Is This Black Dog Man

[Alan Healy]

A link to the original Goltz article where Arnold mentions two men(fourth paragraph)

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5389.jpg

A link to Don Roberdeau's analysis of the Conover Hunt interview with Arnold(are two guys mentioned here? I'd have to check)

http://hometown.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/add...noldCLAIMS.html

[Jack White]

ALL of my work with Moorman shows the camera in front of his

face, not at waist level. Where you got such a mistaken notion,

I do not know.

Jack

[Alan Healy]

As the BDM topic seems to be fading, I may as well go with the flow. Here is how I see the two men in this version which I have quickly colourised. Is this what everyone else sees?

Duncan

I would say that you have colored in the tree foliage and made it look like a greenish T-shirt on one figure and mistook the tree foliage as the other guys face when I believe him to have his back to the camera. The reason for the latter is that, if a cop as Arnold claimed he was, then I do not see any signs of a badge, pin, or anything else on his clothing which would not be seen on someones back.

Bill

This thinking is backward to me.

First you have to prove that Arnold was there & that his story is the truth, then you can talk about if one of these guys is related to that, at this time, alleged scenario.

Until that time, I can believe these men are two witnesses who have rushed up from somewhere in the plaza & are looking for evidence of an assassin & that is much more likely IMO. Yes one of them might be a uniformed "policeman" but the chances are, even if he is, he had nothing to do with Arnold.

Go look at Bond4 for example, there is a cop facing this very direction & appears to be actual running that way, tell me where he was when Towner3 was taken & why this can't be him.

You mentioned a circus in a previous reply to one of my comments & as far as I'm concerned(when referring to Arnold) you couldn't have used a better analogy.

I do believe his back is to camera though but it is kind of weird how Duncan found a face just where his head would be. Coincidence I think but, that is a man in a short sleeve shirt walking north & closer to the camera.

Alan

[Jack White]

So you have gone to just saying what Gary says is hearsay, thus you cannot believe it ... to what Gary says cannot be believed.

Please do not misquote me and try to insinuate that I am calling Gary a xxxx. You have a bad habit of misquoting people.

Gary has a lot riding on the line at the Museum when it comes to citing the record correctly. This is why people like Turner go directly to Gary when doing their documentaries.

I have no issue with that. All I am saying is that until theuncut version can be seen, we must base our judgment on the spoken words of Arnold in the version we can look at and what he said in that version, which is that he seen one man and not two. If you want to prove otherwise, produce the evidence to back it up. Someone saying that they have an uncut version is not proof.

I'm willing to bet that Gary wouldn't tarnish his reputation over something like this.

Over something like what? It's you who is making the big deal out of this. I'm simply saying it how it is as it stands at the moment. My guess is that Gary has indeed seen a version where Arnold maybe mentions two men, but until we on this topic can see it, it must remain as inadmissible

evidence

And seeing that Turner did edit his witnesses interviews, and Arnold had told Golz about two cops 10 years earlier ... I'm thinking you are just messing around.

I know all about the Golz interview, and yes it appears from what i've read on it that he did mention two men, but it's still not proof as it currenly contradicts with the known TMWKK interview. 1 man in 1 interview 2 men in the other interview does not compute.

What you are trying to imply is that someone can argue that just because we read on the forum about what a witness said - it is just hearsay without the witness being here to say it themselves.

No that's not what i'm saying

Duncan, I can tell you a lie and it not be hearsay .... you really should read the definition of the word so to know when and when not to use it.

You could and it might not, then again it might be

Duncan

Duncan...we have no idea which version of TMWKK you have looked at. The original

version (Central Television) was much longer. For American audiences, the film was

edited and shortened considerably. I have both versions, but do not intend to view it

just to settle this. But if the version you have viewed does not mention TWO policemen,

you may be looking at an edited version. What I remember him saying was two policemen,

one crying, one with dirty fingernails. The second to approach him had a "big gun" pointed

at him. If no extant photos or films captured this incident, my belief is that they have been

altered or confiscated.

Jack

Edited July 27, 2007 by Jack White

[Alan Healy]

ALL of my work with Moorman shows the camera in front of his

face, not at waist level. Where you got such a mistaken notion,

I do not know.

Jack

Sorry Jack.

the "camera" is yes but, I found that due to the shape & position of what you guys interprit as his arm it is quite impossible for this "person" have his hands up to his face.

I'll have to go back & illustrate this to you but I can't do it this second because I've just checked & haven't saved a copy of your colourised version since my old HD gave up.

I'll go find one.

Alan

[Bill Miller]

So you have gone to just saying what Gary says is hearsay, thus you cannot believe it ... to what Gary says cannot be believed.

Please do not misquote me and try to insinuate that I am calling Gary a xxxx. You have a bad habit of misquoting people.

"Until it is seen it is only a rumour, as we are all only hearing about the uncut version through another rather than directly. What people say is important, but it's not always the truth."

You should really look up the definitions to the words you use ...

Rumor: A current story passing from one person to another,

without any known authority for its truth; -- in this

sense often personified.

Now is it your contention that Gary Mack is not a known authority concerning the JFK assassination?

Over something like what? It's you who is making the big deal out of this. I'm simply saying it how it is as it stands at the moment. My guess is that Gary has indeed seen a version where Arnold maybe mentions two men, but until we on this topic can see it, it must remain as inadmissible

evidence

Pretty high standard you've set for yourself in this particular situation. The "inadmissible" remark is odd IMO because Gary describing something from being there and getting it first hand would be admissible in any hearing.

I know all about the Golz interview, and yes it appears from what i've read on it that he did mention two men, but it's still not proof as it currenly contradicts with the known TMWKK interview. 1 man in 1 interview 2 men in the other interview does not compute.

The MWKK part of Gordon's interview was to tell the public about the man who took his film .... not the totality of his entire experience.

Bill

[Jack White]

I do not understand the motivation of those who wish to disbelieve Arnold

and Hoffman. Both were shy men and reluctant witnesses discovered almost by

accident. Neither was a publicity seeker. Both told plausible stories. Discrediting

their stories serves the LN official cause, not the investigation of truth.

Those trying to prove them liars rely on extant photos heavily...but ignore that

such photos may be tampered with, and others confiscated.

The stories of each MAY OR MAY NOT BE TOTALLY ACCURATE, but both represent

witness testimony which must be investigated without preconceived notions.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Duncan...we have no idea which version of TMWKK you have looked at. The original

version (Central Television) was much longer. For American audiences, the film was

edited and shortened considerably. I have both versions, but do not intend to view it

just to settle this. But if the version you have viewed does not mention TWO policemen,

you may be looking at an edited version. What I remember him saying was two policemen,

one crying, one with dirty fingernails. The second to approach him had a "big gun" pointed

at him. If no extant photos or films captured this incident, my belief is that they have been

altered or confiscated.

Jack

Jack...If there is an uncut version where Gordon Arold states that there are TWO policeman, then Nigel Turner would have had to made an executive decision about which one to use, ie, the version where Arnold mentions ONE man or the version where Arnold mentioned TWO men. I am assuming Nigel was very thorough in his investigation and would have consulted Gordon Arnold about which version was the correct version.

Duncan

Who gives a rats behind what decision Turner made? Turner only had an hour to get all he wanted into the documentary. Yarborough was extensively interviewed and they only used a few sentences of what he gave them. Turner's focus in that piece concerned Arnold's film. I can see why Turner didn't waste time on the other cop. But like I said - who cares! The main point was and has been that Arnold did mention the two cops, thus the big mystery is solved and two individuals seen in dark clothing like cops would wear are seen at the tree in Towner #3, which is what Gordon said had happened.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Is it your contention that Vincenr Bugliosi is not a known authority concerning the JFK assassination?

If you answer YES, then does that mean Bugliosi is telling the truth?

I do not know what Bugliosi's position is. From what I do know .... the difference between Bugliosis and Mack is that Vincent is telling a story from his interpretation of the evidence - Mack is offering first hand knowledge.

The remark would be admissible, the subject of the remark would be inadmissible

Wow .... that's deep! Do you care to explain in more detail?

I don't agree, the subject matter was about more than that, much more.

Mack has said, "Regarding Gordon Arnold and his story of being challenged by TWO police officers, several of us heard that story directly from Arnold or the person who interviewed him:

1978 Howard Upchurch

1978 Earl Golz (Dallas Morning News)

1979 Earl Golz (Dallas Morning News)

1981 Gary Mack (Coverups!)

1982 Henry Hurt (Reasonable Doubt)

1982 Jim Marrs (Crossfire)

1988 Nigel Turner

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."

Edited July 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I do, and my guess is that many others reading this thread also do... The fact is that IF there is a two man Arnold version PLUS a one man Arnold version, then a decision had to be made about which version was the truth as told by Arnold before airing and distribution. This is a FACT IF two versions existed. There is no escaping this FACT. I doubt Turner would have tossed a coin to make his final decision.

There isn't two versions ... editing out part of an interview does not mean there are two versions told by witness.

The big mystery is NOT solved. Gordon Arnold gave differing accounts, so how do we know which one is true. I see that you are still persisting that the two men have dark clothing and look like cops in Towner3. One of them has light clothing in my opinion, and I can see nothing to indicate that they look like cops. Arnold also said that the "Man" walked away in that direction", so by that account, Arnold must still have been lying on the ground at Towner3? to be easily seen by others who were starting to move in to that area... I just don't buy it.

You live is a world of make believe IMO. If I copy your response and only paste half of it for proplr to read .... would this mean in your mind that you gave two different accounts or did Bill only show half of what you had said? Get the point!

And if you wish to see what light clothing in shade looks like, then look at the man on the shelter steps as he peers into the RR yard in Towner #3.

Bill

Edited July 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Duncan clearly does not understand how films are assembled and edited.

Nigel interviewed me ON FILM for several hours. The portions he used to

tell the story consisted of only several seconds. The remainder, as is said,

ended up on the cutting room floor. On many segments, we would do

three or four "takes"; since each take was unscripted, all varied slightly,

and only the best one was used. He did not consult me about what he

chose to use.

Does that mean I did not say what was not used? Of course not.

The job of a movie director is to CHOOSE what portions of film are best

for the situation.

Gary Mack and I have the advantage of having seen THE UNCUT FILM.

We saw the complete interview with Gordon Arnold, as well as the edited

versions. The complete interview ran perhaps thirty minutes, but the

edited version far less. Was it practical to include the complete interview?

No. Does that mean it did not exist? No.

Jack

EDIT: DUNCAN STATED...

No..I don't get the point, the point is that you are failing to question yourself as to why Gordon gave two different accounts. Not once have you reasoned why he would say only one man. At least Jack put forward the possibility that it was nerves, but he must have been able to compose himself and give the second account with two men there, yet Turner chose the one man story. It doesn't make sense, can't you see that?

For the record, I have said no such thing as Duncan states!

Making such things up does not enhance credibility.

Edited July 28, 2007 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Again...and again...and again:

Arnold gave only ONE ACCOUNT I am aware of.

If, in one of the several versions, Nigel edited out something that Duncan thinks

should have been left in, either that was a bad editing decision...or more likely

was done for time considerations. In editing for TV...EVERY SECOND COUNTS.

In the versions I saw, Arnold mentioned two cops. If Duncan has seen a version

with only one cop, I am unaware of it, or WHY IT IS SIGNIFICANT that it was

edited out! Dumbth.

Jack

PS...for the record, Arnold's recall of TWO cops approaching him I always felt

was one of the weakest parts of his story, since I considered a PAIR of cops

behind the fence was unlikely. But I was impressed that he gave the details

of one cop crying and one with dirty fingernails.

Edited July 28, 2007 by Jack White

[Jack White]

I cannot view videos on my old Mac.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I do not know what Bugliosi's position is. From what I do know .... yhe difference between Bugliosis and Mack is that Vincent is telling a story from his interpretation of the evidence - Mack is offering first hand knowledge.

Gary is offering first hand knowledge of a STORY.

Wow .... that's deep! Do you care to explain in more detail?[/b]

There's nothing deep about it, If we had say10 people like Arnold all saying the same thing, for example if they all said that they were at that location, and it was they who were the figure and the others were liars, then that evidence would be admissible. The next step would be for them to produce the evidence. If they could not produce the evidence, then their admissible statements would become inadmissible as evidence and thrown out of court.

Duncan

Duncan,

I have been involved helping an attorney with cases and sat through several trials and a witness's accounting of what they saw is admissible and they do not need 10 people, 5 people, or even two people to supoport they were there or a photo of the event to be allowed to state what they saw. For you to say otherwise must be in regards to the courts in Scotland because that is not the way it works here. I am always amazed at how you cite things as if it were fact when it is soon seen that you had not a clue as to what you were talking about.

Bill

Edited July 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

There isn't two versions ... editing out part of an interview does not mean there are two versions.

Ok..lets for the sake of not arguing agree that there was 1 uncut version. Why do you think Turner would have chosen what you obviously believe is a false one man account given by Arnold over a two man Arnold account?

I believe that I answered that question when I said it seemed obvious that Turner wanted to focus on the cop who took Arnold's film of the assassination. Mack said Turner didn't see the significance of the other cop.

If I copy your response and only paste half of it for people to read .... would this mean in your mind that you gave two different accounts or did Bill only show half of what you had said? Get the point!

No..I don't get the point, the point is that you are failing to question yourself as to why Gordon gave two different accounts. Not once have you reasoned why he would say only one man. At least Jack put forward the possibility that it was nerves, but he must have been able to compose himself and give the second account with two men there, yet Turner chose the one man story. It doesn't make sense, can't you see that?

I have addressed that point several times by telling you that Arnold has only ever given one account and that it was Turner who cut the portion of Arnold's story out that told of the other cop being present. Having participated in a documentary .... this is what I learned that happens - The producer will talk to the witness as to why they feel they want them in the show. They go over the parts of the witness's story that they are trying to drive home to the public with the limited amount of running time that they have to work with. This is not a big mystery! The only mystery is why if you continually say that it was ARNOLD who told two versions of his story when you have been repeatedly told that ARNOLD told only one version of his story and TURNER edited part of it out - now that is a mystery to those who think rationally IMO.

I don't need your advice on shade on clothing in dark areas, thanks anyway. I see the man in light clothing in the shade in TKOAP page 57

Sorry about that, Duncan. By the things you've said concerning the images - I just assumed that you were 'in the dark' when it came to understanding lighting and interpreting photographic record. Must have been my mistake.

Bill

Edited July 28, 2007 by Bill Miller