Bill Miller

Jack, I understand what you are saying, but I am not certain but what you may be giving the wrong impression to those less knowledgeable about this matter. I spoke to Jay Godwin in depth on that photo and he said that he didn't instruct Arnold to stand anywhere, but out where he could be seen. The newspaper wanted a photo of Arnold out by the knoll. To say it as though Arnold was looking for the exact location and missed it by 15 feet is what I am trying to correct. And I should add this - no one knew at that time that Arnold was in any assassination photos or films, thus from where the photo should be taken could not have been a factor for Godwin in case anyone gets that idea. So to recap the latter ... there was no Moorman recreation picture to be had for there was not one known to exist at that time - and there was no attempt by Arnold or Godwin to show the exact spot Arnold stood on that day (according to Godwin). In fact, that may have been wise for had Arnold of stood up in the shade - he might not have been seen all that well. Bill

Well, Duncan - you really didn't address anything, so let us try it this way .................. The wall can be a factor because you have already admitted that Arnold is seen in Moorman's photograph ... or at the very least it is someone the same size and shape as Arnold. This happened when you mentioned the 1963 Arnold in the Badge Man images was the same size as the 1988 Arnold in Turner's interview. Your problem has been that you believe the 1963 Arnold is too short to have his feet touching the ground. Can we agree on that much at this point? Bill

Can you be specific as to what Miles posted that was so magnificent? Was it the repeated posting that Holland left the underpass immediately after the shooting despite the Dillard photo showing otherwise? Was it Miles missing the numerous times that Mike Brown's name was mentioned in this thread? Was it his thinking that the Arnold DMN photo was supposed to be a reenactment photo despite Golz and Godwin saying otherwise - please be specific? Bill

"Yes I said that, so what?..It was said in the context that Arnold would have been younger fitter and slimmer back in 1963. In his Moorman portrayal, I chose that word carefully, we see what appears to be a portly figure comparable to the portly Arnold we see in TMWKK." The above is what you wrote in response #474. I assume that when you make a comment like the one saying that the two Arnold's are the same size - that this means that you have given some thought to your claim. So I assume you believe the wall on the knoll to be like it was in 1963 ... and Turner filmed Arnold standing beyond that wall ... so what is your opinion as to how the 1963 Arnold looked to the 1988 Turner Arnold beyond the wall? Bill

Jack, What part of Godwin and Golz saying that it wasn't a recreation photo of any kind ... that Jay merely walked over to the south side of Elm Street and took a photo of Arnold that you did not understand? It wouldn't matter where Jay stood if he has said that it was a random photo, thus there was never anything offered to mislead anyone. Bill

JFK once said that a mistake is not a mistake unless you refuse to correct it. No truer words were ever spoken when it comes to some people continually posting in an attempt not to teach, but to offer disinformation. The man who took the photo of Arnold on the knoll (Jay Godwin) is yet another contact I had made years ago. Jay said that the photo was just a random picture taken of Arnold near the knoll. I asked him if it was a staged reenactment picture and he said that it wasn't. Independently, Golz said the same thing. So what happens after this information being posted countless times in the past ... certain individuals prefer to ignore the only people who would know the truth and they purposely try to re-write history ... makes one wonder why anyone would ever need to talk to a witness ever again. Bill Miller

I know this has been corrected before, but going back and misstating the same facts seems to be an ongoing thing for some posters, so once again I will attempt to keep the record straight. Golz interviewed Arnold - Golz writes article - Yarborough reads the article telling of a man on leave from the military standing on the knoll - Yarborough calls Earl and tells him that he saw that man (Arnold) - Turner interviews Yarborough and Ralph confirms for Turner that he saw Arnold. In speaking with Golz ... he said he had several discussions and/or correspondences with Ralph Yarborough. When asked if Ralph could have been talking about someone else - Golz was baffled as to why anyone would think such a thing - and Earl was quite clear about Yarborough and he talking about the same man. Contact Earl and ask him that question. While talking to earl - ask him about his notes from those conversations for they were much more extensive than the few sentences put in the article. Gary Mack knows Earl very well and could probably share some information with you from he and Earl's past discussions on the subject. Now you know what Turner was thinking - that is amazing. Can you guess what I am thinking right now??? In keeping with yet another matter that Turner edited out of the Arnold matter ... Gary Mack said the following ----- "I know every one of those folks, have read and/or heard their accounts directly, and all but Upchurch and Turner published the information at the time. I watched a preview of the Arnold segment of TMWKK in 1988 in England and immediately called Turner's attention to the missing second officer. He readily admitted that those references were removed during editing of the show. The reason was simple, he told me. The way Gordon told his story became confusing and hard for viewers to follow. Turner was unable to include that detail, he told me, without severely disrupting the flow of the narrative and having to add an explanation from the narrator. That's what happens when you deal with a filmmaker rather than a true journalist. It's unfortunate that an interesting part of the story was obscured by one who failed to recognize the significance of that second officer." Now as I recall, Turner's documentaries were all limited to less than one hour of show time. In fact, individual TV stations had edited down some of the interview that is still seen on the DVD's of the actual show. It would appear that Turner wanted to use Yarborough for a specific purpose to keep the flow of the documentary going. I do recall however, that Mack once told me that Turner went to great lengths to interview people in Arnold's past so to confirm Gordon's story. Gary knows Turner and Sue Winter (Turner's assistant) and can possibly give you more information on this subject. I think as Mack pointed out ... Golz was a journalist ... not a JFK assassination researcher. Golz told me that his notes were being donated to one of the University's down there in Texas ... may have even been done already. Maybe Earl's notes can offer you some insight on the matter. Bill

Well, I can only say that I am glad that I am not in that group ... seems like I recall you guys having trouble trying to figure out what is west of the steps and what is not. Oh by the way, do you have a logical explanation for your remark about the Arnold in the Moorman photo being the same size as the Arnold seen in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series? Would not logic say that if Arnold seen standing beyond the wall with his feet on the ground in Turner's documentary is the same size as the Arnold in Moorman's photo, then there must be a logical explanation for your believing Arnold legs are so short in your illustration. Do you see the problem with your remark now??? Bill

You could prevent such a waste of bandwidth by reading the responses in this thread rather than just the ones that appeal to you because of their trolling potential. Was that not Gordon Arnold in the Turner interview? And once again - tell us all you know about what Arnold told Golz in 1978.[/b It's what ever you want it to be. BTW, if Arnold was not there, then please explain where he was? Please explain how he got crucial points right - such as the shot coming over his left shoulder when he could have said his right? Any reasonable explanation for this? This says it all ... you don't know who it is, but you know its not Arnold. Yes, my interest is in getting as much additional information as possible out to the arm chair researchers

The information has been repeated several times now and a comparison in standing heights to the figures in the Badge Man images has also been posted. If one has not been able to follow along by now, then one may have to just remain in the dark on this one. Bill

Duncan, What is the purpose of applying to the floating torso, as an overlay, a figure of a different, bigger size? I am unable to discern a purpose or motive to do this? Is the purpose to show that the size of the floating torso as seen in Moorman is not somehow its true size? Please advise, as I'm at a loss on this one. Miles Miles, Maybe you or Duncan would like to explain Duncan's past remark whereas he said that the Gordon Arnold in TMWKK series looked to be the same size as the Gordon Arnold in the Badge Man images. In TMWKK, it was apparent that Gordon was standing on the ground, thus if he is the same size in Duncan's view as the figure in Moorman's photo - what does that tell us??? Duncan: I am saying that he looks as large as when he appeared on TMWKK. Bill Miller

Miles, you are what we call a 'pot stirrer' from where I am from. There is another name for it, but the forum rules won't allow me to share it with you. I read Evan's post before seeing this and now I see why he responded like he did. Why am I not surprised to see that it originated from you. As I was reading the thread to find all the places that you said Mike Brown's name wasn't mentioned - I came across a few remarks you made about me allegedly violating forum rules. One such remark told of me not actually saying something, but implying it instead. On the other hand - another forum member was posting words that could have come off of a Red Fox record and yet you said nothing. In the future - save the drama and spend that time reading the threads more thoroughly and you might find yourself better informed as to what has and what has not been said ... I mean, how else can one intelligently debate a position they have if they are not bothering to learn all the facts first? I would have thought that it being shown that you had not read Hoffman's book before trying to be a critic of his story or claiming Holland ran behind into the RR yard immediately following the shooting when he was still seen at his post on the underpass in assassination photographs up to a minute later would have taught you a lesson. I am sure you forgot the name, Miles. It seems that even after I mentioned Brown's name once again ... that no attempt was made by you to even do a simple forum search so to know where he was mentioned. And yes, you forgot the name, but that is not what you implied. BTW, I only posted just some of the places his name has been mentioned and I am sure you read Duncan's post - after all, you respond to them - right? I responded directly to you in post #341 and advised that you look at the transparency overlay clip. Then the next few exchanges were between Duncan and I where Brown's name came up some more. In fact, I read quoted text in Duncan's post where Mike Brown's name was mentioned, but found that you consistently left those parts out of your responses - yet other times you quote the entire response someone has given ... even when just posting a few words or a smiley icon that didn't offer anything informative. Do I see a pattern here? Jack quoted my mentioning Brown being an African American in response #357. I mentioned it again in response #457. Brown was referred to as being black in other responses. You are correct, Milers ... you got me there. The correct numbered post where I mentioned Mike Brown was #365 ... the one before #366. Would you agree with that correction and is it your position that you didn't know this when you responded that #366 was an error on my part? Now would you like to see more post that mentioned Mike Brown or are all of these been enough to refresh your memory??? That particular post was mentioned because Duncan had repeated the name Mike Brown ... the name you couldn't seem to recall ever seeing. Pointing out all the references to Mike Brown's name is 'the facts'. The racial nonsense you mentioned doesn't deserve a response IMO. Same as the previous answer. Bill Miller

And how did Gordon Arnold posing for a photo on the knoll so to be run with the article help hide his identity do you think? Something isn't making much sense here. Bill

The above comment made in reference to the angle Mike Brown was standing is erroneous and without fact. The photograph was to see how these men stacked up vertically against one another when compared to the Badge Man photo. Had I wanted to test the width possibilities, then I could have had Tony Cummings trade with Mike Brown because Mike is a large man and Tony is thin. IMO, to try and make it more than what it was is resemblance of one being a fanatic. fanatic: A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause. Bill

Evan and all, The black blob is African American Mike Brown ... that is what I said and if anyone thinks that is racist, then the problem lies with them and not me. Pointing out why the blob was black was to educate - not to give fanatics the opportunity to draw attention away from the subject and onto a new one. Why is Gordon Arnold so light - why is your stand-in so black ... the black blob. Black is a dominant color over white and therefore in the transparency I created ... Mike shows up as a Black man seen in silhouette - when the two images are combined ... Mike partially fades out and is still the dominant figure seen over the wall. END OF STORY! Bill

Looking good, Miles ... looking good. Oh brother! Do I need to go count the post I made in a thread that you were posting in and show where I mentioned Mike Brown? Do you not recall seeing the color image and Moorman photo coming in over the top of one another? Do you ever actually think before you respond??? I would be more concerned about your credibility in pretending to not heard of Mike Brown. Mike Brown was mentioned throughout this very thread and several times he was referenced as a black man. Just a quick scan has showed me he was mentioned in post 254, 345, 354, 366, 369 and so on. In my mentioning Mike Brown in post #366 - you posted #367. Now would you like to see more post that mentioned Mike Brown or are all of these been enough to refresh your memory??? Bill Miller

Email Groden at RobertG1@airmail.net I think he got the paperwork ... I got the bill. The above statement seems illogical to me. There is only but one man seen in the Betzner and Willis photos - and one man seen in Moorman's photo who is between the fence and the walkway. A short while back - several people here put up post that showed the assassination films working in sync with one another and the frames were numbered as I recall. There is a difference between a dispute and someone not being qualified to understand what has been laid before them. When the latter is the case, then there will always be a dispute. Groden gave me a copy of his best Nix film and asked that I not share it with anyone. Groden would be the person to ask for it was his film we had tested. I have had that same sensation even when visual records were shown to you. Bill

I agree with you on this, Jack. I see Miles mentioned a 'black blob' in his previous post despite him being told now numerous times that the image is Mike Brown who is an African American. I like the term you used - meticulous research - adding the definition might have been appropriate for some people might not know what it means. By the way, I am not talking about the word "meticulous", but rather the word "RESEARCH"! Bill

......... or going around in front of the fence so to face the approaching parade could mean the side of the fence facing up Elm Street. How do I know this ... not only from being there, but hear so many people refer to it that way. And so you know ... I did not confuse shrubs at the base of the fence with the location I was talking about when I placed an arrow on the diagram. One more thing you guys need reminded about ... When Groden and I went to the lab to have his best Nix film worked on ... everyone there agreed that someone was standing just beyond the wall where Arnold said he was and that when JFK's head exploded - that individual immediately moved to his left. What we could not tell was whether he ran away or dove to the ground. Now with that being said and Moorman's photo showing a figure standing over the wall - the notion that the figure in Moorman's photo did not exist is ridiculous and based on a lack of knowledge as to what the Nix film showed us in the lab. So argue that it was Gomer Pyle in uniform if you must, but to say it is no one is in error based on the available evidence that some of us took the time and expense to have it examined. Bill Miller

You could have been to the mountain top with Martin Luther King - so what? All being on the freeway would tell you was that Ed could have seen into the RR yard just as he claimed he did. In fact, I believe you have already said that much. Hey ... I was just outside and I noticed that the sun feel warm shining down on me ... want to hear me critique the sun based on this revelation? It is like listening to the arm chair researchers talking about some of the variances in Ed's story as told by different interpreters. Ed's daughter has known her father all her life and I got a good taste of what it was like for even her to translate for him. Ed does not have a good understanding of the English language, thus some of his signs in putting sentences together are incorrect. I recall the frustration Ed's daughter had with him over even some of the little things that didn't mean anything. That frustration was also shared by Ed at times as well. Unless someone had this additional information, then they too would be puzzled by his past statements. So many times there is more to a story than whats written on the cover of a book - get my point. Bill Miller

I agree with Pat. The Connally's were quite clear about what happened and when. Bill Newman testified at the Shaw trial that as Connally was coming towards him and before JFK's head exploded - he saw blood on the Governor's shirt. And then there is the Zapruder film which shows Connally's right shoulder getting shoved violently forward between Z223/224. As far as two head shots goes ... there is no evidence of that on any of the films. One back spatter is seen between Z312 and Z313 - no other such impact can be seen on the Zapruder film ... not to mention all the other films as well. Bill

One could think that those who came out critiquing Ed without even bothering to read his book - also had an invested interest. Bill Miller

The camera was a gift from his mother - it was his mothers ... petty wording differences. Guy showed me SS credentials - man was with the CIA ... the nervous Arnold thinks one thing while possibly saying something different. My father still calls me by my brothers name, but that doesn't mean what he says is in error IMO. 175 pounds of muscle - look at Arnold in Moorman's photo??? Most people claim not to even see Arnold ... I think that is what you and Duncan have implied when claiming the figure is too short to be real. Now you want to turn to a claim that the figure is too heavy to be well muscled??? Miles ... take about 5 seconds to tell us all you know about what Arnold and/or Yarborough told Golz. How many conversations have you had with Golz or Yarborough? How many attempts have you ever made to contact any of these two men? How about Turner ... how many times have you spoken to him? How many times have you tried to even contact him? Have you ever sought out anyone who has talked to Turner so to learn more about where Yarborough was talking about? Have I made my point?? Bill Miller

So Purvis, I see that in Altgens #6 there was at least two shots fired by that time .... what is Brehm doing? I see Brehm clapping his hands. So did Brehm really describe what he thought at that moment and was happy about it to the point of clapping his hands, or did he just make that statement from a later recollection? A logical answer would be appreciated so that I may be able to stop roaming around lost on this subject. In Altgens #6, it appears that at least some of the agents recognized that shot had been fired. But even if the entire plaza full of witnesses had been oblivious to the shooting that had already started several shots ago - it would not address Brehm's later recollection because he is clapping his tail off even after Z255/56. Sound's like Bennett didn't hear at least one of the shots. If a bullet sparked the street as Holland and some other witnessed had said to have witnessed, then Bennett missed even more shots ... so is it your position that it was the second shot that hit JFK in the head because of what Bennett said??? I'm thinking that JFK had an idea, as well. The same might be said about Clint Hill. Bill Miller

Is there any reason to have darkened the image and to have placed a thicker red line across the ground surface between the fence and the walkway? What you seem to have done was make it harder to see where the ground meets the bottom of the fence so to compare that to the ground line that runs to the walkway. In the earlier post I did - I left the red line thin and running just about the surface of the ground so that a comparison in ground height could be gotten visually on both sides of the red arrow I had placed on the image. I was just curious as to your motive for making the image darker and harder to read. Bill