Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall

[Tim Carroll]

Hmmm.

I think everyone here has a diferent idea/view of Gordon Arnold & his story & that includes GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter but I'm not clear whether Tim believes in it or not.  Could you perhaps give us your opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold Tim?

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan,

I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis.... I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story.

Alan, what did you mean when you referred to "GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter?" How do their views differ?

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you clearly are not up to speed about Gordon Arnold. Arnold DID NOT "COME FORWARD."

It is not wise to decide Gordon was a phony when you don't know the full story.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack:

I could have sworn that my above-quoted remark makes it abundantly clear that I don't claim to be "up to speed about Gordon Arnold." I did not say that Arnold came forward; I said that if he came forward (meaning told someone his story) before the Moorman interpretations, "that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story." How you can interpret that as me unwisely deciding that "Gordon was a phony" is beyond me.

Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

Additional information aquired through Gary Mack concerning Gordon Arnold:

Gary Mack writes: Bill,I interviewed Arnold by phone two or three times in late 1982 and early 1983, and I asked the questions that Earl either did not or that were left out of his Dallas Morning News story in 1978. He related things to me that I thought could only have come from someone who had really been there at the time. Six years later, as senior consultant to TMWKK series, I asked Arnold to appear in the show. He was reluctant to do so, but his family convinced him to do it so there would be a permanent record of his story. When Nigel Turner offered him the standard $100 everyone was given for their time and trouble, Arnold was so offended he canceled the planned interview. Again his family ultimately convinced him to go ahead.Gary Mack

[Jack White]

Thanks, Bill...you are correct in nearly every respect. However, you could not have

known about Jim Marrs interviewing him in the mid-80s. Also, Gary Mack interviewed

him BY PHONE several times. His story was always consistent. And you are right

about him thinking that the Turner interview PUT HIM IN DANGER.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew Marrs wrote about Arnold in his book "Crossfire:The Plot to Kill Kennedy" and that Gary Mack had spoken to Gordon, but I thought those were done at the time of the MWKK series was interviewing Gordon as well. Did Marrs actually talk to Gordon before Turners people did?

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marrs and Mack both interviewed Arnold around 1983-84, at least 5 years before the Turner

interview...Marrs before Mack. Mack talked to him by phone AFTER we discovered his image

in Moorman in 1983.

Jack

[Jack White]

Hmmm.

I think everyone here has a diferent idea/view of Gordon Arnold & his story & that includes GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter but I'm not clear whether Tim believes in it or not.  Could you perhaps give us your opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold Tim?

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan,

I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis.... I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story.

Alan, what did you mean when you referred to "GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter?" How do their views differ?

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...you clearly are not up to speed about Gordon Arnold. Arnold DID NOT "COME FORWARD."

It is not wise to decide Gordon was a phony when you don't know the full story.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack:

I could have sworn that my above-quoted remark makes it abundantly clear that I don't claim to be "up to speed about Gordon Arnold." I did not say that Arnold came forward; I said that if he came forward (meaning told someone his story) before the Moorman interpretations, "that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story." How you can interpret that as me unwisely deciding that "Gordon was a phony" is beyond me.

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry if I offended. Your FULL quote:

I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis. I have of course seen the "enhancements" of the poor quality Moorman polaroid that appear to show a serviceman wearing an overseas cap, to the viewer's left of the purported Badgeman. Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story.

UNQUOTE

"Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. " If this expresses

your opinion, you are clearly "not up to speed".

For your information, those "enhancements" were proven "valid" by MIT more than 20 years

ago. And Mr. Arnold did NOT GIVE A TEARFUL PERFORMANCE; he was interviewed.

Selective quotation of yourself does not enhance credibility.

Sorry you were offended.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

Hmmm.

I think everyone here has a diferent idea/view of Gordon Arnold & his story & that includes GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter but I'm not clear whether Tim believes in it or not.  Could you perhaps give us your opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold Tim?

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim responded to Alan: (Full quote) "Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK." I have of course seen the "enhancements" of the poor quality Moorman polaroid that appear to show a serviceman wearing an overseas cap, to the viewer's left of the purported Badgeman. Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story."

Jack's retort:

"Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. " If this expresses your opinion, you are clearly "not up to speed". For your information, those "enhancements" were proven "valid" by MIT more than 20 years ago.

And Mr. Arnold did NOT GIVE A TEARFUL PERFORMANCE; he was interviewed. Selective quotation of yourself does not enhance credibility.

Sorry you were offended.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack:

I'm not offended; I'm resistive to mischaracterization and misquoting. Let me answer your last remark first: I regularly block out the aspects of a quote that do not pertain to the issue to which I'm responding; and when I do so you will always find that I use what in grammar is known as an ellipse (... for a break in a sentence and .... at the end of a sentence, to represent a break in the quote). It is a fundamental tool of historical writing, so if you meant to attack my "credibility" based upon misleading selective quoting, then I probably should be offended; but I'm cutting you slack for what I interpret to be your less adequate grammatical skill.

As for the following: "And Mr. Arnold did NOT GIVE A TEARFUL PERFORMANCE; he was interviewed." And when he was supposedly shown the photo of himself for the first time he became quite choked up. But again, I'm not "up to speed" on whether a tear actually rolled down his cheek because I haven't bothered with viewing that interview for many years; and I did say quite forthrightly: "I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis."

Now Jack, I'm going to restate part of my quote to you, but since I already addressed Mr. Arnold's emotionalism, I will leave that part out, using the aforementioned ellipses: "Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question.... " (see those?)

Jack wrote: "For your information, those "enhancements" were proven "valid" by MIT more than 20 years ago." Now, this is the subject area I had avoided with the ellipses in my previous post to you. I said: "Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question." In other words, IF those enhancements are proven valid, as you state with certainty that they were (I assume this means Badgeman was also "proven 'valid' by MIT"?...) "it would still leave the identity in question." Did MIT prove the identity to be Mr. Arnold? Do you really challenge that language? ITEK disproved classic gunman, the National Academy of Sciences disproved the dictabelt recording, you proved that Zapruder is not atop the pedestal, now we have MIT proving that Gordon Arnold is shown in what I called "the poor quality Moorman polaroid." If it's proven, why do so many disagree? Do you consider it proven that Zapruder was not atop the pedestal? Do you believe it proven that man didn't travel to the moon (as Gary Mack asserted about you)?

Your attacking someone who readily admitted to not being "up to speed" about a particular subject. You mischaracterized a common grammatical practice as being utilized dishonorably. If these photo interpretations are a matter of certainty, as Bill Miller regularly asserts, then do you both agree about all of the other issues I named?

It is certainty that "historically has encouraged people to harm or kill others. Genocide, racial and religious persecution, and the rest of the long catalogue of political acts that have stained human history can only come from people who are sure that they are right" - Murray Edelman

Jack, I admitted to my uncertainty, on a subject about which I admit to little interest, and you came back, along with your buddy Bill, WITH CERTAINTY, to which I do not subscribe. I hope you aren't offended.

Respectfully,

Tim Carroll

Edited December 21, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Ron Ecker]

Mack talked to him by phone AFTER we discovered his image

in Moorman in 1983.

If Arnold therefore knew of the image before it was shown to him in TMWKK, then the surprise he showed in that video was contrived, was it not?

Ron

[Tim Carroll]

Mack talked to him by phone AFTER we discovered his image

in Moorman in 1983.

If Arnold therefore knew of the image before it was shown to him in TMWKK, then the surprise he showed in that video was contrived, was it not?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like it understood that the only reason I ever addressed the issue of Gordon Arnold was because when I was asked my "opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold," by Alan Healy, to which I was not prepared to respond at the time, I promised, at 3 a.m. the night of Gary Webb's memorial: "I've been through too much this week and it's too late at night to provide an adequate answer to your question, but I will try as soon as possible.... I will not neglect to provide you with the best response I can." Now I find myself defending the non-grammatical twisting of that response by photo interpreters of unqualified certainty. Why don't they respond to thoughtful seminars - the kind of stuff that will be passed on to our children's children?

Tim Carroll

Edited December 21, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Hmmm.

I think everyone here has a diferent idea/view of Gordon Arnold & his story & that includes GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter but I'm not clear whether Tim believes in it or not.  Could you perhaps give us your opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold Tim?

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim responded to Alan: (Full quote) "Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK." I have of course seen the "enhancements" of the poor quality Moorman polaroid that appear to show a serviceman wearing an overseas cap, to the viewer's left of the purported Badgeman. Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story."

Jack's retort:

"Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. " If this expresses your opinion, you are clearly "not up to speed". For your information, those "enhancements" were proven "valid" by MIT more than 20 years ago.

And Mr. Arnold did NOT GIVE A TEARFUL PERFORMANCE; he was interviewed. Selective quotation of yourself does not enhance credibility.

Sorry you were offended.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack:

I'm not offended; I'm resistive to mischaracterization and misquoting. Let me answer your last remark first: I regularly block out the aspects of a quote that do not pertain to the issue to which I'm responding; and when I do so you will always find that I use what in grammar is known as an ellipse (... for a break in a sentence and .... at the end of a sentence, to represent a break in the quote). It is a fundamental tool of historical writing, so if you meant to attack my "credibility" based upon misleading selective quoting, then I probably should be offended; but I'm cutting you slack for what I interpret to be your less adequate grammatical skill.

As for the following: "And Mr. Arnold did NOT GIVE A TEARFUL PERFORMANCE; he was interviewed." And when he was supposedly shown the photo of himself for the first time he became quite choked up. But again, I'm not "up to speed" on whether a tear actually rolled down his cheek because I haven't bothered with viewing that interview for many years; and I did say quite forthrightly: "I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis."

Now Jack, I'm going to restate part of my quote to you, but since I already addressed Mr. Arnold's emotionalism, I will leave that part out, using the aforementioned ellipses: "Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question.... " (see those?)

Jack wrote: "For your information, those "enhancements" were proven "valid" by MIT more than 20 years ago." Now, this is the subject area I had avoided with the ellipses in my previous post to you. I said: "Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question." In other words, IF those enhancements are proven valid, as you state with certainty that they were (I assume this means Badgeman was also "proven 'valid' by MIT"?...) "it would still leave the identity in question." Did MIT prove the identity to be Mr. Arnold? Do you really challenge that language? ITEK disproved classic gunman, the National Academy of Sciences disproved the dictabelt recording, you proved that Zapruder is not atop the pedestal, now we have MIT proving that Gordon Arnold is shown in what I called "the poor quality Moorman polaroid." If it's proven, why do so many disagree? Do you consider it proven that Zapruder was not atop the pedestal? Do you believe it proven that man didn't travel to the moon (as Gary Mack asserted about you)?

Your attacking someone who readily admitted to not being "up to speed" about a particular subject. You mischaracterized a common grammatical practice as being utilized dishonorably. If these photo interpretations are a matter of certainty, as Bill Miller regularly asserts, then do you both agree about all of the other issues I named?

It is certainty that "historically has encouraged people to harm or kill others. Genocide, racial and religious persecution, and the rest of the long catalogue of political acts that have stained human history can only come from people who are sure that they are right" - Murray Edelman

Jack, I admitted to my uncertainty, on a subject about which I admit to little interest, and you came back, along with your buddy Bill, WITH CERTAINTY, to which I do not subscribe. I hope you aren't offended.

Respectfully,

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim...I fail to understand your considerable hostility.

Your accusation about my grammatical skills is quite misinformed. You know

nothing of my educational and professional writing accomplishments, and thus know not

of what you speak. I always was graded A+ in English, was editor of my high school

and college newspapers, was copy editor at a large advertising agency for many years, and

have authored more copy than you would care to know about. Among my associates

I am known and respected for my grammatical and spelling skills.

No, I am never offended when someone makes ILL-INFORMED statements about me.

You have NO BASIS for assuming my lack of grammatical knowledge. Saying so without

any basis is a reflection on you, not me. Your characterization of Miller as "your buddy Bill"

shows your ignorance of his long record of vitriolic attacks on my research. It just so happens

that in the case of the Moorman photo, he agrees with me.

To answer some of your other questions:

Yes, computer scientists at MIT did validate the Badgeman image about 1983. Sorry you

refuse to accept this. Talk to Dr. Wu at MIT who did the analysis.

No, MIT did not study the Gordon Arnold image. So of course they could not "identify"

him. Anyway, the person in the photo is holding a camera in front of his face. For that

matter, they did not "identify" Badgeman; they confirmed it was a man in a uniform likely

firing a gun.

You have mischaracterized my positions on many topics, so I cannot provide answers:

1. It is not necessarily PROVEN that ITEK invalidated the cartop gunman image, although

their conclusion agrees with my own studies.

2. It is not necessarily PROVEN that NAS invalidated the HSCA acoustics conclusions; in

fact, I believe the opposite is true, and that their decision was politically motivated.

3. It is not necessarily PROVEN that Zapruder was atop the pedestal with Sitzman. If you

think so, you are not aware of the facts. There is no proof that Zapruder shot the extant

film, since it has been proved to be a fabrication.

4. It is not necessarily PROVEN that man went to the moon. It can be proved that THE

APOLLO MOON PHOTOS ARE FAKED. I know of no proof that man did go to the moon, or

that it did not occur. I have NEVER claimed to know this. My only claim is that the photos

are hoaxes. By suggesting otherwise, you demonstrate that your statements and questions

are without merit.

I suggest that you get the chip off your shoulder and study the facts before making

ill-informed statements. Attack ideas if you must, but attacking researchers is counter

productive and shows the weakness of your position.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

Tim...I fail to understand your considerable hostility....

No, MIT did not study the Gordon Arnold image....  We were discussing Arnold, not Badgeman, when you asserted MIT's validation.  Now you've changed subjects misleadingly.

It is not necessarily PROVEN that NAS invalidated the HSCA acoustics conclusions; in fact, I believe the opposite is true, and that their decision was politically motivated.  I agree with you; I cited it as an example of not resorting to an MIT study as 20 year old proof of Arnold's presence.

It is not necessarily PROVEN that Zapruder was atop the pedestal with Sitzman. If you think so, you are not aware of the facts. There is no proof that Zapruder shot the extant film, since it has been proved to be a fabrication.  "Not necessarily" is not what you have written in the caption to the following photo; the word "clearly" implies certainty, which is a matter of proof:

It is not necessarily PROVEN that man went to the moon.  OK Jack; if you say so.  The following photo could not have been taken from earth orbit; where do you claim it to have come from?  Of has it been proven to be fake?

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I consider miscontextual wording like "not up to speed" and accusation of "selective quotation," especially given the context of the difficulty of people who don't narrow the issues to which they respond in the quote boxes, to be attackive and hostile. I see no acknowledgement of my grammatical point that I never break a quote without the proper use of an ellipse (especially when given that the full quote is previously contained in the thread).

So congratulations on your A+ in English in high school. How about an intelligent comment on my seminar, The Kennedys' Secret War, for example?

Tim Carroll

Edited December 21, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Alan Healy]

I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis.  I have of course seen the "enhancements" of the poor quality Moorman polaroid that appear to show a serviceman wearing an overseas cap, to the viewer's left of the purported Badgeman.  Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question.  I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK.  I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story.

Alan, what did you mean when you referred to "GMack & Bill, who both have very different views on the matter?"  How do their views differ?

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, thank you.

I certainly don't believe Arnold was there & I think he & his story are a hinderence to finding the truth.

I believe that shots where fired from the knoll now more than ever & I believe I am a little nearer the truth by dismissing his story.

In looking for things that do not support Arnold in the evidence I am gettting nearer the truth IMO.

That's that with that.

Everything that supports Arnold can be read differently.

In fact by doing this, I believe things make more sense.

Arnold in Moorman is the first step.

There are other interpetations of this figure & when I analyis it in detail it has huge flaws.

*******

Gary Mack thinks Blackdogman is one of the men on the steps in Moorman5 & Bill believes BDM is Arnold, as does Jack, only with a slighty more believeable explaination(imo).

As for Robert Groden we are not sure, please fill us in!

Alan

[Tim Carroll]

Tim, thank you.

I certainly don't believe Arnold was there & I think he & his story are a hinderence to finding the truth.  I believe that shots where fired from the knoll now more than ever & I believe I am a little nearer the truth by dismissing his story.

In looking for things that do not support Arnold in the evidence I am gettting nearer the truth IMO.  That's that with that.  Everything that supports Arnold can be read differently.  In fact by doing this, I believe things make more sense.  Arnold in Moorman is the first step.  There are other interpetations of this figure & when I analyis it in detail it has huge flaws.

*******

Gary Mack thinks Blackdogman is one of the men on the steps in Moorman5 & Bill believes BDM is Arnold, as does Jack, only with a slighty more believeable explaination(imo).

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan,

As for Jack's view of Arnold, did you notice how aggressive he became in saying: "you are clearly 'not up to speed'. For your information, those 'enhancements' [of Arnold] were proven "valid" by MIT more than 20 years ago?"

I do not want to represent Groden's view as it was just personal conversation. I may be mistakenly mischaracterizing his view, but my impression is that he recognizes that BDM was present at the retaining wall corner in Willis and Betzner, but has ducked or moved or split by the time of Moorman #5. Did you notice my thougtful deferral, at 3 am after Gary Webb's memorial when I promised to respond later? I always try to keep my word. I wrote:

"I would like it understood that the only reason I ever addressed the issue of Gordon Arnold was because when I was asked my "opinion on the circumstancial evidence that supports Arnold," by Alan Healy, to which I was not prepared to respond at the time, I promised, at 3 a.m. the night of Gary Webb's memorial: "I've been through too much this week and it's too late at night to provide an adequate answer to your question, but I will try as soon as possible.... I will not neglect to provide you with the best response I can." Now I find myself defending the non-grammatical twisting of that response by photo interpreters of unqualified certainty. Why don't they respond to thoughtful seminars - the kind of stuff that will be passed on to our children's children?"

My entire answer to you regarding Gordon Arnold was the following:

"I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis. I have of course seen the 'enhancements' of the poor quality Moorman polaroid that appear to show a serviceman wearing an overseas cap, to the viewer's left of the purported Badgeman. Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question. I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK. I suppose my detached analysis is that if Mr. Arnold came forward with his story prior to the purported recognition of a serviceman in that location, and if the enhancements were proven to be valid, that would constitute corroborating evidence of his story."

For that last paragraph, I was attacked coming and going, so what the hell - I'll just say it: I think the whole Gordon Arnold story is nonsense. I was even attacked for characterizing his performance in TMWKK as tearful, so I rephrased myself to say I remember that he was choked up. I also honestly admitted that I didn't care much about his story enough to follow-up significantly. How much more moderate can I be than to state, as I did: "I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis?"

Nevertheless, that's what I got for keeping my word to answer you as well as I could. It's now 5:45 a.m. If I've said something poorly, please understand. It's difficult to be treated as though I'm so dishonorable. Good night, Alan.

Tim Carroll

Edited December 22, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Gary Mack thinks Blackdogman is one of the men on the steps in Moorman5 & Bill believes BDM is Arnold, as does Jack, only with a slighty more believeable explaination(imo).

As for Robert Groden we are not sure, please fill us in!

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan...you have misstated my belief. I DO NOT BELIEVE BLACKDOGMAN IS ARNOLD!

BDM appears in only 2 photos...Willis and Betzner.

My actual belief (which you got wrong) is that both Willis and Betzner originally

showed in that location an unknown soldier with a camera. Fearing discovery of

a SOLDIER TAKING PHOTOS, the govt retouched Willis and Betzner to OBSCURE

THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER. In that location, they put in the indistinct spectator,

blackdogman.

Next time you quote my belief, use the above.

Jack

[Alan Healy]

Gary Mack thinks Blackdogman is one of the men on the steps in Moorman5 & Bill believes BDM is Arnold, as does Jack, only with a slighty more believeable explaination(imo).

As for Robert Groden we are not sure, please fill us in!

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan...you have misstated my belief. I DO NOT BELIEVE BLACKDOGMAN IS ARNOLD!

BDM appears in only 2 photos...Willis and Betzner.

My actual belief (which you got wrong) is that both Willis and Betzner originally

showed in that location an unknown soldier with a camera. Fearing discovery of

a SOLDIER TAKING PHOTOS, the govt retouched Willis and Betzner to OBSCURE

THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER. In that location, they put in the indistinct spectator,

blackdogman.

Next time you quote my belief, use the above.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry Jack! Recieved & understood.

I know your position exactly, I just maybe gave an over-simplified discription of it, my apologies.

Maybe you could explain to us why the figure that we see(especially the one in Betzner3 which is superior to the blurred figure in Willis) can't be mistaken for Arnold.

If Bill doesn't show you his interpretation of the Betzner3 figure & how it looks like Arnold to him, I will show you it tomorrow.

Also, do you agree that the Costella scan is the best we have seen?

Alan

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

What makes you think there was a soldier there with a camera, but it wasn't Arnold? If you're going to have a soldier there, why not make it Arnold, who was a soldier?

This reminds me of the old folk song about "Where have all the soldiers gone?".

Ron

[Bill Miller]

As for the following:  "And Mr. Arnold did NOT GIVE A TEARFUL PERFORMANCE; he was interviewed."  And when he was supposedly shown the photo of himself for the first time he became quite choked up.  But again, I'm not "up to speed" on whether a tear actually rolled down his cheek because I haven't bothered with viewing that interview for many years; and I did say quite forthrightly:  "I really don't know enough about Gordon Arnold to provide any meaningful analysis."

I believe it was your initial remark that Jack was addressing when you said, "I was not persuaded by Mr. Arnold's tearful performance in TMWKK." There was no following remarks made by you in that post as I recall that let Jack think you were not up to speed.

Now Jack, I'm going to restate part of my quote to you, but since I already addressed Mr. Arnold's emotionalism, I will leave that part out, using the aforementioned ellipses:  "Even if those enhancements were someday proven to be valid, it would still leave the identity in question.... " (see those?)

This is a true statement and a justifiable one. However, the identity of the person becomes clear when no one in the plaza but that person could have told of the things that occurred at that location just prior, during and after the assassination like Gordon Arnold was able to do.

Jack, I admitted to my uncertainty, on a subject about which I admit to little interest, and you came back, along with your buddy Bill, WITH CERTAINTY, to which I do not subscribe.  I hope you aren't offended.

"Certainty" comes with being familiar and up to speed with the evidence ... in this case it was over Gordon Arnold.