Bill Miller

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

To add to what Jack said ... Understanding Gordon Arnold is to also first talk to those who knew him well enough to know more about the man than we do. I have never heard where an Arnold critic has ever spent a thin dime calling around to talk to any of his neighbors at the time, friends or family to see what Gordon said, if anything, in the days following the assassination. Their reasons for suspicion involving Arnold stem from his story not being made public until 1978. Most people do not know that it was Arnold being overheard talking to someone in private about his being on the knoll that got Golz to contact Gordon in the first place. Earl Golz told me that it took a lot of convincing on his part to get Gordon to tell his story publicly. The reason Gordon gave for not wanting to come forward was that he had heard that people who had come forward with information that shots came from somewhere else other than the TSBD didn't live long afterwards. Gordon Arnold was not in the best shape of his life at the time of his Turner interview ... certainly not physically and possibly not emotionally. I don't believe he had spoken of his experience publicly since talking to Earl Golz in 1978. In the MWKK interview, Gordon was led to believe that they may now have proof of him being on the knoll and it was for that reason and it being his duty as Jack said that Gordon agreed to give an interview. You may have noticed that Turner had Gordon conduct the interview before showing him the Badge Man images. Some people thought that it may have been Gordon seeing himself on the knoll at the time of the JFK assassination that upset him with old memories, but this was just not all that happened. It wasn't until Gordon flipped that last page and had seen what looked like a hatless policeman that had fired over his shoulder that he started realizing the complications of what was now happening. Saying that a shot came over his shoulder ... Gordon could live with. It was now Gordon putting 2 and 2 together and thinking that he may have been face to face with this man after the assassination is what caused Gordon to start becoming emotional. The reason for this is quite simple - Gordon had now let the world know that he may have seen one of the assassins and could make the worng people think that he could possibly ID the man. Whether we consider it justified or not - Gordon felt that his life, maybe even his families lives, had now been put in a danger that he had avoided for so many years. It was for this reason that he said that had he of known about this hatless man being involved in the shooting and him saying on TV that he had seen a hatless cop right after the assassination - that he (Gordon) would not have given the interview. In other words he must have felt betrayed although the Turner people may not have known about the hatless cop until Gordon told them about him earlier in the day while out on the knoll. Either way - he felt he had screwed himself when he saw that hatless cop in the Badge Man image and that is what brought on his emotion. While it is true that one can say that there being a man in a service uniiform on the knoll in Moorman's Polaroid doesn't mean it was Gordon - one has to reconcile how Gordon knew certain details if it had not actually been him in the Badge Man images. He got the uniform right - the timing of the shot coming passed him right - he got the correct side of his head for the shot happening on - he got it right about two individuals in dark clothing being on the scene immediately after the shooting among several other details, as well. One has to ask how did Gordon Arnold know things that no one else had told before him?

Try and keep your facts straight, Tim - for that's how you screwed up on the kind of car Mack drives. I have never claimed to be authorized to speak for anyone. However, I can cite what they have told me before and post if accordingly.

Hey Tim - I speak to Groden more than I do Gary Mack. As a matter of fact - I've dined with Robert many times ... been there with him on several of his birthdays, and have discussed the assassination with him in detail. I guess that this makes me his front man in your mind now. As far as Mack being a front man for the Dallas city planners ... have you got anything to offer to support what you're saying? I have to ask because I had never heard anyone saying such things about Mack like you're doing. Just saying things without proof makes one wonder who you have become a front man for ... apparently an uninformed one at that. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Summers was the guy Millican thought may have been shot in the lower extremity.

Tim - I have not a clue as to what you are talking about as I am sure most people wouldn't. It was Gary Mack that denied having a white SUV with vanity plates. Until you posted about it - I never gave any thought to what Mack drives, nor had I ever asked him because it never effected any part of the JFK assassination that I was interested in. If you have proof that Mack is in error as to what he drives, then post it if you think it is important. The same goes with this Stan person that you spoke of. Like White, myself and apparently Mack did - we conducted a 'Google' search to see who he was. None of us have found a connection between him and Gary Mack, so if you know something we don't, then by all means please feel free to share it. Bill PS - The offer still goes ... if you ever care to discuss the JFK assassination, then I'm all for it. I'm afraid that SUVs - vanity plates - and Stan Levinson are topics I have no interest in. Maybe John Simkin can have Andy create a section of the forum dedicated to those three topics and you can seek others out who would like to debate such hot topics with you.

Makes sense that Gary Mack has never heard of Stan Levinson, not, and again, that Bill Miller is Gary Mack's mouthpiece. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So I take it that you do not have any JFK assassination related evidence to discuss. Speaking of mouthpieces ... any idea how you got the details so wrong about Mack's vehicle and job related information?

Tim...Who is Stan Levinson? I Googled the name and only found a jazz musician. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim likes to say things without caring to get his facts straight beforehand ... much the same way he did with trying to locate Orville Nix's filming location. Even if he had not found Groden or if Groden pointed over to a particular spot where Nix was - how hard would it have been to align the notch in the wall and Zapruder's pedetsal with background objects seen in the Nix frame so to have the LOS correct. So r5ather than to admit his shortcomings in his classic gunman investigation he has now attempted to divert attention to my corresponding to Gary Mack, thus causing him to say things about Mack that are simply not true. I personally wanted to know more about what Tim was talking about since he brought up the kind of car Gary Mack drives and the income Gary makes. I knew Mack had been offered a really good job with the Museum not long ago, but turned it down because he wanted to stay in his area of interest - the JFK assassination material ... so I thought I'd ask Gary for myself what it was that Tim was talking about. This is the response I got back from Gary Mack ... Hi Bill, Thanks for mentioning this - I haven't been following that thread. Where to begin? Well, I have never had a white car in my life, nor does my current car have vanity plates. My Museum salary is very much in line with the Curator position at other institutions. I answer 5-10 calls/emails/letters every day about the assassination without regard to who is asking or why. I don't know, and have never heard of, at least that I recall, Stan Levinson or Stan Levenson, who happens to own a prominent PR firm in Dallas: http://www.levensonpr.com/stan_profile.htm Nor do I believe the "classic gunman" image is a person, and when Tim asked what I thought, I told him so. Oh well.......pass this on if you wish. Gary Mack

Tim - I have never paid any attention to that name before. Talking about Gary Mack's income and other such nonsense doesn't address the facts of the case or the correct locations and LOS's in the Plaza pertaining to the witnesses and photographers. If you have a JFK related question or remark about the photographical record - I'm happy to hear it.

Tim - Your remarks are the sign of a man who doesn't think things through very well IMO. I contact the 6th Floor Museum regularly for historical information on the JFK assassination because it is one of the best resources available to researchers. Gary Mack happens to be the person there in charge of having access to that information. If someone takes over his job, then it will be a new person I speak to on a regular basis. Gary Mack has been around through many of the events surrounding test carried out in the plaza and has first hand recollections of many things. Gary corrects me from time and to time on certain facts that I had wrong and we do not always agree on the interpretation of the evidence. That doesn't stop me from utilizing such a valuable resource. Try and think about this ... A man would be a complete idiot to stop going to the well for life saving water just because he doesn't like the style of the bucket that he has to drink from! Do you really have any idea as to how much money Gary Mack makes a year or are you just spouting off about something you know nothing about? Is it because Mack drives an SUV with vanity plates that you based your ridiculous opinion on? Is it because he didn't have time to walk you out in the plaza and point out the correct witness locations for you because you asked him when he was extremely busy ... possibly during the JFK memorial event? Or maybe it's because Gary Mack has drawn conclusions that do not support your own because his test were based on the correct lines of sight and a better understanding of the photographical record? What ever your reasons were for making such an unfounded claim about Gary Mack - you may want to consider trying to use his knowledge of the case to help you advance your own instead of trying to distance yourself from him with the kind of nonsesne that you posted here. Bill Miller JFK assassination Researcher/Investigator

Pam - I am a bit confused. You first marked out a place on the Altgens photo under the mirror and it wasn't even touching Connally. That's when I told you it was JFK's left hand and forefinger. Now you are talking about JFK's right hand which no one has ever said that it could be seen in Altgens photograph. So how did JFK's right hand get into this discussion? I have taken the liberty to place your original Newspaper Altgens 6 photo with the box you placed on it and put it over the better quality Altgens 6 print and have allowed the two to fade in and out. I think if you were to closely at a really good print that you would see JFK's lips and lower right hand chin in the boxed area. Just to our left of JFK's forefinger is a small demple on JFK's face. I hope the images help. (See the animation on the right) Bill

Photo experts for the last 40 years have not said anything like what you are talking about. The sun is in front of the car in the SW - except for the back of the rear view mirror we are seeing JFK's face and left hand in Altgens 6 with JFK's index finger pointed towards his throat wound. I repectably challenge you to name one photo expert who says that we are seeing a reflection of some sort.

I can only suggest that you use the best images possible so to try and limit in photographical interpretation errors. Chosing anything less is asking for false conclusions to be reached. The back of the rear view mirror is hard plastic. It has some sun spots on it as the sun is shining off of it through the windshield. Zapruder frame 255 shows JFK's face in direct sunlight. I am at a lost as to where you are getting this mirror reflection stuff, especially when the sun is in front of the car and can only shine directly onto the back of the mirror and not the reflective side.

Maybe a better print will help. You have outlined JFK's lower jaw - mouth - and index finger. Bill

Dawn, I can appreciate your views about ITEK, but in this case it could have been Hoover and the CIA themselves looking at this issue and their answer would not call for any type of cover-up. If your husband is an attorney, then he should be use to looking at evidence. Show him Moorman's photo and tell him that it was taken at the same moment the alleged figure was supposed to be seen at the shelter wall in the Nix film. Tell your husband that Moorman's photograph was an instant Polaroid and can be shown to be genuine and unaltered. Then ask him to look at the enlargement of the area between the step in the concrete wall and the shelter and have him point out this gunman to you. As an attorney, your husband should be able to see the problem right off if given 'all' the facts. If Moorman's photo is genuine and there is no gunman at the shelter wall, then there is no 'classic gunman' in the Nix image. The best one can do is say that the light and shadows on the wall looked like a gunman and that's what he'd be stuck with in a court of Law. Once again - for there to be a real person seen in the Nix film known as the 'classic gunman' ... he must be between the two points shown on Moorman's photograph. I cannot see anyone there, nor has anyone ever said they could see anyone there. All I can ask of those who insist on saying there is a gunman seen in the Nix film is to point to where he is seen in Moorman's Polaroid showing the exact same spot between the step in the conrete wall and the outer South shelter wall. So far no one has done so.

The alleged changes in posture is what happens when a camera is moving around as it pans or slightly moves one way up or down. Look at the sun spots on the fence just to our right of the Hudson tree in the same Nix film - they change shape and move, too. The same thing happens on the shelter wall, as well. (see the Needham clip attached) When you can see all the way to the shelter wall and still see the wall - there are no shades of gray to be confused about. I mean ... one has no problem seeing the top of the tree against the Dallas sky or where the fence stops and starts, so the same would apply to someone standing there in Moorman's photo. The Hat Man's hat can be seen against the Dallas sky and it isn't there in photos taken after the fact. {This means if something is not seen after the shooting, then it wasn't a fixed item in the plaza and has moved away after the shooting) The same would apply to the 'classic gunman' in the sense that he would be seen against the Dallas sky in Moorman's photo. That brings me to this next point ... the shift from the Nix location to Moorman's would push the alleged 'classic gunman' to the left and away from the wall. Your red 'x' went the wrong direction. I marked the correct space with a red box in my Moorman cropping. The Badge Man has a dark backdrop of tree foliage behind his figure and it makes him hard to see. What supports the Badge Man being real and not part of the foliage is that when the image around him is lightened and contrasted, then his image doesn't wash out with the foliage, but separates from the tree foliage instead. No matter how much you do the same with the area next to the shelter wall in Moorman's photo ... you will not see anyone standing there. Tim - I think you have misread ITEK's report. They were saying that if the alleged 'classic gunman' was near the car behind the shelter, then he would have to be 9' tall to have seen the motorcade. Because they knew that wasn't probable - they then addressed the alleged figure being at the shelter wall. That's when they concluded that it was sun spots on the wall. BTW - The photo taken of you on the steps was not on the Nix LOS. You are too far to the right of the red vertical line that ran through the center of the alleged 'classic gunman'. The 'alleged 'classic gunman' as seen in the Nix film was further west of the door opening. It looks like a good photo of you on the shelter steps, but it hasn't any value outside of that. I wish I could have been there when you were because I am sure I could have walked you through this stuff and had you understand it better while right there on location. I offer an example of your position difference to the 'CGM' below ...

Shanet - you and Tim are not on the same wave length as to where you think this alleged figure is, so I will have to address you separately. The car is well behind the shelter. The alleged 'classic gunman' figure is overlapping the South side of the shelter wall, thus he cannot be back near the car at all. If you look in the replica image I offered in my original post - I aligned the outer shelter wall (and marked it with a red line) - the doorway - the step in the concrete wall and etc., all the same. I did this so everyone could see how far over that red vertical line the classic gunman went. He basically matched the individual I had circled in my replica photo. With the alleged classic gunman shape being in front of the shelter wall, then there is no longer a choice of him being back by the car. With the alleged 'classic gunman' being somewhere between the South shelter wall and the step in the concrete wall, then he cannot be too low for Moorman to have seen him in her photograph. So now we are back to square one with no one being seen between the shelter wall and the step in the concrete wall in Mary Moorman's photograph. I hope I have better explained why the alleged figure has to be in front of the shelter wall and not behind it back by the car.

The conclusion came from my own time spent in the plaza and by cross referencing the available assassination films and photos. Once the alleged classic gunman's location is pinpointed in Moorman's photograph, then it can be determined if he is seen or not. I had done those things before starting this thread. If you see a classic gunman between the step in the wall and the south shelter wall - then feel free to point it out to everyone. There is a rule of them that most people use and it goes like this ... If you have an image that you think may show someone or something hidden in deep shadow - then cross reference it with another photo of the same area that isn't covered in deep shadow. Then if you find that the lighter image shows no one or nothing is there ... you have only two options. 1) The lighter photo has been altered so to remove the classic gunman figure or ... 2) The lighter photo is not altered and classic gunman figure in the dark image was just an illusion brought on by deep shadow and light reflections. Here is another example of how a lighter image was able to show there was nothing in a particular spot on the Nix film. The area in question was said to be in the area of the white circle. By cross referencing Marie Muchmore's film I was able to show that no one was standing or crouching near the corner of the wodden fence. (see the two examples below)

Shanet - you have missed the point, I guess. For one thing - if there was a gunman actually there and he was shooting at Kennedy, then Moorman would also see him because she is higher elevated than JFK was. In other words - if you can look over a wall and see me - I can certainly look back at you. So again - where is the gunman in Moorman's photograph? You cannot simply say he is behind the wall if he is elevated high enough to be shooting at Kennedy. I don't know a better way to stress that fact.

Thanks, Lee. The car was actually in the parking lot and as others have said before - the alleged 'classic gunman' is not back by the car, but rather in front of the South side of the shelter wall. The issue has been whether he was nothing more than light spots and shadows on the wall or a real person. I hope that the process I used for determining this matter can be observed by other researchers and utilized when investigating other issues. Cross referencing photos and films gives us a tool that only actually going to the plaza could beat. Thanks again.

Cross referencing photos and films is one of the best tools we have for debunking or verifying observations. This is how one can check the accuracy of the 'classic gunman claim' ... The attachments did not post in the order I placed them, so I have number the images for referencing. 1) We must first locate the alleged 'classic gunman' figure seen in the Nix film. (see example one} 2) Next we check his location against a recreation photograph of better quality so to find the borders of the shelter walls and openings. When doing so we find that the alleged 'classic gunman' has to be on the South side of the Southwest corner of the shelter wall - somewhere between the wall and the step in the concrete wall. This obvious for what appears to be a possible gunman crosses over the red side wall line that has been placed on the images. (see example two) 3) Next I offer an overhead view showing the Nix line of sight over the step in the wall to the southwest corner of the shelter wall. Again, the reason for choosing the SW corner is that the alleged classic gunman figure overlaps part of that South wall of the shelter. (see example three) 4) We now go to another photo like Moorman's that shows the walkway between the step in the wall and the SW corner of the shelter wall. We have a Dallas sky for a backdrop to work with so there is no room for debating as to whether the tree foliage is hiding the figure. If the classic gunman was said to have been elevated high enough to have seen JFK, then he is elevated high enough for Mary Moorman to have seen him in her camera for JFK was much lower to the street than Moorman's camera. I have red boxed the area between the step in the wall to the south side of the shelter and there simply is no one there to be seen. (see example four) Considering Moorman's photo was in her possession the 30 minutes following the assassination up until the time it was filmed for TV, thus it is genuine ... then the only logical and sensible conclusion to make is that there was no individual positioned at the alleged classic gunman location in the Nix film at the time the President was fatally shot.

My understanding has always been that Lancer does not like to ban anyone. They go to great lengths to avoid doing so by showing a lot of leeway and patience. Only in extreme instances have I seen where someone has been banned from that forum. Bob and Wim agreed to take a cooling off period (for a better term) and neither has been banned from Lancer to my knowledge.

I can understand John wanting people to post a photo and a biography, but his reasoning is flawed for the reasons you have stated. Harold Wiesberg was a chicken farmer and I have yet to meet any Ph.D with Harold's knowledge of the facts surrounding the assassination. Anyone can make up a biography and who'd be the wiser? Some people have careers where they might not want their opinions traced back to them for political reasons. I think the trick to helping the students is to insist that members (bio or no bio) cite as much evidence as possible by referencing where they have gotten their information. Then the students can follow up and see if someone has stated the facts properly. Offering information without references to it is little more than offering an opinion and everyone should always be skeptical of an opinion until there has been reasonable information offered to support it.

Did YOU buy it, the book, right? Maybe BUY it and GOD forbid,read it, which I suggest YOU do, on numerous ocassion? Your not suggesting to the rest of this forum I'm a prevaricator, are you? Of course I read it ... how else was I able to tear it apart the way I did if I hadn't read it.

dgh01: "buy it"? I suggest reading it! --- "read it himself"? ah, I wrote part of it! David - it's bad enough you had to be shown in error once over this statement, but now twice in the same thread - you wrote in a previous post .... QUOTE Buy the book, HOAX -- it's all in there.... Ever get that "seamless' DP film comparison done yet? What's it been now 3 years.....? What a farce the other side of this question is. Preservers of history, H O W L .... I think not!