The Black Dog Man as Arnold

[Bill Miller]

There is a saying that goes, "Let justice be done though the Heaven's fall" and that was my approach when I started looking into the Gordon Arnold story and then the Arnold/BDM connection.

Is this an admission Bill?

Are you saying that it doesn't matter that you have manipulated the image you presented as long as you get your point across?

Sounds like it to me. It's a little cryptic but I'll except it.

I think the reason has already been explained by me more than once and the point was made to the extent that those seasoned researchers that I have presented it to had all understood it's purpose. Your inability to follow what I have said is something I can not do anything about. When Jack White colorized the Badge Man images - you said nothing of the same. Like I said before ... it is only because you failed miserably in your attacking Arnold's credibility that you are reduced to complaining about one example in a list of many that I produced. Had I of said that I found a Betzner print and didn't tell that it was made up of a transparency that I created, then it would have been one thing. The fact of the matter is that I have presented a mountain of evidence and the shade lines was in my view a necessary way of presenting what I deemed important.

FWIW, you don't have to interfere with the images to persuade your audience, you just present them side by side & let the people make up they're own minds.

In that mountain of evidence that I have presented over the past two years on this matter is plenty of side by side comparisons. I might add that maybe someone else can see how your transparency overlay showed a match of something, but I was not able to see it. You even admit that those shapes have nothing in common, but the shade line transpartency overlays I created were presented with a lot of other evidence and they all did have something in common. What I find truly amazing is that had I of shown two photos of the TSBD and taken only seconds apart - where one of them showed a particular window partially opened and the other did not - you would probably have considered that transparency overlay a viable way of showing their differences. I basically did the same thing by showing the similarities of the shade line passing over both individuals in question.

I'm only complaining about the one bad apple & if you keep using it as an example of how the shapes above the wall in Betzner & Moorman are the same, then I'll keep complaining.

The shape in that GIF is not seen in the Betzner photo & you know it, it's a distorted image.

So why do you keep using it?

Because it's convenient?

Wouldn't you rather show us a full zoomed-in overlay of the best examples of these figures you have available to you, from both Moorman & Betzner?

Maybe the shapes don't match when you use good images?

Well they match when you look at them from Betzners position/POV on Elm don't they?

I have lost track at how many examples I have created and presente don this matter ... In the beginning I sought to have them peer reviewed before ever posting them and once I obtained confirmation that others saw the same things - I shared them with the research community. Your inability to understand their use is a personal problem IMO.

This is exactly what I did.

I compared it to the figures in Betzner3 & Moorman5 & I could tell instantly that the frame you are using as an example of Betzner is a frame from a GIF where the "image transition effect" has been used.

I know because I have done the same exact thing myself.

The only difference is I would never edit the GIF down to just two frames & then present that in public in the way you do, as if it actually held any value.

So you saw the obvious ... are you looking for a prize? The two frame animation I have mentioned several times now is not a composite using a transparency. The two frame animation was the actual sunspot seen on the Moorman individual overlaid over the top of Betzner image - PERIOD!

No you still haven't explained why you did this butcher job, I just got the exact same response as before, a non-denial denial & now a quote from Garrison, which I have to guess at is meaning since I can't see the relevance between justice & what you have done with that image.

ai find it funny how researchers from Groden to Mack to Conway to Law have all seen my presentation and it is only an arm chair researcher like yourself that complains about the way I presented the infromation. Again, that is a personal problem that you'll have to deal with.

If it appears that my only purpose is to attack Bill then you are mistaken, there is no other I've come across that has has talked, researched & studied BDM more than he has, he actually thinks it's an important figure & I'm of the same opinion...... only that's where we part.

He's sure he knows who it is & I disagree with his conclusion.

The difference between us is that you started with a conclusion that the BDM was some sinister individual in black clothing who had already fired a shot at JFK and Betzner's photo had captured the smoke coming from his alleged gun. Had you done just the simpliest of research on the matter you would have seen that Betzner said that he took his photograph before the first shot had been fired. Considering that you started with a false assumption ... I have no doubt that you have disagreed with my investigation.

If I've said anything out of order or used any words that you find offensive & unfitting to this well thought of forum, then please wrap it in a quote & pull me about it.

Once more, it is not about me or Bill, it's about the photographic evidence that we have access to & are trying to make the best of.

The only person you need to apologize to is Gordon Arnold IMO.

Bill

Edited February 15, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The banning of me only took place after Jack's Zapruder Waltz was forwarded by me as a point of discussion.Censorship lives at Lancer,you and many others wish to be a part of that,i don't.

Duncan

Technically, you are right ... your post on the Zapruder Waltz did come before you made that stupid remark about someone having their mouth to her ass and sucking on it. I can only assume that you are not use to making such references to women with class and seeing how they react. If doing such a thing didn't make you look foolish enough .... pretending to not know that what you did that was wrong makes you look even worse, but it is probably not your fault for you apparently were never taught any better. Let me give you an example: If I said that that you'd be a better person if you were not hanging around with some trampy-slut like 'Jane Doe' .... do you think that even though my remark was directed at you that 'Jane Doe' would appreciate what I referenced about her? Once you come to grips with the mistake you made - you can finally start taking responibility for what you did.

Now if you wish to say something else stupid about that affair ... please do and I will leave you with the last word because we are now talking about something that not only has anything to do with the JFK assassination, but we are also talking about something that one should have known better than to ever let happen in the first place.

Now in response #39, I presented the evidence as to why Jack must have misread the Bronson slide ... would you care to discuss the information I posted?

Bill

Edited February 15, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jim Hackett II]

Jim Hackett wrote:

[...]

Some people's research is weak so bluster and abusive behavior are used to cover deficiencies in that work and to avoid REAL PEER REVIEW of said work.

Jim

__________

REAL peer review? Interesting post to a internet forum... just how do you determine who the peers are and what makes them peers -- I suspect the one and only primary qualification is, breathing the same air as others?

You been around this stuff as long as a few here have, you'll understand why CT's don't stand for Lone Neuter BS, PERIOD!

OK let me elicidate a little.

First let me compliment you on your work re film alterations and methods as I was educated by that work. Learning is on a higher level of valuable things to me than some I fear.

I've been around political research off and on since 1970. I hold valid opinions as to "peer review". I've seen enough of flame wars and even learned of felonies committed to empower the slander of another's

unpublished work before release. That describes an agenda at work does it not?

I doubt sometimes whether some people really are "breathing the same air", but they must be right?

I'll put this in this manner, questioning and even refutation of any position is "peer review" within behavioral norms (for most human beings), as is agreement to points made. The hallmark of not so honorable deeds as slander and abusive behavior is not to me any form of peer review.

Why? Because insult, slander and ad homenim attacks HALT further meaningful exchanges. Sometimes for reasons I suspect to be to HALT peer review for fear of exposure of bogus work done.

One can state simply "I don't agree and here is why I don't...." rather than engage in conduct that calls to question the intelligence or integrity or ability of another to hold valid opinions.

One CAN CHOOSE to RESPECTFULLY ask questions and LEARN from each other's particular area of interest or expertise without demeaning anyone that by their own process conclude something different.

LEARN being the operative idea.

To engage in less than civil conduct demeans all involved in political research and does harm to the efforts many have devoted large amounts of time and money to advance.

Some that do engage in such vile conduct have "reputations" to promote. Some have made a game of political research, that I take quite seriously as I hope is borne by my steadfast refusal to ever refer to any researcher as a conspiracy theorist or buff.

In sum: Any person holding an opinion is correct to do so no matter the position, but no disagreement is justification for conduct that demeans all the people that desire truth to be made known.

Consider that in direct contrast to the 43 year history of the US Government and Media pronouncements that "Oswald Did It! Haven't You Heard?", the independent critical thinking political researchers have convinced the vast majority of Americans that the WC Report and HSCA Report are full of crap. That maybe the most important "peer review" of all!

That is a big thing.

I do understand the passion raised in the Jack Kennedy Murder issue as no justice has ever been forth coming and Texas has been over willing to abort due process and execution of the law.

I do not write of passion raised and harsh things said alone, passion can bring occasions of well passionate discourse. The mark of what any researcher is about is when the researchers work out their confrontations and get on with the work without the rancor.

Some do and some cannot. Some can forward peer review and use the community effort to refine ideas or concepts. Some cannot and seem to be concerned about other issues of a personal nature and peer review falls no where in the work of some.

Somewhat akin to the difference between criticism to demean another and constructive criticism to forward the work.

I am only trying to clarify what I intended to express above.

By their fruit you will know them.

I hope this helps you know what I meant Mr Healy.

Quite Sincerely

Jim

FWIW I am solidly of the opinion that a conspiracy resulted in the death and furthermore the first conspiracy is attended by the conspiracy of the cover up of the murder of President Kennedy, and that Z film and other "evidence" alteration was/is part and parcel to the on going conspiracy of the cover up. I don't tolerate "LN" proponents as too much is now proven to decribe the conspiracies as a "theory".

Edited February 15, 2006 by Jim Hackett II

[Bill Miller]

As everyone can see below,Miller has twisted my words.He is a xxxx and is deliberately trying to mislead everyone here by misquoting me and insinuating that i directly insulted Debra.

FWIW ... In response #43, I had paraphrased what you had said - no quotes were offered in that response. Once again you are wrong about the facts. However, I won't accuse you of lying on that point and instead I will assume that you were just too ignorant to know the difference ... much the same way that you are too ignoronat to know how you insulted Debra.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Paraphrasing isn't good enough when accusations are being cast by you.My Post Number 44 tells the truth.and anyone reading it will see how twisted your accusations have been.

As I recall, I not only paraphrased what you implied, but I also invited everyone to go to Lancer and read up on the archived post AND YOU TOLD THEM NOT TO! So what you have done is basically told people not to read Lancer's forum as I suggested and then implied that I wasn't letting everyone know the truth ... I find that truly amazing!

Debra has been exposed for what she is,a non seeker of the truth,and anyone who can not see that is a fool.You declare yourself as researcher and truth seeker Bill, yet decide to stay and fester among the censors who as shown in post number 44 do not allow free speech on photographic alteration.Something does not compute Will Robinson.Danger Danger !!!

Duncan

Duncan - Jack's Zapruder Waltz had already been dead in the water and Debra knew that you were not offering it up because you have new information on it - she knew you were trying to run up forum space by getting the pot stiirred. Here is the link to that thread for those who 'wish to know the truth' as you like to put it ...

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

If anyone thinks that you were sincer, then let me invite them to see that all you had done was place an enlarged fuzzy Bronson print on the thread and all you said was ... "Scroll around this version." Your next posted response said only this, "Thanks for showing us the Zapruder waltz which clearly shows Sitzmans legs in front of Zapruder. It's nice to see you promoting Jack's work." Your heading for that response said, "This Bronson Tells No Lies !!!!" You never said why Jack was correct - you didn't offer a single example as to why you believed in the alleged Zapruder Waltz claim ... you merely threw it out there to put in a plug for Jack and to waste forum space where the person who started the thread had only asked why it was so hard for him to see Zapruder and Sitzman in the Bronson slide. You never addressed the posters question, but instead you tried hi-jacking the thread in a new direction. Even on this thread I have asked several times if you would care to address the evidence I have presented as to how Jack misread the Bronson slide and instead you only keep making senseless replies that do not address the Zapruder Waltz at all. You have counltess post up on this forum calling for civility and to stay on the topic only to then do the opposite yourself.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

Duncan - Jack's Zapruder Waltz had already been dead in the water and Debra knew that you were not offering it up because you have new information on it - she knew you were trying to run up forum space by getting the pot stiirred. Here is the link to that thread for those who 'wish to know the truth' as you like to put it

[...]

___________________

Maybe "dead" in the eyes of some, not that I pay much attention to that end of the argument/photo evidence...

The photos comparison has raised a question in my mind; based on Groden's pic, on or off the pedestal -- heights of these folks, front or back, doesn't wash...

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

You are a member of Lancer where it is forbidden to speak on alteration at the pedestal.I do not see any point in discussing alteration at the pedestal area with you here,when you believe,by default, that Debra's decision to censor such postings is acceptable.With regards to other matters not pertaining to the pedestal area, i may or may not respond to you if and when i feel i have something to say.

Duncan

Duncan - photo and film alteration threads have existed since 1999 on Lancer when I joined and they continue there today, so I again don't know why you say the things you do. You also can feel free to address the points I made on the alleged Zapruder Waltz when ever you feel like you can. For some reason I had already assumed that seeing how you were claiming support for Jack's opinion on this subject ... that you already given some serious study on this particular topic. I will leave you with all the time you need to actually study the evidence before offering an opinion on Jack's accuracy.

Bill

Maybe "dead" in the eyes of some, not that I pay much attention to that end of the argument/photo evidence...

The photos comparison has raised a question in my mind; based on Groden's pic, on or off the pedestal -- heights of these folks, front or back, doesn't wash...

David, I'll make you the same offer as I did Duncan and that is if you have any specifics you would like to address or any facts you'd like to offer, then feel free to do so and we will discuss them.

Now let me share some information that I obtained that you didn't provide .......

The Bell and Nix films show Zapruder and Sitzman standing next to one another. The Moorman photo shows the same, but with Zapruder bent to the side slightly which would make him appear shorter next to Sitzman. The Bronson slide shows Zapruder looking pretty much errect as he is standing next to Sitzman who is wearing high heel shoes. I believe that Tom Purvis posted once that he spoke to Zapruder's son who put his fthers height at 5'10".

Now about the Groden measurement ... I consulted Gary Mack about the known height of Abraham Zapruder and the height of the pedestal. Gary mentions that some slight changes in the sod around the pedestal may have occurred since the time of the assassination, but that there are fixed objects that can be used for measuring because they have remained unchanged since 11/22/63 .. the steps next to the pedestal being one such example. The following infomation comes from Gary Mack:

"I measured the pedestal height this morning. Rather than use the grass, as Jack did, I used the top of the bottom and top steps that adjoin the pedestal (there are three steps in all).

The distance from the top of the top step to the top of the pedestal is 40 inches; the distance from the top of the bottom step to the top of the pedestal is 49.5 inches.

I would ignore the "camber" at the top of the pedestal, since Zapruder's shoes would straddle the raised center section. The result would be that his shoes (which would add 1/4-1/2 inch) would be placed very close to the outer edges of the rectangular pedestal. My measurements were made to the outer edge.

Zapruder's daughter has also told me that Z was about 5'10" and, as researchers who knew her confirm, Sitzman was also very tall, almost six feet. FWIW, I met Henry Zapruder and he was almost six feet.

With that information, you should be able to scale the photos accurately to determine Sitzman's height and Zapruder's. Zapruder, of course, was crouching somewhat by the time of the head shot."

Bill

Edited February 15, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ed O'Hagan]

Deleted and transferred to appropriate thread .

Edited February 15, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan

[Bill Miller]

"Duncan - photo and film alteration threads have existed since 1999 on Lancer when I joined and they continue there today, so I again don't know why you say the things you do."

Bill,

Here's why i say the things i do.You are playing the fool,and everyone here knows it.

Duncan ... you already posted this text in response #44 ... I offered for people to read it right off Lancer's archives before that ... and now you repeat it again as if somehow saying it enough times will overshadow the stupid remark you made that got you canned. She knew your motives and just like on this forum ... you have voiced an opinion in support of the alleged Zapruder Waltz claim and you cannot even address the first thing about the evidence I presented before you. Debra saw through you and all you had to do was take it to the proper thread that I suggested, but instead you opened up your big mouth and made a comment that included Debra's name in it and that is when she said enough was enough. I doubt that even as of today you have not attempted to apologize to her. It was you who escalated the situation by including her in a remark that left her little choice but to do what she did and now like a worm you are trying to push the blame off on her.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Bill,do me a favour and go on holiday or something.This is really boring me now.If you have something sensible to say other than continually seeking brownie points from Debra then say it,and if not go do something useful like playing with your GI Joe dolls.

Duncan

Duncan, I see that you are not so bored as to continue replying. I also do not think that Debra uses this forum for I have yet to ever see her online here. And I'd be happy to do something useful, but as you may remember - you cannot address the points that I made concerning the alleged 'Zapruder Waltz' because you haven't had time to study them or so you say ... although you wasted no time in voicing support for Jack's claim being accurate. I am thinking that if you spent more time examning the evidence that I presented you with and less time trying to pretend that what you did with Debra was right, then we both can get to discusing something useful! By the way, it took me less than a few monutes to see how Jack misread the Bronson slide ... with you already having the evidence pointed out to you - Why are you not able to address the Zapruder Waltz evidence that I presented after so much time?

Bill

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Duncan

Duncan, I see that you are not so bored as to continue replying. I also do not think that Debra uses this forum for I have yet to ever see her online here.

undefined She does Bill, but very infrequently. FWIW. Steve.

[Bill Miller]

Debra does use this forum,her name was showing as online only 2 days ago,and guess which thread she was reading?,it doesn't take a genius to work it out.What she does here is her business of course and not mine.She is free to contribute here without censorship unlike her non alteration gestapo like policy discussion regime at Lancer.

I was unaware that debra uses this forum, but then again I don't watch for those sorts of things. As far as censorship, we discuss photo and film alteration on Lancer all the time. The history of such dicussions can easily be seen by going there. However, her allowing you to disrepect her was where she drew the line.

As for me not commenting on Jack's Zapruder Waltz,i have given a more than adequate explanation which requires no further comment.

Duncan

Yes ... you have validated Jack's ridiculous claim, but cannot comment on the simple points that I presented. I see that Jack had no further comment either, so what is the game plan ... to wait until you think people forgot the evidence I presented and then try pushing that silly claim again?

Bill