Alan Healy Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It was you who told me about the flash behind the wall that coincides with the Badgeman shot. Robert said it was from behind the wall & now your disowning it, what gives? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let me share what Gary Mack has to say ... "Neither Groden nor anyone else can tell whether the flash is behind the wall or behind the fence. All one can say is that it is ABOVE the wall. The Gordon Arnold figure is to the left of the flash (as we look at it). The flash and light area just to the left seem to correspond to the Badge Man location. Gary Mack" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am saying it was behind the wall & I have already shown proof of this simple observation. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/...-1106215803.jpg Who is it that cannot see the fenceline or how close the flash is to the top of the wall in Nix? (and one more time) Why have you now disowned this flash Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 (edited) After 50+ years in the graphics and photography business, I stand by my definition of ENHANCEMENT as generally understood IN THE GRAPHICS BUSINESS. Dictionary writers do not necessarily understand trade terminology, and are not necessarily up to date anyway. ENHANCEMENT nowadays in photography refers to COMPUTER ENHANCEMENT. The word 'enhancement' means exactly what it says - enhancement without reference to type, means or mode of enhancement. "as generally understood IN THE GRAPHICS BUSINESS. Dictionary" Is there a GRAPHICS BUSINESS. Dictionary? What did the word 'enhancement' mean in the early years of your 50+ years in the graphics and photography business? We cannot attribute our own meanings to words - like some latter day Humpty Dumpty for whom words meant exactly what he said they meant. The word 'enhancement' may have the colloquial or shorthand meaning of 'computer enhancement' in the domain of photograpers and photographic buffs but in this usage the word 'enhancement' has degenerated into an argot or loose lazy inexact jargon. Nevertheless the word 'enhancement' and , if language is to mean anything, cannot be accepted as meaning 'computer enhancement' or ' computerised enhancement'. Therefore, the word enhancement means enhancement. Computer enhancement means computer enhancement and computerised enhancement means computerised enhancement. What could be clearer? As clear as mud - or should that be Mudd? EBC Edited January 25, 2005 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 "Why have you now disowned this flash Bill?" The light spot you are talking about is too low to be the Badge Man for his flash is above the fence. Arnold is the figure in Mary's photo and the light spot is to the left of him. So besides Arnold figure - who else do you see between the wall and the fence in Moorman's photograph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 The light spot you are talking about... Do you mean the flash you were boasting about last year? is too low to be the Badge Man... Finally!!! Say it again! Is too low to be the Badge Man... Hooray! Only took you about 12 months to spit it out but we finally got there. I feel sorry for your dentist! for his flash is above the fence. You mean you have actual proof that Badgeman was not behind the wall? Let's see it please! Arnold is the figure in Mary's photo and the light spot is to the left of him. So besides Arnold figure - who else do you see between the wall and the fence in Moorman's photograph? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do not believe the "Arnold figure" represents a real person so....... Although I "like" Badgeman he too can only be talked of as fact by people like you who think they know how it all went down on the knoll. I can't base my conclusions on the shapes & shadows in the Moorman photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 is too low to be the Badge Man... Finally!!! Say it again! Is too low to be the Badge Man... Hooray! Only took you about 12 months to spit it out but we finally got there. I feel sorry for your dentist! I believe the difference in what I said and what you think I said is that you are not looking at the right place for the light. The light I saw cannot be below the fence because Moorman's photo shows where the flash is and it shows where the fence is in comparison to the wall. So if the flash is above the fence in Moorman's photo - it also has to be above the fence in the Nix film. There seems to be a shift of light below the fence line in the Nix film, but what it is I cannot say. As I recall, Groden thought long ago that this was someone possibly bent over and running North just prior to the shots being fired. You mean you have actual proof that Badgeman was not behind the wall? Let's see it please! Your question misstates my conclusion. The fence is behind the wall - Badge Man is at the fence, so Badge Man must also be behind the wall. But the issue here is not whether the flash is Badge Man's weapon because Badge Man's flash has to be higher than the fence because of the information Moorman's photo offers us. I do not believe the "Arnold figure" represents a real person so.......Although I "like" Badgeman he too can only be talked of as fact by people like you who think they know how it all went down on the knoll. "Although I "like" Badgeman he too can only be talked of as fact by people like you" Your comment above about Badge Man is a bit unclear, but if I understand you right ... this is where you seem to go astray of logical thinking. If you do not believe Arnold is a real person and you think Badge Man is something people like me only talk about, then looking at Moorman's photograph - who is left to cause the alleged light spot you have been hung up on? Do you not see the problem ... you have eliminated all the possibilities seen in the Moorman photo, yet you are still claiming a BDM fired a shot in the Nix film when there is no one left in Moorman #5 to account for his presense beyond the wall. That is illogical IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 I believe the difference in what I said and what you think I said is that you are not looking at the right place for the light. The light I saw cannot be below the fence because Moorman's photo shows where the flash is and it shows where the fence is in comparison to the wall. So if the flash is above the fence in Moorman's photo - it also has to be above the fence in the Nix film. You are just confused is all & it is understandable as you don't seem to have a copy of Roberts' documentary anymore. Obviously, going by memory alone is unreliable. Anyone who views Roberts' "A Case for Conspiracy" will be left in no doubt exactly where the flash is....exactly! There seems to be a shift of light below the fence line in the Nix film, but what it is I cannot say. You don't have to say, you already told me many times that you agreed with Groden it's a flash. As you obviously haven't watched this film in a while I suggest you go & buy another copy if you can so you don't have to guess anymore. You mean you have actual proof that Badgeman was not behind the wall? Let's see it please! Your question misstates my conclusion. The fence is behind the wall - Badge Man is at the fence, so Badge Man must also be behind the wall. Really!?! I had no idea! If you have something that places Badgeman behind the fence I would like to see it. But the issue here is not whether the flash is Badge Man's weapon because Badge Man's flash has to be higher than the fence because of the information Moorman's photo offers us. If you have something that places Badgeman behind the fence I would like to see it. I do not believe the "Arnold figure" represents a real person so.......Although I "like" Badgeman he too can only be talked of as fact by people like you who think they know how it all went down on the knoll. Your comment above about Badge Man is a bit unclear, but if I understand you right ... this is where you seem to go astray of logical thinking. If you do not believe Arnold is a real person and you think Badge Man is something people like me only talk about, then looking at Moorman's photograph - who is left to cause the alleged light spot you have been hung up on? Do you not see the problem ... you have eliminated all the possibilities seen in the Moorman photo, yet you are still claiming a BDM fired a shot in the Nix film when there is no one left in Moorman #5 to account for his presense beyond the wall. That is illogical IMO.[/b] <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You really have to stop misquoting me &/or assuming to know what I am thinking because you are useless at both. Show me were I have ever said that BDM fired a second shot(I mean it, show me!) I only ever say that Betzner3 shows him in a firing position & I believe he was a shooter. Blackdogman in Betzner3 is firing a shot, that's what I think, probably with a silenced weapon.......... what happened next I am not sure, he may of just stood there, so there is a chance he was caught in Marys' polaroid. Blackdogman taking a second from behind the wall is not something I subscribe too, never have, he took a chance & got as close as he could to get a kill during the first volley of shots & failed, that's what I've always said. If the flash behind the wall in Nix is from a gun then it is from another gunman in my opinion. Now I have already shown you the face I found in Moorman, that may well be Blackdogman. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1342 As for Badgeman, at this time I see no reason to believe he wasn't in front(east) of the fence! Wouldn't he be less exposed there? After all, if you look at BDM in Betzner, only one half of his upper body is seen above the wall from Elm St. In order for a man stood behind the fence to get a clear view of JFKs' head, he had to expose almost twice as much of his body. There is also the wall itself, it makes a great place to rest ones arm or even the barrel, a fence shooter had only air, the fence itself would be at his waistline & unusable. If you can't explain to me why he can't be in front of the fence, then please tell me why he has always thought to be behind the fence to begin with, please. As for Although I "like" Badgeman he too can only be talked of as fact by people like you who think they know how it all went down on the knoll. I think it is pretty self-explanatory. I think Badgeman is a good possibility, he looks good(realistic) but I don't trust it completely. As for the Arnold figure, I think it is a complete mis-read(& he has a human face on his shoulder). Maybe you should start a seminar on the Moorman5 blow-ups & why you talk about Badgeman & Arnold as fact, I have no idea why you do this but I am guessing it's arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 (edited) You don't have to say, you already told me many times that you agreed with Groden it's a flash.As you obviously haven't watched this film in a while I suggest you go & buy another copy if you can so you don't have to guess anymore. I had a somewhat lengthy conversation today with Robert Groden on this matter. There are three points of light in the Gif animation you (Alan Healy) posted on this forum. I explained to Robert that Badge Man and the white flash is "ABOVE" the fence line in Mary Moorman's photo, thus it will above the fence line in the Nix film. (Robert followed this point, understood this point, and agreed with this point) This means that any flash seen below the fence line cannot be the same flash seen in Moorman's photo taken at the same instant. Robert saw the flash that was above the fence line and it is not the flash of light that you are talking about. The next light spot stays lit and Robert, nor I have been able to account for it. The lower light flash on the right is the one you have spoken about and it is below the fence line. Robert believes that it could be movement and has wondered if it could be a flash from a shot. I reminded Robert that if Badge Man's flash is above the fence and the Arnold/BDM figure is seen over the west side of the South wall, then there is no one left to cause the flash of light that we see on the NIx film. (Again Robert understood this point) Robert said the only other option would be that Moorman's photo may have been altered even though he could not see how that was possible. I reminded Robert that Mary had her photo in her possession up to the point that it was filmed on camera for a later showing on the news 2.5 hours later. Robert, as I am, cannot account for what caused the lower flash of light at this time. I have had in my possession a B&W copy of the Nix film that was duplicated before Robert did the 'blocking' for UPI and it is our hopes that this film can be exposed in a way to backlight the area in question and answer some questions for us. The film is now out of my hands and hopefully those parties who will do the work will be able to tell us something one day. When that happens, I am sure everyone will hear about it. If you have something that places Badgeman behind the fence I would like to see it. I believe I have posted the body height and width comparisons from the photo I took from Moorman's filming location while using stand-ins and I believe I have referenced Jack White and Gary Mack's reconstruction work. I assume that if you are disputing those findings, then you can probably state what is wrong with them rather than asking to hear about them time and time again as if you have never heard this all before. You really have to stop misquoting me &/or assuming to know what I am thinking because you are useless at both. I think there is a problem in the way you present your thoughts that not only I, but others have told me about concerning their inability to understand you. For instance, you said, "I do not believe the "Arnold figure" represents a real person so......." and then went on to say, "Blackdogman in Betzner3 is firing a shot, that's what I think, probably with a silenced weapon.......... what happened next I am not sure, he may of just stood there, so there is a chance he was caught in Marys' polaroid."[/b] There are three figures being referenced in Moorman's Polaroid. The RR worker is off to our right of Badge Man and can be removed from the option list of suspects. That leaves just the Badge Man and the Arnold figure. You stated in the quote listed above that you do not believe the Arnold figure is a real person. You have also pointed out on that same figure that you do not believe is a real person that you see a face. This is what you said,[/i] "Now I have already shown you the face I found in Moorman, that may well be Blackdogman." What I and others have trouble with is you (Alan) saying the figure in Moorman isn't real, only to then say you found a face on that figure that may be the Black Dog Man that you believe is real. The statements that you go back and forth on are not supporting one another. Maybe you should start a seminar on the Moorman5 blow-ups & why you talk about Badgeman & Arnold as fact, I have no idea why you do this but I am guessing it's arrogance. I talk about them as fact because they are part of the evidence in a murder case. The evidence shows someone standing where Arnold said he stood during the assassination. Sen. Yarborough saw a man who Ralph believed to have just had his miltary training dive to the ground which is also what Arnold said he had done. The Nix film shows the color of the figure's clothing and it supports the khaki colors Arnold would have worn in 63'. The Moorman photo shows what appears to be the flash from a muzzle blast coming over the top of the Arnold figure's left shoulder just as Gordon Arnold said had happened. Is there anything about the Badge Man that doesn't seem correct as to posture or scale ... judge for yourself when a real person is overlaid into his form. (see below) Edited January 31, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I explained to Robert that Badge Man and the white flash is "ABOVE" the fence line in Mary Moorman's photo, thus it will above the fence line in the Nix film. But you can't explain it to me? Why can't Badgeman be in front of the fence? Robert saw the flash that was above the fence line and it is not the flash of light that you are talking about. What flash are you talking about here? Be specific please, you lost me. The next light spot stays lit and Robert, nor I have been able to account for it. I know this one, it is in all the Bond photos too. I believe it is either on the fence or may be sunlight hitting a bottle on the wall. The lower light flash on the right is the one you have spoken about and it is below the fence line. Robert believes that it could be movement and has wondered if it could be a flash from a shot. Robert..........wondered if it could be a flash from a shot?!!? You don't say!!! I reminded Robert that if Badge Man's flash is above the fence and the Arnold/BDM figure is seen over the west side of the South wall, then there is no one left to cause the flash of light that we see on the NIx film. (Again Robert understood this point) Robert said the only other option would be that Moorman's photo may have been altered even though he could not see how that was possible. Or, the blow-ups may not have been interpreted correctly & Badgeman is in front of the fence. Robert, as I am, cannot account for what caused the lower flash of light at this time. But you have always agreed with Roberts' conclusion it was a gunflash until I pointed out to you it was in front of the fence. I believe I have posted the body height and width comparisons from the photo I took from Moorman's filming location while using stand-ins and I believe I have referenced Jack White and Gary Mack's reconstruction work. I assume that if you are disputing those findings, then you can probably state what is wrong with them rather than asking to hear about them time and time again as if you have never heard this all before. If you have something that places Badgeman behind the fence I would like to see it. I think there is a problem in the way you present your thoughts that not only I, but others have told me about concerning their inability to understand you. I think this is BS because I am very careful that everyone can understand me but please do try & prove me wrong. Give me some details about these other instances because I find this extreemly interesting. That's if my statement understand you can. For instance, you said,[/b] "I do not believe the "Arnold figure" represents a real person so......." and then went on to say, "Blackdogman in Betzner3 is firing a shot, that's what I think, probably with a silenced weapon.......... what happened next I am not sure, he may of just stood there, so there is a chance he was caught in Marys' polaroid."[/b] So I must pretend I do not see the Arnold figure(because I don't believe it is a true interpretation) so that you & your croneys can keep up? If you are having trouble following me you have no place in this line of work. I always explain myself carefully & I only ever get these distractions from Bill Miller. There are three figures being referenced in Moorman's Polaroid. So you would have us believe but I have already found the details of a human face, who knows what else is up there? The RR worker is off to our right of Badge Man and can be removed from the option list of suspects. Listen carefully now Bill. I.know.what.your.referring.to.I.can.see.it.too but I don't believe it to be a true interpritation of what we are seeing up there! The same applys too the Arnold figure. You are associating shapes & shadows that are not from the same object/person(IMO!!!!!). If you & your comrades can't get your head around this simple concept then you have real problems. That leaves just the Badge Man and the Arnold figure. Maybe for you but I believe there may be other figures yet to be discovered above the wall in Moorman5. You stated in the quote listed above that you do not believe the Arnold figure is a real person. You have also pointed out on that same figure that you do not believe is a real person that you see a face. This is what you said,[/i] "Now I have already shown you the face I found in Moorman, that may well be Blackdogman." What I and others have trouble with is you (Alan) saying the figure in Moorman isn't real, only to then say you found a face on that figure that may be the Black Dog Man that you believe is real. The statements that you go back and forth on are not supporting one another. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The details of a human face are on Arnolds' shoulder that is correct, do you know anyone who has a face on there shoulder? Wouldn't the sensible thing for me to do be rule one out? The one I have always had trouble believing is a real person, the Arnold figure has just got "X"ed. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1342 But once more you misquote me. I say, I believe the "Arnold figure" is false but I never said there isn't anything there at all, like you are implying. Of course there is something there, right up next to the wall, the face I spotted may well be it. I believe the face may be "real" yes but it doesn't mean it's Blackdog or Badgeman. Sorry if you can't keep up & thanks for taking an interest in my thoughts but your confusion does not excuse you misquoting me, behave yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Could one of you post an uncropped, uncirled, no special effects photo comparison and explain this debate in a succinct manner. Who or what is a Black Dog Man? Who or what is a Badgeman? Are we going beyond the limits of the evidence itself with these theories? I see the group on the sidewalk (Emmett) acting strangely and a figure known as the CLASSIC GUNMAN in the Nix film. Why is this clear figure ignored while fanciful characters like BM and BDM are put forward? You might as well pick a face out of a satellite photo, IMO.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I have always wondered about the Black Dog Man and who or what it was. Then I noticed that seconds after the Black Dog Man photo was taken there was another photo showing a man walking down from the wall. Could this person be the Black Dog Man and is there any information on who this person was or is? As far as I know Willis took two photos in quick succession - the Black Dog Man photo and - seconds later - the photo showing this unidentified(?) man walking down from the far end of the knoll. EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Robert..........wondered if it could be a flash from a shot?!!?You don't say!!! Yes - kinda like the same mistake Carroll made concerning the classic gunman figure. Once I pointed out that there is nothing there in Moorman's photo to account for the lighted spot - Robert understood the situation at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Could you guys post a large reference photo and a close up (if necessary) showing the BLack Dog Man....many of us have never seen him. Eugene C. - sorry to be so flippant about your photo enhancement - it was actually pretty cool, but I question its evidentiary value.... Isn't black dog man a little black hat, behind the wall. the photo enthusiasts need to know that most of us have no idea what this thread is about and need a little GRASSY KNOLL 101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Could you guys post a large reference photo and a close up (if necessary)showing the BLack Dog Man....many of us have never seen him. Eugene C. - sorry to be so flippant about your photo enhancement - it was actually pretty cool, but I question its evidentiary value.... Isn't black dog man a little black hat, behind the wall. the photo enthusiasts need to know that most of us have no idea what this thread is about and need a little GRASSY KNOLL 101 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Black Dog Man was an individual who was standing near the corner of the wall when both Willis and Betzner took their photos. He got his name "BDM" because of the slanted shade line that resembled a sitting dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 (edited) I have just gained what to my mind is a proper perspective of Black Dog Man by studying the enlargement of this person at the top of page 192 in The Killing of a President. I believe it's an enlargement from Betzner (seen on the same page but unidentified as such), though the confusing text indicates it's from Willis. In any case this is the clearest enlargement I've seen of BDM, and for the first time I see his face, which helps put the rest of his image in perspective. Bill refers to the "slanted shade line" that creates the BDM image. This relates to Bill's belief that BDM is shadow seen on Gordon Arnold standing behind the wall. I have not agreed with that view, mainly because BDM is too large to be shadow just on part of Gordon Arnold or anyone else of normal size. BDM is the full upper part of a darkly clothed person or persons. The impression of shadow is created by the fact that BDM is wearing a dark coat and fedora. The top of the fedora is almost as clear in this enlargement as the top of Hat Man's fedora behind the fence in the Moorman photo. I have previously had the impression that the brim of BDM's hat is unusually wide, nothing like a fedora, but I now see that in the background behind him there is a streak in the photo that runs parallel to the hat brim, blending it with it to make the brim look wider than it is. The man is leaning forward on the wall, his left elbow extended on the top of the wall, as his face is looking straight toward JFK. What is puzzling is the bright light or flash, which looks very much like a muzzle flash, just to the lower right (his right) of BDM's face. It's tempting to say it's a muzzle flash, but it can't be, because if he was shooting at JFK in this photo the flash would be in front of his face, on a line with JFK. There is nothing that I know of between BDM and the camera that would interpose this splotch of light on his body. I'm wondering if perhaps BDM is holding a radio up to the side of his face, and the radio is reflecting light. There is another flash-like light right below that one. It's in position to be his left hand as if holding the bottom of the radio in his right hand. But I question whether his hand would brightly reflect light while his face does not. In any case, these two bright spots on his right side, one below the other, are what give BDM's figure a deceptively slanted look. In sum, it seems clear to me, from this enlargement, that the man's face is visible, as he's looking toward JFK, and he's wearing a dark coat and fedora as he's leaning foward on the wall. I don't know what the two brights spots are. Nor do I know why this person seems to have beat a hasty retreat soon after the Betzner and Willis photos were taken, or why no eyewitnesses that we know of actually saw him where he is seen in these photos (though understandably all attention was on the president, and the sound of a shot or shots coming from above and behind him). Ron Edited February 2, 2005 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 (edited) Here is a small but relevant portion of the Phillip Willis photograph taken seconds after he took the Black Dog Man photograpgh. Who is the man seen walking away from the Grassy Knoll Wall while all others are running towards it? Could he be the Black Dog Man walking away? Does anyone know? EBC Edited February 2, 2005 by Eugene B. Connolly 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