Bill Miller

The man in the suit and hat that Hoffman claimed to have seen as seen in the Moorman #5 and Willis #5 photos. The figure is seen against the skyline in both and has some overhanging foliage blocking the facial area in the Willis photograph. This figure is not seen in that location in photos looking over the fence in a westernly direction after the assassination had taken place.

And what was the name of the company you retired from? Just checking

my memory. And was your hair long and red that day?

Thanks for your replies.

Jack

Jack - There is no memory for you to test on the subject of where I was working at the time of my chemotherapy injury because I never gave you that information during our meeting in the Plaza. I should also add that if you think my hair was any different looking than it is in the photo, then you are mistaken. I always get a fresh haircut before taking a trip, especially when going to Dallas to deliver a presentation at a Lancer conference. I am fascinated by your interest in my hair and that it has somehow taken a front seat over Kennedy's assassination. I only wish that some of the young gals in Dallas would have found my hair half as interesting as you have. (smile~)

To address John's question a little more specifically ... fellow photographer Bob Jackson seen a rifle sticking out over the window ledge of the eastmost 6th floor window and brought it to Dillard's attention. Dillard quickly tried to get a photo of the rifle, but before he could snap his picture - the rifle had been pulled back inside the TSBD. It might be fair to say that Dillard's wide angle photo was taken within seconds of the weapon being pulled back through the window.

I hope this addresses the timing question for John.

The alleged snipers window has a distinct shape and design feature above it.

Tell me again about your RETIREMENT.

I was forced to stop working due to an injury I suffered while taking chemotherapy. The injury is irreversible.

The scan of the window on the Dillard negative I gave you is shown below. If you look at the Studebaker photo taken from almost the same angle, but after the Crime Lab was now on the 6th floor - the man's head, facial features, and torso are completely gone from view. I see no other reason for this other than someone was standing back from the glass at the time Dillard took his photo and then left the area by the time the Studebaker photo was taken. Also, if you look at the large Powell photo copy on page 158 in Groden's book "TKOAP" you will see the man's face I am talking about in Dillard's photo, except you now see some of the left side of his face instead of just the right front. This along with the absence of the figure in the Studebaker photo has always led me to believe that this image is of a 3 demensional being in Dillard's negative.

I am especially interested in the photo

of Miller. It shows a MUCH YOUNGER man

than I met many years ago (admittedly

only one time and briefly). The man I met

told me he was RETIRED and did not have

a bushy head of hair. I remember the

meeting very well, and if this is the same

Bill Miller, he can describe the meeting also.

Jack White

Only you would concern yourself with a photo of me when there are so many more important issues over the Kennedy assassination to be dealt with. You know Gary Mack and Robert Groden - email them the photo and ask them who it is. Show it to Ed Hoffman, Debra Conway, Mark Oakes, James Jim Fetzer or Mike Brown when you see one of them and see who they tell you the photo belongs to. Why you would remember me differently than I appear in this photo, which BTW was taken at the time of that Dallas trip where we met, is beyond me for there are not that many red heads around and certainly none that look anything like me.

Confirmation: I believe it was in 2000 when I spoke at Lancer's conference. When we met I was in a suit out in the plaza - the crowd was very thin and as I recall Ernest Brandt was there telling what few people who were in the area how Oswald acted alone. You came through walking with a cane and I asked if you'd look at an 8 x 10 negative of the Dillard photograph which I said appears to show the shape of a man's head and shoulders in one of the windows. Both you and Groden had looked at the negative and remarked about some odd shading on the windows throughout the side of the building and both of you said the negative appeared to look as though it had been shot slightly out of focus. I had already given Robert a copy of that particular negative and I gave you a copy before departing your company. It was during that meeting that you told me about the research forum you posted belonged to and you'd invited me to join it. I recall that you were not in a suit or dress clothes. I may have told you that I had sent copies of that negative to Prouty and Weisberg, too. I cannot recall for sure, but I think I may have given you a 4 x 6 negative copy, as well.

Bill Miller :sure:

PS - The only other red headed researcher I know of is Dave Curbow - maybe it was he that you remembered. His pic is at ... http://wizard.hprtec.org/builder/worksheet.php3?ID=35508

I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographical record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 20 years and last year I recieved the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case.

But the gun is clearly not the revolver that Arnold said the first man brandished.  I believe Arnold said that one of the men held a revolver.  It is most likely we was referring to a large shotgun.

You see - that is your interpretation, Paul. Gordon was relaying his imnpression of what it looked like to be looking down the barrel of a gun. Gordon never went any further than that and it is only you that is implying he must have been talking about a shotgun. I would suggest you going back and watching that interview again.

But Hoffman does not describe what is seen in the Moorman photo.  He describes a man in a business suit shooting the President.  I also believe that he discusses an assassin adjusting his hat in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, I'm not sure.  But anyway, Hoffman does not verify Arnold nor does Lee Bowers who had the best view of the Grassy Knoll.  He describes policemen on the Triple Underpass, not behind the Knoll area.

I am starting to understand your confusion. In fact, Hoffman does describe the man seen in Moorman's photo. You will see the top of this man's hat just above the fence line near the tree behind Emmett Hudson. Lee Bowers described this man at the same location Hoffman places him at. I might also add that Ed Hoffman never saw the man actually shoot a weapon. Ed saw a flash of light or smoke and seen the man turn away from the fence holding a weapon. I think you are confusing the Hat Man Hoffman seen with the Badge Man and they are two different individuals altogther. Ed, nor Lee Bowers claimed to have seen the Badge Man, but there is a logical reason for this ... the overhanging tree branches that are seen in Moorman's photograph helped hide him from view. From Bowers elevated view the low tree branches would have hidden the Badge Man from Lee's view because of Bowers downward angle to that area. The same can be said for Hoffman because they would have hidden Badge Man's upper body while the cars parked in the lot hid Badge Man's lower body.

I would show you the suited Hat Man as seen in the Willis photograph, but I cannot get this forum to take another image for some reason.

dgh01: so let's get this straight -- Bill Miller say's something contrary to what Paul puts forth [which may or not be the case], Mr. Peter's reads this thread, goes to another forum, [which Bill Miller co-runs] sees the same Bill Miller comment there, [that Bill Miller has made in this thread] then declares Bill correct, because: Bill Miller declared same such thing on the other forum, do I have that right?

Is it any wonder this case has languished for so many years?

I think the reason may be more tuned towards some people being languished over this case because it's too complexed for them to follow it. The fact that Larry has told you in one thread that he has been on Lancer's site and followed the threads should not surprise you that he would know something about Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman. By the way, I understood Larry to say that when he went back and reviewed the threads on Lancer that he noticed that it did look as though it was the researchers who were attributing their misinterpretations of the interviews to the witnesses stories, so I can see why you personally may have languished over the complexity of the JFK assassination case.

I might also add that I do not "co-run" Lancer's forum. I am not an administrator, I don't have access to the adminstrator's codes nor do I make administrative decisions on that forum. I participate on Lancer along with its many other members. You have been told this on other occassions and yet you continue to misstate the facts.

Now for The Men Who Killed Kennedy, one man comes out with a shotgun, is crying, and kicks Arnold. 

Paul - Nowhere have I ever heard on Arnold's MWKK interview that Gordon said the man with the gun had a shotgun. He gave an exaggerated visual interpretation as to how large the barrel looked and that was all. I believe that you are making a wrongful assuption that is of your own making.

Using one suspect witness to defend another is not the best idea.  In an FBI report of June 28, 1967 says:

"Hoffman said he was standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway when the motorcade passed him taking President Kennedy to Parkland

Hospital. Hoffman said he observed two white males, clutching something dark to their chests with both hands, running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building. The men were running north on the railroad, then turned east, and Hoffman lost sight of both of the men.

In newer accounts, Hoffman described the assassin as wearing as business suit.

Try and keep in mind that Ed said nothing - an interpreter tried to relay to the FBI what Ed was trying to say. Those who know Ed understand that he has a poor understanding of the English language. One should alos consider the FBI's attempts to down play many of the witnesses statements. The FBI failed to mention the second man Arnold Rowland had told them about seeing on the 6th floor. The FBI said Mrs. Hartman saw where a bullet had hit the turf and how it lead mack to the TSBD when in fact Mrs. Hartman said it lead back to the knoll. Take Ed's alleged statement as told by the FBI - Ed's position from the RR tracks was about 300 feet. The statement that he was just a few feet south of the RR tracks is a good example of how the facts are quickly lost through interpretation. I have heard Ed's accounting several times and only the FBI version is different, now why do you think that is? I will also say this ... Ed Hoffman has then and still wants to take a polygraph. Someone had told him that such a test can not be given to someone with his disability and I have since discovered that this is false. At this time if the expense can be met and Ed can fit the testers criteria - a polygraph will be given to Ed Hoffman in the near furture.

Now getting back to Gordon Arnold. The mentioning of a RR worker is something that occurred before he was shown the Badge Man images. It is a fact that there were RR workers out near the overpass by the tracks - not inclusing those on the overpass two other RR workers are seen near the RR boxes in the Bell film - that is a fact that cannot be disputed.

If the two policemen were not assassination conspirators, then why would they take Arnold's film and why was it never returned?

No one said they were not conspirators. The issue was over whether or not Gordon Arnold believed one of them to have been the man in the Badge Man image. On the other hand they could have been real cops and sent the film along the proper lines and it disappeared just as other evidence seems to have done. There oibviously appears to have been someone filming the motorcade from above the walkway. Either the film was taken or Gordon wanted to hang onto it and never let anyone see it. The later option doesn't seem logical in light of Gordon thinking that there was never anything to show he was on the knoll during the assassination.

Then Arnold is not being truthful.  In earlier accounts, Arnold was kicked by a policeman and then another policeman came by with a large gun and was crying.  In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Arnold coalesced the two policemen into one, now one policeman is kicking him, holding a weapon, and crying instead of two.  The other individual was not simply cut out of the program, his actions are all being performed by one man. 

Paul - you are making the classic mistake of not bothering to first find out what else Gordon Arnold said that wasn't in the article Golz had written. You see - Earl only printed a few senteces of what Arnold told him. About a year or so ago I reached Earl and we talked about how people are misusing what was stated in his article. They see a staged photo and think that's Gordon replicating where he stood - they read a couple of lines and think that's all Gordon said during the lenghty interview he had with Earl. Earl Golz was baffled by the fact that people should know better and to be honest - so am I. The article was not meant to be a blow by blow description of everything Gordon had said. An officer did approach Gordon and I believe it was said he had a revolver drawn like several other officers did at the time they were ordered to merge on the RR yard. Thinking shots were just fired from knoll - an officer would be a fool not to have their weapon drawn. The second officer who was right behind the first man had a shotgun with him.

Another new edition to Arnold's story is the description of the man (or, according to his earlier accounts, the second of two individuals) who harrased him on the knoll.  In this new account, Arnold says the man didn't wear a hat and had dirty hands.  This appears in none of Arnold's earlier accounts but it reminds you of the account of Joe Marshall Smith.  It is pretty apparent that Arnold read Smith's story and mixed it in with his own.

It's not a new account at all - Earl just didn't include it in his artical. Again, you just do not know the whole story and are assuming things based on what you don't know.

Arnold also addded a railroad worker to his account in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.  When he is show the "Badgeman" enlargement, supposedly for the first time, he says: “Would this fella back here [the figure with the hardhat] be the railroad man I asked you about this morning? Because when I was walking to the site, and I had never told anybody that I had, when we were out there filming, it reminded me that there was a railroad worker just standing out there by the railroad tracks.”

There were RR workers out by the tracks. Ed Hoffman seen one of them take the rifle when the Hat Man tossed it over the steam pipe. The Bell film shows two such RR workers near the RR boxes at the west end of the fence as Kennedy's limo is heading towards Stemmons Freeway. Arnold never says the apparent RR worker in the Badge Man image is the man he saw - he only mentions seeing a RR worker out by the tracks when he tried to get to the overpass. And yes - he told Turner's people about the RR worker before seeing the Badge Man image. Turner's people editied out much of Arnold's interview and it is wrong IMO for someone like yourself to assume things without knowing what all was said during the interview before the editing took place.

So now, one of the policemen has not only been subtracted but he has been replaced by a railroad worker who really doesn't do much of anything.  It is quite remarkable that this new account fits so perfectly with what Mack and White are about to show him.  How can we be sure that Arnold never saw the work that Gary Mack and Jack White discovered, published, and publicized within the Kennedy assassination research community?

I cannot make this any clearer - Gordon Arnold never said that the hatless officer who approached him after the assassination was the assassin who fired from behind him. Gordon only questioned it possibly being the man he saw because the police unifomed man in the Badge Man image didn't appear to be wearing a hat either. What Gordon didn't know is that there were other officers in and around the RR yard who were not wearing their hats and they can be seen in some of the images of the RR yard taken after the assassination. You don't seem to fully appraciate Gordon Arnold's mindset. It took a lot of work for Earl Golz to get Arnold to tell his story back in 1978. Earl said that Gordon did not want to be known. Gordon had heard stories of what happened to people that saw or heard too much. When he saw the Badge Man image in the MWKK interview and had realized that he may have seen one of the assassins - he had one of his worst fears hit him all at once and this is why he said that had he of known about the this (the Badge Man image) that he would not have given the interview.

dgh01: I do believe thats EXACTLY what your saying, Bill. "Now I'm not saying..."

All that don't buy into your ideas of what the "evidence shows" are misleading - not only witnesses, but the public at large!

Fill him in James - this isn't a sheeple forum.

David - you would say that because you come across as about as bright as a road kill that didn't understand what the bright lights meant before he stepped out in front of them. What is there not to understand ... if a witness says they 'handed over their film' to Golz and said they 'handed over their film' to Turner's people in TMWKK - then how do you think Jim Marrs turned it into a camera that was handed over? This sort of thing happens all the time. A witness says one thing and then the interviewer then writes out later what they recalled the witness saying. One change of a word is all it takes. In the case with Marrs - he said 'camera' instead of 'film' and here we are now with someone wondering why Arnold changed his story and not considering that Marrs is the one who made the error. Below is what I said - I would like to know if anyone besides you could not follow the meaning of those few simple senetences.

"Now I'm not saying that Jim purposely has mislead anyone over Gordon Arnold and other witnesses, but he and other interviewers will often times wait and write down what they recalled a witness saying after the interview is over and it allows for errors to be made over what a witness actually said."

Why does the Moorman photo show Gordon Arnold standing straight up when he himself said that he buried his head in the dirt as soon as shots started being fired?

Arnold said to Earl Golz and in The Men Who Killed Kennedy that he took the film out of the canister and threw it to the policeman.  But why did he tell Jim Marrs that he threw the whole camera to the man?

And what happened to the first policeman in his story to The Men Who Killed Kennedy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul - you have asked a good question and I can answer it. Gordon Arnold was a bit more specific than just saying 'when the shots first started'. Gordon Arnold said he hit the ground when a shot cae past his left ear. Moorman's photo shows such a shot doing just what Gordon had said.

As far as what Marrs said ... Jim has a tendency to cite what he rcalls witnesses telling him and not actually what the witnesses later calimed to have said to him. I know for instance Mrs. Hartman was called and asked by Marrs to come to the school and talk to Jim's class - she turned him down. The next thing you know he is saying he interviewed her and she has denied that ever happened. Now I'm not saying that Jim purposely has mislead anyone over Gordon Arnold and other witnesses, but he and other interviewers will often times write down what they recall a witness saying after the interview is over and it allows for errors to be made over what a witness actually said. I noticed the other day in a medical report that a doctor I had once seen had said that my sister died of breast cancer. He took no notes during my examination. What I had told him was is that my sister had breast cancer which caused her to have a breast removed. My sister is still alive today. So this is how things happen and it is unfornuate that he comes back on the witness.

I'm not sure what you are talking bout when you ask what happen to the first policeman in the MWKK? If you are talking about Gordon being approached over his film, then he was always talking about the first policeman. The whole purpose of that interview was for him to talk about that officer and that is why you don't hear him discussing the other officer. This is not uncommon either. You may recall what Arnold Rowland said to the Commission when asked why he didn't mention the second man on the 6th floor to the FBI. Rowland said words to the effect that 'they were not interested in hearing about that man they had told me. They only wanted to hear about the man with the rifle'. I suspect that this is what Turner's people had said to Gordon Arnold. I can assure you that not everything Gordon had said made it onto the program. I think Gary Mack said that they interviewed he and Jack quite a bit and only a small fraction of their interview made it onto the show.

I hope this has offered you some more insight into the Gordon Arnold interview.

dgh01: step up to the plate Bill, show us what you got. Dr. Costella stated, in HOAX the film is not only altered, its a FRAUD --That's a quote guy's, read it and weep.

And yet after you read the book, you come on this forum and say that you have no proof the Zapruder film is a hoax. You are starting to remind me of Arlen Specter and how he referred to the President's back wound as "high back wound" one time and a "low neck wound" another time.

dgh01: this is how REAL researchers and investigators debunk a theory.... well, he obviously wrong, we can't get ANYONE of near stature to say that, you'll just have to take my word for it.... roflmfao

If you mean by "stature" that you are refering to someone who is nutty enough to think that rain sensors are listening devices and a cordless electric razor coming on in his night bag is some sort of CIA doing, then you may have a point. However, he can't find anyone to peer review his claims in order to validate them. Not because there aren't people who can and will do it, but rather because he has not bothered to seek any any of them out.

About taking your word on something ... On one hand you say there is no proof of the Zfilm being altered and on the other hand you say Costella proved it's altered. It's this sort of double talk that keeps people from taking your word for anything.

dgh01: we call this stateside "avoiding the obvious - with nonsense commentary. Your getting easier Bill and to think at one time you wanted to be competition

Competition for what? I have no desire to take you peoples places as the laughing stocks of the JFK assassination research community.

dgh01: should make it easier for you to find a PhD shill somewhere, lot better than the High School Grad's we been seeing the last 5 years or so.

I believe Josiah Thompson has a Ph.D. But explain to me why one needs a Ph.D to point out that Costella based his observations on bad data. He talks about large windows of time for altering the Moorman photo when any 1st year researcher could have told him Moorman's photo was recorded on film within 30 minutes of the assassination. You may not be sharp enough to see this on your own, but a Ph.D doesn't help if you don't have a profound knowledge of the subject that you are trying to apply your skills in.

dgh01: that's Dr. Costella to those in the peanut gallery --tap, tap, tap -- we're STILL waiting

You mean like in Dr. Who, Dr. Frankenstein, or maybe of one of the 20th century's most famous real life mad doctors, Daniel Paul Schreber. A German jurist who went insane and recorded his experiences as a paranoid schizophrenic. I'd say paranoia would apply to thinking rain senors are tools of someone listening in on your conversations on the knoll or that a cordless electric razor coming on inside a bag at the airport may have been the work of the CIA. Call him 'Dr. Costella' if you like - most people call him 'Dr. Delusional'.

dgh01: when it comes to the Z-film, as stated earlier James, I can't prove the film is altered however,

Well, that explains a lot of the side stepping and not being specific with your answers as Larry Peters must have asked you not to do on numerous occassions.

neither can your side DISprove what we put up in HOAX. I await your Physicist findings -- actually we've been waiting nearly a year now, if you factor in Tink's accidental acquisition of the HOAX manuscript...

The claims were disproven. Larry Peters tried in vain to get you and Jack White to address the critique I did and neither one of you either would or could do it. I could not find one rebuttal that you gave in response to Larry's willingness to debate the alteration claims being made. Your evading the issues does not constitute being able to say someone falied to disprove a claim. I am also troubled by your general or abstract principles of a body of fact. I could say that there is a duplicate planet just like earth in another solar system ... would I be justified in telling people that it must be true because no one can disprove otherwise ... I certainly think not.

Whatever happened to Larry Peter's, you know James?The guy just plum disappeared, imagine that, Lurkers! How's the fog over there?

I see that Larry Peters posted on the "Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall" thread yesterday. Maybe he stopped posting on this thread because no one was addressing anything specific about the alteration claims ... I certainly find that understandable and quite reasonable on his part.

The whole point of possible film fabrication is simple, DIVERSION, James. Nobody wants to test the film James, NO ONE

That's not an accurate stement at all. Everytime a claim of possible Zapruder film alteration comes up - we have tested the observation to see if it had merit. Each time we found that the claim was erroneous. And I agree with James - you should read what he says a little closer.

and WHO might make those decisions regarding legitimate claims concerning film alteration BE, James Gordon, Gary Mack, Josiah Thompson -- YOU? For example; awarding a Director of Photography [DP] and Emmy, and the guy/gal has never looked through a camera viewfinder?  that'll NEVER Happen!

We've been waiting for some years regarding your film/photo qualifications -- might start withyour photo industry qualifications -- btw, the Dallas 6th Floor Museum is not in THE "photo industry" ranks!

Looking back over this thread before I joined the Forum it appears that you know the least of anyone about the subject. If you are well versed in it, then you have hidden it well. So far the issues concerning photo and film alteration seem to have been based on a lack of knowledge of the photos and films themselves. Photos being alleged to have been altered only to find they were in the public domain within 30 minutes of the shooting is just one example. Comparing differently shaped shadows on two different walls and thinking they were one in the same, thus you have photo and film alteration is another example. It's the erred interpretations that are being offered as proof of photo and film alteration. Until we are offered a lead that offers something of substance - there is nowhere to go from here.

I'm sure you all remember the many witness statements along the lines: at least one shot, including the one that hit the President in the head was fired from the grassy knoll...

Perhaps the first shot Gordon Arnold recognized as a gunshot was the kill shot, fired from behind him. He then hit the ground. At the same time Senator Yarborough's car was in position to see Arnold diving into the ground.

I think Mr. Miller put it pretty much in the way I've understood the events to have taken place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Antti. There is one consideration that I would like to mention. If Moorman's photo is capturing the muzzle flash of Badge Man's gun/the shot that came by Gordon Arnold, then it could not have been the kill shot for JFK's head exploded between Z312 and Z313. Moorman's photo was exposed at Z316 basically ... Z315.6 to be more exact. Of course the kill shot and the Badge Man shot came over the top of one another and that was a description that many witnesses had given. I believe Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman who was sitting in the front passenger seat of the President's limo referred to it as sounding like a sonic boom where one hears two loud bangs one immediately following over the top of the other. While it may sound like I am splitting hairs - I didn't want to give the impression that Badge Man's shot was the bullet that hit JFK in the head. In fact, there was a furrow found in the grass by Mrs. Hartman (assassination witness) that led back to the Badge Man location. The FBI referenced her as saying the furrow led back to the TSBD, but Mrs. Hartman said that is not what she had told them.

There were two Dallas Police Officers who were told to turn away people on the Triple Underpass.  These are the people who turned James Altgens away.  But Arnold insists that he was turned away by a federal agent when he was behind the picket fence.

Sam Holland said there was a man in a suit on the overpass who he assumed was affiliated with the police. This could have been the man who confronted Arnold.

And by the way, Ralph Yarborough does not confirm Arnold's story.  When Yarborough was interviewed in 1993 by historian David Murph, Yarborough denied seeing someone drop down on the Grassy Knoll.  He insisted,  “Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons, too far back to have been able to see anyone [on the knoll] drop to the ground when firing began.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find that if one bothers to dig into a matter far enough - he or she usually can make sense out of what has occurred. In 1978, it was Yarborough who read about Gordon Arnold's story and Ralph contacted Earl Golz to tell him about seeing this man on the knoll who dove to the ground when the shooting took place. Again in the mid to late 80's Ralph Yarborough again confirmed for Nigel Turner what he had told Earl Golz back in 1978. Then in 1993 someone comes along and interviews the aging ex-Senator and asked him about what he'd seen an/or heard concerning the first shot and the man at the wall. If I'm not mistaken, the 1993 interview asked Yarborough about seeing Arnold when the shooting started. What appears to have happened was that Ralph and the interviewer were not on the same page. If you'll look at a blowup of Altgens number six photograph you will see that no less than two shots into the assassination the then Senator is still smiling and unaware that shots have been fired. So by the time his car has advanced forward to the moment that the head shot to Kennedy had taken place - Ralph Yarborough could then easily see over the corner of the wall. When he thought in 1993 about where his car was when the shooting started - Ralph knew that he could not have seen over the wall at that point. Neither he nor the interviewer separated where the VP car was when Ralph recognized what he took to be the first shot as compared to where the Senator's car was when officially the first shot was fired ... there is a big difference. So one has to consider this - did the younger Yarborough get it right in 78' and again in 86' only to be confused in 93' or did Yarborough make up this story about seeing Arnold and stuck with it for over a quarter of a century and then just forgot about it in 93'? There is only one logical answer to all of this IMO and it concerns the apparent mix-up that the rapidly aging and deteriorating ex-Senator experienced in 93.' I am willing to bet without looking that David Murph didn't try to distinguish between where Yarborough was when the first shot was fired Vs. where he was when he recognized what he thought was the first shot and I'd go even further to say that I bet Murph never considered what Yarborough was still doing two shots into the assassination or even considered turning to the photographical record for the answer.

I hope you have found this information useful.

But why is the policeman never mention by any witness? No witness can verify Arnold's story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Austin Miller verified a young man tried to get onto the overpass before Kennedy's arrival and was turned away. Is not the camera a witnesses to the event? The Betzner, Willis and Moorman photos show Arnold stahnding over the wall. Moorman's photo shows an apparent shot coming by Gordon's left ear as he had said years before anyone knew his image was captured in Mary's Polaroid. Ralph Yarborough confirmed Arnold hitting the ground. The Towner photo confirms two individuals in dark clothing at the very spot where Arnold would have been on the ground at that point in time. Two Bond photos show someone rising above the wall which is what would have happened when Arnold rose up to hand his film over to the officer. Some knoll footage shows someone in a uniform and an apparent overseas cap standing on the walkway as people are now moving up the knoll. I personally don't think people mentioned Arnold for the same reason they didn't mention the black couple sitting on the bench having lunch. They didn't mention the Hester's falling to ground or Bill Newman pounding his fist on the grass. They didn't mention the pop bottle sitting on the wall after the shooting. There is no doubt some people seen these things - they just were not something that was of great importance to anyone considering them witnessing the horror of the murder itself. One surely cannot fault Gordon Arnold for no one thinking his falling to the ground with a camera in his hands was of great importance or that an officer stopping at his position to mean anything. The same can be said that it is not Gordon's fault that each and every assassination witness was not asked if they seen him on the knoll.

Even in the confusion of the moment, you would think that someone would notice a crying policeman holding a large gun kicking a man in uniform.

To know if someone noticed such an officer - there has to be a question put to the witnesses and there aren't any on record. Furthermore there are references to officers crying or being choked up. Mooney himself said on the MWKK that he cried. Yerborough cried. I would think that if an officer is looking you in the face with tears in his eyes or even coming down his cheeks - it might be too much to ask to think people standing behind him or off to the side would notice such a thing, but if they had - it wouldn't have been such an oddity under the circusmstances.

Arnold said that he was forced off the knoll by a federal agent.  But only shortly before the alleged Arnold encounter, Associated Press photographer James Altgens walked through the same area looking for a good vantage point.  No one approached him or told him to leave.

On page 309 of Trask book "Pictures of the pain" there is a reference to Altgens trying to get onto the overpass and he was confronted and ran out of the area. Auatin Miller mentions someone about Gordon Arnold's age trying to get onto the overpass having come by way of the RR yard and he said this man was confronted and turned back. If this man in his early 20's was not Gordon Arnold - he certainly met the same fate that Arnold somehow had experienced. Austin Miller said this about the man trying to come into the area of the underpass ...

Mr. BELIN - When was this?

Mr. MILLER - Oh, before the President came along.

Mr. BELIN - About how much before, do you know? Offhand?

Mr. MILLER - I couldn't say.

Mr. BELIN - Do you know anything about this man or boy that you described? About how old he was, or anything?

Mr. MILLER - I can't think. I would say he was in his early twenties.

Mr. BELIN - Tall or short?

Mr. MILLER - I don't remember that much about him. I do recall him coming up and the man talking to him and turning him back.

And if a policeman actually took his camera after the assassination, why didn't he bother to take Zapruder's, which would have only been a few yards away?

One possibility might be that if this man was affiliated with the assassination - he may have been concerned that Gordon got an image of him when Gordon was test panning the area before the motorcade arrived. He also could have been concerned that Gordon's camera was also recording the sound which would have been proof of a shot being fired from just behind him and very close to the camera. Your question is a valid one, but not one without possible options to consider.

Look at the disparity between the relative size of the President's head compared to Bobby Hargis and that of Gordon Arnold and "Badgeman."  There is such an obvious difference even though the figures are about the same distance apart.

I'm not sure what you meant by the above statement. Hargis is hardly 8 feet or so from Moorman's camera lens and Arnold is about 90 feet away. Could you explain your statement a little more? I know people have mentioned Badge Man's size against that of Arnold's and there are a couple of reasons for this. One is that no one knows Badge Man's actual size. People of various sizes have different sized torsos and heads. There is also something called the "foreshortening effect' that makes things look larger than they really are. A google search under this term can offer a vast amount of information on the subject. The RR car seen in the NIx film is a good example of this. That car was across the RR parking lot, but yet in Nix's film it looks to be just behind the pergola.

And why does the white wall appear as a sea of gauze and fuzz while Arnold and the "Badgeman" are clearly defined?  This is a photographic impossibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the answer to that lies in the fact that so much backlight was added to penetrate the shadows of the walkway. In doing this it causes such light objects like the wall to expand. A similar effect occurred when the man in the west window of the 6th floor was brought out. An example is shown below.

Before Curry had made it to Stemmons Freeway he had already given the order to get all available men into the RR yard to see what had just happened up there. Towner's photo shows two such men in dark clothing standing over where Arnold was laying. Gordon Arnold said they were in dark uniforms like policemen. Just the fact he knew they were there above the knoll so quickly speaks volumes. Within minutes after Gordon's meeting with the policemen there was footage shot of the walkway area and there is yet another officer seen there.

As far as witnesses goes ... they would not have seen a miltary man with a camera as an assassin. I think most everyone was looking for a gunman and paid little attention to anything else. Then there are those people who would have passed Arnold and would have seen him and the policemen, but unless someone finds the witnesses to ask them that specific question - we'll never know that they did or didn't recall seeing. The Towner photo on page 56 and 57 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" shows people moving by or standing close to the two figures near the tree and no one seems to be paying any attention to them. The man on the shelter steps is looking into the RR yard - apparently for a gunman.

Why is Gordon Arnold not seen in any other film of the assassination and why has no witness ever reported seeing a crying policeman robbing a man in uniform in broad daylight?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gordon Arnold in his uniform and overseas hat can be seen in other photos and films if you know what to look for. Keep in mind that Gordon Arnold entered the walkway by means of the RR yard and left the way he came. One cannot expect there to be photos of him as he laid on the ground. The Towner photo captured the two Cops standing over him near the tree IMO. A couple of he Bond photos, when lightened show someone in light clothing rising up above the wall near the two cops. One halfway decent example of what appears to be Gordon is shown below. Note the wide "V" shape of the base of the hat - a classic characteristic of an overseas cap.

Jack,

You write:-

“he sees NO problem USING THE FILM to prove various points, ignoring the consequence that IF THE FILM IS ALTERED EVERYTHING he says IS NONSENSE!”

James - the above statement shows the deteriorated mindset of Jack White for one can just as easily say that if the film is not altered, then everything Jack has said is nonsense! Jack likes to start with a conclusion and work his way backwards. How else does one make such mistakes like he has over missing trains, 7' tall women, people smaller than parking meters, shadows crossing over curbs on photos that could not have been altered within 30 minutes of the assassination, alleged missing people who are actually seen in frames where Jack isn't looking and so on. Anything Jack doesn't understand becomes proof of photo and film alteration in his mind. The thing to do is not to try and make Jack understand anything, but rather to address those people who can still follow along and reason through the evidence you are presenting to them. Once a legitimate claim concerning a particular photo and film alteration is finally established, then and only then should one be concerned with using it to make various points.

A reply to the Gordon Arnold critics:

In this “SFM” interview Arnold claims he parked “on the other side of the tower” “before noon time.”

That’s sounds right … what did Arnold say he did next, how lmuch time passed before he got out of his car, did he stop and stand anywhere while looking to see what was going on, what time did he near the steam pipe, etc.? With what little details that have been told, I see nothing here that would dispute anything Gordon had done.

Arnold claims he went to Dealey Plaza because while driving he noticed the people lined-up and he wanted to test the new movie camera. He claims he did not know anything about the presidential motorcade, “because in the military training that we had, we weren’t allowed to read newspapers, listen to radios, nothing like that.” (which, in my military experience, was true only for recruit training “boot camp,” but was not true for any advanced special training after boot camp)

If accurate, Arnold had just arrived home and had been in special training that may have called for such restrictions. In 1978 he said he got out of basic training at that time. Shouldn’t someone bother to see just how long Gordon’s leave was and what special training he was said to have been involved with just prior to the assassination? Shouldn’t someone have bothered to see if maybe Gordon’s recall was failing him because he told Golz in 1978 that he had just gotten out of basic training.

Arnold claimed on 22NOV63 he had been in the United States Army “approximately nine months," and that during his three years of service he "was in a special unit." (but he never details which “special unit”)

Has anyone bothered to see if Gordon misspoke by checking to see when he entered the service?

Arnold claimed the first encounter with the, supposed, “agent” occurred “down to the very corner where there’s a… a drainage ditch” ....probably meaning the vertical sewer at the junction point where the west end of the north stockade picket fence adjoins the north end of the triple overpass bridge.

There was a ditch near the steam pipe at the time of the assassination and it was not the sewer opening.

Please recall how in “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” where he was first filmed stradling was noticeably far away from the picket fence, and, the vertical sewer does not even appear in the background. (in 1988's "TMWKK" he does mention that the agent came to him from around up off the triple overpass bridge)

{B]Do you mean far away as in the angle at which the camera was pointed? How far down the steam pipe would the fence have been if the camera turned and looked due South? I’m guessing not nearly as far as the length of that car nearby parked at an angle to the fence in the MWKK interview. One other thing, Arnold never said he was at the exact spot on the steam pipe although he may have been on the money. I know if I was him - I would not have wanted to wade in the weeds and brush that is seen in the lower right hand side of that filmed interview to make my point.[/b]

Arnold claimed he “weighed 175 pounds," and, “I was nothing but muscle.”

Does the, supposed, “Arnold” image “seen” in MOORMAN #5 polaroid photo enhancements appear to to you to be “nothing but muscle”, or, does the, supposed, 5.8' tall “Arnold” image appear to you to have a somewhat noticeable “gutt”?; a gutt “seen” from a lower MOORMAN position, rising above above a 3.3‘ tall wall.

No one can honestly say they can tell if the Service Man has a gut in Moorman’s photo. Furthermore, who in the military after basic training has a gut? The alleged gut observation is something I would expect from DVP who we know has a motive for making such unfounded remarks.

Arnold claimed the “agent” told Arnold that the agent “was with either the CIA or Secret Service.”

Probably Secret Service is the correct one being others had met such individuals in and around the RR yard and the TSBD. See Earl Golz article of 1978 where Earl says that four other witnesses were approached by alleged SS men on foot before and immediately after the assassination. When asked - Earl could not even remember if it was CIA, SS or FBI that Gordon had mentioned. Earl said that he remembered it was a federal badge of some kind that Gordon talked about.

When the “agent,” supposedly, encountered Arnold again and told Arnold, again, to leave the area, Arnold claimed he thought or said aloud, “Well, horse rots” and then (probably thought to himself) “I’ll just go around it and get on the other side of the fence. You know, I’m away from his territory. I’m in mine now. I get on the other side, and man, everybody’s in good positions to take pictures but ole’ Gordon here, so… (chuckling) So, the big problem was… is that there use to be a directional identification billboard out here. And it was just past the lampost.”

Arnold claimed, “at that point in time they were putting dirt on the knoll. There was a mound of dirt. And I said, ‘Well, I’ll stand on the mound of dirt.’ And I was doing some practice pan shots”

A mound of dirt can be as high as a an Indian burial mound or as little as a matter of inches where the ground bulges upwards. The walkway footage is of so poor of quality that it cannot allow the viewer to honestly tell if the ground is raised in any particular place or not … or if it is grass we are seeing in places or is it dirt.

The ground between the retaining wall and the picket fence line may have then had a thinnish layer of dirt on its top, but, there is no photo/film evidence nor witness(es) statement(s) that there was ever an obvious “mound” of dirt --anywhere-- in that knoll/wall area.

I take it that Gordon Arnold is being excluded as a witness. No witnesses stated whether the grass was bare in places either or that the hill starts it’s slope before it gets to the end of the walkway. One might reasonably presume these sorts of things were not important when in the mind of a witness, their seeing the President shot or trying to catch a glimpse of an assassin was the most important issue at the time. Also, the same thing applies as stated above. The Darnell footage is of no value from the quality of the pictures and the angle at which it was taken by panning South to tell what elevation changes can be seen on the ground.

Conover then asks Arnold where he was standing in relation to the north pergola steps, to which Arnold claims, “OK. OK. The steps would be almost----I would say in front of me, but it’s not in front of me because I’m standing askew to the steps----more towards the street than I am the steps.” “And I’m up as… I’m about three feet from the fence.”

Please recall that the 1978 “Dallas Morning News” photo that shows Arnold standing noticeably much closer to the picket fence than the retaining wall that he stood closer to by 1988’s “The Men Who Killed Kennedy.”

The author of the 1978 article (Earl Golz) said it is nonsense to believe that photo that Jay Godwin took of Arnold was to show the reader where Gordon stood during the shooting. Golz made it very clear to myself that Arnold was standing over the top of the steps near the walkway and was the man seen by Senator Ralph Yarborough. The Golz article goes as far to explain that because of the man falling to the ground behind the retaining wall ...that it caused him to be hidden from view from researchers who had poured over the assassination images for years.

Conover then asks, ”Between the steps and the fence?” to which Arnold replies, “Yes.”

This could also be interpretated as the area where Arnold stood during the MWKK because the walkway runs the same direction as the fence in relation to the top of the steps.

*NOTE* Arnold claims he was BETWEEN the steps and fence --in other words, he is specifically claiming he was specifically in the grass between the fence and the steps-- but he was not on the west edge of the steps, he was not on the east edge of the steps, he was not on the steps, he was not on the pergola sidewalk, he was not on the west edge of the sidewalk, and, he was not on the east edge of the sidewalk. Based on the physical layout of the steps/retaining wall/picket fence corner I cannot visualize his above strange, imho, concurrent added claim that he was also “more towards the street than I am the steps.” Can anyone decipher these several positional claims by Arnold into one coherent location? (perhaps he is trying to vocalize that his claim was that his facing direction --not his standing location-- was facing turned "more towards the street"?)

They can better understand the location Gordon Arnold was talking about if they can quit mistakenly thinking the Godwin photo was supposed to be Arnold saying he stood over the slope of the hill. The might also consider that anyone just off the west side of the walkway would technically be between the fence and the sidewalk. It might also help if they look at the Betzner photo and notice that anyone on the LOS to the BDM who is just west off the walkway and in the grass is between the top of the steps and the fence. They might also consider that Arnold had his back to the fence and the last memory of it may have been when he hit the ground which appears to be near the large tree somewhere - which may place him three or so feet from the fence at that point. They might also consider that in a court hearing there will be photos or overhead drawings made available and the witness will be asked to place a mark on one of the exhibits so there will be no confusion as to where they are saying they were located. The general descriptions from these interviews and news stories concerning Arnold and the apparent confusion it has brought to a few people is just why courts do things differently.

Conover then asks, “So, the steps were east of you?” to which Arnold replies, “Right.” (So, he has already said he was 3' from the picket fence, and the pergola steps, not the pergola sidewalk, are east of him)

Arnold then claims he, “still didn’t know what was happening until, well, the motorcade came around the corner…” (yet, he also claimed he had been there since just before noon. He claims he has been there 30+ minutes before the attack, so, is it logical to you that in that 30+ minutes before the attack that he, never once, reasoned just why so many people were pouring out of the buildings and gathering together, and/or, he never once even took just a few short seconds to casually ask someone --anyone-- just what was going on? Exactly WHAT did Arnold imagine/think the C.I.A. agent --or was it a secret service agent-- was doing there, anyway?)

I think that more careful thought to what Arnold said may be required here. It may have taken some time to park and walk out around the parking lot to take in what may be going on so to take in the general layout of the area. Part of the time was obviously taken up by Arnold walking towards the RR yard to try and see where he might get a good view as to what was going to occur. Gordon never made it to the triple underpass where the RR workers were standing and after being confronted by the man with the badge and the tone they took with one another, then having a friendly chitchat as to what’s going on doesn’t seem likely. Arnold’s behavior is somewhat telling in that he was going to stop and stand behind the fence to view the parade or whatever event everyone was out there to see. It was only after being told to move on by the man he had just been confronted with before that Gordon worked his way back around the fence and came out on the walkway. In a conversation with Gary Mack, Gordon said he had stopped near the large tree to look the scene over. So it seems that Gordon was still content in staying in the background at that point. It seems likely that at some point in time that Gordon Arnold realized that he needed to move out onto the walkway because the view of anything coming down Elm Street would have been hampered by the pyracantha bush and the Stemmons road sign as seen in both the Willis and Betzner Photos. One thing I have gotten from talking with Gary Mack and Robert Groden is that Gordon didn’t recall the precise spot where he was standing when filming the President coming down Elm Street. Even in the MWKK series he was just trying to tell it as close to how he remembered it. The same thing would most likely have happened if Jean Hill had been asked to find her exact spot along the curb, but as with Gordon and Jean, we have an image with reference points where we can eliminate much of the guess work. If Gordon said at one point he was within three feet or so from the fence, he may be telling the truth as best as he remembers it, but one can go beyond his recall so many years after the fact and check his location by using someone of similar height and photographing them from Moorman’s known filming location.

Arnold goes on, “And I said, ‘Well, that looks like the presidential flag.’ And I still really wasn’t convinced, but I put the camera up, had it all wound up, and just as the nose of the car started to come into the… into my viewfinder, I pulled the little switch on it. And just as I started to pan and I was almost parallel to the street is when the… I want to say noise. It’s not a noise. You feel something go past you, and then you… it’s almost instantaneous. You’ll hear a noise following behind it, and to me, I knew I was dead because that was a bullet that just went over me. And it’s not a span of time that this occurred in. This happened, what I’m telling you, is all in one sequence because when the shot went past my ear, I was automatically falling. And when I was falling, I was still taking... The camera was still rolling. And I could see the president’s head go back. Now that’s the last that I remember being on the camera, but when I went down, I literally went down and when you’re… you’re taught to roll…” “…to get down as deep as you can and away from the line of fire. And I would say that another shot went over my… the position that I was in, but the… when that occurred, I was down. I had my face… I had rolled over once, and my face was now down. By know, the camera had quit running by this point in time. OK. At that… it seemed like eons, but it’s not. A short period of time after that, somebody kicked me in the derrier, and now, I’m not in the mood to be kicked to begin with. And I was upset because I knew the president had been killed, and I turned over and I was ready to hit somebody. And I was facing a large bore weapon, and the man was crying.” Conover asks, “What do you mean by a large bore weapon?” to which Arnold claims, “Like a shotgun…” “… but it looked… it was big enough for a truck to drive through.”

So, Arnold is claiming one shot was fired while ARnold was standing only 3' from the picket fence with the pergola steps in front of him, and Arnold first instinctively reacted to a bullet going over him. He implies that he rolled, and since we know that no one is seen in photo nor films west of the retaining wall --near that 3' from the picket fence Arnold claims-- he is clearly implying that he had to have rolled somewhere east or northeastward out of sight of all cameras --and towards the eardrum busting very close bullet that he claimed in 1978 and 1988 passed very close to his left ear.

This definetly is starting to sound like the approach the Warren Commission used in their investigation of the evidence. The Moorman photograph shows Arnold right where he was. Pictures can be misinterpretated, but they don’t lie. The ability for some witnesses to have heard all or any part of the shots against the other noises bouncing around the knoll would depend on where they stood and/or they first recognizing the sound as a gunshot. No truer example of this can be offered when one looks at the James Altgens number 6 photograph where we see Yarborough still smiling and Charles Brehm still clapping at a point that most researchers believe that at least two shots have been fired. When the shot was fired from behind Gordon Arnold and at such close range – he had no doubt as to what it was and for all practical purposes – it was the first shot fired in his mind.

*NO TE* that here Arnold said a bullet went over him but does not say --as he did in 1978 and 1988-- that a bullet went past his left ear.

I repeat … this is starting to sound like the approach the Warren Commission took. Had Arnold of said a bullet went passed his right ear, then it would be worth noticing. All one has to do is look at the Moorman photo and decide if the bullet went passed his left ear, or over his left shoulder, over the left side of his head, or all three. When it gets to the point when such minute details are being made into something more than what they are, it takes away from the credibility in the alleged search for the truth in my view. It’s interesting that Arnold told Golz that he felt a shot come over his left shoulder and then during his describing the whiz sound he heard – Gordon said, "You wouldn't hear a whiz go over the top of your head like that …”. It would seem logical to a reasonable person that Gordon used to ways of describing the event, but was yet telling of the same experience.

Also note that in 1978 Arnold claimed he was kicked not by the “badgeman,“ but rather by a “badgeman accomplice” also dressed in a D.P.D. uniform (in 1978 the *first* D.P.D. uniformed “badgeman accomplice” had the additional Arnold claim that “badgeman accomplice” was also wielding a visible, drawn, held revolver), but by 1989, Arnold has now mutated his claim to the “badgeman” himself was now the only kicker ---while he is holding that waving, large bore, shotgun-like weapon.

The above statement is inaccurate. This inaccuracy was addressed before on this forum and I’ll repeat it again. The second officer who Gordon said in 1978 that had approached him was the officer bearing the shotgun. In the MWKK, Gordon said the man who kicked him had a gun that looked “this big” as Gordon formed a large circle with his two hands to give an exaggerated impression of how it looked to him. Nether interview mentioned a revolver, so the gun type is unknown.

Also, in 1978, Gordon Arnold didn’t know about a Badged Man firing from behind him. In the MWKK interview he did not know about a Badged Man firing from behind him until after he told his story and it was on record.

When asked how far away from him the “badgeman” was, Arnold claims, “He was just out of arm reach, down to the barrel” and, “He was between me and the fence.”

Interesting that the Towner photo shows someone behind the overhanging foliage which supports Gordon's statement as where the man was who took his film.

After Conover asks if Arnold saw from where the “badgeman” came from, Arnold claims, “No, not where he came from, but now, people were moving at that point in time. Some were running away from where I was at. Some were running up the hill. What I couldn‘t understand is, he took the film out of the camera, pitched the camera back to me, and then he came back towards the… along the fence line towards the parking area,” and yet, not one single witness, nor one single photo/film confirms an armed, crying D.P.D.-uniformed assassin kicking anyone and waving a large weapon around for all these persons that Arnold, by his own 1989 claims, said were now “running up the hill” past the, supposed encounter only a few yards away.

The same Warren Commission approach could be said about the Newman’s claiming to have grabbed their children and pulling them to the ground for it to be seen on film – there had to be a camera pointed at them at the time and to date there is no such footage showing that event. The Towner photo showing two figures near the tree as two individuals in dark clothing are moving up the walkway and another one on the shelter steps are visble to even the untrained eye and has also been pointed out many times on this forum. Then there is the Bond photos that do show someone or something of light color rising up above the wall, so to say there is no photos of this event is not accurate in my view. The problem seems to be that no up-close and personal photos or films of any great clarity show this event, but that is no fault to Gordon Arnold.

*NOTE* that Arnold never once mentions a second D.P.D.-uniformed “badgeman accomplice” in his 1989 claims, even though he detailed a second D.P.D.-uniformed “badgeman accomplice” carrying a revolver --and who did the kicking-- in his 1978 claims.

The Earl Golz article quotes just two or so short comments by Arnold. To infer that this is all Arnold said to Earl about his experience is unfounded and certainly not what I got from my conversation with Earl last year. Again, this sort of diversion from logic by using selected quotes from Golz article seems to be the same approach the Warren Commission used in their use of the witnesses and the evidence.

And here’s one of the 1989 Arnold claims that REALLY caught my attention. A claim that I have never in 29+ years ever heard a single researcher ----including the “badgeman” founders---- ever mention, much less, provide the details of for us, nor has it ever appeared in ANY photo enhancement:

“He had a… it looked like a Dallas Police officer’s uniform, and he was a white male. He had… oh, back in those days, it’s what they use to call shooter’s glasses. Oh remember the… it was like a yellow tint to the glasses. It kept the glare off your eyes.”

I can just visualize the MOORMAN photo enhancer-artists that also think that “Arnold” is “seen” in MOORMAN now scrambling and having to alter their black and white and water-colorized enhancements to match this additional, “important” claim by Arnold to now “show” the, supposed, “badgeman” glasses with yellow-tinted lenses, and don't forget to add-in the glasses frame of these “shooters glasses,” and remember to trim “Arnold’s” gutt to appear as “nothing but muscle.“

Arnold never knew for sure if he saw the Badge Man, nor did he say that he ever did. If half as much time was put to paying closer attenting to what was said instead of trying to make something out of nothing, then these things may not have escaped some individuals. Arnold only said that one of the men who approached him didn’t wear a hat. He later said when confronted with the Badge Man image, “If this is the man …”. So no one needs to go looking for shooters glasses even though Jack White has said that such an observation was made about the Badge Man image. What Jack White said about the shooter glasses is shown below.

Jack White writes:

Jack, the ONLY "Badgman enhancer-artist", responds:

Don, I do not understand this gratuitous insult. You are accusing me of fabricating my Moorman research WITHOUT KNOWING anything about it (judging from this totally inappropriate remark).

If you knew what you are talking about, you would know that in discovering Badgeman I NEVER DID ANY PHOTO "ENHANCEMENT" OR "WATERCOLORIZED ENHANCEMENT" NOR ALTERATION TO THE IMAGE FOUND IN MOORMAN. All I did was OPTIMUM EXPOSURE of the image...no enhancement. (see attached)

I did no "watercolorized enhancement"; using totally transparent photo-tinting oils,(for use in my slide shows to help viewers visualize) I hand-tinted certain areas on a b/w print to help viewers see what I could see. You make it sound as if I did something SINISTER to alter the image. I am very disappointed that

you pontificate on this subject as if you know what you are talking about. The transparent oils DID NOT ALTER THE IMAGE...just added color.

It is interesting that you mention the subject of "shooter's glasses" being brought up by Arnold (unknown to me). After Gary Mack and I showed the Badgeman image to the National Enquirer, that publication in early 80s convened some experts at a Washington hotel (some experts from the National Rifle Assn as well as Harold

Weisberg), and had Gary and me show them the Badgeman photos. I projected the b/w slides (at that time I had not done the colored version). EVERYONE WHO SAW THE SLIDES AGREED THAT IT WAS A SHOOTER IN A POLICE UNIFORM, and one of the NRA experts even exclaimed "HE IS WEARING SHOOTER'S GLASSES!" I asked what shooter's glasses were, and he explained they are large yellow-tinted glasses used to see targets better. I had never heard of shooter's glasses. I have

never talked to Gordon Arnold, so he did not learn of shooter's glasses from me. It is interesting that he described a cop wearing shooter's glasses, and that 20 years ago an NRA expert looking at the Badgeman image ALSO SAW A COP WEARING SHOOTER'S GLASSES. I could not even see what he saw, but took his word as an interesting observation by an expert.

Arnold claims the “badgeman” was in his “late-twenties, early thirties,“ had dark hair, “was not fat,“ “was stocky,” “had a ruddy complexion,“ and was “a little bit taller than I was” (Arnold states he was 5’ 10.5” tall, = 5.87’)

The, supposed, badgeman, Arnold goes on to claim, “had dirty fingernails” that Arnold claimed he noticed while he was watching the “badgeman” trigger finger during the, supposed, encounter. Of the encounter, and “badgeman” during the encounter, Arnold claimed, “And with him shaking like that, it was going back and forth, and it just shook me up.” “He had tears coming down his eyes, but he… when I left here, I got to my car as fast as I could.”

It is interesting that the fake Secret Service man behind the fence also had dirty fingernails. I also have to question once again if Gordon is talking about the man who took the film or the man who was waving the shotgun around? Many years had passed. Arnold did mention in the MWKK that the policeman who kicked him had dirty hands and dirty hands can lead one to think the nails would also be dirty. One could also consider that this officer also had a weapon with him as other cops had their shotguns and revolvers in hand after the shooting took place. What one wants to do is not confuse the cop who took the film as being the cop who Gordon said carried the shotgun. To this day I have seen a reference made by Gordon what type of weapon the man who took the film had.

Arnold goes on to claim that he told his girlfriend-later-his-wife, “Now, I explained to her what had occurred, and I had explained to my parents what had occurred” and after he left Dallas to travel to Alaska, he stopped-over in Seattle and “explained to the officer-of-the-day where we were being billeted what I had seen.”

Arnold further claims, “The… my son and daughter now know about it.”

Then this strange exchange:

Arnold: Well, I went into the service…

Conover: What year?

Arnold: …in ‘66.

I say “strange” because earlier in his claims in this same 1989 interview Arnold stated that he started serving in the U.S. Army in 1963 (possibly, that is a transcription error?)

Gary Mack points outs by saying …

“The part where Arnold mentioned 1966 refers to when he was OUT of the service. It's obvious to me from both the transcript and by listening that he did not answer the question Conover asked. He was in the service, he claimed, from 1963 to 1966, which is when he married.”

Arnold then claims that while serving on a court trial jury he told a fellow University of Texas at Arlington student who was researching the assassination the “true” story of what happened --according to Arnold. Arnold claims he took this UTA student to the “grassy knoll” and that the student took a photo of Arnold standing on the “grassy knoll”

Arnold goes on to describe the how Nigel Turner found Arnold and ”The Men Who Killed Kennedy” filming, etc. Of the “TMWKK” segment where Arnold, supposedly for the first time, views the enhanced “badgeman” image after flipping up the piece of cardboard, Arnold claims that “badgeman” was Lucien Sarti when Arnold elaborates to Conover after Conover asked what the assassin looked like, “And… well, if you have the tape, he’s in the tape.” (unless Arnold is saying the assassin was someone else who appears in “TMWKK”)

It appears that Arnold is merely telling Conover that it has been said that the Badge Man was Sarti and what he looks like can be seen in the documentary.

I guess the Frenchman, Sarti, did not speak with a, noticeably, French accent when he spoke to Arnold, aye?

{b}Again, When did Arnold say that when he saw a photo of Sarti that he was sure that Sarti was the hatless Police Officer he had met on the knoll after the assassination? Are you inferring that Arnold ID’d Sarti as the man he met or just who the MWKK series said might have been Sarti? There is a difference.[/b]

If I recall correctly, Gary Mack once emailed me and said that “TMWKK”/Steve Revile French-Corsican-mafia-were-the-assassins-theory was “nonsense.”

Arnold further describes how he was shown several mugshot-type photos by Turner or a Turner assistant, and after about 30 seconds he was “semi-sure” he identified one of them as being the third assassin team member (or second assassin team member, depending on which year version of Arnold‘s claims he was claiming to Turner) -- the “hard-hat badgeman accomplice” that is, supposedly, “seen” in the MOORMAN polaroid enhancements. (I wonder why this identification of the “hard-hat badgeman accomplice” was not filmed, or, if filmed, was also not shown during "TMWKK"?)

About how long the encounter with the, supposed, “badgeman” lasted, Arnold further claims, “That lapse of time that you’re talking about, and I… I… It would be no more than thirty seconds because, in all honesty at that point in time, there was a lot of police officers up or coming up the hill or were on the knoll.”

Please read my study, “BOND Photos Do Not Timestamp ARNOLD's Presence” linked to below.

The photos support what Arnold had said. One question though … is the estimate Arnold gave of the 30 seconds the time that lapsed after the last shots or just the meeting time he had with the officers where his film was confiscated?

Incredibly, Arnold goes on to mutate his story within this very same 1989 interview when he goes on to claim to Conover Hunt, “And believe it or not, I say there was four or five shots fired. I know there was two fired over me, but now the… the problem with this particular area is that you’ve got reports going off between buildings.”

I think Arnold wasn’t the only person who heard shots or reports during and after the President’s head exploded.

Conover asks, “So, you were aware of shots being fired before the ones came over your head?” to which Arnold claims “To be honest with you, no.”

This is what I said earlier in this response. The same can be said about Yarborough and Brehm, unless one thinks those two witnesses were rejoicing over Kennedy being shot at.

Arnold claims he never heard anyone talking from behind his, supposed, filming location.

Arnold again claims how the highway sign blocked his camera filming view just before the attack started, and how Arnold had his body parallel to the street direction when “his“ first shot went over him (or, was it to the left of him?).

How about the shot coming over and to the left of him? Arnold used both descriptions to Earl Golz in 1978. Or rather than use his impression as to where it seemed to pass by him, look at Moorman’s photograph.

But, in utilizing and calculating on a professional surveyed map from the area where “Arnold“, supposedly, stood during the attack --from the intersection point of the Zf-202 “black dog man“ mandatory line-of-sight with the Zf-315.6 MOORMAN mandatory line-of-sight for the “Arnold“ image or from that BDM Zf-202 line-of-sight 3' from the picket fence, or, from the Zf-315.6 MOORMAN mandatory line-of-sight for the “Arnold“ image at 3' from the picket fence-- the highway sign (presumably, the “Stemmons” sign) would horizontally block President Kennedy from Arnold’s view from before Zf-133 (on the left north edge of the sign), through only about Zf-160 to 170 (when the president would have emerged from the right south edge of the sign)

Arnold’s loss of view of the limo due to the Stemmons road sign would not have lasted much longer than Zapruder’s, so what it the point here?

Also, please recall that Gary Mack has stated that Arnold claimed to Mack in 1982 that Arnold starting walking forward towards the retaining wall (southeastward), from a grass point nearer to the “badgeman” tree, just as the limousine entered Elm Street, and while Arnold --as Arnold claims-- was panning his camera around in practice.

That is true about how Gary Mack recalls during a conversation he had with Arnold many years ago. There is little doubt that Arnold passed the large tree and may have even stopped there briefly, but it takes less than a few seconds to realize that the view is severely hampered by the pyracatha bush, the Stemmons road sign, and again by the South edge of the retaining wall. This is easily seen in the betzner and Willis photos looking back the other way. I suspect that Gary did not remember that part of Gordon's conversation correctly or that he misunderstood a point in time that Gordon relayed to him. The man in uniform that Yarborough spoke about and who is seen in Moorman’s photograph is not back by the tree and it now appears that BDM and Arnold are one in the same person, so any notion that Arnold waited back by the tree until BDM evorporated into thin air becomes quite illogical at this point.

*Nowwww*, I can visualize it,

*forrrr surrrrrrrre*….

Arnold is walking southeastward, with his (or did it belong to his Mother?) new-to-the-touch/unfamiliar-with-all-mechanisms-feeling movie camera, raised up to his eye, panning the camera around in arcs, walking towards an imminent crest/drop-off of a “grassy knoll” hill that surrounds the steps top, and/or, bumping into the retaining wall, and/or, tripping on the straight-edge of the pergola sidewalk, and/or, and/or bumping into whomever spilled the red drink onto the east sidewalk edge, and/or tripping-down-into-MOORMAN‘s-view because he did not see the top pergola step, and/or, all the while, walking up onto then standing upon a raised mound of dirt that no other witness that went up there has ever spoken of, that no one captured in any photos/films, nor is documented by a single professional surveyor on any of the professional land survey maps and professional plats performed in 1963/1964

That’s certainly how it would appear using the Warren Commission approach.

Arnold further claims the movie camera film was color, 8mm, brand “Kodak” (but gives no “Kodak” specific film type), and admits he “was concentrating more on the… on the camera and the---what I keep saying---stupid people in front of me because I couldn’t get up to where I could see what was going on.”

That’s what would happen when one stood up near the walkway ... near the top of the steps. Too bad however, that Arnold had not have been where he posed for the Godwin photo, because then he could have had an unobstructed view like Hudson and the man next to him had when looking up Elm Street.

“And I rolled, and when I rolled, the camera was still running. So, it would have taken a picture of the fence…” “…and anything behind it.”

Ah-hahh !!....

Now we know why the, supposed, “badgeman” wanted to get the film....

That’s certainly a possibility even though the film would have probably been about as useless as Weigman’s film with all the motion blur happening. It could be that the Badge Man wasn’t sure if Arnold had captured him on film before the shooting or that it recorded the sound of a shot coming from so close to the camera. The point being there are other possibilities as to why Arnold’s film was taken from him.

but wait....

....the “badgeman” then, completely illogically, gave the movie camera BACK to Arnold....

----you know, so Arnold could keep safe the same movie camera that, most likely, now also had “badgeman’s” fresh fingerprints preserved for the authorities on the movie camera's outside AND on the inside the movie camera.

Badge Man was the authority in Arnold’s mind, not an assassin. Furthermore, we still don’t know if it was Badge Man who actually took the film from Gordon. It may have been a legitimate police officer who wasn’t wearing his hat at the time.