A great week in JFK research. Thanks.....

[Herb White]

One can go for months reading the forum with interesting, but ultimately unfulfilling topics being discussed for the most part. But I have to say that after a thirty year stint as a student of the assassination this has been a most enjoyable, informative week. Bill Miller has cleared up quite succintly the troubling mystery of the Black Dog Man vs Gordon Arnold. Robert Charles Dunne has elucidated exceedingly well my feelings regarding the overall plot, it's purpose and incomplete execution including a lucid clarification of the Tippit episode. And the fresh and thought provoking posts relating to Mary Pinchot Myers and her relationship to JFK and the assassination have been a revelation.

Kudos and thanks to all concerned.

Herb

[Jack White]

One can go for months reading the forum with interesting, but ultimately unfulfilling topics being discussed for the most part. But I have to say that after a thirty year stint as a student of the assassination this has been a most enjoyable, informative week. Bill Miller has cleared up quite succintly the troubling mystery of the Black Dog Man vs Gordon Arnold. Robert Charles Dunne has elucidated exceedingly well my feelings regarding the overall plot, it's purpose and incomplete execution including a lucid clarification of the Tippit episode. And the fresh and thought provoking posts relating to Mary Pinchot Myers and her relationship to JFK and the assassination have been a revelation.

Kudos and thanks to all concerned.

Herb

With respect Herb, I think you are jumping the gun with regards to the Black Dog Man mystery being solved. It has been solved in Bill Miller's head, and that's about it. I have just posted an accurate composite on the other thread showing that the Arnold figure is smaller than the Badgeman figure, which is perspectively impossible if Arnold was closer to the Moorman lens than Badgeman, probably by at least 10 to 12 feet. Think again.

Duncan

I agree with Duncan, as well as the HSCA "experts" (who said it was a man leaning on the wall)

that the figure is in a different location than Gordon Arnold.

BDM is either a person leaning on the wall, or as I believe, retouching to conceal the presence

of Arnold...but it is NOT Arnold.

Jack

[Jack White]

One can go for months reading the forum with interesting, but ultimately unfulfilling topics being discussed for the most part. But I have to say that after a thirty year stint as a student of the assassination this has been a most enjoyable, informative week. Bill Miller has cleared up quite succintly the troubling mystery of the Black Dog Man vs Gordon Arnold. Robert Charles Dunne has elucidated exceedingly well my feelings regarding the overall plot, it's purpose and incomplete execution including a lucid clarification of the Tippit episode. And the fresh and thought provoking posts relating to Mary Pinchot Myers and her relationship to JFK and the assassination have been a revelation.

Kudos and thanks to all concerned.

Herb

With respect Herb, I think you are jumping the gun with regards to the Black Dog Man mystery being solved. It has been solved in Bill Miller's head, and that's about it. I have just posted an accurate composite on the other thread showing that the Arnold figure is smaller than the Badgeman figure, which is perspectively impossible if Arnold was closer to the Moorman lens than Badgeman, probably by at least 10 to 12 feet. Think again.

Duncan

Duncan, you cannot say that the scale of "Arnold" is smaller, because you cannot

see his entire head...his lower face and chin is obscured by his hand and the camera.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

With respect Herb, I think you are jumping the gun with regards to the Black Dog Man mystery being solved. It has been solved in Bill Miller's head, and that's about it. I have just posted an accurate composite on the other thread showing that the Arnold figure is smaller than the Badgeman figure, which is perspectively impossible if Arnold was closer to the Moorman lens than Badgeman, probably by at least 10 to 12 feet. Think again.

Duncan

Duncan, the BDM isn't just solved in my head. At that conference was also John Simkin as well as others who I didn't mention in the short list of those who saw my presentation and walked away telling me that it made sense in their minds or that it put that old theory of it being an assassin to rest. So when you start out saying "It's been solved in Bill Miller's head, and thats about it" ... you start off with an error in the information that you're bringing to the forum.

Now about your observation concerning Arnold and Badge Man ... please tell us all that you did to arrive at your conclusion. For instance; can you tell us what the 21 year old Arnold weighed when he got out of boot camp and had taken a leave which got him to Dallas in the first place? Can you tell us what the aging Arnold weighted in "TMWKK" series? Can you tell us how many feet of space is between the Badge Man and Arnold? Can you tell us anything that you did other than to just make another observation with that keen eye of yours???

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I agree with Duncan, as well as the HSCA "experts" (who said it was a man leaning on the wall)

that the figure is in a different location than Gordon Arnold.

BDM is either a person leaning on the wall, or as I believe, retouching to conceal the presence

of Arnold...but it is NOT Arnold.

Jack

Jack,

I ask that you rethink your position and offer it again, but this time where you aren't contradicting yourself. First of all - you have said that you believe Arnold's story and I pointed out that in both the Willis and Betzner photos there is but only one individual to be seen anywhere over the wall. I would also like to point out that Betzner's photo was taken at a different angle to the wall than Willis took his photo from. This means simply that if Arnold had someone in front of him, then in one photo or the other - the extra person should be staggered/offset from the person behind him. However, this does not happen, nor did Arnold say that anyone ever blocked his field of view so he could see the President as he was coming towards him. So to say "but its not Arnold" is saying that Arnold must have lied about being on the knoll because Gordon DID NOT utter a word about anyone standing in front of him. (If you want to know how much the background would shift between the Betzner and Willis LOS's to the wall, then look where the corner of the fence starts in each photo. Two photos from two different angles, taken less than a second apart, and yet only one man is seen)

I also believe that you have said in the past that someone retouched the image so to hide it being a man in uniform.

Bill

[Ron Ecker]

the BDM isn't just solved in my head. At that conference was also John Simkin as well as others who I didn't mention in the short list of those who saw my presentation and walked away telling me that it made sense in their minds or that it put that old theory of it being an assassin to rest.

I wasn't there and didn't see your presentation. But I have seen both photos of BDM, and from my perspective, if BDM was Arnold, he had to have the broad waistline of a flabby 350-pounder or so. Hardly the likes of a young soldier. Indeed if BDM is one person, standing up straight, he needs to be renamed RPM, for Roly-Poly Man.

[Jack White]

I agree with Duncan, as well as the HSCA "experts" (who said it was a man leaning on the wall)

that the figure is in a different location than Gordon Arnold.

BDM is either a person leaning on the wall, or as I believe, retouching to conceal the presence

of Arnold...but it is NOT Arnold.

Jack

Jack,

I ask that you rethink your position and offer it again, but this time where you aren't contradicting yourself. First of all - you have said that you believe Arnold's story and I pointed out that in both the Willis and Betzner photos there is but only one individual to be seen anywhere over the wall. I would also like to point out that Betzner's photo was taken at a different angle to the wall than Willis took his photo from. This means simply that if Arnold had someone in front of him, then in one photo or the other - the extra person should be staggered/offset from the person behind him. However, this does not happen, nor did Arnold say that anyone ever blocked his field of view so he could see the President as he was coming towards him. So to say "but its not Arnold" is saying that Arnold must have lied about being on the knoll because Gordon DID NOT utter a word about anyone standing in front of him. (If you want to know how much the background would shift between the Betzner and Willis LOS's to the wall, then look where the corner of the fence starts in each photo. Two photos from two different angles, taken less than a second apart, and yet only one man is seen)

I also believe that you have said in the past that someone retouched the image so to hide it being a man in uniform.

Bill

I have no need to RETHINK my position. I have studied blackdogman for more

than thirty years. "He" is in no other photos, but SHOULD be. "Gordon Arnold"

is in NO photos, but should be. The HSCA report presents their conclusion that

Willis 5 shows a man leaning forward on the wall resting on his elbows. They

point out the flesh tones of his face. They concluded he was wearing dark brown

clothes (and a hat?). They had no idea where the man came from or went.

Years later, I concluded that many photos taken in the FBI dragnet were altered

by the govt. Given all the facts, I theorized that Willis and Betzner originally showed

a man in an army uniform in the BDM location taking pictures. Because they could

not have an unidentified soldier taking photos, they obscured him by changing him

to a mere spectator leaning on the wall...less suspicious. They could not release

the two photos and then later have an unidentified soldier come forward with

photos. This makes far more sense than an unidentified unsuspicious spectator

who vanished without a trace. That's my story, and I am sticking with it unless

BDM comes forward and tells us what he was doing there.

Of course, you might then say...why did they not paint him completely out? Then

"someone" might come forward and say, I SHOULD BE IN THAT PHOTO AND AM

NOT...so they made the "person" unidentifiable.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I have no need to RETHINK my position. I have studied blackdogman for more

than thirty years. "He" is in no other photos, but SHOULD be. "Gordon Arnold"

is in NO photos, but should be.

It's Ok, Jack .... I leave you in your own little world. I had a feeling that looking at this matter in a logical way may be a little too much to ask for.

By the way, Jack ... you are forgetting about Arnold saying that he saw the President coming down the street and started filming him up to the point the bullet came past his ear. The Betzner and Willis photos occurred during this period and those photos show only one man. So either pick Arnold or the BDM, but you cannot have one standing in front of the other. Had BDM been standing to one side of Arnold so not to block Gordon's view of JFK through his camera's eye, then the two individuals would be seen off-set from one another in the Willis and Betzner's photos. I might also add that each time you cannot seem to understand how something looks in a photo - the rush to judgment to say its been altered doesn't make it so.

Bill

Edited August 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

I have no need to RETHINK my position. I have studied blackdogman for more

than thirty years. "He" is in no other photos, but SHOULD be. "Gordon Arnold"

is in NO photos, but should be.

It's Ok, Jack .... I leave you in your own little world. I had a feeling that looking at this matter in a logical way may be a little too much to ask for.

By the way, Jack ... you are forgetting about Arnold saying that he saw the President coming down the street and started filming him up to the point the bullet came past his ear. The Betzner and Willis photos occurred during this period and those photos show only one man. So either pick Arnold or the BDM, but you cannot have one standing in front of the other. Had BDM been standing to one side of Arnold so not to block Gordon's view of JFK through his camera's eye, then the two individuals would be seen off-set from one another in the Willis and Betzner's photos. I might also add that each time you cannot seem to understand how something looks in a photo - the rush to judgment to say its been altered doesn't make it so.

Bill

Arnold did not see BDM...because there was NOBODY there. Using your

reasoning we could say if BDM was there, he should be seen in Moorman.

His absence in Moorman is what makes retouching Willis and Betzner

more likely retouched to add him...else you must say that he vanished

within a few seconds. If the Polaroid of this area is genuine, it must show

BDM at the end of the wall.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Duncan, you cannot say that the scale of "Arnold" is smaller, because you cannot

see his entire head...his lower face and chin is obscured by his hand and the camera.

Jack

His hand and camera are within the area of his head as can be seen by looking and comparing with the width of his hat

Duncan

Those overseas hats do not fit over the entire width of the head. Jack is right that the image is not clean enough to make a precise determination of Arnold's head width. And I will say it once again for it is a fact - one can use the same person and take their photo from a straight -on frontal view and then have them turn their head as Badge Man's head is seen and their head will appear wider that the first photo because the human head is not round, but oblong in shape.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Arnold did not see BDM...because there was NOBODY there. Using your

reasoning we could say if BDM was there, he should be seen in Moorman.

His absence in Moorman is what makes retouching Willis and Betzner

more likely retouched to add him...else you must say that he vanished

within a few seconds. If the Polaroid of this area is genuine, it must show

BDM at the end of the wall.

Jack

Jack,

I do not think you see my reasoning for I am saying that Arnold and BDM are the same person.

Bill

[Don Roberdeau]

Good Day Herb....

"The Wilma Bond Photos; Do Not Timestamp Gordon Arnold's Presence on the 'Grassy Knoll' "

"Gordon Arnold’s Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall; June 6, 1989 Videotaped Interview"

"Not Gordon Arnold Located Very Close to Retaining Wall Southeast Inner Corner in Nix Film at Z-312 Equivalent"

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

ROSEMARY WILLIS 2nd Headsnap; Westward, Ultrafast, & Towards the "Grassy Knoll"

Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, etc

4 Principles

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

For the United States

for the United States

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/DHS3elevatedYELLOW.gif

"When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

- Sherlock Holmes, "A Study In Scarlet" (1887) by A.C. DOYLE

Edited August 4, 2007 by Don Roberdeau

[Bill Miller]

Arnold did not see BDM...because there was NOBODY there. Using your

reasoning we could say if BDM was there, he should be seen in Moorman.

His absence in Moorman is what makes retouching Willis and Betzner

more likely retouched to add him...else you must say that he vanished

within a few seconds. If the Polaroid of this area is genuine, it must show

BDM at the end of the wall.

Jack

Jack,

Taking a photo of myself and showing how it cam out on film while standing in the shade of the walkway in Dealey Plaza - the following example was created.

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

Bill

[Jack White]

Good Day Herb....

http://members.aol.com:/droberdeau/JFK/BON...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/addi...noldCLAIMS.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/NOTa...llCORNERnix.gif

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

ROSEMARY WILLIS 2nd Headsnap; Westward, Ultrafast, & Towards the "Grassy Knoll"

Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, etc

4 Principles

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

For the United States

for the United States

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/DHS3elevatedYELLOW.gif

"When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

- Sherlock Holmes, "A Study In Scarlet" (1887) by A.C. DOYLE

Don...thanks for the interesting study. One comment (as originator of badgeman):

Your suggested "trajectory" states "to clear the wall". This cannot be accurate, as

you know if you have ever been in the badgeman position. You are assuming the

maximum height AT THE CORNER OF THE WALL, but in reality, the corner of the

wall from that position looks like the letter A...a sharp point which rapidly declines.

You seem to be suggesting that badgeman fired directly over this highest point,

when in reality, it could be on either side of it.

I think you could remedy this by showing a "cone" of possible trajectories, both

before and after this "peak". WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHEN BADGEMAN FIRED.

And remember, Mack and I always contended that badgeman fired a shot, NOT THAT

HIS SHOT HIT A TARGET. Personally I believe his shot probably missed.

Jack

[Chris Davidson]

One of Don's links:

y BOND #6, Mrs. CHISM is, measurably, 190' away from where we saw her in the WIEGMAN film --halfway between the westernmost last two light poles on the north Elm Street sidewalk-- approaching the TUP with Mr. CHISM. To get an idea of how long it took them from the WIEGMAN film to get to where we see them near the TUP in BOND #6: if Mrs. CHISM continuously trotted at a 4 m.p.h. average while carrying her son (without stopping), it would have taken her 33 seconds to get that far down Elm. After WIEGMAN's filming of the NEWMAN's we can first see the CHISM's start trotting at 32 seconds into the WIEGMAN film (4.5 seconds before the WIEGMAN film ends, which was 30 or 31 seconds after WIEGMAN. heard "his" third audible muzzle blast or mechanically-suppress-fired bullet bow shockwave). Using 4 m.p.h. as Mrs. CHISM's continuous trotting speed timestamps BOND #6 at a minimum of 63 or 64 seconds after the attack ended. (is there any statement(s) or photo evidence that the CHISM's stopped/paused during their trot? If so, a stop, pause, or slowing-down would increase the seconds of the BOND #6 timestamping even longer after the attack)

The Chism's do appear to slow down and come to a halt, as they exchange the child from Mrs. to Mr.

chris