Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is nothing in the b/w footage that says he is not the same guy seen 10 seconds before in BELL walking towards the area at the top of the steps.

The side of his neck is most probably being hit by strong sunlight, just like the back of his shirt. If you rely on this observation to judge what colour his skin was, then why not go the whole way & say he was wearing a bright white shirt too?

Also, drawing your conclusion from such a small area of the mans bodyis pathetic, get over it.

First of all - let's look at the clothes this man in the Bell film is wearing. American military men in overseas caps wear tailored looking clothes ... not something you'd expect to see in a MC Hammer video. Those baggy pants and shirt are not anything like what I have seen on our service men. (see image one below)

Your saying the guy at the top of the steps may be Arnold in his servicemans' uniform, I'm not.

It makes no difference to me that the blackmans' uniform does not tie in with your opinion of what a serviceman would wear.

Next - let's take a close look at that cap on the man in the Bell film and note how far down over the side of his head it comes. It's also semi-round and unlike the puptent shape of an overseas cap.

The BELL man has his head cocked back as he's trying to look into the parking lot, so his cap looks further down his head than it actually is.

In BELL we are looking down onto the top of his head & in "Parnell" we are looking up at him, don't make too much of it.

As for the shape of his cap in BELL, well I'll think you'll have just as much chance guessing how many rings he's wearing on his hand.

Get a grip(or a better copy of BELL).

Did you not think this was important when considering if the man on the walkway in the overseas cap was this black man in the Bell film!

Honestly, No I didn't but now I have considered your points & it hasn't changed the fact that the guy in BELL with the same hat, the same shirt & almost certainly the same pants is walking past the position of your Arnold candidate at exactly the same place in time, in the other film.

There are black men seen on some of the assassination images that are wearing semi-rounded type caps like that Emmett Hudson wore, but they look nothing like an overseas cap, nor do they have that wide "V" shape in the back at it's base. (see image two and three below)

Yes, thank you, I agree that it's likely that the BELL man probably works for the same firm, maybe someone could ID what company that would be.

I don't see how you could think he has anything to do with these guys however, since none of them are wearing baggy pants.

FWIW the guy you have highlighted in the b/w "Parnell" footage is not wearing a peaked cap like a serviceman, it's flat, or loose fitting on the crown, just like the guys' cap on the right in the photo above.

...the man on the walkway in the overseas cap has his upper shoulders and head in shadow and his complexion is still light in color.

Absolutely absurd.

Anyone can see his back & shoulders are being hit by strong sunlight & strong light is exactly what it takes to make black skin appear white(unless your MJ of course).

It's not a servicemans cap either, IOW it's not peaked.

Thanks for allowing me to share some more pathetic observations with you.

Don't mention it, just don't expect me to take your tunnel visioned Arnold observations, that go as far as to turn BDM into a serviceman, too seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The side of his neck is most probably being hit by strong sunlight, just like the back of his shirt. If you rely on this observation to judge what colour his skin was, then why not go the whole way & say he was wearing a bright white shirt too?

Alan - the man was standing in the shade of the walkway. He had a couple of sun spots hitting his back and neither of them were on his neck. (see below)

Also, drawing your conclusion from such a small area of the mans bodyis pathetic, get over it.

A lot can be learned from a small fraction of a photo if you know what you are looking for. I am getting the impression that you really haven't put much thought into these images.

Your saying the guy at the top of the steps may be Arnold in his servicemans' uniform, I'm not. It makes no difference to me that the blackmans' uniform does not tie in with your opinion of what a serviceman would wear.

Your research seems to appear somewhat sloppy if you don't first find out what a U.S. service man's clothes looked like and to find out if they are fitted or not.

The BELL man has his head cocked back as he's trying to look into the parking lot, so his cap looks further down his head than it actually is.

In BELL we are looking down onto the top of his head & in "Parnell" we are looking up at him, don't make too much of it.

I don't know why you think the man is trying to look into the parking lot when he is over the knoll and his view of the lot would be blocked by the wall and the pergola.

As for the shape of his cap in BELL, well I'll think you'll have just as much chance guessing how many rings he's wearing on his hand.

Get a grip(or a better copy of BELL).

I am not sure what your silly remark was supposed to mean, but let's look at what you have said so far ... If the man's cap is not seen in profile as I stated and he has turned his head to look into a parking lot that he could not possibly do from where he is located, then why is the wide "V" shape not seen on the back of the hat like it is with the man on the walkway?

Did you not think this was important when considering if the man on the walkway in the overseas cap was this black man in the Bell film!

Honestly, No I didn't but now I have considered your points & it hasn't changed the fact that the guy in BELL with the same hat, the same shirt & almost certainly the same pants is walking past the position of your Arnold candidate at exactly the same place in time, in the other film.

There is a man in similar clothes standing on the shelter steps in the Towner photo with Arnold on the ground near the tree - should we say he too, is Arnold? If the back of your man's hat doesn't have that wide "V" shape to it's base, then he cannot be the man seen in my image.

So far you had to be told that the man you saw in the Bell film was black. Until that time you never mentioned the man on the walkway in the overseas cap as looking black. Then you had to be told that U.S. service men have tailored uniforms that they wore when on leave. The black man you are talking about is wearing very baggy clothing. Whether the black man you see is either in profile or looking away - his cap does not have that puptent shape to it, nor does it have the wide "V" shape at it's base. I know of no other style of cap that has the "V" shaped base on it other than the military style overseas cap. To date you have not thought that any of these points mattered and you have stood fast on the black man in the Bell film as being the man seen standing on the walkway.

Yes, thank you, I agree that it's likely that the BELL man probably works for the same firm, maybe someone could ID what company that would be.

I don't see how you could think he has anything to do with these guys however, since none of them are wearing baggy pants.

The black men you are talking about don't have on the same kind of hat as the man in the Bell film. Emmett Hudson has on a similar hat and he too, is wearing baggy light colored pants and shirt. Have you considered that the black man in the Bell film may have been one of the grounds keepers working with Hudson?

Absolutely absurd.

Anyone can see his back & shoulders are being hit by strong sunlight & strong light is exactly what it takes to make black skin appear white(unless your MJ of course).

It's not a servicemans cap either, IOW it's not peaked.

I suggest you look at the image below. You are talking about the image I lighted in order to see the man's hat shape. The sun spots on the man's back before I lightened the image are quite visible even to the untrained eye. And while the peaks of the overseas hat may be difficult to make out ... the wide "V" shape at it's base in not.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

no, your right, I haven't studied the details of the man in your capture to any great degree because of the discovery of the fellow in BELL who, like I am trying to tell you, is in exactlythe same place at the same time.

Now, I can't help but notice that since your return after your PC problems you haven't shown us any of your captures, which is a shame really, especially since I know you could get a much better one of the BELL man than I.

Are you working on changing this?

If you could capture him, then you maybe able to work out what style of hat he is wearing, using my basic capture to guess at it, is indeed "silly".

Anyway,

you don't seem to have recognised the fact that the Bell film alines with the b/w footage exactly at the time this guy, who is making his way towards the walkway, reaches the top step.

Why is that?

Did your VCR crash too?

If you study BELL along with the b/w footage of the "rush to the knoll" you will surely recognise that these fellows are the same individual & he is not "standing" still as you keep saying but always moving & making his way towards the parking lot.

Your study might also tell you that that capture of yours(although good) is not of sufficient quality to rely on. That may not really be his neck at all.

Maybe if you are truly convinced otherwise you could tell me why your putting your faith in it.

A close study might also suggest to you that because you cannot "bring out" the peak of his cap, that there isn't one because it's not be an overseas cap at all.

The bottom line is, the BELL man is not only in the same spot as your Arnold candidate in the b/w footage but,

as your man walks along the walkway, away from the steps, the BELL man does so too, only in BELL, there is only one man dressed like Arnold, not two as you are suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I can't help but notice that since your return after your PC problems you haven't shown us any of your captures, which is a shame really, especially since I know you could get a much better one of the BELL man than I.

Alan - I am not sure what you mean by my not showing any of my captures. All the images that I post ... I have scanned or have captured. As I told you - the Groden assassination films are dark and not of very good quality. So I contacted Gary Mack about looking at the original Bell film that the Museum has in their possession. That film source would offer the best definition. Gary tells me the man that you think is a service man is none other than the black man seen in the Nix film standing near the Rowland's in his opinion. Same baggy clothes - same rolled up sleeves. I'm not sure how that plays out with his hat, but Mack assured me that the man in the Bell film is not wearing an overseas hat.

Yes, a black man appears to have walked up the walkway and in the film footage he appears to keep walking through the shadows. What you don't seem to get is that there is more to this than just having a black man in light colored clothing near the walkway at or around the same time. The man I have shown is in a wide base "V" shaped cap, has on tailored clothing, and it light skinned. While circumstantial as it may be, it still lends credence to Arnold being above that knoll.

Alan, One thing that you said puzzles me ... You said, "no, your right, I haven't studied the details of the man in your capture to any great degree because of the discovery of the fellow in BELL who, like I am trying to tell you, is in exactlythe same place at the same time." Let me remind you that you argued against the man on the walkway long before you stumbled across the Negro seen in the Bell film. So I am puzzled as to how you could use the Bell film for an excuse in not taking a good look at the man in the overseas cap before you ever took a position that it wan't Arnold. It seems to me that you should have taken a good look at this man well before ever making that first negative reply. You have shown a pattern whereas you felt that Arnold was a phony to begin with and everything has stemmed from there and I think that is a reckless approach. I cannot think of one time where you looked for anything that supported what Arnold had said. I don't even recall you noticing the two men in dark clothing or uniforms near the tree in the Towner photo until I pointed it out to you. I guess the point is ... if you start with a conclusion before hearing the evidence - it will often times cause you to miss things that were right under your nose all along.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More information for Alan Healy:

I had asked Gary Mack a specific question as to which way the man's head was facing in the Bell film and this is the question I sent out and the response I was able to get back from Gary Mack ... who has access to the original Bell film.

"Can you tell if the guy is in profile or not?

Bill"

Yes, left profile.

Gary

-----Original Message-----

From: IMSJLE@aol.com [mailto:IMSJLE@aol.com]

Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 3:09 PM

To: GMack@jfk.org

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

the capture & enhancement you produced from the b/w footage is way beyond what I can manage at this time, so I was/am curious why you haven't made the same effort with BELL, especially since you/we are trying to see the details of his hat etc.

An example(mine's the DVD & Bill's the VHS).

Something else I noticed just yesterday, if you look closely at my DVD capture above, you can see that 50% of this guys' pants are visible.

If you are still able to capture your VHS version as before, then may I request you take a few earlier shots please?

(Btw, this footage only appears in "The Case for Conspiracy", not the follow-up "Assassination Films").

>Gary tells me the man that you think is a service man

Sorry, you've lost me, I think this guy is a serviceman???

Fyi, no I don't, I think he's the guy you think is wearing a servicemans' cap in the b/w footage.

>GMack assured me that the man in the Bell film is not wearing an overseas hat.

Well, thank you & Gary for that but you are "convinced" it's an overseas hat the man is wearing in the b/w film because you "don't know of any other hat that has a wide "V" at it's base" but the abcense of a peak doesn't even register the slightest doubt with you.

Have you consulted Robert about this footage? Maybe he still has a copy of the film & could capture an even better image of this man.

As far as your opinion is concerned about "your" mans' "tailored" clothing, your basing this assumption on the upper area of the back of his shirt.

How do you know his shirt isn't too long for him & his pants too baggy?

Do you have other captures your not showing us?

Also, the guys "white neck" has a black line going across it, would you care to hazard a guess to what it is?

>you argued against the man on the walkway long before you stumbled across the Negro seen in the Bell film

Damn straight I did.

I remember saying that this guy could of come from anywhere & I was right.

Yes 'm.

... So I am puzzled as to how you could use the Bell film for an excuse in not taking a good look at the man in the "overseas cap" before you ever took a position that it wan't Arnold. It seems to me that you should have taken a good look at this man well before ever making that first negative reply. You have shown a pattern whereas you felt that Arnold was a phony to begin with and everything has stemmed from there and I think that is a reckless approach. I cannot think of one time where you looked for anything that supported what Arnold had said. I don't even recall you noticing the two men in dark clothing or uniforms near the tree in the Towner photo until I pointed it out to you. I guess the point is ... if you start with a conclusion before hearing the evidence - it will often times cause you to miss things that were right under your nose all along.

My observations have nothing to do with my beliefs in the Arnold story & when you look at them closely, neither do yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote=Bill Miller,Sep 8 2004, 10:37 PM]

More DIS-information for Alan Healy:

I had asked Gary Mack a specific question as to which way the man's head was facing in the Bell film and this is the question I sent out and the response I was able to get back from Gary Mack ... who has access to the original Bell film.

"Can you tell if the guy is in profile or not?

Bill"

Yes, left profile.

Gary

-----Original Message-----

From: IMSJLE@aol.com [mailto:IMSJLE@aol.com]

Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 3:09 PM

To: GMack@jfk.org

So you have no trouble excepting Garys' word/opinion when it doesn't conflict with your own. Funny then how you & Gary disagree on most things when it comes to Arnold & the photographic evidence.

Anyway that statement you posted is incorrect, the man is looking over at the direction of the parking lot & what we see of him in BELL(less than a second) is of the top of his cap, he is facing away from us & looking up, there is no profile to see.

I don't need the original to see this & neither does anyone else.

[

Don't you see him on your tape, why not capture him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man in the Bell film looks like a black man to me and his hat comes way down on the side of his head as Bill pointed out.

Yes Larry but both points are irrelevant because Bill can only suggest the man in the b/w footage maybe white, his capture is not of sufficient quality to prove that that's the actual skin of his neck we are looking at.

As for the headwear, we are seeing the mans' hat from two totally different angles, it may look to you like it's on the side of his head in BELL but it ain't(btw, a hat on the side would only suggest an overseas cap wouldn't it?).

Study these two films & you will notice the timing of the BELL sequence is the key to IDing the Arnold candidate in the b/w footage as a baggy pant wearing, constantly moving into the parking lot blackman.

If it isn't him & then the Arnold candidate must of ate him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

the capture & enhancement you produced from the b/w footage is way beyond what I can manage at this time, so I was/am curious why you haven't made the same effort with BELL, especially since you/we are trying to see the details of his hat etc.

I have tried and I posted the results with an opinion. My opinion was the hat on the man in the Bell film is not an overseas cap, nor is the clothing that of a service man on leave from the U.S. miltary. I told you that the Bell film from the Groden copy was not of such quality that I could do any more with it.

Something else I noticed just yesterday, if you look closely at my DVD capture above, you can see that 50% of this guys' pants are visible.

In reply #47 you can see the man's left arm. No rolled up sleeves. The man in the Bell film is not only a Negro, but had rolled up sleeves.

>Gary tells me the man that you think is a service man

Sorry, you've lost me, I think this guy is a serviceman???

Fyi, no I don't, I think he's the guy you think is wearing a servicemans' cap in the b/w footage.

The reference was made to the Negro in the Bell film.

Well, thank you & Gary for that but you are "convinced" it's an overseas hat the man is wearing in the b/w film because you "don't know of any other hat that has a wide "V" at it's base" but the abcense of a peak doesn't even register the slightest doubt with you.

I do see a peak, as well as some distortion. See the enlargement in post #47.

As far as your opinion is concerned about "your" mans' "tailored" clothing, your basing this assumption on the upper area of the back of his shirt.

How do you know his shirt isn't too long for him & his pants too baggy?

Richard Smith was the first person to mention the way the clothing fits the man. I agreed with his observation. The shirt across the back and shoulders appears to be well fitted, unlike the clothing of the man in the Bell film.

Also, the guys "white neck" has a black line going across it, would you care to hazard a guess to what it is?

See attached image below.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have no trouble excepting Garys' word/opinion when it doesn't conflict with your own.

I have little choice in the matter for Gary Mack has access to the original film which gives him a better image to view than we have. It's almost as if you are bitter that a cleaner sharper image isn't giving off the results that a poorer fuzzier image can offer. If you believe that poorer quality images are more reliable for photo analysis, then you may find it difficult to find others who think as you do.

Anyway that statement you posted is incorrect, the man is looking over at the direction of the parking lot & what we see of him in BELL(less than a second) is of the top of his cap, he is facing away from us & looking up, there is no profile to see.

I don't need the original to see this & neither does anyone else.

I think that is a stupid and reckless position you've taken and my answer is still the same as above. I believe the best prints should always be used whenever possible for photo or film analysis. I didn't have access to the camera original, so I called the 6th floor Museum and asked Gary Mack to look at the Bell film when he had some free time and get back with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Larry but both points are irrelevant because Bill can only suggest the man in the b/w footage maybe white, his capture is not of sufficient quality to prove that that's the actual skin of his neck we are looking at.

As for the headwear, we are seeing the mans' hat from two totally different angles, it may look to you like it's on the side of his head in BELL but it ain't(btw, a hat on the side would only suggest an overseas cap wouldn't it?).

I have watched Bill present the evidence concerning this matter over an extended period of time and he refers to it as circumstantial evidence. I have also noticed that certain things you had relied on to reach your conclusion was shown to be in error from time to time and yet your opinion never changes. One of the latter errors was in thinking that the sunlight was hitting off the man's neck, thus making it appear light in tone. As Bill pointed out - this was not the case. I'm sorry, but the man in Moorman's photograph appears to be wearing an overseas cap. The man Bill shows from the rear and on the walkway also has on what looks like an overseas cap. The wide "V" shape Bill shows us is quite discernible IMO. His left sleeve doesn't appear to be rolled up, nor does the skin on his neck look dark enough to be the black man in the Bell film.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

I think that is a stupid and reckless position you've taken and my answer is still the same as above.

[...]

Mr. Peters states [in this thread] he's seen you present this material... according to him, Peter's, its circumstatial evidence and I suspect, you too. Yet you state the above regarding said circumstantial evidence.

Appears any contrary opinion is "stupid and reckless..." a bit disengenuous at best, don't you think?

What does Mr. Peters do when he's not banging around the boards? Must of missed it the first time around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David G. Healy,Sep 9 2004, 07:20 PM]

[...]

Mr. Peters states [in this thread] he's seen you present this material... according to him, Peter's, its circumstatial evidence and I suspect, you too. Yet you state the above regarding said circumstantial evidence.

Appears any contrary opinion is "stupid and reckless..." a bit disengenuous at best, don't you think?

What does Mr. Peters do when he's not banging around the boards? Must of missed it the first time around...

David - Allow me to address this by working my way backwards through your senseless reply. What does Larry do when he is not banging around on the boards ... I assume he might be giving more thought to his furure replies than what you apparently do. I made the comment about someone being reckless if they thought they could draw more information from a poorer quality image over a much clearer one. That should've been common sense.

The circumstantial evidence is over Gordon Arnold, or someone wearing the type of clothing he was said to have on, being seen on the walkway post assassination. It's also circumstantial that such an image is seen in the Moorman photo just pre-assassination as it is circumstantial that two individuals in dark clothing are seen near the tree in the Towner photo post assassination and that Austin Miller saw a young man in his early 20's (Arnold's age) coming from the parking lot only to get stopped and turned away just prior to the motorcade's arrival in Dealey Plaza. These are all things Arnold mentioned that are supported by other independent pieces of evidence. While none of them positively identify Arnold, they do show events that Arnold had claimed to have happened. DA's have gotten convictions on circumstantial evidence. Larry had merely stated that I had always said that while these various indepedntent pieces of evidence were circumstantial, when viewed as a whole they add a strong confirmation that Gordon Arnold did in fact tell the truth as he remembered it.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the man in the Bell film facing forward or to the right?

The reason why I believe the man is facing more in a forward manner is the location of the hat over the trunk of his upper body. The hat protrudes out over his chest. When I plot where his neck would be - then the hat would be pushed far to our left when it has to be afixed to his head. It would seem that if the man turned to his right, then the left and right side of his head should stay pretty close in alignment with his neck. When one wears a hat and is facing forward, then the hat extends out over the neck and chest as the forehead and nose does, as well.

I might also add that if this is the black man who was standing along Houston Street near the Rowland's as Gary Mack considers him to be, then his head might be cocked with the flat top part of his hat angled to the sun and this would account for the hat protruding out over the chest area. Regardless, this cannot possibly be confused with the hat on the man I have shown with the wide "V" shape on it's base. As Barry Scheck, one of O.J.Simpson's lawyers, would say ... 'that would not pass the laugh test.'

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...