Bill Miller

Where was this type of thinking when days were wasted reading post saying how Holland immediately ran off the underpass. I also got to say that it sounds ridiculous when someone tries to use what one witnesses didn't see to prove a point. A handful of witnesses saw a bullet spark off the street - many more witnesses never saw it happen and the reason why is that many of those witnesses who didn't see it happen were probably looking at something else at that moment. An earlier line was drawn in the sand pertaining to what Ed Hoffman could and could not see. Then the LOS was changed because it had been misrepresented at one point. Eventually it was determined that Ed's LOS could have allowed him to see down the fence line. Now Foster is on a different LOS and we are being told that he should have been able to see anything that Ed witnessed ... am I the only one seeing what is wrong with that position?? There was a three car train sitting stationary - did this effect Foster's vision? How about the way the cars were parked between he and the area being discussed??? Has anyone actually gone out and looked at the RR yard from where Foster was positioned???? Any information one way or the other would be helpful. I think the above quote falls under the 'I won't see it until I believe it' mentality. I mean think about this ... 'If Ed described something that Foster saw as well - it doesn't mean that Ed saw it.' What kind of a position is that to take on anything? On the plus side - it shows just how solid these witnesses are for someone to have to resort to the type of thinking I quoted above. Bill Miller

Miles, you have been asked repeatedly if Foster's leaving the underpass during the time frame he said is supported by the photographic record .... why are you not able to answer that simple question? Is it not a thing that a responsible researcher would want to know so to insure that what he post is accurate? I mean, you pulled the same thing with Holland's remarks about immediately running to the RR yard, but it was shown that Holland was in error over his time sequence of the events following the shooting. Now if it your position that as long as a witness said it, then it must be true, then we will apply that kind of thinking to every witness and see where it leads. Bill Miller

I agree with you, Jack. I personally haven't wasted any time going over witnesses testimony looking for references concerning bearings on certain landmarks within the plaza, but I seem to remember that in some cases there was a photo or a map shown to where the interviewer laid down a guideline so to stay on the same page as the witness. It was like anything west of a certain line was to referenced as such and so on. Mack has even explained this to Alan, but with that being about all Alan has left to keep his position going - he needs to split hairs. Come to think of it - I don't recall Arnold using terms like "due-west" which could be interpreted differently than just saying you were west of somewhere. Bill

Yes, Alan ... I think you should go find that post I made and the photo that came with it ... If I made a mistake, then I will be the first to admit it. I look forward to seeing EXACTLY what I had said. Bill

Duncan, maybe it would best serve the members if you just posted your Moorman photo image, along with your Badge Man illustration, and let others check your accuracy. It may be a nice practice lesson for some. Bill

Alan - that is not Groden ... you can call a rock a tree, but that does not make it so. I wouldn't care if it was Groden because I took the photo and it was not on the day that the other photos of Brown and Cummings were taken, it wasn't a recreation, and its still not Groden - period! It was just a photo that while I was up at the top of Elm - it dawned on me to take a photo of the wall with someone leaning on it. You guys seem to always be adding little things as fact when it could not be more inaccurate if someone wanted it to be. Bill

I think Jack questioned your scaling many post ago. It might be good to show us a transparency of one image so that the light spots in the foliage can be sized equall;y and then see how big Arnold appears to be. The ridiculous job you did offered nothing for scale and was nothing more than a ludicrous attempt and selling your position. Bill

Alan, I think Herb said he saw my presentation as did Sherry, Debra, Law, Mellen, Beirma, Cummings, and countless others. People who I never met before came up and said they now understand who BDM was and that the evidence made perfect sense to them. Other included people like Groden and Dennis David and the group he meets with concerning the JFK assassination. I can only suggest that you maybe get a life and just concede that you don't get it. Bill

Actually Duncan - it is a scan from the Willis blow-up in Groden's book "TKOAP". The little pits you see are not pixels from a loss of resolution, but rather the pits in the paper in the book itself. I think if you look at the entire area around this person, you will find that his location - rounded shoulder appearance - and obviously dark object on his head is the hat seen in Moorman's photo and what Hoffman described. You will not find that shape present in photos taken after the assassination. Now you can continue laughing. Bill

There might be such evidence to anyone who had never been to the plaza and checked these things out for themselves, but those who have been there and have did any investigation of the Badge Man figures seem to always come up with basically the same location for Arnold and Badge Man. The statement above mentioning Arnold being on a plane that runs through Badge Man (BM) needs an explanation IMO. Does not one see Gordon Arnold standing to the side of Badge Man? That is a question that one should have asked before ever rendering their opinion on the subject. Again, where do you get the information that there was no pathway alongside the fence at the time of the shooting? No one that I know has seen a photo or a film of the RR yard showing the back side of the fence - do you have such privileged information? Three witnesses have either said they walked up and down that fence or seen someone who did. I think it is only right that you tell this forum just how many supporting witnesses does it take to deem them reliable and why do you believe that misstating the facts of the case is benefiting the purpose that students come here for??? I would deem Arnold's story reliable - the comment you made above about somehow knowing what Arnold assumed is ridiculous and obviously mere propaganda. If I am wrong, then tell us how it is that you would know what Arnold assumed at any time in his life. Bill Miller

Duncan, you have got to be kidding me. I bet if I sent the stuff you've claimed to Jay Leno - that it would end up in his mono log. If what you cited were actually facts, then you would not be wrong. Duncan, do you know what a midget is? Midget: [noun] a person who is abnormally small Synonyms: dwarf, nanus The fence was 5' tall - Bowers described the man who stood there, as well as Hoffman and no one said they were a midget. In fact, if the better half of a fedora hat is seen over the fence, then if the person wearing it is right up against the fence, then they would be more than 5' tall. If they were 1' back from the fence, then that would make them even taller for the hat to be seen from Moorman's upward LOS. While I am surprised that no one has explained this to you before now - I `can only assume that its such common knowledge that they just figured you knew better. Below is the same guy seen through the foliage in the Willis photo. He is up near the west end of the fence facing the oncoming President just as Bowers had said. His upper shoulders and head can be seen through the foliage as it blocks out the sky seen beyond him. As far as not having a weapon, then I guess that smoke was a genie being released from a bottle and the smell of burnt gunpowder was just an illusion. Bill

Duncan, I find it hard to believe that something I am sure you have heard throughout your many assassin finding claims would still be offensive to you .... by now I would think that you were used to it! I also agree that you have the right to question someone's story, but you do not have the right to be wrong about the facts. I find it simply amazing that someone who can see floating cop torso's in very poor fuzzy Moorman prints, or can see what they call 'the true shape of the BDM' in a ridiculous looking image created by all but destroying a photo - is unable to see Gordon Arnold holding his mothers movie camera to his face in Jack's Badge Man images. How does that happen ???????????? Bill Miller

I don't mind that someone who has never been to Dealey Plaza will say the things that you do because they simply do not know what they are talking about. We went around about this years ago and to this date not one person who has visited the plaza who has read what I had stated has ever come back saying that I got that point wrong. You make too many assumptions to replace facts IMO. I know of no photo that I have taken of the wall that has Groden leaning against the wall. Please feel free to point it out to me. I have a feeling that your remark is based on yet another errered photo interpretation and from wrongly assuming things as fact that you have no real bases for doing. I do however, recall taking a photo of some unknown person who had leaned on the wall, but they were not there to assist me in any way. The purpose of that photo was for me to have an idea as to what someone leaning on the wall would look like on the LOS at which I took the photo from. If it wasn't so pathetic - it would be almost comical to read the nonsense you have tried to inject into what should be a simple exercise in interpreting what a witness has said. For instance; If someone was to look at Moorman's photo and make the comment that Hudson was west of the concrete wall, then they would be correct. How many times have we gotten directions to someone's home whereas they said that 'we live just west of a particular intersection or business' .... when if we wanted to split hairs we could argue that their house was located SW or NW of that said particular location. We don't do it because it would make us look like one of those words that we are not supposed to write in our postings. Here is another example .... Someone says that Betzner stood just east of Phil Willis as JFK rode down Elm Street. This would be a true statement to most of the world, but then there would be someone trying to pretend to be smarter than they really are who would say that Elm Street runs at a slight west to southwest angle at the top of Elm Street, thus saying Willis was west of Betzner is not accurate. I guess it just depends on how ridiculous one wishes to get over these witnesses perceptions concerning the geographical layout of the plaza. Another example might be someone saying that the pyracantha bush was west of the pedestal, but technically someone else could argue that this is false because the bush is south by southwest a few degrees from where Zapruder stood. Where does that kind of nonsense end? Really, Alan ... can you offer some examples of witnesses being precise with their interpretations of direction? I have read where people say the TSBD is east of the colonnade, but technically someone might say that it is NE - not east of the colonnade. How about someone saying Moorman was west of Jean Hill's position ... Moorman was closer to the curb than Hill, so some joker can now argue that Moorman was actually NW of Hill's location - it never ends. The good thing about all this nonsense is that it shows to what extent these arm-chair critics must go to in order to try and make the witness appear unreliable. Then their next move is to state that there is no evidence to support the witnesses being there at all. The fact that a witness like Arnold had stated where he was located - what he was doing at the time of the shooting, what he did immediately after the shooting, (as in Arnold's case) he said that a shot came past his left ear which is what the Badge Man enhancements seem to show, the timing of when that shot came past Gordon's ear seems to also be supported by the Badge Man enhancements, that Towner #3 does show two people near the tree where Arnold would have been laying had he hit the dirt when the shot came past his head, not to mention other little details such as what that person was wearing on the day of the assassination are all quite remarkable statements to make if the person wasn't really there. That's right - what Gordon wearing! Gary Mack spoke to Arnold in a telephone interview long before the Turner interview and Gary was the only person at that time to ask Gordon what he wore the day of the shooting. Isn't is funny how Jack's Badge Man images show the Arnold figure to be dressed the same way as Gordon described to Mack years earlier. So for anyone to say that there is nothing factual that doesn't support Arnold's story is just mere propaganda IMO - not based on fact, but rather on disinformation. Bill Miller

Ken, In all fairness to Miles ... didn't he say that he hasn't got time to do research ... or was that just an impression I got somewhere along the way ... hmmmmm? Bill

Duke, have you not read Bower's testimony? Bowers said that he lost track of the man in dark clothing because he got busy with his work. I personally do not believe that Bowers didn't keep an eye on what happened in front of him because of the magnitude of what just happened, but for what ever reason it was - he said he lost track of the man. Wouldn't it be nice to interview the guy who flashed the fake SS badge ... maybe he saw Ed's guy - you think! Bill Miller

Common Miles - you must be joking. I'm in the mountains of British Columbia for the summer and 26 Volume sets of the WC are hard to come by in the forest. But rest assured about one thing .... If I look up the report that I am thinking about and I find that I stated something in error - it will only have happened up to that point. There will be no constant and consistent misstating that point as if to sell my position to those who may not know the case well enough to know any better. So we are clear here ... there is a difference in stating something in error until proven wrong Vs. stating something in error after you know what you are saying is erroneous. In the latter - one is purposely posting misinformation and I'd rather admit I made a mistake rather than to be labeled someone who knowingly misstates the facts .... which must make you feel terrible. BTW, how are you coming on validating what you claim about Foster's dash off the underpass with the photographic record? Bill Miller .

I don't blame people for asking questions pertaining to what these witnesses have said, but they should first learn that the walkway and steps are east of the fence and that the grass Arnold stood on is west of the steps and walkway. Bill

Sam couldn't have been too fast of a runner because you have made numerous postings saying that he left the underpass immediately after the shooting and yet he is still seen in Dillard's photo and Bell's film. Oh yes ... about "Sam" - As has been repeatedly posted in response to your past misstatements of fact ... SAM said he went straight for the back of the colonnade and didn't get to Ed's shooter location until about 3 to 4 minutes later. Bill Miller

Miles, Did you ever consider that if you took the opposite approach that possibly you wouldn't make so many misstatements of fact such as Holland allegedly running into the RR yard after the limo passed below him! Bill Miller

I will ask Gary Mack to give his views on this because Golz interviewed Arnold in depth in 1978 - Mack in 1982 (I think it was) and Arnold told the same story. In the late 80's he mentioned something about 3' feet from the fence and made a slip by calling the SS agent a CIA agent - so what! Was he confusing the standing next to the tree with the later filming? Maybe someone can do a web search and find out if one's memory gets better with time or does it get worse ... maybe start a whole new thread on that debate. (sigh~) Bill Miller

Harping on about Arnold mentioning being 3' from the fence is pure foolishness IMO. Did Arnold say this in the first two decades of telling his story or was it a reference that he may have made a mistake about in his latter years and just prior before his death? My father still calls me by my brothers name, but that doesn't mean the things he said didn't happen or from where they occurred. Like I said - utter foolishness IMO. I have a buddy who goes out into the bush with me and he recounts our adventures at times and gets two points in time mixed up and blended into one event ... who cares - the event did happen - he just screwed up a sequence by confusing it with another. Bill Miller

I would like to add to what Jack said and address something Don wrote which is a misconception on someone's part. Groden and I staged the Badge Man images as well and Mike Brown played Gordon Arnold. Mike was positioned by sight with a two way radio and then asked to hold his position after the test picture. We then went back up the knoll and saw that Mike was almost on the same spot as Royce Beirma in the photo already posted. Depending on a person's size, the distance from the wall they are, and whether or not they are standing on something to replicate the mound of dirt Arnold claimed to have stood on .... these things all factor into the mix. Now about Arnold having a belly .... I don't know any young serviceman who has a belly as if to mean they are getting fat in the midsection. What I see is Arnold having his pants pulled up high and his shirt somewhat bunched which is causing many of the shading effects where the sun is shining down upon him. About Arnold saying he was 3' from the fence ... Arnold didn't live long after TMWKK series and his memory may have been somewhat off by that point in his life, after all he had obviously meant to say that the man who approached him showed Gordon a SS badge, but instead had said the guy was with the CIA. Just prior to the assassination, Arnold first came onto the knoll and stood by the tree, which would put him only 3' from the fence - Did Gordon get that point in time confused with where he stood when the shooting started? Did Gordon end up only 3' from the fence when he dove to the ground? It's possible. What I do know is that the Arnold seen in Moorman's photo is not 3' from the fence and here is why .... The fence is 5' tall and in Moorman's photo the fence comes almost up (but not quite) to the top of the concrete wall. Gordon's waist appears visible in the Badge Man enhancement. The closer Gordon is to the fence, the the higher his waist must be to be seen above the height of the 5' high fence. Because Mary is looking uphill - anyone backing up from the wall and heading back to the fence will start to sink when seen over the top of the concrete wall ... like a ship sailing over the horizon. For Gordon to be only 3' from the fence and still have his waist seen over the height of the fence - Gordon would need to be on a 2' to 3' high mound of dirt and no way that was the case. Only backing away from the wall to the place where Royce, Mike, and Gordon are seen could account for what is seen in Moorman's photo. That location is just off the walkway. Bill

With no particular person in mind - I will say this once again so those with bad memories can have a refresher course offered to them ... I have personally spoken to Jay Godwin and Earl Golz about that 1978 photo of Arnold and both men were surprised that anyone would be thinking that photo was supposed to be a recreation shot of any kind. Both men said independently of one another that it was just a random photo whereas they had Gordon stand out on the knoll while Godwin takes Arnold's photo. Bill Miller

It is a hoot when someone who has never been to the plaza tries telling someone else who has logged hundreds of hours there as to what the layout is. Would you like for me to post the crossing lines again?? You remember those lines - they were the LOS to the BDM in both the Willis and Betzner photos and then the same from where Moorman stood - all three lines crossed at the same place, so with that being said - tell me again how I made something line up with BDM??? It seems to me that the crossing lines of sight from each photographing location is what made Arnold line up with the BDM. Bill

Below is a photo taken of Royce Beirma as seen looking south down the walkway. Royce is standing in the grass which is west of the walkway ... that is directly connected to the steps. Royce is lined up to the figure in Moorman's photo known as Gordon Arnold and it can be said that Royce is west of the steps. Bill