The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

The grass stands taller than the sidewalk. Can you tell us if the ground is higher than, lower than, or even with the sidewalk???

Bill Miller

Yes sure..Put the big red X where you think Arnold was standing, and I'll tell you if that ground is higher

Duncan MacRae

You did not answer the question.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

If you are on Bill's side of the fence just say so

If you are on my side of the fence just say so

If you are sitting on the fence just say so

It would be better if you put forward your position openly on this forum rather than Bill relaying what he says you are thinking, and what you would like to know, which may or may not be your true thoughts...Don't you agree???. I'm getting a bit sick of Bill's Kathy says this...Kathy says that.

If it comes from his mouth it's all hearsay as far as i'm concerned.

Duncan[/b]

Maybe Kathy is undecided ... why not stop being a jerk and just answer her questions. You dance more than Mr. Bojangles. As far as Kathy said this and that ... point out the time I asked you to address a particular question and you'll probably find that you were asked multple times because you didn't answer the question ... In fact, Mike Williams, Kathy, and myself asked you a question that you danced around. You and Miles both liked to complain about things that were of your own making. If you do not wish to be questioned, then don't post ... create a web page. I find it a bit of a double standard that you and Miles would play off of each other like two bored misfits with nothing better to do and I can ask that you address Kathy's question and you find that me speaking for her.

Grow up Duncan ... and answer the questions. You don't decide when and when not to cooperate. You don't answer the questions, then the topic is over IMO.

Bill Miller

Edited October 9, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Be specific

Duncan MacRae

Can you tell us if the ground is higher than, lower than, or even with the sidewalk??? I am not asking about the grass ... just the ground. Do we need to dance again over such a simple question???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The only thing that affects his credibility is that there is absoloutely no evidence of his existance on the Knoll...That's my opinion, and my position on that has been clear from the word go

Duncan MacRae

What was the evidence that Badge Man was behind the fence, Duncan for you supported his being real for the longest time. You have pushed tripod man - floating torso man - atop the colonnade man - peeping over the top of the wall man ... with less evidence to support them. How do you justify this??? You seem to raise and lower your standards of evidence needed to fit your position at any given time.

You don't want to answer questions only because it is you who sees them as relevant or not. Is your time and energy so important that you cannot answer questions that maybe someone else finds them relevant?? If not, then how can you justify your behavior when you have had so much time writing non-responsive post and creating moronic images like putting faces on wedding dresses and such??? You say that you are sincere and serious and yet I can create an entire thread on just your screwing off wasting time with such nonsense alone.

Now Gordon Arnold gave several descriptions of what occurred on the knoll during and following the shooting that the assassination images appear to be supporting if only circumstantially. For instance:

Arnold could have said that a shot came over his right shoulder, but he didn't. Is it mere coincidence that Moorman's best print would support Arnold's claim?

Arnold claimed that the President had gotten to a certain place on the street in relation to his position on the knoll when the shot came past him and Moorman's photo seems to support that claim as well. Was this just another coincidence in your view?

Gordon claimed to have went to the ground immediately after that shot went past his ear ... is it just a coincidence that Yarborough just happened to mention seeing this. That Ralph would go as far as to tell Earl Golz in 1978 that he had seen the man in uniform over the wall. Is this just another coincidence ... did Yarborough need the public attention in your view?? And before you answer that question ... have you actually spoken to Earl Golz to get all the details of he and Ralph's discussions???

How did Arnold know that there were people near the large tree immediately after the shooting? How did he know to say they were dressed like cops because Towner #3 could have shown people in light clothing there, but it didn't. Was this more coincidence in your view?

And about that Nix film ... you claim that the person seen in uniform on the knoll in Moorman's photo is an illusion. You also say that you don't buy into the Moorman photo being altered. Yet the Nix film does show someone up there in the location of Arnold and they didn't start moving until after Moorman took her photo, so if Moorman's photo is not altered, then why is this real person not seen in her photo?? Was this person a Vampire which by legend cannot be seen on film??? You like to talk about there being no evidence to support Arnold being on the knoll in Moorman's photo and you still have not addressed there being someone there in the Nix film. That the person in the Nix film just happens to have on colored clothing that matches that of Arnold's in his uniform. Is this just more coincidence in your view???

I find it very odd that you'll argue the existence of a guy disguised as a cop in that cluster of tree foliage ... that the sky seen between the fence and the foliage is a wash-out without ever seeing the best Moorman prints or cross-referencing that location in the Nix film and then you'll tell us that there is no evidence that Arnold was on the knoll. Do you not see this as odd on your part. That you seem to hold a double standard as to what you do and do not wish to believe.

Have you ever attempted to find or have read where anyone has ever said that they had seen Arnold somewhere else during JFK's assassination? I didn't get into a couple of other points that lend credence to Gordon's story because how much overkill does one need to show another's misguided bias when it comes to what he or she sees as credible evidence.

Hardly what I would see as someone being honest and sincere as you have claimed to be. Maybe someone else may read your responses differently. I find it very hypocritical for you to get after Don about his post and then you post some of the things you have.

Bill Miller

Edited October 9, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

As I have said repeatedly, I have already answered this question. How many times do you want the same answer?

Follow the dots............................................................................

.............................................................................Post #406

Duncan MacRae

Where is the ground higher (all over or just parts of it) and where in Darnell's film can you see this??? I asked that you detail your answer and you have not done this. I would appreciate something other than a general generic response out of you.

Bill Miller

[Lee Forman]

AND, I DO NEED TO SAY THIS

I am ashamed and sorry for the treatment Gordon Arnold has received here these past two years. He has been joked about,and not lightly, and even made fun of in photo representations that had to be removed for the offensiveness. I don't see many witnesses having been the brunt of so much belittling. Usually when someone feels that another is not credible, they just say so. But not here. I just hope his family doesn't read these threads.

Kathy

Hear hear!

I myself am not convinced of a Gordon Arnold being located where White and Mack placed him - I many times believe that he may have in fact been the individual seen on the stairs [whom I have theorized as BDM and a possible close range shooter - which simply isn't the most logical solution] - CLEARLY - in early versions of the Moorman - INCLUDING the Fort Worth Herald. I see no reason why the man would make up his story - and again, successfully demonstrated that his account - on the steampipe - could be true, as it was very well insulated with some form of insulation at the point where he claimed to have crossed. And this was once a major point of contention! Given Holland's account of the parking area - and their having been forced to leap automobiles to gain access to the area - crossing the steampipe where Arnold claimed that he did would make perfect sense...in addition to the account [?] in the Warren Report of the young man who was refused access to the railroad bridge overpass [not going to look it up] - I remain a staunch supporter of a Gordon Arnold possibility.

As opposed to all of the infighting - why not settle by seeking to move forward on something positive? Find Arnold's kin and question them, for example? As Hemming used to joke, aren't we counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin here?

FWIW. I certainly will not partake in any XXXXXXX match myself here - so have at it. It simply occurs to me that time could be spent more profitably in other activities. XXXX - there are so many loose ends and research possibilities it boggles the mind - I just got a new lead today - can you guys bury the hatchet?

- lee

Edited by moderator due to langauge.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Antti Hynonen]

Duncan MacRae Posted Today, 12:51 PM

The posts I referenced seem to be saying opposite things. I wanted to know why, and what the dispute is really about.

I think that's a fair question. But then again, that is quite alright with me if it remains unanswered. It is far easier not to know, than to not be sure of what someone is saying.

Kathy

Kathy, the dispute is quite simple really. I say that Gordon Arnold is an illusion is his Moorman location and Bill says he is real in his Moorman location.

Bill has informed me that experiments that should prove beyond doubt that Arnold is real will be carried out in Dallas next month, so it's probably best to leave everything until the results are forthcoming. The last time I suggested this, Bill replied in his usual arrogant manner with something like. " You're not getting away with it that lightly " .

So............ if he wishes to continue the debate by answering the questions about the black couple, the sound of breaking glass, the man running from the steps in to the Arnold location, Sitzman giving no mention of seeing Arnold but seeing the black couple, then I'll be happy to continue here. He demands answers himself, but refuses to answer some of my questions.

While i'm here Kathy...Can you tell me Kathy why Bill is allowed to not have his biography link in his posts?

Although you asked Kathy Beckett I will confrim that it has been acceptable for a member to have his/her bio appear in each post, that is fine. We prefer the link, but Bill's version is fine.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand?!?!?!

[Bill Miller]

Thanks to you and Kathy for clearing up this issue.

Ducan MacRae

Did you finally get that all important issue cleared up, Duncan. I thought Healy got it cleared up when he raised it some time ago on this forum. Now is there anyone who can't relate to this topic enough to discuss it want to get it cleared up for themselves while its fresh on our minds? Did anyone complain about Miles bio ... he puts up a photo what looks like he weighs 400 pounds and then says in one of his post that he weighs only 178 pounds. Did anyone question if Miles bio was real or was it that as long as he participated in the moronic pasting of faces on bride dresses, faces pasted over gopher holes, disrespecting JFK assassination images by pasting monkeys, apes, orangutans, or cartoons onto them, then their bio isn't that important.

As far as the allegation of proving Arnold is real ... this is another instance of someone misstating the facts. What the test will show is that your claim that Arnold was too small to be real will be accomplished. It was almost accomplished when you was asked about Badge Man's size for Duncan had supported the idea that Badge Man was real ... so much so that he used Badge Man in some of his animated gifs. It wasn't until you discovered the reason for my asking that question that for the first time you tell us that you had changed your opinion about Badge Man ... an opinion that you changed and had kept it secret up until now. Now does anyone believe that story ... if so, I have a bridge to sell them!

I seem to recall discussing Sitzman and the black couple more than once, but maybe creating those childish overlays distracted you at the time, so lets do this once again .........

Sitzman had seen a black couple at some point before the President's arrival. She said they were sitting on the bench ... which is seen in the post assassination Flynn photo. But Sitzman had turned her attention to the approaching motorcade. She said, "Well, he stood up there, and he asked me to come up and stand behind him, 'cause when he takes the pictures looking through the telescopic lens, he might get dizzy, and he wanted me to stand behind him, so in case he got dizzy I could hold onto him. so I got up behind him, and we saw the motorcade turn the corner at Main onto Houston. He hadn't started taking the pictures there then, and we watched them as they came down Houston; and just as the motorcycles that were leading the parade came ... started ... came around the corner and started down the hill .....".

Sitzman said that she saw the motorcade (lead cycles) turn the corner at Main and Houston and watched it come down Houston to Elm. So about one minute leading up to the shooting she had her attention off the black couple. If you consider her climbing onto the pedestal an d holding onto Zapruder ... the time frame involving her not paying attention to the black could can grow even wider. In fact, Sitzman's recollection of the events following the sound of shots doesn't seem to be supported by the photographic evidence, which calls into question whether she ad-libbed or not. Sitzman said, "The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back". So Sitzman makes it sound as if she had a visual on the black couple, but in her next statement she seems to contradict this point ...

# Sitzman: I know when we went over to get up on the marble thing, they were already sitting there.

# Thompson: Well, did you notice at any point whether either of these two moved up to the end of the, to the point of the wall?

# Sitzman: No. They may have. I don't know.

# Thompson: Of course, you were looking at the parade at that point, and you wouldn't have seen what they did.

# Sitzman: Yeah. I always have the feeling that they were still sitting on the bench, because when I looked over there, they were getting up from the bench.

Sitzman tells Thompson that she didn't know where the black couple were in relation to the wall. She said that she saw them when she mounted the pedestal as they were already sitting there. Sitzman had told Thompson that when she last looked over at the couple that they were sitting on the bench and were just getting up. This of course would have to have come before the President turned off of Main and onto Houston. When Josiah asked if she knew if they moved to the end of the wall, Marilyn Sitzman said that she didn't know if they had or not. All Sitzman could say is that she had a feeling that the black couple were still in the area. If you go to the assassination images and correlate them all together ... Sitzman is always seen looking in the direction of the President right through to her going off-screen in the Nix film.

It appears that Sitzman only assumed that the black couple were still near the area of the bench at the time of the shooting, but that couple cannot be seen in any of the photos and films at the location of the bench. Sitzman said, "The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back." Running from where to the back (???) after the last shot because the Duncan claim says that there is no one visible in Moorman's photo ... that all we see is an illusion. The wording attributed to Sitzman isn't clear if Marilyn actually saw a bottle thrown and the couple running off or did she assume this because she heard glass breaking and didn't no longer see the black couple in the area of the walkway??? There may have been a bottle thrown and broken after the last shot, but it wasn't in the area of the walkway for Moorman's photo shows no one there but the alleged illusion of Gordon Arnold.

I think some have assumed that Sitzman was talking about a bottle being broken on the walkway, but it could have easily been broken against the rear wall of the shelter. Where ever the couple were located around at Z317/318 ... Moorman's photo shows that no such individuals were on the walkway.

Bill Miller

Edited October 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Oct 9 2008, 07:23 PM' post='155941]The difference between you and I Bill is that I am open minded and review my own studies which are subject to change any time as I see fit.

Yes, I have witnessed your changing your studies to fit the moment. That switching positions over the Badge Man being real is a good example. That claiming to have merely kept that position change a secret was a nice touch, but not believable IMO.

In my opinion, you are more worried about your reputation than getting to the truth. I mean, you fail to address why Arnold makes no reference to the black couple, no reference to the sound of breaking glass, no reference to the man running up the steps in to the Arnold area, and on and on it goes.

About all I have seen on Arnold is derived from an interview that he had with Golz and Turner ... both being heavily edited. Do you find it responsible research on your part to assume that Arnold didn't mention any of the points you made without first checking with the interviewers as to what they covered that didn't make it into the final product? How many witnesses mentioned the guy running up the stairs or the couple standing atop of the pedestal??? I find that your not hearing Arnold discuss events that no other witness cared to reference is somewhat bias on your part.

As far as the black couple goes ... Arnold came onto the walkway at the last minute and Sitzman never saw the black couple again from the time she and Zapruder climbed atop of the pedestal. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that would make me think that Arnold needed to mention the black couple.

I have made my case and I have answered all of your questions.

You have given generic answers and not answered other questions on the grounds that you didn't see them as relevant. To say you have answered all my questions is not accurate.

To know where Arnold stood is to use an overhead photo of the knoll and draw a line from Moorman's location to the fence while crossing over the center of the south dog leg of the wall. Claiming that you need this done for you in order to know where Arnold stood is hogwash.

Bill Miller

Edited October 18, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

We can only wait until you or whoever is doing the tests produces a result that shows that Arnold is real in this new Moorman recreation, and publishes those results on the forum.

I do not believe that you are that big of a fool to continue to keep misstating the facts. You have been corrected numerous times now that we cannot prove Arnold to be really on the knoll ... what we can do is prove that the figure in Jack's Badge Man images was big enough in to be real. For you to repeatedly make this mistake must be your childish Miles like way to xxxxx for a response.

In the meantime, are you telling me that the black couple decided at the last minute not to watch the president? and that as they exited the scene, Arnold entered the scene?

I am telling you what Sitzman said and correlating it to the photographic record. Sitzman said that this couple was getting up from the bench when she last looked over towards them. Why would they get up when the President was arriving into the Plaza ... why not continue to stay seated and enjoy the show ... only the black couple can answer that question? Maybe they moved to another vantage point?? The point being is that this was what Sitzman said and not a single assassination photo shows them being on the walkway.

I just don't buy that nonsense. Why would they suddenly decide to miss a once in a lifetime opportunity?

No one has said that the black couple missed their once in a lifetime opportunity to see the President. What Sitzman said and I pointed out was that this black couple was getting up from the bench when Sitzman last saw them before the lead cycles entered the plaza. I am not changing what she said, but rather carefully examining what she said at your request. From the moment that the lead cycles entered the plaza ... there was plenty of time for them to have moved to another location to their liking. If this wasn't the case, then I see no reason for them to have moved from the bench at all. Charles Brehm claimed to have left a position near the corner of Main and Houston and he crossed the entire south pasture and had taken up his new position before JFK turned onto Elm Street. The black couple had more time to work with than Charles had. I have the feeling that you have never carefully broken down what Sitzman had said and you had assumed that that the black couple remained on the walkway, but that is not my problem. Thompson went as far as to mention the giggle Zapruder had made post the kill shot and Sitzman referenced hearing a bottle break. Moorman took her photo before Z317/318 and according to you the only image seen between the wall and the fence is an illusion. So obviously the black couple was somewhere else and to be honest with you ... I don't even know if the broken bottle had anything to do with the black couple for other people may have had drank a coke while waiting for JFK. Sitzman had assumed the black couple was still around and the photographic record shows that assumption to be in error.

Are you also stating that you believe that Black dog man is NOT Arnold?

I have posted many times the correlation between Arnold and the BDM. Asking such a ridiculous question at this time means that you either don't pay attention or you are playing the Miles game ... either way that too is your problem.

I currently believe that Badgeman is not real. Just keeping you up to date on my postion on that subject.

Have you gone back and corrected your alleged mistake in your past postings???

Bill Miller

Edited October 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Garbage....The only way to know where Arnold stood is to do an exact recreation of Moorman and have someone who is 6ft 10" and with the same bodily proportions of the upper half of the Arnold illusion walk in to the Arnold postion until they exactly match.

Duncan MacRae

If you believe this to be the case, then why do you continue on insisting that someone draw a large 'X' on an image of the walkway area and fence. Your last comment contradicts your previous one.

Bill Miller

Edited October 11, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

On behalf of everyone on the forum who thought you were serious about trying to prove that Arnold was real in his Moorman location, I have only one thing to say.

Sigh

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, I have noticed that you like to post what everyone thinks or is aware of. I know for a fact that you certainly do not speak for everyone. In fact, I just spoke to a member today that cannot understand why you change the purpose of my asking that photos be done in November. You continually say that I must prove Arnold to be real, but all that applies to this topic is that it be shown that Arnold in Moorman's photo is not too short to be real. You always say that you want accuracy and not be misquoted and yet you make this same mistake over and over ... do you have a sensible reason for your behavior???

I also would like for you to answer Kathy's questions. You first complain that she can speak for herself and then when she does ... you call her a Bill Miller clone. If you don't wish to participate in a cooperative manner, then just say so.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I currently believe that Badgeman is not real. Just keeping you up to date on my postion on that subject

Duncan,

You might want to look at this piece on Badge Man, part an of article entitled: Eyes Closed: The Case Against Gerald Posner , written by Gary Mack, and published in THE FOURTH DECADE Nov.,1993:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=519222

Kathy

Kathy, its not hard to understand why Duncan never wanted to consult an expert on the subject of Badge Man or Arnold being too small. He also never addressed the figure seen in the Nix film when asked to do so. I said long ago that someone was standing above the wall and didn't start to move until after JFK's head exploded. A truly sensible and rational person seeking the truth would find that troubling if it was their position that a photo taken within 4/18s of a second of that fatal shot was in their opinion showing no one between the wall and the fence. Instead they'd rather play to the forum xxxxx and create idiotic childish illustrations of people holding Arnold signs over their head, forum members faces pasted onto bride dresses, over gopher holes and so on. When you were invited to speak up if you had any questions ... you were met with replies like you must be another Bill Miller or words to that effect. In our conversations together I can easily understand your disappointment. Duncan's actions have spoken louder than his words. The only thing Duncan seems sincere about is not being sincere.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Might I remind you that the topic is the existance or non existance of Gordon Arnold in his alleged location in the Moorman polaroid.

Duncan MacRae

Yes, Duncan ... we are talking about the existence or non-existence of Arnold in the Moorman's Polaroid. Like so many times in the past with your other claims ... you seem to hate cross-referencing other photographic sources. That is your mistake - not mine!

If it is your contention that what looks in Moorman's photo to be an illusion of a man in uniform, then someone else filming the area at the same moment from another angle should be of interest to you as well. This is why it is important to address the individual seen on the Nix film because it shows that this person should also be seen in Moorman's photo. I know that you understand the logic in this approach. I can find no justifiable reason for you not wanting to deal with it other than it points to you being in error about the figure in Moorman. This has been a favorite way of yours in avoiding the fact that you may be wrong in the reading of Moorman's Polaroid. You claim pertinent things to be irrelevant and wish to not discuss them. You do this while verbally claiming that you seek the truth - that you are sincere - and that you wish you could be proven wrong about Arnold being too small. Your actions however do not support your words.

Here is what you are stuck with. Moorman's Polaroid shows what looks to be a figure standing between the wall and the fence. That this person appears to be wearing light colored clothing like that Arnold would have worn on 11/22/63. You have Yarborough reading about the service man on leave being beyond the wall and taking it upon himself to contact Earl Golz and tell him that he saw this man do what he said he did. Then there is the Nix film that also shows someone between the wall who is also wearing the color clothing that Arnold wore had he been in uniform as he said he was. That film shows that when JFK was fatally shot in the head that this person beyond the wall went to his left and down. You have said that you do not believe that Moorman's photo was altered ... I take it that you have not secretly changed your mind on this point. So you have one figure in Moorman - one figure in Nix - both just beyond the wall and in front of the fence. Both cameras recorded this image at the same time. It is impossible for one to be an illusion and the other to be real.

Do you not see the significance of the correlation of this data??? Dig deep in all that sincerity you claim to have and see if you still believe that we shouldn't be bringing the Nix film into this.

Bill Miller

Edited October 12, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Oct 13 2008, 09:50 AM' post='156129]

The position of a potential Arnold in Nix has no relevance to the topic which is the existence or non-existence of Arnold in his location the Moorman's Polaroid

You can say there is no relevance between the two films (Moorman's and Nix's film) until the cows come home, but it will not make it so. For anyone in my view to take a position that ...

1) a figure in Moorman who appears to be a man in uniform and a figure in the Nix film to be someone who appears to be wearing the colors of a man attributed to the color of Arnold's uniform is certainly relevant and cannot be dismissed if one is only interested in the truth and doesn't have some biased agenda.

2) if such a figure is certainly visible in Nix and not disputed as an illusion, then it cannot be dismissed if it is not seen in Moorman's photo showing the same location at the same moment in time.

3) that considering that both fit the criteria for there being one individual between the walkway and the fence - both showing such location at the same moment in time - both seen from two separate angles and by two different cameras - that the images are not altered - then the probability that some other effect has mislead you into thinking Arnold was too small to be human must be considered as the most likely circumstance.

It is totally incompetent in my opinion on the claimant and shows extreme bias and prejudice to know that there are two film sources and at least two witnesses who place someone between the walkway and the fence. If one's personal agenda is so clouded not to understand that you cannot have someone seen above the wall in the Nix film and not in Moorman's photo at the same moment in time, then their ability to think clearly as an investigator must be called into question.

So far you (Duncan) have not acknowledged the problem facing you, but I believe you have recognized it and that is why you always fall back on the 'not relevant' defense. Even Kathy Beckett who is the first to say that she is not good at reading images has understood the relevance of the person seen standing above the wall in the Nix film. This is no longer a matter of photo interpretation, but one of common sense. If you are going to want to claim that you have secretly changed your mind on Moorman's photo being altered, then I expect that now is the time to do so.

If it is your contention that what looks in Moorman's photo to be an illusion of a man in uniform, then someone else filming the area at the same moment from another angle should be of interest to you as well.

It is of interest, it always has been, but I believe Groden did colour corrections and acheived his enhancement results from a multi generational poor copy of the Nix film.

Groden made a 35MM copy directly from the Nix original. I have a duplicate of that film as it was created at the lab where I accompanied Robert Groden a few years ago.

This has been a favorite way of yours in avoiding the fact that you may be wrong in the reading of Moorman's Polaroid.

You are talking nonsense as usual. The topic is Arnold in Moorman, not Arnold in Nix

Again you pretend to be stupid and I am not buying it. Remove Arnold from the equation and just call him a 'someone'. If what you see as in illusion in Moorman is correct, then there cannot be a someone seen in the Nix film at the same location. Both films must show someone or both must show an illusion. In the Nix film the figure is seen in motion doing just what Mack reported in the link Kathy Beckett furnished for the forum.

That this person appears to be wearing light colored clothing like that Arnold would have worn on 11/22/63.

How would you know what he would have been wearing?

By discussing with Golz and Mack both about their interviews with Gordon Arnold. If you get the time, then maybe you should get caught up and then you might be better able to intelligently discuss the topic.

Yarborough is another who changes stories

I disagree. Yarborough said 'during the shooting' and Murph asked him a question pertaining to when the first shot was fired ... there is a difference and that is what confused the aging Ralph Yarborough. Gary Mack has informed me that he knows Murph and I have asked him to take this up with Murph to see how he responds.

Then there is the Nix film that also shows someone between the wall who is also wearing the color clothing that Arnold wore had he been in uniform as he said he was.

We do not know what Arnold was wearing, wherever he was

You are correct 'We' don't know, but I, Mack, Golz, Arnold, and others do know. Gordon was on leave and was in his uniform at the time of the assassination. If you have done anything to discover differently, then I would love to hear it, but we vboth know you have done nothing.

That film shows that when JFK was fatally shot in the head that this person beyond the wall went to his left and down.

The film shows JFK was fatally shot. The existance of this other figure can be discussed in a new thread if you care to start a new thread.

The figure will be discussed here because it goes to the CROSS-REFERENCING of two assassination images to see if the same alleged figure in Moorman shows up in the Nix film.

If I had, I would have said so, just like you have changed your mind and have admitted that you can not prove the existance of Gordon Arnold in Moorman.

I think that this is as good of a time as any to call you on this nonsense. I have carefully always said that it can be shown that the image in Moorman's photo said to be Gordon Arnold is not too small to be human. I can show numerous times where I have corrected you on this point. Now I ask that you show me where I have ever taken the position that I can prove that the figure on the knoll was indeed Arnold beyond all doubt. If anything I have laid out several instances that I felt circumstantial had supported Arnold's story. I look forward to your proving me wrong in this instance.

Bill Miller

Edited October 14, 2008 by Bill Miller