Bill Miller Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Congratulations - I think you are the only person to have ever seen a face on Arnold's right shoulder. Is the face still there when the shadow is removed? (see attachment two) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My friend Robert Groden also sees the Arnold figure as a face. (although a gigantic one). Gary Mack refers to Robert's man as Balloonhead. I have to agree with Gary on this. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack - Maybe that is what Groden said long ago, but that is not what he was saying last year since I showed him the work I have done on these images. Groden believes the individual in Moorman is the same person in the Betzner and Willis photos. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I thought that some have thought that the sunlit shoulder of Arnold may be what they were mistaking for a head, but it seems that with Groden at one time that it was the whole width of Gordon Arnold's body that he thought was a head. Clarification came to me today through Gary Mack in which he writes: Alan is misremembering or misunderstood what I said. The "Gordon Arnold" figure, from both shoulders down, was thought by Groden to be a face. That's silly, of course, for it's much too big to be a person. Anyone who has been to the Plaza can figure that out. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Hope this helps! Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Jack - Maybe that is what Groden said long ago, but that is not what he was saying last year since I showed him the work I have done on these images. Groden believes the individual in Moorman is the same person in the Betzner and Willis photos.Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Groden told Tim Carroll that Blackdogman moved from his position by the time Moorman took her photo. Seems as though he can't make his mind up, or he likes telling different people different things. He told me by email 18 months ago, BDM may well of been an assassin, then denied it. Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Alan is misremembering or misunderstood what I said. The "Gordon Arnold" figure, from both shoulders down, was thought by Groden to be a face. That's silly, of course, for it's much too big to be a person. Anyone who has been to the Plaza can figure that out.Gary <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gary I apologise if I didn't make clear what details I was pointing to when talking about "a face" but I am reluctant to draw it on. I hope the picture I have posted today makes it a little clearer. Regards from London Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 I show an overhead photo with intersecting lines on it to show that they cross where Gordon Arnold said he was and now you are faulting the image because it doesn't show anything different than I said it did. I'm faulting the image because it doesn't even show where the pathway starts. So yes, I have a strong belief that you have been pulling the wool over our eyes with this LOS issue. I am telling people, that if you have someone stand behind the wall in the BDM position he will not line up with the position of the figure in Moorman unless he is tucked up close to the wall. You can't replicate the Blackdogman in Betzner by having someone standing on the pathway, it's a physical impossibility. Anyone leaning against the wall would be to the right of the South corner when seen from where Mary was standing. Remember to address the size of the figure for to be so small next to the wall and closer to the camera will need an explanation. I'll look forward to your explanation. IMO, he's leaning on the wall in Betzner, he has already began to rise off the wall in Willis & if it is his face I am looking at above the wall in Moorman, then he has stood up & stepped back a pace or two. Feel free to find that post for I have always believed Gordon Arnold as he told of his actions in Turner's interview. That's what you said, what can I say? I have neither the time....... Gary Mack, Robert Groden, Jack White, Debra Conway, Mark Oakes, and the list goes on and they go to the plaza on a regular basis and not one person has come back saying that I am incorrect on that observation. When one finally does do it, then I'll take notice. To begin your "observation" has no proof to back it up, it's all hearsay. Give me the name of one person who has looked into what we are talking about & actually has something of substance(a photo would be nice) that backs up this hearsay of yours. You really need to go to Dealey Plaza and see it for yourself for you are way off on this one. How about you just make sure you come back with photos taken from the right positions next time. Big tip, if you want to show us where someone is standing behind the wall, don't take pictures from the street because we won't see his feet & the area surrounding them. Congratulations - I think you are the only person to have ever seen a face on Arnold's right shoulder. Is the face still there when the shadow is removed? (see attachment two)) You have to give the Moorman photo plenty of backlight to bring out the details of the Arnold figure, the face is there beforehand. In other words you do not want to know the truth about the plaza and how things look. You seem to have a lot to learn, but no willingness to learn it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I can tell from Grodens photo alone that your LOS "observation" is a complete fabrication & it has now dawned on me why we never seen any proof from you to back it up because it's an impossibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Groden told Tim Carroll that Blackdogman moved from his position by the time Moorman took her photo.Seems as though he can't make his mind up, or he likes telling different people different things. He told me by email 18 months ago, BDM may well of been an assassin, then denied it. Oh dear. You are assuming that Tim Carroll repeated accurately what Groden had said to him. There were several post on Lancer where Tim misstated things, especially pertaining to the HSCA findings on the Classic Gunman figure. Furthermore, it is no secret that Robert Groden thought at one time that the BDM may have been an assassin. His reason for this, as I have said many times now over the past year or so, is that Robert thought the guy seen through the pyracantha bush was the same man. That man was suspected by Robert to be holding a gun. I believe Robert explains this in his book "High Treason". Once I recreated the pyracantha bush image from atop of the pedestal and showed Robert that he was seeing the back of Emmett Hudson's head, then Robert realized he made a mistake. So it isn't a matter of Robert telling different stories, but rather his opinion envolving with added information being brought to light. An investigator needs to understand and reason out these simple transitions if he or she is going to try and look deeper in the JFK assassination for it is much more complexed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) I'm faulting the image because it doesn't even show where the pathway starts.So yes, I have a strong belief that you have been pulling the wool over our eyes with this LOS issue. I am telling people, that if you have someone stand behind the wall in the BDM position he will not line up with the position of the figure in Moorman unless he is tucked up close to the wall. You can't replicate the Blackdogman in Betzner by having someone standing on the pathway, it's a physical impossibility. Like I have said before - I have been in the plaza and walked people through this. I also detailed this finding before the last memorial and made flyers for Hancock to distribute so the 100's of people there could see it for themselves. So much for pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. As far as you not seeing the pathway - how hard are you trying to see it? The photo is on page 17 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President". (see attachment below) IMO, he's leaning on the wall in Betzner, he has already began to rise off the wall in Willis & if it is his face I am looking at above the wall in Moorman, then he has stood up & stepped back a pace or two. You may want to consider his size if you think he is up to the wall for that would make him about the size of a Roswell alien. You have taken a shadow passing over an individual and built an image that you can't seem to let go of and it has caused you to not understand the other points I have presented. Until you do that shadow better - you will be chasing your tail forever. That's what you said, what can I say? I have neither the time....... That's one way out of admitting you made a mistake. To begin your "observation" has no proof to back it up, it's all hearsay.Give me the name of one person who has looked into what we are talking about & actually has something of substance(a photo would be nice) that backs up this hearsay of yours. I mentioned Tony Cummings to you once before and offered his email address. Tony helped shoot all the digital photo recreation shots with me. You may remember Tony for he is the one that said I shouldn't waste time with someone who has never been to the plaza to know what they are talking about. I have also posted an email from Robert Groden who practically lives in the plaza and he stated that he could not find anything wrong with the observations I had made. jack White is on this forum - ask him to look it over when visiting the plaza next time. Gary Mack is there every day - let him report the LOS back to you. You see, you have missed the big picture and it is one that Jack must have realized for he said nothing else after I shared it with him and that is ... For a second individual to be leaning against the wall would mean that the person seen in Moorman's photo would be visble in the background. That alsone should tell you it was one individual in each photo. Then when you consider the overlays of the sunspot on the tight shoulder - the turning Arnold said he did to track the limo with his camera - Ralph Yarborough seeing the service man dive to the ground, then the evidence starts getting stronger for it being the same person in each instance. How about you just make sure you come back with photos taken from the right positions next time.Big tip, if you want to show us where someone is standing behind the wall, don't take pictures from the street because we won't see his feet & the area surrounding them. I promise that I will take a photo of his feet. How you will know if he has moved or not might be another problem for you. And to repeat something I have said dozens of times that you keep misstating - the recreation field of depth photo of Mike Brown and Tony Cummings was done to see how real people looked against one another when seen as I saw them against Moorman's photo. You have to give the Moorman photo plenty of backlight to bring out the details of the Arnold figure, the face is there beforehand. I have to smile when reading this. Do you know how many photos I have backlit because someone took a dark image and imagined they saw something that ended up not being there. Cops with cameras, assassins, tripods with cameras mounted on them just to name a few. Even Duncan had someone on top of the shelter once with a camera or rifle (I forget which) by using a dark Betzner image, so saying a face is there in the poorer darker version when it is not seen in the better lighter version is a bit silly. It's like a little kid yelling out to his parents that there is a man in his bedroom, but when they come in and turn on his light they find it is only a coat rack with a hat hung over it. Then the kid says, "yeh, but when the light is out, I do see a man with a hat on." Think about that! No, I can tell from Grodens photo alone that your LOS "observation" is a complete fabrication & it has now dawned on me why we never seen any proof from you to back it up because it's an impossibility. Groden took that photo and he still cannot find fault in my observations, now how can that be? Just the other day a fellow posted on Lancer that some buildings were not seen like they should be in Dealey Plaza and people who go there have said they look today just like they did then. You have bet the farm on one photo that you have misread. Also, the reason I have not shot the photos again or proof as you call it is because I have not been back to Dallas in the past 2 years. I hope to make it this next year. Edited January 5, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Like I have said before - I have been in the plaza and walked people through this. I also detailed this finding before the last memorial and made flyers for Hancock to distribute so the 100's of people there could see it for themselves. So much for pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. You cannot stand someone in Arnolds position & have him look like Blackdogman in Betzner, your "observation" that these figures line up is false. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/...27101_thumb.jpg As far as you not seeing the pathway - how hard are you trying to see it? The photo is on page 17 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President". (see attachment below) It should be obvious, I shouldn't have to "try hard". You may want to consider his size if you think he is up to the wall for that would make him about the size of a Roswell alien. You have taken a shadow passing over an individual and built an image that you can't seem to let go of and it has caused you to not understand the other points I have presented. Until you do that shadow better - you will be chasing your tail forever. I'd much rather chase a tail than follow a red-herring. That's one way out of admitting you made a mistake. You told me Arnold wasn't filming the motorcade in Betzner3 so he doesn't have to look like the figure in Moorman around 18 months ago, no mistake. I mentioned Tony Cummings to you once before and offered his email address. Tony helped shoot all the digital photo recreation shots with me. You may remember Tony for he is the one that said I shouldn't waste time with someone who has never been to the plaza to know what they are talking about. I have also posted an email from Robert Groden who practically lives in the plaza and he stated that he could not find anything wrong with the observations I had made. jack White is on this forum - ask him to look it over when visiting the plaza next time. Gary Mack is there every day - let him report the LOS back to you. Like I said, "you have shown no proof" only smoke & mirrors. You see, you have missed the big picture and it is one that Jack must have realized for he said nothing else after I shared it with him and that is ... For a second individual to be leaning against the wall would mean that the person seen in Moorman's photo would be visble in the background. That alsone should tell you it was one individual in each photo. Then when you consider the overlays of the sunspot on the tight shoulder - the turning Arnold said he did to track the limo with his camera - Ralph Yarborough seeing the service man dive to the ground, then the evidence starts getting stronger for it being the same person in each instance. You cannot have someone stand in Arnolds position(Moorman5) & then walk up the street to Betzner to find him over the corner of the wall(Betzner3) I promise that I will take a photo of his feet. How you will know if he has moved or not might be another problem for you. And to repeat something I have said dozens of times that you keep misstating - the recreation field of depth photo of Mike Brown and Tony Cummings was done to see how real people looked against one another when seen as I saw them against Moorman's photo. But if you had took a picture from east of the wall, we would all see that where your man was standing ,was nowhere near what we are seeing in Betzner. You have to give the Moorman photo plenty of backlight to bring out the details of the Arnold figure, the face is there beforehand. saying a face is there in the poorer darker version when it is not seen in the better lighter version is a bit silly. Adding too much light into an image can also illiminate what is really there. You want to use what is there when you brighten the background & ignore the details of a face that is there wether you add more light or not, then at least provide me with facts that tell me what you are doing is the proper way to view the image & leave out the baloney please. Groden took that photo and he still cannot find fault in my observations, now how can that be? Groden told me that BDM was an assassin, so I have no idea You have bet the farm on one photo that you have misread. Misread how? Also, the reason I have not shot the photos again or proof as you call it is because I have not been back to Dallas in the past 2 years. I hope to make it this next year. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Groden photo says it's impossible & you have shown nothing that proves your fantasy in two years, only hearsay & false leads. Good luck in pulling this stunt off in the plaza, your gonna need it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) I started to reply to each and every remark you made, but then I came across a reply you made that really sums up this whole notion of yours. When you asked for names of people who could affirm what I have said and I complied - you replied by saying ... "Like I said, "you have shown no proof" only smoke & mirrors." So I must be the David Copperfield of Dealey Plaza. You ask for names and then instead of following through ... you post such a meaningless reply. The bottom line is that you do not want to know any different even if that means "not" asking others who are always going to the plaza to confirm or deny the observation. Edited January 6, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I started to reply to each and every remark you made, but then I came across a reply you made that really sums up this whole notion of yours. When you asked for names of people who could affirm what I have said and I complied - you replied by saying ..."Like I said, "you have shown no proof" only smoke & mirrors." So I must be the David Copperfield of Dealey Plaza. You ask for names and then instead of following through ... you post such a meaningless reply. The bottom line is that you do not want to know any different even if that means "not" asking others who are always going to the plaza to confirm or deny the observation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To qualify, by "you have shown no proof" I mean that nothing you have shown to date has backed up your Blackdogman = Arnold claim. Go & look up the definition of "proof" & then show me anything you or your contacts have that fits the bill. "Smoke & mirrors"...........I'm convinced the stuff you have been pushing out is wrong & that it is all a distraction. You know it doesn't line-up, as you have been there & looked at it closely, how could you not know? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/...27101_thumb.jpg The bottom line, is that the photo above is real "proof" that not only is your Arnold =BDM claim totally wrong, it also proves that when you stood someone in "Arnolds" position & then walked up the road to Betzner, saying you saw the fella "over the corner of the wall" was a lie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 As I said, mouth, eyes, nose & ears = face1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 (edited) As I said, mouth, eyes, nose & ears = face1 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You seem to have lots of time on your hands and aren't going to waste any of it talking to people who go to the plaza on a regular basis, so why not take a moment to draw in the face over the Arnold figure that yopu claim to see. That way maybe we can all try and see what you are talking about. BTW - IN post 153 you did make some sort of an outline on the figure seen in the Moorman photo - you wrote "eyes, nose, mouth and ears equals face." Does this mean that you are agreeing that the figure in the Moorman photo and the figure in the Betzner photo is one in the same individual? Bill Edited January 7, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Another overhead view from a different building ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 You seem to have lots of time on your hands and aren't going to waste any of it talking to people who go to the plaza on a regular basis, so why not take a moment to draw in the face over the Arnold figure that yopu claim to see. That way maybe we can all try and see what you are talking about. If you bothered to open the last picture you wil see that I overlayed it with someone elses face & produced a perfect match, eye's, nose, mouth & ears all line up. Does this mean that you are agreeing that the figure in the Moorman photo and the figure in the Betzner photo is one in the same individual? I cannot understand why you would be asking for an outline of the face unless you didn't bother to look at my overlay I made. Please take a look @ the gif I already posted. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1342 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now