Is This Black Dog Man

[Miles Scull]

Yes, always... But, clearly you do not think before you respond, since you are fabricating false racial slurs against forum members.

Miles, you are what we call a 'pot stirrer' from where I am from. There is another name for it, but the forum rules won't allow me to share it with you. I read Evan's post before seeing this and now I see why he responded like he did. Why am I not surprised to see that it originated from you. As I was reading the thread to find all the places that you said Mike Brown's name wasn't mentioned - I came across a few remarks you made about me allegedly violating forum rules. One such remark told of me not actually saying something, but implying it instead. On the other hand - another forum member was posting words that could have come off of a Red Fox record and yet you said nothing. In the future - save the drama and spend that time reading the threads more thoroughly and you might find yourself better informed as to what has and what has not been said ... I mean, how else can one intelligently debate a position they have if they are not bothering to learn all the facts first? I would have thought that it being shown that you had not read Hoffman's book before trying to be a critic of his story or claiming Holland ran behind into the RR yard immediately following the shooting when he was still seen at his post on the underpass in assassination photographs up to a minute later would have taught you a lesson.

This is false. I did NOT pretend. I forgot a name mentioned only once as an AFRICAN AMERICAN! Go figure.

I am sure you forgot the name, Miles. It seems that even after I mentioned Brown's name once again ... that no attempt was made by you to even do a simple forum search so to know where he was mentioned. And yes, you forgot the name, but that is not what you implied. BTW, I only posted just some of the places his name has been mentioned and I am sure you read Duncan's post - after all, you respond to them - right? I responded directly to you in post #341 and advised that you look at the transparency overlay clip. Then the next few exchanges were between Duncan and I where Brown's name came up some more. In fact, I read quoted text in Duncan's post where Mike Brown's name was mentioned, but found that you consistently left those parts out of your responses - yet other times you quote the entire response someone has given ... even when just posting a few words or a smiley icon that didn't offer anything informative. Do I see a pattern here?

That is NOT correct & is false. On checking the past posts, Mike Brown was mentioned as being an African American only ONE time in only ONE post, post # 354. I, myself, posted post #340 & did not post again until my next posting which was post # 366. Clearly, I forgot this ONE reference in post # 354. That would be easy to do in a thread which has 459 posts. Go figure.

Jack quoted my mentioning Brown being an African American in response #357. I mentioned it again in response #457. Brown was referred to as being black in other responses.

This is false. You did NOT post post # 366; I did & in it there is NO mention of one Mike Brown. You are misstating the facts & distorting the posting record of this thread.

You are correct, Milers ... you got me there. The correct numbered post where I mentioned Mike Brown was #365 ... the one before #366. Would you agree with that correction and is it your position that you didn't know this when you responded that #366 was an error on my part?

I did NOT post post # 367. Duncan MacRae did. Again, you are misstating the facts & distorting the posting record of this thread.

Here is this post # 367:

What doesn't match, Duncan? Mike Brown stood taller in my field of view than Tony did at the Badge Man location ... is that not what is seen in the Badge Man images ... of course it is.

Bill Miller

No, what you falsely represent is NOT what is seen in the Badgeman images. Your Mr Brown is a totally different size, and how you can not see this is beyond my understanding. It's like comparing an Elephant with a Fly..There is no match. Look at this gif which is extremely accurate, check the sun spots, fence, the steps, the trees, the sky through the trees, corner of wall, wall bush etc etc, they ALL match........are you blind????...Arnold is a floating torso midget. I rest my case.

Duncan

Well, I suppose I should be flattered that so much time & energy & bandwidth is spent analysing my posts & everybody else's posts for the name Mike Brown.

Unfortunately, it's a colossal waste.

Is there an attempt being mounted here to deflect this thread away from the issue of the invalidity of the Arnold story & the invalidity of equating Arnold with the floating torso in Moorman?

This post is still waiting to be addressed:

Arnold is saying that he went around to the front of the long arm of the fence which runs parallel to Elm.

And NOT to the front of the short arm which is perpendicular to Elm.

Does this not explode the alleged Arnold figure in Moorman?

......... or going around in front of the fence so to face the approaching parade could mean the side of the fence facing up Elm Street.

No, not so. The Marrs' quote of Arnold is clear & precise. Arnold says: "I was walking along BEHIND this picket fence when..." Then Arnold describes his encounter with a Secret Service agent who followed Arnold along behind the north side of the picket fence & told Arnold that he did not want Arnold back behind the north side of the fence. The short leg of the fence is not mentioned. Arnold makes it clear that he complied with the SS man's insistence by going from behind the fence AROUND TO its front. The FRONT referred to by Arnold is the FRONT of the fence that he & SS agent are BEHIND. One fence, one length of fence with two sides: a BEHIND & a FRONT. SEE THIS QUOTE:

QUOTE

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"

The ground between the retaining wall and the picket fence line may have then had a thinnish layer of dirt on its top in that area, possibly even a grass-people-traffic-worn-showing dirt top, but, there are no photos, no film evidence, nor a single witness(es) statement(s) that there was ever an obvious, distinct, raised, rounded "mound" of dirt --anywhere-- in that knoll/wall area. Professional surveys from the trapezoid points between the "badgeman" tree, picket fence corner, retaining wall southeast inside corner, and the northernmost wall corner (along with my several personal extended trip/vacations I have made to the plaza in the 80's and 90's) all reveal that trapezoid that ARNOLD claimed he was located within to be relatively level.

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."

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

*NOTE* that 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 grass between the east edge of the sidewalk and the west edge of the retaining wall, he was not on the sitting bench, 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 or the top step, 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." (Perhaps he was trying to vocalize that his claim was that his facing direction --not his standing location-- was facing turned "more towards the street"")

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 his standing location point) -- Don Roberdeau

How do I know this ... not only from being there, but hear so many people refer to it that way.

Well, that's right. An erroneous misinterpretation that became accepted because it was repeated frequently.

And so you know ... I did not confuse shrubs at the base of the fence with the location I was talking about when I placed an arrow on the diagram.

OK. Then what were you talking about? There is no mound there.

One more thing you guys need reminded about ... When Groden and I went to the lab to have his best Nix film worked on ... everyone there agreed that someone was standing just beyond the wall where Arnold said he was

But Arnold never said that he was where the erroneous misinterpretation made by others placed him.

and that when JFK's head exploded - that individual immediately moved to his left. What we could not tell was whether he ran away or dove to the ground.

But this was NOT Arnold.

Now with that being said and Moorman's photo showing a figure standing over the wall

who was NOT Arnold.

- the notion that the figure in Moorman's photo did not exist is ridiculous

Whatever is there may or may not be a human figure, but it is NOT Arnold.

and based on a lack of knowledge as to what the Nix film showed us in the lab.

What you saw may have been an amorphous black blob or James Files, but it was NOT Arnold.

So argue that it was Gomer Pyle in uniform if you must

You may argue it was Gomer, but I feel you may be barking up the wrong tree. But you cannot argue it is Arnold.

, but to say it is no one is in error based on the available evidence that some of us took the time and expense to have it examined.

IOWs, are you saying that you have a vested interest?

Bill Miller

Edited August 15, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Well, I suppose I should be flattered that so much time & energy & bandwidth is spent analysing my posts & everybody else's posts for the name Mike Brown.

You could prevent such a waste of bandwidth by reading the responses in this thread rather than just the ones that appeal to you because of their trolling potential.

But Arnold never said that he was where the erroneous misinterpretation made by others placed him.

Was that not Gordon Arnold in the Turner interview? And once again - tell us all you know about what Arnold told Golz in 1978.[/b

But this was NOT Arnold.

It's what ever you want it to be. BTW, if Arnold was not there, then please explain where he was? Please explain how he got crucial points right - such as the shot coming over his left shoulder when he could have said his right? Any reasonable explanation for this?

Whatever is there may or may not be a human figure, but it is NOT Arnold.

This says it all ... you don't know who it is, but you know its not Arnold.

but to say it is no one is in error based on the available evidence that some of us took the time and expense to have it examined.

IOWs, are you saying that you have a vested interest?

Yes, my interest is in getting as much additional information as possible out to the arm chair researchers

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

And once again - tell us all you know about what Arnold told Golz in 1978. - Miller

SEE BELOW

Please explain how he got crucial points right - such as the shot coming over his left shoulder when he could have said his right? Any reasonable explanation for this? --Miller

Of course. All Arnold would have had to have done was simply to have read Rush to Judgement, to have known what witnesses said about shots being fired from behind the long arm of the picket fence.

Thus, Arnold could have placed himself anywhere in front of the long arm of the picket fence.

So, why not here, for example?

(as Arnold put himself here for this 1978 "Dallas Morning News" photo which shows Arnold standing noticeably much closer to the picket fence than the retaining wall that he stood closer to as seen in the 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." )

You have not addressed these important issues:

Perhaps you overlooked this post, post #432 on this thread posted Yesterday, 01:03 AM ? Did I miss your response to it? What is that?

QUOTE

Thank God it was not Bill Miller conducting that interview because he would of had the man in tears telling him he was mistaken.

Fact.

Yarborough never pointed to the infamous "Retaining Wall".

He never mentioned a guy "in uniform".

Nope, he never did & when an interviewer finally tried to pin-point what Yarborough saw for history's sake rather than "a story" he flatly denied it being anywhere near GIJoe.

Do you think that if Yarborough mentioned "a man in uniform diving down behind a wall on the grassy knoll" that it would be left out of the earlier interviews by Golz & Turner(TMWKK)? Of course it wouldn't, it would of tied everything together & probably put the matter of Arnolds alleged presence to rest.

But these journalists could not put any of these descriptions in their pieces because Yarborough did not give them the chance.

It was Yarbourough who first put what he saw with the story he read of the serviceman on the knoll.

He never denied seeing someone diving for cover, he just denied it was where GIJoe was.

The man was in plain clothes, was nearer to the TSBD & not anywhere near where Arnold claims he was.

I mean do you want more information about witnesses, or are you just happy to rely on older interviews that don't give any details whatsoever?

Bill claims that Golz told him on the phone that

a) Yarborough told him the man he saw was "behind the wall"(yes the wall) &

Yarborough told him the man he saw was "in uniform"

Since either of these items would virtually confirm Arnold's story, you have to wonder why Golz felt that neither of these details warranted inclusion in his follow-up article where Yarborough was mentioned by name.

Do you think that if Turner ferreted details like this out of Yarborough he would leave them on the cutting room floor?

No of course not & that is why the segment with Yarborough is so short, Turner could not get any comfirmation to collaberate Arnold's story from Ralph, if he did we would of seen it.

QUOTE

Turner: Can you give any more details of where you saw this man or what he looked like?

Yarborough: Yes he was in uniform behind that wall on the knoll

Can anyone here apart from Bill tell me why Turner did not have time to include this question & answer in the segment?

Or do you think he just did what Golz did & never asked in case he got the same answer as David Murph?

If you put yourself in the place of journalist(who gets paid to publish stories) & a witness starts giving you information that contradicts what you have working on, you kinda have two options have you not?

You can either continue probing until you get the true story, or you can either drop it(either conversationaly or in the cutting room).

Finantially, most people would pick the latter, otherwise there is no story & no money.

Golz for one is on record as ignoring Arnolds wishes to remain nameless in the '78 article.

When his editor told him he would not publish the story without the mans name, Golz went ahead & published not only his name but where he worked too.

If he would do that & then later admit to it, it knda makes you wonder about his credibilty does it not?

Would you trust him after this?

I'm not comparing him to a devil, I'm just saying, that's not what you would expect from a credible researcher.

If you have any info on Golz's other work where you think he has redeemed himself I'll be glad to give it a look.

Alan

Edited August 15, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

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

Bill

It's not one who's standing in the dark, it's 3 in this thread, Me, Miles and Alan. Your experiment doesn't make sense, as without an accurate location and exact size match for Arnold, you can not get a true result

Duncan

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

Bill

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

This subject was exhausted several days ago. You guys should just

put your computers on auto pilot set to say DITTO to every message.

Don't you have anything better to do? Get a life.

This is a psychosis known as IMUSTHAVETHEFINALWORD.

Jack

That made my day, Jack!

Maybe they are conspiring to get into the Guinness Book of Records for longest thread with no there there. Maybe it is time to agree to disagree.

I'm glad Jack made your day Peter. However, the thread is far from exhausted. Just because Jack says it is doesn't make it so, no offence intended Jack. Many aspects are still being discussed, and no conclusion or middle ground has been reached by any of the contributors on opposing sides. So far, everyone appears to agree with me apart from Bill, and maybe Jack, I don't know your opinion Peter or that of others who have contributed so far without actually saying anything. I can only give the score, for want of better words, until more people give an opinion. I'm not really sure of Jack's position regarding the my sizing of " Arnold " in Moorman, which everyone seems to be forgetting is the main point of discussion. This forgetfullness has been caused by the non relevant stories being submitted about Arnold. While all of this is useful and intersting material, it is not what the discussion is or should be about. It's about the size of Arnold in Moorman, and we are debating if it is possible or not that he could be that size and a real human being in that particular location. The thread has gone on too long only because of the Arnold differing stories distractions which are not relevant.

Duncan

Duncan,

You are right.

My last post was just tying some loose ends. Sorry

There does seem to be a hidden tactic working to deflect the thread from the main question,... perhaps to evade its dread implications.

[Bill Miller]

Bill claims that Golz told him on the phone that

a) Yarborough told him the man he saw was "behind the wall"(yes the wall) &

Yarborough told him the man he saw was "in uniform"

I know this has been corrected before, but going back and misstating the same facts seems to be an ongoing thing for some posters, so once again I will attempt to keep the record straight. Golz interviewed Arnold - Golz writes article - Yarborough reads the article telling of a man on leave from the military standing on the knoll - Yarborough calls Earl and tells him that he saw that man (Arnold) - Turner interviews Yarborough and Ralph confirms for Turner that he saw Arnold. In speaking with Golz ... he said he had several discussions and/or correspondences with Ralph Yarborough. When asked if Ralph could have been talking about someone else - Golz was baffled as to why anyone would think such a thing - and Earl was quite clear about Yarborough and he talking about the same man.

Since either of these items would virtually confirm Arnold's story, you have to wonder why Golz felt that neither of these details warranted inclusion in his follow-up article where Yarborough was mentioned by name.

Contact Earl and ask him that question. While talking to earl - ask him about his notes from those conversations for they were much more extensive than the few sentences put in the article. Gary Mack knows Earl very well and could probably share some information with you from he and Earl's past discussions on the subject.

Do you think that if Turner ferreted details like this out of Yarborough he would leave them on the cutting room floor?

No of course not & that is why the segment with Yarborough is so short, Turner could not get any conformation to collaborate Arnold's story from Ralph, if he did we would of seen it.

Now you know what Turner was thinking - that is amazing. Can you guess what I am thinking right now??? In keeping with yet another matter that Turner edited out of the Arnold matter ... Gary Mack said the following -----

"I know every one of those folks, have read and/or heard their accounts directly, and all but Upchurch and Turner published the information at the time. I watched a preview of the Arnold segment of TMWKK in 1988 in England and immediately called Turner's attention to the missing second officer. He readily admitted that those references were removed during editing of the show. The reason was simple, he told me. The way Gordon told his story became confusing and hard for viewers to follow. Turner was unable to include that detail, he told me, without severely disrupting the flow of the narrative and having to add an explanation from the narrator.

That's what happens when you deal with a filmmaker rather than a true journalist. It's unfortunate that an interesting part of the story was obscured by one who failed to recognize the significance of that second officer."

Now as I recall, Turner's documentaries were all limited to less than one hour of show time. In fact, individual TV stations had edited down some of the interview that is still seen on the DVD's of the actual show. It would appear that Turner wanted to use Yarborough for a specific purpose to keep the flow of the documentary going. I do recall however, that Mack once told me that Turner went to great lengths to interview people in Arnold's past so to confirm Gordon's story. Gary knows Turner and Sue Winter (Turner's assistant) and can possibly give you more information on this subject.

I'm not comparing him to a devil, I'm just saying, that's not what you would expect from a credible researcher.

If you have any info on Golz's other work where you think he has redeemed himself I'll be glad to give it a look.

Alan

I think as Mack pointed out ... Golz was a journalist ... not a JFK assassination researcher. Golz told me that his notes were being donated to one of the University's down there in Texas ... may have even been done already. Maybe Earl's notes can offer you some insight on the matter.

Bill

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

(as Arnold put himself here for this 1978 "Dallas Morning News" photo which shows Arnold standing noticeably much closer to the picket fence than the retaining wall that he stood closer to as seen in the 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." )[/b][/color]

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

Bill Miller

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

(as Arnold put himself here for this 1978 "Dallas Morning News" photo which shows Arnold standing noticeably much closer to the picket fence than the retaining wall that he stood closer to as seen in the 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." )[/b][/color]

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

Bill Miller

Additionally, I just did a quick analysis of the DMN photo, showing:

1. The photo is not shot from anywhere near the Moorman location,

giving a misleading impression.

2. When lightened so that the steps can be seen, he is almost even

with the top step; I'd judge that he is within ten feet of the Moorman

location...pretty close for more than 15 years later.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Additionally, I just did a quick analysis of the DMN photo, showing:

1. The photo is not shot from anywhere near the Moorman location,

giving a misleading impression.

2. When lightened so that the steps can be seen, he is almost even

with the top step; I'd judge that he is within ten feet of the Moorman

location...pretty close for more than 15 years later.

Jack

Jack,

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

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Oh by the way, do you have a logical explanation for your remark about the Arnold in the Moorman photo being the same size as the Arnold seen in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series? Would not logic say that if Arnold seen standing beyond the wall with his feet on the ground in Turner's documentary is the same size as the Arnold in Moorman's photo, then there must be a logical explanation for your believing Arnold legs are so short in your illustration. Do you see the problem with your remark now???

Bill

Please concentrate Bill..I've already given a valid explanation which you seem intent on distorting for your own purposes........Post #474

Duncan

"Yes I said that, so what?..It was said in the context that Arnold would have been younger fitter and slimmer back in 1963. In his Moorman portrayal, I chose that word carefully, we see what appears to be a portly figure comparable to the portly Arnold we see in TMWKK."

The above is what you wrote in response #474. I assume that when you make a comment like the one saying that the two Arnold's are the same size - that this means that you have given some thought to your claim. So I assume you believe the wall on the knoll to be like it was in 1963 ... and Turner filmed Arnold standing beyond that wall ... so what is your opinion as to how the 1963 Arnold looked to the 1988 Turner Arnold beyond the wall?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

At least you make valid and easy to understand straight to the point no nonsense postings, and even with a sense of humour at times which I find refreshing, and which some foolishly mistake for stupidity. Keep up the magnificent work you are doing./b]

Duncan

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

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I know what I wrote, it's loud and clear. If you can't understand what I wrote, then you have a problem. The wall is not a factor in the comparison which I made with Arnold and the Arnold floating torso. Back in the morning

Duncan

Well, Duncan - you really didn't address anything, so let us try it this way ..................

The wall can be a factor because you have already admitted that Arnold is seen in Moorman's photograph ... or at the very least it is someone the same size and shape as Arnold. This happened when you mentioned the 1963 Arnold in the Badge Man images was the same size as the 1988 Arnold in Turner's interview. Your problem has been that you believe the 1963 Arnold is too short to have his feet touching the ground. Can we agree on that much at this point?

Bill

Edited August 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Additionally, I just did a quick analysis of the DMN photo, showing:

1. The photo is not shot from anywhere near the Moorman location,

giving a misleading impression.

2. When lightened so that the steps can be seen, he is almost even

with the top step; I'd judge that he is within ten feet of the Moorman

location...pretty close for more than 15 years later.

Jack

Jack,

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

Bill

You are correct. It was not a recreation photo. They were not shooting from

the Moorman location, and just instructed him to stand about where he had

stood in 1963. I am saying that since he stood within about ten feet of the

correct position...that IS PRETTY ACCURATE FOR FIFTEEN YEARS LATER.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Jack,

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

Bill

You are correct. It was not a recreation photo. They were not shooting from

the Moorman location, and just instructed him to stand about where he had

stood in 1963. I am saying that since he stood within about ten feet of the

correct position...that IS PRETTY ACCURATE FOR FIFTEEN YEARS LATER.

Jack

Jack,

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

Bill

Edited August 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Jack,

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

Bill

You are correct. It was not a recreation photo. They were not shooting from

the Moorman location, and just instructed him to stand about where he had

stood in 1963. I am saying that since he stood within about ten feet of the

correct position...that IS PRETTY ACCURATE FOR FIFTEEN YEARS LATER.

Jack

Jack,

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

Bill

As I said, YOU ARE CORRECT. It is remarkable that even though they

did not instruct him where to stand, HE WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE

1963 LOCATION. I think this is more than coincidence.

Jack