Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Black Dog Man as Arnold


Alan Healy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anyone who knows how to use Animationshop will know, you can easily take two images & morth them into one another. You can also do overlays, which have been used by Bill on numerous occasions, as a very effective tool in comparing one part of a assassination photo to a section in an other.

Now in Bills Moorman to Betzner GIF (see the coke thread page 8-9) where he is pointing out the similarites between BDM & the Arnold figure, I see this same poor "crop from Betzner" again & again.

post-3407-1139783715_thumb.jpg

Just for a change, instead of you explaining how part of it looks exactly like part of the figure in Moorman Bill, please explain to me where this catastrophe came from & what it has to do with either of the two best versions of Betzner we have access too(see link).

I put it to you that this shape we see in the middle of the white area is a result of overlay/image transistion between Moorman & Betzner & that it has no place at the end of a gif proporting to be a reproduction of what we see in Betzner.

grodenVlifepng

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just for a change, instead of you explaining how part of it looks exactly like part of the figure in Moorman Bill, please explain to me where this catastrophe came from & what it has to do with either of the two best versions of Betzner we have access too(see link).

I put it to you that this shape we see in the middle of the white area is a result of overlay/image transistion between Moorman & Betzner & that it has no place at the end of a gif proporting to be a reproduction of what we see in Betzner.

Alan, as long as anyone can run the program that you mentioned - YOU should have no problem matching up shapes and showing us how easy it is.

Also about your overlay/image transition remark ... as I recall from the many times I have repeated this to you - the transparency was done to show that bent shadow line crossing over both individuals.

Below is Moorman's Arnold's sunspot coming over the top of the BDM sunspot as taken from each photo ... no transparency overlay, but rather one image coming over the top of the other.

post-1084-1139809511_thumb.gif post-1084-1139810759_thumb.jpg

Two individuals standing at the south end of the wall ... two sunspots with the dark shadow patch in the middle ... now where did I have the audacity to think they were one in the same person!

And by the way ... you cannot take any two shapes and make them match. If you would like to put your money where your mouth is ... I will furnish you several selections and give you now until 'dooms-day' to make them match and you will not be able to do it.

Bill MIller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, it seems your reasoning and presentation is in the realm of possibility. For example IF there was a person there (which by the way I am not saying I agree OR disagree with, I certainly see what you mean though) then the shadows and size of such a person would probably be as shown.

You are working with more image data which would tend to support it as well.

I actually have little knowledge of the feuds that seem to have been going on for some time, but as a bystander I'd say that apart from the occasional abrasive color, you do make a number of very good arguments. (while I'm at it I'd say that goes for David, Craig, Jack and others as well. If the vitriol is subtracted, as it should be, the input forms quite a good resource.)

(here the distance to the group of three from moorman is plotted as a yellow line and the figures placed as they would be if they were standing along that line. The line goes behind the wall at one point and the far figure could fit. As can be seen it is a close size match to the suggested bdm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, it seems your reasoning and presentation is in the realm of possibility. For example IF there was a person there (which by the way I am not saying I agree OR disagree with, I certainly see what you mean though) then the shadows and size of such a person would probably be as shown.

You are working with more image data which would tend to support it as well.

There is little doubt someone was just beyond the wall where Arnold stood. Not only is he visible in Moorman's photo, but groden talks about the color of his clothing in TKOAP.

Then there is Yarborough who saw this individual dive to the ground ... keep in mind that it was Arnold who said he hit the ground well before Yarborough came forward with what he witnessed.

I will also tell you that when I was with Groden at the lab last fall - they ran his copy claimed to be taken off the original Nix film and there was someone over the bend in the wall in motion moving to the left immediately after the fatal head shot to Kennedy. That movement supports Arnold going to the ground. Those of us there watched that movement over and over. It looked to me as if someone was lowering an arm and turning left as if to be doing just what Arnold and Yarborough claimed. Take this information for what it is worth.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoormantoBetznergif

Okay, lets try to stay on topic here.

Here are three frames from the above animation.

post-3407-1139833148_thumb.jpg

You notice how the middle image consists of items made up of both figures?

That is what you have done.

You have took a frame from an animation that is made up of parts of the Betzner & Moorman figure & have used it in your GIF that proports to compare the shapes seen on the "Arnold" & "BDM".

Yes I have asked this before but you keep avoiding the real issue.

Don't you realise that the image you are using in your comparison GIF is from an animation of yours & not from any of the souces of Betzner that we use?

Does any one here not know the point I'm making?

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan.

I agree.

Bill's gif animation appears to be a composite of the Moorman Arnold and the Betzner 3 Arnold.

I have serious reservations regarding this technique, as it could be regarded by some as "photo tampering" to achieve a required outcome.

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Is the first and last image not the 'unadulterated' ones, and all the blended ones in between part of the morph. If so, it's just a presentation to make a point. Nothing 'sinister' at all. Many here have done similar things.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You notice how the middle image consists of items made up of both figures?

That is what you have done.

You have took a frame from an animation that is made up of parts of the Betzner & Moorman figure & have used it in your GIF that proports to compare the shapes seen on the "Arnold" & "BDM".

Yes I have asked this before but you keep avoiding the real issue.

Don't you realise that the image you are using in your comparison GIF is from an animation of yours & not from any of the souces of Betzner that we use?

Does any one here not know the point I'm making?

Alan

Alan, Let's get something straight here ... I tolerate poor research practices coming from some of you people ... I watch you make assertions about witnesses that you never spent a dime bothering to get the facts on beforehand ... I seem to have to repeat myself time and time again as if you have no recall capabilities of your own ... and I watch you make the same stupid mistakes over and over again as if you never learned anything from them the first time around. I am going to address this once more and then you can continue on your own way for I am not going to tolerate your misdirected remarks anymore on this matter.

It is true that I have made transparency overlays in some instances and animated them with a fade-in process to show people the similarities I had discovered. The south shadow line passing over the BDM and the Moorman figure was one such example. I went to great lengths to explain the twist and turns of that line and how any individual moving off that spot would lose that shade line passing over him and I then used that premise to show that the figure seen in Betzner and Moorman were one in the same person.

I had also made similar transparency overlay animations with the BDM image as well, but at the same time I also have went to great detail to offer animations where I used both the straight Moorman figure sun-spot and the BDM sun-spot from the Betzner photo. Now you guys can complain about the quality of your images compared to mine for bigger is not always better. I have spent considerable time discussing this process with both Gary Mack and Robert Groden. I have gone back to Groden so many times so to be sure that what I was saying was correct that he started asking me why I am wasting so much time dealing with people who don't care to listen. He has said and I quote, "Now you see why I don't bother with forums. I use to belong to them, but they are a waste of my time." Now before you start huffing and puffing ... keep in mind that I am just the messenger and I have sat on Robert's comments for a long time and they are being repeated only now because I feel it is appropriate to do so.

Below is a Betzner image that I have had in my files for years - even way before I ever learned to even make a gif animation. Save it, study it, or shove it ... it doesn't matter to me. You guys scan books and magazines for your image sources. Jack White recently posted the Badge Man image from the print that he used Vs. the one that most of you have to work with - THERE IS NO COMPARISON! I have did the same by way of the Hat Man in the past. You people use images that are full of half-tones which have degraded the image despite some of them appearing greatly enlarged, thus fooling you into thinking you have witnessed more clarity.

There is a shade line just below the sunspot on both individuals being discussed here (Arnold and BDM). Two different cameras at two separate distances from the subject, along with different film stock in each will make one shade line appear darker than the other, but ragardless the shade line is visible in both images. They are not the result of a transparency overlay.

I have heard things about Gordon Arnold come from you (Alan) that had no foundation for you saying them ... and you certainly didn't get your information by actually investigating the matter. People have made claims that Arnold only came forward with his story to seek publicity ... that was totally false because Gordon didn't want to tell his story publicly at all. Had it not been for a friend of Earl Golz overhearing Arnold telling his story privately to someone else - we may never have known about Gordon Arnold at all. Earl told me that it took a lot of coaxing on his part to get Gordon to let him take down his story. Gordon's wife stated that Gordon had told of the events on the knoll to family and close friends from the very beginning. People were critical of Gordon getting emotional at the end of his interview in TMWKK ... what they didn't see was just how bad it had gotten and that Turner opted to not show Arnold breaking down as bad as he did, so that part was left out of the Turner interview. Gordon told of things that occurred on the walkway and at the moments they happened that he could not possibly have known about unless he was actually there and had experienced them. When Senator Ralph Yarborough read about the service man in Golz article ... Ralph contacted Golz to confirm that he had seen Arnold over the corner of the conrete wall. Yarborough's remarks concerning Gordon's actions can be heard in his TMWKK interview. The two men in dark clothing Gordon spoke about who had approached him as he laid on he ground can be seen in the Towner 3 photo, as well as some of the Bond photographs where part of the skyline over the fence is blocked out by their figures.

Groden has pointed out that someone in light colored clothing can be seen just over the wall in one of the assassination films as JFK approached. And when I accompanied Robert to the lab to have my 16mm copy of the Nix film worked on ... Robert brought his best print and he, I, Royce Bierma, and the lab guy all watched loops following the head shot that showed someone over the south bend of that wall turning to their left as if o get out of harms way. And is it not a coincidence that the figure in Moorman's photo just happens to look to be wearing a light colored uniform with an overseas cap on. So keep blowing up images full of half-tones and continue on making the same old mistakes ... you have wasted far too much of my time on this matter. To ignore the evidence and to believe that the individual in Moorman's photograph is someone different than the individual we see in the Betzner and Willis photos is to believe that the BDM ran off the walkway and Arnold ran over and took his place in a time frame of about 3 to 4 seconds following Willis taking his photograph, because the film frame that Groden mentions in his book TKOAP limits that window of time greatly. Instead, go read post #10 from Duncan and relish the moment of being in the presense of the blob looking enlargements of the BDM that he offered. Time and time again Duncan has been confronted with the failings of using such poor quality images, most of which he creates, yet he doesn't listen. Instead of using the better Betzner print and comparing a B&W photo with a B&W photo - he opts to use a color photo that shows such blur on the BDM that the sun-spot is almost nonexistent. Now isn't that some real top notch research on Duncan's part. I use to be one of those people who faulted Groden for not coming onto these forums, but when I see post like that in this thread ... I don't fault Robert anymore!

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to take this opportunity to get back on my soapbox on the subject of photographs...

The research community needs a repository of high-quality, high dpi, lossless-format scans of original photos, negatives, etc. What we have now is largely a distributed repository of jpegs (lossy, in some cases badly so), half-tone magazine scans, etc. We also need the same thing for the motion pictures. (Even the DVD versions suffer from compression artifacting, etc. DVD uses a lossy format, too...)

While these current collections are appreciated and are useful for understanding the "macroscopic" aspects of the events, they are not useful for the type of analysis people want to perform and that newer digital image processing is capable of. The end result is people finding and seeing "shapes" and "faces" which are probably nothing more than jpeg (or mpeg) artifacts or crapola introduced by the halftone process. Honestly, I believe these efforts are well-intended but end up as tire-spinning -- or worse -- venom soaked exchanges of barbs between researchers.

This would not be a small undertaking, and there would be hurdles to cross. Storage requirements would be non-trivial since high-dpi scans in lossless formats take storage space like crazy. Distribution would be an issue as well (bandwidth), so perhaps a data DVD or 3 full of images might be a better way to go. I'll throw my hand in the air as willing to work on this if there is serious interest. (I know at least one other local researcher, albeit one that does not participate in forums, that would be willing to work on a repository)

I believe that this is the ONLY way to eliminate or seriously reduce or eliminate the source quality of the image as being an issue. Of course, it won't eliminate process errors, lack of correlation, etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Bill beats around the bush by ignoring my more than competant composite image which clearly shows the same figure.To anyone reading this Bill is talking through a hole in his lower region when he says that the images i posted are blurred and blobby looking.Take a look at post number 10.They are simple unenhanced blow ups of the photographs,ZERO manipulation which shows the SAME figure in a different position with the SAME "sunspot anomoly".Anyone can look at the photographs to confirm this,and get the same results i got by simply blowing them up.You are on the run here Bill,simply because my posting does not fit in with your theory. :news

Duncan

Duncan, you are probably my best asset because your remarks are so stupid that they constantly prove my point. When you are not creating poor images, you are trying to use ones that were naturally made. Name one researcher besides you who thinks that the BDM figure in the Willis photograph is sharper and less blurry than the same figure in the Betzner photograph ... just one???

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I added color. The blue highlighted items I propose are further from the wall - possibly behind the fence. I added the skintone, based upon best guess.

I do not see 'Arnold' - I see only a number of men - some close to the edge of the wall - some not - possibly behind the fence. However, I do believe BDM can be seen in the Moorman. I have tried to isolate him [blue box] as well as the man with the camera next to him [red].

- lee

post-675-1139855275_thumb.jpg

Edited by Lee Forman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill ...Your argument towards my composite post is invalid in this discussion,as the Betzner photograph has absolutely nothing to do with my composite comparison of the 2 color photographs which show the same anomoly at DIFFERENT TIMES.Why don't you butt out of this for a while and let others have a think about it. .

Duncan

That was my point, Duncan. You are taking a very blurred image and trying to compare it to other alike blurred images which is a joke. It's like pouring gas onto the ground and looking for all the cool shapes one can find from the sunlight hitting it. BTW, the white spot you see near the underside of the pyracantha bush is light hitting the bark of one of the branches ... had you cross referenced some other photos with the image you used, then you may have seen this. But by all means, don't do the logical thing and continue on with your game of "What does this blob look like".

Bill

I added color. The blue highlighted items I propose are further from the wall - possibly behind the fence. I added the skintone, based upon best guess.

I do not see 'Arnold' - I see only a number of men - some close to the edge of the wall - some not - possibly behind the fence. However, I do believe BDM can be seen in the Moorman. I have tried to isolate him [blue box] as well as the man with the camera next to him [red].

- lee

Lee, I can see why you cannot see Arnold ... instead of adding color, did you ever consider adding light like Mack and White had done? I mean ... when you enter a poorly lit room - do you reach for your crayons or the light switch!

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

the GIF in that link & the three frames from it was my own.

The one I object to was posted last on pages 8+9 of the coke man thread.

I've put it on an external link for convenience.

Billsslighto'handgif

That is the one where it's obvious to me that Bill has used a frame from the middle of an image transition GIF & made a new & quite different comparison by using that distorted frame with what we see above the wall in Moorman.

To illustrate this further, simply.

tin00qe.jpg

Top left is what Bill is comparing to Moorman whilst saying "can't you see they are the same?".

Top right is one of the best views of BDM we have, published by Groden in "TKOAP" &,

at the bottom we have a tight shot from the area & shapes being compared to, from the blow-ups of Moorman5.

You will notice how Bill's frame & the Moorman have exactly the same shape in it but it is missing from the Groden Betzner3 figure.

Need I say more?

Alan

You will also note how Bill has completely avoided talking about this one small frame which was the whole reason I started the topic.

Everything else(& including Gordon Arnolds credibilty, despite the topic header) is irrelevant at this time.

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...