The Men Who Killed Kennedy

[Sandy Larsen]

If you don't mind, Kirk, can you tell me briefly why you don't believe the stories of Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, and Beverly Oliver? I don't have an opinion on any of them. (I just barely read about them on Spartacus Educational) I'd just like to know what to look out for.

Sandy, My memory may not serve me 100% accurately, as it's been 15 years since I saw TMWKK in it's entirety. In all these cases, we have people who didn't really surface with their testimony for almost 20 years. That to me, is a red flag. Ed Hoffman's veracity was called into question by his Father, who I believe I heard was at the scene as well, though I may be mistaken. He claims to have reported what he saw at the time but no one would pay him any attention. But he could have insisted on going on record but he didn't persist.

Gordon Arnold claims are incredible, he who was told earlier by a man who showed his Secret Service credentials to get away from the fence area and then heard a shot pass right by his ear? So what did he do with the information.? He told no one at the time what he saw because he said he left the next day to be stationed in Alaska. What excuse is that? Then they show him that computer image of a photo where he is standing right alongside, (was it badge man and his accomplice?) and ask him if that could have been him, and he said it was. First off I don't believe the photo. I thought it was ironic that despite Gary Mack' reversal over time, he propagated one of the flimsier pieces of evidence in TMWKK with his Badge Man photo. But that's just my opinion.

Beverly Oliver also surfaced many years later. Her excuse was that she saw other witnesses meet their death, which was the best excuse of any of the 3. I think I remember the camera model she claims to have had taken away didn't exist at that time. But she did prove to have worked for the rival club to Jack Ruby's Carousel club, though she was quite young. She came out many years later as Babushka lady after probably reading that no one had ever found Babushka Lady. JMO

In all 3 of them, to me intuitively there's something very fishy. But that's just me. I tend to be very skeptical of witnesses and authors who provide new revelations after all these years. Like Roger Stone, who claims as an intern (Stone was 21 when Nixon resigned.) he was confided in by Nixon that Nixon positively believed LBJ had Kennedy killed, when there has been no other record of Nixon divulging such information to his aides, cabinet members or personal friends. Any other background information to fill in the dots he just steals from Barr Mc Clellan and Madeline Duncan Brown. But I also tend to be skeptical of more recent revelations such as RFK's desire to launch an investigation into his brother's death once he becomes President. I just felt I would have heard something else about that over all these years. It may be true, believe whatever you will.

Thanks Kirk.

That a witness wouldn't make sure their testimony is heard by an authority doesn't surprise or bother me at all. Maybe because I wouldn't have wanted to get involved myself if I felt my story wasn't crucial. So I'm going to keep an open mind on these three characters.

Now, if they didn't tell ANYBODY (like family members) their story for twenty years, that would be a red flag to me.

As for Gary Mack... no wonder he switched sides. I would too if it was flimsy things like Badge Man keeping me on the CT side! But I jest.

I don't believe ANYTHING Roger Stone says, even when he's telling the truth. Because of his lifelong career of deceiving people.

[Kirk Gallaway]

"Maybe because I wouldn't have wanted to get involved myself if I felt my story wasn't crucial. "

But certainly Arnold and Hoffman's stories if they're to be believed are crucial.They identify the location of the shooter (Arnold)and the actions taken between 2 men to dispose of the murder weapon.(Hoffman). People were more involved and trusting of their authorities back then. (or about up to that day!) .

The actions described by Hoffman, that a man rushes toward the triple overpass with the murder weapon and passes it off to a man who disassembles it, puts it in a bag and walks off, also sounds kind of conspicuous to me.

Yeah, the refutation of "Badge Man" must have been quite an epiphany for Mack. heh heh

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy Said: "Maybe because I wouldn't have wanted to get involved myself if I felt my story wasn't crucial. "

But certainly Arnold and Hoffman's stories if they're to be believed are crucial.

Yes, you're right about Hoffman, since he actually saw the shooter. But as I understand it, Hoffman did try to alert the SS and FBI, but they couldn't understand him as he was deaf and dumb. His father was afraid for his son's life and it was he who opposed going to authorities.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhoffman.htm

I now remember seeing Hoffman explain what happened in a video on YouTube. I found his story compelling.

As for Arnold, at age 22 he was but a kid. And all he knew was that he'd had an encounter with an SS agent. If he had to ship out the following day.... well, there you go. The kid had to leave.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKarnoldG.htm

They identify the location of the shooter (Arnold)and the actions taken between 2 men to dispose of the murder weapon.(Hoffman). People were more involved and trusting of their authorities back then. (or about up to that day!) .

The actions described by Hoffman, that a man rushes toward the triple overpass with the murder weapon and passes it off to a man who disassembles it, puts it in a bag and walks off, also sounds kind of conspicuous to me.

Yeah, the refutation of "Badge Man" must have been quite an epiphany for Mack. heh heh

[Kirk Gallaway]

Sandy Said: "Maybe because I wouldn't have wanted to get involved myself if I felt my story wasn't crucial. "

But certainly Arnold and Hoffman's stories if they're to be believed are crucial.

Yes, you're right about Hoffman, since he actually saw the shooter. But as I understand it, Hoffman did try to alert the SS and FBI, but they couldn't understand him as he was deaf and dumb. His father was afraid for his son's life and it was he who opposed going to authorities.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhoffman.htm

I now remember seeing Hoffman explain what happened in a video on YouTube. I found his story compelling.

As for Arnold, at age 22 he was but a kid. And all he knew was that he'd had an encounter with an SS agent. If he had to ship out the following day.... well, there you go. The kid had to leave.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKarnoldG.htm

They identify the location of the shooter (Arnold)and the actions taken between 2 men to dispose of the murder weapon.(Hoffman). People were more involved and trusting of their authorities back then. (or about up to that day!) .

The actions described by Hoffman, that a man rushes toward the triple overpass with the murder weapon and passes it off to a man who disassembles it, puts it in a bag and walks off, also sounds kind of conspicuous to me.

Yeah, the refutation of "Badge Man" must have been quite an epiphany for Mack. heh heh

But Sandy, Of course, if you and I agree that the Badge Man simulated photo is BS. And Arnold professes to be in the photo.What does that say about Arnold's truthfulness? Ok I'll grant that it's not an absolute slam dunk that he's lying, if you believe him. But that hardly supports him..

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy Said: "Maybe because I wouldn't have wanted to get involved myself if I felt my story wasn't crucial. "

But certainly Arnold and Hoffman's stories if they're to be believed are crucial.

Yes, you're right about Hoffman, since he actually saw the shooter. But as I understand it, Hoffman did try to alert the SS and FBI, but they couldn't understand him as he was deaf and dumb. His father was afraid for his son's life and it was he who opposed going to authorities.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhoffman.htm

I now remember seeing Hoffman explain what happened in a video on YouTube. I found his story compelling.

As for Arnold, at age 22 he was but a kid. And all he knew was that he'd had an encounter with an SS agent. If he had to ship out the following day.... well, there you go. The kid had to leave.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKarnoldG.htm

They identify the location of the shooter (Arnold)and the actions taken between 2 men to dispose of the murder weapon.(Hoffman). People were more involved and trusting of their authorities back then. (or about up to that day!) .

The actions described by Hoffman, that a man rushes toward the triple overpass with the murder weapon and passes it off to a man who disassembles it, puts it in a bag and walks off, also sounds kind of conspicuous to me.

Yeah, the refutation of "Badge Man" must have been quite an epiphany for Mack. heh heh

But Sandy, Of course, if you and I agree that the Badge Man simulated photo is BS. And Arnold professes to be in the photo.What does that say about Arnold's truthfulness? Ok I'll grant that it's not an absolute slam dunk that he's lying, if you believe him. But that hardly supports him..

Kirk,

The reason I don't say Arnold is lying is only because I don't know the specifics of that part of the story, about his being shown the Badgeman photo. Suppose they showed him the photo, and he looked at is and thought to himself that ,yes, he was standing right around that location. I could see him saying that he supposes that was him.

Now if he said, not only was that him, but that he saw Badgman there with a gun on 11/22/63, then yes, I think he was likely lying.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Joe Bauer]

Kirk Galloway-

I accessed the links you mentioned including Col. Daniel Marvin's posts here.

I read Allen Eaglesham's comments that he eventually felt Marvin equivocated too much about David Vanek and this led him to question and be less than confident in Marvin's story.

I read about William Bruce Pitzer's widow's recollections after Pitzer was found dead. I read Dennis David's recorded accounts.

I read the intro to Marvin's book.

Like countless other forays into JFK related material, I am left in a quandry about what is true and what is false and what to think and believe.

My gut feelings ( which have not always been correct ) tells me Dennis David is telling the truth and probably Marvin too.

But with more published info on this subject being reviewed, you just end up kind of paralyzed with unsureness.

Seems the whole JFK / Lee Harvey Oswald truth journey is like this.

Thanks for the links.

[Chris Newton]

As crazy as his story is, I believe Arnold. Since his story was contrary to the LN myth and he has an impediment it seems easy to discount but I sense no desire for notoriety or undue attention from the man. His description of the weapon he saw, which he could not identify, would fit well with some silenced weapons.

Just my two cents...