Jump to content
The Education Forum

Black Dog Man is a woman with a baby...


Recommended Posts

If you want to stand up for honest research then I suggest you start by answering this question.

We gathered that information and this is what we are presenting. She won’t come forward. She doesn’t want her picture taken on the grassy knoll and I asked her, or I asked a couple of people who we were getting information from I said would you please ask her why she won’t and her detailed information was real simple. This is 1963, I’m female, I’m Black, I live in Dallas, Texas. And I go, I gotcha, I gotcha.

This does not sound right to me. Who was he talking to?

You do not like it when someone stands up to your bullying Mr. Backes. I learned that a long time ago.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

imo there is neither apparently documented, verified research for either of your stands .....not the new that has been presented and commented on by Debra, nor the old mother and baby, scenario....the blackdogman stills remains the mystery as he has always been....your efforts are appreciated, i know many do so, but all the arguing in he world will not change those facts, sorry....but it will not..............

according to the tests done there was, is a face of human colouring there, but one, not two.....fwiwi..thanks b..

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this image from the HSCA.

The HSCA did not come to the correct conclusion.

There was a debate called the "Black Dog Debate" but I have never been able to locate it on the internet.

hscablackdog.jpg

However the image you posted is a good intro to what I want to discuss.

Mr. Josephs also posted his version of Willis which I repost here

josephswillis.jpg

And below is my version of the same blowup. This image is polluted with motion blur.

I have not removed the multiple exposures. You see multiple heads, (multiple white heads and multiple black heads). The key signature is the white and black close relative positioning. Those two bodies are in uniform relative motion. One is connected to the other. There are two people.The image has been polluted with motion blur. (The same thing is shown in the Willis image you posted but it is not as clear)

babyheads.png

And now the full size Willis, the same characteristic white-black pattern is seen, the motion blur of two bodies in motion.

The mother was setting the baby down on the top of the retaining wall when this photo was taken.

willisbdmcircled.jpg

Bernice,

I asked you a question the other day and you did not answer it.

I accept you do not see a baby in this photo but do you see the white bundle that the person appears to holding in the following image?

life1967png.png

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the crop you have posted above i see a white shiny dot, where it juts into the black shadow, the lower one not the top one, is that suppose to be a baby bundle.it does not resemble one to me sorry....thanks..b

i do not do the markings well but you will see where i tried to mark an x..b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry i see it what is blinking as a white flash like on the photo,could it be from sunlight ?? but not a baby shape...b ps you mention above in another post about the babies arms up around the moms neck, i do believe, if so, the bundle that you have outlined would not be large enough as a baby could not do so, till quite a few months old, and that bundle is not near the correct size, i do not think so..thanks..b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i will not differ on the poorly, but rather with many witnesses after giving their statements, found they were not as they had related, i guess that could be called as being treated poorly, Dallas in 1963, was as many citys of the South, blacks were not treated gently, now there's a word, there was still the kk around and many members, the John Birchers, and lots of red necks, it was the way things were, after integration , and Dallas to it's credit, did so with such finese they did not have the problems that many cities reeled from, things did become some better, but it took years to finally really take hold, and to this day there are still areas which still will not treat some others as human..in the south,and that is also found in areas in other countries, there are within this forum links to information from research, books, that will make what it was like much clearer.......imo...b

i found this information re Casey Quinlan's information that has been related to us by Joe, thanks....fwiw for any members interested...b

http://www.jfklancer...mode=full#91875

The DVD of his presentation is available here:

http://www.jfklancer.com/catalog/nidmedia/Dallas10.html

Debra also states''When you go through the presentation, please keep in mind that Casey said it was speculation, these names were given to him and not authenticated. The source is not always reliable........""

Good to see Debra's disclaimer regarding Casey's presentation. It's all speculation as Casey also attested to. The names given to him were not authenticated. Besides, the story is simply not true.

This much is correct:

1. Black Dog Man is not a woman holding a baby.

2. The Black couple who sat on a bench behind the retaining wall and ate lunch together prior to the assassination are not the Black couple filmed together behind the same wall after the shooting.

The following is incorrect:

Black Dog Man is a guy wearing a black hoodie.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This much is correct:

1. Black Dog Man is not a woman holding a baby.

2. The Black couple who sat on a bench behind the retaining wall and ate lunch together prior to the assassination are not the Black couple filmed together behind the same wall after the shooting.

The following is incorrect:

Black Dog Man is a guy wearing a black hoodie.

Ken

Show us your evidence to support your statements.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, you first, post a picture of a little common sense and the ability to recognize coroborrating evidence.

I've shown you myself there is a person kneeling in front of the wall within the bushes in morrman... are you ready to PROVE the negative?

You have no photographic or film proof of his being there other than this? So what, we have THIS. and I say he's there....

That conclusion shows neither common sense or the ability to coroborate evidence... two traits much needed and sorely missing from your presentation.

There are photos of Jack Ruby in DP post assassination...BDM also appears to be a man in a hat and dark suit... hmmmm...

Ruby was seen pre assassination with a truck, rifle, fence, knoll and other men.... while the DPD ignored it. hmmmm...

A black couple is eating pre-assassination on a bench... where they told to be there, throw the bottle and run? Maybe... nice extra diversion....

Was Gordon Arnold back there?

He says he was... Moorman in some interpretations suggest the same...

People will even tell you the llimo stopped... yet not a single person, film or photo will place a woman holding a baby near or at the corner of the retaining wall infront of the picket fence on the grassy knoll...

But we both agree it's there Mike... and then, in willis next, it's gone. Rosemary described it very well... that it could be someone taking a shot and then running off is mind boggling...

Personally I had always hoped it was Emmett Hudson - but that theory did not pan out.

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post rambles a lot. Be specific about one particular thing you disagree with. I will address it. I address everything because I know I have the evidence on my side.

Which person are you referring to that you say I say exists but you say does not exist?

BTW, you may not have caught it, but I have shown that the Willis , Moorman and Betzner photo corroborate each other regarding the mother and baby. I admit that I need all three photos because the image quality is poor but all 3 photos show the same thing, as they should because all three photos are taken of the same people within 7 seconds of each other. ( I actually do not need all three photos because I can see , very clearly, that there is a baby and woman in the Willis photo)

There is enough information in those 3 photos to conclude that Black Dog Man is really a woman with her baby.

The HSCA did not use all 3 photos when debating the Black Dog issue.

The HSCA did not use Betzner and it did not use Moorman.

I have posted TONS of corroborating evidence for each of my positions.

Here is one such thread, the two men Lee Bowers saw.

http://educationforu...showtopic=19298

One of the men Lee Bowers saw was in almost the exact location we see him in Betzner.

That thread also describes how Lee Bowers saw a flash of light and commotion in that area at the time of he assassination.

Here is a bit of Lee Bowers statement regarding one of the men( I am paraphrasing )

"one of the men as he walked back and forth disappeared behind a wooden fence which was also slightly to the west of that".

Do you see the path worn in front of the fence? That is where Lee Bowers saw a man walking back and forth.

Which is also very near where we see the man dressed like a policman in Betzner. At the time of the Muchmore frame

he had moved a few feet to be under the tree. (The Muchmore frame was cropped so we could not see under the tree). I presume this where Emmett Hudson saw a "patrol" with a gun. This is what the evidence indicates.

twotreescircled.png

In another thread, that I cannot find right now I mentioned that Emmett Hudson was asked if he saw anyone with a rifle up there on that grassy spot. Emmett Hudson responded, the only person he saw up there with a gun( he did not say rifle) was the patrols( he did not say police).

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it was just such an exciting time, you know, a fellow thinks about a million things in one second there at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see anybody standing around there any place with a rifle - on the grassy spot up there near where you were standing or on the overpass or anyplace else?

Mr. HUDSON - I never seen anyone with a gun up there except the patrols.

Mr. LIEBELER - The policemen?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, all you have are your opinions of what you see in the photos....

Taking a look at the other thread you linked to reveals quite a lot about you Mike...

You are married to your conclusion and will defend it to the death, regardless of what other evidence may point to...

I simply disagree with your analysis and conclusion... Aint no big thing. Yet I also agree that once you see a certain thing in a photo, it is very hard to see anything else...

Case in point - and what I was referring to you seeing in a moorman image I posted - is the kneeling person I showed you in Moorman really there? (your not being able to follow along from a previous post is not necesarily Rambling on my part as much as your inability to see anything from anyone else's POV.)

Now we both know he's not there... but now look at the image at the bottom... Dont know about you, but I can STILL see him.. Yet that still does not prove he is there Mike....

The next step is to COROBORRATE... NOT by telling us you see the baby and woman in other photos, of course YOU will see that...

Who in the great 26 volumes or since, has EVER spoken of seeing a woman and baby in that area at that time? No one I know of... You?

Has any other researcher agreed with your conclusion and how do they deal with the evidence against such a conclusion?

Mike, I learned long ago that each person will have their take on the case and see what they see in the photos and films....

I've also learned that the physical evidence we get to see MAY or MAY NOT be authentic... as compared to other "normal" cases where tampering with evidence is not as prevelant..

In "normal" cases when a witness disagrees with evidence, the evidence trumps... witnesses reliability is supposed to be judged AGAINST the physical evidence since in most NORMAL CASES the physical evidence is simple and direct and easily authenticated.... not so here Mike.

In this case, with such poorly supported, authenticated physical evidence, the reverse is true... when 20 people tell us the limo stopped, when 50 people tell us there were shots from the GK,

when numerous people see particles flying back and to the left, away from JFK, leaving remnants in the street to the SOUTH AND EAST of JFK at the time of the shots... one begins to question the physical evidence... WHO HAD IT, WHO CONTROLLED IT, WHO AUTHENTICATED and COROBORRATED IT?

When over and over the answers are anything but reassuring, it becomes this physical evidnce that becomes suspect and the coroborrated testimony of the witnesses there TRUMPS IT.

It is time for you to understand that the physical evidence in the JFK case is CRAP.... and will NEVER lead to a complete understanding of the assassination... only the extent to which it was covered up...

I am no longer interested in discussing this with you as long as all you present is YOUR OPINION of the photos.

Coroborrate the baby and mom with testimony of those who saw her... Gordon Arnold HIMSELF will tell you he was right there... that HE is BDM and the person you are pointing to in Moorman

yet the coroborration for such a thing is very limited to the point of non-existant..

Prove your point with authenticated and coroborrated evidence... otherwise we might as well ALL see the little kneeling man and say he was indeed there.

DJ

BDMinmoorman.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have given my opinion of what I see in the photos. And you are right that is all it is my opinion.

The best way for me to answer you question is for me to ask you a question. To me it all hinges on the baby in white.

Please just answer this simple question.

We both agree that the picture below is a picture of at least one real human being.

If we are going to play a game I think we should play the game with a known real person.

Do you see what I call the "white" bundle in the persons arms in this photo? And if you do what if anything do you think it is?

Let me back up.

Do you see the top of the retaining wall?

Do you see the persons hat?

Do you see part of the persons face?

Do you see the persons arms and hands resting on the wall?

Do you see the white bundle blocking part of the face?

Do you see the white bundle is resting on/between the persons hands?

And yes the image is blurry, but that is all we have to work with. We are going to try to extract as much information as possible.

I have to find out just how much you are willing to admit that you see before I can go on.

life1967babyl.gif

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mother and baby theory was first proposed by Jeff Rollins and myself on the Lancer forum.

The Darnell frame being used was enhanced by myself to bring out the dealey plaza backround.

I then found the woman and child in the couch frames, and also Murray.

But i couldn't find any images of the "woman and child standing with the husband" in any of the aftermath images

This is why i have since backed away from the theory.

If the black man seen running up the steps in Muchmore and Nix, was a actually a father running to protect his wife and child who were crouched down behind the wall.

THEN WE SHOULD SEE ALL THREE STANDING TOGETHER in couch and Murray.

not just the woman and child standing alone.

The body language of the woman and child and the man seen in Darnell suggested to me that they may be a couple !

But there is no proof that this is actually the case.

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know if the woman and man are connected but I suspect they are. What I do know is that the woman and baby are connected and are the black dog man.

I do not think they were crouched down behind the wall. One of the few things that I do believe from Marilyn Sitzman is that she said they(the kids) ran back into the parking lot or the alcove. But since Sitzman was in the alcove immediately after she got down from the pedestal she would know that they did not go to the alcove so they must have gone to the parking lot.

Edited by Mike Rago
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

×
×
  • Create New...