Paul Kerrigan

I believe that Jack White was denied acess to a certain forum for a while.

Lee, let me share some more information with you. Golz told Miller that the photograph shown in the Dallas Morning News WAS NOT ever meant to replicate Gordon's position during the shooting. That was an assumption Don Roberdeau made. Arnold's family is based in the Dallas area and if one wants to call around - getting verification as to Gordon's service in the military would not be that difficult. You also might try a local library who has newspapers on microfilm and if they have the Dallas Morning News, then you can search the obituaries for the year or month that Gordon died. Possibly the 6th Floor Museum may be of some help. Gary Mack can be reached at GMack@JFK.Org. Golz had told Miller that he remembered Arnold saying someone of Federal authority turned him away from the RR yard. From the time of assassination to the time he was on Turner's documentary there had been a passing of 25 years gone by. It was reasonable to Golz, Miller and others that Gordon simply misspoke and possibly thought one branch and said the other. I certainly have done this myself. We can assume the water pipe was not hot at the time of the Turner documentary because Arnold had no problem resting his leg over it. I think if one looks more closely at what was said in that interview - Gordon claimed he started to throw his leg over the pipe, but was stopped. It may be reasonable that the aging Arnold laying his leg down on the pipe in the "MWKK" series was more out of necessity so to continue his vocal presentation without losing his balance. This by no means does not tell us that Arnold stood with his leg resting over the steam pipe when confronted by the man who turned him away. It's also worth noting that there is a report taken of one of the men on the triple underpass that saw a young man in his early twenties get stopped coming from the RR yard and was turned back in the direction from which he came. There has been much said about Gordon Arnold's reaction when shown the Badge Man image and I have had an interest in it myself. To date, I believe Miller has presented the best observation as to why Gordon reacted the way he did. Let me see if I can recall it correctly - Golz had said to Miller that it took a lot on his part to get Arnold to make his story public. Arnold had a genuine fear as to what he believed happened to witnesses who came forward. Whether Gordon's fear was justified is open for debate, but that is how he felt about it. 10 years had passed when Turner wanted Arnold to tell his story. Gordon obviously had been convinced that other people had come forward at that late time and no harm had come to them, so he must have felt some assurance that it was OK to give the filmed interview. Part of the attraction for Gordon may have been that he had heard that there was a photo that helped support his being on the knoll, but I cannot say that with 100% certainty. Anyway, Gordon is shown the image of what appears to be a service man standing beyond the wall where he said he had been. Then when Gordon sees the rest of the picture enhancement, he observes the hatless man who looks to be in a police uniform. Gordon became upset because while he agreed to tell his story, he had just been ambushed showing the world that he may have seen the man who actually shot the President. That's the part that got to Gordon for his fear of what could happen to him just grew in seconds. It's one thing to claim shots came from the knoll, but in Gordon's mind ... his having the bad guys find out he could maybe recognize one of them could cost him his life. Keep in mind too that up to that point, Gordon only knew that a hatless cop took his film, he didn't know the hatless cop may have been the one who fired the shot passed his left ear. Gordon ends by saying "Had I of known this, I would not have given the interview." Gordon's total conversation with Golz was not printed. Earl only offered a few words here and there. It is also worth noting that Gordon had told Turner's people about a RR worker before being shown the Badge Man images. Those are the only two records of any part of Gordon's interviews that I have seen to date. There is only the walkway footage that I have seen that shows where Arnold stood. The poor black and white film quality and the angle at which it is filmed does not allow us to tell if the dirt was mounded there or not. I have never understood Gordon to have not been talking about two cops in the MWKK. One takes his film and the other has a shot gun. On page 57 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" there are in fact two individuals at the tree soon after the shooting. I'm not sure when Gordon was supposed to have said he gave his camera to the cop? The cop may have wanted the camera, but Gordon opted to only give up the film as I recall. One final point - Miller had some 1st generation slides lightened and he discovered someone in light tan clothing rising up over the top of the wall in the Bond slides. This seems to have happened right where the two figures in dark clothing were standing. This discovery had not been made until after Arnold had long since been dead and supports exactly what Arnold had said occurred. I hope this additional information has been helpful. I agree with what you have said, Lee. That just on the observations you had raised would not have been enough to have proved Arnold not to be telling the truth. I hope some of the observations made prior have now been better explained in this post. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But the pipe was hot. Researcher Paul Burke observes that this is the same pipeline Officer Seymour Weitzman testified he burned his hands on just a few minutes after the shooting.

Yes, that is true. But none of the information on that page is made up by him. It all comes from different sources. I especially like this piece from conspiracist David Perry http://home.flash.net/~dperry2/lettermn.html

What about the most obvious indication that the Zapruder and Nix films don't match, Clint Hill? In the Zapruder Film, Hill doesn't reach Jackie until she is in the limousine. He just barely touches her in "Zapruder's" film. But in the Nix film, he seems to be grabbing on to her, forcing her into the limousine.

Probably for the same reasons McAdams doesn't believe him. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/files.htm

Oh, don't put all his essays in here unless you e-mailed him first and got permission. It wouldn't be right.

Do your homework before making unsupported statements. You clearly have not read what witnesses said. Jack White Well, here's my homework http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,247236,00.asp "On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'" - "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001 "As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it." - "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001 "'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'" - "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001 "Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'" - "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001 http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

Has anyone ever heard of this lie-detector test? It is a lie-detecting device that measures stress by voice stress analysis. Hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies use it and it is accepted as evidence in a dozen states. It was subjected to recordings of Oswald when he said "I didn't shoot anybody" and the results showed that Oswald was telling the truth. But I want to know is, why hasn't this been subjected to recordings of Clay Shaw? This could settle the issue of the Jim Garrison investigation. http://www.jfk-online.com/clayshaw.mp3

What about all the witnesses who observed a plane crashing into the Pentagon?

No missile hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11. All the targets were hit by planes (but that doesn't mean the alleged hijackers were the ones flying the planes). http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/o....com/2002/03/14 http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

I don't think that President Bush planned 9-11. I think it was the much more powerful people in government. http://www.constitution.org/shad4816.htm

Mr. Thirdeye...you have revealed yourself as a Posnerite. Anybody who disagrees with Fletcher Prouty is uninformed, in my opinion. Defending McAdams is defending the CIA. Roscoe White had SOME involvement in 11-22, we just don't know for sure what it was. Robert Morrow books contain some good and some bad information. Whether or not he was a disinformation agent is not known, but if McAdams is against him, that gives him more credibility. Jack White Why? Because I disagree with some conspiracy arguments I am a defender of the lone-assasin viewpoint? You make it seem that McAdams is some disinformation agent for the CIA. He is not. Althought I disagree with the majority of his conclusions, I believe he has done away with many false conspiracy arguments that have been around for far too long.

Then why does NOVA report otherwise? "In 1976, yet another shape materialized from the shadows in a Moorman blowup in Robert Groden's book JFK: The Case for Conspiracy. From the same image, Texas researchers Gary Mack and Jack White presented a shape they called "Badgeman" in the 1988 documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." That same year, at NOVA's request, technicians at MIT analyzed the shape, concluding it "took some imagination" to render it into a human figure. " http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm

Mr. Thirdeye...here is a good enlargement of Badgeman from my Duluth PP presentation. What do you think? Jack White I think that technicians at MIT analyzed the shape and said that "it took some imagination" to render it into a human figure.

Why don't we make a new topic for questions then?

No, the backward movement is not the result of a bullet. Dr. David Mantik suggests that the backward movement was originally a much slower movement of Jackie lifting her husband up to look at him after the first head shot. I believe that two headshots were condensed into one. I think that the first headshot knocked Kennedy forward and the second shot occured as Jackie was lifting her husband up to look at him.

The photo outlined in green was alleged to be taken by LHO in a bus station photo booth in Mexico City, as I recall. I doubt the provenance of ALL alleged LHO photos. Jack All those people in the photos are in fact Oswald. This was determined by the HSCA.

That is because part of your work I respect. Other parts I dismiss, like the thesis that Hunt was the old tramp. Also, I have not seen credible evidence for many of your claims of alteration in the Zapruder film. Some of those claims are easily debunked. But what I miss most are the motives of the conspirators? What purpose did it serve them to alter the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman for example? Or put Moorman and Hill on the street? Or make Mrs. Frantzen dissapear? I could imagine they would want to make Kennedy's head move in such a way, that it suggests only shots from the back. But I don't see that either. It goes back and to the left. All I see is evidence for the headshot coming from the grassy knoll. So if they didn't alter crucial things, why did they worry about Zapruder, Morrman and Mrs. Frantzen? I believe your conviction that these theories are correct, is sincere. This is also why I don't beleive you are a disinformationalist, at least not on purpose. However, I regret that you cite your reputation and photographic skills, both of which you undoubtly have, to endorse ALL your work. Because, even if the intention is sincere, it's still disinformation. Now, let me point out some logic arguments for Holt, not Hunt, being the tramp as John suggested I should: - Holt has acknowledged he IS the older tramp. Hunt has denied it. - Hunt was a higher ranking CIA officer. Holt was a mere (expendable) pawn. It is simply unlikely that Hunt would dress up as a worker, tramp, whatever, to participate in an assassination project like this. If caught, he would not even have plausible denial. - Holt has identified the other two tramps as Harrelson and Montoya (Rogers), who prove to have remarkable resemblance with the other tramps, even to Harrelson's own admission. Your hunch for the tall tramp is Frank Sturgis if I am not mistaken. It is a no-brainer to show that Sturgis does not even look like the tall tramp. - Holt, Harrelson and Rogers have been confirmed by renowned facial expert and Houston Police forensic artist Lois Gibson. She does this for a living and is the most respected person in the world for this line of work. You may be a photographic expert, but you're not a facial recognition expert. www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm - Rogers has been confirmed from the tramp photos by at least two witnesses that knew him (Chuck Rolland of the Houston ice skaiting rink and a girlfriend who had dated him) - Holt has (had) a multitude of documents to prove his confession, which by the way he says he made because all the principals were dead now and the american public had a right to know. - There is a record for Harrelson that he admitted to involvement in the Kennedy assassasination. There is none for Sturgis. - Woody Harrelson is pretty sensitive about the subject. James Richards could give us a story on that. Why would Woody be jumpy if the story about his father is so obviously fake? Wim PS: Here's a point of light: We do agree that the photographed tramps were not Doyle, Gedney and Abrams. Back and to the left? Is that all the evidence you have for the head shot? No bullet striking the head could have propelled Kennedy back with such violence. Since there is no other reasonable explanation, film alteration is a distinct possibility. Why is it so difficult to accept the arrest records? Even one of the tramps' sisters identified him.

Okay, thanks. I have another question though. I'm watching you right now in the documentary, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Do you still believe that the Badgeman figure is a real person in the photograph?

How do you respond to those who attack your credibility as a photo expert because of you HSCA testimony? This is always brought up by critics of your work. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#JWHITE

No, it isn't Oswald. Oswald wore a rust brown shirt to work that day.

I agree with you on Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold. There are quite a few inconsistencies that seriously damage his credibility.

Why do you attack him like that? Just because he has an opinion different from you? Don't attack his credibility, attack the issues.

I wouldn't call John McAdams a crackpot. Although I don't agree with most of his claims, I am in agreement with him on Roscoe White affair, the claims of Robert Murrow, the D.C. phone blackout, and the claims of L. Fletcher Prouty. And he does have some interesting photographs that are assassination related. But I do think he does offer some mistaken and outdated information.

That site about the second autopsy is reall interesting. I had no idea that faking the photos would be that easy.