The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Bill Miller]

You have asserted that there exists something called the "Weitzman Report." But no such thing has ever has existed.

As I have stated several times now .. I am not at my office so to track down the information I seek, but in the event I was mistaken - it would not mean that I lied.

You have asserted that the Warren Commission contains photographs of the picket fence from Bowers' point of view. But no such photos ever existed.

Gary Mack reminded me that the FBI did take photos of the RR yard from Bowers tower and they should be found in the FBI's files. It seems that those photos were not printed by the Commission, but doesn't mean they do not exist.

You have promised Duncan that you would provide to this forum scaling of the so called Arnold image in the Moorman photo. But you have not done so.

I have shared images with Duncan, but said I would not post them until I could verify their accuracy. Duncan then replied that this was the proper way to proceed. So far, you are the only one who seems to want more unreliable illustrations posted to this forum. If the latter is to be the case, then you will have to continue that practice on your own.

You seem obsessed with finding Duncan guilty of misspelling. Is this your contribution? I call this xxxxx behaviour, which you are quick accuse others of.

My comment about spelling errors was a direct response to the attempts to make animations demeaning witnesses by way of the software Duncan used and I suggested that the using of his software to limit his misspellings might be better served than creating senseless animations. This was not a remark designed to xxxxx a response, but rather a remark in direct response to issues as to what might best serve the quality of the forums subject matter.

I will ask you a question that other critics of Arnold have not been willing to address .... Turner found out that Arnold had told his story to others immediately after the shooting. Arnold described several things occurring on the knoll that were not known to photographically exist until many years later. So my question to you is - How did Arnold know of such details if he was not there and witnessed it himself???

Cite your sources, because your assertions are worthless without quoted primary direct evidence. Are your sources in the "Weitzman Report?"

So you don't have sources, again.

Go figure.

It appears that you (Miles) have asked a question and gone on to form an opinion that there are no sources to offer without first getting the facts, but what is new! The information I shared came by way of speaking with Gary Mack who knows both Nigel Turner and Sue Winters. Gary Mack, who also participated in Turner's documentary was made aware of the efforts made by Turner who took the time to speak to Arnold's family and friends so to research the credibility of Gordon Arnold's statements. This information has been posted here and on Lancer's site in the past and in some detail, but one would first have to have time to do research so to review it and you have said in the past that you have no such time to waste. So my advice to you is to email Gary Mack at GMACK@JFK.ORG and find out what information Gary can give you too, so to be better able to form an educated opinion on this matter.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Please answer these 3 Question with a yes or no to each. I'm sure you can do it, but I suspect i'll get a political response or none at all......Surprise me.

1./ Is Gordon Arnold a witness?

2./ Is James Files a witness?

3./ Is Beverly Oliver a witness

Duncan

All three are alleged witnesses IMO. What makes Arnold different from Files is that Gordon gave details in his accounting that he could not have known about unless he was there and witnessed them first hand. Some of those things Arnold told about have been substantiated through photographic research and study. I cannot say the same about Files.

Jack knows Bev Oliver better than I and has examined her story. I will defer to Jack to offer information that would support Bev's accounting of being on the south pasture during the shooting. Now once again, can you answer my previous question as to how Arnold was able to give details of what occurred on the knoll that was not known for many years after the fact???

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Now once again, can you answer my previous question as to how Arnold was able to give details of what occurred on the knoll that was not known for many years after the fact???

Bill

What details?

Duncan

Read back through the thread for I believe they have been mentioned several times now.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I've read them all, I know the alleged details from alleged witnesses like the back of my hand. I mean PROVEN FACTUAL DETAILS from PROVEN WITNESSES.

Duncan

I think you knowing all the details about anything is worthy of a thread all by itself. As far as "proven" details, then one can dance with that nonsense concerning every witness on record. Can you prove that Charles Brehm is standing along the south curb in the assassination films? Can you do the same with Moorman and Hill? One can get as silly as they wish when taking that position and I am sure you are aware of it. Here is your response with my quote attached so to refresh your memory ...

Bill: Now once again, can you answer my previous question as to how Arnold was able to give details of what occurred on the knoll that was not known for many years after the fact???

Duncan: What details?

Now what can be proven ... There are two individuals seen at the large tree in Towner #3 - Arnold said he was approached by two policemen as he laid on the ground following the shooting.

Yarborough said to Golz and on the Turner documentary that he saw Arnold dive to the ground - Arnold said he hit the ground when a shot came passed his ear.

So while Arnold could have said that he left the area immediately on a bicycle, or was met by three men on the knoll as he laid on the ground - he did not. So can you tell this forum how Arnold would have known that a later witnesses statements and/or photographs would substantiate those two points???

Bill

Edited September 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Now what can be proven ... There are two individuals seen at the large tree in Towner #3 - Arnold said he was approached by two policemen as he laid on the ground following the shooting.

Yarborough said to Golz and on the Turner documentary that he saw Arnold dive to the ground - Arnold said he hit the ground when a shot came passed his ear.

So while Arnold could have said that he left the area immediately on a bicycle, or was met by three men on the knoll as he laid on the ground - he did not. So can you tell this forum how Arnold would have known that a later witnesses statements and/or photographs would substantiate those two points???

Bill

Now what can be proven ... There are two individuals seen at the large tree in Towner #3 - Arnold said he was approached by two policemen as he laid on the ground following the shooting.

Not so. Where is your evidence? Which tree? What men? If you're talking about the Hudson tree, there were three men at that tree in Towner #3. Besides, what do two men at the tree signify? Nothing. They were not in police uniforms. What are you trying to say?

Yarborough said to Golz and on the Turner documentary that he saw Arnold dive to the ground - Arnold said he hit the ground when a shot came passed his ear.

Yarborough never said this on the Turner documentary. Can you produce Yarborough's words to Golz, or is Golz' story only dubious, inadmissible hearsay? Well?

So can you tell this forum how Arnold would have known that a later witnesses statements and/or photographs would substantiate those two points???

Seems easy enough. Arnold never knew any of this nonsense.

Arnold's story is without substantiation as you have presented it & is, in general, also, without substantiation.

Arnold's story false. He is not, nor was a witness.

BTW, all of this has been discussed before.

So, there is a hardly anything remaining to discuss.

Spelling errors? Now, there's a debate you can won.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Not so. Where is your evidence? Which tree? What men? If you're talking about the Hudson tree, there were three men at that tree in Towner #3. Besides what do two men at the tree signify? Nothing. They were not in police uniforms. What are you trying to say?

Miles, it is a shame that you spent so much time trolling the forum and not actually reading the threads in more detail so to know the subject matter being discussed. When someone has to ask things like 'What tree?' - 'What men?' - only to then follow with 'They were not in police uniforms' ... it seems that this person is so far behind on the subject that there is little hope that they can even comprehend what is being said at this point. I mentioned "Towner #3", which by the way doesn't show three men on the steps, so I recommend that you first do a forum search here and on Lancer under that title and read all you can on the subject before trying to get me to waste my time responding to things that should have been common knowledge to you by now. Once you get caught up, then you can ask more specific questions if you still have any.

Yarborough never said this on the Turner documentary. Can you produce Yarborough's words to Golz, or is Golz' story only dubious, inadmissible hearsay? Well?

The Golz article and Yarborough and Earl's contacts with each other is well documented on this forum, as well as Lancer's. I got my information from Golz, who was a direct party to Yarborough's conversation with Earl, thus it is not hearsay by definition. The Turner interview information came from Yarborough's own mouth, thus it cannot be hearsay either. Research them both so you can intelligently discuss them and we can go from there.

Seems easy enough. Arnold never knew any of this nonsense.

Arnold's story is without substantiation as you have presented it & is, in general, also, without substantiation.

Arnold's story false. He is not, nor was a witness.[/color]

I think it only fair that you first address the points I made. panicking and asking "What tree?" or "What men?" hardly shows that you know enough information to draw a reasonable and reliable conclusion on this matter IMO.

BTW, all of this has been discussed before.

So, there is a hardly anything remaining to discuss.

Yes it has, which is why I don't understand why you are asking so many questions like "What tree?" - "What men?" Of course the name "Mike Brown" was mentioned numerous times in one thread and you seemed to have missed that fact as well. There can be no substitute for thorough research.

Spelling errors? Now, there's a debate you can won. [/b][/color]

The correct word was "win", unless of course you misspelled it too.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill..If you ever decide to publish a book, remember to include free crayons.

non-responsive answer

The only one dancing here is you Bill. You are waltzing like Zapruder around my question.

non-responsive answer

Easy..He could have had the ability to spin a believable yarn

So it is your belief that Arnold just got lucky when it came to things that came much later that supported his story. I will leave your answer to the researchers who will come here and witness such a response and let them make up their own minds as to the logic or lack thereof that you have demonstrated with this reply.

So what?

non-responsive answer

So what?..Files said he was behind the fence.

non-responsive answer

So while Arnold could have said that he left the area immediately on a bicycle, or was met by three men on the knoll as he laid on the ground - he did not.

He could have said anything..what's your point? it's not clear to me.

And it seems that it never will be clear to you at this point.

So can you tell this forum how Arnold would have known that a later witnesses statements and/or photographs would substantiate those two points???

I answered your first point above..Now tell this forum forum the photograph or photographs that prove his position behind the wall. If you're talking about the foating torso in Moorman, that's not proof, it's currently under scrutiny on this forum...remember?

non-responsive answer. The floating torso location has never been referenced by anyone as being where Gordon Arnold was positioned during the assassination.

Bill Miller

Edited September 12, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Please answer these 3 Question with a yes or no to each. I'm sure you can do it, but I suspect i'll get a political response or none at all......Surprise me.

1./ Is Gordon Arnold a witness?

2./ Is James Files a witness?

3./ Is Beverly Oliver a witness

Duncan

All three are alleged witnesses IMO. What makes Arnold different from Files is that Gordon gave details in his accounting that he could not have known about unless he was there and witnessed them first hand. Some of those things Arnold told about have been substantiated through photographic research and study. I cannot say the same about Files.

Jack knows Bev Oliver better than I and has examined her story. I will defer to Jack to offer information that would support Bev's accounting of being on the south pasture during the shooting. Now once again, can you answer my previous question as to how Arnold was able to give details of what occurred on the knoll that was not known for many years after the fact???

Bill

Reasons I consider Bev Oliver to be the woman on the south pasture filming:

1. The manner in which Gary Shaw discovered her identity.

2. Her knowledge of details which would be known only by that person.

3. Her connections to Ruby and others involved.

4. Her producing the shoes she wore that day which are identical to her shoes in photos.

5. Her general credibility when conversing with her.

6. The fact that no other person has ever been identified as that person.

7. Her book.

8. There is no reason for her to fabricate such a story.

I consider number 4 to be strong HARD EVIDENCE of her truthfulness.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

The floating torso location has never been refrenced by anyone as being where Gordon Arnold was positioned during the assassination.

Bill Miller

Do you refer to the top half or the unseen bottom half of the floating torso shape, or neither?

Duncan

ps..You spelled referenced wrong

Thanks for the correction ... I will fix it.

Also, I do not understand your question pertaining to the floating torso. Arnold was between the walkway and the fence - the area you placed that ridiculous floating cop torso was halfway down the west stretch of fence towards the underpass. Do you see them as being one in the same location?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Also, I do not understand your question pertaining to the floating torso. Arnold was between the walkway and the fence - the area you placed that ridiculous floating cop torso was halfway down the west stretch of fence towards the underpass. Do you see them as being one in the same location?

Bill

I refer to the ridiculous G.I Joe Mini-me Arnold floating torso. the main subject matter of this thread which has been referenced by you many times.

Duncan

Thanks for clarifying this. The floating torso in my definition as always been that cop assassin you posted on a long time ago. I now know what you are talking about when you use the term.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

Yawn..........3 months later...Bill....Can you give a rough timescale of when you will be producing your new evidence to counter my claim?

Duncan

Duncan,

I wonder if the much anticipated scaling that you asked for 3 months ago has actually showed up in secret.

I noticed this curious, anonymous scaling on another forum:

It got me thinking, so I tried this just as a test:

The "fit" was almost perfect!

After a long scrutiny I finally hit pay-dirt & noticed this artifact in the green oval:

A blow up crop:

-- "BM" ? - - Is this just an incredible coincidence or is this that famous scaling you are looking for?

[Miles Scull]

Yawn..........3 months later...Bill....Can you give a rough timescale of when you will be producing your new evidence to counter my claim?

Duncan

Duncan,

I wonder if the much anticipated scaling that you asked for 3 months ago has actually showed up in secret.

I noticed this curious, anonymous scaling on another forum:

It got me thinking, so I tried this just as a test:

The "fit" was almost perfect!

After a long scrutiny I finally hit pay-dirt & noticed this artifact in the green oval:

A blow up crop:

-- "BM" ? - - Is this just an incredible coincidence or is this that famous scaling you are looking for?

Duncan,

Did Bill do this?

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

Did Bill do this?

I wouldn't know Miles, what's the source?

Duncan

Duncan, just checked the source.

Someone deleted the page on Dec. 11.

Thus the scaling graphic was withdrawn one day after I posted it here.

I'm a little worried about Bill. He hasn't been around for a while.

It could be that he is working on that scaling you requested.

Quess that's why.

[Miles Scull]

Duncan,

just checked the source.

Someone deleted the page on Dec. 11.

Thus the scaling graphic was withdrawn one day after I posted it here.

Ok what WAS the source?

Duncan

I went back over to the forum & found that an entry by Ebenezer Marley had been deleted & his membership cancelled.

I'll not ID the forum, but it is the one you were expelled from.

That's what's puzzling.

Bill's disappeared from here.

Don't like the look of this.

[Miles Scull]

I went back over to the forum & found that an entry by Ebenezer Marley had been deleted & his membership cancelled.

I'll not ID the forum, but it is the one you were expelled from.

That's what's puzzling.

Bill's disappeared from here.

Don't like the look of this.

I'm sure he's ok Miles, and probably doing the same as everyone else who has mysteriously vanished from the forum over the last 24 hours. Do you think all the other members, apart from the select few of us who are currently posting are busy Elves?

Duncan

True, Duncan, 'tis the season.

Here's a familiar Santa elf you may recall at the tree:

Let's wish all the best for Bill this joyous season.