We obviously need an impartial on site test.

I would not call what we have seen so far brought back from the plaza as that.

If any on-site test was impartial it was Myers but who trusts that guy anymore?

[Alan Healy]

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

People who have not been to the knoll tend to misjudge the height of the

concrete wall and where the ground level is. I have asked Bernice to

post the Miller image here which plainly shows the ground level and the

five foot metal fence post.

Jack

*********************

Just came on, Jack, and your email flew in....talk about snail air mail....

B..

Firstly & most importantly, thank you Bernice, I appreciate what your doing to help Jack get his points across & I'm sure many others appreciate it too.

I would also hope that you don't view all of us "non-believers" too harshly B., from what I can tell, there is a lot of honesty in these questions being asked of Arnold & I hope you can see some of that too.

Jack,

that "Millerman" as you labeled him is actually Arnold himself from "TMWKK".

You said it is obvious that he is standing with his feet on the ground & I'm sure everyone agrees, I know Duncan does, he said so.

The real question is,

why would anyone compare the lifesize Arnold figure from that scene in "TMWKK" to the midget seen above the wall in Moorman & say they were the same size?

I have resized the wall in the "TMWKK" frame to only three quarters the size of wall in Moorman & look how large the Millerman is.

I realise I'm not showing the full image but it was just a quick casual sizeing up, please check for yourself, I cannot understand how you have not noticed how small the Arnold Moorman is before now.

You must see it soon.

Maybe Duncan's observation/interpretation is a little on the small side, maybe(I don't see much wrong with it myself but) but he is right when he says you guys don't have much in the way of photographical studies to counter his observation.

If referring to the frames of Arnold in TMWKK are any guide(& I realise it was initially Bill who did this not you Jack) then the researchers in the Arnold camp have a serious problem IMHO.

Alan

PS I apologise if I'm repeating any information or opinions already expressed by others, I tend to start reading from the last page when I log on & it doesn't take me too long before I want to say something.

[Miles Scull]

I don't recall ANYONE in this long thread saying that the feet of the figure in the image below which Bernice posted for you could not be touching the ground. It is absurd to suggest that anyone did .

Duncan

DUNCAN,

Is execution done on Cawdor?

Meaning:

Arnold's 1978 placement gives him a clear view for panning the motorcade:

Not so this strange TMWKK staged placement:

Edited August 19, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Alan Healy]

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

I don't.

I see the similarites between Oswald & Lovelady outside the TSBD in the famous Altgens photo & I bet everyone else does too but I am yet to hear anyone explain the similarites between BDM & anything seen in Moorman.

You say you see them but you haven't made me see them.

The one time I did find something of yours that lined up it turned out to be a forgery.

Where I think your going wrong is, you don't seem to understand that when you are discussing these "similarities" with people, you keep refering to "Arnold" & 98% of the time the people your trying to help see "what you see", don't fully trust that figure.

There may well be significant similarities that I'm yet to notice in these photos but;

whether it's the same guy or not it just wouldn't add support for Arnold sorry, all it would say is that it's BDM.

If you don't trust the Arnold figure in the first place it may be a good idea to keep studying the images with an open mind.

Alan

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels.

“A lie told often enough becomes truth”

Vladimir Lenin.

[Alan Healy]

I have also heard of where Arnold stood in that photo as "as the best as he could remember".

In other words that's where he was until it was pointed out to him he wasn't there at all but somewhere else.

Let's face it, if he insisted he stood there & not where they have in Moorman, his tale would be dead long ago.

I still think that's probably Arnold on the steps in the red shirt in Nix etc.

DUNCAN,

Is execution done on Cawdor?

Depends what kind of mood i'm in Miles, but usually only on Sunday's

Meaning:

Arnold's 1978 placement gives him a clear view for panning the motorcade:

Yes Miles, I agree with you. even though it is being argued that the 1978 placement shot is not a recreation, it does seem strange that he wouldn't have stood where he stood on Nov22nd 1963, I mean, what's the point?

Duncan

[Miles Scull]

I have also heard of where Arnold stood in that photo as "as the best as he could remember".

In other words that's where he was until it was pointed out to him he wasn't there at all but somewhere else.

Let's face it, if he insisted he stood there & not where they have in Moorman, his tale would be dead long ago.

I still think that's probably Arnold on the steps in the red shirt in Nix etc.

DUNCAN,

Is execution done on Cawdor?

Depends what kind of mood i'm in Miles, but usually only on Sunday's

Meaning:

Arnold's 1978 placement gives him a clear view for panning the motorcade:

Yes Miles, I agree with you. even though it is being argued that the 1978 placement shot is not a recreation, it does seem strange that he wouldn't have stood where he stood on Nov22nd 1963, I mean, what's the point?

Duncan

[Bill Miller]

ARNOLD'S VIEW

So, the idea he didn't have the ideal view [if that is even so] doesn't preclude his being there. What you guys should do is all meet in DP.

Peter,

jCommon sense should tell anyone that if Moorman could see the upper half of Arnold from where she stood, then he could see all over her from that distance while looking back the other way. The photo that Miles posted is not Arnold's view at all. It may have been the Badge Man's line of sight, but certainly not Arnold's. I do not know if these errors are purposely being made or they are the result of poor knowledge of the layout of the area being discussed, but they are errors never-the-less and are being used to try and get a correct answer which is an impossibility.

Below is one such example. I had told Duncan several times now that his scaling is not accurate, yet it goes uncorrected. I suspect it is this type of ridiculous inaccuracy that has been the reason why no one in over 25 years has never claimed the Badge Man figures are too small to be real. I will once again point to some of the errors within that scaling job of Duncan's image. In the latest insert ... I am not even certain that Duncan aligned the Badge Man's muzzle flash correctly, but seeing how the upper sides of his Arnold don't even align with the lower sides of the soldier - why waste a lot of time dealing with something that is flawed from the start. We don't know how high the ground was where Gordon Arnold stood and a simple fuzzy B&W film looking at the ground as Darnell did will not give us the answer. Then we must know how how Gordon wore his belt line. Some people where it low below the navel and others wear it higher and above the navel ... nothing was mentioned by Duncan as to how he decided where to align the two belt lines. This is jjust another point that no one seems to have gotten on their own. And because the scaling is atrocious - any criticism of the figures size is worthless when based on bad data. If ot takes for example - 1% to correct the width, then 1% also has to be added to the lower half of the figures height to keep the proportions in scale. If 20% in width needs to be added to make the sides match up, then 20% also must be added to the lower half of the figures height.

I got this message from another researcher who had this to say about what I interpret to mean how the other soldier Duncan offered as an example had looked to him ...

"Duncan has misrepresented an actual photo of a serviceman with highly inaccurate proportions. The ratio can be seen by right-clicking on the image. The picture is stretched sideways which, when shown properly, would appear much taller and more slender. The ratio is .685 (divide the first figure by the second) when it should probably be about 1:1."

Bill

Edited August 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Now tell me how it is possible to put completely accurate legs on the floating torso body. It can't be done. Only an estimated size can be calibrated in relation to the Arnold torso shape, which is exactly what I have done, and which I think is a good representation.

Duncan,

You used a soldier wearing what appears to be a padded bullet proof vest and who is turned to one side, thus his width would not be as shown in Moorman's photo even if it had been Arnold wearing the vest. Then you tell me now that an accurate placement and sizing of the lower legs cannot be done and if that is true, then you had no claim to make to start with.

My advice is to look for a photo of Arnold and then try and correctly size his lower body to his upper body and see how he looks compared to your previous attempt to scale an image. I don't know if anyone has a good clear sccan of Arnold out on the knoll in the DMN photo, but if they do - that might be a good start. Another way would be to get a frontal view of someone dressed similar to Arnold in his uniform and size that person's image to Grodon's height and width in his upper body while increasing or decreasing the lower portion of his body at the same ratio.

I hope the advise helps.

Bill

Edited August 19, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I have also heard of where Arnold stood in that photo as "as the best as he could remember".

Who said the above statement ... Not Arnold - Not Golz - and Not Godwin who took the photo, so where did such a statement come from other than from someone who never bothered to talk to those who would know for sure???

I might also add that in the previous post showing an alleged figure where the caption reads that 'it may be someone, but not Arnold' ... isn't that the opposite position that the legs in Duncan's scaling job makes the figure too short to be real???

Bill

[Miles Scull]

I hope the advise helps.

Bill

Thanks for the advise, but you are still completely missing the point. The legs were meant to show a ROUGH guide to where Arnold's feet would be, and nothing more.

Duncan

Duncan,

If you, on one hand, touch your pinky finger tip to your thumb tip while holding your other fingers, on that hand, straight & rigid & then count your extended fingers you will crack the mystery of this PHOTO PUZZLE.

If this helps.

[Bill Miller]

The legs were meant to show a ROUGH guide to where Arnold's feet would be, and nothing more. You are spinning this thread more often than I have ever seen you do so before. It doesn't matter if my example was wearing a padded bullet proof vest, a tuxedo or clown's outfit. We can see the floating torso, so all we are looking for is an estimate of the height from head to toe. That is what I have provided. If my estimate is a few inches out here or there, so what?

Make sure when you publish your study that you say the same thing that you wrote above. I also think that if you were ever only a few nches off on anything that civilization as know it would cease to exist. Is there not anyone in Scotland who can peer review your observation?

We can not make an exactness out of something that is not exact. Now at your request, I have made a what I believe is a 100% accurate gif of the torso without legs using Jack's B/W image, Jack's Colour image, and a Moorman supplied by Robin. Unfortunately my gif making software is garbage, so I'm posting the 3 images with 2 overlays seperately and hope that someone can make a clear gif from them and post to this thread to confirm my accuracy. Chris?..Are you reading this? Can you please make up the requested gif if possible please to put this nonsense to an end.

Can you furnish a microscope so we can better determine the accuracy of your scaling?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Can you furnish a microscope so we can better determine the accuracy of your scaling?

Bill

Think i'm stupid or somthing?

Duncan[/b]

I don't think it is fair to ask a question that calls for an answer that may be a forum rule violation. On another note - I believe I know why your inserts are so small.

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

You used a soldier wearing what appears to be a padded bullet proof vest and who is turned to one side, thus his width would not be as shown in Moorman's photo even if it had been Arnold wearing the vest. Then you tell me now that an accurate placement and sizing of the lower legs cannot be done and if that is true, then you had no claim to make to start with.

My advise is to look for a photo of Arnold and then try and correctly size his lower body to his upper body and see how he looks compared to your previous attempt to scale an image. I don't know if anyone has a good clear sccan of Arnold out on the knoll in the DMN photo, but if they do - that might be a good start. Another way would be to get a frontal view of someone dressed similar to Arnold in his uniform and size that person's image to Grodon's height and width in his upper body while increasing or decreasing the lower portion of his body at the same ratio.

I hope the advise helps.

Bill

Thanks for the advice which is actually spelled with a c, but you are still completely missing the point. The legs were meant to show a ROUGH guide to where Arnold's feet would be, and nothing more. You are spinning this thread more often than I have ever seen you do so before. It doesn't matter if my example was wearing a padded bullet proof vest, a tuxedo or clown's outfit. We can see the floating torso, so all we are looking for is an estimate of the height from head to toe. That is what I have provided. If my estimate is a few inches out here or there, so what? We can not make an exactness out of something that is not exact. Now at your request, I have made a what I believe is a 100% accurate gif of the torso without legs using Jack's B/W image, Jack's Colour image, and a Moorman supplied by Robin. Unfortunately my gif making software is garbage, so I'm posting the 3 images with 2 overlays seperately and hope that someone can make a clear gif from them and post to this thread to confirm my accuracy. Chris?..Are you reading this? Can you please make up the requested gif if possible please to put this nonsense to an end.

Duncan

Duncan,

Is this what you want?

chris

[Robin Unger]

There may well be significant similarities that I'm yet to notice in these photos but;

whether it's the same guy or not it just wouldn't add support for Arnold sorry, all it would say is that it's BDM.

If you don't trust the Arnold figure in the first place it may be a good idea to keep studying the images with an open mind.

Alan

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels.

“A lie told often enough becomes truth”

Vladimir Lenin.

How long would it take to walk around the back of the pergola from the west wall to the east wall.

Duncan.

Since you have started a new thread, i hope you don't mind if i detract from Gi Joe for a while.

Mirrored image:

What is the Timeline of the Rickerby image below. ?

Edited August 20, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Duncan.

Since you have started a new thread, i hope you don't mind if i detract from Gi Joe for a while.

Robin

No problem Robin, I'll move my last post to the new thread

Duncan